Tawapologetics

Review of 'Who Made God?'

2011-12-01T08:20:00.000-07:00

Zacharias, Ravi and Norman Geisler, eds. Who Made God? And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. 239 pp.

Who Made God? is a well-conceived project responding to a comprehensive set of probing questions regarding the Christian faith. The editors have envisioned a worthwhile endeavor. Their execution, however, has considerable room for improvement. As a whole, the answers provide a superficial treatment of the issues, and are unsatisfactory for deep-thinking reflective believers, seekers, or skeptics. Indeed, some of the responses in Who Made God are noticeably inferior to the more helpful articles contained within The Apologetics Study Bible.

The overall weakness of the volume cannot obscure the brilliance of some individual chapters. The unquestionable star in this collection is chapter three, William Lane Craig’s contribution on “Tough Questions about Science.” His answers are concise and to the point. Craig’s endnotes and bibliography effectively point one towards deeper responses and additional resources. Each of his nine answers is worth quoting to seekers and skeptics, but the last two answers, “How Long Are the Days of Creation in Genesis” and “Is the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution True?” deserve special mention. In response to the former question, Craig points readers towards historical theology, and argues that “Historically, neither most Jews nor Christians interpreted Genesis 1 as referring to twenty-four-hour time periods.” (67) He affirms the viability of both the literalist and non-literalist reading, and concludes that “the Christian is free to follow the evidence where it leads.” (67) The beauty of this conclusion is in the contrast with “the naturalist. For if God does not exist, then evolution is the only game in town. . . . the naturalist’s conclusion is determined in advance by his or her philosophy, not by the evidence.” (67) Craig demonstrates that commitment to scientific truth lies on the side of the Christian. Indeed, when one removes the presupposition of methodological naturalism, the evidence for neo-Darwinism is not in the least compelling (70). Craig’s chapter does a masterful job of introducing the reader to the issues involved in questions surrounding atheistic evolutionary theory. If each author approached their chapter with the same degree of skill and sense, Who Made God? would be an exceptional compilation instead of muddling in mediocrity.

Lee Strobel’s contributions (chapters four and five) represent another high point within this work. Strobel has responded to the same questions more extensively in his previous works, The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith. The reader should seek out those volumes rather than relying solely on Who Made God? for answers. Strobel provides nothing new or revolutionary in his contributions to this anthology. Nonetheless, he does respond clearly and concisely on a surface level to many of the common questions about Jesus Christ.

Similarly, Jeyachandran’s contributions regarding Eastern religions were very helpful. The reader will appreciate his insights, and especially his helpful suggestions of contact points with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. His discussion of how Eastern religions appeal to the heart (155-58) points to the need for an personal existential approach to apologetics and evangelism. As well, Jeyachandran encourages Christians to use the Hindu motif of “sacrifice” to introduce the biblical model of sacrifice and atonement (159). While his chapters did not provide a comprehensive overview of Hinduism or Buddhism, he did introduce them effectively and conveyed helpful insights for communicating the Gospel to followers of Eastern religions.

Ron Rhodes opens his contribution on evil by acknowledging that “abbreviated treatments always run the risk of superficiality.” (33) He explicitly urges readers to consult “the more exhaustive works cited in the endnotes and in the suggested resources.” (33) Rhodes is the only author who acknowledges this fundamental shortcoming of Who Made God? and provides a corrective to it. Furthermore, Rhodes provides excellent (though brief) treatments of a range of issues concerning evil. Rhodes suggests that natural disasters and death would not have been part of the natural order if it were not for the sin of mankind in the Garden of Eden (37). Rhodes is clearly right that human death is a result of the fall. The death of animals, however, is not explicitly attributed to mankind’s rebellion. Indeed, God’s threat of death to Adam in Genesis 2 logically requires Adam to have a concept of “death”—animal death would have provided the necessary referent. Furthermore, the fossil record indicates that animals experienced death long before the creation and fall of mankind. Geology demonstrates that natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.) also predate humanity. Rhodes’ suggestion reveals his commitment to young-earth creationism, a position which may be correct, but is not the only theological position amongst evangelical Christians.

Apart from these chapters, the material in Who Made God? is not particularly helpful. The chapter on “Black Islam” may have some apologetic benefit in segments of America, but is unusable in my native Canadian context. There is no “Black Islam” in Canada to speak of—our Islamic context is Arabic or southeastern Asian, and predominantly Sunni. Nonetheless, I agree with White’s conclusion that Sunday morning segregation in America (particularly in the Southern states) is appalling, and represents a blight upon American Christianity (200). It saddens me that there is not a more intentional effort within denominations like my own Southern Baptist Convention to rectify that situation by promoting inter-racial worship and fellowship.

As an admirer of Norm Geisler's past work in apologetics, I expected better from him than his contributions to this volume. The title question of the book was dealt with in a cursory, unsatisfactory manner (23-24). A few years ago fall a young man in our church, who has progressed from staunch atheism to being a seeker, asked this precise question in a Sunday school context. I sought out Geisler’s answer in this volume as a response, and was greatly disappointed. His response could have been much stronger and yet not considerably longer if he had engaged some deeper material. For example, he could have discussed the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes, or the necessity of a “first cause” or an “uncaused causer.” Geisler’s treatment of the issue may satisfy a curious eighth-grader (actually, having a curious sixth-grader myself, I have to say Geisler’s answer doesn't even satisfy him), but it will not engage an intelligent adult skeptic or seeker. Moreover, Geisler does not even refer to the reader to alternative resources to obtain a more in-depth treatment of the question. In the “Resources for Digging Deeper” section, Geisler does refer the reader to four of his own works (203); but he does not provide endnotes regarding where to pursue individual questions. A specific reference to an article or work (including page numbers) would be more helpful. As it is, Geisler leaves the reader with a low-grade response to a piercing question, and provides no direction towards further support.

Geisler’s other contributions suffer from this problem as well as additional ones. He minimizes some objections and questions, and avoids harder issues. For example, he first responds to the question, “Are There Errors in Bible Manuscripts and Translations?” relatively well (120-21). He correctly points out that no substantial transmission errors exist in the manuscripts that we have. Where there are discrepancies between manuscripts, it is almost always obvious where the error lies. Geisler avoids, however, the deeper problem regarding different manuscript traditions. The Greek manuscript of the prophet Jeremiah is considerably shorter than the Hebrew manuscript tradition, and is missing two lengthy sections. The different textual traditions of Jeremiah are noted in The Apologetics Study Bible (1086), and represent one of the central critical arguments against the inerrancy of Scripture. Geisler’s evasion of this issue is ill-advised, and leaves the reader poorly-equipped to deal with the question.

Similarly, Geisler’s discussion of the Qur’an (150-51) is unsatisfying. He rightly points out that the Qur’an contradicts the Bible, and thus they cannot both be inspired Scriptures. He does not, however, perform the relatively simple task of demonstrating, without presupposing the Bible’s inspiration and inerrancy, that it is the Qur’an which is faulty. The Qur’an claims that “Jesus did not die on the cross” (150), contradicting the teaching of the Bible. Why does Geisler not reference the overwhelming consensus of secular historians confirming Jesus’ death by crucifixion? Geisler’s response makes it seem as though the Christian and Muslim both appeal to their own holy book to defend the death (or non-death) of Jesus, with no ability to adjudicate between them. Yet history confirms the Bible and denies the Qur’an. Sadly, the reader of this volume will not be equipped with that beneficial knowledge. Nor will the reader be informed that Muhammad claimed the Qur’an as his “miracle” (151) in response to Christian criticisms of the lack of miraculous confirmation of the Qur’an. Nor will the reader be equipped with refutations of that Qur’anic claim! Simply put, Geisler’s treatment of Islam was unhelpfully superficial.

Finally, Geisler’s contribution in chapter seven (Tough Questions about the Bible, False Prophets, and the Holy Books of Other Religions) duplicates much of his own contribution in chapter six (Tough Questions about the Bible). It would be understandable if he was unknowingly providing similar answers as a different author in this anthology. Duplicating his own materials (e.g. 114-18 and 132-33), however, is inexplicable. On the other hand, Geisler does provide solid, worthwhile responses to some questions (e.g. The Jesus Seminar, 124-27).

Who Made God?, despite having some positive contributions, ultimately flounders on the inadequate responses to some major questions. Its superficiality, combined with the general lack of direction towards further resources, renders the compilation disappointingly unhelpful. The vision behind the project is commendable, but evangelical apologetics has a lot better to offer than is provided here.

Evil, the Fall, and the cause(s) of Natural Disasters

2011-11-11T08:19:00.002-07:00

Over the past week, central Oklahoma has been hit with a series of earthquakes and aftershocks. The largest earthquake was a magnitude 5.6, which probably has folks in the Pacific Rim shaking their heads and muttering, 'You call THAT an earthquake? We call that dancing.' Nonetheless, the quakes caused a measure of damage to homes, businesses, and (sadly) a historic and beautiful central building on the campus of St. Gregory's College here in Shawnee, OK.

It caused me to reflect - is it just me, or do natural disasters seem to follow me around? I'm not just talking about the state of affairs in my office at the university. We moved to Louisville, Kentucky in July 2008. In September, Hurricane Ike roared up the Ohio River valley and struck with fury in Louisville - the first ever hurricane to hit Louisville (look at the map - it's nowhere NEAR the coast!). Gusting winds took down tens of thousands of trees throughout the city, and knocked out power to almost half the city. Three months later, a massive (and absolutely beautiful) ice storm struck Louisville, again taking down thousands of trees, and knocking out power to 40% of the city. In both disasters, homes were destroyed, vehicles were demolished, businesses were physically and financially devastated, and lives were lost. Now we move to Oklahoma just in time to experience the most powerful earthquake the state has ever recorded. Is it just me? ...

This raises the question of the cause and nature of 'natural disasters', something that has been on my mind. In the midst of that, I received a comment from a good old friend in response to my September post citing Louis Markos' response to the problem of evil. Here is what Grace wrote:

Hey Tawa - how would you explain to an atheist how the fall of man effected creation? How can a natural disaster be a result from the actions of humans? I can understand it as an act of judgement, but to an atheist this looks cruel.

Grace asks a great question, and one that continues to cause me to ponder. I'll provide three different perspectives - the first two are NOT my perspective, while the third would be the way I tend to approach the question. I’ll close with some additional thoughts.

1. Some Christian philosophers and theologians would argue that natural disasters are the direct result of the fall of mankind. In Genesis 3, the results of the Fall of Adam and Eve are: (a) alienation from God; (b) alienation from self; (c) alienation from one another as fellow human beings; and (d) alienation from the created order. The Fall brings death into the world, as the consequence for sin; but the Fall also affects the rest of Creation. In other words, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc., did not happen before the Fall. They all postdate the fall of mankind, and are a direct result of the human fall into sin. This perspective on "natural evil" (natural disasters) is dependent upon a Young Earth perspective, the view that the earth is only thousands of years old. It is a legitimate perspective, but one that I do not share.

2. William Dembski argues that natural evil (natural disasteres, and also animal predation) are a retrojected effect of the Fall. In this perspective, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. all predate both the creation of human beings and the Fall of Adam and Eve; BUT the Fall of Adam and Eve is the direct cause of such natural evil. The argument is that God foreknows the Fall of mankind, and enacts consequences for the Fall 'before' the Fall occurs - and this makes sense because of God's relationship to time (namely, that God is the Creator of time, and sees past, present, and future in an ever-present eternality). Before you shake your head and think this is just nuts, consider two things:

(a) Jesus' saving death upon the cross is retrojectively effective prior to the New Testament period. The Old Testament saints who die are covered by the blood of Christ. Yes, God works through the temple sacrificial system of the Old Testament, but as Christians we know that salvation comes by the grace of God through Jesus’ atoning death alone. The logical entailment is that Jesus’ death is effective even for those who died BEFORE Jesus’ crucifixion. If there is such a retrojective effect of Jesus’ atoning death, then it isn’t as much of a logical stretch to imagine a retrojective effect of Adam and Eve’s fall into sin.

(b) Think of a wacky Star Trek episode, like the one in Voyager where a time-traveler from the 29th century tries to destroy Voyager because Voyager set in motion a series of temporal events that resulted in a massive catastrophe in the 29th century. Turns out, however, that the temporal series of events was actually initiated by the time traveler’s ill-advised attempt to destroy Voyager, which launched both ships back into the late 20th-century, where they fell into the hands of a megalomaniacal hippie. In other words, the temporal series which the time traveler sought to avoid was actually initiated by his seeking to avoid it – a retrojected effect which had past, present, and future consequences. Think also of the Harry Potter book where Hermione is able to travel through time with Harry, and he sees himself (thinking it is his father) cast the Petronus spell – the future Harry acts in such a way as to effect the past/present Harry. Again, all this shows is that humans can imagine such a thing as retrojected effects; and this imaginatory possibility suggests that it has some correlate in reality (such as the retrojected effects of Jesus’ atoning death, and perhaps also the retrojected effects of the Fall of Adam and Eve).

Again, I raise this as a possibility, a valid Christian perspective, even though I have not come around to embracing it.

3. My own perspective is that there is what we call natural evil in the world prior to the Fall of Adam and Eve, and that as such it is not the direct result of man’s actions or man’s fall into sin. By natural evil, I include such things as animal predation, earthquakes, tornados, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, etc. I understand natural evil to be the result of one of two things. (a) The rebellion of Satan and his angels; and/or (b) Part of a renewing of Creation which has positive outworkings, except when they negatively impact humanity. First things first.

(a) Satan is regularly called the “prince of this world.” There is a Scriptural understanding that the Created order, made good (very good) by God, is not the way He created it to be. Part of the reason is that Satan and his angels rebelled against God’s authority, and dragged the Created order down with them. If Satan is the prince of this world, then we should not expect the order of this world to perfectly reflect its Creator any longer. Thus, things like animal predation and purely destructive natural disasters (I suspect there are such) are the result, not of human sin, but a result of Satan’s rebellion and its consequences.

(b) Some ‘natural disasters’ are actually positive occurrences from some perspectives, EXCEPT in their effect upon humanity. Think of your experience in Hawaii, one of the most beautiful places in the world (in my humble but probably correct opinion). What is Hawaii? A chain of islands. Where did it come from? The islands are all volcanic in origin. That is, they were formed by violent volcanic eruptions, magma erupting from the ‘center of the earth’, flowing out, and forming new land mass as it cooled and settled. The immediate outworking of a volcanic eruption can be extremely destructive – just ask residents of Pompeii. However, what is the longer-term result? The soil of Hawaii, after the rich volcanic deposits are broken down over time, is some of the richest soil in the world. Volcanic rock becomes extremely fruitful. I don’t understand the hows and whys of it, but I know the ‘that’s’ of it. What we see initially as destructive and potentially harmful, God has utilized as part of the on-going creative process in His Created order. From that perspective, volcanic eruptions, which we call natural ‘disasters’, are not necessarily disasters at all. The same can be said for some flooding, even major and devastating flooding. It carries grave consequences for humans living in the path, but it also brings renewal and increased vitality and fruitfulness to the soil. How about earthquakes, like the ones we’ve experienced here in Oklahoma the past week (minor though they are in comparison to others)? Well, where did the gorgeous Rocky Mountains in Banff and Jasper (and Colorado and Montana, I suppose) come from? Tectonic plate activity – i.e., earthquakes. Earthquakes are another part of God’s created order through which He engages in ongoing creation and renewal. The consequences can at times be dire for those living in the path, but the long-term outworkings are beauty, diversity, and transcendence.

What changed at the Fall of Adam and Eve, then, was not the existence of natural disasters (and animal predation). Rather, what changed is the impact that such ‘disasters’ had upon humanity. Before the Fall, humans were, as it were, immune to both the consequences of Satan’s rebellion and fall AND the potentially harmful effects of creative-renewing natural ‘disasters’. Whether that is because the Garden of Eden was in some protected location set entirely apart from predation and disasters, or whether it was because the Garden was simply providentially protected by God Himself, I do not know and never will (although I can speculate, and frequently have). After the Fall, humans are cast out from the Garden of Eden, and are no longer under the providential or locational protection of God. They are subject to both the effects of Satan’s Fall and the consequences of natural ‘disasters’.

I’m not sure if all of that makes sense – it is at least some ponderings about it. There are three other quick thoughts that I would want to throw in:

(1) From a Christian perspective, I can freely and justifiably use words like ‘disaster’, ‘evil’, and ‘cruel’. When I was an atheist (back in the day), I would use those words as well. However, I have come to see (as C. S. Lewis first pointed out to me in Mere Christianity) that I had no justification for using the morally-laden terms I did. I would say things like “God is cruel to allow people to suffer such evil and suffering from natural (and man-made) disasters.” I am convinced now that, if there is no God, there can be no such thing as objective evil or objective cruelty. As William Provine (atheistic biologist from Cornell University) insists, in the absence of God, there is no good and evil, there just is. The problem is, of course, that almost everyone, including most staunch atheists, do acknowledge the reality and objectivity of evil, suffering, and cruelty. The problem is, how do atheists ground or justify their notions of evil? For something to be evil, there has to be something it is being compared to – something good which it fails to be or to do. Again, in the absence of God, I think this is impossible. That is another topic for another day, but it is something I think worth raising with some atheists, if they are willing to consider it.

(2) I also think we have to acknowledge that sometimes the sin of man (intentional or unintentional) does directly cause natural disasters. This might sound harsh, but what caused the tragedy in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? It seems unfair to me to ‘blame’ it on God for allowing the Hurricane. I can easily point the ‘finger of blame’ (though I think it’s unprofitable to do so in the first place) at human agents. (a) The people who built a gorgeous city below sea level, surrounded by an ocean on one side and a large lake on the other, with man-made dikes its only protection against the inevitable onslaught of water. (b) The people who failed to monitor the strength and efficacy of the dike system.

(3) Think of pollution, and global warming – are these the results of man’s actions? Most would say ‘yes’ without hesitation (including, I believe, yourself). While examples elude my mind this morning, think of countrysides which have been stripped bare of their trees and supporting vegetation. The next time major rains come, instead of the moisture being soaked up by trees, and the cascade of soil down the hillside being stopped by their root systems; there is nothing to impede the water and mud, and a major (and destructive) mudslide ensues. What causes the disaster? Is it not the direct result of the actions of human beings? So there are times at which disasters are directly or indirectly caused by us. Acid rain. Ozone depletion. Soil exhaustion. Desertification. Species extinctions. Etc., etc.

Alright, I wrote way more than I intended to, but it was a topic that piqued my interest this morning when I saw your comment, so I thought I would interact with it. It is good to hear from you, Grace, and it is healthy to wrestle with what is unquestionably one of the deepest and most difficult questions we all must face.

Louis Markos on the Problem of Evil

2011-09-01T13:59:00.000-06:00

“Why is it that the last two generations of Americans and Europeans, generations that have seen a vast decrease in human suffering, have struggled more with the problem of pain than all previous generations? … The greater our quality of life, it seems, the more apt we are to reject God on account of the suffering in our world. How can this be? …

Before Rousseau, … Christian Europe accepted that the problem with man, the reason he could never build a perfect world or free himself from evil and suffering, was his inborn propensity for sin, pride, and disobedience.

… After Rousseau, however, more and more people in the West distanced themselves from original sin and came to believe that man, at least in his natural state, was inherently good. …

Rousseau’s optimistic, secular faith in man’s innate goodness galvanized … Europe and America, filling them—and us, their heirs—with the hope that if we could eliminate sickness [etc] and purify man and society from systemic greed and injustice, we could build utopia. It was a lovely dream, but it led, as Chesterton correctly prophesied, to great horros. Throughout the twentieth century, totalitarian regimes, denying original sin, sought to eliminate evil by purging ‘bad’ groups that were too corrupt to be reformed: Jews, kulaks, landlords, Kurds, and so forth. And they were absolutely ruthless in their purges, for the ‘nobility’ of what they were trying to achieve—the purification of man and society—justified their by-any-means-necessary approach. …

Because we misunderstand—or refuse to accept—that we are fallen, we imagine that we ourselves (apart from God) can eradicate all evil and suffering through state-run public education, universal health care, and free-market capitalism. Alas, because we feel entitled to all of these things, and more, we are left angry and bitter when we do not get what we think we deserve. In response to our disappointment, we do not question our Rousseauian assumptions but blame God for not bailing us out. …

When suffering occurs, our first response is to blame society (the ‘system’), our DNA (the ‘selfish gene’), or God (for ‘making me this way’), rather than considering that it might be the result of our misuse of free will or a spur to test and purify our moral character and faith.”

Louis Markos, Apologetics for the 21st Century (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 137-39.

The Nature and Power of Worldview

2011-08-31T11:29:00.001-06:00

A. Introduction: The World of The Matrix

Eleven years ago, the remarkable movie, The Matrix, was released. It was followed by two sequels in 2003, and ranks as one of the most successful Hollywood franchises. The Matrix is built around the premise that the world as we experience it is an illusion—the result of an intricate computer simulation. Human-created artificial intelligence have taken over the ‘real world’ and enslaved human beings to suck the heat and energy out of their bodies. The real world sees human bodies ‘grown’ in vast fields, hooked up to electrical inputs to harvest their resources, and also hooked up to visual simulators that treat them to a virtual reality. This virtual reality, known as ‘The Matrix’, resembles human life on earth as we know it. Human beings who are in reality hooked up to machines have the vivid experience of working normal jobs, having relationships, and so forth. The virtual reality is so accurate that people do not realize they are being manipulated and deceived.

However, a group of humans has been awakened to the true nature of reality, and they wage a quiet rebellion against The Matrix. In the movie, the focus is on Neo Anderson, a computer hacker who questions his reality but has no idea of what is out there. Morpheus and Trinity, two ‘liberated’ humans, seek to enlighten Neo. They offer him two pills, one of which will return him to his virtual reality life, the other of which will show him what is really real. Neo famously takes the red pill, and his world is forever changed. He will never look at things the same way again. Neo now sees the world through a new lens, a new theoretical structure: he has a new worldview

NOTE: This blog essay is an adaptation of notes used in my Introduction to Philosophy classes on Wednesday August 31 and Thursday September 1. I have sought to edit it for this context. If there are any remaining passages or phrases that do not make sense without having been in the class, or which use shorthand for sources instead of full citations, I apologize.

B. The Concept of Worldview

(1) Worldview: Concept & Questions

In their Introduction to Philosophy, Cowan & Spiegel write: “Let us consider now one of the main goals of philosophy, specifically to develop a reasonable worldview. … a worldview is a set of beliefs, values, and presuppositions concerning life’s most fundamental issues.” (Steven Cowan and James Spiegel, The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy [B&H Academic, 2009], 7) They identify five key worldview questions: (1) God/theology; (2) Reality/metaphysics; (3) Knowledge/epistemology; (4) Human Beings/anthropology; (5) Values/ethics/aesthetics.

Cowan & Spiegel then (correctly in my opinion) identify the construction and development of a comprehensive worldview as being one of the key goals of philosophy.

James Sire has a slightly different take on the components of a worldview. First, he defines worldview: “A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.” Then he identifies seven key worldview questions which distinguish one worldview from another: “Each worldview considers the following basic questions: (1) the nature and character of God or ultimate reality, (2) the nature of the universe, (3) the nature of humanity, (4) the question of what happens to a person at death, (5) the basis of human knowing, (6) the basis of ethics, (7) the meaning of history.” (25) James Sire, The Universe Next Door, 4th ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004), 17. 25.

What is a worldview? A worldview is a lens through which we view the world around us. Our worldview contains a set of fundamental assumptions and understandings about how the world works. Our worldview is a person-specific matrix—a perception of reality, a filter through which everything flows as we seek to make sense of external data. For my own part, I like to identify five fundamental questions: 1. Where did we come from? (i.e., the existence and nature of God/ultimate reality); 2. Where are we, or what is the nature of reality? (i.e., the nature and character of the physical world); 3. What is wrong with us? (i.e., the origin and nature of man); 4. What is the solution to the problem? (i.e., the nature of salvation); and 5. Where are we going? (i.e., the nature of life after death).

Every worldview makes assumptions in each of those five areas. For example: the atheist worldview claims that the universe sprang into existence from nothingness with no explanation, life arose on primordial earth through random chemical reactions, and human life evolved through random mutation and natural selection; our primary problem is enslavement to a superstitious worldview that promotes religious belief; the solution to the problem is intellectual evolution; and after we die we entirely cease to be. The Christian worldview has substantially different answers. In the beginning was God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All that is was created by Him out of nothingness; at its creation, everything was declared good by God. The problem with the world is the result of man’s rebellion and fall into sin. Instead of harmony and communion, mankind now experiences broken relationships with God, with self, with fellow human beings, and with God’s creation. God provides the means for redemption through the atoning death of Jesus—broken relationships can be healed and reconciled in Christ. After death, all men are judged on the basis of their relationship with God in Christ—believers experience eternal life in the presence of God. The difference between these two worldview matrices is significant, and greatly affects the way that we perceive the world around us.

(2) Unavoidable and Ubiquitous
Cowan and Spiegel insist that, “Although there are many worldviews, only one worldview can be true.” (The Love of Wisdom, 9) Are they right? Yes, I think they are. Why? Because worldviews offer mutually exclusive answers to the same questions. The atheist and the Christian give not only different answers to the question of what happens to us after we die: they give mutually exclusive answers. Theoretically, both the atheist and the Christian answers could be wrong; the one thing they cannot be is both right. So, only one worldview can be true. We will work this out more later in the semester, time permitting, when we talk about the question of religious pluralism.

Every person has a worldview—worldview is ubiquitous and universal. Some worldviews are consciously acknowledged; some are unconsciously entrenched. For example, I consciously hold a Christian theistic worldview which proclaims and worships God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Many, however, unknowingly embrace a worldview which precludes the very possibility of God’s existence.

Some worldviews are critically analyzed; others are unquestioningly embraced. For example, Gary Habermas grew up in a Christian home, but had his faith shaken by trials, tribulations, and atheistic university professors. Dr. Habermas was forced to critically examine his worldview, and after years of philosophical and emotional searching, he concluded that Christianity was indeed true. He remains a vibrant Christian today, and a world-class philosopher and professor as well.
Finally, some worldviews are challenged and eventually rejected; others are held firmly for life. For example, Billy Graham and Charles Templeton began their adult life on the same path—as promising and powerful Christian evangelists. In their mid-20s, the two friends simultaneously went through a deep crisis of faith and belief. Billy Graham remained on the Christian path; Charles Templeton questioned and eventually rejected the Christian worldview, and is now an elderly agnostic.

So worldviews can be conscious or unconscious; examined or unexamined; rejected or maintained. But worldviews are like souls—everyone has one, even if they think they don’t. Unfortunately, the worldview of many (perhaps most) Americans and Canadians (including, sadly, Christians) is unconscious and unexamined. The Greek philosopher Socrates declared, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” To modify Socrates’ wisdom, I would also argue that the unexamined worldview is not worth holding. As Christians, we need to consciously hold and examine our worldview, and seek to see reality through the correct interpretive lenses.

(3) Philosophy & Worldview
Cowan & Spiegel argue: “The discipline of philosophy requires that one take a hard look at one’s worldview and examine it by means of the philosophical method laid out in the previous section with the goal of ascertaining whether that worldview is true. By doing so one may hold one’s beliefs and values more confidently or one may be led to embrace a different worldview that seems more nearly correct. This is both the benefit and danger of philosophy.” (The Love of Wisdom, 9)
They then identify three purposes of Christian philosophy: (1) A means of confirming your worldview. (2) A way of better understanding your faith. (3) A method by which to acquire wisdom.

C. The Power & Influence of Worldview

We’ve identified worldview; laid out its components; seen that everyone has a worldview that needs to be examined. Let’s close by considering some of the ways that worldview affect the way that we live and think.

(1) It takes relatively less evidence (or persuasive arguments) to support an existing worldview.

I love detective shows, like Law & Order, and particularly Monk. When cops or crown attorneys have a working thesis concerning a particular crime, the way they treat evidence is affected by how that evidence relates to their governing thesis. For example, if they have a suspect who they think committed the crime in question, tiny bits of evidence will strengthen their position. In one Monk episode, called Monk and the Astronaut, Adrian Monk investigates the murder (a staged suicide) of a former call girl who was about to publish a revealing autobiography. Monk quickly becomes convinced that the murderer is a prominent NASA astronaut and rising politician. During the investigation, it is suggested to Monk that the woman’s autobiography was going to include a chapter relating how the suspect was intimately involved with the dead call-girl earlier, and was arrested at one point for beating her to a pulp. When Monk hears that, it supports his thesis that the astronaut is “the guy”. It provides “motive” for the murder. The evidence is not airtight—there are no surviving manuscripts of the autobiography, no solid proof that the woman was going to “out” the suspect, no concrete evidence that the call-girl was beaten up by the suspect. But it doesn’t take a big piece of evidence to support or maintain Monk’s theory.

As it is with criminal theories, so it is with worldview. It takes relatively less evidence (or less persuasive arguments) to support an existing worldview. This is the first way in which worldview affects the way we treat external data. Tiny shreds of external confirmation support our worldview and are clung to accordingly. You can see this with proponents of evolution. According to Darwin’s original theory, the fossil record should be replete with multitudes of examples of intermediate species, transitional fossils which highlight the evolution from one distinct species into another. While evolutionists acknowledge that the vast fossil evidence predicted by early Darwinists is simply not there, the theory persists. And every year or two, you hear about the proclamation of a new fossil discovery of a professed “transitional species”. There are not many of these intermediates, certainly not as many as predicted; but proponents of an evolutionary worldview cling to each new proposed discovery as “proof” of the truth of the theory.

Alternatively, Christians who believe in life after death, that this physical life is only the introduction to eternity, can point to near-death experiences as proof that there is at least a minimal existence and consciousness after death. It doesn’t take a significant amount of corroborating evidence to support or reinforce an existing worldview.

(2) We interpret new data or arguments in a manner that affirms or fits within our existing worldview

A second way that worldview affects our interpretation of evidence and argumentation is in the accommodation of new, relatively neutral evidence. Simply put, worldviews interpret new data or arguments in a self-affirming manner. One example is the layers evident in the Grand Canyon. Mainstream geologists look at the data, carbon-date the rocks within the layers, and conclude quite logically that the various layers are the product of layers of sediment laid down millions of years after one another. This fits quite nicely within their basic worldview assumption that the earth is billions of years old, and that events on earth have progressed over time through predictable and lengthy physical processes.

A minority of geologists (known as young-earth creationists), however, look at the same physical data and come to radically different conclusions about what it means. From their perspective, the layers and even the ancient appearance of the Grand Canyon is not the result of millions of years of erosion, but rather represents the catastrophic effects of a global flood described in Genesis 6. The dire consequences of the flood, in their view, explains the inaccuracy of carbon-dating the rocks in those sediment strata—the flood changed the composition of the atmosphere, thereby rendering long-term past carbon dating useless. Young-earth geologists begin with a radically different set of assumptions, and thus interpret the same physical data in a radically different way. It must be emphasized that both groups of geologists cannot possibly be right. The data of the Grand Canyon cannot mean both that the earth is billions of years old and the rocks are layers of sediment laid down millions of years after one another; AND that the earth is only thousands of years old and the evident layers are the result of a single catastrophic flood. One camp is correct in their interpretation and the other is incorrect—or, perhaps, both camps are incorrect and some other explanation is the right one. For our purposes, it is not important who is right—what’s important is to note the power of worldview in determining how physical data is interpreted. The point is that worldviews interpret new data or arguments in a self-affirming manner. Young-earth geologists accommodate the data to fit their prevailing worldview; old-earth geologists do the same. If at all possible, people will accommodate new data within their worldview, rather than altering their worldview to suit new data.

For example, in Matthew 12:22-24, the Pharisees have a negative response to Jesus’ miraculous ministry. Then they brought to Jesus a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, ‘Could this be the Son of David?’ But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, ‘It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.’ Jesus proceeds to rebuke them for their incoherence and their spiritual closed-mindedness. But what we often miss when we read this passage today is that the Pharisees were doing what comes entirely naturally to us as human beings. They were seeking to accommodate new data, new evidence, within their existing worldview presuppositions. They presumed that God worked through the established religious leadership and channels of second-temple Judaism – the rabbis, priests, temple sacrifices, and daily prayers. Jesus certainly did not fit that model – he proclaimed authority over the Sabbath, healed and taught in his own name and on his own authority. He was a rebel against the religious system. The Pharisees could not fit Jesus within the legitimate religious structure of Israel, hence they had to lump him in with illegitimate religious powers—Satan. Thus, they did not acknowledge the divine origins of Jesus or His ministry. Jesus’ power was unmistakeable; they had to attribute that power to something. The something could not be God, since Jesus was not one of them. Therefore, the power had to be Satan. While we rightly critique the Pharisees for missing the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God in the person and ministry of Christ, let us also notice that they are simply applying their worldview to new and difficult data. The point, again, is that we seek to accommodate new data or information within our existing worldview.

Sometimes this requires a minor adjustment to the worldview. For example, the absence of transitional species in the fossil record has not led evolutionary theorists to abandon their commitment to random mutation and common descent. Rather, the underlying worldview is tweaked to explain the lack of supporting evidence. Hence, Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium, whereby new species arise very quickly with a large number of mutative changes present in them. Punctuated equilibrium is not the same as Darwinian evolution, which required the changes to occur over long periods of time. But the fundamental worldview remains the same; evolution is not governed by any type of intelligent designer or Creator.

(3) Worldviews will only be partially or completely defeated or replaced in the face of strong or overwhelming evidence, powerfully persuasive arguments, or significant experiential data.

That is an example of a slight alteration to worldview, and it leads nicely to the third influence of worldview upon our interpretation of evidence and arguments: worldviews can only be defeated or replaced by strong or overwhelming evidence, powerfully persuasive arguments, or significant experiential data. Worldviews represent core assumptions about the world. Such beliefs are not easily altered—especially when they have been critically examined.

For example, let’s go back to Monk and the Astronaut, the episode where Monk suspects an astronaut of murdering a former call-girl who was writing an autobiography. Monk’s primary obstacle in solving that case was the little problem of the suspect’s alibi—he was in a spaceship orbiting the earth at the time of the woman’s death. Alibis really don’t come much more airtight than that! How does Monk deal with that alibi? Does he say, “Oh well, the guy’s got a pretty solid alibi—he must not be the guy”? No—rather, Monk says, “I don’t know how he did it, but he did it. He’s the guy.” It would take more than an apparently air-tight alibi to convince Monk to abandon his thesis. As it happens, Monk was right—he Monk eventually figures out how the astronaut set conditions up for the woman to die while he was in space. The point is that Monk was not dissuaded by pretty powerful evidence that contradicted his thesis.

As it is with crime, so it is with worldview. Worldviews, particularly if they are consciously held, are held tenaciously. A little bit of contrary evidence of argumentation doesn’t do much to challenge a deeply-held worldview. One of the best examples of this that I have come across involves John Dominic Crossan, a scholar with the Jesus Seminar in the 1980s. Crossan once engaged in a public debate with William Lane Craig, one of my favorite Christian scholars and apologists, about the resurrection of Jesus. During their dialogue time, there is a fascinating and very revealing exchange.

First, Craig asks Crossan: “What evidence would it take to convince you [that the resurrection really happened]? Or are your preconceived ideas about the impossibility of the miraculous and so forth so strong that, in fact, they skew your historical judgment so that such an event could never even be admitted into court?” Craig is asking Crossan, what type and amount of evidence would convince you that Jesus really was raised from the dead? Is your worldview so set against the very possibility of such things that you could not be convinced no matter how powerful the evidence? Crossan’s reply is revealing, and worth quoting:

“But it’s a theological presupposition of mine that God does not operate that way. … What would it take to prove to me what you ask? I don’t know, unless God changes the universe.” In other words, there is no type or amount of evidence that could convince Crossan of the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus. It’s a theological presupposition of his that God would not do such things. It is a part of his worldview. He is absolutely closed to the possibility of Jesus’ resurrection, because it does not fit within his worldview. In order to accept the historicity of Christ’s resurrection, Crossan would have to alter his entire worldview, which holds that there is absolutely no possibility of life after death, and that God never involves Himself in the affairs of the world.

For many people, like Crossan, worldviews are very stubbornly held. Contrary evidence does not convince them to abandon their worldview and adopt a different one. Another way of putting this is to say that worldviews are inherently conservative. They are not changed except under extreme duress. Nonetheless, worldviews do sometimes change. This happens when many formerly Christian students abandon the faith in university—they convert from an unexamined, unconscious Christian worldview to an unexamined but conscious atheistic or agnostic worldview. On the other hand, C. S. Lewis was an atheist until well into his professional adulthood, when he converted to Christianity. In 2004, Antony Flew, Britain’s leading intellectual atheist for the past 50 years, abandoned the atheistic worldview which he had defended quite consciously and critically.

(4) The importance of knowing and holding our worldview

This is why it is vitally important to cultivate our biblical Christian worldview—to allow God’s Word to shape the way that we view the world and interpret that data and arguments that we come face-to-face with. The worldview that we hold influences the way we interpret the world around us. It takes less evidence to support an existing worldview; new data is interpreted to fit within an existing worldview; and it takes overwhelming evidence or arguments to overturn a consciously-held worldview. It is important that we as Christians consciously hold our Christian worldview, understanding what we believe, why we believe it, the logical and evidential support that confirms our faith.

Many non-Christians are unconsciously operating under a worldview which excludes the possibility of God. If we desire to reach them with the Gospel, then we need to highlight their core worldview assumptions. Often they will reject these assumptions when they are forced to admit them, because the unspoken assumptions are untenable. For example, many people today unthinkingly embrace moral relativism—the view that what is right for me could be wrong for you, and vice versa. When pursued, however, such folks will almost always admit that there are some things which are actually and fundamentally wrong—rape, child abuse, torture, cold-blooded murder. But their admission that there are some things that are objectively wrong undermines their professed acceptance of ethical relativism. When you uncover the weaknesses and flaws in others’ non-Christian worldviews, you can begin to bring down their opposition to the Christian faith. Looking back, that was instrumental in my own conversion. I had friends who were willing to challenge my atheistic worldview, and put the truth of Christianity forward for me to consider. Over time, it sunk in, and I became open to considering Christianity.
It is important that followers of Jesus are able to both cultivate a conscious Christian worldview and engage with the non-Christian worldviews of neighbors and friends. If we hold to this worldview consistently and consciously, it will affect the way that we interpret the world around us. It is also essential to understand that the contrary worldviews that others hold affect the way that they see and interpret the world around them. It will also enable us to understand how others see the world differently.

The medieval understanding of philosophy is “the handmaid to theology in the sense that, when done responsibly, philosophy is especially helpful to the study of God.” (The Love of Wisdom, 11) That’s the goal!

The Apologetic Mandate: Biblical & Contemporary

2011-08-30T14:17:00.001-06:00

“Some people depreciate the importance of apologetics as a theoretical discipline. ‘Nobody comes to Christ through arguments,’ they’ll you. ‘People aren’t interested in what’s true, but in what’s for them. They don’t want intellectual answers: they want to see Christianity lived out.’” William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 15-16.

Within the church, apologetics is not always an appreciated ministry or intellectual endeavor. Some Christians, who themselves do not struggle with long-term or deep-seated doubts, have the mistaken notion that all Christians are (or at least ought to be) like them. Most Christians did not themselves come to saving faith in Jesus through arguments, evidences, or reasonable appeals. Rather, they encountered the Lord in a personal religious experience. If that is how people come to faith, such folk may wonder, why waste time and energy on apologetics instead of focusing on worship and evangelism?

Outside of the church, apologetics is often demeaned. Apologetics is branded ‘Sunday school in disguise,’ or a ‘veiled attempt at theological brainwashing.’ Timothy Keller writes, “There are still many of a secular turn of mind who confidently say orthodox faith is vainly trying to ‘resist the tide of history.’” [Keller, The Reason for God (New York: Dutton, 2008), xvi.] Apologetics is thus a fruitless attempt by religious fundamentalists to oppose the inevitable victory of liberating secular philosophy.

Both within and without the church, then, apologetics is sometimes viewed suspiciously. This is certainly not always the case, but there is resistance and opposition to apologetics as an intellectual discipline and as a vital ministry.

