CIV: BR: "Bringing Up Girls" by Dr. James Dobson

The challenge of raising children is as old as humanity, and this challenge is acutely felt as we begin the twenty-first century. While there are many challenges and issues with raising children of both genders, boys and girls remain very different creatures with different biology, strengths, and weaknesses.

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family fame has, after three years of work, completed Bringing Up Girls: Practical Advice and Encouragement for Those Shaping the Next Generation of Women. As the subtitle suggests, the book is designed to provide information and advice for handling all kinds of issues relating to the raising of young girls.

Dobson begins with birth and proceeds through various issues all the way through the teenage years. At times he delves into the science of girls and maturity-- the physiological, hormonal, psychological, and physical matters behind femininity and how girls mature. At other times he provides transcripts of interviews he held with various people both about raising girls and with the girls themselves about their experiences as children. Other chapters represent questions and answers about miscellaneous subjects relating to raising girls.

Dobson's primary focuses are the challenges of raising girls in a feminist and sex-saturated society and the role of fathers in the healthy development of girls. Many chapters are devoted to both of these focuses. Relationships with mothers are pretty much accepted as a given; Dobson also discusses matters of being ladylike, childcare, handling puberty and the desire for relationships, the challenges of bullying and matters of self-esteem, and the plagues of young women-- self-image difficulties, sexual conduct, drug use, cutting, and the like.

There is very little that is earth-shattering in the book but most of the advice has merit. Most of Dobson's warnings are worth heeding-- it is important that girls are raised to have proper respect for themselves, properly handling intimacy, and equipped to handle the challenges and temptations of modern life. The scientific background is very illuminating, especially for the men who generally have very little understanding of the hormones working underneath the surface of the women in their lives. Fathers especially should well consider what is written about the importance of his role in the empowerment of his daughter(s). Both parents should consider the role of peer and societal influence in their daughter(s), and the impact that childcare and the modern rat race has on children in general.

While I can understand Dobson's emphases on the depravity of culture, he often becomes too sensationalistic and proves willing to stretch the truth at times in order to achieve maximum effect. Yes, the influence of the 1960s and the 1970s have led to many societal challenges, especially as they relate to the roles of the two genders and sexual conduct. But, as Ecclesiastes 7:10 indicates, it is not as if the former days were really better. They were different. I noticed with interest how Dobson lamented how fewer than half of Americans believed premarital sex was sinful, but passed over the fact that three-quarters believed racism was. While it is no doubt true that more people in the 1950s would agree that premarital sex was sinful than do now, would three-quarters have admitted that racism was sinful then? Other "conclusions" of Dobson will not square with the experiences of many, especially in his connections regarding sexual misconduct and other consequences. I would hate to see people write Dobson off for the times when he stretches the truth and thus discredit many of the valuable warnings he does provide. He also provides enthusiastic support for the "purity ball" concept, which I personally find rather off-putting. We cannot condemn dancing as lascivious and be known in society as condemning dancing as lascivious and then promote a dance between fathers and daughters without wondering why people find it creepy. One can achieve the merits of the "purity ball" without the dancing and the facade.

On the whole, however, parents of girls, especially fathers, will benefit greatly from considering Dobson's advice. The book is worth having and reading!

ELDV

*received as part of an early reviewer program.

CIII: The 1 Enoch Conundrum

Recently I have been teaching Genesis with an emphasis on the use of Genesis in the New Testament and also have been considering the letter of Jude. Both of these texts require addressing the conundrum of 1 Enoch.

Christians strongly believe that what Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is true:

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

The Scriptures represent the sacred words of God that teach us His truth and how we are to live. We understand that Paul is not here specifying what books are Scripture and what books are not Scripture-- no Apostle or associate of an Apostle write such a list. Instead, the boundaries of what is Scripture and what is not developed over a few hundred year period after the Apostles and has led to our current Bible. This process was also taking place in Judaism at much the same time.

Despite all of the sensationalist claims promoted in society, history shows that there was not much dispute about the majority of the books now known as Scripture. Most of the books now understood as Scripture were never disputed as Scripture. Likewise, most of the "extra-canonical" books-- apocryphal and psudepigraphal works, Gnostic gospels and treatises, and post-Apostolic Christian literature-- were never claimed to be Scripture.

We should not paint with too broad a brush, however, because there were some disputes. Questions circulated about Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon since they did not include the Divine Name. The Hebrew letter was disputed because its author was never listed; Revelation was suspect less because of its origin and more because of how heretics used it. 2 Peter, Jude, and 2/3 John were also disputed at times. On the other side of the equation, many believed in the inspiration of 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Letter of Barnabas. The place of the apocryphal works, including Tobit, Judith, Baruch, 1/2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the expansions of Daniel and Esther, among other works, were also disputed, some believing that they were inspired, and others not. Included in this list is 1 Enoch.

There is an understandable level of inertia about the canon of Scripture. We understand that those who were drafting up lists were not inspired men, but we believe that God providentially preserved His revealed Word in the Scriptures for us. To argue to withdraw a book from the canon, or to add a book to it, casts doubt and aspersions upon the process. Therefore, it always seems safer to make arguments justifying the inclusion of canonized books while justifying the exclusion of the non-canonized books.

These arguments, on the whole, are robust. While it is true that the Divine Name is not in Esther, Ecclesiastes, or the Song of Solomon, their value in expressing the events of history and elements of life have not been disputed by believers over the centuries. In the New Testament, Hebrews, 2/3 John, Jude, and Revelation are alluded to or cited by Christians in the late first and early second centuries. The value and inspiration of the content of Hebrews was not in doubt; the question of authorship was what was most pressing. It is not the fault of the Revelation that it was abused by heretics. The most questionable letter of them all would be 2 Peter, for which we have comparatively little evidence of second century use, and Origen in the third century expresses some doubt about it but confesses that it is considered from Peter and inspired by most in his day.

Apocryphal and pseudepigraphal works do have value in terms of describing the realities of Israel in the intertestamental period, yet they themselves confess that the Spirit was not inspiring people during those days:

And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what should be done with them (1 Maccabees 4:46).

So was there a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the time that a prophet was not seen among them (1 Maccabees 9:27).

Also that the Jews and priests were well pleased that Simon should be their governor and high priest for ever, until there should arise a faithful prophet (1 Maccabees 14:41).

Likewise, while there is value in books like 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Letter of Barnabas in terms of understanding early Christianity, claims of inspiration tend to fall flat. Hermas lives in the middle of the second century, long after the Apostles; Clement's letter points back to the Apostles, and there is little confidence to be had in the idea that Barnabas wrote the letter ascribed to him.

The standards of early Christians, on the whole, worked. To be considered Scripture, books had to be attested as Scripture by Jesus and the Apostles, must have been written by an Apostle or a direct associate of an Apostle, and to bear the hallmarks of the Holy Spirit.

But then there is the 1 Enoch conundrum.

And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him" (Jude 1:14-15).

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him (1 Enoch 1:9).

Jude quotes 1 Enoch as representing the prophecy of Enoch, and yet what we consider 1 Enoch is not part of the canon of Scripture.

All kinds of arguments are brought forth to explain this conundrum, and I would like to investigate many of them. Since 1 Enoch is not considered canonical, it seems like there is an automatic prejudice against the work. We will attempt a level of objectivity and try to consider "both sides" of the argument. On the "one side" is the current situation: 1 Enoch is reckoned as pseudepigraphal, not part of the canon, uninspired, perhaps preserving somehow a snippet of what Enoch said. But let us also consider the "other side," and imagine what would have happened if the Book of Enoch was considered canonical, perhaps heading up the Prophets in the Old Testament, and how the argument would shift to defending the book.

