Richard and Sundar discuss creation

Over the course of this series we will be writing a series of dialogues between two friends traveling through life as university students.  One of them, Richard, is a philosophy undergraduate student with ambitions towards a career in jurisprudence. He likes banter and debating but can be impatient and at times unsympathetic to the questions of God. The other, Sundar, is a student in electrical engineering with hopes of working in the field of wireless communications. Both young men enjoy each other’s company and discussion even though one is an atheist and the other a committed follower of Jesus and the Christian way.

What’s All This Then?

Sundar [texting] - hey man, sup, you want to hit up the football game @ bw3?

Richard [texting] – I free up in an hour or so once i get out of this phil class.

Sundar [texting] – Which class?

Richard [texting] – medieval philosophy? yawn, 2 much god talk for me. u would luuv it

Sundar [texting] – I did – took it two years ago – lol. except none of the profs want 2 teach it so I had a grad student who just went thru the motions

Richard [texting] – well, I have the world famous prof that got hired last year – he’s on your team and is all jumpy for aquinas

Sundar [texting]  - jealous

Richard [texting] – don’t be…cya at 9 for wings, beer and football – something we both agree on! Haha!

Sundar [texting]  - I’ll head ovr now – that place gets mad busy for MNF

Richard: Sweet seats, thanks for hooking this up. Man, long day glad to chill a bit. How is your fantasy squad doing

Sundar: suuucks man, Chris Johnson is garbage so far this year…but he got his money no doubt though. How was class?

Richard: You couldn’t resist could you?

Sundar: Well, you were likely discussing something that IS of interest to me

Richard: We were talking about arguments for the existence of your God

Sundar: My god? Not just mine

Richard: Well sure as hell ain’t mine.

Sundar: Anything convincing?

Richard: Uhh, no.

Sundar: Not even going to listen with an open mind?

Richard: Easy killer, we didn’t get to the arguments yet, we were talking about the social historical setting in which these guys did their work. You know, the rediscovery of Aristotle through Islamic thinkers, the church-state cartel etc. I’ll listen once they start making cases for the unseen wizard in the sky. But you know there isn’t any evidence for any sort of God

Sundar: ello, what’s all this then!??!

Richard: Uhhhm…beer and wings? And what’s with the Monty Python bit? [both laugh]

Sundar: No, I mean everything, everything that is around us – not simply flat screen TVs, good food and drinks – but everything that is. It does require some sort of explanation. It’s one of the oldest questions we have as humans beings…every culture has stories to try and explain our existence, no?

Richard: Yeah, we are silly primates that ask dumb questions

Sundar: You do too Richard – you have an explanation story as well – it’s just a bit narrow, boring and doesn’t say anything. [Laughs]

Richard: Hey, what the? I just think the universe simply is a brute fact, it is the only reality and that “where everything is from” is a non-question. 

Sundar: Yeah, I used to believe it. The universe sprang into existence, uncaused out of nothing and now I’m here – and I’m not supposed to ask any more questions!!! And then think that everyone throughout all history asks the question of origins and because you can’t give any sort of answer, you just say the question is dumb? That seems dumb.

Richard: Or smart, or wise or saves me a bunch of headaches and existential crises. [laughs] I just think we don’t know and so nobody knows.

Sundar: So because you are ignorant, everyone has to be!?!?

Richard: Ok, Ok, what I mean is there are no physical explanations for the physical world. How could there be? It IS reality.

Sundar:  What about meta-phyiscal realties and metaphysical explanations for the universe? You will likely encounter some in your medieval class.

Richard: Don’t remind me. [Laughs] No, I don’t think we can accept any such answers because they are not verifiable by reason and science.

Sundar: Reason might weigh in a bit more than you think but science has zip to say here – and believe me, I’m studying engineering and I know the glories of science.  But it also is quite limited.

Richard: Tell me one thing science cannot answer or will not someday answer? I think it does a pretty fantastic job

Sundar: Uh, doesn’t answer THIS question. And you saying the question is bad because it has a different kind of answer is really biased.  Think of it this way Richard – science studies cause and effect relationships between aspects of THIS UNIVERSE. So of course the cause of this universe would not be a subject of scientific experiment. You could put the cause of all things in a lab made of things. So I think we can use reason and science but the scientific method could not be used on the cause of science. Where science is awesome is studying the effects and interactions of the universe and seeing some of the wonderful things that are here.  Why all things exist are here is a question for reason and a question about God.

Richard: But why can’t things just exist and not have a cause at all – like Carl Sagan would say “the cosmos is all there is, all there ever was and all there ever will be”

Sundar: We can’t say that because it is simply not true…philosophically or scientifically. There are really good reasons to think there must be more than the universe.

Richard: Ok, I’m all ears my guru friend [sighs, laughs and grabs a chicken wing]

Sundar:  A simple idea – anything that “begins” to exist has a cause. If there were to be a new bottle of Yeungling show up at the table while you were in the bathroom you would not say “this bottle is all there is, all there ever was, all there ever will be” or “this must have been here forever and eternally” – no, you would ask “who brought the beer” – if something comes into existence, and we know this – it is the reasonable question, not a dumb question to ask, what caused this?

Richard: But that’s easy to say with beer bottles. We are talking about EVERYTHING here.

Sundar: But the principles we know from easy things many times help us with hard things – that’s why we learn arithmetic before differential calculus bro.  If there are good reasons to think the universe “began to exist” then we should ask what caused this.

Richard: Fair enough, but this is precisely what we don’t know – that anything like the totality of the universe “began to exist” – none of us were around at t=0 of the big bang.

Sundar:  But the fact that there WAS at t=0, a time when time began if you will, that we know that it began.  Look, today is Sept 19th 2011, this date is in reference to some other date no?

Richard: Are you going to tell me about how the western calendar is based upon Jesus again? [both laugh]

Sundar: No, not talking “common eras” – I’m just saying that today, and time today, is in reference to the beginning of time.  Time, in other words is finite in the past. There is not an actual infinite amount of time between today and the first movements of matter-energy.  So I think there is a good scientific reason to believe in a beginning of things – so the question of why it began is not dumb after all.

Richard: But if we can’t prove a beginning then you are sort of screwed, no?  And I’m sure there are lots of folks denying the beginning or at least wanting to. I know I would want to.

Sundar: Even if we could not scientifically prove a beginning beyond a shadow of a doubt, there is still reason and medieval philosophy.

Richard: I know, I have it again on Wednesday.

Sundar: The guy your prof is really into, Thomas Aquinas, considered the eternality of the world or whether there was a beginning hard to prove. But he didn’t need to demonstrate the universe has a cause. Following other thinkers from your medieval class he realized that certain things are “contingent” – they don’t have to exist. In fact, they come in and out of existence. Contingency simply means that the existence of something is dependent upon something else.  Our lives are dependent upon our parents, which his contingent upon theirs, ad infinitum…which is all contingent upon the universe. Everything in our world is contingent.

Richard: So something is necessary, I know, remember I’m studying philosophy– I probably know this stuff better than you do bro. My point here would be that which is necessary is only the universe itself. Something must explain everything else…the universe is all that we need. It is simpler than suggesting something else. You remember, Ockham’s Razor right?

Sundar: Yes, I’m sure you guys will hit up William of Ockham in class – we did when I took it.

Richard: It is a principle that teaches us not to multiply answers and entities beyond their necessity. We should save a step of explanation if a simpler one will work. We don’t need to posit any other necessary entity when the universe itself will do. I think this is where Sagan was right – why conjure up a god if the universe is all there is?

Sundar: I would agree Richard, except the universe itself is not necessary; it is fully contingent as everything in the universe IS contingent.

Richard: Well, just because some things make up a bigger thing does not mean that the bigger thing has the same property as the smaller things. This is a logical fallacy Sundar – you can take 100% triangular shingles and make a roof. It doesn’t mean that the entire roof is a triangle. Fallacy of composition.

Sundar: OK, I did forget you were a philosophy major [laughs and grabs a chicken wing]. But contingency and triangleness is a bit different? 

Richard: Maybe, haha, yeah a little different

Sundar: I don’t think you can manufacture necessity out of a bag of contingency, let’s get back to watching the game

Richard: No, no, by all means finish

Sundar: All talk about this world needing a cause aside…we study the univerese all the time. I’m in electrical engineering where we use complex mathematical expressions to describe the way physical reality works. I have always been blown away that there is this electromagnetic spectrum that was just waiting for us to discover. It was always there, part of the fabric of our world, that makes it possible for us to watch these flat panel TVs, for us to check our scores on our phones, to make it possible for us to even see each other. The world had a built in communications network ready for us to use. We didn’t make it, we didn’t invent it, we learned and knew how to use it.  The fact that this, and other marvels of reality, are just “there” always amaze me. Fills me with a sense of awe – even gratitude.  I don’t think it’s all “just here” without explanation, without cause, without reason. All the intelligence we see in the world does not seem to be in any way accidental.  This world was made for us, and us for this world – and I think we know it.  But saying the word “God” can make people uncomfortable…because this is much more personal than talking science and philosophy. I know when Jesus actually changed my life it was the most comfortable and uncomfortable thing for me.

Richard: I do know that…I do think there could be something to it all – I just don’t know…and when you start talking that God schmack I get a little nervous. That would require much more of me to believe that sort of thing.

Sundar: Well, people are very religious you know.

Richard: Oh, believe me, that  I do know…

Intro to Apologetics - Interacting with Wisdom

Continued from Part 4

Whether defending, demonstrating or poignantly calling into question false beliefs and half-truths, every apologist needs to operate in wisdom and dependence on the leading of the Holy Spirit of God.  This requires us to have a well-equipped tool belt and the knowledge to know when and how to allocate the tools.

There is a running joke in our family that has been happening every Christmas for some time. Each year my father-in-law, Terry Monroe, gives me some tool for my collection so that I can fix and build stuff as needed. My father in law is probably the man I respect most in my life, but he also knows I have little current use for such things. Unlike him, I am far from Mr. Fix It or the host of Tool Time. I would rather fix a computer than roof a house, but the tools keep coming! One year he gave me a carpenter’s belt. A leather contraption that holds tape measures, hammers, nails and came with some square pencils. Who knew pencils could be square? I had never seen these before. I asked if I should wear it in a fashion show or to the gym to work out or something!!! But something very different happens when Terry puts on a belt like that: hammers go in, nails fill the pockets and then some magic happens.  You see the difference between Terry and me is skill and wisdom. He has been using tools and completing projects for a long time. He knows which situation requires which tool and precisely how that tool is to be used. On the contrary, most of the time I simply have no clue. My tool belt might be full but I couldn’t get much done; in fact I might just make a mess of things.[1]

There is an analogy here to the realm of apologetics. To defend the faith we must have some good tools. We need to have knowledge and understanding of Christian theology and biblical doctrines. We need to know some good reasons why the core of our faith is true in order to defend it. We need to know why we believe what we do and how to make a case for that. We need to see the weakness in other worldviews in order to humbly question them and their assumptions. These are all great tools but to use them is a matter of skill and wisdom. This only comes with experience and the leading of the Spirit of God. Let me share an example.

Imagine for a moment that you have a friend who is going through a tough time after a family member has passed away and she asks you for the reason you believe in Jesus.  Someone with a full apologetic tool belt has many options here.  He could reach for a hammer and go into a detailed argument for the trustworthy nature of the New Testament based on complicated manuscript counts, repetition of the New Testament passages in the teaching of the church fathers, pontificate about uncials, reliable copying and the transmission of ancient texts. In doing this he would be using a tool but he is also being one. Wisdom would say to point to the comfort of Jesus and the hope found in the gospel. If the conversation then goes to another question we must ask God, in the moment, what the person needs to hear at this time.

