A Practical Guide to Culture By Brett Kunkle and John Stonestreet: A Review

Authors

John Stonestreet is a President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and co-author (with William E. Brown and W. Gary Phillips) of Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview. He holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Bryan College. He is also the cohost of Breakpoint with Eric Metaxas.

Brett Kunkle is the Student Impact Director for Stand to Reason. Brett received his bachelor’s degree in Christian education from Biola University. He has his master’s degree in philosophy of religion and ethics at Talbot School of Theology. Brett was a contributor to the Apologetics Study Bible for Students, has a chapter on truth in Apologetics for a New Generation, and wrote the Ambassador’s Guide to Mormonism.

 

Synopsis

A Practical Guide to Culture is written to help Christians, especially Christian parents, navigate a culture that is growing in its hostility to the Christian worldview. The book is organized into four parts. Part one lays out what culture is and why it is important to understand it. Part two explains how the current culture effects how we see ourselves, through the lenses of technology, identity, relationships and maturity. Part three deals with contemporary sexuality, and can serve as a reference guide. Part four wraps up dealing with the grounding of our Christian worldview.

 

Analysis

Kunkle and Stonestreet offer valuable insights into today’s culture and how to address it as Christians who are called to be “in the world but not of it.” The book is written in a very readable style, with a conversational tone that is accessible to high schoolers and those with advanced degrees alike. If you have children at home, if you hope to have children one day, or if you have any influence on children (or even adults) this book is a must-read.

 

 

 

 

 

The Story of Reality by Gregory Koukl: a Review

The Story of Reality hits the market on January 10th. I received an advanced copy.

Author

Greg Koukl is the founder and president of Stand to Reason, a ministry that “ …trains Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square.” Koukl has master’s degrees in Christian Apologetics and Philosophy, and is the author of Tactics: a Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions and co-author with Francis Beckwith of Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air.

 

Synopsis

The Story of Reality is arranged in six parts, for a total of twenty-five chapters. Following an introductory section, the next five parts follow the broad outline of the Christian worldview according to Koukl: God, Man, Jesus, Cross, and Resurrection.

In the Introduction, Koukl argues that Christianity is more than a mere religion, but a full worldview, touching all areas of reality. If a worldview is like a jigsaw puzzle, you can only make sense of it if you use the pieces that belong, and only put them where they belong.

Koukl goes on to note that a coherent worldview tells a story. Like all good stories, the story of Reality tells you what the setting of all of reality is, how we got here, what went wrong, how it gets fixed, and how it all works out in the end, or as the subtitle say, “How the world began, how it ends, and everything important that happens in between.”

Since the claim is that Christianity has the true story, then if this is true, if follows that competing stories are false. Koukl notes two common objections, the Problem of Evil and Christian exclusivism, but that evil is only a problem if the story is true, and likewise, if the story is true, so is the solution in the story.

In Part 1, Koukl tells us the story starts with God because it is about God and his kingdom. God made the world and all that is in it, therefore it is his to do with as he pleases, and is distinct from his creation. Part 1 also addresses the “Who made God?” and miracles objections, and refutes materialism and idealism.

Part 2 deals with Man as a body/soul unity made in God’s image, who then rebelled against God. The problem of evil comes up again in this context, and divine justice.

Part 3 explains how God became man in Jesus Christ, defends his historicity, his nature and his mission.

In Part 4, Koukl explains God’s rescue mission, culminating in The Trade. He then explains how we come to benefit from this.

Part 5 includes a brief, “minimal facts” defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and how this gives us hope that we too will be raised to life at the end. This is the hope that helps us deal with the long battle in between. Koukl also presents a defense of the doctrine of Hell as eternal conscious torment. In other words, perfect justice and perfect mercy.

In the Epilogue, Koukl recaps the whole story.

 

Analysis

As a long-time listener to Koukl’s STR broadcast, I was quite familiar with his views on these issues, and his gift for communicating them. This book is like a snapshot of the best of his show with respect to the basics of the Christian faith. Listening to Koukl speak sometimes feels like talking with a favorite uncle, or an old friend. His warmth comes through in this book as well. (Though I can imagine the audio book, which he reads himself, will be even more enjoyable in this respect.)

Koukl is also a very careful thinker, as one might expect from someone with an MA in Philosophy. I have benefitted greatly from his teaching over the last 20 years or so. However, this is what makes a small detail of the book more troubling. (Just an oversight, maybe?) On page 43, Koukl writes “…(the story) begins with a person.” I know Koukl is a strong believer and defender of Trinitarian theology. He later gives a good introductory level explanation of the Trinity. In light of this, it seems odd that he would put this here, leaving the story open to the charge that it is incoherent, believing God is one Person and three Persons. It would seem like a less confusing way to say it might be “…(the story) begins with a personal being.”

