Who’s On First…

It’s old…but it’s frikin’ hillarious!!! I had to put it up. Enjoy!

Filed under: Random

Science, Scripture & Faith

Traditional Christian apologetics and theology begins with Prolegomena – literally, the study of first things. Prolegomena begins with a number of definitions of major theological terms, eventually moving toward the theology of Scripture. Naturally, this seems to be the logical place to start when defending the Christian faith: orthodox faith is founded firmly on the truth of sola scriptura. The Protestant teaching has long been that the Bible can be read and easily understood by the common believer – no advanced education is necessary – and all that is necessary for salvation and living the Christian life can be found within its pages.

I do not wish to argue against that point, but in light of the fact that Western society has now been overtaken by Postmodernism as the dominant worldview, it’s important to recognize that an apologetic aimed at an unbelieving world that begins with the doctrine of Scripture is futile in its attempts to “preach the Gospel.” “Why?” would be the logical next question. The answer is relatively simple although often overlooked, especially by those who were raised in a Modernist culture (for the sake of argument, generally those over the age of 30). The answer is this: Most of Western society now considers the Bible to be nothing more than a collection of religious and inspirational writings void of any real authority over their lives.

The mindset is such that morality is determined by the individual (what they judge to be right and wrong), and knowledge/truth is conveyed and discovered by science. As a direct result of the “discoveries” of science – namely that of evolution (specifically macroevolution) – much of Western society has come to reject the idea of a single “meaning of life” or the reality of a grand metanarrative by which all people are united under one banner. Ironically, this has left many in my generation (postmoderns) with deep feelings of hopelessness, emptiness, and loneliness as they seek out some sign of significance despite the constant bombardment by a doctrine of worthlessness. “There is no universal meaning to life” many of us are told. We’ve been taught that science and individualism are king, yet within many of us there is an uneasy longing for meaning.

A Christian, postmodern apologetic begins, not with Prolegomena – as traditional theologians would say – but by addressing the relationship between science, Scripture, and faith.

I cannot say for sure when faith became the target of science. My personal suspicions are that this shift took primary form at some point in the 1960’s or ‘70’s. A lot of things were happening in America during that time to turn society on its head, and, frankly, the North American church struggled to adapt to those changes all the way up to the mid-1990’s. When all was said and done, the face of American Christianity had changed with a variety of different views regarding the relationship of the three mentioned above.

Fundamentalism. Generally speaking, this groups adheres to a very literal reading of all parts of the Bible. Little distinction is made between the symbolic imagery often present in poetry and prophecy, and the newspaper-like reporting of narrative. They tend to view Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 3:15-16 to mean that everything a person needs to know about all areas of life – science, religion, and everything in between – is contained within the pages of God’s Word. There’s a tendency here to be rather anti-intellectual. The postmodern attitude toward this group is that they are alienated from the realities of life at best and more realistically, they are superstitious and legalistic, living in a “black-and-white” world that seems to revolve around them.

Liberalism/Main-Line Protestantism. Although there is an enormous amount of variety within this category, a few generalizations can be made (but even those generalizations will be held to with greater or lesser commitments). The tendency is to interpret much of the Biblical text through the eyes of modern science and archaeology, seeking out ways to apply it to contemporary issues while ultimately concerned about maintaining a positive attitude and self-esteem within the membership. Love and hope are often over-emphasized while discipline and Christian living (pietism) are seen as less important. Virtually every passage within the Bible has come to be seen as a collection of moral and inspirational stories to guide God’s people through life’s difficulties (they vary from secular opinion in that some universal authority is still attributed to these stories). To the postmodern, these branches merely work to maintain the exact same lifestyle and worldview they are trying to escape.

Both extremes have two problems in common: (1) they fail to “preach the whole counsel of God;” and (2) they fail to use the Bible as it was intended to be used. Therein lies the crux of this short thesis.

The Bible is not – nor ever was – intended to be used as a science book. The Bible tells the story of God working out His plan of salvation for those whom He has called into His eternal glory (throws the whole debate for a major loop doesn’t it?).

This is not, of course, to say that certain groups haven’t abused the Bible over the years by claiming something different (See above). Even the Roman Catholic Church has it’s history of insisting certain scientific “truths” to be the clear teaching of Scripture only to be forced to changed their “theology” after science conclusively proves otherwise (i.e. the shape of the world and “movement” of the sun and moon). Not so obvious, however – despite some opinions – is evolution and Big Bang.

