These are questions Australians are asking every day. As followers of Jesus Christ, what should our attitude toward environmental matters be?

If we are going to answer the questions of our day, we need to have a Christian view of environmental protection. Let’s start by looking at the secular view.

Secular environmentalism

The secular environmental protection movement is primarily grounded on one key premise: Naturalism.

Naturalism is an exclusive commitment to natural causes in explaining the origins of the universe and man. Since the supernatural has been ruled out, the only mechanism for the development of all that is, is chance.

This means the Naturalist environmental activist must assume that the universe was not carefully designed. Instead, he must assume that all progress is predicated on a process of disasters—a process he must bring to a halt in order to survive.

The Evangelical response

Evangelicals have tended to respond to environmental activism in strong, reactionary terms. Environmental activists are often scorned and given derogatory labels such as “tree hugger” or “radical green.” While these labels can accurately be affixed to certain elements of the extreme fringe, it is important that Evangelicals respond to bad ideology, not react to it.

Developing a Christian view

What is the Christian approach to environmental protection?

There are four key tenets that need to be affirmed:

1) God designed the environment.

Jeremiah 10:12 tells us that “It is [God] who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.”

Our environment is not the fragile remains of a series of chaotic accidents. Rather, Christianity holds that our environment was carefully designed by a wise God.

This is why a Christian world-view tends to look at the environment as a robust, self-adjusting, self-healing, and resilient organism such as the human body rather than as a fragile, temperamental, and sensitive machine¹ such as a pendulum clock.

2) God owns the environment.

As the designer and creator of our environment, God has a right to what he made. “In his hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are his also. The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land.”²

3) God is in control of the environment.

God made our environment, and he will destroy it. And until then, what he made is “stored up for fire.” It is “kept until the day of judgement.”³ Many in the environmental protection movement have predicted man made global catastrophe. In a sense, we could say that man will not get off that easy.

4) God has made us managers of the environment.

No sooner had God finished making our environment than he set mankind in place as its managers. He told us to fill it, to subdue it, to rule over it, and to have it for food.⁴

This is not a licence to abuse our environment. It is a command to manage it well so that it will continue to function as it should.

The implications

The four tenets outlined above place a heavy weight of responsibility on believers. They confirm that it is not acceptable for a Christian to shrug off environmental matters as unimportant.

On the other hand, these tenets also make it impossible for Christians to approach environmental issues in the same way others do.

A Christian view of environmental management mandates that believers not only abstain from environmental extremism, but also engage in proactive, practical management measures.

Some have packaged this as “creation care.” That works.

Perhaps it could be more diplomatically⁵ labelled “environmental management.” This focuses on objective elements that all members of society can agree on while allowing Evangelicals to speak to the issue proactively and from a biblical paradigm.

What steps should we take?

What steps should believers take? Perhaps the most pressing need is for a change of attitude among conservative Evangelicals in Australia. Opposition to proposed laws and regulations should be coupled with a solid commitment to our environmental management responsibilities. If we are not in favour of one method of environmental management (such as an emissions trading scheme), we should be willing to consider and support alternate methods.

Conclusion

As believers, we don’t face the future with anxiety as non-believers do. Instead, we have a confident hope because we know that all creation rests in the powerful and loving hands of the creator.

We rejoice to know that from him and through him and to him are all things.

To him be glory forever!

Amen.⁶

.

^{[1] It is ironic that it is difficult to find anything more natural than a machine to illustrate the point since a machine inherently assumes a designer.}

^{[2] Psalm 95:4-5.}

^{[3] 2 Peter 3:7.}

^{[4] Genesis 1:28-29.}

^{[5] The term “creation care” frames the issue in a way that draws it into the creation/evolution debate. While this is a debate that needs to be had, merging the two debates could easily distract from the issue it is attempting to address, namely, environmental management.}

^{[6] Romans 11:36.}

If you thought there was a conspiracy in my writing on this topic (part 1, 2), you were right. I really wanted to bring it down to theology. After all, theology matters. It always matters.

So where do we see conspiracy thinking in theology?

Well, it seems Christians are prone to conspiracy theories just like anyone else. Maybe it’s because Christianity has always been the shepherd boy standing against the giants of unbelief. Unfortunately, conspiracy thinking often causes us to use up all our smooth stones on our brothers.

Conspiracy theories have sold enough Christian books and fuelled enough Christian periodicals to make them big business.

