Category: Book Plunge

Book Plunge: Discerning the Voice of God Chapter 6

Does God communicate personally? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Shirer again opens up the chapter with Scripture. This time, it’s Isaiah 45:3.

I will give you hidden treasures,
riches stored in secret places,
so that you may know that I am the Lord,
the God of Israel, who summons you by name.

This is a moving passage isn’t it? Doesn’t it feel great to know that God calls you personally by name? It would sure be nice if we knew what those treasures in secret places were. Let’s see if the surrounding context can help us out.

“This is what the Lord says to his anointed,
to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of
to subdue nations before him
and to strip kings of their armor,
to open doors before him
so that gates will not be shut:
2 I will go before you
and will level the mountains;
I will break down gates of bronze
and cut through bars of iron.
3 I will give you hidden treasures,
riches stored in secret places,
so that you may know that I am the Lord,
the God of Israel, who summons you by name.
4 For the sake of Jacob my servant,
of Israel my chosen,
I summon you by name
and bestow on you a title of honor,
though you do not acknowledge me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,
6 so that from the rising of the sun
to the place of its setting
people may know there is none besides me.
I am the Lord, and there is no other.

Well, this is awkward. It looks like the passage is dedicated to someone named Cyrus. Not only that, the person spoken of is someone who does not acknowledge God, something God says twice. If Shirer thinks this applies to us, does that mean she thinks we’re Cyrus and that we do not acknowledge God?

Interesting.

Shirer says the Bible doesn’t address every situation that will come up in our lives directly, and this is true. There are many issues that we struggle with today that were unheard of in the times of the Bible. For this, she says, we need a personal message from God.

Or we could, I don’t know, use the wisdom that He gave us and make a sound judgment and go to places like Proverbs.

Shirer thinks we have to have a message from God for so many decisions. It’s a wonder to me how she even gets out of bed in the morning and decides what to wear. That might sound pedantic to you, but what if someone’s salvation depended on Shirer dressing a particular way, such as to appear professional or not cause a man to stumble?

Shirer says God has mapped out a path that is distinctly ours.

If God had done that, I can easily say that every single one of us has already blown it. If this is the case, then God’s plan for humanity has already utterly failed. Fortunately, I don’t buy into this kind of thinking so it’s not a problem for me. For Shirer, I think this would only lead to one having perpetual anxiety over decisions.

When a message or inner voice you are sensing makes you feel condemned or burdened by a cloak of guilt, then it is probably not from God. If the foundation of the conviction you are feeling or the direction you are sensing stems from fear or condemnation, then you can be sure the Enemy is behind it.

Shirer, Priscilla. Discerning the Voice of God: How to Recognize When He Speaks (p. 98). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

So apparently, not only is God speaking to us, but the enemy is speaking to us as well. This kind of thinking makes God and the devil practically counterparts. Not only this, sometimes, if God was speaking to us, we should hear things that lead to guilt. The Scripture says if we are in Christ, there is no condemnation, but that does not mean there is nothing that can be condemned. We do wrong things. Are we to think only those good and positive vibes are messages from God?

Pretty sure David had guilt after being told by Nathan, “You the man!”

Shirer tells us that we will know the Spirit is speaking to us about sin when we don’t have a feeling of despair, but rather we have a fresh desire for holiness and purity.

And the Scripture to back this is? Oh, that’s right. It’s not there!

She also says we can tell God’s voice by His loving personal tone.

For a Scripture reference for this, she goes to….

Nowhere.

Why can’t you go to Scripture for something like this? Because it is not in there. It’s a dangerous movement the church needs to abandon entirely.

Next time, we’ll hear what Shirer has to say about the voice of God and peace.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Discerning the Voice of God Chapter 5

Is God a baritone or a tenor? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Shirer begins this section with Scripture. Yay! Let’s see what she says!

Psalm 62:11-12

11 One thing God has spoken,
    two things I have heard:

Wait. That’s only one verse you quoted! Indeed, because that’s all that Shirer quotes. Now why would she do that? Let’s look at the rest of it and see if we can figure it out.

“Power belongs to you, God,
12     and with you, Lord, is unfailing love”;
and, “You reward everyone
    according to what they have done.”

If you look at the passage, this is not about God speaking to an individual person. It’s about the Psalmist trusting in what he has heard about God in his difficulty. This is the way Hebrews talk, but it looks like Shirer doesn’t care about that. Just look for where it says God has spoken and throw a personal idea on to it.

