Hi bubbaguy…
I do understand your concern with preachers (and even believers) who mouth off prayers in the public (and even in private). When I first came to the Lord, I used to attend a prayer meeting with our local congregation. There was one particular believer who felt the need to “take control” of the prayer meeting and pretty much speak for everyone. He would even walk around giving “words” to those in attendance, which were supposedly the result of God speaking through him. I used to literally HIDE from this guy beneath the pews, because I hated to hear his phony-bologna “prophecies.”
One day, after a particularly embarrassing lying “word” from this brother, I pretty much stopped the show. I stopped the guy midsentence and told him, “[i]Why are you speaking for God when you are clearly wrong[/i]?” This man turned red with what seemed to be both embarrassment and frustration. I told him, “[i]Look, I know you seem to be a sincere guy, but you are clearly putting words in the mouth of God that are not his[/i]!” This really upset him. I told him that I wanted to continue attending the prayer meetings, but I didn’t want to be hunted down by a would-be prophet who can’t even get the smaller details correct. Of course, this didn’t go over too well with the brother. He warned others about not “heeding the words of the prophets.” I just shrugged my shoulders and told him that a true prophet wouldn’t worry about someone “proving” his words.
So, yes, there is an issue with the wrong manner of conducting public prayers. But as you are aware, there are many instances in the Bible where public prayers were given. Both the Old and New Testament are filled with examples of believers praying in public. There is a difference, however, from the motives between the Pharisees and prayer offered in humility.
Actually, I don’t think that it is quite so CLEAR as you claim.
One of my undergraduate degrees is in Electrical Engineering. As a requirement for EE, I took several classes in the more advanced sciences, including Inorganic Chemistry, Bio Chemistry, and Advanced Physics. Believe it or not, several of my professors were believers (including one who was also a licensed Baptist minister). There is never a “clear consensus” with science.
Recently, former Vice President Al Gore received a Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the cause of global warming. His film, [i]An Inconvenient Truth[/i], also won this year’s Academy Award for BEST DOCUMENTARY. Al Gore has consistently claimed that his “facts” were above reproach. In various publications, Gore claims that it is the “clear consensus” of the scientific community that global warming not only exists – but that it is undoubtedly the result of mankind. Gore also claims that the clear consensus is that many people will die if something is not done to stop this warming trend. His claims are extremely calamitous, and certainly worth looking into.
There is a surely a consensus amongst scientists that global warming is measurably taking place. However, there are many scientists – even some that Gore quotes – who do NOT believe that global warming is largely due to the contributions of mankind. Even fewer believe that it will result in worldwide catastrophe. Many scientists are quick to point out studies about “global warming” at the turn of the 19th-20th Century. In the 1950s and 1960s, there were scientists who predicted “global COOLING” as a result of studies that predicted that the world was growing colder. In the 1990s, the measurements once again indicated global warming. In Texas, we experienced one of the coolest and wettest summers in nearly 100 years even though my parents experienced a very hot and dry summer in the north.
Even now, there are quite a few scientists who believe that global warming is a result of the transit of the Earth as it revolves around the sun. Solar activity is the primary source of heat upon this planet. If our planet veers just a bit during its rotation around the sun (pulled away by the gravity of outer planets), then it will certainly affect our climate (and make it cooler). If the outer planets are far enough ahead (or behind as we revolve around our solar orbit), they can react with the gravity of the sun and actually tug the planet a little closer to the sun, thereby HEATING the planet just a bit. Scientists have been noting such changes on the planet Mars. In some years, its ice caps (possibly water or “dry ice”) are much larger than other years. This past year, the ice caps on Mars were almost non-existent. However, they have already grown larger than they were the previous year.
Quite a bit of environmental laws were passed during the early 1990s. Very strong restrictions were placed upon the installation of refrigerants. Why? Scientists and Congressmen pointed to the hole in the “ozone layer” over Antarctica. At the time, scientists felt that there was a clear correlation between this “hole” in the ozone and the recent warming trend. Emissions laws were increased and were extended to things like hair spray and Lysol. Interestingly, within a couple of years, there was an almost immediate noticeable shrinkage of the hold in the ozone! Scientists and lawmakers declared this legislation a success. However, later that year, the hold suddenly grew larger. Then, it shrank. Then it grew larger. Then, it shrank again. After all was said and done, scientists decided that they weren’t entirely certain WHY the ozone was behaving in such a peculiar manner. One physicist stated that the observation of the ozone with satellites is only a couple of decades old. He reasoned that this may have ALWAYS been the trend!
