SYNOPSIS

The numbers of patients seeking plastic surgery has skyrocketed in the past decade, and this practice has found increasingly uncritical acceptance. Plastic surgery is commonly subdivided into reconstructive surgery and cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery seeks to restore form and function of a defect in the body, and therefore is a positive moral good that mitigates the effects of the fall. Cosmetic surgery differs in that we are seeking to augment otherwise healthy tissues to improve appearance and self-esteem. Looking through the light of Scripture, I do not believe we have license to condemn all forms of cosmetic surgery. We should be discerning, however, regarding our motivations for pursuing cosmetic surgery. First, we should be careful if our motivations for surgery are principally to increase our self-esteem. The evidence shows the long-term effects of cosmetic surgery are not universally positive, and we should be esteemed not based on our own image, but the image of the God who created us and died for us. Second, we should consider whether our goal for surgery is to normalize our appearance or to enhance our bodies to approximate a perfect ideal. If cosmetic perfection to increase the attention others give us is our motivation, we may not be adhering to the principle of biblical modesty. Last, surgical enhancement supports the idea that our bodies are ours to modify without limit.

As an oral maxillofacial surgeon, one of the surgeries I perform is corrective jaw surgery. Corrective jaw surgery is performed by fracturing wrongly aligned upper and lower jaws and fixating them in their proper position. When orthodontic braces are unable to place teeth in their proper position for correct function, surgery is often recommended to align teeth and achieve a correct bite. Although primarily functional, there is unquestionably a cosmetic aspect to the surgery. A quick perusal of the available patient information given out by doctors and their practices shows a number of before and after pictures demonstrating a positive aesthetic change after the surgery.¹ In discussing the ethics of plastic surgery, I wish to contrast the experience of two of my patients.

The first young woman presented with a lower jaw too short, an upper jaw too narrow, and her front teeth did not touch. In other words, her bite was very misaligned. She also complained that her chin was “way too big.” I explained the treatment plan, addressed her problems, and showed that the planned surgery should also help her chin to look smaller. We performed extensive surgery on both jaws so her teeth fit properly together. After she recovered from the procedure, her bite was functioning ideally, and she was overwhelmingly happy about her physical appearance. She then moved out of town and we lost contact for a period of time.

Two years later, she returned to my office. She unfortunately had been having complications from her surgery. The movements we made to her jaws showed evidence of surgical relapse, so her teeth no longer fit correctly together. She was also experiencing some pain in her jaw joints, but the aesthetic changes brought about by the surgery had not changed. In other words, she was still very satisfied with her appearance. I gave her options for more corrective surgery, but she smiled and told me that even if her pain increased tenfold and she could no longer enjoy a steak, the surgery that I performed was the best thing that she had experienced. She was now so happy with her appearance that she was not interested in having her functional issues addressed.

Shortly after, I did another jaw surgery on a second woman who was slightly older than the first. She also had a bite that was misaligned, but not nearly to the extent as the first patient. She had very few complaints about her physical appearance. I performed conservative surgery on her upper and lower jaws, and placed her teeth into an ideal position. After her initial recovery period, she returned to my office quite upset. Although her teeth fit together perfectly, she felt that she “looked older.” We compared the before and after surgery photographs and there was no discernable change in her appearance. From every objective standpoint, the surgery went exactly as predicted with no complications. However, she was still very disappointed with the outcome, and soon left our practice.

These two stories illustrate some of the challenges we have in evaluating the ethics of plastic surgery. Which surgery, for the two women that I treated, was successful? The first did not correct the functional problem but the patient was happy. The second corrected the functional deformity perfectly but the patient was unhappy. Should we base success on how well a surgeon corrected the pathology or how the patient feels about herself even if the pathology is not cured? Is our goal as surgeons to correct deformities or give our patients greater self-esteem? In other words, should the goal of a surgical procedure be to correct a physical problem or to change our physical appearance to correct a psychological one?

A BRIEF HISTORY

Plastic surgery is not new, and most of the techniques that are used today were developed by treating wounds sustained by soldiers in the two world wars.² The term “plastic” surgery comes from the Greek word plastikos, which is to mold or shape. Plastic surgery itself is subdivided into reconstructive surgery and cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is performed on abnormal tissues of the body in order to improve form and function. There is an aesthetic component to many reconstructive procedures, but the main goal is to restore the general function and appearance of the abnormal tissues. Examples of reconstructive surgery would be cleft lip/palate repair or breast reconstruction after a mastectomy.

According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, cosmetic surgery “is performed to reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve the patient’s appearance and self-esteem.”³ Examples would be a facelift or breast augmentation. These are not perfectly distinct categories, and there are a number of procedures that lie between strictly reconstructive or cosmetic in nature. The important distinction is that cosmetic surgery does not attempt to cure any deformity or abnormality, but serves to make someone look more attractive.

There is no question that the popularity of cosmetic surgery has skyrocketed in our lifetime. Shows such as Dr. 90210 and Nip/Tuck bear evidence of our changing attitudes, and cosmetic procedures have become increasingly commonplace and uncritically accepted in our culture. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the numbers of breast augmentations have risen more than eight hundred percent in the past fifteen years.⁴ Despite the fact that most cosmetic procedures are not covered under medical insurance programs, Americans spent more than ten billion dollars on cosmetic surgery in 2008.⁵ This increase in popularity was not limited to adult patients. There has been a great increase in the number of younger patients contemplating cosmetic surgery.⁶ In fact, the number of cosmetic surgical procedures on patients eighteen and younger tripled from the ten-year period between 1997 and 2007.⁷ Controversial procedures in this age group, such as liposuction, increased greater than three times, and breast augmentations increased more than six-fold during the same ten-year period.⁸ It is very likely that we personally know of someone who has had cosmetic surgery, and increasingly likely that our teenage children have peers that have elected to have their growing bodies surgically enhanced.

THE ETHICS OF RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY

Christians believe that human beings are created in the image of God. One of the consequences of the Fall is that we are subject to sickness and pathology. God, in His mercy, gives the human race the ability to subdue the creation and mitigate the effects of the Fall. The main purpose of medical science is to treat sickness and disease, thus helping to alleviate suffering. This is not only the case for surgery, but for all other types of medical treatment.⁹ Reconstructive surgery is simply the application of this principle when there is a pathological, congenital, or traumatic defect. Since the goal in reconstructive surgery is to restore form and function to damaged tissue, this type of surgery is a moral good. For example, to treat breast cancer, many women will need mastectomies to remove the cancerous tissue. Reconstructing the breast in these instances is an attempt to restore normal form and function. Although there is unquestionably an aesthetic component to this decision for many patients, the primary goal remains to restore the body to its previous nonpathological condition. Another example of this surgery is cleft lip and palate surgery. A cleft lip or palate is caused by a disruption in fetal development that results in a very obvious defect of the lip and other facial structures. The surgical correction consists of multiple surgeries to reapproximate the facial structures to their proper function and, whenever possible, their proper form. This is true of virtually all forms of reconstructive surgery.

THE ETHICS OF COSMETIC SURGERY

Cosmetic surgery differs because there is not a restoration of pathologic tissue, but an augmentation of healthy tissue. There historically has been controversy regarding cosmetic surgery because it was seen to corrupt the natural body-self relation.¹⁰ This argument, however, as well as the stigma behind cosmetic surgery procedures, has largely faded from our culture. Does the fact that we are operating on otherwise healthy tissue make cosmetic surgeries unethical in all circumstances? I believe there are a number of reasons why we should not make this blanket condemnation. First, there is no specific biblical prohibition against changing the appearance of our physical bodies. Second, we do not consider other means to improve our outward appearance unethical. For example, few would argue that all forms of makeup, grooming, and fashionable clothing are intrinsically immoral behaviors. In short, the freedom we have in Christ along with the guidance of our own conscience should lead us regarding behaviors that are not specifically prohibited. For this reason, I can find no reason to find cosmetic surgery intrinsically immoral.

Yet, although a specific action may not be intrinsically immoral or scripturally prohibited does not mean that it is profitable in every circumstance. We may be tempted, due to our sinful hearts, to engage in an activity for immoral goals or reasons. Our motivations for pursuing cosmetic surgery have an important impact on the ethics of the act itself. For this reason, there are some important caveats to consider when discerning the ethics of cosmetic surgery.

SELF-ESTEEM FROM A SCALPEL

A common thread through most of the plastic surgery literature is the concept of improving self-esteem through the surgical alteration of the physical body. A Web site designed to help you find a plastic surgeon exemplifies this when it claims to know “five reasons why plastic surgery will make you happier.”¹¹ Reason number one claims that plastic surgery lowers the need for antidepressant medication. Why take medication for your depression when you can treat it by having a surgeon make you more attractive? Reason number four states that “cosmetic surgery can add years to your life and boost your self-esteem.”¹² Who wouldn’t want to look better, have greater self-esteem, and live a longer life merely by having his body made more attractive?

Is cosmetic surgery really surgery on the body or on the mind? Sander Gilman reports, “Over the past decades people have turned more and more frequently to their surgeons rather than their psychotherapists in the pursuit of the ‘body beautiful’ to achieve a ‘healthy psyche.’”¹³ The goal of the surgeon is not to correct deformities, or even to reshape normal tissue into something more aesthetic. The real goal, and ultimate measure of success, is whether or not the procedure has resulted in the nebulous quality of “increased happiness” in the patient. Happiness, in this context, is not the classical notion of happiness, but a general feeling or emotion of pleasurable satisfaction.¹⁴

So has the increase in cosmetic surgery that we have seen resulted in an increase in personal happiness? Not according to the available evidence. A recent study in Clinical Psychology Review compared college students from 1939 and 2007. The study showed a six-time increase in the number of students showing symptoms of depression and “anxiety and unrealistic optimism” in 2009 as compared to the students during the Great Depression era.15 Although there are no doubt a great many variables other than cosmetic surgery that influence such a large increase in depression, the evidence isolating cosmetic surgery is no more favorable. One study showed ten years after having a breast augmentation, there was a threefold increase in the number of suicides compared to women who did not have breast augmentation surgery.¹⁶ A review study from 2004 looked at psychological outcomes for patients who were seeking cosmetic surgery.¹⁷ They found that patients who were young, had unrealistic expectations, had a minimal deformity, had previous surgeries, were motivated by relationship issues, or had a history of depression or anxiety disorders were far more likely to feel worse after having cosmetic surgery. There were patients who reported that they were satisfied with their surgery, but in some sense, the patients that were most in the need of a “happiness infusion” were the ones most disappointed with their cosmetic results. This was the case regardless of the technical success of their operations. Making someone prettier does not always make her happier.

