Line em' up

In taking a few months off in blogging, I was somewhat surprised at a couple of atheist comments that I received.  One of the comments made the point that my apologetics were no different than rehashed Josh McDowell arguments.  Evidently, this person does not think highly of McDowell.  The other comment referred to Master's in Christian Apologetics as a mail-in degree. I wish he could of helped me with this mail-in degree financially.  Both comments were deleted because I refuse to dialogue with ad hominem attacks.  Name calling is easy, but it proves absolutely nothing.

How do individuals get past the extreme differences they have?  Can differences be overcome?  As already mentioned, in order to have meaningful dialogue the first thing that cannot take place is name calling or ad hominem attacks.  Nothing does more to close the debate door than to rely on name calling.  This form of speech is arrogant and in no way opens individuals up to any ideas you may want to put forth.

One way to dialogue is to try and be as open-minded as possible.  Being open-minded is difficult, but not impossible.  Sure, all individuals come with preconceived ideas, but trying to see and understand your opponents point before dialoguing with them is a good way to start.  Practice empathetic consideration.  Take time to chew on others ideas that are different from your own.  Again, all individuals do not have a monopoly of being absolutely indifferent when it comes to worldview questions, but openness can be achieved to a high degree.

One of the worst arguments that I have heard from Christians is: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"  This settles nothing except closing conversation for someone's worldview that doesn't believe in God.  On the flip side, many atheist thinkers, like the ones I mentioned earlier, do a disservice to dialogue by simply name calling and assuming that their view does not need to be debated.  In other words, some atheist thinkers seem to think that have a cornered the market of truth.  Some even refer to themselves as "Free Thinkers" as if theism is relegated to the community of "Closed Thinkers."  Part of open-mindedness involves humility in knowing that you are coming from a position of certain held presuppositions.  Being unable to truly consider the others argument does nothing to help dialogue out.

Perhaps the best method of dialogue is to argue solely based on the specific points of difference you have with your opponent.  It is good and necessary to present your arguments for others to view.  Likewise, it is meaningful for discussion and ultimately to discover truth to argue your differences with your opponent based on specific points of difference that you have.  You may not solve the point at hand, but at least dialogue is free and you can line up your points to try and sway individuals toward truth.  Ultimately, truth is what any argument is based upon (or it should be).  When individuals argue, they are trying to sway individuals to what they believe is true.  In other words, when you line up your points, do they have more weight than your opponents?  Which argument(s) tip the scale of truth? 

Many of the arguments need to address specific points with cumulative evidence, because it is impossible to have 100% proof.  For example, the question of the existence of God cannot be proved with 100% certainty from either camp (Christian or Atheist).  A cumulative way of argumentation is helpful in providing evidence that can lead to an inference of best explanation. 

The best way to dialogue/argue is simply to line em' up.  Put your cards on the table and make your points.  When addressing your opponent, point out why he/she is incorrect.  Be willing to think outside of your own worldview box and follow the evidence wherever it goes.  This type of dialogue brings true enlightenment to the big questions of life.  By the way, if my arguments are just rehashed Josh McDowell comments, does that mean my arguments were wrong?  Actually, I take that comment not as an ad hominem attack, but as a complement.  Thank you my atheist friend!

Bell's Hell - Another look at "Love Wins"

Much has been said about Rob Bell's controversial book "Love Wins."  Also, much has changed recently for Rob Bell, as he is now moving out of pastoring a mega-church to do more writing and concentrating on various speaking engagements.  In reviewing his book, I'm sure I will add nothing new since its release in March of 2011.  Having said that, I wanted to share some thoughts on my impression on not just Bell's views, but on the "Emergent Movement" in general.

Before reading "Love Wins" I had an impression of Bell already formed.  I had read some of his Internet articles and viewed some interviews, and so I had formed some opinions of him beforehand.  I must say that my impression of his views did not change after completing the book.  I have had the opportunity to visit with many Rob Bell-like people.  What I mean by Rob Bell-like people pertains to individuals who fall in line with the "Emergent Movement."  Maybe, fall in line is not a good description of the "Emergent Movement", because nothing with in the movement is perfectly lined up.  A friend of mine once said that the "Emergent Movement" is like trying to nail jello to the wall.  This is what bothers me and others who try to assess individuals within the movement.  The problem with the movement centers on the lack of answers or conflicting answers given, but more on this later.

Bell's book opens true to "emergent" form, with a barrage of questions.  It was almost like the serpent questioning Eve, "Did God really say?"  I am not comparing Bell to the serpent, only saying that all traditional beliefs (according to Bell) need to be questioned.  I am not arguing against questions.  Questions are good and necessary.  However, Bell doesn't seem to question for the sake of dialogue, but to deconstruct everything for the sole purpose of his own agenda.

Much of the book Bell raises some good points.  Although I disagree with much of his exegesis, he does rightly point out some of the problems with the church today.  He does a good job highlighting the need to have a heart for serving people, although at times his political beliefs seem to match a "Wall Street" protester.  He addresses legalism within the Church, as this too is a necessary point that constantly needs to be raised.

Now to a few points about his overall beliefs concerning hell.  Bell's biggest hangup with hell seems to be how a loving God could punish people for finite sins.  For Bell this seems insurmountable.  For God is not God if this is how God is to be seen.  Bell would see the traditional view of an everlasting hell being contra the nature of God.  Bell cannot even conceive how God would allow individuals to be eternally separated from a holy God.  For Bell, God is a monstrous being if this is reality.

Bell seems to believe that heaven and hell exist side by side.  According to Bell, "heaven and hell are at the same party." [1]  He never clarifies how this is or what justifies this position.  He does use the "Prodigal Son" of Luke 15 to relate the side by side nature of both realities, but to my knowledge this story has never been used to justify the duel realm of heaven and hell.  Bell's duel realm view is bizarre at best.  What is also bizarre is how this works out on Bell's view, for no other explanation is fleshed out to support this idea.

Trying to wrap my mind around Bell's views is a tremendous struggle.  One of the disturbing views of Bell is how all are eventually saved.  I say disturbing, not because his ideas conflict with mine, but disturbing because he doesn't seem to justify why his views should be seen as conforming to reality.  For example, it seems clear to me that Bell feels all will eventually be saved, hence forth, love wins.  The overall theme of the book is that God's love will win out and all will be saved.  Bell can say he is not a universalist, but the book is clear that this is not what is promoted.  It is Bell's view that all will be saved, however no explanation is given as to how this will work, except that God's love wins in the end.  Bell even seems to promote that post-mortem sanctification will take place.  Bell is adamant that only the nature of God's love is what counts and His love trumps all.  In other words, God's hands seem to be tied on Bell's view.

The final comment about Bell's view revolves around his view of God.  The most disturbing aspect of Bell's view is his lack of interaction with the tradition view of God's judgment.  Bell tries in a way to address the traditional view of God as a God of judgement, but he falls short in providing any scholarly argumentation to show why this aspect is not part of God's makeup.  The traditional view of the God of judgement that I am referring to is that God does judge individuals and separate them throughout eternity.  Bell seems closed to this aspect of God's nature.  If God saves all in the end because love wins, then Bell needs to leave the business of trying to lead individuals to Jesus, because salvation is guaranteed.  The need for responsibility in this life is unnecessary, because on Bell's view nothing really matters.  If God is not a God of judgment and his hands are tied in having to save everyone, then Bell's God turns out not so much a God of love, but an amoral being at best.


[1]  Bell, Rob, Love Wins, p. 176

• A great article dealing with the exegetical problems of Love Wins.
• A short debate revealing Bell's view of God and hell.

Dr. Jeffress, Mormonism and dialogue

A few weeks back,  Dr. Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas caused a stir by calling the Mormon religion a cult before the national media.  Was this the correct avenue to take?  I took a survey shortly after Jeffress statement with a group of men, and half said Jeffress did the right thing.  Being a pastor in the same denomination, I will have to disagree with Dr. Jeffress and the men in my survey.  I could never match the intelligence of pastor Jeffress, but believe he was mistaken by stirring the pot in this way before the national media.  I am not disagreeing with Dr. Jeffress theological assessment concerning  the differences between Mormonism and Orthodox Christianity, but feel his branding of Mormonism before the national media does nothing but kill all possible dialogue between Mormons and those who fall within the Orthodox beliefs of the Church.

The Apostle Paul when dialoguing with others was conscious of his audience and tailored his discussion so that dialogue could take place.  In Acts 17, while speaking to the Greek philosophers, Paul never once mentions Scripture, but instead addresses the people on their level.  In fact, Paul's knowledge of the Greek thinkers allowed him to connect with the people by quoting two poets that the philosophers would have known about.  Paul said nothing offensive to block dialogue, but went out of his way to present the gospel such that people could respond.  In dialoguing in this way Paul gave freedom to the Holy Spirit to convict the hearts of the Greek thinkers, and this is exactly what happened.

