What is the Gospel?

A short 5 minute video clarifying what the message of gospel is according to Scripture.

The Giver Quartet by Lois Lowry

I have recently finished reading Lois Lowry's The Giver series and would like to share my thoughts and also would like to encourage others to read these books. I do not want to give you anything like a play-by-play because I do not want to ruin the story for you. You should experience the twists and turns and surprises all on you own. My only desire here is to draw out some of the elements of the story that I think are important and which should be evaluated from a Christian worldview. I hope those who have read these books already will benefit from my analysis and those who have not read the books yet will be more eager to do so after having read this post.

There are four book in the series, the first book being titled The Giver and the following three are called Gathering Blue, Messenger and Son. All of these stories take place in the same world although not all in the same community. Part of the beauty of the books is that although the stories are connected, and Lowry pulls all those strings together in her final book, it is not immediately obvious how they are connected. When one reads The Giver and then picks up the next book in the series, Gathering Blue, they automatically feel the deep contrast between the environments of the main character in the first book (Jonas) and the main character in the second book (Kira).

Despite the fact the settings are different, and even the cultural behaviors are strikingly different in each community featured in the series, there are certain themes in common which run through all of the stories. One of the clearest themes in these books is the need to value human life. The first two communities you get acquainted with in the series are in stark contrast to one another in some notable ways. The first community, where Jonas is from, is sterile, orderly, peaceful and technologically advanced. The second community, where Kira is from, is dirty, chaotic, violent and technologically stunted. Despite the stark differences, however, one becomes painfully aware that the ultimate problems are the same, namely, human life is not considered sacred or inherently valuable. People are means to an end and if they are able to fit the communities' standards, or be a helpful worker, then they should be put to death.

This serves as a powerful reminder that advancement in technology, or being higher in social position, do not equal ethical superiority. People can be brutal and evil in advanced societies just as much (if not sometimes more so) than in primitive ones. We often mistake other kinds of forward motion as synonymous with moral improvement; but this is a mistake.

The two communities you meet in The Giver and Gathering Blue are in juxtaposition to the two communities you meet in the latter books Messenger and Son. In Messenger you are introduced to a community known simply as 'Village', that was formed by those who have fled from numerous other communities because of the brutality they experienced. Most of those who have fled have some kind of 'imperfection' whether it be blindness, birthmarks, missing limbs, etc. All things that should never be seen as taking away from the value of a human person but which, where were from, was considered unacceptable, unprofitable and punishable by death.

One cannot help but think of elective abortion here. Parents today to often choose to terminate the life of their unborn child for any whim they might have. They wanted a boy, not a girl. The baby would have a deformity of some sort. The baby might be a carrier of a genetic disease, etc. As technology advances the threat of Eugenics begins to take new life. Soon parents will be able to design a baby to their specifications and discard any imperfection. But it's not just the unborn, it is the advanced in age or those who become crippled that societies have sometimes seen as a drain on the more able bodied. If the cost/benefit analysis doesn't work in your favor you may be in trouble in many societies and our own country is increasingly adopting this attitude.

Back to the review, the Village, made up of these refugees, is a return to civilization in its truest sense. The people there recognize the value of others simply for the fact that they are human beings. They willingly take care of one another and bear each others burdens, they welcome new comers escaping terrible situations. They are a picture of what we can be when we recognize that people matter and we treat them as we want to be treated (seems like that idea has been stated by a great teacher at some point). The fourth community, introduced in the fourth book, Son, is perhaps not as together as 'Village' is but there is still a much greater respect for life found there. Here you see a picture of families and children, and people coming together to meet needs, to support one another, and they welcome and care for the stranger that comes unexpectedly into their midst from the sea. These communities in contrast to the other two show us a picture of a humanity that has been lost in many other places in their world.

It should be pointed out that there are several other important themes in the book. One is the concept of love. Love for fellow man in general, the valuing human life, is of course already in view but these books also address more personal kinds of love towards specific individuals. In the Giver the very word 'love' is considered antiquated and without meaning in the Community. It is too ambiguous and lacks "precision of language" according to Jonas' parents. Throughout the series of books the concept of love is rediscovered by the main characters who have grown up in communities where the word carries little meaning or, at least, is not practiced by very many. Through the adventure of our main characters we see love well up within them in a variety of ways, normal human ways. Where marriage and marital intimacy was abandoned it is found. Where the natural connection between a mother and her baby has been cut off, it is reconnected. Where an orphan is discarded to the street, they are given a home. Love, these books teach us, is not an irrelevant concept after all.

Another important idea addressed is freedom and especially freedom of information and education. Information is power and in the first two books you see how information is carefully guarded by those in power. In our two negative communities the common person is not allowed to know things freely. In The Giver only the community rule book is allowed for reading and nothing else. In Gathering Blue only males are allowed to learn to read, but many of them do not appear to be interested in that prerogative anyway because intellectualism is not valued so much as hunting. Wherever information is controlled, either by force or social convention, people suffer. Education, the ability to read good literature and study ideas, is crucial for a community to thrive and become truly human.

