Chicken Scratches

[This is the second entry on apologetics. It would be wise to read the first entry before this one.]

In light of my discussion in the previous post of what apologetics ISN’T, I want to look over some of the passages of Scripture most central to the support of apologetics. My contention is that such passages do not actually support apologetics, but rather support one of the other items I delineated as being related to apologetics.

First, I would like to look at Paul’s speech before the Areopagus in Athens as recorded in Acts 17. This is often cited as the prime example of apologetics in Scripture. Paul stands up before a group of self-proclaimed intellectuals and supposedly defends his faith. I would say that Paul’s speech definitely is a great example of how to share the gospel with pagan intellectuals, but I see nothing in Paul’s speech that falls into the category of apologetics.

Paul opens his remarks by doing what I call “bridging.” He finds some area of similar belief between himself and his listeners. He commends them as being religious (v. 22). After all, they worship many gods. They are firm believers in the category of deity, and that this category of deity should be actively worshiped.

Then Paul bridges again by latching onto their altar to an unknown god. He seems to see this as an example of their superior religiosity, but he also says it demonstrates their ignorance (v. 23). In other words he shows how they themselves have some sense of the divine, but they themselves admit to being uncertain that they fully understand the divine. This altar to an unknown god is an admission that there is more to the divine/spiritual/numinous than they have direct knowledge of.

Paul then engages in differentiation and proclamation. In verses 24-26, Paul describes the biblical God. Paul even uses clear allusions to Old Testament passages. Paul is demonstrating how the monotheistic, biblical God is very different from the Greeks’ polytheism as practiced in Athens. Paul offers no proof that the biblical God is more true than the Greeks’ polytheism. He simply declares the biblical God to be the true God, and he shows that the biblical God is different from their view.

Next, Paul returns to bridging in verses 26-27. He connects with the audience’s own worldview by referencing an idea ingrained in their cultural consciousness. He quotes a Greek poet who says that all human beings are the offspring of the divine. Again Paul is appealing to their deep-rooted sense of the divine – the idea that the divine is within reach, and that the divine has somehow touched each and every one of us. In other words, the biblical omnipotent, omnipresent Creator-God fits with their own perception of the world.

Paul goes back to differentiation in verse 29. The Greeks had surmised that if human beings were touched by the divine, then it was reasonable to depict the gods in human form. Paul states that he comes to a different conclusion based on biblical truth. Again alluding to Old Testament passages, Paul explains that since we are God’s offspring, then God must be greater than we are. Therefore, he should not be depicted as an idol. In fact, God is greater than anything that can be depicted by the art and thought of man. This is not really a rational argument. Paul is explaining a very biblical idea of God and showing how it differs from the Greeks’ polytheism. He states that the biblical concept of God is correct, but he offers no actual proof of it.

Paul then moves into direct proclamation. In verses 30-31 Paul simply declares the gospel, highlighting the mercy of God, the future judgment by God, the sin of the audience, and their need for repentance. There is very little here that the Athenians could relate to from their own way of thinking. Paul is left to just state it as fact.

At last, in the closing phrase of Paul’s speech he provides the proof of all of the statements he has made before, especially of the statements regarding final judgment. The only proof that Paul gives in the entire passage is the proof of the resurrection. Apparently he does not try to prove that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He merely states that Jesus rose, and then he uses that fact to support everything else he has said previously. This is proclamation, perhaps combined with eyewitness testimony.

So Paul’s speech is not apologetics. The techniques he employs are outside of apologetics when apologetics is strictly defined. But Paul’s speech is not an example of apologetics for some additional reasons. Instead of treating his audience as equally rational human beings with some shared intellectual common ground, Paul twice declares his audience to be ignorant (verses 23,30). He declares their idolatry to be wrong and deserving of repentance (verses 29-30), and he declares that if they do not repent they will fall under the judgment of God (verse 31). This is more akin to fire and brimstone preaching than civil debate. Paul makes many statements without offering proof, and many of these statements are directly contradictory to the beliefs of his audience (verses 24-26,30-31). The only proof that Paul does offer in the passage is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But today the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the end goal of much of apologetics. Apologists spend more time trying to prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ, rather than using it as proof of Christianity.

What Paul is actually doing here is a wise evangelistic technique. He is speaking to intellectuals, so instead of speaking to their heads, he speaks to their hearts. He exposes that they themselves feel unsettled about their own beliefs. They themselves feel that there is more to divinity than what they currently understand. Then he talks directly to that deep-rooted unease. Instead of waffling around with argument and debate, he confidently declares the truth to the spiritually confused. Without shame he grounds his entire speech on the one fact that they found most ridiculous: the resurrection of the dead (verses 31-32). So he identifies to the philosophers that they themselves know that they are theologically and spiritually confused, and as a cure to their confusion, he speaks with uncompromising clarity and directness. This is not apologetics of the mind. This is evangelism of the heart.

The second place that is turned to for support for apologetics is the group of Scriptures that make use of the Greek word group apologia from which we get the word apologetics. The verses cited as most clearly referring to apologetics are Philippians 1:7,16 and 1 Peter 3:15. The word group surrounding apologia was originally referring to a legal defense given in a courtroom setting. Already we see that we are on shaky ground here. The type of arguments given in a legal defense would actually have little in common with the types of arguments utilized in apologetics. For one thing in court there is a heavy reliance upon eyewitness testimony. I would think that would have been even more true in the Roman and Jewish courts before the days of high-tech crime scene investigation techniques. In a court room, one is required to call actual live eyewitnesses to give testimony under strict rules of conduct. This is impossible to replicate in an apologetic setting.

The question of legal argumentation aside, the idea that these passages support apologetics breaks down even further when the passages are examined in context. 1 Peter 3:15 is the most important biblical passage for apologetics. In context the verse is written to people suffering from severe persecution. Apparently this persecution was sanctioned or even perpetrated by the local government and/or justice system. Throughout the book of 1 Peter, the apostle Peter pleads with his readers to live an exemplary life so that no true charges can be brought against them. Peter wants them to be like Christ, who in order to be executed had to be falsely accused. So within this context Peter commands them to always be “ready to make a defense [apologia] to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.”

