I was thinking about something yesterday, sent it to my sister, and thought it might make a good blog post. It's probably going to be long, but that's because I'm pompous, long-winded, and extremely tiresome.
Over the past several years, I've begun to realize how Christ's life has been so obvious overlooked in the evangelical church. I never learned about His life unless it was within the context of moralism and how I should try to live a good and godly life. His 40 days of temptation in the wilderness was a time to see an example of standing up against temptation, and His words to the Pharisees were to give us a true understanding of how God wants us to live.
In other words, Christ's death and resurrection were a gift; His life, however, was an example for us all to follow and imitate: Christ died for our sins, yes, but it's up to use to live the life of righteousness He typified for us.
Without using a bunch of big words/concepts, which I really tend to do, here's the problem: God deserves two things:
1. A life of perfect obedience. A single iota of disobedience merits an eternity of punishment. No amount of suffering will make our transgression go away. I need to be punished for my sin, and my inability to atone is reflected in the fact that such punishment is eternal.
2. A life of pure obedience. It's not enough to be obedient. In fact, obedience should be founded upon a life of perfect and abject love for God. Righteousness isn't earned by simply not doing what's wrong; it's earned by doing exactly what is right. In Mark 12, Jesus shows us what the crux of such righteousness is: it's 100% perfect love of the Lord in all things. Without this, we cannot be declared righteous, and thus cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.
So here's the question I was pondering while cleaning bathrooms the other morning (my wife is a slave-driver): what does it mean that Jesus fulfilled all righteousness?
That question, I think, is what's wrong with the evangelical church. They get the first thing God deserves very well (they are Christians, after all), but don't seem to understand the second at all.
We're sinners in the sight of an angry God, and He has every right (and to fulfill His justice, He is obligated) to condemn and punish our sin. Christ died so that this punishment would be meted out upon Himself, rather than upon His people (or the world, if you're evangelical or Lutheran). But the evangelical church seems to stop there, and the resulting message usually sounds something like this:
1. Christ died so you might have eternal life.
2. Once you are saved, you are now enabled by the Holy Spirit to do righteous works.
3. Righteous works are evidence of your faith.
4. Therefore, the more righteous works you show, the better you can take comfort in your faith.
5. Moreover, the Bible commands us to be righteous, and therefore, if we are to be godly Christians, our efforts should be constantly straining toward this goal. If we fall, we didn't try hard enough, or have enough faith to inspire us.
Unfortunately, this isn't the entire story. It's half of the story, and when we miss the other half, I think we will either be driven to cynically give up (which was my response) or to despair (which I've seen in many others).
Reconciling us to God isn't just dealing with our punishment, though I certainly don't want to minimize Christ's atoning and propitiating death. But even if God's wrath for disobedience is appeased, He still deserves and demands perfect hearts in obedience. Not only does He deserve perfect obedience, but He also deserves perfect glory and honor from His people, at all times.
Anyway, here's where the Reformers, I think, better understood Christ's life than we do today:
1. Christ lived a perfect life so that, in doing so, He would merit the righteousness which comes from a perfect heart lived perfectly before the Lord.
2. He honored and glorified God in all ways, in all things, and without reservation.
3. His works were perfect in intention, motive, and result.
4. In the wilderness, He withstood temptation and expelled Satan from His presence (as Adam, Israel, and we fail utterly to do).
5. In Christ, God is, therefore, afforded the perfect honor and glory He justly deserves.
6. Christ was crucified and punished to atone for our sins. He died the death we deserve, giving to God the perfect sacrifice which is sufficient for the enormity of our sin.
Therefore, when we talk about our "works" as Christians, I think we need to be careful with how we define them:
1. Our lives, when lived through the power of the Holy Spirit, are not lived to afford God the righteousness His perfect nature requires. Christ accomplished this fully and completely, and we can add absolutely nothing to it.
2. Our lives, when lived through the power of the Holy Spirit, are not lived to make God more pleased with us based on our climbing a ladder of achieved holiness. Because of Christ, through faith, God looks upon His righteousness and has appeased His wrath for our sin.
3. Our lives, therefore, when lived through the power of the Holy Spirit, and when we are continually reminded what Christ has accomplished, can be lived as a thanksgiving offering to the Lord; in our work, we are saying thank you to the Lord for Christ not only taking our punishment, but also earning and giving to us the righteousness which is required by Holy God.
