As I sit here, I have just finished reading something one of my former student’s wrote concerning the point he is at in life. What is more interesting is other students who wrote back to him all agreed – all of them. I sit here as though a weight has been placed on my chest. I sit here with a lump in my throat. Here is part of what he wrote:

“Every day of my existence everything around me feels sullied by the mere fact that I’ve been there and I’ve done that. I get no enjoyment out of thrill rides, video games of any form have become tasteless because at this point everything is just a copy off one another…

Don’t get me wrong… I love being alive, I love everyone around me… Everything just becomes old fast though, yet I’ve only been alive 18 years.”

My heart is torn as I read this, but salt is poured on the open wound as I read the advice he is given. Some say to pick up an instrument or add something else in order to get over his boredom. Others agree and say they have found they must be constantly occupied in order to ignore the boredom they face.

These youth have not been taught that life is an adventure. Chesterton was right – we have rid ourselves of all imagination, of all fantasy, we have forgotten the ethics of “Elfland.” We have forgotten the fairy tales. These youth have been raised in a materialistic culture. They have been told they are a machine, that there is no evidence for a soul, and that everything has a biological cause. They have been taught this philosophical materialism. More damaging, however, is they have been taught popular materialism – their only worth is found in what they own.

They have no real hope. They speak of clinging onto the little things in life in order to avoid the boredom (despair) of life. Here are 16-18 year olds asking the big questions. These young people desire answers and desperately want to listen, but we sit here and offer them pizza parties and watered-down videos. We offer them games and upbeat music. Though these things are wrong, they are not the answers these youth are looking for.

Where are the Christians to teach the deep truths to those that ask? Where are the pastors to speak the difficult to understand truth about life? We do not teach difficult things because difficult things can’t be explained in thirty minutes. We have bought into this lie that youth have an attention span of twenty minutes or less, so we keep the lesson plan lower than that. Anyone who teaches this has never spoken with a youth.

When a youth asks a question or hears about something he cares about, he will listen for hours. He will forget about time – seconds, minutes, hours, none of it will relate to him because he won’t care. His questions are being answered. He is learning about something that he cares about.

I beg of the Christians reading this to please start encouraging your youth ministers to engage in deep studies. If your youth minister isn’t capable of doing this, then please find one that is. Fine one that has a heart for these youth. Find one that will pick them up at a party at 2am and be a father to them when needed. Find one that knows how to connect with them. But also find one that knows how to challenge them.

Questions are being asked, but no answers are being given. This is the death knell of American Christianity; if we cannot rise up today, we will not see tomorrow.

I keep hearing about how McCain lied about Obama’s promotion and “yes” vote on a bill that would have taught sex-ed to kindergartners. Obama says it was just to teach them about inappropriate touching. So, being the former debater that I am, I tracked the bill down. Here’s what it says (the final version):

Each  class  or  course  in  comprehensive  sex

14    education offered in any of  grades  K  6  through  12  shall

15    include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted

16    infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread

17    of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in

18    sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

19        (b)  All  public elementary, junior high, and senior high

20    school classes that teach sex education  and  discuss  sexual

21    activity   or   behavior  intercourse  shall  emphasize  that

22    abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended is

23    the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual  intercourse

24    is  the  only  protection  that  is  100%  effective  against

25    unwanted  teenage  pregnancy,  sexually transmitted diseases,

26    and HIV  acquired  immune  deficiency  syndrome  (AIDS)  when

27    transmitted sexually.

The original bill established that the teaching would occur in the 6th grade, when most students are 11 or 12. In today’s society, most of them already know about sex. The bill itself actually isn’t a bad bill, emphasizing abstinence, personal responsibility, and consequences for negative behavior. That was to be the crux of the bill, teaching that self-control is the best way to avoid pregnancy and STD’s. Unfortunately, the “K” was added in (all underlined material was added in prior to the bill being voted on).

The Bill itself, however, deals primarily with teen-to-teen sexual activity and doesn’t really deal with pedophilia or “inappropriate touching” as Obama says. Section 7, lines 8-26 deal with how to turn down sexual advances, but it’s mostly in the context of peer pressure and doesn’t specify “this is all that shall be taught to kindergartners.” Furthermore, this section was added as an afterthought; it was not part of the original bill. In fact, state Senator Iris Martinez – one of the sponsors of the bill – when asked if the bill was specifically about touching, said, “Absolutely not.”

There is nothing designating that anyone below the 6h grade wouldn’t be subject to any of the above. Though the very first lines of section one do designate that a child can opt out via a guardian’s signature, there is nothing (that I saw) saying that a parent/guardian has to know that the child is enrolled in the class.

Again, it actually is a good bill in its original format (which was 6 – 12) that addresses a much-needed issue. However, I think both conservatives and liberals (at least those that still have sanity) can admit that a 6-year-old learning about sex details robs that child of his innocence.

In other words, McCain didn’t lie at all. The ad is accurate – Obama supported a bill that would have allowed teachers to explain detailed aspects of sexuality with 5 and 6 year olds. Certainly McCain has embellished other things in ads and taken unnecessary swipes at Obama (such as comparing Obama to Paris Hilton), but this one just is not it. There’s no wording in the bill that would prevent a teacher from teaching intricate details about sex to a six year old.

Not that I am trying to be a conservative mouthpiece, I just don’t like injustice and less-than-truthful statements. 

Jack Cafferty at CNN has come out and said the main reason the polls in the US Presidential Election are so close is because of race. As he argues:

“The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.”

The sad part of Cafferty’s article is that there is some truth to what he’s saying. There are some people out there who, even if Obama were a carbon copy of Reagan in terms of policy, wouldn’t vote for him because of his skin color. It’s unfortunate that we still live in a nation where someone wouldn’t vote for someone of a different race, even if that candidate were more than qualified and would be good for America.

At the same time, if we go off stereotypes (and complete the irony), wouldn’t most of these people who wouldn’t vote for a black man no matter what also struggle with voting for a female vice president? Granted, not every racist is also a sexist (and not every sexist is a racist), but it’s fair to assume that someone who is closed-minded enough to be a racist is likewise a sexist.

With that in mind, how do we explain the closeness of the election? First, looking to the political analysis, Cafferty is wrong in saying it’s racism. A few months ago after Obama and McCain had essentially become the candidates for their respective parties, Obama enjoyed a double-digit lead over McCain. Are we to believe that people who intended to vote for Obama abandoned their radios, saw him on television, and realized he’s black? Did they have a Clayton Bigsby moment where they realized their fearless leader is actually a black man? If it’s about race, why did Obama lead McCain prior to the Republican National Convention?

Could it be that there are some people that simply don’t want to vote for Obama because of his policies? I tend to think that this might be more of the reason for the closeness in the polls (that and Sarah Palin). Look at the 2000 and 2004 elections – in both of them the polls and elections themselves were extremely close. This election is following the pattern established by those previous elections. What is our excuse for 2000 and 2004?

