"God's Secretaries"

My pastor preaches from the King James Bible. Whenever he had open heart surgery and was spending a lot of time recovering unable to do much I gave him a copy of the book, "God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible." I always thought that the book would be interesting to read, and so, once I found it for real cheap at a used bookstore, I thought I might read it. And I am glad that I did.

I am not a KJV-only kind of person. The KJV has a lot of flaws. Perhaps the two biggest flaws it has are first, it's language (my favorite verse coming from John 11:39, "by this time he stinketh") and secondly, it's use of bad manuscripts (it was the best they had at the time, but since then, we have been able to uncover a more accurate Bible). Therefore, I do not teach or preach from the King James. Usually I will teach and preach from the New King James Version because I know my audience. However, my personal favorite is the New American Standard Bible along with the English Standard Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

But with all of that aside, what the King James Bible has done for the English language and for Western culture in general cannot be overlooked. 200 years prior to the 1611 Bible, it would have been unthinkable that a Bible would have been translated into English with the full authority of a protestant king.

The work of men like Tyndale, Wycliffe, Luther, and others had finally come to fruition. These ground breaker's deaths had not been in vain.

The book as a whole is an excellent read. The author looks at many of the translators, the events leading to the translation, and the events surrounding the translation. I was most surprised by the "terrorist" attack that took place by the hands of some Catholics who tried to kill the King and others in his court.

One thing is obvious about the author, he loves the language of the King James Version. Throughout the book, especially at the end, he gives example after example of the richness of the language and translation of the KJV. He does this best whenever he compares the KJV to other versions available at the time and even translations since. One of the advantages of such a study reveals the benefits of having a committee of translators (like the KJV) rather than just one person doing all of the translation (like the Tyndale Bible and Luther's Translation).

One cannot deny the richness and precision of the translation. The only problem today, with most people, is the that the language is a bit outdated. Though I do not use the KJV myself (for reasons mentioned above), I have great respect and even refer to it in my own personal Bible study. Just because the KJV is hard to understand doesn't mean we should abandon it. What it means for Western Christianity, culture, and literature is profound.

Perhaps my favorite part of the book comes at the end where the author looks into some of the printing mistakes of the KJV. One such mistake is a known as the "'Wicked Bible." The Wicked Bible had one one inherent flaw: it was missing a word in the seventh commandment. Instead of saying, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." It said, "Thou shalt commit adultery." Therefore, the Bible was replaced with a more accurate copy.

Overall, if anyone is interested in the history of King James, his translation and the events surrounding it, I highly recommend this book. It is a good read, with excellent research, and is a story that keeps your attention. I have walked away with a better understanding of it's legacy and a greater appreciation of it.

The one thing the author emphasized throughout the book was the purpose of King James making this translation: unity. And though it took sometime, unity was reached (though at times strained). How important it is to note that what should bring us together is the Word of God above everything else. Perhaps this is the greatest of legacies of the KJV: unity among the brethren.

"Vintage Jesus"

As the Emerging Church grows I become increasingly frustrated and have given several reasons why in other posts. I was recently challenged on my criticism of the Emerging Church. Some have said that it is impossible to make blanket statements about the Emerging Church because they are so diverse. This is true, which is why I criticize their postmodernism.

I further responded saying that there were some (though few) Emergent leaders that I like and have great respect for. One of those men is Mark Driscoll. And so I decided to pick up his and Gary Breshear's book, "Vintage Jesus: Timeless Answers to Timeless Questions." It had the approval of guys like Charles Colson, Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, and others. This blew me away. Brian McLaren is nowhere in this book giving it his approval. Jim Wallace, Tony Campolo, and others didn't write the forward and none of the usual suspects were given blurbs on it.

I knew then, that this must be a good book. And I was not disappointed.

The book is simply a modern theological lesson on Christology. Driscoll deals with the cross, the virgin birth, the ascension, the resurrection, Jesus' humanity, His divinity, etc. This is just a detailed introduction into the studies of Christ. After each chapter where Driscoll deals with the issue at hand, he provides a list of common questions with accurate, excellent answers.

This book is orthodox and a sign of relief. Finally, it seems, someone that people consider Emergent, is getting it right. I am now officially a huge fan of Mark Driscoll, and the more I learn about him, the more I like him.

"The Shack"

The surprise success of the self-published novel, "The Shack," and the controversy surrounding it demanded that I read it. Furthermore, the endorsements of the book encouraged me to read it. How can so many godly people be so wrong, I asked.