What is 1 Enoch?

The book of Enoch, called 1 Enoch to differentiate it from two other pseudepigraphal works attributed to Enoch, stands today as a 108 chapter book divided into no fewer than five books, or sections:

I. The Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36)
II. The Similitudes, or Parables, of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71)
III. The Astronomical Book, or Book of Luminaries (1 Enoch 72-82)
IV. The Book of Dream Visions (1 Enoch 83-90)
V. The Letter of Enoch (1 Enoch 91-108)

The book purports to be the words and visions of Enoch, the seventh generation man in Genesis 5:18-24, and relates often to Methuselah and Noah, Enoch's son and great-grandson, respectively. The book includes a defense for a solar calendar (the Astronomical Book) and an extended metaphor describing the history of Israel (the Book of Dream Visions). Perhaps the most significant element of 1 Enoch is the first book, the Book of the Watchers, describing the actions and downfall of the angels who took daughters of men to themselves and further corrupted mankind, described in Genesis in Genesis 6:1-4.

More detailed information about material in the book of Enoch can be found in this introduction or on Wikipedia. An early twentieth century translation of 1 Enoch by R.H. Charles can be found here or here.

Arguments have been made for years about the influence of 1 Enoch on the New Testament. It is quite clear that Jude quotes 1 Enoch and even alludes to other events in 1 Enoch, as we shall see, and Peter does the same in 2 Peter and perhaps 1 Peter also. One may see some allusion to elements of 1 Enoch in Revelation, and some discern certain phraseology in other New Testament books as being influenced by 1 Enoch. As we will also see, 1 Enoch was considered the inspired production of Enoch the prophet by many of the early Christian writers of the second and early third centuries.

Disputes circulated around the book from all sides. Its focus on angels and easy use in Christology no doubt weighed against it in the eyes of the Jews; it was not accepted into the Jewish canon. Ultimately it would not make it into the canon of the Christian Bible except in Ethiopia, where it has always been part of the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Its preservation is a major issue. The only extant copies of the manuscript are the Ethiopic version, which is itself a translation of a mostly lost Greek version. There are some portions of the text that have been preserved in Greek and Latin, and it was known from its citations in patristic literature. On the whole, however, 1 Enoch was lost to Western (and even most of Eastern) Christianity from the medieval period until the beginning of the nineteenth century, when 1 Enoch was "rediscovered" and translated into Latin and English.

Ever since there have been disputations about the provenance of 1 Enoch. The discussion was forever changed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for in cave 4 at Qumran scrolls and fragments were found of every book of 1 Enoch in Aramaic except for the second book (the Similitudes), including a part of 1 Enoch 1:9 itself; three small portions of 1 Enoch were found in Hebrew in cave 1. 1 Enoch, then, has a history before the Greek text. Whether it was originally written entirely in Hebrew or in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic is not definitively known at this time.

1 Enoch, therefore, is most certainly a pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic work written in Hebrew or perhaps Hebrew and Aramaic.

1 Enoch: The Evidence

Let us now consider the evidence that we would use in order to make the case that 1 Enoch, or at least some part of it, is inspired.

Such a case must begin with Jude 1:14-15 and 1 Enoch 1:9:

And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him" (Jude 1:14-15).

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him (1 Enoch 1:9).

This is fairly strong evidence: we do not have such citations from books like Esther, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Solomon. Furthermore, Jude calls it prophecy, and what does Peter say about prophecy?

And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21).

Therefore, we must conclude that Enoch is one of the prophets, and very likely the first prophet, moved by the Holy Spirit to speak.

Against this some in the past were willing to cast doubt on the inspiration of Jude since he quoted what was regarded as an apocryphal book-- but most conservative Christians would reject such a notion as going too far.

Many attempt to advance the argument that Jude is not really quoting 1 Enoch 1:9 since there are some discrepancies between what Jude has presented and what is recorded in 1 Enoch. But if the book had been previously been considered canonical, such opposition would not take place-- we would say that Jude is not attempting to provide a precise quote or there is textual corruption somewhere.

We are not really in a position to judge Jude's citation since we lack the Hebrew or Aramaic source text. For all we know, Jude may be directly translating the Hebrew/Aramaic original we do not have. But even if he is not, we must recognize that many quotations are not precisely word-for-word in the New Testament, and we do not use such arguments to cast aspersions on those texts. Finally, if we were to reject the idea of direct quotation, we must then suggest that Jude is quoting the true statement of Enoch that sounds very, very similar to a statement written in a book years before him but which has no influence upon him. Such an argument seems quite forced and artificial and lacks credibility.

Jude describes Enoch as the "seventh from Adam" in Jude 1:14, which may be influenced by 1 Enoch 60:8-9:

But the male is named Behemoth, who occupied with his breast a waste wilderness named Duidain, on the east of the garden where the elect and righteous dwell, where my grandfather was taken up, the seventh from Adam, the first man whom the Lord of Spirits created.

But it might just be that Jude's use is coincidental. Yet again, if Enoch had always been considered as canonical, we would more likely than not consider it a reference to 1 Enoch 60:8.

Both Jude and Peter also seem to allude to the story of the angels in prison as written in 1 Enoch. Consider 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6, and 1 Enoch 10:4-6:

For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment (2 Peter 2:4).

And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day (Jude 1:6).

And again the Lord said to Raphael: "Bind Azazel [one of the fallen angels, eldv] hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire" (1 Enoch 10:4-6).

The parallelism is breathtaking. Jude's and Peter's references (and it is often believed that Peter is influenced by Jude, or vice versa) have no real parallel in any Old Testament passage, and it has often been adduced that they are speaking of things not otherwise known from Scripture. Yet the details-- sinful angels, cast into a prison, darkness, reserved for fire-- are all found in 1 Enoch 10!

This is challenging for many because it directly bears on the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.
And the LORD said, "My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years."
The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

The identification of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" has been disputed over time. The earliest Christians, influenced by 1 Enoch, believed the "sons of God" to be fallen angels, and "daughters of men" as exactly that. Later interpreters have suggested that the "sons of God" are the descendants of Adam through Seth and the "daughters of men" are the descendants of Cain.

The events described in Genesis 6:1-4 are discussed in greater detail in 1 Enoch 6-10: the angels see the beautiful women, lust for them, make an agreement to take them; these fallen angels are named; they teach mankind astrology, magic, medications from plants, war instruments, and makeup; men become even more depraved, shed much blood; God's judgment regarding the Flood is then made at least partially on the basis of these events and He then imprisons all the angels who have engaged in this immorality.

It is to the latter part of this story that Peter and Jude seem to be alluding. If this is the case, then the identification of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" in Genesis 6:1-4 is completely evident: the angels are "sons of God," and human females the "daughters of men."

It is natural, then, for those who affirm the contrary interpretation to cast aspersions on the allusion and Peter's and/or Jude's use of 1 Enoch. Yet again, if the book had always been canonical, would such aspersions be tolerated? The argument would never have come up to begin with and we would all have understood, as it was understood in the second century, how the story was to be interpreted.

And again: if we reject the allusion, then we have the situation where Peter and Jude make reference to some otherwise unknown story about angels sinning and being imprisoned and have no knowledge of 1 Enoch and its story, even though 1 Enoch comes earlier than both of them. This argument is forced and lacks credibility, especially since Jude quotes Enoch from 1 Enoch eight verses later!

