A Christian's Deliberations

Hell and Theology

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:54:00 +0000

If so be that it is righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that afflict you, and to you that are afflicted rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all them that believed (because our testimony unto you was believed) in that day (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10).

In the past year there has been a significant controversy within many parts of "Christendom" in regards to hell, its existence and nature, discussed in terms of Rob Bell's Love Wins. Yes, I know that I am late coming into the game, so to speak; nevertheless, I have had an opportunity to read Love Wins along with Francis Chan's Erasing Hell and some other resources in regards to this issue.

Many of the pertinent issues have been addressed well in other places; I especially recommend Erasing Hell toward that end. What has interested me is just how much we learn about our theology based upon our understanding of hell.

The very word "hell" and our reactions to it tell a lot about our theological inclinations. Some shudder at the concept are convinced that it is the bloodthirsty concept of some less developed society. Others prove very comfortable with the idea, and most often are quite sure that it is for all sorts of other people and not themselves. These are the extremes, and most everyone else falls somewhere in the middle.

These theological inclinations come out when arguments about hell are presented. On the one side, God's love (or, perhaps better, human conceptions regarding what God's love must be) is maximized, suggesting that His love for mankind demands that hell either cannot exist or cannot exist permanently for whatever reason. On the other side, God's wrath is maximized, leaving many to wonder how anyone could ever be rescued from it.

Therefore one's view of hell says a lot about one's theology, and understandably so. Hell is one of the most challenging and contentious aspects of Scripture, not only about the place itself and its function, but what it says about God in terms of His love and wrath, justice and mercy. Since the Bible speaks of God's love, God's wrath, God's justice, and God's mercy, it becomes very easy to get distorted and overemphasize some of these to the detriment of others. This exacerbates the problem, for very often believers are tempted to react to the distortion of others and themselves distort in the opposite way. Finding balance is hard enough on most issues; finding balance when it comes to how we understand who God is and the presence of hell is that much harder!

This is my greatest criticism of Rob Bell's presentation of hell: it demonstrates a distorted theology. Much can be read about God's love in Love Wins, but there are few, if any, references to God's wrath or God's justice. Although I am quire sure that Bell is aware of the passages in the Bible speaking about God's exhortation for Israel to commit ethnic cleansing (1 Samuel 15), the swift execution of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-13), and even discussion of God's wrath as poured out in the Judgment (Romans 2:4-11, 12:19-21), but there's no hint of wrestling with or grappling with these realities in Love Wins.

I will grant that there is plenty of bad theology and bad eschatology out there, and there are plenty of people whose view of hell and what goes on there is more influenced by popular cultural theories than what is in Scripture. There are people who seem to revel in God's wrath; one has to wonder if such people have soberly considered Amos 5:18-20!

But if theology is going to be a useful practice, it must be based not in what I think or whatever "groupthink" comes up with but what God has revealed about Himself. Rob Bell knows this and speaks frequently about his opponents and "what kind of god" it is they believe in. But the same criticism can and must be leveled at him as well (as well it should be for all of us, and a good corrective for all of us): is the "god" presented in Love Wins (or in my theology, your theology, etc.) the Creator God who revealed Himself to Israel and through Jesus, or is it an idol that may have some resemblance to the God revealed in the Bible but full of distortions based upon culture, society, and other factors?

It would probably be good to attempt to explain what Bell is trying to say about hell. This is not easy to do since he never comes out and provides a full explanation. From my attempt to understand the book, it seems that he understands hell mostly in terms of all of the pain, misery, and injustice experienced on earth. He seems to think it honorable of himself that he says that there is a perfectly good word to describe all of the evil in the world, and that word is "hell." It does seem that Bell believes that there will be a place in the next world that is separated from God; he suggests that most people in that place will then realize how terrible it was and is to be separated from God and that most, if not all, will desire to be reconciled back to God. He asks whether God will say "no" to such a person in that condition (and we're supposed to believe that God will not tell such a person "no"), and thus believes that everyone will get another chance in the afterlife to be reconciled back to God. This, in his estimation, is how "love wins."

There are a lot of evils on earth; there's a reason why people speak of "hell on earth." Nevertheless, the better word to describe such things is hellish, not hell. Jesus is perfectly aware of the problems of pain and evil in life, but when He speaks of the condemned, he speaks of their fate as one where the worm does not die and the fire is unquenched (Mark 9:47-48), a fiery furnace or the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50, 25:30; it is worth noting that when Bell describes what Jesus says about hell, he focuses on Jesus' use of gehenna but entirely ignores the other images Jesus uses to describe the same place). To speak of earthly evils as "hell" is not to use the term properly; it is to dangerously minimize the power and the import of the term. What happens on earth is bad, but it is only hellish. From everything we gain in Scripture, the actual hell is far, far worse!

I found Bell's question about whether God would say "no" to people who would want to reconcile with Him yet find themselves in hell to be a desperate plea; in fact, the minute I read it, I thought of the following passage:

"Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open to us.'
But he answered and said, "Verily I say unto you, I know you not."
Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour" (Matthew 25:11-13).

Here we have an instance of people who wish to get that "second chance," but they come to a shut door.

One can only wonder how Bell would reconcile such a question with Paul's:

And reckonest thou this, O man, who judgest them that practise such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? (Romans 2:3-4).

Why would Paul be worried about anyone despising God's forbearance and longsuffering unless he envisioned a time when such foebearance and longsuffering would cease?

And, of course, there remains Hebrews 9:27:

And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment.

Bell is convinced that all the passages that speak regarding God "reconciling all things to Himself" means that all people at some point will be fully reconciled to Him, and yet without that premise, the entire concept of a post-judgment chance at reconciliation falls flat. There is no Scripture that speaks about it; all the Scriptures speaking about the Judgment have an air of finality about them.

The implications are worse. People are carnal; we have numerous examples of well-intentioned doctrines being distorted by people to justify their immorality. In Bell's doctrine, it would not matter if one lived completely sinfully on earth without repentance; they could receive reconciliation after the Judgment. Bell would not advocate for this, but it won't take too long for people to draw that conclusion from what he has said. And, if it is possible to be reconciled back to God after the Judgment, is it also possible to fall away from Him after the Judgment? Where do we hear of these matters? Why are they being introduced?

We have no reason to believe that God's reconciling all things to Himself will involve the reformation of all persons and entities who are in rebellion against Him; in fact, we know as much, based upon Matthew 25:41 and 2 Peter 2:4: Satan and his angels will experience eternal fire and we have no indication that they will be reconciled back to God. Therefore we have no reason to believe that those cast into that fire with Satan and his angels will be reconciled back to God, either.

All of this has been well-covered by others in more effective ways. I do find it interesting, however, that the one thing Bell does not seem to analyze or question much is this "love" which wins.

And this is the trap: it's our assumptions that often get the better of us. In the entire book there is a tone that says that God's love is incompatible with the "standard views" on hell.

Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Love never faileth (1 Corinthians 13:4-8a).

Bell understands that coercion and compulsion are incompatible with love; in that sense, he is not fully "universalist." He understands that God will not coerce or compel anyone into believing in Him.

Nevertheless, Bell has seemingly ignored or missed the aspects of love that are not charitable to his case: love does not rejoice in unrighteousness (and Greek adikia refers to injustice as much as to unrighteousness). Love rejoices in the truth. Therefore, that which is unrighteous and/or unjust and against truth is against love. Love cannot embrace both truth and unrighteousness/injustice. Yes, it is true that love does not "take account of evil,: but that means that love is not resentful, and God is not resentful: He does not act out of personal animosity.

If love does not rejoice in unrighteousness/injustice, justice and righteousness must maintain a prominent place in love. This is made perfectly evident throughout the Prophets and their insistence on Israel following the ways of righteousness and justice. In Malachi 2:17, the Jews cry out, wanting to know where the God of justice has gone.

God is love, yes, but God also upholds justice and righteousness (Psalm 33:5). This is a necessary aspect of theology because it is a necessary aspect of God. Yes, it is difficult to define justice clearly, but there is agreement that whenever evil is perpetrated without consequence, injustice has taken place.

This is why so much emphasis is placed on the day of Judgment in Scripture. It is a warning, yes, but also a promise: there will be a day of reckoning. This was already expected by the Jews (cf. the Day of the LORD, also Daniel 12:1-2); it should not pass without notice how often it is emphasized in the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles (e.g. Acts 10:42, 17:30-31). With the Judgment comes the consequences for lifestyle, as Romans 2:5-11, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, etc. make clear.

Granted, too much emphasis on justice would mean all of us are going to hell; there is a place for God's mercy and grace as expressed through Jesus (Romans 5:6-11). This also renders rejection of some concept of Jesus as paying the penalty for sinners untenable: after all, if there is no concept of justice in God's saving act through Jesus, how can the Judgment have any pretense of justice? If there was no penalty paid for some sinners to be justified, how is it just to force other sinners to pay the penalty for their sin? If there is no concept of justice in the atonement, how can anyone argue against what Bell is suggesting?

In all of these things, balance is essential. God's love demands that injustice be addressed; repentance and change is ideal, but condemnation is a very real and just sentence as well. The Scriptures are quite clear that Judgment involves what we have done in the flesh: our chance for repentance and finding life in Jesus come in this world, and once we die, we've exhausted our chances. That does not mean that God is now somehow unjust or unloving; He gave us plenty of chances, did He not? At some point, God will say "enough." Who are we to argue with Him?

And that's the issue in the end. God is who God is. We either accept that or reject it. There's every temptation in the world to accept the aspects of God we like and try to refashion all of God's more "negative" attributes into something more socially acceptable. Israel did the same thing: it was great that YHWH rescued them from slavery, but who could serve a god without an image? And so they made a golden calf and called it YHWH and felt better about themselves. But the calf was not YHWH. YHWH cannot be so easily fashioned into a god of our own liking.

He lets us do it because He loves us; He does not coerce or compel us to accept Him as He is. We must seek after Him (Hebrews 11:6), and He desires to be found, being quite nearby (Acts 17:26-28).

There are some aspects to God and Scripture that are difficult. What the Scripture says about the fate of the unbelievers and the wicked is difficult to swallow and hard. Understanding how God could command Israel to commit ethnic cleansing is hard. There are a lot of things we will find out about God which we may not agree with and perhaps we might strongly dislike.

We don't have to like it. But we have to confess that it is true.

Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God (John 6:68-69).

It is very easy to make an idol out of knowledge, understanding, and preference. We will never know everything, understand everything, or even like everything about God in Christ, but that does not mean that we reject whatever we do not know, understand, or prefer. This is not a call for us to presume that we know the answer even when we do not know the question, or to get so lost in the challenges of many of the questions that we lose heart. Instead, we are called upon to trust. To have faith. To accept what God has revealed about Himself, us, and the fate of everyone. We may not always know everything, understand it all, or even like it, but we can know that Jesus has the words of eternal life, and He is the Holy One of God. Let us be rooted in that faith, and allow Jesus' message to inform our understanding of God.

ELDV

BR: "Family Shepherds" by Voddie Baucham Jr.

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:14:00 +0000

Even though most people would still agree that the family is an important aspect of life, the quality of family life--and the instruction transmitted by parents to children--has certainly diminished in recent generations. This is likely the result of many trends, religious and secular, that have come together at this time.

In Family Shepherds, Voddie Baucham Jr. gets to the heart of these challenging trends and provides direction for husbands and fathers when it comes to fostering a Biblical environment in the home where spiritual truths are taught in word and deed.

In the book he describes the challenges coming from society: feminism, worldly parenting values, educational issues, entertainment, the expectation of the career as being one's primary form of identity, and so on. He also speaks of the problems bedeviling many churches, especially as it involves "youth ministry." He shows persuasively how "youth ministry" perpetuates the specialization trend to the detriment of the father and the family: however consciously or not, people end up trusting "the professionals" to provide the spiritual direction when the child will only really learn it from the parent.

Baucham Jr. seeks to demonstrate, from Scripture, a better way forward, emphasizing the role of the man as the shepherd of the family, using Christ as the example for his life as a husband, father, in the career, and in the church. He encourages the use of catechism to instruct children in the faith, and speaks again, as he often does, of the value of "family worship." He places strong emphasis on church membership and participation in the local congregation. There is much of value in this instruction.

In such an otherwise excellent book it is disappointing to have much with which to disagree. The book is permeated with the author's strong Calvinist position: his description of the dispute regarding free will and divine grace is one-sided, still fighting the full Pelagian strawman, seemingly unaware of the perspective's Biblical deficiencies. It would not be as much of an issue if it were not for his full application of Calvinist principles to children; one would get the impression from the book that the author believes children are little devils. There seems to be no grappling with the lack of full conscious capacity with children and what that might mean when it comes to how one views children and works with children. Puritan sources feature strongly in the book, sometimes in interesting ways, but often to perpetuate some of the more wrong-headed views in the book. The author associates Sunday as the day of assembly with the Sabbath, something not found in Scripture and rather directly contradicted therein (Colossians 2:14-17, Hebrews 4:1-11). He also strongly emphasizes how a local congregation ought to engage in "missions of mercy" on a congregational level but never provides the Biblical support for the congregation being involved in such a work (probably because there is none); strangely, he quotes the one passage that shows how such is not God's intention (1 Timothy 5:16, making a delineation between who the church should support and who the individual should support).

The theological challenges deriving from the author's Baptist background are all that hinders me from providing a strong commendation for the book. The concept is excellent; instruction to men to be the family shepherds they ought to be (and encouragement for single women with children toward the same end) is profitable; if only the book were not so suffused with Calvinism.

ELDV

Kindle galley edition: the galley condition was quite disappointing; no Scripture references were fully provided with chapter and verse to consult the Bible to make sure that the author's claims matched up with the citation, and the galley edition did not render "ff" whenever it would come up in a word (e.g. "offered" was "o ered"). Such made reading quite a challenge.

BR: "When the Bottom Drops Out" by Robert Bugh

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 05:19:00 +0000

We Westerners, particularly in America, tend to have it pretty good when it comes to our existence. Whether we know it or not, most of us live rather charmed lives. The evils and difficulties of life that are front and center before so many-- illness, famine, oppression, and other such trials-- rarely come upon us. While there are many benefits to such a life, what happens when things start going wrong? What do we do when the "bottom drops out"?

Robert Bugh recently experienced this type of trial when he lost both his best friend and then soon after his wife to cancer in the prime of life. He recounts his story and some of the lessons he has learned in When the Bottom Drops Out: Finding Grace in the Depths of Disappointment.

The book describes first the death of his friend Tom and then his wife Carol and the lessons he learned throughout the process. He does well at illustrating stories of overcoming difficulties and standing firm in the face of challenge in Scripture with Joseph, Abraham, and Jeremiah. He describes the challenges experienced during the periods of the illnesses, the immediate after-effects of grief, the nuances of change vs. transition and how to handle both (with the Exodus story as a paradigm), and concludes with his later marriage to his best friend's widow and the challenges inherent in forming viable stepfamilies.

The author is Evangelical with strong Calvinist flavors but at least recognizes the critical need for growth, development, and obedience in faith. Much of his Biblical commentary and exposition is sound but places a lot of trust in the proposition that Jeremiah wrote Lamentations.

There is value in the book in terms of understanding that life was never promised to be all roses and cherries; sometimes an author's personal journey can be helpful to people in distress to see that there can be a way forward while holding firm to the faith. At times the book does get overly personal, which can be good but it also can limit the scope of the book. For one seeking to come to grips with the mortal illness of a loved one, this book has great value; for others seeking to come to grips with other tragedies, this book may not always hit the mark.

Nevertheless, any message that reinforces our need to trust in God in the face of trials and difficulties, declaring that difficulties will come whether we like it or not, and therefore our need to prepare for such events is useful. Americans today often live in a fantasy world where everything should be great, and when things go wrong, it must be God's fault, maintaining a superficial faith that cannot withstand any such challenge. Problems in life is no evidence of being forsaken by God; problems in life happen, they try us and test us, and whether or not we continue to believe in God says far more about our level of trust in God than about God Himself. The Bible is replete with stories of people in far more dire straits than ourselves finding sustenance, strength, and ultimate deliverance through their trust in God. Few today can grapple with God with the questions of evil and suffering in complete faith like Job; faith seems to be the first casualty in such questions. It need not be, but it will demand the promotion of a more robust faith.

Trials and difficulties will come; faith will be tested. Will it stand or not?

ELDV

*--book received as part of early review program

BR: "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy," by Eric Metaxas

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:28:00 +0000

Dietrich Bonhoeffer is one of the towering figures looming over modern Christianity. His seemingly prophetic perception of the evils of National Socialism and his principled stand that led to his execution remain a powerful witness against the evils fostered upon the world through the unbridled excesses manifest in Nazi Germany.

Much more has been written about Bonhoeffer than Bonhoeffer ever wrote; nevertheless, Eric Metaxas has written an accessible if long biography of him entitled Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Martyr. Prophet. Spy. Through it one receives a rather comprehensive view of Bonhoeffer: his family, his upbringing, the theological climate in which he worked, descriptions of the historical events that led to the circumstances in which he found himself, and a decent attempt to synthesize the theology Bonhoeffer developed.

As an introduction to Bonhoeffer's world, work, and theology, Metaxas' work succeeds admirably. He does well at contextualizing Bonhoeffer as a brilliant twentieth century German whose "practical," more Barthian theology challenged both the "liberal" and the "conservative" viewpoints, and who seemed to above all seek to live the life exemplified in Jesus. In a mostly anti-Semitic world, he and his family would stand with the right of the Jews to live and exist as they had previously. When other "Christians" attempted to accommodate and/or appease National Socialism, he perceived what it was all about and called for rejecting it. Bonhoeffer perceived, to some extent, Jesus' goal for the transnational Kingdom of God beyond most of his fellow Germans. And then there was the conspiracy against Hitler: the most controversial aspect of Bonhoeffer's life and work.

There is a reason why I have said that it succeeds admirably as an introduction: especially in his historical analysis, Metaxas has a tendency to oversimplify and even become a bit too apologetic for both Germany and Bonhoeffer. Furthermore, Metaxas' admiration for Bonhoeffer seems to be a bit overmuch; the work does not seem to suggest much criticism of Bonhoeffer for any reason. This is understandable to an extent: since the book is directed mostly at Americans, it is useful to get a chance to see the "other side" and try to see why the Nazis took over. Nevertheless, the apology provided throughout--"we did not take Hitler seriously; we could not imagine that he could be that evil"-- is a catch-22. It sounds as if something someone would say to maintain a final last shred of dignity after being presented with the clear culpability and thorough evil taking place at that time, a kind of historical revisionism to feel better. If it is actually true and legitimate (and it seems to be to some extent, at least in terms of the view of other nations toward Hitler), then it is in many ways even worse: people come out looking much more foolish, stupid, and naive this way. A more nuanced position would be more frank about the German predilections toward all of the things that ended up happening based upon the entrenched nationalism, Social Darwinism, and memory of the humiliation of WWI still very much alive at that time.

