Evolution Sunday? Nah

14 Feb

Credo in Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae – The Apostle’s Creed.

This good and almighty God created all things, both visible and invisible, by his co-eternal Word, and preserves them by his co-eternal Spirit, as David testified when he said: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6). And, as Scripture says, everything that God had made was very good, and was made for the profit and use of man. Now we assert that all those things proceed from one beginning. — The Second Helvetic Confession.

It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good. — Westminster Confession

How God did it is his own business, that he did it is indisputable. That Churches will hear sermons today on Darwin is inexcusable. Sermons should be theocentric, not anthropocentric. That Pastors can, and will, ignore this basic theological truth is heretical, and preachers who preach about Darwin are nothing other than heretics. Church is about God, not Darwin, or you, or me.


Posted by on 14 Feb 2010 in Church History, Modern Culture, Theology


13 responses to “Evolution Sunday? Nah

  1. Cliff Martin

    14 Feb 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Is it permissible to preach about the glory of God as revealed in nature (ala Psalm 19?)

    What if evolution is, in fact, the rather majestic and intricate brain-child of our marvelously creative God? Would it be wrong to celebrate the work of his hand?


    • Jim

      14 Feb 2010 at 3:46 pm

      no- its permissible to preach about the glory of God, creator. psalm 19 isnt about nature, it’s about god. we don’t extol deeds, we extol doers.

      when a chef makes a fine stew, you don’t say ‘my this cow was a wondrous well bred beast’, you say ‘the chef sure outdid himself this time!’


  2. Cliff Martin

    14 Feb 2010 at 3:53 pm

    I suppose it is possible when we consider anything God has done to do so with a focus on the door or upon the deed. How is considering evolution any more perilous in this regard than considering the Exodus deliverance, the miracles of Jesus, or the work of the Holy Spirit. These are all things God does. And we rightfully celebrate them, and speak of them. If God did evolution, shouldn’t his children sit up and take notice? It is really impossible, in your view, to talk about evolution in a God-centered way? I do it all the time!


    • Jim

      14 Feb 2010 at 5:21 pm

      speaking of the exodus means speaking of God’s act of deliverance. evolution, in contrast, is speech of God’s inaction. It is nothing more than the Deism of the 18th century with a new name.


  3. Cliff Martin

    14 Feb 2010 at 5:49 pm

    Oh, well now you are making your opinion about evolution clear. If that is how you think of evolution (I certainly do not share your opinion), I can understand why you would not want to speak of it. But that is strange to me. If God chose to create using evolution, and he has largely left his hands off the process, it says more about his intelligence and creativity than any other scenario I can imagine. Paul tell us in Romans 1 that we can learn much about God, even about his attributes, by looking at the natural order. And if evolution is part of the natural order, it surely tells us some valuable things to know about God and his character, his purposes, etc.


    • Jim

      14 Feb 2010 at 5:55 pm

      i can only say to you what barth said to brunner on the subject of so called ‘natural theology’ – NEIN!


  4. Chuck Grantham

    15 Feb 2010 at 12:28 am

    Yes, I always read “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” as a summary, myself.

    Our pastor’s sermon mentioned Valentine’s Day, then swung into Jesus’ commandment(s) to love.


  5. Steve Allison

    15 Feb 2010 at 7:34 am

    During my ~60 years in the pews I’ve heard many negative things about evolution, mainly that it didn’t happen. The fight against it has served to drive young people away rather than keep them in the fold. In view of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it is only natural that some should from the pulpit find a way to make it fit with a Christian narrative.


    • Jim

      15 Feb 2010 at 7:46 am

      yes – the christian gospel must, under all circumstances, accommodate itself to the ideas of the culture. we must – after all – be sure to tell the young what they want to hear or we might lose them…


      • Jim

        15 Feb 2010 at 7:47 am

        that- by the way- is sarcasm.


  6. Cliff Martin

    15 Feb 2010 at 10:20 am

    Yes Jim, the sarcasm was only too obvious. I think what Steve is saying has nothing to to with tickling ears, and everything to do with truth. It is becoming increasingly evident that what is behind your post and comments is a deep dislike for evolution. If you doubt evolution and you don’t like evolution, then just say so. That is the real issue. But if you actually understand the “overwhelming evidence” of which Steve speaks (do you?), and you see the damage being done by evolution deniers (I see it constantly, and it is huge!), I think your tune will change.


    • Jim

      15 Feb 2010 at 11:00 am

      you dont understand me at all if you think i’m unwilling to say what i think- about anything. the fact is, i could not care less about evolution as theory or whether or not it’s discussed and debated out in the public sphere. that’s where it belongs.

      my gripe is with bringing the adulation of darwin into a service of worship. you don’t understand christian theology in the least if you don’t see that as a problem.

      my tune as to what’s the proper subject matter for christian worship won’t change. so there’s no point in hoping for it.

      there’s a time and place for every purpose under heaven. sunday morning isnt the time or place for darwin. period. ever.


  7. don

    15 Feb 2010 at 3:31 pm

    “If God chose to create using evolution, and he has largely left his hands off the process…”: I don’t see how an omnipresent, sovereign God could keep his hands off anything? With emphasis probably on “sovereign.”
    But I also believe he is more subtle than most people seem to think.