“This animate was adapted from a talk given at the RSA by Sir Ken Robinson, world-renowned education and creativity expert and recipient of the RSA’s Benjamin Franklin award.”

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook recently and I thought it sufficiently thought provoking to share it as well. What I like about it (apart from the excellent animation) is that it calls into question the educational paradigms that may have come out of the Enlightenment. These may have been consistent with and worked fairly well at one point in history – but may not be so useful in our current cultural context. Further, it is clear our educational methods may need to be rethought not just in terms of the need to provide Christian worldview thinking, but may also need to be adjusted to promote a more creative and comprehensive thought process.

I recently came across this video that is about how people think about abortion, and how they can change their mind about it when they are helped to think about it in new and reasonable ways. It is a powerful presentation of how to talk to people about this difficult subject in convincing ways.

It is rather long (33 minutes), but well worth the time to go through the whole thing. Especially when you consider it as an example of how to witness to people about the person of Jesus, and how everyone should submit to Him in faith. Watch it carefully as an example of how to do evangelism.

This video provides some examples of how to reasonably speak to people about the truth claims of the Bible – in a way that gets them to agree with your assumptions about the world, ethics and the need for God. Talking about ethics is a most effective method of beginning an evangelistic conversation. It often seems difficult to know how to get people to come to grips with their need for salvation from their sinfulness. But if you can get them to agree on some basic ethical principles, it leads to the subject of the ultimate source of ethical standards – God and His word.

““Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.” (Isaiah 1:18, NKJV)

“Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas. But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious, took some of the evil men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.” (Acts 17:2–5, NKJV)

“Therefore he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.” (Acts 17:17, NKJV)

“And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”” (Acts 18:4–6, NKJV)

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;” (1 Peter 3:15, NKJV)

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,” (2 Corinthians 10:4–5, NKJV)

For those who know me very well at all, you know that I consider the Christian view of Creation (in six ordinary days) to be a necessary component of the Christian worldview. I know that such an opinion is largely unpopular today (both outside, and sadly, inside the Church). But without the doctrine of Creation firmly placed in our hearts and minds, we have little to offer the world around us. For without it, we have no transcendent God whose word is reliable, and no firm basis upon which to build a true understanding of the world around us (including the sciences). Moreover, by it we have a basis for a universal and beneficial ethics for all of life.

David Berlinski was interviewed by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute. He is an astonishing presenter of the foolishness of those who say “There is no God” (Ps. 14), and the plausibility of the biblical creation account. Although Berlinski comes across as agnostic in the above clip, his clear and careful logic form a compelling philosophical basis to argue for biblical creation – and to seriously mistrust the prevailing popular beliefs in both atheistic evolution and the infallibility of science and scientific confidence in Naturalism.

“ The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, Who eat up my people as they eat bread, And do not call on the Lord? There they are in great fear, For God is with the generation of the righteous. You shame the counsel of the poor, But the Lord is his refuge. Oh, that the salvation of Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lord brings back the captivity of His people, Let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad.” (Psalm 147, NKJV)

Understanding and Owning Christian Theology

Week 1 (Aug 7): Right, Biblical Thinking – Why it matters

 Intro:

I grew up in a Christian home and was taught the Christian faith all my life. When I went to college I was confronted with really smart people that believed things I had never thought of and I didn’t know what to think. I thought evolution was just something to laugh at and only unthinking people believed in – I was wrong and became somewhat disoriented. I talked to people that believed that there is no God to depend on, and there is literally nothing that, given time, man could not accomplish (e.g. unaided flying). I talked to other Christians that didn’t believe the same things I did, and didn’t know how to answer them.  This may have been your own experience. In my case it was the beginning of a period of significant rebellion – not because I didn’t know things about the faith, but because I allowed my confusion to sidetrack my fundamental belief and trust.

My purpose in this class is not to provide full instruction on any of the subjects we will talk about. Rather, my goal is to provide some simple tools for knowing what it is that we teach here at RCC, and then have open discussions about the various topics so that together we can know why it matters what we believe. You are encouraged to ask questions, make assertions, and help each other both believe and understand the Christian faith.

