Tag Archive for: Christianity

Philosophy Is for Everyone

Philosophy Is for Everyone

By Colin Burgess

“Philosophy is everybody’s business.” – J. Mortimer Adler.

Aristotle opened his opus on philosophy, The Metaphysics, with, “All men by nature desire to know.” Nothing could be truer; when one begins to ask the ‘why’ questions, one is taking intellectual responsibility for constructing their weltanschauung, or worldview. No longer are they taking their thoughts or beliefs for granted, but are rebelling against their upbringing and are no longer espousing beliefs by means of dogma, adopted as a child, through upbringing and indoctrination, but are making these beliefs their own as they categorically examine them. This is not to say beliefs passed onto us from early childhood are wrong, but those who examine them carefully seek to provide some sort of justification for them. It is by philosophy we can have a discussion with long-dead thinkers, like Plato, Marx and the Apostle Paul, and as we represent their views, as accurately as possible, we can see what they were saying as though they were sitting right in front of us. By carefully doing this we can abandon the politics and religion of our parents, or examine them further and make them truly our own.

Often it is said that children are the best philosophers. Perhaps this is because they ask the most honest and uncensored questions. As we grow older our thoughts tend to reach a state of entropy, and we no longer seek justification for beliefs but are content to think only as much as necessary to get through our daily routine, and our minds begin to atrophy. Too often we let celebrities, politicians, clergymen, and newscasters tell us what to think, rather than learning, for ourselves, how to think, as we eat our TV dinners. Is this what Socrates meant when he said, “The unexamined life is not worth living?” He didn’t mean to say that those who don’t examine their thoughts should kill themselves, but that those who do not live an examined life are living without intent, they are basically marking time, waiting to die.

Maybe we will wake up from our intellectual slumber long enough to seek justification for defending certain social views we hold, or at election time when we defend our voting decisions to ourselves, our family and friends, but then once the dust has settled, many of us are too busy or content to fold our hands and resume life as normal. Surely this is not because of stupidity, many of these people are our doctors and lawyers, or highly skilled people in the trades. Perhaps it is because we are not in a “food for thought” economy, no one has given me a penny for my thoughts, so we do not pursue the art of ordering our thoughts simply because there are bills to pay and our children are hungry, and in the absence of a philosophy factory being built there is little chance many of us, except the chosen few, will ascend to the heights of academia where we will pay them a penny for their thoughts. Some may fancy themselves philosophers or have taken a module or two in philosophy, as part of an academic requirement, but many see philosophy as being difficult, or even boring.

Many have a misunderstanding of what philosophy is, without even realizing we are all philosophers even if we aren’t acquainted with the terminology; many think philosophy has to do with scratching our flea ridden beards, sitting around and pondering obtuse questions which have no ultimate answer. While such has been the case in the history of philosophy, this is certainly not the normative. While there is no consensus in the discipline of philosophy on many issues, philosophers seek to deal with very real issues which affect our society today, such as in the fields of ethics and medical research, there are political philosophers which examine political ideas and their effects on society. The discipline of law is built on philosophy, and many lawyers are required to study this, so they may reason through a set of premises and formulate a well-reasoned argument. In the sciences philosophy functions as a tool for defining what science is and how we ought to think about the world being studied.

One doesn’t have to do philosophy out of thin air, many philosophers today are standing on the shoulders of giants, and we can see how thinkers in the past dealt with similar issues facing us today, saving us the effort of reinventing the wheel, and allowing us to pick up where they left off.

To put philosophy in a nutshell, it can be summed up in 4 major periods, the ancient philosophers, the pre-Socratics, the Socratics, and the Medieval philosophers. All of these philosophers dealt with their experience of the world, and if one reads a tome on the history of Western Philosophy, they can get a comprehensive picture, after the fact, how they sought to wrestle with issues of their time. These philosophers, ranging from Aristotle to Nietzsche, wrestled with issues pertaining to metaphysics (what is real), epistemology (theory of knowledge), ethics (how we ought to behave), existentialism (who we are) and logic (how we ought to think). How one answers these questions will determine their views on God, politics and many other aspects of life, and if one opens up an introductory text to the philosophy, they will eventually see similarities in their views or thoughts to how the ancients thought, to some degree.

This is not to defend any particular view of ethics, metaphysics or religion but is to defend and encourage the art of thinking carefully and ordering our thoughts and becoming more aware of our beliefs, so they may be held with a greater degree of intentionality and justification and not taken for granted.

For those who want to briefly examine philosophy without committing to an expensive book on the subject, Douglas Groothuis has written an excellent and concise book summarizing the most famous philosophers and their famed sayings, in “Philosophy in Seven Sentences,” and for those wishing to further explore, I found ‘Philosophy for Dummies’ to be very informative and accessible. While Bertrand Russell has written an excellent history of western philosophy, Anthony Kenny has written a “New History of Western Philosophy,” which covers more contemporary philosophers as well as older ones.

 

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3gm5JkR

/by
Lowder’s Comments to My Assessment of His Debate with Turek

Lowder’s Comments to My Assessment of His Debate with Turek

, ,

By Jacobus Erasmus

In 2016, Jeffery Jay Lowder[1] debated Frank Turek on the topic Naturalism vs theism. See here:

In early 2017, I wrote two articles in which I assess Lowder’s opening statement (see here and here). It was brought to my attention that Lowder recently made some comments to my assessment (see the comment section here).

Lowder’s Comments to My Assessment of His Debate with Turek

I do not usually respond to comments on blogs because (1) it takes too much of my time and (2) I think that my responses will not change many minds. Nevertheless, occasionally it seems worthwhile to make such a response. I wish to take the opportunity in this post to make some remarks about Lowder’s comments in order to remind us how to engage with those that disagree with us. Let me begin by making some general remarks about how (I think) we should engage with an opponent.[2]

First, we should occasionally remind our opponent that we are not criticizing them but a specific view or argument. This implies that we should not attack our opponent personally, that is to say, we should not criticize their personal attributes, such as character, appearance, intelligence, or moral standards. Of course, nor should we physically attack our opponent, nor throw stuff at them, nor give them a wedgie[3] (you get the point). However, it is important to (now and then) make it clear to our opponent that we are not criticizing them even if they attack us personally.

Second, we should occasionally remind our opponent that we value them. As Christians, we believe that every person is created in God’s image and, thus, has tremendous value and worth (Genesis 1:26). This implies that we should treat our opponent with respect and in such a way that they can see we value them. We should not, of course, treat our opponent as if they are less valuable than us; for example, do not talk to your opponent as if they were an earthworm, or blob, or ogre. Furthermore, we should occasionally tell our opponent that we value them as this act shows that we value them. Doing so would also give our opponent an ‘awww-how-nice-of-you’ feeling. I, for one, would feel very warm in my heart if my opponent told me that they value me (I might even give them a hug, but a man hugs, of course).[4]

Moreover, if we truly value our opponent, then we will defend them when relevant. For example, if somebody attacks Lowder personally, and if I am aware of it or in the vicinity, I will defend Lowder. I will be very angry with Lowder’s attacker and I might even give them a wedgie. So, Lowder, if you are reading this, please know that I value you!

Finally, we should occasionally ask our opponent to be patient with us. We all make mistakes and no one is perfect. Thus, it will be beneficial if we remind ourselves that we are not an inerrant, unique snowflake that the world revolves around. And then, once we are humbled, we should ask our opponent to please be patient with us as we interact with them because we might make a blunder here and there. If we do this, then perhaps our opponent will have more respect towards us.

Now, with those general remarks out of the way, let us look at Lowder’s comments. On Sunday, December 30, 2018, 11:04 PM,[5] a person with the username (or real name?) Bogdan Taranu[6] made the following comment to Lowder’s post:

I don’t know if you’re aware of this but Jacobus Erasmus over at Free Thinking Ministries critiqued the case for Naturalism you made during your debate with Turek in a two-part analysis. This was back in 2017. The relevant links are at the end of this comment.