Many postmoderns believe they simply cannot accept the Christian faith because of their belief in evolution and Big Bang Theory. On the surface these issues seem to – and certainly do – contradict the creation account of Genesis 1-2. But there’s a few things to remember in order to maintain a healthy perspective on the debate:

• Regardless of how our schools and universities may present them, evolution and Big Bang are just theories. Although there is significant observation to support the ideas, no conclusive evidence has been found to force all – or even a significant majority – of highly educated and respectable scientist to accept the ideas as truth. There are too many unanswered questions to prompt many to fully jump on the bandwagon.
• Reading Genesis 1-2 as it was intended to be read retains a significant amount of ambiguity with regards to a specific timeline to the creation event. Genesis 1-2 appears to follow an early poetic structure making it very difficult to determine just how literally to do you take the account. This has forced me to adopt a slightly different position than what is generally taken: the focus of Genesis 1 is not when Creation (nature and humanity) came into being, but in what way all that we know came into being. In two words, the theme of Genesis 1 is: God created. Period.

I suppose my personal feelings are that if the timing of the creation act was so important (4,000 yrs., 10,000 yrs., 10 Million yrs., etc.), then the Bible would be a little more clear about such a detail. In the salvation process, the age of the world and the creation of the first man and woman is simply not important. What is important is that one recognizes God (YHWH) as the instigator, propagator, and sustainer of all that exists.

The difficulty with the above mentioned theories is that they are often presented in such a way as to prove that life and its existence is a mere random act occurring because certain particles of this and that just happen to have come together in just the right way at just the right time for all of what we see to become reality. Frankly, I think it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in an intelligent Creator. This point science cannot explain – not even postulate. And chances are very good science will never be able to explain this “randomness” of nature. The Christian then has the responsibility to examine all things against his or her faith. If one so chooses to believe the validity of these theories, so be it. But one must throw out the randomness that secular science insists upon.

There is also a distinction that must be made between two types of evolution if the two are to be compatible. Evolution must be broken down into two categories: microevolution (species change and adapt in minor ways to their environment but never from one species to another), and macroevolution (changes and adaptation occur in species to the extent of forming a completely new species that appears completely unrelated [i.e. fish → lizard → ape → human]). While microevolution can hardly be denied, macroevolution has zero evidence. What “evidence” is purported to support such changes is in actuality mere similarities between species. Similar does not mean equal. To assume such would be like saying that human gender does not really exist (I have met some who would promote such an idea) on the basis that the only difference between male and female is a certain appendage. Since the difference is small, then male = female and vice versa.

As I’ve just shown, science, Scripture, and faith are not mutually exclusive; they can often fit quite well together. But Christian discernment is necessary for separating rhetoric, assumptions, and known fact. Where science assumes and speculates, Scripture will often fill in the gaps; when both are left ambiguous, freedom of belief is given, just so long as freedom does not contradict Scripture and eliminate the metanarrative, which God has created for humanity. God must always be the focus.

Science rarely contradicts Scripture – more often than not, science works to defend even the most outlandish claims of the Bible. At the very least, science in unable to come to any conclusions one way or the other. Therefore, the Bible and the Christian faith cannot be overlooked and brushed off based on science alone. Any perceived conflict between the two will almost certainly be a problem of misinterpreting Scripture, or lack of clarity within the scientific reports.

This now opens the door for the next step in the apologetic process: establishing the authority and reliability of the Christian Holy Bible, a point that can easily be established using standard, non-Christian, principles of textual criticism…

Filed under: Random

"Christian Thoughts" Revisited

A while back I began work on what was intended to be a seven part series entitled “Christian Thoughts on the Non-Christian Mind.” The series was intended to be sort of a brief summary or outline of how I would suggest one might go about discipling/evangelizing an unbelieving postmodern.

There are a number of unique issues postmodern ministry and evangelism entail. For example, the typical postmodern rejects the reality of absolute truth, the possibility of a grand metanarrative, and values science over Scriptural revelation. Traditional means of reaching out to the lost are seldom effective in today’s society. Where as traditional discipleship and outreach focused on God’s revelation in Scripture, the Bible is often scoffed at today as outdated and old, irrelevant for people today. This shift in thinking, means a shift in witnessing is necessary – a new paradigm for preaching the Gospel and communicating Truth.

I’m not suggesting that have things completely figured out or that this is the only way to do it. My intentions are more along the lines of developing a plan for discipleship to faith.

