Similar to Jesus’ statement that we will always have the poor among us, I tend to believe the same is true for the complainers who can’t handle public expressions of faith—and we’re seeing it intensify with the Tebow story. Tebow has found himself the target of crass reactions from talk shows to Twitter, from those whose mission in life is to ensure a separation of church and everything else. “Comedian” Bill Maher’s infamous Christmas Eve tweet ended with (I’ll spare you the expletive portion) “Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them.” Christians can’t cower to the complainers or Christianity will be silenced entirely.

So back to the main question, does God care about football? Liberal political analyst Bob Beckel from Fox’s “The Five” has been quite helpful in considering this question, especially since he’s the one who raised it. As a commentator, Beckel often comes across as a mean-spirited ideologue, but his new stint on “The Five” has revealed a man with serious Christian convictions and a perspective on “the Tebow” that I can appreciate. This now endearing Beckel holds, and I am paraphrasing, that “the Tebow,” the Jesus-Tebow (fan-created) shirts, and similar expressions of faith related to this new movement are irreverent and perhaps complicit in cheapening the message of Christ through mass media. Beckel has been open about his Christianity on “The Five,” and though I don’t know anything about his doctrinal views, his concern about reducing our relationship with the Redeemer to a seasonal football fad is a point well taken. But their conversation on the topic persists and he continues to pose this question—does God care about football? Because Beckel seems to want to protect a view of God that separates his holiness from our sinfulness, his assumption is no—God could care less about a football game. But is he correct?

While God may or may not care about who wins a football game, one thing is true—everyone is talking about the God. When Tebow is involved in a miraculous play and he gives glory to God, God is acknowledged. When the Bronco’s lose, mocking commences and some suggest that God has withdrawn his hand of blessing over “his man” Tebow. But did you notice that no matter how the game ends, we’re still talking about God?

The sovereign God of the universe cares about all of his creation. We can count on him as all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. And God is not only aware of our personal circumstances, but our circumstances are entirely within his sovereign control. There are no limits to what God will use to draw man unto himself, including football. That Tebow bows in humility to his Lord after a great play in a game doesn’t necessitate that he believes God is rooting for the Broncos. And I don’t believe God is rooting for the Broncos. What I do believe is that God wants to draw attention—worship—to himself and to his mission. Tebow is a man with a mission off the field that many might not know about were it not for his on-the-field displays of love for God.

So does God care about football? To answer Mr. Beckel, I believe he does…and I believe we can make this affirmation without risk to the reverence for God required by the Christian narrative. But I also think this is a helpful discussion for the Church to be having because this isn’t the first time in recent history there have been questions about Christian fads that might be undermining the message. But no matter what Tebow accomplishes on the field, at this point, we’re all talking about God. That’s amazing! Tell me what you think.

You may be wondering how it is that a self-described Calvinist could believe that anyone’s faith might be hampered by anything, because if God draws anyone to him, they will come and grow in the knowledge of God. While God’s will cannot be thwarted, he uses the work of the worker he’s called to reach into the lives of others. It’s not for us to decide that God has acted or not acted in the heart and mind of an individual. Instead, we are to continue sharing the truth of his revelation and defending it as necessary.

But the ugly truth is that within the church there is a persistent assault on the inerrancy and authority of scripture.  An effort is being made to reduce it to a document of inspirational stories and esteem-building proverbs. It’s no longer to be viewed as a historically accurate document because its accuracy is being challenged. By inerrancy, allow me refer to the the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,

“We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.”

This is a fairly self-explanatory statement, but entirely necessary for the Bible to have any authority in our lives. Yes, there is to be a necessary association between inerrancy and Biblical authority. For any written document to have authority, it must demonstrate internal accuracy. For example, any legal contract that contains errors can be disregarded as having any binding authority on those involved in the signing of that contract. But if this contract, when agreed upon by all parties, is free of errors it retains its authority. It enjoys oversight over the particular circumstances.  This is the claim made of scripture–and by scripture– especially as a response to those vigorously seeking to disrupt its authoritative place in the life of the church by attacking its internal reliability.

