Why are there so many different Christian denominations? Why are their Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal, Roman Catholic, and other types of Churches? Why are their dozens and dozens of other denominations as well?
Many a Christian wonders about this at some point. The split between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches is explained by the Reformation. But the differences between Protestants largely boil down to how we are to understand the two most important “rites” that the New Testament expects of the Church: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Now if you want to explore the debates surrounding Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, look no further than 40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper by John S. Hammett. I have reviewed other “40 Questions” books from Kregel, and have been consistently impressed by both their depth and clarity. The authors present the different arguments dispassionately and carefully, always asking the right questions; yet they don’t shy away from offering their own answers, which at times are appropriately tentative depending on the question. See my reviews of 40 Questions about the End Times, and 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution.
In 40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, even the most theologically aware reader will stumble across questions or points they haven’t before considered. The 40 questions format, however, prevents the book from becoming an inaccessible tome since both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper have to be covered from all angles within about 300 pages. Practical questions and pastoral concerns also are given full treatment, making the book more valuable. It is not just informative but helpful.
Some of my personal quibbles about Communion are explored as well! I’ve long thought that the small size of the elements often used today (mini-cracker and thimble sized cup of juice anyone?) may not be the best way to share in the Lord’s Supper. And I’ve wondered if the Lord’s Supper shouldn’t be observed in the context of a church-wide meal (as was done in the early church). Hammett addresses both of these concerns in passing (respectively pp. 208-209, pp. 186-187). Hammett also has an entire question devoted to when children (as opposed to infants) should be baptized (see chapter 20).
Hammett concludes with a Baptist view of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but stresses a spiritual presence of Christ in Communion. He also explores to what degree our view of these Church ordinances should impact our unity with fellow believers.
This book will be most helpful for pastors and Bible teachers, but can be read with benefit by lay Christians, students and others. I highly recommend it.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.
About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.
Many people have wondered why the New Testament includes four different Gospels. The differences can be confusing, and critics argue that they betray a difference of opinion among early Christians about Jesus and His message. Evangelical Christians respond by stressing that each of the Gospels is a separate, unique witness to the authenticity of the account of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry. The very fact that they are written from different perspectives and have different points of emphasis, strengthens their ability to independently testify to the truth of the Christian message.
In analyzing the Gospels, scholars have often claimed that John’s Gospel was written by someone who had no clear knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). The theology in John is more advanced, and must come from a later date in the “evolution” of Christian doctrine. From this scholarly debate has come a fresh look at the literary evidence in the Gospels themselves, and the results have been startling (or encouraging, depending on your perspective). NT scholarship is starting to change its tune on this point, in fact. Even for those of us who aren’t scholars (I include myself here for sure), there are meaty takeaways that can improve our grasp of the interplay between the Gospels – and heighten our appreciation of the revelation of Jesus we find there.
In this post, I want to highlight that the author of the Gospel of John (who I hold is John the Apostle), is not only familiar with the Gospel of Mark, but that he also assumes that many of his readers have read Mark. He even structures His Gospel (John) so that it fills out and explains much that Mark does not include in his Gospel. In short, there are echoes of Mark in John’s Gospel, and John intends His Gospel to differ from Mark’s. As Richard Bauckham puts it, “John is explicitly incomplete in aspects which… the Synoptic Gospels supply.”[1]
Puzzling Statements (John 3:24; 11:2)
What follows here is drawn from a chapter titled “John for Readers of Mark” by Richard Bauckham[2]. In reading Jonathan Pennington’s book Reading the Gospels Wisely, I came across a summary of Bauckham’s thoughts on this, and I have dug up more on the topic from simply following the helpful footnotes for more info.[3]
Two small and seemingly insignificant verses reveal John’s knowledge of Mark. And following their lead, a few other verses throw open the door to how John and Mark dovetail together.
John 3:24 “(For John had not yet been put in prison).”
