Links with Little Context

What are the rights of Donor-Conceived People? by Alana S. Newman

We’ve created a class of people who are manufactured, and treat them as less-than-fully human, demanding that they be grateful for whatever circumstances we give them. While fathers of traditionally conceived human beings are chased down and forced to make child support payments as a minimal standard of care, people conceived commercially are reprimanded when they question the anonymous voids that their biological fathers so “lovingly” left.

Five Ways Liberals Ignore Science by David Harsanyi

It’s no big deal for us to ask Republican evolution skeptics to raise their hands or force a bogus Senate vote to try and shame Republicans, yet no reporter would ever think to ask a pro-choice politician if they believe life begins at conception. Sometimes denialism matters and sometimes it doesn’t.

Why It Matters That the Exodus Really Happened by Gregory Alan Thorbury

Truth matters. People want to know the answers: the who, the what, the when, the how, and the why. And without providing those little truths, they may never learn of the ultimate Truth behind them.

Molecular Biology Has Failed to Yeild a Grand "Tree of Life"  by Casey Luskin

Unfortunately, one assumption that these evolutionary biologists aren't willing to re-evaluate is the assumption that universal common ancestry is correct. They appeal to a myriad of ad hoc arguments -- horizontal gene transfer, long branch attraction, rapid evolution, different rates of evolution, coalescent theory, incomplete sampling, flawed methodology, and convergent evolution -- to explain away inconvenient data which doesn't fit the coveted treelike pattern. As a 2012 paper stated, "phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception." At the end of the day, the dream that DNA sequence data would fit into a nice-neat tree of life has failed, and with it a key prediction of neo-Darwinian theory.

Opening the Faith to Examination

Much has been written in response to the recent Newsweek article by Kurt Eichenwald, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin.” So much so, that the various and obvious mistakes and oversimplifications by the author have been revealed and the article itself shown to be, fundamentally, a screed. But if the article is useless in actually understanding the ins and outs of biblical interpretation and translation, it may be ironically useful in highlighting a virtue of the Christian faith.

It is often argued that Christianity is believed on faith (faith defined as ‘against good reasons’), and is thus fundamentally anti-intellectual. It is said that if Christians would only open their minds to reason, skepticism, and science they will see the error of their ways. The Christian, in short, does not think and their faith is ripe for the shredding. When push comes to shove, however, it turns out that Christianity is open to rational investigation and the current trend of anti-Christian skepticism and New Atheism is a closed loop of fundamentalism.

In his Vital Magazine article, “Who’s Misunderstood,Newsweek?”, George P. Wood makes this point, “Yes, I want to take Eichenwald to task for some of the unfounded things he wrote in this article. But I also want to listen to him. My friend Craig S. Keener once said, ‘When we fail at self-critique, God sometimes raises up outsiders to help us (gently or not).’ Might Eichenwald—despite the many errors of fact and judgment in his piece—nonetheless be raising some important questions?” George follows this up with a set of questions worth asking and answering as well as we can.

He is right to note both things: Eichenwald’s article is an intellectual embarrassment, and the Christian faith still takes the challenge and the questions seriously. As a matter of theology and history – principle and practice – the Christian faith is an open book. Quite literally our book has been open to scrutiny and study since day one and anyone who tells you differently has not done their homework. Christian theologians have opened their formulations to scholarly and practical criticism. This necessary virtue of the Christian faith can be summed up in the questions, “Is it true?” and “Does it make sense of life?” The fact that plenty of Christians and individual churches have embraced blind faith does not negate our actual theology and historical practice.

The Christian famously believes that all truth is God’s truth, thus the believer should not be afraid of questions and differing points of view. If an issue is raised that the Christian does not know what to do with, I guarantee someone else has. Most challenges to the Christian faith are nothing new, so they have been answered in one form or another for hundreds of years by some of the world’s leading thinkers. If the challenge comes from a new corner of science or philosophy, the Christian only needs to draw on the deep well of current, credible resources.

The Christian also believes that their faith will be refined and strengthened the closer to the truth they come. We believe deeply in truth and the existence of a God who is the very ground of being, so it is important for us to come closer and closer to our God. In his epistles, Paul consistently commends knowledge of God (Greek, scientia) to his readers and says that it is vital for their growth toward Christ. The Old Testament has an entire genre of literature called Wisdom Literature which commends both intellectual knowledge of God and wise living in the ways of God. Thinking and living in the open air of investigation is in the Christian’s blood.

In stark contrast, the current form of atheism is like two of the three famous monkeys sitting on a fence. Their hands are over their eyes so they will not see other points of view, their hands are over their ears so they will not hear criticism of their own views, but their mouths are wide open.

I Do Not Think Christianity Means What You Think It Means

Ex-pastor Ryan Bell experimented lately with living without God, blogging about it at YearWithoutGod.com, and more recently he penned a column for CNN.com in which he details some of the reasons behind his de-conversion. Conversion and de-conversion are always fascinating to me. They give brief glimpses into not only ‘reasons for’ and ‘reasons against’ their beliefs, but glimpses into the conditions that led to a person’s decision. Bell writes straightforwardly and honestly about several of his conclusions, and it has given me reason to process what he said.

