Church Governance

Interesting post from Michael

The Sydney Family Album

A fascinating series of posts on Mark Thompsons blog, tracing the clerical history of the Sydney Diocese.

Reasons to Believe

A very helpful site for Old Earthers who have a high view of Scripture

Apple Pulls 'Anti-Gay' App after pressure

Click here. (ht: Andre)

Labor 'cooked the books'

BOF finds a black hole

Comments Off

Turning comments off for the time being. Apologies for the inconveniance. Will cross-post on Facebook, feel free to comment there.

James Cook on the Aborigines

"From what I have said of the Natives of New Holland they may appear to some to be the most wretched People upon Earth; but in reality they are far more happier than we Europeans, being wholly unacquainted not only with the Superfluous, but with the necessary Conveniences so much sought after in Europe; they are happy in not knowing the use of them. They live in a Tranquility which is not disturbed by the Inequality of Condition. The earth and Sea of their own accord furnishes them with all things necessary for Life. They covet not Magnificent Houses, Household-stuff, etc.; they live in a Warm and fine Climate, and enjoy every wholesome Air, so that they have very little need of Clothing; and this they seem to be fully sensible of, for many to whom we gave Cloth, etc., left it carelessly upon the Sea beach and in the Woods, as a thing they had no manner of use for; in short, they seemed to set no Value upon anything we gave them, nor would they ever part with anything of their own for any one Article we could offer them. This, in my opinion, Argues that they think themselves provided with all the necessaries of Life, and that they have no Superfluities."

The Christian and the Cosmos (part 1a)

The Fathers and the Flat Earth

In the first part of this series, I remarked that belief in a flat earth was relatively common in the early church, though it had pretty much died out by the middle ages. I thought this was a fairly uncontroversial statement, but a number of people stated that I had fallen for "The Myth of the Flat Earth".

According to some, from as early as the period of late antiquity, pretty much no-one believed in a flat earth, especially in the church. This seemed to me a surprising thing, especially given how influential semitic culture (which was definitely flat earth) was in the early church.

Rather than take anyone's word for it, I've done my own research and gone back to the primary sources. And it turns out that, yes, there were quite a number of early Christians who rejected the idea of a spherical earth, suspended in a void, and embraced some form of flat earth cosmology. I'll provide the quotes and references I found here.

Three further comments. First, I think there was no shame whatsoever in believing in a flat earth at that particular time and place - spherical earth cosmology was only slowly permeating the general consciousness. Second, there is no evidence that flat earth cosmology was ever an official teaching of the church, as it is not mentioned in any creed or council that I can find.

Lastly, I've done a little bit of reading on "The Myth of the Flat Earth". The myth concerns the beliefs of people in the middle ages - I was only ever concerned about late antiquity, and I made that clear in my first post. The critics have misunderstood both the myth and my post! Still, it's helpful to have the sources assembled in one place, so I don't regret the exercise. Here goes...

Irenaeus (d. 202)

Irenaeus refers to the four corners of the earth. There is no evidence to suggest that he really believed the world was round, and was using the words figuratively.

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones [corners] of the world in which we live, and four principal winds..." (Against Heresies, 3.11.8)

Lactantius (245-325)

Lactantius was an influential Christian writer from the 3rd century, and an advisor to Constantine I. He was contemptuous of those who believed in a spherical earth -

"But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is, that it should raise aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those suspended antipodes.

But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another..." (The Divine Institutes, Book III, Chapter XXIV)

Athanasius (d. 373)

Athanasius, one of the greatest theologians from the churches history, believed in a very literal reading of Genesis 1. He saw the earth as a great slab of land which was somehow fixed in place atop the primordial waters.

"...but the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound fast at the centre of the universe...

Who that sees the clouds supported in air, and the weight of the waters bound up in the clouds, can but perceive Him that binds them up and has ordered these things so? Or who that sees the earth, heaviest of all things by nature, fixed upon the waters, and remaining unmoved upon what is by nature mobile, will fail to understand that there is One that has made and ordered it, even God?" (Against the Heathen, chapter 27, chapter 36)

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386)

Cyril also took Scripture very literally. He believed the sky to be a dome that arched over the lands beneath. Following Genesis 1, he believed the heavens above the firmament of the sky to actually be water, in which the sun and other heavenly bodies move.

