Thinking to Believe

Many Christians face times in their lives in which they find themselves seriously questioning some aspect of their faith, if not the whole epistemological foundation of Christianity itself: How do I know God exists? How do I know a man named Jesus ever existed?  How do I know Jesus rose from the dead?  How do I know my moral values are the correct ones?  How do I know the Bible is the Word of God?  How do I know that I can even know anything? Many experience this cognitive dissonance while in college—when their faith comes under assault by a host of anti-Christian philosophies at the helm of leftist professors.  While some are able to recover, others are not.  Those who do make it through this process without losing their faith often do so at the expense of giving up their quest to find the answers they sought.  They simply determined by sheer will to continue to believe in Christ even if they have insufficient reasons to do so, and good reasons to abandon that belief in favor of some contrary belief.  When these same people encounter other Christians engaged in the same struggle they found themselves in they encourage them to “just believe” on experiential and existential grounds, simply dismissing their unresolved questions about the faith.

Needless to say this response/advice is not healthy, nor is it necessary.  While I rejoice in the fact that their faith in Christ was not abandoned for error, I bemoan how they were forced to maintain their faith.  We should not feel it necessary to turn off our minds to believe in Christ.  We need not check our brains in at the door when we come to church.  Faith is not the absence of reason, nor is faith incompatible with reason.  Good reasons exist to reject non-Christian philosophies, and good reasons exist in support of the Christian worldview.  Interestingly enough there are Christians who are fully aware of the existence of such answers, and yet they feel no need to inoculate their fellow brethren with this knowledge.  But if there are answers out there for our deepest questions about truth, why not provide them to those who are asking questions? Why not help them resolve their questions rather than encourage them to simply dismiss them?  Why not provide the answers even to those who aren’t yet asking the questions so that they will never find themselves experiencing cognitive dissonance to begin with?  Sure, many people come to faith, and even maintain their faith in spite of large intellectual obstacles without knowledge of those answers, but not everyone.  The “rest” are who I am concerned about.  There is no reason to let even one sheep perish when it is within our means to protect and/or save them from error.  Again, if there are answers why aren’t we providing them?

It’s common for those who fail to see the value of learning apologetics to claim that all we need to do is simply present the truth to those in error, and then trust the Lord to convict their hearts.  There is no reason to present people with reasons to believe that what you claim is true is indeed true; we just proclaim the truth and trust God to do the rest.  The unbeliever either sees it, or they don’t.  If they don’t see it, it must be because they don’t love God and have chosen to reject the truth.

What I find interesting about those of this opinion is that they often argue with those of us who see the value of presenting the unbeliever with reasons to believe, claiming that our approach is not based on faith.  “We need to trust in God to change their minds,” they claim.

Did you catch the contradiction?  While they claim to trust in God to convince unbelievers of the truth apart from a rational defense of the truth, they do not trust God to convince us of what they believe to be true: that our rational-support approach to truth is in error.

So the next time an anti-rationalist accuses you of not having enough faith in God to convince unbelievers of the truth, ask him/her “If you have faith in God, why are you confronting me on this issue?  Why are you giving me reasons to ignore reason and ‘just have faith?’  Why didn’t you just pray and trust God to change my mind on this issue?”

They didn’t pray for God to change your mind because they understand that persuasion comes through information, not just spiritual conviction.

Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare ruled that it legal to abort a baby based solely on its gender.  Let’s see if pro-abortion feminists will stand up in opposition to this practice or not.  Probably not.  And why should they?  After all, if abortion is about choice, it should not matter why one makes the choice they do.  All that matters is that the choice is theirs, and they are free to make it, even if that choice is to kill a baby girl, simply because it is a girl.

Rob Bell, pastor of the influential Mars Hill Church in Michigan, wrote a book entitled Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith.  In one section of the book Bell writes:

It is important to remember that we rarely find these first christians trying to prove that the resurrection actually occurred.  To try to prove there was an empty tomb wouldn’t have gotten very far with the average citizen of the roman empire; they had heard it all before. This is why so many passages about the early church deal with possessions and meals and generosity. They understood that people are rarely persuaded by arguments, but more often by experiences. Living, breathing, flesh-and-blood experiences of the resurrection community. They saw it as their responsibility to put Jesus’ message on display. To the outside world, it was less about proving and more about inviting people to experience this community of Jesus followers for themselves.

Mark Oestreicher (who quoted the above passage on his personal blog), president of Youth Specialties, added his own two cents in support of Bell’s comments:

People today could care less about the “proof” of our arguments, the “logic” of our evidence that demands a verdict, or our “cases” for faith, christ, easter, christmas or whatever else. The only evidence demanding a verdict people care about these days is how i live my life. The only case for christ people give a rip about is the case made by commitment to love and justice, or lack thereof.”

