In the Evangelical subculture, "piety" is not a word we hear all too often. We are familiar with other terms such as "holiness" and "devotion," but what about the concept of piety? What is it?
It is no secret within Evangelical culture that the idea of righteousness through works is anathema. Holiness and devotion aren't things that save us, but they are something that we should pursue if we are indeed regenerate believers. Is the concept of piety all that different?
Piety can be defined as, "the quality of being religious or reverent." It is no wonder the word never gets dropped in Evangelical sermons with a word like "religious" being associated with piety! Whenever I have heard the term used, it is almost always in a negative, "pharisaic" context. Piety is just something that the ultra-legalists pursue for their own self-righteous affirmation, right?
Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that as Christians our works do not matter in the grand scheme of our faith. Confer passages such as James 2:14-26, John 14:15, 1 John 2:3-6, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, and Revelation 20:11-13.
As an aside, what about this term "religion?" There's another "pharisaic" word that gets thrown loosely around. Certainly you have all heard the mantra, "It's not a religion, it's a relationship." In Evangelical culture I have heard religion defined as something like, "Religion is when men try to bridge the gap between God and man, but Christianity is not a religion because God bridged the gap for us." While there may be some functional truth to that, it is a historically ignorant claim, and in a sense devalues our high-church siblings in Christ such as Catholics and Orthodox denominations who appear to have such "religious" practices.
Christianity is a religion, and Jesus did give us rules to follow and sacramental rituals to practice, such as the Eucharist and prayer (that's right, prayer is a sacramental ritual). Because we are a part of this religion, care for the sacraments, holiness, loving our neighbors, keeping the commandments, doing good works, all of these things sum up what we call piety.
"Piety implies aspects of reverence, external action, and religiosity, any of which may be well-intended or
used in a showy, inappropriate manner. Jesus warns against ostentatious
shows of piety in Matthew 6:1–18. Proper piety is characterized by
godly behavior, and the end result is that God is glorified: “Let your
light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify
your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16)." [1]
Salvation is binary and cannot be quantified. You can not be "more saved" than someone else; you are either saved, or you are not. Piety on the other hand is quantifiable, and will be rewarded accordingly both presently and at the Resurrection (see Rev. 20:11-13 above).
We all have Christian siblings in our lives that we look up to as paragons of genuine Christ-likeness, and that characteristic is exactly what we mean by piety. Sometimes they might even seem so Christ-like (so pious) that merely being in their presence makes you feel inadequate, questioning how dead your "old man" really is. Such shame can be a good or bad thing depending on your mindset, but what is important to point out is that Christ-likeness is attained through piety. That is, through allowing yourself to be conformed to the image of Christ, adopting His characteristics and keeping His commandments.
During this crisis in the Middle East, there was a Christian family who had two sons kidnapped by ISIS militants. In a video interview (which will change your life), the brother was asked, "Would you get upset, or someone from your family get upset if we ask for forgiveness to those who killed your brothers?" And he replied, "Today I was having a chat with my mother asking her what she would do if she saw one of the ISIS members on the street... She said she would invite him home because he helped us enter the kingdom of heaven."
It is Christians like that which make me realize, "I could stand to strive for genuine piety with the hope of becoming more like Christ." I feel shame that I would have behaved differently when other Christians, through pious submission to Christ, have become more like Him than myself. This shame is not to be regretted, but to be embraced as from God.
Let us not demonize sacraments, religiosity, and good works that help us to become more like our King.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Monday, May 11, 2015
If I Were an Atheist
As a Christian apologist, I often wonder what my life would look like if I found the evidence for God and the resurrection of Christ to be insufficient. Not only in the practical sense of "Now that I'm not studying apologetics all day, what should I do with my time?" but moreover, "How should I live my life, if there is any way I should live at all?"
For some reason, this is a scenario that I think about a lot. As someone who aspires to be a rational person, I have to consider that this could be within the realm of plausibility. So with what I know now about objective morality, the nature of knowledge and all those sorts of things... what would my atheism look like? This is in no way a satire against atheism or some type of caricature of atheists. These are all my honest thoughts.
Some of what I am about to say may be very uncomfortable to read, regardless of what your worldview may be. But please bear with me to the end.
No Virtue or Vice
If God does not exist, then objective, transcendent morals do not exist. Even if they did exist apart from God, if there is no eternal justice for good and evil, then those objective morals would have no value, thus granting no reason to adhere to them.
That being said, I can tell you straight out that I would not believe in objective good and evil. I would believe that good and evil are socially contrived ideas that aid in human survival. That is, they help us to not drive ourselves into extinction. This falls in line with a teaching called Social Contract Theory, and is consistent with evolutionary biology
This doesn't mean that I would start killing indiscriminately or being an overall "evil" person; on the contrary, I don't think my moral compass would change all that much, though more so out of emotional dissonance than cognitive dissonance. But I would also be unhindered by my moral compass, knowing there would be no eternal consequence for anything that I did.