Many patients who are dissatisfied feel more damaged than they did prior to the procedure. This leads them to continue to seek other operations in order to heal their damaged bodies, and frequently their minds. This practice, unfortunately, may be encouraged by other cosmetic surgeons, who promise to “fix” the mistakes the other surgeon caused. This may set up another unrealistic expectation that will not be met. This cycle is often referred to as plastic surgery addiction. Virginia Blum describes a patient named “Barbara” who has had numerous facelifts and other procedures in order to help keep her husband from continuing multiple extramarital affairs.¹⁸ She looked forward to seeing her surgeon, believing that he would take care of her, even if her husband would not. Her view of the surgeon’s role: “To rescue the fair princess, unlock the crone body in which she is trapped, [and] release her to her real and happy life.”¹⁹

This whole idea has wrought unintended changes in the doctor-patient relationship. Cosmetic surgeons no longer have “patients” for whom they diagnose and treat illness, but rather “clients” that demand happiness from the resculpting of their otherwise healthy bodies.²⁰ Even when a patient does not come in with a specific complaint, many surgeons are very willing to offer suggestions on how their skills can improve their appearance. Melanie Berliet, a five-foot-nine twenty-seven-year-old woman who had worked as a model, set out to find what a plastic surgeon would recommend to her.²¹ During one of her undercover consultations, the surgeon recommended liposuction, breast augmentation, reduction rhinoplasty, Botox injections in the forehead and Restylane injections into her lips. The total cost of the proposed surgery was $33,000. Berliet admits, “By this time my self-image is so battered that, had I the money, I sincerely doubt that I could refuse.”²² If a cosmetic surgeon is short on clients with self-esteem issues, he may simply create some.

WHOSE IMAGE SHOULD WE BE GLORIFYING?

 Examining this view in the light of Scripture shows that our self-esteem should not be based primarily on our physical appearance. Jesus Himself is described in Isaiah’s prophecy as one “with no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him” (Isa. 53:2).²³ Human beings have intrinsic value because we are created in the image of God. Our value does not depend on, nor is it altered due to, the attractiveness of our bodies, “for the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7).

There is no doubt that many consider themselves unattractive, either based on a disfiguring pathology or simply because they don’t “fit in” in our beauty-obsessed culture. Surgically changing the outward form of their bodies may in many cases increase self-esteem, at least for a time. There is no question that we can get an emotional lift when we believe we feel attractive on a particular day. The difficulties begin, however, when we become dependent on that emotional lift from our own attractiveness as essential to our value. Furthermore, when parents convince their children that cosmetic surgery is necessary for their self-esteem, the unavoidable message is that we are valued based predominantly on our outward appearance.²⁴

This is not to say that there is anything wrong with a desire to be attractive. Being a good steward of the body given to us is a positive good. There is nothing wrong with taking a glance in the mirror when wearing a particularly attractive dress or feeling satisfied with the results of a month-long workout program. I don’t believe there is any virtue in intentionally allowing ourselves to become unattractive, or in highlighting a particularly unattractive aspect of our physical self. The problem ensues when we value ourselves predominantly on the image that we see as we look into that mirror. If our motivation for undergoing a permanent surgical change is to increase the value we have in our own eyes when we peer at our image, then we are looking at the wrong image for our esteem. It is not our image that gives us value, but the God in whose image we were created. Regardless of how we look on the outside, this should not be forgotten.

NORMALIZATION OR SUPER-HUMAN ENHANCEMENT?

 There is another consideration in analyzing the ethics of cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic procedures run the gamut from the removal of a small benign “birthmark” on an infant’s forehead²⁵ to the many procedures that Michael Jackson is purported to have done. In examining the motivation behind these surgical interventions, it may be helpful to differentiate between two types of cosmetic surgery. A procedure such as the removal of a visible, unaesthetic birthmark is attempting to change a physical “abnormality” into a more normal situation. On the other hand, someone returning multiple times to multiple surgeons to get their nose “just right” is attempting to enhance their normal anatomy to some perfect ideal. We can visualize this by looking at a continuum with the concept of “normal” at the center, and “abnormal” and “perfect” at the extremes. Some patients believe they are on the “abnormal” side of the continuum and their goal for their surgery is to look “normal” for the first time in their lives. The goals of other patients are to enhance their normal-looking bodies in an effort to approximate perfection. The ethics of these individual motivations may differ.

There are nuances to this evaluation. An obvious one is who decides the characteristics that make us “normal”? If normal is culturally determined, the greater numbers of individuals having cosmetic surgery is moving the standard. The standard of “pretty” was always somewhat pliable, but now we have to contend with the greater number of surgically enhanced bodies to change that standard even more. Regardless, there seems to be delineation between those who seek cosmetic surgery to not draw attention to their appearance, and those undergoing cosmetic surgery for the reason to draw more attention to their appearance. Motivations for cosmetic surgery that go beyond “normalizing” one’s appearance are problematic for at least two reasons.

First, Scripture gives us guidelines on the principle of modesty. For example, Michelle Brock describes biblical modesty as “an attitude of humility that seeks to please God rather than man or self. It is characterized by self-control, and dignity in dress, speech, and actions.”²⁶ Having surgery in order to enhance our bodies to some perfect ideal is an attempt to draw more attention to ourselves and therefore may not be modest. Since ninety-one percent of cosmetic surgery is performed on women, there is a great chance that the motivation for beautification often encompasses looking more sexually attractive to men.²⁷ Unfortunately, we cannot choose whose attention we are drawing, possibly causing others to stumble and lust after our sensual bodies. In contrast, Scripture describes a woman’s beauty as the “the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Pet. 3:4). Once again, this is not to say that wanting to look our best is wrong, but that we should be cautious when our desire is to seek more attention or worth from our enhanced physical bodies.
Second, there is an ongoing debate in bioethics concerning the idea of human enhancement. The rapid development and popularity of enhancement cosmetic surgery is being used as a template to analyze how we may choose to augment our bodies in other ways in the future. Mary Devereaux states, “Cosmetic surgery thus provides a natural starting point for an investigation of the likely future of medical enhancement.”²⁸ If this is the case, then the future of medical enhancement will be based solely on our subjective standards of what we desire or what will makes us happy; at least until we need another enhancement to bring us closer to our idealized standard of perfection. Medical professionals may cease to exist to cure disease. They will instead use their knowledge and skills to make us more enhanced. The standard of success will be the subjective feelings of good we receive when allowing a physician to modify us. In other words, if the future patterns of medical enhancement follow the current trend of cosmetic surgery, we will gladly and voluntarily give up resources to receive treatments that give the promise of happiness. The late columnist William Safire stated: “Tomorrow we can expect a kind of Botox for the brain to smooth out wrinkled temperaments, to turn shy people into extroverts, or to bestow a sense of humor on a born grouch. But what price will human nature pay for these non-human artifices?”²⁹ Our voluntary attempts for superhuman enhancement may actually modify or remove characteristics that help define our shared humanity. This is a future that causes concern.

TURNING MEDICINE ON ITS HEAD

The modern concept of cosmetic surgery and its uncritical acceptance and popularity in our culture has turned some aspects of medicine on its head. For example, for years medical science has sought to eliminate food-borne disease. One of the more rare but dangerous food-borne diseases was botulism, which produced paralysis in the facial nerves and could become lethal when it spread. After isolating the pathogen that caused botulism, we began to use it therapeutically to treat illnesses such as muscle spasms and excessive blinking. The same toxin that caused lethal paralysis is now injected voluntarily as Botox into over two million patients a year in order to smooth out undesirable wrinkles. The same chemical that caused a dreaded disease is now used to paralyze completely healthy and functioning facial muscles and is the most common minimally invasive cosmetic procedure performed today.

What does this tell us about the culture that we live in? We live in a world in which physical appearance is so important that many individuals believe that growing old gracefully means injecting your wrinkled face with a toxic chemical. Our world unquestionably equates physical attractiveness with inner happiness and self worth. Should Christians acquiesce to this notion?

We will never find the perfect ideal from a surgeon’s scalpel or needle. The short-lived boost of happiness that we may receive from having our faces or bodies surgically augmented does not have the ability to satisfy the great longing for perfection that exists in our hearts. The only possible way to true happiness and perfection is to grow in conformity to the image of Christ, the Creator of all beauty and life.

Richard J. Poupard is a board-certified oral and maxillofacial surgeon in private practice in Midland, Michigan. He is a speaker for Life Training Institute and a frequent contributor to the LTI blog.

