Lewis’ Screwtape Letters August 28, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Spirituality.add a comment
Though I have referred to it before, I had never read C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters until recently. As I read through the letters of the demon Screwtape to his new-tempting nephew Wormwood, I was pleasantly surprised at the insight and focus of these letters, which show the ways that Christians are attacked and often stumble in their faith. Things like the hypocrisy and shallowness of the church, radicalness of different ideas that take one away from Jesus Christ, complacency or apathy when it comes to important issues, etc. were some of the things that are mentioned–and these things are definitely still true today. This leads me to believe that the experiences of early/mid 20th century England and early 21st century America are not that different; in some ways, it is the same issues in our world just recreated each day in new ways. And naming these sorts of dangers is important so that we can confront them. It is also interesting how well this teaches about spiritual warfare and the like through a narrative method; it is a fictional account that embodies and teaches much spiritual truth. May I be attuned to these truths.
God and Empire August 24, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Politics, Spirituality.add a comment
A growing interest of mine (and of other NT scholars) is the anti-Roman empire rhetoric in the NT. John Dominic Crossan deals with this idea in his God and Empire. In some ways, the impetus is the growing amount of people that the USA is an empire, perhaps even the new form of the Roman empire. This alerts Crossan, as the Bible seems to speak against empire. He finds that violence and oppression is found in every empire. While the OT seems a bit ambigous about whether violence ushers in the kingdom of God, the message of Jesus, according to Crossan, is that violence does not do so. However, American Christians (often associated with pretribulation rapture sort of views) seem to really have an idea that the end will be a violent battle between good and evil, with God winning. Crossan says that this is not what Jesus teaches, nor Paul when one examines his actual writings (not the Deutero- or Pseudo-Pauline letters). The church early on, though, adopted this violent filled, empire sort of rhetoric, with Revelation speaking against Rome but in some ways adopting this same sort of view. Christians need to snap out of this and realize that non-violence, turning the other cheek, taking up one’s cross, etc. is the way that God’s spiritual kingdom comes.
Crossan brings up some good points. Is America a new empire? How should this affect Christians? How does a violent end make sense of the lamb who was led to slaughter? Should the battle imagery of Revelation be seen as more symbolic than concrete? Have Christians too readily adopted the view of empire instead of the anti-empire polemic that fills the NT? I am wrestling with these things, in addition to how to approach Revelation and the wrath of God seen over and over again there.
What I find interesting about much mainline scholarship, though, is that it is able to dismiss elements of Scripture (“Paul didn’t really say that”) or look to small aspects of Scripture of just getting it wrong (which seems to be Crossan’s view of Revelation) without having to deal with the fact that the early church and, really up until the 17th century or s0, saw all these things as being compatible. Could we be the ones who have it wrong? I admit, it is difficult to deal with Revelation 19 and the fact that the vultures eat the flesh of those defeated in the final battle, of the slaughters in Canaan, etc. but I am convinced that I need to deal with all of what is found in the Scriptures, whether I like it or understand it or not. Maybe I am naive, but if so, I think my naiviety makes my method of scholarship more, not less, difficult.
The Secret Message of Jesus August 21, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Spirituality.add a comment
I finished reading Brian McLaren’s The Secret Message of Jesus. I have had a love/hate (though hate is a strong term) relationship with McLaren’s works, as I liked them to start but really got concerned that he deviates from some key biblical doctrines; after taking a break from him, I was able to come to this book with a fresh perspective. I am always hesistant when someone phrases something about the Bible as ”secret” or “hidden” these days, because it usually deals with a conspiracy theory sort of idea, that the church or someone has been blocking it from getting out. I thought this might have been what McLaren would say, but he points to secret in the sense that the parables conceal truth and people must strive to understand it (Matthew 13:13), the very reason that Jesus used parables. I can agree with that; I also like how he pointed to miracles as the demonstration of the message, as living parables in the life of Jesus. He seeks to situate Jesus within his historical and cultural context, always things to be applauded. On the whole, the vision he presents (following Dallas Willard and N.T. Wright) is that of the message of Jesus permeating our lives and living in light of the present reality of the kingdom. Maybe since I have been influenced by those thinkers, it was not ground-breaking. Jesus’ message is so revolutionary, he had to speak it in “riddles” as it threatens every establishment!