One final theme I detected was the value of gender roles. This is, of course, a wildly unpopular notion in our society today. But Lowry points out the sacredness of both manhood and womanhood. The idea that men ought to be protectors, providers and self sacrificing is present and praised in the books. Also Lowry highlights motherhood, giving birth and raising children, and elevates it as a blessing that should be cherished. The idea of marriage and fidelity and how important they are to a healthy society is also pictured in these books. The failure of the family to be what it is meant to be may be the most critical problem our first two communities have. These themes could be easily overlooked but I hope the reader will see them there.

For certain there are also many spiritual overtones in the book. The main character in Messenger, (Matty) is something of a Christ figure by the time the story wraps up. There is a sinister character named Trademaster who grants people their wishes but only at the cost of trading part of their identity away. The Trademaster breaks down the humanity of individuals who give themselves away for things hardly worth so much adn in turn it breaks down the wholesome society of 'Village'. While the stories are not overtly Christian, and I would say that certain spiritual themes could be seen as bordering on new age, Christians can certainly see redeemable qualities and discussion points all throughout the series.

There is much to be enjoyed about The Giver series and I heartily recommend the books to you. There is adventure, wonder, battles between good and evil, heroes who persevere over unimaginable challenges and there is a sense of longing for what civilization is meant to be. That longing is not only experienced by the characters in the books but also by the reader who recognizes the fallen nature of our own culture. We long for a society where people are valued and respected and where our need to love and be loved is met. We long to know the truth and to be free. We long for forgiveness and a chance to start over.

The biggest downside to the series, in my opinion, is that while it grabs hold of so many important themes and recognizes some major problem in our own society (and personifies them in the communities) it does not sufficiently provide an answer to the problems. While one could say that it does, it answers it by saying "we must love our fellow man and value the family as it is intended to be" the problem is that a person could easily ask "and why is that?" The book provides no grounds other than an emotional appeal, a strong and good one, but just emotion. What is the objective reason for valuing life, for loving our neighbor?

As Christians we know that it is only in Christ, only by affirming the imago dei (image of God) in man, that there is any hope to see a restored humanity. No other worldview offers a foundation, a sufficient reason, for why we ought to love one another and treat people with respect. God is the necessary factor that needs to be explicitly pointed to for us to be able to take the concepts in The Giver quartet and be able to actually consistently apply them. If there is no God then there is no meaning, no purpose, no objective moral values and people are only a means and not an end. The gospel is the only path forward to creating a true humane society where these values are upheld. In the end it will be only when the Lord Jesus comes again that all of those desires we have will be perfectly fulfilled. Even then it is only so for those of us who have come to know the Savior.

Foundations 101: Pastor Jacob Allee

We (Reformation Bible Church) have been filming our Foundations 101 class recently. This is the class we ask people to go through prior to joining RBC so that they can get to know the pastors, the doctrinal position of the church and its mission, etc. This was my introduction video with my testimony and background.

On the Compatibility of Apologetics Methodologies

It is often said that Classical and Evidential apologetics are incompatible with Presuppositional apologetics. In fact, not only is this said, but too often it is said in a nasty tone when people are arguing about how apologetics should be done. It is my purpose in this brief post to argue that the methods are actually not incompatible. What is actually incompatible, humorously enough, are the presuppositions about apologetics that apologists themselves sometimes hold. Let me try to clarify what I just said. The methods themselves are not incompatible with one another, but often the people who utilize them are. Ultimately the issue is not about apologetic methodology; it is about theology.

Typically those of a more Arminian (or Arminian leaning) theology, who emphasize the idea of human freedom and responsibility, more often prefer Classical and/or Evidential apologetics. The reason for this is they believe the primary issue in conversion is that a person needs to believe the gospel is true (which is correct), and the way people exercise faith/belief comes about by receiving enough evidence to be convinced (which is false, in my opinion). In other words, for Arminians, the problem of unbelief is largely a problem of ignorance of the facts and a failure on the Christian's part to persuade the unbeliever that Christianity is true and that they need to believe it.

On the other hand those of a Reformed/Calvinistic theology, who emphasize the idea of God's sovereignty over all things, including the individual election of all who will be saved, more often prefer Presuppositional apologetics. Reformed thinkers recognize (along with their Arminian brothers and sisters) that faith/belief is central in the conversion of the lost, but they disagree with the perspective which identifies ignorance or lack of persuasion as the reason people do not believe; rather, they understand the reason people do not believe is because they are dead in their sin and need God to regenerate their heart and give them faith and repentance to believe. As such the reformed apologist presupposes the truth of Christianity and the Bible and argues that one cannot make sense of the world we live in unless Christianity is acknowledged as the truth, and people cannot be saved apart from the work of regeneration that God alone does.

So the issue is not the method of apologetics; the issue is the beliefs (presuppositions) of the apologist in relationship to theology and the means by which God saves people. So the two views are: (1) God saves by the gospel being preached and defended persuasively through philosophy and evidence (Arminian) and (2) God saves by the Gospel being preached and God giving the hearer a new heart with which to believe (Calvinism/Reformed). Another way to say it is that Arminians believe that arguments and evidence can be the decisive factor which brings people to faith, whereas Calvinists do not. Stated conversely, Calvinists believe that God's act of regeneration is the decisive factor which brings people to faith, whereas Arminians do not.

So the issue, at its base, is theological and not methodological. Theological conviction comes first and typically predisposes people towards a certain approach to apologetics. However typically Calvinist/Reformed thinkers are drawn towards strict presuppositionalism, and typically Arminian thinkers are drawn toward Classical and/or Evidential apologetics. This is merely a description of how things often are but is not prescriptive of how they must be. In fact, one example will demonstrate how much overlap there already is between the methods.

The Moral Argument for God's existence is a Classical argument because it fits within the two step methodology of proving the existence of God (Theism) before proving Christian theism in particular. Although this argument is not, strictly speaking, an evidential argument, most evidentialists I know think well of this argument. Interestingly, this argument is, at its core, presuppositional in nature. Here is the argument stated in deductive form:

(1) If objective moral values exist, then God exists.
(2) Objective moral values exist.
(C) Therefore God exists.

Let us unpack this a bit. The argument is relatively simple, despite the fact that it is misunderstood and/or misrepresented by atheists on a regular basis. The argument is simply stating that if there are objective moral values, such as "murder is wrong" and "telling the truth is good", then there must be sufficient grounds for such claims to be objective, that is, true regardless and apart from whether people believe it or know it to be true. An objective moral value is something which transcends individuals, culture and time. If it is objectively true, then it is true for everyone, everywhere and in every time. Such a thing cannot possibly be grounded in individual opinion, for individuals disagree about morals all the time. Such a thing cannot be cultural because cultures come into conflict on moral issues (e.g. Nazi Germany versus the Allied Forces). So if objective moral values exist, they must find their ground in something beyond individuals, beyond societies, beyond humanity itself. A moral law giver, such as God, is the only sufficient explanation. So if objective moral values exist, then it is necessarily the case that God exists.

Now it is not my purpose here to defend premise one but only to establish what is being said. Nor am I going to argue in this post for premise two that "Objective moral values exist". My point here is only to establish the nature of the argument being made. If objective moral values exist, then God exists. But while this is a classical apologetics argument, it is clearly presuppositional also. It says you cannot make sense of the fact that there are objective moral values unless you presuppose God exists. If you presuppose God's existence, then you have an adequate foundation for explaining the moral realities you see, experience and participate in every day. If you deny God's existence then you live inconsistently with your own worldview.

The classical argument is 'objective moral values, therefore God' and the presuppositional argument is 'God, therefore objective moral values.' But this is a distinction without a difference. It is actually the very same argument that is being made. So the Moral Argument serves us well to show that, methodologically speaking, Classical apologetics and Presuppositionalism are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, if you listen to good apologists of various stripes, you will see that often Classical and Evidential apologists are questioning the validity of their opponents' presuppositions and that Presuppositionalists often cite evidence and use philosophical reasoning to make their case. The fact is the void which exists between apologetics methodologies is very thin. The real chasm is not between methodologies; it is between theologies. I would encourage apologists to drink deeply from the well of all three methods of apologetics and learn to blend their approaches to be more effective. Understand that theology precedes method and that what you may not like about Presuppositionalism or what you may not like about Evidentialism or Classcialism is not their method, it is their theology. You can disagree with their theological presuppositions and still learn from their methodology.

The apostle Paul utilizes all three methods of apologetics throughout the book of Acts, and therefore, we should too. As a theologically reformed Christian, I suggest that only presupposing God's existence and the truth of what is communicated in Scripture can we make sense of the world around us. Even so, I am willing to defend Christian truth by utilizing philosophical argumentation and historical evidence. God, in his divine sovereignty and election, works through means. Romans 10 follows Romans 9. God elects unto salvation, but the word must be preached, heard and accepted. God may uses evidential and classical apologetics in the process of preparing people to receive new hearts in regeneration.

In reality, if Presuppositional apologetics works for Christianity, it is because Christianity is actually true. And if Christianity is actually true, then we can expect it to cohere with good philosophy and the historical evidence that is available. This is why neither Presuppositionalism nor Classical apologetics nor Evidential apologetics ultimately work for false religions like Islam or Mormonism or Buddhism, etc. Christianity is true and, therefore, can be demonstrated as such from numerous different approaches.

One last thought. Apologetics is not merely about evangelism (although it ought to be a large part of our evangelistic efforts). Apologetics strengthens the faith and confidence of believers, and this is where I think Presuppositionalists should be able to agree wholeheartedly that philosophy and evidence come alongside and reinforce what the word of God already tells us is true. If God exists, as we presuppose, and if His word is true, as we presuppose, then we should expect that what we find in philosophy and evidence would cohere with that.