This is why I get so skeptical when I hear people talk about works. They tend to sound something like this:
1. Yeah, Christ died for you
2. Yeah, you're saved
3. But you need the works to back it up and live the life God wants from you
4. But (just to cover our bases), you can't do it yourself, which is where the Holy Spirit comes in
5. It's You and God, workin' together, defeatin' the sin in your life
Rather than,
1. Christ lived for you
2. Christ died for you
3. In Christ, you are saved
4. In Christ, God is fully appeased
5. You are given the Holy Spirit as a promise and seal of what's to come
6. Your life, therefore, will be lived out of thanksgiving for the perfect and completed work of Christ
7. Nothing you do can add/contribute to or take away from Christ's perfect work
8. Therefore, what you need to hear regularly is Law and Gospel
Christ actively lived the Law for us. He obeyed God perfectly, all the while affording to Him the honor He so justly deserves. He then passively was crucified for our sins, transgressions which were not committed by Him.
This is what was called the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ, and, without understanding it, we'll never really know what it meant for Christ to fulfill all righteousness.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The Holy Church of Self-Expression
A thought struck me today, which seemed like a decent topic to write about. I listened at work to this outstanding discussion about modern praise music for the 2nd time, and was discussing some of the premises with my wife after dinner, when this topic came up.
To keep it short, here's a brief synopsis of the podcast from Issues ETC.:
But while talking with my wife, it struck me how difficult it was to get the concept across. I don't totally grasp (or agree with) every point they were making about the songs, but my general understanding of their purpose was something like this:
Anyway, back to my discussion. When talking with my wife, it hit me how hands-off worship tends to be. Even in my own mind, I find arguments like these cropping up:
In many churches I've attended, the sermon was typically held to a high standard. If the pastor deviated from sound exegetical teaching, he would be accountable. Most of the church conformed to this pattern: teachers were accountable for what/how they taught; deacons were accountable with how they administrated various ministries; the elders were accountable with how they oversaw the church as a whole.
Nowhere do I remember a clear and strong accountability for the words of songs which were sung on a Sunday morning. It seemed that, once you became involved in the Sunday morning music, you're forbidden from even calling into question a song's veracity or clarity. It's music! Why would you call into question someone else's self-expression??
Which leads me to the title of this blog post. My sense is, more and more, that we've created a new Means of Grace, which goes beyond the worship time itself (which I don't believe is a Biblically-defined MoG, by the way): self-expression.
Of course, all evidence for this will be anecdotal, so take this with a grain of salt :)
I remember attending a service in a town about 40 miles away. The church is HUGE (considering my current church has fewer than 100 regular people in it) and is pretty typical of modern, evangelical churches. They had the standard features you would expect from an independent church: a jammin' praise band; a young, dynamic teaching pastor; verses on several screens in case you didn't bring your Bible; stadium-seating; message-based teaching, centering Scripture around a theme; etc.
At one point during the extended time of singing, the music ended and the congregation sat down. We were then treated to a very interesting (and well-done) performance by a few people: it was a combination of rock, spoken poetry, and rap. I don't recall the underlying message, but I remember how it was presented to the congregation: the words were written by the main performer (the rapper, I guess) at a time when he had been struggling and having a difficult time. He wanted to share it with the church, and so they hoped it would equally bless us all.
And of course, the assumption was that it would. By listening and soaking in this individual's experience (via his own words), God would speak to my heart and I could experience Him in a fresh way. Here was a new Means of Grace! I could experience God in a whole new, intimate way, simply by observing a few select individuals dancing around and expressing words which had nothing to do with my life, my experiences, or Law and Gospel!
Of course, being rap, the moment was pretty lost on me.
Over the past 20 years of my life, I've observed similar trends in non-denominational churches:
Self-expression is, I fear, steadily becoming an epicenter around which to focus the church service around. No longer are we gathering together as Christ's Body; no longer are we communing as the saints; no longer are we functioning for the greater good. Instead, we are fed a steady diet of what's best for you?? and how do YOU worship God??
In a way, we've created an interesting situation: in this environment, we cannot easily argue against doctrinal or theological issues when dealing with personal expression. After all, doesn't the Holy Spirit lead and speak differently to each person? Everything I understand and express is a product of my experiences and personal situation, and no one can argue about my internal state, which they've not seen!