In this reflective essay, I want to share a dual mandate for apologetics. My primary argument is that apologetics is a desperately-needed ministry within the contemporary North American church. I will first share the biblical mandate for apologetics, pointing to many Old and New Testament passages demonstrating the centrality of apologetic encounters throughout Scripture. Then I will seek to expose the crying out for apologetic resources in the contemporary church. My hope and prayer is that individual Christians will be spurred on to pursue answers for their own questions and doubts, and churches will be sparked to start apologetic ministries, or to intentionally incorporate apologetic approaches to existing ministries.

I. The Biblical Mandate for Apologetics

1 Peter 3:13-16 reads: Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

Verse 15 reads: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” The word translated “answer” is απολογια, which often takes the context of a courtroom appeal. It conveys the idea of providing evidence, building a case, responding to questions, or defending against attack. Thus, many translations supply the word “defense” (NASB, ESV) instead of “answer”. Notice the other keys in this verse, keeping in mind the context of the larger passage.

First, apologetics is commanded for believers, not encouraged or exhorted. “Always be prepared”—this is a Greek imperative, God’s mode for giving commands. The grammatical construction is like that of the Great Commission in Matthew 28—“GO, MAKE DISCIPLIES, BAPTIZE THEM.” These are not suggestions, they are commissions, commands required of all believers. So, just remember that apologetics is not an optional exercise, it is a ministry commanded of followers of Jesus Christ.
Second, Peter reminds his audience that they are going to be asked why they believe what they believe.

Third, we are to be ready to respond to those who ask us; we are to be ready to give answers—explaining what we believe and why we believe it. We are to provide a reasonable response, to demonstrate The Reason for God, or to show that ours is a Reasonable Faith.

Fourth, apologetics is intimately connected to the Christian hope that we have. Biblical hope, please keep in mind, is not some airy-fairy wishful thinking—“I hope my Prince Charming will come to sweep me off my feet.” Rather, biblical hope is a sure and certain hope grounded in the uncompromisable promises of God Almighty.

So, following from 1 Peter 3:15, we can say that apologetics is providing reasonable answers to people who ask us why we believe as we do.

Consider the opening to Luke’s Gospel. Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to be to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Why does Luke write his gospel? So that his readers may know the certainty of the things they have been taught. In other words, Luke is giving them reasons to believe. How does Luke go about it? By carefully investigating what Jesus said and did; by recording his life, ministry, death, and resurrection. And he claims to have done so using the testimony carried by eyewitnesses of those events. Luke is very careful to insist that he is providing good, historical reasons for us to believe that Jesus truly did say this, Jesus really did do this, and these things really did happen to Jesus.

Briefly, consider the letter of 1 John. It opens: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. Note the emphasis on eyewitness testimony – we have heard, seen, touched what we’re writing about. Toward the end of the letter, in 5:13, John writes: I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. Heretical tendencies had already arisen in the early Christian communities, and John writes to those who believe, but have some questions or doubts, in order to assure them of the truth of their faith.

Paul emphasizes the same theme in his letters—there are others who try to pervert or alter the faith, but Paul confirms the truth of the apostolic witness. Galatians 1:6-8 – I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! You have believed in the Gospel message, the good news that Christ Jesus came to save sinners; now stand firm in that Gospel, rejecting the false gospel preached by false apostles and others who seek to change the message of Jesus Christ to suit their own purposes.

Another example, this time of active personal apologetic ministry in the life of Paul. When Paul comes to Thessalonica, we read, in Acts 17:2-4:
As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,” he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.

Why does Paul have to reason with the Jews in the synagogue? Why does he have to explain and prove that Jesus had to suffer for our sins and rise from the dead? Because the Jews would not have immediately and easily accepted the message. “How can that be, Paul?” “Doesn’t Deuteronomy 21 proclaim that any man who dies hung on a tree is accursed by God?” “Isn’t the Messiah of God going to be a victorious, conquering king?” Paul’s reasoning ministry, demonstrating to the Jews by their Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ, explaining and proving the truth of the Christian faith, is a biblical example of apologetics. He responds to the questions and doubts that the people have, giving them reasons to believe and follow Jesus Christ.

If you read on in Acts 17, beginning in verse 16, you find Paul doing the same thing again when he comes to Athens—this time reasoning with both Jews, according to their scriptures, and Greeks, according to their philosophy. This time it is a fascinating picture. Paul is distressed by the rampant idol-worship in Athens, and reasons with both Jews and Greeks. Some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers hear Paul expounding this new doctrine, and bring him to the Areopagus, a regular gathering-place for philosophers to exchange ideas. In what is known as the “Areopagus address” or the “Mars Hill address”, Paul very interestingly begins his apologetic and evangelistic appeal by establishing common ground with the idol-worshiping pagan philosophers in the heart of intellectual Greece.
Verse 22: Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
Paul goes on to expound the Christ, focusing, as always, on the resurrection. At the end of the day, some hear and embrace the message, others sneer and mock Paul, while others yet are intrigued and just want to hear more about it.

The Gospel of John closes with an explicit declaration of its apologetic intent. John 20:24-29 contains Jesus’ famous encounter with ‘doubting Thomas’. I want you to notice, first, that having doubts is not a cause for condemnation in the Bible. We all know the story here – Thomas was not present with the disciples when Jesus first appeared to them after His resurrection. Thomas says he will not believe their testimony unless he too sees the risen Jesus. Verse 26: A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.’ Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’

Now, does Jesus rebuke or condemn Thomas for his doubt? No. There is perhaps some mild, slightly humorous correction, but there is nothing like a rebuke. Next, notice Thomas’ response to Jesus’ appearance: “My Lord and my God!” I contend that this is the clearest personal declaration of Jesus’ divine identity that you can find in the New Testament. And, importantly, it is professed by doubting Thomas.

John then concludes this chapter: Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. What is the purpose of John’s Gospel? Very explicitly, he writes so that the reader may be convinced that Jesus is the Christ and thereby believe and receive eternal life. That, my friends, is an apologetic gospel.

John then concludes his gospel, in chapter 21, with the following. John 21:24-25 – This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. There is so much richness in this ending as well – it points to John’s Gospel being finally edited and published by a disciple or group of disciples; it also openly acknowledges that not everything is covered in the Gospel of John. Indeed, it hints that perhaps John has consciously chosen to recount many things precisely because the other Synoptic gospels did not record them. From that perspective, it is not surprising that the content of John is so different than the content of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Lest you think that apologetics is always and only God’s followers reasoning with others to convince them of the truth of the Gospel, I want to point to some passages where God Himself is presenting an apologetic either to His children or to the nations.

The book of Exodus can be read as God’s apologetic treatise. Chapter 3-4 contain God’s apologetic and self-revelation to Moses, anointing Moses as His chosen servant to deliver Israel out of Egypt. Chapter 7-12 contain God’s apologetic and self-revelation to pagan Egypt, demonstrating Yahweh’s absolute sovereignty and Lordship over the idols and false gods of the Egyptians. Chapters 13-17 contain God’s apologetic and self-revelation to the children of Israel, demonstrating Yahweh’s intimate care and meticulous provision for His chosen nation.

We could look at many other biblical passages which exemplify apologetics. Many of the sermons and encounters in the Book of Acts are apologetic in nature. Philippians 1:16 affirms that Paul is in prison for the defense of the Gospel. Apologetics simply permeates the Scriptures—as long as one is open to seeing apologetics there, it is difficult to miss.

II. The Historical Mandate for Apologetics

I am not going to spend much time at all discussing the history of apologetics within Christianity. I have emphasized the biblical mandate for apologetics already, and that is central. But it is important to stress that apologetics has a long and rich history within the Church, beginning with the Apostolic Fathers and continuing to the present day.
Justin Martyr is perhaps the best-known early church apologist, particularly as he wrote the first full-length defense of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Others can be considered – Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Papias, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Origen, etc. For more on the history of apologetics in Christian history, I suggest consulting Avery Dulles’ History of Apologetics, and/or Kenneth Boa & Robert Bowman’s Faith Has Its Reasons.

III. The Contemporary Ministry Mandate for Apologetics

From my perspective, it is enough to know that God commands believers to be involved in apologetics, and that we see examples of apologetics throughout Scripture. But as we observe and reflect on the situation of the contemporary church in North America, I think we can see how desperately we need to engage in apologetics today.

Surveys and studies show that an alarmingly large proportion of children raised in Christian homes walk away from Christianity as students or young adults. The most recent Lifeway surveys mentioned that just over 70% of “Christian teenagers” drop out of church before the age of 25. Why is this happening? There are many things at work, but a lack of apologetics is part of the problem. Honest, genuine answers need honest, genuine responses, and often these youth are not getting such answers.

Christians and non-Christians alike have questions and doubts. A friend of mine, a pastor in rural Georgia, asked members of his congregation what kinds of issues they would like him to address in future sermons and Bible studies. Lots of great questions – How old is the earth? What about the Bible and scientific teaching about evolution? If people believe in Scientology, can they be saved? Do we have to be perfect to enter heaven? What is the difference between the God Christians worship and the gods of other religions? Is God real? Is the story of creation a myth? Is the Bible really true? I've heard you say that Jesus is the God-man. Is Jesus a man? Or is He God? My friends tell me that all religions lead to heaven: Is Jesus the only way to heaven? If God is a God of love, is there really a hell? My friends and I are not bad people; isn't it true that people are basically good? These are issues that apologists typically address. These questions are on people’s minds. If Christians are not equipped to respond to the questions on people’s hearts and minds, we are not doing our job. Apologetics is not optional: it is a commandment from the Lord.

Carol Anway did an extensive study of American women who converted to Islam. She writes that, of the fourteen women she interviewed, “Three of the women, prior to converting to Islam, were hoping to convert their [Muslim] husband to Christianity by agreeing to study Islam if the husband would consider Christianity. One woman started asking questions of ministers and theologians to help her prove the superiority of Christianity to her husband. She said, ‘I wanted it so badly; I cried to several of them to help me and most of them said, “I’m sorry—I don’t know” or “I’ll write to you,” but I never heard from them.’ . . . Nine of the women expressed problems with the belief in Jesus as God, Jesus as the Son of God, or the concept of the Trinity. Five others said they had major questions about Christianity that no one had satisfactorily answered.”

From 2001-2008, I served as the English pastor at Edmonton Chinese Baptist Church, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. In the course of ministry, I got involved in campus ministry, leading Bible studies and serving as a part-time Baptist chaplain at the University of Alberta. I regularly had students drop by my office to talk about spiritual matters. Many of the students I talked with had concerns about morality, sexual ethics, how to discern God’s will for their studies and careers. But over the years, I also encountered dozens of university students with questions and doubts about Christianity. How do we know that we can trust the Bible as God’s Word? Did Jesus really rise from the dead on the 3rd day? My philosopher professor insists that it is a proven fact that God does not exist—why would he say that? My biology professor says that modern evolution has disproved the Bible—is that true? Why is there evil in a world created by a good God? Inevitably, we would spend a considerable amount of time talking about their questions or doubts. Tell me, what is that called—when you talk with someone who has serious questions or doubts about the truth of the Christian faith? Yeah – that’s apologetics. And I’ll tell you what – it is absolutely exhilarating to have someone come to you with serious questions or doubts about Christianity, and to see their faith restored and strengthened through your conversation with them. As they receive answers to their questions, you can see the Holy Spirit reassure them, re-awaken their love for God, and deepen their faith walk. Just as the angels in heaven rejoice over one sinner who repents, so too they rejoice over the restoration of those who have been struggling in their faith.

On a few occasions, after engaging in a lengthy apologetic dialogue with a student, I would hear words which chilled me to the bone. “Tawa, thank you so much for talking with me about this. I tried to ask my parents these questions, but they just got mad and said I shouldn’t be having those kinds of questions.” Or: “I asked my pastor about these things, but he just said that Christians are supposed to have faith, not doubt or questions, and that I should just believe and not ask questions about it.”
Those comments break my heart. When our children, neighbors, friends, or co-workers, have legitimate questions about the Christian faith, it is not sufficient to rebuke them for lacking faith. You remember the father who comes to Jesus, begging that He heal his son? Jesus says, “Do you believe I can do this?” The father responds, “Lord, I believe. Help me in my unbelief!” Most of us are like that father—a combination of exuberant faith and lingering doubt. When our children or friends or parishioners are asking honest, searching, deep questions about the truthfulness of Christianity, it is not enough for us to say, “don’t ask these questions – just believe!” It is not enough to minimize or deny the validity of the questions. It is our responsibility to engage the questions, and provide reasonable, thoughtful answers to them. When the biblical command to be ready to give an answer to those who seek reasons to believe is not fulfilled, the back door of the church becomes well-used. People with unanswered and unresolved doubts just leave.

We can see, in short, that there is a biblical, historical, and contemporary mandate for apologetics. Scripture both commands and exemplifies apologetics. Church history is replete with apologetic ministries. And the contemporary church context demands and requires that Christians engage in intentional apologetics. Fortunately, the time is ripe and God has equipped His church with rich resources to engage in apologetics. I am persuaded that there has never before been the breadth, depth, and wealth of active apologists providing written and spoken materials to strengthen the apologetic ministries of today’s church. But that, I think, is a topic for a different day.

Review of Darrell Bock, "Recovering the Real Lost Gospel"

2011-08-26T08:56:00.000-06:00

Bock, Darrell L. Recovering the Real Lost Gospel: Reclaiming the Gospel as Good News. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.

Over the past two weeks, I have been working through Darrell Bock’s Recovering the Real Lost Gospel: Reclaiming the Gospel as Good News, a relatively compact 136-page read. Bock writes out of concern that when “some people preach the gospel today, I am not sure I hear its presentation as good news.” (2) Sometimes the gospel is a therapeutic call to self-healing; sometimes it’s only about a transaction (“a kind of spiritual root canal”); sometimes it’s only about avoiding God’s wrath; sometimes it’s about transforming political structures alone. Bock aims to discuss key biblical texts in order to answer the question: “What does the Bible say about the gospel?” (2) His thesis is that “the gospel is good news, and its core is a restored relationship with God.” (1)

The primary misconception (or misrepresentation) of the gospel that Bock addresses is the transactional approach. He affirms whole-heartedly that the gospel involves a transaction—reception of God’s forgiveness of sin through faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ. However, Bock insists that “there is more to this gospel. . . . this actually only represents the starting point for God’s good news.” (4)

Recovering the Real Lost Gospel contains seven chapters and a brief conclusion. Chapter 1 (The Gospel Starts with a Promise: Relationship in the Spirit) traces God’s consistent desire and plan to restore His intimate relationship with the human beings He created in His own image. “God has taken the initiative in Jesus Christ to bring us into relationship with Him.” (20) Thus, the gospel is not primarily about canceling sin or avoiding damnation; rather, the gospel is about “gaining someone precious, a new vibrant relationship with the gracious and self-sacrificing God who created us to know and follow Him.” (17)

Chapter 2 (The Gospel is a Meal and a Washing: The Lord’s Table and Baptism) focuses on the two central ordinances of the Christian Church. Bock emphasizes that the gospel has both individual and corporate implications. “Baptism focuses on the individual’s response. The table shows how God formed a people through the gospel.” (23) Again, Bock focuses our attention on moving beyond the atoning death of Christ: “Death for sin [Jesus’ crucifixion] is not the meal; it is the ticket to gain entry.” (37)

Chapter 3 moves to a discussion of the central event of the gospel: the crucifixion of Jesus (A Unique Action Meeting a Comprehensive Need: The Cross). Bock competently traces the biblical account of fall and sin: “Humanity was created to reflect God and His rule,” (43) but instead “we live in ways that do not reflect what God desires of those He created.” (42) Bock reminds his readers that we need to understand the ‘Bad News’ of sin and indictment before we can truly appreciate the ‘Good News’ of reconciliation with God.

In Chapter 4 (The Gospel Is Inaugurated as a Gift of God’s Grace), Bock emphasizes the grace given through the gospel. He (correctly, in my opinion) insists that it is difficult for contemporary Westerners to embrace “the idea that we do not earn” salvation through the gospel (60). We all want to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. But Bock notes that “if salvation is by works of the law [or by our own efforts], then Jesus had no reason to die. There was no need for Him to cover our sins; we could cover it ourselves.” (62) Bock then goes farther, and implicitly indicts portions of the contemporary church (I cannot help but think he is addressing my own Southern Baptist tradition) for treating grace “as something common, something to note in passing as we go on living as though nothing matters but what we want or desire.” (67) The sin he is addressing is treating the gospel “only as a transaction and forget[ting] its design for the renewed life the Spirit gives.” (67) Such an attitude “can indicate perhaps that we never embraced [the gospel] in the first place.” (67) Here Bock echoes large portions of the New Testament, from John the Baptist’s command to bear fruit in keeping with repentance (Matthew 3:8), to Jesus’ warning that not all who call on His name will be saved but only those whose lives reflect transformation through renewed relationship with the Father (Matthew 7:13-23), to Paul’s insistence that an authentic Christian has died to sin and must lead a transformed life (Romans 6:1-14), to James’ insistence that ‘faith’ which is unaccompanied by works of righteousness is not really faith at all (James 2:14-25).

Chapter 5 discusses the person of Jesus Christ in relationship to the monotheistic God of Old Testament Judaism (The Gospel Is Affirmed in Divine Action and Scripture: Showing Who Jesus Is). Bock traces Jesus’ professions of divine authority and prerogatives, and demonstrates how 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 (amongst other passages) reflects Jewish Christians’ commitment to (a) affirming the full deity of Jesus (b) within a traditional and staunch monotheistic conception of God.

Chapter 6 (Embracing the Gospel: Repentance and Faith) analyzes three key terms demonstrating how we are to respond to the gospel: turn, repent, and faith. The gospel is “a turning point that pulls us into and makes us responsive to God’s light.” (91) Repentance, or the changing of one’s mind, “entails a willingness to change direction. … Repentance is not merely an internal act of the mind; it involves an attitude that results in concrete change of practice.” (93) Faith, meanwhile, “is the intersection of repentance and turning, where mind and action unite.” (97) Faith is better understood as trust rather than mere intellectual assent or belief.

The final chapter (A Different Kind of Power Through a Way of Life Pleasing to God: Reconciliation, Peace, and Power of God unto Salvation) focuses on another three terms: reconciliation, peace, and power. The plea of the gospel is to “be reconciled to God.” (114, citing 2 Corinthians 5:18-20) Embracing the gospel brings peace in all directions: peace with God, but also “a relational peace” with others (118). Finally, the gospel gives us power (Romans 1:16-17). In his fallen state, man is “trapped in sin, helpless (read powerless) to escape the dilemma in which he finds himself.” (121) God, however, offers justification through Jesus (Romans 3:20-5:21). Sanctification comes through the Spirit (Romans 6-8). “It is good news to know that God gives us the power to live as He designed us to live. That power stands at the center of the gospel.” (121)

Bock concludes the book with a brief discussion of the love of God: the gospel is fundamentally about “a relationship rooted in God’s love, not just a transaction.” (125) Using the example of the sinful woman in Luke 7, Bock equates our gratitude and renewed life with our sense of forgiveness. “To the extent we think we are entitled to blessing from God, we will demand it from Him and not loved Him in response.” (132) Here, I think Bock places a perceptive finger upon the pulse of contemporary society: a sense of entitlement, a sense of self-righteousness, a sense of deserving more than we currently have. Even among those who disbelieve in God, there is a sense that God, if He happened to exist, owes us more than He has given us. A proper response to the gospel, however, is deep gratitude. “To the extent we appreciate His grace extended to us when we did not deserve it, we will love Him with a depth of response in appreciation for what God has done.” (132)

I have to admit, Bock’s little treatise on the gospel was not what I was expecting. I think that I was expecting a vibrant response to liberal theologians’ emasculation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ—and that would indeed be a worthy project. However, Recovering the Real Lost Gospel is also a necessary corrective. Bock is right, I think, to argue that many in the evangelical church have missed the heart of the gospel by reducing it to a transaction bringing forgiveness and entrance into heaven. Bock nicely balances the issue, insisting upon the absolute centrality of the cross, and the real forgiveness for real and damning sin that we receive through Christ, while also emphasizing that the gospel is more, so much more, than “just” such a transaction.

Furthermore, there were numerous golden nuggets throughout. For example, in his discussion of the cross, Bock says: “Earthly wisdom says humanity can do whatever it wants in its own power through its own cleverness. In a sense, the cross is God’s statement that such independence will never meet human need. The irony is that the very ability to reason is a key aspect of our being made in the image of God.” (48) Amen – and a much needed reminder.

I also learned some new things through Bock’s depth and breadth of biblical research and scholarship. For example, he discusses Luke 3, where John the Baptist insists that “he is not worthy to untie the strap” of the coming Messiah’s sandal. In the context, John describes himself as a slave to the coming master. Bock notes that Jews were to avoid becoming slaves; furthermore, if they had to become slaves, “there was one thing later Jewish tradition noted a Hebrew slave should never do: he should never untie the strap of his master’s sandal in order to wash his feet. . . . Unstrapping a master’s sandal was seen as too demeaning for a Hebrew to perform.” (13) Understanding that bit of biblical history and Jewish culture brings new depth to the Baptist’s proclamation, and the heightened honor and respect and authority of the one who was to come after him.

On the whole, Recovering the Real Lost Gospel was an enjoyable read. There wasn’t anything revolutionary, nothing life-changing or earth-shattering. I am and have long been solidly in Bock’s camp, exhorting fellow evangelicals to embrace the multi-faceted richness of the gospel of Jesus Christ instead of focusing exclusively upon the atoning sacrifice. The gospel is about relationship; it is about a renewed relationship with God, reconciliation, peace, and newness of life in the Holy Spirit. This book would make a nice gift for some who perhaps have a stunted vision of what the gospel is; it would also make a nice book study for Sunday school classes or study groups (each chapter ends with helpful discussion questions).

Darwinism, Intelligent Design, and the Plight of the Polar Bear

2011-08-12T13:58:00.000-06:00

Darwinism, Intelligent Design, and the Plight of the Polar Bear

Susan McGrath, “On Thin Ice: Not Too Late for Polar Bears.” National Geographic Vol. 220, No. 1 (July 2011), 64-75.

The beloved polar bear is one of the iconic animals of the Canadian (and Eurasian) Arctic. During a mission trip from Edmonton to native communities in the Northwest Territories, I purchased a sweet plush polar bear for our then-3-year-old daughter. She has loved that little teddy bear for five years now.

Non-plush-toy polar bears are not quite as cute and cuddly as their souvenir-store counterparts. Armed with sharp claws and teeth, polar bears are also the largest land carnivore in the world. Males routinely grow to 1000 pounds; females top out around 500 pounds. The largest polar bear ever recorded was over 2000 pounds. So clearly, polar bears are massive meat-eaters with a perch atop the Arctic food chain.

Sadly, Canada’s iconic polar bear is in a fair bit of trouble right now.

The July 2011 National Geographic article by Susan McGrath (accompanied by some stunning photographs by Florian Schulz), does a commendable job of relating the impact of changing weather patterns (climate change) upon the extent of Arctic ice and therefore upon the polar bear’s hunting grounds. The bottom line: hunting grounds are decreasing as the extent of summer sea-ice decreases; polar bears are not able to store up as much fat for the lean winter months; females are reproducing less frequently; and cubs are not surviving as regularly. The picture for the polar bear is somewhat bleak.

As a Christian who dearly loves the powerful symbolism of the polar bear, I grieve over the current predicament facing the polar bear. I want for us (collectively) to do something to do something about it – to help the polar bear survive and thrive in a changing environment, or to help reverse the changing environment so that the polar bear might survive and thrive.

As a Christian, I have the moral and theological resources to provide a foundation for my desire to “help” or “save” the polar bear. I believe that God created the polar bear – perhaps not immediately and exactly as the polar bear is today, but nonetheless that God created its type and intended for the polar bear to occupy the top of the Arctic food chain. I believe that polar bears are not the result of a long period of random mutation and natural selection; I do not believe that polar bears evolved to their current status by virtue of “survival of the fittest”. I also believe that God has commissioned human beings, as His image-bearers, to exercise stewardship over His creation, including the majestic polar bear. Consequently, I believe that we have a prima facie (i.e., all other things being equal) responsibility to seek the continued survival and flourishing of polar bears in the Arctic. If the current plight of the polar bear stems in full or partial measure from the consequences of human activity, then that prima facie responsibility is heightened.

I suspect that most naturalists (atheists/agnostics) would tend to agree with my conclusion – namely, that people ought to help the polar bear. However, I want to briefly examine how they might arrive at such a conclusion. After all, in the absence of belief in God, one certainly will not couch humanity’s responsibility to help the polar bear in such things as “God created the polar bear,” “God has commissioned human beings … to exercise stewardship over His creation.” In particular, I want to question the foundations on which a naturalist could possibly build a case for human intervention on behalf of the bear.

Under Darwinian evolution (briefly and roughly defined as the undirected descent of all living beings from a common ancestor through random mutation and natural selection; with natural selection itself briefly and roughly defined as genetic reproduction and propagation of traits and types that are conducive to biological survival and propagation in a given environmental context), the polar bear is neither created by God, nor placed under the caring stewardship of humanity. Rather, the polar bear is the product of chance and directionless, purposeless change. The polar bear emerged at the top of the Arctic food chain simply because it was the organism best-fitted for that position—rather, the polar bear evolved into that role in the Arctic.

Darwinism, in both its classical and neo-Darwinist manifestations, emphasize the survival of the fittest—those organisms best equipped for a given context will thrive and fill any ecological voids left by the demise of other organisms less-suited for the environment.

So, then, here is the crux of my question: why, on a Darwinian model, ought human beings seek the survival and health of the polar bear populations of the Canadian Arctic? Ought we not rather allow nature to follow her course? If Darwinism is true, then one of two things should follow. Either (a) the polar bear will adapt to the changing environmental conditions in the Arctic, so that it emerges unscathed and continues to reign as the food chain champion. In this scenario, perhaps the polar bear will evolve so greatly that it even becomes an entirely new type of bear, or a different species altogether. Or (b) the polar bear will continue to suffer, and eventually go extinct, because it is ill-suited for that environment. In this scenario, there is nothing “good” or “bad” about the polar bear’s extinction—this is simply evolution’s way of dealing with changing environments. Too bad for the polar bear … but no worries, we are assured by leading proponents of evolution that nature is callous and indifferent to our preferences. Besides, as the polar bear suffers, that will allow some other creatures—perhaps already-known predators, perhaps something new and unexpected—to adapt and step into the royal role heretofore reserved for the polar bear.

In either case, I cannot find a solid foundation, on purely Darwinian terms, to support human intervention on behalf of the polar bear. Rather, we should allow nature to follow her course and see what happens. In order to justify human action, I submit to you that we need to embrace some form of Intelligent Design—acknowledging that the created order has a supernatural designer, and that the designer has entrusted human beings with derivative stewardship over creation. We, in turn, are called to exercise Intelligent Design in our creation stewardship. God created the polar bear; we are called to care (in proximate terms) for the polar bear; thus, there is a responsibility to alleviate the plight of the polar bear. On the philosophical presuppositions of Darwinism, evolution is in charge: random mutation and natural selection are king, and if natural selection disfavors the polar bear, so be it.

Logic, Morality, and Divine Nature

2011-08-11T13:59:00.000-06:00

The laws of logic, like the laws of morality, are not entities distinct from God (existing apart from Him), but rather are themselves aspects of divine rationality and character respectively.

Paraphrased and expanded from Steven Cowan and James Spiegel, "The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy" (B&H Academic, 2009), 280.

The Birth of Religion, according to National Geographic

2011-06-28T21:25:00.000-06:00

The June issue of National Geographic contained a fascinating article pondering the origins of religion in human civilization – Charles C. Mann, “The Birth of Religion,” in National Geographic June 2011, 34-59. Mann’s article discusses the archaeological find of an ancient temple at Gobekli Tepe, in contemporary Turkey, which overturns traditional theses concerning the birth of religion.

Sociologists of religion for the past hundred years have postulated that religion is the result of humanity’s move towards systematic agriculture. The theory holds that as the last Ice Age ended, around 10,000 B.C., vegetation and wild game became substantially more abundant. Prior to the thawing, all humans were believed to have been hunter-gatherers, nomads living in small groups in temporary settlements, moving from season to season. As the Ice Age ended and the environment warmed, humans began to domesticate both plants and animals, allowing them to settle in permanent communities. Religion then arose, driven by the need for social cohesion and cooperation. Such is the traditional picture of the rise of human religion. The traditional picture accommodates numerous variations on a theme. All such variations share the common trend: first civilization, then religion. Humans first began to gather in permanent communities, and then began to develop religious expressions.

Charles Mann’s article suggests that the finds at Gobekli Tepe and other ancient sites in Turkey may overturn the traditional understanding of the birth of human religion. Gobekli Tepe is a collection of massive stone pillars, neatly and cleanly carved and decorated with “bas-reliefs of animals—a cavalcade of gazelles, snakes, foxes, scorpions, and ferocious wild boars.” (39) Gobekli Tepe is understood by its investigators and interpreters to have been a religious site—a temple where some type of worship, sacrifice, or offerings took place regularly. Gobekli Tepe is clearly a monumental structure, and to everyone’s surprise, dates to about 11,600 years ago—earlier than Stonehenge, and considerably earlier than the Egyptian pyramids. Mann reminds his readers that at the time of Gobekli Tepe’s construction, “much of the human race lived in small nomadic bands that survived by foraging for plants and hunting wild animals.” (39) The massive, 16-ton stones were cut, hauled, and erected without the benefit of “wheels or beasts of burden.” (39) That in itself is a stunning feat, a massive human achievement for its time.

Perhaps most remarkably, Gobekli Tepe was built in an area entirely bereft of any sign of permanent human settlement. Despite extensive archaeological digs in the surrounding areas, it is evident that Gobekli Tepe was not the site of a permanent settlement; furthermore, there were no settlements in the immediate area. Gobekli Tepe had no water source – “the nearest stream was about three miles away.” (48) The hundreds of workers required to erect the temple would have needed both homes and food, but there is no sign of either huts, houses, or agriculture anywhere nearby (48-49). Instead, it seems clear that the humans who built Gobekli Tepe “were foragers.” (48)

Thus, Gobekli Tepe poses a significant challenge to the traditional picture of the development of human religion. The orthodox thesis holds that human settlement came first, with the rise of domesticated animals and agriculture; Gobekli Tepe suggests, to the contrary, that religion came first, with a monumental temple edifice with absolutely no sign of human settlement, domesticated animals, or human agriculture. Mann’s suggested reconstruction holds that as the Ice Age ended, “wonderment at changes in the natural world” led to the development of “organized religion.” (41) People began to gather “for rituals, creating the need to grow food for large groups gathering near sacred sites.” (41) As the need arose for centralized food production and distribution, humans began to domesticate plants and animals. The development of agriculture facilitated the growth of permanent human settlements, which enabled the continued development of organized religion.

So there are now two competing theories put forth by sociologists of religion. The traditional theory holds that the development of agriculture and permanent human settlements led to the birth of organized religion. The new rival thesis holds that human wonderment at environmental changes led to religious speculation and ritual, which then led to the development of agriculture and permanent human settlements. In some ways, the competing theories are a little bit like the chicken and the egg. Either reconstruction is necessarily speculative, and difficult, likely impossible, to prove with reasonable confidence.

I want to suggest something more fundamental and foundational, however. Both theories—traditional and new—have something significant in common. Both are theories put forth by secular sociologists of religion who discount the possibility of a supernatural (divine) source of human religion. What is most notable, in my opinion, about both theories is what they rule out—the Christian theory of the origin of human religion.

From a biblical worldview, there is a certain and definitive source of human religion—the image of God imprinted within each and every human being. The birth of religion is not a puzzle to be solved for Christians; rather, it is a natural, perfectly reasonable and comprehensible result of God creating mankind in His own image. God created human beings to know Him and to be in fellowship and communion with Him. God walked with Adam in the Garden of Eden; Adam and Eve were able to talk face-to-face with God.

Ever since the fall of humanity in Genesis 3, human beings have had an insatiable hunger to know and to touch the divine—to be in relationship with God. Thus, since the dawn of human civilization, or more properly, for as long as there have been human beings, there has been human religion. There is either true religion—knowledge of the one true God and relationship with Him on His terms; or there is man-made religion—a seeking after divine reality and an attempt to encounter and/or control the supernatural forces that man has always acknowledged at work in the world.

It is both ironic and sad that many mainstream sociologists of religion are apparently unwilling and/or unable to consider a supernatural source for human religion. Ideally, sociologists of religion would be able to contemplate the possibility that there truly is a God who created the world and crafted human beings to seek after Him. Were they to open themselves to that possibility, they might just see how readily explicable the ‘puzzle’ of the birth, growth, proliferation, and development of human religiosity is.

Whether secular sociologists ever contemplate the Christian explanation of the birth of religion, however, it is right and good for Christians to embrace and promote such an explanation. Religion is the result of the image of God. Humans are incurably religion, insatiably spiritual; we have an unquenchable demand for the divine, because we are created by and for the one true God who made all that is (including us). Religion is not just the result of “wonderment” at changes in the natural world, nor of the development of agricultural and civilization.

Mann’s article, “The Birth of Religion,” then, is a fascinating insight into the theses put forth by sociologists of religion who cannot conceive of religion being the result of a God-infused universe. The temple at Gobekli Tepe is truly awe-inspiring and instructive. But neither Gobekli Tepe nor the traditional theory of the birth of religion is the final word on the issue—the existence, nature, and purpose of the Triune God is.

Blurring the Lines of Orthodox Christianity – Rob Bell, Love Wins, and Pastoral Firings

2011-03-28T08:51:00.000-06:00

Blurring the Lines of Orthodox Christianity – Rob Bell, Love Wins, and Pastoral Firings

I finished reading Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins, on Saturday morning. I intend to share some thoughts on Bell’s book over the coming weeks – but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with such good intentions. Then again, according to Bell, there is no such hell for a road to lead to, except in a subjective, this-worldly sense. But I digress …

Today I wanted to share an interesting news story that my wife forwarded to me on Friday. Here is the link (http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/03/pastor_fired_for_backing_rob_b.html) to a story out of Grand Rapids. A Methodist pastor (Chad Holtz) in North Carolina was fired last week. The immediate precipitating cause was his expression of support for Rob Bell and the conclusions of his book, although the news story hints at deeper issues lurking under the surface. There are a couple of intriguing questions that are posed through this story.

(1) Is the Christian church intended to be, as the fired pastor intimates, “open hearts, open minds, open doors”? What does that mean, historically and presently?

(2) Is the church “threatened” by people who challenge “the way we’ve always thought”?

My short answer to both main questions is an emphatic NO – at least not in the way that pastor Holtz suggests.

First, the Christian church is not intended to have unqualified or unconditional “open hearts, open minds, open doors”. Let me break that down a little.

(a) Open Hearts – here, I agree with Holtz (I think). The church is to be characterized by a consistently open heart, inviting and welcoming in all who are hurting and seeking healing. None are turned away from the heart of the church. We are to express love and desire for all peoples, of all tribes and nations, all backgrounds and situations. Whatever the sin, whatever the sinner, whatever the situation, whatever the circumstance, our heart is to filled with compassion, grace, and love for our fellow persons. All are created in the image of God, and we are to love all. Please note – when I talk about “love”, I am not talking about wishy-washy, mushy-gushy feelings of sentimentality. Love can also be tough. Sometimes the loving thing to do is refuse to give the homeless alcoholic money, but instead to buy him a meal and drive him to a detox or rehab center. I’m just saying. Love also must be active, not merely internal. When the apostle James tells us that “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world,” he is saying that our love for orphans and widows must be expressed through practical provision. So, open hearts, yes.

(b) Open Minds – I think I disagree with Holtz here. If he means open minds in the sense of thinking through things, pondering new arguments, considering new information and data, and being open to having God lead and guide you by His Holy Spirit, then I agree. But I think it is quite clear that this is not what Holtz means. Rather, he means that we need to be open to acknowledging that what Christians historically have affirmed as a central tenet of the faith maybe is not. Perhaps items that are central to the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, the creedal affirmations embedded within the New Testament itself, need to be jettisoned from our ‘new Christian creeds’. If this is what he means, and I suspect that it is (though I would be happy to be corrected on this), then I vehemently disagree. Christian leaders, philosophers, theologians, and pastors certainly need to have open minds that are willing to consider and work through difficult issues; we need to read Bell’s book and critically engage it. But having an open mind in this sense does not mean simply accepting the arguments that Bell puts forward in his book, and revamping Christian doctrine accordingly.

(c) Open Doors – I think I agree with Holtz here. The doors of the church are to be open to all. As Jesus said, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I love the metaphors and images of the church that see it as a hospital, or a lighthouse – seeking to guide home those whose ships are in danger of running aground on the rocks, and seeking to bring healing to those who are ill by bringing them to the Great Healer.

But here’s another question – are the doors of church leadership to be unconditionally open doors? Are the minds of church leaders to be unconditionally open? This is where the heart of the disagreement lies, and this is why I applaud the church council which fired Pastor Holtz, if indeed they fired him for the reasons that I think they did. Don’t get me wrong – I always think it is sad when someone is terminated from their job, particularly so when said person is a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The heart of the issue, however, is that church leaders are charged with shepherding the flock. A part of that high and holy calling is protecting the flock of God against those who threaten it. In that sense, Holtz is right that the church council is reacting against people who “threaten” the church. But the threat is not someone threatening the way that the church has always thought. God is perfectly capable of defending His truth, and will always do so. Rather, the threat is someone who is placed in a position of spiritual leadership and authority leading the flock of God astray.

James 3:1 – “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

Matthew 18:6-7 – “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!”

Galatians 1:8-9 – “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”

Three different passages (and there are dozens more that could be cited) that speak both about the significance and reverence involved in teaching the flock of God, and the judgment that comes (rightfully) upon the one who leads the flock of God astray. Christian leaders have immense authority and spiritual power; they exert incredible influence over the people whom they lead. Rob Bell is one such Christian leader – he pastors a mega-church, and has tens of thousands more who hang on his words in podcasts, blogs, NOOMA videos, etc. He certainly exerts influence and authority in the Christian world.

Pastor Holtz was also a man with spiritual authority, who answered to another group of Christian leaders with spiritual authority. Holtz teaches and preaches within a Christian denomination – a church which has historically affirmed the central tenets of the Christian faith as expressed in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds (C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity).

I agree with Holtz that there needs to be room for dialogue, discussion, and exploration within Christendom. Calvinism or Arminianism? Traditional hymns or contemporary praise songs? Mega-church or house church? Infant baptism or believer’s baptism? Trans-substantiation, con-substantiation, or symbolic substantiation? These are all important theological issues (OK, two of them are less important, but still worthwhile dialogues), and call for open minds and open hearts.
But there are other questions that, for Christian leaders and teachers, are not open questions—rather, they are core doctrines of the faith which, if denied, define one as being outside the bounds of orthodoxy. The existence and Tri-unity of God. The imago dei, the image of God within human beings. The deity of Jesus. The atoning death of Jesus. The perfect example of Jesus. The bodily resurrection of Jesus. The centrality of Christian Scripture. The ordinances (or are they sacraments?) of baptism and communion. The forgiveness of sin and the life everlasting. These are non-negotiable items of faith, and while Christians of different denominations and traditions may define or understand some of them a little differently (especially the sacraments), they are simply not up for grabs. To have an open mind that says, “perhaps Jesus’ death didn’t really have anything to do with humanity’s need for redemption” is not to have an admirably open mind—at least not if one is entrusted with a role of Christian leadership. Can the President of the United States have an open mind regarding whether democracy is really superior as a political system to Communism or Fascism? I surely hope not. Can the Head of Planned Parenthood really have an open mind regarding whether women ought to have access to the birth control pill? Can the leading imam of Mecca really have an open mind as to whether or not Muhammad is the prophet of Allah? I don’t think so. Certainly they can and should think through those issues. But if any one of those individuals comes to think that perhaps the organization or institution that they are representing is wrong on one of those fundamental issues—if Obama was to convert to communism, or the Planned Parenthood was to oppose contraception, or the imam was to reject Muhammad’s prophethood, or the pastor was to reject the centrality of Jesus’ deity, atoning death, and bodily resurrection, the impetus is upon that leader to resign their position immediately.

