However, a couple things I would respectfully disagree with.
The "out of context" reference to the Starbucks CEO is being enormously generous to him. While he does make no reference to customers, it's pretty clear that he indicates Starbucks is willing to accept financial consequences in it's fight for gay marriage. You really have to not want to hear that, not to hear it.
With that said, until this came out, I was a Starbucks (very) regular customer. I've gone cold turkey because Starbucks has gone out of its way to endorse gay marriage. It didn't have to enter this arena, it did so most willingly. I hope that all Christians can join me in not giving them more money to funnel to this "cause".
The second point is simply one of emphasis and clarity. While you are correct that many (most) simply won't accept our argument that homosexuality is wrong "because the Bible says so", ultimately that SHOULD be our source for our belief that it is wrong.
The second point is simply one of emphasis and clarity. While you are correct that many (most) non-Christians simply won't accept our argument that homosexuality is wrong "because the Bible says so", ultimately that SHOULD be the source for our belief that it is wrong.
When a Christian goes into a debate with a secular humanist, the secular humanist does not voluntarily set aside the his best arguments - his best rhetorical weapons. He comes out all guns blazing.
You are correct that Christians can give good arguments about the simple unnatural state that homosexuality presents. But if you use "reason" alone - but remove it's foundations - you will find yourself even more hopelessly lost. For example, if you argue against homosexual marriage with: Procreation is impossible - you will be asked if an older couple (opposite sex) should be allowed to be married by that definition. Tradition - you will be pointed to several "traditions" that have been set aside because they were deemed bad by later generations. Bad for the children - while you will be on firm ground here, you will be pointed to a handful of successful people (by the world's standard) that were either raised by single mothers or in same sex households.
A thought on your comment, "But if you use 'reason' alone - but remove its foundations - you will find yourself even more hopelessly lost."
The question always in these conversations about presuppositional apologetics is about the distinction between ontology (that which IS) and epistemology (how we KNOW that which is). The ontological foundation of reason is in the nature of God. The epistemological foundation of our understanding of anything MUST include reason.
Understanding and acknowledging this distinction is absolutely critical when thinking about the issue of how we as Christians need to approach our loved ones who are not Christians. I like what you said about witnessing with unbelievers may need to include extra-biblical apologetics. Let's all just remember that "extra" biblical does not mean "non" biblical.
I firmly believe that classical apologists is not only the most loving way to approach unbelievers but it is the only system which is rooted in reality which we all live.
On this topic, or 10,000 other social/moral debates, if one side of the debate doesn't even believe that there is an ultimate "wrong" or "right", you can argue until you are blue in the face, you will not be able to convince them of your point.
How could you? If there is not even a basic agreement about fundamental "right and wrong", or if it even exists, or if it "evolves" over time - how can you ever come to an agreement about the particulars?
No, I think it IS better to quote the Bible - to site your source. If they respond that they don't believe believe in the Bible, then a witnessing opportunity has presented itself, and, if led, it becomes time share Christ with them. And that, in-and-of itself may include extra-Biblical apologetics which provide a pathway to the Bible, and hopefully conversion.
But, once one is a believer, the Bible is the source for morality. We can build our reason on top of that - but reason only builds on the Bible, it never substitutes for it.
And that is why it is wrong to put your Bible in a drawer when you begin discussing topics such as gay marriage, abortion, working on the Sabbath, whatever the topic.
Thank you very much for your comments. I have some thoughts I'd like share, but just so everyone can see the conversation and join in if they'd like, would you mind reposting your comments in the "Are We Living in Bizarro World" post? I think you accidentally commented on the "Test Post." Thanks!! - Adam
Thanks for this post. Overall, I agree.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a couple things I would respectfully disagree with.
The "out of context" reference to the Starbucks CEO is being enormously generous to him. While he does make no reference to customers, it's pretty clear that he indicates Starbucks is willing to accept financial consequences in it's fight for gay marriage. You really have to not want to hear that, not to hear it.
With that said, until this came out, I was a Starbucks (very) regular customer. I've gone cold turkey because Starbucks has gone out of its way to endorse gay marriage. It didn't have to enter this arena, it did so most willingly. I hope that all Christians can join me in not giving them more money to funnel to this "cause".
The second point is simply one of emphasis and clarity. While you are correct that many (most) simply won't accept our argument that homosexuality is wrong "because the Bible says so", ultimately that SHOULD be our source for our belief that it is wrong.
The second point is simply one of emphasis and clarity. While you are correct that many (most) non-Christians simply won't accept our argument that homosexuality is wrong "because the Bible says so", ultimately that SHOULD be the source for our belief that it is wrong.
ReplyDelete(Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5,1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Romans 1:26-27)
When a Christian goes into a debate with a secular humanist, the secular humanist does not voluntarily set aside the his best arguments - his best rhetorical weapons. He comes out all guns blazing.
You are correct that Christians can give good arguments about the simple unnatural state that homosexuality presents. But if you use "reason" alone - but remove it's foundations - you will find yourself even more hopelessly lost. For example, if you argue against homosexual marriage with:
Procreation is impossible - you will be asked if an older couple (opposite sex) should be allowed to be married by that definition.
Tradition - you will be pointed to several "traditions" that have been set aside because they were deemed bad by later generations.
Bad for the children - while you will be on firm ground here, you will be pointed to a handful of successful people (by the world's standard) that were either raised by single mothers or in same sex households.
A thought on your comment, "But if you use 'reason' alone - but remove its foundations - you will find yourself even more hopelessly lost."
DeleteThe question always in these conversations about presuppositional apologetics is about the distinction between ontology (that which IS) and epistemology (how we KNOW that which is). The ontological foundation of reason is in the nature of God. The epistemological foundation of our understanding of anything MUST include reason.
Understanding and acknowledging this distinction is absolutely critical when thinking about the issue of how we as Christians need to approach our loved ones who are not Christians. I like what you said about witnessing with unbelievers may need to include extra-biblical apologetics. Let's all just remember that "extra" biblical does not mean "non" biblical.
I firmly believe that classical apologists is not only the most loving way to approach unbelievers but it is the only system which is rooted in reality which we all live.
The point is this...
ReplyDeleteOn this topic, or 10,000 other social/moral debates, if one side of the debate doesn't even believe that there is an ultimate "wrong" or "right", you can argue until you are blue in the face, you will not be able to convince them of your point.
How could you? If there is not even a basic agreement about fundamental "right and wrong", or if it even exists, or if it "evolves" over time - how can you ever come to an agreement about the particulars?
No, I think it IS better to quote the Bible - to site your source. If they respond that they don't believe believe in the Bible, then a witnessing opportunity has presented itself, and, if led, it becomes time share Christ with them. And that, in-and-of itself may include extra-Biblical apologetics which provide a pathway to the Bible, and hopefully conversion.
But, once one is a believer, the Bible is the source for morality. We can build our reason on top of that - but reason only builds on the Bible, it never substitutes for it.
And that is why it is wrong to put your Bible in a drawer when you begin discussing topics such as gay marriage, abortion, working on the Sabbath, whatever the topic.
Thank you very much for your comments. I have some thoughts I'd like share, but just so everyone can see the conversation and join in if they'd like, would you mind reposting your comments in the "Are We Living in Bizarro World" post? I think you accidentally commented on the "Test Post." Thanks!! - Adam
ReplyDelete