Category Archives: Book Review
Religious Illiteracy
I’ve been reading the book Religious Literacy by Stephen Prothero. It is truly an eye-opener. It has made me realize how much I don’t know about the world religions. I’m ignorant of even our closest neighbor, Judaism.
With a ministry such as mine, I should understand more about other world religions. It will help me deal with questions from people of other faiths.
So I thought I would start with Judaism. To this end, I have obtained two books, The Jewish Approach to God by Rabbi Neil Gillman and An Introduction to Judaism by Nicholas de Lange.
Gillman’s book, as well as other exchanges recently, have started me thinking about Reformed theology. In the introduction to The Jewish Approach to God, Gillman says:
In Christian thinking, that human failure is inherent in human nature, one of the results of human sin, Adam’s rebellion against God in the Garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 3. That blemish is transmitted from one generation to another to all of humanity through the sexual act. Jesus’ vicarious death on the Cross then represents God’s gracious gift, which erases original sin and grants salvation to the believer who accepts Jesus’ saving act.
But in Jewish sources, the very fact that the prophets urge the people of Israel to unblock their hearts, to open their eyes, to remove the obstacles that get in the way of their relation to God suggests that this is more a matter of will, not at all inherent in human nature. The Jewish claim, then, is that their is no inherent epistemological obstacle to recognizing God’s presence in the world. [p. x]
Since Christianity originated from the Jewish religion, Jewish thought plays a prominent role in early Christian philosophy and theology. The very reason that I started with Judaism was that, as our forerunner, I thought that Jewish theology would help me understand where the New Testament writers were coming from. If Gillman is correct in his assertion here, then that means that the New Testament writers were never teaching original sin, and that my recent opponent was correct in stating original sin is false doctrine.
However, I already know the answer to this dilemma. Scripture contains progressive revelation, which means that the New supersedes the Old. Original sin is taught in the New Testament, especially in Romans 5. That, then, takes the place of the Jewish philosophy of sin in someone’s life being a matter of will rather than a matter of nature.
In any case, I pray that God use this book to bring me to a closer understanding of him. As I learn more, I’ll post some additional thoughts.
I Don’t Believe in Atheists
Recently, I’ve started reading an excellent book by Chris Hedges with the provocative title I Don’t Believe in Atheists. Hedges, no friend of either Christianity or the New Atheism, is systematically picking apart the claims of the New Atheists (such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins). The trick is that he is doing it from a secular perspective–he hates Christianity as much as the New Atheists do, and makes no bones about saying so. In fact, he’s written a book dismantling the position of Christianity called American Fascism, which I plan to read next.
What makes this book interesting is that Hedges hits the nail right on the head when he discusses the real problem with the God debate. The real problem is the failure of each side to acknowledge the problem of sin. Human beings are sinful by nature, argues Hedges, but both the Religious Right and the New Atheists see their position as sinless. Therefore, they try to offer humanity a utopian world but neither can deliver this promise because of their innate sinfulness.
Humanity progresses scientifically, but regresses morally. This is the root cause of our natural resource depletion, and our continued use of technology for warfare rather than the good of humanity. Hedges believes that any proposed solution to the impending economic, political, and environmental crises must consider the human element of sinfulness. It has to be more nuanced than the Religious Right’s solution of letting Jesus rebuild the earth and the New Atheist’s solution of getting rid of religion (which stands in the way of their god of reason).
I agree with Hedges insofar as a solution must be found for these impending crises. I believe with all of my heart that Jesus will return to earth to set up a new Kingdom upon it, but I believe that that Blessed Hope may be yet far off. Therefore, we must preserve what we have now and sustain the earth for our children. Jesus often portrays the relationship between God and man as a landowner to his stewards. The stewards are always held accountable by the landowner to how the owner’s property was treated while he was away. I believe that the same will be true when Jesus returns again: he will hold humankind accountable for the way we treated his property, the earth, while he was away.
I agree with Hedges that the Bible reveals spiritual truths. I agree with the problem of human sinfulness, and I agree that any solution offered to the complex human condition should be more nuanced than what the New Atheists and the Religious Right currently offer.
I disagree with Hedges in that I believe the Bible was written to reveal history, not just spiritual truths. I believe in a literal six day creation and a literal Adam and Eve. Hedges doesn’t believe in that stuff–he thinks that the Bible is only meant to convey spiritual truths through myths. I’m not sure if Hedges believes in a literal Jesus, but obviously I believe in that (having challenged interpretations to the contrary on this blog before).
So far, I’m hooked on this book and I hope that the rest is as good as the first chapter.
The Portable Atheist: Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mark Twain
Christopher Hitchens’s book The Portable Atheist is a collection of “essential” writings for unbelievers. I’m currrently posting some of my miscellaneous thoughts about the various works in the book as I read them.
According to Hitchens, Percy Bysshe Shelley was a victim of the theocracy that once ruled Oxford and Cambridge universities. He wasn’t allowed to teach there because he did not profess faith in God. Hitchens sees this as a great tragedy, but after reading Shelley’s pamphlet “A Refutation of Deism,” I’m hardly moved to agree. Yes, Shelley had a great mind, but he focused it to the wrong ends. He came to simple, startling, and incorrect conclusions about the nature of God.
First, the pamphlet argues from the point of view of an eternal universe. This is because, according to Shelley, it is simpler to conclude that the universe is the Uncaused Cause than to reach outside the universe for that Cause. The flaw here is that modern science has unanimously concluded that the universe is not eternal–it had a beginning sometime in the finite past. The universe, because it came into being, must have a cause. Even Shelley concedes that point, and that it is one of the main reasons that he begins his argument with the assumption that the universe is self-existent and eternal.
Since that is not the case, the rest of the argument–founded upon a faulty premise–is incorrect.
However, it remains for me to point out one of the double standards of atheism, and that is the application of Occam’s Razor to the divine. The atheist applies Occam’s Razor to the universe, saying that the Big Bang is the Uncaused Cause–the First Mover that set the universe into motion.
The theist, however, has a much better argument here. The theist begins from the divine as the Uncaused Cause because all that begins must first have a cause. The universe began, and so therefore must have a cause. A cause cannot itself be a part of the effect–think of the Laws of Inertia here. Therefore, the Uncaused Cause is supernatural–outside the order of the universe.
Here is where the atheist retorts, “What created the Creator?” Using this retort is a vicious double standard. The atheist allows Occam’s Razor to be applied to the Big Bang, stating that is the Uncaused Cause. But he doesn’t allow the theist the same leeway to apply Occam’s Razor to the divine Creator. The divine creator, the atheist reasons, must Himself have a Creator, who also had a Creator, who also had a Creator, and so on backwards into infinity.
This is reasonable to the atheist. He doesn’t see the hole in his logic, however. He is using Occam’s Razor to make the Big Bang the First Cause. He refuses to give the theist the same ability to simplify to one deity, in effect requiring a multitude of deities when he only requires one Big Bang.
I also read Mark Twain’s essay, “Bible Teaching and Religious Practice.” More of the same old refuted notions–buffet style religion (the idea that we can pick and choose the laws that we follow), slavery, and witch hunts. I agree that religion is many times a very bad thing, but I only wish that atheists would at least represent our side without resorting to argument by outrage as they so often do. These notions are refuted in Lee Camp’s excellent book, Mere Discipleship.
Back Rome Again 