Why am I saying this? Because science never clearly establishes anything but principle through observation. Such principles are observed, but changed they have a tendency of being reinterpreted over time. This is true of evolution. This is true of astrophysics. Most biologists certainly embrace the theory of “natural selection” as espoused by Darwinism. However, there is quite a bit of debate that goes on amongst even evolutionary scientists as to the extent of the process. Some evolutionary scientists argue that the evolutionary process is due to “cause and effect.” Something causes a change in the biological process which then creates the effect of changes in offspring. Scientists point to widespread increases in certain diseases or conditions (such as autism) as the possible result of chemical reactions – possibly including the fluoride in the toothpaste of our grandparents! This reaction causes changes in the epigenome as it alters the sperm that becomes the catalyst for life. This, however, is not evolution in the Darwinian sense.
Darwin argues for NATURAL SELECTION, or, a vast evolution of a species caused by a shift in the needs of the species itself. Primordial soup gave way to ocean life to amphibians to earth life to variation of species. The major roadblock for evolution is the lack of fossil record. If the culmination of the species of the entire world is the result of such evolution, then every single species should have links between them. These records do not exist. There are certainly a very few partial fossil records that have been found after years of search for “missing links” (such as the Leakey’s “[i]Lucy[/i]”). However, even these are not conclusively considered interspecies finds. None of these records consist of entire finds. Rather, they consist of incomplete skeletons. There is a great deal of scrutiny that is displayed even before these findings are released, because there have been many “false positives” found. These false positives typically end up being another species of already discovered primate. Some scientists have even pointed at “Lucy” (the most famous and widely embraced fossil “evidence”) as being the damaged fossil record of a possible subspecies of primate, rather than a link between primate and homosapien.
For years, scientists believed that Einstein’s theory of Special Relatively was firmly established and proven through years of space travel. Einstein hypothesized that the speed of light, and not time or distance, was the sole universal constant. However, they now realize that light is NOT the universal constant that Einstein suspected (it can speed up and slow down). Space is also filled with many gravity induced “bends” (caused by unseen “dark matter”) in the space-time continuum. The [u]principles[/u] proposed by Einstein may certainly exist, but the theory itself is at least partially flawed. Even the theorized “constant” of the speed of light is itself based upon a measurement of distance divided by time.
The point that I am trying to raise is that there is NOT a clear consensus in the scientific community, let alone the Christian community. A great deal of our earthly science is based upon the premise of an ancient universe. We measure the distance of stars by how long we think it takes for light to travel from them. Now that we realize that light can speed up (like when it penetrates a pool of cesium particles), how does this change our understanding of far reaching distances? Biological and geological sciences are based upon the approximated age of the Earth. This age has changed often due to scientific advancement and discovery. It is largely based upon the estimated half-life of carbon atoms. But what if this estimation is wrong – or altered by other forces? And what is the starting point of this half-life – the formulation of the Earth or the creation of the atomic bond?
Within the Christian community, there are people who believe in a literal six-day creation. There are others who believe in “six-ages” (each “day” is an “age”) of creation. And then, there are others who believe that the Heavens were created first – and then the Earth. Genesis 1:1 states: “[i]In the beginning, God created the heavens AND the Earth[/i].” Some hypothesize that God created the universe first, and much later, the Earth. Some even believe that there was a period of “chaos” between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 (…”[i]and the Earth was [/i][implied: BECAME][i] without form[/i]”). They believe that this was the period of time in which the war between angels took place.
Regardless of what we believe, there is no “clear consensus” in such matters. There is still much room for debate. I understand that there is quite a bit of rhetoric from believers that have little understanding of scientific principle. However, there are believers who are astutely aware of the issues invoked by modern science and still hold to a Biblical account for Creation. In fact, one of my University Physics professors – who specialized in Special Relativity – teaches a class about the limits of scientific theory.
Sadly, you are correct in mentioning the great amounts of preachers who are ignorant of science, yet still feel the authority to speak of issues in which they are not properly educated. They do give believers a bad reputation. I implore believers everywhere to not make a conclusion until they are aware of the facts. But one fact does remain: God did create the world. The world is not a great, cosmic accident. Man did NOT evolve from monkeys. Neither man nor monkey evolved from the living plasma supposedly created from primordial soup. Rather, God created man in His image and likeness.
I apologize for straying from the theme of this thread (public prayer). However, I thought that your comments were worth commenting on.
:-)
