Anticipating Love Wins

I saw about a week ago from a facebook post Rob Bell is releasing a new book. Justin Taylor, a well known Reformed blogger, kicked off with a rather controversial blog about a controversial book by one of the most controversial pastors in America. I couldn't see the video of mention that many pastors have took full aim and depending where you stand either jumped the gun or addressed an important issue without haste. This is not about my speculation from Rob's video; it is rather hard to make an informed comment on a video I haven't been able to watch.

I have read all of Rob Bell's books thus far and I will read Love Wins. I don't read him because I particularly agree with what he writes, I read his writings because they reach audiences I am very concerned about. Like a parent taking an interest in their kid's video games or sports, when my students read a book you better believe I will read it too, if nothing else to discuss it regardless of content. I read his first book, Velvet Elvis, in an attempt to gain an understanding of the Emerging Church at the time. I continued to read his books when I learned a number of students read his material as well.

What have I gathered from Mr. Bell's writing until this week? He is one of the most gifted speakers I have heard. He is very creative in how he presents ideas and can quickly grab an audience through empathetic tone and genuine concern. On the other hand, in Velvet Elvis especially he proposed dangerous ideas but in his likeable fashion, those ideas we presented in a non-confrontational "just think about it" type of manner. I have yet to hear any response or clarification from his claims in Velvet Elvis. He does not need to answer to me by any means, as a pastor and teacher he is already held to a higher standard. I got to a point; whenever people discuss "What I think about Rob Bell" all I can say is "be careful". His roundabout speaking/writing style in combination with his rhetorically styled questions which offer no clarification can push people in a very dangerous direction without a firm foundation in scripture. This was where I was two weeks ago.

I cannot comment on what I have not read, what will be in Love Wins. Thanks to a recent blog post by Kevin Deyoung I can comment like Kevin did, on what Rob did say.

"Will only a few select people make it to heaven? And will billions and billions of people burn forever in hell? And if that’s the case, how do you become one of the few? Is it what you believe or what you say or what you do or who you know or something that happens in your heart? Or do you need to be initiated or take a class or converted or being born again? How does one become one of these few?

Then there is the question behind the questions. The real question [is], “What is God like?”, because millions and millions of people were taught that the primary message, the center of the gospel of Jesus, is that God is going to send you to hell unless you believe in Jesus. And so what gets subtly sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. But what kind of God is that, that we would need to be rescued from this God? How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be good news?

This is why lots of people want nothing to do with the Christian faith. They see it as an endless list of absurdities and inconsistencies and they say, why would I ever want to be a part of that? See what we believe about heaven and hell is incredibly important because it exposes what we believe about who God is and what God is like. What you discover in the Bible is so surprising, unexpected, beautiful, that whatever we have been told and been taught, the good news is actually better than that, better than we could ever imagine.
The good news is that love wins." - Rob Bell, Love Wins Trailer

As an example of Rob's speaking style in the trailer Kevin makes a comparable "video" to demonstrate Bell's speaking style in his Love Wins trailer. In Kevin's example he asks a series of rhetorical questions which don't sound like questions nearly as much as "just consider this" and continuous flow of "what ifs" strategically placed that one gets the sense these are statements, not questions. I read a number of the comments to Kevin's blog, one of the more frequent objections to Kevin's assessment of Mr. Bell's speaking style is "not to jump to conclusions solely based on a two minute video".

This is where I chime in, because unlike many of the commentators in Kevin's blog, I have read all of Rob's books. The speaking style from this video excerpt is one of Rob's hallmarks. He speaks the same way he writes. Rob will pose controversial questions to long held doctrinal beliefs and leave it at that, he opens the door to question what has been established as orthodoxy theology and does not develop the pseudo-claims any further.

I am reminded of parts in Velvet Elvis when Rob questions the necessity of the virgin birth of Jesus in just the same fashion as these lines of questions seem to imply Universalism. Perhaps the scariest thing that came to my mind as I read the text from the video, I was reminded of a section in scripture when similar speaking occurred. It was the conversation the serpent had with Eve... I am not saying I believe Rob Bell is Satan. I am saying the manner in which he writes/speaks and the content behind that may sadly be satanic. I hope I am wrong, but I will have to wait until the book is released to see what is truly said.

Biblical Gender Roles: Headship vs. Domination

Among my deployment goals, at least for the duration of the deployment, one has been to write more regularly. Clashing with my desire to write something of substance with a decent frequency has been my understanding or at least growth of my understanding of the given topic I wish to share about. Most recently I raided John Piper's online book repository and have had a more fruitful use of my time. I recently finished Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (BFMW) and promptly continued on with Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood(RBMW).

