Reaching & Teaching has a God-sized vision: All of God’s people going into all the world faithfully obeying all of the Great Commission. Please pray about helping us do the will of God for His church in His world for His glory. Reaching & Teaching does not compete, but rather cooperates, it does not criticize, but rather complements. Reaching & Teaching stands on the sovereignty of God and desires nothing more than to glorify Christ, extend His kingdom, and obey the Great Commission, the Great Commandments, and manifest Christ’s Great Compassion. Please pray about joining with us. The time is now. All of us must re-examine our lives to see how we should give and live as He has called us, going or sending, spending and being spent. Please pray for God’s hand of favor and blessing to be on this effort, and to God alone be the glory. Amen.

Read more about them here:

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) developed the “ontological argument” in his famous work Proslogion. The ontological argument is Anselm’s attempt to prove the foolishness of unbelief. This idea is taken from Psalm 14:1 “The fool says in his heart there is no God.” His argument works like this:

It is quite possible to think of something whose nonexistence cannot be thought of. This must be greater than something whose nonexistence can be thought of. So if this thing (than which no greater thing can be thought) can be thought of as not existing, then, that very thing than which a greater thing cannot be thought is not that than which a greater cannot be thought. This is a contradiction. So it is true that there exists something than which nothing greater can be thought, that it cannot be thought of as not existing. And you are this thing, O Lord our God! So truly therefore do you exist, O Lord my God, that you cannot be thought of as not existing, and with good reason; for if a human mind could think of anything greater than you, the creature would rise above the Creator and judge you; which is obviously absurd.

The argument is simple and easy to follow. Each of us is born with innate ideas and one of our innate ideas is the idea of God’s existence. All one has to do to understand that God exists and he is a perfect being is to help them understand what perfection is and recognize that there can only be one perfect being. God is that perfect being. The idea of God is already present, all one has to do is think about God correctly. Anselm developed this argument hoping it would demonstrate “faith seeking understanding.” This argument was not developed in an attempt to prove God’s existence; it was in response to meditation on God’s greatness. Anselm’s conclusions about God are based on his Christian worldview.

Anyone with a similar Judeo-Christian worldview who might be tempted to believe that their belief in God is foolish might be encouraged from reading his argument, but there are several problems with this argument. The first is Anselm assumes everyone believes existence is perfection. According to Bhikkhu Buddhadasa “God as creator is known in Buddhism under the term ‘avijja’. This means the lack of knowledge, ignorance. Ignorance is the power of nature which is the cause of all existing things and as such the cause of suffering.” (Bhikku Buddhadāsa, Christianity and Buddhism (Bangkok: s.n, 1968), 53). Thai Buddhists believe that nonexistence is perfection because existence implies suffering. The Christian worldview presents existence as perfection in Genesis 1:31 when God saw all he had made and declared everything to be “good.”

Another problem with Anselm’s argument is his quick rejection of the first place of special revelation. If we simply attempt to reason our way to God as a first cause, we will be a long way from the triune, loving God revealed to us in Scripture. The only God is the God who is revealed in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit and this cannot be deduced from reason alone.

The most popular classic arguments for God’s existence come from Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas argued for the existence of God from the a posteriori perspective of knowledge. This perspective of knowledge teaches that one proceeds from data available to you to find truth and then work your way back. Anselm argued from a priori, one proceeds to develop an argument proceeding from an idea. Anslem’s argument proceeded from the idea of God. Since Aquinas argued from an a posteriori perspective he considered it proper to begin looking for pointers toward the existence of God in general human experience in the world.

The cosmological argument “considers the fact that every known thing in the universe has a cause. Therefore, it reasons, the universe itself must also have a cause, and the cause of such a great universe can only be God.” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), 143). This argument maintains that God is the Unmoved Mover or First Cause of everything. God is the origin of the great chain of causality which we clearly perceive in the way nature behaves. When we see an effect there is always a cause. All effects can be traced back to a single cause, God. If the chain of causality is broken, then we have an infinite regress.

