The year 2020 will be known for many things, notably the coronavirus pandemic. But it will also be known for “Black Lives Matter” protests, all over world, not just the United States. Why all of the protests?
For an explanation, one could point to a number of essays, books, blog posts and Twitter tweets, chronicling the history of racism, and the sad story of how the Christian church has been complicit in furthering problems related to skin color. Christians in my generation and older think of Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK), and his efforts to try to get the white church involved in overcoming racism.
The amount of literature on these type of topics is staggering. Many of these sources of information are insightful and helpful. A number of other sources are not. So, I was looking for a resource written by a seasoned veteran in the black struggle, who might have wisdom gained over the years, to give some necessary perspective, in our present day and age. What does it mean to carry on MLK’s legacy, in the first half of the 21st century?
When I saw Welcoming Justice: God’s Movement Toward Beloved Community, co-written by John M. Perkins, I knew I had found the book I needed to read. It was the perfect book to read during Black History Month. An African American, Perkins came to Christ in the late 1950s at age 27, and then founded a Bible institute in his home state of Mississippi. Perkins was almost beaten to death by white police officers in 1970, an experience which gave him a deeper and renewed vision for his ministry calling.
Perkins framed this as the “three R’s”: relocation, redistribution, and reconciliation, all fundamentally grounded in the life of the church. His work in Bible teaching soon grew to address social issues in racially divided Mississippi, and the ministry grew as Perkins and his wife moved to California. His first book in 1976, Let Justice Roll Down, established him as a leading voice in evangelicalism, calling his fellow evangelical believers to expand ministry efforts towards racial reconciliation, instead of focusing narrowly on saving souls. At age 90 now, Perkins has the breadth of insight to give to a new generation of Christians, who struggle with how to best continue this type of reconciliation work.
Co-author Charles Marsh, lives in Charlottesville, Virginia, where America’s racial divide was on full display just a few years ago, nearly 50 years following MLK’s death. Those events in Charlottesville prompted an expanded reprint of this book. Both Perkins and Marsh offer a summary of insights, gained from years of ministry and writing on the topic of racism. Marsh, a scholar of the life of German 20th century theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and a white Baptist, is a generation younger than Perkins. Perkins mentored Marsh, and the debt owed to Perkins’ experience and wisdom clearly shows in Welcoming Justice. Both Marsh and Perkins are convinced that the greatest strength of the movement towards racial reconciliation is to be found in the roots of the Christian church. Whenever efforts to combat racism have failed, they have failed because they have lost the Civil Rights movement’s original vision rooted in the Christian faith.
Through a series of anecdotes covering the decades following World War 2, Welcoming Justice is a renewed call for the church to reclaim a biblical vision for racial reconciliation, one founded on the idea of a colorblind church. There is still much work to be done to expunge the sin of racism from our society (not just the church), but Perkins and Marsh give us encouragement for the task that still lies ahead. This is not a doctrinally rigorous book, but it does not intend to lay out precise and detailed theology. It does not seek to address some of the larger cultural problems associated with the secular rise of critical race theory and wokeness, that divides Christians today. But it does challenge Christians to engage in God’s program, to bring about reconciliation among persons of different skin color. A fairly short series of essays, Welcoming Justice communicates a vision for the beloved community, that seeks to carry on Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream.
For more on what the Bible actually teaches about racism, please read this previous Veracity blog post. For more on Martin Luther King, Jr., look up these previous blog posts (#1 and #2) For more on the dangers of critical race theory, read about those topics here and here. If you want to know more about the story of John M. Perkins’ life, here is a biographical film made about him:
As someone who worked previously as a contractor for years at NASA, this is really incredible. Not only is this the product of years of hard work, the videos below will definitely be the coolest thing you will see today. The first video shows the challenges that NASA faced to try to land Perseverance, from a flying fireball through Mars’ atmosphere to a safe, steady position on the Martian surface. The second video is the video that Perseverance shot of itself during the landing, last Thursday. The third works best on the YouTube app on a SmartPhone, whereby you can move your phone around to get a 360 degree view of the Martian surface, from atop the rover… then the rover will spend the next several months looking for water… and looking for life. Pretty awesome!
Is there life on Mars? To borrow a line from Larry Norman, “If there’s life on other planets, then I’m sure that He must know. And He’s been there once already, and has died to save their souls.”
