In honor of John Calvin's 500th birthday, Westminster Seminary California's 2008 Conference is on the lasting legacy of John Calvin's life and work for the contemporary church.  The conference is tonight from 6 - 9pm and tomorrow from 8am - 2:45pm.  Unfortunately it is sold out, but for those of you interested in following the conference online, Dr. Scott Clark (Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at WSC) will be live blogging here.  The live blogging will begin right at 6pm tonight and run through the whole length of the conference (minus Dr. Clark's session, if he can't find someone to fill in for him). 

You can subscribe via RSS feed here. 

Also, here is the conference schedule.  And here are the speaker bios. 

Hinduism teaches reincarnation. Does Tolle teach that as well, or does he have some other view of the afterlife?   Tolle has said very little about reincarnation. Sometimes he sounds like he does indeed embrace reincarnation. Other times he doesn't sound quite so certain. His clearest statement on what happens to us after we die is less than encouraging -- i.e., he declared that he really has no belief about it at all. When asked by Oprah, he simply responded: "I don't give it any thought." He went on to explain: "I know that the essence of who I am, which is the essence of who you are, is indestructible. I know that directly on a feeling level, and you can also know it even if you talk to a physicist. He will tell you that energy never gets destroyed."

In other words, he really doesn't know what is going to happen to people. The best afterlife that Tolle can offer is either: (a) absorption into an impersonal, universal energy force; or (b) transformation into some kind of "form" that Tolle cannot even predict beyond just some sort of absorption/transformation of their life essence into some kind of metaphysical energy field that fills the cosmos. As he put it: "Transformed to-either to join with the source, or to go through further experiences, experiences of awakening" (I see this as one of those hints at possible reincarnation).

God, on the other hand, has promised an infinitely better destiny to those who accept his gift of salvation made available through Jesus Christ, who said, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom. 10:13), said Paul, who also revealed that God "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). Consequently, our responsibility as Christians is to share truth with those still lost and dying in darkness (2 Cor. 4:3-6), in desperate need of hope and help: "Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God" (Ps. 146:5).  

We've looked a lot at how Tolle's teachings differ from Christianity, but not all of his followers are (or claim to be) Christians. How do you think we can best approach Tolle's non-Christian followers with the gospel?

  There are a few good witnessing approaches to one can take when speaking to followers of Tolle.

  First, pointing out the way Tolle often contradicts himself might be a good route to traverse. For example, he claims:“Many ‘religious’ people . . . equate truth with thought, and as they are completely identified with thought (their mind), they claim to be in the sole possession of the truth in an unconscious attempt to protect their identity.” At the same time, however, it is none other than Tolle who has claimed, “There is only one absolute Truth, and all other truths emanate from it. When you find that Truth, your actions will be in alignment with it.” Isn’t Tolle being “identified with thought”? Isn’t he just being “religious”? Isn’t he merely trying to protect his identity? Asking such questions could open up a doorway to discussing consistency of thought and belief -- which is what we have in Christ.

 Second, discussing the nature of truth and how we can know truth might also be a worthwhile tactic. To do so, one must bring up Tolle's test for truth -- in other words, how he knows what he knows. His Truth, he maintains, can only be found by intuition, internal knowing, and emotion, as the following quote shows:

Something from within—not from our conditioned mind  but from the deeper level of unconditioned consciousness—  responds immediately. Often all that is needed to evoke this  response is to listen to one statement of Truth and imme-  diately there’s a response. Because we all carry the Truth  within us as our essence, we recognize it immediately.

This is a tenuous position to take—i.e., that truth can be validated by a subjective response (in other words, a feeling). It is reminiscent of the “burning in the bosom” sensation cited by Mormons as divine proof of the Book of Mormon (BOM).7 According to Mormons, the sensation comes to those who, in faith, ask God to give them the “burning” if the BOM is true. Once they receive this feeling, the issue is settled. But can a feeling adequately measure truth? What if one person’s feeling conflicts with another person’s feeling? Which is true? So far, we already have at least two opposing feelings. Devout Mormons would never accept Tolle’s teachings, while Tolle’s devotees would say that Mormons do not have his Truth. After that, we have Muslims, who often say that they, too, feel their faith is true. And what about my own feelings that tell me Tolle’s views, Mormonism, and Islam are all false, but Christianity is true

