...which do you want first?
In a recent scientific poll conducted by myself and my lovely girlfriend Ashley, we found that approximately 97% of Americans prefer their bad news to precede their good news. (We only polled like 34 people, and Ashley was the one who kept it from being a clean sweep for the bad-news-firsters, so you're probably going to have to give or take 5% or something.)
It just seems to make sense, doesn't it? The bad news first just makes the good news all the better. And really, is good news even good unless it is coupled with bad news? "We won the war!" must be preceded by, "We are at war!" "I didn't get a ticket!" must be preceded by, "I deserve a ticket."
And if you know anything about me and my illustrations, you will know that I am about to say...
The same goes for the Gospel!
The good news that "the Kingdom of the Heavens is at hand" isn't really that good unless it's preceded by the news that, "there are a bunch of other man-made kingdoms out there that really aren't that great, but pretty much everyone's bought into one." The good news that "Jesus came to save you from your sins" isn't that good unless there's first the news that, "you're sinful as heck." The good news that "if anyone is in the Messiah, he is a new creation" isn't that good unless we first hear that, "anyone in Adam is an old, dead, wicked, still-born wreck of destruction." You get the idea.
Story time. We play this game at camp called "Cowboy, Chicken, Conqueror." It's fantastic. The gist is this: All the campers choose a partner. Partners split up, forming two circles which march around in opposite directions. The counselor shouts out "Cowboy!", "Chicken!" or "Conqueror!" and the last pair to meet up and form the appropriate corresponding action (such as jumping on your partner's back and flapping your arms for "Chicken") is the loser. It's great fun and really cool. What's even cooler is that there is a very similar game that 1st Century kids played. (No, this isn't me coming up with a bogus counselor story about the origins of our camp games. We wouldn't do that (*wink*). This is a true story. But take note, aspiring facilitators.)
The 1st Century version of the game was called "Weddings and Funerals." If they had played the game at Sea of Galilee Jewish Camp, it might have looked something like this: All the campers choose a partner. Partners split up, forming two circles which march around in opposite directions. The Rabbi either plays a wedding song on his flute or sings a funeral dirge. The last pair to meet up and perform the appropriate corresponding action of dancing or mourning is the loser. 1st Century camp games--awesome, right? (I really don't know if there was partner-picking or marching or any of that, but the rest is legit.)
Jesus actually mentions the game in Matthew 11 and Luke 7. Matthew 11:16-19 says, "But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.' For John [the Baptist] came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."
What's Jesus talking about? Let's start with John. John was sent as the forerunner to Jesus. He wore crappy clothes, ate nasty food, lived in the wilderness, and preached an unpopular message. People went to hear him, because they knew he was a prophet. But when they got out to the wilderness, he told them that they needed to repent of their sin. He told them that just because they were children of Abraham didn't mean that they were cool with God. He told them there was wrath coming. None of this is particularly good news, and all of it is good reason to mourn and repent. Did they mourn? Mostly not. John came to haunt people with their sin, and they said he had a demon.
What about Jesus, then? As he said earlier in the chapter, he came healing the blind, lame, lepers, and deaf. He raised the dead. He preached good news to the poor. He also called people to repent, but not because of the coming wrath, but because the Kingdom of the Heavens was at hand. This sure sounds like the prophesied Messiah! What better reason to dance than the coming of the Messiah, the Savior, the King? Did they dance? Nah. Jesus came to start a party, and they called him a drunk who ate too much and invited people they didn't like.
It's as if Jesus was saying, "What gives, people? What could be worse news than the sorry, sinful state you're in? And what could be better news than the coming of your Salvation from that sin? This is a game a kid could play, and you stink at it."
I want to leave you with four thoughts.
1) Am I mourning things worth mourning? Am I more upset about traffic making me late for work than that I had sinful thoughts about my brother or sister? More upset about my roommate using my body wash and leaving the lid open than the fact that I haven't prayed in a week? How about this--am I more upset that my neighbor is gay or that he's without Jesus and a slave to his sin? Which matters more? Think about it.
2) Am I rejoicing over things worth rejoicing? Do I do a little dance when I win a game of Risk but act nonchalant when I memorize a Scripture passage? Would I get more excited about my favorite quarterback winning a Super Bowl or getting saved? Am I happier when my unsaved friend asks me to go bowling or when he asks me a tough question about my faith?
