Plausible Arguments

This past Sunday (and this coming Sunday, Lord willing) I had the opportunity to fill the pulpit at Riverview.  My text was Colossians 2.1-8, in which Paul warns the Colossians against believing the various false teachings that were circulating in their religious culture.  Paul tells the Colossians that he is struggling for the sake of their doctrinal and practical purity as a church, and he says that he's struggling so that "no one may delude you with plausible arguments" (verse 4).

In the Colossian religious culture there were various false teachers who, more or less, subscribed to traditional Christian ideas and theology.  They just added minor differences or made a twist here and there to add some different teaching that added a little spin to what the Colossians already believed.  The problem is that just a little twist to the doctrine of salvation can lead to heresy quite quickly, and it appears that this is something like what was happening in Colossae: minor twists to core doctrines that were leading the Colossians astray.

The difficult thing about "plausible arguments" is that they are often couched in very reasonable and rational terms.  Or they might be delivered in ways that appeal to emotions so as to persuade the hearer because his or her heart strings are being tugged at.  Furthermore, it's possible that people were arguing very sincerely for their particular slant on orthodox theology, and it's always difficult to argue against someone who sincerely believes what they believe.

But none of the aforementioned ways of arguing for a particular point are objective means of determining truth.  Arguments can seem logical, but be completely fallacious; appealing to emotion is also fallacious.  Just because something tugs on my heart strings doesn't make it true.  Nor does sincerity determine truth.  Someone can sincerely believe what they believe and still be very wrong (such as sincerely believing that 2 + 2 =5).

We can probably appreciate Paul's warning against being deluded by "plausible arguments" after having watched the three presidential and one vice presidential debates.  Each man has an agenda that he spins with every word that comes out of his mouth.  There are plenty of half-truths and distorted facts that serve to support each candidate's position.  Candidates also try to persuade voters by tugging at their heart strings and by conveying to voters the fact that they sincerely believe the thoughts and ideas that they are espousing.  In order to balance out the half-truths espoused by the candidates, the media has seen fit to take upon themselves the position of "fact-checker," although I question even the fact-checkers' ability to determine truth.  They are likewise arguing from an interpretation of the "facts."

Probably the most prominent issue in which I have personally heard people attempting to delude others with "plausible arguments" is in the debate surrounding the gay marriage amendment.  But before I explain further, let me say that I don't believe that people intend to delude, or to espouse "plausible arguments" when they present their case, whatever it may be.  That is, I believe that people actually think what they say, and they truly believe their arguments are based on truth and fact.  I don't think people realize the ways in which they are persuaded by emotion and fallacious logic.  I've covered this before on this blog.  To be sure, this is a problem that everyone has - we all have reasons for believing and thinking the way we do, and some of those we have arrived at objectively, and some are more inherent and based on the ways we have been raised, and our particular worldview.  The challenge, then, is to be able to realize these influences to make our thinking as objective as possible.

When it comes to homosexuality and the same-sex marriage discussion, it is my opinion that both sides appeal to emotion when making their points, and that appeals to emotion are the foundation of why people think the ways they do on this issue.  This is not a good place to argue from for either side.

Case in point: a Facebook friend of mine from high school posted the below this past Sunday (I've removed all names and photos).

As you can see, the post generated quite a stir, producing a total of 39 "likes" and 120 comments as of 10:00 AM this morning.

This is an argument based on emotion, even though the Poster claims that it is not his opinion, but is instead a "fact."  The person who wrote this is appealing to emotion by labeling all those who would support the marriage amendment as being discriminatory.  Whether or not this is true is, at this time, irrelevant.  The fact is, the foundation for his argument an attempt to shame people into believing what he believers.  He doesn't realize it but he is, to put it in biblical language, attempting to delude others with his plausible argument.  Furthermore he even admits that this is an issue that he feels strongly about, furthering his motivation to propagate his ideas.  In order for this to be a legitimate argument, he needs to show how voting against same sex marriage is indeed discrimination, and that said discrimination is an inherently bad thing, of which he accomplishes neither - not in the post itself nor in the 120 comments that follow (trust me, I read through all of them).  My purpose in examining this post is not to either agree or disagree with the sentiment expressed therein, but to show how this is not a good way to argue a position or promote an intellectually honest pursuit of truth.

