Jesus’ Colorful Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15

The last Discernology post called into question the modern trend in preaching to emphasize one main point or proposition in a sermon (commonly called the “Big Idea”). [1] We challenged the notion that this is appropriate for every sermon. Even if a passage of Scripture intends to communicate a primary point, constructing a message solely around one main idea without surfacing other colors and nuances of the text may leave the hearers substantially undernourished.

Bible practitioners and scholars alike have long treated the parables of Jesus as stories which culminate in a central claim or principle. For the most part, they are right. Ironically, that is precisely why the parables make excellent candidates for challenging the Big Idea approach to preaching.

Parable of the Prodigal Son

Consider one of Jesus’ most famous parables found in Luke 15:11-32: The Parable of the Prodigal Son. Jesus has been teaching his disciples in the Gospel of Luke using striking imagery—imagery which also serves to chastise the Pharisees for mismanaging their role as spiritual leaders of the Jewish people. It is critical not to overlook what Jesus is doing here – he is indirectly confronting the Pharisees (represented by the older brother) for their attitude toward lost sinners and their own undetected spiritual estrangement from God the Father.

Historically, a lot of preachers have missed the Pharisee-centered aspect of the parable, choosing instead to highlight the prodigal son’s sin, repentance, and return to his benevolent father. It isn’t hard to see why: in most cases, people can relate more naturally with the prodigal son than with the older brother. But preachers eventually realized that the older brother was often ignored, so today’s trend is to criticize preachers who don’t center their sermons around Jesus’ apparent main target—the religious leaders.

Surely preachers should address the older brother and relate him to their hearers. For this particular parable, I would say that a sermon should culminate in a challenge to “religious people” who may not see their own spiritual poverty and wrong attitudes toward others who have not been redeemed by Christ. But here is a key question: How can we retain emphasis on the older brother while doing justice to the intricate, powerful elements of the parable in its context?

Exposing the Colors in Luke’s Gospel

To put the question another way, how do we expose all of the colors present in the kaleidoscope which is the Parable of the Prodigal Son? The first step is to consider all that Luke has written to this point in his gospel. For example, more than any other gospel writer, Luke has emphasized God’s love and outreach to the downtrodden and to sinners without God in their life. If you were reading Luke 15 for the first time, you would undoubtedly think about the previous 14 chapters which show the constant compassion of Jesus through healing, acts of generosity, exorcisms, and forgiveness. The immediate context, Luke 15:1-10, reveals God’s compassion for lost sinners and his joy when they repent.

So even if Jesus’ primary intention in the Parable of the Prodigal Son is to highlight the Pharisees’ misguided attitudes, our appreciation for Jesus’ teaching arises from all the other truths that have brought us to this point in the text.

Colors of the Prodigal Parable

The Parable itself vividly expands on these prior truths in Luke. As such, it is hard to imagine covering Luke 15:11-32 without highlighting the profoundly moving elements of the narrative and challenging hearers to take a deep look at themselves in light of realities such as the following:

The prodigal son’s hurtful rejection of a Father who provided everything for him. He even had the nerve to ask for his father’s blessing to sever their relationship. (How could any of us reject such a good God?)
The attractive but abusive force of this world upon those separated from the Father. (How could this fallen world not enslave? Why would we possibly think we could escape its harm?)
The prodigal’s conviction that he could still humbly return to his Father and believe he would be accepted. (Do you believe God would accept you, no matter how severely you’ve rejected God?)
The instinctive, explosive celebration of the Father at the prodigal’s return. (Do we really believe we have a Father who is that good? Does he love us and other lost sinners that much?).

The above elements alone ought to move any hearer before they come to the older son’s shocking, inexplicable, indignant response to his brother’s return (15:29-30). Given all that Luke has written to this point, it is unthinkable that the second son would have such a stubborn and unforgiving attitude. Did you notice that the parable is open-ended? We don’t know whether the older son is going to accept his Father’s instruction, recognize the Father’s goodness, love his younger brother, and repent of his hardheartedness. (Will we?)

The four points above highlight some of the critical “colors” of the whole passage. The Big Idea of the Parable of the Prodigal Son would be a dud if Jesus had not told the whole story and included this rich picture of who God is—and who we are. In order to repent, both the older and younger sons must recognize sin’s scheming, seductive nature and be won over by the Father’s extreme love. So even if the Big Idea revolves around the older son, the powerful “mini-sermons” within the passage leading up to the Big Idea are just as vital and they are what turn hearts to God in the end.

“Retweeting” Kuruvilla

I thought I’d wrap up this article with some of the most stimulating quotes found in Kuruvilla’s “Time to Kill the Big Idea”:

“To convert the text into a Big Idea is surely going to entail significant loss of its details, meaning, power, and pathos, thereby deflating the thrust/force of that text . . . equivalent to a photo of a person, or the theme of a musical work, or the summary score of a ball game that can never substitute for the real thing.” (832)

“A story is a way to say something that can’t be said any other way, and it takes every word to say what its meaning is. You tell a story because a statement would be inadequate.” (836, quoting Flannery O’Conner)

“A contemporary preacher ‘seems like a second-rate lawyer arguing a case.” (837)

“The preacher is the curator . . . preachers are to let their listeners encounter and experience the text as they themselves did when they were studying.” (842)

“The preacher is to be co-explorer of the text with the flock, not chief explainer of the text to the flock.” (843)

“The doing of the authors ought to be the interpretive goal of preachers—the discernment of the text’s thrust/force . . . without which there can be no application.” (838)

____________________________________

[1] The article was inspired by Abraham Kuruvilla, “Time to Kill the Big Idea? A Fresh Look at Preaching,” JETS 61, no. 4 (2019): 825-46.

