Ask Mr. Wisdom Q&A #1

This is the first installment of what I hope will become a weekly exchange. If you have questions that you would like answered on the topics of the Bible, theology, apologetics, ethics, and religion, send them to questionsforwisdom@gmail.com.

Question 1:
How do we know we know the truth? Conversely, how do we know we are not in/under heretical and false doctrine? Muslims, JW's, Mormons, Buddhists are all convinced they are right.


Response:

First of all, you are right to say that other groups seem equally, if not more earnestly convinced that they possess the one true religion. If all we had to work with in dividing truth from fiction was sincerity of heart--if there were no evidence that could be examined--we would be in a pretty serious pickle. However, I am convinced there is overwhelming evidence that supports the truth of Christianity. I do not take this issue lightly. I have no interest in believing something that is not true.

When dealing with difficult questions like this, the rule that I teach my students is "Always start with Jesus." The reason is that if the Gospel evidence about Jesus is historically unreliable, then Christianity falls apart. On the contrary, if the Gospel evidence is historically reliable, then we can know a lot about Jesus.  Without going into great detail, there are gobs and gobs of scholarly works written on the reliability of the Gospels. Just glancing at my bookshelf, I would recommend Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace. Minus the supernatural elements of the Gospels, even most atheist scholars will affirm that they are historical bedrock. There are also excellent works on the historicity of the resurrection. Once again, from my own library, I would recommend The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. All of that is to say that if Jesus did what the Gospels say he did, and said what they claim he said, then we have very strong reasons to think that Christianity is the one true religion.

At the same time, I am convinced that the evidence for other worldviews is terribly weak. Mormonism, for example, is fraught with historical inaccuracies and problems of forged translations among other things. Jehovah's Witnesses are in a similar boat. They build their theological distinctives around very specific translations and interpretations that are contradict all scholarship outside of their own camp. As such, they advance an totally separate religion from Christianity, while attempting to smuggle in the parts that they like to prop up what would otherwise be a religion with no foundation. As for eastern religions, while they have many elements of truth, I have a hard time finding much connection to reality in the fundamental teachings--evil is illusory, millions of demi gods, that all is divine and the like. Then there is Islam which depends on the claim that the Bible has been corrupted and/or misinterpreted. But the evidence for the faithful transmission and preservation of the biblical manuscripts is outstanding. Furthermore, Islam rejects the death of Jesus by crucifixion (a fact agreed upon by practically all historians). Going back to what I said before about starting with Jesus, each of these religions has a different view of Jesus from what is portrayed in the Gospels. So, while interpretation (which is subjective) certainly plays a role, the law of non-contradiction (which is objective) tells us that while they could all be wrong, they cannot all be right. If the Gospels are historically reliable, preserved, and translated correctly, then they clearly point to the teachings of classical Christianity. Again, while I am having to move quickly here, this is not something that I take lightly. If I am wrong, I want to know.

Question 2:

My study group is missional based, and most of the books we read and work we do reaches out to our community and communities throughout the world. This to me, embodies christianity much more than sitting in a pew listening to preachers and deacons spew their agenda. Do you think that this type of worship is a suitable replacement for traditional sunday worship? I do feel like i'm not getting to know the bible quite as I should, we only touch on it directly on occasion, but the books we read reference it often, i guess you could say i'm learning by proxy(but who's to say that the english translations of the bible aren't this sort of 'proxy' to the original text anyway).

Response:

While I understand, and often share your frustration; I think you may be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." In short, I wouldn't equate what you describe as "listening to preachers and deacons spew their agenda" to "traditional Sunday worship." You have to remember that there are 2000 years of church history behind us. I think that what you (and a lot of people, including me) have experienced is a rather recent phenomenon (last 150 years or so, and especially the last 40). I also think, (crossing my fingers), that a lot more people are seeing it for what it is and it is losing steam. Anyway, all of that is to say that I think small groups are great and it sounds like you are part of an awesome one, but I also think it is important to belong to a church body and sit under the teaching of a pastor who is teaching and leading effectively. That is really hard to come by, and again, I know the frustration. I know how tedious it can be to search for the right place, but trust me, it is worth it when you get there. Anyway, I would simply say that I don't think there is any "replacement" for being part of a healthy church family. Notice I said "healthy," not "perfect." Anyway, I suggest that you keep doing what you are doing, but I would also do some research and visit a few places. You will probably be surprised to find that there are a lot of congregations in your area comprised of people who feel the same way you do.