For the red letter Christians who like to cite only Jesus to develop their theological statements, I would highlight the fact that the gospels document Jesus’ regular citing of other portions of scripture.  But if scripture is not free of falsehood, fraud or deceit, we can’t even know if Jesus’ words are recorded as accurate at any point. If any of the Bible is to be regarded as erroneous, who among us is above it such that we can discern which parts of it are free of falsehood, fraud or deceit? The correct answer is that none of us are able to decide the answer to this. Pondering this question reminds of the supernatural origins of the Bible…written by men by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Church never decided that the Bible is inerrant and, therefore, authoritative.

It’s an all or nothing situation we find ourselves in.  Either the Bible is free from errors, or it isn’t. Likewise, because of the claims of scripture–that God is sovereign, man is fallen, man needs a Savior, that we are to pursue a life that reflects the holiness of Christ, and so on–if the Bible is free of errors as is the fundamental assumption of Christianity, then these areas of scripture are to be regarded authoritatively. They are not optional positions and are to be understood and honored by the reader.

One blog commenter wrote this  on the stories of the Bible: “I don’t know whether this really happened, but I know that this story is True.” This sort of esoteric (understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest) handling of scripture reduces the worldview to a subjective, personal experience that hardly requires it to meet the intellectual demands of a haughty culture intent on debunking Christianity. It does the work of debunking Christianity by impugning its historicity. Do you understand that when questions are raised up against the inerrancy and authority of scripture, it is at risk of having any meaningful place within the life of the church? I contend that without an inerrant and authoritative Bible, the church is only a shell and there is no life in it.

More on this matter as the newest version of this debate continues.

Because few can afford to enroll in seminary or take the time out of life to make it happen, this list of books–for personal or group study–should help you to get started with what is being read at the college and graduate level. Though this isn’t an exhaustive list of materials it is the core: Bible, systematic theology, apologetics, practical ministry, church history, doctrine, counseling, and both sides of the gender role debate. Chances are I’ve missed something because I’m sure most of you will have lots to recommend. The only subject that’s missing is ethics though the Systematic Theology and Total Truth both provide discussions in this area. I’m working on producing that ethics  material for your bookshelf now. So take a closer look at this list:

The Bible An obvious necessity!
The Portable Seminary David Horton. A “first look” systematic theology book. It gets at all the core areas of theology and doctrine, but in shorter sections written at a high school level.
How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth Fee & Stuart. This is a standard college-level text for understanding the art and science of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics).
Every Thought Captive  Richard Pratt. An introduction to apologetics written at a high school level. Theologically driven, not evidence-based.
Practical Theology for Women A recent book by Wendy Horger Alsup, it introduces the discipline of theological study to women in the church and serves as a great apologetic for the role of theology in the context of women’s ministry. If you’re new to this area of study, this is a must-read.
Think A recent book by John Piper, he writes on the importance of the life of the mind for every Christian. We can’t love our God without our whole self if our mind is disengaged.
When Life and Beliefs Collide Carolyn Custis James‘ first book that argues for the importance of theology in a woman’s walk with God. Theology need not be the “dreaded T word!” (I love this book!)
Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid Air The apologetics classic by Frank Beckwith and Greg Koukl addressing the problems with cultural relativism and how Christians should respond. A must-read!
Spiritual Mothering  This is a great little book, Susan Hunt writes on the nature of ministry among women based on the Titus 2 mandate.
Idols of the Heart  Elyse Fitzpatrick deals with the every day problem of idolatry, revealing to the reader theological truths that lead to our redemption or our self-destruction. Required reading for every Christian woman!
Creed or Chaos? Ever wonder about the importance of doctrine? Wonder no more. Dorothy Sayers, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis, argues against a fast food, watered down Christianity.
Letters to a Diminished Church  Another classic by Dorothy Sayers. In Letters, she provides a series of essays on the importance of doctrine for every Christian.
Women Helping Women Edited by Elyse Fitzpatrick and Carol Cornish. An incredible resource for women in ministry who need additional counseling resources from a biblical counseling perspective rooted firmly in scripture. This text addresses questions of parenting and addiction to sexual sins.
A General Introduction to the Bible Geisler & Nix. This classic text addresses the inspiration, canonization, transmission, and translation of scripture.
Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity Nancy Pearcey. For those who tend to toward a fragmented life where lines are drawn between matters of faith, politics, medicine and more, this classic will help you to bring it all back together so that your outlook on the world is through the lens of scripture, not an adaptation to the world.
Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism  Piper/Grudem, et al. If you’re interested in understanding the arguments of complementarians, this is the book to read. Whether you agree or not, you should know what they say.
Systematic Theology  This text by Wayne Grudem is a seminary standard. It’s not a difficult read though it is intended for graduate level study. It’s an extended version of The Portable Seminary.
Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy  Pierce/Groothuis, et al. If you’re interested in understanding the arguments of egalitarians, this is the book to read. Whether you agree or not, you should know what they say.
The History of Christianity  Tim Dowley. We know American or world history better than we know church history. A text like this or something similar will help you to know more about notable points in history from the various church councils concerned with properly articulating doctrines and addressing heresy to the establishment of various denominations.