One of the arguments often used to advance the idea that Genesis 6:1-4 is about Seth's vs. Cain's descendants is Jesus' declaration that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30). Yet consider 1 Enoch 15:1-7:

And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: "Fear not, Enoch, thou righteous man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice. And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: 'You should intercede for men, and not men for you: Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling."

Here 1 Enoch affirms that angels in Heaven do not marry-- they do not have wives appointed for them-- but sinned and acted in defiling ways by taking wives of humans. Some might suggest that Jesus is alluding to Enoch's declaration about angels in Matthew 22:30. That is possible; it may not be so. Regardless, this evidence shows that it was believed that angels were not given in marriage in Heaven yet could still sin by lusting and taking wives of humans.

Some have also suggested that there is an allusion to the angels in prison in 1 Enoch in 1 Peter 3:18-20:

Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

The allusion is suggested to be 1 Enoch 21, although I personally cannot see the correlation. If the "spirits in prison" were to refer to those spiritual beings who sinned, it would provide a better answer to the question why they would receive the preaching of Jesus but human souls at other times did not. On the other hand, such an interpretation is entirely ruled out if 1 Peter 4:6 is referring back to 1 Peter 3:19, and the allusion is then not a legitimate one.

There is then the evidence from patristic literature. The Epistle of Barnabas, likely an early second century document, directly quotes 1 Enoch 89:56 as Scripture in the 16th chapter, and refers to Enoch as a prophet in the 4th chapter. Justin Martyr (Second Apology 5), Athenagoras (Plea for the Christians 24), and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.15.6, 4.16.2, 4.36.4), and Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 5.1.10.1-2, Selections from the Prophets 2.1, 53.4), all mid-to-late second century authors, talk about Enoch in terms of information revealed not only in Genesis but also 1 Enoch, and at times refer to characters within 1 Enoch. Yet perhaps the most interesting witness comes from Tertullian in the early third century (On the Apparel of Women, 3.1-3):

3.1 I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's "grace in the sight of God," and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.

3.2 If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.

3.3 But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired." By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.

Those opposing 1 Enoch focus on the fact that Tertullian confesses that 1 Enoch is "not received by some," and thus that it is disputed. Tertullian does say this, but that is not his argument-- instead, he is attempting to defend its authenticity. Tertullian is willing to suggest that a "hard copy" of 1 Enoch might have been preserved throughout time, carried by Noah on the Ark. If a hard copy did not always exist, he suggests that it would be perhaps written again by inspiration first by Noah and then again later by Ezra. Tertullian then invokes both 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Jude, making the case that 1 Enoch edifies and that Jude testifies to the book. We will return to these arguments later, but it is important to note that the book receives a robust defense as inspired even in the early third century.

1 Enoch: The Opposition

Having seen the evidence that would be provided for the argument of inspiration, it is good for us to consider other challenges that come about regarding 1 Enoch.

Scholarship is mostly in agreement regarding the pseudepigraphal nature of 1 Enoch. While scholars have been compelled to date the book further into the past because of the Dead Sea Scrolls, they do not go too far back: it is believed to have been written no earlier than the third century BCE and most likely in the early second century BCE, perhaps just before the Maccabbean revolt.

Scholars also believe the book to be a composite collection written by different authors at different times. The lack of evidence for book 2 of 1 Enoch (The Similitudes-- 1 Enoch 37-71) in the Dead Sea Scrolls have led many to posit that it was not originally there at Qumran, and was perhaps filled with "the Book of the Giants" that was found in the cave 4 scrolls (a disputed thesis).

Those who oppose 1 Enoch as inspired hold firm to these declarations, but again, let us consider what would happen had 1 Enoch always been accepted as Scripture. Conservative Christians have deep skepticism when it comes to scholarly hypotheses about dating and authorship. Not a few scholars would date Daniel, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and parts of Zechariah to the same time frame as 1 Enoch! Many scholars also claim that Isaiah 40-66, parts of Zechariah, and the Pentateuch as pseudepigraphical, being composite works of different authors at different times.

Furthermore, if it is true that Jude is alluding to 1 Enoch 60:8 in Jude 1:14, then Jude is indirectly attesting to the validity of at least something in the second book of 1 Enoch. The early Christians, admittedly, mostly quote from the first 15 chapters of 1 Enoch, but references are also made to the Astronomical Book and Dream Visions (Books III and IV).

Therefore, it is hard to argue that the book of 1 Enoch looked radically different in Jude's time than it does today. But we do not have any evidence for the text much before Jude's time, and have very little basis on which to make any argument, for or against, whether 1 Enoch was previously accepted as a unity. It would seem that the Qumran community found value in 1 Enoch but did not place it with the Biblical scrolls.

What Jude meant by the quotation is also a point of disputation. Many will compare it to Paul's citation of Greeks in Acts 17:28 or the "Cretan prophet" Epimenides in Titus 1:12, and allege that just as we would never consider these pagans to be truly prophets or truly inspired, the same is true for Jude's use of 1 Enoch.

But again, what if 1 Enoch had always been canonized? Such an argument would never dare stand. We would immediately compare Jude's quotation of 1 Enoch to, say, Paul quoting the prophet Isaiah in Acts 28:25ff or some other similar situation.

No early Christians claim Epimenides to be a prophet, but many claim Enoch to be a prophet, and that is true in part because of Jude's description of Enoch as such and his quotation of 1 Enoch.

Whether Jude believed all of 1 Enoch to be inspired or only parts of 1 Enoch to be inspired, or whether he saw it as having some form of deuterocanonical status can never be satisfactorily answered. But his quotation of Enoch seems to be more in line with the Apostles quoting the Hebrew Prophets than quoting the Greeks.

Opponents also appeal to the disputed nature of the book-- the Jews did not accept it as Scripture, it was disputed as early as the third century, according to Tertullian, and later Christians like Origen, Augustine, Jerome, and others opposed it, and such is why it is not in the canon.

There is no doubt that the book is disputed, but why? Tertullian suggests some of the reasons why the Jews would dispute the work, and others are suggested by research into Jewish sensibilities of the time (the focus on angels, in particular, and the "angelic" interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, was offensive to rabbinical understanding). Yes, later Christians did dispute the work, but the early Christians are almost unanimous in their approval.

In how many other circumstances would conservative Christians side with Augustine and Jerome over the witness of earlier Christians? They would do no such things in terms of infant baptism, original sin, offices in the church, and so on and so forth. This is not to say that any such persons are inspired or their judgments are inspired; many other books, not least the Apocrypha, were believed to be inspired by many, and we reject that today.

In the end, the fact that the book is disputed over time is a piece of evidence, but it is no more overwhelming for 1 Enoch than it would be for Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, 2/3 John, and Revelation.

Many in opposition accept the date of the third century BCE to first century BCE and appeal to the fact that, as with other apocryphal books, there is no prophet at this time, and hence no inspiration. Yet there remains the major complication that Jude considers 1 Enoch 1:9, if nothing else, to be an authentic prophecy from Enoch, way back when there was still inspiration, evidently, since prophecy is not of private interpretation but comes from God through the Holy Spirit (Jude 1:14, 2 Peter 1:20-21). If 1 Enoch does faithfully represent what Enoch spoke, then this argument has no merit.

Perhaps the biggest challenge to 1 Enoch is in the fact that it was not accepted into the canon and, for all intents and purposes, lost to the majority of Christianity for over a millennium. Yes, it has Biblical citation, but so do books like the Book of Jashar and the Book of the Wars of the LORD (cf. Joshua 10:13, Numbers 21:14). If we were to suddenly discover one of these books in a fantastic discovery, would we open up the Biblical canon for them? This poses a major theological problem-- if God has preserved His Word, how can some of it be left aside? How can we believe that God's Providence directed the process if some books were left out?

