David Knopp

Much To Be Grateful For

2011-11-26T10:31:00.001-08:00

Greetings faithful readers!

Since the G-force beginning of the school year, Providence has been more than generous which means life has been almost unbearable. In fact, the addage, "To whom much is given, much will be required" has taken on a whole new meaning the past few months.

The Worldview Class is going strong! I'm sorry I didn't update you all about this sooner. By God's grace, we have 10 students who are joining us this year. They are all doing remarkably well under the strain of an truncated calendar. This week, we move into the Biology section. I'm excited because we're now moving into the Ephesians study.

My church has me preaching every 3-4 weeks. This is an amazing commitment. My hat is off to all the pastors out there who put together solid content on a weekly basis. Both the challenges and the experience are both incredible opportunities. Our preaching team is starting an Advent series this week and then we're going into John's gospel starting January.

Rowan (who most of you will know from IPS) launched a ministry to reach out to young ministry leaders a few years back. I'm working as the conference administrator for next year's event. It's so amazing to see the people involved and what God is doing through them across the country and the world.

Even with all of that going on, I'm still enjoying the brief reprieve I get every Monday afternoon working with my two music students. James and Rachael are both progressing amazingly. We set the bar pretty high at the beginning of the year and they both are growing by leaps every week.

My friend, Jon, is in a classroom team putting on the Perspectives course. I joined late in the year but started taking the course for credit. He's working diligently to bring the class out to our church and I'll probably be working along side him in the spring.

Looking at all this has thrown my constant ingratitude into sharp relief. In fact, last night I was thinking over the parade of obligations that's standing in the middle of the street, trumpets and mallets in hand, noticing that all I did was complain. As it turns out, when I complain about God's blessing, I treat the blessing like it's a curse.

But the fact of the matter is that God is incredibly generous. God is doing an amazing work and he invites us to join in the task. God gives much, requires much and provides everything.

Yet even in this cycle of blessing, I can be cranky. Even in this place of God's work, in God's time with God's provision, I can be a ungrateful.

The work isn't going anywhere, but the joy belongs to those who are thankful.

So today, dear friends, I'm looking at the blessing and thanking God for His kindness.

Happy thanksgiving!

Canceling the Worldview Class…Maybe

2011-08-25T15:10:00.000-07:00

It’s with great hesitancy that I’m announcing the possible cancellation of both Worldview Class sections for the 2011-2012 school year (see the original invitation post here).

To keep a section open, we need 15 students per section, but currently that number is far below what we need in order to launch the class. In light of that, we’re going to give it another week.

If we can have 15 students registered by next Wednesday, we’ll keep that section open. If not, then I’ll trust the sovereign hand of God as He guides the school year in what I’m sure will be delightful, new direction.

Either way, we’ll make the final decision next Wednesday (8/31).

If you want to join us this year, send me an e-mail (david@worldviewclass.org) or give me call (503.201.7631).

For those of you who may be waiting for next year, all I can say is that canceling class this year will seriously jeopardize the chances of a class next year. So I strongly recommend signing up for this year.

Click here to see the details for this year's class and, as always, you can find a whole crop of details at http://worldviewclass.org If you can’t find what you’re looking for, just contact me.

This class has received immense support from all of our families and I can’t thank you enough for your prayers and encouragement.

I hope to be working with you this year!

-David

(cross-posted at worldviewclass.org)

Preachers

2011-08-01T10:00:00.000-07:00

A horrible preacher says,
          "Love me!"
A bad preacher says,
           "Don't hate me."
A good preacher says,
           "Don't hate God."
A great preacher says,
           "Love God!"

Announcing the 2011-2012 Worldview Class!

2011-07-18T11:15:00.000-07:00

As of Friday, it’s official: The 2011-2012 Worldview Class is open to registration!

You can see the announcement at WorldviewClass.org (click here).

Over the past four years, we’ve worked hard to make this class an invaluable context for students to learn about the Big Ideas of our time.

Watching a student see, experience, argue for and against concepts like ex nahilo creation, dialectical materialism, metaphysical monism etc is a thrill that never gets old. I’m excited to launch out into year five and experience the adventure with a whole new class of students.

