At the trial of stand before the Diet in the City of Worms, Johann von Eck, the Presiding Officer, asked Luther if he would withdraw the books he had written or at least the parts which offended against the teachings of the Church. After a night of prayer Luther made his famous response ending to the effect:

Unless I am convinced by tes­timonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments that I am in error ­for popes and councils have often erred and contradicted themselves – I cannot withdraw, for I am sub­ject to the Scriptures I have quoted; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one's conscience. Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise. So help me God.

Giving God's Word to the People⤒🔗

When Luther was banned, he went into hiding for a year in the Wartburg Castle, where the first task to which he dedicated himself was the translation of the Scriptures into the language of his theologians, handing over God's written Word to the people for whom it was intended and to whom it belonged. Calvin too on the run in Basel (before he came to Geneva) helped Peter Robert translate the Bible into French. John Wycliffe, a pre-Reformer of the 14th century in England, had translated the Bible into English and organized his followers to travel the country reading it to the people who could not afford a copy nor read for themselves. So too Wil­liam Tyndale between 1524 and 1525 translated the New Testament from the Greek to an English version "that even a ploughboy could understand." It was published in Germany and copies had to be smuggled back to England. The Reformers burned with the zeal to arm God's people with God's written word. Tyndale also burned at the stake for his efforts.

Returning it to the Experts?←⤒🔗

So much we know. But what of our generation? Will future Christian historians view our age as the one in which the people gave their Bibles back to the theologians, back to the ex­perts? We still have our Bibles on the bookshelf and next to our beds, but have we retreated to the days when it had to be interpreted for us by the ex­perts? Have we returned to human mediators?

Prior to the Reformation people had little or no access to the Bible and even with access, language and Church doctrine hid its truth. Luther and Tyndale alike were appalled by the deep ignorance of the Scriptures even among the clergy. It had not al­ways been so. The Israelites were com­manded to dwell on the Words of the Law day and night and teach them diligently to their children. King Jehoshaphat when "his heart was devoted to the ways of the Lord" sent his officials and Levites throughout all Judah carrying copies of the Scrip­tures to open it to the people (2 Chron 17). Upon the return from exile under Ezra and Nehemiah, the people insisted that the Book of the Law be brought out to them. Ezra complied and it was read to a huge assembly of men, women and children, possibly with simultaneous translation into Aramaic which would have been the only language of some there (Nehemiah 8). Remember also the commendable spirit of the Bereans who "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17).

And what of us today – even we of the Churches of the Reformation – do we allow experts to determine what we should believe from the Bible, which parts are reliable, which parts are in error, which parts being pre-­scientific must be discounted, which must be allegorical because they don't fit with the teachings of science?

How Did it Happen?←⤒🔗

How has it come to this? Ours is the age of experts. Society is dissected into myriad areas of study each ruled over by its own priesthood of the in­itiated. Day in and out we are patronized by the opinions of those who know and presume we are incom­petent to form a reasonable opinion of our own – of the medical practitioner, the psychiatrist, the electrician, the car mechanic, the economist, the theologian.

I have a suspicion too that the Reformed Churches of Dutch heritage have been softened to this gradual betrayal of true Biblical refor­mation by the concept of "sphere sovereignty." According to this prin­ciple, different callings under God are regarded as "spheres" over which those with that vocation are sovereign under God. The practical outworking of this is that we are discouraged from challenging the specialised knowledge of the teacher or economist, since these are their spheres, not ours; and they, not we, must answer to God for them. This may well be a misunderstanding, or at least a naive simplification, of the original concept of sphere sovereignty, but it is never­theless a widespread perception. Thus we are prepared to surrender to the tyranny of the experts.

