I thought this article on religion was well-thought-out, and worth far more than it's weight in alcoholic blather from Christopher Hitchens.
Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Be Not Afraid
This post started out as a witty and biting critique of conservative Christians, especially the people at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM). It was a masterpiece of nasty one-liners and yo-mama jokes, but I couldn't stand my own self-righteousness, so I deleted it.
In its place I want to put this:
To all Christians out there who believe that the church is a fragile institution under assault by a licentious and immoral culture, to those who believe that our faith is in desperate need of a defense from critics and atheists, liberals and heretics... I have good news: you're wrong. That might not sound like good news. Who likes to be wrong? But in this case I hope you'll stick with me long enough to see what I mean.
You're wrong, first of all, about the church being a fragile institution. The church belongs to Jesus Christ and is created by the power of the Holy Spirit. Nothing we do will ever destroy or corrupt it beyond repair. Yes, we get things wrong - alot. Sure there are plenty of times I wonder if the church hasn't gone over a cliff. There are probably lots of places called "churches" around this world which are rarely very similar to the Church of Jesus Christ, but the creation, maintanence and success of the true church does not depend on us. It never has and it never will.
You're wrong, secondly, about the church being under assault. Just from a matter of simple observation we can say that Christianity is the largest religion in the world and growing. Even in places like the US and Europe where churches are often stale and declining, the ubiquity of the religion denies any claims we might make about being a persecuted minority. Furthermore, Christ's victory on the cross forever proves that it is not the holy that is vulnerable to assault, but the profane which defeats itself by assailing the holy. The church cannot become impure by contact with an immoral culture, but the culture certainly can be sanctified by coming into contact with the church.
You're wrong, finally, about faith requiring a defense. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It can no more be lost than it can be bought. Any faith which can be shaken or destroyed merely by criticism was not true faith to begin with. Indeed, we should value the critiques of atheists, liberals, and heretics, because they stir us out of childish belief into an adult faith, by requiring of us more than mere intellectual assent. Not only does faith not require a defense, to attempt a defense is a failure of faith. Faith reveals itself in the cross and receives its vindication in the resurrection.
The good news of the gospel is this: God has already won the victory. The war is over. You can put down your weapons now and live into God's peace. You are safe. Be not afraid.
In its place I want to put this:
To all Christians out there who believe that the church is a fragile institution under assault by a licentious and immoral culture, to those who believe that our faith is in desperate need of a defense from critics and atheists, liberals and heretics... I have good news: you're wrong. That might not sound like good news. Who likes to be wrong? But in this case I hope you'll stick with me long enough to see what I mean.
You're wrong, first of all, about the church being a fragile institution. The church belongs to Jesus Christ and is created by the power of the Holy Spirit. Nothing we do will ever destroy or corrupt it beyond repair. Yes, we get things wrong - alot. Sure there are plenty of times I wonder if the church hasn't gone over a cliff. There are probably lots of places called "churches" around this world which are rarely very similar to the Church of Jesus Christ, but the creation, maintanence and success of the true church does not depend on us. It never has and it never will.
You're wrong, secondly, about the church being under assault. Just from a matter of simple observation we can say that Christianity is the largest religion in the world and growing. Even in places like the US and Europe where churches are often stale and declining, the ubiquity of the religion denies any claims we might make about being a persecuted minority. Furthermore, Christ's victory on the cross forever proves that it is not the holy that is vulnerable to assault, but the profane which defeats itself by assailing the holy. The church cannot become impure by contact with an immoral culture, but the culture certainly can be sanctified by coming into contact with the church.
You're wrong, finally, about faith requiring a defense. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It can no more be lost than it can be bought. Any faith which can be shaken or destroyed merely by criticism was not true faith to begin with. Indeed, we should value the critiques of atheists, liberals, and heretics, because they stir us out of childish belief into an adult faith, by requiring of us more than mere intellectual assent. Not only does faith not require a defense, to attempt a defense is a failure of faith. Faith reveals itself in the cross and receives its vindication in the resurrection.
The good news of the gospel is this: God has already won the victory. The war is over. You can put down your weapons now and live into God's peace. You are safe. Be not afraid.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
These Truths Are Not Self-Evident...
There are all different types of Christians out there. For example there are these guys. They are the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM). They tell you the answers, and you'd better agree with them. After all, eternity is a long time to be wrong.
Among their many fascinating articles is this gem. It is a list of 100 Truths About Jesus. Each truth is a pithy saying I'm sure the author wants you to take as "fact" supported by hyperlinked Biblical quotes.
Nothing shocking. But what strikes me as I read it is that these "truths" are anything but self-evident. Rather, they are so impenetrable they are nearly useless.
For example, what does it mean that, "Jesus abides forever - Heb. 7:24"? Where does he "abide?" Can I visit? To abide means to continue or to stay... what is he continuing? If he is staying forever does that mean he is never going? Or maybe they mean abide as in "tolerate". In which case what does Jesus tolerate? This is the kind of lovely koan-esque language that religions love to employ and it is wonderful for meditation and theology, but it is more poetry than apologetics where precise definitions are necessary.
One problem with this list of propositions (and it is true of the entire site) is that it assumes an incredible degree of pre-assimilated context. There is a near cultish use of insider vocabulary used without explanation as if the meaning is plain to any observer. What do these things mean:
Okay. Glad I know that now. Hmm. I guess that clears up my confusion about... nothing.
For these propositions to have any value the reader would have to be in a conversation where the assertion that Jesus is the Rock had any meaning. The writers on this site are clearly involved in such a conversation. They see themselves countering all sorts of cultural tendencies they deplore, but they don't give any hint of that here. Answers without questions are useless. (Interestingly the reverse is not always true).
Furthermore, the apparent simplicity (even if it is opaque simplicity) of these propositions belies an enormous amount of interpretation that has already gone into them. Consider number 100 on their list:
So how does the author get to his proposition from the supporting text? Interpretation, duh. The author is assuming that Jesus means something specific by "freedom" and that this "freedom" corresponds with what the author already knows and believes, partly on the basis of other scripture passages, belongs specifically to a group called "believers". I happen to disagree with the author in this case, but I don't think there is anything nefarious about such an interpretive move. I have a feeling, however, that the people at CARM wouldn't want to admit that such debatable interpretation underlies all of their arguments.
Among their many fascinating articles is this gem. It is a list of 100 Truths About Jesus. Each truth is a pithy saying I'm sure the author wants you to take as "fact" supported by hyperlinked Biblical quotes.
Nothing shocking. But what strikes me as I read it is that these "truths" are anything but self-evident. Rather, they are so impenetrable they are nearly useless.
For example, what does it mean that, "Jesus abides forever - Heb. 7:24"? Where does he "abide?" Can I visit? To abide means to continue or to stay... what is he continuing? If he is staying forever does that mean he is never going? Or maybe they mean abide as in "tolerate". In which case what does Jesus tolerate? This is the kind of lovely koan-esque language that religions love to employ and it is wonderful for meditation and theology, but it is more poetry than apologetics where precise definitions are necessary.
One problem with this list of propositions (and it is true of the entire site) is that it assumes an incredible degree of pre-assimilated context. There is a near cultish use of insider vocabulary used without explanation as if the meaning is plain to any observer. What do these things mean:
- The fruit of righteousness comes through Jesus Christ - Phil. 1:11
- Jesus is the Rock - 1 Cor. 10:4
- Jesus is our only mediator between God and ourselves - 1 Tim. 2:5
Okay. Glad I know that now. Hmm. I guess that clears up my confusion about... nothing.For these propositions to have any value the reader would have to be in a conversation where the assertion that Jesus is the Rock had any meaning. The writers on this site are clearly involved in such a conversation. They see themselves countering all sorts of cultural tendencies they deplore, but they don't give any hint of that here. Answers without questions are useless. (Interestingly the reverse is not always true).
Furthermore, the apparent simplicity (even if it is opaque simplicity) of these propositions belies an enormous amount of interpretation that has already gone into them. Consider number 100 on their list:
- Jesus came to proclaim freedom for believers - Luke 4:18
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,"First of all, Jesus is not making a personal announcement here, he is reading scripture aloud in the context of something like a worship service. He does, later in the passage, tell the crowd that "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." So it is not unreasonable to assume that he intends these words from Isaiah as a kind of proclamation, but where does Isaiah mention freedom for "believers"? Freedom could reasonably be applied to two groups in the passage: captives and the oppressed. It mentions nothing at all about whether these groups contain any believers.
So how does the author get to his proposition from the supporting text? Interpretation, duh. The author is assuming that Jesus means something specific by "freedom" and that this "freedom" corresponds with what the author already knows and believes, partly on the basis of other scripture passages, belongs specifically to a group called "believers". I happen to disagree with the author in this case, but I don't think there is anything nefarious about such an interpretive move. I have a feeling, however, that the people at CARM wouldn't want to admit that such debatable interpretation underlies all of their arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)