Book Write-Up: Chivalrous, by Dina Sleiman

Dina L. Sleiman.  Chivalrous.  Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2015.  See here to buy the book.

Chivalrous is the second book of Dina Sleiman's "Valiant Heart" series.  The series is set in thirteenth century England.

Chivalrous has some of the same characters as the previous book, Dauntless, such as Allen, Merry, and Timothy Grey.  It also makes reference to the Ghosts of Farthingdale Forest, who were prominent in the previous book.  See here for my review of Dauntless.

But Chivalrous also introduces new characters, and a new story.  There is Gwen, a young noblewoman, whose father wants her to marry a brutish man.  Gwen has an independent streak, for she pretends to be a knight and fights in a tournament.  There is Gwen's maid and friend Rosalind, who is dealing with her own guilt.  There is Randel, a devout man, who is a potential suitor for Gwen.  There is also the villain of the story, a rival to the progressive duke.  The villain's sister is a witch. 

Chivalrous was much better than Dauntless, for a variety of reasons.  For one, Chivalrous had themes that added an aura of mystery to the story: a prophecy that Allen feels he has to fulfill, and a man whose sister is a witch.  Second, there was more theological discussion in Chivalrous, and the discussion actually went somewhere.  In Dauntless, Merry and Timothy Grey disagreed about Romans 13 and whether that means they should obey the brutal King John.  But the discussion did not get too deeply into the details and implications of Romans 13, nor did the two of them arrive at an interpretation of Romans 13 that would justify their opposition to King John.  Romans 13 was just left hanging!  By contrast, the theological discussions in Chivalrous were meatier and had more resolution.  

An endearing quality of Chivalrous is that the protagonists are good people, even if they do not necessarily belong with each other, in terms of marriage.  Gwen is drawn to Allen, but Randel is still a good person.  Allen feels that he has to marry a duchess to fulfill a prophecy about a low-born person marrying a duchess and saving the nation.  The duchess is a good person, but she is grieving the death of her husband and is not ready to marry again.  The characters in Chivalrous are more rounded and likable than the ones in Dauntless. 

An excellent scene in the book is one in which Gwen, Allen, and Randel are all three discussing Scripture and life.  Gwen's father is domineering, but Randel says that he is as hard on himself as he is on others.  Unfortunately, this humanizing view of Gwen's father is not developed further in the book.

In Chivalrous, there are people who have egalitarian perspectives on Scripture and on life, when it comes to gender, and one may wonder how realistic that was, historically-speaking.  Perhaps portraying characters in this time as egalitarian would be anachronistic, and yet there may have been raw material that would have allowed some people to have egalitarian perspectives, at least on some level.  The Bible does have strong female characters who assume positions of prominence, such as Deborah the judge, and readers of the Bible even then would have been aware of that.  A good question would be how Deborah was portrayed, in medieval Judaism and Christianity.  Moreover, Dina Sleiman in her historical appendix notes that there were women who rose to positions of prominence in medieval England. 

Chivalrous was a pleasure to read. 

Book Write-Up: God's Pursuit of Man, by A.W. Tozer

A.W. Tozer.  God’s Pursuit of Man.  Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2015.  See here to purchase the book.

A.W. Tozer was a pastor and Christian author who lived from 1897 to 1963.  The page of the book that has the copyright information states: “God’s Pursuit of Man was originally published under the titles The Divine Conquest and The Pursuit of Man and is a sequel to The Pursuit of God.”

Overall, this book is about having a tangible, vibrant experience of the divine, in which the Holy Spirit actually dwells inside of a Christian.  Tozer advocates that Christians read the Bible, but he is against them substituting that for an experience of the living God, calling that seeking the living among the dead (a la Luke 24:5).  According to Tozer, a spiritual experience is what can nourish a Christian.

In what sense is the book about God’s pursuit of human beings?  Tozer makes Calvinist-like statements about the sovereignty of God in calling certain people to be Christians, as if who becomes a Christian is God’s choice, and God is the one who enables sinful human beings to receive God.  (For a thoughtful post about whether or not Tozer was a Calvinist, see this post by John H. Armstrong: http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2008/06/was-a-w-tozer-a.html)  At the same time, Tozer also includes statements that are supportive of human free will, and he discusses what people can do to be filled with the Holy Spirit, or to prepare themselves for such an experience.  Tozer  appeals to the story of Jacob wrestling with God (Genesis 32) and the story of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon becoming a beast (Daniel 4) as examples of God conquering human beings and yielding them to God; in those cases, God works through circumstances.  Tozer does not dismiss human free will, but he also wants Christians to acknowledge God’s sovereignty and proactive role in their call, including their ability to believe.