Credo ut intelligam vs cotito ergo sum

Credo ut intelligam (alternatively spelled Credo ut intellegam) is Latin for “I believe so that I may understand” and is a maxim of Anselm of Canterbury, which is based on a saying of Augustine of Hippo (crede, ut intelligas, “believe so that you may understand”) to relate faith and reason. It is often accompanied by its corollary, intellego ut credam (“I think so that I may believe”), and by Anselm’s other famous phrase fides quaerens intellectum (“faith seeking understanding”).

The modern world had an auspicious beginning with the words of Rene Descartes (1596-1650): cotito ergo sum “I think, therefore I am.” With these words man’s scientific conquest of nature apart from God began. From it sprang incredible scientific progress, but also the most profound apostasy from God. For over 1000 years the church in the west had developed a Christian worldview, which in fairly short order was rejected in favor of a man-centered worldview.

The tool I want to provide today for thinking rightly is the ability to see the Christian world view in opposition to every other way of viewing the world. This tool is the use of the three great questions in philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics

Ideas Have Legs and they walk – sometimes they run away from you: Presuppositionalism 

In a New York Post online article entitled Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’, the first line makes an assertion worth considering: “If this keeps up, no one’s going to trust any scientists.”

The article is specifically about the issue of man-caused global warming, and the notion that “the best scientists” are 1) not unified on the question, and 2) fighting among each other about which side is engaged in pseudo-science and downright public deception, and 3) loosing the confidence of the worldwide audience who are witnessing the confusion.

I , for my part, don’t know what to think. How could I? What do I know about the science, one way or another? What I am inclined to is a robust mistrust of the man-caused global warming crowd and their pronouncements because of their underlying assumptions and worldviews. However, I generally wonder whether the presuppositions and worldviews of the anti- man-caused global warming crowd are any better. More often than not – it seems more like a political debate and less of a scientific one anyway.

But what about the question posed earlier? Will people stop trusting scientists altogether? And what would be the result if they did?

The materialist assumptions that modern culture has about the nature of reality promotes a general trust of science as a more reliable arbiter and establisher of truth than religious authorities (e.g. the Christian Bible). If there is nothing authoritative outside of our material world that can give us truth, who better to provide authoritative pronouncements of truth than scientists (of all kinds)? Because our culture has not given up on its materialist worldview in favor of another – I think it unlikely that people will stop trusting scientists generally.

What about us Christians? Should we trust scientists?

As far as I’m concerned, science should be viewed as an important gift from God. It is a method that is used to help us learn things about God’s work of creation. It has provided a means of developing many technologies that have been good and useful in our world (as well as some pretty useless and poorly and sinfully used ones). However, not all that science determines to be true is indeed true. Further research, testing and analysis often over turn previously announced “scientific facts.” Science is not an infallible source of knowledge and truth – Therefore, it should not be treated as one. It must be remembered that rebellious men suppress the truth of God (both in the Bible and in creation) in their unrighteousness.

Thus, Christians can and should be scientists. Christians should receive with thanksgiving the gifts that God gives to us through the works of scientists. Christians should learn about the work of scientists to better understand our world, worship God more gratefully, and provide scientists with insight about what is being learned. Christians should reject any scientific claims that contradict the Scriptures. Because scientific truth claims are often later determined to be erroneous, Christians, therefore, should exhibit patience and let time and more scientific work help us to understand the truth of the specific claims. In other words, we cannot allow ourselves to be tossed about by every whim of scientific doctrine – but constant in faith and faithfulness; and exhibit biblical wisdom in the use of the products of the scientific endeavor.

An increasing healthy mistrust of “scientists” generally in our culture would be a good thing, in my opinion. They would be forced to limit their statements of truth, be more careful in their research and conclusions, and be less willing to engage in thinking more highly of themselves than they ought. We have such a mistrust of politicians, lawyers, etc – and I believe it does us a great deal of good by causing us to hold them accountable in significant ways for their truth claims. There are certainly good and godly men in all fields of human endeavor, but the works of both the godly and the wicked need to be tested by the truth of God’s Word – our final authority for all truth.