Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics

I always am happy to see a new journal arrive in the mailbox.  I was particularly happy with this one as it included an article written by me.  The vol. 3, no. 1 2010 issue of the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics has come in.  It includes the following articles:

“The Origin of the Soul in Light of Twinning, Cloning, and Frozen Embryos” by J.P. Moreland

“A New Approach to the Apologetic for Christ’s Resurrection by Way of Wigmore’s Juridician Analysis of Evidence” by John Warwick Montgomery

“The Return to Myth: Apologetic for Postmoderns” by Louis Markos

“John Hick’s Pluralism-Hypothesis or Religious Worldview? A Comparison with Religion Specific ‘Hypothesis’” by David C. Cramer

“Methodological Problems with the Jesus Myth Hypothesis” by Stephen J. Bedard

“Paul Davies and the Philosophy of Science”  by John D. Wilsey

“Searching for the Historical Jesus: Does History Repeat Itself?” by F. David Farnell

 

Christian Apologetics Journal

The Volume 9, No. 2 Fall 2011 issue of Christian Apologetics Journal has come out.  It contains the following articles:

“What Help is a Suffering God?” by John Ferrer

“Death and Dying-The Ultimate Apologetic Challenge” by Wayne A. Detzler

“The Theological Virtues in St. Thomas as a Demarcation for Responses to the Problem of Evil” by J. Thomas Bridges

“Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?” by Andy Bannister

“Putting on the Whole Armor: Standing in the Day of Evil Ephesians 6:10-17″ by Thomas A. Howe

Insights into Evil from the Lord of the Rings

Philosopher Peter Kreeft is a great fan of Tolkien and in this lecture, looks at the insights from the Lord of the Rings concerning the nature of evil.  I am not sure what Tolkien would think of this almost allegorical interpretation of his work, but I think Kreeft does make some helpful points that people will find interesting.

Was Jesus’ Death Necessary?

The Geisler – Licona Controversy

I have been hesitant to enter into the debate between Norm Geisler and Mike Licona over inerrancy.  Partly because I am embarrassed about the whole thing and that this situation grieves me.  However, since this controversy was actually brought up one of our local small town newspapers (by an atheist using it as evidence for the problems with Christianity and the Bible), I think I should say something.  Still, I am glad that I have waited because what I say now will be different than what I would have said at the beginning.

I need to make a few things clear.  I really appreciate the ministry and scholarship of Norm Geisler.  He has done so much work in so many areas related to apologetics that we will be in his debt for a very long time.  He has earned some patience and grace from us.  Secondly, I really like the work of Mike Licona.  Although much newer on the scene, if he is representative of the new generation of apologists, we are in good shape.  I appreciate the Christian spirit that infuses his apologetics.  Thirdly, although the passage from Matthew 27:52-53 is confusing (and something I have not preached on, nor plan to), I would probably land on Geisler’s side by saying it is describing something that actually happened and not just providing an apocalyptic image.  Finally, I have been disappointed in Geisler’s attack on Licona, especially focusing on him when other highly respected scholars, such as William Lane Craig and N.T. Wright, have expressed the same concerns about this passage.  Craig and Wright are beyond reach, but Licona is new enough in his career that he is vulnerable.

If I had written this post a few weeks ago, I would have railed against Geisler (based on his attacks, not his interpretation).  But I am not going to do that.  I can see beyond the rhetoric and see Geisler’s deep commitment to inerrancy and wisdom in seeing that this is the first line of attack when it comes to bringing down Christianity.  As someone closer in age to Licona, I can see his point as well.  When it comes to the younger generation, it is hard to focus apologetics on defending the literal interpretation of the entire Bible, when what we really need is to demonstrate the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts.  It is more important that a seeker come to believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead in history, than to understand what the risen saints did in Matthew’s Gospels.  I can appreciate both sides.