Tozer also presents the Christian’s possession of the Holy Spirit as a rough ride.  According to Tozer, the Spirit inside of a person will conquer that person’s sinfulness and self-will.  Tozer says this within the context of asking people if they are sure that they want to be filled with the Holy Spirit.  There are tensions within Tozer’s book, and he does not successfully resolve them.  On the one hand, Tozer presents God as one who proactively conquers a person.  On the other hand, Tozer presents being filled with the Holy Spirit as the result of human choice: humans have to do things (i.e., have a cheerful faith, forsake things contrary to God’s character, read the Bible) if the Holy Spirit is to dwell inside of them.  Is the Holy Spirit a conqueror, or a gentleman?  Does the Spirit meet people in their halting attempts to know God, or give up on those who fail to meet a certain spiritual standard?  Tozer is all over the place on this, but he may hold these tensions together in some manner, in his own mind.  The Puritans, too, stressed God’s sovereignty and role in converting people, while encouraging people to seek God continually in hope of a saving experience.

Tozer thoughtfully engages a variety of questions and topics.  A few times in the book, he discusses the question of what it looks like for the Holy Spirit to enter and live inside of a person.  Does the Holy Spirit possess the person and void that person’s humanity and free will?  Tozer answers in the negative.  For Tozer, the Spirit burns wickedness, while preserving a person’s humanity; plus, the Spirit works with the Christian’s volition.  Tozer does not clearly describe what it looks like for the Holy Spirit to dwell inside of a person, but he does make the effort.

Tozer talks about the Trinity: how the Holy Spirit is equally God and interacts with the Father and the Son.  Tozer discusses how the Spirit has all of the divine attributes, works with the other members of the Trinity in union, and yet performs specific tasks.  Tozer has this discussion because he believes that the Holy Spirit has been a neglected member of the Trinity within the Christendom of his day.  Tozer’s insights about the Trinity, and also God’s attributes, are arguably relevant to contemporary debates about the Trinity within the theological-blogosphere (as of July 2016), over the question of whether the Son has eternally been obedient to the Father.

Tozer’s discussion on how the world refuses to receive the Holy Spirit was helpful, in terms of explaining what Jesus may have meant when he said in John 15:19 that the world loves its own.  Tozer did well to highlight the importance of character in this discussion: meekness and humility, as opposed to the world’s values of pride, power, and bribery.  While there is no honor among thieves, the world often does admire those who thrive according to the world’s values, or lack thereof.

Tozer was slightly unclear on the question of whether a person can be saved without having experienced the sort of tangible spiritual renewal that he discusses.  On the one hand, he does seem to present that tangible spiritual renewal as an aspect of salvation, and being filled with the Holy Spirit as the normal for truly regenerate people.  On the other hand, he is critical of Christians who believe that the measure of the Holy Spirit that they received upon regeneration is all that there is for them.  Tozer, in that case, may acknowledge that these people are true Christians, while thinking that they are selling themselves short.

The book did make me feel spiritually insecure, since I tend to rely on a book (the Bible) for my knowledge of God, plus I am not dogmatic about what does or does not constitute God’s activity in my life.  God is aloof in my Christian experience, and also in the experience of many other Christians, I have gathered.  Some people do not condemn those in that situation, saying that God works in different ways, for different people.  Others, by contrast, are critical of people in that situation, blaming them for God’s aloofness.  Tozer seems to me to belong more in the latter category, even though, to his credit, he does at least offer suggestions for those who experience God as aloof, and yet desire a deeper spiritual experience.  The spiritual experience that he presents is one in which God is nourishing, even as God puts people through a rough ride.

I give this book four stars.  It was thoughtful.  Yet, it could have done more to portray God as one who woos people to Godself.  Plus, as I said above, it did have tensions, which were not resolved overly well.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.

Church Write-Up: God As Parent; a God Thing; Black Lives Matter

I have three topics for my church write-up today.  Last Sunday, I went to a Baptist church.  Most of the people who attend, as well as the pastor, are African-American.  But there are a significant number of white people who also attend.

A.  The character of God as a parent was one topic that came up.  The pastor asked, "How many of you like to give things to your children when they're disobedient?"  The expected answer, of course, at least among those who have children, was "none of us."  The pastor was arguing that God is that way, too.

I went home and listened to another of this pastor's sermons.  He was presenting a scenario of people going to God in prayer with a request, and God responds, "What have you done for me lately?"  The pastor's point was that Christianity is about more than us getting our needs met.  God has God's agenda.

Contrast that with a message that I heard from the pastor of a Word of Faith-like church that I attend every now and then.  This pastor presented a different scenario.  Suppose you are a parent, and your child is disobedient, and your child gets into trouble.  Wouldn't you go and help your child?  Many parents would.  The pastor said that God is the same way.

