You are here: Home / Apologetics

Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament by Christopher J.H. Wright

12/10/2010 1 Comment

This is a review of the book Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament, which is a scholarly examination of the Old Testament background which contextualizes Jesus and his mission. The author, Christopher J.H. Wright, is a biblical scholar having earned his Ph.D. from Cambridge in Old Testament ethics. He is an ordained Anglican and serves as International ministries director for All Souls Church in London, England. Wright is chiefly addressing the discontinuity between the two testaments in the minds of many modern Christians.  The book excels at placing Jesus in his proper Jewish context. In this way, the book succeeds to correct the westernized picture of Jesus prevalent in modern evangelicalism. However, detailed criticism will be offered in that Wright seems to follow the naturalistic trend of liberal biblical criticism. While Wright’s Hebrew Bible scholarship is stellar, his Christology is earthbound.

I was disappointed with this book. While it is masterfully written, what first promised to be a scholarly update detoured into postmodern Christology. Wright’s work is reflective of his presuppositions and methods. He seems to have naturalistic leanings. Biblical theology has been distinguished from systematic theology in that the biblical data is studied critically as an historical discipline, whereas systematic theology is more philosophical.[1] Wright’s work reveals a chasm between liberal biblical theology and orthodox systematic theology. Wright’s book simply does not logically cohere with the essential doctrine of Christ’s divinity. This criticism will be thoroughly documented through multiple lines of evidence from Wright’s book.

The New Testament unabashedly leads one to the conclusion that Jesus is God.  Wright’s Old Testament biblical theology methodology masks that inference. For instance, there is no comparison between the exalted Jesus that emerges from John Walvoord’s examination of Jesus in the Old Testament found in Jesus Christ Our Lord and the Jesus presented by Wright. Conspicuously absent from Wright’s work is any discussion of Christ’s eternity past or the incarnation. For example, in Micah’s prophecy about his birth in Bethlehem it is said, “…from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days” (Mic 5:2). This infers Christ’s eternality. Wright does not go there. Another example, James Montgomery Boice argues that the atonement was Jesus’ main mission and that “the death of Jesus is the theme of the Old Testament…”[2] Wright is not as decisive. Furthermore, Wright never mentions theophanies, the appearances of Christ in the Old Testament before the incarnation. According to Walvoord, “It is the teaching of Scripture that the Angel of Jehovah is specifically the second Person of the Trinity.”[3] It follows that when Jesus said “before Abraham was I AM” (Jn. 8:58) the Pharisees understood it as that claim. Nevertheless, I have to wonder if Wright does. There is a vast difference between the Christology coming from a theologian like Walvoord or Boice and a biblical scholar like Wright. Even more disappointing, the tone of Wright’s work implies such a high Christology is fanciful and unnecessary. After all, who would complain if he received a car when he was only promised a horse?

Wright’s analogy about the son that expected a horse yet received a car has limited merit. It might be useful for addressing traditional Jewish objections that Jesus didn’t meet their expectations. However, I would qualify that as, “he hasn’t yet met their expectations.” Wright seems to discount any precision at all in prophecy. Examples of prophetic precision include the exact seventy year exile (Jer. 25:11), Cyrus explicitly named 100 years in advance (Isa. 44:28), the fall of Tyre (Eze. 26) and Isaiah fifty-three’s remarkably prescient description of Jesus. Consider that a car would indeed be a disappointment if you were a jockey entering a horse race. Thus, it is more likely that when God promises a horse he will indeed deliver a horse. Most of the problems seem to stem from our expectations of sequence and timing. God is not bound by time. In the case of Jesus, it is a case of now and also not yet. I still expect very literal fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy in the millennial kingdom. While two advents are not revealed in the Hebrew Bible, there is ample reason to expect Jesus will fulfill the details the Jews are still waiting for. Unfortunately, I do not get the impression that Wright thinks so.