NOTES

1. For example, American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, “Jaw Surgery,” http://www.aaoms.org/jaw_surgery.php (accessed February 17, 2010).
2. Sander Gilman, Making the Body Beautiful: A Cultural History of AestheticSurgery (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), 13.
3. American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Plastic Surgery FAQ: What is the Difference between Cosmetic and Reconstructive Surgery, http://www.plasticsurgery.org/Patients_and_Consumers/Plastic_Surgery_FAQs/What_is_the_
   difference_between_cosmetic_and_reconstructive_surgery.html (emphasis added) (accessed February 20, 2010).
4. American Society of Plastic Surgeons: 2009 Report of the 2008 Statistics, National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Statistics, http://www.plasticsurgery.org/Media/stats/2008-UScosmetic-reconstructive-plastic-surgery-minimally-invasive-statistics.pdf (accessed February 23, 2010).
5. Ibid. The actual number of procedures is higher, because this source is only counting procedures done by members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Many other medical specialists and even generalists perform cosmetic surgical procedures.
6. Bill Tancer, “The Young and Plastic Surgery Hungry,” Time, May 7, 2008.
7. Camille Sweeney, “Seeking Self-Esteem through Surgery,” New York Times, January 15, 2009.
8. Ibid.
9. A more robust version of this argument is found in Scott Rae, Bioethics: A Christian Approach to Bioethics in a Pluralistic Age (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 97-101.
10. Victoria Pitts-Taylor, Surgery Junkies: Wellness and Pathology in Cosmetic Culture (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2007), 17.
11. http://www.locateadoc.com/articles/five-reasons-why-cosmetic-surgery-makes-you-happier-1514.html (accessed February 4, 2010, emphasis added).
12. Ibid.
13. Sander Gilman, Creating Beauty to Cure the Soul: Race and Psychology in the Shaping of Aesthetic Surgery (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998), 24.
14. A deeper discussion of the concept of happiness is found in J. P. Moreland and Klaus Issler, The Lost Virtue of Happiness: Discovering the Disciplines of the Good Life (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2006).
15. Jean Twenge et al., “Birth Cohort Increases in Psychopathology among Young Americans, 1938-2007: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the MMPI,” Clinical Psychology Review 30, 2 (2009): 145-54.
16. L. Lipworth et al., “Excess Mortality from Suicide and Other External Causes of Death among Women with Cosmetic Breast Implants,” Annals of Plastic Surgery 59, 2 (August 2007): 119-23.
17. Roberta Honingman, “A Review of Psychosocial Outcomes for Patients Seeking Cosmetic Surgery,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 113, 4 (April 1, 2004): 1229-37.
18. Virginia Blum, Flesh Wounds: The Culture of Cosmetic Surgery (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 269-70.
19. Ibid., 270.
20. Sander Gilman, Making the Body Beautiful: A Cultural History of Aesthetic Surgery (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), 4-5.
21. Melanie Berliet, “Plastic Surgery Confidential,” Vanity Fair, February 11, 2009.
22. Ibid.
23. All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.
24. Blum, 1-5.
25. Manny Fernandez, “Birthmark Consultations Offer Answers, and Maybe Normalcy,” New York Times, November 15, 2008.
26. Michelle Brock, What Is Modesty? Discovering the Truth (Newberry Springs, CA: Iron Sharpens Iron Publications, 2005), 18-19.
27. Cressida Heyes and Meredith Jones, Cosmetic Surgery: A Feminist Primer (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009), 3-4.
28. Mary Devereaux, “Cosmetic Surgery,” in Medical Enhancement and Posthumanism, ed. B. Gordjin and R. Chadwick (Cardiff, UK: Springer Science, 2008), 159-73.
29. William Safire, “The But-What-If Factor,” New York Times, May 16, 2002, 25.

Christianity is often pejoratively referred to as “dirty rotten sinner” religion. Our detractors will often say something like this: “Christians tend to be so guilt-ridden. They feel that they have to go through life degrading themselves in order to win God’s approval. I find that very depressing. Instead, I want a spirituality that’s positive, freeing, and one that will make me feel good about myself.” This type of reaction is very understandable. We all want to be happy, and it might seem that the gospel is a one-way street into a medieval village where the Inquisition is diabolically entrenched, seeking to wipe away every smile. While it’s a hard sell merely to claim that the gospel will set us free from so many of life’s torments, a story might prove helpful. For the first few years that I was teaching Bible and theology at the New York School of the Bible, I was assailed by such intense feelings of unworthiness, shame, and self-contempt that they co-opted my thought life. Driven by such powerful feelings, my self-doubts seemed to speak with unassailable authority: “You teach? What type of Christian are you anyway? You think you really have faith? Look how selfish and self-absorbed you are. How are you going to help anyone? What a charlatan, posing in the front of the class as some type of authority! What do you think their reaction would be if they really knew you?” Devastated by these indictments, I wanted to disappear and to have the buildings of New York City implode over my head and swallow me up without a sign. Many times I thought of calling my school to say, “Find yourself someone else. I’m not your man.” But gradually, the gospel began to take root.

Good Christian. In my longstanding pre-Christian struggle to attain some sense of significance and value, I’d ward off the shame and self-contempt through positive affirmations: “I’m a good person; no, I’m a vastly superior person. I’m _____, _____, _____, and more. I’m a once-in-a-lifetime person!” There was no end to the superlatives. In fact, I was always inventing new ones-whatever I needed to tell myself to keep the shame at bay. However, these never sufficed, and so I always needed to up the superlatives in order to overcome the ubiquitous feelings of shame. As a Christian, I learned that it was wrong to engage in such self-stroking. But I had to do something about the poisonous arrows of my own demons. I needed to prove myself, and now I had a new vehicle with which to do it. I would excel at spirituality! I would prove, at least to myself, that I was worthy of God’s grace. I reassured myself that I was more deserving of salvation than others. I was more spiritual; I had chosen God because I wasn’t as carnal as most of the human race. I had the keenness of mind to recognize the surpassing value of the things of God, and I had a great destiny, not just in heaven, like all the other Christians, but I would also lead the way here. God loves us too much, however, to allow us to continue in our delusions. He closed my hand to all my dreams of spiritual accomplishment. Even more difficult to endure, I began to see my own poverty of spirit, my utter unworthiness. My levees were overwhelmed, and the demons of shame and self-contempt came roaring back. I feverishly sought to rebuild the levees with good works-anything that would tell me, “You’re OK!” However, in my torment, I began to read the Bible with new tear-filled eyes, hoping to find a God tucked within its pages who would be far more merciful than I had ever dared to hope for. Jesus told a parable about two men who entered the temple to pray. One was a self-assured Pharisee, the other a broken sinner who lacked the confidence even to look up to heaven (Luke 18:9-14). I had become that broken sinner, now defenseless against the internal raging. I had been stripped of confidence and any sense that there was something about me that would merit even a glance from a holy God. Paradoxically, this was the beginning of psychological freedom. I had been stripped bare of all my defenses, and for the first time in my life, I gradually found that I didn’t need them. I could finally let go of my miserable fig leaves, because I was beginning to know a God who wanted to clothe me with His forgiveness, His righteousness, and His sanctification (1 Cor. 1:29-30). I was beginning to learn that I was complete in Him (Col. 2:9-10), not because of who I am, but because of who He is. It took me a while to learn these lessons. The Bible was my thought life foundation, but it seemed to say such contradictory things. On the one hand, it assured me that salvation, along with everything else I needed, was absolutely free. But then I observed that other verses seemed to say that God’s “gifts” also required some labor on my part. These “contradictions” first needed to be resolved before I could decisively confront my demons. However slowly, that day did come. Now, when demons accuse me of my failures and unworthiness, I’m ready for them: “Satan, you’re right! I am totally unworthy to serve God, let alone to teach. I don’t deserve the slightest thing from Him. But I have an incredible God who is everything to me-my righteousness, my sanctification, and whatever else I need. He loves me with an undying love and will never leave me. It is He who has given me the privilege to serve Him by teaching. I’m so glad that I’ve been reminded of my unworthiness, because this just prompts me to be grateful, and makes me want to sing His praises.” Understanding the truths of Scripture becomes a wellspring of peace (Col. 2:1-4). I’m now rid of some baggage that had been too heavy to bear. As Jesus said, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32 NKJV). The truth has set me free-free from the need to defend myself, free from struggling to prove myself, free from shame and self-contempt, and free from the fear of failure. Well, not absolutely free, but free enough. This freedom would never have come without seeing the depths of my unworthiness. Had I not come to this crushing point, I would never have discovered true grace, and without receiving this incredible grace, I never would have found the confidence to lay aside all the inner struggles and finally to accept the fact that I’m an utter sinner saved by grace. Not everyone’s experience is as intense as mine was, but we all have a conscience that tells us things we don’t want to hear, and we all have attempted to beat it down one way or another (Rom. 1:18-21). We all yearn to prove ourselves and, to accomplish this, we resort to self-deception. This isn’t merely a biblical point of view; this is the prevailing view of psychology. Shelley Taylor writes, “As we have seen, people are positively biased in their assessments of themselves and of their ability to control what goes on around them, as well as in their views of the future. The widespread existence of these biases and the ease with which they can be documented suggests that they are normal.”¹ While for the successful and admired, these biases are easy to maintain, for the depressed, they require more effort than can be sustained. Ironically, the more successful we are at maintaining our comforting self-delusions, the more we sacrifice mental flexibility, freedom, and joy. As paradoxical as it might seem, the road to freedom compels us on a humbling journey through the “valley of the shadow of death” (Ps. 23:4 NKJV), where our old armor and defenses are stripped away so that we can be reclothed in splendor. No wonder Jesus tells us, “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:14 NKJV).

Blessed Assurance. How then do we come to this place of assurance of God’s grace in the face of our spiritual brokenness? It’s not possible on our own. Jesus had taught emphatically against the idea of self-salvation (Matt. 19:26; John 3:3; 6:44). He made it equally clear, however, that spiritual growth is also impossible without His involvement (John 15:4-5). Knowing this, we have to trust Him to perform for us the humanly impossible and to cry out for His intervention. Spiritual desperation is a lens that brings grace into focus. It’s this mourning that sharpens our eyes to the reality of grace (Matt. 5:3-4; Ps. 25:8-9; 14-15). But what if we don’t see our neediness? We have to embrace the prayer of David: “Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” (Ps. 139:23-24 NIV). Trust Him in this. He has promised to reveal to us our spiritual deficiencies as He also did for the churches of the book of Revelation (chaps. 2-3). As Paul proclaimed: “I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained” (Phil. 3:14-16 NIV). The more we grow into the assurance of the gift of His acceptance, the more we will grow into self-acceptance. With self-acceptance, we can begin to be transparent about our failures and inadequacies and even to laugh at ourselves. I used to think that in order to show Christ off to the world, I had to exhibit Christ-like perfection. Well, I’ve learned instead that I’m far from perfect, but I have a Savior who is perfect. I’m inadequate, but He is fully adequate. This has given me not only a freedom to be me, but also a lowliness and a confidence to draw other broken people to the One who can make all the difference. -Daniel Mann

Daniel Mann has taught at the New York School of Bible since 1992. He is the author of Embracing the Darkness: How a Jewish, Sixties, Berkeley Radical Learned to Live with Depression, God’s Way. He blogs at: www.MannsWord.blogspot. com.