All three of these are plausible scenarios, when it comes to how people act as parents, and perhaps when it comes to how God acts.  But they are quite different from each other.

B.  The pastor----I mean the pastor at the Baptist church that I attended last Sunday----was saying that God blessed him with his wife.  He and she first met at church, when neither one of them wanted to be there.  But they went, and they met.  His wife was sensitive to spiritual things and prays for her husband.  For the pastor, their marriage is a God thing.

I thought about a conversation that I had with a friend a while back.  This friend was talking about going to college and dating, but he did not find anyone with whom he was compatible.  But he met the woman who became his wife when he was off in the boonies somewhere, and they have been together since.  He considers that a God thing.

When I had that conversation with my friend, I resented what he was saying.  What about people who never find their soul mate?  What about people who get into marriages that don't work?  Does God care less for them?  Can Christians think about anyone other than themselves and their own well-being, for once?

After hearing the pastor, though, I could sympathize more with what my friend was saying.  When a person meets a person in an off-chance encounter, and they form a relationship that actually works and is a blessing to both of them, then I can understand why they would consider that a God thing.  It's like the arguments for Intelligent Design: things could have turned out differently, and there would have been no life in that case, but they turned out as they did, and so there is life.  Many see that as a God thing.  They think that something more than luck is going on.

I would say that there have been events in my life that I would consider a God thing.  Something breaks down, there is not enough money to buy a brand new replacement, and yet we find a fairly inexpensive replacement on Craig's List.  Many would call that luck.  But I can understand why people see that as God's provision.

None of this solves the problem, though, of why God seems to be so present and active in some people's lives, but not in others.  But the key word is "seems."

C.  I do not like calling the tragic events this week a "topic."  I'd rather not comment on those tragic events at all, since nothing I say can do justice to them.  Plus, I don't want inadvertently to say something offensive, or for commenters to leave offensive comments on my blog.  But the pastor said something last Sunday that relates to these events, or at least to similar events.

The pastor was criticizing the "Black Lives Matters" movement, saying that all lives matters.  As an African-American, he acknowledged that the "Black Lives Matters" movement is protesting real problems.  But he does not believe that rioters display much wisdom.  He said that it is unwise for rioters to burn down businesses, because then they don't have a place to go to work the next day.  He said that he wouldn't express these opinions in the middle of Chicago, however, since then he'd be killed.

I do not really know this pastor, but my guess is that he has this perspective because he believes that is how African-Americans can get through life.  He probably acknowledges that things are unfair, but he may think that people need to make due with the hand that they've been dealt, on some level.  But the problem is that there are African-Americans going through life, and they end up dead after a tragic encounter with the police.  I wonder what the pastor thinks about that.  I'm sure he's against it, but is it more to him than something that he sees on the news and has an opinion about?

Of course, I cannot make a judgment, since I know little about the pastor.  I read on his bio that he used to be a cop.  That may factor into his views, somehow, and not necessarily in a gun-ho pro-police manner.  He may have a unique perspective.

Bible Question: Why Didn't Joseph Contact Jacob?

I have heard a particular Bible question three times in my life.  The question concerns the story of Joseph in the Book of Genesis.
 
You may know the story.  Jacob loved his son Joseph more than his other sons.  Jacob's other sons hated Joseph and sold Joseph to Ishmaelites, who took Joseph to Egypt.  Joseph had his highs and lows in Egypt, but he rose to a position of great power after interpreting two of the Pharaoh's dreams.  The Pharaoh put Joseph in charge of preparing for the coming famine and administering grain during the famine.

The question that I have heard is this: Why didn't Joseph contact his father Jacob after rising to power in Egypt?  Why didn't Joseph let his father know that he was still alive?  Why didn't Joseph try to see his father?  Joseph had the ability to do so.  He could have sent a letter to Jacob, or a chariot to Jacob.  Why didn't he do that?  Instead, the reunion occurred only after Joseph's brothers came to Egypt in search of grain, years after Joseph had risen to power.  And, for a while, Joseph's brothers did not even know that their long lost brother Joseph was the Egyptian official with whom they were interacting.

A. I first heard this question in an academic Bible class over a decade ago.  The professor asked it, and the question puzzled me.  I thought: "That's a good question, but it is not explicitly addressed in the biblical story, so why wrestle with a question for which there is not an answer?  Maybe that issue did not enter the biblical author's mind."  But, like I said, it's a good question, and I assumed that, if the professor asked it, then it must have an answer.  I was eager to hear what her answer was.