Preaching the Big Idea with Music and Underwear

“Don’t show your underwear.” That’s what one pastor-professor said when I sat in on a preaching workshop during my seminary years. What did he mean? “Underwear” refers to the fine details of the text and the laborious process the preacher engaged in to understand them. He was concerned that preachers may distract people from the Big Idea if they reveal all of their hard work behind the scenes to study the passage.

He advised us to address the exegetical elements of the biblical text only when necessary. Preachers must do the digging for themselves to discover the passage’s Big Idea and then build the sermon rigorously around it. He confidently proposed that preachers should prepare the hearers for the Big Idea with a careful introduction, support it with 2-4 complementary points, and write a conclusion that repeats and applies it. This is likely the dominant approach employed by most seminary-educated preachers today.

Who Taught Preachers to Hide Their Underwear?

The Big Idea approach was stimulated by a book that still remains a primary preaching course text in many seminaries: Biblical Preaching by Haddon Robinson. [1] Robinson taught that every Bible passage contains essentially one main point—a Big Idea which every interpreter ought to discover and stress in the message. The preacher, Robinson insisted, should toil to construct a single succinct sentence that clearly and cleverly states this Big Idea. The preacher should then construct the entire sermon to support this sentence and use it to drive the hearers’ personal and community application of the passage. Robinson’s ideas sound logical, and they are not altogether wrong. However . . .

A Message That’s Musical

For years, I’ve sensed the Big Idea approach was lacking something, even though I have largely followed it and seen others do so through much of my life. I was delighted to read an article in the latest Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society titled, “Time to Kill the Big Idea? A Fresh Look at Preaching.” In this article, Abraham Kuruvilla says that the Big Idea approach is a wrongful “distilling” of the Bible text down to what appear to be its essential elements. [2] This distilling often robs the hearers of essential elements in the text and causes us to pass over nuances that give a passage its punch.

Wouldn’t such “distilling” reduce the impact God intended for any given passage of Scripture? Wouldn’t it “result in significant loss of textual meaning, emotion, power, and pathos?” [3] Over the course of time, wouldn’t this method leave the hearers malnourished at best and impoverished at worst?

To illustrate his concerns, Kuruvilla compares the Big Idea approach to stripping the notes out of a musical masterpiece. Music theorists have demonstrated that most notes in a song can be left out of a tune and it will remain recognizable. Kuruvilla analyzed “Over the Rainbow” with this technique and came up with a few measures like the following:

If only the circled notes above were played, one would distinguish the tune “Over the Rainbow.” The problem is, this technique reduces the masterpiece down to something that the songwriter never intended, even if it still sounds nice or recognizable. A true artist would likely feel insulted by such reduction! If people only ever heard the distilled rendition of “Over the Rainbow,” it probably would never have been well-liked or become the influential classic that it is. Kuruvilla views sermons in much the same way:

Sermons should be faithful to the full range of a text’s power, and those preachers who carry away only main ideas … are traveling too light. [4]

The Master Musician

The Bible was inspired by a Master Musician, so often there truly are multiple threads of meaning, purpose, and punch in a single passage of Scripture. Sometimes a series of passages function like an ensemble of instruments, each adding their tones and tinges to the thrust of a book or section of Scripture. Hearers will be better nourished if preachers give every “instrument” God placed within a text its place in forming the overall song.

What does this mean in practical terms for the preacher? First, none of this suggests that readers/hearers should read into the Bible what they wish to see. The motive is to appreciate the complexity that God built into his Word. That means preachers have to show their underwear—at least some of it! They shouldn’t hoard the nuances of the text for themselves and give the hearers a mere summary of extracted principles. They must expose the hearers to the masterpiece that moved them to deep knowledge and reflection during private study and preparation.

Recovering from the Big Idea Syndrome

The world is presently bombarded with mind-numbing technology and oversimplifications. Everything is being done in the name of simplicity, efficiency, and ease of success. Christians should strive to recover depth of thought and reflection. Few books other than the Bible can induce such intense reflection on self, society, and spiritual realities. We should abandon the Big Idea approach if it means following these misguided patterns of the modern world. Instead of “stripping out” the details of a passage in order to get quickly to what supposedly matters, we should insist that all of it matters and all of it is worthy of our time and undivided attention.

Following the flow of the passage and its sophisticated signals may distract some hearers, but we are dealing with more than just hearers. Christians, aren’t we handling the precious Word of God? If God intentionally and artfully shaped his message with specific linguistic features, shouldn’t we expose them for our hearers? This can be done in a way that captures the imagination and interest of the hearer. Preachers need to figure out how to do so.

Must We Abandon the Big Idea?

We should abandon the Big Idea approach if it prevents us from treating Scripture as the divine masterpiece that it is. But contrary to Kuruvilla’s insinuation, we need not kill the Big Idea altogether. Many passages do build up to a single, prevailing point that should receive emphasis. What stands out in Kuruvilla’s analysis is the danger of allowing the main idea to control every step of sermon preparation. Surely those of us who preach must do a better job of illuminating all the colors of God’s Word when we preach or teach.

The next article will examine a Bible story that generates strong feelings (and sometimes controversy) due to the tension between the Big Idea and the details in the passage. I will also “retweet” some of Kuruvilla’s most stimulating quotes from “Time to Kill the Big Idea?”

_________________________________________

[1] Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1980).

[2] Abraham Kuruvilla, “Time to Kill the Big Idea? A Fresh Look at Preaching,” JETS 61, no. 4 (2019): 825-46. Kuruvilla begins his article by developing the history of the Big Idea. His research reveals a surprising list of notable Christian preachers and authors who subscribe to the Big Idea approach (825-828).

[3] Kuruvilla, 841.

[4] Kuruvilla, 836, quoting Thomas G. Long, The Witness of Preaching, 3^rd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2016) 116.

