A Practical Guide to Culture By Brett Kunkle and John Stonestreet: A Review

Authors

John Stonestreet is a President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and co-author (with William E. Brown and W. Gary Phillips) of Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview. He holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Bryan College. He is also the cohost of Breakpoint with Eric Metaxas.

Brett Kunkle is the Student Impact Director for Stand to Reason. Brett received his bachelor’s degree in Christian education from Biola University. He has his master’s degree in philosophy of religion and ethics at Talbot School of Theology. Brett was a contributor to the Apologetics Study Bible for Students, has a chapter on truth in Apologetics for a New Generation, and wrote the Ambassador’s Guide to Mormonism.

 

Synopsis

A Practical Guide to Culture is written to help Christians, especially Christian parents, navigate a culture that is growing in its hostility to the Christian worldview. The book is organized into four parts. Part one lays out what culture is and why it is important to understand it. Part two explains how the current culture effects how we see ourselves, through the lenses of technology, identity, relationships and maturity. Part three deals with contemporary sexuality, and can serve as a reference guide. Part four wraps up dealing with the grounding of our Christian worldview.

 

Analysis

Kunkle and Stonestreet offer valuable insights into today’s culture and how to address it as Christians who are called to be “in the world but not of it.” The book is written in a very readable style, with a conversational tone that is accessible to high schoolers and those with advanced degrees alike. If you have children at home, if you hope to have children one day, or if you have any influence on children (or even adults) this book is a must-read.

 

 

 

 

 

The Shack: The Good, the Bad, and the Moinks

The Shack, by William Paul Young has sold more than 20 million copies worldwide since its publication in 2007. It has now been made into a major motion picture. Having heard and read many fine reviews of each, I thought I would see the movie for myself and get a sense of it.

Synopsis

The story surrounds the life of a man named MacKenzie Philips, (not toe be confused with the actress by the same name) who grows up with an abusive father who is an elder in his church. He later marries and has three kids. His youngest, his baby, is kidnapped and murdered. In the midst of his grief he meets God. After spending a weekend with the three Persons, he finally comes to some closure on the death of his daughter, as well as the abusive father. He returns home where he begins helping his family heal.

The Good

The way the Problem of Evil is addressed is well done, pointing out that the creation of free creatures entails the possibility for evil and suffering. Moreover, Mac is forced to admit that when he is the judge he cannot pass his own standards. Additionally, he is presented with a situation in which he must choose for one of his children to be saved and another to be damned. His response is to offer himself, and in so doing he comes to better understand the heart of God for the lost.

The love of God is portrayed in a moving way that can inspire the viewer to love God more. (More on this in the Moinks) The whole story is powerful in its emotional appeal. It is so easy to identify with Mac, to feel his pain, and to celebrate the resolution in the lives of sympathetic characters. Who doesn’t love a story where brokenness is healed and reconciliation is attained. I sure do. I won’t say too much about my own emotional reactions lest I be required to surrender my man card.

The Bad

While I understand that the book on which the movie is based is a novel, make no mistake, the author intends to persuade with the book and the movie. In fact, he has since published a nonfiction book, Lies We Believe About God. Unfortunately, what Young wants to persuade you of is that God does not judge, is not in control, and that hell does not exist, that Jesus’ death on the cross had nothing to do with sin. In fact, sin is not even a thing on Young’s view. Young would also have us believe that all are going to be reconciled to God. No need for faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.  (While some have objected to portraying God as a woman, I don’t think that is such a big deal, especially considering the more serious problems.)

The Moinks

“Okay, wait a minute. What’s a moink?” I’m glad you asked. A moink is a bacon-wrapped meatball coated with a glaze. (Ok, I just had to stop typing to clean the drool off the keyboard.) What have moinks got to do with The Shack? Another great question. In the movie, Mac puts strychnine poison in his father’s booze. (The implication is that he killed him, but that wasn’t 100% clear to me unless I missed an important scene.) The point is that Mac at least tried to poison his father by mixing a toxic substance with something his father liked. Likewise, the dangerously bad theology (any theology that suggests that you have no need to be reconciled to God is dangerously bad) wrapped in such a wonderful story is like putting strychnine in moinks. You would die smiling, but you would die.

