Why Me?
So I am speaking this Sunday at Image on the topic of suffering (i.e. "Why Me?"), and have been doing lots and lots of reading, listening, studying the Bible, etc. It never ceases to amaze me how many *different* reasons people have for why there is suffering (speaking specifically of Christians here), when the Bible seems to be so clear as to what the underlying reason(s) actually are.
Don't get me wrong - it isn't that God gives us all the details in each and every case. In fact, I believe he rarely does this. In most cases we end up suffering knowing some general truths (God will use this for our good, in our suffering we realize our dependence upon God, in the end God will receive glory, etc.) but we don't get to know the specifics as to *how* God uses any given instance of suffering to accomplish these things. This tends to frustrate me to no end. How about you?
We seem to be constituted in such a way that knowing *all* the details, from A to Z, somehow makes suffering easier to manage. The problem with this is twofold. First, as I mentioned above, this rarely if ever happens. Second, when it *does* happen, it takes our focus off of where it should be - God. In effect, it undermines much of what God intends to accomplish in us during our suffering, namely a realization of our utter dependence on his grace for all we have.
My mom was sharing with me the other day regarding some suffering she and dad are going through in their lives, and passed to me this little nugget of truth found in Proverbs 25:2.
"It is the glory of God to conceal things,
but the glory of kings is to search things out."
The Hebrew word for "glory" here is kä·bode', which has the typical definition of:
a) abundance, splendor
b) honour, splendor, glory
c) honour, dignity
d) honour, reputation
e) honour, reverence, glory
f) glory
So perhaps what God is telling us here is that a lack of knowledge on our part (for why we are suffering, or just in general) brings glory to God because the alternative would cause us to think we had it all figured out - in essence, to think higher of ourselves than we ought. And isn't that the basic problem with sin in the first place?
-- Brian
Friday, May 30, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Offensiveness of Christianity
It has been a chore for me to blog as of late, but as I was researching something for the homegroup I lead, I came across the following snippet from an article by Greg Bahnsen.
The full article titled "Answering Objections" can be found here on the Covenant Media Foundation website.
I find a very important truth in Dr. Bahnsen's words that I want to highlight, namely that the claims of Christianity are "naturally quite offensive in a pluralistic, democratic age." This is extremely important for us as Christians as we interact with those who do not share our faith. If we are living our lives as we are called to do, following the philosophy of Christ as opposed to the philosophy of this world (Col. 2:8), then the explanation that we give for any claims we make in any realm of life should ultimately find its basis in scripture. It is just this appeal to scripture as the foundation of our lives that will consistently lead to altercations with non-Christians. How pleasant or unpleasant these interactions may be depends a great deal on how we handle them.
Remember that although non-Christians will often find the exclusive, absolute claims of the Bible to be offensive (1 Cor. 1:23), we are called to answer their questions in a gentle and respectful manner (1 Pet. 3:15), rather than in a contentious manner that only serves to further their opposition to the Bible (2 Tim. 2:23-26). How do we accomplish this without watering down the truth of God's word (John 17:17)?
Sharing an Offensive Message Without Being Offensive
There is a marked difference between sharing a message that is offensive, and sharing a message (offensive or not) in an offensive manner. Consider by way of an example the case of a friend who has personal hygiene that leaves much to be desired. You could certainly approach them with the direct question "do you realize that you smell horrible?" Even though this may be the case, meaning that the message itself is indeed offensive, there is no need to share the message in such an offensive manner.
When it comes to the gospel message, there are no doubt elements that non-Christians may find offensive. The claim that a person is a sinner can be a very offensive claim, especially if that person is "good" according to the standard of the culture they live in. In fact, this is one of the main reasons that non-Christians do not accept the "solution" that the gospel provides - they don't see any "problem" that needs to be solved. On top of the claim that all are sinners, the claim that Jesus is the only way to reconciliation with God can also be offensive, especially if the non-Christian happens to already hold a competing religious view.
Regardless of the offense of the message itself, we are called to share it, simply because it is true! The question then is not whether we should share this potentially offensive message, but rather how we should share it.
We see the answer to this question both in the life of Christ, and in the words of Paul as written to Timothy.
Following the Example of Christ
Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost (Luke 19:10), which is a crucial truth that we can never lose sight of. The motivation of Jesus was to help those who were in need, not to rail upon them for being in such a bad way, despite the fact that they were. It is true that Christ's ultimate motivation was to bring glory to the Father, but the central way that he accomplished this goal was by loving sinful man. Time and time again scripture states that Jesus had compassion (Matt. 9:36, Matt. 14:14, Matt. 15:32, Matt. 20:34), the result of which was always an action. The love of Christ for lost sinners always resulted in action, the greatest of which was his willing sacrifice at Calvary.
The methodology of Christ in sharing the truth was to love people; to show them compassion and meet their needs while simultaneously and unashamedly proclaiming the truth of who he was (the Messiah), who they were (sinners), and why they needed to have faith in him.
Following the Commands of Scripture
There is but one scriptural way to share the gospel, or defend one's faith - with gentleness and respect (1 Pet. 3:15). What does this look like in action? Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 2:23-26.
This is truly where the rubber meets the road. We are to be "kind to everyone", as one who is "patiently enduring evil" and engaged in correcting our opponents with gentleness.