A few highlights about what we have planned:

A shorter class calendar. After trying the 36-week calendar, I’ve decided to make the tough decision and cut the whole thing back to 30 weeks. It was painful to cut 12 hours of class time out of the syllabus, but this will allow us to start mid-September and end mid-May.
We’re keeping everything. Even with the shorter schedule, the core assignments are staying. That means we’re going through the whole Understanding the Times curriculum: 11 tests, 11 essays, 581 pages of reading and over 24 hours of video. And we’re keeping the WV Class distinctive, too. That’s 60 hours of in-class discussion and lecture, our private, teacher-moderated online forum, 226 Bible reading assignments, and a whole pile of extra credit options. Not bad for 30 weeks.
Affordability. Increased expenses have forced a $50 increase in tuition. That’s an extra $25 per semester, but we’re keeping all the discount and scholarship options. If you want to take this class, I want you to take this class and I don’t want finances to be the deal-breaker. We’ll do whatever it takes to make this class financially possible.
The Leadership Training Course. Today, I’m officially announcing the inaugural year of our second year program: the Leadership Training Course. Every year I get requests for a follow up to the Worldview Class. It’s taken a few years to design one that actually met a need but after about 2 years of planning, I am pumped to try this out with a select group of alumni students. You can learn more here. (If you've taken the Worldview Class before, check your e-mail. There's a poorly formatted e-mail invitation waiting for you.)

To celebrate the up-coming year, I'm dedicating this weeks worth of blog posts to all things Worldview, so stick around!

This is going to be a great class. Sign up, tell your friends, bring your friends and post a smiley in the comment section --just for kicks. :-)

Happy Monday!

NCFCA Rule Changes to Apologetics (Round 2)

2011-07-16T14:17:00.000-07:00

I noted the changes to the Apol rules last October. Yesterday, another update was posted to the IE page.

For those of you who are tracking the NCFCA's revamping of the IE events, below is a compared document showing a mark-up of the changes to Apol

(NOTE: Because only the .pdf file was posted, I had to convert it to .docx for the comparison. So a few of the mark-ups might be a bit screw-ball).

With my brother's wedding in a week, I don't have time to offer commentary right now,but I'll try to get to it in the next few weeks.

Until then, leave a comment and tell me what you think!

2010-2011 Apol Rule Changes

Telling It Like It Is

2011-07-15T17:30:00.000-07:00

I think this approach might get users to create better passwords:

(Click to view full)

Open Query #83

2011-07-14T10:53:00.001-07:00

How much of your summer reading have you done?

NCFCA announces changes to Apologetics

2011-07-13T09:00:00.000-07:00

Teresa Hudson, president of the NCFCA announced changes to the up-coming speech season. last Sunday (question for the webmaster: can we get an RSS for News feed?).

Included in the announcement was a "reworking" of the Apol topics. She writes,

In recent years, many of you have requested a reassessment of one of our most loved events, Apologetics. As a result of that review, Apologetics will be undergoing some reworking of the subject matter in order to provide fresh research topics for those that have been participating in the event up to this point and to cover ground not previously addressed in the first edition of topics. The revised topics will be available on the NCFCA website by early August. Because all the categories and topics are worthy of study, we will leave the existing question list up until the new list is ready to post.

Most of you know that I was included in the many who "requested a reassessment" (actually, I requested a full-on revision, but "baby steps to the elevator"). So for those of you who are wondering, no, the up-coming changes aren't mine. But in the past few weeks, we did have a couple conversations/e-mail exchanges about how to improve the event that went really well.

We'll have to wait and see how the changes turn out. Personally, I think it'll be good.

When the updated list is released, I'll try to get some notes up for you all.

In the mean time, what do you think? Which topics would you like to see added? Removed? Kept? If you were in charge, what would you do?

(HT to Sarah)

"...To The Church's Impoverishment"

2011-07-12T13:57:00.000-07:00

In James Boice's commentary on Ephesians, he makes the following remark concerning 4:11-13:

"Another reason for the rise of clericalism is the tendency of laypeople to sit back and "let the pastor do it." Stott quotes a remark of Sir John Lawrence to this effect: 'What does the layman really want? He wants a building which looks like a church; clergy dressed in the way he approves; services of the kind he's been used to, and to be left alone.' Thus do laymen abandon their God-given tasks and the professional clergy pick them up...to the church's impoverishment."