Really, the danger of The Shack is an illustration of the danger of taking any form of entertainment in uncritically. We must always think through what we consume with our minds fully engaged. The risk of well-made movies is that the viewer is invited to lose herself in the story. When you do that, ideas are presented in a way that can bypass your reasoning faculties, appealing to your emotions in a powerful way. Emotions are wonderful servants, but terrible masters. If you read the book or watch the movie, do NOT turn your mind off. Remember, we are to love God with all our minds.

 

Making Sense of God by Timothy Keller: a Review

Author 
 Tim Keller is the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. He is the author of several books, including The Reason for God. Making Sense of God is a prequel to The Reason for God.
Synopsis 

 The central premise of the book is that no one comes to their core beliefs by reason alone, or by emotion alone. Rather reason, emotions, experiences and intuitions have a role in forming our world views, regardless of which worldview we adopt.

 The book is divided into three parts. In part one, Keller argues that the rumors of the dearth of religion have been greatly exaggerated, and that the idea that religion deals with faith while secularism deals with facts is a non-fact that many have taken on faith. In part two, Keller shows how religion best serves the human need for meaning, freedom, identity and morality. In part three, Keller offers a rational case for the truth of the Christian religion.
Analysis 

 Keller is a rare combination of careful scholarship combined with pastoral compassion, and in this book, he exemplifies these qualities. He goes to great lengths to cite works by people who do no share his worldview, but recognize the truth of what he has to say on particular subjects. Keller shows no interest in building straw men, or simply echoing scholars with whom he agrees. Making Sense of God gently but firmly challenges the skeptic to reconsider the premises on which he has built his worldview. Moreover, the believer can benefit from this book not only as a resource for sharing her faith, but even thinking more carefully about it. Therefore, it is a book well suited for the skeptic and the believer alike. It is written for an educated reader, but a bright high schooler could manage it.

Podcasts You Should Know Part 5

Next up in this series is one of our “friends across the pond,” Justin Brierley, with his weekly radio show/ podcast Unbelievable?Unbelievable? Airs every Saturday in the U.K. and is then released as a podcast. Each week, Brierly brings together a Christian and a skeptic to have a dialogue on matters of faith. Sometimes the dialogue is among Christians discussing an area of disagreement in theology. What really stands out in these discussion is the level of civility that is (usually) maintained throughout the conversation. While Brierley makes no secret about where he stands, he is consistently recognized by listeners and guests as a very even-handed moderator of the discussions.

In addition to the show, Brierley has a blog, and serves as the senior editor of Premier Christianity magazine. Be sure to check this podcast out.

Says Who?

I was recently told that a militant atheist tweeted something to the effect of, “I believe humans are inherently good, and therefore do not need a God to save them.” It would be easy to get sucked into an argument about whether or not this assessment is accurate, but that would miss a greater irony. What does the atheist mean by “good?”

Let me tell you about myself. I am two legs tall, and weigh 100 water bottles. Does that tell you anything (other than that I have a strange way naming units of length and weight?) Can you tell exactly how tall I am or how much I weigh? One person would see me as five feet tall and another as five feet, eight inches. Which is right? One would see me as weighing 81 pounds, another as 211 pounds. Which is correct? Why is there disagreement? The one, who sees me as five feet tall, has a 30-inch leg. The one, who sees me as weighing 211 pounds, drinks from one-liter water bottles. You can see where I’m going with this. At this point you might ask, “Why don’t you just use standard measures like feet, inches, and pounds? Or, use meters and liters?” I suppose I could use these standard units, but why are they standard? Because a competent authority declared them to be so. If you are really dying to know some history of this, you can look here.

What does all this have to do with the tweet in question? The claim was that humans were “inherently good.” What does the atheist mean by “good?” As an atheist, he has rejected any competent authority who could give us a standard of goodness that is independent of our opinions. If God does not exist, then “good,” in the sense relevant to whether or not one needs a God to save them, does not exist. If “good” means “well suited for its intended purpose,” and there is no intended purpose for humans to exist, then good, in that sense, does not exist. If this is the case, good can only mean, “I like it,” or “We like it.” However, who says humans are inherently likeable? I think we all know some who are not. (If we are brutally honest, we can all think of times when we were not.) What if one person likes a group of people and another does not? Who’s to say who is right? On what basis? As Ravi Zacharias has said, “…in some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?”