That such a small detail stands out so much is an indication of just how good this book is. The Story of Reality is engaging, and well suited to the task of helping people see the big picture of the Christian worldview. Believers can benefit from learning how all the elements of the story fit together. Non-believers can get a sense of the story they are invited to participate in. It is accessible for high school level readers, but robust enough for those with higher levels of education. I cannot recommend this book more strongly.

Get it, read it, and share it.

 

 

 

Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God by Wayne Rossiter, a Review.

Author

Wayne Rossiter is Assistant Professor of Biology at Waynsburg University. He received his B.S. from Otterbein University, his M.S. from Ohio State University and his Ph.D. from Rutgers University. Dr. Rossiter teaches Principles of Biology, Ecology and Environmental Biology.

 

Synopsis

In Shadow of Oz, Rossiter argues that given the blatant incompatibility of Darwinian evolution and the Christian worldview, those who try to hold to both do so at the expense of the Christian worldview, and in the name of a paradigm that is in deep trouble.

The book is laid out in seven chapters. In Chapter one, Rossiter tells his own story, and that of the way Darwinian evolution undermines classical Christianity, and outlines the attempts of theistic evolutionists to hold to both. In chapter two, Rossiter argues that the two views are fundamentally incompatible. Chapter 3 is a brief(ish) explanation of the Darwinian model, as well as the problems with trying to reintroduce God into the picture. Chapter four focuses on the Christian view of man, which is the greatest area of incongruity between Christianity and Darwin. In chapter five, Rossiter argues that the theistic evolution would make God the creator of evil. In chapter six, Rossiter gives an overview of the newest findings of science, and the way they call Darwinism into serious question. Finally, chapter seven evaluates theistic evolution in light of the discussion of the previous six chapters.

 

Analysis

Rossiter’s approach is quite even-handed in that rather than evaluating theistic evolution from a particular sectarian point of view, he shows how incompatible it is with mere Christianity. Moreover, Rossiter’s critique of the neo-Darwinian synthesis is grounded in the latest research in the field of biology, not simply from the work of Intelligent Design proponents. His argument is that Christianity is not compatible with Darwinism, that holding to the best of science means one is justified in rejecting Darwinism, and therefore, theistic evolutionists are throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is, however, room for improvement.

 

In chapter 2, Rossiter notes the limited role granted by theistic evolutionists for God’s direct involvement in the world. I would add that they overlook God’s sustaining the universe in its regular adherence to the laws of physics, which itself demands an explanation.

 

While most of Rossiter’s arguments are cogent and well though-out, he seems to misunderstand the views of Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. Plantinga and Craig acknowledge that “random” changes in an organism is compatible with theism just in case “random” is understood to mean “not occurring for the purpose of benefitting the organism.” Craig argues that for a scientist to go further, such as to say such changes are “undirected” is to step outside of their discipline. Both argue that such changes can look the same whether directed by God to degrade the organism, or truly undirected. Rossiter responds, “Apparently, suggesting that aliens are tinkering with mutations is fantasy, but supposing that a supernatural God is doing it behind the scenes is completely rational.”[1] Given that Craig and Plantinga can point to many points of evidence for God, while there is virtually no evidence best explained by aliens, it is in fact, rational. Rossiter goes on to claim “Craig concludes that it is logical to suppose that evolution is guided or directed by God.”[2] Actually, Craig concludes that it is logically possible that God could direct evolution, and that the scientist who denies this does so out of philosophical commitments, not scientific reasoning.

 

Recommendation

Rossiter’s book is an excellent primer on the latest in findings in the literature and why holding to Darwinism is not only unnecessary, it is ultimately a dead end. Shadow of Oz is accessible for readers with a high school education, and highly useful for understanding how a Christian ought to think about these issues.

 

 

 

[1] Rossiter, Wayne D. (2015-12-08). Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God (Kindle Locations 2149-2150). Pickwick Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

 

[2] Ibid., 2155-2156

Podcasts You Should Know Part 5

Next up in this series is one of our “friends across the pond,” Justin Brierley, with his weekly radio show/ podcast Unbelievable?Unbelievable? Airs every Saturday in the U.K. and is then released as a podcast. Each week, Brierly brings together a Christian and a skeptic to have a dialogue on matters of faith. Sometimes the dialogue is among Christians discussing an area of disagreement in theology. What really stands out in these discussion is the level of civility that is (usually) maintained throughout the conversation. While Brierley makes no secret about where he stands, he is consistently recognized by listeners and guests as a very even-handed moderator of the discussions.

In addition to the show, Brierley has a blog, and serves as the senior editor of Premier Christianity magazine. Be sure to check this podcast out.

Says Who? Part Deux: How Do We Know?

In response to Says Who, byblacksheep had some thoughtful comments that, while missing the point of the original post, I thought they were worth addressing.

Byblacksheep (BBS from here out) said,

“…if we have morals from a perfect God (we know what is good because god said so) we would expect perfect morals from the beginning.”

 

As a Christian, I would affirm that we have morals from a perfect God. As I argued in part uno, God himself is the ground of goodness. However, I would not say “we know that is good because God said so.” What I mean here is that I know of no Christian theologian who would say God has revealed his moral will exhaustively. He has revealed some things, and from those we can infer other things. We obviously can be mistaken about those inferences, but we do not claim they have the same weight of authority as clear revelation. For example, Exodus 20:15 says, “Do not steal.” We can infer from this that there is such a thing as private property of some kind, and that certain rights follow from this. As such while I think what God has revealed of his moral will is perfect, it is not entirely spelled out, which brings me to the second half of the statement above. We would expect this IF we were claiming that the purpose of divine revelation is to give us an exhaustive book or rules by which we must live, and anything that was happening that was wrong was to be called out and condemned. However, that is not the purpose of Scripture. Its overarching narrative is where we came from, what our problem is, what the solution is, and how it will all be resolved.

BBS goes on to say,

            “But our knowledge and our understanding grows…And because of that you would expect the moral codes of earlier civilizations would be just totally wrong and gradually change and be refined over time, which is what we see, globally we have moved in a direction that increases human dignity for all people. Can I definitively say we’ve moved in a direction that is “better?” No I can’t, I will leave that to the philosophers, but what i can do however is look back at the holocaust and say “they got it wrong” I can look back at slavery in the U.S., and slavery across the globe and say “they got it wrong.”

I can agree with BBS that “they got it wrong” but I do so from a worldview that can make sense of that claim. If all we are is molecules in motion, all we can mean when we say “they got it wrong” is that the “molecules in me feel icky about that.” To say they were wrong is to say that they had an obligation to not do that. That implies authority of some kind. Where does that come from? I would argue that the best explanation is a transcendent source in whose image we are made, which is why there is such widespread agreement on big issues like this such that large groups only achieve things like the holocaust by armed force. We have an intuitive sense that such things are wrong. We are also quite capable of ignoring that intuition and/or rationalizing violating it.

BBS also says,

            “…consensus really isn’t how we decide what is moral or not moral. Sure it is how we collectively agree what codes, rules, and norms we are going to follow, but that isn’t necessarily WHY we follow them.”

Again, I would agree. In fact, the why is yet another question. Many people follow moral laws against murder and adultery for no reason other than fear of consequences. While that may make their behavior seem moral on the surface,   Jesus doubled down on the commandments when he said,

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. (Matthew 5:21)

 

and…”

 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (verses 27-28)

 

I will end here for the sake of brevity. Keep an eye out for part drei coming up. (Yes I am using a different language for each sequel number just to be annoying.)

 

 

 

Enoch Primordial by Brian Godawa: a Review

Brian Godawa is an accomplished screenwriter and author. In addition to books on film and worldview, and the role of mythology, he has written several series of novels in the fantasy genre. One such series is The Chronicles of the Nephilim. Enoch Primordial is the second of this series.

Like the rest of the series, Enoch Primordial combines the biblical narratives of Genesis with apocryphal and pseudoepigrahic literature (non-canonical ancient Near Eastern documents) along with his fertile imagination to craft a compelling story that fills the gaps in the biblical narrative in a creative way. Godawa makes no claims that these events actually occurred. Rather, the story is a vehicle for communicating his worldview.

Some of my favorite parts include the pathos of Adam and Eve living hundreds of years with a memory of the close fellowship they once had with God. (That’s a long time to live with regret.) There is also the incorporation of the words of contemporary political figures in the mouths of villains. This may make some uncomfortable, as though Godawa was demonizing his political opponents. However, on the Christian worldview, our enemies are not human. If the ideas of our opponents are evil, it is right to attribute a spiritual source.

Enoch Primordial is an entertaining, enlightening read.

Podcasts You Should Know About Part 2

This week I want to call your attention to not just a podcast, but another ministry that has more than one fine podcast. Reasonable Faith, the ministry of Dr. William Lane Craig, is a highly useful resource, including two podcasts: Reasonable Faith, and Defenders. Reasonable Faith is a weekly podcast hosted by Craig and Kevin Harris where they discuss recent events and debates related to Christianity and apologetics. Defenders is a weekly class taught by Craig that is accessible, yet thorough in its systematic treatment of Christian doctrine. Defenders is available as a podcast, but also can be accessed as a live stream on Sundays at 12:45 Eastern time. In addition to the podcasts, the Reasonable Faith website has a wealth of information related to apologetics, as well as philosophy. There is a whole library of videos of Craig’s teaching and debates.