Work is simply packed out right now. I'll post something by next Monday.
Thanks for reading my blog!
Monday, April 29, 2013
Monday, April 22, 2013
Invitation Part 9: The Hiddenness of God 1
A religious skeptic at a state school in the midwest asked me this question:
Why doesn't God make himself more obvious?
The skeptic went on to note the seriousness of the issue: If the Christian God is real, believers will inherit heaven, unbelievers eternal, torturous hell.
In light of the high stakes involved, a truly loving God would make himself abundantly plain to every person on the planet.
But the Christian God is not obvious at all.
Perhaps it's because he doesn't exist at all. Perhaps he's imaginary.
*****
That's what the skeptic said. How would you have responded?
*****
Theologians tell us that God has chosen two main ways to show himself to us -- general revelation and special revelation.
General Revelation includes both nature and conscience.
Nature refers to the world around us. The Psalmist puts it best:
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands. *
Why doesn't God make himself more obvious?
The skeptic went on to note the seriousness of the issue: If the Christian God is real, believers will inherit heaven, unbelievers eternal, torturous hell.
In light of the high stakes involved, a truly loving God would make himself abundantly plain to every person on the planet.
But the Christian God is not obvious at all.
Perhaps it's because he doesn't exist at all. Perhaps he's imaginary.
*****
That's what the skeptic said. How would you have responded?
*****
Theologians tell us that God has chosen two main ways to show himself to us -- general revelation and special revelation.
General Revelation includes both nature and conscience.
Nature refers to the world around us. The Psalmist puts it best:
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands. *
"Conscience" refers to the law of God written on the human heart.** Having been created by God, we have a deep, built-in sense of morality -- even if we often ignore this intuition.
Special Revelation refers to the person of Jesus and the scriptures. Special revelation gives us more particularized information about God -- his triune nature, calling on our lives and plan of salvation.
Would the skeptic mentioned above accept these forms of revelation? Do they make God sufficiently obvious?
I'll offer some thoughts next week.
*Psalm 19:1. See also Romans 1:20.
** See Romans 2:15.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Monday, April 08, 2013
Invitation Part 8: A Suggestion for Seekers and Skeptics
The obvious danger in making a "suggestion" to seekers and skeptics is that I'm biased toward the Christian faith and will shape my comments in that direction.
I acknowledge this predilection.
In fact, it's from the distinct vantage point of being a Christian for three-and-a-half decades that I offer this suggestion:
Engage with the Best
My own goal in dealing with the thought and practice of atheism or non-Christian religions is to interact with the finest representatives of scholarship and behavior.
In atheism, for example, it means I cross off "bad" atheists such as Joseph Stalin and the disappointing polemics of, say, Richard Dawkins, as representing atheism well.
Rather, I wish to make up my mind by reading professional atheist scholars such as Quentin Smith, Michael Martin, Kai Nielsen, William Rowe and J.L. Mackie.
These guys always give me a good challenge.
Similarly, my hope for friends who are not Christians is that they'll avoid picking the worst examples of Christian thought and behavior, but rather, focus on the best.
After all, every worldview has its low-life. Why give "the worst" so much power and influence over one's thinking?
The best of Christian thought, in my opinion, is represented by scholars such as Alvin Plantinga, N.T. Wright, Paul Eddy, and C. Stephen Evans (one of my fav's) -- and popularists such as C. S. Lewis, Greg Boyd, Ravi Zacharias, Timothy Keller and Lee Strobel.
Specific titles
I acknowledge this predilection.
In fact, it's from the distinct vantage point of being a Christian for three-and-a-half decades that I offer this suggestion:
Engage with the Best
My own goal in dealing with the thought and practice of atheism or non-Christian religions is to interact with the finest representatives of scholarship and behavior.
In atheism, for example, it means I cross off "bad" atheists such as Joseph Stalin and the disappointing polemics of, say, Richard Dawkins, as representing atheism well.
Rather, I wish to make up my mind by reading professional atheist scholars such as Quentin Smith, Michael Martin, Kai Nielsen, William Rowe and J.L. Mackie.
These guys always give me a good challenge.
