Writing Samples

The conflict in Northern Ireland, while often perceived as sectarian violence between Catholics and Protestants, is in fact not primarily motivated by religion. The opposing parties are instead fighting for control over geographic territory. When the majority of the Irish population gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1921, the six northernmost counties on the island remained a part of the United Kingdom, and thus Ireland was partitioned between the Republic of Ireland in the south, and Northern Ireland in the north. Since the partition, a struggle has ensued between those fighting for a unified Irish Republic and those fighting to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

Traditionally, the majority of those desiring a unified Ireland have been Catholic, while those in favor of continued ties with the United Kingdom have been Protestant. Although the paramilitary groups representing opposing sides of the conflict have never been motivated by their respective religious beliefs, outside observers have often mistaken the conflict to be religious in nature because the groups are often referred to as either Catholics or Protestants. While the religious associations are accurate, religious identity is only incidental to the parties’ overriding motivation for engaging in the conflict.

This erroneous belief has caused the Northern Ireland conflict to be compared to the sectarian violence between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims, and also the Radical Islamic terrorist violence against the non-Muslim world. There are however a number of factors that distinguish the conflicts from each other.

THE GROUPS’ OWN STATED GOALS AND MOTIVES

Even a cursory look at the names chosen by the various groups tells us much about whether or not they perceive themselves to be acting in the name of one or another religion. For example, neither the Irish Republican Army ("IRA") nor the Ulster Volunteer Force ("UVF"), nor any of the related or splinter groups in the Northern Ireland conflict, incorporate the words “Catholic”, “Protestant”, or “Christian”. This can be contrasted with just a few examples of known Muslim terror groups such as Islamic State, Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Jemaah Islamiya Organization, Al-Jihad, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Harakat ul-Jihad-I-Islami, to name just a few.

The paramilitary groups operating in Northern Ireland have clearly stated goals – one side (the IRA) fighting for a united Republic of Ireland and the expulsion of the English from the island; its opponents (UVF and UDA) fighting to maintain Northern Ireland’s status as a part of the United Kingdom.

The belligerents in Northern Ireland have never been heard to shout “God is Great”, or “Jesus is Great”, while committing acts of terror and violence, while “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) is commonly invoked by Islamic Jihadis.

The IRA’s bombings in London and Belfast were aimed against civilians largely in an attempt to gain greater publicity to their cause. Their targets were not chosen based on religious affiliation, and churches or other religious buildings were usually not targeted.

Neither the IRA nor the UVF attempt to force or coerce their opponents to become religious converts, or otherwise seek to force their own religious beliefs on their opponents. Muslim terrorists, on the other hand, often have as one of their aims the elimination of “infidels” and apostates, and the spread (by force if necessary) of Sharia Law. Many have as their ultimate goal the creation of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate under Sharia Law. Historically, potential victims have been able to escape violence by converting to Islam.

SUPPORT OR CONDEMNATION FOR THEIR ACTIONS FROM RELIGIOUS LEADERS

The vast majority of both Catholic and Protestant clergy members have condemned the violence perpetrated by both the IRA and UVF (and related paramilitary organizations), and have instead called for peaceful resolution. In contrast, Radical Islamic Jihadists have enjoyed the wide (though not universal) support of a large number of Muslim religious leaders. In many cases, the religious leaders themselves (Imams, Mullahs, etc) have encouraged and even mandated violence in the name of Allah.

SUPPORT IN THE THEOLOGICAL TEACHINGS OF THE RELIGION

Catholics and Protestants, as part of worldwide Christendom, base their religious beliefs on the New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the NT did Christ ever preach violence. In fact he specifically condemned violence and instead taught his followers to “love your enemy”.

On the other hand, Radical Islamic terrorists do find justification for their violent practices in both the Qur'an (Muslim Holy Book) and the Hadith (examples from the life of the Prophet Muhammad).

Any violence that has historically been attributed to “Christians” (i.e. the Crusades, bombings of abortion clinics, etc.) took place centuries after the founding of Christianity, and cannot be reasonably justified by any interpretation of the teachings of Christ. The history of Islam, by comparison, is a history of violence beginning with the Prophet Muhammad himself, who personally led dozens of military campaigns. Further, there are a number of passages in the Qur'an that command the spread of Islam by force, and violent treatment of infidels and apostates.

Unlike the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, violent clashes between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims do arise directly from theological differences, each side believing the other to have corrupted Islam.

As to why religion is a powerful motivator for some terrorists, in my opinion it is because these individuals often have the deep-rooted belief that they are acting for an all-powerful god. They believe they have a god-commanded duty, and that they will receive eternal rewards for their actions – rewards that cannot be obtained with certainty by any other means.

