6th, defendingfaith
More on causality which leads into the reliability of sense perception
Welcome again to Christian apologetics. We are in the middle, now, of looking at those elements of knowledge, of the science of epistemology, that are essential to coming to a sound defense of the truth of theism.
Last time we dealt with the Law of Causality and we were careful to show that the proper definition was very important. Which is defined in this way, that for every effect there must be an antecedent cause.
Today we will look at the more critical analysis of this Law that was offered by an 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. In his inquiry into these matters of causality made some important observations.
Customary relationships or relationships of contiguity
What we observe when we see things happening around us are what he calls relationships that he calls customary. Customary relationships or relationships of contiguity. As a property line between to pieces of property are said to be contiguous along that line of the two different properties.
So when we see events take place or transpire in the external world, when one thing follows another, and we assume that the one thing causes that which follows it. Because they follow in sequence on a regular basis. So for example, on a regular basis it rains and when it rains the grass gets wet. So there is a customary relationship between raining and wet grass. It happens in such regular intervals that we come to the conclusion that the causes of the grasses becoming wet is the rain which precedes it.
Now you look at me and think to yourself, Is this guy (Sproul) really raising such an obvious conclusion. Because everybody knows that the rain is the cause of wet grass. In ordinary experience that is the way we think because that it is the way it seems to us with our naked vision. We also are accustomed to thinking in this way.
But how do we know that in between -- the falling of the rain and the dampening of the grass -- some invisible cause comes in and intercedes for the rain and is the real cause for the effect of the grass becoming wet.
Isn't this an utterly stupid assumption to make? Isn’t it obvious?
From a philosophical consideration and in light of 17th and 18th century penetrating questions that were being asked about understanding external reality and the forces that are in effect -- making happen what makes it happen. In regard to Descartes school and his theory of Interactionism or Spinoza or Leibniz in other areas of the world. For they postulated invisible causes that were not seen for that which you observe empirically. There was and is a great controversy, in philosophy, about actual causes.
Let’s try an illustration: What is it that makes us sick from time to time?
When this happens we might go in to get blood tests , throat cultures and such which are placed under microscopes. Where we find that antibodies are at work infecting our well being that are invisible to the naked eye. Without the discovery of microscopes we would of never imagined that the causes for our diseases were what they are presumed to be today. It was not that long ago that people were talking about animal spirits invading our bodies and going up and down our arms and so forth.
The microscope has opened up a whole new world to realities that are truly there and are making an impact on our lives. But is a ‘bug’ we pick up seen by us? No.
What Hume was doing, from a scientific analysis was -- there are all sorts of things going on that we don’t perceive. We don’t ever see from our senses.
So we make assumptions -- because one thing follows another -- therefore that is the cause.
Causal thinking, ladies and gentlemen, is at the heart of the scientific inquiry. It is at the heart of medicine also. We are asking a medical staff, when unknown circumstances hit, to determine and ascertain what is the cause of our illness. We want a determination of the cause so they can come up with a treatment that will cure the disease we have. If we can’t determine what is wrong and don’t have a proper diagnosis it is very difficult to find the proper remedy. This is also the case in biology and chemistry and astronomy.
The principle of Causality is presumed… constantly.
To say it another way, Casual thinking is at the heart of natural sciences. Now you can imagine the crisis that came about in the 18th century when this very learned scholar in Scotland raised questions about scientific ability to determine and isolate causes. Hume used a famous illustration that is called the “pool ball illustration.” Which if you can imagine the flat green table with pockets in the corners and sides and a queball and the object ball. You get this ball in the corner pocket by your arm swinging the stick which strikes the que which strikes the 8-ball which is deposited in the pocket that you aimed for. A sequence of causal actions was necessary for this to happen. Does anybody see the invisible force from stick to ball? Do you see a force when the one ball strikes another? No. What we see is one thing following another. This is what is called a Customary or contiguous Relationship.
What Hume is saying is you don’t see causality. You see actions in sequence. The example you may have heard, which is a fallacy, is when a rooster crows and, then, the sun comes up. The farmer, oddly, thought the sounds of the rooster was the cause of the sun rising. Is the farmer wrong?
post hoc ergo propter hoc
This is the informal fallacy in logic called ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc.’ Which translates, after this therefore because of this. Just because something happens after something else does not mean that the previous thing had anything to do with that which came after. Things seem connected but that doesn’t establish a relationship of causality!
This is a brief analysis of David Hume’s work on the problems with types of causality. Since then, you have had all sorts of people assuming (a leaping and attaching meaning in their minds from the events of Hume; in itself a possible fallacy) what Hume did with his analysis was demolish the very Law of Causality. Which, Sproul states, he did not do. He actually came to the conclusion… It is one thing to say that there are forces that I can’t see or that I don’t know are causing something. But it is another to say that ‘nothing’ caused this thing to happen.
When we apply the Law of Causality to the external world we have to face the limitations of sense perception that David Hume sets forth. We don’t have to jettison the principle of cause and effect because of perception limitations. It still is a fact that if something is an effect then, indeed, it was caused by something other than itself. That has to be true no matter how many experiments you make. This is a formal argument (from the last paper).
On to the third principle: Basic reliability of sense perception
This is the 3rd principle we will talk on, the basic reliability of sense perception. We can show that we don’t have ‘perfect’ perception of reality. This is why machines are used to heighten our senses in perceiving things. Why Sproul describes here what Hume worked out is he shows these very limits of human sense perception and the power of that ability. Hume shows those limits.
So we find we cannot penetrate to the invisible realm. Where, perhaps all sorts of unseen forces are at work. Not the least of which is the power of God. Scripture says in Him we move and breath and have our being. Take the part where “in God we move…” One of the assumptions of Christian truth is the principle that ‘nothing can move in this world apart from the power of God.’ We can say that I, as a human, have the power to drop something out of my hand down onto the floor but I am, at best, a secondary cause. I can’t even open my finger to start my action apart from the power of God. The power of God is invisible.
So this analysis of Hume is compatible to Christian theism in that there are limits to human perception thru the senses. There can be no power except for God, which is the power-supply for all motion and because he is invisible no amount of empirical research will get to the heart of the matter. That’s it , the statement is -- to get to the heart of matter -- to get to the heart of the motion of matter.
So this analysis of Hume is compatible to Christian theism in that there are limits to human perception thru the senses. But he took it to a place where he tried to reduce it to a place where all science that depends on sense perception to a place of outright skepticism. It is said of Hume that he was the graveyard of British empiricism. Hume’s description of the skepticism of perceiving forces went to the demolition of causal thinking.
For if you take away causal thinking, you take away both Christian theism but you take away science also.
These factors made Immanuel Kant spend the latter parts of his life in resurrecting the validity of causality and basic reliability of sense perception as it related to science and theism.
My senses cannot give me a comprehensive view of reality.
BUT, the only link I have, though, from the interior chamber of my mind -- my thinking part -- to the external world, the only transition I have from the mind to you (the external world) is through my senses. My body is the bridge from my body to my mind to the world.
What is Mind?
Dr. Gartner used to answer that question with his quip, “what is mind?…no matter… what is matter, then?…never mind.” This thought says there is a fundamental distinction between materiality or corporal reality and that which is nonphysical. And an idea or thought in mind maybe linked to a physical cause with it’s physical stimulation of synapses’ and the like in the physical part of the brain but it is one thing to say that the physical brain gives rise to thinking it is another to say that thinking itself is physical. We don’t want to do that.
My thinking, my conscious awareness of things is nonphysical. I cannot have any thoughts about you (in the external world) or about the world outside in my mind except through my senses. So as imperfect as my senses maybe that is the only avenue I have to physical reality outside of myself.
I can retreat into my own mind and make deductions about what may or may not be out there. But I have no real contact with the world out there except through my senses. That is why it is axiomatic that in modern science and Biblical studies is to operate with the assumption that our basic equipment, that we have, the faculties of knowing, that God has given us; such as the five we might have in their full abilities, is reliable enough for us to act upon. I might think that this or that caused a yellow light is going to turn red but I trust my senses and their reliability that I well stop for the light, even if I think that a demon turned it red.
This is the way the Bible speaks when Peter refers to the reason not to believe in craftily and cleverly devised myths and fables. But we believe what we have seen with our eyes and heard with our hears. Here is a biblical presentation of this basic reliability of our senses being able to be trusted. Even the assumption, in scripture that we can see causal relationships in this world. It is assumed throughout the entirety of scripture.
These 3 principles, we have discussed so far, are non-negotiable to Christian apologetics.
Addendum: and to use for everyday situations and thinking
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.
Friday, August 28, 2009
4th Principle of Knowledge
7th, defendingfaith, 09-26-08
The fourth principle of knowledge: the analogical use of language
Welcome back to our pursuit of Apologetics. There is in this journey, a basic aspect of necessary conditions for knowledge that we haven’t covered yet. Today we will discuss the Analogical use of language. You might think this is a most esoteric term to the lay person as it relates to knowledge and apologetics in our day. So today what is this issue all about. Remember that these studies came out of our inductive study of atheism. The classic arguments that the greatest minds have waged against Judeo-Christianity. And that there are certain elements of their thinking that were consistently present in the critics, which were the denial of one or more of these four principles of knowledge.
Now we come to the last of the four, the aspect of language.
In the 20th century in the contemporary philosophy of this period we saw a shift to a concern with human language. And in the midst of this shift came a controversy that is know as the God-talk Controversy. You may not be familiar with this but what came out of this is was a movement in theology called “Theothanatology “ or the “death of God movement.” All sorts of philosophers and theologians were announcing this death declaration. What was behind this concept was a crisis in the philosophy of language. It had it’s roots, first of all, with a group in Great Britain which was called Logical Positivism. In this movement one of the central theses was the central principle of the law of verification. Well, we all know how to verify something. But this word comes from the word “truth” and it means to authenticate and show that something is true. If I make a claim and I don’t back it up my claim is not verifiable. If I can prove the claim then I have verified it.
This principle stated that only those statements are deemed to be true and can be verified must be done so -- empirically. Or, only statements that can be verified are empirically true statements. Now to show that something is true on can use sense perception to show it is true. So for example, if I say there is gold in Alaska the only way I can prove that this is true is to go to Alaska and find some gold. Then I can demonstrate that it is empirically true. The five senses determine that it so.
This had a tremendous influence on these communities of thinkers. Until somebody said, with what should have been obvious from the out set, that the law of verification, itself, can not be verified empirically. It is simply a gratuitous premise. And with that this school of thought somewhat retreated. But not completely, for in spite of that stumbling block, the guns of ‘verification’ and their criticisms were to take aim on historic theism. With their emphasis to the respect, in their minds, to language about God.
analogy of gold in Alaska
Critics were saying that statements about God cannot be proven in anyway scientifically. Because no one can see or touch God. You can’t subject God to a test either in the laboratory or other analysis. The idea of God remains unprovable, unverifiable, but also un falsifiable. (As an aside; a lot of Christians use this technique also to not have to reckon with logical thinking) Many Christians take comfort in the idea that things that they say they believe cannot be proven false. But something that cannot be proven false does not mean that it is true. For example, if I tell you I believe in ghosts and someone asks me if you have seen some and I say of course. Do we have any scientific evidence for ghosts? You might say no but there is a reason for that, ghosts don’t like scientists. Any time that scientists come around with measuring devices to detect the premise of ghosts the ghosts leave because it is apart of their ghostly nature to flee from scientists. Therefore scientists have never been able to verify them. That somebody deposit’s a believe like this can neither prove or disprove the truth of his premise. But neither can anybody prove him wrong. The impossibility of falsifying his statement is built into the premise. That is what you would call cheating in the theoretical realm of thought. In this vocation it is harder to falsify a statement than to verify one. Let’s revisit our analogy of gold in Alaska. We have stated how we can prove there is gold there. But what if he says there is no gold up there. How would you falsify that claim? Go up there and look around a while? Does that prove that the statement is false? But what does it take to prove the false case; that you must search all of the territory and at every depth. And if you excavated the whole area and said there was no gold, therefore, we (the scientists) falsified the statement that there is gold in Alaska. But they will say you missed a grain in Denali. Go search again you haven’t proven you case. Anyway, it is much harder to falsify than to verify.
However with logic it is an other matter
So this is what they say; since there is no physical prove for God’s existence and following basic rules of verification statements about God are at best emotive. That is, language about God is emotive. When I say I believe in God I am not saying anything meaningful about what exists outside of me all I’m doing is telling you something about me. That I believe and have emotion or passion bound up with the idea that God exists.
There was a discussion Sproul had with a student some years ago who asked him if he believed in God. Sproul said yes and the student went on to say do you pray and sing and read about God? The answer was yes. And all these things are meaningful? Yes Sproul said. The student’s conclusion was that for Sproul, God exists. But I don’t believe in God. And find nothing meaningful about the existence of a God. So for me God does not exist. Sproul says then, this is relativism with a vengeance. He says, to the student we are not talking about the same thing. When I assert the existence of God I am asserting the existence of a being that is apart from me. Outside of me and not apart of my subjectivity and emotional makeup. All my singing and praying and attending does not have the ‘power’ to create him. If it did, I’m simply diluted and wrong. But if the God I’m talking about does exist all of your unbelief and disinterest in him does not have the ‘power’ to annihilate him.
an extremely skeptical approach to the idea of God
Let’s keep this in view. When we talk about God we are talking about the objective existence of God and not my subjective feeling about him. This movement reduced ‘talk of God’ to human emotions. Therefore they claim, statements about God say nothing meaningful about objective reality outside of the people who are making the claims. Now that is an extremely skeptical approach to the idea of God. You have to ask what is behind that. Well, one of the main things behind it was the struggle in the 19th and 20th century to redefine what religion was. With movements having a massive impact in trying to change historic Christianity. In naturalistic terms. Remember, the single most important affirmation of the Enlightenment of the 18th century was, the very key to the Enlightenment, that the God-hypothesis (the idea of God) is no longer necessary to explain the presence and the origin of the universe or the origin of human life. Before the Enlightenment most secular people were very impressed with the classical arguments for the existence of God and as a necessary postulate to explain the universe and human life. The Enlightenment produced a believable alternative for creation and made an impact on western culture and thinking to this day. Not everyone certainly agreed with all these new principles but the emphasis was that they no longer needed to affirm the existence of God. The second key was, science makes known that life and the universe came and come about through a process called ‘spontaneous generation.’ That became the scientifically acceptable alternative to creation. The claim that things just pop into existence on their own. (later in this course we will take a close look at this concept.) But, here, I’m trying to explain how and where this crisis of language came from. The 18th century, following on the heels of this original criticism, sought to accommodate this criticism by reconstructing Christianity in naturalistic terms. Then 19th century liberalism rejected anything supernatural in historic Christianity. They used revision tactics to state that the old testament was written not before an event but after and as an after action report. No real supernatural events just editorial comment. All aspects of intervention were rejected as mythological accretions into the historic documents. The emphasis, then, as it matriculated into society, became for Christianity just the platitudes of love of others and a sociological agenda of humanitarianism. All this taking place on the natural sphere with no need to have a vertical need for believe in a creator. This was the concept of a naturalized religion. This was then married to the philosophy of the 19th century to the rising establishment of evolution or what is called immenetistic. The theology, then, that came to prevail was pantheistic. God is not something that is beyond and distinct from the universe but, if God exists, he exists as a part of this universe. We understand pantheism in it’s simplest form to mean: everything is God, God is all and all is God.
If everything is God and all is God, then, the word God does not refer to anything in particular
Now think of that statement linguistically. If everything is God and all is God, then, the word God does not refer to anything particular. If it refers to everything in general it refers to nothing in particular. The word has no particular significance. This concept of immanence brought a crisis of language. Whether you could speak meaningfully about God at all. This provoked a crisis in theology and philosophy in the 20th century against liberalism and there was an attempt to reconstruct the ascendance of God. A sense in which God is above and beyond the universe and the stream of history. This renewed emphasis of trying to redeem Christianity from liberalism and restore the supernatural. Now when one attempts to correct the errors of your predecessor you can make the pendulum swing too far in the other direction and to an over correction. This is what happened when they came up with the notion of ‘Wholly Other.’ God is so different from the universe we must flee from identifying God at all with the universe, as pantheism does. He exists totally away from nature. God is completely different from the human.
Now as well meaning as this may seem, it paved the way for an even worse crisis of how one uses language about God. So in our next session we will see how this came to pass.
