07AR12-06

( - previous issue - )

Apologia Report 12:6

February 8, 2007

Subject: John Armstrong now vindicates N.T. Wright

In this issue:

SCIENCE - Francis Collins handles himself well in rapid-fire exchange with National Geographic

WAGNER, C. PETER - how he deals with troublesome critics

WRIGHT, N.T. - publisher John H. Armstrong confesses to being profoundly wrong in his initial criticism, lauds Simply Christian

-------

PLEASE NOTE: Our office will be closed for the next week as I (Rich) focus on needed fund raising for Apologia's ministry. Consequently, the next issue of AR is scheduled for the week of February 19.

-------

SCIENCE

"Francis Collins: The Scientist as Believer" by John Horgan, Director of The Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey -- opens: "The often strained relationship between science and religion has become particularly combative lately. In one corner we have scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker who view religion as a relic of our superstitious, prescientific past that humanity should abandon. In the other corner are religious believers who charge that science is morally nihilistic and inadequate for understanding the wonders of existence. Into this breach steps Francis Collins, who offers himself as proof that science and religion can be reconciled."

The rapid-fire exchange of this interview suggests that the science vs. religion media topic won't cool off anytime soon. Horgan shoots off objections covering the existence of miracles (and the claim that they "make God seem too capricious"); "if God loves us, why is life filled with so much suffering?"; why so many "had to die in the Holocaust so that the Nazis could exercise their free will"; "maybe God isn't fully in control of his creation"; the "Darwinian explanations of altruism, or what you call agape"; and "does religion require suffering? Could we reduce suffering to the point where we just won't need religion?"

As one would expect, some of Collins' brief responses are better than others. Here are a few that stand out:

"HORGAN: I've become more concerned lately about the harmful effects of religion because of religious terrorism like 9/11 and the growing power of the religious right in the United States.

COLLINS: What faith has not been used by demagogues as a club over somebody's head? Whether it was the Inquisition or the Crusades on the one hand or the World Trade Center on the other? But we shouldn't judge the pure truths of faith by the way they are applied any more than we should judge the pure truth of love by an abusive marriage. We as children of God have been given by God this knowledge of right and wrong, this Moral Law, which I see as a particularly compelling signpost to his existence. But we also have this thing called free will, which we exercise all the time to break that law. We shouldn't blame faith for the ways people distort it and misuse it.

HORGAN: [Free will] is the basis for our morality and search for meaning. Don't you worry that science in general and genetics in particular - and your work as head of the Genome Project - are undermining belief in free will?

COLLINS: You're talking about genetic determinism, which implies that we are helpless marionettes being controlled by strings made of double helices. That is so far away from what we know scientifically! Heredity does have an influence not only over medical risks but also over certain behaviors and personality traits. But look at identical twins, who have exactly the same DNA but often don't behave alike or think alike. They show the importance of learning and experience - and free will. I think we all, whether we are religious or not, recognize that free will is a reality. There are some fringe elements that say, 'No, it's all an illusion, we're just pawns in some computer model.' But I don't think that carries you very far.

HORGAN: What do you think about the field of neurotheology, which attempts to identify the neural basis of religious experience?

COLLINS: I think it's fascinating but not particularly surprising. We humans are flesh and blood. So it wouldn't trouble me - if I were to have some mystical experience myself - to discover that my temporal lobe was lit up. That doesn't mean that this doesn't have genuine spiritual significance. Those who come at this issue with the presumption that there is nothing outside the natural world will look at that data and say, 'Ya see?' Whereas those who come with the presumption that we are spiritual creatures will go, 'Cool! There is a natural correlate to this mystical experience! How about that!'" National Geographic, Feb '07, pp32-39.

---

WAGNER, C. PETER

"Goodbye, Theologians" by C. Peter Wagner -- begins: "Let's do away with the term 'theologian.'" The subtitle of this piece charges: "Let's stop submitting our theology and practice to the scrutiny of an office that isn't even biblical." What's at work behind this appears to be bitterness from Wagner's past experience at Fuller Theological Seminary. He grouses that "The School of Theology faculty never tired of reminding us missionaries [in the Fuller School of World Mission] that, whatever we were, we were not theologians. ...