Clearly, feelings are not a very reliable standard by which to measure truth. They are vulnerable to all sorts of factors that might taint them: a confused state of mind, emotional attachments, doctrinal preconditioning, adrenaline in the brain due to over-stimulation, even lack of food and/or sleep. More important, scripture nowhere describes feelings as a reliable truth detector. In fact, the Bible tells us that the heart, the seat of emotion, is “deceitful above all things” (Jer. 17:9). Nevertheless, Tolle confidently relies on nothing but his feelings, going so far as to forcefully attack any reliance on the mind or thinking in one’s search for truth. The doctrinal results that spring from this kind of non-thinking are not only unbiblical, but befuddling, illogical, and self-contradictory. This is very different than the linear, logical, consistent approach Christianity offers to our basis of faith, which is rooted in scripture.

Finally, the issue of absolute evil can be raised. Tolle teaches that absolute evil does not really exist! It is all an illusion -- i.e., our minds have become so attached to the illusory forms we see, that we only think the things we label as evil, truly are evil in an absolute sense. A drive-by shooting on some inner-city street that takes the life of an innocent child—not evil. The kidnapping and torture of Americans in the Middle East—not evil. Sexual abuse perpetrated by a pedophile—not evil. The Nazi Holocaust—not evil. Our perceptions of these things as evil are just that—mere perceptions. Most unbelievers would be very hard-pressed to accept that such things are not truly evil. But we as Christians must help them see the such a flaw in Tolle's teachings. If we can do that, then we have opened the door to discuss such biblical issues as true good and true evil, sin and it's consequences, and forgiveness, which raises the topics of Jesus and the cross.

Ultimately, however, only scripture and God’s Spirit will open the spiritual eyes of someone like Tolle (and his followers).  For it is the Holy Spirit who really leads someone to repentance (Luke 12:12; John 16:8; Acts 4:8–12; 7:51; 1 Thess. 1:5; 4:7–8), telling them not to “harden” their hearts (Heb. 3:8). And we also have the assurance that scripture is “living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). The answer, therefore, is to pray and follow the Spirit’s lead in sharing biblical truth.

Is there such a thing as sin in Tolle's worldview? There is no such thing as the Christian concept of "sin" in Tolle's view. He might use the word "sin," but he has radically redefined it to fit his body of teachings. What irritates me the most is how he makes his view about so-called "sin" sound so right, even though it's so wrong. He states: "“Sin is a word that has been greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted. Literally translated from the ancient Greek in which the New Testament was written, to sin means to miss the mark, as an archer who misses the target, so to sin means to miss the point of human existence.”

We must remember that Tolle usually cares very little about interpreting anything in context, and cares even less about things like a verse’s historical/cultural backdrop, grammar, or the meaning of the original language words used in the New and Old  Testaments. He views such things as obstacles to understanding the Bible through enlightenment or one's own inner realized truth. Yet here we have him suddenly appealing to the Greek word for “sin” to prove his point! This is the height of inconsistency. Why not pay attention to the Greek everywhere else in the New Testament? Answering that question, of course, takes no guesswork. Basically, Tolle mentioned the Greek because the definition of the Greek word for sin (hamartano) happens to be a definition that he is able to bend to his own uses.

Concerning the definition Tolle quotes (i.e., “miss the mark, as an archer who misses the target”), that is a correct literal translation of hamartano. But the obvious question is: What is the mark/ target being missed? At this point, Tolle suddenly has a serious problem. He can no longer appeal to either the original languages or the actual translated text because nothing in the Bible indicates that the “mark” or the “target” is “the point of human existence.”

Predictably, Tolle’s references to the Greek stop immediately. There is no mention of any Bible verses. And he quotes no New Testament writers—or even Jesus. Instead, he conveniently flips back into using his esoteric system of biblical interpretation. Contrary to Tolle, scripture indicates that the “mark” or the “target” that is missed when we sin (hamartano) is God’s righteous, holy, perfect, just, complete law of conduct that is consistent with his own divine will and ways. That is why we all sin (hamartano, miss the mark). No one can measure up to God’s standard of righteousness. No one can reach God’s perfection. “For all have sinned and fall short [miss the mark] of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

Most troubling is how Tolle not only ignores/rejects the concept of "sin." But he also goes so far to dismiss the true existence of absolute evil in general! Things like absolute good and absolute evil to Tolle are nothing but mere illusions -- i.e., our minds only think something is either evil or good based on our over-attachments to the illusions of form that we see. Put another way, A drive-by shooting on some inner-city street that takes the life of an innocent child—not evil. The kidnapping and torture of Americans in the Middle East—not evil. Sexual abuse perpetrated by a pedophile—not evil. The Nazi Holocaust—not evil. The “Truth,” according to Tolle’s paradigm, is that our deceived minds have grown so attached to illusory forms that we mistakenly think the evil we see is real—i.e., evil, wrong, and sinful.