The simple truth is this – some people just don’t want to vote for Barak Obama. Others like him, but see McCain as more qualified. It’s not a matter of voting for a “black man” or anything like that – people just don’t like his policies. I, for one, don’t feel comfortable voting for someone who shot down the Born Alive Infants Protection Act when a state senator. This same bill, when pushed through the US Senate, was supported 98-0 (the two absentee senators were both pro-life Republicans). Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton – two very pro-choice candidates – voted for this bill. When Obama was faced with the same bill, he shot it down using an illogical slippery slope argument. Even when the language was changed to mimic the national bill, he still shot it down. This has nothing to do with Obama’s race, but everything to do with his policies.

It could also be that some people don’t like his economic policies, his lack of foreign policy experience, his pop-culture status rather than governmental status, or any other host of ideas. It doesn’t necessarily have to be race. If a black friend of mine argues that he won’t vote for John McCain am I to assume he won’t do so because John McCain is white and therefore my friend is a racist?

There are really only two reasons Cafferty would say the polls are low because of race. The first one is that he’s simply out of touch with Middle America. The second one is that he wants it to be about race.

On the first one, people who spend so much time in Washington or on the upper floors of the East Coast cities rarely see what the rest of America is like. They are almost cultish in their behavior in that they only read their material, only speak to like-minded folks, and never take the time to understand the rest of America. With this in mind, to them ‘liberal’ is the status quo in America. They don’t realize that a majority of Americans really lean more toward a conservative view. It is easy, therefore, for Cafferty to say that this is about race – he’s ignorant to what some Americans actually believe.

The second one is he could simply want this to be about race. By declaring “anyone who doesn’t vote for Obama is obviously a racist” it would make it more difficult for middle of the line voters to vote for McCain. After all, if you say you voted against Obama, this must mean you’re a racist. It’s a strategy to place a guilt trip on people and, in all honesty, it’s sickening. Rather than leaving this to the issues and letting people decide the media is using deceptive tactics to help win an election.

Finally, by saying this is about Obama’s race sets the black community back a number of years. If Obama loses and we blame it on race, the Democrats can turn around and, in their pragmatic quest for winning, refuse to run a black candidate for a number of years. The Democrats don’t care about minorities (must like most Republicans don’t really care about children in the womb), they merely use them as a means to an end (winning). If those means don’t bring about an end and, in their view, prevent the end they desire, then the means are thrown out. This will be the case if Democrats lose in November and blame it on race – it will be a long time before a minority candidate is put on the ticket. In other words, Cafferty’s view is actually one that leads to racism if it isn’t directly racist itself.

I’m not endorsing either candidate, but I think we need to step back and get real about this election. It’s not about race, or gender, or age, or anything of that nature. It’s simply that there are some people that think a liberal America is better and others that think a conservative America is better. We’re not seeing anything that really differs from the last two elections.

Adding onto the “Christian and Abortion Series” - 

Lately a lot of Christians have been coming out and saying they’re pro-choice, declaring they’re not necessarily for abortion, but they are for the right of the woman to choose. I want to look at some of the arguments for this and argue why a Christian simply cannot be pro-Choice:

1)   “We have no right to tell a woman what to do with her own body.”

This argument has been dealt with already in another post I made concerning abortion. I argued:

This way of thinking assumes too much - it assumes that we can do whatever we want to our bodies without having a communal consequence. However, there are times where what I do to my body will inevitably affect those around me (i.e. if I inject myself with an airborne disease, because it will harm those around me I do not have the right to do such a thing). Almost everyone would argue that if we take an action against our body that negatively affects others, that action shouldn’t be taken.

In this case, the child in the womb is ontologically separate from the mother, though reliant. That is to say, the child really isn’t part of the mother’s body. The mother plays host to the body. If a guest comes into your house, eats your food, drinks your water, and sleeps in your bed, does that guest belong to you? Of course not - the guest, though reliant upon you, is not a part of who you are.

The counter to the above argument is that the baby, especially early on, is made up of cells provided by the mother. This is true, but completely irrelevant. No female can spontaneously produce a child without any fertilization from a male. This means that the baby isn’t entirely made up of the mother’s cells, which would seem to indicate that the child in the womb isn’t really part of the mother’s body (in the same way an arm, heart, or lung is part of the mother’s body).

All of this means that the child growing within the mother is really a body inside a body and not just an extension of the mother’s body. It contains foreign matter (via sperm) that is not natural to the mother’s body. If that is true, an abortion is an act that is taken out on the mother’s body that severely affects the child (through death). This would mean that abortion is highly immoral since it is a selfish action that harms an innocent party.

In short, a baby simply isn’t a part or an extension of the mother’s body, but instead a separate being that is reliant upon the mother.

In light of this, though we might not have a right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, we do have a right to tell her what to do with her body when her actions affect a living human being.

2)   “There are other issues that should be dealt with.”

It is true that there are other issues that need to be dealt with, but we must ask ourselves if these other issues are on par with or above our ethical responsibility to human life. I believe there are two approaches to this view:

I)              The hierarchialist view – Under this view one accepts that there is a hierarchy of ethical conduct. Thus, there are some ethical codes that are simply higher than others. If the Nazis knock on my door and ask if I’m hiding Jews and I am, in fact, hiding Jews then most hierarchicalists would argue that protecting human life is a higher good than lying. Thus, one is allowed to suspend the ethical judgment against lying because a higher ethical calling is on the line. Another example is that of speeding. Most would agree that it is ‘ethical’ to go the speed limit (ethical in that it is obeying the law), but most would also argue that if there was a life-threatening emergency that required one speed to the hospital it would be okay to suspend the ethic of following the law in order to follow the ethic of saving a life.

Biblically this holds some justification. Though there is nothing explicit within Scripture that says there is a hierarchy, it is implicit in some of the ethical situations presented. Without going into too much detail we can see that the Law itself holds different punishments for different offenses, with offenses and crimes against the image of God (humans) holding severe penalties. Likewise, we know it is wrong to deceive people or to tell half truths, yet we see God ordering Samuel to deceive and tell a half truth when directed by God to go anoint David as king. Jesus tells us not to deny Him while Paul tells us to follow the government and ruling authorities; the Jewish authorities told Paul to cease preaching Jesus, but he disobeyed them. Obviously, in this instance, the higher ethical value was following God rather than following an authority. The list goes on, but this should help to show that there are some ethics that are higher than others.

With the above in mind once could argue that crimes against humanity are more severe than any other ethical violation (such as pollution or animal cruelty). Things such as homosexuality, adultery, alcoholism, drug abuse, or even child abuse – though evil in their own right – do not measure up to murder. Whereas there is still life after the previous offenses, murder is a final act.

In light of this, though there are other acts that are important and should be dealt with, ethically speaking abortion is the greatest unethical act allowed by law, thus it should be the number one issue when going to the voting booth. This is not to say the other issues aren’t important, but simply that they are not as important as that of abortion.

