5 Questions: The Unstoppable Meme
Posted by RazorsKissApr 20
My response to Mumon’s 5 questions, as posted here.
1. Although your recent post referring to another post on Every Thought Captive started to go in the direction of this question, it’s still the most obvious one. Blaise Pascal had basically said that apologetics and counter-apologetic arguments did nothing to convince the unbeliever, but the believer became more convinced. The obvious answer then is that apologetics are done to strengthen one’s faith. There are other ways to strengthen one’s faith as well, among them worship or ritual or contemplative practices. Why favor one over the other?
First, that post doesn’t even say anything about that subject. In all actuality, I have a total of 23 words which are not quotes from that article – and 6 are simply the links to the blog, and the article in question. Which leaves us with 17 words left over. Those words are:
“has an interesting topic – and, it seems to be right up my alley.”
and
“and take a look.”
How you derive all of that, from 17 words, I may never know.
Now, the post that I linked to says nothing of the sort either. It is a critique of the post-modern/Emergent Church tendency to dismiss apologetics.
1. Because they believe people cannot be “reasoned” with. (Which sort of comes into this topic)
2. Because they hold to no objective standard of truth
Now, since this post is a critique of that standpoint, I would posit (and the post will bear me out), that Phil is saying exactly the opposite of what you are taking Pascal to say, and, myself to say. I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise you have given, the premise you are saying Pascal is espousing, and the premise you are claiming I have advanced.
Apologetics is a defense of the Christian faith. Primarily to/from non-Christians – NOT Christians. Now, there is a secondary objective, which is to train and equip others to do the same – but that is, as always, secondary. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence”
The word used for “defense” is the word “apologia” – from whence we get the term “apologetics”. ”
A verbal defence, speech in defence
A reasoned statement or argument
So, in closing – for a frequent visitor, I find it a mystery that you have misidentified the purpose and goal of apologetics.
It is to defend Christianity’s tenets from outside attacks, misrepresentations, and bad theology.
It is to take the fight to those of other religious beliefs, and to compare, contrast, and explain the superiority of the objective truth of Christianity, and Christianity’s God, to any and all.
THAT is the purpose of apologetics. It is not a way to worship, contemplate, or build up the believer – that is NOT the point. The point, regardless of what you, or Pascal says, is to defend the faith (defensive), and to tear down strongholds (offensive).
So, when tenets of Christianity are misidentified, (like, oh, apologetics, in this case 😀 Albeit a minor tenet, that I happen to know a good deal about.) maligned, or misconstrued, our job is to put the record straight.
Which is what I just did – in a very short-form manner. I’d be happy to explain it further – but that should suffice for now.
So, basically, I reject your premise. Hope that helps.
2. How do you know when it’s the Holy Spirit leading and guiding and inspiring you and when it’s just you?
I don’t feel myself “inspired”, really. Inspiration, in my view, is reserved for the writers of the Bible. Am I walking with God? My writing should reflect it. Am I estranged from God, due to my own sin or mistakes? My writing should also reflect it.
As far as “led and guided” – I do feel led, sometimes, to write about something in particular. Those topics, I’ve found, are the most heavily visited articles I’ve written – and I usually write those types of articles in a single sitting, with heavy, heavy, heavy references from the Bible.
That’s about the extent of “led and guided” I can tell you about. For the rest of the time, I’m just a regular old Joe Christian – with a very hardcore interest in apologetics, and in defending what I believe. I go to a Baptist church – not that I particularly consider myself much of a Baptist, as I grew up in non-denominational churches. But I agree with the vast majority of their theology, and they have stood firm against the encroachment of liberal theology more than any other denomination in recent history. My church in particular is singularly unimpressed with liberal theology, or even the hint of it.
All of that goes to say – while I do recognize, and welcome, the presence of the Holy Spirit, I do not feel that I am “inspired by” the Holy Spirit to write what I write, nor do I feel that my writing is directly led by the Holy Spirit. I feel, and am convinced, that my writing is led, as much as possible, by the Word of God, and by men who are rightly dividing the Word of God.
That’s what I base my writing on. Feelings can deceive, and I will touch on that later. Truth cannot deceive. It is antithetical to deception. It is the Rock upon which the Church was founded – and there I will remain.
3. One of the big divides between moderates and progressives and those who send money to Focus on the Family involves spanking children. What’s your thoughts on spanking, and if you never had to spank your kids, would you still do so (assuming the answer is that you follow biblical advice on spanking)?
