By Jonathan McLatchie
Have you ever wondered why some people are able to think about the world clearer, forming more balanced and nuanced views about controversial topics, than others? Have you ever pondered what thinking patterns are most conducive to good reasoning and well supported conclusions, and how one might avoid the pitfalls of confirmation bias and self-deception? In her book The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t, Julia Galef (host of the podcast “Rationally Speaking” and co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality) attempts to answer these questions. [i]In the first half of this essay, I shall summarize Galef’s insights; in the latter half, I shall discuss what lessons we as Christian scholars and apologists can glean from the book.
A Summary of The Scout Mindset
Galef distinguishes between what she dubs “the soldier mindset” and “the scout mindset.” According to Galef, the soldier mindset, also known as motivated reasoning, leads us to loyally defend the stronghold of our belief commitments against intellectual threats, come what may. This involves actively seeking out data that tends to confirm our beliefs, while rationalizing or ignoring contrary data that tends to disconfirm them. On the other hand, the scout mindset attempts to honestly determine how the world really is – as Galef defines it, the scout mindset is “the motivation to see things as they are, not as you wish they were,” (p. ix).
For the one in soldier mindset, argues Galef, reasoning is like defensive combat – “it’s as if we’re soldiers, defending our beliefs against threatening evidence,” (p. 7). For the soldier, to change one’s mind – to admit that one was wrong – is seen as surrender and failure, a sign of weakness. One’s allegiance is to one’s cherished beliefs rather than to the truth, even if those beliefs conflict with the balance of evidence. For the soldier, determining what to believe is done by asking oneself “Can I believe this?” or “Must I believe this?”, depending on one’s motives. For the one in scout mindset, by contrast, reasoning may be likened to mapmaking, and discovering that you are wrong about one or more of your beliefs simply means revising your map. Thus, scouts are more likely to seek out and carefully consider data that tends to undermine one’s own beliefs (thereby making one’s map a more accurate reflection of reality), deeming it more fruitful to pay close attention to those who disagree with their own opinions than to those whose thinking aligns with them.
The prevalence of soldier mindset in society today is aptly demonstrated by a sobering study, cited by Galef, in which participants were tested in regard to their “scientific intelligence” with a set of questions.[ii] Questions were divided into four categories – basic facts; methods; quantitative reasoning; and cognitive reflection. Remarkably, when conservative republican and liberal democrat participants were also asked whether they affirmed the statement that there is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels,” there was a positive correlation between “scientific intelligence” and divergent opinion. That is to say, the higher one’s scientific intelligence, the more likely a liberal democrat was to affirm the statement and the more likely a conservative republic was to disagree with it. This is not the only study to reveal the tendency for more educated people to diverge in opinion on controversial topics. Another study surveyed people’s views on ideologically charged topics, including stem cell research, the Big Bang, human evolution, and climate change.[iii] Their finding was that “Individuals with greater education, science education, and science literacy display more polarized beliefs on these issues,” though they found “little evidence of political or religious polarization regarding nanotechnology and genetically modified foods.” Galef summarizes the implications of those studies: “This is a crucially important result, because being smart and being knowledgeable on a particular topic are two more things that give us a false sense of security in our own reasoning. A high IQ and an advanced degree might give you an advantage in ideologically neutral domains like solving math problems or figuring out where to invest your money. But they won’t protect you from bias on ideologically charged questions,” (p. 48).
Though there is an element of scout and soldier in all of us, Galef argues, “some people, in some contexts, are better scouts than most,” being “more genuinely desirous of the truth, even if it’s not what they were hoping for, and less willing to accept bad arguments that happen to be convenient. They’re more motivated to go out, test their theories, and discover their mistakes. They’re more conscious of the possibility that their map of reality could be wrong, and more open to changing their mind,” (pp. 14-15). On the flip side of the coin, often “[w]e use motivated reasoning not because we don’t know any better, but because we’re trying to protect things that are vitally important to us – our ability to feel good about our lives and ourselves, our motivation to try hard things and stick with them, our ability to look good and persuade, and our acceptance in our communities,” (p. 26). For example, if we are being honest, how often do we, when considering a claim, “implicitly ask ourselves, ‘What kind of person would believe a claim like this, and is that how I want other people to see me?’” (p. 23). Such thinking fuels soldier mindset. In practice, we cannot eliminate soldier mindset from our reasoning processes entirely. After all, it is our default mentality. By nature, we like having our beliefs confirmed. But we can take intentional steps towards cultivating more of a scout mindset.
What are some of the key characteristics that distinguish scout from soldier mindset? In chapter four, Galef gives five features that define a scout. The first is the ability to tell other people when you realize that they were right. Galef caveats this quality by noting that “Technically, scout mindset only requires you to be able to acknowledge to yourself that you were wrong, not to other people. Still a willingness to say ‘I was wrong’ to someone else is a strong sign of a person who prizes the truth over their own ego.” The second quality is reacting well to criticism. Galef explains, “To gauge your comfort with criticism, it’s not enough just to ask yourself, ‘Am I open to criticism?’ Instead, examine your track record. Are there examples of criticism you’ve acted upon? Have you rewarded a critic (for example, by promoting him)? Do you go out of your way to make it easier for other people to criticize you?” (p. 52). The third quality that marks out a scout is the ability to prove oneself wrong. Galef asks, “Can you think of any examples in which you voluntarily proved yourself wrong? Perhaps you were about to voice an opinion online, but decided to search for counterarguments first, and ended up finding them compelling. Or perhaps at work you were advocating for a new strategy, but changed your mind after you ran the numbers more carefully and realized it wouldn’t be feasible,” (p. 54). The fourth feature of scout mindset is to avoid biasing one’s information. “For example,” writes Galef, “when you ask your friend to weigh in on a fight you had with your partner, do you describe the disagreement without revealing which side you were on, so as to avoid influencing your friend’s answer? When you launch a new project at work, do you decide ahead of time what will count as a success and what will count as a failure, so you’re not tempted to move the goalposts later?” (p. 56). The fifth feature that Galef lists is being able to recognize good critics. Galef comments, “It’s tempting to view your critics as mean-spirited, ill-informed, or unreasonable. And it’s likely that some of them are. But it’s unlikely that all of them are. Can you name people who are critical of your beliefs, profession, or even choices who you consider thoughtful, even if you believe they’re wrong? Or can you at least name reasons why someone might disagree with you that you would consider reasonable (even if you don’t happen to know of specific people who hold those views)?” (p. 57). In summary, Galef notes, “Being able to name reasonable critics, being willing to say ‘The other side has a point this time,’ being willing to acknowledge when you were wrong – it’s things like these that distinguish people who actually care about truth from people who only think they do,” (p. 57).
Chapter 5 of the book offers five tests of bias in our reasoning. The first test is the double standard test, which essentially asks whether we apply the same standards to ourselves that we would apply to others. The second test is the outsider test, which attempts to determine how you would assess the same situation or data if you had no vested interest in the outcome. The third test is the conformity test, which attempts to discern the extent to which one’s opinion is in fact one’s own. Galef explains, “If I find myself agreeing with someone else’s viewpoint, I do a conformity test: Imagine this person told me that they no longer held this view. Would I still hold it? Would I feel comfortable defending it to them?” (p. 66). The fourth test is the selective skeptic test – “Imagine this evidence supported the other side. How credible would you find it then?” (p. 68). The final test is the status quo bias test – “Imagine your current situation was no longer the status quo. Would you then actively choose it? If not, that’s a sign that your preference for your situation is less about its particular merits and more about a preference for the status quo,” (p. 69).
Another thing that marks out a scout, according to Galef, is one’s attitude towards being wrong. Scouts, explains Galef, “revise their opinions incrementally over time, which makes it easier to be open to evidence against their beliefs,” (p. 144). Further, “they view errors as opportunities to hone their skill at getting things right, which makes the experience of realizing ‘I was wrong’ feel valuable, rather than just painful,” (p. 144). Galef even suggests that we should drop the whole “wrong confession” altogether and instead talk about “updating”. Galef explains, “An update is routine. Low-key. It’s the opposite of an overwrought confession of sin. An update makes something better or more current without implying that its previous form was a failure,” (p. 147). Galef points out that we should not think about changing our minds as a binary thing – rather, we should think of the world in “shades of grey”, and think about changing our mind in terms of an “incremental shift” (p. 140). Galef notes that thinking about revising one’s beliefs in this way makes “the experience of encountering evidence against one of your beliefs very different” since “each adjustment is comparatively low stakes” (p. 140). For example, “If you’re 80 percent sure that immigration is good for the economy, and a study comes out showing that immigration lowers wages, you can adjust your confidence in your belief down to 70 percent,” (p. 140).
Galef also points out that, when it comes to intentionally exposing ourselves to content representing the ‘other side’ of a debate in which we are interested, people tend to make the mistake of always ending up “listening to people who initiate disagreements with us, as well as the public figures and media outlets who are the most popular representatives of the other side,” (p. 170). However, as Galef explains, “Those are not very promising selection criteria. First of all, what kind of person is most likely to initiate a disagreement? A disagreeable person. (‘This article you shared on Facebook is complete bullshit – let me educate you…’) Second, what kind of people or media are likely to become popular representatives of an ideology? The ones who do things like cheering for their side and mocking or caricaturing the other side – i.e., you,” (pp. 170-171). Instead, Galef suggests, “To give yourself the best chance of learning from disagreement, you should be listening to people who make it easier to be open to their arguments, not harder. People you like or respect, even if you don’t agree with them. People with whom you have some common ground – intellectual premises, or a core value that you share – even though you disagree with them on other issues. People whom you consider reasonable, who acknowledge nuance and areas of uncertainty, and who argue in good faith,” (p. 171).
Lessons We Can Draw from The Scout Mindset
To what extent are we, as Christian scholars and apologists, cultivating a scout mindset? Too often debates between theists and atheists devolve into tribalism, an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, and a smug condescension towards those who disagree with us. But what if we saw those with whom we disagree not as enemies but as colleagues in our quest to attain a better map of reality? Our critics are those who are best placed to discover flaws in our own reasoning, which may be invisible to us. We ignore them at our peril. By listening carefully to our critics, we can construct a more nuanced, more robust worldview. And which critics of our faith are we seeking out to represent the dissenting view? Are we primarily engaging with popular but less-than-nuanced critics of Christianity, or are we actively seeking out the very best, most erudite and well-informed critics of our faith, even if less well known? Can we name some of our critics as honest and thoughtful? How are we positioning ourselves to be in the best place possible to find out we are wrong, if we are in fact wrong? If we are wrong about one or more of our beliefs, can we honestly say that we value truth enough to want to know? How do our answers to the foregoing questions bear on that latter question?
