“The Resurrection Fact: Responding to Modern Critics” edited by John Bombaro & Adam Francisco

The Resurrection Fact: Responding to Modern Critics by John Bombaro & Adam FranciscoSpring is in the air. The days are getting longer. Green grass and the hint of leaves on the trees — and is that a flower blooming already?

With the season comes one special holiday: Easter. This is the time that Western culture dedicates to the special remembrance of bunnies and Easter eggs, candies and chocolates — oh, and jelly beans. But once upon a time, we used to remember the real meaning of Easter.

Jesus Christ, his betrayal and mournful death on Good Friday, followed by the brightness of Resurrection Sunday. “He is risen! He is risen indeed!” once sounded on many lips. Sadly the only time we have for Christ now is a documentary or two rehashing old denials of the empty tomb. A religious expert and scholar spins a witty yarn about how gullible people were back in the dark ages. We enlightened people don’t need a Risen savior now. The empty tomb was a mistake, and Jesus’ corpse must have lain somewhere else – forsaken and neglected until years later, imaginations ran wild…

It is to this sad modern state of affairs, that Christians in the West are called to minister. We are to upend the malaise and awaken the sleepy populace with the wonder of the Risen Son of God.

A new book from New Reformation Publications, and the 1517 Legacy Project, aims to help us in this daunting task. In The Resurrection Fact: Responding to Modern Critics, John J. Bombaro and Adam S. Francisco bring together an intriguing mix of Lutheran churchmen, theologians, and experts in philosophy and legal practice to tackle modern criticism of the resurrection head on.

The centrality of the resurrection for Christian faith and practice is underscored, even as attempts to downplay the importance of the bodily resurrection are countered. Specific arguments by Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Michael Martin, Robert Price, Dale Allison, Gerd Lüdemann and others are addressed and several lists of additional resources are shared with the reader. The result is an accessible introduction to the debate surrounding the resurrection.

At times the book is a bit repetitive: several of the contributors treat us to the same explanation of David Hume’s influence behind the bias toward antisupernaturalism so prevalent today. Occasionally, there seemed to be an over-dependence on secondary sources and a tendency to summarize rather than quote the arguments of the critic being addressed. There was even a wholesale borrowing of significant parts of N.T. Wright’s research on the resurrection, particularly evident in the chapter by Jonathan Mumme in his critique of Dale Allison. Wright’s work (specifically his book The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press, 2003) is credited and pertinent to the discussion for sure, but perhaps overly relied on in the space of one chapter. Wright is second only to C.S. Lewis in the number of references found in the book’s index.

Quibbles aside, this is a sound book with a wealth of information and excellent references for further research. Many readers may encounter this book without much exposure to the arguments being raised against the historicity of Christ’s bodily resurrection. This book will educate and equip the reader to stand firm in an age of unbelief. Another helpful theme throughout the book is the idea of myth not being simplistically dismissed as the opposite of rational fact. To the contrary, Christianity is both myth and fact. This idea expounded by C.S. Lewis, Tolkien and Chesterton, can be helpful in responding to attempts to classify Christianity as just a myth, no different from other ancient belief systems.

For more information on this helpful book, check out a podcast interview with one of the editors, John Bombaro, or check out other reviews of this new book.

Consider picking up the book at Amazon, or direct through New Reformation Publications.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

R. Albert Mohler & C. John Collins Debate: Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?

I came across a recent debate that R. Albert Mohler and C. John Collins had at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on the topic: “Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?” Here is a link to the video of the debate.

The 2 hour long debate is worth watching, particularly the contributions of C. John “Jack” Collins, OT professor at Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO). Skip the first 10 minutes of the video, which is just preliminary info about the debate programs at TEDS).  Collins’ presentation starts at 47:43 on the video.

Listening to the whole thing, I thought that Mohler’s presentation argued more from a theological standpoint — staying in the tradition of Christian thought down through the ages, and alarmed at the potential slippery slope that allowing for an old earth presents. He marshals Scriptural arguments but not in a cogent and forceful manner. Most of the observations Jack Collins gives are agreed to in principal by Mohler but then they are just not enough to push him out of a literal 24 hour day/young earth view.

Collins is no friend of evolutionary creationism (or Biologos). He comes off every bit the conservative churchman he is, as a subscriber to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Yet Collins takes pains to read the text in a way the Text wants to be read. He doesn’t twist the meaning of “day” but sees the days as an analogy and thus not meant to be taken literally. He argues compellingly that the Scripture does not aim to speak definitively on the age of the universe or the age of the earth.  I found his presentation winsome and very carefully laid out. The debate bogged down at the end with Mohler taking most of the time and some important points being skipped for lack of time.