NOTES

1 Shelley E. Taylor, Positive Illusions (New York: Basic Books, 1989), 46.

When I graduated from college in 1989, it looked like socialism was dead. The Soviet Union—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—was in its death throes. In comparison, the American economy was booming, and countries around the world were beginning to liberalize their markets. After a sophomoric flirtation with socialism, I had concluded that capitalism was probably the most workable economic model. I had not resolved my lingering suspicions, however, that capitalism was immoral and that socialism was still the Christian ideal.

Part of that impression came from biblical passages that seem to suggest as much: “Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.…There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need” (Acts 4:32–35 ESV).

Many who have read this passage have wondered if the early church was communist and the Christian ideal is communism. After all, this was the first church in Jerusalem. They were “filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly” (Acts 4:31 NIV). If they didn’t get it right, who did?

On the surface, this looks like communism, but that’s a misreading. The details and context here are everything.

First of all, modern communism is based on Marx’s theory of class warfare, in which the workers revolt against the capitalists—the owners of the means of production—and forcibly take control of private property. After a while, Marx predicted, the socialist state would wither away and you’d get a communist utopia in which everyone lived in peace, harmony, and preternatural freedom. There’s none of this class warfare stuff in the early church in Jerusalem, nor is private property treated as immoral. These Christians are selling their possessions and sharing freely and spontaneously.

Second, the state is nowhere in sight. No Roman centurions are showing up with soldiers. No government is confiscating property and collectivizing industry. No one is being coerced. The church in Jerusalem was just that—the church, not the state. The church doesn’t act like the modern communist state. As Ron Sider notes, “Sharing was voluntary, not compulsory.”¹ In fact, sharing by definition is voluntary.

It’s easy to lose sight of this later in the text, though, when Peter condemns Ananias and Sapphira for keeping back some of the money they got from selling their land. If you don’t read it carefully, you might get the impression that he condemns them for failing to give everything to the collective:  “Ananias.…why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the lands? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to men but to God!” (Acts 5:3–4 ESV). But look closely at the text; Peter condemns them not for keeping part of the proceeds of the sale, but for lying about it. In fact, he takes for granted that the property was rightfully theirs, even after it was sold. So Peter isn’t condemning private property.

Third, the communal life of the early church in Jerusalem is never made the norm for all Christians everywhere. In fact, it’s not even described as the norm for the Jerusalem church. What Acts is describing is an unusual moment in the life of the early church, when the church was still very small. Remember, this is the beginning of the church in Jerusalem. Thousands of new Christians probably had come from a long distance to worship in Jerusalem at Pentecost. They would have had to return home soon after their conversion if not for the extreme measures taken by the newborn church to allow these Christians to stay and be properly discipled. Given the alternatives, a mutual sharing of possessions seemed to be the best course of action.

Compared to modern nation states, the Jerusalem church was a small community banding together against an otherwise hostile culture. The circumstances were peculiar. For all we know, this communal stage lasted six months before the church got too large. It’s unlikely that all these new Christians, many denizens of the far-flung Jewish Diaspora, stayed in Jerusalem for the rest of their lives. Many probably returned home at some point, and brought their new faith with them.

We know from the New Testament that other churches in other cities had quite different arrangements. For instance, Paul sternly warned the Thessalonian Christians, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat” and told them to “earn the bread they eat” (2 Thess. 3: 10, 12 NIV). Apparently some new Christians had begun to take advantage of the generosity of their new brothers in the faith. That’s not an especially surprising scenario, given the effects of the Fall. So it’s no surprise that the early communal life in Jerusalem was never held up as a model for how the entire church should order its life, let alone used to justify the state confiscating private property.

Communal living does have its place. Nuclear families live more or less communally. In functional families, however, someone is in charge, namely, the parents. So it’s not really a commune.

Many monasteries and religious orders are more or less communal to this day. These are highly disciplined, voluntary communities that are self-consciously separate from the ordinary life of family and commerce. Many of them survive for centuries—and in fact, the productivity of some early monasteries helped give rise to capitalism in medieval Europe.²

There have been other voluntary, nonmonastic groups that have tried to live communally. The American Amish and the Jesus People USA live in communal or semi-communal groups today. And there were lots of examples of Christian communes in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The ones that survived very long were small, voluntary, and intensely disciplined.³

The Pilgrims and Communism. In fact, even most private, voluntary communal experiments fail. American children hear the story of William Bradford at Thanksgiving. Bradford was the architect of the Mayflower Compact and the leader of a small band of separatists who founded the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts in 1620. Most young students learn that the colony lost half its population during its first, harsh winter, but few know about the colony’s brief and tragic experiment with collective ownership. Because of an ill-conceived deal made with the investors who funded the expedition, the Pilgrims held their farmland communally rather than as private plots. They divided their food, work, and provisions evenly. This may sound nice, and the Pilgrims may have thought they were replicating the model of the early church in Jerusalem; but before long, conflicts arose among the colonists. Bradford reports in his journal what economists and common sense predict. In large groups, such an arrangement leads to perverse incentives, in which the lazier members “free ride,” taking advantage of the harder working. The other members grow more and more frustrated, and less and less productive. That’s just what happened in the early years of Plymouth Bay Colony.

To solve the problem, Bradford soon decided to divide the plots up to the individual families. Suddenly people had strong incentives to produce, and they did. Over the years, more and more of the land was privatized, and the colony eventually became a prosperous part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.⁴ If Bradford had not had the guts to divide the commune into private lots, our school children would not be making little cutouts of turkeys and Mayflowers every November, since there probably would have been few if any survivors.

The Early Christians Weren’t Communists—and We Shouldn’t Be, Either. The take-home lesson should be clear: neither the book of Acts nor historical experience commends communism. In fact, full-bodied communism is alien to the Christian worldview and had little to do with the arrangement of early Christians in Jerusalem. While there have been and still are small, atypical groups that manage to pull off some form of communal living, at least for a while, there’s no reason to think that communal living—let alone communism—ever has been the Christian ideal. —Jay W. Richards

 Jay W. Richards is the author of Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem (Harper-One, 2009).

 NOTES

1. Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 1997), 78.
2. See Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (New York: Random House, 2005).
3. For a detailed history of communism/socialism, see Joshua Muravchik, Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003).
4. Tom Bethell, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999), 37–45.

Richard Dawkins has redefined himself again. Earlier, Dawkins transitioned from academic works of theoretical biology to his popular atheistic manifesto, The God Delusion. Now, Dawkins has moved on to the scientific education of youth. Combining lavish color illustrations by David McKean with his own supple and enthusiastic prose, Dawkins aims to inspire a new generation with the belief that naturalistic science is the only source both of knowledge and of true “magic”-the poetic wonder of discovery. The book would not be much of a problem if it stuck to data and theories. But throughout the text, Dawkins inserts fatherly asides to caution the reader against supernatural, superstitious nonsense-the enemy of true science. The procedure is to offer sober science and an atheistic worldview as a package deal. C. S. Lewis discerned a similar danger in the “Green Book,” ostensibly a work of English grammar, whose actual effect was to inculcate moral relativism: “The very power of [the book] depends on the fact that they are dealing with a boy…who thinks he is ‘doing’ his ‘English prep’ and has no notion that ethics, theology and politics are all at stake. It is not a theory which they put into his head, but an assumption, which ten years hence…will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all.”¹ Dawkins’s approach is to mold impressionable minds with the presumption that all that really exists is a closed physical universe of pitiless indifference (p. 235). Pursuing the logic of natural selection, he concludes that a living creature is simply “a survival machine for genes. Next time you look in the mirror, just think: that is what you are too” (74-75). This means that the “poetic wonder” of scientific discovery has no ultimate significance. There are no valuable truths to discover, nor valuable people to discover them: we are lumbering robots in a meaningless world. Like the Green Book criticized by Lewis, Dawkins’s book will likely produce more people “without a chest,” closed to the transcendent realms of God’s moral law and saving work.

Propaganda. Throughout Dawkins’s entertaining text, which explores biology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, natural disasters, and alleged miracles, Dawkins seeks to discredit biblical revelation by citing its stories as myths alongside pagan myths and modern “urban legends.” Thus Genesis is presented with Norse mythology (34-35) and Dawkins repeats the old chestnut that since there are elements in common between the flood account in The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Genesis flood, the latter is cultural borrowing (140-43). Although there are some similarities, many of these would be expected in any flood account, and there are also marked differences. Most importantly, Dawkins does not seriously consider the possibility that both accounts arise from an actual historical event. Worse, when archaeologists do find evidence of the historicity of a biblical event, Dawkins attributes it all to purely natural causes anyway (208-9). And he relies heavily on David Hume’s famous critique of miracles (254-65), with no reference to John Earman’s devastating critique, Hume’s Abject Failure (Oxford, 2000).

Invincible Ignorance. Evidently, Dawkins has adopted a position that makes it impossible for him to contact transcendent realities. Dawkins tells us he would never accept a supernatural explanation regardless of the evidence, “Because anything ‘super natural’ must by definition be beyond the reach of a natural explanation” (23). But refusing to allow supernatural explanations does not show they are false. And Dawkins continues to complain that “none of the myths gives any explanation for how the creator of the universe himself…came into existence” (163), refusing to allow the idea of a necessary being that has no origin. Interestingly, Dawkins never considers the possibility that theism might give a better explanation than materialism for the success of the science he prizes. Why does the world conform to orderly laws? Why should we expect our minds to be capable of discovering them? If he faced these questions without prejudice, Dawkins might begin to see that there is a deeper magic still.

-Angus Menuge

Angus Menuge, Ph.D., is professor of philosophy at Concordia University, Wisconsin.

NOTES

1 C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 16-17.

For future issues of the Christian Research Journal subscribe or renew your subscription or give a gift subscription.

