Maybe there was some king named David

When I first heard that trendy Old Testament scholarship has claimed (for several decades) that Kings David and Solomon never existed as recorded in the biblical accounts (2Samuel-1Kings, 1-2Chronicles), I was only mildly surprised. The trend seems to be what scholars call the 'minimalist' approach to biblical history - a presumption that all the details of the story should not be trusted until they can be independently verified.

Various powerful interests in the Israel/Palestine region make it difficult to carefully dig up much that might verify the biblical accounts. For instance, the most likely site for uncovering ruins of the First (Solomon's) or Second (Herod's; where Jesus worshiped) Temple has been controlled by Islamic interest since 1967, apparently. The Koran (I've been told) claims that the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures have been corrupted, and the true history must be obtained through Islam's corrective accounts of biblical history. So, Islamic interests have reason to hope that the Hebrew Scriptures cannot be independently verified. Enter Dr. Eilat Mazar, a Jewish archaeologist. She claims to have discovered part of a massive wall that is likely David's magnificent palace, constructed with the help of Hiram, king of Tyre (2Samuel 5; 1Chronicles 14). The article is from 2005, so more might now be known.

Maybe there was some king named David who was a regional power around the 10th century BC.

Robert Murray M'Cheyne's sense of calling

Here's a line from Andrew Bonar's biography of his good friend, Robert Murray M'Cheyne:

"Must there not be somewhat of this missionary tendency [i.e., M'Cheyne's willingness to leave his homeland or to labor for Christ at home] in all true ministers? Is anyone truly the Lord's messenger who is not quite willing to go when and where the Lord calls? Is it justifiable in any to put aside a call from the north, on the ground that he wishes one from the south?"


Christian, where is God calling you to serve him?

Christians and Higher Education

Please at least read the last paragraph and contribute to my wonderings!

A month or so ago I finally finished reading The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students. I was unaware of the controversy surrounding the book's assertions about philosophical roots of cultural trends and their (negative) effect on higher education. I picked it up because it was recommended by a few former profs. Allan Bloom was either loved or hated for this book.

I can guess from the Wikipedia article and from the associated books on Amazon that The Closing of the American Mind has come to be seen as a "conservative" book on politics, philosophy, culture and higher education. The first review on Amazon says a little bit of what I think about the book: it's not necessarily friendly to (political) liberals, (political) conservatives, (theologically conservative) Christians, or most any other major viewpoint in America. I found it an incredibly challenging book (not least because I spaced my reading of it over 10+ months), and I would enjoy hearing what you folks thought about it (maybe someone out there read it?). You could find a copy, read it in the next few months, and revisit this post for a comment.

So, the issue Bloom raised that is sticking with me is this: (1) We live in a liberal democratic society (in contrast to conservative societies with true aristocracies) where free speech and free inquiry are precious, hard-won freedoms we enjoy. The goals of higher education embodies (or should embody) the self-evident truths that are protected by our Constitution - we are free not only to live and engage in affairs of our choice, but we also have a fighting chance to improve our socio-economic status (again, in quite a contrast to aristocratic or even caste societies). Education is the noblest way to 'improve oneself.' (2) But I am a confessional & creedal Christian. I am biased already in the search for truth. Free inquiry ought to lead one to the truth I already affirm in the Bible and in well-written creeds and confessions of faith. (3) The rub is the idea of the quest for truth - free inquiry that is truly up to the discretion of the student does not always or even usually lead him to biblical Christianity. Therefore, can a Christian really affirm 'liberal arts education' in the sense that we have no reins on where the quest leads students?

Everyone is welcome to weigh in!

How Can David Beat Goliath?

I just preached 1 Samuel 17 last night in my sermons series through that book. Kids' books make the lesson of this story to be courage in the face of insurmountable odds based in trust that God controls our circumstances and cares about us. My congregation wisely added that God's concern for his own name factors large in David's courage/victory as well. God doesn't like it when he is slighted - even indirectly.

An article by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker a few weeks ago helped me see another important component of the story: self-knowledge. David did not fight a conventional duel (as in, going out dressed in Saul's armor, looking like a half-sized Goliath); David fought like David - as he had practiced on quite a few daunting foes as a shepherd. Goliath plodded forward with his "caddy" carrying his shield & extra weapons for the various stages of a duel. There would be no stages - David ran at Goliath (the verbs pile up to illustrate the quickness of the fight), grabbed a stone, flung it, it hit the eyebrow, the giant fell, David won, he pulled out the other's sword and cut off his head. Game over, the "caddy" can take the extra weapons home.

Gladwell looked at the pattern in warfare and basketball; underdogs can win if they don't try to play the giant's game. He said, "We tell ourselves that skill is the precious resource and effort is the commodity. It’s the other way around. Effort can trump ability—legs, in Saxe’s formulation, can overpower arms—because relentless effort is in fact something rarer than the ability to engage in some finely tuned act of motor coördination."

