First, a reminder of my standard disclaimer. The views expressed here do not necessarily express the views of my employer or the publications I help edit.
But I promised this post for Mark, who left a comment addressed to me and Eric over at the Radiolab blog.
Radiolab is the best audio show I have ever heard. Ever. My wife hates audio shows, but she loves Radiolab. I’m a heel for not having made a donation to them yet. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m still highly loyal to Escape Pod and the whole Escape Artist brand.)
Don’t believe me about Radiolab? Go listen to Emergence. Or Laughter. Or Deception. After I heard the episode on Deception, I had to sit in my car in a parking garage and collect myself before I could reenter the world. The show had a profound impact on me.
Radiolab airs on National Public Radio stations, but the Podcast version of Radiolab includes extra bits, like the speech they posted last week called Tell Me a Story. In that extra, Robert Krulwich delivers a fire and brimstone commencement address at CalTech encouraging scientists to fight for their stories. For better or worse, he also uses some pretty incendiary language about Creationists.
So I couldn’t resist. I popped over to the Radiolab site and left this comment:
Inspiring speech. Interesting comments. I noted the antagonism toward creationists, too, especially since I listened to this podcast on the way home from the evangelical retreat center where I work.
But I’m no creationist. I’ve had the pleasure of interacting with folks like John Medina and Francis Collins through our retreat center. Both of them encouraged me to be much more vocal in defending science and evolution. I wouldn’t say I’m at war with creationists, but I’ve stopped sitting quietly when people assume I believe the world is 6000 years old.
I am not often out at the retreat center, so it’s a little misleading to say I “work there,” but I was trying to give a concise comment. As an editor for TheHighCalling.org and FaithInTheWorkplace.com, I defend the vision entrusted to me–without trying to insert my own opinion and philosophy. (Though that happens from time to time because I’m only human.)
At the time I wrote the comment, I thought about linking to my interviews with John Medina and Francis Collins, but I hesitate to link to my own stuff like that.
Still, I was thinking about what John Medina told me 2 years ago:
You see, science is just one way of knowing. It is actually a fairly small sandbox. Every Christian needs to memorize Emmanuel Kant. Over 200 years ago, he said that if something is physical in nature, you may utilize the tools of this great sandbox called natural philosophy—the scientific method.
The instant something is not physical in nature, those tools collapse because you have introduced an uncontrollable variable. Not an uncontrolled variable. An uncontrollable one. That’s key.
And what Francis Collins told me last year:
One of the great tragedies of our current era is that evolution is being portrayed as a threat to God. If science is God’s gift to us, along with the intelligence to explore his world, God could hardly be threatened by what we discover. It’s all his creation. The truth is the truth, and it’s all God’s truth. I reach out as much as I can to my Christian brothers and sisters and try to make a case that this is an unnecessary battle. We can embrace evolution as God’s plan and worship him in the process, without feeling anxious or apologetic.
So here I am posting this unapologetically. If you’re a regular here, it’s probably not much of a surprise. And don’t misunderstand. I’m not picking a fight or looking to have a point by point argument over various readings of Genesis.
What I am doing is trying to find a way to talk about this issue without people yelling and calling names. And inviting Mark and Eric (the commenters from Radiolab) to talk with me here if they want to.
(Mark and Eric, we can also have a private conversation if you like. Just email me at Marcus [at symbol] HighCallingBlogs.com.)
{ 46 comments }
I’m not sure what I believe in this area… I have always wondered, though, if The Big Bang Theory in fact refers to when God created the heavens and the earth. Surely, with all the volcanos and earthquakes and meteor showers God likes a good display show. You’d think that it’d be somewhat of a “let down” to create heavens and earth without some bang and blow em up.
But then again, I am just human, and God could be entirely different than what I imagine.
Gee, what have YOU been doing in the last week? Gotten kind of brave, I’d say. Bravery is good. Chivalrous even.
So, tell us, what kind of conversation are you looking for? If you don’t want to talk about Genesis and stuff like that. Just curious.
Arly, I agree completely that explosions are fun. That alone is a point in the big bang column for me. (I’m sort of kidding there.)
I think you’re onto something important in that last paragraph. I’m all for observing our universe and recording what we observe. I even trust that the people trained to do this are honest people. But every statement of faith should not get too far from the humility that we don’t know anything for sure–whether we’re making a traditionally religious statement or a scientific hypothesis that can then be tested.