For example the book includes:

When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of The Shack. This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good! -Eugene Peterson

Wow! This book is the next Pilgrim's Progress? I must pick up and read! Other blurbs included persons like Michael W. Smith and other prominent Christians.

As for the controversy surrounding the book, I was tired of hearing various opinions and reviews of the book, and so I decided to read it for myself. As for it being entertaining, I certainly concur, but as for it's theology, let the reader be warned.

THE STORY

First, let's begin with the story. Basically what happens is that the main character's, Mack, daughter gets kidnapped by a well known serial kidnapper and eventually kills her. They never find the body, only the blood stained dress of the little girl.

As you can imagine, the Christian family begins to question their faith. The husband, the main character, struggles for the next 3 years to make sense of the tragedy. His wife, on the other hand, seems to be dealing with everything a little better. Overall, the entire family is struggling to deal with the death of their loved one.

One day, the main character gets a note on his car from "Papa," the name his wife uses for God. Papa, that is God, tells him to come to the shack where his little girl's dress had been found. He finds this disturbing and the result of someones crude joke. Eventually, however, he decides to go back to the shack.

And there he meets God and the Trinity.

During his stay, he asks each member of the Trinity various questions about his life, theology, etc. For chapters, the Trinity and Mack spend the weekend in an improved "shack," living and discussing various topics.

THE THEOLOGY

I only wish the theology of the story was as good as the story itself. Sadly, though the author is accurate in many areas, he is horrendously wrong on many others. First, I want to look at the good theology of the story.

THE GOOD

First, the author manages to reveal the relationship within the Trinity. One of the best places for us as Christians can turn to for a godly understanding of relationships is the Trinity itself. The author does this well. In this story, we see each member of the Trinity interacting together in a loving relationship leaning on it other in mutual love.

Secondly, the distinction between each person of the Trinity and the unity. The author made it clear that each member were distinct, in fact he had 3 characters. At the same time, the author managed to emphasize that they were 1 God in 3 persons. This is obviously very difficult to explain and understand. In fact, the author makes this very clear throughout the story oftentimes by having Mack simply throw up his hands and say something like, "it's one of those Trinity things isn't it?" One of the best instances of this was when Mack meets God. Seeing 3 persons, Mack asks, "Which one of you is God?" And in unison, the 3 respond, "I am."

Thirdly, the author revealed the love of God (that is, all 3 persons). Though, as we will see, this is also one of it's problems, the author writes in a way that makes us desire to possess God's love and to live out God's love.

Finally, the author manages to call us to balance the Trinity. He points out that many of us see the Father as the mean one, Jesus as the nice one, and the Spirit as something that we're not really for sure. Rather, each member, being fully God, is full of wrath (though the author lacks this aspect of God), justice, righteousness, mercy, love, and truth. And the author calls us to balance our understanding of God.

THE BAD

Though there is some good, there is a lot of good that seems to outweigh have a more accurate understanding of God. It needs to be point out that much of what is found in this book would be embraced by the Emerging Church. Perhaps this is why discussing this book is so important. To see the theology in this book will open up a window for understanding the theology of the Emerging Church.

First, God the Father is a woman. This is perhaps the biggest shocker of the whole book. The author, obviously, anticipates this. He has Mack point out the oddity of calling God, portrayed as a woman, Papa. But why a woman?

The author answers this through Papa herself/himself. Papa points out that God is neither male or female. Ok. I follow with him there. But one cannot deny that the Bible refers to God in masculine terms. I agree that God is neither male nor female, but at the same time, the Bible uses masculine terms to describe God. Mack points this out to Papa and this seems to be about as deep as it gets. But I want to think about this issue a little deeper.

Why would the author make God a woman? I continued to ask myself this question as I continued to read this novel. And I think I know why. Throughout the book, Papa is seen as nice, loving, nonjudgmental, wise, and merciful. When I think of these characteristics, I think of women, especially persons like my wife. If you want to emphasize the love and mercy of God, what better way than to portray God as a woman?

This is why the female Papa can tell Mack that he/she doesn't judge sin for sin is a judgment in of itself (we'll look at this later). By thinking of God the Father, we usually think of a judgmental God that sends us to hell, by portraying Him as a woman, the author is able to escape this stereotype. I appreciate, as I mentioned above, his desire to emphasize the love of the Trinity, but he does so in a dangerous way.

Another possible reason for this, perhaps less harmful, is the desire to rid the reader of all stereotypes. I have no problem with this, except whenever it contradicts Scripture. Scripture never depicts the Father as a Mother or in feminine terms. He is always masculine.