She says Revelation 3:20 can be applied as a call to salvation, but these are people who already trust in Jesus. Fair enough, but at the same time, she misses the point. She says it is about persistence, and it certainly is, but the persistence is apparently that God is trying to speak to you individualistically and you need to hear it.

Which is why this is in a letter read to churches from someone taking the role of a prophet. Got it.

Never think that the circumstances in your life have nothing to do with God’s will. They have everything to do with it! When you’re seeking His guidance, you should always reflect on the events the Lord is allowing to occur in your life. Persistent, internal inklings matched by external confirmation is often the way God directs believers into His will.

Shirer, Priscilla. Discerning the Voice of God: How to Recognize When He Speaks (pp. 81-82). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

This piece of advice is backed by the Scripture of….

Oh wait. There’s nothing here.

Nope. Shirer thinks that every single bit of events in your life is arranged in a specific way because God is trying to give you a specific message. I am not denying that God works everything according to His will, but I am against trying to approach reality with a decoder ring.

Here’s my suggestion. Try to interpret Scripture as what God is telling you instead of your circumstances. For your circumstances, see how according to Romans 8, they can be used for your good if you love the Lord. They’re not about God trying to give you a message.

She then quotes Ecclesiastes 5:1 asking where this verse had been hiding all her life. I dealt with it before, but I will do so again.

Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. Go near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they do wrong.

This is about going to a worship service or to offer a sacrifice and to be stingy with your words. Heed what your priest says. Speak too much and you can bring judgment on yourself. If this was about God speaking individually to you, why do you need to go to the House of God? Can’t He do that just as well anywhere else?

Even when you hear incorrectly, God knows your heart well, and He honors the person whose sincere desire is to know and do His will even in their imperfection. “If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God” (John 7:17 ESV).

Shirer, Priscilla. Discerning the Voice of God: How to Recognize When He Speaks (p. 88). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

So if you think you heard from God and you heard wrong, God knows you are trying to do right. Look! There’s a Scripture to back it!

Except this is Jesus talking about Himself and how people can know His teaching is from God and that He is from God.

How reliable can a teaching be if you have to mishandle Scripture so often to get to it?

So in the end, I still see nothing here. Next time, Shirer will tell us how God communicates impersonally. We’ll pick this up next week.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Discerning The Voice of God Chapter 1

Should we expect to hear the voice of God? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

My boss at the Post Office was surprised when I told her that hearing the voice of God is not a part of normative Christian living. It hasn’t been for centuries. It’s only been in more recent times that Christians have been convinced they are hearing the voice of God and that this is what everyone is supposed to do.

Someday, I would like to know where it started.

So when I’m browsing Kindle books and I see one about hearing the voice of God, I figure for the sake of argument, I’ll get it. It’s by Priscilla Shirer and it’s called Discerning The Voice of God. Who knows? Maybe it will give me something substantial on this.

Instead, I saw more and more how dangerous this idea is.

One of the big problems you find is that when you go through this book, you’ll find you learn a lot about the author. You won’t really learn a lot about God. She regularly says God was telling her XYZ and yet, we just have to take her word for it. But hey, having someone say they heard from God has never led to any problems before has it?

Did I mention I’m reading a book on Islam now and I’m reading something on Mormonism?

Now to be fair, Shirer would say that they disagree with Scripture, so they’re false, and I agree, but the point is they do claim to hear from God.

Early on, we are told by Shirer that God wants to tell her things, but she’s too busy talking to listen.

Remember all those times in the Bible when the people are speaking so much that they can’t hear the voice of God?

Neither do I.

At this point, she has a sidebar referencing Ezekiel 3:10. (At least it looks like a sidebar on Kindle.)

And he said to me, “Son of man, listen carefully and take to heart all the words I speak to you.

Let me just state something obvious.

You are not Ezekiel.

This is one of the problems with this kind of thinking. People who hold this always look and say “Look at Abraham or Moses or Habakkuk.” Yes. Those people heard from God. You’re not them. We always look and say “If I’m anyone in Scripture, I’m one of the great people.” No. You and I are far more likely to not be Moses but to be Joe Israelite wandering around the wilderness just trying to survive.

She says Isaiah 55:3 tells us to incline our ears to Him. Indeed, it does, but notice that of those ears, only one set of ears was hearing directly from God. Those were Isaiah’s.