It is unfortunate that such high-profile, youth-focused Christian leaders would make such remarks.  While it is true that people are interested in seeing our Christianity lived out in real life—and not just hearing our arguments for Christianity—that does not mean they are unconcerned about our arguments.  Every human being is concerned with the truth because we are made in the image of the one who is Truth.  Knowledge of the truth requires epistemic justification of some sort, and to some degree, and hence arguments are beneficial.

(more…)

Anne Lamott, a so-called “progressive” Christian, wrote an article in the LA Times concerning a response she gave to a question about abortion during a panel discussion in Washington about social justice.  She is staunchly pro-choice, and even had an abortion herself.  Listen to what he has to say about abortion:

I wanted to express calmly, eloquently, that pro-choice people understand that there are two lives involved in an abortion — one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus) — but that the born person must be allowed to decide what is right.

…

I am so confused about why we are still having to argue with patriarchal sentimentality about teeny weenie so-called babies — some microscopic, some no bigger than the sea monkeys we used to send away for — when real, live, already born women, many of them desperately poor, get such short shrift from the current administration.

…

But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women is a crucial part of that: It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.

Let me make a few observations in the way of evaluation.  In the first paragraph she made a moral distinction between the born and the unborn, and asserted that the choice of the born trumps the right to life of the unborn.  Why?  Why doesn’t the existence of the unborn life trump her right to choose?  The baby’s location?  But since when does where you are determine what you are, or what rights you are entitled to?  Maybe Lamott can explain to us how it is that being in a womb robs a human being of his/her rights.  Are there any other places humans reside in which they cease being the subject of basic rights?  How about Washington?

Based on her comments in the second paragraph, she seems to be arguing that the born have the right to decide the fate of the unborn because of differences in size.  Why?  How is size morally relevant?  Since when does your size determine one’s moral worth, and who is the subject of rights and who is not?  Does an adult female have the right to decide the fate of a 5 year old human being because she is bigger than her?  Of course not!  So why can an adult female decide the fate of a one month old human being?  Is it because it sooo small?  Well, then, exactly how big does one have to be before they are protected from being killed with impunity?  What is the exact size?  And what is it about that size that magically transforms the unborn into a morally significant subject of rights?

Lamott’s last paragraph is the most confusing.  While she says each human life is sacred (including the unborn’s), she argues that the right to an abortion is a crucial part of the fight for that sacredness.  What?!  We protect the sacredness of each human life by protecting a woman’s right to rob a tiny human being of his life?  If words mean anything at all her position is nonsensical.

Lamott’s most outrageous statement, however, is when she says we “must not inflict life on children who will be resented.”  Inflict life?  Since when is life something to be avoided?  She acts as though it is a disease.  And what’s so bad that life would not be worth living?  Having someone resent you?  There’s no doubt that being resented by anyone—yet alone your mother—would be a horrible experience, but since when do we kill people so they won’t experience potential emotional pain?  Should we kill our unborn children because someone other than the mother might resent them someday?  And how is it that something as immoral as resentment makes it a “moral necessity” that we kill unwanted children?  It seems to me that one immoral act is being used to justify another, all in the name of morality.  Such is the moral confusion of our generation, and it is being done in the name of Christianity.  God help her!

J.P. Moreland has probably given the best definition of apologetics I have ever come across.  He defined apologetics as “a ministry designed to help unbelievers to overcome intellectual obstacles to conversion and believers to remove doubts that hinder spiritual growth.”—Love Your God With All Your Mind, 131.

The only thing I might change in this definition is his labeling of apologetics as a “ministry.”  Indeed, it is a ministry, but that term connotes that it is only for some people in the body of Christ.  Biblically speaking, however, apologetics is no more a ministry in this sense than is prayer—both are basic to the Christian life.  I would prefer, then, to define apologetics as a “discipline.”

Marvin Olasky interviewed Princeton philosopher of bioethics, Peter Singer.  The New Yorker has called him the most influential philosopher alive.  Influence means that one’s ideas have a way of shaping other people’s ideas.  So what are Singer’s ideas you ask?  When asked about the morality of necrophilia (having sexual relations with a corpse) Singer said, “There’s no moral problem with that.”  What about bestiality?  Is it morally acceptable to have sex with animals so long as they seem willing to do so?  Singer’s answer: “I would ask, ‘What’s holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?’ (but) it’s not wrong inherently in a moral sense.”  Translation: I must say that you’d have to be pretty desperate, but your business is your business.

When asked if it was morally acceptable for parents to conceive and give birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs and transplant them into their ill older children Singer answered, “It’s difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, (but) they’re not doing something really wrong in itself.”  When asked if there was anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale he said “No.”  I have to wonder why it’s hard to warm to such parents if there is nothing wrong with their choice to treat the unborn as human junk-yards.  If their choice to harvest their children for their body parts has no more moral significance than brushing their hair, he should have no problem warming up to them.

He also affirms that it is ethically permissible to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be “raised as soon as possible after birth.”  What’s so scary is that this guy is a bioethicist!  You would think a bioethicist would value human life and have some ethics.  Not Singer.  And he’s not alone.  There are other philosophers occupying liberal bioethics chairs in liberal universities that advance similar idea.

If this guy is the most influential philosopher alive, we’ve got serious problems coming our way!  What starts in the academy will end up as the common view on the street within 20 or so years.  If we don’t do our job as the church today, to combat such moral nonsense with an arsenal of good theology and good reason, we will lose the future generation.

You can read the rest of the interview at Townhall.

As many of you have probably heard, U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter is set to retire from the bench, opening the door for Obama to nominate his first SCOTUS replacement.  I have read several news articles saying the pressure is on Obama to nominate a woman because there is only one woman currently on the bench.  Others are saying he is under pressure to nominate the first Hispanic to the bench.  And just today I read how there is pressure for him to nominate a gay man or woman to the bench.  So apparently Obama needs to find a Hispanic gay woman to satisfy everyone’s felt need for diversity.  Whatever happened to finding the person best qualified for the job, regardless of their race, sex, or sexual orientation?  Have we become so politically correct that our primary concern is to make SCOTUS a rainbow of diversity to reflect our tolerance, rather than a body of the most qualified judges in the land?  Unfortunately, the answer is yes, we have.  Frankly, I don’t care if we appoint a gay Hispanic woman.  I only care that she is a good judge who will interpret and apply the Constitution as written, rather than as she would like it to be written.

Here is the church, here is the steeple, open the door and…uh oh, where’s all the teen people?  It’s been observed that many teens graduate from church when they graduate from high school, but just how many do so, why do they do so, and what should we do about it?

First, how many are leaving?  Different studies show different results.  Figures range from 40% to 88%.  That’s quite a margin!  Some of the studies appear to be denomination-specific, and it’s not clear that the polling methodology is sound in every case.  The 2007 study from LifeWay Research appears to be the most thorough, accurate, and sound report on the subject to date.  They found that 70% of teens stop attending church for at least a year between the ages of 18-22.  That sound pretty bad, and it is.  But it is not as bad as some prophets of doom have made it out to be.

While upwards of 70% of Christian teens stop attending church upon becoming an adult, it’s not because all of them are giving up their faith.  In fact, according to the LifeWay study, 1/3 return by the time they are 30 (which means 53% of churched teens will still be in church by age 30), and another 30% begin attending church again once a month or less.  When LifeWay asked church dropouts why they stopped attending church, 97% cited some change in life situation such as their work schedule, not being close to a church, or being too busy (many go to college, after all).  Of course, 20% say that they intended to stop attending once they graduated, and 27% confessed that they just wanted a break from church (respondents could select more than one reason).

Pastor and/or church-related issues contributed to the departure of 58% of respondents.  Many felt the people in church were too hypocritical, or simply did not feel connected to the people.  Differences in religious, ethical, or political beliefs were a factor for 52% of teens.  About 1 in 10 (12%) stopped attending church because they were “unsure of the reasons behind my faith.”  Only 7% said they stopped believing in God.

While not every teen that stops attending church does so because s/he no longer believes Christianity is true, this isn’t to dismiss the fact that a sizable minority of teens do abandon their faith after high school, often for intellectual reasons.  Sociologists of religion, Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton, wrote a book titled Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers based on their research of teens’ religious beliefs, practices, and outlook.  They asked teens dropouts, “Why is it that you are no longer religious?”  Smith and Denton recorded the answers as given, and then categorized them by type.  The largest percentage — 32% — cited intellectual skepticism about the truthfulness of Christianity as the main reason they abandoned it (1 out of 3)!  The next closest response was “I don’t know,” coming in at 22%.

What do we need to do to prevent further bleeding?  Several things can be done.  First, I think we need to make apologetics a vital part of youth ministry.  We need to do more than indoctrinate and entertain our young people.  They need to be inoculated against the intellectual attacks often leveled against Christianity in the university and beyond.

We also need to show them how Christianity is relevant to their lives.  We need to live the faith we preach, and we need to actively involve them in the fabric of the church.  We need to cultivate their spiritual life, helping them to make their own connection to God so that Christianity is their religion, and not just their parents’.  We need to help them make spiritual disciplines such as prayer and Bible reading part of their daily routine.  And given the fact that many church dropouts return at the behest of their friends and family (60%), we would do well to encourage our young people to continue attending church during their post-graduation years, to help prevent their leaving in the first place.