But the Bible nowhere speaks of good/bad or evil/righteousness as only an illusion. Both good and evil are discussed in scripture as absolute realities that have consequences in this life and in the afterlife. In fact, the prophet Amos cried out to Israel, “Seek good, not evil, that you may live. . . . Hate evil, love good” (Amos 5:14–15; cf. Rom. 12:9). Jesus also had many things to say on the nature of good and evil, clearly believing that both were quite real (Mark 3:4; John 5:29). He even categorized some people as evil and some people as good (Matt. 5:45; 12:34–35).  

One of the quotes from Tolle says, "To me, Jesus stands for humanity." Given his pantheistic worldview, what is humanity to him?

All of us, and everything around us, is nothing but one big illusion, says Tolle! The only Reality is the underlying divine Life-Essence that permeates all that is. This Life-Essence is "God." According to Tolle, we must look past the illusion of forms we see, and by doing so, transcend those illusions so that we can grasp who we really are. Once we grasp who we are, Tolle says we will be able to disconnect our minds from those illusions -- i.e., the fountain of all pain, suffering, worry, and trauma.

Without a biblical understanding of sin, does Tolle teach any sort of salvation?

Tolle not only redefines "salvation" in a non-Christian sense, but actually has the audacity to say that his definition of it is the real definition of it intended by Jesus/the Bible. He defines it as personal enlightenment, or the realization of one's own divinity -- i.e., salvation marks a shift in consciousness. He has said this very plainly: "In Hindu teachings (and sometimes in Buddhism also), this transformation [of human consciousness] is called enlightenment. In the teachings of Jesus, it is salvation."

But this is not what the Bible teaches when it comes to salvation. The New Testament Greek word translated as "salvation" (sōtēria) means "deliverance, preservation" (i.e., from any kind of danger). Its root words, saos and sōzō, "add the notion of wholeness, soundness, health, giving 'salvation' a medical connotation." The word salvation clearly paints an idea of someone being rescued and/or healed. Jesus, in fact, described himself as a "physician" (Mark 2:17 KJV).

Healed from what? Rescued from what? These questions are answered in simple terms throughout scripture. We are healed of the disease of sin that afflicts our soul (Ps. 41:4; James 5:16; 1 Peter 2:24), and we are rescued/delivered from the effects of that sin-i.e., eternal death, separation from God (Matt. 8:11-12; 10:28; 13:42, 50; 25:46; Luke 13:24-28; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; Heb. 10:26-27; Rev. 20:11-15). "Salvation" through Christ brings the opposite of eternal death, which is eternal life-i.e., everlasting life with God, in his presence throughout eternity. As Jesus boldly promised: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die" (John 11:25-26).

What does Tolle think of Jesus? Tolle, like other New Agers, portrays Jesus as a mere man; just another avatar (or spiritual teacher) in a long list of avatars who were also “saviors” in their own right. All of them were mere “way-showers” whose purpose was to lead others to enlightenment—i.e., the realization of one’s own divinity. Jesus was somewhat unique only in that he had a highly developed sense of his god-self. Just like everyone else, he came to possess (i.e., he had to discover) his own Christ Consciousness, but when he did so, he realized it more completely than others. Nevertheless, he was no more divine than we are, which something he allegedly tried to help others see. He did NOT come to necessarily die on the cross! In fact, the cross was a defeat. It showed that Jesus had fallen victim to those who did not want to embrace their own divinity. As Tolle has stated, “[W]hat [the cross] points to is the very thing that seems to stand in the way of realizing who you are."

Oprah Winfrey put it most succinctly during a special April 9, 2008, edition of The Oprah Winfrey Show, which featured Tolle’s fans praising his teachings. She brazenly declared: "I thought Jesus came, died on the cross. That Jesus’ being here was about his death and dying on the cross, when it really was about him coming to show us how to do it. How to be. To show us the Christ Consciousness that he had, and that that consciousness abides with all of us."