A friend of mine asked some great questions:

So if our churches are loosing the culture war, loosing the war for souls, have we been playing as Goliath?

What is it that we need to do to start thinking and acting like David? How do we substitute effort for ability?

Any ideas?

Dismantling Bad Arguments

With a minimal groundwork laid, our small logic class turned to common ways that arguments fail to make the case the arguer intends. Fallacies are what logicians call these common mistakes.

1. If the argument is truly a formal argument, there are two easy ways to ruin it:
(a) Prove that one of the premises is false (=ruining the form of a formal argument).
(b) Find a counterexample that violates the argument.

*I'm of the opinion that most arguments people encounter outside the academy are the informal/inductive variety. Also, I found working with informal fallacies to be quite fun in the course I took. Therefore, I decided to give formal fallacies only a passing nod. If some folks show desire to learn more, we might break out the square of opposition!

For the following fallacies, I gave people the name, my brief explanation, and an example of the fallacy committed in an argument. The fun is in putting a finger on what the exact problem is. I'm not giving my specific examples because it took a long time to find precise & concise examples that would interest folks.
2. Some informal arguments have irrelevant ideas that ruin them.

a. appeal to force - "My conclusion should be accepted or else!" threats, blackmail, etc.

b. appeal to pity - "My conclusion should be accepted because of these unfortunate circumstances." immoral begging, shut-your-brain-off-and-feel-sorry requests

c. appeal to the people - "My conclusion needs to be accepted if you are going to fit into the group." peer pressure, jump-on-the-bandwagon arguments

d. argument against the person - "That conclusion is wrong because you said it." every failure to recognize that the truth is true no matter who presents it and with what motives

e. accident - "Here's a broad principle/rule that justifies my conclusion for this specific situation." misusing broad principles/rules for cases they weren't meant to cover, failure to recognize a special case

f. straw man - "That other opinion is so crazy in the first place! Of course it's wrong, and here's why..." misrepresenting an opposing view so that you can triumph over that misrepresentation (instead of a real position)

g. missing the point - "If you agree that premise #1 and premise #2 are true, then why don't you agree with my conclusion?" letting true evidence lead me just off target from the fitting conclusion - to something related

h. red herring - "Focus on my engaging side issue instead of focusing on the actual evidence I have for my conclusion." different audiences fall for different 'red herrings' - whatever the hot topics are

Part 3 (weak induction) coming soon!
Part 1 (Clear Thinking Matters)

Clear Thinking Matters

Last night I led Equip 2.1: Basic Logic Principles for our church. I couldn't be more pleased with the results and feedback. Here is how we began:

A. You must understand the arguer before you can argue with him.

1. First, look for the parts of the argument:

a. conclusion – the arguer is trying to persuade you of something: his conclusion

b. premise(s) – the arguer uses or implies evidence that should lead you to his conclusion

c. For something to be considered an argument there need to be premises and a conclusion that follows from them. Stating your opinion, giving advice, conditional statements, and many other statements sound like arguments but are missing parts.

d. Some arguments have necessary conclusions (deductive/formal arguments), but most of the arguments we see have probable conclusions (inductive/informal arguments).

2. Second, test the individual parts of the argument.

a. Do you need to learn more about the subject matter to understand the argument?

b. Does the arguer use unfamiliar words?

c. Are there implied parts to the argument of which you should be aware?

d. Are there any terms or statements in the argument that are vague or ambiguous? [Arguments must be clear in order to be effective.]

B. Everyone needs logic for clear thinking – especially Christians.
1. Proverbs 1:20-33 The cost is high for stupidity.

2. Following Jesus requires understanding his words & their application to many areas: John 8:31-32.

3. Many temptations can be fought by arguing against your sinful impulses with truth: 1Corinthians 10:11-15.

4. Our society is more impressed with rhetoric (speech that moves you) than logic (use of evidence to draw good conclusions).

Part 2 (Dismantling Bad Arguments)

Wesley's Words

Wesley is saying a lot of words now, some of which are pretty funny:

• "Moh-cwacka"= more crackers or motorcycle, whichever seems to fit the context the best

• "A-choooo"= Thank you

• "Bee twuck"= Big truck (with LOTS of enthusiasm)
  

• "Vee-bomp"= Fist bump (accompanied by appropriate action)

• "Fow-fer"= Flower

• "Hawk"= Heart (the H is very harsh)

• "Shap-at"= Chapstick (with a puckered mouth)

• "Cah-co-ater"= Calculator (must add Russian-type harsh syllables; he doesn't use L's)

• "Shebbies"= Stawberries
  

And my favorite..

• "Tor-TAH-tee" = Tortilla