"For what fault have they to find with the vast creation of God?--they, who ought to have been struck with amazement on beholding the vaultings of the heavens: they, who ought to have worshipped Him who reared the sky as a dome, who out of the fluid nature of the waters formed the stable substance of the heaven. For God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water. God spake once for all, and it stands fast, and falls not. The heaven is water, and the orbs therein, sun, moon, and stars are of fire..." (The Catechetical Lectures, 9.5)

Diodorus of Tarsus (died 394)

We only know of Diodorus's views through the writings of another man, Photius. Unfortunately these writings are not online, so I couldn't quote them verbatim. Instead, I've had to rely on a secondary reference. He saw heaven as a kind of "tent or vault" which encompassed the land beneath -

"The tabernacle shape of the universe was from that time generally accepted by patristic writers; thus by Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus (died 394), who in his book Against Fatalism declaims against those atheists who believe in the geocentric system; and he shows how Scriptures tells us that there are two heavens created, one which subsists with the earth, and the one above that again, the latter taking the place of a roof, the former being to the earth a roof but to the upper heaven a floor. Heaven is not a sphere but a tent or a vault." (J.L.E Dreyer, A History Planetary Systems, 2007, p. 212)

John Chrysostom (344–408)

Like Athanasius, the great preacher John Chrysostom believed that the earth was a great mass of land, floating somehow upon primordial waters.

"When therefore thou beholdest not a small pebble, but the whole earth borne upon the waters, and not submerged, admire the power of Him who wrought these marvellous things in a supernatural manner! And whence does this appear, that the earth is borne upon the waters? The prophet declares this when he says, “He hath founded it upon the seas, and prepared it upon the floods.” And again: “To him who hath founded the earth upon the waters.” What sayest thou? The water is not able to support a small pebble on its surface, and yet bears up the earth, great as it is; and mountains, and hills, and cities, and plants, and men, and brutes; and it is not submerged! What do I say? Is not submerged? ... Iron, forsooth, is softened, and wood is rotted, and stones are worn away by the nature of water; yet so great a mass as the earth hath remained such a length of time lying upon the waters, without being either submerged, or dissolved, and destroyed!" (Homilies Concerning the Statutes)

Severian of Gabala (d. after 408)

Severian, the Bishop of Gabala in Syria, explicitly rejected the hellenistic teaching on the spheres, and believed that the heavens were a kind of tent that stretched over the earth beneath. Interestingly, he believed that the Sun at night did not pass beneath the earth at night, but rather went to the "northern regions" of the world, and passed beneath the edge of the waters before emerging in the east again.

"[God] did not create heaven as a sphere, as the idle talkers claim; he did not make it as a sphere moving on it's axle. Rather, as the prophet asks, what course does the sun follow? "He arches the heaven like a curved roof and extends it like a tent." None of us is so impious as to be convinced by the idle talkers. The biblical author says that heaven has a beginning and an end...When the Sun rises and is destined to set, instead of setting under the earth it proceeds to the ends of heaven, travels to the northern regions, concealed as it were by a wall since the waters prevent its course being visible, traverses the northern regions and reaches the east." (Third Homily on Genesis)

Cosmas Indicopleustes (d. after 550)

The most famous of all Christian flat-earthers, Cosmas wrote an intriguing work known as the "Christian Topography". In it he strongly rejects the Hellenistic cosmology, and claims that the world is a kind of box, with the earth on the bottom, and the heavens as the sides and roof.

"It is written: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. We therefore first depict along with the earth, the heaven which is vaulted and which has its extremities bound together with the extremities of the earth. To the best of our ability we have endeavoured to delineate it on its western side and its eastern; for these two sides are walls, extending from below to the vault above. There is also the firmament which, in the middle, is bound together with the first heaven, and which, on its upper side, has the waters according to divine scripture itself. The position and figure are such as here sketched. To the extremities on the four sides of the earth the heaven is fastened at its own four extremities, making the figure of a cube, that is to say, a quadrangular figure, while up above it curves round in the form of an oblong vault and becomes as it were a vast canopy. And in the middle the firmament is made fast to it, and thus two places are formed.