She says to go to the house of God to listen is found in Ecclesiastes 5:1. Indeed, it is, but these were not individualists. These were people going to hear the word of God being given out by the priest. They were essentially going to church to hear a sermon. If God was always speaking anyway like Shirer thinks, why do you need to go to the house of God? If it’s a sermon, then it’s clear why you go to the house of God.

She says that it shows up fifteen times that if anyone has ears to hear the message, they must listen. Indeed! But that’s also given in Revelation and the message they are hearing is a letter that was written. It is not a personal message to them.

Seriously, with this bad of interpretation, I wouldn’t blame a reader if they stopped the book there. I would hope most would. I’m not such. I keep going to make sure and because I read bad books so you won’t have to.

The next reference is James 1:25:

But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

Forgetting what they heard refers to the Law. It does not refer to a private revelation. Most people could not read so how will they know what the Scriptures say? Through hearing.

Later in the chapter, Shirer says she often feels led to get down and prostrate before God. Look. If you want to worship God that way, go ahead. I have no problem, but where on Earth does Scripture tell us that God leads us by our feelings? So many churches treat it like a staple and an obvious given. If we are people who claim to be Sola Scriptura, we’d better back what we say with Scripture.

Next she talks about how prayer used to be one way and she felt no closer to God at the end.

Let me stress this so much because so many people struggle with this.

Your relationship with God is not dependent on your feelings.

You can feel God is mad at you or feel He is pleased with you and all that means is that that is what you think at the time. There have been plenty of people who have had joy in doing what is wrong because of their feelings. There have been plenty of people who have suffered for doing something that is not wrong but they were convinced it was. All of it was based on feelings.

You can be feeling miserable and still be alright with God. Being a Christian does mean living on cloud nine all the time. Every single one of us will be sad at times. If the very Son of God could not avoid sadness on this Earth, I would be extremely arrogant to think I can.

Then she says Paul wrote about praying with his mind as well as with his spirit in 1 Cor. 14:15.

And?

That means that Paul was telling you to stop and listen to see what God says back?

Notice no one does that in Scripture. When Jesus gives us the Lord’s prayer, nowhere does He say “Now stop and hear what God says to you.” Paul wrote plenty on prayer. He never told us to listen to hear a voice from God in prayer.

She talks about Bible study and how perhaps God brings a Scripture to mind and is leading me there. It’s like God is a gamemaster dropping hints for you or something. Could it just be that you thought of that passage yourself because you know Scripture well? The danger with saying God led you to a passage is that you are starting to treat yourself as infallible. After all, if God did it, who are we as mere mortals to question that?

But it comes down to, did God do that, and if all you have is a strong feeling, that’s not enough.

She then quotes 1 Cor. 2:11 with saying the thoughts of God no one knows but the Spirit of God.

Again, I wonder “Why are you quoting this? How does this make your case?”

This quote shows up later:

First, it is “me and Him.” I come to prayer conscious of myself, my need, my desires. I pour these out to God. Second, prayer becomes “Him and me.” Gradually I become more conscious of the presence of God than of myself. Then it is only “Him.” God’s presence arrests me, captivates me, warms me, works on me. —Stephen Verney

Shirer, Priscilla. Discerning the Voice of God: How to Recognize When He Speaks (p. 33). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

I did some looking and I don’t know much about it, but he did write a book called Into the New Age. It will take some further looking to see if that is just a bad title or if he was in that movement to some extent. It wouldn’t surprise me because the above statement is honestly pantheism. I could be misunderstanding it to be fair, but I find it a highly concerning quote.

Edited to add: After writing this, I did speak to Marcia Montenegro who is my go-to person on the New Age movement and I am quoting her from our Facebook conversation with permission:

Actually, what you quoted from Shirer I’ve heard from others like John Mark Comer, I think, and maybe Tyler Staton, and other contemplatives. The Trappist monk Keating said you can’t think of God when you’re praying and the goal is that there is no subject-object distinction. I’ve been trying to warn about this stuff for over 20 years but hardly anyone paid attention. Now the contemplative stuff is all over the church. Shirer was influenced by Jan Johnson who likes Rohr. Johnson also is the president of the Dallas Willard Foundation. They are all on the same page which I consider to be a counterfeit of Christianity. So I would call it is more Contemplative than New Age because New Agers don’t really pray. Some Christians who are really into New Age beliefs might pray but prayer makes no sense in the New Age. So I would call this Contemplative. I’ll look up Verney.

