I'm still catching up after a conference last week, so I'm pleased to have this review by our ministry partner, Nick Peters.
***
Puzzled By This Book
I recently received from my ministry partner, J.P. Holding, a copy of Alex
McLellan's "A Jigsaw Guide To Making Sense of the World," with the reason being
that since it was a book more along the lines of my interests, that I should
review it for Tektonics. I was glad to do so. I liked the idea at the start
being a fan of jigsaw puzzles and I was expecting to see much that was good
since Ravi Zacharias, a personal hero of mine, endorsed it.
But in the end, I was puzzled.
Why? I do agree with McLellan's approach overall, but as I went through the
book, I found that very little was said and some aspects seemed quite
contradictory. Repeatedly I was told that under naturalism the world does not
make sense and theism makes sense of the world. I was told that under theism
there is a basis for objective morality and there is not one under atheism. I
was told told that Christianity does make sense of the world.
All of these statements I agree with, but what was missing was why I should
agree with them. The only arguments I remember seeing for God's existence other
than meaning were the first cause argument, fine tuning, and morality. None of
these were really spelled out. There was about a single paragraph on saying how
the apostles were willing to die for the claim that Jesus rose from the dead (A
dangerous statement to make since we don't have a firm foundation for the deaths
of ALL of the apostles), and in the final chapter, an end note could lead
someone to the works of Walter Kaiser and F.F. Bruce on if the Old and New
Testament documents are reliable.
Much of the book read as a psychology of religious belief. More and more my
personal psyche seemed to be being discussed. There were times that I thought
McLellan was about to deliver a great point, but I was let down. Instead, it all
became more and more internalized and I was left thinking that this might work
on someone who is more emotionally geared, but if someone is not, then what is
one to do?
An example of the way the message seemed contradictory was that in the
third chapter which is on belief, he does say that we should not emphasize
feelings. He gives the illustration of how Mormons came to him and what did they
go to but their inner testimony of the Holy Spirit? He tells the story about how
an atheist spoke to a crowd once and no one knew how to answer him until a
preacher got up and said he didn't have any learning really, but then got an
apple out of his bag and began to eat it and asked the atheist how it tasted.
Was it bitter or sweet? The atheist said he couldn't answer since he hadn't
tasted the apple. The preacher responded saying neither had the atheist tasted
his Jesus. The crowd applauds and the atheist leaves. McLellan rightfully says
that this is not the right approach.
Yet all throughout the book, it seems his approach is on feelings. He talks
about how we just know that there is something wrong with the world. We all know
that reality is supposed to be meaningful. We all know that there has to be
something more. Now I do agree with the idea that life is meaningful and there
is to be more, but an atheist reader who was informed would see right through
this and say "There you go. They only believe for emotional reasons."
This is quite sad since there are many points McLellan gets right. He
points out correctly that faith is not blind and even points out on page 107
that the Greek word translated as faith is translated as proof in Acts 17:31.
Unfortunately, he does not state anywhere I recall what faith really is. There
is no idea of it being seen as trust in the one who has been providing and that
it is thus necessarily based on evidence.
On page 134, he rightly states that too many people are disappointed with
what they receive at church today as the culture is superficial and unwilling to
dig deep into the truths of Christianity, or religion period for that matter. He
is correct in that. He is right in that even people of faith do not know the
treasures in their midst. He then goes on to describe studying under Robert
Saucy and how it was. At this, I have two concerns.
First, McLellan talks about systematic theology, but the book he cites of
Saucy's is not a systematic theology per se but a book on the church. This is
part of systematic theology, but not the whole. Of course, there is nothing
wrong with a book that just covers a part. I am not saying every book on
theology has to cover every aspect.
Second, and this was the far greater concern, was that after hearing about
the awesome resources the church is missing and hearing about the grandeur of
God McLellan said he was learning, I expected to hear more. Instead, I heard
nothing. I was told we should reflect on what we believe, but I was not told
what exactly it was that makes God so awesome. This was a recurring criticism I
had. McLellan gives the impression of bouncing from point to point without
diving in deep into any of them.
On page 160, he says atheism is at a disadvantage when we take a common
sense approach to making sense of it all. As one who has debated a number of
atheists over the years on the internet, I can state with certainty that the
atheists will say the exact same thing. They are the position of common sense
and we who believe in miracles and something "supernatural" are those who lack
common sense. I always have a problem with an appeal to common sense. If you
need to state it, it's not common sense. If it is common sense, why bother
stating it?
On page 164, McLellan writes that some will answer that if this world is
broken due to our freedom, it would have been better had God not created it.
McLellan replies with "Apparently not, since God created us with it, and he
delights when people use it to reach out and ask him to start putting the broken
pieces of their lives back together."
This was extremely problematic to me. I view it this way. The argument is
against God's nature and existence saying "A good God would not create people
with freedom knowing they would use it for this kind of evil." This is a real
objection and fortunately people like Plantinga and others have answered it.
McLellan's response comes across as "But we know that God created this way."
That's the very point under dispute! It does not answer the objection to say
"God thought it was worth doing" since the questioner is confused on God's
existence.
I do think McLellan could have dug a bit deeper and given some good
thorough answers to questions and good apologetic arguments. I do not doubt he
knows them, but there was little presentation of them. New atheists are
sometimes cited, but not really responded to. One of my criticisms of the new
atheists has been that they do not interact with Christian scholarship in their
works or evangelical sources. I have the same problem with McLellan's book.
Another looming problem is the constant pointing to one's own experience,
although that does not seem valid when he addresses the Mormons. If anything,
for most of us, our problem is that we think about ourselves far too much. I am
told often in here about how God longs to have a relationship with me. I find
this odd since this is not anything I find the apostles teaching. I see them
teaching the kingship of Christ over the cosmos and we need to get in line. This
focusing on ourselves heightens an individualism that is more problematic than
the problem McLellan wishes to address.
It is my contention that one will still be better off elsewhere. For a good
start on Christianity, one should read something like "Case For Christ" by Lee
Strobel or "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. For the question of doubt and
belief, excellent material can be found in Gary Habermas's "Dealing With Doubt"
and "The Thomas Factor." Both of those are in fact free downloads that can be
found on his web site.
Perhaps McLellan will write another book soon to further flesh out the
argumentation, for at this point, I am indeed, still puzzled.
No comments:
Post a Comment