Pastor Chris' Blog

Roman Catholics, The Trinitarian Community and Why I Was Wrong Thirteen Years Ago

2011-08-15T00:23:00.000-05:00

I recently rediscovered an editorial I wrote over thirteen years ago that reminded me of the words of the chief cupbearer in Joseph’s story – “I am reminded of my shortcomings…” The editorial was in response to the Christianity Today article, "Evangelicals and Catholics Together: A New Initiative," (Dec. 8, 1998). Here is the text of my editorial statement:

“The continuing attempts of Protestants to call Roman Catholics "brothers and sisters in Christ" reflects the value our society places on compromise rather than the truth of the gospel. I believe there are several substantial issues that separate Protestant and Roman Catholic fellowships: (1) the interpreting of the Bible as part of church tradition rather than as being the sole authority for life and faith; (2) the centuries of accumulated church tradition that are upheld as authoritative truth that often contradicts the most basic biblical pronouncements; (3) the blatant idolatry supported by the highest levels of Roman Catholic tradition; (4) the distortion of the biblical teaching of salvation through Christ's atoning death; and (5) the reliance upon a complex system of sacraments and works. While the document admits these "differences" of belief, it fails to acknowledge that these are at the core of Roman Catholic tradition, and it is doubtful that these will change. I maintain that the Roman Catholic tradition's contradiction of Scripture in these issues should keep any from considering them in the family of the Christian faith.

To continue to speak to Roman Catholics as if they were true followers of Jesus Christ is to fail to speak the Word of God accurately to those who most need to hear it.”

Christopher Schansberg

Scottsburg, Ind.

It is interesting how one’s perspectives can change over the years – as my words from 1998 hardly reflect my interest and effort in bringing Roman Catholics and Protestants in cooperation now! Of course, from the Protestant point of view my position in 1998 was hardly unique. The question of "who is right" - Protestants or Catholics - is a centuries old point of debate. Today, I have come to the complete opposite conclusion that I voiced in my 1998 editorial. To be clear: I strongly believe that the Roman Catholic church is part of the family of Christian faith.

In this article I will review the five points from my 1998 editorial and how I have now come to see that Roman Catholics are very much part of the family of Christian faith and are truly followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Editorial

From the point of view of theological exploration, my five points diagramed above were well meant, but lacked a sufficient understanding of the nuances of Roman Catholic theology that they sought to address. Through the years I have had opportunity to read countless Catholic theological documents. Additionally I have been able to dialogue with many Catholic theologians and priests. In later years, I have come to the conclusion that the issues I sought to explore cannot be reduced to a one paragraph analysis. (Perhaps my Blog post Understanding Theologians and Theology would be helpful at this point.

To review the five (six, really, with the conclusion) points I made:

1. “The interpreting of the Bible as part of church tradition rather than as being the sole authority for life and faith.” As with most of these statements I made, they are based upon an insufficient understanding of Roman Catholic theology. Simply put, my statement insufficiently describes the Roman Catholic view on the interaction of Scripture and the Church.

My comment certainly misrepresents Catholicism’s own statements on Scripture. In the Catechism it is stated, “The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ (Section V)…God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth…(In Brief)“ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part One; Section One, Chapter Two, Article 3, Section V and In Brief). For a full understanding of the Catholic view on Scripture and Tradition please see the Catechism of the Catholic Church and also Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences by Ralph E. MacKenzie and Norman L. Geisler.

2. “The centuries of accumulated church tradition that are upheld as authoritative truth that often contradicts the most basic biblical pronouncements.” The challenge of this statement is that it relies on a stated reality of Roman Catholic teaching while denying an unspoken truth about the Protestant movements – that is the idea that the Church (Catholic or Protestant) holds an authoritative role in determining doctrine and Biblical interpretation.

The Catholic Church is straightforward as to the role of the church’s role, as particularly found in her teachers and pastors, in teaching and declaring what is the truth of the Gospel. This extends to the church’s ability to declare infallibly what is truth. This is referred to as the Church’s teaching magisterium.

While the Catholic Church focuses the authority to declare doctrine in the teaching center of the church, the Protestant proclamation focuses on the doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone), in which the focus of divine revelation is found exclusively in the Scriptures. In turn, Protestant theology calls upon the individual Christian to discover the truths of God through individual and corporate prayer, study of the Scriptures and the mediation of the Holy Spirit. Not only does the Protestant position teach this is possible, it teaches this as a sacred duty for each believer. No believer is exempted from this duty and high calling. Churches then tend to organize in groups of persons who hold to similar interpretations. This is part of the Protestant doctrine commonly referred to as the Priesthood of the Believer.

The difficulty with this aspect of Protestant doctrine is that it ignores how communities of believers actually function. Each church and denomination invariably functions as its own magisterium, setting the boundaries of what is acceptable doctrine and what is not. In Protestant history, there are times when – just as we accuse Roman Catholic doctrine – the doctrinal declarations of a Protestant group make statements that are actually extra Biblical.

In Southern Baptist life, my own denomination, it is well known how before the 1990’s it was the accepted dogma that all alcohol consumption was sinful. A statement that would have surprised the Apostle Paul, no doubt! I also remember a peculiar dogma of the Southern Baptist Churches in the middle 1970’s that God no longer performed miracles as the era of the Apostles had concluded (although it was stated that he still answered prayer – an interesting distinction to be certain). Both statements certainly exceeded Biblical authority.

Although neither position is held as authoritative today, these examples point to the tendency of all denominations to exceed the plain reading of the Biblical text in establishing doctrinal standards for their own communities. So my comments simply did not acknowledge the subtle reality in Protestant life that the Community acts as its own magisterium in a limited way.

Another fault in the Protestant position of sola scriptura is our failure to accommodate in our theological tradition how theology is by nature a process of community reflection. As Alister McGrath points out, there is a process of origination, examination and reception in theological formation that is dependent upon the believing community. (Alister McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Volume 1 – Nature). Simply put, the Protestant theological position of Biblical revelation being a freestanding truth that is discoverable by the individual and agreeable to a whole community is naïve and denies the complexity of such a process. The Roman Catholic theology of tradition is a closer acknowledgement of the reality of the theological task.

3. “The blatant idolatry supported by the highest levels of Roman Catholic tradition.” I’m tempted to say at this point, “You know, maybe I was just having a bad day…” But almost all the readers of this article will know what I was referring to – that is the continuing debate between Protestant churches and the Catholic Church as to the role of the faithful dead in the continuing earthly sojourn of the Christian. The Catholic Church holds that there is a continuing interrelationship between the earthly faithful and those who have gone to heaven. The Protestant churches deny this and see this as a potential temptation to “worship that which is the created…”

While Catholics and Protestants may disagree on the role of the Christian faithful who have transitioned to Heaven, the Catholic Church does not and has never sanctioned the worship of any of the saints – this includes Mary. To state that “the Roman Catholic church supports idolatry” is to seriously misconstrue their position.

4. “The distortion of the biblical teaching of salvation through Christ's atoning death.” Again, this is an issue of disagreement rather than deliberate distortion by any party. While it is true that a teaching of a particular church may go astray from the Biblical position, this is a fallacy that can befall any church or Christian. The Catholic Church most certainly believes that Christ’s death is the sole atonement for sin – and on that all Christians agree.

5. The reliance upon a complex system of sacraments and works. Allow me to start with my comment on works. My comments reflect a simplistic approach to a complicated problem that has been an issue of debate among all Christians for two millennia. The Apostle Paul said, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling…” (Philippians 2:12). The Apostle James stated, “Faith without works is dead.” (James 2:17). Each church communion is characterized by its own particular dealings with the relationship between faith and works and there is not a real uniformity of thought on this. I see no reason to single out the Catholic Church on this issue.

The issue of the “complex system of sacraments” is also a non starter, as each communion’s / denomination’s theology on sacraments tends to be complex and full of meaning. So I no longer see a reason to be exclusively critical of the Catholic Church because it has a complex – perhaps a better word might be “rich” or “substantial” – theology of the sacraments. All of the Churches have views of the sacraments that reflect a substantial investment of thought and richness of devotion. Any suggestion otherwise is based on lack of understanding.

6. (Conclusion) - These [5 Points as being] at the core of Roman Catholic tradition: Thirteen years later it seems inaccurate to somehow seek to reduce the whole of Roman Catholic theology to these five points. The paperback copy of the Roman Catholic Catechism that I have numbers 824 pages alone and suggests considerably more complexity than my editorial suggested.

A few years ago, I was speaking with an elderly friend of mine. She was a woman of Catholic devotion of many years. On this occasion she shared an experience from her family’s history that spoke to me of the care that Protestants must take when engaging in dialogue with Roman Catholics regarding matters of Christian faith. She comes from a family with a substantial Roman Catholic history. Over the course of time, however, some members of the family (sons, daughters, cousins, etc.) became active with churches from the Protestant / Evangelical tradition. She told of how at one family outing there was a rather tense exchange, as a number of Protestant family members addressed the others of the group who were Roman Catholic. These Protestant family members told their Roman Catholic family members that as Roman Catholics, they did not know Jesus as Savior and Lord. These well meaning Protestant family members than asked their Roman Catholic family members if they wanted to “accept Jesus as Savior and Lord.”

Things went quickly downhill from there as a quarrel broke out. Some of the Protestant family members stated that their Roman Catholic family members were “going to Hell because they had rejected Christ and they were simply trying to save them.” After further heated disagreement, the meeting was over. It would be years before the breach in the family would be fully healed.

My friend’s reaction to this was insightful. Even though the event was years in her past, it still brought tears to her eyes. She told me that it was one of the most painful events in her life. She said to me, “Chris, I can’t understand how they could say that I had denied Jesus. How could they say that?” She actually repeated that statement that several times. The assertion of her relatives that had caused her pain was not that she might go to Hell, but that she had denied Jesus. She simply couldn’t fathom the idea of betraying Jesus.

Her experience is a cautionary tale to all who call themselves by the name of Christ. There are people of true and good Christ centered faith on all sides and so we must approach this dialogue with care, compassion and love.

For a thorough exploration of the issues involved, I would recommend reading Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences by Ralph E. MacKenzie and Norman L. Geisler.

Catholic Witness And A Process of Change

The process of my reversing my point of view began – in God’s grace and humor – before my 1998 article. This happened as I began to encounter the ministry of Pope John Paul II. Perhaps it was his particular gift for reaching out to Protestants that attracted my attention. In the following years I would learn of his collaboration with President Ronald Reagan (another great Christian of our era) in the downfall of the Soviet Union. There was also his committed work on behalf of the unborn and against euthanasia that I held in admiration.

The ministry of the Reverend Billy Graham also played a considerable role in the shaping of my opinion. Certainly as a fellow Southern Baptist held in reverence by almost all Protestants, his own aggressive advocacy for understanding and cooperation between Protestants and Roman Catholics, means much to me. It is perhaps no coincidence that the portraits of these men – Pope John Paul II, the Reverend Billy Graham and President Ronald Reagan - have hung in my office for many years now.

The witness of these men, plus others like them, combined to give me a growing sense of tacit unease that the theological position that I had staked out (see the editorial) did not adequately address the spiritual realities of the Protestant / Catholic dialogue, nor the status of the relationship of Roman Catholic believers to Christ Jesus.

Many things convince me of truthfulness of the proposition that Roman Catholics are of the Family of Christian faith – their agreement with the Biblical testimony regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ; their agreement with the inspiration of Scripture and it’s centrality for the life of the believer; and the central importance of the church in the life of a believer are among a few examples of the beliefs we hold in common.

The full resolution of my tension however was brought about through my encounters with Roman Catholics in two different ways. The first was the obvious witness of the Holy Spirit through the lives of many Roman Catholics. I have repeatedly encountered the distinct presence and ministry of the Holy Spirit to myself through countless Catholic lives in person, in the accounts of history and through their writings.

Personal examples abound for me. On one occasion, my wife and I were responsible to set up the equipment for a youth outreach / carnival event (popcorn makers, inflatable play areas, a tent to shelter a refreshment area were among the items that needed to be assembled). A team was to arrive in about an hour to help us run the event, but we would have to do the set up ourselves. When I began to realize the enormity of the task I prayed and asked the Lord to “send some angels quickly” to help us assemble the props for the event.

Within a few moments of that prayer, two young men walked onto our campus and asked if we needed any help. They were sons of a local Roman Catholic woman of legendary integrity and piety. When I asked them (incredulously) how they knew that we needed help, they shrugged and said, “Mom just told us that she thought you needed some help.” With their help we finished the setup in record time and the event was a complete success. I was awed by that moment, and I am still in awe of it today.

Another story – disturbing for any well meaning Evangelical – is the story told by one of my seminary professors who recounted an event that occurred during the Civil rights unrest of the 1960’s. My professor recounted how an African American man had been badly hurt and came to the emergency room of a hospital sponsored by a Baptist denomination. The man was refused care because of the color of his skin. The man was than taken to the emergency room of a hospital sponsored by the Catholic Church. He was admitted for care with no trouble or debate.

Jesus stated, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35). I don’t need to belabor the fact that only one of those two hospitals bore witness to the reality of Jesus that evening – and it wasn’t the Baptists.

I don’t take these stories lightly. Neither do I take lightly the encounters I have had with countless other Roman Catholic persons of obvious good will and integrity and who live under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These encounters are important because they are serve as witnesses to the power of the Holy Spirit through the lives of many faithful, Christ seeking Roman Catholics. Scripture states that it is the presence of the Holy Spirit’s regenerating, guiding presence that marks out the true disciple of Jesus.

Membership in the Trinitarian Community

My resolution of my theological tension also emerged as my conviction grew of the central importance of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christian revelation. Of course, the Roman Catholic communion absolutely affirms the centrality of the Doctrine of the Trinity. It is this affirmation in addition to their agreement to other classically held doctrines of the Christian faith that convinces me of their inclusion in the Family of Believers.

Why is the doctrine of the Trinity so important? The answer is that it is affirmed as a core doctrine by the Lord Jesus Christ as to understanding both the person of God and ourselves. It is an interesting fact that the doctrine of the church’s unity is also founded, in part, in the doctrine of the Trinity. Consider the words of Jesus from John 17:20-23:

““²⁰ My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, ²¹that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. ²²I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: ²³I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

Notice in vv. 21-22 that our Lord speaks of a unity among Christians (of both love and cooperation, presumably, as well as the true nature of our connectedness to each other) that is based upon the ontological fact of his unity with the Father. Verse 23 than diagrams the Christian community’s union in each other through Christ leading to our being “drawn up” into the Triune life. To be a Christian is to be a member of, and a partaker in, the Trinitarian Community.