Metaxas demonstrates how Hitler and his companions were more influenced by Nietzsche than Christianity and the outright hostility toward Christianity felt by many of the Nazis in high command. Their own words confess their adherence to many scientific dogmas of the day and how they used those dogmas to justify their actions. Ultimately, this level of evil cannot be easily explained, and to that end it is easy to sympathize with Metaxas: how can you explain how Hitler came to be?

That same surface treatment also causes difficulty in terms of the discussion of the conspiracy. For me, this has always been the most vexing challenge of Bonhoeffer: one wants to sympathize with his cause, understanding the great evil being perpetrated by Hitler, and one wants to sympathize with his arguments about how all of the deception and work done in an attempt to kill Hitler is justified because of the greater good of getting rid of him.

But the conspiracy does not succeed. Most of those who participated were executed. Ultimately, all would have been better off had they not attempted the execution; the Allies were already on the ground in France when the attempt was actually made, and the war would be over within the year. Yes, it is easy to make that declaration in hindsight, but when we are being faced with a theological question like this, it is worth consideration: whereas Bonhoeffer's ultimate goal perhaps was right, did that justify his methodology?

These are major challenges, and easy answers do not help. The tone of Metaxas' biography assumes Bonhoeffer is right in believing that what he is doing is what God wills and wants him to do. To challenge that premise is made out to be dangerous; after all, it is easy to play "armchair quarterback" and criticize his actions and thought process in peace and security when he was in great danger and acting boldly. But this may be the ultimate difficulty of Bonhoeffer's execution: he was denied the opportunity to sit down in peacetime, reflect upon his behavior and how everything eventually took place, and try to make sense of it all. We will never know whether he would confess that in the heat of the conflict he went too far or whether he would stand by everything he did until the bitter end. Therefore, we are left with his theology as it was tested in the middle of intense conflict, and its condition is argued in that situation.

This is not an attempt to besmirch Bonhoeffer. He perceived the great challenge to historic Christianity that was afoot in the twentieth century, and he stood firm against it. He can be embraced as the conscience of a nation that almost entirely lost it in the war. His challenge to Christian organizations and individuals to take what Jesus said and did seriously and attempt to live similarly in their own day and age is exactly what needed to be declared, and much that is good in theology has developed in his shadow.

But Bonhoeffer was not perfect; of all people, he would be the first to admit that. Therefore, his theology and actions, especially in terms of resistance against the state, are things to be discussed, questioned, challenged, and debated, and not necessarily to be wholeheartedly embraced. A good dose of "Lincoln's theology" might present an entirely different view of the matter, viewing Hitler and WWII in similar terms as Lincoln viewed the Civil War. Until the cup of wrath was fully drunk, perhaps, there was not intended to be relief for anyone. Ultimately, only God knows.

Could Bonhoeffer have engaged in resistance against the Nazis without the deception and the conspiracy and not just remain in God's will but be better aligned with it in order to see the ultimate end as God was establishing it? This is the question; it has always been the question; it will remain the question.

Yet this is beyond the scope of the book, which remains a good introduction to Bonhoeffer, and hopefully many will read it and go on to consider his other books.

ELDV

*--book received as part of early review program

BR: "Rumors of God" by Darren Whitehead and Jon Tyson

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:08:00 +0000

It's no secret that one of the most maligned "institutions" of our day is the church. Most people have a jaded view of the church. Some of that can be blamed on people's misunderstandings and misapprehensions; far more of the blame falls upon the people who comprise churches for failing to come anywhere near the New Testament expectation of how the church is to function. It is one thing to be a fallible, sinful human being; it is quite another to continually willfully distort what God established.

Nevertheless, God continues to expect His people to associate with one another on the basis of their shared walk in Christ (1 John 1:7). And congregations of God's people, for all of their faults, still do provide blessings and have the opportunity to provide many more.

Such is the premise of a new book by Darren Whitehead and Jon Tyson, Rumors of God: Experience the Kind of Faith You've Only Heard About. The authors are Australians who happen to work at large Evangelical churches in the Chicago suburbs and in New York City, respectively.

The book serves as both critique and encouragement for Christians in their personal faith and in their participation within the Body of Christ. Subjects addressed include finding true life in Christ; the insidious influence of marketing, advertising, and consumerism, and their impact on believers in terms of how they view themselves, their goals in life, and where they direct their resources; what it means to truly depend on God and His love; great emphasis on grace; the challenge of individualism and God's mandate for community; the need to work for justice; and the hope that is provided through Christ.

Many of the premises of the book are similar to material that is being popularized within Evangelicalism, particularly to the younger generations. The influence of Timothy Keller can be ascertained here; much of what is said is entirely consistent with David Platt's Radical books, and Gabe Lyons of Q ideas is one of the people who writes praise for the book. In this sense most of the material is fully consistent with the recent emphases on faith, love, grace, and justice within Evangelical Christianity.

There are some interesting nuggets in the book that go beyond what some others have written. The demonstration that Greek dikaiosune, often translated "righteousness," also incorporates the idea of justice (thus fusing the Hebrew tsdaqa, "righteousness," and mishpat, "justice") is valuable information and does change the way one views many New Testament passages. The critique of marketing and consumerism not just in terms of where we expend our resources but also in terms of forming one's imagination and goals in life is also rather profound in application.

And I would be remiss to not note some challenges. As Evangelicals, there is evidence of the faith only and imputed righteousness positions, although their discussion of grace and the human condition, as written, is Biblically consistent. In chapter 6, the authors use Jonah and the Assyrians to discuss the challenges of forgiveness and prejudice. The imagined scenario of Hitler becoming repentant for killing people and thus being able to be forgiven was quite good, and the intent of the authors in the use of the Jonah example is right on. Nevertheless, in their discussion of the Jonah story, it seems that they use later historical events to describe why Jonah feels as he does about the Assyrians; they also speak of Assyrians moving in and marrying Israelite women so as to create the Samaritan ethnic group in Israel, based on Shane Hipps and Dan Carlin as sources. I'm still trying to figure out how one extrapolates that from 2 Kings 17; it would seem from 2 Kings 17 that the Assyrians almost fully exile all Israel from its land and import foreigners who learn of YHWH from a Levite sent back to Israel by Assyria (2 Kings 17:23-41). Perhaps the information comes from Josephus; but how can one separate truth from propaganda? Granted, 2 Kings 17 is rather prejudiced against the Samaritans, but it at least comes from much closer in time to the events specified than Josephus and whatever Samaritan accounts existed from the first century CE. Chapter 10 is a retelling of the story of Jesus meeting the disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24. The authors make much of a possible connection between the two going to Emmaus and Emmaus as the place where Judas Maccabeus won his great victory over the Seleucids. It is an interesting theory, but entirely uncorroborated; one can imagine a hundred other reasons why the two disciples were going there.

Rumors of God is built on the premise of the "rumor"-- a murmuring, a report that some things might be happening-- and the authors invite the reader to turn the "rumors" regarding God, Jesus, love, hope, grace, justice, generosity, forgiveness, etc. into realities in their lives. Even if one is well-versed in the present emphases in Evangelicalism, this book is still a good reminder of what is really important in life. It maintains a good mixture of encouragement and critique, balancing both the good and the not so good within the current "Christian" environment. Rumors of God will challenge you and hopefully inspire you toward greater faithfulness toward God and living in relationship with Him in obedient service.

Kindle version: I recently obtained a Kindle and received this book in the Kindle edition. I noticed a couple of small editing mistakes, but otherwise the digital edition was well-organized, easily read, and free of major difficulties.

ELDV

*-- book received as part of early review program

CXVIII: Christianity vs. Scientism

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:21:00 +0000

No religion: What was Lennon summoning? For starters, a world without "divine" messengers, like Osama bin Laden, sparking violence. A world where mistakes, like the avoidable loss of life in Hurricane Katrina, would be rectified rather than chalked up to "God's will." Where politicians no longer compete to prove who believes more strongly in the irrational and untenable. Where critical thinking is an ideal. In short, a world that makes sense.

In recent years scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's "DNA." They have produced robust theories, backed by empirical evidence (including "imaging" studies of the brain at work), that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around. And the better we understand the science, the closer we can come to "no heaven...no hell...and no religion too."

Such is the premise of an op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times, entitled "Science and religion: God didn't make man, man made gods" by J. Anderson Thomson and Clare Aukofer. Everything that needs to be said about these individuals, especially the former, is revealed in the attribution center at the end of the article:

J. Anderson Thomson is a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia. He serves as a trustee of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Clare Aukofer is a medical writer. They are the authors of "Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith."

We have recently spoken regarding the waning influence of New Atheism; merely because there is waning influence does not mean that there will be no influence, and more distant still the idea that the challenge of atheism is going away anytime soon. And with this op-ed we see the standard method of operations of such people: they are attempting to pass off their dogma not as a "religious argument," as it really is, but as "informed science." That's the goal of scientism-- to make "religious" claims that somehow get more credence than the "religion" arguments they are trying to counter.

The authors of this piece, of course, would lambast any idea that they are "religious" in any way. They, ostensibly, define "religion" in terms of the belief in a supernatural force or entity, and, for that matter, everything that is done in the name of a supernatural force or entity.

In order to make their purpose palatable-- eradicating the idea of god and religion-- they focus entirely on the negative of religion. They cite two examples-- Osama bin Laden and those who claimed Hurricane Katrina reflected God's will.

Those two examples do make religion look pretty bad. But does this mean that it is better to imagine a world with "no religion"?

What does a world with "no religion" look like? Osama bin Laden would not have a religious ideology to justify his ambitions, perhaps-- but does this prove somehow that he would not have still harbored the same ambitions but would have found another ideology in order to justify them? After all, a world with "no religion" still has Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Pol Pot still in it. A world with "no religion" is also bereft of Jesus of Nazareth, Francis of Assisi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the innumerable people who do good things in the name of "religion." Is that really the world in which people want to live?

The argument may seem profound but ends up being extremely facile. Most "religious" people would entirely agree that Osama bin Laden acted terribly and sinfully; most "religious" people would also agree that it was inappropriate to declare that the devastation brought by Hurricane Katrina represented "God's will." Do the authors really want to argue on the basis of extremes? If so, that means that on the scientism end, the nuclear weapon, and the Holocaust and the persecutions of Stalin and Pol Pot, are representative. Does this mean that science is an entirely polluted affair, since its developments and technologies are so often used to end life and perpetrate oppression? Should we start advocating the elimination of science from our world and our lives?

Of course not. The authors act inappropriately throughout their article to presume that "religion" has only led to evil in the world. Religion can certainly be used to justify evil; so can science, so can nationalism and political ideology, and so can a host of other ideas and practices. That does not make religion, or science, or politics, or nationalism, inherently evil. It says more about the people abusing them than the ideas themselves.

But "religion," as these authors are clearly using the term, is in some ways quite too broad and in important ways not broad enough. It is too broad because it does not differentiate between belief systems and does not take into account the self-critique present in religions like Christianity. Christians see what Osama bin Laden did and those who said that Hurricane Katrina was God's will and see sinful acts and sinful people that by no means represent what God is trying to accomplish in the world through Jesus Christ. Christians will agree with these scientists in saying that "religion" is abused to justify all kinds of evil; nevertheless, Christians understand that this is a distortion of true religion, a lack of understanding of how God would have us to live through the example of His Son Jesus Christ (1 John 2:3-6). These scientists see religion as the problem; Christians more properly see the distortion of religion to serve human ends as the problem.

And Christians are also willing to see the distortion of science to serve a religious dogma also as a problem. At first, many might read such a statement and wonder how it can be, since so many Christians disagree with the current theory of macroevolution on the basis of what many perceive as "religious dogma." But we are really continuing our critique of the definitions of "science" and "religion" as used by these authors. They want to define "religion" broadly, encompassing all supernatural belief systems, but of course do not want to define religion generically as a belief system. Why not? The minute they do so, their own religion-- scientism-- is exposed for what it is.

Scientism is the belief-- and it is a belief, not based on empirical evidence, and it undergirds a philosophy of existence-- that science is able not just to ascertain the nature of our physical universe and its properties but can also provide the answers to the questions of existence. In scientism, everything is subject to science.

We can see how this plays out in this article. In the first quote given above, "critical thinking" is subtly defined as "accepting the claims of scientists over that of religion." A world without religion, it is claimed, is a "world that makes sense." They say that "empirical evidence" supports the conclusion that "humans created god, not the other way around."

So where is the evidence for any of this?

For example, we are born with a powerful need for attachment, identified as long ago as the 1940s by psychiatrist John Bowlby and expanded on by psychologist Mary Ainsworth. Individual survival was enhanced by protectors, beginning with our mothers. Attachment is reinforced physiologically through brain chemistry, and we evolved and retain neural networks completely dedicated to it.

Like attachment, they are mechanisms that underlie human interactions: Brain-imaging studies at the National Institutes of Health showed that when test subjects were read statements about religion and asked to agree or disagree, the same brain networks that process human social behavior — our ability to negotiate relationships with others — were engaged.

Among the psychological adaptations related to religion are our need for reciprocity, our tendency to attribute unknown events to human agency, our capacity for romantic love, our fierce "out-group" hatreds and just as fierce loyalties to the in groups of kin and allies.

Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom notes that "it is often beneficial for humans to work together … which means it would have been adaptive to evaluate the niceness and nastiness of other individuals." In groundbreaking research, he and his team found that infants in their first year of life demonstrate aspects of an innate sense of right and wrong, good and bad, even fair and unfair. When shown a puppet climbing a mountain, either helped or hindered by a second puppet, the babies oriented toward the helpful puppet. They were able to make an evaluative social judgment, in a sense a moral response.

Michael Tomasello, a developmental psychologist who co-directs the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, has also done work related to morality and very young children. He and his colleagues have produced a wealth of research that demonstrates children's capacities for altruism. He argues that we are born altruists who then have to learn strategic self-interest.

What is proven in these studies? Humans need attachment, especially some form of protector. Neural networks are dedicated to these needs-- the parts of the brain used to process human social behaviors also process religious claims. Humans tend to favor reciprocity and have tendencies toward anthropomorphization and tribalism. Young children have an innate sense of right and wrong and altruism.

Now let us notice how the authors leap from substantiated science to unsubstantiated interpretations and claims regarding the science (that is, the leap from science to scientism).

Regarding attachment and a protector:

We easily expand that inborn need for protectors to authority figures of any sort, including religious leaders and, more saliently, gods. God becomes a super parent, able to protect us and care for us even when our more corporeal support systems disappear, through death or distance.

Regarding tribalism:

Religion hijacks these traits. The rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, for example, or the doctrinal battles between Protestant and Catholic reflect our "groupish" tendencies.

Regarding the moral intuition of infants:

Morality, which some see as imposed by gods or religion on savage humans, science sees as yet another adaptive strategy handed down to us by natural selection.

Where is the proof for any of these claims?

How can any of these claims be tested according to any process that can be deemed "scientific"?

These, mind you, are the authors' main "proofs" that humans invented gods, and not the other way around.

But Christianity can make counter-claims regarding the same evidence.

That humans seek after attachment and protection-- and especially the idea that the same parts of the brain control social behavior and religion-- are completely aligned with the Christian view of the Triune God, One God in Three Persons, one in relationship, who made man in His own image, seeking relationship (Genesis 1:26-27, John 17:20-23, Acts 17:26-27).

Infants and young children have an innate sense of right and wrong-- and what does Paul say in Romans 1:19-21 but that humans have an innate sense of who God is based on His eternal power and divine nature as present within the creation?

It is quite rich, in fact, for these authors to claim man's moral intuition as evidence for scientism. After all, Dawkins himself-- for whose foundation the lead author serves as trustee-- declares the altrustic impulse of man as an form of evolutionary "misfiring" in his book The God Delusion. The evolutionary model has no room for intuitive senses of right and wrong, especially when it motivates humans to act in ways contrary to their "evolutionary advantage." Yet it makes perfect sense if there is a Creator who fashioned the universe not just with materialist underpinnings but also metaphysical ones, including a sense of justice.

Christianity confesses that humans tend to be tribal, deriving from the events surrounding the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9. Christianity agrees that tribalism poses a problem, but suggests that the solution is found within the Church of Christ, since Jesus died to break down the walls of hostility between people so as to allow all to be one in Him (Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:11-18, 3:10-11, Colossians 4:11). Scientism can only declare that tribalism is so-- and notice how the authors have not mentioned how tribalism often has nothing to do with religion per se, since tribalism also can involve nationalism, dedication to sports teams, dedication to a geographic area, etc., without any religious impulse whatsoever.

Scientism is a religion-- it professes confidence in science as the Explainer of all things through the mechanism of its evolutionary theory. But there's no scientific experiment to justify such confidence or such a conclusion. Scientism's claims are ultimately philosophical, much to the chagrin of its adherents.

Just because the science is legitimate-- and we are not disputing the actual scientific evidence here-- does not grant such legitimacy for the conclusions. If one wants to believe the authors and think that the evidence suggests that man created god, one is certainly able to do so; but let us not pretend that "science" teaches this, or that the evidence must be interpreted in that way. Scientism is a worldview and it tries to fit all evidence into that worldview; Christianity is a worldview, and it tries to fit all evidence into that worldview. It might well be that some pieces make more sense according to the perspective of scientism; a competent and honest person will grant that other pieces make more sense in the Christian perspective. Neither perspective can be proven through some empirical process. And it should be noted that the Christian perspective on things has incorporated new evidence within its existing system for 2,000 years and still tries to understand all things through Christ (Colossians 2:1-10). Scientism, in its 200 years, has gone through far more violent tossings and turnings, and no one is able to predict where it will head over the next 100 to 2,000 years, if humanity lasts that long. It would not surprise me in the least if, in 4011, if mankind is still around, that science has a completely different view of the world than it does now, and anyone who would dare hold to the worldview of science ca. 2011 would be derided as much as there is derision for those who hold to what is deemed as a "pre-scientific" worldview. Yet, in 4011, Christianity will still be incorporating new evidence within its existing system, seeking to understand all things through Christ.

We have left for last the ultimate whopper of this article:

Beyond psychological adaptations and mechanisms, scientists have discovered neurological explanations for what many interpret as evidence of divine existence. Canadian psychologist Michael Persinger, who developed what he calls a "god helmet" that blocks sight and sound but stimulates the brain's temporal lobe, notes that many of his helmeted research subjects reported feeling the presence of "another." Depending on their personal and cultural history, they then interpreted the sensed presence as either a supernatural or religious figure. It is conceivable that St. Paul's dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus was, in reality, a seizure caused by temporal lobe epilepsy.