When I started reading the first book I was expecting it to talk about masculinity and femininity from scripture. I was thinking something along the lines of John Eldridge's Wild At Heart or Way of the Wild Heart. While it did address masculinity and femininity, the focus was much more specific: defending the complimentarian (gender roles do exist within scripture, such as male headship, pastor/elders, and the sort) view and responding to the egalitarian (gender roles do not exist within scripture and there should be no difference in the manner men and women approach God or each other) view. The topic of gender roles in the church is not one of the most popular topics. In all fairness, I don't think I have ever sat through a sermon addressing gender roles, at least not in person. I have listened to a number of sermons which the gender roles were addressed from time to time but not in detail that would compare with this material. I have read 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Timothy 2, Ephesians 5-6, Titus 2, a number of times. Until a few weeks ago, I never read any articles/essays concerning the Greek text in those verses, or really exploring these topics in depth. Frankly, I was rather unaware of the research and doctrinal implications of these two views. Don't worry I won't attempt to condense the 400 pages I've read so far on this topic into this blog. I wanted to narrow in on what I noticed as a prime issue at the heart of this debate.

The first point I noticed, which has been a bit of a recurring theme among Christian debates, was the immediate approach to scripture. How does each side approach the scriptural support, lack of support, or silence regarding the topic at hand? Did one group tend to focus on arguing from experience vs. scripture? How did they go about trying to address a difficult or culturally unpopular instruction? Did the denial of one non-essential view overflow to a greater essential doctrine peril? One of the variables which make Christian debates particularly easy and painful at the same time is that no matter what, both sides need to rely on Scripture to have any ground. I say easy and painful because many arguments in the secular world cannot come to a solid starting point, yet painful because there should not be such levels of dissension regarding clear teachings of scripture. One side or another often finds themselves judging God's Word instead of humbly approaching it seeking to understand its mystery and submit to its authority.

The second point of controversy within the discussion of gender roles is the misunderstanding of domination compared to headship. Domination is the embodiment of might-over-right, overbearing, abusive, much of what defines popular culture's idea of masculinity. Instead of domination being regarded as the enemy for what it is, masculinity at large was assaulted. Men were told to be passive teddy bears that didn't hurt anyone, their feelings, or to even have a desire to inflict hurt. Some men laid down their masculinity by abdicating their roles as leaders, protectors, and providers. Other men sprinted into the other direction to become dominating womanizing thugs, who disguise themselves as gentlemen because they wear a suit. The modern man has been in crisis to define himself. Domination works for many men as a sense of identity because few women can compete in that arena. The fruit of domination expressed further expressed itself in violent crime, abusive attitudes, and general disregard of others. I would never attempt to defend justification for domination as it is the epitome of immature masculinity. This is the target of reference which egalitarians hone in on to destroy, and for good reason. I have yet to read and I don't expect to ever hear a scriptural defense for a dominating attitude. Headship is the embodiment of mature masculinity, one of my favorite sections of verses in Ephesians 5 describes headship. Christ is to his Church as a husband is to his wife. An excerpt from RBMW which also hits home:

At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships...A man might say, “I am a man and I do not feel this sense of responsibility that you say makes me masculine.” He may feel strong and sexually competent and forceful and rational. But we would say to him that if he does not feel this sense of benevolent responsibility toward women to lead, provide and protect, his masculinity is immature. It is incomplete and perhaps distorted.

“Mature” means that a man’s sense of responsibility is in the process of growing out of its sinful distortions and limitations, and finding its true nature as a form of love, not a form of self-assertion." -pg 29

I recall some students in the high school group picking my brain on the infamous "woman submit" theme found in Ephesians 5:22-24, my response was twofold. One, a man not dare quote verses 22-24 without including 25-33, to do so is not only incomplete to the context of the text but it can lead one to wrongfully think scripture rubber stamps a dominating attitude, yet it immediately gives instruction to the husband on how to love his wife. I found it interesting that the instruction of submission, an action, for which men are more typically action-oriented was given to the wife. While love, an instruction of emotional-orientation, was given to the husband.

Christ perfected headship by his sacrifice, leadership, and love. This is to be the example that men are to follow that we might be mature men. I'm not saying to be mature Christian men, this is just to be a mature man. Because this is what it means to be a man, how much more should we look to the men in the Church fulfill this role in an exemplary manner?

The High Places

I mentioned before about the Sunday night Bible study I’ve been involved with for several months. I want to say for the last 6 weeks or so we have been doing a survey of the Old Testament. To be honest I never knew there were so many quirky details and stories in the Old Testament. I hope I remember to return to the Old Testament more frequently in my studies. Combine the Old Testament studies with several of the sermons I have been listening to from Mars Hill Church, and I pondering the high places and how they are relevant to us.