L.L., I’m really a coward about these sorts of things most of the time. But I figure it’s time to start talking reasonably–on all sides. I don’t know what we’d talk about other than what we believe and why.
And maybe think through the implications of what we believe.
Maybe this is just a big ol’ jar of meal worm salsa like I ate at the New Orleans Insectarium. Mmmmm. Meal Worm Salsa.
I like to tell atheists I believe in Intelligent design, and fundamentalist Christians that I believe in evolution. I don’t think there’s a conflict. Can you find God in “punctuated equilibrium”? I can.
jp, thanks for raising that issue. For folks new to that concept, I’d have to say wikipedia has a good introduction and overview of punctuated equilibrium. I have to say, I barely understand it.
what about humans? do you believe we evolved from apes?
Monica, I’d have to say that it seems plausible to me.
Does it bother you that humans might have evolved from apes?
I believe in evolution, as a belief, not as a religion. That is where I get worn down with evolutionists.
Separate the worldview of we are going to kill God and crush the Christians and puruse fully objective science in the whole thing and I have no problem. Same goes for Christians who say they will crush the evolutionists with the weight of the bible.
In the words of John Lennon “…cant we all just get along?” there are enough hills for Christians to charge and fight, this is not one of them.
no.
I do feel sad (and a bit shocked) that you think it’s possible. But it’s not a deal breaker for me – I’ll still associate with you. When you meet the Lord, he’ll set you straight. ha ha
Carl, your comment reminds me of another reason to talk about this. Some of my best friends are atheists. They live in communities of atheism almost–and their picture of the evangelical world is skewed by the media. It makes me sad.
Monica, I’m sorry you’re sad too! I guess it is just a sad issue. Why is that? At any rate, I’m sure the Lord will set me straight on a lot of points! And I look forward to it.
Hmm… of course, I’ve been thinking about this a lot because I’ve been putting together a science curriculum for my daughter next year. So it seems as though this one I’ll respond to.
I almost believed in evolution once, then I decided I didn’t really care HOW God made the earth and that I’d leave the question unanswered for now.
And, yet, it seems to me that both sides say they have “real” science completely on their side. (Reading books on the subject is fascinating, no matter who is talking.) To which I say… “Hmm… I think I’m going to go out and dig up fossils and find out what THEY say!” *sigh* If only we could all just find out for ourselves,… but most of us are left trusting people who may be carried away with their own ideas. And so… I lean toward six day creation because I know God CAN, and it seems more powerful to me that He could do it that way.
Agreeing with Monica’s last sentence, I’m sure He’ll set us ALL straight when we see Him face to face. It’s pretty clear that how He made the world will be the least of our concerns, actually.
Karen, thanks for weighing in. There’s no doubt in my mind that God could have created the world in six days if he’d wanted to.
And I think it’s great that you’re reading what folks say about it all! Be sure to read Francis Collins’ book The Language of God if you haven’t already.
I also agree that how God made the world shouldn’t be a concern. So why was I so scared to post this?
I don’t know if the world was created in 6 days or not. I don’t know if it was created aged or new. I don’t know how old the earth is.
Will you still be my friend?
That’s not the point of the creation story. The creation story emphasizes, over against other Ugaritic myths, that God is sovereign and that man, rather than being some accident, is pre-eminent in creation.
That being said, I don’t believe in evolution, not because of my oh-so-knowledgeable scientific expertise, but because evolution means that death came before the fall, and I don’t believe death to be natural. It’s unnatural. It’s part of the fall, and I believe Christ’s victory in his resurrection (and our hope of our future resurrection) defeats the fall and death.
Now that being said, I do believe that creationists and evolutionists alike have a hard time being unbiased about the whole thing–and should we? Aren’t we by nature biased toward something or other? Isn’t it impossible to be purely objective about anything? Don’t we come to everything with the presuppositions of our worldviews? As C.S. Lewis said, there’s enough science in the world to prove anything (in The Discarded Image). I have many friends who are both, and I imagine it will always be that way until the day that it no longer matters.
So that’s my two cents. I hope I didn’t get too “Genesis-y” on you!
Marcus, I love the questions you are asking. Like why it bothers us about the apes. Or why this is such a sad issue.
