Ichthus77

Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG: FOUR: The Church Is Responsible for So Much Injustice

 Tim Keller’s The Reason for God Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt

FOUR: The Church Is Responsible for So Much Injustice

“In chapter 4, the author looks at Christian hypocrisy and the problem it creates for those outside the church. The author agrees that people who do not claim to be Christians are often more ethical and more moral than those who attend church. Then he proposes an interesting explanation: churches might have a higher concentration of broken people, compared to the constituencies of other organizations, because people in need realize their condition and seek out assistance (see p. 53 — 54). Do you feel this explanation is too close to saying “don’t judge Christianity by its weakest representatives”? Do you agree with the criticism that if Christianity really does transform lives, that the behavior of Christians should surpass that of the average human? Discuss your responses.” – Penguin
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf

An observation I have made is that some people who call Christians hypocrites because they witness a Christian doing things they would consider “un-Christian” – they do the exact same things, and often worse things. Maybe it makes them lose hope that they can be lifted out of the mud, when they see Christians who are indistinguishable from the world? Maybe their anger at hypocrisy is misplaced guilt and helps relieve their sense of guilt at doing things they know are wrong — a sense of guilt that is maybe a very heavy guilt complex because they grew up with a Pharisaical (“holier than thou”) attitude about Christianity, rather than knowing that we are saved by grace? I also wonder if they have standards (for Christians, or for themselves-if-they-were-Christians) that are too strict. When I was growing up it was wrong to drink alcohol, and now that rule is more relaxed and we even held sermon group in a pub one time. Maybe their anger about Christian hypocrisy comes from observing ‘nominal’ or ‘fanatical’ people who call themselves Christians but do not know Christ (perhaps some wolves in sheep’s clothing), or maybe from observing newborn Christians who “have a long way to go emotionally, morally, and spiritually,” (53) and judging them prematurely (without grace… perhaps because they don’t yet know grace)? It’s crazy – I was reviewing this book, “Lord, I Need Grace to Make It” by Kay Arthur – all over it in different sections I wrote, “Sorry… I just don’t get it.” I was losing faith at the time I did that Bible study, and clearly – I had not even yet understood grace (as a ‘reality’ and not merely as a ‘concept’). So it is not hard for me to understand how a non-Christian may not understand grace. It’s like God keeps your eyes closed until you are ready to see His world… like a doctor pushing on a newborn’s head to keep it from being choked by the umbilical cord.

I liked how Keller contrasted between ‘nominalism’ and ‘fanaticism’ (56-57) – distinguishing between those who claim the title “Christian” but do not live it out and barely believe it – and those who claim the title “Christian” but behave and believe more like Pharisees. I liked how he emphasized the need to move to a fuller and deeper grasp of what Christianity is – that it is not a form of moral improvement, but salvation by grace – God’s loving us no matter what we do, which motivates us to love others likewise. I liked how Keller pointed out Jesus’ critique of religion similar to the prophets of the OT, and how Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others used their knowledge of true Christianity, of salvation by grace, to live out grace in their critique of religion and the church from within. Here is Rev. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” for your perusal:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf

I liked how Keller pointed out (via Alister McGrath) that “when the idea of God is gone, a society will ‘transcendentalize’ something else, some other concept, in order to appear morally and spiritually superior. The Marxists [Ichthus: not Marx] made the state into such an absolute, while the Nazis did it to race and blood. Even the ideals of liberty and equality can be used in this way in order to do violence to opponents. … violence has been inspired as much by secularism as by moral absolutism. Societies that have rid themselves of all religion have been just as oppressive as those steeped in it,” (55-56).

When you make decisions, do you consider others in general, including being willing to risk your life to liberate others, as Jesus did, or do you not have the motivation–the joy of God spoken of at the end of chapter 4 (if you do have the motivation, I am not asking you to toot your own horn) (if you don’t and you’re a Christian, remember grace and that growth is gradual)? Or do you think God’s self-sacrificial love is not the only motivation for self-sacrificial living [if so, describe the alternative motivation(s)]. Or would you lean more towards the reasoning that, “If this world is all there is, and if the goods of this world are the only love, comfort, and wealth I will ever have, why should I sacrifice them for others?” (66). Does it not at all anger you when Christians do not live self-sacrificially, because you value honor like “the pre-Christian northern European tribes, like the Anglo-Saxons” whose ethic was self-regarding, rather than other-regarding (one could also refer to the egoism of Rand’s ‘rational self-interest’)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy#Ethics:_Rational_self-interest