The part I found most interesting is about your claim that Naturalism is intrinsically more probable than Theism. Basically, there are two types of modesty: linguistic and ontological. The former is about the number of claims a hypothesis asserts, while the latter is about the number of entities a hypothesis asserts (a hypothesis is more modest than another if the former asserts the existence of fewer entities – objects, events, properties – than the latter). Linguistic modesty seems to allow one to rig the process of inference to the best explanation.” More to the point linguistic modesty allows us to „define our hypotheses such that they make as many assertions as we want, and then we can choose as the most modest the hypothesis that makes the least number of claims”. This means the theist can say that Theism asserts only that “God exists” while holding that Naturalism asserts several things – thus making Theism more modest than Naturalism.

I would like to know what you think about the above criticism…

Lowder then posted several comments in response to Bogdan. Let us look at them piece by piece. Lowder says,

I’m flattered he found the opening statement worthy of a detailed reply.

Here is a good lesson for all of us: If someone writes a detailed response to your argument, that does not necessarily mean that your argument is, or that they think it is, worthy of a detailed response. In many cases, it is not the argument per se but, rather, the splash or effect generated by the argument that justifies one writing a response to the argument. Consider, for example, some of Richard Dawkins’ objections to theism. His objections are so bad that I (as well as several other scholars) feel embarrassed for Dawkins.[7] His objections are not worthy of a detailed reply. Nevertheless, the influence of his arguments does seem to justify the responses that scholars have offered since many laypersons get moved by the emotional tone of Dawkins and fail to see his reasoning errors.

However, Lowder’s opening statement is worthy of a detailed reply. Lowder is no Dawkins. Indeed, I wish that Lowder had Dawkins’ prominence as Lowder is far more reasonable than Dawkins.

Lowder continues,

It will come as no surprise to anyone that I disagree with him on virtually every point, but more important is the fact that I don’t consider his point about “linguistic modesty” to be an accurate or even charitable representation of my argument.

When we say that someone does not offer a charitable interpretation of an argument, we usually (and should) mean that they have not offered a lenient or tolerant interpretation of the argument. For example, suppose that some sentence is ambiguous and could be read in either a strong, reasonable sense or in a weak, unreasonable sense. A charitable interpretation would be to understand the sentence in the strong, reasonable sense. Lowder, then, is accusing me of not being charitable or accurate in representing his argument. Fair enough. But why, exactly, am I being uncharitable? Lowder continues,

In fact, my points about coherence and modesty show that naturalism (as I have defined it) and supernaturalism (as I have defined it), are equally ontologically modest, whereas theism (as I have defined it) is ontologically less modest than naturalism.

This does not explain how, exactly, I am being uncharitable. We are not talking about how Lowder defines naturalism, supernaturalism, and theism but, rather, with his definition of ‘intrinsic probability’ and ‘modesty’ as these are the definitions he relies on to argue that naturalism is more intrinsically probable than theism. Now, in his opening statement, Lowder explains that the ‘intrinsic probability of a hypothesis is determined entirely by its modesty and coherence’. And what does he mean by ‘modesty’?

Intrinsic probability is determined by modesty, coherence, and nothing else. By “modesty,” I mean a measure of how much the hypothesis asserts. The more a hypothesis claims, the more ways there are for it to be false and so, before we start looking at the evidence, the less likely it is to be true.

Now, I interpret the above quote as talking about linguistic modest, which refers to the number of claims (or propositions) a hypothesis asserts. Am I being uncharitable here? I do not think so. I cannot see how else to interpret the quote.

Lowder continues in his recent comments,

I think he’s barking up the wrong tree.

Is this not a cute saying? Barking up the wrong tree! Nice. Let us see if I can use this saying somewhere later in this post. He continues,

If I were trying to defend theism (or Christian theism) against my opening statement, I would concede the first contention (from my opening statement), but try to minimize the impact of the point about intrinsic probability by arguing that theism is not significantly less intrinsically probable than supernaturalism and/or argue that the evidence favoring theism over naturalism “swamps” its intrinsic improbability.

I sure hope that Lowder would one day be defending Christian theism. We could surely use someone as articulate as him on our side! Lowder, please, please, come over to our side. Lowder continues,

I stand by what I wrote: I don’t think Erasmus has accurately or even charitably represented my view. Here is one of many examples. He writes: “Since naturalism is the view that physical reality is all that exists…” Except that is precisely NOT how I defined naturalism in my opening statement. I understand that many naturalists do define naturalism in that way, which is why I spent precious speaking time in my opening statement to offer nuanced definitions of my terms. And in every speech after my opening statement, I made it very clear that I was NOT defending the view that physical reality is all that exists.

Uhh, so there is a section in my post in which I use the term ‘naturalism’ slightly different to how Lowder defined the term. Why did I do this? I am not sure. After re-reading my post, I think I just made a mistake. The important point, however, is that the meaning of my paragraph does not change when I use Lowder’s definition. My paragraph would then read as follows:

“Since naturalism is the view that the physical exists and, if the mental exists, the physical explains why the mental exists, most versions of naturalism affirm that physical reality is eternal in that either (i) there exists one universe that has existed for an infinite number of events, or (ii) there exists a multiverse that comprises an infinite number of universes.”

Indeed, we can even leave that part of the sentence out, as it does not seem to be relevant to my argument:

“Most versions of naturalism affirm that physical reality is eternal in that either (i) there exists one universe that has existed for an infinite number of events, or (ii) there exists a multiverse that comprises an infinite number of universes.”

I think Lowder is barking up the wrong tree (huh, I used the saying. Lowder, you have to give me credit for this at least). He is focusing on my definition of naturalism when he should be focusing on the central point or argument that I am making. Lowder continues,

I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why Erasmus has failed to show that theism is more modest than naturalism.

But I am the reader, and I cannot see where I went wrong here? He continues,

Here’s another example of where I think Erasmus is being quite uncharitable. He writes: “Indeed, it seems to me that theism wins here. Since naturalism is the view that physical reality is all that exists, most versions of naturalism affirm that physical reality is eternal in that either (i) there exists one universe that has existed for an infinite number of events, or (ii) there exists a multiverse that comprises an infinite number of universes. Either way, this version of naturalism asserts the existence of an infinite number of events or universes.” This is doubly uncharitable. First, he’s attempting to measure the intrinsic probability of one hypothesis, naturalism, by measuring the intrinsic probability of that hypothesis conjoined with an auxiliary hypothesis–his (i) or (ii). But that’s an apples to apples-plus-oranges comparison.

Lowder sure likes to use the word ‘uncharitable’. However, once again, I cannot see how I am being uncharitable. I think it is clear in my paragraph that I am talking about some versions of naturalism, not conjoined hypotheses. I have spoken to naturalists who claim that physical reality is all that exists, and when asked what they mean by ‘physical reality’, they refer to an infinite (or at least very large) multiverse. Others define physical reality as an infinitely old universe. These are single hypotheses or versions of naturalism. Moreover, as Lowder acknowledges, a hypothesis can have multiple claims. Thus, I am referring to versions of naturalism that make these claims; they are not hypotheses conjoined with auxiliary hypotheses.

He continues,

Naturalism, as I’ve defined it, isn’t committed to either (i) or (ii). If a naturalist subscribes to either (i) or (ii), then that would be the result of some factor which is extrinsic to the content of naturalism. For example, a scientist, who could be a theist or a naturalist, might posit a multiverse in order to explain such puzzling phenomena as the so-called “cold spot” … But, if they do, they’re appealing to a posteriori information which is by definition irrelevant to intrinsic probability.

