When preparing for overseas mission trips, Christians often go through some sort of training to learn about the cultures, languages, and religions of the people to whom they’ll be evangelizing. They understand that these differences present barriers for these people to hear and understand the gospel message. Yet in America, Christians often assume that there are no such barriers. In They Like Jesus by Not the Church Dan Kimball examines the church through the eyes of non-Christians in today’s emerging generations. He attempts to show that there are barriers and misunderstandings we must address if we are to effectively present the gospel message today.

Through the first few chapters, Kimball sets up the situation by showing that our culture’s perceptions of Christianity have changed. For example, instead of being view as trusted spiritual leaders, pastors today are often referred to as “creepy.” Kimball argues that for many of us, we haven’t realized the changes because we’re trapped in Christian bubbles. The trend is that the longer we are Christians, the fewer non-Christian friends we have. What we fail to perceive is that while the church, and Christians in general, is not viewed favorable, most people do have a favorable impression of Jesus. Many of their impressions of Jesus’ life and teachings may be inaccurate, but they do provide a place ripe for fruitful conversation.

Much of the book takes a look at specific issues through the experiences of several non-Christian friends Dan interviewed for the book. According to Dan, their sentiments represent general misperceptions about Christians and the church that we must listen and respond to. The six misperceptions are: The church is an organized religion with a political agenda, the church is judgmental and negative, the church is dominated by males and oppresses females, the church is homophobic, the church arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong, and the church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally. In each topic Dan explains what his friends have said, what the Bible says about the issue, and how Christians should respond.

In the first of the concluding chapters, Dan explores what his friends wish the church were like. He then revises the old “gap” illustration where man is separated from God by a chasm called sin that can only be bridged by the cross. Dan argues that another chasm exits called Christianity and the Christian subculture that must be bridged by trust before we can effectively speak to the problem of sin and their need for a savior.

There are some things in this book that will make some Christians uncomfortable. For the most part, this is a good thing. While I don’t agree with every single point made, I still recommend the book without reservation. Christians must begin understand how we are perceived in our culture so we can seek to correct our missteps. Dan Kimball is an outstanding guide toward this task. They Like Jesus but Not the Church effectively shows significant problems Christians must address in evangelism and offers practical solutions along the way.

James K. A. Smith summed up postmodernism in three words:  Interpretation is everything.  When the author is dead, and his intent along with him, the door is opened wide for an infinite number of alternative interpretations. 

As bad as this kind of subjectivism run amok may be, the rigid objectivism of modernity that created it isn't any better. 

It can't be denied that some things can have more than one interpretation (one thinks of a work of art that can genuinely have different meanings for different people).  But does this fact necessarily commit us to the assumption that everything can have an infinite number of interpretations?  And more importantly, can they all be right?

I'd like to suggest that the only thing this fact commits us to believing is, well, exactly what it says.  Some things can have more than one interpretation.  But notice that even if something can have more than one meaning, the implication is that all of its meanings must still be right or true meanings.  The logical leap comes when we assume that all potential meanings must be right ones.  I see no reason to assume that.

Instead, we should adopt a position I'll call "multi-objectivsim."  The sort of rigid objectivism of modernity leaves no room for legitimate cases of multiple meaning, and the subjectivism of postmodernity throws out objective meaning altogether.  So we might think of this as a more realistic middle ground.

Just in case you still aren't sold on the idea that one thing (whether art or literature) can have more than one legitimate meaning, consider the following example from the Old Testament.


In the time of Isaiah this verse had a specific meaning.  The child being referred to here is Isaiah's own child.  And the child's birth was a sign to Ahaz, King of Judah, that God would bring judgment upon him for refusing to trust in the Lord.  Now fast forward to the New Testament.  Matthew sites this verse in Isaiah as being fulfilled in the Virgin birth of Christ (Matt. 1: 22-23).  Well, which is it?  Does this verse refer to Isaiah's child or to Christ?