Here are some examples of the forms conspiracy thinking takes in theology:

Revisionist history – What history books are you finding in Fundamentalist colleges today? Check it out sometime. A lot of them are obscure or self-published textbooks or just course syllabi with no textbook at all.

If a theory cannot be built using the historical data available in the broader Christian and academic scene (albeit countering and differing with the various biases and interpretations), then it’s probably little more than a conspiracy theory in a suit and tie.

Demonising – When it comes to theology, there’s no one we like to dislike more than those who have wrong theology (which of course is defined as anyone who disagrees with us). But when someone tries too hard to make you dislike those you dislike more than you already dislike them, you may be dealing with conspiracy thinking.

For instance, the Roman Catholic Church has enough crimes which can be legitimately attributed to it without accusing it of founding Islam and organising the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Conspiracy thinking attempts to demonise people instead of just warning about their error.

Simplistic thinking – Every good Fundamentalist knows that Egypt stands for bad things in theology, so it’s a given that nothing good could come out of Egypt. It’s quite simple really—or is it?

Egypt was actually a place of refuge for Jacob and his family during famine and even for Jesus Christ Himself in his early years. Further, tradition suggests that at least two of the Lord’s twelve disciples ministered in Egypt before their death.

But it seems so simple to just say “well, that piece of theological evidence comes from Egypt so it must be corrupt” and end the discussion with that. But wrestling with complexity is part of growing up.

Simplistic explanations are the stuff of conspiracy thinking. Our goal must be to explain complexity as simply as possible. Simple is good. Simplistic is bad.

There are quite a few conspiracy theories in current Fundamentalist theology. Of course as we pointed out in the first post, some of them could be correct. But if there’s any correlation to their secular counterparts—well, let’s just say I don’t subscribe to the ufoevidence.org weekly newsletter.

Before we consider this question, do you consider yourself to be “KJV Only?”  By this, I mean:

• Do you believe that God preserved His Word to us in the King James Version only?
• Do you believe that any other Bible translation is unreliable and must not be used?
• Do you believe that using the KJV only is a mark of a genuine Christian?

If you answer “yes,” you are KJV-only.  Now, there are others who would answer “no” while still using the KJV.  These people prefer the KJV, but they are not KJV-only.  For example:

• Someone who prefers the KJV while acknowledging the validity of other translations as equally the Word of God
• Someone who reads the KJV because it has been their lifelong Bible for memorisation and learning
• Churches which officially use the KJV for the sake of uniformity in discipleship and worship, not by conviction

Like most evangelical Christians, I believe God inspired His Word infallibly in the original writings, and that His Word has been reliably preserved in the totality of its copies, not exclusively in the King James Version.  I still teach from the KJV, but I am not KJV-only.

Why bother?

You might not care about this issue.  However, you should be aware that “KJV-only” is important to many independent Baptist churches, as evidenced in their statements of faith and preaching.  This is a divisive issue, notorious for endless arguments and accusations.  This has also become a test of fellowship, where some churches and Christians separate from those who are not KJV-only.

When Christians argue about the King James Version, the topic concerns whether the KJV is the only acceptable Bible translation or not.  My intention is not to start another debate on this point here.

Instead, I want to discuss what kind of error is “KJV Only” and how to respond to our KJV-only brothers.

Kinds of error in the New Testament

There are two main words for describing sinful crises in the church: apostasy and heresy.  ”Apostasy” refers to the total renunciation of the faith, while “heresy” normally refers to a faction or divisive movement, like the Sadducees or Gnostics.  Heresy is a teaching that claims to be Christian but subverts the faith.  While I would not classify KJV Only as apostasy, there are elements of KJV Only that are clearly subversive to the doctrine of inspiration and to biblical Christianity in general.  Peter Ruckman’s teachings are one example.

In the New Testament, there were also unnecessary disagreements which threatened to divide the church.   Paul appealed to the Corinthian church “…that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions (Greek: schismata) among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1:10)  Overall, the KJV Only position is schismatic, promoting an unjustified division within the Church.  The division is unnecessary because Christians should be able to agree on the Bible’s inerrancy and preservation, without upholding one English translation as the litmus test for Christianity.