Secondly, the author turns God into a teletubby rather than the God of the Bible. By this, I mean that God is not seen as vengeful, but rather as a loving mother holding her child. When Mack calls Papa out on this, Papa says that he/she does not judge sin for sin is a judgment in of itself. By this, it is meant that the consequences of sin is enough judgment for sins. Therefore, there is no need for hell or judgment.

The problem with this is obvious: it's unbiblical. Maybe the author does believe in hell and the rest, but you can't tell it from this story. The idea that God doesn't judge sin is not orthodox. The Bible is clear that God judges sin, even by sending them to eternal damnation. By removing hell and judgment, we are left with a God that welcomes everyone to heaven without precondition. That means even the worse of sinners are destined for heaven. This is universalism and is and always has been considered heresy. It is antithetical to the gospel. If all will be saved, because there is no hell and no vengeful God to worry about, then what was the cross for?

Maybe the author isn't an Universalist. Maybe he isn't even an Inclusivist (which I'm sure he is at least). But the heavy baggage that comes with it call us to question the author's Soteriology. This is dangerous ground to say the least. The author must be called out on this especially whenever Jesus says that He is the "best way," rather than the "the only way" (cf. John 14:6). In fact, the author suggests that many will come to Christ as (the author isn't clear enough) Christians, Buddhist, Democrats, Republicans, Americans, and Iraqis. This clearly suggests an inclusivist theology.

Thirdly, the author's attack on authority and hierarchy goes against the Bible. The author makes it clear that the world should not be set up with leaders and those on top. Rather, like the Trinity, should be made up of relationships. I agree with that, but in a fallen world, we must have hierarchy. Whenever Man fell, the need for government, law, and the rest were imperative for man to not destroy itself. The author seems to live in an Utopian worldview that ignores the reality of life: man is fallen.

This emphasis on relationships can be dangerous and the author walks that line, if not crosses it. When speaking to Jesus, Mack is told that Jesus didn't find religion, but rather established a relationship with us and wants us to live in community. Here is one of the clues that the author is Emergent for Emergents are big on community.

Again, we must be careful not to go too far with one's theology in a novel, but at the same time, the implications of such a narrative is significant. Yes Jesus came to establish a relationship through the cross (and the author does emphasize the cross). And yes, the Church must be a close community made up of believers. But that is the key: believers must make up that community. And what are believers? Those who affirm the gospel. And the author seems ignorant, or at least silent about the gospel. Nowhere does the author lay out the gospel though he has ample opportunities to.

Fourthly, the author has a deluded understanding of freedom. Anytime a person puts heavy emphasis on free will, I shudder. We are so obsessed with free will in this country in makes me want to puke. I do not deny free will, however, most American Christians are flirting (or maybe even worse in many cases) with Pelagianism. Pelagianism was declared to be a heresy during the time of Augustine and it is increasingly becoming the common belief among believers and it is all over this novel. God, the Trinity, and Mack put heavy emphasis on free will and they do so in dangerous terms.

The reason this is a problem is because it robs God of His throne. To emphasize free will is to rob God of His Sovereignty. I have always said, we cannot bind the hands of God and throughout this story God's hands are always bound by the character and by His gift of free will. And it is dangerous to do. Again, I believe in free will, but in an orthodox way.

CONCLUSION

There is more to say here, but this should suffice. This book, though entertaining, is dangerous to the Biblical, Christian worldview. I must warn those who read it to be careful to separate the fiction with the orthodoxy. At times it is hard to tell the difference, but as Christians we must be rooted in Biblical theology.

One more thing. It is telling of our culture if such a book, with it's many dangers, can become so popular with very little controversy. Obviously, people aren't liking it. In fact, outside of working at a Christian book store, I knew about this book by it's controversy. But Christians, as a whole, seem ignorant as to why it is so controversy. And I am willing to bet that the average Christian who reads this book are absolutely clueless as to what is wrong with it.

I am not one to say that we shouldn't read this book. However, I do think that we must read it with a proper understanding of the gospel and Biblical theology. Perhaps that is the problem. American Christians are so ignorant that they can't tell the difference between orthodoxy and the theology of "The Shack."

That is a scary fact that we must all face. The Biblical illiteracy of the Church is dangerous and only invites heterodoxy like this.

__________

For more:

• Ben Witherinton - SHACKING UP WITH GOD—William P. Young’s ‘The Shack’
• Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Radio Show - A Look At 'The Shack' - Mohler makes some points not brought up here.