On the other hand, all of this represents a bit of cultural prejudice. After all, if one were an Ethiopian Christian, this is a moot argument, for they have never "lost" the book. It has always been a part of their canon. It was only "lost" to Christians in Europe, Asia, and the rest of Africa, and done quite willingly. Is it not possible for men, however well-intentioned, to reject part of what God inspired? 1 Enoch, after all, is a special case, for unlike other possible "Biblical" books, it never has been completely lost, and an Apostle and a brother of the Lord allude to its main story and cite it as authoritative.

(Tentative, Apprehensive) Conclusions

Thus we have the 1 Enoch conundrum. Based on all of the above, I am willing to offer somewhat of a conclusion.

First of all, it should be noted that 1 Enoch is not a salvation issue in the least. There is nothing in 1 Enoch that changes any part of God's plan of salvation; whatever bearing it has is on Genesis 6:1-4 and our understanding of Peter and Jude. If more of it is accepted as inspired, it provides some scientific observations, predictions about the Messiah, and discussions of Israel. With the exception of what was discussed above about the angels, there is nothing in 1 Enoch that is not otherwise made evident in Scripture or through scientific observation. And that which 1 Enoch more clearly illuminates does not impact salvation.

After all of this research I still have reservations when it comes to considering 1 Enoch, as is, inspired, for two main reasons:

1. Textual condition. 1 Enoch exists today as (at least) a translation of a translation-- the Ethiopic (Ge'ez) translation of a Greek translation of the Aramaic and/or Hebrew (or, perhaps, the Greek translation of the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew-- who knows?). It was written in a Semitic language, translated into an Indo-European one, and back into a Semitic one. Even if the Aramaic DSS fragments and Greek/Latin fragments proved valuable in correcting the text, it will still be difficult to trust that the 1 Enoch text we have, on a word-for-word basis, highly corresponding to the presumed original. This state is unlike the Hebrew OT or Greek NT for which we can have much more confidence, on the whole, on a word-for-word basis.

This is not to say that 1 Enoch is corrupted beyond recognition-- far from it. We can still understand 1 Enoch on the basis of the texts we have. But when it comes for the strict standard we should expect from Holy Scripture, it is hard to have confidence in the current texual condition of 1 Enoch.

2. Lack of Canonicity, Means to Ascertain What is Canonical. While there are two sides of the canonicity argument, I still have reservations in wholeheartedly embracing a book the majority of Christianity did not embrace. I believe that God has spoken in His Word, and that He has providentially provided that Word to His followers, and it does pose a major theological issue to suggest that something was left out.

Furthermore we have the issue of what would make 1 Enoch inspired. It is theoretically possible, as Tertullian suggests, for Enoch to have written down his prophecies and to have them transmitted over the ages, but that is highly speculative. We do not see it influencing a lot of later texts until the New Testament. It looks more akin to what was being composed in the Persian and Hellenistic times than anything preexilic. Why would the Jews insist on a lunar calendar if they had a prophetic text from the antediluvian period insisting on a solar calendar, for instance? And, granting that the text as we have it is substantially the same as in Jude's day, is Jude attempting to suggest that the whole work is inspired? It would seem that early Christians just accepted the whole thing, and while that could be possible, can we put such heavy reliance on the quotations on the first part so as to extrapolate that it is all inspired? What if not all of it comes from Enoch, but that it is true that some of the books of 1 Enoch were written later?

On account of these things I cannot have the confidence to declare all of 1 Enoch inspired. Nevertheless, I must conclude that 1 Enoch deserves more respect among Christians than it has obtained.

Whatever one thinks of the rest of 1 Enoch, the Book of the Watchers-- 1 Enoch 1-36-- must be given some kind of place in our consideration. It is from this section that Peter and Jude both make allusions, and Jude quotes directly from it. It was the section emphasized by early Christians in their citations, quotations, and allusions.

When we interpret Genesis 6:1-4, 2 Peter 2:4-9, or Jude 1:6-18, 1 Enoch must come into consideration. If one is going to advance the theory that the "sons of God" are Seth's descendants, and the "daughters of men" are Cain's descendants, Peter and Jude's allusions to 1 Enoch 6-10 must be addressed, and some kind of argument must be offered against the substance of what is written, not just the attempt to denigrate the book as pseudegraphical.

In reality, I believe that 1 Enoch 6-10 is the definitive evidence against the Seth-Cain theory of Genesis 6:1-4. The reason why Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian believe that the "sons of God" are angels because of the testimony of 1 Enoch 6-10, and they are assured of their conviction because Peter and Jude both allude to that story. We must make reference to 1 Enoch 10:4-6 in order to understand 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6, and in so doing, can only come to a proper understanding of Genesis 6:1-4 on the basis of the evidence in 1 Enoch 6-10.

Therefore, while I do not have confidence in the inspiration of the whole of 1 Enoch, the testimony of the Apostle Peter and Jude the brother of the Lord lead me to believe that 1 Enoch 1-10, if nothing else, substantially represents the inspired prophecy and declarations of Enoch the seventh from Adam. Enoch ought to be considered one of the prophets alongside Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and the rest, according to Jude 1:14. We should be more familiar with the contents of 1 Enoch than we are (myself included). We should not be afraid to make reference to 1 Enoch 1-10 in order to understand Genesis 6:1-4, 2 Peter 2, and Jude, and we should not believe that we have "sold out" the Bible in favor of pseudepigraphal texts, considering the confidence Jude has in at least that early section of 1 Enoch.

ELDV

CII: BR: "Wild at Heart" by John Eldredge

One of the many "pendulum swings" in our society involves gender-- differences between the two genders and the relative "value" in those differences. For years masculinity was, no doubt, over-estimated and over-valued; however, the modern feminist movement has surely led to the pendulum being swung too far the other way. Society at large is becoming more and more aware that masculinity has been under-estimated and under-valued; this message is also becoming apparent in religious matters, especially in Christianity.

Over the past decade or so there has been a growing realization that the way that churches are set up and how churches counsel and develop men has become dangerously feminized. It is in such a climate of growing awareness that John Eldredge originally wrote Wild at Heart.


Thomas Nelson has now released a revised and expanded version of Wild at Heart that includes a new preface and an excerpt from Eldredge's book Fathered by God. The majority of the rest, however, remains the same book as originally written.

Eldredge's thesis is that the church has, in short, emasculated men, and he seeks to set forth a way of understanding how one can be both truly masculine and a believer in God. His analysis of churches attempting to develop men as "Really Nice Guys" is not too far off the mark. Blame is appropriately placed at the feet of feminism; the "feminization" of Christianity that has been going on for generations is also at fault (another helpful book in these regards is Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow). Eldredge draws from Scripture, mythology, movies, and other similar stories to set forth three essentials for true masculinity: a conflict in which to engage, an adventure in which to participate, and a beauty to win. He shows how this can be accomplished in worldly pursuits, how these are often perverted by the world to lead to false forms of masculinity, and most helpfully, shows how these three can be accomplished in the realm of Christianity.

Eldredge also spends much time discussing the challenges men experience-- the "wound" to their masculinity or inclinations toward true masculinity and how a man must overcome the "wound" in order to return to wholesome masculinity. He also shows how men misdirect their focus and attempt to find their true masculinity in the wrong places-- work, drugs, women, etc. He speaks of the need to develop a close connection with God and to live by true faith, overcoming the "wound" and becoming a fulfilled man in Christ Jesus.