Bear in mind that this is the same Oprah who continues to publicly claim she's a Christian and believes in Jesus Christ. Well, forgive me if I use uncharacteristically blunt words at this point, but it must be said: Oprah is not a Christian, nor does she believe in the Jesus of the Bible. By the teachings/beliefs she espouses make her a classic New Ager who exalts a different Jesus, a different spirit, and a different gospel (2 Cor. 11:3–4). I wish that both she and Tolle would, for the sake of truth, just stop claiming that Tolle's teachings are compatible with Christianity. They're not compatible with the Christian faith. The only way he and Oprah are making it SEEM compatible is by twisting and perverting scripture to say whatever Tolle wants it to say in contradiction to the context and language of the Bible verses he always quotes. What he and Oprah are doing is deceptive, in my opinion—perhaps not deliberately, but deceptive nevertheless. They might be sincere, but they are sincerely wrong, and they are leading many people down a dead-end path of false spirituality.  

In his view, why did Jesus die on the cross and does it mean anything positive for us today?

Tolle actually doesn't say very much about why Jesus ended up dying on the cross. But from the precious little that Tolle does say, he seems to feel the cross was a defeat which occurred at the hands of the reactionary, violent, religious, and unenlightened. There is no sense at all in Tolle's teachings that the cross was, in reality, the essence of Christ's mission, which is what scripture consistently teaches (see Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:33–34, 45; 12:1–11; Luke 13:33; John 12:24-27; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Tim. 1:15).

To Tolle, the cross is at best "a strange dualistic symbol." As he says, "To me, Jesus stands for humanity. So this man is nailed to the torture instrument, totally helpless, in deep suffering. At that point comes total surrender to what is. ‘Not my will, but thy will be done.’”

Tolle then goes on to explain that ultimately, however, "the symbolic significance of the cross is changed from being a torture instrument to a symbol of the divine" because "[t]he very suffering that comes with being here in this physical realm---because eventually some form of suffering comes to everybody--can become an opening into that which we call the divine."

We again see Tolle perverting scripture in order to make it say what he wants it to say. Christ's death on the cross in this view, is nothing a but a tragic event used to picture humanity (i.e., Jesus) nailed to the instrument of suffering that we all face in life (i.e., the cross), which is something we all must simply surrender to because it usually cannot be avoided for fought. This is hardly the Christian view.

In itself, this perspective is not very shocking when taken in light of Tolle's New Age mindset. But what is indeed somewhat surprising is how both he and Oprah are seriously trying to push this resoundingly heretical view into a Christian mold. First, by Tolle quoting so much scripture to support his views. Second, by Oprah relentlessly calling herself a "Christian" and assuring faithful fans that what Tolle is saying is completely compatible with Christianity.

This is the first part of a four part interview concluding this Thursday.

Eckhart Tolle claims that what he is teaching is neutral to his religion. Yet many people are flocking to him as though he's a religious teacher. Is his message religious and how does it compare to Christianity? First, people must realize that Tolle is a master of double-speak and self-contradiction. On the one hand, for example, he  will assert that there is neither absolute good/bad, nor absolute right/wrong -- but then he will go on to tell everyone what is absolutely good/bad and absolutely right/wrong per his own views. He will also allege that anyone who claims there is only one way (or one truth) is blinded by ego, illusion, and false beliefs -- but then he will go on to inform readers/listeners of his own "truths" per his own ideas and absolute interpretations of the Bible. He uses this same technique when it comes to the question of whether or not other religions are compatible with his teachings. He will claim in one breath that his teachings are totally compatible with other faiths, but then when it comes to Christianity, for instance, he will go on to advance beliefs that are totally incompatible with what has been established as the foundational views of Christianity.

Second, when it comes to Christianity, he paints it as one of the worst examples of spirituality/faith when it is out of control and based on illusion, lies, and dangerous ideas. As he puts it, “The history of Christianity is, of course, a prime example of how the belief that you are in sole possession of the truth, that is to say, right, can corrupt your actions and behavior to the point of insanity.” This is the same worn-out slander that has used against Christianity for centuries -- i.e., bring up all the horrific things done under the guise of Christianity (e.g., witch hunts, Crusades, etc.) and blame the actual faith itself, rather than the people who merely used the faith to further their own evil and wickedness.

