King James Only?

During my Master's program, one of my course-requirements included the preparation of a short paper on the subject of the King James Only dispute. Specifically, my assignment was to interact with the works of James White (The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?) and D. A. Carson (The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism). That paper is reproduced here.

King James Only?: An Analysis of a Divisive Issue

Introduction

Christians have long maintained that the Bible is the Word of God. Thus an acquaintance with the Bible's contents is integral to knowing and serving Him. This being the case, it is surely a blessing that the Scriptures are (in the Western world, at least) so easily accessible. In fact, numerous versions of the Bible are available, from quite literal translations to looser paraphrases.[1]

Thankfully, the vast majority of English translations fairly represent the Greek and Hebrew (and a small number of Aramaic) manuscripts from which they are derived. Indeed, textual criticism has gone a long way in providing trustworthy modern translations.

Unfortunately, though, the sheer number of Bible versions has stirred a measure of controversy. The debate centers on the precise location of God's Word. If God has spoken, it seems impossible to accept translations that are something less than identical. Some would argue, therefore, that it makes sense for God to have preserved a single deposit of inspired truth. Such are the sentiments of a group of individuals that can be broadly labeled King James Only advocates.

Though a number of people hold to some form of King James Onlyism, many evangelicals strongly disagree with the King James Only position. Indeed, a number of biblical scholars and apologists have taken this view to task. Among these are James White and D. A. Carson. This paper will briefly interact with the thoughts of these (and, to a lesser extent, other) men as propounded in their respective works.[2] As a result, a number of broad principles will be brought to bear on this sometimes divisive issue.

The Origin and Preservation of the Bible

While the Scriptures were inspired by God, those who eventually copied them were not. Early on, mistakes crept into the NT text.[3] Occasionally these were deliberate. Most often they were the result of human error.[4] As time went by, more and more copies of manuscripts were made. Soon we had copies of copies and so forth.[5] Eventually, manuscripts could be broadly grouped according to textual types or families. "Basically, a text-type or text-family refers to a grouping of manuscripts that share common readings or characteristics that distinguish them from other text types."[6] Though the peculiarities of a given text are not always easy to classify, these categories are somewhat helpful in sorting through the many NT manuscripts.

Of course, all of this talk about textual variants raises questions about the manner in which God has preserved His Word. King James advocates believe preservation comes via the King James Bible. After all, one would expect God to preserve one version, not many. This view is hardly tenable, however, for the plain fact remains that God has preserved a variety of texts. Thus the divine message is embedded within the many manuscripts.

While identifying the best manuscripts is no simple task, it is helpful (and encouraging) to consider that manuscript variants do not normally disappear. In other words, the original readings of the NT are likely to have been preserved, for once a variant reading appears in a manuscript, it doesn't simply go away. It gets copied and ends up in other manuscripts. . . . The tenacity of the New Testament, while forcing us to deal with textual variants, also provides us with the assurance that our work is not in vain. One of those variant readings is the original. We are called to invest our energies in discovering which one it is.[7]

Determining God's Words: Textual Criticism

The study and analysis of ancient manuscripts is called textual criticism. This can be further divided into two types, lower criticism and higher criticism. Lower criticism involves the study of manuscripts of the Bible, those written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, as well as ancient translations into other languages like Latin, Sahidic or Coptic. Its goal is to reproduce the original text of the Bible from this vast wealth of information.[8]

Higher criticism, however, is less concerned about the manuscripts than the process by which the Bible came into its present form. Because it is highly subjective, higher criticism is prone to speculation and the whims of the interpreter. Lower criticism, on the other hand, is a valid instrument for determining the biblical text.[9]

Ironically, Erasmus, who gave us the Greek text (later known as the Textus Receptus) which undergirds the King James Bible, "used the very same methods of textual-critical study that modern scholars use."[10] Yet many King James only advocates decry similar methodology among those responsible for the newer translations.

The Genesis of the King James Bible

The King James Bible did not appear one day from heaven.Rather it was the culmination of a series of important historical events.[11] During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there was an interest in returning to the ancient writings. In fact a popular motto among thinkers of that day was the Latin phrase ad fontes, meaning "To the source!" "These men did not want to hear about the opinions of men passed down through the centuries. They wanted to go directly to the sources, directly to the ancient documents, so that they could learn for themselves."[12] For centuries, the Latin Bible, i.e., the Vulgate, was the accepted translation of the Church. But now there was a concern to examine the original languages. This eventually led the humanist-scholar, Erasmus, to publish the entire Greek New Testament (A.D. 1516).

It was Erasmus, and later Stephanus and Beza, who was responsible for the Greek text utilized by the King James translators in 1611.[13] Years after the publication of the King James Bible, the preface of the Elzevir brother's second Greek edition contained the words, "the received text," hence the term Textus Receptus.[14]

Noteworthy to this discussion is the fact that the King James Version and the Greek texts from which it was derived admit discrepancies. That is, there is no perfect Greek text, nor an infallible translation. In every case, scholars seek to piece together the original (i.e., by means of textual criticism) from the available manuscripts.

The King James Version is a monument to those who labored to bring it into existence. Of this there can be no question. But as we have seen, it was a human process, and as in all human life and endeavor, it did not partake of infallibility.[15]

Types of King James Advocates

Due to the popularity of the King James Bible, it is not surprising that some have become staunch advocates of this tried and true translation. Still, it is not always easy to characterize the King James advocate. Some prefer the King James Bible for stylistic reasons alone. Others of a more radical bent claim inspiration for the Received Text or the King James Version itself. Unfortunately, some of those who hold such views have made these matters a cause for disunity among brothers. As White laments, "That sharing in the gospel of Christ can be disrupted by such an issue should cause anyone a moment's reflection, and more than passing concern."[16]

King James Only Arguments

A number of arguments have been put forth in defense of King James Onlyism. Among these are the following: (1) Modern translations make compromises when it comes to doctrinal matters. (2) The Greek text underlying the King James Version (i.e., the Textus Receptus) is superior. (3) We can't be certain of what God says unless we possess a single translation (and/or Greek text); that is, discrepancies among versions prove that one is correct and the others false. These can be briefly examined in order.

First, the accusation that modern versions compromise the truth is clearly fallacious. If the modern translations were part of some grand conspiracy to excise biblical doctrine, it is strange that these give full support to orthodox beliefs. Indeed, comments White, "Some KJV advocates are surprised to note that the KJV does not do as well as some modern versions when it comes to providing clear, understandable translations of the key, central passages in the New Testament that testify to the full deity of Jesus Christ."[17]

The argument for the Textus Receptus is a bit more complex. Let it suffice to say that most conservative scholars prefer an "eclectic" approach to the manuscripts, "in that each reading is examined on its own merits and no absolutely overriding rule is used to artificially decide each variant."[18]

Furthermore, the Byzantine text-type, which formed the basis for the King James Version, is lacking in the earliest manuscripts. Instead, the Bible of the early centuries of the Church resembled a more ancient, that is an Alexandrian text-type.[19] This doesn't mean that textual critics automatically favor older readings. But such manuscripts certainly ought to be given due consideration in the quest to uncover the original.

Finally, the desire for absolute certainty when it comes to textual matters, while understandable, is not realistic. History has left us with numerous extant manuscripts. These not only differ from each other, but none are flawless representations of the autographs. Even the King James is not without imperfection. For example, "a dozen or so readings in the KJV find no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever."[20]

Problems with the King James and King James Onlyism

King James defenders are often critical of those who choose other Bible translations. Yet the King James Bible itself is fraught with a number of difficulties. For one, the King James Version is not as uniform and simplified a translation as its more radical adherents would like to believe. Indeed the Textus Receptus——a Byzantine type text that is often given high priority by King James defenders——is a collation of various textual readings.[21] Therefore, "to claim a particular text-type is inerrant is meaningless because a text-type is established by comparing manuscripts, grouping those with most features in common, and accepting the most probable readings."[22]

Next, the King James Bible is based on a number of relatively late manuscripts, none earlier than the tenth century. To arbitrarily assert that older texts (e.g., Alexandrian) are inferior surely begs the question. A more balanced approach would be to give appropriate weight to a variety of manuscript families and to then decide (based on internal and external criteria) which best reflects the original.[23] As mentioned above, this allows for both confidence and progress. Confidence results from a realization of the overall continuity between the many variants when it comes to major doctrine, while progress (and humility) is facilitated through diligent research. At any rate, the King James Only mentality only works to impede spiritual and intellectual integrity.