Similarly, my hope for friends who are not Christians is that they'll avoid picking the worst examples of Christian thought and behavior, but rather, focus on the best.
After all, every worldview has its low-life. Why give "the worst" so much power and influence over one's thinking?
The best of Christian thought, in my opinion, is represented by scholars such as Alvin Plantinga, N.T. Wright, Paul Eddy, and C. Stephen Evans (one of my fav's) -- and popularists such as C. S. Lewis, Greg Boyd, Ravi Zacharias, Timothy Keller and Lee Strobel.
Specific titles
- Entry Level
- Letters from a Skeptic by Greg/Edward Boyd
- The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
- Mid-range
- The Reason for God by Timothy Keller
- Philosophy of Religion by C. Stephen Evans
- Advanced
- The Jesus Legend by Eddy and Boyd
- Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantinga
There are many more authors and titles to be cited. This is a small sampling that I hope will be helpful on your journey.
photo credit: http://goo.gl/dH16o
Monday, April 01, 2013
Invitation Part 7: How to Talk with Skeptics
Here in week 7, I'd like to pause and offer a suggestion to Christians for their interactions with skeptics.
Next week, I'll offer suggestions for skeptics and seekers of God.
To Christians: Make modest claims.
At two campuses in the midwest recently, I spoke with atheist students. I was reminded that any hint of exaggerated claims such as "overwhelming evidence" or "proof" or "irrefutable arguments" for the Christian faith are not helpful.
And probably not true.
What's helpful is to tell others why I am a Christian. The answer to that question can be summarized in two statements:
1. I find arguments for the Christian faith to be convincing.
2. I experience the risen Christ in my life every day.
Notice the word convincing in #1. I believe it's the right standard for an effective argument in conversation.
It acknowledges to my audience that what I find convincing, they may not.
For example, it appears to me that the perceived "beneficial order" found in the human body and nature is the work of an intelligent designer.
A skeptic looks at the same data and comes to a different conclusion.
It's a judgment call. I find the data convincing, the skeptic does not.
Is that my fault?
Not at all.
And if the skeptic protests that I haven't offered proof of anything, I simply agree. I haven't. I've just offered an argument that is convincing to me and to a lot of thoughtful people.
God doesn't provide proof. If he did, everyone would be forced to believe. That's not his way.
**************
At the end of one of my talks on campus recently, a skeptic asked, "What do you do with atheist arguments that are 'convincing'?"
My reply: I don't find them convincing. If I did, I'd be an atheist.
Furthermore, my encounter with the risen Christ every day of my life for the past 35 years is a powerful confirmation of all the argumentation. I find that extremely convincing.
Next week, I'll offer suggestions for skeptics and seekers of God.
To Christians: Make modest claims.
At two campuses in the midwest recently, I spoke with atheist students. I was reminded that any hint of exaggerated claims such as "overwhelming evidence" or "proof" or "irrefutable arguments" for the Christian faith are not helpful.
And probably not true.
What's helpful is to tell others why I am a Christian. The answer to that question can be summarized in two statements:
1. I find arguments for the Christian faith to be convincing.
2. I experience the risen Christ in my life every day.
Notice the word convincing in #1. I believe it's the right standard for an effective argument in conversation.
It acknowledges to my audience that what I find convincing, they may not.
For example, it appears to me that the perceived "beneficial order" found in the human body and nature is the work of an intelligent designer.
A skeptic looks at the same data and comes to a different conclusion.
It's a judgment call. I find the data convincing, the skeptic does not.Is that my fault?
Not at all.
And if the skeptic protests that I haven't offered proof of anything, I simply agree. I haven't. I've just offered an argument that is convincing to me and to a lot of thoughtful people.
God doesn't provide proof. If he did, everyone would be forced to believe. That's not his way.
**************
At the end of one of my talks on campus recently, a skeptic asked, "What do you do with atheist arguments that are 'convincing'?"
My reply: I don't find them convincing. If I did, I'd be an atheist.
Furthermore, my encounter with the risen Christ every day of my life for the past 35 years is a powerful confirmation of all the argumentation. I find that extremely convincing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