Now what is Peter asking his readers to do? Is he asking them to give a set of rational arguments proving the truth of the claims of Christianity? This hardly seems to fit the tenor or the context of the letter. Instead, Peter is probably using a play on words here. To a group of believers who are facing the very real danger of courtroom prosecution, he says to prepare a “defense.” He tells them to defend the hope within them. He is not asking them to give rational arguments to defend an objective hope. He is telling them to give their personal reasons for the hope that is within their hearts. They are to give reasons for something subjective. In other words, here are Christians facing persecution, but instead of giving up hope, they continue to cling to that hope. Peter wants them to be ready for when people ask them why they still have hope in the face of hopelessness. In that context, do you think Peter is expecting them to come out with the ontological argument? No, I think he is probably just expecting them to give the gospel. Perhaps he is expecting them to give their personal testimony. I think it is pretty hard to see Peter as expecting more from his readers than what Peter did himself in the face of persecution in Acts 4:5-22; 5:21-42. Peter, when questioned, simply declared the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ from Scripture and boldly called his listeners to repentance. That was Peter’s apologia when brought before the highest Jewish court.

The passages in Philippians 1:7,16 are equally difficult to construe as supporting the modern concept of apologetics. Paul uses the word family of apologia in references to his own imprisonment. So Paul is literally in prison, and he will literally go before a court in which he will literally have to present an apologia. There is a chance that Paul is literally referring to his actual legal defense. However, it is more likely that we again have a play on words. After all he says that he is in jail for the “defense [apologia] of the gospel.” What does this mean? Does Paul think that he is being called upon to rationally defend the truth claims of the gospel against intellectual assault? Clearly this is highly unlikely. There is no record of Paul ever being imprisoned due to intellectual problems with his message. Instead, we see Paul arrested due to jealousy, theological/exegetical differences with the Jews, Jewish racism against Gentiles, etc. The case brought against him at the end of Acts is not based on intellectual argumentation, but rather the factually incorrect testimony of false witnesses.

How does Paul see himself called upon to defend the gospel? Perhaps Paul wants to defend the reputation of the faith from the scurrilously false accusations of the Jews (this was a debate over whether or not Paul defiled the temple, or whether or not the gospel was contradictory to the Jewish belief system – matters not within the boundaries of apologetics). Perhaps Paul sees himself as a representative of the gospel, so any legal case brought against him is tantamount to a legal case brought against the gospel itself. Perhaps Paul is not referring to any actual defense. Perhaps his play on words is merely a reference to his efforts to proclaim the gospel throughout the world.

The only times we see Paul giving an apologia are in the book of Acts after he is arrested in the temple. In Paul’s first apologia in Acts 22:6-21, Paul only gets as far as giving his personal testimony before he is cut off by the rioting crowd. In his second apologia before the Sanhedrin Paul is again quickly cut off. He only has time to declare himself to be a Pharisee and to assert his belief in the resurrection of the dead. In his third apologia before the Roman governor Felix, Paul does contradict the accusations made against himself personally. This is not apologetics. This is an actual legal defense made against legal accusations. In this apologia Paul also makes some statements concerning the gospel itself. He says that the gospel is in line with the teachings of the Law and the Prophets, and that the hope of the resurrection of the dead is an essential teaching of the gospel. Again, this is not apologetics. This is exegesis and theology. It is also differentiation. He is not trying to prove the truth of the gospel. He is just saying that the teachings of the gospel are different from the statements made by the Jews concerning the Way. In his fourth apologia before King Herod Agrippa, Bernice, and Festus, Paul again gives his personal testimony. He defends his personal reputation as a good Jew, probably in response to the accusations made against him by the Jews. He declares again his belief in the resurrection of the dead, offering no proof for it beyond an appeal to the omnipotence of God. Paul finishes by proclaiming the basic tenets of the gospel and by inviting King Herod to believe.

So at no point in Paul’s recorded imprisonment at the end of Acts or in all of the related courtroom drama, do we ever see Paul engaging in apologetics as understood today. So when Paul says he has been imprisoned for the defense of the gospel, it is hard to see how he could possibly be referring to apologetic argumentation. When Paul was on trial, he openly gave his testimony, he declared the truth of the gospel from Scripture, and he called his audience to faith and repentance. This idea of “defense” is not apologetics. It is evangelism – pure and simple.

And I could go on through the other more minor passages given in support of apologetics. They all boil down to practices and techniques that are other than apologetics. In the end we see that Scripture neither commands nor gives examples of apologetics strictly defined.

[I apologize for this series of entries on apologetics. They are overly long, and they are a subject I wanted to get into on my blog. However, I needed these entries for a course I am taking.]

One of the main difficulties in conversations about apologetics is the issue of disagreement about the definition of and scope of apologetics itself. It is my contention that the field of apologetics gains much of its support by claiming for itself areas of evangelism and theology that do not belong to it. I would like to list out some things that are not rightly included in apologetics proper. They may be related to apologetics, but they are not apologetics.

First, apologetics is not systematic theology. Systematic theology is the attempt to lay out biblical truth in an internally coherent system. A lot of apologetics centers around whether or not worldviews are internally coherent, but when Christians attempt to construct an internally coherent system, this is not apologetics. It is systematic theology.

Second, apologetics is not biblical exegesis. Exegesis is the careful study of Scripture following solid hermeneutical principles (principles of common sense interpretation and reading comprehension). The ability to read the Bible and to accurately understand and communicate what it says is not apologetics. It is exegesis and exposition.

Third, apologetics is not proclamation. Apologetics is not the declaration of biblical truth to believers. That is preaching. Apologetics is not the declaration of biblical truth to unbelievers. That is evangelism. Any time someone is simply proclaiming the truth, they are not engaging in apologetics.

Fourth, apologetics is not the refutation of heresy. When false teachers arise claiming to be Christians but misrepresenting the truth, we do not use apologetics to refute them. We use exegesis, systematic theology, and proclamation. We refute heresy by pointing out how the false teachers have misunderstood Scripture. We refute heresy by showing how the false teachers violate universally accepted Christian orthodoxy (as it solidly rests upon Scripture). And then we boldly proclaim the accurate truth.

Fifth, apologetics is not the presentation of personal testimony or witness. When you share your personal testimony, you are not engaging in apologetics, you are using one of the earliest methods of evangelism on record. Paul shared his personal testimony on multiple occasions. And it is not just personal conversion experiences. Much of the New Testament is based on the eyewitness accounts of those who met Jesus. The reason your personal testimony does not qualify as apologetics is that your personal experience is hardly rationally convincing to another person. You could be lying or mistaken or deceived. The reason the eyewitness testimonies in the New Testament do not qualify as apologetics is that now they are only recorded in the New Testament. An unbeliever will hardly accept the New Testament accounts as authoritative in any kind of intellectual discussion. Presenting your testimony or the eyewitness accounts of Scripture directly and without any additional defense is just one form of proclamation.

