Chapter 7 – The Rare Jewel
Can a lack of knowledge really lead to the downfall of a people? We all probably know people who did not receive much of an education and yet have prospered in life. Some of the richest men in the world didn't do very well in school. So, is education really all that important?
While I would argue that receiving a secular education is important, it is not a matter of life and death. Can the same be said for a biblical education? I don't think so. The teaching of the Bible is unequaled in its importance. The lessons from history are clear; when people reject the serious study of God's Word, God will eventually reject them.
In the final days before the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians, the prophet Hosea railed against Israel, blaming them for their impending destruction. One of the main problems, argued Hosea, was ignorance:
Hear the word of the LORD, you Israelites, because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: "There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land. There is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. Because of this the land mourns, and all who live in it waste away; the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea are dying. But let no man bring a charge, let no man accuse another, for your people are like those who bring charges against a priest. You stumble day and night, and the prophets stumble with you. So I will destroy your mother- my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children (Hosea 4:1-6).
From the days of Moses, the Israelites had been commissioned by God to put a premium on the passing down the knowledge of the Word of God. In the law of Deuteronomy they were commanded to "Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates" (Deuteronomy 6:7-9). The Israelites had, however, neglected this clear plan and were now about to suffer for it. Hosea informs his hearers that most of the problems in their land could be traced back to a lack of knowledge of God's law. They rejected knowledge and now God would reject them. They ignored the law, now God would ignore them.
In a similar manner, Isaiah warned the southern kingdom of Judah that exile and captivity was in their future if they continued in their "lack of knowledge" (Isaiah 5:13). Judah did not listen to Isaiah's words any more than the northern kingdom had listened to Hosea's warnings. As a result the northern kingdom fell in 722 B.C. and the southern kingdom suffered through the Babylonian Captivity from 606-536 B.C.
"Everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (Romans 15:4). Have we, however, really learned the lessons of our Old Testament counterparts? It doesn't take much search of the Scriptures to realize that a sustained ignorance of the Word of God can bring nothing good to the church and the children in it.
"Christianity is a religion of instruction. Where there is no solid biblical instruction, the Christian system can neither commence nor continue. One of the basic differences between the Mosaic regime (into which one was born physically) and the church of Jesus Christ, is the fact that knowledge is a prerequisite to identifying with the faith of the gospel (Jer. 31:31-34). Jesus declared that favor with God must involve instruction, reception, comprehension, and commitment (Jn. 6:45)."[i]
Various surveys recently conducted in America show some disturbing levels of biblical illiteracy among those claiming to be born-again Christians:
- Fewer than half of all adults can name the four gospels
- Many professing Christians cannot identify more than two or three
of the disciples
- 60 percent of Americans can't name even five of the Ten
Commandments
- 82 percent of Americans believe "God helps those who help
themselves" is a Bible verse
- 12 percent of adults believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife
- A survey of graduating high school seniors revealed that over 50
percent thought that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife
- A considerable number of respondents to one poll indicated that
the Sermon on the Mount was preached by Billy Graham[ii]
In the recent survey done with Christian youth, the average score on the scale of 1 to 5 was 2.4 when asked if they agreed with the statement, "Your parents spend a specific amount of time each day to teach you the Bible." Forty-three percent of the respondents indicated that their parents did not engage in any Bible training at all. A few years ago I gave one of my pre-teen classes a very basic twenty-question pre-quiz on the Gospel of John. All of the questions were basic enough that anyone growing up in the church should know. The average score, however, was 34%. After studying the book for 12 weeks, the test was given again with an average score of 95%. Biblical knowledge is needed and can be had.
Biblical knowledge among people in the church is at an all-time low in America. Our children don't have a deep understanding of biblical knowledge and we, as parents, are largely to blame. We have bought into a culture that puts a far larger premium on secular education and sports leagues than the knowledge of the Bible.
Youth groups in the church have not done much better in large part. Youth ministries are expected to fix problems, provide entertainment, and keep kids busy. The real question, though, is how many local-church youth programs actually produce substantial and significant Bible knowledge in young people?
Paul encouraged Timothy that watching his life and doctrine closely would save not only himself but his hearers (1 Timothy 4:16). The ability to both live an effective Christian life and hold to sound doctrine both come from knowing the Scriptures. We cannot afford any longer to ask our children to live out and apply a book that they don't really know. The Psalmist asks the haunting question, "When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3). Can there be a more serious foundational breech than a lack of knowledge of the Bible? A hastily prepared family devotional for Monday night and perhaps a few ten-minute quiet times with our children will not cut it.
The biblical call for knowledge is clear:
Ø Psalm 119:66-67
Teach me knowledge and good judgment,
for I believe in your commands.
Before I was afflicted I went astray,
but now I obey your word.
Ø Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline
Ø Proverbs 1:22
How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
Ø Proverbs 1:28-32
Then they will call to me but I will not answer;
they will look for me but will not find me.
