A false reality

Not long ago, a friend and I went to get a bite to eat.  My friends chose his food based on the picture of the meal that he saw at the restaurant.  When the order came out, my friend did a double-take as the meal didn’t exactly match with the meal photo.  He felt let down, and claimed the eating establishment had falsely advertised their product.

Similar to my friend’s experience is the advertising campaign by a local atheistic group in the Northwest.  Seven billboards have been purchased in Spokane, Washington to try and promote the message of atheism.  The ads feature smiling individuals and you get the sense the ads are not much different in their presentation then what you would see in church advertisement, minus the message.  The ads are nicely done and attractive, but it is evident the message of the ads do not conform to reality.

Two of ads are particularly interesting in their presentation and message.  The first ad features a cute elderly couple, while the second presents an ex-clergy man.

Both evidence and science are trumped in the first ad to make a statement that theism is a false idea.  It is interesting that the ad assumes theism is relegated false by evidence and science. Actually, there is a lot of evidence and science that supports theism and denies an atheistic worldview.  Surely, the FFRF realizes that evidence and science cuts both ways?  Besides, how can you honestly make a logical statement concerning science and evidence when the statement itself is not supported by either evidence or science!  Theism being equated to myth is nothing more than a red herring.

The second ad tries to play on the heart of individuals by featuring a man, who in the past was involved in the clergy.  Like the first ad, the man emphasizes that reason trumps theism.  Again, this argument fails, because it too, is nothing more than a red herring.  Anyone could just as well state that they are “Now preaching REASON not atheism.”  The statements are nothing more than unjustified beliefs.

Dialogue in regards to truth is not what is being promoted in the FFRF ad campaigns.  What is being sold is similar to my friends experience at the restaurant – false advertisement!

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.

When you hit reality

"Where do we come from?" and "What is real?" are two of the most puzzling and debated questions in the history of philosophical thought.  Today, the philosopher does not have the the microphone as in the past.  Today, it is the scientific community that has been given the reigns of authority when truth is in question.  In the past, the Christian community had some authority, but a paradigm shift occurred with Darwin's publication of the "Origin of Species" in 1859.

What does the scientific community have to make it the supposed bearer of truth?  With the medical advancements and the continued progress of science, it is easy to see why many would turn to science for answers.  But, what about the big questions of life, does science have absolute authority to answer?

One of the primary driving forces of science is the idea of empiricism.  Empiricism deals with sense experience.  In other words, all knowledge is driven by sense experience alone.  This makes the natural world the only world by which knowledge can be achieved.  Supernatural, therefore, is confined to superstition and fairy tale status.

If science is indeed king, then it follows that science should answer all, or at least point us to the truth of what is real.  Does the scientific method or science in general meet the criteria for answering all truth claims?  No, for the statement itself is not able to be tested in the lab, by the scientific method, or by any scientific means.  There are many instances where the field of science can do nothing but make subjective statements, because the answers to the questions fall outside the scientific community.  For example, the laws of logic, a human's first person awareness, the moral law, and mathematical entities all lie outside of scientific explanation.

Today, unfortunately, the culture has caved in to the idea that science is the purveyor of truth.  Before giving science the scepter of truth, shouldn't we first confirm if science matches with truth?  Truth is what happens when you hit reality, because truth corresponds with reality.  Science can in no way hit all reality to justify that it is the sole possessor of truth.  Many have opinions about science, but opinions don't count unless they match with truth.   Truth is objective and knowable.

When looking at the big questions of life, maybe we should be cautious and consider all the evidence, even if the evidence falls outside the realm of science.  Maybe we should be open-minded and follow the evidence without pre-conceived ideas.  When we do so, we are able to see more clearly the answers to the big questions of life.

How to be open-minded

In a past blog I garnered this comment, "If any of you have an open mind, please check out this."  The obvious conclusion is that Christians are not open-minded.  Why do some atheists and skeptics assume that belief in the Christian worldview is closed-minded?  It seems that many who call themselves open-minded do so from an almost arrogant position.  It's like one does not need evidence, but it is safe to assume that the open-minded person (atheist/skeptic) somehow has it all figured out.