Boice, James Montgomery. Ephesians: An Expositional Commentary. BakerBooks. 1997. p142

Expectations

2011-07-11T10:00:00.000-07:00

I'm always telling my students, "Profundity stands on obvious' shoulders." That simple principle has been illustrated yet again by the (I suppose somewhat embarrassing) fact that my communication has been transformed over the past few months by this comic: Click Here.

Ideas Have Consequences

2011-07-10T10:00:00.000-07:00

Best Blog Description Ever...I think

2011-07-08T06:37:00.000-07:00

I moseyed over to Jon's blog (a very dear friend of mine) and noticed his blogroll widget included a one-liner description of my blog.

I don't know, dear readers. Is this a compliment or not?

David Knopp Turns 2!

2011-07-07T17:04:00.000-07:00

And we're back!

Thanks for sticking around while I enjoyed some time off. I thought we should get things rolling again with a look at some blog stats.

In typical Knopp fashion, I completly forget to celebrate this blog's birthday on May 22! Sad day, but not uncommon for my humble corner of the internet. So in honor of this unmomentous occasion, here are some stats about what happened in the from May 2010-May 2011.

In its second 365 days, this blog has had...

...128 Posts
...300 Comments
...1,957 visitors.
...5,109 visits.

Number of Countries Represented: 56
Number of States Represented: 51 (including Washington DC)

Top 5 States:
5. Utah
4. Virginia
3. California
2. Washington
1. Oregon

Top 5 Posts (blog)
5. David Livingston Quote
4. Apologetics Posts
3. Osama bin Laden and Proverbs
2. Don't Party in the Streets
1. On Beauty

Top 5 Lables
5. Blogging
4. Worldview Class
3. Real Life
2. NCFCA
1. Just for Fun

Top 3 Private Referrals (Active)
3. Story of a Seemstress
2. Whatnot and Whatnot
1. Ted Bradley

Top 3 Public Referrals
3. Blogger.com
2. Twitter.com
1. Facebook.com

Just about 2 of every 3 visitors are coming back. In fact, half of those coming back, have been here at least 10 times before. You guys are amazing.

Thank you for your all your comments, links, referrals, encouragement, and continued support. You all are the best!

The Declaration of Independence

2011-07-04T10:00:00.000-07:00

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

An Unintentional Sabbatical

2011-06-23T09:09:00.000-07:00

I was just visiting a friends blog when I noticed the widget that said I hadn't blogged in 4 weeks.

Time flies when you're having fun.

I've been on an unofficial and, actually, unintentional blogging sabbatical. The past few weeks, I've been cranking out some projects recently --mostly worldview related but a few others as well.

I cannot wait to tell you all what's cooking around here, but it will have to wait another week. I'm speaking at the OCEAN conference this weekend and then taking a much-needed week of rest.

After that this blog will be back into its usual rhythm.

Thanks again for stopping by. I'll see you all in a week!

Open Query #82

2011-05-26T05:44:00.000-07:00

What is the number one lesson you've learned about leadership?

Training Gap

2011-05-24T08:28:00.000-07:00

Justin Anderson brought my attention to Larry Osborne's book Unity Factor. In it, he tells the following story:

When Tim entered the ministry, he honestly looked forward to working with board members. Even though he’d heard his share of war stories, he figured his case would be different. As long as good people were elected and carefully disciple, he saw no reason why he and the board couldn’t get along famously.

But five years later, as I talked with him, Tim wasn’t so sure. Instead of partners, the board members seemed like adversaries. It no longer surprised him when even his best ideas were rejected outright. Sometimes he wondered if his board members understood ministry at all.

Odds are, they didn’t.

Not that they weren’t sharp people or good leaders. They were. But no one had trained them for their role. They had never been exposed to the unique principles and requirements of leading a spiritual and volunteer organization like the church. That was left for Tim and his fellow professionals to learn at Bible school and seminary. Everyone else was expected to figure it out on their own.

Tim’s training, and their lack of it, caused them to view issues from radically different perspectives. They were suffering from what I call “educational separation.” And with every new book Tim read and every seminar he attended, he slowly widened the gap between the way he saw the church and the way his lay leaders did.

You'll have to get the book to hear Larry's resolution to this all-too-common impasse.

And I'd call it "training gap", an issue that is isn't merely a church problem; I've seen this tension in a few struggling organizations.

