A Response to Albert Mohler Jr.

Just recently, Albert Mohler Jr. wrote a blog post on the question "should Christian parents send their children to public school?" As a Christian and a public school teacher I think there are issues with Dr. Mohler's post. 

Mohler's Analysis in sum 

Dr. Mohler provides a short history of education from the late 1800s to the 1980s. He says American education originated in "the village." Parents controlled most of the curriculum in their child's school. This began to change with the arrival of the industrial revolution. Cities grew and farm life shrunk. Yet, parents still had a major voice in public schools. 

Things changed. "Educational authorities... pushed for a 'progressive' understanding of education." People like John Dewey pushed for a "liberalism," forced through the separation of church and state, and taught secularism. This took a long time. Also, the Supreme Court handed down decisions that destroyed the local communities. The parent lost control over their children's education. Mohler calls this an "ideological revolution."

Everything from homosexuality, evolution, postmodern concept of truth, revisionism in history and naturalism are coming into the schools. If your school doesn't have it, it soon will. Yes, there are Christian educators, but that's not how things were. So, Christian parents are now saying no. 

Mohler's Answer 

Dr. Mohler doesn't give an answer to the question. I think he implies his answer with statements like"If these developments have not come to your local school, they almost surely will soon." He sounds more like a prophet then a theologian.  

What is wrong with this Analysis

The basic problem with Mohler's analysis is he is not doing theology. He reduces American educational history to this: American education was going really well until the big guys in Washington stepped in and messed it up. This is a philosophical and historical point.  He is giving a philosophical analysis of the state and history of education. He hasn't given a Biblical argument except that parent's have a Biblical responsibility for their children's education.  

I think this is a case where Dr. Mohler needs to be quiet. He is in higher education, not secondary or elementary. He is a theologian, not a historian or educator. He is not working in his role. Let those who are trained in this area do the historical analysis and philosophical work. 

A Thought on Phenomenology

I am taking Phenomenology and Existentialism this semester. I am gaining an understanding of early and mid-20th century philosophy. We have read Husserl, Ponty and now Arendt. They are timely because many theological developments occur during this time. (For instance, the beginning of the culture wars and theological splits in churches.)

I also am understanding why I find continental philosophy to be full of a lot of “huhs” and “duhs.” What I understand, I find to be plainly true and not controversial. What I don’t understand, there seems to be little ways to go about understanding it. What I disagree with, I find no argument to wrestle with. Perhaps it has to do with my background in analytical philosophy, but a professors word of wisdom on continental philosophy was helpful. "Continental philosophy is either nonsense or common." 

How Much are you Eating?

This post is an accumulation of thoughts and conversations with various peoples through the years.

Around the time I started to study philosophy at Taylor, my younger sister and I had a conversation about how much philosophy is helpful to read. She mentioned that our neighbor and elder in the church said we ought to read more of the Bible then any other book. At the time we both found this preposterous since I was finding myself reading up to hundreds of pages of philosophy in a week.

Soon after, I was walking with my older brother about music. Back then there was a lot of discussion about what type of music was helpful to listen to, particularly rock and CCM. At the time, he thought it helpful to understood rock music like candy. A little can be fun and ok, but too much and you'll get sick.

Last summer, this same brother convinced me to listen to a sermon series. I struggle to listen to sermons, and they have been of little help in my life. There is really only one pastor's sermons who have been of great spiritual significance in my life. Anyway, he convinced me to listen to this series on assurance of salvation. He made the point that it's important to have a large quantity of spiritual things in our lives. At the time, and for a while by then, I thought it was more important to have a few high quality things in our spiritual life.

I listened to the sermons. Didn't get much out of them. These three stories have one thing in common, quantity of spiritual things. Rarely do we think about the quantity of spiritual things in our lives. We often analyze of the quality of spiritual things, thinking their their orthodoxy and application.

Jeremiah Burrows was a puritan minister who wrote "Gospel Worship." It's a series of sermons he gave about how we ought to worship. In talking about the Lord's Supper, this is what he said. I apologize for the length of the quote, Puritans are always long-winded, but it's worth reading through. If you don't just skip and read my summary below:

This is the communion of the body of Jesus Christ and of his blood, and therefore there ought to be hungering and thirsting desires of the soul after Jesus Christ. Therefore you must take heed that you do not come with your stomachs full of trash, as children do when they can get plums and pears and fill their stomachs with them when they come to your tables. Though there is never so much wholesome diet, they have no mind to it at all.  

