God’s Not Dead: Evidence For God in An Age of Uncertainty

April 11, 2013 — 2 Comments

9780849948534

Rice Broocks is the co-founder of the Every Nation family of churches, and is senior minister of Bethel World Outreach Church in Nashville.  He did his masters work at RTS and has a doctorate in missiology from Fuller. In God’s Not Dead: Evidence For God in An Age of Uncertainty Broocks is writing to three types of people:

  • The Seeker who is trying to believe but faces doubts
  • The Believer who knows God subjectively, but has a hard time articulating this faith to unbelievers
  • The Skeptic who may be reading from a critical point of view and perhaps already decided there is no God

His approach in apologetics is somewhat presuppositional and evidential (he may very well have studied with Bahnsen, depending on when he was at RTS Jackson and what classes he took). I think after reading it, he is really using evidences in a presuppositional manner, so his book represents a kind of popular level book in that vein.

Broocks begins with a short introduction telling his own conversion story before launching into the first chapter which introduces readers to the claims of many New Atheists. As he sees it though, in spite of the outspokenness of these New Atheists, belief in God is making a comeback, so much so that in 2009 the senior editor of The Economist co-wrote a book that retracted the obituary they published for God a decade earlier. This faith though is well grounded and isn’t just some blind irrational leap, and Broocks intends to show why that is the case.

Very helpfully, his first chapter is on reason itself. This is a good presuppositional move, and Broocks does an excellent job explaining how science and faith are not at odds because reason is grounded in the existence of God and science would collapse without it. Having established this, he turns the same kind of argumentation to good and evil, showing they are grounded in God as well.

The next few chapters zero in on scientific issues. First, Broocks shows how the case for the beginning of the universe actually works to the believer’s advantage. He wisely sidesteps issues related to interpreting Genesis to make the basic point that since science points to the universe having a beginning, it naturally raises the question of the existence of a Creator. He then talks a bit about the fine-tuning of the universe, adding to his case that much of what we are learning through the natural sciences actually supports the case for faith.

The following chapter deals with the emergence of life. He essentially offers an argument from design, but with a little more nuance than just a straight teleological argument. In numerous places he shows science’s basic inability to explain the origin of life in a satisfactory way. Evolution can explain developments, but it really can’t do much in terms of the origins of life from non-life.

Next, Broocks delves into the question of whether or not life has meaning and purpose. Since most people tend to treat it like it does, then a coherent worldview will need to account for how life can be meaningful and purposeful. Throughout the chapter, Broocks demonstrates that on evolutionary assumptions that the New Atheists all hold, life must be both meaningless and non-purposeful. He then highlights 10 specific differences that set man apart from the animals:

  • Our ability to think about our thinking (meta-cognition)
  • Aesthetic recognition
  • Language
  • Creativity and scientific exploration
  • Morality
  • Higher intelligence
  • Personhood
  • Culture
  • Our transcending the mere physical
  • Spiritual hunger

While up to this point Broocks is presenting evidence, I see him reasoning more like a presuppositionalist since he is showing that evidence cannot be made sense of, unless you presuppose God. After this chapter, he turns to more typical evidential concerns, starting first with the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection and then turning to the evidence for the reliability of Scripture. In the final two chapters, Broocks takes a slightly different evidential track, focusing on personal transformation. First, he explains “the grace effect” or the idea that grace, rather than bare religion, has a transforming effect on people and even whole societies that is an “evidence” hard to explain from an atheistic point of view. Second, he offers a chapter titled “Living Proof” which is essentially a collection of personal testimonies of lives changed by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the end, I found this both an enjoyable and beneficial read. I wasn’t presented with much evidence that I wasn’t already aware of, but I also do a lot more reading in this area than most people. I would imagine for the average person (and those three target audiences Broocks is writing for) this book will be a great introduction to several areas of apologetics. For the seeker it provides both evidence and presuppositional grounding of the Christian faith. For the believer with a hard time explaining, this book models a conversational and clear tone that can be followed in explaining the ideas to others. For the skeptic, it might not be ultimately convincing, but Broocks’ intention is to sow a seed of doubt (xix). I think this is an excellent way to approach things and actually conforms to how paradigm shifts occur. That makes this book a success by Broocks’ own intentions, and a book you should consider picking up if you’re interested in apologetics at the popular level.