I think it’s hard to consider having come down from such unattractive creatures. : ) Also, it does raise that whole sticky question about what was meant by Adam and Eve being personally created by God. (Sorry, I think you didn’t particularly want to talk about Genesis. But that’s where the story is. : )
Well, being a middle born, I don’t like conflict. When we don’t all agree, and it’s controversial, I get a little nervous. I like The Family to be in harmony.
And you were scared because you know there are Christians out there who would call you crazy for even suggesting evolution is truth. They might even say you weren’t a Christian.
Welcome back, Marcus. And way to re-enter the blog world.
I think I’ve been riding the fence on this one for a while now. A few members of my family loved the Creation Museum and the movie, Expelled, but I feel so ignorant about any position that I hesitate to even ask what they liked about these.
I am, however, quite comfortable accepting whatever God did (unless I came from custard, which makes me gag). Six or six million, or maybe even something so radical that Moses couldn’t bear to repeat, I trust that God could do it, and I’ll revere Him all the same.
I’m probably going to win the wingnut of the century award with these comments, but since Marcus was so brave, I’ll take the bait.
Perhaps it’s deciding not to decide, but I like the idea of God as the Big Bang. Like The Big Bopper of Evolution. Really, though, wouldn’t “someone/thing” have to set up the bang to begin with?
I’m always amused by the evolving from apes (there are days, especially after reading the news, if I don’t wonder if it’s the reverse). Nothing to do with its truth. I just wonder why there are still apes.
Wow, Marcus, you know how to make an entrance!
What I find most confusing is that when people refer to “evolution” theory and “creation” theory and whether they believe in it or not, I find that they are using the same words to talk about very different concepts, and usually it seems they are only referring to part of the overall concept. What would be most beneficial to me in these types of conversations is for people to explain what they really mean rather than just using the general terms that carry so much meaning and controversy inherently in themselves now.
Have you ever seen Rob Bell’s Everything is Spiritual video? In it he talks about 2-Dimensional world (which he called Flatland) and how the people who live in 2-Dimensional world can only see things in 2 dimensions, and so their entire world view – even vocabulary – is set within the context of the limit of their universe – two dimensions. He held up a marker and said if I show someone in Flatland the marker this way (showing the marker to the audience from the side), what would they see? A rectangle. If I showed it to them this way (showing the marker from the end) what do they see? A circle. And to the people in Flatland, they cannot describe it otherwise and they cannot see it otherwise. But in reality, the marker is both . . . even more. So if we live in our world (how many dimensions have we discovered now?) and God lives outside our world in a place with dimensions we don’t even understand, can’t we then assume that some things are beyond the limit of our language, our understanding?
I sort of feel that way about the way science and religion like to explain the way the world began and how it works.
Oh, man! Sorry. That ended up being a longer comment than I expected.
I just know I’m about to get into a multi-paragraph fugue about this, but here goes nothing.
I think it’s troublesome that so many people of faith find it difficult, if not impossible to reconcile the observable universe with scripture. As one of little faith myself, I guess I don’t really identify with the mindset that opts to ignore evidence that runs counter to orthodoxy. I understand the impulse if one ascribes to a particularly stark fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, but despite being one of little faith, it has major flaws in my eyes.
It takes away the power of the myth of the creation story. The story of the Garden of Eden, Adam, Eve, temptation, etc are all more powerful to me as metaphor describing the limits of humanity, that what separates us from god is wanting. Holding firm to the belief that it is a journalistic, observed account of the beginning of life is at once juvenile and simplistic as it is debasing, and robs a potentially profound story of its message.
In a way, creationism pigeonholes god into something that it’s not, which is limited — to a tidy, easy-to-digest temporal narrative in which the world is created in a single week. Nothing about life, god, or humanity is illuminated in this story. All it says is “God is magic!” which, you know, is just so damn spiritually unfulfilling and a large part of the reason why I left the church and joined those crazy Unitarians.
I should be more clear, there are more interpretations of the Adam and Eve myth that are great/important, too. I just find the literal interpretation to be factually and poetically lacking.
Anyway I’m fine with creationists so long as they stick to releasing ridiculous children’s literature that I can appreciate on ironic levels (nota bene: I was given such a book as a gift which provided 32-illustrated pages of giggles). They’re on the losing end of history and it’s just a matter of time before they’re cast in with the flat-earthers of centuries past.
