How to Get into Spiritual Conversations - Part 1

I think I have an easier time than most for engaging others in spiritual conversations. It isn't because I'm any more eloquent or anything. It's simply my job description. Take last week, when my I accompanied my wife to the dentist. The hygienist asked me what type of work I did, since I was able to work from home. I told her I was an apologist and she responded the way most people do; she asked "What's that?" I told her that apologetics is the discipline of providing reasons for one's beliefs using logic and evidence like a defense lawyer would offer. She told me she was agnostic and we began talking about presuppositions and beliefs.

Many Christians would love to get into spiritual conversations like the one above but really don't know how to go about it. So I thought I would provide some suggestions on ways I engage others. Lee Strobel tells an amusing anecdote of hearing a girl ask "What's a deist?" when walking into a restaurant. He says he immediately stops and spent the next 15-20 minutes deconstructing deism for her. It wasn't until afterwards that his friend corrected him. "Lee, she didn't ask ‘What's a deist?' She said ‘Buenos días!'"

One of the ways I get into conversations is to listen for ways I can jump into topics people are already interested in. While it may be difficult to stumble onto someone who is already discussing religious beliefs, it shouldn't be terribly hard to strike up a conversation about the events of the day.  For example, one hot topic that's being talked about almost incessantly right now is the Donald Sterling issue. Sterling has made some disparaging and racist comments and it has caused a whirlwind, especially since the billionaire makes money by owning the Los Angeles Lakers. So, immediately you can talk about whether Sterling is being consistent in his beliefs, how sin can affect everyone, and how money or success is not an indicator of whether a person is worthy to be emulated.

The fact that this Monday is Memorial Day, where we honor those who gave their lives for our freedom, is another opportunity to talk about sacrifice, honor, what values are held higher than life itself. We believe that it is honorable to give one's life for a true ideal. Why is this so? Do you think that "one laying down his life for his friends" is an act that has eternal implications? What about the fact that the unalienable rights that those men and women fought to protect were "endowed by our Creator" according to the Declaration of Independence? If God doesn't exist and every man is out for himself, does that make a difference as to whether we should expect others to fight for our freedoms?

 2 Timothy 4:2 instructs us to "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching." Therefore, when wanting to have spiritual conversations, one should prepare and know what's going on in the world. Subscribe to a good newspaper, and look it over daily. A news source that covers a wide range of issues and holds bylines from real people is important, even if you don't agree with some of the opinions presented there. Find two or three blogs that discuss some of the key topics of the day. Make sure they can accurately represent both sides of an issue. Also, keep your eye on topics explored on popular movies, books, or television shows. These can help provide more sources where you can launch into a discussion.

Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter

I've made the point many times that we as Christians are called to defend our faith. The Bible commands it of us, and we face an increasingly hostile world. Apologetics is how one learns to defend his or her faith through the use of reason and evidence. I believe apologetics can be tremendously helpful in clarifying people's understanding t the Christian faith. However, sometimes we may rely too heavily on facts when engaging with others.

A fascinating new article appears in The New Yorker this week entitled "I Don't Want to Be Right." 1 In it, author Maria Konnikova highlights the research being done by a number of psychologists and sociologists showing that people's beliefs help shape the core conception of themselves, and thus if one tries to correct the false beliefs of someone, it may not only fail, but have the adverse effect of corrupting the source in their eyes.

As an example, Konnikova cites one 2013 study conducted by Kelly Garrett and Brian Weeks who sought to correct misinformation about access to health records. At first, they thought that the facts were making a difference, as some people changed their beliefs. "But, when the researchers took a closer look, they found that the only people who had changed their views were those who were ideologically predisposed to disbelieve the fact in question. If someone held a contrary attitude, the correction not only didn't work—it made the subject more distrustful of the source."2

Before some of my atheist readers jump too fast, the article was very clear that it mattered not which side of any contention one was on. This applies as much to liberal views as conservative one and it applies to secular and scientific views as much as religious ones. As Stephan Lewandowsky states in the article, "False beliefs, it turns out, have little to do with one's stated political affiliations and far more to do with self-identity: What kind of person am I, and what kind of person do I want to be? All ideologies are similarly affected"(emphasis added).3

Facts are Threatening Things

I had a similar experience a couple of years ago when I was working an online chat, answering web viewers' questions for the Harvest Crusades. A man came on the line and said that he really wanted to believe in Jesus in his heart but he felt that he couldn't because of his head. After a bit of conversation, it came out that he was a professor of philosophy, and he had difficulty with the problem of evil. Of course, I immediately went into apologetics mode and began telling how arguments such as Hume's have been shown to be incorrect.