With my limited resources I found the High Places were altar-like places scattered throughout the lands in the Old Testament. It was common among indigenous cultures to find hilltops and other high elevation locations and setup obelisks, altars, and other small structures to worship their gods. The gods to which the high places were dedicated varied; amongst the unnamed gods are Baal, Asheroth, Asherah, and Molech. To the best of my understanding Baal was the god of economic success. It was everything from blessings harvests and business, Baal worship was a means to bless earthly success and wealth. In Leviticus 20, Molech was known for child sacrifice, through other historical references altars to Molech were statues with arms perpendicular so as to place an object on the arms. For worship the arms were heated to color changing temperatures and children were placed on the arms to be burned to death.

The first mention I have found of the high places was in the settling of the Promised Land. Continuing through the Old Testament I counted high places mentioned in the connotation of foreign god worship site appears 68 times. It was most apparent to me going through 1 & 2 Kings in which many leaders of Judah and Israel were given several paragraphs summarizing their rule and frequently mentioned was “the high places were not taken away” or worse yet “made offerings at the high places”. Saul was found hanging out at the high places where Samuel found him. Solomon built high places for his foreign wives and eventually made sacrifices to them. Hezekiah, who has been called by many the most righteous King in Jewish history destroyed the high places, only to have his son Manasseh rebuild them.

Yes, this was one of the more research intensive blogs, but here is the relevance. What are our high places? The Jews set the example of false idols and gods, upon hearing I often questioned the application. In California I never came across an idol or temple devoted to Baal. Wandering the streets of London I observed countless memorials and statues to honor their history, yet I never saw an altar to Molech for people to offer their babies. For far too long I held the teachings of false gods to be rather outdated and irrelevant because I had never experienced or even heard of such behavior. What if the worship still continues, we just changed high places and how we offer our worship? Mark Driscoll keenly points out that abortion is modern child sacrifice for sex. People desiring to worship sex more than life sacrifice their babies to continue their worship. What of the worship of money and success? Take your pick, be it magazines like “The Best Life”, TV shows such as “Cribs”, or America’s infatuation with celebrities concerning any and everything they wear and say, because they are rich. Ensuring I point the finger to myself I have to consider where I spend my time and for what purpose. Earlier today, I was busy playing Hitman while listening to a Mars Hill sermon in which Mark pointed out that the average single man plays two hours and forty six minutes of video games, ugh.

I do not intend this to be a legalist calling in which we must monitor our time consumption of activities, cease watching TV, and take no interest in popular culture; far from it. I just wanted to share with you all (I will not say y’all) I have been made more aware of the idols present throughout our society and more importantly the greater application of the Old Testament. Remember, for effective evangelism we must meet them where they are. If I know nothing of the culture I am attempting to reach common sense tells me I will not be effective.

Necessary Beliefs

It has been a little more than 10 years since I decided to practice my faith to the point of inconvenience in which I allowed it to take hold of my thoughts and actions. Since then I could not count how many people through the years have claimed beliefs masked as Christianity but were unsupported by any form of valid Christian authority. It was during those years I came to the understanding that I cannot trust what a man says or has said to direct me in my faith. I must rely on Scripture and the reasonable interpretation of such. Beyond the authority of Scripture we are left to our interpretations, hopefully through the Holy Spirit’s guidance we can test to know what ought to be followed and what ought to be discarded. Not to discount the teachers of the day, there are many gifted teachers doing God’s work, my first and foremost litmus test when considering a given message is if it is founded in Scripture or not. If so, it is taken with authority of possibly being the proper view of God’s Word, if not it cannot be taken with any more weight than one man to another.

In retrospect, as I consider the manner I approached the doctrine of Faith to be followed I am thankful that thus far I have not adhered to an unscriptural doctrine before my pursuit of understanding Christian doctrine began in Germany. It started as learning the rational and secular defenses for Christianity known as Apologetics, but upon the Introduction I learned it was really basic evangelical theological doctrine, much of which is necessary to be established “a priori” to understand the Bible and God as the Bible describes him to be. I have not yet been confronted with a set of doctrine that I disagreed with that has been established as necessary beliefs, the vast majority of the material presented I never considered as topics of issue or contention, such as: God’s simplicity, necessity, impassibility, unity, or immateriality just to name a few. In the volume I recently completed those traits listed are among 28 other necessary traits which encompass the God of the Bible.

If someone approached me 3 years ago and claimed I must believe those traits of God to be a scripturally faithful Christian, I would have laughed at them and questioned their seriousness, sanity or both. I most certainly would’ve questioned their faith and sincerity of knowing Christ. Christianity has been packaged in so many ways to be more “marketable” for lack of better words. I theorize the more evangelistic in nature of the ministry the more simple the message will be packed. Reasonably so, it is likely unnecessary that someone acknowledge God’s immutability before they are personally introduced to Jesus. I grasp the need to summarize the Christian Doctrine such that a layman can understand it; I don’t think a better summarization is done by the Gospels. However, the Gospels are often too complex to actually understand and for further evangelistic purpose they are carved even more to get to a message something along the lines of “We are all sinners, sinners go to Hell, God forgives sin, confess your sins to be saved”. I have previously expressed thoughts on the Prayer of Salvation and the potential detriment I think it offers to a life of authentic faith.