His discussion of typology is somewhat sobering in respect to traditional dispensational scholarship. Perhaps there has been overindulgence. However, I am critical of Wright’s treatment. Arthur W. Pink is famous for his typology of the Tabernacle. After listing a multitude of ways the tabernacle was a type of Christ, Pink remarks, “Thus we see how fully and how perfectly the tabernacle of old foreshadowed the Person of our blessed Lord.”[4] I am fairly certain Wright had Pink in mind with his criticism. Wright makes typology seem like only a human conceived analogy. In contrast, like Pink, I believe God orchestrated history as an intentional pointer to Christ. The Passover lamb, Abraham’s offering of Isaac and the sacrificial system are much more than backward looking analogies. They were planned. He is over compensating and rationalizing away the wonder of it. His criticisms are somewhat valid, we do need to understand the original context, yet it doesn’t mean the typological interpretative scheme is completely wrong, only that perhaps some have overindulged it. I agree it is not the way, as in the only way to interpret the Old Testament, but I really don’t think it is used so exclusively, even by those deemed fanciful.

Not wishing to appear fanciful, Wright often hedges. For instance, first he says most scholars are agreed that “Son of Man” was not a Messianic title. Then he works his way through three categories of “Son of Man” sayings. The idea is that these categories represent how Jesus defined himself. While it is true that “son of man” can be used a human title, Jesus referred to himself as “the Son of Man” as in a reference to Daniel 7:13. Wright celebrates this possibility with enough pomp to almost seem like worship. But it’s not a speculative matter. In fact, Jesus makes the connection for us at his trial. He claims that they will see him coming on the clouds (Mat 26:63), just like the Son of Man in Daniel seven. And it is not the first time he claimed it (Mat 24:30). Wright gives tacit acknowledgment to these eschatological passages yet does not fully allow for what they imply. For instance, the third category is that Jesus will “sometimes act as a judge on God’s behalf.”[5] One wonders, does this mean Jesus is merely God’s agent?  It reeks of Arianism. Jesus is God, the second person of the trinity, but this book seems embarrassed to come out and say it.

Another egregious error is that Wright characterizes Jesus as a mere human being sorting out his own identity by reading the Hebrew Bible. The book is burdened with examples. For example, he writes:

The Old Testament provided the models, pictures and patterns by which Jesus understood his own essential identity and especially gave depth and colour to his primary self-awareness as the Son of his Father God.[6]

To the uncritical reader the ending might sound like a high Christology but I just do not believe Jesus needed assistance in his self-awareness. Jesus was not a normal man merely using the Hebrew bible to figure it out as he went along. Yet, Wright uses phrases like Jesus “drew on another figure from his Hebrew bible and that was the Servant of the Lord.”[7] This reads like Jesus is just acting out what he read. Also, Wright can’t seem to make up his mind. For instance, he first states, “Jesus here claims to be the one that Isaiah 53 was written about”[8] and then one page later hedges saying there are only “good grounds to believe Jesus saw himself are the servant figure…”[9] From this sort of tentative language, one wonders if maybe Jesus only saw himself that way. After all, people like the Reverend Sun Myung Moon and David Koresh also see themselves that way. He continues this line claiming,

In order to get the full value of this insight into the mind of Jesus, however, we must do the same as we did for the other figures that Jesus found in his Hebrew scriptures and applied to himself – especially the Son of God.[10]

Apparently, Jesus simply “found and applied”. This mischaracterization is ubiquitous. Again in chapter five, Wright discusses how Jesus was “molded and formed in his values” by the Hebrew Scriptures. This is just astounding. I hope that he might consider that Jesus did not merely find ideas in his Hebrew scriptures and apply them to himself. Perhaps the author might consider the fanciful notion that they were written specifically about Jesus and that Jesus was even present when the prophets wrote them. Indeed, if Jesus created all things and pre-existed the entire universe in perfect triune fellowship, then Wright’s “figuring it out as he goes along” Jesus just seems absurd. Jesus might ask Wright, “But who do you say that I am?” (Mat.16:15)

His contrast of the servant of the Lord as an individual with the nation is quite good.  Especially in light of the rabbinic attempt to explain it away by reinterpreting the Servant as the nation post AD 70. Wright describes how the nation failed in their role and that Christ shoulders the role of the servant. Strangely, Wright now sees that role in the church. He lists four points where his biblical insights impact modern Christians: (1) the continuity of the mission from ancient Israel to today; (2) Wright points out that Paul exhorted “to the Jew first” and it was very encouraging that he does not endorse supersessionism; (3) our mission in servant-hood as exemplified by Jesus’ washing the disciple’s feet and (4) the completion of the mission in its wholeness.[11] On this final point Wright loses coherence. He writes of Jesus,