McLaren does a good job of trying to get us to examine the teachings of Jesus, but it seems to me like the overlooks the cross; he deals with Paul’s discussion of it as a scandal and as a weakness but does not seem to point to the fact that the cross deals with sin; he affirms the historicity but not the interpretation of the cross as in Mark 10:45, Matthew 26:28, or Romans 3:21-26 (he only deals with Ephesians and Colossians talking about the cross overcoming the evil forces…but what about our individual sin). He does not attack this view per se (as he does not really deal with these passages), but he almost makes it an either/or, either Jesus is about bringing the kingdom now or about dealing with original sin, with the kingdom being where we go when we die (see p.210). That is where I think he misses the point; he does not combine the teachings as we see in 1 Peter 2, the cross is both the way of the way of salvation from sins as well as the example for us as we live out the kingdom.
I liked this book more than I thought I would; it is a good corrective who think that the cross is only about forgiveness and dealing with our sin, but it must be augmented by books like Stott’s The Cross of Christ that deal heavily with the substitutionary atonement element of the cross. We need both to have a fully orbed Christian life, to truly understand the cross of Christ and the message of Jesus.
Footnote: After reading scholars such as Ehrman and Crossan, though, I have to say that I appreciate McLaren more in the sense that he affirms more about the Bible than many mainline scholars would. For example, Paul actually wrote these letters and Jesus actually said these things. So I needto be less harsh on him in the future.
Jesus Creed August 14, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Spirituality.add a comment
I have been looking forward to reading Jesus Creed by Scot McKnight since I heard him discuss it in chapel at TEDS a few years back. The concept of the book is pretty simple; Jesus took the creed of Judaism (Deut 6:4) and added the need to love our neighbors (Lev 19:18) as well in Mark 12:28. Therefore, the goal of the Christian life is to love God and love others; the heart of spiritually is to do both. This then weaves itself out in things like the Lord’s Prayer and the Lord’s Supper, as well as things other stories. The rest of the book presents the Christian life as the outworking of this, looking at stories of the kingdom, values needed in the kingdom, and how to live into it in faith and in union with Christ. He does a good job of weaving biblical stories, stories from church history, and current examples from Christians around the world. It is readable and something I enjoyed is that there are passages in every chapter to read on your own, from which the ideas in the chapters spring. This book is in the same vein as Dallas Willard, John Ortberg, and the rest, but in some ways with even better scholarship (not to knock on them, but to enhance McKnight’s strength). Enjoyable, encouraging, and challenging. For me, something I was challenged as I walk away was to utilize the Lord’s Prayer more and to think through it more as I pray, looking at how I can seek to love God and love others through it.
Hanging with John Woolman August 12, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Justice, Spirituality.add a comment
I just finished the biography of John Woolman (The Beautiful Soul of John Woolman, Apostle of Abolition by Thomas P. Slaughter), a Quaker who lived 1720-1773 in America. As the title might indicate, he was known for his itinierant ministry against slavery at a time when it was not on the forefront of many minds in America. Having he learned about this ministry from my American church history class, it was interesting to see how he did it and his overall life (as well as the Quakers). Interestingly, very little is known about his family life and marriage. Perhaps a different time. In some ways, though, I found a kindred spirit in Woolman in the attempt to be an asectic in the modern world, as well as the attempt to look beyond the problem to the roots of the problem. He saw that slavery came from a love of self and overlove of family–which caused them to mistreat people and the institution of slavery. He gave up his shop because he knew that items he sold were tainted by slavery. He had problems accepting hospitality when it meant extra work for the slaves; he paid them or refusal things. He wore white in his attempt to live a pure life. In many ways, he was an Old Testament prophet but in America–often forgotten. Maybe a bit extreme at times but he believed in his message–something to admire. In fact, one might wonder if he has much to challenge us in our capitalist society. I am glad to have looked at his life a little bit through this book.