Keep this principle in mind, as we will be touching on it later.
Time Management
If God does not exist, then the ultimate destiny of the universe and all life therein is heat-death. The heat-death of the universe is when all matter and energy in the universe will disperse evenly, turning the universe into cold soup. Unless God intervenes, we are all assured this fate.
In light of this, I can tell you that the things I did with my time or how I treat my fellow humans would not matter in the slightest. If the end game is heat-death, then who cares? Who will be around to care who cared?
Get the point?
So how would I spend my time? Most likely I would simply do things that made me feel nice, because all would I have is the present, experiential moment. This might even include traditionally noble things like helping others, marveling at the natural world, or being a faithful husband. But I can tell you for certain that there would be a lot more video games going on.
Existential Dread
But surely in time, I can surmise that I would become victim to existential dread and depression. With no objective meaning to anything in life and no promise of enduring consciousness, philosophies such as Secular Humanism or the Übermensch would all be smoke and mirrors; cute inventions by a hopeless worldview (regardless of its truth) that grasps tearfully at straws in the wind.
The hope of a life well lived and going to my death bed with grace and dignity would offer no comfort. After all, who will ultimately be around to care? Who will care that I thought someone should care? Nobody. Darkness. Where would that leave me?
Self-Deception
If good and evil, virtue and vice did not exist, then that means things like self-deception are not wrong in any sense of the term. As mentioned previously, the only thing I would be concerned with at this point was prolonging my sense of present experience for as long as I could. I wouldn't know why this should be a concern, but it is. I wouldn't know why, but I had to survive (whatever "I" means). Perhaps it was just my genetic programming.
Either way, in order to escape existential dread that logically follows from the scientific data we have about heat-death, I would have to create some type of self-deception that actually promised eternal consciousness. I would already have recognized that Secular Humanism and the Übermensch are self-deception, but they do not provide everlasting experience, and therefore no true comfort. So what would that leave me with?
Theism
There are many routes I could take in this self-deception, but the most coherent would be a well rounded theism. Out of pride I would hope that one day I might again find logically justifiable grounds for belief. But at the present, I would simply deceive myself into believing in a God who promised eternal life to the faithful.
Some of you might view this as cowardly. But if God is not real, then that is okay because courage is not a virtue, and neither is logical consistency.
But if this God were real, wouldn't he prolong my conscious present experience by granting me eternal life? If not, I would fall victim to death (and ultimately heat-death) and be none-the-wiser. I would have comfort. Either way, I would win.
Conclusion
Atheism necessarily entails the rejection of objective moral values and virtues. Atheism necessarily entails a lack of objective meaning to life and the way you live. Atheism necessarily entails permanent death and an end to conscious experience.
Theism -and I would argue especially Christianity- offers the answer to all of these issues. And if there is no reason to shun any practice as wrong, there is no reason to shun deceiving oneself into a theistic worldview. Furthermore, there is no grounds for shunning those who choose to deceive themselves. In fact, evolution favors those who survive, not those who are logical, and there is no reward for being a logically consistent person. Only reward for survival.
Now I must say that as a Christian, and especially a Christian apologist, I DO NOT endorse blind faith when there is such an overwhelming wealth of evidence concerning the existence of God, and more importantly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I can make this claim because my worldview necessarily entails the virtue of logic.
If you are an atheist reading this, I would encourage you to investigate the evidence for these things. You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
If not, there's always self-deception.
For some reason, this is a scenario that I think about a lot. As someone who aspires to be a rational person, I have to consider that this could be within the realm of plausibility. So with what I know now about objective morality, the nature of knowledge and all those sorts of things... what would my atheism look like? This is in no way a satire against atheism or some type of caricature of atheists. These are all my honest thoughts.
Some of what I am about to say may be very uncomfortable to read, regardless of what your worldview may be. But please bear with me to the end.
No Virtue or Vice
If God does not exist, then objective, transcendent morals do not exist. Even if they did exist apart from God, if there is no eternal justice for good and evil, then those objective morals would have no value, thus granting no reason to adhere to them.
That being said, I can tell you straight out that I would not believe in objective good and evil. I would believe that good and evil are socially contrived ideas that aid in human survival. That is, they help us to not drive ourselves into extinction. This falls in line with a teaching called Social Contract Theory, and is consistent with evolutionary biology
This doesn't mean that I would start killing indiscriminately or being an overall "evil" person; on the contrary, I don't think my moral compass would change all that much, though more so out of emotional dissonance than cognitive dissonance. But I would also be unhindered by my moral compass, knowing there would be no eternal consequence for anything that I did.