So then what should Christians do?  Paul's focus in Colossians 2 is on finding truth in Christ, and not in man-made arguments that always come from some personal agenda or set of influences (including my own).  The only objective means of discovering truth is the word of God, and this is where Christians should look to find truth.  In other words, "What does the Bible say?"

Certainly my Facebook friend and several in the comment thread would fire back that my interpretation of the Bible is likewise influenced by my own agenda and influences, to which I would answer, "Absolutely, yes."  To deny this reality would be intellectually dishonest, and would be to turn a blind eye on my own propensity to argue from emotion, to use fallacious logic, and to hold on to wrong beliefs because of my sincerity in believing them.  I fully admit that I am not an objective standard of truth.

But the word of God claims to be an objective standard of truth, and it either is or it isn't.  And even if my interpretation of it is flawed and influenced by my own sinfulness, at least I have something objective to fall back on.  This means, however, that we need to be aware of our tendency to delude others with plausible arguments even when we argue from the Bible.

I think one of Paul's main messages in this text from Colossians 2 is this: don't be confused or persuaded by emotion or fallacious logic, or just because someone believes something sincerely.  Instead, as yourself this question: What does the Bible say?  If we are looking for truth, and especially in light of our own propensity to twist facts to suit our own preferences, at least we are starting in the right place when we go to scripture.  And the more we realize and know about our own tendency to twist things to fit our own agenda, the more we can fight that tendency in ourselves as we search for truth.

Olympic Debauchery

I really enjoy the olympics.  I could watch it all day, even if a lot of the events I like aren't televised, and even if it's the monotony of gymnastics.  It's still fun when it's the Olympics.  Plus, now in the age of the internet you can see almost all of the events online if you so desire.  I love competition; I love sport; I love seeing our athletes represent our country on the world stage.

That being said, my love for the Olympics died a bit today.

One of my Facebook friends posted this article on his page this evening, explaining how the Olympic Village quarters in London will be stocked with an ample supply of condoms.  The article goes on to talk about how the two plus weeks the athletes stay in the village are usually packed with raucous parties and casual sex, even casual sex out in the open, according to Hope Solo.  Great.  That's great.  Now when I watch the olympics this year, I'll be thinking about who our athletes have shacked up with the past night before they stick that landing, run that race, or swim, or whatever.  Not what I need to be thinking about.

And this information is in addition to the rash of recent pictures I've seen of virtually ever American Olympic team from this year posing nude in some goofy picture of them covering their goods with their hands, arms, or appropriate sporting equipment (I won't link to those pictures, for obvious reasons).  Why?  Why do Olympic athletes need to pose nude?  And what kind of moral compass do these athletes have that tells them posing nude is a good (let alone necessary) thing to do?  Why?  WHY?  What does this add to the sport?  To the competition?  To my experience as a spectator?  Not to mention the fact that I'd like to watch the games with my kids.  Thankfully they're too young to read articles on the internet and peruse sports news sites where they might see a nude picture of our once-proud American athletes.  But some day they won't be too young.

I was really bummed when I read that article about the athletes' propensity for casual sex during the game, and have been increasingly disappointed with every nude picture that has been released of our athletes.  But maybe I shouldn't be bummed.  After all, the pagans are acting like pagans, as Todd Friel says.  Why are we surprised?  Isn't this exactly what Romans 1 tells us is going to happen?  Yes, it definitely is, but I guess I'm bummed that it's so much in the public eye.  Part of me wishes that if these people were are going to be so debauched to sleep around every chance they get and pose nude for whoever'd like to see their naked bodies, that they'd at least have the decency to do it behind closed doors and not expose it to the news media so that I can enjoy the purity of the Olympics, even if it's just a pipe-dream.  After all, ignorance is bliss, as they say.  But another part of me wonders if that's just catering to my own idealistic way I want the world to be, with complete disregard for the way things actually are.  If Olympic athletes are sleeping around but not exposing their actions to the public, it doesn't make it any less sinful and debauched.  But do we need to know about it?  I don't think so.  I mean, really: are we really that debased as human beings?  Are we really that uncontrollable that we have to have sex with anything/one that moves?  Really?  You people can't control yourselves for two weeks?

