Redeemer Ministry School Spring Classes

If you want to take one of our Spring Redeemer Ministry School classes the cost is $240/class, which includes any books that may be used. Please call the church office to enroll. (734-242-5277)

RMS SPRING TRIMESTER - March 31 - June 5, 2009

TUESDAY - THURSDAY CLASSES
9:30 - 11 - Kingdom of God III - Josh Bentley
11:30 - 1 - Worship III - Holly Benner & Gary Wilson

WEDNESDAY CLASS
9:30 - 1 - Apologetics - John Piippo

FRIDAY CLASS
9:30 - 1 - Leadership - Jim Hunter & John Piippo

COURSE DESCRIPTIONS

Kingdom of God III - This class will study the moves of God in history. We can learn much about God and His Kingdom today by looking at how His Kingdom has come to earth in the past. We will focus on how the Kingdom of God has become manifest on earth when people have prayed "God, let your kingdom come on earth, as it is in heaven."

Worship III - Have you ever noticed how many different methods of worship are found in the Bible? Singing, clapping, dancing, building, shouting, kneeling, playing instruments, giving, serving… the list goes on! We are the Body of Christ, and God has fashioned each one of us to give Him a facet of praise that is unique from the person next to us. Creativity and Worship will explore how to find the creativity inside of you and to use that to honor God.

Leadership - This class will focus on leadership using Jesus as exemplary of the greatest leader ever. The nature of love and community will be seen as foundational to all authentic, relevant leadership. While we will look at some leadership books, leadership is not so much learned from reading books but from doing and practical application.

Apologetics - The word "apologetics" means "to make a defense of the hope that is within you." (1 Peter 3:15) Students will look at the ways Christianity is under intellectual attack today and learn how to respond to these attacks. Issues we will especially focus on are: Why is there evil in the world if God is all loving and all powerful?; Why do we believe the Bible is from God?; Why can we believe Jesus is the only way to God when there are other world religions? How can we say that Jesus is God incarnate?

Nature + Nurture = More Freedom?

The nature-nurture debate may always be with us. Currently it shows no sign of receding. See, e.g., the timesonline's article "Nature or Nurture? Please Don't Ask." Underneath the heading we read: "The question has fueled some of history's fiercest scientific and political feuds. Now we have an answer."

The "answer," according to the article, is that nature and nurture both shape experience. It's not nature alone, as Steven Pinker argues. "It is simply impossible to find serious biologists who believe that behaviour and social structure are “the inevitable manifestations of the specific action of genes”." And, because humans are not blank slates, it can't be nature alone. The nature-nurture debate is coming to a consensus as "improved understanding of how genes actually work shows the difficulty of separating nature and nurture."

The article claims that the work of scientists Avshalom Caspi and Terrie Moffitt "have demolished the nature- nurture dichotomy." For example, persons with a genetic propensity towards depression are more likely to develop it but within "particular circumstances."

The article concludes: "These results show the sterility of the old nature-nurture debate. Nature works through nurture, and nurture through nature, to shape our personalities, aptitudes, health and behaviour. The question should not be which is the dominant influence, but how they fit together."

But is it both "cultural determinism + genetic determinism?" "Cultural determinism can be just as inimical to freedom as its genetic counterpart. It implies that instead of being prisoners of our genes, we are prisoners of our parents, teachers and societies. Those who grow up in poverty will be forever disadvantaged, while those who come from privilege will retain it. Autism can be blamed on “refrigerator mothers”, and adults' relationship problems on their overprotective families. As a world view it is quite as bleak as one based on inheritance."

So - it's not all nature, and it's not all nurture. It's both. Is one bleak "inheritance-determined" world + another bleak "environment-determined" world equal to a less bleal world? I wonder just how far we've gotten with this discovery.