"Do Hard Things: A Teenage Rebellion Against Low Expectations"

As a youth pastor, sometimes I feel like I'm fighting against a great stream. There is an ever increasing trend to turn youth ministry and youth night into game night and entertainment. Instead of training young people to be gospel minded, we're turning them into groupie minded. Youth seem to be flocking to the church for the seeking a celebrity. Success in ministry is seen as large numbers and celebrity driven. Youth pastors are more like celebrities than pastors.

I hate this trend. I would rather have a small group made up of disciples of Christ than a large group made up of unredeemed, entertained young people.

Finally, a book has arrived that is singing my tune. "Do Hard Things: A Teenage Rebellion Against Low Expectations" is that book. The authors suggests that we have failed young people. We have bought into the lie that they are, in a sense, "old enough to know better, but are still too young to care." In other words, we expect little from our young people.

As the authors argue, this is grounded in the myth of adolescence. I have heard this argument before and it explains much in youth culture and youth ministry. The 20th Century essentially created adolesence. Of course the changes of adolesense were taking place since the creation of man, but the culture of adolesence hasn't always existed.

Once young people were forced to leave their parents, leave work, and attend school during their teen years, we created an entire culture. And we have reaped the dangers of it. Now, let me say from the beginning, that I am not against educating young people. I am all for it. However, what we've done as a result is dangerous.

Thanks to modern psychology, secularism, and other factors, we have bought into the myth of adolescence. The stereotype of the teenager has become so common that we expect little from our youth. And what we do expect from them isn't good.

Since youth have hormones we encourage them to wait, but don't expect them to, so we pass out condoms and birth control pills. And it is laziness like this that has destroyed our culture. We have a culture full of too-independant and over-sexed teenagers that think should be considered normal.

The Bible sees things different. As the authors point out, the Bible has no such category for adolescense. The Bible divides everything into two groups: children and adults. Guess where teenagers fit? With the adults.

The Bible expects more from our young people, but we are giving them less. We are creating adults with the minds of 3 year olds. We expect little of them and are getting little of them and the current trends in youth ministry is proving my point.

God expects more from our young people, and this book shows how young people can stand against the stereotype and do hard things. How to take a stand for they believe, how to be a leader, how to be prepared for adulthood, etc. The authors don't treat their teenage leaders like children, but more like adults, unlike the typical youth book.

I cannot encourage young people, youth pastors, adults, and people in general enough to read this book. I was very encouraged that there are young people and others involved in working with youth who are serious about their task. God wants to use young people, and we must do our part in letting that happen.

To quote Dr. Rick Holland, "God must be embarassed by our expectations." And he is exactly right!
________________
Similar posts:

• Let's Get Back To Ministry: When Entertainment Creeps Into the Church
• "Old Enough to Know Better. But I'm Still Too Young To Care"
• Mohler: Youth Ministry in a New Key? Substance over Sugarcoating

My Top 5 Must Reads

Recently, JI Packer was asked what he considered was the top 5 books that a father should put in his kids library. Packer answered with these top 5 books:

• J.C. Ryle, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots
• John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
• John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion
• Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield: The Life and Times
• C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

I like this list that Packer has put together a lot. But it got me to thinking, what would be considered my top 5 must-reads, not just for my children, but for all Christians living in America. And so far, this is what I have come up with (this list will likely change frequently):

DINESH D'SOUZA: WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY?

D'Souza's work and ability to argue logically is phenomenal and he brings his A+ game in this one. It is essentially a rebuttal of the claims made by the recent assault by the new atheist. But it goes beyond that. It is essentially a defense of Christianity and also an offensive against other worldviews. Though at times this book is very deep with a lot of philosophy and science thrown in, it is nonetheless imperative that Christians read it, understand it, and apply it.

I find this book so important that I have not only read it, but continue to read it over and over again. In fact, I have purchased the audio book and try to go through it as much as possible whether at work, in the car, or at home.

JOHN MACARTHUR: MURDER OF JESUS

This was one of the first Christian books I ever read. Since then, I continue to read John MacArthur and listen to him daily. This book stands out from the rest essentially because of it's topic: the crucifixion of Jesus. Obviously, this is the most important issue in Christianity (along with the resurrection of course) and should be on every Christian's bookshelf. I can't wait to put this in my children's hands and have them experience it the way I did and continue to. To go deeper into the Passion brings one closer to Christ and humbles us greatly.

When I first met John MacArthur, this was the book I had him sign because it is so important to me and my Christian walk.

CS LEWIS: MERE CHRISTIANITY/SCREWTAPE LETTERS

Since I have seen these two books together in one volume, I thought that I would include them as one. The reason for why these books should be included is obvious, and I don't need to go into any detail. Mere Christianity lays out a defense and explains the Christian faith. His foundation for belief in God as revealed through the existence of morality is phenomenal and has a great impact on me and others (like Francis Collins).

