http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3179 Thinking about our faith means nothing if we can't apply our search for truth to the life we live ... Bob has been blogging at the True Horizon Blog since early 2006. You can find an extensive, searchable archive of posts on numerous topics there. This blog section will address ways in which apologetics and discipleship interact. AdvancedMinistry There is a popular saying within the Christian community that has become a kind of truth "that shall not be questioned." It is one of those "Christian-speak" phrases that we all repeat but that, like anything else that "everybody knows," actually ought to be questioned. Now, I know what people mean when they say it -- that we should not put limits on God in our thinking; that God can do anything He wants, no matter how hard it is for us to believe. But if we are going to claim to think clearly about our convictions, this is one that we better revisit. One problem with this way of thinking is that God cannot do whatever He wants. Moreover, those who think He can are prone to accepting and promoting some improper theological ideas about Him. And, as is always the case, bad ideas lead to bad consequences. For example ... God cannot do things that are contrary to His nature: He is morally perfect so He cannot sin and He cannot lie. This is closely related to the corollary that, because of this moral perfection, God's perfect justice cannot allow sinful acts to go unpunished. This is a serious problem for those deny the existence of eternal separation from Him (i.e. "hell"). He is omniscient so He cannot be ignorant of the future. The Open Theists out there may want to reconsider the implications of that one. He is logical and the laws of logic descend from his character. Therefore, He cannot make a square circle or a "rock so big He cannot lift it." My (fake) apologies to the sophists who think that these and similar challenges are really clever. He is eternal and self-existent so He needs no cause for His existence. I wish the New Atheists (Richard Dawkins in particular) who can be counted on to repeatedly ask "Who made God?" in every book, article, or debate they ever participate in, would understand this simple truth. It is a philosophical category error to continue asking the same question while continually ignoring the plain answer. God is, by definition, the First Cause of all things. These are a just a few of the things that define the box God has put Himself in. It is the box that defines his character and his character is the source of ultimate reality. If truth is correspondence to reality, our failure to acknowledge these attributes of God means that we are opposed to reality -- that we are denying the truth. Since living in denial of reality is defined as a delusion, our failure to keep God in the proper box leads to a corrupted view of reality and all kinds of theological inconsistencies. Bad ideas about God lead to bad real-world consequences. One of those bad ideas is another misused bit of Christian-speak that gets a lot of play from those who insist that "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion." This phrase is true as far as it goes of course. Our faith does entail a uniquely intimate relationship with God. But that relationship must be built on a proper view of who that God is. If the relationship is with the wrong God, or the wrong kind of God, it is a flawed relationship ... and it will fail. As I've said before, a religion is simply the way we see the world. Everybody has one. Christianity is a religion too, even if "religion" has become a dirty word. It is a religion based on a proper view of the God with whom we are in a relationship -- a God who defines the box He lives in. It turns out that we better keep God in a box and that we better understand how that box is defined. If I'm right, doing so will help us avoid most of the silly Christian ideas that have become all too common these days. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3179&comments=12288 12288 Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:07:00 +0000 Addressing the intersection of doubt and apologetics is as old as Christianity itself. But it is something about which I think we need to be constantly reminded -- especially those of us who are drawn toward science, concrete evidence, proofs, logic, and the intellectual aspects of the apologetic project. I fully admit that I am biased toward appeals based on these aspects of the art of persuasion. I don't apologize (pun intended) for any of them. But I am also fully aware that these are not the only -- or sometimes even the most effective -- means available. Persuasion consists of more than throwing what you believe are indisputable facts out in front of people and waiting for them to marvel at your brilliantly constructed argument, then fall prostrate in awestruck agreement with you. Persuasion is a multi-faceted art. Aristotle called it rhetoric and it consists of a triangular (Logos, Ethos, Pathos) approach that cannot stand with any one side removed. As it plays into the discussion of doubt, these aspects of persuasion are perfectly suited to appeal to wherever that doubt may originate. LOGOS It is interesting that the Greek word logos consists of much more than our modern English translation into the single word which appears in capital letters in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word (logos) and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That the logos was existent before the beginning of the world and became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth takes on a whole new meaning when we realize that the Greek concept of logos included the entire life of the mind (re: William Dembski, Intelligent Design): The way by which inward thought is expressed (speech) Inward thought or reason itself (reason) Reflection, deliberation (choice) Calculation, reckoning (mathematics) Account, consideration, regard (inquiry) Relation, proportion, analogy (harmony, balance) A reasonable ground or condition (evidence, truth) In other words, Jesus brought the mind of God into the flesh with all the wisdom and knowledge that goes along with that concept. The logos is no doubt vital to any attempt to defend the faith. This is the aspect of persuasion that most apologists gravitate toward. It is the appeal to the intellect