Book Details

Purchase Info

Buy through Amazon to support Marturo!

In Book Reviews, Presuppositional Apologetics, Scientific Apologetics, Theology
 permalink

The Mohler-Chapell Interchange on Genesis 1 At TGC

April 10, 2013 — 1 Comment

So, yesterday I was sitting in the first round of workshops at The Gospel Coalition National Conference here in Orlando and tweeted this:

I got several immediate responses, and that’s not particularly surprising. Because it was a workshop, I don’t think audio will be available. They may have recorded it, but it definitely wasn’t videoed. Anyway, I thought at the very least this comment was worthy of extended explanation and so here we are.

The workshop was actually centered on the question of whether Adam and Eve were historical figures. Chapell and Mohler, as you might imagine, both answer in the affirmative. They began by explaining their different lines of argument that support that conclusion. I think, if I remember correctly, there were 4:

  • The literary argument (everyone else in the story is historical)
  • The theological argument (drawing from Romans 5, and 1 Corinthians 15)
  • The ethical argument (our equality is grounded in us all coming from an equal source)
  • The pastoral argument (if Adam and Eve are not personally responsible for the entrance of sin into the world the God alone is)

Obviously I’m shortening this so you can get the gist. I thought the ethical argument was actually the most persuasive, especially in a culture that is currently obsessing over the question of marriage equality. If we simply evolved, it is likely, if not certain, they there are currently several streams of humanity. In other words, we are not all equal because back at the head waters of the human race there does not stand one couple, but rather several convergent lines of evolved hominids who it would be very hard to argue are necessarily equal. If nothing else, it is very difficult to ground the idea that all humans are equal if all humans didn’t evolve from the same source (though of course in this model we did all come from the same primordial goo).

However, if you ground human equality in the biblical story and teaching of solidarity in Adam and Eve, then it is very easy to argue that all humans are equal and deserve the respect and dignity of an image bearer of God. But, once you do that, it is hard to turn around and argue that marriage can then be redefined to include same sex participants. Civil unions (state marriages) are defined by the state, but marriage as a transcultural institution cannot be just summarily redefined. That is kind of a rabbit trail (actually more than just “kind of”), but you’re getting the privilege of my semi-unfiltered thoughts from yesterday’s workshop.

Now, because it would have been a fairly uninteresting discussion if Mohler and Chapell just sat up there and went through everything they agreed about. Theologically at least, they both affirmed that the important issue is not the days in Genesis but then proceeded to discuss it and that’s when the disagreement started. Mohler hold Genesis 1 teaches 6 literal 24 hour days of creation. Chapell holds that the days were of indeterminate length which is the analogical day view. He actually just walked by as I am writing this and I confirmed that that is in fact his view (which is also Poythress’ view, and very similar to my view).

Mohler’s primary concern is that we do not start, at any point, bowing the knee to naturalism and reframing our interpretation of Scripture. He sees any questioning of 6 24 hour days to stem from advances in science, not necessarily accusing Chapell of doing this, but suggesting that no one was considering a different interpretation until evolution came onto the scene.

Chapell’s primary concern is that we do not unnecessarily add to the biblical teaching in ways that make more of a conflict between the Bible and science than is really necessary. What he was pressing toward Mohler was whether or not the text of Genesis necessitates affirming that the days were in fact 24 hours. The argument he brought up, that I thought was rather decisive (mainly because Mohler did not offer a counter argument other than just reaffirming his position) is how time was to be reckoned prior to the completion of the solar system as we know on day 4. Chapell thought that for Mohler’s view to work, we have to suspend all natural laws as we know it, except for the passage of time, a point that Mohler disagreed with strongly. He disagreed, but I didn’t really hear a rebuttal of the fundamental issue, which is that Genesis clearly depicts God working to create in 6 days, but it doesn’t necessitate that the days were 24 hours. That is of course an inference from the text (the days were normal days like we now them now), but the physics of at least, if you’re going to affirm that God created the elements in the order presented, is hard to reconcile with time passing in 24 hour increments. I think it is better to be interpretively agnostic on how long the days were than to dogmatically insist on a 24 hour length. If you want the 24 hours, it seems like you can’t have the sun showing up until day 4.

