Avoiding The Question

Lately I have been listening to or viewing various debates between Christians and Skeptics. I have noticed several themes that permeate all of these debates. The three themes present almost always include organization, presentation, and addressing the debate subject. Now, my view is biased, I will admit, but I believe any objective person listening to any of these debates will see what I'm talking about.

The first point revolves around organization. What I mean by this is that most of the Christian debaters have a few solid points that they make addressing the debate topic or question. One of the best at this is Dr. William Lane Craig. Most of the Skeptics, however, seem to have no thought out plan to address the debate subject at hand. Most of Skeptics arguments are based upon tearing down the Christian worldview in a disorganized manner.

The second theme that seems present in all debates concerns how the debaters present their material. Again, the Christian will often present a point by point case that addresses the subject/question in a positive manner. What I mean by positive manner, is that, the Christian will make a positive case that addresses the topic at hand in order to sway opinion in favor of his/her position. The Skeptic, on the other hand, will often present a negative case, filled with "red herrings" and "straw man" arguments. By negative case, I mean the Skeptic will often resort to tearing down the Christian worldview, as opposed to focusing on the subject at hand.

The third and last observation that seems to permeate all debates concerns addressing the debate subject. This has already been touched on, but it seems the Skeptic in many instances totally avoids the question only for the purpose of tearing down the Cristian Worldview. In other words, the Skeptic is unwilling to present evidence/arguments for his/her position. Now I know I am generalizing here, but many of the Skeptics enter the debate for the express purpose of promoting skepticism. This is really highlighted by the agnostic Clancy Martin, who debated Christian apologist J.P. Moreland. One of Clancy's final arguments was that we should all be skeptical. How is anyone going to prove anything if your goal is to promote skepticism? The Christian rightly addresses not just the topic at hand, but will try to give an answer for what he/she thinks is the best at corresponding to truth.

In looking at the three themes, the real issue to emerge revolves around the question of truth. In my opinion the Christian apologist is concerned ultimately with the truth issue, while the skeptic tries to promote an unsustainable position of skepticism. What I would really like to see is for the skeptic to put out a succulent, organized position, that addresses the topic at hand, telling the audience why their position best matches with truth. So far, not so good for the skeptical position. Maybe the Skeptic has to avoid the truth question, so as not to embarrass his/her position?

* William Lane Craig debates
* JP Moreland's debate with Clancy Martin

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.

Health Care or Life Care?

The health care debate has reached a new level with abortion coming to the forefront. The two sides involved in the debate refer to themselves as pro-choice (supporting abortion) and pro-life (against abortion). It is interesting that the pro-life stance is often referred to as anti-choice or anti-abortion. The pro-choice group often brings up the point that abortion is legal, as if this is the magic word that makes everything moraly right. It needs to be pointed out that slavery was once considered legal as well.

The real issue that is never discussed by the media is that of life. For if life starts at conception, then the debate is over. In reality the pro-choice group must view a fetus as non-life up until a certain point, depending on who you talk to. This point is clear in a recent comment by House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who said in a interview:"I don't think that he himself would be one to say 'I'm taking down health care reform because of [abortion].'" Pelosi is saying one of two things: either she is calling Congressman Stupak out, who is a known conservative Catholic, trying to embarrass him, or she is saying that health care is more important than a stance on abortion.

It should be clear to all that health care would have already passed had not Congressman Stupak (and others) seen a problem with the funding of abortion. Here is the issue at heart, Stupak and many others view life as starting at conception, and the aborting of any fetus after that point is the taking of an innocent life. This is why the bill is hung up at present. Why is everyone trying to avoid the life question? Why are many writing off Stupak and others while failing to address the question at hand? Could it be that a fair and open debate on when life starts would raise questions against the pro-choice position? Is the pro-choice group being morally arrogant assuming that a fetus is not deserving of life?

The answers to the questions are clear. Anyone willing to look at the issue objectively will see that this is not about pro-choice, but about the question of when life starts. The pro-choice group has never been willing to address the life issue, so what we have now is not a health care debate, but one of life care.

* Check out the powerpoint on abortion dealing with the ethical/moral, scientific, and philosphical issues. The powerpoint is found at the top right corner.

My way or the highway

In our culture today we hear cries of discrimination and reverse discrimination. In dealing with the issue of tolerance, it seems the only ones who get a free pass are the very ones who are themselves intolerant of others views. Agnostic and Skeptic, Bart Ehrman is championing the cause of tolerance as a wolf in sheep's clothing. In his book, "Lost Christianities," Ehrman closes with a chapter on tolerance. Of course, he weaves the same story that has been woven before, and that is of Christian intolerance.

The major point in the book according to Ehrman is that Christianity (which Ehrman calls proto-orthodoxy) had sufficiently beat to death other legitimate Christian movements that are not considered orthodox. He reasons that orthodox Christianity was the big winner in the past, and because of its intolerance of other legitimate Christian movements it is the lone survivor. He implies that if orthodox Christianity were tolerant then we would see a very different view of who Jesus is and even our ethical system would be different. Consider this point by Ehrman concerning the New Testament, "It is quoted in the Senate to justify war and peace,...of a woman to have an abortion...death penalty...gay rights...slavery. It has been used for good and evil. But where did this book come from? It came from the victory of the proto-orthodox."[1] According to Ehrman, many of the issues today would have been handled differently, had proto-orthodoxy tolerated the other so called Christian groups.

