Helping to Get Through the Bible (or The Old Testament and My Ipod)

During this summer, I’ve made it a point to brush up on some books of the Old Testament. Within a week and half period I read through Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Now, for me, that’s a lot! I’m not an incredibly fast reader, and I tend to be even slower when reading Scripture.

How then, do you ask, did such a slow reader make it through so much Bible in so little time (you are asking that, aren’t you? )? Here’s my plan of attack. Currently I’m reading the NIV translation of the Bible, coupled by listening to the NIV on my Ipod. The version I’m listening to is Max McLean’s The Listener’s Bible.

Note: You need to match the version of the Bible you’re listening to with the version of the Bible you’re reading, otherwise it can have the reverse effect of helping you speed up your reading and heighten your retention rate.

I get roughly 7-11 chapters read in a sitting. Why? Because My eyes follow along the text as I hear it read. I can’t stop reading, because Max won’t stop speaking. At the beginning of each new chapter I pause it and write down a time marker (in cause I want to jump to that chapter in the future). Also, because I’m doubling the sensory input (sight and sound), I retain more details and tend to catch things that if I silently read I wouldn’t (repetition of key words, phrases, etc.). With 2 sittings of Bible reading, I can get anywhere from 14-22 chapters read in a day.

Also, reading in this manner helps to paint the overall picture of the Old Testament. Since I can now read all of Deuteronomy and Joshua with a 2 day span, I can easily see the points of continuity and development. I can trace themes through the OT and, in fact, pick up the major plot lines (drawing to mind how they are all fulfilled in Christ) without have to settle for a 1 chapter here, 2 chapters there approach.

I encourage you to try this if you haven’t completed your Bible yet and been trying to for quite some time. If would cut down those Bible in a Year reading plans to mere months (or weeks, if you’re crazy). I especially recommend it for the Old Testament. Most Christians have read much more of the New Testament than we have of the Old (I know that I’m guilty of this). And as a result we’ve become only “half-Bible” believers, weakening our worldview and witness. Most of the OT was written in a narrative form, i.e. they were to be read as stories, and read out loud. Hearing the Scriptures makes the stories come alive in a fresh way, and looking at the text while listening helps to keep us focused and retain more.

Downloading the OT straight from the listenersbible.com cost $34.95. It’s an investment and indeed well worth the price.

If you try this, please give me feedback. I’d love to know how this is working for you.

Why Think “Worldviewishly?” (Part 3)

Worldview thinking is necessary in order to escape the cultural climate of supposed neutrality. If everyone has a worldview, then on issues on ultimate importance no one can claim neutrality. Either you are for Christ or against Him.

A weakness with much contemporary apologetics is that we are still fighting the war on modernism and haven’t yet properly turned our attention to postmodernism. That is, we assume that the person that we are speaking to believes in such things as scientific, moral, and logical absolutes. Yet, to most postmodernists these are strictly (though mistakenly) modernist ideas. Rather, it is purposed by many apologetics, that we should focus on the issue of truth, and whether absolutes even exist before we can speak of an absolute standard for thought and life in Holy Scripture.

My point is this: during the Enlightenment period the tendency of secular man was to abstract absolutes such as the laws of science, the laws of thought, morality, etc. from the infinite-Personal God of Scripture. As Christian apologists of the 18th and 19th centuries fought to defend the faith is it a possibility that they may have unknowingly been sucked into abstracting epistemology from it’s metaphysical foundation (i.e. God)? Sadly, so many Christians thinkers (for all their legitimately brilliant insights) do not see thinking itself as something that is ordered and directed by a worldview, so many apologists today do not, in practice, take into consideration the noetic effects of sin. But our notion of “thinking” is worldview dependent as well.

Could this “neutral thinking bug” be one that is left over from Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment (i.e. modernistic) thinking? Of course I suppose that I could be way off base- Thomas Aquinas did not properly consider the noetic effects of sin in his apologetic (more on this at a later date). So, obviously, this could be a problem spanning the whole of Christian history. It seems like an obvious oversight to sternly fight for the truth that moral laws can only find their ultimate grounding in an ultimate Person, yet fail to see that this equally applies to laws of science, and thought.