Acknowledgement of the Trinity was also considered to be a bedrock aspect of Christian confession in the first century. This point was first brought to me through the works of N.T. Wright. For instance, Romans 10:9 and 13 states, “That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…¹³for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”” Wright points out that it is an error to see this as a simple confession of Jesus’ ”Lordship” over one’s life. That is assumed, but it is not the central meaning. The central meaning is found in the original quotation Paul is citing – Joel 2:32 which states, “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved…” In this context, the word “Lord” is a translation of the Hebrew word “Yahweh.” (See Paul, by N.T. Wright, pp. 92-93).

This reworks the traditional understanding of the significance of Paul’s statement in Romans 10:9 and 13. With this understanding we learn that Paul is not saying we must merely surrender to Jesus’ leadership of our lives. Paul is stating we must surrender to Jesus’ leadership of our lives AND confess him as the great “I Am.” (see Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58). We must confess Jesus as the God of Israel, the God of the Universe.

Granted that is not itself a Trinitarian statement. It is, however, a statement of extremely high Christology. When coupled with Paul’s Trinitarian statement in Romans 8:9-11, however, which equates Jesus as a co-equal member of the Trinity, it would seem that Paul was calling for a recognition and confession of the reality of the Trinity as a requirement and guarantee of salvation.

This fits well with Johannine theology which focuses on the identity of Jesus as the central issue of Christian confession. Take for instance John 8:24 in which Jesus states, “if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins…” Also, John 3:16 and 18, “…that whoever believes in me shall not perish but have eternal life…Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” Notice the issue is acknowledgement of the identity of Jesus as the determinate feature in determining salvation.

In Johannine theology the doctrine of the Spirit is also central to the question of salvation. Consider John 3:5-6, 8 which describes the foundational importance of the Christian’s experience of the Spirit. See also John 4:24; 6:63; 7:39; 14:17 and 26; 16:13; and 20:22. Certainly John would not have agreed that a person could be a Christian who denied the Holy Spirit.

I will leave it to others to fully draw out the trajectory of Biblical Trinitarian theology. In my understanding, however, it is the acknowledgement of the Trinity and the Biblical witness of the Trinitarian reality that is the primary distinctive of the Christian. While there are other critical issues that must be acknowledged, (Scripture, Baptism, etc.) none compares with the Trinity. Roman Catholic theology certainly acknowledges and defends Trinitarian theology as well as all other Christian distinguishing doctrines. As such they are part of the body of Christ.

Continuing Tensions

Of course, there are still tensions between the Roman Catholic and Evangelical Protestant communions as to which doctrines reveal the revelation that God provides. “Is forgiveness in Christ obtained through faith alone, or is it found, in part, through the experience of the sacrament?” “What is the role and practice of baptism?” “What is the significance of apostolic succession?” These are areas of continuing disagreement.

The question of the moment, however, is not which community is correct. The question is “what determines inclusion or exclusion in the Christian family of faith?” Of course, the all-to-easy response is, “Everyone must agree with me or my denomination.” When one considers, however, that there are varieties of belief within denominations and that the beliefs and understanding of individuals tend to vary over time, you rapidly dismiss the idea of such uniformity of belief. Even the Apostle Paul stated, “And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.” (Philippians 3:13-16). The Apostle accepted diversity of opinion in the face of his own apostolic authority and considered such persons to be of the body of Christ. When faced with these considerations it seems unreasonable to deny that Roman Catholics are not also a part of the Christian family.

I have already pointed to many of the criteria for inclusion in the Christian family of faith that are in line with the Biblical revelation. Yes, there are differences, but I find the fifteenth paragraph to Lumen Gentium to be helpful at this point. I believe that, with some minor modifications, Protestants could virtually parrot the following statement.

“The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Savior. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.”

Lumen Gentium, Paragraph 15, Dogmatic Constitution On The Church

I find this statement to be very powerful – in which the validity of Protestant Baptism and ordnances are affirmed; the authority of Scripture is agreed upon; the efficacy of our prayers before God the Father is acknowledged; and the significance of those in our communions who have embraced martyrdom is upheld as a witness for and sacrifice to the living Jesus. As I have made clear in this brief article, I have no difficulty affirming the same for those of the Catholic Church.

Evangelicals and Catholics Together

The creation of this article gave me the opportunity to re-read the document that gave rise to my editorial. With some amusement (at myself) I must admit that I find myself in almost total agreement with the document. Evangelicals and Catholics Together certainly represents a very thoroughgoing effort to address the common concerns and areas of disagreements held between Catholics and Evangelicals.

The document is very incisive in pointing out the areas of common struggle that we share. I found the documents discussion of our common desire to witness as to the Lordship of Christ and every individual's responsibility and need to respond to him in commitment and faith to be very moving. I was also in firm agreement with the statements regarding religious freedom; sanctity of life; political order and the value of western (European / American) culture to be heart stirring. If I could find a way to “sign on” to the document, I most certainly would.

Conclusion

I must end this apology to my Catholic brothers and sisters with a simple request for forgiveness. I expect that no true offense was given as most Protestants and Catholics are well experienced with the attempts of individual members to work out these issues between the two communions – but my request is sincere nonetheless.

I close with the story of a recent encounter. I was having lunch with a friend of mine who is also a Catholic theologian. He expressed his prayer that all the Protestant communions and the Catholic Church would be united as one church. He then quoted the Lord Jesus, “…so that they may be one as we are one…” (John 17:11). I was touched by my friend's earnestness, but I asked with a little mischievousness in my voice, “Does that include the Southern Baptists also?” He laughed and replied, “Yes, absolutely. But I don’t take this as a question of ‘if’, it is a matter of when. For the Lord Jesus asked it, and his prayers must be answered - for he is the Lord.”

Amen and Amen.

Editorial Reply to The Search for the Historical Adam - Christianity Today article - June 2011

2011-08-02T14:28:00.001-05:00

This is my response to the Christianity Today article, "The Search for the Historical Adam" by Richard Ostling. It was published in the June 2011 edition of CT. Click here to read the online version. Enjoy!

RE: The Search for the Historical Adam; Writer: Richard N. Ostling
Dear CT:
I want to applaud the excellent coverage offered by Richard Ostling’s article, the Search for the Historical Adam. I sincerely appreciated the balanced and thorough approach to an issue that is difficult to speak about. Ostling effectively gave a simple and straightforward presentation of the argument for a small initial population of humans as the starting point of the human race as demanded by the evolutionary interpretation of the results of the human genome project.

The relationship between science and the Gospel of Jesus Christ has a long and, at times, difficult history. While most of the perspectives cited fell into healthy categories of dialogue, I found the comments by Dr. Bruce Waltke to be troubling. He stated, “…if the data is overwhelming in favor of evolution, [and Christians fail to admit this] to deny that will make us a cult…We have to go with the scientific evidence.” Such statements reflect a misunderstanding of what the true nature of science is.

As Michael Polanyi notes in his many writings, science is the collective efforts of individual scientists to define the nature of reality. As such, scientists rely on others in the world wide scientific community to successfully explore and describe an accurate picture of the physical world. Polanyi notes that on many occasions the scientific community has gotten the picture wrong and it is only with the passing of time and continuing exploration that we come to gain a more accurate understanding of physical reality.

Waltke seems to encourage an uncritical attitude toward scientists on the part of the scientific laity. This is a mistake. In Personal Knowledge, Polanyi notes that on occasion lay people get it right when scientists get it wrong. One such occasion was during the eighteenth century when the French Academy of Science refused to admit the existence of falling meteorites as reported by the populace. Polanyi quotes F. Paneth who stated; “scientists in other countries were anxious not to be considered backward compared with their famous colleagues in Paris and many public museums threw away whatever they possessed of these precious meteorites…” To deny the findings of modern science would not mean that a Christian is a flake, or a denomination or group is a cult, it would simply mean that they are exercising their human right to explore reality – just as scientists do.

In his comments, Waltke also fails to acknowledge the history of the Bible’s testimony to scientific reality – often well in advance of scientific discovery. It is a well known fact that for two millennia the church testified that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning. (See Genesis 1:1 and 2 Timothy 1:9). For the majority of western history, the church was lampooned by scientists and “the educated” because of our faith in the Biblical testimony concerning the nature of the universe and time. It is important to recall, however, that the derisive laughter stopped in 1915 with the discoveries of Albert Einstein regarding the nature of space and time which confirmed the Biblical testimony.

Waltke’s uncritical acceptance of Evolutionary theory is also troubling in the light of the tentative nature of the theory. Evolutionary theory does not posses the evidential strength of other accepted scientific theories. For instance, the findings of modern physics as to the age of the Universe, stellar formation, and quantum realities, etc. are certainly held in almost universal appreciation. Their evidential status is certainly very strong. However, it would be less than honest to deny that Evolutionary theory rests on a much less secure basis. Even one of Evolution’s great champions, Richard Dawkins, admitted “…we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors…to abandon Darwinism.” (Dawkins, The Devil’s Chaplin).

In considering the theory of Evolution it is important to consider the strong positive and negative proofs that challenge the theory. Examples of positive proofs would be the anthropic fine tuning of our universe and planet, and the self organizing properties of matter (see Stuart Kauffman’s work At Home in the Universe). Examples of negative proofs against Evolution can be seen in the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms and the definitive lack of progression in the fossil record from simple to more complex life forms. There difficulties with the theory and countless others give any searching person more than enough “wiggle room” for skepticism regarding Evolutionary theory.

Sincerely,
Reverend Chris Schansberg
Pastor, Dauphin Island Baptist Church
Author of Science, Evolutionary Theory and Christianity: Partners in Truth or Antagonists?

CALVIN'S INSTITUTES: BOOK 1, CHAPTERS 14 FORWARD

2011-05-14T02:11:00.001-05:00

CALVIN'S INSTITUTES: BOOK 1, CHAPTERS 14 FORWARD
I've been busy, so a few quick notes on my recent Institutes readings to catch up...

Angels, Angels - Everywhere!The section in Chapter 14 on Angels is EXCELLENT. I found Calvin's discussion to be a sober, respectful and moving - treatment of the subject. A very good outline - it will be helpful in my upcoming message series on Angels.

The Sovereignty of God v. Human / Creaturely FreedomFrom Book One, Chapters 15 forward through Book Two, Chapter 2 (my latest stopping point) Calvin begins to focus on His conception of the Sovereignty of God in regard to the workings of the Universe, the Nature and Activity of Humanity and the entire spectrum of the Creation.

I have to admit that I was not nearly so impressed by Calvin's arguments at this point as with the comments on Angels. It seems to me that he approaches his Biblical exegesis (as best one may call it) with his conclusions preformed. In a phrase, he has a conclusion - predestination / determinism - in search of an argument. His approach of the Biblical text on the issues is superficial and after a point predictable.
For instance, his treatment of illness and healing of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20 / Isaiah 38) approaches the intervention of the Lord as predetermined - so in point of fact, Calvin argues that H's prayer did not really change anything. This in spite of the fact that the text states that H's prayer was "powerful and effective" in changing the outcome of events. This is simply far too simplistic treatment of such a text.

As stated earlier in this Blog series, Calvin simply fails to address the character of God's Love which is such a dominant characteristic of Scripture. Neither does he give any real consideration to questions of theodicy. Although at times, one hears in his discussion echoes of Leslie Weatherhead's theology (see L. Weatherhead, the Will of God) on God's will as having having an original will, a permissive will and an ultimate will. I found myself wondering if Calvin was going by the tract he had taken - until Calvin realizes what he is about to say...and corrects himself.

Human Depravity and SinfulnessI thought Calvin's commentary on Human Sinfulness was right on the mark. Very powerful presentation.

READING THROUGH THE INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION PT 2

2011-04-19T23:13:00.001-05:00

I am now through Book One, Chapter 13. Pretty good material until you reach Chapter Thirteen which is EXCELLENT! There Calvin defends the Doctrine of the Trinity. He throughly covers the doctrine of both the Divine Triunity and the Divinity of each of the persons. Calvin provides a pretty solid outline of the History of Christian thought on the doctrine and various heresies. Calvin also patiently - and well explains - the significance of the Greek word "hypostases" and other such terms in the debate over the Trinity. His Scriptural sourcing is also excellent.

A doctrine I am passionate about is the Doctrine of the Trinity. Calvin gives a balanced, thoroughgoing presentation of the doctrine. Bravo! If I ever teach a theology course, this chapter will be required reading. I Praise the Lord for Chapter thirteen!

READING THROUGH THE INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

2011-04-14T14:04:00.003-05:00

I've started on Institutes of the Christian Religion (John Calvin). I've been both planning and procrastinating in reading Calvin's magnum opus. I've known many of the Calvinistic perspective for decades of course and read widely on the subject of reformed theology. But with our church's approaching course on Southern Baptists and Calvinism I decided it was high time to "storm the castle" and scale it's walls.

I'm several chapters into Institutes - Bk 1, C 13, I think. Calvin certainly has a gift for gab (he is wordy) - and some of his perspectives are truly engaging. Chapters 7 - 9 are such chapters as Calvin engages in a combination of apologetic arguments that reference various Scriptural arguments, historical evidences and applications of textual criticism. While not necessarily air tight in his argumentation, Calvin does give a thorough and compelling presentation. His references to the historical and textual arguments available in his day, remind the reader of the reliable historical and textual criticism resources that were available to scholars even in the 1600's. "The Case for Christ" stands on a long tradition of historical and intellectual integrity that is truly impressive. The use of historical and literary critical resources in Christian apologetics is not a recent invention.

Chapters 1- 6, I must admit, came across to me as pedantic and odd. Calvin provides a fairly lopsided presentation of the Scriptural view of God's nature and character. Calvin makes God seem obsessed with his own self promotion - "his glory." The Bible is clear that God upholds his own honor and glory but it presents a picture of his nature that is considerably more complex. While Calvin's description of human sin and folly is by far one of the best I've ever read, he simply fails to do justice to the character of God whose fundamental nature is love (1 John 4:8-12). Calvin's distortion of God's character must, by necessity, echo through his theology. Perhaps this is an indicator of Greek / Platonic thought on his perspective and theology. It seems a peculiar distortion of thought and will merit attention as I progress through the Institutes.

Science, Faith and Society - An Exploration of Scientific Method and Meaning

2011-03-30T01:33:00.001-05:00

Michael Polanyi's Science, Faith and Society is a wonderful contribution to the philosophy of science and explores three principle areas of scientific process: (1) How the process of scientific discovery actually occurs through the interaction of conscience and intuition; (2) the necessity of freedom in scientific endeavors; and (3) the nature of the interdependence between the various fields of scientific inquiry.

