SCIENCE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE is the title of an article in The Reformed Journal for November, 1982, by Richard H. Buhe. He points out that “pseudoscience is counterfeit science,” that sounds like true science, but lacks the integrity of authentic science. He shows that it often has a great appeal to Christians when it claims to provide scientific evidence for Christian positions. An example was the story current a few years ago that a computer expert in the space program had discovered “missing time,” which was just equal to the long day of Joshua and the reversal of time on the sundial of Hezekiah. In reaction to unacceptable conclusions of some scientists believers are apt to reject all science as evil. We need to remember that the careful attempt to understand God’s revelation in nature is part of our Christian duty, “Popular criticisms of science must not lead us into the camp of pseudoscience.” That is a warning that we need, even while we must be critical of methods and conclusions that do not take account of the fundamental truths of Scripture.
THE READER’S DIGEST BIBLE is reviewed by Dr. Carl F.H. Henry in Christian Herald for December, 1982. In addition to several objections to the manner in which Bible material is condensed, and certain important sections omitted, he calls attention to the fact that the editors’ book–by-book introductions present higher critical theories about the authorship of several books. He also calls attention to the statement that while the Bible is for the readers’ “inspiration,” it is viewed as “an unsurpassed collection of marvelous and stirring events linked to the divine will or purpose, compelling tales of men and women caught up in a courageous effort to live good and godly lives.” Such an approach brings into doubt the true inspiration of Scripture and its character as a revelation of divine saving grace rather than of human endeavor. These introductions are in effect commentary on Scripture that can be very misleading for the unwary.
CANTON (CHINA), LAST HOUSE CHURCH CLOSED. Evangelical Newsletter for January 7, 1983, tells us that the last and largest house church in Canton, a large city in the south of China, has been ordered to close and the members ordered to join the three churches recognized by the government. Services and Bible studies may no longer be held Pastor Lam Hin-Ko was told December 2. Members have refused to join the Three-Self Patriotic Movement churches, claiming tha t TSPM has imposed unbiblical restrictions. In this connection, there is an interesting article in Eternity (12/82) which is an inter view with a young Chinese Christian. He describes house churches and restrictions placed on Christians. He does not think that the church is facing persecution today, but they must operate under government set limits. He says the future for Christianity in China will depend (humanly speaking) on whether the right, middle, or left wing factions succeed in gaining control of the government. He considers the present government right-wing.
A CONTROVERSIAL BAPTISM in De Wachter (8/31/82) the Editor quotes an article by Dr. K. Runia in Centraal Weekblad in which he discusses the questions raised by a request for the baptism of twins which came to the consistory of t he Gereformeerde Kerk in Rotterdam. This request was made by two lesbian women, members in good standing and active in the above congregation. One of the women had been art ificially inseminated by sperm from a donor bank and gave birth to twins. Both women request baptism because they will assume joint responsibility for raising the children. After some deliberation the consistory granted the request on the ground that baptism is the right of all children of the covenant who are born and raised within the communion of faith. The classis supported this decision. Runia points out that two basic questions arise: first, that of the artificial insemination; is this ethically justified? Second, the homosexual relationship of the mother and “parents.” According to the decision of the Synod of 1979 and 1980 (GKN) such people cannot be denied good standing and use of the sacraments, but Runia points out that the Synod has yet to make a judgment on homosexuality in terms of the teachings of Scripture. Runia feels that the consistory and classis had done well to await the report and action on this matter by the Synod this year before taking such a controversial decision and action. In the light of such events we can understand Rev. Haverkamp’s reaction when he asks: “Is there still any point in discussion with them (GKN) when the circumstances have become so shocking?”
(See letter on MERELY A QUESTION OF ETHICS in Nov. 1982, OUTLOOK –Editor)