Lowder’s bare-bones-super-skinny-desperate-for-flesh definition of naturalism, of course, might not be committed to either (i) or (ii) depending on what he means by ‘physical reality’. However, I was discussing more substantial and (as I see it) common versions of naturalism. As I see it, as soon as a naturalist posits a multiverse or an infinitely old universe, that forms part of their naturalism because it alters their understanding of ‘physical reality’. So, for example, if Lowder believes in a multiverse, then he will understand ‘physical reality’ to include a multiverse and his view of naturalism will affirm a multiverse. Well, this is how I see things anyway. You are free to see things differently.

I will end here. Lowder does make a few more remarks (I believe that what I have already said applies to most of his other remarks) and he might make further comments after this writing (I wrote this early on the 03 January 2018). This was enjoyable and pleasant. I enjoy reading about Lowder’s ideas, and I hope he will be more active on his blog in the future.

Notes

[1] Don’t you just like the name ‘Lowder’? I would not mind having that name. It rolls nicely off the tongue. But I can think of some awkward situations that the name can get you into. For example, since it sounds like ‘louder’, can you imagine someone who is struggling to hear you ask, ‘Please talk louder’?

[2] I readily admit that I have not always followed the advice I present here. I have made mistakes. But I am trying. Moreover, please feel free to disagree with some (or all!) of my remarks. I am simply explaining how I see things.

[3] Definition of wedgie: ‘The condition of having one’s clothing stuck between the buttocks, often from having had one’s pants or underwear pulled up as a prank’ (https://www.wordnik.com/words/wedgie).

[4] What is a ‘man hug’? It is a type of hug that has several characteristics that distinguish it from a normal hug: (1) The hug is performed by a man. (2) While performing the hug, the man tenses or flexes his arm, shoulder, and chest muscles as to not come across as squishy. (3) The hug is performed for a very short duration, usually under one second.

[5] Yes, you should be impressed by my precision.

[6] Let us just agree that the name ‘Bogdan Taranu’ is unusual for us Westerners.

[7] When I say that I feel ‘embarrassed for Dawkins’ I do not mean this in a derogatory or demeaning or belittling sense. Rather, I mean that I truly feel embarrassed or sympathy for him. Let me try to clarify this somewhat. When I watch a Mr. Bean or Johnny English movie, I feel embarrassed for the main character because they do things in the story that I would be too embarrassed to do, and part of me wishes that the character would not have behaved in such a silly manner. It is this same feeling I have towards Dawkins. When I see Dawkins I see Mr. Bean. In fact, I have a suspicion that Dawkins is Mr. Bean undercover.

 

Jacobus Erasmus (Kobus) Dr. Jacobus Erasmus is the author of the book “The Kalām Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment”. He is currently a researcher at North-West University, South Africa and a computer programmer. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from North-West University and was awarded the Merit Prize in 2015 by the university’s School of Philosophy for superior performance for his doctoral dissertation. Dr. Erasmus also holds an Honours Degree in IT. His main research interests include Natural Theology, Philosophy of Religion, and Metaphysics. www.JacobusErasmus.com

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2FqYof7

/by
How Not Letting Your Children Ask a Question Leads Them to Atheism

How Not Letting Your Children Ask a Question Leads Them to Atheism

,

By Michael Sherrard

Time and time again, I hear the story of one who has left their belief in God in the bin of their childhood memories alongside Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. And more often than not, I’m given one reason that is quite strange. Well, it’s not strange to me anymore because of how often I’m given this answer. Too often, I have people tell me that the reason they do not believe in God anymore is because no one ever let them ask a question.

How Not Letting Your Children Ask a Question Leads Them to Atheism

Just recently a friend of mine had an old college friend who is an atheist find him on Facebook. The old college buddy sent my friend a nice message that said, “I know we had our differences, but I’ve always admired you and appreciated the respectful conversations we had.”

“It was strange to the get the note,” my friend told me. “Too random to not consider that maybe the Lord was orchestrating something here.”

So my friend kept the conversation going, and at one point he asked him, “What is your biggest objection to the existence of God today?”

His friend’s answer is a sad indictment on the state of many churches. He said, “No one would let me ask a question.”

The friend went on to explain how in High School he started to have some questions, and so he brought them to his pastor and other church leaders. And rather than acceptance and a healthy conversation he was practically shown the door. He was told on more than one occasion that believers don’t ask these questions. They just trust God and have faith. He concluded that his questions didn’t have answers and that Christianity is a fable.

This is not a unique story. I hear this all the time.

How many of you have heard or even said yourself, “If we had answers then we wouldn’t need to have faith.” But Jesus welcomed skeptics and questioners and gave them answers and so should we. If we do not, we will affirm the doubts that cause questions and send our children to atheism.

But we are on the side of truth and have nothing to fear. We need to encourage questions and welcome the questioner. So what can we do to encourage and allow teenagers to ask questions so that they don’t have to just ask Siri or Google, or worse, decide that there are no answers to their questions and abandon their belief in God?

There are three things we can do to create an environment that allows teenagers to ask questions.

First, we build relationships. Many articles and surveys are showing that the younger generations want community. They want relationships with adults. And it is our responsibility to create them. It is the burden of the older generations to build bridges to the younger ones. We need to de-segregate the generations in the church. Teenagers need to know people that have answers and they need to trust them enough to be able to ask a question.

Second, respond to the questioner, not just the question. Teenagers and all people for that matter use questions for purposes other than getting an answer. Sometimes they ask a question to rattle you. Sometimes they ask a question to get to know you. Sometimes they ask a question to test the waters so to speak. Your response will often tell them more than your answer. So control your facial expressions, anticipate as many scenarios as you can, and get in the habit of affirming questions by saying things like, “That’s a great question,” “I’ve wondered that myself” or “That is the right question to be asking.”

Third, ask questions yourself. Get teenagers thinking about important things while they are in a safe environment. Don’t let the first time they hear a question regarding the reliability of scripture be in the classroom of a professor who wants to convert your child to naturalism. My goal is to ask my children the questions I know they will have before they have them. And I make it a point to tell my children to never stop asking questions. “The important thing is to never stop questioning” is probably what my kids are going put on my grave marker.

I had such a proud moment the other day. My six-year-old daughter was jumping on the trampoline, and we were talking about taking care of other people. Something happened at school that day, and it was a natural opportunity to talk about protecting the weak and how we always need to be nice and invite other kids to play.

At one point I said, “Sherrard’s always…” and I waited for her to finish. I was expecting her to say, “take care of those weaker than us.” But she blurted out, “Ask Questions!” I smiled very big and slept very good that night.

There does not exist a question for which there is not a good answer. So welcome the questioner and find an answer to their question. Do not be afraid of not knowing everything and being asked a question that you can’t answer. There are countless books and resources. And there are organizations like Ratio Christi that can help train you and point you to the resources that can help you along the way. And there is always me. Always feel free to reach out for guidance or support. I like to do more than write.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, a writer, and a speaker. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2VGJ2Zw

/by
How Should Christians Relate to Gay Friends, Neighbors, and Family

How Should Christians Relate to Gay Friends, Neighbors, and Family?

By Mikel Del Rosario

Understanding Acceptance, Approval, and Convicted Civility

When I speak at student events, Christian kids ask me, “How should I relate to my gay friends?” Many believers struggle to relate to their LGBT neighbors, friends, and family because they worry about being misunderstood. How do we stick to biblical convictions while loving our neighbors as ourselves? I’ve learned a lot about this area of engagement through my work with Darrell Bock at the Hendricks Center. Along the way, I’ve discovered three key questions many Christians have:

How Should Christians Relate to Gay Friends, Neighbors, and Family

  1. Why does the church seem hesitant to engage?
  2. Is there a difference between acceptance and approval?
  3. How can we challenge people well as ambassadors of Jesus?

Why does the church seem hesitant to engage?

