1 big answer

In the blog "7 or so questions, 7 or so answers: an elevator pitch" I set out an approach to talking about one's faith in terms a non-Christian might better understand.

Greg Koukl recently released a video of his answer to precisely that situation.

An edited transcript is provided below.

What is your elevator speech answer to the   question "What do you believe and why do you believe it?"

First three stories.

1.  There is a God who is there.
2.  He has not been silent. (Francis Schaeffer's title)
3.  He has visited this planet in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

He gave evidence of who he was, and then did something to rescue us from ourselves that will determine what happens to everybody in the final resurrection.

That's, maybe, the content. At the end of history. Maybe I'll put it that way for a non-Christian.

Why do I believe it? Well, this one, in a certain sense, is I'll give the general point that I've given many times, because that answer is about the nature of reality—I'm not talking about my faith, my beliefs, as such.

Of course, they're my faith and belief, but what I believe about those things is that this is the way the world is. And I think that this is an accurate take on the world.

It's the accurate picture of reality, taken as a whole, because it turns out to be the best explanation for the way things are. And, so, when you look at the way the world is—that the world came into existence, that the world has conscious beings, that one set of the conscious beings—human beings—have a moral nature, and that concepts like mercy and goodness and justice and wickedness and evil. All of these are real parts of the universe— the worldview, the picture of reality—that makes the most sense out of all of these things. This turns out to be the Christian view of reality.

In the book, “Street Smarts," I have two chapters on atheism followed by one chapter on the problem of evil, and the chapter on the problem of evil is called Evil: Atheism's Fatal Flaw. I position the problem of evil, not in a defensive way, like, well, let's see if I can find out how I can convince you that it makes sense in our world; I did that in "The Story of Reality”. No, I'm trying to show there is a problem of evil, and that's not bad for us, it's bad for atheists, and here's why.

Simply put, the problem of evil fits into our world. Our story is about   the problem of evil from the beginning to the end”. It starts in chapter 3 of Genesis. It ends 66 books later. So, it fits in our story, and our story is not over yet. It's just part of it.

While there's no real problem there, in a certain sense. there remain questions that come up that we can speculate on and try to answer, but the key thing is, the problem of evil makes sense in our story. It does not make sense in the atheist's story.

In that, there's one example of our view of reality being a much better explanation than any other. In fact, the best explanation for evil or for the origin of the universe or for the existence of consciousness or the reality of human freedom or a whole host of other things.

If I was to give a short elevator speech, would I include any testimony in that or would I stick to, what I have just described?

No, I don't think I would put testimony in, partly because nothing in my testimony is evidential. It isn't like I heard a voice, I went blind, and then I got healed of blindness three days later (referring to the Apostle Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ). So, there's nothing that's third person public that I can offer.

Secondly, I really want to work to avoid relativizing my own views. This is why I don't like when people say, "Well, the Christian view is." There may be a place for that, but we have to be very careful that we're not just saying this is kind of, as you put it earlier, our club. I don't like "Well we believe this," or "We have faith that," "My faith tells me thus and so."

I'd rather put this in terms of my understanding of the nature of reality. These are my convictions about the way the world is, and I have particular reasons for thinking that my convictions match the world, and then I can talk about that. I'm going to try to stay away from the subjective element, in my case, for those reasons. I especially don't want people to be tempted to relativize my view. They could say it's inaccurate. Fine. But if my view is relative, it can't be inaccurate. It's true for me. That’s all you can say.

 

7 or so questions, 7 or so answers: an elevator pitch

I've mentioned elsewhere the 7 basic questions that every Christian should be able to give three answers to: the "elevator" pitch (we say 'lift'), the short answer and the discussion.

Here are my "elevator" pitches

1. Why are you a Christian?

Mankind only can understand himself in terms of a necessary reference point. But man is personal, so that reference point must be both self-existing and personal. Jesus of Nazareth is that reference point so I follow his way.

2. Why do you read the Bible?

It makes the best sense of the world/human condition that we have. It makes its case in history, not merely by theoretical claims or mythological stories.

3. Why do you attend church?

I don't 'attend' church. I am part of a church. [You could stop there if you are pressed for time, and await a follow-on question at another time.] Church is the gathering of people who are committed to the way of Christ. I'm 'in', so I'm 'in'.

4. Don't all religions teach the same thing?

4.1 No. Most religions ask man to pull himself up by the bootstraps Christianity recognizes this is obviously impossible. They seek the solution to the failing system in the very system that is failing, so they really offer nothing for mankind's dilemma. [Alienation from the creator in an alienated world.]

