I watched the following video and became rather sick to my stomach. This should win awards for missing the point by the largest possible margin. The fact that any of this should be the focus of a baptism goes to show how truly confused American Christianity (which is the only environment, that I am aware of, that would allow something like this to happen) really is.
Really? Really …
I know this is a topic that I’ve covered many times, but it just appears to be a very popular subject right now. Christianity Today has published another article recently about the origins of humankind and the literal readings of Genesis. I recently finished reading and reviewing Peter Enns’ “The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins” for Reviews in Religion and Theology (I think that it will be published in their first issue of 2013).
I want to know this – if Adam doesn’t exist, what do we lose? Enns discusses the Adam found in Genesis versus the Adam found in Paul’s writings, and it is pretty clear that Paul is using extra-biblical sources to create his understanding of Adam. In addition, the inclusion of Adam in Paul’s writings does not affect his main argument; getting rid of Adam does not get rid of original sin. Original sin is an obvious part of the world around us, and Paul’s argument concerns God’s answer to the problem of original sin (Jesus!), and whether or not sin originated in Adam does not change that fact.
So, what is lost if Adam didn’t exist? Is it simply that people don’t want to admit that Paul was a fallible human being, like everyone else?
Let’s discuss this! What do you think?
It’s is Wednesday again! Head on over to Koinonia to enter to win a free copy of Introducing The Old Testament.
I am currently reading a book to review for RSR entitled Psychological Analyses and the Historical Jesus, by Bas Van Os. I am about 120 pages into it, and it has raised some interesting questions for me. It seems to be a more conservative take on the “Historical Jesus” movement, and involves a great deal of sociological, historical-critical, and psychological research into first century Palestine, early Christianity, and especially the resurrection witnesses mentioned by Paul in Corinthians.
My main question is brought about by the view in the book of Jesus as a human being. I affirm that Jesus was both fully God and fully human, a paradox of the highest caliber, in my opinion. Being fully human means that Jesus learned things just like we did. Being fully God meant that he had to have, to some extent, a higher knowledge. At what point do these overlap, and assuming he was born, grew up as a child into a young adult, and learned just as his peers did, at what point did he know that he was God? At his baptism? Prior to that? This question may not even be answerable, but it is certainly interesting!
Is Vanderbilt now restricting religious freedoms within the groups of registered student organizations? Check out this post over at Seedbed, written by Tish Harrison Warren, a campus minister at Vanderbilt’s Intervarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship, that details how Vanderbilt will no longer allow official religious organizations on campus require their leaders to affirm creeds or agree to a group’s particular doctrinal statements or commitments.
What do you think? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Honestly, this kind of thing confuses me. Why would someone want to be a leader of a religious organization if they disagreed with the doctrinal statements of that organization? Would it not make sense to simply join another organization that is a closer fit to their own stance? I don’t even see how this becomes an issue.
McGrath, Alister. Why God Won’t Go Away: Is The New Atheism Running on Empty? Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010.
Allister McGrath attempts to tackle what has been one of the most prominent trends of the first decade of the 21st century: Neo-atheism. The entire first section of the book is dedicated to explaining what neo-atheism is, and a number of neo-atheist authors are discussed, including Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins.
The book is divided into three major parts: (a) What Is the New Atheism, (b) Engaging the New Atheism: Three Core Themes, and (c) Where Does the New Atheism Go from Here? McGrath also writes an excellent introduction, includes numerous footnotes, and a great “further reading” list.
The first major part of the book, “What Is the New Atheism,” is simply an introduction to the topic. The two chapters included in this section discuss how this movement started and what makes it “new” compared to “old” atheism. Basically, this school of thought moves away from simply not believing in God, to being anti-God; neo-atheists fervently attempt to “convert” Christians (and people belonging to other religious groups, be it Islam, Buddhism, or Judaism) to atheism. McGrath describes categories of atheism: (1) “apathetic” atheism, or agnosticism, (2) “committed atheists,” or those who actively believe that there is no God, and (3) anti-theists, which is the category that the neo-atheists fall under. These people are often referred to as “militant” atheists, who are angry about the idea that people believe in God.
The second part of the book, “Engaging the New Atheism: Three Core Themes,” approaches neo-atheism on three fronts: violence, reason, and science. The first, violence, stems from the idea that neo-atheists lump all religions into the non-existent universal category of “Religion,” and then views “Religion” as the source of all violence and evil. McGrath takes the time to explore this view, and then challenge it with the idea that Christianity is founded on ideals of non-violence, while atheist states, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, tended to be very violent, especially towards religious groups.
The next chapter, on the theme of reason, is probably my favorite chapter in the book. McGrath points out that many Christian philosophers, including Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, and C.S. Lewis, have argued that faith should “justify itself by argument.” Richard Dawkins, a leading neo-atheist, obviously disagrees with statements like “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence…faith is not allowed to justify itself by argument.” The way McGrath plays the arguments of Dawkins and his ilk against Christian thinkers that point out obvious discrepancies in the neo-atheist thought process is very well done.
Science, the third chapter in this section, McGrath discusses the purposes of science, the limits of science, and how neo-atheists use science outside of its limits. Sam Harris, another leading neo-atheist, argues that science “can determine moral values…tell us what is right.” Harris fails to realize what McGrath points out: “Religion engages with questions that lie beyond the scope of the scientific method – such as the existence of God, the meaning to life, and the nature of values.” The hijacking of science by fundamentalist atheists is equally as bad as when fundamentalist Christians do the same thing; McGrath quotes Thomas H. Huxley, in that science “commits suicide when it adopts a creed.”
The final section of the book is “Where Does the New Atheism Go from Here?” In this section, McGrath details how neo-atheism is now viewed with skepticism, even from other atheists. When reason and science fail neo-atheists, they resort to ridicule and attempting to belittle and berate their intellectual opponents. Neo-atheists are starting to embarrass more conservative atheists, who now try to separate themselves from the fringe group that Dawkins and Hitchens have created. McGrath views this as a difficult future for the neo-atheists, and ends the book on the positive note that religion is “ineradicable.”
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com <http://BookSneeze®.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
I added a post recently about John Piper’s call for a more “masculine” Christianity. Just this morning, Dr. Ben Witherington III added his own very well thought out response.
Dr. Witherington starts out with an excellent point:
“What Dr. Piper says is not merely bad theology in various ways, its dangerous theology”
He then goes on to explain that in a variety of ways. The arguments that I want to highlight are as follows:
“Well let’s start with the orthodox Christian point that GOD IS NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE IN THE DIVINE NATURE. The Bible is clear enough that God is ‘spirit’, not flesh and gender is always a manifestation of flesh. In the book that Laura Ice and I wrote some time ago, entitled The Shadow of the Almighty we made reasonably clear that: 1) there are plenty of both masculine and feminine images and metaphors applied to God in the Bible; 2) that interestingly enough it is not true that God is much called Father in the OT. In fact such language is rare, with almost no examples of God ever addressed as Father in the OT in prayer or entreaty…”
One of my basic arguments was that God does not have male or female traits, but that males and females have “God traits,” in that both male and female were derived out of God, not the other way around. Dr. Witherington touches on the difference between spirit and flesh, which is also an excellent explanation.
Do yourself a favor – read Dr. Witherington’s post on this topic. It is well worth the read.
My wife finished up her sermon for Sunday’s Christmas Day Service. I’m an OT guy, so I’m not on top of everything in Luke’s Gospel (and when it comes to Gospels, I’m really more of a John type of guy), so it may not come as a surprise that when she read her sermon to me, I heard something new and amazing that I had never noticed before.
The story of Christ’s birth is one of amazement, and everyone in the story reacts differently.
There is one reaction that is so incredible, I have no idea how I never noticed it before.
I want you to open up a bible or do an internet search and read Luke 2:19, and then read the surrounding verses for context. Then I hope you will have the same reaction that you encounter in verse 19.