Third, it should be understood that Tolle's "religion" is not really a "religion" per se, but rather an eclectic mix of doctrinal views taken from all over the religious landscape. This reflects the way people are choosing their spirituality today -- i.e., a little bit of this a little bit of that. And it doesn't really seem to matter if the various things they are choosing are intellectually consistent or logical. In other words, of a certain idea "feels" good, then they'll take it and just throw it into their personal spirituality stew. This is why Tolle, I believe, uses so many quotes from the Bible -- it sounds awfully spiritually and uplifting. Unfortunately, the words contained in his select passages are rendered meaningless by him because he perverts them utterly via radically New Age  misinterpretations of them based on his own internal, subjective "knowledge" of what those verses supposedly REALLY mean -- always contrary, by the way, to their context and language. In this way he utterly reshapes/redefines every Christian doctrine around what HE believes about God, Jesus, eternal life, salvation, the cross, the "new" haven and earth mentioned in Revelation, the term "Christ," and the mission of Jesus.  

What is the basic message he's teaching?

His basic religious message is: You can escape suffering and live happy, fulfilled, and purposeful if you know who you REALLY are. And who are you? Supposedly, you and everyone else, and everything else, is "God" (which he defines as the Life Force, Power, One, Reality, or Essence of all that exists). This impersonal, cosmic, metaphysical stuff is what we need to recognize as our TRUE self, underlying the illusion of forms we see. Such a view is nothing but pantheism, which has been taught in Hinduism for centuries. It's one of the foundational teachings of the classic New Age Movement. It's all very, very old stuff. But with a new twist, thanks in part, to Oprah, who has become, as one person said it, the Queen of the New Age Gurus.  

What is it that people find so appealing about Tolle's message?

Tolle is a likable guy, first of all. He's not intimidating in the least—i.e., he comes off as very calm, kind-hearted, gentle, witty, caring, sincere, non-judgmental, and non-combative. There's a lot to be said for personality! This is enough to get most people to believe just about anyone, be they a used-car salesman, a politician, or an entertainer.

And then you have Oprah, who has been identified by Forbes as the most influential/powerful celebrity in the world. So, for a lot of people (fans, fellow celebrities, Hollywood movers and shakers), whatever Oprah says is golden. Whatever she says is true must be true. Add a few more celebrity endorsements into the mix and you've got untold millions looking to Eckhart Tolle because he is being backed by celebrities.

As for his actual message, it is crafted extraordinarily well for our era of self, self, self. It's all about the self -- me, me, me. What can YOU achieve, by YOUR efforts, to make YOU happier, by getting what YOU want, through understanding YOUR power, and knowing YOUR real identity, which is "God" (as Tolle defines him from a pantheistic perspective). The bottom line is simple—i.e., escape your suffering, obtain what you want, live a good life.

This is the same foundational teaching that has infected certain segments of the Christian community. The only difference is that in Tolle's teachings, each person is supposed to look inwardly to their own self as "God." The Christian version doesn't go quite that far, but instead, holds on to an external God while we are painted more us more like little gods who can, by virtue of our faith, make the big God give us what we want.

Christianity, contrary to Tolle’s assertion, does not teach it is possible to “end” suffering. Such an idea is nowhere to be found in Christ’s sermons (or anywhere in the Bible). In fact, the very opposite is taught in scripture—i.e., followers of Jesus will experience all kinds of suffering for myriad reasons. History has repeatedly born out the accuracy of this teaching with frightening clarity. Christian suffering began almost immediately after Jesus ascended to heaven (Acts 1:10–12). But believers in Christ always recalled Master's promise: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted” (Matt. 5:4). The Christian’s hope, in other words, is not to escape suffering, but to endure it with the strength, guidance, and comfort of God that is made available to us through the Holy Spirit, who is variously called the Counselor, Helper, or Comforter (John 14:16). The answer for Christians who live in a world rife with suffering is to look to, and lean on, God, “who comforts the downcast” (2 Cor. 7:6). It molds us, shapes us, and conforms us to the image of Christ. This is not a real popular message. In fact, it seems that few people these days (even in the Christian church, especially in America) are willing to accept what Jesus said in John 16:33: "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