In the end though, this is kind of minor detail, a point that both Chapell and Mohler agreed upon. It was good to see them argue sharply over interpreting Scripture, but without getting contentious and ending on their agreement instead of dwelling on the disagreement. My takeaway from the workshop was seeing a model of two Christian leaders arguing, but doing so respectfully and graciously and both arguing from principles and a commitment the interpreting the word of God in the best way possible.

In Interpreting The Old Testament, Scientific Apologetics
 permalink

Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers & Skeptics Find Faith

April 9, 2013 — Leave a comment

9780801014161

Alister McGrath is professor of theology, ministry, and education and head of the Centre for Theology, Religion, and Culture at King’s College, London, and president of the Oxford Center for Christian Apologetics. He’s written more books than I care to list here, but this is actually the second recently published book of his that I’ve read in the last 30 days. His C. S. Lewis – A Life was my spring break reading, and now I’ve had the opportunity to read through his Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers & Skeptics Find Faith. Read the latter after the former proved interesting since McGrath draws on Lewis quite a bit, and I imagine the writing of these two works overlapped considerably.

Overview

Mere Apologetics, like the name suggests, is something similar to Lewis’ Mere Christianity, but for apologetics. As immersed as McGrath was in Lewis’ writings during the writing of this book, it’s not surprising to see the resultant book very much in the spirit of Lewis. As McGrath opens up:

This book is an introduction to apologetics – the field of Christian thought that focuses on the justification of the core themes of the Christian faith and its effective communication to the non-Christian world. It commends a mindset of engagement, encouraging Christians to interact with the ideas of our culture rather than running away from them or pretending they can be ignored. (11)

He continues,

This book sets out to introduce its readers to the leading themes of apologetics, presenting a basic understanding of its agendas and approaches. I have tried to make this book accessible, interesting, and useful, while giving pointers to more advanced resources that will allow you, the reader, to take things further in your own time. It is not comprehensive, so you will need to supplement it with more advanced and specialized texts. Nor is it committed to any particular school of apologetics. Rather than limiting itself to any one specific school or approach to apologetics, this work draws on their collective riches. (12)

That last point is what makes this book a great introduction to “mere” apologetics. There are things in here that will make presuppositionalists proud, and other things that they’ll find somewhat annoying (see more below). Evidentialists and classicalists alike will find their insights in McGrath’s book. The book then succeeds in McGrath’s aims stated in the second quote and gives readers the “flavor” of the riches that Christian apologetics has to offer. In terms of a brief overview, the opening chapters are very basic. First, McGrath defines apologetics (chapter 1). McGrath sees apologetics involving defending the truth of the gospel, commending the truth and relevance of the gospel to an audience, and translating the core ideas and themes of the Christian faith to an audience unfamiliar with Christian thought. In chapter 2, McGrath tackles the shift of culture from modernity to postmodernity in perhaps the briefest form possible. It is here as well that he outlines his general approach (35-36):

  • Understand the faith
  • Understand the audience
  • Communicate with clarity
  • Find points of contact
  • Present the whole gospel
  • Practice, practice, practice

McGrath comes back to this approach in chapter 8, but before getting there he tackles first the theological basis for apologetics (chapter 3) and the importance of the audience (chapter 4). For the latter, McGrath takes us through Paul’s speeches in Acts, showing how he adapted his presentation, but not his gospel, depending on the audience. After laying this foundation, chapters 4-6 comprise the meat of the book. Unlike God is Dead, a book for seekers, skeptics, and curious Christians that I’ll be offering a review of Thursday, McGrath’s book is for young apologetes who want to learn how to best defend their faith. This section on defense then is giving weapons, but talking to an audience already on-board. McGrath covers in succession the reasonableness of the Christian faith (chapter 5), pointers or clues to faith (chapter 6), and gateways for apologetics (chapter 7). These chapters are the longest and focused on the content of an apologetic defense. His list of clues has a presuppositional flair and is worth listing:

  • Clue 1: Creation
  • Clue 2: Fine-tuning
  • Clue 3: Order
  • Clue 4: Morality
  • Clue 5: Desire
  • Clue 6: Beauty
  • Clue 7: Relationality
  • Clue 8: Eternity

As McGrath sees it, these are “proofs” that Christianity is true, but rather clues in search of an explanation. In short, they are transcendentals we know exist and that any adequate worldview needs to account for. They are also great apologetic conversation starters. McGrath moves further in chapter 7 to offer four gateways for doing apologetics:

  • Explanation
  • Argument
  • Stories
  • Images

Arguably, the latter two have been ignored for a bit too long, a problem I wanted to remedy with my thesis. Discerning your audience is key here, since some people want a clearly reasoned argument, and others would like a story that captures their imagination. Lewis himself was captured first through his imagination and later through his reason. Reading your audience means knowing what to use when. Finally, the book closes with a chapter where McGrath deals with two common questions about the faith. He does so in a way that doesn’t offer pat answers but guides you through seeing what is actually being asked when people bring up these questions (Why does God allow suffering? Isn’t God just a crutch?) so you can respond appropriately. The final chapter focuses on developing your method and is only a few pages long.

Conclusion

Overall, I think this is a great book if you keep in mind it’s goal. McGrath is not offering extensive apologetic answers and he is not aligning himself with any specific apologetic school. There are a couple of places I could probe a bit deeper into some of the arguments McGrath makes, but I think you get the general overview well enough to form your own conclusions. I come from a strong presuppositional background but I am growing in my appreciation for imagination, because I see how powerful or an entry point that is for people. I tried to connect the two with my approach to movies, and I think McGrath does a good job of a similar suture job here. As a book that gives very practical advice on how to do apologetics, this book is a must read!

Book Details

Purchase Info

Buy through Amazon to support Marturo!

In Book Reviews, How-To, Philosophy, Presuppositional Apologetics, Scientific Apologetics
 permalink

Doctrine: Resurrection

April 8, 2013 — Leave a comment

ch-9-resurrection_0

Had we had class last night, we would have finished covering the resurrection. If you missed the PDF from the post on the cross, here it is again. Here also are my thoughts from the actual book chapter in Doctrine.

I mentioned on The City that I have plenty of posts on the resurrection to fill in the gap. First off though, here are two posts not from me, but that I think you’ll find helpful:

Considering how pivotal the historical claim of the resurrection is for Christianity (it rises and falls on it), it is important for us to know why it’s true. Perhaps the definitive resource on the topic is N. T. Wright’s Resurrection of The Son of God. Last year, I reviewed it section by section:

Most people will be fine just reading my summaries, but if you’re really interested in exploring this topic and/or defending your faith well, you ought to pick up and engage Wright’s work.

Finally, many people may concede the importance of the resurrection, but pragmatically, may not be able to articulate what, if any, difference it makes. If you find yourself in that situation, I’d highly recommend you pick up Sam Allberry’s Lifted: Experiencing The Resurrected Life and Adrian Warnock’s Raised With Christ: How the Resurrection Changes Everything. The former is much shorter and quicker reader but I think does a great job of laying out the practicality of the resurrection. Warnock’s book is a bit longer, but it’s worth digging into as well (especially given the subtitle).

One final thought, the resurrection really is the piece that makes the puzzle complete. The apostles didn’t really understand what the OT was saying about Jesus until after his resurrection. It is not only the historical fact on which all of Christianity hangs, it is the hing on which interpretations of Christ in the OT and Gospels turns. A movie illustration of this is The Sixth Sense, and I comment on that here. It’s not a perfect analogy, but I think it works well. If you’ve got a better one along these lines, let me know!

