It is safe to say that the Victory Museum and all who will be involved in it will wholeheartedly agree with the historic creeds of the Christian faith, such as the Nicene Creed. Anyone who disagrees should not support or get involved with this project!
However, there are some positions taken by some Christians that, while certainly within Christian orthodoxy, I feel have implications which can be detrimental to the spread of the Gospel. This is a somewhat difficult line to walk, as the last thing I want to do is offend a Christian who takes their faith seriously. Having said that, I believe that these positions are fairly key to the ministry of this museum.
I realize that this project will involve a large group of people and that I should not expect to be a dictator. I'm willing to discuss this and pray about this with any interested people. These positions, however, are in the original design goals of the museum. I will try to explain why this is necessary below.
In North American evangelical circles, there is still much acceptance of the view that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days about 6 to 10 thousand years ago. Most other circles of Christendom believe that other interpretations are possible.
Let's be honest: The scientific evidence really is not kind to the young earth view. There are numerous lines of evidence that simply are not compatible with a young earth, but show billions of years of geologic, and astronomical, history. If everything were created only thousands of years ago, there are a lot of things that should look different than they do. If the Bible really did require belief in a young earth, one would be justified in wondering if can really be trusted as God's word.
Fortunately, most Christians do not believe that the Bible requires such an interpretation. At the International Council on Biblical Inerrency in the early 1980s, only Henry Morris took the position that Biblical inerrency requires a young earth. (Mr. Morris was, of course, the author of The Genesis Flood, which was largely responsible for launching the modern young earth creationist movement.) Other church councils throughout the ages and in recent times have either neglected to specify the length of the Creation days or have specified that interpreting them as long periods of time is reasonable.
And there are interpretations of Genesis 1 and the rest of the Bible that take the text seriously and literally but do not require belief in a young earth. In fact, when you accept that the days of Creation can be time periods, one can easily see a lot of verses in the Bible that fit incredibly well with Big Bang cosmology. It can also be argued that because the Big Bang and general reletivity require that the universe, including time itself, popped into existance from nothing, whatever caused the universe must exist outside of all space and time dimensions and must be incredibly knowledgeeable and powerful. I think it can be shown that only the God of the Bible is a credible candidate for Creator!
Click here for an article that explores the Old Earth Creationist model in more depth.
What does this mean for the Museum? Since young earth creationism can so powerfully be refuted from a scientific perspective, and the Big Bang is such a powerful argument for not just any god, but specifically the God of the Bible, and most people (Christians and non-Christians) are not aware of that fact, I believe the compatibility of the Bible with what is known about nature would make a fantastic exhibit. When I learned this, my faith in the divine accuracy of the Bible increased by orders of magnitude, and I would love to see the same happen for others!
A very common view in North American "fundamentalist" circles is that things will continue to get worse and worse in the world, then the Rapture happens (or maybe it happens later!), then the Antichrist comes and things go down hill from there. Again, that view is a minority within Christendom as a whole.
I would like for the Museum to contain an exhibit about the Kingdom of God with a rather more optimistic view. It would be based on these verses and more:
This view is somewhat based on postmillennial eschatology, towards which I lean. However, I do not plan for the exhibit to specify the exact extent to which the Kingdom can be expected to grow. Thus it should be compatible with amillennialism and historic premillennialism. It probably is not, however, compatible with dispensational premillenialism, i.e. "Left Behind" theology.
The real value here is that it gives a person great hope for what he or she can accomplish with his life for the glory of God. Instead of expecting that the world will soon head downhill, one can think and dream big. We should be thinking of ministry ideas that can impact the nations for centuries!
Some people apparently believe that the Holy Spirit should not be expected to perform any miracles today. How sad! It is clear to many of us that He does indeed do them, especially when His Word is being preached and especially when hands are laid on the sick, and praying for them should certainly occur in the prayer room. We must not turn it into a "healing festival" or any kind of spectacle, but neither should we hesitate to ask God for healing that He would love to give us. Of course, this is always done realizing that God is in control and He sometimes has reasons for not doing it.
Where do these positions leave us? Undoubtably, some "fundamentalist" Christians will be put off. Is that OK? Not really, as I would value their contributions to this project. Of course, stereotypical "fundamentalism" does have a bad rap in society and, frankly, that is not entirely undeserved. This museum aims to be fundamentalist in terms of radical faith in Christ, but not as in what most people think of regarding the word "fundie."
What if you strongly disagree with something here? Make a case as to why it should not be an important aspect of the Museum, and we'll both pray about it. This project must be God-led. As far as these positions are the official positions of the museum, however, please do not fight or argue about them.
In that case, if you are willing to be a part of the museum in an area that you agree with, that is fine.