Her answer disappointed me, to tell you the truth.  I was expecting something deep, spiritual, and profound, or at least an answer that would highlight the character's motivations.  Instead, she answered that Joseph couldn't contact his father, because then we wouldn't have much of a story.  We wouldn't have the story of Joseph putting his brothers through highs and lows, while they were unaware of who he was.  The story would be rather boring, without much drama.  The reason was purely literary!

I figured that she was probably right, and that maybe there was not a better answer than that.  I wanted more, but I doubted that more was out there.  It still puzzled me why the professor was asking the question, for this is not the sort of question that academic scholars of the Bible ordinarily ask.  I shelved that experience in my mind, seeing it as an example of how the academic study of the Bible does not always lead to sexy conclusions.

B. Years later, I was reading Demetrius the Chronographer, a work from the third century B.C.E.  Demetrius actually asks the question of why Joseph did not contact his father, and he offers his own answer.  Demetrius states:

"But though Joseph had prospered for 9 years, he did not send for his father, because he was a shepherd, as were Joseph's brothers; and to the Egyptians it is disgraceful to be a shepherd.  That this was the reason he did not send for him, he himself had made clear.  For when his relatives came, he told them that if they should be summoned by the king and asked what their occupation was, they should say that they are breeders of cattle."  (Translation by J. Hanson, in James Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha)

Demetrius believes that Genesis 46:34 contains the answer for why Joseph did not contact Jacob after rising to power in Egypt.  The Egyptians regarded shepherds as an abomination, and Jacob was a shepherd.  Jacob would not fit in were he to come to Egypt.  Thus, Joseph did not contact him.

(Incidentally, Demetrius is interpreting Genesis 46:34 in an unusual manner.  The text reads, in the KJV: "That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians."  Demetrius interprets this to mean that Joseph was instructing his brothers to say that they were breeders of cattle to hide the fact that they were shepherds.  The passage probably means that they were to dwell in Goshen, away from the Egyptians, because they were shepherds, and the Egyptians regarded shepherds as an abomination.  In the very next chapter, Genesis 47, Joseph tells the Pharaoh about his brothers' flocks, and the brothers tell the Pharaoh that they are shepherds.)

C. The third time that I heard the question about why Joseph did not contact his father was last weekend.  I was watching the third lecture by Professor Gary Anderson on the story of Joseph.  Professor Anderson was one of my professors over a decade ago, and I was watching his lectures on the Joseph story on YouTube last weekend.

Professor Anderson was saying that the question of why Joseph did not contact Jacob was often asked in medieval times by Jewish interpreters, even though modern interpreters generally do not ask it.  That explained to me why my professor, the professor I mentioned earlier in this post, asked the question: it has been a common question within the History of Biblical Interpretation.  This was not just something that she was wondering about, but was a prominent question that interpreters have asked.

A student in Professor Anderson's class was offering his idea about why Joseph did not contact Jacob, and Professor Anderson affirmed that his idea was actually what medieval Jewish interpreters said.  The idea was that Joseph realized that he would disrupt his family were he to inform Jacob that he was still alive.  Joseph's brothers would get into trouble with their father, since they had sold Joseph into Egypt and then told their father that Joseph was dead.  Were Jacob to learn the truth, that would alienate him further from his sons (except Benjamin, his favorite).  Plus, Joseph did not want his father to learn the truth, until Joseph could be sure that his brothers had repented of their past behavior.  According to Professor Anderson, Joseph was putting his brothers into situations to see if they had repented: would they sell their brother Benjamin down the tubes to save their own skin, or would they actually care for somebody other than themselves, their father, even though their father loved them less than Benjamin?  To their credit, they passed the test.

All three of these ideas have merit, in their own way.  We would not have much of a story had Joseph contacted his father right after ascending to power in Egypt.  The story was actually necessary for the brothers to grow in character, and for true reconciliation to occur.  The reason that Joseph did not contact his father may have been that he realized that it was not the right time.  Demetrius may also have a point: Joseph doubted that his family would fit in at Egypt.  But this was not just because his father and brother were shepherds, but also because they worshiped the LORD alone, whereas Egypt was a pagan nation.  Joseph may have doubted that his family would like the Egyptians, and that the Egyptians would like his family.  God ensured that the Israelites came to Egypt, however, where they could be a light, and where they could be where they were supposed to be for the next stage of God's plan.

UPDATE: See also here and here, courtesy of Doug Ward.  There are other explanations.  One explanation is that Joseph did not send word to his father because Joseph wanted the dream of the sheaves to be fulfilled.  Joseph dreamed that his brothers' sheaves would bow before his sheaf (Genesis 37:7), and that was fulfilled when his brothers came to him when he was an authority in Egypt and bowed before him, seeking grain (Genesis 42:6-9).  In this interpretation, had Joseph sent word to his father, that would have disrupted the fulfillment of his dream.  This interpretation is debated, as you can see from the link.

