Randal Rauser
Randal Rauser is an associate professor of historical theology at Taylor Seminary.[1][2][3]
Rauser has written a generally sympathetic guide to The Shack in his companion volume Finding God in the Shack (Paternoster, 2009). In the book Rauser responds to many of the objections raised by critics like Chuck Colson and Albert Mohler.[4][5] Eugene H. Peterson praised Rauser as a "skilled and accessible theologian".[6] Dean Zimmerman praised Rauser as having the "intellectual honesty to face up to the genuine difficulties confronting his faith." Rauser and Peter Enns have discussed their views on biblical innerrancy.[7][8] Rauser has written a book with former preacher John W. Loftus, and debated him on radio.[9]
Rauser has encouraged theologians to study analytic philosophy.[10]
References
- ↑ "Recommended Sites & Blogs". Biologos foundation.
- ↑ "The Bridge - New Book form Dr. Randal Rauser" (PDF). Taylor College and Seminary. 2012.
- ↑ "Dr. Randal Rauser Biography". Taylor College and Seminary.
- ↑ "Interview - Finding God in 'The Shack'". Christian Broadcasting Network.
- ↑ "Finding God in the Shack". Goodreads.
- ↑ "Randal Rauser - Books".
- ↑ Peter Enns (April 9, 2014). "me talking about the Bible and such and indirectly about Bart Ehrman (podcast interview with Randal Rauser)".
- ↑ "BA Books & Authors on the Web – April 11, 2014". Baker Academic Blog.
- ↑ "The Outsider Test of Faith & Miracles - Randal Rauser vs John Loftus - Unbelievable?". Premier Chrisitan Radio.
- ↑ Gordon Graham. "Analytic Theology: New Essays in the Philosophy of Theology". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Notre Dame.
Randal Rauser's highly readable and robust essay on "Theology as a Bull Session" makes an interesting case for analytic theology. Elaborating on the central thought of Harry Frankfurt's (now) famous essay "On Bullshit", Rauser argues that the emphasis on clarity typical of analytic philosophy will provide some protection against the tide of bullshit that is licensed (no doubt unintentionally) by theology in the style of Sally McFague and Jurgen Moltmann. I am readily persuaded by this contention, but it seems to me that the counters to bullshit -- clarity of expression, rigor of argument and honesty of intellectual purpose -- are merits in ALL intellectual inquiry and not the preserve of a distinctive theological method. Further, by quoting Maes and Schaubroek on this point Rauser effectively agrees, since their reference is to 'academic discourse' in general (p. 73).