Having skimmed through some of his blog, I see that he writes with an irenic tone and I appreciate that. Additionally, I have no pretense of trying to answer his questions and attempt a re-conversion. But I am moved to reflect, for a few reasons, on what he said and I think a few reflections are in order on this kind of disbelief.

First, if circles of Christians are as shallow and simplistic as he makes his upbringing out to be, they need to repent and reclaim the depths of their faith. Bell portrays a faith, either purposefully or tangentially, that simply was not able to deal with some very straightforward issues. The problem of evil is ever present in de-conversion stories and his is no different. He is attracted to current cultural morays and considers Christian doctrine to be out of step. He actually believes that the Christian faith degrades the value of this world and this life. All of these issues are easily dealt with by Christian doctrine and life, but he was not apparently around people who thought so. And if so, that is a crying shame. There are plenty of pockets of anti-intellectualism within the Christian world, and it need not be.

That being said, all of us are intellectually responsible for these kinds of decisions, and to caricature the faith in such simplistic terms, leave it there, and come to unreasonable conclusions as a result, partakes in a rising form of anti-intellectualism. It is the rational sloppiness at the very core of New Atheism that labels faith as irrational and simplistic, and thus dismisses it by definition and not by argumentation.

Secondly – and this is true of every atheist I have ever personally interacted with or watched online – I simply do not recognize the faith they left. When they describe what ‘Christians believe’ I have no idea where they got their ideas. When they ‘argue’ against Christian doctrine, I see straw-men made of flash paper. I am not moved by their reasons because they make no sense to me. I am not startled by their arguments because they were answered centuries ago. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I do not think Christianity means what they think it means.

For example, Bell goes on about how the Christian faith degrades the value of this world and this life, and that he feels he has found a much more meaningful life without God. He writes:

As I come to terms with the fact that this life is the only one I get, I am more motivated than ever to make it count.
 I want to experience as much happiness and pleasure as I can while helping others to attain their happiness. I construct meaning in my life from many sources, including love, family, friendships, service, learning and so on.
 Popular Christian theology, on the other hand, renders this life less meaningful by anchoring all notions of value and purpose to a paradise somewhere in the future, in a place other than where we are right now. Ironically, my Christian upbringing taught me that ultimately this life doesn't matter, which tends to make believers apathetic about suffering and think that things will only get worse before God suddenly solves everything on the last day.

Bell has rejected a bad Sunday school version of the Christian faith, a faith that has raised the lives of untold millions of people in systems that would have otherwise destroyed them like so many sick dogs. A simple review of Christian history (as it actually happened, not as the NAs tell it) contradicts his conclusion. In addition, one of the core tenants of the Christian faith sanctifies this life in this flesh – the Incarnation of God himself. Yet, Bell is hardly alone. It is common fare to accuse the Christian faith of looking too much to the other side and stripping this life of meaning. But here is where an ex-pastor has the intellectual responsibility to dig a little deeper than a bad Sunday school teacher and spend a little time with Augustine or Aquinas. How about St. Patrick? Why not learn about the theologically rooted and radical hospitality and generosity of Oswald Chambers?

In another place he makes an obviously false observation when he writes:

It struck me this year that nihilism is a disease born of theism. Some people have been taught to expect meaning outside of this world beyond our earthly experiences. When they come upon the many absurdities of life and see that it's "not as advertised," an existential despair can take hold.
 The problem is not solved by inventing a God in which to place all our hopes, but rather, to face life honestly and create beauty from the absurd.

The critical error here is equating finding meaning ‘outside this world’ with the idea that therefore, this world has little to no meaning. Christians root existence itself in the being and loving creative activity of God, but that has literally everything to do with this life and this physical world. The contradiction follows necessarily from the error in the premise: the belief that all is meaningless comes from a belief that infuses the universe with meaning. And then the silly conclusion follows: so we strive against the darkness and make our own meaning. Well, so did Pol Pot and the Nazis.

I literally do not recognize the faith he, and countless others, claim to have rejected.

A new reality is creeping up on us from the corners. There is a new fundamentalism among us. There is a new conventional wisdom and popular consensus that refuses to countenance rival ideas, and it has everything to do with belief in God but not in the way you have been told.

Links with Little Context

God is dead - What next?
Source: Arts and Letters Daily

-A short review article of two books written by hard-core materialists about the search for meaning after the supposed death of God.  Materialist scientists tend to not understand their own views.-

From the article:

God’s death just means that we need to construct our own, non-authoritative narratives and art, replete with purpose and meaning. Instead of one unified story to which everyone subscribes, we should play around with a plurality of downgraded stories, which can form the basis of our day-to-day lives.

But, of course, this is what we already do, and it is less a solution than a re-statement of the problem. His various narratives won’t provide the emotional relief he wants. For just as Christianity made sublime and cosmic “truths” accessible on a human level, so it invested everyday human life with cosmic significance. With God out of the picture, this is lost.

