What bothers me about young-earth organizations (more so than their accusations of compromise aimed at old-earth creationists) is that they shoot themselves in the feet when it comes to offering a viable apologetic to non-believers. You often hear them make statements like, “We should start with the Bible, view everything in the world through the lens of Scripture, and adjust our beliefs about the natural world accordingly.” Of course the Bible should be our ultimate authority on everything; if we hold Scripture to be the inspired word of God, and we understand its factual reliability based on centuries of rigorous historical and textual research, we should trust it to be completely and utterly true (while accepting that there is some latitude in how some passages can be interpreted).
However, when it comes to defending the faith and keeping our hearts united with our God-given intellect, we need to examine this approach more closely. When someone asks you why you believe the biblical claim that “God created the heavens and the earth,” how far do you think you’re going to get with them by answering, “For the Bible tells me so”? This is a fallacy known as circular reasoning, and it is fatal to our apologetic and to having a reasonable faith ourselves!
What we need instead is extra-biblical evidence that supports the truth of the Bible. (Notice that I did not use the word “prove.”) Philosophers use the fancy phrase “epistemic grounding.” We need to meet the non-believer where they are–observable nature–and carry them towards the truth of Christianity. As believers, we benefit from having both intellectual AND spiritual reasons for our beliefs, and we escape the trap of having a privatized theology where our confidence in the Bible is based exclusively on internal feelings.
Mike Licona’s new book on Jesus’ resurrection: buy it!
Michael Licona, in his awesome must-read book on the resurrection, argues that the earthquake and resurrection of the saints story is probably not historical, but is instead apocalyptic imagery. Norman Geisler, another Christian apologist, disagreed with this view publicly, claiming that it compromises inerrancy. Must we accept that the earthquake and resurrection of the saints is real history in order to be inerrantists?
Norman Geisler has taken issue with a portion of my recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, in which I proposed that the story of the raised saints in Matthew 27:52-53 should probably be interpreted as apocalyptic imagery rather than literal history. In response, Dr. Geisler has offered strong criticisms in two Open Letters to me on the Internet. Until now I have been unable to comment because I have multiple writing deadlines, two September debates in South Africa for which to prepare, and, consequently, no time to be drawn into what would probably turn into an endless debate. I shared these first two reasons with Dr. Geisler in an email several weeks ago. Yet he insisted that I “give careful and immediate attention” to the matter. I simply could not do this and fulfill the pressing obligations of my ministry, which is my higher priority before the Lord.
Dr. Geisler questions whether I still hold to biblical inerrancy. I want to be clear that I continue to affirm this evangelical distinctive. My conclusion in reference to the raised saints in Matthew 27 was based upon my analysis of the genre of the text. This was not an attempt to wiggle out from under the burden of an inerrant text; it was an attempt to respect the text by seeking to learn what Matthew was trying to communicate. This is responsible hermeneutical practice. Any reasonable doctrine of biblical inerrancy must respect authorial intent rather than predetermine it.
When writing a sizable book, there will always be portions in which one could have articulated a matter more appropriately. And those portions, I suppose, will often be located outside the primary thesis of the book, such as the one on which Dr. Geisler has chosen to focus. When writing my book, I always regarded the entirety of Matthew 27 as historical narrative containing apocalyptic allusions. I selected the term “poetic” in order to allude to similar phenomena in the Greco-Roman literature in general and Virgil in particular. However, since Matthew is a Jew writing to Jews, “apocalyptic” may be the most appropriate technical term, while “special effects” communicates the gist on a popular level.
Further research over the last year in the Greco-Roman literature has led me to reexamine the position I took in my book. Although additional research certainly remains, at present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative of the raised saints in Matthew 27 as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol. It may also be a report of a real event described partially in apocalyptic terms. I will be pleased to revise the relevant section in a future edition of my book.
Michael R. Licona, Ph.D.
August 31, 2011
And then there is this addendum to the letter:
We the undersigned are aware of the above stated position by Dr. Michael Licona, including his present position pertaining to the report of the raised saints in Matthew 27: He proposes that the report may refer to a literal/historical event, a real event partially described in apocalyptic terms, or an apocalyptic symbol. Though most of us do not hold Licona’s proposal, we are in firm agreement that it is compatible with biblical inerrancy, despite objections to the contrary. We are encouraged to see the confluence of biblical scholars, historians, and philosophers in this question.
It has come to my attention that this matter may become a political/theological hot potato. The scholars on the list have stood with me. It was not my intent to amass a huge list. It was my intent to demonstrate that a significant number of the most highly respected evangelical scholars, all of whom are members of ETS, see no incompatibility between the position I took in my book and the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The list has served its purpose. I have no desire to be the cause of pressure brought on those who have stood with me or on their academic institutions. Therefore, I have decided to remove the list of names for the present time at least. In no case, did an institution demand that their professors withdraw their names.
A number of scholars have suggested that this discussion is better played out in the theatre of an academic forum. I could not agree more! Southeastern Theological Review(STR) has offered to host a ‘virtual’ roundtable discussion involving several significant scholars commenting on my book. A main subject of this roundtable will be the raising of the dead saints in Matthew 27:52-53. This roundtable discussion(s) will be posted on the STR web site and will precede a full journal devoted to my book in the Summer 2012 edition of STR.
[UPDATE: Originally, Dr. Licona had included a list of incredibly conservative evangelical scholars but then asked for the names to be withdrawn, and replaced with the two paragraphs above.]
My take
I think that Matthew is using apocalyptic imagery in Matthew 27. I also think that if the event was historical, then it would have been recorded by Josephus or other historians. And I hold to inerrancy.
