Defining the Problem of 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.

Defining the Problem of 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: https://bit.ly/Peonies_May_23, Signup

 

The post Defining the Problem of the Church appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.