The Adam Quest(ion): What Matters Most – God or Science?

Tim Stafford’s latest work, The Adam Question, does not explicitly pose the question used as title of this review; however, that is the crux of the entire matter.  As you continue reading my thoughts, be forewarned of the following:  (1) I am not a scientist but am trained in historical and philosophical approaches; (2) I consider God’s Word to be infallible and without error; and (3) I ascribe to a literal interpretation of the initial chapters of Genesis.

The Adam Question opens with an introduction where the author describes his own child’s struggle with science and faith.  He blames Christians for this struggle because they did not welcome his son’s belief in evolution.  From that point, he outlines the book where he highlights scientists that hold the following positions:  young creationism, intelligent design, and evolutionary creationism.  Stafford says on page 9-10 that he has “deliberately tried not to declare anybody right or anybody wrong.  I lack the authority to do that, and I don’t think it would be terribly helpful if I did.”  Unfortunately, the opening story involving his son implicitly reveals his bent – against young creationism and toward evolutionary creationism (which he finally states in the conclusion by calling it his “hope”).

Below is a short summary of how Stafford summarizes each of the positions on page 7:  (1) young creationism is good theology but no science; (2) intelligent design is bad theology but common sense; and (3) evolutionary creationism is some theology but primarily filled with science.  It is here that the title of my review comes into view – one position accepts what God says in His Word through faith without question, one position eliminates God while speaking of some type of a grand “watchmaker,” and one position accepts the convergence of theoretical and historical science by labeling it as observational science within which a bit of God has been mixed.

Stafford selects 11 Christian scientists; and with only three positions considered, that means that some sides will get more time than others.  The last scientist considered, in my opinion, does not count in the eleven because he left the scientific field to pursue an Anglican parish.   Thus, 10 active scientists discuss their positions and that means that one side will have more information than any other.  He seems to highlight more of the positional issues with young creationism than with those of intelligent design or evolutionary creationism.  For consideration of the latter positions, he seems to talk about their scientific discoveries but never raises the specter of the difficulties inherent within their position.  As a trained historian and philosopher, this lack of equal time perplexes me.

Our world exists in a postmodern age, so I would like to use that position as a philosophical critique of this scientific work.  Postmodern thought asks the question whether we can justify our concepts, ideals, structures, models, or ideas of the world (especially when compared with that of others).  Simply, it says that we are to question all things because truth is relative.  Postmodernity espouses the notion that “it” (the search for truth) is not about being right or real because the journey is what matters. 

With the above foundation laid, why is it that Darwinism or evolution is the sacred subject that cannot be challenged?  Consider the critique offered by William Dembski who utilized mathematics and logic to refute the notion that evolution can produced “specified complexity.”  Few scientists take the critique seriously because Dembski is not a scientist and, according to page 147, has “no reputation.”  This all-important reputation to the scientific community can only be earned by publishing in a peer reviewed journal, and that publication can only occur if you hold the line rather than challenging the core of scientific thought (i.e. Theodosius Dobzhansky made a statement that has been often repeated:  “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”).  There appears to be a heavily guarded fortress within the scientific community that must be defended at all cost, and that fortress surrounds the prominence of evolution as the explanation for origins.

In thinking through the positions offered by all three groups of scientists, I have constructed my own definition of evolution – all current life is descendents from a common ancestor through a natural process of naturally selecting sporadic mutations that occurred over epochs of time.  If that is evolution, it certainly is not observable.  If it is not observable, then how can it be historical?  Remember, history relies upon primary resources from eyewitnesses at the time of the event.  Thus, if evolution is not observable and not historical, then it can only be considered theoretical science.  If it is theoretical, then how could it be taught as scientific fact?  Again, I am not a scientist but have historical and philosophical training; but those two academic approaches leave me with many questions.

Concluding his work, Stafford highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each position.  He says that young creationism is strong in its commitment to the Bible but is weak in that it does not match up to the world within which we live.  He never fully concluded the thought but seems to imply that we then need to reinterpret the Bible according to the norms of the world.  The author calls for, on page 211, “fresh, humble, and faithful understandings of Genesis” which seems to state that current forms are stale, arrogant, and unfaithful (the “to whom” is left hanging).  Intelligent design’s strength is its attack on the newer forms of atheism but its weakness is its rejection of “mainstream science.”  I struggle here because I do not see how the notion of a designer rejects science because a designer makes common sense.  Finally, evolutionary creationism’s strength is that it is coherent and compatible with modern science, but the weakness is the Biblical account does not mesh with modern teaching.

