Posted on

The New Testament in Color (Part 1) with Esau McCaulley

David Capes  

Joining me today is Esau McCauley, Associate Professor of New Testament and Public Theology at  Wheaton College. He worked with NT Wright, our friend from the University of St Andrews.

David Capes  

Welcome. We’re so glad that you’re here. 

Esau McCaulley  

Oh, thank you. Happy to be here. I’m enjoying it, it’s a beautiful, beautiful space. 

David Capes  

Yes and you’ve had a chance to enjoy our Yarnton property.

Esau McCaulley  

Yes! How many people have done both? I’ve done double duty. 

David Capes  

You are twice blessed. 

Esau McCaulley  

I have to go back once the library is finished there, so I can see it fully operational.

David Capes  

We’re going to be talking about your commentary that you led. It’s a great project, and it’s called the New Testament in Color: A Multiethnic Bible Commentary. Tell us about this project.

Esau McCaulley  

My first book looked at the contributions of the African American church to understanding Christianity in America, and the distinctive ways in which African Americans have read the Bible and made sense of it. And so, when I wrote that book, it was supposed to be a part one of a two part series. But a lot of people bought the first book. And then wanted to talk about it, some people attacked it, so you’ve got to defend it. So it took longer to help people understand what I did and didn’t mean by African American biblical interpretation. Maybe we’ll talk about that for a second to help everyone understand New Testament in Color.

David Capes  

That was one of my questions down the way. Let’s talk a little bit about that, because you wrote a chapter on that here.

Esau McCaulley  

Yes, when we think about African American biblical interpretation, we could get this idea that skin color creates interpretations of the Bible. Like there’s something in the melanin that makes you a magical Bible interpreter. That’s not what I mean at all. What I mean is the color of your skin impacts the way that you’re treated, and when you’re treated a certain way, it raises certain kinds of questions that you then go to the Bible and answer. A good example is a lot of African Americans are told that Christianity is a white man’s religion. So, we have to show from the Bible that Christianity isn’t a white man’s religion. And I doubt that most pastors in white churches have had people come and say, Christianity is the black man’s religion, prove to me that it isn’t. So the questions that are raised in an African American context aren’t the same questions that are raised in other contexts. 

The other example that I use, is say it’s 1954 and Brown v. Board of Education has just passed. Now African Americans are thinking through the questions of how we’re going to be Christians in this new context. Now consider, it’s also 1954 but it’s a white pro-segregation congregation, and the pastor has  to stand up and make the case from the Bible. Different context produces different questions. Now you still turn into the Bible for answers. The Bible is still the authority, but the kinds of questions that you ask are influenced by your context. Then sometimes because of your context, you ask questions that lead to insights that people might not otherwise notice.

Another example that I give is say you’re getting ready to teach a youth group, and you’re looking through the Bible. You’re thinking, what’s a good message to say to 15-year-olds. And because 15-year-olds are in your head, you see exactly how this part in Paul, will speak exactly to the experiences of a 15 or 16 year olds. Those insights are there, but you didn’t notice them, because normally you think about preaching to adults. In actuality, the people who you imagine when you read the Bible influence the kinds of things that you notice, and it influences the kinds of things that you bring out of the text. So if we only have one group of people in mind when we interpret the Bible, it leads to the possibility that we don’t see things that are there. I’m not talking about distorted meanings. I’m talking about motivated readings, the things that you notice because you’re attending to them based upon your experiences. 

Maybe another example of this, not to belabor the point. Let’s say you’re a woman, and you’re told that women are intellectually inferior. You ask the question what does the Bible actually say about women. And as a woman, you might be really motivated to get this right, because this matters for who you are. Motivated readings aren’t necessarily bad, sometimes they can help us or sometimes they can hinder us. Motivated readings are a fact of reality, and African Americans in the United States have had unique experiences that have required us to answer questions that other communities haven’t. And there’s a deposit of reflections that have arisen from a community that we call the black church, that have formed habits of reading. And so that’s what we call African American biblical interpretation. Not skin color producing readings, but skin color producing experiences that we then bring to the text that influence our reading. 

If that is true of African Americans, it’s also true of people from other cultures. We thought what happens if you bring different cultures together to create a commentary that itself reflects what the church is supposed to be, people from every tribe, tongue and nation, reading the Bible together to make sense of it. The New Testament in Color is black, white, Asian and Latino scholars who are together working on a commentary on the New Testament. Not that we all did each one individually, but each person wrote a commentary on a particular book. We have Native American peoples, First Nations indigenous peoples, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos and white scholars. We wanted to focus on North American minorities. We saw things like the Asian Bible Commentary and others that were more Bible commentaries looking at evangelicalism, listening to the voice of the global church. And we said, it’s great to listen to the global church through the African Bible Commentary, the Asian Bible Commentary. These things are important, but what about the ethnic minorities in our midst? What we wanted to do was to create something that brought together the ethnic minorities in the United States along with the majority culture, because white is a culture, and bring them together to create a commentary.

David Capes  

There are white scholars here, as well as black scholars. Gene Green, Michael Gorman, Amy peeler is one of the editors. Janette Oak. Tell us about Janet.

