Friday, December 27, 2013

Five Ways A Skeptical World Attempts To Destroy Or Neutralize Christianity- Tim Keller at the Veritas Forum: Belief In An Age Of Skepticism

Among the many other good things that Keller brings out of his storehouse in this Veritas presentation are these five strategies that a skeptical world uses to deal with the exclusive truth claims of religion in general and  the faith of Jesus Christ in particular.
In order of Kellers reference to them they are:

  1. Hope it away. Skeptics just hope Christianity will go away and die the death of a thousand false hopes and "spurious" beliefs as people just get more sophisticated, better educated and less superstitious, less gullible and more rational, scientific, reasonable people. History, however shows how this did not happen, and will not happen. Voltaire, the French Enlightenment writer, historian and philosopher famous for his wit once said that Christianity will be dead and forgotten within a hundred years or so (or words to that effect) but what actually happened is that Voltaire is gone and the Bible society now own his house in Switzerland. As Keller points out- Christianity dying out is wishful thinking.
  2. Outlaw it away. Skeptics have in the past and still are using government to enact legislation making Christianity illegal (eg communism). Or if Christianity is not openly outlawed by government decree, then, by enacting laws that make those who hold a Christian worldview unpopular and seemingly less moral, by enacting laws that legitimize those moral mores that Christianity abhors- they thus attempt to destroy the faith by marginalizing it.
  3. Explain it away.Of particular interest is the debunking of the latest sociological research that would attempt to explain away in evolutionary terms that most fundamental mark of humanity- the propensity for religion. By casting doubt on the reliability of our belief forming faculties to form true beliefs or whether they really have anything to do with truth, but rather are merely fulfilling some evolutionary device which enabled our ancestors to survive- the sociologists which are pushing this understanding- have inadvertently undermined any knowledge at all! After all if our belief forming faculties are wrong about the truth of religion, or the existence of God, why shouldn't they be wrong about evolution itself, or why should a naturalistic explanation for the Universe be taken as true?
  4. Argue it away. The new atheists are strident moral campaigners who attempt to rationalize why Christianity cannot be true, and is not only not true but actually harmful to human progress. "Religion leads to violence, and war" are the sort of slogans that are heard.
  5. Privatize it away. In this attempt- which has had a marked success in more secular countries like New Zealand- this tactic has convinced all parties, secular and non-secular that one's beliefs or religion should be kept private, out of the public square. The attitude has taken hold that in order for the preservation of peace to continue and for our pluralistic society to get along, each must maintain their beliefs on a strictly private basis. Thus "peace at any price" has come at the expense of truth. After all "truth is relative" so it is arrogant and rude to refer to your particular set of beliefs as universally true. This tactic is so successful at all levels of society that it also occurs within churches, where groups of differing emphasis or persuasion are made to feel that what they believe to be true, can only be true for them, and not for the church as whole. When truth is thus relativized, it begins to lose power as a reforming force and universal standard, it no longer has a unifying and strengthening effect, but rather the fragmentation of society is enhanced, not only at a general societal level, but even amongst Church communities we see this fragmentation. This is characterized by churches that do not interact and explore their different emphases, and by factions within denominations that are voiceless. Pastors are reduced to feeling the need to apologize if their sermons get a bit "doctrinal" and the Gospel is reduced to a "therapeutic" gospel. 
This is an excellent presentation that addresses the problems that face the Church in the "West". Also of note was his explanation for active and passive oppression, that people of either religious or secular persuasion are prone to slip into, which he called "the slippery slope of the heart" (?).

For a review of Keller's book: The Reason For God: Belief in an age of skepticism, follow the link.


Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Merry Christmas!


To All Those who have shown an interest, interacted, came to the meetings, read, commented and even those who have disagreed, Merry Christmas! My prayer is- to those that  have not yet seen, that they will see- and those that do see, that they may see clearer, the Goodness of God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. And that we, who claim to see, would see that "he has committed to us the message of reconciliation".

God Bless You in this festive season.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets.

In one of the most moving sermons I have heard Ravi Zacharias preach he draws on the story of Daniel and how he drew the line when it came to being assimilated into the Babylonian culture. This is a message for our time, whether young or old or somewhere between- it is never too late to draw the line, to begin afresh and ask the Lord for wisdom and strength to shape our lives according to the fashion of the master builder. the master potter.

He gives a special emphasis, or at least one that spoke personally to me, about shaping our appetites- what do we give our time to? What captivates our imagination? What hungers are we feeding?

He also considers a world bereft of wisdom, with all our sophistication, knowledge and imagined superiority over other ages we as a culture are dying of malnutrition of the soul, being poor blind and naked.

In a recent incident I was driving home after visiting a friend and I was on the open road going at a good clip down a straight section and a woman by the roadside arrested my gaze. She was just standing there oblivious to me as I sped past in a rush of metal and wheels- she was weeping, just standing there weeping without any care or thought for what strangers might be a party to her inmost sorrows. At the same instant I recognized the object of her anguished heart.

Lying prone on the road was a small furry black cat.

Looking in the rear vision mirror it appeared she could not bring herself to leave the side of her furry friend, but neither could she bring herself to deal with the body. At the nearest opportunity I pulled up, turned around and stopped at a nearby wayside. It was a pretty obvious story, in fact earlier in the day I had seen the animal lying there as I went to meet my friend. I didn't have many words to comfort so I just gave her a hug and offered to walk her back to her home. I could have used the opportunity to give a gospel message or offer prayer, but it just seemed wrong and rude to take advantage of that vulnerable moment, words just seemed superfluous. I walked back to my car and found a large bag and picked the cat up and carried it back to her house. The woman lived there alone and the cat was apparently her only companion.

What was saddest to me was the reality that the loss of a domestic pet could be such a hard blow. She was devastated. Where was her family? Who cared for her? Why is she so alone? What forces had shaped her life to the point where she should feel the need to place such dependency upon the friendship of a cat? What choices had she made to bring her to this?