I know it’s tough to stand up for a biblical view of sexuality. But some Christians say relating to their gay neighbors can seem even tougher. Maybe it’s because many of our brothers and sisters grew up with an unhealthy way of separating “church people” from “non-church people.” In fact, I think many people who come from Christian homes may have been raised with a “culture-war mentality” that makes winsome engagement difficult for them today.

But think about this: We all have the same core needs before God. It might be in different areas of our lives, but we all need his grace and forgiveness. This realization should make us question any kind of “us vs. them” mentality we may still have in the back of our minds. After all, everyone’s born with desires and tendencies we never asked for. One way to balance loving our neighbors with holding Christian convictions is to know the difference between acceptance and approval. Because it’s important to make a distinction between the two.

Is there a difference between acceptance and approval?

Just like the kids who approached me at a church event, Christian adults also wonder, “How should I relate to my gay friends or co-workers?” “What about gay family members or their friends?” Parents have asked me, “Will I compromise my stance on biblical sexuality by being kind to my gay child’s partner?” I like Pastor Caleb Kaltenbach’s approach. He grew up in the LGBT community and he talks about the difference between accepting people and approving of what they do:

We’re called to accept everybody as an individual. That doesn’t mean we approve of every life choice somebody makes… Parents of [gay] teenagers who “come out” to them sometimes think, “If I accept my child, that means that I’m approving of a same-sex relationship.”

My point is, no. Anybody should be able to walk through the doors of my church when I preach…I shake hands every Sunday with people that made life choices that I wouldn’t approve of. But that doesn’t mean that I accept them any less…

[At] our church…you can belong before you believe…not saying that we integrate people into the body of Christ without salvation. But we give people a chance to be a part of our community. That’s where we live out that acceptance versus approval.

…We have to own the fact that it isn’t our job to change somebody’s sexual orientation. It is our job to speak the truth into people’s lives.

We need to understand people from their perspective…a lot of Christians are not willing to do that when it comes to certain people, including the LGBT community… [1]

So acceptance means respecting people made in God’s image. Approval is like signing-off in agreement on what someone believes. These are two different things.

Still, everyone’s obligated to obey God’s commands. This brings a moral challenge to the area of sexuality—a space where we all need to be sensitive to objective moral values and duties. Darrell Bock explains the importance of LGBT engagement:

There’s a moral challenge for the way God calls people to live in the standards that he reflects which is a way of saying, “The most efficient, effective, authentic way to live is to live this way.” But you’ve got people who live differently. The very people who you want to challenge with those standards are the very people you want to invite into a new experience with God, who is the solution. If you wall them off from going there, you’ve actually cut [them] off from the solution.[2]

While the church can’t approve of a lifestyle that’s insensitive to God, accepting all people and loving them well mirrors Jesus’ example—challenging people with truth and compassionately serving others. I love how my local church uses the slogan, “Radical inclusivity and profound transformation.” The church should be inclusive, while recognizing that a real relationship with God includes life transformation. This is a great starting point for answering the question, “How should I relate to my gay friends?”

How can we challenge people well as ambassadors of Jesus?

Mark Yarhouse introduced me to something called “convicted civility” which focuses on the relational part of engagement. Our team at the Hendricks Center invited him to share with the students at a DTS cultural engagement chapel. I like how he said:

“We have far too many Christians who are strong on convictions, but you wouldn’t want them to represent you in any public way because… they do it [in a way that is] not very civil in its engagement and loving and caring. Then you have Christians who are so civil, so loving, so caring, that you have no idea what they stand for. There’s this tension that you want to live out.”[3]

So, what’s it look like to balance conviction and civility? Mark told a story about a day he invited a gay activist to his presentation on sexuality. This broke down stereotypes and led to meaningful conversation:

I was making a presentation and a local gay activist contacted our university and said “I’m going [to be there].” Then, he did a YouTube video calling for all of his gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and other friends to come and just sit in the front couple rows and stare me down… so I invited them to come. [I thought], “He’s coming anyway, protesting me!” I invited him to come and meet me and meet my students, and sure enough, they sat down in the front rows and stared at me as I was presenting.

But I talked with him afterwards. He made a video afterwards and said, “You know, I didn’t agree with everything this guy said, but it wasn’t as bad as I thought it was.” And… he was just eviscerated by people within the gay community who felt like he should’ve been tougher on me…

One of the guys who came to protest me, I went out for coffee with him a few times. He was raised in a Christian home. He talked about his upbringing. He said, “Look, I thought when I met you that you were going to have smoke coming out of your nostrils and horns on your head. That’s the way you were depicted to me, and yet here we are having coffee and talking about this.”[4]

Interestingly, the protestor got more push-back from the gay community than he did from Christians who extended a hand to him. The whole idea of “convicted civility” is relational. But it shows there’s no need to give up our convictions while interacting with those who challenge a biblical sexuality.

Engaging with Courage and Compassion

The next time someone asks you, “How should I relate to my gay friends and co-workers?” Think about Paul’s words: “Receive others as you have been received by Christ” (Romans 15:7). When we were far from God, Jesus took the initiative to engage from a heart of compassion. Relating to people on the basis of love can give people pause—even those who disagree with us on moral issues.

Unfortunately, one of the first things many people think about when they hear the word “Christian” is “intolerant bigot” or something like that. A key way to break down this stereotype is engaging with courage and compassion. So that when someone hears the claim that “Christians are intolerant bigots,” their first thought would be “Are you sure about that? I actually know some Christians and they don’t treat me that way at all.” As my friend Sean McDowell says:

The power of individual lives and Christians reaching out to nonbelievers and people of all different stripes is probably the most important way to overturn this cultural stereotype that is affecting the way that we’re seen and relate to people.[5]

So, how can we relate to our gay friends and neighbors while holding to biblical convictions? By understanding the difference between acceptance and approval. By approaching conversations with convicted civility. And extending a hand that offers something way more than just tolerance—the love of Jesus.

Recommended Links

Notes

[1] Table Podcast, Grace and Truth in LGBT Engagement

[2] Ibid.

[3] DTS Voice, What Does Convicted Civility Look Like?

[4] Ibid.

[5] Table Podcast, Truth, Love, and Defending the Faith

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2snkdUX

/by
Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney_ Journalists Worthy of the Name

Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney: Journalists Worthy of the Name

By Terrell Clemmons

Phelim McAleer was in Pennsylvania in early 2013 doing a series of screenings of his film FrackNation. As he often did when travelling, he checked the local paper for interesting court cases underway, and a case concerning a doctor in Philadelphia caught his attention. And so it happened that on one of his days off, he walked into the courtroom where abortionist Kermit Gosnell was standing trial for a slew of charges including (but not limited to) murder, infanticide, and multiple violations of state abortion law.

Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney_ Journalists Worthy of the Name

Phelim had seen a lot in his twenty-five years in journalism (he started his career in a part of Northern Ireland known as “Bandit Country”), but the evidence he saw that day in Room 304 of the Philadelphia Justice Center surpassed anything he’d previously encountered. The photos displayed up on a big screen—pictures of well-formed babies, some of whose necks had been snipped with scissors after live birth—were more horrific than anything he’d ever seen. All of this was shocking in itself, but what was even more astounding to him as a journalist was that the press gallery behind him was completely empty. There were no national journalists covering this case. Not one. How could this be?

He returned home to Los Angeles and told his journalist partner and wife, Ann McElhinney, that he had found the next project they would work on. At first, Ann wanted nothing to do with it. This subject was foreign territory for them, way outside their wheelhouse. Besides, both she and Phelim had always considered themselves neutral on abortion. Why venture into such a hornet’s nest?

Phelim ordered the court transcripts anyway, and Ann read them. Afterward, she agreed, Yes, they would make this film. It was more than an assent or a shared inclination. It was a conviction. Here was information of significant public interest, and it was shameful that no one was putting it out. A film about this had to be made; therefore, they would make it.