The scientific evidence is that when certain people have the faculties of sight and sound blocked but have their temporal lobe stimulated, they perceive the presence of something else. "Depending on their personal and cultural history," the authors say, people interpreted the "other" as supernatural or religious. Notice the caveat: it is dependent on their personal and cultural history. What happens if you put an atheist to this test? What does this prove? Some people in some circumstances might perceive physical phenomena as supernatural. But this cannot prove-- or even make a sensible claim-- that all claimed supernatural phenomena fit this paradigm.

And then the whopper-- "it is conceivable." Well, it can be conceivable that there are purple men who live on Venus. We can conceive of a lot of things; we're creative humans. But what is "conceivable" here? That Paul's Damascus moment was "a seizure caused by temporal lobe epilepsy."

Really? How is that conceivable?

A young man who is aggressively persecuting a sect of people who believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah and King, has a seizure on the road, and his unconscious is forming this idea that he is entirely wrong, that Jesus is King, and he must now serve Him?

Where is the evidence for that? Would it not make far more sense that whatever "vision" Saul would have received would have in fact validated his hostility and his persecution of this sect? Where is the evidence that any such event has ever led to the dramatic turnaround as seen by Saul of Tarsus?

The big piece of evidence that undermines this theory, however, is that Saul was not alone when the event happened:

And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man (Acts 9:7).

And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me (Acts 22:9).

We should note that there is no inherent contradiction in these passages; the men with Paul heard the sound of speaking but did not understand the voice, and they saw the light but did not discern Jesus within it.

But look at what this shows-- the event was not just something happening in Saul's mind! There are eyewitnesses to the fact that something happened, and it was external to Saul. Therefore, this postulate by the authors completely fails, since it cannot make good sense of all the evidence. Perhaps there is a naturalist/materialist explanation that could be made for what happened to Saul on the road to Damascus, but it surely is not this one.

This goes to show the desperation of the argument being advanced. The explanations of scientism for the events described in Scripture never make sense of all the evidence. They certainly cannot be proven by any empirical method. In the "world that makes sense," contrary to the view of the authors, the explanation provided by Scripture-- in this instance, that Saul of Tarsus had a supernatural experience and revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ that completely transformed his understanding-- makes better sense of all the evidence than any naturalist/materialist explanation so far offered. Look at what very intelligent and highly educated people are willing to suggest in order to maintain their dogmas of materialism and scientific causes: a man totally changed everything he believed because of "a seizure caused by temporal lobe epilepsy." And, somehow, those around him were affected by the same malaise.

There is a conflict afoot, but it need not be between science and religion. The conflict is between Christianity and scientism. Christianity affirms that there is more to our reality than we can perceive, and that the most sensible explanation of our reality is rooted in the Triune God who is the Creator of the universe, having made mankind in His own image, seeking relationship, in a world marred by sin and death because of his own transgression, able to find redemption through the grace and mercy offered by God through the Son, who became flesh and lived the perfect life. Scientism is based on the belief that there is nothing beyond the perceptible universe, and attempts to make sense of all things in materialist/naturalist ways through the mechanisms of macroevolution. These are two worldviews that are going to be in conflict. These are two worldviews that have vastly different philosophical presuppositions and assumptions, and most importantly, one will never be able to be "proven" over the other through some empirical mechanism(s).

It is high time for those advocating scientism to be open, up-front, and honest about their dogmas, their claims, and where the science ends and where the interpretive mechanisms of scientism begins. After all, that's what people who think critically are willing to do-- they are willing to separate evidence from conclusions, and subject both evidence and conclusions to critical scrutiny. I would not count on that happening, however-- for then the emperor will be discovered to be naked, the dogma will not be able to bear the load that it is carrying, and people will see just how more sensible Christianity is than scientism. Let us be willing to properly use critical thinking skills, and let us try to make the best sense of this world!

ELDV

CXVII: BR: "Why God Won't Go Away" by Alister McGrath

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 02:26:00 +0000

The topic of New Atheism has been addressed previously on this blog, perhaps somewhat indirectly during a time when I did some research into the claims that were being made. In that post, reference was made to Alister McGrath and some of his works written arguing against the claims of New Atheism.

McGrath has come out with another book on the subject: Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty? In it, McGrath attempts to summarize the situation, condition, and challenges with New Atheism as of 2010: the four main protagonists for New Atheism, the existence of a virulent web community advancing New Atheist views, the works written by the four protagonists, the issues as they relate to religion/belief, reason, and science, along with some concluding comments regarding the waning influence of New Atheism.

For someone who is relatively new to the challenges posed by New Atheism, this book is a great primer to understand the situation. If one has already read works by McGrath on the subject, they will find a nugget or two of different arguments perhaps not seen in other works, but on the whole, McGrath has written much more comprehensive, poignant, and explanatory books on this subject. The Dawkins Delusion? and The Twilight of Atheism dig deeper than Why God Won't Go Away; nevertheless, for a basic introduction to the issue, Why God Won't Go Away is a good start.

On the greater philosophical level, I fear that this book is a continuation of the trend for Christian authors to keep beating a dead horse and keep controversies alive in the name of apologetics. This is not to criticize the substance of the work nor the need to aggressively defend the faith in the face of the assaults of New Atheism; yet, as with The da Vinci Code, so with New Atheism. Much of society has moved on from this particular permutation of atheism; New Atheism never really said anything new; one cannot help but conclude that the mission of New Atheism has all but ended in utter failure. If that's the case, why keep providing them a fresh audience with these books? Perhaps it would be better to shift away from New Atheism per se and focus on the challenges of atheism in general.

McGrath does well in restraining himself when it comes to his descriptions of New Atheism and its sheer hypocrisy. He provides the evidence that New Atheism, on the whole, represents a group of people who believe in their own superiority, refusing to listen to any other perspectives, utterly convinced of their own rightness, thoroughly unwilling to subject their own views to the critical scrutiny to which they subject other views, hyper-simplistic in viewpoint to the point of being laughable, and being quite caustic, condemnatory, and dare it be said, hateful, of that which they have denounced as condemnatory and hateful. The conclusion is inescapable: many New Atheists share the same basic view of the world as the fundamentalists which they despise, merely with a different set of assumptions and ideas. Little wonder, then, that New Atheism has been seen for what it really is, and has been soundly rejected by most on either side of the God issue.

One will be hard-pressed to find a theist with a more sympathetic view toward atheists and some of their arguments than McGrath; he is willing to concede that some arguments made by atheists pose challenges, but wants the same hearing for theistic arguments. He does well at showing in the book how existence is more complicated than the triumphalist Enlightenment view can allow. The book has great value for the analysis of reason, science, and belief within it alone.

New Atheism seems to be on an irreversible decline; good riddance. But believers do need to come to terms with the effect they might have on people who have heard various tidbits in news reports. However directly or indirectly, many have absorbed a lot of the ideas promoted by New Atheists, and a lot of our cultural assumptions about existence, religion, and science are shared by the New Atheists in their tirades. We must learn how to expose the fallacies of the worldview constructs that undergird the triumphalist scientism that is so rampant and which passes as intellectually serious in much of society. We need to expose just how complicated knowledge, proof, reason, belief, and existence are, and point people back to a view of God and themselves that is rationally respectable yet without need to always defer to reason. To these ends McGrath has done us many favors in pointing the way forward; let us press on in our service to our Creator!

ELDV

*--book received as part of early review program

CXVI: BR: "Futurecast" by George Barna

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:39:00 +0000

We live in changing times. What does it all mean? How far have we come? All of these questions ultimately lead to a rather big question: where is it all headed?

Even in seemingly less transitional periods in history, mankind has always sought to know what will happen in the future. While it is foolish to attempt to make grand declarations about the nature of the future, it is possible to get a glimpse of what might be based upon current trends-- and this is what George Barna attempts to do in Futurecast: What Today's Trends Mean for Tomorrow's World. He uses the data obtained by Barna studies over the past few years to chart the ideas, attitudes, and behavioral patterns of Americans of all ages, and based upon the trends that exist today, seeks to present a plausible picture of the types of attitudes that will be prevalent over the next few decades.

The book begins with more "secular" themes, describing current trends regarding lifestyle, family, attitudes, values, media, technology, and the like. Most of what is described in this section would be intuitive for a lot of people: expectation of greater use of online and electronic media; growing diversity in lifestyles and choices and the acceptance thereof; weakening commitments to the concept of absolute truth, let alone morality. One sobering statistic: 15% of polled teenagers believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth. That means that 85% have bought in to the relativist/postmodernist view of truth to some extent-- and that will impact the future!

One trend that made sense when I heard it yet with which I was not as familiar was the growing acceptance of mediocrity in work on account of the emphasis on process. In Barna's designation I am on the tail end of the "Busters," and my children are all "Digitals." The "Mosaic" generation in between has been greatly impacted by the emphasis on self-esteem, effort, and process irrespective of accomplished result (as well described in "How To Land Your Kid in Therapy", by Lori Gottlieb, The Atlantic July/August 2011). For this generation overall, value is placed more on process and collaboration than excellence in the final product. It was interesting to me since I am not that old but still feel the disconnect between the drive for excellence with which I was raised and in which I was cultured versus this new trend-- a microcosm of the daunting challenge of different generations attempting to come to an understanding with each other.

The second half of the book focuses more on the "spiritual" side: religious beliefs, religious practice, and institutional faith. Everything described in this section is consistent with what one would hear in other books by Barna and other books of this genre: a majority profess Christianity while a small minority gets anywhere near to a Biblical worldview (reckoned at less than 5%, and less than .5% of teenagers) and having a faith that really impacts their life; people have stronger belief in God, Jesus, and the Bible than in churches and ecclesiastical institutions; mainline Protestantism is in decline at the expense of evangelicals, especially charismatics, and the drive toward less institutional forms of religiosity and toward more "organic" and "spiritually meaningful" associations and groups. Barna's prejudice toward house churches is present although would likely be missed by people who have not read previous books by him.

The book concludes with chapters describing the projected demographic profile of America in the first half of this century along with a conclusion intended to spur the reader to action: these trends exist today but they are not dictators. The trends can be redirected.

It is a nice, hopeful conclusion, and I share in Barna's view that the best way to see transformation is when people submit to Jesus our Lord and prove willing to accomplish spiritual transformation through their obedience to Christ and the strength which He supplies toward believers.

Barna is Evangelical, and a fan of the house churches, and so the appropriate warnings about faith only and whatnot apply; likewise, he peculiarly emphasizes the idea that all spiritual gifts must be supernatural in nature, an emphasis that does not seem to be all that necessary. Yes, God gives people abilities, but that need not be supernatural-- we all find ourselves to be talented in various ways, and since God has made us, those more "natural" abilities are as much gifts from God as anything "supernatural" which He could bestow. There are also hints at many points in the book exemplifying connections between faithfulness and a certain conservative political affiliation and view of America, which is also not at all necessary.

This book is highly recommended for all who want to have an impact on the future toward the advancement of the glory of our Lord Jesus inasmuch as Barna, in my view, accurately describes much of the current condition of things and where it is likely to be headed. And, faithful to my generation, I will say that the trends "are what they are." They can be lamented and they can be decried; there would be sufficient reason for either or both. But what good will lamenting and decrying them do? Better to understand the situation on the ground so as to develop ways of communicating with people with radically different worldviews to persuade them that their worldview is insufficient and does not make the best sense of all the evidence at our disposal. Working to challenge ideas and to persuade men regarding Jesus the Christ and obedience to Him, consistent with 2 Corinthians 5:11 and 10:5, will be more effective to advance the Kingdom and God's purposes than yelling, screaming, and attempting to dogmatically assert the ideologies of a bygone era. Yet all of this must begin by being informed of the situation-- and for this, Barna's book is quite helpful.

ELDV

*--book received as part of early review program

CXV: It's (Not) the End of the World as We Know It, Since Everyone's Still Here

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Sat, 21 May 2011 21:55:00 +0000

On the West Coast it is about 3pm on Saturday, May 21, 2011; for most of the world, 6pm has come and gone. So much for the much-hyped second prediction of Harold Camping and his Family Radio organization. The world is still here. There are no reports of anyone being "raptured." Things continue as before.

Much could be said about the problems with Camping's theology and methodology. The theology is dispensational premillennialist to the core, something the New Testament does not really teach. Furthermore, to associate the "rapture" with a moment 7,000 years after the Flood, while interesting, has no substantive basis in Scripture. The mathematics and attempts to make contact with other aspects of Scripture is perhaps fascinating but ultimately proves to be a baseless foray into mental gymnastics. Perhaps that is why other noted dispensational premillennialists have been fairly quiet about Camping's prediction-- he was already wrong in 1994, and he is wrong again in 2011, and even they likely saw it coming.

Whereas the overall Christian community did not make too terribly much of it, such cannot be said for the media. The event was widely discussed in ways that took it far more seriously than it deserved. It is as if, all of a sudden, Camping and his mathematical gymnastics really represented what Christians believe and to what Christians look forward. And now, since it did not take place as envisioned, it won't just be Camping and his crowd that will look foolish-- Christianity itself is disrespected by the whole endeavor.

Nevertheless, focusing too much on Camping and the substance of what he said is less relevant and important in the long run. Time will tell how he will respond to this latest disappointment. He might confess that he was wrong and that the entire endeavor was wrongheaded. That would be nice but remains unlikely. It is more likely that he will suggest again, as in 1994, that the basis of the calculation was wrong, but that the principles are still correct. Or perhaps he will try to argue that God had mercy and gave man a bit more time, or that it was really some momentous spiritual event that humans could not see that took place today. And that, ultimately, is the real and pressing issue that does need addressing-- the entire basis of Camping's theology and methodology, accepted by so many.

Ever since Jesus spoke of His return there have been many who speculate about the nature of that event. Calculations are as old as the Epistle of Barnabas, and 2 Peter 3:8 has been being misused toward those ends ever since. The Creation, the Flood, the time-frame of Daniel 9:24-27 have proven to be fertile grounds for speculation about when the Lord would return. How many dates have been suggested? 1000. 1843, then 1844. 1914. 1975. 1994, then 2011. And will it stop now? Of course not. Someone else will come up with a new theory involving some Biblical moment or event, extrapolate it out for a few thousand years, and come up with a date.

The problem is that all of this colossally misses the point on many different levels.

Quoting Matthew 24:36 in the face of the Camping date has been popular; he's quite familiar with it, as are all of those who advocate his position. In fact, the Family Radio people do not take kindly to those who are convinced that the date of Jesus' return cannot be known. Nevertheless, the principle is valid, and perhaps even better established by Matthew 24:44:

"Therefore be ye also ready; for in an hour that ye think not the Son of man cometh."

It is not just a matter of no one knowing when the Lord is coming; the Lord has expressly stated that He is going to come when He is not expected. We can safely reject, therefore, any date that man advances as the day of the Lord's return categorically. Jesus would never return on May 21, 2011, precisely because Harold Camping and Family Radio predicted that He would do so.

It is the ultimate lesson in humility and degradation-- anyone who establishes a date is setting him or herself up for a very public humiliation. In Matthew 24:36-25:13, Jesus very intentionally pours cold water on any attempt to pinpoint the date of His return; Paul does a similar thing in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10, right after the passage that is alleged to teach about the "rapture" (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Camping's entire operation-- and the operation of quite a number of people-- is therefore fundamentally flawed and ought to be rejected. Yes, it is true that God reveals what He is going to do, as He told Amos in Amos 3:3-8. But notice, dear friend, that God has revealed what He is going to do-- He will return when unexpected, as a thief in the night (Matthew 24:36-25:13, 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10). We ought to trust that.

In reality, this obsession over number-crunching is an insipid form of idolatry. We humans frequently bow down to the god of knowledge. It rarely seems to matter whether we can do anything about what we know or not-- we still just want to know. We cannot change the weather, but we surely want to know what the weather is going to be like, and we curse the people who make false predictions about it. We cannot stop the fact that evil exists and much evil is done, but how many have wanted to know how and why such evil takes place? We give far too much credence to the view that we have to know in order to be secure. First of all, there's no true security outside of our confidence in God (cf. Matthew 6:19-21, Romans 8:33-39). Secondly, that knowledge is merely a drug-- it does not necessarily change anything, but it just makes us feel better, as if we have some kind of control because we at least have knowledge. Thus, it becomes a power ploy-- if we know exactly when the Lord is returning, we can have control over how we react to it.

But here's our big problem-- that control is not for us to have. It's God who has that power. We're not supposed to have it, and that's why He continues to hold onto it after 2,000 years and counting.

And that's why the whole endeavor is an idol, a failure, and ultimately a cause of discouragement from what God would have us be and do. A lot of this has to do with a lot of what passes for the Christian view of the present and the future.

For many, much is made of that which we are to expect in the hereafter. Philippians 3:10-15 is highly venerated. Many take the view of being sojourners and exiles to the point of being presently useless in their hopeful expectation of the future. Because of this highly future-oriented form of Christianity, the here and now is dismissed as mostly irrelevant. The now is merely the vehicle to get to the future.

But let's return for a moment to the way that Jesus and Paul encourage believers to look at the hereafter. They do point out that we are not going to know, which irritates us, of course, because we always want to know. God will maintain that power over us, not despotically, but for our own good, because God wants us to always be living as if in the moment of eschatological fulfillment.

Notice the imagery: Jesus twice describes His moment of return in terms of servants working (or not working) and the consequences those servants will reap (Matthew 24:45-51, 25:14-30). In 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10, Paul envisions believers as prepared no matter the circumstances, no matter whether the Lord comes sooner or later, just as Jesus does in the parable of the foolish and wise virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. Our understanding of Philippians 3:10-15 must be tempered with Philippians 1:19-28, where Paul understands that he lives because he has work to do in order to advance God's purposes, and the Philippians do also!

Despite bad theology and misconstrued passages, Christianity is not a fundamentally future-oriented belief system. Instead, those who profess Christ are exhorted strongly to reflect His image in the here and now, secure in their hope for their future redemption, so as to bask in the glow of glory when that day comes (Romans 8:17-25, 29, 1 Peter 1:3-9). This itself is modeled by Jesus, who did not shrink from His purposes of seeking and saving the lost and proclaiming the message of the Kingdom throughout His life so as to obtain the glory awaiting Him (Philippians 2:5-11, Hebrews 4:15, 5:7-8, 12:1-2).

Indeed, Christians are exhorted to see themselves presently as a new creation, the breaking-in of the Kingdom of God into the sin-darkened world (2 Corinthians 5:17, Colossians 1:13)-- taking seriously the exhortation of the Lord's prayer that "[God's] will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" (Matthew 6:10). Christians are called to look forward to the resurrection and the "new heavens and earth," however constituted, the complete restoration of God's purposes for humanity as indicated in the Garden of Eden, not some disembodied spiritual state of bliss as has become so popular (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:35-58, Revelation 21:1-22:6)-- in short, the redemption not just of the soul but also the body and the creation (Romans 8:19-25).

