Stephen W. Hiemstra's Blog, page 14
May 12, 2025
Unity: Monday Monologues (podcast), May 12, 2025
By Stephen W. Hiemstra
This morning I will share a prayer and reflect on Unity of Heart and Mind. After listening, please click here to take a brief listener survey (10 questions).
To listen, click on this link.
Hear the words; Walk the steps; Experience the joy!
Unity: Monday Monologues (podcast), May 12, 2025
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:
Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com
Newsletter at: https://bit.ly/East25 , Signup
The post Unity: Monday Monologues (podcast), May 12, 2025 appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.
May 11, 2025
Unity Prayer
By Stephen W. Hiemstra
Blessed Lord Jesus,
All glory and honor, power and dominion, truth and justice are yours because through your Holy Spirit you stretch both our hearts and our minds to understand your scripture and reach out to those around us.
Forgive us for neglecting your word and disrespecting the people that you put in our lives. Give us the strength to confess our sin and to make recompense for those we hurt.
Thank you for the gift of the scriptures and the example of the saints in following your example.
In the power of your Holy Spirit, bind our hearts and minds together in faith that we might grow in the fellowship of the church to serve others and honor your name.
In your precious name, Amen
Unity Prayer
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:
Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com
Newsletter at: https://bit.ly/East25 , Signup
The post Unity Prayer appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.
Oración de Unidad
Por Stephen W. Hiemstra
Bendito Señor Jesús,
Toda la gloria y el honor, el poder y el dominio, la verdad y la justicia son tuyos porque a través de tu Espíritu Santo, expandes nuestros corazones y nuestras mentes para comprender tus Escrituras y llegar a quienes nos rodean.
Perdónanos por descuidar tu palabra y faltarle el respeto a las personas que pusiste en nuestras vidas. Danos la fuerza para confesar nuestro pecado y recompensar a aquellos a quienes hemos hecho daño.
Gracias para el don de las Escrituras y el modelo de los santos al seguir tu ejemplo.
En el poder de tu Espíritu Santo, une nuestros corazones y mentes en la fe para que podamos crecer en la comunión de la iglesia para servir a los demás y honrar tu nombre.
En tu precioso nombre, Amén.
Oración de Unidad
Vea También:
Una Guía Cristiana a la Espiritualidad
Vida en Tensión
Otras Formas de Interactuar en Línea:
Sitio Web del Autor: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Sitio Web del Editor: http://www.T2Pneuma.com
Boletín Informativo en: https://bit.ly/East25 , Signup
The post Oración de Unidad appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.
May 9, 2025
Unity of Heart and Mind
The LORD saw that
the wickedness of man was great in the earth,
and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually.
(Gen 6:5)
By Stephen W. Hiemstra
I have discussed the defining problem and primary criticisms of the church over the past two centuries so how do we find proper balance between heart and mind in ministry?
Let’s start by noting that proper mental function—cognitive clarity—is an insufficient condition for faith. The world is full of information, especially in today’s Information Age, but not all information has value. Information has value when we find it interesting, which is another way of saying we respond emotionally to it. Faith can only be genuine when both the heart and the mind are engaged, which implies that we need to care about faith and see its importance.
Hebrew and Greek Anthropology
This interaction between thinking and emotion is sometimes called Hebrew anthropology. In Greek anthropology, thinking and emotion are separate. During the modern era, professionals were taught to distinguish facts (observations) from values (feelings), which is an application of Greek anthropology.
Hebrew anthropology is assumed throughout the Bible. In Genesis 6:5 cited above we read the phrase: Every intention of the thoughts of his heart? In Greek thinking, thoughts reside in our heads, not our hearts, but in Hebrew thinking head and heart are interdependent. What Greek would talk about “the thoughts and attitudes of the heart?” (Heb 4:12) Even more interesting, the wickedness of man—original sin—pollutes not only heart and mind, but also the will—intention. No part of our person goes untouched by sin.
Emotions not Disembodied
The interaction between heart and mind in Hebrew anthropology conflicts with the cultural presumption today that emotions arise arise primarily out of physiology. This is a materialistic presumption. While placing one’s hand on a stove or in a fire elicits a physiological response and emotions accompany that response, more normally we get emotional about things that are important to us.