John 3:24 is an aside, a parenthetical expression that is quite odd. Bauckham himself explains this quite clearly:
To understand the reason for the explanation, we are obliged to postulate implied readers/hearers who know more than the Gospel itself has told them. They seem to be expected already to know that John’s ministry came to an end when he was imprisoned, but even this knowledge is not sufficient to account for the explanation. Whether or not readers/hearers already know that John was imprisoned, they do not need to be told the obvious: that he was not yet imprisoned when he was still baptizing.[4]
Of the few references to John the Baptist’s imprisonment in the Synoptics, the one most likely referred to here is Mark 1:14. The comment in John 3:24 is there to let the reader know that this portion of Jesus’ ministry is taking place in between Mark 1:9-13 (which details Jesus’ baptism and subsequent temptation in the wilderness) and Mark 1:14 (which has Jesus going to Galilee to start his ministry there — right after John is imprisoned). This section in John’s Gospel, begins right after Jesus’ baptism (as hinted at in John 1:30) and continues through John 4:43 (where Jesus goes into Galilee for formal ministry — his time at Cana in John 2 was before his public ministry). So John wants his readers to know that John 1:19-4:43 fits between Mark 1:13 and 1:14.
John 11:2 “It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.”
This statement in John 11:2 is similarly puzzling. Why name Mary of Bethany as the one who anointed Jesus one chapter before the story of Jesus’ anointing (by Mary) is told in John (chapter 12)? Readers of Mark (and the other Synoptics) would have known of a woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany. John connects their knowledge of that story with his account by naming the woman here. (She is not named in Mark 14:3-9.) John will go on in chapter 12 to use a different chronology than Mark, putting the anointing before the triumphal entry, rather than after it.
Filling Out, Re-Ordering, and Summarizing Mark
From these two examples, you can almost imagine John as he is writing his account of Jesus’ ministry. He feels the need to re-order a story here or there from Mark, and add a name or highlight a detail. He moves the clearing of the Temple (Mark 11:11-25) to the beginning of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 2:13-22), and gives a new account of Jesus’ trial before Annas (John 18:13-23) not mentioned in Mark, just prior to the trial before Caiaphas (John 18:24). John’s briefer mention of Caiaphas’ trial is due to it already being discussed in detail by Mark (Mark 14:53-65).
At other points John quickly passes over long sections already mentioned by Mark, and fills out what Mark only hints at. John skips the sending of the 12 (which Mark includes), but gives a fuller account of the feeding of the 5,000 – explaining why Jesus and the disciples have to leave in such a hurry (Mark 6:45 compared to John 6:14-16). John also includes the longer discourse about the Bread of Life (John 6:22-71) which follows the miracle. And this is the closest John gets to mentioning the Lord’s Supper (this omission may serve to interpret/stress the significance of the Lord’s Supper).
Next, the second half of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (Mark 6:54-9:50) “is summarized by John in a single sentence” (in John 7:1a)[5]. Mark 10:1 mentions a ministry in Judah followed by time beyond the Jordan (where Mark 10:1-31 takes place). John follows along by giving us a long description of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 7:10-10:39) understood as occurring in the gap implied in Mark 10:1, and then devotes just a few verses (John 10:40-42) to describe the beyond-Jordan ministry that Mark already described more fully (Mark 10:1-31).
One more puzzling reference in John may allude to Mark. John 14:31, ends with the curious words “Rise, let us go from here.” But John 15 continues the conversation from John 14. The words “rise, let us go” or literally “get up, let us be going”, are also found in Mark 14:42, “Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.” Bauckham interprets this echo from Mark as a way John emphasizes that Jesus is voluntarily facing his death (mentioned in the verses just prior to 14:31)[6]. John uses these familiar words (to readers of Mark) as a way to call to mind Jesus’ decision to embrace his suffering.
For a fuller look at the arrangement of John in relation to Mark, the following two articles take Bauckham’s argument, expand on it, and provide tables comparing the two accounts side by side:
There may even be evidence from Church history that supports the treatment above. We have the following testimony of Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, of what Papias wrote (in the early second century) concerning Mark’s Gospel.
Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
“This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.[7]
Concerning this passage (and the brief quote evidently from Papias on Matthew), Richard Bauckham draws this conclusion:
The only reason Papias could have had for thinking that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark both lacked the kind of order to be expected in a work deriving from an eyewitness is that he knew another Gospel, also of eyewitness origin, whose chronological sequence differed significantly from Mark’s and Matthew’s and whose ‘order’ Papias preferred.[8]
The presbyter (or elder) John, that Papias mentions, is sometimes understood as John the Apostle and author of John. In any case, a good argument can be made that Papias prefers the chronological order of John’s Gospel to that of Mark. Bauckham points out how the Muratorian Canon (late second century list of New Testament books with brief commentary) betrays influence by Papias, and so it’s statement that John wrote his Gospel “in order” suggests that Papias indeed did prefer John’s order to the lack of order in Mark and Matthew.[9] Here is the quote from the Muratorian Canon:
For so [John] confesses (himself) not merely an eye and ear witness, but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order.[10]
Even More (Interlocking/Transposing Mark’s Theology)
Beyond the literary dovetailing described above and the historical pointers that John intended to re-order the Gospel accounts of Mark and Matthew, other testimony to Mark’s presence can be found through observing John’s own theology and points of emphasis. Pennington pointed out what he calls “the interlocking relationship of John and the Synoptics.”[11] This is a broader look at the question, and examines how in John’s theology and inclusion of material he is aware of Mark (and the Synoptics). Pennington draws from D.A. Carson on this point. Carson points out that in “many places… John and the Synoptics represent an interlocking tradition… they mutually reinforce or explain each other, without betraying overt literary dependence…”[12] Carson goes on to list many ways where the Synoptics and John overlap and interlock when it comes to theology and message. Andreas Köstenberger goes further and calls John’s approach a “theological transposition” of the Synoptics. For further study on this, see the resources listed in this note.[13]
Conclusion
I have rambled on and on, but I hope you can now appreciate even more how closely intertwined the Gospels are with one another. A lot of literary crafting is going on here! Readers of John who are unaware of Mark, can still find a coherent account of Jesus’ life and ministry in John. But the pointers are included for those aware of Mark to see how and where John is adding to Mark’s account and providing a fuller picture of the life of Jesus Christ.
Paying close attention to how each Gospel develops vertically (through its own account of Christ’s ministry) and horizontally (through its parallel passages and interlocking/dovetailing with the other Gospel accounts) is important for fully understanding each author’s intent. I also trust that you are better equipped for responding to criticisms directed at the discrepancies between the Gospels. Most of all I hope you can see how the life of Christ and the significance and message of the Gospel transcends any single telling. None of the Gospels alone can contain or explain it, and all four together only scratch the surface, as John himself says:
John 21:25 “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”
Footnotes
[1] Richard Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus,” online essay, p. 3 (This essay matches the name of a chapter from Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology [Baker Academic, 2015]).
[4] Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark”, 153. This quote is taken from Amazon’s “look inside” preview of the book. I had not yet purchased the book at the time this post was first published.
[5] Ibid, 156.
[6] Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus”, p. 8.
[9] Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 425, ff. Note also that Bauckham holds that “presbyter John” is a disciple who was an eyewitness follower of Christ and the author of the Gospel of John, but he does not believe he is the Apostle John (son of Zebedee).
A professionally produced documentary that celebrates God’s creation is coming soon to a theater near you. Monday, March 19, in select theaters, “The Riot and the Dance,” a film featuring Dr. Gordon Wilson, debuts. Wilson is a Christian biology professor and author of a biology textbook with the same name. He is also brother of the well-known Reformed pastor and author, Douglas Wilson, whose son N.D. Wilson directs this film.
I was able to watch a screening of the film and found it quite captivating. The production is first-rate, and it compares favorably to something put out by BBC or National Geographic. But the message is distinctly different. The opening lines of the film come from Geneis 1, in the King James Version — which could perhaps put off viewers who are not already Christian. The film’s repeated theme is of God’s creativity and the role of wonder as we interact with all of God’s creation.
Unlike other Christian documentaries, this film does not try to convince the viewer of creation science. There are a few swipes at evolution, but no detailed argument as to why Dr. Wilson believes it is wrong. Rather, the film is a celebration and revelling in God’s glory as found in creation. This will be attractive to many Christian moviegoers, even if some lament the lack of a point-by-point interaction with naturalistic evolution. (For such viewers, Is Genesis History? would be worth checking out.)
The film begins in the Pacific Northwest — and literally the backyard, so to speak, of Dr. Wilson. From there it moves out to the mountains and the coast, then on to the Sonoran desert in Mexico, and ultimately the jungles of Sri Lanka. The film focuses on snakes repeatedly, and on other smaller creepy-crawlies. Hummingbirds do make an appearance however, as do weaver birds and several other species. Through it all, the enthusiasm of Dr. Wilson for each animal is contagious.