Perhaps at this juncture it should be clarified what exactly apologetics is, since there is regrettably much confusion surrounding this word, both inside and outside of the Christian community. It is commonly thought that the exercise of apologetics is contrary to open-ended inquiry where the conclusion is not stipulated a priori. However, this view is quite mistaken. While apologetics is not identical to open-ended inquiry, it is co-extensive with it in the sense that apologetics is what happens after the results of open-ended inquiry are in, and the time has come to publicize our interpretation of the data. Thus, though the term is seldom used in this context, every publication of a scientific paper is an exercise in apologetics. Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was an exercise in apologetics since he sought to sell his interpretation of the observations that he had made on the Galapagos islands. It is common to think of apologists as playing the role of a criminal defence attorney who is committed to defending his client, come what may. In reality, however, a more apt parallel is to an investigative journalist, reporting for popular consumption the results of a fair and balanced inquiry.
Being an apologist of the gospel is no light responsibility. We are asking people to pledge their allegiance to Jesus Christ and dedicate every aspect of their life to His service. This may cost them greatly – even their life. The weight of this responsibility is emphasized by the apostle Paul himself, who stated that, if Jesus was not in fact raised, “We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised,” (1 Cor 15:15). We therefore owe it to those to whom we preach to study diligently the facts and arguments on both sides of the debate to ensure that the gospel is in fact true. We also owe it to those with whom we share the gospel to fully and completely inform them, as far as is possible, concerning the facts of the case. Too often I have seen apologists present popular arguments for Christianity but omit relevant facts that undermine the force of their argument. For some examples of this, see my recent conversation with Wesley Huff on arguments Christians should NOT use.[iv] Whenever you encounter an argument that is supportive of a position that you like, you should always, before publicly repeating the argument, conduct a thorough search for any relevant data that might reduce the evidential force of the argument. At the very least you should determine whether any academic publications, especially those critical of your beliefs, have already addressed the argument. This is but one of several ways in which you can reduce the negative effects of confirmation bias on your reasoning.
What other steps can we take to mitigate against confirmation bias? I try to make it my habit to expose myself to more material – whether that be books, articles, podcasts, videos or other media – that argues against my beliefs than those which argue for them. This reduces the likelihood of me fooling myself, and forces me to think deeper and more carefully about my beliefs, and to develop a more nuanced expression of them. It also puts me in a strong position to find out that I am wrong if I am in fact wrong about any of my beliefs. A first step towards stepping outside of your intellectual echo chamber can be recognizing that smart people can argue in good faith and yet disagree with you.
I am sometimes asked how a newcomer to religious debates may discern which apologists to listen to and whom to disregard. Of course, the difficulty here is that, in order to discern which apologists can be trusted to give reliable content, one must have already attained a certain level of knowledge about the subject. But in order to arrive at that threshold of knowledge concerning the subject, one must first determine who to receive information from. How might we escape this dilemma? One criterion of several that I often give is to be wary of anyone who asserts that all of the evidence supports their own personal view and that there is none which tends to disconfirm it. Whenever anyone tells me, concerning any complex topic (whether that be theism, Christianity, evolution or anything else), that all of the evidence is on the side of their own personal view, it leads me to reduce my confidence in their objectivity with the data, and I begin to think that confirmation bias is particularly prominent in this individual’s reasoning process. It is an intellectual virtue to be able to admit that one or more pieces of evidence tends to disconfirm your own view. Of course, presumably you also maintain that the evidence that tends to confirm your view is stronger, on balance, than that which tends to disconfirm it. Nonetheless, recognizing the existence of difficult or anomalous data is a mark of scout mindset. And how might we go about determining whether a given datum confirms or disconfirms our Christian beliefs? For each piece of data we encounter, we should ask ourselves whether that datum, considered in isolation, is more probable given Christianity or given its falsehood. If the former, then it is evidence that is confirmatory of Christianity; if the latter, then it is evidence against. Too often I see people reason that, if a set of data can be made compatible with their beliefs, then they have neutralized the objection to their beliefs. However, this approach is quite simplistic. It is nearly always possible to make discordant data compatible with your beliefs. But that does not mean that the data is not better predicted given that your beliefs are false than that they are true, or that you should not lower your confidence in those beliefs. The appropriate question, when confronted with discordant data, is not to ask “Can I believe I am still right?” Galef rightly points out that “Most of the time, the answer is ‘Yes, easily,’” (p. 141). Rather, we should ask to what extent our confidence in our beliefs needs to be updated in response to this new data.
Another criterion of a credible apologist is that he or she is willing to offer critiques of arguments presented by others on his or her own side of the debate. Are they even-handed in subjecting arguments for their own view to the same scrutiny as those put forward by those on the other side of the debate? This reveals that they are discerning and have a genuine concern for factual accuracy. How one responds to criticism, both friendly critique as well as that from dissenting voices, is also a measure of one’s concern for correct representation of information. An ability to publicly retract false or misleading statements and issue corrections goes a long way to establish one’s credibility. When we encounter a new contributor to the debate, with whose work we have not hitherto interacted, we should also fact-check their statements, going, if possible, back to the primary sources – especially when they stray into territory outside of our own domain of expertise. If they are able to sustain a track record of being reliable in their reportage of information and fully informing the audience about the relevant facts, one ought to be more inclined to trust them as a credible authority. If on the other hand they have a habit of getting things factually incorrect, one should be very hesitant to take anything they say on their word.
One should also be wary of apologists who exaggerate the strength of their argument, over-pushing the data beyond that which it is able to support. It is always better to understate the merits of one’s arguments and pleasantly surprise by overproviding, than to overstate the merits of the argument and disappoint by underproviding. This is why in my writing and public speaking I prefer to use more cautious-sounding statements like “this tends to confirm” or “this suggests” rather than bolder statements like “this proves” or “this demonstrates.” Similarly, I will speak of being “confident” rather than “certain” of my conclusions.
My enthusiastic advocacy for integrity and nuance in apologetics, together with my insistence on subjecting arguments advanced in support of Christianity to the same scrutiny that we would subject contrary arguments to, has on occasion been misconstrued – by atheists as well as by Christians – as an indication of my losing confidence in the truth of Christianity. However, this does not at all follow and, frankly, it saddens me that Christian apologetics has come to be associated, in the minds of many, with a soldier rather than scout mindset. Clearly, it is possible to be convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true and yet still be committed to the honest presentation of information. It is also possible to believe that Christianity is well supported while also maintaining that many of the arguments advanced in support of Christianity are fundamentally flawed or dramatically overstated. I believe it is a virtue rather than a vice to recognize one’s own confirmation bias and thus take steps in the direction of reducing its negative effects on one’s reasoning. The principles that I have advocated in this essay are germane to apologists of any position, regardless of how convinced of that position they are. Otherwise, it is too easy to deceive ourselves, apply double standards, cherry pick data, and inoculate ourselves against finding out that we are mistaken in regards to one or more of our beliefs.
One may of course object to the principles advocated in this essay that, if unsound data or overstated arguments leads people to embrace the gospel, then the end justifies the means. I recall complaining, on more than one occasion, about the presentation of factually erroneous information in defence of Christianity at a University-affiliated Christian society in the United Kingdom. The response with which I was met, lamentably, was that it is very unlikely that any other of the attendees would know enough about the subject to pick up on the errors in the presentation, and we should rejoice that they heard the gospel. This thinking, however, is flawed for at least two reasons. First, we claim to represent the one who identified Himself as truth itself (Jn 14:6). Plenty of Biblical texts condemn the employment of deceptive methods (e.g. Exod 20:16; Ps 24:3-5; 101:7; Prov 10:9; 11:3; 12:22; 24:28; Col 3:9; Eph 4:25). It is therefore not honouring of God when we perpetuate misinformation, even in defence of the gospel. Second, if one with whom we have shared the gospel later does his or her own research to determine whether the things we have said are in fact true, much like the Bereans are commended for doing in regards to Paul’s preaching (Acts 17:11), we are responsible for having placed another obstacle between them and the gospel. This is a grave thing to be responsible for.
In summary, cultivating a scout mindset, and minimizing soldier mindset, can help us to think more clearly and with greater intellectual honesty about our beliefs and our reasons for holding them. I cannot recommend any more highly Julia Galef’s book The Scout Mindset. I would also recommend her presentation for TEDx Talks, “Why ‘scout mindset’ is crucial to good judgment.”[v]
Footnotes
[i] Julia Galef, The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t (New York: Porfolio, 2021).
[ii] Dan M. Kahan, “Ordinary science intelligence’: a science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change,” Journal of Risk Research 20, no. 8 (2017), 995-1016.
[iii] Caitlin Drummond and Baruch Fischoff, “Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 36 (Sep, 2017), 9587-9592.
[iv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVad8BE5A6c
[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8
Recommended resources related to the topic:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3iKor6w
Confrontando la homosexualidad en una cultura de identidad (parte 4)
EspañolPor Josh Klein
Lil Nas X
De vuelta a donde empezamos.
¿Qué pensarías si te dijera que el problema con Lil Nas X no es que sea homosexual, sino cómo percibe la respuesta de la Iglesia por ser homosexual?
De alguna manera ha llegado a la conclusión de que debería odiarse por tener una tendencia natural a la atracción por el mismo sexo. Por alguna razón, el señalar un estilo de vida pecaminoso se ha equiparado a señalar la maldad de la persona. Y creo que la razón está fundamentada en la idea de la identidad. En esta última sección de esta serie, intentaré mostrar un “mejor camino” para lidiar con estas problemáticas.
Debo destacar, que estas ideas no se me ocurrieron a mí. Ha habido muchos otros antes que yo, como Cristopher Yuan, Rachel Gilson, Preston Sprinkle, Leadthemhome.org y otros, defienden los mismos principios, pero mi intención es plantear una estrategia simple, directa y aún así difícil de implementar.
En un intento de aliviar la penosa unión entre pecado y pecador, los cristianos han inventado una frase concisa que tal vez hayas escuchado (o quizás la has dicho): “Odia el pecado pero ama al pecador.”