Since they hated knowledge
and did not choose to fear the LORD,
since they would not accept my advice
and spurned my rebuke,
they will eat the fruit of their ways
and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.
For the waywardness of the simple will kill them,
and the complacency of fools will destroy them;
Ø Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
Ø Proverbs 10:4
Wise men store up knowledge,
but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.
Ø Proverbs 19:2
It is not good to have zeal without knowledge,
nor to be hasty and miss the way.
Ø Proverbs 20
Gold there is, and rubies in abundance,
but lips that speak knowledge are a rare jewel.
Ø Isaiah 11:8-10
The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.
In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.
Ø Romans 1:28
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
Aspects of Bible Knowledge
When considering what it takes to develop a thorough biblical worldview we are talking going beyond just having children read the Bible, although that is incredibly important. And believe me, they need more of that. That is really only the first of five separate areas that will be considered here. The first is basic biblical knowledge that can only come from reading and studying the Bible every day; second, is training children in good methods of biblical interpretation and exegesis; third, is knowledge of biblical apologetics; fourth, is the knowledge of theology; and finally a good understanding of the history of Christianity.
We will briefly consider each of these five areas below. The most attention will be given to apologetics because it has such an important role in our post-modern world.
Biblical Knowledge
When we talk about kids needing to have a better knowledge of the Bible, what are we talking about? We are simply talking about knowledge of the Bible itself. This does not include nifty and flashy curriculums that teach about the Bible. Most teens have heard more lessons about peer pressure than they could stand, and this is what many of these pre-made curriculums tend to focus on. Any curriculum for pre-teens or teens that does not have the Bible itself as the primary focus is not a good curriculum, period. (Plus, many of the curriculums available for purchase use many of the same ineffective, and use the same dangerous teaching methods that were discussed earlier in this book.) Lessons built around a couple of verses are just not going to do it. Those types of lessons or sermons should be reserved for people who already have a good basic knowledge of the Scriptures and are now learning aspects of the Bible at a much deeper level. Teens and pre-teens need to learn the Bible before they can apply it or learn it at a deeper level.
I am a firm believer that the best way to accomplish this is to start at the pre-teen level, and have the kids read a book at a time. The pre-teens in my church spend about three months studying out one book of the Bible before moving on to the next. They read the book and learn it at home, then are taught deeper aspects and life-applications at church. This prepares them to continue studying book-by-book at the teen level but then to add to it the next four areas of biblical knowledge that will be discussed.
Biblical Exegesis
Simply reading the Bible is not enough. The serious Christian must begin to understand basic rules of biblical interpretation and exegesis in order to responsibly read the Word of God. Children of the secondary school age are more than ready to understand these concepts if taught to them. I have heard many adults argue that these rules are too complicated and will discourage teens from reading the Bible. This is a bogus argument, in my opinion. Kids learn academic rules all the time. They learn rules for diagramming sentences, rules for reading poetry or short stories, mathematic principles, etc. They are quite comfortable learning rules and guidelines. If our expectations for their knowledge of the Bible are as high as they are for their secular learning, it will not be too difficult at all for them.
Basic exegesis can begin by understanding the need to ask three simple sets of questions that focus on the context, the meaning, and the application of the text. Once these basic questions are considered, more specific questions about the text can be considered (these will be discussed below).
First to be considered are questions of context. The reader must ask the historical context question, of where do we find our text in history? Generally speaking, what is the life setting of the document in which we find our text? More specifically, is there a definable historical context for the text? We must also ask ourselves a question concerning the literary context of the text. Where is the text located in the larger document of which it is a part? This will determine how it is to be interpreted and understood.
Second, we have questions of meaning. How does the author communicate his message? How should the text be translated? What is the structure and form of the text? How should we hear and interpret the language of the text? The big question here, though, is simply, what is the author trying to communicate? It is far more important to determine the intent of the author rather than interpret it through our own cultural glasses.
Third, there are also several questions that we need to ask regarding application. What does the text tell us about God? This is, perhaps, the most important question that we can ask about any section of the Bible. Related to that first question is, what does the text tell us about our relationship with God? Finally we need to ask, how does the text apply to contemporary life? What do we hear from this text; what should we do as a result of it; what should we proclaim from this text?[iii]
The above serves well as an outline for basic exegesis. Let's look now at some practical questions that can be taught to children that will help them to better understand the Bible. After all, believing the Bible to be the Word of God and reading it is only half the battle. We must also be able to apply rules of proper interpretation before we can really use the Bible effectively in our lives.
Does the interpretation consider the context?