Esau McCaulley  

Dr. Oak is an Asian American scholar at Fuller Seminary. She focuses on I & II Peter. She’s also working on a commentary right now on all three letters of John. She is an accomplished scholar, Associate Professor at Fuller. She’s published tons of stuff. Amy peeler is a colleague at Wheaton. We love Wheaton. Amy is a Hebrews scholar, and she also deals a lot with gender, and is helping us understand how the Bible describes women and the gifts that God has given to women and how the church needs to embrace the entire body of Christ to effective ministry. She’s a great New Testament scholar. She did a commentary on Hebrews. Her commentary on Hebrews just came out sometime recently. There’s Osvaldo Padilla. He’s a Latino scholar at Beeson Divinity School, which is in Alabama, you know, God’s country! He is working on the commentary on the Pastorals. 

All of them are accomplished scholars. We wanted three things from the people who participated. One, we wanted them to affirm that Scripture is the final authority for Christians, for faith and practice. Although we agree to disagree on a lot of stuff, we wanted to say we agree on the Bible. The second thing we said was we wanted the creeds to function as the consensus around Christian belief as well. So the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed. We said, there’s a bunch of denominations here and we think the creeds are a good summary of what it means to be a Christian. So If you say you’re pro-creed, and you say you like the Bible, you could be in the commentary. Beyond that, we gave people freedom. We also said we didn’t want people to speak for their entire ethnicity. I’m not speaking for black people, but I’m a black person speaking from that perspective. This is not the black view on A, B and C. It’s more of a person who’s being unapologetically themselves in the interpretive process.

David Capes  

Let’s talk a little bit about your own journey growing up in Alabama. Your own experiences. You were born in the 70’s I I take it. 

Esau McCaulley  

I like to call myself a child of the 70s. I was born in October of 1979. I’ve lived in the 70s, the 80s, the 90’s to 2000’s, the 2010’s and the 2020’s.

David Capes  

Six decades. Wow. It’s you were barely in the. 70s.

Esau McCaulley  

That month and a half in the 70s is a wild time.

David Capes  

Talk about your journey toward faith. 

Esau McCaulley  

I think that a lot of the times I talk more about decisions for Jesus rather than a decision for Jesus. I feel like a significant part of my spiritual journey is, over time, giving over more and more of my life to God. Because I was raised in a Christian home. My grandparents, on both sides of my family, were Baptist ministers. My mom was a minister. She became a minister after I did so I always say she followed me into ministry. She got ordained, a couple of years ago. We were in church every Sunday. We were kind of from a rough part of town, and so we tended towards binaries. You were either in the church or in the streets. And so I was in the church, but the levels of my piety waxed and waned over the years. And so I didn’t say it out loud to the pastor, but I’ll come to church on Sunday and if you preach a good sermon, I’m going to be a Christian that week. If you don’t, you lost me. I’ve always kept that with me, because I know what it’s like to go into church and say, if I don’t hear a word from God today I don’t know what’s going happen. 

That was most of my childhood, and I would say that for me, Christianity was in periods in my life, more of a survival mechanism. It was the way out of my neighborhood. And maybe I can say, to make a very long story short, I was a college football player, division three at the University of the South. And it was shocking to go from the poverty of my high school to college at the University of the South, where there’s so much money and so much wealth. They joked because in football we had “two a days”, where you practice twice a day. Tennessee was super hot, and I was the only person who actually ever gained weight during “two a days”. Because I never had that much food in my life. You could just go to cafeteria and eat whenever you want. I couldn’t believe it. 

But one of the things that I realized is that after I was no longer in this place where I didn’t recognize my need for God, I said, Oh, God had done what he needed to do. He got me to college, and I was in college. It was a more theologically progressive place, where I took the religion classes. They told you that none of this stuff was true, and all of the kind of stuff you hear as a stereotype of religion and higher education. It’s really good to tell a college student that God doesn’t care what you do. It wasn’t that intellectually stimulating. There were the fraternity houses down the road and the professors telling me I can do what I want. That’s a toxic mix for a college student. And I kind of drifted away from my faith for a little bit in college. Then there came this particular moment in college. 

It was Christmas break when I had a significant spiritual moment in my life. I’m home for break, and I’m back in my room, but it’s no longer mine, because when you leave our house, there’s too many people to leave an empty room. So it was my sister’s bedroom and everything’s pink now. I was listening to Etta James, like old school and Billie Holiday; this sad jazz music on this thing called Napster. If you’re a certain age, you remember when you could download illegal music before there were streaming services. I wasn’t praying or anything. I’m just listening to sad jazz music. Because I had everything that I wanted in college. I was no longer worried about what I was going to eat. I was doing well in school. I was doing well in sports. I was not praying. I was just listening to depressing jazz music because it felt like it matched my mood. 

I had this idea that I think comes from God. It was like a sentence, fully formed. What happens when you receive everything you ever wanted, but it’s not sufficient to bring you joy. And I said that has summarized my college experience. And then the answer to the question that the Spirit was, maybe you should try God and take him seriously. And so that was the spiritual transformation. But because I had been in college and I had all of the intellectual stuff taken away from me, I had to go through this process of reading myself. I had to say, I know I’ve had this experience of God, but now I had to make intellectual sense of this and that. And actually, the study to make sense of what I’d experienced spiritually led me down the road to becoming, ultimately, an academic. I began to answer those questions that I received in those courses. 