Como ya dije en la parte uno de esta serie, la sexualidad es un asunto completamente diferente. No se trata de un vicio universalmente aceptado que debe ser enfrentado como la drogadicción o el alcoholismo. El mundo se ha esforzado por hacer inseparables la sexualidad y la identidad, y la Iglesia, por alguna razón, está de acuerdo con las condiciones de ese concepto. Así que, cuando un cristiano dice: “Odia el pecado pero ama al pecador”, el que no es cristiano lo resistirá con indignación. ¿Por qué? Porque el que no es cristiano solo tiene una identidad y a esa se le cataloga como pecado. Por ello, el no cristiano cree que el cristiano sutilmente está diciendo, “odia su identidad pero ama lo que llegarían a ser si tan solo pudiéramos cambiarlo”, pero ellos son felices con la identidad que tienen actualmente.
Por supuesto, esa no es la intención de la frase, pero su uso ha tenido consecuencias inesperadas para con la comunidad LGBTQ+ por décadas. Toda una generación de seres humanos que toman su identidad de sus inclinaciones sexuales tienen la creencia que los cristianos les odian por el simple hecho de “ser quienes son.”
Ante esto las soluciones son, odiarse a sí mismos y tratar de ser algo que no son, o dejar atrás las miradas intolerantes de quienes dicen amarlos y perseguir un estilo de vida que parece ofrecer satisfacción y felicidad.
La iglesia liberal hizo bien en reconocer esta reacción como algo inaceptable. Después de todo, Dios quiere que todas las personas lleguen al conocimiento de la fe salvadora en Él, ¿no es así (1 Timoteo 2:3-4)?
Si bien su diagnóstico del problema es probablemente acertado, en la parte dos y tres de esta serie mencioné que su respuesta al problema (afirmar a la gente en su pecado) no fue acertada y está haciendo más daño que bien.
¿Y qué sigue?
Hace poco escuché un podcast del experto conservador Andrew Klavan, quien es cristiano. Klavan tiene un hijo gay que afirma tener fe en Cristo Jesús, esto metió a Klavan en el dilema de tildar como pecado la homosexualidad.
No voy a criticar los ideales de Klavan en esta área; sin embargo, creo que su respuesta a la pregunta que la madre de un hijo gay le hizo merece cierta consideración. En medio de la respuesta a la pregunta de esta madre, Andrew dice algo así como:
Creo que Andrew ha expuesto algo importante aquí. Tratamos al pecado de la homosexualidad de manera diferente al resto de pecados.
Ahora bien, algunos podrían rebatir la declaración de Andrew diciendo (atinadamente) que el pecado sexual es más grave y deja consecuencias internas que otros pecados no (1 Cor. 6:18). Por lo tanto, la glotonería no es el mejor ejemplo, pero la respuesta a otros pecados sexuales entonces debe ser considerada.
¿Qué sucedería si a éstas personas les diéramos el mismo trato que damos a quienes luchan contra (o aceptan) la homosexualidad?
¿Y si creyéramos que la respuesta a la homosexualidad no es obligarle a ser heterosexual sino ayudar a la persona a dedicar su vida a Cristo?
En la misma respuesta Klavan menciona un concepto que es bastante extraño en nuestras conversaciones sobre la homosexualidad. Dijo algo como dejar que Dios sea el que se oponga al pecado en la vida de las personas, ya que todos estamos sumidos en algún pecado.
En esa línea de razonamiento, al notable teólogo y decano en teología de la African Christian University (Universidad Africana Cristiana) en Zambia, Voddie Baucham, se le atribuye la siguiente frase en lo que respecta al evangelio:
¿Qué tan seguido le pedimos a una persona que lucha contra la mentira que primero deje de mentir antes de venir a Cristo? ¿Cuántas veces le hemos dicho a alguien que es adicto a las drogas o a la pornografía que primero renuncien a su adicción antes de acercarse a Cristo?
Pero la forma en que tratamos la homosexualidad en la iglesia es muy diferente, pues casi obligamos al homosexual ya sea hombre o mujer a dejar su comportamiento homosexual antes de presentarse delante de Cristo.
¿Y si en vez de gastar tiempo para convencer a la gente de cada pecado que tenga, lo usáramos para demostrar que nuestra propia naturaleza pecaminosa es la razón por la cual necesitamos un salvador?
Esto no significa que debemos aceptar que los comportamientos pecaminosos son algo bueno. Si eso hiciéramos estaríamos limitando la obra del Espíritu Santo para convencer a los individuos de los pecados individuales. Decirle a un adicto que su adicción no es algo problemático sino que es parte de su identidad y que debe aceptarla, ¿por qué iba a buscar el adicto una salida a su adicción?
La iglesia tiene una historia desagradable de manejo deficiente de los asuntos sexuales y es algo que debemos reconocer.
Creo que el mensaje que el mundo necesita escuchar es que cada individuo está roto y no que se les tache de malvados, y no pueden oír este mensaje a menos que primero les digamos cuán rotos estamos cuando permanecemos separados de Cristo. En otras palabras, no se trata de cuánto deseamos convencer a la cultura post cristiana sobre cuán hundidos están moralmente, sino mostrarles que no tienen esperanza así como nosotros no teníamos esperanza.
En vez de gritarle a las personas que es seguro que morirán por estar dentro de un edificio en llamas, deberíamos mostrarles una salida, “¡Si no quieres morir, sigue este camino!”
Esto es lo Voddie Bauchman nos dice en lo que respecta a cómo deberíamos predicar el evangelio. El evangelio no son las buenas noticias sobre modificar el comportamiento. El evangelio son las buenas noticias que anuncian que el Dios Todopoderoso del universo ¡ha mostrado un camino que conduce a la vida!
En mi plática con una ex estudiante respecto a estos temas me expresó su preocupación por el “odio en el internet” de supuestos cristianos hacia la comunidad LGBTQ+. Su preocupación provenía de dos lados, uno tenía que ver con ella y era el malentendido de lo que realmente significa odio, eso seguro, y el otro está relacionado con los cristianos y su falta de pericia para adentrarse en la sociedad y guiarla hacia Cristo.
Tomemos como ejemplo el sermón de Pablo en Atenas o el Areópago (Hechos 17).
Pablo pudo haber pasado por Atenas y elaborar un discurso acerca de su politeísmo e idolatría. Pero, él sabía que esta manera no era conveniente para expresar las buenas noticias de Jesús. Por ello, prefirió elogiar su espiritualidad y su pasión, y así es cómo encontró la oportunidad para hablar del evangelio.
Fuera de las paredes de la Iglesia debemos buscar oportunidades de conversación con la cultura americana post cristiana similares al diálogo en el Aerópago y no enfocarnos en las reprensiones como vemos en la carta a los corintios.
¿Cuál es la diferencia?
En este lado, Pablo se estaba dirigiendo a no creyentes (Areópago) pero en el otro lado les estaba hablando a supuestos creyentes que sabían más. (1 Corintios).
La Iglesia ha pasado mucho tiempo argumentando que la homosexualidad es una amenaza que hemos perdido la oportunidad (en muchos sentidos) de ministrar la gracia y la verdad. ¡No existe tal amenaza contra la Iglesia! ¡Las puertas del mismo infierno no son una amenaza! (Mateo 16:17-19)
La iglesia liberal les ha mostrado gracia y ha reforzado la verdad, y por ello el trabajo de la iglesia ortodoxa se ha vuelto más difícil. Ahora distintos evangelios compiten por los homosexuales. Este es un fracaso de la Iglesia, no de Dios y tampoco es el fracaso de quienes están siendo desorientados.
Hay un evangelio que afirma que pueden existir sin problemas la identidad sexual y la identidad de ser hijo de Dios y otro evangelio afirma que cualquiera puede ser adoptado para ser hijo de Dios pero insiste en que debe existir un dominio propio en lo que tenga que ver con sus comportamientos y apetitos.
Pero en nuestra tendencia de perseguir con pasión la verdad no nos dimos cuenta que en muchas situaciones atropellamos a la gracia.
No es necesario convencer a los homosexuales que debido a ese pecado en específico es que deben acudir a Cristo, lo que necesitamos es convencerles de que son pecadores (sin importar si son homosexuales o no) y porque son pecadores es que necesitan un Salvador. En otras palabras, nuestra conversación debería ser la misma para un joven que está viviendo con su novia y para un joven que está viviendo con su novio, sin embargo solemos manejar ambas situaciones de manera muy diferente.
Las personas no necesitan renunciar a todos sus pecados antes de conocer a Jesús, solo a su naturaleza pecaminosa. Renuncian a la esclavitud del pecado y acepta la esclavitud a la justicia en el momento en que ponen su fe en Cristo. Y luego el Espíritu Santo comienza a trabajar y, como todos sabemos, ¡es muy probable que sigan luchando!
Si llegan a la conclusión de que deben odiarse por lo que son, es muy probable que los argumentos de nuestra conversación fueron deficientes.
Así que, ¿qué significa este “camino más excelente”? ¿Debemos permanecer callados ante la homosexualidad culturalmente? No, pero debemos cubrir la verdad con amor. La homosexualidad no es el principal asunto a encarar, al igual que la promiscuidad y la adicción a la pornografía no son las principales cuestiones a tratar. El verdadero asunto a tratar es un corazón que urgentemente necesita ser limpiado, reparado y renovado. ¡Señor, danos un corazón de carne y quítanos el corazón de piedra! (Ez. 36:26) Con frecuencia, la Iglesia actúa desde un corazón de piedra para quienes pertenecen a la comunidad LGBT+.
Considero que la siguiente lista son algunas (aunque no todas) de las maneras en que la Iglesia puede ver progresos en sus diálogos sobre la sexualidad en la cultura de nuestros días. No son fáciles, pero creo que no son complicados y están alineados con las Escrituras y con el Evangelio.
Finalmente, date cuenta que esta es una batalla cuesta arriba. Por hacer las cosas de diferente manera tendremos ataques en ambos frentes. Podríamos perder amistades, quizá ofendamos a otros sin habérnoslo propuesto, y es posible que nos difamen con todo tipo de adjetivos por quienes creen que la homosexualidad es un pecado y por aquellos que creen que es algo normal. Trabaja para mantenerte firme en la verdad sin importar las consecuencias, pero no olvides la gracia y el amor mientras lo haces (Mat. 5:10).
Creo que el comportamiento homosexual es pecado, pero no creo que que sea un pecado que exceda al conocimiento de un Dios todopoderoso. La iglesia debería dejar de creer que la oscuridad entrará por sus puertas por no erradicar prontamente este pecado. ¡Que Dios nos conceda a todos gracia y favor en nuestro esfuerzo por glorificar su nombre y para traer a otros al pie de la cruz!