Dr. Licona is hardly a squish on doctrine, so I don’t think it was nice for Dr. Geisler to attack him in public like that. Bringing additional facts to a debate is permissible, but attacking someone like Dr. Licona over inerrancy is personal. Frankly if I had to choose who is making a bigger impact for Christ at this time, I would choose Dr. Licona. I haven’t read anything by Dr. Geisler in about a decade, nor has he been in any debates recently that I am aware of. I would not recommend his work either.
Learn more about Dr. Licona
Here is Dr. Licona’s web site. I have an autographed copy of Mike’s new book, and I bought another one for reading. I highly, highly recommend this book, but for students who have read an introductory book on the resurrection first. Here is the best introductory book on the resurrection of Jesus, authored by Michael Licona and Gary Habermas. Both books I would say are essential for anyone who claims to be a mature Christian. These are required reading.
If you would like to hear Michael in a debate with skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman, click here for the playlist. This is their 2nd debate, and Michael pwns Bart.
From Kevin DeYoung, posted at the Gospel Coalition. This is a must-read. (H/T Mary)
He lays out the general case for why employers hire workers in four points.
Here is point #2:
(2)The employer must believe that spending his money on new employees will be good for his business. We may wish that employers hired people just cuz. But that’s not the way the world works. When employers want to be charitable they give to church or to their alma mater. But with their business they know they need to make money. Consequently, they hire new workers only when they believe that paying more people will eventually be offset by making more money.
Ah, this is nice. And it goes on and on like that. Click here and read this sweet, sweet post!
This is Mr. Moo. He is a capitalist business owner.
But I have to steal this story about a capitalist cow who starts a business:
Mr. Moo sells milk. He charges $5 a gallon. Everyone in town wants milk so everyone pays Mr. Moo $5 a gallon. But Mr. Moo wants to make even more money. Maybe he’s greedy. Maybe he wants to give more to his church. Maybe he wants to buy a new car. Maybe he just had a new baby that needs food and clothes. Maybe he wants to bet on horses. No matter the reason, Mr. Moo (like almost everyone) wants to make more money. What should he do?
He could charge more for his milk, but he realizes that at $6 a gallon some of his customers will drive to the next town where milk is only $4.75. So instead he tries to lower his costs. He needs $4 to make a gallon of milk, but he’d like to do better. So next month he replaces his milkmaids with new milking machines. This requires a substantial up front investment, but within a year the milking machines have paid for themselves. Without having to pay milkmaids, his milk only costs $3 to produce. Now he charges $4.25—a savings to his customers and more profit for him.
This simple example shows how productivity fuels profits. Mr. Moo found a way to make the same thing for less money.
But, you ask, how is this good for anyone but Mr. Moo? Well, as the other farmers purchased their milking machines their costs went down too. So they started to lower prices, hoping to attract more customers. Mr. Moo did the same. Even if he is now getting richer, his customers are too. They save 75 cents on every gallon of milk (paying $4.25 when they used to pay $5.00). Now they have the same milk as before but more money. The economy has expanded.
And that’s not all, with more money in his pocket Mr. Moo goes out to eat more, which helps the local burger joint hire one more cook. And all the new machines need servicing, so the local repairmen hires an apprentice. The grocer spends less on milk so he can add another bagger. The doctor, who is saving money on dairy, has more money to spend so he donates to the local art museum which can afford to purchase two new paintings from an aspiring artist. No one knew Mr. Moo’s machines would help so many people and create so many jobs. No one really notices either, but it happens.
But what about the poor milkmaids? True, they are out of work. Their lives, at least in the short run, are worse because of the new innovation. Those dreaded milking machines seemed to have ruined everything. In fact, the mayor almost outlawed them. Others wanted to institute a new milking machine tariff to discourage farmers from buying them and to help save milkmaid jobs. But none of this happened. Instead farmers kept buying milking machines and milkmaids kept losing their jobs. Which was really hard on the milkmaids and their families.
And yet, that’s not the end of the story. Some of the milkmaids went to work for Mr. Pump who manufactures milking machines. His business was booming. He needed more workers to help make more machines. So he hired a few milkmaids. And remember, as the price of milk dropped, so did the price of cheese and pizza and yogurt. Everyone’s grocery bill was less. The whole town had the same stuff but more money. So Mr. Wall and Mr Mart decided to open a new thrift store. Mrs. Lovejoy, who started watching busy Mr. Wall’s and Mr. Mart’s kids during the day, decided to open a daycare. She hired some former milkmaids to help, as did Mr. Wall and Mr. Mart. A few of the married milkmaids decided they didn’t have to work anymore because groceries were cheaper than they used to be and the family could get by on less. It was hard and humiliating to lose their jobs, but five years later the whole town is better off because Mr. Moo bought his milking machines. There are more jobs. Families are able to purchase more things. And there is more ice cream for everyone.
Yes, I know cows are girls. Shut up!
I love it when conservative pastors step into areas outside of theology and knit together a full Christian worldview spanning patches from all areas of life. It’s especially good when they use evidence from the sciences, economics and history.
I find it alarming that the best people who do this are all Calvinists, though. Mark Driscoll, Wayne Grudem and Kevin DeYoung. Grrrr. Oh well. The bottom line is that we need pastors like this to be encouraging us to know how the world works, so that we can think about how we can read our Bibles and achieve the results that were are supposed to be achieving intelligently, instead of being tossed to and fro by our emotions, intuitions and intentions. (For example, what do you think lowers unemployment for the poor, young, minority workers? Raising the minimum wage, or lowering it? Click here to see why it is important to understand economics in order to help the poor with real results, instead of just feeling good while you hurt the poor)
If people who read these practical theologians could send me practical posts that they write where they encounter evidence from the real world, I can post them. I don’t know of many famous non-Calvinist theologians who I respect on economics and politics. I like Jay Richards, but he’s Catholic.