The Ehrman Strikes Back…. August 5, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Education, Spirituality.add a comment
Bart Ehrman is at his work of dispensing scholarship to the masses again with Jesus Interrupted. If the point of Misquoting Jesus was to show people that the original words of the Bible are forever lost and that there were many changes that have occurred (often for theological/social reasons, for example exalting Christ and denigrating women), then the point to this book is that the Bible is a very human document, not the Word of God. For example, he states that it is filled with contradictions in facts (chapter 2), variant views on the same ideas—like whether we should keep the law (Matthew) or do not need to keep it (Paul) (chapter 3), and that it was written not by eyewitnesses or the names attached to the work but much later (chapter 4). In addition, very little can be known about the historical Jesus (chapter 5). In fact, Ehrman goes on to say that Christianity on the whole is a very human religion; its ideas are not from the revelation of God but come from human understandings and a struggle for a certain view of orthodoxy, etc., which includes how the Bible came to stand as it is (chapters 6-7). That being said, Ehrman does not see this approach as showing that faith is not possible; he is an agnostic not because of this view of Scripture but because of the problem of evil (chapter 8). It takes approaching Scripture from a different point and “picking and choosing” what would be of relevance today. Ehrman notes that even though the information he presents is widely known and taught in graduate schools and seminaries, pastors do not seem to employ it. He does not think it should be the basis of pulpit ministry (which is a devotional approach) but that it should be integrated in Sunday school classes, etc.
Once again, I applaud Ehrman for the fact that he is trying to bring “spiritual literacy” to the world; he wants people to know what’s in the Bible and to be able to dialogue about it thoughtfully. In addition, he notes the disconnect that often exists between what is taught in seminaries and what is then taught in churches. We have similar ideas on those levels. That being said, I am not a fan of the understanding of the Bible that Ehrman seeks to promote (hopefully you knew I was going to say that if you know me!). There is diversity in Scripture—but the question is whether there is also unity. “Conservative” scholars like myself see that within the diversity, there is a unified whole—the message of Jesus Christ. If one wants to find contradictions that cannot be resolved, one will find them; if one wants to find resolutions or how they are different reflections on the same truth in light of the context, one can find those as well. You get what you look for on this basis. I think much more can be known about Jesus than Ehrman claims, and also that traditional views of authorship can be affirmed. The “battle for the Bible” was not as controversial as Ehrman seems to paint it to be.
What I see as I read Ehrman and others is a historical “snobbery.” We can find these contradictions, but those of previous generations were always duped by them. Those much closer to the circumstances were worse judges than us because of our critical tools like Gospel parallels and better knowledge of the world and morality. We are in a position to judge the Bible and pick what we like, not on its own basis of how to apply but according to what we find useful. The irony is that the very people who duped us so long—these people came from the same culture that was duped. Furthermore, the disciples of Jesus were not exactly clever people in the reports that we have and in the social picture of the world. But they were able to either 1) cause the biggest fraud in the history of civilization or 2) convince people smart enough to follow them so that they might dupe us (Ehrman does not seem to think that Paul created Christianity, he helped refine it but ideas were given to him). The funny thing about this view is that the early church was smart while the later church was dumb (or maybe a dumb, smart, dumb sort of progression). I find that the Bible could be the heritage of “uneducated” peasants that then takes over the world to be an unconvincing explanation of its nature.
