Creation
I am currently in the middle of Trent Horn‘s latest book, Hard Sayings. In his book, he spends some time discussing the objections raised by critics of the Bible as they interpret Genesis’ account of creation. Just as I was finishing this section of the book, my friend Len shared the following video his Facebook wall:
This video is a 2015 episode of FocusToday, an interview programme which is part of a Christian apostolate. In this particular episode, Jimmy Akin, apologist at Catholic Answers, is interviewed concerning the Catholic interpretation of the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis. As usual, Jimmy discusses the issue in a clear and measured way.
At around the twenty-eight minute mark, the interviewer and Jimmy are joined by John Mittendorf who is associated with the ministry Answers In Genesis. He takes about ten minutes to respond to Jimmy’s position, after which Jimmy has an opportunity to respond, marked as always with his characteristic gentleness.
Ahahahaha…The host looks completely confused and perplexed with Jimmy’s words.
I still have to finish this interview. It’s been a busy few days. I have to comment just on the first ten minutes, which caused me to burst out in laughter four times, startling my teenage son and his friend each time. It is clear that the interviewer is a young earth creationist who has never encountered any other way of thinking. He was trying to play the role of an unbiased, disinterested interviewer but was entirely unable to put himself in Akin’s shoes. It’s not that he was disagreeing; he could not adjust his mindset to understand, so he had nothing to disagree with. So each time he asked an irrelevant question, exposing his misunderstanding of the conversation, I laughed. I am glad I was not present at the interview because my laughter would have been somewhat insulting, and I do not think I could have contained it. I am looking forward to getting to the last three-quarters of the interview.
You got it.
It was clear to me that he wanted to say, “Yeah, I see what you mean.” but he knew (from habit) that he’d be in big trouble with his listeners. He maintained a wariness which prevented him from actually progressing in this dialogue. It is an obstinate refusal to side with anything Papist. There is a trip-wired warning in their brains that anytime something Catholic sounds correct, it is because the devil is just very good at tricking and deceiving. Did you notice that several times when Jimmy spoke of Church Teaching or the Magisterium, this guy kept using the term, “the Vatican says…”?
In others words, the first rule of faith dialogue is: There is no correctness/Truth in Rome.
I have to finish listening to the interview. I’ll be doing that in a few minutes when I find a place to plug in my computer and sit and listen. I dropped my dog off at the vet for neutering, so I have a few hours on my hand. That dog will be avoiding me for a few days, I suspect. 🙁
Anyway, thanks for the head’s up. Akins has not brought up the magisterium yet at the point I am in the interview. I’ll pay attention to that.
Also, I am not Catholic. Does it bother Catholics if a reference to the Magisterium is translated into “the Vatican says”? I think I know what the Magisterium is, and I know what the Vatican is. The Vatican is a place, and the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the RCC. So, if I attribute a teaching of the Magisterium to “the Vatican,” is it a problem? It seems to me that would be the same as attributing a Supreme Court decision to Washington, DC. If I were German that would seem reasonable to me. “The Supreme Court decided” and “Washington says” would be satisfactorily similar to me.
At this point, 20 minutes in, I realize why you (Glennonite) said what you said. I was commenting on the part about an old earth and science vs. faith. The interviewer is clueless. He couldn’t possibly say “I see what you mean,” because he clearly has no idea what Akins means. You must be talking about later in the interview when John Mittendorf comes on. I’m not there yet, but I will be in about six minutes.
Here’s how I think of Mitteldorf’s position. It’s like going to the back of a cave, then sliding into a tunnel to small to even crawl in. Creationists then lock in there like a catfish in the mud of the Mississippi. They can’t see anything around them, and they are in total darkness. You can ask them to look left, right, above, and below, but they can’t see anything but what they imagine. Like those Mississippi catfish, the only way to rescue them is to put your hand down their throat, let them bite you, thrash you, and try to break your arm, then yank them out of their hole and into the light. Only there can they even consider anything you have to say. You will bleed, and you might end up with a broken arm. There is no way to rescue a young-earth creationist without being thrashed.
A most interesting analogy; and one I can appreciate as a Missourian. We call it ‘noodling a cat’. 🙂
I hope I didn’t come off too harshly towards the interviewer; I have run into similar roadblocks when talking faith with Protestants. It can be frustrating to give a carefully worded explanation to someone who, in the end, waves it away like a child who won’t be talked into trying a new dish.
Regarding the Vatican comment, it is only somewhat bothersome in that non-Catholics tend to misunderstand more of the Church than they get right. “The Vatican” gives the impression that the Pope makes declarations and proclamations much like an emperor. I think you have it right; it is just a little more nuanced than many think. Instead of only the Bible as authority, we also have the Magisterial Teaching, and Church Tradition in equal measures.
Mr. Mittendorf’s part was well-rehearsed rhetoric. I don’t think he was there to dialogue so much as to dig-in with his position without engaging any of Jimmy’s reasoning.
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
What I really wanted at the end of this was another hour with cross-examination, where each side could ask questions of the other side. Jimmy raised quite a few questions which were very much left unanswered…
Agree! I think Jimmy would have had the upper hand in that cross examination, if not perhaps, the strongest hand,