Here are the lyrics if you would rather read them (there is also more background on the hymn available here):
http://www.gettymusic.com/hymns-inchristalone.aspx

I love music, especially Christian music. I’m a fan of the contemporary as well as the past. I grew up in a home filled with music, as my mother loved to play piano and organ. My sister and I both took an interest at a young age.

I spent a considerable amount of time during grade-school and high-school practicing and playing in band (baritone horn). Following high-school, I played in a number of contemporary Christian music and worship groups. I note this, because I’m about to make a rather harsh critique of much of this ‘scene.’

I find modern Christian worship music, as a whole, rather lacking. This, unfortunately, includes a lot of what I’ve played over the years in these music groups. Much of it is catchy and entertaining, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but a lot of it seriously lacks depth and especially theological accuracy and consistency.¹ A good bit of it is also more performance oriented, making it hard for the congregation to participate in. (The latter is something I wanted to mention, but won’t be the focus of this article.)

There are many reasons for this deficiency in modern worship music. Some of them are beyond the control of most of us, or at least quite difficult to influence. But, I want to look at a couple of them, over which we have very direct control.

First, there is a problem of discernment. All Christian music doesn’t have to have the kind of depth I am talking about. I grew up on the pop music of the 70′s and 80’s. I love much of that stuff, despite the lack of depth. I love to listen to contemporary Christian music while driving around in the car or working on the website, for example. But, every Christian song should not be used for worship! It is not the fault of the artist in writing it, when the music director and/or pastor should know better than to use it for that purpose.²

In light of this, we come to the second reason, lack of oversight (by said pastor or elders). The worship service should be overseen by someone with the training to implement such discernment. The lack of this oversight, again unfortunately, stemmed largely from the ‘worship wars’ in my experience. Contemporary worship services often became independent and somewhat renegade in nature, with little involvement and oversight by trained leadership. Depth and theological accuracy were seldom high on the list of selection criteria. ³

Of course, this does not mean you’re safe so long as you stick with old songs or even hymnals – though the latter has at least some manner of vetting. In most hymnals I’ve seen, there are a number of entries which should be seldom, if ever utilized. In the same Easter service I mentioned above, the congregation also happily sang “He Lives!” Maybe being an apologist spoils this one for me, but I hope that isn’t how folks answer that question!

In contrast to a lot of contemporary Christian worship music, “In Christ Alone” already stands as one of Christianity’s great Easter (or anytime, for that matter) hymns. I just wish more worship leaders and pastors were aware of it (and other such quality works). It certainly begins with more careful discernment and oversight in the worship planning process. Start with a web search for Keith and Kristyn Getty and Stuart Townend. “In Christ Alone” isn’t their sole great work. Here is Keith talking a bit about the writing process for another of their songs:

Another thing I like about “In Christ Alone” is the build to the Resurrection of Jesus. This is as it should be, as the Resurrection is the pinnacle of Christianity (Easter or not), both theologically and in apologetics. We are currently writing a ‘foundation’ article to cover an apologetic defense of this wonderful and critical event for Christianity. Keep an eye out for this in the near future.

Martin Luther, the famous reformer, considered music second only to theology:

I think we all experientially know this to be the case in terms of the disposition of our soul. But, we also quickly recognize how it affects us in terms of our memorization. Consider all the songs you can sing along with and nearly, if not perfectly, recite every single word. You probably didn’t expend much effort in doing so either. How many of the concepts and ideas expressed within these songs and lyrics have seeped into how we view the world? Are we even aware of this? As Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries (aomin.org) often says, “Theology matters!” If our worship music isn’t helping fill our minds with theologically sound concepts and Scripture, what IS it filling them with? It isn’t a matter of IF.

Image credit: Crucifixion and Resurrection by Mike Knell

The post In Christ Alone: A Great Contemporary Hymn Example appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

Before I get started (especially considering it is Valentine’s Day!), I do want to make it clear that I love the church. As one of my former professors used to say, be careful what you say about Christ’s fiancé!¹ I just think the church has become quite distracted, lazy, and sick. I, like most apologists, want to help revive and heal her!

Is There a Problem?

Incubator – “an enclosed apparatus providing a controlled environment for the care and protection of premature or unusually small babies.”² Much of the problem with the modern church, is that it has been designed to shelter, and keep cozy, baby Christians. I’ve heard frustrated Christian educators complain that they are often ordered to keep everything at a ‘lowest common denominator’ level. Yet, I’ve found that there are a number of people in any congregation who are hungry for more depth. The problem isn’t just with an apathetic laity, but often with low expectations of the leadership. I think the Apostle Paul would quickly spot our problem: we’re generally consuming a lot of milk, but little meat. (1 Cor. 3:2, Heb. 5:12). Or, to put things another way, we’re failing to create disciples.

If you have been paying any attention over the last several years, you have probably heard that youth are leaving the church in droves. (Note: I’m talking about North America and Europe. The church is rapidly growing in many other parts of the world.) Much ink – and electrons – have been spilled over what the numbers are, but suffice it to say, too many! More conservative church studies set the figure high and are excited over the problem, seeing these as a total loss. Many sociologists put the figure considerably lower, as they claim this is a trend that has been happening for quite some time, and in the end, these leaving-youth return as adults with their families in tow.

It is true that many do return. The sociologists have a point. Yet, it would be nice to keep our young adults, so that there is no exodus and return in the first place. But more important is what this return looks like for the ones who come back. (Even if we weren’t concerned about the ones who never come back.) This is where I think the sociological studies have been failing and the concern of the alarm-sounding Christian leaders is warranted. If their faith is undermined and their trust of their former church experience shaken, what kinds of churches and beliefs do these people return to? They will probably still check the ‘Christian’ box on the survey, but what kind of Christianity will it be?

I actually think the decline in the number of believers we see in the surveys has actually happened some time ago. People are simply being more honest as there is less social repercussion in doing so today.

The Fall of Christian Education

“I’ll never forget the look on the Sunday-school superintendent’s face when I took my son – a 2nd grade Sunday-schooler – withdrew him from the Sunday-school. I took a look at what he had colored that morning and it was a picture of a Midwestern backyard where there was leaves all over the place and a rake leaned against the garage and you could see mother with a stack of dishes, washing dishes. And the caption underneath it was, ‘What do you think Johnny could do right now to show how much he loves Jesus.’ And, I said, ‘That’s it! He’s out.’ And the blessed little lady said, ‘Do you mind telling me why you want your son out of our Sunday-school?’ And, I said, ‘Because you’re going to make an atheist out of him; it’s just going to take a few years.’ And, she had no idea what that was about, but Sunday-school can be dangerous.” – Dr. Rod Rosenbladt ³

I suppose many will read that and think it overly harsh. If you’ve listened to Rod, you’ll know he doesn’t pull punches, yet has a great sense of humor.⁴ Humor or not, I think it gets us started on the conversation. I pulled a basic 2nd-grade objectives and curriculum from Scholastic:

• - Identify main ideas and supporting details
• - Demonstrate comprehension by predicting outcomes
• - Use basic research skills for presentations
• - Discuss current events
• - Recognize historical figures and their contributions to society
• - Explore physical science, covering topics such as electricity, magnetism, and gravity
• - Study dinosaurs and the process of extinction

Now, seriously ask yourself; how do you think the typical 2nd-grade Sunday-school curriculum and effort compares? Not very well! But, things are even worse. Unless parents are equipped to educated their children with some depth in Christianity, we’re talking about only an hour, maybe two at best, per week. Even the best curriculum can’t solve that kind of problem, though a good one would at least be a start.

So, we turn to the status of adult eduction. How well does it fare? Unless you’re a highly motivated adult Christian learner in a church blessed with resources, you probably know the answer to this rhetorical question. If the surveys we keep hearing hold any water, it quickly becomes clear that most people, even those claiming the Christian title, can’t answer the most basic questions about what Christianity is all about. How are such people going to instruct their children in the faith, let alone help them address the questions and challenges they will face in their most formative years?

The Exile of Children from Worship

One (controversial) issue I would like to put on the table for discussion is the move from children in worship to children in daycare, sunday school, youth-church, etc. This is something our own family has struggled with since our son was born. I grew up IN church/worship, as did nearly everyone from a churched family just a couple of generations ago.

Why the change? I’m sure it was motivated by practicality and good intentions. However, I’m skeptical it was well thought through and grounded in Biblical principals. Thomas Bergler, author of “The Juvenilization of American Christianity” argues that the whole category of adolescent started in the 1940s. This was when a majority of young adults graduated high-school and marketing began to this age-group specifically. He says that the Roman Catholic church had created a ‘ghetto’ about as effectively as anyone at the time, and was losing the youth in large numbers. Evangelicals picked up many of them by starting youth groups.⁵

I also believe changes to the worship service, shortened services and attention spans, as well as seeker-sensitive initiatives all played an important role. If people won’t come to education opportunities, should we move it primarily into worship time? If worship time becomes more about education we’re familiar with in school, should we divide into age-groups? If worship is about evangelization in an entertainment and day-care culture, should we respond by offering child-care, entertainment-like worship, and a unique experience for the kids?

