http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181 Thinking through the Christian worldview and evaluating its claims and relationship to the way the world actually is ... 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 focus on a defense of the many facets of the Christian view of the world and our place in it. AdvancedMinistry I have been challenged recently (on several fronts -- some just internally) about the purpose and usefulness of Christian apologetics. I don't take the challenge lightly. Some who have challenged me have given me some food for thought about how I approach my Christian convictions and I take their critiques seriously. I know for a fact that I am prone to over think things and to be too quick to rely on my "head" to live out my convictions while I'm too slow to use my "hands" to serve others. No doubt about it.But I would also challenge my hand-focused friends to consider that their works of service do not absolve them from thinking about their faith. It's the only way to make sure that our service has the proper foundation and that the Christianity we are presenting is an accurate view of the world. The whole discussion reminded me of a similar post from 5 years ago that I am re-posting here. Because I try my best to adhere to the principle of being "tolerant of people, but intolerant of (bad) ideas," I will not identify the author of the following. I only quote said author to make a point about the self-defeating consequences of anti-intellectualism in the church. Check out this excerpt (sorry it is so long) from a book which contains a chapter entitled, "Confused Mind": Reasoning Leads to Confusion ...O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves? ... Matthew 16:8 (KJV)  A large percentage of God's people are admittedly confused. Why? As we have seen, one reason is wondering. Another is reasoning. The dictionary partially defines the word reason in the noun form as an "underlying fact or motive that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence" and in the verb form as "to use the faculty of reason: think logically." A simple way to say it is, reasoning occurs when a person tries to figure out the "why" behind something. Reasoning causes the mind to revolve around and around a situation, issue or event attempting to understand all its intricate component parts. We are reasoning when we dissect a statement or teaching to see if it is logical, and disregard it if it is not.  Satan frequently steals the will of God from us due to reasoning ... What God leads a person to do does not always make logical sense to his mind. His spirit may affirm it and his mind may reject it ...  Don't Reason in the Mind, Just Obey the Spirit  ... the realization of how easily we can be led by our heads and allow reasoning to keep us out of God's will provoked in me a "reverential" fear of reasoning. Let me point out that this author "has been teaching the Word of God since 1976 and in ministry since 1980." This author is the prolific writer of "more than 70 inspirational books" and has "released thousands of audio teachings as well as a complete video library." This author can be heard on national radio broadcasts, seen on national TV programs almost every day, and travels nationwide speaking and doing teaching conferences. This author has influenced a whole lot of people. I don't want to disparage the writer. I'm sure the writer has helped many people and is motivated to do so for all the right reasons. But, in this specific case, this person is just plain wrong. The teaching offered here is deeply flawed and destructive to any Christ-follower who adheres to it. Unfortunately, many new and vulnerable minds do just that. Where do I even begin with this one?First, the Bible verse quoted in the section heading (shown above: Matthew 16:8) is taken completely out of context. In keeping with the precept that you should be leery of anyone using a single Bible verse to prove their point (for a great discussion of this precaution go here: "Never Read a Bible Verse"), I would challenge you to look up the actual passage from which this quote was lifted. When you do, you will find it in the middle of a chapter devoted to the story of Jesus' continuing confrontations with the religious leaders who felt his ministry threatened them and their base of power. Having just performed a miraculous feeding of four thousand seekers from a few scraps of fish and bread, Jesus tells his disciples to "be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." The disciples, who having once again forgotten to bring bread with them (they are obviously slow learners -- like me), attribute Jesus' warning as being in reference to their failure in that regard. Exasperated when he overhears their discussion, Jesus utters the lifted quote. But let's look at the entire passage: Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Does this passage in any way attribute confusion to the use of reason? Absolutely not! In fact, it does just the opposite. Jesus is admonishing his disciples to remember what has actually occurred, then think through what he said. Three times he challenges their understanding of his words. Finally, after thinking it through, they realize what he meant them to guard against -- the fallacious teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The entire story is an exhortation to examine the evidence, think carefully about His words, and from that deduce that actual meaning of what Jesus said. In the words of the Christian philosopher Augustine, and completely contrary to the so-called insight of the author I quote above, this is a textbook example of "faith seeking understanding."Second, the writer implies that wondering and reasoning are anti-Biblical. This has absolutely no basis in Scripture. Would Cornelius, a "God-fearer," ever have been compelled to ask for Peter's intervention had he not been inquisitive about the vision he reported in Acts 10:3-4? Would Peter ever have recognized his commission to reach the Gentiles without his own vision (Acts 10:9-21)? This passage reports that Peter "was wondering about the meaning of the vision" as Cornelius' couriers approached his home. Why would God encourage Isaiah (Isaiah 1:18) to "let us reason together"? Why would Paul challenge those (1 Thessalonians 5:21) who questioned his teachings to "test everything. Hold on to what is good"? These are not tangential comments. They are at the heart of the Biblical worldview. Try to think of a character in either testament who is not given evidence and reasons for believing in and trusting God. I can't think of any. I do, however, know that we are called to engage the world in a certain way ... For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 We are engaged in a battle of ideas. The Christian worldview is the most robustly evidenced-based, intellectually defensible, reality-coherent worldview that exists. Our call is to know, live, and defend that worldview. We do so because, in our humanity, we recognize that without a God who created and sustains the world, we are doomed to a meaningless existence. Though we may not know immediately why that is, we know that something is wrong. We wonder why that is. We seek answers. We pursue God with the mind he gave us. And though we will never know Him exhaustively in this life, we can reason our way to His truths and trust His answers because they are always aligned with the way the world He created really is.Third, the writer implies that logic and clear thinking are destructive and contrary to "the will of God."  