There is much to be commended in the book; one can see oneself and many of the challenges that one's fellow men experience through what is written. Nevertheless, there has been much criticism of the book, and some of it is warranted. Eldredge's attempt to use worldly wisdom to circumvent Jesus' instruction about turning the other cheek is itself unwise and not done well-- Eldredge would do well to understand the distinction between refusing to allow a bully to break the will and being a coward in the face of a bully, and to recognize that Jesus never commends or practices violence in order to counteract violence. Such is not the way of Christ. Sometimes it seems that Eldredge's basis for things is experience and movies, and while those can be helpful images for understanding, they are no substitute for revealed truth.

On the whole, however, it must be recognized that what Eldredge is presenting is a good counterweight to many of the messages heard in religious circles. Cowardice hiding under the pretense of humility is not the way of Christ, and Eldredge is right to expose it. Nevertheless, what Eldredge teaches should not be taken to the other extreme, and it must be remembered that there is a reason why there are more exhortations to humility in Scripture than there are to the assertion of self and self-identity. It is also interesting to note that while Eldredge is writing as a man to men he often uses very soft and feminine language-- intimacy, relationship, and the like. While it is not wrong to use such terms, they could be a hindrance to some men.

Wild at Heart is a great way for men to start a conversation about the importance of re-discovering true masculinity and how one can be a man and serve God. It can be of great value for men who are willing to be open to the difficulties they experienced in the past and how they can overcome those difficulties so as to have a better future in Christ, in the marriage relationship, and with children. The message should just not be taken to extremes.

The work is certainly worth the consideration of all men.

ELDV

*-book received as part of an early review program.

CI: BR: "Behind the Preacher's Door," edited by Warren Berkley

The work of an evangelist is challenging. It involves dedication, study, perseverance, passion, interpersonal skills, discipline, and much love, compassion, humility, and prayer. There are many technical and personal aspects to the work that preachers do.


A new book edited by Warren Berkley, Behind the Preacher's Door, addresses many of the personal challenges that will inevitably confront the man who proclaims the Gospel for a living. It is designed to encourage preachers (and any Christian) to greater personal faithfulness and devotion in an attempt to reduce the staggering statistics regarding preachers who have fallen into sin, disrepute, and/or distress.

The book features submissions by preachers of all ages. Topics included feature concerns regarding sexual immorality, personal devotion to God, managing time, managing finances, working with difficult Christians, friends, working for unity, managing technology, and maintaining good relationships with wives and children.

All preachers can gain from the insights and experiences in the book. We will all feel convicted and challenged by many of them. Hopefully it will lead us to greater faithfulness and integrity in accomplishing the work of promoting the Gospel. If nothing else it should reinforce for us the dangers of ministerial improprieties and encourage us to take heed lest we, too, fall.

The book is highly recommended and provides valuable insights for preachers of the Gospel.

ELDV

C: A Crisis of Communication and Understanding

My reading program that started out as a study of the "New Atheism" has turned into a greater study about belief, unbelief, reason, faith, science, and the situation of the faith in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century. The study has been quite profitable and I have enjoyed it for many reasons.

A fundamental insight that has flowed underneath many of the resources I have read is the recognition, however implicit or explicit, that the fundamental language and perspective of Christianity is quite dissonant from the language(s) and perspective(s) of many of those within greater society. This has been made explicit in works like Francis Shaeffer's The God Who Is There and, in large extent, in many of the resources presented in Francis Collins' recent collection entitled Belief. In other books it is more implicit-- a recognition that if we are going to have something meaningful to communicate to our fellow man we are going to have to re-orient his thinking in some way or another.

It is not as if this fundamental insight has been lost on "Christendom" at large. On one side of the "spectrum" we have groups who rather explicitly shun or move away from their historic underpinnings, and on the other side, we have groups railing against the effects that this paradigm shift have engendered.

It is not as if this all happened at once; in fact, one can trace the pattern for at least the past few hundred years. It has taken many forms. An evident one involves science: as the seventeenth century moved into the eighteenth, scientists for all kinds of reasons moved away from positions of faith, and over time, as religious influence has waned, science and the scientific endeavor have taken its place in the eyes of many. Whereas many were once content to use Christianity (or some other supernatural system) to guide the way they saw their world we now have plenty of people who use science as the prism through which they understand everything. This is not to say that science has no value, for in its own realm it can serve humanity wonderfully. But while science can provide insights that may help inform philosophy, ethics, theology, and the like, philosophy, ethics, and theology ought to also inform science, as opposed to making science and scientific inquiry the Absolute it was never designed to be.

Much could also be said about the divinization of reason and rational thinking. It seems almost public heresy anymore to question the status of Reason as the Ultimate Guide for all things. Skepticism also has become one of the standards of the modern age, but curiously, few seem willing to doubt their doubts, or question the reasonableness of reason as the standard.

It is evident that the belief in the supernatural was anathema to many in society from the Enlightenment until recently, and even though postmodernism has returned in a sense to the supernatural, it eschews any form of the supernatural most would deem "traditional," especially New Testament Christianity.

Meanwhile, relativism and "tolerance" and a questioning of any and all standards except the ones we implicitly assume are standard procedure. Something as simple as thesis and antithesis-- that A and not-A cannot be both true at the same time-- is now questioned. There is no mutually agreed upon standard for much of anything, let alone belief in a personal God who is our Creator and to Whom we are subject. This is all compounded by an astounding ignorance of the Bible both as a cultural standard and as a religious text.

In such a climate it is not surprising that many who still hold to Christianity in some way or another would want to protest. Many want things to be like they were at some hazily defined moment in the past, back when people at least seemed to be more moral. Yet Ecclesiastes 7:10 applies. We have not been called to live in 1840s America or 1910s America or even 1950s America; we are called to live as Christians in early 21st century America.

But what we do have to come to terms with is that we cannot expect to communicate with many of our fellow human beings like we would in previous eras and expect a lot of success.

The Restoration Movement grew exponentially in the middle of 19th century America when entertainment choices were few, hymn singings were a popular way of passing an evening, and people learned how to read by reading the Bible. People accepted that there was right and wrong, even if they were doing wrong. Most people with whom you would speak would already share much of the same ideology as you would, and therefore you had common ground upon which to begin a conversation. In such a climate we can understand why the issues were focused on the specific forms of disagreement with the wider denominational world-- issues like church organization and governance, baptism, frequency and nature of the Lord's Supper, and other assembly matters. Issues of the assembly deserved focus because you could assume that the people with whom you were speaking shared the general outlines of a "Christian" worldview, and "everyone" knew that all good citizens should conduct themselves as good "Christian men" and "Christian women."

That was then. This is now.

Today we have very little of that foundation left intact. We cannot assume that the people with whom we come into contact believe in God. We cannot even assume that they believe that there is an objective standard delineating right from wrong. There is no certainty that they are even open to the belief that there are forces beyond themselves, and they may never have been challenged to look at the world beyond the lenses of materialism and physical perception.

Yet the statistics show that the vast majority of Americans do believe in God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, and even heaven and hell. Nevertheless, we cannot assume that people really understand much of any of these things. We cannot assume that by believing in God that they believe in God the Creator to whom all the creation is subject (cf. Genesis 1:1-2:4, Romans 9:20-24). They may profess belief in the Bible, but we cannot know how much they really know about its teachings-- and, for that matter, how many times they may know its teachings but declare some of them to be wrong or not true for themselves. They may say that they believe that Jesus is the Christ but they certainly may not understand the consequences of such a view-- Jesus Christ is God the Son and the Son of God, the Son of David, the only Way to God, and presently Lord of all to whom everyone will subject themselves, willingly or otherwise (Romans 1:1-5, John 14:16, Philippians 2:5-11). In short, even among those who profess Jesus, we cannot be sure whether they have culturally conditioned beliefs or have truly grounded themselves in the perspective of God in Christ (cf. Colossians 2:1-11).