Perhaps what I find most fascinating is Ehrman’s claim that those who are educated about this in seminary (my seminary did not give these views!) do not apply it to ministry. Could this be because they recognize that this understanding of the Bible does not actually serve the church? When one does integrate this approach, why even preach from the Bible? Why not preach from whatever writings you find useful, as you will pick and choose anyway? I do see this as being true in my experiences discussing things with people from mainline churches. I guess I don’t see what Ehrman’s vision would be for the Bible in churches—which might be because his view would see the church as a place where our specific agendas and views are pushed across, as opposed to a revelation and perspective from the outside—God Himself!
Shopping for God August 4, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Church, Spirituality.add a comment
I have been pondering the book Shopping for God by James Twitchell since I picked it up at the library. While Twitchell has been implicated in plagarism in this book, it does not rule out his analysis (it only means that it is not just Twitchell that thinks some of these things). The sub-title of the book is “How Religion Went from In Your Heart to in Your Face” and it essentially is an analysis of the recent marketing (branding) of the church that has resulted in making Christian music, publishing, T-shirts, and other items such a profitable industry over the past couple of decades. He analyzes both the mainline church and the evangelical/mega-church, noting the decline of the former and the rise (and potential fall) of the latter. Twitchell is an apathetic person when it comes to religion; therefore, I appreciated what he would see in terms of the churches and their use of marketing, etc.
I’ll try to give the book in a nutshell. Instead of this “in your face” religion being a revival or awakening, it is really more of a “market distribution” shift like we have had in American religion before; the same number of people are going to church but their attendance patterns are changing (less churches, bigger churches) and their cultural expressions are changing too. This has happened, as before, by seeing the shifts in culture and new patterns of communication/distribution of information. There has always been a connection between marketing and the Protestant church, as they all basically give interchangeable products (Coke vs. Pepsi) so, like with products, it has been the narrative or the idea attached to the product (like Episcopal is elite, etc.) that caused people to shift (and they usually went to the church that they were then raised in). However, this has changed in some ways due to divorces (people no longer have a family church), the change in social prestige (now Lexus is the sign of privilege, not church; you don’t have to go to church), mobility (changing jobs), and ministry advancement (pastors moving on to bigger and better calls), and a lack of passion in the mainlines that occurs in the the evangelical churches; these changes have led to mainline churches mostly of old women, with few men and few young men. The attempt by mainlines to advertise (United Methodist on TV) is a last ditch and desperate attempt to get back in the market but it probably won’t help.When men come back to church with their families (as before, at the urging of their wives and “Victorian” sort of social standards), they are attracted to the mega-church with its bells and whistles (the lastest in technology), pastor-preneur leaders (guys you would follow in the business world as well), and less “telling you what to do.” (Quote: Men don’t like to be lectured to, and they had to be shamed. Don’t call them sinners. Call them strivers….Men like the idea of seeking, of leading, of doing things, of engagment, of danger. Call it “Bible study” and they won’t appear. Call it “Ion on the Forge” and they may” on p.206. But doesn’t the gospel have to call us sinners?). These churches are built on the rock concert/sports mentality, of busy parking lots and of high energy based upon people; they sell growth and focus on helping us find our “purpose,” which is found in Christ (he does not say that Willow and Saddleback miss the gospel but package it differently than it used to be….Osteen on the other hand…..). These mega-s have seen the movement to “big-box” retail and have become the Wal-Mart of the church world. They might be a ticking time bomb, though, as these pastors might not be able to be replaced (yet to be seen), have the danger of celebrity, and sell growth (which eventually sets you up for failure). They have good , too, as they are understanding the world in which we live and seeking to do something with it. In some ways, it is the model of what we have today, just as the country church, etc. was the model we had earlier. What will come next might be the better question.
It was interesting to think about this as I “church shop.” In many ways, it seems that his analysis is pretty spot on, though I would disagree at points. The megachurch is a different type of church that is tied to our current culture; there are good and bad with it. I think smaller churches, more gospel preaching, and more community is the way forward, helps to keep the gospel as opposed to technology, personality, etc. Something I would have been interested in would be his experience and thoughts on places like Redeemer in Manhattan (Tim Keller) and Briarwood in Alabama (strong PCA); even churches like Mars Hill Seattle (Mark Driscoll), Bethlehem Baptist (John Piper) in St. Paul, or College Church in Wheaton. Are these churches built upon the bells and whistles of high-technology, not focusing too much on sin, and bringing “purpose” into our lives? Would you say that they do not emphasize doctrine, our sinfulness, and submission to God? Even looking at Mars Hill Grand Rapids (Rob Bell) would have been interesting.
One thing I realized at the end is whether the new evangelical mega-church is becoming like the old Catholic church of the Middle Ages (pre-Reformation). Leaders are celebrities (almost bishop-like with Bill Hybels and Rick Warren serving as co-popes for the evangelical), “Jesus junk” can function as “relics,” and it is a consumer mentality in some ways (but different from before), and the big buildings with high technology are “cathedrals.” It can be a religion of convenience and in some ways syncretism to the cultulre (Want to go to the Bears game on Sunday?…then go to the Saturday night service….want to feel okay about your sin, well then we won’t spend a time of reflection and confession) and one in which the pastor does not REALLY know the people in the congregaton. We have seen the fall of many megachurch pastors. Could there be something here?
Interesting book, still thinking about it.
Prodigial God August 1, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Ministry, Spirituality.add a comment
I finally got around to reading Tim Keller’s Prodigial God. Since I have listened to many lectures of Keller, I knew where he was going with the book–that the story of the prodigial son is really about two lost sons, as the first is lost in his endeavors of self-discovery (does what he wants) and the second by observance/religion (does what he is supposed to). They are both lost and the father invites both of them to return. This was not striking, as I have long known that the story was told to the Pharisees, challenging them to accept the fact that God accepts sinners. With Keller’s teaching elsewhere (which is why it was not new here), I found that it was a challenge to the Pharisees because they are in fact LOST; they think that God accepts them because they “obey” when that is not the case (because they ultimately think that they are righteous). I obviously am an “older brother” in that I have a tendency to legalism and to think that God should accept me because I am good; I don’t like to recognize my need and that I am lost! And I need to remember that this will be a constant struggle in my life and heart. I need to repent of my righteousness and goodness, as well as my sin.
What I gained by reading this book is the challenge not to be “self-righteous” about the self-righteous. I have a tendency to look down on those who are self-righteous, to almost want to reject them and not seek them out. In fact, by comparing myself to them, I am falling into the habit of the elder brother, as I show that I am better than them (and think that God loves me more!) God seeks them out; he challenges them and invites them to the feast. I need to do so as well! May this be at the heart of my life and ministry. As Keller says, Jesus is the true elder brother in that he seeks out what is lost…may I become more like that elder brother.
The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight July 28, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Language, Theology and Ministry.1 comment so far
I have heard Scot McKnight speak, used some of his more scholarly works, and followed his blog for a few years now. I like him; he’s a provocative and relevant speaker as this is true of Blue Parakeet in the Lisle Library, as I could now read it for myself. As I suspected, it is clear (it has a great structure, essentially intro and then two parts, with those parts subdivided well), full of good scholarship (though more aimed at laity, it is published by Zondervan/Willow Creek) as well as helpful in use of illustrations and pictures (the whole idea of a “blue parakeet” comes from a story about an escapted pet blue parakeet that Dr. McKnight saw; this becomes his controlling metaphor as he seeks to help us “unleash” the Bible and rethink how to read it). I liked it on the whole, as his approach to Scripture is much like mine, while it would seem that using a similar approach, we come to different conclusions. I concur with much of the message of the book, though I have a few critiques.
The introduction of the book deals with the fact that, whether we admit it, we all pick and choose what we apply from the Bible (except in really extreme causes!). The question is, how do we justifiy this sort of “picking and choosing.” In many ways, that is the purpose of the book. McKnight then uses a metaphor that we often cage the “blue parakeet” of the Bible, either by rigorously seeking to apply it or holding it captive to tradition. Instead, we need to read it as it stands on its own, as well as in conversation with others in history (reading with tradition). There are three elements that McKnight wants to impart in regards to approaching reading and appying the Bible. The first is that the Bible is not an instruction manual/rule book, mysterious puzzle with a code to be solved, blessing book, reader response/inkblot test, or having one privileged portion; it is a story. I affirm; I have taught this persective many times. We need to read it as the story of God’s redemption; McKnight modifies the usual Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration to Creation, Crack, Community (Israel), Christ, Consummation. Not sure if I will adopt this view (I have more of a view that would talk about redemption through a people failing (Israel) and moving into a person (Christ), but I affirm it. The second part tells us that the goal is to listen to God; to listen and obey God. The goal is not to obey the Bible but the God who reveals Himself in the Bible. While this might sound a bit too neo-orthodox for some, this is something that I have taught as well (even using 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as well), viewing the Bible as a way to a relationship with God. The Bible is His inspired Word but knowing it is not an end but a means to an end: knowing Him. So far, so good!
The third part of approaching the Bible–discerning–and then the case study–women in ministries–is where Dr. McKnight and I seem to differ more; I don’t think in principles as much as in application of principles. The idea of discerning is that through the Spirit and the historical/cultural context of our faith, we must see how the Bible patterns our life. This is where the rubber hits the road and where it gets messy. One critique I would give this book is that not enough time was spent on how to “discern,” which is understanding God through His Word and then applying it to our world today. This process means that we must understand what it said it its day (Moses’ ways in Moses’ day–careful Bible study) as well as what our world is really like today (I don’t know if Dr. McKnight cover much about how to “exegete the culture”). This is more difficult than Dr. McKnight seems to mention, as both processes are very complicated. He tries to do so with a case study, but this case study seems to lack much exegetical discussion of culture (furthermore, his approach to the discussion does not seem that different from others who have not advocated his same approach to Scripture). In some ways, McKnight does not mention how we must analyze culture to see where it is neutral to God’s created order and where it is in opposition to God’s created order–we must embody the gospel in the culture but this also means that we must confront the culture and transform it. A way that I see this having implications in his case study of women in ministry is the issue of whether we have an increasing androgynistic culture, if there are connections between feminism and the new “Roman woman” that he talks about in 1 Timothy, the variety of cultures/heritages/perspectives in our culture today (is there an “American culture” or “cultures in America”) and whether there are other paradigms (household of faith) that affects how we view church leadership (we also differ with how we see the created order affecting the issue, are the differences of men and women tied to the fall or creation?). Furthermore, it is much more difficult to exegete the original meaning, as we seem to differ in some readings concerning 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2. We are never going to have unanimity in these issues, which should also lead to some humility; perhaps there is a place for both. Something I definitely think that people should take away from this section, though, is the question of what minstries we see women doing in Scripture, as opposed to seeing what they might not be allowed to do. I am not quite where he is in terms of overall practice, but I think he has some insights we need to keep in mind.
The conclusion of the book in some ways moves to a “contextualization” of Christianity in each culture; we will live it out our faith differently in different times and places. I do not have a problem with that (must be my missiological training), within reason; this seems to be what happens in the Bible (though I would say that they contextualized under the inspiration of the Spirit; we do so under the guidance). There is diversity in Scripture; while I do not go as far as Ehrman and others and say that the 4 Gospels are 4 different religions, I do think that each community had its emphases and uniqueness, which affirms the validity of some differences in practices within the heart of the gospel (say Apostles’ Creed). But are these totally different cultures–or manifestations within sub-cultures? Does the “melting pot” feel of America mean that we have many different cultures or that we can have the gospel manifested differently within our nation because we are merging it? Is this why we have Willow Creek and the Episcopal church? Dr. McKnight mentions how he enjoys both of them and thinks that we need both; might the same be said in other areas of doctrine–such as the one of women in church ministries, which McKnight discusses (baptism, church order, worship styles, etc.). He does not seem to point to the fact that we could have a plurality of practices within a diverse culture–making the stance of something like the PCA vs. that of Willow Creek or other churches not in opposition but reflecting different ways of discerning in a multiplex culture.
As I said, a good, thought-provoking book. A good conversation piece. It corrects some mistakes that we make in reading and thinking about the Bible. I like it; however, it needs to be read in conversation with other books in Bible study (exegetical and cultural) 
There is a God by Antony Flew July 26, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Apologetics, Books, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.4 comments
Back in 2004, when I was teaching an apologetics class at church using Jesus Among Other Gods, the revelation that Antony Flew, a very well-known atheistic philosopher of the 2nd half of the 20th century, now believed in a God came out. It was true, as it came straight from the horse’s mouth–he myself. Of course, this was shocking news and well-received by Christian apologetics, panned by other atheists. I finally got around to reading Flew’s There is a God, in which he recounts his philosophical journey to deism. This is important to remember: he is a deist now who believes in the God of Aristotle, the unmoved mover; this god is self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient. God is not good or active (two key elements in the Christian god). Flew intially became a atheist because of the problem of evil; he says that this is not an issue, though, that determines God’s existence, but one that might reflect on His character. The two solutions in his mind are deism or free-will. He says that the evidence brought him to this belief; he is being true to his philosophical convictions that evidence should lead to one’s beliefs.
The first half of the book is Flew’s atheistic philosophical journey. There were many ideas that I did not totally understand, as they are were more philosophical and how he helped develop a different school of philosophy in some ways. Ironically, this school of philosophy has made some advances and has led to Flew changing his mind about the existence of God. He notes that philosophers have acutally made some advances in thinking over the past 50 years; there can be advances in philosophy! Flew then goes on in particular to look at the reasons he believes now (common apologetic arguments Christians). The appendices include another person’s review of the fundamental atheist movement (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and the like) from more of a philosphical angle. Appendix B is NT Wright on teh resurrection; a great mini-primer from Wright’s prominent writings. I highly recommend B for everyone, not A, though, as it seems to technical. I thought I would briefly summarize the arugments that Flew notes help change his mind.
He notes three key areas (pg. 91) that lead him to believe that there is a god; the best explanation for these problems would be the existence of a god. They are: How did the laws of nature come to exist? How did life come from nonlife? How did the universe come into existence? Essentially, these are the old arguments from creation/design in some ways but from a different angle, looking at even more indepth science, with tight philosophical framings. The laws of nature are incredible–but why are there laws? Why do we assume laws? It seems that these come from the mind of God (as the best solution). Why is our universe perfectly suited for us; the conditions exist for life, but why is there life? How did it come to happen? (science can’t explain that). While some have posited the multi-verse approach (we just happen to be in the one where all conditions work), this only multiplies the issues and still begs the question: why and how? Science that points to a beginning of a universe seems to point that we cannot simply say that the universe always has been. This is not simply a “God of the gaps” but one that seems to be the best explanation for the data that we have at hand. Follow the evidence…
Note, this evidence leads Flew to the God of Aristotle, not the God of Abraham. The next question is whether this God has revealed Himself; if so, how has he revealed Himself. Or to put it a different way, what do we make of Jesus Christ. Is the revelation of God? That needs more than philosophy (though Wright does a good job of showing the historical “problem” of the resurrection…that the resurrection seems to be the best answer to a number of historical phenomenon. It made for a good read, not too deep; more of a “memoirs” by a philosopher, but glad I read it. If anything, it gives me confidence that these arguments can be convincing to people not yet Christian; however, more is needed than philosophy and intellectual discussions.