To say this is to say that the Apostle Paul's entire life mission was contrary to the will of God. Take a look at Paul's missionary journeys. In nearly every town he visited, the first thing he did was approach the cultural and/or religious leaders (in most cases the Jewish leadership) and "reason with them from the Scriptures." In Romans 12, we are told to be "transformed by the renewing of [our] minds." This, Paul tells us, is our "spiritual act of worship." The word "spiritual" here is the Greek logikos which is (quite ironically) translated: "agreeable to reason, following reason, reasonable, logical." The only way to defend the notion that clear, logical thinking is contrary to the will of God is to be caught up in the contemporary notion that faith and spiritual issues have been relegated to solitary confinement as "matters of the heart." Banished there, faith is left to flounder as a feelings-based inclination that is personal, private, and beyond the reach of intellectual discernment. But the "heart" in a Biblical sense is much more than that. It is the core of our being; the place where our will resides and our choices are made. For that reason, the fashionable trend of separating the heart from the mind is not only unbiblical, but dangerous. It leads to vacuous pronouncements like these (from the same writer, in the same book) ... I once asked the Lord why so many people are confused and He said to me, "Tell them to stop trying to figure everything out, and they will stop being confused." I have found it to be absolutely true. Reasoning and confusion go together. ... There is a big difference in head knowledge and revelation knowledge ... I don't know about you, but I want God to reveal things to me in such a way that I know in my spirit that what has been revealed to my mind is correct. I don't want to reason, to figure and to be logical, rotating my mind around and around and issue until I am worn out and confused. I want to experience the peace of mind and heart that come from trusting in God, not in my own human insight and understanding. Here you notice a couple of things. The author claims direct, personal communication with God. Claiming this personal, two-way chat line serves to not only further entrench the idea that faith is a private matter, it also becomes a convenient asset in making the claim irrefutable. Who would dare question such a thing?! Any skepticism automatically renders the questioner a bad guy while simultaneously absolving the claimant of any requirement to defend themselves. But, for the sake of argument, let's say the author is being absolutely truthful -- God has spoken audibly. Why then, would the hearer need to resort to "knowing things in the spirit" or "experiencing peace of mind and heart?" Neither of these is required if one actually hears the voice of God audibly. This leads to a follow-on objection ...Fourth, the author's use of the slogan "Just Obey in the Spirit," is one of many similar (and all-too-familiar in Christian circles) exhortations that contains no actual meaning. Like other phrases I could name, this one has become part of a kind of Christian-speak that is thrown around but that no one outside the church (or inside it, for that matter) can define. It is an empty slogan. Humor me for a second and think about it ... how does one "obey in the Spirit" without engaging the mind? I welcome comments from those who can explain to me just how that is done. This is not just a trivial objection to the author's view. It is a dangerous precedent to set. If "obeying in the Spirit" requires nothing but an inner, peaceful feeling, it can be used to justify any belief, thought, or action. There is no way to critique such a thing ... unless one uses reason and logic to do so. But that, we are told, is not allowed. Do you see how adhering to such a view is not only self-serving, but can be disastrous for those who hold to these ideas? Being that I have listed the problems I find with this kind of teaching in logical order, and made a reasoned case why I believe it to be not only wrong but destructive, I'm sure that some would point out that my thinking is exactly the kind of thing the author is talking about. I am a living, breathing incarnation of the flaws the author is addressing. But in making that accusation, my critics, like the author they defend, actually help me make the fifth and final point I would like to address.Fifth, the author has written a book meant to make a logically persuasive case for the point of view being defended. It always amazes me when folks write books meant to convince us all that there is no such thing as truth (so is their book true or not?); or that there is no such thing as an unbiased point of view (except theirs, of course); or that no one's "story" is any more authoritative than anyone else's (this is the strong-postmodern case for relativism); or, as in this case, that we shouldn't be using logic and reason. The idea that reason and logic are bad is dashed on the rocks of the very premise for which the author wrote the book. For that matter, it is the only reason anyone writes any book in the first place. They want to convince you that what they are saying is true by logically and persuasively arguing their case!I do not critique the author quoted here lightly. I used to subscribe to some of the ideas myself. But once one sees the fallacies and dangers in this type of thinking, it is hard to ignore it and look the other way. This type of mindset is destructive to the church. It makes us look foolish to the world and it needs to be stopped. Not because we are capitulating to the ways of the world, but because we are defying the faculty of reason God gave us when He created us in His image. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181&comments=33496 33496 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:51:00 +0000 I want to start off by making a startling personal admission that you may find shocking. You may continue at your own risk but consider yourself properly warned. Here goes …. I hate Candyland. Always have. Always will. The game drives me nuts. When my kids were little, I used to find any kind of excuse to not play it with them. But, because I did not want to hurt their feelings or make a big deal about it, I was sometimes trapped into participating in the game that never seems to end. It requires no skill, no memorization, no strategy. It has no point. It is simply a mindless game of chance in which your only claim to victory is the random drawing of the right colored card. Mindless that is, unless you are the Dad who pre-stacks the cards so that your happily oblivious kid always seems to randomly draw the exact cards he needs, in the exact order he needs to draw them, in order to reach the pinnacle of Candyland achievement – the coveted "Candy Castle." Whatever. Yes, I cheated at Candyland. And yes, I know I shouldn't be cheating. But please -- I only practiced "positive" cheating. And yes, I know that playing Candyland requires no skill or strategy because it is a game for little kids. I get it. But any game that: discourages actual thinking so blatantly; is so unsystematic and muddled that rule violations go unnoticed; can be so easily manipulated by those in positions of power; and that offers such a vacuous and unsatisfying payoff -- any game like that is a colossal waste of my time. I boycotted it years ago. I thought I had put my disdain for Candyland behind me, until I began reading Douglas Groothuis’s book, Truth Decay, a defense of Christianity "against the challenges of postmodernism." One of the postmodern philosophers Groothuis repeatedly quotes in the book is Richard Rorty, the former Stanford professor who died last month. Rorty's death has prompted a rash of articles about him, many of which I have read over the last few weeks. In short, these events converged in my realization that we have people – serious, educated, intellectually gifted people – who live their lives based on a worldview that effectively treats morality, ethics and the pursuit of truth no differently than a rainy afternoon game of Candyland. Let me explain ... There are two basic ways that we can view truth. One is a view that was first formalized by Aristotle nearly 2300 years ago. This is the correspondence theory of truth. On this view, truth is propositional. As Aristotle put it in his Metaphysics, Book 4, Part 7: This is clear, in the first place, if we define what the true and the false are. To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says of anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false; but neither what is nor what is not is said to be or not to be ... That is, true beliefs and propositions correspond to the way the world actually is. I could say that I am capable of playing on the PGA Tour and winning the U.S. Open. But because that belief does not correspond with the way the world actually is, my belief would not be true. The key is that what a belief is about "is not dependent on our mind believing it," as Groothuis puts it (89). "The truth value of a proposition's content is 'mind-independent.'" Whether or not something is true depends on whether or not it corresponds with objective, external reality. Though this definition is loaded with philosopher-speak, the concept of correspondence theory truth probably seems elementary to most of us. But that's because we don't live in Candyland. Richard Rorty and his postmodern ilk, do. Their view of truth has been given several names (constructivist, pragmatic, consensus) that each have subtle philosophical