Yet it is clear that in his own lifetime he did not complete the task entrusted to the Servant of bringing the law and justice of God to the nations. Is it not then surely the case that these are aspects of the mission which he has entrusted to his servant church, those, being ‘in Christ’ are commanded to carry forward ‘all that he began to do and teach’?[12]

This is blatant eisegesis albeit creative. Actually that reference is to Acts 1:1 and it is merely Luke telling his reader that he recorded “all that he began to do and teach.” Our mission is to, “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” (Mt 28:19). Furthermore, Jesus promised to return to complete His mission (Matt. 24:30, Rev. 3:11, 22:7, 22:12, 22:20). While dominionists also promote Wright’s idea, they seem rather odd eschatological company for an Anglican biblical scholar.

This review offered a critical analysis of Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. The value of Wright’s work is that it succeeds at promoting the proper historic Jewish context for Jesus’ life and work. However, strong criticism was offered that the author’s methods and presuppositions lack coherence with orthodox Christology. That criticism was thoroughly evidenced from Wright’s work and compared to classic texts by respected theologians. Maybe Wright is too concerned with what other scholars think? In the end, it seems that this book promotes knowing a different Jesus than the eternal omniscient Lord in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9).

[1]C.H. Bullock “Old Testament Theology,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 861.

[2]James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith : A Comprehensive & Readable Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 288.

[3]John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord (Galaxie Software, 2008; 2008), 44.

[4]Arthur Walkington Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John (Swengel, Pa.: Bible truth depot, 1923-45), 37.

[5] Wright.Knowing.150.

[6] Wright. Knowing. 135.

[7] Wright. Knowing. 154.

[8] Wright. Knowing. 155.

[9] Wright. Knowing. 156.

[10] Wright. Knowing. 157.

[11] Wright. Knowing. 174-180.

[12] Wright. Knowing. 180.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With "Knowing Jesus Throught the Old Testament", Biblical theology, Christology, Christopher J.H. Wright

Whence Then is Evil? An Answer to the Argument From Evil

12/03/2010 3 Comments

Recently, an acquaintance of my brothers regrettably backed his vehicle over his own daughter and killed her. A seemingly horrible and needless evil, this is a pretty common accident. Children are so innocent. Why doesn’t God prevent it? The biggest challenge to the Christian worldview is the argument from evil. It is a serious problem. David Hume refined the argument to: “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing: whence then is evil?”[1] Accordingly, the three common solutions to the problem of evil are based on three elements which in combination seem to have caused the predicament: God’s greatness, God’s goodness, and the presence of evil.[2] Each approach centers on a specific element.

The first solution is called finitism in that it makes God finite. It addresses God’s greatness, specifically by denying his omnipotence. God is attempting to conquer evil and would if he could but so far, has been unable to do so. This can also take the form of dualism in which there are two equal but opposite powers of good and evil interlocked in an eternal struggle. This is the belief of the Iranian religion Zoroastrianism. The good god, Ahura Mazda, is opposed by his evil twin side Ahriman. This accounts for evil but offers no real hope.

The second solution attacks the problem by redefining God’s goodness. The great presuppositional apologist Gordon H. Clark is used as an example for this approach. A staunch Calvinist, Clark was perhaps one of the most important evangelical philosophers and apologists of the twentieth century.[3] According to this view, the laws God imposes on humanity literally do not apply to him. Clark said, “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it.”[4] Whatever God does is right simply because he does it. His solution amounts to the syllogism: (1) Whatever happens is caused by God.(2) Whatever is caused by God is good. Therefore, whatever happens is good.  The major problem with this approach is the word ‘good’ loses all of its meaning. If a man shooting his entire family is good, then what is evil? It makes God seem arbitrary.