Footnote 2: “If what you want is an argument against Christianity … you can easily find some stupid and unsatisfactory Christian and say … ‘So there’s your boasted new man! Give me the old kind.’ But if once you have begun to see that Christianity is on other grounds probable, you will know in your heart that this is only evading the issue. What can you ever really know of other people’s souls—of their temptations, their opportunities, their struggles? One soul in the whole creation you do know: and it is the only one whose fate is placed in your hands. If there is a God, you are, in a sense, alone with Him. You cannot put Him off with speculations about your next-door neighbors or memories of what you have read in books. What will all that chatter and hearsay count when the anesthetic fog we call ‘nature’ or ‘the real world’ fades away and the Divine Presence in which you have always stood becomes palpable, immediate, and unavoidable?” C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan, 1964), p. 168.

*******
Notes on Keller’s sermon of this chapter:

Download sermon: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=29

Injustice
James 2:1-17

Hypocrisy–the Christian church has a long history of oppression. Marx: disempowers the poor.

1. The Biblical God chooses the poor/oppressed.
2. All who choose Him do the same.
3. How can we make that connection?

1. The Biblical God chooses the poor/oppressed.

“Has God not chosen the poor?” (James) Not ‘only’ the poor-but the poor are not excluded, the Gospel appeals mostly to the poor (as opposed to religion/morality in general) because it empowers them–and God likes to turn the values of the world upside down.

Sociologists who study neighborhoods in Latin America which have undergone conversion, find they are improved economically-Marx was wrong.

Which worldview empowers the poor: Gospel (purpose), or secular (accident).

According to Jesus, the pimps and prostitutes get in before the economic and religions leaders (Pharisees).

Two ways of self-salvation, rebelling against God:
1. Break all the moral rules.
2. Keeping all the moral rules, as if it obligates God to save you.
–Both need God’s grace-only the first category sees it. The poor welcome it.

Push-back: sure, God chooses the poor-but what about the church? Terrible record.

2. All who choose Him do the same.

“Faith without works is dead.” Doesn’t mean works “save” us (Pharisees) (all social workers are not going to heaven necessarily). Means they are evidence (fruit) of that salvation-signs that you are not a Pharisee. Caring for the poor (Pharisees did not). Don’t discriminate. Care for physical needs of people. “Judgment will be w/o mercy for those who have shown no mercy.” Word translated as ‘mercy’ means ‘to be kind, favorable’ – specifically ‘meeting the physical needs of the poor’. Good Samaritan example-‘the one who did mercy’. “Have mercy on us” means “heal me”. The poor should recognize God loves them and the rich man the same. The rich should recognize they are no better than anyone else in God’s eyes-all fall short. You are the poor man-you are the rich man. You are the Other. Identity transformed by the Gospel.

MLKJR – when he confronted Christian clergymen, did he say “let’s get away from Christianity” – did he say “Christianity is the opiate of the masses” – no, he said, let’s return, get to the heart of the Christian faith. Faith without works is dead.

3. How can we make that connection?

“as believers in our Lord Jesus Christ the Glory” – we will not show favoritism, be controlled by superficiality-the “perfected surface”.

Phil 2 – Jesus ultimate glory…gave it up…for the humility of the cross…so that we could share in His glory. But there is beauty in the sacrifice of the cross-“I will attract all men to myself” – though it humbled Him, though it was ugly.

The doubt doesn’t knock down Christianity, but it should knock us down to our knees. Though He was rich, He became poor for us-which is a balm to heal all the wounds we have inflicted upon ourselves.

Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG: THREE: Christianity is a Straitjacket

 Tim Keller’s The Reason for God Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt

THREE: Christianity Is a Straitjacket

Chapter 3 is similar to chapter 1 in that both of them deal with the doubt that Christianity is too exclusive about truth and should be more tolerant of non-Christians; they are different in that chapter 3 addresses the main claim that Christianity is stifling to the Christian.

Some favored quotes from the chapter which reflect how chapter 1 and 3 are similar: “Every human community holds in common some beliefs that necessarily create boundaries, including some people and excluding others from its circle,” (39) (examples given are western democratic values foreign to many other cultures, and the distinctly different commitments of the local Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Community Center and the Alliance Against Same-Sex Marriage). “Sanneh argues that secularism with its anti-supernaturalism and individualism is much more destructive of local cultures and ‘African–ness,’” (41) (remember the Jewish holocaust and the increasingly global push for secularization). “Christianity may become the most truly ‘catholic vision of the world,’ having opened its leadership over the centuries to people from every tongue, tribe, and nation,” (45) (‘catholic’ meaning ‘universal’).

Keller mentions that he asks “‘Is there anyone in the world right now doing things you believe they should stop doing no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior?’ They would invariably say, ‘Yes, of course.’ Then I would ask, ‘Doesn’t that mean that you do believe there is some kind of moral reality that is ‘there’ that is not defined by us, that must be abided by regardless of what a person feels or thinks?’” (47, emphasis Keller’s). What do you think – is there some kind of moral reality that is ‘there’ and is not defined by us, that will ultimately fulfill us if we live within it or damn us if we don’t (see C.S. Lewis quote, p. 48 – “The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation,”)? Granted – a being that doesn’t exist (so isn’t even a ‘being’) cannot live within or be fulfilled by any moral reality (but put heavy emphasis on ‘regardless’ in Keller’s question – and on ‘feels’ – for any potential emotivists reading this).

Considering that relativism refutes itself, then, of the available differing worldviews, only one, if any, can be correct (in the sense where it did not have to compete for its status in the marketplace of ideas, because it was always the only correct worldview). Does your chosen community’s worldview include “beliefs that lead its members to treat persons in other communities with love and respect—to serve them and meet their needs? … lead it to demonize and attack those who violate their boundaries rather than treating them with kindness, humility, and winsomeness?” (40). Also — if your worldview was ‘always’ the only correct worldview — when did ‘always’ begin?

What is hard to accept is that there is only one Way, but it is the Way for everyone – for God so loves the world (John 3:16). But it is not a Way He unlovingly forces upon us, as love is not forced – we must freely choose it. So, let’s turn our focus to how Keller addresses the main claim that Christianity is stifling to the Christian — the “freedom factor,” if you will.

“Instead of insisting on freedom to create spiritual reality, shouldn’t we be seeking to discover it and disciplining ourselves to live according to it? … What then is the moral-spiritual reality we must acknowledge to thrive? What is the environment that liberates us if we confine ourselves to it, like water liberates the fish? Love. Love is the most liberating freedom-loss of all,” (47, emphasis mine). The discussion of discovering a set purpose rather than manufacturing a new purpose reminds me of the saying, “No need to reinvent the wheel.” “Freedom, then, is not the absence of limitations and constraints but it is finding the right ones, those that fit our nature and liberate us,” (49, emphasis mine). I love the C.S. Lewis quote on 48. I love knowing that the divine requirement is also our complete fulfillment: love.

I also love how Keller points out that this love requirement is not a one-way street. “In the most radical way, God has adjusted to us—in his incarnation and atonement. In Jesus Christ he became a limited human being, vulnerable to suffering and death. On the cross, he submitted to our condition—as sinners—and died in our place to forgive us. In the most profound way, God has said to us, in Christ, ‘I will adjust to you. I will change for you. I’ll serve you though it means a sacrifice for me.’ If he has done this for us, we can and should say the same to God and others. St. Paul writes, ‘the love of Christ constrains us’ (2 Corinthians 5:14),” (49). It is this truth that set me free – the truth of His sacrificial pursuing of each of us, before and after He finds us, whether or not we yet know it.

I have heard two ironically opposed arguments related to this: 1) if He can omnipotently rise from death, His death means nothing, and 2) if He can be vulnerable, He is not omnipotent. To the first: He did physically die and communicate His unconditional love through His sacrifice. To the second: God’s love is more powerful than raw power – the last will be first, the first will be last. One could argue that the inability to love (or fear of loving; love requires more than mere physical strength) is a greater weakness than lack of physical strength (see again C.S. Lewis quote, p. 48) – and God does not love we temporal beings from a lack (as we do apart from Him), but from His eternal perfection. See also…

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm

This is also discussed in chapter 14.

*******
Notes on Keller’s sermon on the chapter:

Download sermon: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=29

Absolutism

Galatians 2:4-16

Doubt: Christians think they have absolute truth-but that undermines freedom, tends to oppress people, restricts the individual who believes it. “The heart of liberty is to define one’s own concept of existence or the meaning of the universe” -Supreme Court.

