A Defense of the Rational - Part 1

This is part 1 of a series of reflections on disciplines in the sciences and humanities in relation to Christian faith and doubt. 

If you know me well you know that I love reading about theology, philosophy, science, and apologetics. Aside from the mere fascination I have with reading and learning it's helped to solidify and strengthen my faith in many things which I've already believed. So I was struck when I heard a comment last month to be wary of such things.

I'm not entirely certain what precipitated the concern in this particular situation, but it did lead me to ponder the possible pitfalls of reading such "rational" material. In my own defence, having an inquisitive and often skeptical mind drives me into the study of matters that I find deeply important, as it would for anybody. I don't read for the sake of gaining knowledge as an end in itself. Nor do I read without discernment in both the Christian and non-Christian writings. And as much as I enjoy the intellectual aspect of Christian belief, it's impossible to separate Christianity into its so-called rational and existential sides. They're both equally important and it would be a false dichotomy to try to drive a wedge between the two. They coexist as part of the whole of reality. Christianity, as it was once said, is both intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. I would add that one cannot be true without the other.

As Christians we believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. That is, we believe it to be Truth, or what the reformers called "special revelation." In the different disciplines in the sciences and humanities, you find the study of creation, or what the reformers called "general revelation." Through study we come to know about the truth of the world around us. In the Christian understanding of reality it would make absolutely no sense to pit one against the other. General revelation and special revelation, if properly understood, must be in mutual agreement with each other.

Therefore if you find something in the Bible that seems to contradict scientific findings you find yourself in a dilemma. Is the Bible false? Or is your interpretation of the Bible mistaken? Is the scientific findings false? Or is your interpretation of the scientific findings mistaken? If we believe both special and general revelation to be mutually true we are inevitably going to have to wrestle with these questions at some point. I imagine this is where the concern may have come from.

Questions like these aren't limited to the natural sciences but apply equally to questions of ethics and morality. For example, Christians believe in marriage as being between a man and a woman. We believe it to be part of God's original order of creation and therefore it serves a specific purpose both in relation to God and in relation to each other in society. To allow that to fall apart is not only detrimental in our relationship to God (i.e. disobedience) but to society as a whole (i.e. causing instability).

Now suppose a sociological study is undertaken that looks at the effects of stability on societies where there are essentially no marriages as Christians understand it. It might be measured in terms of crime statistics, economy, etc. If the study were to conclude that there is essentially no difference whatsoever compared to societies with strong marriages what are we to say? Even though Christians feel morally obligated to keep to a Biblical view of marriage, we would rightfully say that it's important for the rest of society at large regardless of competing religious views. It's fairly likely we would either doubt the findings or simply dismiss it altogether.

But what if the study was done in honesty? What if there were no underlying agendas in mind and those were simply "the facts." The truth of Christianity does not depend on the effectiveness of strong marriages on the welfare of society, but it would beg the question about the purpose of marriage outside of Christian circles.

It's merely hypothetical of course. No such study has ever existed that has made that conclusion. But it demonstrates how we might come to question our Biblical interpretations or our understanding of marriage. I, for one, am one of those people who say, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. But to simply be dismissive of studies that appear to contradict my understanding of Biblical truth would be, in itself, logically inconsistent.

This goes back to the relation between special and general revelation. General revelation isn't going to be able to tell us about who God is, but it can certainly give us enough to know He's there, He's personal, and that there is some kind of moral code to be followed. It's implicit both in nature and our inescapable experiences. Special revelation, on the other hand, reveals to us what General revelation cannot. It speaks of who God is, his relationship to us, and what he has done. In either case, what is revealed in one is only going to confirm what is revealed in the other. They cannot contradict one another.

Indeed, both special and general revelation are uniquely intertwined. Every other religion has its own moral codes and its own dogmas. But those moral codes and dogmas (in varying degrees) are distinct from science and history. That is, they don't depend on any kind of historical or physical realities. They cannot be proven. This is why you see the prevalence of the privatization of religion (the belief that they are merely personal preferences and have little bearing on anyone or anything else). In Christianity its truth depends on historical and physical realities.