Jeannine asked me, what is it that I like doing the most? And I said, talking to students about the Bible and giving them the confidence to live their lives on the basis of each text. Because I know what it’s like to have a professor whose goal was to take that away from students. I want to give that back to students, to say we are not fools for trusting in the God who revealed these texts. And so that’s a little bit of my spiritual journey.

David Capes  

Great story. 

This is the end of part one of my interview with Esau McCaulley.  Part two is coming up next week.

Posted on

Theodicy vs. Anti-theodicy with Jahdiel Perez

This transcript has been edited for clarity and space.

Hey everybody. My name is Jahdiel Perez, and I’m an Assistant Professor of Humanities and Sciences at Villanova University in Pennsylvania.

David Capes  

Jahdiel, welcome to The Stone Chapel Podcast. Great to see you again. 

Jahdiel Perez  

Great to see you too. Thanks for having me. 

David Capes  

Oh, this is a delight. I was deeply impressed by your presentation here, and we’ll say more about that in a few minutes. But for those who don’t know Jahdiel Perez, who are you?

Jahdiel Perez  

I’m a Guatemalan and Puerto Rican pastor’s kid that grew up in Boston. I wanted nothing to do with school. I hated school with a passion. When I was about 19 years old, I had this encounter with the writings of C. S. Lewis, and it completely changed my life. I felt like God was waking me up and inviting me to play this really intriguing game with him that I later learned was called philosophy, theology, apologetics. 

And after that moment, I just wanted to spend my life wrestling with the some of the most important questions that we can ask as human beings. And then God opened the doors to study theology at Harvard and to get my doctoral degree at Oxford University. Now in this latest stage I’ve taken up a position of Humanities and Sciences at Villanova. So, it’s just a pleasure to be with you

David Capes  

Well, having watched you teach when you were at the Lanier Theological Library, I can tell your students are very fortunate to have you, because you’re very clear. You know where you want to go with a lecture. You were here for part of a conference that we did with Amy Orr Ewing entitled C.S. Lewis and the Problem of Pain. You did a lecture to a smaller group of people who were gathered here for the Lanier Certificate in Theology and Ministry. You did a talk and called it C.S. Lewis Among Contemporary Theologians. I have retitled it Theodicy versus Anti-theodicy. In a sense, you pit the two against each other. Let’s just get into the definitions. First of all, you start by defining horrendous evil. We all sort of know the idea of evil, but what do you mean by a horrendous evil?

Jahdiel Perez  

Horrendous evil is this idea that this philosopher, Marilyn McCord Adams, introduced in 1990 and the idea was that when we talk about how God relates to suffering, we’re not talking about just ordinary suffering. We’re not talking about the kind of suffering where you have a cavity or a headache. What Adams wanted to do was to distinguish those kinds of suffering where you can point them to a greater good. Like, if you go to the dentist, it’s for health, right? The pain that you feel at the gym is for health as well. There are ways you can easily think about a good reason for suffering. 

Horrendous evil is this category of evil where it’s almost impossible to try to find or imagine a good reason why somebody could suffer like that. And she defines it as life-ruining evil. It’s a kind of suffering where you question that your life could ever be meaningful again, or that anything good could compensate for that evil. So that’s basically how she defined the category. And ever since this has been the main term that philosophers and theologians have been debating over. So now we’re not talking about evil anymore. We’re talking about horrendous evil. 

David Capes  

One of the ways that that philosophers and theologians deal with that is through an idea that you find in philosophy and theology. Theodicy is the key term. When you say theodicy, what do you mean by that? 

Jahdiel Perez  

There’s a few ways to define theodicy. It comes from these two terms, Theos and Dike, which means God and justice. I’m defending the justice of God, the nature of God in the face of suffering. So there’s this obvious tension between the magnitude of suffering and the goodness of God, right? And maybe you’ve heard of the problem of evil. The idea that, if God is all good and all powerful and morally perfect, how can he allow so much suffering? So theodicy, simply put, is a response to the problem of evil. It tries to defend the nature of God in the face of suffering.

There’s two ways to think about theodicy. One is primarily in terms of truth. I’m searching for the truth about God in the midst of suffering. Another way is, I’m searching for meaning that God can give to my suffering. Those are two different ways that the discussion goes. Some philosophers will want to debate, is theodicy true? Others will want to say, is it helpful? Does it give suffering meaning that allows us to experience it and cope better with suffering?

David Capes  

I guess it’s probably the perfect answer, if you find that it is both true and it helps you discover meaning. But now there’s this movement that is called anti-theodicy. What is anti-theodicy? 

Jahdiel Perez  

This movement really picked up steam in the middle of the past century, during the world wars, from all the carnage and all the unprecedented suffering and terror that that we experienced together. There’s a book called God after Auschwitz, and it says that you can’t look at God the same way. Before we used to imagine evil as something horrendous, but now, after two world wars, after all the carnage of the 20th century, now that it means something so much more, something so much deeper. It’s almost like we share this collective trauma that makes us look at God differently. 

