Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christian Apologetics

  • Removing Mormons from the Cult List

    There’s something deeply troubling about the decision by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association to remove Mormons from the list of cults on their web site.

    My concern is not with failing to list any particular group as a cult. In fact, as commonly used in Christian apologetics, I don’t think the label or lists of groups to which it should be applied, is very helpful. My approach is to be positive. I believe in a set of doctrines that I could label broadly orthodox Christianity (note lower case ‘o’), i.e. I’m a trinitarian Christian and I can say the Apostles’ Creed without crossing my fingers. My understanding is that a Mormon could not. That doesn’t make Mormons bad people, and the label “cult” tends to suggest that. At the same time, I don’t think it’s bigoted to point out that my beliefs and those of Mormons are not compatible in the sense that we won’t be in fellowship at the same church.

    If, at some point other than the election, the BGEA had removed the reference to Mormons as a cult in order to foster dialog, without otherwise modifying their doctrinal statement (i.e., one could easily read and see who believes what), I would have no objection. What troubles me is that this is done in the context of the election. That gives the feeling that this was done to accomplish a political goal.

    That’s dangerous in at least two ways. First, if it was important to note those differences in a document on cults before, what changed? Politics. The desire to elect a particular candidate has changed the way Christian beliefs are proclaimed. The gospel has been subjected to a political agenda. Second, it implies that even if Mitt Romney agrees with a Christian voter on most issues, he really needs to be labeled a Christian before we can vote for him. There are many reasons one might dislike or oppose Romney. The fact that he holds different doctrinal beliefs than I do is not one of them.

    Under the appropriate circumstances I could vote for a person who is Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, agnostic, atheist, or any of a number of other faiths. What are the “appropriate circumstances?” Agreement on a political agenda and the belief that the candidate has the integrity to carry out those goals.

    It has been noted by many that we’re not voting for pastor-in-chief, and rightly so, though people seem less likely to apply that standard to the candidate they oppose. At the same time, we must not behave as though we’re electing a pastor-in-chief. And that means don’t subordinate the gospel and the mission of the church to the beliefs of our candidate or to a political agenda. To those in the church, no political agenda can be as important as the mission of the church.

    (Also note comments on this topic by Arthur Sido.)

  • Defensive Christianity

    PrayerI’ve seen a great number of words from Christians here in America recently, some of them coming from Facebook or Twitter, some in blog posts, some in words spoken directly to me, or on Television or the Radio. I’m not going to cite specific sources, because I’m not writing about what some particular person said. Rather, I’m writing about an atmosphere.

    The atmosphere is one of defensiveness, reflecting a Christianity that is on the defensive. Sometimes this refers to the church as a whole losing ground or being in danger. Sometimes it refers to one’s personal position or standing with God. Sometimes it refers to personal safety. At other times it’s about the course our nation is taking.

    Now I want to be clear that I’m talking about American Christianity here. I would hate for my brothers and sisters in places where they are truly threatened to think I’m talking about them.

    We American Christians live in a land of plenty. Yes, we’ve had some times that have been harder than usual, but we’re still doing well financially when compared to the vast majority of people on this planet. We also live in a nation where we are in the majority. Now I know many will question this by asking how many true Christians there are as opposed to just nominal Christians. My response to that is simply to point out that we tend to claim all those who identify themselves as Christians when we want to emphasize the strength of Christianity. Should we be permitted to change the definition in another context so we can call ourselves a minority?

    By defensive, I don’t mean that we actively defend our faith. I think apologetics is a good discipline. We should be able to give an answer for our faith.

    What I mean is that we live our Christian lives in a state of fear. We’re afraid that our young people will learn something in college that will make them lose their faith. We’re afraid that a book that teaches something heretical will lead us (or someone we call “weaker”) astray. We’re afraid that a Mormon president might make heretics of us all, or that a liberal Christian as president will change the face of the country. We’re afraid that the language in party platforms or the content of political speeches will make or break our lives here.

    We think that the results of this upcoming election may bring disaster and that we have to get desperate and persuade all our friends and relatives to vote the same way we do, because if the right person doesn’t win, our country is finished. We think we need to pray for God to make things go the right way, lest the wrong person get into power.

    The sum of all our fears makes us seem, and indeed be, defensive. We do not witness to the God who rules in the kingdoms of men (Daniel 4:17) because we aren’t really sure that he does. We think that the issue depends on us: our prayers, our actions, our votes, our words.

    It doesn’t depend on us.