And, at what cost? Have we divided the family up too much? (In a culture where there is already much division.) Didn’t Jesus welcome the distraction of the children and scold the disciples for not including them? Do our kids do Sunday school, youth-group, then ‘graduate’ church? Have they been welcomed (or do they feel welcomed) to be an integral part of the body for the whole life of the church? Is the concept of segregated worship Biblical?

It is my opinion that we need a serious examination of how we are ‘doing church.’ (This extends to the ‘lowest common denominator’ or ‘fill the room and aim low’ approach too. a good read would be Greg Ogden’s “Transforming Discipleship: Making Disciples a Few at a Time.”)

On the flip side, for children to be involved, parenting needs to be ratcheted up a bit. When I do see children in worship today (like Family Sunday), it quickly becomes clear the children have no practice at attending any such events. And, if the child is throwing a tantrum, it might be time to take them out for a bit. Some common sense goes a long-way here. Your grandparents, maybe even parents, figured out how to make it work.

What Can We Do?

The big question, then, which we need to ask is not, “How do we get people to church?” but instead, “What are we doing with those we already have?”

Should we get rid of youth ministries? Not at all. But, we do need to re-think them a bit. We need a middle of the road approach. The past often had too little focus on children, to which our current state was an over-reaction. As Bergler points out, youth ministries need to be thought of as a ministry of the entire church. Rather than cater to youth as the main focus, the goal should be on helping youth integrate into the church body (worship included!). Note carefully: This doesn’t just apply to the youth. The older folks often need to be integrated with the young ones too!

We also need to be careful we aren’t underselling our youth. They are often quite interested and hungry to ask the tough questions they are facing and get good, honest answers. And, while they do like to have fun, we must realize they can probably find better parties elsewhere. They need to realize they are there for a much more important reason.

That weight of importance needs to be felt. Watering things down simply backfires. David Aikman notes, “Well, it’s a paradox that even as young people all over the world tend to go in a sort of ethically and morally liberal direction, they are always attracted by movements that demand firm standards of behavior and performance. They find that much more attractive than watering down anything.”⁶ I can think of one religious movement in particular that has done a good job of not watering things down and requires strict disciplines and behavior; Islam.

J. Warner Wallace often emphasizes the importance of training vs teaching. We all know this from our school days. If there isn’t some exam coming up, we tend to slack off. We need to provide training FOR something, to motivate ourselves so learn. This might be something like setting up a youth-trip to witness to atheists or Mormons, or as simple as engaging the culture, which will undoubtedly push us to learn more.

“If someone doesn’t think they need apologetics, one has to wonder if they have tried evangelizing lately.” – Bobby Conway ⁷

The Role of Apologetics

It is no secret that we are rapidly heading into a more skeptical, if not hostile, culture towards Christianity. We’re Biblically commanded to be prepared to give an answer for our Christian hope (1 Peter 3:15 among others). This applies, as above, to nearly any evangelistic situation today. However, while evangelism seems to be a gifting, ALL Christians are called to be apologists. Yet, few of our churches offer any apologetics training. This needs to change, not only for evangelism, but internally to give our faith meaning, depth, and stability. I’m pretty convinced that the church will not be turned around without it.

The Critical Role of Adult Education and Equipped Parents

My final degree-work was focused on this question of how to equip and repair the church. I went through a lot of the work of both sociologists and church leaders on the problem and solutions. One big thing jumped out at me by the end, which became my thesis: “While apologetic training of youth directly is a very important task, apologetic training of parents and adults in our churches is an even more pressing need and a big part of the solution to restore ‘health’ back to the North American church.”⁸

It’s intuitive really. Parents, influence children’s faith outcomes by a wide margin over other influences. I’m not simply talking about Dawkins’ fear of the fundamentalist homes churning out fundamentalist children. Instead, this includes factors like the importance of Christianity to the parents and how they lived their lives in light of it. Though the sociological data gets a bit more sparse when it comes to specific educational markers, it certainly includes the PARENTS ability to pass on the details of the faith and answer challenges to it.

Christianity Does Actually Make a Difference

I also think it would be good to feed our practical side and properly recognize that Christianity does indeed make a difference. All too often, it is repeated that Christians live just as poorly as the culture around them. Their divorce rates are just as high (or higher), their kids get into the same kinds of trouble, etc. We even hear this from the pulpit.

The problem is, this just isn’t true! While it is true that sanctification is a process that won’t be complete until the hereafter, statistically, it isn’t true that Christians are, in whole, as bad as everyone else. If even somewhat meaningful criteria are used to determine Christ-followers, their behavior is statistically different. The problem is that what is called Christianity by the polls and media is really cultural Christianity, not the real thing. Check out John Stackhouse’s excellent article on the subject.⁹

Image credit: Misty Church by cbamber85

The post Has the Church Become an Atheist Incubator? appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

I have immensely enjoyed the previous two conferences, and this one looks to be no exception. Speakers include: Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Andy Bannister, M.D. John Patrick, and J. Warner Wallace. There are also well over a dozen break-out sessions so you can maximize your education and experience to meet your needs. We’re looking forward to it and are proud to be a sponsor. But, I think the part we look forward to most, is meeting all our fellow apologists, and experiencing the excitement of Christians being exposed, often for the first time, to the fact that there is a solid foundation to their faith. That excitement kind of energizes us to do our work for the rest of the year!

You can (and should) watch previous years conferences on the Apologetics Canada YouTube channel HERE. But, if you attend the conference, not only will you get to meet these great speakers, as well as fellow apologists, you’ll also get to attend some of the excellent break-out sessions. I would HIGHLY recommend you at least watch Jim Warner Wallace’s “God’s Crime Scene” as Jim will again be at this upcoming conference. He also has a book coming out very soon which will be an apologetics MUST READ! “Cold-Case Christianity”

Here is a recent review of it by one of my apologist colleagues, J.W. Wartick. It looks like it is going to become one of the best books on the historicity of the Gospels. It is also going to open a lot of eyes to the power of circumstantial evidence (which is often misunderstood). If that doesn’t convince you, just check out the endorsements! (Hey, where is my autographed copy, Jim??? Just kidding!¹)

Update: Monday, January 14, 2013

Don’t miss Jim’s speaking tour around the Vancouver area, starting the end of this week (January 18th – 24th). See the Apologetics Canada events page for more information (or, see the previous link for the Facebook page).

The post Apologetics Canada Conference 2013 appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

Even though most of us will be unable to fully appreciate the biology involved, the filming and production, the astounding beauty of the subject matter – right down to the soundtrack – is incredible. This is a film the whole family can enjoy. My first viewing was with our family and even our toddler enjoyed it. As for the educational content, initially one might falsely assume it is going to be a bit overblown and ‘cheesy’ given some of the opening statements made by the scientists being interviewed… but, they then backup those claims in a big way. This film should push anyone to respond similarly. Wow, just WOW!… might be a good reaction.

I will not attempt a point by point or theme by theme review of this material presented. Briefly, the film highlights the amazing capabilities of the butterfly and follows the metamorphosis process. Instead, I’ll give you a summary of a few of the points which struck me as most important and leave you with a strong recommendation to see the film.

Butterflies are amazingly equipped creatures. One of the first points the film makes is that each species of butterfly lays eggs on a particular species of plant. They can detect the host plant by scent from miles away. They then tell visually by leaf-shape to identify the plant among the other flora. Finally, they taste to be certain. This is important, for if the eggs end up on the wrong species of plant, the caterpillars will die. This is but one brief aspect of their vast ability. The most amazing aspect of butterflies, however, might be something over which they have no control; the metamorphosis transformation from caterpillar to butterfly.

On a first glance, the metamorphosis process might seem simple. The caterpillar builds the chrysalis and out pops a butterfly. However, what is actually taking place is incredibly complex and has implications for the heated debate between naturalistic evolution and intelligent design. For example, the chrysalis is more like a structural mold for the forming body parts than a shapeless mass coving the whole process. Many of the caterpillar cells are actually dissolved in the process, with the raw materials being reused. Larval cells are dissolved while imaginal cells are transformed. Some components and organs are completely reworked. For example, the eye in the caterpillar is a simple light sensor, while the eye of the butterfly is a highly complex compound eye which sees infrared through ultraviolet. Reproductive organs are built and the digestive tract is reworked for a different type of food source. Much of the film breaks out this brief description in detail, using electron microscope imagery, computer animation, and amazing cinematography to illustrate the points.