So anti-theodicy wants to say this, there is no meaningful relationship between God and horrendous suffering. Their main thesis is this, that horrendous suffering is inherently meaningless, and there’s no way to redeem it. There’s no way to find meaning in it, to justify it, that the most appropriate moral response as a community and as individuals, is to reject the Theodicy. That doesn’t mean we reject God. 

It just means we reject the attempt to reconcile God with suffering. They think this is not helpful. They think there are philosophical problems with it, but the big impetus behind anti-theodicy is morality. They think it’s evil to try to impose a kind of God-given meaning to suffering if the people suffering don’t accept it. We used to think this was valid, but after the 20th century, there’s no way we can keep doing this. It’s irresponsible and sometimes harmful. 

David Capes  

That’s the idea that came across very carefully in your presentation here, that theodicy they claim, harms people. That people are harmed further by attempting to find this meaning and reconcile God with that suffering. You cite a number of people and let me just include two, because I know both. I’ve met both of John Swinton and Rowan Williams, and here’s a statement by Williams, who was Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Perhaps it is time for philosophers to look away from the theodicy. Part of the task of good theology and a candid religious philosophy is, I believe, to reacquaint us with our materiality and mortality, and part of that is the knowledge of suffering as without explanation or compensation. It is more religiously imperative to be worried about evil than to put it into a satisfactory theoretical context. 

You talk about how in theodicy, what we do is take a faraway view of it. We look at it in an abstract way, but they look at it theoretically. Comment on Williams’s ideas there.

Jahdiel Perez  

I think Rowan Williams has a really intriguing perspective on what makes theology good. Up until the anti-theodicy movement, you just assumed that if you have a theology that doesn’t answer the problem of evil, it’s a bad theology. He’s flipping the script and saying, actually, theology can do its job better, it can draw you closer to God if you don’t respond to the problem of evil, if you affirm anti-theodicy. 

The important thing to note here is that anti theodicy is not just an atheist critique of religion, but actually some theologians, very good theologians like Rowan Williams and John Swinton have said, wait, there’s an insight here that can actually help us do theology and pastoral care even better. Now, personally, as I said in my lecture, I have some questions and comments and some reservations about that, but I do think that they’re hitting onto something important. They’re trying to make us aware that when we talk about God, it has consequences. If we’re not careful, we might actually do harm to people because they’re not at the correct stage of processing their loss. My position is not, oh, they’re just all false. Let’s just throw their ideas away. I think this can serve as a very important corrective to how we do theodicy.

David Capes  

Part of what you do in this paper, and a part of what you’re working on with your broader project that I hope one day will be published in a book, is to not necessarily say, okay, anti-theodicy is completely wrong. But you say it’s mostly wrong. There are some things about it that we ought to listen to, and there are some things about it that, in fact, are wrong. And part of that is the question of, does theodicy actually harm people? You’re looking at psychological studies. Tell us a little bit about that and how that research is developing for you.

Jahdiel Perez  

My research project is trying to intervene into this debate between theodicists and anti-theodicists, primarily from a psychological perspective. I can say this because I started as a philosopher. I still am a philosopher. I absolutely love philosophy, but we’re not often aware when we are making empirical claims, a claim about the physical, observable, measurable universe. Sometimes we just like to say things about human beings, but we don’t realize that this is an empirical claim, not just a philosophical speculation. 

So my first move is, let me track the empirical claims that keep going back and forth in this debate. Instead of just philosophically debating them why don’t we look at the psychological studies? What can they tell us, if anything, about the way human beings respond to suffering and trauma? So it’s very important that I shift from horrendous evil to talking specifically about trauma and PTSD. That’s the way psychologists speak about hurt, and it’s evil. I think it’s yielded very interesting insights.

I’ve found areas where anti-theodicies are correct. They’re just absolutely correct. One of their main points is called the argument from insensitivity. It’s the idea that theodicy is inherently insensitive to people who are suffering. That there’s no time, there’s no place where you can articulate a theodicy, and it will be helpful. It’s always going to be harmful. It’s always going to be insensitive. 

I think that they take that a little too far, but they’re correct that people who are suffering from PTSD, almost universally have a common symptom called hyper-arousal. It’s hypersensitivity. Somebody who’s traumatized can get triggered at the smallest cues, at the smallest remembrance. Sometimes just the tone of your voice, sometimes just your facial expression, sometimes if you just use the wrong word, it can trigger them and remind them of the imprints of their trauma. And anti-theodicists are picking up on this. Their concern about sensitivity is exactly correct that people who have suffered horrendously and have been traumatized tend to be hypersensitive. Not just our level of sensitivity, but they tend to be hyper-aroused, hyper-sensitive. So maybe we need to be very careful with how we talk about God and how we talk about theodicy. 

In my research, I have found almost the opposite, that theodicy doesn’t just help people who are suffering, but helps even caregivers that are giving medical or therapeutic care to victims of horrendous evil. If you have some kind of meaning that you can give to suffering that’s going to make it less potentially traumatic for you. One way of defining trauma is an event that you cannot make meaning of, you cannot integrate it into the overall story of your life or your overall worldview. And insofar as that event or that suffering remains that way, remains senseless, the imprints of trauma are going to continue. They’re going to affect you physically. They’re going to affect you cognitively, psychologically, spiritually. 