Until we seriously take stock of the "collateral damage" caused by a culture in a headlong rush to cut all ties with the past and continue to blindly chant the mantra of the spirit of the age we will continue to reap a terrible harvest. As a farmer I know only to well the problems that ensue when a fence has been removed without any thought for why it was there in the first place. We live in a culture where boundary after boundary has been moved or totally destroyed and we will continue to suffer as a people the fallout from this.

“Every moment is a moment of decision, and every moment turns us inexorably in the direction of the rest of our lives.” 
Mary Balogh, Simply Perfect

“But time has a way of stealthily deciding a person’s mind without her conscious knowledge, and as she studied and procrastinated, Poison found one day that she had come to know her choice.”
Chris Wooding, Poison

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Denominations and Stereotpying

In a "Christianity Today" article the question of stereotyping of certain denominations or theological systems is addressed.

"A stereotype is a thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality." (Wikipedia) 

I would add that generally (am I being stereotypical?) it is used in a negative sense.

In Titus chapter one we have an example of stereotyping cited by Paul and he follows it up by an injunction to "rebuke sharply, that they may be sound in the faith".
"One of themselves, even a Prophet of their own, said: The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies."Titus 1:12
Certainly it is obvious that this sort of generalization is damaging.

For all that, sometimes it is interesting and useful to ask what- in a general sense- is the public perception of certain groups. After all if there is any truth in a general perception then that might need addressing, some attitudes or better information maybe necessary to rectify these images.

 And who better to ask about it than Google?  

Apparently Google uses an algorithm to anticipate what you want to search for based on the history of millions of other searches. Within just a few strokes of the keyboard in their search-bar, Google is "magically" offering suggestions as to what it is you are actually searching for. This just may give an insight as to how these groups are perceived. The results are often not flattering as the following example shows:





But then we need to ask the question what lies behind the algorithm that Google uses? Is it completely transparent and unbiased?

Unsuprisingly perhaps, it is not. At least that is the picture painted by the following excerpt from an article on the BBC's Future website:

The article cites the conclusions drawn by a recent United Nations survey testing negative attitudes towards women based on results gleaned by the Google autocomplete menu.

Is Google Autocomplete Evil?

"Yet, like any other search algorithm, autocomplete blends a secret sauce of data points beneath its effortless interface. Your language, location and timing are all major factors in results, as are measures of impact and engagement – not to mention your own browsing history and the “freshness” of any topic. In other words, what autocomplete feeds you is not the full picture, but what Google anticipates you want. It’s not about mere truth; it’s about “relevance”.
This is before you get on to censorship. Understandably, Google suppresses terms likely to encourage illegality or materials unsuitable for all users, together with numerous formulations relating to areas like racial and religious hatred. The company’s list of “potentially inappropriate search queries” is constantly updated.
False premise
None of this should be news to savvy web users. Yet many reactions to the UN Women campaign suggest, to me, a reliance on algorithmic expertise that borders on blind faith."
Interestingly it is the preconceived notion that Google autocomplete is actually set up with a thirst for truth rather than a bias towards "relevance" that has caused many to accept without question its results. Having a better, more accurate understanding of its parameters has meant people are asking healthy questions as to the reliability and relevance of the results to gauge public perceptions.

However, once one realizes that there is a need for some skepticism as to the accuracy of these results- it at least is an interesting and easy exercise to determine -with a certain amount of caution- public attitudes of a range of topics.


John Piper of "Desiring God" ministries seemed to be on the ball as the following article directly addresses the conceptions brought up by Google on Calvinists.

Why are Calvinists so negative?

I love the doctrines of grace with all my heart, and I think they are pride-shattering, humbling, and love-producing doctrines. But I think there is an attractiveness about them to some people, in large matter, because of their intellectual rigor. They are powerfully coherent doctrines, and certain kinds of minds are drawn to that. And those kinds of minds tend to be argumentative.

So the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn't tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic.

I'll just confess that. It's a sad and terrible thing that that's the case. Some of this type aren't even Christians, I think. You can embrace a system of theology and not even be born again.

Another reason for Calvinists could be seen as negative is that when a person comes to see the doctrines of grace in the Bible, he is often amazed that he missed it, and he can sometimes become angry. He can become angry that he grew up in a church or home where they never talked about what is really there in Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 2, and Ephesians 2. They never talked about it—they skipped it—and he is angry that he was misled for so long.

That's sad. It's there; it's real; the church did let him down, and there are thousands of churches that ignore the truth and don't teach it. And he has to deal with that.

Another reason Calvinists might be perceived as negative is that they are trying to convince others about the doctrines.

If God gives someone the grace to be humbled and see the truth, and the doctrines are sweet to him, and they break his pride—because God chose him owing to nothing in him. He was awakened from the dead, like being found at the bottom of a lake and God, at the cost of his Son's life, brings him up from the bottom, does CPR, brings him miraculously back to life, and he stands on the beach thrilled with the grace of God—wouldn't he want to persuade people about this?

Do Calvinists want to make everybody else Calvinists? Absolutely we do! But it's not about elitism. It's about having been found by Christ and having the glory of God opened to us in the process of salvation. It's about having the majesty of God opened in all of his saving and redeeming works, wanting to give him all the glory and all the credit, and cherishing the sovereignty and preciousness of grace in our lives. Why wouldn't we want to share this with people?

If it is perceived as elitist, that is partly owing to our sinfulness in the way we go about it, and partly owing to people's unwillingness to see what is really there in the Bible.

I just want to confess my own sins in how I have often spoken, and I hope and pray that I don't have the reputation of being mainly negative, but mainly positive.