Screwtape is a little more deeper, but the way it is written continues to blow me away. I always find myself in these pages.

In fact, do yourself a favor and read all of the signature classics and thank me later. I did this over one Christmas break and was glad I did. Do dive into the world and mind of Lewis is a blessing.

CHARLES COLSON & NANCY PEARCY: HOW NOW SHALL WE LIVE?

How Christians understand and engage the culture is important. Therefore, I find Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcy's book, "How Now Shall We Live?" to be critical to doing just that. It is a thick book, but a fairly quick read. It starts at creation and goes on from there. A defense of Christianity is given while at the same time, Colson and Pearcy expose the many many holes in our secular culture and it's worldview.

Nancy Pearcy has also written a book similar to this one called "Total Truth," and I also recommend it as well. I also would want to recommend another Colson book, "'The Faith" because it discusses the basics of the faith and why they are important as we engage our culture.

RICHARD H. BAINTON: HERE I STAND: A LIFE OF MARTIN LUTHER

I am a fan of Martin Luther and this is the classic biography on him. Bainton, somehow, manages to cover his entire life while at the same time diving deep into his theology, writings, disputes, and his teachings/sermons. If anyone wants to read a biography on a great Christian in history, start here.

Well, here's my list. What is yours? Leave your thoughts if you'd like. Some of the runners up include:

• David Wells: Courage to Be Protestant
• David Aikman: Billy Graham: His Life and Influences
• John MacArthur: Truth War
• Robert Stein: Jesus the Messiah
• James MacDonald: Gripped By the Greatness of God
• Lee Strobel: The Case For the Real Jesus (actually any in these series will do)
• Justin Martyr: Apology I & II
• Philip Jacob Spener: Pia Disederia
• Kevin Deyoung & Ted Kluck: Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be

"The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief"

There is a lot of debate (as there has been for decades now) about the relationship between science and faith. Can a scientist who is "driven by the evidence alone" believe in God? Does belief in God contradict the nature of being a scientist? Are those who have faith also affirm science? Without a doubt, the early great scientist, including Galileo, Newton, and others, were Christians and men of faith. In fact, Newton wrote more on theology than on science.

And so, it is books like Francis Collins, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief" that adds to the conversation. Despite the argument that science and faith are not compatible, respected and well qualified scientist Collins argues that yes, one can believe in God and the Supernatural.

Collins' book has introduced a new vigor among believers that the two are not contradictory, and it is with this understanding that I picked up his book and began to read it. For the most part, there is nothing new in his book. He makes the same arguments that have been made before. However, it is his past as an atheist scientist and now his faith as a Christian, and how studies in science and DNA have led him to that faith, has given these points added power.

One of Collins main reasons for coming to faith was the moral law. Following the argument of CS Lewis in "Mere Christianity," Collins began to realize that the existence of a moral law implies the existence of a Divine Lawgiver. Lewis' influence on Collins is profound and he quotes Lewis throughout the book. I find this argument compelling and remains as one of the best arguments for the existence of God.

Perhaps the climax of the book is his look at possible interpretation of the evidence as it relates to the question about God. First, we can become an atheist or an agnostic, or as he puts it, When Science Trumps Faith. With the recent rise of atheism in our culture, this chapter, as I saw it, was critical. It was not deep, but he did deal with with characters like Dawkins. Collins traces the history of atheism and it's growing influence in modern culture. Collins shows why such a response to the evidence is not only wrong but dangerous. Faith, despite what Dawkins might argue, is not irrational.

Another option is Creationism, that is, when Faith Trumps Science. Collins argument, I believe, in rejecting a young earth belief in creation is found in the age of the earth. I have found that the first place one argues against a literal translation of Genesis isn't necessarily about evolution, but about the age of the earth, and Collins does just that. He traces how old the earth must be and where the evidence is. Collins, though a Christian who believes in the Bible, rejects this view and argues that one who believes in the Bible does not have to believe that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago.

This is obviously my biggest frustration with this book. I am one of those young earth creationist. Call me crazy, but I am. Sorry if that makes me weird or out of the mainstream. I think I'll find a way to survive. On the theological and exegetical front, I have a hard time finding murkiness in the Hebrew word for "day," (yom). Yom simply means day. Nothing more, nothing less. I do not see ambiguity or even the possibility of it ever meaning anything else other than the typical meaning of day. Why is it that the word day means 24 hours everywhere else in Scripture except for in Genesis 1-2? It seems inconsistent.