If you disagree with the KJV Only teaching, how should you view those who follow it?  Rather than scorning them all as heretics, keep in mind that there are various kinds of people who were in error in the New Testament.   For example:

1. Apollos was an eloquent preacher of the Scriptures, yet he needed Priscilla and Aquila to explain the Word more accurately to him.  Although he was initially ignorant in some part, he was teachable.
2. Others had misinterpreted the Bible’s teaching, while wanting to avoid sin.  In I Corinthians 5:9-11, Paul corrected the church’s misunderstanding regarding associating with the sexually immoral etc.
3. Peter was guilty of being inconsistent toward the Gentiles, and Paul confronted him.  Peter’s error was temporary and his identity as a Christian was never in question.
4. The apostles also referred to those who are deceived and living in error.  For example, Paul called the Galatian church “foolish” and “bewitched” in their thinking.  (Gal. 3:1)
5. The churches were affected by deceivers — infiltrators who purposefully sought to dissuade believers from the truth.    (source: Robert Sheehan)

How to respond

Teach the truth. In all of the above examples, the right responses included admonition and / or instruction.  If you desire to avoid needless schism in the Church, you should understand the KJV Only issue and be able to apply the truth.  Don’t pass it off as a “waste of time.”  At least be able to refer others to a helpful resource on Bible preservation.  At the same time:

Keep the main thing the main thing. What is the Bible’s “main thing”?  The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, for the glory of God!  If you are going to commit yourself to Bible study and discussion, spend it on promoting the Gospel, both to Christians and non-Christians.  The attention you give to the KJV issue should be proportionate to God’s exaltation of His glorious Son.

Ben Kwok

In the last post, we saw that the tendency to believe conspiracy theories is a general human trait. This raises a question: why are humans drawn to conspiracy theories? What is it that makes them so attractive to us?

Here are some suggestions.

Blame – Conspiracy theories are a great little tool for removing any guilt I may have for society’s woes and placing them squarely on the shoulders of the politicians/popes/elites/aliens who caused all of these problems. After all, someone’s got to take the blame for all this mess!

Answers – We humans like answers. It doesn’t matter if the answer is unknowable. We want answers and we want them in time for the six o’clock news.

Simplicity – We humans also like it simple. Conspiracy theories fill in the blanks and make things really quite simple. Actually, the word is simplistic. But that’s a complex reality.

Confirmation bias – This one’s a little more complex, but basically, psychologists have noticed that once we humans form some kind of conclusion in our minds, we tend to notice everything around us that might confirm that conclusion and fail to notice everything that might contradict that conclusion.

There is great power in that moment when the suggestion of a conspiracy causes everything to fall together in our minds. Problem is, unless we’re very aware of our bias and take the effort to step back and see things objectively, we easily become victims of confirmation bias.

Anti-elitism – We don’t like having people in charge of us. If one authority in my life hurt me, no doubt every authority in my life—government leaders, religious leaders, employers, basically the “elites”—must be just as bad. Besides, they make more money than I do.

Cynicism – Some people just think everyone is out to get them. Did you know there’s an official name for that. It’s called “mean world syndrome.” That’s right. It’s one of the characteristics of “Media Induced Post-traumatic Stress Disorder.” Bet you didn’t know that.

Agenda pushing – Yeah. Most of the time, the person pushing the theory is also pushing an agenda and agendas tend to drive facts. If we like the agenda, we’re likely to accept the conspiracy theories that back it up.

Fear – Life can be complex and difficult to understand. When it comes down to it, following the facts is scary. I mean, we could end up anywhere! And we definitely can’t say “I don’t know”. What would people think? And that leads to the biggest one…

Pride – I saved this for last, but this is what it all boils down to. We like to know what others are too stupid to know. We like to look down our noses in disdain at those who fall for the official version. Yes. Shock. We humans are driven by pride.

May God grant us wisdom and discernment in these things. Next week, I hope to make some applications to the world of theology.

Warning: it’s got a bit of sarcasm… ok… a lot of sarcasm. If that’s the sort of thing that bothers you, please stop reading now. Otherwise, I trust it will be thought provoking and helpful.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES, PART I

You may have been duped by all those media reports on 9/11 about the “terrorist attacks” on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but of course anyone with a brain knows that the US government organised the attacks in cooperation with Al-Qaeda.

Oh, and did you know that the world’s most powerful people are all part of an alien race of lizard people? Even Princess Diana said so (just before she was murdered)…

For some reason, conspiracy theories seem to breed in the human mind quicker than cockroaches in a city apartment. Of course, some conspiracy theories have been proven to be true and are widely acknowledged as such. And then there are lizard people.