Sixth, apologetics is not appealing to miraculous signs. If you appeal to a miraculous sign that the other person has not seen, then you are again providing eyewitness testimony. For instance, if you tell about an answer to prayer in your life, this is personal testimony. If you talk about Christ’s resurrection, this is the eyewitness testimony of the New Testament. If the unbeliever witnesses a miraculous sign themselves, then they become the eyewitness testifying to themselves. Miraculous signs cannot be treated as absolute proof. The Bible in both the Old and New Testaments speaks of how people can be deceived by miraculous signs. For these and other reasons, miraculous signs do not properly fall into the arena of apologetics.

Seventh, along with these last two points, apologetics is not proving to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. In any discussion of apologetics, proponents of apologetics will support their ideas of apologetics by referencing the multiple occasions in which Paul reasoned with the Jews in the synagogue proving that Jesus was the Messiah. However, this does not qualify as apologetics. Paul is combining the last three points. He is using Scripture (Old Testament prophecies, etc.), theology, and proclamation combined with eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ life. He looks at the Old Testament and interprets it in light of the coming of Christ, and then he tells the facts of Jesus’ life to show how those facts match with the Old Testament rightly interpreted. This is not apologetics. This is a combination of exegesis and testimony.

Eighth, apologetics is not differentiation. This is the big one. I spend most of my “apologetic” discussions with unbelievers doing what I call differentiation. What I mean by differentiation is any attempt to distinguish between biblical truth and some other worldview. I find myself engaging in three main types of differentiation. Of course I will sometimes be called upon to explain how what I believe is different from some other worldview out there (or even some other major form of Christianity). More frequently I find myself explaining how what I believe is different from what the person I am speaking with believes. But most often, I find that I have to explain how what I believe is different from what the person thinks I believe. Usually I find that most unbelievers present all kinds of intellectual arguments and doubts that prevent them from believing in Christianity, but I find that those arguments and doubts are against a straw man. They are arguing against something that I do not believe. I spend a lot of time saying, “That’s not what the Bible teaches. Let me explain to you what the Bible teaches…” This is not apologetics. This is exegesis, systematic theology, and proclamation conducted in a way in which the unbeliever can clearly see the differences between biblical truth and some other view.

Ninth, apologetics is not bridging or contextualization. What I mean is that there are a host of evangelistic techniques whereby you connect with the unbeliever’s perspective on the world. You can do this by finding some kind of limited common ground. For instance, Paul in his famous speech before the Areopagus in Acts 17 does a lot of bridging. He references the altar of the unknown god. He references quotes from Greek poets. He makes these references in ways that clearly show what he means by those ideas is very different from what the Athenians might have understood by them. However, he is using those ideas in hopes that they will provide an entrance point for the truth. He starts with something the Athenians might understand to lead them to ideas that might be more foreign to them. Along with this technique of bridging is the technique of contextualization. This is “translating” the truth of Scripture into language and terms that the audience will understand. Of course this means speaking in the actual language of the audience, but it also might be using examples from the audience’s own culture. The most oft-cited example of contextualization is Don Richardson’s Peace Child. This is not apologetics, this is merely proclamation in terms that the audience will understand.

Tenth, apologetics is not adorning the gospel. Sometimes Christians will talk about the apologetic of a consistent Christian lifestyle. By Christians consistently living according to the teachings of Scripture, they provide evidence of the truth and beauty of those teachings. However, the Bible nowhere speaks of Christian example in those terms. In Titus 2:10 Paul says that a consistent Christian lifestyle will “adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.” However, from the context of Titus 2:7, it seems that Paul is less focusing on the positive impact of a consistent Christian lifestyle and more on avoiding the negative impact of an inconsistent Christian lifestyle. Being a “good” Christian will not necessarily convince anyone of the truth of the gospel, but if you are a “bad” Christian, you will certainly damage Christianity’s credibility. So really by living a consistent Christian lifestyle, the best that can be said is that you are avoiding doing damage to the credibility of Christianity. This is not apologetics. This is obedience. This is bringing glory to God in every area of your life.

Eleventh, apologetics is not passionate appeal. When presenting the truth of Scripture to unbelievers, it is a good evangelistic practice to be allow your passion and love for the truth to come to the surface. When you share the gospel, you may give reasons why someone should trust in Christ. These are not intellectual reasons. You may speak of the love of God in glowing terms. You may speak of the marvels of heaven and the horrors of hell. You may speak of the glories of Christ and the cross. This is not apologetics. This is proclamation. The truth is reality. It carries with it emotion and wonder. When you express those things, you are merely declaring the truth as it is.

Twelfth, apologetics is not wisdom. Wisdom is a category of thinking well-represented in Scripture. One way of understanding wisdom is that it is an attempt to reconcile the truth of Scripture with reality and in so doing to better understand both reality and Scripture. The biggest question in wisdom literature is the problem of pain and suffering. The entirety of the book of Job and much of Psalms and Ecclesiastes are devoted to the question of how God can allow someone to suffer. This is oddly enough one of the biggest issues tackled by apologetics, so how is wisdom not apologetics? There are multiple reasons why wisdom is not apologetics. For example, wisdom is not as much interested in the general intellectual question as to why a generically good God could allow suffering in general. Wisdom is interested in why I myself am suffering, why the God of the Bible (YHWH) might allow that suffering, why the God who makes specific promises does not appear to be fulfilling those promises, etc. Wisdom assumes that evil people (as defined by Scripture) should suffer, so it deals only with the question of the suffering of the righteous (as defined by Scripture). Most of the time the wisdom literature is not dealing with doubts as to God’s existence or goodness, but rather it is just seeking to understand the reasons why a good God would allow this particular circumstance to occur and then to continue. Wisdom’s methods of reasoning are not the methods one would expect from apologetics. Wisdom sometimes just accepts the goodness of God on faith. Wisdom uses more of a common sense approach to the world, rather than a rational-intellectual approach. Wisdom observes the world as is, but makes those observations through the lens of a biblical worldview. And many or even all of the conclusions of wisdom would be unpalatable to the intellectual unbeliever. For instance, on the question of pain and suffering, wisdom would simply tell the unbeliever that they are suffering because they are an unbeliever. People who do not fear God deserve to suffer. Furthermore, God’s response to Job at the end of the book can in many ways be boiled down to a declaration that God does not have to answer to us. He created us, so he can do what he wants with us. If he wants to make us suffer, he has every right to do so, and we have no right to question his goodness based on our suffering. This would make for horrible apologetics!