Another explanation is that Joseph thought his father had disowned him----that Jacob's wife Leah convinced Jacob to do so, and that is why Joseph's brothers sold Joseph.  

Book Write-Up: Tractatus Logico-Theologicus, by John Warwick Montgomery

John Warwick Montgomery.  Tractatus Logico-Theologicus.  5th revised edition.  Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013.  See here to buy the book.

John Warwick Montgomery is a Christian apologist, a Lutheran pastor, a lawyer, and a scholar.  He has earned degrees from Cornell, Berkeley, Wittenberg, the University of Essex, Cardiff, the University of Strasbourg, and the University of Chicago.

Tractatus Logico-Theologicus is a work of Christian apologetics, in that it argues that there is evidence for the Christian religion's claims, particularly the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.  Its structure is modeled on Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, in that it consists of numbered propositions.  Although Montgomery refers to Wittgenstein's thought throughout this book, often positively, Montgomery's conclusion is different from that of Wittgenstein.  To quote the back cover of the book:

"Wittgenstein's Tractatus, having demonstrated the limits of any non-transcendental attempt to understand the world, ended with the proposition, 'Of that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent.'  Montgomery, after setting forth in depth the overwhelming case for the very transcendental revelation for which Wittgenstein longed but never found, concludes: 'Whereof one can speak, thereof one must not be silent.'"

Montgomery starts off by arguing that the religions of the world are inconsistent and incompatible with each other, and thus they cannot all be right.  He contends that all he has to do is demonstrate evidence for one religion, Christianity, and that will show that the non-Christian religions are incorrect, especially in light of Christianity's exclusivist claims.

Montgomery then has to demonstrate that facts, evidence, and logic actually matter, against skeptical claims that we cannot truly know the outside world.  This section interacts with interesting questions, such as the question of whether we need to know everything in order to have true knowledge about anything.  Montgomery also raises the possibility that logic and facts can contradict each other.  Montgomery often speaks against logical contradictions, and yet he seems to acknowledge that there may be things in reality that strike us as illogical: light, for example, is both a particle and a wave.  Later in the book, this insight will allow him to justify certain mysteries in Christian doctrine.  On epistemology, Montgomery essentially ends up saying that we need to presume that we can know the outside world, in order for us to function in life; plus, we need to start somewhere, in terms of epistemology.  Even epistemological skeptics are claiming to know things about the world, when they are arguing for skepticism.

Montgomery's argument for Jesus' resurrection will be familiar to those who have read classic Christian apologetics.  Montgomery argues that the biblical Gospels are early and contain the testimony of eyewitnesses to Jesus.  He relies on Papias and church fathers who knew the apostles to argue that the Gospels contain eyewitness testimony.  He thinks that the Gospel authors are telling the truth, since they were persecuted and would not die for a lie.  He states that the early Christians' claims received cross-examination because Christianity had opponents within the Jewish establishment in the first century, and yet none of the opponents were able to disprove or discredit what Christians said, so Christianity continued and grew.  Montgomery also maintains that the New Testament manuscripts reflect what was originally written down in the first century, and that they are closer in date to the originals than many other ancient writings are to their originals.  Montgomery criticizes those who are more skeptical about New Testament documents than they are about other ancient sources.

What may set Montgomery apart from many other Christian apologists is that Montgomery appeals to legal principles.  What counts as admissible testimony in a court of law?  How can we tell when a witness is lying?  Montgomery also notes that ancient documents can be admitted as evidence in court.  Montgomery deems the New Testament Gospels to be reliable, according to legal criteria.

Montgomery later discusses the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God.  Montgomery finds these arguments useful, yet he thinks that they have limitations.  They demonstrate that someone created the cosmos, but not that this someone had to be the biblical God.  For Montgomery, Jesus' resurrection validates the truth of the Bible, which Jesus upheld.

Montgomery maintains that the Christian revelation provides meaning to life and history.  He argues, for example, that humans by themselves cannot know which facts are significant or insignificant, for they by themselves do not know where history is going: what its goal and point is.  Christianity, however, has an answer to that.

Montgomery also discusses whether one can justify morality apart from a belief in God.  Interestingly, unlike many Christian apologists, he does not utterly dismiss the possibility that one can arrive at a secular foundation for morality.  He does believe, however, that humans on their own are incapable of living up to moral principles.

