Attempts at Honesty

Reflections on the interplay of the Bible and Culture

Home Archives for Apologetics

We Don’t Need Apologetics, We Just Need to ‘Experience’ Jesus

Posted on Written by 12 Comments

This is a guest post by Greg West, the curator of a helpful apologetics web site called The Poached Egg.

Experience

“We don’t need apologetics, we just need to ‘experience’ Jesus!” Unfortunately, this is something I hear from fellow believers quite often and it never fails to set off the warning sirens in my head; not because I think that ‘experiencing’ Jesus is bad—in fact, I think it’s a good thing, but if you’re basing your faith on experience alone to the exclusion of reason and knowledge, then you’re building your house not on solid rock, but on sand—and when the rains come down, the streams rise, and the winds blow and beat against your house it will fall with a mighty crash (Matthew 7:24-27).

We need to stop teaching people to ‘experience’ Jesus and teach them to know Jesus. Let me explain what I mean: In his post titled, High School Students and Apologetics, teacher Dan Gehrke said,

“I’ve observed that kids have changed over the last seven years since I last taught apologetics. All of the evidential facts that I used to put in front of them to give evidence to the reliability of Scripture and the resurrection was exciting! The notion that they didn’t have to throw their brains away to be Christians was life-altering for many of them.”

While this was still true for some this year, I discovered that “facts” and evidence seem to be met with more and more apathy.

So one day I asked, “Would you rather have me make an air-tight case for Jesus, or would you rather ‘experience’ Him – even if I can’t define what that means?” They almost all chose the second. Interesting.”

Why is this so alarming? Because apologetics involves discerning between what is true and what is false. Emergent church leader John Crowder said in this post, “I honestly believe that the age of apologetics is over, and the age of activation has come. Experience is more important than explanation.” If you read the quote in the full context, I think what you’ll find that Mr. Crowder doesn’t want to have to defend his beliefs, because outside of his personal experience, on which his abhorrent theology is based, I seriously doubt that he can—and if you, members of your congregation, or especially if your kids can’t either, then if they happen to remain in church at all, their theology might end up being as bad as Mr. Crowder’s—or worse (if that’s even possible).

Apologetics has several useful and necessary applications including evangelism, defending against attacks on Christianity in the public square, discerning false doctrine, and edifying believers. Examples of each of these can be found in scripture. If we deny the need for apologetics then we are denying what scripture actually teaches and are simply inventing our own gospel—much like John Crowder’s pathetic parody of the gospel, which is becoming all too common these days–just as Paul said it would in his second letter to Timothy:

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

I’m not just simply passing on what I’ve learned from observation but also what I’ve lived out in my own life. I was raised in a good church and as a young teenager I was an enthusiastic believer. I had experienced Jesus. I experienced him during worship, I experienced him when testifying in front of the congregation. When I preached my first sermon at age 16 it was because I had experienced Jesus. When I was filling out my application for Bible College it was because I had experienced Jesus—but by the time I was in my early twenties I was no longer experiencing Jesus, I was experiencing doubt—and before I’d turned twenty-five I identified myself as an agnostic.

My agnosticism continued for nearly ten years before I eventually discovered that Christianity is not a ‘blind faith’ that requires belief without evidence. I came back to the fold but most do not. By my best estimation, out of the many adults that I knew as kids growing up in church, only about 40% of the ones that I know of still identify themselves as Christians. That’s about 10% better than today’s average.

Do we want ourselves and others to be those who believe that, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10), or will we let ourselves and others become those, who like John Crowder, claim to be wise but are instead fools (Romans 1:22)?

Do I want to ‘experience’ Jesus? Absolutely I do. But even more so, I want to know him—and I want others to know him too.

The accusation of lying – what politics reveals about our need for truth

Posted on Written by 4 Comments

LiarIn a social climate where a majority of people claim to believe that truth is relative, I find it curious that one of the most effective accusations leveled at a political opponent is that of lying. We have partisan “fact-checkers” who masquerade as neutral agents in an effort to bolster these claims. Both sides accuse the other of lying or of intentional deception.

I am not shocked that politicians lie or embellish the truth; we have several millennia of evidence to substantiate this claim. I am not shocked that opponents would loudly condemn the lying. What shocks me is the ease in which the accusations are leveled and the effectiveness of the accusations in achieving political gains.

If truth is relative, as our secular philosophers would argue, then why get all worked up over a few flip-flops, falsehoods or misrepresentations? Why should it matter that the candidate says whatever he thinks will get him elected? Is this not Darwinism in action? Is this not a legitimate means of political survival?

Yet the fact that accusations of lying do change people’s perception is an indication to me that there is a dichotomy between what people claim to believe and what they really believe. The mantra of current secular religion is that tolerance is the ultimate virtue. No-one has the right to denigrate the truth claims of another. We are told that there is no ultimate right or wrong. In our age, the only time when tolerance is not appropriate is when someone makes an ultimate truth claim.

In this moral and intellectual climate, why then do political groups so loudly denounce lying?

I believe the reason is that we have an innate sense of fairness. We do not have to teach this fairness to children. Without prompting, children loudly protest, “that’s not fair!” My experience has shown that children come wired with that sense of fairness. It’s part of the base package and not an option.

In this election season, when you hear accusations of lying and deception between political opponents, reflect on the innate sense of fairness that you possess. Then ask yourself if that sense of fairness is more than just a preference for a particular idea or ideology.