The third solution is to deny the reality of evil. This is the view prevalent in pantheistic systems where everything is God. Evil is an illusion, a product of errant belief.  Most of this line of thinking is borrowed from Hinduism. It was widely popularized in America by the Christian Science cult. In this cult, sickness and pain are seen as an illusion, along with evil, and of course it follows that the concepts of sin and death are an illusion as well. The problem is that it just doesn’t work.  No matter what Mary Baker Eddy may have believed, she now has a grave that proves her wrong.

It is pretty clear that all three are unsatisfactory. Even more, they are not really compatible with a Christian worldview. The first and third are relatively obvious because the Bible makes it clear that God created everything good (Gen 1:31) and the existence of evil is hard to deny. The second is not as easy, as this is actually the work of a thoughtful Christian. I am somewhat sympathetic to Clark’s solution because the world seems to be such a brutal place. The story of Job is a good example. His family is killed for what appears to be a cosmic bet with Satan (Job 1:12). God does not try to justify his allowance of Satan’s evil perpetrated on Job and his innocent children.  He asks basically “who are you to challenge me?” (Job 38:4)  Thus, I must remain open to the possibility that, in light of eternity, even things as horrible as a man shooting his family or even running them down by accident may turn out to bring the best overall outcome. We just do not have the perspective to understand. Still yet, it is not practical to simply accept this solution.

Why not? Well let’s suppose that in light of the overwhelming pain and suffering we see in the world we accept the premise that, no matter how bad it is, it is God’s will is and that somehow God will bring a greater good from each evil. This is a common platitude that people offer up to a suffering friend, “rest assured God will turn this around and use it for good.” (Consoling pat on the back) Well if we truly accept that this is reality then what motivation do we have to fight evil or seek social justice? If all evil is being worked into a greater good, then when we stop the evil, we prevent the good. Clearly this is wrong as scripture tells us to oppose evil (2 Cor 10:5, Eph. 5:11, 1 Tim 6:12) and “learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.” (Is 1:17)  Thus, the only real value I see in this defense is that we must admit sometimes we just do not understand why God allows evil. Like with the fellow that ran over his daughter, sometimes the best thing to say is, “I don’t know.” God does comfort those who mourn (Mat 5:4).

I think it is also important to remember that God does not ask us to endure anything that he has not taken on himself. Indeed, God as the Son entered this sinful world as a man and endured the most brutal death imaginable. God as the Father watched his innocent Son be brutally beaten and crucified.  I would remind the reader of Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ. While each of these three common solutions goes too far, there are valid insights from each. The best approach is likely to understand the problem in light of all three and not focus too narrowly on one element.  I prefer to address the problem in terms of an eschatological solution. God wants relationship and worship. Freedom is a necessary component for worship and relationship to be meaningful. Freedom is not really free if choosing evil is not a live possibility. Evil is a result of the misuse of freedom. God is working this out for the maximum good but it is a process. I have faith in God’s goodness and that we are in a process that will result in God banishing evil as he has promised (Rev 21:4).

He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away

[1] David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 10.

[2]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1998), 439.

[3]Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 271.

[4]Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1961), p. 221.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Argument from Evil, Cris D. Putnam, David Hume, Epicurus, Gordon Clark, problem of evil

Hefner’s Created Co-Creator

12/01/2010 Leave a Comment

Philip Hefner has accused me of misrepresenting his position.  I believe I  misunderstood his position on “religious naturalism”. I apologize for that as I am not in the business of intentionally misrepresenting people. The pertinent matter is that he certainly did endorse transhumanism as a working out of his evolutionary theological construct of “created co creator.”  I would like to refer the reader to this entry from the eNotes Encyclopedia of Science and Religion:

A dynamic theological anthropology with the concept of the created co-creator in its core is elaborated by theologian Philip Hefner: Humans are created by God to be co-creators in the creation that God has purposefully brought into being. The word created thus relates to being created by God as part of the evolutionary reality (a view sometimes criticised for demeaning humans understood as imago dei). The word co-creator reflects the freedom of humans to participate in fulfilling God’s purposes (a view sometimes criticised for super-elevating humans to the same level as God). The paradigm of the created co-creator is Jesus Christ who reveals that the essential reality of humans has never been outside God.

Hefner, Philip. The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1993.

Klein, Ralph W. ed. Philip Hefner: Created Co-Creator. Currents in Theology and Mission 28, no. 3–4 (2001).