This was all well and fine, but I noticed something strange. The more we talked about philosophy, the more resistant and hardened he became. Gone was the open, vulnerability in admitting that he would like to believe in Jesus. I realized that subconsciously that talking philosophy with this philosopher wasn't helping. Instead of weighing the arguments, he fell back onto his rhetoric. He had spent maybe 20 years studying and building a career in philosophy and for him to admit that he was wrong on such a fundamental point was more than we was willing to sacrifice, at least to someone over an Internet chat. He wasn't defending an abstract idea; his philosophy was how he viewed himself.

We must be open to the Spirit

After seeing his resistance, the Spirit took me in another direction. I retreated from my arguments and readdressed his felt need. I acknowledged his position but then asked him to reaffirm his felt need to believe. "You believe that these problems are real and I can see that. However, you asked to speak with me because you said you really want to believe. Can you tell me more about that?" That jump allowed him to again express his feelings and his vulnerability, and while he wasn't ready to convert just then, it gave us a much more honest conversation.

In Luke 18, Jesus was asked by the rich young ruler "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus pointed him to the commandments laid out in scripture, laws he already knew and kept. At that point Jesus switched from the facts of the matter to the heart of the matter. "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me" (Luk e18:22). But the man's self-identity was wrapped up in his possessions as much as the philosopher's was wrapped up in his education. That's what these studies are saying. Of course, the disciples were stymied by the man's resistance, asking "Then who can be saved?" Jesus reply places the emphasis back where it belongs: "What is impossible with man is possible with God."

As those who would defend the Christian faith, we must be sensitive to both the leading of God's Spirit and the reactions we get when talking with others. Because logic and evidence play such a big part of apologetics, the apologist naturally goes there, but logic and evidence are not enough. You must care for and be sensitive to the person with whom you're speaking. Remember, it is the people who matter. Arguments are only one tool to aid them in seeing the truth.

References

1. Konnikova, Marina. "I Don't Want To Be Right: Why Do People Persist in Believing Things That Just Aren't True" The New Yorker Magazine. May 19, 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/mariakonnikova/2014/05/why-do-people-persist-in-believing-things-that-just-arent-true.html Accessed 5/22/2014
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

Book Review: Grand Central Question

I recently was asked to review the new book Grand Central Question: Answering the Critical Concerns of the Major Worldviews written by Abdu Murray and published by InterVarsity Press. Unlike some other works that help instruct Christians to the task of defending the faith, Grand Central Question doesn't focus so much on objections and answers. Instead, Murray begins using a much broader perspective; he compares the worldviews of secular humanism, eastern religions and concepts of pantheism, and Islam against the Christian worldview. As our culture travels further and further from its Judeo-Christian roots, Murray's book is timely and important in providing the reader with key points of engagement.

Murray lays out his goal in Grand Central Question early. Following Ravi Zacharias, he defines a worldview as an overarching belief system that must cogently answer the four questions of 1) Why do we exist, 2) Is there a purpose to human life, 3) What accounts for the human condition, and 4) Is there something better than what we now experience. These four questions make up Murray's rubric to weigh the three primary worldviews above and see how they compare to the Christian position.

He does a fine job of confronting secular humanism, providing many quotes and comments from leading proponents such as Dawkins, Singer, Hawking and others. He also pulls from the different Humanist Manifesto statements, which serve as the closest thing to humanism's scripture since Darwin's Origin of Species. Next, Murray turns his gaze eastward. While he talks about Eastern views such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and other pantheistic faiths, his primary focus is on the Western understanding of these belief systems, and thus he covers New Age spirituality and even Scientology in his critique. The last area, and the one most well-developed, is the section on Islam. This is natural as Murray is a former Muslim himself and he holds key insights into both the Muslim and Christian understanding of reality.