I then asked that many Christians might think contemplative prayer sounds good. We are to pray and we should contemplate on our prayers. Right? So what’s the problem? She has several articles on the topic and recommended this as a start.

We now return to what I originally wrote.

The favorite passage is always “My sheep hear my voice” in John 10. Question. Who in the audience that day heard Jesus speaking?

Answer: Everyone.

So all of them were Christians?

No.

The voice is the call to salvation and it is not a literal voice. It is a hideous misuse of Scripture to take the call to salvation and turn it into personal guidance everyday.

That’s all we have for this chapter. We’ll see what happens in later chapters.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Liberty and the Things of God

What do I think of Robert Louis Wilken’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The subtitle of this book is the Christian Origins of Religious Freedom. At the start, Christianity was not treated well by the Romans. Tertullian was the first to actively speak about the freedom of religion in his apology for the Christians. (For those who don’t know, an apology is a defense in the ancient world. He is not saying the Christians had done anything wrong.)

As Tertullian says in chapter 24 of the work:

Let one man worship God, another Jupiter; let one lift suppliant hands to the heavens, another to the altar of Fides; let one — if you choose to take this view of it — count in prayer the clouds, and another the ceiling panels; let one consecrate his own life to his God, and another that of a goat. For see that you do not give a further ground for the charge of irreligion, by taking away religious liberty, and forbidding free choice of deity, so that I may no longer worship according to my inclination, but am compelled to worship against it. Not even a human being would care to have unwilling homage rendered him; and so the very Egyptians have been permitted the legal use of their ridiculous superstition, liberty to make gods of birds and beasts, nay, to condemn to death any one who kills a god of their sort. Every province even, and every city, has its god.

And thus, we have the first argument for freedom of religion, fifteen centuries before the Constitution.

Wilken also has an interesting section on conscience. The ancients would not find it sensical to say with Jiminy Cricket, “Let your conscience be your guide.” We read it individually in a passage like Romans 2. The ancients would have read it collectively. It was the idea that your actions had moral significance and could be judged by others. It comes from two words, scientia and con, meaning knowledge with.

By the time we get to the Reformation, this has changed in that conscience is more of an internal guide. (Now also, we often say it can be the voice of God, which is a much bigger problem.) So can one say that Luther was wrong when he invoked conscience in making his defense? If you do, you have to be aware that several Catholics at the time also invoked conscience for their own freedom to worship as they saw fit. Luther, like the Catholics of his time, was to some extent a product of his time.

From the Reformation on then, we have countless battles and controversies going on. The church used to be a solidifying factor of stability, but what happens when the church itself has divisions in its ranks? This is where the majority of the book looks. The main idea is often that there are two swords, the sword of the spiritual kingdom and the sword of the physical world and the kings have no jurisdiction on the former.

This is also why it’s such a big deal when the King of England breaks away and starts the church of England. All of a sudden, you have a king who is in charge of both spiritual and physical matters. What is to be done then?

When you read through the book, you also see that in all of this, both sides did awful things to each other. You will grimace at some of the ways that Catholics treated Protestants. It will be just as hard to read of the ways that Protestants treated Catholics. The freedom of religion that those of us in America today have is something we dare not take for granted.

While Wilken goes through many thinkers of the time in looking at the topic of freedom of religion, I have one major criticism of the book. I would have at least liked to have seen one chapter dedicated to the American experiment. How did our Founding Fathers take all of these and make freedom of religion so important in our country? What has been the result? Are we in danger of losing that freedom? (By the way, the answer to that last question is yes.)

If you like history and political ideas, this is a worthwhile book to read. Many times, people in our times look at where we are and think that it’s obvious that all should have this position today. It rarely is. Books like Wilken’s remind us that there were a lot of hard questions to ask along the way.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Cruel Logic

Can logic work against you? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Brian Godawa sent me a copy of his book Cruel Logic and I just recently got around to reading it. I am hesitant to review a fiction book since this is a thriller and there could be spoilers accidentally leaked out even if I have no desire. Either way, you have been warned. Let’s dive in.