3) When I present the Gospel (good news) am I remembering to include the bad news too? If the bad news is that we're a bunch of misguided but well-meaning folks in need of a little encouragement to do nice things and a good example of how to do them, is that really so bad? The corresponding "good news" of a solution to that would really only be sorta good. Rather, the good news of a better kingdom, freedom from sin, and a right relationship with God is only good (and only makes sense) in response to the bad news that we've sold out to a kingdom of darkness, we're slaves to sin, and God is our enemy.
4) The last part of that passage I cited says, "Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds." John's and Jesus' messages were shown to be wise because their deeds were consistent with what they taught. The fruit they bore was tasty. May we live likewise.
Christopher M. Cuffman
Coram Deo
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Politics of Religion
We've heard that it's best to avoid religion and politics and conversation. Those topics can only lead to trouble. Sometimes advice needs to be disregarded.
*As a disclaimer (I was also recently given advice not to begin papers or speeches with disclaimers, but here I go), I must say that I like denominations in the Christian Church. Particularly in a nation like the United States where the Church's primary concern isn't survival, denominations can give local or regional bodies the chance to network with like-minded people to accomplish their mission better, explore specific theological veins or missional philosophies, and pool resources to enhance educational opportunities, evangelism and missions, scholarship and publications, and speakers and conferences.
*As a second disclaimer, this is not about people or churches which preach a "different gospel" which Paul condemns.
There are 50 states in our country. This fact is politically expedient for the entire USA, because different states can experiment with different ideas. Let's say Michigan gets the idea for a higher speed limit. Let's say it bombs--accidents increase, vehicles get worn out more quickly, people's budgets are drained, other areas of the economy struggle...it's a mess. Well, other states can look at that and say, "Hmm...I don't think we'll be trying that one any time soon." Or, let's say it works. Traffic becomes more efficient and less bogged down, accidents decrease, and commerce soars. Other states will happily adopt such a change.
In a similar way, the plethora of churches and denominations have strength in their diversity. Obviously, we live by faith and not just by what we see, as in the states illustration. And God will be the judge of our work, so it's not all about judging results either. However, I think it was Spurgeon who said that if we're so concerned about what the Holy Spirit is telling us (or our church), shouldn't we be equally concerned with what he's been telling the millions of other believers both today and throughout history? There is much to be learned from the wise and Spirit-led teachings of those standing in a tradition different from ours. Also, there is also much to be learned from what God's people do wrong. It's easy to see where an over-emphasis on faith causes people to deny reality. Over-emphasizing head knowledge can make people cold, unfeeling, unloving. Over-emphasizing free grace can make people passive. Over-emphasizing good works can make people legalists. And I could go on.
The point is, we can deceive ourselves into believing that we are above criticism or new ideas. Not that we always accept new ideas out of hand (a speed limit of 120 is just stupid), but we cannot be so arrogant to think that we've completely figured something out (like a transcendent, spiritual, holy God) and then just rest on our work in quiet contentment. Again, neither do we "re-invent the Christian faith" every generation, like a popular local pastor likes to say. But it doesn't mean we ignore the moving of the Holy Spirit through his word or through his people either.
The United States are "united" around one authoritative document--the Constitution. Jesus' Church is united around one authoritative document, as well--the Scriptures. And more specifically, the message of the Gospel. Certainly, if someone gets the gospel wrong, well...they're not marching under the flag of Jesus any more than someone adhering to the French constitution is marching under the American flag. Jesus said the good news of the Gospel is that the Kingdom of God is at hand. The flag of that Kingdom is the one under which we march and the one that unifies all God's people.
However, instead of unity among the Gospel-believing churches, what I often see is enmity, name-calling, accusation, intolerance, jealousy, skepticism, confusion, misrepresentation, and an unwillingness to understand another's point of view.
At this point, I must give some examples. I do not label myself "Reformed" or "Presbyterian," but some people would happily fill out those name tags and stick them to me while I'm not paying attention. When those tags become visible to certain people with whom I've spent time, the results have been mixed. In one particular group, I received many very interesting comments. One friend, upon hearing that I was going to a Presbyterian church, cautioned me that the Presbyterians have "lost their first love." Another was concerned for my spiritual well-being, stating that Reformed churches are "cold, dead places." He warned me that such theology would lead me further from God instead of closer. A couple other friends strangely assumed that a Presbyterian wouldn't believe in the (very Reformed) doctrine of eternal security, based on previous experience with one apparently rogue Presbyterian.