Keep this principle in mind, as we will be touching on it later.
Time Management
If God does not exist, then the ultimate destiny of the universe and all life therein is heat-death. The heat-death of the universe is when all matter and energy in the universe will disperse evenly, turning the universe into cold soup. Unless God intervenes, we are all assured this fate.
In light of this, I can tell you that the things I did with my time or how I treat my fellow humans would not matter in the slightest. If the end game is heat-death, then who cares? Who will be around to care who cared?
Get the point?
So how would I spend my time? Most likely I would simply do things that made me feel nice, because all would I have is the present, experiential moment. This might even include traditionally noble things like helping others, marveling at the natural world, or being a faithful husband. But I can tell you for certain that there would be a lot more video games going on.
Existential Dread
But surely in time, I can surmise that I would become victim to existential dread and depression. With no objective meaning to anything in life and no promise of enduring consciousness, philosophies such as Secular Humanism or the Übermensch would all be smoke and mirrors; cute inventions by a hopeless worldview (regardless of its truth) that grasps tearfully at straws in the wind.
The hope of a life well lived and going to my death bed with grace and dignity would offer no comfort. After all, who will ultimately be around to care? Who will care that I thought someone should care? Nobody. Darkness. Where would that leave me?
Self-Deception
If good and evil, virtue and vice did not exist, then that means things like self-deception are not wrong in any sense of the term. As mentioned previously, the only thing I would be concerned with at this point was prolonging my sense of present experience for as long as I could. I wouldn't know why this should be a concern, but it is. I wouldn't know why, but I had to survive (whatever "I" means). Perhaps it was just my genetic programming.
Either way, in order to escape existential dread that logically follows from the scientific data we have about heat-death, I would have to create some type of self-deception that actually promised eternal consciousness. I would already have recognized that Secular Humanism and the Übermensch are self-deception, but they do not provide everlasting experience, and therefore no true comfort. So what would that leave me with?
Theism
There are many routes I could take in this self-deception, but the most coherent would be a well rounded theism. Out of pride I would hope that one day I might again find logically justifiable grounds for belief. But at the present, I would simply deceive myself into believing in a God who promised eternal life to the faithful.
Some of you might view this as cowardly. But if God is not real, then that is okay because courage is not a virtue, and neither is logical consistency.
But if this God were real, wouldn't he prolong my conscious present experience by granting me eternal life? If not, I would fall victim to death (and ultimately heat-death) and be none-the-wiser. I would have comfort. Either way, I would win.
Conclusion
Atheism necessarily entails the rejection of objective moral values and virtues. Atheism necessarily entails a lack of objective meaning to life and the way you live. Atheism necessarily entails permanent death and an end to conscious experience.
Theism -and I would argue especially Christianity- offers the answer to all of these issues. And if there is no reason to shun any practice as wrong, there is no reason to shun deceiving oneself into a theistic worldview. Furthermore, there is no grounds for shunning those who choose to deceive themselves. In fact, evolution favors those who survive, not those who are logical, and there is no reward for being a logically consistent person. Only reward for survival.
Now I must say that as a Christian, and especially a Christian apologist, I DO NOT endorse blind faith when there is such an overwhelming wealth of evidence concerning the existence of God, and more importantly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I can make this claim because my worldview necessarily entails the virtue of logic.
If you are an atheist reading this, I would encourage you to investigate the evidence for these things. You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
If not, there's always self-deception.
Monday, April 13, 2015
St. John of Damascus - The Day of Resurrection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rating:
Theological Correctness: 5/5
Use of Group Pronouns: 5/5Focus on Victory: 5/5
The Lordship of God: 5/5
Musicality: 5/5
Total: 5/5
Please read the details about our rating standard here!
Lyrics:
The day of resurrection! Earth, tell it out abroad;
The Passover of gladness, the Passover of God.
From death to life eternal, from earth unto the sky,
Our Christ hath brought us over, with hymns of victory.
Our hearts be pure from evil, that we may see aright
The Lord in rays eternal of resurrection light;
And listening to His accents, may hear, so calm and plain,
His own “All hail!” and, hearing, may raise the victor strain.
Now let the heavens be joyful! Let earth the song begin!
Let the round world keep triumph, and all that is therein!
Let all things seen and unseen their notes in gladness blend,
For Christ the Lord hath risen, our joy that hath no end.
----------------------------------------------------------------The Passover of gladness, the Passover of God.
From death to life eternal, from earth unto the sky,
Our Christ hath brought us over, with hymns of victory.
Our hearts be pure from evil, that we may see aright
The Lord in rays eternal of resurrection light;
And listening to His accents, may hear, so calm and plain,
His own “All hail!” and, hearing, may raise the victor strain.
Now let the heavens be joyful! Let earth the song begin!
