New Gospel Presentation: Four Circles

Christianity Today is featuring the story of James Choung, an MIT grad that works with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, who has come up with a different way to share the Gospel. Now, don't throw it out just because it's new. The Four Spiritual Laws were new once, you know? I don't get the impression that Choung is trying to change the Gospel, just the way the message is presented.

As I'm drawing the four circles, I'll tell a story like this: The world, our relationships, and each of us were designed for good, but all of it was damaged by evil because of our self-centeredness and inclination to seek our own good above others'. But God loved the world too much to leave it that way, so he came as Jesus. He took everything evil with him to death on the cross, and through his resurrection, all of it was restored for better. In the end of time, all will be fully restored, but until then, the followers of Jesus are sent together to heal people, relationships, and the systems of the world.

Choung's presentation, called "The Big Story," is designed to tell the Gospel story to Generation Y, a group that IMHO, Christianity has had a very difficult time understanding, let alone reaching (the business industry appears to be having the same problems)... but that is a different issue.

The main focus of the presentation is fixing the world. Choung says: "The overriding spiritual question today is: What is good? What will really help the planet be a better place? And our faith better have an answer for it to be relevant today." Choung's response to the world's problems is the Kingdom of God. This theme is the focus of the presentation, turning away from traditional methods seeking a decision, and seeking "transformation," as Choung calls it.

When watching the video of the presentation (see below), I was instantly concerned with the lack of Scriptural support and the familiar twinge of "felt needs" evangelism, seeking to bend the Gospel to fix whatever needs a person has (for instance, presenting the Gospel to the alcoholic as a way to break addiction); it seems man-centered, but in a new way.

'No, you can't do this without Jesus. We need Jesus to help us become the kind of good we want to see in the world. Only he can fully help us put to death our self-centered ways so that we can truly live. So if you really want to be a part of healing the world in a way that lasts, you have to go through Jesus.'

It is although Choung is saying, "You don't like the world, then change it! But you need to have Jesus before you can do it," as though Jesus is merely a means to an end. This looks like a sad Gospel presentation indeed.

However, I don't think that is Choung's intent. Choung seems to be searching for a way to explain Christianity, and even to raise questions in the mind of the lost, but, as stated before, without seeking a "decision" for Christ. This may not be a true Gospel presentation, but rather, a simple an overview of Christ's mission. There's nothing about praying a prayer, and there isn't much information about how to "receive" Christ. This is just a starting point for a conversation about the Gospel. In the article, he mentions that "Icons and stained glass windows helped preliterate Christians understand biblical stories and themes." This alludes to the purpose behind his Four Circles.

If I am understanding Choung's purpose, then this would be a great conversation-starter. I think that it would appeal to Millenials. It has a positive, inviting tenor, all while maintaining that Jesus is the only way to God-- a very difficult thing to pull off in our relativistic culture. Additionally, this presentation seems well-suited for explaining Christ's mission to a person totally unfamiliar with Christianity, as is the case as America moves further into its Post-Christian days.

I commend Choung for his effort to put the Gospel into the language of a new generation. This something that desperately needs to be done. Reading his interview and his blog, his desire to share the story of Christ is both fervent and admirable. However, he needs to be more explicit about the use of this diagram. Is it a converstion starter, or is it intended to be a Gospel presentation? If used inappropriately, this could lead to another generation misled about the purpose of God in this world.

What are your thoughts? Check out the article and this video, and let me know what you think:

You may also want to watch Part 2.

High IQ Equals Atheism?

In a forthcoming paper for the journal Intelligence, Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, will argue that there is a strong correlation between high IQ and lack of religious belief and that average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 countries.

The paper...cites studies including a 1990s survey that found that only 7 per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God. A survey of fellows of the Royal Society found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God at a time when a poll reported that 68.5 per cent of the general UK population were believers.

Professor Lynn told Times Higher Education: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."Times Higher Education

This may seem threatening enough, but do you see the flaws in Lynn's argument already?

Andy Wells, senior lecturer in psychology at the London School of Economics, said the existence of a correlation between IQ and religiosity did not mean there was a causal relationship between the two.

So, what is a "casual relationship"? It means that just because both numbers seem to match, there is nothing that proves that higher intelligence causes lack of faith. Here is a diagram that illustrates another seeming correlation but no causal relationship (click for larger):

This is disappointing scholarship. I'm shocked that a person could get any press or even an audience to present this kind of work. I don't think I could get away with it in my current Master's program. Lynn is jumping to conclusions based on simple data without any investigation as to the cause of these trends.