At first glance, Planet Narnia may sound like an odd name for a book. But according to many C.S. Lewis scholars, it is the most groundbreaking study on Lewis's Narnian Chronicles in at least the past 40 years. This week, I'll be posting a three part interview with the author of Planet Narnia, Dr. Michael Ward. I don't usually do this, but since there is plenty of information about the book online and the interview assumes some knowledge of its thesis, I figured it would be helpful to provide a brief introduction to the book. Most of what appears below is taken from the book's website: www.planetnarnia.com

Thesis: The book argues that Lewis secretly based the Chronicles of Narnia on the seven heavens of the medieval cosmos. What are the seven heavens?  According to astronomers before Copernicus in the sixteenth century, the seven heavens contained the seven planets which revolved around Earth and exerted influences over people and events and even the metals in the Earth's crust. The seven planets of the old cosmology included the Sun (Sol) and the Moon (Luna), which we now don't regard as planets at all. The other five were Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Why was Lewis so interested in the planets?  Because he regarded them as 'spiritual symbols of permanent value' which were 'especially worthwhile in our own generation' (this is how he wrote about them when introducing his long 1935 poem, 'The Planets').  What made them so timely for his own generation was that these spiritual symbols were headed by Jupiter (Jove), the kingly, festive, and magnanimous planet.  Lewis thought that his own generation was too often 'Saturnocentric', that is, fixated upon Saturn, the planet of calamity and misfortune and death.  This fixation was no surprise because his own generation had been, as he put it, 'born under Saturn'; many of his contemporaries had been doomed to die in the Great War.  But that was an historical accident, not an eternal truth about the nature of the universe.  The qualities associated with Jupiter were, he thought, a better representation of the heart of spiritual reality.  The hierarchical order of the planets, in which Jupiter was enthroned as king over the other six, was a useful reminder of this heart.  'Of Saturn we know more than enough,' he wrote, 'but who does not need to be reminded of Jove?'

Isn't astrology incompatible with Christianity?

It depends what you mean by 'astrology'.  If you mean 'worshipping the planets' or 'regarding the planetary influences as determinative', then, yes, astrology is unChristian.  But 'astrology' doesn't necessarily mean either of those things.  Literally, astrology means 'study of the stars', and there is nothing dangerous, wrong, or foolish about studying God's creation. 

Although the Bible outlaws worship of the 'host of heaven' (see for example, Deuteronomy 4:19; 2 Kings 17:16; Job 31:26f; Jeremiah 8:2), the Bible also allows that the stars have spiritual significance, which is to be respected, studied, and, indeed, acted upon.  The stars proclaim the glory of God, according to the nineteenth psalm (Lewis's favourite), a psalm which St Paul quotes (Romans 10:18) in order to demonstrate how the Gentiles have already heard the preaching of Christ.  The Magi who followed the Star of Bethlehem to the birthplace of Christ clearly understood this (Matthew 2:2, 9-10).

Throughout the Bible the stars are seen as 'signs' (Genesis 1:14; Jeremiah 10:2; Matthew 24:29). Interpretation of these signs is depicted negatively in Isaiah (47:13) and Daniel (1:20; 2:27; 4:7), but only because it was practised by heathens for godless ends, not because such astrological enquiry was considered evil or dangerous per se. Go here for more on this question and other common questions that have been asked about the book.

Almost every Lewis scholar who has read the book at least generally agrees with its thesis. You can read some of the reviews here: http://www.planetnarnia.com/planet-narnia/reviews

The only critic I can find who has read the book and has offered substantial criticism against its thesis is Devin Brown. You can read a discussion between him and Michael Ward (as well as other forum members) on NarniaWeb.

Hugh Hewitt had Michael Ward in studio to talk about the book, and you can listen to that interview here.

Most polls quoted these days claim that anywhere from 80 to 90% of Americans believe in God. Some people find comfort in this statistic, but it actually says very little about the God or god they believe in. For example, included in that number are a rising number of pagans and witches. A recent MTV.com feature highlights some of the popular incentives for practicing "the Craft":


The following is from an article on witches in Salem and a recent public educational forum:

Throughout the evening, the panelists described a mainstreaming of their religion that they never dreamed possible. Today modern paganism is the 19th most popular religion in the United States, said Adler. “Wicca has exploded as far as numbers,” she said. There are now Wiccan-based charities, Wiccan-based AA chapters and Wiccan groups adopting highway beautification projects. Pagan studies courses are offered in major universities, she said.

