Historical Relativism and Christianity

Most of us have heard of moral relativism - the idea that what is right and wrong is determined by the individual with nothing being absolutely right or wrong - but historical relativism might not be as familiar. Yes, even history is not immune to the attempts of relativism in the twentieth century. Historical relativists believe that the writing of history is hopelessly subjective and that the historian who discovers facts about history ascribes his own meaning to them because these facts carry no meaning of their own. The most devoted postmodernist will insist we can't know the past, and each reconstruction is as valid as any other.

How does this affect Christianity? Because Christianity is a religion rooted in history, - with God acting in history and its key figure being the historical person of Jesus whose claims were validated by the historical event of the resurrection - the claim that we can learn nothing from the past would be crushing if it was true.

But as William Lane Craig points out in Reasonable Faith, "relativists recognize that our knowledge of history is not awash in subjectivism. For although they deny historical objectivity, they do not really treat history in so roughshod a manner." (235) Examples that show this is true include the fact that even historical relativists admit that there are some facts that are so indisputable that only a madman would dispute them; that historians know the difference between history and propaganda which would be one and the same if history was truly relative; and that we recognize and can criticize poor history which would be impossible if one reconstruction of history was just as good as another. (Lane discusses the claims of historical relativists and the objections against them at length in his book.)

This attempt to make history subjective and relative matters to us as Christians because we believe that the events of Jesus' birth, ministry, death, and resurrections were part of objective history and as Craig puts it, part of "an objective revelation mediated through historical events." (241) This means that it is extremely important to defend history as something we can research, learn more about, and know objectively.

Something to keep in mind when engaging with someone on any topic: You may occasionally encounter people who are determined not to believe God's truth no matter what the evidence or how good your arguments are. People like this will often try to keep you on the defensive by peppering you with questions and  making you explain this or explain away that - one thing after another with no intention of truly hearing what you are saying. One way of dealing with people like this is to ask them why they believe what they do. Greg Koukl, an apologist for Stand to Reason, advises asking questions like "How did you come to that conclusion?" and "What do you mean by that?" Remember that unbelievers have just as much responsibility to explain why they don't believe (and what they do believe) as we do to explain what we believe. Skepticism is not a free pass to say and believe whatever one wants without explanation. Of course, always be loving and gentle. The ultimate goal is to win them to Christ as God makes their hearts ready, not to just win an argument.

An Argument for the Existence of God

As you might know, my grad classes have started up again. One of the books we're reading this semester is Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig. The first part of the book deals with philosophical arguments for the existence of God and I've decided that you must suffer through this with me! Just kidding...these arguments are actually fascinating even if some of them are a little hard to wrap your mind around. (I'm counting on Mark Mathewson to correct me where my representations of these arguments aren't quite right!)

These arguments are good to know, even in their simplest form, because you may have cause to use them in your own conversations with unbelievers to defend God's existence. Most people will have never heard these arguments before, but if you run across someone who has and who wants to go deeper than a simple representation of a particular argument, don't forget it's always fine to postpone the conversation until you can get help, assuring whoever you're talking to that you want to continue talking once you're prepared enough to do the argument justice.

One such argument for the existence of God is the kalam cosmological argument (written by Craig). It goes like this:

1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.) The universe began to exist.
3.)Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Seems simple enough, but there are philosophers who refute even point one saying there is no reason to believe that whatever begins to exist necessarily has a cause. For them, it is more reasonable to believe that things like the universe can pop into being out of nothing than to believe in a First Cause of the universe. But we know that this isn't the case...things don't just pop into existence!

We also know that an infinite regress of causes is impossible for the universe or anything else. In other words, at some point the cause of something that began to exist has to be uncaused because causes cannot go back infinitely with no first cause to start the process.

Another common objection to this argument is that if everything that begins to exist must have a cause, what caused God? But this objection does not work because as an eternal being, God did not begin to exist. He exists outside of time and has no beginning or end, so He does not require a cause. The universe however, did begin to exist and so does require a cause (and there are philosophical arguments for this as well). There are many models of the universe put forth and some still try to claim an eternal universe, but most scientists now acknowledge that the universe is not eternal but had a definite starting point. The models that claim otherwise have serious problems that cannot be overcome.

This is a simple representation of the kalam argument and some objection that you might hear. Arguments like this one show that it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God, especially when you add other such arguments to it. If you want to learn more about this argument, Craig's book is a great source as is his website http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

Reflections on Loving God with Our Minds: Part 4

In Part 3, I claimed that one of God’s interests was a restoration of the broken relationship between himself and human beings. In fact, one of God’s prime interests is human beings in and of themselves for they are his image-bearers. Of all creation, humans, and only humans, are given the privilege and responsibility to bear God’s image. God’s love for them is intense. I believe this is the reason that the command Jesus singled out as the greatest is two-fold. We are to love God and humans. But that is not all. To love humans, God’s image-bearers, is equated with loving God. The two directives to love God and humans are not to be taken as separate. I also think that the expectation Jesus has in pointing out our requirement to love our “neighbors” is that, like our love for God, it is also to be done with all one’s heart, soul, and mind. Therefore, loving my neighbor means, among other things, to seek out his or her best interests with the rigorous employment of all my mental powers.

To love God with my mind requires me to love my neighbor (by the way, my “neighbor” includes my enemies as well; Luke 10: 25-37) with my mind. What are some specific ways I can love my “neighbor” with my mind?