I think that children, when they willfully disobey (ie: defiantly flout what I tell them to do) deserve, and should receive, a spanking. Spanking should never be done in anger, should match the level of the offense, and should be done in a manner which corrects, and turns toward right behavior – not just as a punishment.
If a child never merited a spanking – they would most likely be the second child in the history of the world to ever accomplish such a feat.
I have two children, and I am the oldest of 6. I have been around, and in the midst of children my entire life. I have never, not even once, seen a child who did not merit a spanking at least once in my interaction with them, for willfully disobeying what someone told them to do, and was in their own best interest.
What Focus on the Family has to do with it, I don’t know. I do know Dr. Dobson has been teaching about parenting since before I was born. I was raised with a lot of help from him, so my parents say. I don’t think I turned out too bad.
You just like picking on ‘ol James, don’t you?
4. Why can’t Christian music come up with something really genuine today, something that doesn’t seem to be an echo of the commercial world? (As in, when are we going to see a Christian Frank Zappa?)
Well, buddy, old pal – you’re in luck. I’m the son of a music minister, and I’ve been hip-deep in the Christian music scene since I was knee-high to a grasshopper. Just because the things you hear on the Christian radio station are just as depressingly cliched as the things you hear on secular radio, doesn’t mean that the entire of Christian music is all knockoffs – just like your usual pop station will be.
It all depends on what you like. If you want rock that doesn’t suck – I suggest Skillet. If you want a bit softer rock – Jars of Clay rules.
The Newsboys are always fresh and different, while people like Toby Mac (formerly of DC Talk fame) and KnowDaVerbs can throw down with the best of them, in the hip-hop world.
Whatcha like?
I probably have just the band for you. My brother is a first-class collector of erratica in Christian music, and another brother plays the bass – and collects Christian rock albums.
5. If someone had the same physiological and psychological responses as you, the same subjective experience as you (peace, understanding that surpassed knowledge, etc.), the same change of behavior, or repentance as you, but believed in a different religion, why – apart from what the bible said (my imaginary construct also has a book, you see) – would you say that guy might be damned and you might not be?
Heh. There’s so many caveats in this one… it’s about impossible to answer this, without deconstructing the caveats. It’s also hard to answer, given that you use so many knee-jerk response words, for most Christians.
See, I’m more used to “deciphering the lingo” than most – non-Christians define things with spiritual components as merely physical entities – so you have to “read between the lines”, almost. So I’ll *try* to do that for you, and give as close an approximation as I can.
Christians believe there is a distinct spirit, a distinct mind, and a distinct body. A sort of human equivalent to a trinity (now, this is not universally held, but it is something you’ll find in a good bit of Christian thinking) – and the interactions between the three is the subject of much debate. When you say that someone would have the same “physiological and psychological responses” as I would, you are trying to compare apples and oranges, in my view. Granted, there is a physical response to spiritual things – and there is an intellectual response to spiritual things. I interact, chiefly, with the intellectual response to spiritual principles, as an apologist. So I know what you mean there. However, that is merely the manifestation of something else. The spiritual connection to the God I know, and believe, loves me.
When you say “the same”, I think you are kidding yourself. No one’s “experience” is the same. That is why I reject “experiential” Christianity. But you probably know that. The Christianity that is based on the Bible, on prayer, on study, discipline, and the practice of the principles found therein, are the guiding force in my life. I’m not big on “feeling” saved. I’m big on “being” saved. ie: Living out what I believe, in life, and in what I write. That has very, very little to do with how I “feel” about it. I feel like a crappy Christian, most of the time. Anyone with a lick of sense, and an understanding of what our human nature is, would likely agree with me. I DO, however, know that I am a child of God. As such, my responsibility is to act like it, and to live up to the name I have been given.
Same goes for “experience”. Although I have experienced that peace, and that understanding – that does not rule my life, or direct how I feel about my salvation, or how “good” a Christian I am. Those are gifts from God. Nothing more, nothing less. As undeserved as the gift of His salvation was, in the first place. ” By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” That’s the identifier. It’s a heart thing – engendered by the love God showed to us.