Consider hosting a Women’s Worldview Institute for our women’s leadership team at your church. This is a quarterly theological studies program utilizing The Portable Seminary as the primary text. Let me know if this list has been helpful to your studies or if its a confirmation of what you’re already doing. I wish you continual blessings in your ministry!

Christianity Isn’t a List of Rules
The lack of commitment to any one church was due to my mom’s search for one that was perfect. The signature attributes of this church would be their generosity to people in need—because we were in need—and a lack of sin among its leaders or attendees. As you might have guessed, we spent a number of years in a number of churches. Significant time was spent in the Roman Catholic Church, a few charismatic congregations, and all of my high school years were with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Obviously, that perfect church was never found, though perhaps a pleasant and unintended consequence of her quest was my yearning to better know who God says he is.

A relationship with God played second or maybe even third chair to the legalism that defined the Christianity of our home. It was impressed upon me that to be a Christian, certain activities were prohibited: smoking, swearing, drunkenness, wearing provocative clothing and pre-marital sex were just a few. It’s not as if I viewed this as a list of virtuous behaviors, compliance was no problem. But these rules served as the strings attached to the promise of salvation. If I did participate in any of these behaviors, I probably was not a Christian or would probably lose my salvation if, by chance, I was one. I certainly don’t disagree that these are areas Christians should strive to avoid. But ours was not a positive Christianity that basked in knowing the blessing of salvation by grace through faith. The rules-based approach was not in response to God’s mercy, pursing the holiness of God as an act of worship. Ours was more of a negative Christianity, dare I say pharisaical, intended to give a perception of holiness in order to appear to others as the best of the best. This way life wasn’t just concerned with what the neighbors would think, it had everything to do with giving God reasons to accept us into his fold. Avoiding these behaviors was portrayed as our ticket to eternity.

Over the years, as I’ve come to understand what scripture teaches about salvation and what it means to honor God in the way we live, I look back at the Christianity of my childhood not with frustration or anger, but with a bit of sadness. The responsibility my mom had thrust upon her was not with the tools necessary for raising up children in the faith. A disciple needs to have been discipled—something I’m quite confident she never experienced. However, I believe she has also learned a great deal over the years and truly desires to know God beyond the self-imposed regulations thought required to attain salvation.

If you ask me today if I was brought up in a Christian home, I would say that while my upbringing may have been in the context of many churches and even some cults, there was very little about my experience that was truly biblical. Putting on the new self means I can put away the legalism of the past and clothe myself in obedience to Christ as an act of worship.

You may share this experience to some degree, continuing to struggle with the challenge of legalism. Following rules can serve as something of a security blanket—though ultimately only providing false security as we tend to forget our works without a heart inclined to God are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). Our relationship with God is not about following a list of rules to attain salvation; this would render grace meaningless. Legalism is not Christ-centered. Legalism is always self-centered because the focus is not just about getting everything right, but believing in our capacity that we can get everything right. Trusting God for our salvation means that we know we are sinners and we need Jesus’ righteousness to compensate for the lack of our own.

The role of the church is not to enforce a list of unreachable goals that demand perfection from Christ followers. We aren’t to teach that if one stumbles in their spiritual journey they will lose the redemption secured for them through Christ. Ours is not to work for our salvation, an endeavor that causes us to ultimately reject the gift that it is. As the cliché goes, Christianity is not a list of rules, it’s a relationship with Jesus, one that begins with God’s call upon our lives to repent of sin and profess Jesus as Lord.