If the context is not taken into consideration, then the Bible interpretation is probably a poor one. For instance, I recently saw a television prosperity gospel preacher who said that in John 4:37-38, Jesus was establishing an economic principle for those that followed Him. The preacher completely ignored the fact that this statement was in the context of evangelism. He completely missed the point of Jesus' words. The fact is that most of what Jesus said was in a specific time and place and spoken specifically to the Jews whom He was addressing. We must understand what He was saying to His original audience and then determine what this means for us. Another example of this would be Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 13:22-30 in which Jesus tells His hears that the way to the Kingdom of God is "narrow" and "only a few find it." A careful look at the context (which is a bit clearer in Luke) will show that Jesus was speaking to Jews warning them that they were about to be cut off as God's covenant people. Not many of them would find the road into the Kingdom. This was in no way spoken to the church of future ages. We are in fact called kings and priests (Revelation 1:6, 5:10) who are to overcome (1 John 2:13-14; 5:4-5; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:7). As we read Scripture, we cannot read Jesus' words as though He spoke them directly to us. To do so is to take them out of context and leads to great misunderstanding. This may seem like a difficult thing to do, but it really is not. We just need to stop for a minute when reading the passage and think about the point of view of the speaker, the audience, the time frame in which the words are spoken and the place where the conversation is taking place. This rarely requires any special knowledge or information.
Does the Interpretation take biblical symbols and figures of speech into account?
Not understanding when a biblical writer is using a biblical term or a figure of speech can lead to great misunderstandings in interpretation. Consider Matthew 21:21-22, in which Jesus says that "if you have faith . . . you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done." Despite what some preachers have taught, this is not some cosmic guarantee that whatever Christians ask for we will get. We must consider the symbols as well as the context to understand this passage. This phrase is part of a series of parables and talks about the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 20-25). After cursing a fig tree as a symbol of judgment on Jerusalem, the disciples asked how this happened so quickly. Jesus responded, "if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer" (Matt. 21:21-22). Jesus was not literally telling his followers that they could pray mountains into the sea, nor was He curiously changing the subject, He was instructing them to pray for the destruction of the apostate mountain of God. The Old Testament makes it quite clear that the mountain was symbolic language for Jerusalem (Psalm 43:3; 48:1; 87:1; 99:9; Isaiah. 11:9; 56:7, Exodus 15:17). Being thrown into the sea is biblical symbolic language for being destroyed (Rev. 8:8). Admittedly, this one takes a little more work. To be able to do this well does require that we know our Bibles, particularly the Old Testament, quite well. It will usually take a little digging and research. When you come across a figure of speech in the Bible, and they are usually pretty obvious, don't assume that you know what it means. Do a little digging.
Is the interpretation consistent with the rest of Scripture?
A passage may seem to make sense on the surface but if the interpretation is not consistent with all of Scripture then it must be rejected. James 2:19 says that the demons believe in God. Can we couple that with John 3:16 and surmise that demons will be going to heaven? Obviously, we cannot. When this verse is considered in the context of all the Scriptures, we see that this interpretation is not possible. Applying this principle will also insulate from many of the prosperity gospel teachings that are so popular today. When taken in consistent context with the entire message of the Old and New Testaments, we can see that the life of luxury and comfort is not the life to which a Christian is called.
Does the interpretation remain consistent with God's nature?
Not only does a passage need to be consistent with all of Scripture but it must also be consistent with God's nature. It is necessary that one begins to have a basic understanding of theology in order to do this. In Revelation 6:2 we read, "I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest." The passage goes on to describe that along with the rider on the white horse come three judgments symbolized by three other horse and riders. The subsequent riders remove the conditions that are providing peace on the earth, economic hardship, and death. This is all in the context of John's prophecy of the soon coming destruction of Jerusalem. God's covenant has been broken and He is about to pour out his judgment on apostate Israel. Many biblical commentators, in discussing the rider on the white horse, have said that although this rider appears to be Jesus (there are many reasons including the fact that Jesus is seen later in Revelation 19 riding on his white horse; God is the one in Scripture that holds the bow in judgment - Habakkuk 3:9, and the one that is given the crown of dominion – Revelation 14:14; 19:11-13), it cannot be. The simple reason they offer is that God does not bring this kind of judgment, death, and destruction. With this idea of God they then create fanciful interpretations that include the so-called anti-Christ. The fact is, however, that God is love, but God is also righteous and holy. God does inflict judgment on the rebellious, apostate, and disobedient. Deuteronomy 28:15-68 clearly lays out the types of curses that will beset Israel if they break the Covenant. Christ, pictured in Revelation 6 on the white horse, will come soon, says John (indeed He did come in 70 AD) to fulfill these curses on apostate Israel. The actions of this rider on the white horse are completely consistent with God's nature as a righteous judge. The discerning biblical reader will realize that, and will not incorrectly interpret Scripture based on an erroneous conception of who they want God to be rather than who He is.
Does the interpretation consider the differences between the Old Testament (physical) and the New Testament (Spiritual)?