Let the round world keep triumph, and all that is therein!
Let all things seen and unseen their notes in gladness blend,
For Christ the Lord hath risen, our joy that hath no end.
This song is too short! Not only that, but this song goes back a long time! This hymn was written by St. John of Damascus (670-787) and translated from Greek to English by J.M. Neale in the 1800's. There's something quite enriching about knowing our faith stretches back hundreds of thousands of years, and having that solidarity with believers past who sang the same songs (which partly accounts for my bias towards hymns over CCM).
We have unashamedly rated this song a perfect 5/5, as it hits the mark in every category. The only thing we could really nitpick in this song is the allusion of heaven being "skyward" (that is, geographically "up"), but we feel that is hardly a problem in light of how this song includes all of Creation in the story of resurrection.
There are many renditions of this hymn musically, but Youtube's The Sunday School Songster does a fantastic job on solo guitar. His arrangement sure gets stuck in your head, which is a wonderful thing with such great theology backing it up.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you enjoying the music you listen to on this blog? You can find it all in one place by visiting our Theologically Correct Music Playlist!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, April 10, 2015
Matthew Bridges - Crown Him With Many Crowns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rating:
Theological Correctness: 5/5
Use of Group Pronouns: 4/5Focus on Victory: 5/5
The Lordship of God: 5/5
Musicality: 5/5
Total: 4.8/5
Please read the details about our rating standard here!
Lyrics:
Crown Him with many crowns,
the Lamb upon his throne.
Hark! How the heavenly anthem drowns
all music but its own.
Awake, my soul, and sing of Him
Who died for thee,
and hail Him as thy matchless King
through all eternity.
Crown Him the Lord of life,
Who triumphed over the grave,
and rose victorious in the strife
for those He came to save.
His glories now we sing,
Who died, and rose on high,
Who died eternal life to bring,
and lives that death may die.
Crown Him the Lord of love,
behold His hands and side,
those wounds, yet visible above,
in beauty glorified.
No angel in the sky
can fully bear that sight,
but downward bends His burning eye
at mysteries so bright.
Crown Him the Lord of years,
the Potentate of time,
Creator of the rolling spheres,
ineffably sublime.
all hail, Redeemer, hail!
For Thou has died for me;
Thy praise and glory shall not fail
throughout eternity.
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of the great perks to attending a Lutheran (LCMS) church now is my wife and I get exposure to some great hymns. I had heard this one before, but it didn't really click until I heard it during the Easter service this year.
This arrangement is a little more CCM than you would otherwise hear it, but the vocals are spot-on. More importantly however, the theology and focus on the resurrected Christ is outstanding!
My only criticism of the song is its few instances of "me" language (lack of group pronouns). However I do feel that those few instances are overshadowed by the overarching context of group acknowledgement. I also chose to give Use of Group Pronouns a rating of 4/5 instead of 3/5 due to the fact that replacing such instances of "me" language with group pronouns would not work poetically. Sometimes you can do that (leaving no excuse for "me" language"), but sometimes you just can't.
To reiterate what I've said elsewhere in case some of you are wondering, "What's wrong with singing about Christ dying for 'me' personally?", it's important to note that the Bible was written to collectivist, group-oriented minds. Thus almost everything we read in the New Testament is to be understood in a group context. Church is not something you do by yourself for instance, but it only has meaning and power when it encompasses a collective body of believers.
Christ certainly died and rose for us all corporately and individually, but in our individualistic culture we have seriously lost touch with our sense of group attachment and commitment. Because music affects our thinking so greatly (often without our realization), this test we present here offers only the music that majors on group focus, drawing us back to the unity in Christ that God desires.
So is there anything wrong with saying Christ died and rose "for me"? Absolutely not. But is it better to say Christ died and rose "for us"? Absolutely so!
To get back on track to the main topic however, this song get's a hearty 4.8 on the theological correctness scale. Enjoy and share it with confidence!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you enjoying the music you listen to on this blog? You can find it all in one place by visiting our Theologically Correct Music Playlist!
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Brood of Vipers? What does that mean?
Ancient Near-Eastern society was group-oriented (not individualistic) and agonistic, meaning they were constantly competing socially for honor (much like Japanese culture). A person was either ascribed honor through inheritance (bloodline) or acquired it through challenge and riposte.
Honor in general was taken very seriously, about as serious as we in the west treat money, if not more so. Among the two types of honor (ascribed and acquired), ascribed honor was defended the most vigorously.
One way to attempt to discredit someone's ascribed honor was to question their familial lineage. Conversely, one could defend their ascribed honor by providing a genealogy (hence Matthew 1 and Luke 3).
"Given this emphasis on defensive [marriage] strategy and holy seed, imputations of doubtful lineage are among the gravest insults in the culture, sure to get prompt attention. For example, John the Baptist's calling the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jerusalem a "brood of vipers" means nothing less than "snake bastards," a doubly offensive term... These are powerful insults in a culture where purity of lineage is a central concern." [New Testament World, 154]
After calling the Pharisees and Sadducees "snake bastards", John the Baptist "... anticipates that the crowd will respond with assertions of proper lineage, and consequently poses the alternative view that the true lineage has a moral rather than simply a biological base." [Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 33]. He did this by claiming, "Do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our ancestor'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children of Abraham."
Jesus likewise used such insults against His opponents: "brood of vipers" in Matthew 12:34, "adulterous generation" in 12:39 (or "generation of bastards"), and so forth. Remember also when Jesus went to teach in Nazareth, the people questioned His authority because they knew of His humble familial origins:
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't His mother called Mary, and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, aren't they all with us? So where does He get all these things?" And they were offended by Him." - Matt. 13:55-56
These terms used by John, Jesus, and their opponents where powerful social rhetorical devices used to slander their honor in the deepest way possible. Most of us in the west cannot fully understand just how deep these words were meant to cut. Kind of takes the soft edge off our Lord that we often like to ascribe, doesn't it?
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Philosophical Argument against (most) Human Abortion
Introducing the Argument:
Below is a philosophical, deductive argument I have authored against most forms of human abortion. Many strict abolitionists may be disappointed to find that this argument does not fully condemn human abortion in every possible instance, but I find that what I have presented is the most coherent, loving solution to all parties. Regardless where you're coming from, I hope that you will find my conclusions presented in this argument well thought and convincing.
Below is a philosophical, deductive argument I have authored against most forms of human abortion. Many strict abolitionists may be disappointed to find that this argument does not fully condemn human abortion in every possible instance, but I find that what I have presented is the most coherent, loving solution to all parties. Regardless where you're coming from, I hope that you will find my conclusions presented in this argument well thought and convincing.
The Argument:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All qualifiers for determining human personhood other
than genetics are exclusive or subjective.
2. Any living organism that is genetically human must be
considered ontologically human (i.e. a human being) and be recognized
as having inherent, inalienable human rights.
3. A zygote and all subsequent stages of its development are
living organisms that are genetically human and genetically independent from
their mother.
4. Therefore, a zygote and all subsequent stages of its
development are to be considered human beings with inherent, inalienable human
rights.
5. The killing of a human being may only be objectively
justified in the following instances:
5a. Self-defense or defending the life of another human being from acts of aggression.
5b. Acts of war for national defense.
5c. Mercy killing in which the sufferer, next of kin, or bystander (in that order) consents when all circumstantially feasible options to save the sufferer's life have failed.
5d. Moral dilemmas in which a choice must be made between saving one life by the death of another.
6. Unjustified killing is a violation of inherent, inalienable human rights.
7. Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being.
8. This follows from 3 and 4.
9. Therefore, with the exception of mercy killing and moral
dilemmas, abortion is unjustified killing.
10. This follows from 5 and 7.
11. Therefore, with the exception of mercy killing and moral
dilemmas, abortion is in blatant opposition of inherent, inalienable human
rights.
12. This follows from 6 and 9.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the uninitiated, it should be noted that the way deductive arguments work is that if each premise (numbered statement) is found to be more true than false, then one must follow the argument to its natural conclusion and accept its truth claims (in this case, the claims of premises 4, 9, and 11).
So if there is a premise you find you take objection to, please note that in order for your objection to be coherent, you must provide a reason for denying that premise. Wishful thinking or any kind of "nuh uh!" statement simply will not do.
If you find that you agree with the conclusions of this argument... welcome to the Pro-Life camp! : )
Common Objections:
"Premise #1... other qualifiers than genetics are exclusive to what? Who would we be excluding?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the uninitiated, it should be noted that the way deductive arguments work is that if each premise (numbered statement) is found to be more true than false, then one must follow the argument to its natural conclusion and accept its truth claims (in this case, the claims of premises 4, 9, and 11).
So if there is a premise you find you take objection to, please note that in order for your objection to be coherent, you must provide a reason for denying that premise. Wishful thinking or any kind of "nuh uh!" statement simply will not do.
If you find that you agree with the conclusions of this argument... welcome to the Pro-Life camp! : )
Common Objections:
"Premise #1... other qualifiers than genetics are exclusive to what? Who would we be excluding?"
Any other qualifiers (such as race, physical ability, viability, etc) all exclude living people groups. But the main purpose of Premise #1 is to rule out "being born" as a qualifier to being human. I believe that birth is a sociological device (subjective to perception) and speaks nothing of objective truth (the way things really are potentially). The common phrase we use these days is "social construct". Allow me to explain:
Our views on abortion are largely shaped by our cultural perceptions of the sacred and the profane. By sacred I mean something that is set apart for you, that exists within your realm of ontological space (the clothes in your closet), and by profane I mean things that belong to no one or everyone and exist outside of your ontological space (clothing found on the street or in a store).
Something that is profane must go through a ritual "crossing of lines" before it is considered sacred. When you see clothing in the store that you like, you must go through the ritual of monetary exchange, officiated by the sales representative, in order for that clothing to cross the line of "not yours" into "yours", from profane space into sacred space. To solidify this abstract concept, think of how you would feel if someone accidentally dumped a drink on the same clothing in either state: on the clothing rack, you probably wouldn't care much; but after you purchased it, you'd most likely be upset.
All that to say, when a person is unborn, they are typically considered profane, outside of the realm of the "living" and in the realm of the "unborn". They are outside of your ontological space. To be considered sacred, the unborn child must cross the figurative line from the "unborn" to the "living" via the ritual of birth, thus entering your ontological space shared by other "living" humans.
Such line drawing is sociologically inevitable, but claiming that being "unborn" is a qualifier for denying personhood is clearly subjective. Genetics however, are scientifically concrete and are the one thing that all "living" share in common. Upon further examination, we find that it is also shared in common by the "unborn".
Thus, if we reduce our qualifiers to a minimum, the bare minimum necessary to exclude the least amount of "people", we find that the qualifier of genetics shatters the sociologically constructed lines of "unborn" and "living".
"Premise #2 is rather dubious. Why should we consider something human simply because it is genetically so?"
As stated in my response to Premise #1's objection, I find there is no other alternative. To claim as such is to be exclusive simply upon socially subjective merit. We are dealing with absolutes here: objective realities and truths. If you want to draw lines between the "unborn" and the "living" simply because you choose to, then dare I say I must deem you an classist, exclusivist bigot.
A Layman's Guide to Christian Apologetics
With the rise of militant skepticism and anti-theism, apologetics have never been needed more than they are now. Unfortunately, from my observation, the idea of apologetics has been relatively criticized by the Evangelical community. But in recent times with popular writers like Lee Strobel and films such as God is Not Dead, the realization for the importance of apologetics has really come to surface.
... So, you want to learn more about Christian apologetics? Great!
I've been doing this whole apologetics thing now for a good six or seven years, and I must tell you up front that it is a lifestyle and a journey that never ends, much like our faith at large. I will also tell you that if you think you are not smart enough for apologetics, you could not be more wrong.
Intelligence, articulation, and expertise are all skills that can be honed and refined like any other. Some may have a genetic advantage over others, but it is something that anyone can build up and accomplish.
What is a required prerequisite however, is discipline. It is hard work, it is not always fun, and it doesn't help if you hate reading (like I used to). Perhaps even discipline is something you'll have to develop as you go, but I promise it get's easier the more you settle into the lifestyle of an apologist.
... So, you still want to be an apologist? Then let's get started!
Below I am going to present a rather condensed guide of how you can effectively facilitate the start of your apologetics journey. I'm going to start with some epistemic issues, talk a little bit about how to approach study, and the like. Afterwards, I'll be presenting a list of materials to get you started.
Ready?
I. The Foundations of Thinking
A truth claim is a claim that something is objectively true. Every opinion or statement is, at its core, a truth claim. The primary truth claim of Christianity is that Jesus was crucified and resurrected bodily from the dead (and all that it entails: e.g. virgin birth, trinitarianism, etc).
Truth claims are analyzed in a variety of ways, all of which depend upon the laws of modal logic. Modal logic encompasses the set of rules that determine what is coherent thought and what is fallacious, or incoherent. In order to become an effective apologist (for anything), one must gain a mastery of modal logic.
A fallacy, as previously mentioned, is a flaw in the process of thinking. To master modal logic, it is imperative that one be well acquainted with common logical fallacies to not only identify them in critical statements, but perhaps more importantly to ensure that one does not commit them personally.
Here is a list of common fallacies to help you take your first step in becoming an apologist. Learn them well!
II. The Epistemology of Evidence and Opinions
Believers and skeptics must understand this principle when addressing truth claims: Nothing is 100% provable.
Well, not entirely. There are only two things I know of that are 100% true:
1. I am something that thinks ("cogito ergo sum"). I don't know if the physical world really exists or of other minds exist than my own, but I know that I am something that is capable of thought.
2. Objective truth exists. Take the statement, "Truth does not exist." If it is true, then truth exists. If it is false, truth exists. Therefore, objective truth exists.
I call those two facts "absolute certainties". Everything else (and I mean everything) is what I would call a "near certainty", and is something that must involve a presupposition of some kind in order to be believed. For instance, we must presuppose that the physical world exists in order to study it.
Furthermore I'd like to discuss the idea of open-mindedness. By open-mindedness I mean the principle of changing one's opinion if the evidence falls in favor of the contrasting opinion. If you and your opponent are not willing to listen to each other with the possibility of changing your mind, the discussion is vain. Good can still come from it (such as bystanders listening and deciding for themselves), but as far as winning over your opponent... you can forget it. It is also very respectable to skeptics if you hold yourself to this standard.
In summation, when we are either making, criticizing, or defending truth claims, know that you will never prove or disprove something with "absolute certainty", and in order to prove anything your listener(s) must be open to the idea of changing their minds. As an apologist, it is important to reiterate this to your opponents (honest or malicious) before entering discussions about evidence.
III. Expanding Your Vocabulary
Any specialized field of research has its own set of high-context words that must be understood in order to communicate properly. If you see a word that you don't know, write it down and look up its definition later. This will help you learn quickly.
It is also important in conversation to define your terms. By this I mean, let people know what you mean by a certain word, and ask others what they mean by a certain word, even if it's one that you assume is commonly understood to mean one thing. Often times people apply subjective definitions to words, and it's important to break down those linguistic walls in order to communicate properly. Not doing so risks committing the fallacies of equivocation (taking a word or phrase to mean something else, e.g. "John saw a house fly") or a straw man (attacking a misrepresentation of someone's argument).
IV. Understand the Opposition
Understanding opposing positions is key to becoming an affective apologist. Learn their common objections, learn the criticisms of those objections, and learn the objections to the criticisms of those objections. The better prepared you are in all subjects, the more effective you will be. Which brings me to our next point:
V. Building a General Foundation
Every Christian apologist should build a generalized foundation in at least the following subjects:
1. Modal Logic
2. Reliability of the New Testament
3. The Resurrection of Jesus
4. Christian Doctrine
5. Ancient Near-Eastern Sociology
6. Philosophy
7. Historiography
8. Other Religions
9. Social Issues
This is no doubt an intimidating list to the uninitiated, and in a sense, rightly so. It is a lot of hard work. But when you know the right authors to read and have apologists around you to help you, this process becomes quite enjoyable and enlightening. Later I will provide a list of resources for these topics.
VI. Specialize in a Field
Once you've been working on building your general foundation, you will probably realize that there is at least one subject that you resonate with more than others. It can be a general subject or a very specific one. Myself for instance, I resonate greatly with ANE Sociology, Philosophy (namely moral and human-rights philosophy), and Social Issues (namely abortion and homosexual practice). Thus, I have devoted the majority of my study to these fields now that my general foundation is stable. This way I can help other apologists where I am stronger, and be helped by them where I am weaker.
You may already have a subject in mind. That's good! If not, don't worry. I didn't have mine when I first started either. But it will reveal itself through time and study.
VII. Know Who to Read
It's time to put down your Max Lucado and dig into some real scholarship!
By scholarship I mean those who have dedicated their lives to specific fields, much like I mentioned above. Scholars have expert, specialized knowledge in their relevant fields that most pastors, laity, and devotional authors simply do not have.
One thing that I admire about Lee Strobel is while he himself is not a scholar, he cites the work of scholars. Citing a popular Christian speaker such as Billy Graham might glean some nugget of wisdom, but academically speaking would not be an expert source. I hope I'm making that distinction clearly.
"So who do I read from then?" I'm glad you asked!
Below I will provide a list of authors and some of their introductory and advanced works. Follow this list and you'll be off to a great start.
Apologetics: Beginner Resources
... So, you want to learn more about Christian apologetics? Great!
I've been doing this whole apologetics thing now for a good six or seven years, and I must tell you up front that it is a lifestyle and a journey that never ends, much like our faith at large. I will also tell you that if you think you are not smart enough for apologetics, you could not be more wrong.
Intelligence, articulation, and expertise are all skills that can be honed and refined like any other. Some may have a genetic advantage over others, but it is something that anyone can build up and accomplish.
What is a required prerequisite however, is discipline. It is hard work, it is not always fun, and it doesn't help if you hate reading (like I used to). Perhaps even discipline is something you'll have to develop as you go, but I promise it get's easier the more you settle into the lifestyle of an apologist.
... So, you still want to be an apologist? Then let's get started!
Below I am going to present a rather condensed guide of how you can effectively facilitate the start of your apologetics journey. I'm going to start with some epistemic issues, talk a little bit about how to approach study, and the like. Afterwards, I'll be presenting a list of materials to get you started.
Ready?
I. The Foundations of Thinking
A truth claim is a claim that something is objectively true. Every opinion or statement is, at its core, a truth claim. The primary truth claim of Christianity is that Jesus was crucified and resurrected bodily from the dead (and all that it entails: e.g. virgin birth, trinitarianism, etc).
Truth claims are analyzed in a variety of ways, all of which depend upon the laws of modal logic. Modal logic encompasses the set of rules that determine what is coherent thought and what is fallacious, or incoherent. In order to become an effective apologist (for anything), one must gain a mastery of modal logic.
A fallacy, as previously mentioned, is a flaw in the process of thinking. To master modal logic, it is imperative that one be well acquainted with common logical fallacies to not only identify them in critical statements, but perhaps more importantly to ensure that one does not commit them personally.
Here is a list of common fallacies to help you take your first step in becoming an apologist. Learn them well!
II. The Epistemology of Evidence and Opinions
Believers and skeptics must understand this principle when addressing truth claims: Nothing is 100% provable.
Well, not entirely. There are only two things I know of that are 100% true:
1. I am something that thinks ("cogito ergo sum"). I don't know if the physical world really exists or of other minds exist than my own, but I know that I am something that is capable of thought.
2. Objective truth exists. Take the statement, "Truth does not exist." If it is true, then truth exists. If it is false, truth exists. Therefore, objective truth exists.
I call those two facts "absolute certainties". Everything else (and I mean everything) is what I would call a "near certainty", and is something that must involve a presupposition of some kind in order to be believed. For instance, we must presuppose that the physical world exists in order to study it.
Furthermore I'd like to discuss the idea of open-mindedness. By open-mindedness I mean the principle of changing one's opinion if the evidence falls in favor of the contrasting opinion. If you and your opponent are not willing to listen to each other with the possibility of changing your mind, the discussion is vain. Good can still come from it (such as bystanders listening and deciding for themselves), but as far as winning over your opponent... you can forget it. It is also very respectable to skeptics if you hold yourself to this standard.
In summation, when we are either making, criticizing, or defending truth claims, know that you will never prove or disprove something with "absolute certainty", and in order to prove anything your listener(s) must be open to the idea of changing their minds. As an apologist, it is important to reiterate this to your opponents (honest or malicious) before entering discussions about evidence.
III. Expanding Your Vocabulary
Any specialized field of research has its own set of high-context words that must be understood in order to communicate properly. If you see a word that you don't know, write it down and look up its definition later. This will help you learn quickly.
It is also important in conversation to define your terms. By this I mean, let people know what you mean by a certain word, and ask others what they mean by a certain word, even if it's one that you assume is commonly understood to mean one thing. Often times people apply subjective definitions to words, and it's important to break down those linguistic walls in order to communicate properly. Not doing so risks committing the fallacies of equivocation (taking a word or phrase to mean something else, e.g. "John saw a house fly") or a straw man (attacking a misrepresentation of someone's argument).
IV. Understand the Opposition
Understanding opposing positions is key to becoming an affective apologist. Learn their common objections, learn the criticisms of those objections, and learn the objections to the criticisms of those objections. The better prepared you are in all subjects, the more effective you will be. Which brings me to our next point:
V. Building a General Foundation
Every Christian apologist should build a generalized foundation in at least the following subjects:
1. Modal Logic
2. Reliability of the New Testament
3. The Resurrection of Jesus
4. Christian Doctrine
5. Ancient Near-Eastern Sociology
6. Philosophy
7. Historiography
8. Other Religions
9. Social Issues
This is no doubt an intimidating list to the uninitiated, and in a sense, rightly so. It is a lot of hard work. But when you know the right authors to read and have apologists around you to help you, this process becomes quite enjoyable and enlightening. Later I will provide a list of resources for these topics.
VI. Specialize in a Field
Once you've been working on building your general foundation, you will probably realize that there is at least one subject that you resonate with more than others. It can be a general subject or a very specific one. Myself for instance, I resonate greatly with ANE Sociology, Philosophy (namely moral and human-rights philosophy), and Social Issues (namely abortion and homosexual practice). Thus, I have devoted the majority of my study to these fields now that my general foundation is stable. This way I can help other apologists where I am stronger, and be helped by them where I am weaker.
You may already have a subject in mind. That's good! If not, don't worry. I didn't have mine when I first started either. But it will reveal itself through time and study.
VII. Know Who to Read
It's time to put down your Max Lucado and dig into some real scholarship!
By scholarship I mean those who have dedicated their lives to specific fields, much like I mentioned above. Scholars have expert, specialized knowledge in their relevant fields that most pastors, laity, and devotional authors simply do not have.
One thing that I admire about Lee Strobel is while he himself is not a scholar, he cites the work of scholars. Citing a popular Christian speaker such as Billy Graham might glean some nugget of wisdom, but academically speaking would not be an expert source. I hope I'm making that distinction clearly.
"So who do I read from then?" I'm glad you asked!
Below I will provide a list of authors and some of their introductory and advanced works. Follow this list and you'll be off to a great start.
Apologetics: Beginner Resources
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)