This relationship between things important to us and our emotional response is known as the cognitive theory of emotions (Elliott 2006, 46-47). The Bible depicts God adhering to this cognitive theory of emotions as God gets angry primarily when we sin or display a hardened heart (Gen 6:6; Mark 3:1-6). In this sense, God is emotionally intelligent and does not get randomly angry or display bad behavior like other gods of the ancient near east.
Implications for Formation of Faith
The interdependence of heart and mind has serious implications for formation of faith, especially now because of the many distractions and temptations of postmodern life. Apologetics has traditionally focused on explaining the faith without considering the emotional component of faith. The Apostle Peter writes:
“In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”(1 Pet 3:15)
While this passage is widely quoted in apologetic discussions, the rest of epistle focuses on lifestyle evangelism, not proofs for the existence of God. Lifestyle evangelism focuses, not on philosophical debate, but on living a life that commends the Gospel. This lifestyle naturally blends heart and mind in activities like hospitality and service, but must also include reflection and prayer.
This subject of heart and mind is timely, but not new. Theologian Jonathan Edwards (2009, 13), writing in 1746 about the effects of the Great Awakening, noted that both head and heart were necessarily involved in effective discipling. Thus, he coined the phrase “holy affections” to distinguish the marks of the work of the Spirit from other works and associated these holy affections directly with scripture. Holy affections lead us to love the good and hate the bad.
Postmodern Tendencies
While the Great Awakening occurred during the Age of Reason (1685 – 1815) when cognitive discourse dominated ecclesiological debate, the postmoderns often lead with emotions. The poster-child of postmodernism is the narcissist, who crashes and burns chasing their emotions and ignoring sound advice and reason.
Following this trend, the postmodern church is lite on theology and heavy on emotion. Even the typical Bible study today rarely focuses on a reading a good book, but rather on watching a good video where time for reflection never goes beyond “what it means to me” style discussions. While reader interpretations (“what it means to me”) are part of any hermeneutical exercise, it is important first to understand author intent and the context of scripture (Vanhoozer 1998, 25). A good Calvinist would also want to read the text in the original Hebrew and Greek to avoid translation biases.
Given the cultural tendencies of our time, balance between heart and mind can only be achieved with greater focus on why we care about faith. Loving the good matters because indifference leads to bad outcomes. Human rights and democracy matter more than ethnic/gender rights and privileges because we have been created equal before God. Without faith, priorities change and the fruits of faith do not automatically survive.
Unity of Heart and Mind
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:
Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com
Newsletter at: https://bit.ly/East25 , Signup
The post Unity of Heart and Mind appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.
Unidad de Corazón y Mente
El SEÑOR vio que era mucha la maldad de los hombres en la tierra,
y que toda intención de los pensamientos de su corazón
era sólo hacer siempre el mal.
(Gen 6:5)
Por Stephen W. Hiemstra
Habiendo discutido el problema definitorio y las principales críticas filosóficas de la iglesia durante los últimos dos siglos, ¿cómo encontramos el equilibrio adecuado entre el corazón y la mente en el ministerio?
La función mental adecuado—claridad cognitiva—es una condición insuficiente para la fe. La información tiene valor cuando la encontramos útil, lo que es otra forma de decir que respondemos emocionalmente a ella. La fe sólo puede ser genuina cuando tanto el corazón como la mente están comprometidos, lo que implica que debemos preocuparnos por la fe y ver su importancia.
Antropología Hebrea y Griega
Esta interdependencia entre pensamiento y emoción ha sido descrita como antropología hebrea, mientras que en la antropología griega, pensamiento y emoción están separados (por ejemplo, Benner 1992, 11). Desde la era moderna, a los profesionales se les ha enseñado a distinguir los hechos (observaciones) de los valores (sentimientos), lo que es una aplicación de la antropología griega.