Adults Don’t Learn Like Kids Do

After sitting through a class lecture, I sometimes leave with the sense that something went wrong. Perhaps it was the speaker’s demeanor—maybe the lecturer talked down to us like we were incompetent children! Usually I just feel like something was missing. More could have been learned. Maybe I could have done something. Maybe others could have added to the learning experience.

What’s the Real Problem?

Our discomfort in such situations arises from the fact that adults don’t learn like kids do. Unfortunately, most teachers employ methods designed for children (pedagogy). That’s why the authors of the classic book The Adult Learner advocate methods for adults (andragogy). [1] The 5 principles below are derived from this influential work. I bet you will resonate with most of them.

Since many studies already confirm the principles, my goal is to briefly explain them and suggest how you could implement them in your learning environments. As far as I know, the authors are not professing Christians, so I will suggest a few caveats from a Christian perspective at relevant points . . .

Principle #1: Adults Need to Know That They Need to Know

Adults are busy. Jobs. Errands. Kids. More errands. The last thing they want is another obligation that might not add value to anyone’s life. A teacher may realize that a student will benefit by investing in a topic, even if the student doesn’t know it yet. To this, the Adult Learner authors say, “Facilitators can make an intellectual case for the value of the learners’ performance on the quality of their lives.”

So how can we do that? Illustrate the need. Convince the learners. Find out about their life situations and briefly explore how the learning experience might benefit them. Here’s one caveat: from a Christian standpoint, we need to be careful not to manipulate people simply to get more participants. Seek out those who really have a need and work to convince them if they aren’t already convinced.

Principle #2: Adults Should be Treated as Producers Who Can Self-Direct

In one way or another, adults already have a history of success and production. They want to apply themselves, problem-solve, and explore ways they can contribute. Unlike children who thrive on external rewards, they are internally motivated to improve aspects of their lives.

In addition, adults already have a sense of how they learn best. That’s why they struggle when others micro-manage their learning process. Knowles and his colleagues say, “Adults resent and resist situations in which they feel others are imposing their wills upon them” (63). I totally get this one. When possible, we should create learning conditions where adults can work toward an end-product with minimal limitations.

Now here’s the caveat: in a society that lusts after freedom and independence from authority, we still need to call people to humbly respect the leaders God has placed in their lives. Those leaders will sometimes err. They might even micro-manage. But God has provided them for our growth; that means we can learn from them even if they don’t follow adult learning principles to a tee.

Principle #3: Adults Learn When They Can Customize and Commune

Teachers shouldn’t just “teach”—they must facilitate learning. When an adult sees a course curriculum, they immediately begin to look for ways they can harness it for their benefit. Not all learners share identical life situations, so teachers need to use variety and present opportunities to accommodate different learning styles. In the seminary class I currently teach, I usually give the students options for their assignments. For example, they can do a formal presentation, deliver a sermon, or lead a group in a study. I let them choose an appropriate sub-topic to study or action to take grounded in the themes of the course.

Adults also like to hear from their peers and help their peers. They thrive when they can invest in others and vice-versa. I can hardly think of anything more biblical—people coming together, agreeing to patiently listen and help one another. God prescribes such mutual edification and he is honored by it (Eph 4:11-16).

Principle #4: Adults Need to Be Ready for the Content

This principle is not complicated, but it is important. If learners are not ready for the level or amount of content, they will spin their wheels. Negative experiences due to under-preparedness can greatly discourage an adult and impact their desire to engage the material in the future. The teacher-facilitator basically has two options to address readiness:

Assure them that they are ready (if they really are).
Take steps to get them ready (which may require some creativity).

Principle #5: Adults Want to Solve Real Problems Now

This principle is closely related to #3. Adults want to learn things they can use now—or at least very soon. How can the learning content help them enhance a skillset, face a personal deficiency, improve their family life, or relate better to others in their community? In my classes, I tell the students they must ask their church leaders to provide them with opportunities to share their learnings. Ideally, they receive permission to do their presentations formally within 6 months of taking my class. This motivates them to study hard, work hard, and pay careful attention to comments from their peers.

So what could be wrong with any of that? Yep, there’s a caveat. The Bible teaches that to focus only on the here, the now, and the pragmatic is short-sighted and worldly. That means some methods spurned by The Adult Learner still have their place. Sermons, lectures, and other traditional teaching formats are still valid, good, and necessary. These formats settle in on us and influence us over time. Those who have sat attentively under solid biblical preaching for many years know that regular exposure to the Scriptures has deeply formed who they are. I think the authors of The Adult Learner underestimate the power of attentive listening in their noble quest for more interactive forms of learning.

Jesus Practiced These Principles First

To wrap up, observe that Jesus exemplified the above principles long before they appeared in The Adult Learner. For example, when groups were large, he taught them (Matt 5-7). He often let people go their way if they were not ready for his guidance (Matt 19:21-24). He involved his disciples actively in ministry—they did ministry alongside him and on their own (Luke 9:1-17). He engaged people over topics they broached and cared about, and he often let them arrive at their own conclusions instead of spelling everything out for them (Mark 13:3-8, Luke 10:36-37). Jesus—teacher par excellence—harnessed the right forms of learning, in the right amounts, for the right circumstances.

_________________________________

[1] Knowles, Malcolm S., Elwood F. Holton, Richard A. Swanson, The Adult Learner 7^th ed. (New York: Routledge, 2012). Knowles, the original author passed away over two decades ago. His successors have continued to respectfully refine and update his ideas with new editions. The Adult Learner actually lists 6 principles. I have grouped principle 6 with principle 2 in this article.

