Tag Archive for books at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'books'

The Reason For God, Part 1

Published by Bryan April 1, 2008 in General, Book Reviews and Christian Books. 0 Comments

Last month Timothy Keller’s book The Reason For God was released. I was first introduced to Tim Keller when I listened to the audio of his speech at the 2006 Desiring God Conference. Although there were many good speakers at the conference (including Mark Driscoll and John Piper), Tim Keller’s speech stood out for me above them all. However because I do not spend a lot of time listening to sermons (I prefer to read books) one thing that has disappointed me about Keller is that he hasn’t written much. The only thing I had read by him before this book was his chapter from Worship By The Book was quite good, but also quite short. Therefore when I heard that he was working on a book on apologetics I became quite excited.

Due to school work, I didn’t end up buying the book until March, and finishing it off last week. Over the next few weeks I will be posting thoughts and reflections on specific parts of the work, but first I want to talk about the book in general and dive into the method Keller uses.

An Overview
Keller divides the book into two sections. The first section is negative apologetics, that is, he responds to a variety of attacks on the Christian faith. The second section is mainly positive apologetics - building up a case for the Christian God. There are generally five main ways of conducting apologetics and Keller’s book broadly fits into the field of Van Tillian Presuppositional Apologetics (if one wants to be more specific I think he would be closer to John Frame then Greg Bahnsen). What then does this mean for someone who is reading this book? What should a reader expect?

Keller’s method involves looking at a person’s position and examining if it is consistent or not. In the first section he takes an argument such as “How Can a Good God Allow Suffering?” and attempts to show that the reasoning behind the argument is either inconsistent, or relies on a Christian understanding of the world. In the second section he starts with Christian presuppositions and shows how the God of scripture is both consistent and believable.

This approach has both advantages and disadvantages. If Christianity is the only consistent worldview (which I don’t believe Keller claims in the book, but several who follow a similar method do) then it is a very powerful method of attack on non-Christian worldviews. Even if it is not the only consistent worldview, by examining other’s claims for consistently one will often find that they are inconsistent or worst yet, rely on Christianity.

For those who have never thought much on their worldview before, this will often come as quite a surprise and give them pause to think. On the other hand, this method can, at times, become quite philosophical and too abstract for some to follow. Worse yet, if someone has put a lot of thought into their worldview, a Christian dialoguing with them may not be able to find inconsistencies with it where they expect to see them.

Reconciliation Through Dialogue
To mitigate these issues, Keller appears to employ two basic strategies. First off, he only sets out broad arguments against certain worldviews (such as an evolutionary worldview). Secondly, unlike the combative way this approach has been used before, Keller comes off seeming to want more of a dialogue then a debate. Although there is no doubt that he believes the Christian worldview to be correct, he is not wanting to push it on someone, but instead engage in a discussion about it and let people make their own decision.

Although the discussion in this book can revolve around some very deep theological and philosophical issues, Keller does a really good job brining in other thinkers who have written in detail on these subjects in works the average Christian will never consider reading, and explaining them in such a way the average reader will understand. That is perhaps the greatest strength of this work; nothing totally new is put forward, but what is out there but often unreachable is brought into reach.

In the next entry in this series we will begin to look at some of the specific arguments that Keller puts forward against common objections to the Christian faith.

Evil And The Justice Of God

Published by Bryan January 8, 2008 in Book Reviews and Christian Books. 16 Comments

Evil And the Justice Of God is a small book (165 pages) written by NT Wright and put out by IVP in 2006. In my ongoing investigation of Wright’s theology, I picked it up just after Christmas and finished it last week. Like all the Wright’s works that I have so far read, this one is quite lucid and enjoyable to read. Because everyone from RC Sproul to Trevin Wax have already reviewed the book, I won’t write a full review, but focus on what I view as the most important things Wright lays out in the book.

The book discusses exactly what the title says. It is not a book that goes into philosophical explanations as to why evil exists in a world created by a good God, but instead focuses on what God has been doing, and will do, about evil. It may seem strange to write a book about evil and God and not look at the huge dilemma of why there is evil in the first place, but Wright wants to discuss only what scripture says on the subject and doesn’t believe that scripture provides a full philosophical answer as to why there is evil.

Although it is unsatisfying, I must agree with Wright that there is not an answer as to why evil exists like the philosophers demand from scripture. The three main ideas commonly put forward (Free Will, God uses evil to glorify himself, and a needed contrast so one can truly see how good God is) may all be able to be drawn out of portions of scripture, but when you come to scripture with this question, you’re looking for an answer to a question that isn’t really asked in scripture. You can make scripture say something on the subject, but it will never be a full answer.