Now, I love these people, and they weren't saying these things out of hate, but out of concern. However, their comments at the very least demonstrated stereotyping, misunderstanding, and a rush to judgment. Had I grown up in the Presbyterian church (which, it should be noted, is not one denomination, but quite a few and quite disparate), my identity with it would have probably caused me to be rather offended. So, while I find it silly and destructive to attack a label, it is another thing entirely to confront a doctrine. That is what none of these friends seemed interested in doing (or, when they did, it was out of a complete misunderstanding of what I actually believed). Many other friends (including some Dispensationalists, with whom I was raised), upon hearing about the turns I've taken on my journey of faith, have responded warmly, wanting to hear about it, commenting on what they've heard or read from leaders of certain Reformed movements, still embracing me as a brother.
I do NOT say these things as though I am a victim of denominational profiling. I am not a victim. I am a concerned observer and participant in the Christian discussion. And what I too often observe is not unity around the Gospel, but disunity due to...I'm not sure...fear? Fear of impurity, maybe? News flash--there are exactly two pre-requisites for salvation and entry into the Church. One: you must be human. Two: you must be a sinner. You must be IMPURE. God did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Now, is there one state which "does government" better than all the others? Undoubtedly (It's also undoubtedly NOT Michigan). Is there one denomination which is the most correct doctrinally and methodologically? Sure. And it's probably not the same one as ten years ago or twenty years ago. And many of us likely think we're in it. Some of us wouldn't be at the church we are if we didn't. But none of this is really the point. If you love your denomination, think they're doctrinally and methodologically "the best," and think every denomination should be more like yours, that's wonderful! Now realize that there are people from every denomination that feel the same way about theirs. They wouldn't exist if people didn't. Don't let that thought curb your enthusiasm for truth, but do realize that our fellowship is ultimately around the Gospel, not a tradition, as valuable as tradition is.
A group which has been an enormous encouragement to me is Together For The Gospel (T4G). This group brings Baptists and Charismatics and Presbyterians and others together around the only message that matters--the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah. Check 'em out. And enjoy your faith tradition. Learn from it and let it build you up. But as the 38 Special song goes, "Hold on loosely." Only hold tightly to the Gospel.
Christopher M. Cuffman
Coram Deo
*As a disclaimer (I was also recently given advice not to begin papers or speeches with disclaimers, but here I go), I must say that I like denominations in the Christian Church. Particularly in a nation like the United States where the Church's primary concern isn't survival, denominations can give local or regional bodies the chance to network with like-minded people to accomplish their mission better, explore specific theological veins or missional philosophies, and pool resources to enhance educational opportunities, evangelism and missions, scholarship and publications, and speakers and conferences.
*As a second disclaimer, this is not about people or churches which preach a "different gospel" which Paul condemns.
There are 50 states in our country. This fact is politically expedient for the entire USA, because different states can experiment with different ideas. Let's say Michigan gets the idea for a higher speed limit. Let's say it bombs--accidents increase, vehicles get worn out more quickly, people's budgets are drained, other areas of the economy struggle...it's a mess. Well, other states can look at that and say, "Hmm...I don't think we'll be trying that one any time soon." Or, let's say it works. Traffic becomes more efficient and less bogged down, accidents decrease, and commerce soars. Other states will happily adopt such a change.
In a similar way, the plethora of churches and denominations have strength in their diversity. Obviously, we live by faith and not just by what we see, as in the states illustration. And God will be the judge of our work, so it's not all about judging results either. However, I think it was Spurgeon who said that if we're so concerned about what the Holy Spirit is telling us (or our church), shouldn't we be equally concerned with what he's been telling the millions of other believers both today and throughout history? There is much to be learned from the wise and Spirit-led teachings of those standing in a tradition different from ours. Also, there is also much to be learned from what God's people do wrong. It's easy to see where an over-emphasis on faith causes people to deny reality. Over-emphasizing head knowledge can make people cold, unfeeling, unloving. Over-emphasizing free grace can make people passive. Over-emphasizing good works can make people legalists. And I could go on.
