Tag Archives: apologetics

Anne Rice’s Dilemma

By Clark Goble | August 3, 2010

Anne Rice’s Dilemma

Approximately ten years ago, Anne Rice (the insanely popular author of The Vampire Chronicles and other books) publicly rededicated herself to the Catholicism of her youth. It was a big moment for Christians. Christians everywhere stumbled over one another to claim her as their teammate. There’s something encouraging for a Christian to be able to claim someone like Rice as a fellow believer. Rice’s popularity transcends race and religion. Her books are loved by people of all walks of life; so when she set aside her normal genres to begin writing fictional accounts of Christ’s life, Christians were thrilled.

Currently, Rice’s faith has again garnered some attention. The author recently announced on her Face Book page that she giving up Christianity in the name of Christ. Rarely does an author of Rice’s status engage her fan base in the way that Rice does. Her announcement was followed by several engaging dialogues between her and her readers. Basically, Rice’s position is while Christ is still the center of her life; she can no longer tolerate Christians themselves.

Rice has levied serious charges the Church. In her announcement, she claims that Christians are a “quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group.” Specifically, Rice is refusing to be associated with a church that is “anti-gay,” “anti-feminist”and“anti-artificial birth-control.”  In the comments that followed her announcement, Rice made it clear she wasn’t speaking of just the Catholic Church, but rather the global Church that includes Catholics and Protestants alike.

The reaction to Rice’s announcement has been mixed. Some Christians have responded with love and understanding and, quite frankly, others have responded in a way that seems to validate her point. Non-Christians have reacted much in the way Christians did ten years ago when Rice became a Christian – they have stumbled over themselves to rub it in the faces of all those Christians they know. In their opinions, Rice has put into words what they were thinking all along.

Does Rice Have a Point?

Does the Church deserve the charges that Rice has levied against it? Personally, I don’t think so. She is not the first person to make such charges against us and she certainly will not be the last. Outsiders have been quite vocal about the Church’s perceived hatred of homosexuals, women, and close-mindedness. My response is that outsiders are really in no position to make such generalizations. I’m a church insider. I have gone to church the vast majority of Sundays over the last ten years or so, I am pursuing a graduate degree at a conservative Christian college and seminary, I teach Sunday school and engage with Scripture on a level most people probably never will and I can attest to the fact that the charges Anne Rice has made (and others agree with) are not coherent with the reality I see on a day to day basis. It simply isn’t true that most Christians are close-minded, hate gay people or prefer weak, docile women. There are no secret meetings where we discuss our hatred for those who believe differently from us. In fact, most of the time we are far more concerned with how we can love people better. My point is, however, that those on the outside of the church (those who don’t spend their Sundays learning the Word and hanging out with Christians) aren’t in the position to pronounce such a judgment. In my line of work, my fellow employees and I are evaluated by our supervisors on a yearly basis; the most common complaint in response of these evaluations it that the supervisors spend very little time actually evaluating our performance. I’ve even been evaluated by supervisors I had never actually met prior to the evaluation! I wonder sometimes if these outsiders have made a genuine assessment of Christianity or if they are simply pronounce us all guilty based on a small sample.

Here’s the problem. Deserved or not, the perception is there. For most people, perception is reality. Also, if we are being honest, there are some Christians who are guilty as charged. Christians such as Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church may be in the minority, but they manage to make us all look bad. The Church needs to recognize and apologize for the hate that exudes from such people. In the face of such criticism, we need to love louder than ever before!

How should the Church respond?

  1. 1. With love: The Christians job on a day to day basis is to love the people that God created. Too often, we condemn the lifestyles of those outside the church without ever expressing our love for them. Scripture tells us to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). I’m not suggesting we turn our backs on the truth of Scripture, but I am suggesting that far too often we overlook the love. Paul taught that the comfort of Christ was supposed to fill us up and overflow to others (2 Corinthians 1:4). More than anyone we should realize that, as sinners, none of us are saved except through the grace of God and the act of Christ on the cross. God’s offer of grace is extended to everyone – even those with lifestyles we don’t agree with. In most case, we should love now and preach later. Or better yet, leave the preaching up to those who are trained to do so. If we focus on love, the world will respond.