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Josh Klein es un pastor de Omaha, Nebraska con más de una década en el ministerio. Se graduó con un MDiv (Maestría en Divinidad) del Sioux Fall Seminary y pasa su tiempo libre leyendo y enfrentando problemas culturales y teológicos del presente y del pasado. Desde hace doce años está casado con Sharalee Klein y tienen tres hijos.
Traducido por Gustavo Camarillo
Editado por Daniela Checa Delgado
Perpetua
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Michelle Johnson
Perpetua was born in Carthage (modern day Tunisia) near the end of the second century. Her family of origin was well off and when we first meet her, she is a young wife and mother. The church in Carthage had grown in the century and a half since the resurrection of Jesus. Perpetua had responded to the truth of the Gospel and became a follower of Jesus. When we encounter her in the pages of history, she is a catechumen. This means she was being taught the core tenants of Christianity in preparation for the public declaration of her faith through baptism.
What we know about Perpetua’s early life is limited to these few facts. Were it not for the existence of her own personal diary, we may not have ever heard of Perpetua—the brief details of her life or the story of her death. There are a few things that make this document unique and important. First is the fact that Perpetua is a woman. It is one of the earliest—if not the earliest, preserved writings by a woman in church history. She personally wrote the part documenting her imprisonment, death sentence, and two visions she had while in prison. Another person picked up the project and described the remaining part of the story.[i] While the second author is unidentified, some speculate it was Tertullian—early Christian apologist and author.[ii]
Perpetua – the Visionary
Her written story is also important as it gives us insight into the “popular piety” or contemporary Christian thought and practice of the late second and early third century in North Africa.[iii] We can garner information about the theology of martyrdom that was prevalent at the time. The theology of martyrdom had certain characteristics that Ferguson points out from Perpetua’s visions. At this time, the church believed to be called to be a martyr meant to share in the suffering Jesus experienced and therefore it was a gift to be embraced.
The martyr was seen as a witness. As we see in Perpetua’s diary, there is an audience present when she and others are brought before the authorities to face judgment and sentencing. The conversation occurs between the judge and the one charged but the testimony is overheard by those present. Any declarations of the truth of the gospel during this testimony is seen as an opportunity to spread the news of Christ. The account of her vision also provides insight into the eschatology of the time. It was believed those who died as a martyr immediately entered heaven.[iv]
Perpetua – the Prisoner
It is Perpetua’s own writing that gives us what little information we have about her life before her arrest.[v] She begins her story while in prison. We learn she was arrested along with a handful of other catechumens but was able to be baptized while imprisoned. She describes having her infant son with her and God’s grace upon them both when they were ultimately separated. The reader is introduced to Perpetua’s father. He makes a handful of visits to the prison attempting to persuade his daughter to do what was necessary to save her life. Her father was not a Christian and suggests there is no danger offering a sacrifice to the emperor in exchange for her freedom. Perpetua expresses sorrow over her father’s suffering but is resilient in her commitment to follow Jesus and worship Him along as God.
Perpetua records two visions or dreams. The significance of these for us today was discussed above. The first one occurs before Perpetua and the others are sentenced. She seems to understand from this, she will indeed die because she won’t compromise her commitment to the one true God. The second vision comes the night before she is to face the beasts in the arena. This vision convinces Perpetua she is fighting the devil himself, not animals of the earth.[vi]
Perpetua – the Martyr
Perpetua documents this second vision and is resigned to the fact that she will not write the account of the fight within the arena. She doesn’t assign someone to pick up the task but seems to leave it to whoever might. As mentioned before, some speculate it was Tertullian in part and this is so because there are literary qualities that match two of his other works.[vii] Regardless of who it was, they faithfully continued to tell Perpetua’s story. She and her fellow prisoners were led to the arena to face the animals. While she suffered injury, she was not killed by the beasts but ultimately died by the sword of the gladiator.
Conclusion
Perpetua’s story has had enduring influence throughout church history. Her diary was read in local churches for centuries following her death. St. Augustine, famous church father from a couple centuries later utilized Perpetua’s story in no less than four of his sermons. Her story has value for us today. The academic value–learning about Christian thought and beliefs of second century believers was discussed above. It also allows us to hear the personal testimony from a believer in the earliest centuries of the church.
While not all of us will be called to die for our faith, the temptation to bow to another god is something common to each one of us. It may not be the emperor to which we must consider sacrificing but it might be self, money, career, relationship or more. The one true God is quite clear: we “shall have no other god beside Him.” (Exodus 20:3 CSB)
Footnotes
[i] “The Martyrdom of Saints Perpetua and Felicitas”, https://www.ssfp.org/pdf/The_Martyrdom_of_Saints_Perpetua_and_Felicitas.pdf. (accessed September 22, 2022). This link provides access to an English version of Perpetua’s diary.
[ii] Johannes Quasten, Patrology: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, Patrology 1 (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1992), 181.
[iii] Both Ferguson and Quasten address this point. Everett Ferguson, Church History – From Christ to the Pre-Reformation, Second edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 81-83. Quasten, Patrology, 182.
[iv] Ferguson, Church History, 82-83.
[v] https://www.ssfp.org/pdf/The_Martyrdom_of_Saints_Perpetua_and_Felicitas.pdf
[vi] Ferguson, Church History, 82-83.
[vii] Quasten, Patrology,181.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Michelle Johnson is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. She also earned her M.A. in Theological Studies and her M.Div. in Professional Ministries at Liberty University. Michelle graduated from the University of Minnesota with her undergraduate degrees. She and her husband Steve live in Mankato, Minnesota, where she also serves in women’s ministries. In addition to her love of theology and apologetics, Michelle also has a passion for historical studies, particularly the theology of the Patristics. When she is not spending time reading or writing, Michelle can often be found dreaming of her next travel adventure or enjoying a great cup of coffee. Michelle Johnson serves as the Executive Vice-President and Managing Editor of Bellator Christi Ministries.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3YfPdEr
On Mission to End Sex Trafficking | with Victor Marx
PodcastIn this midweek podcast episode, Frank continues his conversation with high-risk humanitarian Victor Marx and takes listeners on a raw and unscripted journey through several of his latest missions to save women and children from the real-life horrors of sex trafficking. From a tiny village in Cambodia to a church parking lot in Colorado Springs, the manifestation of evil knows no bounds. Even so, God’s forgiveness and love is powerful enough to cover a world of sin and shame, and His standard of goodness is the only way we can recognize these acts of evil in the first place!
Feel free to jump right in or listen as a follow-up to the previous episode. Either way, we pray you will support Victor in his mission to help more women and children find hope and healing in the power of a relationship with Jesus Christ.
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into great discussions with like-minded Christians while providing financial support for our ministry.
Learn more about Victor Marx and his ministry: https://victormarx.com/
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Why Apologists Need a Scout Mindset: Lessons to be Learned from Julia Galef
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Jonathan McLatchie
Have you ever wondered why some people are able to think about the world clearer, forming more balanced and nuanced views about controversial topics, than others? Have you ever pondered what thinking patterns are most conducive to good reasoning and well supported conclusions, and how one might avoid the pitfalls of confirmation bias and self-deception? In her book The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t, Julia Galef (host of the podcast “Rationally Speaking” and co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality) attempts to answer these questions. [i]In the first half of this essay, I shall summarize Galef’s insights; in the latter half, I shall discuss what lessons we as Christian scholars and apologists can glean from the book.
A Summary of The Scout Mindset
Galef distinguishes between what she dubs “the soldier mindset” and “the scout mindset.” According to Galef, the soldier mindset, also known as motivated reasoning, leads us to loyally defend the stronghold of our belief commitments against intellectual threats, come what may. This involves actively seeking out data that tends to confirm our beliefs, while rationalizing or ignoring contrary data that tends to disconfirm them. On the other hand, the scout mindset attempts to honestly determine how the world really is – as Galef defines it, the scout mindset is “the motivation to see things as they are, not as you wish they were,” (p. ix).
For the one in soldier mindset, argues Galef, reasoning is like defensive combat – “it’s as if we’re soldiers, defending our beliefs against threatening evidence,” (p. 7). For the soldier, to change one’s mind – to admit that one was wrong – is seen as surrender and failure, a sign of weakness. One’s allegiance is to one’s cherished beliefs rather than to the truth, even if those beliefs conflict with the balance of evidence. For the soldier, determining what to believe is done by asking oneself “Can I believe this?” or “Must I believe this?”, depending on one’s motives. For the one in scout mindset, by contrast, reasoning may be likened to mapmaking, and discovering that you are wrong about one or more of your beliefs simply means revising your map. Thus, scouts are more likely to seek out and carefully consider data that tends to undermine one’s own beliefs (thereby making one’s map a more accurate reflection of reality), deeming it more fruitful to pay close attention to those who disagree with their own opinions than to those whose thinking aligns with them.
The prevalence of soldier mindset in society today is aptly demonstrated by a sobering study, cited by Galef, in which participants were tested in regard to their “scientific intelligence” with a set of questions.[ii] Questions were divided into four categories – basic facts; methods; quantitative reasoning; and cognitive reflection. Remarkably, when conservative republican and liberal democrat participants were also asked whether they affirmed the statement that there is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels,” there was a positive correlation between “scientific intelligence” and divergent opinion. That is to say, the higher one’s scientific intelligence, the more likely a liberal democrat was to affirm the statement and the more likely a conservative republic was to disagree with it. This is not the only study to reveal the tendency for more educated people to diverge in opinion on controversial topics. Another study surveyed people’s views on ideologically charged topics, including stem cell research, the Big Bang, human evolution, and climate change.[iii] Their finding was that “Individuals with greater education, science education, and science literacy display more polarized beliefs on these issues,” though they found “little evidence of political or religious polarization regarding nanotechnology and genetically modified foods.” Galef summarizes the implications of those studies: “This is a crucially important result, because being smart and being knowledgeable on a particular topic are two more things that give us a false sense of security in our own reasoning. A high IQ and an advanced degree might give you an advantage in ideologically neutral domains like solving math problems or figuring out where to invest your money. But they won’t protect you from bias on ideologically charged questions,” (p. 48).