When a simple sharing of the gospel turns ugly as if often does due to the offensive nature of what we are sharing, we have two different ways we can respond. One is to take offense at the offense being taken, and begin to rail upon the one we should be loving instead. We can beat our unsaved friends and relatives over the head with the word of God and rationalize our actions by assuring ourselves that we are simply "telling it the way it is". This has become way too easy to do in the less-than-personal world of the internet. People say things in email or on discussion boards that they would never say to someone they were standing in front of. The impersonal medium of the internet has been the catalyst for a whole new breed of "militant Christians" whose entire world revolves around "flaming" as many unbelievers as possible. Don't get me wrong - I am not blaming the medium of the internet for this; rather, I am blaming the messenger's abuse of it.
The more appropriate way to respond is to be kind, patient, and gentle. We are to teach those who do not believe about the love of God, not only in the message we share but in the way we share it. One of the main complaints against Christianity is the perception of hypocrisy. Unbelievers aren't stupid. On the contrary, they know enough about Jesus and his commands to see the hypocrisy of furthering a message of love by using insults and hateful speech. If we pray for those who are lost and speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) then we have done all we are commanded to do; all that we can do. for that matter. The rest is up to God, to grant them repentance (2 Tim. 2:25).
-- Brian
It has been a chore for me to blog as of late, but as I was researching something for the homegroup I lead, I came across the following snippet from an article by Greg Bahnsen.
"Christianity does not claim to be relatively true, but absolutely and universally so. Furthermore, as a religious system it claims to be exclusively true. This is naturally quite offensive in a pluralistic, democratic age. "Everybody has a right to believe about God what they wish," we will be reminded. But that is not the point. The right to believe something does not translate it into something which is true. Some religious perspectives teach that there are a variety of ways of reaching God or serving Him (or It) -- many paths to the top of the mountain. Christianity is not one of them, though. Eclectic and smorgasbord approaches to religion may wish to incorporate Christianity into their religious options (one more of many), but in the nature of the case Christianity cannot be assimilated to their outlook. Christianity claims that Christ alone is the divine Savior, claims that only through Him can anyone be right with God, and claims that what we believe about God is restricted to what He reveals about Himself (thus excluding human imagination)."
The full article titled "Answering Objections" can be found here on the Covenant Media Foundation website.
I find a very important truth in Dr. Bahnsen's words that I want to highlight, namely that the claims of Christianity are "naturally quite offensive in a pluralistic, democratic age." This is extremely important for us as Christians as we interact with those who do not share our faith. If we are living our lives as we are called to do, following the philosophy of Christ as opposed to the philosophy of this world (Col. 2:8), then the explanation that we give for any claims we make in any realm of life should ultimately find its basis in scripture. It is just this appeal to scripture as the foundation of our lives that will consistently lead to altercations with non-Christians. How pleasant or unpleasant these interactions may be depends a great deal on how we handle them.
Remember that although non-Christians will often find the exclusive, absolute claims of the Bible to be offensive (1 Cor. 1:23), we are called to answer their questions in a gentle and respectful manner (1 Pet. 3:15), rather than in a contentious manner that only serves to further their opposition to the Bible (2 Tim. 2:23-26). How do we accomplish this without watering down the truth of God's word (John 17:17)?
Sharing an Offensive Message Without Being Offensive
There is a marked difference between sharing a message that is offensive, and sharing a message (offensive or not) in an offensive manner. Consider by way of an example the case of a friend who has personal hygiene that leaves much to be desired. You could certainly approach them with the direct question "do you realize that you smell horrible?" Even though this may be the case, meaning that the message itself is indeed offensive, there is no need to share the message in such an offensive manner.
When it comes to the gospel message, there are no doubt elements that non-Christians may find offensive. The claim that a person is a sinner can be a very offensive claim, especially if that person is "good" according to the standard of the culture they live in. In fact, this is one of the main reasons that non-Christians do not accept the "solution" that the gospel provides - they don't see any "problem" that needs to be solved. On top of the claim that all are sinners, the claim that Jesus is the only way to reconciliation with God can also be offensive, especially if the non-Christian happens to already hold a competing religious view.
Regardless of the offense of the message itself, we are called to share it, simply because it is true! The question then is not whether we should share this potentially offensive message, but rather how we should share it.
We see the answer to this question both in the life of Christ, and in the words of Paul as written to Timothy.
Following the Example of Christ
Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost (Luke 19:10), which is a crucial truth that we can never lose sight of. The motivation of Jesus was to help those who were in need, not to rail upon them for being in such a bad way, despite the fact that they were. It is true that Christ's ultimate motivation was to bring glory to the Father, but the central way that he accomplished this goal was by loving sinful man. Time and time again scripture states that Jesus had compassion (Matt. 9:36, Matt. 14:14, Matt. 15:32, Matt. 20:34), the result of which was always an action. The love of Christ for lost sinners always resulted in action, the greatest of which was his willing sacrifice at Calvary.
The methodology of Christ in sharing the truth was to love people; to show them compassion and meet their needs while simultaneously and unashamedly proclaiming the truth of who he was (the Messiah), who they were (sinners), and why they needed to have faith in him.
Following the Commands of Scripture
There is but one scriptural way to share the gospel, or defend one's faith - with gentleness and respect (1 Pet. 3:15). What does this look like in action? Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 2:23-26.
23Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
This is truly where the rubber meets the road. We are to be "kind to everyone", as one who is "patiently enduring evil" and engaged in correcting our opponents with gentleness.
When a simple sharing of the gospel turns ugly as if often does due to the offensive nature of what we are sharing, we have two different ways we can respond. One is to take offense at the offense being taken, and begin to rail upon the one we should be loving instead. We can beat our unsaved friends and relatives over the head with the word of God and rationalize our actions by assuring ourselves that we are simply "telling it the way it is". This has become way too easy to do in the less-than-personal world of the internet. People say things in email or on discussion boards that they would never say to someone they were standing in front of. The impersonal medium of the internet has been the catalyst for a whole new breed of "militant Christians" whose entire world revolves around "flaming" as many unbelievers as possible. Don't get me wrong - I am not blaming the medium of the internet for this; rather, I am blaming the messenger's abuse of it.
The more appropriate way to respond is to be kind, patient, and gentle. We are to teach those who do not believe about the love of God, not only in the message we share but in the way we share it. One of the main complaints against Christianity is the perception of hypocrisy. Unbelievers aren't stupid. On the contrary, they know enough about Jesus and his commands to see the hypocrisy of furthering a message of love by using insults and hateful speech. If we pray for those who are lost and speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) then we have done all we are commanded to do; all that we can do. for that matter. The rest is up to God, to grant them repentance (2 Tim. 2:25).
-- Brian
Friday, January 04, 2008
God's Motivation - A Demonstration
One of the things I have noticed over the past few years of debating and defending my faith with a host of skeptics is that there is a common thread behind most of their questions. It goes something like this - "why would God do that?". Why would God ask Abraham to sacrifice his son - didn't he already know what he would do? Why would God punish people for eternity in Hell for something as simple as unbelief? Why would God require the shedding of blood (especially a human) as a way to atone for sins? Why would God create people who would disobey him? Why, why, why??
These are all excellent questions, and there are many, many more. Excellent because they cause us to really dig deep for answers, the result of which is the strengthening of our faith. In particular, they cause us to ask the foundational question "what is God's motivation for doing what he does?" Over the next few days -- or perhaps weeks and months -- I am going to take a look at the ways in which scripture demonstrates the answer to this question, which is found in Romans 11:36:
The general principle that we can take from the verse as it pertains to God's motivation is that everything that is, everything that exists, happens, and in turn everything that God does is for him. "For ... to him are all things. To him be glory forever." God's glory is the ultimate motivation for everything that God does.
God's ultimate motivation is not to make us happy; it is not to provide for us; it isn't even to save people. This is not the ultimate reason that God has for all that he does. There is something far greater, more foundational at work behind the scenes of all the good and bad and ugly that we experience in this fallen world.
-- Brian
One of the things I have noticed over the past few years of debating and defending my faith with a host of skeptics is that there is a common thread behind most of their questions. It goes something like this - "why would God do that?". Why would God ask Abraham to sacrifice his son - didn't he already know what he would do? Why would God punish people for eternity in Hell for something as simple as unbelief? Why would God require the shedding of blood (especially a human) as a way to atone for sins? Why would God create people who would disobey him? Why, why, why??
These are all excellent questions, and there are many, many more. Excellent because they cause us to really dig deep for answers, the result of which is the strengthening of our faith. In particular, they cause us to ask the foundational question "what is God's motivation for doing what he does?" Over the next few days -- or perhaps weeks and months -- I am going to take a look at the ways in which scripture demonstrates the answer to this question, which is found in Romans 11:36:
"For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen"
The general principle that we can take from the verse as it pertains to God's motivation is that everything that is, everything that exists, happens, and in turn everything that God does is for him. "For ... to him are all things. To him be glory forever." God's glory is the ultimate motivation for everything that God does.
God's ultimate motivation is not to make us happy; it is not to provide for us; it isn't even to save people. This is not the ultimate reason that God has for all that he does. There is something far greater, more foundational at work behind the scenes of all the good and bad and ugly that we experience in this fallen world.
-- Brian
Friday, December 14, 2007
Christianity is a Relationship, Not a Religion
I know I am going to get in trouble with this, but here goes ...
The catch phrase "Christianity is a Relationship, Not a Religion" has, I suspect, only come into use over the past few years. I don't know its origin (I suppose I could look it up in Wikipedia or Google it), but I do know when I started to hear it. It was about 7 or 8 years ago at a church I was attending. I believe it showed up in some Sunday School material, and then seemed to permeate throughout the entire church. In fact, it used to be used as a reason for why something was the way it was. For instance, someone would make a comment and then end it with "after all, Christianity is a relationship, not a religion."
Don't get me wrong - I know exactly what is being said here. I grew up a Baptist, and constantly heard about other religions (and other denominations within Christianity) being way too "religious" in their faith; the idea being that they were more concerned about tradition and works and the details of their particular set of beliefs and not so concerned with their "personal relationship with Jesus Christ."
The point in using such a catch phrase is, I think, to try and emphasize the "personal" aspects of Christianity - personal in that we have a God who is intimately involved in our lives, we have a saviour who loves us and intercedes for us with the Father, and we have the Holy Spirit living inside of us! That's a rather personal belief system.