I think that there is a place for disagreement on issues such as this.  As evangelicals, we have worked hard to demonstrate that we value scholarship.  Questions have to be allowed, and of course replies are necessary as well.  What is difficult is how personal this controversy has gotten.  It is no longer a scholarly disagreement.  Not only that, evangelicals are beginning to divide over the issue, running to the banner of inerrancy under Geisler and the banner of flexibility under Licona.  I believe that on a spiritual level, this whole issue has the potential to be extremely destructive.  It certainly is a bad witness to skeptics who are looking for any reason to dismiss evangelical scholarship.  If I could address Geisler and Licona, this is what I would say:

Dear Norm,

Thanks so much for what you have done over the years and what you continue to do.  You have inspired, informed and instructed countless apologists and Christian scholars.  You have created an incredible legacy.  Thank you, for your commitment to inerrancy.  Your love of the Bible naturally leads you to respond strongly to anything you perceive as an attack.  You have presented your case of why you disagree with Licona’s interpretation is wrong.  Thanks for doing that and being true to who you are.  But please let it go.  Move on to the other work that needs to be done.  You don’t have to agree with Licona, but have some grace toward him and others who feel the same way.  They may be wrong but they are also doing important work for the kingdom.  Let us pray for one another that God will use each of us and that he would work out the differences between us.

Dear Mike,

Thanks for your desire to inspire a new generation of apologists.  Your scholarship is incredible and you do it in a Christian spirit.  I have found your work very valuable and relevant to the needs of today.  Thanks for being honest about your interpretation, knowing that there could be consequences.  You did the right thing.  I am sure you feel attacked and I am sorry for how personal things have gotten.  Please be encouraged by the amount of support you have received.  You need to realize that there is a segment of evangelicals that will never be able to adjust their doctrine of inerrancy to embrace your interpretation.  You have clarified your position, but if you have not convinced them now, you never will.  Please have some grace toward them.  We need strong inerrantists such as Geisler, not so we can completely agree with them, but to have them as a corrective to protect us from the temptations to take a soft view of the Bible.  I am sure you feel a need to defend yourself from the perceived attacks.  I would too.  But it is time to move on.  The evangelical world is big enough for your view and Geisler’s view.  Disagree with one another, learn from one another and pray for one another.

 

Voice of Truth

I have started listening to Norm Geisler’s podcast called Voice of Truth.  It is a nice short podcast by a veteran apologist.  Don’t let the current controversies get in the way of what Geisler has to offer.  You can get the podcast on iTunes here.  If you don’t use iTunes, you can find the RSS feed here.

Clay Jones on the Canaanite Question

Since there is much discussion about the war against the Canaanites, I thought I would add something else.  A few years ago, Clay Jones wrote an article for the journal Philosophia Christi on this topic.  You can read the article online here.

Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that this article demolishes every concern about what happened to the Canaanites.  It simply adds some context to the issue so that we can (hopefully) have more intelligent discussion beyond “God is my BFF” or “God is a jerk.”  Everyone understand?

The “I Could Do It Better” Fallacy

Many people struggle with either belief in God or the nature of God.  I can understand that, as I have been there myself.  There are some good reasons to struggle with these questions.  However, I have noticed that there is one objection that seems to come up over and over again.  People say things such as if I was God, I would appear physically and prove my existence or heal everyone with cancer or stop all the hurricanes or kill all the evil dictators or whatever.  Since God does not seem to do what I would do, he either does not exist or he is not worth worshipping.

Really?  Do we really think that we have the proper perspective that we can know the best way much better than an eternal and omniscient being?  Most of us, if we were taken from our regular life and suddenly put as President of the United States would have no idea what we are doing.  We do not have the knowledge, experience, resources or perspective to run a country.  Yet we think we could run the universe better than the God of the Bible.  Our young children probably think they could run our family better by spending the money we put to bills on toys and candy.  Makes sense from their perspective but does not fit reality.  Before we reject God because we think we could do it better than the biblical God, perhaps we need to take a reality check and gain some humility.

David Lamb on the War on the Canaanites

One of the hard questions people have about the Old Testament is the nature of the war against the Canaanites.  Does this make God violent and hateful?  I thought David Lamb gives a good summary of the context in his book God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?

