Compromise at the Highest Level in the Sydney Anglican Diocese
Posted by DuaneMar 19
A recent article on the Sydney Anglican Heretics blog highlights the depth of compromise on Genesis in the Sydney Anglican Diocese. I mean, if theistic evolution is the position of the leader of the church then I expect this to have some kind of top-down effect.[1,2]
John writes:
Peter [Jensen], as has long been known, is an evolutionist*. Quite naturally Peter, along with all theistic evolutionists, has to play some irrational semantic games and alter the meaning of words in order to mould Scripture to fit a pagan worldview. Somehow – the details, scientifically or theologically, never exactly laid out – God is able to allow chance to create while never surrendering his office of creator. At this point I tend to think that Peter and the others are trying to turn a circle into a square but still have it called a circle. Beats me!
Anyway, the point I want to make is that Peter’s allegiance to evolution puts him outside of Christian orthodoxy, by a theological mile. If a metaphysical principle is creating the enormous amounts of novel biological information that life requires, then it isn’t our Lord doing it. New biological information is the product of thought, of teleonomic conception, not the randomisation processes being acted upon by natural selection that evolution posits as being its source (This is superbly argued in the triple-PhD Wilder-Smith’s book, God: To be or not to be?). Peter can’t have his square and circle be the one object: Either Christ, acting through will and thought, brings forth biological information, and thus life, or it’s chance randomisation of matter, the metaphysical principle of materialism. The two are incompatible and irreconcilable.
* Lest it be said that we are misrepresenting Peter’s views, the following is a quote from Doctrine 1 while he was principal at Moore College: “There is a division of opinion about how God created the world [Actually, there isn’t, Peter. The difference lies between those that truly believe the Bible is God’s unchanging revelation to mankind and those, like yourself, that believe it can change as science, so-called, “proves” God has less and less to do with. Just ask Jack Spong.]. From the standpoint of these notes the ‘theistic evolution’ account offers the best understanding….By ‘theistic evolution’ we mean that God created the world through the process of evolution [there’s that square-circle again folks!].” Doctrine 1, Unit 7, p. 105.
http://sydneyanglicanheretics.blogspot.com/2010/02/test-for-orthodoxy.html
For another great illustration highlighting the incoherency of theistic evolution, I recommend John Woodmorrappe’s short essay on the subject.
Notes:
- Peter Jensen is the Archbishop of the Sydney Anglican Diocese
- In the comments section of John’s article, Sam Drucker quipped that Peter Jensen “encourage[d] Clergy to avoid confrontation on this issue.” Whether that is the case or not, I can attest first hand to such experiences among the Anglican faithful and now I wonder how much of it is the influence of the leaders in the church who don’t think that discussion about this issue is important?
PDF 
2 comments
Comment by John on 20 Mar 2010 at 00:28
The importance of the biblical history in Genesis 1, Exodus 20 and elsewhere on the creation week is demonstrated by the scientific evidence that there is no more novel biological information being created ex nihilo. Evolution, as a putative law, demands that the creation of novel biological information is an on-going process. The Bible states that God stopped from his creative activities at the end of day 6. That there is no more novel biological information coming into being is evidence that God has stopped creating and that we can look at the creation, as Paul argues, and know that God is its author, not not-God. All that is happening now i.e. observable science, is that already present biological information is stabilised, reworked, fine-tuned to meet changing environments, mutated, degraded etc but not new, unknown stuff coming into being.
Theistic evolutionists are saying that God is still creating. If so, then there is ambiguity because it may be the case that non-God (e.g. a principle or a deep law in nature) may be creating the new information that evolution demands is happening. The atheist has a reasonable reason. On the young earth view, there is zero ambiguity as no law or principle can rest, as God did.
Comment by Duane on 20 Mar 2010 at 07:14
Thanks John,
That's actually got me thinking what progressives (e.g. Hugh Ross et al) have to say on this matter? I know they are not evolutionists, yet it would seem they have a similar problem; that God is both creating and resting from His creative works at the same time – unless I misunderstand their position?