Finally, there is something to be said concerning the archaic language of the King James Bible. At times, its antiquated terminology has been a stumbling block to modern readers/hearers. Not only are certain words outdated (e.g., thou, ye), but some terms actually mean something entirely different today than they did when originally penned (e.g., prevent in 1 Thessalonians 4:15). Indeed, if one sure sign of a good translation is that it successfully relates the ancient text to contemporary people, the King James Version is swiftly becoming an inadequate vehicle of communication.

Conclusion

Throughout their respective works, James White and D. A. Carson do a masterful job addressing the King James Only topic. In the end, they leave the reader with a basic understanding of the textual issues, a clear response to the faulty logic of King James Onlyism, and a sound defense of the Bible's reliability.

Of course, some might be tempted to make the relative complexity of the textual critic's work a reason for skepticism. But Carson notes:

There is no need for such rigorous pessimism. The vast majority of the manuscript errors have to do with details of orthography, word order, and the like. Moreover, many of the theologically significant variants can be sorted out quite easily by comparing manuscript with manuscript. The result . . . is a certain word from God.[24]

Not skirting the issues, both writers build assurance in the biblical text, while simultaneously challenging the reader to employ sound textual critical methods.

NOTES:

1. For a fairly recent review of some of the more popular translations, see Lewis Foster, Selecting a Translation of the Bible (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1978, 1983).
2. James White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
3. Though much could be said about Old Testament textual matters, here the primary emphasis will be upon the New Testament.
4. Carson, 21-24.
5. See F. F. Bruce, "Transmission and Translation of the Bible" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), 39-57.
6. White, 42.
7. Ibid., 48. This isn't meant to imply that every copy of a manuscript contains all the words of that manuscript. The point, rather, is that when multiple copies are made of a given text, somewhere within the copies is found the words of the original. Textual criticism seeks to extract the original by sifting through these copies.
8. Ibid., 27-28
9. For a nice review of textual variants and some of the principles by which manuscripts are evaluated, see Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text and Canon (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 137-149.
10. White, 58.
11. Carson, 33-37.
12. White, 13-14.
13. It is worth mentioning that the King James Bible has undergone numerous revisions (e.g., 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, 1769), with most modern versions following the 1769 edition. Ibid., 77-82.
14. See Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman, Facts on The Textus Receptus and The King James Version (Anaheim, CA: Foundation Press, 1975).
15. White, 82.
16. Ibid., 5.
17. Ibid., 196.
18. Ibid., 151.
19. Ibid., 152-154.
20. Carson, 69.
21. "To keep a correct perspective it is important to note that the TR is not exactly the same as the Byzantine tradition. The Byzantine text-type is found in several thousand witnesses, while the TR did not refer to one hundredth of that evidence." ibid., 37.
22. Ibid., 72.
23. For an excellent overview of textual principles, see David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 32-36.
24. Carson, 24.

the extent of the atonement

The topic of “limited atonement” has sparked more than its share of debate and antagonistic response. Part of the problem, I think, is the lack of clarity of this terminology, and the emotional response it often elicits. To that end, definite redemption might be a more accurate depiction. Another part of the problem is the fact that we tend to compartmentalize ourselves into an either-or mode. This modernistic brand of theologizing is both limiting and naive.

In my opinion, definite redemption is difficult to deny biblically. For instance Jesus said that He came to lay down His life for His sheep, etc. In the context of His redemptive labors, He appears to be saying that His cross work would actually accomplish something, that entailed more than a potential redemption, and that His salvific death is a part of God’s great plan that spans the ages. This kind of understanding, which is more “Calvinistic” in orientation, appears to flow out of certain texts and in particular from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

Of course there are also other texts that seem more universalistic in their intent. I believe a good number of these can be best understood as meaning something like “all without distinction,” that is, Jesus’ death is not limited to Israel or to some particular brand of human being. Some of the “world” texts (1 John 2:2) might also be interpreted this way. However, there might also be passages that lead to more general atonement theory (John 3:16?). This being the case, what stops us from categorizing the redemptive work of Jesus as a “both-and” type of situation?

In one sense, His cross work is for all. It is offered to all in complete sincerity by God Himself. As such, it contains enough “redemptive power” to redeem any and all who desire to partake of it by faith. The best Calvinists have maintained something close to this idea, but I also believe many of them have been governed more by logic (which is important) than a plain reading of certain “hard” passages (which is essential–these are those passages that don’t neatly fit a given system).

At any rate, Jesus’ death is genuinely offered to all and truly contains, if we can put it this way, enough “propitiatory potential” to satisfy God’s justice for any who want it. At the same time, though, His cross–while not being withheld from anyone–is particularly applied to those “sheep” He came to rescue.

Of course we now enter holy ground, and with it we encounter profound mystery. How can this be? In what sense is this fair? Does this not contradict those other passages that treat the atonement in a more general sense? All of these are good questions, and I believe they are worth pursuing. However, I also believe that a complete understanding of them is unavailable in this life. In good postmodern fashion, we are left with mystery and tension, but we are also provided a (modernistic?) model that fits all of the biblical data. This, I would suggest, is of supreme importance.

Some Calvinists, though rightly emphasizing the particularism of the atonement, have minimized the fullness and sufficiency of the cross for all. Indeed, John 3:16, that most famous of evangelistic passages, is, in the opinion of some, a general atonement passage. On the other hand, some non-Calvinists have gone in the other direction, and have accused God of unfairness and the like when it comes to His liberty to exercise His complete and just will.

As an aside, many postmoderns seem comfortable with free will, which is fine, but they don’t seem to accord to God the same privilege. Thus, they minimize God’s freedom in order to highlight man’s. Again, this is naive and imbalanced. Worse, it fails to do justice to the many passages that speak of God’s freedom. When it comes to discussing these matters, the desire to guard man’s free will (which is a good thing) often dictates the type of conclusions we allow for. Since particularism appears to limit human free agency, it is tempting to jettison God’s freedom. Two comments: (1) God is presented as King in Scripture. As a transcendent being, He calls the shots. (2) Man is free in some genuine sense, but his freedom is not absolute (and whatever it is, it is not as great as God’s). Man is free in some sense (although simultaneously bound by his fallenness and humanity). Of course the concept of freedom (intellectual and moral) is not easy to capture. Indeed, theologians and philosophers have for centuries debated its meaning. Thus, to admit free will–which is a biblical thing–is not necessarily the same thing as saying that God is bound or limited by the free choices of His creatures.

In my opinion, divine sovereignty and (a rightly nuanced) human freedom are very puzzling concepts, and neither Calvinists nor Arminians have completely solved this dilemma. This is part of the reason why I have shied away from such labels, for I question their ability to convey much that is helpful. Not only are there varieties of each type (i.e., Calvinists and Arminians), but the labels have tended to keep people from honestly and openly investigating the various pieces of the redemptive puzzle (e.g., “limited atonement”). Furthermore, they have fostered an “us vs. them” mentality among equally sincere believers. When this occurs, we are all the worse off. Let it suffice to say that I believe that Jesus’ death was both for everyone (in some true sense) and for a particular group (in some other sense). However one defines this position, it is my attempt to incorporate all of the relevant data into the discussion and to allow the whole counsel of God to have its mystery-making but worship-inducing way with us.

Decision Making

During a segment on decision-making in my high school health class, we discussed what goes into decision-making and what makes us the decision makers that we are. To this end, I jotted down these words:

One’s decision-making strategy is dependent, to some degree, on the type of decision he or she is faced with. Some decisions are, frankly, not that life-altering (e.g., what to order at a restaurant, which shoes to purchase), while others are much more serious (e.g., whether or not to marry, the school you wish to attend). That being admitted, a good portion of decision-making is more about who and what we are than it is about a logical progression or step-by-step process. This is not to say that we cannot articulate factors that–whether consciously held or not–actually contribute to our decision-making. It’s just that decision-making, over the long term, is about our attitudes, the influences around us, the experiences we’ve had, and the people who are a part of our lives.

Beyond this, or so it seems to me, we cannot avoid seeing some decisions as inherently morality based. That is, we make at least certain choices based on whether or not we believe those choices are right or wrong. This leads many (not all) people to rely on (and draw from) ethics/morality-determining factors such as religious beliefs, spirituality, or some (perhaps undefined) higher reality or purpose. This reality or purpose includes standards of morality, of course, but it is never limited to the application of specific "rules." Our beliefs, in other words, not only inform us, but they actually help to shape us.