This article first appeared in Christian Research Journal, volume35, number01 (2012). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

Christianity Today recently had a cover story reporting on Christians who claim that human beings could not all have descended from a single human couple. That story was a symptom of a current trend: more and more Christians, even self-identified evangelicals, claim that Christians must make their peace with evolutionary theory. In recent years, scientists such as Francis Collins, Karl Giberson, Ken Miller, Darrell Falk, and others have written books defending theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism. The historical reality of Adam and Eve is obviously central to historic Christianity; but it is just one of many issues that, as Christians, we must consider when exploring the broader debate over God and evolution. Unfortunately, the debate is often marred by confusion and ambiguity. Though we can’t discuss every related issue here, let’s see what we can do to think more clearly about the subject.

CAN WE GET A DEFINITION?

I am often asked questions such as, “Can you believe in God and evolution?” and “Isn’t evolution just God’s way of creating?” I always respond: “That depends. What do you mean by ‘God’ and what do you mean by ‘evolution’?” That might seem like a dodge, but everything hinges on the definitions. Presumably, a theistic evolutionist claims that both theism in some sense and evolution in some sense are true, that both God and evolution somehow work together in explaining the world. But of course, all the real interest is hidden behind the phrase “in some sense.” So we have to get more specific.

“THEISM”

A theist believes that a transcendent God created the world and continues to conserve and interact in and with it. God can act directly in nature or indirectly through so-called secondary causes, such as physical laws or the actions of human beings. At all times, however, God oversees and providentially superintends His entire creation, even as He allows His creatures the freedom appropriate to their station. Nothing happens as the result of a purposeless process. This is a minimal definition of theism. If someone believes a transcendent God created the world but denies that God can and does act within nature, then at best, he’s a deist.

“EVOLUTION”

It’s a lot easier to define theism than to define evolution. It’s been called the ultimate weasel word. In an illuminating article called “The Meanings of Evolution,” Stephen Meyer and Michael Keas attempt to catch the weasel by distinguishing six different ways in which “evolution” is commonly used:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature. 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population. 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.¹

The first meaning is uncontroversial-even trivial. The most convinced young earth creationist agrees that things change over time-that the universe has a history.² Populations of animals wax and wane depending on changes in climate and the environment. At one time, certain flora and fauna prospered on the earth, but they later disappeared, leaving mere impressions in the rocks to mark their existence for future generations. There’s also cosmic “evolution,” the idea that the early universe started in a hot, dense state, and over billions of years, cooled off and spread out, formed stars, galaxies, planets, and so forth. This includes the idea of cosmic nucleosynthesis, which describes the production of heavy elements (everything heavier than helium) in the universe through a process of star birth, growth, and death. These events involve change over time, but they refer to the history of the inanimate physical universe rather than the history of life. Parts of this picture of cosmic evolution contradict young earth creationism, but the generic idea that one form of matter gives rise, under the influence of various natural laws and processes, to other forms of matter, does not contradict theism. Surely God could directly guide such a process in innumerable ways, could set up a series of secondary natural processes that could do the job, or could do some combination of both. In fact, to make a long story short, virtually no one denies the truth of “evolution” in senses 1, 2, or 3. And, pretty much everyone agrees that natural selection and mutations explain some things in biology (number 4). What about the fifth sense of evolution, universal common ancestry? This is the claim that all organisms on earth are descended from a single common ancestor that lived sometime in the distant past. Note that this is not the same as the mechanism of change. Universal common ancestry is compatible with all sorts of different mechanisms or sources for change, though the most popular mechanism is the broadly Darwinian one. It’s hard to square universal common descent with the biblical texts; nevertheless, it is logically compatible with theism. If God could turn dirt into a man, or a man’s rib into a woman, then presumably He could, if He so chose, turn a bacterium into a bonobo or a dinosaur into a deer. An unbroken evolutionary tree of life guided and intended by God, in which every organism descends from some original organism, sounds like a logical possibility.³ Besides the six senses mentioned by Meyer and Keas, there is also the metaphorical sense of evolution, in which Darwinian theory is used as a template to explain things other than nature, like the rise and fall of civilizations or sports careers. Finally, there’s evolution in the sense of progress or growth. Natural evolution has often been understood in this way, so that cosmic history is interpreted as a purposeful movement toward greater perfection, complexity, mind, or spirit. A pre-Darwinian understanding of evolution was the idea of a slow unfolding of something that existed in nascent form from the beginning, like an acorn slowly becoming a great oak tree. If anything, this sense of evolution tends toward theism rather than away from it, since it suggests a purposive plan. That’s why Darwin didn’t even use the word in early editions of his Origin of Species. It’s also why many contemporary evolutionists (such as the late Stephen Jay Gould) go out of their way to deny that evolution is progressive, and argue instead that cosmic history is not going anywhere in particular. It should now be clear that theism is compatible with many senses of evolution. In fact, for most of the senses of evolution we’ve considered, there’s little hint of contradiction. Of course, this is a logical point. It doesn’t tell us what is true-only what could be true.

SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE

But there’s one clear exception-the blind watchmaker thesis. Of all the senses of evolution, this one seems to fit with theism like oil with water. According to the blind watchmaker thesis, all the apparent design in life is just that-apparent. It’s really the result of natural selection working on random genetic mutations. (Darwin proposed “variation.” Neo-Darwinism attributes new variations to genetic mutations.) The word “random” in the blind watchmaker thesis carries a lot of metaphysical baggage. In Neo-Darwinian theory, random doesn’t mean uncaused; it means that the changes aren’t directed-they don’t happen for any purpose. Moreover, they aren’t predictable, like gravity, and don’t occur for the benefit of individual organisms, species, or eco-systems, even if, under the guidance of natural selection, an occasional mutation might enhance a species’ odds of survival. The blind watchmaker thesis is more or less the same as Neo-Darwinism as its leading advocates understand it. It is usually wedded to some materialistic origin of life scenario, which isn’t about biological evolution per se. This so-called chemical evolution is often combined with biological evolution as two parts of a single narrative. Unfortunately, the blind watchmaker thesis isn’t an eccentric definition of the word evolution. It’s textbook orthodoxy.⁴ For instance, Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson explained evolution by saying, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”⁵ Darwin himself understood his theory this way: “There seems to be no more design,” he wrote, “in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the winds blow.”⁶ And here’s how the late Darwinist Ernst Mayr put it: “The real core of Darwinism, however, is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for the Darwinian because it permits the explanation of adaptation, the ‘design’ of the natural theologian, by natural means, instead of by divine intervention.”⁷ Notice that Mayr says, “instead of.” These are representative quotes from the literature. From the time of Darwin to the present, Darwinists have always contrasted their idea with the claim that biological forms are designed or created. That’s the whole point of the theory. Theists claim that the world, including the biological world, exists for a purpose; that it is, in some sense, designed. The blind watchmaker thesis denies this. So anyone wanting to reconcile strict Darwinian evolution with theism has a Grade A dilemma on his hands.

RESOLVING THE DILEMMA, SORT OF

One way out is to redefine the theistic part. For instance, one could defend deism, with God getting things started at the beginning but not knowing or superintending nature after that. Dissolving a dilemma, however, is not the same as resolving it. If the adjective theistic in theistic evolution is not to be a misnomer, it should include a theistic view of God. What about redefining it in the other direction? A theistic evolutionist could maintain that God sets up and guides nature so that it gives rise to everything from stars to starfish through a slowly developing process. Organisms perhaps share a common ancestor but reach their goal as intended by God. God works in nature, perhaps through cosmic initial conditions, physical laws, secondary processes, discrete acts, or some combination, to bring about His intended results, rather than creating everything from scratch. Whatever the details, on this view, the process of change and adaptation wouldn’t be random or purposeless. It would implement a plan, and would reflect God’s purposes. This would be a teleological version of evolution, and so would flatly reject the Darwinian blind watchmaker thesis. This was the view of some early theistic evolutionists such as Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of the concept of natural selection. Here the word evolution is being used in the pre-Darwinian, even anti-Darwinian sense. History is the unfolding of a purposeful plan. This is a logically possible view; it is not, however, the view of many of today’s theistic evolutionists, such as Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller. They seek to reconcile Christian theism with Darwinian evolution. They may affirm design in some broad sense at the cosmic level, but not in biology. How should we respond? There’s not much use in looking for evidence for this brand of theistic evolution, for the simple reason that it can’t be true. It’s not logically possible. It makes no sense to talk about a purposeful process that is nevertheless purposeless, or to talk about God directing an undirected process. To the degree that a view is Darwinian (as Darwinists understand it), it will not be theistic. And to the degree that it is theistic, it will not be Darwinian. If you understand that basic point, you’ll be much better equipped to navigate the current debate over theistic evolution.

Jay W. Richards, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute, editor of God and Evolution (Discovery Institute Press, 2010), and the author of Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem (Harper One, 2009).

NOTES

1 In Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, ed. John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2004).

2 See the explanation for the meaning of “evolution” from the BioLogos Foundation, which seeks to give a Christian defense of evolution. The explanation begins with “change over time,” then goes on to fill out the definition with common descent and the Darwinian mechanism. But it quickly slips from defining the term to presenting the details as if they were uncontested facts. At: http://biologos.org/questions/what-is-evolution/.

3 I’m not saying this is true. I’m merely dealing with the logic of the ideas here. Since design is logically compatible with universal common descent, one could, strictly speaking, endorse both intelligent design and theistic evolution. Nevertheless, these days, ID and theistic evolution often describe people with different positions. See discussion of this point in the comments of Thomas Cudworth, “Olive Branch from Karl Giberson,” Uncommon Descent (April 15, 2010), at: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/olive-branch-from-karl-giberson/#more-13010.

4 For discussion, see Casey Luskin, “Smelling Blood in the Water: Why Theistic Evolution Won’t Appease the Atheists,” in God and Evolution, ed. Jay W. Richards (Seattle: Discovery Institute, 2010).

5 G. G. Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its Significance for Man, rev. ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967), 345.

6 Francis Darwin, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 1 (New York: Appleton, 1887), 280, 283-84, 278-79.

7 Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversy, with a foreword by Ernst Mayr (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982), xi-xii. Quoted in ibid.