Marcus,
Good post and interesting thread.
I think evolutionists would say we didn’t come strictly speaking from apes, but that apes and us came from the same ancestor.
I agree with the basics of what you say, though I am not sure I embrace it for myself, nor do I care much. I think it’s a tragedy that young people lose their faith at the university, when they’re taught a view which shatters what they were taught about creation from Genesis. As if the Bible stands or falls on such a view. Completely absurd I’m sad to say, I think!
I don’t care how God created all things. I believe the Bible is true, and what we can learn from science is true as well. I say go ahead and put some weight on science, but let’s remember too, that science itself is ever evolving as to its theories from its continued endeavor.
Just my two cents on this, where I’m at now.
I am extremely impressed with this conversation. It feels like a REAL conversation, rather than a mean tennis match. (And you thought you were no longer a teacher. The best teachers facilitate life-important discussions, with honesty, compassion, and openness.)
Heather, I had not heard that argument before about evolution requiring death before the fall. So you think the fall led to physical death specifically? You weren’t too Genesis-y. It’s a good book and always worth thinking about.
LL, about the apes. I’ve been thinking about it, and I wonder if our vision of the Imago Dei isn’t troubled by the thought of us being genetically connected to apes.
Monica, I’m middle born too! Yea! Go us. You are absolutely right about my fear. I hope you don’t think I’m crazy. I’m not. But neither are you.
Sam Van Eman, you make me laugh. I wasn’t thinking of this as an entrance, but I guess it was. You raise an important issue (as did Tina) in thinking about Moses’ role (or a similar person) in the authorship of Genesis. Given what others were saying at the time, Genesis was ground breaking in its picture of God and creation. So why do we get stuck on 6 days?
Christa, technically evolution isn’t about us evolving from apes at all, I think. At best, humans and primates have a common ancestor. Still I was very surprised to see the discussion go there so quickly.
spaghettipie, the word theory is tricky. What scientists mean by theory is quite different than what the word means in common usage. It has to do with peer review and something worthy of building a hypothesis on.
I’m with you 100% on the dimensions argument. I highly recommend people try to read Brian Greene’s Fabric of the Cosmos. Or else watch the PBS video series on The Elegant Universe. (Or read it.)
Creation theory is a funny phrase. For me, its like we’re taking apples from one basket of knowing and oranges from another basket of knowing and arguing over whether all fruit is apples or oranges. Maybe that makes no sense.
mch3snut, it’s always good to hear from you here. You’re as spunky as ever! I think you’re onto something when you reduce the problem to this: We’re in danger of robbing a potentially profound story of its message.
Of course, that’s been the problem for awhile. We can’t agree on the details of that message–and we assume our disagreements are incompatible. Some are, naturally. But others maybe not.
Ted, thanks for making that point. I should have discussed that earlier, but I hadn’t gotten around to it until this comment. I wanted to see where it led. Again, I was very surprised to hear that come up.
And I like what you say that science itself is ever evolving. That’s what peer review is all about.
B. Currant, thanks!
Everyone, feel free to keep commenting. I’ll pop in and out, without addressing each commenter from this point on.
I think the fall led to all types of death–physical, emotional, relational, etc. Death is contrary to creation and re-creation and redemption and everything that God is up to. That’s why we have a “second life,” as my niece calls it–the resurrection of the earth where there will be no more tears, death, pain, etc. Everything’s restored to how God intended it to be. Jesus’ resurrection on the cross was not a onetime event. He’s the firstfruit, and we will follow him physically in that resurrection.
Saying that doesn’t mean that I take the Genesis account to be intended as scientific. I believe it’s intended as the beginning of the story, as great myths and stories and legends, etc. And, like any good story, the end recapitulates the beginning in some way. In the last chapters of Revelation, we see re-creation and even a forward progress from Genesis, although based on Genesis, if that makes any sense. So, yes, I believe theology and literary-ness to be intertwined here. God’s the master story teller. But I don’t believe death, any type including physical, to be a part of his plan. In fact, it really irritates me when people call death a natural part of life. No, actually, it’s not. It was never meant to be. It came as an effect of sin. All creation groans from this death-ness and destruction.
Sorry. There I go again.