I look at my books sometimes when I hear that kind of criticism, and I say, "OK when I'm dead and gone, and all that is left is sermons and books, will my reputation be that? Will it be that I have a whole bunch of books and sermons that are mainly negative, harsh, and elitist?"

Time will tell. I hope not.

©2013 Desiring God Foundation. Used by Permission. By John Piper. ©2013 Desiring God Foundation. Website: desiringGod.org

Monday, October 7, 2013

"My Heart In Hiding Stirred For A Bird" -Like A Bird On A Wire- The Argument From Desire

We all long to be free. Free as a bird. And this longing is a tacit admission that we are limited in so many ways. For some it is the limitation of being the "wrong" skin colour, the limitation of being born in an impoverished country, or we feel the limitation of being born at the wrong time, or with the wrong body.

Or it is the sense of the passing of days and the limitation of our finite lives.

Whatever the form of our prison- we long for freedom.

There is in all of us an innate sense of beauty and an accompanying longing and desire for it. It may be expressed in the desperate joy of making friends with a rat in a dark, dank and lonely dungeon of solitary confinement. It may express itself as the joy of a panoramic view on a spotless day.Or as that exquisite moment with loved ones that lasts just seconds.  Even in the midst of chaos, hatred and destruction, those dark nights of the soul, we may see briefly a window through which we long for and appreciate something beautiful, and we instinctively desire that sight, that sense and we wish for it to be prolonged.

Especially as we enter what may be called the "twilight years" we are conscious of the passing of days and the temporal nature of our lives.

I hate it when a writer you disagree with intensely, writes something you like immensely. Such was the case when I opened yesterday’s paper and met with the words of Joe Bennett.

Dear readers, please listen to Joe, but ignore what he says. Joe extols and simultaneously laments the passing beauty of life, his melancholy is all the more palpable because we can all relate to it, and if we do not at this point- we will one day- guaranteed.

The angst I refer to is the inexorable passing of days, beautiful days some of them, but days never the less that will come to an end.

I attended a funeral recently of a man that left a legacy, but it was counted not in terms of money or possessions, but in terms of relationships, character and memories. It was a life attested by many to be beautifully lived. And it showed.

Joe’s piece is the sigh of a man who sees an end of days and tastes the bitter injustice of it. When we love- we wish it never to end- but it does, at least in Joe’s story. And therein lays the folly. Joe is a realist, or so he believes. And yet his sense of injustice betrays his story.



                                            To read Joe's Piece Click on the Image.



Joe’s unspoken, yet felt desire is that life is beautiful often enough to warrant the longing that it should not end. The question is reasonable enough: Does that desire necessarily have no fulfillment?  Joe's take is that death is the cessation of the possibility of that unfulfilled longing for the continuation of life and he believes in his "realism" that it is the only sane position possible in the face of death.  

C.S. Lewis put a handle on it:
"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”

Peter Kreeft adds:
"No one has ever found one case of an innate desire for a nonexistent object. Even the atheist Jean-Paul Sartre admitted that "there comes a time when one asks, even of Shakespeare, even of Beethoven, 'Is that all there is?'"




Like a bird on the wire

Like a bird on the wire,
Like a drunk in a midnight choir
I have tried in my way to be free.
Like a worm on a hook,
Like a knight from some old fashioned book
I have saved all my ribbons for thee.
If I, if I have been unkind,
I hope that you can just let it go by.
If I, if I have been untrue
I hope you know it was never to you.

Like a baby, stillborn,
Like a beast with his horn
I have torn everyone who reached out for me.
But I swear by this song
And by all that I have done wrong
I will make it all up to thee.
I saw a beggar leaning on his wooden crutch,
He said to me, "You must not ask for so much."
And a pretty woman leaning in her darkened door,
She cried to me, "Hey, why not ask for more?"

Oh like a bird on the wire,
Like a drunk in a midnight choir
I have tried in my way to be free.

Songwriters: COHEN, LEONARD

*As a footnote to Bennett's article, I found it fascinating that the line he quoted: "my heart in hiding stirred for a bird"(and remember he is an avowed atheist) was out of a poem by Gerard Manley Hopkins. Hopkins dedicated the poem "to Christ our Lord".)



Thursday, October 3, 2013

Correlation of Relativism and Brain Softening

“You have your truth, I have mine”

The following is an excellent synopsis of the danger of mind weakening relativism.

THE WORLD'S MOST DANGEROUS IDEA by Richard Umbers, Sydney. 
Relativism may be a comfortable creed, but it is intellectually lazy.If taking your dog for a walk is your idea of Sunday worship then Vermont’s Dog Chapel is for you. It has stained glass windows dedicated to various dogs as saints. Pilgrims can attach a photo to the walls of their deceased canine as a memorial of happier times. Here is a place where anyone can wear a collar and believe whatever they want just so long as they don’t believe it too strongly. The vibe of the Chapel is captured on the sign outside: “Welcome all creeds, all breeds, no dogmas allowed.”