Apologetics is biblical. That’s why it should play a foundational role in the ministry of the local church. However, here are five additional reasons apologetics should be a staple in the life of the church.

First, it helps believers master the fundamentals of Christian doctrine so that they can effectively evangelize the lost (Titus 2:7-8). Second, it provides answers to objections leveled against truth (1 Pet. 3:15). Third, it inspires believers as well as nonbelievers to inquire more about the Christian faith (Acts 17:32-34; 26:28). Fourth, it teaches Christians to think critically through the philosophies of opposing worldviews (1 Tim. 1:3, 6-7). Finally, it can help the Christian who is experiencing a crisis of faith.¹

In short, apologetics is an essential component to help us grow in our faith and is therefore vital to the church in the twenty-first century. It is not vital to the church’s existence per se, but rather her quality of existence, that is, her effectiveness in engaging the culture for Christ (Matt. 5:13). Consider the words of Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton as they describe the infiltration of the church into the world: “We learn that until comparatively recent times, Christians have actively worked out the implications of their faith in all areas of life and scholarship-from philosophy to mathematics to physics to biology. Christian faith has not been a purely private matter. Nor has it been shut off in a separate part of life, as though it were relevant to worship but not to work.”² It is time we take our rightful stand in the world. The local church has been given an identity. She is the Lord’s mouthpiece and the world’s conscience. She is salt and God can use apologetics to shake her and the world up. Every church dedicated to the Lord’s mandate (Matt. 28:19-20) should be interested in evangelism. If evangelism deals with the spreading of the good news, then those who share it must be ready to articulate and defend the faith (1 Pet. 3:15).

Birth of an Apologetics Ministry. The ability to give a defense for the apostolic doctrine is at the core of the Christian faith (Acts 2:42). Any believer who constantly shares the good news will eventually meet someone who has a question about the Christian faith. This was my (Perseus’s) plight when we began witnessing in 1991. I just accepted Christ a year before and I had a zeal for witnessing. This burning desire to share Christ was also fueled by my close friends. They also loved the Lord and were willing to spread the gospel each Saturday. We met at the church at 11:00 a.m. for prayer and consecration. We would then walk the streets around the church sharing the gospel door to door. It was through this method of evangelism that our apologetics ministry was born. During one of our street witnessing ventures, we encountered two gentlemen. They were dressed in white shirts, black ties, and dark pants. They were very friendly and well informed. These two men professed to be believers in Jesus, the Bible, and the church. As our discussion progressed, however, we soon discovered their doctrinal belief was inconsistent with our biblical worldview. As a result, all the members of our witnessing group agreed to begin studying more about other faiths. We wanted to be able to articulate the Christian faith while effectively being able to give a defense for God’s word. This encounter compelled us to do more studying on the cults. In order to better understand the doctrines of the major cults, we made appointments to visit them. We were able to visit the Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Nation of Islam mosque, and an orthodox Islam mosque. These experiences further buttressed the need for Christian apologetics. Our hearts were saddened from the experiences with the cults. We soon realized that if we were going to make an impact in our community, it would have to start with the church. As a result, we decided to approach our pastor about starting an apologetics ministry. Fortunately, we have a pastor who understands the word of God and he gave us permission to start the ministry. The St. Paul apologetics ministry started in 1992 at St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church, located in the Oak Park neighborhood of Sacramento, California. Under the leadership of Pastor Ephraim Williams, the church blossomed to a membership of about five thousand. According to a local survey, Oak Park had within its limits approximately one hundred churches. We were not aware that any of these churches had an apologetics ministry and so there were no models for us to follow, but Pastor Williams publicly gave us his vote of confidence from the pulpit and informed the congregation about the new apologetics ministry and its function. We met as a group once a month and engaged in systematic theology. Initially we averaged approximately eight people per meeting. We now have more than seventy members in this ministry. The early years were extremely difficult. Some church members did not understand the need for an apologetics ministry while other members strongly supported us. We pressed on, and eventually we became known as the ministry that answered biblical questions. We made it easily available for the congregation to obtain answers regarding their Christianity. We created a resource cabinet in the administrative wing of the church. The cabinet contained Christian Research Institute (CRI) perspectives, which are one-page statements on various issues. We were able to provide answers immediately to many questions through the aid of the CRI perspectives. In addition, we created an information box. The box was intended for church members to drop in their questions. Someone from our ministry contacted the church members to provide answers within two to three days of receiving a question in the box. We even received questions from various Sunday school teachers. Eventually the church started to understand the role of the apologetics ministry. Furthermore, the influence of this ministry has expanded outside the church walls. Since the inception of our apologetics forums in 1998, many other churches have expressed interest in apologetics training. We have been blessed to have individuals such as Phillip Johnson, Norman Geisler, J. P. Moreland, and Hank Hanegraaff speak at our forums. We also developed series on “Loving God with All of Your Mind,” “Let the Truth Be Told,” and “The Essentials of the Christian Faith.” The forums are intended to expose Christians to apologetics. In addition, our hope is for attendees to take the information back to their own churches. It is always a blessing to see different people from various nationalities and denominations talking about sound doctrine. My favorite part about the forum series is the question-and-answer period, where participants are welcome to question our speakers.

The Value of Apologetics in the Local Church. As a ministry, we find it helpful to have a church that believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. As a result, the ministry has become a vital component of the church. In an attempt to promote hermeneutics, we approached our new membership department. With the approval of our pastor, we created an apologetics class for all new members. It is essential that we give our new converts the purity of the major doctrines without contamination (1 Pet. 2:2). This was the purpose for incorporating an apologetics class into the new membership curriculum. By attending the apologetics class, many new members have been able to gain confidence in their knowledge and understanding of the Christian faith. The church has additionally utilized the apologetics ministry in terms of research. When St. Paul was working on opening a bookstore, church staff asked us to identify sound and heretical authors. The ministry accepted this awesome task and was able to recommend authors that adhered to sound doctrines. Our ministry is currently working on a youth apologetics class. According to David Wheaton, approximately fifty-one percent of Christian college enrollees deny their faith upon graduating.³ It is in light of these alarming statistics that we decided to develop apologetics training sessions for our youth. Since they share classrooms with atheists, naturalists, skeptics, and students with many other worldviews, it is important that they receive training in sharing and defending their faith. In order to train them, we conducted a workshop entitled, “Let the Truth Be Told.” It is also our hope that our youth will develop Christian clubs at their various schools. Ultimately, we hope to develop trained ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20). I understand that each church is different. I am also cognizant that resources vary from church to church. Despite obvious challenges, it is very important for every Bible-teaching church to have an apologetics ministry or curriculum woven into its programs. Failure to do so will ultimately create an atmosphere for erroneous doctrine. Developing a culture for apologetics will help churches root out unbiblical statements, lyrics, teachings, and traditions. Having an apologetics ministry has helped our church tremendously. Many of our members are now doctrinally sensitive. They search the scriptures for edification (Acts 17:11) and are willing to confront any aberrant views. The heartbeat of every church should be to develop an apologetics ministry dedicated to maintaining the integrity of sound doctrine. -Perseus Poku and Rodney Scott

Perseus Poku holds an A.A. in Education and a B.A. in History from California State University, Sacramento. Mr. Poku is currently working on his Masters in Christian Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and serves as the full-time Staff Minister at St. Paul Baptist Church in Sacramento, California.

Rodney Scott holds a B.A. in Biblical Studies from Biola University and an M.A. in Philosophy from Talbot University. He serves as Director of Evangelism and Discipleship at Progressive Community Church in Stockton, California.

NOTES

1 When my Aunt Bennie died, my years of study on the evidence of the bodily resurrection of Jesus gave me assurance that she not only survived the death of her body, but that she would soon receive a new body at the resurrection.

2 Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), xiii.

3 David Wheaton, University of Destruction (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2005), 170.

Last month the U.S. observed the national holiday commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, and now Black History Month is upon us. What better time for Christians to contemplate King’s legacy and message, as well as the plight of the black person in this country? We therefore are pleased to feature La Shawn Barber’s informative and balanced cover article on King, his work, and his philosophy. Those of us who lived through the turbulent 1960s can recall that King was not always someone for whom white people would have expected to have a national holiday declared in his honor. Some suspected him of being a communist and even more viewed him as a lawbreaking troublemaker. In the South, even some of those who did not dislike him on racial grounds resented him for upsetting the status quo. One hundred years earlier, white Christians in the North had been at the forefront of the abolitionist movement that ended slavery, but in the 1950s and ’60s white Christians in the South often resisted desegregation and it was more often white secularists from the North, rather than white Christians, who marched with the blacks in their struggle to realize their civil rights. Though there were notable exceptions, on the whole it was not the church’s finest hour. The civil rights movement was identified at the time with the political Left. It was largely Democrats who participated, not Republicans. In today’s terms, it would be considered “politically correct.” Without the benefit of hindsight that we now have, it was easy for Christians to be suspicious of, and to stand aloof from, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights movement, and the clear majority did. Yet, despite the faults one might find with King’s theology, his personal life, and even his political philosophy, the cause that he was fighting for was manifestly just and the repressive sociopolitical forces he was fighting against were manifestly evil. What he and his movement accomplished greatly benefitted not only American blacks, but other racial minorities, and it helped heal a moral cancer in the country’s soul. By not taking a clear stand on this issue, the white church ceded the moral high ground to the secular Left, and it left a smirch on evangelical Christianity. Despite their taking principled and even courageous stands on many issues before and after the civil rights movement (e.g., abortion), evangelicals’ past failure to offer a prophetic voice against civil rights abuses has continued to be a stumbling block in the way of many people considering the claims of Christ. I know this firsthand because I have tried to share Christ with many such people, and it was an obstacle that I myself had to overcome in order to accept Christ. What lessons can we draw today from this piece of not-too-distant history? One obvious lesson would be: just because the political Right is championing an issue doesn’t guarantee that it is morally right, and just because the political Left is championing an issue doesn’t ensure that it is morally wrong. Our God is transcendent, and it only makes sense that truth is transcendent and cannot be perfectly captured or embodied by any one political party or movement. Although the political Right is more closely associated with traditional values and therefore biblical influences on such issues as sexual morality, the sanctity of life, and the family, the political Left also exhibits direct or indirect biblical influences in its emphasis on social justice issues. Clearly, it seems, a majority of evangelicals identify themselves as Republicans, but there are also many evangelicals who are registered Democrats or Independents. Conversely, while secular humanists seem to have a clear preference for the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the political Right in general have their own share of irreligious people, not to mention hypocritical professors of religion. In the name of increasing political clout, moral and immoral people on both the Right and the Left have often formed unholy alliances, and righteous causes have been compromised as a result. Conscientious Christians should therefore not enter the ballot box and mindlessly put a check next to every candidate and ballot issue they’ve heard advocated on Fox News, or even those tacitly endorsed in a handout received at church the previous Sunday. We should ask ourselves: are there any issues facing Christians today that future generations might look back on as we now look back at the civil rights issues of the 1950s and ’60s? Are we ceding any moral high ground to the secular Left? How should Christians view torture as an interrogation technique? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Wars of choice? It is not my purpose here to advocate for one side of these or other debates, but rather for critical thinking and deep biblical reflection. One of the purposes of the JOURNAL is to promote such critical thinking, and so we have published, and will publish again, debates, Viewpoint opinion pieces, and probing feature articles that will assist you in thinking through contemporary issues. As we consider the lessons evangelicals can learn from the civil rights movement, the need to think critically and biblically and not merely follow the right-leaning pack is surely one of them.

