Archbishop Ussher and the Birthday of the Universe

I was listening to ABC 702 this morning and heard Adam Spencer make the following comment:

"And a happy 27th of October to you all. Perhaps a birthday – an anniversary – the maths extension 1 exam.

Well for some creationists, Oct 27 4004bc is the day of creation itself. I chatted with Dr Mark Harwood from Creation Ministries about what underpins creation theory. Interesting stuff indeed. Hmmmmmmmmmmm."

This was the introduction to an interview (that can be found here) in which Dr Harwood (from Creation Ministries International) did a reasonable job of defending his position as a Young-Earth creationist despite some fairly belligerent interviewing by Adam.

After hearing the interview I checked the facts about Archbishop James Ussher (Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland, 1625 - 1656). Adam should have checked his facts, because Archbishop Ussher calculate that the earth was created about nightfall before October 23rd. 4004 BC. According to Wikipedia:

After a 1647 work on the origin of the Creeds, Ussher published a treatise on the calendar in 1648. This was a warm-up for his most famous work, the Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world"), which appeared in 1650, and its continuation, Annalium pars postierior, published in 1654. In this work, he calculated the date of the Creation to have been nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC (According to the Julian calendar).

 
Now, leaving aside Adam's error, how important is this date? Should we celebrate it as the birthday of the world? Do we have to accept that the world is about 6000 years old if we want to uphold the authority of the Bible as the Word of God (as Dr Harwood implied)?
 
I would suggest that Archbishop Ussher made an overly literalistic interpretation of the date of the creation. Even if the ages given in the genealogies of the Bible can be calculated accurately to give dates for Noah or for Adam, this still does not imply that we can calculate the date of the creation of light to six days before. I would argue that the first two chapters of Genesis are intended to tell us more about the purpose of creation and the nature of the creator rather than the exact order and date. I am therefore prepared to accept the label of  'Old-Earth Creationist' and to accept a possible date for the creation of the earth at over 13 billion years ago.
 
Of course I would still want to argue that the Bible is the word of God that should be read literally. Yet I find the Young-Earh creationists to be a little disturbing in their dogged adherence to such an early date in the face of very significant scientific evidence.
 
While we should not accept everything that scientists claim as 'proven fact', neither should we be scared of science when done within its proper bounds. While the YEC's claim to have rebuttals to much of the 'scientific evidence' for an old earth, it does appear to me to be 'special pleading' bound by a dogmantic and literalistic reading of Scripture. These are the kind of arguments that are usually called 'fundamentalist'.
 
A helpful article by Michael Jensen on 'Fundamentalism' was also released this week on the ABC religion website. Michael warns against the person who claims that their view is purely objective and rational - whether based on Scripture or something else (like Science). Such a person is not prepared to consider the alternative argument. A humble Christianity will always be prepared to consider the merits of the alternative argument - even when it might contradict certain cherished presuppositions or conclusions.
 
Unfortunately the conversation on the radio this morning sounded like a conversation between two different kinds of 'fundamentalists' - although I do think that the Christian was a bit more polite.

Synod Vox Pops

This video by Anglican Media gives you an idea of what attenders think about Synod.

AND Check out this post by Nigel Fortescue for a taste - in fact a highlight!



Synod Vox-pops from Sydneyanglicans.net on Vimeo.

Peter Jensen on 'Being Human in this Glittering City'

In the last week I have been attending the Annual Synod of the Sydney Anglican Diocese. One of the highlights is always the Presidential address given by the Archbishop. This year the address by Peter Jensen was on the topic of 'Being Human in this Glittering City'.

He began by suggesting that this 'glittering city' of Sydney began as an experiment in human nature. "One of the architects of the whole [transportation] scheme was the Home Secretary, Lord Sydney. For him, transportation was not a penalty in itself, and even convicted felons did not lose all the rights of an Englishman. He thought that after a relatively brief settling-in period under the rule of military authority, the new colony would be self-governing, run by morally improved convicts."

In what sense can humans be 'improved' or even 'perfected'? He then goes on to talk about the dream of improving people, including convicts and aboriginals; the education of the early children in the colony before making the point that our view of humanity will have direct implications for how we treat people - like the first Australians, Prisoners, the needy, the dying and the young.  He provided a reflection on the trial of so-called "ethics classes" as a challenge to Special Religious Education (Scripture) and challenged us to rethink our vision for Christian education. He then went on to speak about the financial situation of the diocese and - more importantly - the progress of our mission.

It was a great encouragement to think Biblically about human nature ('Anthropology' for the academics) and to make sure we stick to the gospel mission.  For me the address is the highlight of Synod. Well worth a read or listen!

The full text is available here.

The Audio Version is available here,

and the video is available in two parts on Vimeo, Part 1, and Part 2.

. . . . .

Euthanasia Debate Gathering Steam

I have previously mentioned the warped priorities of the newly empowered Greens to promote Bills to legalise Euthanasia in the Territories and in the NSW Parliament, here.

Andrew Cameron (pictured), of the Sydney Diocese Social Issues Executive has written an article in the Sydney Morning Herald called "Euthanasia Question Needs Wider Discussion" which highlights the shaky basis for the claims made by the pro-euthanasia lobby and calls for a proper debate.

Another approach was taken by Michael Jensen, who wrote a controversial and deliberately provocative piece in Punch called "Who is Euthanasia really For? A Letter from a Loving Son". Worth looking at here.

Another interesting and moving contribution comes from Nikki Savva in the Australian: "Fight for Life to the Last Breath". Niki calls herself a 'conservative leftie' and is not, a far as I know, a Christian. It is a good example of how deeper reflection on the issue can lead to an anti-euthanasia stance. Her article can be found here.

Here is the first part of the article by Andrew Cameron:

Australians are overwhelmingly in favour of euthanasia. Who can resist the will of the people? So goes the pro-death argument for this sweeping social change.


A much quoted 2009 survey, commissioned by the pro-euthanasia group Dying with Dignity, reports 85 per cent support for the practice. As is always the case, support is more muted among the over-65s: the prospect of death, it turns out, does concentrate the mind.

Even so, the survey elicited more than 80 per cent support among each age bracket of its 1201 respondents.

There is just one problem: it consisted of a telephone poll asking a single leading question. Interviewers emphasised the syllables as printed: ''If a hopelessly ill patient, experiencing unrelievable suffering, with absolutely no chance of recovering asks for a lethal dose, should a doctor be allowed to provide a lethal dose, or not?''

Try answering that while you are cooking the dinner or bathing the kids. The question is wildly emotive (''hopelessly'', ''unrelievable suffering'', ''absolutely no chance'').

We hate the thought of death and pain, and in the moment, most of us would simply respond out of shock and without much thought. The question leverages our preference to politely say ''yes'' instead of ''no''.

Its assumptions are also completely contestable. Illness does not have to be ''hopeless'', and suffering is often very relievable. Where euthanasia is legal, more ask for it due to loneliness than pain, or so as not to burden another. The survey therefore distracts us from other options.

It does not ask, ''Would you change your mind if the lonely had companions, and the fearful someone to listen?'' Nor does it ask, ''What would enable people to accept care without shame?'' Nor does it ask, ''Would you like to see more funding for pain management research and practice?''

We are seeing a deliberate blurring of the lines at the very time society needs clarity on such a serious and far-reaching measure. The deliberate killing of a person in euthanasia must be distinguished from the withdrawal of treatment, and from management of symptoms at the end of life. . . .

The rest of the article can be found here.