The film clearly stems from a young earth creationist viewpoint, and this shines forth in what may be some of its most controversial points. In one scene he showcases a peaceful seal population as the epitome of the Creator’s intent for creation. The next scene highlights Elephant seals as a negative example of the disorder of Creation. One is God’s intent and the other is what happened due to the Fall. This scene and another point later in the movie seem to be saying that the animals themselves have rebelled against the Creator’s intent. Throughout the film, Dr. Wilson keeps delaying a discussion of how a believer should view snakes. When he finally comes to that, he emphasizes that snakes were cursed by the fall and are an enemy of the seed of the woman. Yet any theologian would point out that it was Satan who was cursed, and it is Satan upon whom Christians tread (see Rom. 16:20). Serpents aren’t the enemy, but the Great Serpent is. Animals don’t (and didn’t) rebel against God, humanity did. The Fall certainly has affected creation with the introduction of sin and the advent of human death. But God created predators and glories in them (Job 38-40).*
The film’s intentional avoidance of addressing evolution head-on weakens its impact. If the amazing creativity of God showcased in the differences between animals speaks to God’s amazing provision for His creation, then what about the fact that 95% of all known species have become extinct? Was God unable to provide for those animals? The creativity highlighted throughout the film can be seen as a support for evolution, by those predisposed to Darwinism.
While the film may not convince skeptics, it certainly will speak movingly to believers. It was refreshing to see the amazing facts of nature presented through the lens of a Bible-believing professor. Christians affirm that it is God who stands behind the beauty of nature and this film directly praises God for that. I can applaud that wholeheartedly, even if my old earth creationism holds me back from a full endorsement of all aspects of this film.
Update: The film is available to purchase on Amazon.
*I refer interested readers to 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, by Kenneth Keathley and Mark Rooker (Kregel, 2014), chapter 26 “Was There Animal Death Before the Fall?” and chapter 27 “What Effect Did the Fall Have on Creation?” I agree with their conclusion that young earth creationists “seem to be dogmatic about a position [that the Fall introduced death and corruption into the world – even changing natural laws] which, upon closer examination, appears to be more speculative than they have been willing to admit,” p. 269-270. See my review of that book here.
Science and Faith are at a crossroads in today’s world. The new atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Hawking are pushing the conclusion that Science rules out Faith. No need to believe in a “God of the gaps” anymore. Everything can be explained by Science.
Christians can seem to corroborate this view by disputing the widely held claims of Science and clinging stubbornly to a young earth based on their interpretation of the first book of the Bible. Case in point. You either take Science, or you hold to your Faith.
Increasingly, evangelical Christians are moving away from an “anti-Science” approach (which itself largely stems from the 1961 book The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris), and embracing an “old-earth creationist” approach which has an affinity with evangelical positions held widely from the 18th through early 20th Centuries. Two of the most influential Christian organizations which respect Science and hold to an old earth, yet also stand against the new atheism and its denial of a Creator, are Reasons to Believe (RTB) and BioLogos.
The main difference between the two is RTB’s denial of evolution as the mechanism by which God created animals and man. Instead RTB believes in a series of special creative acts throughout Earth’s long history. BioLogos on the other hand, sees evolution as testament to God’s handiwork and not at all antithetical to a belief in human exceptionalism and humanity’s creation in the Image of God. Their approach is termed evolutionary creation.
Such is not a small difference, but over the past several years representatives from both of these organizations have met routinely to dialogue and better understand their respective positions. This book is one of the results of that ongoing interaction. The moderators for their meetings have been professors at a number of Southern Baptist institutions, who mostly represent a young earth approach. Each chapter in the book starts with one of the Southern Baptist moderators presenting the stage for that chapter’s topic and asking questions of both organizations.
Rather than being a typical “two views” book, the use of moderators keeps the tone gracious and the result is an introduction to the views of both organizations on a host of important topics related to the intersection of Science and Faith generally, and on the evidences for evolution in particular. Key topics covered include how each group explains natural evil and death predating “the Fall”, what range of options concerning Adam and Eve are viable positions for each group, what role does natural theology play, how does the Bible inform their scientific positions, how is the fossil evidence for evolution and particularly the hominids best explained, and how does genetics support each group’s position.
This book delivered a fantastic introduction to each organization and points the way forward for further research. It will introduce people to viable evangelical positions and raise questions and evidences that the reader may not have thought of before. It is a technical book, and there will be sections over the head of the average reader, but for the most part the moderators do a good job of keeping things grounded.