This is a far cry from Camping's-- and really, the entire dispensational premillenarian establishment's-- view of the end of the earth as the saved being whisked away while the unbelievers suffer with the earth as the latter is thoroughly devastated, with the only "redemption" for earth the 1000 year reign of Christ that is ultimately ended with-- you guessed it-- a return to disembodied spiritual eternity. It seems, at times, that adherents to this belief system eagerly await such vengeance, for God to come out like Rambo or the Terminator against all those who have spurned Him.

This is why dispensational premillennialism is so insipid and dangerous-- it plays toward man's carnal side and has precious little room for the grace and mercy of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. It takes a dim view of the creation, which God declared to be "very good" before it was corrupted by our sin (Genesis 1:31). And, worst of all, it distracts people in the very ways that Jesus and Paul were attempting to avoid-- focusing so much on the moment of eschatological fulfillment that the more important business of serving God in the Kingdom of Christ is overlooked until then. As with life, so with the end-- it ultimately is about the journey more than the destination.

The Lord Jesus Christ will return one day. That day may come during our lifetimes; it may not. But we don't have to wait for that day before we can live in God's Kingdom-- we can-- and must-- live our lives according to God's will. We must make it clear that in our lives, the Kingdom has come, and we are seeking to live our lives on earth "as it is in Heaven." We are to live for Christ today anchored in the hope that the Lord will redeem not just our souls but also our bodies and the creation around us, that the end is really the day of the ultimate reconciliation between the Creator God and His creation. It will be a day full of glory when God again dwells in the midst of His covenant people in His creation, and we should pray for that day to come (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:22, 2 Peter 3:12, Revelation 22:20). But until then, we are to be busy in His vineyard, making Him known to all mankind through our words and deeds. Maranatha!

ELDV

CXIV: BR: "The Sacred Journey" by Charles Foster

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 21:35:00 +0000

Every so often you come across a book that provides the proverbial yet necessary slap across the face, showing you things that were always there but were not put together or were otherwise missed. In the end, you might not agree with everything said in the book, but you walk away thankful to have been challenged and to see things a bit differently.

So it was for me in reading The Sacred Journey by Charles Foster. The book is part (really, the conclusion) of The Ancient Practices Series, a series of seven books published by Thomas Nelson regarding seven practices prevalent in early forms of Christianity (fixed prayer, sabbath, fasting, tithing, sacred meal, liturgical year, sacred journey). To this end the book is supposed to discuss the ancient practice of pilgrimage. The subject gets discussed, and in context, but this book is far more than that.

This book is a boldly written attempt to challenge the reader to re-think everything he or she has ever thought regarding the nature of God, physicality and spirituality, and the sacred in the world, as they all relate to pilgrimage. One will read the book and perhaps mostly agree or not agree much at all, but the author's forcefulness, bluntness, and other stylistic forms demand some kind of visceral reaction. The book is quite well-written and engaging throughout.

The author is really making two arguments within the book. One involves a theology of pilgrimage, and the other involves pilgrimage itself. Both have merits but end up getting weighed down by their extremism.

The theology of pilgrimage is quite compelling. He returns to Cain and Abel and uses the story as a means of understanding a tension throughout the rest of the story-- Cain as the farmer, the settled, the one who will found the first city; Abel the shepherd, the nomad. The shepherd is accepted; the farmer is not; the farmer kills the shepherd; in his punishment and isolation the farmer and his descendants begin what we deem civilization. Abram is then called to wander as a nomad; the Israelites will leave Egypt and be led to YHWH's presence in the wilderness, the "God of the nomads" among nomads. Even in the land they are to observe the Feast of Booths, living in temporary tents.

Jesus goes on pilgrimage in utero to Bethlehem and then immediately after His birth to Egypt and back. To whom is the message of His birth given by angels but to shepherds? Jesus does not grow up in the city Jerusalem but in nowhere Nazareth, outside the city, on the margins of civilization. John, His compatriot, exemplifies the outcast, living in the desert, eating honey and locusts, condemning aspects of the establishment. His ministry begins in the wilderness and is a nomadic ministry; His call is to "follow Him." "Go." "Walk." He calls people like James, John, and Matthew to just get up and follow Him, and they do so immediately, leaving everything.

One can find other examples-- Nimrod's cities (Assur and Babylon) and Sodom and their negative associations; Jacob, Moses, David as shepherds and thus nomads; Israel eating the Passover with the expectation of going on a journey. Foster is certainly on to something, much to the chagrin of all who find comfort in civilization. God, in Scripture, most certainly seems to be a God on the move. How many times have we heard the exhortations to go and follow Jesus, to be sojourners and exiles, but never really stopped to think what that would mean in literal, physical terms?

Foster's other argument, often unhelpfully intertwined with the theology of pilgrimage, involves pilgrimage itself. He tries to have his cake and eat it too-- to merge scientific consensus about human origins with a thoroughgoing seriousness about the Biblical text-- to suggest that humans are designed for nomadism. In this analysis, man began being on the move from his east African origins. Even when he lives in civilization he has the urge to get up and go out-- out to nature, out on the road trip, etc. He traces this impulse through the major religions of the world-- pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Jews (and Christians, and Muslims), "holy places" for Christians, the Hajj of Muslims, pilgrimages to holy sites for Hindus and Buddhists-- and speaks of how to find the sacred within the world. As the Cain vs. Abel story is the backdrop for the theology of pilgrimage, so gnosticism vs. orthodoxy becomes the backdrop for the value of pilgrimage. A pilgrimage is an experience; it breaks down barriers; it is inescapably physical, and leads to a level of dependence on others and appreciation for the sacred in the physical.

Foster's approach with these arguments can certainly lead down the road to complete ecumenism and an acceptance of the physical to the extent of idolatry. Nevertheless, they are arguments that must be taken seriously.

A major difficulty with the presentation of the arguments is its extremism. Foster attempts to come to grips with the presentation of the church as the New Jerusalem in Revelation, but misses what could be perhaps one of the most compelling points about the Biblical presentation of life in his otherwise distaste for what civilization has done to man. It's not as simple as "civilization vs. barbarism," or "nomadism vs. settled life." Yes, there are paradigmatically bad cities-- Sodom, Babylon-- but there is always Jerusalem, the Zion, where the Nomadic YHWH causes His name to dwell. Jesus is raised in Jerusalem; He ascends from Jerusalem; the first proclamation of the message of the Kingdom is in Jerusalem. While the Apostles and others go out and wander, preaching the Gospel, they primarily do so in cities. And some cease from wandering-- Philip goes to Samaria, along the Mediterranean coast, but then stays put in Caesarea. In terms of God and the Temple in Jerusalem, Foster attempts to put too much on David and Solomon's enthusiasm and misses the point-- nomadism is not the panacea it's made out to be. For every example Foster gives of people being forced to "civilize" and give up the nomadic life, there are plenty of other examples of nomadic peoples who voluntarily gave up nomadism for settled life-- the Arameans in Syria, the Chaldeans in Babylon, the Aryans in India, the Mongols in south Asia, let alone the Israelites themselves in Canaan. Abraham is called on to wander but was promised land and thus stability; the Israelites wandered but looked forward to settled life in Canaan. Likewise, the Bible does not approve of nomadism for nomadism's sake-- Jacob the shepherd is preferred to Esau the hunter. Furthermore, pilgrimage isn't much of a pilgrimage without having a place from which to depart, a place toward which one is going, and places along the way. And so we have the paradigm: leaving to become a sojourner in order to obtain settlement. Thus it was with Adam, Cain, and Abel; so with Abraham; indeed with Jesus; and, clearly, with the Christian, for we are sojourners in this world in order to obtain our place in the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven in the next. We are pilgrims heading for Zion, and much can be learned and gained in that journey.

The Sacred Journey is a necessary tonic for civilization and the insistent justification of civilization that permeates our culture. Foster shows that one cannot remove the journey, not just spiritually but also physically, from the story of Scripture; he also makes the best possible case that can be made for the physical practice of pilgrimage, to just get up and go. His warnings against gnosticism-- the tendency to over-spiritualize and under-physicalize many aspects of faith-- is good to heed. Nevertheless, civilization is not inherently evil; it can be evil, but all of this is rather academic if humans never developed civilization and remained purely nomadic. Just as one cannot excise the nomad and the pilgrim from Scripture, so also one cannot excise Jerusalem from it either. We are supposed to understand ourselves as wanderers and sojourners now, and we should hesitate to make that wandering and sojourning merely spiritual. Nevertheless, we look forward to wandering to a point, and making our pilgrimage to a destination-- the New Jerusalem, Zion, the assembled collective of those who are God's, in His presence forever in the resurrection. Yes, life is what we learn on that journey, and Foster outlines the many excellent reasons to experience that journey to its full, but as with the pilgrimage, so with life-- whatever transformation we have during the journey, we are heading somewhere. And that somewhere is not another journey. The journey is only the means to the glorious End.

ELDV

*--book received as part of an early review program

CXIII: BR: "The Reason Why Faith Makes Sense" by Mark Mittelberg

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:56:00 +0000

Apologetics and material setting forth of the Christian argument are quite prevalent these days, especially since there seem to be quite a few who stand up loudly against Christianity in society and popular culture. Yet far too many in our society have not even stopped to give the matter much thought-- they have gone along with the currents of society and do not really know any better. They might imagine that science has disproven the existence of God, or that any higher power might remain unknowable. Regardless of their views, they are not extremely well thought out, and spiritual concern may not be very high.

Mark Mittelberg is well-known for his apologetic material; he has now worked to revise Robert Laidlaw's The Reason Why, and the work is now available as The Reason Why Faith Makes Sense. While some of Laidlaw's original material is quoted, most of it seems to come from Mittelberg. The book is designed as a basic discussion of the big issues involved-- the origins of everything, who God is, who we are, what the problem is, and how we get to the solution.

The book is quite short-- 120 smaller pages using a large font. It could easily be read in the space of an hour or two in an afternoon or evening, and that is its purpose. It is really designed for the person we described above: someone who may not agree with the Christian perspective on things but mostly because they are not aware of the arguments for Christianity. The book cogently sets forth the gist of the arguments in a fairly understandable way, starting with the existence of God the Creator, moving on to the Bible as His revelation, why it is that we are accountable before God, who Jesus was and what He did, how forgiveness is available, and what must be done about it. There are some notes at the back that go into some of the issues in more detail, but the overall material remains quite basic.

The material is very consistent with what Mittelberg has written elsewhere-- see particularly The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask-- and The Reason Why Faith Makes Sense can properly be seen as the small handout edition of his apologetic works.

For its purpose, the majority of The Reason Why Faith Makes Sense is excellent. It is just too bad that when he gets to the point of discussing how to "accept Christ," Mittelberg deviates from the Biblical pattern of confession, repentance, baptism, and obedient discipleship (Romans 10:9-10, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-7, 1 Peter 3:21), and instead advocates for the non-Scriptural innovation of the "sinner's prayer". Mittelberg also highly recommends the NLT, probably not least because it is the translation printed by Tyndale, the publisher of his book. One can find an easy to understand version (e.g. ESV) without getting an interpretive version (the NLT).

If one is looking for a basic way to present the main arguments for the Christian faith, there is value in The Reason Why Faith Makes Sense. Sadly, however, it cannot be really recommended for its target audience-- the "ignorant unbeliever"-- because of how it would lead them astray at the end.

ELDV

*--book received as part of early review program

CXII: BR: "The Jesus Inquest" by Charles Foster

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:40:00 +0000

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised: and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain (1 Corinthians 15:13-14).

Throughout its existence, Christianity has been founded upon the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. If Jesus did not die and/or was not raised from the dead, Christianity is just another fiction. But if Jesus did die and He was raised from the dead, then the claim that Jesus is Lord and that we ought to serve Him must be taken very seriously. Therefore, from the beginning until now, the validity of the claims of Jesus' death and resurrection have never lacked a challenger.

Charles Foster enters this fray with The Jesus Inquest: The Case For and Against the Resurrection of the Christ. Foster, an English jurist, attempts to use the same rigorous mode of inquiry that is used before a court in order to weigh the arguments for and against the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The end result is one of the most comprehensive yet understandable analyses of the current state of arguments for and against Jesus' death and resurrection.

Arguments are made against the claims of Christianity through the guise of "X"; the Christian response is presented though the guise of "Y". The two sides are lined up against each other on whether Jesus really died on the cross or not, how Jesus was buried, the matter of the empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, whether the early church believed in Jesus' physical and bodily resurrection, and the potential sources for the story of the resurrection. Appendices include further examinations into Jesus' cause of death, the Shroud of Turin, statistical analyses and the "Jesus Family Tomb," and the text of the Gospel of Peter.

Foster wonders if he puts the arguments of "X" forcefully enough; as a believer more sympathetic to "Y," I nevertheless believe that he has "X" and his character fairly well presented. The arguments presented are about as well done as can be, under the circumstances.

The presentation of the evidence goes a long way to show just how weak the case against Jesus' death and resurrection is-- one might be able to make a few challenges regarding the way the story is presented in the New Testament, but no credible, serious, and sensible counter-explanation can be provided to explain the emergence of the beliefs surrounding Jesus of Nazareth as the crucified and risen Son of God.

One must take care to remember that "X" is presented as a hot mess-- Foster is providing all kinds of counter-arguments, most of them inconsistent with each other. One does not do well to see the inconsistencies and thus write "X" off entirely. My one criticism of the book would be the fact that "X" will present the sensationalistic as well as the standard challenges to the Christian narrative without a whole lot of clear demarcation between the two. The claims of Holy Blood, Holy Grail or The Jesus Family Tomb do not belong in the same category as arguments about the vinegar as an opiate leading to a coma or arguments about the possibility of the wrong tomb (not that the latter are inherently any more accurate, but they are not as ridiculous). Considering the author's purpose, I don't know how it could be better handled, but I thought it was worth noting.

While Foster never comes out and says where he ultimately stands, his sympathies with "Y" are clear enough, as well they should be. The Jesus Inquest is an excellent resource for everyone, as it provides a good introduction to where the disputes about Jesus' death and resurrection have led and presents the arguments reasonably well.

ELDV

*--book received as part of early review program

CXI: Salvation, Law, Obedience, and Faith

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:38:00 +0000

There is some confusion within "Christianity" regarding the meaning of salvation, law, obedience, and faith, and the relationship among these concepts. While it is right and appropriate for us to proclaim that faith only and the Protestant/Evangelical way of understanding salvation, obedience, and faith are distortions of what God has taught in Scripture, it is no better to go too far the other way and become guilty of the very thing God is condemning through Paul. Much of the difficulty involves proper understanding of the meanings of words, for it is easy to take concepts out of their proper categories and distort them in the process.

Let us first consider salvation. What does it mean to be "saved"? Why is it necessary to be "saved" in the first place? Thayer defines the Greek word for salvation, soteria, as, "deliverance, preservation, safety, salvation." This is consistent with Webster's basic definition of the English word: "the act of saving; preservation from destruction, danger or great calamity."

Thus, inherent in the concept of salvation is the need for deliverance. This is something evident no matter what approach we take to understand salvation: salvation as redemption demands that we must have incurred some cost; salvation as deliverance demands that we must be delivered from something; salvation as atonement demands that there is something for which we need atonement.

Put simply, our idea of "salvation" or being "saved by x" must still make sense if we take out "salvation" or "saved" and insert "deliverance/delivered," "rescue/rescued," and the like instead. If it does not make sense, then we have strayed from the God's concept of salvation.

Thus, why do people need salvation? This is when we can start speaking of law. But what is the law, why is there law, why does the law matter, and what is the relationship between law, sin, salvation, and condemnation?

A law is a rule-- a code of conduct. The Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:3-17 represent the quintessential expression of law: you shall honor your father and mother. You shall not bear false witness. Laws express what is to be done versus what is not to be done.

It is true that law exists to provide structure and definition to conduct (Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4). Before there was sin there was a law of sorts-- Adam and Eve were not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17). Nevertheless, the essential reason for law is captured by Paul in Galatians 3:19 and 1 Timothy 1:9: law is there because of those who break them. Yes, God established the universe in justice (Psalm 89:14), but the particular parameters of how justice works in the case of how an Israelite is to handle a Hebrew slave must be set forth because of man's propensity toward rebellion (Exodus 21:1-11).

The Law, as the expression of what is right versus what is wrong, is good, holy, and perfect (Psalm 19:7, Romans 7:12). But what can the Law-- or, indeed, any law-- do? Law does not do anything-- it simply is. Law defines good conduct and bad conduct, what is commendable and what is abhorrent. Based upon law, one can be defined as compliant with the law or in transgression of the law. But what does that really mean?

This is when we must make the necessary separation between law and consequence. For example, if the law states that one is to drive a vehicle no more than 65 miles an hour down a given road, but I am driving 70 miles an hour, I am in violation of the law-- a transgressor. But what happens if those charged with enforcing that law do nothing about it? What if, while I am in transgression, they actually pass me and are going even faster? I might be a transgressor, but there is no consequence. In a similar way, if one is following the law and driving no more than 65 miles an hour, what happens? Nothing. One is in compliance with the law. One may not be afraid of any penalties, but there is no expectation of some reward.

Therefore, by definition, no one can ever be "saved by law," since the Law-- any law-- can do nothing on its own. Law just tells you what is right and what is wrong. By law, one may be defined as compliant or as a transgressor, but such a definition does not automatically lead to some kind of deliverance or condemnation. There must be some other acting agent that provides a consequence-- a reward or a punishment. Law, on its own, can do no such thing. This is why no one in the New Testament ever talks about law in terms of salvation. As we will see, law is spoken of in terms of justification, and there are very good reasons for that.

We can think about this in another way. If we rephrase "saved by law" according to our standard above, it is saying that we are "rescued by law" or "delivered by law." How could such a thing happen? If we have broken the law and stand condemned as transgressors, can the law somehow save us? No-- it is the very thing that has defined us as transgressors! The law, on its own, has no means of redemption or rescue; it just declares things as they are. But if we have not broken the law in any way, shape, or form, then the statement is still meaningless, because what are we being delivered from or rescued from? How can the law deliver us or rescue us if we have not done anything that has caused us to need deliverance or rescue?

Thus, one cannot talk about salvation, or rescue, by law-- law calls balls and strikes, so to speak, and cannot on its own establish consequence. Nevertheless, one might attempt to base his standing before God on the basis of adherence to the law-- the attempt to be justified by the law, or to be declared righteous by law. Yet, as Paul declares, this is impossible:

Because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).

In fact, Paul declares that this has never been possible:

Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident: for, "the righteous shall live by faith;" and the law is not of faith; but, "he that doeth them shall live in them" (Galatians 3:11-12).

