Thinking-Christianly

One change in the way that many evangelicals think today is the elevation of doubt as a virtue. The argument equates doubting with the genuine virtue of humility. It then contends that if we are to be extremely humble and show no arrogance, we must cultivate doubt about the objective truths of scripture. To do otherwise is to feed pride and self-importance.

This approach takes a virtue (humility) and binds it to a common reality (doubt) in a way that elevates doubt itself to a place it never has in scripture. Doubters in scripture receive mercy. That is a consequence of God’s grace. But doubt itself is not portrayed as an asset.

For example, the desperate father who came to Jesus pleading with him to help him in his unbelief is not commended for his doubting. In that instance, the man was doubting the truth, which was not a noble thing to do. He ask for help because he knows Christ calls him to belief.

James warns us of being driven and tossed by doubt. It does not create stability in the life of the follower of Christ.

In a  postmodern world where certainty is viewed with suspicion, and even disdain, believing certain things are true is a grevious sin. Such a mindset makes doubt the new king of the hill. But this approach to spirituality evicerates truth from Christianity. It returns us to the state of the people of Athens who worship “an unknown god.”

One argument that attempts to undermine the authority of Jesus’ teaching is the claim that Christ frequently accommodated himself to the ideas of the culture in order to communicate. He may not have believed in a literal flood, a literal Jonah, or a literal hell, but he used the mythology of first century Judaism in order to reach the people.

This assertion sounds like a way to compliment Jesus for his graciousness and thoughtfulness as an effective communicator. The big problem with embracing it is that the New Teastament repeatedly contradicts it.

Jesus, like the Father himself, adapts to us in order to communicate with us. God’s ways are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9). And thus he speaks using anthropormorphisms so we can understand something about him by analogy. The Bible speaks of God’s hands, his eyes, and his arms, for example.

God’s gracious adaption for the purpose of revealing truth is not the same as accommodating falsehoods and mythology in order to avoid conflict. Instead of brushing over the foolish ideas of his contemporaries, Jesus repeatedly challenged them. Jesus decried the false teaching of the Pharisees and the scribes with confrontational language in Matthew 23:16-33. In Matthew 5 he repeatedly added his authority to a clear and practical application of the Mosaic code when he said, “You have heard it was said…but I say to you…” In Matthew 22:29 he criticizes the Sadducees because they did not know the scriptures nor the power of God.

Jesus’ clearing of the temple in John 2 demonstrates that he gave no thought about the opinion poll of the day relative to his actions or his teaching. Nowhere in the teaching of Christ do we find a reluctance to speak truth–whether the issues were theological, moral, interpretative, or factual.

He did not refrain from speaking into the culture whenever necessary. We need a generation with the grace and courage to do the same in our own day.

Modern critics routinely question the veracity of the gospel records that appear in the New Testament. Some contend that the texts as they appear in the New Testament consist of a few facts embellished by the imaginations of early Christians. These redactors decided to paint a picture of Jesus that was more mythical than factual. They gave him supernatural powers, a virgin conception, and angelic servants. In reality, he was only a man–well-meaning, perhaps, but misguided and martyred in the end.

Mark D. Roberts paints a different picture. Until recently he was senior pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church. A Harvard University graduate, Mark is no stranger to the conclusions of “assured scholarship” concerning the untrustworthiness of the gospel records. His book, Can We Trust the Gospels, is an outgrowth of his blog with the same title. (I have his blog as one of the links on this web site.)

Mark’s book is a brief 202 page overview of the veracity of the New Testament gospels. He does not go into minute detail, as a longer work on this subject might. Instead, he offers a series of logical, philosophical, and evidential arguments for the reliability of the gospel records. The book is aimed at the skeptic as well as the Christian. Mark’s style is popular and gracious. He does not slip into ad hominem arguments. Instead, the book carefully responds to honest questions about the reliability of the gospels.

The book touches on such issues as oral tradition, miracles, archaeology, and the issue of agenda and style in ancient writings. It’s a solid introduction into the topic. He does not duck questions for which there are no irrefutable answers, but is willing to address the tension without resolivng all of it.