The same change of behavior, the same repentance… look, man. All of these things are irrelevant. They are all based on things the person has experienced, how they act, what happens to them. A Christian doesn’t care about what subjective experience someone had, or what action was carried out. What someone is saved by is very simple – God’s grace. It’s not about what experience you had, what you did or did not do, or whether or not you repent of sin. You can repent of sin all you want. If you fail to make God – the God of the Bible – the Lord and master of your life – it’s useless to say you’re sorry, and you turn away from sin. The point is, there is a very specific, very narrow way to go through.
God’s way. I don’t care about the fictional character who says he’s done everything I have. The rich young ruler did “everything” too. He was told to “sell all you have, and follow Me”. That’s the point. You have to deny yourself. You have to realize your total unworthiness. You have to repent of your sin. You have to humbly, tearfully, brokenly, ask the One who died for you to save you from you sin – from yourself. Then, in heartfelt gratitude, and love – you make that One the Lord, and Master of your life. And, since He has shown you the greatest love imaginable – you share it with others.
I don’t care about experiences. I care about God, and His unimaginable holiness. I care about His Son, His Word, and His Grace, abundantly granted to someone as wretched as myself. I care that He is maligned, mocked, and degraded constantly – and I want to do something about it.
In short – your fictional character is just that – a fiction. There is no identical experience, no identical God to believe in, and no identical Grace to be received. There is only one God – and that God is my God. So – if that person believes in my God, and has been accepted as His child – he will be saved, and I will joyfully meet him in heaven. If not? I hope he gets to know Him. I also hope you do, as well.
11 comments
Comment by mumon on April 20, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Thanks for the great replies. I have a few responses here:
1. I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise you have given, the premise you are saying Pascal is espousing, and the premise you are claiming I have advanced.
Actually, I didn’t mean to imply that I was putting words in anybody’s mouths, except for Pascal, and he probably didn’t notice.
But in mentioning that you use apologetics to “defend the faith,” I think you are getting to my point; i.e., the relationship between apologetics & faith. Whose faith? You answered it, I think.
2. Regarding question 3, that merits a whole post on my blog; maybe called ju jitsu parenting. I have never had to spank my kid. Never. And he’s strong willed as they come. But I do have to get him to a calm place now and again, and once there, his strong will can be directed toward something better.
And I have a problem with Dobson because I think that teaching kids to value physical force over wisdom (the subtext of a spanking) increases ignorance.
3. Re: music: Having heard the early 70’s FM revolution, (and having none but the slightest inkling of its echo in the MP3 world today) I admit a fondness for the shock of the new. I’m an older guy- show me a Christian Leonard Cohen…
4. RE: 5, you may not think so, but with a change of terms, much of it could have been written by a convert to any number of religions. Me? I’m not interested in converting anyone, unless they’re converted away from putting their finger on the lever that speeds up the vehicle towards oblivion. Really.
Comment by tgirsch on April 20, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Re: Question 4: While not explicitly “Christian music,” early King’s X was heavily influenced by Protestant Christian theology, and it’s some of my favorite rock music to date.
And this is one of the few areas where I agree with RazorsKiss on anything: most Christian music is derivative crap in large part because most music (regardless of style) is derivative crap.
(Another area where I agree with RazorsKiss is on the subject of spanking, although I suspect I would use it less frequently than he would…)
Comment by Zaltys on April 23, 2005 at 6:01 pm
Just a quick thought, may post more later. If apologetics exists to defend against the nonbeliever, why do most apologetic arguments I see (including here) seem to be couched in terms of belief? That is, if one does not believe in a god, the argument becomes pointless.
it’s something I’ve been meaning to talk about at some point, actually: the pointlessness of arguing with someone in terms of your own beliefs, when the argument is likely to at some point come down to an issue of conflicting belief. if you wish to convince someone of something, you have to argue with them in terms of their own beliefs. This is probably why most apologetic text is only read by those who already believe.
Comment by RazorsKiss on April 24, 2005 at 2:24 am
Most arguments from that perspective are called “presuppositional” – ie: you must “presuppose” the existence of a God.
I find that line of argumentation faulty for one reason, as outlined in the comments here.
“Classical” apologetics defends Christianity by using a combination of reason, evidence, and dialogues concerning those presuppostions and “thought-forms”, as Schaeffer calls them.
At some point, yes – if the opponent just adamantly denies every single evidence, argument, and reasoning behind the apologist’s argument – we are forced to return to the bedrock of our faith.
“And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day – according to the Scriptures.”