About a week ago I wrote a blog post about the Ravi Zacharias scandal. Most reactions to the news about Ravi have been understandable: a mix of shock, anger, dismay, empathy for the victims, and a call to self-reflection and greater accountability. However, some reactions have been in the extreme.
I want to briefly address each one of these responses/reactions, before I get to my parenthetical question: “Were the Apostles Lying About the Resurrection?”
The first reaction has definitely truth to it. But while it recognizes a particular Scriptural truth, that all of us fall short of the glory of God, the tendency here is to forget that Ravi’s sin went far beyond your “average sin.”
We are not talking about a pornography addiction here, that vacillates between shame and repentance, that may or may not have a direct impact on others. What we are talking about is a repeated pattern of behavior, over many years, with no evidence of repentance, that subjected harm and deception upon multiple, vulnerable women. These women were taken advantage of by a stronger, more powerful man, a man claimed to be the “greatest Christian apologist of [the 21st] century,” who further abused them spiritually. But the objection is right to protest the focus upon Ravi. Instead, we should be remembering his victims, and pray for them.
The second reaction is peculiar, as though it assumes some sort of statute of limitations. Perhaps this reaction is made, as a way of defending Ravi’s family, so there might be some understandable motive here. But as apologist David Wood argues, if he were to die tomorrow, and then someone found 20 bodies buried beneath his house, would you not want to know how those 20 bodies got there?
Ravi Zacharias is in many ways like Amnon, David’s most favored, first-born son, a man of great “integrity”, who in 2 Samuel 13 abused his sister Tamar. Amnon has been dead long ago, but God saw fit to preserve this story in our Bibles. I believe, part of the reason, for preserving the story, is to help us all to remember the Tamars of the world. Even though Ravi is dead, the Tamars in the Ravi story are still living.
The third reaction is meant to test the credibility of the female witnesses. If you have the time, you might want to view the YouTube video below, an interview conducted on the Capturing Christianity YouTube channel, with female Christian apologists Alisa Childers and Dr. Liz Jackson, who tackle this reaction in more detail.
What I want to highlight here is the nature of cognitive bias, and how it can so easily trick us into believing something that lacks evidential support. As I mentioned in my earlier reports about Ravi, I really did not want the negative stories about Ravi to be true. Ravi was not my most favorite Christian apologist…but he still seemed like a genuine, reputable guy, with the most winsome, popular appeal, having a positively great impact on many of my Christian friends. I really wanted to believe that there was some good explanation for what had happened. Sadly, the evidence points to the reality that the situation with Ravi was far, far worse than anyone could have imagined (see apologist Mike Winger’s video).
I had some serious doubts about Ravi, when the first set of allegations about him came forward THREE YEARS AGO. But after having talked with someone at RZIM, I was given assurances that RZIM was serious about the matter and that everyone in RZIM’s top leadership was being held accountable, and that everything would be OK.
But the funny thing about evidence, is that when you begin to take a serious look at the available evidence, it can have a serious impact on how much you trust your previous assumptions. It can challenge your wishful thinking. If substantial evidence is analyzed, that refutes your wishful thinking, then you have to make a choice. Either you revise your cognitive bias, and rethink your wishful thinking, and follow the evidence wherever it leads….. OR you will choose to continue believing what you want to believe, and simply ignore the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
So, were Ravi Zacharias’ accusers lying? The problem with assuming that these women were lying is that they all gave the same type of testimony, despite being independent of one another. First, we have the Canadian supporter of Ravi’s ministry, who first challenged Ravi, in the 2017 sexting controversy, Lori Anne Thompson. She is the only named witness, but prior to RZIM’s internal investigation, there were at least three other witnesses, involved in Ravi’s spa business. RZIM’s internal investigation revealed five other witnesses to Ravi’s behavior. Then there are about 200 women, with photos solicited by Ravi Zacharias, on the phones that he had, over the past 7 years or so, which in some of those photos, the women where naked. With such independent, multiple witnesses (8 thus far, by my count), along with the evidence from the cell phones, this makes for a substantial case against Ravi (None of this even touches on the academic credentials controversy, or the report that while Ravi was a younger preacher, he pressured his brother’s girlfriend to get an abortion).
Compare all of that to the evidence we have for the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. The Apostle Paul reports some 500, unnamed witnesses to the Risen Lord. We have four, different Gospel testimonies, that all feature the Empty Tomb. The New Testament tells us numerous stories of those who saw the Risen Jesus. Interestingly, the first witnesses to the Resurrection were those who were most suspect in terms of giving an accurate testimony: they were women.