Here is the problem - Christianity is, without a doubt, a religion. So to say that Christianity is a relationship but not a religion is to tell an untruth. Here is the definition of religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
According to this definition, Christianity is a religion, just as Isalm and Judaism are religions.
Words have definitions, and when we communicate with those around us we need to be careful to understand what we sound like to others when we use words just because those words have definitions. To say that Christianity is not a religion, is to ultimately sound foolish because the common usage of the word "religion" defines a category that Christianity fits squarely within.
We do not have the privilege to simply redefine words because we may not like what baggage might be attached to those words, and such is (I believe) the reason for this catch phrase. Instead, I think we need to stress the tenets of Christianity; we should be very clear when we communicate what our beliefs are to indicate that we are not the members of a religion that is so concerned with being "religious" in the way that term is all too often understood. We must also be sure to express the personal nature of our belief system; especially as it relates to God.
Christianity is indeed a religion, but it is also a relationship with our glorious creator God through Jesus Christ our LORD.
-- Brian
I know I am going to get in trouble with this, but here goes ...
The catch phrase "Christianity is a Relationship, Not a Religion" has, I suspect, only come into use over the past few years. I don't know its origin (I suppose I could look it up in Wikipedia or Google it), but I do know when I started to hear it. It was about 7 or 8 years ago at a church I was attending. I believe it showed up in some Sunday School material, and then seemed to permeate throughout the entire church. In fact, it used to be used as a reason for why something was the way it was. For instance, someone would make a comment and then end it with "after all, Christianity is a relationship, not a religion."
Don't get me wrong - I know exactly what is being said here. I grew up a Baptist, and constantly heard about other religions (and other denominations within Christianity) being way too "religious" in their faith; the idea being that they were more concerned about tradition and works and the details of their particular set of beliefs and not so concerned with their "personal relationship with Jesus Christ."
The point in using such a catch phrase is, I think, to try and emphasize the "personal" aspects of Christianity - personal in that we have a God who is intimately involved in our lives, we have a saviour who loves us and intercedes for us with the Father, and we have the Holy Spirit living inside of us! That's a rather personal belief system.
Here is the problem - Christianity is, without a doubt, a religion. So to say that Christianity is a relationship but not a religion is to tell an untruth. Here is the definition of religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
According to this definition, Christianity is a religion, just as Isalm and Judaism are religions.
Words have definitions, and when we communicate with those around us we need to be careful to understand what we sound like to others when we use words just because those words have definitions. To say that Christianity is not a religion, is to ultimately sound foolish because the common usage of the word "religion" defines a category that Christianity fits squarely within.
We do not have the privilege to simply redefine words because we may not like what baggage might be attached to those words, and such is (I believe) the reason for this catch phrase. Instead, I think we need to stress the tenets of Christianity; we should be very clear when we communicate what our beliefs are to indicate that we are not the members of a religion that is so concerned with being "religious" in the way that term is all too often understood. We must also be sure to express the personal nature of our belief system; especially as it relates to God.
Christianity is indeed a religion, but it is also a relationship with our glorious creator God through Jesus Christ our LORD.
-- Brian
Monday, November 26, 2007
More Great Light
I am currently in the process of post-processing wedding photos from earlier this year in preparation for putting together a photo album, and came across a picture of the wedding cake that is just fantastic. This is such a big deal for me, because I rarely shoot pictures that I would classify as "fantastic". And lest you think I am simply blowing my own horn here, I had at least two other people say they thought it was fantastic as well :) No, really, I did!
The challenge for me was to figure out *why* the picture looked as good as it did. I knew it was a quality of light issue, but thought there was more to it. In the end, I enlisted the help of other photographers in the SmugMug forum (known as Digital Grin), and got their input as well.
The more I learn about photography, the more I learn how important light really is - especially in showing "depth".
There is this type of light known as "flat lighting", which means (as you can probably guess) that there is equal light coming from all sides of the subject. The result of this is that the subject looks very flat - as opposed to 3D. If you are a novice at photography, then you might not even know this is what is going on. All you can probably tell is that the photograph doesn't look as good as you would like it to. This is *exactly* the type of light you get from direct, on-camera flash, by the way. This is why it is *always* a good idea (when using flash) to either take the flash off-camera, or to bounce it off a wall to your left or right, which essentially takes that flash off camera (along with making it much softer).
Here is the photo in question:
Notice a couple of things about the lighting here:
1) There are absolutely no harsh shadows - the light is very "soft". Some of the light is coming from ambient light streaming through windows into the room, which helps to give the warm look to the photo.
2) The left of the entire cake and tablecloth is brighter than the right (there is a shadow on the right). This helps to give "depth" to the photo, and was accomplished by bouncing my flash off the wall to my left. In this case, since the color of the wall was very close to the color of the cake and tablecloth, there was no color cast to get rid of in post-processing.
3) There is a highlight on the right side of the cake that is most noticeable on the bottom tier. I am unsure of the source of this light (sorry, I didn't plan it that way :) ).
4) In addition to the lighting of the cake, the cake itself is just gorgeous, the room is very formal and there is really nothing distracting in the background. Also, the placement of the napkin, plates, and bouquet is very natural looking (no, I didn't place them there).
All in all, it has been a fun study of a "lucky" shot I got more than 3 months ago, and has inspired me to start looking more for these lighting scenarios when I am actually taking the picture.