II)            The Deontological view – this view would hold that all values are equal. Lying and murdering are both ethically wrong and should both be avoided, regardless of the consequences. To use an above example, even if you need to speed in order to save a life you shouldn’t speed because you would be violating an ethical principle.

Even this view, however, would negate the above argument. Though other issues would be viewed as equal they would not be mutually exclusive to desiring to ban abortion. One could conceivably be passionate about both environmental reform and banning abortion on demand.

3)   “Why don’t you get out there and talk to the women instead of trying to pass a law against abortion?”

For whatever reason some people are pro-choice because they believe abortions will happen no matter what we do to prevent them. Thus, they argue to forgo the law and address people on a personal level.

Let it be said that I do support a form of this argument. Two of my previous articles deal directly with this view. I do whole-heartedly believe that on any issue we should deal with the person and realize the law will make little difference.

That being said, I believe that abortion is a violation of natural law and should therefore be banned. Not that this will stop abortions, but it will certainly limit them and it simply is the right thing to do.

If we apply this logic across the board it simply doesn’t work. Some men are going to rape women no matter what, so why not try to address these men on a personal level and forget about making rape illegal? What about murder, child abuse, or any other list of crimes? This is not a slippery-slope argument; this is taking the way of thinking for this one issue and applying it to other issues. When we do this it fails.

Instead, as Christians, we should be reaching out to these women while trying to ban the practice of abortion. The two are not mutually exclusive.

4)   “It’s not my calling as a Christian to change the law or to make the lost behave like Christians.”

There might be some merit to this argument, but this still wouldn’t support a Christian being pro-choice. In fact, a Christian that wanted to consistently hold to this belief would simply have to cease voting or holding any opinion on politics.

Even if we are not supposed to hold political sway we simply cannot say we are pro-choice. To say you are pro-choice is to say you believe a woman holds the right to kill her own child. Let that sink in for a bit. Should we honestly believe or teach that something is wrong, that abortion is really the act of taking a human life, but then turn around and argue that someone has a right to do this?

Overall, I would argue that it is simply illogical for a Christian to claim Christ and the pro-choice agenda. It is inconsistent – one cannot denounce abortion as wrong (because it takes a human life), but then argue a woman has a right to have an abortion. This is a logically inconsistent view. If one wanted to be consistent then one would have to apply this to rape, murder, theft, and a host of other crimes. All of these crimes violate the rights of other people and create victims, as does abortion. Instead, Christians are called to speak out against all violent acts that unjustly end the life of a human being. We should not teach that a person has the right to have a choice when it comes to unjustly harming another human. In the end, a Christian cannot support the pro-Choice agenda. 

In the United States the election season is in full swing. It is a time when people become extremely concerned with what candidate will be elected, the direction of the country, and what they can do to change the course of America. Every four years, the American people revolt against the system and vote in a new leader, or they show support of the system by electing in the same leader (or one like the previous leader). In the midst of all this are the Christians.

Christianity in the last two centuries has been quite interesting. It was paid lip service for most of the 19^th century, became quite irrelevant in politics in the early and mid 20^th century, and came back into full-force in the early 1980’s. The ‘Religious Right’ was born and attempted to legislate Christian morality.

It was originally a reaction to the issue of abortion, but then began to tackle other issues as well (such as homosexual marriages and the disintegration of the family). As time progressed it began to take more and more stances on issues that weren’t necessarily supported Biblically, such as a Capitalist structure. More and more it found itself in bed with the Republican Party as an ally and not just a co-belligerent.

With this newfound alliance, many Christian leaders began endorsing politicians, taking up political causes, getting petitions signed, and partaking in protests. Yet, the louder Christians became the less irrelevant they seemed. There is a reason for this.

In our pursuit of political purity we forgot one simple rule; individuality. We forgot that legislation cannot change a culture, but can merely hold back the underpinnings of change within that culture. Legislation doesn’t force a person to think a certain way. Legislation doesn’t force a life change. Legislation only forces people to comply with a moral standard. We forgot about the individual.

We forget that if we truly want to see abortion – both legal and illegal – come to an end, we need to reach out to single mothers and at risk ladies. We forget that if we want to see Welfare slowly dwindle then we need to stop moving out into the suburbs, building million dollar idols to our own achievements in membership, and instead focus our monetary gains on helping the needy and under privileged. We forget that if instead of protesting a homosexual rally or banning homosexual marriage that we should instead demonstrate the love of Christ to homosexuals and bring them to Christ, where sanctification can save them from such a lifestyle.

This is not to say the law isn’t important – it is important to challenge immoral laws. One would be hard pressed to argue that William Wilberforce wasn’t an amazing Christian for engaging the law and eventually getting slavery outlawed in the British Empire. This legislative act, however, didn’t change the view white people had toward black people – the segregation, the racism, and the like still existed. The law prevented the action, but didn’t stop the sentiment. In our own day, though we should use the law to ban immoral practices (such as abortion), we should likewise reach out to the individuals.

The only way to cause actual change within a society is to convince individual people that their worldviews aren’t correct and are inconsistent. It is bringing people to Christ – or even in a minimalist view, a Judeo-Christian ethic – that changes a culture and changes a society. When this occurs, the laws naturally follow.

Instead of wondering which candidate will bring about the most change, Christians instead should concern themselves with reaching out to individuals and bringing the change themselves. 

How does reason work with Christianity? It seems that in the modern age we like to put them opposite of each other. There is ‘reasoning’ and ‘Spirit guided living,’ and never the two shall meet. Yet, this isn’t exactly the Biblical model for reasoning. Here I plan to offer a defense of Christian reasoning by opening with a section from a previous article I wrote:

There is one view that began during the Reformation, but has been revived and popularized in the modern day, which can possibly solve the problems raised by Pascal and Descartes. Reformed epistemology teaches that knowledge and the ability to reason toward truth is an innate concept placed within man by God. While Descartes taught that man’s reasoning would ultimately lead to an understanding of absolutes and Pascal taught man’s reasoning was fallen, Reformed epistemology teaches that, though fallen, man’s ability to reason is not totally lost and can lead to an understanding of truth.

Alvin Plantinga, the modern day proponent of Reformed epistemology, has stated that the cornerstone for such thinking is that the belief in God is basic in all humans, which drives the way they view the world [1]. Since all men are created in the image of God, and since all men have an innate desire to know God, it can therefore be concluded that God placed a way to know Him (truth) within all men. Reasoning, under Reformed epistemology, no longer becomes a tool used and invented by man, but instead becomes a tool that God uses to help man communicate with Him that man sometimes fails to use properly. Views that deny the one true God are not rational, but are ultimately irrational. The more rational a person is, in Reformed Epistemology, the closer to God he is [2]. Since man has the innate desire to know God, man has the innate ability to reason.