Related is the question, " Why is Jesus the only way to God? "

4.2 Because he is the creator, and restoration of relationship cannot come from within the 'system', but only from outside it.

5. That's good if it's your truth, but I'm spiritual without that/it's not for me. 

5.1 If it's only my truth it's not truth at all, and I'd be crazy to rely on it. It's like being broke, but being your own bank. What people need is a relationship with the Truth that is objectively outside themselves.

5.2 What do you mean 'you are spiritual'? 'Spiritual' is about the connection with the one who is ultimately there, not the reflection of our own contemplations.

6. How can a God of love permit so much evil and suffering?

By permitting mankind to live and be able to seek him and the resolution of our broken lives in his eternal life and love. We live in a broken world that is marked by alienation from the creator, but the benefit of us being linked to the creator is so good that it outweighs all the bad even conceivable.

7. Hasn't science disproved the Bible?

How could it? The Bible explains why science is possible at all!

The eighth question, of course, is:

Why do you believe in God?

8.1 Yeshua of Nazareth, Jesus, as the West names him, declared himself to be God on earth, demonstrated that during his teaching career, and came back from the dead to authenticate himself.

8.2 Finite beings, which we are and the cosmos is, demand an end point and a beginning point or source or a basis that is not finite; plus there needs to be an absolute source for personhood. God, the creator, is these things.

.

God, evil and modern man

I have yet to hear a sermon or apologetic that really deals with this in terms that might make sense to modern man. Schaeffer comes closest, but he still doesn't quite do it. Nevertheless, he does touch on it in passing, in True Spirituality when he talks of sin as being the breaking of fellowship with God.

Most disquisitions on this topic do nothing to overturn the ancient pagan impression of 'good' and 'evil' as two forces in active opposition and of similar potency.

But NO!

Good and evil do not float platonically behind God, and do not have any existence except in terms of who God is.

God is good by definition, or more precisely, God is love and the properties of goodness and evil (the inversion of goodness, as hate is the inversion of love) flow from this.

Evil, sin, suffering represent the inversion of God's love, of who God is! The result from rejection of fellowship with God.

A&E were told that 'the tree' would bring them face to face with this inversion, rejection, denial of God. That is, face to face with evil, which they would thus 'know'. That is experience and understand.

Love is the disposition to benefit the other even to your disadvantage, to give priority to the other. Evil is inversion of this, to benefit oneself in denial of others.

This comes out in fragments of pride, greed, selfishness, self-centredness littered through every day. From Adam's step away from God in denying him and asserting his own values in that denial, both Adam and the creation were stranded from man's communion with God. But there was more involved. Not only was mankind stranded, but the creation as a whole was severed from its comfort with God's presence. Man as the steward, as God's vicegerent in the creation had  broken the entire creation

The great tragedy is that the creation was given to us as the stage for our communion with God, but it became the place severed from that communion and God's love and life. It's promise was death, and God warned him.

The domain as a whole was broken, subjected to loss, to decay and degradation as the creation in its entirety was dragged after the one set to govern it in love and peace.

Nevertheless, God's love is unstoppable and perseveres, as does his creature in his image as one with real choices. God in this love acted to establish the 'long stop' position and occupied it in Christ. This position enables the final defeat of death -- the great inversion of the meaning of mankind echoed thereafter in his offspring -- and our regeneration to join his kingdom finally in the New Creation.

Methodological Theism?

Modern science proceeds not on the basis of methodological naturalism, but on the basis of methodological Christian theism! Naturalism by itself, whether metaphysical or 'merely' methodological has not produced modern science. In fact, it has produced neither systematic inquiry into the created cosmos, nor ceaseless curiosity. For this old world view, what is simply is! But for Christian theism. Paganism is a similar dead hand. What is is the product of the rainbow serpent. End of discussion. For panentheists, what is is god, and no inquiry is possible. If the god is capricious, as is the Muslim god, no science is again possible.

What Christian theism assures us of, and this is demonstrated in the first chapters of Genesis, is a material creation that is causally rational, that is objectively there, that is propositionally explicable, and created for our superintendence/care/stewardship and operation. It invites curious exploration, and demonstrates the principle in Adam naming the animals brought to him: he observed, analyzed, classified and categorized. It was up to him. All God did was bring his subjects to him.