I praise Collins for "coming out" and declaring his faith openly and boldly. However, I fear that in this case, Science has trumped Faith. Collins seems overwhelmed, and for good reason, by the evidence of evolution. But that is precisely his problem: evolution. I believe that if Christians, like myself, are going to recover a Biblical understanding of origins, it is not going to begin with the age of the earth, but rather with evolution. If we can win the battle over evolution, then we will be able to win the battle over the age of the earth. Evolution demands an old earth. Therefore, if we fight evolution and win, we will likely win the argument over the age of the earth.

Thirdly, one could affirm Intelligent Design or, When Science Needs Divine Help. Collins is not a fan of this option neither. Though the Intelligent Design Movement is growing, Collins seems to finds it to be inherently lazy. He is at least honest in saying that Intelligent Design is not a hidden agenda of the Christian right. Rather, it is an honest attempt, just like Collins, to look at the evidence and see clearly an Intelligent Designer.

But, to Collins, they are scientifically lazy. How? Collins tries to show that whenever science runs into a seemingly dead end, scientist keep looking, Intelligent Designers just say, "it's God, let's move on." Collins complains about this and thinks that scientist should continue to seek for answers rather than to resort to concluding that it is all a miracle.

My problem with this argument is that Collins' argument for faith and for the existence of God is essentially based on the same argument. True that Collins loves evolution and sees God's work at play in evolution, even he must eventually conclude: this has to be the work of God.

For example, when reflecting on the Big Bang, Collins concludes:

The Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature had a defined beginning. I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural fore that is outside of space and time could have done that. -67

I vehemently concur. If the Big Bang is factual, then it does in fact cry out for a deity. But if Collins is consistent in his criticism of Intelligent Design, then Collins, instead of seeing God, should rather turn to theories explaining what made the everything go "Bang." Is that not what Intelligent Designers do? Though I affirm Collins belief in Christianity, God, and salvation through Christ, I find his criticism of Intelligent Design wrong. And his approach to faith proves it.

Finally, one could affirm Biologos (Theistic Evolution) or when Science and Faith are in Harmony. This is Collins' view and he expands on why it is valid. Basically, Collins sees no contradiction in affirming evolution and believing in the God of the Bible. I must respectfully disagree.

First, what do we do about death? If evolution is true, then animals and pre-homo saphiens were dying and fighting for survival millions of years before Adam and Even ate of the fruit, which, according to the Bible, introduced sin and it's consequence of death with it. If death existed before the Fall, then the Bible is mistaken about man's great need: to be redeemed from a fallen world. For the Bible is clear that without sin, there would be no death.

Secondly, what about God's declaration of the earth being "very good," whenever chaos and extinction was the way of the world? If evolution is true, then how could God declare the chaos of the evolutionary process "very good?"

Thirdly, what do you do with Adam and Eve? If evolution is true, they can't be the first couple. Of course Collins has an answer to this question: Adam and Eve were the first people created. He offers arguments like, who married Cain when he fled from his parents? This question has been answered throughout history and it is clear from Scripture that Adam and Eve were the first and sole people on earth prior to the birth of Cain and Abel.

These are just a few problems with Theistic Evolution, or as he calls it, Biologos. Though it is a good try, I fear that Collins has bowed Scriptures knees to science rather than correctly understanding Scripture and letting science bow it's need to God's Word.

Overall, I really enjoyed this book. Outside of his belief in evolution and his arguments for ethics in the appendix, Collins has written a thrilling book. Though it has it's holes, it does open the door for continued debate. For those who affirm that faith and science can be friends, this is an invaluable tool. But as a Christian that puts proper exegesis of scripture above everything else, I cannot endorse it as great theology.

Here is a lecture Dr. Collins gave that summarizes much in "The Language of God."




I also want to suggest the following video between Francis Collins and Stephen Colbert on the issue of faith and evolution. I find it hilarious and it really points out some of the holes in evolution.

Mohler on the Archaeological Study Bible

I love my Archaeological Study Bible. When I saw that Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. wrote a short review of it, I wanted to pass it on. I highly recommend this Bible and I have given it to others as a gift who have all loved it. it is a great resource for Bible study and for understanding the world in which the Bible was written and lived.

Here is Mohler's article:

Many Christians want to know more about how archaeology informs and deepens our understanding of the Bible and specific texts. It helps to know, for example, about Mars Hill, where Paul defended the faith in Acts 17, about the topography of Galilee, and about the setting for so many of the accounts recorded in both the Old and New Testaments.

At the same time, much of what is presented as archaeology is openly hostile to the truthfulness of the Bible, leaving many Christians wanting to know more but unsure of where to turn. The Archaeological Study Bible: An Illustrated Walk Through Biblical History and Culture [Zondervan] is the best resource for this need. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and Duane Garrett of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary served as editors for this project.

One of the great strengths of this project is the placement of such helpful material alongside the biblical text. References to seals, monuments, places, and cultural artifacts are described and explained, often with full-color photographs. The Archaeological Study Bible is a great advance and a wonderful addition to the Christian's bookshelf.

See also my article, "How Should We Think About Archaeology and the Bible?"

Apology of Socrates

I have always found the ancient Greek philosophers interesting, but I know very little about them. And so, I decided to pick one of their books and read it and I picked up "The Apology of Socrates," by Plato. We know virtually nothing about Socrates apart from Plato.

The Apology is essentially Socrates defense before his accusers and his judges. We all know what happened to Socrates. He was found guilty and condemned to death and so killed himself. Plato was one of his closest students and carried Socrates torch. Luke Luther after Huss, the apostles after Jesus, no one could stop the movement that Socrates began.

Since I am no expert on Greek philosophy and know very little about them, I will not comment much on this book. However, I will point out Socrates argument that because he knows he knows nothing, he is the wisest. My first reaction is how postmodern that sounds. This sounds like it could come from Oprah or some postmodern commentator.

I encourage anyone who is interested in the philosophy that has shaped Western culture to pick up Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle and read. You may not understand it all, but it well worth your time.

"Red-Letter Christians"

I am currently doing a series of posts on the Emerging Church exposing them as fraudulent Christians who are nothing but liberals in disguise, and the so-called "Red-Letter Christians," are no different. All one has to do is pick up one of their books, and they will quickly realise that they are hypocritical and unorthodox at best. Tony Campolo is one of the main leaders in the Emerging Church. Brian McLaren has repeatedly endorsed him and given him praise. Campolo's area of "expertise," is primarily in regard to politics and poverty. In his recent releaes, "Red-Letter Christians: A Citizen's Guide to Faith and Politics," Campolo exposes himself as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the liberal agenda.

Let me make it clear, Jesus is not a Republican. However, it is obvious that many Democrats are foreign to Biblical politics as can be.

Campolo's first problem is the claim to be a Red-Letter Christian. The very claim makes me want to vomit. The very thought of wanting to isolate only the words of Jesus and claiming to be orthodox is ludicrous. What about the other black letters? Are they not inspired too? They would say yes, but that is not the point. By calling themselves this, they elevated themselves to pseudo-bigotry as if to say, we're not like those other Christians who stand in the way. Such a notion is essentially snobbery of the rankest sort.

But, let's take them at their word. Campolo and company want us to return to the teachings of Christ (as if he, McLaren, and other Emergents, after 2000 years, have finally figured them out) and apply them to culture and politics. The problem with that is that Christ wasn't setting up democracy, theocracy, or combating the Roman government. He was rather declaring the Kingdom of God, which is both a present and future reality. Currently, the Kingdom of God is seen in the preaching of the gospel, the converting of sinners, and the sanctification of God's image bearers. Therefore, many of the verses he uses do not accurately apply to the political issues he raises.

For example, Campolo is very much against the death penalty. I disagree vehemently. Why? Because the black letters repeatedly support it and virtually command it. Campolo argues that if we are going to be consistently pro-life, we must also be against capital punishment. To see my argument where I deal with these issues, click here.

But some of the verses that Campolo uses include the Jesus' Sermon on the Mount where he exhorts us to forgive, be peacemakers, and be merciful. All of these ideas are inspired, God-breathed, and are to be practiced by every believer worldwide. But they do not apply to politics. Romans 13 applies to politics! His dismissal of Romans 13 is rather pathetic.

Therefore, Campolo's biggest problem isn't with Jesus, but rather his Biblical hermeneutic.

Furthermore, Campolo, though claiming to be orthodox and against abortion and homosexuality, is taking his eye off the ball. He sees abortion as secondary to poverty. How funny. Pro-deathers couldn't agree more. In fact, much of the argument for abortion is grounded in their understanding of poverty. Children are aborted and mothers are encouraged to kill their own child because they might be born into poverty. Campolo finds poverty more pressing than murder.

Do not misunderstand me or Campolo. Both of us affirm the atrocity of abortion as murder and see poverty as a serious problem. But lets be honest, is poverty that huge of an issue in America? I have done a series of post on this very subject (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). The truth is, poverty in America is not that bad. Now, I must explain myself, I am not suggesting that there aren't true poor people in America. However, what I am arguing that compared to the rest of the world, America is doing very well. Those considered poor in this country, like my wife and I, are living better than many of the rich in other countries.

But Campolo's campaign to fight poverty goes beyond that. He doesn't limit this fight just to the United States, but also to the rest of the world. Campolo wants to eliminate poverty worldwide. This is a grand ambition, and I applaud him for it. But apparently he skipped some of the red letters in his Bible. After Judas ridiculed one of the women for anointing his feet with perfume arguing that it could have been sold and given to the poor (just like what Campolo argues we should have done with the money we have spent on the war), Jesus rebukes Judas saying, "For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me" (John 12:8)

The implication is clear, poverty is not the primary issue here, worshiping God is. Jesus is rebuking Judas for taking his eyes off the ball. Worship, the gospel, and life are essentials. They rank above social concerns. This is one of my biggest complaint against the Emerging Church, it is nothing more than an updated version of the Social Gospel (click here and here to see my argument).

Yes they are equally appalled by abortion. Yes they see fighting poverty as part of their pro-life stance. But as a result of overemphasizing poverty, they simply allow murder happen untouched.

Campolo also seems blind to the failings of social liberalism whenever it comes to solving poverty. One must wonder why the poor in this country is better off than the rich in other countries? The answer isn't big government, social programs, minimum wage, and welfare, rather it's Capitalism and a free market. We did not get here by listening to Karl Marx. We got here by listening to Adam Smith. Campolo is more than willing to rail against the evils of Capitalism, but is silent on the failures of socialism and liberalism. Campolo's solution to poverty is no solution at all. If we are to limit the severity of poverty in the world, the answer isn't throwing money at it, as he suggests, but rather allow freedom to reign and allow the American economic experiment to be exercised in other countries. The answer isn't tyrannical economical system of big government, it is freedom.

Campolo's solution to abortion is also clear: limit the number of abortions before making it illegal. I like this proposal, but it too is impractical. His idea of siding with many Democrats is false. Democrats, as a whole, are more than willing to talk about limiting abortions, but they will never conceded to eliminating it. If you limit abortions, great, but the problem remains unsolved. Democrats and liberals likely favor limiting abortions. They tell us everyday we need for contraceptives and education on safe sex. They have given us condoms and birth control pills in school. And so why wouldn't they want to limit abortions?

The answer to the abortion issue, though limiting them is a start, is to ban it. But that isn't even going to solve it. What we need is a culture to understand that murder is wrong in all cases. Campolo seems hesitant to even go that far. He raises the issue of abortion in cases of rape and incest (which are very rare), but never answers it. The best he gives is, some Red-Letter Christians disagree on this issue. Enter the postmodern influence!

One other issue that burns me in this book is the emphasis on global warming and the environment. Let me first of all, answer the first critical response: I am all for saving the planet and preventing it from being harmed. However, it is dangerous to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Campolo is in the tank for the Al Gore climate change business. He believes it is real and a current danger we face. Campolo, however, couldn't be more mistaken.

First of all, Campolo finds it necessary to attack the Southern Baptist Convention for passing a resolution doubting the threat of global warming because science hasn't proven it. I believe they are right and the science continues to prove it.

If Campolo were smart, he would quickly realize (despite what he claims) that the whole hoax of global warming will only kill our economy. Sure, going green might create some jobs, but how many jobs does it kill due to higher taxes to those companies that aren't limiting their carbon footprint? Talk about going overseas! Campolo seems to want us to agree to Kyoto, but that will kill our economy and destroy this nation. I would like to see Campolo care as much for his own countrymen and the poor as he does the environment.

Falling for a hoax is never good policy.

I do not have time to deal with the issues he raises about the war and similar topics. It is clear that Campolo is mistaken on many fronts. Though he does make some good points and does direct us to think about important issues that are at times overlooked, he fails miserably to give practical helps that actually works and fails to take the insight from Jesus (and the rest of Scripture) and accurately apply them as they were meant.

The Emerging Church is dangerous and Scripture repeatedly warns us about false teachers. Therefore, I am sounding the alarm on them. I picked up this book in a Christian bookstore. Many, including the company I work for now, have placed many such books in their own section labeled as Emerging Church. But this book was not placed there. It was placed with books that discussed issues of ethics, culture, and politics. And it is a book that many could fall trap to and think that it is Biblical, orthodox, and the answer to our problems. Many, I fear, will find this book to be an answer to the question "What Would Jesus Do?" as they pull the lever every November, when in fact, it doesn't. Rather, it is the same liberal policies that have failed this country regurgitated with just enough Jesus thrown in.