I find myself being much closer to the person claiming that one must believe X set of doctrines to be an authentic Christian. Without becoming Pharisaical where does that leave me? I do not regret learning the doctrine of what I have bonded my life to; in fact knowing the deeper understanding of Christian doctrine has further strengthened my faith immensely. I recall describing my worldview to a friend a while ago as a buckyball, a C₆₀ molecule that has been described as flexible as a rubber but as strong as a diamond. I chose this description based on the molecular configuration, because every atom is interconnected. My understanding of the sciences has already strengthened my assurance that Christianity is true, understanding the doctrine is one more area to reinforce my faith, so much so I can hardly call it faith. I know Christianity to be true better than I know 2+2= 4.

I understand my faith is vastly different from those around me because of my personal relationship with Christ, the experiences I have had, my willingness to accept truth, and the empirical knowledge I have. Just as every friendship is an individual relationship, so too every person’s faith is at the individual level. I do not dare to claim one must fully understand orthodox systematic theology of the evangelical Christian faith. The danger I am more aware of, if one does not understand the essential doctrines of the faith they claim, there are serious issues that may arise.

The most important, how does one know the God they claim to have a relationship with, is the God of Christianity? If one denies that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God the implications from such a seemingly skeptic claim quickly pile into a web of heresy or blasphemy. If the Bible has errors and is still the Word of God, then God makes mistakes, if God makes mistakes then he is not Truth, if God is not Truth, then he is not perfect, if God is not perfect, then he is not omniscient, if he is not omniscient, he cannot be God. This is one simple example of many that can be formulated from orthodox evangelical Christianity. Each “if” statement can be used to counter a number of paths to prove the existence and rationality of Christianity. Consider the example provided, only expand the “if” “then” to 28 necessary qualities and see how interesting that becomes. That is how a simple claim of skepticism is only a logical deduction away from disbelief in the existence of God at all or at least the God of Christianity. My only rational answer to such a question is to depend upon the Holy Spirit’s guidance, but then it still refers, that if I consider the Trinity to be tritheism (there are three gods or three separate beings), modalism (God is one person that appears in different roles), or any number of doctrines apart from the Trinity that God is three persons with one nature, then how can one know the God they believe is the one that is?

The dangers from ignorance of doctrine I think are far greater than knowing too much doctrine without faith. Placing importance on doctrine is what lead the Pharisees astray, and Christ had strong words to those that claimed religion but not faith. I also think of any number of documentaries I have watched on the History Channel to represent the scholastic historical views experts give concerning the existence of Jesus, the origin of Christianity, the understanding of Heaven or Hell, or any number of topics of that order. I have yet to see an expert that offered a view that completely coincided with the scriptural account. Faith is the most important part of our relationship with Christ. However, there is an undefined level of understanding that I see necessary in understanding who the God we pledge to follow is. Or maybe this is a deeper meaning of what Christ meant when he said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and believed”.

Epilogue: It was almost humorous for me to read this, at this point in my life I did not even conceive the possibility of going to a Bible college. Yet, all of the content of this was addressed in my Theology I course.  Dr. Thoennes does a much better job that this blog though.

What is Worldview?

What is a worldview? The term is believed to be rather young in terms of American English. The definition might be as simple as the compound word itself “world” being the planet Earth which we all reside and “view” the interpretation of what is seen. Putting the two words together, worldview is simply, how one sees the world. This does not mean I see tree leaves as light green and you might think them dark green, this is of grander importance than how we describe chlorophyll concentration in leaves. Worldview is often in terms of one’s personal philosophy. Do we view the world as a cosmic accident in which there is no purpose or reason for life? Or do we view the world as a purposeful place, with a reason, and perhaps with a greater intelligence?

I commonly see one of two worldviews lived. The first, people are mere pawns of the world, at the mercy of an uncaring world and hoping to make it out with their own idea of happiness sought. The second, people see themselves as the masters of their world, they think they are in control of what is around them and they will never approach a greater power for which they must give account. Those worldviews are polar opposites from each other, as would be expected; for the middle ground would introduce some form of deism they ought to apply in the most ineffectual manner. One might recognize the emptiness of existence absent purpose but they cannot identify the proper filling. The other is lost but refuses to admit to being lost with pride. They sometimes will go so far that an admission of being lost is weakness, instead a mask is applied, with enough practice the mask is real enough and reality is ignored. There is also the rare occasion which I see a Christian worldview in practice which they see the world and its inhabitants in completely different terms entirely.