I should point out, that the information contained within this series fits rather nicely with the information I deal with in my seminar “Taking Your Faith Next Door.” In Part Four: How To Do It, I encourage participants – when the timing is right – to begin a spiritual conversation with the person they’ve been getting to know. I envision this series to be a resource, perhaps a guide for what topics can/should be addressed as the opportunities present themselves.

What I hope to do with this post is revisit “Christian Thoughts on the Non-Christian Mind.” The title will probably be changed to something a little more appropriate, but the theme and intended result will be the same. Check back frequently for updates and look for a new “box” in the margin at the right.

You can read my original introduction here.

Filed under: Random

An Interesting Article from Credenda.org

This is an article I found on Credenda.org dealing with repentence and accepting discipline. I found it interesting. Im a bit uncomfortable with ne of the examples the uthor uses, but overall, I like the point. AS a side note, I’m not entirely sure what to make of Credenda Agenda yet. I first heard about it from a guy who I would consider to be rather fundamentalist Reformed. For he time being, however, the jury is out and I’m waiting to make a decision on what I think about the opinions and ideas express within its pages. In the mean time, enjy the article at least…

Repenting at the Line

Matt Whitling

His was the worst form I had ever seen in my life. As a junior-highschool basketball player, each time he went to the line, his free throws were an exhibition in some of the strangest contortions any of us had ever seen. He was a right-handed shooter who shot from the left side of his body, from the left shoulder, diagonally across the face and up toward the iron. It was unnatural, unattractive, and ergonomically dysfunctional. The dilemma? He also had one of the highest averages from the line on the team. He shot a consistent 65% during the first week of tryouts, and it was clear that he had practiced that shot over and over again in the back yard. Summary: bad form, lots of practice and perseverance, decent short-term results.

As this young man’s coach, my first objective, for his own good, was to completely change the form that he had been diligently practicing for years. I knew that the best thing for him was to essentially start over from the very beginning. The trouble is that when you make a drastic correction midstream, the short-term results are always worse. In other words, you get worse before you get better. What happened to this player’s shooting percentage when we moved his right arm back over to the right side of his body? His numbers went from first place on the team to last place on the team (30% on a good day). The temptation for the player, and his parents, was to start gathering all kinds of empirical data that shows that the coach doesn’t have a clue what he is doing. After all, the proof is in the pudding, right? We all know that you will reap what you sow, and he was reaping the whirlwind after following my program for a week. The short-term results confirm the fact that the coach is ruining this kid as a basketball player, and the long-term results aren’t anywhere in sight; therefore they don’t exist.

Athletics is not the only realm in which this principle plays out. Parents who don’t discipline when their children are young create a situation in which both they and their children have to figure out a way to function with bad form, and the longer this pattern continues, the better they get at surviving without godly love in the home. Parents may ignore, manipulate, bargain, threaten, or simply tolerate situations where they are called to love and correct. Children may reinterpret, manipulate, play Mom off of Dad, etc. and become a decent “shot” at living this way. Everything is going along tolerably until some coach (teacher, pastor, friend) comes along and seeks to address the problem that is beginning to catch up with the family. The long-term results are clear to the coach, the short-term results are clear and tangible to the family.

What will the family encounter if they follow the coach’s advice? They see the problem and where it is leading, they commit to dealing with this situation in a godly manner, and . . . what will the short-term results look like? When changing bad habits that are deep-seated, you always get worse before you get better. This can be seen in a myriad of examples:

“Oh yeah, we tried spanking and it just didn’t work for our kids. It only made them madder than they were before we disciplined them. Some kids need other forms of discipline. You should have seen our family when we were spanking. The kids were unhappy, my husband and I were frustrated and out of fellowship with each other. The behaviors that we were disciplining for were increasing instead of decreasing . . . I’ll tell you, it was the worse weekend of our lives!”

“Principal Goardmouth, we have tried holding Thomas accountable to bring his homework home each day and show us what kind of progress he is making. We have disciplined for laziness and complaining, but the results are worse than before we came in. This can’t be the right course of action, look at the fruit in our home, look at Thomas. We are frustrated, he’s frustrated, and our home life is literally falling apart.”

“Janet, what should we do? Chrissy won’t eat anything anymore. First, it was the normal foods that kids have trouble with, but now she refuses to eat peanut butter and jellies. French fries, she won’t eat French fries! Last week I looked in her locker at school, and there were apples and pretzels from lunches that she refuses to eat. She says they make her feel sick. Every time we get into it, there’s a big showdown and no one smiles for days. I wish it didn’t have to be so hard.”

“Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Heb. 12:11). Earlier in this chapter we are instructed not to despise the discipline of God because it is a sign that we are His children. In verse 11 the issue of short-term and long-term fruit is addressed. First, we find that discipline (chastening) seems not to be joyful in the short-term: it hurts and brings tears, but afterwards, the long-term yield will be peace and righteousness.

This is a fundamental element in all true repentance: death and then resurrection. We are called to take up our cross and follow Christ. The Christ that we follow came to die, and afterward He rose from the grave. When you repent of something that was not right in your life, often you will see immediate results that look worse, not better. Repentance is hard. Making restitution can be painful. Owning up to your sin is humbling. But afterwards all these things bear the peaceable fruit of righteousness. As parents we need to beware of our own nearsightedness. When you shoot a free-throw, keep your eye on the goal not the ball.

Filed under: Random

Unity for the Sake of the Gospel

Ephesians 4:1-2

As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a lie worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.

The CRC has long emphasized the importance of unity within it’s ministry. In recent years that emphasis has shown itself most frequently within the battle over women in church office (WICO). Unity is a good thing – I have in the past stressed it’s importance perhaps to unbiblical proportions. But as it is with all things theology, there are right and wrongs ways to apply the concept of Biblical unity – certain situations where unity can be used as a valid argument and situations where it cannot. Today, I’m going to throw out a few of the thoughts that have crossed my mind in the last week or so…

WHY UNITY?
I think this question is usually overlooked. I had a great conversaiton with someone at church a while back about church unity. We both agreed on a few points:

• An emphasis on unity existed in the epistles in order to contrast the way much of Roman society functioned compared to the way Christian society should function.
• God is love. If the Church is understood to be His earthly, non-spiritual (as opposed to the Holy Spirit) representation, then the Church is to communicate love at all times. “Outsiders” will not sense an environment of love if we can’t even figure out how to love each other.
• Unity is important for the sake of preaching the Gospel. Anyone who has ever worked in a group knows that it’s much easier to get the job done well if the entire group is in agreement or at least committed to maintaining unity.

When it comes right down to it, in terms of ministry, unity’s primary purpose is to ensure maximum success in preaching and spreading the Gospel message. But why, then, is the “unity card” so often pulled on debates such as WICO and worship?

A WRONG UNDERSTANDING
The simplest answer is that church unity is often misunderstood. What I often see hapenning is well-meaning church/denominational leaders arguing for unity at the denominational level. Specifically with WICO, such an emphasis was placed on unity throughout the whole process that the whole idea became rather cliche. I also suspect that the issue could have resolved much sooner if unity had not been misapplied.

MY “THESIS”
I’ve heard some say that they have become convinced – according to the Scriptures – that denominationalism is the most Biblical form of church government and organization. Frankly, I don’t buy it. I think denominationalism is the best way yet developed to carry out the work of the Church, but I don’t read anything in the Bible that proposes or mandates a particular form of church governance. Denominationalism, congregationalism, other…it’s all man-made for the sake of efficency.

For that reason, I don’t see Paul’s words about unity as legitimately applicable to the denomination or association. Instead, unity is relegated to the local congregation and to the worldwide Church, the Body of Christ. When churches are planted, outreach carried out, and the Gospel preached locally, it’s the congregation that does it, not the powers-that-be. The people on the receiving end don’t see – and usually don’t care – which denomination the group is affiliated with. All they care about is whether the people are authentic and treat each other with respect and love.

Becasue the typical non-Christian makes no distinction between Baptist, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal, if two dofferent groups move into an area and adopt a mind-set of competition, both groups will lose out. In fact, chances are good that the competition between the two groups will cause the people they’re trying to reach to reject the Church altogether. For the sake of the Gospel, Christians everywhere need to recognize each other as legitimate believers who will sharing a pew with them in Heaven – even if they don’t on earth.

I think the WICO debate could have been over long ago if those who were debating the issue had recognized this “way back when.” It’s regretable if a significant number of members leave the denomination over any issue. But if a mass exodus will maintain peace on the local level and allow the Gospel to be preached by all more effectively, then a mass exodus is what is needed. Any fears of the “true” Gospel being preached by another group simply reveal an attitude that only you can truly preach the Gospel. As I see it, that’s about as self-centered and arrogant an idea as a person is able to possess. It reveals a mindset that you have all the answers and a perfect theology. Do I need to elaborate on the problems of such thinking…

Unity is essential for effectively preaching the Gospel. And it’s okay if some leave us for another group better suited or they’re style of ministry. We can still love each other – we must love each other…

Filed under: Random