Overall, there are three main plots going on and they all in their own way intersect. The main one in the book is a serial killer who was a philosophy professor who has escaped and is on a killing spree. His main game is catching former colleagues and seeing if they are willing to live out the philosophies they teach with a simple question. “Give me a good reason why I shouldn’t kill you.”

The second involves a professor at the university who knows the killer very well and his working with one of his students and a detective to track down the killer. In the meantime, as a professor of Western Civilization, he is getting into trouble with the faculty at the seminary. After all, his class is one promoting racism, the patriarchy, colonialism, capitalism, etc.

Finally, a young Christian who has come to the university for his first semester with his parents concerned about what impact the university will have on his faith. The student encounters new ideas he has not heard of before. He also comes to learn about DEI and how that works on a college campus.

Godawa has also one his research and cites sources for claims he makes about DEI. Also, for those thinking this will be a perfectly wholesome Christian novel, you are wrong. This is not a bedtime story to read to your children. This one has sex, violence, and profanity, not because Godawa is glorifying in sinful activities, but because he is trying to paint a real picture of what goes on in a college campus. At times, you could forget that this is a Christian novel, which is also a good thing.

There are also numerous twists and turns. There were times when I was going through the book when I was thinking, “This is all entertaining, but it seems too predictable. I think I know exactly what will happen next.” Most every time, I was wrong. Godawa has events happen that you will not expect.

Having said that, I think this is an important novel for parents especially to read who are thinking of sending their kids off to college. You need to know what is going on at a college campus and what your children can expect to see happen when they are there. Godawa’s book should be an eye-opener.

I definitely hope that something like this comes to the screen at some time as this would be a fascinating story to watch, though once again, I am sure it will not be kid-friendly. I have recommended some of my politically aware friends to read this book. Now I pass that suggestion on to all of you.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 9

What about the afterdeath? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In wrapping up this book, we are going to look at the afterdeath, which is what I prefer to call the afterlife seeing as one’s life never truly ends. That being said, at the start, Graffin says without the thought of an afterdeath, we would all act like spoiled infants. Kind of hard to deny that if you look at the world around you.

Unfortunately, I fear a lot of people will act worse if they have power as well. Look at the greatest atheist tyrants in history. No Heaven to gain or Hell to shun. No judgment to be given to them. Why should they care about anyone else?

Graffin says many naturalists care more about improving the world than theists do because theists are focused on the next one. The problem with this is history. Many of those people most focused on the next one, as Lewis said, made the most improvements here. They did so because Jesus taught them to change the world.

Graffin also says many religious people say without Heaven and Hell there is no incentive to live a good life. I would hope more of my fellow Christians would say we live a good one because Jesus commanded us to, but that is a further incentive. If naturalism is true, why should I be good if I can get away with otherwise? What does good even mean?

He also says none of us have a plan for our lives from an intelligent designer. If he means an individual will, I agree. He then says that because there is no designer, we can wake up each morning and say what’s done is done and what can I do today?

You can do that as a Christian.

In many ways, you should do that as a Christian. We should realize the old is gone and all things are new. We should realize the grace of forgiveness.

So now it’s time to wrap things up as this is how the chapter ends and overall, this has been a rare enjoyable book on atheism. Some chapters, like this one, are short because a lot of the material is also about Graffin’s own life. If you care about music, you will probably like that.

I also made sure to highlight for my studies in my PhD program I am hoping to get into the information about music and resonating that showed up in this chapter. Graffin says it is a delight to hear someone listen to music he did and call it “My song.” It’s amusing to hear of how sometimes he pulls up next to someone and he can hear them playing his music in their car.

As a writer, I consider it a great compliment to hear someone say that something I wrote touched them in a powerful way. I still remember having someone at a church I used to attend in Tennessee tell me how much he liked a sermon I gave. When I asked what he did in response he said “That’s why I’m teaching Sunday School now.”

So this is actually a book that’s worth reading in the atheist world. Definitely so if you have a keen interest in music.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 8

What does believing entail? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A surprising statement in this chapter is that Graffin doesn’t like the word natural. He says that in a sense, everything is natural. There are some problems with such a statement. If we don’t know what natural means, what does it mean to say everything is natural? Second, if we don’t know what it means, how could we know that everything is natural? Finally, if you are equating natural with what is real, is that not begging the question?

This is also one reason I don’t speak of natural/supernatural. The terms are too vague. I prefer to speak of material and immaterial or extramaterial.