And how again was it possible for the earth, which according to you is placed in the very middle of the universe, to have been submerged by the deluge in the time of Noah? or how can it be believed that on the first and the second day it was covered by the waters, and on the third, when the waters were gathered together, that it made its appearance, as is recorded in Genesis? But with even greater wisdom ye suppose that there are men walking all the earth over with their feet opposite the feet of other men. We therefore depict according to your view the earth and the Antipodes,24 and let each one of you who has sound vision and the power of reasoning justly turn the earth round whatever way he pleases, and let him say whether the Antipodes can be all standing upright in the same sense of the expression. But this they will not show even should they speak unrestrained by shame. Such then is our reply to your fictitious and false theories and to the conclusions of your reasonings which are capricious, self-contradictory, inconsistent, doomed to be utterly confounded, and to be whirled round and round even more than that unstable and revolving mythical sphere of yours." (Topographia, Book IV)

Basil the Great (d. 379)

Basil the Great, a bishop of Cappadocia, was agnostic with regards to the shape of the world. But he is interesting because his writings show there *was* some debate about this topic in Christian circles at the time. It was clearly not a first order issue (like the Arian debate, for example), but it certainly was somewhat contentious.

"Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls?" (Hexaemeron, Homily IX)

Conclusions

From all this evidence, I draw the following conclusions -

1. Significant numbers of early Christians believed in various kinds of flat earth cosmologies, and
2. These beliefs were largely a result of a literal reading of Scripture, and
3. The shape of the earth was a source of minor controversy, but
4. Flat earth cosmology was never an offical teaching of the church, and
5. It had largely died out by the start of the middle ages, replaced by a belief in a spherical earth cosmology - presumably due to the influence of Greek philosophy and science.

Thinktank

This is the Moore College Faculty blog. Some very sharp guys, there. They've posted up a couple of good pieces already. Keep 'em coming, guys...

The Christian and the Cosmos (part 1)

Walk out of your front door - how far can you see? Just a few metres if you are in the city, but if you are in the country, perhaps a few kilometres. Based on what you see, what shape would you conclude the world to be? Of course, we all know that the earth is spherical, but this is not intuitive to most. Historically, belief in a flat earth was very common, right up to the start of the middle ages.

What did the church teach about this subject? Belief in a flat earth seemed very common in the early church, as it was in society at large. One famous flat-earther from the early church was a monk named Cosmas Indicopleustes. He wrote a geographical survey called the Christian Topography, which argues for a flat earth on theological grounds. Other theologians from the era, such as John Chrysostom, also used Scripture to argue that the earth was flat.

Hard as it is to believe, flat-earthers survive to the modern era. Samuel Birley Rowbotham is the founder of the modern flat earth movement. In his (19th century) book "Zetetic Astronomy: The Earth Not a Globe", he cites 76 scriptures that he says teach the earth is flat, including quotes from Genesis 1 and Exodus 20.

Some of the other scriptures used by flat-earthers are -

"After this, I saw four angels stationed at the four corners of the earth holding back the four winds..." (Revelation 7:1)

"[God] brings up the mist from the ends of the earth, he opens rifts for the rain and brings the wind out of his storehouses" (Jeremiah 51:16)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"[the king] saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." (Daniel 4:10-11)

"Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory." (Matthew 4:8)

To those Christians who believe in a spherical earth, Rowbotham has a stern warning -

To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false... Call Scripture the Word of God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, and the Fountain of all truth; and call the Newtonian or Copernican system of astronomy the word and work of man... Is God a deceiver? Has He spoken direct and unequivocal falsehood... Let Christians...determine to uproot the deception which has led them to think that they can altogether ignore the plainest astronomical teachings of Scripture, and yet endorse a system to which it is in every sense opposed.

These words are remarkably similar in tone and content to those used by the militant young earthers to condemn old earthers (such as myself).

Of course, educated Christians have always known that the earth is spherical, even from the earliest times. This knowledge became widespread by the middle-ages, and it seemed to cause little concern. The "flat earth" language of the Bible is seen to be contextual to the cosmology of the era, and is interpreted idiomatically and figuratively. Indeed, some phrases such as the "four corners of the earth" are still used today in an idiomatic way.

The point is that it is foolish to use the Bible as a cosmological textbook, and to compare it's language to the findings of modern science. With regards to "flat earth" geography, most Christians have recognised this. The Rowbotham's of the world have been the rare exception. Some other cosmological findings have been more controversial, however, and I'll look at those in the subsequent parts.

Power Hour

From Facebook - Join in with me to celebrate "Power Hour". This event celebrates the discovery of electricity and the profound influence it has had on our lives. Please turn on all the appliances in your house for one hour. Electricity was certainly a profound discovery, and it should be celebrated. I can't turn on all of my appliances without blowing a fuse, but I'll be celebrating "Power Hour" in spirit.

Casey the Punisher

I guess you've seen this - it went viral. What did you think?