The big catch here, is that while the stages seem like completely different creatures, the caterpillar and butterfly are one organism. The caterpillar has no reproductive organs. The butterfly lays the eggs. When the caterpillar enters the chrysalis and ‘dissolves’ it is a suicidal move if the information isn’t there to properly complete the process. It’s the old chicken and egg problem to the Nth degree. Natural selection is not forward thinking. From a naturalistic viewpoint, there would need to be some other explanation for how we get butterflies and metamorphosis than small incremental evolutionary steps.

As an aside, this documentary does not cover objections to the intelligent design conclusion concerning metamorphosis. However the Discovery Institute offers a fairly in-depth analysis of such critiques, which appear to be few. As I always recommend to apologists, take a look at what the opposition is saying. I did this, albeit briefly in comparison to what a trained biologist might be able to, and found only one thorough treatment from an evolutionary vantage point.¹ Everything else I found referenced this work (often just footnoting it in a ‘case closed’ manner with little-to-no analysis). The Discovery Institute resource (which I actually discovered during this research) critiques this evolutionary paper, making some of the points that struck me as I tried to understand it with my lay-level knowledge of biology. (That makes one feel good!)

In brief, the evolutionary explanation is that the butterfly and caterpillar appeared in a much more basic form before the metamorphosis process entered the picture (many insects go through a larval to adult transformation). The specialization which this process might add to each stage (so the caterpillar would’t compete for food sources, for example, as the caterpillar and butterfly eat different things) drove the change. A number of molts which would normally take place in the transition to the adult are compressed (by a hormone) into one rapid chrysalis stage. This essentially gets rid of the forward-stepping problem, as the genetic information and body-plans already exist.

Lacking actual evidence, this strikes me as quite the “just so story” if there ever was one. Evolutionists seem to make this type of flimsy argument constantly. If B is better than A, A must have preceded B, and furthermore A transformed into B. Natural selection often seems to gain some kind of magical planning ability to produce the better. It also often seems to be able to produce myriad successful changes all in one go. But definitely investigate the Discovery Institute supplementary material I referred to above for the detailed problems with the Truman and Riddiford paper.

Showcasing more amazing abilities of this fascinating creature, the film shifts to the journey of the Monarch butterfly. This 2500 mile migration from the northern USA and Canada to a few small locations in central Mexico occurs because these tropical creatures cannot weather the winter. They return to the north because the milkweed is their host plant. (Note: The milkweed contains toxins which the caterpillar stores in its skin. These toxins make it taste really bad to predators in the butterfly stage, and is indicated by their color and markings.)

While it is amazing to me that such a tiny, seemingly fragile creature, can make such an incredible journey in the first place (they travel about 50 miles per day), some of the details are shocking. First is their level of navigation which gets them to a few small forested locations on a trans-volcanic mountain range. (The scenes of millions of butterflies in a small forest area alone make this film worth seeing!) What makes this really remarkable is that none of them have made the journey before; not even their parents. Most Monarch butterflies only live between 2 and 4 weeks. But, the August generation is genetically programmed to live up to 9 months, which allows them to make the journey, endure winter, and begin the return trip. Yet, each year, the Monarchs end up in the same forest range even though the last to be there were several generations back.

A final point which adds weight to the design argument, but which also touches on our intuitive and aesthetic side, is the beauty of butterflies. As noted in the film, we typically associate things like planning, foresight, artistry, and engineering as signs of intelligence. Butterfly artistry goes far beyond survival. Our universal, common experience would tell us this, yet we are told to ignore this because the naturalistic presupposition needs to rule this out. Note however: this is philosophy or religion, not science, being imposed to reach such a conclusion.

In conclusion, this is simply an awesome production in every aspect. If you couldn’t care less about the science or apologetic implications, you’ll still enjoy these beautiful creatures, scenery, and soundtrack. If you do care about the science involved or the apologetic implications, this is a must see addition to your library. It makes a very strong case for the intelligent design position without overly pushing this aspect throughout the film. Opening the details of metamorphosis to us (as well as the artistry) shouts this message loud and clear on its own.

Disclosure: I received a free review copy of this media from the publisher. I was under no obligation as to the nature or content of this review. The opinions expressed are my own. My thanks to the publisher for providing it.

The post Media Review: Metamorphosis appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

Here is an extract of Bertrand Russell giving the analogy:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” -Bertrand Russell¹

One point to keep in mind is how similar this analogy is to the now infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) used by the “new atheists.” They essentially push Russell’s teapot to the absurd and apply it in a very irreverent way, which seems to be one of the chief hallmarks making the new atheists, new. (Note: It originally served as a kind of mocking rebuttal to the intelligent design movement when the trials were underway in Kansas. The idea was to give an example considered analogous to what ID proponents were proposing. As William Lane Craig points out, this is interesting because William Dembski shot down such a concept over a year before the FSM was proposed by Henderson. He notes that Dembski might have used something like the FSM to support the non-religious nature of ID, had he thought of it first.²) By the way, the FSM is pretty easy to defeat, should anyone push it staying in character as a follower, if for no other reason than its originator says he made it up.³

First, consider the way in which the question is being posed. Russell’s argument really isn’t FOR the non-existence of God, but AGAINST having to prove God doesn’t exist (on the part of the atheist). In other words, when a claim for something is made (the existence of the teapot or God), the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So, when a Christian makes the claim that there is a God, they have the burden of proof, not the atheist. Russell uses the teapot analogy in an attempt to show the absurdity of putting the burden on the atheist.

Since one can not prove a universal negative (as this would require universal knowledge; a.k.a. omniscience), Russell is saying that if there is something for which there is no evidence, the person denying it can’t possibly prove it. Richard Dawkins makes a similar point:

“Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.”⁴

I suppose I would have to agree with Russell (and Dawkins). The problem is not with his example, but with the conclusion he draws from the analogy and the accuracy of the analogy.

For example, let’s say that when we sent a satellite up with some instruments, we found traces of tea in an elliptical orbit. Even if we could not, then, directly observe such a teapot, it would be at least a reasonable hypothesis to consider the existence of such a teapot as the source of this tea (among other possible explanations). Also, in this case, I would say that the a-teapot-ists might carry some burden of proof for a plausible explanation of the tea, aside from “it just is.” (Especially if we had good reason to believe that tea came into existence at some point, not existing eternally.)

Another problem with the analogy is the comparison of something fairly trivial and non-sensical to something like deity (theism vs atheism). This is a huge, foundational category. It is in the logical category of A or not-A upon which entire worldviews hang. It can also be argued that many things rest on the distinction between the two categories, such as logic itself or objective morality. The existence of an orbital teapot has no such significance.

In other words, when we speak of God, we’re not talking about proposal with no evidence! (As is presumed with the teapot and FSM analogies.)

I also like what one of my local colleagues, Dr. Paul Chamberlain, said in the Wikipedia article:

“Philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not. He says that all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity but because of its triviality, arguing that ‘When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist.’”⁵

Dr. Chamberlain’s point above includes a couple of categories. First, historical study is a bit different from empirical observation. Let’s say, for example, that a number of space exploration missions did come in contact with a teapot, but had no way of recording it or bring back some kind of sample. What we have instead is witness testimony on the part of the astronauts and scientists of the existence of such a teapot. If these were credible people and we had no reason to doubt them, the greater burden of proof would be on people denying their claims. (This point  could be debated, but I think most reasonable people would agree.)

The second point is that when we consider something with a long history of evidence, even though non-empirically testable, one can’t simply just dismiss it and hide behind a concept of ‘no burden of proof’ for a negative claim. For example, if someone makes a claim for the existence of George Washington (supported with evidence), I can’t simply say that until someone brings me something I can put in my test-tube which proves his existence, I refuse to believe, and further, have no burden of proof of my denial of his existence. I would have to deal with the evidence provided.

Paul Chamberlain presents a counter-example to illustrate the burden on some acts of denial. Consider an event like 9/11 or the Holocaust. There are deniers of these events. Do they bear no burden of proof for their positions? Such a notion, it seems to me, would be ridiculous.⁶

The existence of God (at least the Judeo-Christian God), is the kind of claim that is backed by centuries of historical events and evidences provided by thousands of scholars across many disciplines, as well as credible witness testimony. One might examine it and remain unconvinced, but it simply cannot be dismissed in a manner such as Russell attempts with his teapot analogy. It is not a valid analogy.

I have not even begun to present the positive evidence for theism (generally) or the Christian God. One need only look up the Kalam Cosmological argument, ontological argument, argument from design, or moral arguments for a start. Or, consider (without undue presuppositional bias) historical reasons and witness testimony found in Scripture (and external sources, some even hostile, secular sources). Such evidence can’t so easily be waived off, especially not by analogies such as Russell’s teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What is sad, is that many atheists and opponents of Christianity actually think it is a good argument. We apologists have our work cut out for us! As William Lane Craig stated, “That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present.”⁷

So, how would an atheist present a positive case for atheism, given that you can’t prove a universal negative? This is where we must consider overall worldviews and preponderance of evidence. This is also called abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation. We will talk about this in more detail in another article, but the basic idea is that for many things, proof is too high a bar epistemologically or categorically. Things like the beginning of the universe (historical), dark matter (beyond our current capabilities to directly observe), or that my wife loves me (can’t put that in a test tube) have to be decided on other criteria. Yet, we can’t simply afford to hold-out on our decision making for anything for which we are beyond certainty (with empirical proof). Likewise, the atheist CAN (and must) make such a case for atheism if they are being honest and thinking correctly. They are not ‘off the hook’ by simply saying the burden of proof falls elsewhere.

Image credit: FSM 5206 by dougnaka (cc, some rights reserved)

The post Teapots & Spaghetti Monsters: Why the atheist isn’t off the (proof) hook. appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

But, one might also take another approach. What if I were skeptical about the story of the HMS Titanic? What if I told you that these stories were so similar that it is obvious that the story of the Titanic was copied (and therefore fabricated), based on the story of the Titan? In light of having direct, eye-witness testimony until recently, and some incredible submarine technology which has sent back video and photos of the wreckage on the ocean floor, you would call me crazy. But, what if we jump forward a couple thousand years in time, or push the events back in time a couple thousand years? In other words, we put some historical distance between the events and our investigation. Let’s say we only find some fragments of paper from one of Robertson’s books which can be dated to around 1898 from which we reconstruct the story of the Titan. We have some other fragments of paper, maybe newspaper clippings, which date from 1912 from which we reconstruct some witness testimony of what happened at the Titanic scene? The situation seems a bit different now; this concept of copying takes on a bit more power.

This use of parallels to question historic events is the type of reasoning Christian apologists sometimes face concerning the life of Jesus. You might have come across people making the claim that other gods of the Mystery Cults, such as Horus or Mithras, were born of a virgin, on December 25th, died and were resurrected. Does this argument sound familiar?

The story of the Titan and Titanic isn’t really a good analogy, especially given the small historical time separation, however it does drive home an important point. Just because we have something earlier that appears to be a parallel DOES NOT indicate the latter was copied from the former! It doesn’t shed much light on an account being true or false either. Take another look at the Titanic story. Would anyone seriously claim it was just a legend or a copy-cat reenactment? Yet, it is seriously claimed by some, that the Biblical account of Jesus is just that.

In comparison to the Mystery Cult parallels brought against Christianity, the story of the Titan is a much closer parallel. Even so, taking a look at the flaws in my attempt at making the parallel above should help us think about the types of flaws we will find in the comparison of Jesus to the Mystery Cults.

First, the similarities are cherry-picked while the differences are ignored.

• For the Titanic, over 700 are rescued, while only 13 are rescued for the Titan.
• The Titan is 800 feet long, while the Titanic is 882 feet long, they differer in number of watertight compartments, lifeboats, weight, power, speed, etc.
• While both ships sank, exactly what they hit and how they sank varied. (The Titanic hit an iceberg, causing holes, the ship broke and sank; the Titan ran onto an ice-sheet which tipped it on its side, taking on water, it sank.)
• While the trip was in April for both, the Titan doesn’t list a date. It was also traveling in the opposite direction, though sank in roughly the same area.

Second, generalities are often used.

• I was purposely vague in how many survivors there were, saying the majority were killed.
• I was able to be a bit vague in the physical description of the ship to make them seem the same.
• By avoiding the details of exactly what happened, how the ships sank isn’t an issue.
• Picking the vague date of the month of April, and not listing the departure and destination keeps the discrepancy from being readily seen.

Third, due to the subject matter, some things will naturally match, but indicate no ‘genetic’ parallel.

• Wouldn’t a shipwreck at that time in history in the middle of the ocean generally have a minority of survivors? They didn’t have helicopters or as good of communication.
• The ships are actually fairly close in physical characteristics, yet if one were to conceive of a ‘biggest of some class’ one is likely going to be similar if at all being realistic, given the technology of the time period.
• If a ship hits some large object in the ocean, it will probably sink. It doesn’t have to be ice, but ice was a fear of the time (they simply thought these ships were going to be impervious to it). The routes where well enough established to be less afraid of rocks, which plagued previous generations of sea travel.
• These are two common destinations. Ships would take a similar path. In this time of year (spring), ice would be a big concern as it broke from ice shelves and flows.

Some of the bigger differences:

• The Titan was on the third voyage, while the Titanic was on the first.
• The Titan had 92 watertight doors, while the Titanic had only 12.
• The Titan was full, while the Titanic, fortunately, was not at capacity.
• The Titan hit the ice in foggy conditions, while the Titanic on a clear night with no moon.
• Traveling in opposite directions.
• Huge difference in number and percentage of passengers surviving.

All this considered, in the case of the Titan story and Titanic account, there is enough detailed similarity to make one a bit uneasy about simply writing the parallels completely  off. Yet, without some kind of prophecy or prescience, one will have to conclude the similarities are coincidence. We certainly know the Titanic story is true. With the Mystery Cults and Jesus, however, the parallels can, I believe, safely be written off.

Consider the idea that Mithras was a parallel to Jesus. First, we don’t even have any text concerning Mithras to give us details. What we know about Mithras comes from interpretation of wall murals. I guess they say a picture is worth a thousand words, but depending on who is looking at the picture and what presuppositions or intentions they bring, those thousand words might be quite different. Second the supposed similarities are huge stretches and everything else is ignored. For example, it is said that Mithras also had 12 disciples and was born of a virgin. The 12 disciples idea is drawn from the images where the zodiac signs surround Mithras. It is quite a stretch to link this with Jesus disciples. Mithras was born out of a rock. I suppose rocks are generally considered virgins!? Mithras was a saviour who sacrificed himself to save the world? Well, he slayed a dangerous bull, if that counts

Other things about Mithras are crude generalities or things we would simply expect to find when talking about a deity. For example, he is said to have celebrated a ‘Eucharist’ such as Jesus’ Last Supper (and consequent Communion or Eucharist of Christians). There is a bit of truth to this, as Mithras followers did celebrate a fellowship meal, however so did just about every religious group in this time and place. In other words, the assumption that Christianity is unique in the generalities of a fellowship meal is the mistake in thinking here. Or, take the concepts that Mithras was a great teacher or performed miracles. These are simply things we’d expect to find within just about any religion involving a deity. These kind of claims may be unique to Christianity in being true, but they aren’t unique claims of religions in general.

One could look at any of the other Mystery Cult figures and offer a similar analysis. This is only scratching the surface. If you do a bit more research, the absurdity of this kind of parallel claim will become even more obvious. Bruce Metzger, renowned New Testament scholar, gave the following advice when looking at supposed parallels.

“Some of the supposed parallels are the result of the modern scholar’s amalgamation of quite heterogeneous elements drawn from various sources.” “Even when the parallels are actual and not imaginary, their significance for purposes of comparison will depend upon whether they are genealogical and not merely analogical parallels.” “Even when parallels are genealogical, it must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases the influence moved in the opposite direction.”³

On Metzger’s last point, for example, consider that it is said Mithras followers celebrated on Sunday. While this may be true, it is true in Rome, from post-Christian times. In other words, it certainly looks like Mithras followers copied this from the Christians, not the other way around.

For more great information on these Mystery Cult claims and the problems with them, put forth in an easy-to-read, but well-researched manner, see Jim Wallace’s excellent set of articles at PleaseConvinceMe.com. On the left side, look for the pages on Mithras, Horus, and Osiris, as well as pages on the historical evidence for Jesus⁴

Also, while I have only looked in a cursory manner so far⁵, I have noticed similar assumptions and sometimes problems when considering the (quite popular) view in Old Testament studies about parallels between Ancient Near East (ANE) worldview and religious ideas, and the Book of Genesis. While there are certainly valid parallels present (with Genesis often acting as a polemic), they are often overdrawn and imposed to indicated a genetic link in the ‘development’ of Genesis and other texts of the Old Testament. We (and everyone else) need to be much more careful when we make such parallels.

Marilynne Robinson issues just such a warning with a modern day context when she speaks of scholars analyzing our culture from the distant future. She says, “They will ponder our holding great civic elections on Tuesday, and our expressing ritual gratitude for Friday, confident that Norse polytheism flourished among us.” ⁶

Statistics on Titan and Titanic pulled from (among others):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futility,_or_the_Wreck_of_the_Titan
http://www.light-eternal.com/Titan.htm

Image credit: Black Country Living Museum – The S.S. Titanic – sign by ell brown (cc, some rights reserved)

The post The Titanic: reality, legend, and the use of parallels. appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

TilledSoil.org was started to fill what we believe to be a huge hole in apologetic training among Christians; the nurture of such training within our churches. In fact, we believe this to be a huge hole in education and disciple-making in general. Add in the culture in which Christians find themselves today, and this moves from important to crucial. Just read some of the comments on our About page by some of the top Christian thinkers and apologists!

This hole is represented in the graphic for this article (which matches the promo at the conference). The current state of apologetics is typically made up of conferences, books, DVDs & CDs, web sites, and podcasts. We’re not putting down these modes of education; they are excellent and we can use even more! However, the downside is that they often reach those already sold on apologetics and miss the majority of people in the pew. While this group of professional apologists  and their students are doing tremendous work, there simply are not enough of us. We need to find a way to increase our numbers, exponentially. As conference speaker J. Werner Wallace has often said, we don’t need more million-dollar apologists; we need more one-dollar apologists.¹ (We can use many more of both, but hopefully you see his point.)

TilledSoil.org has decided to try to focus on meeting Christians where we think we can find the most of them; our churches. We want to try and create droves of those one-dollar apologists, and hopefully some of them will also go on to become ten, one-hundred, one-thousand, and even million-dollar versions. To do this, we have designed a basic-training, of sorts, apologetics program that we can present in a day or a few sessions. The point of this isn’t to turn out fully-ready apologists, but to put the basic concepts in mind and to introduce (and provide) resources to go farther. Our experience has been that once people are exposed to Christian Apologetics (often for the first time), they hunger for more.

We also realized that most churches simply do not have the resources to provide this kind of training. Sure, they could purchase a curriculum, but without a trained apologist leading it, it will only be somewhat effective as the instruction ultimately ends up being more delivery than the full potential of teaching and training.²

We basically come into churches, alongside pastors and teachers, to provide interactive training in Christian apologetics. This begins at a ‘whet the appetite’ day course, and can transition into more in-depth training with a longer course, or training on a specific apologetic topic.

Our model:

To put trained apologists in place to support various geographical areas with long-term relationships and training.

Some of our core principals for this training and our ministry:

Hands-on – as much as possible, we strive to keep class sizes down so learners have the opportunity to interact with the instructor. We feel this is the best mode for learning, so is important whenever possible.

Inter-denominational – we recognize different groups of Christians hold various positions on various apologetic topics. We do our best to explain and interact with the various positions, even when the instructor personally disagrees. We try to balance this, however, with being true to Scripture, and not simply compromising the truth in order to be overly-ecumenical. This is a tough balancing act, and we probably won’t be able to please everyone. But, we promise we will do our best in this effort. If you read some of the articles on this site, you should get the feel for this (even more so, as we add writers who disagree). We try to fairly represent the positions, but point-out (or rule-out) views which are clearly non-Biblical.³ We might also be tough on aspects of a particular view that don’t seem quite right, even when it is the most commonly held view. The goal should always be to seek truth, but to leave room for discussion where there is disagreement in things which aren’t as certain.

Respectful – This hopefully goes without saying, but our instructors do their best to be respectful to everyone they are instructing and their views, while trying to maintain a fair and orderly environment for the other learners.

Accurate – We try really hard to present accurate information and constantly correct aspects of our curriculum and this site that we find to  be in error or which could be better explained. As you read the articles here, you will often encounter updates, corrections, and clarifications. We’re not afraid to admit when we’re wrong, as we seek truth!

Integrity – It is bad enough when we fail as sinful people in our personal lives, as we all do. But, worse, is when we fail in the actions of doing Christian ministry (apologetics or otherwise). Too often, even in Christian circles, things can fall to the level of “good-ol’-boys club” politics, defaming others, or lying and deception to benefit the ministry.⁴ We at TilledSoil.org feel very strongly that we not fall prey to this type of behavior. We also feel we should not “aid and abet” this type of behavior when we see it taking place. This won’t always make us popular, but we believe it to be the right thing to do. And, we ask your help in this; point out our failures in this regard as we teach and write. We promise to do our best in this regard.

We need your help:

1. Please keep our ministry, as well as all other ministries of the church, in your prayers.
2. Please invite us to your church to assist in the advancement of apologetic training.
3. If you are able to help us financially, please contact us.
4. If you are an apologist who wants to help in the effort and has a broad level of apologetic training, please get in touch with us. We would like to get to know you and see if you are a good fit for what we are doing.

The post TilledSoil.org – Who are we? What do we do? appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

Photo: confusion by marfis75 (Flickr)

This past Saturday (Feb 25th), I got into a bit of a Twitter kerfuffle with Dr. James White (of aomin.org) over the Canadian ERC (Quebec) “Ethics and Religious Culture” Curriculum which has been causing a stir around the Internet recently. In this case, it is concerning Alberta, but seems related to the Quebec ERC debate (I could be in error here, as the article was a bit mixed). We exchanged a number of messages in the process, but I’m not sure we gained much clarity. (Note to self: Twitter is just horrible for this kind of thing.) I decided to give up on Twitter and post a blog on the topic. If Dr. White would like to respond, he would be most welcomed (and I’d be honored, though it isn’t expected).

First, I’d like to thank Dr. White for taking the time to respond and interact with me on this in the first place. I’d also like to – right up front – acknowledge that I share his concerns and mostly (I think) agree with him on issues surrounding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I think we also agree on how dangerous the tactics are, which are being used to silence Christians who enter the public square in opposition. The use and abuse of “tolerance” and “diversity” by the political “left” is quite disgusting these days. I’d also like to say that I might be misunderstanding the situation in Alberta, given the intermingling of what an Alberta administrator said in the article Dr. White linked, with the Quebec ERC debate that has been ongoing.

Where I believe we disagree, is over what has been happening in Canada concerning the ERC (Ethics and Religious Culture) curriculum, and the implications for schooling and home-schooling more specifically. I think we’re arguing a bit past one another, as he is focusing on a potential problem over “diversity” training on homosexuality, while I am looking at the program more broadly, including the debate over parental vs state’s responsibility for education (which was more the issue in Quebec).

First, a little background:

The article you will see Dr. White link to in the twitter exchange below is here on Life Site News. It is certainly an alarming article. Donna McColl makes some statements (if they are properly in context, and if terms are defined in certain ways), with which I would also disagree.

The articles I linked to in response to this tweet by Dr. White, were written by my former professor, Dr. John G. Stackhouse Jr. on his blog. They can be found HERE and HERE. I introduced them as another perspective to consider. I noted that I mostly agree with Dr. Stackhouse and that I thought the LSN (Life Site News, sorry, I errantly referred to it as LFN in the Twitter exchange) article was an overreaction. (Also note, I do follow LSN and usually agree with their articles and stances on the pro-life cause.)

A bit of confusion then ensued, as Dr. Stackhouse’s articles didn’t speak directly to the issue of homosexuality, in fact, they focused more on the religious aspects of the curriculum. It was more in the comments following the articles where this was discussed. Even then, homosexuality wasn’t the focus. I tried to point that out, but it just wasn’t working via 140 characters. Dr. White began posing some good questions, but it was becoming clear to me that we were not only failing to get on the same page, but that there was no way I was going to be able to clear it up on Twitter (let alone answer the questions he posed to me).

Also, as noted in Dr. Stackhouse’s article, here is the website for the actual ERC curriculum, so you can examine it for yourself.

Here is the site for the Alberta Education Act 2012. If you can find anything in there that prohibits Christian teaching, or forces students to learn that homosexuality is morally positive, please let me know. The only thing I see is that school boards must notify parents when “subject matter that deals primarily and explicitly with religion, human sexuality or sexual orientation” will be discussed, and the parents can excuse their child from those parts.

Section 16 (mentioned in the LSN article) states, “Diversity and respect 16 – All courses or programs of study offered and instructional materials used in a school must reflect the diverse nature and heritage of society in Alberta, promote understanding and respect for others and honour and respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act.”

What does this mean? Well, I suppose it could mean that Christians can’t teach homosexuality is sin if you read it a certain way. Or, it could mean that, say, Dr. Michael Brown’s book, “A Queer Thing Happened to America” would be permitted, but not the Westboro Baptists. A little further investigation is needed.

So, following the rabbit trail, we come to the Alberta Human Rights Act. I’m not going to paste in the section here, but just start reading on page 3, where it says, “Code of Conduct” (for about 1 page). While I suppose someone could try to use it against a Christian teaching against homosexuality, claiming they were discriminating or promoting hatred, it would seem to cut both ways. A Christian could also use it against someone seen to be discriminating or promoting hatred of Christians. I guess Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” won’t be allowed as part of a curriculum either then! Religion is on the SAME list of protected groups as sexual-orientation. While I’m not a big fan of this kind of legislation (because of the problems it often prompts), the spirit of it doesn’t seem to be to smack down religion and promote homosexuality, as it is being portrayed.

The following is a transcript of the Twitter conversation (hopefully I didn’t miss any):

@DrOakley1689 - Homeschooling families can’t teach homosexuality a sin in class says Alberta gvmt <— WOW. http://bit.ly/w0OyVC

@TilledSoil - @DrOakley1689 Different perspective by Canadian & Prof @jgsphd bit.ly/yZK6AN bit.ly/y6JSRC I mostly agree; LFN an overreaction

@DrOakley1689 - @TilledSoil Must be bad links, since there was nothing there about the Life News issue of homeschool mandates about homosexuality.

@TilledSoil - @DrOakley1689 He doesn’t mention LFN or this issue specifically, though I did bring that up in the comments, which he addressed, esp. in 2nd

@DrOakley1689 - @TilledSoil Sorry, read comments on 2nd, as noted..saw zip.

@TilledSoil - @DrOakley1689 Sorry, issues with 140 chrs discussion of LFN article in comments of 1st; 2nd more broadly addresses concerns of this type.

@TilledSoil - @DrOakley1689 Neither directly addresses homosexuality, but the issue more broadly; and from more Canadian mindset (sans libertarian of US)

@DrOakley1689 - @TilledSoil Uh, the link you provided him is not the link I provided, and is on a different subject. My article is 2/23…all this is prior

@TilledSoil - @DrOakley1689 Fair point… there have been a few on LFN; very similar. I think Dr. Stackhouse’s view still applies. Sorry 4 the confusion.

@DrOakley1689 - @TilledSoil I saw nothing in his views relevant to the prohibition of teaching homosexuality is a sin in a Christian school or homeschool.

@TilledSoil - @DrOakley1689 I’m not seeing this prohibition… my understanding is that the prohibition applies to THIS curriculum.

@DrOakley1689 - @TilledSoil Would Paul have allowed Christian parents to teach their children that worship of Zeus is OK by gov’t mandate?

@TilledSoil - @DrOakley1689 – I think one can teach world religions in an academic manner w/o endorsing one or all as correct.

@DrOakley1689 - @TilledSoil Of course. Has nothing to do with the article I posted however. End of my comments till you read it.

@TilledSoil - @DrOakley1689 Read (2nd time); your concerns noted. Should probably examine source curriculum (Stackhouse linked) if I ever get time. But…

@TilledSoil - @DrOakley1689 not seeing how this stops from teaching it in Christian ethics class. Integration gets tricky, but a bubble doesn’t fix that.

@DrOakley1689 - @TilledSoil Mandating the teaching of respect for moral perversity is morally perverse, is it not?

@TilledSoil - @DrOakley1689 Is it respect for the position or the people? Need to find out. Thx for the chat. I’m giving up via twitter. 1/2

@TilledSoil - @DrOakley1689 I will blog Sun or Mon to try and clarify my position. I’ll include you in the tweet in case you’re still interested. 2/2

OK, now that the readers are caught up, here we go:

First, the problem I have with the LSN article is that it seems rather sensational to me. Terms aren’t well defined, quotes are really cut-up, etc. It seems clear that Donna McColl, herself, might be a bit confused on the matter and was probably trying to run a “politically correct” line in this interview which would keep her out of hot water with certain constituents. Her damning phrase was, “we do not tolerate disrespect for differences,”; (which , note, was cutoff mid-sentence).

Then, we get a statement by a home school legal defense person to toss some gasoline on the fire: “clearly signaling that they are in fact planning to violate the private conversations families have in their own homes.” Woah! Where did this come from? How, exactly, would mandating respect for differences (even if this means what some Christians fear) in the state curriculum, violate the family’s private conversations? I might be a bit slow on the uptake here, but that seems like a bit of an unwarranted Orwellian jump to me.

Second, what does it mean to teach respect for diversity in a state curriculum? Again, even if our worst fears are true, we’d have to define whether we are being told to respect homosexuality, or homosexuals. Of course I respect homosexuals as fellow citizens, and I can certainly respect (and respectfully disagree with) the ideology of the state surrounding how the laws concerning homosexuality and marriage are established. (Note: I’ve yet to find anything dealing with homosexuality in the ERC, but given the language I have run across in it regarding diversity, it seems to be working hard to avoid problems.)

Third, if a Christian home-schooler can’t teach their children to respect, as a fellow human and citizen, a homosexual person, or be able to teach the state’s view and law on same-sex-marriage, while at the same time handle an adequate rebuttal (even if it must occur in a separate lesson plan) from the Christian worldview, this family probably shouldn’t be homeschooling. They are, in effect, doing their children a disservice. One day, these kids WILL have to “leave the nest” and deal with the real world. We, all too well, are familiar with how a similar situation turned out with kids who’s school or parents ripped out the evolution sections of their science texts, rather than deal with them.

Do we need to watch this unfold carefully? Certainly we do! However, the correct response – it seems to me – would not be to pull our kids from such curriculum, but to learn how to meet it head on, while fighting for change in the curriculum (this is, assuming the curriculum is bad in the first place, which I’ve yet to see or be shown.)

Dr. Stackhouse’s articles, on the other hand, argue that the courts in Quebec made the right decision in overruling the parents efforts to remove their children from the ERC curriculum. To the American ear, this probably sounds rather odd. Yet, even in America, I think it is recognized that children receive certain educational components for their own benefit and the benefit of society. If parents are keeping their kids from such education, it might be considered neglect in some form.¹

It is important, at this point, to understand something about a difference between American and Canadian culture (at least from my observations, being an American, but having lived in Canada for the past 5+ years). I would say that Canada is more social in thinking than America. By this, I don’t mean that Canada is socialist, as in communistic, while America is democratic (lots of countries are democratic; Iran is democratic; democracy isn’t necessarily a positive thing). What I mean is that Canadians seem to have less of the American “libertarian” attitude going on. I’m not sure if that is the best term, so I’ll put it into a common expression: “every man for himself.”

This is important to this discussion, because when it comes to parental rights, I think Americans are more inclined to lean towards, “he/she is my child and I’ll do with him/her as I please.” Or, to put it in a bit more positive light, “He/she is my child and it is my responsibility to bring him/her up correctly.” The Canadian, I think, is less likely to stress that kind of attitude, and to think of preparing the child to interact in society as a whole (which includes benefits, as well as responsibilities). Consider Canadian health-care. While it is often criticized², especially in America, the thinking here seems to be more that we pay for this, not because health-care is an entitlement or a right (though some certainly believe that, here or in the US), but because having it available to all just seems like the decent, neighborly thing to do.

In the same way, while America has more of a “melting pot” mentality, Canada has more the attitude of maintain the diversity and learn to live with and respect it. This can, of course, have it’s downsides, but it also helps explain why something like the ERC curriculum is seen as such a beneficial thing. I think the USA could benefit from something similar. Ignorance of other’s beliefs, religion, and positions hardly ever helps any situation.

As I noted in response to Dr. Stackhouse’s articles, I am also nervous about the teaching of ethics in this manner. I’m completely fine with the teaching of world religions as a requirement for all children. In fact, I’ll be a cheer-leader for that! But ethics are a much more tricky thing, in that there needs to be common grounding. That said, Dr. Stackhouse challenges us to actually read the curriculum and bring the problems to the conversation. Currently, it does seem like much of the discussion is more hysteria over what might happen. Of course it probably will (when don’t humans muck things like this up). But let’s address them as they come, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As Dr. Stackhouse puts it, “Again, Canadian parents do not have the ‘right’ to keep their kids ignorant. Canadian parents do not have the ‘right’ to make public institutions say only what they prefer them to say–as if ‘public’ means ‘an extension of what I believe with nothing I find objectionable’ instead of what it really means, which is ‘shared with people of other views.’” While this does prick my American ears a bit, upon reflection, I tend to agree. As a Christian apologist and parent, I recognize that I can’t keep my child in some kind of Christian-bubble, and I certainly recognize the damage that has been done by parents and various groups in their attempts to do so in the past.

So, maybe I’m reading the situation in Alberta incorrectly. If the state, in this situation, tries to impose that I must teach my child to respect moral perversity, as Dr. White put it (rather than to respect those who are morally perverse), I will of course join him in opposing it. As Christians, God comes before state. On the other hand, if the state is simply requiring that I teach my child about the law of the land (as defective as it might be in areas), and to give a certain societal respect to my neighbor (as sinful as they may be) why would this present an obstacle to comply?

So, then, to directly address some of Dr. White’s challenges:

1) “Homeschooling families can’t teach homosexuality a sin in class says Alberta gvmt.”

I think we would need a bit more legal clarification than the statements of  Donna McColl in the LSN article here. In which class; any class? I could see that IF this ‘diversity’ training course addresses same-sex-marriage, given its legal-status in Canada, it would probably attempt to teach that it is legal and that GLBT folks be respected. Even if it goes further than that (to teach that it is ethically good or positive), I fail to see why a parent can’t teach this as the state’s position. Then, in their Christianity Ethics 101 course, teach why we as Christians oppose such thinking.

2) “Would Paul have allowed Christian parents to teach their children that worship of Zeus is OK by gov’t mandate?”

Probably not, but he might have allowed Christian parents to teach their children that according to the Greek government, worship of Zeus is mandated and proper (if, in fact, it was so mandated). This doesn’t mean we have to agree with the state’s position.

3) “Mandating the teaching of respect for moral perversity is morally perverse, is it not?”

As I responded in tweets and noted above, first we’d have to figure out what is being taught (ie: IF, in fact, this is even taught in the curriculum). Is it teaching respect for the moral perversity or for the morally perverse (person). If it is as you say, then of course we would have to object to that as Christians. But even so, how exactly is the government of Alberta going to control what is taught to the children OUTSIDE of this particular curriculum? And, as I also noted above, if parents can’t handle a situation in which the state’s teaching conflicts with Christian teaching, how will the kids survive once they leave home?

So, even if the worst case is true, I think our reaction should be to: 1) Use our legal channels (see the Alberta Human Rights Act I linked to above) to argue against aspects of such a curriculum, if it is found to be unfair. 2) Push heavily on educating parents in Christian apologetics, rather than argue for our ability to keep our kids in a bubble. But just as important, we need to be certain that the worst case is indeed the case before we strongly oppose something which might be beneficial. Or, possibly even be overall more beneficial than harmful if we can easily counter the harmful.

What do you all think?

Should the state require a core education to familiarize our children with the world’s major religions? Should the state require a course on ethical thinking and some of our common societal ethics? Should the state be able to override the parents will to keep their children from learning certain things? Certainly we agree that parents should be able to teach things contrary to what the state teaches (or maybe better, in addition to), but do you believe there is a real threat from the state to prevent parents from doing so (as the LSN article seems to present)? If so, do you think they could realistically enforce such a policy?

(Note: This is an “in the news” article, so more related to commentary and discussion than apologetics training. We will be covering topics of ethics and sexuality in regard to “core” apologetics training in articles to come.)

Update: Monday, March 19, 2012

I’m updating the post to pass along a response that Dr. John Stackhouse posted at Cardus which I thought was especially good, as well as make my main points crystal clear.

My main points:

1) My problem is not so much with the fears the LifeSiteNews article expresses, but with the fact that there is no evidence to support the allegations. Of course, if the state were going to come into my home and tell me I couldn’t teach my kids about my religious beliefs, I’d be outraged. That hasn’t, to my knowledge, happened, nor do I see anything to indicate it will.

2) And, this is the critical point for Christian apologetics: We can’t keep our children (or people in general) in a Christian bubble! That might have been somewhat possible a generation or two ago (though still a stupid idea!) but it simply isn’t the case today. Kids, especially, need to know what they will be up against. Hiding it from them just doesn’t work.

Also, the following was a response to a discussion over at Cardus by Dr. Stackhouse (used with his permission and blessing). He said some things so well here that I wanted to pass them along and certainly doubt I could say them better:

March 4, 2012

John G. Stackhouse Jr. · North Vancouver, British Columbia
Signing off (I’ve got a book to write and on a completely different matter!):

1. If you distrust the public school system, then you distrust it. I have lots of reasons to be wary of it, but I don’t fundamentally think it’s a Bad Thing. Quite the contrary: I think it is a necessary thing in Canada today and ought to be supported by everyone, including Christians. But if you just distrust it, as some of you do, then that’s that.

2. If a public school teacher teaches a curriculum badly, he or she is liable to correction and everyone involved in the system (pupil, parent, colleague, principal, citizen) can legitimately ask for that to happen.

3. If a curriculum itself either fails to tell the truth or transgresses against either law or basic Canadian values, it must be changed. Lots of people can announce the need for that and there are, of course, mechanisms in place to change it.

4. If parents believe their children are at risk of serious harm, including educational or ideological harm, they must protect them. Parents also need to teach their children, however, how to cope with the Real World. Withdrawal is a radical option and must be employed only as a last resort in the face of clear and present danger, not because a parent worries that something, somewhere, sometime might go wrong.

5. The community ought to look out for the welfare of every child and insure that children receive a basic level of care, including educational care. The community therefore ought to intervene when a parent mistreats a child, including when a parent wants to keep a child ignorant of facts and values the community agrees ought to be taught to all of its citizens.

6. Christians are citizens and ought to act like citizens. Our supreme loyalty is to God, but God is the one who requires us to act like citizens. So our situation is not simple, but complex, and only discussions that remain cognizant of this complexity will suffice.

7. There is nothing in the ERC curriculum that a Christian cannot endorse. The only plausible reasons I can see to oppose it, therefore, are (a) you don’t like public education on principle; (b) you believe there is something about this particular subject matter that will ensure it is badly taught; (c) you don’t believe bad teaching of the ERC curriculum can be dealt with effectively by the public school system; or (d) you don’t believe what is bad about the ERC curriculum (point b) or bad teaching of it (point c) can be handled by parents and churches providing alternative education to their children (whether via suppertime conversation, Sunday School, and so on).

I disagree with all of these points, and I do so as a graduate of Canadian public schools (K through university), as a parent whose three sons have graduated from Canadian public schools, and as a former instructor in a Canadian public school (professor at the U of Manitoba).

I am really sorry that so many obviously thoughtful people are reacting this way to the ERC. So what I would like to hear from ANY of these critics (and I’ll have to return to my own blog now, hoping someone will take up the challenge there) is how he or she thinks religions and ethical reasoning OUGHT to be taught to the children of our society.

I have maintained in several places that parents and churches manifestly are NOT providing this education nor CAN they, since neither pastors nor parents are educated themselves to do so. So for all the real or presumed faults of the ERC curriculum and its equivalents elsewhere, what positive alternative do the critics suggest? I look forward to hearing about them.

Thanks for the interaction, friends,

John

The problem is that (d) above is an actual problem (so a valid fear); just not a necessary one. It seems some parents would rather just pull their child and not deal with the situation either in education, or in having the guts to try and change the system. Make no mistake, if our churches had good education, attended by these parents, there would be no problem with their providing of an adequate alternate view in a respectful manner. Also, if even a small percentage of Christians were equipped to make the case in the public square (say, for example, on same-sex-marriage, in a level-headed and well-thought-out manner, the laws could also be changed making this whole conversation a moot point.

John also makes a great point about the need for an education on ethics and religion to the general culture. If the churches can’t do it for their own, who will do it for the rest of the people in Canada?

Update: Monday, August 1, 2012

One point I should make REALLY clear, as I didn’t take it into account in my original article (it comes up in discussion below… thanks Kris!), is that of the Canadian human rights tribunals. These are a sort of kangaroo court in which the normal methods of justice are tossed aside. Basically, the person making the allegation is financially funded by the State; the accused is presumed guilty and bears legal costs. This is NUTS (i.e. INSANE!) but it is beginning to exist in the (previously civilized, apparently) West in many places around issues of discrimination and ‘hate crime.’ The thing to note here, though, is that the problem is the tribunals, not the ERC or changes to wording in various human rights documents. Sure, certain legal wording can make one more susceptible to such courts, but the courts shouldn’t exist in the first place. My call to Canadians would be to get rid of the core problem instead of combatting otherwise good things which might be utilized by this perversion of justice. Even without the ERC or wording changes, you’re still susceptible to the tribunals, should you end up in their crosshairs.

The post Twitter kerfuffle over Canadian ERC Curriculum appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job is a book written by scientist, pastor, and astronomer Hugh Ross.¹ While it is, in some sense, a commentary on Job, it is also a considerably different treatment than I have run across before. Most people who analyze Job immediately jump into the suffering Job experienced, God’s sovereignty, or something along those lines. While these would certainly be primary themes of Job (Ross acknowledges this (22) and spends some time on these topics), the point of this book is to ‘read between the lines’ a bit more to see what else we might discover; and discover, Ross does!

The book aims at a general audience, including Christian and non-Christian. It is written at a level which should be accessible to nearly anyone. As to what the book hopes to accomplish, Ross says, “My hope in writing is that readers will find this book’s focus on the science and creation content of Job a liberating experience in answering their questions and concerns about the Christian faith, in healing divisions within the church, and in challenging nonbelievers with evidence they’ve never yet considered.” (13) I believe Ross accomplishes this goal.

This is not going to be a typical book review, where an argument is followed through each chapter to the conclusion. I did not notice such a progression. This could be because a) there isn’t one, apart from the above overall goal, or b) that I missed it because I listened to it as an audio book²; a first for me. What I will do instead is talk about some of the themes into which Ross groups his discoveries and investigation, and then talk about some of the discoveries I found to be most profound.

The Prologue shares Hugh’s personal story of the ordeals and suffering he and his family underwent while he was writing the book. Aside from being a nice opportunity to get to know the author a bit better, it highlights the opportunity we sometimes have to learn and grow in the midst of suffering. Hugh notes that it impressed him greatly how, “Job did not waste his suffering.” (10)

The chapters of the book seem to be the points Ross is drawing from Job, organized into categories such as: today’s issues, timeless questions, new questions, creation-day controversies, other Genesis controversies, uniqueness of humanity, the ten nepesh animals, soulish animals and lessons we can learn from them, dinosaurs, the problem of suffering, and more.

One of the big points this book makes is that parts of Job can be seen as a backdrop to Genesis and other books of the Bible. (17, 19, 33) Job was likely earlier than Genesis (in a literary sense), even though Genesis begins at an earlier event (creation). If true, this would mean that the original reader of Genesis would have been familiar with Job. (32) If we insert some of the detail we find in Job into the Genesis account of creation, we begin to clear up some of the controversies between the Young Earth, Old Earth, and Theistic Evolution views. For example, Job can help us clear up what appears to be a problem with science and the sun not being created until day four. Speaking about Job 38:4, 9, Ross says, “Darkness initially pervades the surface of the deep (Gen. 1:2) not because the sun and stars hadn’t yet been created, but rather because Earth’s primordial atmosphere was like a thick blanket that prevented light from penetrating to the surface of Earth’s waters.” (82) This is just one of a number of issues, such as death before the fall, interaction with the Young Earth view of dinosaurs, when and what plants came on what days, or the special ways in which humans differ from the animals, that Job speaks to. It is also interesting that if Job is the earliest book of the Bible, it would be the earliest mention (and a clear one at that!) of our need for a Redeemer. (40)

Speaking of animals, their discussion makes up a large portion of this book. In one section, Hugh recounts interactions he had with animals while hiking in very remote parts of British Columbia, and how their behavior differs from animals who have had interaction with fallen humanity. (135-136) Part of the point of this is to illustrate that morality is something unique to humanity. Another fascinating section involves the ten nepesh animals found in Job 38 and 39. Ross considers why these ten animals are specifically mentioned and ponders what we might learn from their importance. For example, goats are very easy to tame, and the first animals to be domesticated. While some other animals beat goats in production of various resources, goats are the best in one animal. In more recent times, goats have been used to create fire-breaks or to stop the spread of invasive plant species, as they are so effective in their cleaning of the vegetation, even in places humans would have a hard time taking machinery. (154-155) Another example is the ostrich. (159-161) Among the many interesting facts about this animal, Ross indicates the importance it would have had to early humanity (the use of it’s eggs and egg-shells), but also the importance it could have for us in the future. Ostrich meat could be produced much more cheaply than beef (half the price of our least expensive meat, turkey), but is quite nutritious and less damaging to the environment to produce than beef. Ross notes that domesticated cows produce more greenhouse gasses than the combined vehicles of the world. (65)

There are many fascinating ties pointed out between Job (and the Bible) and science in this book. While they are intriguing to me, a bit of caution should be advised. Some of the ties seem a bit speculative. By this, I mean that Ross often draws some correlation between a passage and what we are discovering in science, where the two harmonize nicely. But it isn’t always the case that one would draw this out by exegeting the passage. I don’t see this as a problem, other than considering Ross’ enthusiasm, it can sometimes seem more like the latter. An example of this would be looking at Job 38:19-20 and the discussion on the discoveries concerning dark matter. (60-63) The passage certainly does seem to treat light and darkness as things (they reside in places), but I’m not sure how if it were poetic license it would contradict the centuries old idea of darkness as absence of light (as Ross notes). It, then, wouldn’t necessarily be making a claim about reality. Another such example, which is more persuasive to me, is in how often the Bible speaks of God ‘stretching out’ the heavens and what we now know about Big-Bang cosmology. (56) This is consistently illustrated throughout Scripture and could certainly have been stated differently. It is a bit too-conveniently compatible with the science. In general, though, what Ross does is show how science and Biblical revelation are compatible, especially at the points where skeptics often attack.

I appreciate Dr. Ross taking this type of look at Job as it grounds the book in history and reality. Too many tend to take away the big themes, but consider Job a story or fable (even in circles where this isn’t explicitly stated). Because of this, they overlook a lot of what is actually there. This also invites the question of why all this extra detail is given if it is a fable only meant to convey the primary point. It would be a bit like looking at a van Gogh, and saying, “Forget all that other stuff; it is just a painting; the important point is that there are stars in the sky.”

Ross presents a great deal of research on the background of Job and the figures (Job’s friends) involved in the debate. Even considering that I am seminary educated and wrote a paper on Job in one of my Old Testament classes, much of this was new to me (I’m not sure whether this says more about my rigor as a student or the research Ross conducted, but I’m confident nearly everyone will learn something new ). Also, gaining an understanding of the magnitude of the debate and what was at stake, one begins to understand why God accepted Satan’s challenge (something troubling to most who seriously read Job). I also appreciated the level of respect Ross paid to Job’s friends and their counsel. The background Ross provides adds dimensions to them and the book of Job as a whole. It is too easy to write them off as bad friends, incorrect on the counsel they give, and to fail to pay attention to their part of the discussion.

One of the possible shortcomings of the book (aside from endnotes; I hate endnotes; footnotes please!), may be that the book often diverges from Job to make points of the broader Reasons to Believe (RtB) model. This may turn some off who want to stick entirely to Job, or those who don’t agree with the RtB position. For everyone else, I think it enriched the book making it more helpful to both Christians and unbelievers than the subject at hand indicated when they began reading. It helps to see how everything fits together.

Another potential problem is that the book includes so many points that some of them are handled too superficially. While nearly any subject can be expanded on, given enough space, such a brief handling can leave the reader (especially the skeptic) with the idea that the point wasn’t well established. They might think that what Ross presented is all that there is to say. An example of this was the handling of ANE (Ancient Near East) cosmology parallels with Genesis. (76-78) It is often asserted that Genesis was never intended to portray real history, but instead was only a literary device written as a polemic to concepts found within ANE cosmology. This cosmology, it is said, was shared by the Israelites, so they wrote about what they knew. Ross includes a diagram and brief explanation of ANE cosmology, but then spends only about a page dealing with the supposed mention of the brass dome of ANE cosmology in Job. While the explanation is good, it barely touches the major controversy. I was left wanting a brief explanation of how Job, Genesis, and other places in Scripture support non-ANE cosmology, while still interacting with it at points. Essentially, I found myself wanting more depth at some points (knowing there was more), lest the skeptics feel they have won. I recognize the size considerations book publishers impose, but would have chosen to trim some of the other longer areas down in order to expand these points.

Overall, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job was a very enjoyable book. It was written at a level which nearly everyone can grasp. While it left me wanting more at points, it peaked my interest for further study. It also left me feeling like I couldn’t end this review, as I have barely touched on a few of the many-dozens of points this book makes. Agree or disagree with Ross, I would highly recommend giving this book a read. It is a delightful blend of personal experience, analysis of Job, possible ties to science, and explanation of aspects of the Christian narrative and worldview.

Note: A free copy of this book was provided for review by Reasons to Believe.³

The post Book Review: Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job by Dr. Hugh Ross appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

We apologize for the lack of recent posting (and frequency), but we have been busy working on a number of background projects and obligations. One of these projects is an important ministry we would like to bring to your attention:

Apologetics Canada is a ministry of Apologetics.com directed by Andy Steiger. We’re pleased not only to be friends with Andy, but also to share so many ministry objectives in common. We’ve been working behind the scenes to build a nice website for Apologetics Canada (which we both hope is going to bring Canadian apologetics together as well as put a bit more punch into the growing movement). We have also been putting in a bit of work on the upcoming conference in March of 2012. We’re really excited about the conference. If you are Canadian (or in the Pacific Northwest) and are interested in Christian apologetics, you need to find a way to attend this conference! Apologetics Canada is bringing in some top-notch speakers on a great variety of apologetic topics. Besides, we’ll be there, if you would like to meet us. (What more reason do you need?)

We will begin posting more frequently in the New Year, as we have a lot of ‘core’ material still to publish on the site and a lot of other topics and ideas we have been gathering. We have a book review (way overdue!) coming shortly on “Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job” by Hugh Ross which we think you will enjoy – we sure did. We will also be reviewing a new video on the intelligent design front, Metamorphosis by Illustra Media. Thank you for your patience.

The post Apologetics Canada, and stay tuned. appeared first on TilledSoil.org.