Though there is an element of scout and soldier in all of us, Galef argues, “some people, in some contexts, are better scouts than most,” being “more genuinely desirous of the truth, even if it’s not what they were hoping for, and less willing to accept bad arguments that happen to be convenient. They’re more motivated to go out, test their theories, and discover their mistakes. They’re more conscious of the possibility that their map of reality could be wrong, and more open to changing their mind,” (pp. 14-15). On the flip side of the coin, often “[w]e use motivated reasoning not because we don’t know any better, but because we’re trying to protect things that are vitally important to us – our ability to feel good about our lives and ourselves, our motivation to try hard things and stick with them, our ability to look good and persuade, and our acceptance in our communities,” (p. 26). For example, if we are being honest, how often do we, when considering a claim, “implicitly ask ourselves, ‘What kind of person would believe a claim like this, and is that how I want other people to see me?’” (p. 23). Such thinking fuels soldier mindset. In practice, we cannot eliminate soldier mindset from our reasoning processes entirely. After all, it is our default mentality. By nature, we like having our beliefs confirmed. But we can take intentional steps towards cultivating more of a scout mindset.
What are some of the key characteristics that distinguish scout from soldier mindset? In chapter four, Galef gives five features that define a scout. The first is the ability to tell other people when you realize that they were right. Galef caveats this quality by noting that “Technically, scout mindset only requires you to be able to acknowledge to yourself that you were wrong, not to other people. Still a willingness to say ‘I was wrong’ to someone else is a strong sign of a person who prizes the truth over their own ego.” The second quality is reacting well to criticism. Galef explains, “To gauge your comfort with criticism, it’s not enough just to ask yourself, ‘Am I open to criticism?’ Instead, examine your track record. Are there examples of criticism you’ve acted upon? Have you rewarded a critic (for example, by promoting him)? Do you go out of your way to make it easier for other people to criticize you?” (p. 52). The third quality that marks out a scout is the ability to prove oneself wrong. Galef asks, “Can you think of any examples in which you voluntarily proved yourself wrong? Perhaps you were about to voice an opinion online, but decided to search for counterarguments first, and ended up finding them compelling. Or perhaps at work you were advocating for a new strategy, but changed your mind after you ran the numbers more carefully and realized it wouldn’t be feasible,” (p. 54). The fourth feature of scout mindset is to avoid biasing one’s information. “For example,” writes Galef, “when you ask your friend to weigh in on a fight you had with your partner, do you describe the disagreement without revealing which side you were on, so as to avoid influencing your friend’s answer? When you launch a new project at work, do you decide ahead of time what will count as a success and what will count as a failure, so you’re not tempted to move the goalposts later?” (p. 56). The fifth feature that Galef lists is being able to recognize good critics. Galef comments, “It’s tempting to view your critics as mean-spirited, ill-informed, or unreasonable. And it’s likely that some of them are. But it’s unlikely that all of them are. Can you name people who are critical of your beliefs, profession, or even choices who you consider thoughtful, even if you believe they’re wrong? Or can you at least name reasons why someone might disagree with you that you would consider reasonable (even if you don’t happen to know of specific people who hold those views)?” (p. 57). In summary, Galef notes, “Being able to name reasonable critics, being willing to say ‘The other side has a point this time,’ being willing to acknowledge when you were wrong – it’s things like these that distinguish people who actually care about truth from people who only think they do,” (p. 57).
Chapter 5 of the book offers five tests of bias in our reasoning. The first test is the double standard test, which essentially asks whether we apply the same standards to ourselves that we would apply to others. The second test is the outsider test, which attempts to determine how you would assess the same situation or data if you had no vested interest in the outcome. The third test is the conformity test, which attempts to discern the extent to which one’s opinion is in fact one’s own. Galef explains, “If I find myself agreeing with someone else’s viewpoint, I do a conformity test: Imagine this person told me that they no longer held this view. Would I still hold it? Would I feel comfortable defending it to them?” (p. 66). The fourth test is the selective skeptic test – “Imagine this evidence supported the other side. How credible would you find it then?” (p. 68). The final test is the status quo bias test – “Imagine your current situation was no longer the status quo. Would you then actively choose it? If not, that’s a sign that your preference for your situation is less about its particular merits and more about a preference for the status quo,” (p. 69).
Another thing that marks out a scout, according to Galef, is one’s attitude towards being wrong. Scouts, explains Galef, “revise their opinions incrementally over time, which makes it easier to be open to evidence against their beliefs,” (p. 144). Further, “they view errors as opportunities to hone their skill at getting things right, which makes the experience of realizing ‘I was wrong’ feel valuable, rather than just painful,” (p. 144). Galef even suggests that we should drop the whole “wrong confession” altogether and instead talk about “updating”. Galef explains, “An update is routine. Low-key. It’s the opposite of an overwrought confession of sin. An update makes something better or more current without implying that its previous form was a failure,” (p. 147). Galef points out that we should not think about changing our minds as a binary thing – rather, we should think of the world in “shades of grey”, and think about changing our mind in terms of an “incremental shift” (p. 140). Galef notes that thinking about revising one’s beliefs in this way makes “the experience of encountering evidence against one of your beliefs very different” since “each adjustment is comparatively low stakes” (p. 140). For example, “If you’re 80 percent sure that immigration is good for the economy, and a study comes out showing that immigration lowers wages, you can adjust your confidence in your belief down to 70 percent,” (p. 140).
Galef also points out that, when it comes to intentionally exposing ourselves to content representing the ‘other side’ of a debate in which we are interested, people tend to make the mistake of always ending up “listening to people who initiate disagreements with us, as well as the public figures and media outlets who are the most popular representatives of the other side,” (p. 170). However, as Galef explains, “Those are not very promising selection criteria. First of all, what kind of person is most likely to initiate a disagreement? A disagreeable person. (‘This article you shared on Facebook is complete bullshit – let me educate you…’) Second, what kind of people or media are likely to become popular representatives of an ideology? The ones who do things like cheering for their side and mocking or caricaturing the other side – i.e., you,” (pp. 170-171). Instead, Galef suggests, “To give yourself the best chance of learning from disagreement, you should be listening to people who make it easier to be open to their arguments, not harder. People you like or respect, even if you don’t agree with them. People with whom you have some common ground – intellectual premises, or a core value that you share – even though you disagree with them on other issues. People whom you consider reasonable, who acknowledge nuance and areas of uncertainty, and who argue in good faith,” (p. 171).
Lessons We Can Draw from The Scout Mindset
To what extent are we, as Christian scholars and apologists, cultivating a scout mindset? Too often debates between theists and atheists devolve into tribalism, an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, and a smug condescension towards those who disagree with us. But what if we saw those with whom we disagree not as enemies but as colleagues in our quest to attain a better map of reality? Our critics are those who are best placed to discover flaws in our own reasoning, which may be invisible to us. We ignore them at our peril. By listening carefully to our critics, we can construct a more nuanced, more robust worldview. And which critics of our faith are we seeking out to represent the dissenting view? Are we primarily engaging with popular but less-than-nuanced critics of Christianity, or are we actively seeking out the very best, most erudite and well-informed critics of our faith, even if less well known? Can we name some of our critics as honest and thoughtful? How are we positioning ourselves to be in the best place possible to find out we are wrong, if we are in fact wrong? If we are wrong about one or more of our beliefs, can we honestly say that we value truth enough to want to know? How do our answers to the foregoing questions bear on that latter question?
Perhaps at this juncture it should be clarified what exactly apologetics is, since there is regrettably much confusion surrounding this word, both inside and outside of the Christian community. It is commonly thought that the exercise of apologetics is contrary to open-ended inquiry where the conclusion is not stipulated a priori. However, this view is quite mistaken. While apologetics is not identical to open-ended inquiry, it is co-extensive with it in the sense that apologetics is what happens after the results of open-ended inquiry are in, and the time has come to publicize our interpretation of the data. Thus, though the term is seldom used in this context, every publication of a scientific paper is an exercise in apologetics. Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was an exercise in apologetics since he sought to sell his interpretation of the observations that he had made on the Galapagos islands. It is common to think of apologists as playing the role of a criminal defence attorney who is committed to defending his client, come what may. In reality, however, a more apt parallel is to an investigative journalist, reporting for popular consumption the results of a fair and balanced inquiry.
Being an apologist of the gospel is no light responsibility. We are asking people to pledge their allegiance to Jesus Christ and dedicate every aspect of their life to His service. This may cost them greatly – even their life. The weight of this responsibility is emphasized by the apostle Paul himself, who stated that, if Jesus was not in fact raised, “We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised,” (1 Cor 15:15). We therefore owe it to those to whom we preach to study diligently the facts and arguments on both sides of the debate to ensure that the gospel is in fact true. We also owe it to those with whom we share the gospel to fully and completely inform them, as far as is possible, concerning the facts of the case. Too often I have seen apologists present popular arguments for Christianity but omit relevant facts that undermine the force of their argument. For some examples of this, see my recent conversation with Wesley Huff on arguments Christians should NOT use.[iv] Whenever you encounter an argument that is supportive of a position that you like, you should always, before publicly repeating the argument, conduct a thorough search for any relevant data that might reduce the evidential force of the argument. At the very least you should determine whether any academic publications, especially those critical of your beliefs, have already addressed the argument. This is but one of several ways in which you can reduce the negative effects of confirmation bias on your reasoning.
What other steps can we take to mitigate against confirmation bias? I try to make it my habit to expose myself to more material – whether that be books, articles, podcasts, videos or other media – that argues against my beliefs than those which argue for them. This reduces the likelihood of me fooling myself, and forces me to think deeper and more carefully about my beliefs, and to develop a more nuanced expression of them. It also puts me in a strong position to find out that I am wrong if I am in fact wrong about any of my beliefs. A first step towards stepping outside of your intellectual echo chamber can be recognizing that smart people can argue in good faith and yet disagree with you.