Dear A.B.

Thank you for your letter. I am humbled by your sincerity and your commitment to the inerrancy and literal accuracy of the Bible. I appreciate and share your concerns regarding the practice of reinterpreting or “changing” the biblical text to fit with modern cultural and/or scientific views. And I can assure you that I am also troubled when an apparent conflict between science and the Bible would cause anyone to turn away from their Faith. Accordingly, please allow me this opportunity to clarify my views on Scripture and science, and why I believe that the two (when properly interpreted) do in fact complement each other, without requiring us to compromise either.

Let me begin by first explaining the theory of “concordance”. This is the belief that God has spoken to us not only through the written word in Scripture (see 2 Timothy 3:16 – “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God . . .”  NKJV), which we call special revelation, but also through His creative and sustaining work throughout the natural universe, which we know as general revelation (see Psalm 19:1 – “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.” NKJV; see also Romans 1:19,20 – “because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made . . .” NKJV). In other words, we believe that God’s Truth can be discerned from nature as well as from the Bible. And because God is Truth, we expect that what we learn both from Scripture and from nature will always be true, and each therefore will be compatible with, and complementary of, the other.

Of course, when what we read in Scripture appears to be inconsistent or incompatible with our observations of nature, we must reexamine our interpretation of either Scripture or the “book” of nature, or both. Because, as mentioned above, we expect both to be true, then any apparent inconsistency will be due to our fallible interpretation of one or the other (or both), and not due to an actual conflict between the two truths. We have seen historical examples where interpretations of the Bible and of science have been revised in the light of new evidence. (for example, Galileo’s model of the solar system and the universe was ultimately accepted as correct, and led to revisions in both the theological and scientific beliefs that the earth was at the center of the universe).

While there are a number of possible issues on which the Bible and science may appear to be in conflict, I will limit my discussion to your specific concerns regarding the age of the earth (and the universe), and the related issue of how to properly interpret the word “day” in Genesis 1 (i.e. “So the evening and the morning were the first ‘day’”. Gen. 1:5. NKJV).

Let us first consider the question of whether nature has been so corrupted by the Fall that it no longer accurately reveals to us anything about God or His creative work. If this were so, then of course Scripture would be the only source of Truth from which we could learn about God. After Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, God cursed the ground. (see Gen. 3:17 – “Then to Adam He said, ‘Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: ‘Cursed is the ground for your sake.’” NKJV). This implies that in some way nature is not what it was before the Fall. However, as we have already seen, Scripture itself tells us that “the heavens and the firmament” (i.e. nature) declare the Glory of God and show His handiwork (Psalm 19:1); and also that God’s attributes are clearly seen in the natural world around us (Romans 1:19,20). These are present tense verbs, indicating that, even after the Fall, and even to this day, God continues to reveal Himself to us through general revelation. We know that God does not lie or deceive (see Hebrews 6:18 – “. . . it is impossible for God to lie.” NKJV; see also 1 Corinthians 14:33 – “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace.” NKJV), and therefore we can conclude that we are able to discern truth from God’s creation.

We must also consider whether non-Christian scientists can accurately discern truth from nature. Much of the scientific observation and theory on which we base our determination of the age of the universe comes from the work of scientists who are atheists or otherwise not believers in Christ or the Bible (for example, scientists holding other religious worldviews, such as Islam or Judaism). Can we trust their observations and conclusions? I would submit to you that it is possible for non-Christians to correctly and accurately perform scientific observation and devise reliable, testable scientific theories based on those observations. This conclusion is borne out not only from the historical record of scientific discoveries being verified and often in accordance with Scripture (in fact, scientific discoveries have often confirmed the biblical descriptions of the universe – see for example Genesis and the Book of Job for cosmological examples[1], as well as literally thousands of archaeological findings that verify people and places in both the Old and New Testaments), but also by Scripture itself. Consider again Romans chapter 1, verses 18 through 21 – “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God . . .” NKJV. These verses clearly imply that even the unrighteous are able to know and clearly see God through His creation. We can therefore conclude that even atheists and other unbelievers are able to perform good and accurate scientific study of the universe. Of course all scientific theories must be tested against, and in light of, Scripture.

Let us turn now to your concerns regarding the age of the universe. In Genesis 1 we read that God created the universe and the earth, and completed all of His creative work in a period of six Creation “days”. Current scientific theory teaches that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, with the earth itself being on the order of four or five billion years old. Clearly if we take the “days” in Genesis to be 24-hour periods, then modern science is at odds with Scripture. Accordingly, pursuant to the theory of concordance, described above, we must look for a way to reconcile these two views without compromising the inerrancy of Scripture, and without denying the truth of God’s second book - general revelation.

