Category: Book Plunge

Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 4

Is atheism an idol? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Once again, this is a refreshing chapter title to read as Graffin writes about The False Idol of Atheism. Would that more atheists would write this way. I have said before that the best service someone like Dawkins could do is to write about just science and not touch at all on subjects he has not studied. When he does so, he loses in those areas, but those who are skeptical of the science and know the other areas well will not take him seriously in the science.

In this chapter, Graffin talks a lot about his love of music, but says something tragic. He says that in listening to his mother’s album of Jesus Christ Superstar, he learned a lot about music, but he also learned about the basic outline of the New Testament. He considered it a bonus that he didn’t have to read about the New Testament to learn about the life of Jesus. What would he say to someone who said “I watched a movie on the life of Darwin! What a bonus! I didn’t have to read books on Darwin to learn about him!”?

This is not to say one cannot learn from such sources, but it is to say the best sources are normally books and one who wants to be informed should be reading them. I have produced materials like podcasts and YouTube videos, but I encourage people to go to the books. Learn from the main sources.

He says later that many people who come to naturalism start from a religious worldview and just ask questions and do not get answers. Sadly, this is true. Even more sad, many churches treat the questions as if they are a problem instead of embracing them. There are pastors out there who will have the judgment of souls on their hands for not tending to their flocks properly, a statement that should frighten every pastor out there. It should. That is a serious responsibility and you’d better be able to base your position in the pulpit on something serious.

He also says some people want to hold on to religion and run from scientific claims. Sadly, this is also true. If you insulate your worldview from reality, what good is it? Christianity must be capable of explaining everything just as any other worldview.

He then says he doesn’t understand the idea of spiritual, but not religious, to which I also agree. We live in an age where there is a spiritual vacuum. Naturalism just doesn’t cover it.

I am also pleased to read how he says that he doesn’t talk about Darwin’s reasons for rejecting theism when he teaches undergrad. What is more important in Darwin is what he thought. Even if one does not believe in evolution, this should be accepted. We need to understand what Darwin thought first.

Graffin then goes on to quote some song lyrics he has to a song and then talks about them in a statement I found quite inspiring.

In my opinion, the worst line in this song is the one where I made a bold claim about religion (“religion’s just synthetic frippery”). The rest of the song conjures up images that apply to everyone, regardless of whether they believe in God. And the most compelling lines of the song, in my opinion, are the questions. This song has been a perennial favorite among Bad Religion fans—believers and nonbelievers alike—and part of the reason for the song’s success, I think, is that its questions are ones that listeners ask themselves.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 113). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

I appreciate someone who says they made a bold statement about religion and regrets it. He does acknowledge his band has Christian fans. Generally, it’s not a good idea to alienate your support base and I think a lot of atheists would revel in singing a song that blasted religion. Graffin is a step up from them.

He also talks about non-believers who seem to loathe God and form groups of their own which he says come off like the groups they tend to vilify. Indeed. In a way, internet atheism is a cult of its own. You have to buy into every argument and you can’t give an inch to your opponents on anything.

He says religious believers do not want to debate the big questions in life, but then says many atheists are the same way. I contend many religious people do not want to debate the big questions, but we should. We need to face the big questions head on because we believe Jesus answers the big questions. This is why I encourage atheists to read books that disagree with them, and sadly, they do not.

Yet after saying this, he ends the chapter saying it’s time to cast aside the endless debate on God’s existence. Not at all. If we want to talk about the ultimate questions, this is the biggest one. This is the one that shapes everything else. We must face it head-on.

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

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 3

Is natural selection an idol? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

That question comes from the title of this chapter. Graffin has called it “The Idol of Natural Selection.” It’s quite refreshing to read an atheist writing these kinds of things.

At one point in this chapter, he says that Darwin and Wallace shattered the comfortable intellectual certainty that natural theology had. Unfortunately, it is not said how they did this. Since many natural theologians can comfortably fit evolution into their worldview, it’s hard to see how that is something that ultimately shatters it.