I Was Never on Saturday's Rapture List

2011-05-23T10:17:00.000-07:00

[NOTE: It appears that FamilyRadio.org is undergoing some serious website update right now, so I'm not sure how long the links in this post will be good. If anyone wants to follow up, I've saved .pdf files of all the relevant articles, but I wasn't able to save the video.]

When discussing Saturday's then up-coming rapture, it was fascinating to hear so many Christians assume they were actually on the list.

Sorry guys, but if we're in churches that are denying that last Saturday was the end, we were in big doo-doo:

A knowledge of the actual time of the Rapture and an understanding of Judgment Day is of enormous significance. God warns in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 of the Day of Judgment coming to destroy those who deny that near the end of the world the true believers will know the time (the hour) of Christ’s coming to bring to Heaven (to rapture) the true believers and to begin the Day of Judgment (the day). (NO MAN KNOWS THE DAY OR THE HOUR?

And in case there is any doubt, we get the line up:

Christ and Judgment Day come in the night. In 1 Thessalonians 5:3 Christ tells us, “When they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them.” Because destruction comes upon them, we can know for certain that these people are not saved. Being unsaved, they are in spiritual darkness. They are in the night. Judgment Day is coming for them as a “thief in the night.” Yet they believe they are at peace with God and safely under His care. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? (Ibid.)

...and the pitch:

The language of this verse describes perfectly all of those in the world who on May 21, 2011 are still following any church. Because churches teach many things that are not true to the Bible, including a plan of salvation that is contrary to the Bible, and the Holy Spirit has abandoned all churches, those still following any church on May 21, 2011 are not saved. (Ibid.)

Shoulder-shrugging and saying "Well, if He comes, cool; if He doesn't, NBD. He will." is a simplistic response does not adequately deal with the teacher from whom the prediction was coming.

The fact of the matter is, according to Mr. Camping's teaching, the rapture that was suppose to happen on Saturday was not for me.

And I can see why. Mr. Camping thinks my church teaches a false plan of salvation. It's hard to get saved when you have the wrong plan. So what's the correct version?

It's outlined in Mr. Camping's, "I Hope God Will Save Me".

He begins

There are at least seven truths revealed in the Bible that should be of great encouragement to the individual who truly wishes that his sins were covered by the blood of Jesus. We have already made reference to some of these truths. However, they are so important that we will briefly outline them again. They are as follows.

And proceeds list them off (I've edited it down, you can read the whole thing for yourself at the link above):

1. Presently, it is the day of salvation. We have learned that God is no longer saving people by utilizing the efforts of the local congregations, their leaders, or their people. However, a striking and emphatic teaching of the Bible is the fact that today, God is bringing a great harvest of people into the kingdom of God.

2. The setting or the environment in which God saves is the hearing of the Word of God, the Bible. The Bible declares in Romans 10:17: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Today, more than ever before in the history of the world, a higher percentage of people are literate, and the Bible is available to them in their native language. What an enormous encouragement it is that anyone can place himself and the saved and unsaved members of his family under the hearing of the Bible. He can do this by personally reading the Bible. In many instances, he can listen to the Bible being read and faithfully taught on radio broadcasts such as those of Family Radio. Indeed, the environment for God to save people is greater and more hopeful than ever before in history. And so, we parents want our babies and all our children to be under the hearing of the Word of God. And that is one reason why radio is an especially valuable and important tool that can be used to make the Gospel available in our community and to large multitudes of people around the world.

3. Christ came to save sinners. Christ did not come to save the self-righteous, those think of themselves as decent, moral people who trust that their righteous conduct inducement for God to look favorably upon them. Christ came to save sinners!

4. Jesus is not a respecter of persons. This means that no class of people is more likely to become saved than any other class or group of people.

5. God is merciful. It is true that mercy is no longer found in the local congregations where their pastors, elders, deacons, and Bible teachers minister to those poor people. And what a terrible truth that is! But outside the local congregations, throughout the world, God continues to demonstrate His unfathomable mercy. God is a God of mercy.

6. We can personally make known to God our intense desire to become saved. We can
beg, beseech, and plead with God for salvation. Praying to God is work that we do, so we know that praying to God will not guarantee or contribute to our salvation. But we can know that as we cry to God, He will know of our desire to become saved.

7. We need never lose hope for salvation. If God plans to save us, He will do so in His own time. He may save us early in our life or salvation may come hours before our death. We are never to attempt to dictate to God the time frame of our salvation, if, indeed, it is God's intention to save us.

