Thom…

Here’s a little fodder for your ego…
I just wanted to say that I usually find myself bored with blogs within 2 weeks worth of feeds. That said, I’ve been following yours for two months and my interest has yet to yield. Perhaps somewhere in my depths this is challenge to you..so be it. Yet for now you can take it as gratitude.

I love you Thom. You are a good egg… even if you arn’t perfect.

It’s not my love for you that would crucify me, but my love for Jesus, but I fully am with you as we search out Jesus together in seperate paths and communities, but under the same King.

Here’s a little fodder for your ego…I just wanted to say that I usually find myself bored with blogs within 2 weeks worth of feeds. That said, I’ve been following yours for two months and my interest has yet to yield. Perhaps somewhere in my depths this is challenge to you..so be it. Yet for now you can take it as gratitude.
+1

Thom,

I was curious–did you leave Facebook? I was trying to go back and get a couple links you posted, and you no longer show up as searchable, etc.

Just curious…

Thom, sorry we can’t follow you on Facebook for now. Good luck with the Book!

Hey Thom,

I’ve really enjoyed your blog–while definitely not a fundamentalist, by any stretch of the imagination (I’m from a long line of rabid Liberals, actually), I don’t have much experience with historical exegesis. I’m really enjoying your blog, and appreciate the time and energy you clearly put into it.

A quick question; you seem very against apologetics as a genre, and I find that a little confusing. I agree completely that they have no role in any study that one wishes to label as historical, nor should they try to trump anything that is legitimately discovered via historical (or scientific) methods. However, most of the apologists I’ve read have had no interest in trumping history or science, but are rather trying to help sort out questions. In fact, I would categorize your forthcoming book as a work of apologetics (as it presents facts pertinent to Christianity, then helps Christians make sense of them). I do get the sense that you use “Apologist” as a derogatory term though, so I was wondering if you have a more narrow definition in mind.

In any event, if your book is as well-written as your series on Undivinizing Jesus, it will be very interesting

Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

Most of my experience with apologists has been with Reppert’s sort (the philosophically inclined variety), so perhaps that’s colored my view more positively. I don’t always agree with them, but I’ve rarely felt as though they were trying to fudge any evidence. I’ve never been under the impression that the Bible was inerrant, and thus have never bothered to read those who try to defend it as such, so my view of apologists is more amiable I guess

That said, claims are leveled at the Bible all the time that I think should certainly be defended. The basic problem of pain seems like an obvious one. So someone says, “your Bible claims a loving God, but the world sucks. Your religion fails.” It seems like any person who holds their beliefs with some sort of logic ought to have considered this, and, assuming they’ve stuck with Christianity, they should have some sort of answer. The alternative to a defense would be something like “I don’t question God,” which hardly seems like a reasonable stance (nor do I think that’s what your advocating. I just mean that I see defense of the Bible as applying to more than defense of inerrancy, which I don’t endorse).

But I guess that’s more than you need to know, about my views, given that it’s not really the subject of your blog Blog on good sir.
Peace and Love,
Katy

Very interesting–I appreciate hearing your perspective. I think I basically agree, but would simply classify the “fair trial” under apologetics if one then went on to try and make some interpretive sense out of it. To follow the Job example, God can inflict/permit suffering. But most people agree that arbitrarily inflicting violence on a captive person is morally repugnant. So how do we make sense of the story of Job without making God morally repugnant (or, if you want to say that God cannot, by very definition, be morally repugnant, how do we address this perceived inconsistency between our moral values and God’s). This I guess falls under interpretation/understanding of text, but as it addresses a perceived problem with the Bible, I’d still file it under apologetics. How one goes about explaining the perceived inconsistency is another matter–whether the method is historical, philosophical, Biblical, whatever, depends upon the one interpreting the text (and obviously not all interpretations are created equal).

Out of curiosity I looked Apologetics up on (the always inerrant) Wikipedia, which defines it as writing with the aim “to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, to defend the faith against objections and misrepresentation” (among other things). As far as that goes, I’d say it most certainly applies to your own work Basically it seems to me that the Bible presents a whole lot of information that could be read as contradictory–either with itself, or with basic human reason/morals. Apologetics strives to address that–and claiming that yes, this is contradictory, it is so because it is errant, or because it was meant to be read poetically, or because God doesn’t fit into the little box you want him to inhabit, are all potential elements of addressing inconsistency.

It’s funny that you associate apologetics with fundamentalists–I have almost the opposite association (and granted, I have limited real exposure to either apologetics or fundamentalists). I guess I think of apologists as people trying to reconcile their faith with reason, and fundamentalists as people who can’t interpret past a literal level and allow their commitment to the literal to trump reason As a philosophy student, I’m a big fan of reason.

This has made me all the more interested in seeing what you have to say in your book!
Peace,
Katy

And on that last sentence I whole-heartedly agree. I see a difference between claiming one can exercise both reason and faith, and claiming that faith is fully explainable. A little epistemic humility is needed. Any attempt to “prove” God, the Bible, or faith, is indeed a waste of time.