Paul is quoting Habakkuk 2:4 and Leviticus 18:5, respectively, to show that even under the old covenant-- under the Law-- no one has been justified by their adherence to the law before God. The reason why this is the case is provided by James:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. For he that said, "do not commit adultery", said also, "do not kill." Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law (James 2:10-11).

Once one breaks one law, one is a transgressor. It does not matter whether he follows or does not follow the Law for the rest of his life. Everyone in the Old Testament, at some point, broke the law. Abraham lied (Genesis 12:10-20). Moses killed a man, and disobeyed God's command (Exodus 2:12, Numbers 20:10-12). David committed adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11). In so doing, they all became transgressors. No matter what else they were to do or not do in their lives, they would stand before God as transgressors of the Law. Thus, their standing before God could not be based on their adherence to His law, for they did not completely and fully adhere to that law! That was true then and it remains true now (Romans 3:23)!

All of this is why Paul shows strenuously in Romans 7 that the law is not the problem or the solution. It just is. The problem that demands the solution-- the reason why we need saving in the first place-- is sin. Yes, sin is defined by the law-- the commission of that which the law proscribes, the omission of that which the law prescribes-- and sin is lawlessness, acting outside of the authority of the law, as John says in 1 John 3:4. Yes, without the law, sin lies dead, since it has no definition (Romans 7:8). Sin and the law, then, are quite intertwined, but the law remains holy while sin remains quite unholy and the problem.

Why is sin a problem? If there were no consequence for transgression, then there would be no problem. Nevertheless, from the beginning until now, the consequence of sin-- transgression of the law-- is death (Genesis 2:17, 3:14-19, Romans 6:23). That consequence exists because God has fixed it as existing. God, as the Creator of the universe, has not only defined the law but also has established the consequences of one's obedience or disobedience to the law. Those who transgress the Law are condemned (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)!

Therefore, since God is the Agent establishing the consequence, whatever rescue/deliverance/salvation that exists will involve Him and be defined by His actions. In order to overcome the challenge of sin and death, He sent His Son Jesus to accomplish what humans and the law could not. Jesus lived the perfect life, not transgressing any law, but fulfilling it (Matthew 5:17-18, Hebrews 4:15). When He was executed, His sacrifice could atone for our misdeeds because He was pure (Hebrews 9). He died, not because of His own sin, but because sin and death were in the world; death could not hold Him, however, because He was not guilty of sin and thus did not incur the consequence of death (Acts 2:24). Thus God established a way to rescue humans: their burden of sin could be forgiven through Jesus' blood, and just as Jesus overcame death in the resurrection, so also could His followers (Romans 5:9-11, 8:17-24). This the Law could never do, as Paul explains:

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:2-3).

Thus, God is the One who can save. On their own, humans can do nothing about their sin except stand before God as transgressors deserving condemnation. There can be no justification by law, for law just tells it like it is, and the flesh is weak. On what basis, then, is there justification? On what basis does God declare a person righteous? On what basis does God rescue a person?

We understand that our justification and thus our salvation are through Jesus Christ. I fear, however, that we still look at that justification and salvation in terms of law, only now it is the law of Christ. We confess that our "moral striving"-- our attempts to be good people and do what we should-- before we learned of Christ failed and did not accomplish what we sought. Yet it seems easy to think that now since we have come to know about Jesus, we can now get somewhere with our "moral striving!"

Yet it is really no different. We cannot be justified by law in the new covenant. We can go through the plan of salvation and have our past sins covered through the blood of Christ, but what happens the moment when we sin again? Will anyone who is a Christian declare that they have never transgressed the law of Christ from the moment of their conversion until this very moment? By no means!

This is why Paul says in Romans 3:23 that all have sinned (past tense) and fall short of the glory of God (present tense). We are still not there. We still transgress God's will by doing that which is proscribed and not doing that which is prescribed at times. To say or act to the contrary is self-delusion and folly (1 John 1:8)!

Thus, we are not justified by the law of Christ, because we have all transgressed the law of Christ-- in other terms, if our attempt to stand before God was based on that law, we would be condemned as transgressors. All of our obedience to the law of Christ would be vitiated by our disobedience against it.

Therefore, our confidence cannot be in our obedience, because we have not been fully obedient. Our "moral striving," on its own basis, now counts as much as our "moral striving" did before we learned of Christ.

This is why God stresses through Paul that we are saved-- delivered or rescued-- by grace through faith, and that our justification is based on faith (Galatians 3:24, Ephesians 2:8). Notice what was necessary for our rescue: God loving us even though we were unlovable, willing to suffer the death of His Son, His Son Himself willing to suffer and humble Himself, and so on (cf. John 3:16, Romans 5:6-11, Philippians 2:5-11). We did not deserve this or earn it in any way-- it was given as a gift, and thus is rightly reckoned as grace. Yet grace, on its own, is clearly insufficient, or else everyone would receive deliverance and rescue through Jesus, and God makes it clear that such will not be the case (Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23, Romans 2:5-11, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9). That is why salvation is by grace through faith-- we must believe that God exists and that He has acted definitively against sin and death through His Son Jesus Christ (Hebrews 11:6, Romans 8:1-3).

But what is this faith? Can it be mere mental assent to the proposition of God acting in Christ? By no means, for demons mentally assent to God's existence and saw the work of Christ, but were not saved (Matthew 8:29, James 2:19)! We must certainly intellectually assent to the existence in God and deliverance in Christ, but faith goes far beyond this.

James makes it evident in James 2:14-26 that faith without works is dead. Whereas faith and obedience are often held in tension by many today, such tension is not coming from the New Testament. Paul can speak in the same letter about justification by faith and that we cannot be justified by works of the law (Romans 3-5) and also speak of the need for obedience and judgment on the basis of works (Romans 1:5, 2:5-11, 6:1-22).

This is because faith, at its core, is confidence and trust. We cannot be saved by our works, since we have done bad things and not done every good thing. The Law cannot help us, since the Law just tells it like it is. God in Christ, however, can deliver us, and has provided the means of deliverance through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Yet we must place our confidence and trust in Jesus as Lord, since He was given all authority (Matthew 28:18) and is the Mediator and High Priest of the new covenant (Hebrews 7-9).

Can we really say that we put our confidence and trust in Jesus if we refuse to follow what He has said and done? Of course not, and that is why anyone who would do such a thing stands condemned according to Matthew 7:21-23. Putting our confidence and trust in Jesus demands that we seek to do what He has said-- to do what He tells us to do, to avoid what He tells us to avoid (1 John 2:3-6).

So yes, ultimately, we must strive to be obedient to God in Christ (Romans 6:16-18). But we cannot put our trust in our obedience or in that law-- we put our trust in God in Christ. We must do this because we do not always uphold the law of Christ. Even though we strive to be obedient, many times we prove to be disobedient. If our trust is in our following of His law, those moments of disobedience stand condemning us. But if our trust is in God in Christ, and we recognize those times when we prove disobedient, and we confess those times before Him and plead to be forgiven, and we continue to seek to be His obedient servants, then God is faithful and righteous to forgive us and maintain our cleansing (1 John 1:9).

This is why we are justified by faith-- it is the only means by which we can follow after God's purposes while receiving forgiveness for our deficiencies and insufficiencies. That is why Paul describes the church as the bride of Christ whom He has cleansed by the washing of water with the word, leading to its sanctification (Ephesians 5:25-27). We cannot be rescued while we remain in our sins and under the penalty of death. Jesus is the means by which we can have forgiveness of sins and thus be released from the penalty of death. Without that cleansing we remain filthy; without the opportunity for continuous cleansing, we will become as defiled as before, and again be subject to the penalty of death. Continuous cleansing cannot come through obedience to the law any more than our original cleansing came through it. It only comes from the gracious favor of God, and God only bestows it upon those who place their trust in Him and His Son and who ask for it (Ephesians 5:25-27, 1 John 1:9)!

Therefore, we are not saved by our works or by our obedience, but we cannot be saved without them. Works and obedience are insufficient, for they are not complete; since they are not complete, confidence in them only leads to condemnation. It is through faith that we receive the blessings of God's grace as manifest in Christ, but that faith itself is insufficient if it does not lead one to strive to be an obedient servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. But there is never a time when that obedience eclipses faith, for we continually fall short of God's glory, and thus cannot be justified by our obedience. We must instead seek to do God's will as reflected in the law of Christ in the New Testament because we understand that God is our Creator and we are the creation, and that He has declared His Son Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Ultimately, everything flows from our faith in Christ: we trust that since He lived a perfect life, that we ought to walk as He walked (1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 John 2:6). We trust that since He is Lord of heaven and earth, we ought to do what He says to do, follow His commandments, and serve Him (Romans 6:16-18, 1 John 2:3-5). We trust that since God loved us enough to send His Son to die for our sins, we ought to avoid sin, but when we fall short, if we humble ourselves, admit our wrongdoing, and seek to do it no more, that He is faithful and righteous to forgive us of those sins (1 John 1:9). Finally, we trust that since He has done what He has said He would do, we can be confident that the day of Judgment will come, God will render to everyone according to what they have done, and those who are declared righteous because of their trust in Jesus will receive eternal life and glory, while all others will receive condemnation and torment (Acts 17:30-31, Romans 2:5-11, 8:17-18, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-12).

God created the universe in justice, establishing His Law as the governing principle of the creation. By transgressing that Law, man has sinned and suffers the consequence of death. All the law can do is declare what is right and wrong; it by itself cannot justify. God has shown mercy in that while we remained in sin and could do nothing about it, Jesus His Son died for the ungodly. We can obtain that mercy by trusting in Him, and that trust demands that we renounce our own ways and seek His ways. Nevertheless, we always stand in need of that mercy, and at no point can trust in our own obedience. Let us always trust in God in Christ, and not in ourselves!

ELDV

CX: BR: "A Pastor Prays For His People" by Wendell Hawley

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 03:30:00 +0000

While there are some who are completely against the idea of using written prayers or prayers written by others, and many more who are concerned about such prayers becoming rote ritual, there still seems to be a growing appreciation for the benefits that can come from reflecting upon, using, and learning from the prayers of others.

To this end there is A Pastor Prays For His People by Wendell Hawley. These seem to be prayers mostly designed for use in Sunday assemblies. There are between four and six prayers presented per month with additional prayers for religious and secular observances. The last section features prayers for various circumstances-- meetings, weddings, deaths, etc. In all, seventy-three prayers are provided.

The value in these prayers feature the value of using-- or at least learning from-- the prayers of others. They provide thoughts, forms of expression, and other such things about prayer that might not automatically come to mind in prayer. Through these prayers one is reminded of various distressing situations people might find themselves, the various sins and challenges that beset us that might not always be confessed, and reminders about what is really important in life.Some of the prayers feature material from non-Biblical Christian literature (especially Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress) and songs. The prayers also presuppose the "church year" and its observances, and has prayers for those events. Such might cause challenges for those who take issue to such things, but one can still reflect on the message. The book's title-- and many of its prayers-- also presuppose the not very Biblical pastoral system of the church, as opposed to elders and a possible evangelist (Ephesians 4:11-16, Philippians 1:1, etc.). The insidious idea of the church building as the "house of God" can be perceived in many of the prayers; while the church does reflect the household of God (1 Timothy 3:15), we are always in God's presence (John 4:20-24, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 Peter 2:4-11).

Ultimately, there is value in learning from these prayers, even if one may not feel comfortable in repeating them verbatim. All of us can grow in our prayer lives, and should seek to do so!

ELDV

*--book received as part of early review program

CIX: BR: "The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask" by Mark Mittleberg

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:54:00 +0000

It is no secret that Christianity has been under attack for some time in our society in general. There are many people and forces that challenge the faith and the practice thereof.

At the same time, many Christians feel very insecure about many of the questions raised about their faith. They do not feel qualified to answer many times, and therefore they get very apprehensive when the questions get raised.

A recent Barna survey of people professing Christianity was established seeking to know what the questions were that they had difficulties answering. Mark Mittelberg has taken the results of this survey, with the top ten questions, and sets forth to provide answers and strategies for answers in The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask.

This is a novel strategy. Most of the questions addressed-- matters of the reliability of the Bible, the relationship between science and faith, whether Jesus is truly God the Son, the problem of evil and suffering, abortion, homosexuality, judgmentalism and Christian arrogance, and the afterlife-- are discussed in most apologetic and evangelism books. Most of the time the issues are addressed on their own basis, but Mittelberg approaches it as if a believer is fielding questions for an unbeliever.

This approach is beneficial, for it provides opportunity to discuss not just the issue but also what is behind the issue. Mittelberg often discusses ways to approach the various issues with people. The last chapter is also appreciated: after providing answers to the questions, Mittelberg shows how the questioned can become the questioner, and prod the one asking the question to examine their own belief system in light of the truth of God in Christ and in Scripture. It also gives the author opportunity to be more personal: one can feel the passion in his answer about abortion (for better or worse), and his attempts toward compassion and understanding when discussing homosexuality, and so on and so forth.

The answers tend to be rather good. Sometimes they get a bit simplistic, but such is understandable, considering that the author is trying to speak more to the "average" person. Using the story of the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 as a paradigm for discussing homosexuality was quite good; I wish that he had used Scriptural narratives more as the basis of discussing other matters. Evangelical doctrines are not front and center, which is nice. Minor disagreements can be found in various places, but such is natural. One personal disagreement involves the suggestion that the questioner be directed toward the New Living Translation. Such a suggestion is a bit corporate (the NLT is published by Tyndale, the publisher of this book), and also misguided, for it will be harder to explain to a prospective believer why they are holding a Bible from which they cannot really make inferences because of the way that it has been translated while attempting to affirm the legitimacy and inspiration of Scripture. Better to recommend the English Standard Version (ESV), a more understandable formal equivalent translation, than a dynamic equivalent translation.

Nevertheless, The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask is a good resource. Believers will find comfort, encouragement, and answers in it. Even those with experience in apologetics and evangelism may gain from many of the suggestions and arguments presented. A book very worthy of consideration.

ELDV

*-- book received as part of early review program

CVIII: BR: "Under the Overpass" by Mike Yankoski

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:06:00 +0000

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me (Matthew 25:40).

They are part of the urban landscape, often in our midst, and yet they are invisible to us-- or so we would like them to be. They are the homeless, and it is always easier to blame those involved or to ignore them than to do anything else.

Mike Yankoski, however, was convicted to go out and try to understand what it was like to experience homelessness in America. Thus, he and a companion spent five months in six major metropolitan areas (Denver, Washington DC, Portland, San Francisco, Phoenix, and San Diego), living on the streets and by panhandling. His story is chronicled in Under the Overpass: A Journey of Faith on the Streets of America, in a new five-year anniversary edition with a foreword, an interview of the author, and his further reflections.

The story is very compelling. All kinds of characters are met. Many are consistent with the stereotypes-- drug users, mentally ill, but also a lot of people just down on their luck. There is violence but also attempts to take care of one another. And then there is the reaction of the rest of America-- some stories of blessing, but a lot more of contempt and derision.

The author does well at balancing love, compassion, and mercy for the homeless with the realities of the sins that led many of them to their present condition. He forces Christians to get uncomfortable about the types of "growing pains" that they tolerate among fellow Christians (e.g. sanctimony, arrogance, etc.) with those they do not tolerate (e.g. drug use, etc.), not in an attempt to justify any sin, but to show just how far from Jesus' attitudes which too many believers have strayed. He also suggests many ways that believers can be of service and can help homeless people.

A very telling aspect of homelessness is the author's description of loneliness-- sure, one might be among other homeless people, but the exclusion from the rest of society is quite difficult for many. Sometimes the best thing that can be offered is to sit down and just have a conversation with the homeless. It doesn't always have to be just about food.

The book is most certainly worth consideration, as are the homeless. We would all do well to learn how to show compassion on those in need while being wise as serpents, and harmless as doves!

ELDV

*--book received as part of an early review program.

CVII: BR: "The Gospel According to Jesus" by Chris Seay

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:08:00 +0000

It is no secret that Americans are not very well-versed about Christian doctrine and theology anymore, and such may shed some light about why profession of Christianity is far more prevalent than the practice thereof.

Chris Seay's particular concern, as expressed in The Gospel According to Jesus: A Faith that Restores All Things, is in regard to how people understand the concept of righteousness. His argument, expressed through his own discussion, discussion with a "who's who" list of trendy young Evangelicals, and through exposition of Genesis and Romans, is that righteousness is primarily the concept of "restorative justice," with other aspects being understood in that light.

There is much that is commendable in this book. The idea of having discussions among different people with their different perspectives is refreshing and thought-provoking. The author's emphasis on the need to live the life of faith is handled well, and the principles he establishes for right living (using the more trendy Evangelical term, shalom) are Biblically rooted and beneficial. The use of art in the middle of the book is intriguing and is probably more meaningful for people who are more inclined toward art than I am.

There were some doctrinal/theological matters in the book with which I had to wrestle, and I did appreciate the opportunity to do so. Seay advances the notion that sin (and, for that matter, righteousness) really should be understood more relationally than legalistically. He draws on Romans 7 to indicate that focus on sin leads to sin and, ultimately, not to doing righteousness. His points have some validity but are not absolutely true. There is benefit in understanding sin and righteousness in relational terms and the emphasis on the relationship with God; nevertheless, there are too many times where sin is discussed in judicial imagery for it to have nothing substantively "legalistic" about it. I was a little surprised that in a discussion about Christian focus that the author did not advance Philippians 4:8 in the discussion. While it is true that obsessively focusing on sin is ultimately destructive, never addressing the topic is no better-- the same Paul who tells believers to focus on the positive was not against explicit warning against sin (cf. Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Ephesians 5:3-5, etc.).

Ultimately, though, I must take theological issue with the ultimate theme of the book and especially as it relates to the title (The Gospel According to Jesus). It is evident, throughout the book, that Seay is wrestling with understanding the emphases prevalent in the "emergent" or "missional" strands of modern Evangelicalism in terms of the traditions of Christianity, and particularly in the Protestant tradition. Seay's main concern is that the Protestant understanding of justification by faith alone has not received the emphasis that he feels it deserves. Much of the book-- and his exposition of Romans-- is based in this theme.

He constantly addresses or refers to Luther and seems to want to place modern discussions of faith, justice, and righteousness in terms of the "500 year discussion" that he imagines is begun by Luther.

I do not adhere to the premises of justification by faith alone or of Christ's imputed righteousness, and the author does. As to imputed righteousness, such is an unnecessary concept-- as N.T. Wright ably demonstrates, righteousness is not a gas or some transferable property. Even with a view toward "restorative justice," such ends in a standing, not a property, and thus the idea of "imputed righteousness" is unnecessary. Yes, we are reconciled to God through Christ's work on the cross, and through Jesus' redemption we are reckoned as righteous, which is far different from having righteousness imputed to us (Romans 5:6-11, etc.).