What does it mean to be open-minded? I would like to suggest 3 points to consider for those who choose to call themselves open-minded.

1. The open-minded person is open to all evidence.
2. The open-minded person does his/her own study.
3. The open-minded person is only interested in truth.

Many times the Church is weak in its ability to be open-minded.  Too many Christians are not willing to do their own study and simply follow what they have been fed.  Atheism also falls victim to this same philosophy.  One of the charges of the New Atheists against those who hold religious beliefs is, "If you are born in India, you would be a Hindu; If you are born in the Middle-East you would be a Muslim; or If you are born into a Mormon family, you would be a Mormon."   Really?  Where is the evidence for truth in a statement like that! Richard Dawkins has made this claim before (and there is some validity to that type of argument), but isn't he offering nothing more than a red herring?  Those who make statements like this are in no way proving anything.

Ultimately, the truth question needs to be addressed.  Those with an open mind are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.  To be open-minded literally means to be impartial or receptive to new arguments.  If truth is absolute and objective, then one can weigh the evidence in order to decipher the correct worldview.  A truly open-minded individual cares not what others say or the direction of truth.  He/She will follow truth no matter where it takes them.  Are you willing to be open-minded or is that just an arrogant catch phrase to cover for your lack of evidence?

Why Christianity?

   By the end of the first century it is estimated that the Church had a population of over 1 million individuals.  This all occurred within a 70 year time span.  Christianity spread rapidly and it continues to grow at a rapid rate.  In third world countries today, Christianity is spreading like wildfire.  What is the reason for the rapid spread of Christianity?

This very question was proposed to a variety of scholars and this is what they said.  Harvard professor of New Testament studies, Helmut Koester states, "One should not see the success of Christianity simply on the level of a great religious message; one has to see it also in the consistent and very well thought out establishment of institutions to serve the needs of the community." According to professor Koester, Christianity was a well thought out plan that addressed certain needs of the community.  Michael White, professor of Religious studies at the University of Texas has this to say about the spread of Christianity, "there really is no empire wide persecution of Christianity throughout the entire second century and into the first half of the third century. It was always sporadic; it was always local concerns. The first time the empire as a whole says "We have to eradicate Christianity," is not until the year 249, 50, the persecution of Decius, ... but by that time, the Christians are so numerous that they can't possibly be eradicated; they've already grown that much."  In other words, Christianity could have been snuffed out if a more organized Roman persecution had taken place.  Finally, Wayne Meeks of Yale says, "In the final analysis, I think we don't know."

Out of all the explanations offered, not one addresses the truth question.  While the spread of Christianity by no means proves that the Christian worldview is correct, it does show that it has never been defeated.  In other words, there is no concise argument to show that the Christian worldview to be false.  Perhaps, Christianity has stood 2000 years of attacks, precisely because it matches with the truth.  Any and all truth claims can be measured on their merits.  Truth, stands alone.

Ultimately, Christianity has to be evaluated on the claim that Jesus bodily rose from the dead.
If God exists, and Jesus was the Messiah of truth, then Christianity will never be stopped.  As the Jewish leader Gamaliel rightly said during the early stages of Christianity, " If what they (Christians) are planning is something of their own doing, it will fail. But if God is behind it, you cannot stop it anyway, unless you want to fight against God (Acts 5:38-39)."

• For the article on the question of why Christianity succeeded, click here.

Misconceptions

Many times the atheist community likes to refer to themselves as the free-thinkers.  Obviously, this implies, that those who hold to a theistic point of view are close minded.  This video illustrates that not all who promote an intellectually superior high ground, are in fact open-minded.  What you believe may not actually match with the truth.  It is important to dialogue without pre-conceived ideas.

Do not judge?