Stand Firm: Or End Up on the Wrong Side of Eschatology

-A call for orthodox Christians to stand firm in the face of cultural pressure to give in, specifically on the issues of sexuality and marriage.-

From the article:

Athanasius was on the wrong side of "history." Good for him; Christians must always so station themselves. Our Lord was murdered on Calvary by the great dead historical hulk called the Roman Empire.

Income Inequality: You Can't Handle The Truth : Acton

-Income inequality might not be what you think it is.-

From the article:

The truth about income inequality? It’s not greedy business folks hoarding their money from the rest of us. It’s a carefully constructed political plan meant to serve power-hungry pols.

Ed Stetzer's The Exchange

-Interview with Darrell Bock, his book, "Truth Matters," and wise cultural engagement-

Evolution News and Views

-The Human Tail - another Darwinian myth.-

Debating Creation and Evolution - The Good and the Possibly Bad

Lately, much has been made of the coming debate between Dr. Ken Ham and Bill Nye "The Science Guy" over creationism and evolution.  In my opinion, if you are interested in such debates you would do better to watch something like the video below of William Lane Craig and Sam Harris at Notre Dame.  I would also encourage you to follow this link to the Reasonable Faith website to peruse more debates of a higher caliber.

Though Dr. Ham is a bright and well-spoken individual, I disagree with his take on Genesis and creation, and I would take the label, "The Science Guy," with a large grain of salt.  Bill Nye is a current favorite of ardent atheists in large part because he is unafraid of publicly proclaiming his evolutionary views and he is fond of repeating current atheist bumper-stickers like, "evolution is a fact, not a theory."  But his fundamentalism about science makes him, well, unscientific in significant ways.

The reason, I think, this debate receives more press from atheists is that they are more confident of Nye's ability verses Dr. Ham than they are of the actual performances of some of the world's leading atheists against Dr. Craig in debate.  In fact, Richard Dawkins famously refused to show up for a debate with Dr. Craig claiming it was beneath him, then he talks ad nauseam about the Westboro Baptist leaders.

I really do hope the debate between Ham and Nye goes well, is civil, and helps to raise the level of public conversation on these issues, but I am more confident that debates like the one below have actually done that.

Arguing Against Evil

"The defiance of the good atheist hurled at an apparently ruthless and idiotic cosmos is really an unconscious homage to something in or behind that cosmos which he recognizes as infinitely valuable and authoritative: for if mercy and justice were really only private whims of his own with no objective and impersonal roots, and if he realized this, he could not go on being indignant.  the fast that he arraigns heaven itself for disregarding them means that at some level of his mind he knows they are enthroned in a higher heaven still."

C.S. Lewis, De Futilitate

Links With Little Context

Thom Ranier: Seven Reasons Why Church Worship Centers Will Get Smaller
-I have discussed this possible trend with several pastor friends of mine for a few years.

Institute for Faith Work and Economics
Par 14 (!) in a great series on Christianity's historical responses to poverty

NY Post: The ACLU sues a catholic hospital for not referring patient for an abortion

My tummy aches. Ergo, there is no God - Joe Carter

Linus explains the true meaning of Christmas

Turns Out...It Really Happened

Craig A. Evans, N.T. Wright. Jesus, The Final Days: What Really Happened. ed. Troy A. Miller. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press 2009). 116 pages.

The three essays in this book were originally written as lectures for a symposium for pastors and scholars regarding several of the issues surrounding the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The book has edited the three essays for more popular consumption, though the average reader will still need to read a little slowly, and will happily learn several new things about the general topic of Easter.

To give away the ending, the authors believe that Jesus really was crucified, really died, really was buried, and really did rise from the dead physically.  The first two essays, written by Craig A. Evans, take a look at first century Jewish and Roman execution and burial practices.  The third, written by N. T. Wright, is a look at what the early church believed about Jesus' physical resurrection from the dead and argues for the conclusion that they believed he did, and, he really did.

Dr. Evans, a recognized and prolific New Testament scholar, tackles the question of whether the Gospel accounts of Jesus' trial, death, and burial are likely to have happened the way they are recorded by the Evangelists.  Combing through copious amounts of source materials regarding how Jewish and Roman culture and legal systems worked in the day, he builds a strong case for why Jesus was opposed by the Jewish authorities, the Passover pardon of Barabbas, the scourging, his death on the cross, and his burial in the tomb.  For the faithful, these seem to be simple and obvious details within the Easter story, but as Dr. Evans shows throughout, there are plenty of modern-day theories which attack each.  In the end, however, he shows that each theory which opposes these details has the burden of proof, and it is a heavy burden indeed.

Bishop Wright, possibly the leading living scholar on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, takes for his approach a kind of definition and explanation of the word "resurrection."  What was the Old Testament (and thus prevailing view in Jesus' culture) understanding of it?  Was the general, ancient view of resurrection something compatible with what became the Christian understanding? And finally, what was the Christian teaching regarding Jesus' resurrection?  He argues convincingly that the Christian view is a distinct departure from their Jewish heritage, the pagan cultures around them, and is shockingly stable and unified through the years.  The explanation for this break and persistent belief?  Jesus physically rose from the dead and became the Christ-follower's hope.