"The theologians saw themselves as the elite guardians of the truth."

The sidebar "From the Blogosphere" includes very brief responses to Wagner, three out of five being less than sympathetic. One observes that Wagner is simply exercising a wish to banish his most troublesome long-term critics. Ministry Today, Jan/Feb '07, p10. The following link includes all the above and more: <http://www.ministrytodaymag.com/blog/2006/09/guest-commentary-goodbye-theologians.html>

---

WRIGHT, N.T.

Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense, by N.T. Wright [1] -- in his introduction to this issue (which features several discussions of Wright and his work), publisher John H. Armstrong confesses that he was greatly mistaken in his initial criticism of Wright. Armstrong writes: "It didn't take me long, after I began to read N.T. Wright, to realize that he was one of the truly brilliant biblical thinkers of our time. And I soon came to see how his thought and biblically informed worldview could be a powerful instrument to open minds and hearts in a fresh new way. Again and again, reading Tom Wright sent me to my Bible, forcing me to think as I had never thought and to worship like I had never worshiped. I soon realized, though I still did not agree with Wright on several points, that he was teaching me like few theologians had taught me."

Armstrong's review of Simply Christian finds it as "a book specifically designed to explain the Christian faith step-by-step to modern readers, [it] is well developed through the question and answer method. And Wright employs both narrative and apologetic in an effective way, putting the pastor and ordinary reader in his debt." For Armstrong, Simply Christian "is biblical theology at its best. And the reader has every reason to believe that Wright will describe what Christianity is all about. I assure you there will be no disappointment if you follow him to the end. Both those outside the faith and those inside will come to better understand what it means to accept the story of Jesus as given in the New Testament record.

"Wright adopts a threefold structure to give shape to his subject. First, he explores four areas in which the world of today can be interpreted as 'echoes of a voice.' These four are: longing for justice, the quest for spirituality, the hunger for relationships, and the delight in beauty. Each of these, Wright argues, points 'beyond itself' yet in a way that is not truly transcendent. ...

"In the second part of the book ('Staring at the Sun') Wright lays out the central Christian belief about God. He does this by showing how the Jewish understanding of God works and what the hope of Israel really means to the world. This is followed by two chapters on Jesus and two on the Holy Spirit, providing four of the finest descriptions of basic essential (or 'mere') Christian theology that you will find anywhere. In this middle section of three, Wright begins to show how the four echoes introduced in the first section function in the way we actually hear God's story.

"The story then moves naturally, in terms of Wright's argument, to what it looks like 'to follow this Jesus' in practice. This final section is called 'Reflecting the Image' and includes chapters on worship (which quite helpfully includes sacramental worship), prayer and the church [universal]. ... This last section concludes with an excellent chapter on eschatology, understood not so much as 'personal' but as corporate and creational. The content of this chapter alone is worth the book. It desperately needs to be worked out in evangelical ecclesial contexts where speculative and highly individualized eschatology has dominated for over a century. ...

"There is much to commend in these chapters and a lot that will stretch the reader beyond the typical ways that orthodox Christianity has been presented by some conservatives in our time. But make no mistake about it; the material is faithful to orthodoxy in every possible way, both creedally and historically. The notion, among some conservative critics of Bishop Wright, that his theology is somehow less than orthodox is completely preposterous. A full reading of Wright himself, and not of the wannabe theologians who write their silly blogs and commentaries about his work, will reveal this to any fair-minded reader." Acts 3 Review, 15:2 - 2006, pp9-12, 99-111.

-------

Sources, Monographs:

1 - Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense, by N.T. Wright (HarperSanFrancisco, 2006, hardcover, 256 pages)

<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060507152/apologiareport>

--------

( - next issue - )