The fourth principle of knowledge: the analogical use of language
Welcome back to our pursuit of Apologetics. There is in this journey, a basic aspect of necessary conditions for knowledge that we haven’t covered yet. Today we will discuss the Analogical use of language. You might think this is a most esoteric term to the lay person as it relates to knowledge and apologetics in our day. So today what is this issue all about. Remember that these studies came out of our inductive study of atheism. The classic arguments that the greatest minds have waged against Judeo-Christianity. And that there are certain elements of their thinking that were consistently present in the critics, which were the denial of one or more of these four principles of knowledge.
Now we come to the last of the four, the aspect of language.
In the 20th century in the contemporary philosophy of this period we saw a shift to a concern with human language. And in the midst of this shift came a controversy that is know as the God-talk Controversy. You may not be familiar with this but what came out of this is was a movement in theology called “Theothanatology “ or the “death of God movement.” All sorts of philosophers and theologians were announcing this death declaration. What was behind this concept was a crisis in the philosophy of language. It had it’s roots, first of all, with a group in Great Britain which was called Logical Positivism. In this movement one of the central theses was the central principle of the law of verification. Well, we all know how to verify something. But this word comes from the word “truth” and it means to authenticate and show that something is true. If I make a claim and I don’t back it up my claim is not verifiable. If I can prove the claim then I have verified it.
This principle stated that only those statements are deemed to be true and can be verified must be done so -- empirically. Or, only statements that can be verified are empirically true statements. Now to show that something is true on can use sense perception to show it is true. So for example, if I say there is gold in Alaska the only way I can prove that this is true is to go to Alaska and find some gold. Then I can demonstrate that it is empirically true. The five senses determine that it so.
This had a tremendous influence on these communities of thinkers. Until somebody said, with what should have been obvious from the out set, that the law of verification, itself, can not be verified empirically. It is simply a gratuitous premise. And with that this school of thought somewhat retreated. But not completely, for in spite of that stumbling block, the guns of ‘verification’ and their criticisms were to take aim on historic theism. With their emphasis to the respect, in their minds, to language about God.
analogy of gold in Alaska
Critics were saying that statements about God cannot be proven in anyway scientifically. Because no one can see or touch God. You can’t subject God to a test either in the laboratory or other analysis. The idea of God remains unprovable, unverifiable, but also un falsifiable. (As an aside; a lot of Christians use this technique also to not have to reckon with logical thinking) Many Christians take comfort in the idea that things that they say they believe cannot be proven false. But something that cannot be proven false does not mean that it is true. For example, if I tell you I believe in ghosts and someone asks me if you have seen some and I say of course. Do we have any scientific evidence for ghosts? You might say no but there is a reason for that, ghosts don’t like scientists. Any time that scientists come around with measuring devices to detect the premise of ghosts the ghosts leave because it is apart of their ghostly nature to flee from scientists. Therefore scientists have never been able to verify them. That somebody deposit’s a believe like this can neither prove or disprove the truth of his premise. But neither can anybody prove him wrong. The impossibility of falsifying his statement is built into the premise. That is what you would call cheating in the theoretical realm of thought. In this vocation it is harder to falsify a statement than to verify one. Let’s revisit our analogy of gold in Alaska. We have stated how we can prove there is gold there. But what if he says there is no gold up there. How would you falsify that claim? Go up there and look around a while? Does that prove that the statement is false? But what does it take to prove the false case; that you must search all of the territory and at every depth. And if you excavated the whole area and said there was no gold, therefore, we (the scientists) falsified the statement that there is gold in Alaska. But they will say you missed a grain in Denali. Go search again you haven’t proven you case. Anyway, it is much harder to falsify than to verify.
However with logic it is an other matter
So this is what they say; since there is no physical prove for God’s existence and following basic rules of verification statements about God are at best emotive. That is, language about God is emotive. When I say I believe in God I am not saying anything meaningful about what exists outside of me all I’m doing is telling you something about me. That I believe and have emotion or passion bound up with the idea that God exists.
There was a discussion Sproul had with a student some years ago who asked him if he believed in God. Sproul said yes and the student went on to say do you pray and sing and read about God? The answer was yes. And all these things are meaningful? Yes Sproul said. The student’s conclusion was that for Sproul, God exists. But I don’t believe in God. And find nothing meaningful about the existence of a God. So for me God does not exist. Sproul says then, this is relativism with a vengeance. He says, to the student we are not talking about the same thing. When I assert the existence of God I am asserting the existence of a being that is apart from me. Outside of me and not apart of my subjectivity and emotional makeup. All my singing and praying and attending does not have the ‘power’ to create him. If it did, I’m simply diluted and wrong. But if the God I’m talking about does exist all of your unbelief and disinterest in him does not have the ‘power’ to annihilate him.
an extremely skeptical approach to the idea of God
Let’s keep this in view. When we talk about God we are talking about the objective existence of God and not my subjective feeling about him. This movement reduced ‘talk of God’ to human emotions. Therefore they claim, statements about God say nothing meaningful about objective reality outside of the people who are making the claims. Now that is an extremely skeptical approach to the idea of God. You have to ask what is behind that. Well, one of the main things behind it was the struggle in the 19th and 20th century to redefine what religion was. With movements having a massive impact in trying to change historic Christianity. In naturalistic terms. Remember, the single most important affirmation of the Enlightenment of the 18th century was, the very key to the Enlightenment, that the God-hypothesis (the idea of God) is no longer necessary to explain the presence and the origin of the universe or the origin of human life. Before the Enlightenment most secular people were very impressed with the classical arguments for the existence of God and as a necessary postulate to explain the universe and human life. The Enlightenment produced a believable alternative for creation and made an impact on western culture and thinking to this day. Not everyone certainly agreed with all these new principles but the emphasis was that they no longer needed to affirm the existence of God. The second key was, science makes known that life and the universe came and come about through a process called ‘spontaneous generation.’ That became the scientifically acceptable alternative to creation. The claim that things just pop into existence on their own. (later in this course we will take a close look at this concept.) But, here, I’m trying to explain how and where this crisis of language came from. The 18th century, following on the heels of this original criticism, sought to accommodate this criticism by reconstructing Christianity in naturalistic terms. Then 19th century liberalism rejected anything supernatural in historic Christianity. They used revision tactics to state that the old testament was written not before an event but after and as an after action report. No real supernatural events just editorial comment. All aspects of intervention were rejected as mythological accretions into the historic documents. The emphasis, then, as it matriculated into society, became for Christianity just the platitudes of love of others and a sociological agenda of humanitarianism. All this taking place on the natural sphere with no need to have a vertical need for believe in a creator. This was the concept of a naturalized religion. This was then married to the philosophy of the 19th century to the rising establishment of evolution or what is called immenetistic. The theology, then, that came to prevail was pantheistic. God is not something that is beyond and distinct from the universe but, if God exists, he exists as a part of this universe. We understand pantheism in it’s simplest form to mean: everything is God, God is all and all is God.
If everything is God and all is God, then, the word God does not refer to anything in particular
Now think of that statement linguistically. If everything is God and all is God, then, the word God does not refer to anything particular. If it refers to everything in general it refers to nothing in particular. The word has no particular significance. This concept of immanence brought a crisis of language. Whether you could speak meaningfully about God at all. This provoked a crisis in theology and philosophy in the 20th century against liberalism and there was an attempt to reconstruct the ascendance of God. A sense in which God is above and beyond the universe and the stream of history. This renewed emphasis of trying to redeem Christianity from liberalism and restore the supernatural. Now when one attempts to correct the errors of your predecessor you can make the pendulum swing too far in the other direction and to an over correction. This is what happened when they came up with the notion of ‘Wholly Other.’ God is so different from the universe we must flee from identifying God at all with the universe, as pantheism does. He exists totally away from nature. God is completely different from the human.
Now as well meaning as this may seem, it paved the way for an even worse crisis of how one uses language about God. So in our next session we will see how this came to pass.
Analogical Language
8th, Defendingfaith
Analogical Language
Our study of analogical language is a chance to break a mental sweat for God's glory and our sanctification. Words to keep in mind:
Analogical Language
Our study of analogical language is a chance to break a mental sweat for God's glory and our sanctification. Words to keep in mind:
Analogia Entis, the example of Chairs, Wholly other, univocal, equivocal, analogical
Today we are going to continue our discussion in the crisis of language and how certain people refer to “God talk.” Last time we talked over the problem of pantheism posed about meaningful talk or discourse about God and we talked about the reaction in the 20th century as they tried to reconstruct the “supernatural.” We ended with the introduction of this concept that God was, “Wholly Other.” This was popularized by the theologian Karl Barth which gave a massive critic against “natural theology” which is an attempt to learn something about God from deductions drawn from nature. Barth was opposed to the intrusion into theology of categories of reason. He is one who as we mentioned before with respect to the Law of non-contradiction, said “until a Christian is able to affirm both poles of a contradiction that person has not reached maturity. “ Sproul would revise this to say that, when a person is able affirm both poles of a contradiction that person has reached insanity. Beside Barth’s antipathy against reason and natural theology he also leveled a radical assault on a concept that was deeply rooted in Christian history. Particularly as it was articulated by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Which concept is called the “analogia entis.” It is a technical term but is critical to this whole discussion. What it means is from Latin to English is ‘analogy of being.’ Barth attacked that by saying their was no such thing as an analogy between God and man because God is ‘Wholly other.’ He completely transcends us. He is totally different from us.
Story about Wholly Other
Let’s illustrate this and what this problem poses to Christianity. Sproul’s favorite story on this happened to him a few years ago when, in Canada, and speaking to a conference there of people who were theologians and opposed to natural theology and rationality. They saw in Sproul’s thinking and theology a heavy influence on Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle and general logic and the like. So the group asked a question stating their problem with Sproul’s view. They believed the God was ‘Wholly other.’ (WO) So, Sproul said, if God is WO then how do you know anything at all about him? And this person responded just as Karl Barth had responded that we know God not thru rational speculation or deduction but we know him through revelation. This transcendent God reveal Himself to us. Yes, Sproul said, but how does He do this revealing? And this person said, through history, the Bible and through Christ. Well, Sproul said, I must not be getting my idea across here. 1. You say there is no analogy between this Being and me, so how can he communicate anything to me or reveal to you and me what he is like? For He is totally ‘other’ than us and therefore has no means of contact between us. Because we are utterly dissimilar beings and what possible ground for communication could there be? Finally the light came on for this person. He literally hit his hand on his forehead and said, “hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t have said that He is “totally other.” Yes, that is good for once you say that He can’t communicate then the skeptic can come in and say that your language about God is meaningless and you don‘t know what you are talking about. Because if there is no similarity between you and God then there is no common ground and no possible forum and avenue for communication.
So, from this example we can say, let’s get rid of ‘Wholly other.’
In the movie ‘Cool hand Luke’ we see Newman as the ‘Christ figure’ and at points in the movie we have this expression, “what we have, here, is a failure to communicate.” Which was one of the key lines in the movie.
Some form of common ground
Well, there has to be in communication some form of common ground for people to have discussion. If you go to Russia and you try to communicate over there and you don’t know this language you are going to have a real hard time getting your thoughts and questions out for they won’t get what you are saying. We have to speak the same language. Churchill was to have said, that “the Americans and the British were two people separated by a common language.” Yes, we like the humor but the simple fact is we have to understand what the other is saying.
You have seen maybe millions of chairs in your life. You have come to know what a C-h-a-i-r represents. Plato called it ‘chairness’ that particular experience of all the chairs that you have come in contact with. So all these chairs that you have come in contact with brings you to understand what a chair is. But no two people have had the exact same experience with regard to particular chairs. A different background from one person to another. So when Sproul says chair, each of us is going to have a different picture or understanding of what that “chair” is. This comes from each one’s personal experience. To the extent that we have different thoughts about chairs then we will have some form of miscommunication. Or differing assumptions. But overwhelmingly we have a greater degree of similarity to what chairs are than to our differences. Even though our ideas are not 100% similar. They carefully approximate each other to an extent that it isn’t significant. Or irrelevant to our ability to dialogue and have meaningful conversation.
What does this have to do with God and apologetics?
What of words and language that we might not be familiar with. Such as transcendence or imminence or immanence? If we don’t know these we can’t talk about them. So these are the type of ways that language can break down because of a lack of common understandings. So if God is ‘Wholly other’ then their in NO common ground for understanding.
When we talk of omnipotence we might not be able to get our thinking around all power but we have a limited ability of power so we have some way of imagining what it might be like. When God says that he is all-powerful we can have some idea of this. This wrestling with language is not new to the 20th century.
3 kinds of descriptive language
Univocal is language that describes things between two parties in an exact, one to one, identification. If your understanding of chair is exactly mine to, then we are in univocal communication.
Equivocal is the idea that a term or word changes in the course of the conversation. In logic there is a fallacy of equivocation. You can demonstrate this with a syllogism. Or you can demonstrate it with the changing of the meaning of ‘no cat’ at the start and making it mean a different idea later. The example of ‘bald’ means no hair on the head. But you stretch it out from its original to mean no pizzazz or boring.
Analogical means that a word changes in proportion to beings that are being described. An example would the statement; Do you have a ‘good’ dog? Or Fred is a ‘good’ guy. Each reference to good means a different thing in each context. So when we say the ‘goodness of God.’ We mean that it is like ours but not exactly the same as ours. And we fill in the ideas where they are different. When we say this we are not using ‘good’ in a univocal sense but an analogical sense. And this is made meaningful because God makes us in His image. He gives to us the very grounds and possibility of having meaningful communication between us, as far as this meaning can go.
Words and their meaning:
Imminence; The quality or condition of being about to occur
Immanence; taking place or remaining within, of the Deity - indwelling the universe and time
Transcendent; going beyond ordinary limits, exceeding, supreme, of the Deity - beyond the universe and time
Some extra reading if you want to seek what language is to mean
1. Was Jesus worshiped? http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5379
2. Proof-texting perils and determining if a statement is univocal or equivocal. http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/11-12_SG_2007.pdf?docID=2381
3. Probably more than you want but you might want to skim over this. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analogy-medieval/
4.
Hearing
I would like you to think through this with me. Because, as we know all to well, ideas have consequences.
It has, as the years have gone on, never ceased to amaze me how powerful the role of a teacher is. Especially for the one's who teach who God supposedly is. For with that role comes the demand to teach what is true and to avoid tales and canards of who He is not. If one has an opinion one can describe it to others but it shouldn't be taught as if it is beyond disrepute. The stakes for the teacher as well as the students are enormous. For ideas about God and His nature which happen to be false will likely be taken by the uninformed and absorbed and ultimately believed as true. And that can't be a good outcome. Bad informational teaching maybe worse than no information at all. Though not by much.
Some prerequisites that we should agree on before I make my points:
1. Each one's theory must fit reality. I mean that universal reality that God holds together by His own decree. We must forbid ourselves from the formula that reality will be rearranged so as to fit ones own working theory. The challenge is for objective and not subjective truth. Where too many sadly take refuge. Are many creating and insulating themselves in their own bubble of reality? Probably more than we would like to know of. So for us, finding Truth is to be about more than each others pet agendas.
2. Communication techniques; such as 'figure of speech', metaphoric intention, prophetic hyperbole, fantasy simile and allegorical stories are about describing what something is 'about.' Using the faculty of language to point to what it is we are defining and making clear some cherished concept. But these guides of language are not the actual thing they are trying to describe but only a literary device and aid to provide the very meaning of the matter.
3. A position one has maybe right or wrong but its veracity has nothing to do with the sincerity or goodness of the person making the claim.
4. Law of non-contradiction is in use all the time:
5. Law of causality: the irreducible definition being; for every effect there must be an antecedent cause. Whether we can perceive by our senses or not. You don’t see causality necessarily, you see actions in sequence. The example you may have heard, which is a fallacy, is when a rooster crows and, then presto, the sun comes up. The farmer, oddly, thought the sounds of the rooster was the cause of the sun rising. Is the farmer wrong? This is the informal fallacy in logic called ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc.’ Which translates, after this therefore because of this. Just because something happens after something else does - does not mean that the previous thing had anything to do with that which came after. Things seem connected but that doesn’t establish a relationship of causality! (This has helped me meaningfully to not be tethered to my pet ideas but if I find that I am loopy and falling into this subtle trap of illogic, I let them go)
6. This is not about ones character for I assume the best of character and intention at Mosaic or The Church at the Beach or The Bed and at large among the many brethren, from the outset.
Wisdom dictates that I should take nothing for granted. We should allow each to fight for the right to bring our case to the other.