Facing Our Own Responsibility←⤒🔗

From experts come both the best and the worst. The great exegetical works and the basest heresies come from the theologians. The keenest political insights and the most tragic injustices come alike from the economists. But we are charged with acting responsibly before God in all things. We cannot claim the false ad­vice of experts as an excuse before the Throne for our own faithless and foolish decisions. The people of the Kingdom are both charged and equipped to test and approve in all matters. "To the Jews who had believed in him, Jesus said, 'If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free'" (John 8:31-32). Consider also 1 John 2:20, 27. That whole section is a warn­ing and comfort concerning the false teachings. The apostle uses the word "know" many times. We can know we are true disciples when we find a desire and capacity to live lives obedient to God's ways/command­ments (v. 3-6). These are those who "know Him/the Father" (v. 13-4). In the face of antichrists and their false teaching (particularly concerning the person of Jesus) John reminds the believers that their anointing from the Holy One equips them "to know all things" (v.20). This reading of verse 20 (RV, KJV) seems preferable to me rather than "you all know" (as in NIV and NASB) because it matches the un­ambiguous sense of v.27 "...the anoint­ing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things ... remain in him." It is clear that true knowledge is not the domain of some inner circle or elite. This passage must at least refer to the sphere of knowledge of God – and, arguably, could be understood more generally. It is accessible to all God's children as a consequence of the Spirit of God dwelling in them. Jesus had promised that when the Spirit of Truth came he would lead his disciples into all truth (John 17:17). And He does. John does not despise teachers. He himself is a Teacher. But the crucial point is that we are not de­pendent upon teachers. Our fate, our access to truth, our capacity to make godly decisions in any matter, are not determined by the teachers/experts around us.

Believers Anointed for Office←⤒🔗

We are all laymen and all experts. All of us are "experts" in some field or other. And even the most esteemed particle physicist is a novice at golf, and stamp collecting. Consider your area of expertise. Sober reflection should persuade you of its thin veneer. It is the same with all experts. Some­times that veneer is no more than a specialized set of words whose chief purpose is to hide meaning from the uninitiated! Sometimes it is a shell of learning after 3 or 6 years at university or 15 years on the job. But still it is a gross distortion to pretend that the es­sential concepts cannot be communi­cated to the layperson. I am firmly persuaded that someone who really understands his or her field should be able to explain it to the uninitiated. If they cannot it is probably because they do not in fact have a grasp of their own areas of expertise. Often we are not inclined to explain because we get a buzz from being in the inner circle. Just like the gnostics of Biblical times, we enjoy being distinguished by our hard-come-by knowledge. The tyranny of experts is the technocratic version of gnosticism.

Do not despise experts. But con­sider their views soberly and with a full sense of your own accountability. I am not suggesting that qualifications should not be sought nor that they should be ignored. It makes good sense if you are ill to pay particular at­tention to the advice of your doctor rather than the TV repairman. Copy the golf swing of Greg Norman, not George Bush. But our attention to qualified advice must never be un­qualified! If your G.P. advises abor­tion, ignore her. If your dentist advises root therapy for your two-year old, seek a second opinion.

In precisely the same way let us cease bowing down to the technocrats of the Church – the theologians. Take back your Bible from the Profes­sors and check to see that it is all still there. It is God's only written com­munication to you as well as to them.

The Evolutionist Twist←⤒🔗

A new form of this syndrome is emerging in the Christian colleges and schools of the Western World. Some teachers of biology and geology have swayed to the tide of secular opinion in their fields concerning evolution as an acceptable theory of origins. The pressure to do this comes from the very real threat of being excluded from the inner circle of the priests of their sciences (and mine). Their stu­dents and the churches in general must decide whether to capitulate to that view. My choices of words reveal my own position.

The dominating and powerful posi­tion of evolution as a theory of origins arises not from any compelling evidence in its favour, but rather from the necessity of such a process in the minds of those for whom a God-ex­planation is out of the question. Its veracity is presumed rather than estab­lished. The alert reader can see this frequently in the writings of evolutionists. My own field of study is genetics. At various levels, homologies (i.e. similarities) are observable be­tween different types of organisms. They can be seen at the level of body structure – limbs and digits, leaves and roots. They can be seen at the level of cellular structure – nucleus and mitochondria, membranes and ribosomes. They can be seen at the level of biochemical processes – ener­gy metabolism and polymer synthesis. They can also be seen at the level of the information-carrying molecules ­the nucleotide sequence of nucleic acids (genes and their messages), and the amino acid sequences of proteins. These similarities between organisms suggest common biological origin to the evolutionist, but common design features to the creationist.