Thus, we reach the problem that I posed in my title – what matters most:  God or science?  If God is the answer, then young creationism is the position to be adopted and science is to be utilized to prove the Biblical account.  If science is the answer, then evolutionary creationism is the position to be adopted and the Biblical account is to be reinterpreted accordingly.  Stafford quickly quotes one of the evolutionary creationists in that “evangelicals are not scientists” (page 131), but the opposite is true – most scientists are not theologians.  Therein is the problem.

Early in the book, page 6, Stafford says that “all truth belongs to God,” but he did not stop there.  He continued by saying that science is how we gain truth, but that is problematic.  On pages 150, he says the following:  “Just because the academic community says something doesn’t mean it is true.  They have been wrong before.  It’s good to have some skepticism.”  If all truth belongs to God and the scientific community is wrong, then where should our trust be? 

I understand the attempt by Stafford to present the different perspectives, which he did, but his fairness was lacking.  The conclusions were also strange from someone that identifies that the Bible is their primary source of truth.  He wants “biblical revelation” to be married to “scientific understanding” because there is so much that we can gain (page 211); however, he never defined what that gain would be!  Is it acceptance by the world?  If so, is that what Jesus wanted?  Was he accepted by the scholars of the day or were they the ones that put Him to death?  

Instead, he should have left the conclusion of the book with John Polkinghorne (the scientist turned Anglican priest) when he said that “these explanations [origins] cannot be decided scientifically” (page 195).  He’s right because evolutionary science cannot deal with origins – no human witnessed it for historical preservation and no human can reproduce it in the laboratory for observational proof.  For lack of a better phrase, “battle lines” have already been drawn and changing our position (either Biblically or scientifically) cannot save mankind.  Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection are what give us hope through the Word of God.  It is a total, undivided commitment to Christ – in spite of the world – that can best glorify God.  It is never about us because all of life is always about Him!

I will say this much about Stafford’s work – it does provide some books to read on each perspective.  I have not delved greatly into the evolutionary creation position, but I will be purchasing a book by one of the mentioned scientists.  I do need to learn more about that perspective to reinforce my own.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Headed in the Right Direction

I have not seen the "popular film series" of the same name that was put together by Chuck Colson; so I cannot comment as to whether Scott Rae's book -- Doing the Right Thing:  Making Moral Choices in a World Full of Options -- is an exact duplicate.  Rae  mentions, during the introduction, that there would be an attempt at some similarity between the two.  Chuck Colson was to write this companion book; however, he passed away before that could be completed.

The book can really be separated beyond its chapter demarcations.  Simply, the book has two sections:  (1) the philosophical underpinnings of morality or virtue, and (2) the application of those foundational statements within contexts -- decisions related to the dignity of life, interactions within the marketplace, and the proper functionality of government. 

Being someone with a background in philosophy, enjoyed the first three chapters and believed the last half of the book was its weakest. The author clearly has a command of the arguments for and against the foundation of ethics.  Obviously, the author comes from the Judeo-Christian position and holds to the opinion that God is the source of all truth.  He has participated in many debates and showcases weaknesses for many arguments about a singular, moral standard. The interweaving of Biblical truth and sound reasoning does produce strength in the opening chapters of the book.  I would normally critique the author for retreating from the Biblical foundation of truth; however, I will not do so here -- because he did not retreat from the position.  He simply stated that he wanted to show how to use an antagonist's own reasoning against them.

The latter chapters that applied the foundation pieces were lacking.  The immediate application, dealing with the dignity of life, was soundly reasoned.  As he stated on page 100:  "the way treat those who are weak is a reflection of what we value.  If we prize the God of all creation, we will value the life he has made."  Our culture, with its penchant for abortion or end-of-life options, shows that we do not prize the God of all creation.  The other applications were weaker and, overall, cut the effect of the book.  Again, I have not seen the video series and do not know how much the author had to be bound to the topics or information.

Is this worth some time to read?  Yes.  Is it what I would consider an absolute must read before you die?  No.  The book does have value, but I wish the author would have pressed the point of Redemption further.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Complacency Does not Make Men -- Leadership Does

How God Makes Men by Patrick Morley is a quick and easy read for those wishing to learn more about developing men.  The beauty of Morley’s book on the opportunities facing men is that he turns to the Bible – not the world’s wisdom -- for the inadequate display of manhood in our culture.  Knowing that he has written other books (primarily The Man in the Mirror) and founded an organization in 1991 that bears the name of that first book, I expected shameless plugs for the company throughout.  I was pleasantly surprised that he did not do so.  In fact, the only mention that I could find of his company is in the “About the Author” section.