That is to say Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of moral standards and customs to adhere to. It is not some wisdom passed on through the pens of certain men in the past but is about God being directly involved in our realities. Creation demonstrates the handiwork of God, and the truth of Christianity depends on the veracity of real historical events. Special revelation is the unfolding drama of what God has done in what we call general revelation.

Therefore, if the Bible truly is the word of God, everything that we find in the world around us, rightly understood, will necessarily bear witness to it. So then, what does the evidence suggest? That God is real, and that Christ has risen! The more I discover, the more my faith is strengthened.


Coming next time
Part 2 - What about doubts?



...

What is Ben Watching? - A Writer's Responsibility to Truth

By no means am I a professional writer. Writing isn't exactly something that comes naturally to me. It often feels about as cumbersome as reading, which I do slowly and laboriously. This is why I admire those prolific writers out there, and I'm thankful it's them and not myself who are able to write so many wonderful books. But even if I'm not gifted in writing, I really don't believe that just "blogging" gives me an excuse to write poorly.

Forgive me for possibly sounding elitist but I think writing is something we should take seriously. There's a certain degree of credibility that comes from writing well, but more importantly, I believe, is that we should write truthfully. In other words, instead of miring the literary world (and that includes the internet) with clumsy, opinionated, and feckless musings I would hope that what we read is actually worth our time. For goodness sake, I think your own dignity is at stake.

How refreshing, then, to come upon this video. I've never heard of either of these two gentlemen, but I couldn't help but respect what the author being interviewed has to say. 

John Wilson Interviews Larry Woiwode from Crossway on Vimeo.

Clumsy, opinionated, and feckless musing:

For the record, 10 years ago I would probably never have said anything like this. But 10 years ago I was still taking grammar and English lessons, which, to be honest, I'm still not terribly interested in. Although some of my American friends may criticize me for being a "grammar nazi." Even that's only because American vernacular has terrible grammar by nature. Seriously, you should know better. I digress.

The point is, Truth is something we should all take seriously. If you take Truth seriously it will invariably show up in your writings, even if you do have poor grammar and spelling. I find those that take Truth seriously end up writing less about themselves, and more about what is. They understand that Truth is something outside of themselves, so they're less inclined to write personal opinion. Yet Truth relates to us in such deep and profound ways it's nevertheless personal anyway.

On Heresy and Alister McGrath

I'm a big fan of the work of Alister McGrath. He's an author, speaker, debater, former-atheist-turned-Christian-theologian and now serves as the Chair of Theology, Ministry and Education in the Department of Education and Professional Studies at Kings College,  London. He's one of those prolific writers whom I have no idea how they manage write so much. I'm happy he does because I've come to learn quite a bit from him. My most recent interest is a book he wrote, released in 2009 called "Heresy: A History of Defending the Faith." Unfortunately I haven't been able to read yet but I have come across a quote that echoes my own feelings in a way far better than I could possibly articulate myself, and I would very much like to share it...


Yet perhaps the ultimate appeal of heresy in our times lies in its challenge to authority. Religious orthodoxy is equated with claims to absolute authority, which are to be resisted and subverted in the name of freedom. Heresy is thus to be seen as the subversion of authoritarianism, offering liberation to its followers. It is virtually impossible to take this account seriously from a historical perspective, especially as some heresies were at least as authoritarian as their orthodox rivals. The belief that heresy is intellectually and morally liberating tells us far more about today's cultural climate in the West than about the realities of the first centuries of Christian existence. Yet, as any account of the cultural reception of ideas concedes, the present-day relevance of any ancient idea has at least as much to do with what contemporary human beings are looking for as with what ancient ideas have to offer. The significance of heresy is thus not inherent within the heresy itself, but is rather constructed within the relationship between the original heresy and its contemporary interpreter. Alister McGrath, "Heresy: A History of Defending the Faith"


I'll be posting on the same topic soon...

What is the Gospel? Part 2

This is part 2 of 2 of the question, What is the Gospel? This is a brief summary of an address given by D. A. Carson at the Gospel Coalition national conference in 2007. To listen to the message, you click here. Part 1 of this summary can be found here. 


What is the Gospel?
...D.A. Carson went on to explain what the Gospel is in 8 summarizing words.