If you have questions about the veracity of the gospels or know someone who is asking probing questions on the subject, Can We Trust the Gospels is a good place to start. (2007 from Crossway Books)

Richard Dawkins is one of the leading cluster of atheists whose attack on theism is extremely strident. Alister McGrath responds in brief to Dawkins in his book The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. (InterVarsity, 2007)

McGrath begins many chapters quoting from Dawkins. The quotes illustrate Dawkins preference for invective and ad hominem arguments that favor name calling over reasoned logic. McGrath summarizes Dawkins’ approach when he states, “Those who continue to believe in God are simply obscurantist, superstitious reactionaries, who are in complete denial about the victorious advance of the sciences, which have eliminated God from even the most miniscule gaps in our understanding of the universe.” (McGrath, p. 33)

One would have to read Dawkins’ The God Delusion, confirm that this characterization is accurate, but the quotes McGrath uses do a good job of supporting the conclusion that Dawkins relishes invective, name calling, and negative stereotypes.

McGrath does not rebut Dawkins page by page, claiming that such a book would be to dry. Instead, he touches on the logical, theological, and philosophical problems with Dawkins book. In several places he quotes those who agree with Dawkins’ atheistic worldview, but who criticize The God Delusion because of it’s brash tone and shortage of reasoned arguments.

McGrath looks for reasons to agree with Dawkins wherever he can, and points out inconsistencies and shortcomings where they are obvious. For example, he takes Dawkins to task over his dismissal of Stephen Jay Gould’s refusal to see scientific faith and atheism as inseparable.

The book is short (115 pages) and will give the reader an appetite to review Dawkins work or read McGrath’s longer rebuttal of Dawkins’ writings called Dawkins’ God, published in 2004. This book serves as a bit of a primer about key issues related to what McGrath calls “Atheist Fundamentalism.”

Critics of scripture sometimes charge the Bible with cruelty by citing Deuteronomy 21:18-21. The text, we are told, supports the barbaric practice of parents executing their children for stubborn behavior.

A closer look at the text paints a different picture, however.

First, in order for this command to apply, several conditions must be met by the son. He must be stubborn and rebellious. This does not speak of an isolated act, but of a determined pattern of behavior. The text adds that he chooses not to obey, and refuses to listen when he is disciplined. The discipline is apparently verbal, since it is ignored. Verse 20 adds other conditions. The complaint to the elders is that he is a “profligate” (NIV). The word is also translated, “glutton, worthless, despised.” An additional charge is that this son is a drunkard.

These conditions most aptly describe someone who is an adult son, at least an adult as defined by the Old Testament. It would difficult to conceive how a pre-adolescent could fit the criteria mentioned here.

The other fact to note is that the parents are not the final arbiters. It’s the elders of the town. The action of verse 21 presumes that the elders have weighed the evidence according to all the other legal principles outlined in Deuteronomy and have used eyewitnesses and other testimony to support the accusation of the parents. They do not serve as the administrators of justice without first determining the nature of the crime. The presumption is that if the charge cannot be substantiated, capital punishment is not in order.

The expectation is that parents will not make exception for their children when it comes to civil matters under the laws given to the covenant people Israel. They are to support the righetous standards of God rather than exempt their rebellious offspring from the consequences of their actions.

This approach does not create an arbitrary and subjective form of injustice, as some contend. Instead, it clearly regulates the kinds of action that can be taken. In shame-based cultures of the Middle East it was not uncommon for parents to end the lives of their children based on their own subjective judgment. That was not to be the case among God’s covenant people. They were to have a higher standard than their neighbors.

This text allows for action in extreme measures, but it is regulated by the inclusion of the elders and the incorporation of the legal codes given to Moses. As with other parts of the legal code, it was aimed at preventing anyone from living above the law and defying the edicts of God. (Incidently, we do not have any scriptural accounts that describe this command being implemented.)

Much of the freedom we celebrate evaporates in the light of social customs. These unwritten patterns of the culture in which we live dictate powerful messages to us that shape our behavior.

When we operate on autopilot–especially in our spiritual life–the patterns of our culture shape what we will do. Unless we pursue a proactive faith, we will reflect the culture more than the truth of God.

Acts 11:1-2 is a case in point.

In the previous chapter, Peter received a vision of God designed to challenge his categories of thinking. He had grown up considering non-Jews as unclean. But Christ had come to redefine clean and unclean as a matter of the heart rather than ethnicity. Peter obeys God and shares the message of life in Christ with Cornelius.

Acts 11:1 states that word of what happened spread among the Jewish Christian community. When Peter goes to Jerusalem, he does not encounter celebration, but criticism. “The circumcised believers criticized him and said, ‘You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.’” The social taboo was so entrenched in their thinking that they could not reconcile it with Peter’s actions.

One of the problems of the truth of scripture is that it respects no human categories of thought. It challenges our assumptions, traditions, and preconceived ideas without apology.

Spiritual formation begins when God opens our eyes to the tension between our social habits and the truth of Christ. It’s at that moment when we have the option of grappling with our comfortable habits or letting them nullify the teachings of the word. It’s not an easy choice. Habits die hard and they resurrect often. But if we can bring convictions and determination into the process, we can begin to wrestle with these forces that would chain us to the flawed customs of the past.

I look at the response of the Jewish Christians to Peter’s unorthodox visit to a Gentile home and wonder why they could be so trapped in their old ways. But then my old ways catch up with me. It’s a liberation for all of us that does not come easy.

This is a season in American politics in which the virtues and vices of political leaders are the subject of continual debate.

Holding our political leaders to a standard of moral and ethical behavior is a good thing, but sometimes the failure of some can lead to pessimism or a sense of powerlessness for those who hold Christian convictions. Is the world ruled by self-centered, corrupt, egotistical leaders, or is it ruled by God?

In looking a Romans 13:6, the answer to that question is that God rules. The NASB translation states: “For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.”

What caught my attention was Paul’s assertion that “rulers are servants of God.” It sure seems that many rulers don’t see themselves as that. They defy God, mock him, and seem to go their own way.

But as I look at the text, it does not say that rulers are willing servants of God. Some may be, but many–even in Paul’s day–had nothing to do with him. I think the Bible is stating that rulers are God’s servants whether they realize it or not. God claims to have raised up Pharaoh for his own purposes (Exodus 9:16). We see God demonstrating his power over Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Cyrus. Daniel’s prophetic dreams outline God’s hand behind four world kingdoms, well into the Roman period. God ended Herod’s life because of pride (Acts 12:23).

The picture in scripture is that God’s sovereign rule is not abrogated by any human ruler, and that each plays a role in his overall plan. This gets into areas of secondary causation that I won’t dwell upon here. But the consequence is that we can take comfort that there is a ruler behind all earthly rulers who makes those who govern in our day his servants. He uses their freedom (for good or ill) to his own ends, much as he used the freedom of Joseph’s brothers as part of his bigger plan (Genesis 50:20).

This is not to advocate political passivity for those of us who are called to be light in our republic. But perhaps it does call us to see the Throne behind the thrones and realize that the world is not totally in the hands of men, and that worry and anxiety about the political possibilities need not dominate our thinking because a greater force is at work in ways we can’t see.

A recent editiorial in the Fargo Forum newspaper (3/3/08) made the following assertion:

“I believe that everyone has the right to marriage, even if it is to the same sex. Love is love, no matter their sexual preference. I do not understand why it is such a big deal.

I know that everyone has an opinion on this subject, so I just had to let you hear mine. Gay marriage should be allowed everywhere so people can be with the people they truly care about.”

The writer sounds charitable and gracious, but the argument has several logical problems.

First, if everyone has a right to marriage, would that include a father-daughter or two 9-year-olds? If being with people you care about is the criteria, should we warmly embrace polygamy or polyandry. By using the word everyone the writer may have meant heterosexual and same sex couples, but the broad generalization does not make that obvious, and the rationale supporting the assertion does not prohibit the other alternatives.

Secondly, the statement that “love is love” argues for nothing. Marriage neither creates nor preserves love, as many couples can testify. Nowhere in our civil code do you find that the primary purpose of marrige is to somehow protect the feelings of love. That is an individaual choice that is not contingent on the presence or absence of social legislation.

Thirdly, there is nothing in  current civil legislation that prohibits people from “being with the people they care about.” In fact, landlords are currently prohibited from refusing to rent to same sex couples.

Those who advocate for same sex marriage are not fighting for togetherness or love. They are demanding that society redefine marriage. They would persuade us from their own hubris that the understanding of marriage as commonly held in the Western Culture for millennia is flawed and that they are correct. Dismissing the biological realities and the social benefit of the structure of the family as practiced through the centuries, they contend that this new definiton works better. Both logic and reality argue otherwise.