Love cares about the person more than winning an argument, and wisdom gives us insight into what the person needs to hear and what they need next in the conversation in order to see Jesus for who he really is. This takes humility and prayer. Douglas Groothuis in his new textbook on Christian apologetics writes the following helpful exhortation:

If we grow in apologetic ability [read tool belt and arguments]—or any other area of competence in ministry—without growing in the grace of humility, an ugly arrogance results, which threatens to blunt or even undermine the force of the best apologetics…Humility embraces prayer and lives within its embrace, whether for apologetics or any other enterprise.[2]

For anyone to engage in evangelism which is undergirded by apologetics she must have two things.  First, she must be fully persuaded that the gospel is true and Jesus the only savior from sin, death and hell. Second, she must love others enough to share that very gospel with actual people in whatever context God provides. This might mean one on one with a neighbor, with groups of friends from sports teams and for some it might mean standing before large crowds of humanity.  Fully persuaded of gospel truth we then seek to persuade others to repent of sin and follow Jesus. This may require the answering of a few questions but again, we must not mind a few questions – we just might find God in them.

Continued in Part 6 - The Road to the Truth

Notes

[1] For those who are interested I am actually making good progress under the training of my father-in-law. I have fixed several things around the house and will soon be building a new bridge across the creek behind my house. I will be using that carpenter belt and an unused circular saw I got for Christmas a few years back.  See, anyone can learn with a little effort.

[2] Groothuis, 38.

The Practice of Apologetics - A Football Metaphor

…Continued from Part 3

In every era we must actually put into practice what the apostle Paul called the defense and proclamation of the gospel.  Apologetics is an interesting area of study and way of life and there are several different approaches to the task.[1]  To introduce the practice of apologetics let me use an analogy from American Football. Any good football team will have several different facets to it. There is a defense that keeps the other team from advancing the ball and scoring. There is also an offense which seeks to overcome the defense of the other team.  There are also special teams which focus on important transition plays and can be incredibly important to a game. Special teams can actually tilt the outcome of a game with a punt return or a blocked kick turning the tide of momentum in mere seconds. Each team also has a culture and manner in which it plays the game so we must say a quick word about the flow we have in doing apologetics as well. The following sketch of the apologetic task using these categories: team culture, defense, offense and special teams. Each is necessary and requires a certain type of skill. [2]

Team Culture

On the one hand it is incredibly helpful in traveling with people over time and answering their objections, providing reasons for faith and helping others come to a place of openness to give the gospel a hearing. On the other hand, I have seen Christians get really into apologetics and become bull dogs for the faith just wanting to battle everyone and smash their arguments into oblivion. The meaning is clear. If we want people to hear and understand the beauty of the gospel we must carry ourselves in a way that does not alienate and unnecessarily offend.  Of course the gospel itself will be offensive and foolish to some people. [4]  Above I am speaking about Christians being jerks as they attempt to share the gospel of the grace of God with others. The message of the gospel should be the offensive piece, not our treatment of others. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

In the realm of apologetics we need to realize our aim in defending the gospel is so that we gain a hearing and not so we turn people off with arrogant answers to questions they may or may not be asking. Giving a reason for our hope should not simply devolve into a food fight of intellectual arguments but rather serve as an invitation to a meal and a persuasion that the meal is indeed worth showing up for. Gentleness and respect should be the flow and culture of our team in giving our answers.

Apologetics on Defense

As mentioned above the basic focus of apologetics is defending the truth claims of the gospel.  Christian scholars William Dembski and Jay Richards summarize the defensive nature of apologetics well: To sum up, the task of the apologist is to find counterarguments to the arguments being used to attack the faith…Apologetics is defending the “core” of the Christian Faith.[5] This defensive posture of answering objections to Christian doctrine has also been called “negative” apologetics by some philosophers. It is showing that the reasons against belief are not so strong after all. [6]  An example would be if someone were to say “I don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead because we’ve never seen a dead person rise.” At this point, the Christian would want to defend the gospel claim of Jesus’ resurrection with some sort of historical and theological argument. In summary, apologetics as defense will respond when someone objects to some core Christian teaching and explain why this doctrine stands as true against the objection.  

Apologetics on Offense

Though certainly necessary, the Christian seeking to provide a reason for the hope that she has is not limited to bunkering down in defense. Apologetics may also go on the offense and offer “positive” reasons why people should believe. In this case we are actually seeking to show that our faith is actually true by providing positive reasons to believe.  Some see this project as too difficult or too ambitious as no one will ever become a Christian by getting argued into the kingdom.  I fully agree. Yet this does not mean that certain apologetic arguments for the existence of God, the deity of Jesus and other truth claims cannot be helpful in the process.

Christian philosopher William Lane Craig acknowledges a similar idea in his treatment of faith and reason. Craig differentiates between the certain knowledge of the truth of the gospel which is the privilege of the believer and the task of rationally demonstrating the truth of the gospel to others.   Knowing Christianity to be true, according to Craig, only comes by the inner witness and confirmation of the Holy Spirit. Such knowledge is true and certain and is properly available only to the soul that has been converted and is alive to God in Christ.  Showing Christianity to be true, however, requires demonstrating its truths to others in a reasonable, comprehensible fashion with the intention to persuade.[7] As long as we understand that it is the gospel that is the power of God to save people, we can be free to use positive arguments for various Christian teachings as a means. Let me explain further.

When the gospel is shared with others, we admit that we are sharing with individuals who have certain presuppositions, life experiences, relationships, intellectual background and perhaps professional training. This forms what we may call their evangelistic environment, or the historical situation of their soul. Some of the environment of the person may prove to be fertile ground and open windows to the gospel while some may not be so useful soil. With Scripture and the scriptural viewpoint as our foundation, we may properly use positive apologetic arguments when the situation calls for it. The discerning witness should be equipped with many tools at his disposal as he proclaims the gospel. One could easily see how an understanding of cosmology would be of use if proclaiming Christ with a person with scientific interests, or how an historical argument for the resurrection might be of interest to a history teacher. Just as God may use a tragedy in one’s life to bring them to a readiness to hear, it also seems quite plausible that God may use good reasons and argument as well. If God wants to open a heart to hear his Word through pre-evangelistic engagement by the use of positive apologetic discussion, he certainly may do so.[8]

Apologetics on Special Teams

One of the fun things to see in a football game is the block of a kick and the quick turnaround touchdown that makes the whole crowd go crazy. The kick blocking team goes after things with some focused aggression.  You must break through the walls the kick team has put up to keep you away from the ball.  Many times people put up walls, cling to false belief systems and put obstacles in the way that make it hard for them to hear the gospel message.

As one matures in the faith I believe it is helpful to be able to ask questions, create doubt in unbelieving worldviews and point to the absurdity of life without God. You could call this way of doing apologetics many things: questioning the questioner, tearing down strongholds, positive deconstruction[9], challenging presuppositions, etc.

Dr. Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, asks those skeptical of Christianity to look deeper at the basis for their objections to faith and see whether these are well-founded. In short he asks them to doubt their doubts.[10] He writes as follows:

My thesis is that if you come to recognize the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs—you will discover that your doubts are not as solid as they first appeared.

Other apologists have also used similar indirect methods to help unbelievers to seriously examine the implications of their disbelief or apathy towards God. One prominent 20th century proponent was Francis Schaeffer, who vigorously worked to ask people to see all the absurdity and meaninglessness that arose from western worldviews that declared God dead or irrelevant.[11] If there is no God then the implications are staggering and have led many philosophers to nihilistic despair. Fredriech Nietzsche was perhaps one of the more honest atheists in history in that he saw clearly the implications of unbelief and wrote about this eloquently in his parable entitled The Madman[12]. In it he describes the implications of loss of belief in God. Many today are not so awake and remain apathetic about life’s ultimate questions:

• Where did we come from?

• Is there any overarching purpose to life? To our lives?

• Do we have the wisdom to harness technology that could destroy us and the environment?

• What happens when my loved ones die? When I die?

• Where may I ground my hope? Why not despair?

The apologetics special teams challenge the beliefs of the day, question the intellectual assumptions upon which they are based and deconstruct ideologies so that people might say: Well, why do you believe in God? What is the reason for the hope that you have?

Our society today is steeped in moral and epistemological relativism. It is swarming with hostility and lacking civility in our discourse with one another. It is drowning in abusive sexual perversions. It shouts for universal human rights without giving any intellectual grounds for why such rights are inalienable without a creator and intrinsic dignity of human beings. It preaches a gospel that money and fame are all that matters and chews up human beings in the jaws of greed. The special teams of apologetics should rightly cause these ideas to teeter and fall as they actually are a house of cards. Sadly, it is precisely upon these shaky foundations that many in modern society build their lives. It is a loving friend who will bring into question such unstable commitments and foundations for life.

Continued in Part 5 - Interacting with Wisdom

Notes

[1] See Appendix 1 at the conclusion of this essay on Apologetic Schools and Methodologies.

[2] The football analogy is used by the late Ron Nash in Ronald Nash, Faith and Reason - Searching for a Rational Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 16.

[4] See 1 Corinthians 1:18-25, 2 Corinthians 2:12-16, Galatians 5:11

[5] William Dempski and Jay Wesley Richards, Unapologetic Apologetics (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2011), 42.

[6] Nash, 14, 15.  Nash follows philosopher George Mavrodes in his use of “negative” and “positive” apologetics when approaching this subject.

[7] Craig, 43-60.

[8] The Apostle Paul’s interactions with gentile farmers and philosophers in the book of Acts (Acts 14 and 17 respectively) seem to illustrate this as part of his practice when preaching the gospel.

[9] I first read this term being used by a British evangelist named Nick Pollard.  See Nick Pollard, Evangelism Made Slightly Less Difficult - How to Interest the Uninterested (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1997).

[10] Timothy J. Keller, The Reason for God : Belief in an Age of Skepticism, 1st Riverhead trade pbk. ed. (New York: Riverhead Books, 2009), xviii.

[11] See “The Absurdity of Life without God” in Craig, 65-90.

[12] Fredrich Nietzsche’s The Parable of the Madman, 1882

Apologetics in Church History

continued from Part 2

Church Fathers/Early Patristic Period

In the first century after the apostolic era[1], we see right away the rich work of Christian Apologists emerging. Justin Martyr wrote several works of apologetics in the 2nd century AD interacting with Greek philosophical concepts and defending the faith through rational discourse.  It was not simply an intellectual game for Justin as he was executed AD 165. His crime was defending Christian teachings in a debate with a cynic philosopher named Crescens. Furthermore, in the third century, an early follower of Jesus named Origen wrote a work entitled Contra Celsum giving an answer to a Platonist philosopher named Celsus.  Apparently this guy was accusing Christians of being dumbs-dumbs and Origen sought to intellectually refute his claims. 