Consider this: We have more substantial evidence that demonstrates that Ravi Zacharias was a sexual predator than we have for the Resurrection of Jesus.
Think about that for a moment.
Nevertheless, there are many Christians out there, apparently, who still believe Ravi to be completely innocent, and who buy into Ravi’s own rhetoric, which calls the critics of Ravi to be “demonic,” or otherwise, “tools of Satan,” or other sayings like that.
It really makes me wonder why so many Christians call themselves Christians. If the evidence against Ravi can not be believed, why do such people believe that Jesus really rose from the dead? What type of cognitive bias is in play here? What type of wishful thinking keeps folks from accepting evidence that runs counter to what is believed?
The same can be said for non-believers, who reject the Resurrection of Jesus. Though the evidence for the Resurrection is not as clear-cut as the case against Ravi, the evidence for the Resurrection is still very, very good. So, if you easily accept the verdict against Ravi, as a “no-brainer”, what is it that is preventing you from accepting Jesus as the Risen Lord? What type of cognitive bias is in play here? What type of wishful thinking keeps folks from accepting evidence that runs counter to what is believed?
Something to think about.
Oh, one more thing, before I close out: REMEMBER THE VICTIMS AND PRAY FOR THEM.
The bigger story is the utterly unrepentant attitude that Ravi apparently had, as he continued to solicit and receive photos of young, female massage therapists on his SmartPhone(s), up until a few months before his May, 2020 death. But the most egregious thing is the extreme lack of accountability that Ravi had in his ministry and personal life, a failure among even his closest friends and colleagues to ask tough questions, to speak openly and honestly, and to encourage the pursuit for truth, among others who had questions. Sadly, any attempt to question Ravi’s behavior or at least divulge more information was met with talk of “spreading rumors,” accusations that those who asked such questions were “demonized,” and even one report that Ravi went into a rage and threatened to resign, if pressed any further to provide more information. Ravi even threatened at least one victim, that if she ever told anyone what had happened, that it would put “millions of souls” in danger of eternal hell-fire.
Like many of the staff at RZIM, including the person I talked with, we all hoped that everything could be satisfactorily explained. After all, I have personally invested a lot of time and energy over the years promoting Ravi Zacharias, RZIM, and Ravi’s teaching materials. I have taught two adult Bible classes, at my church, based on Ravi’s teaching material, and co-taught another class with some friends, using Ravi material. Though my specific role was minimal, I helped to work with a team at my church for at least 5 years or more, to try to get Ravi Zacharias to come speak at my church, which eventually did happen, about a decade ago.
Ravi’s appearance at our church was the single largest event, in my church’s history. Folks came from 3 to 4 hours away to hear him speak. The place was packed. It was exciting. The atmosphere was electric.
But after what I agonized over in December, 2017, and listening to all of the accolades given at his memorial service, back in May, 2020, I started having that sickening feeling in my stomach, that something still was not right. The then Vice President Mike Pence hailed Ravi as the greatest apologist of this, the 21st century. Well, what was I to make of that?
Thankfully, it took the courage of one woman, a follower of Jesus and one of the massage therapists Ravi groped over ten years earlier, to finally speak up. The only one who would listen to her was an atheist lawyer, and that finally got the ball rolling. Other women spoke up and the story broke back in September, 2020. Still, RZIM at the time decided to double-down on the message that there was a good explanation here, and everything was still OK. Other defenders of Ravi continued to double-down and profess his innocence, explaining that the accusations were all “attacks from Satan,” intent on destroying a godly man’s reputation. Meanwhile, I have had conversations with skeptics who only look at this as simply yet another reason why Christianity can not be true.
Well, we finally got the story this past week….. Thanks to the courage of that one woman who finally spoke out.
Now what?
It does not roll off the tongue very well, but I propose a new “MAGA” slogan: “Make Anti-Celebrity-Christianity Great Again.”
There are several problems though, with my new slogan. First, “Anti-Celebrity-Christianity” is an almost impossible goal to achieve. It comes with the territory. After all, the Apostle Paul, and the rest of Christ’s earliest disciples, were known as pre-modern equivalents of today’s celebrities, in their own circles.
Jesus is and will always be THE reason for why we believe. Nevertheless, we simply can not separate the Christian faith completely from those who claim to represent Jesus. There is no way that any single one Christian can have complete adequate knowledge of the faith, without having a measure of trust in other Christian leaders, who know more than we do about certain aspects of Christianity, who can live as examples for us to follow.