Why is Wicca more accepted today? The MTV.com points to favorable portrayals in the media: "A surprising number of young witches MTV News spoke with also said that they became curious about their faith through misguiding pop-culture fare like the camp Neve Campbell vehicle "The Craft" and the "Harry Potter" series. (Guess a few conservative Christian groups were right about that one)." The Salem News article points to the dispelling of old impressions that witches are evil and to some degree of compromise in order to make it more mainstream.

As people in our culture look ever in toward themselves, they care less for objective truth and more for what feels right to them:


The videos (which I recommend watching- the second starts after the first concludes) feature a recurring theme: "there is no wrong way to worship." This is why Wiccans only have "a few simple beliefs in common." Though united in these few things, every Wiccan approaches religion like a buffet- only taking those things that appeal to them. Religious belief is no longer in the realm of objective truth, it is now private expression.

Wicca and related pagan religions make up just some of the hundreds of options put before Americans today, but it all boils down to two options: Will you seek the true God of the universe who refuses to to be crafted according to your mutable desires, or will you idolize and worship feelings that don't exist apart from yourself?

Are we as Christians prepared to preach the gospel to those who choose the latter?

Christian Answers for a New Age has some great articles on this topic.

Articles and books by Peter Jones are also an excellent resource. I especially recommend Capturing the Pagan Mind.

We all expect the Spanish Inquisition to show up sooner or later in our discussions with atheists.  Does the presence of the Inquisition in Christian history discredit all of Christianity?  Does it render our past completely barbaric?

Here's a question that can help clarify the issues involved with the Inquisition objection:  Do you honor Thomas Edison for inventing the light bulb, or do you merely scoff at him for not inventing a computer?  Edison explored the same world we explore, and yet he only invented a light bulb.  Was he a colossal failure?  Absolutely not.  Data (in this case, the data of the physical world) takes time to work through, sort out, and apply.  Edison had a less than perfect understanding of the world, but he furthered the process of our knowledge and application of the facts of nature by one more step, moving us all towards a more precise understanding of the one reality of nature that has existed since the beginning.  Eventually scientific data would lead to computers, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the beauty and wonder of the invention of the light bulb in its own time.  And even though at the time of the light bulb's creation there were many other false ideas about how to apply the laws of nature (the use of leeches, for example), the false applications did not discredit science for all time.

Now move this same idea away from science and into the realm of morality and Christianity.  Like the unchanging laws of nature, we have the unchanging words of God in the Bible.  And as in the world of science, in the world of Christianity we've had to work out our knowledge and application of those unchanging words into our societies.  This takes time because human societies started off so far from the ideal--with many false ideas and without knowledge of some true ideas of application that hadn't yet occurred to them.  (For example, the idea that a pluralistic society could peacefully exist and not tear itself apart looks obvious to us now, but before the cultural situation made the discovery of this radically new idea possible, it was assumed that one must enforce unanimity for the good of the citizens, in order to survive.)

It's no surprise, then, that 500 years ago societies had only reached the moral equivalent of the light bulb and not the computer; but the problem was in the application, not in the data.  That is, as inevitably as an application of the facts of the physical world led to computers, so the ideas of the Bible have led to the free societies we now see in the West.  But one ought not be surprised by the amount of time it took the societies of the West to work through ideas based on biblical data any more than one is surprised by the thousands of years it took us to work through scientific ideas based on the observable data of nature.  Nor does it make any more sense to fault the unchanging Bible itself for those societies' slow pace than it does to fault the always-present laws of nature for our formerly rudimentary ideas about science.  The Bible and nature remained the same even if the implications had not yet been fully explored and rightly applied.  And, as with the light bulb, we ought to honor the steps that were made in creating better societies rather than merely degrade the people of the past for not creating the inventions and institutions we have today.

But why, we may then ask, when first creating the nation of Israel, did God not immediately demand that they live as we do today?  The answer might be similar to the reason why He didn't supply them with computers.  A computer would have been completely beyond their grasp.  In the same way, Israel had a difficult enough time adjusting their society to what God did give them explicitly at that time.  Some things, to be fully understood, accepted, and lived out, have to be reached on our own as we struggle over time, learning little by little.  Applications of ideas are discovered and then take time to permeate and transform a society.  This, in turn, lays the groundwork for discovering more applications.