The problem is not justification by faith, which Paul most eminently demonstrates is true in Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, and the like; the problem is with justification by faith alone, which the Bible itself repudiates (James 2:24). The difficulty comes from Seay's reliance on Luther and by presuming the discussion to be 500 years old. Interestingly, one of Seay's conversation companions speaks of Luther's imbalance in many things, and this is the major downfall of the book: while the discussion over the past 500 years has been directed by Luther's and Calvin's presentations, they were continuing the discussion prompted by the Scholastics before them, who were trying to reconcile and make sense of the body of tradition and belief bestowed upon them by Greek philosophy and the Western Christian tradition as understood through the Augustinian lens, itself dominated by the presence of Augustine, who is codifying the traditions that had accrued for the 400 years before him, and often at variance with that tradition and with the understanding of, say, Eastern Christendom.

The discussion, therefore, is really 2,000 years old, and in that light, Luther's emphases stand in stark contrast with Paul's purposes in the New Testament. Luther is over-reacting to works-based Roman Catholicism, indeed; Paul is opposing an ethnically-based view of salvation. It does not surprise me that Seay never tackles Romans 6 in his examination; the same Paul who speaks of justification by faith and says that no one is saved by keeping law speaks of dying to sin in baptism and being a slave of Christ. That image of the Christian-- the slave of Christ-- is conspicuously absent, and emphasis is placed in the book on the image of Jesus as the "Liberating King," but the nature of the "liberation" is never addressed. This is too bad, considering that liberation in American understanding is antithetical to the Biblical understanding of liberation-- not freedom to, but freedom from.

In the end, The Gospel According to Jesus is not the "Gospel According to Jesus". It is an over-emphasis of one aspect of the Gospel of Christ as elaborated upon by Paul at the expense of other aspects. Seay is right to say that too many Americans accept a works-based Gospel, and too many are convinced that good people are saved by virtue of being "good" and that "bad" can be counteracted by "good," which is false. However, to set forth a Gospel that goes too far the other way, one that has never comfortably handled the tension between man's inability to save himself with God's imperative for humans to live in a holy way, is not the solution. Shane Claiborne, in one of the conversations, speaks to the need for balance, and that is appreciated-- and that is exactly what is needed when talking about the Gospel of Christ. Human beings are redeemed, not on the basis of works or anything they could have done in "righteousness," but through the grace of God manifest through the death of Christ, indeed, as Titus 3:3-5 indicates. But they are saved by the washing of regeneration of washing (baptism) and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, in order to become heirs in hope and live lives of submission to the will of God in Christ, as Paul demonstrates in Titus 3:6-8.

The result, in many aspects, is similar despite the difference in paths: believers are to conform to the will of God. But the ends do not justify the means, and we must maintain a balanced, Biblical theology. The same Paul who says that no man is justified by works also says that everyone will be judged on the basis of what they have done in the flesh and must become obedient to God in Christ and conform to Him (cf. Romans 2:5-10, 6:1-23, 12:1-2). He does not sense a contradiction there, and neither do Peter (1 Peter 1:3-9, 22), John (1 John 2:1-6, 2 John 1:6-8), the Hebrew author (Hebrews 11), James (James 2:14-26), or especially Jesus (Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23)! Merely because Augustine or Luther could not reconcile the tension without finding reconciliation between faith and obedience manifest in works does not mean that there really is contradiction!

A final word about Seay's choice of "translation," one upon which he worked, The Voice. Personally, I fail to see the need for yet another dynamic equivalent "translation" that is as much exposition as a rendering of the relevant texts into English. The challenge I continue to have with such works is that the very people who are most liable to distort and abuse such "translations" are the ones to whom they are marketed-- those who otherwise do not understand much about the Bible and its message. Perhaps we should learn from those before us who understood that you leave the text alone and explain it in conversation, preaching, and teaching so that the full dimensions of God's Word-- not just the basic meaning, but all of its flavor, implications, and even its vagaries-- can be hallowed and respected.

The Gospel According to Jesus has the right spirit-- trying to get to a better understanding of the core doctrines of Christianity and helping people recover a truly Biblical way of looking at themselves and the world-- but suffers greatly from directing that spirit toward a resurgence of a doctrine that never really squared properly with the Scriptures. Justification by faith alone is not the true Gospel but is a perversion thereof, in the same category as the "works-based" salvation message condemned as its foil. Instead, we should promote and advance God's true Gospel-- justification by a faith that in all things submits to its Author and Perfector (Romans 1:16-17, Romans 6:1-23, 8:1-10, 12:1-2, Hebrews 12:1-2)!

*-- book received as part of an early review program.

ELDV

BR: "Which None Can Shut" by "Reema Goode"

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 03:10:00 +0000

Especially since 9/11 there has been a resurgence of interest in Islam and the Muslim world among Americans. For American Christians there is an interest in promoting Christianity in such lands. Yet the challenges seem insurmountable: while Muslims certainly appreciate the freedom of religion and freedom of expression that exists in the West, they do not provide such freedom in their own lands. While some countries tolerate Christians and others to practice their religion, they still demand a payment of a tax, and they are forbidden from proselytizing. The real danger is for the Muslims themselves: if they convert to Christianity, Islam demands their execution. Those who convert them also risk great personal danger to themselves.

On account of these challenges it is easy for Christians to dismiss Islamic lands and focus on other places where there is a wider opening. Nevertheless, the call of the Gospel is to go out to every creature, even if it is illegal to do so (cf. Mark 16:15, Acts 5:29). Furthermore, despite the official lines, the ignorance, and the misinformation, many in the Arab world are curious about what Christianity is really about. Should they be deprived of the Gospel?

There are some people who attempt to promote the Gospel of Christ in Arab lands. One such person has recently written an account of her activities in promoting Christianity there in a book entitled Which None Can Shut: Remarkable True Stories of God's Miraculous Work in the Muslim World written by "Reema Goode" (true name withheld, no doubt, because of security concerns).

"Reema" seems to be an Evangelical with perhaps Pentecostal leanings. She describes the stories of how she worked among men and women in an undeclared Arab country. She talks about how the culture gave her an opening to advance her purposes: the women frequently visit with one another and talk about all kinds of things. Most of the discussions she has takes place in this environment.

The Muslim women feel that they need to bring her to Allah; she feels as if she needs to bring them to Jesus. She demonstrates her methods-- the questions she asks them, the questions she is asked, the demonstration of the Christian life, her praying, casting out of demons (so believed), signs and wonders (so believed), and so on and so forth.

While I am certainly in no position to limit God and His power, I am also not convinced, personally, that there is a need for casting out of demons and the "signs and wonders" mentioned in the text. I am in no position to judge what is being claimed, but I retain my skepticism about such things.

"Reema" certainly feels as if the Lord constantly speaks to her in some way or another, and again, I am not in a position to judge. I have some concerns about theology also, since the "believers" are encouraged to "pray" to receive Jesus as opposed to following the Biblical pattern of being immersed in water for remission of sin to put on Christ (Acts 2:36-38, Galatians 3:27).

Nevertheless, the book has value in showing that many Muslims do want to learn about Jesus, that prayer has value even today, and that with the right people, the right manner of life, and the right information in place, many Muslims are willing to have their viewpoint challenged, are willing to see the bankruptcy of Islam, and are willing to become believers in Jesus, despite the risks.

Which None Can Shut demonstrates that we should never write any group off and that we must find ways to get the Gospel-- and Jesus' representatives preaching the Gospel-- into Muslim lands.

ELDV

*--book received as part of an early review program.

CVI: BR: "Beyond Opinion" by Ravi Zacharias

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:16:00 +0000

Those who attempt to defend the truth of Christianity understand how difficult of a task it can be in our modern world. We live in the midst of many people with whom there is significant disagreement about the most fundamental matters of existence, and we often feel entirely overwhelmed and under-equipped to promote the truths of God in Christ around us.

Thankfully we have Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend, by Ravi Zacharias. The subtitle might be a little misleading. While it is true that some parts of the book focus on the praxis of Christianity, the book is really an apologetic field manual for the early twenty-first century.

Zacharias writes a few sections and is the general editor; the book includes discussions from a range of individuals with expertise in various aspects of apologetics. The only name that stood out to me was Alister McGrath, but the insight of the others was beneficial.

The book is broken up into sections. The first section is "Giving an Answer." The first part of that section focuses on various challenges-- from postmodernism, from atheism, from the collegiate environment, from Islam, from "eastern" religions, and from science. While all were quite beneficial, I would suggest the "Challenges from Science" chapter as required reading for everyone. In 30 pages the author there does better at handling questions regarding faith and science than can be found in many books of much more significant size.

Part of the value of this book is the second part of the first section-- a discussion of the various mindsets, worldviews, and unanswered questions that often exist behind the surface. Discussions include conversational apologetics, broader cultural challenges, the age-old question of evil and suffering, and challenges arising from cultural differences.

The second section begins to move toward the idea of "living the faith" by turning apologetics inward. Discussions focus on the concept of the Trinity as critical for spiritual transformation, the growth processes inherent in suffering and persecution, and the pitfalls of idolatry, denial, and self-deception in life. The book concludes with the third section by Zacharias on the advancement of intellectually-based apologetics among Christians and a conclusion about the need for apologetics today.

Beyond Opinion fills a needed void-- it is a robust intellectual defense of Christianity that exposes the deficiencies of other worldviews. It is not content to skim the surface of difficulties but probes deeply into not just the unbeliever but also the believer and the challenges faced by both and all. It can provide benefit for everyone who knows that they should have some kind of answer for what they believe and who seek some way to communicate the Gospel of Christ in the twenty-first century. Unbelievers and adherents of other religions will find themselves quite challenged by what is presented here. Beyond Opinion is strongly recommended for believers for consideration and growth!

ELDV

*-- book received as part of an early review program

CV: BR: "Outlive Your Life" by Max Lucado

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:00:00 +0000

In a world full of injustice, poverty, oppression, and malaise, it is easy to become hardened, cynical, and disengaged. The believer in Christ, however, is called to something greater-- to reflect Jesus to all men, especially those who are in distress.

This is the theme of Max Lucado's newest book, Outlive Your Life: You Were Made to Make a Difference. Among my fellow members of churches of Christ, the name "Max Lucado" often evokes images of "apostate" and "change agent." Once part of the churches of Christ, Lucado has certainly accommodated his own views, along with those of his congregation, to be acceptable to Evangelicalism as a greater whole. This is truly lamentable considering Lucado's great skill at communicating to others.

Outlive Your Life uses the events of Acts 1-12 as a paradigm for discussing what God expects from believers today. Each chapter begins with a Scripture and ends with a Scripture and a suggested prayer. Chapters feature matters like the ordinary nature of God's servants, the need to get out of our shells, to put the greater (spiritual) good ahead of lesser (physical) ones, to work with fellow Christians, to be hospitable, to assist others in need, to stand up in the face of persecution, to do good, to be a source of strength for the dispossessed, to remain humble before God, to remove prejudices in life, to resist arrogance, to pray continually, and, based on Matthew 25, remember that when you help people in distress you help Jesus. The book ends with a discussion and action guide designed to promote further discussion and action.

Lucado is a very vivid author. He seamlessly takes you from the first century to the twenty-first century with his illustrations and examples (although I wished that he would keep the first century as the first century and the twenty-first as the twenty-first and not blend the images as he does occasionally!). He writes in a familiar and understandable way.

On the whole, the book is theologically sound and has a message that must be proclaimed. It is good to see that some elements of concern for the dispossessed and the need to practice authentic Christianity is being proclaimed by more voices within greater Christendom; the sooner Christendom sheds the sanctimonious, interested-only-in-sexual-mores "Moral Majority" image, the better. Nevertheless, there are a few challenges: Lucado's embrace of ecumenism, occasional looseness in handling the Biblical narrative, and the dizzying leapfrogging from Bible translation to Bible translation.

Yet this should not diminish from the overall excellence of Outlive Your Life. It is a necessary call in the midst of a time and place more devoted to materialism and consumerism than authentic New Testament Christianity and its emphasis on clearing prejudice, assisting the downtrodden and dispossessed, and reliance on God and not self. May many come to a better understanding of these truths!

ELDV

*-- book received as part of an early review program.

CIV: BR: "Bringing Up Girls" by Dr. James Dobson

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:40:00 +0000

The challenge of raising children is as old as humanity, and this challenge is acutely felt as we begin the twenty-first century. While there are many challenges and issues with raising children of both genders, boys and girls remain very different creatures with different biology, strengths, and weaknesses.

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family fame has, after three years of work, completed Bringing Up Girls: Practical Advice and Encouragement for Those Shaping the Next Generation of Women. As the subtitle suggests, the book is designed to provide information and advice for handling all kinds of issues relating to the raising of young girls.

Dobson begins with birth and proceeds through various issues all the way through the teenage years. At times he delves into the science of girls and maturity-- the physiological, hormonal, psychological, and physical matters behind femininity and how girls mature. At other times he provides transcripts of interviews he held with various people both about raising girls and with the girls themselves about their experiences as children. Other chapters represent questions and answers about miscellaneous subjects relating to raising girls.

Dobson's primary focuses are the challenges of raising girls in a feminist and sex-saturated society and the role of fathers in the healthy development of girls. Many chapters are devoted to both of these focuses. Relationships with mothers are pretty much accepted as a given; Dobson also discusses matters of being ladylike, childcare, handling puberty and the desire for relationships, the challenges of bullying and matters of self-esteem, and the plagues of young women-- self-image difficulties, sexual conduct, drug use, cutting, and the like.

There is very little that is earth-shattering in the book but most of the advice has merit. Most of Dobson's warnings are worth heeding-- it is important that girls are raised to have proper respect for themselves, properly handling intimacy, and equipped to handle the challenges and temptations of modern life. The scientific background is very illuminating, especially for the men who generally have very little understanding of the hormones working underneath the surface of the women in their lives. Fathers especially should well consider what is written about the importance of his role in the empowerment of his daughter(s). Both parents should consider the role of peer and societal influence in their daughter(s), and the impact that childcare and the modern rat race has on children in general.

While I can understand Dobson's emphases on the depravity of culture, he often becomes too sensationalistic and proves willing to stretch the truth at times in order to achieve maximum effect. Yes, the influence of the 1960s and the 1970s have led to many societal challenges, especially as they relate to the roles of the two genders and sexual conduct. But, as Ecclesiastes 7:10 indicates, it is not as if the former days were really better. They were different. I noticed with interest how Dobson lamented how fewer than half of Americans believed premarital sex was sinful, but passed over the fact that three-quarters believed racism was. While it is no doubt true that more people in the 1950s would agree that premarital sex was sinful than do now, would three-quarters have admitted that racism was sinful then? Other "conclusions" of Dobson will not square with the experiences of many, especially in his connections regarding sexual misconduct and other consequences. I would hate to see people write Dobson off for the times when he stretches the truth and thus discredit many of the valuable warnings he does provide. He also provides enthusiastic support for the "purity ball" concept, which I personally find rather off-putting. We cannot condemn dancing as lascivious and be known in society as condemning dancing as lascivious and then promote a dance between fathers and daughters without wondering why people find it creepy. One can achieve the merits of the "purity ball" without the dancing and the facade.

On the whole, however, parents of girls, especially fathers, will benefit greatly from considering Dobson's advice. The book is worth having and reading!

ELDV

*received as part of an early reviewer program.

CIII: The 1 Enoch Conundrum

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 17:59:00 +0000

Recently I have been teaching Genesis with an emphasis on the use of Genesis in the New Testament and also have been considering the letter of Jude. Both of these texts require addressing the conundrum of 1 Enoch.

Christians strongly believe that what Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is true:

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

The Scriptures represent the sacred words of God that teach us His truth and how we are to live. We understand that Paul is not here specifying what books are Scripture and what books are not Scripture-- no Apostle or associate of an Apostle write such a list. Instead, the boundaries of what is Scripture and what is not developed over a few hundred year period after the Apostles and has led to our current Bible. This process was also taking place in Judaism at much the same time.

Despite all of the sensationalist claims promoted in society, history shows that there was not much dispute about the majority of the books now known as Scripture. Most of the books now understood as Scripture were never disputed as Scripture. Likewise, most of the "extra-canonical" books-- apocryphal and psudepigraphal works, Gnostic gospels and treatises, and post-Apostolic Christian literature-- were never claimed to be Scripture.

We should not paint with too broad a brush, however, because there were some disputes. Questions circulated about Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon since they did not include the Divine Name. The Hebrew letter was disputed because its author was never listed; Revelation was suspect less because of its origin and more because of how heretics used it. 2 Peter, Jude, and 2/3 John were also disputed at times. On the other side of the equation, many believed in the inspiration of 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Letter of Barnabas. The place of the apocryphal works, including Tobit, Judith, Baruch, 1/2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the expansions of Daniel and Esther, among other works, were also disputed, some believing that they were inspired, and others not. Included in this list is 1 Enoch.

There is an understandable level of inertia about the canon of Scripture. We understand that those who were drafting up lists were not inspired men, but we believe that God providentially preserved His revealed Word in the Scriptures for us. To argue to withdraw a book from the canon, or to add a book to it, casts doubt and aspersions upon the process. Therefore, it always seems safer to make arguments justifying the inclusion of canonized books while justifying the exclusion of the non-canonized books.

These arguments, on the whole, are robust. While it is true that the Divine Name is not in Esther, Ecclesiastes, or the Song of Solomon, their value in expressing the events of history and elements of life have not been disputed by believers over the centuries. In the New Testament, Hebrews, 2/3 John, Jude, and Revelation are alluded to or cited by Christians in the late first and early second centuries. The value and inspiration of the content of Hebrews was not in doubt; the question of authorship was what was most pressing. It is not the fault of the Revelation that it was abused by heretics. The most questionable letter of them all would be 2 Peter, for which we have comparatively little evidence of second century use, and Origen in the third century expresses some doubt about it but confesses that it is considered from Peter and inspired by most in his day.

Apocryphal and pseudepigraphal works do have value in terms of describing the realities of Israel in the intertestamental period, yet they themselves confess that the Spirit was not inspiring people during those days:

And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what should be done with them (1 Maccabees 4:46).

So was there a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the time that a prophet was not seen among them (1 Maccabees 9:27).

Also that the Jews and priests were well pleased that Simon should be their governor and high priest for ever, until there should arise a faithful prophet (1 Maccabees 14:41).

Likewise, while there is value in books like 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Letter of Barnabas in terms of understanding early Christianity, claims of inspiration tend to fall flat. Hermas lives in the middle of the second century, long after the Apostles; Clement's letter points back to the Apostles, and there is little confidence to be had in the idea that Barnabas wrote the letter ascribed to him.

The standards of early Christians, on the whole, worked. To be considered Scripture, books had to be attested as Scripture by Jesus and the Apostles, must have been written by an Apostle or a direct associate of an Apostle, and to bear the hallmarks of the Holy Spirit.