A universal tendency

If conspiracy theories were limited to one religion, nationality, or socio-economic group, we might find some external reason for our attraction to these theories, but the facts are actually quite opposite.

Conspiracy theories seem to gain acceptance across the religious/non-religious spectrum; across educational barriers; across age ranges, political attitudes, and economic differences. In other words, it’s not just Christians, Anglo Saxons, poor, or right-wing people who are prone to conspiracy thinking. It’s a universal human trait.

Not only that, conspiracy thinking gains acceptance across all fields of study. There are conspiracy theories about history, theology, politics, science, technology, business, and just about every other area of human study and existence. In other words, the human tendency to create and believe conspiracy theories expresses itself in whatever we do. It’s universal.

More questions

But the fact that we humans have a universal problem which has universal expression doesn’t answer any questions. Actually, it raises more questions when we understand that humans are fundamentally depraved creatures.

Why are humans drawn to these theories? What drives this tendency toward conspiracy thinking? We’ll explore that at a future point. Right now, I just want to identify three traits that tend to characterise conspiracy theories.

Three traits of conspiracy theories

1) The first and key element in a conspiracy theory is that there tends to be repression of evidence.

You’ll hear a conspiracy theorist say things like “Of course we don’t have the documents. Why would the conspirators allow those to survive?” or “If you were part of a grand conspiracy, would you leave any evidence to incriminate you?”

These types of statements are just another way of saying “There is no proof. And that’s our proof!” Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? But this use of no evidence as evidence for a theory is modus operandi in conspiracy thinking.

2) Second, conspiracy thinking is generally based on limited and anecdotal testimony.

A quick look at any one of the many websites devoted to conspiracy theories will reveal pages and pages of detailed—though usually unprofessional—analysis of a few small pieces of evidence (a picture, a video clip, a sound clip, a written testimony, etc.). The only thing better than unprofessional analysis of the limited data is the analysis of a disenfranchised professional like “Dr. Conventional-Medicine-is-Evil” who is a “FULLY QUALIFIED MEDICAL DOCTOR” but who began to question the system after his daughter got the flu from another doctor’s child… blah blah blah.

At the end of the day, the person who gave the testimony is rarely available for elaboration (usually due to abduction by the responsible government agency, religious organisation, alien race, etc.) and often doesn’t even agree with the theory under discussion.

3) Finally, conspiracy thinking tends to view conspirators as extremely smart and extremely dumb at the same time (a corollary to this third rule is that those who believe conspiracy theories are extremely smart while of course those who are duped by the “official version” are extremely dumb).

This third characteristic is best illustrated by the government’s ability to keep their interactions with certain “unidentified flying objects” hidden from generations of citizens all the while being unable to keep said flying saucer from hovering in Granny Smith’s back yard long enough for her to snap a (grainy) photo.

Another illustration is a couple of NASA guys’ ability to con the whole world into believing they were on the moon while they were actually sipping Coke and telling jokes in a desert studio, all the while forgetting to check to see if the shadows were all going in the same direction.

Well, that’s a real (if somewhat satirised) picture of the characteristics of conspiracy theories. What drives humans to think this way? We’ll look at that next.

Acknowledge God’s role in your influence. King Nebuchadnezzar, a man who held the power of life and death in his hand, failed to acknowledge the Creator and he was reduced to a debilitating form of insanity.  If God has given you a position of influence – remember that He gave it to you.

Remember that people are watching. The Scriptures admonish us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.  I’ve always thought that the serpent and the dove are strange bedfellows.  Christians with influence are prime targets for investigative journalism. We’ve had our fair share of leaders professing to have Christian values (or to be Christian) only to be found to be living a duplicitous life.

You can’t please everyone. The Scriptures give us Joseph and Daniel as two examples of God-honouring men with great influence.  Both men held high positions in pagan kingdoms.  Their faithful service was attacked – not because of demonstrable personal failure but by the actions of salacious and scheming individuals.  Let God be your defence.

This post was written by Donna Lynn Hess.