All things considered, I wouldn't be surprised if the tales of casual sex that are reported on in the media are actually the exception rather than the rule.  That is, for every debased athlete that wants to get busy, there are probably a dozen that are satisfied to simply compete and enjoy their time on the international stage.  It's a shame that the actions of some have brought a bit of a black cloud on the games.  I still plan to watch the games (at least as much as I am able), although I have to admit that my attitude toward them will be different this year.  And I'm struggling with this: is that right?  Am I right to be bugged by this, or is it just the way of the world, and I need to reform my overly idealistic view of the world's morality?

I'll have to ponder this.

One Step Closer

A while ago I posted about how PETA wants an animal-gender-inclusive translation of the Bible. They would prefer that animals mentioned in scripture be referred to as "he" or "she" rather than "it." They feel that animals aren't "its," and personal pronouns communicate their individuality and personhood, I guess.

I also said that Phil Johnson predicted (somewhat tongue in cheek) that such a translation of the Bible would, in fact, come down the pike at some point in time in the future. Today we are one step closer to such a translation, or at least the kind of thinking that would bring about such a translation has moved from being held just amongst the PETA folks. It's now moved to the academy, and specifically, to the theological academy.

Professor Andrew Linsey believes that calling animals "pets" is insulting to the animal, and that even referring to animals as "wildlife" is demeaning. Instead, pets should be known as "companion animals," and wild animals should be referred to as "free-living" animals. And those people who own animals shall henceforth be known as "human carers."

Ugh. Here it comes.

Read the whole article here. It's embarrassing. How does this guy have a job?

Jesus Wants You To Friend Him

Several months ago I "liked" The Bible on Facebook. For a long time "The Bible" never posted anything - it just sat dormant. You'd think that The Bible would post its verses on its Facebook wall, but apparently not. Then one day, The Bible started posting like mad. Several times a day The Bible posted, and each post showed up in my news feed. The strange thing was, though, that it was posting under the name Mark Brown, who is apparently the page's creator. And Mark didn't post Bible verses. Instead he posted a lot of self-help kind of stuff, and a lot of pretty loose theology. I don't know Mark Brown, but I think it's safe to say he's no theologian.

Today I "unliked" The Bible after I saw this post: "The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is, in a way, a lot like Facebook. Jesus has friend requested the entire world and He is awaiting your response. Will you 'friend' Him?" That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and it cheapens the relationship between God and man and removes from it elements of holiness and righteousness in ways I won't go into here.

Folks, Jesus has not friended the world. And he's not sitting at his divine computer, waiting for you to friend him.

Suggestions for Professors

I'm rounding out the third year of my seminary education. Tonight marked the beginning of my spring quarter classes. After my class tonight (and the last three years of seminary) I was motivated to come up with a list of suggestions for seminary professors as to how they should think and act regarding graduate level teaching. If you've been through some sort of higher education, you can probably identify with some of these. These suggestions come as a result of working with professors from both Sioux Falls Seminary and Bethel Seminary the last three years.

But before I get into the suggestions (which are mostly formed from negative experiences I've had in seminary) I have to say that I've had just as many outstanding professors as I have poor ones (see here and here). Unfortunately, however, it always seems the poor ones have the most influence. So kudos to you who teach fairly and honestly. Jeers to those of you who treat your position as trivial, and don't realize the monumental impact you have on the hearts and minds of the students you teach. So without further ado, here are my suggestions to seminary professors.

1. Don't ridicule someone (or a group of people) who doesn't hold your position. You probably don't realize it, but any student who finds themselves holding the position contrary to the one you espouse feels silently ridiculed by their association to those whom you find to be ignorant and uneducated. You can certainly think what you want, but to teach in such a way that undercuts the opposing viewpoint without providing a reasoned argument for your position is intellectually dishonest, arrogant, and logically fallacious. Point out strengths and weaknesses of the positions of those with whom you disagree, as well as your own position and let the student decide. And do so in a way that is respectful and edifying.

2. Don't act as though obvious things are significant revelations that only you have discovered. Most of the time, you do this in order to undercut those who disagree with you and to further your own agenda and ideas. It's not intellectually honest.