Yes, pastors and Christians have the freedom to think what they will. Yes, they have the responsibility to ponder, to reflect, to consider, to think through. But if they come to conclusions that run contrary to the central affirmations of their denomination, then honor and integrity demands that they resign.

If they fail to take that path of honor and integrity, and resign a ministry post when they have rejected core elements of the historic Christian faith, then their ecclesiastical overseers have both the authority and the responsibility to remove them from Christian leadership. In Holtz’s case, this is precisely what happened. And that is why (again, assuming that I have understood the situation rightly) I do applaud the synod in North Carolina that removed Pastor Holtz from the parish. They determined that his embrace of Bell’s book, and all that it entails, placed him outside the bounds of orthodoxy. As a minister of the Gospel, it was imperative that he could be trusted to protect and nurture God’s people—to lovingly shepherd the flock. They could no longer trust him, and they had to remove him. It is sad, indeed. But in my mind, the greater tragedy is the rejection of core doctrines of the Christian faith in the vain attempt to make the Gospel something which will not offend people.

The Reliability of the New Testament Gospels (v. 1.3)

2011-03-23T07:23:00.000-06:00

Come, Let Us Reason Together: A Forum about Central Issues of Faith & Skepticism
Cedar Creek Baptist Church - Tawa J. Anderson
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 – The Reliability of the Gospels

NOTE: These are the 'teaching notes' from a Q&A forum at Cedar Creek Baptist Church on March 23. It is slightly revised from an earlier blog essay with the same title posted last summer.

I. Why is New Testament Reliability a Major Apologetic Question

The Christian faith has historically embraced certain core doctrines about Jesus of Nazareth. Amongst other beliefs, Christians throughout the centuries have believed things about Jesus – His deity, His atoning death, and His bodily resurrection. The source for those beliefs are, without a doubt, the collection of books, letters, and Gospels that we have in the New Testament. Historic Christianity presumes that the documents in the New Testament are fundamentally trustworthy – that we can take them relatively at face value in terms of how they present the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

But what if they are not trustworthy? What if the words that appear in my Bible as red-letter words, truly words which were uttered by Jesus of Nazareth? What would be the damage to the Christian faith? What would the implications be if Jesus did not say or do the things that the New Testament says he said and did?

In the 1980s, a group of New Testament scholars known as the Jesus Seminar began publishing their theory that the vast majority of words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels do not actually originate in Jesus. They argue that the Gospels are unreliable, theologically-colored texts. In their view, “the historical Jesus has been overlaid by Christian legend, myth, and metaphysics and thus scarcely resembled the Christ figure presented in the Gospels and worshiped by the church today.” In their professional democratic opinion, less than 20% of Jesus’ words recorded in the Gospels are understood to be actually his own words; the rest are legendary additions. The Jesus Seminar, represented by such scholars as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Brandon Bernard Scott, Roy Hoover, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong, follow in a trend of skeptical biblical scholarship that has sought to recast the biblical documents and thereby redefine the Christian faith.

Beginning in the 18th century, the rise of critical scholarship questioned the historiticity of the New Testament documents, particularly the Gospels and Acts. In the mid-20th century, Rudolf Bultmann popularized the practice of “demythologization” – that is, stripping the Gospels of their layers of supernaturalism, miracle, and myth, and reducing them to their original ethical core. The original Gospels, according to Bultmann, were simply records of Jesus’ ethical teaching and revolutionary insubordination, upon which the Church later imposed its deification of Jesus and doctrinal assertions. The Jesus Seminar is really just a continuation of Bultmann’s program, which itself was simply a newer incarnation earlier German naturalistic theology.

Thus, when a pastor stands up and teaches that Jesus walked on water out to the disciples, the demythologizer responds – “no, he didn’t. The Gospels say he did, but that never happened.” This perspective is not as isolated or rare as you might think at first. The mythological view of the New Testament Gospels has permeated the mainline Protestant churches in Western Christianity. It is taught in a plethora of university New Testament departments, from Harvard to Claremont to Vanderbilt, where future pastors and biblical scholars are taught to interpret the New Testament through the lens of myth and legend rather than of history and fact. There are many people in our schools and neighborhoods who take this approach to the Gospels. They view the New Testament as significant; the Gospels are filled with important ethical teaching, particularly through the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. But the New Testament does not preserve authentic historical accounts of the first century events in Jesus’ life. If we want demythologizers to accept the teaching of the New Testament, we need to provide good reasons to embrace the historicity of the documents.

As an aside, the predominant reason that such scholars and pastors seek to ‘demythologize’ the New Testament (particularly the Gospels) is the embrace of a naturalistic, mechanistic Enlightenment worldview. That is, biblical scholars have uncritically adopted a worldview in which miracles do not and cannot occur. Rather, the physical universe in which we live and move and have our being is a closed system of natural cause-and-effect. If there is a god (and that is an open question to many of them), then god is simply out there; he created the universe but then walked away, and does not interact with the physical universe in any way, shape, or form. Rejection of the miraculous pre-determines a need to radically reinterpret (demythologize) the New Testament Gospels. We are going to specifically talk about the possibility of miracles next Wednesday during our last session together. Tonight we are going to set aside that question and simply address the historical trustworthiness of the New Testament Gospels.

So, the questions we want to look at this evening are as follows: Are the Gospels accurate biographies of Jesus’ life and ministry? Did Jesus really say what the Gospels say he said? Did Jesus really do what the Gospels say he did? Are there good reasons for accepting the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels? Do we have good reasons for believing the Gospels to be reliable? Or must we take it on “blind faith”?

I am convinced, personally speaking, that the Bible is entirely trustworthy because it is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. But it’s a funny thing – when I was an atheist, if someone quoted the Bible to me, I would simply say, “So what? Why should I believe that?” A skeptic is not going to accept the authority or inspiration of the Bible. Thus, if we want our friends to accept what the Gospels tell us about Jesus, we need to establish the reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible by providing them with good reasons, good evidence, that points to the reliability of the texts which we trust and believe. So this evening I want us to look together at seven lines of evidence that support the historical reliability of the New Testament.

II. Seven Lines of Historical Support for the Reliability of the Gospels

1. Eyewitness Claims of the Gospels

First, the New Testament Gospels present themselves as either eyewitness accounts, or accounts derived from eyewitnesses.

a) Luke 1:1-4 – “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

Notice the emphases that the historian Luke makes. First, his account accords with that of those who were eyewitnesses. Second, Luke has carefully investigated the events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. Finally, he presents his Gospel as an orderly, historical account of Jesus’ life. Furthermore, when talking about the historical reliability of Luke’s Gospel, we cannot separate it from the Book of Acts, of which Luke is also the author. In several passages in the book of Acts, Luke slips into first-person plural talk, revealing that he accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys. Note Acts 16:10 – “After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia.” The first-person plural recurs in Acts 20:5-11, 21:1-26, and chapters 27 & 28. Luke was an eye-witness of many of the accounts recorded in Acts; furthermore, he was an associate of Paul, and therefore had access to the eyewitness accounts of the other apostles – James, John, and Peter in particular. It is reasonable to conclude that Luke’s Gospel contains considerable eye-witness testimony. Indeed, it is highly unreasonable to argue to the contrary.

b) The Gospel of John was the last Gospel to be written down, somewhere around A.D. 90, or 60 years after Christ’s crucifixion. But the Gospel-writer insists that it is a trustworthy eye-witness account of what truly happened. John 20:30-31 reads: “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” One page later, John 21:24-25 claims: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” While this passage suggests that the words in John’s Gospel may have been written by John’s close associates rather than by John himself, they insist unapologetically and incontrovertibly that the words derive from the apostle John, an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry.

Admittedly, all this provides is a claim to be eyewitness testimony. But we do have corroborating evidence which supports the eyewitness claims of the Gospels, and that is what we are going to move on to.

2. Early date of the New Testament Gospels

A second reason to accept the reliability of the Gospels is that they were written relatively close to the time of the events which they relate. Almost all scholars agree that Mark is the earliest Gospel. Many scholars estimate it was written by A.D. 50, less than twenty years after Jesus’ death. The most liberal scholars out there, who seek to date things as late as possible, agree that Mark must have been written before A.D. 70. Matthew and Luke were written between A.D. 60 and A.D. 85 (I tend to believe they were much closer to A.D. 65); and then John around A.D. 90. This means that when the New Testament Gospels were written and began to circulate amongst the Christian Churches, there would still have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people alive and present in those churches who themselves had seen and heard Jesus during His earthly ministry. While it is not in the Gospels, the testimony of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is important. There, Paul relates that after His resurrection, Jesus appeared (verse 6) “to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” Paul asserts that his claim can be checked with people who are still alive and were the eyewitnesses of what Paul is claiming to have happened. 1 Corinthians is written in the mid-50s, quite possibly after Mark, but before the other Gospels.

Again, the point is simply that the Gospels are early enough to contain authentic eyewitness testimony—and by correlation, they were written early enough to have aroused opposition and contradictory testimony if they were not eyewitness reports. This latter point should not be underemphasized. The Gospel materials (certainly in oral form, and possibly in written form) were already circulating widely by AD 50 – less than twenty years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. That means that not only friends, but also foes of Christianity were around to counter false presentations. Yet there is not even a whisper of dissenting opinion. We have record of Jewish leaders circulating the report that the disciples of Jesus stole his body from the tomb. We also have record of Jews and Romans arguing that Jesus performed miracles because he was a sorcerer (or demon-possessed, which to Jews was the same thing). But we have NO non-Christian argument in those early decades (and even centuries) that Jesus did not perform the miracles that he is reported to have performed, and NO non-Christian argument that he did not say and do the things that the Gospels report him as having said and done. This is hugely significant. In the context of living eyewitnesses, if there was doubt that Jesus had done or said the things the Gospels claim He did and said, we would expect some record of that. But there is none.

3. Genre: The Gospels as Biographical History

What type of literature are the New Testament Gospels? Those who insist that the Gospels contain primarily mythological materials must insist also that the Gospels are written in a genre which is not expected to be historical in nature. Hence, the Gospels are treated as ‘myth’ or ‘fable’.

However, in its first-century context, the New Testament Gospels most closely resemble Greco-Roman bioi, or personal biographies. I have elsewhere interacted with the insights of Richard Bauckham (see my blog posts on Bauckham’s arguments for the Gospels’ genre). Here I will merely summarize.

Greco-Roman biographies generally treated the lives of significant political or military men. The Gospels are obviously different, in that Jesus was insignificant both politically and militarily (much to the chagrin of much Jewish messianic expectation). Nonetheless, the Gospels share much else in common with Greco-Roman biographies. A focus on one predominant individual, and concern with others only insofar as they intersect with the main character. Most important, Bauckham demonstrates that ancient biographies were integrally concerned with presenting a historically-accurate depiction of the subject’s life.

Historical concern was particularly evident when the biographical subject was recent, perhaps even living. When biographies were written about men who had lived hundreds of years earlier, Lucian and Tacitus both note that expectations were lowered in the eyes of the audience. Such ‘ancient histories’ were simply not valued as highly; not treated as equally reliable. Contemporary biographies, on the other hand, were expected to adhere to higher standards.

In the case of the canonical Gospels, we clearly have biographies that were written within living memory of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even the standard liberal or critical dating of the Gospels holds that they were all written prior to the close of the first century A.D., less than 70 years after Jesus’ death. Mark is traditionally dated before A.D. 70. Expectations for the Gospels, therefore, would have been higher.

When you combine these first three elements, you have a powerful picture that lends one to assume that the New Testament Gospels both claim and intend to present a historical record of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. They (a) claim to possess eyewitness testimony; (b) were written close enough to Jesus' lifetime to both rely on eyewitnesses and to be exposed to dissenting testimony by contrary eyewitnesses; and (c) are written in the genre of biographical history, with the associated expectations of historical reliability.

4. Accepted by the Church

A fourth compelling reason to accept the reliability and trustworthiness of the Gospels as eyewitness accounts is that the Christian Church universally has acknowledged them as such. From the first century onward, devout Christians have recognized that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are historical records of Jesus’ life. There is no debate within the church until the rise of critical scholarship during the Enlightenment (16th century and onwards). When the Gospels claim eyewitness status and the Church historically recognizes them as reliable and trustworthy, we ought to have strong reasons for rejecting such status.

What about other Gospels, accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry that are not in our New Testament? Two years ago the much-publicized “Gospel of Judas” made headlines around the world. Four years ago the blockbuster movie The DaVinci Code argued powerfully (and wrongly) that there were over 80 Gospels of Jesus’ life, and the patriarchal, misogynistic Catholic Church whittled them down to four acceptable, censored Gospels. We don’t have time to dive deeply into the issue this morning, but the simple fact is that the early Church fathers, from the 1st century through the 4th century, did not recognize extra-canonical Gospels as authentic eyewitness accounts. Early church leaders like Clement, Papias, Justin, and Tertullian quote copiously from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and cite them as authoritative accounts. But they never quote from other Gospels—Peter, Philip, Mary, Judas, etc. They never mention them as acceptable accounts. They do, however, sometimes cite them as untrustworthy accounts written later by people who had no connection with the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry. If you glance through some of the “other” accounts of Jesus’ life, you will most likely recognize quite quickly why the early Church did not accept them as valid historical accounts of Jesus’ ministry. For example, in the Gospel of Peter (a late 2nd-century invention largely copied from Matthew and John), we read this account of the scene of Jesus’ resurrection:

The stone cast before the entrance rolled away by itself and moved to one side; the tomb was open and both young men entered. . . .

They saw three men emerge from the tomb, two of them supporting the other, with a cross following behind them. The heads of the two reached up to the sky, but the head of the one they were leading went up above the skies. And they heard a voice from the skies, ‘Have you preached to those who are asleep?’ And a reply came from the cross, ‘Yes.’

Early Christians were not stupid. They were not foolish. They were not naïve. They did not just accept any and every account of Jesus' life that was written. Like the Gospel-writer Luke, they sought to establish what they believed on solid historical and evidential grounds. They did not credulously swallow ever tale or myth about Jesus—only what was well-grounded and well-attested by eyewitness testimony. That is why the four canonical Gospels were accepted, and the others were not.

5. Internal evidence of the Gospels

A fifth reason to accept the historical reliability of the Gospels is the Gospels themselves. That is, the internal evidence of events and details contained within each Gospel strongly support their status as reliable eyewitness documents. When the police seek an eyewitness account of what happened at a crime scene, they often look for incidental details that witnesses are able to provide. Simply put, the Gospels contain a plethora of incidental details which are best explained by eyewitness testimony.

John 5:1-5 – “Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.” As the narrative proceeds, Jesus heals the man, on the Sabbath Day, creating a ruckus amongst the Pharisees. But notice the details contained within John’s account. How long has the man been an invalid? Precisely 38 years – an incidental detail which adds nothing to the story, but supports eyewitness knowledge of the event. Where is the man healed? Notice that John provides the exact name of the Gate and pool, and even the number of surrounding covered colonnades.

My wife and I are very different. We both enjoy fiction, particularly good mysteries. But she doesn’t really care for lengthy descriptive passages contained in many longer novels. She’s interested in the story itself. I, however, love the descriptive passages which draw a verbal picture. Skilled authors can bring you to the place of their writing, bringing to life in your imagination the view, the smell, the sights and sounds of the story. That is precisely what John is doing here – he is bringing the story to life, giving us the details which allow us to picture it in our own minds. Now, the picture admittedly doesn’t carry as much power with us as it would have for John’s original audience, who would have been familiar with the places that John writes about. But what John effectively does here is demonstrate his familiarity with exactly what happened, and exactly where.

I should also mention, in passing, that for skeptics and critics, it sometimes doesn’t matter. In situations like these, a critical scholar can happily claim, “John wasn’t really there. He just adds all of these details, some of them (like the name of the pool and gate) recalled from his memory of Jerusalem, others (like the length of his injury) purely imagined by John, in order to make us think that John was actually there.” For such scholars, the level of detail is not confirmation of eyewitness standing, but rather evidence of deliberate deception.

In other situations, however, the same scholars will point to the absence of details as evidence that the Gospel-writer was not an eyewitness at all. In fact, in this very passage, scholars will point to verse 1, and say, “Why didn’t John identify which feast it was? Obviously, because John wasn’t there, this didn’t really happen, and so he can’t say when the feast was.” So the lack of one detail is evidence that John wasn’t there, and the presence of other details is evidence of John’s deliberate deception. John just can’t win! If incidental details are there, it “proves” that John is making them up and putting them in to make the reader think he was actually there. If the details are not there, it “proves” that John wasn’t an eyewitness to what he relates. What is really going on is that such scholars are unwilling to admit the eyewitness standing of the Gospel-writers no matter what, because admitting the Gospels as eye-witness testimony has grave implications that they are absolutely unwilling to accept.

Another example is found in Mark 14:1-3. “Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. ‘But not during the Feast,’ they said, ‘or the people may riot.’ While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.” Again, notice the details that Mark shares, which indicate his personal familiarity with the event. He tells us the exact day on which it occurs (two days before the Passover), the personal name of Jesus’ host (Simon the Leper), the precise type of perfume (made of pure nard), and even the method by which the woman pours the perfume on Jesus’ head (breaking the jar rather than pouring out from the top).

We have looked at just two of hundreds of passages in the Gospels which have such incidental details which support the eyewitness status of the accounts. Richard Bauckham, in “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,” includes much more. Suffice to say that the New Testament Gospels provide sufficient support for their eyewitness claims.

6. External Evidence for the Gospels’ Historical Accuracy

A sixth reason is the evidential support of the Gospels historical accuracy. If police are presented with a professed eyewitness of a crime, they like to find empirical, objective confirmation that the individual was, in fact, at the scene. This is not always possible, but sometimes it is. The same is true with the New Testament Gospels. It is sometimes possible to confirm, through objective evidence, that the Gospel-writers had first-hand knowledge of what they wrote about. This is where the discipline of archaeology comes into play. Not everything can be verified from archaeological discoveries and extra-biblical records, but much has been.

One fascinating example has to do with a passage already discussed – the healing of a disabled man in John 5. For years, critical scholars rejected the eyewitness standing of John’s account on the basis that the name of the gate was not empirically verified, and the identification of five surrounding colonnades was structurally unlikely and, again, not verified through archaeological discoveries. There is a methodological problem with their argument. Archaeology can confirm biblical data, but it is honestly impossible for archaeology to disprove biblical claims. All that the absence of archaeological evidence for the Sheep Gate and five colonnades demonstrated was that so far as our limited archaeological evidence demonstrated, we could not confirm these historical details. That does not prove that John was making things up, or wrong, or lying – just that we cannot confirm that John is right! But some scholars, in their rush to denigrate the reliability of the Gospels, jump to such unsupported conclusions anyways. “We can’t find any inscriptions of a Sheep Gate by the pools of Bethsaida; therefore there was no such thing.” Come on!

Well, sadly for critics and happily for Christians, archaeological discoveries have verified the identity and name of the Sheep Gate by the Pool of Bethesda, as well as the presence of five porticos, or colonnades, there. What used to lack empirical, archaeological verification now has such it. Again, this demonstrates the futility of trying to draw conclusions of biblical inaccuracy from the limited and incomplete archaeological record. What currently lacks verification may well receive verification from future archaeological discoveries. Anyway, John 5 is simply one of dozens of details in the New Testament Gospels that have been confirmed through inscriptions and structures uncovered in archaeological digs.

7. Experiential verification of the Gospels

So far we have covered five compelling reasons to acknowledge the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels – the Gospels’ claim to transmit accurate records of Jesus’ life, ministry, and death; the early church’s recognition of their eyewitness status; the internal evidence of the Gospels; and the empirical verification provided by archaeology. The seventh reason we have for accepting the reliability and trustworthiness of the Gospels is on a different level. It is not so much an intellectual or academic reason as it is an experiential reason.

Let me draw an analogy, which may or may not be helpful. I find it helpful – if you don’t, then scrap it accordingly. I could provide someone with objective, rational reasons to ‘save sex for marriage.’ I could talk about (1) the dangers of sexually-transmitted diseases, and encourage youth to avoid STDs by employing the safest sex on the planet—abstinence. I could go on to share (2) the pain of separation at the end of sexual relationships amongst youth. I could share testimonies from various young men and women who talk about the physical pleasure they derived from sex with their boy/girlfriend; but the unanticipated brokenness brought about by the end of that relationship. I could warn youth of (3) the inevitable regret that adults feel for youthful sexual indiscretions, especially when their own children approach the teenage years and have questions about sexuality. I could note that such adults almost always desire to protect their own children from the terrible sexual mistakes that they themselves made. I could also share (4) the ever-present possibility of unwanted pregnancies, sharing examples of friends and family members who had to face unanticipated teenaged pregnancies despite employing one, sometimes two, methods of birth control. Taking a different tack, I could (5) exegete Scripture in support of a biblical sexual ethic which holds sexual intercourse to be a sacred gift granted by God to be enjoyed within the context of monogamous heterosexual marriage.

I could present all of those rational, relatively objective reasons to save sex for marriage. But I absolutely would, at the end of such a discussion, share a personal testimony of how God richly blesses the one who does, in fact, save sex for marriage. I would share the unimaginable joys of sexuality encountered within the context of a God-honoring, Christ-centered marriage between husband and wife. I would share that regardless of the persuasive power of the previous five arguments, that the final argument can only be appreciated and appropriated personally.

The seventh and final argument for the reliability of the New Testament Gospels is similar – it is not dependent upon rational or philosophical or historical arguments; but rather makes a personal appeal.

If you put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ, you will find the truth of the Gospels confirmed in your life. You will experience the release of forgiveness & reconciliation with God; you will receive abundant joy of life in Christ. You will, both quickly and gradually, experience the transformation of your character, will, and works. Finally, you will find redemption and meaning in the midst of suffering. All that Jesus promises in the Gospels to those who will follow Him, you will find confirmed in your life – if you follow Him.

We have surveyed some strong rational and evidential reasons to consider them trustworthy historical records of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. The Gospels themselves claim eyewitness status, and profess to contain a reliable record of Jesus’ life. The Gospels were written within the lifetime of those who witnessed the events of Jesus’ life. The Gospels are biographical histories, a genre which intends to and is expected to contain historical accounts of the relevant life. The Church historically has accepted the Gospels as trustworthy accounts. The incidental details contained within the Gospels confirm their eyewitness status. Archaeology has confirmed many of the eyewitness details recorded in the Gospels. But finally, and ultimately most persuasively, the Gospels are open to personal, experiential verification. As we embrace the Savior proclaimed in and through the Gospels, we find God confirming the truth of the accounts of Jesus’ life.

Rob Bell, Love Wins - Discussion Forum

2011-03-19T16:45:00.000-06:00

Forum Discussion of Rob Bell’s Love Wins Out
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Thursday March 17, 2011
Dr. R. Albert Mohler (President, SBTS), Dr. Denny Burk (Dean, Boyce College), Dr. Russell Moore (Academic Dean, SBTS), and Justin Taylor (Crossway Books, blog – www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor)

This week, Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins, was released to the reading public. Rob Bell is the preaching pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in, a congregation of close to 10,000. His podcasts are followed by additional tens of thousands, while his thought-provoking short video series (NOOMA) have been widely disseminated in the North American Church. Rob Bell is a leading figure in ‘Emergent Christianity,’ an amorphous and diverse group which includes both a protest against the perceived ‘dead orthodox’ of much American fundamentalist evangelicalism and a positive projection of a vibrant personal commitment to following Jesus.

Many evangelical leaders have expressed concerns over the general direction of Bell’s moving theological commitments over the past several years. When Bell’s new book project began to be publicized, concerns heightened.

On Thursday, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary hosted a forum discussion focusing on Bell’s book. This blog post will summarize and expand upon that forum discussion.

The forum included four high-powered evangelical leaders. (1) R. Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (as well as a professor of systematic theology there), has been identified as one of the leading conservative evangelical voices in the world. He has been the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s flagship seminary since 1993, overseeing a significant theological return to SBTS’s conservative orthodox roots. (2) Russell Moore is the Academic Dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (as well as professor of systematic theology). Moore is a prolific author, blogger, and twitterer (is that even a word?), and another powerful young voice in conservative evangelicalism. (3) Denny Burk is the dean of Boyce College, the undergraduate institution associated with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (they share campus space as well as library resources). (4) Justin Taylor works with Crossway Books, and blogs with the ‘Gospel Coalition.’

Mohler, Moore, Burk, and Taylor engaged in a spirited 90-minute discussion of Bell’s book, with Mohler acting as facilitator and moderator of the dialogue. In this blog posting, I will share the essence of the forum – the various questions and issues that were addressed, some memorable quotes that were uttered, and some acute insights into Bell’s project and arguments.

I need to make it clear that I have not yet read Bell’s book. I was not one of the favored few to receive an advance copy to read, digest, and ruminate upon. My Amazon copy is on its way to my house as we speak. I intend to blog about the book as I work through it in the coming month (but, as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions … but then again, given the subject matter of Bell’s book, that may be a moot point anyway). But for now, my awareness of the book’s contents are limited to hearsay, others’ reviews, and the fascinating forum this week.

The fantastic four began with a discussion of the publicity (advertising) for Bell’s book. A month ago, Taylor received the ‘back cover’ (advance) copy of Bell’s book, and was shocked how strongly it sounded like universalism. On February 26, he received HarperCollins’ promotional video, based on the Preface of the book. In the video, Bell raised issues in a way that seemed to confirm that he was moving his ministry and theology strongly towards universalism.

Mohler characterized Bell’s advertising for the book as ‘A Theological Strip-Tease’ – the video was extremely effective in raising issues while not exposing the naked theology underneath. The video was from the preface, which posed a series of questions. The questions, however, were not neutral or simple questions; rather, they were leading or rhetorical questions that were actually assertions. (Examples of such leading or rhetorical questions, which launch accusations or make assertions more than they genuinely ask questions: ‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ ‘Are you still hooked on internet porn?’ ‘Is Barack Obama secretly a fanatical Muslim terrorist?) Those questions were what set off the controversy.

Bell asked the questions (old questions that have been raised numerous times in the church’s past) in a new way. “If Gandhi is in hell, can God be trusted?” Bell loves the Socratic style of dialogue, which is absolutely legitimate. However, as Mohler stated: “The publicity insinuates things about God that cannot be taken back, even if the book had come back full of orthodoxy.” If one asks in a publicity video, and the preface of a book: ‘Is Barack Obama secretly a fanatical Muslim terrorist?’, one has planted seeds of doubt in the minds of the readers/viewers. Aspersion has been cast upon Obama’s person and character. Even if one eventually answers the question: ‘No, Obama is not a fanatical Muslim terrorist; he’s just a nice guy who is open to other religions’, the initial framing of the questions has prejudiced the audience is a particular direction—they will never look at Obama the same way again.

In the view of the forum’s four, Bell’s publishing strategy was designed to plant seeds of doubt in people’s minds – in Taylor’s words, Bell wanted people to conclude: “what you ‘know’ about God is not exactly true.” All published authors naturally want publicity for their books, but in Mohler’s opinion, not at that cost.

Mohler suggested that – “there are ways of asking questions that aren’t ethical.” I tend to agree, and wonder whether Bell has crossed that boundary with Love Wins. Moore accuses Bell of using “a subtlety of speech that God forbids us from using.” In some ways, Bell follows the model of Jesus in asking questions of his audience. However, Jesus’ questions help illuminate the answer; as opposed to Bell’s way of asking questions that obscure the answer.

The next topic of conversation concerned stewardship of influence – Bell is the pastor of a large church and larger public following. As the apostle James warns, teachers will be judged according to a stricter standard, for they have influence over the theology (and thereby over the eternal destiny) of their followers. It was refreshing to hear the panelists universally affirm Bell’s honesty, sincerity, motivation, and love for people. There is no doubt in their minds that Bell thinks he is doing a good thing, and teaching important truth. In Mohler’s words, “I am not questioning his motivation. … [But] what we have to deal with is the message.”

The panelists also affirmed that (in Mohler’s words again – he did talk the most, as he was the moderator), “There are parts of the book that we agree with.” Some of the criticisms of the evangelical church in the emergent movement are legitimate, and we would agree with them. “Many Christians misunderstand the question of hell.” (Mohler) Bell pokes holes in the popular Christian misconception of heaven and our resurrected state which present the afterlife as being, in Burk’s words, “Caspar the friendly ghost in heaven.” It is important to emphasize that this is not orthodox historic Christian resurrection belief, which instead emphasizes the resurrection of the body.

WHO IS GOD?

Burk opened discussion of the nature of Rob Bell’s God: “The question behind the question is: Who is this God? And the God he’s portraying and the God of orthodoxy are very different.”

Moore emphasized that Bell is right in saying that “There are many Christians who do not understand that God is love.” A typical caricature of the Gospel (which I have gotten tired of hearing consistently in my doctoral research on John Dominic Crossan’s work) goes like this: the Father is against us and hates us and wants to kill us because we have broken a few rules; the Son is for us and tries to protect us from the Father’s wrath. Instead of hurting us, God killed His own Son in our place so that Jesus can save us from that horrible destiny. Bell, like so many others, takes those caricatures and makes them the reality that he is fighting against in evangelical orthodoxy.

It is important to note two things. (1) The panel is correct that this is a typical caricature of the Christian Gospel, and that many lay Christians hold that position. It is essential that pastors, scholars, and public Christian figures put that notion of the Gospel to rest and replace it with a biblical, orthodox Gospel message instead. However, (2) to my knowledge, no leading Christian scholar or teacher or preacher actually promotes that vision of the Gospel. I have heard it amongst confused people in the pew; but more than that, I have read it and heard it repeatedly coming from the lips of liberals, critical scholars, and emergent church leaders, presenting the caricature as if it was the official position. That misleading and highly prejudicial presentation needs to be countered with the truth that leading evangelical figures teach a Gospel which is much more nuanced and biblically-faithful than the perversion presented by Bell (and Crossan and countless other critics). The Christian Gospel is a Gospel which fuses the love of God with the justice and holiness of God – but our panelists will get to that later.
Evangelical superficiality, evangelical confusion – all these are legitimate targets of criticism. The forum participants lamented that Bell did not raise those problems and then address them from a biblical theological perspective – he could have done a great service to the Church of Jesus Christ. Instead, he raised fringe positions as if they were mainstream, ridiculed them, and then proposed an anti-biblical position as a replacement.

WHAT IS ROB BELL’S CENTRAL ARGUMENT IN THIS BOOK?

Mohler opened the discussion of Bell’s central argument by expressing his frustration that it is often difficult to discern exactly what Bell is trying to argue – not just in Love Wins, but in much of his work. Nonetheless, each of the panelists took a stab at identifying Bell’s primary thesis.

Taylor – “God has one attribute … God is love, he forgives everybody, everybody is already accepted; the divide in humanity is whether or not you recognize this or not.” The point is not that you have to be forgiven, but that you already are forgiven. “Even if you open a hell that is of your own making, you have plenty of time later to accept forgiveness and the gates of heaven are open to you.” Bell’s primary thesis is the presentation of a one-dimensional picture of God; he sadly neglects the effects of the Fall, the sinfulness of man.

Burk – “God is love. He is not a God of wrath. There is not, finally, any punitive retributive justice. … Hell is a place of remediation. … God is not committed to His holiness.” There is no room for the wrath of God in Bell’s theology.

Moore – “Central theme is missional, evangelistic. Bell insists that people can’t receive the God we are talking about. If (from a contemporary cultural perspective) something is wrong with your God, if He is loving one minute and judging the next …” then nothing can hide that fact over. Therefore, Moore says that Bell suggests: “Let’s remove what is offensive and scandalous so that people can become Christians.”
I want to make an additional comment at this point. What Moore accuses Bell of doing has been done since the very birth of the church. I agree wholeheartedly with Moore’s grief over Bell removing offensive Christian doctrines in order to make the Gospel palatable to people in a non-Christian worldview. I acknowledge the importance of making the Gospel culturally-understandable; that is, presenting the truths of God in a way that people today can comprehend what God is saying to them. However, it is a core violation of Scripture to alter the clear teaching of Scripture on the basis of cultural opposition to that doctrine. There have been many examples throughout church history of well-meaning Christians (like Bell) altering doctrine (or removing texts of Scripture altogether) in order to make Christianity more marketable to the public at large. I think of second-century Gnostic Christians, who redefined the resurrection in terms of the Platonic concept of soul-liberation or soul-ascent in order to better-fit the predominant Greco-Roman afterlife worldview. I think of the 18th- and 19th-century liberalist revisions of the Gospels to remove the miraculous healings (and the bodily resurrection), or to naturalistically explain them away, in order to better fit the increasingly materialistic, naturalistic, non-supernatural worldview of the Western world. Bell has an earnest, honest desire to reach people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and bring them into a saving relationship with God. Sadly, he believes that in order for people to come to faith in Christ, he needs to revise (or entirely do away with) some central Christian doctrines. More on that later …

Mohler – “Velvet hell. A cushioning of the whole idea of sin and punishment and evil. … On every page, he was trying to say, ‘It’s Okay.’ There’s a sense in which we desperately want to say that. But on what basis can you say, ‘It’s okay.’ … the promises of God to us are only true in Christ. The Gospel is about how they become true for us. It’s impossible for me to imagine the Apostle Paul simply saying, ‘It’s okay.’ And that’s profoundly not what Jesus said.” The central argument of the book heads in the exact wrong direction.

I think Mohler places his finger on the central problem of the book. The Good News of Jesus Christ can only be understood and embraced if we have understood the Bad News of human sin, rebellion, and alienation from God. We are reconciled through Christ—but that means there is something we have to be reconciled from. This requires a much more robust vision of sin and justice than Bell presents in Love Wins.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK

Mohler moved the discussion to the structure of Love Wins, opening by insisting that “There are very few absolute assertions that Bell makes in this book.” Instead, Bell engages in theology by suggestion – the suggestive mode of theological argumentation. Nonetheless, Mohler identifies two absolutes in Bell’s theology: (1) God is love; (2) We have total freedom (in this age and in the next). Being a Reformed institution, the second absolute really rubs our panelists the wrong way!

All four forum participants affirmed that mainstream evangelicals also believe that God is love. Two of them pointed to 1 John’s presentation of love. In that context, they noted that John also says God is light, warns that there is a spirit of Christ and a spirit of the antichrist; warns against idols, etc. In other words, John sees far more than a one-dimensional God of love. John does not see a distinction between a God who is love and a God who is just. Moore said: “It seems to me that he is defining God by love rather than defining love by God.” The reverse of what John does in 1 John 4. There, we are told that we know what love is by what God has done in and through Jesus Christ.

Mohler insisted: “The Bible says categorically, unconditionally, that God is love … and holy … and just … and righteous. … We are not talking about a God who is divisible into a love part, a gracious part, etc. … Rather, God is infinitely” all of these attributes. I think that is a necessary and helpful corrective, not just to Bell, but to many partial presentations of the God of the Bible. God cannot be reduced to just one of His attributes – His holiness, justice, wrath, mercy, love, goodness, purity, infinity, omniscience, sovereignty, omnipotence, foreknowledge, relationality, etc. God is multi-faceted, but his characteristics are all fused within a holistic being who is simply, indivisible, and absolutely united.

Burk pointed audience members also to Romans 5:8 – This is God’s love; how God demonstrates His love. God’s love in Romans 5 is integrally connected with the sacrificial death of Jesus – His bearing the righteous punishment for sin on our behalf. God’s love is always connected with His holiness, His wrath, His justice. They’re never separated. Burk reminded us that “God demonstrates his love through a sacrifice, the very kind of sacrifice which is denied in Bell’s book.”

In response, Mohler noted that: “If love means that everything is okay, I do not see how this comes close to the Gospel in the beginning, middle, or end.” As Christian teachers and preachers, we are (or at least should be) constrained to see redemption through the biblical story-line; Bell feels no such compulsion, and creates his own story-line. Taylor – “John Newton could not have written Amazing Grace if he did not have an understanding of his own wretchedness, the wrath that he was under. … The irony is that Bell misses out on how great the love of God really is … how great it is to receive undeserved mercy.”

Mohler retorted: “If you believe this book, you cannot sing most of the hymns that we cherish, because there is no need for the cross, there is no need for the substitution, there is no need for mercy.” Indeed, what place does the cross have in Bell’s theology? This is something that the panelists struggled to identify – I’m guessing because it’s simply not discussed in the book. If there is no place for Christ’s atoning sacrifice, then can one sing Amazing Grace, The Wonderful Cross, or even Holy Holy Holy? Mohler insisted that the Bible has no difficult in laying out a God who is loving and also pours out His wrath – Romans 3 being a pre-eminent example.

Burk then stressed inner meaning of the Cross. “You and I deserved an eternity of wrath in hell that would be unending. … The Bible is teaching that all the wrath that was due to us, God emptied out onto His Son on the Cross … the heart of the atonement is … seeing what God had to overcome to save you.”

One of the struggles, the panelists noted, is that when we think of wrath we think of rage and anger – a sinful, fleshly response that we have. That is not biblical wrath. God’s wrath is “settled in his opposition to sin.” (Moore) We have a tendency to think of love as a feeling, an indulgence; the Bible tells us to love the way that God loves, in accordance with His justice, actively – NOT in feeling/emotion/thinking alone.

In conclusion, Mohler noted: “If we begin with the fundamental assumption that to speak of God’s wrath is wrong … then we can’t do any better than Rob Bell.”

Mohler suggests that the most interesting question Bell asks is: “Does God get what God wants?” Mohler sees contradictory answers in Love Wins. On the one hand, Bell immediately and absolutely says ‘yes’ – and what God wants is for all to come to repentance and be saved (for none to be condemned). However, if one holds a position that says some people end up in hell, then we must say no, because God wants all people to be saved. On the other hand, Mohler notes that Bell turns that argument on its head by insisting that God will not violate or overturn human’s absolute autonomy. In that case, Bell’s answer seems to be ‘No, God does not get what God wants.’ Because some people may decide to stay in hell. Bell can (and apparently does) insist that nobody would finally do that because of the obvious wonders and rewards of heaven and the irrationality of choosing an eternity of self-torment in a redefined hell. However, just because we cannot understand why someone would freely choose to spend an eternity separated from God does not mean that someone would actually freely choose just that. After all, in classic Christian doctrine, Adam and Eve had no rational reason to rebel against God in the garden of Eden, yet chose to do so. If one takes C. S. Lewis quite straightforwardly, then people irrationally choose to lock themselves into hell despite knowing precisely what they are giving up and getting themselves into.
I personally do not understand why women choose to remain in abusive relationships with wife-beaters. I do not understand why grown, mature, otherwise rational and wise men choose to coat their lungs with toxic tar by smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. They know what it will lead to, but do it anyway. Romans 1:18-20 suggest that people see the glory of God, but choose to reject God, suppressing the truth and replacing God with a pale substitute.

In other words, Bell does indeed have a contradiction at the heart of his argument. Does God get what God wants? It seems the only way for God to get that (i.e., in Bell’s view, for all to be saved ultimately) is by over-ruling absolute autonomous human freedom – but that is the second of Bell’s theological absolutes, and therefore unbreakable.

Thus, Taylor identifies Bell as “an inconsistent universalist.” Bell argues both that God will melt the heart of the hardest skeptic and rebel; and that God will not overrule the will. Burk insists that Bell lays out an irreconcilable contradiction: God both will and will not get what He wants.

Moore accuses Bell of making Lewis’ Great Divorce (an allegory) into a realized eschatological picture of the afterlife. Bell moves away from sanctification, and from the biblical language that there is a limited time of decision within which to accept the Gospel. Moreover, given Bell’s view of human autonomy, might not some decide they don’t like heaven, and would prefer hell.

HEAVEN

Before discussing Bell’s understanding of hell, Mohler suggested it was necessary to talk about the nature of heaven. First, he noted that Christians do have many misconceptions of heaven; Bell deals with them, albeit “snarkily.” Bell further insinuates that “an eternity that is all about the glory of God is somehow boring.”

Moore noted that “Many Christians are dreading heaven because they picture it as a choir practice that never ends.” The unspoken concern: “is heaven going to be something less? Am I going to have something precious taken away from me?” But Bell is similarly fuzzy – “I am not sure what Bell actually sees happening in heaven … he uses the language of restoration, but it’s fuzzy.”