Dog Chapel resonates with the warp and woof of our times, even though scepticism greets the truth claims by any church, whether it be Catholic, Protestant or Scientologist. Indeed, the mere attempt to present objective values about life or death, rather than just stating mere facts, is seen as religious fanaticism. It could be an attempt to take control of my thoughts, freedom and wallet, people fear.
Rather than roll over and play dead before authority our society prefers the relativist claim that “you have your truth and I have mine”. Confrontation is avoided by watering down thought and making it so mushy that no one would ever impose his beliefs. But when is a relativist ever wrong? How would one know?
Think of the dolphin music in a secular funeral parlour. It sounds meaningful but it doesn’t pin you down to any specific life view or course of action. Think of Tina Turner’s Buddhism and karma-lite without any of the down-sides of reincarnation (like blaming the congenitally disabled for sins committed in a previous life). If that sounds too mind-bending, you can always squelch me with “well, that’s your opinion”.
Some statements can open up interesting discussions. “That’s your opinion” is not one of them. Anyway, no one really believes in “that’s your opinion”. We all think that female genital mutilation in the Sudan, racism in Arizona, the stoning of women in Iran, or child molestation in Australia’s Northern Territory are wrong however acceptable they may be in the local culture.
Here’s where the wheels really begin to wobble on the cart of relativism. We live in a society in which we are free to go whatever we want but we never find out where we should begin or where we should end up. Our freedom is like a complicated toy without the instruction manual. Pope Benedict XVI, the implacable foe of moral relativism, has often mused that we cannot make the world better unless we know what is good and what is not good for the world. Relativism leads to intellectual complacency and social apathy.
“But that’s just your opinion.” Yes, it is and I’m happy to debate it. The answer, I propose, to the problem of disagreement and differing perspectives is not to weaken thought, not to retreat into indifference and disengagement, but rather to do mental exercise and sharpen our critical thinking capacities.
We should work towards fostering an environment and culture where concern for truth precedes personal comfort. We should be humble about our truth claims but humility means telling the truth. It means saying you are good at something when indeed you are.
We can know the principles of non-contradiction and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent subject. If failures to arrive at the truth have been caused through bias or sloppy thinking, that is no reason to abandon the search for truth. It is reason to redouble our efforts to cultivate the intellectual virtues of fairness and coherence.
Let’s encourage reflection and self-examination. What are my reasons for belief? Do they stand up to rigorous analysis? Our truth claims need to be made without swagger; we need to propose more than impose; but we should not let relativists impose silence upon us. The truth hurts but it also heals.
Not to connect our perspectives with reality is to go delusional. It would be symptomatic of a society that had gone to the dogs.

Copied from MercatorNet, Navigating Modern Complexities

Richard Umbers teaches philosophy in Sydney

Those who buy into the postmodern mantras of relativism might well heed the lesson taught by Alan Sokal.

The narcissistic love affair for poorly understood but high faluting language that apparently gave support to prejudices and presuppositions  among  certain postmodern deconstructionist academics became their undoing. This was ably demonstrated in an article written by Alan Sokal submitted and subsequently published in "Social Text", an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies.


His submission of the article was simply an experiment aimed to make clear what he suspected all along:
"a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions" The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in the Social Text spring/summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[3][4] On the day of its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax, identifying it as "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense ... structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics."[2]
The hoax sparked a debate about the scholarly merit of humanistic commentary about the physical sciences; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors and readers of Social Text; and whether Social Text had exercised appropriate intellectual rigor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair)
The rising spectre of relativism within the Christian Church is apprehended by the above image. It is no doubt a part of the brain softening process when we are completely oblivious to the fact that the total denial of all absolues (dogma) is itself an absolute. So you don't believe me?

Here is a quote from Christian- Chris Annegarn- in a local paper apologizing on behalf of Christendom for another believer who wrote, expressing concern over terrorism coming to our own part of the world, and recruitment of people from the local population with  Isis/Islamic sympathies. This happened after cartoons were published by the secular paper Charlie Hebdo lampooning Islam, which promptly got 11 of the staff of the paper shot by Muslim extremists.

"As a Christian,  I was apalled to read Alistair Goodland's cynical letter attacking the Islamic religion...
You live in a world God made...of many different faiths...On behalf of Christians all over the world, I offer our Muslim brothers and sisters... a peace -filled and love-laden apology"
Not one word of sympathy was written in respect to the death, terror and destruction wreaked on Paris families and citizens of that democracy. That is apalling to my sensibilities. I don't agree with the desacralizing of any religions or cultures, but none of their efforts warranted that retaliation. But that aside, my point in this quote is to point out the relativism inherent in the worldview of this Christian. And I use the word with some reserve, giving the person the benefit of the doubt, since it flies in the face of so much revealed truth.

We see here, the idea- what is your truth is fine for you and what my truth is, is right for me and we should each have equal respect for our different understanding of reality, since there is no such thing as authoritative, absolute truth or objective fact. God made all religions and therefore they should be treated as equal. 

Say what!

Respect for all people on the basis of creatures made in his image, therefore as equal under one God,  is one thing- respect for all ideas as being equal is utter nonsense. Respecting a person who espouses Islam does not add up to the same thing as putting Islam on an equal footing with Christianity. Christianity stands (or falls) on the supposition that it is objectively true.  We accept Christianity on the basis that it is true, and if true- then Islam cannot be on a par with the claims of Christianity as the one true faith . Muslims, who are not nearly as influenced by relativistic philosophies from the West understand this, and they hold no such pretension to there being different faiths which "all lead to the same God", or that the law of non contradiction does not exist. They will brook no opposition from rival religions competing for the title of one true faith.

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.…" Ephesians 4:4-6




Friday, August 23, 2013

The Cumulative Effects of Post-Modernity on Christianity Today- " A Mile Wide But Only An Inch Deep"

In one of the few exchanges I have ever had with a Christian leader in which I felt constrained to speak candidly and some might even say harshly I recall the words coming out of my mouth that if things continue on the path that had been apparent for some time, he would end up with a fellowship "a mile wide but only an inch deep". My words were not intended as a personal assault on his integrity or his abilities but were an observation of a trend which I believed was apparent over wide swathes of evangelical Christianity. That is not to say that I was essentially any different, but that perhaps like the alcoholic searching for an answer, the first step towards healing is a recognition of the problem.

In the following video Ravi Zacharias alludes to this problem of shallowness in the American Church which does not have a monopoly on the problem but is indicative of something common to the Church in Western culture. We here in New Zealand are similarly in dire need of coming to grips with a problematic system of belief that seems to run high on emotions and feelings but lacks the cohesive torque necessary for deep personal renewal and cultural shift.