Of course, I call BS, but no one is asking :)
Remember Willow Creek's solution to the disillusionment of their congregation? Rather than pull back and understand why people felt like they were spiritually stunted, they decided people need to be "self feeders." Regardless of their intent, notice the focus: self feeders. Yes, we need to be able to read God's Word on our own; yes, we need to be in daily prayer and confession; yes, we who are saved are each God's children and thus can approach Him as "Abba, Father!" I'm not denying the need for personal action in the life of a Christian.
But is this what we need from the church as a primary purpose? When did the Church's responsibility trend away from Word and Sacrament, and instead directing people to both feed themselves and force their personal expression upon the entirety of the Body?
When we turn the self into the primary recipient of a Sunday morning service, it's easy to see where the slip occurs. Rather than looking upon the congregation as the Body of Christ, we see it as a disparate collection of Body parts. No longer unified, and thus needing consistent nourishment (*ahem!* Law and Gospel), we are instead tailoring our services to allow any given organ equal opportunity to spout off on what it's like to be them in their particular position. Moreover, since we're not allowed to argue with an individual's experience, we really should allow them to express themselves however they see fit.
Personally, I'll take objective Word and Sacrament any day.
To keep it short, here's a brief synopsis of the podcast from Issues ETC.:
- Modern praise music often suffers from several issues
- Mysticism
- Vague or absent doctrine/theology wrapped in poeticism
- Trends toward a Theology of Glory
But while talking with my wife, it struck me how difficult it was to get the concept across. I don't totally grasp (or agree with) every point they were making about the songs, but my general understanding of their purpose was something like this:
Church worship should, as the rest of the service, be purposed to direct the congregation to the pouring out of God's grace. And since we cannot receive such grace except through the Mediatorship of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, because of His life, death, and resurrection, our worship should make this clear. We need Law and Gospel to understand who we are and what God has done, and this should be present in the liturgy which includes the sermon, confession, absolution, and singing of songs.This is, of course, my summation, which is likely a poor one :)
Anyway, back to my discussion. When talking with my wife, it hit me how hands-off worship tends to be. Even in my own mind, I find arguments like these cropping up:
- Worship is the expression of worth and value on our behalf to God -- why should we box it in?
- Isn't it legalistic to require whole sentences in a song?
- Aren't you suppressing individuals when you try to force a particular brand of worship?
- Sure the songs aren't entirely clear (or accurate), but we know what the author is trying to say. Isn't that enough?
In many churches I've attended, the sermon was typically held to a high standard. If the pastor deviated from sound exegetical teaching, he would be accountable. Most of the church conformed to this pattern: teachers were accountable for what/how they taught; deacons were accountable with how they administrated various ministries; the elders were accountable with how they oversaw the church as a whole.
Nowhere do I remember a clear and strong accountability for the words of songs which were sung on a Sunday morning. It seemed that, once you became involved in the Sunday morning music, you're forbidden from even calling into question a song's veracity or clarity. It's music! Why would you call into question someone else's self-expression??
Which leads me to the title of this blog post. My sense is, more and more, that we've created a new Means of Grace, which goes beyond the worship time itself (which I don't believe is a Biblically-defined MoG, by the way): self-expression.
Of course, all evidence for this will be anecdotal, so take this with a grain of salt :)
I remember attending a service in a town about 40 miles away. The church is HUGE (considering my current church has fewer than 100 regular people in it) and is pretty typical of modern, evangelical churches. They had the standard features you would expect from an independent church: a jammin' praise band; a young, dynamic teaching pastor; verses on several screens in case you didn't bring your Bible; stadium-seating; message-based teaching, centering Scripture around a theme; etc.
At one point during the extended time of singing, the music ended and the congregation sat down. We were then treated to a very interesting (and well-done) performance by a few people: it was a combination of rock, spoken poetry, and rap. I don't recall the underlying message, but I remember how it was presented to the congregation: the words were written by the main performer (the rapper, I guess) at a time when he had been struggling and having a difficult time. He wanted to share it with the church, and so they hoped it would equally bless us all.