But if you have a framework that can try to make meaning of suffering, even horrendous suffering, you’re more likely to be able to cope with it better. What I found so far is that some of the empirical claims in the debate are not what the anti-theodicists think. If theodicy hurts individuals, it is not necessarily because theodicy is harmful, but because those individuals are in a very particular, very specific moment of processing their loss. They’re in a very specific moment of their grief. It’s very clear that your sensibilities and your needs change depending on which stage you are at. 

So, my argument is, what if the Theodicy is harmful and theodicy is offensive at the earliest stages of grief. Of course, you don’t want to hear about God when you just lost your loved one or when you just experienced trauma. Who cares about God in those moments, right? Sometimes you don’t want to hear about it. Sometimes it’s defensive. It’s hurtful. But what the anti-theodicists think is that that’s the only stage of grief, and that if you feel that way immediately, you’re bound to feel that way 10, 20, or 30 years after the event. And psychologists have shown that’s just not the case. The way we make judgments about our meaning in life changes and can change very dramatically based on many different factors. But one of them is, which stage of grief are you in?

David Capes  

Yes, that is huge. That is fascinating. One of the things that you talk about is the fact that it is important at some stage, at some point in grief, that a person actively maintain a distancing. That it’s helpful to distance yourself and to think theoretically about that, because you said that it helps to reduce stress and anxiety and negative emotions. It reduces the blood pressure, it reduces cardiovascular activity etc. And here’s a statement that you made that I thought was interesting. That “self-immersion in stressful events can lead to maladaptive reflection, more anxiety, more worry, more saying this is catastrophic, higher blood pressure, higher cardiovascular activity. That a part of what philosophers do and theologians do is to conceive of these things Theoretically, and that it’s helpful for people who are in some stage of grief to  look at it from that perspective. Would you comment on that?

Jahdiel Perez  

This relates to another major argument of anti-theodicists and it is called the “argument from detachment”. The more you abstract away from the specific, embodied suffering, the less clearly you’ll be able to see the suffering and to evaluate it correctly. So. the further you are away, the more harmful you are going to be to someone who’s suffering. If you’re suffering, you want to know you’re not alone, right? You want people to come close to you. Maybe not to talk to you, but at least to be present. So that doesn’t make some sense. 

However, what psychologists have found is that there’s two ways of looking at any specific moment in life, especially trauma. One is from a self-immersed perspective, which uses “I” statements, which means this is happening to me right now, at this very moment. I’m reliving, reenacting the trauma. Another is from a self-distance perspective, which is trying to create some sort of psychological distance between who you are now and the you that suffered the trauma. 

What psychologists have found is that trauma is overwhelming. What it does is that it keeps you trapped in the moment. It affects the way you perceive time. So even years after the event, you might think you’re still suffering. And one of the interventions that therapists like to make is precisely to create psychological self-distancing from this event. Because if you cannot distance yourself specifically from that traumatic stress, all those factors that we mentioned, anxiety, heart rate, depression, reactivity of your heart and all these biological markers tend to increase without this kind of psychological self-distancing. 

What if the theodicy provides the kind of distance that individuals need to cope better with suffering, and this is something that I think there’s enough evidence to suggest. But what if it’s not the argument per se that helps us cope better? What if it’s just the distance from the trauma and the meaning that it can give that can help us live better with suffering? 

David Capes  

It’s a fascinating study Jahdiel. Thank you for being with us today on The Stone Chapel Podcast.

Jahdiel Perez  

I appreciate it. Thank you so much for having me any time.

A Nugget of Wisdom from Jahdiel Perez  

One of my favorite sayings is that if you’re the smartest person in the room, then you’re in the wrong room. I think it’s very important to surround yourself with people that are ahead of you, that are smarter than you. I never want to be the smartest person in the room, the most spiritual person in the room. I found that every time I’ve grown in life, or anytime I’ve succeeded or have been promoted, it’s because I have mentors around me that can help me grow.

Posted on

Abraham: Friend of God

Here is a transcript of a recent conversation I had with John Lennox regarding Abraham and his role as an exemplar of faith. The conversation comes from a podcast I do called “The Stone Chapel Podcast” on the ChurchLeaders Podcast Network.

John Lennox  

Hello, I’m Dr. John Lennox. I’m an Emeritus Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford. But I’m also passionate about scripture, teaching scripture, and Christian apologetics.

David Capes  

Dr. John Lennox, welcome back to The Stone Chapel Podcast.

John Lennox  

Thank you very much. I’m delighted to be with you again. 

David Capes  

Well, you’ve been with us and some of the most hits and downloads we’ve gotten on our podcast have come from you, because you’re such an inspiration to all. The last one we did was on AI. And it’s been a little while, but I’m glad to be back talking to you. Today we are in Oxford at St. Ebbes Church, with John Lennox. Today we’re here to talk about his book, A Friend of God: the Inspiration of Abraham in an Age of Doubt. It’s a great book. 