I am sometimes asked how a newcomer to religious debates may discern which apologists to listen to and whom to disregard. Of course, the difficulty here is that, in order to discern which apologists can be trusted to give reliable content, one must have already attained a certain level of knowledge about the subject. But in order to arrive at that threshold of knowledge concerning the subject, one must first determine who to receive information from. How might we escape this dilemma? One criterion of several that I often give is to be wary of anyone who asserts that all of the evidence supports their own personal view and that there is none which tends to disconfirm it. Whenever anyone tells me, concerning any complex topic (whether that be theism, Christianity, evolution or anything else), that all of the evidence is on the side of their own personal view, it leads me to reduce my confidence in their objectivity with the data, and I begin to think that confirmation bias is particularly prominent in this individual’s reasoning process. It is an intellectual virtue to be able to admit that one or more pieces of evidence tends to disconfirm your own view. Of course, presumably you also maintain that the evidence that tends to confirm your view is stronger, on balance, than that which tends to disconfirm it. Nonetheless, recognizing the existence of difficult or anomalous data is a mark of scout mindset. And how might we go about determining whether a given datum confirms or disconfirms our Christian beliefs? For each piece of data we encounter, we should ask ourselves whether that datum, considered in isolation, is more probable given Christianity or given its falsehood. If the former, then it is evidence that is confirmatory of Christianity; if the latter, then it is evidence against. Too often I see people reason that, if a set of data can be made compatible with their beliefs, then they have neutralized the objection to their beliefs. However, this approach is quite simplistic. It is nearly always possible to make discordant data compatible with your beliefs. But that does not mean that the data is not better predicted given that your beliefs are false than that they are true, or that you should not lower your confidence in those beliefs. The appropriate question, when confronted with discordant data, is not to ask “Can I believe I am still right?” Galef rightly points out that “Most of the time, the answer is ‘Yes, easily,’” (p. 141). Rather, we should ask to what extent our confidence in our beliefs needs to be updated in response to this new data.
Another criterion of a credible apologist is that he or she is willing to offer critiques of arguments presented by others on his or her own side of the debate. Are they even-handed in subjecting arguments for their own view to the same scrutiny as those put forward by those on the other side of the debate? This reveals that they are discerning and have a genuine concern for factual accuracy. How one responds to criticism, both friendly critique as well as that from dissenting voices, is also a measure of one’s concern for correct representation of information. An ability to publicly retract false or misleading statements and issue corrections goes a long way to establish one’s credibility. When we encounter a new contributor to the debate, with whose work we have not hitherto interacted, we should also fact-check their statements, going, if possible, back to the primary sources – especially when they stray into territory outside of our own domain of expertise. If they are able to sustain a track record of being reliable in their reportage of information and fully informing the audience about the relevant facts, one ought to be more inclined to trust them as a credible authority. If on the other hand they have a habit of getting things factually incorrect, one should be very hesitant to take anything they say on their word.
One should also be wary of apologists who exaggerate the strength of their argument, over-pushing the data beyond that which it is able to support. It is always better to understate the merits of one’s arguments and pleasantly surprise by overproviding, than to overstate the merits of the argument and disappoint by underproviding. This is why in my writing and public speaking I prefer to use more cautious-sounding statements like “this tends to confirm” or “this suggests” rather than bolder statements like “this proves” or “this demonstrates.” Similarly, I will speak of being “confident” rather than “certain” of my conclusions.
My enthusiastic advocacy for integrity and nuance in apologetics, together with my insistence on subjecting arguments advanced in support of Christianity to the same scrutiny that we would subject contrary arguments to, has on occasion been misconstrued – by atheists as well as by Christians – as an indication of my losing confidence in the truth of Christianity. However, this does not at all follow and, frankly, it saddens me that Christian apologetics has come to be associated, in the minds of many, with a soldier rather than scout mindset. Clearly, it is possible to be convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true and yet still be committed to the honest presentation of information. It is also possible to believe that Christianity is well supported while also maintaining that many of the arguments advanced in support of Christianity are fundamentally flawed or dramatically overstated. I believe it is a virtue rather than a vice to recognize one’s own confirmation bias and thus take steps in the direction of reducing its negative effects on one’s reasoning. The principles that I have advocated in this essay are germane to apologists of any position, regardless of how convinced of that position they are. Otherwise, it is too easy to deceive ourselves, apply double standards, cherry pick data, and inoculate ourselves against finding out that we are mistaken in regards to one or more of our beliefs.
One may of course object to the principles advocated in this essay that, if unsound data or overstated arguments leads people to embrace the gospel, then the end justifies the means. I recall complaining, on more than one occasion, about the presentation of factually erroneous information in defence of Christianity at a University-affiliated Christian society in the United Kingdom. The response with which I was met, lamentably, was that it is very unlikely that any other of the attendees would know enough about the subject to pick up on the errors in the presentation, and we should rejoice that they heard the gospel. This thinking, however, is flawed for at least two reasons. First, we claim to represent the one who identified Himself as truth itself (Jn 14:6). Plenty of Biblical texts condemn the employment of deceptive methods (e.g. Exod 20:16; Ps 24:3-5; 101:7; Prov 10:9; 11:3; 12:22; 24:28; Col 3:9; Eph 4:25). It is therefore not honouring of God when we perpetuate misinformation, even in defence of the gospel. Second, if one with whom we have shared the gospel later does his or her own research to determine whether the things we have said are in fact true, much like the Bereans are commended for doing in regards to Paul’s preaching (Acts 17:11), we are responsible for having placed another obstacle between them and the gospel. This is a grave thing to be responsible for.
In summary, cultivating a scout mindset, and minimizing soldier mindset, can help us to think more clearly and with greater intellectual honesty about our beliefs and our reasons for holding them. I cannot recommend any more highly Julia Galef’s book The Scout Mindset. I would also recommend her presentation for TEDx Talks, “Why ‘scout mindset’ is crucial to good judgment.”[v]
Footnotes
[i] Julia Galef, The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t (New York: Porfolio, 2021).
[ii] Dan M. Kahan, “Ordinary science intelligence’: a science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change,” Journal of Risk Research 20, no. 8 (2017), 995-1016.
[iii] Caitlin Drummond and Baruch Fischoff, “Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 36 (Sep, 2017), 9587-9592.
[iv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVad8BE5A6c
[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8
Recommended resources related to the topic:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3iKor6w
The Trauma to Triumph Story of Victor Marx
PodcastIs it really possible for a person to break the cycle of anger, abuse, addiction, divorce, and unforgiveness? Victor Marx is here to tell us that with the hope of Jesus Christ, you can!
At the tender age of 5, Victor was molested and left in a commercial cooler to die. He endured a childhood marked with physical and sexual abuse, multiple stepfathers, 14 schools, and 17 different houses. Later in life, he used drugs and alcohol to help numb the pain and, after his time in the Marines, was diagnosed with mental illness and PTSD. To most people, it seemed like Victor would never find a way to escape his life of pain and trauma–but God had other plans!
Today, Victor is a husband of 30 years, a father to five, and has used his military background to put his boots to the ground in places like Syria, Iraq, and Cambodia to physically rescue over 45,000 women and children from sex trafficking and other evil. His ministry, All Things Possible, exists to identify, interrupt and restore those affected by trauma all over the world.
In this one-of-a-kind episode, he sits down with Frank to share his personal testimony and explains how only God can bring help to the hopeless and transform the most hardened of hearts. He also shares advice on how to protect your family from sex trafficking in your own neighborhood. Victor’s story is an amazing account of God’s character, power, and presence in our world and evidence that the Holy Spirit is still at work today. Jesus raised the dead, healed the blind, and did so many miracles that all the books of the world could not contain them. But what is the greatest miracle we can all witness in our culture today? A changed life!
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into great discussions with like-minded Christians while providing financial support for our ministry.
Learn more about Victor Marx and his ministry: https://victormarx.com/
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Confrontando la homosexualidad en una cultura de identidad (parte 3)
EspañolBy Josh Klein
As we enter the final section of the critique of the objections to the Orthodox view of homosexual activity as a sin, it is important to note, again, why I am spending a significant amount of time on these particular points. The rallying cry of the liberal theologian has been grace, mercy, and love, but as I set out in part one, [i] believe that true grace, mercy, and love must be grounded in the Truth set forth in God’s word. To have adequate compassion we cannot admit falsehood.
We know this to be true intrinsically. If your child believes with all his heart that he can fly and climbs to the top of your house to prove it, do you let him jump because it is unloving or unmerciful to tell him he is wrong? Or do you do whatever it takes to stop him from jumping even if it makes him cry, angry, or hate you? A good parent doesn’t even need to consider the issue. The correct response to the situation is natural.
Likewise, we must confront the sinful habits in our own lives and the falsehoods in the world. We cannot be compassionate toward the child as he allows it to plummet to its death, and we cannot be compassionate toward fellow believers as we watch them sink their lives into unrepentant sin. That would be unloving. So we must first establish what is true and then we can place true empathy and compassion on that foundation.
The following are just a sampling of other objections I have interacted with in my time of ministry. I believe we must respond to each of them with grace and truth, and any subsequent arguments should be handled in the same manner. I have attempted to do so here. I pray God has given me the power to succeed in that endeavor. I responded to one of the more technical objections in last week’s article. [ii]
Homosexuality is as much of a sin as eating shellfish in the Bible
This argument completely ignores the New Testament scriptures on the subject, is also incredibly theologically flawed, and is primarily used merely as an argument with which to denigrate those of faith as inconsistent or hypocritical.
This, of course, is an argument for Christians to continue eating shrimp and shellfish but not agree that the homosexual act is good/correct even though both come from the same book of the Bible. In Leviticus 11 we find that God prohibits the consumption of shellfish to his people, likewise, only seven chapters later in Leviticus 18 God prohibits men from sleeping with men and women from sleeping with women, going so far as to call the act an abomination.
The difference in language between these two things is paramount to understanding. While the Hebrews are to abhor shellfish, they are not commanded to abhor those who consume shellfish, but shellfish itself. Consuming shellfish is detestable, but it is not an “abomination,” but God calls sodomy (homosexuality) an abomination. We also find God removing the believer’s dietary restrictions (as well as the eternal restrictions of faith!) from Peter in Acts 10:9-16, but God does not do the same with homosexuality.
Some may try to include homosexuality in the interpretation of Acts 10, but the early church certainly did not. It seems that Peter and other apostles saw this view as a double permission for the consumption of food and for God to bring salvation to the Gentiles without forcing them to convert to Judaism first.
Furthermore, God had clearly defined rules for His chosen nation to be set apart from those around them. Quite simply, some of the Old Testament prohibitions were made simply to distinguish God’s chosen people from the Gentile nations around them. It is fair (and safe) to assume that God’s prohibition on clearly cultural differences (eating shellfish, wearing certain fabrics, circumcision, etc.) would dissolve over time as He ushered in the church age and Jesus became the fulfillment of what those laws were intended to convey, while His prohibition on moral issues (murder, theft, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality) would not change, because they are based on His character and His design for life, not simply on setting a nation apart for itself. There is, believe it or not, a hierarchical structure to God’s law.
