A Day at the Museum
We went to the New Orleans Children's Museum over the weekend. I decided that this was the perfect opportunity to try out the camera on my iPhone 4 and iMovie for iPhone. The whole video was shot and edited on the iPhone 4. When the video starts playing you can switch it to HD. I think it looks great for being a phone. I really have no need to buy a Flip any more.
What I learned at LSU
If I learned nothing else in my four year degree program at LSU, I learned this: In order to properly refute an argument, you have to present the argument correctly. Seems simple right? If I do not understand what you are trying to say, then I (except by accident) cannot give any refutation that will be true. Why? Well, because I am not refuting the actual argument but an argument that I made up. It's the straw man fallacy. I put up a straw man, and then I proceed to knock him down, which is much easier than knocking down a real man. In our postmodern context with its erosion of a meta-narrative, all information is power. All information is spun to suit a particular need. Let me give a few examples.
Now, if you know me, you know I am not big fan of President Obama's policies. But I received an email forward yesterday with this picture of President Obama and the caption "What's missing at Barack Hussein Obama's press conference?" Here's the picture:
The email then immediately plops down these comparison pictures:
So what's missing? That's right! Presidents Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush, and Reagan all love the American flag and are patriots. President Obama does not. He apparently hates the flag and wants to destroy it, which is why he became president. But wait! The email forward neglects to show these pictures to you (Thank you Snopes.com!):
These are all photographs of presidents (the same ones shown above with American flags and LBJ thrown in for lagniappe) giving press conferences without the American flag behind them! How diligently did the person who made the email forward search for images of other presidents without flags behind them? My guess would be not at all.
Another example of this is the following clip from Ergun Caner:
Now, many of you may know me to be a Calvinist. I try not to be a snob about my theological positions, and I do not make Calvinism a requirement for salvation as some people do. Nor am I unwilling to work with (and be close friends with) someone who is not a Calvinist for the sake of the gospel. But Ergun Caner is quite public and vocal about his hatred of Calvinism. In general, he calls Calvinists hyper-Calvinists. I still do not know what a normal Calvinist would look like for him, but that is beside my point. In short though, if I listed out my beliefs, he would call me a hyper-Calvinist, thought I do not fall into the historical definition of that term. Now, watch the little clip one more time. Here's the context of the verse he quoted (emphasis mine):
When you are going to refute someone's argument, you have to understand their argument. An informed and understanding refutation helps both the person arguing and the person refuting. Why? Because both are pushed upward toward an understanding of objective truth. When we refute or criticize without a full understanding of an argument, we are not bringing anyone to an understanding of objective truth but instead making a grab for power. Jesus encountered this with the chief priests in Luke 20:
How do you approach truth? Is truth in your life only useful? When you talk to someone (even about the gospel), are you trying to manipulate them, or are you trying to point them toward the greater objective Truth?
Now, if you know me, you know I am not big fan of President Obama's policies. But I received an email forward yesterday with this picture of President Obama and the caption "What's missing at Barack Hussein Obama's press conference?" Here's the picture:
The email then immediately plops down these comparison pictures:
So what's missing? That's right! Presidents Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush, and Reagan all love the American flag and are patriots. President Obama does not. He apparently hates the flag and wants to destroy it, which is why he became president. But wait! The email forward neglects to show these pictures to you (Thank you Snopes.com!):
These are all photographs of presidents (the same ones shown above with American flags and LBJ thrown in for lagniappe) giving press conferences without the American flag behind them! How diligently did the person who made the email forward search for images of other presidents without flags behind them? My guess would be not at all.
Another example of this is the following clip from Ergun Caner:
Now, many of you may know me to be a Calvinist. I try not to be a snob about my theological positions, and I do not make Calvinism a requirement for salvation as some people do. Nor am I unwilling to work with (and be close friends with) someone who is not a Calvinist for the sake of the gospel. But Ergun Caner is quite public and vocal about his hatred of Calvinism. In general, he calls Calvinists hyper-Calvinists. I still do not know what a normal Calvinist would look like for him, but that is beside my point. In short though, if I listed out my beliefs, he would call me a hyper-Calvinist, thought I do not fall into the historical definition of that term. Now, watch the little clip one more time. Here's the context of the verse he quoted (emphasis mine):
[8] This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. [9] For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” [10] And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, [11] though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— [12] she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” [13] As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”Now, Caner is plainly missing something! Regardless of where you fall on the issue of free will, the text is plain here. They had not been born. They had not done anything good or bad, yet God declared his purposes and they were "not because of works".
[14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! [15] For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
(Romans 9:8-15 ESV)
When you are going to refute someone's argument, you have to understand their argument. An informed and understanding refutation helps both the person arguing and the person refuting. Why? Because both are pushed upward toward an understanding of objective truth. When we refute or criticize without a full understanding of an argument, we are not bringing anyone to an understanding of objective truth but instead making a grab for power. Jesus encountered this with the chief priests in Luke 20:
[20:1] One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up [2] and said to him, “Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority.” [3] He answered them, “I also will ask you a question. Now tell me, [4] was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?” [5] And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ [6] But if we say, ‘From man,’ all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.” [7] So they answered that they did not know where it came from. [8] And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”The chief priests were not concerned with what was actually true! They only cared about the power that they would give up by admitting the truth. Truth for them was not objective but merely useful. Jesus knew that if these people did not care about what was true, they would not be impacted by him telling them under what authority he preached the gospel. They only cared about the power and not about the truth.
(Luke 20:1-8 ESV)
How do you approach truth? Is truth in your life only useful? When you talk to someone (even about the gospel), are you trying to manipulate them, or are you trying to point them toward the greater objective Truth?
Text and Context
This showed up in my RSS feed two days ago:
As funny as this may seem on the surface it reveals something tragic in the culture at large: Americans don't understand the Bible any more. Let's discount the issue of bad grammar. It does not reveal that this guy is uneducated. Spelling and grammar are not necessarily the only indicators of intelligence. They are indicators of training in spelling and grammar.
We used to live in a country where even atheists knew the Bible and understood the basic message of Christianity. They had an understanding of God, sin, and redemption in Christ. They just wanted nothing to do with it. That day is no longer. Go ask your neighbor who is not a Christian what he knows about Christianity or what he thinks Christians believe. You will find that his opinion of our beliefs and what the Bible actually says about Christianity are quite at odds.
How did we get to this point? Well, when the culture at large did know and understand the Christian message, the church had no need to educate people about it. The church only had to call the culture to repent and believe what they already new about Christ. That is why revivals as a model were so successful. The prodigal sons were called back to faith, a faith that they had been raised in and understood, though had not embraced. But today, the cultural understanding of Christianity has died a slow death due to neglect. The simple truth is that the USA is no longer (if it ever was) a "Christian Nation" either culturally or actually.
So how do we respond to this lack of Biblical literacy within the culture? I would like to outline two ways that I believe are incorrect and then a third, which I believe is the right response. The first wrong way is to build a bunker and go underground. From our position underground we can lament and wax prophetic about the evils of American culture. We can condemn it as unholy and preach grandiose sermons from the KJV about it using "churchy words" to the tune of hymns played on a piano and organ. In this way we largely ignore the problem of Biblical literacy in the culture, because hey, the ship is going down anyway.
Another wrong way to respond is to change the message of the Bible to suit the culture. This usually isn't done in an explicit way. What usually happens is that we change the way scripture weights things. We dispense with terms like hell and sin. Instead, we say that all men just make mistakes. And Jesus isn't really that radical. He just wants to give you love by whatever definition you are most comfortable with. This view ignores the problem of Biblical literacy by regarding an understanding of the Bible as unnecessary. The only necessity is to love, whatever that means.
The solution lies in a twofold strategy. First, within the teaching of the church, we must use theological terms that accurately describe biblical language and then explain them. Two people can be speaking the same language and yet still not be able to understand one another. If you're married, you know what I am talking about. We must strive for clarity and accuracy within the teaching of the church and also offer clear explanation for those who do not understand the terms. Why is this important? Why not just give the explanation and let that replace the term? Because over time the meaning of the biblical concept degenerates. Think of it like this.
Theological term -> Explanation language that takes its place that becomes the new term though it doesn't encompass all that the term means -> Explanation language that eventually takes the place of our previous explanation language when it becomes culturally irrelevant, removing even more meaning from the original idea.
And it just keeps degrading from there. Don't believe me? The NIV dispensed with the word propitiation, and our concept of the atonement has suffered greatly because of it for the last 30 years.
Second, within our evangelism, we must be willing to explain the Christian worldview to unbelievers. It's not enough to just say, "Did you do X, Y, or Z? Ok, then. You're a sinner and you need to repent and trust Jesus." Without an understanding of who Jesus is and for what point and purpose God created the world (and who God is for that matter), that language is meaningless. We have to start in the Genesis 1 rather than Exodus 20. We cannot expect a person who has no understanding of who God is and how he created the universe to respond to the traditional evangelical sales pitch. If people in the church grow up with terribly mistaken ideas about what the gospel is, how much more so will people who have no connection to the church whatsoever? Paul understood this well. In Athens, he dared to use the Athenian's own literature to bring an understanding to them of who God is. We have to be willing to do the same, or watch guys like Steven walk in perpetual ignorance.
As funny as this may seem on the surface it reveals something tragic in the culture at large: Americans don't understand the Bible any more. Let's discount the issue of bad grammar. It does not reveal that this guy is uneducated. Spelling and grammar are not necessarily the only indicators of intelligence. They are indicators of training in spelling and grammar.
We used to live in a country where even atheists knew the Bible and understood the basic message of Christianity. They had an understanding of God, sin, and redemption in Christ. They just wanted nothing to do with it. That day is no longer. Go ask your neighbor who is not a Christian what he knows about Christianity or what he thinks Christians believe. You will find that his opinion of our beliefs and what the Bible actually says about Christianity are quite at odds.
How did we get to this point? Well, when the culture at large did know and understand the Christian message, the church had no need to educate people about it. The church only had to call the culture to repent and believe what they already new about Christ. That is why revivals as a model were so successful. The prodigal sons were called back to faith, a faith that they had been raised in and understood, though had not embraced. But today, the cultural understanding of Christianity has died a slow death due to neglect. The simple truth is that the USA is no longer (if it ever was) a "Christian Nation" either culturally or actually.
So how do we respond to this lack of Biblical literacy within the culture? I would like to outline two ways that I believe are incorrect and then a third, which I believe is the right response. The first wrong way is to build a bunker and go underground. From our position underground we can lament and wax prophetic about the evils of American culture. We can condemn it as unholy and preach grandiose sermons from the KJV about it using "churchy words" to the tune of hymns played on a piano and organ. In this way we largely ignore the problem of Biblical literacy in the culture, because hey, the ship is going down anyway.
Another wrong way to respond is to change the message of the Bible to suit the culture. This usually isn't done in an explicit way. What usually happens is that we change the way scripture weights things. We dispense with terms like hell and sin. Instead, we say that all men just make mistakes. And Jesus isn't really that radical. He just wants to give you love by whatever definition you are most comfortable with. This view ignores the problem of Biblical literacy by regarding an understanding of the Bible as unnecessary. The only necessity is to love, whatever that means.
The solution lies in a twofold strategy. First, within the teaching of the church, we must use theological terms that accurately describe biblical language and then explain them. Two people can be speaking the same language and yet still not be able to understand one another. If you're married, you know what I am talking about. We must strive for clarity and accuracy within the teaching of the church and also offer clear explanation for those who do not understand the terms. Why is this important? Why not just give the explanation and let that replace the term? Because over time the meaning of the biblical concept degenerates. Think of it like this.
Theological term -> Explanation language that takes its place that becomes the new term though it doesn't encompass all that the term means -> Explanation language that eventually takes the place of our previous explanation language when it becomes culturally irrelevant, removing even more meaning from the original idea.
And it just keeps degrading from there. Don't believe me? The NIV dispensed with the word propitiation, and our concept of the atonement has suffered greatly because of it for the last 30 years.
Second, within our evangelism, we must be willing to explain the Christian worldview to unbelievers. It's not enough to just say, "Did you do X, Y, or Z? Ok, then. You're a sinner and you need to repent and trust Jesus." Without an understanding of who Jesus is and for what point and purpose God created the world (and who God is for that matter), that language is meaningless. We have to start in the Genesis 1 rather than Exodus 20. We cannot expect a person who has no understanding of who God is and how he created the universe to respond to the traditional evangelical sales pitch. If people in the church grow up with terribly mistaken ideas about what the gospel is, how much more so will people who have no connection to the church whatsoever? Paul understood this well. In Athens, he dared to use the Athenian's own literature to bring an understanding to them of who God is. We have to be willing to do the same, or watch guys like Steven walk in perpetual ignorance.
Notes from Wednesday Night's Discussion of Acts 1
Click the image to see it full sized. Join us as we walk through Acts on Wednesday nights at 7 at CC's Coffee on Royal St.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)