How, then, might we improve our capacity for making make wise decisions? One sure way is by becoming better decision makers, that is, better and wiser human beings. This, it appears, is inextricably linked to our spheres of influence, the people and places with which we have regular contact. Some of these cannot be easily altered, but some of them are well within our control.

To summarize, decision-making is a complex and on-going activity that relates to who we are (and are becoming), our experiences (consciously chosen or not), and the various influences in our lives. All of these are affected by deep personal beliefs, spoken or not, which provide the atmosphere or framework within which we make our choices.

Thoughts on Salvation

Our Sunday morning “church” group is currently taking a look at the subject of human salvation. To help stimulate our thoughts, we’ve decided to use portions of Terrence Tiessen’s Who Can Be Saved? In examining the various views of human salvation, Tiessen uses the following categories: Ecclesiocentrism (salvation only comes to those who hear and respond to the gospel), Agnosticism (while explicit faith in Jesus is normative, we don’t really know the fate of those who never hear the gospel), Accessibilism (there is reason to be hopeful about the salvation of some who have never heard the gospel), Religious Instrumentalism (while Jesus is in some ways special, God raises up non-Christian religions as instruments of salvation), and Relativism (salvation is universally available through various religions).

Of course there is some overlap between categories, and other writers have come up with their own schemes for delineating the different responses to the relevant subjects. We are not necessarily committed to Tiessen’s conclusions, though we do like the subjects he broaches and the way he handles at least some of these matters. What we are concerned about is thinking through some of the big issues that pertain to human salvation from a Christian and biblical perspective. To this end, I put some rather random thoughts on paper, which I hope will assist us in our discussions. These are not final thoughts or completely organized thoughts but rather general ideas that come to mind when approaching such matters. For what it’s worth, here they are:

Thoughts on Salvation

It is essential to realize that the thoughts I’m putting down here are not inspired, and that certain things I say are probably based more on gut feelings and assumptions than on some perfect understanding of what God is saying. While I hope these words are helpful and accurate, I do not assume, and neither should you, that they are somehow flawless representations of the truth. This being said, here are some off-the-cuff thoughts about the subject to which we now turn.

● It is important to ask what the practical implications of our choices are. If we are talking about human salvation, it is not enough to speculate about the spiritual status of so-and-so if we never weep over his lostness (if he is actually lost), celebrate his salvation (if this is the case), or are even likely to impact his life. E.g., How helpful is it to speculate about the fate of the ignorant in Africa if we are probably never going to visit Africa? It might, I suppose, affect our prayer lives or our missionary efforts. For most of us, however, (and whether or not this is good) it’s probably not a practical daily concern. Therefore, how much of our energy should be expended on such matters?

● What is the next question? If something is stated as necessary or likely for salvation, are we sure that we’ve asked enough questions about it? For instance, if we say a person must have faith to be saved, we are still left with a number of inquiries: What is faith? What does it mean to believe? If we say that true faith ushers in a holy lifestyle, which seems to be a biblical axiom, are we sure we are able to recognize holiness or fruit when we see it? (E.g., Holiness is obviously not “measured” by number of services attended or by our ability to use religious lingo). Please, do not misunderstand: We do not want to get tied down to an endless array of questions, rabbit trails that distract us from the real questions at hand. We do, however, want to stop and ask relevant questions when they have a direct bearing on the way we understand a given issue. For instance, if we say that the coming of Jesus has ushered in a new era, which it has, we should also ask ourselves in what sense (theologically and practically) this is so.

● What is salvation in the first place? By this, I am not trying to take a bare minimalist approach, reducing salvation to as few facts as possible. Rather, I’m seeking to understand what it is that unites any lost person with his Creator. As best as we can understand, what’s the essence of faith? From the human perspective, how does one come into a right relationship with God?

● What does it mean for God to save? If He saves, in what manner does He? Clearly, He uses human instrumentality in the conversion of others, which–for us–is both a responsibility and an honor. But, does He need to use us? Or, does He normally use us? Or, has He merely told us that He uses us, not in the sense to limiting His own ability to act apart from us but in order to call us to responsible action?

● It seems true that God can do whatever He wants with His creatures. Thus, if He chooses to allow us all to be condemned, that would be a biblically permissible thing for Him to do. In fact, it wouldn’t be unfair for Him to do a whole lot of things that we deem hard to swallow. On the other hand, He will not and cannot do that which contradicts His own nature and character. Nor, it would seem, does He act in ways that violate His own purposes.

● What is God like? From Scripture, it appears that a number of ideas come to the fore. God is holy, which entails His moral perfection, His separation from anything that is evil or wrong, His utter rightness and one-of-a-kind ness. Likewise, He is absolutely fair. Whatever He does is right, and any creature who could see things from His perspective would totally agree with His choices. As Scripture says, “Surely, the judge of all the earth will do right?” Also, and especially, God is love. What this entails is not always self-evident, and certainly God can be loving while simultaneously judging those who oppose Him. That much is clear. Beyond this, however, it appears that God is a community of perfect love, a being of incomprehensible mercy and grace, a Lord who has set as His primary agenda the mission of sharing His love with others. A being of perfect holiness (whatever that means, and I think we can know something [but not everything] about this), and absolute fairness (whatever that means, and I think we can know something [but not everything] about this, as well), has chosen to rescue us from ourselves and to envelop us in His immense love. Our assessment of salvation has to come to grips with the kind of being God is.

● In any Christian perspective, Jesus is the only Savior. Only He satisfied the demands of God’s justice. Only He is able to link heaven (since He’s God) and earth (since He’s a human). Only He can carry us into the presence of God, etc. Thus, if a person is saved, this salvation must come through the work and activity of Jesus. Still, there is another question: How does one come to benefit from Jesus’ activity? The normative answer is faith. But questions remain: What is faith, exactly? How much information is necessary to believe? How much error can be present where there is genuine faith? Can a person be united to God through Jesus without knowing about Jesus? In other words, is it possible to come to God through His Son without actually knowing anything about Him?

● In dealing with various biblical passages, it is important, I think, not to allow certain passages to be used in such a way that they crowd out or take precedence over other passages. When we do this, and it’s admittedly difficult to avoid such a mentality, we allow certain realities to shield us from other realities, or we allow one aspect of the truth (or our interpretation of it) to become the force by which we misrepresent another aspect of the truth. This often occurs when we consider matters of human responsibility, divine sovereignty, and the like.

● In discussing these matters, a number of related thoughts are relevant. These include but are not limited to the following: - Divine Sovereignty, - Free Will, - Epistemology (How do we know, and how do we know that we know? What is the basis for our knowledge?), - Hermeneutics (Interpretation), - The Hermeneutical Spiral, - Theology, - Cultural Assumptions (premodern, modern, postmodern, other tendencies and presuppositions). We should be willing to add to this list anything that is helpful to (and not a distraction from) the discussion. Want to add any?

● When it comes to our use of Scripture, we must take a number of things into consideration: (1) What a text says. (2) Whether our interpretation of the text is accurate or in need of revision. (3) Whether we are allowing certain texts greater priority than others. If we do this, why, on what basis? (4) Common sense and divine influence in our own lives. We are not inspired, to be sure, but neither are our interpretations of what the inspired text says. Thus, in thinking through these issues, I think it’s okay to ask one another (and God) how this works out. God’s working in our lives is not on par with Scripture, per se, but God Himself is. Thus, if God enables us to see something that throws a light on Scripture, it is potentially a good thing. (One example would be the age of the earth debate, etc. Some would argue that what God is saying in the world has given us “new eyes” for reading Genesis.)

● Where is God in all of this, and why has He designed things this way? If these discussions are important, and I think they are, why has God chosen such a round about way of leading us into the truth. We come to a Bible that requires our efforts to understand and apply it. Our interpretations are sometimes accurate and sometimes in error. There is no single text that gives us undeniable support for a single way of looking at these matters; instead, we have to grapple with various passages and ideas, seeking to pull the pieces together. God has taken a very indirect approach to these matters, requiring that we take time and make effort to unfold the truth, requiring that we interact with those who came before us, and leading us on a journey. If this is an accurate assessment, it would seem that God has “built into the system” of our journey a general sense that we can’t do this on our own. And, if that is the case, we clearly need Him. Thus, as we read, discuss, contemplate, and wonder, we are led, as well, to lean on Him for guidance, wisdom, strength, and a sense of His presence. As Psalm 119 says: Verse 18 - “Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Your law,” Verse 27 - “Make me understand the way of Your precepts, so I will meditate on Your wonders,” Verse 169 - “Let my cry come before You, O LORD; Give me understanding according to Your word.”