Augustine of Hippo

When we arrive in the fifth century we encounter the massive literary efforts of St. Augustine of Hippo. A massively influential (and controversial) theologian to this day, he also wrote a significant apologetic to the detractors against Christianity in his day.  Augustine was a bishop in the church after the times of Constantine when Church and Roman Empire had effectively become one.  The ideology of that time merged the idea of Rome as the eternal city with the idea that it was the culmination and arrival of the Kingdom of God.  The crucified and risen Jesus had brought the world-dominating Roman Empire to heal and therefore it was to be the crown of the work of God on the earth. Then something happened. Alaric, King of the Visigoths sacked Rome and the already crumbling Empire was shown to be something less that the Kingdom of God.  In this time, many pagan thinkers accused this fall of Rome on it switching its gods to the worship of Jesus. The fall of Rome, so they said, was the fault of the people abandoning the traditional gods in favor of Jesus and the Christian religion. It was in this setting that Augustine wrote his now classic City of God, which laid forth a Christian view of history and separated the city of man and the rule and reign of Jesus. Jesus’s church always traveled among the city of man but the two were not to be seen as one; they were, in fact, at odds with one another. Political rule and the rule of the King of heaven were not to be collapsed into one. They are separate.  The interesting thing about Augustine is his methodology of entering debate with the pagans. He refuted their claims and then told the greater narrative of the Kingdom that has no end which should not be identified with Rome[2]…or America for that matter. 

Thomas Aquinas

Later in the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, the looming medieval luminary, engaged in a similar apologetic project with the Islamic thinking of his day. Leading up to this time the ancient works of Aristotle had been rediscovered by Arabic thinkers and were leading to various advances in natural philosophy, ethical reasoning, mathematics and logic.  At the time, Christian Europe was introduced to Aristotelian thinking through the translated works of the Muslim philosopher Averroes. In the mid thirteenth century, Thomas wrote his work Summa Contra Gentiles as an answer to the Islamic thinking that was pouring into Europe. For several hundred years Islamic forces had sought to conquer the European continent by force of arms and had succeeded in fully annexing the Iberian Peninsula. Many know that Charles the hammer Martel fought back the Islamic invasions militarily but fewer today know that the intellectual bastions of Europe were manned by Christian theologians and apologists such as Thomas Aquinas. He interacted with Aristotle, created a unique synthesis between faith and philosophy and, as some would argue, set the table for the scientific revolution which took place in Europe in the centuries that followed.[3]

Early Modern and Modern Apologists

Even further along in history we find the 17th century French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal wagering with the skeptics of his day.  Closer to our own times we find British thinkers GK Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers, Malcom Muggeridge and CS Lewis[4] calling out in the wilderness of the crumbling Christian civilization of Great Britain.  We observe the American thinker Frances Schaeffer pushing the West to examine its effort to deconstruct itself.[5] In our own day men like Francis Collins, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Alister McGrath and John Lennox[6] are interacting with the modern sciences when that enterprise overstates a naturalistic case.  Men such as William Lane Craig are doing philosophy in the public sphere of intellectual debates on topics such as the existence of God, the objectivity of moral values and the historical resurrection of Jesus from the dead.[8]

In summary, we observe both in the New Testament Scriptures and in the pages of church history that God’s people are exhorted to contend for the faith once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3).  Pascal describes well the apologetic enterprise of the people of God in his classic work Pensées:

Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good.[9]

It is the work of God to convert and convict people of sin and allow them to see the light of the gospel in the face of Jesus Christ.  We are to preach the gospel as it is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe (Romans 1:16).  We are also to give a reason for the hope we have, doing so with gentleness in our flow and respect for people (1 Peter 3:15).  The ways in which we may go about the apologetic task is the focus of the next section.

Continued in Part 4 - The Practice of Apologetics - A Metaphor from Football

Notes

[1] The apostolic age or era simply refers to the first generation of Christians after the death and ascension of Jesus. This age comprises the bulk of first century Christianity and includes the work of the apostles and that of those known as the apostolic fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna).

[2] See Curtis Chang, Engaging Unbelief : A Captivating Strategy from Augustine & Aquinas (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000). Chang lays forth a strategy for apologetics derived from these two historical Christian leaders who served at different historical epochs. What he finds in common with both Augustine and Thomas is that they entered debate with Christianity’s critics with their terms, exposed the flaws in their arguments and then captures the truth they were getting at retold within the Christian story.

[3] The most influential thinker along these lines is Pierre Duhem and his massive work Le système du monde: histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic (The System of World: A History of Cosmological Doctrines from Plato to Copernicus. For an introduction to Duhem, see Roger Ariew, “Pierre Duhem,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/duhem/ (accessed 9/14/2011). See also

[4] See Markos. Louis Markos new work focuses several chapters on the thought of Chesterton, Sayers and Lewis. For those wishing to be introduced to these British apologists Markos book is to be commended.

[5] Francis A. Schaeffer, Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy: The Three Essential Books in One Volume (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990).

[6] See Francis S. Collins, The Language of God : A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006).  Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996). William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution : Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004). John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker : Has Science Buried God?, 1st ed. (Oxford: Lion, 2007); Alister McGrath, A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology (Louisville: Westminter John Knox, 2009).

[8] Craig’s summary work is his textbook William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith - Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).

[9] Quoted in Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics - a Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grover: IVP Academic, 2011), 25.

Finding God in Our Questions - An Intro to Christian Apologetics - Part 2

continued from part 1

Far from being an exercise in saying that you are sorry, the term apologetics is derived from an ancient Greek word which means to give a reasoned defense of something.[1] Plato’s ancient account of the trial of Socrates before the leaders of Athens was simple entitled “The Apology of Socrates.”[2] It recounts the old philosopher’s defense of himself and his work against charges levied against him of atheism and the corruption of the youth.[3] This well-traveled Greek term is the word we find as we come to the New Testament writings which describe the work of the early Christian community. The Bible both demonstrates that the early church gave a reasoned defense of the gospel as well as an exhortation for us to do so as well.  We will first look at Apologetics in the New Testament and then the robust witness in church history of Christians working for the proclamation and defense of the gospel.

Apologetics in the New Testament

In the New Testament of the Holy Bible the same term is used by two of the preeminent leaders of the early Christian movement. First, a teacher of the faith named Paul told his friends in a church in the city of Philippi that his work had been for the “defense and confirmation” of the gospel (Philippians 1:7). He goes on to say that he had been put in jail precisely due to this defense. The word he uses for defense in this chapter is the word from which we derive our term apologetics. Furthermore, the apostle Peter exhorted the early church to do several things in 1 Peter 3:15. They are to first set apart Christ as Lord in their own hearts. Second, they are to always be prepared to give a defense, an apologia, when asked for the reason they have for the hope that is within them. Finally, they are to do this in a manner that is gentle and respectful towards their friends. Openly advocating and defending the truth of the gospel was both the habit of Paul and the exhortation of Peter.

In addition to the clear New Testament witness of Peter and Paul we also have the writings of the gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts.  This two part work was compiled by a follower of Jesus named Luke who was the traveling companion of Paul and a leader in first century Christianity.  At the beginning of Luke and Acts he writes the following:

Luke 1:1-4 1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Acts 1:1-3 1In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

Here we see Luke, a physician by training, seeking to explain clearly the truth about Jesus in his gospel and then confirm the truth of Jesus’ resurrection and ministry carried on through his church. His concern was that a new follower of Jesus would have “certainty concerning the things he had been taught” and then understand all God had done through the apostles to expand the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the book of Luke we see all Jesus taught and did and in the book of Acts we see what his leaders were about in following his commission for their lives after he was gone. In Acts we see Peter and Paul proclaiming the gospel and giving explanations of the gospel to various audiences and contexts in the ancient world. Ajith Fernando, Sri Lankan Christian leader and Scholar, describes the messages proclaimed in Acts as all having a strong apologetic context.[4] Indeed the early church was proclaiming the good news of Jesus (evangelism) and defending the gospel as people inquired into the message they preached (apologetics). Commending and defending the gospel is the biblical model so we must maintain this intricate connection.

Continued in Part 3 - Apologetics in Church History

Notes

[1] See ἀπολογία in Walter Bauer and others, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

[2] Louis Markos, Apologetics for the 21st Century (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 17.

[3] Atheism in that he did not advocate for the pantheon of ancient Greece and corruption in that his method was seen as deconstructive in that he questioned everything.

[4] Ajith Fernando, Acts, the Niv Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 30.

Finding God in Our Questions - An Intro to Christian Apologetics - Part 1

Introduction

With all its twists and turns, joys and pains life certainly has a common thread. It is filled with many questions. Questions are a peculiar thing. Through them we can discover life and learn something about the universe and ourselves. Yet they can also yield great confusion. At times we ask, “What in the world is my life about?” and to be honest, the answers do not always come easily. The beauty of creation, the glories and horrors of human beings, the mystical call of the spiritual life, the centrality of love and the finality of death all provoke deep questions. What can we learn about life, beauty and meaning if we ask them honestly? Questions can be like breadcrumbs marking the trail that leads to truth and hope…even God.

When I became a follower of Jesus as a university student I had so many questions about my new faith. I had questions about the interrelations of science and belief in God. I had questions about the Bible, a fascinating collection of ancient writings I was reading for the first time. I had questions about why Christian college kids seemed to be trying to avoid both sex and beer. I had so many questions I didn’t know what to do but ask them. So ask them I did: to anyone and everyone who would listen and seemed to have some wisdom around the subjects of my interest.

At this point I ran into a couple of interesting responses. The first was a strange response from some students who grew up in certain churches. They told me that we should not ask questions but that we should just have faith. I had no idea what that meant but it sounded like a recipe for disaster. How could I learn more without asking questions about what Christians taught and believed? Furthermore, all my non-Christian friends had nothing but questions for me which sort of reinforced my desire to find some answers. In this same season of life, one of my friends said to me, “you would really enjoy reading some Christian apologetics!” Being a science and math guy and not having the most sophisticated vocabulary at the time, I quipped in response, “I’m not saying sorry to anyone for believing in Jesus.” Of course the word apology and apologetics have a nuanced meaning that I was unaware of in my own etymological ignorance. Apologetics is actually a discipline of theology that gives answers to questions about the Christian faith. We’ll pick that back up quite a bit in a moment.

What I found that God was not afraid of my questions and by following them in faith, I always ended up following him. I found God in a deep way by asking them. Questions for me were not a hindrance to faith in Jesus; they were a portal and entry way. They were a portal to a great appreciation for the breadth and depth of the truth of the gospel and led to an actual deepening of intimacy with the God I loved.

The Role of Questions

Human questions can be used in one of two directions in relationship to God. They can be used in following God or they can be used in rebellion against God. Many times people ask questions to which they really do not want answers. They only want to provoke doubt and leave people in a dark forest of skepticism and disbelief. Such questions are simply smokescreens[1] to avoid getting to the heart of the matter, or they can also be a wicked suppression of the truth like little middle fingers before the face of God. Over the years I have noticed that deeply intellectual people handle questions about faith in different ways. I have observed some with hostility to God and a mind completely closed towards the truths and possibilities of Christian faith. I have watched others with an open mind and a heart willing to follow the trail wherever it may lead. It seems to me that God’s intervention and activity in a person’s life has been the main difference here. I do know this: coming in humility and openness always leads to a better place when asking questions about God. Questions asked in the posture of faith, hope and love can be a wonderful tool guiding us towards God’s truth. Asking them with a sneering cynicism can lead one into a damnable place.

In this essay I hope to take us towards our questions in hope of finding sturdy answers for the soul as it sojourns on the earth with God. To do so I want to first introduce you to the discipline of Christian Apologetics and its helpfulness to the task of the church. I then want to encourage all of us to interact in wisdom with questions people actually have: real people, our friends and their real questions. Finally, I want to conclude with some thoughts about the interplay between our intellectual questions and the necessity for God’s help and illumination at every stage of seeking answers. There will also be two appendices on apologetic systems and the content of apologetics both ancient and modern. Now, without delay, let’s move to our introduction to Christian Apologetics.