differences but all can be categorized under what Groothuis labels the coherence theory of truth. For a coherentist, all one needs to do to find truth is identify a set of statements that are consistent with one another -- that cohere together. Truth, they say, is not found, it is formed. It is constructed by the language/vocabulary used within various "communities" who decide for themselves what will be true and what will be false. Those who hold to this view are prone to make statements like this one from Richard Rorty: It is useless to ask whether one vocabulary rather than another is closer to reality. For different vocabularies serve different purposes, and there is no such thing as a purpose that is closer to reality than another purpose ... Nothing is conveyed in saying ... that the vocabulary in which we predict the motion of a planet is more in touch with how things really are than the vocabulary in which we assign the planet an astrological influence. (quoted by Groothuis in Truth Decay, p.93) To folks like Rorty, we have no basis for claiming that the statements an astronomer makes about planetary motion are any more "true" than the predictions of some astrologer about the effect of those same stars and planets on your personality and destiny. Rorty, in other words, lives in philosophical Candyland -- a place where any old truth will do, as long as everyone who plays agrees to play by the same rules. You can even make them up as you go along or change them on a whim. This view is the philosophical basis for the relativistic culture that is threatening to engulf us all. Groothuis summarizes where such a view will lead (103): ...if truth is a mere social construction, with no outside reference to an independent reality, it has no ability to anchor protest, to inspire dissent, to orient the soul toward what is objectively good and to liberate those ensnared in error. This is not how the real world works. It most assuredly is not how the Christian worldview inspires us to live. It makes ethics, values and morality into a self or society-constructed game. To reiterate my earlier reasons for rejecting such a game ... It discourages actual thinking. The Candyland mentality is really no mentality at all. It is a worldview that discourages intellectual rigor because it is an experientially and emotionally based rationalization for aberrant human behavior. It has to be. No honestly thinking human could assert, as Rorty does, that astrology and science contain equal truth value unless they were either consciously or unconsciously disengaging their mind from the process of the pursuit of that truth. No intellectually honest human being could assert, as Rorty has, that: I do not think there are plain moral facts out there ... nor any neutral ground on which to stand and argue that either torture or kindness are preferable to one another. (Qutoed in National Review, 7/9/07, p. 34, "Truth Was Not His Bag") At least he got the first four words of that quote right. And from that kind of shockingly empty logic we get the inevitable consequence that ... It is so unsystematic and muddled that rule violations go unnoticed. Rorty, scoffing at those who hold to a correspondence theory of truth, is quoted as saying: You can still find philosophy professors who will solemnly tell you that they are seeking the truth, not just a story or a consensus but an honest-to-God, down-home, accurate representation of the way the world is. (Ibid, p. 34) Philosophy professors like Rorty chastise those who believe in "truth" by insisting that there is no objective truth. But the irony in statements like these is that Rorty (et al) believe that their view is true! The fallacy of their logic is that, if they are right about the consensus theory of truth they have no basis on which to critique those in other "communities" who hold to a different view. But they critique them anyway because, whether they acknowledge it or not, they live in the real world -- where things are objectively true or false. They cannot escape it. They write books trying to convince you that their view is objectively true, all the while insisting that there is no such thing as objective truth. It can be easily manipulated by those in positions of power. Just as I stacked the Candyland cards to achieve the outcome I wanted, those who hold to the coherentist view of truth set the stage for misuse of the system by those who control it. Rorty explains how those who hold to his view of truth: ...take the unit of persuasion to be a vocabulary rather than a proposition. [Their] method is redescription rather than inference. [They] specialize in redescribing ranges of objects or events ... in hope of inciting people to adopt and extend the jargon ... [and] hopes that by the time [they] have finished using old words in a new sense, not to mention introducing brand new words, people will no longer ask questions phrased in the old words. (Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, p. 78) To use "a vocabulary" Rorty attempts to avoid, this method of language manipulation can also be referred to as propaganda. As Groothuis points out, "Nazis, communists, fascists and assorted racists have excelled in such redescriptions." It was Hitler who bragged that if you tell people the same lie long enough, eventually they will accept it as being true. This is not just some unintended consequence of the application of the consensus view of truth, it is, as Rorty points out, the stated goal of those who adopt it. It offers us a vacuous and unsatisfying payoff. The payoff for living in, or even winning at, Candyland is an empty one. It can change at the whim of players who can decide not to play if they wish, or cheat if they can, and impermanent rules that demand no adherence -- all this to reach a destination that makes no difference. While those who hold to objective truth in the real world can also misuse their power and influence, doing so demands that they suffer consequences inherent in the worldview they hold to. Players in Candyland bear no such consequence because they make or break rules to which their worldview holds no allegiance. Living in Candyland, or under the parallel worldview of situational ethics, relativistic morality and subjective truth, leaves one without any foundation, devoid of any permanent goals, and therefore with nothing to hope for. It is the practice of living a life that serves only to fill meaningless time with pointless endeavors. For if there is no objective truth or reason beyond that we create on the game board, there can be no foundational reference by which one can measure the value or reality of one's success. One of the critiques of the correspondence theory is that those who adhere to it are claiming to have absolute certainty about how the world really is and that they use that certainty to arrogantly and oppressively impose their views on others. But this accusation misunderstands some basic definitions. The correspondence view acknowledges that: Truth is a property of propositions Certainty is a property of persons Truth is an objective property of propositions whether we choose to believe them or not. Objective realists hold that truth and morality work regardless of whether we admit to them or not, and that we deny both with the same inherent risk as stepping off a skyscraper in denial of gravity. This entails the reality of objective truth and that it is knowable. But holding to such a view of truth does not entail a claim to know the absolute truth exhaustively. Like gravity, we know and understand that it works. Our behavior acknowledges this truth even if we cannot fully understand how it works. We know, even if we do not know completely. Certainty, on the other hand, is a property of persons who may or may not hold their certainty about true things. Ptolemy was certain that the Sun revolved around the Earth. But Ptolemy was wrong -- even if he was honestly and sincerely seeking to know the truth. Sincerity does not rescue certainty from falsity. So, yes, there are those who abuse their position by imposing their views on others. But those who do so are not solely in the camp of objective realism. Wrongheaded certainty and abuse are not the traits of those who hold to any specific worldview, they are the traits of fallen human beings which, as far as I can tell, includes every one of us. The question is not about who corrupts their position with misguided certainty, the question is: Whose view of truth comports best with the way the world really works? It sure isn't someone who is living in philosophical Candyland. No, I think the Candyland-dwellers' problem with the correspondence view of truth lies in a different area -- with the nature and implications of what Groothuis offers as the eight distinctive properties of objective truth: It exists and is knowable It is absolute It is universal It is eternally engaging and momentous, not trendy or superficial It is exclusive, specific and antithetical It is systematic and unified It is not an end, but a means to another end Without delving into each of these individually, it is plain that these properties are repulsive to the Candyland world of subjective-truth relativists. But none is more revolting to them than: 8. It is revealed by God In these characteristics of True Truth, the relativist finds himself accountable to a standard, and to a Person, that he can't avoid or just explain away. True Truth is not negotiable. It is not constructed. And adherence to it is not optional -- it comes with consequence. True Truth is not made up in a pointless little game we play for fun. It is the currency we trade with in the world we live in. And that makes it the real thing. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181&comments=19840 19840 Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:21:00 +0000 Truth Project Lesson 12: Community & Involvement The final installment of our tour of the Christian worldview brings us to the only place where that view can begin to impact the world -- from the center of our own hearts. Dr. Tackett makes the point that in the story of the good Samaritan, Jesus deliberately avoided giving a direct answer to the lawyer who asked him who his neighbor is or how he is to be loved. His point is that we can never know who we will be asked to serve or how we will be asked to offer that service. We can only prepare ourselves by seeking a heart that reflects the heart of God. This brings us to confront the definition of "the human heart." What exactly is it? The culture has promoted the idea that "living from the heart" is feelings-based and emotional. On this view, our efforts are successful if we receive a positive response that allows us to "feel good about ourselves." But, as has been the case with every stop on the Truth Project world tour, this notion is far removed from the Biblical definition of the heart. In the Bible the heart is a far more complicated thing than the seat of our emotions ... it is the core of our being. It is Command Central -- the place where our thoughts, feelings, will, soul and body intersect. It is where our character resides and, cultivated correctly, it should be a worldly reflection of the Imago Deo. When it is, our actions toward the outcasts and outsiders represented by the victim in the story of the Good Samaritan are not something we have to think about. They flow from our very nature -- a nature that should reflect the character of God himself. In light of this, Jesus' refusal to give an action "checklist" or concrete definition of our neighbor makes perfect sense. All we know for sure is that our success at recognizing, defending and promulgating the Christian view of the world rests on our own ability to reflect a proper, complete understanding of the nature of God himself, and to understand that all truth, philosophy, ethics, theology, anthropology, science, history, sociology, and our relationship to the divine and to every social sphere at work in the world -- that all of it is permeated with God. If our hope is to influence a culture that seems constantly at war with Biblical Truth, the task can seem enormously overwhelming. But it is only so if we fail to properly acknowledge the sovereignty of God and or to view the "cosmic battle" in which we are engaged with an eternal perspective. Seen that way, we can be encouraged to influence our own little corner of the world, and the societal outcasts with whom we come in contact there, in the best ways that we can. Doing so honors the God we serve and may impact the future in ways we could never imagine. Charles Colson gives us a real world example of that: Jonathan Edwards was something of a prodigy. Born in 1703 in Connecticut, by age 5 he was studying Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. He entered Yale at age 13, graduated at 17, and stayed on to continue his masters and teach. At 26, he became pastor of the most influential church outside of Boston ... Edwards was not only a pastor who played a crucial role in America’s first Great Awakening, he was also a missionary to Native Americans, an early president of Princeton, and a prolific writer. Edwards and his wife, Sarah, were the loving parents of 11 children. Of their 929 descendants, history shows there have been 13 college presidents, 86 college professors, 430 ministers, 314 war veterans, 75 authors, 100 lawyers, 30 judges, 66 physicians, and 80 holders of public office. That includes three U.S. senators, seven congressman, three mayors, three governors, a vice president of the United States, and a controller of the United States Treasury. Don’t tell me teaching biblical worldview to your children isn’t important! ~ Chuck Colson 10/30/09 Breakpoint While none of us may ever become the next Jonathan Edwards, the legacy we leave can be every bit as far-reaching. And though we may never know it or see the fruits of our commitment, that commitment is not optional -- for the God we serve is El Qanna. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181&comments=9973 9973 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:22:59 +0000 Truth Project Lesson 11: Labor For all the complaining we do about the fact that we have to work, it is an eye-opener to many of us to be reminded that work, and its cousin creativity, is rooted in the character of God himself. The Bible begins with a description of the creative work of God -- and the result of that work is described as being "very good." If it was OK for God Almighty to work, we might want to reconsider our collective disdain for the concept. The truth is that, contrary to the culture's point of view, work is not a "four-letter-word". Work was not a punishment given to Adam & Eve after their fall. God had already demonstrated that work was honorable and valuable. The fall did not bring work into existence, it merely increased the nature of work to make it more burdensome. We brought that on ourselves. With that in mind, the Biblical concept of work is that we should view our labor as another way to reflect the Imago Deo. It should be done with a grateful, humble attitude. It should be done with eagerness and excellence. It should be done with dignity and respect for our fellow workers, supervisors, and business owners. But, most importantly, it should be done to honor the God whose example we aim to follow. As J. S. Bach signed his symphonies, so we should sign our worldly labor, SDG: Soli Deo Gloria -- "For the Glory of God Alone." In other words, the negative view we have of work is solely a human creation and yet another example of the way in which the culture serves to corrupt the divine design -- another skirmish in the "cosmic battle." Rather than a obstacle to our constant pursuit personal pleasure, Dr. Tackett exhorts us to see work as the method by which we reflect divine creativity, and the primary means by which we care for the poor. Where the world teaches us that "he who dies with the most toys win," we should see labor as the means to manage property that ultimately belongs to God. Where the culture uses creativity to propagate false philosophies in literature, film, music and other forms of art, we should see our creativity as a way to worship and inspire others with beauty that has its source in the divine. Where the culture has twisted the connection between God and man, the task of the Christian artist is to twist it back. If it is true, as the Christian worldview demands, that there is no separation between the sacred and the secular, our labor is the practical, physical way that we make that connection real. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181&comments=9849 9849 Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:10:08 +0000 Truth Project Lesson 10: The American Experiment This tour of the foundations of the United States is simply meant to point out how far we have departed from the ideas and motivations of the Founding Fathers. Dr. Tackett offers reference after reference from the speeches and writings of those who were responsible for the birth of this nation that clearly show how religion, especially Christianity, informed everything they did. It is common these days to engage in revisionist history by claiming that the Founders were all "deists and pagans" and thus attempt to de-legitimize the presence of a godly influence in the American Experiment. But what are the facts? Though there were many others involved in the historical and military actions of the Revolution, the important characters in play here are the intellectual architects of the Constitution. These are the men who subscribed to the ideological philosophies and political realities that became the framework on which this nation was based. There were 55 men who undertook this endeavor. 28 Episcopalians 8 Presbyterians 7 Congregationalists 2 Lutherans 2 Dutch Reformed 2 Methodists 2 Roman Catholics 1 Unknown affiliation 3 Deists (Williamson, Wilson & Franklin) These numbers reveal that 93% of the Founders claimed Christianity at a time when doing so required a sworn public confession of Biblical faith. Not only so, but 70% (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed) were Calvinists -- considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic kind of Christian. All deists and pagans? No quite. But what about the most notable and outspoken of those who did claim deism? Ben Franklin was one. On June 28, 1787, it was Franklin the deist whose emotional appeal to engage in humble prayer brought the constitutional delegation out of a hopelessly stalled deadlock and led them to compromise. His words contained at least four direct references to Scripture: ... And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel ... Then there is Thomas Jefferson. Though he was not a signer of the Constitution, he was the foremost proponent behind the Bill of Rights that followed it -- and an outspoken deist who famously cut all the accounts of miracles out of his Bible. He was sometimes openly disrespectful of organized Christianity but he was also the author of the Declaration of Independence which contains at least four direct references to God. In his Second Inaugural Address, he asked for prayers to Israel's God on his behalf. The point is that the men who founded America may not have all been Evangelicals as we know that term today, but they were also not deists in the way we understand that term today. Regardless of the ways they differed however, what matters is what they all held in common -- and that was an understanding of the world that was heavily informed by the Christian view of things. Their political ideals rested on a Christian foundation that permeates every word of the Declaration, the Constitution, and even the monuments and icons that bear their names. The government they instituted is modeled on the Trinity itself: God as King, Judge and Lawgiver reflected in the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches. Each of these serves to check and balance the power of the others -- a clear acknowledgment of, and guard against, the dangers of the fallen human Anthropology we discussed in Lesson 3. The so-called "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. What you do find in the First Amendment is the protection of the church from the State -- the very embodiment of the "sphere sovereignty" we discussed in the last tour -- and the very opposite of what we are asked to accept today. Today the force and conscience of our Christian roots is far removed from what the Founders instituted. God has become a pariah and our culture is attempting to banish Him from our schools and institutions. But if the Founders were right, the virtue of a nation rests on the morality of its people, which is in-turn built on the reality of God's character. If the ultimate foundation is removed, the rest of the society descends with it. We don't have to look far to see the effects of that. The sad fact is that we are quick to blame the culture for taking our country from us. But the reality is that it has not been "taken," we have given it away, bit by bit, for much of the last 100 years. It has happened so gradually and so insidiously, that we have hardly noticed it slipping away. One of the Founders was well aware of that possibility: I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation. ~ James Madison Part of the impetus for The Truth Project was that (as noted in Lesson One) only 9% of self-professing Evangelicals actually share the Founders' view of the world. Is it any wonder we have been duped into corrupting the American Experiment? And what we will do to restore it?   __________ [Some of the quotes and statistics about the Founders cited above are from Greg Koukl's, The Faith of Our Fathers, available on the Stand To Reason website]   http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181&comments=9692 9692 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:25:23 +0000 Truth Project Lesson 9: The State As we move past the "intimate three" social systems discussed in the last two tours (Family, Church and God/Man), the next two tours focus on the role of the State in the Biblical worldview. This week addresses The State in general, while next week looks specifically at "The American Experiment." It is important to remember that the claim that there is a Biblically defined role for the State is not a claim to any specific form of government. In fact, the Bible records different types of governance for God's people, beginning with what should be considered the foundation of any civilization -- the Family. God's original and basic design was with Adam & Eve and his ethical observation that it was "not good" for Adam to be alone. The design of the family (Husband - Wife - Children) was itself based by the eternally existent Trinity (Father - Son - Holy Spirit) ... and so it goes with each of the social systems being discussed. The Trinitarian-type of relationship is the core idea for any such system. The State is no different. When the nation of Israel first began, the system of governance had Moses filling the human leadership role. Acting in submission to God with the people honoring his leadership role, the system worked just fine -- for a while. Later, God instituted a system of Judges to fill the leadership role and that worked just fine too -- for a while -- until the people demanded a King so that Israel could be like the other nations that surrounded it. God warned his people what would happen, but then complied with their request. That worked just fine too -- for a while -- until the Kings became corrupt and the people went astray. Obviously, this is a Cliff's Notes version of the actual historical events, but the point is this: God created the sphere of the state as the instrument by which evil is punished and good is condoned (Romans 13). He did not design the form of that government. Any form could work if the State leader acts in proper submission to God and the people honor both Godly ethics and their godly leader. As soon as God is removed from the picture, the system leads to tyranny and oppression. Just look at the 2oth century ... Vladimir Lenin called religion "the opiate of the masses" and proceeded to construct a Marxist, human-centered state apparatus that murdered people by the tens of millions. The result of this type of godless political philosophy was tried around the world by people like Mao Tse Tung, Pol-Pot, Josef Stalin, Chiang Kai-Shek and Adolph Hitler. The result was nearly 200 million people murdered by the idea that "the State is the march of God through the world" (Hegel). These kinds of atrocities always result when "sphere sovereignty" is dishonored -- when the State proactively injects itself into social systems where it has no legitimate jurisdiction. When the State tries to replace the Family, or invade the Church, the consequences are catastrophic. History proves this over and over again. And yet, we never seem to learn our lesson. We see the influence of an invasive State at work today, not just nationally, but internationally. If the trend continues, we have no reason to expect a different result. As an example of an issue that illustrates the proper -- and improper -- role of the State system at work, consider the protection of the poor and oppressed. There is a clear Biblical mandate for the State to protect these kind of people. But the protection of those in need is a far different thing than approval to provide the care itself. This is properly the role of the Church and Family. The State's protection should come in the form of enacting laws and policies that stop the abuse of those who are most vulnerable and punishes those who violate that protection. When the State, no