Well, this seems a bit odd. #7 and #6 doesn't make sense to me. My hope for salvation isn't that I might get it. My hope is in a salvation freely offered by Jesus to anyone who believes (that's me).

#5 is a no-go. I'm suppose to find God's mercy outside of organized church, but how am I suppose to think about the organization that is teaching me not to listen to teachings of organized churches.

#4 makes salvation sound like a matter of probability ("likely to be saved"? What does that even mean?).

A hearty amen to #3.

#2 is a compelling case for using media (one I've made before to my students), even if it does seem weird in light of #1 which says the churches are out. Question: how am I suppose to get great Bible teaching from the "radio" when I'm only suppose to listen to non-Church radio Bible teaching? I guess that leave me with one choice: Mr. Camping's radio show.

But that brings us back to the opening paragraph:

There are at least seven truths revealed in the Bible that should be of great encouragement to the individual who truly wishes that his sins were covered by the blood of Jesus.

What does Mr. Camping think of the blood of Jesus?

In his Easter "Bible study" (May 13, 2011), he read 1 Cor. 15:3 ("For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" KJV ["παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς"]) and made the following argument:

Uh oh, I gotta stop right there. This sounds like when he came in 33 AD and when he hung on the cross and he died, he died for our sins. Isn't that what that verse is saying? That happens to be a-- that word "for" actually could have been translated as "concerning". It's the same word that's used, for example, in Romans chapter 9 verse 27 (I want to give you the evidence why we know for sure that we can change that word "for" to "concerning" in order to make it be faithful to the whole context). If you go to Romans chapter 9 verse 27 you'll find there --and this is just the kind of detail that you go through when you're trying to really find truth in the Bible: you have to be aware of every word and make sure that even the translators have done it correctly. ... "Isiah also cried concerning" that is the word that is translated "for" in the passage we were looking at. But it's the word "concerning". And if we substitute, back in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 3, the word "concerning" for the word "for" then it will fit into the context of the whole Bible. It will be faithful altogether:

..."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received how that Christ died concerning (for) our sins." Why do we have to make the change? Because when he came to the cross and when he died and when he was put in the grave it was not to make payment for our sins it was concerning the whole matter of how he made payment for our sins before the foundations of the world. He is only illustrating, he is demonstrating how he made payment for our sins. He did not come to make payment for our sins.

Mr. Camping then moves on 1 Tim 1:9-10 and remarks "These are very helpful verses to let us know that the payment was all made before the foundation of the world and when Christ came he just came to demonstrate that."

Firstly, (and I'm sorry, I just can't let this go), the word translated "for" (ὑπερ, huper) is actually used 150 times (580 times if you include the LXX) and can be translated as about, above, behalf, beyond, concerning, exceed, more so, more than, over, regard, and than. It's a preposition. And, as such, is dependent on context. (And it takes quite a bit of grammatical gymnastics to say that "abolished death and brought life" applies to "before the world began" rather than "a holy calling" being granted "before the world began".)

So, a word of advice: Don't build a theology that contradicts 1,950 years of church teaching on a preposition.

But more to our point, the same "teacher" who made a prediction about the rapture also teaches that I'm not saved and the atonement happened before creation.

After hearing all this, Saturday's rapture isn't funny anymore. There are real people out there who trusted (and maybe still trust) this false teacher, intensely studied the Bible with him, and even now are having to deal with shame of his finest hour.

The whole situation is just sad.

The Epistle of Barnabas and the End of the World

2011-05-17T08:32:00.000-07:00

You can file this under "Nothing New Under the Sun":

Furthermore, concerning the sabbath it is also written, in the Ten Words that he spoke to Moses face to face on Mount Sinai: "And sanctify the Lord's sabbath, with clean hands and a clean heart." And in another place he says: "If my children guard the sabbath, then I will bestow my mercy upon them." He speaks of the sabbath at the beginning of the creation: "And God made the works of his hands in six days, and finished on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Observe, Children, what "he finished in six days" means. It means this: that in six thousand years the Lord will bring everything to an end, for with him a day signifies a thousand years. And he himself bears me witness when he says, "Behold, the day of the Lord will be as a thousand years." Therefore, children, six days--that is, in six thousand years--everything will be brought to an end. "And he rested on the seventh day." This means: when his son comes, he will destroy the time of the lawless one and will judge the ungodly and will change the sun and the moon and the stars, and then he will truly rest on the seventh day. (Barnabas 15:1-5)

The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations 3rd Ed. Trans Michael W. Holmes.