Thankfully, this situation has not gone unnoticed by others. "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" is a book by evangelical Christian scholar Mark A. Noll, who is currently Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame. This critical yet constructive book explains the decline of evangelical thought in North America and seeks to find, within evangelicalism itself, resources for turning the situation around. (Wikipedia)

"The scandal of the evangelical mind, " says historian Mark Noll, "is that there is not much of an evangelical mind."  
Unfortunately this problem of shallowness does not end with North America, nor indeed Western culture. We have "succesfully" exported this brand of Christianity "lite" elsewhere and the results are all too clear.

J.M. Njoroge of RZIM laments the lack of depth in the Church in Africa, and in a piece entitled: Apologetics- Why Your Church Needs It.  he writes an excellent article exploring the reasons why there is an apalling difference in the way the Gospel has failed to deeply impact African cultures compared to the deep sociological changes that occurred in Great Britain in the times of John Wesley and George Whitfield and others.

The impact of the Gospel was so deep and widespread it became known as "The Great Awakening". More than one historical commentator has remarked that had it not been for this widespread embrace of the Christian hope at a deep cultural level, Great Britain also would have been experiencing its own cultural revolution along the same lines that was then raging just a few miles across the English Channel in France. That period left an indelible picture in my own mind where the Guillotine was kept constantly busy, and chaos and blood intermingled freely on the streets. The pace of that blade was matched equally by the grotesque gawping bystanders whose knitting needles barely paused their ceaseless clacking as the heads rolled one after the other.

On a website dedicated to "The Great Awakening" a clergyman from the era just prior to the awakening is cited where he deplores the spiritual condition of England. Archaic language aside, it is strongly reminiscent of the current spiritual decline of Christendom:
"It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but that it is, not at length, discovered to be fictitious. And accordingly they treat it, as if, in the present age, this were an agreed point among all people of discernment; and nothing remained, but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals, for its having so long interrupted the pleasures of the world."

J.M. Njoroge:

...the Gospel in Africa ...does not seem to have the impact one would expect it to have...
[D]espite the seriousness of the physical needs, I am convinced that the biggest problem Africa faces is ideological,,,Reflecting on the impact of the Gospel in Africa over the last few decades, missiologist Ralph Winter laments the fact that it does not seem to have the impact one would expect it to have in places where a majority of the people claim to be followers of Jesus Christ.

Even Rwanda was considered to be one of the most Christianized nations in the world just before the genocide. Winter refers to this as “the nightmare of a thought that our vast global, hard-won expansion of Christianity is falling to pieces before our eyes."
His conclusion is worth pondering: A Christianity that does not teach the Bible points the way nowhere but to New Age groping, ambiguity and relativism. However, a Christianity that only teaches the Bible is blind to all the other knowledge God wants us to discover and value.  A full examination of how we got where we are goes well beyond the scope of this short article. Suffice it to say that the church, for the most part, did not respond well to the assaults on the faith that gained prominence in the intellectual centers of the world in the nineteenth century. Philosopher J.P. Moreland identifies three principal areas in which the Gospel was poorly defended against intellectual attacks: philosophy, science, and German “higher criticism.”

...the real problem...is not hard to identify...the version of Christianity that was planted in Africa was largely divorced from the intellectual legacy of Christendom that had produced first-rate Christian scientists, moral philosophers, political thinkers, artists, business entrepreneurs...It was instead the product of a pietistic strain of evangelicalism which was already in intellectual retreat in the West...

Bible institutes were built to train lay believers to reach the lost for Christ, rather than to equip a generation of believers to defend their faith. As Evangelicals retreated from the broader society, an unhealthy escapism with an emphasis on End Times teaching became popular. The result was a severe marginalization of Christian ideas from the public arena. Needless to say, reaching souls for Christ is the central objective of our calling, and as Spirit-filled believers, we “groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons” (Romans 8:23). But in the meantime, we are to endure the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in the believers (Galatians 4:19). If Moreland’s analysis is largely correct, then the real problem that plagues believers in places like Africa is not hard to identify. Simply stated, the version of Christianity that was planted in Africa was largely divorced from the intellectual legacy of Christendom that had produced first-rate Christian scientists, moral philosophers, political thinkers, artists, business entrepreneurs, etc. It was instead the product of a pietistic strain of evangelicalism which was already in intellectual retreat in the West by the time it was coming to maturity in Africa. In short, since the advent of the missionary movement in the latter eighteenth century, the Judeo- Christian tradition has never been rooted in Africa as it had once been in the West.
Njoroge continues his article with a strong message confirming the importance of a Church dedicated to defending the faith and the essential nature of engaging cultures at a worldview level on a par with the best of the thinkers of other belief systems.
"If we do not learn to value the life of the mind, then we will be doing a great disservice to all the missionaries who have sacrificed their resources, time, health, and even lives to take the Gospel to places like Africa. In spite of the anti-intellectual flavor of the version of the faith that made it to Africa, the missionaries proved faithful with what was at their disposal."
It seems we are constantly having to revisit history in order to avoid repeating its mistakes.
“For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”
Austin Farrer “The Christian Apologist”(1904-1968)

Clearly the African church has the same problem as the Westernized church-  a lack of depth in Christian character and the flow on effects within society- with one major difference. In the West- though it is in decline- the culture in general still live in the afterglow of a Christianized conscience. The culture is in effect living on the borrowed moral capital of a prior Christian worldview- even as the source of it is denied.
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: 2 Timothy 3:5 (KJV)
J.M. Njoroge:
"The West may presently be busy hacking away at the root of its moral foundations, but Africa in one sense has yet even to break ground in order to lay down a strong biblical foundation within its many cultures."
"An expenditure of words without an income of ideas will lead to conceptual bankruptcy"
Ravi Zacharias 

Friday, August 16, 2013

The Apostle for Atheism gets 'Hoist by his own Petard!'