Take Tim Keller, for example. As co-founder of The Gospel Coalition, Keller might come as close as possible to being a spokesperson for broadly-Reformed-minded evangelicalism. But he is nevertheless a celebrity. He recently was interviewed on a podcast where he talks about the dangers of celebrity Christianity. When hardly anybody knew who Tim Keller was he was a pastor of a rural church, in a town less than an hour away from me. But now he gets people asking for autographs for his books. It is pretty awful. I would encourage folks to listen to the full podcast, as Keller has some excellent observations to make about the current state of evangelicalism today.
I also remember when it came out that the famous liberal Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich, had been secretly involved in numerous sexual affairs, outside of his marriage, throughout much of his adult life. His adulterous infidelities were so bad and numerous, that even his wife sought relief in her own sexual affairs, just to cope with the trauma of living with a sex addict. Tillich had sought to completely recast a vision of Christianity with a multi-religious worldview, that incorporated many non-orthodox theological perspectives. Nevertheless, he has been hailed as one of the greatest Christian theologians of the 20th century.
It is very easy … and tempting… for an evangelical like me to dismiss Tillich out of hand, with some measure of secret pleasure over his downfall, in his reputation. But then I think of Ravi Zacharias, and I realize, yet again, that none of us are far away from missing out on what God truly seeks to purpose in our lives.
So, where do we go from here?
Practically speaking, what do I do with my Ravi Zacharias books? Well, I have never owned any Tillich books, but I have a few of Ravi’s…. and I have a few other books written by people who have gone through serious moral failures, even such failures that continued on for years.
It is important to remember that even if an author has a personal failing, that it does not necessarily invalidate the message that the author is seeking to communicate. We must evaluate the writings of a person based on the evidence, logic, and claims that the author is making, and not strictly on the character of that author.
I personally do not plan on tossing out my Ravi Zacharias collection anytime soon. But I do not feel compelled to recommend him either to others. The main reason for saying that is because I think there are a lot of other Christian apologetics authors who are just as good, if not superior to Ravi Zacharias, in making their arguments for the Christian faith.
A good example would be from Michael Licona, perhaps one of today’s most well-known defenders of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, who has produced a short video, putting the Ravi Zacharias scandal in perspective, when it comes to making good arguments for the Christian faith (see below).
But the bigger issue for me is this: How can we get away from an evangelical sub-culture that tends to idolize its celebrities? Here are my big takeaways:
Cultivate church and ministry leadership structures where there is sufficient accountability. Do NOT promote “lone ranger” Christianity. Get into an accountability group yourself, where someone you trust (or more) can hold you accountable.
Develop institutions centered, not around personalities, but around good, solid Scriptural doctrine.
Invite questions, dialogue and conversation. Allow yourself and others to express their doubts, and work through them. Pray for one another. Love one another.
Those are probably some good places to start…. to start to “Make Anti-Celebrity-Christianity Great Again.”
When Pope Benedict made his announcement on February 11, 2013, it shook the Roman Catholic world, like a lightning bolt. Since 1415, he was the first pope in hundreds of years to effectively retire from the office of the Holy See. To most Roman Catholics, popes simply do not do that type of thing.
Anthony McCarten’s The Two Popes chronicles the story of how Joseph Ratzinger, a Bavarian born son of a policeman, would eventually become Pope Benedict, only to have his top role in the Roman Catholic Church transferred to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a once-aspiring chemist turned Argentinian Jesuit priest, known for his work among the Latin American poor, who would himself become Pope Francis.
Ratzinger grew up in the shadow of Hitler’s Germany as a teenager, despite his father’s futile efforts to shield his son from the Nazi’s fascist control of the Germanic peoples. Young Ratzinger declared early on, that he wanted to become a Roman Catholic priest, but that was not enough to keep him from being drafted into the war, serving in an anti-aircraft unit for the defense of Munich. After the war, Ratzinger was able to continue in his theological education, and enter a career of teaching Catholic theology.
Most people are not aware of this, but the young Ratzinger worked alongside notable thinkers like Hans Kung at the Second Vatican Council, in the 1960s, to bring about progressive reform in the church. Yet Ratzinger ultimately backed off from his liberal leaning theology. He eventually was appointed as the head of the former “Inquisition” of the Roman Catholic Church, under Pope John Paul II. Ratzinger came to regret his earlier trajectory towards theological liberalism, becoming increasingly concerned that such progressive ideas would partner with relativism and secularism trends, to ultimately undermine the Roman Catholic faith.