He also says after this it did damage to Darwn too as it left him thinking there was no design to nature. Now if he was going with Paley’s watchmaker, which is likely, that could be, but had he gone with an idea such as teleology, this would not have been a problem. This is not to demean Paley as Paley wrote much outside of the watchmaker argument that is excellent in Christian apologetics and it is a shame that what he seems to be most remembered for is an argument lambasted by many of his critics.

He then says that Darwin’s daughter Annie died at the age of ten which destroyed the last bit of religious belief Darwin had. It is important to note that many cases of atheism do seem to hinge on emotional despair and loss. It can often hide behind intellectualism, but scratch long enough and you uncover an emotional wound. Let’s make sure we’re not the same way. If we are Christians and say we go where the evidence leads, then that means that we can’t hold on to something for the sake of an emotion. We would not want Mormons to be doing that.

There are times Graffin says something that seems to indicate that he could be on the right track. Unfortunately, he immediately drops it and moves on. Consider this for example:

Natural selection even had a shadowy, theological appeal. It seemed to offer a direction or ultimate purpose to life. Over time, living things appeared to grow more complex. As new generations of organisms acquired new traits, they became progressively better adapted to their environments. What better evidence of a wisdom in nature preordained in the mind of God? Even for nontheists, the order created by natural selection might have seemed at least partially to compensate for the loss of God’s oversight.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (pp. 58-59). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Such is the point. If a system is set up to make objects better and better, that can be an indication of divine wisdom and if you believe in teleology, it fits in just fine with that. I am unsure what Graffin has in mind with the statement of the loss of God’s oversight. What was He supposed to do differently?

The next section is also worth quoting in length:

And since I believe that dogma must be challenged wherever it is found—whether in religion, science, or music—I have spent time exploring the ideas of the iconoclasts who have examined natural selection critically. The result is a picture of evolution quite different from the standard textbook account.8 But before I look more closely at natural selection, I have to issue a blanket disclaimer. Whenever an evolutionary biologist identifies a problem with standard accounts of evolutionary theory, creationists tend to wave the statement around as evidence that evolution is fatally flawed or “a theory in crisis.” That’s ridiculous. As I’ve already pointed out, the occurrence of evolution is indisputable. The idea that God could have planted the entire fossil record in the earth as a way of testing the faith of believers is preposterous. I am not at all interested in leaving the door open for discussions with advocates of the modern “intelligent design” movement.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 59). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

I am not speaking in favor of the ID community, but it seems odd to say that dogma must be challenged and then say you’re not interested in discussing with advocates of an opposite viewpoint. I will agree that we should not use gaps in evolution as an ultimate defeated. Christianity should not be built on finding gaps in science as it assumes then that science is the ultimate battleground that determines if God exists or not. I also agree that it is ridiculous to say God planted the fossil record with it being false to test our faith. Perhaps it might work for a Muslim approach where Allah is the greatest of deceivers, but it will not work for an approach where God is the God of all truth.

That being said, I have no problem with the questioning of dogma, and that includes my own. This is why I ask people in dialogue what the last book they read that disagreed with them was. I normally get crickets to that. Stay in an echochamber and do not be surprised if your mind never changes.

He also says creationists have a tendency to mischaracterize what evolutionary biologists say which shows their intellectual dishonesty. I would have liked to have seen the examples. I am not denying that they exist, but the examples need to be shown. That being said, I could easily say the same about atheists who trot out defeated arguments espousing positions like Jesus mythicism and other claims regularly.

He also says the ultimate motivation of ID is not scientific. Unfortunately, this relies on mind reading. Could it be many are more interested in theology? Sure. I could say the same about many atheists wanting atheism to be true and some have explicitly said they want atheism to be true, like Thomas Nagel. Such claims are irrelevant in the long run. What matters is the data and not why the data is brought forward.

He also says that the idea is to create a “wedge” to break science’s allegiance to “atheistic naturalism”, but we saw in the last chapter, he said that monism is the default worldview of natural science. Why does he put atheistic naturalism in quotes then? If someone says “You have to be an atheist to do science” you will stop many great minds from doing science. I have no problem with someone who is an atheist wanting to enter into studies of theology and Scripture. Have at it! Show us what we have got wrong.

He later says that many scientists do hold to a teleology still, which does show he has some idea what it is. Graffin says that we do not see everything optimized in nature, but who says teleology works in that way? Teleology simply has a link that is essential. An acorn all things being equal grows into an oak tree and not into a stalagmite. The sun’s rays melt ice and do not turn it into bubble gum. This is a slipping in an idea of theology that everything should be optimal that has not been backed.

In all of this, while there is interesting material about science and Graffin’s band, I do not find the claims convincing. Again, Graffin could win the battle on evolution and be no closer to winning the war.

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

 

 

Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 2

Does life make sense? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re continuing our work through Greg Graffin’s book Anarchy Religion. Again as I go through this more and more, unlike other atheist books, it doesn’t come across as a mockery or an effort to destroy theism at all costs nor do I sense hostility. It’s as if Graffin is saying “This is my opinion and I think you should agree with it, but if you don’t, that’s cool too.”

As I said in the last post, the emphasis is on evolution. He does talk about how he talked to some experts in evolutionary thought and one such as Will Provine said evolution is not his friend. Graffin mentions this because he doesn’t want us talking too much about cultural changes as evolutionary changes.

He does say that before Darwin, nothing made sense in biology except in light of natural theology. The ironic thing is that many people who hold to natural theology like myself would not have a problem with evolution. It would just be that if this is how God did it, that’s fine. He’s God and He will do what He wants. It could be that many of these battles is not about theism, but more about a certain kind of view on how God should do things and how the Bible should be interpreted.

Of course, if evolution is wrong, that’s fine for me too. I don’t hang my hat on either side. I’m not a scientist so I don’t comment where I don’t know. I can comment on what it means if it’s true or false, but on the science itself, I say nothing.

However, Graffin does say that after Darwin, the role of God in nature was reduced to irrelevance. This is certainly a statement I disagree with. If anything, that there exists a means in the universe whereby simple beings become more complex I think points to teleology. If there is teleology, then vis a vis the fifth way of Aquinas, there is theism. Evolution can undo a certain idea of how God should operate, but God is the one keeping the whole chain going and holding all of existence together. That’s not a small part.

Graffin then talks about interviewing scientists to see how many hold to theistic views. It is not a shock that he gets a small number. Too many scientists often make poor philosophers. The question is not a scientific question but a philosophical one. You could poll all the philosophers out there and see how many of them held to evolution. Whatever the results, it would be irrelevant. The philosophers do not speak on this. The scientists do.

He later says that monism is the default view of science and skepticism is the view of science. Monism is the idea meaning that there is only one reality and that is the material one, but why should I think that? He does say in science claims have to be based on empirical knowledge, and I agree, but I as a Thomist think all knowledge is based on empirical claims and science is only a subset. It would be more accurate to say many scientists come from a monistic stance. It is not required.

Also, I hear scientists are skeptical a lot, but the problem is I think they are only selectively skeptical. When they read someone like Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, they think his arguments have dealt a death knell, but they do not go and read the other side to see about them. I have seen many scientists buy into some of the worst ways of thinking when it comes to religion. It is a natural tendency we all have to embrace what agrees with us already and be skeptical of what doesn’t without doing fact-checking. I daresay I am more skeptical than many of these scientists are.

He also says religion does not embrace the discovery of empirical new knowledge, which is why the Catholic Church in the medieval period had their own astronomy centers and why Christian scientists were doing science throughout the medieval period based on empirical thinking. Graffin says some fascinating things, but this is a downside in that he is not skeptical enough. I encourage him to go and read Tim O’Neill for an example. He is an atheist who runs history for atheists.

Then we get this:

After all, religion makes many claims about the natural world. The Bible states that a great flood destroyed everything on earth, that the sun stood still, that Jesus was born of a virgin mother, and that the dead came back to life. Though some of these statements can be understood metaphorically, at least some are clearly meant to be taken literally, since much Christian theology rests on their veracity. I was surprised by the answers I got. The majority of the evolutionary biologists (72 percent) said that religion is a social phenomenon that has developed with the biological evolution of our species. In other words, they see religion as a part of our culture. They do not necessarily see it conflicting with science. This seems like social courtesy to me, not intellectual honesty.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 45). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

This is quite problematic. I definitely do affirm the virgin birth and the resurrection, but there are all manner of interpretations on the other issues. I also find it disingenuous for him to assume the respondents to a survey he did on this where just being socially courteous. Why not just take them at their word?

But then, he refers to a biologist who rejected theism early on and it is one of the most ridiculous reasons I have ever read.

One of them, John Bonner of Prince ton University, told me, “The reason I decided one day that I didn’t really want any religion at all at that age—well, I was maybe fourteen by this time—was that birds, sparrows outside my window, seem to be having a perfectly fine existence and are managing tremendously well…. I thought, ‘They can do that without God,’ so that’s what made me decide that religion was not for me. [From] that moment on I really did not believe in God.”

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 47). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

I suspect John Bonner drives a car, writes on a computer, has a phone, goes grocery shopping, uses language, etc. Birds do not do this. They are still having a tremendously fine existence. Or is it that Bonner just goes with the birds when they do something he wants?

To end on a positive, Graffin does say when he teaches his students, he tries to let them take the science and go with their own conclusions. I hope this is so. One of the greatest problems we have is thinking people have to choose between religion and science. The more this dichotomy is pushed, the more both sides lose great minds.

We’ll continue next time.

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

 

Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 1

What do I think of Greg Graffin’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This book says it’s by Graffin and Steve Olson, but Graffin seems to be the main writer as it is a lot about his story and his research.

So let’s start with some confessions. First off, Graffin is apparently the lead singer of a band called Bad Religion. I have heard of this band, but I do not know if I have ever heard any of their songs. I could not name one of them. I am impressed to hear that despite this, Graffin has a doctorate in a scientific field and teaches at a university. Most music stars wouldn’t do that.

I also want to say that this book has been surprising. I try to always read one book I disagree with and while I thoroughly disagree with Graffin, I do not find him demeaning or insulting. This is quite relieving to see in an atheist book. If anything, I find him quite enjoyable to read even while I disagree with him. I thnk he’s quite open and he seems to be the kind of guy I could hang out with at a restaurant and talk about our worldviews together.

This book largely focuses on science and readers know that I don’t touch science as science. I will talk about the history of it and the philosophy of it, but not the ins and outs of it. This book also largely focuses on evolution and readers of this blog know I don’t care one way or another about that topic. Graffin can win the battle with me and lose the war.

Looking at the first chapter, let’s look at one statement he makes about morality.

Either harming other people is wrong, in which case God is unnecessary, or harming other people is acceptable, in which case God’s admonitions are misguided.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 4). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

But why is it wrong? This is just another version of the Euthyphro dilemma. It might seem obvious to you, but is it? If we are matter in motion, who cares what one bit of matter does to another bit of matter?

What I want to know is where does goodness come from? Is anything truly good or not? If so, how did it get that way? Goodness is not a material property. You can study the matter of something all day long and you will not find goodness there.

Now do you need to know God exists to know about goodness? No. Do you need to believe in God to know about good? No. Do you need God to form a basis for the existing of good? Yes. You can get to Washington D.C. from anywhere else in America without a map and even by chance if you don’t know that it exists, but you cannot get there without D.C. existing.

Graffin also says that it is a mistake to conclude from the anarchy of the material world that life has no meaning. Graffin says the opposite. The purposelessness emphasizes the tremendous meaning of human life. Okay? Why? What is that based on? Think about what Bertrand Russell said in A Free Man’s Worship.

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins–all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.

Graffin also says evolution provides the context for how he lives. He admits that it has implications that can make us uneasy. He ends by saying on matters of important questions we must all accept the truth, no matter how difficult it might be. I completely agree with this last part! This is something that makes reading Graffin so refreshing.

He also says evolution is anarchic, but out of that has risen great beauty. I first want to know how that is possible in a purely material world. Material things are beautiful, but it is not because of the matter itself but because of the form of the matter. That’s Aristotelianism though which would also say evolution does have a purpose. It works towards the survival of the fittest. If evolution is true, it is inherently teleological.

He also says people need a cursory knowledge at least of evolution and even if they want to reject it, they need to understand the basics. I agree. I hope he would agree also that in a society such as ours, you need a basic understanding of the Bible, even if one wants to reject it. While there are plenty of Christians that critique evolution without understanding it, there are plenty of atheists who do the same with the Bible.

Other than that, we have a lot of Graffin’s own personal life and his personal ideas of how to live. It is entertaining, but not relevant for our purposes. Still, this is thus far one of the better atheistic books I have read.

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

Final Statement on Christian Body

What do I say about this book at the end? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Ultimately, as I finished this book, I found it extremely lacking. I found Frost didn’t deliver on his claims. We were told that we need to heed the words of Biblical scholars, but I didn’t see a single one cited. If there was one, that was the rare exception sadly.

I also find Frost makes statements that he doesn’t back. Sure, I could go and look up myself if I wanted to, but the rule is that if you make a claim, you are the one to back it. If we are making a claim about the culture of the Bible, we should point to scholars of that culture to have it backed.

However, the biggest problem with this book is that Frost is really just too antagonisitic. When you make statements about a society and say clothing is the problem, despite the society doing just fine for well over a thousand years until the sexual revolution came along, there is something else going on.

Frost often looks to have both guns blazing at his opponents painting them as lesser Christians who don’t really believe the Bible. Consider how after he makes his case at one point the idea is that if you do not agree, you are living in

rebellion against God. Even if he had made a case, a statement like that is more likely to harden someone against his position.

I still think the position is incredibly weak, but I think those who want to see a better presentation of the case are encouraged to look at Philip Oak’s book, Surprised Into Freedom, instead. Oak writes with more of a pastoral heart towards his audience and he does cite scholars and others quite often. Do I agree with his conclusions? Not at all. Do I think he makes a better case and is more evenhanded to his audience? 100%.

So am I going to review the book? Probably not. I have looked at a series of replies to me and sometimes when I have a spare minute, I do a little bit of writing on that, but if I share it, it could be months down the road. The reason is right now I am preparing for PhD work. I need to read multiple books in order to do a written test and then an oral examination on the topics to show that I am capable. I have no intention of taking this lightly.

On top of that, I have two final classes I am taking and I am reading for those. I also have a class on research and writing where my professor has encouraged me on video games and violence. I had suggested this topic, but he did think while it was interesting, it is too niche. There are just not enough people talking about it. My topic of video games and violence is something that more people are talking about and is relevant to my PhD studies and would be contributing to my Defend talk next January. I am thinking in light of recent events to especially look at mass shootings and the data on them. (If anyone wants to get me Kindle books on the topic, I welcome the generosity.)

By the way, all of this is on top of the personal reading that I do every day, having a part-time job here, and just then at the end of the day after all of this having some time for myself.

So as I come to this leg of the journey, I ask for your prayers and if you are willing, I have a Patreon here on this blog and I definitely encourage you to become a member. It would mean so much to me if you did that and even a small amount means a lot. If you can just donate even $5 a month, I would be thrilled to have you as it’s not just money that I get, but every time it comes with a message of “I believe in you and I support you in this.”

I do intend to keep blogging and I plan to blog on other areas, such as that I have downloaded the manifesto of the trans shooter and plan to go through that and give my thoughts on it, especially on some comments on autism in there.

Until next time.

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

Book Plunge: Christian Body – Do You Trust The Bible?

Is going nude a sign of believing the Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

At the start of this section, Frost says the following:

The controversy exists because most people who call themselves Christians are not familiar with the Bible except the parts read to them on Sunday mornings by preachers speaking from motivated confirmation bias. Christians typically assume many beliefs that are nowhere in the Bible, or they add teachings because they do not trust it to stand on its own.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 273). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Sadly, this is very true.

My family and I loved the show Home Improvement and we usually saw Tim Allen movies in the theater together. Recently, Allen has been sharing on social media how he has been going through the Bible for the first time and that there’s a lot of good stuff in there. Some people I saw were surprised saying they thought he was a Christian.

It seemed sad to have to see people say “Just because you’re a Christian, it doesn’t mean you have read the Bible.”

Whatever you might think about Bart Ehrman, he is certainly right when he says that he has students come in for their first class and he asks them if they think the Bible is the Word of God. So many hands go flying up. Then he asks “How many of you have read all of the Bible?” Far fewer hands go up. Ehrman is right to ask that if you think the Bible is from God, don’t you think you should want to know what it says?

But to get back to what Frost says, a problem I have had with the book is that we are expected to have chapter and verse. No. You don’t. There are many issues that we ask about today that aren’t discussed in the Bible because they weren’t around in Biblical times. Can a Christian see an R-rated movie? Can a Christian play a video game that has violence? Can a Christian listen to rock’n’roll? We can even consider topics like dating as we know them weren’t around back then. Most marriages were arranged.

This is why it’s a misnomer to think there has to be a chapter and verse that says “Thou shalt wear clothing in public!” or “Thou dost not hath to wear clothing in public!” For this, we go to the work of cultural scholarship with an interest in the Biblical culture. We can look at pagan cultures, but only in comparison to the Biblical culture.

One advantage of being at a seminary besides a library is that you have so many great minds right here. When the idea of archaeological evidence came up, I decided to go talk to our professor of archaeology and we have had a number of great conversations on the topic. Something fascinating he told me is that outside of pottery, the most common item dug up in Israel is loomweights.

This first conversation where he said this took place at the Post Office where I work. He showed me a book he had just got about the culture of the time and pointed out that even the idols of the pagan deities depicted them wearing clothing and told me that Jews would not do nude artwork, for instance, because that would be close to violating the second commandment for them.

Frost’s issue doesn’t come down to one side believes the Bible or not. Francis Beckwith said once that if they can’t trump you with logic, they will try to trump you with spirituality. It comes down to how we interpret the Bible. I try to look not just to chapter and verse, but also to the culture of the Bible and see what I can gleam from that and something disappointing about Frost’s book is he seems completely unaware of this important research.

Next time, we’ll wrap this book up.

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

Book Plunge: Christian Body – Is Grace Sufficient?

Is grace enough to overcome? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

One of the big problems with Frost’s book is that he is so antagonistic in it. He comes in with both barrels blasting too often and when he wants to comment on what the other side thinks, he paints them as denying most everything he can about Christianity. So it is that the same happens when we come to the topic of grace.

Frost says that for many Christians, grace can help them overcome the evils of pornography and dehumanization, but it doesn’t help them joyfully appreciate the human body. Perhaps this is so for some, but not for all. I cannot say that I have ever struggled with porn by the grace of God, but I can say as a man who was married I had a deep appreciation for my wife’s body and often said that if the only evidence I had for the existing of God was her body, that would be enough to settle the case for me. I knew of no other way to explain something that beautiful.

There is a problem with how we talk about grace. Consider Sam Allberry. He is a great speaker on issues of the church and sexuality, and yet he himself wrestles with same-sex attraction. There are some people who have become Christians and lost that attraction, but not all. There are plenty of people who have become Christians while in the clutches of alcoholism and escaped that, but that doesn’t mean that they have to go out and fully appreciate the fruit of the vine by going to a bar and drinking alcohol. That could even be foolish for them.

Sometimes God delivers us fully from wrong desires. Sometimes, He doesn’t. It doesn’t make any Christian a lesser Christian or a greater Christian. All Christians regardless will have struggles in this world until the day they die or until the day Christ returns.

Some people could be delivered from porn and yet never marry and get to enjoy the real presence of a beautiful member of the opposite sex in all their glory. Some might not. Some could have no desire for porn again. Some could have a daily struggle. There is no “One size fits all.”

One reason I would not be out in the public nude is that I don’t want to risk doing anything that would cause my fellow man to stumble in any way. I have to show consideration for them. If I had no problem with alcohol, I would not drink alcohol in front of someone who struggles with it. (For those wondering, I made a lifelong vow early on that I would not drink alcohol so I would not risk doing anything to damage my reputation. I have no problem if someone can control their alcohol.)

Frankly, Frost’s book would be a lot better if he didn’t spend as much time demeaning the other side. Frost comes off as if he thinks he is the super Christian and everyone else is less than he is. His case would be better if he wrote more conversationally instead.

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

Book Plunge: Christian Body – The Master Deceiver

Is Satan behind it all? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There’s an argument that strikes me as strange coming from the naturist position whereby the devil is said to have been the ones to tell us to cover ourselves up. You would think then that if that was a wicked suggestion, God would not have gone along with it. Immediately after the pronouncement of exile is declared on Adam and Eve, God makes clothing for them Himself.

It would seem as if by this argument, that God and the devil both agree about how they view the human body, which is strange.

So Frost says at the start that many people cannot get past purdah because they cannot accept the incredible beauty of the human body.

That must explain why the pornography industry is so strong. People just can’t accept the beauty of the human body. That must be why guys dating women often wonder about what they look like under all those clothes. That must have been why when I was a married man it was always a joy to see my wife’s body naked.

He then says the devil jumps in and tells you it’s a sin to be enthralled by the beauty. No. Absolutely not. That’s the design of the system. Men and women were supposed to be enthralled with one another. The problem is what you do with that beauty. Are you looking at men and women that you have no right to look at? Are you treating them as just objects to satisfy your desire?

Frost then says:

An important step in overcoming the pornographic lusts of prudish modesty standards is agreeing with God that His creation is gloriously beautiful and worthy of admiration. Satan hates the creation of God and would rather feed our cultural revulsion for nakedness.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 264). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

He is absolutely right on the first part. The body is worthy of admiration, but pornography is not admiration. It is exploitation. It is treating the person on the other end of the screen as just a body. That dehumanizes them.

Naturism from what I see goes the other way. This is not saying anything about cultures where naturism is the main way of living. This is about our culture. They go and say “The body is not inherently sexual.” Both sides are living in denial. The body is sexual and in the proper context is meant to be sexually arousing. This is in our DNA.

This does not mean that different things can be arousing to different people and there are some things you shouldn’t be aroused by. If you are aroused by children, for instance, you need help. If I were to use a personal example, I am a huge fan of the series Smallville and my crush on the series was always the character of Chloe. Most guys went crazy over Lana and later Lois. Nah. Chloe all the way for me.

What drew me to her at the start? It wasn’t that she was a supermodel, but her character on the show was really smart, and I like girls with a good head on her shoulders. It was through that that the rest of her got more beautiful to me over time. The same happened when I was married. My wife became the standard of female beauty for me over time.

Yet with the second part of the above quote, does he think we have a cultural revulsion for nakedness? The porn industry is betting that we don’t, and so far they’re winning that bet. From when I was married, behind closed doors, I would have no objections to nudity in a private setting. Frost seems to have a fundamentalist mindset in mind that would be an extreme minority position.

I regularly wonder who Frost is responding to in this book and he seems to only think in extremes. It’s quite problematic going through. Unfortunately, nothing I saw in the book ever got better.

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

 

 

Book Plunge: Christian Body – The Source of Desire

Where does desire come from? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Frost begins this section again with the statement that we find XYZ desirable because we were conditioned to. Once again, I have to ask is this really the case? Could it be the female body was designed to be desirable by men by God and vice-versa? We might like different things at different times, but desire is always there.

Even in the West, while the sexual organs have been noticed quite often, there are other aspects of a woman found attractive, such as her legs, her smile, her hair, her eyes, etc. We can’t even explain often why it is that feature X on a woman is attractive. We men just know that it is. Not only that, Scripture when it speaks about the female body in places like Proverbs 5:18-19, Song of Songs 4, and Song of Songs 7 seems to say the same thing.

Let’s also be clear on something. Believe it or not, not every man struggles with lust. There are few of us to be sure, but not everyone of us is going to our computers at night and saying “God help me avoid any pornography sites today.” I remember when I worked at a retail store after my divorce, my female co-workers were stunned when they found out I didn’t watch porn. It’s a shame that that’s the case.

Frost does say rules will not bring about freedom. It only comes about from the grace of God. There is some truth here, but every society has rules for behavior and even the church has rules for behavior. Paul also spoke often about how we were to observe rules not just in our individual lives, but also in the day-to-day with other people.

If we lived in these cultures that Frost spoke about that don’t have as much clothing, it wouldn’t be an issue, but those cultures are not ours and those cultures are also vastly different from ours. In our culture, the Christian influence is dying out, though I do suspect a resurgence could be just around the corner, and we are much more individualistic. Not only that, but we are highly ignorant of sexual matters.

That might sound odd to think about in a culture that is all about sex constantly, but as Peter Kreeft has said, it’s when everyone’s pipes are leaking that people buy books on plumbing. When we live in a world where people don’t know what a woman is, how many sexes there are, why it is that same-sex erotic relationships are not good for society, and why it is that we think we can redefine marriage, then we see where this has gone.

That’s why naturism could be a noble dream perhaps some time off in the future when we’ve recovered from the sexual revolution and our culture has been thoroughly Christianized and reformed, but now, no. We would be causing too much stumbling for our fellow man. “But what about the privacy of our own homes?” For those, do what you want (Though you might want to make sure the windows are closed) and enjoy it. I have spoken about the private/public distinction here and it still applies.

Note my position then. It is not that nudity is sinful. It isn’t, or else we wouldn’t be here. It’s that in our culture, it should be reserved for private situations due to the overly sexualizing of our culture and the ignorance of too many.

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

Book Plunge: Christian Body – Dealing With Lust

How do you deal with lust? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Frost in this section is talking about the problem of lust and lack of sexual control. Frost tells us that usually the antidote given to lust is more rules meant to contain it. I agree that this in itself is not the answer. However, it can be part of the answer. An alcoholic could need to take an alternate route home from work instead of one that goes by the neighborhood bar. An obese person might need to have someone else do the grocery shopping.

What we can all agree on is that this is a heart issue and the problem lies in the heart. This is a worldview problem. You can take steps to deal with the problem externally, but you also need to deal with the problem internally. This is why some people talking about weight loss will actually say diets don’t work. Diets are temporary. You need a whole change in view.

It could also be some struggles you will always have. Sam Allberry comes regularly and speaks at our Defend conferences here in New Orleans and as far as I know, he still struggles with same-sex attraction, but chooses a celibate lifestyle. I went to Celebrate Recovery in the past and there were several alcoholics there. They still made it a point to avoid alcohol. One glass of it after years of sobriety can ruin someone.

Now I know a couple of people who have said naturism helped them overcome their porn addiction and while I will not question the experience, I wonder how that really healed the heart. It often seems that there is a disjunction going on, and something I plan to talk with the counseling department about here at my seminary in doing research on this. I am not a psychologist after all so I cannot understand as well what is going on in the mind.

The problem with porn is that it sees the opposite sex as only sexual beings. They are there merely for your sexual pleasure. The opposite end is to deny that they are sexual beings at all. It is to deny that the body is sexual. It is. That is the reason it can perform sexually all things being equal. There are aspects of both sexes meant to be sexually appealing to the other. For us in the West, it is normally the sexual organs, at least when talking about what is seen as attractive in women.

Frost goes on to say that because our culture has put up a bunch of rules such as clothing instead of going with grace, we have become more perverted.

Sorry, but this is just an unbelievably false statement to make.

Christian cultures have had clothing for thousands of years. Did we see this going on rampantly in the Middle Ages like we do today? Did we see this going on in the early church? Did we see this going on in Puritan culture? Could it be that what really changed our culture was the sexual revolution, the rise of feminism, and a false view of sex?

This is the problem in that we don’t have a worldview that explains how sex fits in. This is why so many people look at same-sex relationships and say “I don’t see the problem here.” Many Christians don’t have a reason for being opposed other than “Well, the Bible says so.” This leads the world to think they’re crazy. It’s as if God is being arbitrary here. Sexuality has been reduced to just a form of pleasure and marriage means little.

Frost concludes this saying many cultures that were prudish (though not explaining in what way) exploded with promiscuity after Christians came bearing clothes. We are not told who these cultures are. The data is absent. I am not surprised at this.

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