Thirteenth, apologetics is not responding to the doubts of believers. Certainly we cannot think that apologetics is something to be conducted with believers. Even if you use similar arguments with a believer as what you use with an unbeliever, you are not doing apologetics when you speak with a believer. A believer is already a believer. Apologetics is by definition something external to the faith. Furthermore, what you would say to a doubting believer would hopefully be far different from an apologetic argument used with an unbeliever. With a doubting believer you might use exegesis, or systematic theology, or even personal testimony. Probably the best tactic is to use wisdom. If someone has already accepted Christ as Lord, why go backwards to some kind of rational argumentation? Just continue to demonstrate how the truth of the Bible (exegesis) is internally coherent (systematic theology) and makes sense of reality as experienced by the believer (wisdom). And keep affirming that truth without reservation (proclamation) and demonstrating how you have seen that truth in your own life (personal testimony). There is no need for anything else.

Finally, apologetics is not answering biblical questions. Some so-called apologetic questions are merely glorified Bible trivia. One of the most common “apologetic” questions I have received is “Where did Cain and Seth get their wives?” This is not a matter of rational argumentation. This is merely consulting a few Bible passages to give the most likely answer. “Cain and Seth married their sisters” is the correct response. The reply then is “Isn’t that incest? And doesn’t the Bible say that incest is wrong?” Then the response is a more detailed explanation of the progress of divine revelation – making the point that something that was declared to be wrong in Exodus and Deuteronomy might not have been wrong before. This is not apologetics. This is exegesis.

So then, if all of this is not apologetics, what is apologetics? Apologetics is the presentation of some kind of rational argument to an unbeliever using some agreed upon rules of epistemology, logical argumentation, and/or evidence to convince the unbeliever of the truth of the biblical worldview in whole or in part.

At its core apologetics is an argument or a debate. This is not to say that apologetics is argumentative, but rather that in apologetics ideas are set in conflict. The apologist is defending Christianity against arguments levied against its truthfulness, or the apologist is attacking other points of view, or the apologist is attempting to prove that Christianity is superior to other points of view.

These arguments must be rational. Irrational or subjective arguments cannot properly be called apologetics. There is no way irrational or subjective arguments can be refereed in the marketplace of ideas. In a debate how can you declare one subjective argument to be the winner over against another subjective argument? Apologetics must be limited to rational arguments only.

This means that the two sides of the debate must agree upon some standard of judging the truthfulness or reasonableness of the claims being debated. Just as a courtroom has rules of evidence, a debate must have an agreed upon common ground of epistemology, logical argumentation, and/or evidence. If there is no such common ground, the debate is fruitless, worthless, and pointless. The two sides talk past each other.

Finally, in apologetics the goal is to convince the unbeliever of the truth of the biblical worldview in whole or in part. Most if not all apologists agree that apologetics cannot get a believer to actually believe the truth, but the idea is that apologetics should at least bring the unbeliever to the point of acknowledging the essential reasonableness of the claims of the Christian worldview or even the absolute truthfulness of those claims. Apologetics may be a debate on a single issue, or it could tackle the entirety of the Christian worldview as a whole. Apologetics has to be pointed at a particular audience. Apologists do not debate for the sake of debate. They are trying to win people over.

There is one area of discussion with unbelievers that I find difficult to discern whether it rightfully belongs to apologetics or not. More and more I find myself being confronted by unbelievers with completely falsified facts. This has become more prevalent since Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. Brown makes statements of so-called “facts” in his books and interviews that are wildly untrue. Even scholars who think that the claims of Christianity are false find much within Brown’s books that is non-factual. I have to confess that I am uncertain as to how to deal with this. Normally one thinks of apologetics as arguing about the interpretation of mutually accepted facts. For instance, no one argues what the New Testament says, but people will argue as to whether or not the New Testament is trustworthy. No one argues against the fact that there are thousands of manuscript copies of the New Testament, but people will argue as to whether or not the existence of those copies means that we can trust the current text of the New Testament. The problem is now that skeptics are putting forward as evidence things that are just blatantly not true. For example, Brown’s description of the teachings of the gnostic gospels does not at all jive with what you actually would find if you read the gnostic gospels. It is hard to know how to deal with that. That level of poor argument and spiritual blindness may indicate the total fruitlessness of arguing with such a person.

I finished the last post by commenting that Paul’s real concern in 1 Cor. 8-10 and Rom. 14-15 is not the particular issues being discussed, but rather how those issues are being handled in the church. This opens us up to applying the principles from these passages to controversies concerning debatable issues of conscience today.

Of course, in most of these issues, one of the biggest points of contention is whether or not the issue itself qualifies as an issue of conscience. One party in the controversy will claim they have the freedom in Christ to act a certain way, and the other party will claim they do not. So how do you determine if it qualifies as an issue of conscience?

First, we must be clear that these are not issues of minor theological disagreement. Certainly the principles of these passages will apply in great measure to theological controversies, but the issues being discussed in Romans and 1 Corinthians are primarily issues of Christian behavior, not Christian theology. They are issues of morality, ethics, and conduct.

Similarly, these are issues concerning actions that appear to have the possibility of moral value. In other words, the Christians in Paul’s day were not arguing over whether it was OK to wear a green toga versus a blue toga. That is not a moral question.

These issues become moral questions because at least one side of the controversy has solid biblical and/or theological and/or ethical reasons for believing the way they believe. For instance, the Jews of Romans 14 almost certainly based their views on eating certain foods and celebrating certain days on the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures (our Old Testament). The Gentiles in Romans 14 almost certainly based their views on the teachings of the New Testament gospel of grace. In 1 Cor. 8:4-6 Paul makes a strong case that it is OK to eat food sacrificed to idols. In 1 Cor. 10:14-22, Paul appears to make a strong case AGAINST eating foods sacrificed to idols. There is good biblical/theological/ethical reasons for both sides of each of these controversies.

Along with good reasons supporting each side, Paul assumes that the people on each side of the controversy are motivated by a desire to do what is right in order to honor God (Rom. 14:4-12). In a true issue of conscience, you will see that the different parties involved are people sincerely trying to understand the Word of God and to apply it in their daily living. What you should not see is people trying to use their “freedom in Christ” as an excuse to do whatever they want.