—Elliot Miller

Continuing my examination of Bart Ehrman’s “problems with the Bible,”¹ he is perplexed about the number of animals Noah took with him on the ark. As such, he poses the following question: “Does [Noah] take seven pairs of all the ‘clean’ animals, as Genesis 7:2 states, or just two pairs, as Genesis 7:9-10 indicates?”² First, I would like to pose a different question. Does it seem reasonable to suppose that an author capable of writing a masterpiece such as the Book of Genesis would get confused within the span of several sentences, or is it more likely that Ehrman is straining at gnats and swallowing a camel? Furthermore, is Ehrman’s question legitimate, or has he created a problem out of whole cloth? The answer to this latter question is that Ehrman has created a fictional problem. Genesis 7:9-10 does not say that Noah is to take “just two pairs.” Finally, if Ehrman really wants his question answered, all he need do is ask one of his “conservative” students-or simply read the context. Several verses back, God says to Noah, “You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female” (6:19). And in Genesis 7:2-3 God adds the following instruction: “Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.” Together these verses provide a sufficient answer.

What to Make of Ehrman’s All-Too-Convenient Cock-Crowing Conundrum? Another astonishingly easy-to-resolve “problem with the Bible” that perplexes Ehrman is the following: “In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus tells Peter that he will deny him three times ‘before the cock crows twice.’ In Matthew’s Gospel he tells him that it will be ‘before the cock crows.’ Well, which is it-before the cock crows once or twice?”³ First, as his more attentive students have likely discovered, Professor Ehrman is engaged in a cocky game of slight of mind. Truth is that Matthew does not tell us how many times the rooster crowed-he simply tells us that the rooster crowed.⁴ As such, Ehrman is knocking down a straw man. Furthermore, only an extreme literalist bent on undermining Scripture would attempt to make the passage in question walk on all fours. In recounting past events or telling stories we obviously don’t all highlight the same details. In the case at hand, Mark simply provides a bit more detail than does Matthew.⁵ Finally, Ehrman has set up a rigged game in which it is impossible for him to lose. Since Matthew and Mark do not provide identical testimonies, he cries “contradiction!” Conversely, if they had, he could conveniently charge them with collusion. In sharp contrast to Ehrman’s methodology, credible scholarship looks for a reliable core set of facts in order to validate a historical account. In this case, Matthew and Mark merely provide complementary perspectives.

-Hank Hanegraaff

Hank Hanegraaff is president of the Christian Research Institute and host of the Bible Answer Man broadcast heard daily throughout the United States and Canada. For a list of stations airing the Bible Answer Man, or to listen online, log on to Equip.org.

NOTES

1 Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know about Them) (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 6. I’ve addressed Ehrman’s criticisms of the Bible in recent installments of this column (see Christian Research Journal 32, 3; 32, 4; 32, 5; 33, 1; and 33, 2).

2 Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, 10.

3 Ibid., 7.

4 See Matt. 26:74.

5 See Mark 14:30, 72.

If you pay attention to the news at all, you are probably convinced that stem cell research will eventually solve every medical challenge our society faces. The blind will see. The paralyzed will walk. Cancer will be cured. All this will be possible if the anti-science zealots in the pro-life wing of conservative politics would just get out of the way. And so, on March 9, 2009, our long walk in the scientific wilderness ostensibly came to an end when President Obama issued his Executive Order (EO) removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells. The president’s announcement on lifting the ban said, in part:

With the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research…in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values…Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view. But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans-from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs-have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

No more false choices. No more political interference in our scientific research. The ban is lifted. Change has come! It should be noted that the ethical concerns some claimed to have had about the issue were assuaged by an appeal to the consensus of the majority of unidentified Americans from across the political spectrum. While it may or may not be true that a majority of Americans believe this research should be pursued, it is unclear when it was determined that ethical considerations should be affirmed by a show of hands. In any case, the president clearly implied that it was George W. Bush in particular who thwarted all advancement in scientific research because he placed his anti-scientific, Neanderthal faith ahead of the more reasonable desires of those who wanted to find cures. The new administration ended that long national nightmare with a wistful gaze at a teleprompter and the swipe of a pen. There is just one minor problem with this narrative. It is complete nonsense. The legal and political meanderings surrounding this issue have become so muddled it is instructive to distill them into recognizable form. Though most of us would be vaguely aware of at least some of these events, seeing how the stem cell issue has actually played out is stunning to behold. Consider the following timeline:

1978: In the wake of the controversial July 25th birth of the first “test tube baby,” Louise Brown, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano appoints an Ethics Advisory Board (EAB), which concludes that “research on very early embryos within the first 15 days of development [is] acceptable to develop techniques for in vitro fertilization (IVF).”¹

• This EAB was appointed because of an earlier decision by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects to prohibit experimentation on IVF embryos unless approved by an EAB.
• The controversy surrounding this policy led President Carter to allow the EAB’s tenure to expire. Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush chose not to reestablish it-effectively blocking embryo research.

1994: The Human Embryo Research Panel appointed by the head of the National Institute of Health’s Harold Varmus, recommends allowing the development of IVF techniques and the study of embryonic stem cells.²

• Such research would only be allowed with “spare” IVF embryos obtained through informed parental consent.
• The panel recommended further consideration of the creation of embryos for research purposes and argued for federal funding of the same. The contentious nature of that stance led to further political maneuvers during the Clinton administration.

1996: Congress passes, and President Clinton signs, a rider to an appropriations bill, titled the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which makes it illegal for the federal government to fund research that destroys human embryos. This rider has been reapproved by Congress and signed by the president in office every year since then.

1998: President Clinton signs an Executive Order enforcing the ban on federal funding for ESCR that destroys human embryos. He bases his decision to do so on the restrictions created by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

2000: After six years of taking a position against taxpayer funding of the destructive research, and on his way out of office, President Clinton flip-flops and announces his support for new federal guidelines that would allow taxpayer funding of embryo-destructive research. This apparent set-up for the incoming Gore administration backfires when Gore loses the election.

2001-August 9th: President Bush signs an EO meant to compromise on the restrictions that had previously been placed on ESCR. This order continues the restrictions put in place by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment but allows an exception for more than $200 million in federal funding for twenty-one existing stem cell “lines” that had previously been created (through IVF). Thus, President Bush becomes the first president to allow federal funding of ESCR.³ At this point, federal funding for ESCR is restricted to these twenty-one lines. It is not “banned.” There is not, and there has never been, a ban on privately funded research.

2007-June 20th: President Bush issues Executive Order #13435, which requires the government to fund research into alternative methods of obtaining pluripotent stem cells-methods such as Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (IPSC)-that do not require the destruction of embryos but instead “induce” regular adult skin cells to act like pluripotent cells.⁴

2008: “Scientific researchers hail the development of IPSCs as the biggest scientific breakthrough of the year.”⁵

2009-March 9th: President Obama rescinds Bush’s August 9, 2001, EO with his own EO entitled, Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. The revocation of Bush’s EO is heralded as “lifting the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).” This EO simultaneously revokes Bush EO #13435, which has provided federal funding of successful IPSC research. This aspect of the order is not mentioned at the press conference.

2009-March 11th: President Obama signs and renews the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which continues the ban on federal funding for ESCR that Obama claims to have lifted two days earlier. No announcement is made and no press conference is called.

Whatever one’s politics, it is hard to deny the purposeful deceit and tactical shenanigans that have gone on with respect to ESCR. Obama claims to want to honor both the scientific promises of stem cell research and the ethical reservations of those who hold them. But the practical outcomes of his policies have done nothing of the sort. Though he refuses to ever acknowledge a difference between stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, his policies have led us to the point where creating cloned embryos with the purpose of letting the created human being live is illegal, while creating cloned embryos for the purpose of tearing them apart for research purposes is encouraged and federal funding for it has been increased. Though he claims to have “lifted the ban of the last eight years,” two days after he did so he knowingly and quietly resigned the amendment that overrode his own Executive Order. Though he claims to approve of “promising research,” President Obama touts the very kind of research-embryonic stem cell research-that has led to exactly zero cures. At the same time, his revocation of President Bush’s Executive Order #13435 directly eliminated federal funding for adult stem cell research such as IPSC that has already led to more than seventy-three successful therapies. Most disingenuously, and most importantly, Obama believes that his opponents on this issue are offering us “a false choice between sound science and moral values.” Further, in his speech at Notre Dame University, he claimed to seek “common ground” with those who do have ethical reservations about ESCR. One must wonder why, if the conflict some seem to see between sound science and moral values is a false one, there would be any need for compromise at all. Even if we disregard the inconsistency in those two lines of thought, it is clear that research like that being done on IPSC gives us the best of both worlds. Beyond its proven technical success, it holds the principal advantage of avoiding the very aspect of ESCR that some find ethically troubling-the destruction of human embryos. This represents the ultimate political winner. By promoting IPSC, Obama could not only take credit for its scientific success, but also simultaneously allay the ethical concerns that many hold. It is a political dream solution, yet Obama deliberately and quietly defunded it. This can only mean that Obama’s motivations on stem cell research are not political. And if they are not political, one has to wonder just what his motivations are.

