Randal Rauser's Blog, page 111

Apologetics: Why do good apologetic arguments produce bad results?

The post Apologetics: Why do good apologetic arguments produce bad results? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Do all adherents to non-Christian religions go to hell?

Let’s take a look at one of my recent, highly rigorous Twitter surveys:

A question for Christians: Do all adherents to non-Christian religions go to hell?

— Randal Rauser (@RandalRauser) November 17, 2017

When I see results like this — and by “this” I’m referring specifically to that 53% — I wonder whether folks have really thought through the implications of their position. I suspect many (most?) haven’t. So let’s help them out.

The year is 1944. At 14 years old, Hannah has grown up under the Third Reich. For years, her parents managed to shield the worst horrors of Nazi Germany from her. Everything changed with Kristallnacht, the night her father’s business was destroyed with sledgehammer wielding Nazi paramilitaries. Hannah grew up on November 9, 1938. She will never forget seeing her father and brother beaten that night on the cobblestone streets while the Lutheran pastor who lived next door cheered on the soldiers. She can still hear the chants of Christians calling her a “Christ killer”.  Now, at 14 and barely subsisting in Auschwitz, she is an orphan. But even as she looks out over the bleak landscape of snow, brick, and those damnable puffing smokestacks with their serpentine coils rising into nothingness, she as yet clings to the hope that HaShem may yet deliver his people.

Hannah is an adherent to a non-Christian religion. So Hannah is going to hell?

The post Do all adherents to non-Christian religions go to hell? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Is it wrong for Christians to watch films containing graphic sexual content?

The other day I posted a survey about the ethics of Christians viewing movies containing “graphic sexual content.” Here are the results:

Today's survey:

"Christians may watch movies that include graphic sexual content."

— Randal Rauser (@RandalRauser) November 18, 2017

So a plurality of respondents believes Christians should not watch films with graphic sexual content. That’s an interesting — but hardly surprising — result. However, it is a result that invites some critical reflection. In response, I’ll make several observations.

First, I suspect a plurality — indeed, a majority — would not have a principled objection to Christians viewing a film containing graphic violence.  And if they did, I’d reply, “What about Hacksaw Ridge? Indeed, what about The Passion of the Christ? Renowned film critic Roger Ebert called Gibson’s Passion the most violent film he’d ever seen. Despite that, surely you wouldn’t say it is inherently wrong for a Christian to view The Passion of the Christ?”

So what’s the difference between graphic violence and graphic sexual content?

I suspect the underlying assumption is that graphic sexual content is likely to produce lust in the viewer. And it is inherently wrong for a person to view a film that is likely to make them lustful.

There is a bit of wisdom here. We should be discerning in our consumption of culture, and if some cultural product is likely to produce lust in a person, I would definitely agree that from a Christian perspective that person ought to avoid that cultural product.

But that doesn’t justify a general prohibition. After all, a National Geographic story depicting topless African women may produce lust in a twelve-year-old boy. That doesn’t warrant a general ethical prohibition for all Christians reading National Geographic stories with topless African women.

The same point applies to violence, by the way. If a person cannot watch Hacksaw Ridge without reliving past trauma or lapsing into vengeful fantasies against one’s enemies, then that person ought not watch Hacksaw Ridge. But that doesn’t justify a prohibition for the rest of us.

Moreover, content — whether it be graphic violence or graphic sexuality — can be presented in a variety of ways. It can be presented in a way that glorifies violence or heightens lust, or it can be presented in a moralistic perspective that condemns particular expressions of violence and lust.

Consider, for example, the graphic gang rape scene in the critically acclaimed 1988 film The Accused. The scene was controversial for being one of the first graphic depictions of rape in a mainstream Hollywood film. Needless to say, the depiction was intended to highlight the horror of sexual violence, not promote fantasies in the audience. If, in keeping with the intentions of the director, a person who views this depiction of rape in the film is repelled by it and thereby motivated to fight against rape, how could it possibly be inherently wrong for a Christian to view the film?