Soli Scriptura...sorta kinda

2011-05-16T11:49:00.000-07:00

How often "Biblical" concepts, ideas and practices don't require the Bible never ceases to amuse me.

The crème de le crème being that soli scriptura (scripture alone) is, itself, a traditional inheritance (sort of like the fact that "by faith alone" is only found once in the Bible and it's in a passage teaching that salvation isn't by faith alone).

But while I may smirk at the irony, it doesn't bother me because I know why I hold to Scripture alone being the authoritative teacher for life and the church and why salvation comes through faith alone.

So my mind wanders to not what we teach, but how we teach.

What I encounter most often is students whose topical understanding far and away exceeds their scriptural understanding. Practically, this makes sense. We all think topically so it's just easier to teach topically than exegetically --especially to highschoolers.

But this begs the question, how do we transition from systematic to Biblical theology when the base-level assumptions (that is, the subconscious expectation of how the study is suppose to be conducted) is entirely topical?

There are two, long standing adages driving this dilemma: (1) first impressions are lasting impression and (2) the medium is a message.

If we begin teaching a student with "Here are 3 verse that teach about this subject", there is no getting that first impression back. From that point on, the student sees verses and subjects rather than units of thoughts in coherent bodies of work.

Then that first impression becomes the Bible study method. Granted it's caught, not taught, but it's still caught.

For instance, what is caught by a student when, in an effort to teach about the inspiration and infallibility of scripture, we hand them a systematic, rather than a Bible?

Doesn't 2 Tim. 3:16 make a lot more sense in a chapter written by Paul rather than a chapter written by Grudem, Erickson, Ryrie, Boice, or Geisler?

If we begin teaching students to think Biblically by studying topically, I wonder if we're doing a major disservice to them and the church of 10 years from now.

I should mention that I don't object to topical study. I do quite a lot of it. But it seems to me that the quality of your topical study depends on the bed of (con)textual understanding that it rests in. In other words, if you don't know what the Bible says by itself, you won't be able to find the topical content you're looking for.

And this is not at all a question of whether or not we should do Biblical theology instead of systematic theology. It's a question of where we begin.

So I'm left thinking about my students: isn't starting students on systematics condemning them to a life of battling topical assumptions every time they try to study a passage? Or is it simply a recognition that we all think topically to begin with, so we might as well get our questions answered and use that as the catalyst for deeper Bible studies.

The Chapman Cohen Quote

2011-05-13T18:50:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since we've tracked down another quote from the Apologetics lists. With the NCFCA's nationals and Stoa's NITOC just around the corner, it seems like a good time. Today's focus: Category 1, Statement Analysis 3

Analyze and respond to the statement, “Gods are fragile things. They may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.” Chapman Cohen

This topic holds a particularly fond place in my heart. It was the first quote I attempted to trace and the first quote to demonstrate that nobody else had ever made a successful attempt (with not one but two college students doing the heavy lifting and still hitting walls, that's not really a surprise). Nevertheless, it launched me into these little research projects and for that I'm grateful.

The quote comes from a pamphlet titled, The Devil written by Chapman Cohen. The original of which I haven't been able to track down, but a full reprint is available in Gordon Stein's An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism.

Interestingly, unlike some of the other quotes we've seen (cf. Tozer, Shaw and Marx), this quote is word-for-word accurate. From page 258 of Stein's Anthology:

Gods are fragile things, they may he killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

That makes the analysis side a bit easier (it's always awkward to have to correct a quote in a speech). However, it's the context of this quote that makes this quote somewhat tricky.