Finally, in order for an issue to be an issue of conscience, it has to be an issue in which there is the possibility of disagreement within the bounds of a reasonable understanding of Scripture. For example, murder is not an issue of conscience. Scripture is very clear that murder is sinful and wrong. There is an emphasis on the “reasonable understanding” of Scripture. Basic hermeneutics and common sense apply.

The last two points above are where the church seems to be getting hung up today. Without tackling any specific issues, in my next post I will dig a little deeper into why Paul’s teaching in Rom. 14-15 and 1 Cor. 8-10 cannot be as widely applied as some people might hope.

Recently I have been realizing how differently Christians (myself included) act and speak on the internet as opposed to in a personal church setting. One of the most frequent examples of this is how Christians handle debated issues, or issues of Christian liberty or conscience.

There is a lot in Scripture on these issues, mostly centered on Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8-10. Rather than cover this in a quick blog post, I would like to cover it in a series. For now I would just like to cover the background of the two main passages.

1 Corinthians 8-10 deals primarily with the question of whether or not it is all right for a believer to eat food that has been sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:1). Apparently, some of the Christians in Corinth, recognizing that idols are false gods represented by lifeless statues, felt that eating food sacrificed to idols could not really mean anything (1 Cor. 8:4-6). However, other Christians in Corinth, probably some of the Gentiles who formerly worshipped idols, have a harder time distinguishing between idolatry and eating food sacrificed to idols.

Romans 14-15 deals with related but different issues. Per Romans 14:2 one issue was whether to eat meat or only just vegetables – bringing to mind the story of Daniel in Daniel 1:8-21. One possibility is that the meat was sacrificed to idols, but the vegetables were not. At the very least, it is likely that meat would have been more commonly in violation of Jewish kosher regulations, such as they were in the first century AD. Another issue is that some people celebrated certain special days, and others do not (Rom. 14:8). The two issues together are probably best read as differences between Jews and Gentiles, especially when considering the context of Rom. 15:8-13. At least some of the Jews were trying to keep to their old practices, and this was causing friction between Jews and Gentiles in the church of Rome.

Really, to Paul the specific issues in question are not the real issue. To Paul the real issue is not the controversy itself, but rather how the controversy is handled. There are two separate situations with different parties, and this allows us to see that Paul’s advice in both situations is very similar. In other words, the principles that Paul communicates seem to be widely applicable to all kinds of controversial issues.

Next post I will discuss what fits the bill as an issue of conscience.

The problem of evil could be the most difficult and thorny issue in all of theology and philosophy. How can we explain the existence of evil without saying that God is to blame for evil, or that God is unable to do anything about it, or that God cannot predict the future?

I want to start by pointing out that the problem of evil is a problem for everyone, not just Christians. No matter what your worldview is, you will find it difficult or impossible to explain the existence of evil. Worldviews, like Christianity, that claim that there is an all-powerful (or even only very powerful) force of good have problems explaining why such a force would create evil or allow evil to exist. Worldviews, like some eastern worldviews, that see good and evil as equal and opposite forces have a hard time explaining why we consider one to be good and the other evil. And worldviews, like scientific materialism, that claim there are no supernatural forces at work in the universe have difficulty explaining why people even think in terms of good and evil.

I also want to point out that pretty much every quick and easy solution that is passed around in Christian circles is insufficient. What are some common Christian “pat answers”?

1. God doesn’t cause evil; he just allows it. This idea does not really help anything. Since God is all-knowing and all-powerful, the difference between allowing and causing is a very fine line. Furthermore, it introduces another ethical quandary. How can a good God stand by and allow evil to happen when he has the power to stop it? It’s like a doctor who stands by and watches someone die.
2. God doesn’t want there to be evil, but people (and fallen angels?) cause evil by the choices they make with their free will. Again, this idea doesn’t really help anything. Did God not know what people were going to choose before he created them? Did he not know the horrors of the Holocaust before he created the world? Is God a slave who exists only to serve the free will of his creations? Would we accept this excuse from a police man? “I could have stopped the robbery, but I did not want to interfere with the robber’s right to choose…”

It’s not just that Christian “pat answers” are unhelpful, but also that they generally do not account for all of the biblical evidence. For instance, passages like Exodus 4:21; Proverbs 21:2; Romans 9:17-18 show that God is willing to interfere with the choices of man, so God is not as anxious to preserve the freedom of man’s will as we are led to believe. Furthermore, other passages (Genesis 50:20; Acts 2:23) show that God can in some way be considered to be “behind” the evil actions of others, so saying that God only allows evil is not biblically accurate either.

The main issue is that the problem of where evil comes from is not a question that the Bible seeks to answer. Clearly the serpent in Genesis 3 is already evil, so evil begins some time before the Fall. Apparently the serpent is Satan, so Satan appears to have fallen before human beings fall. Certainly God did not create Satan evil, so how did Satan become wicked? It must have been through some choice of his own. Where did he come up with the idea? The Bible never says. Perhaps this is when we must resort to the idea (I believe it was popularized by C. S. Lewis) that evil does not exist on its own, but rather is only a perversion of the good. So Satan must have taken something good and twisted it. We don’t know why he made that choice, and we don’t know how he was able to make it.

So it still seems hard for God to avoid blame. Why would God make Satan able to be evil? Why would he make Satan knowing that Satan would turn evil? And then why would he make human beings, knowing that Satan would turn them evil as well?

I really only have two points to make as steps toward a solution to the problem of evil.

1. According to Romans 9, God can be sovereign over the evil choices of human beings and yet not be the one to blame for their evil choices. Romans 9 uses Pharaoh as an example of how God hardened someone’s heart in order that Pharaoh would do something wrong (9:17-18). Paul raises the question of how God could blame Pharaoh for the wrong choices if God is the one who hardened his heart (9:19). Paul never really answers that question. Paul just says that we do not have the right to question God (9:20), and God has the right to do with people whatever he wishes (9:21). Romans 9 teaches that God is sovereign even in people’s bad choices; God can have an ultimate purpose in those bad choices; and human beings still make independent enough choices that they are the ones to blame, not God. Romans 9 does not try to explain how all of this could be possible.
2. There are multiple examples of how God sovereignty over evil is compatible with God’s goodness. One of the most famous is the story of Joseph, in which Joseph’s brothers sell Joseph into slavery. Joseph says that they meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. (Genesis 50:20). Somehow what was an evil action for Joseph’s brothers was a good thing for God. The greatest example of this is the crucifixion (Acts 2:23). It is the worst sin ever committed by human beings, and yet it is the most loving and good thing that God ever accomplished. What was evil for people, was good for God.

