Rick Mattson's Blog, page 13

College Students: What Makes them Tick

Church people often ask me, “What’s happening on college campuses these days? What are students like?” I usually start my reply at the macro level, and talk about atheism, because along with its softer cousin, agnosticism, it’s the most dominant view on campus. Actually, there are two kinds of atheism in the university world: modern and postmodern. Generally speaking, moderns ...

Read More

The post College Students: What Makes them Tick appeared first on Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry.

Admin 2

Admin test 2

The post Admin 2 appeared first on Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry.

Exclusivism Part 4: Principled Pluralism

In my prior post I made the point that in terms of ultimate truth claims, the pluralist is just as exclusive as anyone else.

But there’s another kind of pluralism available to us: social pluralism, or what’s often called “principled pluralism.”

In 2013 the American Inclusivist Project published a paper called “Principled Pluralism” that called for Americans to “move beyond mere tolerance to informed respect, and that we manage our religious differences in ways that contribute to the common good.”  (p10)

I’m on board with the idea of “informed respect.” It reminds me of my years working at Macalester College, where various faith traditions came together for dialogue, learning, and service.

Here are some principles I learned at Macalester:

Must value each other as people. Note I said “value,” not just “tolerate.” I felt valued in this group which was comprised of a representative from Buddhist, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant Mainline, and Evangelical (me) traditions. We didn’t have a Secularist Chaplain but I think such a person would have been equally valued.
Must be willing to learn from others. This requires humility and a sense of one’s own fallibility. It means I acknowledge that I know in part, not in full, and that I can be enriched by other ways of looking at things. It doesn’t mean we all agree, however. Part of the fun is just figuring each other out!
Must value distinctives. Don’t try to reduce everyone down to saying the same thing, because we’re not. Our respective doctrines are different and they can’t be blended together to form one big gooey religious stew.
Must find common ground, work together. This means we’re all in for the common good. We can unite in service around something like the Golden Rule. Together, we can help reduce social ills such as poverty, suicide, racial tension, and mental health issues. From a Christian perspective, this process is possible because of God’s “common grace” given to all humanity.

***

To summarize, I’m suggesting in these posts that there are two major kinds of pluralism:

Metaphysical pluralism that is concerned with ultimate truth claims. Here, everyone is an exclusivist. You can’t hold to your own view and other conflicting views at the same time.
Social pluralism or “Principled Pluralism,” which is more about how we all get along by valuing diversity, fostering civil conversation, and working together for the common good. That’s a pluralism I can support whole-heartedly.

 

Suggested resources:

“A More Inclusive Pluralism”  George Marsden, in First Things, Feb. 2015.

Principled Pluralism: Report of the Inclusive America Project

My Faith is Like Skydiving, ch. 9: “Religions Are Like Books: And Other Images for Discussing Religious Pluralism”

This is the final of four posts in the “Exclusivism” series. Click here to return to the first post.

The post Exclusivism Part 4: Principled Pluralism appeared first on Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry.

Exclusivism Part 3: The Pluralist Fights Back

In my prior post I accused the pluralist of being just as exclusive as anyone else.

The committed pluralist is claiming that pluralism is true, and that therefore non-pluralists such myself and other high-identity adherents to their respective worldviews such as Muslims, Atheists, and Catholics, hold views that are false.*

The pluralist, however, insists she’s being misunderstood. The whole point of pluralism, we’re reminded, is to tolerate and respect the views of all persons of good will, even traditional exclusivists as mentioned above.

But I reply that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say your view is true and its contradiction also true. It’s contradictory to say, for example, that in some pluralistic way Islam and Atheism are compatible.

How could that be? Allah is the one true God (Islam) but doesn’t actually exist (Atheism)? It’s hard to see how the pluralist can accept both these ideas at once.

I think many pluralists are actually saying something about social order rather than ultimate truth claims. They’re envisioning a community where we all listen to each other and engage in respectful dialogue.

Great. I agree.

But as soon as they start saying to everyone else something like this:

“I understand your views better than you do. I know that all religions and worldviews can be harmonized in ways you haven’t thought of.”

. . . they’re making a highly exclusive truth claim. And quite an arrogant one as well.

* * * 

What’s the way forward? 

In my next post I’d like to suggest a solution: Principled Pluralism. I think you’ll like it.

The post Exclusivism Part 3: The Pluralist Fights Back appeared first on Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry.

Exclusivism Part 2: Can It Be Avoided? By Anyone?

In my prior post I stated my belief that historic Christianity is true, which, if correct, defeats the truth claims of all competing views such as atheism or Islam.

