On 14 Mar 2007 at 10:08, derekpotter wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:
Evangelicism and Creationism
What we don't have on our wiki or anywhere I know where we can
provide a URL link to is why creationism is so prevalent amongst
and dominated by evangelicals. Lenny Flank has lots on the link
on a historical basis but not from a theological basis. From
what's been said in the FFA forum, it appears that a deliberate
low level of theological training in certain denominations such
as the charismatics may be one cause.
Charismatic is not a denomination, it's a broad theological term
referring to Christians who believe in the modern-day
supernatural gifts (charisma="gift" not "personality"!!). There
are charismatic evangelicals, non-charismatic evangelicals,
charismatic Roman Catholics, non-charismatic RCs. The principle
use for the term in the context of creationism is that there are
a lot of independent small fellowships that have arisen out of
the charismatic movement and these do tend to be
Bible-believing, i.e. Biblical literalist, by default.
By no means all are, though and the movement does range all the
way from very traditional rites out to bizarre neo-Arian rites
with a huge chip on their shoulders.
Anyone got any ideas on this or links to other sites that may
help illuminate the issues?
It seems to me that the issues lie at several levels:
1. Basic theology.
2. Organisational
3. Cultural
I'm trying to get some feel why creationism has no hold in
many mainstream denominations such as the Catholic Church, the
Orthodox Church, Methodism, non-evangelical Christians and so
on.
Because they are not Biblical-literalists.
Exactly, in some of these denominations, sola scriptura ad
litteram is actually seen as heresy and most of the others view
it with some distaste if not outright excommunication.
From what has been said, the suggestion is that lack of
intellectual rigour arises when congregations are left to make
up much of their own minds without the guidance of well-trained
clergy. This opens the door to creationists because there is
simply no-one or nothing to oppose them.
I didn't say anything about lack of intellectual rigour or
needing a well-trained clergyman to whip them into line. I said
that free churches do not accept the authority of traditional
theologians so why should they bother with their theologies?
It's as irrelevant as expertise in animal nutrition would be to
the local gardening sociaty.
Well, I think, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is pretty much
accepted by MOST denominations as being an expression of God's
will in the matter. The problem is, the professional bearers of
false witness are cunning, glib and quite convincing. They get
the ordinary members of the sola scriptura rites, especially
those who accept a literalist notion of what that means, to start
spouting the lies and slanders of creationism without really
checking up on them. This is subtle and dangerous because once a
victim has invested some emotional capital in defending the false
doctrines, he tends to get hooked on doing so and can be more
easily seduced into not caring if he's lying.
Moreover, it appears than many of the "bible schools" where
fundamentalists receive their training are seriously piss-poor
– incapable of becoming accredited by recognised
accreditation bodies. It's not even their output that is poor
– one wonders what the quality of brain it is they attract
in the 1st place.
For once I agree with both you and David Anderson on this point.
I suggest you read his latest blog though as you are seriously
missing the point of what this kind of Christianity is about.
Anyone also got any ideas on why the piss-poor quality of
their degrees are accepted by congregations?
Do you have any evidence that most members of a congregation are
even interested? There was a home-spun Bible school round here
at one stage. People enjoyed going but the qualification would
be worthless for someone wanting a job with the CoE or even the
Baptists. Nevetheless it would mean something to like-minded
people.
If I were a Christian, I would walk out of a church that had
John Blanchard as a guest preacher purely on the grounds that he
uses a diploma mill PhD title – just as I would sack an
employee who tried to pas such a standard off as the real
think.
I half agree with you. However, to my mind "diploma mill" means
"Pay us $60 and we'll send you your PhD by return of post". I
understand he has a PhD from a non-accredited university
obtained by a correspondence course. Other than that I have no
idea whether it represents any particular expertise. If not -
and assuming I found out in time - I would certainly protest but
not because of lack of qualification but because true diploma
mill degrees are fraudulent.
Surely many of the congregations in such churches know that
real degrees have to be earned the hard way and that some
universities are better than others?
You are assuming, are you not, that most members of churches can
actually be bothered to research who's speaking? Most of them
just turn up on the night.
Or is it the case that in many fundamentalist circles
adherents believe such people have superior knowledge just
because they are religious and that over-rides the need for
proper education and training?
Indeed so and they are correct. Being a Christian is not an
intellectual exercise. Read your Anderson

In other words, why is the over-inflated qualificational
status of fundamentalist clergy so prevalent? Why do they accept
the third rate so often?
Is th position as bad in the UK as it is in the USA?
In the USA, these people are often the heirs to a serious anti-
intellectual movement that has festered there since the 19th
century. Basically, it is a serious distrust on the part of many
rural Americans for anything intellectual at all. And some of
that distrust is fairly earned. I mean, just a couple of decades
ago, I remember serious "theologians" telling them that God is
dead. But the fact is, a lot of this motion was originating in
poor, rural communities both in the aftermath of the Civil War
and in the Great Depression. And it strikes a chord, not only by
inciting suspicion of outsiders, but also by strumming the
temptation to envy those who have by those who don't.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