So it is with men of the world. They fill their hearts with the trash of this world, with sensual delights, and whence it is that when they come to such a great ordinance to enjoy communion with Jesus Christ, then they feel no want at all of Christ. They only come and take a little piece of bread and a draught of wine, but for any strong, pausing desires to meet with Jesus Christ there in the ordinance, to come so as they know not how to live without Christ, even as a man who is hungry cannot live without his meat and drink, and so for the soul to to have such a disposition after Christ is a rare thing." 

The point being, when we approach the Lord's table, don't be feasting on the things of this world or you will come to the Lord's table with a full stomach of trash. You will not desire to feast on Him.

In the Old Testament, the Kings of Israel were required to read and study the Law day and night. King David expressed a love for God's law (See Psalm 119, all of it). In the New Testament, we see Jesus as a child having a great depth of God's law as a child (Luke 2). Furthermore, Paul himself was well versed in the Law and it almost got him killed a couple times by the Jews, Acts 9. Paul tells the Philippians to approve the things that are excellent in Philippians 1 and later to meditate or think on what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely or praiseworthy. In Revelations, John claims to "be in the spirit" when he received the revelations of things to come. 

By reading more of the Bible then any other book, filling my mind with excellent things then the Lord's Supper becomes much more desirable. Likewise, I find my relationship with Christ to be much stronger and prayer, bible study and worship comes easier to me. If we increase the quantity of spiritual things in our lives then we will desire them more. The more of the Bible I read, the more I enjoy it and realize how much I don't know about it. 

The Worship Service vs. Discipleship

In our church* there is a tension/debate about placing priority on the worship service or discipleship. On one side, you have people claiming that if we just bring people to worship on the Sabbath and place them in front of the pastor and they hear the word, then they'll begin to grow in Christ. On the other side, meet with the person weekly, share your applications from your ABC Bible study, check each other's memory verses and talk.

Arguments for which side? 
It's easy to take a side on this debate depending on how the Holy Spirit has worked in your life. In my life, relationships with men who shared their applications and reviewed memory verses with me have helped me grow in Christ more then listening to sermons on Sunday. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who have grown tremendously from hearing sermons week after week. In fact, some claim that the spirit works primarily through the preaching of the word. Perhaps this means I'm a stunted Christian....

So, what should the church emphasize? Discipleship or the worship service? In answering any question, I have always tried to say "both" as much as possible unless a clear contradictions presents itself when you agree with both sides. So, public worship and discipleship are both of equal importance and worthy of equal emphasis in the church. I haven't understood why this is the correct answer, until now.

A Question that Explains why "both" is right
I've been reading Pipa's work "Public Worship, 101" for a class I'm taking on public worship at 2nd RP. He asks this profound question in chapter 2, "where do we anticipate our most profound encounters with God?" It is profound on a couple levels. First, we encounter God on different levels in different contexts. The question asks whether we work to figure out where? Second, in our relationships with people, we know that there are certain things to anticipate. For instance, I anticipate that I need to converse with my coworkers about NCAA basketball so I make sure to know who is in the Final Four. Likewise, we should anticipate what kindles our relationship with God. Third, where does God most profoundly affect us?

Pipa points to the worship service, citing Revelations 5. If you think about it, the most profound experience we will have with God is going to be in heaven, worshipping King Jesus. The worship service is a preparation for that glorious day, and it's no surprise for us to find that our most profound moments will be in the worship service.

Here is where we pause. At this point, one will think that this means the church ought to emphasize the worship service over anything and everything else since its a preparation for the most glorious encounter with God! It's a "well, duh!" thought. But no, there is more.

Why It is Both
I don't know about you, but if I don't know the people around me and how God is working in their lives, it is difficult for me to worship God with them. It's like being around a really good friend with a stranger. You can't focus on getting to know better your good friend as much.

The greatest and closest encounters I have had with God in a worship service are at my home church, 2nd RP where I know my pastor's life, he knows mine, I am meeting with others in that particular body, and we're praying for each other. If I know the people I'm worshipping with better then I'm much more able to have a close encounter with God.