Thus, Leviticus 18 carries a much more relevant prohibition than Leviticus 11 because one has to do with the character of God and the other with the establishment of Israel’s theocracy specifically. Much has been written on this topic and I cover it here only sparingly, but for a more comprehensive overview of the topic Jason Meyer’s book The End of the Law is a good resource. [iii]
Homosexual wasn’t even a word in the Bible until 1946
We have dealt with this argument a bit in Part 2, [iv] but here we will look at the lay argument. Homosexual was not a word in the English dictionary until the late 19th century, first appearing in the English dictionary in 1892. The term was coined by German psychologists in the 1860s in reference to the act of same-sex sexual intercourse. Bible translations tend to lag behind the common vernacular by a significant time interval, so the fact that the first use of homosexual in an English Bible was in the mid-1940s should not come as a significant surprise to anyone if they honestly follow the linguistic history of scripture translations.
Before the 1940s, the word translated homosexual would likely have been translated sodomite or sexually immoral. In fact, as we discovered last week, I think those are still better translations than homosexual in many cases, as they cover a broader range of sexual immorality rather than simply pointing to a homosexual relationship. However, to say that the word homosexual was not in the Bible until 1946 and is therefore a recent addition to the Bible is disingenuous. The intent of the passages was clear before the 1940s and helped form the decision to insert the word into the translation history after the 1940s. The interpretive history of these passages lent credibility to the use of the word initially and while it is not the best translation currently, I do not think it is a bad translation either, although, given the current cultural context of identity, I would still like to see clarity in the translation toward behavior and not simply attraction. My problem with the translation in general is that it is making an interpretive decision for the reader rather than simply translating the word, and this means that the narrowing of the meaning could leave out important sin issues such as pedophilia, rape, cohabitation, and more.
God was not wrong when he created me
In fact, God did not make a mistake in creating anyone. However, to continue the theme of Romans 1 from last week, we find that being born with a proclivity for a certain action does not necessarily make that action or desire good and right.
Being born as someone with a disposition toward addiction would not make becoming addicted to painkillers good or right. Similarly, being born as someone with a strong sexual inclination who desires to have multiple sexual partners does not make acting on those desires right and good.
In my view, homosexuality is the same kind of sin, but we have turned the discussion on its head. Turning homosexuality into a matter of identity rather than behavior did no one any good, and we are currently reaping the “rewards” of such a miscalculation.
Romans 1 indicates that homosexuality is part of the fall, for both men and women. In fact, the entire first section of Romans 1-4 is intended to help the Roman church understand the depravity of man and why we need a savior. Romans 1 is not meant to indicate personal behavior, but must be read in the context of all human history.
If we read Romans 1 correctly, we will not argue and argue about who was born which way and whether or not homosexuality is a choice. The fact is that homosexuality is a natural consequence of the original fall of man. Sin broke up God’s created order and introduced all kinds of behaviors that could be and have been considered natural, but are, in fact, evil. (I use the word “evil” in the theological sense, i.e. rebellion against God.)
No, God did not make a mistake in creating you. Scripture is clear that you are fearfully and wonderfully made ( Psalm 139:14 ), but it is also clear that you are a fallen human being with a natural inclination toward sin who needs to be rescued from yourself and your own passions and desires. Romans 6-8 puts this struggle under the microscope. The transition from death to life is immediate and permanent, but it is also a process of understanding where we are broken and where we need to be repaired by the Holy Spirit.
And as Paul indicates at the end of chapter 7 , the only answer is through Jesus Christ, otherwise we are still under the headship of Adam and therefore in sin, and in death. This is why having a dual identity is so problematic. It means that God can remake only part of who we are, because we have removed His impact on our other identity. It is sequestered in a dark closet that His renewal team cannot touch. The exclusivity of Christ is of paramount importance in this discussion, but according to a recently conducted survey [v] of supposed “born-again” Christians, this foundational doctrine is also under attack. Ultimately, compassion without adherence to truth ends there. It is not a slippery slope fallacy if the slope is, in fact, slippery.
So no, God did not make a mistake in allowing anyone to be born, but that does not mean that we are all born perfect either. Two things can be true at once. God may have made a person in a fearfully and wonderful way, and that person may also be hopelessly damaged and beyond repair with natural inclinations toward evil and self-destruction unless God intercedes on his or her behalf. All people are worthy and deserving of love because they are image bearers of the Almighty, but all people are also image bearers broken by sin and must be repaired by their Creator.
I know, because I am. No, I am not a homosexual, but I am an evil depraved person. I need a savior, and I have that in Jesus. This same savior is available to all who will believe, and he will make them a new creation ( 2 Cor. 5:17 ) with the ability to find victory over any sinful proclivity they were born with, because in Jesus we are offered a completely new identity.
A homosexual in a consensual and committed relationship is fulfilling a marriage covenant
This is the last one we will have space for in this section, and it is both the easiest and the hardest to answer. The easiest, because I believe that understanding the real meaning of Romans 1 and the passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy will ultimately lead us to understand that marriage can only be, and has only been, ordained between one man and one woman and the marriage bed ( Heb 13:4 ) is not to include two of the same sex.
That being said, it is the hardest to answer because my heart truly aches for those who have such homosexual inclinations who desire to have a meaningful long-term relationship and have children and experience all the good things that come with those relationships. But empathy is all I can offer in that regard because the scriptures seem to be clear on the issue, and I don’t know a married couple who can (or should) abstain from sex in order to maintain a pure relationship. If my answers to the previous two sections are biblically correct, then the answer to this objection becomes obvious. And as we’ll see next week, there are many professing gay Christians who agree with this. Some resources are noted below.
So what?
I’m sure I haven’t covered all of the TikTok takes in the previous sections. I’m sure there are many more, but let’s move on. What then is the church’s responsibility? In part four I want to look at a better way to handle these things than what the church has done in recent generations. I think the church has fallen short in ministry to those who struggle in this area, and while I don’t have all the answers, I think we can begin to walk the path in a better way. One thing the book I mentioned in part 3 gets right is this: I think the church’s treatment of homosexuality has been short-sighted and graceless for many decades, and this needs to change (and is changing), but it needs to change without compromising the Truth.
Josh Klein is a pastor from Omaha, Nebraska, with 12 years of ministerial experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his free time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married to Sharalee Klein for 12 years, and they have three young children.
Footnotes
[i] https://freethinkingministries.com/confronting-homosexuality-in-a-culture-of-identity-part-1/
[ii] https://freethinkingministries.com/confronting-homosexuality-in-a-culture-of-identity-part-2/
[iii] https://www.christianbook.com/the-law-mosaic-covenant-pauline-theology/jason-meyer/9780805448429/pd/448429?event=AFF&p=1011693&
[iv] https://freethinkingministries.com/confronting-homosexuality-in-a-culture-of-identity-part-2/
[v] https://relevantmagazine.com/faith/church/survey-60-percent-of-born-again-christians-under-40-say-jesus-isnt-the-only-way-to-salvation/
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Josh Klein is a pastor from Omaha, Nebraska, with 12 years of ministerial experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his free time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married to Sharalee Klein for 12 years, and they have three young children.
Original Source: https://bit.ly/3UC2BQ2
Translated by Jennifer Chavez
Edited by Yatniel Vega
An Atheist’s Call To Make Our Case
Atheism, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Bob Perry
St. Francis of Assisi may have died 800 years ago, but his influence still looms. He was a man who venerated nature and lived a life of great sacrifice in service to God and his church. But within the Christian ecosystem, he has become most famous for an adage that strikes a chord with anyone who is serious about sharing their faith:
The modern interpretation of Assisi’s exhortation is clear. Our charge is to love people into the kingdom, not argue them there. If you’ve bought into that mindset it may surprise you to learn that it’s not accurate. And it may surprise you even more to learn that it flies in the face of an atheist’s call to make our case.
Here’s why.
A Gospel Without Words?
On one level there is no denying that, “who you are speaks so loudly that no one can hear what you say.” We certainly don’t want the life we live to deny everything about the faith we claim to represent. But is the Franciscan inversion of this exhortation also true? Can we proclaim the message through our actions alone?
The problem here is that the Gospel makes propositional truth claims about the nature of the world, the nature of man, and the remedy for man’s rebellion against God. It’s a story about reality. And it’s only “good news” if it’s actually true. So, how can we share the propositional truth claims of such a message and explain their implications without using words or giving answers?
I contend that we can’t. Furthermore, the attitude that says we can is not only harmful, but it also does violence to the Gospel it claims to love. This contention is not my own. A rabid atheist will back me up.
The Gift of a Bible
Penn Jillette and his partner, Raymond Teller, have been entertaining Las Vegas audiences for years. Their mixture of magic, music, and commentary – the Penn & Teller show – is the longest-running show at the same hotel in Las Vegas history. Jillette is a magician, actor, and inventor. He is also a hard-core atheist – so adamant about his denial of God’s existence that at one point in his life he is said to have owned three cars with vanity license plates that read: “atheist,” “nogod,” and “godless.”[i] “Strangely enough,” says Jillette, “they wouldn’t give me ‘infidel.’ He was also a happy participant in YouTube’s viral “blasphemy challenge,” in which participants publicly mock and denounce the Holy Spirit.
Penn Jillette is no friend of Christianity. But he has a message that every Christian should take to heart.
In July 2010, Jillette posted a video online[ii] in which he shared the story of a man who approached him after one of his performances. The man was extremely complimentary of the Penn & Teller show. He said he enjoyed Jillette’s honesty, his use of language, and his talent. The man was polite and humble. And he came bearing a gift.
“I was here last night,” said the man, “I brought this for you.” The man handed Jillette a pocket Bible containing the New Testament and the book of Psalms. Penn Jillette was genuinely humbled and impressed by the actions and attitude of this kind Christian man. And he is quite direct about how he received the gesture.
I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. If you believe there’s a heaven and hell … and if you believe that people could be going to hell, or not getting eternal life … and you think that it’s not worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward … How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? If I believed beyond the shadow of a doubt that a truck was bearing down on you and you didn’t believe it, there’s a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that (emphasis mine).
Misquoting Assisi
Most of us don’t have a lot in common with a rabid atheist Las Vegas showman who mocks the Holy Spirit. But every Christian would do well to take seriously Penn Jillette’s reflection. Not only does it fly in the face of the just-love-them-into-the-kingdom mindset, but it also comports with what Assisi actually said … and with what he did.
It turns out the legendary quote attributed to St. Francis is nothing but a modern corruption of the words he actually wrote in 1221 AD:
Let none of the brothers preach contrary to the form and institution of the church … Nevertheless, let all the brothers preach by their works.
Notice that Francis did not render preaching the gospel a contingent option. Instead, he linked words and actions directly together.