You, in particular, seem to have a sort of tunnel vision, when it comes to arguments in this vein. You either deny or ignore any argument, and always come back to the “I don’t believe in God.”
Those who do so are the ones we are told to “shake the dust off of our feet”, when the dialogue reaches a certain point. If you don’t believe, and instead believe in the ability of humans to do things their own way – there’s a certain point where you’re not really worth talking to anymore – it’s a waste of time.
No. If someone is not willing to even entertain the possibilty that God can exist, or listen to anything which may change their mind – THAT is when it becomes pointless.
If it is a matter, simply of conflicting belief, it can often be demonstrated that one, or the other beliefs are, in fact, wrong. When you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that you are wrong – that is when it is unprofitable.
Conversely, the objections advanced by one side or the other may be so stale, and so commonly dealt with, that they really aren’t advancing anything you haven’t heard before – and in that manner, can also be unprofitable.
No, you don’t. I engage in many discussions with people who don’t believe the way I do. I don’t have to couch things in terms of how they believe. You couch things in objective terms, and work from the objective, out from there.
This is why I particularly dislike subjectivism. It is a pernicious pack of lies – and it destroys all hope of common dialogue faster than Babel annihilated common speech. If nothing is true, in and of itself , like water is always wet (which, incidentally, is an objective truth :P), there is no point in dialogue. This is why you and I rarely can have a conversation without issue.
Most apologetic text is written for other believers, to show them how to do it. Apologetics, when done actively, is not done by “waiting for people to stop on by, and read their stuff”. That’s the “venus flytrap” strategy, which I feel is largely ineffective, and which I talked about in many, many posts on this blog.
The strategy of an effective apologist is to go to where people are – and engage them there. Active, one-on-one dialogue. This is a “venus fytrap”, in some ways – but that’s not my primary focus. My focus is to equip people to actually DO apologetics. Like I’m doing now. Since you’re here, I’ll talk to you. I do a LOT more commenting on other blogs than I do writing here, though.
The problem you and I have is that your presuppositions are as tightly held as they can be. You talk to me not in order to discuss something that might be worked out – but to advance your own position. I’m not moving. I never will. So, we are perpetually at an impasse – and we always will be. Apologetics is not for you. It is for the audience who is reading what we are saying to each other. Defending is never for the benefit of the person you are defending against. It is for the benefit of the person you are defending FROM your opponent, and for the benefit of the outside observer, who can study your methods and tactics.
No, we’re not going to agree, unless you change your perspective. I’m certainly not going to. Hope that helps. The object is not to convince you, if you are adamantly opposed to me in the first place. It is to contrast the two ideologies, and let the observer choose for themselves which is more reasonable. If the subject of the apologetic IS willing to listen – your object is totally different.
Comment by Zaltys on April 24, 2005 at 8:26 am
I think that’s an unfair comment. The fact that I don’t believe in god is certainly true, but that does not mean I am unwilling to ever believe in one, given sufficient reason. I doubt even you would argue that you have truly rational reason to believe in god. Further, I make every possible attempt to answer every argument you produce (assuming I have time). A refutal is somewhat different to a denial. As far as I am aware the arguments that I make are generally entirely reasonable, and I always appreciate being shown where they are incorrect. Finally, I’m being pernickety but I’m not in any way convinced that humanity can make it on its own. I do currently hold the thought that it doesn’t have anything to help it, so it has to try.
But at what point is that? I’m willing to entertain the possibility that god can exist – I’m an agnostic, not an atheist. I will require a reasonably solid reason to do so, though. Assuming I feel no internal urge to follow Christianity (as I assume you must do), what am I supposed to do? I make an active effort to listen to pro-god arguments. You can hardly claim that reading and disputing is the act of ignoring.
My (personal) purpose here is actually rather shallow – I simply enjoy debate, plus I find religion a very interesting topic and enjoy seeing people’s points of view on it. It also has an element of personal discovery. I’m certainly not out to change your viewpoints – I figured out they were fixed a long time ago. The sad thing is, my viewpoints aren’t remotely that tightly held. I’m not adamantly opposed to the existence of god, I just demand reason to believe. My standard of ‘reason’ simply goes beyond the supposition that because we don’t understand some things, they cannot be understood. If apologetics cannot convince someone like me, who can it convince? I’m not saying apologetics is worthless, far from it – I suspect it has great value in making existing believers more secure in their faith, but I simply doubt its effectiveness in talking to those who do not currently believe.