9 Marks of a Healthy Church – by Mark Dever

Christian communities are far from perfect, so most of us have a story or two about an unhealthy church situation. So how does a church become healthy and stay that way? 9 Marks of a Healthy Church offers far more than the latest band-aids. Mark Dever has presented indispensable correctives to contemporary church polity and practice. The book promotes fundamental principles to guide church practices in any age. I hope this review will inspire you to add it to your library or get one of its related resources. [1]

Faithful to History, Accessible, and Widely-Applicable

Dever’s familiarity with the subject of church health surfaces through his frequent citations of historical and modern resources. [2] The book is quite readable overall and suitable for church leaders and regular attenders. Some sections are a bit wordy, and Dever periodically includes more examples than necessary to prove his points. That said, 9Marks has developed a brief booklet and other smaller resources which condense the material for those seeking just the main thrust of each “mark.”

As many have noted, 9 Marks of a Healthy Church is written from a Baptist perspective. However, contrary to certain unreasonably prejudiced online reviews, informed Christian readers will heartily agree with the book’s main tenets, regardless of denominational affiliation. Anyone wishing to promote spiritual health and biblical faithfulness in their local church setting will resonate with most of the details Dever presents.

Valuable Chapters in 9 Marks of a Healthy Church

A few of the chapters are worth the cost of the book and deserve special consideration. Chapter 1 (Expositional Preaching) addresses the form and content of preaching. The necessity of expositional (or expository) preaching continues to be a hot topic in Christian circles, and Dever nicely exposes its indispensable worth. In a nutshell, expository preaching emphasizes a single passage in its historical, grammatical, and literary context. The preacher demonstrates careful interpretation of the text to the hearers, draws appropriate conclusions, and suggests pertinent modern applications. Typically, a preacher will move through a whole book or section of Scripture and deal with each passage as a series of messages.

Devers argues that expository preaching serves as an essential control upon abuse of authority and misuse of the Scriptures. He confidently proclaims its value for the spiritual maturation of a church: “Let a good expositional ministry be established and watch what happens. Forget what the experts say. Watch hungry people have their lives transformed as the living God speaks to them through the power of His Word” (54).

Chapter 9 (Biblical Church Leadership) explains the precedent in Scripture for elder-directed church communities within a congregationalist framework. Most people think of ecclesiastical structure as predetermined, biblically-mandated, and static for every church community. However, Dever is not necessarily advocating for a single rigid system of church government. He emphasizes the processes needed to gradually make thoughtful adjustments to church structure. Dever encourages that specific expressions of leadership be cultivated as a church body develops and matures. For these reasons, this chapter contains valuable applications for most church denominations.

Chapter 7 (Biblical Church Discipline) may seem offensive to an individualistic, consumerist Western culture, where authority and imposed consequences are often considered an infringement upon freedom. Yet while society clamors for churches to exercise less authority in the lives of their members, it simultaneously decries the hypocrisy of Christians that do not live according to their own stated belief in the Bible. That is exactly why Jesus and the apostles take the purity of the church so seriously and prescribe steps to ensure it.

Furthermore, contrary to popular opinion, church discipline is not punitive—the goal is always to restore members to healthy relationships with God, church members, and the community. Dever pleas for the resolute recovery of church discipline done out of love for straying members. For these reasons and others, I recommend 9 Marks of a Healthy Church to anyone who seriously longs for positive transformation in their church.

_________________________________

[1] My comments in this review are based upon the New Expanded Edition. Though the book is a bit dated, I have reviewed it to encourage people who may never have read it to do so.

[2] I found Appendix 2 to be an extremely useful survey of the main marks of a healthy church as presented in a host of other published works since the mid-1980s.

Can Science Give Us Meaning and Morality?

In Part 1 of this two-part series, I contested the notion that the scientific community provides the only valid path to finding truth. Proponents of this view, such as Jerry Coyne, overlook the very definition of truth when they use the word. Furthermore, by making truth an ever-moving target, they concede that science is unable to address the very things that people care to understand most—like the nature of reality and the origins of our existence.

Beyond truth and origins lie very practical, existential concerns that we all must face. The search to understand human morality and life’s meaning consumes our thoughts, presses our emotions, and even occupies our dreams. Science can do little to help us on these fronts if we take Coyne’s contentions in Faith Versus Fact seriously. That’s not to say Coyne or other atheist scientists are living immoral lifestyles, or that they don’t believe they have grounds to address issues of morality and meaning. The problem is that their own arguments deny even the possibility of binding moral norms or any ultimate meaning to our lives . . .

Morality—An Accident of History

One of the most striking developments in modern empirical science is a return to determinism (often called scientific materialism). Determinism basically says that every human thought, every movement, every human feeling and desire, is a mere accident of time and space. Coyne holds this view and admits it is pervasive:

“The notion of pure “free will,” the idea that in any situation we can choose to behave in different ways, is vanishing. Most scientists and philosophers are now physical “determinists” who see our genetic makeup and environmental history as the only factors that, acting through the laws of physics, determine which decisions we make” (Coyne, Faith Versus Fact, 15).

Coyne seems to understand the implications—morality becomes an accident of history in the determinist paradigm. He continues: “Evolutionary psychology, by studying the evolutionary roots of human behavior, gradually erodes the uniqueness of many human traits, like morality, once imputed to God” (15).

Morality Without Morality

This determinism reaches its necessary conclusion at the end of Faith Versus Fact when Coyne addresses human moral issues. He writes, “The findings of science are morally neutral; it is how they are used that is sometimes a problem” (219). We would expect him to say that science can’t prescribe morality, but as a whole this is a self-defeating, self-contradictory statement if ever there was one. If science is our only means to discover truth, and science is morally neutral, then there can be no “problem” with how we use the findings of science. If science gives us no morality, no morality can guide how we do science (or anything else, for that matter).

These are remarkable assertions for someone who has written a book filled with reflections on the value of science-inspired secular ethics. We would expect Coyne to remain aloof, or at least judicious, concerning heated social issues. Instead, he promotes modern secular forms of moral behavior over 100 times throughout the book. In the final chapter, he exposes his preference for access to abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, and unrestricted adult sexual relations, which would presumably include prostitution (251). So much for moral neutrality. And so much for an explanation concerning why these moral positions would be superior to others, other than the fact that they didn’t originate with a religious group.