Truth-Telling in the Public Interest

It would be a controversial undertaking, but Phelim and Ann were no strangers to covering controversy. Both natives of Ireland, they had started out as print journalists, but then moved into filmmaking. For one of their early productions, The Search for Tristan’s Mum, Ann went undercover to infiltrate a corrupt baby trafficking ring in Indonesia. As a result of her investigation, Tristan was returned to his natural mother, and the baby sellers were put in prison.

While they were living in Romania in the early 2000s, an uproar arose about a gold mine in Transylvania called the RosË›ia Montana˘ă Project. They watched as Western environmentalists and activist groups like Greenpeace came in with their agendas, talking for the locals as if the locals couldn’t speak for themselves. Worse, the media were not reporting the truth of the matter—that the vast majority of the locals very much wanted the mine.

The RosË›ia Montana˘ăsituation provoked a kind of conversion moment for them on two levels. They saw that (1) capitalism was the economic system best suited to lift people out of poverty, and (2) mainstream journalism was not only doing a shoddy job of reporting the truth, but at some point it was downright corrupt, in that the narrative of the outside environmentalists was being reported rather than the actual truth on the ground. So in 2006, they released Mine Your Own Business, which told the truth about the mining village and also examined other mining projects in the developing world that were under threat of opposition from powerful outside interests.

Continuing with the theme of Big Environmentalism and the effect it can have on impoverished communities, in 2009 they produced Not Evil Just Wrong, which examined and critiqued hysteria about global warming. Then, in 2013, came FrackNation, for which Phelim faced threats, cops, and bogus lawsuits to tell the stories of rural Americans whose livelihoods stood at risk because of misinformation about hydraulic fracking.

And so, while on the surface the trial of an abortion doctor appeared to be a change of direction, at a more basic level, it was a continuation of the journalistic duty to report facts and stories mainstream journalism was misreporting, or in the case of Gosnell, outright ignoring.

Accidental Discovery

Ironically, the abortion “House of Horrors,” as the Philadelphia Women’s Medical Society at 3801 Lancaster Avenue came to be known, was also discovered quite by accident. Kermit Gosnell had been under investigation for running an illegal prescription drug racket in early 2010, when Tosha Lewis, an informant recruited from Gosnell’s clinic staff, casually mentioned an Asian woman who had died at the clinic a few months back. Something about her death, Tosha said, “just wasn’t right.” The narcotics investigator went to look up the police report, but there was none. This puzzle led to more questions, then to search warrants, and then ultimately to a coordinated raid that included narcotics investigators, the Pennsylvania Departments of State and Health, the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency, and the FBI—all told, a raid of more than twenty participants.

They walked into a veritable waking nightmare. A cat had the run of the place, and the stench of cat feces, urine, and formaldehyde hung in the air. There was blood on the floor, urine on the stairs, and piles of trash everywhere. The chairs, blankets, and all surfaces were drowning in cat hair, and the medical equipment was unsanitary, outdated, rusty, and lying haphazardly about the place in varying states of disrepair.

The more they looked around, the worse it got. A metal cupboard housed jars of severed baby feet. Refrigerators and freezers scattered throughout the cobbled-together maze of a building held more bloody fetal remains—they were stuffed into used water jugs, milk jugs, cat-food containers, plastic bags, and Minute Maid juice bottles. The basement housed -fetal remains stacked to the ceiling.

It was the stuff of horror movies, but this was no Hollywood set. This was real life. Semiconscious women moaned in the waiting room, while none of the post-op patients were hooked up to any kind of monitoring device. Two were bleeding heavily and in such distress that paramedics were called, only to discover that the emergency exit door had been padlocked shut, and no one could find a key. Meanwhile, Gosnell wanted to do an abortion while the investigators went about their work. When he finished, he sat down at his desk wearing torn, bloody surgical gloves and ate his dinner, gesturing with his chopsticks while answering investigators’ questions.

Clearly the team had stumbled onto a crime scene that went beyond drug running and one suspicious death.

Documenting an American Tragedy

In the end, the wheels of the Pennsylvania justice system consigned Kermit Gosnell to life in prison without parole. The challenge for Phelim and Ann became how to tactfully but truthfully document the manifold unsettling realities of this case.

Thorough professionals, they interviewed officials from the local police, the DEA, the FBI, and state oversight boards, along with clinic staff and former patients. Ultimately, Ann decided to write a book about the case, in addition to making the film. “It’s disturbing that this story isn’t widely known,” she explained. And there were aspects of the case that wouldn’t end up in the movie, but that should be recorded. “People should know these things,” she said, her Irish brogue accentuating the conviction.

The result is Gosnell, The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer, a page-turning journalistic account of the case, which has to be read to be believed. Just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does. Along the way, Ann exposes failure after appalling failure, unflinchingly naming names of officials whose responsibility it was to enforce the law or to ensure that medical standards safeguarding women and children were maintained, but who ignored clear warning signs, looked the other way, or blatantly ignored the law. Local and national media did no better.

She candidly admits it was hard:

Reading the testimony and sifting through the evidence in the case in the research for this book and for writing the script of the movie has been brutal. I have wept at my computer. I have said the Our Father sitting at my desk. I am no holy roller—I hadn’t prayed in years—but at times when I was confronted with the worst of this story I didn’t know what else to do.

More Conversion Moments

Until Gosnell, she found prolife activists distasteful—too earnest, too religious, maybe even manipulative. Back off with your scary pictures, she thought, I’m sure they’ve been photo-shopped anyway. After learning of the Gosnell case, though, everything changed. The images shown in the courtroom were not from activists. They were from police detectives, medical examiners, and employees of the Gosnell clinic testifying under oath.

Similarly, the voices in her book and in the film are not pro-life voices. The most powerful testimonies in the trial, Ann said, were those of the abortion doctors themselves when describing what constituted “a good, legal abortion.” Nearly everyone on the jury was pro-choice at the outset, but some let out audible gasps as an expert witness abortionist explained in detail what she did. Nor was it just Phelim, Ann, and jury members who would reexamine their views. “Prosecutors, several journalists, and even Gosnell’s own lawyer ultimately experienced changes of heart and mind,” Ann wrote.

“Basically, once you find out the truth about abortion, you drop the pro-choice easy narrative very quickly,” says Phelim. “Abortion is like an article of faith for some people, you know? They don’t think about it, but they just are pro-abortion. I’ll tell you, their faith was shattered. Everyone’s faith was shattered.”

Changing people’s minds, though, is not what they set out to do. “They used to say in journalism, if you want to send a message, go to Western Union,” Phelim says. “We didn’t go into this to send a message. We went in to tell the truth.” And so, when it comes to Gosnell, “our message to pro-life and pro-choice people is, find out the truth. Make an informed decision. Because when you find out the truth about abortion as a pro-choice person, it will rattle your confidence in your pro-choice position. And that’s exactly what journalism should be about.”

Both Phelim and Ann hope that through their book and film, people will find out the truth, and that something like Gosnell’s clinic will never happen again. “The truth is very, very important,” Phelim says, “and the truth will set you free. That’s what I want.”

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2AwiyRL

/by
Book Review God's Crime Scene for Kids

Book Review: God’s Crime Scene for Kids

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Several years ago, cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace wrote the book “God’s Crime Scene” where he details his investigation, as an atheist, into the evidence for God’s existence. In the book, he explains that investigating the universe for an outside cause is quite similar to the investigation of a death scene. If the evidence at the scene can be explained by “staying in the room,” then an outside cause (murder) can be reasonably removed. Likewise, if all the evidence within the universe can be explained by “staying in the room” of the universe, then an outside cause (God) is not a reasonable conclusion. In both cases, though, when evidence requires an outside cause, then the conclusion cannot be avoided. You can read my chapter-by-chapter review of “God’s Crime Scene” here.