Some, like Sam Harris, argue that morals and values refer to “the well-being of conscious creatures.” Again, however, I must ask, “Says who?” Why should the well-being of conscious creatures outweigh the well-being of creatures that have no consciousness? What about when the well-being of one (or one group of) conscious creature(s) is in conflict with that of another? Who decides?

Let’s go back to the claim. If we use Harris’ definitions, it would seem the claim is that humans inherently tend to consider the well-being of other conscious creatures. However, look around you. Look at the headlines on any given day. Racial tensions, terrorism, oppression all lead the 24-hour news cycle. Even by the atheist’s own definition (assuming he accepts the one above) it is clear that humans are anything but inherently good, and therefore without the need for a savior. However, for the atheist to claim anything is good in an objective way (independent of his own opinion) is a category error. It would be like me saying music does not exist because I have never tasted it.

Mitch Stokes would agree with many atheists in that “all value— and moral value in particular— is subjective in that all value depends on a valuer, a valuing subject. All morality is ultimately personal.”  However, if the “valuer” is merely a human being, we are right back to the original problem. However, if God exists, and he created humans for his purposes, we are valuable because he values us. Good, then, is grounded in what God values because he is the very embodiment of good. God is the competent authority from whom we can get a standard unit of goodness.

If theism is true, we can evaluate humanity in a meaningful way. What we see tells us human beings are deeply flawed and in need of help. Christian theism in particular makes sense of this, showing us that we are made in the image of God (which is why we are often capable of good behavior) but are deeply broken. Christianity offers the only remedy for this in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who made a way for us to be reconciled to God.

If the atheist’s tweet is true, atheism is false. If the tweet is false, atheism is still false, since both require a non-human valuer. If atheism is true, the tweet is meaningless.

 

 

How Not to Look Stupid on Social Media

“Can you believe that church has a waterslide baptismal?

“The NFL is going to ban the National Anthem before football games!”

“Copy and paste the following if you don’t want your pictures and posts used for advertising…”

“Like this post and Facebook will donate money to…”

“The atheist professor dared God to stop a piece of chalk from breaking…”

Einstein humiliated an atheist professor…”

 

 

Many Christians see things on the internet that either enrage or excite them. They then often post or share them on social media. Unfortunately, they rarely fact-check the stories they share or react to. The result is that Christians look naïve, reactionary, and foolish.

I like a rule I learned from Greg Koukl: “Never read a Bible verse.” In other words, never read a verse in isolation. However, I think one verse, though out of context, contains a principle that it would be wise to apply more generally: “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.” The first item above is actually referring to a story posted on a satire website, the Babylon Bee. The folks at the Babylon Bee post hilarious parodies of the Christian subculture. But they are writing satire, not news. It is important that when you see a story that gets you riled up, check the source. If you follow a link to a website and you are not sure, look for a link that says “about” or something like that. At the bottom of every page on the Babylon Bee, you can see “The Babylon Bee is Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire.” A list of satire sites from around the world can be found here.

As for the rest of the items above, a simple look at websites like snopes.com. or factcheck.org will save you from looking stupid when you share the latest internet myth.

 

As Christians, we are called to be salt and light. We are to display the “peaceful fruit of righteousness” (Hebrews 12:11) not to look like religious nuts.

 

.

Podcasts You Should Know Part 3

One of my favorite podcasts for its entertainment value (that also has all the substantive things I like in a podcast) is the Phil Vischer Podcast. If you grew up (or raised children) in the 90’s, you’re probably familiar with Vischer’s work from watching Veggie Tales. In his podcast, Vischer is joined by Christian Taylor and Skye Jethani in a panel discussion format. The issues they deal with could be categorized as cultural apologetics.

Some of the comments, particularly from Jethani, but Vischer as well, can seem provocative on the face of it. However, if you carefully consider what they have to say, even if you don’t agree with them completely, they often have a point. They are not shy about calling out the “crazy uncles” of American Christianity.

As long as we’re talking about Vischer’s work, another project worth noting (free plug here) is “What’s In the Bible,” *DING!* a DVD series which presents a survey of the entire Bible using puppetry. Vischer does all the puppetry and all the voices for the characters. It is not a dumbed-down, cutesy Sunday School curriculum.  It has great information from which adults can benefit, and it is entertaining for kids and grown-ups. (If you listen to the podcast, you will get the “DING” reference.)

The podcast is free, but if you like the work Vischer does, then you can support him here.