The Bible is Bull[oney]

I’m not passionate about apologetics – I used to be, but I guess I felt like I was arguing around the block with too many skeptics without ever getting to explain the message about Jesus because of red herring after red herring.  That or the death of modern thought moved me to more of an interest in proclamation rather than debate.  Nevertheless, I am a college pastor and the importance of apologetics is being awakened in me as many of my students have been vocal about their faith on campus and, to no real surprise, have also been getting it shoved back in their faces.  One student was shown the following video and she forwarded it to me:

So what’s the best approach here?  What should apologetics look like?  Answering every objection item by item?  Defending a skeptic’s inaccurate view of our faith (in other words, defending a straw man?)  Do we just bypass the objections and yell the gospel louder?  What to do about the cosmic gulf between where skeptics like Penn & Teller are and where we are?  Is it even possible to find a common or neutral ground to have a discussion or will one or the other have to go on the road (sports analogy-wise)?  Do we focus apologetics on those who do not believe or on those who already believe?

Discussion “Question”: Answer any of the questions above or describe the role apologetics play in the way you tell people the message about Jesus.

Here It Is: Who Is Truth?

Below you’ll find the message for the most recent W.E.L.D. where I asked the question “Who is Truth?”  Built largely on the post of the same name and my obituaries of Modern and Post-Modern thought, the message took the following path:  First, I introduced the problems people of faith are confronted with in a Post-Modern, Post-Christian culture (such as we have in Nor Cal).  Then I offered a very brief discussion on the history of Pre-Modern, Modern, & Post-Modern views of truth.  Next, I explored the assertion of Jesus in John 14.6 that He is the truth as well as the implications of God’s self existence on truth based on Exodus 3.14.  Finally, I offered three big-idea, general applications.

Listen to: Who is Truth?

Discussion Question: If logic and reason aren’t the bedrock of our faith, but the existence and revelation of God (albeit it understood in large part with the help of logic and reason) – how should that affect the way we interact with outsiders about matters of faith, especially the message about Jesus?

Who is Truth?

Now that the unChristian series has wrapped up I’m about to begin sermonizing (yes, Keith, sermonizing) for the first message of the next series for our progressive worship service, W.E.L.D.  Rather than rehashing Pilate’s question of old—”What is truth?” (John 18.38) that seemed to define the modern and post-modern period—in my quest for a return to a pre-modern mindset, I’m asking the question “Who is Truth?”  When truth is abstract or propositional it is quickly and easily reduced to nothing more than a subject for discussion or a series of ideas to be mastered.  It becomes something to be determined and defined by people—whether by the scientific method, ever-evolving philosophy, or both.

My thought is that this is what it all comes down to: either (1) some ideas are so preeminent, so pure, so essential and elemental that even God Himself is bound to them and only operates within them (such as love, holiness, justice, and righteousness) or (2) God is utterly free and His existence defines not only these ideas, but Truth itself.  In other words, either truth defines God or God defines Truth.  Or again, the first option leads to the question “What is truth?” and the second “Who is Truth?”  Now the question is whether and what practical difference it makes to ask one question rather than the other (the answer to “whether” seems obviously yes; only what it might look like remains).

Perhaps the ultimate question (at least for my purposes here) for those of us who have previously thought we could determine Truth is whether we can, after all, put the fruit back on the tree and re-enter the Garden where God Himself is Truth and we truly believe and thereafter seek understanding through knowing Him.  (I wonder, could eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil be assuming the ability to discern between Truth and Error?  And by doing so, do we thereby exalt our knowledge over God and try to control Him as a result [explicitly or implicitly]?).

I’m early in my thought here; please ask constructively critical questions, ask for clarifications, or any other comments that might help me refine these thoughts.

Post-Modern Post-Mortem

In my last post on the subject I formally declared Modernism dead (b/c I have that kind of authority) and found to my surprise that Post-Modernism itself had also died (thank you, Greg)—of course you might say that Post-Modernism is simply the frog to Modernism’s tadpole.  So if the tadpole has croaked, the frog must have also.  So what’s next?  What can the Church do to be on the cutting edge this time, blaze a new trail, or something in between that doesn’t put us 2 decades behind the culture?  I’m great with a different track (and I’m pretty sure the Bible is too), but being way behind on the same track is just plain foolish!  One commenter made the statement:

One problem … is the fact that the very concept that truth is primarily propositional [ideas stated in language] is a thoroughly modern/postmodern concept. So then when we talk about deriving our propositional truths from revelation rather than reason or dialogue, or something else, we are still captives of the modern era. Maybe its time we stop thinking of truth as [propositions] and start thinking of truth as a person to imitate/incarnate (-Ryan the wise, buddy from DTS).