La antropología hebrea se asume en toda la Biblia. En Génesis 6:5, citado al comienzo del capítulo, leemos la frase “toda intención de los pensamientos de su corazón.¨ En el pensamiento griego, los pensamientos residen en nuestra cabeza, no en nuestro corazón, pero en el pensamiento hebreo, la cabeza y el corazón son interdependientes. ¿Qué griego hablaría de ¨los pensamientos y las intenciones del corazón?¨ (Heb. 4:12 NBH) Más interesante aún es que la maldad del hombre—el pecado original—contamina no sólo el corazón y la mente, sino también la voluntad (la intención). Ninguna parte de nuestra persona queda intacta ante el pecado.
No Emociones Incorpóreas
La interdependencia del corazón y la mente en la antropología hebrea entra en conflicto con la presunción cultural actual de que las emociones surgen principalmente de la fisiología. Ésta es una presunción materialista. Si bien colocar la mano sobre una estufa o en el fuego provoca una respuesta fisiológica y las emociones acompañan esa respuesta, lo más normal es que nos emocionemos por cosas que son importantes para nosotros.
Esta relación entre las cosas importantes para nosotros y nuestra respuesta emocional se conoce como la teoría cognitiva de las emociones (Elliott 2006, 46-47). Debido a que Dios se enoja principalmente cuando pecamos o mostramos un corazón endurecido, la Biblia describe a Dios adhiriéndose a la teoría cognitiva de las emociones (Gén 6:6; Marcos 3:1-6). En este sentido, Dios es emocionalmente inteligente y no se enoja repentinamente ni muestra un mal comportamiento como otros dioses del Antiguo Cercano Oriente. “El Dios del Génesis no es caprichoso, impulsivo ni miope” (Niehaus 2014, 162).
Implicaciones para la Formación de la Fe
La antropología hebrea tiene serias implicaciones para la formación de la fe porque la apologética tradicionalmente se ha centrado en explicar la fe sin considerar el componente emocional. El apóstol Pedro escribe:
¨Sino santifiquen a Cristo como Señor en sus corazones, estando siempre preparados para presentar defensa ante todo el que les demande razón de la esperanza que hay en ustedes. Pero háganlo con mansedumbre y reverencia.¨ (1 Pet 3:15)
Aunque este pasaje se cita ampliamente en discusiones apologéticas, observe la referencia al corazón y que el resto de la epístola se centra en la evangelización del estilo de vida. La evangelización de estilo de vida se centra en vivir una vida que encomiende el Evangelio. Este estilo de vida combina naturalmente el corazón y la mente en actividades como la hospitalidad y el servicio, pero también debe incluir la reflexión y la oración.
Si bien este tema del corazón y la mente es actual, no es nuevo. El teólogo Jonathan Edwards (2009, 13), escribiendo en 1746 sobre los efectos del Gran Despertar, señaló que tanto la cabeza como el corazón estaban necesariamente involucrados en el discipulado efectivo. Así, acuñó la frase “santos afectos” para distinguir las marcas de la obra del Espíritu de otras obras y asoció estos santos afectos directamente con las Escrituras.
Los afectos santos nos llevan a amar el bien y odiar el mal.
Tendencias Posmodernas
Aunque el Gran Despertar ocurrió durante la Era de la Razón (1685-1815), cuando el discurso cognitivo dominaba el debate eclesiológico, los posmodernos a menudo se lidan por las emociones. El ejemplo perfecto del posmodernismo es el narcisista, que se estrella y se quema mientras persigue sus emociones e ignora los buenos consejos y la razón. Siguiendo este ejemplo, la iglesia posmoderna es liviana en teología y pesada en emoción.
El estudio bíblico típico hoy en día rara vez se centra en la lectura de un buen libro. A menudo se centra en ver un buen video, donde el tiempo para la reflexión nunca va más allá de discusiones sobre “qué significa para mí.” Si bien las interpretaciones del lector (“lo que significa para mí”) son parte de cualquier ejercicio de interpretación, es importante primero entender la intención del autor y el contexto de las Escrituras (Vanhoozer 1998, 25). Un buen calvinista también querría leer el texto en hebreo y griego originales para evitar sesgos de traducción.