So here it goes:
Here are some of my own phrases for what Erwin McManus was trying to communicate Saturday night, in the month of March, from the notes I took directly afterwards of his lesson on his proove for one's ability to hear God: 'intimate relationship of talking to each other… you come to know God by experience….you must have divine words that come to you or also stated as 'assignments' by hearing them.' 'Divine assignments are what one 'hears' from God when one is doing everything right and in His will.' ' The 'hearing' comes in small steps. His will is about waiting and being given instructions.' ' It comes from a selection of places. You cannot discover them they are revealed.' ' You sense god's leading, or you felt the lead of God from your secret place. A failure to receive messages is a failure in one's love relationship with God.' "Once you have an intimate love relationship with God, He will show or tell you what He is doing." "If the Christian does not know when God is speaking, he is in trouble at the heart of his Christian life." I think I can safely say that this was the wording or the intent; including some of his quotes as to what Erwin was trying to get across.
Now, the proof-text that Erwin used as his summum bonum, was that men and women of faith will "hear" God, and was highlighted from the passages contained in John 10. He made this as his only reference to make his case for "the sense and need to hear" and how one should use these 'words we hear' and to its application to one’s life. Though he said there were other references. But he made it clear that no others were necessary. This was his paramount text.
He says to obey your sense of what your private message and assignments are. He exhorts us to be faithful to the storyline one 'hears'; to surrender to it, have faith in this process and follow Christ in this message of 'private hearing' even when we don't understand all the normal rationales of this assignment. Erwin goes on to say, that regardless of the chaos, the price, the difficulty, and the hardship it brings, we must follow our private inner talking points from God. Our very own personal 'hearing' and private revelation from God. This hearing mode, he claims, is the capacity to listen to the correct voice from a selection of competing voices that may drown the real one out. He went on a while in how you might go about deciding which one is the right voice to hear. Some knack or developing sifter will be required from each one of us to do this he said.
Here is my response:
My question in lieu of this is simple. According to the very big Bible we read, the measuring rod and canon of divine authority, does experiencing God's voice in our lives depend on this sole characteristic of receiving personalized assignments from Him? Does intimacy with God depend on our ability to "sense by our ear" His "leading"? Is this taught commonly in Scripture? Is hearing and being able to say that I heard from God, modeled by the apostles or the early church in general or the men and women captured therein in the first 50 or 159 years after the close of the New Testament? Is there any reference to the process in all these writings? If so, it should be well established in the 4 gospel's, Acts which spans over 30 years of time and the doctrine proscribed in the epistles by the apostles.
There is only one way to answer these questions. The way the scores of regional Councils did in the formation of scripture and afterwards also. Head to head and within the Church of Christ where reason and evidence were highly regarded. Where they described, explained and refuted strongly blatant heresy. Doctrine, truth and deeds were serious business back then. They all argued and said all Scripture will be your source of authority for faith and practice. You cannot depend on pet human traditions, your esoteric experience, mysterious utterances or the supposed experience of others to be accurate authorities on God's will and ways. Is their method something we can agree to?
Is Jesus the model for us to mimic and be like? That is where many will go to draw their ideas of how to conduct themselves in this issue I bring up. Is this what John wanted to convey in his book? I think, to a great extent, the apostle would say no. Because the whole context of John’s chapters 1, 5, 4, 8 and 10 and more, are statements that have to do with the divinity of Christ. His very Deity publicly being revealed. He is solely unique as the incarnate Son of God and therefore had unique obligations, unique abilities, and a unique relationship with the Father. For they are One which is the motif John brings out. John 5:17-23 and John 8: 26-28 bear out some of this.
John 10 is frequently, even today in our time without so much as blinking, is misapplied as the legitimate source for a real ability of 'hearing' the shepherd. It is important to know precisely what Jesus has in mind when He uses these terms. John records four mentions by Jesus of His sheep hearing or knowing His voice (10:3, 4, 16, 27). Verse six is key to understanding this passage. Here John explicitly states that Jesus’ remarks about hearing His voice are a figure of speech. And, elsewhere, the sheep know each other (14). When His other sheep hear His voice, they also become part of His flock (16). The Jews fail to completely understand (v. 19-21). What is the problem? Jesus’ answer is crystal clear: "You do not have faith and it's subsequent believe because you are not of My sheep."
In context, Jesus’ meaning is unmistakable. He says, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me and I give eternal life to them" (v. 27-28). Note the sequence: They hear His voice. They follow Him. Then He gives them eternal life. Hearing Jesus’ voice results in salvation, it is not the result of salvation. We can't assume that the drawing of the Holy Spirit which leads to saving faith is the same precise idea of hearing about what you are assigned to do today, and in the evening and on some special topic you are thinking on.
What "voice" is it that draws us to Jesus and results in our salvation? Most likely, and I’m communicating here by my insight, it is the ineffable drawing by the Father through His Spirit of those who are His, a concept John has already introduced and developed in earlier chapters of his Gospel (5:25, 5:31-34, 5:37-38, 6:35-40, 6:44-45, 6:65, 8:18, 8:47). It is a figure of speech, a manner of analogy for clarity, for the inner working of the Holy Spirit that leads to our salvation and becoming alive in Him and sealed spiritually. The Jews, here, know what He’s saying. They hear His instructions just fine. Their problem is responding. The voice being referred to here is not the whispers of private direction given by God to your heart, but the effective call of the Holy Spirit bringing us to Christ. Jesus tells us plainly, they do not "hear" because God is not "speaking" to them. They are not among the sheep the Father has given to the Son. That is Jesus' unambiguous teaching. The task of hearing God is to bow the knee not hear the deepest mysteries.
Erwin claims, "Knowing God's voice comes from an intimate love relationship with God", and again, "As you walk in an intimate love relationship with God, you will come to recognize His voice. You will know when God is speaking to you." But Jesus never suggests such a thing. Jesus says the Father is the cause and is Sovereign enabling those sheep He has given to Jesus to hear and respond. This "hearing" representing what John is trying to convey is not for believers after salvation for growing in grace, but for non-believers prior to salvation. It is not dependent on the quality of our love relationship with God, as many claims are made today but here in this particular message it is the Father’s choice of drawing. We don’t have to be quiet for the Father to work this to completion.
There is another damaging consequence of misreading this text. According to Jesus' comments, hearing His voice is essential to salvation. Those who do not hear are not His. Rather they are outsiders, bereft of eternal life, lost. I am not the type to like this kind of outcome to the story. But there it makes its presence clear anyway.
Trouble
There is an unavoidable consequence of blending the wording of John 10 with Erwin's and others in the definition of hearing Jesus' "voice" and all that is ‘read’ into this assumption. For I say that it says, "Those who do not have this relationship sequence (do not belong to God) and do not hear what God is saying to them (John 8:47)". In the verse it quotes that, Jesus is castigating the Jews for unbelief, calling them the sons of Satan (8:44). Yet on the Saturday I heard there was placed a tremendous burden on the listening believer sitting there, the young and tender one at that, who must, Erwin said, question his spirituality and even his salvation if divine messages are not forthcoming. He used the word 'trouble'; that whoever you are, you are in deep doo-doo if you are not 'hearing' these messages. Erwin made another condition to his claims, making the case that the Spirit will have a hard time speaking loud enough if we are not quiet and still. It is on us to tune in and not on God for the transmitting quality. As if He has problems getting our attention. People pontificate and spin the yarn that He, you know that Creator guy, he wants to, it is His intention is reach us, but if we are busy He can‘t get through. So from that notion there is a flaw in God for He is not capable to proceed with his created beings who are inattentive [I can hear the notion coming, ‘oh, it is about free will’ but that is a red herring and rabbit trail because you must say then that God cannot do what he chooses and cannot override that which He creates]. So a modern teacher of this particular view will use counter punches to muddy the already muddy waters, saying, we human beings have to strain to hear Him, night and day, be mystically silent in heart and do what is necessary to 'hear.' But if you can’t hear then it is your own fault. For God is speaking, but the teaching goes, He is speaking quite softly or at the wrong pitch. Fix it is Erwin's defense and go find the right pitch.
This is not Jesus' meaning in anyway shape or construct. This understanding of 'hearing the voice' of God is completely foreign to the text of John 8 and 10. To Jesus, hearing God is not a skill to be developed. It is not an advanced discipline opening the lines to personalized assignments from the Father. It is not a fruit of a deepening love relationship with God. It is a figure of speech to refer to some other truth. John says this explicitly. He refers to a communication device to stand in as a parabolic metaphor for the real intention of what he is trying to convey. And as I said earlier about devices in literature: of prophetic hyperbole, fantasy simile, etc. they are about describing what something is 'about'. Using the faculty of language to point to what it is we are defining by the analogy of something one more easily can understand. But these guides are not the something they are trying to describe but only a literary device and aid to the true meaning.
Hearing Jesus' voice, here in John 10, is not about getting an inner message about His will; it's getting 'the Kingdom of Heaven', saved and unlost. It's the result of the Father drawing the bearer of his own sin, a non-believer as to God‘s intentions, into Jesus' arms (onnother of the many figures of speech I used writing this).
If you have another story line in the New Testament that supports your view of 'concisely hearing as equal to the canonical messages' then bring it forward. I'm all ears. But John 10 is absolutely not the passage to bring. It can't be. Even John says it is not about the real hearing of God for your own personal needs but it is figurative and about something else Jesus is referring to.
The worst statement I heard, maybe, was that he used the counter measures of ad hominum to his audience in trying to nullify the biblical record as the measuring stick for what is right and how to solve for the answer. He said that if you use the Word (the Bible) to critique his notion of "hearing" you are in a great deal of slippery trouble. Trying to establish a hedge around himself and projecting a palpable fear or 'trouble' for those who doubt him. As if he was saying he can't be in error but those who find his thinking substandard are automatically in danger of losing out and stinking in their own thinking. In this day and age one can hear a recording of his speech on this night on a podcast.
Is there more to say and convey in Acts about ‘hearing‘? Is that where we can find a plentiful supply for this endeavor of whispered ideas from the Spirit? Does Paul and Peter and John's epistles bring this idea to bear of personal messaging? What of the Old Testament? The Old testament has a couple of dozen in the course of a 1,000 plus years that God did have direct conversations with. But there was no requirement that they be quiet and still, it wasn't necessary that they be self disciplined in some way, it wasn't taught that you have a prerequisite test that you love people in some magnanimous way. One example is Moses which after he stopped a guard from abusing a slave and ultimately killing the gurard, he fled. Not including his before life of priveledge, Moses heard nothing for 40 years. He was intimately involved in his family and tribe, the floral and fuana and every water source. When he was walking he saw a bush which he probably had passed before burning. Moses had nothing to do with the hearing. But even when Moses went through this experience he didn't, and we shouldn't, conclude that if these things happened to someone you knew - then - everyone else around should think that they should have that same access. So I conclude that John’s gospel doesn't provide any evidence for this as well as Mathew and Luke. You can look to see if Mark does. Therefore 3 of the gospels are silent on this.
What effective arguments can be marshaled against these I offer? If I have given a solid case for where not to find a green light for believing what is not explicitly stated does not force me to stand against God reaching toward us, because I stand for God making known who He is, communicating what should be known, upholding our spirits, strengthening our resolve, letting us taste that He is good, providing insight, bearing in us wisdom, imbibing truth and knowing and worshiping His presence, being individually alert to what others need from us, being with us in sorrow and in pleasure, etc. and etc.
Extra sources:
1. Here is an excellent compilation of decision making and divine direction in the book of Acts
2. What the meaning of hearing means, Greg Koukl
Thanks for your time to read my position. The hosts of Heaven garner in me from time to time, to keep your passion, increase your curiosity, renew your mind, take all steps possible to hear total truth, make it a very part of your bones. I am prodded, almost wrestled, to ask the difficult questions -- the answers, if and when they come, will speak to the true nature of our new nature. I hope we possess these faculties of discernment in the most difficult of times.
To close, I believe in your sense of the Spirit and what it is bearing on you. I take you at face value that when you are pulled strongly or subtly in what you think is being heralded spiritually, I will take it fairly and with much esteem. So don’t take this defense as against all the battles and the various victories of what we have come to know of the God who made all and who knows all.
I thought I would sign off with a nod to 2 of my favorite tales, To Kill a Mockingbird; of Atticus Finch, his kids, 'Boo' their neighbor, Tom Robinson, his family and their allegorical story and the metaphors it describes for universal morals in life..…and also to Les Miserables and the historical fiction Hugo pens about the early 1800’s with Jean, Cosette, Fantine, Javert and to Bishop Myriel. In these 2 we hear either acute ecclesiastical wisdom or - the other perspective - of just plain undirected random chance in life for all who travel this human highway,
I speak as a friend and with the deepest regard,
Bruce
It has, as the years have gone on, never ceased to amaze me how powerful the role of a teacher is. Especially for the one's who teach who God supposedly is. For with that role comes the demand to teach what is true and to avoid tales and canards of who He is not. If one has an opinion one can describe it to others but it shouldn't be taught as if it is beyond disrepute. The stakes for the teacher as well as the students are enormous. For ideas about God and His nature which happen to be false will likely be taken by the uninformed and absorbed and ultimately believed as true. And that can't be a good outcome. Bad informational teaching maybe worse than no information at all. Though not by much.
Some prerequisites that we should agree on before I make my points:
1. Each one's theory must fit reality. I mean that universal reality that God holds together by His own decree. We must forbid ourselves from the formula that reality will be rearranged so as to fit ones own working theory. The challenge is for objective and not subjective truth. Where too many sadly take refuge. Are many creating and insulating themselves in their own bubble of reality? Probably more than we would like to know of. So for us, finding Truth is to be about more than each others pet agendas.
2. Communication techniques; such as 'figure of speech', metaphoric intention, prophetic hyperbole, fantasy simile and allegorical stories are about describing what something is 'about.' Using the faculty of language to point to what it is we are defining and making clear some cherished concept. But these guides of language are not the actual thing they are trying to describe but only a literary device and aid to provide the very meaning of the matter.
3. A position one has maybe right or wrong but its veracity has nothing to do with the sincerity or goodness of the person making the claim.
4. Law of non-contradiction is in use all the time:
5. Law of causality: the irreducible definition being; for every effect there must be an antecedent cause. Whether we can perceive by our senses or not. You don’t see causality necessarily, you see actions in sequence. The example you may have heard, which is a fallacy, is when a rooster crows and, then presto, the sun comes up. The farmer, oddly, thought the sounds of the rooster was the cause of the sun rising. Is the farmer wrong? This is the informal fallacy in logic called ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc.’ Which translates, after this therefore because of this. Just because something happens after something else does - does not mean that the previous thing had anything to do with that which came after. Things seem connected but that doesn’t establish a relationship of causality! (This has helped me meaningfully to not be tethered to my pet ideas but if I find that I am loopy and falling into this subtle trap of illogic, I let them go)
6. This is not about ones character for I assume the best of character and intention at Mosaic or The Church at the Beach or The Bed and at large among the many brethren, from the outset.
Wisdom dictates that I should take nothing for granted. We should allow each to fight for the right to bring our case to the other.
So here it goes:
Here are some of my own phrases for what Erwin McManus was trying to communicate Saturday night, in the month of March, from the notes I took directly afterwards of his lesson on his proove for one's ability to hear God: 'intimate relationship of talking to each other… you come to know God by experience….you must have divine words that come to you or also stated as 'assignments' by hearing them.' 'Divine assignments are what one 'hears' from God when one is doing everything right and in His will.' ' The 'hearing' comes in small steps. His will is about waiting and being given instructions.' ' It comes from a selection of places. You cannot discover them they are revealed.' ' You sense god's leading, or you felt the lead of God from your secret place. A failure to receive messages is a failure in one's love relationship with God.' "Once you have an intimate love relationship with God, He will show or tell you what He is doing." "If the Christian does not know when God is speaking, he is in trouble at the heart of his Christian life." I think I can safely say that this was the wording or the intent; including some of his quotes as to what Erwin was trying to get across.
Now, the proof-text that Erwin used as his summum bonum, was that men and women of faith will "hear" God, and was highlighted from the passages contained in John 10. He made this as his only reference to make his case for "the sense and need to hear" and how one should use these 'words we hear' and to its application to one’s life. Though he said there were other references. But he made it clear that no others were necessary. This was his paramount text.