-- Brian
I am currently in the process of post-processing wedding photos from earlier this year in preparation for putting together a photo album, and came across a picture of the wedding cake that is just fantastic. This is such a big deal for me, because I rarely shoot pictures that I would classify as "fantastic". And lest you think I am simply blowing my own horn here, I had at least two other people say they thought it was fantastic as well :) No, really, I did!
The challenge for me was to figure out *why* the picture looked as good as it did. I knew it was a quality of light issue, but thought there was more to it. In the end, I enlisted the help of other photographers in the SmugMug forum (known as Digital Grin), and got their input as well.
The more I learn about photography, the more I learn how important light really is - especially in showing "depth".
There is this type of light known as "flat lighting", which means (as you can probably guess) that there is equal light coming from all sides of the subject. The result of this is that the subject looks very flat - as opposed to 3D. If you are a novice at photography, then you might not even know this is what is going on. All you can probably tell is that the photograph doesn't look as good as you would like it to. This is *exactly* the type of light you get from direct, on-camera flash, by the way. This is why it is *always* a good idea (when using flash) to either take the flash off-camera, or to bounce it off a wall to your left or right, which essentially takes that flash off camera (along with making it much softer).
Here is the photo in question:
Notice a couple of things about the lighting here:
1) There are absolutely no harsh shadows - the light is very "soft". Some of the light is coming from ambient light streaming through windows into the room, which helps to give the warm look to the photo.
2) The left of the entire cake and tablecloth is brighter than the right (there is a shadow on the right). This helps to give "depth" to the photo, and was accomplished by bouncing my flash off the wall to my left. In this case, since the color of the wall was very close to the color of the cake and tablecloth, there was no color cast to get rid of in post-processing.
3) There is a highlight on the right side of the cake that is most noticeable on the bottom tier. I am unsure of the source of this light (sorry, I didn't plan it that way :) ).
4) In addition to the lighting of the cake, the cake itself is just gorgeous, the room is very formal and there is really nothing distracting in the background. Also, the placement of the napkin, plates, and bouquet is very natural looking (no, I didn't place them there).
All in all, it has been a fun study of a "lucky" shot I got more than 3 months ago, and has inspired me to start looking more for these lighting scenarios when I am actually taking the picture.
-- Brian
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Problem with Pragmatism
In present day apologetical encounters, one is sure to eventually come across an unbeliever who claims that we should not believe the Bible because science has proven it to be untrustworthy. After much back and forth, the apologist may feel a tad bit overwhelmed as the unbeliever responds to point after point with scientific proof and evidences that support their contention. If the apologist disagrees with the conclusions that these scientists have come to, then they find themselves in the unenviable position of having to prove that the conclusions these scientists have come to are wrong.
In addition, the unbeliever may stress that what the Christian has to offer is mere subjective opinion, whereas what science has to offer are “facts” which are “objective” and derived from “repeatable” observations. It is no surprise, then, that the apologist finds himself in a very precarious position. After all, how can the apologist become sufficiently educated in all the various areas of scientific study in order to come up with a meaningful rebuttal to each and every criticism that is raised? How can he or she keep track of all the latest discoveries and “revelations” that are occurring on a daily basis, and (furthermore) determine which are valid and which are not? A daunting task, if one chooses to take this approach.
To add to this frustration, consider what 1 Pet. 3:15 has to say -
“but in your hearts honor 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” [ESV] (emphasis mine)
If you weren’t aware that there was Biblical warrant for *always* being “prepared”, well now you know!
As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat (sorry all you cat lovers), and this is definitely the case when it comes to apologetics. One approach is to attack the conclusions of science themselves, and demonstrate that they are incorrect. However, that is certainly not the *only* way, nor the most effective in my mind, and here is why.
All unbelievers, scientific in their criticisms or not, have to answer the same basic questions - just as believers do. Regardless of the criticisms being leveled against the claims of the Bible, those making the criticisms have foundational questions which must first be answered, before their claims can even be evaluated. For the unbeliever appealing to science to support their criticism of the Bible, the most foundational question is this - “why should we accept science as a method for determining truth?” When it comes to the trustworthiness of the Bible, *truth* is exactly what is being challenged, after all.
If an unbeliever says “this particular claim in the Bible is not true”, then they have taken upon themselves the burden of giving a *reason* why the claim in question is not true. If their reason is because science has concluded something to the contrary, then they now bear the burden of demonstrating why a scientific conclusion is to be accepted as true, as opposed to a conclusion drawn from the Bible.
If you happen to raise this challenge to the unbeliever, be prepared for all variety of backlash. (Please note, I am not saying *all* unbelievers are like this - or even *most* - only that I have encountered enough who respond in this way to confidently state that it is not unlikely for you to encounter similar responses). What types of responses might you get if you challenge science as a means for determining truth? There are a variety, actually, but a very common one is this - “we use science because it works.”
One must at this point ask the question “exactly what do you mean when you say science ‘works’”? It isn’t that you don’t necessarily understand what is meant by the word as it is being used, but rather that you want your unbelieving friend to stop and think about what they are really saying. “It works” implies that “it” (whatever it happens to be) facilitates our ability to accomplish the goals that we set out to accomplish.