Dadas las tendencias culturales de nuestro tiempo, el equilibrio entre el corazón y la mente sólo puede lograrse con un mayor enfoque en por qué nos importa la fe. Amar lo bueno importa porque la indiferencia conduce a malos resultados. Los derechos humanos y la democracia importan más que los derechos y privilegios étnicos y de género porque hemos sido creados iguales ante Dios. Sin fe, las prioridades cambian y los frutos de la fe no sobreviven automáticamente.
Unidad de Corazón y Mente
Vea También:
Una Guía Cristiana a la Espiritualidad
Vida en Tensión
Otras Formas de Interactuar en Línea:
Sitio Web del Autor: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Sitio Web del Editor: http://www.T2Pneuma.com
Boletín Informativo en: https://bit.ly/East25 , Signup
The post Unidad de Corazón y Mente appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.
May 6, 2025
Plantinga Defends Confessional Faith, Part 2
Alvin Plantinga. 2000. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press. (Goto Part 1; Goto Part 3)
By Stephen W. Hiemstra
Alvin Plantinga sees two basic classes of objections to Christian faith since the Enlightenment:
The first objection he calls the de facto arguments—objections to the truth of Christian belief.
The second objective he calls de jure arguments—objections often harder to pin down—more like innuendo than like a serious philosophical critique.
He further breaks down the de jure objection into 3 categories: Christian belief is unjustified, irrational, and unwarranted (viii-x). Let me address each of these 4 arguments in turn.
De Facto Objections to Faith
The most widely known de facto objection to faith is based on suffering (viii), but Plantinga sees these arguments as well known and straightforward to address (ix).
One objection has to do with discussing God’s transcendence. Citing Gordon Kaufman (1972, 8), for example, Plantinga writes:
“The central problem of theological discourse, not shared with any other ‘language game’ is the meaning of the term ‘God’. ‘God” raises special problems of meaning because it is a noun which by definition refers to a reality transcendent of, and thus not locatable within, experience.”
Plantinga turns this argument on its head asking—did Kaufman (or, for that matter, Kant who he is paraphrasing) show (or prove) that this critique has any real merit? (5; 31) This same response to other objections phrased primarily as slander or innuendo aimed at believers or God himself. Plantinga observes: ”If God is omnipotent, infinitely powerful, won’t he be able to manifest himself in our experience, bring it about that we experience him?” (34)
In another example, when Freud objects to Christian faith because it is likely wish fulfillment, Plantinga asks: what is the problem? Are you saying faith is likely to be false? (x) It is hard to rebut a poorly articulated criticism which takes more the form of an ad hominine attack than a philosophical claim about truth. It is like the television show that repeatedly (and disproportionally) pictures Christian pastors as unsophisticated or morally corrupt, but offers no information to support for the implied character assassination—repeating a claim does not strengthen its merits, but it does wear out those targeted.
The implication in Plantinga’s rebuttal is that Christians are frequently too polite to unmask unfair criticism designed primarily to intimidate or shame believers. Perhaps, for this reason, Plantinga focuses more on the 3 de jure objections (63).
Christian Faith is Unjustified
Plantinga notes that critics claim that is unreasonable or unjustified, but the precise nature of their objection is unclear—it lacks cogence. What exactly is the question?
He observes that the 3 traditional proofs of God’s existence—the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments—provide a prima facia argument for God’s existence and basically rebut this criticism (68).
Plantinga explores the requirements of evidentialism, which argues: “that belief in God is rationally justifiable or acceptable only if there is good evidence for it. (70; 82) He then observes that John Lock offers 4 kinds of knowledge:
“Perceiving the agreement or disagreement of our ideas.” [judgment?]
“…propositions about the contents of your own mind…”
“…knowledge of other things of external objects around you.”
“…demonstrative knowledge…know by a proportion by deducing it…” (75-77)
After a lengthy discussion of the classical requirements of evidentialism, Plantinga finds no de jure question to suggest that Christian faith is unjustified (107).