3. Don't cite yourself in your lectures. It sounds incredibly arrogant (because it is, most of the time) when you talk about how you've "explained all this in detail in my book." No one cares. Yeah, you're smart; yeah, you've written a book. Get over it. The rest of us have. Also, don't try to validate your position by citing yourself. It's fallacious.

4. Don't use your position as a professor simply to further your academic career. Teach because you want to teach. Don't teach so you can write a paper and get a promotion. Students pay good, hard-earned money to receive an education from you. Hold yourself accountable and do your job without always looking for the next step. This makes you a bad teacher, because you're more invested in your own interests than those of your students.

5. Do use class time wisely, and use all of it. When you break down the numbers, students pay an astronomical amount for each minute of class time. So make sure to use the available class time well. Don't let your classes out early. Don't slough off class time by assigning "small group time." I have a suspicion that you sometimes don't make the most of class time because you don't have enough material to fill the whole time. If this is the case, redesign the class, charge less, and hold yourself accountable. Again, students pay a lot for this time, so use it wisely.

6. Do value the level of your students' learning more than you value the idea of yourself holding a position within the academy. I have found that there are a lot of professors who love the idea of themselves as being a professor. Like number 4 above, this makes you a bad teacher, and for the same reasons.

7. Do realize that a lot of the students under your care will take everything you say as gospel truth. True, you are not responsible for students who do not discern the truth for themselves, but you are responsible for their intellectual growth at least to some extent. In their eyes, you are a very educated person who knows what he or she is talking about (and for the most part, you do). But many of the students in seminary are young and impressionable, and are more than willing to sacrifice what they've believed for the newest and trendiest academic opinion. Be careful.

8. Do realize that as trendy as your current position might be, someday it will be dated and out of fashion. Someday you will be the one that young seminary professors are taking shots and, and it will be your views and ideas that will be ridiculed and treated as uniformed and anti-intellectual. Be humble, because someday you're going to be the guy whose views everyone looks at and asks, "What was he thinking?"

Love Wins

I had heard a while ago that Rob Bell was coming out with a new book, and that a lot of leaders in the evangelical world were having somewhat of a bad reaction to the content of the book. There was some evidence here and there that pointed to Rob Bell adopting universalism and rejecting the idea of hell and eternal punishment. Instead it was beginning to seem that Bell was asserting that all people would be saved and receive the promise of eternal life. Blogs were written, and some of the same leaders who had previously expressed worry about what Bell's beliefs seemed to be morphing into began writing the man off and labeling him as a false teacher.

Meanwhile, fans of Rob Bell wrote on their own blogs in defense of the pastor, arguing for his universalistic tendencies (including some who attempted to downplay Bell's tendency toward universalism), and also to decry those who would question him. One blog I read (a "friend" on Facebook posted it, who is also a fan of Bell) rips John Piper and Justin Taylor for judging Bell before the book was even released (which is ironic, because to say that someone is judging someone else is a judgment against that person). This particular blogger doesn't even seem to have read Justin Taylor's blog that originally criticized Bell's upcoming work. Taylor never claims to be making absolute judgments, but that he is simply connecting the dots of what Bell has been saying/writing/teaching/preaching lately.

One of the main criticisms leveled against conservative evangelicals is that they perhaps appeared to be unfairly criticizing Bell and his book before the book was even released, although after looking into the criticisms leveled against Bell, I don't think this was the case. No one was claiming that Bell was a universalist, but just that certain things said, written, and video recorded and put on the internet seemed to suggest that Bell was trending that way.

Well, now that Bell's book has been released and reviewed, it would appear that all concerns that Bell was trending toward universalism (and even promoting universalism) have been confirmed. Here's Kevin DeYoung's review of the book (it's rather long, but it's worth the read, if for no other reason than to learn more about universalism and to be encouraged in sound doctrine).

I have one or two of Bell's previous books, and they both have a permanent position on the "Heresy Shelf" of my library. And this was before it was known that Bell was a full-fledged universalist. It would seem that my own and others' fears about Rob Bell were not unfounded. I used to chomp at the bit to read books like this, but nowadays I just don't have the stamina needed to get through them anymore. Most false teaching is just the same recycled garbage that has been around for centuries.