Reformed epistemology accepts two types of knowledge, much as Pascal did, but with certain reservations: the natural and the supernatural. As Brian Follis writes, “Calvin speaks of a double knowledge: the ‘simple and primitive knowledge to which the mere course of nature would have conducted us, had Adam stood upright’ and the saving knowledge revealed through Scripture that focuses upon the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who paid the penalty due to us, by which ‘salvation was obtained for us by his righteousness’ [3].” According to Calvin, the natural view is what man was to be guided by from the beginning, but this view was tarnished by the Fall. God must then reveal Himself in creation in order to enlighten man to the natural view that was apparent from the beginning. Therefore, man can know the physical world through the natural sciences, but he can also understand the supernatural world through his ability to reason and also to interpret the signs within the natural universe.

Some would object and say that Calvin believed in the total depravity of man and was thus incapable of supporting any form of rationality, but this objection is wrong. Though Calvin taught that man was fallen, he taught that only in a spiritual sense – his relationship to God – was man totally fallen; man’s ability to reason was damaged, but still remained intact and useful [4]. Though Pascal taught man’s reasoning was fallen, Calvin taught man’s ability to understand true reasoning was damaged, but still useful, even to the point of salvation [5]. Man was, therefore, not only able to know truth, but has truth instilled in him from his birth. Calvin taught that man’s understanding of this truth would be incomplete, but it would still exist.

Finally, Reformed epistemology teaches a concept that both Descartes and Pascal missed – all truth, knowledge, and reasoning extends from God and not from within man. Descartes taught that man could know truth under his own power and Pascal taught man could only look at truth blindly. Reformed epistemology teaches that all truth comes from God and is naturally revealed within man due to God’s grace [6]. Reformed epistemologists tend to take John 14:6 quite seriously in teaching that all truth comes from Christ, thus truth can be known experientially and propositionally. Most importantly, however, is that subjectivity within truth is eliminated within Reformed epistemology. Descartes taught that man could only know things absolutely that could be defined physically or mathematically. Reformed epistemology teaches that man can know anything through his ability to reason, which was given to him by God. Pascal taught that man could not reason properly due to the Fall, thus what might be sinful to one person could be permissible to another. Reformed epistemology teaches that there is a way to know what a sin (an offense to God) is and what is merely unwise for a person (a non-sin). Overall, reformed epistemology acknowledges that God is sovereign over all things, including truth, and placed this truth within man.

_______________________________

[1] J.P. and Craig Moreland, William Lane, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003), 162.

[2] This is not based on intellectualism or rationalism, as the term is much different than in those two beliefs. Instead, what is being implied is that true rationality comes from God and is not from man. Thus, any claim that is made outside of what God has revealed is ultimately irrational, no matter how rational man might make it attempt to appear.

[3] Brian Follis, Truth With Love: Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006), 22.

[4] Ibid. 20

[5] Calvin did not teach that one could rationalize oneself to salvation - this would have gone against his soteriological viewpoint. He did teach, however, that God could use the mind in order to break down presuppositions and bring a person to truth.

[6] Edward J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: WMB. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1948), 56.

Now we must ask a few questions: What does it mean to reason, what is the role of reason in salvation, how do reason and revelation work, and what does the Scripture say about reason?

I - What it is to reason

First and foremost, there are two different understandings about reason in the modern age. Even for those that de-emphasize reason, they will still hold onto these two different views. The first one is called internalistic reasoning, or structural/coherent reasoning. In this view, we reason in order to discover what is truth within our own society. Thus, we determine what is and is not true, we declare what is and is not logical outside the realm of hard science. If society dictates that it is logical to prevent murder, then this is ‘reasonable’ to that society.

On the other hand, the second view is must more pre-modern. This view teaches that reason helps us to understand the Truth that is already out there. Man’s reason is faulty and imperfect, thus can lead man in the wrong direction. At the same time, this reason can also lead humans to an understanding of morality that is universal and outside of the cultural context. This is called externalism or foundationalism. It teaches there are certain beliefs about the world that are properly basic and, in light of this; humans can interact with this universal Truth. Reason, therefore, is not something we created, but instead reason is something that is innate within the human mind, as natural as the ability to taste, hear, or smell (and just like the physical counterparts, is subject to functioning improperly).

Therefore, reason is not necessarily something that we start, but is merely a way we understand the world around us. This doesn’t lead to a perfect understanding, but does provide a rational medium for most human experiences.

II - The role of reason in the life of the believer

What, then, does reasoning play in the life of the believer? I believe that it aids us in salvation somewhat, but is more vital for growing in our Christian walk and understanding of God:

1) Reason aids in salvation - the important word to note is the word “aids.” This shows it is merely a part of the salvation experience, but does not encompass it or necessarily play a major role. For some it might be an act of reasoning that removes all intellectual barriers so that the Holy Spirit can deal with that person. For others, it might be an encounter with Christ on the Road to Damascus, where very little reasoning was involved. Thus, the amount of reason in initial act of salvation is extremely subjective to the individual, with the only absolute being that reason cannot be the total sum of the salvation experience (for this would leave out an actual experience), but cannot be totally absent either.

For instance, even if one were to have an encounter with Christ or to see an image of a man on the Cross, one would have to accept (even if subconsciously) that such an experience is valid. A person on LSD that sees purple elephants might, for the moment, believe that there is actually a purple elephant in the room. Once the high leaves the person, however, she will no longer think it is valid to believe there is a purple elephant in the room. Alternatively, however, when Paul experienced Christ on the road to Damascus he continued to believe in what he had experienced even after the experience had passed. This shows that he reasoned - again, it could have been subconsciously - that he had an actual encounter with a real being.

In order to accept an experience as valid, we simply have to reason, even if this reason is minimal. We have to assume the proposition that, “What I just experienced is actually real” if that experience is to have any effect on our lives. Much like the blind man healed by Jesus, we may not know all the inner workings of what happened, but we can reason that something actually happened to us.

At the same time, we must be careful not to say that reason saves us. To use an example by Peter Kreeft, reason is the boat that takes us across the river of doubt, but it takes faith to leap off the boat once it has hit the shore. There must be an acceptance of this faith that is based on propositional Truth, but not propositional. After all (to use Kreeft again), no one proposes in propositions, yet there is a propositional truth behind all proposals. Likewise, we must acknowledge we are entering into a relationship that is more than reason, but is based on Truth.

2) Reason aids in our walk with Christ- once again, the important word here is ‘aids.’ Even when walking in faith, Christianity is not purely rational, but depends upon the Holy Spirit to change our reasoning. This does not negate, however, that Christians are supposed to be reasonable people once accepting Christ.

A child may not understand how a train works, but the train will enthrall him nonetheless. An engineer, however, will know all the inner workings of the train, but still be impressed. How much more, then, is a Christian’s view of God? God is both transcendent and immanent. This means that a new-born Christian may not understand as much about theology as someone that has studied it for 30 years, but both can love God with the same fervor and both still view God as a mystery.

It is a mistake to think that by studying God we will figure Him out. Rather, we study God and His commands just to get a tiny grasp on who He is and what He wants us to do - we have knowledge of God, but this knowledge is far from comprehensive. We often forget that God is infinite and, therefore, no matter how hard we try we will never comprehend Him. This is important for both the theologian and layperson to understand: It shows there shouldn’t be any fear in studying theology, because there is always something new to discover, but one shouldn’t become haughty in it either because God can elude us no matter how studied we are.