Montgomery addresses a variety of questions.  For example, is the Bible God's clear revelation, when it appears to be contradictory, and many people derive contradictory conclusions from it?  Montgomery argues that the Bible is clear: one can read it and understand it as one would other books.  Montgomery holds that the Bible contains no logical contradictions: things that cannot co-exist because they are contradictory.  He also states that Christians generally are united around the basics in the Christian creeds (i.e., Nicene).

Although I had read about Montgomery's thought before, I was unaware that he was a Lutheran.  In reading this book, there were things that stood out to me as distinctly Lutheran.  For example, Montgomery does not believe that the bread and the wine of the Lord's supper are mere symbols or metaphors for Christ's body and blood.  After all, Paul tells the Corinthian Christians that some of them have become weak or sick after partaking of the bread and wine unworthily (I Corinthians 11:30), and Montgomery thinks that shows the bread and wine are more than symbols!  Montgomery also believes in directing Christians to the Word and the sacraments for assurance rather than having them agonize and struggle over their spiritual condition.  Lutherans often make this point, in arguing against Calvinism.

Here are some thoughts about Montgomery's book:

A.  The book did well to draw from Wittgenstein's thought.  Montgomery was not simply using Wittgenstein as a launchpad for his apologetic agenda, for Wittgenstein was a significant part of the book.  Montgomery argued against the widely-held conception that the later Wittgenstein was more skeptical about our ability to understand the world than the earlier Wittgenstein.  Montgomery also refers to a discussion that Wittgenstein had about universalism, the belief that everyone will be saved in the end.  Wittgenstein could understand why the church rejected universalism, for, if everyone is saved in the end, that means our decisions now do not matter.  One can argue, I think, that the doctrine that the vast bulk of humanity will go to hell because they did not accept Jesus before they died can have the same sort of effect.  (It can lead to an attitude of "Who cares what life lessons the Buddhist learned?  He didn't have the right religion, so he's going to hell!")  Still, Montgomery's references to Wittgenstein's thought was informative, as was Mongtomery's quotation of and interaction with other historical thinkers (i.e., Kant, Hegel, Rousseau, etc.).

B.  On Montgomery's discussion of legal criteria, Richard Packham's critique of Montgomery's application of legal criteria is worth reading (see here).  Packham is an atheist and a lawyer.  He contends that the New Testament documents, overall, do not successfully meet legal criteria for verification, and he seems to imply that Montgomery is being selective about which legal criteria he chooses to focus on.  For Packham, reading the New Testament documents is not similar to calling witnesses to the witness stand, or even using ancient documents in court.

C.  Montgomery often seems to dismiss alternative explanations as lacking evidence, when the alternative explanations may show that there are other ways to interpret the "evidence" he presents than his own interpretation.  Montgomery is too casual in his dismissal of evolution and the historical-critical method.  He may have a point that the historical-critical method can get rather speculative because scholars disagree about what sources are in the Bible.  Still, that does not mean that his position is the correct one, or that an inerrantist approach to Scripture lacks problems.

D.  Related to (C.), there were times when Montgomery seemed to adopt a position out of convenience.  We need to believe that we can accurately know the outside world because where would we be without that belief?  We, as Christians, need to believe that the Bible is inerrant because, otherwise, how do we know any of its claims are true?  To his credit, Montgomery often wrestled with difficult issues and was hesitant to adopt views just because they accorded with where he wanted to go.  Yet, in terms of where he ended up, he did adopt positions out of convenience, more than once.  Just because inerrancy is more convenient for Christians who want to learn God's will from the Bible, that does not mean it lacks problems.

E.  Atheists have answers to arguments that Montgomery presents.  For example, Montgomery appeals to the Second Law of Thermodynamics to argue for God's existence.  Unlike a number of creationists (who, by the way, Montgomery cites as actual authorities), Montgomery actually demonstrates more understanding of the Second Law.  He states that, "in closed systems (systems not receiving energy from an outside source), the entropic process will result in 'heat death' in a finite time, i.e., a point will be reached in a finite period when there will be no 'workable' energy any longer available" (page 125).   Montgomery states that the universe is a closed system.  Had the universe not had a beginning at some point, Montgomery argues, it would have died of "heat death" by now; plus, there has to be some energy source outside of the universe giving it energy.  For Montgomery, that source is God. (UPDATE: I think I misunderstood parts of Montgomery's argument here.  Montgomery on page 125 says that, if the universe is eternal, then there must be something outside of the universe sustaining it, otherwise it would have died of heat death by now.  Montgomery believes that the universe had a beginning, but his point is that, even were the universe eternal, God, or some transcendent source of energy, would be necessary.)