The point of Cohen's article is stated in his opening paragraph:

The Devil is one of the foundation-stones of historic Christianity. Jesus Christ is another. God the Father lingers in the rear, and in modern Christianity hardly appears: while the Holy Ghost forms, naturally, a shadowy background. But the foundations of Christianity are Jesus Christ and the Devil. Together they form the Two halves of what is significantly known as Christian truth. The necessity for Jesus Christ lies in the activity of the Devil. Without him there
would have been no Fall, no Scheme of Redemption, no Plan of Salvation, and every human being would have had to bear the consequences of his or her actions, instead of first blaming the Devil for his ill-deeds and then "passing the buck" on to Jesus. (p 253)

After this opening salvo, Cohen digs into a sort of tongue-in-cheek exposition of how, without the Devil, there would be no Christianity. A brief sampling of his argument,

There is the highest Christian authority for saying that both Jesus Christ and the Devil came From the same "home town." Jesus came from heaven, and after a short and exciting stay on earth returned thereto. The Devil also began his career in heaven, but was "cast out," which after he appeared to have enjoyed a free and wide run on earth. He is respectfully referred to in the Bible as one of the "sons of God," and appears in heaven discussing various matters with his father. It was at one of these gatherings that God entered into a controversy with Satan, and a kind of wager was agreed upon as to whether "my servant Job" could be weaned from his allegiance. Job was not consulted on the subject, and from God's point of view came well out of the test; but while Job vindicated his character for steadfastness and God won the wager, it is quite evident that in the discussion Satan came out on top. God was good on boils, but weak in argument. (p 253)

Continuing on, we find the paragraphs leading up to our line of interest, where Cohen is explaining what objections are brought against this invaluable Devil,

Two charges are, either directly or indirectly, brought by the Christian Church against the Devil. The first is that he was ambitious and wished men to worship him. But ambition, while it may lead a man into dubious paths, is not a very serious crime; any person of moderate intelligence might get weary of a place where the only form of dissipation appears to be eternally singing songs of the Lamb. But the Christian God does not like competition, and Satan's "better to reign in hell than serve in heaven," was bound to create friction.

For Satan to seek worship was a more serious offence. It hit at both God and the Church. For while the Church flourishes on belief, the gods live on worship. All the gods of the past have lived upon worship. While they were worshipped the gods of Egypt, of Rome, of Greece, were fine, lusty fellows, who gave their followers all that the Christian God gives his worshippers. These gods of the ancient world sent rain and gave their followers good health; they answered prayers; they sent their faithful worshippers to a prepared heaven and their enemies to a prepared hell. But as man's worship declined so the objects of the worship declined also. Gods are fragile things, they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense. They thrive on servility and shrink before independence. They feed upon worship as kings do upon flattery. That is why the cry of gods at all times is "Worship us or we perish." A dethroned monarch may retain some of his human dignity while driving a taxi for a living. But a god without his thunderbolt is a poor object. (p. 258)

This is the first hint we have at Cohen's ultimate conclusion. Cohen, being an atheists, is obviously poking fun at this silly notion of both Devil and God and simply illustrates their Achilles' heal by first point to their absolute, ying-and-yang reliance on each other, and then showing their ultimate, collateral demise. Cohen concludes,

At the hands of the Christian Churches the Devil has had what the Americans call a "raw deal." For centuries this historic figure, the subject of sculpture, song and story, has not a single monument in any of the Churches, which without him would never have been. Man's ingratitude to man is said to be great enough to make angels weep. But what is this compared with the ingratitude of the Church to the greatest of its benefactors?

But ingratitude brings its nemesis. The devil and God are the components of a Siamese twin. Neither has any existence apart from the other. In denying the existence of the one, Christians have helped to kill the other. If there need to be no fear of hell, people may well ask what is the attraction of heaven? Gods and devils were born together. Gods and devils will die together.

Keep in mind, Cohen is deploying a reductio ad absurdum argument against Christian teaching. The entire purpose of his argument is to illustrate how ridiculous Christian teaching is. By that, he hopes to persuade the reader that both God and his co-equal, the Devil, deserve to be put out to the curb of humanity's consciousness.

A couple of notes for your competitors.

-"Science" here seems parenthetical. It is not the main thrust of Cohen's argument. According to the context, the emphasis is on common sense (the word "science" only occures 3 times in the article. To read Cohen's argument on how science has been regarded as anti-God and pro-Devil, see p. 259).

-The main argument used to introduce this quote actually comes from the idea surrounding Cat. 3, GQ 5, "What is the purpose of man?" If you're going to answer that question by following the Westminster Shorter Catechism ("Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever."), then you should know that the Cohen quotes provides a perfect counter-point to that claim. Cohen argues that all gods need us to worship them otherwise they would go off into a dust bin.

-The main thrust of the paragraph is found in the word "fragile". In Cohen's argument, gods need us, not the other way around. How they may be killed off is not nearly as important as the fact that they can be. And Cohen is arguing that they should be.