In trying to prove that the proto-orthodox Christians were intolerant, Ehrman says, "The problem was that the Christians refused to worship the other gods, especially the gods of the state. If the state gods had made the state great, then surely they deserved to be acknowledged through acts of worship."[2] Ehrman pushes the lack of tolerance further by saying, "These Christians were exclusivistic in their views. They believed that the one and only true God had given one way of salvation, and that the only way to be right with this God was through this way he had provided - the death and resurrection of Jesus. This exclusivity...bred an intolerance toward religious diversity...Those who did not accept the one true God by believing in the death and resurrection of his Son for salvation would be condemned to the flames of hell for all eternity."[3]

One thing is for certain, Ehrman never hides his disdain for the religion of Christianity. What about Ehrman's charges, are they valid in saying that Christianity was intolerant to other legitimate forms of Christianity? His views are totally inconsistent if Jesus rose from the dead. If Jesus bodily rose from the dead and the Gospels and New Testament epistles make factual, truthful, and historically accurate claims, then Ehrman is simply beating his head against the wall. Ehrman is good at tearing down the "Straw Man," but as of yet, he offers no explanation of how Jesus should really be perceived.

Paul is correct in his epistle to the Corinthians by saying, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith(1 Cor. 15:14)." This it seems to me is Ehrman's hangup. He is unwilling to accept the possibility that Jesus rose from the dead. In Ehrman's worldview, the bodily resurrection is an impossibility, and therefore he feels free to say that Christianity is intolerant and exclusivist, but if he is wrong it doesn't matter what he states. If Jesus did rise, then Ehrman is lost in translation. Ehrman has determined that Jesus did not rise from the dead and because of his unwillingness to debate this issue he is clouded in his views and he becomes the true prophet of intolerance.

Ehrman is a skeptic at heart. His unwillingness to intelligently debate why Jesus did not rise and give reasons to disprove the resurrection make him equivalent to a religious hack. In listening to Ehrman debate and in reading from his numerous works, it is clear to me that Ehrman has nothing to offer as to why his skepticism is legitimate. In fact, skepticism itself is self-defeating. For Ehrman it is, my way or the highway, showing all who the truly intolerant person is.

[1] Ehrman, Bart, Lost Christianities, p. 248
[2] Ibid, p. 255
[3] Ibid, p. 255-256

Tipping The Scales

On Friday the 26th of February (2010), Sean McDowell debated James Corbett on the question of what best explains moral values. I would like to offer a few observations concerning this debate.

First, it was clear that McDowell won the debate. Though I'm partial, if you listen the to debate I believe any objective person would say the same thing. Here is the reason why. McDowell clearly offered reasons why moral values exist. Corbett, on the other hand, offered very little if any evidence to support his arguments. Secondly, Corbett's game plan seemed simple; play the straw man game. In logic, the straw man is, "When one person distorts the arguments of another and then proceeds to critique that misrepresentation."[1] Thirdly, it was clear from the outset that McDowell was better prepared and gave more thorough answers than Corbett. Lastly, debates are for the purpose of presenting evidence to persuade, and McDowell's arguments clearly met this objective, while Corbett was random in giving no support to his so-called arguments.

One of the other aspects of the debate that I noticed is that Corbett was constantly mischaracterizing Sean's position by saying that McDowell is certain in his beliefs. This certainty that Corbett incorrectly labeled McDowell with was confusing, as a debate is formed in order to hear both sides of the issue, in order to inform the audience of the positions supported/rejected by the debaters. Individuals engage in debates, so they can present their positions. Sean stated that he was not certain, but his presentation was made for the purpose to persuade others that his view was the most logical. James made little effort to present a coherent case as to why morals exist without the existence of God, and therefore, lost badly in my opinion.

[1] Samples, Kenneth, A World of Difference, p. 66-67

Ehrman's Exageration

Bart Ehrman, is by far, one of the most prominent agnostics and critic of the New Testament today. In his newest book, Jesus Interrupted, Ehrman makes the claim that only the Gospel of John presents Jesus as being divine. Consider this quote from Ehrman, "John is the only Gospel in which Jesus is explicitly identified as divine."[1]- . I do agree that John has the most references to the divinity of Jesus, but is Ehrman correct in his statement?

If we assume that the four Gospels were written by individuals who witnessed the life of Jesus, then this will help to clear up one aspect of the puzzle. If John was the author of the Gospel of John, it is easy to understand why his book would be so different. Also, if we assume the three other Gospel writers were martyred earlier in the 1st century while John lived until the end of the 1st century, then again you could see why differences between the earlier synoptic Gospels would be somewhat different than John. If John along with the other Gospel writers was inspired of God, it is reasonable to believe that his later message would contain extra material by God's direction for believers in the future. The Gospel of John does say that, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)" Clearly, the four writers reported differently emphasizing various points as they saw them and as they were guided by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20). Ehrman, however, discounts God and anything to do with the supernatural, so it is obvious to see why he would find fault. Bart is skeptical at heart, looking for variant mistakes, but the central theme of the four Gospels is that Jesus came from God, was God, was crucified for the sins of mankind and bodily rose from the dead. What about Ehrman's claim that Jesus is not presented as divine in the other 3 Gospels?