Christian Faith is Irrational
Plantinga asks: “what is it for a belief to be rational?” He observes these forms of rationality:
“Aristoltelian rationality, the sense in which, as Aristole said, Man is a rational animal…
Rationality as a proper function [not dysfunction or pathology 110];
Rationality as within or conforming to the deliverance of reason;
Means-ends rationality, where the question is whether a particular means someone chooses is , in fact, a good means to her ends; and
Deontological rationality [or justification].” (109)
In his review of these different definitions of rationality, he finds “not much of a leg to stand on.” (135) One point that would suggest a rational criticism is when someone loves another person or people group sacrificially. If I put myself at risk in becoming a missionary to a dangerous place or people group, then in a real sense I am acting sub-rationally and those disadvantaged by my actions may criticize my rationality (or my motives) in various ways.
Christian Faith is Unwarranted
Plantinga observes that atheologians (Freud, Marx, Nietzsche) have criticized Christian belief as irrational but not in the sense described above—Nietzsche, for example, referred to Christianity as a slave religion (136). Freud described Christianity as “wish-fulfillment” and as an illusion serving not a rational purpose, but serving psychological purposes (142). In Marx’s description of religion as “the opium of the people” suggests more a type of cognitive dysfunction (141).
Plantinga concludes:
“when Freud and Marx say that Christian belief or theistic belief or even perhaps religious belief in general is irrational, the basic idea is that belief of this sort is not among the proper deliverances of our rational faculties.” (151)
Plantinga accordingly concludes that the real criticism of “Christian belief, whether true or false, is at any rate without warrant.” (153; 163). In this context, warrant means:
“…a belief has warrant only if it is produced by cognitive faculties that are functioning properly, subject to no disorder or dysfunction—construed as including absence of impedance as well as pathology.” (153-154)
Plantinga’s strategy in analyzing the atheologian complaints accordingly is to discuss what they are not saying—not complaining about evidence, not complaining about rationality in the usual sense, not offering evidence that God does not exist—to eliminate the non-issues. What remains as their complaint is a twist on rationality—actually more of a rant—you must be on drugs or out of your mind—which is not a serious philosophical complaint except for the fact that so many people repeat it. So Plantinga politely calls this complaint a charge of cognitive dysfunction.
At this point, Plantinga has defined the de jure criticism of atheologians in a manner which can now be properly evaluated in philosophical sense. The problem is not a problem per se with the existence of God (a metaphysical issue), but with the process of accepting a belief (an anthropological issue). This definition both clarifies and simplifies the development of a response.
In part 3 of this review, I will examine his response to this problem statement.
Footnotes
Taylor (2006, 113) writes: “God’s existence can be explained by the fact that he is perfect in nature and therefore necessarily existent.”
Taylor (2006, 127) writes: “The traditional design argument focuses on things in nature that appear to be designed.” Complexity in nature points to a grand designer the way that finding a watch on the beach points to the watch maker.
“Anselm defined God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived” which is the most common ontological argument for God’s existence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologi...).
Plantinga notes that an illusion, in contrast to a delusion, is not necessarily false (139).
References
Kaufman, Gordon. 1972. God the Problem. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, James W. 2006. Introducing Apologetics: Cultivating Christian Commitment. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Plantinga Defends Confessional Faith, Part 2
Also see:
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:
Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com
Newsletter at: https://bit.ly/East25 , Signup
The post Plantinga Defends Confessional Faith, Part 2 appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.
May 5, 2025
Problem Definition: Monday Monologues (podcast), May 5, 2025
By Stephen W. Hiemstra
This morning I will share a prayer and reflect on Problem Definition of the Church. After listening, please click here to take a brief listener survey (10 questions).
To listen, click on this link.
Hear the words; Walk the steps; Experience the joy!
Problem Definition: Monday Monologues (podcast), May 5, 2025
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:
Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com
Newsletter at: https://bit.ly/East25 , Signup
The post Problem Definition: Monday Monologues (podcast), May 5, 2025 appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.
May 4, 2025
Problem Definition Prayer
‘
By Stephen W. Hiemstra
Almighty and ever-present Father,
All praise and honor, power and dominion, truth and justice are yours because you created us and sent Christ to die for our sins. May your name be lifted up over the shouting and evil of this world.