He says to obey your sense of what your private message and assignments are. He exhorts us to be faithful to the storyline one 'hears'; to surrender to it, have faith in this process and follow Christ in this message of 'private hearing' even when we don't understand all the normal rationales of this assignment. Erwin goes on to say, that regardless of the chaos, the price, the difficulty, and the hardship it brings, we must follow our private inner talking points from God. Our very own personal 'hearing' and private revelation from God. This hearing mode, he claims, is the capacity to listen to the correct voice from a selection of competing voices that may drown the real one out. He went on a while in how you might go about deciding which one is the right voice to hear. Some knack or developing sifter will be required from each one of us to do this he said.
Here is my response:
My question in lieu of this is simple. According to the very big Bible we read, the measuring rod and canon of divine authority, does experiencing God's voice in our lives depend on this sole characteristic of receiving personalized assignments from Him? Does intimacy with God depend on our ability to "sense by our ear" His "leading"? Is this taught commonly in Scripture? Is hearing and being able to say that I heard from God, modeled by the apostles or the early church in general or the men and women captured therein in the first 50 or 159 years after the close of the New Testament? Is there any reference to the process in all these writings? If so, it should be well established in the 4 gospel's, Acts which spans over 30 years of time and the doctrine proscribed in the epistles by the apostles.
There is only one way to answer these questions. The way the scores of regional Councils did in the formation of scripture and afterwards also. Head to head and within the Church of Christ where reason and evidence were highly regarded. Where they described, explained and refuted strongly blatant heresy. Doctrine, truth and deeds were serious business back then. They all argued and said all Scripture will be your source of authority for faith and practice. You cannot depend on pet human traditions, your esoteric experience, mysterious utterances or the supposed experience of others to be accurate authorities on God's will and ways. Is their method something we can agree to?
Is Jesus the model for us to mimic and be like? That is where many will go to draw their ideas of how to conduct themselves in this issue I bring up. Is this what John wanted to convey in his book? I think, to a great extent, the apostle would say no. Because the whole context of John’s chapters 1, 5, 4, 8 and 10 and more, are statements that have to do with the divinity of Christ. His very Deity publicly being revealed. He is solely unique as the incarnate Son of God and therefore had unique obligations, unique abilities, and a unique relationship with the Father. For they are One which is the motif John brings out. John 5:17-23 and John 8: 26-28 bear out some of this.
John 10 is frequently, even today in our time without so much as blinking, is misapplied as the legitimate source for a real ability of 'hearing' the shepherd. It is important to know precisely what Jesus has in mind when He uses these terms. John records four mentions by Jesus of His sheep hearing or knowing His voice (10:3, 4, 16, 27). Verse six is key to understanding this passage. Here John explicitly states that Jesus’ remarks about hearing His voice are a figure of speech. And, elsewhere, the sheep know each other (14). When His other sheep hear His voice, they also become part of His flock (16). The Jews fail to completely understand (v. 19-21). What is the problem? Jesus’ answer is crystal clear: "You do not have faith and it's subsequent believe because you are not of My sheep."
In context, Jesus’ meaning is unmistakable. He says, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me and I give eternal life to them" (v. 27-28). Note the sequence: They hear His voice. They follow Him. Then He gives them eternal life. Hearing Jesus’ voice results in salvation, it is not the result of salvation. We can't assume that the drawing of the Holy Spirit which leads to saving faith is the same precise idea of hearing about what you are assigned to do today, and in the evening and on some special topic you are thinking on.
What "voice" is it that draws us to Jesus and results in our salvation? Most likely, and I’m communicating here by my insight, it is the ineffable drawing by the Father through His Spirit of those who are His, a concept John has already introduced and developed in earlier chapters of his Gospel (5:25, 5:31-34, 5:37-38, 6:35-40, 6:44-45, 6:65, 8:18, 8:47). It is a figure of speech, a manner of analogy for clarity, for the inner working of the Holy Spirit that leads to our salvation and becoming alive in Him and sealed spiritually. The Jews, here, know what He’s saying. They hear His instructions just fine. Their problem is responding. The voice being referred to here is not the whispers of private direction given by God to your heart, but the effective call of the Holy Spirit bringing us to Christ. Jesus tells us plainly, they do not "hear" because God is not "speaking" to them. They are not among the sheep the Father has given to the Son. That is Jesus' unambiguous teaching. The task of hearing God is to bow the knee not hear the deepest mysteries.
Erwin claims, "Knowing God's voice comes from an intimate love relationship with God", and again, "As you walk in an intimate love relationship with God, you will come to recognize His voice. You will know when God is speaking to you." But Jesus never suggests such a thing. Jesus says the Father is the cause and is Sovereign enabling those sheep He has given to Jesus to hear and respond. This "hearing" representing what John is trying to convey is not for believers after salvation for growing in grace, but for non-believers prior to salvation. It is not dependent on the quality of our love relationship with God, as many claims are made today but here in this particular message it is the Father’s choice of drawing. We don’t have to be quiet for the Father to work this to completion.
There is another damaging consequence of misreading this text. According to Jesus' comments, hearing His voice is essential to salvation. Those who do not hear are not His. Rather they are outsiders, bereft of eternal life, lost. I am not the type to like this kind of outcome to the story. But there it makes its presence clear anyway.
Trouble
There is an unavoidable consequence of blending the wording of John 10 with Erwin's and others in the definition of hearing Jesus' "voice" and all that is ‘read’ into this assumption. For I say that it says, "Those who do not have this relationship sequence (do not belong to God) and do not hear what God is saying to them (John 8:47)". In the verse it quotes that, Jesus is castigating the Jews for unbelief, calling them the sons of Satan (8:44). Yet on the Saturday I heard there was placed a tremendous burden on the listening believer sitting there, the young and tender one at that, who must, Erwin said, question his spirituality and even his salvation if divine messages are not forthcoming. He used the word 'trouble'; that whoever you are, you are in deep doo-doo if you are not 'hearing' these messages. Erwin made another condition to his claims, making the case that the Spirit will have a hard time speaking loud enough if we are not quiet and still. It is on us to tune in and not on God for the transmitting quality. As if He has problems getting our attention. People pontificate and spin the yarn that He, you know that Creator guy, he wants to, it is His intention is reach us, but if we are busy He can‘t get through. So from that notion there is a flaw in God for He is not capable to proceed with his created beings who are inattentive [I can hear the notion coming, ‘oh, it is about free will’ but that is a red herring and rabbit trail because you must say then that God cannot do what he chooses and cannot override that which He creates]. So a modern teacher of this particular view will use counter punches to muddy the already muddy waters, saying, we human beings have to strain to hear Him, night and day, be mystically silent in heart and do what is necessary to 'hear.' But if you can’t hear then it is your own fault. For God is speaking, but the teaching goes, He is speaking quite softly or at the wrong pitch. Fix it is Erwin's defense and go find the right pitch.
This is not Jesus' meaning in anyway shape or construct. This understanding of 'hearing the voice' of God is completely foreign to the text of John 8 and 10. To Jesus, hearing God is not a skill to be developed. It is not an advanced discipline opening the lines to personalized assignments from the Father. It is not a fruit of a deepening love relationship with God. It is a figure of speech to refer to some other truth. John says this explicitly. He refers to a communication device to stand in as a parabolic metaphor for the real intention of what he is trying to convey. And as I said earlier about devices in literature: of prophetic hyperbole, fantasy simile, etc. they are about describing what something is 'about'. Using the faculty of language to point to what it is we are defining by the analogy of something one more easily can understand. But these guides are not the something they are trying to describe but only a literary device and aid to the true meaning.
Hearing Jesus' voice, here in John 10, is not about getting an inner message about His will; it's getting 'the Kingdom of Heaven', saved and unlost. It's the result of the Father drawing the bearer of his own sin, a non-believer as to God‘s intentions, into Jesus' arms (onnother of the many figures of speech I used writing this).
If you have another story line in the New Testament that supports your view of 'concisely hearing as equal to the canonical messages' then bring it forward. I'm all ears. But John 10 is absolutely not the passage to bring. It can't be. Even John says it is not about the real hearing of God for your own personal needs but it is figurative and about something else Jesus is referring to.
The worst statement I heard, maybe, was that he used the counter measures of ad hominum to his audience in trying to nullify the biblical record as the measuring stick for what is right and how to solve for the answer. He said that if you use the Word (the Bible) to critique his notion of "hearing" you are in a great deal of slippery trouble. Trying to establish a hedge around himself and projecting a palpable fear or 'trouble' for those who doubt him. As if he was saying he can't be in error but those who find his thinking substandard are automatically in danger of losing out and stinking in their own thinking. In this day and age one can hear a recording of his speech on this night on a podcast.
Is there more to say and convey in Acts about ‘hearing‘? Is that where we can find a plentiful supply for this endeavor of whispered ideas from the Spirit? Does Paul and Peter and John's epistles bring this idea to bear of personal messaging? What of the Old Testament? The Old testament has a couple of dozen in the course of a 1,000 plus years that God did have direct conversations with. But there was no requirement that they be quiet and still, it wasn't necessary that they be self disciplined in some way, it wasn't taught that you have a prerequisite test that you love people in some magnanimous way. One example is Moses which after he stopped a guard from abusing a slave and ultimately killing the gurard, he fled. Not including his before life of priveledge, Moses heard nothing for 40 years. He was intimately involved in his family and tribe, the floral and fuana and every water source. When he was walking he saw a bush which he probably had passed before burning. Moses had nothing to do with the hearing. But even when Moses went through this experience he didn't, and we shouldn't, conclude that if these things happened to someone you knew - then - everyone else around should think that they should have that same access. So I conclude that John’s gospel doesn't provide any evidence for this as well as Mathew and Luke. You can look to see if Mark does. Therefore 3 of the gospels are silent on this.
What effective arguments can be marshaled against these I offer? If I have given a solid case for where not to find a green light for believing what is not explicitly stated does not force me to stand against God reaching toward us, because I stand for God making known who He is, communicating what should be known, upholding our spirits, strengthening our resolve, letting us taste that He is good, providing insight, bearing in us wisdom, imbibing truth and knowing and worshiping His presence, being individually alert to what others need from us, being with us in sorrow and in pleasure, etc. and etc.
Extra sources:
1. Here is an excellent compilation of decision making and divine direction in the book of Acts
2. What the meaning of hearing means, Greg Koukl
Thanks for your time to read my position. The hosts of Heaven garner in me from time to time, to keep your passion, increase your curiosity, renew your mind, take all steps possible to hear total truth, make it a very part of your bones. I am prodded, almost wrestled, to ask the difficult questions -- the answers, if and when they come, will speak to the true nature of our new nature. I hope we possess these faculties of discernment in the most difficult of times.
To close, I believe in your sense of the Spirit and what it is bearing on you. I take you at face value that when you are pulled strongly or subtly in what you think is being heralded spiritually, I will take it fairly and with much esteem. So don’t take this defense as against all the battles and the various victories of what we have come to know of the God who made all and who knows all.
I thought I would sign off with a nod to 2 of my favorite tales, To Kill a Mockingbird; of Atticus Finch, his kids, 'Boo' their neighbor, Tom Robinson, his family and their allegorical story and the metaphors it describes for universal morals in life..…and also to Les Miserables and the historical fiction Hugo pens about the early 1800’s with Jean, Cosette, Fantine, Javert and to Bishop Myriel. In these 2 we hear either acute ecclesiastical wisdom or - the other perspective - of just plain undirected random chance in life for all who travel this human highway,
I speak as a friend and with the deepest regard,
Bruce
Friday, August 21, 2009
a review: 'The Barbarian Way'
To Terri and all who have read The Barbarian Way by Erwin McManus,
Part 1:
You asked if I had read this book you are reading by Erwin McManus. I thought this would be a good gesture of me to read it and for you, my wife, to learn something about me as I make an honest review of the merits and demerits of his case for how to live life from his worldview perspective. So here is my work in appraising his words and writing my response. Is he speaking in hyperbolic tones or in allegorical forms or gritty street slang? I'm going to pursue this with the respect any hording marauder and Barbary pirate would. I'm hoping that the author will love my raw and uncivilized approach.
How can you have a barbarian heart and a new heart of Christ and the both be compatible with each other? The two, seemingly, are completely incompatible from a spiritual and testamental reference point. Or from any other idiomatic or metaphorical literary style depicting opposites. But Erwin says they are the same in essence and even prefers, existentially, his barbarian method. He says he has a barbarian heart like Jesus has a barbarian heart. Let's read it through and see.
My working title for this review: The Centurion Way or The Way out of Ur.
It needs to be said at the outset that there are some good points in this book. It speaks of an unyielding trust in God, the courage to follow Christ, and the uncompromising stance of the genuine believer. It speaks against spiritual complacency and ritualistic formula in the church sphere, and encourages an intimate, personal walk with the God who saved us. It speaks quite correctly to the need to be whom God has made us, and for us not to try to fit into a preconceived mold that stifles our creativity, gifts, or love of life. We are all individuals, and that is a wonderful thing. Expanding our horizons, spiritual and otherwise, is part of the warp and woof of our human makeup.
All of this, of course, is analyzed, interpreted, and contextualized in the presence of Scripture, which is our ultimate measuring tool for
human culture (Philippians 4.8, I Thess. 5.20-22).
Does McManus ignite my spiritual imagination? Does he have a vision of reality that fits with the 66 inerrant books? As you read this please don't say I'm nitpicking because Erwin comes after his targets with his claws sharpened and his eyes full steam ahead. We come to do battle after the same exact territory with similar passions and savvy. May the best barbarian win, in his terminology.
He has a fascination for old Celtic lore. The ways of the Celts in battle, their commitment to cause and their loyalty to their king seem to be a recurring theme. From the beginning, this book emphasizes the “barbarian way” of doing things and walking through life, hence its name, and declares these ways superior by far to traditional Christianity. McManus declares that the apostles, the early Christians and people like the reformer Martin Luther were all of the same raw, barbarian faith and practice, rough-edged and without the polished veneer of 'civilized Christianity.' Anyone reading this book would think that the Church has really muffed it up in its penchant to bring civility over the past two thousand years and churned out little more than cookie-cutter yes men/women, wimps and wooses who have really been fooling themselves and vacated the true plan of God. For they don't know and are out of step with true spirituality and the guts and honesty to live it out, says Erwin.
We really need a definition of terms here. Since barbarianism is the foundation of McManus’ book, we need to look at what the idea of a barbarian really means, and the life that was lived by these kinds of people groups. The essence of barbarianism, and the true barbarian way, is certainly spiritual—but not in the way in which it is presented in this book. McManus’ presentation, however well-intentioned, is faulty from the get-go. By linking the idea and lifestyle of the barbarian with biblical Christianity, he not so subtly tweaks and redefines what “the barbarian way” really is. It is crucial that we understand that barbarianism is a way of life and thought rooted in basic paganism. It is not merely people of courage, fortitude and devotion to cause. The entire foundation of a barbarian’s life is a spiritually pagan worldview that worships the creature rather than the creator. It is a worldview steeped in false worship, violence and superstition; and is in no way akin and compatible with biblical Christianity. The two are complete opposites.
President Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates
He wants the barbarian spirit as his frontline defensive appeal in how to live to God. I, on the other hand, will call in the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines spirit to fight against Erwin's tactic for uplifting the average rule-breaking barbarian. No Marine would applaud the rational argument of Erwin's that chaos, corruption and confusion, even insanity, are to be the highly esteemed tactics of winning the hearts and minds on the battle field.
Over and over in Paul’s epistles he makes the point that “you were like that, but now you are like this”. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. He said so himself. A Gentile in Paul’s day was anyone other than God’s chosen people. All these others were heathen, pagans, idol worshiping, engaging in sexual temple worship or perversion, misogyny and violence, and hence, from God's handbook, completely shut out from the presence of God. Paul’s before and after contrasts between pagans and Christians make for a lot of reading time in his epistles. For McManus to try to assimilate back into the Christian framework some of the things that comprised the pagan's framework, is an attempt to purify that which God has already, for some 3,500 years or so, called unholy. Or is the book trying just to advance the better natures of the more romantic notions of the hordes? Trying to 'recaste' them in a better light? Sure, some barbarians were courageous, but some were cowards. Yes, some were devoted to king and country, but some were opportunists who couldn't care less about integrity. Yes, some seized life by the throat and lived their time the fullest they were able, but, many many others simply eked out a starvation existence that was colorless and bound up with frustration, worry, and an overriding sense of slavish repetition and useless futility.