Continued in part 2

Notes

[1] Smokescreen questions is a term I first observed used by Dr. J. Budziszewski in coaching college students to deal with questions. See J. Budziszewski, How to Stay Christian in College (Colorado Springs: Nav Press, 2004), 64-72.

An essay in many parts. Or...a hat tip towards brief posts

Hi guys,

Typically here at the POCBlog I drop in some longish writing that I do from time to time on various subjects. I sort of do this in the wind of a culture that says “write short posts, never more than a screen high, and don’t make complex arguments…cause the kids can’t read good any more.” You know you are all distracted and your brains must be slowly oozing away. Plus, who has time to read any more. Just give me some bullet points and sound bytes and I’ll be happliy on my way back to Facebook!

To be honest, I think we ought to read longer things and write them as well. Yet in a small, conciliatory hat tip towards short writing, I am going to roll out an intro to apologetics I wrote last week here section by section. So if questions about faith, reality and interacting with the truth of the gospel are of interest to you…stick around.

A few shortish posts are forthcoming. One quick comment about the footnotes. They will be numbered as they appeared in the longer piece so if an entry has footnotes that begin with the number 6 or something - this is why. I don’t have enough time to change all of them for each and every post.

Finally, if you made it this far and used a scroll bar then you likely don’t mind a longer read. If so, you can find the entirety of this series in one PDF file here.

Thanks team

Reid

After the wave...

This morning just about all the roads in Middlesex County NJ are empty. This is rare occurrence caused by the recent rampage of hurricane Irene. The storm lost most of it’s southern Caribbean muscle, but still brought heavy flooding to parts of our state. This morning the worship gatherings of Jacob’s Well were cancelled due to the realities associated with the storm. We were to finish a series simply entitled “New School - A New Testament Overview”. Today was to be that enigmatic little book known as the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Last summer, when we began an Old Testament introduction, I introduced the metaphor of a wave coming through all of human history. At the very beginning of time, after the fall of man and the curse of God upon the world, the promises of redemption and hope began to flow. The covenant promises of God build throughout history and culminate at a specific locus in space-time, the person of Jesus himself. At this point, all the energy of a wave at sea, culminates in a glorious picture of the glory of God.  At the cresting of a massive wave stuff begins to happen.  There is blessing and joy - like surfing - and power and chaos unleashed - like a hurricane.

Today, I was to complete the image of the wave by looking at what happens after the furious storm passes by.  As a kid growing up in Virginia Beach, VA I know what happens after a big tropical storm clears out. There is a glorious and glowing calm, sometimes the groans and pains of destruction and and exhales of relief.  Revelation is a book where the cresting wave and the powerful judgments of the storm are on display.  Both the chaos of sin, the blessing of God and power of his holy and right judgment is fully felt in all its joy and fury. Yet, what happens after the wave fully passes through?  What is left after all the churning of the water, the height and power of the wave and all the glory which is felt and seen? After every wave is a serene calm; after every storm there is a profound and tangible peace.  As the words of Charlie Richardson’s song, there is a peace, so rightly recall:

Thereʼs a peace to settle your soul,
There is a peace that is calling you home

It is no small thing that one of the images in the vision the apostle is given in the Revelation is that of a glassy sea. The dangers and perils and fear associated with the sea have been calmed. That which used to hold doom and calamity is now a beautiful accessory around the throne of God; the foundation for the throne room of heaven is peace.

After the wave of redemption flows through history, unfolding in the covenants and cresting in the person of Jesus, his work of gospel grace and holy judgment have fully brought redemption to all things.  What is our response?

 “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” Revelation 4:1-11

As the Kingdom of Heaven is still a far country we still have much work to do in this age as we await the full peace in the age to come. Watch, Work, Pray my friends…for the glory of God, the good of our cities as we extend hope through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Blessed Virgin and Jesus' Family

The authors of the books of Jude and James are identified in a very interesting way in the New Testament. They seem to be identified as brothers of Jesus himself (Mark 6:1-5, Jude 1:1, Matthew 13:53-58). It might come as a surprise to some, but it appears that Jesus grew up in a family and had siblings. In fact we read this account in the gospel of Matthew.

⁵³And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, ⁵⁴and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? ⁵⁵Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas [Jude]? ⁵⁶ And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” ⁵⁷And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” ⁵⁸ And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

Matthew 13:53-58 ESV

Furthermore, Luke’s gospel contains another account  that describes Jesus mother and brothers coming to look for him in a crowd of people.  The account in Luke 8 reads as follows:

¹⁹Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. ²⁰And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.” ²¹But he answered them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”

Luke 8:19-21 ESV

Paul the apostle spoke of James in Galatians chapter 1:18, 19 as being the “Lord’s brother.” Additionally, the earliest church history written by a man named Eusebius called Jude, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh. (Church History, Book III, Chapter 19). Now this could seem odd for those of us who may have Catholic families, upbringings or friends as the Catholic view is that Mary, Jesus’ mom, was a virgin for life. Now, we don’t have too much space here to cover Mary in detail but let me just say that Protestants seem to give Mary too little props and respect while Catholics tend to go way over the top in the other direction.  What follows will be a few agreements and disagreements Protestants and Roman Catholics have about the blessed virgin.

Some Agreements

Both Protestants and Catholics hold that Mary was the virgin mother of Jesus fulfilling the OT prophesy that the Messiah would be born in just this way (See Matthew 1:18-25; Isaiah 7:14). Additionally, Mary is said to be favored by God with a unique role in history to bear the Son of God in her womb, raise him in her care and unleash Jesus the man into life and ministry (Luke 1:26-38). Finally, Mary in a worshipping response to God known as the magnificat, declares that she will be called blessed by all generations (Luke 1:46-55).  These agreements are clear yet some major disagreements remain in the Christian view of Jesus’ mom.

Remaining Disagreements

First, though the idea of Mary’s of perpetual virginity has a long history in the Catholic church, it has no grounds in Holy Scripture. One reason is that Mary clearly had a husband and we are told in Matthew 1:24,25 that “he took his wife, but knew her (biblical language for sex) not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.”  Furthermore, an unconsummated marriage was contrary to the teaching of Scripture (Genesis 2:24,25 and 1 Corinthians 7). Another reason, mentioned above, is that Mary had other children. The context of  Matthew 13 cited above is clearly that of a family. Only a bit of hand waving can make father, mother, brother, sisters actually mean cousins or close relatives and not kids. A second disagreement regarding Mary is that she was sinless and unmarked by original sin. This doctrine, known as the immaculate conception of Mary teaches that Mary was conceived without original sin and did not sin. It was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854 but is not articulated in the Bible. Third, we do not agree that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven upon her death as such teaching is simply speculation without any biblical warrant.

The Scripture presents Mary as a human being like you and me though blessed and chosen by God for a very special role in redemptive history. Yet she is not a co-mediator between us and God as there is only one mediator that of Jesus himself (1 Timothy 2:6) Whether she appears magically upon ham sandwiches, in the clouds or in strange water stains on sides of buildings I’ll leave for you to decide.  I’m agnostic on these matters.

The who shapes the what...short reflection on being and doing

The following diagram was shared during our NT Overview series to describe the importance of the culture of a community and how it lives out its mission. It simply seeks to show the interrelated nature of a community’s culture (and individual character) and its actual flowing out in its mission. 

Our identity as believers and as Christ’s church is foundational. He is our definition and we live our lives in him through the gospel. Who we are has been changed by the gospel both individually and collectively (see Ephesians 1-2) and it is from our union with Jesus that we live out our missional calling together. We are a gospel centered people following Jesus on his mission in the world.

Our actions as believers and as Christ’s church are then transformational in that we are shaped by our daily practices. Whereas our identity is in Christ through the gospel, our choices, decisions and actions need to be shaped by the gospel as well. As we live this out, following Jesus, God’s Spirit bears fruit in us (see all of Galatians 5). This is both active—we work at it. What we do, what we do together, really matters. It is also passive, in that God is doing work in us, on us and through us (see Philippians 2:12, 13). If we do not live out our mission, choose to sow sin in our lives, go AWOL from Jesus’ purposes, it will effect us. We will look less like Jesus, more like the world and be unfruitful and ineffective in gospel work (see 2 Peter 1:3-11) To be a part of a gospel centered, missional community means we shape and share a culture based upon our calling in the world. When we do so our life together takes on a different reality and this in turn has a profound effect on our lives.

In Summary the WHO we are together should determine the WHAT we live together. Then the WHAT we live together continues to shape and transform the WHO we are. We should never deceive ourselves to think that the crew we flow with in life does not matter. In fact, it is indispensible to life and mission. And this, as you can see if you step back and look at the graphic above, creates a smile…at least this what my daughter saw here.

Theology and Mission - Circumcision with Titus and Timothy

Theology and Mission…Both Matter

During the first few decades of the Christian movement there arose a controversy as to how the Old Covenant laws should relate to New Covenant faith. As the  gospel of Jesus was proclaimed in the world, both Jews and non Jews began to place their faith and trust in him as their Savior.  As God created a new community of the faithful out of groups of people that had been separated in the past, many questions come to the forefront. Since Jesus was the promised  Messiah of Israel fulfilling the Old Covenant promises did the new Christians need to become Jewish first and then become “real Christians?” What of the Old Testament commands regarding circumcision as a sign of God’s covenant promise? What of the dietary laws designed to set God’s people apart as distinct from the nations? These questions had to be answered. 

Paul was very clear in his letter to the Galatians that to go back to the law when salvation has been accomplished by Jesus on the cross would to be a foolish thing to do.  He spoke against the necessity for circumcision in the strongest, most forceful of terms. Paul quite literally went off on the Galatians concerning this subject. Paul’s theology was clear; circumcision is not what saves you or makes you a part of the new covenant community. What makes a sinful person, justified by God? Paul’s answer throughout his writings is that faith in Christ alone as a gift of God’s grace is what rescues and declares sinners forgiven by a holy and just God. As such, Paul refused to have Titus, a gentile, circumcised because it would have betrayed the gospel (Galatians 2:1-6). When the church convened some meetings in Jerusalem they were unified and clear about this point (See Acts 15). Gentiles were not required to keep the practice of circumcision and other aspects of the ceremonial law. Yet in the very next chapter in the book of Acts we see Paul take Timothy, whose Mom was Jewish but whose Dad was a Gentile, and circumcise him. “Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” So what gives? Why did Paul vigorously oppose Titus’ circumcision but not Timothy’s? In Titus’ case something theological was at stake, the very message as to what saves people! In Timothy’s case Paul’s concern was of a different sort. He was concerned with their mission among certain people.

In the context Timothy and Paul were to minister some may have considered Timothy, half Jewish, half Gentile, as someone who would not be speaking for God because he was obviously not following in his traditions as a Jewish man. So rather than hindering the hearing of the gospel, Paul circumcised Timothy so it would not be an issue of distraction from their message.  After all, Paul wrote to the Galatians “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” Gal 5:6. The point being is that the heart aligned to Jesus in faith is what matters, not the external reality of circumcision. So Paul circumcising Timothy didn’t hurt anything (well maybe it hurt something) as Timothy was not counting on this and the law to save him. Yet Timothy being uncircumcised apparently would have hindered their mission and the reception of their message so why not just do it for the sake of the gospel? This echoes Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22:

¹⁹ For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. ²⁰ To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. ²¹ To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. ²² To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 

Paul would not give an inch in compromising the gospel and clearly shows us this in penning the strong warnings of Galatians. He also would not let things hinder a hearing of the gospel among people when those things were secondary issues of lesser importance. He proclaimed the good news in truth but with cultural wisdom and shrewdness. May we have both the courage to defend the truth and to proclaim it without hindrance to others in our own day.