On a wet, miserable day in a park in a large American city the "Apostle for Atheism" Richard Dawkins addresses a ten thousand strong flock of faithful adherents. The following video picks up his message at a point where he can be heard urging his followers to "Mock them..."(Christians or people of other religions) The most odd thing that may strike you is the reality that here is a man- whose platform is underpinned by his insistence that what he does is backed up by science- inciting people to do something that is worlds away from being scientific! Ravi Zacharias responds with a challenge. 




Atheist Michael Ruse in the Guardian 2nd October 2012 castigates Dawkins for his moralistic quasi-religious crusades against religion:

'Humanism in its most virulent form tries to make science into a religion. It is awash with the intolerance of enthusiasm. For a start, there is the near-hysterical repudiation of religion. To quote Richard Dawkins:
"I think there's something very evil about faith … it justifies essentially anything. If you're taught in your holy book or by your priest that blasphemers should die or apostates should die – anybody who once believed in the religion and no longer does needs to be killed – that clearly is evil. And people don't have to justify it because it's their faith."
In the caricaturing of "faith" as murderous fundamentalism, one hears echoes of the bloody and interminable Reformation squabbles between Protestants and Catholics. It is also of course to give help to the real enemy, those who turn their back fully on science as they follow their religion.
There are other aspects of the new atheist movement that remind me of religion. One is the adulation by supporters and enthusiasts for the leaders of the movement: it is not just a matter of agreement or respect but also of a kind of worship. This certainly surrounds Dawkins, who is admittedly charismatic.
...I do think it all tells us something. Call it a secular religion if you will, but the humanism I have been discussing in this piece does bear strong similarities to conventional religion. One finds the enthusiasm of the true believer. And as a non-believing Darwinian evolutionist, as one who is a humanist in the broader sense, this makes me feel rather ill.'

In the following video we see a faux pas of major proportions where Dawkins becomes the butt of a joke that he- with all his erudition fails to see. And it takes a man of the cloth to spell it out for him!



For the theist, or Christian there is no contradiction in alluding to the "something" from whom all creation came "ex nihilo"- out of nothing, because in doing so we make the distinction that the "something" is the immaterial, supernatural God.  So the incongruity of Dawkins' statement may pass unnoticed at first blush. But when you reflect that Dawkins' philosophical position is that of a philosophical naturalist it becomes a blunder of major proportions to define nothing as "something". To put it as succinctly as I can, a philosphical naturalist holds that nothing exists outside of, or transcends the material Universe, so that if you go back beyond the singularity of the "big bang" before which absolutely nothing existed (in their view) it is a logical contradiction of the kind even schoolboys would not make- to speak of nothing as "something!"  Aristotle's statement that "nothing- is what rocks dream about" may take on a whole new meaning after this...

For further discussion of Dawkins exhortation to his devotees to ridicule and mock Christians take a listen to this video soundtrack where Christian philosopher and author Dr. William Lane Craig critiques the recent movie by Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss entitled "The Unbelievers"


There is a delicious irony here that I feel gains justification from the fact he has gone on public record inciting disrespect, ridicule and contempt, and ends up being the object of that which he wished to foist on others. If it had been anyone else on another issue he may well have been a candidate for being charged with "hate-speech" but I hope he comes to realize that Christians as a rule- and I say this with qualification- are not a vindictive lot. I think it just and fitting that he is "hoist by his own petard!"*



*  "Hoist by his own Petard": Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others. A petard was a small bomb used to blow up gates and walls when breaching fortifications, of French origin and dating back to the sixteenth century.Petard comes from the Middle French peter- to break wind, from pet- expulsion of intestinal gas, from the Latin peditus- past participle of pedere, to break wind, akin to the Greek bdein-, to break wind (Merriam-Webster). (courtesy of Wikipedia)



Sunday, August 11, 2013

The Apologetic Value in the "Search for the Historical Jesus"


In an article that was posted on "Christianity Today" (Sept. 2010) entitled "The Jesus We'll Never Know" Scot McKnight- New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, theologian, speaker, author and blogger- admits the difficulties inherent in finding the objective, historical truth about Jesus so long after these events took place.

"Historical Jesus scholars reconstruct what Jesus was like by using historical methods to determine what in the Gospels can be trusted."
That statement and the following admissions clearly outline the shift from trust in the authority of Scripture to the authority of historical analysis according to autonomous humanity and all its attendant danger of subjectivity. But to be fair, that was the reasoning for the "search for the historical Jesus"  in the first place- because scholars felt that the early Christians had inflated Jesus and were guilty of hyperbole or other inaccuracies. Finding in our own times, that people always project onto Jesus what they would like him to be like, this attitude assumes that the "real" Jesus was similarly obscured by those who encountered him in the flesh. What, or rather whom, they are seeking is the "uninterpreted" Jesus.  In his own words:
"To one degree or another, we all conform Jesus to our own image."
"The historical Jesus is the Jesus whom scholars have reconstructed on the basis of historical methods over against the canonical portraits of Jesus in the Gospels of our New Testament" 
"Most historical Jesus scholars assume that the Gospels are historically unreliable..."
The movement, known for it's search for the "historical Jesus" has been associated with such names as: Robert Funk, Ben F. Meyer, E. P. Sanders, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, and N. T. (Tom) Wright.  What was generally common to these scholars was the fact they studied the historicity of Jesus in the same way and by the same criteria as one would study Alexander the Great or any other great figure of history. Literary criticism, or higher criticism discounted largely the inspiration and authority of the scriptures and looked upon them as documents needing the historical method for verification.

While we may vehemently disagree with the shift from the authority of scripture to trusting in the authority of historical analysis alone what is important to notice is that essentially the historic analysis does not disagree with scripture on any vital points, it in fact coheres on all the salient points as far as these events are historically testable. What we therefore need to "fill in" are those questions like- Why? For what motive? To accomplish what?