Collins’ emphasis on precision of language and his overall thoughts about the science and faith debate refreshing. Here is a faithful scholar who is thinking deeply on this matter and offering some helpful thoughts. This debate spurred me to pick up my copy of his Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. The book is excellent and I hope to search out other materials Dr. Collins has written on this overall topic.

Quotes to Note 41: Nothing Greater to Believe in but Ourselves

Robbed of a broader meaning to our lives, we appear to have entered an era of mass obsession, usually with ourselves: our appearance, our health and fitness, our work, our sex lives, our children’s performance, our personal development…. [We have created] a culture that gives [us] nothing greater than [ourselves] to believe in — no god, no king, no country.

These words were spoken 25 years ago by an Australian academic, but they still ring true today. If anything, social media and the internet has fueled that personal obsession. Now more than ever, our poverty is exposed: “nothing greater than ourselves to believe in.”

I stumbled across this quote in a book I recently read, A Doubter’s Guide to the Ten Commandments: How, For Better or Worse, Our Ideas about the Good Life Come from Moses and Jesus by John Dickson (Zondervan, 2016). Intrigued, I hunted down the source: Richard Eckersley’s article “Youth and the Challenge to Change: Bringing Youth, Science and Society Together in the New Millennium” in the Apocalypse? No essay series published by Australia’s Commission for the Future (July, 1992).

Dickson, is an Australian himself, and is a fellow of Ancient History at Macquarie University, the founding director of the Centre for Public Christianity, and senior minister of St. Andrew’s Roseville. He describes Eckersley’s essay as “a famous government report on Australian youth” and goes on to say: “I remember the report so well because it came out the year before my [book] A Sneaking Suspicion, an attempt to explain the relevance of Christianity for teenagers. The report helped frame some of my thinking, then and now” (A Doubter’s Guide, p. 161).

I want to share a longer excerpt from Eckersley’s essay, which I found is available online in a scan of the publication on Eckersley’s website, here.

Eckersley starts by recounting his reaction at coming back to Australia after several years in Africa, Asia and Europe:

My first reaction on flying into Sydney from Bangkok was one of wonder at the orderliness and cleanliness, the abundantly stocked shops, the clear-eyed children, so healthy and free of the cares of living. Later, however, this celebration of the material richness of life in Australia gave way to a growing apprehension about its emotional harshness and spiritual desiccation. By ‘spiritual’, I don’t necessarily mean believing in God (I am not myself a practicing member of any religion), but having a deep sense of relatedness to the world around us.

…I became aware of the cultural myths that define and support our society. For most of us in the west, the poverty of Africa and Asia is synonymous with misery and squalor; yet it is not. We see their people as crippled by ignorance, cowed by superstition, and oppressed by the harshness of their raw environment; we don’t see the extent to which we are crippled by our rationalism, cowed by our lack of superstition (spiritual beliefs) and oppressed by our artificial environment. (p. 3)

Eckersley goes on to paint a stark picture of the current age (in 1992). Later in the essay he gets to the section from which the opening quote above is taken.

When a society fails to imbue people’s lives with a sense of worth and meaning, then they must attempt to find these qualities as individuals. It is a task that many find extremely difficult, even impossible. People want to know what is expected of them; they need to have something to believe in.

This absence of belief in much beyond ourselves, and the consequent lack of faith in ourselves, are undermining our resilience, our capacity to cope with the more personal difficulties and hardships of everyday life.

Robbed of a broader meaning to our lives, we appear to have entered an era of mass obsession, usually with ourselves: our appearance, our health and fitness, our work, our sex lives, our children’s performance, our personal development.

The consequences of this loss of belief are more serious, I believe, for the young than for grown-ups… [They are] particularly vulnerable to the uncertain culture of our times. (p. 14)

He quotes a study exploring the state of Australia’s youth, and concludes:

But perhaps the most disturbing finding of the study concerns young people’s moral sense. Mackay found that they believed that moral values were in decline, and often found it hard to identify an accepted moral framework within the community — unless they were religious. Moral responsibility to ‘the group’ is much stronger than to ‘the community’, Mackay says:

“Thus the ethical sense is rooted in a social sense, but that social sense is very limited, very transient, and very fragile. Lacking a broader sense of ‘the community’, many young people have difficulty in establishing an ethical framework which has any application beyond the boundaries of their own immediate circle of friends.” [italics original to the article]

The picture that emerges from the Mackay study is of a youth culture that may be meeting the needs of its members in terms of providing them with meaning and an identity, but only just. It is of a culture that is barely holding together, certainly not enduring — a mass-media culture marked by frenetic fashions and polarisation between self-destructive recklessness and abandon, and a more insidiously debilitating cautiousness, social withdrawal and self-centredness. (p. 15)

He then turns to a July 1990 article in Time focusing on “a new generation of young American adults grappling with its values.”