John Lennox  

Well, I’m glad you’ve read it. I think that’s immensely encouraging. And I have been in general, extremely encouraged by the response to it since it’s only been out a short while.

David Capes  

This is not the first biography you’ve written of important Old Testament figures. 

John Lennox  

No, I started with Daniel. I wrote a book about his entire prophecy. It’s not just a character study of him. But then I did a fairly substantial book on Joseph within the context of his family. In other words, the last major section of Genesis.

David Capes  

That’s a lot of chapters dedicated to Joseph. 

John Lennox  

That’s right. So I thought that the next logical subject to tackle would be Abraham. It was actually a friend of mine, who suggested that I give some lectures on Abraham for a conference, the ELF conference in Europe. And I did that. And immediately afterwards, people said, you must turn this into a book. Henc

David Capes  

Well, it’s a wonderful read. And it’s the kind of character study, the kind of investigation into Abraham’s life that I think helps us. We were talking earlier about my concern that we as Christians, short circuit things by not reading the Old Testament very long, or very well. I did a study years ago and about 82% of sermons (in US Protestant churches) are on the New Testament, which leaves only 18% of sermons for the Old Testament.

John Lennox  

That’s a very interesting statistic. I wasn’t aware of it. But Abraham, of all people is held forth in the New Testament as the major exemplar of a person who trusts God. He’s the man of faith. And he’s held out for us to follow that faith in God. And so that certainly catapulted me into really saying, let’s have a serious look at him. And the whole palette of Scripture information about him. In other words, the whole sequence of chapters in Genesis that deal with him without leaving anything out. 

David Capes  

Warts and all, we might say.

John Lennox  

Warts and all, because he is a complex figure. Well, we all are. And I suppose that’s a major point worth making that if God can do something with a man like Abraham then there’s hope for me.

David Capes  

Yes. Same thing with the figure of David. Maybe one day you’ll write a book about David! I have a rabbi friend in Jerusalem who says that David broke 9 of the 10 commandments. Now he never told me which one he didn’t break! But anyway, though he’s called a man after God’s own heart. A Friend of God, tell us a little bit about the title?

John Lennox  

Well, he’s one of the only people in Scripture who’s called a friend of God. And it’s a very interesting concept, that idea that God can in any way be thought of as a friend of human beings. And really, it goes back in my mind to the pinnacle of creation at the beginning of Genesis. God created the universe by his word, but the very final use of the phrase “and God said” is actually “and God said to them”. God speaks to the humans. And the way in which he interacts with human beings is of course, what the Bible is all about, and offering friendship. And of course, the Lord Jesus, who was the greatest son of Abraham, so to speak, said of his disciples, I call you friends. The information he gave to them as definition of a friend, is someone who knows what his other friend is doing. In other words, the Lord speaks to them and takes them into his confidence. And I think that is such a glorious idea that God can take us into his confidence and along the journey with Abraham. God seems to consult Abraham, which is really an incredible thing to imagine.

David Capes  

And Abraham seems to be able to persuade God of things.

John Lennox  

Even that is true. But the fact is that there is a real, what we might call friendly, discussion between them about big issues. And that’s encouraging because God encouraged us to talk to him as well.

David Capes  

Yes, we can be friends as well. 

John Lennox  

Yes, that’s right. 

David Capes  

And enter into God’s friendship. To know not only his works externally, but to know his ways.

John Lennox  

Yes indeed. And it delivers us from thinking of God as somehow remote and unapproachable. This is the exact opposite of that. And it’s speaking to us in terms we understand. We know what friendship means as human beings. And the idea of being a friend of God in one sense, is mind blowing. But in another sense, if we’re created in God’s image, you would expect something like that to be possible.

David Capes  

Exactly. If we are in God’s image, there ought to be a complementary connection. Your subtitle talks about the inspiration of Abraham. Seeing him as an inspirational figure like Saint Abraham, some traditions might do. But you say that within an age of doubt. The stories about Abraham are about faith, being a man of faith, as an exemplar of faith. But we live in this time of doubt. How do you think Abraham now can address us as a man of faith who stumbled, but he also can be an inspiration for us in our time.

John Lennox  

The first thing I would say is that as far as we can understand from scripture, Abram came from a pagan background. And that’s quite important, because our world has changed very much recently, in the West, at least, from a world strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition to one that’s largely influenced by any traditions other than Christianity. And therefore, him starting at point zero, so to speak, I think can encourage us to see that God’s revelation to him, which led him to increasingly be sure of God and His promises. And the story is very much about promises, delayed fulfillment, and do you hang on in there, and so on. And it’s very true to life. And we are in an age of uncertainty and doubt, by and large. Though there are some people who are very sure of themselves. But without a deep anchor, all of us would be unsure. And I think, the marvelous thing about this story, if we follow it along, and respond to God, as Abraham did, however imperfectly, then our confidence increases. And we no longer are influenced deeply by existential doubt, that would cause us to sadly miss the purpose that God has for us.

David Capes  

To miss our purpose and our meaning. I was amazed and I didn’t know this. I should have known this is a New Testament scholar, that Abraham is mentioned [in the New Testament] more than any of the other OT person. And he’s quoted, he’s referred to, he’s the exemplar, as you said, of faith. Let’s talk about faith itself. There’s a lot of people writing about, thinking about faith these days. What is faith? What does John Lennox say about what is faith?