1. Equip yourself to equip others. If you are the women’s ministry leader in  your church or on a team, consider developing a strategy that allows you to recognize existing and emerging leaders in the congregation, women who will disciple other women. Duplicate yourself! You need to be making disciples–not just converts–and this means you need to be able to effectively communicate what scripture teaches us. Pursue opportunities to develop yourself as the thought leader God wants you to be in this area of ministry and you’ll discover opportunities to engage the minds of women of all ages.

2. Don’t be easily discouraged. If your women’s ministry is struggling in the transition to become one that is intentionally focused on women’s minds and lives, you might need to reconsider method. Events and gatherings that are Christ-centered can still be fun. Though the teapot has become a recognized symbol of some very shallow women’s ministry endeavors, it can prove to be a bridge to more teaching opportunities. Sometimes it is helpful to allow the relics of the past to help deliver the message women need now.

3.  Be in constant communication with your church leaders about not only the vision of the women’s ministry, but also its needs. The last thing our pastors need is women’s ministry leaders going rogue. But any ministry effectively serving the mission of the church is one that any pastor will support. Let your leaders know your logistical needs including meeting space, child care concerns, and resource recommendations. Don’t use materials without the knowledge of your church leaders. Not only are they responsible for what they teach on Sunday morning, they’re responsible for what you teach whether it’s Sunday morning or Tuesday night.

4. Who isn’t attending? As you are busy with Bible studies, teaching seminars, and other gatherings, you will get excited about who is attending–but take note of who isn’t there. This is an area of your ministry you need to be intentionally focused on. Sometimes absence has to do with childcare, scheduling, and other basic needs. But you need to ask and find out. Don’t neglect the area of your ministry that might take a bit more work–it might actually be the opportunity to grow some profound relationships with women who really want to know God. This is the heart of ministry.

Some of these limitations in knowledge are purposeful and the trinity serves as a great example. In scripture, various passages provide evidence of the three persons of the godhead. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One God (Deut 6:4), yet three persons. And of course, this makes perfect sense, right? Well, not really. It’s a mystery how it all works, but it’s a mystery that God has decided to leave us with, a mystery we’re expected to embrace about a God we’re called to adore even when we don’t fully understand.

Unfortunately we have a habit of trying to resolve these mysteries. Modalists try to resolve the mystery of the trinity with a slight of hand: the three persons become three manifestations of one person. Isn’t that better? Even though it makes a mockery of scripture (was Jesus talking to himself at his baptism? Luke 3:22) at least now the trinity makes some sense. While a rationalized approach to reading scripture always makes us feel better, unfortunately this approach reduces the meaning of scripture to the human limitation of “sense.” In the end, it doesn’t make God more knowable and it risks his nature, his character, and his will. It may make “sense,” but it negates the authority of scripture as it is superseded by reason, limited as it is.

Often, the same thing is done with what scripture teaches about salvation. Acts 16:31 states, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” In Romans 10:9, Paul writes, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Yet we often ask, what about the people who have never heard? What about those with geographical disadvantage? Weren’t they just not as lucky as we were, to be born in a culture where Christianity is an accepted part of society?

We just don’t stop—it goes a few steps further. Some reason from a presumption of innocence, that it’s not only unlucky for some to be born in a Muslim culture or an atheistic family, but its just not fair that God would deny “good people” salvation simply because they didn’t have the right beliefs. It’s not their fault they don’t believe, so why should they endure an eternity of separation from God?

Adherence to a soft inclusivism destroys the mission of the church and sacrifices the Gospel at the altar of reason. Soft inclusivism says that it is Jesus who ultimately saves, but it isn’t required for individuals to be able to name Jesus as their savior for them to avoid going to hell. No true follower of Jesus enjoys the truth of eternal separation from God, yet proponents of inclusivism give the impression that this is a matter of gloating.

We are called to make disciples, a task which begins with preaching the Gospel. Jesus’ words call us to act and to be urgent about it, not to make excuses for not going out into all the world, a consequence of any form of inclusivism. We aren’t to sit back and remain in awe over the narrative Jesus’ words are contained in, but to move beyond the narrative and act on what he taught. In Jesus’ words, we are called to teach “them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20).