All of this greatly concerns people who reject scientific naturalism as the sole arbiter of truth. We wonder why we must buy into their admittedly groundless moral vision for the world. More importantly, we see great danger if they succeed in their efforts to jettison other voices that wish to contribute to the conversation of moral norms in society.

Meaning Without Meaning

There is one more area that atheistic science can’t speak to: meaning. How can scientific determinism possibly steer clear of the belief and sense that life is purposeless (nihilism). Of course, not every determinist or atheist looks at the world with doom, gloom, and hopelessness. But they live in perpetual contradiction with their stated beliefs. If determinism is true, meaningless existence is the only logical product. And many people, understandably, will never rest under such circumstances. Christian philosopher Gregory Boyd is one such example. I love the way he describes his former experience as an atheist:

“[In finding my way back into the Christian faith] I will only note that I was initially motivated by the sheer intensity of my existential anguish. If nihilism is true, I began to wonder, how come it feels so exquisitely painful and so unnatural to accept it?” (Gregory Boyd, in Four Views on the Historical Adam, 258)

Though I frequently disagree with many of Boyd’s views, I’m inspired by his brutal honesty here. He faced the rational implications of life without God. What might have been the consequences upon his life if he had been prevented from doing so? Instead of languishing in his anguish, he broke free to experience a life of logical and existential meaning.

Facing the Practical Consequences

There are many Gregory Boyds in this world. Is it not cruel to squelch their search for meaning? Even if a Christian like Boyd cannot “prove” that Jesus rose from the dead and offers eternal life to humanity, why should the hope and purpose he derives from his faith be subdued? In the end, the determinists provide no satisfying answers to these questions, particularly since their own system provides no such hope. [1]

As far as I can tell, Coyne does not wish to psychologically enforce atheism upon people and society—but you don’t have to look far to find those who do. Many prominent determinists seek to prevent religious voices from influencing public dialog. Widespread social consequences from such action are unavoidable.

But the personal consequences—the impact upon individual lives—is what most concerns me. I’ve officiated the funerals of people close to me, and close to my family. I’ve seen thousands of faces void of hope and compared them with the faces of those who do have hope. I’m burdened for them, and I find it subtly cruel that some would stifle the hope of those who do have it.

Ideas Have Consequences

My intention in this article has not been to prove that Christianity is superior to other belief systems or atheism, though I believe that to be true. I’m convinced that atheism, particularly in the form of scientific determinism, is being artfully propagated in Western society as a compelling solution for humanity’s search for truth and meaning. It’s not.

Finally, I wish to close by saying that I have watched videos of Coyne and I genuinely appreciate his fun, friendly personality. He has a likeable demeanor, and I can easily imagine sitting in my living room enjoying long conversations with him. But as the saying goes, “Ideas have consequences.” Regardless of how he and other determinists have managed to live with a sense of meaning, the implications of their views must be brought to light.

____________________________

[1] I realize Coyne argues in Faith Versus Fact that religious belief should be discouraged because it is historically and presently “harmful” to society. That issue is beyond the scope of this article, but I vehemently disagree and intend to address it in a future article. The point here is that scientific materialism/determinism can offer absolutely no viable alternative or guidance in the human quest for meaning.

Do We Just Need Science to Find Truth? A Reflection on Jerry Coyne’s “Faith Versus Fact”

I love science. One of my earliest childhood memories is of my dad getting out basketballs and tennis balls to mimic planetary orbits with me. In high school, my Physics teacher brought science to life; Mr. Bergeon received regular awards and became one of the most respected teachers in my state. [1] People like my dad and Mr. Bergeon fueled my appreciation for science and inspired me to study Engineering in college.

I am certain that science can help us understand and engage the world better. But does science have the explanatory power to tell us what is ultimately true or provide meaning to our existence? Even the most ardent atheist scientists appear to think not . . .

Putting Science and Faith at Odds

One such scientist is Jerry Coyne, author of Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible. The premise of the book is pretty straightforward: science deals with facts and religion can only operate on superstitions. Religion is a hindrance to humanity and we would all be better off without it. Throughout the book, Coyne offers relevant insights that Christians and people of other faiths ought to take into consideration. But I want to focus on an essential takeaway from Faith Versus Fact. Science, as understood by Coyne and those in his camp, “can’t handle the truth.” Coyne all but admits this from the outset:

“In this book I will avoid the murky waters of epistemology by simply using the words “truth” and “fact” interchangeably. These notions blend into the concept of “knowledge,” defined as “the apprehension of fact or truth with the mind . . . Scientific truth is never absolute, but provisional” (29-30).

Truth-Dodging

Epistemology is one of those big academic words which basically means the study of how we know what we know—in other words, how we rightly say that something is knowledge. Coyne’s quote above may sound sensible on its surface, but it places severe limits on what we can ultimately know, and it prescribes very restrictive means for how we might get there.

First, notice that by evading discussion of epistemology, he is altogether sidestepping the main issue. None of us simply wants to be told what is true; we want to how we can know truth. Furthermore, we want to know we’re working off the same definition of truth. That’s what the whole discipline of epistemology is about. Coyne essentially says, “I don’t want to debate the ways humans might identify truth or gain knowledge; just take my word for it—science is the only option.”

Second, to equate truth with scientific facts will not do. Science is valuable but far from flawless. Why should we assume data and explanations surfaced by fallible scientific communities are the only valid sources of truth? [2] That won’t satisfy most of the planet, which is one reason humanity continues to pursue multiple paths of discovering truth. Coyne’s chief rebuttal is that the other paths, like philosophy and religion, don’t satisfy him. [3]

Coyne’s Science Can’t Handle the Truth

Next, notice that truth is impossible to ascertain under Coyne’s paradigm. Even if scientists could never do wrong, truth would still be “provisional”; it can never be known with confidence. Whatever apparent “facts” we might have are merely the best we can do for now. That sounds humble and attractive on the surface, but Coyne fails to explore the gravity of his position—it means we can never really be confident that we know anything. Truth is always up for grabs. But that’s not the way humanity has defined truth throughout history. Truth is what corresponds to reality, regardless of whether our minds have comprehended it. Our understanding of facts may be provisional, but truth itself does not change. According to Coyne, “scientific truth” can change, so we’re never left with anything that sticks.

Here’s why Coyne’s subtle evasion of the epistemology/truth discussion is so significant: the search for universal, unchanging truth is the whole venture. It’s what we care about, what most of the world desperately wants to discover. In the end, Coyne says science can’t provide unchanging truth, but we are all fools for seeking additional means to get to it. That’s not a scientific attitude. Not only does it discourage open-minded discovery, it borders on cruelty toward a human race that longs for answers.

Science, Origins, and Our Deepest Questions

Beyond its limitations concerning truth, the science promoted by Coyne also lacks the power to explain the ultimate origins of reality. I was surprised by his admission to this and I wonder if he realized its implications for the entire proposal of Faith Versus Fact:

“There are also difficult problems that science hasn’t yet explained—the origin of life and the biological basis of consciousness are two . . . given their difficulty, some may never be solved” (153).

The problems that Coyne says science may never solve are the very issues other disciplines like theology and philosophy directly explore. Once again, we’re left bewildered—why would those who believe science may never answer these questions jettison other potential means of addressing them? That’s not a scientific posture, it’s not logical, and it’s certainly not compassionate.

The next article, will take up another area that presents problems for scientists of Coyne’s persuasion: Can Science Give Us Meaning and Morality?

_____________________________________

[1] I believe Mike Bergeon is now retired but he maintains a high ranking on Rate My Teachers: https://www.ratemyteachers.com/michigan/teachers/52

[2] Coyne rightly argues that religious and philosophical groups often disparage science as wholly untrustworthy and subject to bias. However, the fact remains that the scientific enterprise is and always will be a fallible human pursuit. No matter what scientists’ intentions, it is subject to errors, collective bias, groupthink, and sometimes fraud that may or may not be detected. Also, students of history will recognize Coyne’s assessment of religion in Faith Versus Fact as sorely misinformed—Christians have generally supported and propelled courageous, ethical scientific discovery throughout history. Certainly, there are cases to the contrary.

[3] Coyne offers other reasons for his conclusions, most notably that religious means to truth acquisition have never produced widespread agreement about which belief system is right. But lack of consensus does not prove that consensus will never arrive, nor that any given religious explanation might not already be true.

Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel – by Russell Moore

This book won a Christianity Today “Book of the Year” award for a reason. Christians ought to read and reflect upon it well. Here’s why…

Rarely does one encounter an author capable of recasting our worst nightmares as dreams come true. Christians in America have long feared losing the “culture wars” as the Bible Belt’s stronghold diminishes and secularism drowns out Christian voices. In Onward, Russell Moore argues that losing may be winning. Secularization is creating a fresh opportunity for the gospel to be seen as “strange” and as unacceptable to the world as it always has been.

The time is ripe for God’s church to go through a purification, casting aside perverted partnerships with world systems and distorted Western politics and values. The end result may not be more Christians in name but a stronger church that is drawn to Jesus himself and able to represent him afresh to America. Many Christians have been longing and striving for such purification, which explains the book’s popularity.

A Book with Great Counsel

Augmenting his pointed tone with a sincere pastoral sensitivity, Moore provides detailed counsel for how the church can re-engage issues including human sexuality, church-state relations, religious freedom, life issues, and the meaning of family. He not only asks us to concede our strangeness within the broader culture, but he implores God’s people to capitalize on it by embracing a richer kingdom perspective. If God is indeed preparing his people for a more profound mission in America, Moore’s plea to let the “good ole’ days” be bygones and reassess is a timely one.

Throughout Onward, Moore advises Christians to learn from the past, let go of the fear of man, live with conviction within the culture instead of quarrelsomeness, and genuinely love our neighbor as Christ intends.

A Book with Great Quotes

Here are a set of notable quotations from Onward that illustrate why this book, though not lengthy, is certainly a gem:

“Jesus came…to wreck our lives, so that he could join us to his. We cannot build Christian churches on a sub-Christian gospel. People who don’t want Christianity don’t want almost-Christianity” (5).

“We must learn to be strange enough to have a prophetic voice, but connected enough to prophesy to those who need to hear. We need to be those who know both how to warn and to welcome, to weep and to dream” (45).

“Worldliness means that we acquiesce to the priorities and the agenda of the systems now governing the world, in many cases because we don’t even question them” (53).

“A mission of redemption that leaves untroubled our place in unjust systems is far too safe, as is a mission of social activism that leaves untroubled our guilt before a holy God” (93).

“Any Christian witness that doesn’t start and finish with the gospel is unspeakably cruel and, in fact, devilish” (110).

“A Christianity that doesn’t prophetically speak for human dignity is a Christianity that has lost anything distinctive to say” (115).

“If we really believe the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, we don’t need bureaucrats to herd people into cowering before it” (145).

“Preachy propaganda doesn’t arrest the conscience. We, as ambassadors of Christ, are dealing with the aroma of life and the stench of death (2 Cor. 2: 15-16)” (199).

Do Christians Apply the Old Testament Laws Consistently or Are They Hypocrites?