Another part of his argument for God’s existence is the existence of contingent beings. Aquinas argues that all beings come into existence because another being which already exists brings them into being. No one has seen anything in our universe that is not contingent. Everything we own and interact with did not always exist and could cease to exist in the future. Since everything we know of is contingent, then there must be a being whose existence is necessary and whose nonexistence is impossible. This necessary being would be an eternal being and this eternal being must be God.

The first problem with Aquinas’ arguments for God from the cosmological argument is that his arguments lead to a point where it is reasonable to believe in a creator, but it does not show that the creator is good, intelligent or triune. Clark rightly argues that “The argument taken at its full face-value would prove the existence merely of some cause of some physical motion; one might say that it could prove the existence of some physical cause.” (Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), 36). Aquinas’ unmoved mover more closely resembles the god of Aristotle than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Aristotle’s classic work Metaphysics he demonstrated the existence of a god, but not the Creator God. The god of Aristotle would never lower itself to relate to humans or be involved with nature.

The second problem with the cosmological argument is that it is based on the “law” of causality. No one of us knows that all things are contingent because no one can see and know all things. When I mentioned this argument to my cousin, who is doing PhD. cancer research at University of Louisville he asked, “Why couldn’t there be an infinite regress of natural causes? All of our experience is limited to this natural world, why do we need to have a supernatural explanation?” Greg Bahnsen wrote “The cosmological argument amounts to saying: ‘Each of the many parts within experience has a natural cause; therefore, the whole set of things has a single and supernatural cause.” (Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis (Philipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1998), 618). The cosmological argument moves from the natural cause to a supernatural cause without any ground to make that move. It assumes the supernatural; which is something people in our world no longer assume.

The teleological argument was also used by Aquinas, but it has been popularized by R.C. Sproul, William Lane Craig and others in the creation science movement. The teleological argument is the argument from design in the universe to a Creator God. Telos is the Greek word for end or purpose. The world we see around us has observable purpose which points to an ultimate designer. Kant was one of the greatest skeptics in history and he saw the teleological argument as being the greatest argument for God’s existence. Sproul writes “Kant himself mentions in passing that the two things he could never ignore in this world are the starry skies above and the moral law within.” (R.C. Sproul, Defending Your Faith: An Introduction to Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003), 140-141). The creation science crowd point out the fine tuning elements in the world, such as, the earth is just the right distance away from the sun so that life can exist.

The teleological argument is based on natural theology. Craig writes “The defender of natural theology could plausibly maintain that the inference from creation to creator is so evident at any level of inquiry, from the observations of primitive savage to the investigation of the scientist, that the nontheist is inexcusable in failing to draw this inference.” (William Lane Craig, Five Views on Apologetics, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 39). This natural theology teaches that the apologetic task begins with general revelation and then moves to special revelation because special revelation confirms natural theology. Belief in God is not properly basic. Beliefs about God need supplementation from special revelation because supernatural revelation is required to have knowledge for eternal life. This natural reason within all of us operates apart from special revelation; which acts as a supplement to what we know naturally.

The teleological argument has a long existence in the church and it can be useful in encouraging Christians that their faith is not irrational, but this argument does not deal with the problem of evil or alternative explanations for creation. The alternative explanations for creation are the most difficult to get around. Anthony Flew wrote of a parable about a garden that illustrates the idea of alternative explanations:

Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, ‘It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.’ The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The skeptic doesn’t agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differs from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all. (Anthony Flew, “Theology and Falsification,” Philosophy Now 29 (October/November 2000)).

The existence of old vigorous plants seems to point to belief in a gardener. The alternative explanation put forward by the skeptic points out that there need not be a gardener. The garden could have evolved into what it is over billions of years. The skeptic does not “see” the analogy that the garden must have a gardener. John Frame also helpfully writes “to say that the world looks like something “designed” is to state an analogy between the world and objects designed by human beings.” (John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994), 107). We are not trying to prove that the world was created by man, but we are attempting to prove a world created by God; who is radically different than us. One could argue that aliens or multiple gods produced the world using this argument.

All of the previously mentioned apologetics methods assume the arguments are beginning with neutral criteria, a starting place everyone can agree on. Everything we believe about the world, our worldview is dependent on criteria that are certainly not neutral. The naturalist’s worldview is based on the idea that nature is everything, it is all that has ever been. There is no neutral point of negotiation between a naturalist and a Christian. Everyone is committed to their worldview and we need to compare worldviews to see which one makes more sense of reality.