Taylor identifies Bell’s gospel story-line. “I don’t think you can find a single place in the book where sin is defined as an offense against an infinite holy God.”

Mohler quoted p. 172, and noted that Bell’s theology “Begins with the sure and certain truth that we are loved. … In spite of … [everything] sins, etc. … God has made peace with us.” I agree with that, but as Mohler insisted: “I believe more than that.” The Gospel is never presented as good news apart from Christ, and what has done for us in and through Christ. Apart from Christ, we are dead in our trespasses.
Burk notes that “Sin is on the horizontal plane in the book.” Bell sees hell as how people have offended one another, not an offense against God. Hence, again, there is no place for the substitutionary atonement of Christ; no need for his death on the cross.

HELL

Finally, Mohler moved the panel to a discussion of hell proper. Taylor said that Bell’s “hell is something we create for ourselves. … Punishment is not something that comes from God to people, but is rather reaping the consequences of sins we have committed on earth.” No sense of punishment, no sense of justice; subjective experience. Some people will be in heaven but experience it as hell. When they choose to stop experiencing it as hell, they will wake up and find that they are already in heaven.
Moore suggested that Bell’s hell is a continuing experience of suffering for wrongdoing; but eventually it will accomplish its purpose, which is to refine us and restore our peace with God.

What’s missing? Finality. Judgment. No judicial verdict. Mohler – “The Bible is very clear that God is not only just, but judge.” A dual verdict is presented throughout Scripture.

Moore noted that Bell is right to “get the horror of the reality of hell.” We ought to recoil against the notion of hell. (Personally, I was pleased to hear Moore emphasize the horrendous nature of hell, and remind us that such a notion ought to bother us, making us sick to our stomach.) “People who rejoice that there is a hell are missing the mind of God.” But Bell also misses the horror of human sin and rebellion against God.

Taylor suggested that Bell “begins with heaven and peace as the default, whereas the Bible begins with the default that we are fallen through Adam.” Bell begins with the wrong default position, with grave consequences: the biblical position is what makes the Gospel grace so sweet and precious. “Your answer is determined by where you start the story.”

C. S. Lewis once noted that he understood long before he was a Christian that “If there is a God, and if He is good, then He must punish sin.” Bell misses that. Our conscience already understands the reality of hell and judgment. “In order to understand the notion of God’s grace, we need to understand His justice.” If there is no judgment, there is no grace.
Moore – in the NT, “the scandal is not that some people are in hell. … the scandal is how God can redeem anyone and still be just.”

UNIVERSALISM

So, is Rob Bell a universalist? Bell prefers the word inclusivism. What do the two terms mean?

Burk defined universalism – “everyone ends up in a state of blessedness.” Everyone ends up in heaven/nirvana/Isle of the Blessed, etc. In universalism, Mohler notes, “In the end there is no one who is outside the redemptive power of God.” It doesn’t matter how you get there; you’ll get there.

Inclusivism, meanwhile, maintains that you are saved only through Jesus Christ, but one does not have to have personal knowledge of Christ. You can follow whatever path you are following, but find out at the end that you were really trusting in Jesus (who you knew as Allah/Krishna, etc.). This seems to be Bell’s position.

Mohler closed by suggesting that “Bell is an inclusivist when he talks about the means, but a universalist when he talks about the ends.” Jesus saves, but he saves everyone.

Again, I have not yet read Love Wins – I fully intend to do so over the coming month, and to share some of my thoughts in the process. In the meantime, given the intense controversy and publicity surrounding the book at the outset, I felt it was worthwhile to share the content of the forum discussion of Bell’s book to bring it to your awareness.

One of the sad by-products of this process, which will probably come to fruition after I have actually read the book, is that I feel like I will no longer be able to endorse Rob Bell’s teaching materials, including the NOOMA videos – many of which I have used and continue to admire as helpful and thought-provoking. It’s not that I would consider the NOOMA videos heretical or sinful and thereby worthy of a good ol-fashioned book-burning (I don’t approve of such things anyways).

Rather, I would not want to mislead anyone into thinking that Rob Bell is a trustworthy biblical teacher. If he has truly moved into a universalistic denial of redemption, the power of the cross, the atonement of Christ, the reality of post-mortem dual judgment – then Rob Bell has moved beyond the bounds of orthodox Christianity, and can no longer be looked at as a trusted teacher. That would indeed be a sad day for evangelical Christianity, for Bell is undoubtedly a gifted communicator, a passionate preacher, and could have been an incredible minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for decades more. But it is impossible to be a minister of the Gospel of Jesus if you deny both the need for and the content of that Gospel.

Greg Beale - Lecture on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

2011-03-18T08:10:00.000-06:00

The C. Edwin Gheens Lectures
Dr. Gregory K. Beale @ The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
The New Testament Use of the Old Testament
March 14-15, 2011

This week I was privileged to witness another top-notch New Testament scholar in person at Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, as Greg Beale delivered the annual Gheens Lectures. While Beale delivered three lectures (two on Tuesday, one on Wednesday morning), because of teaching responsibilities, I was only able to be present for the first one. All three lectures should be available through SBTS’s resource center within the next week or so; I will endeavor to watch the other lectures and provide a link to the video when it becomes available.

In the meantime, I wanted to share the substance of Dr. Beale’s initial lecture, and some personal reflections upon his address.

Lecture 1 – Recent Objections to an Organic Link between Old Testament Texts and Their Use in the New Testament

Dr. Beale has been a strong proponent of the organic unity of the Old and New Testaments throughout his academic career.

His Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (co-authored with D. A. Carson, 2007) is a classic (authoritative?) evangelical presentation of a healthy treatment the Old Testament. His monumental study of temple imagery throughout Scripture (The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, 2004) and the companion We Become What We Worship have blessed the church of Jesus Christ. More recently, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism has raised alarm at declining evangelical commitment to a robust doctrine of Scripture. And whether they have read it or only heard others explain and interpret it, Beale’s 1994 treatise The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text? has influenced a generation of pastors in North American evangelicalism (for example, I had heard the slogan and the thesis long before I was aware of the existence of the book).

From his 1994 study (subtitled Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New), and an earlier (1989) article in the academic journal Themelios, Beale has been concerned about Christian interpretation of the Old Testament both in the New Testament and in church history. He is a well-known exponent of the view that there is an organic unity of Old and New Testaments; a continuous strand of theology and thought that flows through both Testaments.

In his first Gheens lecture, Beale first referred the audience to his 1989 Themelios article as the historical articulation of his position. Then he addressed objections that other biblical scholars have raised against his understanding of the New Testament authors’ use of Old Testament texts. In the remainder of this blog essay, I will present Beale’s response to objections in sequential order.

(1) The Influence of a Jewish Hermeneutic. Beale stated that it is often assumed that New Testament authors must have interpreted the Old Testament in the same way that first-century Jews did. Moreover, according to this position, first-century Jews had somewhat “wild & crazy” interpretive tendencies; therefore, we should expect somewhat wild and crazy interpretations of Old Testament texts by New Testament authors. Thus, it is no surprise that there are seemingly illegitimate uses of Old Testament texts to support positions in the New Testament. The use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew is a paramount example.

Beale, however, points out three major problems with this perspective. First, there is no monolithic first-century Jewish hermeneutic, but rather a wide spectrum of interpretive tendencies—Palestinian, Qumranic, Alexandrian, etc. Just as first-century Judaism was not a monolithic identity, so too first-century Jewish hermeneutic was varied.
Second, in Beale’s opinion, most Jewish hermeneutic in the first century was not at all wild and crazy; rather, it was relatively restrained.
Third, objective study of the New Testament shows that the NT authors do not merely reflect or copy Jewish hermeneutics. This point does not make a positive or negative appraisal of Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament in the first century. Instead, it emphasizes that the early church went its own direction in interpreting Old Testament scripture.

(2) Hyper-Christocentric Focus. A second objection against Beale’s organic unity of the Old and New Testaments is the accusation that early Christians were so Christo-centric that they abused and misinterpreted Old Testament texts badly in an attempt to find Jesus in every text. Beale emphasized in his lecture that Christian preachers are indeed often guilty of deriving the right doctrine from the wrong text (remember again his book of the same name). One such tendency is indeed the desire to find Jesus in every verse in the Old Testament. Nonetheless, Beale insists that there is such a thing as a healthy Christocentric focus. If God is sovereign over human history, then He has governed history in such a way as to have continuity throughout the ages. There is, then, a sense in which the Old Testament is going to point toward the coming of the Messiah Jesus; a sense in which the Old Testament law points towards Jesus. Paramountly, in Beale’s opinion and scholarly judgment, the very identity and nature of the temple is a thread that carries throughout the whole of Scripture.

(3) Post-Modern Hermeneutics (Reader-Response Criticism). Post-modern hermeneutics insists that the reader participates in the text and creates meaning accordingly. This is a type of structuralism or literary constructionism – there is no objective, independent meaning to the text, and the author’s intended meaning is not recoverable to the contemporary reader. Rather, all there is, is reconstructed meaning which is discovered as the reader interacts with the text. Language creates or constructs reality; our interaction with written language creates the reality of that text. Beale identifies two presuppositions (assumptions) which govern such post-modern hermeneutics: (A) We cannot recover author-intended meaning; and (B) Meaning is not objectively there, but must be reconstructed by the text.

Beale rejects the presuppositions behind post-modern hermeneutics, and proposes two alternative presuppositions to govern hermeneutics. (A) We have large (but not total) access to the author’s meaning through their recorded speech acts; and (B) Post-modern/reader-response hermeneutics assume (rightly) that readers can understand their meaning. Therefore, reader-response hermeneutics is self-contradictory (or else incoherent).

(4) Rhetorical Approach. A fourth critique of Beale’s organic view of Scripture holds that the New Testament authors used Old Testament texts rhetorically, as an authoritative power play. They were not concerned with the actual meaning of Old Testament texts (original authorial intent). Early Christian audiences, themselves being uneducated, recently-converted pagans), would have neither known nor cared that Christian authors misused Old Testament texts. The theory is that early Christian converts would have been ignorant of the original context of Old Testament texts, so when Christian preachers and authors ripped those texts out of their context and misapplied them, no one would have noticed. Anyone who did notice, did not care, since they would have recognized that the Christian authors/preachers were using the OT texts rhetorically anyway.
Beale responds that early Christians would not have been nearly as ignorant as this approach suggests. First, the early church engaged in intense discipleship, instructing new believers in the Old Testament Scriptures. The Berean believers were praised for checking out what Paul preached against the Old Testament texts. Such a process would have been far more common than the rhetorical approach insinuates.

Second, early Christians, recent pagan or not, would have heard New Testament authors (or preachers) use Old Testament texts multiple times. The primary use of Old Testament texts seemed to be narrative in form (e.g. Stephen’s speech in Acts 7), so Christians would have heard not just the text, but also the context, numerous times.

Third, Paul’s letters were written by the apostle, but were delivered to their intended audience by someone else (e.g. Epaphras). Part of the responsibility and role of the letter carrier was to read and interpret the letters to the audience—that interpretation and explanation would have included explaining the Old Testament text.

Fourth, and in my mind most significantly, even if we grant that New Testament authors often quoted the Old Testament for rhetorical effect (and I think there is a strong case to be made for this), it is essential to note that the rhetorical power of the Old Testament increases when it is understood contextually. That is, quoting or alluding to the scapegoat in Leviticus 16 becomes more rhetorically effective if the audience understands the original scapegoat ceremony and its context within Israelite religion. Thus, if New Testament authors were truly interested solely in the rhetorical force of Old Testament quotation, they would have endeavored to present OT texts in their appropriate context.

Finally, and this is a point that Beale did not note, but I think it is helpful as well, we should acknowledge that not all early Christians were recent converts from paganism. In fact, the earliest Christians were Jewish Christians, or Christian Jews, who had been steeped not in Greco-Roman paganism, but in Old Testament Scripture and practice. To suggest that New Testament authors would have been able (let alone willing and able) to flagrantly ignore the context of Old Testament passages, quote them freely without their original context, and simply fool their audiences is naïve in the extreme. There were too many educated, devout Jews within the early church for that to work.

(5) Revived ‘Testimony Book’ Approach. The final critique Beale notes of his position was a new one to me. He mentions a perspective that holds that New Testament authors had access to a list (or multiple lists) of Old Testament quotations, absent of their narrative context, from which they frequently drew. In this scenario, the NT authors themselves did not know the original meaning or context of the quotation they use. Naturally, this perspective has to reject traditional ascription of authorship to many New Testament books, as the purported authors are Jewish Christians steeped in Old Testament tradition (pre-eminently, of course, Paul).

Beale notes two trends telling against this perspective. On the one hand, specific Old Testament quotations are not frequently repeated. On the other hand, broader Old Testament contexts (settings for specific quotations) are repeated regularly. For example, while Daniel 7:13-14 is not verbatim presented, the imagery and context of Daniel 7 shows up throughout the New Testament. This shows that New Testament authors, even if they possessed such a ‘list’ of OT quotations, also possessed knowledge of the context of those quotations.

Having dealt with the five most common critiques of his organic picture of the Old and New Testaments, Beale moved on to present his perspective that there is always a thread, an organic connection, from the Old Testament passage and context to its New Testament citation. Beale presented five governing presuppositions which he suggests ought to govern our interpretation of Old Testament citations in the New Testament.

(1) The assumption of corporate solidarity or representation flows throughout both Testaments. That is, in both Old and New Testaments, the nation of Israel is a corporate whole, but specific individuals stand as corporate representatives for the people as a whole.

(2) Christ is viewed as representative of the true Israel of the Old Testament and the true Israel (the church) in the New Testament.

(3) History is unified by a wise and sovereign plan. There is intimate connection between the earlier parts and the latter parts; indeed, earlier redemption-history is illuminated and fulfilled by latter redemption-history.

(4) The age of eschatological fulfillment has come in Christ. Therefore, Old Testament passages that speak of God’s coming eschatological age are fulfilled in the Church Age.

(5) Latter revelation functions as a broader context to interpret the earlier parts because they have the same divine author. Thus, identifying Christ as the center of history is the key to interpreting the earlier portions of the Old Testament and its promises.

Beale notes that there is development within Scripture, and even in the New Testament use of the Old Testament; but insists that the development is organic, not artificial. New Testament use of the OT is consistent with the Old Testament understanding of God’s interaction with His people.

To briefly reflect on Beale’s lecture. A lot of the material was fairly new to me. Most of us are occasionally puzzled by the use of Old Testament texts by New Testament authors. Beale insists that when individual cases are studied with his governing presuppositions (rather than with the presupposition that NT authors disregarded proper OT context and interpretive rules, or weren’t even aware of the context of OT passages they quoted), each situation is easily understandable.
Beale’s second lecture (which I was unfortunately not able to attend) discussed one particular case – the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15. I look forward to hearing his discussion of that text. A friend who attended the lecture said that it was brilliant and helpful.

Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People? The Problem of Evil - Cedar Creek Baptist Church

2011-03-17T07:33:00.000-06:00

Come, Let Us Reason Together: A Forum about Central Issues of Faith & Skepticism
Cedar Creek Baptist Church - Tawa J. Anderson
Wednesday, March 16 – The Problem of Evil

NOTE - the following are expanded teaching notes from a youth Q&A forum at Cedar Creek Baptist Church in Louisville, KY, last night. Hope you enjoy them!

Why do bad things happen to good people? This is one of the most haunting questions facing modern man. Why does such seemingly senseless tragedy strike such seemingly innocent victims? Why are many babies born with deformities or handicaps? Why are young women in southern Sudan raped and beaten by armed militia from the north? Why are girls in Thailand sold into sexual slavery to provide a few months income for their families and to satisfy the perversions of Western tourists? Why did an unimaginably powerful earthquake in Japan cause a massive tsunami and cause so much destruction and death?

To put the question in another way, why does God allow bad things to happen to good people? If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, why is there such deep and senseless evil and suffering on earth? David Hume, the eighteenth century atheist philosopher, stated the logical problem of evil when he inquired about God, "Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

According to Hume, and many skeptics since, an all-powerful and loving God would not permit the existence of the evil that we perceive and experience. Indeed, since Hume’s day, the ‘problem of evil’, as it is known, has been the strongest challenge to Christian belief, and a key argument put forward in favor of atheism. The argument is basically thus: ‘if the Christian God exists, then evil would not be. Evil is, therefore God is not.’

We all struggle to understand why God allows horrible things to happen to people who do not deserve it. Tonight we are going to ponder this issue together. I want to suggest that we can come to a better understanding of why bad things happen to good people by identifying the who, the why, the what, and the how of evil and suffering. Who causes evil? Why does God allow evil? What does God do about evil? And How are we to respond to evil? As we search out an understanding of the who, why, what, and how of evil, I pray that God will illuminate our hearts and minds.

Before we delve into the who, why, what, and how of evil, we need to establish two preliminary facts. First, if Christianity is true, then there are no truly ‘good’ people. Second, if there is no God, then there are no truly ‘bad’ things to happen to people. We could spend an entire week talking about both of these fundamental truths, but we simply do not have the time. Thus, I am going to just touch on them briefly and then move on.

I. There are no “Good People”, only “Relatively Good People”
The Bible insists, and human experience confirms, that there are no truly ‘good’ people. Psalm 14:2-3 reads: The Lord looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Romans 3:9-20 quotes Psalm 14 and builds upon it, insisting that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. Verse 20 concludes: Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

The bad news of humanity, which must be understood before we can acknowledge the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is that we are all alike sinners deserving of God’s just condemnation. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Only after acknowledging universal sinfulness can we proclaim that we are all justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. The bad news precedes the good news. This is crucial when we consider why bad things happen to ‘good’ people. The bottom line is that no one is truly ‘good’; there are only ‘relatively good’ people. We are ‘relatively good’ in comparison to Hitler or Charles Manson. But none of us is ‘relatively good’ compared to God. God alone is good. We are good only insofar as we have the spirit of the living God within us. This truth has no impact upon our existential experience of evil and suffering, and it does not answer the question that we have asked. It just helps us to realize that we have to put good in quotation marks. The real question is ‘why do bad things happen’, period.

II. Outside of Christianity, there are no “Bad Things”, only “Things I Don’t Like”

Now consider this – what makes ‘bad’ things bad? To consider something ‘bad’, there must be some kind of objective standard to which it is being compared. As Christians, we certainly have this standard – something is ‘bad’ insofar as it falls short of the goodness and glory and perfection of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But what about others? Where does their definition of ‘bad’ come from? For most Eastern religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism, nothing is truly and objectively ‘bad’. Something may be maya, that is, illusory; but fundamental reality is one, Brahman, and transcends our categories of good and evil. There is not good and evil, there is only ‘is’. Evil is an illusion; suffering is an illusion. Thus, in those worldviews there is no point in asking the question ‘why do bad things happen to good people?’, because there are no ‘bad’ things.

How about the atheist? He fares no better. If there is no God, there is no objective standard of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. There is only ‘what I prefer’ and ‘what you prefer’; or what different cultures prefer. Without a transcendent source for morality, we are driven to some form of ethical relativism. But then the whole argument against Christianity based on the existence of pointless evil and suffering collapses. C. S. Lewis writes:
“My [old atheistic] argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? … Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too – for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense.” (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

If there is no God, then there is no such thing as objective evil; but then there is no problem of evil to begin with. An atheist can rail against the existential unlikeability of things that happen, but he can hardly shake his fist at the God in whom he willfully disbelieves, and blame God for allowing evil to persist. Only the Christian can raise the question of why bad things happen to ‘good’ people, because we have a transcendent standard by which some things are indeed declared ‘evil’ or ‘bad’. Again, this does not minimize the reality and significance of evil and suffering—it only sets the framework for our discussion. There are no ‘good’ people, because we are all sinners by nature, and unless Christianity is true, there are no ‘bad’ things to happen to anybody. With that groundwork in place, let’s proceed to our discussion of the who, why, what, and how of evil.

III. Who Causes Evil? The impact of human sin

First, who causes evil? Where does it come from? Why is there suffering at all? In Genesis 1, God creates the universe and everything within it. In verse 31, we read: God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. In the beginning, creation was good. There was no evil, no suffering. But in Genesis 3, the picture changes. Adam and Eve disobey God, rebel against God’s loving Lordship, and plunge all of creation into a state of fallen sinfulness. Their sin affects not just their own relationship with God, but the status of the entire created order. Where does evil come from? Quite simply, from the sin of mankind. Why are young girls in Thailand sold into sexual slavery? Because of the moral evil of men and women around them—their parents’ sinful decision to sell them off, the sinful institutions in their country which perpetually impoverish their families, and the sinful perversions of sex tourists who come to Thailand solely to despoil and molest enslaved Thai women. Why do deformities and handicaps affect many children? Because the fall of man introduced sin and imperfection into the created order, including the genetic reproduction of humanity. Evil exists because human sin exists.

IV. Why does God Allow Evil?

Second, why does Almighty God allow evil? Granted that evil stems from the sinfulness of humanity. Why does God allow it? If God is all-powerful, why doesn’t He stop children from being born deformed? Why doesn’t He stop women from being abused? Why doesn’t He protect New Orleans from being decimated by hurricanes and floods? Before I begin to answer this question, I want you to note the irony of this complaint against God. Atheists frequently want to be left alone to do what they want to do, morally and intellectually speaking. In other words, they want God to let them do what they want to do. If they want to have sex with a multitude of women, let them. If they want to think that words are a power game and have no intrinsic meaning, let them. They want to be left alone. They certainly do not want ‘God’ (in whom, again, they do not believe) to interfere in their lives and disrupt their plans. And yet they raise a howl of protest against intuitively-known evil, and insist that if there was an all-powerful God, He ought not to let such things occur. They want God to intervene and prevent other people from perpetrating evil (that is, from doing the evil that they want to do), but they forbid God from intervening and preventing themselves from perpetrating what others might perceive as evil. Which is it? Do they want a God who intervenes in earthly affairs, or not?

A) Human Freedom
Why does God allow evil to occur? Why does He permit relatively good people to endure incredible suffering? First off, we must acknowledge that if God so desired, He could eliminate all evil and suffering with one word from His mouth. After all, God is all-powerful. However, we might not like what was left of the world if God did that, as we will come to see presently. At any rate, we can point to three broad reasons that God allows evil to occur. First, and most commonly and generally, God permits evil to occur because He has endowed men and women with free will, and does not intervene to prevent His creatures from carrying out their freely-chosen evil intentions. We are all consciously aware of having the power of choice – the ability to determine what we do today and tomorrow. To be sure, we are strongly influenced and directed by our particular genetic make-up, as well as our environmental upbringing. Nonetheless, we choose our course of action. Thomas could decide to go out after church on Sunday and bring sandwiches and cold ice tea to the homeless people living on the streets of Louisville. Christian, meanwhile, could choose to slip thumbtacks into the shoes and hats of those same homeless people. One would be choosing to do good, the other to do evil. But both would be making a decision to act. God would not approve of Christian’s actions. Christian would be acting contrary to God’s prescriptive will – that is, what God desires and directs to happen. Christian’s act would fall under God’s permissive will – that is, what God allows to happen, even though it may be contrary to His character and commandments. The vast majority of evil and suffering we complain about is due to the sinfulness of mankind. The argument that God should not allow such evil to occur is really a demand that God should make man to be something other than what He is—that mankind should be compelled and forced by God to act rightly, instead of being exhorted, encouraged, and entreated to do what is right. A world without evil would be a world without free-willed men; a world of robotic androids, incapable of forming relationships, incapable of expressing worship, incapable of ‘doing good’ because they are incapable of choosing their path in any way. That is why we as human beings really do not want God to eliminate all evil and suffering—because if He did, we would cease to be conscious of anything. Removing the possibility of human-perpetrated evil also removes the possibility of human good.

B) Suffering as Discipline and Judgment
There are two other reasons that God permits evil and suffering. On the one hand, He sometimes allows us to experience a wake-up call—such as when a man who has been eating deep-fried fatty foods for years suffers a mild heart attack and ponders his need to alter his lifestyle and diet. God sometimes leads us through suffering in order to refine our character and will. Other times, suffering is a more direct judgment for sin, as when God judges His chosen nation of Israel in the Old Testament for their rebellion against Him, and sends them into exile in Babylon.

C) Suffering/Evil and the Greater Good
On the other hand, God often uses apparent evil to accomplish a greater good which we can not see because of our limited human perspective. Indeed, the comforting promise of Romans 8:28 is that we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. From my perspective (and I know there are many who disagree with this), God does not approve of or will the evil that occurs, but He does redeem it, working in the midst of great evil to accomplish greater good.

V. What does God Do about Evil and Suffering?

Indeed, that is part of the answer to our third question: What does God do about evil? Granted that mankind is the source of evil, and that God permits it primarily because He has divinely created us to be creatures with the freedom to choose good or evil—what does God do about it? Is He merely standing on the sidelines, cheering on the ‘good guys’ while booing the ‘evil ones’? Is He wringing His hands helplessly, weeping over His inability to rein in the forces of doom and darkness? In addition to working good out of evil, I suggest that there are four things that we can identify God as ‘doing’ about the evil and suffering in the world.

A) Grieves Over
First, God grieves with us over evil in the world. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus cries out: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. Jesus is grieved by the unwillingness of the people of Israel to acknowledge and embrace His messianic ministry. Throughout Scripture, we see God expressing sympathy for those who are suffering, and promising to provide comfort to those who are afflicted. God grieves with us as we suffer, and carries us through the darkest times of our suffering.

B) Condemns and Judges
Second, God condemns evil. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus expresses strong anger and condemnation towards the evil of the religious leaders of Israel. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. If you want even stronger expressions of condemnation for evil, check out the Old Testament prophets. A brief taste from Amos 2:6 – For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath. They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed. Father and son use the same girl and so profane my holy name. God judges and condemns evil in all forms, from whatever corner it comes. God’s Church is not exempt from condemnation—if and when evil is perpetrated by professing Christians, God can and will condemn it also.

C) Absorbs and Endures
Third, God takes evil upon Himself. God descends to earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Though a righteous, sinless man, incarnate God suffers intense evil at the hands of sinful men. Whatever suffering and evil we have endured, Jesus has gone through similar or worse. Furthermore, when Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, He assumed upon Himself the evil that we have committed, and endured the punishment that we had earned. For example, 2 Corinthians 5:21 reads – God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. As Jesus hangs on the cross, bearing upon Himself all of our evil and consequent punishment, God the Father judges the evil present upon God the Son. Jesus experiences this divine abandonment, and cries out: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Never lose sight of the fact that the suffering of the cross is real, and that Jesus takes evil willingly upon Himself. God does not just witness evil from the sidelines; He enters into human suffering and takes it upon Himself.

D) Ultimately & Finally Defeats
Finally, God gives His divine and certain promise that evil will one day be defeated and eradicated. We live as fallen creatures in a fallen creation, but God has assured us that He will one day remake creation and re-establish for all eternity a righteous, perfect order. Revelation 16-20 (like many other biblical passages) describe the future defeat, judgment, and demise of Satan and other workers of evil; Revelation 21 then opens with a beautiful picture of the paradise that awaits us when evil is eradicated. Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. God grieves over evil; He condemns it; He takes it upon Himself to redeem us; and He will ultimately defeat and demolish all evil and suffering.

VI. How are We to Respond to Evil and Suffering?

With all that in mind, then, how are we to respond to evil? Are we to throw our hands up in the air and cry: ‘There’s nothing we can do about it! We live in a terrible world!’? Or are we to take a shotgun and shoot whoever around us seems to be most evil? How does God desire us to respond to evil around us, and the evil that we ourselves endure. First, we need to have the same attitude as that of Christ Jesus, as Philippians 2:1-11 reminds us. We must grieve with others who encounter evil and experience suffering, and seek to comfort them and carry them through their trials. We must also condemn the evil that exists in our society—as well as the evil that exists within ourselves. We must not be content to accept the inevitability of evil and suffering, but rather are called by God to strive against it. In the Lord’s prayer, we pray: Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. We truly desire for God’s will to be done here, and thus we struggle and fight against evil, injustice, and sources of human suffering.

Finally, when we experience evil personally, we must keep fresh in our minds the convicting, challenging, but comforting words of the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 – Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. Yes, our suffering may be intense; the evil we encounter may be gratuitous, grievous evil. But we must keep in mind the victory over death and evil and suffering that is ours through faith in Jesus Christ. Just as Christ won the victory over sin and death through His glorious resurrection, so too we are assured of our own victory over evil and death. Just as Christ was raised from the dead to eternal life with God the Father, so too we are assured of our own resurrection to eternal life.

Who causes evil? We do. Why does God allow evil to persist? Because He created us with the freedom to choose, for good or for evil, and allows us to act accordingly. What does God do about the evil that He permits? He brings good out of it, grieves over it, condemns it, takes it upon Himself, and ultimately defeats it. How are we to respond to evil? We are to grieve over it, condemn it, and keep our eyes focused upon the redemption of our suffering through our future resurrection.

Come, Let Us Reason Together (Part I of V) - Evolution and Christianity

2011-03-02T08:50:00.001-07:00

Come, Let Us Reason Together: A Forum about Central Issues of Faith & Skepticism

Cedar Creek Baptist Church (Louisville, KY)

Wednesday, March 2 – Evolution and Creation

NOTE: These are teaching notes used for a 15-minute presentation followed by a 40-minute Q&A session with the youth at Cedar Creek Baptist Church, in Louisville, KY. Today is the first of five weekly sessions we will have. I will seek to post each of the five sessions.

I. The Importance of Addressing Evolution

Tonight we are talking about the relationship between evolution and Christianity – a controversial topic, but one which needs to be addressed. Why is this an essential topic to address?

A. Evolution is a major cause of unbelief

First, evolution is perhaps the major intellectual cause of unbelief in North America today. That is, for people who either renounce or reject Christian theism, evolution is the most commonly cited reason. Specifically, students will often claim, “I was presented with the evidence for evolution, and saw that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. The evidence for evolution seems overwhelming; thus, I have to reject Christianity, as it seems based on faith rather than fact.”
A major purpose of Christian apologetics is providing struggling or doubting Christians with reasons to continue to believe – what I call closing the back door of the church. We must face the reality that there are probably hundreds of thousands of Christian students who are slowly being persuaded that evolution makes Christianity impossible.

B. Evolution is a major contemporary worldview

Second, as Christians, we need to understand the times that we live in, and the mindset of people in our world. Evolution is a, perhaps the, dominant cultural worldview in North America today. In order to understand how folks are thinking, we need to grasp the variations and implications of evolution.

II. The Importance of Defining and Understanding Evolution

Understanding evolution is easier said than done, partly because evolution is often undefined, poorly defined, or just defined differently by different people. Let’s take a look at the three major ways that people can and have defined (and understood) evolution.

A. Micro-Evolution (Adaptation)

In its simplest and least controversial definition, evolution is simply adaptation – the ability of a species to adapt to a changing environment in order to survive and thrive. Thus, for example, in famous studies of Galapagos finches, the average size and shape of beaks was observed to change in accordance with unusually dry or unusually wet climate cycles and the resultant change in food sources and abundance. Alternatively, we can see the increase in average human height and weight over the past two hundred years in response to improved medical care and availability of food.

This month's National Geographic (March 2011) contained a fascinating story about breeding foxes to become 'man's best friend.' Russian scientists have been experimenting with foxes for the past sixty years, selectively breeding them to derive friendly, human-trusting breeds. The fascinating results have seen both behavioral and physiological changes in downstream generations. First, as friendly foxes are cross-bred with one another, their offspring become increasingly trusting of people, increasingly friendly, and increasingly 'dog-like' in their behaviors. Second, as downstream generations continue to be cross-bred, there are striking physiological changes as well. Friendlier foxes develop the up-curling tails common in domesticated dogs, rather than the straight (down-sloping) tails known in wild foxes (and wolves). Friendly foxes also developed floppier ears, rather than the perky ears of wild foxes. Lastly, domesticated foxes exhibited a greater variety in the coloring and pattern of their coat - a sign, perhaps, of not needing to blend in with their natural surroundings. The Russian fox experiments demonstrate fairly considerable variation within a species (the red fox) over several generations of selective breeding. From my perspective, this is a great example of micro-evolution, or adaptation, as governed by an intelligent agent (in this case, predominantly Russian scientists).

This brand of evolution is called “micro-evolution,” although it should more naturally be designated simple adaptation. There is no question whatsoever that this type of evolutionary theory is perfectly compatible with orthodox Christianity.

B. Macro-Evolution (Darwinism)

The second common way of understanding and defining evolution is classical Darwinism, or ‘macro-evolution’. This begins with the observations and thesis in the first (adaptational) definition of evolution, but builds upon it. Darwinism, as classically expressed in Charles Darwin’s 1859 blockbuster The Origin of Species, extrapolates from variations within species, and posits variation between species. The adaptations that we see, for example in finch beaks, continue and compound over time, and eventually result in speciation – or alteration from one species into a new, distinct, species. Thus, for example, the Galapagos finches, whose beaks change in response to changes in the food supply, would speciate into a new variation of bird entirely if the changes in food supply became permanent.

The mechanism through which speciation occurs is random mutation and natural selection. Random mutation simply identifies random genetic mutations which result in offspring with slight differences from the parent. Natural selection indicates the reason that some random mutations are preserved in future generations while others are not. Simply put, Darwin’s theory was that some mutations were beneficial for the survival and success of an organism, and for that reason were preserved through reproduction. The offspring of the positive mutant also contain the mutation, and thus are better adapted to survive and thrive; they then pass along the mutated gene to their offspring, etc.

Over time, these gradual, cumulative changes accrue in offspring, and eventually result in a specimen which is distinct from the distant ancestor. Thus, for example, if we observed, say, 100 generations of Galapagos finches evolving within an altered (but stable) environment, the finches in that hundredth generation may well be so different from the first generation that they would be an entirely new species of finch.
Extrapolated over millions (or billions) of years, the accumulation of gradual changes within species are responsible for what we observe as the tree of life. Darwin traced the incredible variety and proliferation of biological life on earth back to a common ancestor, the original life-form on earth. Now, it is essential to note that Darwin’s common ancestor was a robust organism with the five senses which we are accustomed to enjoying. Most contemporary evolutionists insist that our common ancestor was not this robust organism posited by Darwin, but rather was a single-celled organism, with no sensory experience at all. In that sense, they are not Darwinists, but rather neo-Darwinists – Darwinists with a difference.

At any rate, this definition and understanding of evolution begins with the common ancestor, and argues that all life (including human beings) have descended from that common ancestor through a combination of random mutation and natural selection.

Is this understanding of evolution compatible with Christianity? This is a hotly-debated issue, and I don’t pretend to have the final answer. There are a number of Christian thinkers who are known as “theistic evolutionists,” or “evolutionary creationists,” or any other number of terms that indicate that they embrace both biblical Christianity and macro-evolutionary theory. Theistic evolution, generally speaking, accepts the precepts of Darwin’s theory of evolution, and seeks to accommodate it within a theistic (i.e. Christian) worldview. Hence, they may say something like: “Evolution is the mechanism by which God went about a part of His Creative work.” For a theistic evolutionist such as Dennis Lamoureux (a professor at my alma mater, the University of Alberta), the general truth of evolutionary theory does not undermines or challenge his faith in the God of the Bible – rather, it enhances it. Dr. Lamoureux speaks of how evolution helps him to understand more of the mind and the workings of God Almighty.

While theistic evolutionists understand Christianity and evolution to be compatible, the general tenor of evangelical conversation insists that there is absolutely no way to reconcile evolutionary theory with Christianity, and that theistic evolutionists are basically betraying their Lord and Savior (or, in a popular and effective phrase, ‘giving away the store’).

Speaking personally, I think this is correct, but not for the reasons one might think.

First, I think someone can be a self-professing 'Christian evolutionist' or 'evolutionary creationists' or 'theistic evolutionist' (or whatever other label they might choose) and be an authentic believing Christian. There are theistic evolutionists who, in my estimation, hold a sincere, evangelical faith themselves – Richard Swinburne, Alister McGrath, Dennis Lamoureux. I may not agree with them on everything, but I am willing to accept them as brothers in Christ, and unwilling to brand them heretics or condemned unbelievers on account of their evolutionary views. I believe that evolution can potentially be reconciled with a biblical worldview. That is, I do not think it is necessarily a contradiction in terms for someone to be called a “Christian evolutionist”.

Second, if it has not already become clear, I will make it abundantly clear now - I think that macro-evolution is an unsatisfactory and potentially unscientific theory. That is, I think it is probably false. In that sense, a Christian evolutionist is believing something untrue. Furthermore, I think there are some serious theological difficulties in trying to accommodate biblical Christianity with mainstream macro-evolution - particularly in the realms of the origins of humanity, the nature of Adam and Eve, and the doctrine of original sin. Nonetheless, I think it important to stress that very few, if any, Christians hold a completely consistent set of entirely true beliefs. Most, and perhaps all, of us embrace at least some beliefs which are probably false. For example, I think hockey is the best sport in the world. Most Louisvilleans passionately disagree - whether their favorite is baseball, football, or basketball, it most certainly is not hockey. That's a trivial example, but others that are more significant could be cited. Was the Gospel of John written by the Apostle John, or by someone else, or perhaps by his own disciples? I believe it was written by John, with chapter 21 appended by his immediate circle of disciples right after his own death. I may well be wrong about that, but I do not believe that it affects my salvation or standing before God. My point is simply that Christians can be wrong about some things, even relatively important things, and still be authentically Christian. That may be true of theistic evolutionists as well.

Third, I insist that theistic evolution requires a major revision of the first plank of Darwinism – random mutation – as the driving process to evolutionary change. Theistic evolutionists generally speak of the process of natural selection being guided by the purpose and direction of an omniscient God. At this point, I think theistic evolutionists cease to be evolutionists at all, since Darwinism holds to an undirected, random process of mutation. Theistic evolutionists argue that natural selection is the key mechanism of Darwinism, and random mutation is an additional philosophical thesis piled on top. But mainstream evolutionists do not accept this argument. The bottom line, it seems to me, is that theistic evolutionists are not truly Darwinists at all. They do not embrace evolutionary theory as promoted by Darwin and as understood by scientists today. They instead promote a Christian variation of evolution, which still has theological problems, but is not accepted by mainstream evolutionary scientists as being evolution at all.

That is why, in the end, I argue that theistic evolutionists cannot be both evolutionists and Christians - they have redefined evolution to fit their theistic worldview, and have thereby ceased being evolutionists.
Nonetheless, I think it is also important to affirm that professing Christians can also profess belief in macro-evolution. Again, I think they are wrong, I am just arguing that they should not be cast out of the family of faith on account of their macro-evolutionary beliefs. Macro-evolution, with a necessary adjustment of the mechanism of random mutation, is potentially compatible with Christianity.

Let me give you two examples to hopefully illustrate what I am getting at here.

First, imagine being a sincere, Bible-believing Christian in Galileo’s days. You’ve been hearing that there’s this new guy who is proposing that the earth is not the center of the universe, but that rather the earth revolves around the sun. This is major news, because for centuries the dominant worldview has been geocentric. Now this crazy Italian is proposing a heliocentric model of the solar system. I am hopeful that, if I happened to be alive during Galileo’s days, I would have had the wisdom and discernment to see that heliocentrism did not contradict biblical Christianity. I probably would not have leapt up and defended Galileo’s model, proclaiming that it “must be true because it isn’t contradictory to our faith”; however, I hope that I would not have branded him a heretic for proposing a system which contravened general scientific thought at the time. And, of course, as things turned out, Galileo’s model turns out to be right, and everyone now realizes that it is not in the least bit threatening to the Christian faith.

Second, imagine, just for the sake of argument, that there does exist intelligent life somewhere on a distant planet in the far corner of the universe. If you’re like me, this requires you to suspend disbelief, but go with it. Does the existence of life elsewhere in the universe contradict biblical Christianity? I don’t think there’s any way that we can conclude that it does. It would certainly require us to refine some of the ways that we think about the universe, but there is nothing in the tenets of our faith which dogmatically require us to believe that there cannot be life out there somewhere.