that, in my humble opinion, must accompany every apologetic appeal at some level. After all it is in the renewing of our minds, Paul tells us, that our transformation toward Christlikeness begins (Romans 12:2). But it does not stand alone. It cannot. PATHOS This is the emotional aspect of our persuasive package. It can be expressed through true stories about ourselves or those we are close to that personalize our experiences and bring our real-world contact with God into places where those we are talking to may be able to relate. For a skeptic or doubter who holds their view for emotional reasons -- and, as we have seen, this is quite a prevalent reason -- this can be a powerful way to break through those emotional barriers. ETHOS This is the authority by which the speaker influences the audience as a result of his/her honesty, trustworthiness and respectability -- it is the measure of their character. In his book, Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig refers to this as the "ultimate apologetic," the most effective and practically persuasive facet of the Christian faith. According to Craig, the ultimate apologetic involves two relationships: the apologist's relationship with God and their relationship with others. The former should be our preoccupation in life; an infatuation with God that seeps out into everything else we do. The latter should be the fruit of the former; a loving attitude that draws people toward us but, more importantly, toward God. This may be the only way that those who have rejected God for volitional reasons may ever come to know Him. I have listed these in the order they seem to emerge from most apologists (perhaps I should only speak for myself). What is telling is that we regularly seem to have it completely backward. For all the accusations that we absorb due to the hypocrisy of many of our fellow followers of Christ (which, no doubt, includes me), the ethos of the apologist can do much to disarm the negativity that precedes our attempts to persuade. As someone once said, "What you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say." Through our pathos we can appeal to those who may have emotional reasons, especially with regard to the ever-present problem of evil, for their doubt or disbelief. Those who are persuaded by emotion can be led by it in either direction. And finally, the logos gives us the evidence and factual information that builds the foundation for our case. Maybe there is no "right" order to these methods of persuasion. I don't know. But I have come to realize, mostly through my own failures, that each of them is vital to the apologetic enterprise. We owe it to those who doubt to meet them where they are. And since we have no way of knowing where that is -- especially during a short encounter -- we must be prepared in every way to do so. As ambassadors we also owe it to the Sovereign we serve. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3179&comments=10937 10937 Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:21:32 +0000 Truth Project Lesson 8: Unio Mystica  I must admit that I have always been uncomfortable with the common Christian-speak refrain to "accept Jesus as your personal savior." There are two ideas in that short phrase that have always made me feel uneasy. First, I have felt it presumptuous to imply that there is any legitimacy to the idea that the likes of me could ever claim either the capacity or the moral standing to "accept" the omnipotent, perfect Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Rather, it seems to me that it would be more accurate to see salvation as the infinitely gracious act of a God who, only after I recognize and admit to my utter inability to deserve such a thing, makes the decision to accept me. Second, I have never liked the "personal savior" thing. It hasn't been until recently that I could explain my discomfort with this aspect of the phrase, but it turns out that I have had good reason. For one thing, this notion is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Instead, I have come to believe it is more likely a result of the "it's-all-about-me, I-write-my-own-narrative" culture we have constructed for ourselves over the last 300 years or so. I simply find it unimaginable that people like Martin Luther or the Pilgrims who came to found this nation would have described Jesus as their "personal savior." Instead, it sounds awfully similar to the way we might describe our personal computers, personal digital assistants, or personal water craft. All that said, the concept of Unio Mystica is a far richer concept than the simple acceptance of Jesus as one's personal savior. And no one can describe the concept better than the Apostle John in his first epistle: "How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!" (3:1) "No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us his Spirit ..." (3:12-13) "God is love. Whoever live in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us ..." (3:16b) Though, as Dr. Tackett says repeatedly, it is beyond the ability of mortal human beings to explain or comprehend such a thing as our union with God, we get a glimpse of what it means in these passages and others. God has in some sense "drawn us into the Godhead" and thereby "resides in us and us in Him." Because God is infinite, He can be infinitely present in each of his people and we can share a relationship with Him in that way. Relationship is the key word. This is what makes our union with God "personal." It is a far different thing to say that we can in some way have access to God, and be in a relationship with him than it is to call Him our "personal savior." This is a mystery, no doubt. But whether we completely get how such a thing works or not, what we can definitely do is draw inferences about how we should see the unio mystica playing out in our individual lives. If we "really believe that this relationship is really real," it should affect every aspect of our lives. Some thoughts about that ... Discipleship: A disciple is an "apprentice of Jesus" -- a lifelong learner who models his/her life after Christ. In order to cultivate this relationship we have with God requires time, discipline and commitment not only to knowing about Him, but to knowing Him. The "spiritual disciplines" are a way to make our relationship real. There are many disciplines (and that is a topic for an entire study of its own), but the most common and effective ways to nurture our connection with God are through practices like: contemplative prayer, silence, solitude, fasting, meditation on Scripture, frugality, service, and study. Worship: One who practices the disciplines and whose life is actually centered on, and anchored in, God cannot help but reflect that relationship in worship. This is a far different thing than what we usually think of -- singing songs to God on Sunday morning. Worship is a lifestyle of faith, obedience and sacrifice that reflects our character and how that character has been molded by our relationship with God. Ministry: If this is the kind of life you live, based on the kind of relationship you have with God, it becomes inevitable that there is no such thing as a separate category of work called "the ministry." We are all ministers, all the time. Happiness: Our modern culture has, through the exaltation of our own self-esteem and the "writing of our own narrative," convinced us that happiness is a giddy feeling, dependent on external circumstances, that everything is going our way. But this is far from the classical definition of happiness. Translated "blessed" in the Sermon on the Mount, those to whom Jesus spoke understood happiness as: a settled tone that springs from a permanent and stable internal contentment based on a self-denying apprenticeship with God that infects our entire being. In other words, to be infused with the proper relationship with God is to be happy -- regardless of our external circumstances. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3179&comments=9614 9614 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:06:45 +0000 OK, this is weird. I never thought I'd find a spiritual truth outlined and defended in Scientific American but I guess there is a first time for everything. There is no doubt that the editors did so unwittingly, but their August, 2006 cover story, "Secrets of the Expert Mind," might as well have been written by Dallas Willard. In their analysis of what constitutes the genius behind the making of a chess grandmaster, as well as those who dominate in music, sports, art, or the mastery of any other field, we find scientific verification from “expertise theorists” that it takes enormous effort to instill “chunks” of knowledge in our long-term memory and to use that knowledge while simultaneously (and oxymoronically) thinking about what we have decided to put our minds to doing. This, say the experts in the field cultivating expertise, is not gained by: “experience but [in the] ‘effortful study,’ which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one’s competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time.” The writers go on to point out that “motivation appears to be a more important factor than innate ability [and that] … the preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts are made, not born.” When I read the piece, I found it hard to miss its application to the seemingly futile efforts of the Christian community (in which I readily include myself), to remain in, but not of, the world. George Barna makes a living pointing out the multitude of ways in which evangelical Christians act no differently from the world around them. Yet at the same time, this little nugget jumps out of his data and grabs me by the throat: According to Barna, "92% of self-described evangelical Christians, whose behavior is not discernibly different from the surrounding culture, view themselves as being “deeply spiritual." How can there be such a radical disconnect between the “deeply spiritual” way in which the church sees itself, and the contradictory behaviors and beliefs it exhibits? Part of the answer lies in the fact that society has lured us into dissecting our minds from our hearts by redefining what it means to be "spiritual." Those who display all the same behaviors as the world around them, yet see themselves as somehow being “deeply spiritual,” have not made the association between what they claim to believe and how that belief should manifest itself. They have never connected their head with their heart. Worse, the culture has misled them about what their “heart” really is. The heart, according to the culture that has been so successful at penetrating it, is the most important thing about us – it is the place where feelings and emotions let us know what matters most. When those feelings and emotions are positive, we are on the right track. We have found the truth, and the truth has let us be. Those who have perfected this search are considered society’s most “spiritual” people. While I agree that the heart is the "most important thing about us," I reject the conventional wisdom about the definition of the heart. It is not just the center of our emotions. It is the center of our being -- the aspect of our person that defines our true identity as a creature made in the image of the Creator -- made with the ability to understand, seek and relate to Him. If Dallas Willard is on the right track (and I think he is), real “spirituality” is not just mental assent to truth. It is not just a “good feeling” about God. It also depends on doing the hard work of relating that knowledge to the practice of a system of behavior that manifests those beliefs without a conscious thought – to act automatically, not because we have to consider all available options, but because it has become our very nature. It is who we are. Brother Lawrence called this “The Practice of the Presence of God.” It is a dedication, motivated by joy, to the spiritual disciplines of our faith. Paul called it "righteousness" (Greek: dikaiosune). It is "spiritual expertise." I would not suggest for a second that this limits or excludes the work of the Holy Spirit in the renewing of our mind. But it seems to be a cop out to accept the renewal part while simultaneously avoiding the hard work that is required of us to live out the life we so easily claim to be our own. They will know us by our fruits. If we are open to the fact that God’s Truth cannot be suppressed, I suppose it’s not so weird to find such a revelation in a magazine devoted to the defense of methodological naturalism. The Truth is the Truth, no matter where you happen to find it. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3179&comments=9034 9034 Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:48:48 +0000