In the end, this volume tackles many of the details that we often either take for granted or don't even pay attention to when we come around to Easter.  The way the details are handled provide further support for the traditional Christian belief about the last days (and resurrection) of Jesus Christ, and make it harder for the skeptic to simply brush the whole story off as ancient and simplistic legend.

If this review was helpful, please say so on the Amazon page.

A Great Shot In The Arm

Mitch Stokes, A Shot of Faith (to the Head): Be a Confident Believer in an Age of Cranky Atheists (Nashville: Thomas Nelson 2012), 272 pages.

In case you haven’t noticed, there has been a barrage of belligerent atheists writing volumes of popular works attacking religion in general and Christianity in particular.  And if you are not careful you can get the feeling that they have the upper hand right now.  Their books sell well, they make the debate rounds (well, most of them do), and many of them have been guests on a plethora of TV and radio shows.  They talk a great game and many have been lead down their primrose path.

It turns out, however, that only one or two layers beneath the overly confident surface lies a surfeit of good ideas.  With a little guided and informed examination it is revealed that their bark does not measure up to their bite.  Mitch Stokes’ book is that examination, and is a very well-guided tour of the problems with the so-called new atheists. 

But the book begins in an unexpected place.  In fact, I’m not sure I have read a non-technical or popular level book on Christian thought or apologetics that begins where he does.  You might expect a book like this to open by dealing with the major arguments for God’s existence or the reliability of Scripture or even a blow-by-blow examination of the new atheist’s arguments.  Instead, Stokes begins with the issues of argument, reason, and knowledge in the first place.  Specifically, he uses the epistemological work of Alvin Plantinga to argue against the evidentialism, Enlightenment rationalism, and scientific provincialism inherent (and necessary) to the work of the new atheists.  In essence, he pulls the rug out from underneath their entire scheme.

From there Stokes deals with what are probably the two most popular and potent attacks on the faith – the assertion that science has ‘disproved God’ and the problem of evil.  Both sections are rich with table-turning insight and are profitable for anyone who has confronted these arguments or even doubted because of them.

If you are accustomed to a Christian apologetic being primarily about various arguments, you might end up a little frustrated with Stokes’ take on their role and usefulness.  He does not get rid of the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, but he does see a need for good arguments to bolster the reasonableness of faith.  If I have a quibble with the book it is that I might place more emphasis on the power and usefulness of the arguments themselves, but that did not get in the way of the value of this work for me.

If you are worried because you don’t know what any of that means, you are in luck.  Though his book will force you to think and slow down a bit, it is entirely readable and accessible if you are ready to do so.  I thoroughly enjoyed discovering this book, its treatment of Plantinga’s ideas, and it thorough treatment of the new atheists and their arguments.

Stokes states that he wrote this book to encourage the believer and even possibly help anyone toying with doubt, and I think he has done a wonderful job.

If you liked this review, click 'Yes' on Amazon.

Motivations and Reasons for Belief

The philosopher, writer and blogger, Mike Austin, has some important thoughts on belief in God. Particularly in the differences between motivations to believe God exists and reasons to believe God exists. He writes:

In my own case, I am partly motivated to believe that God exists and seek to live life as a follower of Christ because it works. I honestly believe that I flourish, my family flourishes, and I have a part in helping my community flourish as I seek to live out my faith in daily life. But there are many ways of life that work for individuals to one degree or another. I am also motivated to believe because I think that good reasons for such belief are available. The upshot is that while the possibilities concerning the afterlife can motivate people to believe in God, we should also consider what reasons can be given for and against the truth of such belief. From my own experience, when difficulties come, it is not enough to say "Belief works for me." Rather, I want all of my beliefs, including those about the supernatural, to be true. That, at least, is what I seek.

He is right that the distinction is important for both believers and non-believers to understand. While the accusation is sometimes made that Christians may believe for “fire insurance” – that they will simply avoid hell or wind up in heaven – that should not be mistaken for reasons why someone may believe. And while it can be the case that practicality or eternal consequences can be motivators for belief, they will not last long without a strong foundation of reasons to believe.

So, two things present themselves to me. First, the skeptic should carefully weigh their attacks on faith and aim at reasons and not motivations. And second, the believer ought to buttress their motivations for belief with good, solid reasons.

Does God Command Rape in 2 Samuel 11-12?

Does the God of the Bible condone and/or command rape? I asserted below that I have been told as much, though no particular evidence has been produced to that end. In the comment section, I was told that in the story of 2 Samuel 11-12 God commands rape. Let’s see if that is true.

That section of Scripture tells the story of one of David’s most grievous sins – he takes another man’s wife as his own and arranges for the husband’s death. In response to this radical injustice, God sends the prophet Nathan into him to tell him what will be the consequences of his actions. As far as I can tell, the only passage that would be used to say that God commands rape here is 2 Samuel 12:11:

Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.

As I asserted below, context has a lot to do with what this passage actually says. David took another man’s wife from him, and there are textual hints that she might have been a more than willing party to their behavior. David did not rape Bathsheba – their sex was consensual. In response, David is told that several of his wives will be taken away from him and given to his neighbors and they will be brazen about their sexuality. David took Uriah’s wife, his wives will be taken. No rape indicated, hinted at or explicitly mentioned in either scenario.