Many people think Christians are hypocritical in how they apply Old Testament laws to modern life. After all, Christians don’t follow Deuteronomy 22:11, which says, “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof.” Yet they agree that adultery is wrong (Ex 20:14). The truth is, many Christians understand that certain laws related to Israel but no longer directly apply today—they just can’t explain why. What we decide about the role of God’s Law in our lives is a big deal. Unless we provide reasons for our apparent inconsistencies, we present low-hanging fruit to a culture that increasingly wants to disparage Christian thought and practice. Rather than dissect every law, I’m going to share some essential principles to help in these matters.

Paul Appears to Pose a Problem

Christians believe the whole Bible to be God’s Word given to humanity, some of the New Testament teaching about the Old Testament can perplex us. Paul insists that Christians are no longer “under law but under grace” (Rom 6:15). He says that “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death” and “if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Rom 8:2, Gal 5:18). But in other texts, he affirms that “the law is good” (Rom 7:12, 1 Tim 1:8). So which is it, Paul?

To understand why Paul spoke this way, let’s consider a framework evangelical theologians have utilized for generations. We can distinguish between the moral, civil, and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. In other words, some laws were ethical imperatives that transcend time and culture (moral), other laws pertained to specific social practices of the Jewish people and ancient near eastern peoples (civil), and other laws related to the proper worship of God (ceremonial). Just compare the following examples:

Civil—Lev 23:24—“When you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you are fully satisfied, but you shall not put any in your basket.” (I don’t have any neighbors with vineyards, and if I did I doubt I would feel comfortable just picking their grapes!)

Ceremonial—Lev 1:2-3—“When anyone among you brings an offering to the Lord . . . you must present it at the entrance to the tent of meeting.” (We couldn’t do this if we wanted to; the tent of meeting doesn’t exist anymore.)

Moral—Lev 19:13—“You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him” (Ok, I get this one. I get it so well I wouldn’t want to eat his grapes.)

The New Covenant – It Does Change Things

It’s easy to see that various types of laws pervade the Old Testament. We should be careful, though, not to make overly formal distinctions between these types of laws. Wasn’t Israel morally obligated to fulfill all of them? God didn’t color code the Torah to make some laws more important than others for them. However, these categories are sustained functionally in the New Testament and indicate that Christians should now apply the Old Testament laws in new ways. Let’s see why…

Paul frequently stressed that aspects of God’s law were ethnically and temporally limited. The reason? It all begins with God’s covenant with Abraham. The Scriptures predicted that “God would justify the Gentiles by faith” rather than by the Old Testament laws, and this is foreshadowed when God said to Abraham, “In you shall all the nations be blessed” (Gal 3:7-8). That leads Paul to exclaim, “There is neither Jew nor Greek . . . if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:28-29). God’s intent was that national distinctions would not divide his church and the strictly civil and ceremonial elements of God’s law would give way to the New Covenant promised in the Old Testament (Jer 31:31-34). Jesus unveiled the New Covenant at the first Lord’s Supper: “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” Those saved by the blood of Jesus are partakers of this New Covenant. [1]

Christians Now Celebrate the Ceremonial Law

Christians do not follow the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament for another critical reason: they were fulfilled in and by Jesus Christ. Hebrews 10:1 says they were “only a shadow of the good things to come.” The priests, the offerings, the forms of worship—Jesus Christ performed all the works necessary to fulfill the ceremonial laws through his life, death, and resurrection. He obeyed God perfectly, sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity, and now sits at the right hand of the Father as our Great High Priest. Therefore, the believer upholds the ceremonial dimensions of the Law of God not by doing them, but by recognizing and accepting their fulfillment in Christ. [2] It would be the height of hypocrisy for a Christian to practice the ceremonial dimensions of the law under the illusion that they yield religious power to gain God’s favor—that would be to reject the work of Christ, who has now and forever reconciled us to God.

The Law is Still Relevant, but in New Ways

Paul does say that the law is still good . . . “if one uses it lawfully” (1 Tim 1:8). Reasons for the continuing relevance of the Old Testament laws for Christians permeate the New Testament—but they are relevant in new ways. Grasping this is key, or we will misapply the laws to contemporary situations. Here are overarching principles that Christians must bear in mind:

Even laws that don’t apply directly still have indirect significance for Christians. Ceremonial laws illustrate the holiness of God and the care we should take to know him, relate to him, and obey him. Civil laws reveal God’s heart concerning justice and how we should treat our neighbor. We would surely be a much holier people, and have a much healthier society, if we regularly contemplated the Old Testament laws and related their intentions to similar modern situations.

God’s laws still expose humanity’s sinful state. When we read the Old Testament laws—whether ceremonial, civil, or moral—we become aware of our own moral ineptitude. We recognize our woeful failure to live morally pure lives in light of their awesome implications for worship and ethics. The Law of God leaves humanity’s sins and sinfulness lying naked, defeated, and condemned for all to see (Rom 7:7-13; 2 Cor 3:6-11; Gal 3:21-22).

The law guides us to the feet of Christ. The corollary to the sin-revealing and condemning function of the Law is its role as a custodian. In Greco-Roman society, the paidagogos, or custodian, was responsible to administer the affairs of minors, including their schooling. The Law served to guide and manage the people of God until the coming of Jesus Christ, the one who would fulfill the Law’s requirements and justify us through faith (Gal 3:23-25; 4:4-5).[3]

The law cannot condemn those who belong to Christ. Building upon the fact of the Law’s fulfillment in Christ, Paul also presents the Law as having lost its power to condemn those who place their faith in Christ. Without the forgiveness of sins gained through Christ’s shed blood, we would remain under the Law’s condemnation (Rom 8:1-4; 1 Cor 15:56-57).