Is fantasy a bane or blessing for our children? With the rise of the New Age movement, this question is one of increasing concern to Christian parents. However, before we can judge the value of fantasy, we must first understand its definition and purpose. In a broad sense, fantasy can be defined as a genre, or type, of literature in which one or more of the following characteristics exist: the setting is a non-existent or unreal world; the characters are fanciful (i.e., fairies, dragons) or unreal (e.g., personified abstractions, animals or objects); the conflict focuses on physical or scientific principles not yet discovered or contrary to present experience (as in science fiction). The purpose for creating such settings, characters and conflicts may be “merely for the whimsical delight of the reader, or it may be the means used by the author for serious comment on reality” (C. Hugh Holman).

Like any other type of literature, fantasy can be used for either moral or immoral purposes. John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, for example, is a noted literary work that uses the elements of fantasy for a moral end. Unfortunately, there are also negative examples, such as those found in the current occult fantasy movement. It is these negative examples that have prompted some to reject the entire fantasy genre. But is such rejection necessary or even wise? The answer is to apply a Biblical standard of evaluation to every story, regardless of genre.

As stated above, the purpose of fantasy may be whimsical (for pleasure) or may be to make a serious comment on reality (for instruction). The second purpose evokes our greatest concern. We want to be sure that the instruction provided is Biblically sound. To make this determination, we must examine the characters, their actions and the ultimate consequences of these actions in the story. We can evaluate these elements by asking questions like the following: (1) Are the sympathetic characters noble? (2) Do the characters’ actions encourage the reader to accept virtue and reject vice? (3) Does the resolution of the story reward the good and punish the evil that has been presented in the plot? (4) Has the evil been clearly portrayed as dangerous and repugnant? Regarding any evil or objectionable element presented in a work, there are two other important criteria to consider: (5) Is the representation of evil purposeful or present for its own sake? (6) If the representation of evil is clearly purposeful, is it present to an acceptable degree, or is it more vivid than the purpose warrants? The answers to these questions will enable us to determine whether the instruction provided by the work is consistent with God’s Word. (Note: For more detailed information on Biblical analysis of literature, see the author’s Objectionable Elements: The Biblical Approach (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1990). In addition, the author’s Best Books for Kindergarten through High School (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1994) provides an extensive annotated bibliography of quality literature recommended for each grade group.)

On the positive side, Rebecca Lukens, author of A Critical Handbook of Children’s Literature, points out that high, or pure, fantasy often “appeals to the intellect and raises thoughtful questions” about the world and our place in it. It is, therefore, particularly effective for broadening a child’s perspective and helping him take an objective look at universal problems. Fantasy can provide what we might call “mock encounters” with good and evil. Such encounters when presented in an appropriate way can help us prepare our children to live godly lives in a fallen world.

The character of Edmund in C. S. Lewis’s The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe provides a good illustration of this point. At the opening of the story, Edmund is a typical but selfish young boy. This selfishness makes him more vulnerable than his brother and sisters to the flattery and deception of the White Witch. Only after much hardship and pain (to himself and others) does Edmund learn to see the truth about himself and the evil in Narnia. This recognition, however, makes possible his restoration and allows him to be part of Aslan’s ultimate triumph. Through Edmund’s experiences children can learn the dangers of self-deception, the illusion of sin’s pleasures and the pain that results from pride and rebellion. They can also learn the means whereby one who has fallen may be restored. The instruction provided in the story is Biblically sound. A more detailed evaluation, using questions like those mentioned earlier, only reinforces this assessment.

Fantasy—in itself—need not be shunned. Careful evaluation will enable us to discard specific stories that would prove harmful. But we can go a step further. Fantasy can also help children develop valuable literary skills. The sensory images, extended metaphors, personifications, symbols and allusions that fill high fantasy can develop our children’s ability to discern the difference between the literal and the figurative use of language. By teaching our children the benefits of reading good fantasy, we can help develop in them an appreciation for and understanding of similar literary elements used in Scripture.

Is fantasy a bane or blessing to our children? The answer depends on our willingness to evaluate each selection and to nurture in our children an appreciation for valuable literary skills.

Donna Lynn Hess is an author and teacher. This article was copied by permission from FrontLine magazine.

But that is not what this post is about. This post is about the dangers of non anti-intellectualism. It would be easier to say “intellectualism,” but that term has way too much baggage, so “non anti-intellectualism” will have to do.

Non anti-intellectualism is the desire to know and understand, not just what the Bible says, but why it says it. It’s the desire to learn and to keep on learning until the day we die.