Of course you are correct in pointing out that the Hebrew word “yom”, used in Genesis to refer to the Creation “days” is commonly used in other passages of Scripture to describe 24-hour days. However, the word “yom” can, and has been, used to describe other periods of time, such as (i) some portion of the daylight hours, (ii) from sunrise to sunset; (iii) from sunset to sunset, or (iv) some longer period of time such as weeks, months, years, or even an entire epoch. (see for example Hosea 6:2.) We also read in Scripture that God’s “days” are not equivalent to our 24-hour days. (see Psalm 90:4 – “For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past. NKJV; see also 2 Peter 3:8 – “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” NKJV). In the context of the passage, especially given the amount of activity described as having occurred on Creation Day six (see Gen. 1:24-31), we can see that it is possible by a faithful and uncompromising interpretation of Scripture to conclude that the Creation week need not be confined to 24-hour days.

In the Young Earth Creationist (“YEC”) view, the earth and universe are between six and ten thousand years old. This dating is based on the interpretation of a seven-24-hour-day week, combined with the genealogies in the Old Testament.

On the other hand, modern science seems to point clearly to a billions-of-years-old universe. And we can see this not only from one scientific discipline, but from all of the areas of scientific observation that study this question. In other words, we have a cumulative case from a number of distinct scientific disciplines in support of the Old Earth Creation (“OEC”) model of the universe. We conclude an old universe based on scientific observation in the fields of cosmology, geology, paleontology, radiometric dating, archaeology, biology, and astronomy. The majority of scientists working in these fields, including Christians as well as non-Christians, conclude from their observations that the earth and universe are much older than the six- to ten-thousand years posited by the YEC view. To reject or deny the wide consensus among these scientists working in vastly different fields of study, we would also have to conclude that either: (i) God’s “book” of general revelation is misleading or deceitful, which we have already seen could not be the case; or (ii) all of these scientists are incapable of performing accurate scientific observation and study. However, the cumulative evidence pointing to a general consensus that the universe is “old” seems to warrant against the second possibility. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the universe is old.

It is important to note that, even while Old Earth Creationists interpret the Hebrew word “yom” (i.e. “day”) to mean something other than a 24-hour period, the OEC view still insists that the Genesis account of Creation is in fact an accurate historical account of God’s work in creating the universe. According to the OEC view, God created the universe and everything in it through a series of special, supernatural, miraculous creation events. These events took place over a definite period of time, and in the order in which the Genesis account presents these events. God continues to sustain the universe. And, very importantly, Adam and Eve were indeed the first humans – they were actual historical individuals who were created by God (i.e. not evolved from apes or hominids), and who, unlike the other animals in God’s creation, uniquely bear the image of their Creator.

Because the overwhelming evidence discerned from general revelation supports belief in an old universe, and further because this evidence actually supports a literal interpretation of Genesis as an accurate, historical account of the creation of the universe (albeit with an understanding of the Creation week as a period greater than seven 24-hour days), we can conclude that our scientific understanding of an old universe is compatible with an uncompromising interpretation of Scripture. This being so, we can be confident that, if properly understood, this interpretation of the creation “days” of Genesis will not lead us down the proverbial “slippery slope” to faulty or convenient misinterpretations of Scripture on other issues.

In conclusion, A.B., I truly hope that the above helps to clarify the OEC view of the universe, as well as its sincere commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture. As indicated above, I remain open to the possibility that the YEC view is the correct one, and I will in good faith consider all evidence and arguments in favor thereof. However, in light of the overwhelming scientific evidence; the valid interpretation of Scripture that is in alignment with that evidence; and Scripture’s commands to “love the Lord God with all [my] heart, with all [my] soul, and with all [my] mind” (see Matthew 22:37), and to “test all things” (see 1 Thessalonians 5:21), at this time I can in good conscience advocate for the Old Earth Creation view regarding the age of the universe.

Yours Truly,

Marshall Hong

[1] For examples of cosmology in the Bible: We read in Genesis and John that the universe had a beginning (consistent with the “Big Bang” model) – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Gen. 1:1; “In the beginning was the Word . . .”. John 1:1; that the beginning had a cause – “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” John 1:3; and that the universe is expanding (also consistent with the Big Bang theory) – “He alone spreads out the heavens,” Job 9:8. See also Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 42:5, et.al.