Monday, June 25, 2007
Republicans Bore Me
Mike Huckabee was asked if he believes in a literal creation account. This clip is being discussed on an email list I read. One person thought his answer was good. Several pastors thought his answer was bad. I agree with the latter. Let me explain why.
I should admit that Huckabee was right at some points. The question is being asked of him in an attempt to embarrass him. He obviously has had time to prepare his answer, and this was the best he could come up with?! Talk about a softball. He should have hit this one out of the park, but he was too afraid to let people know what he believes and why he believes it. In other words, he was being a politician and was trying to make everyone like him by answering in the "I don't know how God did it" way. Hillary could have agreed with that.
It is a shame Huckabee's answer wasn't more consistent. Saying I don't know if God meant what He said is like saying, "Well the Bible could be true, but I am not sure." I think I believe what God said, but it is not important."
I wish I had the opportunity to be a fool for Christ in that kind of setting. I would have responded this way.
"Sir, you are obviously trying to embarrass me. It is you who ought to be embarrassed but you are too ignorant to know you should be. You may think this question is of no significance to our public life, but it does in the most serious way. The reason it is important to take the bible literally is that it must be the foundation for Law. There was a time in our country that we recognized God's revelation and what He expects from His creatures.
Since the rise of the theory of Evolution, many law schools have followed a philosophy of Might Makes Right. Today it is called "moral relativism". Have you noticed the Ninth Kangaroo Circus Court of Appeals? Have you noticed that different courts are constantly overruling other courts? Are you aware that the Supreme Court has become the 'National School Board'? Are you aware that the Supreme Court overrules itself regularly?"
The Rule of Law is based upon whoever is in charge at the moment. In other words, there is no rule of Law.
We must return to a system that is rational, coherent and consistent. The only way to do that is to return to what the Creator has revealed to us. But you sir hate God and His law, and you mock the beliefs of the majority of Americans according to your owns polls. You are in fact, what the Bible calls a fool."
It is a shame Huckabee's answer wasn't more consistent. I realize that no politician would speak in such a tone, but most Americans are not fond of CNN. He would quickly have gained the "Religious Right" if he had done such a thing.
Are there any Conservatives that want to be President? ANYONE?!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
What a wuss.
I would tend to disagree. I thought that his answer was good. I didn’t hear anything in his answer that caused concern. I haven’t spent a lot of time studying the “age” theory, so this response is just off of the top of my head. A couple of questions, you might think I am being a girl about it, but I am curious:
1. Did each of the six days of creation take 24 hours?
2. If the didn’t, does it bring the inerrancy of scripture into question?
3. Understanding the “historical narrative” of Genesis, what is the point of the creation account?
As stated before, I haven’t spent a lot of time on this, so these are questions I would be start my study with. As far as Huckabee is concerned. I agree with him in asking “what does this have to do with being president?”
Mr. Critic,
I thought a wuss was someone who couldn't hit the ball over the fence.
"As far as Huckabee is concerned. I agree with him in asking “what does this have to do with being president?”"
For the "Left" it should not matter since they are able to be religious and totally separate their views from public life, or at least so they say.
You and I both know that they Left in this country do have religious beliefs such as Al Gore's Propaganda Video. Is this not based upon an Evolutionary worldview?
So the question from the CNN guy was purposely intended to embarrass Huckabee simply because he has a different belief. That could easily have been another aspect of criticism from Huckabee since they are intolerant of his personal religious beliefs.
So religion does matter. The question (if a truly honest one and it was not) is how one's religion interfaces with public life that needs to be dealt with. The CNN reporter knows very well that a Creationist, in order to be consistent, would have to govern from that perspective.
The Left in this country hates the Rule of Law. They do not believe in free speech (Fairness Doctrine anyone?). They are in fact Stalinists.
Therefore they will not tolerate a Christian and will do everything to embarrass him in particluar. This was his moment to shine and instead he cast doubt upon his own faith as being merely personal and not something that is true outside of himself objectively. See my prior post.
"1. Did each of the six days of creation take 24 hours?"
A simple study of the language and context shows most certainly that was Moses' intention, yes.
"2. If the didn’t, does it bring the inerrancy of scripture into question?
Of course.
"3. Understanding the “historical narrative” of Genesis, what is the point of the creation account?
This is a much bigger question and we both may probably agree at this point. Even Huckabee's answer touched on this but was inconsistent.
But why ask if we are not going to believe it anyway? Do you believe in a Resurrection? What is the purpose of that? Would inerrancy be a question if we did not take Resurrection literally?
Consistency is key my friend.
God Bless
ps "A couple of questions, you might think I am being a girl about it"
I hardly think you are a girl about it. Huckabee may not see the inconsistency of his position. But judging from the language he used it was clear to me he was being totally political.