Forgive us for our inattention, our sin in the presence of blessings, and our unwillingness to hear your still-small voice. May your name be lifted up in spite of our stopped up ears.
Thank you for the gift of your Holy Spirit who provisions us, comforts us, and points us to your word when we need it most.
In the power of your Holy Spirit, open our hearts, illumine our thoughts, and strengthen our hands in your service,
In Jesus’ precious name, Amen.
Problem Definition Prayer
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:
Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com
Newsletter at: https://bit.ly/East25 , Signup
The post Problem Definition Prayer appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.
Oración de Definition de Problema
Por Stephen W. Hiemstra
Padre todopoderoso y siempre presente,
Toda la alabanza y el honor, el poder y el dominio, la verdad y la justicia son tuyos, porque nos creaste y enviaste a Cristo a morir por nuestros pecados. Que tu nombre sea exaltado por encima de los gritos y la maldad de este mundo.
Perdónanos por nuestra falta de atención, nuestro pecado en presencia de las bendiciones y nuestra falta de voluntad para escuchar tu apacible y delicada voz. Que tu nombre sea exaltado a pesar de nuestros oídos tapados.
Gracias por el don de tu Espíritu Santo, que nos provee, nos consuela y nos señala tu palabra cuando más la necesitamos.
En el poder de tu Espíritu Santo, abre nuestros corazones, ilumina nuestros pensamientos, y fortaleza nuestros manos en tu servicio.
En el poder de tu Espíritu Santo, abre nuestros corazones, ilumina nuestros pensamientos y fortalece nuestras manos en tu servicio.
En el precioso nombre de Jesús, Amén.
Oración de Definition de Problema
Vea También:
Una Guía Cristiana a la Espiritualidad
Vida en Tensión
Otras Formas de Interactuar en Línea:
Sitio Web del Autor: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Sitio Web del Editor: http://www.T2Pneuma.com
Boletín Informativo en: https://bit.ly/East25 , Signup
The post Oración de Definition de Problema appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.
May 2, 2025
Modern Challenges to the Church
Whatever is true, whatever is honorable,
whatever is just, whatever is pure,
whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable,
if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise,
think about these things.
(Phil 4:8)
By Stephen W. Hiemstra
The defining problem facing the church over the past two centuries has been how to react to the Enlightenment. The development of science applied first in agriculture and later in manufacturing, medicine, and other fields helped convert rural agricultural societies into urban industrial and later service oriented societies. The natural world grew so much better that the supernatural aspects of the Bible came into question. The vast improvements in the material status of ordinary people led many to believe that they no longer needed to believe in or depend on God.
The American church had basically two responses to these Enlightenment changes. Evangelicals continued to believe the Bible needed to be trusted in a literal sense. Liberals continued adhere to biblical teaching, but only up to the point of things that could be naturally explained. They acted metaphorically like Thomas Jefferson who redacted his Bible to scratch miracles and supernatural events that he could not believe. Unfortunately, neither evangelicals nor liberals seriously engaged the philosophical questions posed by atheists, implicitly suggesting that the criticism was apt.
In this short reflection I engage some of the criticism of the church with the hope of at least defining the appropriate problem to be addressed. Unclear at this point is whether responding to such criticism also advances the mission of the church or simply poses a distraction.
Applying the Scientific Method to Problem Definition
In areas of great uncertainty, it is helpful to apply the scientific method to organizing one’s thoughts. A similar approach has been advocated for evaluating pastoral care experiences (Mahan, Troxell, and Allen).
Johnson (1986, 15) outlines the scientific method with these steps: Problem definition, Observation, Analysis, Decision, Execution and Responsibility bearing. In class (1981), he later added a felt need as the preliminary step. In my experience as a government researcher, the key step in the scientific method is the movement from a felt need to a problem definition.
Too frequently, leaders have jumped from a felt need to advocating a favorite prescription without bothering to define the problem or undertaking the other steps in the scientific method. This methodological error is a deficiency that costs money and, when it fails, motivates advocacy of another prescription or a personnel change. In the process, resources are wasted, the problem goes unsolved, and observers become discouraged.