Ratzinger was charged by John Paul II to revamp the “Inquisition” into the “Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” formulating catechetical instruction for the worldwide Roman Catholic faithful, following a conservative interpretation of Vatican II. The most significant work that Ratzinger supervised was the 1992 updated Catechism of the Catholic Church, the authoritative guide to Roman Catholic teachings. Ratzinger was noted for his efforts to reign in liberation theology, by removing the leading advocates for that theology from their positions, in order to promote John Paul II’s neo-traditional vision of Roman Catholic life and theology. He even managed to get his old friend and colleague, Hans Kung, removed from teaching theology to priests, after the latter wrote a book obliquely denying papal infallibility. Ratzinger had become the leading pick as a successor to John Paul II, following John Paul’s death in 2005.
The somewhat younger Jorge Mario Bergoglio grew up in Buenos Aires, originally pursuing a career to become a chemist, and even took a brief romantic interest that made him question occasional thoughts of becoming a priest. But a life threatening illness as a young man, that permanently injured a lung, steered him in a different direction, whereby he entered the Society for Jesus (the Jesuits) in 1958. Like Ratzinger, Bergoglio too was at the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. He was known to be conservative in most matters of Roman Catholic doctrine, though more moderate in areas dealing with social justice reforms, seeking to carve a middle way between the right and left, of a politically divided Argentina.
His efforts to walk a political tight rope in Argentina, forced him out of Argentina for a time. Some accused Bergoglio of not doing enough to help the people he was called to serve, while others thought he interfered in matters that were none of his business. But he was eventually brought back to Argentina, eventually to be elevated as an Archbishop. As Archbishop, Bergoglio followed his Jesuit instincts and rejected use of a private car and chauffeur, opting to ride the public bus instead, to make his appointments. Bergoglio was the second most favored choice to succeed Pope John Paul II, behind Ratzinger. Thus, when Pope Benedict announced his retirement less than a decade later, Bergoglio remained a serious candidate, who eventually won out over the others.
So, why did Benedict resign? It seems very strange that Benedict, a stalwart defender of Roman Catholic orthodoxy, would so readily hand over the leadership of the church to someone whose views were more radical, and more apt to undo Pope John Paul II’s program to revitalize the Roman Catholic Church, that was aimed at reaffirming traditional theological commitments in an increasingly secular world.
The stated reason was that Benedict felt that a younger, more vibrant man was needed to do the job. But Anthony McCarten thinks that Benedict’s failure to aggressively address the clerical sexual abuse crisis in the global church as ultimately to blame. McCarten faults Benedict for focusing too much on taking down errant liberation theologians, and in defending and upholding the integrity of the Roman Catholic priesthood, at the expense of the sexual abuse victims, who suffered under wayward priests. Admittedly, the Vatican knew that the Church had her enemies, and for decades, since as early as the 1860s, had sought a policy of moving priests accused of sexual abuse to other parishes, and urging the victims themselves to take oaths of silence, in order to protect the Church from her enemies, who would otherwise use such accusations to try to destroy the church.
It is clear that McCarten views such polices of deception and concealment to be counter-productive at best, if not purely criminal, at worst. This is where a book like The Two Popes often tells us more about the writer than the subject(s) being examined. Anthony McCarten is a New Zealand author and playwright, who grew up in a devout Roman Catholic household, only to say later “that his faith has lapsed, noting that he now regards the biblical story of the Virgin Birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ as ‘a tall tale.'” Many former Roman Catholics like McCarten grew up in the church, only to be secularized upon entering adulthood, after being disillusioned by what they saw as a religious institution that could no longer be trusted.
Pope Francis does not escape criticism either in The Two Popes, as McCarten tells the sordid tale of Bergolio’s disputed involvement in partially propping up a right-wing, military government, that overthrew the inept rule of Isabel Peron, in politically unstable Argentina, in the 1970s. Thousands of Argentinian dissidents were “disappeared” during these years, but the Argentinian Roman Catholic hierarchy was more worried about a threatened communist takeover from the left. Some of Bergolio’s fellow Jesuit priests were abducted as well, and critics charged Bergolio with not doing enough to protect his fellow priests, even to the point of claiming that Bergolio aided corrupt elements in the government in their persecutions of the poor, and those who tried to help them. Two of these priests were tortured before being released, and blamed Bergoglio for having abandoning them and their mission work. Bergolio’s defense was, “I did what I could.”