With both of these issues – heliocentrism and extraterrestrial life – the main question is not whether they contradict biblical Christianity, but rather whether or not they are true. With heliocentrism, we understand that it is a true theory which does not contradict our faith. With extraterrestrial life, I understand (and I hope you do too) that it is a false theory which nonetheless, if true, would not contradict our faith.
This is the mindset with which I would argue we need to approach the issue of evolutionary theory. I propose that it is not inherently contradictory to our Christian faith. But the more important question then becomes: is it true? If it is true, then we better do the hard work and reconcile it to our worldview; if not, then we should reject it as being false. However, before we launch into a critical examination of Darwinism, let’s look at the third understanding or definition of Darwinism current in society today.

C. Evolution as a Worldview

This understanding of evolution includes both of the above definitions – adaptation and descent from a common ancestor, but goes further yet, and develops evolutionary theory into an all-encompassing worldview.

First, worldview evolution includes a professed explanation for the origin of life on earth. Remember, classical Darwinism begins with life (robust life at that) and argues common descent from that point. Worldview evolution seeks also to explain how life came to be. The argument, put simply, is that life evolved through the same random processes combined with natural selection that later resulted in the proliferation of life on earth. The early earth, it is held, contained some kind of prebiotic soup (the contents of which are hotly debated); out of that interacting prebiotic soup, plus the external application of energy (through lightning, etc.), enzymes formed, combined into proteins, and eventually, given enough time, resulted in the formation of the first simple life form – a single-celled organism that we’ll call Adam. Adam managed to reproduce himself, and from this earliest simple life-form, again given sufficient time, all of life evolved.

Second, worldview evolution includes an explanation of the universe itself. That is, the grand narrative of evolution explains how the universe came to be, and why it is structured the way that it is. Most often, worldview evolution invokes the majesty of multiverse theory as the explanatory mechanism for the universe.

Third, worldview evolution includes an explanation of sociality – that is, human ethics and religion. According to the grand evolutionary story, human morality and spirituality have evolved over time. Ethics and religion are, or at least were at one time, facets of existence which facilitated human survival and flourishing. The worldview version of evolution seeks to provide a natural (and naturalistic) explanation for human morality and spirituality.

Is this version of evolution compatible with Christianity? While it is clear that the first definition of evolution (micro-evolution or adaptation) is perfectly compatible with Christianity; and the second definition of evolution (macro-evolution or classical Darwinism, descent from a common ancestor) is potentially compatible with Christianity; this third definition of evolution is quite clearly not compatible with Christianity. The main Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has already sought to remove the concept of design or teleology from an explanation of biological life. The further worldview understanding that evolution is sufficient to explain the origin of life itself and the existence and nature of human morality and religion, has entirely removed the possibility of the divine from the scope of reality. God is not required (or permitted?) as the originator of biological life. God is not required (or permitted?) as the explanation for the existence and fine-tuning of the universe. God is not required (or permitted?) as the explanation for the unquenchable religious spirit of humanity. God is not required (or permitted?) as the explanation for the undeniability of ethical absolutes. God has been irrevocably removed from the picture of life, the universe, and everything.

When evolution becomes an all-encompassing worldview in this way, theism has been explicitly rejected and rendered impossible. Evolution is no longer a part of the story – evolution is the whole story.

D. Which Version of Evolution is Predominant?

In terms of what is presented and evidentially defended in academia and society, the second version of evolution is predominant. When college students come face-to-face with evolutionary theory, it is the idea of common descent that first confronts them. However, underneath the presented understanding of evolution usually lies a worldview which has been affected and eventually enveloped by naturalistic evolution – the third definition of evolution. The scientific evidence, so far as it goes, supports only the second picture of evolution. The extrapolation to the third definition requires philosophical assumptions and the imposition of a naturalistic worldview.

What this discussion has hopefully uncovered is the necessity of identifying exactly what someone means when they say, “I can’t believe in Christianity – I believe in evolution.” What kind of evolution do they believe in? On what basis do they believe in the evolution that they have embraced? [Incidentally, I think this is also true when someone around us says, “I am a Christian.” We ought to ask, “Well, what kind of a Christian are you? Biblical? Cultural? Revolutionary? Orthodox? And on what basis do you embrace Christianity? “] Furthermore, why do they believe that their version of evolution rules Christianity out? We should not simply assume that we know what someone means when they say they accept evolution as the explanation for life. Ask them. Find out exactly what they mean. Then you can address them in terms of what they actually believe, rather than on the basis of what you presume they believe (based on your own understanding of cultural evolution).

III. The Importance of Critiquing Evolution

Now that we have some understanding of what exactly evolution is in its different manifestations, let’s proceed to evaluate evolutionary theory. By far the majority of contemporary scientists (and even many contemporary Christians) accept the basic tenets of evolutionary theory in its second manifestation. But there is a substantial, and growing, vocal minority of natural scientists who think that there are too many problems with evolutionary theory, and that it is at best unproven and at worst a disproven theory. In 1985, Australian biologist Michael Denton published Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, a book which opened the scientific floodgates of dissension towards Darwinism. The chorus of scientists has grown over the past two decades. There are many who doubt the premises and propositions of Darwinian evolution. I want to look at four scientific difficulties with evolutionary theory (one of which addresses only the third manifestation of evolution, the other three of which apply to both the second and third). Through this brief examination, I want to demonstrate that there are good reasons to question the truth of evolutionary theory, particularly when it seeks to become an all-encompassing worldview.

A. The Origin of Life on Earth

Evolution as a worldview argues that evolution is a sufficient explanation not only for the proliferation of life, but also for the origin of biological life on earth. From the 1950s through the 1980s, ‘origin of life’ research was very much in vogue. The struggle, scientifically speaking, is that we have no reason to suspect that life could arise from non-life – other than the naturalistic presupposition that it had to. For decades, experimenters sought to create life in a test tube, or at least produce the building blocks of life from purely natural chemical reactions. But origin of life research has been a spectacular failure, and there are no prospects of them doing any better in the foreseeable future. Stanley Miller’s celebrated 1952 experiments managed to produce a series of amino acids from a reconstructed facsimile of the ancient earth’s atmosphere. Amino acids are one of the fundamental building blocks of proteins, which in turn are one of the fundamental building blocks for life. Thus, Miller’s success in ending up with amino acids was heralded as the first in a projected long line of success stories in which origin-of-life experimenters would manage (eventually) to create life in a test tube. However, Miller’s experiments (and subsequent ones) are useless in providing a model for the origin of life.

First, Miller’s amino acids are useless to form life – amino acids need to be of a particular type, need to react with one another in a chain, in a very specific manner and sequence. Yet in laboratory experiments, all we get are scrambled, random sequences. There’s no natural force capable of selecting the right amino acids and lining them up in the right order. As a result, the proteinlike chains that appear in the test tube are useless for life.

Second, the experiments do no mimic environmental conditions on early earth – scientists choose only certain chemicals, in their pure form, to put in the test tube. On early earth, other chemicals would have been around as well, they would not have been in their pure form, and other chemical reactions would have interfered.

Third, amino acids are delicate, and would likely be broken down into their constituent elements in nature; in the test tube, the scientist plucks them out to protect them. Indeed, when Miller (and other origin-of-life researchers) did not intervene, amino acids broke down just about as quickly as they were ‘created’.

Fourth, when scientists seek to proceed from amino acids to proteins, they use fresh, pure amino acids, choosing the right ones. They have never gone from simple chemicals to amino acids to proteins in one experiment, even using rigged environmental conditions. Thus, even the most successful origin-of-life experiments tell us next to nothing about what could have happened under natural conditions. They tell us only what happens when a brilliant scientist manipulates the conditions, ‘coaxing’ the materials down the chemical pathways necessary to produce the building blocks of life.

The experiments prove that life can be created only by an intelligent agent directing, controlling, and manipulating the process. And even then, our human intelligent intervention can only go so far. We cannot derive life from non-life.

B. The Intractable Problem of Speciation

Darwin’s theory of descent by random mutation and natural selection from a common ancestor is an exercise in logical extrapolation. From observed variation within species (adaptation), Darwin (and many others) inferred that the process of adaptation, when extended over a long period of time, would result in speciation – the evolution of an entirely new species. Gradual, incremental changes would accumulate, and eventually new species would result.

Basically, what I call the ‘intractable problem’ of speciation is that this aspect of evolutionary theory is simply a hypothesis which has never been confirmed, or observed in progress. Despite over a century of intense scientific experimentation, suggested examples of speciation are almost non-existent in the scientific literature. Those instances of speciation which have been observed involve viruses, and still result in, what to our mind anyway, would be minor changes – more along the lines of adaptation rather than cataclysmic evolutionary change. From my perspective, I am not even sure that they are legitimate examples of speciation – but rather evidence of alteration within species. Despite their best efforts, scientists have not been able to produce or observe trans-speciation. Fruit flies, with a ridiculously short reproductive span, have been experimented on ad nauseum, and extraordinary offspring have been produced. But whether the resultant fruit flies have two wings, four wings, six wings, no wings, or a hundred wings; they remain fruit flies. Ditto for scientific interference in the reproduction of dogs, cattle, flowers, etc. Despite scientists’ best efforts, specimens do not evolve into new species. You don’t get cats from dogs. In other words, evolution (transcending current species boundaries) remains a hypothesized theory which has never been seen to happen. It appears, from my perspective, as if Genesis 1 gets it right – God created the living things ‘according to their kinds’. There is incredible diversity of kinds, and remarkable adaptation and variation within those kinds; but animals do not evolve from one kind into another.

Another way of putting this is that speciation – the heart of Darwinian evolution – is (a) unobserved; (b) unverified in scientific experimentation; and (c) unfalsifiable. I suggest that this is the textbook definition of an unscientific theory. In other words, Darwinian evolution is not science, but rather philosophy or worldview.

C. The Fossil Record

When Darwin published his theory, he expected that the new field of palaeontology (the study of fossils) would eventually bear out his theory. He predicted that there ought to be countless numbers of intermediate species in the fossil record – records of living organisms which represented the transition between, for example, reptiles and birds. This theory has not been borne out by the fossil evidence, however. While there have been a few highly-publicized examples of proposed transitional species, some of these examples have later been exposed as fraudulent or over-blown. There are a few remaining possibly legitimate examples of transitional species (although as a non-evolutionary theist I would interpret that data differently); but there is certainly nothing like the plethora of transitional fossils that Darwin insisted would have to be there to support his theory. In other words, the fossil record serves to disconfrm evolutionary theory.

Even more troubling is the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record. The Cambrian explosion refers to the geologically sudden appearance of complex animal life that marks the beginning of a rich and dense fossil record. Prior to the Cambrian age, there are no fossil records of the complex vertebrates; suddenly in the Cambrian strata, there they are: fully formed, stable, and relatively unchanging from that point onward. Moreover, each phylum is self-bounded – not apparently related to any earlier type of fossil species. Rather than a tree of life (Darwin’s picture) that traces back to a common ancestor, you have instead the picture of a sudden sprouting of a whole field of various wildflowers with no precursors. In other words, what we see in the fossil record is not a gradual evolution and diversification of life forms, but rather a sudden appearance of fully-formed species and families of species.

So in two distinct but powerful ways, the fossil record, which was supposed to be the primary evidential support for the theory of evolution, instead challenges Darwinism.

D. Irreducible Complexity

Darwin also admitted, when he proposed his theory, that any irreducibly complex organ or system would provide a devastating blow to evolution. Darwin did not believe that any such organ or system existed, but many contemporary biologists do. Irreducible complexity can be defined as “a single system that is composed of several interacting parts, where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.” (Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 93) A mousetrap is the famous example. Behe argues that there are large numbers of irreducibly complex biological systems within our bodies, ranging from the eye, the blood-clotting mechanism, to the bacterial flagellum, and so on. These systems defy evolutionary explanation, as they require the entire fully-formed structure to appear simultaneously to be of any benefit to the organism. A partial flagellum is not only useless, it is positively counter-productive, and would serve to make the organism less suited for survival.

E. Human Sociality – Ethics and Religion

I will be spending significant time and space discussing both of these facets of human existence in later posts, so I will only mention them briefly here. Evolution as an overarching worldview (or metanarrative, if you like fancier words) claims to explain morality and religion as well as biological diversity. To put it simply and bluntly, evolution is highly inadequate to do the job that is required of it. Evolution fails to explain the unquenchably religious spirit of humanity, and similarly fails to explain the undeniable existence of a transcendent, objective standard of morality of which we are all aware (and which, simultaneously, we all fail to live up to). Discussion of these issues will have to wait.

The end of the matter, however, is simply this. Evolutionary theory, in its simplest form of adaptation, or variation within species, is uncontroversial, perfectly compatible with Christian theism, and absolutely correct as a scientific theory.

Evolutionary theory as an overarching worldview, seeking to explain the origin and structure of the universe, the origin of life on earth, the existence and nature of human morality and religion, is unquestionably in conflict with Christian theism. It is also patently false and unworkable as an explanation of life.

The second manifestation of evolutionary theory – macro-evolution or classical Darwinism – holds that all living things have evolved from a common ancestor through a gradual process of random mutation and natural selection. This theory is potentially compatible with Christian theism, if the random mutation is altered to be understood as a divinely-guided mutation which appears random to the human observer. However, in the end it really doesn’t matter whether the theory is compatible with Christianity or not. From my perspective, at least, this form of evolutionary theory fails as well. The inability of scientists to observe or recreate speciation, the contrary evidence from the fossil record, and the obstacle posed by irreducible complexity all conspire to render evolutionary theory as questionable at best.

From an apologetic standpoint, the implications are immense. Evolution has a strong hold upon contemporary society – many students abandon their faith because of the perceived strength and unassailability of Darwinism. If only students could be shown the contrary evidence, which demonstrates significant problems within evolutionary theory, perhaps we could close that back door of the church. This is a matter of giving struggling Christians “reasons not to disbelieve,” or, if you prefer, “reasons to continue believing.” In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. Evolution doesn’t explain everything. Christianity does.

Richard Bauckham on the Nature of the Gospels (part two)

2011-02-24T12:27:00.000-07:00

Lectures 2-4: The Gospels as Multi-Perspectival Micro-History ‘From Below’

In my last blog post, I shared in some depth the insights gleaned from the first of Richard Bauckham’s four lectures in the Julian Gay lecture series at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, last Tuesday and Wednesday (February 16 & 17, 2011). This afternoon, I want to share a few thought from his latter three lectures.

First, Bauckham emphasized the unique nature of the Gospels as ancient history ‘from below’. Modern history ‘from below’ focuses on the perspective and agency of “the common people” instead of the traditional focus on the elite. In ancient history, such a perspective is almost entirely unknown. Greco-Roman biographies focused on the lives of the powerful elites of society; when slaves or commoners were mentioned, it was only insofar as they furthered the plot and story of the elite biography.

The New Testament Gospels, on the other hand, have a distinct concern for and focus upon non-elite segments of society. Bauckham stratifies first-century Palestinian society into six different groups: the elite, retainers, the common people, slaves, the poor, and outcasts. All six groups (of which the common people are the vast majority) are strongly represented as active agents in the Gospels. More intriguingly, Jesus’ followers are found amongst all six social groups.

Bauckham then spent considerable time drawing the basic conditions and proportions of the six social strata – an illuminating discussion that I will not recap here.

In his final lecture, Bauckham talked about ‘micro-history’, the focus upon a narrower picture or segment of the past. The Gospels, according to Bauckham, are filled with little stories of little people, whose lives would otherwise be unnoticed and insignificant. In this fashion, the gospels were a challenge to the prevailing Greco-Roman metanarrative. Whereas the Roman historians and biographers focused almost exclusively upon the powerful elite, the Gospels intentionally focus upon the lowest and the least. Bauckham identifies in this focus a purposeful, provocative challenge to the imperial powers: “You are not what ultimately matters,” the Gospels say, “Rather, Jesus and the ‘least of these’ are penultimate.”

The micro-history from below climaxes at the cross. On the cross, Jesus is socially degraded, cast out of the social order altogether. Is this the logical ending to his ministry, which has identified and associated with commoners and outcasts particularly? Jesus has made ‘the least’ socially amongst the most visible in his community of followers; now, on the cross, Jesus joins ‘the least’. Hence, while Roman historians would avoid (or deny) the reality of the cross in writing a biography of the powerful Jesus, the Gospel-writers emphasize and highlight the cross as the climax of Jesus’ life and ministry. Ironically, you can detect the Greco-Roman emphasis upon powerful elite status in biography within Muslim historians and theologians, who generally deny the reality of Christ’s death of the cross, holding that Allah must have rescued his prophet ‘Isa’ from such a humiliating death.

Micro-history is further highlighted in the resurrection narratives. In the discovery of the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances, ‘minor’ characters are allowed to speak for themselves, rather than being shaped and revamped by emerging Christian narrative. Like N. T. Wright, Bauckham finds it significant that the Gospels’ accounts of the resurrection do not even mention the post-mortem Christian hope conveyed by Christ’s resurrection. The resurrection narratives speak for themselves instead.

Bauckham closed his last lecture by addressing post-modernism and its challenges to historiographical knowledge. Bauckham rejected the argument that post-modernism makes historical knowledge impossible; but he acknowledged that postmodernism rightly chastens historiography, reminding us that history is multi-perspectival. We cannot take a God’s-eye view of history; we are situated subjects. Thus, we are well-advised to take into account multiple perspectives of historical events. In particular, Bauckham concluded that we need to take the four Gospel accounts seriously, as multi-perspectival historiography.

If you are intrigued by Bauckham’s thoughts, as I am, I recommend you read his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. He has penned other titles, including The Testimony of the Beloved Disciples and Jesus and the God of Israel. Bauckham is a solid, richly rewarding scholar to read (and to listen to).

Richard Bauckham on the Gospels as (Reliable) Historical Biography

2011-02-21T08:09:00.000-07:00

Richard Bauckham Lectures – What Sort of History are the Gospels?

This week Dr. Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple) was in Louisville, Kentucky, to deliver the Julian Gay Lectures at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I had the privilege of taking in all four of his lectures, two on Tuesday, two on Wednesday. They were fruitful, illuminating, and enjoyable. I wanted to share some thoughts from Bauckham’s lectures, particularly the first one, but with some insights from the second and third ones as well.

Bauckham spent the first lecture discussing the genre of the New Testament Gospels. He examined Richard Burridge’s argument (Burridge, What Are the Gospels? [Eerdmans, 2004]) that the Gospels most closely fit the ancient genre of bioi, or Greek biography. Bauckham asserted that Burridge’s thesis has widespread (though not universal) acceptance amongst Biblical scholars. He stressed that bioi was not a strict, iron-clad genre, but was rather flexible and porous, with considerable overlap with proximate literary genres—particularly historiography (accounts of historical events) and encomium (training manuals). The Gospels, then, according to Bauckham, are best classified as “historical biography.”

Bauckham then examined the different types of biography in extant Greek literature—intellectual biographies (focusing on philosophers and their thought-systems), military biographies (studying generals, e.g. Plutarch’s Life of …), and hagiographies (biographies of religious figures and ‘holy men’, e.g. Life of Apollonius of Tyana; Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus). Bauckham noted that this last type of biography (hagiography) is actually difficult to distinguish, and he rejects the distinction altogether.

Bauckham then examined a key distinction that the ancient Greeks made between contemporary and distant biographies. Contemporary biographies involved writing while the subject was still alive, or within living memory—e.g. Lucian’s Life of Demonas. Distant biographies recounted the lives of individuals long-since dead—e.g. The Life of Aesop, the Life of Homer. According to Bauckham, non-contemporary history and biography was not esteemed to the same extent as that close to the events they narrated. Along the same lines, contemporary history was expected to rely on personal eyewitness testimony; indeed, to be considered “reliable” or “good”, history had to rely on eyewitnesses.

Bauckham then discussed the work of Samuel Byrskog (Story as History, History as Story [Brill, 2002]). Byrskog contends that in history both ancient and contemporary, the ideal witness is not an unbiased, dispassionate observer, but rather one who was socially involved (or an active participant) in the events narrated. Bauckham proceeded to list factors that tend to heighten both memory and the reliability of eyewitness testimony. (1) Personal involvement, engagement, or investment in the events remembered/narrated. (2) Attaching significance or importance to the events remembered/narrated. (3) Retelling/rehearsing the events. Bauckham noted if an individual recounts an experience that they have witnessed, the account soon takes on a relatively fixed form, and does not diverge much from it afterward. In other words, the most reliable memory and trustworthy eyewitness account comes from someone who was personally involved or invested in the events, believed the events to be of tremendous significance to themselves and others, and has recounted or told the story regularly since the original occurrence. That is why, even 18 years later, I will still recount and retell my conversion to Christianity is remarkably similar terms. (Indeed, one good friend used to tell me that he found my testimony boring, because it was always the same. But that’s simply the nature of eyewitness testimony—the story doesn’t change!)

This leads naturally to a discussion of the reliability of memory in eyewitnesses. Several researchers, among them Dale Allison and John Dominic Crossan, have suggested that human memory is inherently unreliable. Crossan recounts several examples; one of the most interesting being recorded memories of the events of September 11, 2001. A class of college freshman was given a questionnaire within a week of 9/11, asking several questions: (1) where were you when you heard; (2) what were you doing; (3) what was your immediate reaction or response? Three years later, as college seniors, the same group of students was given an identical questionnaire. Responses to the two questionnaires were very different. This leads Crossan to discount the reliability of memory in general, and to suggest that the Gospels as “eyewitness testimony” does not increase their trustworthiness as historical accounts.

The analogy fails, however. Students may have remembered their own physical location, occupation, and even immediate responses to the events of 9/11 differently three years later; but they remembered the actual events of 9/11 similarly. That is, the key historical event, the terrorist attacks upon the World Trade Center and other targets, was remembered accurately, even while the extraneous details (where were you, etc.) were not. This is neither surprising nor remarkable, and it certainly does nothing to undermine the thesis that Bauckham is defending.

To the conclusion of the matter, then. Bauckham argues that ancient history was esteemed when it was written within living memory of the events it narrated; and that reliable history had to record the accounts of eyewitnesses. Hence, eyewitnesses would have been prestigious individuals within the early church. They would have remained authoritative sources and guarantors of the Jesus tradition in the early church.
The New Testament Gospels in particularly were written at a time when (1) eyewitness testimony was still available; but (2) was becoming unavailable as the original generation of eyewitnesses began to die out. Even on relatively liberal/critical dating, Mark’s Gospel (the earliest) is written around 70; Matthew and Luke by 85, and John by 95—the original generation is almost extinct by the time John writes, but there are still living eyewitnesses to the events the Gospels narrate. The presence of living eyewitnesses has two significant effects upon the Gospel accounts: (1) there is a negative check, in that false accounts would be corrected by the eyewitnesses; and (2) there is a positive check, in that eyewitnesses could affirm the truthfulness of the Gospels.

Thus, Bauckham argues, the Gospels are historically reliable as (1) historical biography, (2) written close to the time of the events they narrate, (3) relying on the testimony of personal eyewitnesses, (4) who were personally present and involved in those events, (5) found those events to be of incredible significance, and (6) retold and rehearsed the events of the gospels regularly and repeatedly in oral form.

That’s a basic summary of Bauckham’s first lecture—God willing I will return later this week to share some of the latter three lectures.

God is Greater Than Google

2011-02-16T12:37:00.001-07:00

Praying to Almighty Google

I can’t remember how many years ago my son, now 10, first asked me a question that I think all Christians ask at one point or another in their journey of faith.

“Dad,” he asked, “when we pray, does God hear us?”

“Yes, son,” I answered wisely, “of course God hears us when we pray.”

“If you and I are both praying at the same time, does God hear us both?”

“Yes, son, of course God hears us both.”

“What if there are lots and lots of people all praying to God at the same time, Dad? Can God hear all of them praying at the same time?”

“Yes, He can.”

“But, dad,” he asked, “if Mom and I are both talking to you at the same time, you can’t hear us both.”

“That’s right, son,” I answered, “I can’t hear both of you at the same time."

“Dad - if you can't hear two people talking to you at the same time, then how can God hear lots of people praying to Him? How?”

That question, “How?” is a tough one to answer, isn’t it? I can’t make sense of what anybody is saying if there’s more than one voice coming to me at the same time. If I can’t do that, how is God able to sort the simultaneous prayers of millions of His children?

Last night I heard what I think is the best illustration I have ever heard that describes God’s ability to hear and respond to simultaneous prayer. It came from the lips of our BSF (Bible Study Fellowship) teacher in Louisville, KY—Richard Ross. What follows is a rough paraphrase of Richard’s illustration, with some of my own embellishments and additions.

PRAYING TO ALMIGHTY GOOGLE

This morning I sat down at my computer to pray to Almighty Google. I adoringly gave thanks for Google’s power and ability to hear and respond to prayer. I humbly submitted my request, praying that Almighty Google would provide me with just the information and connections I required to direct me to the Richard Bauckham lectures at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary this week (more on the Bauckham lectures later this week, God willing).

It struck me, as I was submitting my prayer request to Almighty Google, that there were probably millions of other Google-worshipers offering up petitions to their cybernetic deity at that precise moment in time. Their requests were, indubitably, different than my own; some, perhaps, radically so. Yet I had absolute confidence, faith, that Almighty Google had both the ability and will to sort out our simultaneous petitions and respond to each supplicant appropriately. My faith made it well—Google responded almost instantaneously to my prayer request, and I was sent on my way to absorb stimulating lectures by a singularly eminent British biblical scholar. Thank Google!

It strikes me as odd that educated Western human beings can place great faith in the abilities of Almighty Google to sort out millions of simultaneous requests and deal with them personally and correctly. Yet at the same time we question the ability of Almighty God, who created both the minds that created computers and the concept of Google itself, to do the same. Why would we imagine that the Sovereign Creator of the universe is somehow less capable, less competent, than a machine made by human hands, or a computer program designed by creatures designed by the Divine Designer? Why would we doubt God’s ability to hear personally, compassionately, and responsively, the prayers of human beings whom He has created for relationship with Him? If Google can do it, why would Christians, who confess the greatness, glory, and majesty of God, consider Him unable to do the same?

PERSONAL POSTSCRIPT

God our Father is greater than Google. Google can receive my petitions and spit out information that I seek—no matter how many other Google-users are accessing the system at the same time. God hears the cries of my heart, receives my prayers of adoration, and hears my intercessory petitions—no matter how many other Christ-followers are entreating Him at the same time. More importantly, while Google will only spit out what I am seeking, my God will answer my prayers in the way that is in my best interests—which often means denying my request, or answering my petition in a way other than I envisioned.

So when my daughters, who are now 7 and 5, ask me that same question: “How, Dad? How can God hear everyone praying at the same time?” I will have a different, and in my mind more satisfying answer: God is greater than Google.

Reason, Arguments, and Presuppositions - E. Linnaman

2011-01-04T11:47:00.000-07:00

"Reason is a whore, Luther says. There is nothing for which logical arguments cannot be adduced. We should resist beguilement through logical arguments. Our minds are swayed by logical arguments, but such arguments are never free standing. They are always wrapped up in a complex of presuppositions. It is not just that questions arguments exist: arguments themselves are questionable-that is, they must be traced back to their presuppositions. Insofar as they are logical, they may appear to be neutral, but they are most assuredly not.

"That is why God's Word admonishes us: 'Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.' (Prov. 3:5) Is this a denigration of our God-given intellectual capacity? No; it is simply a reminder of why our minds were given and what they were never designed to be: objects in which to place our total trust."

Eta Linnaman, "Biblical Criticism on Trial", trans. Robert Yarbrough. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001, p. 180.

Happy New Year!

2011-01-03T11:08:00.000-07:00

Yes, I have been absent from my blog for a ridiculously inexcusably long period of time. My apologies to those who wondered where I have been! Our family traveled from our current home in Louisville, Kentucky, to our 'home' town of Edmonton, Alberta for Christmas. We celebrated two weddings, along with Christmas, with family and friends back in Alberta. It was a nice trip, but took us entirely out of the loop for a few weeks.

We are now back, and, God willing, I will be more faithful with my blogging this year. My first offering is a review of Tim Keller's 'The Reason for God,' a helpful little apologetics book which I highly recommend to readers of all stripes.

God's Blessings to you through this new year,
Tawa

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God - book review

2011-01-03T11:04:00.001-07:00

Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Dutton, 2008. 293 pp.

Timothy Keller planted Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan in 1989. In the past twenty years, Redeemer has reached out to (and reached) tens of thousands of young, professional New Yorkers with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Today it ranks as a major church-planting center, with daughter churches not just throughout New York City, but in major urban centers around the world. Keller’s expositional preaching continually has in mind the objections that may arise in the minds of skeptics and non-Christians in his congregation. Every Sunday, the worship service is followed by at least an hour of question and answer, where Keller remains in order to respond to the questions and doubts of those (usually unbelievers) in attendance.

In The Reason for God, Keller seeks to engage the broader skeptical American audience through print. In his introduction, he notes that the world is becoming increasingly polarized over religion, both more and less religious at the same time (x). Keller suggests that rather than rejecting one another in hostility (as seems to be the current trend), skeptics and believers should both “look at doubt in a radically new way”—Christians acknowledging and wrestling with their own and their neighbors’ doubts about the faith (xvii), and skeptics recognizing and examining “a type of faith hidden within their reasoning.” (xviii) His expectation, which serves as the primary thesis for The Reason for God, is that “if you come to recognize the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians from theirs—you will discover that your doubts are not as solid as they first appeared.” (xviii) Thus, while exhorting Christians to critically examine their beliefs, Keller leaves no doubt that he expects that exercise will lead to a deeper renewed faith in Jesus Christ, while the skeptic’s searching ought to lead to a discovery of new-found faith.

Having laid out his thesis, Keller divides his work into two major sections: “The Leap of Doubt” and “The Reasons for Faith.” The first section (seven chapters) examines “the seven biggest objections and doubts about Christianity.” (xix) The second section (also seven chapters) reviews “the reasons underlying Christian beliefs.” (xix) Thus, Keller sets out on a dual project of negative and positive apologetics—giving reasons not to disbelieve, followed by reasons to believe. While the primary audience Keller has in mind is the unchurched skeptic, Keller also apparently desires to bolster wavering or wandering Christians in their faith. Thus, The Reason for God can serve as a training tool for Christians who seek to engage skeptical friends with reasons to believe. Keller has provided a concise, digestible (each chapter is approximately fifteen pages long, with readable font and spacing) apologetic guide.

The first objection against Christianity is its intolerant exclusivity in an age of religious tolerance and pluralism (Chapter One, “There Can’t Be Just One True Religion”). Keller uncovers four hidden (and false) axioms which are required to support the charge, and systematically deconstructs them. First, the assumption that “all major religions are equally valid and basically teach the same thing” betrays a fundamental ignorance of the irreconcilable differences between religions’ doctrinal stances (7). Furthermore, this pluralist presupposition itself “holds a specific view of God, which is touted as superior and more enlightened than the beliefs of most major religions,” (8) thus exposing professing tolerant pluralists as intolerant. Second, the presumption that “each religion sees part of spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth (8) assumes that the speaker himself has complete objective perspective, and is free from the limitations that plague ‘ordinary’ religious people (9). Third, the presupposition that “religious belief is too culturally and historically conditioned to be ‘truth’” (9) is itself a culturally and historically conditioned belief (10-11). Fourth, the assumption that “it is arrogant to insist your religion is right and to convert others to it” (11) is not followed by proponents of religious pluralism, who try valiantly to ‘convert’ others to their own perspective (12). Keller quotes Mark Lilla: “The curious thing about skepticism is that its adherents, ancient and modern, have so often been proselytizers. In reading them, I’ve often wanted to ask: ‘Why do you care?’” (13) In the rest of the chapter, Keller acknowledges that Christianity (and religion generally) has been a major divisive (and even violent) force at times, but insists that it also has “within itself remarkable power to explain and expunge the divisive tendencies within the human heart.” (18)

Keller then tackles the problem of evil and suffering (Chapter Two, “How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?”). He summarizes J. L. Mackie’s argument about the incompatibility of a good and powerful God with unjustifiable and pointless evil in the world (23). Keller identifies the hidden assumption that “if evil appears pointless to me, then it must be pointless,” (23) a claim which inflates one’s own perception and knowledge. He then discusses the redemptive and refining purpose of much suffering (24-25), before turning the argument around. Following C. S. Lewis (as he does often throughout The Reason for God, an intellectual debt he acknowledges in the Afterword), Keller argues persuasively that the argument from the existence of evil admits the existence of an objective standard of right and wrong (26), and serves as a confirming argument for the existence of God. Finally, Keller reminds the reader that God is not immune or distant from human suffering, but has taken suffering upon Himself on the Cross (29), and that the reality of redemption and the resurrection transforms our experience of suffering (30-32).

Skeptics often argue that the Christian faith is an enemy of freedom and stifles individual creativity (Chapter Three, “Christianity is a Straitjacket”). In response, Keller points out that a belief in objective truth is unavoidable (37-38), and using the example of pro-gay and anti-gay groups, insists that every community is by nature exclusive to some degree (38-39). Furthermore, Christianity is not a cultural straitjacket, but is rather marked internationally by incredible cultural diversity (40-43).

Keller then moves on to the personal liberation that Christianity brings. First, he argues that “freedom cannot be defined in strictly negative terms, as the absence of confinement and constraint.” (45) Using music and practicing as an example, he demonstrates that voluntary constraint is often the means to creative liberation (46). Then he discusses the constraining nature of love, which he calls “the ultimate freedom.” (47) What Keller does not talk about, unfortunately, is the nature of the ‘constraints’ that God puts in place for His children, and how God’s commands are there for our own good—our protection, our fulfillment, and our best interests. Nonetheless, Keller is right to conclude that when we love God, we are driven to obey Him out of a desire to please Him, not a desire to avoid His punishment (49-50).

The next objection against Christianity is the injustice perpetrated by individual Christians and the Church (Chapter Four, “The Church Is Responsible For So Much Injustice”). Keller notes that skepticism is often prompted initially by negative experiences with individual or corporate Christianity (52). First, Keller discusses character flaws in individual Christians, notes that common grace allows unbelievers to live morally upright lives (53), and acknowledges the very real flaws of ordinary Christians. However, Keller fails to mention the presence of ‘false believers’ within the Church—people who claim to be Christian, but are not, and are the source of much ‘Christian’-perpetrated evil in the world. Second, Keller rebuts Christopher Hitchens’ argument that religion is the source of most violence and oppression in the world. Finally, in the most fascinating section of this chapter, Keller addresses fanaticism, suggesting that the problem with most fanatics is not that they are “too Christian,” but rather “not Christian enough.” (57) Keller insists that while oppression of others is inexcusable (59), it is not true Christians who perpetrate such evils, but rather people who have an incomplete faith (60). He closes by asking the skeptic on what basis they can oppose oppression if they do not have the transcendent biblical basis from which to insist that oppression is wrong (60-61).

The doctrine of hell is particularly troublesome, not only to skeptics, but also to many Christians (Chapter Five, “How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?”). Keller uncovers the hidden presupposition that God cannot be both a God of love and a God of justice, and demonstrates that love requires wrath and anger at injustice and the ruination of lives (73). In response to the objection that eternal punishment in hell is excessive, Keller introduces the idea that “hell is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity.” (78) Following Lewis, Keller claims that God does not send people to hell, but rather allows us to condemn ourselves to hell in respect for our ultimate freedom (79).

Keller then tackles the prickly problem of miracles and evolution (Chapter Six, “Science Has Disproved Christianity”). While he acknowledges that miracles are difficult to believe in, and cannot be empirically tested for, Keller also insists that science simply does not have the tools to ascertain whether miracles are possible or not. To insist that science disproves the miraculous is to move from science into philosophical presupposition (86). Keller makes concessions to evolutionary theory that will trouble some conservative evangelicals (86-87), and insists that evolution and the biblical picture of creation need not be interpreted as contradictory accounts (92). I admire the apologetic strategy and heart behind Keller’s stance. Keller states: “Since Christian believers occupy different positions on both the meaning of Genesis 1 and on the nature of evolution, those who are considering Christianity as a whole should not allow themselves to be distracted by this intramural debate. The skeptical inquirer does not need to accept any one of these positions in order to embrace the Christian faith. Rather, he or she should concentrate on and weigh the central claims of Christianity.” (94) Keller is saying that since Christianity is potentially compatible with evolution, this issue cannot be held up as a reason to not become a Christian.

The final objection to Christian faith is the unreliability of the Bible (Chapter Seven, “You Can’t Take the Bible Literally”). There are two predominant objections to the Bible which Keller treats in turn: its historical fallibility and its cultural obsolescence. In response to liberal scholars’ assertions that the Bible is embellished, imagined, and untrustworthy as a historical record, Keller suggests we can trust it because of its early date and eyewitness status (101-03), the historical nature of its content (104-05), and the internal evidence of its incidental details (106). Keller’s sound defense of New Testament reliability could be strengthened by appeal to the universal early church testimony and the supporting evidence of archaeology. Keller then responds to the charges of “outmoded and regressive teaching.” (109) He first notes that many troublesome texts (e.g. Ephesians 6:5 on slavery) can be cleared up “with a decent commentary that puts the issue into historical context.” (110) But Keller admits that there will still remain some texts, properly contextualized, which will offend and trouble the modern reader. However, he warns against cultural snobbery, “the unexamined belief in the superiority of their historical moment over all others,” (111) and insists that if there is a God, He is more than likely going to have some ‘views’ which upset you (112).

Keller’s negative apologetic is necessarily cursory and brief, as he covers topics in fifteen pages which other authors have spent hundreds of pages discussing. Thus, there is a sense in which his presentation leaves one wanting more. However, Keller has provided endnotes which go into greater depth on some issues, and point the curious reader to further sources which give lengthier treatment of the issue at hand. Thus, the first half of the book is a worthy apologetic primer, getting at the heart of objections to the Christian faith, and giving the reader the tools to engage in further study.

In introducing the positive apologetic of the second half of the book (“Intermission”), Keller notes that he will be seeking to establish a ‘mere Christianity,’ a faith which affirms the major ecumenical creeds of the early centuries (117). The reasons he will lay out do not serve as epistemologically compelling proof, a goal which is impossible and cannot even live up to its own standards (118-20). Rather, he seeks to establish rational arguments that will persuade most rational people (120). Finally, he suggests that the Christian worldview “makes the most sense of the world,” and invites the reader to put on Christian lenses to see the world through (123).

Keller first seeks to establish the rationality of Christian theism by discussing “clues” (rather than conclusive proofs) for God’s existence (Chapter Eight, “The Clues of God”). He suggests that the five clues he presents are not individually compelling, but taken together have a formidable accumulated weight (128). Keller lays out, in exceedingly brief fashion, the cosmological argument (The Mysterious Bang, 128-29), the fine-tuning argument (The Cosmic Welcome Mat, 129-32), the argument from the regularity of nature (132), the “Clue of Beauty” (133-35), and the inescapability of trusting our cognitive faculties (135-41). This last ‘clue’ is the crowning achievement of this chapter. Whereas the first four clues are dealt with much too briefly (and I would argue, Keller places too little weight on each of them individually), Keller deals masterfully with the logical conclusion of naturalism. When skeptics debunk religion as a product of evolution, they undermine their ability to trust the rational faculties with which they arrive at their conclusions (136-37). Keller cites non-Christians who agree that “if reason is a product of natural selection” then we can have very little confidence “in a rational argument for natural selection . . . Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.” (139) Keller insists that everyone lives by trusting their rationality, but atheists have cut the branch off while they are standing on it (140-41). This demonstrates that they know internally what they deny externally—there is a God (141).

Keller then lays out his version of the moral argument for God (Chapter Nine, “The Knowledge of God”). He rejects the popular thesis that our society is becoming ethically relativistic, insisting that people are adopting a “free-floating morality” instead: “People still have strong moral convictions, but . . . they don’t have any visible basis for why they find some things to be evil and other things good.” (145) He reasserts his thesis that “people in our culture know unavoidably that there is a God, but they are repressing what they know.” (146) Of course, to a fellow Christian that thesis sounds anything but revolutionary or radical—nonetheless, Keller knows it will hit a nerve with skeptics. He lays out the unavoidable human belief in “moral obligation,” (146) and insists that neither evolutionary morality (147-48) nor social construct theory (148-52) explains our belief in absolute moral standards. Again, his discussion is brief to the point of triviality—I’m sure Robert Trivers would shudder at Keller’s presentation of reciprocal altruism. Nonetheless, when Keller argues that the universal belief in human rights requires God to properly ground it, his presentation rings true—especially as he defends it by invoking the insights of atheist scholars (Arthur Leff, Alan Dershowitz, Ronald Dworkin). Keller concludes that if there is no God, there is no meaning or purpose in life, a conclusion that humanity simply cannot live with (156-58).