A book, The Science of God, does an interesting job of reconciling faith and science. The very short version…at some point God takes the evolving “ape-man” and gives him a soul. This would be Adam. OK, this is SO reductive to the entire book, but read it, and at least be open to the fact that God is intelligent and has a hand in things of this world. The coolest thing about the book is the idea of the expanding universe and time, as associated with the various ages. Time (as Einstein proved) is malleable, and it stretches out according to his very famous formula. E=(delta)mc(squared)
Marcus, I think your comment on the word “theory” expresses my point exactly. You honed in on the implications of using that word, when I was trying to highlight the fact that we all bring different definitions to these same words (evolution, creation, Darwinism, theory . . .) to the table and that makes the conversation confusing.
Interesting, Heather. The questions I come up with in relation to those concepts are, “How bad, then, was the fall? What was so terrible about God’s curse? Was it physical, or purely spiritual? In truth, if death and destruction and survival against overwhelming odds was the norm, then how is that any better than what we have now? What, exactly, are we rescued/redeemed from? Will there be death when the earth is made clean again? If we’re in better physical shape now than we were at our creation, then has the curse really harmed us?”
It’s not as though I haven’t come to my own answers in regards to this. As I said, I lean toward six days, myself… even as I admit I really can’t define what God did or how He did it. I don’t know enough. It seems to me that we’re worse off physically, spiritually, and mentally than we were in this perfect beginning of humanity. In any case, these are questions we have to process, at least a little, because they affect how we see God, and what we think He calls good.
I guess I too have a hint of sadness when I see doubt creep in to our dialogue. If God is who he says He is (powerful, creative, in control), then why is Creation not something he can do? And the ’science’ is far from conclusive.
To believe in anything but Creation, is to tell God that he’s just not able, and maybe, as J.B. Phillips put it, “Your God is too small.”
If you don’t believe in creation, then just for a minute, think about this: “Where does space end” and then “When did time begin and when does it end.” If you’re honest, those three questions will short-circuit your brain, unless God enters the conversation. Then it becomes totally rational.
I never want to limit what God can do based on my logic, my intelligence or my research. that’s the power of the unchained life!
David
http://www.redletterbelievers.blogspot.com
Marcus,
I’m with you here depite the risk where I worship.
I put it this way to describe the relationship.
What if God is the painter? Evolution God’s paintbrush and all God’s creation his painting?
-Sam
Marcus, you said to Heather that you hadn’t heard about the argument of “death not coming before the fall.”
The fall of Adam brought death, not just to man, but to all of creation. Romans 8 says that Creation groans and “eagerly awaits the revelation of God’s children.”
Before the fall, Adam and Eve would have lived forever. They were vegetarians! That’s why Christ, as Heather states, came. He came to take us away from the penalty, from the stench of death. Thats why in eternity, there will be no more death — it will be Eden again.
Morphing evolution with creationism is tough to do — not just explaining away Genesis — but figuring out what do with Jesus’ sacrifice. Without the resurrection…and our resurrection into new life, it would have been in vain. And if it was in vain, then what in the world are we doing with this crazy faith?
David, I thought it was interesting that you mentioned they were vegetarians (kind of a nice tangent). I’m busy getting a little flack for an article over at Today’s Christian Woman, because I mentioned that Adam and Eve had a vegetable-based diet.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/2008/julaug/6.46.html
I will happily eat my steak, one of the ‘benefits’ of my fallen condition!
I’m with you on that, David. Sorry L.L. I just love meat too much to be a vegetarian. Mmmm. Sausage.
To my credit I really like fruits, vegetables, grains, and dairy products too.
Basically, I just like food. Food that moos as well as food that makes amber waves across our Great American plains.
Karen–that’s exactly what I’m getting at. Christianity too often looks more Platonic–focusing on the spiritual to the neglect of the physical. When God, no matter how He created it exactly, declared the world (and everything in it) good, that meant in every way possible–spiritual and physical. The fall is an active destruction against that, and the second Adam (Christ) is an active redemption against that. So at the resurrection, when we are all physically raised (like Jesus–see 1 Corinthians 15 re: the true nature of our hope), it will be to a physical eternal life. No death in any form.
I do want to reiterate, though, that I don’t believe the Genesis account is concerned as much with the how as with the fact that God is Creator (and Sustainer) of all Life, and because of that He’s sovereign over it, and that man is pre-eminent in creation (which also gives us the responsibility of caring for creation).