matter well-intentioned, takes to caring for people directly by providing anything more than a temporary "safety net," the fallout is always destructive: Being monetarily impotent, the State is forced to confiscate funds from some, under threat of punishment for non-compliance, in order to provide it to others -- an action Dr. Tackett rightly labels "stealing." This action deprives those with financial means the privilege of acting charitably toward those less fortunate than themselves. Those who receive unearned aid are discouraged from experiencing the satisfaction and dignity that they should derive from a proper view of Labor (see: Truth Project Tour 11) The promise of undeserved monetary reward encourages others to also feed at the public trough and removes some of the motivation to be successful when they see that they can receive something for nothing. The numbers of the needy increase, thereby causing the State to demand more from the wealthy, often by using class warfare to encourage the needy to vote those politicians who promise to continue these types of policies into office. Return to Step 1. This process becomes a vicious cycle. The wealthy become cynical and find ways to hide or otherwise make their funds unavailable. The needy become dependent on the State and lose a proper view of work. Politicians exploit both groups to entrench their own source of power and influence. All this because of the initial improper role the State assumed in expanding its own sphere of influence by invading and violating the sovereignty of other social systems. The State is the God-ordained institution meant to set ethical boundaries and promote justice. When it does so properly, and when the people are treated justly and honor their leaders as a result, the State social system, no matter what form it takes, works as it was designed to work. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181&comments=9613 9613 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:04:56 +0000 Truth Project Lesson 7: Sociology One of the more astounding facts about the world we live in is that it is so incredibly ordered at every level. From the subatomic particles that make up the entire physical universe, to the anthropic fine-tuning of the world, solar system and galaxy we live in, there is order and complexity all the way up and down. With this lesson we begin to explore how a similar kind of order has even been imposed on the social systems we take for granted every day. Once we recognize that order and seek to understand its origin, it becomes blatantly obvious that the deceptions involved in the "cosmic battle" all seem to in some way deny the very order that was designed to make societies work. As R. C. Sproul so eloquently pointed out, the order we see in the created world is not a human construction. It is not even something God "made up" or thought of as he went along. The order we see in the creation and the social systems that define our culture has been there for all eternity in the nature of God himself. The Trinity (One Nature, Three Persons :: One What, Three Whos), though comprised of separate persons, shares the Divine Essence and is the ultimate model of relationship, union, communion, intimacy, fellowship, love, and community. In the triune Christian God we see the leadership and properly-practiced, gracious authority of the Father, the glorious and loving submission of the Son, and the helping, honoring nature of the Holy Spirit. God is unity in diversity and from God's nature every social system derives the model by which it should operate. The family (husband, wife and children) and the church (Christ, leadership, flock) are the two most obvious models of social systems that Dr. Tackett uses to describe a properly functioning relationship. The husband is to love his wife as Christ loves his bride -- the church. Children are to honor their parents as the flock is to honor the leadership of the church. This kind of system was in place before the fall and is best described by the ancient Hebrew term: shalom. Shalom is more than just the commonly translated word for "peace." It is a rich concept that includes: completeness, contentment, soundness, wholeness, health, welfare, safety, prosperity, rest harmony, tranquility, and absence of discord. Quite simply, shalom is "the way things ought to be." Sadly, if shalom describes how things ought to work, each of these descriptions has become the focus of nearly every societal ill. A secular, naturalistic culture that hates the authority of God will do all that it can to destroy any system that reflects His nature. We see the effects of this aspect of the "cosmic battle" that rages all around us. The family is under assault. It becomes obvious when we reflect on some the most debilitating trends we see going on: the abdication of male responsibility, radical feminism, children's "rights," pornography, child abuse, the homosexual agenda, and a redefinition of marriage itself. In each of these, we see some aspect of the godly model being undermined. Our charge is to recognize not only how things ought to be, but how we are going astray. Our exploration of social systems begins with the church and the family, but it does not end there. In the coming weeks we will see just how pervasive this trend has become. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181&comments=9376 9376 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:46:31 +0000 Truth Project Lesson 6: History This week's discussion centered on the the fact that many of today's cultural deceptions are really nothing but the result of a revisionist history that has removed God from the picture and convinced us that our personal "story" is all that matters -- that there is no "greater story" (metanarrative in philosopher-speak) of which we are a part. The result is a self-centered mindset that is all too obvious in the culture around us. These ideas work into all we have been discussing in The Truth Project and they have been a long time coming ... Pre-Modernity: Ancient thinkers believed that there were three ways we could know things about the world and our place in it: 1) Reason, 2) The Five Senses (Observation), and 3) Revelation (from deity). This was the view for thousands of years ... until the church overstepped its bounds by becoming corrupt and entangled with despots and regal leaders, especially in Europe. The Reformation (16th century) of the church, combined with great changes that were being made in philosophy and scientific progress led to The Enlightenment (mid 17th - 18th centuries). Along with the distrust of the church, God and His revelation were rejected or demoted to the status of private matters that should not be permitted to influence what man could really know about the world. This brought us to what has since been called the age of Modernity. Modernity: Once Revelation was removed as an acceptable form of knowledge about the world, only Reason and Observation remained. Without God, man became the final authority for everything. Churches in Europe came to deify reason itself and were renamed accordingly. The Scientific Revolution (16th through 18th centuries) led man to believe that his study of (science), and control of (technology) nature would cure all man's ills and solve all his problems. It was the Modern world that came to demand that man alone (humanism) and science (scientism) held all the answers and that those answers could only be found inside the box. This is the paradigm we've been discussing for the past 6 weeks. Post-Modernity: Modernism failed to deliver. Some scientific theories (relativity and quantum mechanics in particular) suggested to some that we couldn't really know anything for sure. The great promises of humanism and the scientific applications to politics resulted in Marxist, Stalinist, Communist, and other man-centered philosophies that led to the brutal regimes that killed over 100 million people in the 20th century (the bloodiest in history) and two World Wars. Because of these things, the post-modern world has lost faith in both Reason and The 5 Senses. But when man rejected Reason, Observation and Revelation as his sources of knowledge, there was nothing left to rely on but himself. This has led us to recognize some of the common refrains we hear today. It permeates our culture and has infiltrated the church ... "There is no way to know the truth, because there is no such thing as objective truth." "Ethics? Who are you to say, or judge, what is right and wrong? It may be true for you, but it's not for me." "We are not a part of any grand story -- we make up our own. He who controls what we believe about the past, controls the future. Make a "new history" and change the game." Our ability to recognize, avoid, and correct the mistakes of the past requires that we study what is really true about history. Modernism was emptied of purpose (devoid of the "universals," as Del Tackett puts it) because it denied or ignored the reality of God. But Post-modernism, in its attempt to address the obvious deficiencies of its predecessor, went too far. It led to a radical Postmodernism that is relativistic and therefore unlivable. Inherent within that relativism is the urge to rewrite history. But to change history is to engage in another form of deception. The Christian worldview rejects both of these notions and sees the story of our lives only in light of its place in God's Grand Story. It is Pre-modernism but it must be a pre-modernism that avoids the excesses and corruptions of the past. It is grounded in the ultimate reality of God. Our purpose is bound up in His. Our hardships and suffering diminish when we recognize this. Our hope lies in the future God has promised. Our history is His history. Otherwise, nothing makes sense. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181&comments=9245 9245 Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:27:15 +0000 Truth Project Lesson 4: Theology Who is God and how can we know anything about Him? The study of theology [Greek: theos (God) + logia (study)] is our human attempt to answer those kinds of questions. Dr. Tackett shows how utterly overwhelming such a task can be by reflecting on the enormity and incomprehensibility of the concept of infinity. Because our God is infinite, our understanding of him will never be complete. But acknowledging that reality does not prevent us from seeking and finding answers about him. The primary way we do that is through the Scripture and our reasonable acceptance of the idea that it is the primary way by which God has chosen to reveal himself to us. Dr. Tackett focuses mainly on the inerrancy and reliability of Scripture so I will not reiterate what he said about that except to be clear about what inerrancy actually means. A simple way to look at inerrancy is to see it as reflecting the proper ideas that God meant the original writers to reveal. Inerrancy means that the Bible is true in the meaning that God superintended through the original authors. If you are interested in delving into this topic more deeply, this link is to an excellent essay by apologist Greg Koukl that will help you think through the issues of the inspiration and reliability of Scripture: Does God Try? So, if we accept the notion of Scriptural inerrancy, what have the great theologians agreed upon about the nature and attributes of God? Obviously, that is a discussion that goes well beyond the scope of this lesson. For simplicity I will list the most commonly-accepted attributes with a short description of each. If you want more than that I would suggest a "systematic theology" like this one by Dr. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. The attributes of God are ... Transcendence: existence beyond the physical universe. Though God exists beyond the universe, he also operates within it at his leisure. Omnipresence: present in all places. God does not have size of spatial dimensions and is present at every point of space with his whole being, yet God acts differently in different places. Omnipotence: all-powerful. Anything that power can do, He can do. He has access to all power that is available. But power cannot do illogical things (like making a square circle or a rock so big he can't move it) so the challenge of those kinds of objections are irrelevant and not as decimating to the idea of God as some critics try to make them. Omniscience: all-knowing. He fully knows himself and all actual and possible things (i.e. everything there is to know) in one simple eternal act. There is nothing for Him to learn as far as future contingencies are concerned. Eternity: God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time. Unity: simplicity. God is not divided into parts, yet we see different attributes of God emphasized at different times. Independence/Aseity: self existence. God does not need us or the rest of creation for anything, yet we and the rest of creation can glorify him and bring him joy. Immutability: unchanging. God does not change in his being (essence), perfections, purposes and promises, yet God does act and feel emotions and acts and feels differently in different situations. Though the Bible does record instances of God "changing his mind" in response to the prayers of his people, doing so does not change his nature. Spirituality: God exists as a being that is not made of any matter, has no parts or dimensions, is unable to be perceived by our bodily senses, and is more excellent than any other kind of existence. Invisibility: God's total essence, all of his spiritual being, will never be able to be seen by us, yet God still shows himself through visible, created things. Wisdom: God always chooses the best goals and the best means to those goals. Truthfulness: He is the True God and all his knowledge and words are both true and the final standard of truth. Goodness: God is the final standard of good and all that God is and does is worthy of approval. This attribute includes the attributes of mercy, grace and patience. Love: God eternally gives of himself to others. Holiness: God is separated from sin and devoted to seeking his own honor. Peace/Order: In his being and in his actions, God is separate from all confusion and disorder, yet he is continually active in innumerably well-ordered, fully controlled, simultaneous actions. Righteousness/Justice: God always acts in accordance with what is right and is himself the final standard of what is right. Jealousy: God continually seeks to protect his own honor. Wrath: God intensely hates all sin. It is probably true that most of us have never considered all these formal definitions of the attributes of God even though each probably sounds reasonable and familiar. Yet it is important to understand each of them because, in the "cosmic battle" we have been discussing, many of the wrong ideas and cultural deceptions about God rest on an improper understanding of what we understand God to be. Alternatively, some misperceptions result from an incomplete picture where one or more attributes are magnified to eclipse others. You have to know and be able to recognize the false ideas that are often used, not only by those who are in opposition to the truth of Christianity, but misunderstandings that have grown within the church itself. The latter may be the most difficult and harmful ideas of them all. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181&comments=9054 9054 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:44:48 +0000 Truth Project Lesson 3: Anthropology In order to understand how any comprehensive worldview fits together and operates in the real world, you must have some notion of what being "human" entails. If the Christian view of the world is to be believed, it must serve to explain human nature and how that nature works in the world as it really is. To follow on the implications of the "cosmic cube," our understanding of human nature must make sense of both the physical and non-physical aspects of reality. On the Christian view, man is not just a lump of "stuff" controlled by a deterministic computer made of meat (the physical brain). There is more to him than that. Philosopher Dallas Willard (in his book, Renovation of the Heart) defines "human life" as consisting of the following: Thought (images, concepts, judgments, inferences) Feeling (sensation, emotion) Choice (will, decision, character) Body (action, interaction with the physical world) Social Context (personal and structural relations to others) Soul (serves to integrate all of the above) Even if we couldn't categorize these as a philosopher does, we instantly recognize the reality of each of these in our own lives. Notice that the body -- the only aspect of man that the "cosmic cube" can account for -- is a very small part of what makes us human. In fact, when considering the meaning and purpose of life, the body is the least significant aspect of them all. Though Willard goes into great detail about each of these facets of humanity, a way to think of these in Biblical terms is: Body: The physical part of us that expresses our real inner nature within the world Soul: The non-physical