HUBERT MEISINGER

“Created Co-Creator.” Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Ed. Ray Abruzzi and Michael J. McGandy. Macmillan-Thomson Gale, 2003. eNotes.com. 2006. 1 Dec, 2010 <http://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/
created-co-creator>

I find it reassuring that Mesinger thought it was pertinent to include the comment  “a view sometimes criticized for super-elevating humans to the same level as God.”  Which was exactly the criticism I arrived at independently .

What Hefner argues is that transhumanism is a way we will participate in God’s purpose.  And yes I believe it is incredibly presumptuous to elevate man to that level. God can handle creation just fine on his own. No responsible man of God should be equivocating transhumanism with God’s purpose. I stand by my last post.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Philip Hefner, Transhumanist

Evangelical Lutheran Theologian Advocates Transhumanism

11/29/2010 17 Comments

I recently read Tom Horn’s article Are Church leaders abdicating the future of man to the Luciferian dead hand of the great planners and conditioners? I’m afraid they are not merely abdicating, some are actually advocating transhumanism!

In my research through scholarly theological literature,  I discovered a Lutheran based journal Dialog: A Journal of Theology which featured and article “The Animal that Aspires to be an Angel: The Challenge of Transhumanism” by Philip Hefner.  In this article, Hefner actually advocates the transhumanist pursuit as a Christian duty. The author is an ordained pastor with the theologically liberal Evangelical Lutheran (ELCA) denomination and retired editor of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science.[1] Accordingly, his writing exhibits a command of science. However, the article’s title referring to man as an animal compounded by his references to the Qur’an as a divine revelation[2] and Genesis as mythology[3] telegraph a freethinking worldview.

His position seems to be driven by a sincere desire to accommodate human progress and eliminate suffering, yet his conclusions are driven by questionable presuppositions. For instance, he holds an oxymoronic metaphysic of “religious naturalism.” He defines this peculiar term as “a set of beliefs and attitudes that there are religious aspects of this world which can be appreciated within a naturalistic framework.”[4] This sounds virtually identical to deism.  He also suggests that God created man deficiently so that we might pursue this techno-enhancement. He asks rhetorically, “Has God created us to be dissatisfied with our birth nature and to seek to enhance it?”[5] I think the scriptural answer to that is an emphatic “No”! One wonders where denial of self in the pursuit of Christ fits into his theology (Lk. 9:23, Rom 12:1). A Christian worldview entails the acceptance of some suffering (2 Cor. 1:5). John the Baptist understood that, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” (Jn 3:30)

So how can a pastor maintain a straight face and advocate transhumanism?

To rationalize his endorsement, he proposes a caveat in the way of a distinction he deems “uppercase and lowercase” transhumanism. While it is somewhat arbitrary, the former entails enhancement to the extent of becoming post human (a new species), while the latter comprises a gray area which includes things like assistive medical technologies, cosmetic enhancement and life extension therapy. The author builds sympathy for the concept by offering his own pitiable medical history. The pursuit of healing is not the same as enhancement.  It seems wrong not to advocate the elimination of debilitating conditions or assistance for the handicapped.  However, the author’s emphasis on what he deems “lowercase” transhumanism avoids the more disturbing ramifications.

A major weakness in his argument is that although he acknowledges human sin, he doesn’t account for it adequately. He evades discussion of the potential for augmented human depravity via a post-human result. It seems that the majority of those promoting this endeavor are atheist/agnostic secular humanists.[6] If secular humanism is a religion, then transhumanism amounts to its eschatology. It is certainly not seen by them as co-creation with God. The implications are staggering. He identifies a central issue as, “the insistence that our original nature, received in conception and birth, is open to alteration at our own hands.”[7] Insistence is  never a wise posture to take with God.