Knowing and loving God means embracing even the mysteries of who he is and how he acts. We haven’t got God all figured out because there are aspects of his nature and will that elude our sensibilities. Our motivations that result should not be to make him more knowable by changing the meaning of scripture through a rationalist approach, but to be gripped with a passion for those who do not yet know him. If we don’t like the implications for those who do not yet know God, our hearts ought to be moved to make him known. This is the task we’ve been called to, and the responsibility is on us to share the Good News. The command to share Christ is clear, no mystery there.

Evolving in Monkey Town: How a Girl Who Knew All the Answers Learned to Ask the Questions

Asking questions about what you believe can be a very good thing. This is a truth I share with Rachel Held Evans (RHE). Having our beliefs spoon-fed to us without question is a risky approach to anything, let alone our faith in God.

While reading Evolving in Monkey Town (EMT), I thought for sure I had read this book before. The nature of the questions, the concern for God’s reputation, the credibility given to arguments outside of Christianity—I was positive the book was already on my shelf. Then I realized, I had read it before, and you have too if you’ve read Rob Bell’s “Love Wins.”

Evolving in Monkey Town is divided into three parts: Habitat, Challenge, and Change. It’s difficult—even unfair—to try to summarize RHE’s journey, but at the same time, there are clues in her writing that point to the person she is becoming. So I will let the words speak for themselves.

In Habitat, RHE describes her upbringing as a child of Christian parents—her father a theologian and college professor. She mentions that she “never felt trapped in a world of endless churchgoing” (29). About her mother, she writes that she noticed and loved “when she got a little fidgety whenever the pastor discussed wives submitting to their husbands.” She also talks about some instances in these early years where she experienced doubt about whether God was actually listening or if he even existed, a question she explains stayed with her “like a rock in my shoe” (35).

She talks about the city of Dayton, how “Christianity was so infused in the culture…that it served as a kind of folk religion” (42), a great segue into the second chapter on “June the Ten Commandments Lady.” For RHE, June illustrated the hypocrisy of those in the church who “claim Christ in one breath and then curses her neighbor in the next.” She’s right. But, here we get the first clear indication that RHE is questioning the exclusive nature of Christianity. She ponders how God might consider the evil in believers vs. the goodness of those outside of Christianity. She wonders about June’s faith profession, “Is it worth more to God than the faith of a Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim who practices kindness and compassion?”

In chapter 3, she explains the history of Dayton rooted in the historical event of the Scopes Monkey Trial. She provides a portion of the trial transcript showing how attorney Clarence Darrow undermined the “literalist” interpretation of the Bible in his examination of William Jennings Bryan’s testimony. RHE then describes another “Monkey Town moment” (62) when political leaders “passed a resolution calling for a ban on homosexuality and an amendment to state law that would allow the country to charge gays and lesbians with crimes against nature” (62). She discusses the terrible behavior of people in Dayton during this time, saying that the city “was again the laughingstock of the country, and rightly so.” The chapter concludes with this statement, speaking to the apologetics movement she is about to discuss:  “The evangelical community has a curious reputation for resisting cultural movements before suddenly deciding to embrace them, and believers in Dayton are no different” (64). She continues,

“To survive in a modern world, [evangelicals] needed to be more prepared to respond to its questions. They could no longer simply resist evolutionary theory, secular humanism, higher criticism….they had to learn to effectively engage them…a funny thing happened to the evangelical community in Dayton and around the country: it evolved.”

Unfortunately, RHE gives the impression, hinting at the content of the next chapters, that apologetics is fairly new to the church and mentions only the apologists popular among later 20th century church-goers: Norman Geisler, Lee Strobel and Francis Schaeffer. She doesn’t account for the apologists throughout church history or even just the early 20th century. It’s a mistake to give the impression that apologetics has only been a modern-day phenomenon. In fact, a similar error is made as she discusses the Roe v Wade decision of 1973. She writes that it “left many Christians with the sense that their government had abandoned them.” She doesn’t provide a foot note for this so I don’t know exactly where she’s getting this from. But stating it this way ignores the fact that the church had abandoned government and culture in general since the early part on the century. It was Roe V. Wade that helped the church to recognize its departure from the cultural conversation was having adverse effects and we  needed to re-engage. Carl F. H. Henry laments this in The Uneasy Conscience of Evangelicalism…in 1947. Henry, by the way, was another great defender of Christian orthodoxy.

