The Case for Miracles marks the latest installment in Lee Strobel’s series of “The Case for…” books. Strobel, a former atheist and award winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, is probably best known for his 1998 book, The Case for Christ, and with over twenty books under his belt, he has established himself as a well-respected voice in the world of Christian apologetics.

What makes Strobel’s “cases” so compelling is the fact that, as a journalist with a legal background and the former perspective of an atheist, he tries to employ an objective approach to all his work by taking on the role almost akin to that of a private investigator.

As has come to be expected by those familiar with Strobel’s work, The Case for Miracles takes the form of a series of interviews that function as the various chapters of the book. He takes the bold step of first interviewing Dr. Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society and editor-in-chief of the magazine, Skeptic. Interestingly, Shermer comes from an antipodal position of being a former Christian turned agnostic. Shermer’s skepticism was cemented with unanswered prayer regarding his college sweetheart who was paralyzed in a car accident. As is often the case with so many who have tuned their back on God, it begins with the perceived radio silence of a God they used to think existed.

Lee Strobel

Shermer makes what appears to be some cogent arguments against the existence of miracles. He cites anecdotal evidence as questionable and inconclusive and goes on to reference The Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP). Through the Harvard Medical School, STEP was a ten-year, $2.4 million clinical trial of the effects of prayer involving 1,802 cardiac bypass patients at six hospitals (p. 51).  The results showed that “there was no difference in the rate of complications for patients who were prayed for and those who were not.” (p. 51). Translate that as ‘prayer changes nothing’, or in Shermer’s words, “That’s not good for your side, Lee.” (p. 52). Shermer goes on to acknowledge the work of Scottish philosopher, David Hume, as influential on his view towards miracles or anything supernatural, saying, “Oh yeah. I think his treatise against miracles is pretty much a knockdown argument. Everything else is a footnote.” (p. 54).

While the first three chapters are dedicated to expounding Michael Shermer’s criterion for miracles being unlikely to impossible, the rest of the book focuses on the evidence that favors miracles. Strobel begins with interviewing Dr. Craig Keener.

At the Craig S. Keener author page at PneumaReview.com you will find numerous articles, reviews, lectures, and videos about biblical studies, including excerpts from Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.

Craig Keener, a prolific New Testament scholar and author, has among many works, penned a two-volume epic study of miracles. He is quick to refute Hume’s “knockdown” argument against the validity of miracles. “Hume defines miracle as a violation of natural law, and he defines natural law as being principles that cannot be violated. So, he’s ruling out the possibility of miracles at the outset. He’s assuming that which he’s already stated he will prove—which is circular reasoning. In fact, it’s an anti-supernatural bias, not a cogent philosophical argument.”  Keener goes on to cite a number of modern-day miracles that he has investigated. One of the most impressive and moving miracles documents the case of a woman who, due to multiple sclerosis, had deteriorated to the point of death and was in hospice care confined to a bed and unable to care for herself. After a radio station of Moody Bible Institute put out a prayer request for the woman and some 450 Christians shared they were praying for the woman, she heard a voice from behind her say, “My child get up and walk” (p. 103). What resulted was a full and complete recovery that, thirty years later, still confounds the medical community. There are years of medical records to substantiate the illness and recovery, and the attestation of board certified surgeons with thousands of operations under their belts.

As a graduate of Berklee College of Music and a bi-vocational pastor who makes the bulk of his living as a professional musician, I was intrigued to read Jeffrey Keuss’s exploration of popular music and how it relates to the theological loci of faith, hope and love. Keuss is a professor and Associate Dean in the School of Theology at Seattle Pacific University. What initially strikes the reader is the author’s engaging prose, which draws the reader in with a sharp wit, perceptive insight and an unassuming intelligence. Keuss is clearly a sharp-minded theologian, yet he manages to produce a work that is indeed rich in theological insight, but also entirely accessible to the layman.

The basic premise of the book is that there is much that can be learned from the world of popular music as it pertains to our search for meaning and existence. The author argues that what many of us search for and yearn to experience through church, worship and community, others search for through popular music. Keuss writes, “our neighbor is not only listening to the music that many Christians listen to but also listening for the very things that animate the hearts and the minds of those sitting in the pews on a Sunday morning” (p5&6). Keuss describes these musical soul-searchers and songwriters as “sonic mystics”, an apt name that tips its hat to the medieval Christian mystics who sought divine encounters and communion with the living God.

Although a relatively short book of 176 pages, D.A Carson’s The Intolerance of Tolerance delivers a powerful punch to the jaw of what he describes as the “new tolerance.” Carson, who is a research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, has long offered deep and insightful commentary on contemporary culture through such works as The Gagging of God and Christ and Culture Revisited. The Intolerance of Tolerance does not disappoint in terms of what his readers have come to expect.