1) It is Christological. By this he means that the Gospel centres not only on the person of Christ, but more specifically his atoning death and his resurrection. Christianity, then, isn't some bland theism. In fact, everything is irreducibly centred on Jesus such that he becomes the one and only name by which anyone can be saved.

2) It is Theological. The gospel has a definitive purpose, and speaks about what God has done through it. First, that God raised Jesus from the dead, thereby defeating our enemy - death. God's purpose for Jesus in this was to die for our sins and rise again for our justification. In it God poured out his wrath on our sin, and this demonstrates the very punishment we deserve. Since it is God who is the offended party, it is he who must be repaid.


3) It is Biblical. Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was raised again according to the Scriptures.


4) It is Apostolic. To this, D.A. Carson credits Rev. John Stott. Look at the sequence of nouns in 1 Corinthians 15:11. 


Whether, then, it is I (An Apostle), or they (The Apostles), this is what we (The Apostles) preach, and this is what you believed. 


I, They, We, You. 


5) It is Historical. I already mentioned this in part 1. Jesus' death and resurrection are tied down in history. This means we can study it as a historical event just like we would any other historical event. In fact, the central claims of Christianity are irreducibly historical. Unlike other religions where God supposedly passes on his enlightenment and wisdom to an individual, who then carries that message to others. Jesus is God's revelation. You can't, therefore, separate Jesus's revelation from who his historical events. To do so wouldn't make any sense.


6) It is Personal. The above events are not just historical events or theological precepts, but they set forth a way of personal salvation. This is the Gospel we received and upon which we now stand (1 Cor. 15:1)


7) It is Universal. It is universal in the sense that it is for every person, gender, race, ethnic group, societal group, etc. Not to be confused with universalism.


8) It is Eschatological. Eschatology refers to the last things in history. The Gospel brings out certain things given on at the end of the world, namely justification. God has begun the work of sanctification as well, but we look forward to its completion at the end of times. 


Five Clarifying Sentences
D.A. Carson goes on to summarize everything as follows. First, that Gospel is normally disseminated through proclamation, that is, through a sermon. The good news is an announcement that must be explained and it's typically done in the context of the church's sermons. Second, it is received in and through faith and thus continues to produce results. Third, that it is properly disclosed through self-humiliation. You need to be aware of your own insufficiency and helplessness to be able to grasp it. Fourth, the Gospel, rightly asserted, becomes the bedrock confession of the entire worldwide church. And finally, that it is advancing boldly despite great opposition, and will one day see its final fruition when all God's enemies are under his feet.

Final Summary
"The Gospel is not exclusively cognitive. It is also affective and active. The word of the cross is not only God's wisdom which the world considers folly, but it is God's power, which the word considers weakness. This gospel transforms us - not by attempting to abstract social principles from the gospel, not by imposing new levels of rules, still less by focus on the periphery in the vain attempt to sound prophetic, but precisely by preaching and teaching the blessed gospel of our glorious redeemer." D. A. Carson

What Is The Gospel? Part 1

Every student, scholar, and disciple of the word who has, at the very least, aspirations for Word and Sacrament ministry has some sort of hero. Or, if not a hero, then at least someone whom they admire for their wisdom, intellect, passion, or integrity, or anything else. They can probably list off several reasons why that particular person has been so influential. For myself one of them is Dr. Don A Carson. Every pastor brings their gifts to the table, and every congregation they serve benefits in some way from those gifts. My pastor in Grand Rapids, MI who served not only as Pastor but mentor to me as an intern, was very gifted in teaching through narrative. The beloved John Piper exudes such an enormous passion over Scripture, but (at least to my estimation) doesn't interact very much with competing philosophies, choosing instead to preach exegetically. While I can appreciate gifts and methods such as these, I happen to find myself among the types who think more propositionally and philosophically. That's where I've come to enjoy D. A. Carson's work. He's able to interact with alternative and secular ideas versus historic Christianity in ways that help discern that which is good and true, and that which is patently false. All that aside, however, one of the great pieces I've enjoyed from him most happens to be something rather elementary. It's his explaining of the question, "What is the Gospel?"