Who am I to make such observations? Do I claim to know all the answers and all the wisdom to know that people are lost or too proud to admit their misdirection? Hardly, I am but one person who recognizes that I too could have defined my life in that way. Furthermore, do I need all the answers and wisdom to know when something is wrong? I think God has given us the intuitive knowledge from Romans 1 that we can all know when something is not right, whether we have exchanged that knowledge for something else is the difference. I can offer only what knowledge and experience I have and what has been given to me by God. Between the two sources I can confidently discern when something is as it ought to be. It is not difficult to know when something is not right, but it can be difficult to know what is right.

A worldview differs from a personal philosophy in which people claim what they believe whereas a worldview is defined by how one lives. Worldview can also be described as the type of looking glass we see the world. A person with a Christian worldview ought to see the world far differently than a person with a naturalistic worldview. I don’t think worldview is a word to replace belief. I see it as an answer to the compartmentalization of thought that Americans have popularized. There is thought in terms of science, history and the empirical disciplines. There is also thought in terms of faith and religion, which for many are completely severed from the empirical disciplines. I explain this disconnect deeper in Losing Our Minds.

I am tempted to think the modern American word of worldview is closer to what Romans 10:8-10 is actually talking about when it says “believe”. When I have further cross referenced the context of “believe” in scripture it seems to imply more than a set of thoughts or mental agreement. I have come to the conclusion that “believe” as scripture describes must be followed through with an active lifestyle. In Acts 16:30-34, belief was followed by baptism. The calling for belief is mentioned in the Great Commission which Christ says,

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." -(Mark 16:16-18).

This passage is perhaps the only time Christ says to “believe” but it is not left as a mental agreement, it implies action. Being that I have not exorcised, spoken in tongues, snake handled, or cured the sick via laying on hands but I am still assured of my relationship with Christ I believe there is more to what Christ said. I don’t think those are the only specific actions which are the criteria for being known as a Child of God. I think the miracles performed by the disciples in Acts through the Holy Spirit were the manifestation of Christ’s authority. I also point to Matthew 7:22-23 to clarify it is not about works but the real relationship with Christ.

Worldview tends to affect our thinking in the realm of faith and politics. It is shocking how closely the two are related but how far so many try to separate them. Knowing what our looking glass ought to show us, how do those images match with our political beliefs? Being the conservative Republican that identify myself with, I cannot escape from the consistencies and inconsistencies represented by my political affiliation. Ultimately my political thoughts should be indistinguishable from my religious thoughts. How that all comes together is for another blog. Here are some topics to consider that I doubt we have all examined in correlation to our faith.

Should a Christian support abortion, capital punishment or homosexual marriage? Should a Christian support a capitalistic society, a communistic society, or theocratic society? Should a Christian be republican, democrat, or independent? Should Christians invest in animal rights, saving the ozone, or preserving endangered species? Should Christians support Affirmative Action, Welfare or Universal Healthcare? Should Christians attend public schools, be home schooled, or private schools? Before you answer any of these with a “yes” or “no” in your head I challenge you to consider how we can support our biased belief via scripture or how those topics do or do not align themselves with scripture. I dare not pronounce my preferences as Christian doctrine, nor my view of how Christians can best approach these issues as the only way we can consistency live our faith. I do ask which of these provide consistency with the Christian creeds and which provide direct conflict?

Intellectually Faithful

When I started writing the last blog in mind I also wanted to include a conversation I had Monday night and how it tied to some of the principles addressed in Way of the Master (WotM) as well as my overall displeased perception of Christians. The WotM study did bring up so harsh criticisms of the modern church that I think are fair and to certain degrees true. While the discussion/debate I had on Monday was one of those that I couldn't pray for something more. Seeds were probably planted and the opportunity just presented itself as clear as day.

I was just hanging out in my room as usual, lately more people have been stopping by either to game or just chill and one of the guys happened to notice my new set of Systematic Theology. I have a couple shelves full of books that I have been accumulating and slowing reading. Anyways, being sparked by curiosity the individual pointed out my collection and proceeded to ask me about my beliefs. I was more than happy to tell him my stance and he seemed even more curious as to how or why I believed such scriptural beliefs and as he phrased it "[I] appear to be moderately intelligent". I jumped on the opportunity explain myself and the ensuing conversation went on for about an hour and half. Don't worry I am not writing to give a play by play recap of the conversation, I was just excited and I thought some lessons I noticed ought to be shared.

The first point I noticed and found interesting was the description of myself at least appearing to be "moderately intelligent". Being that we had never had any real discussion of meaning prior I took that as a good thing. I try to come across as an intelligent person as much as I do a man of faith. In the current world such a stance is often seen as incompatible. To present myself as an intelligent man of faith often catches people off guard. Once intrigued, we get in conversations that cover a plethora of hot topics. Do I ever try to explain someone the Gospel and see if they want to become a Christian? Usually not, by the time we finish the conversation there has been so much discussed, that the information just needs to be absorbed. I do look forward to further encounters when such an opportunity would be appropriate.