Belief in God is properly basic; it is not based on reason or evidence. Everyone’s worldview is based on certain presuppositions or ultimate criteria for determining what is true. The unbeliever’s presuppositions about ultimate criteria have been distorted by the fall. Paul teaches in Romans 1:18-32 that whether the unbeliever admits it or not, he knows God from nature and his own conscience. The unbeliever, when left to his own desires, distorts the truth of general revelation. This is not saying that the unbeliever cannot come to a limited understanding of the truth about the world. But, this is saying that when the unbeliever does come to a limited understanding of truth about him and the world he lives in it is based on truth taken from the Christian worldview. Unbelievers can possess real knowledge, but their worldview does not provide the grounding for their knowledge. They ultimately cannot account for what the know. Non-Christian worldviews are not consistent and we need to point out the inconsistencies in this worldview. Pointing out the inconsistencies of the worldview held by the unbeliever allows the believer to share the truths found in Scripture and how this is the only truth that can make sense out of the world we live in.

The truth found in Scripture, the gospel given through special revelation, enables us to interpret general revelation rightly. John Calvin clearly writes “For as eyes either dim through age or dull through any disease see nothing distinctly without the assistance of spectacles so in our inquiries after God such is our imbecility without the guidance of the Scripture we immediately lose our way.” (John Calvin, The Institutes of Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath School Work, 1921), 151). Reformed theologians have held a more pessimistic view about the knowledge about God of unbeliever’s than Aquinas’ because of the radical distortion of reality caused by the fall. The unbeliever needs more than a supplement added to their knowledge; they need regeneration. Regeneration will radically reorient their thinking about the world. It is only by the power of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that a person can “be renewed in the spirit of your mind” (Ephesians 4:23). The hope for unbelievers to come to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ is not through appealing to philosophy and nature, but through appealing to the special revelation found in Scripture.

“Given the relatively strong religious character of much of the U.S. population, and an ever more crowded online market, the schools that that are faith-based in some strong sense” have an advantage over others, the majority of whom have built “more generic programs that don’t have any strong affiliation with a demographic group or belief system,” says Richard Garrett, an online learning analyst for the consulting group Eduventures.

Most Americans are religious, not secular and the Evangelical community is very organized. When universities such as Liberty began to offer online courses they saw their numbers boom. They have recently grown to the enormous number of 45,000 students. That number would make any secular, public university envious. Evangelical Christian schools are not being left out of the larger conversation in academic life. Instead of sending their children off to a secular university where they may have to live in coed dorms and such, many parents are encouraging their children to study online, at home. According to USA Today the Christian schools are:

Weaving a Christian perspective into the fabric of course design is not unique to Regent, nor is it limited to religious studies courses. While some students attend faith-based institutions to study religious philosophy, many are studying the same subjects as their peers at nonreligious institutions (degrees in business, marketing, and health care are among the most popular at a number of Christian institutions, as elsewhere). But the point of a Christian college education is not to pray before and after class while doing everything else the same, Campo says; it is to make Christian identity part of the way subjects are taught.

This important in a day when many business leaders are leading their firms in questionable directions ethically. If tomorrow’s leaders have a firm footing in what they believe and why it matters in daily life, we will be more likely to avoid catastrophes like the oil spill in the gulf and the Enron scandal.

Read the entire article here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-06-14-IHE-Christian-colleges-online14_ST_N.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29

The strengths of C4 communities are their continued use of cultural and Islamic forms, rituals and ceremonies. They also maintain integrity by not referring to themselves as Muslims. The Muslim prayer forms are more biblical than our western prayer forms, after the content of their prayers are changed. C4 is an insider movement that does not advocate coming out of the culture but they do advocate being clear about the message and religious identity. The limitations of C4 include the possibility of confusion about religious identity and the higher possibility of syncretism once one moves from C3 to C4. Religious identity has both strengths and limitations. When a new believer does not refer to himself as a Christian, but calls himself something else. This can cause confusion. In some contexts the name Christian has been so badly damaged it is better to use something else, but people could think you are part of a cult. Syncretism is a greater risk with this model because there could be confusion about form and meaning. Even after teaching a new believer could think he is earning merit by saying prayers and fasting. It is only through continual teaching and dialogue that one can be sure there is understanding.