And of course, the assumption was that it would. By listening and soaking in this individual's experience (via his own words), God would speak to my heart and I could experience Him in a fresh way. Here was a new Means of Grace! I could experience God in a whole new, intimate way, simply by observing a few select individuals dancing around and expressing words which had nothing to do with my life, my experiences, or Law and Gospel!
Of course, being rap, the moment was pretty lost on me.
Over the past 20 years of my life, I've observed similar trends in non-denominational churches:
- Dance routines (often by the Pastor's daughter, who happens to be a skilled ballerina)
- Rap or poetry sessions
- Drama teams
- Non-Scriptural Book Readings
- Stand-up and give us a word from God if you're so inspired" moments
- Sign-language (in churches where it's clear no deaf people are in attendance)
Self-expression is, I fear, steadily becoming an epicenter around which to focus the church service around. No longer are we gathering together as Christ's Body; no longer are we communing as the saints; no longer are we functioning for the greater good. Instead, we are fed a steady diet of what's best for you?? and how do YOU worship God??
In a way, we've created an interesting situation: in this environment, we cannot easily argue against doctrinal or theological issues when dealing with personal expression. After all, doesn't the Holy Spirit lead and speak differently to each person? Everything I understand and express is a product of my experiences and personal situation, and no one can argue about my internal state, which they've not seen!
Of course, I call BS, but no one is asking :)
Remember Willow Creek's solution to the disillusionment of their congregation? Rather than pull back and understand why people felt like they were spiritually stunted, they decided people need to be "self feeders." Regardless of their intent, notice the focus: self feeders. Yes, we need to be able to read God's Word on our own; yes, we need to be in daily prayer and confession; yes, we who are saved are each God's children and thus can approach Him as "Abba, Father!" I'm not denying the need for personal action in the life of a Christian.
But is this what we need from the church as a primary purpose? When did the Church's responsibility trend away from Word and Sacrament, and instead directing people to both feed themselves and force their personal expression upon the entirety of the Body?
When we turn the self into the primary recipient of a Sunday morning service, it's easy to see where the slip occurs. Rather than looking upon the congregation as the Body of Christ, we see it as a disparate collection of Body parts. No longer unified, and thus needing consistent nourishment (*ahem!* Law and Gospel), we are instead tailoring our services to allow any given organ equal opportunity to spout off on what it's like to be them in their particular position. Moreover, since we're not allowed to argue with an individual's experience, we really should allow them to express themselves however they see fit.
Personally, I'll take objective Word and Sacrament any day.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Sanderson and the Wheel of Time
So I finished The Towers of Midnight which is the 13th book in the Wheel of Time series. It took me a while to get around to reading The Gathering Storm, though I had been in dreadful anticipation of it since I heard Brandon Sanderson would be taking over the series. When I finally picked the 12th book up, it was after reading the entire series over again -- probably the 10th time I had done so.
The question I think most WoT fans were asking themselves (when confronted with Jordan's death and the announcement of Sanderson's completion of the WoT series) was something along these lines: who on earth is this guy and how on earth could he ever fill Jordan's shoes??
That was my question, anyway. So I started on a journey.
I read Elantris a few years ago, and wasn't terribly impressed. I was struck by some of the more innovative concepts (Jordan's system of magic was nice and consistent with the world he created, and the evil priest system was very intriguing), but a little put off by some of the more juvenile elements: many words appeared to be made up for no reason. Words like gyorn were used to denote a concept or position which didn't differ from standard stereotypes. As a result, much of the writing felt a bit muddled and didn't flow very well from start to finish.
Of course, this was his first novel, and his story was very well done. So, I decided to check out the Mistborn Trillogy. After all, this was the series which he was best known for.
I cannot describe how awestruck I was after reading through the first Mistborn novel. From start to finish, Sanderson created a world which felt both tangible and incredible. His characters developed in a consistent fashion, and moved toward their literary destinies in a plausible fashion. The overarching plot was fantastic, and his magical system (Allomancy, Feruchemy, and Hemalurgy) was complex and yet accessible. The fight scened were epic and the relationships between characters were solid.
In all, it was one of the most wonderful literary experiences I've had in a long time. And the following two books did not disappoint. Though the ending of the third novel was a bit different than I had expected, in hindsight, Sanderson drove each character to their conclusion with a narrow line: I don't believe it could have ended any other way.
After this, I was completely won over: if anyone could bring the Wheel of Time to a conclusion, it would be him.
Having just completed The Towers... in record time (for me), I have to say, Sanderson does not disappoint.
It's hard to imagine what the series would look like if Jordan had lived to complete it. I'm certain Sanderson would have preferred it that way, but in lieu of the circumstances, I don't think a better author could have been picked.
One area where Sanderson shines is this: character introspection and motivation. Throughout the Mistborn trilogy, we are consistently given insight into why the characters act and do what they do. We read their thoughts; we see their responses to their circumstances; we watch them interact with each other as they grow and develop. Though the books aren't perfect, the lasting impression of the trilogy is one of complete understanding: we are never left guessing why a character acted the way they did.
This is something Sanderson brings to the table in the WoT. From book 7 or 8 (I'm not sure which), there is a steady decline in the series regarding character motivation. Much happens in the series, but it often felt like I didn't understand why. People behaved in certain ways, but it felt more and more like I knew them less and less.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not criticizing Jordan's writing, and I certainly don't want to exaggerate. It's not that there isn't any introspection in the last 5 books; it just feels like the characters are murkier. Sanderson's writing, in addition to completing so many story arcs, shines a piercing light into the characters hearts and minds, bursting them open for us to comprehend (and thus relate).
I don't want to give away any plot points to the latest 2 books in the series, but let me just say this: if you've been hesitant to read through them because they aren't (sadly) written by the original author, please go out and buy them tonight. These two books have held some of the best moments in the WoT, and have been a brilliant light shining amidst a genre packed with drivel and meaningless fluff. Yes, Sanderson's writing is a bit different from Jordan's. Yes, he's completing his work, and thus the plot developments aren't strictly his own. But his devotion to the series, as well as the strength of his characterization, make these 2 books absolutely solid contributions to the Wheel of Time.
The question I think most WoT fans were asking themselves (when confronted with Jordan's death and the announcement of Sanderson's completion of the WoT series) was something along these lines: who on earth is this guy and how on earth could he ever fill Jordan's shoes??
That was my question, anyway. So I started on a journey.
I read Elantris a few years ago, and wasn't terribly impressed. I was struck by some of the more innovative concepts (Jordan's system of magic was nice and consistent with the world he created, and the evil priest system was very intriguing), but a little put off by some of the more juvenile elements: many words appeared to be made up for no reason. Words like gyorn were used to denote a concept or position which didn't differ from standard stereotypes. As a result, much of the writing felt a bit muddled and didn't flow very well from start to finish.
Of course, this was his first novel, and his story was very well done. So, I decided to check out the Mistborn Trillogy. After all, this was the series which he was best known for.
I cannot describe how awestruck I was after reading through the first Mistborn novel. From start to finish, Sanderson created a world which felt both tangible and incredible. His characters developed in a consistent fashion, and moved toward their literary destinies in a plausible fashion. The overarching plot was fantastic, and his magical system (Allomancy, Feruchemy, and Hemalurgy) was complex and yet accessible. The fight scened were epic and the relationships between characters were solid.
In all, it was one of the most wonderful literary experiences I've had in a long time. And the following two books did not disappoint. Though the ending of the third novel was a bit different than I had expected, in hindsight, Sanderson drove each character to their conclusion with a narrow line: I don't believe it could have ended any other way.
After this, I was completely won over: if anyone could bring the Wheel of Time to a conclusion, it would be him.
Having just completed The Towers... in record time (for me), I have to say, Sanderson does not disappoint.
It's hard to imagine what the series would look like if Jordan had lived to complete it. I'm certain Sanderson would have preferred it that way, but in lieu of the circumstances, I don't think a better author could have been picked.
One area where Sanderson shines is this: character introspection and motivation. Throughout the Mistborn trilogy, we are consistently given insight into why the characters act and do what they do. We read their thoughts; we see their responses to their circumstances; we watch them interact with each other as they grow and develop. Though the books aren't perfect, the lasting impression of the trilogy is one of complete understanding: we are never left guessing why a character acted the way they did.
This is something Sanderson brings to the table in the WoT. From book 7 or 8 (I'm not sure which), there is a steady decline in the series regarding character motivation. Much happens in the series, but it often felt like I didn't understand why. People behaved in certain ways, but it felt more and more like I knew them less and less.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not criticizing Jordan's writing, and I certainly don't want to exaggerate. It's not that there isn't any introspection in the last 5 books; it just feels like the characters are murkier. Sanderson's writing, in addition to completing so many story arcs, shines a piercing light into the characters hearts and minds, bursting them open for us to comprehend (and thus relate).
I don't want to give away any plot points to the latest 2 books in the series, but let me just say this: if you've been hesitant to read through them because they aren't (sadly) written by the original author, please go out and buy them tonight. These two books have held some of the best moments in the WoT, and have been a brilliant light shining amidst a genre packed with drivel and meaningless fluff. Yes, Sanderson's writing is a bit different from Jordan's. Yes, he's completing his work, and thus the plot developments aren't strictly his own. But his devotion to the series, as well as the strength of his characterization, make these 2 books absolutely solid contributions to the Wheel of Time.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Easter and the Age-Old System of Bribing People to Come to Church
I stumbled across this on Kotaku, and frankly, it really cracked me up.
For those of you who are too lazy to watch the whole video, here's my synopsis:
Thankfully, when Christ rose again, the definition in which He did was sharper than 1080p, the sound of His voice had greater clarity than THX, and His appearance was far more realistic than the purist 3D effects:
Happy Easter!
For those of you who are too lazy to watch the whole video, here's my synopsis:
- Not everyone wants to go to church
- Pastors want people to come to church
- Modern wisdom says, more people at a church is a clear indicator of their success
- Therefore, offer whatever you need to so you can get butts in the seats
- 3D Televisions
- Nintendo 3DS
- 3D movie packages
- Finally, the media will love you because you're doing something odd and they can generate a mild stir with such "out-of-the-box thinking"
Thankfully, when Christ rose again, the definition in which He did was sharper than 1080p, the sound of His voice had greater clarity than THX, and His appearance was far more realistic than the purist 3D effects:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.Praise God, Christ has risen indeed!!
-1 Corinthians 15:3-8
Happy Easter!
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The PCA and...horrors!! Old Earth Creationism
In my mindless meanderings today, I found these this interesting article from Modern Reformation: PCA Geologists and the Antiquity of the Earth
Basically, the PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) decided in 1998 to commission a study to determine if an Old-Earth interpretation was at least reasonable. The study wasn't conclusive (the committee didn't make a solid recommendation one way or another), but their results were very fair to the O-Earthers.
And of course, sigh, here is a response from a prominent Young-Earth group: Long-age Geology or Genesis?
Just for fun, let's contrast these very edited, severely biased (my own) quotes:
From the first article:
Ahh, it's so fun to see loving, balanced debate isn't it?? :)
Basically, the PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) decided in 1998 to commission a study to determine if an Old-Earth interpretation was at least reasonable. The study wasn't conclusive (the committee didn't make a solid recommendation one way or another), but their results were very fair to the O-Earthers.
And of course, sigh, here is a response from a prominent Young-Earth group: Long-age Geology or Genesis?
Just for fun, let's contrast these very edited, severely biased (my own) quotes:
From the first article:
"Clearly there are committed, Reformed believers who are scientists that are on either side of the issue regarding the age of the cosmos...Covenant children who are raised with the impression that a young earth is integral to Christianity have their faith needlessly undermined when they are later confronted with the overwhelming evidence of the earth's antiquity, and many leave the faith. It is our prayer that no Christian would be such an obstacle!"And from the other, oh-so-loving YE article:
"The battle over the integrity of Genesis continues. In a recent article, eight geologists, including long-time anti-creationist Davis Young, attempt to persuade the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) that secular natural history must guide, even determine, interpretation of the biblical text, even in the face of a clear contrary meaning....Given the clear effects of evolution and secular natural history on generations of Western youth (see Inside the mind of a killer), it is literally astounding that Christians could believe such a wild distortion of reality. (See Darwin’s impact) Especially when atheopaths like Richard Dawkins, Jacques Monod and T.H. Huxley had utter contempt for Christians pretending that evolution was compatible with biblical Christianity, as documented in the hyperlinked articles."Anyway, let's play a game: can you spot the logical fallacies in the latter response? Let's see...
- guilt by association
- ad hominem attack
- begging the question
- straw man argument
- possibly a dash of non sequitur
Ahh, it's so fun to see loving, balanced debate isn't it?? :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)