…According to Time, a prime characteristic of today’s young adults is their desire to avoid risk, pain and rapid change. They feel paralysed by the social problems they see as their inheritance: racial strife, homelessness, AIDS, fractured families and federal deficits….

It may be, then, the greatest wrong we are doing to our children is not the broken families or the scarcity of jobs (damaging though these are), but the creation of a culture that gives them nothing greater than themselves to believe in — no god, no king, no country — and no cause for hope or optimism…. (p. 15)

Eckersley goes on to summarize the problems of society and looks for a cure in an optimistic embrace of science and technology — and, ironically, his hope rests ultimately in mankind = ourselves!

The growing crisis facing western societies is, then, deeply rooted in the culture of modern western societies: in the moral priority we give to the individual over the community, to rights over responsibilities, the present over the future (and the past), the ephemeral over the enduring, the material over the spiritual.

Our cultural flaws and confusion both reflect and reinforce our economic, social and environmental problems. They also undermine our ability to resolve them effectively. Unless we forge a new culture, then it is unlikely we will overcome these problems because we will lack the will, the moral courage, to confront them….

…I believe that the problem rests more with our immaturity in using a cultural tool as powerful as science, and I am hopeful that with growing experience and wisdom, together with advances in science itself, we can create a more benign and complete culture, and so a more equitable and harmonious society. (p. 19)

Eckersley explores physics and how “a more flexible approach” has arisen in “how we use science.” An approach he approves of that allows for finding “purpose — or ‘God’ — in the world described by science.” (p. 23). He hopes this scientific endeavor may:

allow us to create new concepts for expressing religious or spiritual beliefs, different from, say, the traditional notion of a supreme being ‘out there’ watching over us, and judging us — metaphysical metaphors more appropriate to our times and our understanding.

Even now, however, science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. I think it is less science and the scientific view of the world that cripple us spiritually than it is the busyness and artificiality of our modern lives, the all pervasive manifestations of rationality — an environment that we have created through science. (p. 23-24)

He goes on to focus on environmentalism and how mainstream science is clarifying the need for care of the environment, a cause young people can rally around. His essay aims to change science too, but ultimately the solution is what we make of it. Believing in ourselves and our ability to create a better culture — that is all that people can cling to apart from a religious worldview, such as what we have in Christianity.

I share this long excerpt from this decades old article to make a point. The long decline of our culture has been happening for a long time. There is something missing, and Christians have found the answer in Jesus Christ.

We have a God, a King, and a Heavenly Country to believe in – and that gives us great cause for hope and optimism. We don’t ground our hope in creating a social and cultural dynamic that frees us from the self-obsession of our age. Our ultimate hope, instead, is found in the precious promises we have in Scripture — promises that our God-King, Jesus Christ pledges to fulfill on our behalf.

As citizens of a greater Country, we must resist the urge to focus our hopes only on this present age and our own country — whether Australia or America. We need to work for the good of our city, and shine the light of Christ as we brighten the corner where we are, but we must always remember our faith lies in Someone greater and Something grander. Our obsession must center on our God-King, Jesus Christ. He is the one who calls us to live out our lives with ultimate purpose and meaning as we journey toward our Heavenly Country.

Further Reading on Old Earth Creationism

Redeeming Science by Vern PoythressMy recent post in response to Justin Taylor’s article explaining Biblical reasons for viewing the six days of creation as not 24-hour periods has received a lot of attention. My Facebook profile doesn’t normally light up so much! And I engaged in some endless blog debates at Sharper Iron, and another site.

I’ve read a lot more on old earth creationism lately, and see the need to continue my studies in this area personally. Justin Taylor recommended a few sources for additional reading, and I wanted to share those here with a couple additions of my own, for the benefit of my readers.

For a simple explanation from a Christian geologist of the evidence for an old earth, this post (and his series, linked at the bottom) are helpful.

My primary reason for holding to an old-earth position is detailed in this article – God speaks through creation and He doesn’t deceive. For additional explanation of how the Bible allows for an old earth, see this post.

For two free e-books from a Reformed persuasion, which model a helpful and careful consideration of this debate, see:

Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach by Vern Poythres – ebook (free – PDF) / paperback (Westminster Bookstore)

A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture by Keith Mathison – ebook (free) / not available in paperback

Justin Taylor also recommends the Presbyterian Church in America’s “Report of the Creation Study Committee”.

A brief booklet by Vern Poythress is also available free in pdf: Christian Interpretations of Genesis 1.

Rejecting Geocentrism: What’s the Real Motivation?