A couple of things that strike me about evolutionists and creationists:
–Evolution arose because of questions in the Modern period (I believe that the philosophy of a culture precedes the science of it–c.f. C.S. Lewis’ The Discarded Image)
–Creationists claim that God created the world and that man was placed here by God, yet we’re often at fault for irresponsibility of earth’s resources. Evolutionists claim that we evolved through survival of the fittest–which I’d then assume gives us the right to use the resources as we feel like because, after all, we fought to get here, we’re the fittest and we’re surviving–yet they’re often the “liberals” (notice my use of quotes, please) that fight for the environment.
Of course, nothings that simple, and I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek using sweeping generalizations.
Dear David:
By the same token, I’ll use your words here, “If God is who he says He is (powerful, creative, in control), then why…” can’t he allow things to evolve and be the Agent of that change. You have to allow for that, no?
Just checking.
The interesting aspects of Genesis are all in metaphor and interpretation. The major problem with taking literally the six-day creation with pre-existing species is the fact that it conflicts so strongly with the evidence of ancient universe and long evolutionary history that is around us and within us. Taking the literal route makes God into a deceiver.
For clarification on one point: we humans are in fact primates, and under reasonable biological schemes, we’re apes.
It’s fascinating to consider the point where the humans species became self-aware, for there is a true miracle. That is a point where I see the divine. And it would likely be a very few, maybe brothers and sisters in a bright family, that cooked up speech and story-telling and songs.
There is Adam – surrounded by those who are not quite aware yet, who will carry the species forward with his slightly less capable cousins, and bring it to the full light of humanity. Ready to eat from the tree of knowledge, with fruit both good and evil.
I like meat too. : ) Makes it an extra challenge to be a vegetarian. And, yes, Marcus… sausage is one of my favorite things.
Joffan, great point that we ARE primates. And the issue of self-awareness is interesting. I’ve read popular science pieces (in MIT’s Tech Review, I think) summarizing research about this. Turns our that chimps and other primates have a surprisingly high level of self-awareness.
Put them to sleep, draw on their forehead with a marker, then show them a mirror and they will try to rub the mark from their head. They know the chimp in the mirror as themselves. Self-awareness.
Dolphins have it too, I’ve heard. I’m guessing there are levels of self-awareness, but still. We’re hardly the only species that has it.
All of this should end with the caveat that I’m no scientist.
And another caveat for L.L. When I say I love sausage, I really mean it. I’ve been known to drive two hours for good sausage.
And think about this. If “survival of the fittest” is the law of nature, what’s next for the human race? What will we evolve into?
Maybe a friendly version of the liquid metal guy from Terminator II. How cool would THAT be?
What’s next for the human race – if we survive the next fifty years, say – might be more and more in our own hands. We’ve already taken on huge parts of it by enabling the survival of children that would “naturally” have died, and expanding the world’s population far beyond any “natural” limits (although hopefully we’ve seen the last doubling). “What’s next” is a big question, with no fixed answer.
On self-awareness – perhaps that was the wrong term, and I’m sure you’re right Marcus that it is not an “on-off” phenomenon. But still I think there must have been a qualitative shift sometime.
I must run in different circles because this issue hasn’t been on my radar in a long time. I think it is good to distinguish between evolution, the current best scientific theory about how things came to be, and natural selection, which is an ongoing process which, while it can’t be proven the way you can prove the rate a ball drops, does seem to be apparent since we see it happening all around us. That’s how we’ve gotten antibiotic resistant bacteria.
What’s often not said is that evolution offers NO explanation of how life began. None. And while some evolutionists claim the process is random, that’s really not important either. The truth is, natural selection, while brutal, seems to be God’s way. As such, speaking against it is like speaking against a mountain. It just is. And because it is, it is true. And if it is true and we believe in God, then it is God’s truth.
And if natural selection is happening (and it is) then evolution is simply a larger version of that happening on a grand scale. I think it is beautiful in a hard way, like the way galaxies are born and the way stars die. All things have their time. All things are born in His love but also born to struggle in this life. It all seems to make sense to me.
RLP, thanks for that.
Survival of the fittest may be the law of nature, but it’s not the law of God. You CAN have both, no? The law of the flesh, and the law of the Spirit.
Comments on this entry are closed.