  1. 2. With Integrity: Last Sunday, my Bible study class explored the concept of integrity. Too often, charges of hypocrisy are warranted. We so quickly judge others yet fail to practice what we preach. Paul writes that we are to be the “Fragrance of Christ” among the saved and unsaved (2 Corinthians 2:14-17). In the same passage Paul writes about how God often puts His followers on display. This is a frightening concept for all of us who aren’t living as we should. How are unbelievers to respond if we don’t live as the Scriptures say we should? We should be aware at all times that we may be the only Christian someone knows as well as the only Bible they ever read. God puts us on display for these moments and it is in these moments we can shape a person’s perception of the Church. We need to strive at all times to exude the scent of Christ to a world that needs Him. Not just on Sundays and every other Wednesday … always.

  1. 3. With Knowledge: We need to study God’s Word. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to always be ready to offer a defense of our faith to those who ask. Quite frankly, too many of us have no idea what the Bible says or even what we believe. We go to church for the entertainment, the prestige, or because our mothers told us we should. We need to learn what the Bible says. Not just in bits and pieces but as a complete narrative. We need to understand that the Bible tells a story of Creation, Fall, and Redemption.  We need to understand how our belief in Christ fits into this story. How can we ask any unbeliever to embrace the Word if we haven’t done it ourselves?

Basically, Rice’s accusations should serve as an impetus for a personal inventory. The Body of Christ needs to examine itself to see where we fall short. We should strive to walk closer to Christ than ever before. To some degree I can identify with what Rice is saying. When I was a new believer I boldly told people that while I followed Christ I did not consider myself a Christian. I was afraid to be associated with how the world perceived my religion. I didn’t want to be associated with the shortcomings and the failures of those Christians who had come before me. As I matured in my faith; however, I realized that if I walked away from those failures, I was walking away from an amazing story of redemption. In the midst of such human stupidity there are amazing examples of Christ-likeness within the body of His Church. It is edifying to be associated with such people as Mother Teresa, C.S. Lewis, Abraham Lincoln, and … well, I could create quite the list. My point is this – no Christian is perfect. The global Church certainly isn’t perfect. We have made many mistakes that the world often refuses to overlook. Who can blame them when they are simply mirroring the attitudes that far too often we display ourselves? If we want the world to take us seriously, we must love them as Christ loved them; we must extend His comfort, forgiveness, and love to a world that does not know Him. We must live with integrity and exude the scent of Christ everywhere we go. Finally, we must study His Word and know what it is we believe.

Maybe then, the Anne Rice’s of the world will feel comfortable calling themselves Christian.

TwitterWordPressFacebookMySpaceStumbleUponEmailGoogle GmailShare

The Problem with Pantheism

By Clark Goble | April 12, 2010

Did you or your children ever play little league baseball? Can you remember a time when only the winners of the league (and maybe 2nd and 3rd place) took home a trophy? Perhaps like me you have a hard time with the recent trend of participation trophies. I’m not sure when it happened, but somewhere along the way someone got the bright idea that every kid who bought a pair of cleats should get a trophy. Rewarding the kids who work hard, practice and hone their skills is no longer a priority. Why? I’m not sure. Perhaps we’re trying to spare the feelings of the losers. Perhaps the virtue of participation really is more important than the concept of winning. Personally, I think this is a bunch of bunk. Maybe a kid can’t hit a fastball. So what? Let’s help him find his own gift; maybe it’s playing a tuba or swimming. Maybe she’s a natural born writer or scientist. My point is that we should award the kids in an area that they deserve recognition. If every kid that runs onto a baseball diamond gets a trophy, the trophies become somewhat meaningless, right? What’s so special about winning a trophy if everyone gets a trophy?

Right now you’re probably asking yourself what this has to do with pantheism. I’m making a point – trust me.

The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy defines pantheism as follows:

Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that God is everything and everything is God. A slightly more specific definition says [that] pantheism … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it.

This concept of pantheism is common amongst Eastern and New Age religions. Whenever you hear a person talk about “The All” or “The One” you can rest assured they are espousing a belief in pantheism. If I am being honest, the idea or thought processes behind this idea are valid. A person who expresses a belief in pantheism is normally trying to convince others to respect nature. The argument is that we should care for and respect nature and other people because all of it – man, rocks, mountains, trees, animals and etc. – are all part of “The All.” Everything is God so we should treat everything with the proper respect.

