Here’s an example, from Gordon College’s president R. Judson Carlberg:

Studying the geological evidence, he said, makes it hard to credit the the "young earthers" who believe that the Bible is the only guide needed to date the earth: "If you accept the young earth argument, you have to think that God is trying to trick us [with the geological evidence] and I don’t think He would do that." Carlberg said he wants to see Christian colleges speak out publicly about their ability to embrace faith and science

I agree that God wouldn’t try to trick us. But how exactly is God being deceptive here?

First, God told you what He did, so it’s hard to see how an old-looking Earth would count as some kind of intentional deception on His part. It would be a little like insisting that an old-looking photograph is clearly an antique, even though the photographer told you that he made it look old in Photoshop.

Second, if this account is just a myth or a moral tale or something, not intended literally, then many later biblical writers, and Jesus himself in fact, perpetuated the literal interpretation of the passage erroneously. Perhaps you could make a case for biblical writers’ error. But if the accounts of Jesus’s words are accurate, then you have God Himself lying to His hearers. In that case, I don’t see how we’d avoid the “God deceived us” problem. Note that Jesus’s comments on the matter are indirect, but they’re loaded with theological import. So if you want to say that Jesus got it wrong, or Paul, or whomever, then you’re going to have to deal with a theology that loses its moorings in reality pretty fast. The problem is that the “literal” account is pretty unambiguous throughout Scripture (and it isn’t just in the so-called ‘disputed texts’ either).

I don’t mind respecting the right of someone to hold a view that gives more credence to evolution than I do. I just wish they’d actually advance some serious arguments (and evidence) to bolster the view, particularly if they want to portray those to the right of them as hopelessly naive.

A quote that particularly struck me:

There simply is no substitute here for equipping students to dive deeply into the Scriptures. At the same time, however, it is important to help them dive into the Scriptures in the right way. Unfortunately, many students have only seen the Bible handled poorly by other Christians. Often, their only experience with the Scriptures include it being replaced by therapeutic clichés, utilized and memorized completely out of context, tacked on but not central to a lesson, strangely pieced together with other verses to make a point, proof-texted to supplement a devotional book or song lyric, or largely ignored.

When someone who seems to genuinely love God suffers so much, I am often amazed by God’s grace to her. There is a sense in which such a person has been given a special task that is unusual, both in its difficulty and its reward.

Consider the most famous book in the Bible on suffering: Job. The story of Job describes the pain of a man who suffers for no apparent reason. His friends erroneously accuse him of wrongdoing, assuming that all suffering is the result of sin. Our culture has possibly gone too far the other way, assuming that suffering is never the result of sin. But there are still people who seem to suffer for no reason. Job apparently never learned why he suffered, but we benefit from his experiences through an inspired book describing both his suffering and the dynamics that initiated it. Clearly, the point of Job is that people, sometimes righteous people, suffer—that suffering isn’t necessarily the product of an individual’s sin.

Later, in John 9, Jesus’ disciples apparently hadn’t learned the lesson. They asked Jesus whether the man born blind had sinned or his parents had sinned that he should have been born blind. Jesus revealed their misunderstanding: “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.”

This brief statement clarifies some of God’s working. Sometimes God lets people suffer so that He can show his power in them. God has given them a special honor by allowing them to suffer.

In attempting to be honest, some Christians will observe that no one is really a good or righteous person. Everyone has sinned and thus deserves to suffer in some sense. I think that this notion is wrong-headed and unhelpful. Of course everyone has sinned, but Christians need not do penance. Their suffering has been taken by Jesus. He has given them peace with God, so they can rejoice in hope of the glory of God, even through suffering. Their suffering isn’t easier to explain by observing that they still have a sin nature.

Instead it seems a great honor that God would let them suffer. If some people suffer merely so that the works of God could be displayed in them, then God is letting them be a special vehicle for displaying His glory. God takes his own glory very seriously, so that if God trusts a mere person with his glory, He shows great confidence in their ability to bring Him praise. Of course He provides special grace to those people, but it is nonetheless a great privilege. A vote of confidence from God is the best you can get.

I think this notion plays out in observation. Unbelievers seem sorry and confused, even despairing, when they are confronted with adversity. Christians who suffer from some physical ailment often have extraordinary ministry with others around them; their doctors and nurses and fellow patients remark about their generous and humble spirit. Their ability to affect those around them seems to grow exponentially. I can think of at least four individuals and families who seem to have been given this special ministry in recent years. They are the ones that seem to need ministering to, but they end up encouraging those who try to encourage them. Surely God is with them.

So it’s hard to know what to think and how to minister to those who have lost loved ones, especially after that one has suffered for years. We are naturally disposed toward sympathy, and perhaps some is warranted. But my sympathy is often counterpoised with wonder and admiration, that God would honor these people with such an important task. In this we can see how the Holy Spirit would command us to rejoice in sufferings. The death of such a saint is the final reward for successfully completing her calling.