He also says he has a similar problem with God. If the word refers to something that is everything and everywhere, what purpose does the word serve? First off, the word would likely still have some meaning. Second, that’s pantheism, Patrick!

He then goes on to say that if God is something, it should be observable by everyone, examined, and shared by other people. If this is the standard, then several immaterial realities cannot be real. That would include triangularity, goodness, love, numbers, and even existence itself.

“But I see existence every day!”

No. You see things that exist just like you see good things and you see triangles, but you do not see existence, goodness, and triangularity.

Not too long after this, Graffin says the naturalist worldview says that everything is capable of being observed, experimented on, and understanding. Again then, none of those things I mentioned can exist on naturalism. That is the problem with it.

If there is no destiny, there is no design. There’s only life and death. My goal is to learn about life by living it, not by trying to figure out a cryptic plan that the Creator had in store for me.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 214). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

This is a problem science has got under naturalism where it denies final causality in denying ultimate purpose. Get rid of final causality and science can’t exist. There has to be regular connection between A and B. I do agree that there is no cryptic will of God for our lives that we are to discover, which will be the subject of soon-to-come blogs.

Standing among those remnant populations, it is impossible not to conclude that we are somehow a part of all this. Some would call this a “spiritual connection”—the sense of being part of some larger web of life. Whatever you want to call it, the feeling is inescapable that we are living among the leftovers of a recent mass extinction. This realization is as emotionally moving to me as, I’m sure, the realization of God’s will was to my great-grandpa Zerr.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 232). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

I find it fascinating that Graffin so often makes these statements in this book. He says earlier there is no destiny but just life and death, and then says this. It’s like he’s almost there but refuses to take that final look to see if there is something more. It’s tragic really.

In the last chapter, we’ll see what Graffin says about the after-death.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 7

Is there a place for faith? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Once again, it’s a relief to read Graffin in comparison to other atheists. Graffin does not speak down on faith entirely. There is a problem that he never defines it, but at least he’s not on a tirade like someone like Richard Dawkins is. He says there is a place for it.

So let’s start with this quote I found directly relevant to me:

Not everyone feels empathy to the same degree. On the one hand, some autistic people appear to be born with a neurological condition that severely limits their ability to appreciate the emotional state of other humans, despite having similar experiences. On the other hand, sociopaths either feel no empathy or have become so adept at suppressing it that they never bother to assume another’s perspective. And all of us can become so tired, frustrated, angry, or bored that we ignore our empathic impulses, even when doing so makes others and ourselves miserable.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 184). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Speaking as one such person on the spectrum, it’s not that I do not care about other peoples’ emotional states. It’s that I cannot tell what those states are. If someone is silent around me when I think they should say something, I wonder if the problem is me or not. This is especially so when it comes to the opposite sex. I know other neurotypical men struggle with this, but I suspect much more with me. Is the girl flirting or is she just talking? If she speaks with me is that interest or not?

That being said, empathy is not a good basis for our relationships since people have different degrees of understanding and just because I can feel X with someone, it doesn’t mean that I am obligated to do anything. Not only this, this is a highly western way of thinking. This is not a Woke thing with saying Western Civilization is bad. Western Civilization is incredible. It’s saying that in Eastern honor-shame cultures, empathy wouldn’t have the same appeal. People would think not based on how the individual feels, but on the attitudes of the group at large.

Graffin goes on to say that Western religions base moral codes on analogizing human nature and then looking at superhuman figures, such as Jesus or for a lot of Catholics and Orthodox people, saints. (Not to say Protestants don’t have saintly role models as well.) I do not know what he means by analogizing human nature, but I contend he would be benefitted by reading a book on Christian ethics to see how we make our decisions.

In a surprising twist, he says that science is based on empathy. He says that it relies on a shared experience of the world. He then turns and says it is also the best basis for human ethics, which again does not work since many cultures actually have quite different experiences of how the world should work. How do we adjudicate between them? We have to point to something beyond them.

Many religious believers mischaracterize naturalists as people without faith, but that is absurd. Everyone must believe in something—it’s part of human nature. I have no problem acknowledging that I have beliefs, though they differ from more traditional kinds of faith. Naturalists must believe, first of all, that the world is understandable and that knowledge of the world can be obtained through observation, experimentation, and verification. Most scientists don’t think much about this point. They simply assume that it is true and get to work. But this assumption has relevance to people other than philosophers. When intelligent design creationists, for example, speak of replacing methodological naturalism in science classes with theistic naturalism, they are threatening to remove this assumption from the shared presuppositions of public discourse.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 204). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

This is a surprising statement again, but yet a refreshing one. He is right in that science assumes that the material world exists and we can have knowledge of it. This is something they should consider. I am again unsure what he means by theistic naturalism.