Book Review God's Crime Scene for Kids

“God’s Crime Scene” is the second book in a trilogy that includes “Cold-Case Christianity” and “Forensic Faith.” Because of the popularity of this series, Wallace and his wife adapted the content of the books to a younger audience: kids! Today’s review is the second in the kids’ series: “God’s Crime Scene for Kids.“

The Story

In this second story, the young cadets find themselves investigating a new mystery: the source and purpose of the contents of an old box found in one of the cadets’ attic. Detective Jeffries takes the cadets through a new series of investigative principles, giving them new tools to apply as they investigate. Detective Jeffries, like he did with the previous mystery of the skateboard, uses the principles to guide the cadets through an investigation of ultimate concern: the purpose and cause of the universe. The cadets use the contents of the box to determine if they must look outside the box for a cause or if the explanation exists in the box; likewise, they use the contents of the universe to determine if they must look outside the universe for its cause or if the universe is sufficient to explain its own contents. As the investigation into the box, its contents, and possible explanations progresses, Detective Jeffries asks the cadets eight specific questions about the universe’s contents and possible explanations:

  1. Was the universe an inside or outside job?
  2. Who or what is responsible for the universe’s being here?
  3. Does information require an author?
  4. Is there evidence of an artist?
  5. Are humans more than just the “stuff” of the universe
  6. Can humans really make choices?
  7. Is “right” and “wrong” more than just a matter of opinion?
  8. Can an all-powerful and all-loving God exist with the evil in this universe?

Just as in the first mystery, the cadets simultaneously build their case for the source and purpose of the contents of the old box and the same for the universe. As each question is asked and possible explanations are considered, the possible explanations are narrowed down until only one for each remains reasonable given the contents of box and the universe.

The Case-Maker’s Academy

The Wallaces designed the book to not just be read but to be interactive. They bring the kids into the story by providing the Case-Maker’s Academy online for the kids to follow along with the story’s cadets as they go through the investigations. Once completed, the kids receive their own certificate they can show to their friends.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

As with the first book in the series (Cold-Case Christianity for Kids), the Wallaces did another masterful job of taking the content of a more advanced book and presenting it in an entertaining and easily understandable way for our children. I can’t wait to get my kids into this book (really, the whole series). No doubt, this book will help spark many conversations about God and the universe, and the Wallaces made it easy to find answers, for even those beginning to become familiar with this material, by having the content follow the order of the original “parent’s” edition (God’s Crime Scene). Just as I highly recommended the first book, I highly recommend this one as well. Now, on to the third in the trilogy- Forensic Faith for Kids, but something tells me there is no need for you to wait for a review… just go get it!

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2rWOUAg

/by
A Quick History Lesson

A Quick History Lesson

,

By Nick Peters

Objection:

The Bible is a compendium of fireside tales and fables recounted orally for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age until writing was invented, and then again many different sources, transliterations, and versions were written down.

A Quick History Lesson

There were no grand central universities to organize the many various versions of these origin stories. They were for entertainment, and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe since there was no science yet. This is the Old Testament.

The ‘new’ Testes is also hearsay since these letters, ‘gospels’ and stories were written by the loyal faithful, the camp followers, not by objective historians at that particular time, or by any contemporary writers, and these tales were written many years after the supposed events of this mythical Jesus. Thus, there is no verifiable evidence of a Jesus in real history.

Then many of these stories, but not all, were compiled for one self-absorbed converted Roman Emperor for his expressed purpose of conquest and control of the people of Europe for his Holy Roman Empire. He recognized that this was the perfect religion/mythology for domination of the populace. Half the stories were ignored by the Nicean Bishops, and none have been proven to be based on fact.

This ‘Bable’ is backed up by absolutely no facts and evidence.

– Brien

Nick Peters’ Response:

I have been asked by Tim Stratton to write a reply to Brien as he has been making these same objections in various groups on social media — including the FreeThinking Ministries Facebook page. Tim refers to it as a “softball objection.” I really think that’s inappropriate because when you play softball, there’s an actual target to swing at.

Let’s go through and consider Brien’s objections:

“The Bible is a compendium of fireside tales and fables recounted orally for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age until writing was invented, and then again many different sources, transliterations, and versions were written down.”

Let’s begin by noting that no evidence is given to support any of these assertions. It’s all a “just so” story. Somehow, Brien knows these stories go back to the Stone Age. How? What evidence has been brought forward? Nothing. There’s also this implication that people who are goat herders specifically — and all primitives — must be therefore stupid. It’s one of my favorite claims to see: “Ancient People Were Stupid!”

Then we are told writing was invented and many different sources, transliterations, and versions were written down. Well, a source is something that’s used when writing, so that part doesn’t make sense. Then transliteration supposedly, but that’s using another alphabet to write a message, so what message was being transliterated if the alphabet hadn’t been written? Then he claims there are many versions, but where are these versions? Can Brien show them? We could recommend that he read a book like this, but that’s likely too much work. (By the way, for those financially challenged libraries offer these books for free.)

“There were no grand central universities to organize the many various versions of these origin stories. They were for entertainment, and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe since there was no science yet.

This is the Old Testament.”

That’s true. There were no grand central universities. After all, there was no Christianity yet, and Christians started the majority of those universities, including the universities that were founded in America. In the medieval period, there were plenty of universities founded by Christians. As for why the stories were written, again, we have a “just so” story. It’s also assumed the accounts are meant to be read as scientific accounts. I disagree. I go with John Walton in saying the accounts are aimed at dealing with God declaring the function of creation in being a cosmos for Him to dwell in. Still, Brien has given zero evidences or sources for any of this.

“The ‘new’ Testes is also hearsay since these letters, ‘gospels’ and stories were written by the loyal faithful, the camp followers, not by objective historians at that particular time, or by any contemporary writers, and these tales were written many years after the supposed events of this mythical Jesus.”

Awwww. “The New Testes.” Isn’t that cute? I bet Brien sure feels like a big boy using terminology like that. Well, give him a cookie. So the first statement we have is that the Gospels are hearsay. On what grounds? First, they were written by the loyal faithful.

I was not aware that being loyal to a cause meant that your account was hearsay or even dare I say it, unreliable. They are also contrasted to objective historians. Keep in mind, Jews today have the best holocaust museums out there, and I’m quite sure they have a bias. As for objective historians, no historian is purely objective. If you write about something, it’s because you care about it.

Besides that, which historians should have written about Jesus? How many of them are going to take seriously the claims of a crucified criminal in the backwaters of Judea being a Messiah figure? No more than most elite will go and track down a Benny Hinn claim.

‘Finally, these were not by contemporary writers and were written many years after the events.’

Well, usually historical accounts are written after the events. That’s the way it works. Next, this is also common in the ancient world. Plutarch would write about events that took place centuries before he lived. The first biographies of Alexander the Great that we have come centuries later.

Next, there is still no evidence given. Perhaps Brien could someday learn to interact with a work like this one. Does Brien have any methodology whereby to date an ancient manuscript? Does he have a methodology to determine authorship?

Finally, this would only apply to the Gospels. Seven of the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul are universally accepted in scholarship, and those seven are all we need to make a case for the resurrection of Jesus.

“Thus, there is no verifiable evidence of a Jesus in real history.”

At this point, we just put our heads back and roar in laughter! Jesus mythicism is to history what Intelligent Design (ID) is said to be to science. (I am not a supporter of ID anyway.) Wait. That’s not accurate. There are far more Ph.D.’s in science that will give some backing to it than there are Ph.D.’s in the New Testament or ancient history that will support mythicism. In other words, if you think ID and/or any denial of evolution is junk science, you have no grounds to be supporting mythicism.

Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey are both serious NT scholars who have written on this topic. They definitely represent the position of most skeptical scholars on this issue. It’s just not a serious claim. It leaves too many questions to explain and lacks much explanatory power itself.