For those who hold to a young-earth, there is not much in this volume that directly addresses the evidences for an old-earth and why each organization holds to that understanding, even though one or two of the moderators seem to ask for some of this. Instead both groups agree and move on to the areas where they disagree. In a few of the chapters, there are points I would have raised for or against a given position that don’t arise. I am surprised, for instance, that the fusing of two chromosomes found in chimpanzees into a single chromosome found in humans is not brought up (as potential evidence for evolution to be dealt with) in the chapter on genetics. That being said, I learned a lot more about genetics than I had previously, and that illustrates the only real problem I have with this book: there is so much more that could be said in any of these chapters! But all things considered, the editors do a great job of including as much content as they do and still keeping the book readable.
Above all, this book does a great job illustrating how Christians can and should interaction on such issues. The gracious spirit and charitable dialogue found here should be an example for all of us as we think through how best to comprehend the data that Science continues to bring forth in light of the bedrock reality of the Authority of Scripture. This book goes along way toward lighting the way for those who seek to embrace both Science and Faith, and at the very least it advances the discussion in meaningful ways.
Blurbs:
“This conversation is definitely worth listening to! The book is deeply satisfying, with knowledgeable and articulate advocates of differing positions expounding on areas of disagreement clearly as well as respectfully. At the same time, it is deeply unsatisfying, but in a good way: I found my own assumptions challenged, my horizons stretched. I think differently after reading it. An excellent job by all participants, moderators included.”
—C. John “Jack” Collins, professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis
“This Reasons to Believe and BioLogos conversation is highly commendable, and it’s important for a number of reasons. First, its tone is irenic, gracious, and humble. Second, its participants trust the Christian integrity of the other conversation partners. Third, it takes the authority of Scripture seriously as participants grapple with the implications of biblical interpretation in light of scientific discovery. Fourth, the Southern Baptist theologians serving as moderators are effective in guiding and focusing the conversation as they call for clarification and further elaboration from both sides. Finally, this conversation takes for granted the strong evidence for an ancient earth, allowing the discussion to push past the young-earth versus old-earth debate to far more pressing issues needing attention within the Christian community”
—Paul Copan, professor and Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics, Palm Beach Atlantic University, coeditor of The Dictionary of Christianity and Science
“Origins, particularly human origins, continues to be a controversial issue among evangelical Protestants. In Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation?, the organizations BioLogos and Reasons to Believe model a respectful interchange of ideas in spite of their significant differences. The result is an intelligent and illuminating discussion of this crucial and timely topic.”
—Tremper Longman III, Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies, Westmont College
Disclaimer: This book was provided by IVP Academic. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.
About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.
Is Genesis History? is a compelling documentary from Compass Cinema that released earlier this month. Producer/Writer/Director Thomas Purifoy Jr. has created a first-rate documentary that can stand toe-to-toe with the very best documentaries being produced anywhere today. His bibliography (shared at the film’s website) is testament to the effort put into this film. The film features interviews with several of the sharpest minds in young earth creationism: thirteen scientists (counting the bonus features), along with two theologians and a pastor. The host is none other than Del Tackett who many Christian viewers will recognize as the host of Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project video teaching series. The backdrops to these interviews are visually stunning landscapes (from the Grand Canyon to the Virgin Islands and many places in between) or engaging centers of learning (universities, research centers and museums). The sum product is a carefully crafted, engaging, thoughtful presentation of the very best that young earth creationism has to offer.
The film presents the question as a tale of two competing paradigms: the conventional paradigm, which understands the earth to be millions of years old and humanity the product of evolution, and the Genesis paradigm, which understands Genesis to be literal history and the earth to be no more than a few thousand years old, with humanity the special creation of God. With the groundwork set, the project begins with geology and moves through a variety of scientific arenas finding that the Genesis paradigm does indeed live up to the evidence around us. Again and again the issue of worldview comes to the fore, if thinking according to the conventional paradigm, the evidence is discounted or explained away. If willing to think from within the Genesis paradigm, the evidence makes sense and can be truly compelling.
The presentation takes pains to be measured and level-headed in its approach. There is no smug creationist mocking those who believe that their ancestors were apes. This is a serious matter and those interviewed understand how far the pendulum has swung since the days of the Scopes’ trial. The impression you get from watching these men is they care about science and are open to refining their views as they grow in their understanding. They hold to the Bible’s account above all, of course, but these are not pastors playing with rocks – but researchers and seasoned experts who are convinced by the science they see.