I want to mention I'm on a bit of an ongoing theme at the moment in case you haven't read the previous introductory post. As usual my posts are reflections of things I've learned over the years, but these next several in particular are about the gift of Truth. I use the word gift purposefully because, despite the enormous amounts of sophisticated arguments that shake our confidence thereof, it is truly a wonder that God has made himself known to us in such a way that we can enjoy his goodness and grace through a meaningful relationship. Christianity, by virtue of its nature, is inseparably linked to a view of epistemology that believes that people logically must be able to adequately understand and know of an objective reality outside of themselves, namely, God.

To put it simply, faith has an object. Does the object of our faith have any bearing on reality? If not, it's not only irrational, but just plain stupid. Consider the words of the Apostle Paul...

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Corinthians 15:12-19)


This passage neatly demonstrates why a high view of Truth is so important to Christianity. Here we have something concrete and empirical for us, a genuine historical event. It becomes the very lynch pin upon which nearly everything else in Christian belief rests upon. What's more, it practically invites you to examine its credibility and explore its enormous implications.

This is why the Gospel becomes a fantastic starting point for understanding why we care so much about truth. It's not that people like myself have this nostalgic love for "the good ol' days" of modernism. Certainly not. Truth, in modernism, was determined entirely by man's own supposed enlightenment. Descartes' famous "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) became the bedrock foundation of knowledge in modernity. In this way, truth is discovered in the direction of man to God, not the other way around. Postmodernism, despite its criticism of modernity, does exactly the same thing. In fact, what many people think is postmodernism is often just re-hashed modernism all over again. Instead, it is God who comes to us, by revealing himself to us, giving sight to the blind, and restoring us to him.

Even if you don't care about modernism, postmodernism, epistemology, or anything of the sort (explicitly, that is) than you should at least care about what the Gospel is. The Dr. D. A. Carson did a plenary address at the Gospel Coalition conference back in 2007. In it he gave an excellent breakdown of what the Gospel is, beginning with what the gospel is not....

The Gospel is Not...
...a narrow set of teachings. It's not a list of instructions. It's not a list of "do's" and "don'ts" that are there to help tip people into Salvation, with a set of doctrines and other things to follow. It's not the first and second commandments, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbour as yourself. And they are not ethical teachings of Jesus devoid of anything doing with his death and resurrection. These things are all important. Hugely important. But they do not constitute the gospel.

We can all get excited about these issues. The danger is when the Gospel becomes the assumptions, and our passions are ignited over peripheral issues. Not to downplay the importance of them (e.i. good marriages, community, social justice, etc) but when the Gospel is ignored you risk reducing things to moralism--a works righteousness. But what makes the Gospel so important is its literal meaning, good news.

The Gospel by which you are saved is bound up in the fact that Christ died for our sins, was buried, raised on the third day and appeared to many people - the apostles and others. (D. A. Carson, paraphrased)


More on what the Gospel is to be continued...

On Knowing Truth - An Introduction

"What is Truth?" Pilate asked (John 18:38).

No other group of people in the world should have a greater concern for Truth than Christians. Our calling is not to simply live an alternative lifestyle, on personal betterment, or to greater community, but to Truth. Truth that is ultimately only revealed to us by a God who sees fit to give it as he pleases. To answer Pilate's question then, is among our most daunting but important tasks as Christians. It's a challenge made greater by the many criticisms, and charges brought against it by a world that refuses to accept it. Having been continually pounded by skeptics, cynics, and our own existentialist situations, many have had serious doubts about whether we can even know it at all.

But, at the heart of Christianity is a God who interacts with our own human history. A God who has spoken generally of himself in what he has made, and specifically of himself in what he has done. A God, who, through His son Jesus Christ, shows that Truth that is not just an abstract notion, but a being who has brought us into an intelligible, coherent, and ultimately joyful relationship with Divine Reality. To know God is to know Truth...

to be continued....

On Reading Scripture

When the early reformers were convicted by the idea that the Bible should be translated into the vernacular it was a shocking idea for its time. The Holy Scriptures, according the powerful established church, were not meant for the common people. It was dangerous, and only the priests working in the service of the church had the right, or the ability for that matter, to interpret it.

The reformers disagreed.

