Tag Archives: Christianity

Commentary

Wes Widner’s suggestions for improving the effectiveness of church

2 Comments

Here’s a blog post from Reason to Stand. In it, Wes Widner examines some problems with the way churches operate today, and makes some recommendations for improvement.

Excerpt:

In the first place, a hierarchical system where non-preachers are viewed as less spiritual, where the gift of preaching is exalted above all other gifts is plainly against many passages found in scripture including Jesus’s own admonition that his own disciples not follow the pattern of the world in setting up hierarchical “power over” systems.

Secondly I would point to the perpetual spiritual immaturity that is fostered and festering in most churches (particularly Southern Baptist and Methodist churches as those are the ones I have the most experience in). When people are told that rigorous study of the word of God is limited to an elite few “chosen” men the end result is a logical abdication of serious study on the part of the “average” churchgoer. This is one of the reasons I believe areas such as apologetics have historically had such a hard time making inroads into the local church because most pastors feel threatened by the prospect of their congregation actually being educated and able (empowered?) to ask serious questions. Sadly it doesn’t have to be like this and I’ll explain in my third line of reasoning below.

Finally, I believe that the system we’ve manufactured (sure, as early as 300AD, but early errors are still errors) and have come to accept as an unquestionable fact is harmful to the Body of Christ is because it leads directly to pastors either being burned out or becoming dictators (I believe in some cases merely for self-preservation). Nowhere in Scripture are we presented with a description of a man who is supposed to shoulder the load that we expect the average “professional” pastor to carry. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that one man in a local group of believers is in charge of visiting the sick, ministering to all the members, responsible for the bulk of spiritual instruction, etc.

J.P. Moreland also recommends having a team of pastors instead of just one main pastor in his book “Love Your God With All Your Mind”, or LYGWYM, for short.

I chose this post to link to because I’ve experienced the problems he talks about here personally. But I’ve also noticed some practices I liked while listening to sermons online. One thing I like about Mark Driscoll is that he gives the sermon then takes questions from the audience. I also like Wayne Grudem because he preaches in a normal voice and isn’t afraid to talk about politics and other serious issues. And I like it when William Lane Craig surveys all points of view on interesting topics when he teaches Sunday school.

And I have some ideas of my own, too. Speaking as a man, I learn better when things are presented to me as an overview of conflicting viewpoints. I get bored when only one point of view is presented. It makes me sleepy. I like to fight, so that would be my recommendation to improve church – more apologetics, more debates and more disagreements. And I think having events where the church hosts debates for the public to attend at the local university is also good.

Commentary

Neil Simpson on the minimal facts case for the resurrection

2 Comments

From Neil Simpson’s 4Simpsons blog.

Excerpt:

This is a summary of the “minimal facts” approach, which points to commonly held historical facts as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and the truth of Christianity.  Nearly 100% of historical scholars from 1975 – present agree with the following statements:

  • Jesus really lived and was killed on a Roman cross.
  • Jesus’ disciples believed He appeared to them.
  • Jesus’ brother, James, went from being a pre-crucifixion skeptic to a post-crucificion church leader.
  • The Apostle Paul believed Jesus appeared to him and he wrote most of the books attributed to him, including Romans, I & II Corinthians, Philemon and others.

75% of the same scholars agree that the tomb was empty.

I submit that the physical resurrection of Jesus best accounts for these facts.

He’s got a link to Mary Jo Sharp’s slide show on the minimal facts approach.

My best comprehensive post on the minimal facts case for ressurection is here: Ten resources to help you talk to non-Christians about the resurrection of Jesus.

Come on, folks. We all need to be able to talk about the resurrection as much as we can talk about our favorite sports team or our favorite celebrities/artists. I’m sure that Jesus likes it when we can talk about his resurrection in public with other people – especially non-Christians. The minimal facts approach is the best way to do that!

Be his friend – talk about his resurrection. Intelligently.

Commentary

Report on Licona-Patterson debate on the resurrection

2 Comments

This after action report was sent in by commenter Aaron as a comment to another post about the debate on the resurrection that was held last night. I apologize for the formatting!

LICONA-PATTERSON DEBATE: A BRIEF REPORT AND ANALYSIS
HELD ON 3/31/2010

A few hours ago my wife and I attended a debate on Jesus’ Resurrection between Mike Licona and Stephen Patterson (a Jesus Seminar scholar) at FSU in Tallahassee, FL. What follows is a brief report and analysis of the debate.

******A BRIEF REPORT

I. Opening

A. Licona presents 5 facts (taken solely from Paul’s undisputed writings) and 4 criteria (method) for concluding that Jesus was physically raised from the dead.

5 Facts
1. Paul was an eyewitness (hostile).
2. Paul knew Jesus’ disciples.
3. Paul taught what the disciples taught.
4. They taught appearances to individuals and groups, to friend and foe alike.
5. They and Paul taught Jesus was physically raised.

4 Criteria
1. Explanatory Scope
2. Explanatory Power
3. Less Ad Hoc
4. Plausibility

The Resurrection hypothesis passes numbers 1, 2, and 3 with flying colors; and it neither passes nor fails number 4 (plausibility).

B. Patterson claims he believes in Jesus’ resurrection, but he does not believe that God raised Jesus physically. For Patterson the bottom line of the debate is whether or not the dead Jesus got resuscitated.

-When Paul uses “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4), he meant God cares for his people according to Hebrew Scriptures. In Jewish terms, resurrection meant “vindication.”

-Patterson asks, “How did Jesus appear to Paul?” and quotes Gal. 1:16, stating that God reveals His Son “in me” (Greek: en emoi), not “to me.”

-“Flesh and blood cannot enter God’s kingdom” (1 Cor. 15:50) contradicts “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39) of Jesus’ getting back to God’s kingdom. Therefore, it follows that Paul did not believe in physical resurrection of Jesus.

-The ancient may believe a person comes back to life and then goes to heaven, but we—the modern man—no longer believe this because our worldview does not allow it.

II. First Rebuttal

A. Licona reviews his facts/method and points out that Patterson disagrees with his number 5 fact, namely, Paul taught that Jesus was physically raised. Licona says:

-Patterson’s appeal to Jewish meaning of resurrection to be “vindication” is irrelevant. In fact, Patterson himself says—Licona quoting him here—that 1 Cor. 15 should be the basis for knowing the earliest Christian traditions.

-Patterson’s translation of soma psuchikon—as “physical” body—(1 Cor. 15:44) is untenable, because there is zero basis for this. “Natural body” is more like it.

-“Flesh and blood” means “mortality” not “physicality.”

-Patterson’s translation of en emoi –as “in me”–(Gal. 1:16) is not strictly “in me.” Gal. 1:24 says, “And they praised God because of me [en emoi].” 1 Cor. 14:11c says, “he is a foreigner to me [en emoi].” The en emoi cannot always legitimately be translated “in me.”

B. Patterson abandons his en emoi=“to me” argument and resorts to saying that Paul’s relation with Jesus was a matter of “spiritual envelopment.”

Patterson tries to resuscitate his soma psuchikon=“physical body” argument, but he could not get it back to life.

Patterson admits that the whole debate is all about worldview. Making a reference to Licona’s fourth criteria, he finds Jesus’ physical resurrection to be implausible because he believes dead people do not come to life. Jesus’ coming to life cannot be an exception, and neither is it necessary.

III. Second Rebuttal

A. Licona reminds the audience of the two major building blocks for the resurrection: facts and method.

-Licona reiterates his points on “to me” versus “in me” and the issue on the use on some psuchikon (natural body) and soma pnematikon (spiritual body).

-Licona says Patterson’s is a worldview problem—a metaphysical bias, not a historically based argument.

B. Patterson is reduced to asking if Paul believed the way the apostles believed, since early Christian proclamation (found in the gospels) was ambiguous.

IV. Closing
A. Licona answers Patterson’s question

B. Patterson’s main conclusion was that if Licona’s view of Jesus’ physical resurrection makes you a better person (e.g., treating your fellow with love, etc.), then stay with it and ignore Patterson’s view.

V. Q and A Session

Only the first question, addressed to Paterson, will be mentioned here:
“Given that this is a worldview issue to you, what is your philosophical justification—since you have no historical justification—for [sic] believing that a dead person does not become alive?” Patterson answers, “Mine is a biological—not a philosophical—justification.” The questioner follows up, “What is your philosophical justification for your biological justification that people will not become alive in the future?” Patterson answered, “I think it’s a good guess.”

*******A DEBATE ANALYSIS

No doubt, Mike Licona killed Stephen Patterson here—it was embarrassing. This is perhaps Licona’s biggest win. The case for Jesus’ resurrection obtains—big time!

There were moments one could tell that Patterson was greatly rattled, and he seemed to be merely going in circles, as though at a loss as to what he was trying to say. Also, there were a few times that he sounded like he was conceding a number of points that Licona had used to demolish his arguments. Frankly, I felt bad for Patterson because he was such a very nice guy and had exercised lots of grace, despite the fiasco.

Basically, having abandoned all his initial arguments (including criticizing the gospels—straw man attack), Patterson was reduced, literally, to making a baseless assumption that “a dead person does not become alive.”

After the debate I personally spoke to Patterson and asked him, “Since you have no historical justification for believing that a dead person does not come to life, you really cannot say—as a historian—that Jesus’ resurrection is implausible.” He responded something to this effect: “Well, we have to use biology and gravity, and historians draw from these.” I said, “So then, you would be using historical justification, not merely biological justification.” His answer seemed rather incoherent, and then he said, “Well, that [biology] is all we have to work with.”