These two points can be applied to the origin and existence of evil itself. Somehow God can be sovereign over evil without being blamed for it, and somehow God can do something good through the existence of evil itself. How else would God be able to display his fearsome justice and his rich mercy (Romans 9:22-23)?

These two points do not really solve the problem of evil. They just frame the question properly. They let us see what we can and cannot understand about God and evil.

[Disclaimer: This post is not the result of hours of scholarly study. These are some thought I typed up in response to questions from one of the ladies’ Bible study groups at my church.]

What was the first sin? Anyone familiar with the Bible will immediately think of the account in Genesis 3 in which Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That was the first sin, right?

However, on closer inspection the question is a little more complicated. Was the fruit itself evil? It seems unlikely that there could be anything inherently evil in fruit — even fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. After all, God and the serpent agree that the fruit makes the eater more like God (Gen. 3:5,22), and Eve acknowledges that the fruit makes one wise (Gen. 3:6).

Perhaps, then, it is the act of eating the fruit that is sinful. But it is difficult to see how, if the fruit is not evil, the act if eating it could be evil. The only thing that seems to make the act of eating sinful is that it is something God commanded Adam and Eve not to do. This leads a lot of people to say that the first sin was disobedience. Adam and Eve disobeyed a command of God. It is this direct disobedience that made eating the fruit a sin.

It may seem like the hunt for the first sin ends at disobedience, but there are many people who try to look beneath the surface. What were the underlying heart motivations that result in the outward act of disobedience? Didn’t Jesus say that the heart is the source of all evil (Mat. 15:18-19)?

Examination of the account in Gen. 3 reveals multiple options for root motivations. In Gen. 3:6 Eve sees that the fruit looks good and desirable. Is this gluttony or greed or pure selfishness? In the same verse it says that she recognizes the ability of the fruit to make one wise. Is this greed for knowledge or ambition? In Gen. 3:5 the serpent tempts Eve with the thought that this fruit will make one like God. Is this also ambition or pride or a desire to supplant God? It might be possible to go even further back in the story to Gen. 3:1,4 where the serpent questions the words of God. Does this lead Eve and Adam to doubt the goodness and truthfulness of God?

That is quite a list: disobedience, gluttony, selfishness, greed, ambition, pride, and doubt. Certainly with further time and study more sins and motivations could be unearthed. Maybe even every other sin could find its beginnings in Gen. 3. But what you will find in different authors is a tendency to home in on one sin or motivation in particular. It is often the sin that they believe to be the root of all the other sins. They will sometimes try to prove that it is the root sin by turning to Gen. 3.

Personally, I think it is difficult (probably impossible) to identify one root sin. Many of the sinful heart motivations listed above are similar and interconnected. One person will see pride as primary, and another will see selfishness/self-centeredness as primary. Probably it is best to look at all of those sins as one interconnected and multifaceted whole.

A related question is just as tricky: when exactly did the first sin happen? When would God have considered Eve to have been sinning? Was it when she touched the fruit, or picked it, or ate it? Or was it before that? Was it when she decided to eat it? Was it when she began to look at the fruit and desire it? Was it when the serpent’s questions led her to begin to doubt God?

It is important to remember that there is a distinction between temptation and sin. It is possible to resist temptation without sinning. Jesus was tempted in Mat. 4, but he was perfectly sinless. Temptation does not automatically make you guilty of sin. Furthermore some temptation actually comes from our own desire (James 1:14-15). This means that sometimes a desire to do something wrong may be a temptation, not a sin. However, if we do not immediately reject that desire and if we let it grow and strengthen, we stray from temptation to sin.

So at what point in Gen. 3 did Adam and Eve stray from temptation into sin? It is hard to say with any certainty. It is even more difficult to determine in this case because Adam and Eve had not yet been corrupted by sin. We would assume that they had no dark recesses in their hearts influencing their thoughts and actions towards evil, so it is difficult for us to imagine their internal thought processes at this stage.

We may find some help if we take the account in Gen. 3 at face value. There is no definitive indication in Gen. 3:1-5 that Eve accepts, believes, or agrees any of what the serpent is saying to her. It is not until Gen. 3:6 that Eve seems too look at the fruit, and her heart changes. I would surmise that she moves from temptation to sin at the beginning of verse 6.

It is vital not to make the mistake of separating the thoughts of the heart too far from the action. Verse 6 appears to say that as soon as Eve decided to eat the fruit, she went ahead and did it. It is a package deal. The sinful thoughts of the heart inevitable lead to sinful actions. So all of those sinful motivations we uncovered are a package together with the disobedient action of eating the fruit. It all together makes up the first sin.

I finished the series on Mary and Martha as a sermon. It can be found on the sermon manuscript page.

My friend Chap Bettis (formerly a pastor and now of The Apollos Project) has published a fantastic article on The Gospel Coalition website entitled How Churches Can Care for Their Pastor’s Children. As a pastor’s kid myself and as an assistant pastor, let me say this article is a must read for the church member. Below are the comments I posted to the website:

As a pastor’s kid and as an assistant pastor, I have to agree wholeheartedly with this article. Pastor’s kids see the church as an extension of their family. They survive best when the members of the church go out of their way to notice and “adopt” them. I know I had many surrogate parents and grandparents who loved me, took an interest in me, talked to me, prayed for me, and even helped to keep an eye on me on Sunday mornings. This not only freed up my parents to do the ministry they needed to do on Sundays, but it also helped me as an individual feel like I belonged to a larger family. I think that churches have a choice. They can let the pastor’s family feel isolated and under constant microscopic inspection, or they can step up and take in the pastor’s family as part of their own. The first option produces hypocrites or hoodlums. The second option makes the church feel so home-like that even a prodigal will have a hard time staying away.

I love to read. I have enjoyed reading many a book considered by the world to be a “classic.” I have profited much by my forays into classical literature. However, I found myself in almost complete disagreement with a recent blog post by Dr. Leland Ryken entitled “Why Read the Classics?” http://www.crossway.org/blog/2014/02/why-read-the-classics/

I have gone through his points below:

1)      Classics are superior entertainment: I think Dr. Ryken needs to come to the realization that this statement cannot be rationally or objectively verified. I would imagine that there are very few people today who would think of entertainment as “objective.” As such, there is no way to label something as more entertaining than something else. All Dr. Ryken has done is give us a subjective statement about his own feelings.