An Overview of the Gospel Literature

Introduction

To come to know Jesus in spirit and in truth we must arrive to him instructed by the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  We must have a knowledge of him as he really is while the Spirit of God persuades us fully that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God. To know Jesus we must see him in the gospels and experience the living Jesus spiritually present with us by the Holy Spirit. Both truth and spiritual experience unite when we meet Jesus in the gospels.¹ In Jesus, God became flesh and lived among the peoples of the earth displaying to us his nature and his glory. Jesus is the majestic one and the written and proclaimed Word of God brings his majesty to us.

In the gospels of the New Testament we have compiled eyewitness accounts from people who walked with Jesus, talked with him, were taught by him, lived with him and were commissioned as his ambassadors and apostles to the world.² The canonical gospels were all first century documents compiled as the mission of God moved out geographically³ and as the apostles neared the end of their lives. They wanted to be certain to pass on the life, teaching and mission of Jesus to the broader Christian community and movement⁴ who would continue to carry out his work in history.  These gospels, inspired by God, would grow in their importance as false teachers began to arise and circulate strange and esoteric opinions about Jesus which were not a part of the apostolic teachings. Many of their writings posed as “gospels” purporting to give secret knowledge and teachings about Jesus. Such writings were rejected by early leaders of the faith such as Iraneus of Lyon who were directly connected to the apostolic tradition.⁵ These works were never considered part of the Bible and have never been part of the Bible.⁶ They were false teachings rejected firmly by pastors who loved their people.  The four gospels of the New Testament are the agreed upon standards for the life of Jesus accepted by all Christians everywhere. Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believers all look to these works as the divine and inspired revelation of Jesus Christ.  Now let us turn our attention to what makes a gospel writing, a gospel and focus for a moment on the literary genre. 

History, Biography, Theology?

When we come to the gospels we arrive at some very unique writings composed of many types of literature.  These writings are composed of genealogies, narrative story telling, historical facts, proverbs of wisdom, teaching parables, commands, even some apocalyptic sections. Many questions can rightly be asked about these books. Are these books of history, mere biography or simply theological books aiming to teach us truths about God? For instance, there are certainly historical realities about the gospels in that they are set in real time and real places speaking about real people.  They do not speak about another mythical world in a galaxy far far away. So in that way the gospels are historical but they are not mere compilations of historical facts and figures.  They desire to teach us more than this. Furthermore, it should be noted that the gospels may well be properly classified in the genre of ancient biography.⁷ When we hear the word “biography” we may think of a show on A&E or a book telling the whole life story of a certain person.  We know the gospels do not do this as they only contain parts of the Jesus story; parts that serve the purpose and theological aims of the particular gospel in question.  This may lead us to see the gospels as books of theological facts but this seems far less personal that what we find when actually reading them. Scottish New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham gives a wonderful classification for the gospels in describing them as testimony:

Understanding the Gospels as testimony, we can recognize this theological meaning of the history not as an arbitrary imposition on the objective facts, but as the way the witnesses perceived the history, in an inextricable coinherence of observable event and perceptible meaning.  Testimony is the category that enables us to read the Gospels in a properly historical way and a properly theological way.  It is where history and theology meet.⁸ 

Therefore, we shall see the gospels as eyewitness testimony pointing to a real person, in real history, revealing to us real truth about God, ourselves and Jesus of Nazareth, who is called the Christ.  As the gospels are where the historical Jesus and his theological teachings meet the following will serve as a brief survey of each of the gospels. In these summaries we will focus on what each contributes to our view of Jesus and a small bit of its unique theological contribution to the church. It is my hope that you might enjoy a of lifetime of studying these writings, meeting Jesus in them and growing spiritually through their nourishment as the Word of God.

The Gospel of Matthew

The first book of the New Testament is a gospel written by Matthew, the disciple of Jesus.  Matthew was a tax collector which means he was a Jewish man who worked for the imperial power that was Rome. You might say that he was from the block and had sold out to the man. He was a servant of empire whom God called and made a servant of the humble, sacrificial servant King. Matthew, is a distinctively Jewish work demonstrating that Jesus was not simply a new teacher on the scene, but rather the promised one of the Old Testament arriving in the fullness of time. We see this in several ways in Matthew’s gospel.

First, Matthew begins with a long genealogy which seeks to show that Jesus is the Son of David, the son of Abraham.  This not simply an exercise in creating someone’s family tree and this statement is not something as simple as: this is Rick’s family tree, the son of Harry, the son Tom…blah, blah blah. These two figures from the Old Testament are massive in their importance. David is the one who in the Old School was promised that an eternal King would sit on his throne in 2 Samuel 7.  Abraham is known as the father of faith, who in the book of Genesis God chooses to use to so that through his offspring the whole world would be blessed. His descendants would be as numerous as the sand on the seashore. So here is what Matthew’s genealogy says to us. This is the king of God’s covenant with us! This is the promised one who will be the savior of and blessing to the whole world.

Second, there are so many promises of the Old Testament which are fulfilled in Jesus on display in Matthew.  His virgin birth (Matt 1:22-23, Isaiah 7:14), his birth in Bethlehem (Matt 2:3-6, Micah 5:2), his flight to Egypt from Herod (Matt 2:3-6, Hosea 11:1), Herod’s murder of kids under two (Matt 2:14-15, Jeremiah 31:15), his healing ministry (Matt 8:16-17, Isaiah 53:4), his use of parables in teaching (Matt 13:13, 14, Isaiah 6:9, 10), his riding into Jerusalem on a donkey and her foal (Isaiah 62:11, Zech 9:9) and his betrayal by Judas for pocket change (Matt 27:6-10 and Jeremiah 18:2-6, 19:1-2, 4, 6, 11, 32:6-15 and Zech 11:13).9 These all point to Jesus being the fulfillment of Old Testament promises. 

Third, there is this fascinating section in Matthew 12 where Jesus quite literally is identified as “greater than the temple of God” and “Lord of the Sabbath.” The temple was the place of worship where the presence of God dwelled and the Sabbath was a divine command to rest and worship. Jesus is identified as the locus of worship and the one who is in charge of the very commands of God. He was not simply bringing a religious rule keeping to the world, but rather he himself was a fulfillment of all the ways of worship and the laws of God in the Old Testament.

Finally, Matthew’s gospel closes with one of the clearest declarations for God’s people who receive a mission from the great King. We are to go into all the world and make disciples (learners, followers of Jesus) of all nations/peoples (Matthew 28:18-20). The promised Christ of the Old Testament has come and he is our covenant King.  All Christians throughout history have this wonderful privilege to teach others to follow him until his eternal Kingdom comes.   This is some of what Matthew has to say to us.

The Gospel of Mark

Mark’s Gospel is the shortest of the four gospels and contains just sixteen chapters. It is a gospel of action with Jesus’ bursting on the scene quickly and then at a high pace moving forward towards what has become known as Passion week.  This is the week of Jesus’s life where he will be tried, executed and subsequently rise from the dead. Church tradition has held from the earliest days that Mark recorded the accounts of the apostle Peter writing down his eyewitness testimony. Both Peter and Mark appear to be in Rome together and historically I find no good reason to doubt this tradition. When you come to Mark you get the sense that Jesus is a man with a mission; he has a job to do and he is getting after it. There are action words everywhere with the most prominent being the Greek term “euthus” which means right away or immediately. The writing of the gospel jumps from scene to scene with fast and furious frame changes showing us who Jesus is and what he came to do. Written in the imperial capital of Rome it does not contain as many direct Old Testament quotations as Matthew and Mark seeks to explain things well for readers who may not be as familiar with the Jewish traditions we find more quickly in Matthew. The promise/fulfillment themes does remain however particularly seeing Jesus as the suffering servant from the prophet Isaiah.

The gospel of Mark also focuses on the announcement and demonstration of the Kingdom of God.  In chapter 1 we read: Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:14-15). The Scriptures speak of the Kingdom of God as his actual rule and reign the comes along with his sovereign king Jesus. In Mark’s gospel we see the statement “the kingdom of God is at hand” being demonstrated in the life of Jesus through his miracles. Sometimes people can look at Jesus as a miracle worker just doing tricks to impress people. The gospels do not put on display a Criss Angel Mind Freak special.  Jesus’ miracles are demonstrations that a new paradigm of life has arrived with him. The old era of sin, death and evil oppression in the world has been broken and a new way of life has arrived. This is partially realized today and will be fully brought to pass in the final Kingdom of Heaven at the end of time.  However where Jesus is at work today we see the realities and a foretaste of this coming Kingdom.

As mentioned earlier Mark’s gospel, though brief, spends the bulk of its time in the passion week of Jesus where we see him fulfill his role as sacrificial substitute and suffering servant. This is summarized well in the wonderful verse in Mark chapter 10: For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).

The Gospel of Luke

Luke is an interesting figure in the New Testament and we see him both in the book of Acts and in the letters written by a man named Paul, a primary leader in the early Christian movement. For instance, we read the following of Luke. He is called by Paul “the beloved physician” in Colossians 4:14, “my fellow worker” in the work of spreading the gospel in Philemon 1:24 and he is the only one remaining with Paul as Paul awaits execution in Rome in 2 Timothy 4:11. As a physician he would have been well educated, well read and maybe a bore a parties…just kidding about that last part. Luke was a faithful, sharp, friend of Paul who was intricately involved in gospel mission and concerned to preach and teach the gospel well. 

Luke wrote a two part work in the New Testament which scholars often call “Luke/Acts” in that Luke is episode one and Acts is episode two of his work. We might call Luke, Gospel Episode One – The Spirit Empowered Savior and Acts Gospel Episode Two – The Spirit Empowered Church on Mission.  There will be no Empire Strikes Back or Revenge of the Sith however for evil and its empires will simply be beat down by Jesus, the true and greater Jedi knight.  Ok, forgive me, I could not resist.

Luke’s gospel is an historically detailed work and he tells us that he went to great lengths to compile the Jesus story in a deliberate fashion. He worked hard to collect data from eyewitnesses and to write an orderly account so that we might have certainty about what we have been taught (see his introduction in Luke 1:1-4).

His gospel also contains a genealogy but his concern is to not simply trace Jesus to David and Abraham…but to go all the way back to Adam. His point is that Jesus was the savior for all people, gentiles included, not only Jewish followers. Perhaps Luke had also heard Paul’s teaching that the first man Adam failed in following God whereas Jesus, the second Adam, would fully bring salvation to the world (see Romans 5). Luke presents Jesus as a person full of the Holy Spirit who would walk with God, fulfill his mission and lead us in practically living it out. The Holy Spirit is fully active in Luke/Acts causing New Testament Scholar Darrell Bock to make the following observation:

Luke is a profoundly practical Gospel. His message is not only to be embraced; it is to be reflected in how we relate to others. Luke is also known as the writer who tells us much about the Holy Spirit but this emphasis is less dominant in Luke than in Acts. Nonetheless, Jesus’ ministry not only fits within God’s plan, it is empowered by God’s enabling Spirit [as we will see in Acts]. The church’s ministry has a similar dynamic.¹⁰

The Gospel of John

The final gospel, written by the apostle John, one of Jesus’ closest friends, was most likely put down while John was in the ancient city of Ephesus as an elder of the church there. It is different in nature than that of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and focuses on some important aspects of Jesus identity. John is a highly “theological gospel” demonstrating the full reality of Jesus and his work. John, never the one to hide his purposes, tells us exactly why he wrote down what he did:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.¹¹

These words “Christ” and “Son of God” are the subject of John’s writing. His prologue states in unequivocal terms that Jesus was the preexisting son of God, in union with the Father, who became flesh in space, time and history (John 1:1-5, 14).  The signs and miracles of Jesus in John’s gospel show that the locus of divine activity is in his Christ (or Messiah) and this Jesus gives new life, eternal life, to all who believe and trust in him. (John 5:24, John 17:3). 