Young Earth, Bad Theology

Well, I've just come to the end of another stoush with the militant Young Earth mob. Some will say it's my own fault for "grabbing the dog by it's ears". A number of local bloggers wont touch this subject any more, as they know the response they will get from the militants. To my mind, that is conceding too much ground. If we let our opponents dictate the battlefield, we are in great trouble. This is a troubling issue for new Christians and seekers, so we need to nail our colours to the mast.

If I may say, I did try hard this time to be patient. One fellow responded by repeating the same question over and over again, ignoring everything I said. This is a form of passive aggressive behaviour. The other fellow swung between patronising earnestness and violent ad hom. Hard to carry on a conversation under such circumstances, and not surprising that they scared away other commenters.

I regret some of my comments now - I feel I got sucked into the bickering. Proverbs 26:4 says, "Don't answer a fool according to his foolishness, or you'll be like him yourself." And so I don't plan to respond to any more of their comments, though they will doubtless post here, and also on their own website. Oh, I should mention that one fellow, Eric, was consistently courteous.

Is this all that big a deal? As I said above, it's still a live wire issue for some, so it's worth discussing. But I also think we need to challenge the militant wing of the Young Earth movement, because I believe they have genuinely bad theology. This was brought home again to me in the recent debate. If you want a fully-orbed critique of their theology, you need to read a ten part series written by Mark Baddeley several years ago. You can find it here - part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9 and part 10.

Mark really took them to task, and the militants had no response. They retired from the field, desperately hoping that his blog would get minimal exposure.

I want to briefly highlight a troubling part of the militant's approach that was abundantly clear in my recent debate. What I'm referring to is the way they make belief in a young earth a shibboleth, a test of true Christianity. For rejecting their particular scientific theory, the militants have branded me a heretic, a liberal, compared me to an atheist and an adulterer, and have told me that Christ does not live in me.

It seems plain to me that they think belief in a young earth is a mark of a "genuine" Christian. Back in my younger days, people would refer to this as a "gospel+" situation - that is, someone is stating that you need to believe in the "gospel+something else" in order to be saved. But the gospel+ anything is not the gospel at all. Paul dealt with this in Galatians 1, where he declares than anyone who changes the gospel, for any reason whatsoever, is accursed.

Now, I'm not saying all Young Earthers are accursed! Far from it. I think the majority that I've known have expressed the appropriate charity when it comes to this point. But regarding the particluar group of militants I'm talking about - it seems to me that they have strayed outside of the bounds of evangelical orthodoxy in their approach to this issue. I hope they will wake up soon. And in the mean time, I believe they are best avoided - especially by new Christians and seekers.

Letter to the Editor, 1786

Mr. Editor,

I can scarcely think it possible, though our newspapers have repeatedly announced it as a fact, that the King's Minister can have it seriously in their intention, to transport so large a body as six or seven hundred convicts to New Holland, in the South Seas. I observe your correspondent Sylvanues takes the point so much granted, that he has amused himself, and the readers of your paper, with no pleasantry, by proposing by way of impovement to this most sagacious plan, to augment the new colony by an accompanyment up0on the expedtion, of all the poachers throughout the kingdom.

Sportively as this gentleman has treated the subject, I am inclined to consider it as a matter well intitled to a very grave and solemn discussion. For it appears to me an affair in which the national honour and character are deeply involved. According to the accounts we have received of the distant country, in which it is proposed to establish so extraordinary a colony, it is but thinly peopled. A circumstance os some consolation with respect ot the few saveages who may approach the confines of a society of English banditti. For that the manners and morals of even the natives of New Holland, could escape being rendered worse than they now are, by the contagion of such a neighbourhood, is next to imposible. I am afraid it would be altogether superflous, to take religion into the consideration: for if its interests are to be as little regarded upon this occasion, as I understand it unformly to have been on board the ballast-lighters, it is no unreasonable presumption to suppose, that this formidable emigration is to be unattended by a chaplain of any denomination whatsoever.