Missing Links←⤒🔗

The origin of the first living cell con­tinues to be one of the thorniest problems for the evolutionist. The complexity and organized information content of even the simplest bacterial cell is utterly staggering. Molecular biology (my own field) has failed to reveal a continuity and multitude of steps which must be presumed to have occurred in the evolution of the cell from non-living matter. Instead the enormous gap between life and non­life has only been expanded. Some biochemists have so caved into the in­creasingly apparent impossibility of life arising spontaneously that they now speak of life not having evolved on earth but having landed here from space. Respected scientists have retreated to this postponing of the problem. A non-Christian biochemist has recently written that the origin of the cell from non-living matter must now be considered "beyond the reach of chance." The popular science press, of course, continues to put on a brave face and insist that scientific dis­coveries are continuing to confirm the certainty of evolution.

Fossils←⤒🔗

Fossils are often thrust at the layper­son as the irrefutable proof of evolu­tion. The fact is that the experts all know that the fossil record is no such thing. It is in reality an embarrassment to evolution. The fossil story consis­tently and persistently tells of a lack of change – organismal stasis is the tech­nical term. So dramatic is the disap­pointment, that new theories are being proposed and widely heeded to try to achieve some conformity to the fossil record. These theories claim that new types of organisms arise suddenly, not by gradual change. This is still called evolution but it is such a dramatic departure that it is a misnomer. No mechanism has been proposed which is even vaguely satisfying, to drive this evolution by jumps. One Darwinian evolutionist called this "evolution by jerks," and the double entendre was intended!

Twentieth Century Myth←⤒🔗

Michael Denton, a non-Christian and anti-Creationist molecular biologist, has written a book called Evolution – Theory in Crisis (Adler and Adler, Bethesda Maryland, 1986, ISBN 0-917561-05-8). This is a remarkable and painstaking analysis of the claims and evidence for evolu­tion. He looks at everything from fos­sils to biochemistry and genetics to cladistics. Again and again, he con­cludes that the evidence is glaringly in­consistent with evolution.

He writes:

The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth cen­tury scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists (p306). And again: 'Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cos­mogenic myth of the twentieth cen­tury.'p.358

I have not made any reference to the work of the Creation Science movement. That is despite my admira­tion and thankfulness for their faithful­ness. The case against evolution can be made by quoting non-creationists alone.

What a tragedy that Christians are increasingly capitulating to evolution. Christians are climbing on board just when the holes in the ship are becom­ing so apparent that the non-Christian rats are beginning to find enterprising ways of scurrying overboard! The process of abandoning ship will still take some time, because suitable theories requiring no creator must be formulated. Michael Denton is entire­ly empty-handed in this regard. I shiver at the pathetic vision of the church chanting "theistic evolution" when the world is already singing a dif­ferent tune. We must not allow our resident experts to take us down this path of dishonour. It has been true all along that evolution is inconsistent with a sensible reading of Scripture on Creation. It has been true all along that evolution is inconsistent with the gospel itself. This is no peripheral issue. Think again what you must do to the way you read your Bible in order to accept evolution. You are ac­countable before God for your posi­tion. You can not blame the Professor or theologian. What on earth were we contemplating!

Obeying God's Word and Spirit←⤒🔗

God grant us a new generation of lay-men and women who have resolved to be as competent in the study of the Scriptures as they are in their own fields and occupations. God grant us families and elders who en­courage us in this. We have received an anointing to know what we need to know in all things so as to act respon­sibly and faithfully. God grant courage – and His protection from the tyran­ny of expertise.