Question 3:

What do you think about the morality of doing wrong to do good? For instance, if you did something morally wrong to get money so that you give it to charity and do good with it. Can good come from intentional wrong doing? 

Response:

What you are suggesting is a form of consequentialism, or "ends justify the means" ethic. That is, what makes something moral is the ultimate result. However, on its face, it is incompatible with a biblical view of ethics. From a biblical perspective, moral duties are grounded in God's character and subsequent commands. He has revealed these through both general (we intrinsically know right from wrong) and special revelation (through the giving of Scripture and culminating in Christ). I think your example is actually pretty easy to deal with. You have the choice to either steal or not steal. Obviously, it is not justified to steal simply because you plan to do something good with the money. However, there are much more difficult examples to be offered. For example, what if you are faced with a situation like Corrie Ten Boom--you can lie to protect people or tell the truth and subject them to torture and death. Or if you are in charge of switching the train track and there is a boy trapped by the switching mechanism. You need to flip the switch or an oncoming train with hundreds of passengers will crash, but by flipping the switch, you ensure the boy's death. Both choices pose a serious moral dilemma. It is only in these types of circumstances that I think it is morally right to choose the "wrong." Unfortunately, this often gets called "the lesser of two evils." I don't like that name because the moral decision is necessarily not evil. Some biblical ethicists suggest that God will always provide a third option in these circumstances. While I think that is very often true, it to me seems that there are possible scenarios where there simply is not a third option. Furthermore, I think Scripture provides examples of this. One famous example comes from Exodus, where the Hebrew midwives are commended for disobeying and lying to Pharaoh. Likewise, Rahab lies about hiding the spies in Jericho. She is also commended, and even integrated into the Davidic/messianic family tree. Anyway...it is obviously a hotly debated and complicated issue, but these are my thoughts in brief.

Question 4: 

I have two questions to ask. One, how did you keep yourself most accountable while you were touring and still in Becoming The Archetype? Also, what advice would you give someone who wants to write songs and work within the Christian music industry?

Response:

I am going to go a different direction with my response than you probably expected. I presume that by "keep yourself accountable," you are referring to avoiding temptations--substance abuse, sexual impurity etc. I will simply say that those things were really not big struggles for me. And while they are for many other people, I think that there is a tendency to focus so heavily on these "big" issues that we totally overlook the "smaller" ones. Far too often, young Christians fall into the trap of equating spiritual development with a check list of big things to avoid. That is a terrible thermometer for gauging spiritual health. Let me give you an example of what I mean. While I didn't struggle with the "big" things, one of the strongest temptations that comes with being in a band (or being in any profession) is to become cynical--unnecessarily negative and pessimistic. I wish that I successfully avoided this temptation while on the road with the band, but I can't. While this is probably not the answer you were looking for, I feel like it represents an equally important lesson to learn.

With regard to getting into the music industry, my advice is three-fold. Develop your ability to the highest possible level, make a lot of friends, and keep yourself available. Don't be afraid to play second fiddle (pun intended) to anyone and everyone. The most successful musicians that I know are not people who made it big by starting a band from the ground up. Rather, they are people who got in playing guitar, bass, drums, violin, etc for someone else. Many of them have since moved on to very successful solo careers and/or bands of their own. But the way the industry is today, you are very unlikely to make a name for yourself simply by jamming with some buds and starting a facebook. There are just too many bands starting up every day. Lastly, keep yourself as available as possible. In a strange coincidence, a lot of young musicians are also convinced that they need to get married really early. Maybe it is their creative/romantic bent. But it will seriously limit your availability. And it will also limit your ability as a husband/father. Of course, some relationships work just fine within that framework, but I think that is the exception rather than the rule. Again, that probably isn't what you expected me to say, but I hope it helps. 

Internet Conversations For Dummies

We have all witnessed internet conversations gone terribly wrong. Such interactions are becoming increasingly difficult to avoid. The phenomenon has caused many people to avoid/abandon social media altogether. Many others have simply started ignoring topics that they know are likely to spin out of control. That may seem like a wise decision, but I actually think it is a mistake. Let me explain.

I think the internet is actually an ideal training ground for developing your ability to talk about important issues. Having good conversations does not come naturally. We all need practice. The internet offers several unique opportunities for practicing good habits.* Here are my top 5.

1. You can screen your own thoughts. Lesson: You learn to be intentional.
Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to post everything that you type. Unlike face-to-face conversations, you can get your thoughts out, read over them, make edits, and then decide whether or not to post your comment. Also contrary to what you may think, it is absolutely not a waste of time to type out your thoughts and then simply elect not to post them. I do this A LOT. Sometimes you realize that you do not have anything indispensable to contribute to the conversation. Sometimes it just is not worth it. Even so, working out your thoughts will help to prepare you for future conversations. What is more, learning to screen your thoughts is vitally important for face-to-face interaction.

2. You can do your research.  Lesson: You learn to be informed.
The person that you are talking to on the internet might be really smart. OR, he might just be sitting in an office surrounded by books on the topic. That is one great benefit of digital communication. If you don't know what to say, you can stop, do some research and then come back. That is a luxury that you would not be afforded in a heated face-to-face discussion. Is it "cheating" to do research in between comments? Only if the point of the point of the discussion is to determine who knows more off the top of their head. I have never been part of such a conversation. And who would enforce that rule anyway? On the other hand, if the point is to have an intelligent discussion and work toward finding the truth (as it should be), then you are really doing a disservice to everyone by staying in the dark. What is more, getting in the habit of being informed will improve your face-to-face conversations as well.

3. You can choose public or private.  Lesson: You learn to be tactful and sensitive.
Suppose that your friend posts something controversial on Facebook. You notice it in your news feed. If you sense that you have something to contribute, but you do not want to jump into the fray; you can offer to take the conversation to email or private message. Maybe you just want to talk to your friend. Maybe there is an outspoken person hijacking the conversation. You can politely ask to speak to either of them privately. I almost always prefer this approach over having a knock down, drag out, public debate that will attract trolls and bandwagon jumpers alike. It is not always possible to "go private" with a face-to-face conversation, but it is always necessary to exercise tact and stay sensitive to the particular situation.

4. No one can see your face. Lesson: You learn to be calm.
Are you frustrated because some bonehead refuses to engage your arguments, and instead just keeps attacking your character? Of course you are. The good news is that no one can see the constipated look on your face. Don't blow it with a hasty response. Step back, take a deep breath, scream into a pillow, count to ten, say a prayer. Then, come back with a calm and collected response (if one is even warranted). People who are watching the conversation will be amazed at how well you handled yourself. They don't ever need to know that you punched yet another hole in the wall. As it applies to face-to-face conversations; this is a case of "fake it 'til you make it." Practice staying cool until it becomes natural. As a general rule, the man who loses his cool also loses the debate.

5.  Many opportunities to practice humility. Lesson: You learn to be humble.
I once heard a pastor say that it is dangerous to pray for patience. Within a few days of making this request to God, you will almost certainly find yourself in a situation that dramatically tries your patience. The same is true of internet conversations. Do you need to work on exercising humility? We all do. Well, just jump on social media and you will almost certainly find yourself in a situation that demands tremendous humility. I am not suggesting that you should deliberately put yourself into situations that you know you can't handle. However, if you intentionally enter into discussions with the intention of showing humility, you will develop a great habit for face-to-face conversations in the future.

___________________________________________________________________________
*I am not suggesting that internet conversations are a substitute for face-to-face interaction. They are not.

Reanimautomaton (A Short Story)

           

"You can do what?" Jamie asked, choking back her tears.

"We could potentially bring your husband back," the surgeon replied.

            "How is that even possible?"

            "Through recent advances in brain mapping technology, we have developed an experimental new procedure that could theoretically allow us to re-animate your husband's brain."

            "Is it safe?"

            "Well, we have not tested it on a human subject, but we have had success with a variety of small animals. And frankly ma'am, you've nothing to lose. As you know, your husband has lost all brain function. His heart and lungs are still functioning via life support, but that's only a temporary solution."

            "What exactly would you do to him?"

            "By carefully inserting a series of tiny electrodes into his brain, we would be able to simulate normal brain function. At the very least, we should be able to open his eyes and have him speak."

            Jamie wiped her eyes and said, "I would love to look into his eyes and hear his voice again. Even if only to tell him how much I love him."

“Shall I schedule the procedure then?" replied the surgeon. "Time is of the essence in your husband's case."

Jamie took a belabored breath and nodded, "Yes."

            After twelve hours of intensive surgery, the surgeon returned to the waiting room. Jamie was positioned nervously on the edge of the couch, clutching a cup of cold coffee.

“Well?" she asked.

“The surgeon smiled. "The procedure was successful. Would you like to talk to your husband?" Jamie instantly broke into tears. She took the surgeon's arm and stood up.

            When Jamie entered the room, she could hardly believe what she saw. Her husband was sitting up in the bed, and for the first time in nearly three years, his eyes were open. In a hesitant sounding voice, he said, "Hi Jamie."

Jamie broke into a run and threw her arms around his neck. In between sobbing breaths, Jamie managed to say, "I love you so much."

"I love you too," her husband replied.

            Jamie sat on the edge of the bed and looked in astonishment at her husband. But after a few emotional moments, she began to grow disconcerted. His eyes seemed strangely distant -- locked in a vacant stare. Jamie placed her hands on her husband's face and asked, "Honey, can you see me?"

After an awkward moment of still silence, he hesitantly replied, "No, I cannot." 

            Jamie turned to the surgeon. "Why can't he see me?" she asked in a frustrated tone.

            "The nature of the process does not allow us to simulate vision yet. Because his brain is technically still dead, his eyes are not able to communicate with his brain."

            "What do you mean he is still brain-dead? He is here talking to me."

            "Well, yes, he is able to speak. But his ability to communicate depends on manual stimulation."

            Jamie looked at her husband, who sat silently on the bed. His eyes were still disconcertingly empty. 

“What does that even mean?" she asked increasingly irritated.

            "It means that your husband's ability to speak relies on information that we input through the electrodes in his brain. It is an amazing process really. But we are not yet able to simulate functions that depend upon stimuli external to the brain itself."

            Jamie asked in a terrified whisper: "You're controlling him?"

            "Only in a manner of speaking ma'am. It is still his brain, causing his mouth to move, and his vocal chords generating sound. We are simply helping his brain to do what it would normally have done on its own."

            "It's really me Jamie. I love you," said her husband. 

            Jamie let out a short scream, and simultaneously whirled around and slapped her husband across the face. As soon as she realized what she had done, she started caressing his face and apologizing profusely.

            "Don't worry ma'am. As I just explained, his brain cannot receive external stimulation. He didn't feel a thing," said the surgeon. 

            Jamie's hands were shaking. She stood up and walked toward the surgeon, wiping the tears from her eyes.

            "So you are telling me that he can't see, he can't feel, and, and… how are you controlling him?"

            "Not me ma'am. I simply performed the surgery. The impulses are actually controlled wirelessly. There is a technician in the next room entering the information."

            The surgeon gestured to his right. With that, Jamie stormed out into the hall. She began pounding her fists on the unmarked door.

“Open this door! Now!" she screamed frantically.

No response. Jamie fell to the floor in a heap, covering her face with her hands. The surgeon approached Jamie and tried to console her.

“Ma'am," he said, "I know that this is all very sudden and unusual."

            "That's not my husband!"

            "I assure that it is."

            "You said you could bring him back. You didn't say that you could turn him into a puppet."

            "I think you greatly misunderstand."

            "No, I think you misunderstand," she said quietly, feigning composure.

            Jamie picked herself up and walked back into her husband's room. She sat down on the bed and placed her ear against his chest. She could hear his heart beating.

“I'm sorry that I overreacted," Jamie said. "You are right. I am just emotional because this is all so new and surprising."

            The surgeon relaxed his posture, folding his arms over his clipboard.

Jamie asked, "Do you think I could be alone with him for just a minute?"

The surgeon nodded compassionately and said, "Certainly, ma'am." He quietly closed the door as he left the room.

            Jamie glanced around the bed and spotted the thick black cord coming out of the breathing machine. She reached for the cord with her leg, kissed her husband, and jerked the plug out of the wall.

 

 

William Lane Craig Doesn't Live In Your Neighborhood

One of the most important lessons that I learned from my time in a band, is that the primary ministry happens when the band is gone. Let me explain what I mean. There are Christian bands that jump on stage, rock a couple of songs, and then share the Gospel before launching into the rest of their set. The trouble is that the venue is rarely conducive to such a presentation. The sound system is not set up for a speech, but for music. People are cheering, milling around, crowded and sweaty. Of course, there are people in the crowd who would react negatively if the band chopped out this portion, but the truth is that it is rarely effective. Obviously, there are exceptions, but I am simply speaking generally. The other reason it is problematic is that after the band signs a few autographs and takes some pictures, they load up and leave town. Even if someone is genuinely moved by the Gospel presentation, the band is not there to do any follow up. It is the local impact of the people who buy the albums, memorize the words, and wear the t-shirts, that is really powerful. They are there to develop lasting relationships when the band is off doing a tour in Africa. In short, the real ministry happens after the band is gone.

