Monthly Archives: August 2011

Review of “Engaging Unbelief” by Curtis Chang

People often ask me for book recommendations, particularly on the topics of philosophy and theology. One that I continue to recommend is Curtis Chang’s Engaging Unbelief for its attention to the often-overlooked field of historical theology. I reviewed this important apologetics book a couple of years ago and offer it again here.

Shifting times with their accompanying norms have unsettled the Christian church. According to author Curtis Chang, apologist and InterVarsity campus minister, postmodernism “now challenges all norms and truths.” This philosophical outlook is characterized by views such as religious pluralism, multiculturalism, relativism, and literary skepticism. All of these views collide with Christian truth-claims to present the church with an “epochal challenge.”

Defined by Chang as a “paradigm shift” or a new weltanschauung (German for “worldview”), the epochal challenge of postmodern thought calls into question how people understand such critical concepts as truth, reality, knowledge, goodness, meaning, and purpose. As a result, Christian thinkers have had to strategize new ways to best present the enduring truths of the gospel message.

Does an effective strategy exist for confronting the multifaceted challenges (e. g., metaphysical, epistemological, moral, and literary) raised by postmodernism? How, for example, does one effectively present the universal and unchanging truth-claims of Christianity to a culture that rejects the idea of absolute truth? While an assortment of Christian books responds to postmodern thinking, Chang’s Engaging Unbelief provides a substantive answer to these questions. Reaching back into the apologetics works of two of Christianity’s greatest thinkers—Augustine (354–430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)—Chang uncovers a provocative strategy for addressing the postmodern quagmire.

Chang’s view posits that if evangelical Christians are going to be successful in responding to the postmodern mindset they must heed the Apostle Paul’s imperative in 2 Corinthians 10:5:

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Chang believes that since postmodernists prefer to speak in terms of personal “story” (perspective or narrative), rather than in terms of objective truth, the best apologetics strategy engages unbelief by penetrating the challenger’s story.

From two classic apologetics works, Augustine’s City of God and Aquinas’s Summa Contra Gentiles, Chang draws three relevant points. First, the Christian apologist must “enter the challenger’s story” (competing worldview) by becoming familiar with its language, categories, and authorities. This familiarity enables the apologist to respond from a shared perspective, though always guided by the gospel. Second, the apologist engages in “retelling the story” from the inside, using its own language and paradigms but specifically exposing its explanatory incompleteness and its inherent “tragic flaw,” or inevitable downfall. Third, the apologist engages in “recapturing that retold tale within the gospel metanarrative,” thus showing how the Christian gospel uniquely solves the story’s intrinsic flaw.

The real substance of Chang’s book consists in its detailed and careful explanation of how Augustine and Aquinas used this strategic method to confront the epochal challenges of their respective times.

Augustine, living in late antiquity, faced the real possibility of an emerging post-Christian society. Looking ahead to what might happen if the pagan Romans successfully blamed Christianity for the decline of the “Eternal City” (Rome) and, ultimately, for the collapse of the Roman Empire, Augustine gathered his substantial creative, intellectual resources. His massive work, City of God, systematically refuted this pagan story and laid the foundation for an enduring Christian philosophy of history.

Centuries later, Aquinas faced the possibility of an enduring religious pluralism—if the followers of Islam succeeded in positioning their religious philosophy as a viable or superior alternative to a Christian religious philosophy. Aquinas’s masterful philosophical treatise, Summa Contra Gentiles, set forth a genuinely Christian philosophy that properly integrated the important areas of faith and reason.

No consensus among evangelical scholars exists as to how to view and respond to postmodern thinking. Chang may grant more credence to postmodern ways of thinking about knowledge than some would warrant. The absence of a clear definition for postmodernism seems a minor weakness in this overall useful and scholarly work.

In a relatively brief paperback (187 pages), Chang manages to present a detailed and substantive analysis of Augustine’s and Aquinas’ monumental apologetics works. His intuition in looking to Christian apologetics history for answers to today’s challenges brings insightful refreshing information to consider. This reviewer, however, would go beyond Chang in advocating that evangelicalism could benefit greatly by embracing much of the theology of these two intellectual giants.

Quote of the Week: Robert Letham

In the East the doctrine of the trinity has remained a vital part of belief and worship, in contrast to the West, where for the vast majority it is little more than an arcane mathematical riddle, of no real consequence for daily living.

–Robert Letham, Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy – A Reformed Perspective (UK: Mentor, 2007), 271-72.

What in the World Is a Worldview?

Everybody has one. Whether they’re educated or uneducated, liberal or conservative, rich or poor, nonbelieving or God-fearing, all people act and live according to their particular worldview. Given its prevalence, it might be helpful to explain what exactly a worldview is.

In the simplest terms, a worldview can be defined as how one sees life and the world at large. In this manner it can be compared to a pair of glasses.1 How a person makes sense of the world depends upon that person’s “vision,” so to speak. The interpretive “lens” helps people make sense of life and comprehend the world around them. Sometimes the lens brings clarity, but other times it can distort reality.

Derived from the German term Weltanschauung,2 the word “worldview” refers to the cluster of beliefs a person holds about the most significant concepts of life—such as God, the cosmos, knowledge, values, humanity, and history. These beliefs (which may be right or wrong or a combination thereof, much like the visual clarity or distortion given by glasses) form a big picture, a general outlook, or a grand perspective on life and the world.

In more technical terms, a worldview forms a mental structure that organizes one’s basic or ultimate beliefs. This framework supplies a comprehensive view of what a person considers real, true, rational, good, valuable, and beautiful. In this vein, philosopher Ronald Nash defines a worldview as “a conceptual scheme by which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality.”3

Similarly, philosophers Norman Geisler and William Watkins describe a worldview as “an interpretive framework through which or by which one makes sense out of the data of life and the world.”4 Worldview perspectives involve much more than merely sets of intellectual beliefs, but a basic conceptual system is critical. Rather than a disconnected or disparate group of unrelated beliefs, a carefully examined and reflective worldview consists of a network of interconnected ideas that form a unified whole.

This system of beliefs then responds to the big questions of life, focusing on issues central to human concern. These issues especially include thoughts about the human predicament: Why is man the way he is? Why does he face the challenges he does? Such questions explore how human beings derive meaning, purpose, and significance.

Philosopher Michael Palmer explains: “Through our worldview, we determine priorities, explain our relationship to God and fellow human beings, assess the meaning of events, and justify our actions.”5 A person’s worldview provides a general context for life, including a vision of what one considers authentically real.6

Life’s Road Map

More than just an interpretive lens, a worldview perspective shapes, influences, and generally directs a person’s entire life. Because people behave as they believe, their worldviews guide the development of the values that inform their decisions and actions.

Living a well-balanced life based on realistic values requires thinking about basic and critical questions. When a worldview attempts to answer them, it functions like a chart or plan used to navigate through the journey of life (though potential flaws in the plans must be kept in mind). A worldview can be seen as a “road map” that supplies directions that guide a person’s life decisions.

The Big Twelve

Therefore, a well-thought-out course or worldview needs to answer twelve ultimate concerns that philosophers identify as “the big questions of life.”7

  • Ultimate reality: What kind of God, if any, actually exists?
  • External reality: Is there anything beyond the cosmos?
  • Knowledge: What can be known, and how can anyone know it?
  • Origin: Where did I come from?
  • Identity: Who am I?
  • Location: Where am I?
  • Morals: How should I live?
  • Values: What should I consider of great worth?
  • Predicament: What is humanity’s fundamental problem?
  • Resolution: How can humanity’s problem be solved?
  • Past/Present: What is the meaning and direction of history?
  • Destiny: Will I survive the death of my body and, if so, in what state?

The answers given to these inquiries not only provide focus and purpose in life, but they can also (as a system) be tested for logical coherence, correspondence to reality, explanatory power and scope, and internal and external livability.

References

1. See Norman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003), 11–12; and Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews in Conflict (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 17–18.

2. For a thorough historical and philosophical analysis of the term Weltanschauung (worldview), see David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).

3. Ronald H. Nash, Faith & Reason (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 24.

4. Geisler and Watkins, Worlds Apart, 11.

5. Michael D. Palmer, comp. and ed., Elements of a Christian Worldview (Springfield, MO: Logion, 1998), 24.

6. Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 4.

7. Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 35; David S. Dockery and Gregory Alan Thornbury, eds., Shaping a Christian Worldview (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 3.

Quote of the Week: The Gloria Patri

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

–The Gloria Patri

The Trinity’s Biblical Basis

Some people challenge the idea that the Bible supports God’s Triune nature. However, six simple statements show how this doctrine is indeed derived from Scripture:

  1. There is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; John 17:3; Galatians 3:20).
  1. The Father is called or referred to as God (Psalm 89:26; Ephesians 4:6; Colossians 1:2–3; 2 Peter 1:17).
  1. The Son (Jesus Christ) is called or referred to as God (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13).
  1. The Holy Spirit is called or referred to (or granted the status) as God (Genesis 1:2; John 14:26; Acts 13:2, 4; Romans 8:11).
  1. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons and can be distinguished from one another (the Father is not the Son; the Father is not the Holy Spirit; and the Son is not the Holy Spirit) (Matthew 28:19; Luke 3:22; John 15:26; 16:13–15; 2 Corinthians 13:14).
  1. The three persons (Father or God; and Son or Christ or Lord; and Holy Spirit or Spirit) are frequently listed together in a triadic pattern of unity and equality (Romans 15:16, 30; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 1:21–22; Galatians 4:6).

My friend and colleague Robert M. Bowman Jr. provides over 1,000 biblical references for the doctrine of the Trinity at www.irr.org/trinity-outline.html.

For more on the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity, see my book A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

Quote of the Week: Cornelius Plantinga Jr., 3

Self-giving love is the dynamic currency of the trinitarian life of God. The persons within God exalt each other, commune with each other, defer to one another. Each person, so to speak, makes room for the other two. I know it sounds a little strange, but we might almost say that the persons within God show each other divine hospitality.

—Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Engaging God’s World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 20.

Captain America and Superhero Worldviews, Part 2

I was somewhat reticent to see the newest superhero movie Captain America: The First Avenger (released July 22, 2011). Why? Because Captain America was my favorite superhero as a kid and it seems that few contemporary remakes do justice to one’s childhood memories.

Nevertheless, I saw the movie on opening day and liked it. It’s faithful to Captain America’s World War II context and contains plenty of military action and adventure. It also presents Captain America as the fearless patriot I remember him as. I therefore give the movie a solid 9 out of 10 rating.

Captain America and the Five Problems of Ethics

In part one of this series, I introduced what philosophers call “The Five Problems of Ethics.” What follows is my attempt to answer these philosophical inquiries from the vantage point of the superhero Captain America. I readily admit that some of my conclusions are a bit speculative in nature. I’m attempting to read between the lines and, in effect, look through Captain America’s worldview lens.

1. What characterizes human nature?

In Captain America’s worldview it seems that human nature is clearly capable of being corrupted by great evil. After all, the backdrop of the series is World War II with the villainous Red Skull representing Adolf Hitler’s alter ego. Yet as Captain America himself illustrates, human nature is also seemingly capable of resisting evil and seeking the moral good.

2. What is the greatest good?

To my knowledge, Captain America doesn’t talk about God per se. But since he represents the apex of American beliefs and values, I will draw the inference that he would agree with the providential statement that appears on American coins: “In God We Trust.”

Generally speaking, Americans believe that a divine creator grants their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus Captain America’s worldview, being deeply shaped by America’s vision and values, discovers its ultimate good in God almighty. However, believing in the generic creator of American natural religion (see the Declaration of Independence) is a long way from affirming the Triune God of the Bible (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

3. How is the greatest good known?

Again reading between the lines, I would assert that Captain America’s world-and-life view likely discovers the greatest good (in this case, God) through the deliverances of reason and intuition, which are grounded in the broader created order. However, Captain America never seems to mention the special form of divine revelation that Christians refer to as sacred Scripture (the Bible).

4. What motivates and restrains moral choices?

One of the things that I most appreciate about Captain America is his deep-seated sense of moral duty. As the ideal representative of American beliefs and values, this superhero is both motivated and restrained by his awareness of moral obligation. Of course, moral duties and obligations must be grounded in a truly objective ethical system. And for most Americans, the surest foundation for ethical values is found in the God of biblical theism.

5. Do human beings possess the freedom of the will?

The worldview reflected in Captain America and earlier comic books clearly reflects an affirmation of human freedom. In fact, human beings must ultimately decide whether they will join with the powers of good or align with evil forces. Freedom then carries with it great moral responsibility.

As I mentioned in part one, my attachment to Captain America is tied to my deep belief in basic American values (self-determination, personal responsibility, and justice).

I suggest that you go see the new movie and see if my assessment of Captain America’s worldview is indeed accurate.

Quote of the Week: Saint Augustine, 2

 But my sin was this, that I looked for pleasure, beauty, and truth not in him but in myself and his other creatures, and the search led me instead to pain, confusion, and error.

—Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1992), bk. 1, 20.

Logic Lessons: Attack the Argument, Not the Person

The Captain America and superhero worldviews series will return next week. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy this post on lessons in logic.

______________________________________________________

This article originally appeared in RTB’s publication Connections, 2003, vol. 5, no. 3 and 4.

_______________________________________________________

General George S. Patton’s standing order during the Second World War was to “attack, attack, and, if in doubt, attack again!” That approach certainly worked well for the U. S. Army in Europe during World War II. However, when it comes to logic (and peacetime), the attack needs to be focused on the argument, not on the person.

Informal fallacies—defects or errors in reasoning—cause arguments to break down. The ad hominem fallacy (argument against the person) occurs when one arguer presents his point and the second participant ignores the point, instead attacking the character of his opponent.

The ad hominem fallacy comes in three identifiable varieties:

  • abusive: directly denouncing character (old-fashioned name-calling)
  • circumstantial: raising special circumstances in an attempt to discredit a person’s motives (also known as “poisoning the well”)
  • tu quoque: accusing the other person of hypocrisy as an attempt to avoid personal criticism (tu quoque is Latin for “you too”)

This tactic is not only personally offensive but also logically unacceptable because it violates two core principles of reasoning. First, a person has an intellectual responsibility to respond to the content of an argument. Second, the character attack itself is irrelevant to the person’s argument (whether or not it is true). Even morally flawed people can present sound arguments.

On occasion, however, criticizing a person’s character may be appropriate—if the person’s character is the logical issue at hand. For example, jurors in a courtroom need to know if a witness has been found guilty of perjury in the past. Believability is closely connected to the issue of discerning truth.

For dealing with ad hominem attacks, I offer three recommendations:

  1. Don’t give in to the temptation to respond in the same abusive manner;
  2. Help your opponent (and others) understand that the attack is logically irrelevant; and
  3. Refocus attention on the argument at hand.

Once the focus is back on the argument and not the person, listeners (even opponents) are more likely to reconsider and be persuaded. The Christian’s goal is to present arguments shaped by sound logical and moral principles and to trust God to use them as He pleases.

For Further Study
Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer
A Concise Introduction to Logic by Patrick J. Hurley
A World of Difference by Kenneth Richard Samples