Murray's background is that of a lawyer, and it shows through in his exploration of idea as well as seeking out the motives of holding those ideas. The real power of the book, though, is not in the detached arguments for or against a position, but in Murray's emphasis on the human cost in holding to or changing one's belief. Even in the first chapter, he tells of visiting a Muslim man who may be dying, but while Christianity appealed to him, he was deeply concerned with losing his children and their respect. This is truly where apologetics meets evangelism. Sometimes, one can get caught up in all the arguments and counter-arguments and forget that there are real, flesh and blood human beings who will really suffer if they were to leave their current religion to follow Christ. Murray continues to remind us that even in the 21st century counting all things as loss for the sake of Christ can be very difficult, as the loss may be extreme.

The book is an easy read and not too long, weighing in at 244 pages plus notes. Murray's anecdotes and examples prove to be good illustrations of conversational apologetics in practice, giving his readers a more clear view of the different aspects sharing ones' faith make take. Murray provides comparison tables to counter some of the Muslim claims of biblical corruption or that Jesus taught something different than Paul. He also takes the last two chapters to make the concept of the trinity and the idea of Christ's incarnation accessible, especially to a Muslim mind.

In all, I think Grand Central Question is an important work. There is no debate that we live in a post-Christian society. That means our apologetics cannot begin with the Bible, but must begin further back at the level of primary assumptions on how the world works. Abdu Murray has done a great job of helping the reader lay that foundation in conversational contexts. I find it a fine addition to the thoughtful Christian's library.

Is the Trinity a Contradiction?

In my recent series on the essential beliefs of Christianity, I received a comment from a reader who claimed that I hadn't offered a cogent argument for the Trinity. This isn't the first time I've heard the claim that the Trinity is a contradictory concept. The doctrine of the Trinity has been challenged by everyone from Jehovah's Witnesses to Muslims as contradictory.

What is a Contradiction?

A contradiction occurs when someone asserts a claim resulting in the conclusion that A does not equal A at the same time and in the same way. To briefly understand what I mean, take this well-worn example of a syllogism:

      1. All men are mortal

      2. Socrates is a man

These two premises are not really controversial. But we can know something else about Socrates by looking at them:

      Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

This conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. There is no escaping it. Socrates is part of the set "all men" and if everyone in the set of all men are mortal, Socrates must be mortal, too.

But what if I make an additional claim about Socrates, such as:

      3. Socrates is immortal

If I assert premises #1, #2, and #3, I would have a contradiction. Socrates cannot be both mortal (from #1 and #2) and immortal (from #3) at the same time and in the same manner. Premise #3 could of course not be talking about the physical body of Socrates but referring to his work. In such a case, statement #3 holds no bearing on the other two statements, since they are completely different concepts. But if statement #3 means immortal in the same sense that statement #1 does, then Socrates cannot be a man and immortal because it would mean that Socrates is mortal and while he is at the same time the opposite of mortal. Both cannot possibly be true.

The Argument Against Contradiction

Since we know now what it takes to call an idea contradictory, we can use this understanding to see if the Trinity fits the definition of a contradiction.

      1. If the doctrine of the Trinity defines God as being both one and more than one at the same time and in the same manner then it is contradictory and therefore false.

Next, we declare that God is monotheistic. This is a staple of Christian belief:

      2. There is one God.

But Christianity teaches of a plurality within God. Supported by scripture, it makes the claim that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can express themselves differently. The Son may pray to the Father or submit to His will. The Father may send the Spirit, and so on. But they are each called God. So, we get another premise:

      3. The person of the Father is God, the person of the Son is God, and ;the person of Holy Spirit is God.

      4. Therefore, God is one being comprised of the persons of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit (from 2,3).

If we are to now claim that the Father is a being, the Son is a being, and the Holy Spirit is a being, we would have a contradiction. You would have God is three beings and God is one being. Certainly both cannot be true. However, that is not the Christian doctrine. The Christian doctrine is that God is one being comprised of three persons. In my last post I showed how personhood is separate from being. We can create a sub argument here from the facts of that post:

               5a. Personhood is not the same as being if the number of persons of an entity differs from the number of beings present in itself.

               5b. A plant is an entity whose number of persons (zero) differs from the number of beings (one) present in itself.

               5c. Therefore, personhood is not the same as being.