This may sound distressing, but what it is trying to get us to understand is that we do truly live in a "post-Christian" era. The twenty-first century has returned to being like the first two centuries of the faith in many ways. We can complain about it and get distressed about or we can try to figure out what can be done about it. And there is much to do.

I believe that these understandings lead to at least two important insights in regards to evangelism in the 21st century. The first is that our defense of the faith must be buttressed with a good offense. In many of the American resources for Christian apologetics that I have seen the evidence is marshaled in ways not unlike a basketball team attempting to maintain a 15 point lead on their opposition in the last quarter of the game: a mostly defensive posture that attempts to persuade without doing any fundamental damage to the worldview of the person we are trying to persuade. The problem is, of course, that if we get too defensive, we lose without much hope of gain.

I recently read Minucius Felix's Octavius, a treatise written around the end of the second century, relating how Minucius' friend Octavius converted a mutual friend Caecilius out of paganism. The dialogue begins with Caecilius' argument against Christianity, full of inaccuracies about Christianity but a relatively robust presentation of the standard pagan argument of the day. When confronted with this argument Octavius does not start by merely clarifying what Caecilius has misunderstood about Christianity but by metaphorically going for the kill. Octavius uses the words of the Greeks themselves to demonstrate the existence of One Creator God, demonstrates the weakness, fallacies, and foibles of the Greek pantheon, demonstrating the ridiculousness of the belief system, and then he sets Caecilius straight about his exaggerations about Christianity. Octavius had to tear down in order to build up.

We cannot mince words or thoughts here: the Christian worldview and ideology is fundamentally opposed to the worldviews and ideologies proposed by society and culture of today. If we believe that we can just go out and teach Jesus without any attempt to challenge the prevailing assumptions of people, we should not be surprised when our evangelism efforts are not very successful, and when they are successful, that the people converted often fail to develop the type of faith the Bible demands.

We must do this with gentleness and respect, for certain (cf. 1 Peter 3:15), remembering that the people with whom we speak are not the enemy (Ephesians 6:12), but it must be done. One cannot have a mind to believe that Jesus is the Christ while still believing that many paths lead to God. One cannot be ready to cling to what is good and to abhor what is evil while believing that good and evil have no absolute basis in reality. One cannot profess belief in God while being wedded to an anti-supernatural view of our universe. Even though this may be offensive to much of what passes for "liberal" Christianity, there are times when we must call a spade a spade and recognize that far too many groups professing Jesus have compromised with the world in matters of truth and righteousness and that we must make a contrary stand not just for the truth of God as revealed through Jesus Christ but in the belief that there is a God, that He is alive and active and powerful, that Jesus of Nazareth truly existed as God in the flesh, truly died, and was truly and actually raised by God in the flesh in power on the third day, that all of these things are historical reality, just as presented by the church in the first century (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, 2 John 1:7-11). If people want to reject these statements as being true, they are certainly able-- but they are no longer being true to the Christian worldview and ideology as expressed in Scripture.

In order for the message of the Gospel to be heard properly there must be a recognition of disturbance in life-- that something is not right. Most people have never had their assumptions questioned or challenged. There is no doubt that many people, when so questioned, will retreat and would rather remain inconsistent than to come to grips with being wrong. But if we present the message of God in such a way that never leads anyone to question the way they have always been conditioned to see the world we should not expect to see much in the way of results. While it may be true that Christianity has never really been tried by most so as to be found lacking, too many people believe that Christianity has gone or should go the way of the dinosaur, Zeus, and animal sacrifices, and no amount of pleading without challenge will change that perception.

Therefore the presentation of the Gospel in the modern world must really be a two-edged sword-- first challenging current assumptions, and then presenting a radical alternative. But there must be work done before we even get to that point.

If you noticed from the description of the Octavius, Caecilius the pagan was invited to give the first argument. I do not believe that this was merely coincidental or done out of respect-- there is a definite advantage to this. By making the argument first, Caecilius lays his proverbial cards out on the table, and Octavius is then able to discern exactly what Caecilius believes and therefore what is the best way to go forward with his refutation and defense.

I fear that our evangelistic efforts may be hampered because of our forwardness. A large number of our evangelistic methods attempt to get to the point of the Bible study-- the opportunity to open the Bible and to see what it says. This, in and of itself, is right and good and quite necessary (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Romans 1:16). But if we engage in such things without really knowing where the people with whom we are studying are coming from our efforts may be in vain.

There is a sense in which we today must engage in "pre-evangelism" in order to get to evangelism. There will always be a select few who are seeking and are willing to give the presenter of the Gospel the benefit of the doubt, and God be praised for such people. Nevertheless, a lot of the people with whom we come into contact are going to be more suspicious and leery. The adage of Dave Barry rests in their heads: people who want to share their religious convictions with you rarely want to hear yours. Even though it may not be intended there can be a patronizing air in a Bible study-- we come to you with superior Biblical knowledge and insight, and we expect you to come to terms with it. Some people can handle that; many more cannot. Furthermore, if we engage in such a study without really knowing the person with whom we are having such a study, we are unlikely to know precisely what they believe, why they believe it, and therefore are robbed of the best way of promoting the Gospel. We may be guilty of focusing too heavily on common ground while entirely neglecting critical grounds of disagreement.

If there is one thing that is still true about people, however, it is that people enjoy talking about themselves. Perhaps as opposed to beginning with us or the Bible we should begin with them-- who they are, what they have experienced in the past in terms of spirituality or religion, what they believe about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, eternity, and so on and so forth.

This has many benefits. First of all it demonstrates that we do care about the people with whom we want to study-- we want to get to know them, and they are not just a number. If we gently prod regarding matters of inconsistency in their ideologies (and there will no doubt be matters of inconsistency), it may lead them to already reconsider how they look at the world. Many people may not believe in the truth and believe that they have a good argument against it, yet, when actually expected to make that argument, realize that in reality it is pretty weak. Finally, you know exactly where they stand, and thus are better able to present the Gospel, with both the challenge and the solution, in regards to exactly where the person is. One may have to clear a lot of philosophical ground to get to the point where the Gospel can be considered. Or one may be able to just focus on the distinctives of the church. Most will be somewhere in between.

If we are honest with ourselves, we recognize that we are currently suffering a crisis of communication and understanding. Methods that used to do well at communicating the Gospel are not as successful anymore. We often struggle to have any form of meeting of the minds with many of our fellow humans. But we can take comfort from our brethren in times long past, for if Christians of the first few centuries of this era could turn Greeks and Romans saturated with paganism and immorality and get them to understand the futility of their ideology and the truth that is in Jesus Christ, we can do the same with the secularists and others in the twenty-first century. Let us work to communicate with our fellow man so as to present the Gospel of Christ!

ELDV

XCIX: New Atheism; Experiencing the Divine

Much of my recent reading has centered around the controversies surrounding New Atheism. This study is partly motivated by the recognition that I will soon be departing where I am in northern Ohio and I am convinced that wherever I end up going will be far more influenced by New Atheism and other similar cultural perspectives on Christianity and the faith.

I have read Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I have a few others from the New Atheist perspective that I need to read. On the opposing side I have read Francis Collins' The Language of God and Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion? and The Twilight of Atheism.