Most of the laws, battles, enemies, blessings, curses, sacrifices, etc. of the Old Testament are of the physical variety. Even the people of God are the physical nation of Israel. In the New Testament, however, these things are of a spiritual nature. Our enemy is a spiritual enemy (Ephesians 6:12). Our battles are spiritual. For us the way we are to interpret the law of God is spiritual (Matthew 5:21-30). The blessings and curses of the New Covenant are of the spiritual variety. Good Bible interpretation must take that fact into account, especially when applying Old Testament interpretations to the modern reader. This is where many in our day and age get confused. They look at the things promised to Abraham and the people of Israel in the Old Testament, combine that with Galatians 3:29 that we are the heirs of Abraham, and conclude that these physical blessings are a promise for us today. The Christian, however, is to focus on spiritual blessings and store up treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:20).
Does the interpretation differentiate the principle given by the author from the cultural expressions of that principle?
In 1 Timothy 2:9, Paul gives a principle of dressing modestly for women to follow. He then lists some examples from his own culture of how to follow that principle. These include avoiding braided hair and gold or pearls. Dressing modestly is the principle to be taken from this passage not the belief that a woman in our culture cannot braid her hair. Good interpretations will consider the principle, and appreciate the cultural expressions of that principle, without feeling bound by those expressions. Paul often gives a binding biblical principle and then gives at least one cultural expression of that principle. We are bound by the principle but not necessarily the cultural expression of the principle.
Does the interpretation consider the genre of literature of the passage?
Good interpretations will take into consideration the type of passage being interpreted. Whether or not a passage is poetic, wisdom literature, narrative, apocalyptic, etc. makes a huge difference in interpreting a passage. The interpreter of Revelation 20:2-4, for instance can have problems with understanding 1,000 years to be literal if he does not comprehend the Old Testament tendency to use numbers as representing a period of time, rather than literal lengths of time (This applies to Revelation as it is written with a very "Old Testament" wording). Just as we would not read a poem in the same way that we would read a newspaper, we must be sure to read the different types of Scripture in the way that they were intended to be read. Narrative passages need to be read as narratives. Symbolic prophecy like much of Ezekiel and Revelation must be read in the symbolic language of prophecy and the Old Testament. The wisdom literature of books like Proverbs cannot be read as direct promises from God. They are observations of God's universe that generally prove to be true. They cannot be read and held up as ironclad promises because they were not intended to be so. The list could go on, but the point is to read the work in the style that the author intended.
Does the interpretation consider who is speaking, who is being spoken to, and the circumstances of the conversation?
In Mark 10:18, Jesus says that "No one is good – except God alone." If one were to misunderstand the circumstances of the conversation and who Jesus was speaking to, they might come to some very wrong conclusions about this passage. Jesus was responding to someone who called him merely a teacher, but also said that He was good. Jesus, rather than trying to teach all theological truth at once, met the man where he was at in his understanding and took him one step farther. Jesus explained to the man that if He was nothing more than a teacher then He could not be good, because only God is good.
Is the interpretation consistent with the author's intent? Does it consider whether a passage is descriptive or prescriptive?
There are many passages in the Bible that are merely descriptive of a situation without calling for us to go and do likewise. Sometimes confusing prescriptive and descriptive can bind us to a principle that may be a good idea but not a binding principle. For instance, Acts describes the early church as meeting in one another's homes primarily (Acts 2:46). This may be a nice thing to emulate if it works within our culture or for our church, but it is not a binding prescriptive practice. It would not be taking into account the fact that the early Christians had little choice other than to meet in the homes of the believers.
Confusing the concepts of prescriptive and descriptive can, however, be very dangerous when taken to extremes. 2 Kings 4:34, describes a scene in which Elisha laid on a young boy to bring him to life. A few years ago, a preacher in Milwaukee saw this as a prescriptive passage, and lied on a seven year old boy to cure him of the "demons of his autism." The result was that the boy was asphyxiated by the weight of this preacher as he was held down by other members of the church.
Apologetics
Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Biblical apologetics then, is the systematic defense of the Bible. The word apologetics finds its roots in the Greek word "apologia." It means to create a defense or apology for a position based on truth by providing evidence for your position. A thorough consideration of apologetics is not given in very many pre-teen and youth group classes these days. This is unfortunate because, as seen earlier in this book, public schools are, in large part, a 180 day apologetics course in Secular Humanism.
Christian apologetics go all the way back to the Bible where we see Peter urging his readers to "Always be ready to make a defense" (1 Peter 3:15). Paul engaged in apologetics at Mars Hill (Acts 17) by making the case for a creator and redeemer to the men of Athens. Arguing the position of Christianity continued into the second century with men like Justin Martyr and has carried on in different forms in different times all the way to the present. In the last few decades, the Western world has seen a drastic change in our culture as the predominant worldview has slowly transitioned from modernity to postmodernity. This change has opened a debate in the Christian community concerning the role of Christian apologetics in the future. Is there still a need for classic modern apologetics? Should there be a new kind of apologetics for a new kind of culture? Do we need apologetics at all in a postmodern world? These are the questions being asked right now in the world of Christian apologetics. Ultimately, I believe, we will find that the answer to all three of these questions is a resounding "yes."