Michael Polanyi

Polanyi writes with authority as his background and training is in the physical sciences. His work as a physical chemist was acknowledged by the likes of Albert Einstein. His description of the process of scientific thought and discovery will come as a surprise to the lay reader or novice scientist as he describes the process of scientific discovery as a creative activity that is highly dependent on the intuition of the scientist and other intangible characteristics such as beauty and passion. In this book, Polanyi also describes the importance of peer review and accountability among peers in the scientific community as an indispensable aid to heuristic discovery. In our age which uncritically embraces an attitude toward scientific discovery that excludes the value of intuition, imagination and spirituality, Polanyi's work is a needed critique.

As a bonus, in the book's Introduction Polanyi speaks to the genesis of his thinking on these matters from the handling of science by Stalin's Soviet Russia - particularly his encounters with N.I. Bukharin who advocated the Soviet Union's policy of comprehensive planning of scientific research. Polanyi reveals that his encounter with Bukharin impelled his exploration of the question of "why we do science as we do" and "how scientific exploration occurs."

As a side note, one of Polanyi's most valuable contributions in his book occurs in the Introduction when he describes what he calls moral inversion. As Polanyi describes it, moral inversion is a characteristic of communist, socialist, and statist thought in which the "party" claims its authority based on commonly held morality as a justification to its claims to legitimacy. As the political group gains power, it than rejects any claims to ultimate moral appeals and embodies in itself all ultimate moral authority - as the state becomes the ultimate authority and the reality of God is denied. Than in the name of its own new found moral authority, it proceeds to abuse and take away the rights of the citizenry; ultimately using the authority of the state to justify atrocities in its ever continuing quest for total power and control of the state.

Polanyi argues that moral inversion must inevitably lead to the destruction of science - as scientists are disallowed the right of following individual intuition and their own sense of exploration. Such individuality is ultimately seen as a threat to the state. (See Lysenkoism - click here for the Wikipedia article).

After reading this smaller work by Polanyi, I heartily recommend his famous work, Personal Knowledge (available in paperback and Kindle from Amazon.com) which is a fuller exploration of the realities upon which Science, Faith and Society is based.

The End of Christian America? I Don't Think So...

2011-03-04T00:53:00.000-06:00

I was recently asked by a close relative if I thought the end of the United States was at hand. He had listened to a video presentation on a Christian website that warned of dire straits ahead for the United States. I could tell it shook him up. I never could access the website, but I responded from previous experience with authors of this sort.

Please note this reply contains some elements of my (occasionally) very dry humor. So if you find some "odd" comments - that's the humor!
Chris

***************

Hey __________,
Thanks for email below - good questions. I tried to go to the website, but it returned an invalid address. But I do have something to say about this anyway...

One of the unfortunate manias that befall God's people is our obsession with the Doctrine of the End Times. Thanks to series like "Left Behind" most Christians are very much prone to being terrorized by everyday events that smack of difficulty and trial. This is something I fight myself, personally - hard not to since it is such a part of our Christian culture.

One of the truths about life is that there are people who seek to profit in times like these - this author I am certain being one of them. I'm not knocking him, this is the American way - if you've got something to sell, than sell it! (Just make sure you tithe when you do. Ha. Ha...) By the way, my two newest books are available through Amazon.com RIGHT NOW - never a better price - so go buy a few copies and give them to your friends.

But I digress.

Anyway, yes there is a lot of speculation about our future as a nation. There always is. It's in our blood, it seems - or maybe it's in the blood of our enemies.

It is hard not to be impressed with how many times we've been told "it's all over." They said we wouldn't survive back when the Puritans set out to settle this fair land. They said we wouldn't make it when we broke with England and fought the Revolutionary War. They said we wouldn't make it when our fledgling nation faced it's first years of Independence. The list goes on: the War of 1812; the Civil War; World War II; Korea; Vietnam; Watergate; the years of the Iranian Crisis; the invention of Disco; the 1976-80 Recession; 9/11. All of these events have one thing in common: they said "we wouldn't make it."

Funny thing is - here we are today.

I've learned not EVER to count America out...

I've served as a pastor in churches for over 15 years and worked with a number of people from the greatest generation who really did face the threat of annihilation in WW II. I've learned from them to look up "to the hills"' (Ps 121) in difficult times. I've learned to fight hard and to never give up. I've learned to think optimistically. I've learned finally, in all things, to trust God to deliver, protect, and guide the people of this fair and decent land - because in the end, He always has and He always will.

A few last things - about China: they want to stop buying American TBills? Fine. Let them. They only finance 35% of the debt anyway. And if we stop buying their products - they'll be in trouble also. Besides, all their stuff breaks and they keep selling us Children's toys painted with lead paint and poisoned dog food. Who needs them? God will provide.

And about us going over the Niagara falls in a barrel... I take counsel from one - the only one - who really knows anything about it anyway. I speak of Jesus. He said: "Watch out that no one deceives you....You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come..." (Matthew 24:4,6). In other words, Jesus said that we were to always keep our head - and never let our circumstances dictate who we are. The Lord said to Joshua, "Be strong and courageous DO NOT BE TERRIFIED OR DISCOURAGED, for I am with you wherever you go..."

That's tonic for the soul. That's something you can go to sleep on - and live by - day by day. It is the Word of the Living God.

So what is America's future going to be? While we may be experiencing difficulty, I've always thought the answer was clear: Our Future is bright - and growing ever brighter until the full light of day.

Love Always,
Chris

A Review: Southern Theological Seminary Magazine -Winter 2010 - "Ex Nihilo"

2011-01-29T09:53:00.003-06:00

Kudos to the Southern Seminary Magazine for talking on the cultural impact of Darwinian Evolutionary theory's impact on American culture in their Winter 2010 Edition (Available as a download at this link). I truly appreciated the thoughtful analysis of the impact of the Atheistic evolutionary meta-narrative on our spiritual and social lives.

I believe, however, that the majority of the articles contained in the magazine neglected an aspect of the modern scientific story that would have resulted in vastly different conclusions than the ones that were reached. In short, they gave far to much "gravitas" to the perceived popularity of evolutionary theory in scientific circles and the culture at large.

As I state in my book, "Science, Evolutionary Theory and Christianity," Evolution is very much a theory in transition. Look far and wide and you will few scientists in the field of biology still defending the idea of "gradual, undirected change" resulting in life of our complexity on the planet earth. Those who do defend such a philosophy (such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens - regarded with far too much fear and trepidation in the articles. See my blogpost - "Atheism's Best Shot?") must do so with voices that increase in shrillness to compensate for the fact that there is little scientific air left in their tires. Atheism is a dying (albeit noisily) philosophical point of view.

I will grant that the societal impact of Evolutionary philosophy has been great in our nation in the past. But we are entering a new age. I truly believe - in accordance with the evidence - that Evolution is passing along with other now discarded scientific proposals. Science points increasingly to a purpose built world in which people are here by design and not chance. My question would be, "Do we have the nerve to take advantage of the times?"

It is all to easy to beat the drum of fear as is done in many of the "Ex Nihilo" articles. While it is important to deal with the vestiges of the impact of Evolutionary thought on American life. We must teach people to look to the future and be ready for the emerging opportunities for witness that are coming and are even now here. I would have liked to have seen an article on that subject.

Reasons to Believe

What will the new future look like? It will be full of people who, encouraged by scientific discovery, are seeking the God who made them. It will be an age of increased optimism - but not because of a human centered focus. Instead it will be a focus on the God of the Bible, of the New Testament Church - it will be nothing short of a focus on Jesus Christ, who makes all things new.

And that is why the Atheists fight with the hysteria that characterizes their arguments - not because they hope to win, but because they know they have lost. Let us not dignify their arguments by undermining the strength of our own.

Articles in Winter 2010 Southern Seminary Magazine

The New Shape of the Debate, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
The New Atheism and the Dogma of Darwin, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
All Things Dark and Terrible: Our Fearful Fascination with Wild Things and Other Monsters of God, Dr. Russell D. Moore
Evolution and Creation in Higher Education, Dr. Mark T. Coppenger
Creation and American Christianity, Dr. Gregory A. Wills

Is God Spoken of in Anthropomorphisms in the Bible or Are We Theopomorphisms of God?

2011-01-25T23:56:00.003-06:00

It is commonly asserted in passages like Psalm 16:11 that the imagery used that describes God with human or bodily characteristics are "anthropomorphisms" - the attributing of human characteristics to a being or thing that is not human.

Psalm 16:11"You will fill me with...eternal pleasures at your right hand."

The theological basis of this is sound and accurate, for the Bible instructs us that "God is spirit." (John 4:24). In other words, the Lord God of Israel does not have a body - i.e. a "right hand" (or a mouth, a foot, etc). This is an absolutely true and necessary part of Christian Trinitarian theology.

Does this mean that all such references are anthropomorphic? Or is there a deeper reality being expressed?

I am arguing that to say that such expressions are anthropomorphic blinds us to a deeper reality. That reality is that our human experience of bodily life is itself an expression of the imago dei in which we are created. It is common to say that our spiritual and mental lives are the essence of the experience of being made in God's Image. Yet such a statement is to make a dichotomy between the spiritual life and our physical lives which Christian doctrine does not support. At the Resurrection, we hold out the hope that we will be raised body and spirit - why bother unless the imago dei rests in the body as well?

How Theologically Significant is the Human Thumb?

What got me thinking along those lines was a Christian physicist who stated that he did not believe that "the Anthropic principles of our Universe dictated that we have five fingers." To which I responded offhandedly, "Nor, I suppose, did it dictate that we have opposable thumbs..." That got me thinking about the significance of our body and it's many constituent parts.

Yet try to imagine what life would be like if we did not have opposable thumbs. Such a thing is truly impossible to imagine, isn't it? In other words, to have an opposable thumb is an essential part of human existence. It is the thumb that allows us to manipulate objects in our environments just as God can controls and directs events and objects. So our humble thumbs serve to help us to fully experience God's image.

Countless examples can be given. In regard to our voices, it is not a anthropomorphism to say that God speaks - rather our speaking is a reflection of his ultimate voice. Similarly, Our ability to smile is similarly an extension of God's character of grace. Psalm 4:6 states, "Let the light of your face (i.e., your smile) shine upon us, O Lord."

Again, the Bible repeats this theme in regard to our experience of family - of which our experience is an extension of Trinitarian reality. Human Parenthood is a reflection of The First Member of the Trinity - God the Father. Children reflect the reality of the Second Member of the Trinity - Jesus Christ, the Son. The unity and love of our families are meant to reflect the unity and love experienced by and within the Triune Godhead.

Of course, the Divine dignity of our embodiment is fulfilled in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. John 1:14 states, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Let us live in our embodied lives not with embarrassment, but in the high dignity of our calling and the one who calls us to reflect his Image - body, soul and spirit.

The Creation Account of Genesis and the Search for Truth

2011-01-08T14:05:00.004-06:00

Often Christians (and others, I suppose) will debate the importance of the "Creation texts" of Genesis and how to interpret them. I recall that I first entered this debate as a fifth grader when I asked my then Sunday School teacher about "how could evolution and the text of Genesis both be true?" - to which she referred me to the pastor.

Whatever else the book of Genesis may be - I speak of the contents of the entire book at this point - I believe that it is a solid historical account of the matters that it discusses. While it is certainly not an exhaustive history, we know that whenever archaeologists seek to reconcile the historical descriptions given in Genesis with the data uncovered by historians, the reputation for the historical accuracy and reliability of the book of Genesis is further strengthened. That the book of Genesis is historically reliable seems to me to be beyond doubt.

What of the creation account of Genesis? Admittedly, that is a challenge because they relate events that are beyond historical methodology's ability to reconcile. How should we than identify them?

The category of "myth" certainly is not accurate, as many aspects of the creation accounts are firmly confirmed by modern science's understanding of the early universe. For more, please see my books "Science, Evolutionary Theory and Christianity - Partners in Truth or Antagonists" (now on sale) and "Beyond Any Doubt - The Case for the Historical Reliability of the Bible, the Claims of Jesus and His Resurrection" (available Feb. 2011). Both are / will be sold at Amazon.com and available nationwide at stores and online.

On the other hand, Genesis also eludes the descriptors of "history" or "science" in a straightforward sense. First, there is the obvious theological emphasis which is really the primary focus of these chapters. Then there is (to us) the puzzling question of the age of the Universe as portrayed by Genesis' first chapter - picturing the Universe as being created in six days instead of the 13.7 billion years indicated by the findings of modern physicists.There are other details to take into account, but these examples will suffice for now.

So what then to make of the Creation accounts? I would suggest that we consider Genesis 1-3 as being "more than history or science." In other words, we must admit that while the creation account of Genesis is clearly meant to relate a historical event to us and that we see astonishing accuracy in relating the early events of the Universe, there are aspects of the account we are given that are beyond our current ability to fully understand or relate. The creation account of Genesis really gives a God's "eye-view" of the event, so we can expect there to be more included in this section of Scripture than we can comprehend.

An Excellent Young Earth Resource

I am fully aware that I am making a statement of faith at this point, but I'm not apologizing for this. I think the aspects of the creation accounts of Genesis that we find "difficult" - i.e. out of sync with science's current account of origins - reflect either misunderstandings we currently have about the Biblical texts or unfortunate ignorance we have of the true scientific or historical realities we are discussing. History is full of examples of both occurring.

So where does this leave the Young Earth Creationist, the Intelligent Design Christian and the modern scientific community in the apparent tension between many of the persons who hold these perspectives? My answer would be two fold.

An Excellent Intelligent Design Resource

First, it need not leave us at each others throats. Presumably, what all parties want to discover, or bring to light, is simply the truth about the origins of the Universe. All camps are in the habit of making exclusive claims based on interpretations of the known data (scientific, Biblical and theological). Few involved in these discussions, however, seem to care to acknowledge that the data in question is continually in a process of updating and change (particularly scientific data) - and the ironclad truths of today often turn out to be the stepping stones to the discovery of deeper, more exhaustive understandings of the realities we are exploring.

One way to bring this about would be to decide to leave the pejorative and ad hominem attacks of each others' character and methods so common in the past. I see nothing to be gained by the type of approach championed by so many polemicists of any side of the debate which lampoons one's opponents. We must each state the case we each hold, respectfully listen to other opinions and part with continuing respect and well wishing for all parties involved. I must admit that I always find the rancor between the proponents of these perspectives to be out of place as I find great blessing from the insights of each of these points of view.

Augustine

Second, we must agree that the search for truth in these matters is going to be multi-generational. Whether the parties involved in the origins debate understand it or not, the current discussion stems back to the days of Darwin, to the Enlightenment and even to the days of Augustine. Surely it will relieve the pressure on each other - and the respective camps - to realize that we seek a verisimilitudinous understanding of our origins rather than an exact comprehension of the creation and origins of our universe.

