Berlinski on Darwinism and the Devil

Posted on March 20, 2008 by me

Dr. David Berlinski (an agnostic of Jewish heritage) on Darwin’s theory, from the soon to be released movie, Expelled:

“One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is, ‘Man, that thing is just a mess.’ It’s like looking into a room full of smoke… Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined and delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics. And mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we’re talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology.”

Berlinski has a new book coming out in April, entitled The Devil’s Delusion, in which he criticizes the current anti-religion rhetoric which has been called “The New Atheism.” From the publisher’s blurb:

“The attack on traditional religious thought,” writes David Berlinski in The Devil’s Delusion, “marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”

Berlinski’s an interesting guy (at least when he’s not just thinking about mathematics), and I’m interested in what he has to say. I’m sure he’ll be both lauded and lambasted, and I can guess by whom. But, I’m sure it’ll all be interesting.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | 3 Comments

The Gorbachev revelation

Posted on March 20, 2008 by me

From the Telegraph.co.uk:

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Communist leader of the Soviet Union, has acknowledged his Christian faith for the first time, paying a surprise visit to pray at the tomb of St Francis of Assisi.

Accompanied by his daughter Irina, Mr Gorbachev spent half an hour on his knees in silent prayer at the tomb.

His arrival in Assisi was described as “spiritual perestroika” by La Stampa, the Italian newspaper.

“St Francis is, for me, the alter Christus, the other Christ,” said Mr Gorbachev. “His story fascinates me and has played a fundamental role in my life,” he added.

Mr Gorbachev’s surprise visit confirmed decades of rumours that, although he was forced to publicly pronounce himself an atheist, he was in fact a Christian, and casts a meeting with Pope John Paul II in 1989 in a new light.

The Telegraph, however, got nearly everything wrong about St. Francis, but that’s beside the point. According to the Times Online, Putin has joined the Orthodox Church as well:

Mr Gorbachev has long acknowledged that he was influenced by his grandmother, an Orthodox believer and is a a regular participant in peace conferences in the Umbrian town where St Francis is buried. Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, has also turned to Orthodox Christianity and wears a cross round his neck.

People laughed at Ronald Reagan when he had voiced suspicions that Gorbachev was a “closet believer.” Well, it seems that Reagan was right once again. It’s not clear exactly when Gorbachev made a full conversion to Christianity, but it appears that there were at least seeds going back to his childhood, and his meeting with the Pope can now possibly be looked at in a new light.

What impact will this have on Russia? It’s hard to say. I’m not an expert (or even a novice) at Russian culture, but I suspect that there are many Russians who – while maintaining the official atheism – had some leanings toward Christianity who may at least consider Gorbachev’s admission of faith as reason to reconsider.

It’s good news for Gorbachev, obviously, and can only help bolster the church in Russia.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Politics/Current Events | 1 Comment

The Resurrection problem

Posted on March 17, 2008 by me

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. … If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. – Paul, 1st Corinthians 15

Easter (at least the Western Easter) is this coming Sunday. Knowing that, I’ve been thinking about the resurrection of Jesus for a few days. Of course, I also happen to be reading NT Wright’s new book about resurrections and what happens after we die. Good timing, I guess.

The Resurrection, is of course where the whole defeat of Satan, evil and death happens. If Jesus had stayed dead, then Christianity never would have happened, the Disciples would have gone back to their day jobs, and some of us would be Jewish, and the rest would be heathens. That’s what Paul is really saying; if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then we’re all fools, wasting our time believing in a future that ain’t there.

As NT Wright talks about in Surprised by Hope, until Jesus actually did it, no one expected the Messiah to resurrect before the one and only future resurrection of the dead. The theories about the disciples faking the resurrection are therefore ridiculous; they simply would never have dreamed that this was to happen.

The resurrection of Jesus changed everything. As Wright wrote a few years ago:

Christianity began as resurrection movement. As I have already remarked, there is no evidence for a form of early Christianity in which the resurrection was not a central belief, as it were, bolted on to Christianity at the edge. It was the central driving force, informing the whole movement. In particular, we can see woven into the earliest Christian theology we possess—that of Paul, of course—the belief that the resurrection had in principle occurred and that the followers of Jesus had to reorder their lives, their narratives, their symbols, and their praxis accordingly (see, classically, Rom. 6:3-11).

There are still many people who disbelieve the whole resurrection thing, as if it is beyond credulity. However, the historical case for the resurrection is quite good; in fact, noted atheist-turned-deist Anthony Flew has stated that he finds the evidence for the resurrection “compelling.” So much so, in fact, that he has asked NT Wright if he can join him for one of the stops on his “The Resurrection – Fantasy or Fact?” tour. Flew stated,

“I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright’s approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time. This is enormously important, especially in the United Kingdom, where the Christian religion has virtually disappeared. It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful.”

Is it wrong to expect proof of the resurrection? I don’t think so; remember Thomas needing to see for himself. We tend to think of Thomas as having little faith, but recall that Jesus had already appeared to the others; they had their proof. Jesus never chastised Thomas, but obliged him as well.

We, of course, have not had that kind of advantage, but neither are we left with no proof; the historical testimony is “compelling,” even 2,000 years later.

The Resurrection of Jesus is not a problem, it is possibility. The possibility of the Resurrection is not that it is possible to have happened; it is what is now possible because it happened. The hope that we have as Christians is right here. And, it doesn’t matter if Easter used to be a pagan holiday, or if the correct anniversary should be some other day. It’s not the day that’s important, it’s the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death and opening up a whole new way to live.

Easter – the Resurrection – is something that we should celebrate and live every day.

Because He lives, I can face tomorrow.
Because He lives, All fear is gone.
Because I know He holds the future,
And life is worth the living just because He lives.
– Bill & Gloria Gaither

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Spiritual stuff | 5 Comments

Orthodoxy – Eastern and otherwise

Posted on March 13, 2008 by me

It seems that I’ve lived a very sheltered life, at least as far as life in the evangelical world goes. I thought that I had a pretty eclectic theological history, and understood evangelicals pretty well. I was raised Lutheran, as I’ve mentioned before, but was deeply influenced in high school and college by a variety of non-Lutheran folks, attended an Evangelical Covenant Bible school, and even served on the board of an Evangelical Free Church. I have hung around with both Southern and American Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, holiness folks and Greek Orthodox. I’ve been traveling in Vineyard circles for over 20 years, and for the last 10 have been investigating what is now being called the “emerging” church. I’ve read Christianity Today, The Purpose-Driven Church/Life, and tons of other best-sellers. I have owned at least 3 systematic theologies. And, I often use the NIV (although I do prefer RSV).

So, I’ve “been around,” as they say. However, over the last few months I have been exploring the vast resources of the internet, only to find that I apparently haven’t a clue about what Evangelicalism is all about. I knew that I didn’t agree with fundamentalists of any stripe, John MacArther, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye or James Dobson (and still don’t). However, I really had no idea there were such strong and volatile groups of Calvinists, Baptists, Calvinist Baptists, Anabaptists, and other random evangelicals out there. I’ve discovered that I don’t understand Calvinists at all (and still don’t really care to) and that I’m getting tired of Baptists who think they understand Martin Luther. However, I’ve discovered that there are a number of really sharp Lutherans who really do understand Martin Luther.

I also didn’t know that orthodoxy was such a big deal (not just “who’s in and who’s out,” but what it is that makes you in or out). I didn’t know that the Nicene Creed was an issue for some people. And, I’m very glad that I have had no reason to know these things.

There are a few decent evangelical blogs that I have been reading (and occasionally commenting on), including Parchment and Pen, the blog of C. Michael Patton, a dispensational Calvinist. On that basis alone, I shouldn’t understand his point of view at all. However, he “reaches across the aisle,” as it were, and has started some very interesting discussions in the last couple of weeks concerning who is “emerging,” who is and is not “orthodox,” and who are the Eastern Orthodox. On the latter topic, he has invited Dr. Bradley Nassif, an Eastern Orthodox theology professor at North Park University, to write a series of posts to introduce the Orthodox to Patton’s mostly evangelical audience.

The resulting discussions on each of these three topics are quite interesting, as well as being very educational. If you are at all interested in the variety of theologies held by the large group(s) calling itself “Evangelical,” or if you just want to find out what a strange world evangelicalism can be, it’s well worth an hour or 2 of your time to read through these discussions. I have especially enjoyed the Eastern Orthodox discussions, and am impressed with Dr. Nassif, who exhibits much more grace and patience than I would in dealing with some of the comments.

I have not drawn any conclusions, per se, from these discussions, but I have a few hunches and perceptions:

  • Evangelicalism appears to be half – perhaps more – Modernism.
  • There is at least a very strong commitment to submitting theology to a rationalistic analysis
  • There is also an ahistorical attitude that borders on arrogance.
  • Evangelicals more often than not cannot properly understand Luther or the early church, as they can’t accept that modernism has changed the meanings of many words and concepts.
  • I have never been “evangelical” in the sense that most people use the term.
  • I am okay – actually, I am more than okay – with that.
  • I tend to like many of these people, anyway.
  • The more theology I study, the more Lutheran I get.

What I find really intriguing, as I read through Robert Webber and other books dealing with historical theology, is that much of today’s evangelical church probably would have been considered heretical (at least heterodox) by Luther and many of the other reformers, not to mention everyone’s favorite, Augustine. Oh well… the beat goes on.

Posted in Church, Theological Musings | 6 Comments