Not surprisingly, that which applies to graphic sexual content also applies to graphic nudity. Note, for example, that any principled rejection of graphic nudity in film would prohibit a Christian from watching Schindler’s List. But that is surely absurd.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Bible includes its own share of graphic sexual content. Consider this depiction of Israel’s unfaithfulness: “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.” (Ezekiel 23:20) We should also consider Absalom’s public sexual conquests with his own father’s wives: “So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he slept with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.” (2 Samuel 16:22) And how could we forget the playful eroticism of the Song of Songs?

The post Is it wrong for Christians to watch films containing graphic sexual content? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Why do good apologetic arguments produce bad results?

The post Why do good apologetic arguments produce bad results? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Bad Language: A Quick Reply to Michael Brown

My favorite Christian conservative, Michael Brown, apparently didn’t care for Stranger Things:

I decided to watch the first episode of a well-known TV series to see what the excitement was about. I shut it quickly after a child casually used profanity while hanging out with his friends. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

— Dr. Michael L. Brown (@DrMichaelLBrown) November 17, 2017

To be sure, he doesn’t mention which program he was watching in the tweet. But Stranger Things is all the rage. And Dustin (one of the characters) does have a potty mouth. So it’s a safe inference until I hear otherwise.

My response to Michael proceeds as follows.

First, this is an example of “verisimilitude”. It’s attempt to replicate accurately how (some) kids talk and act. As I noted above, Dustin is the kid with the bad language. I’ve known many Dustins over the years. In short, having been a kid in the 80s, I can say that Stranger Things is accurate.

Second, Christians are called to be in the world but not of it. By watching an accurate depiction of how kids talk, we are not being of the world, but we are being in it.

Third, I recognize that some Christians may struggle personally with language. They should probably not watch Stranger Things. But they shouldn’t judge those Christians who are not threatened by an accurate depiction of how kids talk. That would place them in danger of becoming legalists about a matter of Christian freedom. And legalism is a cancer on the soul.

Finally, there are bad words in the Bible. To take one of the most famous examples, in Philippians 3:8 Paul uses the word skubalon. Martin Luther famously translated skubalon with the German equivalent of “shit” which is, all told, a reasonably accurate depiction of the coarseness of the Greek.

At the very least, this suggests to me that those folks who get too hung up on the occasional bad word are in danger of straining gnats if not swallowing camels.

The post Bad Language: A Quick Reply to Michael Brown appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Why I’m grateful for open theism (even though I’m not an open theist)

A few years ago I heard a lady speak on the devastating experience of losing her son. As the extraordinarily painful narrative unfolded, she described how her faith had faltered on the rock of divine foreknowledge. And she recounted the central question she faced: how could she worship a god who foreknew and — by permission if not causation — foreordained the death of her own son?

The resolution for her was found in open theism: God, she concluded, did not know in advance that her son would die.

I am not an open theist. But I am glad this woman is. Why?

In her case, the options were as follows:

(1) God foreknew her son’s death and God is a monster.

(2) God did not foreknow her sons’s death and God is good.

I don’t believe that (1) and (2) exhaust the options. On the contrary, I would take option three:

(3) God foreknew her son’s death and God is (still) good.

But (3) wasn’t an option for that lady. In her mind the only live options were (1) and (2). And given those stark options, I’m glad she chose (2) over (1). In short, I’d rather she believe God doesn’t know the future than that she believe God is not good.

And that’s one reason I’m grateful for open theism. It gives some people the space to retain belief in God’s goodness while journeying through the valley of suffering.

The post Why I’m grateful for open theism (even though I’m not an open theist) appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Can you be prolife and vote for a prochoice politician?

Yesterday I received the following question from a reader which was prompted by my critique of Roy Moore:

I am pretty sure you support politicians who are pro-abortion. Now, maybe you are not pro-life. Fair enough. But if you are, how can one get angry at politicians who exhibit sexual predatory behaviour and not be at least equally angry, if not more so, at politicians who support the killing of the unborn in the womb?”

Let’s go through this point by point.

First, yes, I’m prolife. For my defense of one prolife strategy see this article.

Second, I assure you that while I am angry with politicians who engage in sexually predatory behavior, I am equally angry with any politician “who supports the killing of the unborn in the womb.” However, those who are prochoice (by which I mean those who support legal access to elective abortion) do not thereby support the killing of the unborn in the womb. Or to put it another way, that is a deeply misleading description for the prochoice position.

Consider Hillary Clinton as a case in point. While she is prochoice, her position is not accurately reflected by that description. See her new book What Happened, pp. 130-32. Also see this excellent article in The Atlantic discussing her views on abortion and her Methodist commitments.

And if we want to make progress on this deeply complex ethical issue, we need to begin by steelmanning those with whom we disagree. I suspect if we consistently did that, we might be able to make some real progress on this contentious issue.

Finally, let’s address what is arguably the underlying question: if you’re against abortion, how can you support prochoice politicians?

The answer is that abortion is one of many complex and critically important issues. And voting for a politician is often a very messy and ambiguous process of discernment.

So imagine, for example, two politicians: Singh and Chang. Singh supports elective access to abortion, development of renewable energy in light of the threat of climate change, and more restrictions on access to firearms. Chang rejects elective access to abortion, denies the existence of climate change and instead supports investment in coal, and advocates for fewer restrictions on firearm access.

I agree with Singh on two policies and I agree with Change on one policy. All of these topics are very important and I don’t see any obvious way to say that in complex moral evaluations like this that one topic is automatically the trump card for others.

Twenty years ago Pope John Paul II published his encyclical “Evangelium Vitae,” in which he outlines his vision for the culture of life toward which Catholics (and Christians generally) ought to strive. It’s my favorite JPII encyclical and it rightly places a prolife attitude toward the fetus within a broader prolife framework. I believe that Christians ought to vote for prolife candidates. But discerning which candidate is prolife on balance is more complicated than discerning which rejects access to elective abortion.

The post Can you be prolife and vote for a prochoice politician? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

In Search of Salvation

My new video gives a twenty minute introduction to the themes of my book What’s So Confusing About Grace? Check it out!

The post In Search of Salvation appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Michael Brown defends accused pedophile Roy Moore and I respond

This morning Michael Brown published a defense of accused pedophile Roy Moore titled “A Christian Response to the Allegations Against Judge Roy Moore.” I provided a response in the comment section which I have reproduced below.

I believe this is one of those Rubicon moments (of which there have been so many these last 12 months). Evangelicals like Brown are discrediting themselves, Christianity, and the Republican Party as they circle the wagons around a sexual predator.

* * *

Thanks for your article Michael. No surprise, I disagree with your analysis.

When assessing a he said/she said (or he said/she, she, she, and she said) case, we need to look at the credibility of witnesses, motive, and corroborating witnesses and evidence. And please keep in mind what should be obvious: individuals can make reasoned judgments based on the available evidence irrespective of any conclusion being reached in a jury trial.

So here’s the evidence. In the last couple days Moore has conducted a handful of interviews. In that time he stated that when he dated young women while in his 30s he always asked their parents for permission. That statement implies that he was dating girls of the age where parental consent would be required, and that is already a damning fact.

Second, when he was interviewed by Hannity, Moore initially hedged on whether he had dated teenagers. I can say without qualification that I never dated teenagers when I was in my 30s. I presume you can too. But Moore didn’t say that. Instead, he said initially that he didn’t remember dating them. It is only after Hannity returned from a commercial break and attempted to reframe the question that Moore began to give a fuller response.

Third, regarding motivations, Moore has a clear motivation to lie. By contrast, these four women have no clear motivation to lie. At least one of them voted for Trump. And all of them knew full well that they and their lives would be subjected to scrutiny, to ridicule, to skepticism, and worse.

Fourth, the WaPo article carefully investigated their claims and sought corroborating witnesses to various details of their reports. Thirty witnesses all told were interviewed. All of this attests further to the credibility of the witnesses.

Fifth, the WaPo journalists were not contacted by these women. Rather, they gradually came across their stories when they were doing research in Alabama and began to encounter rumors of Moore’s past.

So to sum up, Moore has thus far not been a credible witness and he has a motivation to lie. By contrast, I find the witness of the women sober, clear and detailed and supported at various points by multiple corroborating witnesses. Even Tucker Carlson has admitted he finds the witness of these women to be credible. And they have absolutely no reason to lie.

At the very least, you have very credible evidence that Moore may very well be a sexual predator, pedophile, and liar. You need not believe the charges as yet to have adequate reason to withdraw all support for him in this election.

Consider, if you had any inkling that a man might be a sexual predator, pedophile, and liar, would you allow him to take care of your grandchildren? Surely not! So why would you continue to support his political career?

The post Michael Brown defends accused pedophile Roy Moore and I respond appeared first on Randal Rauser.

My Exchange with a Christian Defender of Roy Moore

It began with a tweet from Michael Brown:

Wow. I just read Louis C.K.'s admission of guilt and his unqualified statement of remorse. I pray he'll find true forgiveness from the Lord, but you have to appreciate his clarity and his candor.

— Dr. Michael L. Brown (@DrMichaelLBrown) November 10, 2017

I couldn’t resist drawing a comparison at this point between Louis C.K.’s mea culpa and Roy Moore’s aggressive denial of the accusations with him. And with that we were off:

Let’s debrief.

The first point I want to return to is that one need not wait for the results of a court proceeding to render one’s personal judgment based on available evidence. Consequently, Brown’s initial response that Moore is innocent until proven guilty is irrelevant: he may be legally innocent in the face of the law, but that doesn’t mean he is innocent. Nor does it mean one must suspend judgment as to his guilt.

This brings us to the second point: when it comes to assessing he said/she said (or he said/ she, she, she, and she said) evidence, we need to look to credibility. I already stated that I find Moore’s accusers credible. Moreover, they have no motivation to lie. And in this highly polarized political climate, one can only imagine the degree of abuse to which these four women may be subjecting themselves by coming forward. Furthermore, Moore’s four accusers are corroborated at several points by additional witnesses who were interviewed for the WaPo article.

By contrast, I don’t find Moore credible and he clearly has many reasons to lie.

What is more, note first that Moore’s rebuttal to the article is utterly implausible. He does not dispute specific claims within the article. Rather, he denies the entire article in toto as “fake news” and a democratic conspiracy.  So we are to believe that the DNC bought off these four women and the two dozen other witnesses and the DNC concocted their stories, and the DNC did this all to defeat Moore?

Can anyone take such a claim seriously? The DNC would literally need to buy off dozens of people to sustain such a mass conspiracy. And this is to say nothing of the Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post which would be putting its entire reputation on the line by perpetuating a massive hoax.

Clearly Moo’re charge is absurd. And the very fact that he has the gall to respond in this way undermines his credibility as a witness.

Next, I would suggest the reader listen to Moore’s telephone interview with Sean Hannity. Note in particular how Hannity asks Moore whether he dated teenagers when he was in his 30s. It’s a simple question. But in response Moore hems-and-haws until he finally settles on the response that he doesn’t remember any such relationships. Good grief, this is not a confidence-inducing response and it only goes to further undermine Moore’s credibility.

As for Michael Brown’s defense of Moore, I’ll note two things. First, Brown attempts to normalize men in their thirties dating teenage girls. One sees this in two tweets: in the first he says that Moore’s actions (at least in dating 16-18 year olds) wouldn’t be a big deal in Alabama; further, he is incredulous to the notion that a 32 year old man dating an “18 year old” should be censured decades later. Both of these tweets are clearly intended to remove the offense of a man in his thirties dating a child half his age. And I find that shocking.

Second, at the end of our exchange Moore states that he does not deny the accusers charges: that is, they may be correct. We must not miss the significance of this concession for it means that Brown is admitting based on the available evidence that Moore may indeed be a pedophilic sexual predator and a liar. But if Brown believes Roy Moore may be a pedophilic sexual predator and liar, then how can he continue to support him?

Suffice it to say, I found this to be a very dispiriting exchange, and I continue to be surprised and depressed at the lengths people — and Christians in particular — will go to sustain their partisan loyalties.

The post My Exchange with a Christian Defender of Roy Moore appeared first on Randal Rauser.