a few snippets

A couple of recent articles of interest to me… on science and a startling admission, on culture, politics, Steynism, and a parallel in church circles, and on an interview with an alleged Anglican ‘conservative’.

Science can’t explain the big bang – there is still scope for a creator

This article apparently from an evolutionist, admits:

Although science can state a great deal about what followed after the big bang, it cannot in fact explain how "something" (the energy of the universe compressed into a volume the size of a golf ball) arose from nothing beforehand.

Mark Steyn on The Corner writes:

If the non-political sphere is permanently left-of-center — the movies, the pop songs, the plays, the sitcoms, the newspapers plus the churches, schools and much else — it’s simply unreasonable to expect people to walk into a polling booth every other November and vote conservative. The culture is where the issues get framed and the boundaries set.

This comment attracts my attention from my recent reading on culture. It seems that Mark’s comment here (perhaps a worthy observation for politics) is what motivates so much the push for change by the culturally hip amongst religionists. The polis is going in a certain direction, best to get out in front and lead (or at least not lag too far behind.)

I am thinking that if the mission of the church is redemption, then we need to be framing the issues for the culture, rather than be framed by the culture. When men are redeemed, their culture should be transformed. In this sense, the mission of redemption is oriented towards the culture. But the order must be men (individuals) first, then the culture – not the other way around.

~~~

And give this one a read:

‘Leaving Isn’t the Answer’

Why the pastor of the largest Episcopalian congregation is staying put in a ‘very sick’ church.

The article is an interview with an allegedly ‘evangelical’ Anglican pastor who is staying in the main, corrupt Anglican communion. Lots of sanctimonious ‘respect’ for those who leave, but completely fails to see the consequences of staying in.

The concluding paragraph:

I had the opportunity to visit with John Stott in late November. We talked and prayed about many things, including the ongoing challenges in the Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church. As I asked him which path he thought it best for me to take, he said, clearly, "If I were you, I would stay … you have the truth on your side … and I think you are called to stay and faithfully preach the gospel. Remember what Max Warren said, ‘the church is evidence of God’s patience.’ And we just don’t know what fruit or reform will be born as a result of a long period of faithful preaching and witness to the evangelical faith we share."

All too typical of Stott. What has his ‘staying in’ since the infamous confrontation with Lloyd-Jones wrought? Nothing of substance. How many years will it take for those who ‘stay in’?

don_sig2

Speak Your Mind

*