We might get hung up on the idea that God will give David’s wives to his neighbors. Here it is helpful to have a sense of how the OT communicates things like punishment for sin. There is reciprocity here to be sure, but the phrase, “I will take your wives” is shorthand for the natural flow of events which will result from David’s behavior. The OT understands God as punishing sin, so it has no problem assigning the reciprocity to God’s judgment. It need not be a heavy-handed judgment, as if God is forcibly removing women from David’s home and handing them over to violent rapists. In fact, that reading is directly contrary to the plain sense of the text.

In addition, the verb for, “shall lie with,” shakab, is a very common Hebrew verb in the OT for consensual sex (it is such a straight-forward verb that if often means literal sleep with no sexual overtones). It is, in fact, the same verb used in 2 Samuel 11:4 to describe the meeting of David and Bathsheba. In neither instance is rape explicitly mentioned or implicitly hinted at.

The plain, straightforward, and natural reading of the 2 Samuel 12:11 text is that David’s wives will be unfaithful to him just as he was unfaithful to them. It takes a strained and quote-mining reading of the text to conclude that it supports the idea that God commands or condones rape.

Skeptics on the Horns of Their Dilemma?

The biblical skeptic or the atheist will often cite some powerful sounding and emotionally tugging ideas in order to argue that the God of the Old Testament, and thus the God of the Christians, is a genocidal maniac. Often it is said that he condones genocide, and the Canaanites are a popular example of God’s wickedness. I was even told recently that he condones rape, though I can think of no specific evidence to support that claim.

Here are some thoughts on why the skeptic falls short here, or at the very least, has a tremendous amount of the argumentative burden to bear.

First of all, these claims are often in the form of “quote-mining,” or picking and choosing texts, pulling them out of context and misrepresenting them. This claim of mine does not say that there are no such verses or passages that sound like the skeptic wants them to sound, but I argue that they are misrepresentations of the overall picture. If the skeptic wants to talk about ancient near-eastern literature and culture, let them do the intellectually honest work of trying to understand it before they misunderstand it. In the end, the skeptic’s claim will be much stronger if they do the literary work to understand the works they are trying to eviscerate.

Secondly, I wonder if the skeptic is trying to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to these claims. More often than not, the same skeptic who makes the moral monster claim is the same skeptic who disbelieves in God because of some form of the problem of evil. So, in one instance it is said that God simply does not do enough to alleviate the evils we see and experience in this world and in the other instance, God is rotten for dealing harshly with ancient, evil, cultures.

Imagine a culture in which many of the first-born children are sacrificed alive on the brass arms of a demon-god over a pit of fire. Imagine the same culture in which, because their primary deity repeatedly rapes his sister while she is in the form of a cow, religious rape and incest are not just condoned but institutionalized. If you can imagine a culture that contains such injustices and horrors, you have imagined the Canaanite society. And one need not go to the biblical record to see that. The archeological evidence stands on its own.

So, what should a God do with such rampant evil? If the skeptic is consistent, he in a pickle. Either God escapes the problem of evil by dealing with real evil, or he escapes the moral monster accusation by justly judging an evil culture. I am no expert on formalizing arguments, but hopefully the following encapsulation helps to communicate the horns of this particular dilemma.

First, the skeptic usually holds to two claims about the existence of God simultaneously: 1) God does not exist due to some form of the problem of evil (eg. God does not intervene to our satisfaction when we see evil), and 2) the God presented in the OT is a moral monster for judging some cultures.

Second, to take one of the most common examples of the skeptic, the Canaanites, they were objectively evil and we know as much from extra biblical evidence.

Third, as a result of their own beliefs and historical evidence, the skeptic is impaled on the horns of their own dilemma. Either God did judge evil and therefore the problem of evil is shaken, or God justly judged an evil culture and therefore the moral monster accusation loses its force.

Are there ways out of this problem? There are, but I don’t think any of them are attractive.

To begin with, the skeptic could deny the Canaanites were the unjust, misogynistic, slave-holding culture I am claiming them to be, but that would require a lot of unique historical work. All the evidence points to them being a pretty rotten culture and a bad place to be if you were not among the powerful.

The next possible move might be to accept the historical data but adopt some form of cultural relativism – what we view as unjust or morally evil, was simply normal and acceptable to them. But cultural relativism is the philosophical version of moldy Swiss cheese, and this position would logically commit the skeptic to accepting pre-Civil War slavery and power-rape as “OK for them.” Not a tenable, or desirable, position. In addition, how many skeptics are willing to be that consistent?

The next set of moves seem to all fall into the same category – denying one or more aspect of the two claims attributed to the skeptic. For example, they might still hold to a version of the problem of evil, but deny the legitimacy of any and all biblical evidence about the events it records: rule them out of play simply for being recorded in the Bible. Or more specifically, the skeptic might be willing to admit into evidence all the “nasty” bits of the biblical record, but deny the reliability of the context and theology of the Bible. But that denial requires more than just skeptical assertion, it requires real literary work on the documents themselves.