The materialist detractors think that Christian theism stifles inquiry. Not so. The record is that materialism does so. The great example is the rapidly diminishing number of 'vestigial' organs. We will soon be at zero in that count. The fiction of vestigial organs stifled inquiry and led to countless unnecessary, dangerous and sometimes fatal surgical operations.

But, confident of a cosmos designed by one limitlessly wise and knowledgeable (see Prov. 3:19-20) we are confident to keep exploring, keep finding knowledge and reliably communicating it. Our curiosity will, we are sure, be endlessly repaid. There will be no 'do not enter' signs as we know the entire material cosmos is here for our habitation, occupation, use and enjoyment. The detractors confuse the creator God with the fake gods of paganism, with the occasionalist 'gods' of the Greek Olympus, or the stupid gods of thing and place. These prevent science.

Nor does one who takes the cosmos as designed ever say...well, I don't know, God did it. No, we say. "This clearly presents a challenge to understanding, but it was made so as to be understandable by the creator, so let's get on, persevere, work hard, expose our ideas to criticism, let's learn how this thing works."

The only problem arises where metaphysical naturalism enters the ring. It sets preconditions that result in imagined histories being used to guide the work of observation and analysis. These could well lead us astray, as NDE leads us astray and produces speculation but no knowledge.

The Funeral

Not a particular funeral, although I'll get to that, but in general

At a recent home group meeting a funeral in my family was mentioned, and some discussion ensued. I made the point that talking the gospel was particularly difficult (as in tricky) at a funeral.

A couple of clergy guys present disagreed vigorously, asserting that it was easy to 'preach the gospel' at a funeral.

But, to what end?

At my family funeral a sub-deacon conducted the service and gave a well composed and sermon which sought to convey the gospel to an audience that was preponderantly not interested.

No particular interest was shown during or afterwards.

One attendee did mention to me that she envied people who believed in heaven, but she didn't want to joint them. Perhaps I missed a quiet plea for more information there, but the conversation didn't head in that direction, despite my poor efforts, I  must admit.

The gospel words went in one ear and out the other because they didn't connect with the pagan fatalism that is the default view of death in the modern world. It is this that needs to be tackled and undone.

Most people are afraid of death, but only in their quiet moments as they age; otherwise not so much.

It is quite a challenge to convey the gospel in such a setting and offers of hope, the promise of the resurrection are more suitable, ignoring that some, if not many of the hearers do not wish to truly participate in such. Thus, it is hard to convey the gospel at a funeral.

The street preacher?

So, what's the point of 'street preaching'?

Paul went to the place of discussion in Acts 17 and engaged in real discussion people who were there to discuss. He sought to form real connections, however transient they might have been.

Street preaching by contrast just hoses people with a blather of Bible-talk that ignores them as individuals with real concerns and life conditions. It denies people's realness and value as being in God's image. It also presumes that the hearers would know what he was saying, but without a biblical context, not so.

Attempted evangelism, I'd call it.

Perhaps it might work in parts of the USA where there is a large proportion of the population who might be familiar with the blather, but not in any other Western country, I would think.

See: https://youtube.com/shorts/BO48tNmwnAc

In my small corner

Our church has just started a monthly segment at our 'youth' service called 'In my small corner'.

This is a cross between a Q&A and a time of sharing of conversations had.

The first 7 'conversations' will be the 7 basic questions that a Christian must be able to answer to follow Peter in 1 Peter 3:15.

1. Why are you a Christian?
2. Why do you read the Bible?
3. Why do you attend church?
4. Don't all religions teach the same thing?
5. That's good if its your truth, but I'm spiritual without that/its not for me.
6. How can a God of love permit so much evil and suffering?
7. Hasn't science disproved the Bible?

From this point people will be invited to relate a conversation they've had and how they deal with it, or how they might have done so. A short discussion may follow.

So, here would be my first one:

Last evening I was talking to a man who was unpersuaded by the 'moral' argument for God. He insisted that the only thing he did was what made him happy and didn't offend against the law or other people.

He put everything down to social structures that had evolved.

I tried to bat back every response, I used examples of the Holocaust, Isis, Crime cartels and Hamas, and we had a good talk for a long time, but what would you have said?

A few things we want to do with this segment:

• Get people used to talking about their faith and its implications
• Show that they don't have to 'win' every encounter (Peter tells us to explain our 'why' not win the argument)
• Discuss responses, and use these for teaching points at another time
• Stimulate conversation over coffee later
• Encourage reading of relevant books/watch videos
• Encourage thoughtful  reading of the Bible.