What scripture does quite clearly offer to the question of evil is a narrative of what God is doing about the problem. Throughout this work Wright uses the Christus Victor atonement theory as a way of reading scripture. In the OT, evil entered the world, as seen through both human action and natural disasters. To deal with this problem, God has again and again used a punishment and remnant “method”. He flooded the earth, but kept Noah; He destroyed Babel but raised Abraham; He sent plagues on the Egyptians but used Moses. This continues throughout the OT and into the NT. From this Wright understands God to be preparing the way for Christ, as all of these examples foreshadow what Christ will eventually do - but he will actually succeed.

Noah was to be the beginning of a new sin free race, but he failed and fell into sin. Israel was to show the world what a people of God were to live like, but they worshipped the golden calf. King David was to be God’s righteous king, but he turned out to be an adulterer and murderer. All this, however, leads to Christ - who actually accomplished the victory over evil like only the Son of God could. He began the destruction of evil which will be finished when the Kingdom of God comes in power (It’s here, but not here yet).

The other important thing that Wright does which flies in the face of the recent questions and comments about evil, is continue to point out that evil is not just something out there in the world, but is something that each and everyone of us are involved with. Although I may not agree 100% with his politics, Wright is right to point out that after 9/11 when all the fingers were pointing at Muslim extremists and crying evil, we forgot that (although our own actions do not result in destruction of the scale of 9/11) much of what we do is just as evil in God’s eyes, not to mention the “evilness” of Western civilization as a whole (War, abortion, drugs, apathy…etc).

Wright wants to make the problem of evil both a very personal thing and a world wide phenomena. Most people, in practice, pick one or the other, but with Wright it has to be both if Christ’s atonement is to be seen in it’s true glorious ramifications. He died to overcome the evils of war, floods, and dictators, but also of lying, gluttony, and sloth.

Changing Church: Part 5

Published by Bryan October 2, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 17 Comments

This is part 5 of a 6 part series

Recently I finished the book Praying With The Church by Scot McKnight. The book is a look at different traditions (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and roughly protestant ecumenical) of communal prayer. It’s an important book because it seeks to introduce protestants from non-liturgical traditions (Baptists, Charismatics, E-Free Church…etc) to a type of highly liturgical prayer.

Within the vast majority of evangelical protestant churches, prayer is strictly an individual endeavor. Yes, many churches have prayer meetings where the church gathers to pray, but the prayers that are offered are all individual prayers. Each person prays what is “on their heart,” others may agree and nod, or pray along similar lines, but it is really praying alone in a group. There is nothing wrong with this type of prayer of course, as McKnight makes clear, there is a time and place for it, but it has become the only type of prayer many protestants know.

Historical Corporate Prayer
If one is serious about looking at church history, one must look at the type of prayers offered up by past generations; both their content and their form. It is clear that praying alone in a group as we do now has not been the only way the church has historically prayed. Set prayers, at set times, is a tradition reaching back into Judaism and was employed right from the early church to today. Yet for fear of participating in “vain repetitions” and being “too Catholic” the majority of evangelical protestants have given up this tradition long ago. But should we have?

Much like reading through and reciting the creeds of the church can connect one to the past (as discussed in the last entry) so too can prayers anchor a person in the historic church. One of the major shaping factors of any group is its practice. This is even more true with prayer. I’ve heard the expression before from evangelicals that “you are what you pray” meaning that your prayer life will direct the type of person you become. If that is the case I want to be one who is conscious of my history.

The daily prayers of various traditions not only teach us a lot about where they come from - they go beyond academic knowledge and offer us new ways of looking at God outside of our tradition. Today in our churches, prayers of every kind are often offered up “off the cuff.” Little thought is put into the words used to describe God, man, and our relationship, often leading to clumsy wording that listeners find hard to follow or at worst promote incorrect teaching.

One of the beauties of set prayers is that a tradition has often wrestled with these prayers for ages. They are detailed, theologically set out prayers that one should have no problem learning from. Emphasis put on the central themes of scripture (Christ, sin, repentance, gospel) and not on whatever the preacher feels the congregation needs today (which is important but must be balanced with the whole of scripture).

Vain Repetitions or Consistent Communication?
The evangelical argument against set prayers is that they constitute “vain reputations”, but does repeating the same prayers each morning (with some changes) make for vain reputations? If we think about the words, and mean them is that vain?

There is a danger yes, one may start to only say them without thinking and without meaning them, but doesn’t that same danger exist with “off the cuff” prayers? If one has been in the church for a few years, you know how to formulate a prayer that sounds good, means nothing, and keeps the people around you happy. Vain reputations is not a scourge only on set prayers but exists on all types of prayers: it should not be an excuse to discount one type but instead to redouble the efforts to mean what you pray and think about it.

To go into detail about how to begin praying set prayers is beyond the scope of this post. McKnight’s book seems to be a good place to start. I myself have begun this past week to attend Anglican morning prayers each Friday for, among other reasons, to learn more about this tradition and develop the habit of praying with those who have come before me in the church. I loved the experience this past week.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jul
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Zeal For Truth