The rub between different evangelical church planters lies between C4 and C5. C5 churches are what some missiologists call “messianic Muslims” who have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. When a Muslim joins a C5 community he does not leave behind his identity as a Muslim. Many Muslims will see C5 believers as Muslims with bad theology. Some practitioners even plant what they call “messianic mosques.” This is only possible when an entire village accepts Christ.

The strengths of the C5 method is the appreciation of local culture and the continued fellowship with other believers. C5 practitioners desire to give Muslims a culturally appropriate opportunity to hear and understand the gospel so they can repent and believe. They want to produce as little cultural noise as possible. Another strength is that the believing communities congregate regularly and attempt to evangelize their neighbors. The weaknesses include leaving the group open to charges of deceit and the increased possibility of syncretism. People practicing C5 church planting refer to themselves as Muslims, which is not honest. They are practicing syncretism every time they join the prayer line at the mosque and affirm that Muhammad is a prophet. A prophet is one who speaks the word of God and Muhammad did not speak the word of God, therefore he is not a prophet.

C6 consists of small Christ-centered communities of underground believers. These believers are living under heavy persecution in their Muslim majority contexts. C6 believers worship in private and are silent about their faith. They become Christians through dreams or visions and follow up through reading the Bible in private or listening to Christian radio or internet messages. C6 believers are viewed as Muslims by their friends and neighbors. They also identify themselves as Muslims.

The strengths are that there are people coming to Christ under heavy persecution and they sometimes share their faith in spite of threat of persecution. Living as a believer in a country like Saudi Arabia would be next to impossible. I pray that believers in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim lands would become bolder and gather together for community worship and pray for openness in their countries. The limitations include the inability to openly share one’s faith without facing martyrdom and that they cannot usually gather together with other believers for fellowship. These groups are not starting other churches, so they are not usually discussed in evangelical circles.

Before we look at which category is more missiologically sound and biblical we need to think about contextualization. Contextualization is about proclaiming the mystery of Christ clearly. Paul asked the Colossians to pray that he would be able to do this because that is how he ought to speak (Colossians 4:3-4). When sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ we do not want people to stumble over culture, but we want them to hear the gospel clearly with as little static from our culture as possible. If someone stumbles, we want them to stumble over the cross, not our culture. When Muslims see some of our western Christian traditions such as the symbol of the cross, eating pork, wedding traditions, birth ceremonies, infrequency of fasting, pictures of Jesus and other things like this they are offended and do not want anything to do with us or our message.

This is where we must conduct critical contextualization. Critical contextualization is when a missionary exegetes the culture, exegetes the Scripture, provides a critical response and then the congregation adopts new contextualized Christian practices. It is only after one understands the culture, exegetes what the Scripture teaches about the ritual or practice that the missionary can help the people develop a critical response that is biblically responsible. With this tool one is more likely to avoid syncretism.

As I wrote earlier, the rub between evangelicals occurs between the C4 and C5 levels of contextualization. Most churches planted in the Muslim world today are somewhere between these two levels. The C4 category of contextualized church planting is the official “extent of indigenization acceptable for IMB personnel.” The IMB’s board of trustees believes the C5 level of contextualized church planting crosses over the edge from contextualization into syncretism. I agree with them and I will list out the reasons why I agree with them.

As new missionaries enter Muslim lands and begin to exegete the culture they will notice that there are more than a few western cultural practices that are offensive to Muslims. Both C4 and C5 levels of contextualization avoid social stigmas. C5 believers will continue to call themselves Muslims after conversion. When the majority of Muslims hear a person say they are a Muslim they will think the person believes the Shahada, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” A prophet speaks the words of God; Muhammad did not speak the words of God. A Christian cannot affirm the Shahada or call himself a Muslim in good conscience.