Critics tend to say of exclusivists like myself that we are the cause of much unnecessary strife and polarization in our world — even war.

But can exclusivism be avoided? By anyone?

For example, take the person who’s a sort of “pluralist,” who says, in effect, that every person’s views on ultimate matters such as life, death, religion, etc., are as good as anyone else’s.

And, that we need to respect everyone’s opinions on ultimate matters, because you can’t really “know” these things (we all know that), you can only hold your own beliefs.

My point is that the pluralist is saying that pluralism is true. He’s saying that none of us can really know what’s ultimately true so we should just all get along. And maybe he’s saying that there’s an arrogance, an annoyance, maybe even a danger in those like myself who come out and say “my view is the one true view.”

But if the pluralist is saying that pluralism is true, he’s saying in effect that the views of non-pluralists like myself are false.

The pluralist is more exclusive than first appears.

* * * 

In my next post, the pluralist fights back by saying he’s being misunderstood. He doesn’t “exclude” at all. He accepts everyone, even historic Christians. That’s the whole point of being a pluralist.

But is this possible?

 

The post Exclusivism Part 2: Can It Be Avoided? By Anyone? appeared first on Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry.

Exclusivism Part 1: The Label Nobody Wants

I am what’s sometimes called a traditional or “historic” Christian. It means I’m trying to stand in a line that stretches back to the Reformation, to the early church, to the twelve Apostles, and to Jesus himself.*

One of the main beliefs of historic Christians such as myself is that the Apostles and early church were in a unique position to assess the life of Jesus and to either debunk his claim to be the Son of God, or promote it. They chose the latter (mainly because of the resurrection) — and were martyred for doing so.

This stance of identifying with the early church carries with it an assertion that is very unpopular in contemporary American society (and elsewhere): that historic Christianity is true.

Honestly, this mantle can be a burden at times.

Whereas it’s acceptable in contemporary culture to say of oneself, “I’m religious,” or “I’m a Christian,” or “I choose X while others choose Y, and we’re all OK with that,” the claim to believe that a certain view is actually true (as I do) contains an additional unpopular corollary: every other competing claim is false. Atheism, for example, is false if historic Christianity is true.

Now a critic might object along these lines: 

Why can’t we all just get along?

Why can’t we work together toward a tolerant and just society that respects the views of all well-meaning persons? Hasn’t history taught us that such exclusive truth claims have often been the source of conflict, even war?

I’ll respond to the critic in my next post.

*In contemporary terms, I’m also an “evangelical” Christian. But that can mean a lot of things. I use the words “historic” or “traditional” Christian because those words point back in time to the beginning of the faith.

 

The post Exclusivism Part 1: The Label Nobody Wants appeared first on Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry.

Notepad Apologetics, Short Lesson #6: Secular Humanism (part 1), an Introduction

Secular Humanism is the view that says values and meaning are rooted in human ability and potential rather than anything religious or divine.

But can values and meaning actually be grounded on a purely human platform?

After all, the Bible states that all human beings have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3). And that no one is good except God alone (Mark 10).

But then how do we explain secular institutions that are doing good in the world, and secular friends and neighbors who appear to be productive, caring, happy citizens?

* * *

The core claim of Humanists is this: We don’t need God to be good.

It’s what Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard and MIT, says in his book, Good Without God: What A Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe.

Epstein’s thesis is that Humanism “is above all an affirmation of the greatest common value we human beings have: the desire to live with dignity, to be ‘good.’”

Much of the book is devoted to arguing and documenting the fact that Humanists are doing just that – living good lives without the assistance (or interference) of religion.

* * *

How should committed Christians respond to the claim that we can be “good without God?” I’ll share some thoughts in my next post.

The post Notepad Apologetics, Short Lesson #6: Secular Humanism (part 1), an Introduction appeared first on Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry.

Notepad Apologetics, Short Lesson #6 (part 1): Secular Humanism, an Introduction

Secular Humanism is the view that says values and meaning are rooted in human ability and potential rather than anything religious or divine.

But can values and meaning actually be grounded on a purely human platform?

After all, the Bible states that all human beings have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3). And that no one is good except God alone (Mark 10).

But then how do we explain secular institutions that are doing good in the world, and secular friends and neighbors who appear to be productive, caring, happy citizens?

* * *

The core claim of Humanists is this: We don’t need God to be good.

It’s what Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard and MIT, says in his book, Good Without God: What A Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe.

Epstein’s thesis is that Humanism “is above all an affirmation of the greatest common value we human beings have: the desire to live with dignity, to be ‘good.’”

Much of the book is devoted to arguing and documenting the fact that Humanists are doing just that – living good lives without the assistance (or interference) of religion.

* * *

How should committed Christians respond to the claim that we can be “good without God?” I’ll share some thoughts in my next post.

The post Notepad Apologetics, Short Lesson #6 (part 1): Secular Humanism, an Introduction appeared first on Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry.

Notepad Apologetics, Short Lesson #6: Secular Humanism (part 5), My Meeting with Bart Campolo (continued)

In my prior post I told how well-known Humanist Bart Campolo pressed me on the question of how a nonChristian spouse could live with the indignity of being thought “worthy of hell” by a Christian spouse.

I have to admit, I’d never thought of the situation that way before.

I said to Bart that I personally wouldn’t be insulted if a Muslim friend, for example, told me outright that I was bound for hell if I failed to profess the shahada and serve Allah. To me it would be a compliment that a friend cared enough to warn me of impending disaster.

Bart is a quick thinker. He countered by saying that sure, Rick Mattson as a Christian apologist, accustomed to wrangling over such topics, would think of this “warning” as an act of love. But most spouses wouldn’t.

Right. I’m in for it now. The Campolo guy has been around the block a few times and is no amateur. . .

I thought for a moment and then replied by quoting his book. In Why I Left, Why I Stayed, Bart wrote that he couldn’t make himself believe in God, no matter how hard he tried. You can’t conjure up belief in something you think isn’t true.

Similarly, the Christian spouse can’t help believing in the Bible’s teaching about salvation, heaven, and hell. The Christian can’t suddenly say, “Oh, now that my spouse has left the faith, I no longer believe in hell.” A true believer wouldn’t say that. . .

At best, I came out with a draw against Bart on this issue and others. I admire him for the work he’s doing. Rather than choosing the low (negative) road of, say, the New Atheists, Bart has chosen the high road of Secular Humanism.

Yet, the real battle is underneath. It’s not about Humanism vs. Christianity – for there are many similarities, at least on the surface. The real battle is about atheism vs. Christianity.

We never got into that debate. Maybe someday I’ll get my chance, and on that question my whole confidence is in Jesus.

 

(This is the final post on Humanism, inside the larger series of NotePad Apologetics. Click here to return to part 1 of the Humanism series.)

The post Notepad Apologetics, Short Lesson #6: Secular Humanism (part 5), My Meeting with Bart Campolo (continued) appeared first on Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry.

Notepad Apologetics, Short Lesson #6 (part 5): Secular Humanism, My Meeting with Bart Campolo (continued)

In my prior post I told how well-known Humanist Bart Campolo pressed me on the question of how a nonChristian spouse could live with the indignity of being thought “worthy of hell” by a Christian spouse.

I have to admit, I’d never thought of the situation that way before.

I said to Bart that I personally wouldn’t be insulted if a Muslim friend, for example, told me outright that I was bound for hell if I failed to profess the shahada and serve Allah. To me it would be a compliment that a friend cared enough to warn me of impending disaster.

Bart is a quick thinker. He countered by saying that sure, Rick Mattson as a Christian apologist, accustomed to wrangling over such topics, would think of this “warning” as an act of love. But most spouses wouldn’t.

Right. I’m in for it now. The Campolo guy sitting across from me has been around the block a few times and is no amateur. . .

I thought for a moment and then replied by quoting his book. In Why I Left, Why I Stayed, Bart wrote that he couldn’t make himself believe in God, no matter how hard he tried. You can’t conjure up belief in something you think isn’t true.

Similarly, the Christian spouse can’t help believing in the Bible’s teaching about salvation, heaven, and hell. The Christian can’t suddenly say, “Oh, now that my spouse has left the faith, I no longer believe in hell.” A true believer wouldn’t say that. . .

At best, I came out with a draw against Bart on this issue and several others not mentioned here. I admire him for the work he’s doing. Rather than choosing the low road of, say, the New Atheists, Bart has chosen the high road of Secular Humanism.

Yet, the real battle is underneath. It’s not about Humanism vs. Christianity – for there are many similarities, at least on the surface. The real battle is about atheism vs. Christianity.

We never got into that debate. Maybe someday I’ll get my chance, and on that question perhaps I’ll have a slight edge.

The post Notepad Apologetics, Short Lesson #6 (part 5): Secular Humanism, My Meeting with Bart Campolo (continued) appeared first on Rick Mattson Outreach Ministry.