(I initially found it from Bob Bixby’s blog)

Lincoln has recently posted his observations about a Facebook thread called “Recovering Fundamentalists.” Since he has closed comments, I will make a couple of observations here.

1. Victimization in Fundamentalism
Sure, so-called fundamentalists have abused people. The people whining on the Facebook thread are almost certainly not among the more serious cases. Besides, we shouldn’t critique an ideology because of the way people have abused it. If we did, we should critique Christianity itself (think Inquisition, Crusades, etc.). We critique ideologies for what they say. Fundamentalism (as an idea) does not condone spiritual abuse–quite the opposite.

2. Ingratitude
Lincoln fails to make a subtle point in his initial post. He corrects it in his last comment. The problem is not necessarily that these people aren’t grateful. It’s that you can’t tell. One commenter observes that gratitude does not preclude criticism. Of course it doesn’t. But one should still be grateful, even if criticism is justified. The problem with these Facebook conversations (and I’m sure there are other forums for them as well) is that few seem genuinely grateful. It’s all criticism (and other less refined sniping).

3. Myopia
I think these threads are myopic, but maybe not in exactly the sense Lincoln mentions¹. Many on these kinds of threads seem to be unable to see past their own nose. There are factual inaccuracies, hasty generalizations, fallacies of accident, and a host of other logical and rhetorical blunders. The funny thing is, these people seem to think that their time away from BJU (for that is really the topic most of the time) gives them an outsiders considered perspective. In reality, most of their thinking is still governed by the fundamentalist (BJ) culture. They’re just reacting to ideas they disagree with, rather than offering substantive original ideas. Their methods offer little for edification.

A word on my view²: I tend to think that a number of the more thoughtful commenters on these threads actually have some decent ideas and criticisms. But the ideas are buried so far beneath the caustic rhetoric that they are no longer powerful.

I think fundamentalism, even the BJ variety, could stand a little more self-criticism than it sometimes gets. Not everything in the movement is worth keeping. In some places, tradition and cultural distinctives have supplanted biblical truth. In some places, theology has become suspect (though this is rare in the BJ circles, IMO). But regardless, the tone and substance of the few Facebook discussions I’ve seen are doing nothing to help solve any problems, much less help anyone reading and participating.

1. I’m not sure that these people have enough impact on those around them to seriously damage the future cause of the Kingdom. Maybe some do, in which case, Lincoln’s comments are sound back↩
2. In thinking about this subject, I considered the difference in content and tone between the Facebook threads I’ve read and a site such as SharperIron. SI has its share of people who don’t care for BJU or certain aspects of fundamentalism. However, the tone with which people criticize BJU and fundamentalism in general is quite different from that on the Facebook threads. There are some interesting demographical differences between the sites, which actually may contribute to the difference between their treatments of the issues at hand back↩

In 2006, N. T. Wright published Simply Christian. Critics have lauded it as a worthy successor to Mere Christianity. It is. Wright reintroduces many of Lewis’s arguments, but comes at the issues from a different perspective, providing helpful clarifications and some novel thoughts as well.

In fact, the perspective of the book is one of its greatest virtues. Wright, like Lewis, comes at the topic of Christianity in a fairly non-Christian way. The book’s subtitle is “Why Christianity Makes Sense.” It reads like a grand (if brief) tour of biblical theology intended for those who have little knowledge of Christian ideas. Wright tries to demonstrate that Christianity is more than a run-of-the-mill religion, and that it makes a compelling case for belief. However, as Christian readers of Mere Christianity have seen, sometimes a thoughtful examination of Christianity from the outside (or what seems like the outside) can be immensely helpful.¹ By the end of the book, it is sometimes hard to decide who Wright’s intended audience actually is. He still targets unbelievers, but an honest believer will find plenty of food for thought. In fact, if a Christian reader has never considered Wright’s ideas, he might think that Wright is trying to convince him.

Wright begins by addressing four areas that modern ideas of life and the world fail to adequately address. First, we seek justice. We are pained and angered by the success of evil in the world, especially when humans seem to have played no part it (Wright uses the example of the Asian tsunami). We discover that bad things happen all the time and sometimes without explanation. We want someone or something to come and set the world to rights. In fact, we would generally agree on what that might look like, and we all desire it. Why?

The second curiosity is our quest for spirituality. Despite all our advances in science, our desire for something outside the natural world has never been fully suppressed. Even those who have no knowledge of God seem to desire something “out there.” People take up Eastern religions or participate in strange activities to get in touch with a transcendental reality, even if it is only a mirror of their own souls. We want more than this world can give. Why?

Our third desire is for meaningful relationships. We seem to want good relationships, but we are so bad at them. In this chapter, Wright begins to introduce his thesis in earnest. We desire relationships because we were designed to. Why?

Finally, Wright suggests that our love of beauty points beyond this world. We have all experienced something beautiful but found that the experience was hard to express. Our love of beauty cannot be fully explained by any of the various psychological notions that have been current in the last century. Ultimately, we find it hard to explain it at all. Wright says, “Heaven and earth are full of glory, a glory which stubbornly refuses to be reduced to terms of the sense of the humans who perceive it.” Again, we earnestly seek something that seems beyond our capacity to obtain. Why?