I think the proper response to this guy and his teachings should be one of two things: 1) we should pray that he would repent, be restored to the truth, and cling to sound doctrine, and failing that, 2) we should pray that God silence him and/or show his teaching to be unsound and unorthodox. Rob Bell is one of the most prominent Christians in the country right now. Tens of thousands of people cling to what he teaches. Some have even said that he is the "next Billy Graham." May it never be so.

Ready to be Done

OK, I've been in seminary for three years now, and I'm ready to be done. Today marked my first full day of classes for the winter quarter at Bethel Seminary. For this term, I'm continuing on in my Greek studies (with the same professor I had last quarter), I started an advanced placement hermeneutics class (advanced placement because I've already done graduate level hermeneutics, but Bethel won't acknowledge my credits from Sioux Falls seminary as being satisfactory in this area), and an Old Testament History course (which I've also already done at Sioux Falls, but the same thing applies in this area as well - not full credit). It's been a long, challenging road, and I think I'm beginning to see the pinhole that is the light at the end of my seminary tunnel. It can't come quick enough.

There have been many reasons why seminary has been challenging. The biggest one has been the effect it's had on my family. Going to school requires a lot of time away from family spent studying and going to classes. When I was going to school at Sioux Falls this was less of an issue because I was taking classes online. Now that I'm at Bethel, I'm gone for 3 hours one night of the week, and all day on another day of the week (which happens to be my day off from work!). Then pretty much every night after the kids go to bed I'm either doing school work or catching up on my regular work until I go to bed. It's a grueling schedule. Throw into the mix trying to maintain a marriage, and it gets even more difficult.

The reason for having to transfer from Sioux Falls to Bethel was because the Association of Theological Schools (the organization that accredits schools like Sioux Falls and Bethel) requires students to take a certain number of credits in an on-campus setting, all for the sake of establishing community. I think this is a bogus reason, though, and it should be re-examined by the ATS. For someone in my situation (working full time in ministry, married with kids, etc.) I've got all the community I need. I'm connected with the people at my church; I'm connected with my family and close friends. I don't need yet another network of people to interact with and get to know. That sounds rude, but consider this: in forcing me to take classes on-campus for the sake of the "community of learning" that exists there, I am forced to sacrifice the community relationships I already have (family, church, etc.). So in insisting on their community, these restrictions do damage to the existing communities I'm already a part of. Kind of ironic.

Another reason I'm ready to be done with seminary is that I am beginning to become disenfranchised with the academic establishment. Higher education should be a free marketplace of ideas, where all views and ideas are given equal consideration. And in my experience at Sioux Falls and Bethel, both schools have confessed an ideology such as this one. The reality has been significantly different, however. I have found that most professors are more interested in a closed marketplace of ideas that consists of the his or her ideas and not much else. But still, these same professors claim to be open to anything. It's rather dishonest. In many cases, the actual classroom environment that exists is one of condemning the traditional (and often times conservative) view and belittling those who adhere to it.

This was the case in my advanced placement hermeneutics course I just started yesterday. I couldn't have felt any lower, sitting in that class. I was basically told that everything I think is wrong, and that I don't care about hermeneutics or good methods of interpretation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have good reason to believe the things that I believe, and I think I can provide an adequate case for the validity of my beliefs. And if one of my views is challenged and found wanting, I'm willing to change it or adopt a different view. But the professor presented my views in such an uneven-handed way, and he made people who subscribe to those views look so ignorant, that I just kept my mouth shut (for the most part - I did comment at a few junctures). The difficult thing for students who find themselves with a different view than the professor's is that the professor has had years and years to study and perfect his view, while the student has probably only thought about the matters superficially at the least, or maybe done a small amount of study on the matter at the most. This makes for a pretty unfair intellectual fight. So the student usually submits to the professor's superior knowledge on the subject, and thus the closed marketplace of ideas takes over.

In the case of my hermeneutics class, after the class was over, I left the room and walked straight to the registrar's office and dropped the class. I can't take it. It's not that I can't take the opposing viewpoints or arguments, or that I can't handle the academic demands of the course, but rather that I can't stomach the idea of sitting in that kind of environment for the next 10 weeks.

I'm also sick of a lot of professors whose theology and/or ecclesiology turns into liberal social commentary, and then insisting that such theology/sociology is the norm of Christians and/or scripture, and then basing grades on the students' conformity to those beliefs. While I was at Sioux Falls, I respectfully refused to complete an assignment because I couldn't do it in good conscience. The assignment had to do with conforming the student's ministry to that of Shane Claiborn, which I could not do in good conscience. Thankfully the professor acknowledged my objection and let me complete the assignment using different material. But the problem remains: don't base my grades on your own political ideologies.

Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with spirited debate or disagreement. In fact, some times its necessary. But those exchanges need to be done respectfully and with open minds - on both sides of the argument. The students and professors need to approach disagreements in the same way.

I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the very positive parts of my seminary experience too. Along with all the bad professors and bad experiences I've had, I've also had a lot of good ones. My current Greek prof is maybe the best professor I've had in seminary so far. He's a great guy, he loves what he's teaching, and he loves what he's doing. It's a real pleasure to be learning from him. My systematic theology prof at Sioux Falls was also a great guy. He and I had a number of significant theological disagreements, but we were able to treat each other with respect and friendship. I talked to him on the phone before I left Sioux Falls (he was also my faculty advisor) and he told me that our relationship had "ministered" to him. That's what the educational experience in a Christian institution should be like: our disagreements with and challenges to one another should result in edification. Some profs get this, and some don't. Actually, most don't (at least in my experience).

Vladimir Kharlamov was also a great teacher. He gave you nothing but straight up lectures, but he was good. And he was open. The most fascinating lecture I've ever heard (about the Counter Reformation) was in his class. My New Testament prof at Sioux Falls was also a great encouragement to me.

I think the key to a successful and enjoyable seminary experience is humility, and humility all around. Professors need to humble themselves; they don't know everything. And just because they're really smart doesn't mean they're always right. Students need to humble themselves. They will encounter new ideas that seem strange and wrong, but intellectual honesty requires a sincere examination of opposing points of view.

The theme of the rest of my seminary experience is going to be Philippians 4.13. I'm not in literal chains, but sometimes it feels like it.

Should I Be Mad About This?

Each winter since my wife and I moved into our current location, I have always been frustrated with the city snow plows. We live on one of the "main" streets in our city, and it gets a lot of traffic, which usually means it's first on the list for having the snow plowed which is usually nice - our street is almost always clear. And like a good citizen, I always make sure my sidewalks are shoveled/snow-blown within a day of a snowfall.

Here's the problem: the sidewalk in front of my house is separated from the street by the usual 3-4 foot wide boulevard section of grass. I'm not sure if the snow plows are either going so fast, or not watching what they're doing, or whatever, but whenever a snow plow plows our street, it throws all the snow from the street onto our sidewalk. And most of the time, it's AFTER I've already been out to shovel/snow-blow. So then I have to go out and shovel/snow-blow one more time.

Why not just wait to shovel/snow-blow until after the plows have gone by, you ask? Because "street snow" is much different than "sidewalk snow." It's usually wetter and heavier (which stinks for shoveling), or it's icy and chunky (which my snowblower can't handle). I find it hard to believe that the ONLY way the snow plows can do their job is to throw street snow onto my sidewalk.

I've told my wife that if I was ever outside while a snow plow was doing this, I was going to flag him down and explain my predicament to him. That day came today. A plow was going by my house and I flagged him down. Somewhat to my surprise, he stopped and rolled down his window. I asked him if he and his compatriots could slow down while plowing so I don't have to re-shovel/blow my sidewalk every time they plow. His response was that the snow was so light that he couldn't control where it went, and that it didn't matter if he was going fast or not. I replied by saying something like, "OK. It just sucks that I always have to shovel my sidewalk twice." He tried to encourage me by saying that he was going to have to plow twice, too. Ok, but that's not the point.

Here's the point: the city of South Saint Paul requires that I clear my sidewalk of snow within 12 hours of a snow fall, or face a fine. If I comply with those standards, doesn't it seem a tad bit stinky of them to throw more snow back onto my sidewalk, forcing me to comply with them again? Would I be fined if I complied with the snow that fell on my sidewalk, but failed to clear the snow that the plows threw on my sidewalk? Most definitely. But the city is the one that put the snow there!

I have no problem with complying with the city's regulations. It just seems that sometimes the city is working against me.