Or they may still hold to the moral monster view and claim that the Canaanites (or other similar cultures) were not given a chance to change. God simply commanded that they be wiped out. The best record we have of these events in question, the Bible, does not support that claim. God often tells his people that after centuries of waiting patiently for the Canaanites to turn to him, it is time for judgment to come. The record, so selectively cited by the skeptic, claims God to be unusually patient.

Is God a Moral Monster? Abraham Sacrificing Isaac

Recently, I have been working my way through Paul Copan’s “Is God a Moral Monster?” It looks to be a promising book, and so far he has tackled some thorny issues very well. What I like about a book like this, is it is not afraid to take a close and honest look at some of the more contentious and difficult issues of the Christian Scriptures. Let’s face it – in the climate of the New Atheists the OT has become a popular target and it is incumbent on Christians to at least deal with the challenges. Not every charge leveled against the OT by the New Atheists is worth time and effort, but some are and Copan has taken up the task.

The first topic that really piqued my interest was the matter of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac. In all honesty, that is a difficult passage to deal with. God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son of promise, and Abraham essentially says, “OK.”

One of Copan’s first moves is to examine the text of Genesis 22 itself. Though this seems like an obvious thing to do, it is actually rarely done by stone-throwers. Through the text he arrives at four reasons why the event is not the child-abusing horror it is often made out to be. The one reason he lists that I found particularly convincing is that the whole event is described as a “test.” As such, the point of the story is not to actually take the life of Isaac, but to test Abraham’s trust in God. It appears God’s plan includes not actually taking Isaac’s life, and as such, the story does not include that particular indictment of God.

But Abraham seemed ready and willing to go through with it. Doesn’t that in and of itself make the story unpalatable? At this point, Copan cites the ethicist John Hare and a thought experiment. Abridging the thought experiment, imagine a world with different rules for life and death – like a world in which you were assured of being raised stronger and healthier if you were killed at the age of 18. The wise choice would be to have killing parties at 18, and the less wise choice would be to continue to live less strong and less healthy.

As odd as that may sound, it speaks to the plausibility structure of Abraham at the time of God’s command and what that structure actually made of his rational choice. The story itself tells us that Abraham believed God was able to raise the dead, that Isaac was a specific child given to him by God (the “child of promise”), and that Abraham fully expected the both of them to return home. Because Abraham believed in a God who would keep his promise made to him through Isaac and that he was able to raise the dead, his choice to sacrifice his son was not irrational, but an act of trust in God.

And as it turns out, Abraham trusted God, God had no intention of letting Isaac die at his father’s hand, and God did fulfill his promise through Isaac.

Seen through the lens of naturalism, the story of Abraham and Isaac seems worse than incomprehensible. Seen through the lens of the text itself and the existence of God, we can come to terms with what happened and why.

The Letters Are Far From Losers

Mary Eberstadt
The Loser Letters

This book is a catch. The device Eberstadt uses is similar to the Screwtape Letters in that she uses a string of letters from one point of view to argue for the opposing point of view. The speaker in the book is a young atheist convert writing to the big New Atheists (always in a capitalized “You”) about where they have gone wrong. The tone is that of a smart but young adult who is serious about her desire for the atheists to be right about their ethics and naturalism. The point is an apologetic for where they go wrong in their arguments over and over.

One of the things I found surprising about the book is the storyline that unfolds through the letters. Who is this young lady known as A. F. Christian (A Former Christian)? How did her conversion from Christianity to atheism happen? What kinds of insights might she have for the New Atheists? And most importantly, what is happening to her now?

This is a popular-level book, so don’t expect any footnotes or jargon. But that does not keep Eberstadt from making some serious arguments and accusations and doing it well. I think this is a great way into the world of the current apologetic resulting from the New Atheists, and might even be a good breather from the more technical works.

God Cannot Lie - Yet He is Perfect

It is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). We have been reading through Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo for LHC book club, and in it he wrestles with the issue that there are things God does not/cannot do and is still perfect and worthy of praise. The specific issue in his work is the fact that God “cannot” lie – not, does not or will not, but cannot. How can it be that there is something (maybe several things?) God cannot do, and yet remain perfect in his being – omniscient, omnipotent, etc.?

Using lying as the example, here are couple of thoughts about answering this question. (Below, I only speak of lying in the derogatory sense of “deliberate misguidance” and not the more delicate notions of lies that have good consequences, lies of ignorance, or any other shade of the act of lying.)

There are some capacities we gain or dispositions we develop through life that make us better people – we are greater because of them. When we learn how to perform certain mathematical functions, or learn that knowledge is better than deliberate ignorance, or we learn that sharing is better than selfishness, we become better and more capable people because of them. Then there are capacities or dispositions that take the exact opposite course in the maturing life. Infants are inherently selfish, so as we lose that disposition, we mature. So understood, the capacity or disposition to lie falls into the second category. Our ability to lie and God’s inability to lie make us less mature and him perfectly mature.

The disposition or capacity to lie does not make a character better, but worse. Lying is one less disposition/capacity God has, but as such, that makes God’s nature more perfect, not less. My disposition to lie makes my character less perfect, and the greater my disposition to lie, the worse my character becomes. Part of the growth, maturity, even spiritual formation of a human includes the disposition of truth-telling becoming stronger than lying.