But then there is the 1 Enoch conundrum.

And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him" (Jude 1:14-15).

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him (1 Enoch 1:9).

Jude quotes 1 Enoch as representing the prophecy of Enoch, and yet what we consider 1 Enoch is not part of the canon of Scripture.

All kinds of arguments are brought forth to explain this conundrum, and I would like to investigate many of them. Since 1 Enoch is not considered canonical, it seems like there is an automatic prejudice against the work. We will attempt a level of objectivity and try to consider "both sides" of the argument. On the "one side" is the current situation: 1 Enoch is reckoned as pseudepigraphal, not part of the canon, uninspired, perhaps preserving somehow a snippet of what Enoch said. But let us also consider the "other side," and imagine what would have happened if the Book of Enoch was considered canonical, perhaps heading up the Prophets in the Old Testament, and how the argument would shift to defending the book.

What is 1 Enoch?

The book of Enoch, called 1 Enoch to differentiate it from two other pseudepigraphal works attributed to Enoch, stands today as a 108 chapter book divided into no fewer than five books, or sections:

I. The Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36)
II. The Similitudes, or Parables, of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71)
III. The Astronomical Book, or Book of Luminaries (1 Enoch 72-82)
IV. The Book of Dream Visions (1 Enoch 83-90)
V. The Letter of Enoch (1 Enoch 91-108)

The book purports to be the words and visions of Enoch, the seventh generation man in Genesis 5:18-24, and relates often to Methuselah and Noah, Enoch's son and great-grandson, respectively. The book includes a defense for a solar calendar (the Astronomical Book) and an extended metaphor describing the history of Israel (the Book of Dream Visions). Perhaps the most significant element of 1 Enoch is the first book, the Book of the Watchers, describing the actions and downfall of the angels who took daughters of men to themselves and further corrupted mankind, described in Genesis in Genesis 6:1-4.

More detailed information about material in the book of Enoch can be found in this introduction or on Wikipedia. An early twentieth century translation of 1 Enoch by R.H. Charles can be found here or here.

Arguments have been made for years about the influence of 1 Enoch on the New Testament. It is quite clear that Jude quotes 1 Enoch and even alludes to other events in 1 Enoch, as we shall see, and Peter does the same in 2 Peter and perhaps 1 Peter also. One may see some allusion to elements of 1 Enoch in Revelation, and some discern certain phraseology in other New Testament books as being influenced by 1 Enoch. As we will also see, 1 Enoch was considered the inspired production of Enoch the prophet by many of the early Christian writers of the second and early third centuries.

Disputes circulated around the book from all sides. Its focus on angels and easy use in Christology no doubt weighed against it in the eyes of the Jews; it was not accepted into the Jewish canon. Ultimately it would not make it into the canon of the Christian Bible except in Ethiopia, where it has always been part of the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Its preservation is a major issue. The only extant copies of the manuscript are the Ethiopic version, which is itself a translation of a mostly lost Greek version. There are some portions of the text that have been preserved in Greek and Latin, and it was known from its citations in patristic literature. On the whole, however, 1 Enoch was lost to Western (and even most of Eastern) Christianity from the medieval period until the beginning of the nineteenth century, when 1 Enoch was "rediscovered" and translated into Latin and English.

Ever since there have been disputations about the provenance of 1 Enoch. The discussion was forever changed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for in cave 4 at Qumran scrolls and fragments were found of every book of 1 Enoch in Aramaic except for the second book (the Similitudes), including a part of 1 Enoch 1:9 itself; three small portions of 1 Enoch were found in Hebrew in cave 1. 1 Enoch, then, has a history before the Greek text. Whether it was originally written entirely in Hebrew or in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic is not definitively known at this time.

1 Enoch, therefore, is most certainly a pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic work written in Hebrew or perhaps Hebrew and Aramaic.

1 Enoch: The Evidence

Let us now consider the evidence that we would use in order to make the case that 1 Enoch, or at least some part of it, is inspired.

Such a case must begin with Jude 1:14-15 and 1 Enoch 1:9:

And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him" (Jude 1:14-15).

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him (1 Enoch 1:9).

This is fairly strong evidence: we do not have such citations from books like Esther, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Solomon. Furthermore, Jude calls it prophecy, and what does Peter say about prophecy?

And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21).

Therefore, we must conclude that Enoch is one of the prophets, and very likely the first prophet, moved by the Holy Spirit to speak.

Against this some in the past were willing to cast doubt on the inspiration of Jude since he quoted what was regarded as an apocryphal book-- but most conservative Christians would reject such a notion as going too far.

Many attempt to advance the argument that Jude is not really quoting 1 Enoch 1:9 since there are some discrepancies between what Jude has presented and what is recorded in 1 Enoch. But if the book had been previously been considered canonical, such opposition would not take place-- we would say that Jude is not attempting to provide a precise quote or there is textual corruption somewhere.

We are not really in a position to judge Jude's citation since we lack the Hebrew or Aramaic source text. For all we know, Jude may be directly translating the Hebrew/Aramaic original we do not have. But even if he is not, we must recognize that many quotations are not precisely word-for-word in the New Testament, and we do not use such arguments to cast aspersions on those texts. Finally, if we were to reject the idea of direct quotation, we must then suggest that Jude is quoting the true statement of Enoch that sounds very, very similar to a statement written in a book years before him but which has no influence upon him. Such an argument seems quite forced and artificial and lacks credibility.

Jude describes Enoch as the "seventh from Adam" in Jude 1:14, which may be influenced by 1 Enoch 60:8-9:

But the male is named Behemoth, who occupied with his breast a waste wilderness named Duidain, on the east of the garden where the elect and righteous dwell, where my grandfather was taken up, the seventh from Adam, the first man whom the Lord of Spirits created.

But it might just be that Jude's use is coincidental. Yet again, if Enoch had always been considered as canonical, we would more likely than not consider it a reference to 1 Enoch 60:8.

Both Jude and Peter also seem to allude to the story of the angels in prison as written in 1 Enoch. Consider 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6, and 1 Enoch 10:4-6:

For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment (2 Peter 2:4).

And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day (Jude 1:6).

And again the Lord said to Raphael: "Bind Azazel [one of the fallen angels, eldv] hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire" (1 Enoch 10:4-6).

The parallelism is breathtaking. Jude's and Peter's references (and it is often believed that Peter is influenced by Jude, or vice versa) have no real parallel in any Old Testament passage, and it has often been adduced that they are speaking of things not otherwise known from Scripture. Yet the details-- sinful angels, cast into a prison, darkness, reserved for fire-- are all found in 1 Enoch 10!

This is challenging for many because it directly bears on the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.
And the LORD said, "My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years."
The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

The identification of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" has been disputed over time. The earliest Christians, influenced by 1 Enoch, believed the "sons of God" to be fallen angels, and "daughters of men" as exactly that. Later interpreters have suggested that the "sons of God" are the descendants of Adam through Seth and the "daughters of men" are the descendants of Cain.

The events described in Genesis 6:1-4 are discussed in greater detail in 1 Enoch 6-10: the angels see the beautiful women, lust for them, make an agreement to take them; these fallen angels are named; they teach mankind astrology, magic, medications from plants, war instruments, and makeup; men become even more depraved, shed much blood; God's judgment regarding the Flood is then made at least partially on the basis of these events and He then imprisons all the angels who have engaged in this immorality.

It is to the latter part of this story that Peter and Jude seem to be alluding. If this is the case, then the identification of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" in Genesis 6:1-4 is completely evident: the angels are "sons of God," and human females the "daughters of men."

It is natural, then, for those who affirm the contrary interpretation to cast aspersions on the allusion and Peter's and/or Jude's use of 1 Enoch. Yet again, if the book had always been canonical, would such aspersions be tolerated? The argument would never have come up to begin with and we would all have understood, as it was understood in the second century, how the story was to be interpreted.

And again: if we reject the allusion, then we have the situation where Peter and Jude make reference to some otherwise unknown story about angels sinning and being imprisoned and have no knowledge of 1 Enoch and its story, even though 1 Enoch comes earlier than both of them. This argument is forced and lacks credibility, especially since Jude quotes Enoch from 1 Enoch eight verses later!

One of the arguments often used to advance the idea that Genesis 6:1-4 is about Seth's vs. Cain's descendants is Jesus' declaration that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30). Yet consider 1 Enoch 15:1-7:

And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: "Fear not, Enoch, thou righteous man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice. And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: 'You should intercede for men, and not men for you: Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling."

Here 1 Enoch affirms that angels in Heaven do not marry-- they do not have wives appointed for them-- but sinned and acted in defiling ways by taking wives of humans. Some might suggest that Jesus is alluding to Enoch's declaration about angels in Matthew 22:30. That is possible; it may not be so. Regardless, this evidence shows that it was believed that angels were not given in marriage in Heaven yet could still sin by lusting and taking wives of humans.

Some have also suggested that there is an allusion to the angels in prison in 1 Enoch in 1 Peter 3:18-20:

Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

The allusion is suggested to be 1 Enoch 21, although I personally cannot see the correlation. If the "spirits in prison" were to refer to those spiritual beings who sinned, it would provide a better answer to the question why they would receive the preaching of Jesus but human souls at other times did not. On the other hand, such an interpretation is entirely ruled out if 1 Peter 4:6 is referring back to 1 Peter 3:19, and the allusion is then not a legitimate one.

There is then the evidence from patristic literature. The Epistle of Barnabas, likely an early second century document, directly quotes 1 Enoch 89:56 as Scripture in the 16th chapter, and refers to Enoch as a prophet in the 4th chapter. Justin Martyr (Second Apology 5), Athenagoras (Plea for the Christians 24), and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.15.6, 4.16.2, 4.36.4), and Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 5.1.10.1-2, Selections from the Prophets 2.1, 53.4), all mid-to-late second century authors, talk about Enoch in terms of information revealed not only in Genesis but also 1 Enoch, and at times refer to characters within 1 Enoch. Yet perhaps the most interesting witness comes from Tertullian in the early third century (On the Apparel of Women, 3.1-3):

3.1 I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's "grace in the sight of God," and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.

3.2 If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.

3.3 But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired." By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.

Those opposing 1 Enoch focus on the fact that Tertullian confesses that 1 Enoch is "not received by some," and thus that it is disputed. Tertullian does say this, but that is not his argument-- instead, he is attempting to defend its authenticity. Tertullian is willing to suggest that a "hard copy" of 1 Enoch might have been preserved throughout time, carried by Noah on the Ark. If a hard copy did not always exist, he suggests that it would be perhaps written again by inspiration first by Noah and then again later by Ezra. Tertullian then invokes both 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Jude, making the case that 1 Enoch edifies and that Jude testifies to the book. We will return to these arguments later, but it is important to note that the book receives a robust defense as inspired even in the early third century.

1 Enoch: The Opposition

Having seen the evidence that would be provided for the argument of inspiration, it is good for us to consider other challenges that come about regarding 1 Enoch.

Scholarship is mostly in agreement regarding the pseudepigraphal nature of 1 Enoch. While scholars have been compelled to date the book further into the past because of the Dead Sea Scrolls, they do not go too far back: it is believed to have been written no earlier than the third century BCE and most likely in the early second century BCE, perhaps just before the Maccabbean revolt.

Scholars also believe the book to be a composite collection written by different authors at different times. The lack of evidence for book 2 of 1 Enoch (The Similitudes-- 1 Enoch 37-71) in the Dead Sea Scrolls have led many to posit that it was not originally there at Qumran, and was perhaps filled with "the Book of the Giants" that was found in the cave 4 scrolls (a disputed thesis).

Those who oppose 1 Enoch as inspired hold firm to these declarations, but again, let us consider what would happen had 1 Enoch always been accepted as Scripture. Conservative Christians have deep skepticism when it comes to scholarly hypotheses about dating and authorship. Not a few scholars would date Daniel, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and parts of Zechariah to the same time frame as 1 Enoch! Many scholars also claim that Isaiah 40-66, parts of Zechariah, and the Pentateuch as pseudepigraphical, being composite works of different authors at different times.

Furthermore, if it is true that Jude is alluding to 1 Enoch 60:8 in Jude 1:14, then Jude is indirectly attesting to the validity of at least something in the second book of 1 Enoch. The early Christians, admittedly, mostly quote from the first 15 chapters of 1 Enoch, but references are also made to the Astronomical Book and Dream Visions (Books III and IV).

Therefore, it is hard to argue that the book of 1 Enoch looked radically different in Jude's time than it does today. But we do not have any evidence for the text much before Jude's time, and have very little basis on which to make any argument, for or against, whether 1 Enoch was previously accepted as a unity. It would seem that the Qumran community found value in 1 Enoch but did not place it with the Biblical scrolls.

What Jude meant by the quotation is also a point of disputation. Many will compare it to Paul's citation of Greeks in Acts 17:28 or the "Cretan prophet" Epimenides in Titus 1:12, and allege that just as we would never consider these pagans to be truly prophets or truly inspired, the same is true for Jude's use of 1 Enoch.

But again, what if 1 Enoch had always been canonized? Such an argument would never dare stand. We would immediately compare Jude's quotation of 1 Enoch to, say, Paul quoting the prophet Isaiah in Acts 28:25ff or some other similar situation.

No early Christians claim Epimenides to be a prophet, but many claim Enoch to be a prophet, and that is true in part because of Jude's description of Enoch as such and his quotation of 1 Enoch.

Whether Jude believed all of 1 Enoch to be inspired or only parts of 1 Enoch to be inspired, or whether he saw it as having some form of deuterocanonical status can never be satisfactorily answered. But his quotation of Enoch seems to be more in line with the Apostles quoting the Hebrew Prophets than quoting the Greeks.

Opponents also appeal to the disputed nature of the book-- the Jews did not accept it as Scripture, it was disputed as early as the third century, according to Tertullian, and later Christians like Origen, Augustine, Jerome, and others opposed it, and such is why it is not in the canon.

There is no doubt that the book is disputed, but why? Tertullian suggests some of the reasons why the Jews would dispute the work, and others are suggested by research into Jewish sensibilities of the time (the focus on angels, in particular, and the "angelic" interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, was offensive to rabbinical understanding). Yes, later Christians did dispute the work, but the early Christians are almost unanimous in their approval.

In how many other circumstances would conservative Christians side with Augustine and Jerome over the witness of earlier Christians? They would do no such things in terms of infant baptism, original sin, offices in the church, and so on and so forth. This is not to say that any such persons are inspired or their judgments are inspired; many other books, not least the Apocrypha, were believed to be inspired by many, and we reject that today.

In the end, the fact that the book is disputed over time is a piece of evidence, but it is no more overwhelming for 1 Enoch than it would be for Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, 2/3 John, and Revelation.

Many in opposition accept the date of the third century BCE to first century BCE and appeal to the fact that, as with other apocryphal books, there is no prophet at this time, and hence no inspiration. Yet there remains the major complication that Jude considers 1 Enoch 1:9, if nothing else, to be an authentic prophecy from Enoch, way back when there was still inspiration, evidently, since prophecy is not of private interpretation but comes from God through the Holy Spirit (Jude 1:14, 2 Peter 1:20-21). If 1 Enoch does faithfully represent what Enoch spoke, then this argument has no merit.

Perhaps the biggest challenge to 1 Enoch is in the fact that it was not accepted into the canon and, for all intents and purposes, lost to the majority of Christianity for over a millennium. Yes, it has Biblical citation, but so do books like the Book of Jashar and the Book of the Wars of the LORD (cf. Joshua 10:13, Numbers 21:14). If we were to suddenly discover one of these books in a fantastic discovery, would we open up the Biblical canon for them? This poses a major theological problem-- if God has preserved His Word, how can some of it be left aside? How can we believe that God's Providence directed the process if some books were left out?

On the other hand, all of this represents a bit of cultural prejudice. After all, if one were an Ethiopian Christian, this is a moot argument, for they have never "lost" the book. It has always been a part of their canon. It was only "lost" to Christians in Europe, Asia, and the rest of Africa, and done quite willingly. Is it not possible for men, however well-intentioned, to reject part of what God inspired? 1 Enoch, after all, is a special case, for unlike other possible "Biblical" books, it never has been completely lost, and an Apostle and a brother of the Lord allude to its main story and cite it as authoritative.

(Tentative, Apprehensive) Conclusions

Thus we have the 1 Enoch conundrum. Based on all of the above, I am willing to offer somewhat of a conclusion.

First of all, it should be noted that 1 Enoch is not a salvation issue in the least. There is nothing in 1 Enoch that changes any part of God's plan of salvation; whatever bearing it has is on Genesis 6:1-4 and our understanding of Peter and Jude. If more of it is accepted as inspired, it provides some scientific observations, predictions about the Messiah, and discussions of Israel. With the exception of what was discussed above about the angels, there is nothing in 1 Enoch that is not otherwise made evident in Scripture or through scientific observation. And that which 1 Enoch more clearly illuminates does not impact salvation.

After all of this research I still have reservations when it comes to considering 1 Enoch, as is, inspired, for two main reasons:

1. Textual condition. 1 Enoch exists today as (at least) a translation of a translation-- the Ethiopic (Ge'ez) translation of a Greek translation of the Aramaic and/or Hebrew (or, perhaps, the Greek translation of the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew-- who knows?). It was written in a Semitic language, translated into an Indo-European one, and back into a Semitic one. Even if the Aramaic DSS fragments and Greek/Latin fragments proved valuable in correcting the text, it will still be difficult to trust that the 1 Enoch text we have, on a word-for-word basis, highly corresponding to the presumed original. This state is unlike the Hebrew OT or Greek NT for which we can have much more confidence, on the whole, on a word-for-word basis.

This is not to say that 1 Enoch is corrupted beyond recognition-- far from it. We can still understand 1 Enoch on the basis of the texts we have. But when it comes for the strict standard we should expect from Holy Scripture, it is hard to have confidence in the current texual condition of 1 Enoch.

2. Lack of Canonicity, Means to Ascertain What is Canonical. While there are two sides of the canonicity argument, I still have reservations in wholeheartedly embracing a book the majority of Christianity did not embrace. I believe that God has spoken in His Word, and that He has providentially provided that Word to His followers, and it does pose a major theological issue to suggest that something was left out.

Furthermore we have the issue of what would make 1 Enoch inspired. It is theoretically possible, as Tertullian suggests, for Enoch to have written down his prophecies and to have them transmitted over the ages, but that is highly speculative. We do not see it influencing a lot of later texts until the New Testament. It looks more akin to what was being composed in the Persian and Hellenistic times than anything preexilic. Why would the Jews insist on a lunar calendar if they had a prophetic text from the antediluvian period insisting on a solar calendar, for instance? And, granting that the text as we have it is substantially the same as in Jude's day, is Jude attempting to suggest that the whole work is inspired? It would seem that early Christians just accepted the whole thing, and while that could be possible, can we put such heavy reliance on the quotations on the first part so as to extrapolate that it is all inspired? What if not all of it comes from Enoch, but that it is true that some of the books of 1 Enoch were written later?