A brief review of the modern and postmodern mindset will help us in creating perspective for the current topic. Modernity is the mindset that rose out of the Enlightenment Project. The modernist puts a great amount in the human ability to reason. According to the modernist, truth is objective, rational, and knowable. The autonomous individual, relying on their own rational ability to reason can discover that truth. Modernists hold that the search for knowledge is a good thing and that knowledge will virtually always lead to advancement. For the modernist, rational reasonable arguments presented with prevailing evidence are highly prized. This is the world from which modern apologetics rose. Modern apologetics seeks to lay out the facts of the Christian faith complete with the best evidence for Christianity, and make an airtight case based on reason. Once the evidence is all considered, says the modern apologist, a verdict is demanded. One must look rationally upon the evidence for Christianity and make a truth decision based on the reasonability of its arguments.
Postmodernity is primarily about deconstruction of modernity. Postmoderns question the ability to ever know truth and look dimly on the entire concept of an absolute knowable truth. For the postmodern, the only absolute is that there are no absolutes (and they are not bothered by the seeming contradiction of that statement). Key to the postmodern view is the belief that truth can only be gained from a text within the context of community. Each community will interpret the text based on their own experiences, culture, and biases. There are, says the postmodern, as many interpretations as interpreters. Postmoderns take an extremely skeptical view of modern science, modern religion, and any absolute truth claims. They embrace mystery, accept contradiction, and believe that truth is relative to the community which holds it. What is true within the context of one community may not be true within the context of another community. Modern apologetics which are based on empirical proofs and rational arguments seem to have fallen on hard times in an increasingly post modern world. "So what if you can prove the historical reliability of the New Testament," says the postmodern, "texts are only as reliable as the community interpreting them." Rational arguments and truth claims can seem to fall flat in the postmodern world. The postmodern is looking for authentic experiences that will seem true for them as they live their life. This creates a unique problem for the Christian apologist. Are modern apologetics still viable in the postmodern world? Do we need apologetics at all in a culture that values mystery and experience much more than reason and truth?
In the 21st century there is a new group of post-modern evangelicals known as the younger evangelicals (or the emergent church). According to Robert Webber, in The Younger Evangelicals, many of the younger evangelicals fall into a line of thinking known as Radical Orthodoxy, which argues that Christianity is the truth and so everything in the world should be interpreted and understood through the Christian faith. They feel that reason has become the modern apologist's interpreter of the Christian faith and that Christianity, therefore, has had to rely on reason and the principles of the social sciences used to prove Christianity. The younger evangelical, says Webber, "wants us to return to the unknown, invisible reality that stands behind all things, through which all things are understood"[iv] In other words, they are calling for an end to the era in which reason is the starting point that leads us to accept the truth of Christianity, and want us instead to start with Christianity as an assumed truth that does not need to be proven by the crutch of reason and science. This group of younger evangelicals who hold to this Radical Orthodoxy, believe that Christianity cannot offer an effective criticism of the culture if it is propped up on certain assumptions of the culture, like reason and the social sciences are the starting point of discovering truth. Webber argues that for modern apologists, "reason has become the determiner of truth, not revelation. Faith is determined by reason, not by the witness of the Holy Spirit."[v]
Younger evangelicals believe that the focus of apologetics should be shifted from reason and logical arguments to an embodiment of the faith. This leaves most, younger evangelicals leaning towards the fideist position, which says the best defense of the Gospel is preaching. Once the Gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit inspires faith that leads to conversion. They tend to believe that there is a mystery to faith that cannot be bridged by reason. The younger evangelicals argue that moderns were more concerned with the existence of God than with experiencing the real impact that God has on lives. This may be somewhat of a caricature of the modern position, but it is the assumption from which many younger evangelicals criticize modern apologetics. Modern apologetics, says the younger evangelical, leads to conquered minds but not surrendered hearts. The younger evangelical desire to present an apologetic that is an embodied experience.
Much of what postmodernity consists of is a rejection of modernity. Postmodernity exists primarily at this point to deconstruct and criticize modernity without really offering a solid framework on its own. It cannot really stand as a viable worldview apart from its rejection of modernity. It stands, therefore, on the very system that it wishes to deconstruct. Postmodernity has some very valid criticisms of modernity. Modernity did place too much emphasis on the autonomous individual and the ability to use reason to discover all truth. The idea that knowledge is always pushing us towards the positive is also an idea that postmoderns justly criticize. The problem is that they have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. There are things about modernity that are worth keeping. The concept of absolute truth is one of them. Just because certain truths can be interpreted in different ways in some situations does not necessarily mean that we should throw the entire concept of truth out the window. As we have seen above, the postmodern logic that there are no absolute truths cannot be a valid claim because it is a self-refuting one.
I have to reject the younger evangelical trend away from modern apologetics to Radical Orthodoxy on the similar grounds that they are tossing out the baby with the bathwater. They certainly have some legitimate criticisms of apologetics. The main one is the tendency to view God as something to be proven and then accepted rationally. Modern apologetics did not leave enough room for mystery and spirituality. It would be rash at best and dangerous at worst, though, to completely abandon modern apologetics.