2)      Everyone can develop a taste for the classics: I would say this statement is an overgeneralization on two counts. First, I’m not sure that there is anything in this world for which everyone can develop a taste. There will always be some people who will dislike something. No matter how hard they try, no matter how good their English professor, there will be people who will never and can never like the classics. They will understand the classics, perhaps even see the value of the classics, but they will hate them. Second, not everyone will be able to understand the classics. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. I will never run the 100 meter dash in under 10 seconds. I will not be the next Pavarotti. There are people in this world whose language talents are not up to the task of understanding the classics. Their strengths lie in other areas (to the great benefit of the world). Very few such people make it to college (there is no shame in that), and even less make it into Wheaton. It is understandable if Dr. Ryken has had little experience with such people.

3)      Liking the classics is not elitist: I am sorry, but calling classics “superior entertainment” is elitist. (“My entertainment is better than yours.”)

4)      Educational history shows that people throughout time were able to understand the classics better, were less lazy of mind, etc.: I am not sure what point in history was this golden age of education. I have an entirely different impression of education throughout history. My impression is that throughout history people have lived much as they do today. Some people work hard at academics. Some people think deeply about life and the world. Most people are more concerned about other things. I imagine that throughout most of history, many students have found the classics dull, uninteresting, unprofitable, and far from being “superior entertainment.”

5)      The subject matter of the classics is more entertaining: Again this is a purely subjective statement.

6)      The classics have “arresting strangeness”: The classics do have a certain strangeness. Whether or not this strangeness is arresting, is again a subjective evaluation. I think that Tolkien and others have hit upon the deep-seated need of human beings to experience something “other” or “strange.” I wonder if this is a need that should be fulfilled by fiction, or if this need is just a reflection of our need to experience the ultimate Strangeness. Part of God’s holiness is that he is Other. I thought it was interesting that Dr. Ryken should introduce this thought from Tolkien’s “On Fairy-Stories,” which is more of a defense and analysis of fantasy than classics. Tolkien arrives at his “arresting strangeness” by creating a detailed fantasy world. There are certainly other ways of experiencing “arresting strangeness” than to read the classics.

7)      The classics display “superior artistry and technique and beauty”: Again, some of this is purely subjective. But even by commonly accepted literary standards, a lot of the material in the classics is poor quality. For instance, there were certain eras of literature in which they wasted pages on flowery descriptions. Dr. Ryken would probably advise his students against such techniques in their own writing. Many classics are rife with stylistic no-no’s. We just cut the classics a little extra slack because the author was in a different culture, different time, or in a different stage of literary development.

8)      The classics “do greater justice to the richness and multiplicity of human experience than lesser forms of literature”: I am not sure I see the basis for this conclusion. I would say that quite a lot of the human experience is missing from the classics. In fact, quite a lot of the human experience is missing from literature in general. For instance, not many characters in literature seem to have to go to the bathroom.

9)      The classics “probe life at deeper levels,” and contemporary works are “surface-level portrayals of life only”: This may be true, but I have a few objections to make. First, I think Dr. Ryken misses out on a lot of deep meaning that is in a lot of contemporary art forms. Second, I think this is an unfair comparison to make. Classics survive because they are the cream of the crop. We are comparing average contemporary works to the absolute best literature of every era of human literature. That is hardly fair. In 100 years, our descendants will be able to decide what from our era is worth preserving. (Who knows? Dr. Ryken may be surprised by what lasts.) Third, one of the great lessons of our time is the importance and value of the little things. What Dr. Ryken would consider to be “surface-level” is what makes up the majority of our lives. Perhaps this is (understandably) outside of the experience of a Wheaton English professor, but ask a mom of preschool children. She will tell you that she has little time to contemplate the deep things of life. She needs someone to help her overcome the little hurdles of balancing diaper changes and meal preparation. She needs literature that meets her where she is and values the hundreds of “little” and “surface-level” things she deals with on a daily basis. Fourth, I have a tendency to think that a sitcom (as distorted as sitcoms can be) probably does a better job capturing the everyday human experience than Homer’s Odyssey. Fifth, perhaps Dr. Ryken should investigate what the critics said about our “classics” when they were first published. He may find critics were hard on the classics too. Sixth, every classic was contemporary before it became timeless, and at the time people would have related to it more strongly on the surface levels.

10)   The classics are valuable because they are hard work: At least I agree that the classics can be hard work. Furthermore, I agree that the hard work can yield dividends. I just wonder if the dividends are worth the hard work. For someone like Dr. Ryken, clearly the benefits outweigh the cost. I am not sure this is true for everyone. Dr. Ryken may gain some benefit from a few minutes of reading a classic, but it may take other hours of work to reap the same benefit. Is it worth it for them? Are the classics the only place to reap the same benefits?

11)   The “classics are our gateway to the past”: I certainly hope this is not the case. Does Dr. Ryken forget that the classics are fictional works, usually by an individual author? Classics are not necessarily reliable sources of historical information. I find that people who love the classics generally have a distorted view of the past. For instance, readers of Jane Austen have a tendency to forget that most people in Victorian England lived in poverty. Dickens aficionados have no concept of what was happening in the English countryside.

Not only do I want to counteract some of Dr. Ryken’s reasoning, but I also want to remark upon some of the dangers of reading the classics.

1)      Classics are fiction, so they are prone to the same dangers as all works of fiction: Classics do not have a special immunity to the dangers of fiction. Being classics does not exempt them from the common ills of all fiction. Let me list off a few of the dangers of fiction to give you an idea. First, for some reason (perhaps it is a by-product of our own fallen natures), fiction has a tendency to glorify evil even when it condemns it. Look at Milton’s Paradise Lost. It is often remarked how the devil is the most interesting character. The same could be said of Shakespeare’s character Iago. Look at Dickens’ Oliver Twist. Oliver is bland, but the Artful Dodger has become an iconic figure. Second, fiction inevitably distorts reality. The characters can be caricatures instead of people (many Dickens characters are caricatures). The plots can resolve too neatly (Jane Austen) or too tragically (Romeo and Juliet). The situations the characters find themselves in can be extreme. The characters can sometimes soliloquize eloquently in iambic pentameter (Shakespeare). Third, especially due to these distortions of reality, fiction can draw us away from reality. We find we wish we were living the story in the book rather than the life God has written for us.