Recently Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church, generated a firestorm with his upcoming book and interview. The book is titled Love Wins. In one particular interview Bell seems to dodge every question thrown at him. The overriding question being asked of Bell is, "Is Jesus the only way?"; Bell never answers. Why? It is my belief that Bell does not want to pronounce judgment or suggest that anyone will be condemned to hell. Christian universalism is the belief that all will eventually be saved by Jesus. Is Bell correct, if this is his view, and how are Christians to answer the judgment questions?

Jesus does indeed say that we should not be judgmental in Matthew 7:1. This judgment is a hypocritical judgment where one is solely wanting to tear someone down. It is also clear that as Christians we should not condemn anyone to hell, as this type of judgment is left only to God. However, Later on in Matthew chapter 7, Jesus tells his followers to enter through the narrow gate (vs. 13) and to watch out for false prophets (vs. 15). Both of these verses imply that Christians need to make certain judgments. God expects us to make judgments as James indicates, "You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God (James 4:4)." Hell itself is a choice. So, why does Bell not want to say that Jesus is the only way? Again, I suspect Bell wants to create the impression that part of God's nature does not involve judgment.

Being a loving God is just one aspect of God's nature. Being a just God is another aspect of God's nature. Will individuals who rebel against Jesus (sinners) be condemned to hell if they persist in their rebellion? Yes! This is the story from Genesis on, that sin separated all humans from a holy God. The other message, that gives us all hope appears early also (Genesis 3:15), in that redemption can occur through the promised messiah - Jesus. Hell is a reality that the bible describes as many choosing to go to (Matthew 7:13-14).
One of the problems of the "Emergent Movement" is the relativizing of truth. I believe one of the reasons Bell leans this way is because of his belief and many "Emergents" that you should never offend anyone. Jesus claimed to be the exclusive way (John 14:6) and he also stated that the truth of his message would be hated (Mark 13:13). Is Jesus the only way? Absolutely! Will the message of Jesus offend? Yes! Should Christians be offensive in how they present the gospel? Absolutely not!

There is an aspect of Bell and other "Emergents" that all Christians need to follow, and that is being aware of our Christian witness. Unfortunately many Christians come across as too judgmental. Many non-Christians view the Christian community as quick to condemn. This type of attitude only hinders the Christian's ability to dialogue with those who do not know Jesus. Jesus came full of grace and truth (John 1:14). Too many Christians get involved at one end of the spectrum or the other. In other words, some Christians are all about grace leaving truth by the wayside, while others are on the truth side abandoning God's grace that needs to be extended to all people.

Should Christians judge? It depends on the type of judgment being addressed. All followers of Christ would agree that judgments are required on a daily basis on how to live your life. The real question that Bell and others seem to have problems with is, "Should we throw God's truth out so as not to offend others?"

• To read a blog I did on the need for Grace and Truth click here.
• Rob Bell's promotional video for his book, Love Wins, can be found here.
• A review of Bell's book, Love Wins, can be found here. 
• To read what some (Southern Baptists) are saying about Bell and the emergent Movement click here.

The trial of truth

This past week I was summoned for jury duty.  I was pretty sure I would not be picked being that the entire Sheriff's department meets with the church I pastor.  Sure enough, I was not one of the 24 that was originally called before it had to be narrowed down to 12.  The process was interesting and I hope to serve one day as a juror.  One of the interesting statements made by the district judge was, "Drawing from a large diverse group of individuals will help in finding truth."  The statement implies that truth can be known.  A second statement made by the judge was, "The evidence should lead the decision process."

Concerning truth, it was not only clear from the judge's statement that it is knowable, but was implied that truth is objective.  What is truth anyway?  Truth is that which corresponds with reality or representing things as they really are.  This is referred to as the correspondence theory of truth.  All individuals use the correspondence theory of truth in their everyday life.  Giving directions in how to go from point A to point B is using the correspondence theory.  Think of what the world would be like if we didn't believe in the correspondence theory of truth?  We could never know if someone was telling the truth or crying wolf.

For anyone to deny the knowability or objective nature of truth is an impossible feat.  Relativism does just that.  Relativism, in essence, denies that truth can be known or that it is objective, hence the term relativism.  The problem that makes relativism untenable is that it can not show why anyone should accept relativism.  It is logically impossible to support relativism, for when one states that relativism is the correct view they contradict themselves by making objectively true statements.