Part II
1. I am not convinced from things that I have read about the literal 24 hour period. Could you point me to some things that you have read? Especially based on the context of Moses’ intentions. I would think the intention is summed up in “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.” I think a key in this debate is the Sabbath. (Genesis 2:3, Exodus 31:17) I should state here, that I am also not convinced about the “day age” theory too. I think that both could miss the point of the text, namely, the fact that God created the Earth, people, fish, animals, etc. etc. And that He created them for His Glory. The “day age” theory concerns me, because it seems call into question the power and evidence of God speaking the universe into being. I am also concerned about the “wooden literal” view of the time it took God to create the things mentioned in Genesis. It may cause the reader to set standards for the rest of the creation story. (This is where I throw into the mix the “serpent” of chapter 3. I could continue to ask questions about this view of the text, but it’s late and I have a family to feed. I do need my rest.
2. I would say of course not. Quoting you in your original post, you say “The reason it is important to take the bible literally is that it must be the foundation for Law. There was a time in our country that we recognized God's revelation and what He expects from His creatures.” Amen! We should recognize that the bible is God’s revelation establishing expectations to his creation. (Hebrews 1:1) I will reserve further thoughts until I have looked into you thoughts on yowm.
3. You said in response to me “But why ask if we are not going to believe it anyway? Do you believe in a Resurrection? What is the purpose of that? Would inerrancy be a question if we did not take Resurrection literally? Could you explain this comment more? Are you saying that anyone who does not hold to a literal “24 hour day” but believes God created the Earth, is the same as someone who believes in a “spiritual” resurrection not a physical resurrection.
Howdy Paul,
Good questions. I’ll start with that last sentence of your post since it is the meat of the discussion.
“Are you saying that anyone who does not hold to a literal “24 hour day” but believes God created the Earth, is the same as someone who believes in a “spiritual” resurrection not a physical resurrection?”
My point in the post was consistency in interpretation. I realize that Genesis 1 is not necessarily written in a modern historical narrative format. You mentioned the Serpent as (I assume) being symbolic of the devil? The problem is that we could take Phil 2 (the ancient hymn) and say something similar simply because it is a hymn. Yet who would say that because it is a hymn we cannot take that Christ literally came down from heaven and emptied Himself? The text also says we are made in God's image. Should we allegorize that or whatever people are wanting to explore?
The Gospel narratives are also not modern historical narratives, yet they are historical in nature according to the style of the times they were written. So we must interpret them accordingly. Should we not apply a consistent interpretive method that seeks to understand what Moses was writing in Genesis? On what textual, grammatical (or any other) basis would the word “day” (Yom) be considered to not be a day in the sense that it is normally used? God commands us via Moses to work 6 days and rest on the 7th, just as He created in 6 days (something different now?) and….
For instance you raised the issue of the Sabbath, “I think a key in this debate is the Sabbath.” Yet the Sabbath all throughout Scripture is a literal day. You might find an exception as to an eschatological rest in Hebrews, but some commentators (Owen, Pink) have recognized that even those passages are referring to a literal day.
You seem to agree that Exodus refers to the Creation account as the basis of the work week. Simple consistency would require that you accept the “wooden literal view”.
I am also not sure why the “wooden literal view” is described that way. Dr. Crossan of the Jesus Seminar would describe our view of the resurrection in the same manner. So for consistency sake would you agree to such a description?
I am simply seeking to be consistent. I am not against Huckabee. My point was simple. He would not state what is clearly stated in the text except for "God created". Why stop there. The text doesn’t.
Something I keep forgetting to mention. Yes, I agree that God is the Creator therefore that is the basis for law. But that was not all I meant. Genesis reveals to us several laws even in the first few chapters.
For example, male and female marriage, the Sabbath, murder, jealousy, tithing, even baptism is in there. Doctrines such as Original Sin and the nature of Covenants and saving grace and mercy and promises.
If Adam and Even are not literal people made on a literal day, what is the basis for marriage but an allegory?
If the Serpent is not a real person, then is the Seed that crushes not one?
God Bless
I should maybe clarify that I believe that the literal translation is correct in the Genesis account. Especially over the “age” theory. Off of the top of my head, I seem to recall the only textual proof that an “age” theorist would put forward is the passage in II Peter 3:8, which I think is incorrect. So I haven’t seen anything that would convince me about the “age” theory. I think that it is just a way for people to try to reconcile man’s views with the creation account and I think that they are wrong. I think that Genesis is clear in the literal day. The reason I brought up the serpent is because in every aspect of interpretation one can push to hard on the text. On the yom one could push it into 24 hours. No ifs, ands or buts. This is what I meant when I said I was not convinced of the 24 hour period. Did God punch a clock from midnight-midnight, or was it more an 8-5 thing?
Paul,
I assumed you were more a "literalist" and were probing my deep rich theological mind. ;-)
Anyway, I figured that was the reason you brought up the Serpent, and it is a good point. The problem with the word day is that there is no textual, contextual, grammatical, syntactical, historical or any other reason to take "yom" as meaning anything other than the normal useage of the word "day". It is only when we import our modern, unbiblical presuppositions into the text that the meaning is distorted into "age" or something else.
A terrific book on the subject on the history of science and the Bible is "God and the Cosmos" by John Byl.
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/item_detail_index.php
God Bless
I am always feeling my peeps out!
Post a Comment