Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
If the video doesn't work here's the link:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/42098348#42098348
I don't know if Mr. Bashir is a Christian or not. He seems to be interviewing as a normal journalist would, seeking the truth and logically applying statements to understand their conclusions.
I appreciated this interview b/c it focused on logic and formal debate. There was no emotionalism that I could detect on the part of Mr. Bashir. And since we don't know if he is a Christian or not, it makes it easier to accept that he probably doesn't have a horse in the fight of whether Pastor Bell is orthodox or not.
I don't know if Mr. Bashir is a Christian or not. He seems to be interviewing as a normal journalist would, seeking the truth and logically applying statements to understand their conclusions.
I appreciated this interview b/c it focused on logic and formal debate. There was no emotionalism that I could detect on the part of Mr. Bashir. And since we don't know if he is a Christian or not, it makes it easier to accept that he probably doesn't have a horse in the fight of whether Pastor Bell is orthodox or not.
Pastor Bell's chief argument against Mr. Bashir appears to me to be reducible to: "It's ok to believe whatever you want about Heaven and Hell as long as you can find someone in the history of Christianity who has believed it too." This seems terribly irresponsible for a pastor to tell his followers that truth and falsehood don't matter when it comes to understanding who God is. Isn't that the whole point of the second commandment? By not being clear, he is in effect suggesting to his parishioners that it's ok to worship a false god.
I also wanted to address a tweet I read about this interview earlier in the week:
"Not sure why everyone is claiming victory based on @realrobbell 's interview with Martin Bashir. Truth isn't based on who can argue better."
Sure a particular position (truth) can be correct, regardless of whether someone can argue well on its behalf. If my 4 year old can't put together a cogent argument to defend the pythagorean theorem, that doesn't make the theorem false. But if a particular truth is valid, there should be a logical defense of that truth. In our math example, a college math teacher (aka an expert in the field of math) could easily make the argument.
I also wanted to address a tweet I read about this interview earlier in the week:
"Not sure why everyone is claiming victory based on @realrobbell 's interview with Martin Bashir. Truth isn't based on who can argue better."
Sure a particular position (truth) can be correct, regardless of whether someone can argue well on its behalf. If my 4 year old can't put together a cogent argument to defend the pythagorean theorem, that doesn't make the theorem false. But if a particular truth is valid, there should be a logical defense of that truth. In our math example, a college math teacher (aka an expert in the field of math) could easily make the argument.
In this case we're not talking about a 4 year old being out of their depth, but we're talking to an expert in the field, a pastor talking about doctrine. In fact it's not just any doctrine, but it's a doctrine that the pastor in question seems to have studied well enough to write a book about it. If he can't argue his point cogently against a journalist who likely hasn't been to seminary and hasn't been studying the topic for the last x months, then how can we say that the 'truth' being defended by the pastor is valid? He of all people should be able to make logical arguments to defend it.
So no, truth isn't based on who can argue better. But if a qualified agent can't argue for a position they have established, then the veracity of that position is certainly questionable. Especially if their opponent argues better for their contrary position.
Where does that leave me? It challenges me to 1 Peter 3:15: "15but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," I need to: (1) Honor Christ as Holy (2) be prepared by studying and thinking about what the Bible says about who Christ is so that I can honor Him as Holy (3) Join with the Spirit, and be able to cogently dialogue with others about the truths in the Bible, in order to lead them to the truth the Bible proclaims. (4) be gentle and respectful.
So no, truth isn't based on who can argue better. But if a qualified agent can't argue for a position they have established, then the veracity of that position is certainly questionable. Especially if their opponent argues better for their contrary position.
Where does that leave me? It challenges me to 1 Peter 3:15: "15but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," I need to: (1) Honor Christ as Holy (2) be prepared by studying and thinking about what the Bible says about who Christ is so that I can honor Him as Holy (3) Join with the Spirit, and be able to cogently dialogue with others about the truths in the Bible, in order to lead them to the truth the Bible proclaims. (4) be gentle and respectful.
Anyone want to guess which of those 4 steps are the hardest for me?
No comments:
Post a Comment