Science Fiction Co-opts the Christian Story

At the C.S. Lewis Institute Art Lindsley identifies "C.S. Lewis's Seven Key Ideas." One of them is Lewis's idea that Jesus was "the myth that became fact." In the recent City Journal there's an essay by Benjamin Plotinsky called "How Science Fiction Found Religion." Plotinsky finds the basic Christian story in a lot of science fiction and fantasy movies. Quoting Gabriel McKee: “There are inherent messianic qualities in the . . . concept of the superhero—an individual with exceptional abilities who sacrifices part of his or her life for the greater good.” Plotinsky finds the Christian story in The Matrix, Superman Returns, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man, Harry Potter, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (obviously), The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, The Phantom Menace, Star Trek, The Terminator, Dune, I Am Legend, The Day the Earth Stood Still, and others.

(I'm now also reading philosopher Tom Morris's Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way, Watchmen, and Watchmen and Philosophy. I've long been interested in our cultural obsession with superheros and mythic figures as reflective of our deeper, spiritual-existential neediness.)

Easter & Non-Discursive Experience

We're almost to Easter again. As I’ve been reflecting on this I see that, personally, I’m as moved by the resurrection of Jesus as I have ever been. For me, that’s saying a lot, since those first few Easters for me that came right after I decided to follow Jesus were amazing.

Easter is a whole-being-knowing-experiential encounter. That’s how I feel it and know it to be. Long ago I rejected the idea that “knowing” is some purely intellectual thing. I thank God for the human intellect. I also know that the human intellect cannot wrap its mind around God. Resurrection life cannot be captured in the steel nets of logic and literal language.

From 1977 to 1986 I spent nearly ten years studying language. Part of my language-studies were with Dr. Judith Levi, who was then head of the Linguistics department at Northwestern University. I took her doctoral class on linguistic semantics and was forever hooked. I got immersed in structural and post-structural linguistics, semantic theory, the not-easy-to-define notion of “literal” language, all the various tropes of figurative language, of which my focus and specialty became metaphor theory. Metaphor theory took me into paradigm analysis and metaphorical thinking. How deep could I go? Not deep enough, I am certain! Among the many thoughts I have about such things include this; viz., that experience cannot be finally reduced to sentences and words. There is “nondiscursive experience,” which means: experiences that cannot be discoursed (talked) about.

Which brings me back to the resurrection of Jesus. I believe, in a whole-being fashion, that God raised Jesus from the dead, in history. This cannot, in principle, be contained in sentences and words. Yet one must speak about it. I have some “reasons.” They now include:

• My life was forever changed in 1971 when I came to believe that God raised Jesus for the dead, and that this historical event had meaning for me today.
• I had a “conversion experience.” Nearly every day of my life I remember what happened, to me. It was for me, in many ways, an “I can’t explain the thing but one thing I know – I was blind, now I see.”
• I believe the Jesus-story is true. My ongoing historical studies, using scholars who have spent their lives on Jesus and studying Jesus, now take me deeper and deeper into the living Christ than I have ever been.
• I’ll add that the story-as-story is viscerally compelling to me… today. It’s a story of love, choice, suffering, redemption, hope, and life. It’s true that other stories have had and yet have these elements. Even movies that have these basic themes are often called “Christlike” movies, or movies with “Christ-figures,” such as “Braveheart,” “The Matrix,” “Gran Torino,” “Saving Private Ryan,” “Gladiator,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” and “The Lord of the Rings.” C.S. Lewis, himself a scholar of myth, said the four Gospels, as a literary genre, do not read like myth, but like history. Yet Lewis viewed the coming of Christ to live and die and rise for our rescue as the historical instantiation of “myth become fact.”

I think I could say more here. One thing I know – I do love God and His Son Jesus. I’m spending all my days and will spend the rest of my days pursuing Jesus and being pursued by Jesus. I have been forever changed and am yet changing. I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection. I know Christ and the power of His resurrection. It captures not only my head but my heart and soul; it contains what the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur called a “surplus of meaning.” It can be discoursed about yet ultimately is non-discursive. As it should be.

Village Atheists & the World Wrestling Federation

As I've looked for after-responses from the Craig-Carrier debate I'm discovered that some atheists seem outraged that Craig vs. Carrier was good for Craig, bad for Carrier. Carrier himself, on his website, admitted he did not do well. Note: credit him for this; humility is good. And we all need it.