I am at a loss to conceive the degree of horror, which a plan of this kind must excite in the minds of the foreign societes, pro propaganda fide: - will they not most naturally, with uplifted hands, exclaim against it, and bestow upon it, the appellation of a plan formed by some English society, pro proagandis vitiis Anglicanis? And, howver, in excuse, it may be alleged, that the propogation of vice upon the coast of New Holland, or, as it is generally called Botany Bay, is not likely to be very extensive amongst the New Hollanders, on account of the scantiness of their numbers: yet I am afraid such will be the zeal of these English Missionerists?, that this excuse will not be of any very long duration. Many of the islands in the South Seas, as we are assured by our late circum navigators, are exceedingly populous; - but they are not only populous, they are also extremely fertile; and they are inhabited by the some of the handsomest women in the known world. Can any thing therefore be more probable than that parties of these abandoned wretches, will, after a while, be formed for a fresh transportation of themselves to better climates and more cultivated regions? The inevitable consequence of which will be, that the contagion of English vice, and English Villainy, will be diseeminated in the space of a few years, throughout every country, situated within the South Seas.

For the honour of the Christian religion, for the honour of humanity, and for the honour of my country, I very anxiously hope that a scheme so injurious to the interests of mankind in general, will not go forward; or if it does, that all imaginable care will be taken to prevent, as much as possible, the national disgrace, which will follow so probably wide a diffusion of national iniquity, without some means to counteract its effects to this salutary end; it ought surely to be held indispensibly necessary, that every gentle method be employed of reclaiming, at least, in some degree, the intended exiles before they embark for the place of their destination. And in order to bring them to some sense of moral and relious duties, surely Government will take care that they be attended on their voyage by a clergyman of irreproachble character; for whom should be made a very ample provision, upon express condition, that he make New Holland his residence, as chaplain to this convict colony for the remainder of his days.

A Plain Englishman
English Chronicle (London, England), Saturday, October 7, 1786; Issue 1107

Please keep comments to the relevant threads

Off-topic comments will be deleted

Spurgeon...on management

I enjoyed this...very true as well

Ten things that need answers

Helpful questions for the state government, by Karin

Thinktank

This is the official blog of the Moore College Faculty. Check it out.

Japan

Thoughts and prayers to those affected by the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. There is some extraordinary footage of the event. The latest predicted death toll I've heard is at least 1,000. Frightening...

Posting...

I've not posted as much as I would have liked in the last week. I've started a new job at work, which has taken up some energy, and I've also been busy in the evenings. On the positive side, I got back into writing my book (a biography of Richard Johnson) this evening. I haven't done any serious work on this since we started planning the wedding, about five months ago. It's good to get going again.

Interpreting Genesis 1

Then God said, "Let there be light..."

Few chapters of the Bible have seen as much commentary as Genesis 1. My own view, expressed in a recent debate, is that this chapter may be interpreted in a poetic or figurative manner.

An important part of Hebrew poetry is parrallelism (this is also present in some English poetry). The account in Genesis 1 contains at least two instances of this. Firstly, there is the obvious parrallel between each of the six days. The text is highly stylized, following a set pattern - "Then God said, 'Let there be...' it was good... Evening came, then morning..."

There is also a second, less obvious pattern in the text. The first three days concern the creation of space, ocean and land. The final three days see each of these spheres filled in turn - the celestial bodies for space, fish for the ocean, and animals for the land.

The presence of poetic elements by themselves don't necessarily mean that a text must be interpreted figuratively. After all, a poem can be made about a literal event. However, metaphorical and figurative elements have a much higher incidence in poetry than in other forms of literature. For this reason, it is unwise to insist on a literal reading of Genesis 1.

There is a further consideration, one which appals the defenders of a literal Genesis 1. The consideration is this - what do we know about the world around us, and how does that influence our understanding of the text? What we know about the world from other sources will affect how we understand the scripture. Only a deluded person would claim otherwise.

There are a couple of areas where science has, inevitably, affected our understanding of the bible. One simple example is to do with the sun. The bible speaks of the sun "rising". Now, we know that the sun doesn't really rise - rather, the earth rotates and this gives the illusion of the sun rising. But our astronomical knowledge, unavailable to the ancients, does not materially affect our understanding of any of these passages, even though we read the phrase "the rising of the sun" as figurative rather than literal.

There are other similar examples. One might look at the Copernican debate, or the shape of the planet. In all these instances, our scientific knowledge have affected how we understand the scripture. Regarding Genesis 1, we know now that the earth is extremely old, and that the universe is even older.

Any interpretation of Genesis 1 that denies the known age of the world is, for myself at least, simply not credible. You might as well ask me to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. You might as well ask me to believe that the sky is yellow with pink polka-dots.

Regardless, I only have so much energy for this debate, and my two recent posts have exhausted my enthusiasm for the time being. The young earth evangelists who occasionally stalk my blog should write me off as incorrigible, and go seek an easier mark.