Wright proposes to answer the “why” by demonstrating that Christianity makes sense of all these things, and everything else too. In philosophical terms, he proposes a Christian cosmology, a view of the world that explains everything. This project seems like a daunting, but he is up to it. He proposes that we need to rethink many of our ideas about Christianity. Christianity tells the story of a world made very good, just, truly spiritual, favorable to good relationships, and glorious in beauty. But something went terribly wrong² . God is working to fix these wrongs, and He calls us to participate in His work that will one day end in a new creation in which all these things will be restored.

For the Christian (or at least for me), this way of looking at things is hard. It’s too big. It’s like trying to look at a 360 degree landscape all at once. I suspect that we fail to see things this way because it is hard. But we need to try. Many of our petty squabbles over various interpretations and applications might disappear if we could see how they all fit into the big picture.

Wright suggests that there are three ways of looking at the relationship between Heaven and Earth. In this exposition of a Christian cosmology, he adds an extra perspective to Lewis, and I think the expansion is helpful. Option One claims that everything is God in the long run. This is basic pantheism and Lewis treats it well in Miracles. Option Two says that Earth is here and Heaven is there and never the twain shall meet. This is Platonism, and no Christian would accept it on principle; but most of us accept it in practice. We speak of “going to heaven,” which isn’t wrong, but it can obscure what we mean by “heaven.” We talk and act as if there is a great divide between the “spiritual” realm and the “earthly” realm, even though the Bible doesn’t actually separate them so much (and not in the way we usually do).

Option Three suggests that heaven and earth overlap and interlock in many places. This is basically Lewis’s “supernaturalism.” Wright makes this his central idea and pursues its implications throughout the last two thirds of the book. I think he’s on to something, and he demonstrates its far-reaching applications much better than Lewis does.

In the last third of the book, Wright discusses various applications of Option Three. He includes chapters on worship, prayer, the Bible, the church, and the church’s responsibilities in the world. A conservative would probably find many of his suggestions very appealing, but end up mystified by the occasional seeming incongruity. We might need to exercise some humility and let Wright make his case. He comes from a very liturgical tradition and those who prefer less structure might not care for some of his ideas. I don’t have time or space to delve into a thorough discussion of individualism in religion, but it is worth remembering that the New Testament only strongly emphasizes the role of the church, not the individual.

The last chapter is especially interesting to me, since I enjoy studying the relationship of culture and religion. Wright makes the most convincing case I have ever seen for Christian interaction with the world. He isn’t a libertine, but neither is he a Puritan. In fact, if we accept his system of thought, the application to culture is immediate. God is working to bring all the world into subjection to Himself and will one day remake the world. Our job is to work so as to show this world what a New Creation would be like and to invite them to participate in it.

Of course, those familiar with N.T. Wright will wonder how he deals with certain theological issues. He is known for his part in the New Perspective on Paul and for various affiliations with the search for the historical Jesus. He is an Anglican (The Bishop of Durham) and has studied and taught at Oxford. He is a learned man and a prodigious writer. Nevertheless, don’t assume that you are going to disagree with him. I haven’t read enough of Wright to have my own opinions on his opinions, but these are my thoughts on what I have read (his summary in two books): Wright’s approach answers more questions than most. I don’t know that I would agree with him on every point—in fact, I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t. But his scheme explains some fundamental questions that often get flimsy answers. Questions like: Why did Jesus have to die? (Because we were sinners.) Why does God care? (Because He loves us.) Why does He love us? (Because He wants to.) The answers in parentheses are not incorrect, per se, but neither are they especially satisfying.

Yes, I know, it’s more complicated than that. And I know that we should not expect to understand every detail of God’s mind. But the Bible was given to us so that we could understand some of God’s mind. It seems that we should at least be willing to see how the Bible addresses these issues—and the biblical answers are much richer than what I gave above.

If this review has done anything, I hope it will encourage you to find Simply Christian and read it—several times. It’s not expensive and it’s fairly short. Wright has a nice style so reading it should not be difficult. But if you are like me, you might find that it will take some time for everything to sink in. It’s worth your time. I fear that many of our debates and much of our effort is wasted on unimportant matters that would receive their proper weight if we would think biblically. Wright’s book can help us to think well and make us better equipped to live as citizens of an eternal kingdom.³

1. Wright himself has reviewed Mere Christianity and his thoughts are quite helpful. back↩
2. Wright doesn’t spend all that much time discussing exactly what went wrong. It isn’t quite in the main of his argument. Another of his books, Evil and the Justice of God, Wright argues that the Bible does not explain evil; rather, it shows what God is doing to fix it. back↩
3. If you want a lightweight introduction to a biblical interpretation that actually appears to include all of the Bible, you might look at a recent book by Thurman Wisdom, Dean Emeritus of the School of Religion at Bob Jones University. His book is called A Royal Destiny and addresses the role of man in God’s kingdom. You can get it from BJU Press. back↩