Just look at all science has done for us, after all - it has healed disease, extended our lives, made those lives more comfortable, increased dramatically our ability to communicate and transport things across great distances, etc. So, when someone claims to have “scientific proof” that the Bible is not entirely true, it is only natural to sit up and take notice.
Herein lies the problem. The fact that we Christians are so easily taken in by such phrases as “scientific proof” should be bothersome to us. After all, what is it about the fact that science “works” that should lead us to so blindly accept that the conclusions it comes to are true? Just what kind of “reason” for accepting scientific conclusions is this, after all?
What the unbeliever is doing (whether they are aware or not) when they appeal to the claim that “science works”, is offering a pragmatic justification for accepting that scientific conclusions are true. The problem here is that there is no necessary correlation between something “working” and the purported “truth” of the foundational premises used to accomplish the goal in question.
Let me state this a bit differently, and then follow up by way of example.
There is a distinction between “reason” in the sense of a motivation, and “reason” in the sense of logical justification. Many times in this type of discussion, definitions are blurred and equivocation occurs, making it difficult to see this difference.
For instance, when the question is asked “why trust scientific conclusions?” and the answer comes back “because science works”, the “reason” here is really just an explanation of the motivation behind the decision to trust science in this way. The “reason”, as stated, is not a logical justification for believing that the associated premises are true.
Let’s look at an example in the realm of moral justification to make this easier to see. Let’s say a husband abuses his wife. When you ask this man what the reason is for this abuse, he may answer “because it makes me feel good” - in other words, for this man “it works”. This “reason” is simply an expression of his motivation, it is *not* a moral justification for his actions (unless he has a very warped moral standard).
In the same sense, one can offer pragmatism as a motivation for accepting scientific conclusions as truthful, but that is a far cry [i.e. categorically distinct] from offering a logical justification for accepting them as truthful. Pragmatism as a logical reason fails miserably.
The problem with offering the justification “we use science because it works” is that one must also justify that which “works”. In other words, if science allows us to accomplish some particular goal, then one must justify that this particular goal is what we should logically be pursuing.
Even then, using pragmatism as a justification still fails because it is possible to accomplish the same goal by following distinct sets of beliefs which are contradictory to one another. Since there is no logical way for sets of contradictory beliefs to both be true, the fact that either or both allows us to accomplish what we want cannot logically entail that they are representative of reality (i.e. what they claim to be true is in fact true.)
Take the goal of being a moral individual. Since both Judaism and Christianity hold to a belief that one should do this, one could accomplish that goal while accepting either the entire belief system of Judiasm *or* of Christianity. These two belief systems, however, contain contradictory beliefs (especially as regarding the person and nature of Jesus Christ).
If you ask a member of either belief system “why do accept the tenets of your faith as true?” they could both honestly answer “because it facilitates me being a moral individual” - in other words, “because it works”. The only thing different between this line of questioning and the line of questioning above is what the “it” is (i.e. the goal) that “works”. In this example, it is being a moral individual, whereas in the example above pertaining to scientific conclusions, it is being able to predict with a good degree of accuracy, the outcome of future events.
Pragmatic justification, therefore, can only provide a motivation for accepting something as true, but can never provide a logical justification for accepting something is true.
This has direct bearing on the issue at hand - whether or not it is rational to accept claims from science as “gospel” when it comes to the question of evaluating claims in the Bible to be true, just because science “works”. The answer is no, it is not. Since pragmatism does not provide a logical rationale for believing scientific conclusions are true, it does not provide a logical rationale for concluding that Biblical claims that contradict the claims of science must therefore be false.
Let me make a couple of points clear in closing that I should have stated already. First, I am not “anti-science”. Second, I am not claiming that science is *not* useful, or (even more to the point) that no claims of science are true! The only point I am making here is that the statement “because it works” is an insufficient answer as to why we should accept scientific conclusions over against Biblical ones.
Clear as mud? :)
As always, comments are welcome!
-- Brian
In present day apologetical encounters, one is sure to eventually come across an unbeliever who claims that we should not believe the Bible because science has proven it to be untrustworthy. After much back and forth, the apologist may feel a tad bit overwhelmed as the unbeliever responds to point after point with scientific proof and evidences that support their contention. If the apologist disagrees with the conclusions that these scientists have come to, then they find themselves in the unenviable position of having to prove that the conclusions these scientists have come to are wrong.
In addition, the unbeliever may stress that what the Christian has to offer is mere subjective opinion, whereas what science has to offer are “facts” which are “objective” and derived from “repeatable” observations. It is no surprise, then, that the apologist finds himself in a very precarious position. After all, how can the apologist become sufficiently educated in all the various areas of scientific study in order to come up with a meaningful rebuttal to each and every criticism that is raised? How can he or she keep track of all the latest discoveries and “revelations” that are occurring on a daily basis, and (furthermore) determine which are valid and which are not? A daunting task, if one chooses to take this approach.
To add to this frustration, consider what 1 Pet. 3:15 has to say -
“but in your hearts honor 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” [ESV] (emphasis mine)
If you weren’t aware that there was Biblical warrant for *always* being “prepared”, well now you know!
As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat (sorry all you cat lovers), and this is definitely the case when it comes to apologetics. One approach is to attack the conclusions of science themselves, and demonstrate that they are incorrect. However, that is certainly not the *only* way, nor the most effective in my mind, and here is why.
All unbelievers, scientific in their criticisms or not, have to answer the same basic questions - just as believers do. Regardless of the criticisms being leveled against the claims of the Bible, those making the criticisms have foundational questions which must first be answered, before their claims can even be evaluated. For the unbeliever appealing to science to support their criticism of the Bible, the most foundational question is this - “why should we accept science as a method for determining truth?” When it comes to the trustworthiness of the Bible, *truth* is exactly what is being challenged, after all.
If an unbeliever says “this particular claim in the Bible is not true”, then they have taken upon themselves the burden of giving a *reason* why the claim in question is not true. If their reason is because science has concluded something to the contrary, then they now bear the burden of demonstrating why a scientific conclusion is to be accepted as true, as opposed to a conclusion drawn from the Bible.
If you happen to raise this challenge to the unbeliever, be prepared for all variety of backlash. (Please note, I am not saying *all* unbelievers are like this - or even *most* - only that I have encountered enough who respond in this way to confidently state that it is not unlikely for you to encounter similar responses). What types of responses might you get if you challenge science as a means for determining truth? There are a variety, actually, but a very common one is this - “we use science because it works.”
One must at this point ask the question “exactly what do you mean when you say science ‘works’”? It isn’t that you don’t necessarily understand what is meant by the word as it is being used, but rather that you want your unbelieving friend to stop and think about what they are really saying. “It works” implies that “it” (whatever it happens to be) facilitates our ability to accomplish the goals that we set out to accomplish.
Just look at all science has done for us, after all - it has healed disease, extended our lives, made those lives more comfortable, increased dramatically our ability to communicate and transport things across great distances, etc. So, when someone claims to have “scientific proof” that the Bible is not entirely true, it is only natural to sit up and take notice.
Herein lies the problem. The fact that we Christians are so easily taken in by such phrases as “scientific proof” should be bothersome to us. After all, what is it about the fact that science “works” that should lead us to so blindly accept that the conclusions it comes to are true? Just what kind of “reason” for accepting scientific conclusions is this, after all?
What the unbeliever is doing (whether they are aware or not) when they appeal to the claim that “science works”, is offering a pragmatic justification for accepting that scientific conclusions are true. The problem here is that there is no necessary correlation between something “working” and the purported “truth” of the foundational premises used to accomplish the goal in question.
Let me state this a bit differently, and then follow up by way of example.
There is a distinction between “reason” in the sense of a motivation, and “reason” in the sense of logical justification. Many times in this type of discussion, definitions are blurred and equivocation occurs, making it difficult to see this difference.
For instance, when the question is asked “why trust scientific conclusions?” and the answer comes back “because science works”, the “reason” here is really just an explanation of the motivation behind the decision to trust science in this way. The “reason”, as stated, is not a logical justification for believing that the associated premises are true.
Let’s look at an example in the realm of moral justification to make this easier to see. Let’s say a husband abuses his wife. When you ask this man what the reason is for this abuse, he may answer “because it makes me feel good” - in other words, for this man “it works”. This “reason” is simply an expression of his motivation, it is *not* a moral justification for his actions (unless he has a very warped moral standard).
In the same sense, one can offer pragmatism as a motivation for accepting scientific conclusions as truthful, but that is a far cry [i.e. categorically distinct] from offering a logical justification for accepting them as truthful. Pragmatism as a logical reason fails miserably.
The problem with offering the justification “we use science because it works” is that one must also justify that which “works”. In other words, if science allows us to accomplish some particular goal, then one must justify that this particular goal is what we should logically be pursuing.
Even then, using pragmatism as a justification still fails because it is possible to accomplish the same goal by following distinct sets of beliefs which are contradictory to one another. Since there is no logical way for sets of contradictory beliefs to both be true, the fact that either or both allows us to accomplish what we want cannot logically entail that they are representative of reality (i.e. what they claim to be true is in fact true.)
Take the goal of being a moral individual. Since both Judaism and Christianity hold to a belief that one should do this, one could accomplish that goal while accepting either the entire belief system of Judiasm *or* of Christianity. These two belief systems, however, contain contradictory beliefs (especially as regarding the person and nature of Jesus Christ).
If you ask a member of either belief system “why do accept the tenets of your faith as true?” they could both honestly answer “because it facilitates me being a moral individual” - in other words, “because it works”. The only thing different between this line of questioning and the line of questioning above is what the “it” is (i.e. the goal) that “works”. In this example, it is being a moral individual, whereas in the example above pertaining to scientific conclusions, it is being able to predict with a good degree of accuracy, the outcome of future events.
Pragmatic justification, therefore, can only provide a motivation for accepting something as true, but can never provide a logical justification for accepting something is true.
This has direct bearing on the issue at hand - whether or not it is rational to accept claims from science as “gospel” when it comes to the question of evaluating claims in the Bible to be true, just because science “works”. The answer is no, it is not. Since pragmatism does not provide a logical rationale for believing scientific conclusions are true, it does not provide a logical rationale for concluding that Biblical claims that contradict the claims of science must therefore be false.
Let me make a couple of points clear in closing that I should have stated already. First, I am not “anti-science”. Second, I am not claiming that science is *not* useful, or (even more to the point) that no claims of science are true! The only point I am making here is that the statement “because it works” is an insufficient answer as to why we should accept scientific conclusions over against Biblical ones.
Clear as mud? :)
As always, comments are welcome!
-- Brian
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Busted!
So I spent the last hour trying to clean shards of glass out of my 28-70mm lens.
Here's the short story: I was at church taking pictures of my daughter winning a book award at AWANA (they told me in advance she would be getting a trophy). I brought two lenses with me - my 85mm f/1.4 (for low light) and my 28-70mm f/2.8 (for low light and zoom). As I was trying out both lenses to see which would give me the most flexibility, I placed the 28-70mm lens on the table behind me; well (or so I thought) away from the edge.
As I was taking some test shots with the 85mm lens, I turned and my jacket must have somehow caught the lens behind me on the counter. It came crashing down (about 4 feet) to the floor, and I heard a sickening cracking sound. I picked up the lens and could here the bits and pieces of my filter bouncing around inside the lens cap - at least I hoped it was the filter and not the lens itself.
In this case, I am not quite sure what part of the lens struck the floor. There are no visible marks on the lens or the casing - this thing is a workhorse and very durable. The filter itself is not quite as durable, and so I imagine it was simply the shock of the lens falling 4 feet that caused it to shatter as it did.
My challenge for tomorrow? Trying to figure out how to clean off the tiny shards of glass from the filter that are still stuck to the surface of the lens. Word to the wise: NEVER take a cloth (even a microfiber) and simply run it across the lens to clean off things like this, as you will without a doubt leave small surface scratches on the lens.
-- BK
So I spent the last hour trying to clean shards of glass out of my 28-70mm lens.
Here's the short story: I was at church taking pictures of my daughter winning a book award at AWANA (they told me in advance she would be getting a trophy). I brought two lenses with me - my 85mm f/1.4 (for low light) and my 28-70mm f/2.8 (for low light and zoom). As I was trying out both lenses to see which would give me the most flexibility, I placed the 28-70mm lens on the table behind me; well (or so I thought) away from the edge.
As I was taking some test shots with the 85mm lens, I turned and my jacket must have somehow caught the lens behind me on the counter. It came crashing down (about 4 feet) to the floor, and I heard a sickening cracking sound. I picked up the lens and could here the bits and pieces of my filter bouncing around inside the lens cap - at least I hoped it was the filter and not the lens itself.
In this case, I am not quite sure what part of the lens struck the floor. There are no visible marks on the lens or the casing - this thing is a workhorse and very durable. The filter itself is not quite as durable, and so I imagine it was simply the shock of the lens falling 4 feet that caused it to shatter as it did.
My challenge for tomorrow? Trying to figure out how to clean off the tiny shards of glass from the filter that are still stuck to the surface of the lens. Word to the wise: NEVER take a cloth (even a microfiber) and simply run it across the lens to clean off things like this, as you will without a doubt leave small surface scratches on the lens.
-- BK
Seeing the Light
I attended a course in photographic lighting techniques yesterday, and had a wonderful time. For me it was more of a review than anything else, as I had already attended the same course (at a different location) back in the spring/summer of this year. Because of this, I took a little more time to take photos while the hands-on portion of the class was going on. It was that, or just sit around and wait for the next lecture segment :)
Although the class was on how to best make use of on-camera flash, the first room we shot in had this terrific quality of light that I have not seen before. While the rest of the class was taking turns photographing a model by the window, I was taking pictures of the rest of the class photographing a model by the window. As I did not wish to intrude or impact their photos, I took all the pictures making use of available light only. It wasn't until I looked at the photos after the fact that I noticed how great the lighting was.
One of my favorite photos was of Neil (the instructor) watching over the shoulder of one of the students
I think the amazing quality of light came from the fact that the sky was mostly overcast (think "diffused, soft light") and that there was a bank of large windows letting this light stream in and bounce around on the brick walls and off the hardwood floor. We don't often stop to think about this, but all of that bouncing off those warm-toned surfaces definitely introduces a warm color-cast to the light. So what I had was warm, soft light bathing my subjects.
The rest of the pictures can be found here.
-- BK
I attended a course in photographic lighting techniques yesterday, and had a wonderful time. For me it was more of a review than anything else, as I had already attended the same course (at a different location) back in the spring/summer of this year. Because of this, I took a little more time to take photos while the hands-on portion of the class was going on. It was that, or just sit around and wait for the next lecture segment :)
Although the class was on how to best make use of on-camera flash, the first room we shot in had this terrific quality of light that I have not seen before. While the rest of the class was taking turns photographing a model by the window, I was taking pictures of the rest of the class photographing a model by the window. As I did not wish to intrude or impact their photos, I took all the pictures making use of available light only. It wasn't until I looked at the photos after the fact that I noticed how great the lighting was.
One of my favorite photos was of Neil (the instructor) watching over the shoulder of one of the students
I think the amazing quality of light came from the fact that the sky was mostly overcast (think "diffused, soft light") and that there was a bank of large windows letting this light stream in and bounce around on the brick walls and off the hardwood floor. We don't often stop to think about this, but all of that bouncing off those warm-toned surfaces definitely introduces a warm color-cast to the light. So what I had was warm, soft light bathing my subjects.
The rest of the pictures can be found here.
-- BK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