aspect of our human nature. It consists of the heart ("decision central," the connection between mind and body), and mind (where our thoughts and feelings originate). This is what animates us and contains our character. Spirit: Though the Bible seems to use the terms soul and spirit interchangeably at times, the spirit is what sets us apart from the rest of nature. This is the part of our non-physical make-up that gives us the ability to contemplate, seek and relate to our Creator. Dr. Tackett points out that man was created innocent and in the image of God (imago dei), made the free-will decision to rebel against God and was therefore relegated to a fallen state from which only Christ can offer redemption that leads to eternal life. The world's view is quite different. On that view man emerged and evolved from the cosmic 'stuff,' exhibits a basically good nature, and his highest aspiration is to attain fulfillment through self-actualization. So which of these views makes the most sense of the world as we find it? If man is only the product of the physical stuff in the box, how did he come to display things like consciousness that are not physical? If man is basically good, how do we explain all the evil we see perpetrated in the world? If self-actualization is the ultimate goal, why have so few found comfort, peace and fulfillment in its worldly promises? http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181&comments=9053 9053 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:40:38 +0000 Truth Project Lesson 2: Philosophy & Ethics   What is the "cosmic cube" -- and can we live there? Dr. Tackett uses a box to illustrate the Naturalistic worldview that many in our culture embrace. The box consists of all matter, energy, space and time -- the physical universe -- and Naturalism demands that this "cosmic cube" is, in the late Carl Sagan's words, "all that is, and ever was, and ever will be."   This week's discussion focuses on how such a philosophical point of view plays out, how it matches up with the Biblical worldview, and how our lives are affected by the implications of such a view of reality.   Philosophy Philosophy is defined as the "love of wisdom." It is the practice of contemplating and reasoning our way to find the truth. Though many Christians shy away from such an endeavor, it is perfectly consistent with the Biblical worldview to engage in philosophy. In fact, we are told that we are to "contend for the faith" and "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" so that we will not be "taken captive through hollow and destructive philosophy which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." Naturalism is one of them. If all reality only consists of the stuff in the box, there can be no such thing as purpose, spirit, soul, mind or meaning. Everything just "is." All effects are physical, or material, in nature. A necessary implication of this idea is that there can be no such thing as free will. All events in cosmic history are determined from the beginning when the first domino fell. The thoughts you think and the decisions you (think you) make, are nothing but the result of chemical reactions in the physical matter of your brain. Obviously, each of these is antithetical to the claims of Christianity and the result is an extension of the "cosmic battle" in which we are all engaged.   Ethics Most of us use the terms morality and ethics interchangeably. But, as R.C. Sproul points out, this is a mistake that plays right in to a non-Biblical view of right and wrong. Morality says what is. Ethics addresses what ought to be. Our relativistic culture wants to say that society says what is right and wrong and that each of us, being products of the society they were brought up in, hold to our views because we have been programmed to think the way we do. Notice that this explanation may try to explain how we come to know what is right or wrong but it cannot in principle explain the existence (reality) of the concept of good itself. We can get an is from our culture but we cannot get an ought.   On the Christian worldview ethics, like truth, is a real thing that exists "out there" that we work to discover, not create. This is not to say that a naturalistic thinker cannot be moral/ethical. Of course they can. Whether they realize it or not, they are also made in God's image and are subject to the same reality as everyone else. Maybe they are more ethical than me. But, in claiming to be moral/ethical, the materialist cannot explain the foundation of such a thing. They have to "smuggle in" Christian concepts to live their lives.   They do it all the time. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181&comments=9052 9052 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:38:55 +0000 Truth Project Lesson 1: Veritology This past week, my home church started a 13-week in-depth course of study on the Christian worldview entitled, "The Truth Project." My posts over the next 13 weeks will be centered on addressing each of the topics we cover in the course and providing a forum to comment on, and answer questions about, the weekly discussion. I invite the participants and anyone else who is interested, to join me during the week to further delve into these issues. I can't think of anything else more important to talk about. Lesson 1: Veritology The existence of truth is the foundational concept on which the rest of the program rests, so it is important that you understand what we mean by "truth." The illustration I used was this: ICE CREAM truth ("Subjective Truth") is true for the subject. It is first person. It is private. It is something we prefer. This could better be described as opinion. INSULIN truth ("Objective Truth") is dependent on the object. It is "out there." It is third person. It is public. It is something we discover. Because truth itself is an objective reality, it is actually redundant to label it "objective" truth. Truth, by its very nature is objective. The reason we are forced to add the modifier "objective" in front of it is because of the cultural baggage that has been attached to the concept. I think it's ironic that if you do a Google search of the word "veritology," one of the hits you get is to the Urban Dictionary. There you will find that veritology (the study of truth) is "not defined yet." That's the culture we live in -- a culture that thinks we have to wait for a definition of truth. Definition: Truth is what corresponds to reality — it is the way the world actually is. This is how our understanding of the truth must be judged. We all think we have the truth. But we must evaluate how our understanding of the truth matches up against the way the world actually is. This is the goal of The Truth Project and the strength of the Christian Worldview. The idea is that if Christianity is actually true, it will match up with the way we find the world and make more sense than any other way of looking at things. Living in accordance with that truth is reasonable and consistent. The "Cosmic Battle" begins when we deny that truth or try to order our lives in ways that are not in accordance with the way the world actually is. A couple of topics related to this idea are these: 1. CERTAINTY is a property of persons; TRUTH is a property of propositions. Example: Ptolemy was a 2nd century astronomer who posited that the Earth was at the center of the universe and that the Sun, Moon and stars revolved around it. Ptolemy was absolutely certain of his theory and it stood for nearly 15 centuries until Copernicus came along and theorized that the Sun was really at the center of our solar system. One hundred years later, Galileo proved Copernicus right. As it turned out, Copernicus' proposition was the truth -- Ptolemy's certainty was unfounded. We cannot confuse the certainty that we (or anyone else) hold about a thing with its truth. 2. The relationship between truth/knowledge and faith is proportional, not inverse. Our culture has led us to accept the notion that "faith" is blind acceptance of things we cannot prove or know. But this is not the Biblical definition of faith. Faith (Greek: pistis) is defined as conviction, or active trust. In other words, if Christianity is true, the more we find out about the world -- the more truth we obtain -- the more our conviction that we have placed our trust correctly will increase. This is the exact opposite of what the culture tells us about faith. http://www.truehorizon.org/index.cfm?i=9265&mid=25&blogid=3181&comments=9050 9050 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:34:25 +0000