First, the Canaanites were being punished for their wicked and violent behavior, particularly attacking defenseless Israel as they were fleeing a situation in which they had been oppressively enslaved for hundreds of years.  Second, Israel was not trying to brutally expand their borders to establish an empire like the Assyrians, but as exiles they were simply attempting to reestablish a home in the land of their ancestors.  Third, Yahweh had been slow to punish the Canaanites, waiting during the entire period of Israelite enslavement (Gen 15:16), giving the Canaanites plenty of time to repent.  Fourth, the Canaanite conquest was not unusual, because in the ancient Near East, military victors typically either killed or enslaved all the vanquished people.  Fifth, the killing was probably limited and localized as only a few texts speak of widespread destruction, while most of them speak of numerous Canaanites remaining in the land. (p. 100)

Letter to Sam Harris

Dear Sam:

I just read your book, Letter to a Christian Nation.  First of all, I would like to commend you on your clarity and honesty.  There are probably many atheists who feel as you do and yet do not have the courage to take a stand and to risk looking intolerant.  You express yourself in a clear and easy to understand manner.

It should not surprise you that I disagree with you.  My disagreement is not just whether or not there is a God.  You write your letter to Christians.  Yet, I can’t help notice that when you need a powerful dig against religion, you pull in an example of Muslim violence as if that were relevant to what Christians think or believe.  While this may be rhetorically effective, especially for people already antagonistic toward religion in general, it has very little to do with your stated purpose.

You anticipate Christian responses to your argument that Christianity and other religions are dangerous with examples of Stalin and other atheists being obviously evil.  Leaving aside Hitler, even the other atheist regimes by themselves have inflicted death and suffering on millions of people.  You reject these dictators as examples of atheism, because they lack a commitment to rationalism.  Yet, later in your book you define atheism as not a philosophy but as a simple acknowledgment that there is no God.  You can’t have it both ways.  If atheism is the acknowledgment that there is no God, then Stalin and company are atheists.

You provide a number of examples of Christians and people of other religions who have done bad things.  Can I make something clear?  You and the rest of the new atheists are not providing exciting new revelation when you mention that some religious people are bad.  We really already knew that.  Yes, Christians can be jerks.  There we said it, let’s get past it.  When you take into account the percentage of people of the world present and past who have affiliated with a religion, it is no surprise that there are plenty of examples of religion-connected evils.

My main concern is the way you paint religion with such broad strokes.  You respond to concerns of moderates by stating emphatically that they are wrong.  Both you and violent extremists interpret the Bible and other holy books correct and moderates who use context and reason in interpretation are simply wrong.  Religion should be judged by the actions of extremists and fundamentalists from any and every religion.  This judgment is that religion is dangerous and must be stomped out.  The Salvation Army officer who pours out their life helping the poor, by their acknowledgement of God is ultimately just as responsible for the 9/11 attacks as any terrorist training camp.  No offence, but you take the slippery slope fallacy to the extreme!  This may make sense to you, but I can imagine the names you would have for people suggesting that evolution will lead to holocaust atrocities or that atheism will lead to Stalinist forms of mass murder.  Yet, that is the exact kind of reasoning you use.

Sam, I would like to conclude my letter by asking what you would like to see happen.  Your letter ends with a reminder of the large number of Muslims (what does that have to do with Christianity again?) and the potential (or likelihood as you suggest) for violence they have toward non-Muslims.  They are just an example of the general danger of religion, whether in its moderate or extremist forms.  If religion is so dangerous, what would you like to see happen?  Education is not the answer as evolution has been taught exclusively in schools for decades and yet the majority of Americans still see God’s involvement, if not an outright rejection of evolution.  You are not going to teach people to give up religion.  Is it time to bring back an Antiochus IV Epiphanes style of persecution against religion?  He attempted to stamp put Judaism and impose “superior” Greek philosophy through persecution, banning of religion and burning of books.  If religion is so dangerous, would you like to see the small minority of rational atheists take over and forcibly remove all religions from the world?  I can’t imagine where else you would want to go with the views you have toward atheism.  I would love to know.

Sincerely,

Steve