The Apostle Paul tells us that even those who do not acknowledge God have “the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them” (Romans 2:15, NASB)

Could it be that the Apostle Paul identified the reason why the accusation of lying is so effective? Is there a standard by which we innately know we should live? Is that standard written on our hearts by God?

These questions are of greater significance than who is put into office in November. The election has temporal consequences but these questions have an impact on eternity.

A lesson learned from angry atheists

Posted on Written by 5 Comments

AngryRecently I had a chance to interact with some atheists in response to a post I had written for Bravefaith.org. While I did not intend it this way, some of what I had written came off as “insulting and hate inducing” according to one of the commenters. I did not do a good job of understanding their point of view before writing the post. The comments helped me better understand why they are angry.

In response to angry atheists we are tempted to sit back and smugly quote what the Apostle Paul says (1 Corinthians 2:14) about the natural man not understanding the things of God. Yet, the truth of this verse does not relieve us of the responsibility to reach out to those who are angry with us and with God to seek to understand the anger and engage it in a loving manner. We must resist the temptation to lob truth missiles over the wall hoping that they hit the target.

One lesson I learned from my interaction at Bravefaith is that the organized church has much to answer for and some of the anger of the atheist is justified. If we are going to reach out to those who have been alienated from religion, we need to own up to the failings of ourselves and our churches. While we cannot resolve all of the anger, we can resolve the part that is caused by our inappropriate behavior. We can confess and ask forgiveness where we have given offense.

In Matthew 5:23, Jesus tells us that if we are on the way to worship and remember that our brother has something against us, that we should make it right before attempting to worship. It may be that the way we interact (or don’t interact) with our community is affecting the way we worship. Our offering of worship may be neglected by God because we have not sought to be reconciled to our neighbor.

AngryPerhaps if we have more of a spirit of repentance and mourning and less of an attitude of moral rectitude we might be in a better position to speak into the lives of those with whom we disagree. I believe that a better awareness of, and honesty about, our own failings, doubts and stupidity would put us in a better position to speak the truth in love.

This does not mean that we cannot offer correction when it is appropriate and needed. We need to engage faulty reasoning in a loving, reasonable manner. For example the claims of atheists that Hitler was a Christian are preposterous and need to be addressed.

No matter how lovingly we present truth, some will be offended by the Gospel. Some will reject the gospel because they refuse to submit to God. Some will refuse to give up their sinful lifestyle. Some will seek to stand firm in their own perceived goodness. But let us be sure that it is the Gospel that is the offense and not the manner in which we present it.

One of the complaints that I’ve heard is that too often Christians try to jam the gospel down someone’s throat. Yes, we have the responsibility to present the gospel, but I cannot find any instance where Jesus forced truth on someone who was not prepared to hear it. A wise lady once told me that Jesus is a gentleman; he does not force himself on anyone.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that those angry atheists are people for whom Christ died. We are no better; they are no worse. Before we respond to the anger, we should listen to understand its source. It is my hope that by listening and understanding we can then speak truth into the situation in a loving way.

Getting caught in the blame game – Part 1

Posted on Written by 1 Comment

Blaming OthersI am neither brilliant nor a philosopher so I make no claims toward brilliant philosophy. Yet I have observed a behavior in humans that I would like to explore. This being a presidential election year, examples of this behavior abound. I am writing about the behavior of blaming others. Where does this need to blame come from?

My question is this: if naturalism, the belief that we are products of natural processes and not the product of divine intervention, is true, they why is there so much effort wasted in finding someone to blame whenever anything goes wrong?

I have a puppy which displays normal puppy behavior. Specifically she likes to chew things and dig. Even when she chews things that are unacceptable (such as human fingers and clothing) I see no sense of remorse in her or the need to blame anyone for the behavior. Another dog of ours felt the need to chase a skunk and displayed no remorse when he came back to the house bearing an odor from the encounter. He ran right into the house as if nothing was wrong or out of the ordinary.

In the case of dogs, one could argue that they act in the way they are wired to act. While humans can change that behavior somewhat, the extent of change is limited. The bulk of their behavior is determined by their DNA.

Humans have the distinction of not only being able to understand and respond to what is, but having a sense of what ought to be. Chance and genetics might explain what is, but they cannot explain why we often think that things should be different than they are.

If we believe that what we are is determined by our DNA, then why bother assessing blame? Why spend so much effort in figuring out who made the mistake, who made the bad choice, who pushed the wrong button?

I will take it one step further. We send future executives to colleges and graduate schools that teach them that they are products of evolution and that there are no absolute standards of right and wrong. They are taught that they make their own rules and no-one can tell them how to live. Then when they live this way in the business world we throw them in jail because they violate insider trading laws or cook the books and bilk millions out of unsuspecting investors. Is this not a double standard?

Why all the angst in the recent “occupy” micro-movement? If Wall Street executives are doing what they are programmed to do, why bother to protest? If naturalism and evolution are true, on what basis are you protesting anyway? On what basis are you claiming unfairness if there are no absolute standards of right and wrong? If strength and cunning are the means of survival, then why protest when the strong and cunning violate the weak and ignorant?

This post will be continued in part two where I will explore how the Bible speaks to these issues and provides a reasonable explanation of what we observe in humanity.

This post is continued in Part 2

Categories

Archives

Blogger Grid
Follow me on Blogarama