He also says natural selection is not the main driving force of evolution. He says luck is actually a big part of it. He also says we cannot base our lives on the idea of saying “I am more fit than you, so I get to reproduce and you don’t.” The problem is, “Why not?” Graffin may say he doesn’t like that, but the person who thinks they are more fit could just say “Why should I care about what you like? I need to produce progeny!”

He also says we cannot judge people with respect to an arbitrary idea of what should be considered optimal, but from a naturalistic perspective, why not? It can be granted he would not like that. It is not granted that from his perspective, that is automatically wrong. Graffin has to give the reason why the person in power should care.

He then tells us that simply by existing in the human race, we all have a worth and a dignity that is inherent. Okay. Why? If all we are is matter in motion from a cosmic accident that will die in a universe that will cease to be, why should I think any life has inherent value? I agree that all human life has inherent value, but I do not think it can be supported in naturalism.

I don’t believe, for instance, that evolutionary biology or any scientific endeavor has much to say about the value of love. I’m sure a lot can be learned about the importance of hormones and their effects on our feelings. But do the bleak implications of evolution have any impact on the love I feel for my family? Do they make me more likely to break the law or flaunt society’s expectations of me? No. It simply does not follow that human relationships are meaningless just because we live in a godless universe subject to the natural laws of biology. Humans impart meaning and purpose to almost all aspects of life. This sense of meaning and purpose gives us a road map for how to live a good life.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 206). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Why doesn’t it follow though? If Graffin’s worldview cannot explain love, it is a quite weak worldview. Humans can import meaning to loving relationships, but they could also just as easily import it to destructive ones. Who is to say someone would be wrong in doing so in naturalism? What is this good life Graffin speaks of? Again, there is no real in-depth look at the questions.

He lastly speaks of love in relationship to Allison, his now wife. Love requires a trust in that there is no 100% knowledge, though there can be good evidence. He describes love as a unique feeling. I contend love produces feelings, but it is not a feeling. It is an action that one does. Still, Graffin does speak of that trust as a form of faith, which again is refreshing.

Next time, we’ll talk about what it means to believe.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Jesus Contradicted

What do I think of Mike Licona’s latest book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Mike Licona sent me a publisher’s copy of this book. I want to say at the start that I value my relationship with him as my former father-in-law, but I also have a great relationship with Tim McGrew. Some people have asked me to give my thoughts on minimal vs maximal facts. My thoughts are I am not interested. I just want to see the kingdom spread. I can use the minimal facts, but I can also make a case for the Gospels as well. I also think everyone defending the resurrection should be able to defend the Gospels.

I say this at the front because I know there are feuds that take place on Facebook. I want no part of them. Whenever I have been asked publicly or privately what my stance is, I have said the same thing every time and that is not changing.

Also, some of you might be wondering why if I got an early copy, why am I just reviewing it now? Because I’m a seminary student and I have several other books I’m reading. As it stands, I’m just now going through volume 1 of Habermas’s resurrection series.

So looking at Licona’s book, if you have already read Why Are There Differences In The Gospels? not much here will strike you as new. That being said, there are some areas that are more covered here than there are in that one. What comes to mind immediately is a deeper look at inerrancy and a look at the subject of inspiration.

The book is certainly quite readable and that for many people will be a huge plus. Knowing Licona, it was easy to hear his voice throughout as I was reading it and it read more like a conversation to me than anything else. I understand this book was to be a popular level format of the former and with that, he did succeed.

A popular refrain throughout shows up in places like page 18. Sometimes when people are presented with differences in the Gospels, they can think the foundations of their faith are being shaken when really, it is their view of Scripture that is being shaken, and that could be a false one. As I write this, I think of a friend of mine who almost lost his faith. His doubts began when he found out that 1 John 5:7 was not authentic.

From here, Licona looks at views on what order the Gospels were written in, how biographies were written in the time of Jesus, and then to his subject of compositional devices. When it comes to my personal view on them, I think they can account for some differences. On the other hand, I think there are some times where harmonization by other means does make sense. I would not want to say compositional devices are the silver bullet that answers every problem. I also would not say they play no role whatsoever.

Then we get to the topic of inspiration and here, I find the insistence on this puzzling. In the long run, how does it help us? Let’s suppose all of Scripture is believed to be true. Okay. Good. Now we add in it’s inspired.

Alright.

And what have we gained exactly?

I understand that Paul does tell us all Scripture is inspired by God, but could that just be a way of saying it is all true? If we show it is all true, what have we gained? We have spilled much ink on a topic that won’t change how we read the text anyway?

The section on inerrancy was an interesting one. Here, I parted ways a bit more seeing as I much more prefer my own idea of contextualizing inerrancy. I didn’t really understand what Licona was meaning by flexible inerrancy. I also understand he has a lot of this depend on middle-knowledge. As a Thomist, I am somewhat skeptical of middle-knowledge claims to an extent. I also right now do not have the time to look at that topic much more, but if I am skeptical of middle-knowledge, does that mean I have to avoid flexible inerrancy? With contextualizing inerrancy, I don’t have that problem.

I also wish that while Licona does look at the ways ancient biographies were written, I would have liked to have seen a lot said about the social world of the Gospels and the New Testament, particularly how they rely on honor and shame. There were times I was surprised to see the way Licona seemed unaware of this. Consider when he refers to Psalm 137:9 and asks if the Psalmist was mirroring God’s heart when he wrote

Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

If you understand honor and shame, you realize that this was also the way the Israelites were speaking in their captivity. They were being mocked in the land they were in and so they were in essence saying “May what you did to us be done to you!” This is also the way ancient societies could often deal with anger. Trash talk was a way of letting out hostilities before they escalated to something greater. No view of middle-knowledge is needed for this. Also, if a scholar like Licona would look at honor and shame in the Gospels, maybe more people in the apologetics world on the lay level would notice.

So while I do disagree with a number of things said in that chapter, overall, the book is an enjoyable read. If you hesitated to understand his former book, get this one instead. It will be a much better read for you.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 5

What happens when suffering comes?

What role does tragedy play? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Graffin introduces us to the role that tragedy plays in a life. I found myself moved by reading accounts of people he had lost in his life due to drugs and alcohol. I definitely resonated when he talked about how when you go through a divorce or lose a child to death, it is as if the laws of the universe have been broken. Divorce is easily the greatest tragedy I have gone through. Nothing comes close.

In contrasting to the theistic view, he writes that if there were no death, the world would not be able to contain the biological exuberance. This is certainly true. Yet he goes on from here to say that death requires and receives no justification. It’s simply a part of life.

If this is true, why do we all act like it is not that at all? Are we all just deluded? Why are we all sad? Why do we all try to make sense of death? Why is it that we are scared to see a corpse or to touch a corpse? We can say death is natural in a sense, but natural does not always equal good.

He also says it is hard to be a theist after looking at the fossil record and trying to explain all the death that came before us. No reason is given why this is so. Theism doesn’t require a perfect world at all. Why should it? From a metaphysical standpoint, I find that hard to conceive. Even with Heaven, it is a good world in every sense, but could we not add one more soul and say it is a better world? Only God is perfect in Christian theism.

He also says the central problem of theism is all the suffering in nature, but how can this be the central problem when it is a necessity of Christianity that that problem be there to be dealt with? Christianity has evil right at the center of the world in the cross. Also, if theism has to explain all the evil that comes about in a world made by a good God, can we not ask like Chesterton did that in a world of total chaos, why do we get so much good?

He says also that none of the explanations given for suffering is comforting or satisfactory. The problem is, he doesn’t interact with any of these theodicies. There are plenty of them. Is Graffin throwing all of them out? This is someone who has talked about being skeptical and about the joy of learning, but when it comes to his position, he is not skeptical of if naturalism can explain good and evil and he seems to show no interest in learning about theodicies from theism.

I do agree with him when he speaks out against at funerals saying that God thought it was that person’s time to go. We don’t know that. I always get cautious when I hear someone claim what God is or isn’t doing. How do they know? Do they have access to the divine throne room?

In the end, Graffin unfortunately does not really engage. I wish he had said more. We both agree that there is a lot of tragedy in this life, but Graffin doesn’t give me any hope or meaning to it. At least my worldview can do that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth) Continue reading Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 5