If postmodernism is marked by redefinition of logical laws as merely socially constructed, and modernism is marked by abstracting the various laws of the universe (science, morality, logic, etc.) from the Lord of Scripture, then it would seem as if Christians should be ultra-premodern with our insistence that not only are the Laws of the universe objectively valid but also that they are rooted in the Trinitarian Lord.

Yet, we are also Post-postmodern in our rejection of the modernist abstraction of absolutes. Such absolutes and can have no objective reality apart from God. Like postmodernists, we should insist that everyone views the world from a particular stance, agenda, worldview, sociologically shaped, and linguistically structured vision of life. But, unlike the postmodernists we recognize that ultimately such commitments are spiritually shaped. What does this mean? It means that God has structured the world so that while we always approach things from a given perspective and worldview, the thing that holds us back from the truth is not our “unfortunate” social or linguistic circumstances, but of rebellion to the God who made us.

“Religion Very Harmful to People”

Here’s a short article by Udo Middelmann responding to the common claim made by the “new atheists” that religion (in this case, Christianity) is harmful.

Leithart on Faith and Reason

Here are some of Peter Leithart’s thought on the reason between faith and reason:

For centuries, Christians have posed the dilemma of Christian theology as a problem of faith v. reason. That’s a non-starter, a concession of defeat, for it assumes that there can be such a thing as a faith-free rationality. But there cannot be.

What we have is not a conflict of faith and reason, but a conflict of various faith-reasons or reason-faiths.

Why Think “Worldviewishly?” (Part 2)

In part 1 I gave these 2 definitions of worldview:

A worldview is a spoken (or unspoken), consistent (or less consistent), often assumed, though rarely articulated, comprehensive vision of life.

and,

A worldview is a network of guiding assumptions regarding the nature of reality (i.e. metaphysics), knowledge and truth (i.e epistemology), what we should value (i.e. value theory) and how we should live our lives (i.e. ethics).

First, please notice that given these definitions, absolutely everybody has a worldview. And, more importantly, Christians should develop their worldview. Since everyone thinks “worldviewishly,” the least we can do as Christians is to do it well. Likewise, Christians should strive to be more self-conscious about their worldview development. Too often- and I’m the first to admit this about myself- we passively soak up bits-and- pieces of the worldview of the surrounding culture. For an American such as myself, this means an impatient, I-want-it-right-now attitude, and a love/hate relationship with the leading idol of the western world, consumerism.

Second, note also that often times our worldview’s aren’t fully known, even to us. Rarely do people think through, or even think in terms of, a self-consciously held worldview. So just because a person may deny that they have a worldview doesn’t mean they don’t. It means they haven’t consciously thought about it. Yet, an interesting aspect of worldview development is that when one spends time trying to develop a consistent outlook on the world eventually they live it out without trying. It’s kind of like playing a piano or riding a bike. At first, it’s similar to flexing a muscle, you can’t concentrate too long because it feels unnatural, since you need to be aware of so many things all at once. Yet, with time, thinking in terms of a worldview (whether it’s Christian or not) becomes natural, and unconscious. Why? Because now, this line of thinking is second nature to us, we inhabit “the system,” indeed it becomes an extension of who we are.

To say that Christians should consciously seek to develop their worldview is merely another way to say that we should aim to think Christianly. And that means becoming increasingly familiar with our Bibles. It’s also a call to spiritual reformation. Thinking in scriptural categories is an aspect of the Holy Spirit’s renewing work, i.e. it’s part of out sanctification (cf. Rom. 12:1-2).

Why Think “Worldviewishly?” (Part 1)

Question: What is the benefit of worldview thinking for the Christian community?

In the next several entries I’d like to unpack what I think are several helpful answers to this question. But, before I give my multi-pointed answer, I think it good to do something that unfortunately I’ve never done on my worldview blogs: actually define the term “worldview.”