Instead, one must rely on the Holy Spirit for illumination in these matters. Though we are called to use our minds, we are also called to conform our minds to Christ. This would indicate that illumination and reasoning actually go hand in hand and are not diametrically opposed to each other (as many Christians sadly believe). Rather, one uses one’s reason, but asks the Holy Spirit to illuminate the knowledge to that one.

III - The function of reason and revelation

Some might be curious as to how one can reason when our reasoning is faulty. After all, we are told not to lean not unto our own understanding. We are told that the wisdom of God is foolishness to man, that our thoughts are not the Lord’s thoughts, and so on. It seems the Bible would rather us trust in God rather than reason about what He has to say.

The above would stand true if the first definition of reason given were the actual definition. However, due to the second definition we are allowed to acknowledge there is fallibility within our faculty of reason.

The Bible tends to teach a dual concept for understanding - natural understanding and Divinely illuminated understanding. The natural understanding teaches that reasoning is something that was implanted in humans from the beginning of creation, that we could know God through His creation. It also teaches that such reasoning is faulty and that we have often ignored it in order to partake in a lie (due to our sinful desires). Thus, we are also told that the Lord illuminates all knowledge to humans when they seek after Him. It is the fear of the Lord that is the beginning of all knowledge. If one wishes to have proper reasoning, then one must seek after Him.

This works well within Reformed Epistemology. RE teaches that there is a design plan within all humans that is aimed toward truth with the probability of obtaining truth. This fits in perfectly with the Bible, showing that God wants us to know Him through nature and the physical world. At the same time, RE also teaches that we are fallen creatures and, therefore, will not always willingly follow this design plan aimed toward truth.

Sin, therefore, would cause the human mind to function improperly (another component in RE). In light of this, a mind functioning improperly is not a mind that can gain knowledge. It is in this improper function that we are to seek God and begin to conform to Him so that we might function properly. It is through illumination caused by sanctification that the Christian mind begins to function in a proper fashion that allows a believer to grow.

IV - Scriptural support

Romans 1 - almost the entire chapter teaches that God has been known since the beginning of creation and that He has created humans with the ability to know. Unfortunately, as Romans 1 states, we have willingly traded His truth in for a lie because of our perverse nature, showing that we chose to be irrational creatures.

Proverbs 1:7 - this shows that in order to gain true knowledge one must fear the Lord first and foremost. This means one must acknowledge His place as the creator of the human mind and, therefore, the redeemer of it as well.

Proverbs 2:6 - this is a passage that supports an external epistemology, showing that God is the one that illuminates knowledge onto humans, rather than knowledge coming from within. We can say knowledge comes from within if we mean this loosely, but we must ultimately acknowledge that God implanted this knowledge in us due to His design plan for the mind.

1 Peter 3:15 - here Peter implores Christians to be ready to make a logical and evidenced defense (apologia) for the reason (logos) of Christianity.

Matthew 22:37 - Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord with all of our hearts, souls, and minds. When He says mind (dianoia) He is meaning our understanding, thoughts, and reason. This shows that reason does play an important part in the growth of a Christian (but, as this verse shows, it is not the biggest role, just a partial role).

Romans 12:2 - Paul shows that sanctification is more than our actions, but extends into our reasoning abilities and thought processes.

Romans 8:6 - Paul points out that there are two minds; one of sin and one of life. Note that he says mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life. He does not say that once one has become a Christian, one has given up reasoning or given up one’s mind - rather, one’s reasoning is in the process of sanctification.

There are many other passages that show how God is known through creation, but also how He must interact and change our minds. However, the above should suffice for showing that the Bible supports the role of reason in the life of the believer.

Further reading on my own view:

The Necessity of God in the Acquisition of Knowledge

Descartes, Pascal, and Reformed Epistemology: Re-evaluating Epistemology

Further reading from other philosophers:

Warrant and Proper Function by Alvin Plantinga 

The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy: Three Essential Works in One Volume by Francis Schaeffer

Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensees by Peter Kreeft

Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul by J.P. Moreland

Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to Do About It by Os Guinness

In my last post I wrote about a conversation I had with Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt and also alluded to the conversation my friend had with Mark Scandrette. Mark decided to respond on my friend’s blog and it was a very illuminating and helpful reply.

Even though it helps illuminate Mark’s viewpoint – and I think he was a bit too quick to say that we’re trying to fulfill a theological agenda – I’m still bothered by some things. For those interested, you can read his reply here (in fact, it’d make more sense to read his reply before reading my concerns).

Concern #1 – Why are you questioning someone older with more experience?

Though I will be the first to say that being older and having more experience can help, I generally find it useless to even broach this issue in conversation. The reason being is that, aside from being arrogant, it presumes too much. For one, it is arrogant in that it assumes we have nothing to learn from those with lesser experience. Life is not a skill one can master, so though we are all at different levels in life none of us are at a level where we are beyond learning.

I am currently helping a teenager go through a spiritual crisis. He’s coming to me for advice because I’ve studied more, I’ve been through more, and I’m older. Yet, I am not naïve enough to think that I can’t learn something from him. Already I’ve re-learned what it is to have zeal and passion for the simple things in faith.

This is not to say Mark is naïve or arrogant. In all honesty, Mark comes across as a really nice guy and someone that, if we had more time together, I’d really get along with. I don’t say that superficially either, I genuinely mean it.

I will say, however, that it seems superfluous that Mark would bring up age and experience. I can talk to people that have dealt with the mentally ill, have degrees in psychology, and have done it a lot longer than he has that would disagree with what he had to say. Does this make him wrong? Of course not – it simply means that he has a different conviction than they do.

Paul even instructed Timothy to not let anyone look down on him because of his age. Though there is something to be said of wisdom coming with age, it does not necessarily mean that a person who has experience – even lots of it – is correct.

Concern #2 – Well, Franky Schaeffer says this…

For whatever reason, Mark found it necessary to attempt to discredit Schaeffer (or explain Schaeffer, not quite sure) by appealing to Franky Schaeffer. The problem with this, as the book An Authentic Life adequately points out, no one else – including the other kids – really remembers the picture Franky paints of his father. Did Schaeffer battle suicide, problems with anger, and have flaws? Of course he did, he was very human – but he was also willing to point out his own flaws.

The problem with Franky’s book – and relying on it – is that, as Os Guinness says, the book is very self-serving and inaccurate. Hardly anyone validates what Franky says about his father. Os Guinness lived with the Schaeffers for three years and was even Franky’s best-man at Franky’s wedding, yet even he points out that Franky has an agenda in writing what he does.

The point being, all great theologians will have warts. Peter cut a man’s ear off; Calvin burned a man; Schaeffer battled anger and isolation. I’m sure even the EC proponents have major character flaws that would stun people if people ever found out. This doesn’t change the truthfulness or impact of their theology – it merely can show that the person lacked the fortitude to follow through on everything the person taught.