The arguments of the New Atheism should not be disturbing to the faith of the believer, for they are not new arguments. They are the same arguments with the same presuppositions as have been produced since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Religion is seen as a "mind virus," infecting and plaguing humanity, and the idea is that if religion could be removed, humanity would be better off. McGrath helps to put New Atheism in perspective-- it's really an attempt to resuscitate Enlightenment triumphalist rationalism and modernism, ideologies that were necessarily put to bed with the unrestrained horrors of the twentieth century. The Stalinist regime in the former Soviet Union puts to lie any belief that atheism, by necessity, must be kinder to humanity than religion.

In fact, the suppositions of atheism, once more uncritically accepted, are now subjected to much greater scrutiny, and they are lacking. Granted, it cannot be proven that there is a God; nevertheless, God cannot be disproved, either. One must have trust, or faith, in a given set of propositions (or assumptions) to believe that God exists or does not exist. The piece of evidence paraded out by New Atheism-- Darwinianism in its various permutations-- does not inherently suggest what they suggest. In fact, questions of origin, the anthropic principle, and an utter failure to cogently explain the persistence of a consistent moral standard and belief in the divine do well to indicate the failures and limitations of purely Darwinian ideology. Even in the post-Enlightenment twenty-first century there are good reasons to believe that there is a God.

Yet, unfortunately, the New Atheists have many points worthy of consideration. It is not from their understanding of theology (which is woefully deficient by any metric) but from their perception of what religion has done to the world and to society. The believer, when considering their vitriol, is surely disturbed, but if he or she is honest, it must be admitted that much of what is said is just. I will content myself with their discussion of Christianity: while Jesus promotes a belief system that involves love, compassion, humility, and service, there are too many people who use the Christian moniker to justify or promote their particular economic, social, or political ideology, and in the end, Christianity as practiced is made to look completely different than Christianity as its Founder intended.

There will always be some atheists who will always find some reason or another to critique Christianity and the practice thereof, but it behooves the believer to consider the charges, their validity, and to do better in reflecting the true virtues and values of Christ (Romans 8:29).

I found much value in Alister McGrath's The Twilight of Atheism, not just for its presentation of the history of atheism over the past two hundred and fifty years or so but also the social/cultural/religious context that led to its popularity.

For instance, the oft-quoted remark of Friedrich Nietzsche about God being dead. It is fascinating to me to learn that Nietzsche was not attempting to be proscriptive, but instead descriptive. The idea of "God being dead" is that, for all intents and purposes, "He was killed," especially in late nineteenth century Germany (and, perhaps to a lesser degree, in Britain). At that particular moment in time, the prevailing social and cultural norms had no real need for God. Whether this was a good thing or not was what Nietzsche wanted to discuss-- and he was sadly too prescient about what would happen in a society that cast off belief in a higher power.

It was not a matter of evidences. It is not as if society just cast off belief in God because they no longer felt that the evidence held up. It was that the perspective of God and religion being offered to them did not in any way satisfy their needs or wants. McGrath goes so far as to suggest that part of the problem was the attempt to "prove" the existence of God and the truth of Christianity-- whereas people were content to believe before such examinations, when the arguments were put forth and found to be rather on the weak side, it led to questioning where beforehand there was none.

But how was it that the groundwork could even be laid for a society and culture that had been so strongly Christian for so long to no longer have a need for God? McGrath presents a most compelling thesis, not original with him, about how Protestantism paved the way for the rise of atheism.

On the surface, such a statement seems odd, and perhaps counter-intuitive. Yet it is most probably true-- and it has everything to do with the experience of the Divine.

For better or worse, for thousands of years, humans have believed that their world is suffused with the supernatural. Sadly, most of this belief has gone toward the worse-- making gods out of natural forces, dabbling in the black arts, or an overtly strong emphasis on ritual (cf. Romans 1:18-32). And yet the Bible testifies to the fact that the One True God is present and in evidence in the creation, and that we exist in Him:

"The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us: for,
'in him we live, and move, and have our being';
as certain even of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring'" (Acts 17:24-28).

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).

There is an expectation, therefore, that humans seek after the Divine. And people have, in various ways, for millennia. In the medieval world, this was popularly expressed through the belief in all kinds of supernatural entities that held sway on the earth along with the opportunity, it was said, to experience association with the Divine through the Mass, and especially the Eucharist, of the Roman Catholic church.

A major thrust of the Reformation was to remove all "superstition" from the religious organizations of the day, and we can certainly sympathize with that effort. Yet the forceful, almost unique emphasis on the proclamation of the Word in preaching and teaching led to matters of faith being a matter of the mind in the Protestant organizations. There was not given much room for experience of the Divine in many Protestant churches.

This excess was perceived and in some ways mollified in the Pietist and Wesleyan movements, but they continued to remain in Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anglican churches. The emphasis was firmly placed on understanding the faith with the mind which was then assumed to lead to right belief and right action. It would all be objective, systematized, and processed. One could go through all of the training and be extremely active in such a religion and never have any form of experience of the Divine. They could live their lives according to these rigorous standards as if there was no God.

As McGrath indicates, it's not that far of a journey from living as if there was no God to believing that there is no God. The climate was ready for atheism because the experience of the Divine was all but removed from the faith.

And herein we have the challenge. The groups that are most successful today are those that stress (and with most, probably too much) some kind of experience of the Divine-- from Pentecostalism to megachurch Evangelicalism. Yet, from my experiences with churches of Christ, there is at best discomfort and at worst strong suspicion of any attempt to incorporate the experience of the Divine in faith.

It is easy to see why. The church grew strong in the immediate aftereffects of the Enlightenment and the emphasis on reason and the rational. When confronted with Evangelicalism and especially Pentecostalism, there was a strong reaction, to the point where many to this day deny that God works miracles today (or, for that matter, that the demonic has any power at all). Anything that was experienced-based, regardless of its relationship to the revealed standard, was just too subjective and too questionable.

None of this is to say that all the various experiences that people claim to have with the Divine or supernatural forces are acceptable. We are strongly warned to avoid the black arts (Galatians 5:19-21). Everything must be tested by the standard of the truth as it has been revealed through the New Testament (Galatians 1:6-9, 1 John 4:1, Jude 1:3). Most of what has been promoted as the experience of the Divine has not been according to that standard, either because it was idolatrous (cf. Romans 1:18-32), or because it purported to be something that has been fulfilled (1 Corinthians 13:8-10).

Yet there is nothing in Scripture that teaches us that we should not expect to experience the Divine in any meaningful way. In fact, there is much in Scripture that teaches us that we should experience the Divine! We have seen in Acts 17:24-28 that we should "seek after God," and that "in Him we live and move and have our being." Our lives, therefore, should be saturated with the Divine in whom we exist and subsist.

The Lord's Supper has been one of the most controversial elements of the faith throughout time. It is lamentable that the feast was taken so literally to the point of being considered cannibalism. Yet there is still force in what is written. Yes, the bread remains bread, and the fruit of the vine remains the fruit of the vine. Nevertheless, to partake of them represents a joint participation in the body and blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). We are called to experience the Divine in the Lord's Supper!

Prayer is another significant aspect of the experience of the Divine. Something is seriously wrong if we are praying and all but believe that we are just having a monologue with ourselves. When we are praying it is as if we are before the very throne of G0d (Hebrews 4:16, 10:22). We are making our petitions before the most awesome and holy God-- that should be an experience with the Divine if there ever was one!

Consider the emphasis in the New Testament on drawing near to God (cf. Hebrews 4:16, 7:19, 7:2, 10:1, 10:22, James 4:8). While the reference is not intended to be made concrete, it still seems awfully strange to draw near to God in an entirely objective, systematic way. There is an expectation that we experience the Divine in our existence.