The U.S. church has felt the need to stem declining membership and financial resources, the erosion of faith among our youth, and lost of church influence in society. So how do we define the problem facing the church?
Criticism During the Modern and Postmodern Eras
Plantinga (2000, 136-142) observes that atheist philosophers have criticized Christian belief as irrational but not in the usual sense—Nietzsche, for example, referred to Christianity as a slave religion. Freud described Christianity as “wish-fulfillment” and as an illusion serving not a rational purpose, but serving psychological purposes. In Marx’s description of religion as “the opium of the people” suggests more a type of cognitive dysfunction.
Plantinga (2000, 151) concludes:
When Freud and Marx say that Christian belief or theistic belief or even perhaps religious belief in general is irrational, the basic idea is that belief of this sort is not among the proper deliverances of our rational faculties.
Plantinga (2000, 153-154, 163) accordingly concludes that the real criticism of “Christian belief, whether true or false, is at any rate without warrant.” Plantinga’s strategy in analyzing the atheist complaints accordingly is to discuss what they are not saying—not complaining about evidence, not complaining about rationality in the usual sense, not offering evidence that God does not exist—to eliminate the non-issues. What remains as their complaint is a twist on rationality—actually more of a rant—you must be on drugs or out of your mind—which is not a serious philosophical complaint except for the fact that so many people repeat it.
More recent critics are even less formal in their criticism. Ganssle (2009, 4) observes that recent atheists do not bother to validate their hypotheses and maintain a deliberate strategy of innuendo that he describes as a Nietzschean genealogy—a genealogy given not to prove that one’s family includes royalty, but to discredit the family (Ganssle 2009, 136-137). This pattern of arguing dysfunction and innuendo makes it important to clarify what proper mental function looks like.
A Model of Proper Mental Function
In outlining a proper mental function, Plantinga (2000, xi) defines:
Warrant is intimately connected with proper [mental] function. More fully, a belief has warrant just it is produced by cognitive process or faculties that are functioning properly, in a cognitive environment that is propitious for the exercise of cognitive powers, according to a design plan that is successfully aimed at the production of true belief.
He goes on to explain:
A belief has warrant only if it is produced by cognitive faculties that are functioning properly, subject to no disorder or dysfunction—construed as including absence of impedance as well as pathology. (Plantinga 2000, 153-154)
We accordingly care a lot about the mental state of society when in comes to faith, as cited above in Philippians 4:8.
If atheist criticisms are simply slander, not philosophically-warranted criticism, then the church need not anguish over philosophical dust bunnies unless the criticism is taken to heart. In a philosophical debate where it has already been demonstrated that the existence of God can neither be logically proved nor disproved, the real question is who tells the most credible story as to how the world works.
Given this premise, the Christian message best explains the human condition and the role of God—if anyone is actually paying attention. In the media-rich environment where we live, attention spans are short, disinformation is rampant, and the still-small voice of God is being drowned out by busyness and temptations. Even on Sunday morning in church, it is not clear that people are tuned in. Consequently, while atheists criticisms have received the most attention, it is not clear that their philosophical dust bunnies pose the most pressing concern.
If the church’s mission is to assuring good formation of our members, especially young people, then clearly proper mental function is part of this. Formation requires both clear thinking and dedicated feelings, while proper mental function focuses narrowly on the first part—cognitive clarity. In formation, one must also learn to love the good, an idea extending beyond cognitive function to matters of the heart. Consequently, the problem facing the church appears to be finding a proper balance between heart and mind in ministry while being careful to respond to criticism in a timely manner.
References
Ganssle, Gregory E. 2009. A Reasonable God: Engaging the New Face of Atheism. Waco: Baylor University Press.
Johnson, Glenn L. 1986. Research Methodology for Economists: Philosophy and Practice. New York: McMillan.
Mahan, Jeffrey H., Barbara B. Troxelle, and Carol J. Allen. 1993. Shared Wisdom: A Guide to Case Study Reflection in Ministry. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Plantinga, Alvin. 2000. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press.
Modern Challenges to the Church
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:
Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com
Newsletter at: https://bit.ly/East25 , Signup
The post Modern Challenges to the Church appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.