Okay, that’s enough for now. ☺

Show Me the Way

One of my all-time favorite songs is Show Me the Way by Styx. These lyrics, which capture the outlook of those hovering between belief and doubt, do something that is quite rare, for they strike a balance between realism and spiritual conviction. In these words, frustration and disillusionment rub up against authenticity and hope. The result? Real faith, the kind that comes when God himself shows us the way.

Every night I say a prayer in the hope that there’s a heaven
And every day I’m more confused as the saints turn into sinners
All the heroes and legends I knew as a child have fallen to idols of clay
And I feel this empty place inside so afraid that I’ve lost my faith

We all feel this way from time to time, and some of us live in a state of perpetual uncertainty. When so many of our childhood heroes turn out to be fakes, when even the “good” people end up going off the deep end, when people mask their weaknesses, and sometimes their perversions, with outward displays of piety, when it becomes common, even expected, that moral spokespersons fall prey to immorality and society’s big shots end up looking small–with all of this crap, how could we not feel somewhat taken aback?

But why would one be afraid to lose faith? Why would lack of faith lead to emptiness? Faith seeks a way ahead.

Show me the way, show me the way
Take me tonight to the river
And wash my illusions away
Show me the way

Oh, Lord, how we need (how I need) you to wash away everything that’s fake and disingenuous. Clearly, we need Someone bigger than we are to come to the rescue, to provide a guiding light and a mighty hand. Show me the way!

And as I slowly drift to sleep, for a moment dreams are sacred
I close my eyes and know there’s peace in a world so filled with hatred
That I wake up each morning and turn on the news to find we’ve so far to go
And I keep on hoping for a sign, so afraid that I just won’t know

There are times, and You know when, Lord, when the good old days come to mind. More important, still, there are occasions when we see what we once saw and feel what we once felt. Our skewed views and blurred vision give way to something buried deep within, something for which we still long. Imagine, a world without strife, a world of peace and genuine love, and . . . oh, yeah, that’s right, the “real” world is filled with divorces, personal attacks, a disregard for truth, and terrorist threats. Still, hope won’t go away. Maybe, if I read between the lines, if I look really hard, I’ll find something that supports faith and doesn’t simply cause me to question it. What, though, am I looking for?

Show me the way, show me the way
Take me tonight to the mountain
And take my confusion away

Lord, I need a word from you, I need to hear your calm yet authoritative voice if I’m going to think clearly.

And if I see a light, should I believe
Tell me how will I know

On the other hand, I’m not entirely sure I’d recognize your voice if I heard it. If you shine a light, how will I know it’s your light? Tell me, please!

Show me the way, show me the way
Take me tonight to the river
And wash my illusions away
Show me the way, show me the way
Give me the strength and the courage
To believe that I’ll get there someday
Show me the way

Even if I can’t understand as much as I’d like, at least let me know that one day I will. Move me in the right direction, keep me on the right path. Show me the way!

Every night I say a prayer
In the hope that there’s a heaven . . .

There it is, hope. It seems like the singer (Dennis DeYoung) wants to believe, but why? Perhaps, it’s all self-deception. It’s better to make believe and feel good about it than it is to face the facts and feel depressed, or so say some pundits.

But maybe, just maybe, there’s a better way. Why do so many people want to believe? It might be that we were created to believe. Indeed, the great majority of people throughout human history have believed. What’s more, so many of our daily affairs require that we believe. Every time we entrust our kids to the school bus driver or assume that we can safely cross a bridge, we express faith. Faith is built into the fiber of human beings.

This, I think, is why the song-writer yearns for faith, desires to believe, hopes that there is indeed a way. Life tends to drain the life out of us, sapping our energy and our sense of purpose. This results in a kind of tension in our lives. On the one hand, we think and hope that faith is true. On the other hand, we are faced with the undeniable reality of everyday pain, confusion, and uncertainty. So, what do we do? If we’re wise, we will “say a prayer in the hope that there’s a heaven.” God seems to have set it up this way. Fully aware of life’s difficulties and truly desiring to make sense of the confusion, we do what makes sense. We cry out or sing out “Show me the way.” Whether you’re a skeptic, an agnostic, or a believer, this is pretty good advice. Show me (show us all) the way!

WWJD?

What would Jesus do? It’s a great question, for it reminds us of a requirement that Jesus makes of all His would-be disciples. “Follow Me” is the way He put it. Sounds simple enough, even refreshing. But to ask what Jesus would do if He were in our shoes, to follow Him, is a daring proposition. Following Jesus? Living in a way that is consistent with the way He lived? Perhaps, there is more here than we bargained for.

Before we tackle this subject, please allow me to preface my remarks with a few cautions. First, while we are to follow Jesus, this doesn’t mean that we are to do exactly everything that He did. For instance we simply cannot duplicate His mind-boggling miracles. He was and is the God-man; we, obviously, are not. Second, it is important to see the attending circumstances and historical context in which Jesus operated. We cannot always make a one-to-one application from Jesus’ world to our own. That Jesus walked on water does not mean that we will be able to do the same. Third, there are numerous teachings and principles in God’s Word that we must be careful to avoid placing at odds with one another. Practically speaking, this means that in your desire to be like Jesus, you should never violate your conscience or some other clear principle of Scripture. For example Jesus obviously drank wine, which indicates that the mere consumption of alcohol is not wrong. However, if you have a history of alcohol abuse, it would be foolish to participate in that which is personally risky. Never, I repeat never, place yourself in a situation that, for you, is morally or spiritually harmful.

Now, having issued these warnings, we can seek to understand what it means to follow Jesus. How can we, especially in an evangelistic sense, conduct our lives in a way that mirrors Jesus’ own life? Fasten your seatbelts, for Jesus is about to take us for a ride.

What was Jesus like?

□ Jesus loved people, especially the outcasts of society.

One of the clear impressions you get from the Gospels is that Jesus spent a lot of time with people. Most often, in fact, He was willing to identify Himself with the average folk down the street, in particular the outcasts of society–the harlots, the disreputable, the irreligious.

Indeed, Jesus’ entire ministry was an invitation to “the weary and heavy laden.” It was to these people that He promised rest. What’s more, the individuals He surrounded Himself with, those to whom He would entrust the spread of His message, were not of high society. Fishermen, tax gatherers, zealots–these are not the type that would appear on anyone’s “who’s who” list.

Thus, a sure sign that you are not following Jesus is an aloof spirit, an attitude in which you refuse to get involved in the lives of those whom God brings your way. Jesus loved people, even “bad” people. Do you?

□ Jesus didn’t believe in a quick fix strategy. Rather, He entered relationships for the long haul.

Many Christians treat evangelism in formulaic ways. Just get someone to repeat “the sinner’s prayer,” or walk “the Romans road,” or “ask Jesus into their heart.” While it is at least worth noting how absent this type of language is on the lips of the early followers of Christ, the problem is not the words themselves. The real problem is that this isn’t the way evangelism normally works. We may feel like we’ve done our duty by spouting off a few verses, but in reality we have often done very little. Sometimes, in fact, we probably hinder the cause of Christ when we throw a little truth at people and then go our merry way.

Bluntly put, Jesus simply did not do evangelism this way. Read through Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Jesus certainly called people to Himself, and He was not afraid to demand repentance. Yet, it is perhaps surprising to discover how frequently He favored an indirect approach. For every time He says, “entrust your soul to Me,” it seems there are many other occurrences in which He merely spends time with people. The Son of God, the Savior of the world, did not typically cry out “believe, believe”–though surely that was His ultimate aim. More often than not, He simply hung out with people, listening to their complaints, discussing their particular struggles. In other words He spent quality time with those whom He encountered. Can the same be said of you?

□ Jesus was considered unorthodox, even radical . . . especially by the religious establishment.

One of the striking features of Jesus’ ministry was the fact that He so often broke “the rules.” It is not, of course, that He ever disobeyed God. To the contrary, Jesus always did the Father’s will. But when it came to human traditions (whether good ones, bad ones, or just outdates ones), Jesus was not afraid to go against the prevailing attitude of the day. Think for a moment about some of the scandalous things Jesus said and did.

On one occasion, He was sitting around, chatting with a bunch of shady characters. Not only did Jesus visit with them, but He actually seemed to enjoy their company. Do you remember the response of the religious leaders? “Why is He eating and drinking with tax-gatherers and sinners?” Clearly, they were not impressed by His choice of company.

On another occasion, He sanctioned the seeming waste of costly perfume, which a woman poured on Him in her effort to honor Him. Was Jesus not frugal?

Another time, He told a revealing story that indicated the true motives of many first century religious leaders. It would be an understatement to say they were unhappy with His commentary.

Then, consider what Jesus did at a wedding feast. When the supply of wine had run dry, He miraculously provided a first century version of Dom Perrione. Here are these people, partying and having a good time, and what does Jesus do? Does He reprimand them for being “worldly”? Does He disassociate Himself from the abuses that surely took place that day? No, He contributes to the celebration. Imagine how the prohibitionists of His (and our) day would react to such an act.

It has often been said that genuinely godly individuals will appear radical to the world around them. To some degree, this is true. Obviously, the goals and priorities of Jesus’ followers can differ greatly from those of non-Christians. On the other hand, the truly radical nature of Christianity is often seen in how the religious people, defenders of the status quo, react to those whose only desire is to follow the Savior. It seems inevitable that those with an unwavering allegiance to God and His Word will be viewed by the traditionalists as a little bit “out there.”

The lesson here, of course, is not that we ought to go about seeking to ruffle everyone’s feathers. Neither are we trying to promote bizarre behavior and the like. What we’re saying, rather, is that people who are committed to Jesus don’t mind running contrary to popular opinions and unquestioned traditions, especially those that originate among those who proudly assume that they have God pretty much figured out. Ironically, Jesus, God’s incarnate Son, revealed a deity whose ways often ran contrary to the narrow assumptions of the religious elite. In this sense He was a radical. Are you?

What would Jesus do?

As we stated at the outset, it is important to be careful how we apply the example of Jesus. It is just not possible to lay out a simple prescription for imitating Him. Those who seek to follow Jesus must do so prayerfully, wisely, with the help of fellow-travelers, and always in a way that does justice to all that God has revealed. In this sense the question “what would Jesus do? must be applied on a person-to-person basis, with no two people being exactly alike.

But there are certain aspects of Jesus’ style that cannot be ignored. Whatever else might be said, He certainly lived “out side the box.” As a result, Jesus’ hopes were God-centered, His motives pure, and His determination undaunted. Though there are many other characteristics of Jesus’ life that might be emphasized, here we find that God’s Son loved people, chose long-term relationships over quick fixes and hurried evangelistic strategies, and was willing to go against the acceptable trends.

What would Jesus do? He’d go to any length in His desire to reach people with God’s love. He’d sacrifice everything in hope of leading men and women into a relationship with their Creator. He’d break any “rule” (except God’s) in His determination to rescue a lost and hopeless world. This same Jesus says, “follow Me.” Are you following?

Joe "Spiritual"

Joe is a Christian, and everyone knows it. The way he lives, the things he does and does not do, the beliefs he holds, the manner in which he speaks–all of these provide evidence that Joe is in a state of spiritual health. How do we know this is the case? Well, just look at Joe’s resume:

1. Joe attends church two to four times a week.

2. Joe regularly employs spiritual language, using terms like “saved,” “Lord,” “born again,” “Calvary” and lots of others.

3. When Joe is truly showing the depth of his spirituality, he can be found mouthing important words like “sanctification,” “theology,” “propitiation,” “substitution,” “Calvinism,” “regeneration,” “predestined,” “supralapsarianism,” and a host of others.

4. Joe often says things like, “The Lord did such and such” or “The Lord spoke to me.”

5. Joe doesn’t drink or curse, or approve of those who do.

6. Joe leads a Sunday School class, and he even does a bit of preaching. Sometimes, he’ll throw in a Greek word or two when he’s teaching.

7. Joe knows all the acceptable authors and frequently urges others to read them, as well.

8. Joe is always careful to wear a smile and has a reputation for being composed, calm, and content.

9. Joe has a reputation for witnessing.

10. Joe takes his leadership role seriously, and Joe’s wife is happily submissive. On those occasions when Joe’s wife isn’t cooperating, Joe is quick to request prayer for his rebellious wife.

11. Joe really wants his loved ones to join him at church and to become a part of the believing community. Because joining the faithful is a sure sign of spirituality, Joe makes every effort to encourage his loved ones to join him at church.

12. Joe gives his money to numerous Christian causes, some of them related to missions.

For these and other reasons, Joe’s spiritual health is assured, and his reputation untarnished. Clearly, Joe has made much progress in the faith, and everyone knows it.

Now, before I go any further, it is important to recognize that many of the things I’ve mentioned are indeed potentially helpful ways to manifest one’s walk of faith. The terminology and the practices listed here can be a valid outworking of true faith.

Still, for all of the potentially good signs, for all of the sincere efforts to embody the faith, for all of the energy used to promote this religious paradigm, for all of the accolades that have come Joe’s way, none of the above statements about Joe is directly related to his faithfulness and spirituality.

Please understand that the point is not simply that we are all susceptible to hypocrisy. Clearly, that is a part of what is involved, and it is certainly true that we can all tend to be fakes. But there is more here than double-mindedness, for there is also present in the above examples a type of faulty reasoning. While many of the things Joe is involved in can be valid expressions of the faith, none of them gets at the essence of the faith. For example:

1. Joe attends church two to four times a week.

While the Bible talks about fellowship, accountability, and community, it does not define spirituality in terms of how many times per week we should meet. Neither does it say that more is necessarily better. We assume that, but Scripture does not.

2. Joe regularly employs spiritual language, using terms like “saved,” “Lord,” “born again,” “Calvary” and lots of others.

&

3. When Joe is truly showing the depth of his spirituality, he can be found mouthing important words like “sanctification,” “theology,” “propitiation,” “substitution,” “Calvinism,” “regeneration,” “predestined,” and a host of others.

While certain religious terms are drawn from Scripture, the mere use of such terms is never a sure guide for determining a person’s spiritual health. What’s more, just because we throw around religious terms does not mean that we have properly understood them. Likewise, the fact that we make frequent use of theological terms does not assure us that we have experienced (or are experiencing) the reality to which the terms point.

4. Joe often says things like, “The Lord did such and such” or “The Lord spoke to me.”

So far as “The Lord says” language, my first impulse is to ask, “How do you know?” How do you know that the Lord has spoken? What distinguishes your feelings that the Lord has spoken to you from the feeling of some anti-Christian? Indeed, are you sure that want to go out on that limb and take credit for having “gotten a word from God” when the Bible itself cautions us to avoid putting words in God’s mouth. Though I do not doubt that God can and does speak to and through us, I am very skeptical about the sloppy and often silly ways that we claim to have heard from Him. At any rate, merely declaring that the Lord has said such-and-such is not the same thing as having actually heard His voice.

5. Joe doesn’t drink or curse, or approve of those who do.

Though drunkenness is condemned in Scripture, drinking never is. When we attempt to be even more strict than Scripture, we take on the role of Pharisee, and we end up exuding arrogance. So far as cursing is concerned, that is, cursing as commonly understood, the Bible doesn’t have a lot to say. Cursing can indeed be a culturally unacceptable practice, and it certainly can indicate that our hearts are wrong. On the other hand, is it truly possible to measure spirituality by the way we string together vowels and consonants? I’m not really sure, but it does bother me that we are so damn prone to judge on such superficial matters. :-)

6. Joe leads a Sunday School class, and he even does a bit of preaching. Sometimes, he’ll throw in a Greek word or two when he’s teaching.

Teaching is potentially a good thing, and such teaching can take place via a traditional Sunday School class, a Sunday preaching assignment, or a Bible Study. But the mere fact that we teach does not mean that the content of what we express is accurate or true. Nor does it mean that we are somehow godly for being involved in such activities. As for Greek, it has its place. But my suspicion is that it is often used not so much as a means of communicating the truth but as an opportunity to show how “learned (and “spiritual”) we are.

7. Joe knows all the acceptable authors and frequently urges others to read them, as well.

Reading can be a wonderful tool for learning, but even here there are many dangers. Sometimes, a certain type of book is deemed acceptable, while other books are placed on our version of the index of forbidden books. Evangelicals that I’ve known have been particularly rigid here and have sometimes closed themselves off from the insights of those who don’t cross their “t’s” the same way they do.

8. Joe is always careful to wear a smile and has a reputation for being composed, calm, and content.

There is nothing wrong with smiling, and there can be a lot right about it. However, a smile can be very unspiritual when it reflects an inauthentic attitude. While love and joy and peace are conveyed through our lives and mannerisms, a plastic, make-believe attitude is not spiritual. Furthermore, it can actually hurt others. Some will be deceived by your “too nice” antics, while others (those more discerning?) will be suspicious of everything you say or do. Please understand , I am not for a moment advocating a frowning persona; a joyful demeanor is the outworking of the Spirit's work. On the other hand, so is authenticity, truthfulness, and a willingness to be real. Smiles can be good, but they are not a sure sign of genuine or healthy spirituality.

9. Joe has a reputation for witnessing.

Sharing the truth is part of the responsibility and privilege of all believers. Still, this does not mean that we are doing it correctly or wisely. It amazes me how formulaic we can be when it comes to evangelistic faithfulness. By many people’s standards, Jesus and Paul and most of the biblical characters were witnessing failures. Our techniques, words, attitudes, and expectations can easily become a cover for genuine love for others. Not only does witnessing by itself not necessarily indicate spirituality, but our views of evangelism can sometimes be in error.

10. Joe takes his leadership role seriously, and Joe’s wife is happily submissive. On those occasions when Joe’s wife isn’t cooperating, Joe is quick to request prayer for his rebellious wife.

An arrogant male dominance is way, way too common in many circles. This does not mean that men should become subservient wimps, of course, and in some circles this has become the new paradigm. But, however these things work out, women should never be minimized, devalued, or in any way abused. Too often, I afraid, this has been the case, and that in the name of spiritual health.

11. Joe really wants his loved ones to join him at church and to become a part of the believing community. Because joining the faithful is a sure sign of spirituality, Joe makes every effort to encourage his loved ones to join him at church.

The issue is not joining our assembly or attending our services but knowing God. To be honest, many of our churches are the exact opposite of what any normal, searching individual would desire. Of course we can always (conveniently) blame a person's lack of attendance on his or her sin, and sometimes this might be the case. But often, I suspect, we have confused conversion with church attendance, spiritual rejuvenation with adherence to our particular programs, truth with tradition.

12. Joe knows whose “in” and whose “out” when it comes to eternal matters of the soul.

Because we live in a certain world, it is common to take on the governing traits of that to which we are regularly exposed. In church circles, the above mentioned beliefs and practices can often take on a life of their own. Though we may know better, we start judging things like spiritual health by standards that are not biblical in any immediate sense. In some cases, in fact, they are downright erroneous. Perhaps the supreme example of this occurs when we assume that we know the spiritual state of another human being. I’m not saying that we cannot make reasonable assumptions, and I certainly don’t think we should be naive when it comes to a person’s spiritual well-being. All I’m saying is that, given our often skewed standards, we can often be very quick to judge matters about which we have no right. Think, for a moment, about Jesus’ ministry and the people to whom He ministered. Most often, it seems, He came to the rescue of individuals who were anything but religiously acceptable. Yet, in at least some cases, these same people had indeed experienced a new birth. Let me ask you. What do you think when you come across a person who is holding a beer, smoking a cigarette, using a few expletives? Of course we must avoid foolishness and naivete. However, we must also be careful not to make hasty judgments. Indeed, I don’t think God really cares what our evaluations are. Actually, I suspect that He often draws people to Himself who are not acceptable or spiritual by our standards. We must be careful not only to avoid hypocrisy but to reject the idea that spiritual health is determined by our ability to identify who is “in” and who is not.

Do I sound a bit too critical? Perhaps I am, but that is not my intention. Rather, I hope to draw your attention to the fact that true spirituality is just that, true and spiritual. True means genuine, consistent with reality, not spurious, and--if we want to be biblical about it--related to God. Spiritual means associated with the Spirit and His influence and activity in our lives.

While true spirituality makes an imprint and can indeed be measured ("You can tell a tree by its fruit, etc."), it is also somewhat hard to reduce to a formula or a rigid list of activities. Thus, while there are, shall we say, parameters for what it means to "look" like a Christian, the outworking of these is often less-than easy to pin down.

Okay, so what's the point? Simply that we are all prone to confuse our own versions of the faith--be they valid or invalid, correct or incorrect--with the faith itself. When we do this, we open ourselves up to the charge of hypocrisy, close ourselves off from new insights, and end up making the activity of the Spirit something that can be precisely outlined. Perhaps, Jesus had a better idea: “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Yeah, I like that. Wind, Spirit . . . and spiritual life. :-)

Truth as Person and Idea

I was just reading an article on The Oooze. The author, Willie Krischke, does a nice job talking about truth as a person, emphasizing the need for humility when it comes to the assertions that we make. You can find the article at http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1212.

Well, for whatever reason, I was in the mood to add a few comments of my own concerning the subject about which he writes. Here they are:

I totally agree with what you’ve written . . . sort of. :-) That is, I agree that truth is a person, that we are very susceptible to error, that we must remain open to new views and interpretations, etc., etc. This is good stuff, but I tend to think that it goes a little bit (not a lot!) too far in the opposite direction from which you (and I) have come.

In recognizing my proneness to error and my tendency to be dogmatic about matters for which only God has the ultimate perspective, I find that I cannot completely abandon my “old ways.” Thus, for instance, to say that the truth is ultimately a person can only be defended and explored if I assume that I have access to this proposition: truth is a person. In other words if I claim that truth is a person, it would be perfectly appropriate for someone to ask how I came into possession of this knowledge. Was I zapped from on high? Do I have “inside” information about these matters? How is my view–which, by the way, I actually believe–that “truth is a person” to be distinguished from or shown to be superior to the “truth is a proposition” model. The truth is (there I go again with that truth word :-) ) that truth is both a concept or idea and a person. The way I see it (for what that's worth), the truth has been revealed in Scripture, and we have access to this knowledge. This is why we can say with some measure of confidence that we know many of the truths of the faith. The problem for moderns is that they became consumed with something closer to perfect knowledge of the faith, which resulted (results) in an emphasis on details and a tendency to become arrogant. Still, this being admitted, there is something to this notion that we can know at least some things sufficiently (not flawlessly) well.

The other side of this, of course, is that truth is much more than a proposition or an idea or a systemized version of the truth. As you have stated so well, truth is a person. He is real and present and, frankly, often hard to figure out. What’s more, I truly believe the “truth as a person” view facilitates our efforts to gain access to better ideas about this person.

Perhaps, ideas about God (derived from Scripture, tradition, and our reflections on truth and life) are intended to drive us to the person of God, while God himself likewise drives us back to Scripture, looking for improved insights into his person. It seems that we have to live with this idea-person tension. Moderns have, for all their official disclaimers to the contrary, often (not always) overly emphasized the ideas or doctrines of the Bible. But, and I think this is where we have to be careful, we sometimes fail to see that in our frustration with a propositionally oriented faith, we cannot abandon our belief in propositions (indeed, to reject all propositions is itself a kind of proposition). What some postmoderns do is sneak certain propositions in the back door, assuming or believing that they have escaped the need for anything resembling a dogmatic belief. Of course I am aware that some would distinguish between propositions and propositionalism, and I am very open to a nuanced version of this “truth as idea” paradigm. It’s just that I would hate to see the church so overreact to the many abuses of the past that it bends too far in the other direction. So, while I understand that we need to be humble in our knowledge claims, etc., I have to realize (humbly, of course) that even the determination to remain humble is an assertion we make (rightly, I think) with a measure of confidence. :-) In other words we know at least enough to recognize that there is a whole lot that we don’t know. In fact even what we do know, we only know in part. As you say, this spawns creativity and is an impetus for further reflection on the faith.

Please forgive me for rambling on and on about these matters. As I’ve said, I agree with what you’ve said, and I in no way wish to criticize. In fact I kind of think that we are on the same page with many of these things. I suppose I was just in the mood for getting these things out of my system. Sorry that you are on the other end of my random thoughts! At any rate, I want to thank you for your insightful and very helpful article.

Have a beer!

A segment of the church is opposed to drinking, thinking that alcohol is inherently evil. Other segments of the church, recognizing that alcohol is not prohibited by Scripture, don’t “officially” denounce alcohol; still, some of them do refrain from alcohol (which is fine) in such a way as to appear holier-than-thou (which is not fine). “It’s technically not wrong to drink alcohol,” they would say, “but if you really want to follow the Lord, you will give up the bottle.” Still another group, perhaps due to the overly strict influences of those mentioned above, tend to rebel the other way. For them, drinking is something of a right of passage, a way to showcase their liberties. “After all,” they think, “I am free to do whatever is not forbidden by Scripture.” True enough, but the freedom to drink (and to participate in a whole host of legitimate activities) is not simply an excuse for rebellion, a way of “showing those fundamentalists” that we can do whatever we please. Indeed, we don't want to be enslaved by either our arbitrary rules or our legitimate freedoms!

All this being said, here are some fairly random thoughts on drinking:

1. The biggest issue is not drinking or not drinking. What matters most is our connection with God. Living for Him, reflecting His ways–that’s what matters. Anything that hinders this process–be it drinking or opposing those who do–should be rejected.

2. Drinking is not wrong, only drunkenness is. If you want to have a beer or a glass of wine or whatever, go ahead. Given the priorities just mentioned (# 1), you can do whatever you’d like. Wasn’t it Augustine who said, “Love God, and do whatever you want.” I really like that, for I think it reflects a biblical view on these matters!

3. To uphold and seek to enforce a non-biblical standard is sheer arrogance, for it claims for God what He has not claimed for Himself. In a word, if God has not said it, we had better be very careful what we claim in His name. Taking away from His Word is foolish, as is any effort, however well-intended, to add to His Word.

4. If you want to drink, do it because you like it, because someone offers you a drink and you want to be cordial, because you desire to mingle with others in a socially appropriate way, because . . . I suppose there are a lot of reasons. But don’t drink simply because you want to show how “cool” you are. It looks kind of silly (though it’s somewhat understandable) when Christians, who have discovered their God-given freedom, run around like 16 year olds at a bush party. You drink? So, what? While your fundamentalists buddies won’t approve, most people in society are not impressed that you participate in things that, for them, are quite common. (Of course there are some people outside of the church who will be initially surprised by a believer’s choice to drink. This is due, no doubt, to the stereotype, fostered by many within the church, that “religious” people don’t drink. This, I think, is very unfortunate. Though we ought to have a reputation for doing what it right, we ought not be known for things that don't matter one way or the other!)

5. There is a part of me (I admit, the somewhat rebellious part) that wants to rub the noses of those legalistic types (and there are many of them) in my beer. This might have a place, in my (not-so?) humble opinion. Then again, I suppose it would be better to treat your rigid-minded friends in a gentler manner . . . of course, when I think of the way Jesus responded to the Pharisees, I sometimes wonder. Hmm. :-)

So, there you have it, a handful of off-the-cuff remarks on drinking. The consumption of alcohol is not wrong. If you can drink without transgressing God’s will for you, go for it. Keep in mind, of course, that we, drinkers and non-drinkers alike, have deceitful hearts and that we are all capable of perverting our legitimate freedoms. Remember, as well, that the purpose of your freedom is to live in such a way that God’s ways become more and more evident. These things said, and if you feel so inclined, have a beer!

Apologetic Perspective: The Relevance of Presuppositions and Evidence

This is a paper I wrote a number of years ago, dealing with the subject of presuppositions and evidence. Though these schools of thought are sometimes pitted against each other, I argue that they are best viewed together. While I might tweak certain aspects of what I wrote then, I generally agrree with most of what follows.

Within the discipline of apologetics, two basic approaches often emerge; some refer to themselves as presuppositionalists and others as evidentialists. Those who appropriate these labels then go on to defend their respective agendas, typically denouncing the views of those with whom they disagree. Unfortunately, however, there is also a tendency to highlight those truths that best support a given view, and to ignore those that don't perfectly fit one’s current scheme. Sometimes this even lead to a misrepresentation of the positions of those on the other side. When this occurs, the potential benefits of differing viewpoints are missed.

In contrast with a one-dimensional view, my contention is that a combined approach might be feasible. Perhaps, the best of both worlds can be melded together into a coherent system. This short paper is intended to foster such efforts.

Introduction

Apologetics involves displaying the truth and beauty of the Christian world view. But not all apologists agree on the manner in which this is best accomplished. As mentioned above, this has led to various schools of thought or perspectives, often philosophical in nature, as to the most biblical and helpful way to promote the gospel.

Among apologetic methods two broad categories emerge, presuppositionalism and evidentialism.

A presupposition is a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition.[1]

Presuppositionalism, then, is the apologetic method which highlights, reflects, and declares the Christian’s assumptions, those grounded in and flowing out of a biblical world view.[2]

Evidence, on the other hand, is that which gives credence and support for a certain contention. Moreover, if genuinely reflective of Scripture, it is that which warrants acceptance and, hopefully, an allegiance to the truth. This evidence, accurately portrayed, is not only right but persuasive and attractive to the Spirit-illumined mind (1 Corinthians 2:9-13). In any case, evidentialism stresses the need to provide support or evidence for the faith.

Of course it would be a misnomer to assert that presuppositionalists and evidentialists operate in completely separate spheres. Often each crosses over into the territory of the other—presuppositionalists by their utilization of evidence and evidentialists through their use of an essentially Christian framework. Extreme versions aside, neither method can be viewed in a completely isolated manner.

But this is not to say that those from either school are in total agreement when it comes to apologetic procedures. Indeed, the two are typically viewed as distinct and basically different ways to approach apologetics. The contention here, though, is that this need not be the case. Therefore, contrary to popular portrayal and the dogmatic assumptions of some on either side, presuppositions and evidence can and should be viewed as complementary.

In order to demonstrate this, it is important to back up and gain a larger biblical-theological perspective on these matters, and this requires an inquiry into the very nature of man himself and how he acquires knowledge. This entails a brief consideration of epistemology and ontology.

Epistemological and Ontological Reflections

Epistemology and ontology are two separate but closely related subjects. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how one comes to acquire it. Feinberg describes it as “an inquiry into the nature and source of knowledge, the bounds of knowledge, and the justification of claims to knowledge.”[3] Ontology, on the other hand, concerns the nature of being, the “theory of the nature of things.”[4] It involves the metaphysics of being human, emphasizing both the capacities and limitations inherent among created beings.

In basic terms epistemology concerns how humans think, their outlook and perspective, the way they look at and interpret life. Ontology deals more with what humans are, the metaphysical components that make one a human in the first place

As might be expected, there is a wide range of opinion as to the precise interpretation of such matters, and no one has exhausted every nuance of these terms. There is, however, much to be gleaned from a basic understanding of them. Indeed, both epistemology and ontology have a role to play in laying the groundwork for a Christian apologetic.

From the standpoint of epistemology, the believer and unbeliever often differ considerably in their respective explanations of reality. Indeed, as some have argued, Christians and non-Christians are diametrically opposed at the foundational level. Christians interpret life in light of God’s recorded communication (Psalm 1:1-3). Unbelievers, on the other hand, naturally reject any genuine divine authority (Psalm 1:4-6; Romans 3:9-11). This is why Paul so strongly asserts that “the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Corinthians 2:14). This does not mean that unbelievers are always consistent with their own world view; the opposite is often (thankfully) the case. Generally, however, unregenerate individuals tend to explain life in terms contrary to the revealed will of God in Scripture. They live by a different set of epistemological standards than believers.

Next, there is the matter of ontology. All humans are made in God's image. “To be made in the ‘image of God' means that man has an essential likeness and/or similarity in a finite, relative manner to the infinite, self-existing God.”[5] As such, there are certain universal characteristics among all people, including intellect, morality, creativity, and other factors. These capacities are reflective of man’s being constructed to be, in some limited sense, like God, and they enable man to recognize, both internally and in the external world, that there is a God. However precisely this image is defined, all humans share in it and possess the same ontological capacity. Mayers notes: “Because believer and unbeliever alike live in God's universe and are made in His image, the ultimate structure of being is identical.”[6]

All of this implies that natural man is a strange mixture of knowledge and ignorance, a conglomeration of truth and error. At one level, man knows God, while at another level he denies Him. These matters are dealt with in Romans 1-3. There Paul says that humanity’s knowledge of God extends even to an apprehension of the Creator’s attributes (Romans 1:20). At the same time, man’s moral corruption will not allow him to interpret the truth rightly. Thus he “suppress[es] the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). In the words of Pascal:

What a chimera is man! What a novelty! What a monster, what a chaos, what a contradiction, what a prodigy! Judge of all things, imbecile worm of the earth; depository of truth, a sink of uncertainty and error; the pride and refuse of the universe![7]

Whatever else is true, the fact that all men are ontologically alike—that is, equipped with the same interpretive “equipment”—enables communication between believer and unbeliever to take place. Man’s intuitive knowledge of God serves as the point of contact from which interaction with the unbeliever may occur. Christian apologetics appeals to this inherent God-awareness, suppressed as it may be, looking through the layers of false ideas and invalid assumptions, seeking to reach the heart of man. Of course only God can ultimately plumb the depths of the human soul and overcome humanity’s aversion to the things of God (Ephesians 2:1-10).