McManus calls the reader to a re engineering project that is ripe with strong words: raw; primal; revolution; fight; dangerous; risk; warrior; untamed; revolt; tiger. He is unsatisfied and demeans domesticated religion and wants us to join the revolution and overthrow the status quo. Bad words in his book are: civilized; religion; domestic; proper religion, and Christian.
Civilility and Civilizing as heretical
And as for a “civilizing” Church taking the spiritual life out of Christ’s followers, as Erwin earnestly contends, it needs to be remembered that it was largely the civilizing actions and influence of the Church Body that protected a world from a complete breakdown into chaos in the first few centuries after the resurrection of Christ. This church he portrays as without vigor, in reality, has traveled to every continent doing good. Wherever real Christians have taken the Gospel, conversions guaranteed an end to the mistreatment of women and the less fortunate. Slaves were freed by Christian masters, aid to the poor was a priority, and love toward all was a foundation stone. On the other side, history tells us that it was the barbarian hordes that raped, pillaged, and destroyed the homes of simple God-fearing folk, made them slaves and railed against the true God and His Son Jesus. They were preselected to violence and blood, drunk, managed their affairs with brute force, and were largely unlearned. Not much to recommend them for to the modern followers of Christ. So why does he make such an effort to connect such an ancient creed and foist it on the postmodern rebellious Christian maverick?
On page 32, McManus tells of the “civilized” version of the gospel preached by the contemporary Church. He states that it basically entails just believing in Christ for salvation, and your life will be free and easy from that point on. An insurance plan with some do's and don'ts. Well…I’ve never heard that gospel from the genuine Christ follower. I've heard it from the slicked back 'Snake-Oil' perpetrators but not the real ones. Anyone who’s read the first four books of the New Testament can never come away with that interpretation. McManus does mention that some of the traditional preachers talk about the forgiveness of sins and eternal happiness in heaven, but for the true believer, these things do not make for complacency but overwhelming gratitude. When I received Christ, I knew my sins were forgiven. I wanted to be a learner of Christ with a new heart. I’m a new creation! Now that’s exciting.
On the same page McManus says that Jesus’ call is barbaric.
On page 34, McManus again changes definitions by saying that love and sacrificial serving of one another is what the true barbarian way is all about. Can I say this without sounding harsh...how utterly wrong! Again, the true barbarian way tribal, ethnically closed, is violent, self-serving, and egotistical to any other tribe, in general.
On page 63, McManus notes that a measure of insanity is inherent in the barbarian way, and while he is certainly right that insanity runs in the clan, on the next page he blames this form of madness on God! The Lord, he says, is the one who makes us “passionately” crazed and unbalanced in the spiritual sense. McManus says on page 65 that John the Baptist acted insane. Again, as serenely as I can...No, he didn’t! A quick check of the Bible’s hall of faith in Hebrews 11 shows that many of God’s true servants “…went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill treated…wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground” (Hebrews 11:37-38). Anyone familiar with the Old Testament writings in John’s time would certainly have remembered those heroes of the faith. Certainly they, or he, did not act like madmen. Even many of their enemies recognized that they were sent by God! They were not followers of some mystical “barbarian mad way”....
These below are Contradictions if we look at what Paul tells his Ephesus church in Chapter 6 that your protection is in: 1. the covering of truth 2. right 3. peace 4. covering of faith 5. the covering of salvation 6. the word of the Spirit. 7. in your spirit pray and watch and find purpose.
Page 61
1. it is not about having the right things
2. it is not about a reasonable faith.
3. it is not about faith but experience.
4. it is not about discipleship because discipleship is about standardization. (64)
5. He said God wants uniqueness and not uniformity.
Erwin concludes his proof by saying, "You can't escape that John acted like a madman" and "that God drove him out of his mind." He also states, "Paul considered going out of his mind." (65)
The concept of 'truth in advertising'
I think Erwin has earned the respect that when he writes something he means what he says. The content of this book has an explicitness of meaning and is to be read and to be taken from that meaning. He makes his case that you either get this and are in - or - you are not apart of this 'way' and are out.
Terri on the other hand, is one to make excuses for conveyors of information who speak about 'true spirituality'. She says they maybe off quite a bit, but "who isn't". But what they mean deep down inside is true so the rest can be discarded. They can say some right so anything they say wrong is just to be shrugged off. You can't have perfection, therefore she says, you must allow for some bad ideas along side the good ones. This reasoning process is the exact area where we must focus on like a laser beam. For Terri says that the 'Barbarian Way' has an outside container of thinking by Erwin that is flawed and may have some poorly elucidated comparisons about those 'bad barbary's' but the inside is full of real value; this is where Erwin gets it. But Erwin must disagree with this appeasing stance. For he stands up for the whole of his book and seeks for others to do so also.
Can you be only a little wrong, but you've got a good heart, when you have a contained fire and you let it get out of control and it becomes a large scale uncontained fire? No. You were either doing it correctly or you correct your plan and change what isn't working with that which will.
Can you be only a little wrong, but you have good intentions, when you say that DNA matches are correct but can sometimes be irrelevant at the same time? No. The DNA sequences either match or they don't; you can't say there are mistakes - but - are worth respecting the contradictions. Because the technician is a good guy.
Can you be only a little wrong, but be trusted anyway, when you deliberately misrepresent historical data? No.
Can you be just a little wrong, if you agree with Scotland's cabinet leader and the recent release of Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi. In this example it would be highly clarifying how you understand compassion versus justice.
Can you be only a little wrong, but keep on teaching others anyway, that the 'law of attraction' is true when it is not? No. The law is true or it is not. This law is bogus where the Law of noncontradiction is always a cause which has an effect.
Can you be only a little wrong, if you say that the maker of the universe isn't always rational and sane? The answer will dramatically infer what your worldview is.
Can you be a little wrong, but esteemed in whatever you say, when you promote the model for 'Global Warming' when these very models have been demonstrated to be false? No, Whatever your intention is, if the model is wrong you are wrong. Science bears this out in one direction or the other and for reasons that can be proven time and again.
( I think that is why Erwin wars against rational congruity. Because he can't have a prayer that his statements are worthy of even thinking on if The Creator is always a reasonable God. But if he can persuade others that you don't need reason and can be irrational and be a part of the God of the Universe then he has broken down the garrison of truth being true and comporting with reality without any exception.)
Gods Workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Ephesians 2:10. When John the Baptist and then Paul came and preached they preached the Kingdom, they didn't just preach salvation. Kingdom, simply put, is rulership -- ownership. God is in charge of you. He owns you because He purchased you and then He rules you. People who are Christians in the Kingdom act like they are under rulership. A madman will not acquiesce to that. Only sane people understand rulership. Insanity will not bring a humble spirit of discernment or a logical mind to bear on the days events. Erwin twists so far in his confidence to make John out to be what he wants him to be he simply dismisses that reality isn't his friend. For his somersaults are just not who John the 2nd cousin of Jesus was. Erwin should really be complementing Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch, for he was the uncivil and rash desirer of his half brothers wife Herodias, which the sane man John, the austere prophet and baptiser condemned. Herod Antipas seemed to be covetously mad in the best sense of the barbarian way. But Erwin seems never to be impeded from making things that are already understood facts into things that never were. The idea that John was insane and God brought it upon him, is as true as the story that God was a man once upon a time, and became, ultimately, a God; and just like that he made other gods like him who will be full fledged Gods too. Erwin is as fact based as this claim is. With a mind filled up with madness they would both be right simultaneously. They should sit down and have dinner together and congratulate themselves on such profundity. Bring Antipas to the feast also, he would have some tales of raw passionate exploit to tell. When somebody makes the farcical to act factual; keep your wits about you.
Which leads me to another point— I have been training myself, especially in the last decade, to take on the requirements and standards of a scriptural teacher, in terms of language, context and meaning. Erwin is bringing his own teaching elements and if what I am saying is true, the resulting confusion among those he influences is laid squarely on his shoulders. James said, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). If he had of called his book the 'God's Ownership Way' he wouldn't have had that renegade spirit he desires and that postmodern deconstruction value he likes to utilize.
My review is much less important than Andrew McCarthy and his book; 'Willful Blindness'
For all McManus’ references to the Celtic barbarian, he never quite gets around to telling the reader what they were really like. Your fathers line was from Scotland and I have Irish on my mothers side. I am a student of history and know the belief system of the Irish and Scottish forebears. Believe me, if there was anything in the spiritual lives of our ancient forebears to brag on I would most certainly make it known. But before Christ they were pagans (barbarians) who the bible refers to as enemies of God by nature. Their method was decapitation of their conquered foes, ritual human sacrifice and worship of any number of woodland or other gods. this and much more made up part of the life of the barbarian Celt or euro-Aryan horde or tribe.
Somewhere along the way Erwin says, "the movement of Jesus Christ became a civilized Christianity," he writes. "We created a religion using the name of Jesus Christ and convinced ourselves that God's optimal desire for our lives was to insulate us in a spiritual bubble where we risk nothing, sacrifice nothing, lose nothing, worry about nothing. I wonder how many of us have lost our barbarian way and have become embittered with God, confused in our faith because God doesn't come through the way we think He should." When he says, "We created"...Who is he talking about? "...a spiritual bubble where we risk nothing, sacrifice nothing, lose nothing, worry about nothing..." Who could he possibly be referring to? Is he pointing to all, some, a few, the lawyers, his friends, his mother-in-law, the socialites with class envy or the stubble and tares that have always lived inside the church system? So what if they do. That doesn't make Christianity to be warred against as he does, quite passionately, in this short book.
My book title maybe called the Berean Way
He defines the "barbarian way" as being about love, intimacy, passion and sacrifice. "Barbarians love to live and live to love. For them God is life, and their mission is to reconnect humanity to Him. Their passion is that each of us might live in intimate communication with Him who died for us. The barbarian way is a path of both spirit and truth. The soul of the barbarian is made alive by the presence of Jesus." Defining barbarians like this as counter cultural is quite chick. But, to me, it has the charm and definitional vagueness of redefining marriage to mean something it has never meant before. To give it a modern and dramatically different definition and stance. And making it appear as if the barbar's mysticism hadn't changed but the Christ follower has changed. This hearkens to a SNL skit where make believe is pushed as believable and true. That water isn't really wet and goodness is also bad. How far is the reader willing to go to suspend sound judgement and the real analogical use of language? Even if we were to accept his definition of barbarian for a second, what right-thinking Christian would deny the importance of these qualities? What evangelical group is warring against the movement of love and sacrifice? If Erwin knows, he is only telling us that Christianity is on the skids and even DOA.
Part 2:
Hearing
The book states, "The Scriptures are filled with stories of women and men who heard God speak and acted as if hearing Him were normal." Also, "Jesus expected that those who were His followers would hear His voice, know His voice, and follow only His voice, even as He calls out by name and leads us on the barbarian way." I have covered this claim of Erwin's when I listened to him in March of '09. I wrote a detailed accounting of his sermon and whether it is worthy of being taken seriously. You may read my review of his lesson here.
Mystical redefined
McManus is enamored of the word “mystical”, and uses it repeatedly in his book. Again, he changes definitions to a new one he prefers. The word “mystic” in the Greek refers to someone who is involved with secret rites—i.e. a hidden way to God that is only for the initiated. Now, I understand that McManus probably does not mean this when he is speaking of a closer walk with God and intimate communion with Him. But it is important to use words corresponding to their actual meanings. That is what we have language for. [or am I to change language to mean whatever one wants it to mean?] To call a true follower of Jesus Christ a “mystic”, and his communion with God “mystical” is to mislead by redefining the word. Hinduism, Buddhism, and many world religions are mystical, but learning and following Christ is not. Harry Potter is about mysticism. I resist Erwin's take on Christianity. It is not eastern in it's philosophical system. Where you remove yourself by quieting and sitting in meditation and stamping out self and moving toward emptiness. Culminating, someday, in individual identity being abolished; hence enlightenment.
In this review I would like to say thought it superb the book by Ian Plimer; author of 'Heaven and Earth'
The author, on the back page, is an international consultant with a full calender and was spotlighted in conferences put on by such mega-church groups as the Willow Creek Association. The Willow Creek Association is composed of more than 11,000 member churches and sold a video entitled “Leadership Summit 2003: The Barbarian Way Out of Civilization.” Is this book about tearing down the form of 'civilized Christianity' directly referring to Willow Creek members? I am thinking or beginning to think he must start there. This is the emergent crowds way of finding their own style of Christianity. They have a need for a new and updated “true strain” as they condemn every other style as wrong, sub-Christian, unbiblical, stale, and irrelevant. This book gets veeeeeery far into leaving that impression. Is the barbarian way the 'new' way of following Christ? Similar to the former times of the Baptist way, Reformed way, the Anglican way, The Athanasius or Aquinas way?
I have no issue with people having primal and visceral reactions to ethical confluences; of how we ought to live. For I am fighting, here, on this battlefield in my own primal state of a heightened conscience. That this 'barbarian' book should not stand on the battlefield all by itself, without a worthy adversary. I will engage it and in a daring manner, with others, move it to the outskirts where all silly theories must lie.
What are some contemporary models of barbarism? Well, some rebel rule breakers could be the Hutu and the Tutsi. Hezbollah and Hamas and the Aryan Nation would fit the primal mystique. Mugave, Khadaffi, Ayatollah, Chavez and one of everyones favorite - Castro are high on anyones list of first class barbarists, thugs and do gooders for their own ideology. Graffiti vandals would fit this catagory. They love their own kind and own ways.
Jump off the ledge
Beginning on page 117, under the subheading “Jump School”, McManus tells of an incident involving his son, who climbed out the second story window of their home, stood on the roof and excitedly yelled to his dad for permission to jump. Okay, let’s reiterate—the kid is two stories off the ground and wanting permission from his father to jump. I just needed to say that twice to eliminate any misunderstanding. What is McManus’ response? Why, he gives hearty permission, of course, even remarking (in the book) on the pride he had in his son at the moment of his rooftop conquest. McManus’ wife, who is standing beside him, is (understandably) thoroughly alarmed and (understandably) shoots him a look that questions his sanity. Not sure he heard correctly, the son asks again if he can jump. Again the hearty endorsement from dad. McManus suggests the boy jump soon, for in the event of broken legs, a convenient trip to the hospital can be taken. McManus’ only other suggestion is that his son try to avoid the concrete when he lands, and hit the grass instead.
The boy jumps.
For the life of me I cannot figure this one out. I have never before heard of this kind of behavior from a parent. Two stories is a long way to fall for a young child (I don't know the age and would be important in deciding how loony this idea was). Broken legs, slipped disks, cranial injuries and death can easily result from this kind of fall. It happens all the time. But McManus esteems madness with some vigor so this does make sense to him. But—and this is the point—McManus was proud. He was proud of his son’s daring, and later in the chapter equates his attitude with a desire to let his children enter the barbarian way. No stultifying, civilized “Christianity” for them. He won’t raise them in the “cocoon of a domesticated faith”. He equates taking wild chances as a youngster with a faith that is truly lived to its fullest. Without proving my case here this is not true faith. I remember one example of the Mr. Linkletter's daughter jumping out or her window or ledge with deadly consequences. I highly doubt if he would have 'alignment' with the author on his praise of his boys event. With the lack of precaution, one would need to feign approval to be so foolish as to find Erwin's parenting method to be anything but stupendously dumb.
I would never regard this form of faith as an intelligent, spiritually active, meritorious scriptural faith. It is a faith never approached as mature or given by God, in the bible. [Whether the special one time circumstances of Gideon and his men are anywhere close to what he was proud of in this method can be solved by reasoning: did God ever sanction it for anyone else?] I would also be in opposition of this method being employed in the raising of any sons or daughters. I find this a strange tale. Did Erwin have things under his control like firemen training for some difficult situation with safety checks and back up drills so nothing goes wrong? No. It is telling as to how he sees faith. This type of faith is never praised except in his book. How about encouraging his friends of jumping out of cars or running against traffic?
But I will say that if this were the only thing in this book that seemed out of bounds then I would be much more passionate in his defense. For this is an area where men of good repute can see things a tad differently. There may be a part of the story he didn't convey that would make it more sane and capable of a teaching moment for the father and his son. And he new the risks and must of been willing to live with the possible broken body parts. The reengineering of who Christ is, a new version according to Erwin, is where I am aiming.