While I will discuss some shortcomings of this work, the idea of how God makes men is vital to changing our culture.  The secondary lines of the title tell the full story:  “Ten Epic Stories.  Ten Proven Principles.  One Huge Promise for Your Life.”  Wait!  What’s the huge promise for our lives?  The author states it this way in his preface:  “If you will absorb and embrace the timeless principles offered by these ten men, you can get past the shallow cultural Christianity that wants to gut your manhood and get to – or back to – a more biblical Christianity” (xiii).  Shallowness is synonymous with complacency, and neither of those strategies develops men.  It takes leadership to develop into a man as described in the Bible.

This book is important because we live in a society where the idea of manhood is being assaulted.  Stop for just a moment to pause and think about how men are portrayed in modern society, particularly on television.  Men are type-cast as weak, immoral, and partying goofballs that are more interested in abdicating responsibility.  The unfortunate aspect is that men are “living down” to these expectations.  Rather than rising to the challenge, men are choosing the easy path.  Instead of doing what is right, the choice is made to do what they want in the here and now – rather than thinking about the future.  

The focus on all forms of entertainment (such as watching sports or video games) devalues the importance of responsibility and preparation for manhood as complacency is enjoyed.  Do you need proof?  Look at the results posted by the Entertainment Software Rating Board:  (1) the average “gamer” is 34 years old, (2) the average age of the “most frequent game purchaser” is 39 years old, and (3) adult gamers have been playing video games for an average of 12 years.  Commercials for the newest games or game systems are filled with adult, male players; and that demographic clearly matches the averages above.  While I am not arguing against video games, I am arguing that time spent playing video games has a significant familial and societal opportunity cost.  

In turning back to the tenets of Morley’s book, the author provides a series of ten Biblical men and extrapolates principals from each of their lives.  At the end of every chapter, he provides 3 discussion or reflection questions that drive the reader to a deeper application of the principle.  Morley studies Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Gideon, Job, David, Solomon, Nehemiah, Peter, and Paul. 

As far as a critique of Morley’s book, I have two issues.  The first, which is more significant than the other, rests in this question:   if the author wants men to exemplify Biblical Christianity, then why did he not mention Jesus as the foundation of Christianity?  I believe he missed a tremendous opportunity explain Christianity and showcase Jesus as both a teacher and leader.  Real men love others in such a way that they are willing to sacrifice self for the benefit of the loved one.  Christ did that for us when He bore our sins on the cross.  Further, since modern men need to know how God makes men, why not highlight how Jesus worked with His disciples.  He chose typical men in that society, challenged the norms of culture, shaped them into strong leaders that repudiated complacency, and then commissioned them to (in the power of God) turn the world upside down.

The second critique focuses solely upon his chapter on Gideon, and I must admit an immediate bias – my dissertation considered Gideon through the lens of leadership.  Morley missed another opportunity to challenge complacency of men, and he did so by stopping too soon in the story of Gideon.  The author focused on the rosy, amazing, and unexpected things Gideon did by obeying God; yet, Gideon became complacent and left a horrible legacy.  If men every stop applying the principles of God by going their own path, then disaster is on the horizon.  Again, Morley’s intent was to challenge shallow and cultural Christianity but that is the very trap into which Gideon fell.

I do believe this book is worth a read and consideration; however, I would urge any reader to spend time studying the Scripture surrounding these men.  Anytime that a human filter is utilized in writing about the Bible, some important truths end up missing.  In challenging complacent manhood through Biblical leadership, seek to understand God’s redemptive plan that incorporated these characters.  

To lead as a man, we must go to the only One who existed before time and created the world.  God, alone, has the right to rule the world; and He will do so as the Righteous Judge.  That, my friends, is real leadership that men need to study and apply.

Disclosure of Material Connection:  I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review.  I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 25:  “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.

Strange Fire is a Strong Rebuke

John MacArthur's latest book --  Strange Fire -- offers a strong rebuke against the charismatic movement that many include within the umbrella term of evangelicals.  MacArthur rails against the charismatics as false teachers that purport special revelation from God.  Instead, he argues that their actions area not rooted in Scripture and, in fact, make a mockery of the God from whom they have supposedly received some type of special revelation.

Strange Fire opens with statements from former charismatics that have left "the movement" to join Biblical Christianity.  After a strongly worded introduction, the book is clearly divided into three sections -- the counterfeit revival (some history as to the formation of the charismatic movement), exposing fake gifts (a systematic deconstruction of the tenets of charismatics), and then an exposition as to the true work and nature of the Holy Spirit.  

In using Scripture as the basis of the argument, MacArthur says that charismatics twist or ignore the Bible when it seems to undercut their beliefs.  According to the Gospel of John, the Holy Spirit points others to Christ never self; yet, charismatics exalt the prominence of the Holy Spirit as THE goal to be attained.  Charismatic theology no longer espouses redemption by grace through faith in Christ alone because one must not be "slain the Spirit" or be "filled with the Holy Ghost" as show by tongues, prophecies, or other odd manifestations. 


To say that this book has stirred a controversy, well, that is a huge understatement.  MacArthur's church hosted a conference of the same name that drew barbs from the likes of Charisma magazine (a major publication for the charismatic movement) and charismatic pastors Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald (who showed up at the conference to pass out their own materials).  Blogs on both sides, Tweets and Facebook posts claiming seizure of materials, and articles reporting the issues, only heightened the controversy further.  Whenever these types of things occur, an observe must simply ask this question to really figure it out:   so what?

MacArthur blisters charismatics with statement such as:  "in reality it is a sham -- a counterfeit form of spirituality that continually morphs as it spirals erratically from one error to the next" (xvi).  Yes, he uses strong, stinging, forceful, and confrontational language; however, he backs us his claims with evidence.   For instance, how is it that modern day prophets of the charismatic movement are not held to the same standards as those of Scripture?  How is it that people continually believe the so-called prophets, who speak on behalf of God, that cannot get things right?  If they say "thus says the Lord" but the prophecy is in error, then that means God is not truthful but does contain error.  If He contains error, then Christ could not have been our perfect, redemptive sacrifice.  In other words, this aspect of pneumatology has a direct correlation with soteriology.

Is it possible that the tone of his language has immediately turned off many charismatics?  Sure.   Does the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth need to be spoken?  Yes.  Is this a book worth reading?  Absolutely.  In reading Strange Fire, look up every Scriptural reference for yourself and evaluate whether or not you believe John MacArthur is, in fact, teaching the truth.  As Jesus has said -- "the truth will set you free."

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

 

Success but a Shortcoming

Larry Osborne's book Innovation's Dirty Little Secret: Why Serial Innovators Succeed where Others Fail is but one of several books in a series put forward by the Leadership Network.  This manuscript fits their Innovation Series, and do not let the size fool you.  Yes, this is a small book with very short chapters, but they have some mighty themes running through them.  The book is logical, practical, and rational.  It is a quick read -- which must be read and then digested again later. 

If you want to find the "dirty little secret" related to serial innovation, you will not have to read far into the book.  You, however, will need to keep reading to see how it all fits together.  He divides the book into several sections to fully develop the secret throughout:  (1) igniting innovation, (2) accelerating innovation, (3) sabotaging innovation, and (4) a legacy of innovation.  Between the 3rd and 4th sections, he shifts by looking at decision-making and visioneering.  While not symmetrical with the others, it does fit his progression -- if you want to stop sabotaging but leave a legacy of innovation, then it is all about decisions and vision.

Chapter 7 of the book is one of the best summaries I have seen related to a mission statement.  Leadership gurus talk about the need for a mission, but they rarely dig into the "meat" of that conversation.  Osborne puts it this way:  a mission, to be effective, must be "ruthlessly honest, widely known, and broadly accepted" (p 55).  He points out some common, but infrequently discussed, issues with mission statements -- they are confused with a marketing strategy or committees should create the mission.  He challenges those issues by saying that a mission is operational strategy as you decide what to "feed or starve" in order to accomplish the mission.  In running contrary to modern scholarship, he says the mission should be created by the leader to avoid a statement that is too broad and too politically correct.  If the mission values everything as important and uses flowery language to say it "just right," then the mission cannot help the organization focus.

Although I rate this book very well, I am still somewhat perplexed as to why this is touted as a "Christian" leadership book.  Yes, the author is a former pastor and does share some experience about his work in the ministry, the manuscript does not speak of Christian principles that are found in God's Word.  It is a leadership book that fails to mention that God is the First and Ultimate example of leadership.  If innovation is our only goal, then we miss the commission that we have been given by God -- to show the love of Christ to a needy world.  That, in my opinion, is a significant shortcoming. 

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”