Hence, God’s utter inability to lie speaks to his complete perfection. God cannot lie because his character is not tainted at all with the vice of lying.

I have so far used the words “capacity” and “disposition” to describe the ability to lie, but I now want to cross “capacity” off the list and assert that only truth-telling is a capacity. Lying is a corruption of the capacity, and thus is a vicious and corrosive disposition. The virtue of truth-telling is corrupted by the degree to which I am disposed to lie.

Truth-telling and lying are not the exact opposites of the same moral coin; they are not a ying-yang of human interaction. Truth-telling is better understood as the ubiquitous and necessary requirement for all human interaction, and hence the foundational virtue. In all human interaction we rightly begin with the assumption of truth-telling unless we have a reason to believe otherwise. And using those instances in which we have reason to suspect malfeasance as examples, we can quickly see why the universal assumption of lying would be devastating to relationships. Virtues (moral goods) are logically prior to vices (moral evils) and are hence properly understood as capacities. As Augustine put it, moral evils are only privations of the good, and hence are only corrosive dispositions and not capacities.

In addition, God freely cannot lie. When presented with the idea that it is “impossible” for God to lie, we are tempted to think that God is out of luck with his own free will, and thus is not free with regard to lying and truth-telling. But, in the context set so far, God’s virtue of truth-telling is perfect and he is complete in his freedom to not lie.

There is no external force outside of God that coerces him to always tell the truth and never lie, thus making his truth-telling some kind of nefarious necessity. But instead of arguing along the lines of external causes, we see in our construal so far that God is, within his own character, perfect with regard to truth-telling.

Imagine your progression from more lying to more truth-telling as your character improves. Let us say that you have set the personal and spiritual goal of becoming more Christ-like, and through the exercise of the spiritual disciplines and the work of the Holy Spirit in your life, your desire to lie in any and every situation diminishes over time. With each step along the way, you are still able to lie all you want to, which increasingly is less and less. You lie less not primarily because you are less free to lie, but because you are more free and more willing to use your freedom to tell the truth. Taken to a logical extreme, you can imagine a point at which you will not lie (it will become “impossible” for you to lie) exactly because your freedom and willingness to tell the truth becomes complete. And though, arguably, no human on earth will reach that point of virtuous perfection, God stands as the model of that very thing.

So how is it that it is impossible for God to do something like lie, and still be perfect in his being? It is because certain dispositions are a detriment to a virtuous character and for God not to have those is in fact proof of his perfect and magnificent being.

It's Alive!

Much has been made of a recent technological breakthrough in which the researcher, Craig Venter, assembled a fully synthetic strand of DNA. Such announcements tend to come with some rather grand claims, as evidenced by the article’s headline in The Economist, “And Man Made Life” and this opening paragraph:

TO CREATE life is the prerogative of gods. Deep in the human psyche, whatever the rational pleadings of physics and chemistry, there exists a sense that biology is different, is more than just the sum of atoms moving about and reacting with one another, is somehow infused with a divine spark, a vital essence. It may come as a shock, then, that mere mortals have now made artificial life.

A good collection of reactions and analysis by biologist Jonathan Wells of the science can be found on the blog, Evolution News & Views. As it turns out, nothing too spectacular has happened, despite some of the implications of some of the reporting. All Venter and his colleagues have done is take some life apart, and recreate just DNA (which is not a living organism).

But what is going on in the desire to report this as “life-creating” or even the desire to recreate life in our own image? Two vast questions indeed, but here are a couple of thoughts.

The anonymous article in the The Economist makes it pretty clear the author(s) are excited about humanity’s mastery over “life.” And though the positive and creative possibilities presented by such reconstruction could be vast, so are the darker ethical implications. How much mastery do we need, and what does it mean for the human race (more specifically, governments, universities and companies) to have that kind of control over the next generation of anything biological? At least we are a basically good species with no ill-intent or inclinations toward destruction or evil!

In addition, scientists would love to find what several of the reports call “chemical pathways” to the creation of life. One of the predominant theories of the creation of the first living organisms is called “chemical evolution,” and postulates that some set of chemical reactions took simple material stuff to living stuff. The creation of this synthetic DNA potentially offers the ability to unravel some of the complicated pathways and figure out how the first life came to be.

Though chemical evolution is far from uncontroversial, many of the reports on this event hold a hopeful tone about origin of life discovery. Though there will likely be some set of discoveries made as a result, the drive to exaggerate the breakthrough and its possibilities derives from an a priori commitment to naturalistic Neo-Darwinism. By in large, evolutionary scientists and their supporters simply don’t want to imagine the possibility of a non-natural cause to the origin of life, so anything that even looks like a step in a naturalistic direction is heralded as a leap of magnificent proportions.

A Biblical Anthropology

An anthropological view is, I am more and more convinced, a worldview changer. It is one of those assumed (or developed) points of view that ends up guiding just about everything else, even one's theology. The world is different if humans are basically good, basically bad, or some kind of hybrid of the two.