One of the central premises of Carson’s argument is the difference between what he terms the old tolerance and the new tolerance. A subtle difference between how tolerance used to be defined and is now defined has crept into modern day culture. In a nutshell, the old tolerance was defined as “accepting the existence of different views” and today the new tolerance is defined as the “acceptance of different views”(p 3). Spot the difference? The first definition acknowledges that different views and opinions exist and that people have the right to express and hold these beliefs. This stance also presupposes the right to disagree with these views. However, this definition does not affirm that all beliefs, views and opinions are equally valid or true. The new tolerance, however, does precisely this by asserting that all views and beliefs are equally valid. Carson articulates the point when he writes, “The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own. We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions; we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid. Thus we slide from the old tolerance to the new” (p 3-4).

D. A. Carson

After laying out his basic thesis, Carson begins by presenting miscellaneous examples of the new tolerance at work over the last decade. He draws on examples ranging from the business and medical worlds to the domains of education, the media and homosexuality. What emerges is a disturbing picture of a new form of tolerance that will tolerate anything except that which it deems to be intolerant. And thus a new form of intolerance is born. This irony, however, seems to be lost on many. Carson continues in his next chapter with a historical survey on the topic of tolerance. These “jottings” as Carson labels them, are designed to highlight some of the best thinking on the subject. Throughout this chapter, I found myself constantly underlining memorable quotes and insights.

Carson finishes out the chapter by observing that the new tolerance “has become a supreme virtue, if not the supreme virtue, of much of the Western world and beyond” (p 76).  Within this ascertainment, Carson makes an important point: This new form of tolerance is a problem particularly inherent to the Western world and one that smugly dismisses the claims of other cultures. Carson elaborates, “The West, not least with its fiscal and digital power, is perceived by many to be culture-destroying, superficial, self-righteous, parading superiority because of its ‘tolerance,’ while that very tolerance destroys everything that disagrees with it” (p 77).

For a succinct and highly informative introduction to Christian apologetics, look no further than Chris Sinkinson’s book, Christian Confidence: An Introduction to Defending the Faith.

Sinkinson, a former archaeologist and now lecturer in apologetics at Moorlands College in England, begins by addressing the limits of apologetics. The often raised criticism that someone is unlikely to be argued to faith is acknowledged and affirmed by the author but he also notes, “Can apologetics actually convert people? At one level this is no different from asking whether or not someone can be preached or talked into the kingdom of heaven. The fact that Christians do a lot of preaching and talking does not mean that we think our preaching or talking does the converting” (p24). These are wise admissions that acknowledge the limits of apologetics but also affirm its value as a tool in the Christian’s evangelistic arsenal.

The next couple of chapters examine various angles of Christian apologetics and the main proponents of these schools of thought. Names such as B.B Warfield, Cornelius Van Til are mentioned along with other giants of the apologetics world such as Alvin Plantinga, Josh McDowell, John Frame, Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig. Special treatment is given to Francis Schaeffer and particularly C.S. Lewis. Sinkinson continues with his historical tour de force by examining Apologetics Through the Ages (chapter 5). The author’s concise treatment of such a vast subject is truly remarkable as he takes the reader from Plato and Aristotle through Justin Martyr, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Descartes. The reader is left almost breathless but the author does not stop there! Also addressed are many important thinkers that emerged from the Enlightenment such as David Hume, Schleiermacher, Kant and Nietzsche. This naturally leads to brief mention of the development of liberal theology, biblical higher criticism and the gradual watering down of biblical authority. Where we arrive after travelling through this historical narrative is at the present day trend of post-modernism.

Son of God: Their Empire, His Kingdom (20th Century Fox). Actors: Darwin Shaw, Sebastian Knapp, Paul Knops, and Darcie Lincoln. Directors: Christopher Spencer. Music by Hans Zimmer.

From producers, Roma Downy and Mark Burnett comes the movie Son of God. Directed by Christopher Spencer (with additional scenes directed by Tony Mitchell and Crispin Reece), Son of God depicts the life of Jesus based on the Gospel of John. This is made apparent to the watcher as John as an old man narrates the beginning and end of the movie. If you are familiar with the mini-­‐series The Bible by the same producers, then one will realize that there is not much new material in Son of God. It is clear and encouraging, however, that the release and editing of this film was a strategic move to gain national and international cinema exposure to the Gospel story.