The point is, we can deceive ourselves into believing that we are above criticism or new ideas. Not that we always accept new ideas out of hand (a speed limit of 120 is just stupid), but we cannot be so arrogant to think that we've completely figured something out (like a transcendent, spiritual, holy God) and then just rest on our work in quiet contentment. Again, neither do we "re-invent the Christian faith" every generation, like a popular local pastor likes to say. But it doesn't mean we ignore the moving of the Holy Spirit through his word or through his people either.
The United States are "united" around one authoritative document--the Constitution. Jesus' Church is united around one authoritative document, as well--the Scriptures. And more specifically, the message of the Gospel. Certainly, if someone gets the gospel wrong, well...they're not marching under the flag of Jesus any more than someone adhering to the French constitution is marching under the American flag. Jesus said the good news of the Gospel is that the Kingdom of God is at hand. The flag of that Kingdom is the one under which we march and the one that unifies all God's people.
However, instead of unity among the Gospel-believing churches, what I often see is enmity, name-calling, accusation, intolerance, jealousy, skepticism, confusion, misrepresentation, and an unwillingness to understand another's point of view.
At this point, I must give some examples. I do not label myself "Reformed" or "Presbyterian," but some people would happily fill out those name tags and stick them to me while I'm not paying attention. When those tags become visible to certain people with whom I've spent time, the results have been mixed. In one particular group, I received many very interesting comments. One friend, upon hearing that I was going to a Presbyterian church, cautioned me that the Presbyterians have "lost their first love." Another was concerned for my spiritual well-being, stating that Reformed churches are "cold, dead places." He warned me that such theology would lead me further from God instead of closer. A couple other friends strangely assumed that a Presbyterian wouldn't believe in the (very Reformed) doctrine of eternal security, based on previous experience with one apparently rogue Presbyterian.
Now, I love these people, and they weren't saying these things out of hate, but out of concern. However, their comments at the very least demonstrated stereotyping, misunderstanding, and a rush to judgment. Had I grown up in the Presbyterian church (which, it should be noted, is not one denomination, but quite a few and quite disparate), my identity with it would have probably caused me to be rather offended. So, while I find it silly and destructive to attack a label, it is another thing entirely to confront a doctrine. That is what none of these friends seemed interested in doing (or, when they did, it was out of a complete misunderstanding of what I actually believed). Many other friends (including some Dispensationalists, with whom I was raised), upon hearing about the turns I've taken on my journey of faith, have responded warmly, wanting to hear about it, commenting on what they've heard or read from leaders of certain Reformed movements, still embracing me as a brother.
I do NOT say these things as though I am a victim of denominational profiling. I am not a victim. I am a concerned observer and participant in the Christian discussion. And what I too often observe is not unity around the Gospel, but disunity due to...I'm not sure...fear? Fear of impurity, maybe? News flash--there are exactly two pre-requisites for salvation and entry into the Church. One: you must be human. Two: you must be a sinner. You must be IMPURE. God did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Now, is there one state which "does government" better than all the others? Undoubtedly (It's also undoubtedly NOT Michigan). Is there one denomination which is the most correct doctrinally and methodologically? Sure. And it's probably not the same one as ten years ago or twenty years ago. And many of us likely think we're in it. Some of us wouldn't be at the church we are if we didn't. But none of this is really the point. If you love your denomination, think they're doctrinally and methodologically "the best," and think every denomination should be more like yours, that's wonderful! Now realize that there are people from every denomination that feel the same way about theirs. They wouldn't exist if people didn't. Don't let that thought curb your enthusiasm for truth, but do realize that our fellowship is ultimately around the Gospel, not a tradition, as valuable as tradition is.
A group which has been an enormous encouragement to me is Together For The Gospel (T4G). This group brings Baptists and Charismatics and Presbyterians and others together around the only message that matters--the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah. Check 'em out. And enjoy your faith tradition. Learn from it and let it build you up. But as the 38 Special song goes, "Hold on loosely." Only hold tightly to the Gospel.
Christopher M. Cuffman
Coram Deo
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Talkative Elephant
So, we believe God exists. Ok, let’s describe him.