The obvious answer is that both interpretations are equally true.  But are we now free to assume that there are probably an infinite number of equally true meanings that we can ascribe to this verse (and every other verse in Scripture) as we see fit?  Not at all.  As before, this would require us to make a leap that we are not warranted in making.  Rather, we can affirm a multi-objectivism.  There is certainly more than one true meaning, but each meaning is still objectively true. 

Saint Augustine felt a considerable amount of anguish at being “in time.”  So much so that he considered it to be a part of salvation itself that we are saved from time into timelessness.  

But that raises an interesting question.  How can finite beings be timeless?  Our very finitude, by definition, seems to consign us to the temporal.  Try to imagine experiencing reality in any other way than “past-now-future” (or, as Augustine said, “memory-observation-expectation”) and you’ll be scratching your head for a long time (see, there’s that word again).  

Augustine was not setting out to give a philosophical account of time, but merely reflections on his own experience of time.  In a similar fashion, there might be a way to reconcile Augustine’s desire to be freed from the moment-by-moment passage of time and humanity’s “bondage” to the temporal.  

As the old saying goes, time flies when you’re having fun.  Thinking back on all of those moments in my life where I found this sentiment to be true, I can remember what seemed to be “timeless” experiences.  If you’ve ever had a moment where you suddenly looked at a clock and said, “Wow, is it that late already?” then you know basically what I’m talking about.  

As it turns out, there are only two kinds of situations that I can think of where the passage of time is actually self-evident:  (1) When one is bored or otherwise miserable and can’t wait for a certain amount of time to be over, or (2) when one is having the best time of his life and doesn’t want the time to come to an end (and so is constantly looking at his watch and dreading the impending end of his happiness).  With regard to (1) you could almost say that there is an inverse relationship between a person’s happiness and their awareness of the passage of time.  With a few exceptions, a general rule could be that the happier you are the less likely you are to notice time passing.  Since we can safely assume that times of boredom and misery will be scarce in Heaven, we can get rid of (1).  

What about (2)?  I think there are two ways to look at it.  You can deny that the person is actually happy whenever he checks his watch, because at the moment he does so he is actually feeling anxiety and not happiness.  But that could be debated.  A much simpler answer would be that, in Heaven, the very fact of eternity will mean that our happiness will literally never end.  And thus the dread of our happiness ending will never be a possibility.  

In one sense, then, it is not time itself that we are delivered from in salvation, but rather those conditions that make the passage of time so painful to us here on fallen, sinful Earth.  Just think back to what it felt like when you were experiencing one of those "timeless" moments, and then imagine feeling that way for all eternity, and I think you may just have a very dim idea of what Heaven will feel like. 

From FoxNews.com:

SALT LAKE CITY —  Gordon B. Hinckley, the longest-serving president of the Mormon church who presided over one of the greatest periods of expansion in its history, died Sunday, a church spokesman said. He was 97.

Hinckley, the 15th president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, died because of complications from age and was surrounded by his family.

Hinckley, a grandson of Mormon pioneers, was president for nearly 13 years. He took over as president and prophet on March 12, 1995. He oversaw one of the greatest periods of expansion in church history.

The number of temples worldwide more than doubled, from 49 to more than 120 and church membership grew from about 9 million to more than 12 million.

Like his contemporary, Pope John Paul II, he became by far his church's most traveled leader in history.

And the number of Mormons outside the United States surpassed that of American Mormons for the first time since the church, the most successful faith born in the United States, was founded in 1830.

The church presidency is a lifetime position. Before Hinckley, the oldest church president was David O. McKay who was 96 when he died in 1970.

Hinckley had been diagnosed with diabetes and was hospitalized in January 2006 for the removal of a cancerous growth in his large intestine. In April 2006, he told a church conference he was in the "sunset of my life" and "totally in the hands of the Lord."

By unfailing tradition, at a church president's death, the church's most senior apostle is ordained within days on a unanimous vote of the Council of the Twelve Apostles. The most long-serving apostle now is Thomas S. Monson.

Hinckley began his leadership role in 1995 by holding a rare news conference, citing growth and spreading the Mormon message as the church's main challenge heading into the 21st century.

"We are dedicated ... to teaching the gospel of peace, to the promotion of civility and mutual respect among people everywhere, to bearing witness to the living reality of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the practice of his teachings in our daily lives," Hinckley said.

Over the years, Hinckley labored long to burnish the faith's image as a world religion far removed from its peculiar and polygamous roots.

Still, during his tenure the Roman Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention and United Methodist Church — the three largest U.S. denominations — each declared that Mormon doctrines depart from mainstream Christianity.

"We are not a weird people," Hinckley told Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes" in 1996.

"The more people come to know us, the better they will understand us," Hinckley said in an interview with The Associated Press in late 2005. "We're a little different. We don't smoke. We don't drink. We do things in a little different way. That's not dishonorable. I believe that's to our credit."

Official news release from the LDS Church.
The Salt Lake Tribune has a more in-depth look at the life and work of Hinckley.
Wikipedia.org entry.
CNN.com report.

By the way, the FoxNews.com article opens with an inaccurate statement. The longest-serving president of the LDS church was Brigham Young, who served from 1847 to 1877. Several other presidents served longer terms than Hinckley. For a quick sketch of all the LDS presidents, see my handout.

Francis Schaeffer has drawn many people to the feet of Jesus through his persuasive writings and personal relationships. But not everyone has been satisfied with that legacy. One journalist recently claimed that, “The tragedy of Francis Schaeffer is that, at some deep inner level, he knew what he preached was a con.” With statements like these, it’s helpful to look to fresh perspectives on what Schaeffer taught and how he lived and what that means for Christians today. Bryan A. Follis has provided such a perspective in his book Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer. Dr. Follis traces the intellectual roots of Schaeffer’s theology and apologetics in order to expose the true picture of one of the 20th century’s most noted apologists.

After a brief introduction and biography, Dr. Follis explores the theology of John Calvin and Reformed interpretations since. This lays the groundwork for Schaeffer’s understanding of the dignity of humanity despite its depravity and the role of reason in his apologetic. The second chapter considers the various arguments Schaeffer put forward, including the well-known “taking the roof off,” and places Schaeffer’s love and compassion in proper relation to his apologetics. Francis Schaeffer has been accused of rationalism by some evangelicals, so Dr. Follis seeks to defend him against that charge in the third chapter. He argues that Schaeffer’s argumentation cannot be separated from his spirituality and that critics simply do not consider the full canon of Schaeffer’s work and life.

In the fourth chapter, Dr. Follis explores methodology, noting that Schaeffer was not a presuppositionalist in the tradition of Cornelius Van Til, but more like a verificationist in the tradition of Edward Carnell. He makes the important note, however, that Schaeffer did not believe “there is any one apologetics which meets the needs of all people. The concluding chapter considers the role of love in Schaeffer’s work and life, which Schaeffer called “the final apologetic.” Dr. Follis explains the personal nature of Schaeffer’s evangelism and the importance of community.

Truth with Love by Bryan Follis not only sets the record straight about the beliefs and life of Francis Schaeffer, but also puts forwards an inspirational vision for apologetics in our current postmodern culture. It’s main fault is that some of the points are placed repetitively throughout the book, but with such important points that may be forgiven.

Over the next few weeks, you'll be treated to some posts by our friend David Nilsen. He's commented a bit here in the past, but I thought it would be good to provide a brief introduction...

David hails from beautiful Escondido, California, though he currently lives in unsightly Whittier. He's a philosophy student at Biola University, but don't take him for a fundie- I've seen a picture of him smoking a pipe! He's also happily married, so I have much to learn from him (maybe I should have gone to Biola for undergrad? seriously, where do I ever expect to meet someone?) Among other things, David likes axiology, chants, and all the old Disney movies (yes, I know he sounds like a Torrey student, but he only hangs out with them). In one of his most unwise judgments, he believes Ninjas are better than Pirates (almost a disqualification for blogging here). Like the rest of us, he's undecided about who to vote for in the coming California primary.

David also blogs at Coram Deo.

In He Was a Quiet Man, Christian Slater plays disillusioned office worker Bob Maconel who is on the verge of shooting his co-workers. He’s a nobody who keeps to himself and lets everyone else walk over him and he’s had about as much as he could take. The only problem is that another one of the “lame” workers beats him to it. Bob intervenes to save the only person he seems to care about from a second shot, Vanessa (played by Elisha Cuthbert), and becomes an unlikely hero. A bond is formed between Vanessa and Bob that lifts him from his psychotic depression to the top of the world. But things seem to spiral out of control from the top more quickly than from the bottom, and the only question that matters is if Bob has the courage to pull the trigger.

The film is listed as a comedy, but if it’s a comedy then it fails miserably. As a drama, it paints well a melodramatic picture of being a drone in the corporate world. It provides occasional entertainment, such as a talking fish that berates Bob for not killing his co-workers. Against the backdrop of the mediocre film is an excellent performance by Christian Slater and the beautiful presence Elisha Cuthbert (she also gives a good performance but doesn’t need to).

Bob’s problem is one of meaning- he has nothing to live for. His house is a disaster, he watches a TV that doesn’t work, and the most he’s ever “gotten out” is to Sizzler. His emptiness is contrasted with the emptiness of everyone around him, and in the end it seems that no one has a purpose. The difference with Bob is that he’s the only one willing to admit it. He Was a Quiet Man is the result of a worldview that recognizes the depressing plight of humanity but offers no hope. Ultimately, the film is a waste of time and I see no reason to recommend it.

Family notice: movie contains nudity and coarse language

Preterism is the belief that many or most of biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled. Prophecies that haven’t been fulfilled include Christ’s second coming, the resurrection of all peoples and the final judgment at the end of the age. Like many theological doctrines, there is a wide spectrum of beliefs in the preterist camp. Historical (orthodox) preterists are sometimes referred to as partial-preterists. At the far heretical end are the full-preterists, those who contend that all prophecy has been fulfilled.

The opposing view to preterism is futurism (which has its own spectrum). Futurists believe that there are still prophecies to be fulfilled specific to national Israel distinct from the church. They are premillennialists, holding that Christ will come before a millennial reign that is yet to come. In contrast, preterism is often rooted in postmillennialism.

I’m an amillennialist. I believe that the current age is the millennium, that we live in the “already and not yet.” Since the amillennial position holds that some things refer to this age and some to the age yet to come, it seems to me that preterism (to some degree) fits well within the amillenial model. Some people may want to bring up a number of possible conflicts (such as the dating of Revelation), but since the preterism I’m advocating is partial, I need only to defend the fulfillment of one prophecy.

I am a preterist because I interpret Matthew 24 literally in that the prophecies were fulfilled before “this generation” passed away, specifically by A.D. 70 in the destruction of the temple. I don’t believe the events of the first century exhaust the meaning of the text, but I also don’t see any good reason to avoid the common sense reading of the text. Adam Parker at Bring the Books… summed up the passage quite nicely:

These predictions include:
a) False messiahs (v. 4-5)
b) Wars and rumors of war (v. 6-7)
c) Famines and Earthquakes (v. 7)
d) Times of unmatched persecution (v. 9-14)
e) Lawlessness (v. 12)
f) Gospel preached to the whole world (v. 14)
g) The Abomination of Desolation (Predicted in Daniel 9:24-27; Reiterated in v. 15)
h) The Great Tribulation (v. 21-22)
i) Jesus comes with judgement, on the clouds (v. 29-30)

Now, the short version of it is that in verse 34, Jesus says something very important regarding the timetable for the things he is predicting. "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." This really is the clenching idea; did Jesus' predictions come true within the lifetime of those listening to His words, or not? (The Geneva Institute for Reformed Studies has done a nice little study demonstrating how each of these predictions of Jesus have, historically speaking, been fulfilled.)

If the predictions of Jesus did not occur within the lifetime of His audience, then he was incorrect when He said they would occur before that generation passed away.

How do we know if someone speaks for God? Amy provided a great response in a post at Stand to Reason.

From Os Guinness to Frank Schaeffer (son of Francis Schaeffer) regarding his latest book, Crazy for God: "What you have written is a tissue of falseness, distortion, and unchecked allegations -- in short of shoddy journalism." (HT: Pro-Existence)

Kim Riddlebarger explains why Mike Huckabee makes him nervous.

My favorite ad for Tim Challies's book has a Canadian flag in the background and simply says "A book, eh?" Apparently, the Canadian market is quite strong and Crossway intends to exploit it.

My co-editor of The New Media Frontier, John Mark Reynolds, will be teaching a special weekend mini-course in February at Biola on Cultural Apologetics. Those in the area will not want to miss it. Someone needs to keep track of how many times John Mark references Star Trek and Disney.

I re-designed RogerOverton.com, mostly so that feeds from my blogs get posted on the front page. Let me know what you think.

I don't really want a pet due to the mess that ensues, but if I did, I'd totally want a fainting goat:

Joanna Martens provided one of the best descriptions of James R. White: "James White kicks major apologetic-argue/debate anything that is against the Bible and leave you on the floor in a fetal position sucking your thumb, butt. His presence alone is intimidating, causing the very walls in the room to vibrate. He's def. not the dude you'd want to meet alone in an alley somewhere, only if it were indeed the great White, you'd be getting the smack down on radical Biblical theology, calling you to repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your personal Savior."

Tim Challies is here today to discuss his book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment.  Welcome, Tim! 

 

AMY:  Which aspect of contemporary Western culture do you think most hinders us (Christians shaped by this culture) from developing the skill of discerning the truth about God and His will?  Which aspect of Western Christian culture?  What practical steps can we take in our own lives to help us resist these particular cultural influences?

 

TIM:  In the book's second chapter I deal with some of the negative influences that tend to keep Christians from emphasizing spiritual discernment. I mention internal, spiritual and cultural influences. There are four cultural influences that I write about there: a secular worldview, a low view of Scripture, a low view of theology and a low view of God.

 

Whenever I pause to think about these four influences I reach a different conclusion about which of them is most detrimental or most destructive. But maybe we could take one step further back and look to a different aspect of our culture and that is an unrealistic assessment of mankind. After all, if we get our own human nature wrong, we also get God wrong and Scripture wrong and everything else wrong. Our culture tells us that we are innately good at heart. It tells us that we are not the work of a loving Creator, but the result of an evolutionary process that "chanced" us into existence. We have no planned beginning and have no place to look forward to in the end. Even morality becomes something that has developed intrinsically rather than something that is extrinsic to us--something handed to us from God. Culture exults humanity and human reason to the place of divinity, determining that in our own minds we can prove that God does not exist. We elevate reason above the one who created it. In this cultural atmosphere it is increasingly difficult for Christians to have a realistic, biblical assessment of their own nature and hence their own depravity.

 

Discernment is a skill that is necessary because of our sinfulness. In heaven we will have no need for discernment as good and evil will no longer be in conflict. We will have a prefect appreciation of the vast difference between God and man and will truly understand who we are. But today we continue to elevate ourselves and to lower God. The more highly we think of ourselves and the more we blur the lines between humanity and deity, the more difficult discernment will be.

 

When we consider which aspect of Western Christian culture most hinders us, sadly, we do not need to consider anything too vastly different. Western Christian culture today bears such a resemblance to the secular culture that in many cases they are nearly indistinguishable. Where mainstream civilization struggles, so too will Western Christian culture. So I suppose the Christian culture's persistent refusal to truly separate itself from the world is what most hinders us from developing discernment.

 

To resist these influences I think we need primarily to think biblically; we need to think Christianly. We need to develop the mind of Christ so that we understand ourselves the way we truly are and the world the way it truly is. We need to be mature, discerning, growing Christians who are dedicated to knowing God and to living in the way that He commands us in His Word. As we mature in the faith, we will grow in our discernment and we will rejoice ever more in good and be grieved ever more by what is evil. The only way to maturity is to dedicate ourselves to those ordinary means of grace God gives us--prayer, the reading of Scripture, fellowship with other Christians, and the like. These are the means God gives to teach us both to think and to be more like Him.