What about gratitude?  How about, “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well” (Ps. 139:14)?  Nevertheless, Hefner contends that to object on theological grounds imposes an unwarranted normative anthropology. He views it as the next step in human evolution. His theological justification is that transhumanism is a natural out working of man’s status as a co-creator with God. In other words, it is theistic evolution through human agency. In his theological conclusions, he goes so far as to claim:

To discredit this aspect of human nature is in itself an anti-human move, in my opinion. In a theological perspective, we have been given this nature so that we can participate in God’s own work of making all things new and fulfilling the creation. To discredit our God-given nature is itself a rebellion against God. [8]

This is astounding. Hefner identifies important questions like “what constitutes alteration—appropriate or inappropriate—of human nature?” and “where is the boundary between healing and improvement?” Yet he does not attempt to answer them. I shudder to consider the potential social implications between the haves (posthumans) and the have-nots (humans). There is much at stake and the consequences have not been fully explored or even imagined. There is too much equivocation in his argumentation. Assistive technology seems justified but it is entirely another matter to argue for what amounts to techno-Darwinism. Christians are supposed to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29) not a transhuman Übermensch.  It seems to me that what he advocates as co-creating with God is actually closer to the delusion of apotheosis (Gen 3:5).

[1] “Rev. Philip Hefner, M.Div., Ph.D. .” Metanexus Institute. 2010. http://www.metanexus.net/AcademicBoard.asp?45 (accessed 11 04, 2010).

[2]Hefner. The Animal that Aspires to be an Angel: The Challenge of Transhumanism.” Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 2009; 164.

[3] Hefner. “The Animal,” 163.

[4] PhilipHefner. “Zygon at 40: the times, they are a’changing—or not?” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science. 2010. http://www.zygonjournal.org/40.html (accessed 11 04, 2010).

[5] Hefner. “The Animal, 162.

[6] Christopher Hook. “Transhumainism and Posthumanism.” In Encyclopedia of Bioethics (3rd ed.), by Stephen G. Post, 2517-2520. New York: MacMillan, 2007.

[7] Philip Hefner. ” The Animal,”  161.

[8] Hefner. “The Animal,” 166.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Cris Putnam, darwinism, evolution, Forbidden Gates, Lutheran, Philip Hefner, Raiders News, Tom Horn, Transhumanism

Secular Humanists Are Humans (part III)

11/24/2010 Leave a Comment

While it is important to reassure a potential convert that becoming a Christian does not require one to check reason at the door, one should remember that secular humanists are humans. To share Christianity with a secular humanist one does not necessarily have to have a command of these rather complex scientific and philosophical arguments. Atheism is counter intuitive to nearly everyone. Even an anti-theist like Sam Harris concedes that, “there is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life.”[1] Like all people they suffer from the devastating results of sin. The bible tells us that “men suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). If we can help them to address their unrighteousness by pointing to Christ’s redemptive work, often their truth suppression is mitigated. They need forgiveness yet do not acknowledge it. We can offer them help dealing with addictions where secular methods fail. They struggle for love and acceptance like all other humans. It is important to share the love and unique message of Jesus Christ as many secular humanists have only a sardonic caricature of Christianity in mind. An ardent atheist will likely be suspicious that Christians view their conversion as a trophy. It is important to develop a relationship and to demonstrate genuine care before making an evangelistic appeal.

Once there is trust, a particularly useful approach is the moral argument along the lines of C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity. Evolutionary explanations fail to adequately account for objective moral values. Given Darwinism, anything that provides for the survival of one’s own genetic material is deemed beneficial. So why is rape or murder evil, if you can get away with it?  After all, it reduces the competition and spreads your DNA. Yet we seemingly know that it is wrong. Furthermore, relativism amounts to mob rule. For instance, there is no objective basis to judge that the holocaust was truly evil. As long as the majority of Germans agreed with what Hitler was doing, then it was moral-relatively speaking. Of course this is repugnant to most everyone and indeed it is here that secular humanism has failed most miserably. Unparalleled scientific progress has not delivered a secular utopia. It has led to a human nightmare. The twentieth century world total is 262,000,000 murdered by government and largely outside of war in the pursuit of the secular humanist ideal of Marxism.[2] The problem of evil is actually a much bigger problem for the atheist than the Christian. The bible provides a coherent explanation for evil and most of all it offers a real hope (Rev. 21:4).

[1] Sam Harris. The End of Faith. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005), 14.

[2] R.J. Rummel “20th Century Democide.” Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War. 11 23, 2002. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM (accessed 10 26, 2010).

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Atheism, Atheists, democide, moral argument, problem of evil, secular humanism
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »