The Broken Bride: The Tragedy of the Dumb Church

I’m Defending, not Ranting:

   I might as well get this series underway with a bang.  The information I post in this series is almost certain to upset some people, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be read.  If it makes you angry, then it's probably what you need to hear.  The truth isn't always fun, but that hardly makes it false.  Before I write this series, I need to relay how it applies to apologetics and why I feel like it might be the most important series I write.  It's difficult to rationally defend Christianity in a world full of skeptics, but you need to know that it's not that skeptics have gotten more advanced, it's the church that's digressed. Culture sees Christians like Homer Simpson saw Ned Flanders.  They think we all walk around throwing out fortune cookie Bible verses while hiding from the truth behind our blind faith.  Let’s be honest, it would be hard to engage in intellectual discourse with Ned.   We can’t proclaim the truth if we aren’t taught the truth.  We can’t engage the world intellectually if we aren’t being taught intellectually.  You can’t plug the hole in this ship with your feelings.

 Before I get into the course material I wanted to share part of a blog post from another site that highlights a major problem in the church today.  The link to the full article will be at the bottom, but this is the meat of the post.  I want to point out that this is not a cheap shot at any particular church or denomination. I'd also like to say that I'm not a fan of the writer's use of the word "dumb" in the original post.  I think they could have possibly taken a higher road here but I also realize that it was intended to grab attention, and it worked.  Regardless of doctrinal differences or preference in music style, we are all the church.  We’re in this thing together.  We are all part of the bride, and the bride is broken.  

The Age of the Dumb Church

Dr. R. C. Sproul has said many times that he believes we are living in the most un-intellectual period in the history of Western civilization. Over 30 years ago, former Lebanese ambassador to the United States, Charles Malik, said the following in his speech at the dedication of the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton, Illinois: “I must be frank with you: the greatest danger confronting American evangelical Christianity is the danger of anti-intellectualism. The mind in its greatest and deepest reaches is not cared for enough.”

Such statements made by Sproul, Malik, and others were not always heard in the Church. The fact is, the Church dominated intellectual thought and discourse for hundreds of years, producing such thinkers like Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Edwards, and others. Such men had their opponents (the Church always will), but their detractors never ridiculed their brainpower because the Churchman’s intellectual prowess left no room for it.

But shortly after the era of Edwards, something changed. Gospel preachers like Charles Finney arose and replaced the intelligent presentation of the Gospel, which was backed by meaty Biblical exposition and solid philosophical rationale, with emotional appeals, questionable theology, personal anecdotes with humor, a celebrity-style leader, and engineered publicity.

Sound familiar? Unfortunately, in many seeker friendly or liberal churches today, the characteristics of Finney and his followers are played out each Lord’s Day with the end result being a church body unable to intellectually defend the faith they espouse.

Characteristics of the Dumb Church

How can you tell if your church exhibits traits that characterize a dumb church? Although not exhaustive, I offer these criteria that I believe help contribute to a church becoming ‘dumb’:

Where the church leadership is concerned:

• Preaching is always topical and never expository. Selective topical series allow tough and deep theological subjects, as well as ‘controversial’ passages of Scripture, to be avoided with ease.
• Although the church leaders offer strong external facing statements as to how they are a “Bible believing church”, the Bible is actually used and referenced very little in the sermons. Few quotations from Scripture are heard in a message, with the vast majority of all sermons consisting of personal rhetoric, humor, videos, and personal stories.
• When the Bible is quoted, most often paraphrase versions are used, or at best a dynamic equivalence is utilized vs. a literal-formal translation such as the ESV or NASB.
• Biblical terms such as justification, reconciliation, sanctification, propitiation, etc., are avoided like the plague.
• There is little to no instruction for new (or existing) believers on the core doctrines of the Christian faith, and no requirement for new believers to attend such instruction.
• There is no continuous offering of apologetic training classes that are designed to train Christians in the evidences and defense of the faith, and little to no interest of the pastors in the subject area.
• There is no easy way for the congregation to have tough questions answered by the lead pastors; such a thing is quietly ignored, discouraged or not practiced regularly.
• Deep Bible study programs are either absent or deliberately pushed out in favor of more ‘relevant’ classes that deal with softer subject matters (e.g. money management).
• Adult and children’s Bible studies before/after the main church service are either omitted or are second class citizens to “Community Groups” that seek to have members meet in each other’s homes during the week, where no oversight is given as to what is done or taught. These groups, where teaching is concerned, are run “hands off” by the church leadership.
• There is a huge emphasis on relationship building and serving in areas of the church, but no similar importance placed on growing more Biblically and theologically literate.
• The youth department has an unmistakable concentration on entertainment, games, social interaction, etc., vs. actual teaching of Christian doctrines.
• The church either has no library or one that is not kept up to date.
• There is either no staff member assigned specifically to church education, or it is assigned to an already overburdened associate pastor.
• Doctrinal statements of the church are missing or are not prominently made available. If they exist, they do not address any controversial theological topics or make very vague statements concerning them.

Where the congregation is concerned:

• The term “Christian apologetics” is completely unfamiliar to the vast majority of the members.
• Most of the congregation has no knowledge of church history with the names of Polycarp, Martyr, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Wesley, Whitefield, Tyndale, and others being completely foreign to them.
• Attendance of offered classes are very low compared to overall church attendance.

A Warning to the Dumb Church

God warns us in His Word about cultivating a dumb church. For example, chastising his readers, the writer of Hebrews offers this admonition against fostering a dumb church environment: "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil” (Hebrews 5:12-14).

When you have a dumb church, the writer of Hebrews says the outcome is a body of believers that is incapable of properly discerning good and evil. Slowly but surely, error and heresy creep in with no one being the wiser.

Going Forward:

 As I continue I will address how the lack of church teaching has lead us to where we are today in regard to how society views believers.  This issue doesn’t stop with how people form opinions of Christians, it spills over into how we have lost control over many of the areas that Christianity once dominated.  This includes media, politics and our youth.  

 

The Tragedy of the Dumb Church Link

Elaborating on Evil: The Evidential Version

The Evidential Version (It's improbable):

  Here we get into a version of the argument that requires far less proof from the atheist.  Their claim in this version is that it's highly improbable that God could have good reasons for allowing suffering and evil in the world, therefore God does not exist.  Their line of thinking is that if there were a God, then surely He could have created a good world that doesn't require suffering on our part.  Here you have a much more modest claim from the atheist, and that puts less of the burden of proof on their shoulders.  There are basically three claims that you are logically able to use to refute this statement.

Human Limitations:

  Given that our scope is finite since we are creations and not the creator, then we certainly aren't in any position to say that God lacks good reasons for permitting suffering in the world.  We might be able to agree with them that on the surface that most suffering looks unjustified.  We sometimes see neither it's point nor it's necessity.  So the key to the atheist's argument depends on whether we consider ourselves qualified to infer that just because suffering looks unjustified that it actually is unjustified.  As believers we recognize God's sovereignty and His ability to order the past, present and future providentially.  In order to achieve His purposes God may have to allow a great deal of suffering and evil to exist along the way.  Our ability to recognize how it's beneficial is governed by our limited ability to see only what we can see. 

  Even confined to our own small vantage point, we have all certainly seen where suffering has gone on to produce good.  Just one small and very recent example would be texting and driving.  In 2008 Heather Hurd was killed by a truck driver that was texting and driving.  Her father went on to aggressively promote laws for states to ban texting while driving.  It is now illegal in 6 countries and the number of lives saved is unable to be calculated.  Her suffering produced visible good in just a few short years.  I won't even waste time going back in history to detail the horrific events that have resulted in advancement for the entire human race.  Only an all knowing God could begin to grasp the complexities we're trying to explain.  If anything this would be an argument in favor of God and His sovereignty, and a poor argument against it. 

Full Scope of the Evidence:

  When given the full scope of the evidence, God's existence is probable.  All probabilities are relative to some background information.  Let's use Joe College Student as an example here.  If someone told you that 90% of all college students drank beer, and that Joe was a college student, then relative to only that information it's highly probable that Joe drinks beer.  Now what if I told you that Joe was a student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and that 95% of their students don't drink beer.  Relative to the new information, it now becomes highly probable that Joe does not drink beer.  So again, probabilities are all relative to background information.

  So here we have an atheist saying that God's existence is improbable.  Immediately you should ask, "Improbable relative to what?  What kind of background information are you using to support this claim?  Are you basing it off of the suffering in the world?"  Because if that's all of the background information they have, then it's no wonder God's existence looks improbable relative to that.  On a superficial level suffering can call God's existence into question, on a deeper level it can also be used to prove His existence.  This really goes back into my posts on relativism, but in short, suffering cannot be considered bad from a moral standpoint since morals are all relative.  If we are all byproducts of evolutionary chance, then good and bad, suffering and evil, are all relative to your own personal opinion.  The very fact that the atheist will concede that there is such a thing as universal suffering, that is to say something that's universally considered evil or bad, just goes on to validate that we are given moral standards from an intelligent designer. 

Christian Doctrine Explains Suffering:

  Stepping out of the basic concept of a creator and into the God explained in Christianity increases the possibility that God and suffering can coexist.  Certain Christian doctrines increase the probability of suffering, but I'll just mention a few.

1.  The chief purpose of life is not our happiness, but rather the knowledge of God.  People naturally assume that if God does exist, then His purpose for humans life is happiness in this world.  They believe that if God does exist then His role is to provide a soft, comfortable environment for His human pets.  If you're a Christian then you know that this is false.  We are not God's pets and the goal of our existence is not happiness.  It's the knowledge of God that leads to our fulfillment.  So much of the suffering we experience would be completely pointless if happiness were our goal, but it would not be pointless in producing a deeper knowledge of God.

  It's here that the "prosperity," the "health and wealth," or the Gospel sometimes referred to as the "Gospel of positive thinking " have created problems for believers and created a false belief system for even the atheist.  With "pastors" like Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar occupying television networks that reach millions of people per week, various denominations have gone on to teach a milder form of this in the name of church growth.  Scripture has been reduced to a milky self help book so it's not too intimidating to non-believers.  These churches teach it and believers read it in an effort to fix problems in their lives, but rarely to gain knowledge of God.  In this process we have set the atheist up to think that suffering cannot coexist with the God of the Bible, when in fact we are promised to suffer in this life. 

2. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God.  This is sometimes taught as The Doctrine of Total Depravity, which states that man is born into sin and a state of depravity.  Rather than being born into a state of goodness, humans are born to sin.  As a result, innocent people suffer from our sinfulness in varying degrees.  Not all of our sinfulness or rebellion could directly be classified as evil on a universal level, but for some people their sinful behavior causes suffering for others.  It isn't until we are saved by the power of the Holy Spirit that we can begin to love God.  This is why Christians aren't surprised by the evil in the world, we expect it. 

3. God's purpose isn't limited to this life, it spills over into eternity.  Christian's understand that this life is just a small door that opens up into a glorious eternity.  We see a great example of this in the life of the Apostle Paul.  Paul lived a life that was filled with hardship, beatings, imprisonment and yet he lived it all with an eternal purpose.  Paul called the sufferings in this life "a slight momentary affliction." 

  The simple use of these three basic Christian doctrines greatly decreases the probability that God and suffering cannot coexist.  Of course the atheist would naturally respond by saying that there's no proof that these doctrines are true.  Then he's trying to shift the burden of proof back to you, but that's a cheap shot in a debate that centers around logic.  He might need to take his debate to a prosperity believer at this point, for we have already shown that the Christian God is completely compatible with suffering and evil by virtue of our own doctrine.  He might make the statement that he would never worship the Christian God since suffering is at the very heart of our salvation and spills over into our beliefs, but then he's decided to get out of the intellectual argument and back into the emotional argument.  At that point all you've done is proved that it's not impossible for God and suffering to coexist, the rest of the real work has to be done by the Holy Spirit. 

Going Forward:

  It looks like I will be studying the problem of pop culture and Christianity.  I plan on spending a lot of time here.  Some of it will focus on how Christians are portrayed in our culture, but a lot of it will focus on why.  In my preliminary scanning of the material, it appears that some of it is focused on where the church went wrong.  There was a time when Christians dominated the intellectual landscape through the teaching of sound doctrine and apologetics in the church.  It appears that the church culture in the last century has taken a turn for the worse as solid Biblical teaching has given way to watered down Sunday morning messages.  Church growth now means going wide and seldom going deep.  Christianity can use popular culture to it's advantage, but it might mean making church culture less popular. 

Elaborating on Evil: The Logical Version

Quick Recap:

  Just to backtrack for a moment, we are trying to defend the common atheists' argument that a loving God and suffering cannot coexist.  We have determined that you will not be able to build a rational defense if their position is based on their feelings.  This is why my poorly constructed diagram goes no further on the on the emotional problem of suffering, you simply cannot, nor should you really attempt to dive any further when their problem is based on feelings.  This person has likely experienced real suffering and they need to be shown compassion.  It's the intellectual problem of suffering that we're going to dive into. 
 
  The two different versions of the argument are important to grasp as you will structure your defense differently.  As I mentioned before, you can determine which route to use by simply asking a simple question like this one; "So are you saying that it's impossible for God and the suffering in the world to coexist, or are you merely saying that it's improbable?"  Their response to that question will let you know how to proceed. 

The Logical Version: (It's impossible)

  In their head the argument goes something like this.  If God exists then suffering cannot.  Since we all know that suffering exists, then it follows that God does not exist.  The atheist is claiming that the following two statements are logically inconsistent:

1. An all-loving, all powerful God exists.
2. Suffering exists.

Now the obvious question becomes, why think that these two statements are logically inconsistent?  Remember, we're not dealing with feelings or emotions anymore, we're strictly adhering to the rules of logic.  There's no explicit contradiction between those two statements, meaning one is not the logical opposite of the other.  So if logic doesn't make these two statements an obvious contradiction, then the atheist must be making some hidden assumptions that serve to bring out the contradiction and make it explicit. The two obvious hidden assumptions are:

3. If God is all-powerful, He can create any world that He wants.
4. If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering.

So then their statement becomes that God can and wants to create a world without suffering, and as they have pointed out in premise 2 suffering exists, so therefore God must not exist.  In order for this argument to show a logical inconsistency between statements 1 and 2, both of the hidden assumptions in 3 and 4 have to be necessarily true.  But are they?

Premise 3: (If God is all-powerful, He can create any world that He wants.)

 Is this necessarily true?  It's only a true statement if it's impossible for people to have free will. God's being all powerful doesn't mean that He can bring about the logically impossible, to be clear there's no such thing as the logically impossible.  It's a completely inconsistent combination of words.  However, if the atheist is insistent that an all-powerful God CAN do the logically impossible, then the conversation is over.  At this point they've committed themselves to the stance that God and suffering can both coexist, since He can do the logically impossible, negating your need to go any further.

Since it turns out it's possible for people to have free will, then it follows that premise 3 is not necessarily true.  If people can have free will then they have the ability to refuse to do what a loving God desires, which still makes Him a loving God as described in the Bible, but illustrates the evil that does exist in a fallen world.  This eliminates one of the assumptions that the atheist needs to be true for their logical argument to succeed.  Remember, they need both to be true.

A Moment on Free Will:

  This argument is based on the use of Libertarian Free Will. In my post it is strictly used as a possibility, though not a Biblically sound view for a believer.  I don't hold a libertarian view of free will, nor do the professors that are teaching the subject. It paints a picture of a reactionary God that's unsure of our choices and then must react accordingly once we chose to do something.  I am strictly using this as a method to dismiss the possibility for the atheist and nothing more.  As believers we all share one common belief, that our scope is limited. The atheist, unfortunately, believes that they have a better grasp on reality and therefore an unlimited vantage point. With no creator, there is no one that sees things from a divine perspective, therefore putting them at the apex of reasoning.  We aren't trying to fully explain God in this argument, we are simply trying to remove the idea that it's impossible for God and suffering to coexist.  So plugging in possibilities is an acceptable method of reasoning here, even if it's not in line with sound theology.

Premise 4: (If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering.)

  Is this necessarily true?  We all know instances where we permit suffering for the greater good.  Think about taking your child to the dentist.  You allow your child to suffer a little bit (at least this is suffering in their eyes), but it's all for their own good.  The atheist might insist that an all-powerful being wouldn't be so limited.  That God could bring about greater good directly, without any suffering involved.  Again this is where the possibility of free will is involved.  Some goods can only be achieved through suffering.  Some people consider things like exercise to be a form of suffering to produce a better result.  If we induce small amounts of suffering upon ourselves for the greater good, then simply increasing the scale on which you suffer fails to invalidate that good can come from it.  If you can point out ways in which they use suffering on a small scale to create a better result, then you can dismiss premise 4.  If there is any possibility that suffering on any level can be used for good, then it alone cannot be used to explain away God.

Since the atheist has taken on the burden of proof in this argument, it's clear that it's too heavy for them to carry.  Their only way out is to somehow prove that free will doesn't exist in any capacity.  Then to fully finish it off, they must explain how it's impossible that a world without suffering is better than a world with suffering. 

Suffering is in the Eyes of the Beholder:

  At this point you should be done with your argument when using the logical version, but here's a little something extra in case the conversation ventures off into the obscure.  Suffering cannot be a valid argument against God simply because suffering is relative.  The very things that cause me to suffer might be enjoyable to others. Many of the things that we do in America are considered evil in other parts of the world. Worshiping Christ is one of them.  In the US, the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous of criminals.  In China you are executed for embezzlement.  Suffering and evil are not standard units of measurement, they are personal opinion.  Yes, there are things that are almost universally considered evil.  The Holocaust is one of them and a very common example. It's certainly not something I wish to marginalize to make a point.  However, I must point out that it wasn't considered evil in the eyes of Hitler or his followers.  While this doesn't mean that their actions weren't evil, it just serves to point out that evil is still a relative term. 

Going Forward:

  After centuries of debate, you should know that the logical version of the problem of suffering has been put to bed.  Not here in this blog, but rather by Christian philosophers and atheistic scholarship in general.  Chances are that you're not going to be having this discussion with a philosopher, so it's still useful in an everyday conversation.  Like I've mentioned in previous posts, you are dealing with entry level atheists, so it's still a useful method of debate. 

  Next we will look at the Evidential Version of the argument.  That is to say that it's improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting suffering.