How does this have anything to do with everyone's favorite suspender clad apologist, William Lane Craig? I would like to suggest that what happens with bands is analogous to what happens with Christian case makers. There are what J. Warner Wallace calls, "Million Dollar Apologists", and then there are the rest of us who aspire to contend for the faith. J. Warner calls us "One Dollar Apologists." The truth of the matter is that million dollar apologists rarely (if ever) approach seven figure salaries. I would actually suggest that most one dollar apologists have considerably more resources to invest in the cause of apologetics than their more recognizable counterparts. And that is where I want to draw the parallel. 

I would actually be willing to go even further than J. Warner's claim that we need more one dollar apologists. I would say that the real ministry happens when Dr. Craig is not around. He speaks in venues that are much more conducive to presenting the gospel, but often in front of even more hostile audiences. In any event, he does not live in your neighborhood, hang out with your co-workers, and eat pizza with your friends. And most of them will never read anything that Dr. Craig puts out or watch any of his videos. They don't know him and he doesn't know them. But they would probably read something that you wrote, watch a video that you made, or come to hear a presentation that you were giving at the local college apologetics group. The largest impact made by the Craig, Geisler, McDowell, and company is not in their physical appearances or even in the books that they write. The larger, more lasting impact comes from the people who buy the books, memorize the words, and wear the t-shirts (I am sure they exist somewhere. If not, there is a lot of money waiting to be made from William Lane Craig "suspender-defender" t-shirts. Just saying.)

Of course, we need people doing research, writing books, and doing speaking engagements. We can't survive with out them. It is a symbiotic relationship. The ministry of the one dollar apologists depends on the ministry million dollar apologists and the ministry of the million dollar guys depends on the ministry of the one dollar guys. It is admittedly presumptuous of me to say so, but I think most of the million dollar guys would probably agree that even if they were selling thousands and thousands of books to Christians; they would hang up their suspenders in a heartbeat if they knew that the readers would never pass along the information. They would retire their argyle sweaters; even if they were selling out stadiums to believers; if it was entirely certain that every person who attended would take a vow of silence immediately afterward.

I say all of this to encourage those of you who, like me, are deeply indebted to the big names out there. Find some way to start sharing what you have learned. Do not allow yourself to fall into the trap of thinking "I won't say anything new" or "I can't say it as well as Dr. Craig." Your friends probably haven't heard it before and they don't care how well someone else can say it. Do not stay on the sidelines because you think, "I don't know all of the answers." Wanna know the shocking truth? Neither does Dr. Craig! And even if he did, he does not live in your neighborhood.

Smartest Guy in The Room (A Short Story)

No matter where he was, Tim Callahan was always the smartest guy in the room. All through college and grad school, his professors doted on him for his outstanding academic contributions. No one in the sociology department -- including the teachers -- could hold a candle to Tim's knowledge on any given topic. He graduated at the top of his class with a PhD in sociology.

Tim's academic reputation practically guaranteed him a high profile career in the field of sociology. Within mere months of graduation, he had accepted a position as a research professor at a top tier university. He was only 24 years old and poised to revolutionize his field -- or so he thought. 

Tim struggled as a teacher from the very first day. He always presented the information clearly and thoroughly. He had PowerPoint presentations and handouts filled with excellent points. Even so, Tim could never seem to connect with the students. He might have noticed that he was having a problem when more than half of the students in his classes withdrew. He might have suspected something was amiss when many of the junior and senior level sociology students opted to change their majors and left the department altogether. But Tim did not notice. 

That is, until he received an email from the concerned parent of one of his most promising students.

Hello Dr. Callahan, 

   My son James is a senior sociology major. He really respects you. I can tell that he has learned a lot from your classes. Even so, I am becoming concerned. I have noticed a dramatic change in James' attitude since he began taking your classes two years ago. He has become cold, distant and frankly, rude. It is a side of him that I had never seen before. He was always such a considerate young man. I can hardly talk to him anymore, and when we do talk, it's like we don't even speak the same language. James has gotten so smart that trying to show him the error of his ways is actually sort of intimidating. He always has a complicated sociological response for everything that I try. He has learned so much from you, so please do not think that I am complaining. It is just that I know James considers you a mentor. If there is anything that you can do to encourage him, that would be greatly appreciated.

   Thank you, 

      Janet Peterson

 

The words of the email sounded eerily familiar. The situation reminded Tim of the tension plaguing his own family in recent years. His mother had used nearly all of the same adjectives: cold, distant, rude. For the first time since his own family struggles began, Tim suspected that he might be the problem.