“Then many of these stories, but not all, were compiled for one self-absorbed converted Roman Emperor for his expressed purpose of conquest and control of the people of Europe for his Holy Roman Empire. He recognized that this was the perfect religion/mythology for domination of the populace. Half the stories were ignored by the Nicean Bishops, and none have been proven to be based on fact.”

Poor Brien doesn’t know his history. The Holy Roman Empire started in 800 with Charlemagne. The Council of Nicea was under Constantine in 325. Constantine didn’t have much to do with it and Athanasius, the grand hero of the event, went into exile numerous times afterward as Arians took power. Brien tells us half the stories were ignored by the bishops. No evidence is given of this, and the Council of Nicea was about the Arian controversy. It was not about the canon of Scripture. The first listing we have that mirrors the Protestant Bible comes from Athanasius in 367.

Brien tells us this was the perfect mythology to control the populace. Why? No reason is given. All we have is assertions of faith.

“This ‘Bable’ is backed up by absolutely no facts and evidence.”

You might think this if you ignore all scholarship and archaeology and everything else. It seems as if Brien has never read any scholarship. In an irony, he is like many pastors in many pulpits that he would decry. Reading Brien’s writing reminds me of the joke about the fundamentalist pastor writing the sermon outline for Sunday and putting on the side, “Weak point. Pound pulpit harder.” It would remind me more if there were any points here at all. Brien is just a “fundamentalist pastor” for the other side giving statements of faith without evidence.

Irony is funny, isn’t it?

 

Nick Peters has a passion for apologetics. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in preaching and Bible from Johnson University and is currently working on a Master’s in the New Testament. He and his wife are both diagnosed with Aspergers and have a cat named Shiro. His other interests include reading, video games, and popular TV shows like The Big Bang Theory and The Flash. Nick says that he is extremely sarcastic, so you’ve been warned! Make sure to check out his Deeper Waters website here at www.deeperwatersapologetics.com

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2UGvMUe

/by
Is missionary work full of “cultural imperialism and insane arrogance”

Is missionary work full of “cultural imperialism and insane arrogance?”

,

By Erik Manning

John Allen Chau’s death has sparked questions about the morality of Christian missions. Is missionary work full of “cultural imperialism and insane arrogance?”

Is missionary work full of “cultural imperialism and insane arrogance”

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, by now you’ve heard about the death of John Allen Chau. The 26-year old missionary traveled to a remote Indian island in hopes of sharing his faith with an isolated and uncivilized tribe called the Sentinelese. This group was known for their aggression towards outsiders and even fired arrows on his approaching boat. Unmoved, Chau made it to the island only to have been killed the next day. To avoid conflict with the Sentinelese, local authorities have given up trying to recover his body.

Chau’s death has sparked a lot of debate about the morality of Christian missions. Let’s just say that the reaction has not been all that empathetic. Social media have called him all kinds of names. Some have even made him the subject of some pretty appalling and mean-spirited memes.

The press has also chimed in. Many have raised questions of arrogance and imperialism. Here’s just a little sampling:

Meme Erik M blog

“This was an act of cultural imperialism and insane arrogance…” — Janet Street-Porter, The Independent

“There is no question that this attempt to make contact was totally wrong and a major violation of their human rights to autonomy. Outsiders need to respect their wishes and treat them with dignity as fellow human beings. Respect means we don’t assume to know better how they should live.” — John Bodley, anthropologist, quoted in The New York Times

“Those who seek to change their culture, their gods or their beliefs are practicing a form of violence. Perhaps people will only understand this when extraterrestrials arrive here and try to evangelize us with their gods and doctrines.” — Sydney Possuelo, Brazilian explorer, quoted in The New York Post

Was Chau “a violator of human rights?” Are Christian missionaries practicing a “form of violence?”

If your smug-detector is working, you’re probably picking up on some thinly veiled arrogance in statements like these. There are some hidden assumptions going on here.

First, these statements assume some sort of religious relativism. Either all religions are equally valid paths to God. Or none of them really are, but people ought to be left alone to determine the truth for themselves.

Furthermore, these statements assume that Christians are wrong about the uniqueness of Christ.

It seems like that in our day the only heresy is to say that religious truth can be exclusive. This runs cross-grain against the message of the early church. Before the Sanhedrin, Peter said:

“Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead…Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:10–12)

If there is no resurrection, then all Christian missionaries are wasting their lives.

St. Paul is the paradigm of Christian missionaries. He traveled all over the Greco-Roman world, spreading the gospel to people who never heard about Jesus. He tried to convert Jews, and he tried converting idol-worshipers. He said he had an obligation to the civilized and the savage. (Romans 1:14) And he had a lot of success, but he also experienced great persecution.

In his letters and in the Book of Acts we read about what hardship he endured. He was in and out of prison. He was repeatedly whipped, beaten with rods, was once stoned and left for dead. He survived three shipwrecks trying to take the gospels to other nations. (2 Corinthians 11:23–27) And he eventually was beheaded by the Romans.

Was Paul some kind of crazy, arrogant imperialist? What were his motives? Paul himself said:

“If we are “out of our mind,” as some say, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” (2 Corinthians 5:13–15)

Now if the resurrection of Jesus isn’t historical, and if the religions of those he preached to were as equally valid as his, then what he did was wrong. We can say with confidence he wasted his life. Paul himself said as much:

“I face death every day — yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.” (1 Corinthians 15:30–32)

Now, I’m not at all saying Chau is a modern-day Paul. I’m not in a position to judge his motives or the wisdom of his actions. Other people who understand the complexity of world missions have weighed in, and I’ll defer to their expertise. But what I will say is that he seemed to be motivated by love to share what he believed to be true and important. That’s not arrogance and imperialism. That would be the true motive of any missionary or evangelist.

If we’re arrogant for thinking what we believe is true, then we’re all arrogant.

Think about it for a second. If you say Christianity is evil because it’s exclusive, you too are being exclusive. By making saying something is immoral you’re excluding it by calling it evil. The whole arrogance charge simply backfires. How can you not believe what you think is true?

Allow me to illustrate with a moral analogy. If you believe in global warming and others don’t, does that make you arrogant? You could believe based on the evidence you’ve examined. Or you could believe on the authority of others you trust.

That would make you, in some sense, an exclusivist. In your mind, those who doubt global warming would be believing something false and even harmful. You might even become a climate change “evangelist”. You’ll encourage others to use renewable energy, weatherize their homes, drive hybrids and stump for certain kinds of legislation. You’ll want to share with people the evidence you’ve heard. I mean, the planet depends on it. It’s a big deal. Those beliefs do not make you arrogant, imperialistic or disrespectful.

If there’s evidence for the resurrection — and I believe that there is in spades — then sharing the gospel can’t possibly be arrogant or imperialistic. Considering the implications of the Gospel, the Christian sharing this would be no worse than the outspoken environmentalist.

Christians who don’t share their faith are the real moral failures

You probably have heard of Penn Jillette. He’s best known for his work with fellow magician Teller as half of the team Penn & Teller. He’s also a very outspoken atheist. In an interview, he said that Christians who don’t share their faith are the ones who have a real moral problem. Quoting Penn:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward — and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself — how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

This is what real tolerance looks like. He doesn’t agree with Christianity. But he doesn’t assume that people are jerks for sharing their faith with him. He respects their concern even if he feels they’re mistaken.

As for Chau, I don’t write to make him some kind of a paradigm of what real Christianity should look like. Yet in a day where Christians are so tight-lipped about sharing their faith to avoid being awkward, I gotta say that I at least respect his guts. What I’m getting at is that missions and Christian evangelism is not based on a lack of respect. Nor is it a form of violence against others. Rather, it would be a lack of respect and love to always remain silent.

To Explore More:

Here’s Jillette’s statement on proselytizing, if you’re interested:

And here is the famous Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga on the topic of arrogance and Christian exclusivism:

 

Erik Manning is graduated of Rhema Bible Training College and is interested in the intersection of culture, evangelism and Christian apologetics. isjesusalive.com

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2A2RnNU

/by
Why You, Yes You, Need to Defend What Is True

Why You, Yes You, Need to Defend What Is True

By Michael Sherrard 

What is going on? Can you imagine if you fell into a coma and woke up in 2015?  Or if you had a Delorean and traveled from 1985 to 2015? So there’s no hoverboards, but there are computers that fit in your pocket and boys that think they are girls and are allowed to shower in the girl’s locker room. And they win awards for their bravery.

Why You, Yes You, Need to Defend What Is True

Anybody angry? Anybody feel overwhelmed? Anybody want to run and start a commune? Anyone ready to fight? Anybody just feels broken over the lostness? Hearing these stories causes a lot of different emotions, doesn’t it? It’s a troubling time for many? And it has brought much confusion.

What are we to do in the midst of all that is going on?

First, Christians we do not lose heart. And we certainly aren’t going to fear what is going on.

We trust in a mighty God and our hope will not be disappointed. We are to be strong and courageous. We are to act. Jesus did not redeem us for irrelevance. So what are we to do?

The way forward must involve these three things if we wish to see our culture flourish once again. We, the true followers of Jesus Christ, need to clean up our house, learn how to defend our beliefs, and expose sin for what it is.

This excerpt from “Where Do We Go From Here” highlights the need for all believers to be able to defend Christianity, show images like aborted children, and tell our redemptive stories.

Hear:

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, the director of Ratio Christi College Prep, and the author of Relational Apologetics. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LidfJE

/by
Is Isaiah 7 14 a Messianic Prophecy

Is Isaiah 7:14 a Messianic Prophecy?

,

By Brian Chilton

More and more scholars are becoming skeptical of Messianic prophecy in the Hebrew Bible—that is, the Old Testament. Michael Rydelniknotes that “Although evangelical scholarship still recognizes that there is something messianic about the Hebrew Bible, for the most part, it sees it as a story that finds its climax in Jesus, not as predictions that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled” (Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope,3-4). Yet, such skepticism is not justified. Sure, some passages in the Hebrew Bible have been stretched beyond its scope, something that can become a dangerous trend. Nevertheless, certain passages in the Hebrew Bible enjoy a status of being both Messianic in context and in its history.

Is Isaiah 7 14 a Messianic Prophecy

One such Messianic prophecy is found in Isaiah 7:14. Four schools of thought have developed on how one should interpret Isaiah 7:14. Some hold to direct fulfillment indicating that the text only speaks to the fulfillment found in Messiah. Others hold to a historical fulfillment which claims that the text only addresses the birth of a child in Isaiah’s day. A third view holds to a double fulfillment in that the prophecy was fulfilled to a degree in Isaiah’s day and later in the Messiah. A fourth view is espoused by Arnold Fruchtenbaum. He calls it a double reference (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua, 364). A double reference “states that one piece of Scripture actually contains two prophecies, each having its own fulfillment” (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua,364). After researching the passage, I must agree that in Isaiah 7:14 one finds a double reference. Although Isaiah 7:14 is among the most controversial of Messianic prophecies (Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope, 147), several good reasons exist to accept the prophecy as Messianic in scope.

  1. King Ahaz and House of David. To understand the passage, one must understand the chapter in which Isaiah 7:14 is found. Isaiah comes to King Ahazwhile Ahaz, and King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel were reigning. Yahweh (the personal name for God) tells Isaiah to bring his son Shear-jashub with him to meet Ahaz (Is. 7:3). Yahweh speaks to Isaiah again telling him to ask Ahaz for a sign (7:10-11), but Ahaz refuses (7:12). After Ahaz refuses, Isaiah turns his attention to the house of David (7:13) asking if they would try the patience of Yahweh. It is then that Isaiah delivers the Immanuel prophecy. From keeping the text in context, Yahweh through Isaiah is addressing two distinct groups of people. On the one hand, he is addressing King Ahaz. On the other hand, he is addressing the house of David. The Immanuel prophecy is given to the house of David and not to King Ahaz. King Ahaz’s sign was found in Isaiah’s son Shear-jashub who already reached the age of accountability and chose to do what was right. Ahaz was much older and still chose to do what was evil. Thus, Ahaz’s kingdom was coming to an end.
  2. Singular and Plural Language. A close examination of the Hebrew text shows a difference in the language used directed toward Ahaz as opposed to the house of David. When Isaiah is addressing Ahaz, he uses singular language and uses plural language when speaking to the house of David. As Fruchtenbaum noted earlier, the text appears to be giving two differing prophecies—one to Ahaz and one to the house of David. Since the Immanuel prophecy is directed to the house of David, it is not necessary to hold that the prophecy only addresses Ahaz and even his time.
  3. Present and Future Language. In the Immanuel prophecy, Isaiah uses the Hebrew imperfect verb yitten, which means “he will give,” to describe the timing of the prophecy. The imperfect verb in Hebrew describes something that is incomplete and will transpire at some point in the future. Thus, the sign for the house of David was a sign given byGod to transpire at some point in the future. When? The text does not say. Therefore, it is completely appropriate to think that the text could find its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah.
  4. ‘Almah and Parthenos. The Revised Standard Version translation made a great deal of waves in the Christian community when it translated ‘almah as“young woman” instead of the classical translation of “virgin.” Does the term refer to a young woman or a virgin? The answer is both. ‘Almah is almost always used in the Hebrew Bible to denote a young woman who has just reached the age of marriage who had not yet wed. ‘Almah is used in the following passages in the Hebrew Bible: 1) Gen. 24:43 used of Rebekah; 2) Ex. 2:8 used of Miriam, Moses’s sister; 3) Ps. 68:25 used in the divine royal procession, the virgins symbolize purity; 4) So. 1:3 refers to the purity in marriage; 5) So. 6:8 contrasts the purity of virginity with the impurity of concubines; 6) Pr. 30:18-19 also contrasts virginity with adultery, and 7) in Is. 7:14 (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua, 364-365). In Jewish culture, a young woman who just reached the age of marriage most certainly implied the woman’s virginal status. The translators of the Septuagint (LXX) understood this to be the case. The LXX translates ‘almahin Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek term parthenos which most certainly means “virgin.”
  5. Current and Future Understanding. Isaiah connects the birth of the child from Isaiah 7:14 to the prophecies given in 9:6-7 and in 11:1-10. Thus, the prophet took the view at the time the prophecy was given that this promised child would come at some point in the future. This child would be linked intrinsically with God in some fashion. But not only did Isaiah understand the prophecy in this way, other did also. Micah is one such example. Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah’s, linked his prophecy in some sense with that of Isaiah 7:14. Micah notes that “Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; one will come from you to be ruler over Israel for me. His origin is from antiquity, from ancient times” (Mi. 5:2). As already noted, the translators of the LXX understood Isaiah 7:14 to refer to a virgin in the 100s BC. Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 was recognized to be Messianic, or at least more prophetic than some modern scholars, as well as by early Christians, such as Matthew 1:23.

Isaiah 7:14 is a glorious passage that prophesies the birth of a royal, divine king that was to be born in the most miraculous of fashions. In our attempt to properly interpret the Bible, let us not be drawn to a hyper-skepticism that very well could combat the very thinking of the writers of the New Testament. They held the text to be Messianic not because they made it that way, but because that was the prophetic intention of the text.

Sources

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Yeshua: The Life of Messiah from a Messianic Jewish Perspective. Volume One. San Antonio, TX: Ariel, 2017.

Rydelnik, Michael. The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? NAC Studies in Bible & Theology. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at LibertyUniversity and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zWk139

/by