While scientists, Christians and theologians are not encouraged to think in these terms, a study of the history of science and religion will show that this is in fact the reality. We want to claim total knowledge, yet the "assured results" of today will likely not be so certain tomorrow. We must learn humility.
*************
Want to learn more? Check out my book: "Science, Evolutionary Theory and Christianity - Partners in Truth or Antagonists" at Amazon.com!

Karl Barth on the Power of Our Lives Lived Humbly before God and People

2010-11-20T22:56:00.000-06:00

I love Karl Barth's Dogmatics. Here is a powerful quote about the effectiveness of humble Christian living. Enjoy!
"Is not Abraham himself, the Father of the race, who lived alone in tents, described as a prophet, the first of all the prophets (Gen. 20:7)? There is no word of any prophetic activity fulfilled by him as such. All that we are told is that he built altars and called upon - but did not preach, as Luther has it - the name of the Lord (12:8, 13:4). He is a prophet, and as such, a public person, by his very being among the Canaanites in his special, or, as we might almost say, his private relationship to Yahweh. He is not among them for nothing. His name is to be a blessing for all the nations of the earth (12:2)."
- Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV.3.1;56

Still think you aren't making a difference where you are? Think again!

Headed For Hell

2010-11-19T17:01:00.000-06:00

I'm writing this entry as I'm out of town at a two day convention for Alabama Baptists. It has been a wonderful time of worship, learning and networking. There was an AWESOME worship service Tuesday PM. Dr. Rick Lance has been inspirational. I've also been grateful for my MBA friends - Art, James and Randy - who kindly have "led me around" a little bit this week. I think they were God sent.

The other side of things has been to be in a "big" city ("big" here referring to cultural influences and diversity more than anything) - as we meet within the shadow of Birmingham and Montgomery. That has not been so positive, I must admit. In short, I've witnessed more cultural moral rot, spiritual poverty and the general broken condition of humanity in two days through general personal contact (outside the Convention meeting) and contact through the local media - in a concentrated dose - than I've seen on little ol' Dauphin Island or even Mobile in years. We're really sheltered in Mobile - perhaps too sheltered from the desperate condition of so many.

As I've been here, I've been reminded that there are a lot of people living now - and heading into eternity - without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. They seem to live Iives of quiet desperation: broken hearts and broken homes seem more common than not; one can see in the eyes of so many a quest for meaning and a search for significance - the idea that they are meant for more; the simple quest for love. Those searches and quests of so many individuals (made in God's image) are going desperately unanswered.

The only answer to this, of course, is for Believers in our glorious Lord Jesus to SHARE the Good News of Life and Hope found in Him. A simple commitment to common decency fuels this compulsion among believers to share the Good News with those in our individual and collective spheres of influence. How can we not?

This week has had many highlights. Most of all, however, I was reminded of the urgency of sharing by any means possible - written, verbal and all other available means. We must share, whether perfectly or imperfectly, completely or incompletely. With love and compassion we must share - for Christ's love compels us.

Book Release: Science, Evolutionary Theory and Christianity—Partners in Truth or Antagonists?

2010-11-09T23:39:00.001-06:00

I'm very excited to be able to announce my NEW Book - "Science, Evolutionary Theory and Christianity - Partners in Truth or Antagonists?" In this book I'm exploring whether science, evolution and the Gospel can hold common ground or not - and I believe you'll find my answers to be both interesting and helpful!

It's currently available exclusively through Amazon.com

Paperback ($9.99): Click Here to Review or Order!

Kindle Version ($6.99): Click Here to Review or Order!

"Science, Evolutionary Theory and Christianity" will also be available through all U.S. booksellers - online and in stores - nationwide within a few weeks.

Get Your Copy Today!

LARRY KING INTERVIEW - THE GRAND DESIGN BY STEPHEN HAWKING

2010-09-13T00:38:00.000-05:00

I shared my thoughts with a friend as to what I thought of the King Interview with Stephen Hawking (and his co-author, Leonard Mlodinow - and panel members, Fr. Robert Spitzer and Depak Chopra). Here's what I had to say...

******************

I missed the show on TV but caught it on YouTube in its entirety. It was refreshing to hear Spitzer's amazing tenor voice again (I hope to meet him someday). He was brilliant as usual - although I think it quite apparent that King favored Chopra and gave him far to much time over Spitzer.

I have to admit that it seemed to me that the Hawking book seems to be an anti-climax - as H seems confused at several points. First, M-Theory hardly seems at the stage where one wants to hang large things on. It is currently unverifiable through experimental method - and will remain so for the near future at least - and is largely a mathematical exercise.

My second criticism would bs that Hawking is simply proposing an extraordinarily prodigal form of enlarged naturalism (J Polkinghorne). It is a reintroduction of the "infinite time + infinite space = any possibility" approach. Previous to Einstein the Steady State view of the Universe (as per Newton) held sway and allowed enough time (it was thought, anyway) to allow for random chance to generate life without God. That view was decimated by Einstein's theory of Space, Time and matter which called for a universe of finite age.

In my view the psychological need for the atheist to reintroduce an infinite time period (now in the multiverse) to allow for randomness to produce our finely tuned universe - and eliminate the implications of a Creator found in Einstein's work - may in itself account for M theory's (and its multiverse component) current popularity.

This psychological pressure certainly seemed to be on display as Hawking stated that science made theology "unnecessary.". (What a remarkably silly statement). A point I believe Spitzer dealt well with - as much as he was allowed by King.

Of course, H is proposing an interpretation of M Theory that may be flawed. But you would never know that H's work is seen as speculative by many in the physics world from tonight's interview. Along those lines, I was somewhat amused to his reference to time travel as well. As in physics there is a dispute as to whether time is a "block universe" (as per Boethius - Totum simul); or whether time flows. H conveniently ignored that in his comments about time travel. I suspect from comments of various persons in physics that H may be actually a little sloppy in his physics...

All in all, I thought the interview was (and probably the book will be) very disappointing. I don't think that the viewer's knowledge of either physics or theology profited much from the time spent.

JOEL OSTEEN - AMERICA'S PASTOR?

2010-09-09T01:28:00.002-05:00

One person in the American public eye whom few seem neutral about is Joel Osteen of Lakewood Church, Houston, Texas. On occasion I get asked about what I think about Joel Osteen.

My own story with Joel began about five years ago when I criticized him from the pulpit some five years ago. This was the first time I remember criticizing another pastor by name from the pulpit, (and I'll never do it again!)

When I finished preaching and stepped down I "heard" God speak: "You've criticized someone who claims to be my servant, are you sure you've got your facts straight?" It is one of the few times I've ever experienced the Lord as a threatening presence. This led me to carefully study Joel and Lakewood church.

When I began to ask and inquire about Joel among pastors and theologians, I frequently found that few really had taken time to analyze his theology in depth. An example of this is one person I spoke to labeled who Joel a "heretic." When I asked if he had ever read (a Book) or heard anything Joel had said as an entirety (a Sermon), the answer was "No."

That's a strong opinion based on a great lack of information.

In the following year or two, I ended up logging over five hundred hours of research into Joel's theology, history and church. I have listened to every podcasted message of his in the last five years, read several of his books, watched entire Lakewood church services online, sampled Messages from other Lakewood Ministers from their Leadership Conference a few years ago, spoke to staff at Lakewood by phone, and interviewed several people who attended there including one professional church growth consultant.

Long story short - I believe Joel is working for the Kingdom. My research indicates that Joel is an Orthodox, Trinitarian Christian who believes in the tradition evangelical understanding of sin, Christ's work on the Cross and his Bodily Resurrection. He holds to a traditional Protestant view of Scripture as the Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word of God. Joel apparently holds to a Pre-Millennial view of eschatology - although he admits he feels inadequate to articulate some doctrines like this fully, and feels this is not his calling - and to the imminent Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

There are hermeneutic issues that I have with him at times, but since he comes from the Pentecostal trajectory, I expect that. Frankly, there are times when his "different angle" helps me to see Scripture, the Christian life and my life with God with a new clarity.
Joel has stated clearly that he wants to improve his ability to articulate doctrine and is quite conscious of his theological shortcomings. He did not finish college nor did he go to Seminary - as his Dad, John, did.

In my years of listening / watching Joel, I have seem him work on improving the theological quality of his preaching. I have noticed that this year he is making a point to improve his elucidation of the doctrine of Christ's nature (the Son of God), and his Virgin birth. So he is changing over time - (as I pray I am, also).

Charges of his being a "Health and Wealth" preacher I've found are difficult to apply to Joel. They simply aren't accurate. A careful listening of a standard message gives the promise that "God will provide all you need to fulfill the plans he has for your life." He often takes pains that some will apparently have more than others - but that has nothing to do with living a life of God's joy and purpose.

Accolades? He has more than a few - his ministry has been accepted and approved by Billy Graham, and he is apparently friends of Ed Young, Second Baptist Houston. Ed is a former SBC President. For myself, I know Joel has had a word of desperately needed wisdom that I couldn't hear on my own so often. I truly appreciate him.

God's Kingdom isn't filled with Xerox copies - that's what humanity does. God makes people original and different. A Scripture I often meditate on when dealing with the uniqueness of various Christians are the words of Jesus our Lord in Luke 7:33-35:
"For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, `He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, `Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by all her children."

That is a good word. Joel is a minister who shares a message that falls within the bounds of Christian Orthodoxy. Let us appreciate his Gifts and Ministry, support him with Prayer and look to improve our own Christian faithfulness as we do.

I'm Now on Twitter!

2010-07-10T10:19:00.002-05:00

I'm now on Twitter! Check me out at: www.twitter.com/ChrisSchansberg!

Dauphin Island and the Gulf Oil Spill - Sharing a Blog I Found

2010-06-02T23:43:00.004-05:00

Found this Tuesday after the news reporting turned "black" in regard to the oil spill. With the oil approaching DI the mood has changed.

I thought Moore picked up on the grief we all see coming to the Gulf Coast. Estimates as to the Gulf wide oil disaster range from months to a multi-decade fallout on the ecological systems / economic fallout. Certainly the Summer looks bleak for DI and we can only hope for a "snowbird" / birdwatcher recovery this Fall.

In my talk with one town official today - he has been trying to see the sunny side of this mess - I couldn't help but notice how sad he looked.

Still, all things work for the good... (Romans 8:28). One of those good things is this article. Thought this was very intelligent & insightful. Reminds me of why I "do" theology.

The article has also been posted at Crosswalk.com.

Chris

Jun 1, 2010

Ecological Catastrophe and the Uneasy Evangelical Conscience

By Russell D. Moore

I've left my hometown lots of times. But never like this.

Sure, I've teared up as I've left family and friends for a while, knowing I'd see them again the next time around. And, yes, I cried every day for almost a year in the aftermath of a hurricane that almost wiped my hometown off the map. But I've never left like this, wondering if I'll ever see it again, if my children's children will ever know what Biloxi was.

As I pass that sign on Highway 90 telling me I'm leaving Biloxi, I can look out behind the water's horizon and know there's a Pale Horse there. A massive rupture in the ocean's floor is gushing oil into the Gulf of Mexico, with plumes of petroleum great enough to threaten to destroy the sea-life there for my lifetime, if not forever. Everything is endangered, from the seafood and tourism industries to the crabs and seagulls on the beach to the churches where I first heard the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is more than a threat to my hometown, and to our neighboring communities. It is a threat to national security greater than most Americans can even contemplate, because so few of them know how dependent they are on the eco-systems of the Gulf of Mexico. This is, as one magazine put it recently, Katrina meets Chernobyl.

I am leaving this morning, but I am leaving changed.

Someone once described Roe vs. Wade as the "Pearl Harbor" of the evangelical pro-life conscience. Pearl Harbor is an apt metaphor. Before that date of infamy, foreign policy isolationism seemed to be a legitimate American option. The "America First" committees and some of the most influential figures in the United States Congress argued that Hitler's war was none of our concern. We should tend to ourselves, and we could deal with whomever won in Europe and the Pacific when all the dust had settled.

After Pearl Harbor, the shortsightedness, and indeed utopianism, of isolationism was seen for what it was. After Roe, what seemed to be a "Catholic issue" now pierced through the consciences of evangelical Protestants who realized they'd not only been naive; they'd also missed a key aspect of Christian thought and mission.

For too long, we evangelical Christians have maintained an uneasy ecological conscience. I include myself in this indictment.

We've had an inadequate view of human sin.

Because we believe in free markets, we've acted as though this means we should trust corporations to protect the natural resources and habitats. But a laissez-faire view of government regulation of corporations is akin to the youth minister who lets the teenage girl and boy sleep in the same sleeping bag at church camp because he "believes in young people."

The Scripture gives us a vision of human sin that means there ought to be limits to every claim to sovereignty, whether from church, state, business or labor. A commitment to the free market doesn't mean unfettered license any more than a commitment to free speech means hardcore pornography ought to be broadcast in prime-time by your local network television affiliate.

Caesar's sword is there, by God's authority, to restrain those who would harm others (Rom. 13). When government fails or refuses to protect its own people, whether from nuclear attack or from toxic waste spewing into our life-giving waters, the government has failed.

We've seen the issue of so-called "environmental protection" as someone else's issue.

In our era, the abortion issue is the transcendent moral issue of the day (as segregation was in the last generation, and lynching and slavery before that). Too often, however, we've been willing not simply to vote for candidates who will protect unborn human life (as we ought to), but to also in the process adopt their worldviews on every other issue.

Moreover, we've seen some of the theological and ideological fringes in the environmentalist movement, fringes that enabled us to see them as not "with us," and, frankly, to enable us to make fun of the entire question as a silly enterprise. But perhaps the void is being filled by leftists and liberals and wannabe liberal evangelicals simply because those who ought to know better are off doing something else. Working with our secular progressive neighbors on, for instance, saving the Gulf no more compromises the evangelical witness than our working with feminists to combat pornography or with Latter-day Saints to protect marriage.

We've had an inadequate view of human life and culture.

What is being threatened in the Gulf states isn't just seafood or tourism or beach views. What's being threatened is a culture. As social conservatives, we understand…or we ought to understand…that human communities are formed by traditions and by mores, by the bond between the generations. Culture is, as Russell Kirk said, a compact reaching back to the dead and forward to the unborn. Liberalism wants to dissolve those traditions, and make every generation create itself anew; not conservatism.

Every human culture is formed in a tie with the natural environment. In my hometown, that's the father passing down his shrimping boat to his son or the community gathering for the Blessing of the Fleet at the harbor every year. In a Midwestern town, it might be the apple festival. In a New England town, it might be the traditions of whalers or oystermen. The West is defined by the frontier and the mountains. And so on.

When the natural environment is used up, unsustainable for future generations, cultures die. When Gulfs are dead, when mountaintops are removed, when forests are razed with nothing left in their place, when deer populations disappear, cultures die too.

And what's left in the place of these cultures and traditions is an individualism that is defined simply by the appetites for sex, violence, and piling up stuff. That's not conservative, and it certainly isn't Christian.

Finally, we've compromised our love.

A previous generation of evangelicals had to ask the question, "Is the fetus my neighbor?"

As I've seen the people I love, who led me to Christ, literally heaving in tears, I've wondered how many other communities have faced death like this, while I ignored even the chance to pray. The protection of the creation isn't just about seagulls and turtles and dolphins. That would be enough to prompt us to action, since God's glory is in seagulls and turtles and dolphins (Gen. 6-9; Isa. 65).

Pollution kills people. Pollution dislocates families. Pollution defiles the icon of God's Trinitarian joy, the creation of his theater (Ps. 19; Rom. 1).

Will people believe us when we speak about the One who brings life and that abundantly, when they see that we don't care about that which kills and destroys? Will they hear us when we quote John 3:16 to them when, in the face of the loss of their lives, we shrug our shoulders and say, "Who is my neighbor?"

I'm leaving Biloxi today, with tears in my eyes. But I'll be back. I'll be back whether the next time I see this place it's a thriving seacoast community again or whether it's an oil-drenched crime scene. But I pray I'll never be the same.

Evolution and Christianity - Friends or Rivals?

2010-04-01T19:29:00.007-05:00

Note: This is the draft of the speech I gave to our Church's College Outreach Luncheon on 3/23/10. You can listen to it through our "Theology Today" Podcast. Chris

INTRODUCTION.
Our talk today focuses on “Evolution and Christianity - Friends or Rivals?” I want to state clearly that I believe that Science and Christianity are Friends. They are Friends that are in a common pursuit of the Truth. Of course, the areas of Truth that they explore are different - with Science testing (in summary) the physical, measurable aspects of the world and Christian Faith seeking to explore the Truth of God’s Person and his Relation to his Creatures. In the end, however, both seek to make Truthful claims about the realms they explore and wish to make accurate statements about the categories of experience and thought they represent.

When we move to the question of Evolution and Christianity the subject becomes more difficult. This difficulty is not, I think, because of any real incongruity intrinsic between the subjects, but because of a vast history of disagreement and debate at the popular level that we are long accustomed to. Like many things that we are accustomed to, you may take the disagreement for granted and assume an inherent hostility between both the Christian claims and the Evolutionary theorists’ claims. I believe, however, you would be in error to take this for granted.

Let’s begin with the word “Evolution” - which you will quickly see has become a very imprecise term. Depending on who you are listening to, “Evolution” is the mechanism that has brought about the cosmos, guided stellar development, planetary formation, atmospheric development and - finally - the development of all Biological life. Needless to say, the term “Evolution” in this sense is very imprecise and means virtually nothing. One thing I occasionally say is that if a term means anything, than it means nothing. That certainly applies here.

So, in order to bring meaning to our term, we want to speak of Evolution in regard to the origins and development of biological life on the planet Earth. Even with this degree of precision in our term, we need to explore just a bit more what we are talking about. What we are not talking about is the popular level, High School textbook, Richard Dawkins level of debate about the subject. We are strictly speaking of Evolution as a mechanism by which biological life arose and came to be on our planet. We are not assuming atheism - some see Evolution as the process by which Providence guided the development of life on Earth - or anything else beyond this definition of the term.

When we come to use Evolution in this sense of the word, we really are getting to the heart of the discussion we need to have. There is one final way in which we need to adjust our definition and point out that we are not talking about Evolution as Charles Darwin first proposed the idea. The idea may originally be his and we can reference his ideas to a degree. His idea of Evolution, however, has developed far beyond what he would have recognized in his day. Today, we are dealing with theories and issues involved with microbiology, DNA structure, information and many other issues that tug Evolutionary theory in a number of directions.

I expect, by this point, to have two reactions. First, if you are used to the Evolution - Christianity debate at the popular level, than you may feel as if I had just taken most of the winds out of your sails on this issue. I believe this is a good place to be because more often than not we are the victims of a media that wishes to generate conflict for the sake of conflict than a heartfelt desire to probe to the depth of the real issues.

Second, if you are involved in the profession of biology, I hope I’ve just described to a certain extent the world you truly know. The field of biological studies is an exciting field - and it is the ebb and flow of that debate and process of exploration that makes it so.

I. THE METHODS OF SCIENCE AND THE METHODS OF THEOLOGY.
A. Scientific Methodology and Theological Inquiry.
Science is an experimentally driven subject whose methods can be confirmed by their repeatability. Of course, we are here talking about what we might call the “hard” sciences - physics, biology, chemistry, etc. In this definition we are deliberately leaving aside for the moment, the fields of study of history, psychology, sociology and other such subjects whose methods and results are judged to be also verifiable and reliable - but by other means than experimental repeatability.

This one of the great “secret weapons” of science - it’s ability to analyze through experimental method so many of the aspects of the world around us.

We are able to employ this gift of experiment because we transcend the world. As has been said by Sir John Polkinghorne (quoting Paschal) - “We are insubstantial reeds in this great universe of ours - but there is an important aspect to us that enables to rise higher than the world around us. We are, in a word, thinking reeds. This makes us greater than all the stars, for we know ourselves and the stars, and they know - nothing.” So it is the gift of consciousness and thought that enables us to transcend the world and so study it.

In Theological inquiry - specifically the exploration of the Christian Message - we encounter another reality altogether. In Christian Truth, we encounter the God who transcends us. Christian belief declares and reason concludes that we can only know God to the degree that he reveals himself to us. Christian belief cannot be placed in a test tube. Than again, neither can the sciences of history, psychology or sociology. Yet we do not doubt the value of historical studies (for example) because of this methodological difference in fact gathering.

B. Basics of the Christian Faith.
Whether you find anything in conflict with a belief system you hold will depend on whether the foundations of your beliefs are threatened. What are the foundations of Christian belief? In summary, they are:

The historical events of the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth.
Humanity’s Separation from God because of our Sin and Fallen Nature.
Jesus’ claim to be the incarnate Son of God whose death pays the price for our sins when we place our faith in him.
Jesus’ claim to be worthy of our ultimate allegiance and obedience because he is Lord of All.
The Bible as the Source of Revelation from God to Humanity as to his Person and His Will.

Although certainly not exhaustive, this Is a fairly good summary of some of the basics of the Christian Faith. The “Origins of Biological Life” are not a necessary part of that discussion because they are assumed. One may believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible’s account of Life’s origins or one may believe a more abstracted version - but these are not absolutely critical to Christian belief.

C. The Historical Reliability of Scripture.
While this is not the time to explore this subject, I want to take a moment to state that in my two decades of study of the Bible - both with a devotional and critical eye - I have nothing but the highest respect for the Historical reporting of the Bible. From cover to cover, the Bible possesses an amazing ability to get its historical reporting dead on.

One story I like to relate to illustrate the Bible’s Historical Reliability is the story of Joseph the Patriarch - who lived some 2,000 plus years before the time of Jesus.

The Price Paid for Joseph
The Bible says Joseph, one of the patriarchs of the people of Israel, was sold into slavery for twenty shekels of silver (Genesis 37:28). Archaeological studies have now confirmed this is indeed the correct price for the period represented by the book of Genesis. K.A. Kitchen says, “Earlier than this, slaves were cheaper (10-15 shekels), later than this, more expensive.”

Joseph’s Burial Arrangements
Joseph eventually rose from slavery, to become the second in command to the King of Egypt. Toward the end of his life, the Bible states Joseph requested the people of Israel take his body with them when they would leave Egypt (Genesis 50:24-26).

The Bible records how Moses honored this wish, and took Joseph’s body with the Israelites when they left Egypt (Exodus 13:19). The Bible also records how Joshua, Moses’ successor, did finally bury Joseph’s body within Israel’s borders in the town of Shechem (Joshua 24:32).

For centuries, there was a tomb at Shechem venerated as the tomb of Joseph. When the tomb was opened, a body was discovered which had been mummified according to Egyptian burial customs in the tomb was a sword of the type worn by Egyptian officials of Joseph’s time.

Another example I like to share is the Story of John the Apostle’s Colonnades and the Reporting of Countries, Cities and Islands in the Book of Acts.

John’s Five Covered Colonnades (John 5:2)
In John 5:2, the gospel writer specifically says in Jerusalem there was a pool near the Sheep Gate. The writer of John specifically states this pool had five covered colonnades. (A colonnade is a series of columns supporting the base of a roof structure). It is interesting the writer makes this as an offhand remark. He is claiming to have been well acquainted with the city of Jerusalem. Excavations of this area of Jerusalem have now been done and they have discovered the site John spoke of – with five colonnades!

Countries, Cities and Islands Reported in the Book of Acts
Dr. Norman Geisler reports the writer of Acts names thirty two countries, fifty four cities, and nine islands all with 100% accuracy.

The Bible is written as a Book of History, but it is not a Book of Scientific methodology or inquiry. So while the Bible may report certain scientific details - they are reported as a matter of historical record and not scientific proof. Galileo said, “The Bible was written to tell us how to go to Heaven, and not how the Heavens go…” I believe that is a good remark.

D. The Status of Biological Science and Evolutionary Thought.
To ask whether or not Evolutionary Theory and Christianity are at odds is in a sense a misnomer. This is because Evolutionary Theory and the status of Biological science’s understanding of the world is in a process of continuing development. Evolutionary Theory in Darwin’s day is a far cry from the biological understanding of today. It is important to remember that Darwin had no access to the knowledge we have today of the amazing nature of the Biological world.

I have come to see Evolutionary Theory as the template in which the Biological sciences have currently chosen to work. It is a “meta-narrative” - a grand philosophy - around which Biologists order their thoughts. It is currently deemed a useful template to accommodate most of the realities to which scientists really are discovering. In time, however, it may be replaced by a more accurate meta-theory that is more accommodating to the facts that are discovered. A similar comparison in the world of physics would be seen in how Sir Isaac Newton’s description of gravity has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity. In its time, Newton’s theory was very useful and served as a stepping stone to Einstein’s account of gravity.

There are now some very exciting developments in the Biological sciences that point to the Christian claim of a Creator who actually created the world. We see development in research about the Self Organizing properties of matter; Information Theory and DNA; as well as the overall Complexity of the Biosphere - all of which point to something far beyond “random.”

II. WHAT PLACE FOR CHRISTIAN BELIEF AND SCIENCE?
A. Points of Agreement.
1. The Search for Truth.
The first point of agreement between Christian Belief and Science is the common search for Truth. To that end, each field of study and exploration will have wisdom to share with each other. Science - specifically Biology - helps us to better understand what God did when he created the world around us with all of its creatures.

Christian belief, on the other hand, can tell us about the God to which modern Scientific study finds evidence for, but beyond which it cannot move. So while Stuart Kauffman can point to the self organizing properties of matter; the information present in DNA can be explored; and physicists can point to what they call the Anthropic principle - yet none of these discoveries are able to explore beyond these discoveries because of the limits of science.

2. Account of the Origins of Our Universe / World.
In engaging in dialogue between the Christian Community and Science, there often arise disagreements regarding apparent differences between popular interpretations of Scripture and popular interpretations of Science. In truth, however, I find few substantial disagreements when the surface level of dialogue is actually penetrated.

Take for instance the opening chapters of Genesis, often asserted by opponents of the Bible, as being contrary to scientific knowledge. This is, however, not the case. Consider the following examples:

Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
Take for instance the claim of Genesis that the Universe had a beginning. This idea did not become a valid opinion in physics until the work of Albert Einstein in the early 20th Century. Until this time it was believed the universe had always existed in the same state we see it now. Yet some three thousand, five hundred years before modern science’s discovery, Genesis 1:1 states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Water in Outer Space?
Genesis calls for the presence of water in the early stages of the universe’s formation and implies its continued existence today throughout the cosmos. We know water is part of our ecosystem on earth, but skeptics often scoff at Genesis’ account of water above the skies of the earth – i.e. outer space. Genesis 1:6-8 says, “And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse “sky...”

This account of Genesis is now shown to be more accurate than previously believed. Researchers with the European Space Agency’s Infrared Space Observatory (ESAISO) have discovered one of the natural working processes of stars is the production of water. ESAISO’s researchers have also found there are large quantities of water to be found throughout the interstellar space in our galaxy – indeed, water was found to be the third most common molecule in the regions of the Milky Way galaxy studied. Again, Genesis is shown to be astonishingly accurate in regard to its reporting of cosmological phenomena.

Life First Appeared in the Oceans
The Book of Genesis and modern scientific understanding calls for the first appearance of life in the oceans. Genesis 1:20-21 states: “And God said, ‘Let the water teem with living creatures…So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds…’ ”

All of Human Life Descended from Two Ancestors
Genesis also states all human life descends from two ancestors – Adam and Eve. Today, molecular biologists claim to have discovered one of the two members of this couple – namely, Eve. Using mitochondrial DNA, molecular biologists have traced the descendants of all humans alive today to a common female ancestor. Genesis 3:20 testifies, “Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.”

The Human Race Originally Spoke One Language
Would you believe the human race originally spoke one language? The Book of Genesis says we did. Many modern linguists believe this was the case, citing numerous similarities among languages and communication habits of people across the world. Genesis 11:1 states: “Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.”

III. WHERE CHRISTIANITY CHALLENGES EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. A. Humanity as the Apex of Creation.
Evolutionary thought sees change as a constant. The only virtue in Evolution, in that sense, is simply change. The Bible’s account, however, introduces a radical challenge to Evolution in that it states that Humanity is the apex of the Creation. Humanity is not just “an evolutionary step.” We are the point of arrival of the Creation.

This is especially seen in the doctrine of the Incarnation - where God took Human form (body, soul and spirit) - in the Person of Jesus Christ, the Second Member of the Triune God. It has been pointed out that this claim is made uniquely for the human race and that no other species can make that claim.

B. Kindness and Compassion - A Challenge to the Idea of the "Survival of the Fittest."
Christianity also gives a strong challenge to Evolutionary Theory’s idea of “survival of the fittest” in it’s protection of the weak and needy. Evolution’s ability to predict outcomes has been thwarted by Human compassion for the weak and needy - both among the animal and human world.

A Christmas Reflection (December 2009)

2009-12-26T00:47:00.007-06:00

Christmas Morning I was able to wake up early enough to get out of the house and pray. In that time I had to myself, I found my mind drifting back across 2009 and thinking about the things I am grateful for. Here's a partial list:

Looking Back
Funny thing at the age of 42, you begin to experience the luxury of looking back over your life and taking account of "where you've come from and where you're going." The first thing I notice when I look back is the presence of the blessings of Family - my wife and children, extended family on both sides. You take statements like this for granted when you're 28, but I don't now. My family really does mean more to me than anything. My wife, Lee, is truly a precious gift from God - "a good wife is from the Lord..." Our children are in the same way, precious gifts. Christmas, more than anything, is about family - and I can't imagine my life without them.

Friends. In the last year my circle of activities has grown through ministry and personal opportunities. In the process I've developed friendships with people from across a wide spectrum of back grounds, professions and perspectives. I'm grateful to my new friends (and old!) for helping me to see life in a new way, to experience the wonders of God in new areas of my life, and for the wisdom I've gained from them to live life better.

Health. Like everyone, I've had my health struggles this year. Yet, when I consider what so many people suffer, I'm grateful for my strength of body and health. When you're younger, you think you will live forever. As you spend years in ministry, dealing with countless people who have experienced debilitating illnesses, you realize what a blessing Health really is. I'm grateful, Lord.

Success. That's a funny word for me to use in association with my life, yet I must admit that at this point in my life I've been "successful" beyond my wildest dreams. Too this point, I believe I've accomplished what the Lord has called me to do - that is my definition of success. DIBC seems strong and healthy, I've expanded in my ministry output, in every way we see horizons expanding.

But I'm not just thinking of the last few years - I'm thinking in terms of decades. At 14 years of age, I determined to go to Seminary and enter the ministry - and now, here I am. I think of the countless lives that God has allowed Lee and I to influence for the good. The countless decisions for Christ through our ministries (meaning persons eternal destinies being changed for the good, families transformed, individual lives healed). The difference we've made in the lives of Christians - bringing them forward to Christ like maturity - also means the world to us.

In the near future it seems like we'll be breaking through to radio (and television beyond that?) Lee plans to launch her first CD in 2010, I have a book slated for publication in May. Beyond that we look for more speaking and singing engagements and opportunities to spread the kingdom.

Most of my life I've been told what I can't do, and what I won't be. (On the other hand, maybe I just listen to critical people too openly). Funny things is, God had a different plan. "Thank you, Lord!"

Christmas 2009 really is a season for remarkable thanksgiving for me. I hope and pray it is the same for you. My prayers for greater and greater seasons of God's blessings and direction on our lives in the year to come - and I'm sure, because of his Faithfulness, we will have it.

A Few Thoughts About John Polkinghorne

2009-10-29T13:01:00.006-05:00

One of the more amazing persons I have encountered in recent years is Dr. John Polkinghorne. Polkinghorne first came to my attention in earnest during our family's Christmas vacation in December 2007 when I listened to a Mars Hill Audio Conversation - Science and Theology from the Bottom Up: Sir John Polkinghorne on Enriching the Dialogue.

Polkinghorne is one of those rare figures who bridges two professional worlds - first, he served 25 years as a theoretical physicist working on theories of elementary particles and played a significant role in the discovery of the quark. In the late seventies he began studies as a Pastor in the Church of England, formally entering the ministry in 1982. Polkinghorne's accomplishments since that time are many. Polkinghorne is a current Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge and was for 10 years a Canon Theologian of Liverpool Cathedral. He is a founding member of the Society of Ordained Scientists and also of the International Society of Science and Religion, of which he was the first President. Polkinghorne was selected to give the prestigious Gifford Lectures in 1993-4, which he later published as The Faith of a Physicist. Polkinghorne also has served on countless Committees and Commissions in the United Kingdom - he has been a member of the BMA Medical Ethics Committee, the General Synod of the Church of England, the Doctrine Commission, and the Human Genetics Commission. He was knighted in 1997 and was awarded the Templeton Prize in 2002 for his contributions to research at the interface between science and religion.

When I returned from vacation I went on the internet and found as many lectures, sermons and interviews by Dr. Polkinghorne as I could. Over the course of the next six months I spent much of my time listening to Polkinghorne - a habit I have continued to this day. I listened many times to the Mars Hill interview and the other audio files I had collected. In listening to him I was struck by the powerful impression that in some way I had finally come home - spiritually and intellectually.

Hearing the Summons to Theology
It would not be inappropriate to say that the Lord Jesus used Dr. Polkinghorne to call me to a renewal of my theological studies. Although I have a Master of Theology degree from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, I have always found direct Biblical study more interesting - vastly so - than the study of theology itself. "Theology is just man's opinion, let's go straight to the Bible," I would say. Of course, in saying this, I was failing to recognize what theology is - but you can read my blog post "Understanding Theologians and The ology" for more about that.

"...The world is also the arena of moral decision. We live in a world that is shot through with value - and values of various kinds. What I mean is I think we have moral knowledge of a striking or certainer kind as we have any form of knowledge. For instance, I know as certain as we know anything that torturing children is wrong. I don't think that's some curious disguised survival strategy to propagate my genes. I don't think it's a mere convention of my society. I think it's a fact about the world...." - The Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne

Part of my interest in Dr. Polkinghorne is his amazing ways of combining physics with theology. While direct theological study has not always been the passion that it now is, I have always had an interest in theoretical physics. In his lectures and sermons, Dr. Polkinghorne manages to skillfully interweave physics and theology. This was important to me - as whenever I would begin to lose interest in whatever discussion of theology he was presenting, his comments about physics would keep me interested.

Additionally, I was impressed - and challenged - by the depth and breadth of Dr. Polkinghorne's theological work. One would have thought that in moving from one vocation (physics) to another (pastoral work) he might have not have studied as deeply in his second career, choosing to ride his reputation instead of engaging in the hard labor of study. There is simply none of that with Dr. Polkinghorne. He is able to freely reference Augustine, Barth, Pannenberg - and many other theologians - effortlessly and at will. I learned that in my theological work I must also keep my standards high.

The Power of Brevity
Another powerful lesson I have learned from Dr. Polkinghorne is in the area of communication - specifically, to the power of brevity in spoken presentations. One common observation about Dr. Polkinghorne is that he has the amazing ability to sum a matter up in a few words.

During his address Exchanges in Science and Religion (Royal Society Lecture, 2006), he addressed the common ad hominem attack commonly made against Christianity - "Since many who have claimed to be Christian have acted in evil and deplorable ways, Christianity therefore is not true."

The focus of Dr. Polkinghorne's talk was not Christian history. So he kept his reply to the issue brief. He said, "While it is certainly and sadly true that religious people have done terrible things and said foolish things, it is a mere polemical debating trick to ignore the fact that the same has also been true of non-religious persons." As I noted above, the context was a lecture given to the Royal Society and was not necessarily a setting friendly to Christian beliefs. It seems to me that in that one brief, powerful comment that he dealt with this particular issue more effectively than many Christian speakers are able in countless volumes of books.

Dr. Polkinghorne could have elaborated further (as he does elsewhere) but he choose not to and summed up his concerns in one sentence. When I heard his comments, I must admit that I was amazed at the concise power of this statement. Since encountering Dr. Polkinghorne's powerful gift of brevity, I have worked much harder on making my words count in the things I say from the pulpit and podium. It has been a great improvement in both my thinking and speaking.

The Interaction Between Science and Religion
Of course, one of Dr. Polkinghorne's greatest recognized contributions is to the interaction of Science and Religion. It is fascinating to listen to his comments about the attempts of the scientific community and the Christian religious community to interface in their common search for truth.

His comments on Science and Religion are many and wide ranging, so I must choose just a few areas which to address. His comments on the ongoing "Creation (Literal 6-Day Creation - Young Earth) / Evolution" debate have been fascinating and convicting to me. On many occasions, Dr. Polkinghorne laments the ongoing friction between both sides of the debate. On the Creation side, Dr. Polkinghorne points out that many who represent this point of view simply do not understand science or the nature of scientific methods. His critique of the Evolutionary perspective is its hostility to all religious belief and deliberate ignorance of the theistic implications of current scientific discovery. His comments about both sides of the conversation are worthy of consideration by all involved in this dialogue.

Dr. Polkinghorne has also given me a real introduction to the status of thought regarding the status of current scientific work on information theory and the emerging discoveries of the self organizing properties of the universe (see, Stuart Kaufmann's, At Home in the Universe). His discussion of the self organizing properties of Kaufmann's Boolean network computer models is fascinating. Dr. Polkinghorne sees these self organizing properties as clearly pointing to the handiwork of God.

I also appreciate Dr. Polkinghorne's reference to the works of Michael Polanyi. Polyani was a distinguished physical chemist in the early 20th Century whose work in the scientific field was acknowledged by the likes of scientists such as Albert Einstein.

In the 1930's Polyani began to articulate his opposition to what we today call scientific naturalism - the idea that scientific knowledge is the only real knowledge one can experience. Thus leaving common human experiences of intuition, imagination, religion and relationships in the category of the irrelevant. Based on his knowledge of how the process of scientific discovery works - to a great degree through imagination and intuition - Polanyi argued that all knowledge (including scientific knowledge) is based on tacit skills and employs imagination and intuition far more than scientific naturalism acknowledges.

Dr. Polkinghorne agrees with Polanyi's idea of tacit knowledge and ably defends this way of thinking in his lectures. This was significant to me, because until this time I had labored under the typical 20th (now 21st) Century Western idea that scientific knowledge was the only reliable knowledge one could possess. Needless to say, that left me intellectually "in the lurch" as a pastor as I deal primarily with spiritual knowledge and psychological realities.

It seemed to me that no matter how much I proved the historical reliability of the Bible, the strong proofs we have of Jesus' Resurrection, etc., (see my book, Reasons to Believ e) I could not seem to escape the feeling that I needed to "prove more." With Dr. Polkinghorne's comments, I began to see for the first time the simple prejudice of scientific naturalism. The enemy I was facing was not a lack of evidence, but a closed mindedness to realities outside the realm of scientific discovery.

As Dr. Polkinghorne stated, "...The world is also the arena of moral decision. We live in a world that is shot through with value - and values of various kinds. What I mean is I think we have moral knowledge of a striking or certainer kind as we have any form of knowledge. I mean I think I know as certain as we know anything that torturing children is wrong. I don't think that's some curious disguised survival strategy to propagate my genes. I don't think it's a mere convention of my society. I think it's a fact about the world...." (The Interaction of Science and Theology - Templeton/ASA Lecture Series. Cornell University, 2004). Dr. Polkinghorne correctly argues that it is ignorant to dismiss knowledge that is not scientifically verifiable as irrelevant "epiphenomenal froth." The God who created the world also gave commands and guidance as to how we should live in and upon that world.

At Dr. Polkinghorne's recommendation, I've gone on to reading Michael Polanyi's exploration of how we know what we know in Personal Knowledge. I can heartily endorse Dr. Polkinghorne's recommendation of this powerful book. Additionally, Mars Hill Audio has a report on Polanyi called Tacit Knowing, Truthful Knowing: The Life and Thought of Michael Polanyi, which I enthusiastically endorse as well.

Physicality and the Human Experience - In this Life and the Next
I am also immensely grateful to Dr. Polkinghorne for his work on the nature of persons and personhood. Someone has used the phrase "essential embodiment" to describe Dr. Polkinghorne's perspective of the human person. I think that is an apt description - as Dr. Polkinghorne sees the human person as a psychosomatic unity which includes body and soul, intimately and inseparably linked. Dr. Polkinghorne argues that for human experience to be meaningful, it must include continuing existence as a whole person (body and soul) even after death.

Dr. Polkinghorne contrasts his view to the traditional Christian view in which the soul or spirit is a detachable component of the person which can function quite independently from the body upon death.

Dr. Polkinghorne's comments on the nature of human personhood has helped me articulate my own reservations about the traditional divorce made in Christian thinking between soul and body. In my early years as a pastor, I came to my work with the tradition Christian view as a basic assumption about people - that what really mattered in spiritual matters was what the inner person decided to do. In my view, one's physical situation, life history, etc., didn't have much bearing on who they were. For instance, if someone came to me and was struggling with a particular temptation, than I thought that they simply needed to pray, (read their Bibles of course), and try very hard - and all would be well, all problems would be resolved. So overcoming drugs, or alcohol abuse - or a dysfunctional background - was all a matter of the will.

In dealing with people in all of their brokenness (and a bit of my own, I must say), I simply don't see things this way anymore. There is no doubt that sin (thus the need for willpower) is the major feature of the pain we see in people's lives - but there is more to the equation. People so often need physical, emotional and spiritual healing to walk into the future that God intends for them.

In my early years, I dealt with a woman who would not come to church. My first assumption was that the root problem was sin and rebellion against God - and gently tried to help her accordingly. As I got to know the situation, however, I learned her story. To my horror, I learned that the reason she avoided church was that she had been sexually abused by someone who was a member of the church in which she grew up. Her reluctance to go to church was not a "sin problem" - it was a simple desire to avoid intense pain. Who can blame her?

Her problem, it turns out, has nothing to do with sin or willpower, it had to do with a need for healing of body, soul and mind.

Over the course of time - a number of years - the woman has now returned to church and reports that she has a deep communion with God. She is at church four times a week and more. Healing has occurred - and that is just what she needed. The healing couldn't begin, however, until the deeper needs were realized.

I use this example to demonstrate my discovery that the problem of human suffering goes deeply to the core of what we are. This woman wasn't just a "spiritual being housed in a physical body" - she was a person whose whole person had been violated - physically, sexually, emotionally and spiritually. Her healing would have to be as total as she was, and in Christ's power that healing has begun.

With apologies for its length, let's consider Dr. Polkinghorne's comments from his lecture about the nature of human personhood, "The Christian Hope of a Destiny Beyond Death":

“Can we make sense of the idea of there being a destiny beyond death? If we stop to think about it, we soon see that we need a picture of things that contains continuity and discontinuity.

Let’s think about continuity first of all.

If there is a true destiny beyond death, it really has to be Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who live again in the Kingdom of God and not new characters given the old names for old times’ sake. It must be truly the patriarchs who live again - it must be truly you and me who live again in the life of the world to come. That’s the question of continuity.

What could be the carrier of continuity between life in this world and life in the world to come? Much traditional Christian teaching has said the carrier of continuity is the human soul. Much Christian thinking has thought of the soul in Platonic or Cartesian terms. As a spiritual component of us, housed in this life within the material husk of the body, released from the body at death and than going to enter into the life of the world to come.

In other words it’s based on a dualist picture of human nature. That we have both a spiritual nature and a material nature, and the two are quite separate and distinct from each other. This picture believes that one nature can persist while the other decays after death.

I find it impossible to accept that dualist view of human nature. It seems to me that we have many good reasons to suppose that we are not apprentice angels awaiting release from the encumbrances of our fleshly bodies. We are embodied beings. We are psychosomatic unities. Of course we have a spiritual side to us; of course we have a material side to us. The two, however, are inextricably united to each other. We are each single, unified beings…

…This is an idea that would have come as absolutely no shock to most of the writers of the Bible. The Hebrew way of thinking about human nature was in precisely in those terms. In a very famous phrase that someone once coined, Hebrew thinking saw human beings as “animated bodies.” They saw us as “spirit/matter package deals,” rather than “incarnated souls - apprentice angels awaiting release”…

Does that mean that I have lost the concept of the soul? Have I lost the carrier of continuity that would make sense of the idea that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - you and me - will live again in the Kingdom of God? I don’t think so, but I have to reconceptualize the soul. I have to think in terms different from that Platonic or Cartesian way of thinking about a spiritual being stuck inside a material body.

Whatever the soul is, it is presumably the “real me.” It is almost as difficult to figure out what the “real me” is in this life, as it might be in the world to come.

Here I am, standing before you this evening - an elderly, bald academic. What makes me the same as the little boy, with a shock of black hair, in the school photograph of many, many years ago? At first you might say, “Material continuity.” That, however, is an illusion. The atoms that make up the material of our bodies are changing all the time through eating and drinking, wear and tear. They’re continually being discarded and replaced. I have very few atoms in my body today that I had a few years ago. I am atomically distinct from that school boy. It’s not “Material continuity” - that’s an illusion.

So what is it that makes me the same as that school boy? It’s not the atoms that makes up my body. They have no permanent significance. What I believe makes me the same is the almost infinitely complex, information bearing pattern in which those atoms at any particular time are arranged. That pattern is something that is very rich and complicated. It involves my memories; it involves the expressions of my character in various ways.

It's not contained, however, simply within my skin. It also involves the relationships that I have with other people that significantly constitute me as a person, and particularly (of course) my relationships with those who are near and dear to me.

That is what the soul is, I think…”
- The Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, "The Christian Hope of a Destiny Beyond Death"

Dr. Polkinghorne's view challenges the traditional understanding of a dichotomous relationship between the body and person, and invites us to realize that human personhood is a far more complicated, demanding - and wondrous - event that we experience.

"Essential embodiment" also solves a riddle posed to us by the Old and New Testaments - in which the life after death is pictured as continued bodily existence. This continued bodily existence is pictured whether one is in heaven or hell. This is also true whether one experiences the life of the world to come before or after the glorious Second Coming of Jesus.

Consider the passage in Luke 16 in which both the Rich Man and Lazarus are described in terms of continuing bodily existence - Lazarus has a finger to dip into the water, the Rich Man has a tongue and experiences bodily agony in the "fire."

I cover this in detail in my church's podcast series - Heaven: the Final Frontier (iTunes Store Link). (See specifically Podcast #510 - Stepping Through the Gates of Heaven! Chapter 5: "Continued Bodily Life"). Dr. Polkinghorne's perspective on the human person is very congenial to the Biblical fact of our continued bodily life in the world to come.

Conclusion
It is time to bring my reflections on Dr. Polkinghorne to a close. There is much more I could say about his scholarship, but I believe I have sufficiently pointed in the direction of the greatness of Dr. Polkinghorne's person and work. I am truly grateful to him and to what the Lord has done through him.

1. Audio Titles include: "The Friendship Between Science and Religion" (2001); "The Future of the Science and Religion Debate" (date unknown); “Why Is Physics Possible?” (2007); "Exchanges in Science and Religion" - Royal Society Lecture (2006); "Can a Scientist Believe in a Destiny Beyond Death?" (2008); "Creation, Evil and Time" (2006); "Cosmology and God" (date unknown); "Natural Theology" - Faraday Institute Lecture (2006); "Divine Action" - Faraday Institute Lecture (2006); untitled talk - Faraday Institute Lecture (2006); "Is Destiny beyond Death Credible" - Faraday Institute Lecture (2006); "Religion and the Anthropic Principle" - Faraday Institute Lecture (2006); "The Christian Hope of a Destiny Beyond Death" (date unknown); "How Does God Interact with the World" - Lecture at St. Edmunds (2006); "The Universe in a Trinitarian Perspective" - Faraday Institute Lecture (2006); "Belief in God in an Age of Science" (date unknown); "The Interaction of Science and Theology" - Templeton/ASA Lecture Series. Cornell University (2004); "He Sustains the World" - Seattle Pacific University (1990); "The Future of the Science and Religion Debate" - Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St Edmund’s College, Cambridge (2007).

2. Written Titles read or reviewed include: Science and the Trinity; The God of Hope and the End of the World; The Faith of a Physicist; Quarks, Chaos and Christianity; Science and Providence: God's Interaction with the World; Science and Theology, An Introduction; Belief in God in an Age of Science; Quantum Physics and Theology.

Genocide and the Doctrine of Hell

2009-08-10T07:19:00.022-05:00

I was given a copy of Greg Garrison's recent article, Heaven? Sure. Hell? Not So Much. - and I have to applaud the content and tone of Garrison's article. I thought the article was well balanced and even in tone, reasonably reflecting the internal struggle of the conscience faced by Christian pastors and teachers on the doctrine of Hell.

Garrison's article reflected the common belief that pastors and churches shy away from the discussion of Hell because it is not a popular subject in today's Western society. He also spoke of the danger of a market based approach and the simple unpopularity of the doctrine undermining how Christianity is currently handling the subject. I believe these critiques are valid and need to be seriously considered.

I also agree with the pastors and professors of the article who spoke of the importance of accurately teaching what the Bible has to say about Hell as reflected by the Old and New Testaments. For this reason, I recently engaged in a 5 part mini message series on the subject of Hell. These messages can be found at our church's podcast web page (Heaven: the Final Frontier. Messages #516-#520).

I am convinced, however, that there is another issue that must be seriously considered before Christianity will recover from it's reticence to speak on this important subject. I speak here of the impact of genocide on the modern conscience.

I believe one of the reasons people today reject the idea of Hell is that the doctrine of Hell often reminds people of the horrors of Hitler's World War II Germany, Stalin's U.S.S.R. and Mao's China. This is not to mention the more recent occurrences of the tragedy of genocide among the peoples of Rwanda, Bosnia and now in the Sudan.

While this may not be a stated objection to the doctrine of Hell, I believe this may truly an issue at a subliminal or subconscious level.

To give an example from Garrison's article: "A Southern Baptist Home Mission Board study in 1993 estimated that 70 percent of all Americans are going to hell..." Assuming for argument's sake that this quote is accurate, I believe it would be worth considering how such a statement would be interpreted by those who have no Christian background. Would not the person without any previous Christian training tend to understand Southern Baptists as saying: "God really hates Americans (except Southern Baptists) - so much so that he is going to torture them for eternity in a condition very much like one of Hitler's ovens."

If that is how someone read such a statement, she would be interpreting Southern Baptists to be putting God on par with Hitler - except on steroids. i.e. "Hitler could only torture and kill for months and years - culminating in a brief torturous death. God wants to do this forever to Americans."

Not only does this equate God with Hitler's morality, it makes Southern Baptists complicit in such a perspective. Such a person - ironically retaining some Christian influence in their view of God (the idea of the love of God) - would rightfully reject such a picture of God.

It may be difficult for Christians to understand how profoundly World War II and events of succeeding years have effected the Western mind. Nonetheless, the effect of such events must be seriously considered as we attempt the challenge of communicating the gospel to the modern person. Christians must make sure that our communication techniques are appropriate to the context in which we speak.

Of course, the idea that this is the view of Southern Baptists (or any Christian) is patently ridiculous. My point is not what Southern Baptists - or any Christian group - believe. My concern is over what we are communicating in the modern context. We must be careful to consider how what we are saying is being heard by the people to whom we are speaking.

Atheism's Best Shot?

2009-06-01T16:41:00.104-05:00

Sometimes reading can be a little depressing. Such is the case in my recent reading of two books currently very popular - Richard Dawkins, the God Delusion; and Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Why depressing? It is simply that one would have thought such lettered individuals could have produced more compelling works.

I have studied Christian apologetics since I was fifteen. On occasion I find it profitable to test what I have studied by exposing myself to different points of view. In line with my long standing habit, I recently purchased and read these two books - both New York Times bestsellers. My goal was to gain a better understanding of the mindset of the contemporary atheist and to test my own apologetic skills.

Since both books were New York Times best-sellers, I presumed that reading these books would be a worthwhile project and would prove to be a challenge to my own Christian perspective. While both books did provide a challenge - I found the primary challenge involved was one of overcoming boredom. As New Testament Scholar N.T. Wright commented about the God Delusion - "I found it was the type of book that once you put it down, you couldn't pick it up again." Indeed.

Both books are largely constructed around the logical fallacy (as I have heard it called) of the proof by verbosity. Wikipedia has the best explanation of this proof. In short, the proof by verbosity is, "...a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged." (Wikipedia - "Fallacy" article). This is exactly the style of argumentation employed by both books.

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
Dawkins writes with a breathless style of writing. Rolling opinion, invective and quotation of outside sources, one upon the other. Dawkins writing style is clear in the sense that he makes his thesis very plain - he hates the very idea of God.

Dawkins' book ranges in topics covered from philosophy, psychology, biology, physics and New Testament studies to name a few. This is in and of itself a difficult challenge, as any writer knows the danger of taking on subjects in speaking or writing in which they have not studied. Dawkins shows no hint of any serious study in most of the subjects that he ranges through. Yet he feels more than free to render opinions that have no real correlation to fact.

Where I first picked up on this tendency was in Dawkins' comments about the New Testament and Christianity. At one point, Dawkins claims that the Gospels are historically unreliable and that the four Gospels we have in the New Testament were chosen by a group of church leaders because they were the least embarrassing "gospels" available among a cadre of choices (see, pp. 121-122, paperback edition).

It is Dawkins' ignorance of basic history, and not the gospels, that is embarrassing. The overall historical reliability of the Gospels and the New Testament on the whole is well known. For a well researched, balanced review of the subject, consider F.F. Bruce, the New Testament Documents, Are they Reliable? As to the process of how the New Testament was compiled - including the Gospels - his statements are simply lacking in the facts. The process that led to the acceptance of the New Testament was not an effort by a few ecclesiastical authorities in the late 4th Century. It was a largely democratic process within the church that progressed over a period of decades between 80 AD and 200 AD. An excellent but accessible outside source on this would be F.F. Bruce's - The Canon of Scripture. (Bruce was the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester - United Kingdom).

Another example of Dawkins' appalling desire to avoid real dialogue on the religion / atheism question is the circular reasoning he displays on p. 171 (paperback version). In this section, Dawkins is arguing against the Anthropic Principle can be used as an argument to support the existence of God. (The Anthropic principle is the observation that a number of aspects of the physical properties of the Universe - or the local solar system, depending on the context - is specifically tailored to allow for the development of intelligent life).

Up to a point, Dawkins is discussing the issues well enough. He loses the plot, however, when he dismisses the possibility that the Anthropic Principle argument presents evidence for an Intelligent designer (God). He says, "A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself..." He than dismisses the argument for Intelligent design because it's impossible to have an Intelligent designer. "Huh? What? Did I miss that exit?"

So we see remarkable circular logic employed - the possibility of God's existence is disproved by the fact that God's existence is an impossibility. One wonders if his publisher should have said to him, "Really Richard, if that's the best you can do, shouldn't you just have stayed home today?"

God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens' book is somewhat harder to critique because it is simply "all over the road" to an even greater degree than the Dawkins book. Hitchens' book is a breathtaking wash over of opinion, coupled with verbal abuse, coupled with the citation of various "facts." Of course, his "facts" are in and of themselves highly dubious.

One of my complaints of Hitchens' book is how he delights in finding the worst of any religious community / perspective and highlighting it as a paradigm for all religious faith. In writing about the film Marjoe - the 1972 documentary about the life of evangelist Marjoe Gortne. Hitchens rightly criticizes the abuses of the type of "evangelism" that Gortne and his ilk embraced.

Where Hitchens grandly misses the mark is in the following sentences when he proceeds to paint all evangelists and evangelicals with the same broad brush of the Marjoe incident. "One knew, of course, that the whole racket of American evangelism was just that: a heartless con run by the second-string characters from Chaucer's "Pardoner's Tale." (You saps keep the faith. We'll just keep the money.) And this is what it must have been like when indulgences were openly sold in Rome..."

To reduce the whole of American evangelists and like minded Christians in such a manner speaks of his terrific ignorance of the entire evangelical culture. There are many evangelists that serve at considerable sacrifice to themselves and their family and such insulting language severely debases the integrity with which they have lived their lives.

Hitchens' book also has a number of "what was that?" moments for the informed reader. At one point in the book he attacks C.S. Lewis' classic "trilemna" (pp. 120-122, paperback version) - this is the idea that when a person is presented with the facts of Jesus Christ's life, you can only believe that he was either the God of the Creation (Lord), or he was insane (Lunatic) or he was deceiving the people he spoke to (Liar). (You can read Lewis' classic presentation of the trilemna in his book, Mere Christianity).

In his trilemna argument, Lewis is seeking to eliminate the idea that we can call Jesus simply a "great moral teacher." Lewis cites a range of examples of how Jesus' spoke about himself as being the God of Israel and the actions he took (such as forgiving people's sins - see the next paragraph). Hitchens' conclusion is that Lewis' case is a "non-sequitur" and utterly discounts that it has any meaning to the question of the significance of Jesus.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:5-7)

Well, that is all fine and good until the very next page (literally, in the paperback version). Hitchens than asks the question - speaking to Jesus' habit of telling people their sins were forgiven - "And what Authority did Jesus have to "forgive?"" In this context Hitchens is talking to the question of whether John 7:53-8:11 was penned by a contemporary of Jesus, or whether it is a later legendary addition. Even dismissing the text of John 7:53-8:11, there are many other agreed upon passages where Jesus utters that remarkable phrase, "your sins are forgiven."

So the answer to Hitchens question is Lewis' answer - Jesus claimed to be the God of Israel - YHWH himself. Hence he claimed the power to forgive any and all sin. Hitchens may dismiss Lewis' trilemna, but the trilemna reasserts itself with remarkable force in even a simple reading of the Gospels. A fact that even Hitchens apparently cannot ignore - even though he doesn't recognize that he can't ignore it.

Hitchens also seems entirely unwilling to realize that his atheistic agenda is just one religious perspective among many. His thesis is that religion poisons everything - a silly claim - without realizing that he is positing a religious view. Throughout his book, Hitchens definition of religion includes Christians, Jewish persons, and persons of the Hindu and Islamic faith perspectives. Of course, there are few points on which any of those faith perspectives agree. So what makes them susceptible to being classed together as "religion?"

A better term for grouping these diverse religious groups together would be "meta narrative." This term is used to describe the "grand story" that someone believes about the world. For instance, the Christian believes in the God of the Bible who is active in and through history in the person of Jesus Christ, drawing all persons to know God personally. (That is a encapsulated version of the Christian meta narrative, of course, but it will do for now).

What Hitchens ironically fails to notice is that atheism is by any definition as much a meta narrative (religious view) as any other. That is the only way to justify lumping Buddhism (which denies the existence or reality of God in many of its forms) and Christianity together. Buddhism is a philosophy about escaping the world - in some sects it is actually atheistic in regard to the existence of God or gods.

Some Final Thoughts
Of course, Dawkins and Hitchens do present some valid issues to think about when religion has been and still tends to be misused. Unfortunately, their arguments even in these regards are so weighted down with dubious assertions and anger that it is truly difficult to salvage a constructive point from them. So for the purpose of this article, I must leave them unexplored. (For an intriguing exploration of these issues, consider reading Phillip Yancey's Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survive d the Church. Dawkins and Hitchens are mistaken if they believe atheists are the only persons who critique the church).

My primary critique of both books could be summed up in that line from Shakespeare: "methinks thou dost protest too much..." Instead of dealing with the truly strong arguments for Christianity, Dawkins and Hitchens books are in the end shrill protests to the advances of historical and scientific knowledge which strongly points to the claims of the Christian Faith. We've all had those conversations with children that go something like this:

Parent: "Why do you think that is true?"
Child: "Because...because...I want it to be true!"

Often children (and adults, also) confuse our desire for something to be a certain way with the actual facts. This seems to be the case with Dawkins and Hitchens as well. Dawkins and Hitchens both seem to be very uneasy with the fact that their own atheistic meta view is severely challenged by the findings of modern science (across many disciplines) and historical studies. So instead of engaging the issues, they set up straw men and attack these in place of real issues.

As a Christian apologist I have learned to admit and even rejoice in the apparent intellectual difficulties (intellectual and otherwise) posed by the Christian claim. Of course, the claims of Christianity are truly based on quite strong proofs - but while one's meta view may be rationally justifiable, no one's faith perspective is provable with logical certainty beyond any doubt. To realize this is part of mature dialogue about all faith perspectives - including atheism.

Regrettably, Dawkins and Hitchens do not seem to have come to this place of understanding. Until they learn to admit the difficulties inherent to their own atheistic perspective they will simply not be able to present a coherent (or interesting) review of their own case for atheism. One of the most powerful tools in any apologist's arsenal is the phrase "I don't know..." - because it is precisely at this point that your audience is looking for what you will do next.

In the end, Dawkins and Hitchens' books will join that great litter of popular books that are here today and gone tomorrow. Poorly written and argued, both writers have supplied the market with books that obscure rather than clarify the important issue of God and our faith in him.

So then, is this Atheism's Best Shot?

Understanding Theologians and Theology

2009-05-01T10:04:00.064-05:00

I made a new friend the other day, and before I knew it our conversation had turned deep and we were talking theology.

It was a pleasant conversation in many ways. The person did not have formal theological training but he was well informed on his theological position. Neither was there anything shrill or defensive about the person as he discussed his theological reflections.

My new friend and I held different theological beliefs on the Christian spectrum. One aspect of our conversation, however, stands out to me as I write this article. The comment was that in all of the theologians I have studied - Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Bonhoeffer, Barth, C.S. Lewis, Polkinghorne - to name a few, they all each loved God and the Lord Jesus Christ passionately.

It awes me to think how these many different people - in spite of their many different theological priorities and convictions - loved the same God and yet have made so many different contributions to the field of theology. How does one account for these diverse perspectives of God in the midst of unity of about that same God?

I believe that we can answer much of the differences as being attributable to differences in perspective and passion. In short, each theologian brings unique experiences in culture and place in history (perspective). Additionally, each theologian also approaches their studies with a particular mission in mind (passion) for their work. In theology, as in any worthwhile work, the two are inseparable. The result of these distinct aspects of each theologian's life results in their distinct theologies. Understanding the life situations and challenges they faced helps us to understand the theological perspective they developed.

For instance, in reading Karl Barth's works, it is helpful to keep in mind that he is reacting to the pre-World War I German theological liberalism and political aspects of Germany in World War I and II. John Calvin wrote in the struggle of the 1500's between the Roman Catholic Church and the new Protestant movement. John Polkinghorne (to shift to the modern era) writes from the perspective of a former Physicist seeking to bring an interface between science and religion.

Speaking about theologians, however, raises a problematic question - while most theologians hold to Biblical truth most of the time, occasionally they develop some rather "creative doctrines" (i.e., doctrines not in strict keeping with the majority reading of the Bible). Lewis apparently held to the doctrine of purgatory, Luther held to infant baptism, Calvin believed in a limited efficacy in Christ's death, Polkinghorne holds to a what many would call a curious view of God's relationship to time and his divine foreknowledge, and Barth believed...well, I can't really tell you what Barth believed as he seemed to take forever to say it. But he did seem to take what he believed very sincerely.

On the other hand, we would be ignorant to miss how much we have gained from the lives of these - and countless other - theologians. From Lewis we gained his great explanation of Mere Christianity; from Luther we regained the knowledge of "salvation by God's grace through faith;" Calvin's heritage includes the Puritans whose life work included the founding and shaping of the United States; and Barth (despite my humor at his expense) has inspired and guided a generation of pastors and scholars.

This is a very small listing of the great advantages given to us by the lives of those who have dedicated themselves to knowing God better and explaining him to a wider world. The point, however, is clear. The world is a richly better place because of their tireless labors.

So Theologians get it wrong and they get it right. On the whole they seem to get it more right than wrong. So how should the average Christian read theology and understand theologians?

Reading Theologians Sharpen the Mind and Open the Heart.
First, I think, we must acknowledge the value of reading theology in sharpening our minds and opening our hearts to greater truth. "You will know the truth," said our Lord, "and the truth will make you free." (John 8:32) We know that we need to seek to diligently know and understand God and his Bible and that as we do we will experience his riches and blessings.

Some might say, "Well, why don't we just read the Bible and skip the process of theology?" While well meant, that statement makes a serious error about the nature of what goes on when one "reads the Bible." In short, in order to get a Scripture text from the page to being applied in one's life requires the process of theology. So in that sense, every Christian is a theologian (some better than others, we suppose)!

There is, in this sense, no Scripture that can be simply "read and applied." The truth is we must (1) read the text; than (2) understand the meaning of the text; than (3) determine how that meaning applies to us today; than (4) live out your understanding of the text. The person who wants to skip theology fails to realize that points (2) - (4) fall under the task of theology.

Theology helps us clear away our misunderstandings in reading the texts of Scripture and to understand better how the text of Scripture applies to us today. The process of theology will hopefully lead us to a richer, deeper understanding and application of the Bible to our lives.

No Christian is Perfect in Knowledge.
Having said the above, we must also acknowledge the fact that no one is perfect in knowledge and so it ultimately falls to each Christian to be his own theologian. Today it is not uncommon for someone to say "I am a disciple of...Barth, or Calvin, or Hagee, or Lewis..." (This is not the first time this has been said! See 1 Corinthians 1:12). We all, it seems, are tempted to confuse our admiration for an individual with abandoning our own duties to read the Word and study it for ourselves.

We must remember that we each are responsible to the Lord Jesus for our beliefs - and we each are responsible to study the Bible as best we can, using all the resources available to us. So, in the end, if our reading of Scripture leads us to a view contrary to what Augustine, Polkinghorne or Luther may have held on an issue, than we are duty bound to live and think differently than they did in regard to that issue.

Sometimes we will come to different conclusions simply because we or the theologian in question is simply wrong. That is certainly a possibility that should not be neglected and can be readily adopted especially in dealing with basic doctrinal and moral issues for example.

This is not the only reason you may end up with a different view on some theological matter. It seems to me that it is valuable to keep another possibility in mind. That possibility is that God has something new he wants to teach you! If you will listen, you may find that he wants to lead you into his abundant riches through seeing a situation as he's never shown it to anyone before (see Isaiah 55:8) and that through you he wants to bring a blessing to many others.

So keep that in mind, because (remember this!) you're a theologian also.

Note: The images above are of some of the theologians mentioned in this post. They are (in order): C.S. Lewis, John Calvin, Karl Barth and John Polkinghorne.

The End of Christian America?

2009-04-15T13:37:00.047-05:00

I recently read the Newsweek article by Jon Meacham, The End of Christian America. The conclusion one is meant to draw from the article is (obviously) that Christianity's influence in America is on the wane in 21st Century America.

Without going into a blow by blow discussion of the article, I'd like to point out what I see as a few substantial flaws in the article - in its attempt to reach the conclusion that Christianity's influence is on the wane in America today.

My first impression on the article is that it was really quite shallow in terms of research. Other than citing polls that are all in agreement with each other, little (substantial) evidence given of Christianity's wane in America. One book that could have been cited as part of Meacham's research was Colleen Carroll's, the New Faithful: Why Young Adults are Embracing Christian Orthodxy. Granted Carroll's book would have undermined his conclusion, but still it would have helped generate a more fact based article.
The article only represents one point of scholarly view on the issue under consideration and is seriously out of balance in that regard. The article seems mainly to be about "Why Dr. Mohler Has the Blues about the State of Christianity in America Today." (I don't know if Dr. Mohler really is discouraged, but the article certainly paints him this way). If Meacham wanted to invoke serious scholarship, why not interact with other Christian leaders in America today in addition to Dr. Mohler?
Meacham also fails to analyze the quality of the Christianity present in America today versus fifty years ago. Were the self identified Christians of days gone by mainly Christian in name only? What is the level of commitment of self identifying Christians today? Is it possible that the polls cited actually signify a strengthening of Christian influence in America today? My guess is that the Christians of today actually are more active in exerting Christian influence than Christians of fifty years ago.
As to Dr. Mohler's concerns about the Northeast being less religious than the Northwest - I can't personally get that worked up about this issue. It is well known that the Northeast is losing its population as larger and larger numbers of people move to the Southeast and Southern states. The South seems to be emerging as the new dominant region of our nation. I'm not sure how this would impact the interpretation of the Newsweek and other polls cited, but I'm sure it would have some effect.
Finally, the statistics cited in the article (taking them on face value) seem to lean towards a positive view of Christian influence, rather than a negative view. According to one of the polls cited, 76% are self identifying Christians versus 1.2% and 0.6% for other religious groups! You really have to work hard to get discouraged with numbers like that. When one keeps in mind that statistics of this type are prone to variations within a certain range over time, I'd suggest the canceling of the funeral that Meacham and Mohler seem to be planning.

In the end, the Meacham article says nothing conclusive about the state of Christianity in America today, yesterday or ever. After reading the article, we're pretty much left with things the way they were before we read it.

"So, Who Goes to Hell Anyway?"

2009-04-15T11:58:00.001-05:00

I'm currently preaching a six month Sunday Evening series of messages entitled, "Heaven: the Final Frontier." The subject matter being, of course, Heaven.

While talking to a church member about the series the person made the comment that I should include some conversation about Hell in the series as well. I thought that was an interesting comment and have spent quite a bit of time recently trying to tease out how some of those messages will go.

I have been surprised at just how much of a challenge preaching on Hell really is. Of course, I could give the usual boiler plate type of message and just leave it there - but I really do try to "strike the original match" with all of my Messages. I try hard not to just serve up theological and Biblical leftovers. So the option of the "same old thing" is not left open to me.

The task of speaking to the issue of Hell is complicated by the perspectives of persons who are Christian and persons outside the Christian community. Each one has a unique perspective that adds to the challenge of preaching responsibly on this doctrine.

An [All-to-Common] Christian Perspective
For the Christian, I have found, the issue is primarily one that evokes feelings of defensiveness and fear - primarily in regard to how those outside the Christian community react to the doctrine of Hell. Very often Christians believe that a particular view of Hell must be maintained to be doctrinally correct. How one sees Hell can actually become a litmus test for proper belief in some circles.

There is also another reaction common among Christians - that of fear and horror. In short, a discussion about Hell is simply "more than they can stand." The topic of Hell evokes feelings of fear for loved ones and friends who have rejected Christ that they simply avoid the topic at all costs. Among such Christians it is commonly asked, "How will I be able to enjoy Heaven when I know a loved one is in Hell?" Their question really says more than they know, as their lives here on earth are negatively effected by their loved one's rejection of Christ now!

The Perspective of Those Outside the Christian Community
The perspective of those outside the Christian community is one primarily of great horror. They rightly understand the idea of anyone going to Hell is a terrible thing. Very often such persons understand that the Bible teaches that people go to Hell because they have failed to "accept Jesus as Lord and Savior" with little understanding of the role of sin or the rejection of God in the question of Hell. (So people don't go to Hell because they have rejected God or failed him morally and spiritually. They believe the Bible teaches people go to Hell because they failed to know one particular answer in a game of Trivial pursuit).

This fate (as they believe they understand the Biblical view) falls by default upon any who fail to confess Jesus' name - including infants, children and those who have never heard Jesus' name. So to their view, the God of the Bible looks capricious and petty - at best. Consigning millions of people to Hell simply because they "didn't know the right answer" to a question they may not have been able to answer correctly in the first place. Of course, this is not an accurate representation of what the Bible teaches - but this is what they have been told.

Facing the Challenge
When you take both groups into consideration (as I do in my preaching) you can see the dilemma. Both groups tend to have a fairly strong emotional resistance to the subject - as they see the subject as either: fixed ("you can't add anything to my understanding"); too horrible to discuss (concern for my loved ones and friends); or morally repugnant (they see themselves as morally superior to the position they understand the Bible teaches about Hell).

I don't have time to fully address this dynamic challenge of preaching on the subject of Hell in the 21st Century, but allow me to make a few observations:

Christians must take the time and effort to renew their acquaintance with the subject of Hell. There are many reasons to avoid the subject but one overriding reason to study it - it is an integrated part of the teaching of the Word of God. We cannot live by God's Word and also ignore it at the same time. The Bible's teaching on Hell may make us uncomfortable, or challenge our preconceptions, but either way we are obligated to study what the Bible teaches.
All involved in the discussion (Christian and those outside the Christian community) about the nature of Hell must realize that the subject is already charged with misconceptions from both camps. Perhaps it would be a good idea for all sides of the discussion to start with a clean slate - or at least with an open heart - realizing that it is at least possible that one has room to grow.
The doctrine of Hell must not be used as a "moral baseball bat" - to be used to cudgel opponents into submission on some point at which you disagree. Hell is simply too serious a subject - far beyond any one person's ability to comprehend or manipulate for one's own ends.

Well, there are some thoughts on Hell.