Comment by Zaltys on April 24, 2005 at 8:42 am
To be fair, I should say that I do believe that it is entirely unlikely that I will ever see proof of God’s existence. I do consider it possible (although again somewhat unlikely) that I wlll get to a point where I feel I have sufficient reason to believe in god over my default stance of nonbelief. I doubt that sort of belief is the sort of stuff god is really looking for, though 😉
Comment by RazorsKiss on April 24, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Eh, it might be an unfair comment. It may not be. But, really, that’s how I think of how you interact with me. Not because I dislike the fact that you disagree with me – but the fact that I seem to be repeating myself to you – and spending a lot of time doing it.
I don’t really mind the time expenditure – because, like I said, it’s not really primarily for your benefit. I AM talking to you, of course – but it’s not for your benefit – not until you accept that what I am saying is true. Until that point, it will always be a time-sink for both of us, by definition.
The only benefit you’re deriving from it is, like you say later – the enjoyment of debate. Which, if the other person is unwilling to change their mind, is a tentative enjoyment, at best.
Apologetics isn’t about “convincing” people to believe. It really isn’t. It is about defending the beliefs, and the doctrines themselves. There IS an element of evangelism, but it is NOT about “convincing” people. That is expressly contra-doctrinal, actually.
I believe (via doctrine) that the only way someone CAN be saved, and CAN believe in the first place, is if God compels you to. That is the doctrine of election, or predestination. So, it will never be my arguments that convince you – it will be God working in you. I don’t depend on my arguments to “save” you, or “convince” you.
That isn’t the point. The point is, is what you say true or not. Truth, as we’ve discussed before, can only be objective, and can only be absolute. It is absolute, because it stems from God. The apologist’s job is to point out everything which deviates from God’s truth, and to show how God’s truth is not only “a more excellent way”, as Paul tells Timothy, but the only way. From there comes the exclusivistic claims of Christianity.
God calls every man to serve, and honor Him. If you choose not to do so – it is ignoring HIM. If, as I claim, my arguments are based in a solid foundation of Scripture, and Scripture is the Word of God – then I’m really not telling you anything new. Nor should I. It’s not my decision, whether you accept the argument or not. It’s really a misnomer to call it “my” argument. If I do it correctly, they are God’s arguments, not mine. Not that He needs to argue… but then again – where did logic come from? 😀
There will, of course, be some things we do not, or cannot understand. I don’t understand how infinity can exist – but we both will agree it exists, correct? You from science alone, me from both science AND theology. It’s objective, not subjective.
It’s not about “suppositions” – which I have already said. It is about objective truth, and the logic ramifications of that truth.
Like I said before – it’s goal is not to convince. It is to remove objections which obscure the path. It is brush clearing, on a long-abandoned trail. It is breaking trail for someone who doesn’t know the way to God. It is removing the deadwood which covers the signs which should lead you to a correct understanding. That is apologetics. It is a defense of the correctness of God’s Truth, as God’s Truth. Nothing more, nothing less.
Comment by Zaltys on April 24, 2005 at 4:39 pm
Thanks for your thoughts – it was an interesting read, and certainly helped me understand the point of apologetics a little better.
I do wonder, if God calls to everyone, why it isn’t a little more apparent. I mean, when I decided god didn’t exist (as a kid i was hardly devout, but I did have a vague belief that he existed), it wasn’t like something terrible happened that removed all hope – it just felt like I grew out of it in the same way that I grew out of believing in pixies and santa. I don’t mean to say that to trivialise your belief, but simply to show that there was nothing to stop me believing, if I ever felt the compulsion. So far I have felt nothing. Perhaps God has something for me in later life 😉
Comment by Catez on April 24, 2005 at 11:56 pm
Interesting post RK. I think Bruce Cockburn is kinda like a Christian Leonard Cohen – back in the Daning in the Dragons Jaws days and a couple of albums that folowed that. Cohen has an interesting song called “The Future”. Bruce Cockburn is better in my view.
Comment by Catez on April 24, 2005 at 11:58 pm
Dancing in the Dragons Jaws (typo correction)
Comment by RazorsKiss (spam editor) on May 12, 2005 at 6:25 am
“The Creator, if He exists, has a special preference for beetles.”
I left this comment.
It’s funny.