When engaged with others, it is my opinion that dialogue needs to be open and free.  Anytime, dialogue is hindered by personal blocks, it makes the spread of God's Good News that much more difficult.  Paul stated, "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some (1 Cor. 9:22)."  For Paul, the truth of God would never be compromised, but at the same time he realized the importance of keeping the communication lines open so that people could come to know the Messiah.

Two weeks ago, some Mormon missionaries came to my door.  We had a wonderful conversation.  I was asking a lot of questions and am praying that we can further the discussions in the future.  I realize that my worldview and the Mormon worldview are worlds apart on many different levels.  I choose to dialogue with my Mormon friends, because I believe so strongly that they are not in line with God's truth.  Because of my belief, it is important to keep the dialogue lines open, and not shut them off in any way.

Die for a lie?

One of the arguments given for the Christian faith deals with the statement that individuals would not be willing to die for a lie.  In general this is true, but many recognize that this argument by itself is incomplete.  Besides, couldn't any religion make this claim as their own?  However, the not dying for a lie argument does have credibility when considering evidence that supports the statement.  In other words, dying for truth is a whole lot different than dying for what one thinks to be true.  There are three solid reasons that support the fact that disciples of Jesus did not die for a lie.

1.  Early source material

The writings of Jesus were produced early.  All of the New Testament documents were produced and circulated within the first century.  You simply don't find this early source material from other religious movement.  Not only were the stories told by his followers, but other secular writings exist to corroborate the stories of the followers.  Again, secular stories of Jesus appear early and often to verify that the followers of Jesus were not following invented stories.  Probably the best evidence of early source material comes from Paul's letter to the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 15:3-7).  This early story is recognized by the majorly of scholars as being a very early story of the resurrection of Jesus.  Many would say that the story goes back to the resurrection event itself.  If this early story was true, then the disciples of Jesus did not die for any type of invented story or lie, but they died for something they knew to be true.  From the inception of Christianity, the early and numerous source material concerning Jesus only validates that the followers of Christ did not die for a lie.

2.  Evangelistic

When considering all religions around the world, none compares to the evangelistic outreach of Christianity.  Of all the religions, only Islam can match the fervor of Christianity in spreading its message.  However, the big difference in how the message is spread between Islam and Christianity is stark.  From the beginning Christianity was spread peacefully with a message of hope.  Jesus can never be accused of inciting the spread of his message by force.  Islam, on the other hand, was initially spread, in many cases, in a non-peaceful manner. 

Christianity's belief in the resurrected Jesus put people in the position of having a target on their back, but this did not deter their passion in spreading the news of Jesus as the resurrected Messiah.  The initial spread of Christianity was done without the taking up of arms.  The early followers of Jesus were willing to spread the Christian message, knowing they might forfeit their lives, because they were convinced that it was truth they would be dying for.

3.  Eyewitness accounts

No evidence is better attested to than the evidential truth of the eyewitness accounts.  Many in the first century could have debunked the resurrection story by explaining away the empty tomb.  To date, no sufficient evidence has explained otherwise.  Within the first century, many individuals witnessed the resurrected Jesus.  These were not hallucinations or invented stories.  People do not die for such visions.  The early followers of Jesus had first hand knowledge that they encountered the bodily resurrected Jesus.  Because of this encounter, their lives were never the same.

The difference between the eyewitness claims of the resurrected Jesus and other religious claims is enormous.  All religions outside of Christianity are based on statements of their leaders without anyway to know if the statements are valid or not.  In other words, all religions except Christianity offer possible truth claims, but you can never know for sure if they are in fact true.  Christianity rests on a historic story as told by eyewitness of the the person of Jesus. 

No other religion deals with reality like Christianity.  The eyewitnesses were willing to die, because they knew not only Jesus, but had encountered the bodily resurrected Christ.  This reality is what caused future believers to be willing to die.  The deaths of Christians throughout time has always been based upon reliable historical evidence as opposed to guessing if the religion is question deals with actual truth.

Apologetics in the church

Here is a great article from a former professor of mine.

An Apologist in Every Church

Posted on December 21, 2010 by clayjones

 

It is my heartfelt contention that every church in the world needs an apologist. Here’s why I say that. I have found that the average member of the average congregation is riddled with doubt. They hear The Da Vinci Code proclaim that the Council of Nicaea suppressed contrary gospels. They hear that James Cameron has discovered the Lost Tomb of Jesus. They hear from the Zeitgeist movie that Jesus is just a rehashing of a long line of pagan dying and rising gods. And so on and on.

The trouble is that these confused congregants often don’t know where to turn. Those who do seek advice will often go to their pastor whom they considered to be the wisest man they know. The problem with that is that the pastor is usually very busy! Not only is the pastor preparing Sunday’s sermon, he’s probably preparing the Wednesday night sermon too. Then there’s counseling to do, church administration, hospital visitation, meeting with his staff, etc. I used to be a pastor and I know from experience that most pastors are really busy. And, honestly, for most of them, reading The Da Vinci Code or watching the Zeitgeist movie (both were silly, by the way), can’t be that high on their list.

To finish the article click here.

L killers of Church

In a previous blog, I wrote concerning 10 reasons why the church is broken.  I'm sure many reasons exist that hinder God's people, but believe that three main reasons are wreaking havoc upon the Church of the West.

Liberalism

Liberalism can be viewed in many ways.  In fact, Christians are to be liberal in the giving of their time and means.  So, taking this definition of liberalism is a good thing, but how are we to see liberalism as a Church killer?  The liberalism that seems to be killing the Church today deals with individuals who don't hold God's word as inspired truth.  The postmodern push has crept into the Church today and many are questioning the truthfulness of God's word.  Renewed attacks are coming from within the Church upon orthodox beliefs.  Many, in fact, are claiming that God's word can not be seen as universal truth or an all-encompassing narrative.  What this means is that individuals or communities are deciding what is true for them and what is not.  The problem with this approach is the individuals or communities are the ones responsible for making universal ground rules, therefore contradicting that truth is not universal.

Liberalism is being twisted in the Western culture for the promotion of values that don't ring true with the message of the Bible.  One of the most glaring examples of this deals with many churches of the West acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.  This is an extremely sensitive subject, because as soon as one points out the contradictions of the homosexual lifestyle compared to God's Word they are almost immediately branded as intolerant.  The question that needs to be asked, that no one really does is, "Who is intolerant when the subject comes up?"  Many times the Church is guilty of being intolerant, but when the homosexual community demands that acceptance takes place over God's Word then it is the homosexual community that is intolerant.  Other cultural liberal issues that have been accepted by many in the Western Church includes: sex before marriage, acceptance of abortion, and many other issues that cut across biblical teachings.

Legalism

Legalism has existed before the time Jesus appearance on earth.  Plain and simple, legalism is a man-made set of rules that one uses to justify themselves from.  It is law-keeping that misses the heart of God's message.  Many in the church fall prey to the web of legalism.  Jesus was constantly dealing with the Pharisees legalism (see Matthew 23) and little has changed today.  Too many legalist are driving people off, because in their mind they have it all figured out.  In other words, you must go to the legalist for answers, and not God's Word. One of the major reasons why young people are leaving churches or not even considering meeting with the church deals with the heavy load that legalists put on the backs of individuals.  The sad consequence of legalism is that the love of Jesus is suppressed for individual hoop jumping laws.  Legalists are interested in works as opposed to the heart of Christ's message.  For the legalist, Christ's sacrifice is disparaged simply for the sake of personal control.

Laziness

Too many Christians are too comfortable on their spiritual lazy-boy chair.  For the lazy Christian, Christianity means nothing more than filling a pew on Sunday morning, if that.  Lazy Christians feel entitled, as if God owes them something simply because they mouthed the words, "I believe."  It's no wonder that the Church is exploding in non-Western countries while the Western Church relies too much on the comforts they have been blessed with.  If the Western Church would realize that location makes no difference in God's movement, it could recapture the culture that now sadly influences the Church more that the Church influences culture.  The Western Church seems content to mouth certain "special" words and show up at a building for a 2 hour stint and call itself Christian.  Maybe, the Western Church should read what Jesus has to say (Matt. 7:21-13, Rev. 3:16) before trying to justify their fat and lazy lifestyle.

The purpose of the blog is not to be negative toward the Church, but to point out real problems that hinder the Church in the West.  On many occasions I feel like Paul who said, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst (1 Tim. 1:15)."  No one has lived a perfect life, except Jesus, but the three L's defiantly are killers of the Church.

A personal note

Flatland Apologetics will soon be moving; moving to another state that is.  Flatland Apologetics is a personal ministry that was started in the high plains of Northwest Kansas.  My family and I will now be moving to the Northwest; Washington State to be exact. 

The name will remain the same, because I will be living in central Washington which is relatively flat.  I will be answering a call to pastor full time for a Southern Baptist Church.  Needless to say, my life is busy now and I have had little time to post.  I am looking forward to this new challenge and can't wait to settle in and get back to blogging on a more regular basis.  I also am looking forward to the apologetic opportunities in Washington.

My wife and I would appreciate prayers for our family as we transition.  This is Shelby Cade signing off until all the madness settles a bit.