So I venture to ask this question: What apologetic value might we glean from these studies?

Scot McKnight offers this as a summary of the many years of scholars lives that have been spent on this research for the "historical Jesus":

"This is what I said to myself: As a historian I think I can prove that Jesus died and that he thought his death was atoning. I think I can establish that the tomb was empty and that resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb. But one thing the historical method cannot prove is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification. At some point, historical methods run out of steam and energy. Historical Jesus studies cannot get us to the point where the Holy Spirit and the church can take us. I know that once I was blind and that I can now see. I know that historical methods did not give me sight. They can't. Faith cannot be completely based on what the historian can prove. The quest for the real Jesus, through long and painful paths, has proven that much."
While that might seem an admission of failure to reach the lofty goal of an uninterpreted Jesus, far from being able to define the real Jesus, what he does say is fitting and maybe just exactly conforming to the extent that God chose to reveal by historical analysis. In the end specifically historical studies that do not- as a given- accord the scripture with spiritual authority will only reveal so much. The rest God must provide by way of revelation. But what we are assured of as historically proven is certainly valuable:

  • Jesus lived.
  • Jesus died
  • His own view of the reason for his death was atonement.
  • There was an empty tomb.
  • The resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb.
If that much is historically significant then surely faith is not too big a leap, and certainly not without evidence!
In this regard I like what Ravi Zacharias has written in his book: A Shattered Visage- The Real Face of Atheism

"God has put enough into the world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing, and He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone"
Scot McKnight is professor of religion at North Park University in Chicago, and the author of many books, including The Jesus Creed.

Monday, August 5, 2013

"How Can You Posit The Existence Of God In The Presence Of All This Evil?"- Is It A Legitimate Question?

"The uncreative mind can spot wrong answers, but it takes a very creative mind to spot wrong questions." 

So said Antony Jay. In this next video Ravi Zacharias exposes the fact that when an atheist points out the apparent contradiction between the real and manifest existence of evil and the existence of an all powerful, all knowing and loving God- it cannot be done legitimately by the atheist- without admitting the existence of that which he or she is attempting to disprove. For the atheist then, the argument from the existence of evil by which to disprove the existence of God is a self-refuting argument.

Saturday, August 3, 2013

The Science/Religion Debate Rages On...

In the realm of Christian Apologetics one of the areas that I find myself most drawn to is the relationship between religion and science, or faith and reason. One of the first things to recognize is that this so-called mutual enmity between these fields is, well- it's just that- so called. In reality there is no incompatibility between the fields of science and Christianity, there is no divide or disjunction. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. The apparent divide is merely a ploy to play upon the weaknesses of both sides. Many people on both sides of the secular/religious divide are neither well informed about science or religion, and therefore it becomes advantageous to play upon this misunderstanding to push the advantage for the scientific world view, or rather- as I should really say- this is a ploy to push a non-existent divide between science and religion. The real contest is actually between  two worldviews, Christianity and scientism*, or to give it its proper handle, it is between Christianity and philosophical naturalism.

As any student of the history of science, or the philosophy of science will know it was, in the West, an established reality that many of the early scientists were theists, and it was their understanding of the steadfast order, uniformity and reliability of the Creator and His created order that inspired their scientific endeavours . And the reality today is that in the top echelons of science, theists are still well represented.

Recently, at the inaugural meeting of our apologetics group- as an exercise in critical thinking- I arranged a series of propositions that demonstrate self-defeating statements, and participants were asked to explore how and why they devoured themselves. It is always a concern that what is taught is not just theory but has practial applications. What excites me about apologetics is that this stuff is just so nuts and bolts practical Christianity. The propositions that I put before participants are erroneous ways of thinking that happen all the time in our dialogue with those of other worldviews and this was cogently demonstrated by recent events.

I subscribe to a YouTube channel that regularly uploads debates between some outspoken atheists who happen to be scientists and Christians who are either scientists themselves or highly qualified in other areas, such as philosophy. Just this morning I was informed of a movie that featured the militant atheist Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss called "The Unbelievers- What are you willing to believe?"  The video that this channel author had uploaded to YouTube was a critique of that movie by the well-known Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig. To the dismay of the channels author the critique was flagged as "Inappropriate" or in some way deemed to be in violation of YouTube policy and for whatever reason, not only was the video, which is actually just a soundtrack, not only was it removed, the author had his whole channel shut down. Apparently this was by no means confined to the one channel or one author, but had happened to others airing this critique. (As an update to this comment I had- on this post- the same video that had been false flagged by youtube hosted by vimeo instead, and it too has been removed!)

Is this the way "free-thinkers" operate?  Is that how atheists conduct their campaigns? (If you can't refute them, have their channels shut down!)

Fortunately other people have taken up the cause and the critique by WLC has been mirrored in other places, by other sites and the word is still getting out.

In his analysis of the Dawkins/Krauss movie at about 4mins:50secs into the soundtrack WLC says:

"So, as I look at the film- it seems to me that the answer to the question: 'What are you willing to believe?' from their point of view would be 'You should only believe that which is scientifically plausible'"

This is so remarkably close to what we had been discussing the other night that I could not refrain from posting the following picture of those statements we had been looking at. Among them was a statement circled in the image below.



"Only what can be scientifically proved is true." This "mantra" is probably so ensconced into populist thinking that it is an assumption hardly ever questioned anymore. While it may not be verbalized in so many words, it is more an unspoken understanding and Dr William Lane Craig was absolutely right to point out that this is central to the whole purpose of the movie. The problem is, like the one in our study, the view that: "You should only believe that which is scientifically plausible" is at best only an opinion, at worst you could say there is in itself nothing scientific about it. This statement itself is not able to be proven scientifically- it is in fact a philosophical statement along much the same lines as the question: Why is there something rather than nothing?
The following video clip contains a series of segments by different apologists dealing with this question.