Here’s my working definition: A worldview is a spoken (or unspoken), consistent (or less consistent), often assumed, though rarely articulated, comprehensive vision of life.

And here’s a more philosophical definition: A worldview is a network of guiding assumptions regarding the nature of reality (i.e. metaphysics), knowledge and truth (i.e epistemology), what we should value (i.e. value theory) and how we should live our lives (i.e. ethics).

The next few posts will bring out the implications of these definitions and show their benefits…

Clearing Up Common Misunderstandings of Van Tillian (Presuppositional) Apologetics

The approach to apologetics that I take on this blog is greatly shaped by Cornelius Van Til (you’ll see me mention him time and again in passing, for this I ask your forgiveness. So many of my best thoughts were first his and John Frame’s.) For those of you that are aware of the issues tied into presuppositional apologetics you’ll be familiar with the fact that there is a standard list of objections to Van Til’s apologetic approach. Here are some great works defending and explaining Van Til’s actual method in light of these objections.

Van Til FEMs (Frequently Encountered Misconceptions)- James N. Anderson

Common Misunderstandings of Van Til’s Apologetics, Part 1 and 2- Richard L. Pratt

The Art of Christian Listening (Part 2 of 2)

Here are some practical tips for listening better, supported by scripture. The scriptural backing is key here. Why? Because nearly everybody would agree with these general rules I’m recommending, but only the Christian worldview provides us with a consistent theological foundation for these attitudes and actions.

Do this:

1) Show respect. Naturally, we should all believe that the purpose of evangelism and dialogue with others is not simply to have a shouting match, granted. But too often (and I know this to be true of myself) apologists can come off as smug and not grant the unbeliever a fair hearing. Not only is the person we’re talking to created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), that is to say, what God is without a body, we are with bodies, but in 1 Peter 3:15 commands us not only to be ready to defend the faith, but to do so with “gentleness and respect.” God commands that we respect even those that may potentially harm us (cf. vs. 14, 17). We do this to in order to “[keep] a clear conscience” that testifies to God’s wisdom (v. 16).

2) Sympathetically listen to other points of view. One criticism I’ve heard leveled against Christians is that because they claim they know the “truth” they are negatively dogmatic and arrogant. Is this true? Well, it can be of some people. But the truth (!) is that people don’t become arrogant because they believe the gospel of Christ, it’s because they don’t believe the gospel enough! When we’re captured by the vision the Bible portrayal of our need of divine aid, we realize that we’re not delivered because we’re wiser, or more spiritual, or more ethical than anyone else. And because we’re Christians by grace, we should expect that others (believers and unbelievers alike) to see things and know things that we don’t, because it’s not our wits that “got us in” in the first place!

See also, Wanted: Truth AND Charity!

3) Follow the other person’s argument. Being that we are created in the image of God, we are rational beings. We simply resist the notion of believing something completely willy-nilly. We need some rationale, some reasons for committing ourselves to some worldview or other. If in an actual discussion about Christianity and another worldview, make sure you pay close attention to their rationale for believing what they do. Think through their major claims, minor claims, throw-away arguments (arguments that only “preach to the choir”), evidence, etc. The truth is, most of the time, the other person hasn’t self-consciously thought through these things. But it’s our job to help them do so.

4) Assess claims. This picks up from point 3. Now that you’ve heard and listened carefully to there points, are they true? Are they false? Are they completely false, or is there some good to be built upon? What are the underlying assumptions of what they’re saying?

5) Ask questions. Doing this will both clear up anything that’s still fuzzy in your mind about what they said, as well as create an opportunity for the person you’re speaking to to refine their beliefs in light of your questions and objections. All throughout the gospels, Jesus asks insightful questions both to make points and to clarify the positions held by others. We’d do well to follow His example.

3 Mistakes Christians Make about Art

Such a short paragraph, such powerful truth:

We have become irrelevant.

Many contemporary Christians tend to make one of three errors when dealing with art: One, we declare anything that doesn’t explicitly proselytize, anything that depicts brokenness without redemption to be depraved or unworthy of Christian notice. Or two, we decide that the secular world really does have better art, so we copy it, boldly and without apology or thought into our own creativity. Or three, we try so hard to be relevant that we adopt the attitude and worldview of the culture that surrounds us—instead of being the proverbial salt and light, we end up as dust with nothing to offer in the way of hope, because there is only a perfunctory difference between those of us who claim to follow Christ and those who don’t.

-by Dawn Xiana Moon at Relevant Magazine

Evangelizing “Post-Everythings”

Here’s a great article by Tim Keller about the strengths of the Reformed Christian worldview in speaking to “post-everythings” (what we normally call “postmoderns.”).

The Art of Christian Listening (Part 1 of 2)

In my blog entry a couple of months ago, Wanted: Truth and Charity, I mentioned that one of the marks of godly thought should be the willingness to listen to unbelievers and even welcome their insights. Here I want to briefly develop some of those thoughts and suggest some practical steps toward listening better. But first, in part i’d like to explain what I’m talking about when I speak of “Christian listening.”

I call this the art of Christian listening for 2 reasons.

First, I call it an art because it’s not something that we automatically learn. In fact, being that we’re sinful creatures with the natural tendency toward intellectual and moral laziness, we’ll most likely struggle with mastering the art of listening Christianly for our entire lives, that is simply to say that listening well is part of our sanctification. It’s also an art because as we improve in listening, we develop an internal sense of what we’re doing even when we’re not conscious of it. This subjective dimension of internalized skill is something that artists are quite familiar with. I’ve been cartooning since I was a child, and I couldn’t tell you what in the world I’m doing when I draw…I just draw.

Secondly, what I call the art of Christian listening is Christian because the approach which I’ll be recommending to you, which is not exactly unique in suggestions, is unique in that it is undergirded and supported by theological resources that are only familiar to the Christian worldview.

In the next post I’ll provide some suggestions for listening better and some scriptural foundations that undergird them…

The Human Mind Really is an Amazing Thing

I Cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

Atheism and the Empty Glass

J. P. Moreland writes a short reflection on a debate he once had, and discusses why atheists are an “unhealthy” bunch.

One-and-Many Solution, Applied

Now, in wrapping up our discussion on the One/Many problem from a theological point of view (precious posts have focused on the philosophical dimensions).

Review. The Christian solution to the One/Many problem makes one very important point: Only the Christian trinitarian understanding of God provides us with a good reason for accepting truths discovered by both reason (i.e. here I’m talking specifically about Universals) and believes acquired by our 5 sense (particulars). Thus the Christian understanding of God solves a basic metaphysical and epistemological problem.

How is this point made theologically? A simple, unitarian understanding of God (i.e. the belief that God is one Being, as well as only one person, such as Muslims and Jews have) makes the display of His attributes dependent on His creation, i.e. God cannot be “loving” until after he creates the world, then giving Him something to love (contrast this with the Christian position with it’s notion of Intra-trinitarian love, the love that the three persons of Godhead have for one another). This demonstrates the unitarian understanding of the God does not provide us with a self-sufficient God, denying His aseity. A god that is not completely self-sufficient cannot act as the final anchor for all things (as scripture clearly states He does).

Moreover, and more pragmatically, if the preconditions for rationality are provided to us from the whole of Scripture, both OT and NT, then we should see what all of Scripture says about God, demonstrating from Scripture that God is Triune, using the historical proof-texts and exegesis for trinitarian belief.

So, while this isn’t an easy issue to master, the benefits of trinitarian belief serve as a power reason for why Christianity, and not traditional Judaism or Islam give us a worldview that makes life meaningful.

Plantinga Reviews “The God Delusion”

Perhaps the most famous thinker in the field of the Philosophy of Religion, Alvin Plantinga (himself a Christian), has recently reviewed the latest atheistic apologetic work, The God Delusion, by the renowned evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins.

I’ve thought about writing a review of the book, but for now I’ll leave it to the brilliant Dr. Plantinga.