In chapter four, RHE discusses her personal experience in apologetics with a chapter devoted to “Greg the Apologist,” who she first connected with in high school. She describes working with “Greg” during the summer between her junior and senior year of college at an apologetics seminar for college students. She talks about how, after listening to one of the speakers, she wondered if she “didn’t have a Christian-enough worldview” (67). She

“grew increasingly uncomfortable with how verses were lifted from the Bible to support political positions like gun rights, strong national defense, capital punishment and limited intervention in the free market….I waited for Greg to object, but he never did” (67).

Seeing her skepticism begin to develop in the previous chapters, it is no surprise in chapter five that we see it fully blossom into her “pick and choose” assessment of evangelicalism in general (80), a tool she continues to use to criticize evangelical points of view on at least one other topic—biblical womanhood. But RHE describes that the apologetics movement had in her, “created a monster” (79).

“I’d gotten so good at critiquing all the fallacies of opposing worldviews, at searching for the truth through objective analysis, that it as only a matter of time before I turned the same skeptical eye upon my own faith…We criticized radical Islam as a natural outworking of the violent tone of the Qur’an without acknowledging the fact that the God of Israel ordered his people to kill every living thing in Canaan…We sneered at the notion of climate change yet believed that God once made the earth stand still…We mocked New Age ambiguity but could not explain the nature of the Trinity. We claimed that ours was a rational, logical faith, when it centered on the God of the universe wrapping himself in flesh to be born in a manger in Bethlehem. More worrisome, however, was how we criticized relativists for picking and choosing truth, while our own biblical approach required some selectivity of its own” (79-80).

It was this statement in EMT that helped me to realize that perhaps RHE has had an over-exposure to apologetics. As strange as that sounds, I believe this is the situation. When apologetics borrows from the worldviews it is trying to critique, when it seeks to make arguments from the stance of “objectivity” while mixing it up with the language of worldview and presuppositions, I understand the confusion created. She wrote,

“Born of the necessity to more effectively engage modernism and avoid embarrassments like the Scopes trial, the apologetics movement in America represented a significant evolution within the evangelical subculture, an evolution away from blind faith, anti-intellectualism, and cultural withdrawal toward hard rationalism, systematic theology, and political action. You might say it was the culmination of Enlightenment values applied to specifically to religious dialogue.” (75)

An apologetic that starts with and depends upon the categories of philosophical reasoning outside and independent of scripture, and as grounds for scripture, can never quite make the argument for Christianity. Arguments from unbelief will never affirm the truth of Christianity. Couple this general evidentialist approach with worldview education that generally insists there is no objectivity, that we all have bias, I see why her journey has ended in skepticism. I understand why, for RHE, it is necessary to re-explain Christianity so that it makes sense out of her reality. She speaks to this a bit further, that possibly the better apologetic is belief acted upon. I don’t entirely  agree (or disagree), but I get it.

“And yet, in the words of Jesus, all those apologetics courses and theology books and debating techniques are just castles in the sand without a commitment to love my neighbor as myself. I began to wonder if obedience—with or without answers—was the only thing that could save me from this storm.” (106)

In her search for consistency it is clear she has not experienced the liberation provided by a commitment to scripture first, and evidence and arguments second—presented in light of a proclaimed faith in Christ. This, I hope she finds, because every other worldview argues from within its system. I went through a struggle similar to hers and came to the conclusion that—though certainly not useless—the “objective” arguments I was utilizing to “prove” God or Christianity were actually creating a plausible argument for doubt. It is the truth of Christianity confirmed by my subjective experience with Holy Spirit and revealed to me by God in the objective form of scripture that liberated me from the necessity of these arguments as  grounds for belief. And this is hardly against reason. RHE took the fork in the road labeled ‘doubt.’

As you might easily assume, I am coming from a very Calvinist perspective in my apologetic methodology, and since RHE struggles with the doctrines of grace, she likely will struggle with my words in this review. In EMT, she clearly dismisses the reformed theological perspective.  Sadly, she resorts to an adolescent argumentation by referring to it in a later chapter as “pond scum theology.”