The film does well in covering the essential and compelling aspects of the Gospel narratives. Beginning with Jesus’ birth and visitation by the magi, our first image of Jesus the man, is as a solitary figure walking the mountaintops of Judea as he gazes down on the Sea of Galilee. This leads to Jesus’ encounter with Peter as Peter laments the lack of fish he able to catch. Peter’s initial skepticism towards Jesus is placated by Jesus asking, “Just give me an hour and I will give you a whole new life.” Peter’s response is, “Who says I want one?” While this exchange is not found in any of the Gospel narratives it unquestionably addresses a modern day dilemma many of us face. After Peter pulls in a miraculous catch of fish, he becomes aware that there is something different about Jesus, something worth following.

Familiar scenes to many such as Jesus preaching to the crowds, the healing of the paralytic who comes through the roof, the feeding of the five thousand and the resurrection of Lazarus, are skillfully and artistically conveyed. Two scenes in particular though, stand out as especially powerful and moving. These are the calling of Matthew the tax collector as he realizes his sinful nature and sees the hope that following Jesus offers, and Peter walking out on the water to meet Jesus. Both scenes help to depict the power of humility in acknowledging our sinfulness but also our faith in reaching out and walking towards Jesus.

Also well conveyed and communicated is the tension between Roman rule and the Jewish population. Roman brutality is displayed in several scenes and the scheming and politics that was so rife between the Romans and the Sanhedrin in a bid to retain power, underlies much of the film. This is an important subtly that is not to be underestimated throughout the film. While the resurrection of Lazarus, the cleansing of the Temple and Jesus’ reading of Isaiah 61 are portrayed as the acts that seal Jesus’ execution, ultimately it is both Pilate and Caiaphas’ paranoia of losing power, that leads to Jesus’ death.

Michael L. Brown, Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur’s Strange Fire (Excel Publishers, Dec 12, 2013), 418 pages.

Authentic Fire is Dr. Michael Brown’s response to John MacArthur’s book Strange Fire. MacArthur’s Strange Fire launches a scathing attack on the Christian Charismatic Movement and so it comes as no surprise that champions of the charismatic community should launch a defense to MacArthur’s assertions. Dr. Brown leads the charge with a book just shy of 420 pages that seeks to address MacArthur’s main contentions.

Brown’s tone is always respectful towards MacArthur and even conciliatory at times. It is clear that Brown has ample respect for MacArthur, both as a Bible scholar and brother in Christ. His approach is refreshing when contrasted with MacArthur’s blanket criticisms. Beginning by acknowledging that the charismatic church has made mistakes and has its share of controversy, Brown never shies away from the reality that the charismatic movement is far from perfect. Nonetheless, within the first few pages, Brown make his position clear when he writes, “Pastor MacArthur’s criticisms of the Charismatic Movement are inaccurate, unhelpful, often harshly judgmental, sometimes without scriptural support, and frequently divisive in the negative sense of the word … a strong corrective is needed, along with a positive statement of the truth of the matter.” (p2). And thus the agenda is set and Brown’s mission is clear.

Brown begins by addressing a number of sweeping statements that can be found in Strange Fire. To counteract MacArthur’s claim that the Charismatic Movement ”has made no contribution to biblical clarity … interpretation … sound doctrine”, Brown cites many well-known and respected authors and scholars in the Christian world that blatantly contradict MacArthur’s bold claim. Among these are, A.W Tozer, Oswald Chambers, Craig S. Keener, Ben Witherington, N.T. Wright, Wayne Grudem and many others. Brown addresses MacArthur’s claim to guilt by association (the idea that if one is part of a movement that has involved scandal then one is guilty by association), and rightly points out that the pendulum can swing both ways, observing Luther’s anti-Semitism and Calvin’s draconian rules that led to men and women being burnt at the stake. Both Luther and Calvin are darlings of the theological world that John MacArthur walks in, and so Brown fairly asks if we should also associate MacArthur with such doctrinal errors.

Perhaps one of the real gems of Authentic Fire is chapter 6 in which Dr Brown addresses the theological debate regarding cessationism versus continuationism. Documenting his own journey into cessationism and back out into continuationism, Brown observes, “The more I read the Word wanting to prove cessationism true, the more I became convinced that it was exegetically impossible. The scriptures did not teach cessationism” (p165). Brown proceeds to do a convincing job of highlighting the major flaws of cessationism, insightfully noting that often this theological viewpoint is arrived at via subjective experience rather than biblical objectivity. The true value of this chapter, though, is the exegetical work Brown does in examining the miracles of Jesus and New Testament evidence to support the biblical argument for continuationism. No matter one’s position on this theological issue, Dr Brown’s treatment of the subject is worthy of attention to anyone serious about an honest biblical treatment.