Keller then moves subtly from a presentation of reasons to believe in Christianity to a description of Christian theism. Chapter Ten examines the “Problem of Sin,” illustrating the universal recognition that there is a problem (160), addressing the personal, social, and cosmic consequences of sin (164-70), and outlining the Christian solution to sin through Jesus (170-71). Chapter Eleven discusses the difference between “Religion and the Gospel,” insisting that Christianity is fundamentally different than all other religions in that “only Jesus claimed to actually be the way to salvation himself.” (174) Keller is certainly right that other major world religions identify their founder as the pointer to salvation, rather than the way to salvation. However, he does not address the nature of many ‘cults’ and new religious movements in which the founder (e.g. Krishna, David Koresh) claims to be the way to salvation.

In dealing with the necessity of the crucifixion (Chapter Twelve, “The [True] Story of the Cross”), Keller returns to positive apologetics proper, answering the question, ‘Why did Jesus have to die?’ (187) On the one hand, forgiveness is costly suffering—the debt incurred by wrongdoing can be extracted from the wrongdoer, or it can be absorbed by the wronged party, but it simply cannot dissipate (188-90). On the cross, Jesus takes the pain, violence, and evil of sin upon Himself, thereby freeing men and women from bearing the cost themselves (192). On the other hand, Keller argues that “love is a personal exchange,” (193) and implies the requirement of substitutional sacrifice.

Keller’s treatment of the resurrection (Chapter Thirteen, “The Reality of the Resurrection”) follows the outline of N. T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God (202). He lays out the traditional three-fold evidential apologetic: the reality of the empty tomb combined with the identity of the earliest witnesses (203-05); the absence of compatible first-century beliefs concerning resurrection and immortality (206-07); and the otherwise inexplicable explosion of a new worldview (208-10). Keller notes that several elements of early Christian belief had no correlative in either Greek or Jewish thought, and that efforts to explain the birth of the church “apart from Jesus’ resurrection” fail to account for “first-century history and culture.” (210) Keller concludes: “If you don’t short-circuit the process with the philosophical bias against the possibility of miracle, the resurrection of Jesus has the most evidence for it.” (210)

In his concluding chapter (Chapter Fourteen, “The Dance of God”), Keller appeals to the skeptical reader to enter into the grand scope of the Bible—the themes of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration (214). The Christian life is humanity entering into the “divine dance” or the Triune God, glorifying and enjoying God as “we worship him, serve the human community, and care for the created environment.” (224) He insists that the Gospel resonates with our sense of moral obligation, our irrepressibly religious spirit, our “profoundly religious character,” and “our delight in the presence of beauty.” (225)

Keller then guides the convinced (or nearly-convinced) reader to his or her next steps (Epilogue, “Where Do We Go From Here?”). He encourages them to examine their motives before taking a leap of faith (227-28), count the cost of discipleship (228-31), take inventory of their lives (231-32), make the move into faith (233-35) by repenting and believing in Christ, and commit to Christian community (235-37).

There is much to applaud in Keller’s two-fold apologetic work. I found his response to skeptical objections to be particularly poignant and strong—I suspect it is his negative apologetic which has the most value in winning skeptics over. There were, however, several places where I felt Keller could have strengthened his case considerably. First, in dealing with “clues” for the existence of God, I would have liked him to deal in more depth with the issue of origins, as this is one of the weakest links in any a-theistic worldview. Second, he could have evaluated two additional ‘clues’—the argument from religious desire (which he mentions in passing but never evaluates), and the argument from the idea of God (the ontological argument). Third, while his Bono quote (229) is sheer brilliance (a culturally-useful contemporary version of Lewis’s famous trilemma), I wish Keller had spent at least some time examining the self-understanding of Jesus—perhaps after discussing the reliability of the New Testament Gospels (a subject which itself could have been dealt with in more depth).

Fourth, in chapter four (the historic injustice of the church), Keller mentions the resources of Christianity in opposing oppression, but never elaborates positively on the incredible contributions that Christianity has made to human civilization—the birth of science, the establishment of public education, the founding of medical missions, etc. I have some other minor quibbles I have mentioned in the appropriate places of this book review. Nonetheless, no human is perfect, no author is perfect, no apologetic work is perfect, and so it is unrealistic to expect The Reason for God to be a perfect book. What it is, however, is a concise apologetic work of great value to the Church of Christ. Keller presents an insightful critique of anti-Christian objections, combined with a persuasive presentation of reasons to believe in Jesus Christ. A former seminary professor of mine claimed in an email that The Reason for God is “the best apologetics book I have read in the past five years”—despite my affinity for William Lane Craig (Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition), I am tempted to affirm his judgment.

Strengthening the Faith: Apologetics in Your Home & Church

2010-11-26T22:07:00.001-07:00

Strengthening Faith: Apologetics in Your Family & Church – The Church at Cedar Creek

Sunday, November 14, 2010

NOTE: This is the text of a sermon preached two weeks ago at a vibrant, thriving church near Stanford, Kentucky. The desire and intent was to inspire church members to engage in apologetic ministry in their homes and through their church ministries.

I. Introduction

I want to tell you briefly about four friends of mine. Gary grew up in a strong Christian family. His parents had been members of their Methodist church since they were married. Gary accepted Jesus as his Savior and Lord when he was nine years old, and was active in Sunday School and youth group throughout middle school and high school. However, when Gary was finishing high school and entering college, he began to have doubts about some aspects of Christianity. He noticed that some things in the Gospels simply did not add up. Matthew and Luke had quite different genealogies for Jesus. The details surrounding who visited Jesus’ empty tomb were different – how many women were there? Were there angels or men at the tomb? How many of them? He also questioned the character of the God presented in parts of the Old Testament. Why did God hate Esau? How could a loving God order the extermination of entire people groups in the Promised Land? And how can God be both three and one?

Scott grew up in a nominal Christian family. Growing up, his family attended their local Lutheran church off and on. After their divorce, Scott regularly attended a Unitarian Church with his mother. When he was 20, Scott began attending a local Baptist church with his older brother, and soon became a follower of Christ and was baptized. Scott wanted to share Christ with his non-Christian family and friends, but struggled to begin. How could he make any impact upon convinced universalists? Would they listen to him? How could he show them that their belief system was wrong and needed to be adjusted to match God’s truth?

Jill became a Christian in middle school after her widowed mother started going to church and getting involved in fellowships. Jill was baptized during high school and emerged as a vibrant, budding believer. A popular and outgoing young woman, she was surrounded by friends who were involved with other religions. Many of her friends launched objections against Christianity, and challenged Jill to see the truth of their beliefs. Jill wanted her friends to know Christ, but felt pressured and attacked. She often didn’t know how to respond to her friends’ attacks against her faith.

Peter was a minister of small groups and discipleship in a mid-size Church of Christ. He became increasingly concerned that many college-age students were dropping out of church. When he asked them why they had stopped attending, a number of them cited growing doubts about the truth of their faith. Their college professors taught that God is a figment of our imagination, and that man is a product of undirected, random, atheistic evolution. They could not reconcile the faith of their parents with what they were being taught at college. They weren’t about to drop out of college, so they dropped out of church instead.

My four friends have something in common—whether they know it or not, they are all in desperate need of apologetics ministry. In our time together this morning, I desire to do three things. First, I want to briefly define and describe Christian apologetics. Second, I will share why apologetics is both commanded by God and desperately needed in the church today. Finally, I want to encourage each of you to become apologetically-engaged in your family, church, and community. To that end, I will share a few resources to help you get started. Throughout, I hope to show that engaging in apologetics is not merely something that “we are supposed to do;” rather, when we serve God in apologetics, it brings us great joy and fulfillment.

II. What is Apologetics?

1 Peter 3:15 reads: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

The word translated “answer” is the Greek απολογια (apologia), from which we derive our English words ‘apology’ and ‘apologetics’. The term carries courtroom connotations. It conveys the idea of providing evidence, building a case, responding to questions, or defending against attack. Thus, many translations translate it as “defense” (NASB, ESV) instead of “answer”. Apologetics, or apologia, is thus the act of giving a defense, providing an answer, for the hope that we have in Jesus Christ. Simply put, “Apologetics is the defense and explanation of the Christian faith.”

There are two sides to apologetics. On the one hand, apologetics provides reasons to believe. That is, apologetics sets forth positive reasons that one ought to believe in Christianity. “Why should we believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Let me give you some reasons that I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” On the other hand, apologetics also provides reasons to not disbelieve. That is, apologetics responds to attacks against Christianity, showing why people—Christian or non-Christian—should not believe objections against Christianity. Thus, when an atheist like Christopher Hitchens argues that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is an evil blight upon the face of the earth which poisons everything, apologetics responds by demonstrating two things: first, atheism has caused more suffering and evil in the 20th century than any other worldview; and second, Christianity has been the wellspring of most things in Western society which even atheists cherish – universal education, modern medicine, modern science and technology, universal human rights, and so forth. So apologetics provides both reasons to believe that Christianity is true, and reasons to reject arguments against Christianity. From my perspective, this is an important, awe-inspiring, and exhilerating task.

Apologetics applies to two types of people—both Christians and non-Christians. First, apologetics provides Christians with questions and doubts with answers to those questions and responses to those doubts. It may not be universal, but I suspect that almost all of us have some type of questions about Christianity. Furthermore, questions and doubts are not inherently a bad thing. Let’s look at a few biblical examples of doubters and questioners.

Who is the famous example of a biblical doubter? Doubting Thomas. Let’s look at John 20, beginning in verse 24.

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Notice two essential things. First, Thomas is not rebuked or admonished for not believing the other apostles. Jesus does not say, “Thomas, you naughty boy—you should have believed them!” Instead, Jesus appears, and invites Thomas to replace his doubt with devotion. Second, after seeing the risen Jesus, Thomas issues forth the most clear, most profound, and most explicit confession of Jesus’ divine status that you can find in the New Testament. Perhaps Thomas did not believe in Jesus’ resurrection based solely on the testimony of the other disciples, but when he does see the risen Jesus, he immediately acknowledges the incredible implications—Jesus is both Lord and God.

Consider the Old Testament patriarch Job. Job loses everything in rapid succession—possessions, children, and health. In his dialogues with three somewhat sympathetic friends, Job complains bitterly that he has done nothing to deserve his fate. Job questions God’s justice, even doubts God’s goodness. Eventually, God appears to Job, and delivers a stinging verbal assault. Job repents of his doubts and questions. And note God’s affirmation of Job at the end. Job 42:7 – After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” Despite Job’s complaints, questions, and doubts, God affirms that it is Job, and not his three friends, who has spoken rightly of God.

Consider Moses. In Exodus 3, the Lord God appears to Moses in the burning bush, and commissions him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt into the Promised Land. Moses balks several times, and asks how it is that he is to convince the Israelites, not to mention the Egyptians, that God Almighty has really appointed him to this task. Exodus 4:1 - Moses answered, “What if they do not believe me or listen to me and say, ‘The Lord did not appear to you’?”

Then the Lord said to him, “What is that in your hand?”

“A staff,” he replied.

The Lord said, “Throw it on the ground.”

Moses threw it on the ground and it became a snake, and he ran from it. Then the Lord said to him, “Reach out your hand and take it by the tail.” So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake and it turned back into a staff in his hand. “This,” said the Lord, “is so that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has appeared to you.”

As the book of Exodus proceeds, Moses demands that Pharaoh let the Israelite people free. Pharaoh, of course, refuses. God then unleashes a series of ten plagues upon Egypt, intended to establish God’s supremacy over all of the idols and magicians of Egypt. Through Moses and Aaron, God provides evidence of His power, showing that He truly has sent Moses to lead the people out of Egypt. God Himself is providing both the Israelites and the Egyptians with reasons to believe that there is only one God, the Lord, and that He is all-powerful. This is Old Testament apologetics, directed towards both believers and unbelievers.

III. The Biblical Mandate for Apologetics

Why is apologetics important today? I want to share with two reasons why apologetics is necessary in the church today. First, God commands us to engage in apologetics. Second, contemporary ministry requires active and effective apologetics.

First, then, the biblical mandate for apologetics. We’ve already looked at two examples of apologetics in Exodus and John. But the Bible is filled with apologetic encounters and ministry. I want to share just a few with you.

Consider the opening to Luke’s Gospel. Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to be to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Why does Luke write his gospel? So that his readers may know the certainty of the things they have been taught. In other words, Luke is giving them reasons to believe. How does Luke go about it? By carefully investigating what Jesus said and did; by recording his life, ministry, death, and resurrection. And he claims to have done so using the testimony carried by eyewitnesses of those events. Luke is very careful to insist that he is providing good, historical reasons for us to believe that Jesus truly did say this, Jesus really did do this, and these things really did happen to Jesus.

Briefly, consider the letter of 1 John. It opens: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. Note again the emphasis on eyewitness testimony – we have heard, seen, touched what we’re writing about.

Toward the end of the letter, in 5:13, John writes: I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. Heretical tendencies had already arisen in the early Christian communities, and John writes to those who believe, but have some questions or doubts, in order to assure them of the truth of their faith.

Paul emphasizes the same theme in his letters—there are others who try to pervert or alter the faith, but Paul confirms the truth of the apostolic witness. Galatians 1:6-8 – I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

You have believed in the Gospel message, the good news that Christ Jesus came to save sinners; now stand firm in that Gospel, rejecting the false gospel preached by false apostles and others who seek to change the message of Jesus Christ to suit their own purposes.

One last example, this time of active personal apologetic ministry in the life of Paul. When Paul comes to Thessalonica, we read, in Acts 17:2-4:
As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,” he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.

Why does Paul have to reason with the Jews in the synagogue? Why does he have to explain and prove that Jesus had to suffer for our sins and rise from the dead? Because the Jews would not have immediately and easily accepted the message. “How can that be, Paul?” “Doesn’t Deuteronomy 21 proclaim that any man who dies hung on a tree is accursed by God?” “Isn’t the Messiah of God going to be a victorious, conquering king?” Paul’s reasoning ministry, demonstrating to the Jews by their Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ, explaining and proving the truth of the Christian faith, is a biblical example of apologetics. He responds to the questions and doubts that the people have, giving them reasons to believe and follow Jesus Christ. If you read on in Acts 17, you find Paul doing the same thing again when he comes to Athens—this time reasoning with both Jews, according to their scriptures, and Greeks, according to their philosophy. Again, remember that in 1 Peter 3:15, Peter commands believers to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” Apologetics is the “defense and explanation of the Christian faith,” and we see active apologetics ministry throughout the early church, from Luke to John to Paul.

IV. The Ministry Mandate for Apologetics

From my perspective, it is enough to know that God commands believers to be involved in apologetics, and that we see examples of apologetics throughout Scripture. But as we observe and reflect on the situation of the contemporary church in North America, I think we can see how desperately we need to engage in apologetics today.

Surveys and studies show that an alarmingly large proportion of children raised in Christian homes walk away from Christianity as students or young adults. The most recent Lifeway surveys mentioned that just over 70% of “Christian teenagers” drop out of church before the age of 25. Why is this happening? There are many things at work, but a lack of apologetics is part of the problem. Honest, genuine answers need honest, genuine responses, and often these youth are not getting such answers.

In 2001, I began serving as the English pastor at Edmonton Chinese Baptist Church, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. In the course of ministry, I got involved in campus ministry, leading Bible studies and serving as a part-time Baptist chaplain at the University of Alberta. I regularly had students drop by my office to talk about spiritual matters. Many of the students I talked with had concerns about morality, sexual ethics, how to discern God’s will for their studies and careers. But over the years, I also encountered dozens of university students with questions and doubts about Christianity. How do we know that we can trust the Bible as God’s Word? Did Jesus really rise from the dead on the 3rd day? My philosopher professor insists that it is a proven fact that God does not exist—why would he say that? My biology professor says that modern evolution has disproved the Bible—is that true? Why is there evil in a world created by a good God? Inevitably, we would spend a considerable amount of time talking about their questions or doubts. Tell me, what is that called—when you talk with someone who has serious questions or doubts about the truth of the Christian faith? Yeah – that’s apologetics. And I’ll tell you what – it is absolutely exhilarating to have a college student come to you with serious questions or doubts about Christianity, and to see their faith restored and strengthened through your conversation with them. As they receive answers to their questions, you can see the Holy Spirit reassure them, re-awaken their love for God, and deepen their faith walk. Just as the angels in heaven rejoice over one sinner who repents, so too do they rejoice over the restoration of those who have been struggling in their faith.

On a few occasions, after engaging in a lengthy apologetic dialogue with a student, I would hear words which chilled me to the bone. “Tawa, thank you so much for talking with me about this. I tried to ask my parents these questions, but they just got mad and said I shouldn’t be having those kinds of questions.” Or: “I asked my pastor about these things, but he just said that Christians are supposed to have faith, not doubt or questions, and that I should just believe and not ask questions about it.”
Those comments break my heart. When our children, neighbors, friends, or co-workers, have legitimate questions about the Christian faith, it is not sufficient to rebuke them for lacking faith. You remember the father who comes to Jesus, begging that He heal his son? Jesus says, “Do you believe I can do this?” The father responds, “Lord, I believe. Help me in my unbelief!” Most of us are like that father—a combination of exuberant faith and lingering doubt. When our children or friends or parishioners are asking honest, searching, deep questions about the truthfulness of Christianity, it is not enough for us to say, “don’t ask these questions – just believe!” It is not enough to minimize or deny the validity of the questions. It is our responsibility to engage the questions, and provide reasonable, thoughtful answers to them. When the biblical command to be ready to give an answer to those who seek reasons to believe is not fulfilled, the back door of the church becomes well-used. People with unanswered and unresolved doubts just leave.

V. Strengthening Faith: Becoming Apologetically-Equipped

My prayer is that seeing the biblical mandate for apologetics along with the contemporary need for apologetics will awaken within you a desire to fulfill 1 Peter 3:15 in your family and church. My prayer is that you will become always prepared to give an answer to those who ask you the reason for the hope that you have.

Perhaps this sounds like an overwhelming task or responsibility. After all, the questions that people can raise are diverse and difficult. How can we know that Jesus was God in the flesh? How do we know Jesus truly rose from the dead? How do we know we can believe what the Bible says? How do we know the Gospels are historically reliable? How do we even know that God really exists? How can God be both three and one? How can Jesus be both God and man? What is eternal life like? If God is a God of love, why is there a hell? If God loves everyone, why does the Bible say He hated Esau? Why did God command the extermination of peoples in the Old Testament? There are a lot of legitimate and hard questions that people can and will ask. Often, they will come from your own children. When our son Mataeo was three years old, he asked me one night – “Daddy, where does God live?” Now, I challenge you to answer that question in a way that a 3-year-old can comprehend! It’s not easy!

If you are intimidated by the thought of providing answers for such questions, take heart! First, you do not have to have all the answers. You do, however, need to be willing to find the answers to questions that you are asked. You may not be able to give a reasonable response immediately, but you can always promise your friend, co-worker, or child that you’re going to find an answer and get back to them tomorrow, or next week.

Second, you are not on your own. There are numerous apologetics resources publicly available to help you, both to prepare yourself to respond to questions and doubts, and to quickly find answers to specific questions or objections that you face. To that end, I have prepared a hand-out with some suggested books and web-sites that will help you become familiar with apologetic issues and methods.

Finally, as you begin to engage in apologetic conversations, I promise that you will find great joy in the process. Giving a reason for the hope that you have to people who ask is an exhilarating process. Seeing doubts dissipate and questions quelled is exciting! One of my apologetics teachers regularly reminds me: apologetics will only occasionally be the reason that someone becomes a Christian. But apologetics will frequently be the reason that someone remains a Christian.

National Geographic & The Power of Worldview

2010-11-04T09:22:00.001-06:00

Joel Achenbach, “Lost Giants.” National Geographic 218.4 (October 2010): 90-109.
David Quammen, “Jane: Fifty Years at Gombe.” National Geographic 218.4 (Octobewr 2010): 110-29.

I have blogged before about the power of worldview. Specifically, I have argued that worldview exerts influence over how we interpret and accommodate new data, information, and arguments that we encounter.

The October 2010 edition of National Geographic contained a fascinating article about extinct megafauna (animals) in Australia. Over the past 180 years, numerous fossilized remains of massive wombats, kangaroos, tapirs, thunderbirds, wallabies, and marsupial lions have been discovered. Paleontologists debate the causes of their extinction – which current theories estimate to have occurred approximately 45,000 years ago. Some postulate a cataclysmic ecological (or metereological) event; others suggest that the arrival of humans (currently estimated to have arrived in Australia approximately 50,000 years ago) caused a precipitous decline in megafauna.

Within the context of the intramural debate, scientists involved make surprising admissions about the power of worldview, paradigm, and interpretation.

Author Joel Achenbach suggests that Judith Field “makes a key point about her scientific data—there’s not enough of it. … [Field's words] ‘What you’re looking at is an incredibly thin data set from which these elaborate explanatory models are constructed.’” (106)

For example, one of the famous fossil finds, from Australia’s Mammoth Cave (near Margaret River) is “a femur with a notch in it.” (106) What, pray tell, created the notch? Lindsay Hatcher insists that it was “notched by a sharp tool.” (106) Mammoth Cave is a perfectly suitable habitat for early humans—sheltered, covered, and defensible. Others suggest that the femur was “notched by the razor-sharp tooth of a marsupial lion.” (108) Which is it? The article’s author, Joel Achenbach, concludes: “Everything’s interpretation.” (108)

A little later, paleontologist Peter Murray admits that in paleontology, “Every step of the way involves interpretation. The data doesn’t just speak for itself.” (108) What interests me, however, are the influences which direct necessary interpretation. I agree with Murray, Field, and Achenbach – scientific data does not speak for itself; every step in the scientific process involves human interpretation of the data. Approaching the same data from different paradigmatic controls results in significantly different interpretations. Case in point: Hatcher’s insistence that humans hunted and killed the original bearer of the notched femur vs. the theory that it was felled by a giant marsupial lion. The data is amenable to either interpretation; the interpretation one adopts will depend largely upon the perspective one began from.

In the case of Australian megafauna, I admit to being entirely indifferent to which interpretation is correct. Whether the femur is the result of animal predation or human hunting does not particularly interest me—I find it enjoyable to read about and consider, but nothing significant hangs in the balance (for me). In other cases, the same process of necessary human interpretation of scientific data carries much more importance.

Indeed, the very next article in October’s National Geographic is a paean to Jane Goodall, whose fifty years studying chimpanzees at Gombe has set the bar for the study of species in the wild. Goodall’s mentor and sponsor, naturalist Louis Leakey, had a fairly open interest in Goodall’s work in Gombe: a redefinition of what it means to be human. Goodall was the first to observe chimps making and using tools (to hunt termites), leading Leakey to write ecstatically: “Now we must redefine ‘tool’, redefine ‘man’, or accept chimpanzees as humans.” (116) A thin set of data, out of which Leakey desired to build a major theory about human/animal nature.

A closer comparison to Australian paleontology is paleo-anthropology, or the history of human origins. If the fossil remains in Australia are judged to be relatively thin and incapable of speaking for themselves, how much more so the paucity of hominid remains and the edifices that have been built thereupon?

We do well to remember that scientific theories are built upon data which are not ‘brute facts’. The data does not speak for itself: rather, they are interpreted by human beings, and when we hear interpretations, we are also hearing the worldview of the interpreter speaking.

Preaching to the Choir? Intentionally Apologetic Sermons

2010-10-08T09:27:00.000-06:00

NOTE: In September, Brian Auten's apologetics uber-site apologetics315 began publishing a series of blog essays on initiating apologetic ministries in your local church. The series concluded yesterday, with a final essay by yours truly on intentionally apologetic preaching. I have posted below the longer version of the essay publishing on apologetics315 - it's really the same essay with an introductory illustration. Brian has also compiled and published a very helpful list of apologetics resources - copy and paste the link below to find some great material. Included on that page are links to the e-book and i-tunes versions of the essay series. I hope you find that helpful - and enjoy the essay on intentionally engaging skeptics in your preaching.

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2010/10/resources-for-getting-apologetics-in.html

Preaching to the Choir? Intentionally Apologetic Sermon Preparation

Once upon a time there lived a man named James. James was a committed non-Christian, having been convinced since his early teen years that Christianity was nothing more than a wishful delusion foisted upon the unthinking masses of illiterate medieval Europeans. James married Vivian, a similarly free-thinking spirit who had repudiated the Baptist fundamentalism of her WW2-era parents. James and Vivian enjoyed twelve years of marital bliss before the unthinkable tragedy shattered the tranquility of James’ humanist skepticism – Vivian converted to Christianity. And not just any wishy-washy airy-fairy Christianity either, but a robust evangelical faith. It seems a couple of Vivian’s co-workers had been slipping her brainwashing pills at lunch, and feeding her fundamentalist propaganda. Over time, Vivian succumbed to their wily ways, began attending their church, and was even baptized as a professing Christian. Of course, the inevitable insult followed: Vivian begged James to come to church with her, and cried continually every time that James refused to come. Whether it was NASCAR, the NFL, or golf, there was always something better to do than waste precious hours of this mortal life hearing the irrelevant drivel offered up by theological tyrants thundering from their oaken pulpits.

Eventually, James got tired of hearing his wife cry herself to sleep at night; he was wearied by the incessant tears she shed when he cracked open his first beer of the day as she put on her makeup in preparation for Sunday morning ‘worship’. One Saturday night, in a moment of weakness after several moments of marital ecstasy, James capitulated, and unthinkingly consented to accompany his beloved (but delusional) wife to Center Street Presbyterian Church in Midland, Indiana.

Morning dawned with the sun gloriously peeking through the mid-September haze to brilliantly illuminate dewdrops on James’ immaculately manicured front lawn. An exquisite day; indeed, a perfect day to … go to church for the first time since his great-grandmother’s funeral twenty years earlier. James had the serious misgivings of a man who has sobered up and now wonders what he did and said the night before. But, being a man of his word, and a loving husband to boot, James reluctantly shaved his two-day stubble, adorned himself with crisply-ironed slacks and a blue polo shirt, and drove to Center Street. After finding one of the increasingly-scarce parking spots in Center’s ‘Visitor Parking’ section, James clutched Vivian’s hand and nervously opened the front door of the church.

After running the gauntlet of pasty-faced, smiling old men and women thrusting bulletins and pamphlets in his face, James tentatively traversed to a back pew and waited for Vivian to finish her hushed conversation with five shrewish-looking women. James (correctly) intuited that wagging tongues were contemplating the presence of the convinced skeptic in their midst, and committing to earnestly pray for ‘the fate of his eternal soul’ throughout the upcoming trial and tribulation of an interminably boring and irrelevant service. Vivian finally joined James just as the organist began the opening hymn, and he shot her a withering, judgmental glance. Land’s sakes – the Colts would be playing in the early game long before they got home from this tortuous experience. Nonetheless, having agreed to accompany his wife, James figured he may as well follow everyone’s lead. He stood when they stood; sat when they sat; pretended to close his eyes and bow his head when they closed their eyes and bowed their heads; and finally settled into the pew as the pastor ascended the stairs to take his ordained place behind the (not oaken, but) plexiglass pulpit. The Reverend Loren H. Barstow looked about 55 years old, and was garbed in flowing black and purple robes, with noble silver glass. Reverend Barstow gathered himself behind the pulpit, surveyed the familiar and unfamiliar faces amongst his large, wealthy suburbanite congregation, and began to speak …

Do you have the privilege and awe-full responsibility of preaching to the gathered people of God on Sunday mornings? Whether you preach every Sunday, most weeks, or occasionally, the burden you carry is immense. You are called to bring God’s Word to the people in the pew. You are commissioned to exhort and encourage, convict and comfort, pressure and empower. In many ways, the role of the preacher is to “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.”

But let me ask you – who precisely are you preaching to on Sunday mornings? Who sits in your pews? As you study God’s Word, and craft a message, who do you envision hearing and responding to the words you speak? Many theologians insist, quite correctly, that Sunday morning worship exists for the edification and growth of Christians – the gathered saints of God. Every congregation is diverse in many ways – age, ethnicity, socio-economic status. But ideally, our congregations ought also to be spiritually diverse – filled with not only Christians, but also atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, skeptics, or other assorted non-Christians. Whether they come reluctantly with a believing spouse, are dragged by their Christian parents, come willingly with Christian neighbors or friends, or even seek out the church in the midst of spiritual turmoil, my prayer is always that there would be some present who are not yet followers of Jesus Christ. I pray that there would be a James in every church service.

Even the theologians who insist that worship is only for Christians must agree, since they generally assert that evangelistic appeals are an integral part of Christian worship and preaching. If worship is only for Christians, why bother inviting non-existent non-Christians to respond positively to the Gospel proclamation?

What are skeptics like James going to hear when you exposit the Word of God? How is your message going to impact the hardened skeptic? On the one hand, unless the Holy Spirit illuminates James's heart and mind, it does not matter what you say – it will have no impact. But, on the other hand, this is no excuse for eschewing the hard work of biblical exegesis and contextualization. When Paul ascended Mars Hill to share the Gospel with the Athenian elite (Acts 17), he framed the good news of Christ’s atoning death and bodily resurrection in terms and contexts comprehensible to their pagan worldview and background – even quoting Greek poets instead of Old Testament texts to introduce their need to know the one true God. The message and the truth did not change, but the way Paul presented it changed in accordance with his audience.

Can you reach all of the people all of the time? My dad always reminded me that “you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all the people all of the time.” Similarly, in crafting a sermon and preparing to present God’s Word to our congregation, you cannot reach all of the people all of the time. The Apostle Paul sought to be all things to all people so that in all possible ways he might save some (1 Corinthians 9). But he didn’t try to be all things to all people at the same time. Rather, to the Jews he became like a Jew, in order to reach them; to the Gentiles he became as a Gentile, in order to reach them. Our message must be contextualized in order to reach the particular audience that we have. Unless you preach exclusively at the local Humanist chapter, you can’t make every sermon a purely apologetic appeal to skeptics to embrace the reasonability of our faith. Still, that’s no reason to never preach with skeptics in mind!

Are you preaching to the choir? It would have been far easier for the apostle Paul to craft his sermons always with Bible-believing Jews in mind. They shared his monotheistic worldview (God as the Almighty and All-just Creator), his trust in the authority of the biblical text, and his expectation for a Messiah. But Paul didn’t – instead, he preached his apologetic message differently when addressing Gentiles. Have you ever considered how a skeptic or atheist or member of a different religion would respond to the sermon that you are about to preach, or just preached?
A key element to incorporating apologetics into your preaching ministry is to consciously engage non-believers in the pew. This does not come naturally or easily. It is far easier to preach to the choir – to craft and develop your sermon with the thoughts, challenges, needs, and troubles of the faithful gathered saints in mind. As in most spiritual things, however, the easy way is not the way to maturity and Godliness. Broad is the road and easy the path that leads to preaching to the choir (and missing the skeptic); small is the gate and narrow the road that reaches the seeking skeptics in your congregation.

Have you walked a mile in James's shoes? While preaching to reach the skeptic as well as the saved is neither easy nor comfortable, it is relatively simple. Put yourself in his place. Ask yourself – if I had a ___ worldview (fill in the blank accordingly – naturalistic, Mormon, Muslim, agnostic, atheistic, New Age, post-modern), what questions would this passage/text/topic raise? What doubts about Christianity would I have that directly impinge upon this message?

For example, imagine that Easter is approaching, and you plan to preach on the grand resurrection narratives of 1 Corinthians 15. You could simply affirm the glorious truth that Jesus is indeed raised from the dead, and that death is conquered and contains no power over us. That in itself is a powerful sermon, and needs preaching. But I would suggest that Easter Sunday is one of two times throughout the year that you are quite likely to have a large number of non-believers amongst your congregation. If you put yourself in their shoes and consider how they might respond to the resurrection narratives, then there are numerous questions which you could consider addressing. How do we know that Jesus truly rose from the dead? What are the historical evidences that support our resurrection faith? In a post-Enlightenment world, how can we affirm that God raised a dead man to new life? Are such miracles possible? Or are they ruled out by a scientific, mechanistic worldview? Was Paul’s resurrection encounter the same as the other apostles’, or qualitatively different? On what basis do we trust the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection? If you preach through 1 Corinthians 15, proclaiming the wonderful good news that Jesus is raised from the dead and that we have glorious assurance of our own victory over death through his, but never address these questions, then I suggest that skeptics amongst your congregation are going to be profoundly unpersuaded and even disaffected.

Obviously you cannot address all of these questions in one (or even a series) of sermons; furthermore, you would be remiss in your duties to only address apologetic questions about the historicity of the resurrection, and never draw any implications from it. Nonetheless, if the Easter season comes and goes and you never address any of the skeptical issues, I would argue that you have missed the boat. The seeking skeptics in your congregation have not been given any tangible reason to believe the truth of the resurrection that you so confidently presuppose. Furthermore, any doubting disciples or besieged brothers in the church are not given reasons for the hope that they still (but more tentatively) hold. Remember (see my earlier article ‘An Apologetic for Apologetics’) that apologetics is not only for non-Christians; it also helps to confirm the truth of the faith for those within the body of Christ who have serious questions or doubts. The questions I mentioned above are not random questions – they are on the hearts and minds of people in the pew, Christian and non-Christian alike. The questions are raised by their own reading, reflection, and philosophizing; they are also forced upon them by the anti-Christians arguments of other authors, teachers, and friends.

Bottom line: the questions are there, and if they are never addressed from the pulpit, then questioners will eventually assume that there are no (good) answers to the questions. And again, note that Paul does not hesitate to supply such reasons to his audience. In 1 Corinthians 15, he begins with a presentation of evidence for the resurrection – a creedal summary of what happened to Jesus, and a list of eyewitnesses of the risen Christ, including himself. If Paul eagerly shares evidence and reasons for the Corinthians to believe that Jesus was raised bodily from the dead, why would we avoid doing the same?

So, my brothers and fellow preachers, I urge you, in view of God’s mercy and grace, to walk a mile in the moccasins of the seeking skeptics, doubting disciples, and besieged believers in your pews. Consider the questions that they would raise, and seek to address them. Rather than preaching to the choir, intentionally incorporate apologetics into your sermons.

Music, Media, and Movies: The Quest for the Minds of America - Part III of IV. Legend or Lord? Jesus in Popular Culture

2010-10-07T09:56:00.001-06:00

Music, Media & Movies: The Quest for the Minds of America
St. Stephen’s Church, Louisville KY

Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Part III. Legend or Lord: Jesus in Pop Culture

I. INTRODUCTION – Review of Last Week

Two weeks ago we began our survey of Music, Media, and Movies with a survey of “The War of Worldviews: The Cultural Battle for the American Mind”. I proposed that we can all become critically engaged participants in popular culture by asking four reflective questions. (1) How does this affect me? my walk with God? (2) What standards of behavior are promoted or normalized? (3) What worldview/philosophy is promoted or normalized? (4) How does this reflect God’s truth? God’s kingdom?

Last week we looked particularly at biblical sexual ethics and the sexual ethics presented in popular culture. We looked at various aspects of sexual morality, but there were a couple of things that we did not get around to, which I would like to mention briefly before we get into this evening’s topic of conversation (the presentation of Jesus in popular culture).

First, we did not talk specifically about the biblical purpose of sexuality. God’s Word presents sexual intimacy between man and woman as a part of the goodness of creation—sex is something created by God, which means that it is inherently good, although it can obviously be perverted and utilized for evil instead of good. But what are the biblical purposes of sex? There are at least three.

(1) Reproduction. Genesis 1:26-28 reads: Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’ In this creation ordinance, God commands human beings to ‘be fruitful and increase in number’. How precisely do we do that? Enough said.

(2) Intimacy and communion. In Genesis 2:18, God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” After Eve is created, Genesis 2:23-24 reads: The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Husband and wife will be united in physical union; but their union is also to represent their whole beings. The marital relationship is continually used in Scripture as the closest analogy to the relationship between God and His people. Sex is intended by God to be a source of communion and intimacy between husband and wife.

(3) Pleasure and enjoyment. Song of Songs is an erotic poem speaking of the ecstasy shared by the lover and his beloved. In 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, the Apostle Paul says: The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. The sexual relationship between husband and wife is to be a source of sexual pleasure and contentment. God has created human beings with natural sexual desires and longings, and intends the marital relationship to be the way that those desires are satisfied.

So – reproduction, intimacy, and pleasure – these are at least three biblical purposes for human sexuality. The intended boundaries or context of biblical sexuality are also essential – God ordains sexual intimacy between husband and wife as the biblical ideal. Why does that matter in the context of popular culture? Well, it allows us to compare the portrayal of sexual ethics in popular culture to biblical sexual ethics. Tell me something – in the Song of Songs, who is glorying in the sexual attractiveness of the beloved? The husband. Who admires the physical prowess of the lover? The wife. When popular culture presents physical bodies as sex objects to be lusted over by strangers, the boundaries of biblical sexual ethics has been transgressed. And yes, men, that includes the scantily-clad bodies of NFL cheerleaders. That’s just one example of comparing biblical sexual ethics to sexuality in popular culture.

The other thing that I did not cover last Wednesday, which one of your pastors pointed out to me after our session together, is the necessary protective role of parents with regards to popular culture and sexual ethics. What I am going to say here is applied specifically to sexual ethics, but can be extended to other issues in popular culture—don’t think it only applies to questions of sexuality. It also applies to things like violence, new-age philosophy, greed, deception, and so forth in popular culture.

What is the primary role of a parent? We are first and foremost to raise our children in the knowledge of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – to train them to be worshipers and followers of Jesus Christ our Savior and Lord. A part of that holy calling, and a key element of biblical parenthood, involves our role as our children’s protectors. Simply put, parents are to protect their children against real and potential harm. That doesn’t mean that we never let our children fall off their bicycles when they’re learning to ride a two-wheeler. It does, however, mean that we don’t let our three-year-old son juggle steak knives.

Adults have the responsibility to judge for themselves what in popular culture is acceptable for themselves. What is beneficial or helpful to watch? What is potentially dangerous, but we’re mature enough to deal with it? What is just downright evil and ought not enter our homes or minds? We have to decide our pop culture standards. How about our children? Who decides for them what is OK for our kids to watch? MTV? The movie ratings association of America? I sure hope not! It is parents’ responsibility to determine. Hence, we have the job, the sacred responsibility, to protect our children from anti-biblical sexual influences that can affect them through popular culture. We don’t leave it up to our kids whether they watch American Pie or not—they’re simply not allowed. Certainly, we cannot prevent our kids from watching something we disapprove of in someone else’s home, or at school; but we sure do have control over what comes over the airwaves and radio waves and internet signals at home. And we ought to be aware of what our kids are watching and listening to and surfing on the web, and protect them from what is not conducive to their growth in Godliness.

Along these lines, there is a principle which I think more Christians need to apply to their pop culture habits. Philippians 4:8 encourages us: Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

What are we to fill our minds with? What are we to meditate upon, to think about? Things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy. This principle, from Philippians 4:8, is the driving force behind the first reflective question that I had us consider – How does this show/song/book affect me? How does it affect my walk with God? Is there something which edifies me, nurtures my relationship with Christ, inspires positive feelings and actions within me? Or is there something in this movie or web-site which poses a stumbling block to my walk with Christ? Does it draw my mind down into the dirt, or upwards towards the things of God?

There is SO MUCH out there in popular culture, so much that is wonderfully creative and edifying, and also so much that is potentially destructive to our Christian walk—we can and ought to exercise much more discernment regarding what we watch, listen to, and read. Have you ever watched something ‘just because’ it was on TV? Or ‘just because’ it was showing at the theatre? Don’t! There’s too much out there, both good and bad, to get seduced into being a passive, directed consumer of popular culture. Exercise Godly stewardship over what comes into your house and into your heart, mind, and soul. So, remember Philippians 4:8 – focus upon those things in popular culture which are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, praiseworthy.