On account of these things I cannot have the confidence to declare all of 1 Enoch inspired. Nevertheless, I must conclude that 1 Enoch deserves more respect among Christians than it has obtained.

Whatever one thinks of the rest of 1 Enoch, the Book of the Watchers-- 1 Enoch 1-36-- must be given some kind of place in our consideration. It is from this section that Peter and Jude both make allusions, and Jude quotes directly from it. It was the section emphasized by early Christians in their citations, quotations, and allusions.

When we interpret Genesis 6:1-4, 2 Peter 2:4-9, or Jude 1:6-18, 1 Enoch must come into consideration. If one is going to advance the theory that the "sons of God" are Seth's descendants, and the "daughters of men" are Cain's descendants, Peter and Jude's allusions to 1 Enoch 6-10 must be addressed, and some kind of argument must be offered against the substance of what is written, not just the attempt to denigrate the book as pseudegraphical.

In reality, I believe that 1 Enoch 6-10 is the definitive evidence against the Seth-Cain theory of Genesis 6:1-4. The reason why Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian believe that the "sons of God" are angels because of the testimony of 1 Enoch 6-10, and they are assured of their conviction because Peter and Jude both allude to that story. We must make reference to 1 Enoch 10:4-6 in order to understand 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6, and in so doing, can only come to a proper understanding of Genesis 6:1-4 on the basis of the evidence in 1 Enoch 6-10.

Therefore, while I do not have confidence in the inspiration of the whole of 1 Enoch, the testimony of the Apostle Peter and Jude the brother of the Lord lead me to believe that 1 Enoch 1-10, if nothing else, substantially represents the inspired prophecy and declarations of Enoch the seventh from Adam. Enoch ought to be considered one of the prophets alongside Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and the rest, according to Jude 1:14. We should be more familiar with the contents of 1 Enoch than we are (myself included). We should not be afraid to make reference to 1 Enoch 1-10 in order to understand Genesis 6:1-4, 2 Peter 2, and Jude, and we should not believe that we have "sold out" the Bible in favor of pseudepigraphal texts, considering the confidence Jude has in at least that early section of 1 Enoch.

ELDV

CII: BR: "Wild at Heart" by John Eldredge

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:44:00 +0000

One of the many "pendulum swings" in our society involves gender-- differences between the two genders and the relative "value" in those differences. For years masculinity was, no doubt, over-estimated and over-valued; however, the modern feminist movement has surely led to the pendulum being swung too far the other way. Society at large is becoming more and more aware that masculinity has been under-estimated and under-valued; this message is also becoming apparent in religious matters, especially in Christianity.

Over the past decade or so there has been a growing realization that the way that churches are set up and how churches counsel and develop men has become dangerously feminized. It is in such a climate of growing awareness that John Eldredge originally wrote Wild at Heart.

Thomas Nelson has now released a revised and expanded version of Wild at Heart that includes a new preface and an excerpt from Eldredge's book Fathered by God. The majority of the rest, however, remains the same book as originally written.

Eldredge's thesis is that the church has, in short, emasculated men, and he seeks to set forth a way of understanding how one can be both truly masculine and a believer in God. His analysis of churches attempting to develop men as "Really Nice Guys" is not too far off the mark. Blame is appropriately placed at the feet of feminism; the "feminization" of Christianity that has been going on for generations is also at fault (another helpful book in these regards is Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow). Eldredge draws from Scripture, mythology, movies, and other similar stories to set forth three essentials for true masculinity: a conflict in which to engage, an adventure in which to participate, and a beauty to win. He shows how this can be accomplished in worldly pursuits, how these are often perverted by the world to lead to false forms of masculinity, and most helpfully, shows how these three can be accomplished in the realm of Christianity.

Eldredge also spends much time discussing the challenges men experience-- the "wound" to their masculinity or inclinations toward true masculinity and how a man must overcome the "wound" in order to return to wholesome masculinity. He also shows how men misdirect their focus and attempt to find their true masculinity in the wrong places-- work, drugs, women, etc. He speaks of the need to develop a close connection with God and to live by true faith, overcoming the "wound" and becoming a fulfilled man in Christ Jesus.

There is much to be commended in the book; one can see oneself and many of the challenges that one's fellow men experience through what is written. Nevertheless, there has been much criticism of the book, and some of it is warranted. Eldredge's attempt to use worldly wisdom to circumvent Jesus' instruction about turning the other cheek is itself unwise and not done well-- Eldredge would do well to understand the distinction between refusing to allow a bully to break the will and being a coward in the face of a bully, and to recognize that Jesus never commends or practices violence in order to counteract violence. Such is not the way of Christ. Sometimes it seems that Eldredge's basis for things is experience and movies, and while those can be helpful images for understanding, they are no substitute for revealed truth.

On the whole, however, it must be recognized that what Eldredge is presenting is a good counterweight to many of the messages heard in religious circles. Cowardice hiding under the pretense of humility is not the way of Christ, and Eldredge is right to expose it. Nevertheless, what Eldredge teaches should not be taken to the other extreme, and it must be remembered that there is a reason why there are more exhortations to humility in Scripture than there are to the assertion of self and self-identity. It is also interesting to note that while Eldredge is writing as a man to men he often uses very soft and feminine language-- intimacy, relationship, and the like. While it is not wrong to use such terms, they could be a hindrance to some men.

Wild at Heart is a great way for men to start a conversation about the importance of re-discovering true masculinity and how one can be a man and serve God. It can be of great value for men who are willing to be open to the difficulties they experienced in the past and how they can overcome those difficulties so as to have a better future in Christ, in the marriage relationship, and with children. The message should just not be taken to extremes.

The work is certainly worth the consideration of all men.

ELDV

*-book received as part of an early review program.

CI: BR: "Behind the Preacher's Door," edited by Warren Berkley

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:57:00 +0000

The work of an evangelist is challenging. It involves dedication, study, perseverance, passion, interpersonal skills, discipline, and much love, compassion, humility, and prayer. There are many technical and personal aspects to the work that preachers do.

A new book edited by Warren Berkley, Behind the Preacher's Door, addresses many of the personal challenges that will inevitably confront the man who proclaims the Gospel for a living. It is designed to encourage preachers (and any Christian) to greater personal faithfulness and devotion in an attempt to reduce the staggering statistics regarding preachers who have fallen into sin, disrepute, and/or distress.

The book features submissions by preachers of all ages. Topics included feature concerns regarding sexual immorality, personal devotion to God, managing time, managing finances, working with difficult Christians, friends, working for unity, managing technology, and maintaining good relationships with wives and children.

All preachers can gain from the insights and experiences in the book. We will all feel convicted and challenged by many of them. Hopefully it will lead us to greater faithfulness and integrity in accomplishing the work of promoting the Gospel. If nothing else it should reinforce for us the dangers of ministerial improprieties and encourage us to take heed lest we, too, fall.

The book is highly recommended and provides valuable insights for preachers of the Gospel.

ELDV

C: A Crisis of Communication and Understanding

noreply@blogger.com (Deus Vitae) — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 00:35:00 +0000

My reading program that started out as a study of the "New Atheism" has turned into a greater study about belief, unbelief, reason, faith, science, and the situation of the faith in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century. The study has been quite profitable and I have enjoyed it for many reasons.

A fundamental insight that has flowed underneath many of the resources I have read is the recognition, however implicit or explicit, that the fundamental language and perspective of Christianity is quite dissonant from the language(s) and perspective(s) of many of those within greater society. This has been made explicit in works like Francis Shaeffer's The God Who Is There and, in large extent, in many of the resources presented in Francis Collins' recent collection entitled Belief. In other books it is more implicit-- a recognition that if we are going to have something meaningful to communicate to our fellow man we are going to have to re-orient his thinking in some way or another.

It is not as if this fundamental insight has been lost on "Christendom" at large. On one side of the "spectrum" we have groups who rather explicitly shun or move away from their historic underpinnings, and on the other side, we have groups railing against the effects that this paradigm shift have engendered.

It is not as if this all happened at once; in fact, one can trace the pattern for at least the past few hundred years. It has taken many forms. An evident one involves science: as the seventeenth century moved into the eighteenth, scientists for all kinds of reasons moved away from positions of faith, and over time, as religious influence has waned, science and the scientific endeavor have taken its place in the eyes of many. Whereas many were once content to use Christianity (or some other supernatural system) to guide the way they saw their world we now have plenty of people who use science as the prism through which they understand everything. This is not to say that science has no value, for in its own realm it can serve humanity wonderfully. But while science can provide insights that may help inform philosophy, ethics, theology, and the like, philosophy, ethics, and theology ought to also inform science, as opposed to making science and scientific inquiry the Absolute it was never designed to be.

Much could also be said about the divinization of reason and rational thinking. It seems almost public heresy anymore to question the status of Reason as the Ultimate Guide for all things. Skepticism also has become one of the standards of the modern age, but curiously, few seem willing to doubt their doubts, or question the reasonableness of reason as the standard.

It is evident that the belief in the supernatural was anathema to many in society from the Enlightenment until recently, and even though postmodernism has returned in a sense to the supernatural, it eschews any form of the supernatural most would deem "traditional," especially New Testament Christianity.

Meanwhile, relativism and "tolerance" and a questioning of any and all standards except the ones we implicitly assume are standard procedure. Something as simple as thesis and antithesis-- that A and not-A cannot be both true at the same time-- is now questioned. There is no mutually agreed upon standard for much of anything, let alone belief in a personal God who is our Creator and to Whom we are subject. This is all compounded by an astounding ignorance of the Bible both as a cultural standard and as a religious text.

In such a climate it is not surprising that many who still hold to Christianity in some way or another would want to protest. Many want things to be like they were at some hazily defined moment in the past, back when people at least seemed to be more moral. Yet Ecclesiastes 7:10 applies. We have not been called to live in 1840s America or 1910s America or even 1950s America; we are called to live as Christians in early 21st century America.

But what we do have to come to terms with is that we cannot expect to communicate with many of our fellow human beings like we would in previous eras and expect a lot of success.

The Restoration Movement grew exponentially in the middle of 19th century America when entertainment choices were few, hymn singings were a popular way of passing an evening, and people learned how to read by reading the Bible. People accepted that there was right and wrong, even if they were doing wrong. Most people with whom you would speak would already share much of the same ideology as you would, and therefore you had common ground upon which to begin a conversation. In such a climate we can understand why the issues were focused on the specific forms of disagreement with the wider denominational world-- issues like church organization and governance, baptism, frequency and nature of the Lord's Supper, and other assembly matters. Issues of the assembly deserved focus because you could assume that the people with whom you were speaking shared the general outlines of a "Christian" worldview, and "everyone" knew that all good citizens should conduct themselves as good "Christian men" and "Christian women."

That was then. This is now.

Today we have very little of that foundation left intact. We cannot assume that the people with whom we come into contact believe in God. We cannot even assume that they believe that there is an objective standard delineating right from wrong. There is no certainty that they are even open to the belief that there are forces beyond themselves, and they may never have been challenged to look at the world beyond the lenses of materialism and physical perception.

Yet the statistics show that the vast majority of Americans do believe in God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, and even heaven and hell. Nevertheless, we cannot assume that people really understand much of any of these things. We cannot assume that by believing in God that they believe in God the Creator to whom all the creation is subject (cf. Genesis 1:1-2:4, Romans 9:20-24). They may profess belief in the Bible, but we cannot know how much they really know about its teachings-- and, for that matter, how many times they may know its teachings but declare some of them to be wrong or not true for themselves. They may say that they believe that Jesus is the Christ but they certainly may not understand the consequences of such a view-- Jesus Christ is God the Son and the Son of God, the Son of David, the only Way to God, and presently Lord of all to whom everyone will subject themselves, willingly or otherwise (Romans 1:1-5, John 14:16, Philippians 2:5-11). In short, even among those who profess Jesus, we cannot be sure whether they have culturally conditioned beliefs or have truly grounded themselves in the perspective of God in Christ (cf. Colossians 2:1-11).

This may sound distressing, but what it is trying to get us to understand is that we do truly live in a "post-Christian" era. The twenty-first century has returned to being like the first two centuries of the faith in many ways. We can complain about it and get distressed about or we can try to figure out what can be done about it. And there is much to do.

I believe that these understandings lead to at least two important insights in regards to evangelism in the 21st century. The first is that our defense of the faith must be buttressed with a good offense. In many of the American resources for Christian apologetics that I have seen the evidence is marshaled in ways not unlike a basketball team attempting to maintain a 15 point lead on their opposition in the last quarter of the game: a mostly defensive posture that attempts to persuade without doing any fundamental damage to the worldview of the person we are trying to persuade. The problem is, of course, that if we get too defensive, we lose without much hope of gain.

I recently read Minucius Felix's Octavius, a treatise written around the end of the second century, relating how Minucius' friend Octavius converted a mutual friend Caecilius out of paganism. The dialogue begins with Caecilius' argument against Christianity, full of inaccuracies about Christianity but a relatively robust presentation of the standard pagan argument of the day. When confronted with this argument Octavius does not start by merely clarifying what Caecilius has misunderstood about Christianity but by metaphorically going for the kill. Octavius uses the words of the Greeks themselves to demonstrate the existence of One Creator God, demonstrates the weakness, fallacies, and foibles of the Greek pantheon, demonstrating the ridiculousness of the belief system, and then he sets Caecilius straight about his exaggerations about Christianity. Octavius had to tear down in order to build up.

We cannot mince words or thoughts here: the Christian worldview and ideology is fundamentally opposed to the worldviews and ideologies proposed by society and culture of today. If we believe that we can just go out and teach Jesus without any attempt to challenge the prevailing assumptions of people, we should not be surprised when our evangelism efforts are not very successful, and when they are successful, that the people converted often fail to develop the type of faith the Bible demands.

We must do this with gentleness and respect, for certain (cf. 1 Peter 3:15), remembering that the people with whom we speak are not the enemy (Ephesians 6:12), but it must be done. One cannot have a mind to believe that Jesus is the Christ while still believing that many paths lead to God. One cannot be ready to cling to what is good and to abhor what is evil while believing that good and evil have no absolute basis in reality. One cannot profess belief in God while being wedded to an anti-supernatural view of our universe. Even though this may be offensive to much of what passes for "liberal" Christianity, there are times when we must call a spade a spade and recognize that far too many groups professing Jesus have compromised with the world in matters of truth and righteousness and that we must make a contrary stand not just for the truth of God as revealed through Jesus Christ but in the belief that there is a God, that He is alive and active and powerful, that Jesus of Nazareth truly existed as God in the flesh, truly died, and was truly and actually raised by God in the flesh in power on the third day, that all of these things are historical reality, just as presented by the church in the first century (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, 2 John 1:7-11). If people want to reject these statements as being true, they are certainly able-- but they are no longer being true to the Christian worldview and ideology as expressed in Scripture.

In order for the message of the Gospel to be heard properly there must be a recognition of disturbance in life-- that something is not right. Most people have never had their assumptions questioned or challenged. There is no doubt that many people, when so questioned, will retreat and would rather remain inconsistent than to come to grips with being wrong. But if we present the message of God in such a way that never leads anyone to question the way they have always been conditioned to see the world we should not expect to see much in the way of results. While it may be true that Christianity has never really been tried by most so as to be found lacking, too many people believe that Christianity has gone or should go the way of the dinosaur, Zeus, and animal sacrifices, and no amount of pleading without challenge will change that perception.

Therefore the presentation of the Gospel in the modern world must really be a two-edged sword-- first challenging current assumptions, and then presenting a radical alternative. But there must be work done before we even get to that point.

If you noticed from the description of the Octavius, Caecilius the pagan was invited to give the first argument. I do not believe that this was merely coincidental or done out of respect-- there is a definite advantage to this. By making the argument first, Caecilius lays his proverbial cards out on the table, and Octavius is then able to discern exactly what Caecilius believes and therefore what is the best way to go forward with his refutation and defense.

I fear that our evangelistic efforts may be hampered because of our forwardness. A large number of our evangelistic methods attempt to get to the point of the Bible study-- the opportunity to open the Bible and to see what it says. This, in and of itself, is right and good and quite necessary (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Romans 1:16). But if we engage in such things without really knowing where the people with whom we are studying are coming from our efforts may be in vain.

There is a sense in which we today must engage in "pre-evangelism" in order to get to evangelism. There will always be a select few who are seeking and are willing to give the presenter of the Gospel the benefit of the doubt, and God be praised for such people. Nevertheless, a lot of the people with whom we come into contact are going to be more suspicious and leery. The adage of Dave Barry rests in their heads: people who want to share their religious convictions with you rarely want to hear yours. Even though it may not be intended there can be a patronizing air in a Bible study-- we come to you with superior Biblical knowledge and insight, and we expect you to come to terms with it. Some people can handle that; many more cannot. Furthermore, if we engage in such a study without really knowing the person with whom we are having such a study, we are unlikely to know precisely what they believe, why they believe it, and therefore are robbed of the best way of promoting the Gospel. We may be guilty of focusing too heavily on common ground while entirely neglecting critical grounds of disagreement.

If there is one thing that is still true about people, however, it is that people enjoy talking about themselves. Perhaps as opposed to beginning with us or the Bible we should begin with them-- who they are, what they have experienced in the past in terms of spirituality or religion, what they believe about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, eternity, and so on and so forth.

This has many benefits. First of all it demonstrates that we do care about the people with whom we want to study-- we want to get to know them, and they are not just a number. If we gently prod regarding matters of inconsistency in their ideologies (and there will no doubt be matters of inconsistency), it may lead them to already reconsider how they look at the world. Many people may not believe in the truth and believe that they have a good argument against it, yet, when actually expected to make that argument, realize that in reality it is pretty weak. Finally, you know exactly where they stand, and thus are better able to present the Gospel, with both the challenge and the solution, in regards to exactly where the person is. One may have to clear a lot of philosophical ground to get to the point where the Gospel can be considered. Or one may be able to just focus on the distinctives of the church. Most will be somewhere in between.

If we are honest with ourselves, we recognize that we are currently suffering a crisis of communication and understanding. Methods that used to do well at communicating the Gospel are not as successful anymore. We often struggle to have any form of meeting of the minds with many of our fellow humans. But we can take comfort from our brethren in times long past, for if Christians of the first few centuries of this era could turn Greeks and Romans saturated with paganism and immorality and get them to understand the futility of their ideology and the truth that is in Jesus Christ, we can do the same with the secularists and others in the twenty-first century. Let us work to communicate with our fellow man so as to present the Gospel of Christ!

ELDV