I recall at Hume one of the speakers, Chris Brown, both "decision nights" the students remaining easily outnumbered those that had left the chapel in silence. On the first night, traditionally the night to introduce people to Christ, he did not present the Gospel. What hit me even more, I recall at the counselors meeting the following day he was responding to one of the objections from a church's counselor wanting to know why he didn't present the Gospel at that time and that he left them hanging. Chris' response was, where he had taken them emotionally he could've gotten them to pray to the Easter Bunny, and they would've. I had never seen such a powerful response from a message before, nor did I hear such care in how and when to present the Gospel. That night has left a constant reminder to me about when those moments present themselves. In the scheme of eternity what is more valuable, someone that will have a greater grasp of what it means to be a Christian, or someone that while emotionally open says a prayer?

Putting Evangelism Back in Evangelical

Without trying to come up with something desperate the last month or so has been rather uneventful. I wanted to ensure when and what I write about is worth your time to read and give serious thought to. In one of my regular bible study groups we recently finished the Way of the Master series, a very interesting study but I found extremely useful because I did not agree with ample portions of the material. I also had a very stimulating and possibly a seed planting conversation last night.

The Way of the Master series is designed to show us simply how to introduce people to Christ. The primary audience in the style presented by example were random people they met in various places, be it the beach, mall or sidewalk. From the beginning of the study I had reservations about how simply they presented sharing the Gospel. As the weeks went on it would build how to answer certain reservations or having on-the-spot rebuttals to what people had to say. The gist of the technique was "Do you consider yourself a good person", "Have you ever ____ (go through the Ten Commandments)", "Since you have admitted to ______, do you think you will get into heaven?" Then if appropriate present the Gospel to the person on the spot.

My initial reservations were the presentation of the Gospel in this form of evangelism was to be practiced on a street corner to get people to say a prayer and be sent on their way. I know that was not the goal, because as the leaders presented the message it was the Holy Spirit to work in them to get plugged into a Christian community after they make a commitment via the sinner's prayer. I have been to too many weeks at summer camp, weekend retreats, and choir tours to see a radical emotional change in a person's life at a powerful moment only to see them fall away spiritually within an unspecific span of time. Do I contest the validity of their faith or attempt to know if they truly are "saved" or not? No, that issue is between them and God. However, those who have prayed and had the emotional heart moving moments and then fall away are not living the Christian life as it was meant to be. I am frustrated that often the church will measure success by commitment cards or some other empirical method and not by how much the people lives are changed. I realize being able to quantify such results would be much more difficult. I wonder at times if I am so reserved about presenting the prayer of salvation because I think there is so much more than an emotional moving in the heart and a person repeating after what is lead in prayer.

I have this inclination that the idea of bringing people to Christ is so based from Romans 10:8-9 & 13, I already addressed some frustrations about how those passages seem to be frequently taken out of context in Semantics Or More. Another objection I have about the presentation of such a simplistic method of evangelism is the lack of personal care. As the weeks go on in the study you can quickly see how simply and 1-2-3 method of presentation is taught. In the recent years I think I have developed a good deal as a teacher. I am not satisfied with follow steps 1-3 to teach anything. The joy of discovering a concept is far too valuable than to hand someone a plate of Christ. Are the methods used in the study supported by scripture? Yes, one clear example is the Woman at the Well. So I cannot completely turn off their method as unscriptural or useless.

I tend to point out the Gospels as a whole as a counter example. The growing of the twelve that Jesus invested so much into shows to me that we ought to concentrate much more on discipleship. I am reminded of an analogy I heard at Hume concerning discipleship. If I were to personally evangelize to 1000 people per day it would take me 160 years to bring the world to Christ. On the other side if I spent 1 year discipling a person and the following year disciple another person, in addition to the person I discipled would disciple 1 person the following year, then the entire world would be reached in 20 years. What is more believable to actually bring a thousand people to Christ a day or discipling one person in a year?

My final objection to the methods presented was almost a constant apprehension to evangelizing to the intellect. Often it is mentioned to not let the person's objections to what may believe intellectually but continually speak to the heart and the conscience will speak for itself. Although I understand the reason for wanting to keep the conversation direct and to the point I found it profoundly unsatisfying, then on the study addressed how to reach atheists the method seemed particularly weak. Dave, one of the leaders of the study and a fellow fan of apologetics would remind me of how easy it is to get caught up discussing the particulars of creation vs evolution, the historicity of the Gospels, or the philosophy and miss the Gospels because the other topic gets so engaging. One of my prime joys of the intellectual discussions is it assists in seeing where their heart is as well as removes the smoke screen that "science" seems to pull of the majority of people I have encountered.

Enough of me providing my dissensions with the Way of the Master series, as a whole it was one of the most interesting and thought provoking bible study series I have encountered. You know how I like to discuss controversial material. The lesson plans were simple each week and in depth enough that we could have a deep conversation without being too general about an single topic. Throughout the series they were very scripture based, which is something one finds as not as often as you'd think for bible study lessons.

The most interesting part about the series is each week there would be a segment of either Ray or Kirk talking to a number of people using the methods they just taught about. I couldn't think of a better form of how to apply what was learned by actually showing us. To actually see the people's reactions and real answers on the spot more than proved the series validity. It was a huge reminder that people are not afraid to talk about their beliefs. I think that was one of the immediate results I have come away from so far. Granted I am not asking every person I encounter how they measure up to the 10 commandments but the fearlessness they showed was a true reminder how I can be more bold in my faith. What is the worst thing that could happen to invite someone to church or bible study? They say "no"...

War Has Been Declared!

While browsing magazines during lunch I came across a fresh issue of Wired. Granted I had never actually heard of Wired before watching the Italian Job (Lyle wanted to be on the cover of it). It is a technical magazine I think somewhere along the lines of Popular Science. Anyways, there was a rather catchy and unexpected cover page entitled "The New Atheism: No Heaven. No Hell. Just Science"(The linked version now has a less controversial title). Well knowing me I could not   pass up something like that. I was reminded upon reading the article of Ephesians 6:10-13.

After the initial skim it was clear Richard Dawkins was the most prominent figure interviewed. I was in luck because I was rather familiar with some of his writing. In the article, he was portrayed as the foremost Atheist in in the “New Atheism”. I knew about his feelings toward religion in general but to have it published in a wide circulating magazine, I found to be a bold move. Especially considering the more harsh logical approach he had with his philosophy. The article starts with, "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking." In addition to Dawkins, it also featured Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris; the author phrased his research that "I wanted to find out what it would mean to enlist in the war against faith." As a whole I was rather pleased with the article's content, I thought it contained less bias than what I expected. I also was impressed how open the interviewees were about the implications of their anti-faith.

There were several interesting factors from the beginning. First, I noticed they never claimed atheism as a religion; instead it was phrased as an antithesis to religion when in fact it is a form of religion by a fair definition. It was a bit of irony to have a religion devoted on the anti-religion. Their goal was to alienate all faiths. New Atheism is not just targeting Judeo-Christian faiths. Such examples Dawkins gave about his respect for religion was to parallel them with belief in garden fairies, unicorns and the sort. Dawkins went so far as to proclaim his personal condemnation on parents who teach faith to their children. He equated such acts as though they willfully were spreading a dangerous virus. Dawkins termed the lingering idea of faith as a "meme" some kind of immaterial (ironic for such a strict materialist/naturalist) thing that influences thought and spreads by mental proximity. I tend to call it the Holy Spirit. Harris compared the existence of religion as a plague in society on the similar level as rape, "religion may be a vestige of primitive nature". Harris pronounced that religion and its tolerance rivaled the social acceptance slavery once had in society. He looks forward to the day when simply believing in God will be too embarrassing to handle. Thanks for putting the most precious area of my beliefs on a pedestal of respect gentlemen.

Dennett seemed to be the most moderate of the bunch; he encouraged public schools to scientifically examine religion. I wonder if he also intended his atheism to be put under the same scrutiny of old science? Dennett is also very much aware of the implications of his beliefs, he could not pinpoint a point when human life began nor justify an inherent value for human life. I wonder if he has considered the deeper implications of such admission? If people do not have an inherent value then how much are we worth? I do wonder what his personal belief of self worth was? I am glad to know I am worth one Jesus to God.

The article certainly attempted to address an age old question, "Is science compatible with faith?" From the group interviewed, it is not. The question in general was not anything new or difficult to answer with a little searching and reading but even that much effort seems to be too much of a hassle for most people. After all, there are so many more important issues at hand, like “who I am going to field for Fantasy Football?” A rabbit trail, I am rather irked by the general population who claims to have passionate beliefs but leave those beliefs as talk and ideas often with insufficient evidence of their faith. I highly encourage you to go and read it yourself. I have long battled having a decent consistency in my ever changing schedule of some kind of quiet time, but over the last year and a half, my desire and pursuit of knowledge has held my attention longer than any other study I have done before. This was more broadly addressed in Why Don't I?

I found the militant approach to religion and faith as an evil to be comforting in a strange way. They were honest with their position. The lines were drawn. We know where they stand. In my mind, identifying such definite positions is one of the hardest parts to ascertain when talking to people. It takes a long time, if it happens at all, to be able to find out what people believe, or at least claim. Lifestyle is the clearest way people speak their beliefs. In addition to the aggressive approach, the utter arrogance was astonishing. By claiming they only believed in science/reason it  implied those who have faith in religion could not also do science or be reasonable! They held themselves so mentally superior to those around them, they could not respect different beliefs. That type of religion just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside! Dawkins talked about how he got his kicks by "pissing people off", through his pride in his atheism.

The New Atheists are not the only ones to take such an arrogant stance. Brights, a new description of people which originated in Sacramento. They formed this new noun to designate naturalistic worldviews to categorize the idea of God in the same way as superstition and magic. The author did visit a youth group in the midst of his research while attending an Atheist get together the following morning. He had an interesting summation, a meeting of Atheists United on a Sunday morning spoke it message "We're lagging among the lower 95%" versus an offer from Pastor Matt at the youth rally "You are kings anointed by God".

I mentioned I was previously very familiar with Richard Dawkins. In Darwin's Black Box; he was the primary object to answer who argued for evolution in the Blind Watchmaker. Furthermore, I have yet to come across an in-depth intelligent-design book which has not mentioned Richard Dawkins as a primary critic. The article provided a candid simplification of this issue. Dawkins stated, "My answer is that the big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism." That reminded me of When You Believe in Miracles. Something not mentioned by any of the interviewees were their motivations for Atheism. They simply asserted an a priori belief that their view was nothing more than what our physical senses could detect. They then carried on with attacking anyone who would oppose them.

Is the direction of society’s "tolerance"? How many of their free thinking compatriots would respond to their absolute intolerance to different beliefs? I suppose in their mind, I am of the greatest evil because I attempt to spread the love of God. Then again, since I don't try to spread religion I try to spread Christ does that make it okay? There were some interesting bits I noted, such as the Atheist’s prayer, "that our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith." Romans 1:21-22 Anyone? “For though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise they became fools.”

Although I was familiar with the content of the article, I found it very important considering the type of magazine and the target audience this article sought to reach. When I first saw the cover sheet I thought "Why on Earth would a tech magazine have this cover story?" That was when it dawned on me, that was precisely who the article intended to speak to. The well educated science proclaiming tech folk. This article likely would not have flown in something like Home & Garden, or Good Housekeeping. The target audience was single educated men, the potential leaders of society. This will likely serve as much more than an exposé on a new up and coming belief system. Instead, it will likely spur a growth of many other self-righteous accomplished "freethinkers" to further become intolerant to the faithful. Is anyone else curious when the ACLU will come to our rescue when we receive persecution from this new religion?

The other important factor is to be current with what is happening in American popular culture. I want to say every 6 months or so Newsweek will run a cover story of religious nature. I think it is important to read these articles to get a gauge of where the country is going or which newest belief is becoming popular. Probably the most face time in the media Christianity has received would either be a news update about Fred Phelps or perhaps the apprehension of Warren Jeffs.

I found this at a rather appropriate time in my personal development. After reading Hard Questions, Real Answers, I was presented with the idea of being a Christian scholar. Although the main message of the book was not incredibly new or challenging, the introduction rocked me. The author challenged the present condition of Christian faith that has been based in feelings and not much in doctrine. I firmly believe we must have a foundation of knowledge to accompany our faith and even strengthen it. What hit me the hardest, there was a list of 10 subjects listed that the author asked us to answer for ourselves how familiar we were with the subjects. I think I scored 7/10 for having an answer and 5/10 for having a good answer. Knowing how much reading I do I was rather disenchanted with my lack of actual church history and writings. My response, the next trip to Amazon I am going to check out some of the writings of the early church fathers like: Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Martin Luther and the sort.

The topic of current Christian scholasticism was also addressed in the article. "Even today, the charismatic movement is somewhat careless of doctrine. There is room for theistic evolutionists, non literalists who hold that each of God's days in Genesis was the equivalent of a geological epoch, even for the notion that a check made out properly to the Lord can influence divine whim... such deviations are generously tolerated in practice." It is one thing to be called out by one of our own in the loving manner that was presented in the book; when those who do not share our beliefs see the dissimilarity and lack of concern for our own beliefs that is embarrassingly sad. It was the inadvertent slap in the face. Many of the base principles of what it is be a Christian is in the doctrine, doctrine the majority of self proclaiming Christians have little or no interest in. That is not so much to address people that have been living the Christian life as much as those who adhere to the civic religion.

What is the purpose of me writing all this? Hopefully the urgency of reason, logic, validity, and importance of apologetics has been made known in our current culture. If we hope to be able to reach people who have not been broken and are desperate for love, or who are at a place but reservations of their reason prevents them from accepting Christ, the importance of knowing how to present Christianity in thought is immeasurable. Not to add enough of the to-do list, we can't under emphasize the personal relationship with Christ. To have the certainty of salvation in the heart and mind unleashes so many reservations about living boldly for Christ. To make the conclusion official here's some good words:

“Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for the righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. - 1 Peter 3:13-16

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. - Jude 1:3