I wish the film took more time to address Christian positions for an old earth that stop short of a full embrace of evolution. These approaches are swept together with evolutionary creationists and dismissed as attempts to reconcile with the current scientific paradigm — which may well be discarded in favor of a new understanding, as has happened many times before (even the Big Bang, according to astronomer Danny Faulkner, has its secular critics and is not likely to endure). The film does not really present both sides of the debate, or exhaustively deal with objections and alternate explanations. The film’s website does have resources for further study, however.
As one who has embraced old earth creationism, I was challenged anew by compelling arguments for the “Genesis paradigm,” to use the film’s language. The discussion of enormous rock formations in Arizona, where an enormous layer is found between two layers that are also found in the Grand Canyon (without that big layer between), does seem to suggest a large flood must be behind it. The bonus feature with an atmospheric scientist explaining how a global flood and accompanying high volcanic activity could trigger the ice age and produce the huge glaciers that covered so much of the continents in a matter of a few hundred years was quite compelling. The film starts near Mt. St. Helen’s and shows how much devastation one volcanic eruption made and all the layers it left behind. Yet while this is meant to show that layers can be deposited quickly (rather than over millions of years), I think it stands to show that the “uniformity” of the present has cataclysms enough to account for some of the geology that these experts claim must point to a global flood. The problems with dating methods presented don’t seem to provide enough evidence to me to counter the findings of science for the last 300 years (Christian scientists before Charles Lyell held to an old earth).
Not all young earth creationists will agree with everything included in the film. Biologist Todd Wodd holds that neanderthals would be classified as human, with most other “ancestors” of man being apes. (Many might not agree with that assessment, I imagine.) Perhaps the weakest link in the film was the discussion of astronomy. The problem of the vast distances in space (and the millions of years of time implied in those distances), has been addressed with many different solutions. Astronomer Danny Faulkner provides his own: the stars are brought to maturity very quickly on the fourth day (like the new plants on day 3) — but there is no further discussion of the many questions such an approach raises. An odd inclusion in the film, is the segment on the tower of Babel: while the discussion given about ziggurats being found in numerous cultures is interesting, the question of the dates given to the pyramids and ancient cultures in general has long presented a challenge for young earth creationism, and this is not even addressed.
But despite my few criticisms, this is an excellent production. The film will not convince every viewer, but it should make them think. I am having my children watch this to see a reasoned, careful Christian alternative to the conventional paradigm provided today. For young earth creationists, this is a boon. What better way to introduce the subject and follow up with additional resources? Christians everywhere can be supportive of the creation debate when handled with the care evidenced in this film. Most of those interviewed were humble and did not impugn motives to others in the wider church who disagree with this approach. Such an attitude becomes Christians of every persuasion.
For more information about this film, visit the film’s website: www.IsGenesisHistory.com. There you can find a downloadable “Guide to the Film,” more information on the scientists interviewed, and resources for delving deeper into any of the topics discussed in the film.
DVD Blurbs:
“Attempts to deal with that one simple question: Is the biblical account of creation and flood meant to be understood as history? Does it describe actual history? And does the world give evidence of recent creation and catastrophic flood? Host Del Tackett tackles these questions head-on and does so in a compelling way.” — Tim Challies, Challies.com
“An engrossing primer on why we can feel confident believing the Bible’s account of creation. I just may need to watch it a few more times with the pause button and a notebook handy. Because for Christians educated within the prevailing evolutionary paradigm, Is Genesis History? provides a much-needed reminder just how young the theory of an old earth is.” — Megan Basham, WORLD magazine
“Will strengthen confidence in Scripture, clarify understanding of the relationships of revelation, science, history, and faith, and enhance understanding of difficult questions all while being both beautiful and entertaining.” — E. Calvin Beisner, PhD, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Why are there so many different Christian denominations? Why are their Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal, Roman Catholic, and other types of Churches? Why are their dozens and dozens of other denominations as well?
Many people have wondered why the New Testament includes four different Gospels. The differences can be confusing, and critics argue that they betray a difference of opinion among early Christians about Jesus and His message. Evangelical Christians respond by stressing that each of the Gospels is a separate, unique witness to the authenticity of the account of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry. The very fact that they are written from different perspectives and have different points of emphasis, strengthens their ability to independently testify to the truth of the Christian message.