Francis of Assisi devoted himself to the kind of life for which he is now known after being convicted by a sermon he heard in 1209. He took a vow of poverty, felt connected to nature and the beauty of the creation, and demonstrated empathy for others. But he was also known for the powerful sermons he delivered. He lived out the Gospel, and he was happy to tell others about it.
Words Are Always Necessary
Arguments and evidence are far from arrogant intellectual add-ons to the Gospel.[iii] They are integral to it. God saturated our world with truths that could never be adequately expressed through our actions alone. There are plenty of examples of militant atheists who have turned to God after hearing about them. C. S. Lewis, Antony Flew, Lee Strobel, and J. Warner Wallace[iv] come to mind. Penn Jillette isn’t on that list – yet. That’s his choice, not ours. Don’t hate him for it. Be winsome and kind. But by all means, don’t be silent.
Footnotes
[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Jillette
[ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8
[iii] https://truehorizon.org/the-gospel-requires-us-to-give-answers/
[iv] https://salvomag.com/article/salvo24/the-evidentialist
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3UxOXgU
Examining Historical Evidence for the Resurrection | with Mike Licona
PodcastDo Christians have good historical reasons to put our faith in the resurrection of Jesus? Can we really know what happened 2,000 years ago? No one doubts the works of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or the history written about them, so what makes the historicity of Jesus so special? And what do non-Christian scholars say about the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?
If anyone knows the answers to these questions, it’s New Testament scholar Dr. Michael Licona! His seminal work, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, has been praised by many as the most thorough and useful tool to those looking for an in-depth study of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Mike currently serves as Associate Professor in Theology at Houston Christian University and president of Risen Jesus, Inc. In this special midweek episode of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist,’ he sits down with Frank to discuss the following topics as they relate to Jesus and the resurrection:
problems with postmodernist history
the uncertainty of historical knowledge
what is a historical fact?
the tools and rules of historical research
how our worldview affects how we study history
objections to the resurrection of Jesus
the intersecting philosophies of science, history, and theology
This is a fascinating and in-depth discussion, and you’ll definitely learn something new! To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into great discussions with like-minded Christians (including Frank) while providing financial support for our ministry.
Mike’s seminal work: https://a.co/d/iPv6CN6
Mike at Houston Christian University: http://bit.ly/3OPAKdT
Mike’s website: https://www.risenjesus.com/
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
A Dragon at Christmas
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
What a peaceful scene. It’s as every Christmas card portrays it. Sweet baby Jesus cooing softly in his manger with smiles all around. The only problem is that it doesn’t portray reality. Aside from the point that Jesus most certainly would have been crying as any normal baby would, Revelation 12 describes the Christmas story as a dangerous event, loaded with spiritual warfare.
The Dragon Fights
Chapter 12 is a prime example that Revelation does not record history chronologically. As I’ve argued previously,[i] Revelation provides several complementary, parallel visions. In this way, several of the visions recapitulate, or retell, the same story from slightly different angles. I made this point specifically with the seven seals, trumpets, and bowls.[ii]
Chapter 12 stands as a unique chapter in that it speaks of the incarnation. In verse 1, John describes a vision of a woman dressed in the sun, standing on the moon, and wearing a crown of twelve stars on her head. Scholars debate the identity of the woman. I think one can make a good case that she represents the people of God, though some argue for Mary. The cosmic images demonstrate the exalted status of this figure, especially the crown of twelve stars on her head. We read elsewhere in Revelation that God made his people rulers (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). And the number twelve symbolically represents the people of God (twelve tribes and twelve apostles).[iii]
Verse 2 notes that the woman was pregnant and in labor. Repeatedly throughout the OT, we read that Israel suffers labor pains before their Messianic salvation comes (Isa 26:17-18; 66:7-10; Mic 4:10). At the same time, a great red Dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven diadems on its heads swept down a third of the stars of heaven to the earth. The dragon is a clear reference to Satan (Rev 12:9; 20:2).
The dragon attempts to mimic Jesus who also has horns and diadems (Rev 5:6; 19:12). We read later in Revelation 17:12 that the ten horns represent ten earthly kings. In other words, the Dragon accomplishes his evil schemes through earthly kingdoms and rulers.[iv] And though many think the stars represent angels, most likely the stars represent people as they did in Daniel 8:10 when Antiochus Epiphanes also threw down “stars.” In other words, John appears to making the same point Daniel was making: the enemy will persecute God’s people.
Meanwhile, the woman gives birth to a son. And not just any son, but a son who will rule the nations with an iron staff. This language most certainly refers to Psalm 2:9: “You shall break them with a rod of iron.” This Psalm, which speaks of the Lord’s “anointed” (the Messiah), also says of the anointed, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” (Ps 2:7). This son is none other Jesus of Nazareth who would bring blessing to the nations (Gen 12:3).
And how would he bring blessing? Verse 5 says that the child was “caught up to God and to his throne.” That is to say, even though the dragon sought to devour this male child, he would triumph over the dragon by means of his resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father.
And though Christ defeated Satan, the dragon continues to fight against God’s people while he still can. We read in verse 6 that the woman flees into the wilderness for 1,260 days (3.5 years). There in the wilderness, God nourishes his people, just as he did ancient Israel.
While scholars differ on their interpretation of the 1,260 days, I believe they represent the time span between Christ’s resurrection and eventual return. The time of 1,260 days most likely comes from Daniel 9:27 which prophesies that sacrifices will end for “half of a week.” A week in that context referred to seven years. So half of a week refers to forty-two months or 1,260 days.
Daniel, it seems, was prophesying that Christ’s future death would bring sacrifices to an end for the final 1,260 days which symbolically represents the time between Christ’s two comings. In chapter 11, we read that enemies will trample the people of God for forty-two months (1,260 days). And it’s during this 1,260 days that the two witnesses (the church) will prophesy to the world. Each of these texts supports the idea that 1,260 days refers to the present church age.
The Dragon Falls
While some want to locate the fall of Satan and his angels from heaven before the dawn of the human race, the context goes against this position. True to apocalyptic form, this vision pulls back the curtain to give us a glimpse of a cosmic battle between the dragon and Michael. Michael represents the people of God and overpowers the dragon, casting him down to the earth.
Verse 9 notes that “the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.” Certainly, these images allude back to the serpent in the garden (Gen 3), the Leviathan (Job 41:1; Isa 27:1), Rahab (Job 26:12), and the sea monster (Ps 74:13; Ezek 29:3). Each of these serpent creatures (snakes and sea monsters) represent Satan’s opposition to God’s people.
We read that the dragon and his angels are expelled from heaven because of “the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony.” It seems, then, that Satan used to stand before God and accuse people of their sin (Job 1:9; Zech 3:1). But Christ’s substitutionary death silenced the accuser![v] Satan, therefore, is cast out of heaven, and is further defeated by the proclamation of the gospel. God’s people continue to proclaim the message, even though they suffer for it.
Though the dragon has been defeated, he doesn’t just lay down. He takes down as many as he can with him.
The Dragon Flails
Though Satan fell to earth, he continues to wage war on the woman and her “offspring.” While some may want to distinguish between these two, I think its best to read them as referring to the same entity—the people of God. If one wants to parse them out, one could possibly think of the woman as the church and the offspring as individuals of the church.
As the dragon seeks to attack the church, we read that God delivers them on the wings of eagles into the wilderness, just as he did at the exodus (Exod 19:4). Again, we read that God nourishes his people in the wilderness for “a time, times, and half a time.” This phrase is just another way of saying 3.5 years or 1,260 days. As I already stated earlier, this time frame represents the span of time from Jesus’ resurrection[vi] till his return. That is to say, it’s during this current church age that God is protecting his people from Satan’s attacks.
At the same time, Satan continues to attack the church. He continues to accuse, though he cannot accuse legitimately now that Christ has died. His only recourse is to lie. It’s imperative, therefore, that believers constantly remind themselves of the gospel as to fight off Satan’s accusations. Though Satan continues to wage war, God will ultimately protect his people and bring them safely home.
The Dragon-Slayer
The story of the Bible, then, proclaims that Jesus came as the seed of the woman to crush the head of the serpent.[vii] All throughout Scripture, we see hints of the dragon’s opposition through individuals like Pharaoh, Goliath, King Herod, and the Jewish leaders. But as we see here in Revelation 12, it was really the great serpent pulling the strings. And while this dragon may be a fierce enemy, he is no match for the great dragon-slayer Jesus.
We read of the dragon’s ultimate demise in Revelation 20:2-10, “And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. . . . And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”
Footnotes
[i] https://ryanleasure.com/reading-revelation/
[ii] https://ryanleasure.com/seals-trumpets-and-bowls-oh-my/
[iii] https://ryanleasure.com/who-are-the-144000-in-revelation/
[iv] https://ryanleasure.com/the-seven-churches-in-revelation/
[v] https://ryanleasure.com/what-did-the-cross-accomplish/
[vi] https://ryanleasure.com/jesus-brother-james-and-the-resurrection/
[vii] https://ryanleasure.com/serpents-dragons-and-the-bible/
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3VKGTtY
Is it Wrong to Doubt? | with Travis Dickinson
PodcastIs it wrong to have doubts about your Christian faith? Many people assume that doubt is the opposite of faith and that wandering among the hard questions of faith will lead us further away from God. True believers, the assumption goes, never waver in their confidence in the fundamental truths of Christianity.
Professor and philosopher Travis Dickinson disagrees! Instead, he says, our doubts and hard questions about the Christian faith are actually an important way we can express our commitment and love to God. Doubt isn’t our destination, but as Christians, it’s in our job description to ask questions as we approach God with intellectual curiosity in order to love Him with all our heart, soul, and mind.
In this week’s podcast episode, Travis sits down with Frank to share insights from his new book, Wandering Toward God: Finding Faith Amid Doubts and Big Questions.
Some of the big questions they address include:
Do we have to be 100% certain that Christianity is true in order to be a Christian?
What’s the difference between “deconstructing” and “wandering with purpose”?
Why isn’t God more obvious?
What does it really mean to have faith?
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into great discussions with like-minded Christians (including Frank) while providing financial support for our ministry.
Travis’ book: https://a.co/d/dU3sXHl
Travis’ website: https://www.travisdickinson.com/
SPECIAL OFFER FOR OUR LISTENERS: Use the code EXAMINED to get 30% off the ebook and hard copy (plus free shipping) at ivpress.com, only available from 12/2-12/16!
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher