Category: Uncategorised

Book Plunge: God’s Philosophers

What happened in the “Dark Ages?” Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Many of us know from our schooling the history of the world in the medieval period. It was the time known as the Dark Ages. There was no advancement. It wasn’t until years later when people like Copernicus and Galileo showed up that we found a renewed interest in the sciences. Then we came out of an ignorant time when people believed the Earth was flat and had no interest in science.

Unfortunately, this is entirely false. (Or perhaps it should be described as fortunate.)

James Hannam in the book “God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science” gives us a tour through the medieval time and shows what was going on. Would it be better to go to a priest or a doctor if you were sick? Actually, it might be best to go to the doctor. Was it ignorance that led people to think the Earth was orbited by the sun? Not at all. Was there a constant warfare between science and religion? Not a bit.

Hannam starts us off in the 11th century with the Domesday Book and with advancements that were made then. This includes the plow and the mill. The time period saw improvement in the way horses could be rode and utilized elsewhere. This was through the invention of the horseshoe and stirrup.

WIth the plow, more fields could be harvested easier which meant more food and with the mill, there was an easier way to get that food. How does this affect science? It would mean that there was more leisure time in order for scientific work to be done. It was not that science brought about better technology as it does today. Instead, better technology brought about science.

Hannam gives us then throughout the rest of the book several illustrations of the good science that came about. Now for us today, this is seen as primitive science, but in the time that it was done, this was groundbreaking work and indeed, it set the tone for much of what we do today. Indeed, had it not been for the so-called Dark Ages, we would not have what we have today, and we would not have had that without the Christian church.

Chapter 2 has a title most would consider incredible and that is “The Mathematical Pope.” Yes. The Pope was interested in mathematics and studying it and this could often mean going to the Muslims who had the mathematics and seeing what they had to say. The Muslim world had an advantage controlling the Eastern part of the area which is where the Greek writings were kept. Christians for the longest time did not have access to the Greek writings and thus did not have the scientific writings of past peoples. When they got these, they did devour them. The church was not opposed to books as some would claim.

To get back to the Mathematical pope, he was named Gerbert and he was quite interested in math and astronomy and was a scholar of his day. He was particularly fascinated with an astrolabe, a device that helped someone tell the time from the position of the stars.

Speaking of the stars, let’s talk about how the Earth was said to be the center of the universe. Today, we speak of being the center of someone’s universe as a good thing. Not so back then. Instead, at the very center of the universe was Hell and immediately next in line was Earth. To go further was to get to the Celestial Heavens. Outside that was the realm of God. If Earth was moved out of this, it would not be lowering the medieval view of Earth. It would be exalting it.

After this, Hannam writes about the rise of reason, which largely takes place with Anselm. On page 44, we read that he taught his pupils Latin grammar and logic so that they would be prepared to tackle the Bible. It seems a strange thought to us to think one needs logic to interpret the Bible. It was not so for the medievals. They knew better than we that the Bible was a difficult book and one needed in-depth training to understand it well. Contrast this to today when we think the Bible must be written in “plain” language (Plain to 21st century Americans of course) and not require real work to understand its message.

The next chapter introduces us to William of Conches and we find such great quotes on page 63 like “He states explicitly that a literal understanding of parts of Genesis would be absurd” and “The authors of Truth are silent on matters of natural philosophy, not because these matters are against the faith, but because they have little to do with the upholding of such faith, which is what those authors were concerned with.”

Today, a number of people apostasize thinking they have to take the Bible literally and Genesis is often extremely problematic. William’s work in his time, which the church would have been aware of, shows that this is not what must happen. The writers were not writing to tell us about science and part of the mistake of our era is to read books like Genesis as if they were scientific treatises when they are not.

An example Hannam gives is how Genesis says there are two great lights, but then says that “No less a churchman than Pope Innocent III (1160-1216) was perfectly aware that the moon’s light is reflected from the sun, and seemed to assume that this was widely known.” Keep in mind, all of this was figured out without telescopes.

Also, we are introduced to Adelard who wrote a book called “Natural Questions” in which he addresses questions in the style of a conversation with his nephew. Hannam points out that in this book “He never tells his nephew that a subject is impious or forbidden. Nor does he invoke concepts that he would class as supernatural. (even if the idea of stars having souls seems that way to us) Adelard’s science was wrong, often spectacularly so, but not because he was irrational or superstitious.

This brings us to another important point. We can often attempt to mock the medievals if they got science wrong but let us remember where they were starting from. They did not have the great advancements we have today. I am not marveled by what they got wrong. I expect mistakes would be made without good technology. I am more amazed by all that they got right.

Important also in this chapter is that this is when universities began. In fact, Hannam says that the universities were not dependent on any one person and often played the secular authorities off of the church to maximize their freedom. These beacons of learning are still the foundation for our own universities today, and we owe that to the medieval period.

Of course, there were problems and in the next chapter, Hannams says that heretics were abundant and the Inquisition had to deal with them. Interestingly, the Inquisition often turned over heretics to the secular authorities. When that happened, it was a bad thing for a heretic because the civil law of secular society was much more severe.

Some might wonder why heresy was treated this way. It is because the church was seen as the adhesive unit of society. To go against the church would in fact mean to be bringing about the breakdown of society. Hannam also agrees that when people were put to death, that this was wrong. There was no justification for that.

Important in this chapter is also that at the start, Aristotle was banned because he was seen as heretical. This was not a ban as we will see that lasted forever since a number of Catholics sought to understand Aristotle and find how his principles could work with the faith. Most notable of these was Thomas Aquinas.

Chapter 6 in fact tells us how this happened. Aquinas was the great thinker who was following in the footsteps of Albert the Great, who did some scientific work himself. Aquinas also dealt with the question of faith and reason in contrast to the positions of Siger of Brabant, a follower of Averroes.

What about medicine in the ancient world? A doctor would normally follow the path of the 2nd century Roman physician Galen. Galen believed that good health was maintained by a balance of humours in the body and in order to achieve that, one might have to lessen the amount of one substance in the body. This was done by bleeding, where a patient would be cut in a way to lose blood.

If you went to a priest or a village healer, you might undergo many rituals such as the testing of urine, often done by drinking it, but you would normally receive prayer and with that, at least you could count on God healing your and if that was not what He chose, the placebo effect could kick in. It was also easier since most people could not afford doctors.

Also, we can be surprised to find astrology was a common practice and even done by Christians. This was one reason astronomy was so important. If the stars showed our fate, then we needed to know exactly how the stars went if we were to know how it was we were going to live.  Interestingly also in this chapter, we find there was one astrologer who tried to give a horoscope of Jesus Christ, and even he was not sentenced to death by the Inquisition, which should show us something about them not being prone to zap everyone who disagreed with them.

In chapter 9, Hannam reveals a number of scientific discoveries in the chapter on Roger Bacon. The trebuchet was a weapon developed to hurl stones at the enemy. Weapons like this led to the advancement of the study of projectiles. Peter the Pilgrim in this time did some early research on magnetism. Roger Bacon made excellent advancements in studying light and optics that were the foundation for the telescope.

From here on, many other thinkers of the time are mentioned. Richard of Wallingford worked on clocks helping man to properly divide time into 24 hours. The Merton Calculators came up with the Mean Speed Theorem used even by physicists today. Nicole Oresme in the fourteenth century refuted most of the objections to a moving Earth. (This was two centuries before Copernicus)

There are still more names to be mentioned, but let us leave that for the interested reader. For now, how about astronomy? We are often told that they believed the sun went around the Earth, and that is true. The only problem is that it seems ludicrous to us today, but it did to them then.

Picture the average layman today walking down the street and he is stopped by someone who asks “Can you tell me, does the Earth go around the sun or does the sun go around the Earth?” Most would tell you that the Earth goes around the sun. Imagine if the next question asked was “Can you demonstrate this?” Most of us would be hard-pressed to think of how we’d do that. We’d still believe it, but we would have to point to authorities who have somehow done the tests. Now if we are not physicists or astronomers or something akin ourselves, I do not think there is much fault in this. Still, we are not much better than our predecessors.

The main reasons they had for thinking the sun went around the Earth were not religious reasons at all. They were scientific ones. Most of them did not bother with religious reasons because scientifically, the whole idea seemed absurd! They had good reason to think so. Their reasons were wrong, but that does not mean they had not done thinking on the issue. We must keep in mind that it could be that 100 years from now people will look back at our science and think “They believed that?!”

Much of this changed in 1572 when a supernova appeared in the sky. This was a direct challenge to the idea of Aristotle that the heavens were unchanging. People like Kepler, Brahe, and Copernicus were doing research on this. Their books were released that allowed for a contrary idea. The church did not really bother for a long time with them because the idea again was just absurd.

Galileo changed this. Who was Galileo? Let’s review.

Galileo was the one who determined that objects of different weights fall at the same speed. He was the one who dared to question Aristotle when everyone else followed him without thinking. Galileo first said vacuums exist and projectiles move in curves. He demonstrated conclusively Copernicus was right and since he did, he was imprisoned by the Inquisition.

At this point, the skeptical heart beads proud thinking of a true man of science.

Just one problem. None of that said about Galileo is true.

Now this is not to say that Galileo did not make advancements. He certainly did! It is not to say he did not argue for the Copernican theory. He certainly did! In fact, Galileo had a great advancement on his side that the predecessors that he worked with before did not have access to.

That was the telescope.

With it, Galileo showed much of what Aristotle said about physics was false, such as that there were sunspots and that the moon was not a perfect sphere. Much of this was not denied and could not be. If Galileo was like this, then what exactly was the problem with his teaching of Copernican thought?

The problem was that Galileo had the right answer, but he did not have the right reasons. His arguments made were often made from a strongly egocentric position, and unfortunately the pope he was arguing with was quite similar. In other words, much of what happened to Galileo was not because of science but was because of politics.

In fact, Galileo’s books had been approved for writing and the church had not said anything. What they got Galileo on mainly was that he was lying to the Inquisition about what he was doing. The church was fine with the idea of heliocentrism as a theory. It should not be taught as a fact yet because it had not been shown to be a fact.

This is a constant mistake that we must make sure we don’t make when studying ancient people. We should not judge them by the knowledge of what we have today and the knowledge we have access to. We must judge them by the knowledge that they had then and what they had access to. When we do so, I think we will find the Dark Ages were not really that dark after all. In fact, there was a lot of light there and that we today are standing on the shoulders of giants.

And why was all of this done? It was done to understand God and His creation. No scientist at the time saw his work as “filling in gaps.” In fact, the more they discovered, the more they were wanting to give glory to God.

In our day and age, let us not make the opposite mistake. We can often think that religion excluded everything that was scientific back then. Today, it is often that science seeks to exclude religion. Books like Hannam’s should remind us that science and Christianity have both worked side by side in history and like any good friendship, they might have disagreements sometimes that are minor, but ultimately, they can both work together well.

Let us hope that two groups won’t prevent that. The first is fundamentalist Christians who want to treat the Bible as a science textbook. The second would be new atheists who want to make us be in a warfare of science vs. religion. Both of them do great damage to religion, but they also do great damage to science. Both of them are precious fields we should not lose sight of.

In Christ,

Nick Peters

What Does Faith Mean?

If you have faith, what does that mean? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Faith is one of those words that is often tossed around without considering what it means. If you listen to the new atheists, you will be repeatedly told that faith is believing in something without evidence. Fundy atheists will often say that we are people of faith in that we simply believe and the evidence doesn’t matter.

Christians often don’t do much better sadly. We have the idea that faith refers to belief in that if we believe in God enough, then X will happen. Our modern terminology does help us with this. Our faith system is said to be our belief system. We then can read passages such as those talking about having a mustard seed of faith and think that we just have to work up enough belief and everything will work out.

No. This is also incorrect.

Now the natural place people go to to look at what faith is is Hebrews 11:1. Who can blame them? This is the great faith chapter. However, let’s look at the surrounding context and see what’s going on in Hebrews 11:1. Keep in mind when the epistle was originally written, chapter and verse numbers were not there.

We’ll start with the end of Hebrews 10. Most of us know about the great warning towards the end of that chapter. What is going on in the whole of Hebrews to explain this? Hebrews is written to Jews in the Alexandrian area who are considering abandoning the new system of Christianity and returning to the old covenant. The writer is showing them that they are to remain faithful to YHWH in the new covenant and that it is superior and has in fact replaced the old. Hence, the constant warnings against apostasy. It would be easier for the people to go back to Judaism where they had social class and did not face shame in the public square, but is that what is most important?

After giving the warning, the writer says:

“32 Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you endured in a great conflict full of suffering. 33 Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. 34 You suffered along with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions. 35 So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded.”

The writer starts reminding them that they have faced hard times already. As far as we know, there has been no death among the Christians due to persecution yet, but they are still suffering. It would be a natural temptation to want to return to a way that has been seen as tried and true and was the way of their ancestors. The writer encourages them to not do so.

”

36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. 37 For,

“In just a little while,
he who is coming will come
and will not delay.”[f]

38 And,

“But my righteous[g] one will live by faith.
And I take no pleasure
in the one who shrinks back.”[h]

39 But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have faith and are saved.”

The writer tells them that God will indeed honor His promise to them. What is His promise? It has never been material possessions or even their health and life. The apostles regularly went without and the early church did have deaths take place due to persecution. His promise has been their salvation. They will see God.

He also gives encouragement. He expects them to be better. They will not fall back and be destroyed. They have faith and are saved.

Okay. So what is faith?

“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”

Ah! Now we know what faith is!

Or do we?

The writer goes on to say that

“This is what the ancients were commended for.”

At this point, he will give us a long list of what the ancients were commended for. Let’s look at the list.

Abel was commended for offering up a better sacrifice. Enoch is said to have avoided death by faith. Abraham left his home country to go to another land and he even offered up his son as a sacrifice (nearly). Isaac blessed Esau and Jacob by faith. Jacob worshiped as he blessed his sons. Joseph by faith gave instructions about his burial. The parents of Moses by faith hid their baby. Moses refused to be known as Pharaoh’s daughter. The Israelites crossed the Red Sea. The walls of Jericho fell. Rahab and her family were spared.

Something interesting about some of these. Some of them had nothing to do with belief. The Israelites did not cause the Red Sea to part by believing. There is no recipe that if you believe you will avoid death like Enoch. Moses did not say “I will just believe I am of Hebrew origin” and receive commendation for that.

Many of these are in relation to the future. It was in the belief that God had said He would do X and they would live accordingly. God had said to walk around Jericho in this manner. Even though the Israelites did not know what would happen, they did it because God had instructed them to do so.

Note that you can as an atheist say these people did not hear from God. Okay. I get that. The problem is that even if they didn’t, the people reading the epistle believed that they had and saw that as an example. It does not mean that they themselves individually heard from God, but it does mean they believed God had acted in history and people had responded.

So let’s go back to Hebrews 11:1. What does faith mean here?

Trust.

It means that the fathers of the Hebrews believed that God would act according to the covenant in the future. They did not see the results, but they trusted God would bring them about. That is what is not seen! The future! Trust is the confidence that God will enact in the future what He has promised based on His actions in the past!

The writer also notes that some people suffered still, but they suffered believing that they would receive a better resurrection. I think what he’s saying is that they believed they would benefit more in the next life for what they suffered in this life. Trust does not mean that one will not suffer.

Trust also was rooted in evidence. That evidence was the action of God in the past. It was not to be seen as blind belief. Thus, both sides have it wrong. Faith does not refer to belief and it does not refer to blind belief in any way. Faith is still rooted in evidence, but it is not about what you do with your head alone, but where your loyalty lies. Would the Hebrews be faithful to YHWH? In other words, would they be loyal to the covenant?

Today, we are told to have faith. Indeed, we should, but biblical faith. We are not just to believe. Even the demons believe and tremble! The problem is most of us don’t even tremble! We are to be loyal, something the demons will never be!

Today, be faithful. Be loyal.

In Christ,

Nick Peters

The Problem of Bullies

Are we taking the wrong approach to bullies? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Bullying seems to be a topic everyone is talking about these days. Let’s be clear at the start. Bullying is wrong. My own Mrs. has very painful memories of her time being bullied, memories that affect her to this day.  There are numerous accounts of children in school who have committed suicide because of bullying. (And to be clear, committing suicide like that is also wrong) My wife watches accounts like these on YouTube. Recently, she watched one about a girl who was ten years old who killed herself.

As she was  listening to videos, I was in the other room listening as I was going through my book. I could not help but still think about what I was hearing from her room and started thinking “What if we’re doing this all wrong?” Unfortunately, I sadly think that a lot of groups are doing it wrong and will become the bullies themselves.

For instance, Allie told me about a group called “We Stop Hate.” I immediately thought their intentions were noble, but it’s a disaster waiting to happen. Why? Because today hate is treated like a dirty word. It is this idea that there ought to be nothing that we hate. We need to be people of love.

Okay. I hate bullying. I hate that children are committing suicide. I hate that people are mocked for any number of things such as physical characteristics or the amount of money they have or the clothes that they wear. I hate evil. I hate anything that lowers the well-being of my family.

Is such hatred wrong?

Absolutely not. In fact, it is because I love so many things that I hate other things. I hate that which is opposed to what I love. In this case, hate is something that is mandatory. If there is nothing that you hate, then I would also conclude that there is nothing in this world that you truly love either.

Of course, we should do all that we can to limit the behavior that is wrong and indeed, we should hate that behavior. We need to go and make a stand against that kind of behavior, but when we make hate such a nebulous term, then it will eventually be that disagreement will be seen as hatred and we will be shut down by the bullies of tolerance, what Greg Gutfeld in his book “The Joy of Hate” calls “The Tolerati.”

For instance, in my family, we are both Christians naturally and as Christians, we believe that there is one way to God and that’s through Jesus Christ. Now suppose we go out and do some evangelism. What happens then? We are seen as bullies because we are telling other people that they are wrong. Never mind of course that when people come against us for that, they are telling us that we are wrong in telling other people that they are wrong.

In these kinds of debates, there has to be room to disagree on issues. There are serious issues being discussed today that affect the future of our society and usually we can’t even get to the reasons because the spell of the Tolerati has been cast and the person that the media disagrees with is ipso facto the bad guy.

It is because of reasons like this that I think the current approach will lead to trouble. But is there a better way? As I was listening to these videos my wife was playing, I started piecing together a different approach mentally.

We all have this idea it seems that we want to make the bullies see that what they are doing is hurting people. The reality is, they already know that. In fact, they delight in it. They say the things that they do because they want to hurt others. I think it’s the same mistake in the gun control debate. We assume that most everyone really wants to be a good person and if we pass these laws, then everything will work out fine.

Our society does not have that as a fundamental foundation. Instead, we have as a more foundational belief that man is corrupt. If men were angels, there would be no need of government. Our government system was set up in a way to try best to avoid the evil of man and contain it.

Let’s consider at the start then that we will always have bullies amongst us.

While we can go after the bullies, that is treating more of a symptom than a disease. What if it could be the case that the bullies could see that their attacks aren’t doing any good? What if we could instead build up the people that the bullies are going after and have them affirm their inherent value.

Keep in mind that we who are Christians believe two things about man. We believe that he is good in that he is created by God and bears His image. We also believe that morally, he is corrupt in that his every inclination is to evil. I can’t help but think of how recently I saw a Muslim say that every baby is born in submission to Allah. I commented saying that I am not a parent, but I am sure it must be news to many parents that their babies are born in submission to God.

Our goal in part is to get man to recognize his place. We are to get him to recognize that he is the image of God and needs to live life like that image. Of course, the essential to reaching that place of fulfilling the image is to commit one’s life to Jesus Christ. Still, as all Christians will testify, the process of sanctification after that is long and hard.

So what if we looked at the people then that are being bullied? We are telling them today platitudes that seem to hang in the air. We want them to just believe by faith entirely without evidence. We tell people they are beautiful when everyone says they’re ugly. We tell people they’re smart when everyone tells them they’re stupid. We tell people they’re valuable when everyone else treats them like trash. Upon what basis do we expect them to believe us?

Unfortunately, it is often upon the same basis we expect them to believe Jesus rose from the dead. It is a feeling or just a leap of faith. Now to be sure, I do believe as a Thomist that insofar as something exists, it is good, true, and beautiful. In fact, I think something like that when taught would go a lot further than the talk we have today, but our children are not philosophers. Our children are not really taught to think so much but rather to feel. Feeling is fine, but feeling is not meant to tell you the truth about yourself.

How about if we took our eyes off of ourselves for a moment?

Maybe we should bring God back into it.

If man is in the image of God, then man is meant to reflect God. For we Christians, that means ultimately Christlikeness. This is what the author Don Matzat gets at in his book “Christ-Esteem.” We do not need to talk about self-esteem. We need to talk about our value in Christ. Our identity as Christians is to be in Christ. Go through the Pauline epistles and see this. When Christ is crucified we are. When Christ is raised, we are. When Christ is seated in the heavenlies, we are. See how Jesus shows this in saying “When you did it to the least of these, you did it to me.” Our world is not to be centered around who we are, but who Christ is.

Which means that if you are a Christian, it is not a question of “Am I beautiful?” It is a question of “Is Christ beautiful?” first and then “Am I allowing His beauty to shine through me?” Quite frankly, when we don’t do that, we are simply ugly. That’s the reality. Sin is ugly and we need to realize that. The question is not “Am I valuable?” but “Is Christ valuable?” and then “Am I allowing His value to shine in my life?”

If you as a Christian are placing your whole being in Christ, and to be sure, none of us do this perfectly, then what on Earth can people do to really shake you or lower you? Now to be fair, there will be good people around you who will tell you ways they think you need to change your life, and you should listen, but you realize you don’t have to please everyone. You don’t have to make everyone love you.

Christian. Ask yourself this. Would you consider it a good life if you disappointed everyone else but got to Heaven and heard Christ say “Well done thy good and faithful servant”? Would you be complaining then about the people that you didn’t please? Would you wish you had had the perfect body for that guy or been a little bit smarter or been the star of the football team or had those nice shoes everyone else had?

Now there’s nothing wrong with pleasing people, provided you still please Christ. There is nothing wrong with studying hard or taking care of yourself or wanting to dress nicely or be a good athlete. As Christians, we should strive to excel at all we do, but it must be that we do not need to get our identity from these things. We get our identity from Christ. Be the star of the football team, but know your worth is in Christ. Enjoy that new dress, but know that your worth is in Christ. Get your body into shape, but know your worth is in Christ. Get your Doctorate, but know your worth is in Christ.

I suspect that if we start teaching our youth good Christian doctrine rooted in the facts of the life of Christ and the truth of Scripture, then we will see transformed youth who won’t be as affected by bullies. If we treat them to go just by their feelings or by their experiences with just a leap of faith, then we can expect that they will fail regularly.

There will always be bullies among us, yes. But let us remember that there will always be Christ in us.

In Christ,

Nick Peters

Sheep To The Slaughter

Is there a way we’re not getting our evangelism right? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’ve been reading through “The Reliability of the New Testament” (And you can expect a review when I’m done) and in a Q&A, someone asked Daniel Wallace that if Christian evangelicals know about the “changes” in Scripture that Bart Ehrman talks about, why is it it’s not being told? Ehrman said he wanted to know the same thing.

Too many times these changes are presented as monumental. The pericope of Jesus and the woman in adultery was not originally part of John’s gospel! The last twelve verses of Mark are not authentic! There is no authenticity behind 1 John 5:7, thus the Trinity is destroyed!

That these are not seen as difficulties is known. There is no news here. In fact, basic reading on textual criticism would show that this is not a problem. Yet at the same time, these are claims that cause people to abandon their faith. It is part of the all-or-nothing view, in a day and age where most people have no idea how they got their Bible and think it practically fell from Heaven in English. They also think the only way to read the Bible is the American way. The American way is good for many things, but it is not good for reading the Bible.

Our pastors then from the pulpit are not including this in their messages. They are not giving a defense of the text, and the sad reality is most of them are probably ignorant of the fact that there are textual differences. It fascinates me that people who believe in the “Word of God” seek to know so little about where the Word of God came from.

Yet in our day and age, the claims of Scripture are not taken seriously and met with skepticism. If we were making a statement for any other position, we would come up with reasons. We would have an appeal to authority or a study or a finding of some sort. If I was going to make a political argument, I would want to give you a reason. If we are choosing which car to buy from the dealership, we look at the pros and cons of each. If we are working on a diet, we seek to know why eating X is good and eating Y is bad. If we are sick, we go to a doctor to seek medical knowledge and believe that something should be done because the doctor said so.

Yet we seem to abandon all of that with the Bible. It is not to be questioned. In essence, we are treating it with kid gloves, as if if we dared to give the slightest inquiry into the Bible, that it would fall like a house of cards. If that is the attitude that we have, how can it be that it will be seen as the Word of God? Do we think a Word from God is so weak it cannot stand up to scrutiny? That speaks volumes not just about our view of Scripture, but our view of God.

Hence, we have sheep to the slaughter. We are sending people out to do evangelism when they don’t know the necessities needed. It will take more than just a moral life that is well lived. The reality is that each person you meet in America, including yourself, knows a Christian who is a total jerk and can always be used as an excuse. On the other hand, each person probably knows a Christian who has excellent moral character, and quite likely some unbelievers that do.

In fact, let’s suppose that Christians were the people who lived the most moral lives of all and this was acknowledged by everyone. Now take a look at this and see if you think this argument follows.

Christians are the best people in the world.

Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead.

The claim does not follow. Now to be sure, we need to live moral lives before the world so they will see how seriously we treat our savior, they will have one less excuse, and quite frankly, because God tells us to be holy. We could say that these are necessary if we are to show the truth of what we believe, but they are not sufficient.

Consider an approach like “The Way of the Master.” The idea is to show that people are not living righteous lives and need to be forgiven. Okay. Let’s suppose that’s true. That still does not demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead. All we can do is show people they have a problem and then put it on them to do the research for that problem.

The saddest part is that this could be easily fixed. How? Get pastors in the pulpit who know what they’re talking about. If your pastor cannot defend his faith, how can he expect you to defend yours? You are being given a call to evangelize, except you are going out to people ready to tear you to shreds and you have no weapons of your own.

What’s the result? People like Bart Ehrman, who began his slide into apostasy because of his views of Inerrancy. Now it could be Inerrancy is true, which I hold to, but Ehrman’s world could not tolerate the possibility that it was not. Of course, the biggest aspect to his deconversion was the problem of evil, but Inerrancy is the start and according to Ehrman himself, these problems are not being talked about in the church. I agree with his opponent, Daniel Wallace, that Ehrman did the church a service by bringing this out. The new atheists have done us a service by making us examine our theistic claims. The problem is as long as it goes this way, the church is merely living in a reactive mode to the culture instead of in a proactive mode. We need to be having the culture answer the challenges of Christ. Instead, we have it that Christ is having to respond to the culture.

If we want our witness to have the power it needs, we have got to equip our members. Until we do, we can expect them to go out in their evangelism and either join the ranks of the opposition, or be so scared silly that they shut down and become for all intents and purposes useless to evangelism.

Neither one is good. Both are easily preventable.

Will they be?

In Christ,

Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Cold-Case Christianity

What do I think of J. Warner Wallace’s book “Cold-Case Christianity”? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Many people know about J. Warner Wallace from his web site and podcast of “PleaseConvinceMe.” For those who do not know, Wallace was an atheist for several years and a cold-case homicide detective. To explain, cold-cases are cases that have been closed for a time due to lack of finding the criminal and then re-opened years later. Wallace has done a number of these and closed them, one I understand being done so well the jury returned a verdict in less than five hours. Wallace now has recently been put on staff at STR, the ministry of Greg Koukl. This is certainly a welcome addition.

As a chapter head of a Ratio Christi chapter (The Issues and Answers chapter), I was fortunate to receive a complimentary copy in the mail. Wallace and I have emailed some back and forth, especially since I got a link that he had shared some of my blog material, and a friendship has formed. Still, I want to be as impartial I can in my review.

Wallace approaches the questions of Christianity as if they were a cold-case. This is especially fitting since there can be no doubt that right now, all the witnesses are dead. What we have to go by is the writings that were left behind. If we followed this using the rules of detective work, would there be a strong enough case to return a verdict of true from the jury? (To which, we are all jurors)

Wallace’s work is different from many others in that he starts off each chapter in section 1 with a story about criminal investigation. Then, he relates that to a piece of evidence. He does not just give evidence, but he does something better. He actually describes the process by which the evidence is evaluated, which is something I find monumentally important. Wallace does not say what to think. He says what he thinks and he shows how he got there.

There are illustrations in the book to demonstrate the point, such as a picture of puzzle pieces, and there are sidebars that will tell a little bit more about a topic that has been presented, so the reader can always have more information. Each chapter in section 1 ends with “A tool for the call-out bag.” This is a bag a detective keeps nearby for when he gets a 3 A.M. phone call and has to go to a crime scene. For those investigating the claims of Christ, this is a tool of reasoning that will be used.

In the early chapters, Wallace deals with cases such as the resurrection, the existence of God, and the handing down of the New Testament. The chapter on conspiracy theories is quite amusing, especially when he brings forward subjects like “The God Who Wasn’t There” and “Zeitgeist” and even brings out points about Mithras, something that most Christians aren’t prepared for.

Section Two deals largely with the case that Jesus rose from the dead with analyzing the accounts in the gospels the way a detective would with the tools of forensic analysis. Wallace’s book I would consider a primer in apologetics, but at the same time, I saw him making points about the gospels to which I’d be saying “That’s interesting. I hadn’t considered that.” As someone who has been in apologetics for over a decade, I find that if a primer is bringing out points that I have not read in several years, it’s a really good one.

Wallace then has a section on becoming more than a Christian who just believes, an abbreviated Christian as he calls them, but one who acts on what he believes, particularly by becoming a case maker. He uses the analogy that few of us are professional chefs, but all of us know how to cook some meal. Few of us are professional apologists, but all of us who are Christians need to know how to make some sort of case.

Finally, in the end, he lists a number of other sources for each chapter. These are scholarly books that complement what he has written. He refers to these as expert witnesses who will come forward and testify. If the reader looks at this part, he will find an abundance of resources to continue his studies, an excellent aspect I think of any introductory book.

Naturally, I don’t agree with every statement in the book. There are some arguments that I think could have been phrased better and some points I did not find convincing, but there are more than enough that are convincing and excellent for those wanting to get started in apologetics.

There can be no doubt in my opinion that the verdict is in. This juror will put Cold-Case Christianity right up there alongside Case for Christ as one of the best introductory books to Christian apologetics. Wallace’s writing style is engaging and his style of showing how to reach a conclusion along with what his conclusion is will show readers that this is not just a blind assertion. I recommend this book wholeheartedly.

In Christ,

Nick Peters

What Do Pagans Want?

Everyone wants forgiveness. Right? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A few nights ago, Allie and I were having some talk at night about salvation. I had told her it always helps to think about salvation more so we can realize what we have. I try to follow my own advice, so when I went to sleep that night, I decided to think about it as well and before too long, my mind reached a question that I’ve been pondering.

When we talk about salvation, we talk about how we are forgiven, and we are grateful to be forgiven. However, I thought about the idea of the Christians going out and preaching a message of forgiveness and then realized what was going on. Why should I think that the pagans at the time were really wanting forgiveness?

One of the great dangers we have in our day and age is to transplant our values today onto those of the past. Today, we all talk about guilt and knowing that we’ve done wrong. In fact, this is how an argument like “The Way of the Master” (I prefer to call it “The Way of Disaster”) begins. It is the goal to get someone to realize that they’ve done wrong and that they need forgiveness.

Naturally, there are problems with it. After all, in our day and age of moral relativism, it can be difficult to get some people to think they’ve really done something wrong. If they can do that, it’s something to get them to think they’ve offended God. If you do that, to which you still have to first establish His existence to people, it’s another step to get them to think that they need forgiveness instead of God just letting it slide. Even still, you would have to show that that forgiveness is in Christ which means an apologetic for the resurrection.

I could be odd, but maybe it would be best to just start with the existence of God and the resurrection.

In fact, let’s put the situation into the mindset of the ancient world. What if the first Christians had gone to the pagans and said “Good news! Forgiveness is available!” The pagans would probably have wondered the same thing. Why do they need forgiveness? There would have been no thought of “Going to Heaven when you die.” The pagans did not have much of a view of an after-death. Of course, there were some ideas, but the greater focus was the good life here and now. Resurrection was definitely not in the picture.

Nor would they have thought in terms of sins. Sacrifices could be offered, but these were usually in a form of appeasement. If you want the blessings of Poseidon as you travel on the sea, you make an offering to him. If you want the favor of the emperor, you would do the same thing.

I started going to Bible programs then and doing searches through books of the NT and found surprises. The gospel of John only mentions forgiveness in one part, and that’s in John 20. Galatians, which is all about salvation for us, did not have mention of sin or forgiveness. Now to be sure, it talks about grace and the works of the flesh, but it’s amazing how rarely some of these terms show up in comparison to what we’d think.

Now of course, this is not to say forgiveness is not part of the proclamation nor is it saying that the Bible does not teach forgiveness of sins. It is not even saying forgiveness is unimportant. It certainly is. Forgiveness is an awesome event and it is something that we all need, but not all realize they need it.

So what are some other reasons why someone could become a believer? One aspect could be appeasement. This could contain an aspect of forgiveness to it, but the idea was that if one wanted the favor of YHWH, one would have to become a follower of Him and one would have to do this through Christ. This could be what Paul is getting at more with his message of repentance in Acts 17 on Mars Hill. Paul there works to show the grandeur of God in response to the idols of Athens and then ends by saying God is going to judge.

It could be the goal of honor. One wanted to give honor to the person who had bestowed a good blessing. This could be what Paul is pointing at as well when he speaks in Lystra in Acts 14 and says that God shows his blessing and gives an illustration of the weather cycle for that.

There could be several other reasons that have not been thought of yet. What am I really getting at? When we give the gospel, if we are to be effective, we have to show people how it does apply to their lives. If they don’t think they need forgiveness, we might have to go another route. Of course, some people do welcome the forgiveness message eagerly, like Hindus in India who would love to escape the circle of Karma. The message of salvation is about favor with God and forgiveness is one aspect of that, though it is of course an important one.

This could lead us to have a richer appreciation of our salvation. Our salvation means more than that we are forgiven. It means that right now, we are taking part in the Kingdom of God. It means that He is ruling now through Christ and has offered us all a chance to take part in that. If our salvation is so great to us, and it is and should be, we can think of the many different ways it applies.

In our witnessing today, we must remember that we live in a similar situation. Not everyone thinks about forgiveness. It’s true everyone needs it, but not everyone realizes it. We could be making our task more difficult than we realize with many of our modern evangelism tactics. Perhaps we should try the strange idea of finding people where they are and showing them how the gospel works in their lives.

I know it’s strange, but it could work.

In Christ,

Nick Peters

 

Reading Outside The Bible

Is there value in other books? Let’s talk about it today on Deeper Waters.

There’s a story about the Muslims destroying the library of Alexandria in 642. Led by ‘Amr ibn al-A’s who said “They (the library’s holdings) will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous.”

There is debate over whether this account is accurate or not, but that is not my point of interest here. The point to discuss is that most of us would look at that and consider that a terrible loss. The sadder point is that a great number of us treat the Bible the exact same way.

For instance, right now in my nightly devotional reading, while I do read a verse of Scripture to think on, I am also currently reading the Apocrypha. Right now, I’m on Sirach and I find it immensely helpful. Why? Sirach is all about the pursuit of wisdom and the right way to live. There is a lot of good advice in there.

“Well yeah. I’m sure there is, but it’s not Scripture!”

Is that supposed to be a problem?

Seriously, if the only source of information you consider to be valid for learning about truth and righteousness is the Bible, then why on Earth are you reading this blog? What do you think you can get out of it? For that matter, why go to church on Sunday? Why even talk to other Christians and get their insights? You have for you all you need.

“But isn’t that what 1 John 2 says?”

No. 1 John 2 is a counter to gnostic teaching that you need some hidden knowledge to obtain salvation. If you want salvation, you do have all you need in the Bible. No doubt. However, if you want a fuller understanding of what that salvation is, you should seek to do all the reading that you can.

In reading the Apocrypha, one can learn wisdom from Jewish people who lived before Christ, as well as learn about the culture that Christ lived in and the ideas that shaped that culture. Of course it’s not Scripture, but that does not mean it’s irrelevant to the NT. The events in the NT did not take place in a vacuum. They happened in a linguistic, cultural, social, political, and religious context. Understanding that context will better help us to understand the NT.

Besides that, there were people with good ideas outside of Scripture and you can get some of them. For instance, my own wife had had an issue with trusting some people too much and lo and behold, I read something in Sirach about making friends and read it to her, something that I thought was quite insightful. Note that even in the Bible wisdom is found outside of Scripture and even outside of Israel. In 1 Kings 4 Solomon is said to be wiser in comparison to other great figures in the world, which means they had wisdom. Proverbs itself includes some pagan testimony.

Speaking of pagans, can we be benefited by reading them? Some of us could understand the apocryphal writings, but what about the pagans?

Absolutely!

For instance, many of us would be benefited by reading Plato and Aristotle and learning the thinking. When I read a writer like Epictetus, I find much encouragement. Again, there is a problem with thinking that all wisdom lies in the Bible or the Christian tradition alone. There is wisdom to be found in several places.

Wait. Outside the Christian tradition?

Yes. I have read the Analects for instance and I don’t doubt there is much wisdom there. There are good teachings to be found in Buddhism. We could learn something from the Muslims about prayer and remember, those who use the Kalam argument are being influenced by the Muslims as it showed up in an age where Muslims did philosophy. (Yes. There are some who still do philosophy, but it was abandoned for a long time) I think the Taoists have some great insight with the idea of the yin and the yang in comparison to male and female.

“Well I guess, as long as we don’t read those liberals or atheists.”

Yes. Read them too.

“Say what?”

There are a number of ways they can sharpen you as well. First off, just because someone is liberal and approaching the Scripture, it does not mean they are wrong in everything. There can be found some really good ways of looking at the Scripture. Many liberals can get ethical commands right for instance. Furthermore, the differing interpretation can give you a new perspective to see the text from and in arguing why an interpretation is wrong, you can get further knowledge of your own understanding.

In fact, this is a problem I have as an orthodox Preterist when I meet dispensationalists who say that my position is just automatically nonsense and they don’t need to read anything on it. It’s just obvious that the Scripture should not be interpreted that way. It is not a shock to me that they get my view wrong consistently. For those who want to make sure I’m not being a hypocrite, yes. I read the dispensationalists. In preparing for a talk at my former church on Preterism (And my church was dispensational), I went and read a number of works on dispensationalism. No. Not convincing at all.

What about atheists? Reading people who disagree with you can help you see criticisms of your position. In working through those criticisms, you could strengthen your own position. Of course, in all of this, you could find your position is wrong on some issues and you might have to change your mind. In fact, if you were ever rationally convinced that Christianity is false, you should abandon it. I have no fear in saying that. I do not fear it because I am certain of its truth so I can read what is opposed to my view.

What about cultic writings like the Mormon writings and the Watchtower? Can there be benefits to those? Yes indeed. I have found reading the Scriptures of other religions to be interesting seeing as I notice a sort of artificial tendency in which the writings are made to look like Scripture. Reading the BOM and the Koran (I am not including Islam as a cult) gave me a greater appreciation for the Bible.

The bottom line in all of this is Christians are to be seekers of wisdom and truth. How are we to do that if we stay isolated within our own circle of books? Feel free to expand your mind and realize that if Christ is indeed true, He can stand up to all outside.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Religious Excuse

Does it matter if an opinion is religious? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Last night on Bill O’Reilly, Greg Gutfeld filled in for O’Reilly and had as his last guest a lawyer from the ACLU. They were discussing abortion and in the midst of it John Flannery, the lawyer, says “You see by inches how people have made the religious notion that conception is the beginning of personhood as the standard which challenges both contraception and a woman’s right of choice to have an abortion.”

Did you notice it? Let’s take a look at it, except this time I’m going to take out one word. Try not to look back and see if you notice the difference.

“You see by inches how people have made the notion that conception is the beginning of personhood as the standard which challenges both contraception and a woman’s right of choice to have an abortion.”

What’s the difference?

The difference is that in the second one, I left out the word religious. Go back and look if you have to. How does that change it?

In the second one, you see a notion has been made and this is believed then to be a notion that can be challenged by the evidence. If you don’t know the source, you will study the claim or you will give arguments against the claim if you already believe that the claim is false. You will point to scientific arguments if you have them or philosophical and metaphysical arguments. This is a point that can be debated.

What happens when it’s made a religious notion?

Because of this, we have something called poisoning the well taking place. At this point, one does not need to challenge the claim then. One needs to just point out that the source is supposedly biased and therefore cannot be trusted. A huge number of people that oppose abortion in this country are religious. Of course, there are people who oppose abortion who are not. I do know of atheists who oppose abortion and I thank God for them. Still, even they I’m sure would agree most of the opposition comes from people of faith.

What do you do then? Simply. You just disregard them all at once.

The religious people don’t have any real reasons after all for thinking abortion is wrong other than that their holy book says so. Since we no longer take that as an authority in the public square today, then we can dismiss with that. Now if they don’t want to follow just what the Bible says, well that is their choice, but the problem is that a large number of people who are religious do not use just the Bible. We also have scientific, philosophical, and metaphysical arguments for why we believe what we believe about what is in the womb.

How do you know if the argument is religious or not? It’s simple. You just ask if you can take it out of the mouth of the religious person and put it in the mouth of an atheist and see if it is the exact same argument. Suppose I give scientific data for why I believe life begins at conception. Could an atheist not give the exact same data? If so, then the argument is not religious. It is scientific.

Of course, someone could reply that the reason someone wants to ban abortion is because of a religious reason. Certainly that could be the case, but that is also irrelevant to the argument. Let us suppose that someone committed a crime against some that I love, such as my wife. I give a testimony at a trial on why this person should be locked up and have the key thrown away. Will it damage the data I present to just say “Well of course you want that. It was your wife that was victimized?” No. The data stands or falls on its own. If you think i have bias that is causing me to misread the data, you must show that by looking at the data itself. If there is a misreading taking place, it can be demonstrated.

This is taking place in many of our debates today including the debate on redefining marriage. It is just assumed that the data that is presented cannot be correct. Why? Because it is being made by people of religion and we all know that because they are biased, they are to be discounted.

This allows the person who holds the position opposed to the person of faith to ignore the only question that matters. That question is “Is the position true?” There is no mention of the reason behind it any more. There is no mention of the data. There is no talk about having an argument. All that needs to be said is that the person who holds to the position is religious and automatically, it is assumed to be fallacious. (Do note this all fellow people who hold to a religion. This is also an insult as it implies the only reason you believe X is because your holy book says so and if it said otherwise, you would say otherwise.)

When a person brings up religion then, tell them to get on the subject. When you argue against abortion or against redefining marriage, you are not arguing to convert someone to your worldview concerning religion. You are arguing for an ethical position. Of course, those of us who are Christians will have no objections to someone becoming a Christian, but let’s be clear each time on what battle it is that we are fighting.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

A Year Of Biblical Mockery

What do I think of Rachel Held Evans’s book “A Year of Biblical Womanhood”? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

This book has been quite the talk lately and I’ve had an interest in it particularly since on Chick-Fil-A day, Evans came out with a post urging Christians to not participate and feeling like she was on the edge of apostasy because of this. This is an example of emotional tyranny, as I stated that day. It’s an area of concern because Evans does hold a place of high popularity on the web and yet, her methodology and approach is the kind that is a threat to the church today.

My ministry partner is J.P. Holding of Tektonics and he and I both decided to write a review of this book on the same day having read it independently. J.P. is egalitarian in his approach to men and women. I am more complementarian. This is an area where we are free to disagree with one another. We both agree that this book is one to avoid, and this is important since it cannot be said the reason people oppose this book automatically is that they are complementarian.

Of course, there are some points Evans does get right. These seem to be more incidental than the result of any real study. It is true that a woman should seek to be a woman. Perhaps in some areas Evans wanted to express some concerns of the complementarian view most expressed in the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which will be called CBMW from here on. CMBW would have welcomed honest critiques, but this is not that.

If you want to know what reading Evans on the CBMW is like, just go read Richard Dawkins on what faith is and then you’ll get a pretty good idea. The danger is that in reading something like this, the reader could think “CBMW thinks that? How absurd!” If CBMW did have the opinions Evans gives in a number of places, then yes, there would be concern. This is not the case and I am going to include at the end links that point to critiques from women on this work, one of which is from the CBMW.

Evans’s approach was to go through the Bible and take as many passages as she could in the full literal sense which means calling her husband “Master” and being at the gate of a city with a sign saying “Dan is awesome!” At one point, she even gets on the roof of her house and has a picture of it. Evans may think she is demonstrating the opinion that the CBMW gives us an absurd approach, but no member of it would agree with her hermeneutic. People who might have seen her doing this would not have thought “Wow. The CBMW is crazy,” but rather “That lady is crazy.” Worse, they might have thought Christianity is crazy, but who cares about bringing embarrassment to the cause of Christ when feminism is on the line?

Numerous places in the book indicate that Evans is pushing her own neuroses onto the world. For instance, on page xviii she says her parents both loved the Bible but “they seemed to know instinctively that rules that left people guilt-ridden, exhausted, and confused were not really from God.” Evans doesn’t bother to consider that maybe the rest of the world isn’t like her. The idea that for some people, and most of the world in fact, guilt is not the reality but shame is. It is the understatement of the year on page 9 when she says “I’m kind of a whiner.”

Evans also makes statements on page xx such as “It is biblical for a woman to be sold by her father, biblical for her to be forced to marry her rapist, biblical for her to remain silent in church, biblical for her to cover her head, and biblical for her to be one of multiple wives.” Thank you Evans for demonstrating once again the mindset that exists in the fundamentalists atheists I encounter regularly. Absent is any idea about giving a historical context to the passages. Instead, assume the worst about them and make a mockery of the text as a result. People like the new atheists will certainly be appreciative for Evans at this point.

The assumption throughout her book is that women often get the shaft. For instance, on page 10, she says it is interesting that in the case of Miriam and Aaron, that Aaron was not punished for speaking out about Moses’s wife. Absent is any thought that Aaron was the high priest and his being unclean would have put all the people in jeopardy. Note also that as the brother, it would have brought great shame to him to have his sister in that way and know that he was responsible. Furthermore, does Evans want to give her readers that all the sexism she thinks she sees in society extends to God Himself?

Her misreading is further shown on page 17. She writes “I’d been reminded about a million times that the Bible didn’t explicitly command contentious women to sit on their roofs, and that rooftops in the ancient Near East would have been flat and habitable anyway, but I was determined to engage in some kind of public display of contrition for my verbal misdeeds.”

In other words, who cares about the context?! We have an agenda to push! Sure, the Bible never says to do this, as CBMW knows. Sure, roofs in those days were an extra room of the house. It doesn’t matter. She had to publicly show everyone that she’d done wrong. Evans could have done something like going to a soup kitchen or she could have got online and donated some money to a charity or worked at a children’s hospital. Nah. Sitting on the roof is much better.

On page 22, Evans says that the idea of homemaking being a woman’s highest calling is the centerpiece of the biblical womanhood movement. This was news to a lot of people in the CBMW. As Mary Kassian says:

“Homemaking as woman’s highest calling is our critical centerpiece? Hmmm. Maybe I didn’t get the memo. I found myself curious about which “proponent of the modern biblical womanhood movement” used “strong, unequivocal language” about homemaking being woman’s highest calling. And which complementarian in her right mind would even remotely assert that “the only sphere in which a woman can truly bring glory to God is in the home.” I am personally acquainted with virtually everyone at the core of the modern biblical womanhood movement. If anyone in my yard is saying this, I want to know about it.”

Kassian points out that the sources Evans cites are not representative of CBMW. These include Debi Pearl (More on her later), who is seen as extremist and fringe and her teachings have led to the deaths of children by abuse. Next is Stacy McDonald, part of the Vision Forum and Biblical Patriarchy movement, which is also not representative of CBMW. The last is Dororthy Patterson from something she wrote twenty years ago. Kassian did something unorthodox at this point. She contacted Patterson. Patterson clarified that she would point out she doesn’t do all the chores herself and family-obsessed was not the best choice of words. Family-impassioned is much better.

Kassian is right then to say that this is not the highest calling. She goes on to say that one of her friends, Nancy Leigh Demoss, who she wrote a book on womanhood with, has never been married or given birth to biological children. If it was all about homemaking, then it would seem that DeMoss is failing miserably, yet no one in the CBMW seems to think that this is the case.

At many points in the book, Evans’s anger towards anything masculine reaches the point of absurdity. For instance, in talking about Christmas, she asks who does all the work in cooking and filling out Christmas cards and filling stockings and making sure toys have batteries? A woman does that. Who is it that gets all the credit? Santa does. A man.

Oh come on!

For one thing, in my own family growing up, my parents did the Christmas stuff together, aside from the cooking, seeing as my Dad is a disaster in the kitchen. My Dad was an active part of Christmas in his own way. I seriously doubt any child is thinking on Christmas about how much better men supposedly are than women because it is Santa Claus, a man, who brings them their gifts. I suppose Evans could also discount my review since it’s written by a man then.

Throughout the book, Proverbs 31 is shown as an example. Evans doubts that such a woman ever existed, and she’s right. (As one woman I remember reading long ago said “How does she have time for sex?!”) Still, that doesn’t stop Evans! She writes on page 77 that “I decided to take a page from the literalists and turn the whole chapter into a to-do list based on various Bible translations, divided into daily tasks and tasks to be accomplished by the end of the month.”

As one who has to deal with fundamentalist atheists who insist that everything has to be taken literally and when it’s literal, the Bible is absurd, therefore it’s not the Word of God, thank you very much Rachel Held Evans. It is an approach like this that only makes the task of the apologist harder. You know, who they are? On page 53, Evans writes about these people that actually study the Bible and look at the Laws and why they are the way they are and says “These are useful insights, I suppose, but sometimes I wish these apologists wouldn’t be in such a hurry to explain these troubling texts way, that they would allow themselves to be bothered by them now and then.”

Forget the intellectual truth that is of concern here! Go with the emotions!

Of course, the problem is the literalism that Evans embodies. On page 87 she says “Here’s the thing. Christians seem to think that because the Bible is inspired, all of it should be taken literally.”

Perhaps if you’re a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist you do, but a generalization like this is not helpful to Christians. In fact, in writing something like this, I get the impression that Evans is writing hoping non-Christian will read this. If so, then thanks again for providing fodder for the fundamentalist atheists out there. Evans might wish I was bothered some by biblical texts. I wish she would be bothered by embarrassing the faith.

On page 145, Evans says that the first proclamation of the resurrection on Easter was by women, and yet most services begin with a man telling that truth to the congregation.

I find it more concerning rather that instead of thinking about the message that is being given, Evans is more concerned that the message is being proclaimed by a man. Now if a congregation wanted to have a woman saying it, I would not have a problem, but I’m not going to make a big deal.

On page 208, we see an example of Debi Pearl who we mentioned earlier. Evans writes that about Pearl’s book that “At one point, she encourages a young mother whose husband routinely beat her and threatened to kill her with a kitchen knife to stop ‘blabbing about his sins’ and win him back by showing him more respect.” Evans says she threw her copy across the living room seven times.

Why yes. I’m sure that that kind of attitude is certainly representative of the CBMW movement.

I am complementarian and I would tell that woman to get her and her child or children out of there and get them where they can be safe and call the authorities on a scummy man like that. My view as a complementarian has been that if a man is the king of his castle, then the woman gets treated like a queen. To make such a statement as this and say it is representative of the CBMW movement is an incredibly serious charge, and as Kassian’s statements would show, one easily disproven, yet that doesn’t stop Evans from publishing it, and sadly, few people will probably research to get the other side.

On page 255, Evans says “I’ve watched congregations devote years and years to heated arguments about whether a female missionary should be allowed to share about her ministry on a Sunday morning, whether students should have female Sunday school teachers, whether girls should be encouraged to attend seminary, whether women should be permitted to collect the offering or write the church newsletter or make an announcement…all while thirty thousand children die every day from preventable disease. If that’s not an adventure in missing the point, I don’t know what is.”

Indeed! In fact, I have heard an account about a woman who while these children were dying, was blogging regularly, sleeping in a tent during her period, and ordering an electronic baby to practice the idea of motherhood, all of this while these children are dying! In fact, this person spent a year doing this kind of work. All that time spent in a tent, on a rooftop, at the city gate with a sign saying “Dan is awesome!”, and being a young Martha Stewart, could have been spent caring for those children instead. If that’s not an adventure in missing the point, I don’t know what is.

Of course, we should all be more concerned, but it’s too easy to say “Nothing else is worth talking about if this is the case.” If Evans was following her own advice, she would not have even written the book. In fact, chances are, I would have no idea who she is because she’d be a missionary over there constantly helping them out. Evans’s technique is to try to guilt others, all the while while she complained about the Bible being used as a weapon of guilt. It’s this kind of hypocritical approach that is problematic.

In conclusion, Evans won’t help women know what it really means to be a woman. If anything, she has just as much of the sexism towards men as she thinks the men she has in mind towards women. No doubt, sexism should be condemned anywhere, but Evans’s approach will be more problematic. Even worse is her methodology while approaching Scripture. Evans has her theories on why LifeWay didn’t carry this book. I have a better explanation why they didn’t. They read it and realized this isn’t the kind of stuff they want to promote. Let’s hope the rest of the church agrees.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

J.P. Holding’s review can be found here.

Mary Kassian’s review can be found here.

Razor Swift

Just a quick post to let everyone know that I will be on the Razor Swift Apologetics Podcast this evening.

Please tune in!

http://razorswift.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/razor-swift-the-deeper-waters-of-apologetics-with-nick-peters/

Update: You can now hear it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upix3bQjyaE&feature=plcp