    I’m not suggesting that we don’t pray. We need to pray, but we need to pray especially that God will work in us (more on prayer).

    I’m not suggesting that we don’t act. We need to act regularly. I’d suggest that Matthew 25:31-46 and related passages as a guide to our actions.

    I’m not suggesting that we don’t speak. Let our words be a witness to the One we belong to.

    I’m not suggesting that we don’t vote. I plan to vote. I hope you do too. In my view it’s a duty and a privilege. But God’s kingdom doesn’t depend on it.

    But what about our rights? Shouldn’t we be defending our civil rights, our freedom of religion?

    Yes, again, but remember that God’s kingdom doesn’t depend on our civil rights. In fact, some of Christianity’s greatest moments have been under persecution when church members had no rights at all.

    And if we remember that, we might also remember to defend everyone’s rights. We might add to “doing to others what we would have them to do us” something new: Defending the rights of others as we would hope they would defend ours. Whose rights might those be?

    Perhaps it would be a group of Muslims who want to build a mosque in “your” community.

    Perhaps it would be the atheist child who doesn’t want to be made a participant in your prayers in a public place.

    Perhaps it would be that person who has been singled out by security because he looks like a terrorist.

    Our willingness to see people in each of these groups given less rights than we have is a sign of defensive Christianity.

    A confident Christian would welcome Muslim neighbors and enter into dialogue with them, welcoming the opportunity to be a witness by demonstrating the love of Jesus.

    A confident Christian would be more concerned with the discomfort of the atheist child than he would be with his desire to do things his own way. After all, he can pray just about anywhere.

    A confident Christian would realize that the right thing to do is to defend the rights of the person who looks different than he is.

    I pray for the day when I will truly be a confident Christian, when I will truly desire the well-being of others more than I do my own (Philippians 2:4). I’m praying, not that God will bring about one outcome or another in the election, but that no matter what happens I will learn to live the kingdom of God more and more fully every day.

    I am praying that God will change me so my confidence is in God and not in myself. That’s the only way I can give up defensiveness and truly be defended.

  • The Fanatic Illustrated

    In a previous post I used the relationship between essentials and non-essentials to group ways in which Christians (and Christian groups) operate. One of these approaches to doctrine was labeled “the fanatic” (see image).

    With some help from Joel Watts, I’ve found a good illustration of this, and it’s The Berean Library, which lists as false gospels such diverse folks as Pete Enns, the New Apostolic Reformation, seeker sensitive churches, and preterists. Now I have my own problems with some of these, but there are two reasons I think this particular page illustrates the “fanatic” diagram:

    1. Each of these groups they regard as being in error is accused of teaching a false gospel. In the context of Galatians, from which that label comes, this means that their errors are definitely in essentials.
    2. The wide variety of groups means that a large number of doctrinal positions are regarded as essential.

    This combination means that there is little room for compromise (on non-essentials) or cooperation. This reminds me of a church pastor I called on behalf of a city-wide prayer gathering a few years ago. He informed me that he wouldn’t attend the meeting because there was no point in praying with people who were wrong.

    That would leave me out all the time! I suspect I’m wrong on many things. That’s why I continue to study. Perhaps I can become “righter”

  • In Which I Discover that I Am Not a Thinking Person

    I just made this discovery this morning.

    I mentioned Jerry Coyne’s site in an earlier post Five Sites I read Because I Disagree, and I still read it. I get some good information about evolutionary science and great cat pictures and videos. But Jerry Coyne is not particularly friendly to believers.

    Now I want to be clear. I’m not one to be terribly upset by vigorously expressed viewpoints, so I’m not offended by the new atheists. I’m more concerned with Christians who use excessive rhetoric. After all, we’re supposed to be on the same team. So the new atheists are proud and open about their atheism and their objections to religion, and I have no objection.

    So today I read Coyne’s latest on Bart Ehrman’s new book in which he presents evidence that Jesus existed. Now one has to be careful in stating Ehrman’s thesis. Ehrman doesn’t mean that the divine savior of the world of Christian doctrine existed. He means that there was a man Jesus who existed in history and about which certain things can be said with reasonable historical validity. (I haven’t yet read the book, but I think this much is clear from the reviews. Further, it’s an unsurprising thesis.)

    Coyne is concerned that people will misunderstand Ehrman, and that Christian believers will take comfort from the book. Coyne says, “I’m hoping he isn’t being deliberately ambiguous to cater to believers.” Probably not. Ehrman hasn’t really been known to cater to believers, though his book jackets seem to be designed to annoy them. Compared to the relatively tame content, the jackets manage to stand out as shocking. (I previously blogged through Misquoting Jesus [link to the summary and conclusion with links to the parts].)