Concern #3 – “If I share the gospel with someone and they don’t respond, am I released from continuing to love them in practical ways?”

Mark says this was the point of his story – once the emperor rejected the Gospel he and Joseph decided that maybe they weren’t called to help him out. God, of course, had different plans.

I actually agree with Mark’s sentiment on this issue. We are to value human beings not because of the evangelistic opportunity they might bring to us, but instead because human beings have intrinsic value.

Where I have a question is Mark says that all his actions were done explicitly in the name of Jesus, but I must ask, was the hospital staff aware of this? Doing things in the name of Christ without letting people know it’s in His power that you’re doing it is like winking at a pretty girl in a dark room – you’re the only one who knows what is going on. Maybe people at the hospital, other than the emperor, asked why Mark was taking care of the emperor. Maybe Mark said, “because Christ loves him” or something to that effect. This would certainly be quite a witness in San Francisco – no debate, no tract, no standing on a soapbox and telling people to ‘turn or burn.’ Simply presenting the Gospel in action – I hope this is what Mark did.

This doesn’t mean we pietistically go around saying, “I bless thee in the name of Jesus” every time we do a good deed. However, if God has placed someone on our heart, we should let that person know Who’s power we’re using. Peter, in Acts, was quick to shift all attention off his good deed of healing and onto Christ. We should do likewise - when people ask us why we do what we do, we have to be honest and admit we can only do it because of Christ.

Overall, however, what concerns me is when he says to Josh, “I didn’t explain this to you, because your line of inquiry presumed that sharing the gospel means telling someone that they are a ‘sinner.’ I asked you to provide references to prove this from the four gospels— and the one you came up with was in regard to the Pharisees.”

The reason this concerns me is first and foremost assuming we can share the Gospel without bringing up the fact that someone is a sinner (unless, of course, the person already recognizes it). The Gospel teaches that Christ came as a substitution for our sins and that without His substitution, we stand condemned before God. Until we realize we have sins that needed to be judged, it’s hard to see a need for a Savior. If we want Biblical references, one can look to Jesus dealing with the adulterous woman telling her to go sin no more (acknowledging that she was, in fact, in sin). Or the woman at the well where He points out that she was living with a man that wasn’t her husband (confronts her on her sin). There are actually more examples, but these two stick out the most.

People are uncomfortable dealing with sin because in our postmodern world, no one wants to be labeled “judgmental.” In fact, being judgmental or intolerant is the one sin that is still left in postmodernism. The fact remains though – we cannot accept a Savior for our sins if we don’t recognize the need for such a Savior.

Concern #4 – How to deal with the mentally ill

I think the mentally ill have flown under the radar for far too long in Christian circles. Mark, I feel, broke new ground in his dealing with the emperor and then writing about it because we don’t really know how to deal with someone that is severely mentally ill. The mentally ill are still in the image of God, still humans, and still deserving of the Gospel message.

I would advocate – no matter how naïve I might be accused of being – that Mark makes a modernistic mistake in his dialogue. It seems that he assumes someone in the Emperor’s state simply isn’t ready to hear the Gospel message. This assumption believes that God, the designer of how the brain and mind function, cannot possibly transcend the mental illness in that moment. Though I do believe we have to be cautious and careful on how we approach the issue, I don’t think “mental illness” is a sufficient reason to take years to figure out a better approach.

Now I’m not saying we should share the Gospel with the mentally unstable, emotionally immature, and severely handicapped in the same way we would share the Gospel with someone that is stable. Everyone is an individual which means we’ll have to know the person (as in, have a context of what the person believes and where the person is at) before presenting the Gospel and present the Gospel in a manner that fits that person’s place in life; the way the Gospel is shared changes, the truth of it doesn’t.

I am saying that Mark is right – we need to take the time to get to know the person, find out where he is in life, what his capacity for understanding is, and find the most appropriate way of telling the person the Gospel. At the same time, Josh is just as right in saying that the Gospel is ultimately the “healing balm” that people need, regardless of their mental states. And I’m just naïve enough to think God is so powerful that, if He so chooses, He can get around that person’s mental illness in that one instance.

Concern #5 – “Your arguments were deceptive”; “You were creating a straw-man”; “You didn’t take the time to understand”

Mark accuses Josh and I of Biblical slander, gossip, not understanding the EC position, creating a straw-man, coming to the table with an agenda, etc. This is nothing new – it seems these are the talking points for any response against someone that so much as questions the EC.

Read The New Christians, or What Would Jesus Deconstruct, or any other emergent/theistic postmodern literature and the story is the same: Any time someone questions the EC, in the literature they are accused of the above. I actually expected that this would be said. This either means that the EC proponents have transcended to a level of thinking that is above us simpletons, that they are horrible communicators, or that they like to shape-shift their arguments so as to avoid being argued against.

Considering some of the biggest opponents of the EC have age, wisdom, and education far beyond the proponents of the EC (just using Mark’s apparent standard), I guess that means the opponents are “more right.” Of course, I don’t believe this.

What I do believe, however, is that the EC doesn’t realize how ambiguous they are being and, more importantly, that a lot of the critiques are far more accurate than they want them to be. The EC is ultimately proving what many have suspected for a while; they are no different than any other Christian movement in the history of Christianity. Pride plays a part in their movement, misinformation, ego, all of that is still just as prevalent in their movement as any other movement. They don’t want to be wrong, so they attack the character of the people questioning them or say the people questioning just don’t understand and are too “modernistic.”

Rarely have I seen them deal with the actual substance of what a person is saying. Mark’s response is no different – he never comes out and says, “Hey, I agree with you on x and actually did that, I just didn’t put it in the story.” Instead, it’s the same tired line that all critics of the EC get.

Final Thoughts

I had hope that maybe the EC could turn around, but after Mark’s response I’m convinced that my earlier post is still regrettably accurate. In my opinion the only thing that differentiates the EC from a legalistic church is the EC is legalistic on different things…and wear thick frame glasses.

I’ll pray for Mark, but after seeing his response I feel he has come so close, yet ended up so far away from the truth of the Gospel. His response only confirms my decision to abandon any hope in the EC long ago (when I was taken in by it): There is little difference between it and the legalism I was so used to growing up. 

Imagine jumping in a time machine and going back to 1908  - you find yourself in a revival almost a decade after the turn of the century. It’s a time of change, a time of questioning, and a time of theological challenges. This is what Tony Jones (The New Christians), Doug Pagitt (A Christianity Worth Believing), and Mark Scandrette (Soul Graffiti) attempt to do in The Church Basement Roadshow: A Rollin’ Gospel Revival. Taking on characters of the time period, they do an excellent job of acting the part of turn-of-the-century revivalists. What I want to talk about, however, is the parts where they break character and read and explain portions of their books.