John Lennox  

What I’ve tried to do is to understand what is being said here. We’re talking about trust in God. And if you start simply with etymology, the word faith in English comes from the Latin fiidem, which has more to do with trust. I mean, we get from it the word fidelity. So, the idea is one person trusting another person. And that’s in short supply today, which is why we need so many lawyers. And it’s a real problem in the economic world. People are desperate to find trust.

David Capes  

Who can you trust? I keep hearing that question, who can you trust? We’re here at the OCCA summer school. You spoke this morning. One of the first speakers was talking about that very question. Who can you trust? Because there’s so much information out there. There’s so much bad information out there. Who or what can you trust?

John Lennox  

The story of Abraham begins with this pagan man in the Middle East, the ancient Near East. And God reveals Himself to him. And it’s summed up in the New Testament, in a very short phrase: “the God of glory appeared to our father Abraham”. Now, we’re not told much about that. But I find the idea very interesting, because a similar thing happened to the major Christian Apostle Paul, when he was on the Damascus Road, persecuting Christians. Then he saw a very bright light. And the God of glory appeared to him as well. And God showed him something of how great and glorious he was. And Abraham responded and went on this incredible journey. He didn’t really know where he was going. But he knew who he was going with.

David Capes  

He had no map; he had no GPS. He knew there were roads this way. And there are people down that way.

John Lennox  

No, God spoke to him and said get going to the land that I will show you. And it’s utterly remarkable. It pays to sit and think about that. How would we feel about doing that? How would our families feel about that? That’s an amazing thing in any culture, and at any time. But the idea behind it is that God speaks, He reveals Himself. And that’s hugely important, because scripture itself claims to be a revelation from God. And God speaks to us through that revelation, to which we are invited to respond.

David Capes  

Well, I have a friend who’s written a book recently making the case that in the New Testament, at least, the word pistis, which is often translated “faith,” or sometimes trust, but also has the sense of an allegiance. And allegiance to God. We are connected. Maybe that’s the friend part. We are connected and I have allegiance to you because we are friends.

John Lennox  

Yeah, I like that idea. I think it’s hugely important, that idea that we’re following someone we trust, and to whom, therefore, we owe allegiance. I think that fills it out in a very important way. Because that’s the essence of the Christian gospel. And you asked me about the nature of faith, the Christian faith is evidence based. That is, it’s not a leap in the dark as so often people think. It’s a step, following something that you’ve experienced or seen, and Abram must have seen something very powerful when God spoke to him. It wasn’t some mere chimera of the imagination, that God revealed himself in some special way. And that’s what we’re promised in New Testament terms. Why would I want to trust Christ? Well, we’re given a lot of evidence. Now what happened to Abraham all the way along? A lot of things happen that built up the evidence that God was with him. it didn’t all happen at once.

David Capes  

He didn’t become a great nation, develop his reputation, be blessed by God, overnight. No, it was something that took a lifetime.

John Lennox  

Yes, for most of his life. He was a small nomadic tribe wandering about the Middle East.

David Capes  

At the very end of that charge, and also promise, God says, “I will make you a great nation and through you, all the families of the earth will be blessed.” How do you interpret that last phrase? Through you all the families of the earth will be blessed.

John Lennox  

Well, the interesting fact, as pointed out by many people, including the late chief rabbi of the UK, is that a huge proportion of the world population actually owe their allegiance in some way to Abraham. Jews, Muslims and Christians. But I think we begin to see the answer to that within the book of Genesis itself. Because as I said a moment ago, most of his story, he’s just a small tribe. But at the end of the book, you find that one of his descendants, Joseph, becomes something like the Minister of Agriculture of Egypt, and economically saves the world. And it seems to me that’s an indicator within the book of how this is going to happen. And the answer, the ultimate answer to it is that one of the descendants of Abraham, the greatest descendant, the most important is Christ. He offers forgiveness to everybody that trusts him, and new life, and a power to live. And in that sense, Christianity has spread around the globe, and is still spreading in spite of all the opposition.

David Capes  

[The influence of Christianity] seems to be waning in the West. But in places like Africa, and China and South America, I mean, it’s blowing the doors off.

John Lennox  

You make a very important point. The West has been very much sustained by Christian ethical dimension and the Old Testament commandments for centuries. But that has waned, as you say.  But in the majority world, Christianity is growing and very obviously growing and in a thrilling way. And so, I don’t think the evidence for that promise being fulfilled is diminishing in any way. It’s rather increasing.

David Capes  

In Paul’s language, it’s for Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free. 

John Lennox  

Yes, everybody on the same basis of faith in Christ, so that I can say that I am a son of Abraham, in the sense that I share his faith and trust. And that is a wonderful thing. It includes us, in the people of God, from whatever background we come.

David Capes  

There are some sons of Abraham genetically through DNA that have left Abraham behind. But we have been, as Christians, (again Paul’s language), grafted in, made part of the family. Adopted, if you want to use that language.