This all sounds great doesn’t it? The problem is that this isn’t the Biblical view of creation. Rather, the Bible teaches that we should be able to recognize God based on His creation. Our appreciation of creation and nature should cause us to fall on our knees and worship the true, living God. We may discover the general attributes of God by examining His creation; for instance, He is a God who appreciates beauty, love and friendship. He is a God who loves painting glorious skies and landscapes just to watch our mouths fall open in wonder. However, we must not confuse the Creator with creation. These revelations that can be found in nature are general. If we want to learn the specific attributes of God we must study the Special Revelation found in Scripture and in the person of Jesus Christ. When we confuse the general and special revelations of God we are making the same mistake that Paul addresses in Romans 1:25, “[We exchange] the truth of God for a lie, and worship and serve created things rather than the creator.”

I would take it one step further and suggest we are in violation of one of the Ten Commandments.  When we worship creation as if it were God we are creating idols. Yes we should respect, preserve, and care for our environment; but only because it is a gift from God, not because it is God.

If we consider all of creation God – you are God, I am God, the trees are God, Squirrels are God and etc. – than there is nothing special about being God; much like little league participation trophies, God becomes meaningless.

Look at it this way … if everything is God, than nothing is God. Pantheism is akin to atheism in the sense that God becomes unnecessary. I prefer to learn about the real, living God as revealed in the Scriptures. Yeah, it takes more effort and more dedication than simply pronouncing that nature is God, but it is more rewarding in the end.

TwitterWordPressFacebookMySpaceStumbleUponEmailGoogle GmailShare

Book Review of Five Views on Apologetics – edited by Steven Cowan

By Clark Goble | March 24, 2010

Book Review: Five Views on Apologetics, edited by Steven Cowan
Publisher:
Zondervan, 2000

Cowan’s purpose in presenting his Five Views on Apologetics is to provide the reader with a “side by side” view of the varying apologetic methodologies so that one may make up their own mind as to which method is correct (Cowan, page 8). Cowan classifies the apologetic methodologies into five separate categories; classical, evidential, cumulative, presuppositional and reformed epistemology. The editor then attempts to accomplish his self-assumed task by allowing a contributor who represents each of the five categories to make a case for their unique methodology. After each apologist completes his presentation, the other contributors are provided the opportunity for rebuttal. While the content of this book is valuable, I do have a couple of quibbles.

The first problem with this text is the layout. While I appreciate that the contributors were afforded the opportunity to respond to one another, I feel that each of the five methodologies should have been fully presented prior to the rebuttals. For instance, on page 56 Gary Habermas begins his rebuttal to William Lane Craig’s take on classical apologetics by pointing out that it has much in common with his own evidential approach. This comment is made before the reader has read Herbermas’ essay and can fully grasp what evidential apologetics is. This problem could be addressed by simply reading the chapters out of order and in retrospect I wish I would have done so.

My second complaint with this book concerns taxonomy. The editor himself seems to suggest this is a problem when he says, “these five apologetic methodologies do not constitute an exhaustive list of apologetic approaches” (page 20). With that in mind, one wonders if Cowan’s choice of five methodologies was somewhat arbitrary. Couldn’t he have divided apologetics into six or seven categories with justification? My concern; however, isn’t that Cowan didn’t differentiate enough between methodologies, but rather that he could have focused more on their similarities. The classical and cumulative approaches seem to be very similar in approach to evidential apologetics; as Cowan observes on page 18, “The careful reader will no doubt note that this [cumulative] method belongs in the same broad family of methods as does the evidential (and perhaps classical) method.” Likewise, the reformed epistemology belief that it is reasonable for a person to believe something without evidence seems to place it in the same family as the presuppositional method. Cowan could have easily presented the material in this book under two wide classifications; an evidential approach verses a presuppositional one. My concern is that the reader will become more concerned with adhering to one of Cowan’s five camps than with presenting the best apologetical argument in a given situation. In all fairness, this issue is addressed somewhat in Cowan’s conclusion beginning on page 375 when he summarizes the agreements and disagreements between the five methods.

Despite the above criticisms, this book is highly valuable and should be recommended for newcomers to the subject of apologetics. Before reading this text, I had no idea of the complexities concerning apologetic methodologies and was unaware of the current debates between apologists. Despite the fact I have a natural affinity for the evidential methods of apologetics, I was extremely impressed with John Frame’s essay on the presuppositional method and his examination of how unbelief effects a person’s perception of the truth (beginning on page 210). Frame and the other contributors do a good job of stretching the reader’s perceptions of apologetics. In sum, will help prepare its reader to give an answer to all who ask and for that it is valuable.

TwitterWordPressFacebookMySpaceStumbleUponEmailGoogle GmailShare