Hmm…great.
Yeah, we might as well tame the leviathan or tell lightning bolts where to go or take a tape measure to the universe, right? I mean, God created everything, which means that he could easily hide in some corner where we’d never find him. It’s like playing hide-and-seek in a mansion with the architect and owner of the mansion. He knows where all the good hiding places are, ‘cause he made the place. Sure, I can learn certain things about the guy if I look hard enough. Like, maybe I happen into the ballroom and observe that he has a taste for fresco art from the renaissance period. Or perhaps the hibachi grill in the kitchen tells me that he enjoys Japanese cuisine. I still can’t really describe the guy.
There’s a philosophical parable about some blind guys who have come upon this elephant. One guy touches the tail and thinks it’s a rope. Another guy touches the leg and thinks it’s a tree. Another guy touches the side and thinks it’s a wall. The point of the illustration is that all religions get at some aspect of God, but none of us can know him completely. He’s too big and we’re too blind to really grasp the essence of “elephantness.” Unless…
What if the elephant talks?
And what if some of the blind men aren’t deaf, too?
Many people throughout history have presumed to speak on behalf of the God (yes, all of them blind, but no, not all of them deaf), and I will not pretend to be smarter than any of them. But what I can’t figure out from poking around the architect's digs, I can learn from studying the writings of the guys who heard it straight from the horse’s mouth (or elephant’s mouth, as it were). And God revealed to them quite a bit about himself, his character, and the types of things he does. These writings are recorded in the Bible—66 books breathed out by God. These books contain words that God actually spoke, words that God spoke through people, words that Jesus the Son of God spoke, and other words that God’s Spirit moved people to write. All of these words are useful to teach us things about God, for correcting our errors about God, and for training folks to know and serve God and his people better.
Now, again, there’s a lot of people who say they believe God’s Word but who actually live in a manner contrary to its teaching. These guys have their earlids (Michael Card’s term) closed. Or we could say that they don’t have “ears to hear” (Jesus’ term). Jesus’ sheep hear his voice, he knows them, and they know him. He said that if we love him, we’ll do what he says. And if I truly understand the truth of God found in the Bible, how could I not love him?!
And yeah, there are plenty of folks who don’t hold the Bible in such high regard. They say it’s archaic or there are contradictions or it’s unscientific. Archaic? Seeing as God is eternal and unchanging, I don’t think we should be concerned that his words have stopped being relevant. Contradictions? Difficulties, sure, but I don’t think we should expect to fully understand everything about an infinite, holy God. Unscientific? Haha, well, it depends on who you ask and what you mean by science. Archaeology has uncovered no inconsistencies with the Bible. Geological and biological scientific data are all filtered through interpretive models; and when filtered through the biblical interpretive model, there are no inconsistencies there either. The reality is that there is no more well-preserved, well-attested, uncannily accurate, life-changing document in the world. It’s for real.
Truth is though, no matter how much evidence there might be for the authenticity of the Word of God, there’s not a person who will believe what it says without first receiving the faith to believe it from God. So, if you doubt it, read it. The book is alive, man, and it’ll cut you to the bone. God’s Spirit still talks to people to this day, and he’ll let you know it’s legit. And if you can’t hear God speaking to you, you probably still have your earlids closed, ‘cause when the elephant trumpets, it’s loud.
As far as what God’s actually like, a (non-comprehensive) list of his specific attributes can be found in A.W. Tozer’s book, “The Knowledge of the Holy.” I just finished it. It was fantastic. It’s small, a quick read, real short chapters, and you’ll come away in awe of God. Then read the Bible. Study that thing like the first-century disciples who hung on every inflection of every word of their rabbi. ‘Cause, that’s what we’re to be—disciples of Jesus the Messiah, who is THE Word of God.
Christopher M. Cuffman
Coram Deo
Hmm…great.
Yeah, we might as well tame the leviathan or tell lightning bolts where to go or take a tape measure to the universe, right? I mean, God created everything, which means that he could easily hide in some corner where we’d never find him. It’s like playing hide-and-seek in a mansion with the architect and owner of the mansion. He knows where all the good hiding places are, ‘cause he made the place. Sure, I can learn certain things about the guy if I look hard enough. Like, maybe I happen into the ballroom and observe that he has a taste for fresco art from the renaissance period. Or perhaps the hibachi grill in the kitchen tells me that he enjoys Japanese cuisine. I still can’t really describe the guy.
There’s a philosophical parable about some blind guys who have come upon this elephant. One guy touches the tail and thinks it’s a rope. Another guy touches the leg and thinks it’s a tree. Another guy touches the side and thinks it’s a wall. The point of the illustration is that all religions get at some aspect of God, but none of us can know him completely. He’s too big and we’re too blind to really grasp the essence of “elephantness.” Unless…
What if the elephant talks?
And what if some of the blind men aren’t deaf, too?
Many people throughout history have presumed to speak on behalf of the God (yes, all of them blind, but no, not all of them deaf), and I will not pretend to be smarter than any of them. But what I can’t figure out from poking around the architect's digs, I can learn from studying the writings of the guys who heard it straight from the horse’s mouth (or elephant’s mouth, as it were). And God revealed to them quite a bit about himself, his character, and the types of things he does. These writings are recorded in the Bible—66 books breathed out by God. These books contain words that God actually spoke, words that God spoke through people, words that Jesus the Son of God spoke, and other words that God’s Spirit moved people to write. All of these words are useful to teach us things about God, for correcting our errors about God, and for training folks to know and serve God and his people better.
Now, again, there’s a lot of people who say they believe God’s Word but who actually live in a manner contrary to its teaching. These guys have their earlids (Michael Card’s term) closed. Or we could say that they don’t have “ears to hear” (Jesus’ term). Jesus’ sheep hear his voice, he knows them, and they know him. He said that if we love him, we’ll do what he says. And if I truly understand the truth of God found in the Bible, how could I not love him?!
And yeah, there are plenty of folks who don’t hold the Bible in such high regard. They say it’s archaic or there are contradictions or it’s unscientific. Archaic? Seeing as God is eternal and unchanging, I don’t think we should be concerned that his words have stopped being relevant. Contradictions? Difficulties, sure, but I don’t think we should expect to fully understand everything about an infinite, holy God. Unscientific? Haha, well, it depends on who you ask and what you mean by science. Archaeology has uncovered no inconsistencies with the Bible. Geological and biological scientific data are all filtered through interpretive models; and when filtered through the biblical interpretive model, there are no inconsistencies there either. The reality is that there is no more well-preserved, well-attested, uncannily accurate, life-changing document in the world. It’s for real.
Truth is though, no matter how much evidence there might be for the authenticity of the Word of God, there’s not a person who will believe what it says without first receiving the faith to believe it from God. So, if you doubt it, read it. The book is alive, man, and it’ll cut you to the bone. God’s Spirit still talks to people to this day, and he’ll let you know it’s legit. And if you can’t hear God speaking to you, you probably still have your earlids closed, ‘cause when the elephant trumpets, it’s loud.
As far as what God’s actually like, a (non-comprehensive) list of his specific attributes can be found in A.W. Tozer’s book, “The Knowledge of the Holy.” I just finished it. It was fantastic. It’s small, a quick read, real short chapters, and you’ll come away in awe of God. Then read the Bible. Study that thing like the first-century disciples who hung on every inflection of every word of their rabbi. ‘Cause, that’s what we’re to be—disciples of Jesus the Messiah, who is THE Word of God.
Christopher M. Cuffman
Coram Deo
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Most Objectionable Sort of God--Why I Believe in Him
I must begin with a confession. Too often, in the past, when offering an argument for the existence of God, I have approached the discussion as though I have some common knowledge with the hearer from which I may then build. I have assumed that reality is observed in more or less the same way, by believer and unbeliever alike. However, I have found that God is not merely something which one adds to his pile of knowledge, making it a more complete pile. Rather, God is that through which things are seen for what they are--we put him on as colored lenses which tint the entire world into hues we've never imagined (though perhaps it is more accurately the unbeliever who is wearing the impurely tinted glasses). Cornelius Van Til claimed, "I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God. So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything." He even more specifically and outrageously claims that a believer and an unbeliever cannot even talk about "chickens and cows" and mean the same thing.
From here the objections begin to fly from the rationality-supreme/authoritative-science types. I remember seeing Henry Rollins telling his TV viewers that unless you have science, "You don't have game." He then defied God to come down and get into a laboratory test tube--as though that were the only acceptable means of confirming truth. I recall a protest group in Kansas, in response to the (supposedly silly and arbitrary) teaching of a creator God, forming the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is now the gold standard for illustrating the silliness of Theism. In his book "Cosmos" Carl Sagan proclaimed, "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." He objected to belief in God, calling it "anti-intellectual."
And this is before we even begin discussing the Christian God. At this point, I must make an apology on behalf of too many in Christendom who are content with someone genuinely seeking God through their own means or own religion, rather than those already provided by the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus the Messiah. Here I should expect adherents to another god should tell me I'm wrong and "inclusivist christian" types to tell me I'm bigoted. 1 Timothy 2:5, "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man, the Messiah, Jesus."
I will be told that I have narrowed myself too much--believe me, I've only begun!--and that I have a closed mind. I will be told that I only believe these things because I am conditioned to believe them, or that it's how I was raised. These accusations are not my primary concern. I find apologetics of the scientific and philosophical sorts to be great pursuits, and you will not find someone who likes them more, from the aspect of pure enjoyability. However, it is not my purpose to answer the critique of every nit-picking scoffer who won't accept the message I preach. My purpose is the message, the WHOLE message, and nothing but the message of Jesus the Messiah--which I've only begun to explore here. I will (sometimes reluctantly) respond to specific attacks against belief in God or the Bible, because I believe true religion will stand up to any scrutiny. If the scrutiny is based in falsehood (it generally is), truth will win out. If the scrutiny is based in truth, then let the truth win out.
But the reason I'm reluctant is that I have found such responses to attacks rarely, if ever, bring about satisfaction for the attacker. The reason for this is stated above--that talk about God will simply make no sense to a person without the right eyewear. When it comes down to it, the message is either accepted by the grace of God, or rejected. My message today, in a paraphrase of Francis Schaeffer, is that God is here and he is not silent.
Christopher M. Cuffman
Coram Deo
Living in the presence of, under the authority of, and to the honor and glory of God.
From here the objections begin to fly from the rationality-supreme/authoritative-science types. I remember seeing Henry Rollins telling his TV viewers that unless you have science, "You don't have game." He then defied God to come down and get into a laboratory test tube--as though that were the only acceptable means of confirming truth. I recall a protest group in Kansas, in response to the (supposedly silly and arbitrary) teaching of a creator God, forming the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is now the gold standard for illustrating the silliness of Theism. In his book "Cosmos" Carl Sagan proclaimed, "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." He objected to belief in God, calling it "anti-intellectual."
And this is before we even begin discussing the Christian God. At this point, I must make an apology on behalf of too many in Christendom who are content with someone genuinely seeking God through their own means or own religion, rather than those already provided by the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus the Messiah. Here I should expect adherents to another god should tell me I'm wrong and "inclusivist christian" types to tell me I'm bigoted. 1 Timothy 2:5, "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man, the Messiah, Jesus."
I will be told that I have narrowed myself too much--believe me, I've only begun!--and that I have a closed mind. I will be told that I only believe these things because I am conditioned to believe them, or that it's how I was raised. These accusations are not my primary concern. I find apologetics of the scientific and philosophical sorts to be great pursuits, and you will not find someone who likes them more, from the aspect of pure enjoyability. However, it is not my purpose to answer the critique of every nit-picking scoffer who won't accept the message I preach. My purpose is the message, the WHOLE message, and nothing but the message of Jesus the Messiah--which I've only begun to explore here. I will (sometimes reluctantly) respond to specific attacks against belief in God or the Bible, because I believe true religion will stand up to any scrutiny. If the scrutiny is based in falsehood (it generally is), truth will win out. If the scrutiny is based in truth, then let the truth win out.
But the reason I'm reluctant is that I have found such responses to attacks rarely, if ever, bring about satisfaction for the attacker. The reason for this is stated above--that talk about God will simply make no sense to a person without the right eyewear. When it comes down to it, the message is either accepted by the grace of God, or rejected. My message today, in a paraphrase of Francis Schaeffer, is that God is here and he is not silent.
Christopher M. Cuffman
Coram Deo
Living in the presence of, under the authority of, and to the honor and glory of God.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