I’m sure your mind, like mine, jumps to John 14.6, typically referenced by Christians only for Jesus’ claim to exclusivity (“no one comes to the Father but through me” NIV), where Jesus first says “I am … the Truth.”  Without denying that truth is in many ways propositional (able to be thought about as ideas), we also need to relate to Truth as a person, not simply as an objective standard that lords even over God himself.  For example, I’m sure you’ve heard a preacher say that God cannot have sin in His presence b/c He is holy and holiness demands separation from sin (Though, I guess they mean in Heaven – cause the Spirit seems to be in sin’s presence a lot if you believe He permanently indwells believers).  What a dishonoring thing to say about God!  It’s not that God cannot be in the presence of sin, He will not—it’s His perogative, He does what He wants to do!  I came across a brilliant quote the other day that elevated Truth beyond the confines of mere propositions, ideas, notions, values, or laws:

It is blasphemy to say that there is a higher reality [truth] than God to which he must conform in order to be holy. God is the absolute reality beyond which is only more of God. When asked for his name in Exodus 3:14 he said, “I am who I am.” His being and his character are utterly undetermined by anything outside himself (John Piper).

God is truth, God’s existence defines reality, defines holiness, defines righteousness, defines justice and mercy, and of course, God defines truth.  When we separate Truth from God the 3 Persons, we elevate so-called truth over God.  When we approach Truth as we approach 3 persons, we honor both God and Truth.  Now, what does that look like?  I guess I’m asking you.

Modern Thought, R.I.P.

[I'm not quite sure sure I'm ready to go to print with this idea, maybe others have already thought it; but in the final analysis I need a new blog and this has been on my mind... - Special thanks to my wife Kat and Amy Carbo for their constructive criticisms]

Anyhoo, there were a few moments in Seminary that stand above the rest – several are from Dr. Glenn Kreider who in any given lecture either made me mad, struck me with his brilliance, or did both.  One (probably miserable) day in Dallas in our perfectly air-conditioned classroom we were talking worldviews and epistemology (how you know that you know that you know…) and he made the comment that Modern thought had actually been harmful to the church and we should not fear, but welcome, her death.  Indeed, while many in the church are trying to defend Modern thought against the conquest of Postmodernism and her goon squad (e.g. pluralism & relativism), it is actually Modern thought that has done the Faith more harm than good.  This post briefly explains how I hope the death of Modernism will prove beneficial for our faith.  Forgive me if I oversimplify things.

First, a little history.  Generally, from the genesis of man to the Enlightenment (18th/19th Century) we had the Pre-Modern period where people believed that Truth was revealed by God to people and the purpose of study was to understand that truth.  After Reason took her throne during the Enlightenment, the Modern period now looked at Truth as something to be discovered by the human mind through careful study.  In other words, Modern thinkers believe truth is concealed rather than revealed.

Now, Post-Modernism is commonly thought of as a rejection of absolute truth rather than (as the name would suggest) a rejection of Modern thought.  I would argue, though, that Post-Modernism is really just frustrated Modernism.  Post-Moderns take a gander at the overwhelming evidence and data to sift through before conclusively arriving at Truth and they determine that the objective is impossible (and it is!).  Though many end up rejecting absolute truth as a result, a Post-Modern’s view of truth is still derived from reason and the ability of the human mind to discover truth; they have only given up because they have rightly determined that the finite human mind could never discover absolute truth through searching and study.

To quote En Vogue, now it’s time for a breakdown (I hope you get it though)!  Here is each worldview’s understanding of truth:

Pre-Modern: Truth is revealed by God, our job is to believe it and then seek understanding.

Modern: Truth is concealed, our job is to discover it through reason (which we are able to do), and then believe it. In other words, mankind is the master of truth.

Post-Modern: Truth is concealed, we tried to discover and master it through reason but found we aren’t able, we are frustrated and are left with nothing to believe.

So, how again is the death of Modernism good for the people of faith?  I believe that since we have recognized absolute truth cannot be discovered through reason and study, truth will once again have to be revealed by God (now I recognize that people of faith have pretty much always maintained this view of truth; I am speaking largely about how someone comes to recognize truth).  Perhaps such realizations will have to be on an individual basis where a person encounters absolute truth in Christ and in the Word of God rather than on the large-scale, social-movement level, but isn’t that better than a mindset that lords itself over truth, whether Modern or Post-Modern?  I, for one, will not fear the death of Modern thought (nor will I eulogize her) for with her death may come a people who depend on God’s Revelation for Truth rather than their own ability to reason.  Thus, in any one person:

Post-Modernism leads to: (1) Pluralism and relativism; or (2) If there is Truth and God reveals it to us, then our job is to believe it and then seek understanding.

Post-It Notes: Faith in a Post-Modern & Post-Christian Culture

Right now we’re doing Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University and one of the key points Dave hammers early on is living below your means so that you can stop living paycheck to paycheck and actually start to build momentum.  As a pastor its easy to preach paycheck to paycheck where each message is self-contained and isn’t worked on or even thought about until the week of.

Well, I’m trying to think and work ahead since July 5th brings the last message in the unChristian series and I’m staring at August with the question, what’s next?  The direction I’m thinking of going is what Christianity looks like in a post-modern, post-Christian culture.   That means addressing a variety of issues including worldviews, objections to faith & Christianity, and following Christ in a culture that no longer pretends to do so.

Discussion Question: What issues with believing amidst a Post-Modern, Post-Christian culture do you most want to have addressed?