Non anti-intellectualism reads a lot because it knows there is much to learn. It also reads widely because it knows it can learn even from those who see things differently. Non anti-intellectualism views education not as a barrier to ministry, but as a catalyst to ministry.

So for those of us who promote non anti-intellectualism, there are three mouse traps we need to watch out for.

Mouse trap #1: Pride

Do you have intellectual ability or credentials? “What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” (1 Corinthians 4:7)

Mouse trap #2: Autonomy

Autonomy is the idea that we are the ultimate and final judge of all things. We are independent of any external rule.

Autonomy insists on understanding something before it will believe it. Sometimes there’s a fine line between the legitimate desire to know and the rebellious desire to be autonomous.

Autonomy gets frustrated and angry with God when it does not understand the reason why. Autonomy cannot rest and trust because it does not want to depend.

Mouse trap #3: Mere understanding

It’s not about understanding. It’s about obedience. God doesn’t teach us so we can know. He teaches us so we can obey out of a heart of love. In this day of vast resources, it is so easy to know far more of God’s will than we actually obey.

God gave us minds and we are responsible to use them diligently, but God is still God and his thoughts are still higher than our thoughts. We need to discipline our intellect to humbly serve the one who gave it to us.

Links

Lots happening in the blogosphere his week.

• Peter Masters, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle (yes, the same one Spurgeon pastored) wrote on The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness this week.
• Russell Moore recently let the blogosphere sit in on his ethics class discussion. Well worth the read.

“I know the sex change surgery was wrong. I know that my life is twisted. I’m willing to do whatever Jesus would have me to do to make it right,” she says. “But what would Jesus have me to do?”

• Al Mohler has some profound thoughts on the need for silence. Where Do All the Colours Go at Night?
• Mohler has joined Piper in defense (and criticism) of Tweeting.

There are more but I’ll save them for another day.

Ever feel like the load’s just too heavy? Hang in there…

Life is not a game. God made us and He put us here for a purpose. Sounds obvious, but it’s so easy to forget when you live in the technology toy factory we call modern Australia.

You know what I mean.

Facebook, Twitter, Forums, Blogs…

iPhone, iPod, iMac…

X-box, Wii, PlayStation…

Email, texts, mobiles, landlines, IM…

The list could go on and on. There’s nothing wrong with these technologies, but we’ve got to remember they’re not just toys, they’re tools. With that in mind, here are a few ideas to help keep technology in its place.

1. Be deliberate. Find tools that will help you fulful your life purpose more efficiently and effectively. Eliminate those that distract from that purpose.
2. Be protective (of your time and attention). Guard your attitude toward communication tools. Just because the phone rings or an email arrives doesn’t mean God’s priorities for your life have changed. Don’t be a slave to your communication tools. With very few exceptions, you don’t owe anyone an immediate response to a communication.
3. Be efficient. There are a lot of tools which will allow you to do more in less time online. Find them and put them to use. Then use that time in more profitable ways.
4. Be selective. You don’t have to own/participate in every new technology or web fad that comes along. Ask others how it’s worked for them. Weigh your options. Participate intentionally.
5. Be Christian. Don’t check your Christianity at the door. If you’re online, be a light for Christ online. If you’re txting, be a Christian txter. Technology allows us to maintain more relationships more easily than ever before. Develop relationships with lost people and preach Christ to them.

Well, those are my thoughts. If you’ve found something else that is helpful to you, please add it in comments.

Links

• J. H. Jowett: “I have a conviction that no sermon is ready for preaching… until we can express its theme in a short, pregnant sentence as clear as a crystal.” Read the whole paragraph at Between Two Worlds.
• Jonathan Edwards on emotion in preaching. Desiring God.
• David Hosaflook has an insightful post on Alcohol on the Mission Field.

And finally, this is an interesting concept:

I’ll start with a few brief comments:

1. I’m glad that Kent has written on this topic in some detail. I believe this issue may be the most important issue our generation addresses.
2. I’m glad that Kent has written on this topic because I believe he’s a good representative of his point of view and has the ability to bring the issue to the attention of more people.
3. I hope this post is not perceived as “blog wars.” It is not intended to be. My goal is for sharpening on both sides.
4. Several commenters on the original post stated that I need to be born again because of my position on this and other issues. I’m disappointed that Kent didn’t call foul.