Ephesians 3:10-11 declares that God's manifold wisdom is made known in the church, and this is according to the eternal purpose of God in Christ. If God's purpose is eternal, it has as many ramifications for our lives today as it did for the people who lived in the first century. Granted, it is not for us to experience God in the flesh as the Apostles did (cf. 1 John 1:1-3), and we do not experience the Divine as directly and in the same revelatory function as did those who came before us in the first century (1 Corinthians 13:8-10), but this by no means negates the need for us to experience the Divine and to have a faith that has subjective as well as objective dimensions.

There is wide appeal today for an experience of the Divine. This is what draws so many to various forms of Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism, let alone all the recent adherents to various "spiritual" disciplines, as well as the resurgence of interest in Eastern religion. This should not surprise us, for it is exactly what the Bible teaches: we are imbued with a desire to seek after God (Acts 17:27), and that seeking is not just a matter of intellectualism.

The appeal to the brain only will not work for many people. It did not in the first century and it does not now. The strongest appeal these days seems to come from authentic discipleship. If we set ourselves to the task of serving Jesus Christ as His disciples, believing what He taught, promoting it among ourselves and to our fellow man, and serving one another and those without, being open and honest about the challenges of faith, and being willing to consider and even speak of how God works in our lives, then the faith is clearly something worth investigating and even accepting. Saying one thing and doing another? That's hypocrisy, the world sees through it, and people can find plenty of hypocrites around and get the ability to sleep in on Sunday. Saying and doing "as if there were no God"? Making an appeal based only on rational argument and reasoning, divorced from the Divine? Such is more like a mildly ascetic, slightly more humble atheism at worst. At best, it is a new variant on Deism: as opposed to believing that God created the world and then left it alone, here we have the belief that God created the world, was intimately involved at times with groups of people from the beginning of time until the end of the first century, and then He left it alone.

If we believe that we are God's people, and that we are serving God, do we provide any evidence to the world that the supernatural does exist and that it is working? Consider these promises, of which we are given no indication from Scripture that they have expired:

"And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:20).

And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28).

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? (Romans 8:31-32).

I understand that we must be humble when it comes to the experience of the Divine. The world has never lacked people who claim that everything that ever happens to them is some kind of an experience of the Divine, and not a few have been carried away in their beliefs about how they have experienced God. We must take the Bible seriously when it says that we must test the spirits, proving all things (1 John 4:1). But we must remain open to experiencing the Divine and being open to see how God works in our lives. If our faith is nothing more than Christian Deism, we should not be surprised when it is unappealing to others, rejected by our descendants, and even unable to support us in times of difficulty. God did not intend for His believers to accept Christian Deism, for as long as the world continues to exist, Jesus is Lord, and God actively works on behalf of those who love Him (Matthew 28:18, Romans 8:28-39, 1 Corinthians 15:23-58). If this is true, and we live out our lives as if there were no God, then we have lived poor lives indeed.

The truth exists and we discover it in the Person of Jesus Christ and the message that He revealed through His servants (John 14:6, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Truth must never be compromised. Faith in God requires adherence to the truth, but faith is more than just accepting the Bible. Faith requires us to seek after God, serving Him by the standard of what is written, and prostrating ourselves in spirit (cf. John 4:24, Hebrews 11:6). It is within each and every one of us to seek after God, and that search is more than just an intellectual adventure. We do ourselves, our brethren, and our associates in the world a disservice if we have a faith life that would be little different if God really did not exist.

Experiencing the Divine is subjective, fraught with complications, and can be misinterpreted and misconstrued. But if we believe that God exists and that He desires for us to draw near to Him, what else can we do? Let us be willing to experience the Divine, to receive the comfort that comes from the Divine, and be willing to speak of God's work in our own lives to one another and to our fellow man!

ELDV

XCVIII: An Appeal to Roman Catholics

For some time I've been trying to gather my thoughts to present regarding the scandal that has gripped the Roman Catholic church. Here goes:

We would like to make an appeal to our friends who are still a part of the Roman Catholic Church in regards to the conduct of that religious organization.

The sex abuse scandal that has become very public over the past eight years has been a terrible thing. We all understand that the abuse of young men and women by anyone is sinful (cf. Galatians 5:19), and when it is committed by persons with perceived spiritual authority, it is quite distressing and intolerable. Whatever motivates such behavior is wrong, and while it has become a public problem for Roman Catholicism, it is sadly true that it has also happened within other religious organizations. Nevertheless, it is not our purpose or intention to focus on the abuse that took place.

What is perhaps even more unconscionable than the abuse itself is how the Roman Catholic religious organization responded to the claims of the abuse over the past forty or more years. We have all seen the numerous reports of how priests accused of abuse were often just transferred to another diocese and allowed to continue in their positions, how the organization most often took the side of the priests or the "church authorities" over that of the victims, and the consistent campaigns to minimize what was going on and to keep it out of the public view.

Yet that which is done in the darkness will inevitably be exposed in the light (cf. Ephesians 5:13)-- and now the Roman Catholic organization is attempting to engage in "damage control." While some concessions of wrongdoing are admitted, the organization has preferred to blame the media for anti-Catholic persecution rather than admit the systemic improprieties of not just the priests who committed the horrendous actions but also of the bishops, archbishops, and cardinals who poorly responded to the claims that were brought to them.

This type of behavior in the face of such serious claims of wrongdoing is understandable if it came from a government or a large corporation, but we hope that you can understand that it is an intolerable response for an organization that claims to represent the body of Christ. Sadly, this is not the first time that the Roman Catholic organization has responded poorly to behavior done by those within its ranks. There is a long, sordid history of underhanded dealings within the Roman Catholic organization.

Therefore, we appeal to all of our Roman Catholic friends to soberly consider the question of whether this type of religious organization is really the church for which Christ died or whether it is an organization that has apostatized from the true faith.

We encourage you to consider what the New Testament teaches regarding Christ's church. Christ's church is His body, and it is headed only by Christ Himself (Ephesians 5:23-24). Christ's church is expected to be the pillar and support of the truth revealed by God in His Word (1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Those who comprise Christ's church are to reflect Christ and the way He conducted Himself on the earth (1 John 2:3-6). Christ's church cannot tolerate unrepentant sin within its midst, and persons who engage in such sin are to be disciplined (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Ephesians 5:25-27). A religious organization may claim to represent Christ's church, but if it does not abide by His will, Christ will not recognize it (Matthew 7:21-23, Revelation 2-3).

Please also consider what you fail to find in the New Testament. You will fail to find a hierarchical religious organization headed by a pope with cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and priests. Instead you will find individual, autonomous congregations, each of which was to be shepherded by a plurality of married bishops with children (Philippians 1:1, Acts 14:23, Acts 20:17-38, 1 Timothy 3:1-8, 1 Peter 4:1-3). You will fail to find an organization that restricts people from understanding God's Word, claiming that it can only be understood through the lens of its own tradition. Instead you will find Christians encouraged to study the Scriptures and a warning about following the traditions of men (Acts 17:11, Matthew 15:3-9).

We appeal to our Roman Catholic friends to consider these things well and to recognize that the religious organization known as the Roman Catholic Church is not the church we see in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic organization does not represent the Church of Christ as revealed by the Scriptures. We encourage you to depart from that apostatized organization, to become obedient to the true Gospel of Christ, and to find a church of Christ that will not tolerate sin or unrighteousness and will proclaim the truth (Romans 1:5, 12:9, 1 Timothy 3:15)!

It is hoped that this appeal is taken in the spirit of the defense of the truth in love that it is intended.

ELDV