There are other considerations, though.  According to physicist Mano Singham, pockets of order can emerge in an expanding universe (see here).  Some say that the universe's heat death will come a very long time in the future (see here).  Stephen Hawking at one point posited a scenario of a continuous alternation between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch, in which entropy decreased towards the Big Crunch, which would be followed by another Big Bang and another universe (see here).  My understanding (which, in terms of science, is limited) is that many scientists do not believe that the universe will end with a Big Crunch, but rather that it will wither away, rather uneventfully.  My point, though, is that there may be other factors besides what Montgomery is considering, so one cannot be too rigid.

F.  Do I accept Montgomery's argument for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection?  That is a good question, one that I may ask myself anytime I read or listen to Christian apologetic arguments.  For now, I will just say that Montgomery's presentation struck me as too neat, or at least as presuming that reality is too neat.  There are a variety of considerations: the existence of Christian forgeries in the ancient world; how even "un-orthodox" Christians claimed ties to the apostles; miracle claims in non-Christian cultures; the question of whether Jesus' resurrection makes all non-Christian religions false and Scripture inerrant; how Christian stories were developed and added to over time, and how new stories were invented; etc.  I still am open to the possibility that the early Christians experienced something that they interpreted as supernatural, and that they had abnormal experiences (i.e., healings, miracles).

Book Write-Up: Our Program, by Abraham Kuyper

Abraham Kuyper.  Our Program: A Christian Political Manifesto.  Translated and edited by Harry Van Dyke.  Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015.  See here to purchase the book.

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) was a Dutch minister, a member of Parliament, and a prime minister.  He also founded the Free University in Amsterdam.  Many Christians have quoted his statement that “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”

Our Program: A Christian Political Manifesto is a collection of articles that Kuyper wrote about the anti-revolutionary movement, of which he was a significant part.  Kuyper in this book presents his Christian political philosophy and proposes guidelines on how society can address certain issues.  Harry Van Dyke, the book’s editor and translator, provides an introduction that gives the reader a summary of Kuyper’s political thought and historical context.  Throughout the book, there are footnotes that provide historical background or inform the reader about what Kuyper is addressing.

One can get the impression that Kuyper was walking a fine line, or was trying to balance out different perspectives.  On the one hand, he did not support a secular humanist sort of state, which was why his movement was anti-revolutionary: it rejected the secularist legacy of the French Revolution.  On the other hand, Kuyper supported the separation of church and state and opposed theocracy, for he feared that the church being the government would corrupt the church.  Overall, Kuyper believed that godly principles should govern society, but he seemed rather inconsistent about how one should determine what those godly principles were.  He argued that natural religion—-God’s revelation through nature and conscience, which is available to everyone, including non-Christians—-should be what informs government policy.  At times, however, he appeared to go further than that, arguing that the Netherlands should respect its Christian heritage and that the Bible is the true source of a definition of justice.  One can guess about how Kuyper held together this apparent tension.  He states in one passage that Christians should try to persuade the larger society, so he may have believed that society should at its bare minimum yield to natural religion, but should be willing to go further, if enough people accept that.  Alternatively, Kuyper may have thought that the Bible itself presents natural religion as the proper guide for society.

Kuyper supported freedom of conscience.  He himself did not appear to be a pacifist, but he respects the right of conscientious objectors.  At the same time, he does not take his support for freedom of conscience as far as many Americans might in the twenty-first century.  He supports allowing an atheist to testify in court, but the atheist has to have somebody vouch for his character.  He presents Islam and paganism as religions that society should challenge.  Kuyper would not be the first person to have noble ideals, while making some exceptions to them.

There are many occasions in the book when Kuyper can be quite detailed in his proposals.  He is specific about how society can counter prostitution, for instance, or how it can honor Sunday.  Kuyper also has specific proposals about the structure and decorum of government, both national and local.  There were times when I thought that Kuyper should be more specific about what checks and balances should exist to prevent a leader from abusing his or her power.  Kuyper expresses support for a constitutional monarchy, and yet he is also rather critical of a republic, saying that a republic may lead to party conflict within the Parliament.  Kuyper is not against the existence of Parliament, though.  Kuyper’s preference is for the Netherlands to have a godly monarch like William of Orange, but what if the monarch or Parliament is unjust, or ungodly?  Often, Kuyper was saying that leaders should behave in a certain manner, but what would legally guarantee that they would behave that way?  Kuyper did say that people should resist the government, if the government fails to respect the independence and domain of different institutions (i.e., localities, families, etc.), and he presents a decorum for how to do so.  Also, Kuyper offered specific proposals about how elections can be implemented so as to respect the rights of the minority.  Perhaps Kuyper thought that these proposals would provide proper checks-and-balances.