II. LEGEND OR LORD? JESUS IN POPULAR CULTURE
Tonight we are going to turn our attention from sexuality to our Savior. As Christians, we acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth to be the most important figure of human history. But we are not the only ones fascinated by Jesus. Jesus plays a prominent role in Islam as well—he is the most important prophet in the Islamic tradition. Muslims affirm that Jesus was righteous, that he performed miracles, and that Jesus taught the truth of God. Many non-Christians also hail Jesus as a significant person—a great teacher, a role model for ideal human behavior, and so forth. Mahatma Gandhi, the non-violent revolutionary credited for the independence of India, looked to Jesus as his example.

Jesus is also a popular figure within popular culture. From Jesus Christ Superstar to Jesus of Nazareth; from the Last Temptation of Christ to the Passion of the Christ; films and books have focused upon Jesus. The outpouring of interest two years ago when the Gospel of Judas was published and dissected confirms the ongoing public interest in the figure of Jesus.

I have titled tonight’s lesson “Legend or Lord: Jesus in Popular Culture.” What I propose to do is to show two lengthier clips from movies released in 2006. After watching the clip, we will go over our four reflective questions together. We’ll also talk about a couple of issues that are of particular interest to the clips we watch – two clips, two movies, both blockbusters based on best-selling novels by extremely gifted writers.

III. JESUS AS LORD: C. S. LEWIS’ ‘THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA’
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: Scene 16 – 1:31:46 to 1:42:19

This ten-minute clip from the Chronicles of Narnia showing the White Witch’s entrance into Aslan’s camp; her claim upon Edmund’s blood; the private audience between Aslan and the White Witch. Then Aslan’s journey to the Witch’s camp, and his willing sacrifice; the Witch’s triumphant exultation as she kills the great lion; the expectation of the final victory of evil over good.

That portion of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is followed by the Narnian forces preparing for battle against the Witch’s army. Aslan returns from the dead, citing the deeper magic of which the Witch was ignorant. Aslan summons the multitudes who were captured by the witch, ransoming them to enter into the battle against the forces of evil. Aslan and the Narnian captives join the ongoing battle against the Witch; the Witch has a look of utter bewilderment upon her face as Aslan defeats her. The power of good is not defeated by the powers of evil.

Themes from Narnia
(1) The White Witch: “Every traitor belongs to me; his blood is mine.”
(2) The misery and guilt of the condemned sinner (Edmund).
(3) The cost and painfulness of redemption.
(4) The rejoicing of the powers of darkness at the apparent defeat of good.

Reflective Questions
(1) What picture of evil is conveyed through this clip from Narnia? Through the movie as a whole?
(2) What portrait of atonement is presented through this clip?
(3) How does this clip (or entire film) affect you? Your walk with Jesus?
(4) What standards of behavior are promoted or normalized?
(5) What philosophy or worldview is promoted or normalized?
(6) How does this clip (or entire film) reflect God’s truth? God’s Kingdom?

IV. JESUS AS LEGEND: DAN BROWN’S ‘THE DA VINCI CODE’
The DaVinci Code: Scene 11 – 1:01:35 to 1:04:35
The premise of the DaVinci Code is quite complex. An old man is murdered quite gruesomely. Turns out he was a member of a protective group—charged with protecting ‘the Holy Grail’ from falling into the hands of the evil band of Christians. The Holy Grail, it turns out, is the bloodline offspring of Jesus of Nazareth, who apparently wasn’t who we all thought he was, but rather was just a man; a busy man, no less! Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, who bore him a daughter in France (where else?). The bloodline has continued down to the current day, and is now alive in Sophie, the main female character of the movie.

In this clip, the movie's 'teacher', Dr. Leigh Teabing, insists that his earliest disciples, and the early Christian church, saw Jesus of Nazareth as merely a man - a great man, but a man nonetheless. It was not until the Council of Nicea, according to Teabing, that Jesus was first hailed as God in the flesh.

Themes from The DaVinci Code
(1) Christians launched a war against pagans in Constantine’s day.
(2) At the Council of Nicaea ‘many Christian sects’ were represented.
(3) The Council voted on which Gospels to accept.
(4) The Council voted on Jesus’ divinity. Until that moment he was perceived (by all) as ‘just a man’.
(5) “Who is God? Who is man?” Sophie implies: what does it matter? Reflective of Pilate’s exasperated ‘what is truth?’
(6) “As long as there has been one true God there has been killing in His name.” Suggesting that without monotheism there is no religious violence.

Reflective Questions
(1) What picture of Jesus is conveyed through this clip from the DaVinci Code? Through the movie as a whole?
(2) How does that portrait of Jesus compare to the Jesus of the Gospels? How ought we as Christians to respond?
(3) Where does the DaVinci Code’s picture of Jesus come from?
(4) How does this clip affect you? Your walk with Jesus?
(5) What standards of behavior are promoted or normalized?
(6) What philosophy or worldview is promoted or normalized?
(7) How does this clip reflect God’s truth? God’s Kingdom?

Music, Media, and Movies: The Quest for the Minds of America, Part II of IV. Sex and / The City / of God

2010-10-07T09:47:00.001-06:00

Music, Media & Movies: The Quest for the Minds of America
St. Stephen’s Church, Louisville KY

Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Part II. Sex and The City of God: Pop Culture & Biblical Sexual Ethics

I. INTRODUCTION – Review of Last Week

Last week we began our survey of Music, Media, and Movies with a survey of “The War of Worldviews: The Cultural Battle for the American Mind”. I proposed that we can all become critically engaged participants in popular culture by asking four reflective questions. (1) How does this affect me? my walk with God? (2) What standards of behavior are promoted or normalized? (3) What worldview/philosophy is promoted or normalized? (4) How does this reflect God’s truth? God’s kingdom?

Over the coming three Wednesday nights, we will ask these questions of one another with regards to various popular culture expressions. Next week, we will focus in on the presentation of Jesus Christ in popular culture. Our final Wednesday together we will look at the supernatural in movies and other media.

II. SEX AND THE CITY OF GOD

Tonight, however, we are going consider popular culture and biblical sexual ethics.

Sex and the City was a long-running and extremely popular television program which focused on four urban women and their sexual pursuits and conquests. The show promoted unrestrained sexual promiscuity. The City of God, in contrast, is the majestic composition of St. Augustine of Hippo, the 4th-century African bishop who was, by most accounts, the towering theological mind and influence of the early church. St. Augustine lived a fairly wild life prior to his conversion; after becoming a Christian, Augustine repented of his sexual immorality, and lived a life of celibacy. Two portrayals; two very different conceptions of sexual ethics.

The thesis I desire to pursue tonight is that popular culture has been waging a subtle long-term war against biblical sexual ethics. There are pleasant exceptions, but as a rule, mainstream media has sought to undermine Christian morality in favor of liberated sexuality. Furthermore, popular culture has, in this instance, been winning the quest for the hearts and minds of America. The sexual ethics of the American Church have to a large extent changed to reflect the sexual morality promoted and normalized in books, movies, television shows, and music.

Before we begin looking at specific instances of sexual morality, let’s consider the centrality of sexual ethics in Christianity. Why are we talking about sexual ethics? One of the really difficult things in planning out the lessons that we are working through together is deciding what issues and topics we will address. After all, virtually everything is up for discussion in popular culture. We could talk about the existence (or lack thereof) of aliens – going over movies like Men in Black, the new Indiana Jones, Race to Witch Mountain. We could talk about issues like crime and justice, capital punishment – going over books like Dead Man Walking, or movies like the Shawshank Redemption. We could spend a night talking just about Harry Potter and all of the associated issues that come up from those books and movies. We could talk about jazz and blues music, and how it shapes and reflects cultural trends. So why are we talking about sexual ethics? There are two reasons.

First, sexual ethics is one of the areas where popular culture and contemporary ethical trends strongly counter or oppose biblical ethics and the Christian worldview. That is, the sexual morality promoted or normalized by popular culture is in tension or contrast with the sexual morality exhorted in God’s Word. That in itself makes sex an important topic of discussion.

Second, sexuality is one of the core aspects of personal morality and discipleship. 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 reads:

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are against his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

I am not going to engage in the questionable practice of designating sexual sin as the “most grievous” or “unredeemable” type of sin. There is no biblical justification for that. Sin is sin, and carries the same consequences in terms of our relationship with God. Sin separates us from God, and can have eternal consequences—regardless of the class or type of sin it is. One of the differences with sexual sin is that it affects the very core of our being and identity. The closest analogy to sexual sin is spiritual idolatry—which, incidentally, is called adultery throughout the Old Testament. Spiritual idolatry affects the very core of our being, and the center of our relationship with the living God. Sexual sin is of the same general character. It affects the core of our being.

Three years ago I was in a class with a well-known Christian philosopher who maintains several close friendships with skeptics and atheists around the world. He shared a very perceptive insight about the relationship between skepticism, atheism, and sexual immorality. He mentioned several of his friends who are now philosophical atheists, who at one time were evangelical Christians, even pastors of Baptist churches. He said that with only one exception, each of these men departed the Christian faith after (or amid) sexual sin. Their involvement with sexual sin came first; only afterward came “rational objections” to Christianity, or skepticism regarding the truth of the faith. That is to say, sexual immorality is very often the pathway to abandoning Christianity.

Thus, sexual ethics are a central concern. We’re going to look together at four broad areas of sexual morality, and discuss biblical ethics (The City of God) and the portrayal in popular culture (Sex and The City) on that issue.

A. Homosexuality
1. The City of God – Romans 1:21-27; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

2. Sex and the City – Brokeback Mountain; The Amazing Race

The Amazing Race is one of my favorite shows on television—it is my form of vicarious world travel. In the Amazing Race, 11 teams of two engage in a race around the world, completing tasks, following clues and directions; the team that arrives at the finish line first wins $1 million. The Amazing Race has always represented a diverse cross-section of American society, but representation is somewhat skewed. For example, statistics generally relate that approximately 4% of the American population is GLBT – gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgendered. However, each of the 16 seasons of the Amazing Race has had at least one actively gay participant. Last year, for the first time, the winning team feature two brothers, one gay, one straight. Throughout, the Amazing Race has sought to present homosexuals as normal, even as admirable.

B. Casual Sex & Promiscuity
1. The City of God – 1 Corinthians 7:1-6

2. Sex and the City – Seinfeld, Friends

Seinfeld and Friends were the most popular sitcoms through the late 90s. Both shows were amusing, well-written, and well-acted. Both shows also presented casual sex as normal and even ideal. Sex on the first date (or even apart from dates at all) was the norm. Sex with friends; sex with housekeepers, sex with strangers; the more sex with the more different people the better.

A question naturally arises. Does popular culture (like Friends, Seinfeld, Sex and the City) drive societal sexual ethics, or simply reflect societal sexual ethics? That is, does popular culture affect our sexual ethics, or do our sexual ethics affect popular culture? There is undoubtedly a mutual relationship between popular culture and societal ethics; but it is hard to doubt the impact of popular culture upon the way that people, particularly youth, think about sexual morality.

C. Romance, Love, Sexuality, and God

1. What is love? Commitment vs. Carnality. 1 Corinthians 13
Young people fall in love pretty easily and quickly. Actually, I think what really happens is that young people fall in lust, and call it love. Indeed, our culture has become exceedingly confused about the relationship between sexual attraction and love, often simply equating the two. Are you sexually attracted to someone? It must be love! What if that person is not your spouse? Well then, you must have ‘fallen in love’ with someone new, and ‘fallen out of love’ with your spouse.

I can recall having crushes on many different girls when I was in junior high and high school. If someone asked me why I liked that particular girl, guess what the answer almost inevitably was: “She’s hot.” Is that love? No – that’s lust. In 2 Samuel, we hear a lot about the tragic consequences of chasing down lust. David and Bathsheba. Amnon and Tamar. Is lust equal to love? No. Which brings us to a central question which must be answered, both by biblical ethics and pop culture.

2. What is romantic love? Sacred vs. Sensual
I remember when I fell in love with my wife, Vanessa. I was a senior in high school, she a junior. I had a huge crush on her—mostly, yes, because she was stunningly beautiful. I can remember the first time I kissed her; it was heavenly! Anybody see the movie Hitch? Great little show about romance, love, and the difficulty of finding a partner in modern society. There’s a little clip where Hitch (the title character, played by Wil Smith) says: “Most women know everything they need to about a man from the first kiss. The first kiss seals or breaks the relationship.” Well, in our case the first kiss sealed the relationship. There were sparks, there was chemistry, it was just right.

The question is: is that love? That feeling of romance, physical and sexual attraction which borders so closely on lust; is that what love is? Well, yes and no. Biblically speaking, we have to acknowledge that physical attraction and sexual chemistry is a part of biblical love—after all, we’ve got the entire Song of Solomon dedicated to very graphic romantic and sexual love. However, we also must insist that romantic (sexual) love is not all that there is to biblical love. After all, we’ve got the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 13 dedicated to a very non-sexual description of love. Furthermore, we’ve got Ephesians 5:22-33 which talk about marital love between husband and wife.

TO BE CONTINUED . . .

Book Review: God is Great, God is Good (2009)

2010-10-05T13:34:00.001-06:00

Craig, William Lane, and Chad Meister, eds. God is Great, God is Good: Why Believing in God is Reasonable and Responsible. Downers Grove: IVP, 2009. $19.00

The 21st century has seen the emergence of a vocal and public cadre of ‘New Atheists’, headed by prolific authors and speakers like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. The current volume, God is Great, God is Good: Why Believing in God is Reasonable and Responsible, responds directly to the New Atheists’ argument that theism is not only unreasonable, but patently false, socially unacceptable, and dangerously evil (7-8). Editors Meister and Craig seek to compile contributions from “top-notch scholars from across the disciplines” to comprehensively deal with the charges laid by New Atheists.

God is Great is divided into four parts. Part I (God Is) contains three essays rebutting atheistic arguments against theism and setting forth positive reasons for theistic belief. Part II (God is Great) holds another three essays dealing with the relationship between theism and science. Part III (God is Good) contains four rebuttals of common New Atheist attacks upon the character and beneficence of God and faith. Part IV (Why It Matters) has four diverse essays on the importance of Christian faith. What follows is a brief review, with some critical interaction, with each section and individual essay.

William Lane Craig opens by responding to Dawkins’ supposed refutation of theistic arguments (“Dawkins on Arguments for God,” 13-31). In the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins expresses great confidence that theistic ‘proofs’ or arguments for the existence of God have been effectively demolished. Craig begs to differ, and examines how Dawkins deals with the four most common theistic proofs. Dawkins does address the Kalam Cosmological Argument (16-17), but “doesn’t dispute either premise” (P1 ‘Everything that begins to exist has an external cause’; P2 ‘The universe began to exist’.), instead choosing to question “the theological significance of the argument’s conclusion (C ‘Therefore the universe has an external cause’).” Craig reminds the reader that the Cosmological Argument is not intended to establish God’s omniscience, goodness, etc., but rather to establish the need for a primary cause of the universe—something which Dawkins apparently acknowledges the argument accomplishes.

Dawkins openly challenges the Moral Argument, insisting in some of his writing that there is “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good” in the universe (18); however, he proceeds to engage in extensive moralizing (19), thereby demonstrating that he does implicitly acknowledge the existence of objective morality.

Dawkins understandably spends the most time on the Teleological Argument, which lies closest to his own area of expertise. The TA asserts that the fine-tuning evident in the universe is due to either necessity, chance, or design; the first two are implausible, hence design. Dawkins appeals instead to chance by invoking multiverse theory (21). Craig notes various problems with multiverse theory (22-26), most notably the absence of supporting evidence. Dawkins is aware of these problems, but insists that the multiverse is preferable to the “self-defeating . . . hypothesis of an intelligent designer.” (26) This brings Dawkins to his ironclad refutation of Christianity: if God designed the universe, who designed the designer? Dawkins considers this a crushing and decisive objection to theism. Craig easily deals with Dawkins’ objection, noting that the best explanation for a phenomenon (in this case apparent design) does not itself need to be readily explainable (27).

Finally, Dawkins unveils a tirade of “ridicule and invective” against the Ontological Argument; but, Craig insists, does not raise any “serious objection” to it (29), hoping instead that rhetoric will win the day. In essence, Craig demonstrates that Dawkins has not impugned the power or persuasiveness of any of the four traditional theistic proofs. It would have been helpful for Craig to provide an example of the “ridicule” that Dawkins heaps upon the ontological argument to demonstrate the lack of substance in his presentation. Nonetheless, Craig’s essay is clear, concise, and thoroughly demolishes the New Atheistic presumption to have dealt a mortal blow to the rationality of theism.

J. P. Moreland (Chapter Two, ‘The Image of God and the Failure of Scientific Atheism’, 32-48) argues for theism from a different angle. Moreland argues that there are certain human characteristics which are readily explicable in a Christian worldview but notoriously difficult to incorporate within scientific atheism (33). To set the stage, Moreland lays out three philosophical tenets of scientific atheism. First, strong or weak scientism in epistemology (the scientific process and/or the conclusions of modern science are the only or the most reliable sources of human knowledge). Second, evolutionary biology as the metanarrative accounting for how things came to be (36). Third, physics as the governing ontology, describing the entities that can conceivably exist (thereby ruling out supernatural or supranatural entities).

Moreland then describes the five features of human beings which pose serious challenges to scientific atheism: self-consciousness, rationality, unified selfhood, libertarian free will, and intrinsic value. Moreland does not argue that these five characteristics establish theism as rationally compelling; rather, he posits that they make better sense within a theistic universe than an atheistic one. Furthermore, he suggests that these human characteristics are not just explicable, but expected within Christian theism, as they are based upon the image of God within us. Thus, “these features provide a degree of confirmation for Christianity.” (33) Moreland acknowledges that some atheists will seize the horns of the dilemma, arguing that human beings do not actually possess one or more of the characteristics. But Moreland rightly responds, for example, that “the experience of libertarian free will is . . . so compelling . . . that people cannot act as though that experience is an illusion, even if it is one.” (39) Self-consciousness, rationality, unified selfhood, free will, and intrinsic value are intuitively grasped and embraced, and defended by persuasive philosophical arguments. Moreland's contribution is solid and extremely helpful. Atheists often pretend that the universe is just as it should be expected to be according to their worldview; Moreland points out that fundamental aspects of our existence cohere neatly with Christianity, but not with atheism.

Paul Moser closes the first part of the book by encouraging readers to approach the question of God’s existence from a new perspective (Chapter Three, ‘Evidence of a Morally Perfect God’, 49-62). Moser’s primary thesis is that we need to approach God not just form a theological perspective, but from a kardiotheological view—taking into account “one’s motivational heart (including one’s will) rather than just . . . one’s mind or one’s emotions.” (53) Inquiry into God’s existence has been biased by viewing the postulate of God “as a morally indefinite creator,” (54) an abstract transcendent figure. Instead, Moser insists that the Christian God is “a being worthy of worship,” with “inherent moral perfection” deserving of “unqualified adoration, love, trust and obedience.” (51) I certainly agree with Moser. His emphasis upon God’s definite character, and his promotion of kardiotheology, is helpful. I wonder, however, whether this project is even imaginable or coherent to an atheist. Can an atheist conceive of a divine being who is worthy of prostate worship? Moser seems to be aware of this potential objection, and responds by suggesting that such atheists will never be able to discern the God who exists (56). Moser suggests that “knowledge of God is not a spectator sport,” (57) but rather requires that we approach God as “authoritative Lord.” (57) God will not foist Himself upon human beings unwilling to willingly receive Him (59).

Moser closes with a less-than-convincing presentation of the centrality of AGAPE love. His definition of God’s love (“the divine morally righteous unselfish love that uncoercively seeks what is good for all people involved”) is comprehensive and helpful; building that edifice upon the questionable differentiation of the Greek agape from phileo and eros is problematic. Nonetheless, Moser’s essay is a helpful reminder that the Christian’s investigation into the existence and nature of God ought never be a purely philosophical or abstract pursuit: knowledge of God is irreducibly relational (61). In the end, however, Moser is appealing to the house of faith; his project is and will remain unacceptable to those outside the bounds of the church.

Part Two of God is Great deals with the relationship between theism and science. John Polkinghorne (Chapter Four, ‘God and Physics,’ 65-77) argues that the materialist view of the universe is “unsatisfying” because nature points beyond itself to “a deeper level of intelligibility.” (65) I agree that materialism is an intellectually and emotionally unsatisfying view of the universe; however, I suspect that Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Richard Dawkins would disagree—the New Atheists all assert that it is theism which is intellectually unsatisfying as a worldview, while their brand of materialistic atheism is perfectly fulfilling to them. Thus, one has to ask Polkinghorne, ‘unsatisfying to whom?’ Polkinghorne continues by laying out the failure of materialism to aptly explain the universe’s fine-tuning (68-70) and lack of physical determinism (72).

Michael Behe follows with a discussion of the limits of evolutionary theory (Chapter Five, ‘God and Evolution,’ 78-90). After a brief discussion of the rise and dominance of Darwinian evolutionary theory (79-84), Behe focuses his attention on the central role of random mutation. He argues that both common descent and natural selection are interesting and true, but ultimately trivial—what matters for Darwinism is not what has happened, but rather how. Thus, random mutation is the true philosophical driving force of evolutionary theory. Behe then discusses the various forms of random mutation (85), and two in-depth examples (apparently condensed versions of his lengthier discussions in The End of Evolution). He concludes that malaria and the sickle-cell mutation demonstrate that “random mutation is incoherent” and “unlikely to be responsible for the profoundly coherent, integrated, complex systems that fill the cell.” (87-88) The structure of the cell, Behe argues, proclaims its fundamental design. I suspect that, once again, the atheist is going to grant Behe’s conclusion that random mutation’s incoherence is “unlikely” to have given rise to the apparent design that we see, without accepting his conclusion that what we see is therefore most likely designed.

New Atheists and theists are generally agreed that human beings seem to be hard-wired to be religious, to believe in supernatural beings. Michael Murray evaluates atheistic explanations for intuitive religiosity (Chapter Six, ‘Evolutionary Explanations of Religion,’ 91-104). Evolutionary biologists tend to interpret God-wiring as evidence that “God is an artifact of the brain.” (101) Murray challenges this conclusion, and points out that atheists generally offer no supporting arguments for their conclusion. It is simply assumed that, obviously, if we are hard-wired to believe in God, such beliefs must be false. Murray insists that human beings are hard-wired to believe many things from birth, including “that one and one equal two, that animals give birth to offspring of the same species and that certain unnatural events are caused by agents.” (102) In other words, many of our intuitive beliefs are not only basic, but properly basic true beliefs. Murray concludes astutely that current scientific explanations of religion only reveal what Christians have argued for centuries: “there is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity.” (104)

Part Three of God is Great deals with atheistic critiques of Christian theism. Chad Meister opens the section with an essay dealing with the age-old problem of evil (Chapter Seven, ‘God, Evil, and Morality,’ 107-18). Meister argues that it is time that “the tables are turned” on atheist critics: “when it comes to the existence of evil in our world it’s the atheists who should be on the defensive.” (108) Acknowledging evil requires the admission of an objective standard of morality, which then requires a metaphysical foundation (109). New Atheists do seem to affirm moral objectivism; indeed, they argue that God is evil and unjust, thereby implicitly acknowledging objective standards. Meister helpfully reminds the reader that it is insufficient to merely affirm ethical realities, as Hitchens does; rather, one must justify ethical realities (110).

Meister then evaluates the proposed foundations for ethics provided by Dawkins and Hitchens—particularly Dawkins’ reciprocal altruism (113-14). The fatal flaw in Dawkins’ ethical scheme is that it is merely descriptive (describing how we do in fact behave) rather than prescriptive (prescribing how we ought to behave). Thus, there is nothing objectively good or evil; only what is programmed or evolutionarily advantageous (114-15). Other atheists (Meister cites Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson) admit that objective morality cannot be grounded in evolution (115). Meister concludes that atheism simply cannot “provide a reasonable justification for the existence of non-subjective, universally binding moral values . . . or moral vices.” (117)

Alister McGrath (Chapter Eight, ‘Is Religion Evil?’, 119-33) attacks one of the key soundbites of the New Atheism: “religion is evil.” (120) Through his article McGrath makes several loosely connected points. First, religion is a ‘false universal’, with no widely accepted definition of religion (122). Second, all worldviews (religious and secular) demand allegiance from their followers and thereby contain the potential for violence (123). Third, Christianity is about the transfiguration of violence, not killing in His name—violence committed in the name of Christ through the centuries has been an aberration and a denial of the true faith (125). Fourth, secular political extremism has emerged as the most successful source of acute violence and oppression in the 20th and 21st centuries (126-27). Fifth, atheists are unwilling to evaluate the fruits of their worldview honestly and critically (128). Sixth, atheism, like religion, can be a divisive ideology, as evidenced by the self-proclaimed ‘brights’ who were free of the religious superstition still beguiling the comparative ‘dims’ (130-31).

McGrath does a good job of unveiling the lack of accountability within an atheistic worldview, and the horrors that has unleashed upon the world in the last two hundred years (126-27). What is severely lacking in McGrath’s essay is the positive side of Christianity—the immense good that has been wrought by and through the Christian faith over two millennia. The emergence of modern science, medicine, universal human rights, education, social welfare, the status of women—the socio-economic and cultural benefits of Christianity should be trumpeted by theists in the face of naked assertions that ‘religion is evil’.

Paul Copan responds to New Atheist arguments that the God of the Old Testament is a monstrous, evil being (Chapter Nine, ‘Are Old Testament Laws Evil?’ 134-54). Copan acknowledges the impossibility of responding comprehensively in a brief essay. The thesis he defends is that the atheistic critiques are a distortion of Old Testament ideals and realities (136). Copan sets forth five factors which explain (or mitigate) troubling elements of the Old Testament Law. First, Mosaic law is embedded within a narrative context which reveals God’s redemptive activity and moral character (137). Second, Old Testament law “reflects a meeting point between divine/creational ideals and the reality of human sin and evil social structures.” (138) Copan defends that argument with an appeal to Jesus’ teaching on divorce in contrast with Mosaic legislation. However, one still has to wonder how we can discern which elements of Old Testament law represent divine compromise with human sin, and which represent eternal divine ideals. Copan rightly states that Christians do not need to “justify all aspects” of the Law; but fails to provide guidance as to what needs defending and what does not.

Third, Copan emphasizes the vast moral improvement represented by Mosaic legislation over and above other Ancient Near Eastern moral codes (139-44). Fourth, Copan offers seven explanations for the seemingly harsh dictums of genocidal warfare against the Canaanites (145-48). Fifth, Copan notes that the Old Testament law points toward, and is fulfilled in, the new covenant in Jesus Christ (148-49). Copan concludes by chiding New Atheists on two counts: first, the God of the Bible is not to be trivialized or trifled with; and second, that the lack of a foundation for objective morality in their worldview precludes their supposed moral outrage at the character of God (152). While I concur with Copan’s assessment, it must be noted again that he is preaching to the choir. His arguments and justifications are persuasive to me as a Christian who wants to be so persuaded. For the most part, however, his arguments are not going to sway a skeptic. For example, Copan argues that “The Mosaic law reveals God’s forbearance because of human hard-heartedness.” (149) We can certainly see this in light of the New Testament; however, orthodox Jews would most likely protest against that presentation of Old Testament law, asserting instead that the law of Moses is God’s eternal covenant with His people.

Jerry Walls recapitulates and updates C. S. Lewis’ argument that hell is actualized by the free rebellion of human beings (Chapter Ten, ‘How Could God Create Hell?’ 155-66). God creates the possibility of hell by creating free-willed creatures (you can almost hear compatibilists squirming in their chairs throughout this chapter). Drawing on Nietzsche’s imagery of dancing and joy, Walls argues that “hell is inhabited by those who simply refuse the invitation to participate in the [divine] dance.” (163) New Atheists insist that it is “incoherent” to conceive of someone freely choosing eternal damnation; in response, Walls cites the perverse pleasure that people find in resentment and bitterness, and rejection of a freely-offered grace.

While I appreciate and agree with the broad strokes of Walls’ argument (reflective not only of Lewis’ Great Divorce, but also Tim Keller’s The Reason for God), it must be noted that he has to neglect or downplay a fair amount of biblical data to mount his case. For example, Walls argues that eternal torment “results less from sulfurous flames” than from misguided self-will (166); I agree, but what do we then do with the passages that speak of flames and a lake of fire (e.g. Lk. 16:19-31; Rev. 20:10)? Are all such passages merely figurative language?
Part Four (Why It Matters) is the most diverse and disjointed section of God is Great. On the one hand, the essays are all connected to the reasonability of Christian theism. On the other hand, they are only loosely connected to one another.

Charles Taliaferro (Chapter Eleven, ‘Recognizing Divine Revelation’, 169-86) seeks to establish a framework of inquiry through which divine revelation can be recognized (170-71). His primary thesis is that “if there is some good reason to believe there is a good God [the subject of the first three sections of the book], there is some reason to believe this God would provide some means for awareness of and a relationship with God.” (172) Taliaferro responds concisely to four influential objections to the notion of special divine revelation: unfairness; God’s vanity and jealousy; the irrelevance of religious experience; and the impossibility of miracles.

He is particularly persuasive in responding to the argument against miracles, noting that Hume effectively defines miracles out of existence. Taliaferro notes that Hume did the same to the notion of negro intelligence. Hume’s blatant racism prevented him from acknowledging any exceptions to his preconceived notions of the ignorance of blacks. “Hume’s strategy was to define the nature of black persons so as to make any reported exception to nature implausible.” (184-85) Taliaferro notes the similar structure contained within Hume’s argument against miracles: decide something is impossible; define the course of nature so as to exclude it; argue that nature contains no exceptions to its rules; exclude testimony of exceptions. If there are reasons to be open to the existence of God, “one should not define nature and explanations so as to make recognizing divine presence as difficult as Hume made recognizing blacks’ intelligence.” (185)

Scot McKnight evaluates the person and ministry of Jesus in light of Jewish messianic expectations (Chapter Twelve, ‘The Messiah You Never Expected,’ 187-201). He notes ten characteristics of Jesus that were outside the bounds of expectations. McKnight’s chapter is well-written and clear, but it was difficult to ascertain its particular purpose within the current volume. It seems that perhaps the editors were looking for an essay which established the unique, divine person of Jesus Christ within the context of biblical Christianity. McKnight points in that direction, arguing that Jesus was: (1) free; (2) confident (had chutzpah); (3) a lightning rod (inciting opposition from nearly every quarter); (4) an activist (getting people on board with the kingdom agenda of God); (5) preachy (forcing listeners to choose sides); (6) attuned to hypocrisy; (7) charismatic; (8) intensely spiritual; (9) compassionate to all people; and (10) at home, but not at home, within Jewish piety. All that establishes, however, is the unique personality and ministry of Jesus—it does not demonstrate the creedal Christological confessions of the faith.

Gary Habermas contributes a helpful chapter on the resurrection of Jesus (Chapter Thirteen, ‘Tracing Jesus’ Resurrection to Its Earliest Eyewitness Accounts’, 202-16). After briefly outlining his trademark minimal facts approach to the resurrection (202-03), Habermas traces the chronology of the creedal confession of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Paul writes 1 Corinthians approximately 20 years after the crucifixion (205); but received the creedal information earlier, probably from his first trip to Jerusalem less than five years after the crucifixion (206-07). Each time Paul visited Jerusalem, his gospel message (including, one must presume, the resurrection) was confirmed by the apostles (including Peter and James). (212) Yet the material Paul presents in 1 Corinthians 15 is received five years after the crucifixion, indicating its existence earlier yet. Thus, “the underlying content of the gospel message regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ goes back to the very beginning.” (212) Habermas briefly considers and rejects the popular atheistic assertion that “Christianity copied its message from other earlier ancient religions,” (212-13) referring readers to his other works on the subject. Habermas concludes that the resurrection of Jesus was proclaimed by the earliest church by disciples who were convinced that they had personally seen the risen Lord (215).

Once again, I found myself applauding Habermas’ chapter, and appreciating its apologetic value, while questioning its purpose and place within the current volume. There needed to be a tighter connection between the unique person and ministry of Jesus and the unique claims about his identity and purpose that Jesus made (which isn’t done), with the early and universal Christian confessions concerning Christ. Then Habermas can present the resurrection as God’s vindication of the person and ministry of Jesus Christ—the confirmation that Jesus was who He claimed to be. As it stands, Habermas’ defense of the resurrection stands as a somewhat naked brute historical fact in grave need of interpretation.

Mark Mittelberg closes God is Great with a brief consideration of the importance of Christianity (Chapter Fourteen, ‘Why Faith in Jesus Matters,’ 217-27). Mittelberg helpfully reminds the reader that “everyone has faith,” (217) including atheists, who trust that “there is no Creator, no higher moral law to which they are accountable, no divine judgment and no afterlife.” (218) Given that everyone lives by faith, why have faith in Jesus? Mittelberg presents an evangelistic appeal to acknowledge our need for God’s greatness, goodness, and grace in our lives (221-22); we simply need what Jesus offers (225).

The compilation of essays in God is Great, God is Good seeks to counter the arguments of New Atheists that Christianity is irrational, unreasonable, and harmful to society. As a postscript, the volume publishes a conversation between philosophers and friends Gary Habermas and Antony Flew regarding Flew’s conversion from atheism to theism (Postscript, ‘My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: A Discussion Between Antony Flew and Gary Habermas’, 228-46). The editors rightly rejoice in the acknowledgment of one of the twentieth century’s most prominent philosophical atheists that atheism is untenable. Perhaps I am suffering from apologetic fatigue, but I am somewhat tired of Christians trumpeting Flew’s intellectual conversion. Yes, it is evidence (indirect and weak to be sure, but evidence nonetheless) that theism is more intellectually plausible than atheism. It is not, however, a pillar to lean on. After all, Flew never converted to Christian theism, but rather to a form of Enlightenment deism—acknowledging some sort of divine first cause, but emphatically not a personal divine being.

The volume concludes with a marvelous review of Dawkins’ God Delusion by Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga (Appendix, ‘The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism Ad Absurdum,’ 247-58). Much of the ground Plantinga treads has been covered in other essays (particularly Craig’s opening contribution); but Plantinga’s treatment of complexity, probability, and divine simplicity is a helpful addition. Indeed, I found myself wondering why Plantinga’s essay was not adapted and adopted as an additional chapter in the first section of the book.

God is Great, God is Good is a very helpful compilation of essays for Christian apologists and philosophers to add to their toolbox. The essays are not all of equal weight and value. Chapters 1, 6, 7, 10, and 11 were particularly fresh and insightful. Chapters 8 and 12 were disappointing more for what they did not say than what they did. The fourth section (Why It Matters) suffered from a lack of connection and focus. All in all, however, God is Great is a worthwhile contribution to the conversation. It introduces readers to a wide spectrum of issues raised by New Atheists, and provides credible responses.

Book Review: Revolutions in Worldview (2007)

2010-09-27T13:43:00.001-06:00

Revolutions in Worldview: Understanding the Flow of Western Thought. W. Andrew Hoffecker, ed. New Jersey: P&R, 2007. 424 pp.

In the Preface to this collection of essays, W. Andrew Hoffecker defines worldview as a “one’s most basic beliefs and framework of understanding.” (xi) Worldview affects every aspect of human life, and affects all people (consciously or unconsciously). Worldview thinking is both inevitable (xii) and pervasive. Revolutions in Worldview pursues a fundamental thesis very clearly: “The thesis of this book is that Western thought has experienced a series of changes so profound they should be called revolutions.” (xiii) Accordingly, the book contains ten chapters, each one tracing the contours of a dominant worldview—ancient Greek, biblical Hebrew, New Testament Christian, early medieval Christianity, late medieval Christianity, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, nineteenth-century skepticism, and rising postmodernism.

John M. Frame authors the first major essay, examining the revolution in thought produced by Greek philosophers (Chapter 1, “Greeks Bearing Gifts”). The tone of his article is quickly set: “The chief benefit in studying Greek thought is to understand better the philosophical and cultural consequences of rejecting biblical theism.” (1) We do not expect Frame to find much of benefit in Greek thought, and he does not disappoint. He briefly discusses the commonalities and diversities which marked Greek philosophy (3) before turning to the fatalism of Greek religion (4-5). Frame then outlines the revolution in thought, beginning with the Milesians, which exalted the autonomy of human reason, and identified “the good life” as “the life of reason.” (5-6) Frame considers the philosophical systems of the Milesians, Heraclitus, Parmenides, the Atomists, Pythagoras, the Sophists, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and Plotinus (7-31). Each philosopher (or school of philosophy) is marked by seven characteristics: 1. The supremacy of human reason; 2. Reducing all of nature under the sovereignty of reason; 3. A consequential claim that reality is monistic in nature; 4. The continuing dualistic struggle between rational life and meaningless fate; 5. The power of the ‘shapeless stream’ of fate in challenging autonomous reason; 6. An eventual collapse from rationalism into irrationalism; and 7. A resulting invalidation of their philosophical insights (6-7). Frame will particularly emphasize the combination of rationalism with irrationalism—the Greeks seek to exalt human reason, and follow it as far as they can, but eventually their humanistic rational system collapses, and they retreat into irrationalism (e.g., 23). Frame concludes that “their project was to impose autonomous reason upon an irrational world. That project was bold, even revolutionary, as we have seen; but it could not hope to succeed.” (33) The alternative, the only workable worldview, Frame insists, is the “absolute-personality theism of Scripture.” (33)

I was surprised and disappointed by two facets of Frame’s presentation. First, the tone of his article was predominantly negative and attacking. I certainly understand that the Frame does not want the reader to adopt a Greek philosophical worldview, and he rightly warns against the dangers of seeking to synthesize Platonism with Christianity. Oftentimes, his accusation that Greek rationalism terminated in irrationalism was a thinly-supported assertion—this is particularly evident in his treatment of Pythagoras (14-15). Second, at many points Frame seems to rely upon Reformed philosophers and apologists (Dooyeweerd, but particularly Van Til) for his knowledge of Greek philosophy, rather than the Greek philosophers themselves—this is particularly evident in his treatment of Heraclitus (9-10). Frame seems more concerned with debunking Greek philosophy than he is with presenting Greek philosophy on its own terms.

John D. Currid (Chapter 2, “The Hebrew World-and-Life View”) responds to critical scholars’ (e.g. Voltaire, Thompson, von Harnack, Delitzsch) accusations that the Old Testament has no unique worldview, but is rather a combination of barbarism and plagiarism (from other ancient cultures) by arguing that “such views severely underestimate the originality of thought of the Hebrews and their influence on centuries of succeeding generations.” (39) Throughout the rest of his chapter, Currid proficiently demonstrates the uniqueness of Hebraic thought. He begins with the centrality of God’s self-revelation through Scripture—an alien concept to other ancient worldviews (39-43). Currid then discusses what the Old Testament reveals about God, focusing upon the radical monotheism which was absolutely unique to the ancient Hebrews. He also emphasizes that Hebraic monotheism “not only penetrated but harmonized with every other aspect of the Hebrews’ worldview.” (45) Currid covers the ground of creation (49-55), anthropology (55-56), and the fall (56-59) briefly but accurately, although his excursion into the age of the earth controversy was too brief to be helpful. After a short discussion of hope and expectation for redemption (59-62), Currid makes lucid comments about the unique contributions of Hebraic thought regarding history. In contrast to other ancient views of history, the Old Testament picture of history is both linear and teleological (62-63). Currid closes by setting forth seven lasting contributions of the Old Testament worldview to Western thought (67-69). He concludes, rightly in my perspective, that he has succeeded in proving his thesis: “the Hebrew world-and-life view is distinct from pagan religions and cultures that surrounded the Hebrews. And it was Hebrew thought that had such a profound impact on later centuries of history.” (69)

The transition from Old Testament to New Testament is characterized by Vern S. Poythress (Chapter 3, “New Testament Worldview”) as both a continuation and a revolution. On the one hand, the New Testament “builds upon the Old Testament” and deepens our understanding of some aspects of Hebraic worldview (98). On the other hand, the transformative nature of the Gospel did indeed bring a revolution “in life, in power, and in worldview,” to the new Christians who embraced it (98). My primary concern with Poythress’s presentation is its structure. He lays the chapter out in two fundamental sections: “aspects of worldview shared” and “transformations in the New Testament.” However, it is difficult to follow his rationale for doing so, and he is quite inconsistent in his application. For example, Poythress identifies only three shared aspects—God, humanity, and redemption—and does that excessively briefly (73-74). He then identifies fifteen manifestations of a transformed New Testament worldview. There are three problems with this treatment. First, some of the identified “transformations” are present, arguably just as powerfully and pervasively, in the Old Testament—that is, they are not new at all. For example, providence, miracle, sin, creation, and epistemology are all themes within the Hebraic worldview as well as the New Testament worldview. Second, Poythress identifies humanity as an example of transformation under New Testament worldview, after having already discussed it as a shared worldview aspect in the earlier section. This leads to the third difficulty with Poythress’s treatment, which is probably the central problem. Poythress is not really providing “shared worldview aspects” and “transformations in the New Testament”—rather, he is explaining how the New Testament builds upon and deepens aspects of worldview which are already present (at least nascently) in the Old Testament. In itself, this is a worthy project, and I would have constructed my own presentation of New Testament worldview in just such a manner. However, while I have complaints about the structure of Poythress’s contribution, the content of the New Testament worldview that he elaborates is solid and beneficial.

Richard C. Gamble (Chapter 4, “Christianity from the Early Fathers to Charlemagne”) sets out to “trace the emergence and growth of the Christian worldview up to the time of Charlemagne.” (100) It is thus a stretch to call this chapter one of the historical Revolutions in Worldview—there is no revolution, but rather a working out of the New Testament worldview as the ‘Church Age’ unfolds. Gamble begins with the early church fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp) and writings (Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Didache), early heretics (Marcion, Montanus), and the emergence of the early apologists (Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Melito). The occurrence of heresy and government persecution spurred the apologetic literature which sought to demonstrate that “converting to Christianity did not entail treason against the state nor demand committing intellectual suicide.” (106) Gamble then discusses the contributions of major second and third century western and eastern writers—Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen (112-19)—before addressing the towering figure of Augustine (119-27). With each theologian, he demonstrates how they progressively work out the implications of the Christian worldview, based upon Scripture, in various areas of life, and in response to controversies and disputes. Gamble also discusses how the early church was predominantly concerned with matters of liturgy and ethics—how Christianity is to be lived out corporately and individually. An inevitable by-product of applying worldview to practical theology was the gradual development of “rules” to the Christian life (128-30). Concluding the brief sweep of a massive period of church history, Gamble surveys the difficulties posed by the union of church and state following Constantine (131-32), the emergence of monasticism (132-34), the increasing domination of Germanic barbarians (134-35), the growth of the papacy (135), and the relationship between secular and sacred authorities (136-37). At times this chapter felt more like a history lesson than an application of worldview analysis. Nonetheless, Gamble does successfully survey the “profound changes [which] occurred in the Christian worldview over [an] eight-hundred-year span.” (137)

The late Middle Ages were revolutionized by the Scholastic worldview. Peter J. Leithart (Chapter 5, “Medieval Theology and the Roots of Modernity”) argues that the new Scholastic perspective was marked by two radical characteristics. First, theologians answered questions using “sources other than Scripture.” (175) Second, “reason was treated as a relatively autonomous source of truth.” (176) Biblical worldviews and the early medieval period were marked by a desire to interpret and exegete Scripture as it applied to various aspects of human life—including church polity, ethics, economics, and political theory. Leithart argues that the late Middle Ages were marked by a separation of philosophy from the ‘shackles’ of theology (144-45). Beginning with Peter Abelard, theology degenerated into onto-theology, “a style of theology subordinated to and constrained by philosophical commitments from outside theology.” (144) Leithart traces the origins of onto-theology to the rise of scholastic theologians (147), the ‘invention’ of theology as a ‘science,’ (152) and the pursuit of a thoroughly rational understanding of even the central mysteries of the Christian faith (155). He examines the towering Thomas Aquinas, noting his tendency on the one hand to subordinate reason (and philosophy) to revelation (and theology), (162-64) while on the other hand accommodating theology to the language and categories of Aristotelian philosophy (165-67). Duns Scotus and William Ockham seek to retain space for Christian theology, but do so by granting ‘too much’ ground to the non-theological enterprises (169-72). The derivation of theological answers from philosophical sources, combined with the particularism and independence of individual facts would prove to have grave implications in emerging modernity.

Carl Trueman (Chapter 6, “The Renaissance”) questions the validity of applying the concept of worldview to the diverse strands that compose the Renaissance period (178, 203). Nonetheless, he proposes to “trace the various threads” that are common in Renaissance thought, literature, science, and art (178). The primary common element of the Renaissance (the Revolution, if you will) is humanism, which he defines as “a cultural attitude based on the reappropriation of classical literature.” (179) Humanism sought to recover, translate, and study the works of antiquity—Aristotle, Plato, and the early church fathers (180-82). The recovery of classical works had major implications for Christian theology. Erasmus exemplified the recovery of the biblical languages (183-85), which in turn led to exposure of accretions and faults in medieval Catholicism. Renaissance philosophy began with the study of Aristotle, although interpretation and application varied wildly (188-89). Science began a move towards empirical study, as exhibited by Copernicus and Galileo (193-94). The conflicts between Galileo and the Catholic Church symbolized the “increasingly problematic relationship of learning to religion.” (194) Secular scholarship increasingly questioned the validity of Christian theology (195), a fact evident not only in Renaissance science, but also in the Renaissance political theory of Machiavelli (197-99) and the thoroughly materialistic Hobbes (199). Both political theorists perceived religion as, at best, a tool in the ruler’s toolbox, to be used as needed to regain power (198-99). The most widely-appreciated impact of the Renaissance was the literary and visual arts. Trueman points to the rise of stylistic poetry and prose in vernacular languages (200), as well as the rich exploitation of classical sources for visual art (201). Trueman concludes that the Renaissance serves as a warning against “attempting to understand a worldview simply as the product of a disembodied thought process, rather than as the result of a cultural moment that combines intellectual and material factors in a complicated ideological web of intellectual, economic, and political factors.” (203) Worldview is a complex, multifaceted phenomena.

The worldview revolution of the Reformation (Chapter 7, “The Reformation as a Revolution in Worldview”) was a journey ‘back to the Bible.’ Scott Amos argues that the Lutheran, Anabaptist, and Reformed wings of the Reformation all sought to bypass medieval Scholasticism and build a comprehensive worldview based upon Scripture alone (sola Scriptura). The result was a rejection of the epistemology, theology, and anthropology of the Middle Ages (206-07). All three groups rejected Renaissance optimism about human nature, emphasizing instead the bondage of the will to sin (215-17, 223, 231); consequently, all three stressed the necessity of God’s grace in salvation (214, 218, 224, 229-30). Amos, being a representative of the Reformed (Calvinist) wing of the Reformation himself (as are all the other contributors to this volume), argues that Calvin worked out the most thoroughly biblical worldview of all the Reformers (208). Yet he does not deal adequately with Calvin’s questionable perspectives on church and state (233-34), nor admit that Calvin lacked a theology of beauty (235). Amos does admit that the Reformers were guilty of destroying many aesthetically-pleasing works of art, but simply proceeds to admire the literary and musical contributions they made (235-36). Revolutions in Worldview does seem to be marked by an element of party spirit—a desire to exalt all things Reformed, oftentimes overlooking some of their weaknesses. The other revolutionary elements to the biblical worldview constructed by the Reformers included the priesthood of all believers (218-19, 223) and a rejection of the sacramental means of grace (219).

Hoffecker argues that the Enlightenment was not a monolithic movement or time period, but was rather marked by diversity of emerging worldviews (Chapter 8, “Enlightenments and Awakenings: The Beginning of Modern Culture Wars”). Furthermore, he stresses that the Enlightenment trend toward privatized religion was challenged by awakening evangelical worldviews (240-41). The time period marked two revolutionary changes, however. First was the gradual exaltation of human autonomy instead of divine autonomy (277). Second was the beginning of the “struggle for the Western mind,” (277) the cultural war which we are still in the midst of. Both secularists and evangelicals expounded holistic worldviews which encompassed all of life, both public and private (277-78). Hoffecker leads the reader through the juxtaposition of enlightenment and awakening in England, focusing on Baconian empiricism, Herbert’s deism, Locke’s tabula rosa, Newtonian science, and Hume’s skepticism (242-50) before considering Wesley’s evangelical challenge to both the sterility of the Church of England and the rising tide of secular skepticism (250-52). He then takes similar treks through France, focusing on Descartes’ anthropocentric foundationalism and Pascal’s penetratingly subjective apologetics (253-61); Germany, stressing Spener’s privatized pietism and Kant’s autonomous human reason (262-70); and America, examining Paine’s deism and Edwards’ powerful Reformed worldview (271-77). Hoffecker concludes that the Enlightenment period indeed launched powerful new worldviews which challenged the traditional dominance of the Christian worldview (277-78).

Richard Lints argues (Chapter 9, “The Age of Intellectual Iconoclasm: Revolt Against Theism”) that the 19th century witnessed the transition of faith and reason from compatible friends to sworn enemies (281-82). As ‘science’ pushed the boundaries of human knowledge further and further, God was limited to the ‘gaps’ in knowledge, and gradually rendered irrelevant to humanity (283). The historical claims of Christianity were questioned, found wanting, and rejected by the primary thrust of philosophical inquiry (286). Feuerbach and Marx rejected God as a human construct which hindered our progress (290-93). Darwin provided the missing link in naturalism’s argumentative chain—the process by which life came to be. The clock no longer required a clock-maker, and God was rendered superfluous (295-97). Freud assumed naturalism and claimed that Christianity was the result of neurotic disorders (298-99). Nietzsche worked out the implications of the rising atheism more clearly than other 19th century ‘secular prophets.’ He maintained that since (not if) God is dead, “there is no ultimate meaning in life . . . no absolute good or evil, either.” (304) Nietzsche prophesied (correctly, in my opinion) that Christian values would gradually fade, and be replaced by self-love ethics in which the will and freedom of the absolute individual reigned supreme (303-04). As the secular tide rose, other worldviews competed on the margins, all sharing a desire to reinterpret history (306). Romanticism and transcendentalism rejected cold Enlightenment rationalism, stressing genuine human emotion and love of nature (306-07). Idealism exalted mental concepts over naked materialism (308). Theological liberalism stressed religious experience to ‘rescue’ Christianity from secular attack (309-10), which Kierkegaard’s existentialism sought to replace dead orthodoxy with passion-infused experience of the Triune God (311). American pragmatism asserted that truth-claims are impossible to evaluate factually, and can only be gauged “according to their practical consequences.” (312) In each case, the marginal worldview tended to agree with the primary 19th-century stream of thought—reason and faith were no longer bedfellows.

The rise of postmodernism in the twentieth century (Chapter 10, “Philosophy Among the Ruins: The Twentieth Century and Beyond”) witnessed three intellectual revolutions: in language and epistemology, science, and ethics (319-20). Michael W. Payne identifies Wittgenstein’s linguistic revolution as the key to understanding the other worldview changes. The later Wittgenstein (post-WWII) became utterly disillusioned (as did many of his contemporaries) with the Enlightenment endeavor to obtain objective knowledge (337). In his “Philosophical Investigations” Wittgenstein observed that “sense is determined by use.” (338) That is, there is no correspondence (necessarily) between language and objective reality, but rather “meaning and sense result from practices and life forms.” (338) Enlightenment rationalism failed to take into account the subjective nature of the knowing process, particularly the “mediated character of naming and defining.” (338) A similar revolution marked the sciences, both hard and soft. The modernist goal of objective knowledge of a mechanistic, logical universe in which the person was merely a disengaged mind was demolished by Kuhn, Polanyi, and Winch (345). The underlying presuppositions of Enlightenment science—“objectivity, neutrality, linearity, incremental development, overall consistency, . . . and the rule of inviolability” (344-45)—were challenged and ultimately found lacking, resulting in a destruction of the supposedly objective edifice of knowledge built upon those presuppositions (345-46). The fact / value distinction was demolished: all that remained was value (346). The end result in ethics was Rortian pragmatism, which rejected the correspondence of valuative ethical claims with objective ethical realities (349-50). Payne applauds the demolition of the idol of Enlightenment rationalism, but laments the rise of fideistic perspectivism which minimizes “content” and maximizes “individual perspective” in a vain attempt to protect human autonomy (356). While Payne does not allude to it, the desire to maintain “human autonomy” suggests that postmodernism has not truly cast off the full shackles of the Enlightenment—the exaltation of the human self continues unabated. This, in effect, is the worldview revolution which began in the Renaissance, and has continued in full force through to postmodernism. It is also, I would argue, the primary worldview which needs to be countered by the Christian. Man is not God—man is not autonomous, and never has been.

Music, Media, and Movies: The Quest for the Minds of America - Part I of IV

2010-09-22T20:16:00.001-06:00

NOTE: The following are teaching notes from the first in a series of four Wednesday night studies at St. Stephen's Church in Louisville.

Music, Media & Movies: The Quest for the Minds of America
St. Stephen’s Church, Louisville KY

Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Part I. War of the World(view)s: The Cultural Battle for the American Mind

Mark 12:28-31 lays out the greatest commandment:

28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

The Great Commandment is going to be our key text for the next four weeks. We are going to seek to love the Lord our God with our full heart, and soul, and mind, and strength. Our focus is going to be particularly upon loving God with all our minds – to grow in our intellectual love for God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The average American apparently watches nearly 1700 hours of television and movies over the course of a calendar year – that’s nearly five hours per day. We also spend time on the internet, listening to movies, reading magazines, books, and journals. In short, we are all massive consumers of popular culture. In itself, this is neither good nor bad. Popular culture is neither inherently evil nor intrinsically good—like most things in life, it can be used for either good or bad.

Tonight, and for the next four weeks, we are going to look together at the battle which is waged in popular culture, a battle with deadly serious consequences. I will submit to you that there is a war of worldviews going on in pop culture, and the territory the battle is being fought over is the hearts and minds of you and me.

Ephesians 6:10-18 reads:

10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

The Apostle Paul encourages the church in Ephesus to be prepared for what – for the “devil’s schemes.” We are to “be strong” in God, to stand “in his mighty power.” God has not left us defenceless, but has provided us with the “full armor” that we need to stand against everything Satan can throw our way. What does the armor consist of? (1) The belt of truth. (2) The breastplate of righteousness. (3) The gospel of peace on our feet. (4) The shield of faith, which extinguishes “all the flaming arrows of the evil one.” (5) The helmet of salvation. (6) The sword of the Spirit, i.e., the word of God. And finally, (7) Prayer in the Spirit on all occasions.

So why do we need the armor of God? Because we will be attacked by the evil one; Satan will try to drive us away from God.

1 Peter 5:6-11 reads:

5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,
"God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble." 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
8Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
10And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. 11To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen.

As Christians, we all know that there is a battle being waged for our soul. We are caught up in the cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil—between the Triune God who created and loves us, and Satan and his fallen angels who seek to destroy us. 1 Peter 5 and Ephesians 6 simply remind us that there is a battle going on, and we are to be prepared for it.

In 1941, Nazi Germany was at war with the rest of Europe (and Canada). Germany had invaded and defeated the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Poland. She had signed a peace treaty with Communist Russia, establishing a secure eastern front. Towards the summer of 1941, however, rumors began circulating that Hitler was planning on violating his peace treaty with Stalin’s Russia. Stalin did not believe the reports. Eventually, German bombers and tanks poured across the border in huge numbers, and drove the unprepared and unsuspecting Russian armies back hundreds of miles. The Communists were, for over a year, defeated and driven back continually, all because they had not been prepared for the attack that they ought to have known was coming.

I submit to you that the same thing is happening in North America today, and has been happening in America for the past 50-75 years. A battle has been going on for the minds and souls of America, and Christians have been steadily losing, partly because they have often not even realized that there was a battle going on! The battle that I am talking about occurs in the realm of popular culture—movies, television, music, books, magazines, the internet—and seeks to gain ground within our minds.

Over the coming four weeks, we are going to peer into the battle for our minds which is being waged in popular culture. Rather than laying out a barrage of arguments or examples or clips this evening to try to prove to you that there is a battle going on, we are going to come at it gradually, building from week to week. If you’re already convinced that there is a cultural battle going on, then I invite you along for the ride—share your thoughts on what’s going on in and around us. If you’re somewhat skeptical at the outset, I invite you to raise your questions, your doubts, about the reality of the battle in popular culture. By challenging and questioning one another, in Christian love and respect, we will all be sharpened and nurtured in our faith. My desire is for each of us to learn to love the Lord our God more and more—with our heart, soul, mind, and strength together.

As we consider popular culture and our involvement in it, I want to suggest that we need to be more than just passive recipients of culture. I am not going to suggest that we avoid pop culture, and boycott television, magazines, the internet, or movies. Rather, I will suggest that we need to be critically engaged participants in popular culture. Let’s break down that phrase a little bit.

(1) Popular culture – we have already identified as media which are produced for mass popular consumption. Movies, television, magazines, books, internet sites, Facebook, music, radio, etc.

(2) Engaged Participants – a participant is more than just a passive consumer. Let me give you a sports example, from my favorite sport of hockey. When I go to a hockey game, there are at least three ways that I can be there. First, I can be a player – on the ice, taking a regular shift, taking shots on net, dishing out thundering hits. In pop culture terms, a player is someone who is making culture – a musician, writer, producer, actor, etc. Like hockey, not many of us can be players in pop culture. Second, at the other end of the spectrum, I can be at the hockey game as a spectator, simply sitting and watching the game, eating my popcorn and hot dog, drinking my pop, sitting on my hands. You know the type of fan, right? The fellow who doesn’t stand for the big play at the football game; who doesn’t get up to cheer a touchdown? That’s a spectator. In popular culture terms, a spectator is someone who unthinkingly and unreflectively ingests whatever comes over the media wavelengths. We could, in a sense, think of the spectator as the couch potato. Not a perfect analogy, but it will do. Third, instead of being a player or a spectator, I can go to the hockey game as a participant. I’m not on the ice playing the game, but nor am I merely sitting back watching it. Instead, I am actively engaged in the game – watching plays develop, pondering what I would do differently if I was the coach or a player. I can actively holler my support for my team, wear my team jersey. In popular culture, a participant interacts with media – shouting at the TV, worrying over what’s going to happen to their favorite character, longing to see the hero do the right thing, etc.

(3) Critically – an engaged participant is an active consumer of popular culture. To be critically engaged goes one step further, and involves an intellectual and spiritual discernment of popular culture. It involves asking critical questions of what we’re watching or reading or listening to.

Tonight, my desire is simply to set forth one thought for us to ponder together. My suggestion to you tonight is that we can become critically engaged participants in the pop culture War of Worldviews by asking ourselves 4 questions as we watch, listen to, or read pop culture media. Tonight we’re going to look at these 4 questions together, and then over the coming weeks we will apply these questions to various pop culture forms, and particular issues in popular culture.

Question #1 – How does this affect me? my walk with God?

What emotions do I sense going through me as I watch this show or listen to this music? How does it affect my relationship with God? Does it inspire me to love God more? Does it tempt me to sin?

In 1 Corinthians 6:12-14, the Apostle Paul is responding to questions the Corinthian church had been asking him, about whether they ought to be involved in certain practices. Paul replies: Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. Food for the stomach, and the stomach for food, but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

I love jazz music – old classics like Louie Armstrong and John Coltrane, and some 80s and 90s guys like Winton Marsalis. There is something about jazz and blues that makes me more thoughtful and pensive – I find myself reflecting on life, the universe and everything when I listen to Louie Armstrong. The music connects with my soul. On the other hand, when I was a atheistic teenager in the late 80s and early 90s, I enjoyed listening to bands like Nirvana; Kurt Cobaine was a role model. Yet I found listening to Nirvana inherently depressing; it made me feel like life was a waste, worthless. Two different musicians, Louie Armstrong, Kurt Cobaine, who awakened very different moods within me.

Question #2 – What standards of behavior are being promoted or normalized?

What does this music, movie, book, or show present as being ‘normal’ or ‘admirable’ or ‘good’ or ‘worthwhile’ behavior? How do the movie’s standards of behavior and thought hold up in the light of Scripture?
A quick example. I have really enjoyed the Ocean’s movies – Ocean’s Eleven, Ocean’s Twelve, Ocean’s Thirteen. Now, think through the qualities or activities that are glamorized or portrayed as admirable in those movies. Greed. Gambling. Deception. Robbery. The ‘good guys’ of the movie are, in the light of Scripture, not really good guys at all!

In 2 Kings 17, the northern kingdom of Israel is militarily defeated by the Assyrian Empire and carted off into exile, never to return. Why? Why does God allow His children to be exiled? Beginning in verse 7, we read:
7 All this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the LORD their God, who had brought them up out of Egypt from under the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They worshiped other gods 8 and followed the practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before them, as well as the practices that the kings of Israel had introduced. 9 The Israelites secretly did things against the LORD their God that were not right. From watchtower to fortified city they built themselves high places in all their towns. 10 They set up sacred stones and Asherah poles on every high hill and under every spreading tree. 11 At every high place they burned incense, as the nations whom the LORD had driven out before them had done. They did wicked things that provoked the LORD to anger. 12 They worshiped idols, though the LORD had said, "You shall not do this." 13 The LORD warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and seers: "Turn from your evil ways. Observe my commands and decrees, in accordance with the entire Law that I commanded your fathers to obey and that I delivered to you through my servants the prophets."
14 But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the LORD their God. 15 They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the LORD had ordered them, "Do not do as they do," and they did the things the LORD had forbidden them to do.
16 They forsook all the commands of the LORD their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. 17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in [c] the fire. They practiced divination and sorcery and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
18 So the LORD was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence. Only the tribe of Judah was left, 19 and even Judah did not keep the commands of the LORD their God. They followed the practices Israel had introduced. 20 Therefore the LORD rejected all the people of Israel; he afflicted them and gave them into the hands of plunderers, until he thrust them from his presence.

What was the sin of Israel? Well, there wasn’t just one thing, there was a multitude of sins. However, they all had something in common—the nation of Israel had allowed herself to embrace and follow the example of her pagan neighbors. Israel built ‘high places’ in honor of the gods and idols of other nations. They ‘rejected God’s decrees’; in verse 15, we see God say explicitly that “They imitated the nations around them although the Lord had ordered them, ‘Do not do as they do.’”

Consider the values and ethics and worldviews that are presented in the shows you watch and the music you listen to. Now, please note that I am not saying that if a movie portrays non-Christian values or philosophies, that you cannot watch it. Rather, you need to be critically engaged with the movie, understanding how the movie presents values which go against the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in order to not be influenced by them.

Question #3 – What worldview or philosophy is being promoted or normalized?

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 reads:
3For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

A worldview is a set of fundamental beliefs that each person has about the world and the way it works. A worldview answers at least six fundamental questions.
(1) What is the nature of ultimate reality? [i.e., is there a God?]
(2) What is the nature of man? [i.e., are we inherently good, or fallen and sinful?]
(3) What happens to us when we die?
(4) What is the nature of right and wrong? [i.e., is there such a thing as objective morality? Are some things really right and others really wrong? How can we know? What is right? What is wrong?]
(5) What is the basis of knowledge; i.e., how can we know anything? [i.e., can we have reliable knowledge of anything? What is the more reliable means to true knowledge?]
(6) What is the nature and meaning of time and history? [i.e., is time linear or cyclical? Is history purposeful (teleological), or random and meaningless?]

God’s Word encourages believers to derive their worldview from Scripture. Asking this question of popular culture is thus a way of discerning the worldview at work in the movies we’re watching and the music we’re listening to. As a teen, I loved Pink Floyd – I still appreciate their music for its intellectual and thoughtful presentation of life. However, the picture of life given in much of their music (especially their classic album, The Wall) presents life as ultimately violent, meaningless, and brief.

Now, what happens if we listen to such music, watch such videos, as an unengaged spectator? We listen to Pink Floyd without critically assessing what we’re listening to? Eventually, the thought forms and philosophy of the music filters into our own worldview and affects the way that we see life, the universe, and everything. Indeed, that very thing happened with me when I was a teenager – the music I listened to affected the way I looked at the world.

The Apostle Paul warns of this in Colossians 2:6-8.
6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

We are indeed vulnerable to being taken captive by other worldviews. The danger is even more acute, I would argue, when we aren’t aware of the battle that is being waged! If we remain passive consumers of pop culture, entering into the cultural battle entirely unprepared, we are liable to be sucked into worldly ways of thinking and acting. But as Romans 12:1-2 reminds us, that is precisely what we are not to do.
1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Scripture consistently exhorts us to be influenced, affected, and changed by the things of God. As Christians, the desire is to have our minds renewed by the Spirit of God, rather than by the spirit of the world. Does that mean that Christians should not listen to Pink Floyd? Or other forms of pop culture that present a view of life contrary to Christianity? That’s something we’re going to ponder over the coming weeks together.

Question #4. How (if at all) does this portray God’s truth? God’s Kingdom?

The Ocean’s movies were popular in part because they reflected some of God’s truth. Yes, the rampant greed, deception, and thievery are contrary to the kingdom of God. Yet there were kernels of God’s truth in there as well. Can you think of some?

The biggest one, I would argue, is the truth that those who build their worldly kingdom (wealth, power, status, etc.) by taking advantage of other human beings will get what’s coming to them. The Old Testament prophets railed against the social injustice which the people of God perpetrated upon one another. One of my favorite prophets is Amos. In Amos 2:6-7, we read:
6 This is what the LORD says:
"For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}.
They sell the righteous for silver,
and the needy for a pair of sandals.
7 They trample on the heads of the poor
as upon the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name.

The nobility of the nation of Israel was wealthy, and was increasing its wealth at the expense of the poor. Throughout Scripture, God speaks out against oppressing the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner; He condemns those who hoard their wealth here on earth, and accumulate by stealing from others and taking advantage of the little guy. Well, the big bad casino owners in Ocean’s certainly qualify as the big bad bullies ripping off the little guys, taking advantage of folks in order to accumulate their wealth. And so there is a part of us that rightfully likes to see them ‘get what’s coming to them’. In a sense, we want justice to be enacted against them, and so we cheer on the likeable yet thoroughly sinful and pagan thieves in Ocean’s 11, 12, and 13 who rip off the major rip-offs. There is enough of God’s truth in Ocean’s to attract us—the question is whether we will allow ourselves to be influenced by the other aspects of the movies!

For a completely different perspective, consider the movie Amazing Grace that came out a couple of years ago. The movie highlighted the righteous struggle against the slave trade waged by British evangelicals like William Wilberforce. Wilberforce sought to serve the God who had redeemed him by giving his adult life in the battle to ban slavery throughout the British Empire—a battle which was eventually won. Amazing Grace was a wonderful depiction of God’s truth and God’s kingdom—all men are created equal by God, regardless of race, culture, or status. No man should be enslaved or oppressed by another. This is God’s truth, powerfully demonstrated in Amazing Grace. God’s Kingdom is about bringing God’s truth to bear in our midst—again, a reality shown in the movie.

Philippians 4:8-9 encourages us to fill our minds with such things.
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

So these are four questions that I want us to ponder together. How does this affect me, and my walk with God? What behaviors does it promote or present as normal? What philosophy or worldview does it promote or present as normal? How (if at all) does this reflect God’s truth or God’s Kingdom?

Rabbi Blumenthal and the Resurrection of Jesus

2010-09-15T08:01:00.001-06:00

Yesterday I received an email pointing me to an article arguing against the resurrection of Jesus Christ, posted by an orthodox (I think) Jewish Rabbi. His article is here: http://is.gd/fauaP

What follows is the emailed response I sent - certainly not an exhaustive or comprehensive critique, but brief and to the point. ...

I will pick out just one point in Blumenthal's article to critique:

"Another interesting factor that comes to light when examining the various sightings of Jesus, is the point that the only ones who testified that they saw him were people who were already totally devoted to him. Even among the devotees, the Christian scriptures report that there was an element of doubt concerning the truth of the resurrection story."

On this point he is just plain wrong. The Apostle Paul was certainly not someone who was "already totally devoted to him." And yet we have Paul testify in 1 Corinthians 15, that he is included in the list of those who saw the risen Christ (along with, I should mention, James, the brother of Jesus, who was also NOT a follower of Jesus during his lifetime). To push further along those lines, 1 Corinthians dates from the early 50s, and the tradition which it cites is generally understood (by skeptics as well as evangelicals) to date back to the early to mid-30s - that is, within 5 years of Jesus' death. If one only considers the testimony of the Gospels, then the Rabbi would be correct; but one has to take Paul's epistles into account, too. And Paul is clearly both: (a) a professing eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus; and (b) a virulent opponent of the early Church. For more on this type of argument, see Gary Habermas & Mike Licona's "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" (2004); or Gary Habermas' chapters in "God is Great, God is Good" (edited by William Lane Craig and Chad Meister, 2009) and "Contending With Christianity's Critics" (edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, 2009).

OK, one more point to pick on -

"The problem with this argument is that the devotion of the disciples preceded the resurrection story. It seems that the devotion to their leader produced the resurrection story and not the other way around. The way the Christian Scriptures describe the devotion of Jesus’ disciples it would almost be surprising if there were no resurrection story. Does this mean that the disciples were preaching a deliberate lie? Not necessarily. There is no way of knowing today at what point in time was it that the resurrection story came to be accepted by the followers of Jesus. It is possible that it took years for the story to develop until it was actually believed in a literal sense. It may have started with reports of visions, which over the course of time came to be spoken of as actual sightings."

Yes, the devotion of the disciples precedes the resurrection. However, faith in Jesus as Messiah was demonstrably incapable of producing faith in Jesus' bodily resurrection. N. T. Wright's massive study ("The Resurrection of the Son of God", 2003) spends several hundred pages demonstrating that first-century Judaism had no conception of a dying and rising Messiah. Resurrection had always been understood to refer to a general resurrection of all the righteous at the end of time (the Day of the Lord); there was no place within the various Jewish worldviews for a one-of-a-kind resurrection such as came to be proclaimed of Jesus. Furthermore, we have the creedal statements in 1 Cor. 15, as well as the record of early Christian proclamation in the Book of Acts, which makes it abundantly clear that belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ was not only a component, but a central feature of the young church's preaching.

Response to Common Sense Atheism's Response to 'Does God Exist?'

2010-09-12T13:48:00.001-06:00

Five months ago, Apologetics 315 published a series of blog essays on the question, “Is Christianity True?” I submitted a brief essay on the existence of God (Does God Exist?) as a prelude to the series. After all, if there is no God, it is somewhat irrelevant to argue for the existence of God. The blog essays have also been released on iTunes and as an e-book (also available from http://apologetics315.blogspot.com). There was considerable interaction and discussion following the publication of each essay – from Christians of various stripes as well as skeptics and atheists of various stripes. It was a wonderful exercise in apologetic dialogue. Apparently, the essay series also attracted Luke’s attention, from ‘commonsenseatheism’. He has just begun publishing blog essays promoted as ‘refutations’ of the original Apologetics 315 essays. On Saturday, he released the first essay, his response to my original essay. You can read his full response here - http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=11041

I have no intention of entering into a lengthy call-and-response, but nonetheless I think it is worthwhile to respond to some of the points that Luke raises – several of them are insightful and worthy of deep consideration. I do not propose to give full answers to them (any more than I intended to give full versions of any of the arguments I provided in my original essay) – but hopefully enough food for thought.

(1) Luke disapproves of my quotation of Ecclesiastes, insisting that “Ecclesiastes actually says life is meaningless with God.” I would argue that the author of Ecclesiastes speaks throughout of his attempt to find joy, satisfaction, purpose, pleasure, and fulfillment in every which way possible – and yet finds it all ultimately disappointing. How does the book conclude? “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.” (Eccl. 12:13-14) His citation of Eccl. 3:14 does not demonstrate what he wants it to. Let me re-emphasize: Ecclesiastes tells of the meaningless of life without God, the fruitlessness of human pursuits; it does not argue that life is meaningless even with God.

(2) I must say that I would share Alonzo Fyfe’s disdain and rebellion if that was how I pictured God – but his picture of God is inimical to mine. Fortunately (from my perspective), God calls us to “promote cooperation and well-being over conflict and suffering,” so we do not need to try to “thwart” God in such efforts. Nonetheless, there may be something concrete to the expressed intention to work “against the purpose of my Creator.” Of course, one cannot thwart a non-existent deity, nor work against the purposes of a Creator who didn’t make the heavens and the earth; but from my perspective, the human condition today is indeed one of rebellion against the good purposes and intentions of our loving Creator. Be that as it may …

(3) Luke did not appreciate my ‘existential argument’ for God’s existence – if you followed the dialogue on Apologetics 315, you will note that several others did not either. However, most countered my argument without calling it “shameless, cult-like, … lies … [and] childish,” and suggesting that I (and Christianity) thrive on “insecurity … poverty and ignorance and fear and instability and risk.” I wonder whether Luke would insist that everyone who embrace Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is “insecure” or “superstitious” or otherwise somehow deficient (morally? intellectually?).

(4) Luke asserts (without justification or supporting evidence) that “The poorest nations in the world are the most religious.” He concludes that when people have “stability and safety and education and health care and job security,” they no longer “need gods.” I’m sure that comes as quite a shock to the tens of millions of Americans (and the millions of Canadians) who have both “stability and safety and education and health care and job security” and a vibrant Christian faith. Indeed, it comes as quite a shock to me! Let me also briefly note the rising prosperity of China, which is contemporaneous with the massive growth of the indigenous Chinese church. Furthermore, even though traditional Christianity has been on the decline across the Western world for the past two centuries, there has been a simultaneous rise in alternative religious expressions – paganism, new Age, breakaway Christian sects, Eastern mysticism, etc. The religious state of the world does not support Luke’s cherished secularization thesis; indeed, a rising number of sociologists of religion (generally not friendly to Christianity, I might add) argue (as I do) that religion (including the desire to know and touch the transcendent) is inherent to humanity. I would also point you to the classic work “Amused to Death” (set to music by ex-Pink Floyd singer Roger Waters as well, I might add), which brings Blaise Pascal’s penetrating insights (from the mid-1600s) into the 20th and 21st centuries – modern man (in the stable, educated, wealthy west) is seeking ever-greater escapism and diversion. Oh – and as an aside, Luke asserts that I set forth an “empirically false” claim, but then does nothing to demonstrate its falsity.

(5) Luke sets two arguments up as equally false. On the one side is his “yearning to be the next Matthew Bellamy.” On the other side is what I posited as the (nearly-)universal human yearning for eternal life. [I also posited the universal human yearning to know and to touch the divine reality.] He concludes: “Wishful thinking does not indicate truth.” That certainly applies to the first side of the equation (as well as my own childhood yearning to be Wayne Gretzky), but he does absolutely nothing to show how it applies to the second … because it doesn’t. The universal human desire to know and to touch the divine is not wishful thinking; it is real. Yes, we can deny it is there, we can seek to suppress and quench it. But it rises up unbidden. It is a natural desire – it comes even if nobody teaches it to us. Desiring to be like Matthew Bellamy, on the other hand … well, that’s not natural. Nor is it even remotely universal. The desire for God and the desire for eternal life are much more like the desire for sex and the desire for food than they are like the desire to be like somebody else – that was the heart of my argument. Taking these first points together, the experiential argument for God’s existence remains intact.

(6) Luke does not spend much time on the Kalam Cosmological argument – for those who desire to read someone who does, I recommend William Lane Craig’s work on the subject. But four brief comments are in order:
[a] Luke very misleadingly suggests that the A-theory of time is false, and that its falsity is old news. That assertion is just plain wrong: there is by no means a consensus (from any group, physicists, philosophers or otherwise) that the B-theory of time is true and the A-theory false. I’m not sure whether he is simply unaware of that, but I am honestly not sure how he could have arrived at the conclusion that the A-theory of time has been ‘disproven’ or the B-theory of time ‘proven’ or ‘established’.
[b] Even if the A-theory of time was mistaken (which it is not, in my humble opinion – rather, it is by far superior explanatorily and conceptually; at any rate, Luke has done nothing to convince anyone it is mistaken), Luke has not indicated how that would pose a problem for my argument.
[c] In a severe understatement, Luke admits that “it’s hard to see how the universe could be self-caused or a necessary being.” But then he adds that positing God as the creator is somehow a “far worse problem,” again without showing how this is the case. Naked assertions are pretty easy to make; substantiating them is much harder – but Luke has done only the former, not the latter.
[d] Luke accuses the KCA of employing “intuitions and language in a slippery and sneaky way,” but yet again does not demonstrate how. I fail to see the power of his argument – the rhetorical name-calling is quite effective when preaching to the choir, but Luke has certainly not given me any reason to take this part of his response seriously.

(7) I’m not sure why Luke wants to be shown “evidence that life has intrinsic value;” I take this to be self-evident to reflective human beings. Furthermore, I wonder whether there could ever be anything that anyone would accept as empirical evidence that life does indeed have intrinsic value. Luke is simply setting up an impossible ideal. Neither have I ever seen any evidence that ‘love’ exists, but I don’t doubt that one bit either. It’s a sad world that never embraces the insights of human intuition and feeling.

(8) Is fine-tuning an air-tight argument for the existence of God? No. Did I present it as such? No. Does the exquisite fine-tuning of the universe make more sense within a theistic universe than an atheistic universe? Yes - and even agnostic (atheist?) physicists like Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking admit that. That’s the simple extent of the argument. On both the Kalam and fine-tuning side of the cosmological argument, then, Luke has not effectively countered my claims – the argument stands intact.

(9) Luke properly constructs my moral argument, but incorrectly identifies the way that we know objective morality does exist. Yes, it is true (as I said) that “deep down everyone knows that morality is objective;” but that’s not where the argument ends. The deep intuition that we all have that morality is objective constantly wells up in our actions and words. If you want to read more on that particular topic, check out my blog post on the moral argument for the existence of God - http://tawapologetics.blogspot.com/2010/03/god-goodness-i-moral-signpost-of-gods.html Luke, along with everyone else, theist or not, acknowledges in his words and actions that he too believes in objective morality – indeed, he believes that “cooperation” and “well-being” are objectively better than “conflict” and “suffering”. I agree whole-heartedly, and would insist that those who disagree have consciously or unconsciously repressed the moral sensitivities that God created us with.

(10) I like Luke’s example of the “giant alien” telling us that moral sensibilities were grounded in the alien! Good stuff. Of course there is a qualitative difference between the giant alien and the Christian God. God is not just ‘out there’ or ‘in the sky’ – rather, he is our benevolent Creator. He made us; the alien didn’t. Again, the example is amusing, but it is not applicable. And as an aside, I haven’t seen the Euthyphro dilemma as a problem for years. So on the moral argument for God, again, Luke has left my argument intact.

Just to summarize, then: I presented experiential, cosmological, and moral arguments that point towards the existence of God. While Luke shared various thoughts, and made numerous assertions, he has done nothing to refute any of those three arguments.

(11) I appreciate Luke’s warning against bowing down “to your feelings and intuitions.” I want to close with a similar warning. Don’t be moved by strong rhetoric and moving words alone. Only accept arguments if there is substance and content within them. Use logic, critical thinking, science, and yes, even well-grounded common sensical intuition to evaluate the arguments that are laid before you.

(12) On a personal note. Luke – you have some good things to say; while I do not agree with you on much, it is obvious that you have thought things through. You’re an intelligent and articulate man. I found it unfortunate that you frequently descend to name-calling and mudslinging in your response. (I hope I haven’t done the same in my response to your response, and if I do come across as at all condescending or dismissive, please point it out to me so that I can apologize.) I understand that many people (atheist, Christian, and otherwise) prefer to hear their apologetic champions ridicule and demean the other side. “If you can make fun of my opponent and make them look stupid, then it helps me feel better about my intellectual position.” It’s an effective rhetorical strategy. But I am more interested in dialogue and pursuit of truth, and I find that respect is more fruitful. Furthermore, rhetorical name-calling may help keep the choir convinced, but it’s not likely to persuade those who are not already committed to your perspective.