We follow the “Law of Christ” which has its roots in the Old Testament. The Law of Christ is, simply put, the Holy Spirit guided manifestation of love (Matt 22:34-40, Gal 5:13-18, Rom 13:8-10, Rom 8:1-4). But we shouldn’t think of “love” as an open-ended expression of what we perceive to be goodness or kindness toward God or others. God defines love. The moral norms of the Old Testament provide insights as to the nature of love and what practices constitute real love—that means it still has value for defining moral behavior for Christians. Jesus himself brilliantly exposed applications of the Old Testament, as can be seen in passages such as the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus both embodied and expounded the Law, demonstrating the everlasting worth of the principles of the Old Testament (Matt 5:17-48; 23:23-24).

In Sum…

Far from being hypocrites, Christians have good reason for their perspectives and use of the Old Testament. If Christians understand their relationship to the Old Testament laws in light of these principles, they will be able to respond to the charge of hypocrisy. More importantly, they will reap the benefits of the whole Word of God. In an upcoming article, I will present some in-depth examples of how Christians might relate some specific Old Testament laws to our modern time.

__________________________________

[1] Several key passages make the ethnic/temporal limitations of the Law quite clear: Romans 3:28-31, Ephesians 2, and Galatians 3. I recommend carefully reading them along with the following article: Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, s.v. “Law” by Frank Thielman, 531-536. This is one of the most concise, clear, and convincing presentations of the New Testament treatment of the Law that I have encountered.

[2] See Douglas J. Moo, “The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ” in Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1988), 217.

[3] See Richard N. Longnecker, Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary, 41 (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1990), 146-149.

Meaning from the Madness (Discernology’s Charter Article)

A few years ago, I dropped off a booklet called Meaning from the Madness at FedEx for printing. A long conversation ensued with the agent, a young college student from Pakistan named Daneesh. As I turned to leave, he said, “Most of the items I see printed here aren’t going to benefit anyone. It’s nice to see something that might help us make sense out of our lives and give us some direction in this crazy world.”

Daneesh isn’t alone. His longing for meaning is shared by many due to the alarming cultural upheaval now permeating Western society. Powerful groups brandish their ambition to change public and political structures that were once considered dependable and permanent. A multitude of conflicting voices promise to provide the truth and moral stability we need to ensure a better life and a better society. The result? Usually more confusion than clarity. We suspect the meaning these groups offer may only heighten the madness. We’re afraid we’ll never see change for the better, but we’re equally afraid of the consequences if any of those voices actually get their way.

The War Within

Social critic David Wells artfully surfaces the source of our concerns:

“In the very moment when our culture is lifting moral restraints, and emptying life of its moral reality, our own nature, sometimes to our great discomfort, is declaring that it is unable to adapt to this flattened out, trivialized, morally vapid world. Our very nature is signaling the fact that it has connections with moral reality that transcend the culture. We are in some ways inwardly at odds with our disintegrating culture—and also inwardly at odds with our own selves.” [1]

Well’s insights point to our problem of perception: we struggle to discern truth and apply it to social circumstances, let alone to our own lives. Yet something inside won’t let us give up on truth. We feel the inner conflict.

That inner conflict leaves us unsatisfied with society’s “moral” solutions advanced under the guise of truth. Deep down, we know that most forms of “meaning” they offer are just culturally fabricated attempts to help us cope with an otherwise meaningless and short existence. That’s why Wells wants us to perceive “our connections with moral reality that transcend culture.” Unless we discover those connections, what hope is there to find genuine meaning and purpose in life?

It’s Personal before it’s Public

Instead of exploring the connections to a higher reality, our first instinct is to blame presidents, political parties, and other people for the chaos of our social situation and the confusion we feel about life. But that won’t accomplish much. Wells insists that truth is a personal matter before it is public. We must perceive our innermost deficiency before we can adequately assess the faults of society.

So what’s our problem? All of us love truth less than we should and less than we’ll typically admit. Truth is uncomfortable. Truth asks of us want we don’t want to give—to do things we would rather not do. As a result, we often lack the will to accept truth when we see it. The first step toward truth perception is to continually confess our persistent aversion to truth. Admitting our problem will not automatically solve it, but it can set us on a course to purposeful living despite it.

From Perception to Purpose and Passion

Discernology is about getting on, and staying on, the path of truth perception. When that happens, confusion about our life purposes fades away and life becomes meaningful even if we don’t have all the answers. As this site develops, it will present diverse media and cover wide-ranging topics. Everything you’ll find here ties back to some basic practices and principles that motivate us:

Discernology is fueled by a commitment to the Christian faith. We believe people will not be disappointed if they explore Christianity alongside of us with a humble heart and open mind. No matter what your background is, we ask you to assess your thoughts and motives honestly as you evaluate the media on this or any other site.
All sincere followers of Jesus seek a life of genuine purpose—we wish for our friends, family, and neighbors the same good ends that we seek for ourselves.
All humans have intrinsic worth because we were all created in God’s image. That gives us hope that people can change and grow—no matter what they’ve done or what they’ve been through.
We believe the significance of our lives can be discerned and embraced with a deep and enduring passion. We will be grateful to play even a small part in helping our readers get there.

A Final Word to our Christian Readers

I want to be clear that Christians are not immune to truth aversion. Christian communities are struggling to exercise discernment today. If you follow Jesus, consider the energy and attention it takes to pursue truth in this fragmented world. Jesus said, “For this I was born and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice” (John 18:37). Lots of voices compete for our attention. Jesus called us first. Slow down and read his words. Listen to him.

Finally, take time to hear from the remarkable people who have devoted their lives to knowing God and the Scriptures. Many have willingly shared their experience with us, and they want us to appropriate the truths that transcend culture. We hope Discernology can point you to some of their finest insights and help you grow in your understanding of Christianity and your walk with Jesus.

_________________________________

To learn more about the founding and specific purposes of Discernology, please visit our About page. A big thanks to our charter members for helping us get Discernology off the ground!

[1] David F. Wells, Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 163.