I feel that the question of the age of the earth has become much more caustic in recent years. This debate has been increasingly polarized with each camp thinking the absolute worst of the other. But how important is such a debate anyway? I would contend that the earth’s age is not all that important as Christians who firmly reject natural evolution are to be found on both sides of that question.

Recently this debate was again brought to our attention through a pair of high profile blog posts. Justin Taylor (Senior VP and Publisher at Crossway), whose blog is hosted by The Gospel Coalition, shared the following post: “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods.” This post was not well accepted by young earth creationists such as Ken Ham. Ham came out with a strongly worded response: “Rejecting Six Literal Days — What’s the Real Motivation?” Now, never mind that just a couple days prior, Taylor had shared “5 Scientific Problems with Current Theories of Biological and Chemical Evoluion.” Poor guy, he is getting flak from both sides of the creation science debate!

As I read Ham’s title and then his blog post, I first bristled at his willingness to read Taylor’s motives. Is not grappling with the text important, whether or not modern science pulls us one way or another? Here is a sampling of Ham’s reasoning:

I have found over and over again that because of the outside influence from the secular world in regard to an old earth/universe… many… will try to reinterpret the days of creation, or somehow allow for long ages somewhere in Genesis 1… to justify meshing Genesis with what is claimed to be “science.” Of course, when the word science is used in relation to the age of the earth/universe, we are dealing with historical science (beliefs based on fallible assumptions) not observational science (the kind of science that builds technology).

I am prepared to go out on a limb, on the basis of my experience in the biblical creation apologetics ministry and of all I’ve read over the past 40+ years, to say this. When Christian leaders today are rejecting a dogmatic stand on six literal, 24-hour days of creation and a young earth, if you search their writings or question them, you will find that ultimately their thinking is being controlled by the belief in an old earth/universe (billions of years)…. You simply do not get the idea of millions or billions of years from Scripture—it comes from outside of Scripture….

And thus I am saying the age of the earth/universe comes down to an authority issue.

On second thought, Ham might be right. At the root of attempts to re-examine Genesis stands the scientific discovery that the earth is unimaginably old. But ultimatley, we must ask, is it wrong to examine afresh our interpretation of Scripture in light of science? I would argue no, and I believe Ham himself is guilty of the same thing.

I’m talking about geocentrism – the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe. This was the Christian interpretation of the world prior to Copernicus’ revolution. Even the early Reformers did not countenance a rejection of this view. I just shared a review of a Christian scholar from the 1960s who still held to a preference for geocentrism even then. And some conservative Christian professors today still argue for such a view.

Science is clear, and the observations shows that the earth is not the center of the universe, and looking at Scripture in a fresh light, the church came to agree that phenomenological language does not constitute an assertion that the earth actually has 4 corners, and is fixed on pillars, with the sun going on a journey around the immobile earth each day.

Ham tries to quibble over the science behind an old earth by claiming that such science is not observational – but this is to turn science on its head. Much of the science that gives us techonology is not strictly observational, but based on observations which reinforce interpretations based on an examination of the evidence. And there are scientific tests done with carbon-14 and a host of other elements, that all agree. Blind tests with controls. Ham and many dispute the validity of such tests but have yet to come up with alternative tests that consistently (with similar controls) demonstrate a young age for the earth. These tests done by modern science converge with astronomical observations and learnings from astrophysics. At the very least many creation scientists would claim that the earth has an appearance of age. Doesn’t Answers in Genesis spend a lot of time grappling over the question of distant starlight?

Rejecting a young earth is not necessarily a matter of authority. The Scripture has authority, we all agree. The question is what does the text actually say. To go back to Taylor’s post, this really is an interpretational issue. There are clues in the text that today’s widespread Christian interpretation about the age of the earth may be in error. This would be similar to the widespread views of Christians in the 1600s being wrong about the position of the earth. Is it wrong to look anew at our interpretations and the Ancient Near Eastern evidence of Genesis 1-3 being of a particular genre. Could not some of the arguments Taylor offers be an honest grappling with the text in light of the influence of science and history.

Bending on our interpretation, reexamining the evidence — these actions do not prove one is abandoning biblical authority and embracing natural evolutionary science. Taylor himself gives us 5 reasons to doubt the current state of evolutionary theory. Instead these actions are incumbent on faithful Christian leaders. We need to make sure our interpretation is firmly grounded in the text. A lot is at stake in getting this right. Let’s make sure we die on the proper hill.

Some have examined the evidence afresh and have come away with a stronger position for a young earth. Don’t look at those who disagree with you and criticize them for examining the evidence too. We all are trying to grapple with science and our interpretation of Scripture. Where we disagree, lets do so charitably and with recognition that this isn’t an authority issue. Both sides uphold the authority of the text. We are all trying to make sure our interpretation is sound.