In fact, it was the reformers who were also convinced of something called the Perspicuity of Scripture. That is, it's clarity. That's not to say that everything is perfectly clear, but that the Bible's main message is abundantly clear to those who read it or hear it. The Bible story is easy enough to be understood by young children, and deep and rich enough for the most thoughtful to mull over it their entire life. In fact, its enough to radically change your life.

The idea of the Scripture's clarity has been called into question many times and for many different reasons over the centuries. We've all seen people get into debates over one another's interpretation of Scripture and the doctrines upon which they're derived. But postmodernism's critique on the modern mind is among the most devastating of late. Essentially, postmodernism recognizes that everyone views the world from a certain perspective and it influences the way they interpret it. It's a legitimate critique, but followed to its logical end, it means that it's impossible for anyone to understand something in an absolute and objective sense.

And it's not just our inability to see things objectively, as modern man felt he could, but that language itself is unreliable. Words and their meanings are constantly fluid. They evolve. How could it possibly capture divine, absolute, objective, and unchanging Truth? At worst, truth is completely conceptual and subjective, and at best it's elusive and mysterious. 

We've all seen this argument used as an excuse to explain why one's doctrine is wrong. Clearly, as they would say, so and so has been influenced by the presuppositions determined by the context in which they find themselves, and that makes their view less valid. Or rather, who's to say anyone's view is more accurate than the next?

And yet, it seems that God has faith in human words and man's ability to understand them. After all, it's clearly his preferred method for communicating to us. When God created mankind, He created them with the ability to understand Him in a meaningful, logical, and most importantly, reliable way. This is shown when he gives us the Bible. (Although, even the validity of the Bible as God's word is often questioned, but that's for another time.)

So what are we to make of the many discrepancies among theologians? We simply can't all be right. That's illogical. And for that matter, how do we understand what's orthodoxy and what's heresy? Rather than getting into theory of hermeneutics, I do want to talk about something that is universally true when reading Scripture: the need for humility.

As I mentioned earlier, the postmodern critique is a legitimate one, and yet God has still chosen to use words and human language to speak Truth. Our perspectives necessarily affect the way we read Scripture, not so much that we can't clearly understand it, but that we differ in the way we react to it. That is to say, our preconceived notions of reality, our worldview, and our emotional baggage, are confronted by what the Bible says. There are things in it in which some may find great joy, and others great sorrow. Some things we find are completely normal, and others we find appalling and offensive.

We need humility because if we take God's word seriously, and we take it as being True, then we are naturally going to find these very things that go against our sensibilities and notions of reality. Take, for example, the idea of guilt. According to much pop-psychology today, guilt is the antithesis of success and personal happiness. Guilt is synonymous with having a low self-esteem, and low self-esteem, they argue (albeit lacking any empirical evidence), leads to poor performance and bad interpersonal skills. Yet, it seems according to the Bible, guilt is a sign of sanity! Those who are most aware of their guilt are most aware of their need for God's grace.

The problem is, the more vested our interests in a particular idea, the more difficult it is for us to overturn them. We don't like being wrong. Its a natural tendency for us to rationalize our tightly held beliefs in the face of conflicting evidence. The same is true of Scripture. It confronts us whether we like it or not. But to rationalize, however naturally it may come to us, is nothing short of cowardice.

There is a pattern that occurs when we allow our worldview to be shaped by the things in the Bible that offend us most. In the example of guilt, had it not been for becoming aware of the degree of our sinfulness, we would never have seen the necessity of God's mercy. Furthermore, the concept of God's love would have been reduced to simple sentimentality. In order to see that guilt is important, we have to be willing to give up our prejudices first. We will never understand why certain things are necessary if we choose to ignore them simply because we don't like them. Otherwise the reverse happens, and we read our prejudices into the Scripture instead. Thus, the postmodern critique.

Obviously, there will always be things we find confusing and offensive, but just because they're confusing and offensive doesn't mean they're necessarily false. When Jesus came to earth, he was constantly offending the establishment. Eventually, it led to his death. As we read, we typically have little sympathy for them, but we're often guilty of the same sins. In our reading of Scripture, we often would rather crucify Jesus than take his word for it.