This video is a great little introduction by Dr. Groothuis from Denver Seminary to Pascal's, and I think a biblical, anthropology.

Do Christians Cherry-Pick the Bible?

The religion reporter at the local paper, The Gazette, recently did a short piece titled, “Is Bible an all-or-nothing proposition?” The piece was precipitated by the recent move in the ECLA regarding homosexual lifestyles and marriage, and was intended to ask the question whether Christians cherry-pick from the Bible. Barna notes:

The crux of the issue comes down to the Bible — or, more specifically, how one views it. Is it the literal word of God, and if so, shouldn’t the faithful follow everything in it? You might be surprised by how some religious leaders answer the question.

Several Colorado Springs evangelical pastors I interviewed contend that the Bible is the absolute word of God, yet they acknowledge that they dismiss or de-emphasize various biblical passages.

In other words, they cherry-pick the Bible. (To be fair, most everyone else does, too, but biblical literalists sometimes criticize other Christians for not accepting Scripture in its entirety.)

After very short blurbs from each of three interviews, Barna accuses the pastors of cherry-picking from Scripture. The only minister not accused is the one who agrees with the premise of the article.

So, is it true? Do Christians simply agree with those portions of Scripture they find comfortable and gloss over the rest? Because this is such a serious, not to mention complicated issue, I am going to split my thoughts up into a couple of posts (at least).

First of all, let me say I feel the accusation. I have spent my entire adult life dealing with Scripture, and there are still plenty of stories and passages I don’t know exactly what to do with. But, after my time in Scripture and the development of my own belief system, I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis when he says in Mere Christianity that the God of Christianity is far too uncomfortable to be made up by us. So, if we believe in someone who betrays our natural comforts, chances are good we aren’t making him up or cherry-picking according to our own pleasures.

Secondly, the Bible is not a simplistic document that can be handled with simplistic notions. The Christian Scriptures contain the legal and cultic (cult = having to do with the practice of religion) documents of an ancient middle-eastern people, the religious documents of a theocracy, history, prayer and wisdom books, prophetic oracles, spiritual biographies, epistles, apocrypha, and more. Each literary milieu comes with all the standard hermeneutical principles, just like we would expect to use when comparing the writings of Abraham Lincoln, Emerson, and Emilie Dickenson. It would be simplistic silliness to “exegete” all three of those authors the same way. So it follows it is simplistic silliness to exegete Leviticus, Psalms, Jeremiah and Paul in exactly the same ways.

Therefore, we need to avoid the phrase, “I take the Bible literally.” You don’t. Even if you say you do, you don’t. What should be asserted is something more like: I take the Bible seriously, or, I affirm all the Scriptures affirm. Take for instance my belief that I take the Bible seriously and Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” I don’t take that to literally mean that the sky speaks like humans speak. Taking it seriously avoids the silliness of taking it “literally,” and yet allows me to believe what the original author intended to say. The complexity and beauty of creation reveals to me a God.

But, of course, Barna is not that worried about my hermeneutical method and metaphor. He wants to know about the biblical injunctions about homosexuality. So then we will need to continue…

ID Conference in Castle Rock, CO

The Shepherd's Project is hosting an Intelligent Design Conference on October 30-31 just north of the Springs. A slew of important thinkers will be there including Meyer, Behe and Dembski. For the registation price (wow!) you can't miss it.

HT: The Constructive Curmudgeon

Truth, Arrogance, and the Wisdom of Deepak Chopra

Lee Strobel has a wonderful apologetics site full of videos and information on the basic questions regarding the truth of the Christian faith. In this video, Greg Koukl debates the ever evading Dr. Deepak Chopra regarding religious truth.

As is standard for Chopra, his only fall-back position to facts and arguments is that because other people think differently about religious matters, they must not be any truth to the matter. Don’t bother me with facts! I know a guy who thinks differently than you do, and you are arrogant for not being a relativist!

What bothers me the most about this argument is that it seems to have a hold on a large and growing number of people, even thought is it so thin you could drink tapioca through it (I don’t know what that means). Part of the problem our culture has when it comes to debate is that there is a point of view out there (a dominant point of view) that believes differences are evidence for relativism and that dissent from relativism is arrogance. In a fatal twist of irony, this is the most arrogant and tyrannical belief possible to hold.

For instance, if I believe it is true that “Jesus is the only Son of God,” and I believe that because of an objective source (Scripture, God’s existence, etc.), then I make my appeal to you through another “truth maker.” In addition, I make, or ought to make, my claim humbly. I did not make my belief true, therefore I am in a position of humility with regards to it. In other words, I assent to the truth and provide good reasons for you to do so as well.

On the other hand, Chopra and others like him do not believe there is a “super-human” standard for truth, and thus have made themselves the makers and bearers of truth. If Chopra believes “all religions are ways to god,” then his only standard for that truth is himself. In addition, that makes him infinitely arrogant. As a result, his reply to anyone who holds to any kind of objective truth is one of arrogance.

The Christian worldview has hold on the truth, not because we are that smart, but because God has revealed it to all of us. And that makes us infinitely humble in all the right ways with regard to the truth.