The first one to break character is Doug Pagitt – he sits there and reads from his book, explaining his conversion experience. Not having grown up hearing about Jesus, he is introduced to Jesus through a recently converted friend. Shortly after accepting Christ, he is sat down by two men who are supposed to disciple him and they explain deep, complex methods of theology to this new Christian with no background in Christianity. They then gave him a train illustration about how there are three ‘cars’ to Christianity: facts (driving the train), faith (behind the facts), and feelings…separated from the rest of the train. They told him that no matter what he’s feeling, he needed to trust in facts and faith. Doug went onto say that he has never struggled when it was left up to his feelings and faith; the struggle begins when we are introduced to belief systems.

After some more parodying of early 20^th Century revivals, Tony Jones got up to speak. The central message of what Tony was trying to say was, “It’s not our doctrine, it’s our love.” He then began to ask why we so often talk about grace without talking about the sacrifice of Christ. He then talks about how too often people (including his past self) focus too much on doctrine and not enough on Jesus; people don’t care about doctrines, they care about grace. Tony sums up his entire point by saying, “I want a faith that fits my culture.”

To conclude the meeting, Mark Scandrette got up to give his speech. He stated that there is a difference between being a fan of Jesus and being a follower. His central message was that maybe the things Jesus said in the Gospels were supposed to be taken literally (e.g. taking care of the poor, widowed, etc). He then shares the story of how he helped take care of a mentally ill man in San Francisco. The man had declared himself an emperor and would hear nothing of Jesus. Despite this man’s flaws, Mark and his friend helped this man through some pretty disgusting situations. Finally, the man lay in a bed in the hospital and asked why Mark took care of him. Mark simply told the man, “Because we [Mark and his friend] love you.” He concluded by asking if an act of love was important because of the results it brings, or if it’s important in and of itself.

After the meeting I had the chance to interview Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt (Mark was busy talking to a friend of mine). When I spoke with Tony, he seemed a little preoccupied and somewhat uncomfortable that I had labeled myself a “friendly critic” of the Emergent Church. He was still very kind enough to answer my questions and he loosened up toward the end of the conversation. I asked him why people are drawn to the Emergent Conversation and he bluntly said, “They think the church sucks – they think it’s boring, irrelevant to our culture, and hypocritical.” When I asked him if he believed there are essential beliefs, he said that to him the inspiration of Scripture, the hypostatic union, and the Trinity were essentials. When asked about what philosophers and theologians had influenced him, he stated Rudolph Bultmann and Hans-Georg Gadamer. I then decided to ask him if he saw the EC as getting back to what the church once was like, or if it’s just another progressive step forward that will one day need to be reformed. He adamantly stated that it’s not an attempt to get back to what church “once was,” and that we need to be a 21^st century church, not a 1^st century one. He stated that the Church constantly has to reform itself, sloughing off beliefs of the past while adapting beliefs that apply for our time.

My friend’s discussion with Mark Scandrette was a bit more…interesting. My friend walked up to him and said it was really cool what he did for that man in San Francisco. He then asked Mark if he did anything to confront the man on his sinful lifestyle. I did overhear the reaction, “I’m going to be honest, that sounds judgmental bro.” He then began to lecture my friend on how until we deal with these types of people we can’t really call their lives sinful – we don’t know what caused them to be this way. Even after my friend told Mark that he [my friend] works at a homeless shelter and is befriending a transvestite named “Theresa,” Mark simply didn’t want to hear that we should share the Gospel with people.

I found both the show and the interviews afterward to be interesting – it confirmed a lot of what I have read in Emergent literature. My initial thoughts, however, are that they [the EC] are so close to the truth, yet so far.

In reflecting back on what Tony said – both in the show and the interview – I’m left wondering why everything has to be ‘either/or.’ Why does it have to be either doctrine or love? Why can’t it be both? Why can’t it be that our doctrine about God draws us closer to Him in love?

I would ask a similar question of Doug – why must belief systems challenge our faith? More importantly, are such challenges and struggles necessarily wrong? Francis Schaeffer, in the 1950’s, went through an incredible struggle with Christianity. He worked it out, both intellectually and emotionally, and came out a stronger Christian because of it. There are countless stories of Christians running into belief systems that cause them to struggle intellectually and emotionally with Christ – but why must we view these struggles as a bad thing?

Finally, with Mark I wish I could have asked him if he truly loves anyone. Love does not mean passivity or ignoring someone’s faults. In our modern society that is infected with the desire of personal peace – the desire to mind our own business and be left alone – we think it is taboo or judgmental to point out people’s flaws. What if these flaws are what are hurting people? How loving can it be when we see someone having an internal struggle that has been caused by their sin and we don’t even attempt to offer the one and only solution to that sin? He says that maybe Jesus meant everything He said in the Gospels, but if this is true, shouldn’t it also apply to the Great Commission?

I think all three have their hearts aimed in the right direction, but their minds are in the wrong place. They want to help people, they want unity, they want to see the Church cause actual change in this world – but they’re committing the same mistakes both liberals and conservatives make. They’re creating an “either/or” situation (you either help people or you share the Gospel, not both). The simple truth is, a lot of Christianity is “both/and.” You help people’s physical needs and you help their spiritual needs. You intellectually understand the faith and you culture your emotions within the faith.

What is to be expected though when Bultmann and Gadamer are the influences of these men?  Bultmann taught that we could know Christ apart from the ‘myth’ (history) of the Gospels. The history doesn’t matter according to Bultmann, only the spiritual truths. Gadamer taught that truth and method were in opposition to each other – you experienced truth, there was no method to know it.

The EC is the child of neo-orthodoxy and deconstructive thought elements that trickled down from postmodernism. It relies on loving actions, but abandons the doctrine behind those actions. They currently realize we cannot know God unless we love Him, but I would venture to say our love for God cannot grow unless we know Him (through an intellectual growth). 

Today I watched a little girl try her hardest to run away from her father at the grocery store. He finally let her go explore the massive store, but of course kept an eye on her while staying out of sight. Eventually she got lost – easy to do when you’re little – and began to worry, then panic, and then cry. Her father came around the corner and she ran up to him and grabbed onto his leg tightly. Five minutes before she wanted to leave him, but now, after having her way, she wanted nothing more than to hold onto him.

Humans are a lot like that with God. We hate the idea of a sovereign God because it ruins this idea of free will. We love the ability to choose. We love the idea that we can make our own plans, we can make our destiny, we are in control. Sure, if things get tight God will come along and rescue us, but for the most part He leaves us be.

Others, of course, are more open in their view and allow for the view of a God that doesn’t know the future, or in the case of Weakness Theology, doesn’t know the future and can’t know the future. This is because we see so much go wrong in our world that we feel God wouldn’t possibly allow such things to happen.

In one of the deleted scenes from the movie Bruce Almighty, Morgan Freeman (playing the role of God) shows Bruce a string of prayers that Bruce said ‘yes’ to. There was a little boy who was bullied at school that prayed God would stop the bullying. Bruce said ‘yes’ and the little boy because a wrestling star eventually, dying from a steroid overdose. There was a lady praying that God would remove her mortgage debt. Bruce said ‘yes’ and she won the lottery, but never spoke to her sister again. In both instance, ‘God’ tells Bruce that the young boy was going to one-day write amazing poetry, based on his experiences. The old lady was going to be humbled and forced to rebuild a lost relationship with her sister. He then says probably one of the best lines ever uttered in a movie (too bad it was deleted): “Bruce, to paint a beautiful picture, sometimes you have to use some pretty dark colors.”

We who belong to God shouldn’t worry – we do, but we shouldn’t. Romans 8 promises that God will work all things toward good for those who believe in God and are called according to His purpose. This would seem to indicate a few things:

1)   God is in control – the sovereignty of God is not to be questioned in our despair or in our doubt. He is in control and has a plan. We may not know that plan, but it does exist. He is a wonderful God that guides the steps of His children – we should trust in this.  

2)   God’s plan is superior to our own – too often I have been told to have a ‘plan B.’ Too often we’re told to aim toward what we want. Very rarely are we told to trust in God. Would God have a plan that is not superior to our own? Would God aim us toward something that would not, in some way, fulfill us? The answer, of course, is no – God’s plan is superior and better than whatever we could hope or dream for.

3)   God’s plan is comforting – just as the child, who tried to find her own way around the store, but instead found solace in the embrace of her father, so should we with God. Instead of seeking after our own desires and our own plans, we should instead simply seek the embrace of God and His sovereign Will. We should seek after what He desires for us and nothing else – this is the source of true happiness, it is the only way to be totally fulfilled. 

There is no doubt that we are entering a cynical age – every idea, every glimmer of hope, every statement made by an authority figure – everything is to be questioned. Barack Obama was seen as this great hope and savior until he started listing some of his plans and ideas. So long as he simply said, “there is hope” and “there is change coming” people didn’t question how this hope or change would come about. Now that he is mentioning some of his plans, he has become nothing more than another joke on The Daily Show, another false hope produced by a secular society.

Generation X and, even more so, the generation following it (those born 1984-2000) has grown up an extremely nihilistic generation. I do not mean nihilistic in the way The Big Lebowski means it (where they care about nothing), but instead in what I believe to be the mantra of nihilism: de omnibus dubitandum (“everything is to be doubted”). Many people associate this saying with Descartes, but I believe it is Nietzsche that understood the real impact of the term.

In the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche uses this term and applies it to all previous Enlightenment thinkers, including Descartes. He argues that Descartes, Kant, Rousseau, and even Hume all took this mantra for granted by never questioning their own existence, their own thinking, their own absolutes, or in the case of Kant, his own synthetic a priori judgments and categorical imperatives. Nietzsche, instead, argued that we should question everything and that we may not come up with an answer to the question – we should simply question.

This, of course, leads to cynicism, which I believe we find in Nietzsche’s writings. He never adequately offers a counter philosophy to the philosophies he critiques – there is no transcendent morality because God is dead and we have killed Him, thus, might makes right. For Nietzsche, there could be nothing more than societal truths – how could the Persian tell the German what to do and vise versa? Likewise, there could never be any ultimate meaning to life, other than whatever meaning we put to it. Nietzsche is best summarized in his book The Antichrist in which he states that Buddhism is the best of all religions, because it ultimately believes in nothing.

This attitude has permeated American culture in recent years – we have not seen it blossom fully, but the stage is set. We are watching the rise of a generation of “know-nothings” and “care nots.” They are against war, not because they are pacifists, but because they believe there is nothing worth fighting for. They have lost an idea of what it means to be human so they attempt to fill this void with materialism, their jobs, money, or indulgences in sex, drugs, or alcohol.

This is a generation raised to question everything and rightfully so – they have been lied to. Obama is quickly losing his Messiah status because he is turning on things he previously said, he’s offering a structured plan and not a broad plan that one can’t be cynical about. We can be cynical about plans, but we are not yet to the point where we can be cynical about abstract ideas such as “hope” and “change.”

Worse, however, is that the media has manipulated this generation. They have been promised to “buy this,” “do that,” “say this,” “listen to that,” “enjoy this,” “reject that,” “act this way,” “be free,” and so on. Yet, in all of this they have not found true fulfillment. I have friends that are on the verge of being 30 that still act like they did in high school because they have been trained to believe that our fulfillment is found at the bottom of a bottle or under the covers living out our wildest fantasies. Realizing that there is no fulfillment in these actions, they are cynical of anything that appears to be an illusion.

Jean Baudrillard, the French postmodernist, claimed that America is Disneyland. At Disneyland all the employees are actors, trained to be happy all the time, always nice, always dressed a certain way, always acting a certain way. Baudrillard argued that the media has turned America into this atmosphere and that youth are now fed an illusion of what it is to be human (to use his term, a simulacrum). Thus, this nihilistic generation has grown tired of the façade that they’ve been fed and reject all things, believing them to be an illusion – and they are generally correct in their assessment.

Enter the Church that, for all intents and purposes, is failing miserably to not only reach out to this generation, but to even understand the problem. The Church is still stuck in this idea that everyone comes to the world through Judeo-Christian eyes and that if we can offer enough evidence that Christianity is true, or if we can rationally prove Christianity, it will be enough. Some go even further to think that if we just tell people to read the Bible, or if we just preach a sermon that addresses the Gospel, that will win the people over. Though the above two are certainly necessary and good, they are not all that is needed in this nihilistic age.

Church has ended up being just another illusion. The worship band plays, the concert is neat, the programs are excellent, but a nihilistic generation sees through this pseudo-church for what it really is; a spiritual social club. This nihilistic generation is also narcissistic, but both of these conditions are not how God intended us to be, thus we grow tired of these conditions. However, the Church merely feeds these conditions when we partake in the illusion and create a church that is “for the people” or one that “has not doctrine and stands only for love.”

A church that does the above commits two errors: (1) it makes church centered around the people, around ministering to people, and not about being a community that is seeking after God. It offers children’s ministry, youth ministry, adult ministry, single ministry, college ministry, and so on – but it never ministers. It feeds the people and entertains them without ever actually challenging them and forcing them to question their own worldview. (2) Secondly, by questioning all “doctrines of men” it effectively becomes cynical of all doctrine – it becomes Nihilistic Christianity. It is cynical of all doctrines except its own beliefs (which, of course, are never considered doctrines even though they are).

We do no favors when we entertain youth, when we offer them a fluff Christianity, when we tell them to “just believe”; we are instead only confirming their cynical doubt about Christianity.

Instead, Christians need to stand firm in the truth. We need to tell them that Christianity isn’t about how people feel about it or if people are entertained by it, but instead about truth that is outside of ourselves. Though we should question all things – especially secular society – we do not do so in a cynical manner but in a manner that measures society against Scripture.

Christians need to make this stand, answer the tough questions they bring up, and give them something authentic. We need to stop aping the world and treating churches like giant corporations that run off business models. We need to instead rely on the work of the Holy Spirit, a work that cannot be duplicated or questioned. When they see the authentic work of the Spirit in our lives, they will not they have encountered something real, something cynicism cannot touch, and they will begin to question.