So, because we've clarified the concept of personhood and being, we can add an additional proposition to our argument:  

      6. Therefore, God can be one being comprised of a different number of persons without contradiction (from 4,5c).

      7. Therefore the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradictory ( from 1,6)

By arguing thusly, one can see that the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradictory. One must add additional premises to the argument, and those premises must properly reflect Christian doctrine.

A Christian Must Believe in the Trinity

In this recent series, I've been working through some of the essential beliefs that identify someone as a Christian. Previous posts have discussed Christianity as a monotheistic faith. We believe there is only one God who has ever existed throughout all of reality. But monotheism isn't exclusive to Christianity. Most people will recognize that Judaism and Islam are also monotheistic.  Christians hold to a very unique type of monotheism. We've also talked about how Christianity holds to the divinity of Jesus, but that Jesus is not the same being as God the Father. In order to be considered a Christian, one must believe that Jesus is God the Son.

At first glance, it seems that the two statements are contradictory. There is only one God, yet there is God the Father and God the Son and one is not the other. To explain exactly how this works, though, has tongue-tied many people throughout the centuries. Add to this another complication as Christians also believe the Holy Spirit is God, and yet He is distinct from the Father and from the Son. How can such a seemingly illogical position be true? The answer lies in the concept of the Trinity,

The Trinity – What is it?

To describe the Christian belief of the Trinity is actually quite simple, but it takes a bit of careful thinking to make sure the concept is properly understood. To say God is a Trinity is to say that God is one being comprised of three persons. The term "Trinity" was first used for the three persons comprising God by the early Church father Tertullian around AD 200.1 Tertullian saw a distinction between what it means to be a person and what it means to be a being. Our difficulty today is primarily because most people think the terms are synonymous. We see a person and we say that the person is a human being. One person = one being.

However, it isn't always the case that the attributes of a being are the same as the attributes of a person. To prove my case, let's proceed downward rather than upward. When Tertullian talks about a being, he means that there is one substance that makes up the entity of God. When we look at our own bodies, we see that every part that properly belongs to our body should be considered human. Every cell is a human cell. We are made up of human "stuff" if you will. Similarly, every part that makes up a plant is "plant stuff." A plant is also a being; it is a living thing that exists. But no one would claim that a plant is a person. That would be foolish!

So, we have two cases here. We recognize a plant as a being, but it has no personhood within it. It has a personhood count of zero, if you will. We also recognize a human as a being that has a personhood count of one. This means that personhood is different from being, as a being can exist without personhood. It then follows that it isn't contradictory to say that God is a being with a personhood count of three. It may be the case that we see no parallel here on earth, it may be the case that there is no other being in all of reality that can claim multiple personhood. However, it is clear that the claim of one being in three persons is not a contradiction, any more than claiming a plant is a being with no personhood should be considered such.

The Trinity – Its Necessity

The Bible clearly recognizes God the Father as God. That claim is usually not disputed. However, as I mentioned last time, it also recognizes Jesus as God and it identifies the Holy Spirit as God, too (Matt. 28:19, Acts 5:3,5, Isa 63:10, 1 Cor. 2:10-11). These three persons are each recognized as fully God and yet God is one. If one denies the triune nature of God, then one is forced into denying some portion of scripture.

Beyond the reconciliation of Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity holds additional advantages. I've argued this before, but it is through the relationship within the Trinity that God can be considered completely without need. Only a being like the Trinity can be all-loving, and only within a trinity can God express His own humility.

Of course, no one can say exactly how all the aspects of the three-in-one work. That shouldn't be a surprise, though. Scientists today have really good data on quantum models of matter, but you don't have to be able to explain all aspect of quantum mechanics to believe it's true. When talking about God, one is referring to a being that transcends humanity; therefore one should expect that there would be aspects to His nature beyond our comprehension. But that doesn't mean that we cannot apprehend the basic understanding of the Trinity. God is three persons who comprise one being and each is fully God.

References

1. Carl, Harold F. Ph.D. "Against Praxeas – How Far Did Tertullian Advance the Doctrine of the Trinity?" Global Journal of Classical Theology. (April 2009) Available online at http://www.phc.edu/UserFiles/File/_Other%20Projects/Global%20Journal/7-1/HaroldCarl.pdf