Watch out, you will get shot
He draws a useful hermeneutic in saying that Jesus refers to a Kingdom of the Spirit and being born into this existing eternal world, rather than a maternity ward again. But he goes off into saying we have some "wrong conclusions" therein (126). He says, we are dropped off into a war zone. Well, he may be assuming he is communicating with Jesus but I don't think he is picking up the Jesus signal. Though McManus may like combat movies or commando raid movies he can't make the 'second birth' about the army and marines coming on Omaha Beach in 1944. He gives his best effort though. I thought John Eldridge pushed favorably from this dimension. But he was speaking of a heart and mind alive and growing towards the endevours of life. But McManus is bringing the verbiage and regard for warfare and military similes as the de rigeur way of making sense of things. The de facto mode of living, as if we are being dropped from a plane from 40,000 feet. The more I read of his commitment to this formula for a barbarian paradigm the more I disdain his thesis and illogic.
McManus’ little book has received kudos in many circles. In reality there is not much to analyze here. The book is long on inspiration and virtually non-existent on substance. It is in essence a 140 page pep rally for his new paradigm. There is nothing wrong with pep rallies; we all need to be encouraged and challenged to step up to the opportunities afforded us by Christ. But McManus seriously overplays his hand. He is highly critical of any who do not accept his “barbarian way,” calling them "domesticated, civilized Christians" (p. 12) and equating them to the Pharisees and Judaism of the first century (pp. 15, 59, 114) . What McManus and those who applaud him miss is that Jesus never condemned the Jews for their religious system (God set most of it in place) nor for their complacency (their religious enthusiasm was everywhere evident). He condemned the Pharisees for invalidating the Word of God with their own staged agenda (Matthew 15:1-9) and the people for following that agenda. This would be the exact concern Jesus would have with the barbarian way. McManus and friends have great enthusiasm for their agenda—but is it God’s agenda? From The Barbarian Way it would be almost impossible to tell if God is with him or not. McManus only shares his views on the gospel that are recaste to appear apropos of his creed. Scripture or any doctrine of importance to the first or second generation Christians is not shared. We are simply to follow Christ and live as, "savages—without rules or boundaries, except the boundary of love." (92)
But on the contrary, from Abraham to Moses to David to Daniel to Sarah to Abigail to Hosea and Simeon they may have started in "faith" as maybe having a barbaric mindset but over the course of time were transformed to civilized (hagios) men and women. They had standards, praised rules and decorum, comported themselves in society with wisdom, were of exceptional character, winsome and lacked the primal carnality of their earlier and former natures. A barbarian no more.
Timothy is not alive
McManus talks of Paul, as a barbarian, losing a son, Timothy, to the civilized way (121). I've really never seen a characterization of Timothy in such a weird and plainly atypical way. He rips Timothy with words such as 'latent faith', 'not alive in the Spirit', and 'lacking Paul's barbarian fathering' of Timothy. He goes on and makes note of a husband and wife who want to bring their second son up in the 'barbarian way' because their first son was to civilized (121). Seems to be wraped in such a way as only a true-believer cultist would applaud and want to mimic.
Lewis Caroll penned for Alice the words I think are merited to this book, "If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? "
Part 1:
You asked if I had read this book you are reading by Erwin McManus. I thought this would be a good gesture of me to read it and for you, my wife, to learn something about me as I make an honest review of the merits and demerits of his case for how to live life from his worldview perspective. So here is my work in appraising his words and writing my response. Is he speaking in hyperbolic tones or in allegorical forms or gritty street slang? I'm going to pursue this with the respect any hording marauder and Barbary pirate would. I'm hoping that the author will love my raw and uncivilized approach.
How can you have a barbarian heart and a new heart of Christ and the both be compatible with each other? The two, seemingly, are completely incompatible from a spiritual and testamental reference point. Or from any other idiomatic or metaphorical literary style depicting opposites. But Erwin says they are the same in essence and even prefers, existentially, his barbarian method. He says he has a barbarian heart like Jesus has a barbarian heart. Let's read it through and see.
My working title for this review: The Centurion Way or The Way out of Ur.
It needs to be said at the outset that there are some good points in this book. It speaks of an unyielding trust in God, the courage to follow Christ, and the uncompromising stance of the genuine believer. It speaks against spiritual complacency and ritualistic formula in the church sphere, and encourages an intimate, personal walk with the God who saved us. It speaks quite correctly to the need to be whom God has made us, and for us not to try to fit into a preconceived mold that stifles our creativity, gifts, or love of life. We are all individuals, and that is a wonderful thing. Expanding our horizons, spiritual and otherwise, is part of the warp and woof of our human makeup.
All of this, of course, is analyzed, interpreted, and contextualized in the presence of Scripture, which is our ultimate measuring tool for
human culture (Philippians 4.8, I Thess. 5.20-22).
Does McManus ignite my spiritual imagination? Does he have a vision of reality that fits with the 66 inerrant books? As you read this please don't say I'm nitpicking because Erwin comes after his targets with his claws sharpened and his eyes full steam ahead. We come to do battle after the same exact territory with similar passions and savvy. May the best barbarian win, in his terminology.
He has a fascination for old Celtic lore. The ways of the Celts in battle, their commitment to cause and their loyalty to their king seem to be a recurring theme. From the beginning, this book emphasizes the “barbarian way” of doing things and walking through life, hence its name, and declares these ways superior by far to traditional Christianity. McManus declares that the apostles, the early Christians and people like the reformer Martin Luther were all of the same raw, barbarian faith and practice, rough-edged and without the polished veneer of 'civilized Christianity.' Anyone reading this book would think that the Church has really muffed it up in its penchant to bring civility over the past two thousand years and churned out little more than cookie-cutter yes men/women, wimps and wooses who have really been fooling themselves and vacated the true plan of God. For they don't know and are out of step with true spirituality and the guts and honesty to live it out, says Erwin.
We really need a definition of terms here. Since barbarianism is the foundation of McManus’ book, we need to look at what the idea of a barbarian really means, and the life that was lived by these kinds of people groups. The essence of barbarianism, and the true barbarian way, is certainly spiritual—but not in the way in which it is presented in this book. McManus’ presentation, however well-intentioned, is faulty from the get-go. By linking the idea and lifestyle of the barbarian with biblical Christianity, he not so subtly tweaks and redefines what “the barbarian way” really is. It is crucial that we understand that barbarianism is a way of life and thought rooted in basic paganism. It is not merely people of courage, fortitude and devotion to cause. The entire foundation of a barbarian’s life is a spiritually pagan worldview that worships the creature rather than the creator. It is a worldview steeped in false worship, violence and superstition; and is in no way akin and compatible with biblical Christianity. The two are complete opposites.
President Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates
He wants the barbarian spirit as his frontline defensive appeal in how to live to God. I, on the other hand, will call in the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines spirit to fight against Erwin's tactic for uplifting the average rule-breaking barbarian. No Marine would applaud the rational argument of Erwin's that chaos, corruption and confusion, even insanity, are to be the highly esteemed tactics of winning the hearts and minds on the battle field.
Over and over in Paul’s epistles he makes the point that “you were like that, but now you are like this”. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. He said so himself. A Gentile in Paul’s day was anyone other than God’s chosen people. All these others were heathen, pagans, idol worshiping, engaging in sexual temple worship or perversion, misogyny and violence, and hence, from God's handbook, completely shut out from the presence of God. Paul’s before and after contrasts between pagans and Christians make for a lot of reading time in his epistles. For McManus to try to assimilate back into the Christian framework some of the things that comprised the pagan's framework, is an attempt to purify that which God has already, for some 3,500 years or so, called unholy. Or is the book trying just to advance the better natures of the more romantic notions of the hordes? Trying to 'recaste' them in a better light? Sure, some barbarians were courageous, but some were cowards. Yes, some were devoted to king and country, but some were opportunists who couldn't care less about integrity. Yes, some seized life by the throat and lived their time the fullest they were able, but, many many others simply eked out a starvation existence that was colorless and bound up with frustration, worry, and an overriding sense of slavish repetition and useless futility.
McManus calls the reader to a re engineering project that is ripe with strong words: raw; primal; revolution; fight; dangerous; risk; warrior; untamed; revolt; tiger. He is unsatisfied and demeans domesticated religion and wants us to join the revolution and overthrow the status quo. Bad words in his book are: civilized; religion; domestic; proper religion, and Christian.
Civilility and Civilizing as heretical
And as for a “civilizing” Church taking the spiritual life out of Christ’s followers, as Erwin earnestly contends, it needs to be remembered that it was largely the civilizing actions and influence of the Church Body that protected a world from a complete breakdown into chaos in the first few centuries after the resurrection of Christ. This church he portrays as without vigor, in reality, has traveled to every continent doing good. Wherever real Christians have taken the Gospel, conversions guaranteed an end to the mistreatment of women and the less fortunate. Slaves were freed by Christian masters, aid to the poor was a priority, and love toward all was a foundation stone. On the other side, history tells us that it was the barbarian hordes that raped, pillaged, and destroyed the homes of simple God-fearing folk, made them slaves and railed against the true God and His Son Jesus. They were preselected to violence and blood, drunk, managed their affairs with brute force, and were largely unlearned. Not much to recommend them for to the modern followers of Christ. So why does he make such an effort to connect such an ancient creed and foist it on the postmodern rebellious Christian maverick?
On page 32, McManus tells of the “civilized” version of the gospel preached by the contemporary Church. He states that it basically entails just believing in Christ for salvation, and your life will be free and easy from that point on. An insurance plan with some do's and don'ts. Well…I’ve never heard that gospel from the genuine Christ follower. I've heard it from the slicked back 'Snake-Oil' perpetrators but not the real ones. Anyone who’s read the first four books of the New Testament can never come away with that interpretation. McManus does mention that some of the traditional preachers talk about the forgiveness of sins and eternal happiness in heaven, but for the true believer, these things do not make for complacency but overwhelming gratitude. When I received Christ, I knew my sins were forgiven. I wanted to be a learner of Christ with a new heart. I’m a new creation! Now that’s exciting.
On the same page McManus says that Jesus’ call is barbaric.
On page 34, McManus again changes definitions by saying that love and sacrificial serving of one another is what the true barbarian way is all about. Can I say this without sounding harsh...how utterly wrong! Again, the true barbarian way tribal, ethnically closed, is violent, self-serving, and egotistical to any other tribe, in general.
On page 63, McManus notes that a measure of insanity is inherent in the barbarian way, and while he is certainly right that insanity runs in the clan, on the next page he blames this form of madness on God! The Lord, he says, is the one who makes us “passionately” crazed and unbalanced in the spiritual sense. McManus says on page 65 that John the Baptist acted insane. Again, as serenely as I can...No, he didn’t! A quick check of the Bible’s hall of faith in Hebrews 11 shows that many of God’s true servants “…went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill treated…wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground” (Hebrews 11:37-38). Anyone familiar with the Old Testament writings in John’s time would certainly have remembered those heroes of the faith. Certainly they, or he, did not act like madmen. Even many of their enemies recognized that they were sent by God! They were not followers of some mystical “barbarian mad way”....
These below are Contradictions if we look at what Paul tells his Ephesus church in Chapter 6 that your protection is in: 1. the covering of truth 2. right 3. peace 4. covering of faith 5. the covering of salvation 6. the word of the Spirit. 7. in your spirit pray and watch and find purpose.
Page 61
1. it is not about having the right things
2. it is not about a reasonable faith.
3. it is not about faith but experience.
4. it is not about discipleship because discipleship is about standardization. (64)
5. He said God wants uniqueness and not uniformity.
Erwin concludes his proof by saying, "You can't escape that John acted like a madman" and "that God drove him out of his mind." He also states, "Paul considered going out of his mind." (65)
The concept of 'truth in advertising'
I think Erwin has earned the respect that when he writes something he means what he says. The content of this book has an explicitness of meaning and is to be read and to be taken from that meaning. He makes his case that you either get this and are in - or - you are not apart of this 'way' and are out.
Terri on the other hand, is one to make excuses for conveyors of information who speak about 'true spirituality'. She says they maybe off quite a bit, but "who isn't". But what they mean deep down inside is true so the rest can be discarded. They can say some right so anything they say wrong is just to be shrugged off. You can't have perfection, therefore she says, you must allow for some bad ideas along side the good ones. This reasoning process is the exact area where we must focus on like a laser beam. For Terri says that the 'Barbarian Way' has an outside container of thinking by Erwin that is flawed and may have some poorly elucidated comparisons about those 'bad barbary's' but the inside is full of real value; this is where Erwin gets it. But Erwin must disagree with this appeasing stance. For he stands up for the whole of his book and seeks for others to do so also.
Can you be only a little wrong, but you've got a good heart, when you have a contained fire and you let it get out of control and it becomes a large scale uncontained fire? No. You were either doing it correctly or you correct your plan and change what isn't working with that which will.
Can you be only a little wrong, but you have good intentions, when you say that DNA matches are correct but can sometimes be irrelevant at the same time? No. The DNA sequences either match or they don't; you can't say there are mistakes - but - are worth respecting the contradictions. Because the technician is a good guy.
Can you be only a little wrong, but be trusted anyway, when you deliberately misrepresent historical data? No.
Can you be just a little wrong, if you agree with Scotland's cabinet leader and the recent release of Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi. In this example it would be highly clarifying how you understand compassion versus justice.
Can you be only a little wrong, but keep on teaching others anyway, that the 'law of attraction' is true when it is not? No. The law is true or it is not. This law is bogus where the Law of noncontradiction is always a cause which has an effect.
Can you be only a little wrong, if you say that the maker of the universe isn't always rational and sane? The answer will dramatically infer what your worldview is.
Can you be a little wrong, but esteemed in whatever you say, when you promote the model for 'Global Warming' when these very models have been demonstrated to be false? No, Whatever your intention is, if the model is wrong you are wrong. Science bears this out in one direction or the other and for reasons that can be proven time and again.
( I think that is why Erwin wars against rational congruity. Because he can't have a prayer that his statements are worthy of even thinking on if The Creator is always a reasonable God. But if he can persuade others that you don't need reason and can be irrational and be a part of the God of the Universe then he has broken down the garrison of truth being true and comporting with reality without any exception.)
Gods Workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Ephesians 2:10. When John the Baptist and then Paul came and preached they preached the Kingdom, they didn't just preach salvation. Kingdom, simply put, is rulership -- ownership. God is in charge of you. He owns you because He purchased you and then He rules you. People who are Christians in the Kingdom act like they are under rulership. A madman will not acquiesce to that. Only sane people understand rulership. Insanity will not bring a humble spirit of discernment or a logical mind to bear on the days events. Erwin twists so far in his confidence to make John out to be what he wants him to be he simply dismisses that reality isn't his friend. For his somersaults are just not who John the 2nd cousin of Jesus was. Erwin should really be complementing Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch, for he was the uncivil and rash desirer of his half brothers wife Herodias, which the sane man John, the austere prophet and baptiser condemned. Herod Antipas seemed to be covetously mad in the best sense of the barbarian way. But Erwin seems never to be impeded from making things that are already understood facts into things that never were. The idea that John was insane and God brought it upon him, is as true as the story that God was a man once upon a time, and became, ultimately, a God; and just like that he made other gods like him who will be full fledged Gods too. Erwin is as fact based as this claim is. With a mind filled up with madness they would both be right simultaneously. They should sit down and have dinner together and congratulate themselves on such profundity. Bring Antipas to the feast also, he would have some tales of raw passionate exploit to tell. When somebody makes the farcical to act factual; keep your wits about you.
Which leads me to another point— I have been training myself, especially in the last decade, to take on the requirements and standards of a scriptural teacher, in terms of language, context and meaning. Erwin is bringing his own teaching elements and if what I am saying is true, the resulting confusion among those he influences is laid squarely on his shoulders. James said, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). If he had of called his book the 'God's Ownership Way' he wouldn't have had that renegade spirit he desires and that postmodern deconstruction value he likes to utilize.
My review is much less important than Andrew McCarthy and his book; 'Willful Blindness'
For all McManus’ references to the Celtic barbarian, he never quite gets around to telling the reader what they were really like. Your fathers line was from Scotland and I have Irish on my mothers side. I am a student of history and know the belief system of the Irish and Scottish forebears. Believe me, if there was anything in the spiritual lives of our ancient forebears to brag on I would most certainly make it known. But before Christ they were pagans (barbarians) who the bible refers to as enemies of God by nature. Their method was decapitation of their conquered foes, ritual human sacrifice and worship of any number of woodland or other gods. this and much more made up part of the life of the barbarian Celt or euro-Aryan horde or tribe.