Of course, this totally ignores the poor logic that Lynn uses, see the third quoted paragraph above. He equates an "academic" with "higher intelligence."

At this point, Lynn's conclusions are simple conjecture. He would need to do some significant studies to find some correlation between "higher IQ" and agnosticism/atheism.

Friday Video: Evangelism Linebacker

This is a little old, but I still laugh so hard I cry when I watch it.

Colson: Greenhouse Pigs Must Die

Chuck Colson has a great article about the results of the "misanthropic [use that word sometime this week!] worldview of the environmental movement."

He writes about an online game for kids that shows them how much their lifestyle impacts the environment. However, it shows how long you should have lived according to the rate at which you consume environmental resources. If you exceed the amount allowed, it shows you the age that "you should die at."

Is it worth killing humans if it means saving the planet? If you follow a naturalistic worldview to its logical conclusion, yes. And this game subtly shows us this.

Colson's article is quick and to-the-point. It only takes a few seconds to read, then you should check out that crazy game

Using the Bible to Prove God is not [always] Circular Reasoning

Let me begin by saying that more often than not, the Bible is used in a circular argument. But what is circular reasoning? It is a logical fallacy in which the original premise is assumed true, and it therefore provides no evidence for its conclusion. Thus: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."* Sometimes this can be called “begging the question.”

Common boneheaded example:
Q1: Is there a God?
A1: Yes.
Q2: How do you know?
A2: Because the Bible says so.
Q3: How do you know the Bible is correct?
A3: Because it was inspired by God.
From “How Thinking Goes Wrong”

I hope that this argument seems silly to you. Can you see how the next logical question is to start over again with “Is there a God?” This could go on forever. Yet, I hear this kind of argument all the time. So do many non-Christians, specifically atheists and agnostics. And people have seen this so many times that if you even begin a conversation about the existence of God with the reason that the Bible says so, instantly the other person in your conversation will plug his ears and begin screaming, “Circular Reasoning! Circular Reasoning!”

---

The trouble with this (besides making a person burst out screaming in a public place) is twofold: 1.) The person screaming is using a term from logic, and that makes them look smarter than you, whether they are or not, and 2.) The circle in the circular reasoning hasn’t quite been completed yet. They may think you are begging the question, when in fact, they are jumping to conclusions.

Here’s what I mean: They haven’t asked Question 3 yet (How do you know the Bible is correct?), and you haven't had a chance to respond. This is where things get interesting, and this is where we Christians need to understand what we believe. (By the way, if you don’t know why the Bible is reliable, can you really say that you trust the Bible?) For, if your response to Question 3 is nothing more than Answer 3, you have nothing to offer neither yourself nor the person to whom you speak.

---

I’ve been working my way through Voddie Baucham’s The Ever-Loving Truth, a book about engaging post-Christian culture. Additionally, I’ve found some of his stuff on YouTube, and I like his approach. Here’s what he says about the Bible:

[The Bible is…] a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses that report supernatural events which took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim to be divine, rather than human in origin.

I like that he points out the Bible is made up of “historical documents.” It is not merely a silly “spiritual” book. It includes accounts of actual events, documented by lots of people (not just one person).

My argument here is that if one can prove that the Bible is a reliable source of historical fact, then one has a good start on proving that the Bible is a reliable source of information on the existence of God.

---

Now, one common counter to this kind of claim is that there is no “scientific proof” that the Bible is true. Let me just let Baucham speak for himself on this one.

Seriously, go check out that link. The original poster disabled embedding, so I can't post it here. Just be sure to come back.

Here’s the main point: the Scientific Method cannot prove anything unless it is observable, measurable, and repeatable (this is part of the problem I have with all of the certainty about evolution, but that’s another post for another day). The past is “proven” through the Evidentiary Method which requires internal consistency, corroboration, and reliability. Baucham’s argument is that the Bible meets these three requirements far better than any other historical documents from that time period.

I would like to add that this is not a new, groundbreaking argument. It is very similar to things I have seen from Josh McDowell and Hank Hanegraaf. But the reason why it is used often is because it makes the point very well. Baucham simply clarifies the difference between the Scientific and Evidentiary Methods.

---

Conclusion: The Bible can be used to support the argument of the existence of God, but its reliability must be proven first, and that cannot be done by the scientific method, but rather by evidentiary means (which are just as “rational”). Furthermore, the Bible stands up to this test quite solidly.

---

Here’s the playlist of his entire message, just in case you’d like to hear the whole thing.