So if worship is to take a priority in the church, it won't fully blossom unless there is discipleship. At the same, time, discipleship can't fully function on its own since the worship service is a bringing together the body of Christ. It doesn't make sense to neglect Worship when throughout the New Testament worship is seen as a very important part of the Christian life.**

*This debate takes place at my church as well as in theRP Church broadly speaking.
**I myself have noticed that when I miss church, I tend to have a tougher week. I'm crabbier, sullen and things just don't go as smoothly. 

Do you Want your Youth to Stay in the Church?

It's a dumb question to ask since any church member with the ability to think would say, yes. We don't want our youth to leave the church. This post is in response to Marc5sola's post about why young people leave the church.  We want young people to stay in the church. If they leave for another city or town, we want them to be rooted in a strong community of believers where the gospel is preached.


I almost left the church. Specifically, I almost left the RP church because of the following reasons: 1. are very few people my age. 4. It's hard to relate with many in the church.

I'm not abnormal either. Large numbers of 20-somethings are and have left the church. It's an epidemic right now. If you want to keep your youth in the church, here is how:

You give them leadership positions, you disciple** them and you be honest. 

Leadership 
I have stayed in the church, specifically in the RP church. Here is why. In high school I was given leadership positions. I was a member of CYPU and so four/five times a year I was organizing, helping lead events in the RP church for the presbytery youth.

Also, I once had breakfast with my pastor, and I asked why we don't have a "youth group" at 2nd RP. His explanation, youth groups pull the youth out of the church and create a second church. He then challenged me to take my desires and use them to benefit the church. He challenged me to serve. As as a result, I started to organize and plan various service projects to help others in the church.

Because I was given leadership and challenged to invest in the church as a leader, it was hard for me to leave church. No one leaves what they've invested in very easily.

Discipleship 
Discipleship is not hard to understand. You meet with a fellow believer on a regular basis, share your applications from Bible study and review memory verses. What's hard is being honest on how you're doing spiritually and keeping up with meeting with your brother on a regular basis.

In high school, I was discipled. My Dad and pastor regularly met with me, sharing their applications and memory verses. I saw their spiritual lives. It gave me an honest picture of how one grows in Christ.

Honesty
During my junior year and senior year of high school, an elder in the church met with me weekly, reading through various books like Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. I got to deal with questions he struggled with and I got to struggle through my own. I was able to start to get an honest picture of the struggles of today's church.

Two Final Comments 
First, This is not a sure-fire way to keep young people in the church. Young people will leave the church. The question is whether they are going to leave with you screaming, crying and fighting as they go. It's important to never quit with young people. They're a strange bunch. When you least expect them to listen, they do. When they act like they've rejected everything, they really haven't.

Second, pray constantly. Just because a child of God has left, it doesn't mean this child lost. The prodigal son returned.  

*Part of the reason I saw worship as "boring" is because I didn't understand in my mind why the things happened in the service that did and I didn't hold in my heart the willingness to humble my desires in light of God's. 
**Discipleship: What Jesus did with the Twelve Disciples, what Paul did with Timothy. 

Van Til "The Defense of the Faith" Chapter 2

This is the second post on Van Til's work "The Defense of the Faith." My analysis of the first chapter is here.

Again, I am reviewing it chapter by chapter as a way of digesting the book. It is not thick, but Van Til is an important thinker in reformed theology. I'm also coming at it from the perspective of a philosopher who wants to be a help to today's reformed theologians. So I won't be making comments on all parts of the book but rather limit what I say to where I think I can help clarify ideas and definitions and correct problems. 


Before we Talk about Reality, the Method

Van Til is doing philosophy from a reformed theological standpoint. That is really important to understand before we get into anything. He is trying to make everything he believes about philosophy to be informed by the Bible. This is his method. In philosophy, your method will determine what you say about ultimate reality, how we know, if we can know, do we know, what is beauty, what is justice, what is goodness and if there is a God. 

God is Reality and the Universe is Reality 

So Van Til responds to that last question by saying yes, God exists. Furthermore, God is reality. He says that we must be careful to make a distinction about the term reality. God, who is reality, is self-sufficient and is distinct from His universe. This distinction is very important since it triggers important stances in ethics, psychology and my favorite epistemology. 

A Side Note 

Van Til says this "Most philosophers have not been Christians." He says this comment in the context of explaining why it is improtant to take theological language and redress it with philosophical terms. This is a small point, but yeah I disagree with this comment. Let's begin with a list of orthodox* Christian philosophers: 

1. Boethius 
2. Augustine 
3. Thomas Aquinas
4. Anselm
5. George Berkeley 
6. Kierkegaard 
7. Melebranche 
8. Pascal 

*Orthodox defined as one who holds beliefs put forth by the historic creeds 

Ok, moving on.