While Jesus never said in an outright manner that "I am God," he did stipulate his divinity on many occasions. Since Ehrman claims that Jesus is not presented as divine in the other Gospels outside of John, all that one needs to show is one example to the contrary. In Matthew 8:23-27, Jesus calms a storm, at which the apostles remark, "what kind of man is this." Well. only God could calm a storm. While Ehrman would discount this supernatural act of Jesus at least Matthew points out that Jesus had done so, disproving Ehrman's point that Jesus is not identified explicitly as being divine. In Matthew 9:23-26, Jesus heals a girl that had been dead. Only a divine being can heal a dead person. In Luke 7:48, Jesus explicitly tells a woman, what only God can say - "Your sins are forgiven."In Luke 21, Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem. Ehrman, would, of course say that this was a later addition, but the burden of proof lies on his shoulders.

What about the Gospel of Mark? Mark is believed by most scholars to be the earliest of the four Gospels, so how does Mark portray Jesus? In Mark 2:1-12, we find Jesus forgiving sins again and healing a paralytic to prove that he has authority to forgive sins. Two points to raise here are that only God can heal completely and forgive sins, this is why the people who witnessed the statement of Jesus said, "He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" It is interesting to note that other sources outside of the Christian documents inform us that Jesus was a worker of miracles/wonders (see Josephus and the Jewish Talmud).[2] Perhaps the biggest claim to divinity outside of John's gospel is found in Mark 14:53-65. In this passage Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man in the context of Daniel 7:13-14. The Daniel passage that Jesus referenced to himself was a know passage by the Jews in reference to God. It is because Jesus referenced himself to the Daniel 7 passage that the charge of blasphemy was made. The Danial passage that Jesus was claiming in reference to himself was an explicit statement of his divinity.

[1] Ehrman, Bart, Jesus Interrupted, p. 140
[2] http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

The Stepford Christian

There was an old show called, '"The Stepford Wives" where a family moves into a neighborhood only to discover that the wives within the neighborhood are all robots. There seems to be some "Stepford games" taking place within the emergent movement. What I mean is that all views within the emergent movement don't seem to be tolerated. For example, speaking the truth on matters such as the moral climate, politics, and orthodox Christianity seemed to be shunned by some. All of this is being done so as not to offend the outsider (non-Christian). In the end it is relativism that is accepted at the expense of truth.

In his book, A Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren makes this statement, "I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. This will be hard, you say, and I agree. But frankly, it's not at all easy to be a follower of Jesus in many 'Christian' religious contexts, either."[1] What exactly does McLaren mean by this? If he is saying that the Christian should not forsake his previous culture so as to win them to Christ, I'm all for it. Paul even said, "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)" In this context Paul adapts to the culture in order to relate to them and win them to Christ without participating in a life of sin.

One of the problems that McLaren and others within the emergent movement have with the Church today is the notion of Christian colonialism. Brian has this to say about how he perceives the church of history's past, "Part of what goes along with a colonial approach to Christianity is a very control-oriented approach to things. One way to describe colonialism is that the people of Europe or people of European descent know how things are and the rest of the world needs to conform to their way of thinking."[2] Again, is McLaren relativizing truth, by saying that we just need to be kinder, gentler Christians without stepping on peoples toes? Is orthodoxy on trial in McLaren's view?

The emergent movement has a hard time taking a stand on anything it seems. One individual who was trying to define the emergent movement said, "It is like trying to nail butter to the wall." And, this seems to be a major problem for the movement, because as the old saying goes,"If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing." The emergent movement's lack of orthodoxical backbone is exactly why many are calling them out today. McLaren and others refuse to answer the questions on issues such as homosexuality, objective truth, inerrancy of Scriptures, and abortion, all it seems so as not to offend others. It would be nice if the movement could take a stand on the S (sin) word, but so far they have failed to make the utterance. I think they have problems with the militant Christian who is always looking for someone to beat up on, I do too! However, when given the opportunity to address the truth question, the emergent movement is often moot.

In the end, the emergent movement is epistemically limited. Unless you are liberal, young, part of an urban church, and unwilling to take a stand on certain issues, then you don't fit. In trying to be open, in many ways, the doors of the emergent movement are shut on the individual who believes otherwise. The conversation that is valued so much in the movement seems to be flowing in only one direction. There is much good that comes from the movement, but the unwillingness to take a stand on clear Biblical principles, teaches others to fall in line and assume your "Stepford Christian" role.

[1] http://http://www.evangelsociety.org/rein/wandering%20orthodoxy.html
[2] http://www.homileticsonline.com/subscriber/interviews/mclaren.asp