In John the dual natures of Jesus, fully human, fully divine, are clearly seen. His identity and works get displayed through the seven self identifying statements known as the “The I ams.” Jesus claims to be  the bread of life (John 6), the light of the world (John 8), the gate we enter and the good shepherd (John 10), the resurrection and the life (John 11), unique way to the Father, the truth and the life (John 14) and triumphantly claims to be the I AM, the very God of the Old Testament (Exodus 3, John 8). 

John’s gospel calls us to BELIEVE over and over but not simply a positive feeling or belief in believing.  No, John calls us to believe in the incarnate God Jesus Christ. The unique savior of the world who forgives sins, raises us to new life and promises us an eternal Kingdom without sin, death, disease, tears. In that day death will be smashed and done away with.

This is the Jesus of the Bible. This is the Jesus of the gospels. This is Jesus of living, resurrected power and ultimate reality. We echo the ancient call today: BELIEVE! and find LIFE in his name.

Notes

1. John Calvin, Insitutes of the Christian Religion, says this well “Scripture will ultimately suffice for a saving knowledge of God only when its certainty is founded upon the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit” (Book I, viii, 13).

2. A compelling case for the gospels being comprised of eyewitness testimony is found in Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses-The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006)

3. David Alan Black, following the work of William Farmer and Bernard Orchard gives an interesting hypothesis that the gospels were written during the periods of missional unfolding during the apostolic era. Matthew in the Jerusalem period, Luke in the gentile mission of Paul, Mark in Rome and John adding his theological gospel towards the end of the apostolic age. See David Alan Black, Why Four Gospels (Grand Rapids: Kregal, 2001) 13-33.

4. See Richard Bauckham, Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences  (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 9-48.

5. See Iraneus, Against Heresies—available many places online.  Iraeneus is said to have heard the gospel from a man named Polycarp who was a disciple of some guy named John the apostle.  The point is Iraneus, in refuting false teachings, was in the position to know.

6. Some scholars today such as Bart Ehrman of UNC Chapel Hill and Elaine Pagels of Princeton present these other books as “Lost Scriptures” from “Lost Christianities” rather than “rejected books” and “rejected” Christianities. This is historical revisionism at its worst. For a treatment of these issues see Darrell L. Bock The Mission Gospels—Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006).

7. See genre analysis in Richard A. Burridge “About People, by People, for People: Gospel Genre and Audiences” in Bauckham, Gospel for All Christians , 113-145.

8. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 5,6.

10. Portions of this list adapted from Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005)

10. Darrell L. Bock, Luke—NIV Life Application Commentary, 24.

11.  John 20:30-31

New Biography on GK Chesterton

Many people may be unfamiliar with one of the foremost British authors of the earliest 20th century so I am thankful for a new biography which might introduce Gilbert Keith Chesterton to a new generation of readers. In fact, Chesterton’s works were influential on many in the English speaking world with many apologists for the Christian faith finding rich soils in Chestertonian writings. Both CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien were influenced by Chesterton who preceded them in the British literary world.

I have read (and reread) Chesterton’s book Orthodoxy to the point where I have many sections of it put to memory. I also deeply enjoyed his short biographies on St. Francis of Assisi and St. Thomas Aquinas the latter having the delightful subtitle “The Dumb Ox.” I know these works well but was somewhat ignorant as to the scope of this literary giants work. I am finishing a new biography entitled Defiant Joy: The Remarkable Life and Impact of GK Chesterton which has been of great help to me in expanding my knowledge of Chesterton and his thought.The work is by Kevin Belmonte who has done Chesterton studies a great favor with this book.

Belmonte’s biography begins with the typical early life information one expects with books of this kind but then he takes you on a fascinating journey throughout the rest of the book. As Chesterton was a man of letters, Belmonte’s work proceeds by unfolding the biography along the lines of his major works. Each chapter is focused on one of Chesterton’s literary achievements and then covers life details which surrounded the production of that work. So this book is not only a good introduction to Chesterton the man, it is also a well suited orientation to each of his major works. Each chapter gives us the background to what was happening in the thought world of Chesterton’s day, his interlocutors and the major thrust of his book, poem or collection of essays. I particularly enjoyed the interactions which Chesterton had with his ideological opponents George Bernard Shaw and HG Wells. You can learn much about a man in how he treats his friends. Even more how he treats friends whose ideas he most vigorously opposes.

The only drawback I found in the work is that due to the aforementioned strength I wish I knew a little more of the man apart from his letters. Yes, there is mention of his marriage to Frances but I found myself wanting to hear more about his family life and what made him tick. Yet as I am sure Belmonte would say, to know the man we must look to his writings. 

Chesterton has indeed left a profound literary legacy in our world and I can only commend his work to you even more after reading Defiant Joy. My own journey into his books has just begun as I soon while dive in to his The Everlasting Man, a book once commended by CS Lewis as the best popular apologetic to the Christian faith he knew of.

With the proliferation of electronic books it is amazing to see just how much of Chesterton is available free of charge for the Kindle and other ebook formats. If you must begin anywhere with Chesterton I recommend Orthodoxy as it lays forth his wonder filled view of mere Christianity in strident colors. One warning if you love quotations and reading a book with a highlighter. You may soon find yourself highlighting so much that the effort may leave little uncovered print. My hard copy of Orthodoxy is well worn, marked up with many colors of pen and ink.  One caveat as you begin to read GK. He is a master of paradox and turning of a phrase. Many of my friends “get him” right away while others have to read each paragraph really slowly to follow his creative dance of thought.  Whether you find reading him easy or slow going, I promise you the work is well worth your time.

You can grab Defiant Joy here

Hiding in semantics

I just recently finished watching a debate which recently took place between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig on whether or atheism gives ground for “objective” moral values. Objective in the sense of moral values being true beyond the mere opinions, decisions, and consensus of humans and their societies. Craig’s classic example is that objective moral values would say that the holocaust was wrong even if the Nazi’s had won WWII and brainwashed every human to believe that it was right. Craig’s argument is that without God, moral values are not “objective” but rather subjective or relative. You can see Craig’s excellent paper on these matters here.

In other places, Craig presents an argument for belief in God from the existence of objective moral values which rolls out like this.

• If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist
• Objective moral values do exist (ie some things are objective good or evil)
• Therefore God exists.

Those familiar with basic syllogistic logic and philosophical form who note that this is a valid deductive argument. It is deductive in that if you accept its premises as true the conclusion necessarily follows. The form is simply…

If P, then Q.

Not Q.

Therefore, not P

…with P = God does not exist and Q = objective moral values do not exist. It is of note that most atheistic thinkers do not believe that there are such things as objective moral values, but rather ethics/morality are simply evolved conventions of the human animal that suits the survival and propagation of the species. As such, many thinkers, have called “morality” a power game or an imposition of one group of people’s values upon others. Nietzsche called this herd morality and did not think brave and courageous atheists should be bound by any morality other than their own desires or will (and of course what you could get away with around the herd - or by simply ruling the herd). Enter Sam Harris.

Harris is a punchy atheist whose main strength is rhetorical ranting against Christian theology in front of people who have no background and understanding of those issues. He loves to create straw men and smack them down. He loves to make caricatures of faith and smear them with his calm, witty moral outrage. Harris’s recent work is a book which claims that morality is objective but needs no other foundation than science to show this to be the case.

Obviously, he does not like the theist grounding God’s existence in the reality of objective values so he is trying to take this away from the realm of theism. Of course, the reviews of Harris efforts from both atheists (who do not see ethics as objective, supra-cultural realities) and theists (who think Harris is dancing in mid air)

One of things noted in the debate with Bill Craig was Harris, by faith (or “axiomatically”) defining “good” and “evil” out of mid air with the only reference point being the suffering of sentient beings. Such “sentient suffering” is always bad and alleviating it and moving towards “flourishing” always “good.” To be honest, I find his moral reasoning to be rather sophomoric in nature and Craig rightly called him for just playing word games and not dealing at all with grounding “good” in anything but other terminology. Ironically, in the Q&A portion, Harris said this fascinating statement in reply to a question as to whether “this world” was the “worst possible world having the most sentient suffering.” Harris made the remark that since this is the only world we know of (to our current knowledge) it is both the worst and the best possible world and everything in between (I believe around the 1:11 mark). This of course is an exercise in saying nothing. Harris, due to atheism, is left trying to hang ideas such as “worst” and “best” on things in the world without having these things grounded in any sort of purpose for life, reason for our being, etc. He is trying to talk of values without talking about meaning. So he simply rubbishes Islam, Christianity and any other narratives that are not “I’m smart, scientific and don’t believe in all that dumb dumb stuff” while waving his hands, swapping synonyms to give definitions. From what I heard from him, Harris is hiding in semantics. It reminded me of GK Chesterton’s thoughts about the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche, another confident atheist whose views were popularized a century ago. Chesterton wrote the following:

This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, “beyond good and evil,” because he had not the courage to say, “more good than good and evil,” or, “more evil than good and evil.” Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, “the purer man,” or “the happier man,” or “the sadder man,” for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says “the upper man,” or “over man,” a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce. And if he does not know, certainly the ordinary evolutionists, who talk about things being “higher,” do not know either.

GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy, chapter 7

Is not Harris doing the same thing with morality today? By saying the “good” is the most amount of flourishing (aka good) for people is he not merely hiding among his vocabulary? We still seem lost in Wittgenstein’s word games. Whereas Nietzsche lived prior to WWI, WWII, Cold War and the fears of the 20th century, Harris lives after them. The former was bold enough to declare morality irrelevant, relative and great men should transcend it by hiding in their words. The latter, thank the invisible God, seems to have a concern for the harmony of the world community and wants to declare morality “objective” but without foundations. I prefer Harris’s version of semantic hiding to that of Nietzsche but for one rejoinder. When reading them or hearing them you realize how extremely arrogant they are. Harris’s high opinion of his own thinking is something to behold and his utter disdain (and complete misunderstanding of) theological thought is revealing.

Harris may speak of tolerance and love except for the case of the billions of religious believers of various faiths. These are idiots and scorned. Even Jesus - even in Harris we have someone willing to call Abraham, Moses…and even Jesus an idiotic simpleton in comparison to the wonderful geniuses who live today.

Though Harris attempts to play nice in this debate, his condescension towards faith and religion is quite breathtaking. One can tell he has zero doubts that he is smarter (and seems to think - “better”) than any people of faith. Harris seems to revel in all his talk of our current superiority to all peoples, all religious thinking, all people who have lived in times before he arrived on the planet. Now we have confident, moral, do gooding, smart scientist people like Sam Harris who can show us the way. The funny thing is that similar things have been said in the past by others. It does not end well when such ideas end up power - either in the name of religion or irreligion. For in such men and their ideas, there is no humility.

Hence, even in light of the myriad of self proclaimed good men and super men of history, I still find Jesus a much more preferable master than the Messiahs of our age. 