Some C5 practitioners would advocate the removal of “Son of God” from the Bible. The Summer Institute of Linguistics has said that there is misunderstanding when a Muslim reads the phrase “Son of God” so it should be translated differently. Most people do not fully understand what it means to affirm that Jesus is the “Son of God,” but it’s in the Bible. There are many things in the Bible that do not make sense to someone who is new to the Scriptures. This is why the church must always have good teachers. One must be ready to teach, just as Philip taught the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. Philip asked the Ethiopian, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” We all need to be taught the revelation of Scripture and we all need to be prepared to teach.

C4 affirms that the believer may remain in their own culture and within their own environment. A new believer from Saudi Arabia does not have to cease being a Saudi. When a Saudi becomes a Christian he becomes a Saudi Christian. There are worship forms, such as the Muslim style of prayer and chanting that would not normally be seen in a Western church. But, these different forms would be appropriate for a Saudi church plant. The church will grow and believers in Muslim lands will be able to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ if we remove the Western trappings of the church and contextualize some of the cultural aspects of the church.

With C4 we affirm the goodness of culture without affirming the wrong religious beliefs. It is only by constantly turning back to the Scriptures and consulting the local believers about practices that one can avoid syncretism. By using Muslim religious vocabulary, allowing new believers to retain their Muslim names, and allowing converts to keep some Biblical worship forms we may be able to proclaim the mystery of Christ more clearly. I pray that Christ’s name will be made great through effective C4 church plants all across the Muslim world.

The C1 church is usually part of the ancient church that predates Islam. Thousands of C1 churches exist in the Muslim world today. The Orthodox churches that predate Islam usually exist in tight knit communities that do not try to evangelize their Muslim neighbors. Some other C1 churches are Protestant churches exist for expats who live and work in Muslim lands. These churches reflect western culture and use outsider language.

The strengths of the C1 churches include the ability of the ancient churches to withstand centuries of Muslim domination and some of the churches do evangelize their Muslim neighbors. This community refers to themselves as Christians and they are recognized by the community as Christians. The limitations of this model includes the huge difference between the culture of the Christian and the Muslim communities. They are almost unable to communicate with one another. The Muslim community would probably stumble over the culture before they had a chance to hear the gospel. Another limitation is language. This community uses local Christian language that would be unintelligible to the average outsider.

The C2 church is a traditional church that uses insider language. It is essentially the same as the C1 model, but C2 churches use some language that is recognizable to the predominant Muslim culture. The people in these churches still retain a lot of Christian vocabulary and the cultural gap between them and their Muslim neighbors is still quite large. But, there are many more Muslim background believers found in C2 churches than in C1. Most churches in the Muslim world are C1 or C2 churches.

The strengths of the C2 churches include their use of insider language and they cannot be accused of deception. People using this model of church planting can present the gospel in a way that is more understandable to the local Muslim population. They refer to themselves as Christians, so they cannot be accused of trying to deceive Muslims. The limitations of this model include continued use of some local Christian language and the use of foreign forms of worship. Muslims would probably not have an opportunity to hear the gospel in this type of church because it would not be understood easily and they would be offended by the culture instead of the gospel.

The C3 type of Christ centered community uses insider language and religiously neutral local cultural forms in worship. Local arts, culture, language, music, dress are all reflected in the worship and ecclesiology of the church. They often meet in church buildings or religiously neutral areas and call themselves Christians. These congregations mainly consist of Muslim background believers.

The strengths of C3 churches are their appreciation of local culture and use of insider language. Local Muslims would be able to understand the gospel preached at this kind of congregation and would not feel like this is a foreign church. The limitations of this model would be the believers calling themselves Christians and the use of church buildings. In many Muslim contexts the people think of Christians as pig eating crusaders. It is better to use a different term like “follower of Isa the Messiah.” Church buildings might also lead to problems with persecution. Everyone would know when and where the Christians meet. This might give local extremists an opportunity to persecute the local church. Persecution is not something to be avoided at all costs, but we must be wise and know when we should maintain our witness and when we should die as martyrs.

The Prosperity Gospel from The Global Conversation on Vimeo.

]]> http://www.kirkseyboy.com/?feed=rss2&p=583