    Then his penultimate sentence:

    But what is important, and all those Christians who buy the book should know this, is that both Ehrman and atheists see not a scintilla of evidence that Jesus was the son of God or divine in any way, was born of a virgin or resurrected, or is the way to salvation.

    Really? I would have thought that the important issue was whether Ehrman had done his historical work with any accuracy. Not having read the book yet, I can’t comment in detail, but I suspect he has. I can certainly understand his annoyance with the mythicists who use very poor historical methodology. I see the annoyance that Ehrman seems to be expressing as the the annoyance of a scholar at the use of unscholarly methods and approaches. Coyne would doubtless be quite annoyed were the methods of mythicists used in science. (See James McGrath on this issue–for example, Creationists, Mythicists, and Schroedinger’s Scholar Fallacy.)

    But then there’s the last sentence:

    That remains fiction to all thinking people.

    I am, of course, aware that Coyne regards this as fiction. I’m aware that Ehrman does as well. But that wasn’t the point of Ehrman’s book.

    It’s an interesting form of attack. If you think Jesus was divine in any way, then you are not a thinking person. Not You are a person whose thinking is faulty. Not even You are a thinking person who is mistaken on this point. If you disagree, you are just not a thinking person.

    I think Christians should be forthright and open about what they believe. But when I hear a Christian say something like “You have to be stupid to see the universe, and not believe in God,” I will tend to point out that there are definitely very intelligent atheists, those who are able to think clearly on issues about which we agree. Why would one assume they are suddenly stupid because they disagree on one point? My preference would be for one to simply say, “It is not sensible to assume that something came from nothing.” That may simply push the issue back a level, but it is an attack on the idea, and by implication on the person’s thinking in that particular area, but not an attack upon the person.

    But since I confess that I regard Jesus as divine, not to mention savior of the world, something that is not really an historical question as such, I guess I am not a thinking person.

    Oh well!

     

  • Of Virgin Births and Whale’s Bellies

    Allan Bevere asks an interesting question today on his blog: Just how important is the doctrine of the virgin birth to you? He titles the post Must One Believe in the Virgin Birth to Be a Christian?

    I tend to annoy people on both sides of the spectrum (belief in miracles spectrum, of course) because despite the word “liberal” in the subtitle of this blog I do, in fact, believe in the virgin birth as an event that happened in history, but at the same time, I’m not concerned with whether others believe it or not. Allan cites Albert Mohler, who believes it is necessary to accept the virgin birth in order to be a Christian.

    Allan also stomps on one annoying tendency, the way in which some liberals tend to pounce on conservatives as less intellectual because of their beliefs. If one accepts miracles, one is less sophisticated. But I think it is only fair to point out the opposite fault in Mohler’s article, the tendency to regard liberals as less devout because of the things they don’t believe in.

    Nicholas Kristof pointed to his grandfather as a “devout” Presbyterian elder who believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” Follow his example, Kristof encourages, and join the modern age. But we must face the hard fact that Kristof’s grandfather denied the faith. This is a very strange and perverse definition of “devout.”

    This is a conservative’s way of belittling an opponent, just as “intellectually unsophisticated” is the liberal’s approach. I must, however, point out that neither side is above using the other’s ammunition, and that both sides have those who avoid either fault.

    In support of my belief in the virgin birth, I will be very brief. I’ve already accepted the bodily resurrection, so the virgin birth hardly seems like an issue to me. At the same time, and more importantly, I accept the incarnation as both true and as the most central doctrine of Christianity, and if I can accept that infinite God can become a human being, the idea that this might be accomplished through a virgin birth again seems pretty trivial.

    In support of my belief that the virgin birth is not essential, I will again cite the doctrine of the incarnation. I believe the incarnation is absolutely critical. It’s quite possible, however, to see the virgin birth as a metaphorical statement of that doctrine, or perhaps more precisely an expression of part of the meaning of that doctrine. I don’t even claim to have any details in mind on how the virgin birth might occur. Did God create a new baby in the womb? Did God adjust the DNA? So despite believing in a virgin birth as a historical event, I don’t have a clue as to how it happened. Thus in teaching it, I probably say almost the same things as would someone who believed it was purely metaphor.

    And that brings me to whale’s bellies. On The Jesus Creed we have Scot McKnight getting involved in the question of the historicity of the book of Jonah. (I’ll leave you to follow the further links there.) A miracle of preserving someone’s life for three days inside a sea creature of some sort, whether a whale or something else, is again trivial alongside the incarnation and the resurrection. But I don’t believe the book of Jonah is historical. Why? I think there’s very good evidence in the text that we’re reading fiction designed to make some very specific points to an audience in a different time and place than the one in which the story is set. I don’t have a problem with the miracle. Were I convinced that Jonah was history, nothing else in my belief system would have to change. God could manage the whale’s belly thing. I just happen to believe God did not do so. But if you want to accuse me of being intellectually unsophisticated, go ahead. Because I am intellectually unsophisticated enough to believe the miracle is possible.

    Then there’s the question of Jesus’ use of the three days motif from Jonah. I will simply comment that I know one can refer to a fictional story in this fashion because I have done it myself. I’ve used a fictional story to illustrate a real event and it has generally worked just fine. Occasionally fine, fact-oriented, 21st century folks get upset with me about it, but I tell them to chill.

    I want to respond also to the first comment on McKnight’s article, which is from Joe Carter. Here he wonders how we might distinguish when Jesus is using supernatural power and when he’s using the knowledge of his culture. I’d make two points. 1) If Jesus didn’t use the knowledge of his culture, could he really have been said to have lived as a human? Would not constant supernatural knowledge make him not quite truly human? 2) Is this not the common problem in reading scripture? We distinguish the cultural background from the message all the time in case after case. Surely it is not that difficult in most cases, and in many cases where it is difficult, it is not all that important.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Loving C. S. Lewis and Hating Rob Bell?

    Michael Patton, who often steps into controversial issues (which I do not mean as a criticism), asks why people love C. S. Lewis, but hate Rob Bell. His conclusion is that this is because Bell’s ideas that push the boundaries characterize his ministry, unlike those of C. S. Lewis.

    I must admit that I’ve read only a few lines of Rob Bell, while I’ve read just about everything related to Christianity that C. S. Lewis ever wrote. In addition, I’m not a universalist, though I don’t automatically call universalists heretics.

    But I ‘m going to suggest a different reason why people perceive these two men so differently. Rob Bell is contemporary. He may say many things other than what he said in his most recent book, but he has managed to become the poster boy for certain controversies. I’m not sure that his ministry is characterized by this one topic; it’s the publicity about him that bears that character.

    C. S. Lewis got started defending Christianity, and that certainly did make it easier for him to get accepted regarding other ideas. But he gets a pass on many doctrines that in others are regarded as heretical. In my view, other thinkers should get similarly gracious treatment.

    (Note: I ignore here issues of writing quality. In the little bit I’ve read, I’ve come to doubt I could tolerate reading an entire book by Rob Bell, whereas I really enjoy Lewis’s prose. But I haven’t read enough of Bell to make that a firm opinion of his writing.)

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Responding to the New Atheism

    Laura at Pursuing Holiness has a good post on a Christian response to the New Atheism. I agree largely with Laura, though I would comment on a couple of details.

    First, a common objection I hear to the new atheists is that they are too vocal and forceful. I think this criticism is not well directed. There is no reason to expect atheists to be quiet about what they believe. As Christians we do not want to be muzzled. What purpose is there in trying to do the same to others.

    Second, my Christian friends, there are real atheists out there. There are some people who call themselves athesists who really are just backslidden Christians or often people have been so offended by other Christians that they can’t stand Christianity as a religion. But there are others who are philosophically convinced that there is no god of any variety.

    Neither of these points is actually in response to Laura, but rather to comments made to me or read elsewhere.

    The Jesus Paradigm

    Christian apologetics is important, but its role is different than many people seem to think. Few people are argued into the kingdom, if any. What apologetics (done right) can accomplish is to clear the ground, deal with particular objections, and help Christians better understand their own theology and its impact on other areas of their lives.

    In the substance of her post I think Laura is right on. The best defense we can possibly give to Christianity is to be Christian disciples. I don’t know where some of the commenters on Laura’s post go to church, but what I hear about social justice in church is not soft or easy. There is a view of social justice which calls for Christians to automatically support government programs that claim to help the poor because that is social justice. Biblical social justice calls on me to give of myself. It’s not a political manifesto; it’s a call to me personally and as part of a church community to carry out sacrificial ministry.