I've met and studied with many philosopher-atheists. Mostly they've been polite and even honoring of me even though they and I disagree. I've actually learned things from these professors, to include a few things about character.

But the outraged atheists'... their responses include:

- a few of them who want to debate Craig so badly they are saying Craig is "afraid" to face them. I'm not going to name them, since I see this as embarrassing. Some of these people I have never heard of at all. I read a lot in the areas Bill reads in, and don't come across some of the faux-challengers. Yet, for example, I read the words of a man who says Craig is afraid of him and that's why Bill won't debate him! Why, when I read things like this, do I want to watch the World Wrestling Federation? From my POV Bill has debated actual academic professional-scholarly atheists known to all who study this stuff. He's been "in the ring" with the hugest names in philosophy of religion and New Testament studies. That, for me, would feel intimidating. He doesn't actually have avoidance-syndrome. The idea that he would fear wanna-bes and should take on every village atheist is sheer nonsense. (Or, if Bill does lie awake at night with eyes wide open in sheer horror at the thought of facing _____, then he just needs some self-esteem counseling.)

- a few village atheists are seriously name-calling Bill. To them, Bill is beyond being a moron. Gee, I guess I'm missing something here. I've known him for a long time. I'm trying to think if I've ever met a person more sheerly-genetically brilliant than he is. When Bill walks into the room, he's smarter than you or me. And I've never seen him as personally arrogant about his giftedness.

- Some v-atheists openly call Bill "dishonest." They question him ethically. Or perhaps Bill is mentally ill? I've never seen that in him, either. To me he's just one very, very intelligent person who actually believes Jesus rose from the dead.

- Note: a lot of the atheists Bill debates treat him with great mutual respect; and he, them. Debating Quentin Smith is different than debating village-atheist-thugs who want a shot at wearing the belt. Smith and Craig are good friends. They mutally respect each other. Admittedly, it's not as thrilling as hearing a village atheist put on some tights and openly tell Bill that his mother was defective and then call him a coward for not facing him. But hey, that's philosophy. It can, at times, be unemotional.

- Some v-atheists seem concerned that Craig is a great debater. He is. He uses debate tactics. Why? Because it's a debate. As an undergraduate I took a course called Argumentation and Debate. In that class we learned how to argue and debate. The professor asked me if I wanted to be on the university debate team after I took her class. Expect debate tactics in a debate. If you don't want a debate, then read Bill's many books and articles. He's quite coherent. Is he rational? Eminently so. And, by the way, Bill's published debates are all over the internet, so his style should come as no surprise to anyone. When I read or watch Bill debate someone like Quentin Smith I get the same kind of feeling as I get when I watch a chess match between Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky. Good debates are like that.

- Some have gone so far as to deep-study Bill's facial expressions, as if he is to have none. I didn't see the video of the Craig-Carrier debate, but there were a few moments when Carrier said some things that made me think "incredible!" Perhaps there was also an expression of something on my face. OK. I personally have never found Bill to be the most facially expressive person I've known. I think it's amazing he stays calm given some of the things he hears in some of these debates.

A suggestion: focus on Bill's reasoning and argumentation.

N.T. Wright on Easter

I absolutely loved N.T. Wright's Surprised By Hope. One thought I have is: for all of us who share a Ladd-ian view of the Kingdom of God Wright's work supplements this nicely.

Here's an interview with Wright on Easter and his book at christianitytoday.com. Note: this interview will be available for free until it recedes into CT's archives where you have to pay to get it.

Here's a piece of the interview. Wright says:

"So many people think preaching the Resurrection means doing a little bit of apologetics in the pulpit to prove it really is true. Others simply say, "Jesus is raised; therefore, there is a life after death." This isn't the point! Those types of sermons may be necessary, but there's more to it than that. To preach the Resurrection is to announce the fact that the world is a different place, and that we have to live in that "different-ness." The Resurrection is not just God doing a wacky miracle at one time. We have to preach it in a way that says this was the turning point in world history.