This is a response to Kent’s part two and part three. I’ll deal with Kent’s points under his own general topic segments.

Part two

“The promise of God”

Kent deals with the topic of faith as foundational. On this we can agree. But I’ll point out that Thomas, Abraham, Noah, Joshua, and Naaman all had the responsibility to presuppose the existence and revelation of God.

Christianity knows nothing of “blind faith.” Our faith must always be in “the promise of God” (Romans 4:20). In other words, there is nothing irrational about such a faith. It is super-rational. It admits the limitations of human rationality and submits to a divine rationale.

Divinely revealed presuppositions

I completely agree with Kent’s point here, but I believe his conclusions are inaccurate. I want to point out two:

1. Kent says “We can only know what God says we can know.” I would amend it as follows: “We can only know absolutely what God says we can know.” More on this under point two.

2. Kent says “The Mariana Trench was the deepest seafloor depression before anyone had measured it. Only God knows what is.” My question is, how does Kent know the Mariana Trench is the deepest seafloor depression? God has not revealed it. We measured it!

He goes on to say “Because of that, only God is trustworthy as a source of knowledge” (emphasis mine). His own statement disproves this point. Measuring the Trench is a source of knowledge. It’s not absolute knowledge. But it is knowledge and it is trustworthy to the degree that Kent felt comfortable citing it.

How we know what God preserved

As noted several times, I will not be addressing this particular issue here. I feel that by making immediate application to a controversial issue, Kent has muddied the waters by bringing in a whole different set of arguments that would require independent handling. I’m disappointed that Kent has chosen not to deal with epistemology independently as I believe it has hampered the objectivity of those who are wrestling with these ideas for the first time.

Two kinds of truth

Kent’s point here is predicated on the idea that there are two kinds of truth. This point is inherently illogical. It is possible to highlight specific or even absolute truth, but there is only one kind of truth.

This reality is captured in the maxim “All truth is God’s truth.”

You cannot argue that because something was revealed in Scripture to be true that it is more true than something which is true but not revealed in Scripture (eg. the depth of the Mariana Trench). It’s truthfulness is independent of our source of it. Granted, our level of clarity and confidence is influenced by the source of truth (i.e. God’s Word vs. measuring), but there is only one truth: God’s truth.

Part three

Enlightenment

Kent deals here with broader worldviews. The broader worldview of the pre-Enlightenment world was not biblical. It was superstitious blind faith. The problem with the Enlightenment is not that it challenged people to look at evidence rationally, but that it did not always presuppose the absolute truth and authority of God’s Word in that process.

The problem with the Enlightenment is that men did not presuppose God and his absolute revelation in all their thoughts. There is nothing wrong with an “age of reason” if that reason is always subject to God’s absolute revealed truth. In fact, it is wicked to throw away the rational capability that God has entrusted to us in favour of simplistic, blind “faith.”

Dialecticism

Dialectic is merely finite beings trying to find absolute truth when they’ve already rejected God’s revealed absolute truth. To represent me as throwing out Scriptural authority in favour of the authority of reason is to present a straw man argument.

I am a Presuppositionalist. The presupposition of the ultimate authority of God’s Word is fundamental to who I am. It is the logical branch on which I sit. It is the transcendent reality in which I function. It is who I am.

And Presuppositionalism doesn’t preclude Evidentialism because I’m not claiming that Evidentialism is a source of absolute truth. Scripture always trumps reason. This is fundamental to the Christian faith.

Before The Enlightenment

As noted above, I won’t deal with those comments (the bulk of this post) which narrow in on a particular issue because there is a completely different set of issues involved in that argument, not the least of which are matters of fact.

But I will make one point here which has to do with your understanding of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not mean that Scripture is our only authority in all matters of faith and practice. It means that Scripture is our ultimate/final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

This distinction is crucial and I believe it largely dismantles your arguement.

Warfield

While I won’t get into this discussion here, I would suggest that there is much material published by fundamentalists on both sides of this issue. The believer who is genuinely seeking the truth will consider writings from both sides.

Conclusion

This is not an attack on Kent’s epistemology. Nor is it a defense for my epistemology. It is merely a critique of Kent’s three part series. If you’re interested in understanding my epistemology, you can get a brief overview by following the links below:

Epistemology and Other Irrelevant Stuff
An Introduction to Evidentialism
A Look at Presuppositionalism
Three Propositions on Rationality
Some Conclusions