As a tsunami of apostasy—pushed along by 1 Peter 4:17 judgments—heads toward the church visible the online apologetics and discernment work Apprising Ministries has been documenting the growing falling away of the mainstream evangelical community.

Not a few of these judgments have, and will still, come through evanjellyfish’s foolish embrace of the sinfully ecumenical neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church aka the Emerging Church. Being that the EC is simply another extention of the Druckerite selling of the church through Leadership Network this really doesn’t come as much of a shock.

For such as these, extending as they do from the man-centered Church Growth Movement, “church” is the product and the Emerging Church is the “store” for the postmodern set, whereas the Purpose Driven/Seeker Driven version of evangelicalism is the outlet selling good ol’ American business savvy.

With this in mind, let me bring to your attention a new series on the search for the historical Adam from Christianity Today: A Magazine Of Evangelical Conviction; perhaps a magazine that would have trouble being convicted of being evangelical might be more accurate:

(Online source)

In his Adam, Where Are You? Ted Olsen, managing editor for news and online journalism, tells us that, “It’s time for a difficult, grace-filled family meeting” and then shares CT’s reasoning for it:

The recent reshaping of the creation-evolution debate is causing similar discomfort for those of us who emphasize the authority and infallibility of Scripture. Scientists in genomic demography and other fields—as well as their Christian popularizers in groups like the BioLogos Foundation—are essentially sitting us down to have “the talk”: Adam, the man you’ve called your father all these years, isn’t who you think he is, they explain.

Few debates in our world have been as impassioned and emotional as those over creation. But now we’re not just talking about dating rocks and interpreting fossils. We’re talking about family. (Online source)

You may already know from AM articles like Doug Pagitt Points Us To Michael Dowd and Michael Dowd & Spencer Burke—Integrity And Evolutionary Christianity (Part 2) that the Heretics-Я-Us wing of the Emerging Church already embrace evolution as part of their new postmodern form of “big tent” Progressive Christianity; a Liberalism 2.0—sometimes referred to by these rebels against the final authority of God’s Word as Emergence Christianity.

More on that later; but for now, Olsen continues:

That is one of the reasons we’re covering the discussion [concerning the historical Adam] multiple times in this issue. First, we wanted our cover story to be the most straightforward, non-partisan report on the de-bate possible. Richard Ostling was our immediate pick. Christianity Today’s news editor in the 1960s, Ostling went on to spend nearly three decades with Time magazine and another with the Associated Press.

He is universally acclaimed as one of the top religion journalists of our age. We were thrilled when he said yes. We are a magazine that prides itself on such trustworthy, balanced reporting… (Online source)

Leaving that aside so as to resist wrestling with the serpent, Olsen admits that CT “readers want to know where we stand as a magazine” so he refers us to their “editorial on page 61.” Olsen then informs us:

As you’ll see in the editorial, we find the discussion about the historicity of Adam difficult and, yes, a little painful. But we are also glad to see it happening: We welcome the opportunity to once again ask with wonder, “Where do I come from? Who am I?”—perhaps chiefly because it reminds us of the answer: We have been adopted by a loving Father. (Online source)

Apparently CT stands squarely on the fence, which should surpise no one familiar with this magazine; however, I think the readers would want to know where CT stands concerning Adam himself, no. Well, we do get a bit of a clue in the following; and particularly in the smarmy video below:

Hebrew thought offers one clue to resolving this tension: the corporate nature of humanity. Scripture often calls groups of people by the name of their historical head. Israel is an obvious example. So are Canaan and Cush.

At times, Scripture also holds groups of people morally responsible for the actions of some of their members.

Thus, some have suggested—as does John Collins in Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Crossway, 2011)—that if both biblical and scientific clues suggest a larger population contemporary with Adam and Eve (Whom did Cain marry? Whom did God protect him from?), we can still conceive of Adam and Eve as leaders of that original population. That suggestion has the virtue of embracing both a prehistoric couple and a prehistoric population. (Online source)

Hey, will you look at that; a cozy comfy middle-of-the-road position that’s sure to please both the world and the visible church. Who’d-a thought CT could come up with one. Answer: Anyone familiar with Christianity Astray.

Over at Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell now sums up this CT series:

we are being put on notice that the science is demanding a paradigm shift in our understanding of God’s Word. We’d better have a look at the assumptions underlying that bold conclusion.

Search the Christianity Today article much as you will, it never explains how the conclusion that there had to be 10,000 original people was reached. Oddly enough, neither does the BioLogos website. The latter does tell where to find the information. According to a footnote in one of its articles, “The genetic evidence [of a population of several thousand people from whom all humans have descended, not just two] is explained in: Francis Collins, “Deciphering God’s Instruction Book: The Lessons of the Human Genome,” in The Language of God (New York, NY: Free Press, 2006).”

So what evidence for this starter population does Dr. Collins provide in his book? None…the “troublesome” science we are told to accept over a natural reading of Scripture claims only to prove what it assumed to be true in the first place… [CT] insists o[n] finding a middle ground, not even acknowledging the fact that false assumptions could undermine the reliability of the science. Bottom line: the science cannot possibly be wrong, so we must re-interpret the Bible. (Online source)

As a pastor-teacher I tell you in the Lord that our safest course is always found in an old adage, which I have taken the opportunity to correct here: God said it; that settles it, and so I believe it.

See also: