Randal Rauser's Blog, page 175

The Apologist’s Dilemma

A few days ago I began reading Os Guinness’ latest book, Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion (IVP, 2015). I’ve been a Guinness fan since I read The Gravedigger File back in 1997. (However, in the interests of full disclosure, I’ve never been a big fan of the other Guinness: too flat with a metallic aftertaste. And too trendy with the frat boys.)

But I digress. My purpose here isn’t to talk about Guinness (or Guinness). Rather, I want to riff off a passage that Guinness cites in which C.S. Lewis describes the incredulity of many contemporary skeptics:

“Such people put up a version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and make that the object of their attack. When you try and explain the Christian doctrine as it is really held by an instructed adult, they complain that you are making their heads turn round, and that it is all too complicated, and that if there really were a God they are sure He would have made religion simple.” (Cited in Guinness, Fool’s Talk, 129)

This is a great example why Lewis continues to predominate in discussions of apologetics: in short, his analysis is still trenchant decades after it was first rendered. In this case, Lewis captures a dynamic that I have frequently encountered.

The skeptic begins with something like a crude form of young earth creationism: the earth was created six thousand years ago with Adam and Eve living in a pristine garden while God walked in the cool of the day; then the serpent hissed his deception and led hapless humanity astray and they were summarily removed from the garden. And this picture, the skeptic triumphantly concludes, is a fairy tale which is falsified by the sciences and common sense.

In response, the apologist points out that there are various exegetical approaches to Genesis and that the skeptic’s reading of the text definitely belongs in the more crudely literalistic and simplistic end of the interpretive spectrum. Next, he takes note of the diversity of readings throughout Christian history (and not merely post-Darwin). He points out that there are different models of divine action in the world and different understandings of the divine nature and the function of theological language. He lists various models of science/theology engagement. And he summarizes various accounts of origins and the fall. In other words, the apologist provides ample evidence that the skeptic has contented herself with a mere Sunday school strawman.

Does the skeptic concede that her treatment was fallacious and predicated on a strawman? Not likely. Rather, the more common response (certainly in my experience) is to lurch from one incredulity to another. Where the original target was the laughable simplicity of Christian doctrine, the new target is its implausible complexity.

So there you have it: one minute the theologian is criticized for having a theology that is too easy to refute; the next minute, he is criticized for having a theology that is not easily refuted. If ever there was a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario, this is it. And that, I would think, is rightly termed “The Apologist’s Dilemma.”

We’re All James Palmer (more or less)

James Palmer, some other white guy, and another dead lion

I join the world in outrage at the grisly death of Cecil the Lion. (It doesn’t help matters that the big cat’s name sounds like he’s a character in a children’s book or Disney cartoon.) Is there anything more off-putting than a rich western doctor who flies to other parts of the world to pay large sums of money and kill beautiful animals? These guys are like those fools who ride around on their Harley Davidsons rattling the windows of every house within half a mile: nobody thinks your exhaust is cool except you. Same goes for the fools who hang animal heads on their walls. As regards our beloved Cecil, Jimmy Kimmel said it best:

Now that I’ve joined the chorus of disgust at dentist James Palmer, it’s time to go off script.

I am reminded of the infamous football player Michael Vick who became a pariah several years ago for engaging in dog fighting, a similarly reprehensible exercise in pathetically misdirected machismo. But rather than pile on Vick, philosopher, professor and animal rights activist Gary Francione used the occasion to turn the spotlight on the rest of us in a provocative op-ed in which he opined that We’re all Michael Vick. To be sure, Francione’s point wasn’t that we all engage in dog fighting. Rather, it was that we all inflict harm, even fatal harm, on other sentient creatures because of the pleasure we derive, directly or indirectly, from that harm. One person enjoys watching dogs fight, another person enjoys eating a hamburger or eating an omelette.

Needless to say, neither the cow standing in dung in a crowded feedlot nor the battery caged hen enjoys a quality of life anywhere as good as Cecil’s was up until those last forty hours. But all these animals suffer because of the pleasure, direct or indirect, that humans derive from it. And last I checked, neither majesty or beauty, nor cuteness are moral criteria.

So if we’re all Michael Vick, we’re also all, to some degree, James Palmer.

Another illustration of the deep problems with imputation theories of atonement

In the past I have pointed out the problems with the concept of guilt imputation upon which penal substitution depends. (See for example, “The Death of Jesus, the rape of a woman, and a concept called ‘Imputation’” and “A footnote on guilt imputation.”) The problem is that guilty is not transferable between parties. If Jones commits a crime, the criminal penalty for the crime must be borne by Jones. It cannot be borne by another party, even if the other party is willing to shoulder the penalty. In short, the maxim is, “You do the crime, you do the time,” not “You do the crime, somebody does the time.”

This simple and intuitive principle was illustrated yet again when news broke today of the case of Juan Silva Sr. who was arrested for a fatal hit-and-run in 2013 after he turned himself in to police. It turns out that Silva issued a false plea two years ago in order to protect his 22 year old son who was, in fact, the perpetrator of the crime. (You can read more about the case here.)

Some people may admire Silva for his commitment to his son while others will focus solely upon his subversive attempt to deceive the court. But all are agreed that justice is not served when a father willingly goes to prison for his son’s crime. An act like this does not serve the cause of justice.

This leaves the defender of penal substitution and its imputation theory of guilt either searching for an analogy to illustrate the logic of this application of justice or rejecting the fundamental intuition that guilt is not transferable. Neither option appears very promising.

Patience: A Sermon

In this sermon (preached at Greenfield Community Church on July 26th), I explore the spiritual fruit of patience. It is a virtue with which I have little first hand acquaintance, so I had to do some research first.

As with all my sermons, there are several additional points that I would like to have discussed, but alas the sermon itself would not allow it. There were three points in particular that I would like to have addressed in a post-sermon debrief: (1) the biblical passages in which God is presented as acting impatiently, including Ex. 3, (2) the tension between the call to endure suffering without complaint and the need to fight injustice, (3) the disturbing anti-Semitism underlying Melito’s great homily on the incarnation.

What is a Christian movie? (Hint: It isn’t merely a movie that’s marketed to Christians)

Yesterday Matt Fradd posted a brief exchange we had over the film God’s not Dead. While I expressed opposition to the film in the “Fradd exchange”, my opposition was even stronger in my original review. After I published that review I heard from a Christian who was unhappy that I had been so unremittingly negative toward a putatively Christian movie. In response, I wrote a reply titled “Defending the sharper edge: A modest defense of my “God’s not Dead” review.”

In this article I want to consider a prior question: just what is it that makes a film “Christian” anyway?

We could say a Christian film is that which is produced by a Christian film production company. For example, the self-described Christian company Pure Flix Entertainment produced God’s Not Dead.

That’s an unhelpful criterion since it merely pushes the question back: what makes a company Christian? I take it that simply calling yourself a Christian company doesn’t make you Christian. Here in Edmonton and several other Canadian cities there is a company called “The Shepherd’s Guide” that distributes a putatively Christian yellow pages. Only “Christian” businesses can list their services. Sorry, I don’t want a “Christian” mechanic. I want a skilled, honest mechanic. And not every mechanic who describes him/herself as Christian is either skilled or honest.

That which applies to mechanics applies also to film production companies. If a company markets itself as Christian that tells you one thing: self-described Christians are a central target market in their business plan. Thus, Pure Flix Entertainment is “Christian” only in the sense that they are seeking to produce movies for (and make money from) a Christian market segment.

With that in mind, calling God’s not Dead a Christian movie means nothing more than the fact that God’s not Dead was produced with the intention of marketing it to Christians. I don’t see that this intention means it is deserving of any special treatment. Indeed, if anything I’ll be even more inclined to point out its failings since I’m supposed to be part of the target audience.

Back to the question: what is a Christian movie?

Let’s set that aside for a moment to ask another question: what is a true disciple of Jesus? Put another way, what must one do to inherit eternal life? When Jesus was asked that question he replied by asking the man who posed it to summarize the Law. The man dutifully replied:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”

Jesus replied, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live.” In other words, the true disciple is the one who loves God and neighbor.

Next, the man asked that fateful question, “Who is my neighbor?” This question in turn provided Jesus the occasion to share one of his most famous parables, that of the Good Samaritan. And it brings us to the answer: everybody is your neighbor.

If that’s what a true disciple looks like — namely, one who loves God and neighbor — then it would seem reasonable to define a Christian movie as a movie that increases your love of God and/or neighbor.

If I’m correct in my critique of God’s not Dead, then that film does not increase love of neighbor. After all, it contains several crude, objectifying stereotypes of out-groups like atheists, Muslims and animal rights activists. And such crude stereotyping never increases love of one’s neighbor. Thus, while this movie was produced for a Christian market, I submit that it is itself a profoundly unchristian movie.

By the same token, there may be many films that had no “Christian” production company, no “Christian” actors and no explicitly “Christian” content, but which nonetheless increased the love of God and/or neighbor:

“Then the righteous filmmaker will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'”

 

My exchange with Matt Fradd on God’s not Dead

I recently had a brief exchange with Catholic apologist Matt Fradd on the film God’s not Dead and he just posted it at his website in an article with the apt title “Why God’s Not Dead Isn’t Worth Watching (or Watching again)“.Matt might have expanded his title by adding “And why the sequel will likely not be worth watching either.” Yes, dear reader, the sequel is coming out next year. Since it is a reasonable assumption that the filmmakers are not about to backtrack on the abundant cinematic sins of the first film, let’s do all we can to minimize it’s box office.

An Unfundamentalist reviews Is the Atheist My Neighbor?

Dan Wilkinson of the Unfundamentalist Christians blog just reviewed Is the Atheist My Neighbor? In short compass he provides a good overview and strong commendation of the book. You can read the review here.

Christians and Atheists: My “Strange Notions” Article

Today the popular Catholic apologetics website Strange Notions  published an article I wrote titled “An Atheist in Church? Why Christians Should Listen to Their Atheist Neighbors.”

Is American Religious Conservatism driving people away from the church?

In the first chapter of A New Kind of Christianity Brian McLaren recalls how he gradually became increasingly dissatisfied with conservative American Christianity. His summary captures my own concerns about American (and some Canadian) religious conservatism:

“They supported wars of choice, defended torture, opposed environmental protection, and seemed to care more about protecting the rich from taxes than liberating the poor from poverty or minorities from racism.” (7)

Sarah Palin leapt immediately to mind with her flippant petroleum campaign slogan “Drill, Baby, Drill!” and her horrendous, morally repugnant quip that waterboarding is “how we baptize terrorists“. Think about that. Palin has invoked the Christian sacrament of initiation into the community of faith as a metaphor for torturing individuals. And the statement drew raucous applause.

“They spoke against big government as if big was bad, yet they seemed to see big military and big business as inherently good.” (7)

This always struck me as bizarre. Government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. And yet, one constantly hears rhetoric about shrinking government coupled with a pathological aversion to new taxes, as if that’s the way to “starve the beast” (thanks, Grover Norquist).

While every other developed nation in the world has socialized health care for its population, time and again I’ve heard American religious conservatives strongly oppose it.

Despite all this fear of big government, I hear not a whisper of concern among American religious conservatives about big military, despite the fact that by some estimates the military sucks up more than half of all government spending. And while American Christian conservatives rage against Obamacare, on the whole they are bizarrely silent on government surveillance of the civilian population.

As for big business, Eric Holder recently stepped down as attorney general and returned to his law firm after refusing to prosecute any of the big banks for their role in the financial crisis. Watch this clip from Democracy Now to get a sense of just how outrageous this is. And while we’re talking about corrupt banks, how about the fact that British bank HSBC laundered hundreds of millions of dollars for the Sinaloa drug cartel? Why don’t American evangelicals get angry about that? Why haven’t they even heard about it?

“They wanted to protect unborn human life inside the womb, but didn’t seem to care about born human life in slums or prisons or nations they considered enemies.” (7)

Yup. Consider the case of the approximately half a million Iraqi children who died in the mid-nineties as a result of the Clinton administration imposing strict sanctions to punish Sadam Hussein. In this infamous exchange with Lesley Stahl, then UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright insisted that it was worth it:

In 2004 Democracy Now asked Albright about this infamous response and Albright replied that it was “stupid” and she never should have said it. Unfortunately it isn’t clear whether Albright was merely conceding that she failed to field (that is, deflect) a difficult question, or whether she was thereby renouncing the morality (and political expediency) of government policies that lead to the death of foreign civilians.

Regardless, time and again I have found conservative Christians distressingly cavalier when it comes to government policies and military actions (e.g. drone strikes) that lead to the death of foreign civilians.

When people think Christianity is about support for big military, opposition to socialized medicine and immigrants, and callous indifference to the poor and the environment, it’s no surprise they are leaving the church.

 

13. What about the ontological argument?

Can the existence of God be proven by reason alone? Anselm believed so, and for the last 900 years a long line of philosophers and theologians have lined up on both sides of this question. In this episode of the 59-Second Apologist we take on the ontological argument for God’s existence.