In Personal Adventures, Theology
 permalink

The Unfolding Mystery of The Divine Name

April 4, 2013 — Leave a comment

The Unfolding Mystery of the Divine Name Knowles Michael P 9780830839858

Michael P. Knowles is professor and George F. Hurlburt Chair of Preaching at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario. He’s written a couple books on preaching, and now this book, The Unfolding Mystery of The Divine Name: The God of Sinai in Our Midst, which explores how the name of God revealed in Exodus has been understood in the three monotheistic faith traditions. The book represents his attempt at a kind of “generous orthodoxy” when it comes to who and what God is. This involves both faithful exposition of key passages in the Old Testament, and tracing the historical reception and interaction with those passages in Jewish, Muslim and Christian thought. His hope for readers is that “by meditating, longing for, and acting on the basis of what we discover to be true about God, our own ‘ways’ will come to reflect, in some small degree, the ‘ways’ of God” (49).

Using Exodus 34:5-9 as a framework, Knowles offers a series of chapters exegeting the divine name that is presented to Moses. After a short introduction on the name of God as understood in the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions, Knowles launches into a chapter on the name of God in Exodus and the 13 attributes. As Knowles explains, “According to one possible reading, the God of Israel is:

  • YHWH (the One who simply is, unconstrainable and self-sufficient)
  • YHWH (repeated for emphasis)
  • God, who is
  • compassionate
  • gracious
  • slow to anger
  • abundant in showing steadfast love and
  • truth (or faithfulness); indeed
  • preserving steadfast love for thousands of generations;
  • forgiving with respect to iniquity,
  • to transgression, and
  • to sin; yet
  • by no means clearing the guilty

From this rather interesting way of dividing up “attributes” (which comes from Jewish reflection on the matter), Knowles takes readers through 6 chapters. First, we see God as compassionate and gracious. Knowles makes the compelling case that these attributes must be the foundation for how we understand God. There is interestingly little interaction with Muslim thought on this attribute, other than to note toward the beginning of the chapter that Allah can be referred to as “al-Rahman” can mean “the All-Merciful” or “the all Gracious” one (51). Whether or not this is an accurate understanding of how Muslims understand Allah, I’m not sure, but I would think not.

After the appropriately lengthy chapter on God as gracious and compassionate, these attributes are further underscored by a chapter on God being slow to anger. This is followed in succession by chapters on God’s steadfast love, his trustworthiness, and finally his forgiveness and justice. Knowles then wraps up with a concluding chapter meditating on the story of Joseph showing how it is used as a template for how the divine character can determine values for godly conduct in the Judeo-Christian tradition (212).

In the end, the book is a call to all three Abrahamic faiths to return to these foundational attributes of God rather to be quick to proclaim “God will condemn and destroy various heretics, apostates, and unbelievers, on the grounds that they do not see things our way” (235). This is all well and good, although I think at least in the Christian tradition, this fact cannot be overlooked. Epistemic humility? Sure. But there is also one certain judgment.

On that note though, this is still an interesting book to read, especially if you’re into Jewish studies. Knowles takes readers deep into rabbinic sources, covers Islamic ones to a lesser extent, and Christian reflection somewhere in the middle. I don’t see this book being a good read for the average reader, but it will serve those readers who want to dig deeply into the history of interpretation of Exodus 34:5-9 well.

Book Details

  • Author: Michael P. Knowles
  • Title: The Unfolding Mystery of The Divine Name: The God of Sinai in Our Midst
  • Publisher: IVP Academic (September 28, 2012)
  • Paperback: 254pgs
  • Reading Level: Bible School
  • Audience Appeal: Pastors and Bible Students who are interested in an in-depth study of God’s name
  • Gratis Review Copy: Yes (courtesy of IVP Academic)

Purchase Info

Buy through Amazon to support Marturo!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
In Book Reviews, Interpreting The Old Testament, Theology
 permalink