What God did do is speak to Israel where they were.  He addressed the world as they knew it, and He set a foundation of ideas in place through the Old and New Testaments that would infect societies in such a way that the spread of those ideas would eventually lead us to where we are today.  He told us that we're all--men and women--created in His image (Gen 1:27) and equal in value before Him (Gal 3:28, Philemon).  We're not to kidnap people and sell them into slavery (Ex 21:16), we're not to punish people in a way that humiliates them (Deut 25:3), we're not to make converts by the sword (John 3:5-8, 18:36), the State is under God and the law (Deut 17:14-20), no one--rich or poor (Lev 19:15), native or foreigner (Num 15:15-16)--is to be favored when justice is dispensed, and the foundation goes on and on.

Unfortunately, just as the lack of good scientific instruments slowed the discovery and application of the laws of nature, our moral weaknesses--stubbornness, ignorance, biases, selfishness, and inherited false beliefs--have made the application of the Bible to our societies a difficult, slow process.  This is why the Inquisition, while condemnable, is not unexpected or surprising and so does not successfully argue against the truthfulness of Christianity.  And in fact, it gives further witness to the truthfulness of the Bible's central message of our desperate need for Jesus and the forgiveness He provides.

It's funny to me that while William Wilberforce needed to argue in his book, A Practical View of Christianity, that the religious affections--love, gratitude, joy, hope, trust, etc.--are a necessary a part of our relationship with and service to God, we have the very opposite problem only a couple of centuries later.  Today, knowledge about God, not emotion, is looked on with suspicion.  Many postmodern Christians prefer a fuzzy image of a God who is beyond our understandable categories, and they resist definitions that might "limit" Him.

But Wilberforce's words, though they were written to argue for emotion (i.e., the experience that postmoderns seek), also reveal the absolute necessity of knowledge as the foundation of true experience:

To ascertain [the genuineness and strength of the religious affections in a person] we must examine whether they appear to be grounded in knowledge, to have their root in strong and just conceptions of the great and manifold excellences of their object, or to be ignorant, unmeaning, or vague. . . .

Religious affections are only sustainable if they are attached to a real God who is known to be worthy of those affections; they simply can't carry themselves for very long.  But when knowledge is in its proper place, and the perfect and beautiful, solid and known truths about Him are meditated upon, desire for God inevitably follows; and that desire, in turn, fuels more intellectual pursuit of the truths of God.

Wilberforce charges that we all know this interplay between knowledge and affections exists, and it's the way any person would encourage another to continue on in a difficult task of any kind (not just religious): 

Weigh well (he would say) the value of the object for which you are about to contend, and contemplate and study its various excellences, till your whole soul be on fire for its acquisition. . . . Accustom yourself to look first to the dreadful consequences of failure; then fix your eye on the glorious prize which is before you; and when your strength begins to fail, and your spirits are well nigh exhausted, let the animating view rekindle your resolution, and call forth in renewed vigor the fainting energies of your soul.

Why, Wilberforce argues, should this be different only in the case of religion?  Knowledge is the root of love, passion, service, and perseverance.  With knowledge, you get all of these things.  Without knowledge, you'll have none of them.

Audio book, that is.  This month's free selection at Christianaudio.com is The Life of David Brainerd by Jonathan Edwards.  I love biographies, and this one promises to be very interesting: 

Though he was orphaned at age fourteen, repeatedly struck with debilitating illnesses, and unfairly expelled from college, Brainerd allowed nothing to deter him from serving God wholeheartedly. He traveled thousands of miles by horseback across treacherous terrain to preach the gospel to remote Indians. His calling required a rugged man--he even slept outside in the cold without cover--yet he constantly displayed a gentle and meek love for people entirely different from himself. Their benefit ultimately brought about his early death at the age of twenty-nine. Like an invigorating shower, the listener will be rejuvenated by Brainerd's life-giving devotional insights, refreshing clarity of purpose, and heartwarming preaching. This book offers not only a captivating story, but an uplifting buoy for those who are weary, distant, or discouraged.

 

For a preview of the life you'll hear about in this book, you can listen to (or read) John Piper's biographical lecture on Brainerd.  (And if you haven't listened to the rest of Piper's biographies, what the heck are you waiting for?!)