 When asked: "What do you think is the central argument of the film?", Craig went on to say:
"Well it seems to me, that the central argument, when I stand back and try to find an argument in this film is this: The most brilliant scientists today, by a wide majority do not believe in God, and therefore belief in God is unreasonable. Just look at the top scientists in the world, they're unbelievers- and therefore we should be unbelievers too." 
Craig points out some problems with that idea: That as a particular scientific study conducted in a number of research centered Universities shows; scientists are not atheists as a result of their work in the discipline of science, but rather- they enter this field with a prior commitment to atheism. Rice University sociologist Dr. Elaine Ecklund conducted this research from 2005-2008. So to attribute their atheism to science is perceptibly an unscientific evaluation! 

The other problem Craig points out is that scientists are notoriously ill-equipped to even answer the question of God's existence. The question itself is metaphysical* by nature and therefore one that is more properly answered, (if indeed it even can be outside of God's special revelation) by philosophers not scientists. The basis of science as it is most commonly practiced is methodological naturalism, which assumes that the Cosmos is all there is, and it's a closed system, it is pre-supposed that nothing exists beyond nature, so this presupposition excludes the very idea of God from the outset! How then can a scientist who not only practises methodological naturalism but assumes it as his or her fundamental philosophical commitment (philosophical naturalism) even attempt to answer this question from any sense of neutrality or open mind? It cannot be done without a willingness to relinquish this commitment.

If Charles Darwin was Richard Dawkins biology mentor, then we would have to point to the skeptic philosopher David Hume as Dawkins' philosophy mentor because he too made the same mistake. Take the following quote from Hume and compare:
"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." David Hume. (This quote was also in our study notes for the evening)
This grand sounding wisdom suffers the same fate as those others in our bullet lists, ie, it is a self defeating statement, in that this statement itself does not answer its own criteria for truth, it is not the result of empirical evidence by experiment or abstract reasoning, and therefore self-destructs.

In an article found at Christianity Today: Books and Culture, Karl W. Giberson nails the chief proponents leading the cultural mileiu in which religion is characterized consistently as antithetic to science- 

'Stephen Hawking is a major public intellectual, a leading scientist with a flair for popular exposition and a platform from which to explain science to an educated populace. He and his scientific allies—Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, Peter Atkins, the late Stephen Jay Gould, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Pinker and so on—shape public perceptions of science through their popular presentations, in books, articles, and public appearances. Their collective message—drilled home in many different ways—is that science is hostile to religion, scientists don't believe in God, and science competes with religion to explain natural phenomena.
None of these statements is true.' (emphasis mine)


"Science has disproved God, religion has passed its use-by date"

"Religion Is Responsible For Much Of The Evil We See In The World"

How often have we heard that, or words like it? In a recent book by the eminent Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga squarely faces that challenge, particularly as it relates to Christian Theism. In fact, according to Plantinga the whole debate is somewhat misconstrued as the title of his book suggests: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism

In his preface he claims:
"there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism" he continues
"if there is deep concord between science and Christian or theistic belief, but deep conflict between science and naturalism—then there is a science/religion (or science/ quasi-religion) conflict, all right, but it isn't between science and theistic religion: it’s between science and naturalism."
"Many would dispute my claim that there is no serious conflict between religion and science—indeed, many seem to think naturalism or atheism is part of the “scientific worldview.”Among them are the “new atheists”: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. These are the Four Horsemen—not of the Apocalypse, nor of Notre Dame, but of atheism; and their aim is to run roughshod over religion. Their objections and complaints are manifold. First, they attribute most of the ills of the world to religion: they point to the Crusades, to witch hunts, to religious wars, to intolerance, to current terrorism, and much else besides. Of course the world’s religions do indeed have much to repent; still (as has often been pointed out) the suffering, death, and havoc attributable to religious belief and practice pales into utter insignificance beside that due to the atheistic and secular ideologies of the twentieth century alone." Alvin Plantinga from the book:  Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
According to Plantinga "naturalism" functions as a quasi-religion since its practitioners claim that it ticks all the same boxes as any religion seeks to answer:
"Naturalism is what we could call a worldview, a sort of total way of looking at ourselves and our world. It isn't clearly a religion: the term “religion” is vague, and naturalism falls into the vague area of its application. Still, naturalism plays many of the same roles as a religion. In particular, it gives answers to the great human questions: Is there such a person as God? How should we live? Can we look forward to life after death? What is our place in the universe? How are we related to other creatures? Naturalism gives answers here: there is no God, and it makes no sense to hope for life after death. As to our place in the grand scheme of things,we human beings are just another animal with a peculiar way of making a living.Naturalism isn't clearly a religion; but since it plays some of the same roles as a religion, we could properly call it a quasi-religion.

*Scientism: "That the physical sciences are the only genuine sources of knowledge, and that there are not sources of knowledge outside of the sciences. And I think that this is a fundamentally incorrect view, indeed a self-refuting view, since scientism is not itself something that is established by the natural sciences, that is a philosophical point of view that needs to be questioned" William Lane Craig

*Metaphysical: Philosophy .a. concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth.
                  b. concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance.

Friday, August 2, 2013

Library

The following titles are available for the use of members of our local apologetics group.  Please inquire about any title, by clicking on the title it will take you to a web page that will have further information and book reviews. A phone call or an email will ensure that I bring it the next time we meet if it is available. Sometimes the edition I have is an earlier edition, so the cover may differ, but essentially it is the same work. If others have books or resources which you are willing to make available for other members please contact me and I will list the resource(s) here. This Page is a work in progress.





.        
         
         
         
          
          


                  


               
   
               
               

         
               
           

               
                
             

               

                         

                             

                            

                     

                                                             


<---------------------------------->
Books kindly offered for loan by Dave Carrigan: