Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 106

How Do You Use Tactics in Social Media?

Greg explains how tactics can be used in online interactions in addition to face-to-face interactions. 

How to T.R.A.I.N. Christian Students (Rather Than Teach Them)

I’ve written repeatedly about why the Church needs to stop teaching students about their faith. Young Christians are leaving the Church in tremendous numbers during their college years, and our efforts to teach them has been incapable of reducing this rate of attrition. That’s why it’s time to stop teaching students and start training them. There’s a difference between teaching and training. Teaching is about imparting knowledge; training is about preparing for battle. As I explain this principle around the country, I use the acronym, T.R.A.I.N. to help people understand the conceptual difference:

T - Test
Challenge students to expose their weaknesses

R - Require
Expect more from students than we sometimes think they can handle

A - Arm
Provide students with the truth and teach them how to articulate it

I - Involve
Deploy students to the battlefield of ideas

N - Nurture
Tend to students’ wounds and model the nature of Jesus

This week I’m going to briefly describe each step in this process. You may be thinking, “Hey this youth ministry stuff doesn’t really apply to me.” You’re wrong. I think the problem facing young Christians in our culture is indicative of the problem facing all of us as Christians. If we hope to become better Christian Case Makers so we can influence the culture and respond obediently to the command of God (1 Peter 3:15-16), we’ve got to rethink our approach to knowledge and Christian education. So let’s examine the TRAIN paradigm and see what it can provide. We’ll start today with TESTing.

Whenever I work with a youth group for an extended period of time, I begin with a test. This accomplishes two goals. First, it helps me see where specific weaknesses may be so I can focus my efforts. But more importantly, testing helps students understand how much they need to be trained. My experience as a police officer has helped me to understand why this is so important. We have a bar in our city that is a constant source of fights and disturbances. Officers are continually called to the location to handle difficult problems. It’s a perfect place to test new officers. When I was on training, I knew my field training officer (FTO) was going to volunteer our unit for any call that was dispatched to this bar, because he wanted to see if I could handle myself in tough situations. At some point, every new officer has to be tested to see if he or she can do the job; this bar became the perfect test location. Sometimes I held my own, sometimes I didn’t. After a scuffle in which I didn’t fare as well as I would have liked, I understood my need for improvement and started training as a fighter and wrestler. I was determined to do better next time. The test exposed my weakness and encouraged me to train.

That’s why I start by testing Christian students with role-playing. If at all possible, I try to have the host pastor introduce me as an atheist and give me two hours with the group during the first training session. In this first meeting, I present the case against theism calmly (but unflinchingly) to see if the students can make a case for what they believe. Sadly, they are usually unable to hold their own. These first sessions are nerve wracking for students who struggle to respond to my claims and begin to anxiously squirm under the weight of dozens of unanswered objections. They don’t fare well in this bar fight. When it’s over and I finally reveal I am actually a Christian who has come to help train them, the relief in the room is palpable. They are delighted to see I am a Christian (even though I am obviously aware of the many atheistic objections we face), and they are ready and eager to train. Like young officers, there’s a time when every Christian student must be tested. We can either seize the opportunity to test in the setting of our youth ministries, or we can pass on the opportunity and allow the first test to take place in college (when we aren’t available to our students). It’s our choice.

If you want to make a difference in the lives of Christian students (including your own children), stop teaching them and start training them. Begin the process with a test, and continue through the steps we’ll be talking about on the Cold Case Christianity blog this week [see links below]. We can impact the character and durability of our young Christians, but we’re going to have to be intentional trainers to get the job done.

Read the rest of the posts in this series:

Requiring Young Christians to Raise the Bar
Arming Christian Students with the Truth
Involving Students in the Battlefield of Ideas
Nurturing Christian Students As They Engage the Challenges of Atheism

Is Mark's Gospel an Early Memoir of the Apostle Peter?

The authorship of the Gospels is a matter of considerable debate amongst skeptics and critics of the New Testament canon. Mark’s Gospel is an early record of Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection, but Mark isn’t mentioned as an eyewitness in any of the Gospel accounts? How did Mark get his information about Jesus? There are several historical clues:

Papias said Mark scribed Peter’s teachings
Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (60-130 AD) repeated the testimony of the old presbyters (disciples of the Apostles) who claimed Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome as he scribed the preaching of Peter (Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15, Book 3 Chapter 30 and Book 6 Chapter 14). Papias wrote a five volume work entitled, “Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord.” In this treatise (which no longer exists), he quoted someone he identified as ‘the elder,’ (most likely John the elder), a man who held considerable authority in Asia:

“And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.”

Irenaeus said Mark wrote his Gospel from Peter’s teaching
In his book, “Against Heresies” (Book 3 Chapter 1), Irenaeus (130-200 AD) also reported Mark penned his Gospel as a scribe for Peter, adding the following detail:

“Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form.”

Justin identified Mark’s Gospel with Peter
Early Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, wrote “Dialogue with Trypho” (approximately 150 AD) and included this interesting passage:

“It is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….”

Justin, therefore, identified a particular Gospel as the ‘memoir’ of Peter and said this memoir described the sons of Zebedee as the ‘sons of thunder.’ Only Mark’s Gospel describes John and James in this way, so it is reasonable to assume that the Gospel of Mark is the memoir of Peter.

Clement said Mark recorded Peter’s Roman preaching
Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) wrote a book entitled “Hypotyposeis” (Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15). In this ancient book, Clement refers to a tradition handed down from the “elders from the beginning”:

“And so great a joy of light shone upon the minds of the hearers of Peter that they were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally; and they did not cease until they had prevailed upon the man and so became responsible for the Scripture for reading in the churches.”

Eusebius also wrote an additional detail (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 14) related to Mark’s work with Peter:

“The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.”

This additional piece of information related to Peter’s reaction to Mark’s work is important, because it demonstrates that Clement is not simply repeating the information first established by Papias, but seems to have an additional source that provided him with something more, and something slightly different than Papias.

Tertullian affirmed Peter’s influence on the Gospel of Mark
Early Christian theologian and apologist, Tertullian (160-225 AD), wrote a book that refuted the theology and authority of Marcion. The book was appropriately called “Against Marcion,” and in Book 4 Chapter 5, he described the Gospel of Mark:

“While that [Gospel] which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was.”

The Muratorian Fragment confirmed Mark’s relationship to Peter
The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. Commonly dated to approximately 170 AD, the first line reads:

“But he was present among them, and so he put [the facts down in his Gospel]”

This appears to be a reference to Mark’s presence at Peter’s talks and sermons in Rome, and the fact that he then recorded these messages that became the Gospel of Mark.

Origen attributed Mark’s Gospel to Peter
Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 25) quoted a Gospel Commentary written by Origen (an early church father and theologian who lived 185-254 AD) that explains the origin of the Gospels. This commentary also attributes the Gospel of Mark to Peter:

“In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.’ 1 Peter 5:13 And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.”

An Anti-Marcionite Prologue affirmed Peter’s connection to Mark
There are three Gospel ‘prologues’ that appear in many Latin Bibles from antiquity. Known as the “Anti-Marcionite Prologues,” they date to the 4th century or earlier. The prologue for the Gospel of Mark is particularly interesting:

“Mark declared, who is called ‘stump-fingered,’ because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.”

Now, it can be argued that Papias’ description of Mark’s collaboration with Peter in Rome is the earliest description available to us. In fact, skeptics have tried to argue that later Church sources are simply parroting Papias when they connect Mark to Peter. But there is no evidence to suggest that Papias is the sole source of information related to Peter and Mark, particularly when considering the slight variations in the subsequent attributions (such as Clement’s version). The subtle differences suggest that the claims came from different original sources. In addition, Justin Martyr’s tangential reference to the ‘sons of thunder’ strengthens the support for Peter’s involvement coming from a source other than Papias (who never makes this connection). In essence, a claim of dependency on Papias lacks specific evidence, and even if this were the case, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Papias’ original claim in the first place. The consistent record of history identifies Mark’s Gospel as a memoir of Peter’s life with Jesus.

Challenge Response: You're Not Adopting Babies

Here's my response to this week's challenge:

 

Chemist Grappled with Faith and Doubt

Somehow I managed to get through high school and college without taking chemistry, so I never heard of Robert Boyle or "Boyle's Law." Here's what students learn about him:

Robert Boyle (1627–1691) was born at Lismore Castle, Munster, Ireland, the 14th child of the Earl of Cork. As a young man of means, he was tutored at home and on the Continent. He spent the later years of the English Civil Wars at Oxford, reading and experimenting with his assistants and colleagues. This group was committed to the New Philosophy, which valued observation and experiment at least as much as logical thinking in formulating accurate scientific understanding. At the time of the restoration of the British monarchy in 1660, Boyle played a key role in founding the Royal Society to nurture this new view of science.

Although Boyle’s chief scientific interest was chemistry, his first published scientific work, New Experiments Physico-Mechanicall, Touching the Spring of the Air and Its Effects (1660), concerned the physical nature of air, as displayed in a brilliant series of experiments in which he used an air pump to create a vacuum. The second edition of this work, published in 1662, delineated the quantitative relationship that Boyle derived from experimental values, later known as “Boyle’s law”: that the volume of a gas varies inversely with pressure.

What many students never learn is that Boyle was a devoted Christian.

What is absent from this image is the deeply religious man who wrote as much about God as he did about the nature of air; the man who considered himself a "priest" in the "temple" of nature; the man who paid for translations of the Bible into Gaelic and into the language of the Indians in Massachusetts.

Boyle had doubts, but he saw them as the corollary of faith. His doubts moved him to think deeply about Christianity and gave him more confidence. He believed the study of God's design in nature encouraged greater faith and confidence:

Noting that the Old Testament contained no "word that properly signifies Nature, in the sense we take it," Boyle argued for what he called the "mechanical philosophy," which explains natural phenomena from the purely mechanical properties and powers given to unintelligent matter by God at the creation. Such an approach, he believed, more clearly underscored the sovereignty of God and located purpose where it properly belonged: in the creator's mind, not in some imaginary "Nature."

Boyle also advocated the argument for the existence of God from signs of design in nature. Indeed, he had a strong interest in apologetics generally, reflecting his lifelong conversation with his own religious doubts. He wrote extensively on apologetic themes and in his will established a lectureship for "proveing the Christian Religion...."

As he wrote in Disquisition about the Final Causes of Natural Things, Boyle wanted his readers not to "barely observe the Wisdom of God," but to be emotionally convinced of it. And what better to instill "wonder and veneration" in people than to show them the "Admirable Contrivance of the Particular Productions of [His] Immense Wisdom"? He had in mind especially the exquisitely fashioned parts of animals. Thereby, Boyle believed, "Men may be brought, upon the same account, … to acknowledge God, to admire Him, and to thank Him.

Fetal Humans Are Persons Who Can Be Wronged

In an interview posted today on the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Frank Beckwith explains, “[B]y excluding the unborn from the human community, and claiming that this being is not the sort of human that requires the law to protect it, the state is in fact making a non-neutral claim: The unborn child is not one of us.”

He uses an illustration to clarify the truth that unborn human beings are, in fact, persons who can be wronged by our treatment of them:

Pro-lifers, with few exceptions, argue that the unborn is a moral subject (i.e., a person) from the moment it comes into being at conception, because it is an individual human being and all human beings have a personal nature, even when they are not presently exercising the powers that flow from that nature’s essential properties. These essential properties include capacities for personal expression, rational thought, and moral agency. The maturation of these capacities is the perfection of a human being’s nature. Contrary to what some abortion-choice critics claim, the human fetus can be wronged even before it can know it has been wronged.

To understand the pro-lifer’s point, consider this example. Imagine that an abortion-choice scientist wants to harvest human organs without harming human beings that are persons. In order to accomplish this, he first brings several embryos into being through in vitro fertilization. He then implants them in artificial wombs, and while they develop, he obstructs their neural tubes so that they may never acquire higher brain functions, and thus they cannot become what the typical prochoice advocate considers “persons.”

Suppose, upon hearing of this scientist’s grisly undertaking, a group of pro-life radicals breaks into his laboratory and transports all the artificial wombs (with all the embryos intact) to another laboratory located in the basement of the Vatican. While there, several pro-life scientists inject the embryos with a drug that heals their neural tubes and allows for their brains to develop normally. After nine months, the former fetuses, now infants, are adopted by loving families.

If you think what the pro-life scientists did was not only good but an act that justice requires, it seems that you must believe that embryos are beings of a personal nature ordered toward certain perfections which it is wrong to obstruct. This is why pro-life advocates would say that human embryos are not potential persons, but rather, that they are persons with potential.

Read the rest of the article.

A Former Pastor Tries Out Atheism

I'm all for creating spaces in which people can doubt safely. I've even written about it. But can the doubting process be pushed to an absurdity? Well, I think it just has.  

Ryan Bell, a former pastor and adjunct professor at a Christian college and seminary, is giving atheism a try:

“I’m making it official and embarking on a new journey. I will ‘try on’ atheism for a year. For the next 12 months I will live as if there is no God. I will not pray, read the Bible for inspiration, refer to God as the cause of things or hope that God might intervene and change my own or someone else’s circumstances.”

Bell is interviewed about the experiment here. He even has his own website to document the journey: YearWithoutGod.com. Unfortunately, I think Bell’s journey is misguided. 

First, it seems obvious that raising doubts and questions about one’s Christianity is not the same thing as actually trying on and living out the beliefs of an entirely antithetical worldview. It’s like having struggles in my marriage, and rather than go to counseling, I decide to “try on” bachelorhood for a year. “Honey, for the next 12 months I will live as if there is no marriage here. I will not talk to you, I will not go out on dates with you, refer to you as the cause of home-cooked meals or clean laundry or hope that you might intervene in any of my affairs.” Guess where that journey ends? In divorce. Similarly, does anyone think Bell’s experiment will have any other ending but God expelled from his life?

Our approach to doubt should be one of openness, but also of caution. We should create safe spaces for people to get their doubts out on the table and grapple with them. However, we must not doubt God lightly or haphazardly. Doubt can lead you into deeper waters of trust in God, but doubt can also drown all remnants of faith too. And if Christianity is true, the consequences are eternal. Therefore, when it comes to our views about fundamental reality, our questions should cause us to think them out and reflect deeply before we start living out an entirely different worldview. Thankfully, God has equipped us with a rational mind to do just that.

Second, as Bell tries on atheism, will he follow those beliefs to their logical conclusions? According to atheism, God does not exist (and no, I reject atheists' attempts to redefine atheism as a lack of belief rather than bite the bullet and accept their own knowledge claim). Rather, the universe we inhabit is one incredible uncaused accident that certainly did not have us in mind, and biological life is simply concerned with survival and reproduction. Yes, those ideas have consequences, one of which J. Warner has recently highlighted in his post, “The Inevitable Consequence of An Atheistic Worldview.” Here’s another. And here’s a whole bunch more. And finally, here's what an intellectually honest atheist has said.

So, is Bell going all the way in this journey? Will he lean fully into the absurdity of life without God? Or will he do what many atheists do and live on borrowed capital from a Christian worldview, which has the intellectual resources to sustain objective meaning and morality? If Bell doesn’t attempt to live out the logical consequences of atheism, he won’t really get the full taste of life without God, and thus, his assessment will be inadequate. 

Well, if Ryan Bell is misguided in his journey of doubt, are there other ways of doubting that are better or more helpful? Yes, I think we can actually doubt well. Think about it, what’s the purpose of doubting? The end goal should be the discovery of truth. And there are better ways to find the truth than trying on atheism. If you struggle with doubt, don’t follow Ryan Bell’s lead. Gary Habermas is a much better guide. His free online book, Dealing With Doubt, will give you greater insight into the nature and causes of doubt and offer wise counsel as you travel your own journey of doubt. 

Links Mentioned on the 1/21/14 Show

The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:

If the Holy Spirit Doesn't Speak to Us, What Does He Do? – Video by Greg Koukl


Decision Making and the Will of God by Greg Koukl


From Truth to Experience by Greg Koukl


Does God Whisper? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 by Greg Koukl


Watch Greg on the NRB Network


Life Training Institute – Scott Klusendorf's organization


The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture by Scott Klusendorf


Stand for Life: Answering the Call, Making the Case, Saving Lives by Scott Klusendorf and John Ensor


Free Pro-Life Apologetics Course by Scott Klusendorf


How to Defend Your Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes or Less by Scott Klusendorf


Pro-Life Tactic: Trotting Out the Toddler – Video by Greg Koukl


Abraham Lincoln's quote about the absurdity of basing human rights on an arbitrary standard of value


The SLED Test (PDF)


Scott explains how to use the SLED Test


Making Abortion Unthinkable: The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion


Were You Ever an Unborn Child? by Greg Koukl

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To follow the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Webcast Tuesday

Greg is live online today 4-7 p.m. PT. Give him a call with your question or comment at (855) 243-9975, outside the U.S. (562) 424-8229.   Scott Klusendorf from Life Training Institute will join Greg. 

Listen live online. Join us on Twitter during the program @STRtweets #STRtalk.

Challenge: You're Not Adopting Babies

Since this week marks the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, today's challenge is a question a Planned Parenthood employee asked Alan during some pro-life apologetics field training he was doing with students on the streets of Portland*:

"So, how many babies have you adopted?"

 What's your response? Tell us what you think, and on Thursday we'll hear Alan's advice. 

 [Explore past challenges here and here.]

_____________________

*See here if you're interested in having Alan give your students "Pro-Life Field Training." A description of the experience:

Whether you're a pro-life beginner interested in learning the arguments, or you'd like to become a more effective advocate for the unborn, or you're simply looking for an unusual option for a retreat, Alan has created an immersive pro-life experience for your student or adult group. The training—a mixture of classwork and in-the-field experience—provides rigorous instruction in the art of pro-life persuasion using proven scientific and philosophical arguments, role-play of common abortion-related conversations, and real-life engagement/discussion with pro-choice advocates. At the end of the classwork portion, your group will be taken to a local urban area to survey pedestrians about their views on abortion, creating opportunities for you to practice your newly-learned pro-life skills. It's an event that's certain to test, sharpen, and strengthen your pro-life ideas and arguments. (Length of time: two to four days. Groups in Southern California need not schedule the training on consecutive days.)