To take preaching seriously, you need a high theology of the Word of God. When your preaching announces that Jesus is the crucified and risen Lord of the world, things happen. The principalities and powers are called into account. Human beings who once thought the message of someone rising from the dead is ridiculous actually find that the message of resurrection can transform their lives."

An Evolutionary Explanation for "Sports Fans"

Here is a very funny article giving an evolutionary explanation for the primal behavior of sports fans. (Parenthetically note that we now have the emergence of evolutionary explanations for everything. Soon we will have an evolutionary explanation for why we give evolutionary explanations. This of course sets off an infinite regress of explanations. Aristotle and Aquinas would weep ov er this - where are they now when we need some end in sight!)

Here's the opening paragraphs (read and enjoy):

"Marx was wrong: The opiate of the masses isn't religion, but spectator sports. What else explains the astounding fact that millions of seemingly intelligent human beings feel that the athletic exertions of total strangers are somehow consequential for themselves? The real question we should be asking during the madness surrounding this month's collegiate basketball championship season is not who will win, but why anyone cares.

Not that I would try to stop anyone from root, root, rooting to his or her heart's content. It's just that such things are normally done by pigs, in the mud, or by seedlings, lacking a firm grip on reality — fine for them, but I am not at all sure this is something that human beings should do. In desperation, if threatened with starvation, I suppose that I would root — for dinner. But for the home team? Never.

More than a decade ago, a baseball strike canceled the season and the World Series. The first time ever, we were told in hushed tones. A national trauma. Baseball had survived world wars, cold wars, hot dogs — even night games, the designated hitter, and Astroturf — only to succumb to a labor dispute between spoiled millionaire players and even-more-spoiled billionaire owners. How could it be summer without baseball, the pundits pouted? Most portentous, how could we be us without our spectator fix?

But wait. Here is heresy indeed: Was it really such a disaster? Or is it a disaster that our current paragons have been revealed to be hormonally enhanced and ethically challenged? Or if a college team is denied a bowl slot?"

Richard Carrier... A Suggestion

Having listened to the Carrier-Craig debate on "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" I'm still thinking of how ill-equipped Carrier was for this.

I'm also wondering about something, and offer Carrier a suggestion. He says he doesn't believe Jesus ever existed. It comes to me that if this were established then the issue of Jesus rising from the dead would be a moot point. Thus all the dialogue surrounding this including a lot of the stuff Carrier was bringing in that didn't help his cause would now be unnecessary.

The simple argument:

1. Jesus of Nazareth never existed.
2. In order to die one must exist.
3. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth never rose from the dead (For the same reason that Frodo never destroyed the ring.)

If P1 is established the debate is over.

Maybe I'm missing something here. I'd never read anything by Carrier before this debate. I went to his website. On Sunday, March 8, he lectured in Ventura, California, on the topic "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist?" That was just ten days prior to the debate with Craig. Surely Carrier had not forgotten that he believed Jesus didn't exist. Why not use that as P1 in the argument above, instead of going on and on like he did in his attempt to show "Barabbas" never really existed? (As if establishing the non-existence of Barabbas would function as a premise leading to the conclusion that Jesus never rose from the dead?)

Roger Scruton On the Nothingness of Ex-Christians

(Photo of what a New Humanist looks like)

I disagree with philosopher Roger Scruton on a lot of things. He's an atheist, a "humanist," and thinks religious people are that way because they need a "moral prop." Of course, if there is no God, then that's one possible reason people "trust in God."

But I do agree with some of the things Scruton writes in his essay "The New Humanism." He says that, years ago, he shed the "old humanism" of his parents. But now, in light of the "New Humanism" of Dawkins-atheists, he finds himself longing for the old ways. Scruton's parents "had been raised as Christians, but had lived through the Second World War and lost faith in the God who permitted it. They regarded humanism as a residual option, once faith had dissolved. It was not something to make a song and dance about, still less something to impose on others, but simply the best they could manage in the absence of God."