-Robert Perry

Robert Perry, M.A. (Christian Apologetics) Biola University, is a speaker with the Life Training Institute and an instructor with CrossExamined.org. He blogs about Christian worldview issues at http://true-horizon.blogspot.com.

NOTES

1 Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 10-11.

2 Ronald M. Green, The Human Embryo Research Debates: Bioethics in the Vortex of Controversy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).

3 Greg Koukl, “Responsible Science and ESCR,” Solid Ground, May/June 2009.

4 Wesley J. Smith, “Stem-Cell Doubletalk,” The Weekly Standard, March 12, 2009.

5 Wesley J. Smith, “Stem Cell Debate Is Over Ethics, Not Science,” The Sacramento Bee, March 19, 2009.

“Novels about family, relationships, and love,” is how bestselling author Jodi Picoult describes her books.¹ While it’s true that Picoult’s works cover these topics, in doing so they also delve into many areas of interest such as ethics, theology, and apologetics. Picoult’s works are relevant beyond being simple and innocuous airport reads. Indeed, Picoult’s writings present and influence ideas, but they are also influenced by current events and contemporary topics. Nineteen Minutes (2007), for instance, is about a school shooting and the aftermath of those events, while her latest work, House Rules, turns to the topic of autism, and purportedly her next book will address homosexuality. Of particular interest to Christians are Picoult’s views of religion. “I really believe that the root of so many huge problems has been religion,” says Picoult, “and drawing the line in the sand between those who believe what you do and those who don’t-just look around the world to see the ramifications of what Irenaeus did by deciding what constituted Christian faith, and what didn’t.”² Having published seventeen novels to date, Picoult’s works have also made their way to television and the movie theater. Television adaptations include The Pact, Plain Truth, and The Tenth Circle, while Picoult’s 2004 book, My Sister’s Keeper, made it to the big screen in 2009. For the purposes of this review, two books were selected: Keeping Faith (1999) and Change of Heart (2008). The former is of particular interest given the current state of atheism that is openly hostile to Christianity, while the latter addresses ethical issues and questions regarding the New Testament Gospels in opposition to Gnostic writings. There is a connection between both books in that a main character from Keeping Faith, Ian Fletcher, is also featured in Change of Heart. Keeping Faith is about a little girl, Faith White, who begins to have visions of a “guard,” later referred to as God. There are several unusual circumstances regarding Faith’s visions and later stigmata, mainly the fact that neither Faith nor her family is Christian (Faith and her mother are Jewish) and that the figure who appears to Faith is female, raising questions regarding God being depicted as male or female. Of more interest to atheist character Ian Fletcher is debunking Faith’s claims, stigmata, and even alleged miraculous healings. Eager to boost the ratings of his television show, self-proclaimed “teleatheist” Fletcher takes a road trip to the quiet New Hampshire town of Canaan, where most of the events take place. Fletcher is a particularly interesting character, especially in light of the rise of the so-called new atheism. Raised a Baptist, Fletcher turns to atheism as an adult and is eager to debunk any religious claims he encounters. His default stance is that religion, Christianity in particular, is false and harmful. Consequently, Fletcher hardly has an open mind about religious claims, instead presupposing that metaphysical materialism is true. While Fletcher fancies himself an erudite debunker, his reasoning, like the reasoning of many contemporary atheist writers, is often flawed. For instance, Fletcher offers clever analogies meant to demonstrate the inferiority of faith, but in reality his analogies are false. He says, “Sure, lots of people believe in God. Lots of people used to believe the world was flat, too” (p. 29). Later we read, “Ian’s offhand comparison of devout Catholics to toddlers who believed that a Band-Aid itself cures the wound was hotly debated” (31). In both instances, however, Fletcher has committed the fallacy of the false analogy. In his first statement, he is arguing that simply because lots of people believe something does not make it true. This is a true statement. Majority does not decide what is true; truth exists as it is regardless of how many or how few hold to the true position. But to compare belief in God to belief in a flat world-an idea discarded on the basis of demonstrable truth-is false. It is one thing to prove the world is round, but quite another to make the case for or against the existence of God. The shape of the earth is a clearly scientific and empirical proof, while making the case for the existence of God is a matter of metaphysical and philosophical reasoning. Similarly, the character’s remark about Catholics being like toddlers who believe a bandage (religion) will cure them is false in that many intelligent, reasonable individuals adhere to Christian beliefs not because they are deceived or misunderstanding toddlers, but because they believe there is compelling and reasonable evidence to support the existence of God and the reality of Christ. This is hardly toddler-like blind faith or misunderstanding. Fletcher is also staunch in his belief in the so-called “God of the gaps” approach that some people take: “People believe in God because they don’t have any other explanation for things that happen” (33). But this is simply not true and, as is often the case, misrepresents the relationship between science and faith. Scientism is the belief that science can be applied to every area of knowledge, even philosophical and religious, and is the supreme approach to understanding. However, this is not true. Even if science were to set forth explanations of all the scientific questions regarding human life and the universe, it would still be unable to address rudimentary metaphysical questions such as the meaning of life. As to questions in Keeping Faith regarding the gender of God, some Christian characters are forthright in stating that God is beyond gender. Being noncorporeal, this is certainly true of God. Throughout the Bible, nevertheless, God has chosen to reveal Himself as Father and the Son, Jesus, was born as a male into a patriarchal culture. The main point of critics of the view of God as male in the book, such as the MotherGod Society, has to do with oppression of women and women’s rights. A cursory examination of Christianity and Christian history, however, reveals that Christians have always been at the forefront of championing equal rights for women, as well as elevating woman far beyond competing cultures and religions.³ Change of Heart shifts to ethical questions and matters regarding the advent of Christianity in light of competing ideas, particularly Gnosticism. On the ethical spectrum, the primary question in the book relates to organ donation. In this case, a murderer on death row, Shay Bourne, offers to donate his heart to the daughter of the people he killed. Of particular interest beyond ethical questions in Change of Heart are matters regarding Gnosticism and the Gospel of Thomas. One character, Ian Fletcher again, claims there were “52 gospels found in 1945 in Egypt” (314). Fletcher goes on to state of the Gnostics, “They had their own gospels…The New Testament-in particular, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-were the ones that orthodoxy chose to uphold…the Orthodox Christian Church felt threatened by the Gnostics. They called their gospels heresy, and the Nag Hammadi texts were hidden for two thousand years” (315). Unfortunately, the statements made by the Fletcher character are far from accurate. Like The Da Vinci Code and its outlandish claims regarding Christianity, Change of Heart is full of misinformation regarding the Gnostic Gospels, with the likely source being Elaine Pagels, cited by Picoult as her main research resource on the subject. There were not fifty-two “gospels” competing for inclusion in the New Testament canon. Moreover, the Gospel of Thomas is hardly a gospel in the sense that it is not comparable to the style and structure of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Thomas is more a collection of sayings than anything, some orthodox and some quite unorthodox. In reality, Gnosticism is a corruption of Christianity, which, most scholars agree, existed prior to it. Regarding Christians “hiding” such material, the very reality of Irenaeus’ work Against Heresies should be enough to demonstrate that Christians were not systematically suppressing Gnostic ideas, since Irenaeus wrote about such ideas openly.⁴ In Picoult’s defense, the points cited in this review do highlight areas where there is tension with traditional Christianity. However, Picoult’s books generally offer a number of competing points of view from the perspectives of different characters. As creative license dictates, an author may in fact represent ideas the author does not necessarily agree with in order to create tension or craft more realistic characters. Picoult herself appears open to various religious and spiritual ideas, but is generally noncommittal, coming across as open to belief but something of an agnostic on the matter. “I still don’t have all the answers about God,” she explains. “I don’t think any of us will, until it’s too late for us to be able to share them.”⁵ This perspective, however, results in a deficient epistemology (theory of knowledge). The agnostic position on metaphysical knowledge is, at best, a temporary place for the sincere seeker. There is simply too much at stake to remain so noncommittal when it comes to ideas and their potentially monumental ramifications. Granted, Christians should not claim to “have all the answers about God,” but we do have many answers, particularly answers to the big questions of life. This is not because Christians are privy to any esoteric knowledge, such as the Gnostics claimed to have, but because God exists and has chosen to reveal Himself not only through human conscience and creation, but through His Word and His Son. As a bestselling author, Picoult’s words reach millions of readers. While it is at times refreshing to see such candid discussion and religious ideas set forth in Picoult’s writings, it is unfortunate that some of her works perpetuate false ideas about Christianity and the Gnostic writings. How do we respond to writings like those by Picoult and other bestselling authors? We respond, first of all, with “gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:15), while at the same time setting forth truth to combat errors. It is necessary to move beyond merely stating that some idea is wrong or questionable and also offer evidence and reasons to support our perspective, otherwise literary caricatures of Christians as simpletons who take blind leaps of faith may indeed become more accurate than they should.

-Robert Velarde

Robert Velarde is author of The Wisdom of Pixar (InterVarsity Press), Conversations with C. S. Lewis (InterVarsity Press), The Heart of Narnia (NavPress), and Inside The Screwtape Letters (Baker, forthcoming). He received his M.A. from Southern Evangelical Seminary.

NOTES

1 Jodi Picoult Web site, http://www.jodipicoult.com/.

2 Picoult believes Irenaeus “was trying to codify the early Christian church by deciding what was ‘real’ gospel and what was heresy.” See http://www.jodipicoult.com/JodiPicoult.html#questions.

3 See, for instance, Alvin Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), chapter 4, and Douglas Groothuis, On Jesus (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2003), chapter 7.

4 For a response to the Gospel of Thomas, see chapter 3 of Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008).

5 http://www.jodipicoult.com/keeping-faith-chat.html.