Freakin Out - Worry, Fear, Anxiety and the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Worry, Fear, Anxiety and the Gospel of Jesus Christ

By Reid S. Monaghan

Introduction

In every epoch of history, human beings have struggled to find peace of mind amidst the chaos of life under the sun. Ever aware of the fragility of life and circumstances we can be gripped with worry, fear and crippling anxiety. The soul becomes caged to its own dark meditations and a strange bondage can overwhelm us. Our modern age is certainly rife with concerns of its own: rapid change, global terrorism, and economic uncertainty along with the lingering realities of disease, injustice, death and broken relationships press in on the modern psyche. This spring Jacobs Well will travel together in the words of God which speak to the deepest needs and fears of our lives. God wants to walk us from fear to faith, kindly teaching us what it means to trust Jesus our sovereign King. He is our Lord and will walk with us through the varied labyrinths of this world.

In this brief essay we will endeavor to do a few simple things. First, we will discuss the human experiences of fear, worry and anxiety and define some basic terms. Second, we will discuss the scope and suppositions which are underneath our study together. Third, we will speak of several issues which relate to our fear and anxiety and how these issues are connected to our relationship with God. Finally, we will give a brief outline of the subjects we will address biblically and theologically during the course of this series.

We are Freaked Out

To say that concern, worry, fear and anxiousness are “universal” would be self-evident to some and perhaps insulting to others. Though the degree to which we are gripped by such realities varies by individual and personality, they are indeed universal in scope. Not one of us can expect to sing hakuna matata for the rest of our days1. This world has many problems and troubles and these intersect with our story more often than some would like to admit. Current studies show that just over 18% of the adult population in our country meets criteria for suffering from various anxiety disorders.2 These are beyond the everyday stress, worry and fear experienced which is considered “normal.” Furthermore, when one looks at a list of modern psychopathologies the most prevalent category has to do with our fears.3 General anxiety also appears to be twice as common among the ladies as among men, likely because they have to deal with men.4 Just kidding, but the research is clear that though both freak out a bit, the ladies experience it a bit more. Finally, our own state of New Jersey is number five in the nation in “neuroticism” as we are in the “stress belt” of the northeastern United States.5 Things move fast here and you are expected to keep up or get out of the way. This does not give our own immediate context a peaceful easy feeling.

Furthermore, in our culture we might assume that money and financial security might alleviate one’s anxieties. However, a recent study conducted by researchers at Boston College is showing precisely the opposite. In a survey of 500 people who had an average net worth of 78 million dollars the research is showing that the super-rich are in no way immune to the specters of loneliness and anxiety. Many shared deep insecurity about, above all things, money.6

In every culture and place human beings “freak out” and are gripped with fear and anxiety. There are reasons for this that we will examine shortly. For now we must declare ourselves part of the world in which fear and anxiety will arrive at our doors. What we do with these thoughts and feelings we will examine during the course of our study. Before moving to look at the biblical backdrop for our world being a fear/anxiety producing place, I want to say a few things about the scope of our discussion and some assumptions we will have in looking at these issues.

Assumptions and definitions

I want to say clearly up front that our discussions of fear, anxiety, worry and the various relationships to God are not meant to be clinical in nature. We will be discussing these issues in a theological and pastoral context. There are cases of severe anxiety which call for clinical attention and I am thankful we have a good network of support for such circumstances at Jacob’s Well. However, with that said, it is my strongest conviction that our struggles in this area are indeed holistic and theological in nature. As such, the counsel and understanding of Scripture should not be neglected even in more severe situations. The worldview and teaching of the Scriptures should remain in the forefront of our minds as we wrestle with fear, anxiety and worry in varying degrees.

Basic Assumptions about Human Persons

Any discussion of things which affect both mind and body must proceed from a robust anthropology. Before we can address human persons, we must have an understanding of what a human person is. This is by no means taken for granted today in our culture. Some would say humans are only animals ruled by DNA working out its mechanistic replications due to environmental constraints.7 Furthermore, there is a view of humans which tends to boil down all behaviors into desires for sex and survival as if these are the only aspects of life which matter. Others would see the mind as merely a product of the electrochemical machinations of our brains.8 Of course I use the terms only and merely above as I find no disagreement with humans being partially animal in nature and certainly there is a correlation between the function of the mind and the human brain.9 Yet we resist a pure reduction of man into matter which would eliminate a functioning person residing in unity with his physical body. 

The view we are assuming here is a biblical anthropology whereby we consist of a psychosomatic unity. In this view, humans are not seen in either of two extremes. We are not reduced to being bodies alone nor are we seen as disembodied spirits trapped in a body. Soul and body unified as a human person is the view we will follow in our discussions. There is much more to be discussed here so for the interested reader I refer you to several sources on biblical anthropology.10 In light of this view we not only see a reciprocal nature between body and soul; we expect it. The state of the body affects the soul and the condition of the soul affects the body. As such what we believe, trust, assume and place our hope in has a holistic effect on us as human beings.

Basic Definitions

As we begin a discussion of “freakin out” I did want to provide some very cautious definitions. I am using the label “freakin out” to encompass several conditions of the soul, namely, worry, fear and anxiety. I do not intend philosophical precision in using these terms only to broadly describe our human experience. Dr. Ed Welch gives the following helpful example:

To deeply understand fear we must also look at ourselves and the way we interpret our situations. Those scary objects can reveal what we cherish. They point out our insatiable quest for control, our sense of aloneness. Even the vocabulary of fear indicates that the problem can be deeper than a real, objective danger. While “fear” refers to the experience when a car races toward us and we just barely escape, “anxiety” or worry is the lingering sense after the car has passed, that life is fragile and we are always vulnerable. The terrain is fear and anxiety. You are familiar with it, and you are not alone.11

We will follow this basic understanding that fear is concern of harm coming and worry/anxiety is a projection of such into the unknown. As human beings our fears and anxiety are byproducts of and reactions to the world. What we believe about and our response to circumstances in our world therefore matter greatly. Furthermore, as human beings who are made in the image of God, our fears and anxieties are directly related to our belief in the truth about God, ourselves and our circumstances. The goal we have is not to eliminate all fears but rather to see God transform how we experience life in a fearful world. Faith rises and trusts in God and can indeed overcome negative fear and anxiety. Yet before we look at the path ahead, we want to see biblicaly why this world is such a strangely fearful place? To these issues we now turn.

Fragmented and Fearful

If you look at the grand narrative of the Bible we see right at the beginning why the world is at once a good and hostile place. The earliest chapters of Scripture tell us that the entire world is the creation of God who made all things good (See Genesis 1-2). Human beings, made male and female in the image and likeness of God, are said to be created very good. The early creation is described as a primordial paradise, a place perfectly suited for human beings and their fellowship with the creator. The first pair of humans, by their own desires, disobeys God and the world is placed under a curse and severe consequences (See Genesis 3). There are many dramatic results from this human rebellion which make this world a hostile and fearful place. Though human beings were made to be in intimate communion with their creator, they are now separated from him, under a dominion of darkness, fighting with one another and destined to die. Welcome to the party on planet earth; welcome to a good world pervasively stained with sin. The following is a just a brief description of the unfolding cosmic struggle of which we are a part.

Drama with God

The result of our fall and sin is that we desire our own ways rather than following our creator. The essence of the disobedience of the first humans is that we are separated from the God we were made to worship and know in intimacy. As such we feel a sense of isolation in the universe while surrounded by the masses of humanity. Furthermore, we feel guilt and shame for our own sin and we find no remedy. Finally, as humanity suppresses the knowledge of God we are given over to our own paths which results in destruction (Proverbs 16:25, Matthew 7:7). As we invent ways in our rebellion to make ourselves happy and safe apart from God the alienation deepens and we find no peace for our souls. Read Romans 1 for a great description of all of this.

Drama in Nature

The world which was originally a hospitable Eden has been darkened by struggle, pain and death. As a result, we feel quite at home on the earth but also find deadly peril in nature all about us. The rains which feed us also sweep us away. The seas that make our environment hospitable to life rise up and consume us. Unseen organisms which balance the ecosystem also cause sickness and disease. Our own use and abuse of the natural world threatens us with environmental disaster. The Bible describes creation as good but in bondage to decay awaiting liberation (Romans 8:18-25) and as such is a beautiful design and a fallen catastrophe. Our place in nature can cause us great joy and fill us with great fears and worry. We also feel responsible for creation and the environment in a way that turtles do not. This too freaks us out and currently causes us to fight with each other. This of course is another problem we face. Can’t we just all get along?

Drama with Each Other

Another reality under the sun is the constant enmity between human beings. In the very beginnings of the Bible we see one brother murder another (Genesis 4:1-10) and we have found ourselves at war ever since. People have fought with one another for all of human history over land, tribe, honor, race or ideology (both religious and non-religious). Modern humanity is somewhat of a puzzle to me. We think ourselves enlightened and wise and grown past our barbarous past while sitting comfortably just on the other side of the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. On a micro level each day we politic at work and fight one another in our homes. On a macro level we drop bombs on the masses and shell cities with artillery. This too can cause great fear and anxiety in the soul.

Drama with Demonic Powers

In addition to our struggle with nature and one another, spiritual powers of darkness war against our souls. (Ephesians 6:10-20) Demonic and deceitful influence can bring false accusation and oppression upon people (John 8:44, 1 Peter 5:6-11). If you have ever looked into the face of pure evil the fear that it can bring does not depart with any sort of ease. The denial of God and the war against God by Satan and demons is often ignored but never absent from the world.12

Drama with Death

Finally, the great enemy of death itself looms large on the horizons for every human being with physical and psychological suffering along the way. Death is a peculiar thing. It is at once one of the most common and “normal” things about life but feels to be an alien invasion to it. The loss of loved ones, the death of a child, the finality of someone passing from this life and the regret of years lived without meaning haunt the human soul. Modern humans live with little discussion and answer to death. Some resigned to think that it is the silent snuffing out of life while others simply never prepare for its coming. The book of Hebrews teaches us that it is appointed for us to die and then face judgment (Hebrews 9:27). This too brings pause to the thoughtful soul.

It is in this world: a world of death, fighting, disaster, disease and rebellion against God that we find ourselves. It is in this world Jesus taught us plainly “You will have trouble.” (John 16:33) In this world, there is no way to avoid concerns, cares, worry and anxiety. It is in this world where we must face up to our fears.

Before we describe the journey ahead in this series I want to be clear that worry, fear and anxiety are not categorically “bad” things. Fear can be useful as it can keep us from true dangers. Concern for the future can cause us to pray and plan well in light of God’s leading. We clearly see this in the Scriptures. In the book of Nehemiah, the disastrous state of Jerusalem caused a man deep concern and led him to faith and action (See Nehemiah 1-2). In the New Testament, Paul lists two times in one of his letters to the Corinthians that his spirit was anxious and concerned for a friend as well as the new churches (See 2 Corinthians 2:12, 13 11:28). Furthermore, Jesus, who was fully human and lived without sinning (Hebrews 4:14-16), was so psychologically burdened the night before he was crucified that he was physically devastated (See Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22)13. These are simply a few examples to show that fear and anxiety in and of themselves are part of the human experience and not in themselves sinful. In fact, an unmoved apathy towards the concerns of our lives, other people and the fallen world is profoundly at odds with the demands of love.

Key questions for us are as follows:

• How will we handle fearful and anxious thoughts and emotions when they come?
• Will we go to God or run from God in our fears?
• Will worry cause us to seek other gods to save us or will we turn to the God who is mighty to save?
• In the anxiety of the day and our worries about tomorrow, will we take our seats in a den of idols or truly place our faith in Jesus, the living God?
• Will fear and worry cause us to pursue selfish paths of self-protection or will we be free to love and serve others?

I hope these questions help us to see one thing clearly. How we respond to God in our fear and anxiety will make a huge difference to our daily experience and our usefulness in the mission of God.

Our Study Together

Over the course of the next few months we will wrestle together with many issues related to our fears and anxiety. The following will serve as vignettes or abstracts for the ground, God willing, we will take together.

Where We Stand or Fall

There are several doctrines of Scripture which are crucial for us to understand in order to find peace of mind and rest for the soul under the sun. In this message we will discuss four foundational truths which settle the heart in the hands of the Father. The sovereignty of God, the love of God, the presence of God’s Spirit with us and in us and an eternal perspective for our longings for safety and security will be examined. These foundational truths will set the table for the practical teaching of the Scriptures to come.

Worried about Tomorrow

In this message we will examine the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 6 about worrying about the future. We fear the future for many reasons. We wonder if we will be safe, if/when will we be harmed, and the quality of our health and the stability of finances. We also have a profound desire to “make it happen” and control everything which can cause deep worry about days ahead. We also worry about the future of our families and whether we can keep everyone fed and a roof over our heads. We care deeply, so we worry. In this message we will look at trusting in our Father to face the future which always remains an unknown to us as we rise each day.

Anxious about Today

In our second message on worry/anxiety we will look more closely at how we face each day and its challenges “with God.” As we head out to our various duties many can have anxiety about not measuring up, not getting it done, being hurt by others and not being in control. Each day we are tempted to pray “my kingdom come, my will be done, on earth as I try to make it my heaven.” When we fear this won’t happen, we freak out. So we will focus in this message on prayer and fellowship with Jesus throughout each day to deal with the soul’s burdens as they arrive in real time.

Facing Fear

One of the most repeated imperatives (commands) in the Bible is “Do not be afraid.”14 Interestingly we are also called quite clearly to “fear God and keep his commandments.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14) In this message we will look at how the fear of the Lord begins a life of wisdom and how in fearing God we learn to not be afraid.

Disappointment with Idols

As human beings we are made to trust and worship. God created us this way yet we so often trust and worship everything but God. When we trust other things and they let us down, we get stressed out, worried, freaked out and even despair. A sure sign our worship is being misplaced is when we freak out over things which are not eternal. One thing is sure in the affairs of human beings: when our gods fail us, our world comes crashing down. A key question for us is this: when our idols fail us, where will we turn?

Trust and Confidence in God

A great image we find in the Scriptures that God himself is a sturdy, strong, secure place. Difficult circumstances are certain to come and the burdens of life will become heavy upon us. Learning to run to God as a present help in times of trouble, a strong tower and mighty fortress is an important rhythm we must grasp in our grappling with fear and anxiety. The safest place is found in one person; the one who is stronger than every enemy we will ever face.

The Arms of Community     

We like to tell ourselves that we can go it alone and take the world on our own terms. This posturing is not only foolish but does not help us towards peace of heart and mind. God has gifted us with his community to receive practical comfort from others in times of need. We learn to have compassion and empathize with others and when to have courage and exhort our brothers and sisters forward out of namby pamby land. Life has many burdens that we must learn to carry together. Sometimes we need a hand, sometimes we need to quit whining and lend a hand. God willing, we will seek this balance together.  

Conclusion

In all honesty my own personality and constitution teeters between being a visionary focused planner and being a concerned and anxious worrier who freaks out over the smallest of things. I am very much in process with all the matters of which we will speak together during this series at Jacob’s Well. It is both humbling and exciting to take this journey with you so that we might see worry, fear and anxiety properly related to the gospel of Jesus Christ. He is the one who calls us forward with the words “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.” (John 14:27)

Long ago a group of Jesus’s followers heard these words and then forgot them as they watched their master executed on a Roman cross. They then remembered these words after they saw him rise triumphantly over the grave. From that age forward many of his people have been bold as lions and peaceful as doves in the face of many a trial and atrocity. They knew the one that held the keys to death and hell loved them and would bring them safely home. They believed deeply the words of their Lord “in this world you will have trouble, but take heart, I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). Of these men and women…the world was not worthy (Hebrews 11). May we be numbered among them in our day!

Pastor Reid S. Monaghan

Bibliography

Allers, Roger. “The Lion King.” Walt Disney Company, 1994.

Beauregard, Mario, and Denyse O’Leary. The Spiritual Brain : A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul. 1st ed. New York: HarperOne, 2007.

Cooper, John W. Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting : Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989.

Dawkins, Richard. “God’s Utility Function.” Scientific American 273, no. 5 (1995): 85.

Kessler, Ronald C., Wai tat Chiu, Olga Demler, and Ellen E. Walters. “Prevalence, Severity, and Comorbidity of 12-Month Dsm-Iv Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survery Replication.” Arch Gen Psychiatry 62, no. June 2005 (2005): 617-627.

Koukl, Greg. “All Brian, No Mind.” http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5474 [accessed April 29, 2011].

Lewis, C. S. The Screwtape Letters. New York,: The Macmillan company, 1944.

Monaghan, Reid S. “The Implications of Nancey Murphy’s Non Reductive Physicalism on Confessional Christian Theology “  (2009). http://www.powerofchange.org/storage/docs/non_reductive_physicalism.pdf.

Murphy, Nancey. Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? Current Issues in Theology, Edited by Iain Torrance. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Simon, Stephanie. “The United States of Mind ” Wall Street Journal  (2008). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122211987961064719.html [accessed April 28th, 2011].

Smart, John. “The Identity Theory of Mind.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  (2007). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/ [accessed April 29, 2011].

Tyrer, Peter, and David Baldwin. “Generalised Anxiety Disorder.” The Lancet 268 (2006): 2156-2166.

Welch, Edward T. Running Scared - Fear, Worry and the Rest of God. Greensboro: New Growth Press, 2007.

Wood, Graeme. “The Fortunate Ones.” The Atlantic 2011.

EndNotes

[1] This of course is a reference to the Swahili phrase made popular by Disney’s 1994 animated hit The Lion King. The phrase means “no worries.” Roger Allers, “The Lion King,”  (Walt Disney Company, 1994).

[2] Ronald C. Kessler and others, “Prevalence, Severity, and Comorbidity of 12-Month Dsm-Iv Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survery Replication,” Arch Gen Psychiatry 62, no. June 2005 (2005).

[3] Edward T. Welch, Running Scared - Fear, Worry and the Rest of God (Greensboro: New Growth Press, 2007), 22.

[4] Peter Tyrer and David Baldwin, “Generalised Anxiety Disorder,” The Lancet 268, no. (2006).

[5] Stephanie Simon, “The United States of Mind ” Wall Street Journal (2008). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122211987961064719.html (accessed April 28th, 2011).

[6] Graeme Wood, “The Fortunate Ones,” The Atlantic 2011.

[7] The modern reductionist view is well represented by the works of Richard Dawkins who wrote “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” Richard Dawkins, “God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American 273, no. 5 (1995).

[8] See John Smart, “The Identity Theory of Mind,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2007). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/ (accessed April 29, 2011).For a version of this by a Christian author see Nancey Murphy, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? , ed. Iain Torrance, Current Issues in Theology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

[9] For a simple and popular level discussion of this see Greg Koukl, “All Brian, No Mind.” http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5474 (accessed April 29, 2011).

[10] See Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, The Spiritual Brain : A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul, 1st ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2007); John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting : Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989); Reid S. Monaghan, “The Implications of Nancey Murphy’s Non Reductive Physicalism on Confessional Christian Theology ” (2009). http://www.powerofchange.org/storage/docs/non_reductive_physicalism.pdf.

[11] Welch, 25.

[12] For a balanced and creative look at demonic activity see C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (New York,: The Macmillan company, 1944). There is also an excellent audio version of this work I would highly recommend.

[13] Some read the description in the gospel as demonstrating Jesus had stress induced Hematidrosis, a very rare condition where a person’s sweat glands secrete blood. Others find the sweating of blood to be metaphorical. Either way, the intense emotional anguish affected Jesus physically and was in no way sinful. It was a human reaction to facing certain and painful circumstances. The important thing we see in this narrative is that Jesus goes “to God” in prayer during his hour of greatest anxiety.

[14] Welch, 59-61.

On Human Anthropology

I have written a couple of times over the course my long journey in graduate school dealing with the subject of human anthropology. I have had particular interest in the are of mind-brain identity and various flavors of dualistic anthropology.

For those interested in these subjects the following are posted for that tremendous horde…

• Are Human Beings Constituted of one, two or three substances? Link to pdf

• The Implications of Nancey Murphy’s Non Reductive Physicalism on Confessional Christian Theology - Link to pdf

The Silent Collapse - Thoughts from GK Chesterton

The following is an excerpt from a new biography on GK Chesterton entitled “Defiant Joy - The Remarkable Life and Impact of GK Chesterton” by Kevin Belmonte. It highlights the unraveling of Western thought which Chesterton observed in his time. I believe the confusion on these matters continues today.

The longer, set off quotation below is from his 1907 work Heretics. Much of Chesterton’s poignant cultural critique was on the eve of a world that spawned the two most horrific wars in human history…all in the name of civilization, progress and freeing the masses from the past. The 20th century was wrought by highly educated people claiming to seek the “good” of the world. Chesterton was a prophet in his day warning of madness being spoken in his day. He lived to see much of it take place around him. For collapses in thinking always proceed collapses in doing.

Chesterton warned that a “great and silent collapse” had taken place in his time. “All previous ages have sweated and been crucified in an attempt to realize what is really the right life, what was really the good man. A definite part of the modern world has come beyond question to the conclusion that there is no answer to these questions.

Acquiescing in this mind-set was an act of sheer and dangerous folly. For Chesterton, it came down to this: many of his contemporaries were seeking to solace themselves in a series of self-deceptions.

Every one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good. We are found of talking about “liberty”; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about “progress”; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about “education”; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. The modern man says, “Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty.”

This is, logically rendered, “Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it.” He says “Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress.” This, logically stated, means, “Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it.” He says, “Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education.” This, clearly expressed, means, “We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children.”

Chesterton called such self-deception “solemn folly”…

Kevin Belmonte, Defiant Joy - The Remarkable Life and Impact of GK Chesterton, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011) 89, 90

I encourage you to take up some Chesterton if you have never read any of his works. I recommend his classic 1908 work Orthodoxy is the best place to begin. Enjoy.

Dragons

In the old world dragons were mythical beasts of menace to be fought off and slain. In today's imagination we see them as misunderstood and train them and make them our friends.

We moderns do the same with sin. We are then puzzled that dragons still bite, breath fire and eat our children. Our solution, logically, is to give better care to the dragons. Nice dragon...you stay right there...ok?

The Generous Welcome

Great love gives life to friends
As creation began, so it will end

Life instilled, the greatest gift
Life restored, from greatest rift

Restoration…Redemption…Hope
Through many fogs we grope

Never forsaken, never alone
Through greatest sacrifice…

Welcomed home

Is there Evidence for the Existence of God?

Dr. William Lane Craig is one of the preeminent theistic philosophers of our time and he is also an excellent debater. He is clear, intelligent and focused in debate. 

Recently he debated Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss on the subject “Is there evidence for the existence of God” at North Carolina State University (booo! OK, NC State should exist…but booo! Go Heels!) Ok, I’m back now. The debate is online now and can be found here. 

Just be warned, the video is all sorts of weird at the beginning - I really felt like singing “Somewhere over the rainbow” when waiting for the debate to begin.  Do yourself a favor and drag that video slider over to 16:30 min mark where a North Carolina Supreme Court Judge guy gives the greeting and introduction to the debate. Thank me later.

Enjoy