2)      Most classics are written from a heavily flawed worldview: For this point I can jump right to Homer who writes from the perspective of an idolatrous mythology. I believe it is debated how much Homer believed the stories he recorded, but his writings were part of what shaped idolatry in the Hellenistic world. But even writers who would have claimed to be Christian are often heavily flawed. Dickens writes as though poverty is the ultimate evil, and its extinction is our ultimate goal. Even C. S. Lewis in his book The Last Battle seems to imply that people who earnestly believe in the Antichrist will be saved.

3)      He who reads the classics is doomed to repeat them: What do I mean by this? Obviously there is value in hearing voices from the past as they discuss the human experience. By familiarizing ourselves with the past we can avoid prior mistakes. By reading the classics, we can save ourselves from having to reinvent the intellectual wheel. However, as long as we keep reading the same classics, our culture will keep falling into certain thought patterns. It will be hard to break free from certain ways of thinking and looking at the world.

I am sure that Dr. Ryken would be quick to point out that classics need to be read with a strong dose of discernment, but again, I think he is being unrealistic if he thinks that everyone is capable of a sophisticated level of discernment. I believe myself to be an intelligent, academically-minded, objective, and discerning individual, but I still find that what I feed myself intellectually colors what I think. Bad company corrupts good morals, and bad reading corrupts good thinking. I have been trying to keep better intellectual company in what I read.

What Dr. Ryken describes is literature that is well-written, entertaining, arrestingly strange, and speaks deeply to the human experience. It sounds to me like he is describing the Bible. If Dr. Ryken wants to understand life, to think clearly about deep things, etc., there is no better book than the Bible. All others will fall short. To be honest, I would rather be pushing biblical literacy than familiarity with the classics. There is only one book that is essential to know, and the value of that one book far outweighs the total value of all the scribblings of the human race since the dawn of time.

I do not want to appear anti-intellectual. The Bible is not anti-intellectual, but neither is it pro-intellectual. The first few chapters of 1 Corinthians will temper anyone’s desire for intellectual pursuits. The real Truth is not academically acquired, but Spirit-given. The real Truth is a Person, not just a set of ideas. True knowledge does not begin with Shakespeare. In fact, true knowledge does not begin with reading at all. True knowledge begins with the fear of the Lord.

I am glad that there are people like Dr. Ryken in the world. He has done much for the church by drawing our attention to the literary aspects of Scripture, etc. However, Dr. Ryken is Dr. Ryken. Not every part of the body should be a hand. Not every member of the church need be an expert in the classics. Dr. Ryken can read the classics and bring some good stuff to the table. Others have their strengths to contribute. I am happy to let Dr. Ryken do his thing. I hope he’ll be happy to allow others to shamelessly live a classic-free life.

My brother got me hooked on fantasy fiction before it was as popular as it is today. Fantasy is a real mixed bag. Not only does it attract more than its share of low-quality authors, but it also has a tendency to stray far beyond the boundaries of biblical morality. As much as I still love fantasy, I have a deep-seated inclination to abandon the genre altogether. (My reasons for this are pretty thorough and complex, so I will save them for another full post at some point.)

However, I keep trying to justify my return to a particular type of fantasy that is becoming increasingly popular. I am afraid I am ignorant of the term for it. I am referring to the type of fantasy that is set in our contemporary world but imagines a fantasy underworld to which most people are oblivious. The specific version of this subgenre that I am interested in is the version that depicts a constant struggle between good and evil happening all around us.

This type of fantasy interests me because it is akin to what is taught in Scripture. Ephesians 6 teaches us that there is a war being waged in this world – a war which requires enlightened eyes to see. The war is between supernatural forces of good and evil. The eternal fates of human beings hang in the balance.

C. S. Lewis has been able to reach generations of children (and adults) for the gospel by embedding truth in another type of fantasy – the type where the children travel to and from a separate fantasy world. I think if someone wants to accomplish the same thing today, it will be by depicting the biblical battle of good and evil as happening as a kind of fantasy underground in our world.

I am saying all of this to explain why I would pick up the book City of Bones in the first place. I excuse myself by explaining to myself that it is research. I like to explore these kinds of fantasies to see if this fantasy subgenre can be put to use for the kingdom. As more and more kids and adults get sucked into the escape-from-reality offered by fantasy(in books, movies, video games, etc.), I am wondering if the church needs to consider the possibility of offering similar fantasies designed to draw people back to reality – the biblical reality.

So what do I think of City of Bones? I thought it was a quick, easy, pleasant read. The characters were easy to get to know and like. There was humor, action, and romance. The writer is far more talented than I.

I have three main issues with the book. The first is the [spoiler alert] plentiful use of clichés. For instance, there is the love triangle between the main character girl Clary (Clarissa), Clary’s best friend from childhood Simon (who has been in love with Clary for years, but Clary is oblivious), and the super-handsome and super-awesome warrior Jace who saves Clary’s life. All kinds of cliché material here. Simon tries the old look-like-I’m-interested-in-somebody-else-to-make-her-jealous routine. Jace, of course, turns out to actually be Clary’s brother, although we only find this out after they’ve already kissed.

The second issue is that the book is generally morally bankrupt from a biblical perspective. There is an awful lot of sensuality and innuendo between the teenage main characters. Clary turns sixteen two-thirds of the way through the book. I believe most or all of the teenagers are minors, yet there is frank discussion about the possibility of the various characters sleeping together. This always confuses me. If we photographed it, we would go to jail, but it is OK to write about it? Also, one of the male main characters is in love with one of the other male main characters. Again, this runs counter to a biblical perspective. This is all on top of the normal fantasy problems of the use of magic, witchcraft, etc.

My third main issue is related to my preceding discussion. I was not pleased with City of Bones as a model of the fantasy underground. It expressed doubt as to the existence of God. It treated all religions as equal. It considered angels and demons to be beings from another dimension. Basically, it de-spiritualized everything. Also, the book did a very poor job overlapping the fantasy world with the normal human world. Most of the fantasy people are limited to a single region of the globe that has been magically hidden from the “mundanes.”

The book was good entertainment fiction. Its plot, characters, and setting were not original. It was relatively amoral and irreligious (even blasphemous at times). And it did not provide a good model for a biblically-driven fantasy. Overall, I have no plans of watching the movie or reading any of the rest of the books by Cassandra Clare.