Kuyper does express sensitivity to the poor and the marginalized.  While he was highly critical of public schools because of their secular nature, he still supported ways to help the poor to receive an education.  Kuyper defends the Netherlands’ colonization, and yet he opposes exploitation of the colonies’ resources; he advocates that the Netherlands serve its colonies.  Critics may understandably see Kuyper’s approach as condescending to the colonies, or they may hold that it falls morally short of the policy of not colonizing at all.  They would have a point, and yet Kuyper does deserve credit for wrestling with the humanitarian implications of policies.

Van Dyke in the introduction states that Kuyper considered himself to be a liberal in the anti-revolutionary movement, one who supported civil liberties, and yet Kuyper was open to learning from the conservatives, who believed in a stronger state.  That could be one factor that accounts for some of the tensions within Kuyper’s thought: Kuyper wants to support freedom, and yet he also agrees with the conservatives in their emphasis on tradition.

There are passages in the book that are beautiful.  For instance, Kuyper defends the sovereignty of realms, talking about how God has played a special part in those realms’ history and development.

Those looking for a thoughtful and edifying discussion of political philosophy from a Christian perspective will find that in the book.  But the book is not entirely that, for there are huge parts of it that are technical discussions about the issues of the day, such as public hygiene.  The technical parts of the book may be interesting to historians or people with a historical interest, from an antiquarian perspective.  Many readers’ eyes may glaze over those parts, though.  There were parts of the book that were rather elliptical: one would have to know the historical background to understand what Kuyper was saying.  In many cases, the footnotes were helpful.  In some cases, there were not footnotes, or the footnotes talked more about names, dates, and events, which did not shed much light on Kuyper’s discussion.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.

Book Write-Up: Dauntless, by Dina Sleiman

Dina Sleiman.  Dauntless.  Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2015.  See here to buy the book. 

Dauntless is the first book of the Valiant Heart series.  I decided to read it and the second book (Chivalrous) because I requested a review copy of the third book of the series, entitled Courageous.  I just now received it.  I wanted to get caught up, just in case the third book presumes knowledge of the previous two books.  I also wanted to become accustomed to the author's writing style.  And I was in a medieval mood.  It's a good change of pace! 

Dauntless is set in England in the early thirteenth century.  John is King of England.  And he is a tyrant!  There was hope that he would respect the rights of the land-owners and limit his own power after the Magna Carta.  No such luck!

Lady Merry Ellison's father, a baron, committed treason against King John, so John killed him and destroyed his house and his village.  Merry was driven into the forest with other survivors, and they became like Robin Hood and his merry men, trying to survive through theft.  They become known as the Ghosts of Farthingdale Forest.

Merry grew up with Timothy Grey, and they were friends, maybe even more.  Timothy is now the assistant to the Earl of Wyndeshire.  Although the Earl thinks that John has gone too far, at times, the Earl dutifully carries out John's wishes.  The Earl expects Timothy to apprehend the Ghosts of Farthingdale Forest and bring them to justice.  What will Timothy do when he finds that Merry is the leader of the group?

There are other significant characters.  There is another John, who is a servant of the Earl, and is actually the Earl's illegitimate son.  He resents Timothy because his father likes Timothy more, and Timothy lives in more comfort.  There is also Allen, who is the spiritual leader of the Ghosts.  He was taught to read by a local priest.  Allen is infatuated with Merry.

Merry really struggles with her faith, on account of what she has experienced, and the political abuses of religion that she has observed.  She wrestles with the question of God's character and thinks about the type of God she wants to believe in.  She, and others, come to believe that God must be looking out for the Ghosts, since they have survived for so long.

Political debates also enter the picture.  Timothy disapproves of what King John did to Merry's family and village, but he feels that he has to obey the King, due to the King's brutality, the pope's approval of the King (at that point), and the Scriptural requirement that people obey their rulers (Romans 13).  Merry strongly disagrees.  And Allen holds out some hope that Prince Louis of France, who wants to be the King of England, would be a better ruler than John in his treatment of the English people, a people who are not Louis' own.

There is also some ethical wrestling, as the Ghosts struggle with wanting to please God, yet resorting to theft to meet their needs. 

The book was elegantly written, in terms of its prose.  The prose was formal, yet understandable.  The book would have been better had it had more political, religious, and ethical debates.  The book also should have included more detail about what exactly Merry's father did, maybe a flashback, for that would have helped the reader to know Merry better, and it would have rounded out the story more. 

Dina Sleiman includes an appendix in which she discusses the historical plausibility of her story.  That was informative.  She even says that things were more complex than King John being a villain. 

I started the next book of the series, Chivalrous, and it actually has some of the characters from the first book.  So far, it seems that one can follow Chivalrous without having read the first book, but reading the first book can still enhance one's appreciation of the second one.