Somewhere along the way Erwin says, "the movement of Jesus Christ became a civilized Christianity," he writes. "We created a religion using the name of Jesus Christ and convinced ourselves that God's optimal desire for our lives was to insulate us in a spiritual bubble where we risk nothing, sacrifice nothing, lose nothing, worry about nothing. I wonder how many of us have lost our barbarian way and have become embittered with God, confused in our faith because God doesn't come through the way we think He should." When he says, "We created"...Who is he talking about? "...a spiritual bubble where we risk nothing, sacrifice nothing, lose nothing, worry about nothing..." Who could he possibly be referring to? Is he pointing to all, some, a few, the lawyers, his friends, his mother-in-law, the socialites with class envy or the stubble and tares that have always lived inside the church system? So what if they do. That doesn't make Christianity to be warred against as he does, quite passionately, in this short book.
My book title maybe called the Berean Way
He defines the "barbarian way" as being about love, intimacy, passion and sacrifice. "Barbarians love to live and live to love. For them God is life, and their mission is to reconnect humanity to Him. Their passion is that each of us might live in intimate communication with Him who died for us. The barbarian way is a path of both spirit and truth. The soul of the barbarian is made alive by the presence of Jesus." Defining barbarians like this as counter cultural is quite chick. But, to me, it has the charm and definitional vagueness of redefining marriage to mean something it has never meant before. To give it a modern and dramatically different definition and stance. And making it appear as if the barbar's mysticism hadn't changed but the Christ follower has changed. This hearkens to a SNL skit where make believe is pushed as believable and true. That water isn't really wet and goodness is also bad. How far is the reader willing to go to suspend sound judgement and the real analogical use of language? Even if we were to accept his definition of barbarian for a second, what right-thinking Christian would deny the importance of these qualities? What evangelical group is warring against the movement of love and sacrifice? If Erwin knows, he is only telling us that Christianity is on the skids and even DOA.
Part 2:
Hearing
The book states, "The Scriptures are filled with stories of women and men who heard God speak and acted as if hearing Him were normal." Also, "Jesus expected that those who were His followers would hear His voice, know His voice, and follow only His voice, even as He calls out by name and leads us on the barbarian way." I have covered this claim of Erwin's when I listened to him in March of '09. I wrote a detailed accounting of his sermon and whether it is worthy of being taken seriously. You may read my review of his lesson here.
Mystical redefined
McManus is enamored of the word “mystical”, and uses it repeatedly in his book. Again, he changes definitions to a new one he prefers. The word “mystic” in the Greek refers to someone who is involved with secret rites—i.e. a hidden way to God that is only for the initiated. Now, I understand that McManus probably does not mean this when he is speaking of a closer walk with God and intimate communion with Him. But it is important to use words corresponding to their actual meanings. That is what we have language for. [or am I to change language to mean whatever one wants it to mean?] To call a true follower of Jesus Christ a “mystic”, and his communion with God “mystical” is to mislead by redefining the word. Hinduism, Buddhism, and many world religions are mystical, but learning and following Christ is not. Harry Potter is about mysticism. I resist Erwin's take on Christianity. It is not eastern in it's philosophical system. Where you remove yourself by quieting and sitting in meditation and stamping out self and moving toward emptiness. Culminating, someday, in individual identity being abolished; hence enlightenment.
In this review I would like to say thought it superb the book by Ian Plimer; author of 'Heaven and Earth'
The author, on the back page, is an international consultant with a full calender and was spotlighted in conferences put on by such mega-church groups as the Willow Creek Association. The Willow Creek Association is composed of more than 11,000 member churches and sold a video entitled “Leadership Summit 2003: The Barbarian Way Out of Civilization.” Is this book about tearing down the form of 'civilized Christianity' directly referring to Willow Creek members? I am thinking or beginning to think he must start there. This is the emergent crowds way of finding their own style of Christianity. They have a need for a new and updated “true strain” as they condemn every other style as wrong, sub-Christian, unbiblical, stale, and irrelevant. This book gets veeeeeery far into leaving that impression. Is the barbarian way the 'new' way of following Christ? Similar to the former times of the Baptist way, Reformed way, the Anglican way, The Athanasius or Aquinas way?
I have no issue with people having primal and visceral reactions to ethical confluences; of how we ought to live. For I am fighting, here, on this battlefield in my own primal state of a heightened conscience. That this 'barbarian' book should not stand on the battlefield all by itself, without a worthy adversary. I will engage it and in a daring manner, with others, move it to the outskirts where all silly theories must lie.
What are some contemporary models of barbarism? Well, some rebel rule breakers could be the Hutu and the Tutsi. Hezbollah and Hamas and the Aryan Nation would fit the primal mystique. Mugave, Khadaffi, Ayatollah, Chavez and one of everyones favorite - Castro are high on anyones list of first class barbarists, thugs and do gooders for their own ideology. Graffiti vandals would fit this catagory. They love their own kind and own ways.
Jump off the ledge
Beginning on page 117, under the subheading “Jump School”, McManus tells of an incident involving his son, who climbed out the second story window of their home, stood on the roof and excitedly yelled to his dad for permission to jump. Okay, let’s reiterate—the kid is two stories off the ground and wanting permission from his father to jump. I just needed to say that twice to eliminate any misunderstanding. What is McManus’ response? Why, he gives hearty permission, of course, even remarking (in the book) on the pride he had in his son at the moment of his rooftop conquest. McManus’ wife, who is standing beside him, is (understandably) thoroughly alarmed and (understandably) shoots him a look that questions his sanity. Not sure he heard correctly, the son asks again if he can jump. Again the hearty endorsement from dad. McManus suggests the boy jump soon, for in the event of broken legs, a convenient trip to the hospital can be taken. McManus’ only other suggestion is that his son try to avoid the concrete when he lands, and hit the grass instead.
The boy jumps.
For the life of me I cannot figure this one out. I have never before heard of this kind of behavior from a parent. Two stories is a long way to fall for a young child (I don't know the age and would be important in deciding how loony this idea was). Broken legs, slipped disks, cranial injuries and death can easily result from this kind of fall. It happens all the time. But McManus esteems madness with some vigor so this does make sense to him. But—and this is the point—McManus was proud. He was proud of his son’s daring, and later in the chapter equates his attitude with a desire to let his children enter the barbarian way. No stultifying, civilized “Christianity” for them. He won’t raise them in the “cocoon of a domesticated faith”. He equates taking wild chances as a youngster with a faith that is truly lived to its fullest. Without proving my case here this is not true faith. I remember one example of the Mr. Linkletter's daughter jumping out or her window or ledge with deadly consequences. I highly doubt if he would have 'alignment' with the author on his praise of his boys event. With the lack of precaution, one would need to feign approval to be so foolish as to find Erwin's parenting method to be anything but stupendously dumb.
I would never regard this form of faith as an intelligent, spiritually active, meritorious scriptural faith. It is a faith never approached as mature or given by God, in the bible. [Whether the special one time circumstances of Gideon and his men are anywhere close to what he was proud of in this method can be solved by reasoning: did God ever sanction it for anyone else?] I would also be in opposition of this method being employed in the raising of any sons or daughters. I find this a strange tale. Did Erwin have things under his control like firemen training for some difficult situation with safety checks and back up drills so nothing goes wrong? No. It is telling as to how he sees faith. This type of faith is never praised except in his book. How about encouraging his friends of jumping out of cars or running against traffic?
But I will say that if this were the only thing in this book that seemed out of bounds then I would be much more passionate in his defense. For this is an area where men of good repute can see things a tad differently. There may be a part of the story he didn't convey that would make it more sane and capable of a teaching moment for the father and his son. And he new the risks and must of been willing to live with the possible broken body parts. The reengineering of who Christ is, a new version according to Erwin, is where I am aiming.
Watch out, you will get shot
He draws a useful hermeneutic in saying that Jesus refers to a Kingdom of the Spirit and being born into this existing eternal world, rather than a maternity ward again. But he goes off into saying we have some "wrong conclusions" therein (126). He says, we are dropped off into a war zone. Well, he may be assuming he is communicating with Jesus but I don't think he is picking up the Jesus signal. Though McManus may like combat movies or commando raid movies he can't make the 'second birth' about the army and marines coming on Omaha Beach in 1944. He gives his best effort though. I thought John Eldridge pushed favorably from this dimension. But he was speaking of a heart and mind alive and growing towards the endevours of life. But McManus is bringing the verbiage and regard for warfare and military similes as the de rigeur way of making sense of things. The de facto mode of living, as if we are being dropped from a plane from 40,000 feet. The more I read of his commitment to this formula for a barbarian paradigm the more I disdain his thesis and illogic.
McManus’ little book has received kudos in many circles. In reality there is not much to analyze here. The book is long on inspiration and virtually non-existent on substance. It is in essence a 140 page pep rally for his new paradigm. There is nothing wrong with pep rallies; we all need to be encouraged and challenged to step up to the opportunities afforded us by Christ. But McManus seriously overplays his hand. He is highly critical of any who do not accept his “barbarian way,” calling them "domesticated, civilized Christians" (p. 12) and equating them to the Pharisees and Judaism of the first century (pp. 15, 59, 114) . What McManus and those who applaud him miss is that Jesus never condemned the Jews for their religious system (God set most of it in place) nor for their complacency (their religious enthusiasm was everywhere evident). He condemned the Pharisees for invalidating the Word of God with their own staged agenda (Matthew 15:1-9) and the people for following that agenda. This would be the exact concern Jesus would have with the barbarian way. McManus and friends have great enthusiasm for their agenda—but is it God’s agenda? From The Barbarian Way it would be almost impossible to tell if God is with him or not. McManus only shares his views on the gospel that are recaste to appear apropos of his creed. Scripture or any doctrine of importance to the first or second generation Christians is not shared. We are simply to follow Christ and live as, "savages—without rules or boundaries, except the boundary of love." (92)
But on the contrary, from Abraham to Moses to David to Daniel to Sarah to Abigail to Hosea and Simeon they may have started in "faith" as maybe having a barbaric mindset but over the course of time were transformed to civilized (hagios) men and women. They had standards, praised rules and decorum, comported themselves in society with wisdom, were of exceptional character, winsome and lacked the primal carnality of their earlier and former natures. A barbarian no more.
Timothy is not alive
McManus talks of Paul, as a barbarian, losing a son, Timothy, to the civilized way (121). I've really never seen a characterization of Timothy in such a weird and plainly atypical way. He rips Timothy with words such as 'latent faith', 'not alive in the Spirit', and 'lacking Paul's barbarian fathering' of Timothy. He goes on and makes note of a husband and wife who want to bring their second son up in the 'barbarian way' because their first son was to civilized (121). Seems to be wraped in such a way as only a true-believer cultist would applaud and want to mimic.
Lewis Caroll penned for Alice the words I think are merited to this book, "If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? "
Rhinoceros
Perhaps his best animal example of the barbarian way that McManus supplies is found in an illustration he gives about rhinos. Rhinos, he informs us, can run at thirty miles an hour but can only see thirty feet in front of them. The term used for a number of rhinos running at full speed is appropriately called a crash. Now, most people recognize rhinos as huge, dim-witted creatures that charge things with a highly developed defensive exterior. They do not create, they eat leaf matter and if provoked will annihilate that which is in their path. I have never heard a parent tell his child that he hopes she will grow up and have the characteristics of a rhino—e.g. be like a prey animal, don't learn much, be destructive, self-centered, have poor eyesight with binocular-like vision with the eyes on opposite sides of the head. To extend some details of the Rhino it's hearing is exceptional, they hear the faintest noise in a thorn bush and from this will occasion flight. And have an acute sense of smell. But McManus sees the rhino as the barbarian’s mascot and prime example. Speaking of the mannerisms of rhinos McManus writes, “That’s what happens when we become barbarians and shake free of domestication and civility. The church becomes a crash” (p. 138). [doing a little research the rhino's sight is poor, but, the rhino cannot see clearly a person past 50 m or a 170 feet distance in open ground. That is different than 30. Let's say they can make out a person from 125 feet for fairness and can change directions readily.]
This is truly amazing—yet totally consistent with what McManus is promoting in this book. The barbarian way is that of highly motivated, heart based, spiritual gnostic-mystics, over-the-top entrepreneurs, each madly pursuing his own vision of what God would have. To the barbarian there are no rules, all traditions and rituals are boring and must be demolished, and there is no indication, at least that I could find, that even the Bible should define or set boundaries for barbarians. What McManus is propagating is for Christians to charge full speed ahead giving no thought about what they might trample or destroy in the process.
President Obama in his public pleas for a 9 trillion gov't operated Health plan appears to be truly upset that his benign view of it isn't obvious to all. In his op-ed Sunday, August 22, for the New York Times he said, "We'll cut hundreds of billions in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid." Hundreds of billions? Just like that? With no evidence of ever having done it before. This is nothing but an assertion by one self confident man. Facts show that this man is standing in field full of evidence to the contrary. It's close to Peter Pan telling the children that thinking lovely thoughts will make them fly. So it is similar with this book, where the author seems to make a worthy effort to make us want to believe in his tale of primal values as the path to living. Even if he has to change and redefine facts to fit his solution. His story telling method is akin to the story in Alice in Wonderland where the Mad Hatter said, "words are, whatever I want them to mean." Nomenclature plopped on its ear.
Follow Jephthah
One more note of interest: McManus opens and closes The Barbarian Way with an example of the Old Testament judge Jephthah (Judges 11:1-3). He is apparently the perfect picture of a barbarian, the likes of which we should follow and emulate. While Jephthah was a wild man, a mighty warrior and one who drew “worthless” men to his cause (11:3), there is no indication in Scripture that Jephthah actually walked with God. More importantly, in true barbarian fashion, Jephthah made a rash vow promising to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house upon his return from a victorious battle with Ammon. As you recall, it was his only daughter who walked through that door and Jephthah the barbarian, in complete contradiction to the expressed will of God (cp. Leviticus 18:21), actually sacrificed her (Judges 11:29-40). Is this really the kind of hero we should make as an example? Maybe you agree with Erwin, for his barbarian way is even better represented by contradicting his wife and telling his son to jump off the window (pp. 117-119) or of men at his church retreat stripping naked to play tug-a-war (pp. 131-133). Indeed these examples are barbaric but David would not be one of them. Erwin trys to bring David to his side but he is wrong about David. For he was exhuberant but did not strip naked, he wore an ephod.
Paul spoke of a similar people when he said of the Jews of a certain area, “For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge” (Romans 10:2). This is the true barbarian way: a zeal untamed by the truth of the Word. It is not the pathway to which the Christian is called, in my opinion.
should you take the bait? Do you want to be a barbarian?
He should be speaking against the barbarian way. Even confronting the barbarians of our time that wish to bring chaos and destruction to America through their primal desire to rule. For instance, an EMP burst launched from a Shahab-3 rocket that if detonated 200 miles above St. Louis, will result in every electric transformer being destroyed or fried, in all of the 50 states. No electricity for 4-8 years after the burst. That will bring no food, disease and over time 2/3 of the population dying. Now that is barbaric. The present administration is not protecting or advancing any funds to protect from this sobering possible reality. But that is just me finding fault with those ornery barbary pirates of the 21st century.
There will always be religious compulsions in the human being and in almost any form and orientation. Erwin seems to slam other's religious tendencies and then directly publishes a book bringing new ritual and dogma within lopsided institutuions of his own. We probably have much we agree on but my ire is at him formulating a new Jesus. A new slant and formula of how his disciples and learners thought and lead their life. Stealing terms and meaning to fit his own mindset. Esteeming ideas that have no reason to be taken seriously. What is the bottom line. Is it that Jesus Christ wants or doesn’t want us to mimic barbarians. The barbarian heart is the one from which He has delivered us, it would seem to me. That “primal”, sensual, I’ve-got-to-be-me attitude that casts off restraint has no place in the Christian walk. As romantic as that distant era of violence and wild living might seem to Erwin, we can’t go back, and we don’t really want to. There’s nothing back there for us to admire of Barbarism and todays barbars are just as corrosively wicked. The true barbarian way—brutal, self-serving, impulsed—needs to remain exposed and be resisted today by every new barbarians on the block. His book seems to stand up for The Dissembling Way; but in the end, I think it is only The new religion of McManus Way.
Perhaps his best animal example of the barbarian way that McManus supplies is found in an illustration he gives about rhinos. Rhinos, he informs us, can run at thirty miles an hour but can only see thirty feet in front of them. The term used for a number of rhinos running at full speed is appropriately called a crash. Now, most people recognize rhinos as huge, dim-witted creatures that charge things with a highly developed defensive exterior. They do not create, they eat leaf matter and if provoked will annihilate that which is in their path. I have never heard a parent tell his child that he hopes she will grow up and have the characteristics of a rhino—e.g. be like a prey animal, don't learn much, be destructive, self-centered, have poor eyesight with binocular-like vision with the eyes on opposite sides of the head. To extend some details of the Rhino it's hearing is exceptional, they hear the faintest noise in a thorn bush and from this will occasion flight. And have an acute sense of smell. But McManus sees the rhino as the barbarian’s mascot and prime example. Speaking of the mannerisms of rhinos McManus writes, “That’s what happens when we become barbarians and shake free of domestication and civility. The church becomes a crash” (p. 138). [doing a little research the rhino's sight is poor, but, the rhino cannot see clearly a person past 50 m or a 170 feet distance in open ground. That is different than 30. Let's say they can make out a person from 125 feet for fairness and can change directions readily.]
This is truly amazing—yet totally consistent with what McManus is promoting in this book. The barbarian way is that of highly motivated, heart based, spiritual gnostic-mystics, over-the-top entrepreneurs, each madly pursuing his own vision of what God would have. To the barbarian there are no rules, all traditions and rituals are boring and must be demolished, and there is no indication, at least that I could find, that even the Bible should define or set boundaries for barbarians. What McManus is propagating is for Christians to charge full speed ahead giving no thought about what they might trample or destroy in the process.
President Obama in his public pleas for a 9 trillion gov't operated Health plan appears to be truly upset that his benign view of it isn't obvious to all. In his op-ed Sunday, August 22, for the New York Times he said, "We'll cut hundreds of billions in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid." Hundreds of billions? Just like that? With no evidence of ever having done it before. This is nothing but an assertion by one self confident man. Facts show that this man is standing in field full of evidence to the contrary. It's close to Peter Pan telling the children that thinking lovely thoughts will make them fly. So it is similar with this book, where the author seems to make a worthy effort to make us want to believe in his tale of primal values as the path to living. Even if he has to change and redefine facts to fit his solution. His story telling method is akin to the story in Alice in Wonderland where the Mad Hatter said, "words are, whatever I want them to mean." Nomenclature plopped on its ear.
Follow Jephthah
One more note of interest: McManus opens and closes The Barbarian Way with an example of the Old Testament judge Jephthah (Judges 11:1-3). He is apparently the perfect picture of a barbarian, the likes of which we should follow and emulate. While Jephthah was a wild man, a mighty warrior and one who drew “worthless” men to his cause (11:3), there is no indication in Scripture that Jephthah actually walked with God. More importantly, in true barbarian fashion, Jephthah made a rash vow promising to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house upon his return from a victorious battle with Ammon. As you recall, it was his only daughter who walked through that door and Jephthah the barbarian, in complete contradiction to the expressed will of God (cp. Leviticus 18:21), actually sacrificed her (Judges 11:29-40). Is this really the kind of hero we should make as an example? Maybe you agree with Erwin, for his barbarian way is even better represented by contradicting his wife and telling his son to jump off the window (pp. 117-119) or of men at his church retreat stripping naked to play tug-a-war (pp. 131-133). Indeed these examples are barbaric but David would not be one of them. Erwin trys to bring David to his side but he is wrong about David. For he was exhuberant but did not strip naked, he wore an ephod.
Paul spoke of a similar people when he said of the Jews of a certain area, “For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge” (Romans 10:2). This is the true barbarian way: a zeal untamed by the truth of the Word. It is not the pathway to which the Christian is called, in my opinion.
should you take the bait? Do you want to be a barbarian?
He should be speaking against the barbarian way. Even confronting the barbarians of our time that wish to bring chaos and destruction to America through their primal desire to rule. For instance, an EMP burst launched from a Shahab-3 rocket that if detonated 200 miles above St. Louis, will result in every electric transformer being destroyed or fried, in all of the 50 states. No electricity for 4-8 years after the burst. That will bring no food, disease and over time 2/3 of the population dying. Now that is barbaric. The present administration is not protecting or advancing any funds to protect from this sobering possible reality. But that is just me finding fault with those ornery barbary pirates of the 21st century.
There will always be religious compulsions in the human being and in almost any form and orientation. Erwin seems to slam other's religious tendencies and then directly publishes a book bringing new ritual and dogma within lopsided institutuions of his own. We probably have much we agree on but my ire is at him formulating a new Jesus. A new slant and formula of how his disciples and learners thought and lead their life. Stealing terms and meaning to fit his own mindset. Esteeming ideas that have no reason to be taken seriously. What is the bottom line. Is it that Jesus Christ wants or doesn’t want us to mimic barbarians. The barbarian heart is the one from which He has delivered us, it would seem to me. That “primal”, sensual, I’ve-got-to-be-me attitude that casts off restraint has no place in the Christian walk. As romantic as that distant era of violence and wild living might seem to Erwin, we can’t go back, and we don’t really want to. There’s nothing back there for us to admire of Barbarism and todays barbars are just as corrosively wicked. The true barbarian way—brutal, self-serving, impulsed—needs to remain exposed and be resisted today by every new barbarians on the block. His book seems to stand up for The Dissembling Way; but in the end, I think it is only The new religion of McManus Way.
“So let us know, let us press on to know the LORD,
His going forth is as certain as the dawn;And He will come to us like the rain, Like the spring rain watering the earth”
(Hosea 6:3).
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
General Revelation and Natural Theology
9th, Defending faith
General Revelation and Natural Theology
Welcome, we are continuing on in defense of Christian faith. What we have been looking at in the last few sessions are some of the important epistemological principles. Principles of knowledge that are critical to understanding an apologetic case and defense. Through the four foundational types of epistemological premises and then through some concepts of mystery, antimony and paradox that are so often misused in our language today.
Now we shall turn our attention to a different direction. We shall take on the very important ideas that are central to our defense of Christianity. Which is called natural theology. In modern times this has come under severe attack. Where for many centuries it had been well worked through and developed and given clarity. Many theologians of our time reject the whole idea of natural theology (NT). When NT is discussed the first one you think of is Thomas Aquinas. Some people labor under the impression that the science of NT was invented by him. But when he developed these principles he was standing on the shoulders of Augustine. And he was indebted to the teaching of Apostle Paul.
Our beginning definition is: Natural Theology is a knowledge of God that is gained by nature. In addition to and distinct from the knowledge of God we receive from the authority of scripture. NT is another source for the character of God from nature itself. Now from the outset there have been different views of NT which explains the controversy of the this term.
Historically within the Christian church tradition it was seen to be based on something else. Which we call General Revelation (GR). But many times we confuse what this is as compared to NT. GR refers to something God does. NT refers to something we do. NT is the result of General Revelation. When we talk about revelation, that is general, we are distinguishing this from the word ‘special.’
General Revelation is called this for two reasons: 1) because it given by God to all human beings. The audience to GR is universal. Every one in the world received GR. Not everyone has had the benefit of hearing special revelation as it is found in the scriptures. 2) is because of it’s content. What GR reveals is the knowledge of God -- in general -- . We don’t get from GR the nature of God himself. Just basic substantive information about the existence of God.
Now one more distinction; there are two kinds of GR. 1) Mediate GR is that which God gives by some medium. From an indirect source. An example would be in Psalms when it is written that the atmosphere and space display not God but what he made. Something of the glory of its maker. Just as a great painter leave his own mark on the canvas. So the universe is a medium that proclaims something about the nature of God. 2) Immediate GR is direct and without an intervening medium. Romans 2 says that laws about God which our senses can pick up that God plants in the soul. By virtue of being human we have an internal sense of the reality of God. It is built into the mind and is not a deduction from nature. The sensus divinitus.
Now, when the discussion comes up about GR among Christians there is the question posed, “What does the Bible say about that?” If one believes the Bible is true one will also understand this other form of revelation. And we will embrace both these different forms of information. We find this in the first chapter of Romans. And it comes as a shocking and jolting manner in it’s indictment of us.
The Indictment
For Paul says that there is a reason for why the Gospel (good news) is necessary in the first place. Why with this mediate and immediate knowledge we all are found lacking as to how we measure out what is expected to the Creator. This is not about rejecting this person called Jesus that Paul is speaking to the Roman churches about. No, he is talking about the knowledge of God that they do possess. He quotes Paul in Romans starting at 1:17 and states that mankind suppresses the truth. But not just truth in general but it is a particular truth that is in view here and being suppressed. The manifest knowledge of God being clear and evident for all of human kind. Then Paul’s discussion gets worse. At verse 19 God clearly as given what is necessary for all humans to understand something about his divinity. This God doesn’t hide little clues and that only the alert and super intelligent can find and discern. Maybe we can or maybe we can’t. No, it has nothing to do with how clever we are in arriving at some great conclusions about that how God exists. Here Paul says it is so plain and so manifest that everybody sees it. And therefore, it leaves all without any excuses.
Paul is appealing to those who will try to find the excuse that if I had only known about who you were. If I had of only known you were there my life would have been different. Then I would have been loyal and obedient. But here in this dialogue Paul says that this thinking wont fly. Why, because you did know. You knew my eternal power. You knew my very deity because I showed it to you. And plainly at that. The notion you didn’t come after me is not because of ignorance, no, but because you hated me. You wouldn’t have me in your thoughts.
But there are those who will say that there is a divine revelation but that mankind is not capable of capturing its essence because we beings are shielded from its truth because of a corruptible part in us.
Natural revelation produces Natural Theology which is the central and foundational for the universal guilt of mankind.
I am always getting the question about various tribal clans and people groups which are hidden away from these ideas. Well, my answer is slightly glib. Does not having Aquinas and others make you innocent? Is that the requirement? The question should be; ‘how many innocent tribal peoples are there scattered around the various continents of the earth?’ If we are reading Paul correctly he is saying there are no innocents anywhere. All have received the revelation of the Father Creator. And everyone, every last on of us and them, have repressed that knowledge and exchanged it for a substitute lie. This results in all of us choosing the activity of idolatry rather than the worship of the only true God. So this whole world, so to speak, is under indictment and that God sends a savior into this very world to bring a life line. This GR that the Father has given places us under this indictment and this revelation is clear and plain. At least in 66 books of scripture.
So NT, in its most rudimentary sense, is that knowledge of God that every human being has as a direct result or consequence of GR. The knowledge of God we have from nature.
When Augustine talked and wrote about NT he went to Romans 1 for his definitions. Centuries later when Aquinas was developing is system of NT he went to both Romans and to Augustine’s writings and quoted him often. They said because of Romans 1 and GR there is a universal knowledge of God. Now some people think what Aquinas was really saying was that man, with the use of his unaided reason, without any assistance from Divine revelation, has the intellectual capacity to ascend into the heavens and arrive at a knowledge of God. But that is not what Aquinas taught by a long shot. Both of these leaders and writers said was that we have NT through the means of Divine revelation.
The consequences of these ideas are massive for the science of apologetics. As I hope we will see in the coming sessions.
General Revelation and Natural Theology
Welcome, we are continuing on in defense of Christian faith. What we have been looking at in the last few sessions are some of the important epistemological principles. Principles of knowledge that are critical to understanding an apologetic case and defense. Through the four foundational types of epistemological premises and then through some concepts of mystery, antimony and paradox that are so often misused in our language today.
Now we shall turn our attention to a different direction. We shall take on the very important ideas that are central to our defense of Christianity. Which is called natural theology. In modern times this has come under severe attack. Where for many centuries it had been well worked through and developed and given clarity. Many theologians of our time reject the whole idea of natural theology (NT). When NT is discussed the first one you think of is Thomas Aquinas. Some people labor under the impression that the science of NT was invented by him. But when he developed these principles he was standing on the shoulders of Augustine. And he was indebted to the teaching of Apostle Paul.
Our beginning definition is: Natural Theology is a knowledge of God that is gained by nature. In addition to and distinct from the knowledge of God we receive from the authority of scripture. NT is another source for the character of God from nature itself. Now from the outset there have been different views of NT which explains the controversy of the this term.
Historically within the Christian church tradition it was seen to be based on something else. Which we call General Revelation (GR). But many times we confuse what this is as compared to NT. GR refers to something God does. NT refers to something we do. NT is the result of General Revelation. When we talk about revelation, that is general, we are distinguishing this from the word ‘special.’
General Revelation is called this for two reasons: 1) because it given by God to all human beings. The audience to GR is universal. Every one in the world received GR. Not everyone has had the benefit of hearing special revelation as it is found in the scriptures. 2) is because of it’s content. What GR reveals is the knowledge of God -- in general -- . We don’t get from GR the nature of God himself. Just basic substantive information about the existence of God.
Now one more distinction; there are two kinds of GR. 1) Mediate GR is that which God gives by some medium. From an indirect source. An example would be in Psalms when it is written that the atmosphere and space display not God but what he made. Something of the glory of its maker. Just as a great painter leave his own mark on the canvas. So the universe is a medium that proclaims something about the nature of God. 2) Immediate GR is direct and without an intervening medium. Romans 2 says that laws about God which our senses can pick up that God plants in the soul. By virtue of being human we have an internal sense of the reality of God. It is built into the mind and is not a deduction from nature. The sensus divinitus.
Now, when the discussion comes up about GR among Christians there is the question posed, “What does the Bible say about that?” If one believes the Bible is true one will also understand this other form of revelation. And we will embrace both these different forms of information. We find this in the first chapter of Romans. And it comes as a shocking and jolting manner in it’s indictment of us.
The Indictment
For Paul says that there is a reason for why the Gospel (good news) is necessary in the first place. Why with this mediate and immediate knowledge we all are found lacking as to how we measure out what is expected to the Creator. This is not about rejecting this person called Jesus that Paul is speaking to the Roman churches about. No, he is talking about the knowledge of God that they do possess. He quotes Paul in Romans starting at 1:17 and states that mankind suppresses the truth. But not just truth in general but it is a particular truth that is in view here and being suppressed. The manifest knowledge of God being clear and evident for all of human kind. Then Paul’s discussion gets worse. At verse 19 God clearly as given what is necessary for all humans to understand something about his divinity. This God doesn’t hide little clues and that only the alert and super intelligent can find and discern. Maybe we can or maybe we can’t. No, it has nothing to do with how clever we are in arriving at some great conclusions about that how God exists. Here Paul says it is so plain and so manifest that everybody sees it. And therefore, it leaves all without any excuses.
Paul is appealing to those who will try to find the excuse that if I had only known about who you were. If I had of only known you were there my life would have been different. Then I would have been loyal and obedient. But here in this dialogue Paul says that this thinking wont fly. Why, because you did know. You knew my eternal power. You knew my very deity because I showed it to you. And plainly at that. The notion you didn’t come after me is not because of ignorance, no, but because you hated me. You wouldn’t have me in your thoughts.
But there are those who will say that there is a divine revelation but that mankind is not capable of capturing its essence because we beings are shielded from its truth because of a corruptible part in us.
Natural revelation produces Natural Theology which is the central and foundational for the universal guilt of mankind.
I am always getting the question about various tribal clans and people groups which are hidden away from these ideas. Well, my answer is slightly glib. Does not having Aquinas and others make you innocent? Is that the requirement? The question should be; ‘how many innocent tribal peoples are there scattered around the various continents of the earth?’ If we are reading Paul correctly he is saying there are no innocents anywhere. All have received the revelation of the Father Creator. And everyone, every last on of us and them, have repressed that knowledge and exchanged it for a substitute lie. This results in all of us choosing the activity of idolatry rather than the worship of the only true God. So this whole world, so to speak, is under indictment and that God sends a savior into this very world to bring a life line. This GR that the Father has given places us under this indictment and this revelation is clear and plain. At least in 66 books of scripture.
So NT, in its most rudimentary sense, is that knowledge of God that every human being has as a direct result or consequence of GR. The knowledge of God we have from nature.
When Augustine talked and wrote about NT he went to Romans 1 for his definitions. Centuries later when Aquinas was developing is system of NT he went to both Romans and to Augustine’s writings and quoted him often. They said because of Romans 1 and GR there is a universal knowledge of God. Now some people think what Aquinas was really saying was that man, with the use of his unaided reason, without any assistance from Divine revelation, has the intellectual capacity to ascend into the heavens and arrive at a knowledge of God. But that is not what Aquinas taught by a long shot. Both of these leaders and writers said was that we have NT through the means of Divine revelation.
The consequences of these ideas are massive for the science of apologetics. As I hope we will see in the coming sessions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)