The Problem of the One and Many 
In this chapter, Van Til attempts to work through the problem of the one and the many. He briefly outlines the problem. "The philosophers have sought for a unified outlook on human experience. Philosophers have sought for as comprehensive a picture of the nature of reality as a whole as man is able to attain. But the universe is composed of many things. Man's problem is to find unity in the midst of the plurality of things." I like how Heraclitus put it, when you put your foot in a river and take it out again, is it the same river the second time you put your foot in? 

This problem has plagued humanity since we started trying to categorize things. (Yes, it is why I struggle to keep my room clean. I have one room and many things and don't know how they ought to be unified together.)

Various philosophers have tried putting forwards answers. Some have said there is no unity, just diversity. Heraclitus said everything is in constant flux. Plato argued that somewhere out there there are a set of forms on which all things are based. Kant said we can't know reality in itself, hence don't worry about solving this problem. You can take your pick, and Van Til puts his on the list.

Another Distinction 
Quick to separate himself from the philosophers, Van Til makes a distinction between "the eternal One and Many" and the "temporal one and many." This important since the former is the trinity, residing in complete unity. On the other hand, God is also equally diverse. Neither the Father, Son or Holy Spirit are fundamental. "The Son and the Spirit are ontologically on a par with the Father."

The Temporal One and Many Concrete Universals 
With this distinction between the eternal one and many and the temporal one and many, Van Til focuses on the temporal one and many. The realm of temporal one and many (this world we created beings reside in) has equality among each other. There are no created ideas/facts that are more ontologically basic then others. The reason being, all are equally derived and equally dependent upon God. On the other hand, their relation to each other is one of a hierarchy. Certain laws like man's purpose is "higher" then the mechanical laws of this universe. These different laws are mutually dependent on each other. Though, Van Til doesn't explain how.

Why I Disagree with Van Til 
Honestly, Van Til doesn't solve the problem of the one and the many. I'm still confused on how having a trinity solves it. I think Van Til simply pushes the problem back to a horny dilemma of how can God be one and three? In fact, trying to use the trinity to solve a philosophical problem (the former being of faith and the latter of reason) opens a nasty can of worms for theologians. I admire Van Til for wanting to be theological in his philosophy, but I fail to see how he solves this philosophical problem. Rather, I think he makes it worse for theologians.

Faith and Reason - an Important Distinction to Hold 
Because he has brought a concept that is known by faith into the realm of reason, we now have muddled an important distinction between two forms of knowledge. Knowledge by faith and knowledge by reason. We know the problem of the one and many through reason. We know the existence of the trinity through faith. If you muddle this distinction you start going down the path of the late scholastics and later our friend Descartes. We've been there, let's not go back.

note: I'm not saying I'm against "faith seeking understanding" since understanding is different then reason. 

Why World History can be Overwelming

What do world history teachers teach? Well, they teach all history except U.S. History. That includes: The Maya, The Aztecs, Islamic Empires, The Chinese Dynasties, Russia, North Africa, African Empires, East Africa, Mesopotamia, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, the Reformation and Ancient Egypt. Note, I haven't mentioned topics like the World Wars, Cold War, Age of Revolutions, Age of Exploration, Rome, Greece, the Byzantine Empire, rise of Christendom and rise of Islam. These are also a part of World History. Oh don't forget key figures like Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huangdi, Menelik, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Peter the Great, Elizabeth I, Napoleon, Plato and Aristotle. Those are also a part of world history. Yes, you could spend the rest of your life studying just one of these topics. Furthermore, this just a sampling of what includes world history. World history is an overwhelming topic to teach. 

It's a lot of fun teaching world history because there are so many interesting events, people, places and ideas to explore. On the other hand, it's overwhelming to decide what to cut out. For instance, I never talked about ancient Egypt in my world history class this year. There simply wasn't enough time. What makes this more frustrating is that there is no universal method to figuring out what is "important" history and what is not. 

A great example of this is the responses of historians, writers and movie directors response to the following question "what is the most important day in history?" All their answers were different. The diversity of these responses shows that it's a hard task figuring out what is important in history and what is not. We can't even decide what is the most important.