    I am perfectly comfortable with having Christians arguing from all portions of the political spectrum as to what government’s role should be. A Christian’s duty is not fulfilled by advocacy for government action, nor are Christians derelict in their duty if they believe such social action is not an appropriate sphere of government action.

    Christian Archy

    But both groups (and folks like me in the middle) are derelict in their Christian duty if they are not serving others by giving of themselves.

    The church has, in fact, failed in its duty to challenge the culture and to be God’s kingdom in the world. Our first loyalty has to be to the Kingdom of God and not the nations of the world. We need to get our primary loyalty straightened out so that people can tell we’re Christians and that this makes a difference.

    And while we are about this type of social justice we need to remember that the core of any social justice we pursue must be the gospel message. My impression based on our actions is that we do not generally believe, on the left or the right, that the gospel message really can change lives. If we believed it our answer to many issues would be simple: the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    This is not, as Laura put it, merely a form of fire insurance. It is a message that is transforming and demanding, two characteristics missing from too many of our churches. (Of course it is God who transforms, but he has chosen to do so through the proclamation of the gospel.)

    I’d like to commend two books that I publish on this topic, and a third that is forthcoming. Christian Archy (David Alan Black) talks about our first loyalty to God’s kingdom. We will be releasing another volume, The Politics of Witness (Allan R. Bevere) in the same series that discusses why the church cannot speak truth to power today. On the matter of Christian discipleship we have The Jesus Paradigm (David Alan Black).

  • On C. S. Lewis

    There’s an article in the Touchstone archives by Bishop Wright which I find very interesting, largely because it expresses some of my own feelings regarding Lewis.

    C. S. Lewis is, of course, a brilliant writer. I enjoy reading even those things with which I disagree, and not just because I like to be challenged. He simply uses the language brilliantly. I would also say that the book Mere Christianity played a role in my Christian life both when I was a student, and then when I was returning to church. At the same time, I don’t use a great deal of the apologetics that Lewis used in supporting my own faith in discussions with others. The trilemna, for example, doesn’t work for me as an argument for the divinity of Jesus. It does help clarify things, I believe, at a certain point, but it is not, in itself, convincing.

    I have also observed what Wright notes as well, that C. S. Lewis, though often embraced by conservative evangelicals, was not one himself. I would note that even from my more liberal perspective, I find Lewis’s view of inspiration to be a bit beyond where I want to go. Nonetheless, I think I can understand the value of Lewis to evangelicals in that he makes some fairly viable statements on some of the essentials, and he provides us with expressions of many other ideas that are valuable in themselves.

    All in all, thanks to Bishop Wright for helping clarify some of my own thinking about one of my favorite authors. (Wright himself is another, though he tends to be a little less delightful in style!)

  • Contest via my Company – Energion Publications

    This is a sort of commercial message, except I’m trying to give some money away. My company, Energion Publications, is sponsoring a contest, and entries are very slow. There are two $50 B&N gift cards on the line, one for the best affirmative and one for the best negative entry in answer to the question:

    Was Jesus of Nazareth the Christ (Messiah/anointed one) as claimed in orthodox Christianity?

    “Best” will be determined by popular vote, provided we have entries. Right now, we only have one entry for the affirmative, and none at all for the negative. Entries close on Marcy 27, so someone could quite easily claim a $50 gift card with very little competition.

    Even if you’re not interested in entering, I’d appreciate any help letting people know. This is a good opportunity especially for some of the smaller blogs.

    Again, for details, see Consider Christianity Week contest at Energion.net.

  • BioLogos and Reasons to Believe in Dialogue

    While I am much more in support of the approach of BioLogos than Reasons to Believe, I’m glad to see that they are discussing. Perhaps laying out the details of each group’s approach may help Christians understand the issues more clearly.

    I see very little future, however, for the day-age theory, despite its strong acceptance amongst Christians. I think it’s rather an uphill battle to suggest that the actual intent of the writer of Genesis 1-2 was to portray the days as ages, and fitting geological history into a day-age theory seems to require some selective use of the evidence.

    I think the evidence is pretty good that the early Israelites would have heard this primarily as seven literal days. It is the progress of geology and biology, particularly evolutionary biology that makes us think otherwise. My position continues to be that God speaks to a time and culture in words and concepts that are understood by that culture. If we then listen in on their dialogue with God, as we do in reading scripture, we must translate the message into a new cultural context.

    Thus I see much more role for theology than for strict exegesis in the reconciliation of Genesis and science, though I believe that the process of reconciliation largely teaches us that such reconciliation is beside the point.