The main reason to keep some aspects of modern apologetics is because there is such a thing as absolute truth. We live in a world that increasingly rejects that idea. They accept all religious expressions as equally valid. There was a time when you either believed in Jesus Christ or you did not. That belief was the dividing line between Christians and non-Christians. This is no longer the case in our world today. Nearly every religion thinks highly of Jesus and claims to follow His teachings even if they don't accept Him as God. This is the problem with retreating completely from truth-based apologetics and going completely over to the Radical Orthodoxy of fideism; if we only preach Jesus and the Gospel, which Jesus will people think we are preaching?
In the modern world, evolution was the greatest threat to Christianity. It made sense to argue against the so-called facts of evolution and for creation. In some ways the fideist position of preaching the Gospel and allowing it to burn inside made some sense because it would have differentiated Christianity from the competing worldview. If we relegate Christianity to inner feelings and pragmatism today, however, we lose what sets it apart from competing worldviews in the postmodern age. It is a big mistake to use the only style of apologetic argument that the world is using. That means that using only rational arguments in a rational age was a mistake but it also means that using embodied apologetics in an age of community and relative truth is also a mistake. What sets Christianity apart in that scenario? There are many religions and worldviews that produce a burning, passion inside just as Christianity will do for the believer. There are many worldviews that can, at least temporarily, create warm, loving, communities. If this is our only source of appeal how do we differentiate Christianity in the marketplace of ideas?
It is vital to not abandon the very thing that will distinguish Christianity in these postmodern times. Christianity is based on truth. It is based on logic. Its precepts are not self-defeating and contradictory. The younger evangelical actually gives credibility to other religious expressions because fideism and postmodernism are cut from the same cloth. They are both pragmatic, personal, focused on community, and are based on experience. We should take the younger evangelical's valid ideas of an authentic community apologetic seriously, but what a tragedy to throw out the one thing that will distinguish Christianity in an age of pluralism.
It is important to remember that apologetics will not save our young people. By engaging in apologetics we in no way diminish the work and role of the Holy Spirit. We all want to lead our children into the garden of salvation. Apologetics is not the garden itself. All that apologetics do is to clear the paths of debris so that people may find the garden if they so choose. We have already seen that apologetics should not be abandoned but what should they look like in a postmodern world?
Apologetics in a postmodern world should take the good aspects from the modern concept of apologetics and the younger evangelical's embodiment apologetics and create a hybrid. This would create a community that values the truth, strives for the truth, and can clearly communicate the truth to world. It would create a community that can demonstrate that Christianity is truth in and of itself, but that empirical methods can be used to further validate it.
At the same time, though, this should not be merely a mental exercise. Apologetics of the 21st century should also stress the importance of living these truths not just knowing. Information is good, but transformation is better. What a powerful apologetic to the world to see a community that not only claims to possess inner truth and empirically verifiable truth but also lives it out in the real world. What does this mean? It means not only presenting evidence for the Resurrection and discussing the ultimate importance of believing in the fact of the Resurrection and accepting Christ as Lord of our life, but it also means living incarnationally as a community. It means we should be able to present a living, breathing community that can articulate that the reason we are an authentic community is due to not only experience but also truth.
Another example would be creation apologetics, the crown jewel of modern apologetics. Arguing for creation is fine and can be helpful but it does not do any good if we are not a community demonstrating a life of good stewardship of the earth. Earth stewardship is very important in the postmodern view. It would be an incredible testimony if the Christian community were to be held up as fantastic stewards of the earth and nature and then be able to demonstrate that we lived in such a way because of the logical truth claims of creationism. We could show that we act because stewardship rings true in the experience of our community but also because we value the logical evidences in favor of a creator that calls us to be good stewards.
I would also recommend a four-pronged approach in 21st century apologetics. The first aspect would be to sound a constant clarion call against self-refuting or self-contradicting logic that has been discussed at length above.
The second prong is to gently help the non-believer see where their belief system will take them. Following non-Christian belief systems to their logical conclusions will show how bankrupt and empty they are. For example, if you want to argue the relativist position, then let's take it to its logical conclusion. I can come up and shoot you because it seemed right to me. If there is no absolute truth then by what standard could you condemn me? This aspect requires some work on the part of the Christian because we have to be familiar with competing beliefs and their arguments.
The third prong would be to describe the completeness, beauty, and coherency of the Christian faith. This involves demonstrating that Christianity is a logical and comprehensive worldview more than it argues for specific evidences. This would mean that issues like theodicy (the justice of God) and eschatology would have as much importance in 21st century apologetics as the old mainstays like the Resurrection and creation.
The final area in which apologetics in the 21st century could change is in format. The days of one guru speaker getting up and mesmerizing an audience with facts for 2 hours are quickly waning. This format does not work with college students nearly as much today as it did even ten years ago. Recently at UW-Milwaukee, a world famous creation speaker came for a presentation. The room of nearly a thousand quickly filled up but I couldn't help but notice that at least 80% of the crowd was over 30, non-college students. And this was at an event that was not advertised off campus at all. On a campus of 26,000 students, the college kids just did not show up. Mike Metzger argues that open forums are the most effective way to reach postmodern students. He offers five components to this new style of open forum:
Offer not just answers, but also present faith as a context for exploring mystery.
Focus on essentials; don't get bogged down in minutiae.
Don't push credibility alone, stress plausibility. Credibility is about coherence, plausibility is about beauty and satisfaction.
Don't condemn competitors. Treat them with gentleness and respect as colleagues.
Don't rush people. Emphasize the process of conversion.[vi]
The younger evangelicals have legitimate criticisms of modern apologetics, just as postmodernity has some legitimate criticisms of modernity. In both cases, however, it is dangerous to throw out the entire system because of some mistakes. Rather than abandoning modern apologetics, they should be infused with the ideas of the younger evangelicals. This leaves us with a hybrid apologetics that will be effective for the most people in the 21st century. Stressing the law of non-contradiction, the poverty of competing worldview beliefs, and the richness of Christianity, and doing so in a welcoming, open-format style will help us to achieve, in the 21st century, the ultimate goal of apologetics, which is to clear the road so that as many young people as possible can find their way to a relationship with Christ
Theology
According to theologian Thomas Oden, "the study of God is an attempt at orderly, consistent, and reasoned discussion of the Source and End of all things."[vii] Theology is a term that literally means a discussion or discourse about God. Theology seeks to offer a coherent depiction of God as understood by the universal community of Christ. It is, in short, the study of God by the people of God
In studying God we seek to gain as accurate a picture as possible. It is important for us to remember that God is not only the subject of theology but He is also the revealer and enabler of all theological undertakings. Only God can reveal God to humanity. As the Apostle Paul says, "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught to us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words" (1 Corinthians 2:11-13). God reveals Himself through the work of the Spirit to those who have the Spirit but even before that, His revealing power is at work for all mankind: "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them" (Romans 1:19).
The practice of theology within the Christian community assumes a basic knowledge of Scripture on the part of the student. Oden says that theology "seeks to provide a fit ordering of scriptural teachings and of central themes of the history of Scriptural interpretation."[viii]
Systematic theology has two primary purposes. The first is to give a coherent and comprehensive account of the Christian faith. Christian theology is not just a jumbled mess of ancient writings and beliefs that have been cobbled together over the period of centuries. Rather, it is the systematic study and ordering of the complete and clear Word of God in order to gain an understanding of God. The second purpose is to apply the Christian faith to contemporary life. Theology is of no value if it cannot be used. If it does not strengthen our faith and deepen our relationship with God through the process of getting to know Him better, it is virtually useless for the average believer.
Unfortunately, many Christians today see theology as just that, useless. Many tend to view it as an unnecessary exercise undertaken by academics in seminaries and colleges that has very little to do with the authentic Christian life. It has not always, however, been that way. For the first thousand or so years of Christianity, theology was practiced almost exclusively by the pastor of the local church. It was the pastor theologian who was responsible for defending the orthodox (accepted) doctrine of the church. This changed slowly during the medieval times as theology shifted from the pastor of the local church to the colleges and seminaries. As this happened, theology became gradually disconnected from the life of the local church. This is an unfortunate and dangerous phenomenon, though, because as Paul directed Timothy, "Watch your life and doctrine closely." The church community that does not engage in theology will find it difficult to defend their doctrine carefully, which will eventually affect the Christian life of the community as well.
The basic recommended theological method has four components. The first and primary aspect is that of the Holy Scriptures. The Word of God is the trump card in all theological discussions. It is our first source and the most important. The second aspect to which we will give consideration is that of Tradition. The Tradition of the church is based on the interpretations of the church throughout history with special consideration given to the early church fathers of the first several centuries of the history of the Christian church (known as the Ante-Nicene period). Although not all of the early church fathers agreed on every issue, it is possible in most cases to clearly see the consensus of the early church and come to an understanding of the Tradition of the early church. The Tradition of the early church must never trump Scripture but rather serves as a tool to either verify our understanding of a theological issue or serve as a red flag if we should wander from the Tradition. Next we must use our own reason and God-given mental ability to consider the meaning of the Scriptures and our theological stance on important issues. The final aspect is that of experience. Our own experience can be an important component of our interpreting Scripture but it cannot, ever be allowed to over-ride the Tradition of the church or the clear meaning of the Scriptures.
History of Christianity
The old saying goes that if we don't know our history we are doomed to repeat it. Most Christians are woefully ignorant when it comes to knowledge of the history of they Christian community. How many Christian young people (or adults for that matter) have ever heard of early Christian leaders like Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus, or Athanasius? Some would argue that it is not necessary for Christian children to be familiar with these men. Yet, these same kids probably know who Tutankhamen, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato, Socrates, and Virgil are. Why should they know these key figures of history and not the fathers of the early church? The young person who has a basic understanding of the history of the Christian church can better find and appreciate their own place in that history.
The Emotional Stability of Biblical Knowledge
Beyond the previously stated reasons for passing on biblical knowledge, there is another one that is a key reason for giving our children a firm foundation in the Bible, biblical interpretation, apologetics, theology, and church history. The reason is that it provides an emotional stabilizer for young people and adults.
The Christian life can be difficult at times and full of emotion. It is full of ups and downs, and if we're honest, there are times when we have felt like quitting. There are going to be times when the evangelist angers us, someone hurts us, or the church community lets us down. Far too many young people and adults have left the church or even walked away from their faith because of an emotional setback.
One of the things that my parents did really well, and something for which I am eternally grateful, is that they offered me many opportunities to learn about biblical creationism. What this did was give me a firm foundation that the Bible was true. I also learned a great deal about the evidence for the resurrection and the veracity of the Bible in its accounts of the resurrection.
During my teen years when I was struggling with the concept of wanting to live a Christian life, I really didn't want to believe in God. If I believed in God I knew I had to obey Him. What I could not escape, however, was the knowledge that God existed and had created the world and that Jesus had risen from the dead. This knowledge continued to anchor me during my adult Christian life. Even when the difficulties and emotions from the Christian life came, I was anchored in because of my firm belief in God. To where else would I go? I may get frustrated with others from time to time but leaving God or the church is out of the question. There is a God and I do have to answer to Him. This far outweighs any emotions I might be going through from time to time.
When children are taught a version of Christianity that will stand the test of the secular onslaught, they are given a foundation that will last through the emotional storms of adolescence and disappointments from other Christians.
Are There Dangers in Stressing Biblical Knowledge?
One of the most prevalent criticisms that I hear about stressing the importance of learning and knowledge when it comes to the Bible is the danger of becoming all head and no heart. Is this a valid criticism? It certainly is a danger to be avoided, but head knowledge and the heart are not mutually exclusive parts of the Christian life.
The abuses of those who have over-stressed head knowledge of the Bible have been well documented. What is not as well known, though, are the dangers of all heart without enough head knowledge. God is not fond of either mistake. In criticizing the Pharisees, Jesus quoted Isaiah, "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me" (Matthew 15:8). Yet, the Proverbs tell us that, "It is not good to have zeal without knowledge," (Proverbs 19:2), and in Romans Paul chastised the Jews, "they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge" (Romans 10:2). What children really need is a healthy balance between the head and heart, or as Paul put it to Timothy "watch your life and doctrine closely" (1 Timothy 4:16). A Christian community that is all head-based leads to dead cathedrals. A Christian community that is all heart-based leads to abuse and cult-like tactics.
Yet, there still seems to be a perception that the road of biblical knowledge and training is fraught with danger, while the road of emotion and heart is the way to go. Raising children with an emotion-based version of Christianity that focuses almost exclusively on relationships and the Christian life leaves them with a brand of Christianity that is an emotional roller coaster waiting to happen. This is why the Bible calls for a balance. If the scales should tip slightly one way or the other, we should err on the side of knowledge. It is unwise to abandon a biblical principle because of potential abuses.
Let's not forget that for many people, including young people, intellectual study of the Bible is the very thing that moves their heart. This is true for me. Emotionally-laden books that focus on convicting or encouraging the reader do very little for me. A far majority of these Christian bookstore type books do next to nothing for me. They are of some value, but not much. Books that examine biblical archaeology or prophecy or bring out an in-depth exegesis of the Bible cause my heart to soar and my faith to be deepened. The same is true for many people. The road to the heart of many people is through the intellect not the emotions. The truth is, though, that for the majority of people, the emotions are the road to the heart. These people tend to be arrogant about intellectual issues and believe that all intellectual endeavors are merely efforts to feed the head that will do nothing for the heart. That is simply not true but because of this, we have neglected teaching young people the Bible for far too long.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 7
[i] Wayne Jackson, "My People Are Destroyed For a Lack of Knowledge," Christian Courier.com, http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/my_people_are_destroyed_for_lack_of_knowledge. (August, 2006).
[ii] "Biblical Illiteracy," http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/top/bibillit.htm. (August, 2006).
[iii] Dennis Bratcher, "A Model for Biblical Exegesis," http://www.cresourcei.org/exegesismodel.html, (August 2006).
[iv] Robert Webber, The Younger Evangelicals, p. 99.
[v] Ibid, p. 100.
[vi] Mike Metzer, "Open Forums for Reaching Post Moderns," http://leaderu.com/cl-institute/openforum/chap04.html. (August, 2006).
[vii] Thomas Oden, The Living God. (San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins Publishers, 1987), p. 5.
[viii] Ibid., p. 6.
No comments:
Post a Comment