Answer: truth more important, freedom more complex, Jesus more liberating (than you think)

1. Truth is more important than you think.

v4-5 freedom in Christ because of truth of the Gospel (truth will set you free) John 8
Foucault-“truth is a thing of this world, it is produced only by multiple forms of constraint, and that includes the regular effects of power” – truth claims are power plays
–disciple of Nietzsche (hermeneutics of suspicion) (philosophical squinting) (motive?)
–same thing Jesus says of Pharisees-your truth claims are power plays
But, if you conclude “all” truth claims are power plays, you’re wrong.
C.S. Lewis in “The Abolition of Man”–
“You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things forever” – if you say “all truth claims are power plays” – you are saying ‘that’ truth claim is just a power play (not true)
It’s not the truth claim (the “fundamental”)-it’s what’s “in” the truth claim (the “fundamental”)-that leads or does not lead to oppression.
Fundamental truth claim: grace. If you’re out of touch with that reality/truth-no freedom (truth will set you free). Everything else is “real” slavery/addiction to whatever else it is you build your identity on.

2. Freedom is more complex than you think.

Paul was going to the Gentiles, where the power/money was. The apostles were reminding him they have far less money/power, and to remember them.
v.10-free, but restricted to biblical norms
Doubt: thought freedom is absence of restrictions/boundaries/norms?
Give up freedom to eat whatever you want, if you want freedom of good health (or vice versa).
Give up freedom of free time, if you want freedom of musical skill (or vice versa).
But–discipline/restriction is not a good in itself-freedom is not the absence/presence of “restriction”-but it is the “right restrictions”-the ones that fit your nature (design) (who God made you to be).
A fish out of water isn’t free-must be restricted to water.
Our water is love, which requires we surrender all kinds of individual freedom

Afraid of being exploited?

3. Jesus is more liberating than you think.

I Robot: find your own way is what it means to be free
If you have a design-not free.

John: Word-Logos: logic, reason-reason for life
This Logos is not “abstract”-we beheld His glory-is a personal absolute
fish designed for water-free in water
humans designed for love-free in personal love relationship with Logos
an “abstraction” is dehumanizing
If we only surrender to God, it’s one way, it’s dehumanizing, it’s out of fear–Nietzsche and Foucault are right.
But Jesus surrendered to us, adjusted to us, by becoming human and dying on the cross. He was exploited, killed. What more could you ask for from God? Phil 2.
His grace is liberating.
Paul goes after Peter’s racism against Gentiles on the basis of being free, using truth.
v14-“not in line w/ the truth of the Gospel”-you’re a slave to what these people think about you…think about what God thinks about you (love)
“the love of Christ constrains us” – like water constrains the fish
Grace makes God’s desire-our desire.

Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG: ONE: There Can’t Be Just One True Religion

Tim Keller’s The Reason for God Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt

ONE: There Can’t Be Just One True Religion

Keller does not refute the chapter’s title by arguing that Christianity ‘is’ the one true religion. He points out that not all religions can be true, because many of them contradict each other, for example: “‘If Christians are right about Jesus being God, then Muslims and Jews fail in a serious way to love God as God really is, but if Muslims and Jews are right that Jesus is not God but rather a teacher or prophet, then Christians fail in a serious way to love God as God really is.’ The bottom line was—we couldn’t all be equally right about the nature of God,” (4). However, saying that not all religions can be true does not go as far as saying that “only one religion can be true.” The closest he gets to saying this is when he shows the self-refuting nature of relativism. But Keller’s main purpose in this chapter is to go much deeper and address the fears and contradiction underlying the doubt in the chapter’s title.

The doubt here surrounds the perceived arrogance and feared danger (barrier to world peace) of religious exclusivity (often termed ‘fundamentalism’). Keller grants that this fear is reasonable regarding religion in general (including the apostate church), but not regarding the fundamentals of Christianity, which “can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world,” (21). One could say that what went wrong whenever violence broke out in the name of Christ, was a straying from those fundamentals (from Christ).

Keller also points out that everyone (whether they consider themselves secular or religious) bases how they think people should behave on their own improvable fundamental faith-assumptions (see for example footnote 21, page 247-8) – and that “secular grounds for moral positions are no less controversial than religious grounds, and a very strong case can be made that all moral positions are at least implicitly religious,” (17). How? Keller defines religion as “a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. For example, some think that this material world is all there is, that we are here by accident and when we die we just rot, and therefore the important thing is to choose to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you. Notice that, though this is not an explicit ‘organized’ religion, it contains a master narrative, an account about the meaning of life along with a recommendation for how to live based on that account of things. … All who say ‘You ought to do this’ or ‘You shouldn’t do that’ reason out of such an implicit moral and religious position,” (15). “It is common to say that ‘fundamentalism’ leads to violence, yet as we have seen, all of us have fundamental, improvable faith-commitments that we think are superior to those of others. The real question, then, is which fundamentals will lead their believers to be the most loving and receptive to those with whom they differ? Which set of unavoidably exclusive beliefs will lead us to humble, peace-loving behavior?” (19-20). One might argue that this comes dangerously close to pragmatism (truth is what works) even though pragmatism is rejected in this chapter, however, the issue here is not “which fundamentals are true?” but “which fundamentals do not provoke the fear being addressed?” Keller notes the Greco-Roman religious tolerance versus their brutal cultural practices (see also footnote 30) as one example of tolerance of beliefs not necessarily translating into loving behavior. There is an excellent quote of Alister McGrath on page 5 showing the ironic intolerance of those who believed in tolerance. He also notes that we “cannot skip lightly over the fact that there have been injustices done by the church in the name of Christ” (21) but ends affirming that (again) the fundamentals of Christianity “can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world,” (21).

Keller shows that if we weigh relativism, it comes up short because it refutes itself (see also footnote 10). “To deem all beliefs equally true is sheer nonsense for the simple reason that to deny that statement would also, then, be true,” (4, Zacharias, “Jesus Among Other Gods”). Outlawing, condemning, or privatizing religious belief also backfires, since it is shown that we all hold our own (potentially dangerous) improvable fundamental faith-assumptions (religious ones at that, whether or not they would pass as secular – secular beliefs are implicitly religious beliefs, as shown above). So, I agree with Keller when he says, “The reality is that we all make truth-claims of some sort and it is very hard to weigh them responsibly, but we have no alternative but to try to do so,” (11). We cannot escape the responsibility to weigh our world-view responsibly, just like we cannot escape the responsibility to choose – even if that means choosing to do nothing. To give up weighing is to affirm as true.

So how is Christianity fundamentally superior to other religions, as it concerns promoting humble, peace-loving behavior? Keller notes that there is an overlap of religions with regard to ethics, but Christianity stands out with regard to soteriology (footnote 29). “Most religions and philosophies of life assume that one’s spiritual status depends on your religious attainments [Ichthus: the ‘moral improvement’ view]. This naturally leads adherents to feel superior to those who don’t believe and behave as they do. The Christian gospel, in any case, should not have that effect,” (19). Why? “In the Christian understanding, Jesus does not tell us how to live so we can merit salvation. Rather, he comes to forgive and save us through his life and death in our place. God’s grace does not come to people who morally outperform others, but to those who admit their failure to perform and who acknowledge their need for a Savior,” (19). “At the very heart of [our] view of reality [is] a man who died for his enemies, praying for their forgiveness [Ichthus: ‘forgive them, for they know not what they do’]. Reflection on this could only lead to a radically different way of dealing with those who [are] different from [us]. It mean[s] we [can] not act in violence and oppression toward [our] opponents,” (20-21). It means we should love our enemies. Christ taught that we (the branches) cannot do any of this on our own, apart from Him (the vine) – so it is not cause for pride when He works through us, nor cause for judgment when others do not bear fruit they cannot bear apart from Him. All it takes to cut others slack, is to remember where we were at when we were on our own, apart from Christ, and to remember that it is Christ, not ourselves, who has brought us to where we are now. It is very humbling.

Discussion questions:
1. Do you agree that even secular beliefs are implicitly religious? Why or why not?
2. Considering that relativism refutes itself, then, of the available differing worldviews, only one, if any, can be correct (in an eternal sense, where it did not have to compete for its status in the marketplace of ideas). Does yours promote humble, peace-loving behavior, and, if so, how? Does yours base a man’s worth on his good deeds, or on God’s unearned love demonstrated on the cross – or does man have no worth in yours?
3. “If morality is relative, why isn’t social justice as well?” If it is objective, what is its foundation?
4. Feel free to critique anything I said up there or didn’t mention from the chapter.

*******
Notes on Keller’s sermon on this chapter:

Download sermon and study guide: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=29

Exclusivity

1 John 4:1-10

Doubt: How can you possibly claim your religion is the only true religion-that you have the ‘one’ truth? Main barrier to peace in the world is religion and religious exclusivity. Religion is divisive.

Agreement: religion has a very strong tendency to divide, create strife, tends to have a slippery slope from superiority, to separation, all the way down to oppression and violence, active or passive.

What do we do? Two things that won’t work, one thing that will.

1. Won’t work: weaken religion, help it disappear, regulate it.

Was a theory that religion would die out on its own with technology meeting our needs (no longer need it to adapt to our environment).
–Religion is increasing. Africa 9-50% Christian 100 years. Korea 1-45/50% 100 years. China supposed to do the same sort of thing in the next 100 years.
1940s, got rid of Christian missionaries in China-made it more indigenous, spread more rapidly.
Why does religion not go away, get stronger when you try to weaken it?
“test the spirits” Stott: religious impulse isn’t merely intellectual-there are spiritual influences…you can worship something that enslaves rather than frees

2. Won’t work: confine religion to private realm.

Position: agree that a) all religions are equally valid paths to God, b) religion is good to give you strength in your private life, but leave your expectations at home and don’t put them on society (Rorty)

a) v.5 critics of religion (the world) have a faith position

Blind men and elephant illustration. Each one has different perspective, small piece of truth, not whole truth-they’re all right/wrong, so none of them should say they see the whole picture. Conclusion: so it is w/ religion. BUT–the only way you could “know” they didn’t have the entire reality-is if “you” have that which is what you’re saying nobody has.

b) leave faith out of it-find what works. Ironically, that’s impractical. What is religion? “set of answers to the big questions-why are we here?-what is right and wrong?-what’s wrong with us and what fixes it?-what should we be doing?” All answers to those questions (what works?) are faith assumptions-implicitly religious. “My faith assumptions are better than yours-leave yours at home.”

If we leave faith out of divorce laws that “just work”-but what you think works depends on what you think is the purpose of marriage. Individual before family? Divorce will be easy. Family before individual? Divorce will be hard.

Everyone has a take on spiritual reality that they think is better than others (or they wouldn’t hold it)-so what matters is “which set produces loving, inclusive, reconciling, peaceful behavior?”

3. Strategy that works: common ground is good, but look at what’s unique to Christianity, different from all other religions-they are the things that will empower you to be agents of reconciliation and peace in the world.

a) origin b) purpose c) method (of Jesus’ salvation)

a) origin of Jesus’ salvation-“Jesus has come” (was somewhere else before)
–every other religion has a founder that is ‘only’ human
b) purpose of Jesus’ salvation-“in the flesh” – at resurrection, flesh is redeemed/restored
–every other religion is to escape (rather than redeem) this world
c) method of Jesus’ salvation-grace. V10
–every other religion is about performance, earning, karma

Humbled–If you’re saved by performance, you look down your nose-the slippery slope. Secularists are every bit as self-righteous “I’m enlightened, you’re the primitive religious person,” and it all goes back and forth. The Gospel leads you to expect that unbelievers are better than you-the Gospel humbles you, helps you see who you really are.

Serve–Resurrection, new heavens, new earth, means we work w/ God to make “this” world good, seek its peace/prosperity/shalom. Not only are you humbled, but you serve.

Ultimate reality visible–Jesus is both human and God-not just a prophet/teacher/founder. Doesn’t lead to superiority-“Jesus is Lord of all”-“all”. Christian included everybody (rich/poor, slave/free, man/woman), in a culture when exclusion was the norm (although they were religiously inclusive). Jesus on the cross loved people who didn’t love Him-died for His enemies-that’s ultimate reality, and the early church lived it.

If religious moralist-feel superior to secularist.
If secularist-feel superior to stupid religious people.
If accept Gospel-be humbled, serve, know your life is built on ultimate reality (grace)-become part of what the world needs.

Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG: Intro.: Best of Left and Right, and Doubting Doubts

Tim Keller’s The Reason for God Book Discussion — Introduction

Best of Left and Right, and Doubting Doubts

Keller observes, “the world is polarizing over religion. It is getting both more religious and less religious at the same time,” (x). Do you see this in your day-to-day? If so, how so? If not, how do the people around you seem to feel about religion? How do you feel about religion? Would you like to give a brief synopsis of your faith narrative thus far (modeled after June, Jeffrey and Kelly’s)? This is a great way to introduce yourself to the group.

Keller mentioned “the two camps,” and a “third camp.” In the first two camps, “the people most passionate about social justice were moral relativists, while the morally upright didn’t seem to care about the oppression going on all over the world,” (xii). In response to the first camp, Keller asked, “If morality is relative, why isn’t social justice as well?” In response to the second camp, “Christianity began to seem very unreal” to him. This formed one of three barriers to his faith. The three barriers were 1) intellectual (the tough questions), 2) interior, personal (lack of experiencing God’s presence), and 3) social (dissatisfaction with the first two camps and a need for the third camp). In the third camp he found a “band of brothers” (and sisters) – “a group of Christians who had a concern for justice in the world but who grounded it in the nature of God rather than in their own subjective feelings,” (xiii). In another section he mentions a spiritual third way (the first two ways being traditional conservative and secular liberal) that is “much more concerned about the poor and social justice than Republicans have been, and at the same time much more concerned about upholding classic Christian moral and sexual ethics than Democrats have been,” (xx). Does this third camp appeal to you, and, if so, what are some practical ways to develop it? If not, why not? Have you identified any barriers to your faith that Keller did not mention?

I like how Keller points out “A faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it.” I also like how Keller sees that all doubts emerge from a starting point of alternate belief, and that he encourages skeptics to “doubt their doubts” with as much force as they require justification for Christian belief. I like his goal that “Believers and nonbelievers will rise to the level of disagreement rather than simply denouncing the other. This happens when each side has learned to represent the other’s argument in its strongest and most positive form. … I’ve tried to respectfully help skeptics look at their own faith-foundations while at the same time laying bare my own to their strongest criticisms,” (xxviii, xix). Keller is not afraid of this ‘laying bare’. He concludes the introduction pointing out how, though Thomas doubted, Jesus gave him the evidence he sought; even though the man in Mark 9:24 had doubts, Jesus “blesses him and heals his son.” “I invite you to seek the same kind of honesty and to grow in an understanding of the nature of your own doubts. The result will exceed anything you can imagine,” (xxiii). His reference to ‘honesty’ reminds me of my fellowship’s emphasis on ‘authenticity’. I have found all of this to be true in my own spiritual journey with Christ, and it is ultimately what I pray for this group as we work through Keller’s “The Reason for God.” Do you fear doubt, questioning, and ‘laying bare’ your beliefs to criticism? Why do you agree or disagree with footnote 9 (page 244)? Do you doubt the result that Keller promises? What are your personal goals for this book discussion?

Is there anything in the introduction you would like to discuss that I did not refer to?


*******
Notes of sermon at Redeemer on the intro.

Download sermon and study guide: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=29

Doubt

Case study: John 20:1-18

Unmask Doubt, Examine Faith, Fuel Hope

1. Unmask Doubt

Evidence: empty tomb.
Mary’s conclusion: grave robbing.
–doubt of resurrection is belief/faith in resurrection’s impossibility
John’s conclusion: Jesus rose from the dead.
–unreasonable? Impossible? a belief

Every doubt is based on an alternative belief, a faith assumption.
It’s faith vs. faith, not reason vs. faith (false dichotomy).

2. Examine Faith

Doubt your doubts (faith assumptions).
Everyone makes their choices based on these assumptions-compass of soul. It matters.
Faith is trust, so it doesn’t matter how strong/weak it is-but what you put faith “in”.
v13 Mary trusted Jesus as Lord, now what she trusts in is gone
What do you put your faith in? Easy come, easy go. We’ve all done it.
The weakest faith in Jesus is far more liberating than the strongest faith in anything else.

3. Fuel Hope

Hebrews 11:1 – hope is that which fuels our faith
Mary’s crying, everyone is hiding in the upper room, ’cause their hope is gone
Doubt our doubts, gaze at the tomb.
Matthew 14-“why did you doubt?”
faith in reality of storm greater than faith in Jesus, for Peter
faith in our doubts greater than faith in Jesus
is relationship w/ Jesus more intellectual than it is personal?
do you believe in the cross, but it isn’t “real” to you?
If you trust Him to die for you-trust Him with every part of your life.
Spend time developing your relationship with Him…reading what He says, praying, hanging out with His people, listening to their encouragement, etcetera.
Then the doubts won’t sink you.
Gaze at the tomb. V16 It all seems too good to be true, in this broken world-a fairy tale. But it is true “Mary”. Live it. Walk out on that water. Tell everybody.