-You really should read this whole article. It's good writing, a good sampling of atheistic polemics and a generally fun read (if you can get past how badly he mangles Christian teaches to fit his point). $30 is steep, but you can find used copies for around $5.

So there you go. I hope that helps!

Schnaiter on Guilt by Association

2011-05-10T11:12:00.000-07:00

Recently, I was reading S. E. Schnaiter's review of Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions (don't ask). Dr. Schnaiter perfectly captures what is so aggravating about faux histories:

Guilt by association has no place in arguing real issues. Loose charges are especially reprehensible, necessarily vague, and difficult to answer because they are frequently no more than the interpretation of the one making them. This is the nature of innuendo and slander: easily accused and often difficult to either prove or disprove, but highly suggestible, especially to average readers who have neither the ability nor the inclination to look beyond the surface of the charge. Hence once slandered, even after proven to be falsely so, one finds it extremely difficult to cast off the cloud of popular suspicion thereby brought upon him. To thus bring ruin to a man’s good name by an exaggerated estimate of one’s own importance or the importance of his or her opinions, is the epitome of selfish and tragic betrayal. How much more so when the one slandered is not even alive to answer the false charges!

His entire article is worth the read:
S. E. Schnaiter DBSJ 2 (Fall 1997) REVIEW ARTICLE: New Age Bible Versions p. 109-110

Open Query #81

2011-05-05T12:45:00.000-07:00

With all you semester students out there enduring finals, what has the past 15 weeks taught you?

Piper on Paul and the Law

2011-05-03T09:25:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I was listening to a sermon by John Piper and he made the following argument:

Paul is defending the Law. Verse 7: "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be!" The reason he is defending the Law is that he has said some things about the Law that would shock some of his readers. In essence he has said: If we make the Law the decisive means of justification or sanctification (being declared righteous, or becoming righteous) we find that its effect is exactly the opposite.

It does not justify from sin; it reveals sin. Romans 3:20, "By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." If we try to make it a means of justification, it becomes a means of condemnation.

Neither does it sanctify; it stirs up more sin. Romans 7:8, "But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead."

The Law reveals sin and stirs up more sin. Therefore, the holy, just, and good Law of God is not the decisive means of justification or sanctification. It is not the first and decisive way to get right with God, and it is not the first and decisive way to bear fruit for God.

John Piper. Jesus Christ and the Law of God. http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/jesus-christ-and-the-law-of-god

Don't Party in the Streets

2011-05-02T13:13:00.000-07:00

With the death of Osama bin Laden, a Christian understanding of the data made its way into friend feeds and twitter timelines everywhere (see my post from yesterday here).

The whole scenario reminds me an instance that happened when a few my siblings and I were in the 10-years-old or below category. As was not uncommon, one of my siblings was making trouble. Enter Mom, who took the culprit down the hall into her room to administer justice.

As my siblings and I stood around in our room, silently listening for the sounds of discipline, one of my other siblings began to chuckle.

"It's not funny." we chided.

Why was it that a group of middle-school-aged children intuitively knew it was inappropriate to laugh during that moment? Because we knew that, really, it could have been --and often was-- one of us.

To a degree, my heart is to break over just punishment because, when just punishment is called for, it's because of sin. So I weep over sin and I weep over the consequences of sin --including the just pain crushing the sinner.

When Jesus hung on a cross, receiving God's justice substitutionally --that is, taking the judgment we deserved-- many stood below Him and celebrated His penalty. That was evil. It was also evil to celebrate the penalty of the two criminals who hung on either side of Him.

When the Righteous Judge justly wields the sword, I will watch, but I will watch through tears. I will not laugh at the cries of agony. I will not smirk at the screams of pain. I will not clap after the execution.

"But" comes the objection "if justice is good, then shouldn't we celebrate it?" That's a fair question.

When we witness something good, we have an entire spectrum of emotions available to acknowledge it. Some of those emotions are appropriate. Some of them are not. Bottom line: just because something is good doesn't mean it gets a party. It may just need a sober moment of reflection.

You see, when we witness justice in all of its shocking and vivid detail, it should drive us, not to party in the streets, but to reverence and repentance.

(Special thanks to Jon, Steven, Josh K and Josh S for their thoughts and edits)