John Lennox  

That’s exactly right. And what has happened there, according to Paul, and those famous chapters of Romans 9 to 11, is that the burden of witness to God has shifted from the Hebrew nation to Gentiles. And it is predominantly Gentile at the moment. But there are signs that that may change according to the biblical record.

David Capes  

It could well be. I love the way the book of Revelation sums it all up when there’s a vision of 144,000. And that’s what he hears. He hears that there’s 144,000, and they’re all out of Israel. There’s 12,000 from this tribe etc. And then when he turns, he sees a multitude that cannot be numbered and it’s of every tribe, and of every language, and every people, every ethnic group.

John Lennox  

That’s right. Many words are used in that sentence. Which is very interesting, which is hammering the fact that this is a message for the whole world. And, that sense is traceable back to Abraham. I felt it was important, at least to make an effort to reverse the point that you made earlier that we pay far too little attention to the biblical roots of the Christian faith in the Old Testament.

David Capes  

[And the Old Testament] was the Bible of Jesus. The Bible of Paul and the early church, so we should be paying more attention to it. I don’t know exactly what the right percentages ought to be. But I think we should be reading and absorbing and just digesting these stories as exemplars, as you said. Right now as part of our worship, as part of our devotion.

John Lennox  

Absolutely because a lot of the New Testament depends on it. Paul uses Abraham again and again to reason his theological case, as well as the moral and spiritual implications of the gospel. And the last book of the Bible that you’ve mentioned, has an absolute huge store of allusions and citations of the Old Testament. So, it all culminates there and to remove the Old Testament from our thinking and preaching is to cut off part of the lifeblood of the Bible.

David Capes  

Well, it’s a great book, and I would recommend it. It’s called A Friend of God: The Inspiration of Abraham in An Age of Doubt by Dr. John Lennox. John, you’re a good friend to the Lanier Foundation. We thank you and I’m grateful that you could be a part of our podcast today.

John Lennox  

Well thank you very much. Delighted to be with you.

Posted on

Tell Her Story with Nijay Gupta

Nijay Gupta joined David Capes recently from his home in Portland via Zoom to talk about a new book he has written: Tell Her Story: How Women Led, Taught and Ministered in the Early Church.

Who is Nijay Gupta? 

Nijay Gupta is Professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Chicago.  He’s the author of a number of books on faith and the gospel.  He has been with us before on the Stone Chapel Podcasts. 

See the show notes below to listen to them. He writes a regular blog for Patheos called “Crux Sola: Formed by Scripture to Live Like Christ.”

What’s the Big Idea of Tell Her Story?  

Dr. Gupta grew up in a conservative church where all the leaders were men.  During his education, he came across gifted women from other denominations. 

They were leaders, ministers, and teachers.  Ironically, one of his first papers in graduate school argued that women must not be leaders.  His last paper in systematic theology made the case that women must be pastors.

Dr. Gupta’s current book explores the stories and contributions of women in the earliest churches.  We know about them from the New Testament, and in particular the letters of Paul. 

Romans 16 is one of those places where Paul names Jews, Gentiles, men, women, slave, and free.  Andrew Clark says that Paul puts flesh on his admonition in Gal 3:26-29. 

Paul commends women right alongside men as fellow workers, apostles, deacons, and fellow prisoner.

More Resources

To hear Nijay’s earlier podcasts on 15 New Testament Words, click here.

And click here for his podcast on Paul and the Language of Faith.

To hear the podcast click here.

Posted on

The Surprising Rebirth of Belief with Justin Brierley

Justin Brierley, a broadcaster, author, and speaker, will join us September 22, 2023 at 7.00 pm in the Stone Chapel. He will offer a talk on his book, The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God. The subtitle of the book is actually the big idea of the book: Why New Atheism Grew Old and Secular Thinkers Are Considering Christianity Again. 

Who is Justin Brierley? 

Justin lives in London.  For decades he has been hosting conversations between atheists and believers on his popular show, The Unbelieveable Show.  His show has been at the cutting edge of what is happening in culture. 

A few years ago, he had Mark Lanier as a guest on his show, and he recently came into our Houston orbit.  He is an amazing thinker, a gifted communicator, and hospitable host for people with differing worldviews.

To hear the podcast click here.

About Brierley’s first book

After hosting his show for ten years, he wrote his first book: Unbelievable: Why After Ten Years of Talking with Atheists I’m Still a Christian.  He shares some of that story here, in this podcast.

Here is what Philip Yancey has said of Justin’s upcoming book:

“[T]his wide-ranging and stimulating book sounds a hopeful note… a fearless engagement with the most daunting issues of our time.”

And John Lennox:

“Eminently readable… Brierley has done us a huge service… This is a first-rate book: get it, read it, and give it to others.”

The Surprising Rebirth of Belief podcast

This is a great podcast, one you will not want to miss.  He is addressing very pressing issues of our time. 

More Resources including The Surprising Rebirth of Belief book

For a link to his first book click here: Unbelievable: Why After Ten Years of Talking with Atheists I’m Still a Christian.

 For a link to his newest book (2023) click here: The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God: Why New Atheism Grew Old and Secular Thinkers Are Considering Christianity Again.

To hear the podcast click here.