Pope Benedict had his sins, but Pope Francis had his sins as well. McCarten’s Bergolio comes out looking better than McCarten’s Ratzinger, but both men who became popes have failed, in McCarten’s mind, to inspire deep confidence in following the Roman Catholic faith.
Pope Francis, as the first Jesuit pope and first Latin American pope, who still refuses to live in the finely furnished Vatican apartments, and who still likes riding the public bus, has proven to be a popular yet enigmatic figure. Progressive Roman Catholics applaud the type of changes Francis has made to reform the Vatican, and voice great frustration when he does not do more, whereas traditional Roman Catholics are deeply concerned that Francis is turning into yet another “bad pope,” and compromising fundamental doctrinal stances of the church.
As concerns about Francis have grown, the former Pope Benedict emerged briefly in recent years, as a move that many observers believe was meant to be a check against Francis’ more progressive policy leanings. Time will tell what type of legacy Francis will ultimately leave.
A good example of the type of reforms that Francis is encouraging can be found in the January 2021 letter, Spiritus Domini, which seeks to institutionalize the practice of having women serving as Acolytes and Lay Readers in worship services. Such practice is already happening throughout various parts of global Roman Catholicism, but this is the first papal pronouncement formally acknowledging that this is good and right Roman Catholic doctrine. Throughout the 2,000 year history of the church, women have never served as priests (or presbyters), but women did serve as deacons, a practice that was abandoned in the West by about the sixth century. Supporters of Francis see this as restoring the ancient practice of the early church. Critics, however, are concerned that this might pave the way to allow women to serve as priests, despite Francis’ explicit reservations to the contrary.
Anthony McCarten’s cynicism about Roman Catholicism remains held back for most of The Two Popes, but it finally emerges the most starkly in his epilogue. “Were we able to look far into the future of the Catholic Church and learn that its fate was to become nothing more than a sacred book club, where fans gathered once a week to discuss their favorite characters and chapters, debate passionately the themes, and draw real life-lessons from shared readings, it could do a lot worse” (p. 205). So much for the inspirational character of the Roman church, rooted in real, historical truth. But McCarten’s cynicism is not just about Roman Catholicism. It is about the Christian faith itself.
There is a tension that McCarten exposes for all Christians to see. On one side is a reactionary, fundamentalist form of Christianity that believes that the Christian faith is under siege, and that the only option we have is to circle the wagons and fight against the incoming onslaught of secularism, etc. On the other side, is a watered-down form of Christianity that completely empties itself out of any and all concrete, historical reference points, in an attempt to show that Christianity is not fundamentally different than what a secular vision of reality is. Such liberal approach to Christian faith is merely a following of the secular trends, with a thin veneer of religious vocabulary and symbols pasted over the top. McCarten finds this latter approach to be more acceptable than the former. But interestingly, such liberalism is not compelling enough to encourage re-embracing the Christian faith himself.
I am not surprised.
Both forms of Christianity, the reactionary, conservative one, and the watered-down liberal one have effectively nothing to offer to the secular skeptic today, as McCarten would most probably describe himself. From my vantage point, the best path forward to revitalize Roman Catholicism and re-inspire the disillusioned is to be found in a robust dialogue with the other great traditions of the faith, evangelical Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy, in order to recover lost ground, and to rediscover what C.S. Lewis aptly called “Mere Christianity.”
The Two Popes was made into a Netflix film. I have not been very enthusiastic of some of the films Netflix has promoted, but this film is an exception to that. The Two Popes is very entertaining and the acting is really, really good (Anthony Hopkins, who plays Benedict is fantastic). Both men come across as more attractively human figures, as opposed to stereotypical, stuffy church officials. But the film lacks the nuance that the book has, which is probably to be expected when you try to take a book like this and squeeze the story down to a 2-hour film. The film takes a deeper look at the story of Francis, while comparatively spending less screen time looking at Benedict’s life story. For those reasons, I would recommend the book if you want a fairer treatment of history, but recommend the film for the entertainment value. In the end, viewing the film and particularly, in reading the book, it all helped me as an evangelical Protestant to understand the challenges of trying to maintain a robust, traditional Roman Catholic faith in an increasingly secular, postmodern world, that instinctively is prone to distrust religious institutions.