Old Humanism is a noble concept for Scruton, finding its roots in the Enlightenment. Old Humanism was actually for something, whereas New Humanism is only against something. Old Humanism "was devoted to exalting the human person above the human animal, and moral discipline above random appetite. It saw art, music, and literature not simply as pleasures, but as sources of spiritual strength. And it took the same view of religion. Humanists of the old school were not believers. The ability to question, to doubt, to live in perpetual uncertainty, they thought, is one of the noble endowments of the human intellect. But they respected religion and studied it for the moral and spiritual truths that could outlive the God who once promoted them."

Scruton is struck by New Humanism's "lack of positive belief, but also by its need to compensate for this lack by antagonism toward an imagined enemy. I say "imagined," since it is obvious that religion is a declining force in Britain." Ha! Now that is funny. New Humanists might read Don Quixote at this point.

Dawkins-atheism "is for nothing, or at any rate for nothing in particular. Ever since the Enlightenment there has been a tendency to adopt this negative approach to the human condition, rather than to live out the exacting demands of the Enlightenment morality, which tells us to take responsibility for ourselves and to cease our snivelling."

Snivelling? Yes, I think so. Scruton's words capture the thought I've long had that, were I to become an atheist, or an "ex-Christian," I can't imagine myself wasting time arguing against Christianity or any other religious thing. Spend my life arguing against something that is not? I hope not. I'm certain I would not do this. I would then have far better things to do than spend my life studying something I don't believe in so as to argue against it. Sounds to me like existentialist theatre of the absurd. (Maybe some weird Heideggarian intepretation might work here; viz., about the experience of das Nichts as a precondition for the experience of Sein? Mostly, it also makes me want to psychoanalyze such people.)

What better things might I spend my life on? Perhaps what Scruton longs for; viz., constructing "a positive movement, devoted to seeking things worthy of emulation and sacrifice, even if there is no God to promote them."

Bill Craig - Richard Carrier Debate (Listened to...)

I just listened to the debate between William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier on "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" My opinion is that, on this topic, Carrier is way out of his league. I think he should not have agreed to debate Bill on this subject. He simply does not have epistemic access to the information Craig has. (You can listen to the debate here.)

Way back in 1971 Bill was my campus ministry leader at Northern Illinois University, and I was a philosophy major. At that time Bill was digging deeply into many issues, to include the existence of God, the nature of the Christian scriptures, and historical Jesus studies. When I went on for my Ph.D Bill completed two Ph.Ds - one with the great German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg. Having used Pannenberg's metaphor theory [as applied to the historical resurrection of Jesus] in my doctoral dissertation at Northwestern U I thought of the amazing opportunity Bill was given to have Pannenberg himself as his mentor!

Multiply those early Christological studies in the 1970s many times over and one sees what great scholarship in a focused area looks like. Bill has spent a near-lifetime on this subject, studying with and debating the major figures in the area. Carrier has not. As I listened to this debate I found myself thinking of Bill as totally within his element and Carrier like a fish out of water.

Bill gives a strong inductive argument for the resurrection of Jesus. "Inductive" means "probableistic." I find it (still) persuasive. And, it's the same argument Bill gives every time he debates this topic (with refinements added, improvements made). To me Carrier appeared unprepared for this, which he should not have been given that Bill's presentation is out there in public. When Bill argues for the resurrection he uses the biblical documents historically. In his first rebuttal to Carrier Bill says, "I know Richard tonight wanted to debate the general reliability of the gospels. I'm really sorry he's decided to pursue that tack despite our agreement that that wouldn't be the topic tonight." Precisely. And, this is common knowledge to anyone who's listened to Bill's Jesus-resurrection argument. It does not depend on any theological doctrine of "inerrancy." As do no strictly historical arguments for anything. I found myself wondering if Carrier actually grasped this point, or understood that one can actually lay aside theological beliefs and make a purely historical argument. (For the most part, that is. Both Carrier and Craig make historical claims and thus face the problems of historical understanding through the filter of their own prejudices.)