These epistemological and ontological considerations are pivotal in developing a biblical model of communication. Because fallen men are epistemologically flawed, efforts to reach them must not assume non-Christian presuppositions, for these will often conflict with God’s revealed will, reflecting a basic spiritual opposition to the things of God. But hope is not lost, for Christian evidences are (potentially) perspicuous to non-Christians. That is, man’s metaphysical makeup still reflects a capacity to recognize God. Though unbelievers cannot repent or believe apart from divine aid, they do retain an affinity (severely corrupted as it may be) for higher things.

In sum Christian apologists must recognize both epistemological and ontological factors. In blending these two categories, a balanced apologetic is possible.

A Balanced Apologetic Approach

The above discussion is intended to show that presuppositions and evidence should not be viewed as separate and irreconcilable notions. “Presuppositionalists want to begin with God, evidentialists with ourselves; the balanced apologist says start with both God and ourselves simultaneously, as these cannot be broken apart.”[8] As a result, any valid evidentialist method assumes and promotes Christian presuppositions. Similarly, a presuppositional method is truly biblical only if it contends, from a Christian vantage point, the evidence of the Christian faith.

This combined approach is brought out by the biblical data itself. John 14:17, for instance, clearly identifies the presuppositional deficiencies of the unbeliever. “The world cannot receive [the Spirit of truth].” At the same time, this same gospel of John urges readers to appropriate the evidence, particularly that of Jesus’ signs, and to follow that evidence to God’s Son, Jesus the Christ (John 20:30-31). Indeed, a number of texts state or imply both presuppositions and evidences simultaneously (e.g., Acts 2:14-40; 7:1-53; 9:20-25; 14:8-19; 1 Peter 3:13-17).

What this does for apologetics is provide a balanced outlook on reaching the lost. To ignore presuppositions leads either to an underestimation of mankind’s fallen condition or a compromise of Jesus’ Lordship. Likewise, evidential ignorance results in a type of fideism[9] in which communication is rendered extremely difficult, if not impossible.

The best apologetic method is one in which presuppositions and evidence are integrated. Thus, the believer enters the apologetic encounter already presupposing the truth of Christianity and alert to the possible anti-Christian presuppositions of the unbeliever. Furthermore, the Christian’s commitment to a biblical world view (i.e., Christian presuppositions) reinforces his confidence in the Bible’s truth claims, even as it stimulates evangelistic zeal.

But the recipients of the good news must still see for themselves the many treasures of Christian truth, the believability of the Bible’s claims, and the attractiveness of the gospel. Therefore, Christian apologists argue on the basis of biblical presuppositions. Arguments and presuppositions work hand in hand in the outworking of a cogent, biblically directed apologetic.

Basic Applications

From what precedes, a number of relevant ideas appear. These can be summarized as follows:

1. Christians must presuppose the Bible's world view in their apologetic efforts. In simple terms this is an outworking of the fact that Jesus is in charge.

There are a number of ways in which Christian presuppositions play a role in the believer’s efforts to reach those who are not yet followers of Jesus. For one, the matter of presuppositions serves as a powerful reminder of one’s basic Christian commitments. Life in the real world can involve numerous situations, opportunities, and difficulties. Believers, interacting with those whom they encounter, face a myriad of personalities, questions, objections, and needs. The sheer complexity of communication makes it easy to lose track of the what really matters. This being the case, it is imperative that Christians allow Scriptural counsel to pervade their witnessing opportunities. Thus, God’s word, i.e., biblical presuppositions, becomes the guiding force in any attempt to spread the gospel (Psalm 119:11-13; 41-48; 129-130).

Of course there is good reason why believers must be on their guard in speaking with non-Christians. This reason, which is at the core of the Bible’s teaching concerning mankind, is human impropriety or sin (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). The world simply does not operate by the same rules as those who desire to be faithful to Scripture. Presuppositionalism reminds Christians that those whom they meet share a different world view. This, in turn, produces a determination to avoid unnecessary compromise, as well as a realization that only God can ultimately overcome human antagonism and invalid presuppositions.

An awareness of presuppositions forces believers to live by faith, a reasonable faith to be sure, but faith nonetheless. Both believer and unbeliever maintain (consciously or not) basic personal and intellectual commitments. The difference is that the Christian’s reflect reality as defined by God in Scripture.[10] Furthermore, the framework to which believers are bound claims special inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

In the final analysis, the determination to uphold and promote Christian presuppositions is an acknowledgment of the Lordship of Christ (1 Peter 3:15). It is within the sphere of clearly enunciated beliefs that unbelievers can receive spiritual life (James 1:18).

2. It is important for apologists to recognize that non-Christians are made in the divine image and thus possess a certain innate knowledge of God. This serves as the believer’s point of contact with the world.

Man intuitively knows God. To be sure, rebellion has blocked the way, and truth is often suppressed by the non-Christian. Still, this does not imply that communication between believer and unbeliever is impossible. Indeed, the only reason why evangelism and apologetics are feasible in the first place is because the image of God in man is a genuine point of contact. As mentioned above, all men are metaphysically alike; that is, they all posses the same human tools by which the truth can be potentially accessed. Though the gospel is suppressed by natural men (Romans 1:18), God is able to overcome antipathy and apathy and so enable non-Christians to grasp His message. In the providence and purposes of the living Lord, unbelievers can be transformed into believers.

3. The story line and primary themes of Scripture must be persuasively declared, demonstrated, and argued.

A proper apologetic stance begins with a commitment to Jesus’ Lordship as manifested in His Word. This provides the Christian with the discernment needed to both avoid faulty thinking and uphold the truth.

But a biblically grounded approach must still meet people where they are. This necessitates an awareness of the human condition and a determination to share the truth with others.

The manner in which this works its way out can range from sophisticated encounters to simple discussions. Whatever the precise argumentation, answers must indeed be provided. Though spiritual life requires divine initiative, God normally operates through human interaction and the contemplation of divinely revealed truth. As Peter notes, Christians must “be ready to give a defense” (1 Peter 3:15).

Conclusion

A full-orbed apologetic incorporates both presuppositions and evidence. Rather than viewing these as separate and distinct categories, thoughtful believers should take advantage of the strengths of each. Christian truth must be believed and uncompromisingly maintained. Apart from a Christian world view, confusion runs rampant. Simultaneously, the many beauties of the biblical message need to be displayed for all to see.

Put plainly, biblically minded apologetics seeks to reach the whole person with the whole gospel (Acts 5:20). Christian duty demands such an approach, one in which the divine image in man is properly understood and divine Lordship rightly maintained.

May the Lord Himself enable us gain a balanced perspective, one which perceives man as he is, envisions what he might be, and looks for supernatural assistance along the way. Then, perhaps, more emboldened believers will conscientiously seek to shine forth the gospel of Jesus the Savior.

NOTES

1. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987), 45.

2. Some, perhaps overly influenced by philosophical usage, have equated presuppositionalism with a priori knowledge, knowledge possessed temporally prior to and independent of any experience. While there is much debate about the relationship between a priori and a posteriori knowledge (i.e., that which is gained through experience), this need not overly hinder one's understanding of presuppositions. As used here presuppositions are merely the ultimate commitments (consciously maintained or not) all people hold. For an excellent discussion of these matters, see John M. Frame, Cornelius Van Ti1: An Analysis of His Thought (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1995), 131-139.

3. Paul D. Feinberg, "Epistemology" in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 359.

4. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 401.

5. Ronald B. Mayers, Balanced Apologetics: Using Evidence and Presuppositions in Defense of the Faith (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1984), 27.

6. Ibid., 215. Mayers himself categorizes this likeness among all people as related to three factors: creation, the image of God in man, and historical revelation.

7. Blaise Pascal, Pensées, quoted in C. Stephen Evans, Why Believe?: Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 50.

8. Mayers, 198.

9. "The view that the objects of religious belief and commitment must be accepted by faith rather than proved by reason." Millard J. Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 57. Extreme versions of fideism are unquestionably contrary to a wealth of biblical data. For a brief survey of some fideistic positions, see Paul Helm, "Faith, Evidence, and the Scriptures" in Scripture and Truth, Eds. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 303-320.

10. See John M. Frame's discussion in Apologetics to the Glory of God, 9-14.