“I’d heard this response many times before and had affectionately dubbed it “pond-scum theology.” At the heart of pond-scum theology is the premise that human beings have no intrinsic value or claim to salvation because their sin nature makes them so thoroughly disgusting and offensive to God that he is under no obligation to pay them any mind…It’s a view resurrected by outspoken Reformed pastors who have argued that God can’t even look at us because he is so disgusted by our sin nature, one even suggesting that God sent the tsunami to wash some of this pond scum from his sight. Pond-scum theology effectively shifts the question from How could a loving God send anyone to hell? to How could an angry God allow anyone into heaven?” (116)

Pond-scum theology makes even less sense in the context of the Gospels. To believe that people are inherently worthless to God strips the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of all their meaning and power. It makes Jesus look like a fool for dying for us, and it leaves his followers with little incentive to seek out and celebrate the good in one another. (117)

Flattened theology. No understanding of the different senses in which God loves, no serious interaction with the atonement and the existence of sin. But most of all, here and in other places we see RHE’s presumption of innocence. In fairness to her, she would say that her argument isn’t with God, but with interpretations of scripture and maybe even the words of scripture themselves. I’m not sure how else she could talk about her knowledge of God except to be informed by scripture. To comprehend much of EMT, you have to understand that RHE likely does not hold to an inerrant view of scripture. On her blog, she writes that “The word ‘inerrancy’ makes my scalp itch.”  That might  make my quoting of Job a bit irrelevant to RHE, but to the readers who might care what God says about this kind of posturing, go back to Job.

“Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.” Job 40:1

The remainder of the book shares RHE’s journey from doubt to faith, but it’s difficult to understand the content of this faith as she questions both its source and interpretation of the source and, it seems, prefers a Jesus Seminar method to approaching scripture. As you read it, you will probably take note of some tendencies toward false dilemmas and dialectical reasoning, among other fallacies. But ultimately, it seems that RHE is trying to answer the problem of evil in a way that honors victims of evil by reconsidering their eternal destination. This is a noble cause and, I believe, is reflective of the image of God contained within her. We are supposed to be gripped by a sense of compassion, not only for those who suffer physically, but for those who suffer spiritually. This is the heart of missions. But when our compassion is the cause of abandoning scriptural truths, one needs to re-examine if it is compassion or pride that is the catalyst for investigation. I’ll leave with you with a few quotes that provide insight into her views on Christian exclusivism.

“But the idea that this woman passed from agony to agony, from torture to torture, from a lifetime of pain and sadness to an eternity of pain and sadness, all because she had less information about the gospel than I did, seemed cruel, even sadistic. God knew long before Zarmina was born—before her first giggle, before her first steps, before her first words—that this was her fate. He knew it from the beginning and yet created her anyway. I wondered how many millions of people like Zarmina died every day in similar circumstances. I thought about the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the gassing of Iraqi Kurds, and those terrible, haunting images of warehouses full of eyeglasses and shoes and prayer shawls left behind by victims of the Holocaust. Was I supposed to believe that all these people went to hell because they weren’t Christians?” (91)

My generation tends to be suspicious of absolutism. Speakers at apologetics camp like to say that we’re getting so open-minded our brains are falling out…I reexamined my positions on heaven and hell not because I wanted to be like Britney but because I was forever changed after watching Zarmina’s execution. (112)

“We do know that no person can be saved except through Christ,” he wrote in Mere Christianity. “We do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him.” (130)

I don’t know the degree to which God is present in the world’s many religious systems. I don’t know how God will judge the living and the dead. I don’t know if hell is eternal or if God will destroy evil for good. I don’t know what the new heaven and new earth will be like. I don’t know if I’m an inclusivist or a universalist or a particularist….All I know is that if the God of the Bible is true, he loves his creation and will do whatever it takes to restore it. (133)

This leaves me in an awkward position when it comes to always being ready with an answer. Gone are the black-and-white categories of “saved” and “unsaved,” “heaven-bound” and “hell-bound.” Gone are the old ways of determining who’s in and who’s out. Gone are the security of absolutism and the comfort of certainty. Gone is the confidence that comes with knowing that when Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,” he of course couldn’t possibly mean me. (133)

Carl F. H. Henry
Christian Personal Ethics, p 201-201 (Baker Books, 1979)

John Calvin wrote in the Institutes:

It is utterly vain, then, to pretend that the power of judging Scripture so lies with the church and that its certainty depends upon churchly assent….Whence will we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste.

Let this point therefore stand: those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated…