Beware of Becoming a Christian Hermit!

In 1694, a group of forty Bible believers headed to an area known as Wissahickon, on the outskirts of what was then the civilized area of Pennsylvania, seeking God. Led by Johannes Kelpius, the group had traveled from Germany in order to prepare for what they had anticipated as the end of the world.1 The group was motivated by Jesus's second coming, which they believed would happen soon. They withdrew from greater society, planted their own food and built a common hall to hold worship, with a tower to spot signs of Christ's second coming.2 Kelpius himself supposedly lived and meditated in a cave.3

Cave of Kelpius (image courtesy USHistory.org)

Known colloquially as the "Hermits of the Wissahickon," the sect spent their time:

hosting public services, bloodletting Germantown residents, studying religion, observing the stars and planets, and practicing alchemy and numerology. One of the focal points of their worshipping practices was music, and most of the sect's members were musicians, including Kelpius, who some consider the first Pennsylvania composer.4

Of course, the end of the world didn't arrive in 1694. It didn't come in 1700. It didn't even arrive in 1708 when Johannes Kelpius passed away. The remaining members stayed for some time, but after a decade, the sect had disbanded entirely. Today, there is nothing left of the sect or their structures. However, the cave still remains, which you can visit if you can locate it within Fairmont Park in Philadelphia.

I bring up this sliver of history because I see so many Christians acting in a way similar to the hermits of Wissahickon. I don't mean that people go out to the wilderness and build monasteries. But we Christians do cut ourselves off intellectually from the wider world. Sure, we work for secular companies, attend state schools, and entertain ourselves with movies and television like anyone else, but how often do we interact with or challenge the worldview that powers our culture today? How many churches are equipping their parishioners to engage with others about their beliefs?

Many Christians today are content to listen to Christian radio, attend weekly services that focus on worship music and talk of how we are living in the end times. That's all well and fine, but the church was never called to live in a bubble. We are commissioned to make disciples of all people, and that means doing the hard work of understanding the beliefs of others while also being able to share Christianity as the solution to the world's problems. We need to be able to explain to our friends and families why same-sex marriage is wrong or why the threat to religious liberty is a fundamental threat to our culture. We need to be able to offer reasons why God exists or how the foundation of Christianity is the fact of the resurrection. How many churches equip their congregations in this way? Far too few.

Christianity has been a world-changing faith ever since the disciples began following Jesus's command to make disciples. We've saved lives, improved nations, civilized barbarous peoples, stopped infanticides, advanced science, stood for equality, and comforted those everyone else rejected. We need to continue that legacy. We need to break out of our holy huddles and begin to be faithful to the call that our Lord gave us. Otherwise, we might end up just as forgotten as the Hermits of Wissahickon.

References

1. Borneman, Robert. "The Wissahickon Hermits." Christianity Today. Christianity Today, 1 Apr. 1986. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1986/issue10/1027.html.
2. Dicciani, Kevin. "The 'rapture' That Never Came: The Story of 'The Hermits of the Wissahickon'" Chestnut Hill Local. Chestnut Hill Local, 22 Apr. 2015. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. http://www.chestnuthilllocal.com/2015/04/22/the-rapture-that-never-came-the-story-of-the-hermits-of-the-wissahickon/.
3. Avery, Ron. "Cave of Kelpius." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, 1999. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. http://www.ushistory.org/oddities/kelpius.htm.
4. Dicciani, 2015.
Picture courtesy of ushistory.org

Jesus and Logical Fallacies: Answering Absurd Claims

Not many people think about Jesus and his intellect, but Jesus was the smartest man who ever lived. He wasnt a philosopher, but he could argue logically and philosophically when the need arose. For example, in one passage of scripture, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus by asking him if the faithful Jews should pay taxes to Caesar or if they should rather choose to love God. Jesus unraveled their trap by pointing out the logical fallacy hidden in their question.

The Pharisees weren't the only ones, though, that tried to trap Jesus. The Sadducees, who were another group within first century Judaism and the sect that had the primary control over the Temple in Jerusalem, also tried to catch Jesus by asking him a question. In Mark 12:19:27, they offer a thought experiment, one that was designed to prove their belief that once people die, they cease to exist.1 They asked Jesus to imagine a man who has six brothers. He married a woman, but then died, leaving the wife childless. They then said that the mans brother took the woman for his wife, but he also died, and so did all the brothers, each after taking the woman as his own wife. (One must wonder what kind of a scary cook such a woman would be!) Finally the woman dies. The Sadducees then inquire "In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife. (Mark 12:23)"

Trying To Leverage the Reductio

In this example, the Sadducees are using as tactic from logic known as arguing from absurdity or the more formal Latin title of reductio ad absurdum. Basically, the tactic is to take whatever proposition one is arguing against and follow it even in an extreme situation to see if the proposition still makes sense.  Parents are famous for this tactic. After asking to stay home alone because your friend Johnny is allowed, you may have heard them respond, "If Johnny jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?"

Reducing an argument to absurdity is in itself not a fallacy; in fact it can be very effective in clarifying the points of someones position. I've used it myself in arguing against abortion.  But, the problem with this attempt is the Sadducees were committing another fallacy in their argument. They assumed that because people experience marriage in one way on this earth, that experience will continue to be true in heaven. This is known as the fallacy of composition or the part-to-whole fallacy. Simply because a man and a woman are properly joined in the covenant of marriage on this earth, doesnt mean that that bond will extend beyond the grave. Jesus makes this clear when he corrects them, saying "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Mark 12:24-25, ESV).

The Fallacy of Composition

Jesus makes it clear that marriage is as we say ion our vows today: until death do us part. The Sadducees assumed that such a union made no sense with the wife and the seven brothers in heaven, and they tried to use this argument to dismiss the idea of an afterlife at all. But all our relationships will be different in eternity.

Not only did Jesus point out this problem with the Sadducees argument, but he also turned the argument around on them! The Sadducees were very strict in the way they read the Torah and they would not accept the traditions and teachings of many Jewish scholars who came before them.2But, because the Torah played such a high view in the theology of the Sadducees, Jesus chooses to quote from one of its defining verses, Exodus 3:6 where God declares himself to Moses. Jesus answered them, "And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?  He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong" (Mark 12:26-27, ESV).

Jesus emphasized the fact that the verb used is "am" not "was," thus proving that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all conscious souls who still relate to God. Given the Sadducees strict adherence to the written Torah, they had no way to answer this, for to deny that scripture would make their entire belief system crumble. It was a master stroke that demonstrated again just how knowledgeable Jesus was and how he could draw upon logic as he needed to make his point and silence his critics.

References

1. Unger, Merrill F., R. K. Harrison, Howard Frederic Vos, Cyril J. Barber, and Merrill F. Unger. "Sadducee." The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Chicago: Moody, 1988. 1111. Print.
2. Unger, 1110.

Witnessing to the Jehovah's Witnesses (podcast)

Jehovah's Witnesses have made a name for themselves by traveling door to door and converting people. But how can we defend our beliefs against their objections? What's the best way of discussing the Bible with them? In this latest podcast series, Lenny shows you how to dialogue with the Jehovah's Witnesses.

• Witnessing to the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 1)
• Witnessing to the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 2)
• Witnessing to the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 3)
• Witnessing to the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 4)

Atheists Disbelieving of Impostor Christianity

I'm in the middle of leading a group on an Apologetics Missions Trip to Berkeley, CA. One of the things we do on these trips is to invite prominent atheist speakers to come and address our students. They will speak on a topic and then we have a time of Q &A so the students can probe the atheist worldview and see how well it can support itself a cohesive theory.

We've had a couple of different speakers present so far on this trip. Both gentlemen said they had been raised in traditional Christian homes and both said they left Christianity because it simply didn't make sense to them. The first speaker was raised a Southern Baptist, but at the age of twenty lost his Christian faith. Most of the reasons he offered for this were personal; he had built up an arsenal of ways to argue with Mormons or Muslims about why those faiths were untrue and engaged in these types of personal debates throughout high school. When a woman confronted him and told him that Hinduism was a much older faith than Christianity, he first went into debate mode. Just as he was getting ready to tell her she was wrong, he stopped, realizing that he didn't really know if Christianity or Hinduism was the older faith. This caused immense doubt in him about Christianity; he was stating facts that he didn't know and in his mind Christianity became just as fake as all those other faiths.

The Christianity he described turning away from was foreign to me. For example, he said that he felt closer to people as an atheist, stating "I no longer looked at people and thought, 'You're going to hell,' or 'you're part of my group.'" That isn't what Christianity is. It isn't about being in the right club or if you can take down someone else's beliefs. It is first and foremost recognizing that you are a sinner who needs to reconcile yourself to a holy God.

Our second speaker told us of how he was raised in Christianity by church-planting parents. He volunteered, started urban youth programs, and even went to seminary. Yet, he said that he never felt he had any type of personal relationship with Christ. In fact, the idea seemed foolish to him. He saw Christianity as being a good person and treating others with kindness. He fought for civil rights of African Americans during the civil rights movement in the 1960's, and he objected to the killing in the Viet nam war. But when he discovered that family members who taught him that "Jesus loves the little children, black and yellow, brown and white" were also themselves racists, he decided that he could be good without the need for what he called "the extra layer" of religion.

As you can see, he too missed the central aspect of Christianity. He thought being a Christian was being good and treating other well. He never talked of his own sin or his need to reconcile himself to his creator.

I find it interesting that both atheists reviled an impostor Christianity. I can understand their discontent; if Christianity is only keeping rules or winning arguments it would make sense that it feels fraudulent or superfluous. But that isn't what Jesus taught. His focus was always on how to reconcile human beings to the God who loves them. People will by nature choose their passions over God's holiness, yet God still seeks to bring them back to Himself while still remaining holy! A completely holy God cannot let any sin go unjudged. That's why Jesus came to die for us, so that the judgment of our sin may be met and we can still enter into that relationship with God.

I quoted Pascal in yesterday's post where he said, "it is equally dangerous for man to know God without knowing his own wretchedness, and to know his own wretchedness without knowing the Redeemer who can free him from it." As you can see from my experiences above, he was right. Apologetics without the cross helps no one.

What Do You Mean by Evolution?

I've recently had a couple of conversations where someone sought to challenge my questioning of the modern assumption that evolution is a proven fact. One person commented to me "To disbelieve in the theory of evolution requires a suspension of reason so extreme as to be almost pathological." That's a pretty big claim! However, in the broad topic of evolution, the devil is in the details. In fact, for most complex scientific theories, the devil is in the details. Newtonian laws work really well to describe the actions of most things in motion, but when you get down to the sub-atomic level they don't work. That's why whenever I'm challenged by someone by such an assertion, I think it becomes crucial to first make sure you define your terms.

"Change Over Time" Is Unproblematic

One of the biggest problems in causal discussions over evolution is that the word has become so plastic, it can mean almost anything. When someone asks "Do you believe in evolution," I first ask "What exactly do you mean by evolution?" For example, in my conversation, I received the definition of evolution as "inherited traits [that] vary across a population with time." If that's all evolution is supposed to be, then I wouldn't disagree with it. All the breeds of dogs we see are from inherited traits varying across the population with time. Bacteria can and do develop resistances to antibiotics. These things are not controversial in the least.

Physicist Gerald Schroeder makes a salient point here:

The magnificent Natural History Museum in London devotes an entire wing to demonstrating the fact of evolution. They show how pink daises can evolve into blue daises, how gray moths can change into black moths, how over a mere few thousand years, a wide variety of cichlid fish species evolved in Lake Victoria. It is all impressive.

Impressive until you walk out and reflect upon that which they were able to document.Daisies remained daises, moths remained moths, and cichlid fish remained cichlid fish.These changes are referred to as micro-evolution.In this exhibit, the museum's staff did not demonstrate a single unequivocal case in which life underwent a major gradual morphological change.1

Yes, change over time happens. Populations become taller, fatter, and balder. But that is neither controversial nor very interesting when discussing the issues of God or why there is so much diversity in life and still so many biological systems seem perfectly designed for their environments.

Competing Definitions

In an article written for Evolution News a couple of years ago, David Klinghoffer quoted form Jay Westley Richards on some of the multiple meanings the word evolution takes on in discussions. He notes six that were first identified by Stephen Meyer and Michael Keas:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. "Blind watchmaker" thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Richards then adds two more:

There is also the metaphorical sense of evolution, in which Darwinian Theory is used as a template to explain things other than nature, like the rise and fall of civilizations or sports careers…

Finally, there's evolution in the sense of "progress" or "growth." Natural evolution has often been understood in this way, so that cosmic history is interpreted as a movement toward greater perfection, complexity, mind, or spirit. A pre-Darwinian understanding of "evolution" was the idea of a slow unfolding of something that existed in nascent form from the beginning, like an acorn eventually becoming a great oak tree. If anything, this sense of evolution tends toward theism rather than away from it, since it suggests a purposive plan.2

Of course, not all of these will be applicable in your discussions with others on evolution. However, it does show how fungible the word has come to be. Asking with model of evolutionary theory can help take some of the imprecision out of the discussion and it helps to make sure that the ones challenging you knows what they are talking about, too.

References 

1. Dembski, William A., and Sean McDowell. Understanding Intelligent Design. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House, 2008. Print. 48.

2. Klinghoffer, David. "The Eight Meanings of Evolution." Evolution News & Views. Evolution News & Views, 26 Aug. 2011. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.
Image courtesy Aaron "tango" Tang and licensed by the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license.

Spider-Man, Marvel, and the Need for Justice

The Internet is awash in prayers of thankfulness. Millions of comic geeks are hailing the recently announced deal allowing Spider-Man back into the Marvel movie universe. Sony Pictures, who owns the film rights to Spider-Man, has developed five successful films featuring the character, but the last two didn't perform as well as expected. Meanwhile, Marvel has done quite well for itself launching secondary characters such as Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor.

Why is this big news? Why should we care about which studio gets to make a movie with Spider-Man in it? Because there's something going on here that's bigger than just the comics. We live in the era of the superhero blockbuster. According to Box Office Mojo, four of the top twenty grossing films of all time have been superhero action movies. The genre is considered gold, and there are nearly 30 superhero films said to be appearing just in the next six years.1 That averages to five superhero films every year! Obviously, something in the genre is satisfying a significant section of the public, and not only in the United States, but worldwide.

Looking for Limits

I believe that one reason people love superhero movies is simply because it provides a way of seeing right and wrong unambiguously. In our modern culture, right and wrong are relativized and excused. To declare that there are certain objective moral values will in many circles be met with disdain or claims of bigotry or self-righteousness. Add to this the fact that people seek to avoid anything that hurts someone's feelings or makes others uncomfortable, even if it means ignoring evil. However, such equivocation goes against the real human need for identifying right and wrong and wanting wrongs to be punished.

In superhero movies, we know who the hero is and we know who the villain is. They allow us to live vicariously through the hero and see evil vanquished, even if its for just a little while. In his review of B. J. Oropeza's The Gospel According to Superheroes: Religion and Popular Culture, James Fleming comments that "superheroes serve an important cultural function; they allow readers to, in essence, vicariously fight injustice and evil and live on through reading or viewing the otherworldly exploits of their superheroes, a contention that is difficult for any comic reader to dispute."2 I think that's true. While the sinful nature of man seeks to wash away any rules or restrictions that inhibit his drive for pleasure and comfort, there still exists a need within each of us to see evil conquered. Yet, those two desires sit in tension with one another. One thing the superhero move does is give us a respite from that tension. Wickedness is vanquished but it's such a fantastically alien evil it never comes too close to rebuking us of our own moral failings.

The Need for a Superhero

This longing for putting things right is as old as man. In the book of Romans, Paul tells us that God has placed his law in each of our hearts and we become a law unto ourselves and are accountable for violating it.3 Yet, Psalm 73 captures it the best. The psalmist, in seeing the prosperity of the wicked and arrogant complains that they are not punished for their wickedness, but they seem to thrive. He laments this observation, but realizes that their ultimate end will not be so. He concludes, "For behold, those who are far from you shall perish; you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you. But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord God my refuge, that I may tell of all your works" (Psa. 73:27-28, ESV).

All of mankind looks for a savior from evil. Each person seeks to be delivered from the injustice reflected in the world today, especially the injustice he or she feels directly. Superhero movies speak to this need, but these are merely fantasies. To truly meet the need for justice would require a savior to step into reality; which is exactly the Christian message. In fact, the Christian savior idea is what powers the modern superhero genre, as you can hear in this video. We need to use these opportunities to talk with our friends and family about how Christ can meet the need for justice while offering each of them forgiveness. We may not be able to save the world, but we may be able to play a part in the salvation of at least one other person. I think that's a super idea.

References

1. Wagner, Tony. "We're in the Middle of a Superhero Movie 'arms Race'" Marketplace Business. American Public Media, 5 Nov. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/were-middle-superhero-movie-arms-race.
2. Fleming, James. "Review of The Gospel According to Superheroes: Religion and Popular Culture ed. B.J. Oropeza." . ImageTexT:Interdisciplinary Comics Studies. 3.1 (2006). Dept of English, University of Florida. 11 Feb 2015. http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v3_1/reviews/fleming.shtml
3. See Romans 2:14-16. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A14-16&version=ESV
Image courtesy Artur Andrzej and licensed by the CC BY 2.0 license.

Questions to Ask Skeptics: What About the Problem of Evil? (video)

One of the more difficult questions many Christians face from skeptics is the question "How can a God exist when I see so much evil in the world?" While this is a challenge to many people, one should realize that the evil we face is more of a problem for the atheist worldview.

In this short video clip, Lenny highlights how rather than disproving God, Christianity provides the most satisfying response to the human struggle with evil and suffering.

Taking Advice from an Atheist

I recently ran across an article entitled "How to Persuade a Christian to Become Atheist "on the WikiHow website, offering fifteen steps atheists should follow if they wish to "deconvert" their friends or simply put up a proper argument for their atheism. The article is interesting and a bit controversial given some of the comments in its discussion section. I think some of the points are forced, some are wrong, and some show a bit of bias. Yet there are some pieces of advice here that I actually agree with and would encourage people to follow.

Become an Educated Objector

One of the first pieces of advice the article offers is that atheists seeking to defend their view is to:

Educate yourself. The key to reasoning with someone is to understand their position as well as your own. Read everything you can about atheism, Christian apologetics and religious history. A number of Christians, for example, don't know the origins of their religion outside of a biblical context so having an understanding of the history can be beneficial.1

I think this is actually a good piece of advice. I have too many times run across people who object to my beliefs but hold to a caricature of both Christianity’s history and what the Christian faith teaches. Historic claims such as religion is the cause of most wars, Christianity expanded through violence, Christians in the Middle Ages believed the earth was flat, and the supposed pagan origins of Christmas and Easter can all be dismissed if one were to dig into the historical sources.

Asking people to read about not just atheism but also Christian apologetics and religious history is proper and important. I would add, though, that in order for this task to be effective one shouldn’t limit themselves to atheist authors and what they have said regarding those subjects. Read about Christian apologetics by reading the articles of Christian apologists. Find religious history articles by religious historians. Go to the sources. I have read popular atheists like Carrier, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Peter Boghossian, but I’ve also read sophisticated works by David Hume, Michael Ruse, and others.

Reading from the "horse’s mouth" if you will can cut down on misunderstandings. One can see the argument in its larger context. By educating yourself on the arguments of views contrary to your own, you are in a better position to argue for or against that point. Both Christians and atheists should follow this rule. It’s interesting that in the very next step the article advises, "Learn common arguments leveled by theists and the best rebuttals" yet links to only Wikipedia articles and Internet Infidels responses. Such reading may reinforce one’s view, but you won’t really learn much about the beliefs of others.

Guard Against Bias

In offering steps #4 and #5, I think the author tips his hand a bit. Step #4 reads "Examine your own myths, urban legends, and superstitions and learn why people believe stories backed by anecdotal evidence. Understanding something about belief as it pertains to psychology will better prepare you for the challenges ahead."2 Notice that he or she is attempting to bias the reader into grouping beliefs with "myths, urban legends, and superstitions." But belief isn’t as simple as a psychological response. People will believe things based on facts, too. In fact, most beliefs are not psychological responses but rationally based. Christianity is a belief system that roots itself in history, not psychology.

A better suggestion would be to "Examine your own biases." Since everyone has biases, perhaps recognizing what those are would give you a clearer picture of others’ beliefs and why they can reasonably hold to a certain view. It would also help clear up problems that may arise from step #5: "Read and understand their holy book cover to cover. The Bible contains not only contradictions, but also stories that have historical people, places and events that are still up for debate as to their authenticity. For example, the story of Tyre and how the city was destroyed."3

I’m not certain what kind of debate there is over Tyre being destroyed (it was), but reading the Bible would be a good start. Cover to cover may be ambitious initially. How about reading the New Testament to get a better understanding of Christian theology? The claims of Jesus, the love chapter in 1 Corinthians 13, the command to pray for those who persecute you all can help the non-believer understand the heart of Christianity and who Jesus really is. But one shouldn’t read with the sole intent of seeking out contradictions. That mindset will lead you to many misunderstandings, not only within the biblical text, but in most historical or literary works.

There are ten mores steps listed in the article; some are short-sighted and others I disagree with. I'm still not sure why #13 advises atheistrs to "stay away from love." Why is love so scary? But those that focus on building relationship and understanding are appropriate if they are taken in an honest spirit. Both Christians and atheists need to see one another as real people and not simply adversaries or opportunities to show off your argument skills. By sincerely seeking to understand the other's position, both sides will go a long way to better interaction, better comprehension, and being better people.

References

1. "How to Persuade a Christian to Become Atheist." WikiHow. WikiHow, n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2015. http://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-a-Christian-to-Become-Atheist.
2. WikiHow, 2015.
3. WikiHow, 2015.
Image courtesy Flicker.com/emdot and licensed by the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) License.

Questions to Ask Skeptics: Why Are You So Intolerant? (video)

Those critical of Christianity seem to always have a lot of objections they throw at Christians. They ask question after question, seeing if the believer can answer what they believe are seemingly intractable problems.

Well, the reason-giving game goes both ways. In this short video clip, Lenny offers one of five questions the Christian should ask of the skeptic: Why are you so intolerant? These questions are designed to show how many of the critic's own beliefs can be contradictory and why Christianity makes sense.

/div>

Are you Ready to Argue Like Jesus?

Are you ready? Do you have what it takes? Are you prepared to argue? Christians today face more opposition to their beliefs than in the past. Those people are going to assert them to us. Therefore, we need heed the charge of the Apostle Peter who commanded that we always be ready to make a defense for our hope in the gospel (1 Pet. 3:15). One way to do this is to learn to argue well.

For many people, that last sentence sounds counter-intuitive. "Didn't your mother tell you it isn't nice to argue?" they may ask. Others think it's downright anti-Christian to argue. But, neither of these responses are true; and that's because when I use the word argument, I mean something different from what they're hearing. When I say the word "argument," I don't mean two people yelling at one another or hurting each other's feelings. I mean something completely different; and it has more to do with growing your understanding than raising your voice.

Why It's Impossible to Avoid an Argument

All people have beliefs. You can't be a functioning human being and not hold to at least some beliefs. Some of them are easily identified, such as "I'm alive right now" or "I'm reading this blog post." Others are a bit more complex, such as one's belief in the existence of God or which political party has better answers for his or her country, yet all these beliefs have some kind of reasoning behind them. It may be that you investigated the data or it may be that you were taught a belief from a young age. The authority figure or your study helped form your beliefs. There are a few beliefs that are self-presenting, like the belief that I am not in pain right now. I know I'm not feeling pain because pain experience is direct and immediate. However, most of our beliefs are formed through other means.

Because each one of us has beliefs, each one of us holds to certain things we believe are true about the world. A belief is simply that, something we take as true about the world. Those beliefs will also shape my actions and reactions to situations around me. If I believe in the power of prayer, that belief is going to play itself out in the action of my praying. If I believe that an unborn baby is made in the image of God, then that will shape my political views on abortion. Your beliefs will always spill out into your actions and touch the people and institutions you come in contact with.

There's the issue, though. Because different people hold different views about the world, it should be no surprise that you will run into people who don't believe things that you hold as true and they believe things you hold as false.  Such contacts mean two people will desire different outcomes to a specific situation, each believing that his or her outcome is the correct one. Just like two cars that are traveling in opposite directions arrive at a one-lane bridge simultaneously, both cannot go on their merry way until the conflicting desires are resolved.

Preparing to Argue Like Jesus

Because you, dear Christian, have reasons for your beliefs, and everyone will face beliefs that conflict with their own, it becomes crucial that you make sure you are better prepared to engage those conflicts. That requires you to learn to argue well. As I said at the top of this post, arguing doesn't mean yelling, fighting, or hurting someone's feelings. Arguing is simply discussing your beliefs with another person, but doing so by providing reason and evidence, or as Michael Palin defined it: "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition." It means we talk and support our belief with the reasons why we think that such a belief is true.

As I've been saying, this is exactly the way Jesus did it. The Gospel of Luke tells us that "The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him" (Luke 2:40). Jesus in his human nature grew in knowledge. He learned how to speak, and he learned the beliefs of his day. Jesus quoted the Scriptures – do you think he studied them? Do you think he worked at memorizing them? Do you think Jesus was a good student?  Did He study hard? He certainly seemed to know the beliefs of the Sadducees and the Pharisees as he put both to shame in Matthew 22.

I invite you to join me for the next few days as I lay out what well-structured arguments look like, and how you can make them. I also want to show what fallacies are, both to help you avoid them and to pick them out if your opponent should use them. Learn to argue more effectively; you will be following in the footsteps of Jesus.

Apologetics is Foundational Since the Earliest Times of the Faith

It should be the goal of every Christian to reflect the heart of Jesus in his or her life. Yet, some in the church bristle at the idea of equipping themselves to defend the faith against ideas raised against it. They assume apologetics to be an intellectual game, where they would rather take the path of Jesus and model love. However, as I've shown, Jesus integrated apologetics into much of his ministry.

Here, Dr. Craig Hazen notes that the apologetics task has been exemplified in every ambassador who sought to introduce a lost world to the Creator. He writes:

It is very important to understand that in justifying the task of Christian apologetics throughout the history of the church, it was Jesus himself who set the stage. He did this not by writing apologetic tracts and treatises but by creating what I shall call here an "ethos of demonstration" among his followers. Jesus demonstrated the truth of his message and his identity over and over again using nearly every method at his disposal, including miracle, prophecy, godly style of life, authoritative teaching and reasoned argumentation' And although Jesus clearly authorized the apologetic ethos for his followers by living it out himself, it is also important to note that he did not create this approach ex nihilo during his three years of ministry. Indeed, Jesus was really just reaffirming an ages-old ethos of demonstration that had been well established in the Old Testament tradition. From the miracles of Moses in Pharaoh's court (Ex 7) to Elijah's contest with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18) to God himself calling for his opponents to "present your case ... set forth your arguments" (Is 41:21), a divine pattern was already fixed by the time Jesus came on the scene.1.

1. Hazen, Craig J. "Defending the Defense of the Faith." To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview: Essays in Honor of Norman L. Geisler. Francis Beckwith, William Lane. Craig, and James Porter Moreland, Ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004. 37. Print.

To Witness Like Jesus, Use Logic and Reason

Christians will many times hear atheists make the claim that faith is somehow opposed to reason.  Most people of faith that I talk with reject that idea. They don't believe that one must choose either faith or reason. However, there are quite a few Christians who think that faith and reason are separate realms that may coexist, but they don't touch. For some Christians, think this idea is comforting. They have taken certain slogans of "bumper-sticker" Christianity such as "Jesus is all I need" and think that such a position is powerful enough to ward off objections. Worse, they think that the same approach works with evangelism.

This is not only a travesty, it is antithetical to who Jesus is and how he evangelized. Jesus was an intellect. In fact, Jesus was the smartest man who ever lived and reason is at the core of who he was. We can see that clearly when the scriptures identify him as The Logos (John 1:1). The Greek word logos is usually translated "The Word" in our English Bibles, but it has a richer meaning. "The Word" is a concept of knowledge. As Merrill F. Unger puts it, "Words are the vehicle for the revelation of the thoughts and intents of the mind to others."1 In fact, logos is where we get the English word "logic."  The word holds the concept of "consideration or evaluation, reflection, or in philosophy, ground or reason."2

Because Jesus is the Logos, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Jesus used logic in his efforts to evangelize others. Jesus' aim in utilizing logic is not to win battles, but to impart understanding or insight in the minds and hearts of his audience. Dallas Willard writes:

 (Jesus) typically aims at real inward change of view that would enable his hearers to become significantly different as people through the workings of their own intellect. They will have, unless they are strongly resistant to the point of blindness, the famous ‘eureka' experience, not the experience of being outdone or beaten down.3

We read of clear examples of this in scripture, such as Jesus' interaction with the woman at the well in John 4 and the different exchanges with both the Pharisees and the Sadducees in Mathew 22.

Jesus even rebuked His disciples for not thinking rationally. In Matthew 16, Jesus is warning his disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." However, they miss his point, and instead begin worrying that he was going to get mad at them because they didn't bring enough bread for the trip.  Jesus replies:

You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?4

Stronger Minds Mean Stronger Convictions

Reason is part of the model Jesus gave us to learn, to discern, and to share our faith with others. As disciples of His, it makes sense that we should follow his example. However, there are some real benefits to incorporating logic and reason into our witnessing efforts. By allowing others to "discover" these spiritual truths, they would become more convinced of the reality of Christ and Christianity than those looking for a feel-good faith. Rational believers are much stronger in their convictions and their faith. They are also less likely to be swayed from contradictory teaching since they know that their faith is not "blind" or transitory, but anchored in the truth of the Logos. They know that their beliefs have their origin in history and they provide real answers for a world in need. So, let's think a little harder and incorporate rationality into our efforts to share the truth of the Gospel with others. Jesus would have us do nothing less.

References

1. Unger, Merrill F., R. K. Harrison, Howard Frederic Vos, Cyril J. Barber, and Merrill F. Unger. "Logos." The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Chicago: Moody, 1988. 780. Print.
2. Bromeley, Geoffery W. "Logos." Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdsmans, 1985. 510. Print
3. Willard, Dallas. "Jesus The Logician." Dallas Willard. Dallas Willard., 1999. Web. 20 Dec. 2014.
4. "Matthew 16:5-11." New American Standard Bible. La Habra, CA: Foundation Publications, for the Lockman Foundation, 1971. N. pag. Print.

Making Worldview More Relevant

"It works for me!"

That was the response I received when talking to an individual about her beliefs on God. The lady didn't see any need to examine her belief system as her life was pretty comfortable. The reality of whether her beliefs were true didn't seem as important as how she lived and affected others.

This is a common problem today. As I wrote yesterday, evangelism has become more difficult in a culture where truth is not valued. While humanity has traditionally understood that the things most worth considering are the foundational aspects of morality and worldview, more and more people today see them as esoteric topics that only eggheads or academics care about.

But as I said, we know that ideas have consequences. It can be tough to communicate the enormous effects that a faulty worldview generates, since they don't happen immediately.

Couple Your Concepts to Popular Films

How can Christians better communicate the real-world effects a false belief or contradictory worldview has? One way that I like is to use popular media, such as current films or television shows to show how decisions can lead to good or bad consequences. For example, in the film The Matrix, there's a scene where one of the characters would rather live in the artificial reality of steak and wealth than deal with the suffering and struggle of the real world. The man is cast as the villain and the audience implicitly knows that his choice is selfish, as it will lead to his friends being captured and likely killed. It is a very visual way to demonstrate how the well-being of the entire society can impinge upon one's personal comfort. I've used this point to show that holding onto a false belief isn't the better option even if your life isn't better off as a result.

The Leo DiCaprio thriller Inception offers another great springboard of conversation on the complicated nature of beliefs and how our experiences color our understanding of other people. It's an easy jump to then show that our perception of God is similarly influenced. Want a discussion on the sinful nature of man? The current hit Interstellar is a great place to start, and it may not be a surprise that the pivotal character carries the name Dr. Mann.

Demonstrate How Beliefs Change Behavior for the Better

The second way you can make beliefs more relevant is by using examples from history on how beliefs made a huge difference in our society. Slavery was a pernicious evil in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. However, Christianity taught that all men are equal because they all bear the image of God. That theological belief spurred William Wilberforce to work for more than two decades until the slave trade in Britain was abolished. It saved the lives of 265 Native Americans, it brought comfort to those who were abandoned with disease, and it established Mother Teresa's outreach to the "untouchable people" suffering in Calcutta.

While there is no silver bullet method for communicating the necessity of true beliefs to other people, using examples from movies or how beliefs affected people to reduce pain and suffering can help quite a bit. Modern culture values entertainment tremendously. Movies give us a common point of reference to talk about complex issues in a shorthand way.  If you are interested in learning more about what films may help in your evangelism efforts, look to these ten as a start.

Truth Versus Relevance in Today's Culture

When standing before Pilate, Jesus claimed he had come to testify to the truth. Pilate famously replied, "What is truth?" While Pilate's response may seem a little dismissive, Christians shouldn't be too quick to ignore it, especially in our modern culture. Most young people today would side with Pilate here. On issues like absolute morality, whether God exists, or if Jesus rose from the dead, young people think either the truth cannot be found or if it can be discovered, it really doesn't matter much in their lives. It is an abstraction to them; a fuzzy concept where they would argue about the concept without seeing any practical implications.

I've spent countless hours on college campuses engaging in many conversations with young adults about their lives, their concept of morality, good and evil, and religion. I've already written about the girl who told me that she couldn't tell a rapist he was wrong even if he was attacking her sister. The fact that she said this with her sister standing next to her demonstrated that she wasn't taking the question seriously; she was simply trying to win an argument. She viewed the concept of right and wrong as something surreal. Over and over I see this same pattern of confusion in kids who are attending some of the most prestigious and academically powerful universities in the country. They simply dismiss the search for truth as something unnecessary.

Young people are motivated by things that are "relevant"; things that matter to them and are more concrete. They value ideas such as fairness, the well-being of others, or the future of the planet. Christians must be able to demonstrate that the truth is relevant and that what one believes has real-world effects if our evangelism and apologetics are to be effective.

The trend to dismiss truth as irrelevant especially troubling because I know the reverse is true: truth does matter. It is more important than ever to now show how the abstract concepts of truth really matters in the everyday lives of these students and how it affects the things they care about. Here are three ways you can do just that.

Prove that Ideas have Consequences

False beliefs are dangerous to oneself and to others. But that isn't well understood today. It is assumed in popular culture that religious faith as merely a preference to give a person comfort or inspiration; one can find solace in a quote from Colossians or a quart of ice cream. Isaiah or Instagram serve equally well to inspire.

Yet, the real world again and again shows how ideas have consequences here and now. Therefore, the first step is to find out what the person you're talking with cares about. Are they passionate about injustice? Perhaps you mention that Martin Luther King's fight for justice was anchored in his Christian faith. Inequality? Ask them what makes us equal in their worldview. Equality of all people isn't possible in an evolutionary framework.

It isn't any type of religious belief that can produce real world benefits, but it is Christian beliefs that do so. ISIS' motivation is not some generalized view of religion but a wrong one that cannot survive in a Christian theology. Poverty is a serious issue across the globe. While Christianity has not only been on the forefront of aiding the poor through such organizations as The Salvation Army, it's been conclusively demonstrated that in countries where Christian missionaries made a significant impact enjoy better health, greater literacy, lower corruption, lower infant mortality, and better educational opportunities, especially for women. In the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia, some women must humiliate themselves just so they can travel within their own country. Even with the Ebola outbreak, the faithfulness of one man following his Christian beliefs made it possible to save strangers in Dallas who were infected accidentally. Comforting the hurting is what Christianity has always done.

To become more effective in our evangelism, we need to demonstrate why beliefs matter and why truth matters. False beliefs about morality can be just as dangerous as false beliefs about medicine. Christians should prepare themselves to show why. Tomorrow, I'll provide some ways to do just that

Tips for Sharing Your Faith #8 – Be Confident!

In hockey, scoring a goal is tough. A team will average thirty or more shots on goal per game, with only one or two making it past the goalkeeper. Because of this, teams will often circle or delay their attempts hoping for a better opportunity. While some care should be exercised so a player doesn't blow a chance, it's easy to fall into the trap of being over cautious. Players begin to look for the "perfect" chance. Of course, there's another team on the ice, so perfect chances are rather hard to come by. The result is they dismiss decent opportunities or possible opportunities as not good enough and they fall deeper into a scoring slump.

I think the same thing is true in sharing our beliefs with others. Over the last week and a half, I've been offering several tips on sharing and defending your faith. I'd like to wrap up this series by simply offering a word of encouragement: be confident! Take a chance and strike up a conversation with a person. Don't be afraid to tell someone the Christian position on a particular topic that's being discussed. Write a letter to the editor or ask someone out to lunch.

Remember, we are commanded by God to make disciples (Matt.28:19) and to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). I also know that many people find this very scary. But, as I've written before, you're smarter than you think you are. It really doesn't take a lot to ask someone why they hold to his or her beliefs. If you are gracious and listen a lot, the conversations can turn out very pleasant. I've approached atheists on college campuses who were complete strangers and had extended conversations about God and morality with them which end in them actually thanking me for taking the time to talk about these issues.

Paul, when writing to Timothy, encouraged him to not be ashamed of his Christian beliefs. He states, "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind" (1 Tim 1:7 NKJV). Jesus promised that he wouldn't leave us alone in this task, but he would provide the Holy Spirit to help us in our efforts (John 14:15,25-26). We have the very Spirit that shaped the world helping us in our witnessing to others!

Wayne Gretzky, the greatest goal-scorer the NHL has ever seen, has been credited with saying, "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take." I think that's right. Be confident. Take a chance to share your faith. You cannot get better at it until you risk a bit of yourself and do it. You may be surprised at  how quickly you can see fruit from your faithfulness.

To see all the posts in this series, click here.

Image courtesy goaliej54. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Tips for Sharing Your Faith #7 – Be Gracious

 Every year, I attend the meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. The EPS is a collection of professional philosophers and apologists from different parts of the world. Tonight, Paul Copan addressed the audience and gave a talk about emphasizing gentleness and respect when sharing our faith. As it happens, this is exactly the topic I was planning on writing about tonight.

The phrase "gentleness and respect" is the second half of 1 Peter 3:15, known as the apologist’s verse. It reads, "Always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." Yesterday, I wrote about the what of 1 Peter 3:15—the "always be ready to give a defense" part. I said that it would take some work on your part to study the common objections that you may hear so you can answer them.

Arguments Shouldn’t Be Adversarial

Today, I want to focus on that last part. As I said previously, passionate arguments can generate a lot of emotion and it can become difficult to keep one’s emotions in check. Yet, it’s crucial that you don’t get heated in your talks. Remember, our goal is not to win the argument, but to win the person to Jesus. Yelling and snapping at people won’t accomplish this. In fact, it may have just the opposite effect of driving people away.

Many years ago I was a purchaser for a hardware distribution company. One of my vendors had a girl who would always answer the phone in a very kurt manner. She sounded harsh and a little bothered any time I called to place an order. Given that this vendor had a cutoff time that if not met could mean some serous delays, I knew that it would not benefit me to react to the abrasiveness of this girl; I just couldn’t afford the gatekeeper as an enemy. Therefore, I decided that whenever I called I wouldn’t ask for my sales rep without engaging her with a bit of small talk. I’d ask her about her day or if she had a nice weekend. Soon, whenever she heard my name, her tone changed and she was genuinely happy to hear my voice in the phone. My calls were handled aster and they would now make some exceptions for my needs. This is all because I consciously decided to treat abrasiveness with care.

Practice Your Patience

Peter not only commands us to prepare for defending our faith through study, he also instructs us to prepare to defend the faith graciously. It may surprise you to think of gentleness and respectfulness as things that require preparation, but they do. Being kind when another is attacking is a hard thing to do. You have to make a conscious decision to keep calm and defuse any potential conflict. It doesn’t feel natural to us. It takes practice.

Proverbs 16:21 reads, "The wise in heart will be called understanding, and sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness." Our arguments can actually become more persuasive when we defer to another. Again, if you feel things are getting out of hand, you can stop the conversation. By telling your questioner, "You know, I value you so much as a person that I don’t want our relationship to be hurt by this conversation. Why don’t we take a break and meet again another day," you demonstrate you care more about them than being a conqueror. Such actions can open the minds of others far more quickly than any intellectual argument may do on its own.

Tips for Sharing Your Faith #6 – Prepare and Seek an Answer

People have noted how some of the most wildly successful people seem to dress in a uniform. Even though he could have afforded any type of clothing, Apple founder Steve Jobs chose to always appear in the same combination of jeans and a black turtleneck. Facebook's founder Mark Zuckerberg said that he has only one drawer at his house filled with "about 20 of these gray t-shirts." 1

Why would such successful people choose to limit themselves so much? Zuckerberg recently answered that question by saying he wanted to spend his time focused on the thing that mattered most to him. "I'd feel I'm not doing my job if I spend any of my energy on things that are silly or frivolous about my life." That may be a bit of an overstatement, but it is true that highly successful people pour more of their energy into achieving their goals than most people. They strive to cut out distractions, whatever they may be, in order to really focus on making their product or service the best in its class.

Always prepare to give a defense

That lesson is also true in sharing your faith. We are commanded to make preparations before we have encounters with people to be able to answer their questions on Christianity. 1 Peter 3:15, which reads "Always be prepared to give a defense to those who ask of the hope that is within you," is the most well-known of these verses, but there are many others.

So, while you don't have to limit your wardrobe choices, it is imperative for Christians to prepare before they step outside the door. Make sure you have studied some of the key objections that are common among skeptics such as arguments for the existence of God, dealing with the problem of evil, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Make sure you look at both sides of a controversial issue. As I've warned both in this series and more fully in a previous article, you do not want to erect a straw man. You should be able to put the issue and the solution into plain language without using "Christianese" in order to make sure that you are understood.

Don't bluff

Of course, it's impossible to know everything. People will have had different experiences from you and they will have heard different things. They may bring up a point that you hadn't heard yet or perhaps something you haven't thought a lot about. The key in these situations is to recognize that you aren't fully prepared to answer that point. Don't bluff! Bluffing may be an acceptable strategy for poker, but when the goal of a conversation is to discover the truth about an issue, bluffing an answer is the worst thing you can do! In certain situations you will have to admit that you hadn't heard that point before. Don't be afraid to tell someone "that's an interesting question; I'd like to get back to you on that." However, if you offer that response, you have now obligated yourself to dig into the books and really seek out an answer. This means you will need to set aside time to investigate the question thoroughly.

Make sure you set a time to meet again

Because you are taking on such an obligation, whenever you hit a roadblock you should always agree on a time to meet again and take up the conversation. This offers two advantages: first, it makes sure the other person is serious about continuing the discussion. While the research in digging out an answer is always good for you, you don't want to always be doing research if he or she isn't interested in engaging in your findings. If they don't want to meet again, you will know their objection is simply a smokescreen.

Second, setting a time pushes you to not procrastinate. I know that a lot of things compete for our time and distractions can creep into our lives, causing us to delay doing those important things. If you delay meeting again because you haven't had time to look into the issue may be perceived by them as you not really caring about the truth, or worse they may feel you don't care about them! It's also best to try and capture a puzzling question when it is fresh in your mind, so you can get the objection right and not spend a lot of time researching something the other person wasn't ever asking.

To be successful in sharing and defending one's faith will require time and effort. There's simply no escaping that. However, once you put in that effort, you may be surprised at the dividends it pays.

To see all the posts in this series, click here.

References

1. Kelly, Samantha Murphy. "Mark Zuckerberg: I Wear the Same Thing Every Day." Mashable. Mashable, 02 Oct. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2014. .

Tips for Sharing Your Faith #5 - Look for Logical Fallacies

When I was in sixth grade, some of my friends and I played an elaborate hoax on the second graders in our neighborhood. We took some ViewMaster projector and some slides of the Apollo missions, a sound effects record, an old reel-to-reel tape recorder and some flashing Christmas lights that we taped t the back of a panel and convinced these kids we were taking them up in space. We tried to think of everything; we even sewed some dime-store space patches on our clothing to simulate uniforms.

I don't know just how much the little kids really bought, but they sure seemed to swallow the story hook, line, and sinker. The main reason was we had all the trappings right. It looked and sounded like a space launch in their limited experience.

When you are talking about faith and opposing worldviews, many Christians can be just as gullible as the second graders in my story above. They will hear an objection or an argument and because it sounds like a real objection, they assume it is a serious issue. However, the mature Christian will be able to identify what are known as logical fallacies. Fallacies are not real arguments. They're smoke-and mirrors tricks that are not evidence of someone's position. I've reviewed a couple of these before, but I'd like to quickly go through some of the more common ones below.

1. Genetic Fallacy

The genetic fallacy is any argument that draws a conclusion due to an irrelevant aspect of the source. An example I've often used is of an elementary school teacher who taught children their multiplication tables. Imagine that later this teacher was convicted of perjury. Since the teacher is a proven liar, does that mean the children should now not believe that 2x2=4? Just because the source of that fact has been shown to be flawed, it doesn't mean that the particular point you are arguing is flawed, too. Here are some examples of the genetic fallacy:

• "You are a Christian because you were raised in a Christian country."
  
• "Because the Bible is an ancient document, it can't be relevant to today."
• "Too many Christian hypocrites have told me the same thing that you're saying."

2. Argumentum ad Populum

Argumentum ad Populum, or arguing to the people is saying because an opinion or position is the popular one, it should therefore be believed. However, the popularity of a position doesn't make the position true. Slavery was accepted in the early period of the United States, but that doesn't mean it was right or moral. Here are some examples of argumentum ad populum:

• "Everyone believes evolution is true."
• "The vast majority of scientists don't believe in God."

3. Argumentum ad Hominem

Argumentum ad Hominem means arguing to the man, and it happens when a person attacks the person for some inconsequential reason.  While the most well-known version of the fallacy would include an insult ("You're too stupid for me to believe that!"), many times the ad Hominem argument is more subtle. For example, a Democrat that rejects any statement offered by a Republican because of his party affiliation is committing a type of the ad Hominem fallacy. Here are a couple more:

• "I can't listen to you about abortion. How can you possibly know how a woman feels since you're a man?"
• "Christianity can't be believed. I mean, look at what the Christians did in the Crusades!"

4. False Dilemma

A false dilemma is when you are offered two choices as the only two possibilities, while more really exist.

• "Either you accept outdated beliefs or you hold to reason."
  
• "I would rather place my trust in science than faith."

5. Straw Man

Sometimes people will either oversimplify Christian beliefs or completely misstate what Christians believe. Just as a scarecrow stuffed with straw is easier to knock over than a real man, some will construct a straw man of the Christian's beliefs just to more easily knock them down.  (For a fuller explanation of a straw man, see this.) Here are a few straw men that you may recognize:

• "All you Bible-believing nuts want to be slain in the spirit and protest against homosexuals"
• "Everything needs a cause. God is a thing, so what caused him?"

6. Appeal to Pity

Appeals to pity are simply trying to not argue on the reasons for a position but rather on making someone feel bad. It tries to play on people's emotions rather than the facts of the matter. You can see this used all the time in political campaigns, where candidates will offer one or two anecdotes of a person who is in a tough spot and then argue that certain policies need to be adopted "to help her out of this difficult time." It's a tug on the heartstrings instead of looking at the argument itself. Here are some more examples:

• "If abortion is not legalized, then only the rich will be able to get abortions."
• "Accepting Christianity would mean that there are more people in Hell than in Heaven. That's a monstrous belief."

To see all the posts in this series, click here.

Photo courtesy edgeplot and licensed by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

Tips for Sharing Your Faith #4 - Avoid Smokescreens and Dodges

There's an old saying that goes "Do not discuss politics or religion in general company."1 Within any conversation where the participants are passionate about their views, it is likely that emotions can get in the way. The talk gets heated and it degenerates to more seeking to wound the other person or simply trying to protect oneself. This next tip is so important, because it seeks to help you argue well. We will use a single topic to see how each dodge can play out, but this is just for example. Hopefully, you can recognize these and apply them to other discussions as well.

Let's say we are discussing why God is necessary for objective moral values and duties. I've argued here that objective morality requires God to ground its precepts. Perhaps I tweet this article and get several responses. Let's walk through our scenario and see how to deal with each.

1. Be aware of smokescreens

Many times if you raise a point that the other person cannot or doesn't want to answer, they will throw out a smokescreen. Smokescreens are questions or objections that are meant to a) take the pressure off them by bringing up some new subject or problem not related to the issue at hand or b) questions where the questioner isn't really interested in hearing the answer. So, for example, a person responded to my article by writing "Morals can't be grounded in an imaginary being... not grounded in Jesus any more than grounded in Santa." This response is clearly not dealing with the problem of morals being objective versus subjective. It's simply meant to inflame.
Therefore, Someone who wants to shout at you, ask questions but refuses to answer ones you present, or simply barrages you with a barrelful of issues is trying to create a smokescreen. Here's the takeaway:

• If people are honestly seeking an answer, they will be open to discussion; otherwise it's not worth your time.
• Ask, "What evidence would you accept in order to change your views?"

2. Keep the focus on the issue at hand

The tactic of trying to get out of trouble by introducing a new subject is known as a "offering a red herring," an idea coined by William Cobbett, who wrote a story about a boy who drags the smelly fish away from a hare's trail in order to send the tracking dogs in the wrong direction2. In my post above, I used confederate money as an analogy to show why morality must be anchored in something bigger than just whatever people want to believe. I had another respondent who began to argue about the value of gold and the economics of the1860s versus today. These had nothing to do with my point, but were distractions. Similarly, you may get "well, if God is moral then why did He let all those people die in the (choose disaster of choice)?" But God's actions are a separate question from how we get meaningful morality. They are red herrings meant to lead you away from your point. Here's the key:

• Stay on one topic
• Make sure both parties are responding in a way that moves the conversation forward

3. Note who has the burden of proof

Another dodge that can come up is when a person makes a charge and when you respond to that charge, he challenges you to prove your own position. For example, sometimes atheists simply dismiss my argument and state God is not necessary for morality to be real. At that point they've made an assertion, so it is incumbent upon them to back it up. I would ask something like, "How is it that moral laws are binding upon all of humanity and not merely a preference?" If the person replies with, "Well, atheists are more moral that other people" he's offered a red herring. This is why tip #2 is so important. The more questions you ask the less work you have to do. The objector should be able to provide reasons for his objection. The takeaway is:

• One who asserts belief should have reasons for why they hold that view
• You don't need to prove or justify anything, simply ask them the questions

4. Watch for power moves

One time I was walking down a street and noticed a man on a bench who was shouting about the Iran war to the crowd. He spoke in brave tones and seemed very confident. But some of the things he said were very simplistic. I asked him how Just War theory fits in with his position. He actually got off the bench, took me aside and said in a normal voice, "Yes, I know about Just War Theory. I'm a professor as the local college." I asked, "Well, we should talk about it since it isn't quite what you're shouting." He replied, "Well, I have to use rhetoric in order to get the attention of people walking by." I found such as statement educational. The man was intentionally misrepresenting a position to draw attention to himself, but the people wouldn't know because he'd never shout the nuances of the debate.

This is why students must be careful when arguing with their professors during class. It's important to try and be heard, but it's also important to realize that the dynamics are such where the prof may do whatever it takes to save face. The takeaway is:

• Don't get "shouted down" – assert yourself as having a right to be heard!
• The man with the microphone always wins

5. Don't let emotions ruin the conversation

Of all the tips I've presented, this one is probably the most important, since Christians are just as guilty of it as those they interact with. If your discussion with another person starts to turn where you can feel the blood rising in your face, it is probably time to take a break. As I said at the beginning, passionate beliefs can turn into more heated arguments. But this is exactly the wrong way to share your faith! Be firm in what you believe and don't let people abuse you, but you should never alienate the person because your emotions got the better of you. Take a break, ask to come back at a later time and finish the conversation. It's better to part ways and have the opportunity to be heard another time than it is to offend someone to the point where they will reject your message because they associate it with a vindictive messenger.

To see all the posts in this series, click here.

References

1. Hill, Thomas E. Hill's Manual of Social and Business Forms a Guide to Correct Writing. Chicago: Hill Standard Book, 1886. Print. 151. Available via Google Books here.
2. "Catching a Red Herring." Chicago Tribune. The Chicago Tribune, 02 Feb. 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2014. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-02/features/ct-tribu-words-work-herring-20110202_1_political-red-herring-red-herrings-origin.