The judge was completely justified in asking the potential jurors to consider the evidence, because evidence will tip the scales toward the truth.  The evidence is important in deciding the truth.  It must be pointed out that even if evidence points towards truth, jurors or individuals can still disregard the evidence.  If one is to be honest though, he/she should consider all the available evidence in order to arrive at an informed decision of truth.  Truth in the courtroom was not viewed in a Humeian way.  Philosopher, David Hume had set the bar of truth to an unrealistic level by requiring 100% certainty.  The judge in the case was only looking for the preponderance of the evidence. 

When arguing for any position (i.e. theism vs. atheism, resurrection vs. non-resurrection) it is incumbent upon the individual to lay out the evidence in a convincing manner.  Looking at questions such as the beginning of the universe, moral values, the conscious mind, the structured universe, and the resurrection of Jesus, the evidence tips the scales toward the Christian worldview.  If the Christian worldview is discarded in the future it will not be because the majority of people feel it is an outdated concept.  Christianity or any view will fall because it does not conform to truth.

When your house of cards falls

As a young boy I would often construct card buildings.  I would start with three cards as my base and the wall of a particular room as the forth side of the base.  I then would lay two cards on top of the three vertical card pieces.  I would try to see how high my card building would go before it crumbled.  I sometimes could get three to four floors before the structure became too week to stand.  Each floor was more precarious because the new foundations became increasingly weak as the cards went up.  Without the initial foundation of carpet to solidify the base cards, it would have been impossible to even construct the first floor.

The foundation was crucial for my card structure to even be erected.  A foundation is necessary for any structure to go up.  Similar to structure in architecture is the necessity for foundationalism in truth.  Foundationalism is, "The theory of knowledge that affirms the need for certain foundational principles as the basis of thought." [1]  Simply put, foundationalism argues that knowledge of truth is not possible without these principles (called first principles, such as the law of non-contradiction). Foundationalism ties directly into truth, for without a foundation, truth has nothing to stand on.

Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias was once taken to what was referred to as the first post-modern building.  This building was held in high esteem because of its randomness in design according to the architect.  One of the main tenants of post-modernism is that truth is relative or truth has no foundation to stand on.  If truth is relative, then truth cannot be known, but when one says truth is relative she is using foundational talk.  In essence, relative truth turns out to be contradictory, because the statement that truth is relative is based on a foundational principle while at the same time being denied by the statement.  Without a foundation it is impossible to know truth.  Ravi Zacharias rightly inquired about the foundation, because without the foundation, you have no building.  To make matters worse the architect further contradicts himself by saying he had "no design in mind." [2]

Truth must rest upon a foundation or there is no way to know the truth.  Truth by its very nature is exclusive and must correspond with reality.  When building my card structures of the past, it would have been impossible to construct a single wall without a foundation.  Similarly, relative truth is a like a foundational - less structure.  A truth without a foundation doesn't just cause your house of cards to fall, but it becomes impossible to build in the first place.

[1]  Geisler, Norm, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 259
[2]   Postmodern Architecture

What is Truth?

What is truth?  Is it objective or relative?  How do you know if your definition of truth is truthful or simply an opinion? What say you?

The dangers of apriori thought

The famous atheist, Bertrand Russell was once asked how he would respond to God in the afterlife if God existed? Russell's response was, "Not enough enough evidence, God!" Many in our culture want God to spell everything out in crystal clear terminology, not realizing what they are asking. Even those in the Church take the same view and therefore run into difficulties when trying to reconcile the Bible with science. Concerning the evidence, Jesus said that some individuals would not even consider the most blatant evidence (Luke 16:31).

In Isaiah 55:8, God declares, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways." I'm afraid if God were to unleash all of his knowledge on us, our heads would explode. Humans are the only beings with the ability to ponder and reason. If God exists, then there are some things that will never be known here on earth. For example, we will never know exactly how God created the universe from nothing, and this is also true for science. But, we are a group of beings that desire to know the answers to all of life's questions, and this many times causes us to jump to preconceived ideas.

Science is not immune from preconceived ideas. "Piltdown Man" is just one example of science's rush to judgment. Aspects of naturalistic science today consider some views (such as Darwinian Evolution) as settled law, when it is impossible to test this view in the lab. In other words, parts of science cannot meet its own criteria for what should count as truth, because it cannot be tested. Having the ability to test is one of the central tenants of naturalistic science. Science, however, does have aspects that can show physical truths to how nature operates.

Preconceived ideas also prevail within the interpretation of the Bible. Of course, those who see God's word in one particular way don't believe they are misinterpreting the Bible. All Christians, can agree on the essential doctrines, but rifts develop when the non-essentials are considered. For example, how are individuals to interpret the flood of Noah? Most Christians would see this as a literal story of history, but problems develop when the extent of the flood is discussed. In Genesis 7, the flood is described as covering the entire earth. Many interpret this as being a universal catastrophic flood, when read in English. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and a different interpretation can be rendered. The actual Hebrew for Genesis 7 concerning the entire earth is kol erets, which literally means, "all lands." However, other indications of kol erets as used in the Genesis 7 flood story clearly do not indicate a global event (Genesis 2:13, Genesis 41:57). The point is, the Hebrew has to be viewed in context as opposed to arriving at a preconceived notion by looking only at the English rendition. Besides Scripture, science can be used to verify the validity of Noah's flood. According to science, there is no indication of a universal flood anywhere in the earth's past rock record.

Those who hold a Christian worldview need to do so without preconceived notions. If science is helpful with interpretation, it should be used (Psalm 19:1-2, Romans 1:20). Science, likewise handcuffs itself when it takes an only naturalistic view. If science is interested in truth, then it must not be limited to only naturalism, for there are truth's such as mathematics, logic, and moral laws that can't be explained by testing.

Intelligent design provides a balance between the two extremes of Creationism and Naturalism. Creationism starts with the assumption that God created, where naturalism assumes that any supernaturalism can not be considered. Intelligent Design begins with looking at the scientific evidence to determine if the created order is the product of design. ID is open to the possibility of truth without restrictions on either side. According to ID, all evidence should be considered, whether philosophical or scientific before any conclusion is made. Settling on a preconceived idea is dangerous because truth is not necessarily what one will find.

Scientism gone bad

According to one definition, "scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality." [1] In an almost arrogant tone scientism claims to be the sole possessor of truth. Scientism claims that only by way of empirical science can truth be acquired. Again, according to scientism, "Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview."[2] Scientism claims the only way by which individuals can absolutely know truth is through scientifically testable data. Another tenet of scientism would be the rejection of any supernatural explanations, for supernaturalism is outside the realm of what is testable. But, is this the way truth is garnered and what is science really about anyway?

Science in Greek is scientia, and is properly defined as, "knowledge." Science in an unhindered definition is interested in truth without stipulations. Today, however, scientism and a naturalistic view of science go hand in hand. John Post has this to say about science, “The sciences cumulatively tell us, that everything can be accounted for in purely naturalistic terms... All truth is determined by basic scientific entities.”[3] Taking Post's definition limits what scientific knowledge can aquire. Philosopher, Alvin Plantinga rightly assesses the problem of seeing science only by way of a naturalistic explanation by saying, “If you exclude the supernatural from science, then if the world or some phenomena within it are supernaturally caused — you won’t be able to reach that truth scientifically... Observing methodological naturalism thus hamstrings science.”

What about scientism, can it pass the muster of its own definition? No, because the definition itself is not testable. The arrogant proclamation that scientism is the sole beholder of truth is nothing more than a bald-face lie, for scientism cannot be measured, tested, or quantified by any scientific principle. Philosopher of science, Del Ratzche states, “If part of reality lies beyond the natural realm, then science cannot get at the truth without abandoning the naturalism it presently follows as a methodological rule of thumb.” So, how should science be understood? To present science in an unfiltered way means that the quest for knowledge or scientific truth should be pursued without restrictions such as a preconceived notion of naturalism. When scientism rules the realm of science, then the truth of the matter may never be discovered.

[1] Scientism defined
[2] Ibid
[3] John Post as quoted in J.P. Moreland's, Kingdom Triangle, p. 40

Postmodern poison part 1

The postmodern poison revolves around the subject of truth. In an interview with philosopher John Caputo of Syracuse University, the poison of postmodernism is taken.[1]

One of the common views of postmodernism is that no grand metanarritives exist. A grand metanarritive would be an all encompassing story that would represent truth, such as the message of atonement through the death of Jesus or simply the message of the bible. As Caputo states, "So everything that modernity tried to dispel, post-modernists also want to dispel, but they want to do it in another way. They want to do it without the overarching, very strong epistemological and metaphysical claims that modernist philosophers embraced." The keyword is overarching, in that, the grand metanarritive is denied.

The way that postmoderns break with the grand metanarritive is though deconstruction. Caputo explains, "The negative tone of the word “deconstruction, ” that it’s grammatically a negation, throws you off. If somebody deconstructs you they’re doing you a favor. But they’re breaking the rigidity of beliefs that are being held too tightly and to fiercely. They want to open you up into the ways in which things can be reinvented." Deconstruction is not concerned with truth, but as Caputo explains a reinvention of beliefs. Truth is irrelevant on a purely postmodern view. Truth cannot be reinvented, no matter how much Caputo would like it to be so. When truth is deconstructed, the poison of postmodernism has been taken.

[1] For the full interview click here

The scientific limitations

There is a saying that, "Knowledge is power." It is true that proper knowledge does bring the force of truth behind it and in that way it represents strength. Today, we have many that bow at the feet of scientific knowledge, as if it is the sole possesor of all that can be known. This view of science is called scientism. But, I contend that science is severly limited in the scope in what it can show, which runs counter to many within the scientic community.

Scientific leaps have brought great benifit to all, especially in the field of medicine. We should all rejoice at the fantastic discoveries and advances that science has brought to the world. The big problem comes when individuals assume that either science has all the answers or that science is best qualified to answer all questions.

There are a multitude of things that science can not answer. For example, mathematics and logic can be grasped without science showing the way. Science does not explain logic or mathematics and no theories or proofs exist for either. Something else that cannot be proven by science is my own consciousness. I have a first person awareness of what is taking place within my mind, where science always has to take a third person approach. Science has knowledge of objects from a third person perspective. Science will never be able to measure or give the reason for the love I have for my family. Science cannot account for why a moral law is in existance. We intutitivly know good and evil, but science has no way to explain this. Finally science itself cannot prove that it is the only way by which we can have proper knowledge. The scientific method cannot be used to show that science is the king of how we are to understand the world.

If science is limited, it is incumbent upon all of us to seek other forms of knowledge. Science is helpful for understanding, but it in no way is able to provide ultimate truth.

• A great video showing the limits of science

The grace and truth paradox

There is a great little book with the above title by Randy Alcorn. The book is based on a passage in John where Jesus is described as being "full of grace and truth (John 1:14)."

I was reminded of this passage while attending a meeting of Christian leaders in the community recently. One of the statements from a prominent Christian leader was that we need to accommodate individuals at the expense of truth. Now this is not exactly what was said, but it was implied. One of the great tragedies today occurs when Christians or the Church is willing to water down truth. In reality, this happens when the world has crept into our thought process. In these cases, truth is thrown out in favor of only grace. So many issues that the Church faces revolves around this very point (homosexual marriage, abortion). The cry of tolerance is promoted and truth is trampled upon.

On the opposite side of the coin is when the Christian or Church is so bent on the truth side, that the grace of God is disparaged. When this happens you find a legalistic mindset. Legalism is what Jesus addresses so much during His life here on earth (Matthew 23:4). Legalism is the number one problem with the Church's bad reputation in the United States. Legalism makes the Church look arrogant and judgmental. Truth is important, but without grace it will have no effect on a lost world.

What is needed is both truth and grace. Jesus was full of grace and truth, not balanced between the two, but full of both. If Christians want to be taken seriously, then truth has to be defended and grace needs to be extended. Truth and grace when fully implemented promotes the message of Jesus to a world that so desperately needs Him.

• A case and point dealing with a trampling of God's truth.
• Research showing the arrogance that the Church so often promotes. This would be the trampling of God's grace.
• Video addressing the homosexual issue and how it needs to be addressed with grace and truth.

Pete's Apologetic Road

Probably the most often quoted scripture surrounding the need for apologetics is 1 Peter 3:15, which states, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." What is apologetics and how is one to conduct himself/herself as an apologist?

Apologetics is derived from the Greek word apologia, which means to give a defense. In this case, the 1 Peter passage is referring to giving a defense for the Christian worldview. Since the beginning of the Church until the present, apologetics has been necessary to thwart those who would attack the Christian worldview.

Apologetics is very powerful, and if used properly, it is helpful in pointing out the inconsistencies of the non-Christian worldview. Our culture today, as in the past continues to challenge the Christian worldview. Apologetics serves four primary needs. The first is to defend God's Word and the Christian worldview. This is exactly what Peter is trying to get across in this passage. There are other passages that inform the Christian to be prepared to defend Christian truth (Phil. 1:16, Jude 1:3, Titus 1:9, and 2 Cor. 10:4-5). A second need is for building the body of Christ. Not only is study good for the Church, but it benefits the Christian who engages himself/herself to understanding truth. Thirdly, apologetics is needed to articulate the Christian worldview, this involves study and being relevant with current issues that face the Church. Christians need to be involved with spreading God's truth and it is impossible to do so if you have no answers to counter heretical attacks. Lastly, although apologetics is defending Christian truth, it is beneficial in meeting a divine need to those who are not followers of Jesus. Acts 17 is a classic passage dealing with Paul's defense of Christianity and his reaching out to those unaware of God's truth.

By far, the most important part of the 1st Peter passage occurs at the end, where Peter informs the Christian to dialogue with gentleness and respect. The quickest way to turn off the non-Christian is to argue from an arrogant and belittling position. Unfortunately this has been the road taken by many. Following Pete's road of apologetics benefits the individual, the Church, and a world that desperately needs to hear the Good News truth of Jesus Christ.

* An excellent article dealing with apologetics and the need for it.

The empethatic emergent

One of the common themes that surrounds the emergent movement is that of empathy. Empathy is a good thing. All Christians should be compelled as Jesus was to relate to others. The problem, as I see it, is that truth is sometimes compromised at the expense of not wanting to offend others.

Brian McLaren has made this statement concerning the question of homosexuality, "Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality." He goes on to say, "Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements."[1] In one way I can see what I believe McLaren is trying to do. There have been many slanderous statements and fronts put on the homosexual community by those that call themselves Christian; this it seems is what McLaren wants to dodge so as not to come across as offensive. I applaud his concern for his fellow man, though I have a problem with one aspect of this approach. It appears that in his empathy, the truth of scripture is compromised. When Jesus was presented the woman caught in adultery, he offered both grace and truth (John 8:1-11). The truth came in the fact that he asked her to sin no more.

I'm sure Brian and others within the Emergent Movement don't want to compromise the truth of God, but that is exactly what they do when empathy (grace) is leaned on at the expense of truth. We can all agree that following God is not a simple task. One has to constantly deny himself/herself daily, and even at that we trip and fall. We have no business in pointing to specks in others' eyes when we are blinded by the lumberyard in our own eye, but again, we need to be willing to state the truth to others in a loving way.

C.S. Lewis once remarked on the individual who said that Jesus was only a good man by saying, "But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."[2] Similar to this thought is the idea that the message of Jesus is to only show empathy; he didn't leave that option to us as either. Jesus had some harsh things to say to those who were willing to listen. Sure, the Church should be vigilant in reaching out to individuals who have not submitted their lives to Jesus, but never at the expense of truth. Christians need to lovingly present the good news to all in a manner that is not condemning, but at the same time, truth should be defended. Peter states: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)." We all need to be prepared to give an answer concerning truth, but in a gentle and respectful manner.

[1] http://www.outofur.com/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html
[2] Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, P. 40-41

Reaching Postmoderns

Probably the biggest reason for the success of the Emergent movement is its reaching out to the younger generation. In general the North American church has been doing a poor job in some instances in sharing the love of Christ. Many of the 20 to 30 year olds have a bad taste in their mouth for what they perceive as a stagnant and judgemental Church. The two topics that commonly surface deal with homosexuality and churches that are too fundamentalist.

It is true that a large portion of young postmoderns are completely turned off with the present status of many North American churches. It is also true that the Emergent movement has been doing a good job of reaching out to those who feel disengaged from the message of Christ. The problem, however, comes in the form of a question: At what expense are we to reach out to others and just how much of the post modern message should the Church adopt? If the Church is reaching out at the expense of truth, then the end result of conversion is a moot point, for how can one really know who or what they are following? Truth is absolute and it absolutely cannot be compromised. What I find disturbing within the Emergent movement is this aspect of backing away from truth so as not to offend others.

Reaching the postmodern generation with the good news is a difficult task these days. More and more of the younger generation are becoming skeptical because of how the previous generation has failed to empathise with the young. The problem, as I see it, is one of relations as opposed to watering down the truth of Christianity. Many times Jesus made statements that were very divisive to the people of his day. He did this, because truth is important. Truth has life and death implications. So, truth should never be thrown under the bus at the expense of trying to find common ground. I will say that many in the Church are extremely judgmental and this has not only left a bad mark on the Church, but has driven away scores of individuals.

The Emergent movement will always have an appeal because of the approach, but it will fail in bringing individuals to Christ if the true message of Christ is minimized. John 1:14 states that Jesus came full of "grace and truth." All individuals who wear the name of Christ need to bear this in mind.

Emerging truth

By far the biggest charge leveled at the "Emergent Movement" revolves around the subject of truth. Is truth relative or objective? According to orthodox Christianity, truth must be objective. If truth is relative, then the grand metanarritive of Scripture cannot be trusted. David Roach summarizes the post modern problem by saying, "The worldview of postmodernism -- complete with an epistemology that denies the possibility of or need for propositional truth -- affords the movement an opportunity to hop, skip and jump throughout the Bible and the history Christian thought in order to take whatever pieces they want from one theology and attach them, like doctrinal post-it notes, to whatever picture they would want to draw." [1]

Other differences prevail within the post modern "Emergent Movement." Some of the issues revolve around the culture of the "Emergent Movement" as compared to the culture of many traditional churches in North America. Some within the "Emergent Movement" see the North American church as being stale and institutionalized, as if the Church has lost its way in what it means to be a community of believers. Community takes on a large role within the "Emergent Movement." Typically, emergent churches tend to be made up of 20 to 30 year old individuals, with very few that are elderly. Emergent churches are found in large urban areas and tend to have a more liberal view than non-emergent churches. For example, some of the points of contention that differ include: different approaches to sharing the gospel, moral views are emphasized in a different manner, especially the subjects of abortion and homosexuality,and political differences that seem to favor the left as opposed to the majority of North American churches.

One of the biggest leaders in the "Emergent Movement" is Brian McLaren.[2] Although his views do not represent the entire movement he is usually mentioned first as the most influential leader within the movement. In the coming blogs the differences of the "Emergent Movement" will be examined. Much of what the movement offers has been a wake up call to many stagnant aspects of churches, not only in North America, but the entire West.



1. For the entire article see: http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20420
2. Brian McLaren's websight: http://www.brianmclaren.net/
* Interesting dialogue between Brian McLaren and Chuck Colson on the post modern push within the emergent church movement: first is Mclaren's response to a Colson article in Christianity today - http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000269.html Second is a response to McLaren by Colson - http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000160.html