Anxiety, Stress and Social Norms

Numerous articles and studies have demonstrated an increase in stress, anxiety and depression among teens and young adults throughout the past 25 years. There is little consensus, however, regarding the cause of this increased stress. One article, for instance, argues that the increase stress may be due to the Great Recession. Unfortunately this makes little sense because the increase in stress and anxiety has been steady for the past few decades. This isn't to say that economic pressures and changing job markets are a cause of the increase in stress as 76% of young adults report their stress is due to their work. So while the state of the economy might not specifically be the issue, it may be the kinds of jobs young adults can get that is the source of stress. Today, more young adults are forced to work full time while working on their bachelors or masters degree. Many degrees (including the M Div I am working on) require some kind internship which are more often unpaid. On top of this, once young adults get into their chosen career field, the kinds of jobs they find are incredibly demanding. However, it is also true that we are working 12 hours less each week than we did 50 years ago.

So what is happening? Why are we as young adults in the 21st century so much more stressed and depressed than our parents and grandparents when they were our age? I think one major factor may be our insistence on the deconstruction of various kinds of social norms, particularly when it comes to what a successful person looks like. We have reached a major point of transition in our culture when it comes to perspectives on success, so much so that no one seems to agree on what success is. This is especially true of those who are teens and young adults. Certain social groups will tell you it is going out and partying every other night. Others will tell you it is simply making money. Still others say it is raising a family. Nearly all agree it is being as busy as humanly possible. On top of all of this social media is shoving all of these perspectives and many more into our faces. Youtube has also made massive changes in how we view success as average people are becoming as popular as Hollywood superstars from their own living rooms. This is a big problem; collectively we are losing the standards by which we measure social status.

For young adults, this is an even bigger problem. It is between the years of 18-35 that the average person shapes their career and life-long social circles. But if people in this age group are being given a different set of expectations regarding where they are supposed to be in their work and social life, these same people aren't going to be able to assess where they are at in life, let alone where they should be going. To make matters more complicated, our hyper-individualistic culture promotes the idea that the best way to cope with these expectations is to ignore all of them and create our own. "You don't need others approval," "you be you and I'll be me," all of these cultural slogans are geared at the idea that we define what success is for us. This is all well and good but sociologically speaking such a task is impossible. Our society, like all societies before it, operates on a complex system of social norms. We organize, rationalize and measure ourselves according to these social norms. These norms are embedded in our closest relationships and who we are as human beings. Social norms inform us of what others expect from us, but if we are told to ignore such expectations, the only possible result is angst and extreme anxiety.

Part of the solution to this problem is encouraging more social cohesion through social activism, more day to day community engagement with neighbors and co-workers and an emphasis on the importance of family and friends over and above individual importance and achievements. An interesting source of discussion on this and numerous other topics is Robert Putnam's classic work; "Bowling Alone: The Decline and Revival of American Community."

Pagan Christianity: A Review

Apparently a number of scholars, mainly historians and sociologists, have come to the conclusion that nearly everything churches practice today is completely unbiblical. Instead, they claim, modern churches are modeled after pagan ideas and institutions. Consequently, they argue, the modern church is not nurturing but stifling spiritual growth. In this book, Frank Viola and George Barna attempt to compile much of the research done by these scholars in order to show that the modern church has lost its 1st century soul. They argue that most everything from professional clergy, to liturgy, to the church building encourage a bland, Christ-less Christianity which needs to be done away with. With so much controversy and confusion surrounding this book and the scholars who stand with it, it may be helpful to provide a detailed analysis of Viola's and Barna's reasoning.

As far as I can tell, the authors argue to the conclusion that modern church practices are not fruitful to the modern church along these lines;

1) All major church practices must be rooted in the Bible or at least consistent with Biblical teachings or else they should not be practiced.
2) Major church practice A is not found in the Bible nor is it consistent with Biblical teachings.
3) Therefore church practice A should not be practiced.

For most of the book, this is more or less the argument that Viola and Barna make in regard to modern church practices. The issue, they claim, is not so much that our modern church practices have pagan roots, but that they only have pagan roots and not biblical ones. It is also important to note, that the authors make varying claims regarding various church practices. For instance, when it comes to the tradition of wearing nice clothing to church they write, "If you feel that dressing up for church gatherings is a positive thing and you can do it unto the Lord with pure motives, then by all means do so. But we should be careful not to judge or look down upon those who do not dress up for such gatherings." In other places, however, the authors are more bold. On the issue of professional clergy they write, "nothing so hinders the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose as does the present-day pastoral role." Here the authors argue that, while churches may require some kind of leadership, it is harmed by the modern pattern of pastoral ministry." Because of this, it is clear that the authors are not simply arguing that various church practices should not be in place, but that some should not be normative for the Church and rather be practiced only in certain circumstances, while others need to be heavily reformed if not completely discarded.

Now that it is clear where Viola and Barna are trying to get to we can examine the arguments with which they aim to get there. Because there is no way to analyze all of the authors arguments throughout this book in detail, only a few chapters will be analyzed. Consequently this is not a complete review and many of the claims made by the authors will simply be ignored for the sake of argument.

The Church Building

Saint Hripsime Church in Armenia. Built in 618 A.D.

The authors kick off their critique by analyzing the history of the church building. He begins with the New Testament, writing, "It can be rightly said that Christianity was the first non-temple-based religion ever to emerge. In the minds of the early Christians, the people--not the architecture--constituted a sacred space." Viola and Barna rightly point out that the early church did not construct buildings but met in homes until at least the 3rd century. They also argue that the church building had it's origins in pagan ideas and rituals. Given that the authors recognize that the pagan origins of the church building by itself is an unimportant point I will grant their historical claims here for the sake of argument.

The central issue is what motivated the early church to meet in house churches. Here the authors arguments appears rather thin. Their main argument is simply that the New Testament and Jesus Himself leaves no room for the church building as normative for the Church. Viola writes "Since Christ has risen, we Christians have become the temple of God... It is for this reason that the New Testament always reserves the word church (ekklesia) for the people of God. It never uses this word to refer to a building of any sort." Viola continues by arguing that Jesus flipped tables in the temple to show His anger towards temple worship. Finally, he cites John 4:23 to suggest that Jesus came to abolish worship in specific places, but only in Spirit and in Truth.

The authors also argue that the early church meetings were spontaneous, non-liturgical and intimate meetings. In support of this claim they cite Mark 14:58, Acts 7:48, 17:24, Galatians 4:9, Colossians 2:14-19, Hebrews 3-11 and 1 Peter 2:4-9. However, because they never explain their reasoning or interpretation of these passages, I can only assume they are using these passages as proof texts. Outside of a few other assertions, little actual discussion is devoted to the question of why the early Christians met in homes. The attitude is; it's just obvious that they met in homes to rebel against the institutions of false pagan and Jewish religions and instead usher in an intimate personal setting of spiritual growth in Christ.

But the authors are not done here. The final part of this chapter they argue that the church building has "stalemated the functioning of God's people since it was born in the fourth century." Here they argue that the form of our churches architecture does not fit the proper function of the Church. Again it is merely assumed that the proper function of the Church just is an institutionless, informal, spiritual meeting of believers.

This is clearly shown in the authors critique; "Ask yourself in what ways it might be possible to "adjust" the direction of the meeting on the spur of the moment. Ask yourself how easy or hard it would be for a church member to speak where he is seated so that all may see or hear him." But why should we think that this is really the way churches should operate? All the authors have shown thus far is that the early church met in homes and didn't seem to have much interest in building churches. Because this seems to be the crux of their argument its surprising they don't spend the majority of the chapter addressing it.

But the accusations continue; "They [church buildings] are designed to manipulate the sense and create a 'worshipful atmosphere.'" The argument seems to be that because the original function of church meetings has been corrupted from its original design, church buildings today actual stifle the spiritual growth of Christian believers. Moreover, the church building can only be seen as the modern temple; the place where Christians gather to meet God. But, the authors argue, if Jesus really came to make the people of God His temple, then it makes no sense that we have to meet in a specific place to meet God. Indeed it seems downright pagan to suggest such an idea.

There are numerous problems with these arguments. First and foremost, the Church being defined as a people and not a place is rather obvious and has been recognized by Protestants (and arguably Catholics) for hundreds of years. If this idea means anything, it means that any place, including a Church building can be used to worship God. The same point can be made of John 4:23. Worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth means just that but it doesn't mean that one can't go to a church building and worship God in Spirit and in Truth. It seems odd even to suggest that the architecture of a building could even hinder the worship of God. This is the great irony of Viola's argument; true worship of God is not about the place but the people, so true worship of God must happen in an intimate and personal environment where everyone is free to participate, preferably a house.

The passages cited by the authors don't help them out much either. Mark 14:58 only speaks of the Jewish temple, and again does not speak to buildings in general. The assumption is that church buildings can only operate as temples, but clearly this is false. Church buildings can operate exactly like the house churches Viola desires to put in place by simply moving the pews and pulpit around. Just have people take turns talking, unless he is seriously suggesting that we just have everyone talking and interrupting each other without warning which is an idea I just can't take seriously.

Acts 7:48 and 17:24 again merely says that God does not dwell in houses made with hands. So what? If meeting in a place regularly for worship requires you to believe that place contains the very presence of God then why would you want to meet regularly at all, especially in someone's house? Do certain houses contain the presence of God and not others? Do we have to pick a house at random each week so as not to begin seeing a house as a temple? Galatians 4:9 is actually more entertaining, "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?" I'm just gonna leave this one alone because I honestly have no idea what Viola's argument is here.

Colossians 2: 16-19 reads, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God." Again, I'm not sure what Viola's argument is, maybe he's arguing that Paul is saying we shouldn't obey any regulations on celebrating days, festivals or regular gatherings, so we shouldn't regulate church meetings in a building? If so this reasoning is a bit wonky, given that this requires a huge extrapolation from a rather narrow statement from Paul. It seems more likely that Paul is saying that the Old Testament ceremonial laws have been done away with and pagan rituals are shear foolishness, so don't let them rule you. Of course pagan rituals involving sexual acts and worship of false could not be participated in by Christians under any circumstances, but Jewish ceremonial law was surely not prohibited or seen as inherently damaging to the Church. Paul himself actually circumcised Timothy in order to more effectively witness to the Jews (Acts 16:3).

I'm not going to sort through Hebrews 3-11 just to sort out what Viola is trying to argue there so that just leaves 1 Peter 2:4-9, which is AGAIN just saying that the people of God are now the temple of God so the same critiques above would seem to apply here.

The Order of Worship

The authors next target is the order of worship or modern liturgy. Here the argument is that the 1st century Christians, and therefore the authors of the New Testament, had no concept of liturgy. They wanted a church that was "organic." In support of this we get, again, more proof-texts; "The meetings of the early church were marked by every-member functioning, spontaneity, freedom, vibrancy, and open participation (see for example, 1 Corinthians 14:1-33 and Hebrews 10:25)." That passage in 1 Corinthians 14, as we will see throughout this review, is crucial for the authors argument. Indeed, it seems to be the only passage they analyze in any depth which suggests the kind of structure they propose for the Church.

In addition to these arguments, Viola and Barna argue that the "first-century church meeting was not patterned after the Jewish synagogue services as some recent authors have suggested. Instead, it was totally unique to the culture." They continue by pointing out that the Protestant order of worship is largely based on the Catholic Mass which itself was "based partly on Judaic Temple service, partly on Greek mystery rituals of purification, vicarious sacrifice and participation." Again, most of the chapter is devoted to tracing the history of how liturgy developed to what it is today, but it is the claim that the early church had no such liturgy that is the truly crucial claim. Thus, it is again surprising that the authors only cite 2 passages in support of this claim, as well as a handful of scholarly studies and books on the subject. Even more shocking, the authors admit that from the 3rd century onward, the leaders of the Church had completely changed church meetings to be extremely liturgical and ritualistic. So if all this ritual and liturgy is really due to pagan superstition, then how can we really say the 3rd or even 2nd century church was in any sense Christian? Obviously the sacraments were not being administered correctly, worship was hampering spiritual growth more than nurturing it, and surely many pagan ideas were being taught from the clergy. It seems to me that the authors reasoning here leads straight to Restorationism; the idea that we need to restore the true 1st century church, not merely reform the modern one.

From this discussion, Viola and Barna move on to discussion what exactly is wrong with our modern idea of liturgy. "First, the Protestant Order of worship represses mutual participation and the growth of Christian community. It puts a choke hold on the functioning of the body of Christ by silencing its members." The authors are arguing here that we cannot engage in mutual exhortation and participation from other believers. As a result the congregation is reduced to passive observers, not active members in the Church. "Second, the Protestant order of worship strangles the headship of Jesus Christ. The entire service is directed by one person. You are limited to the knowledge, gifting, and experience of one member of the body--the pastor. Where is the freedom for our Lord Jesus Christ to speak through His body at will?" So Christ and the Holy Spirit should direct the order of worship, not any sort of elder or administrator. "Third, for many Christians, the Sunday morning service is shamefully boring. it is without variety or spontaneity. It is highly predictable, highly perfunctory, and highly mechanical." Effectively the people have spoken; liturgy is lame. Finally the authors argue that the modern order of worship "implies that putting in our hour per week is the key to the victorious Christian life."

In analyzing these arguments, let us begin with 1 Corinthians 14. The first half of 1 Corinthians 14 focuses on the superiority of exhortation, teaching and prophesying to the Church as opposed to speaking in tongues. Christians are also encouraged to seek the gift of prophecy (which means teaching of the will and from the Word of God, not telling the future) over and above speaking in tongues. Perhaps Viola and Barna mean to argue that here Paul seems to be speaking to the whole congregation about exhorting each other through the scripture so that "the whole Church may be built up." We might see this most clearly in verse 24-25 "But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you." But does "all prophesy" really mean that at every meeting everyone should be prophesying at all times such that there should never be a regular teacher? It seems to me rather this text is referring to an ideal, not necessarily an actuality. Paul is saying if it happened that everyone was prophesying when an unbeliever entered, it would be better than if everyone was speaking in tongues. He never says this is actually the norm for the Church.

The second half of 1 Corinthians 14 is the crucial bit. Here we read,
"What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace."
Here again the point is not that all should prophesy, but that it is better that only some prophecy in an orderly and structured way than if only some speak in tongues. His point, then, is not that all prophesy, but that when prophecy takes place, it occurs in an orderly way. Now the authors might object that the modern pastorate ruins this way of ordering the Church by preventing members of the congregation from prophesying during the service, but the plain fact is that the service isn't the only time to prophesy. So at most this leads us to the conclusion that there should be a time just before or after the service where people may speak words of encouragement. If anything, this passage requires there to be a liturgy of some kind in the Church.

Hebrews 10:24-25 is more of the same, "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." Here the point seems to be that meeting together is important for encouraging one another. The author does not say that all or even multiple people must participate in teaching from the scriptures in front of the congregation to do this.

The Chapel of St Ananias.built in the 1st century A.D in modern day Syria.

In addition, the authors claim of the 1st century Christian meeting not being based on the synagogue is fairly irrelevant. It is simply a historical fact that the 1st century Christians did base their meetings on the Passover, in the taking of the Eucharist. Eventually, we know from Acts 20 they began doing this on the first day of the week, regularly. If the 1st century Christians treated the Eucharist anything like the Passover, they would surely have a structure and order of worship, just as the Passover meal was structured and ordered.  (Niswonger, 1988 188-191) Why? Because these were Jews, who still met at the temple daily (Acts 2:46). To say then, that there is no indication of a liturgical structure to worship among the 1st Christians is absurd. If Paul were truly against liturgy, he would have had to tell the early Christians not to practice any Jewish rituals. Instead, Paul only instructs them not to see themselves as condemned for working on the Sabbath (Col 2). The problem Paul sees with rituals is the way the Jews placed all their hope in following such rituals perfectly so that they might be saved, not that the Jews participated in rituals period.

One final point on this chapter. The authors appear to have this bizarre idea that for Jesus to truly be the head of the Church, he must control the order of worship every Sunday. It's as if Viola and Barna see Christians as puppets moved along by the Spirit to speak and worship as they feel compelled. Clearly Paul doesn't have this in mind when he writes, "in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue." (1 Cor 14:19) The Spirit operates by filling our minds with wisdom to reason correctly in matters of correct doctrine and practice. Clearly, if Christ wishes to interrupt a church service, He is free to do so. Moreover, it is also clear that the Church can be edified by one man speaking for an hour, while also hearing from other Christians in Bible Studies and gatherings before and after the service. Thus, it seems the authors have severely overstated their case that the order of worship is really to blame for our own spiritual failings.

The Sermon

One specific point I want to make here is the claim that Paul, nor Jesus ever used rhetoric. The authors argue that New Testament preaching was; sporadic, delivered on special occasions, dealt with specific problems, and it was dialogical (meaning there were interruptions. The second and third points are largely correct; the New Testament did not bother to record weekly average sermons but important events and problems in the Church. The first and fourth points are highly contentious. It is simply false that such speeches were entirely sporadic. The sermons of Jesus as well as the gospel presentations in Acts clearly always have a specific point to make and use various forms of argument to make that point. 

Nevertheless, the authors cite a number of scriptures in support of their argument, again only as proof-texts with no actual exegesis. But unfortunately the only sporadic thing about these sermons is their timing, not their content. In addition, most of these are presentations to non-Christians. This is important because in ancient Near Eastern cultures, to interrupt someone while speaking was always seen as an honor challenge. So to one up someone you disagreed with you'd interrupt them in order to try to prove them wrong or make them look foolish. Thus we see this with Nicodemus, the Pharisees, the crowd at Pentecost etc. (Pilch & Malina, 1998 106-114) The scriptures used to support this dialogical structure of speaking are Acts 17:2, 17, 18:4, 19, 19:8-9, 20:7, 9, 24:25. Most of these speak of Paul reasoning with the Jews in the Synagogue. But such instances are gospel presentations and so must have some conversational element to them. Acts 20:7 is ironically a good example of a monologue from Paul that lasted for hours, even causing someone to fall asleep during it. 

Moving on, the authors appear to suggest that rhetoric was developed by the sophists. It's clear that what they are defining as rhetoric is not persuasive speech but eloquent speech. Rhetoric was largely developed by the Sophists, this is true, but their use of rhetoric was dramatically changed by later philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. In these latter cases, rhetoric was used to try and find the truth. This point is conveniently ignored by Viola and Barna, who seem to desire to focus solely on the use of rhetoric to wow audiences and make public speakers a lot of money.

 1 Corinthians 1-2 are often cited as evidence against Paul's use of rhetoric. 1 Corinthians 1:17 states, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." Or verses 22-24, "For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." Finally there is chapter 2:1-5, "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." Viola and Barna wish to used the passages to demonstrate that Paul was not interested in forming intellectual arguments or eloquent speech. I don't know what Bible they've been reading, but passages like Colossians 1:15-18 seem to be fairly eloquent to me. Indeed most of Paul's epistles are quite well put together rhetorically. So much so that there is major scholarly debate over whether or not Paul was trained in the Greek academy in the art of rhetoric.

So then why is Paul so disinterested in rhetoric and "wisdom" here? It seems he is doing two things. Firstly he is showing humility by not proclaiming himself to be a great rhetorician. In doing so he sets an example for his audience. But at the same time, he uses the opportunity to shame his opponents. This is the most literal following of Jesus command to "turn the other cheek." By doing this in ancient cultures, you at one time show humility by not seeking your own honor, and at the same time shame your opponent by exposing his obsession with his own honor. Here Paul does this by showing that rhetoric, while useful, isn't the essence of the gospel. (DeSilva, 2000 70-78) "For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Cor 1:25) Paul's point is that his opponents seek vanity if all they seek is wisdom and knowledge that wows a crowd. The irony of all of this is that Paul is clearly using rhetoric to make this point! (Melger, 2013)

The Pastor

St Ignatius

Ah, the Pastor, the most pagan vocation established in modern times, or so Viol and Barna wish to argue. Unlike previous chapters, here the authors jump out of the gate dealing with passages which are purported to speak of the pastorate or clergy.

Namely they address Ephesians 4:11 which reads, "And he gave some to be Apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers." The authors are quick to note that this is the only time the word pastor is used in the New Testament. Their main point, however, is this "The Greek word translated pastors is poimen. It means shepherds... Pastor, then is a metaphor to describe a particular function in the church. It is not an office or a title." Well what prevents a function in the church from also being an office or a title? Maybe Ephesians 4:11 doesn't get us to a full fledged vocational pastor, but it certainly establishes that persons were charged with teaching the Church. This isn't to say that no one else but these men could teach, but rather that these men were specially purposed to function as the main teachers in the Church. Similarly, all in the Church are to evangelize, but their are those who are purposed to be the main evangelists (notice how evangelists are separated from teachers). Here again, the authors exegesis is just plain sloppy.

From here Viola and Barna seek to establish the true origins of the Pastorate, since it so obviously can't be biblical. "Up until the second century, the church had no official leadership. That it had leaders is without dispute. But leadership was unofficial in the sense that there were no religious, "offices" or sociological slots to fill." So wait, now the Church was facing a total and complete corruption of its original structure just 70 years after it was formed? This is really the only way that Viola and Barna can get around Ignatius's writings which proclaim the authority of the Bishop in the early 2nd century. Even earlier, Clement, BISHOP of Rome was writing to the Corinthians (A.D. 96). And, of course, the authors argue that Ignatius was the one who screwed everything up for church leadership.

Before Ignatius all leaders were seen as equals and there was no hierarchy. Churches had councils of elders which operated together, with no lead pastor ruling over them. Here I'm in agreement with Viola and Barna. I think that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the leadership of the church was not focused solely on the pastor or teacher of the Church. Thankfully we have the Presbyterians. In this sense Ignatius may well have shifted the focus to a Monarchical system of church governance, but he certainly didn't just invent the pastoral office out of thin air.

But the authors go further than this, they point out that Ignatius ordered Christians to obey their bishop as they would Christ. This is true, but in defense of Ignatius consider his historical position. At this time churches had neither the Apostles, nor a widespread New Testament. New organizational elements needed to be put in place in order to establish what would be normative for the Church to teach and practice. At the same time persecution of the Church was rising from Rome and heretics like Marcion, who denied the validity of the Old Testament, were thriving. A less formal kind of leadership may have been appropriate for the 1st century, but there is no way the Church could have survived without a more institutional leadership in the 2nd. The authors deny this possibility, and are convinced that either you are a Church run by the Holy Spirit or by man. It is no longer possible for the Spirit to work through men in leading the Church as He did the Apostles. Then again, Viola and Barna seem to fail to deal with the fact that the Apostles clearly had the kind of authority they decry. Paul clearly had authority in churches, as did Peter. If they didn't, and were just like every other Christian, why were they the only ones directing and instructing churches through writings that were clearly seen as having the very authority of God? While Pastors and clergy may not have the same authority to proclaim new revelation from God, it doesn't seem all that far-fetched to think they might just have the authority to proclaim what Christ revealed through the Apostles.

Constantine and Church Bishops hold the Nicene Creed

Later on in the chapter Viola and Barna tackle the issue of ordination. Here we do see some interesting interaction with the New Testament. Viola writes, "After beginning a church, the apostolic workers (church planters) of the first century would revisit that body after a period of time. In some of those churches, the workers would publicly acknowledge elders. In ever case, the elders were already 'in place' before they were publicly endorsed." Given the fact that these were the first churches ever developed, it's hard to see how else this could have been done. There was no way to have official ceremonies of ordination nor would there be a point to appoint leaders if there were only a few Christians gathering. This pattern doesn't demonstrate a normative practice of appointing elders for a post-apostolic age.

From here the authors are quick to point out that only 3 passages explicitly mention ordination; Acts 14:23, 1 Timothy 3:1 and Titus 1:5. But "the word ordain (KJV) in these passages does not mean to place into office. It rather carries the idea of endorsing, affirming and showing forth what has already been happening. It also contains the thought of blessing." At the same time, "in the first century, the laying on of hands merely meant the endorsement or affirmation of a function, not the installment into an office or the giving of special status." There are two points to make on these claims. Firstly, Viola's argument is simply that because the elders of churches performed the function of elder before they were affirmed as elders, this means that ordination cannot mean officiation. Well this hardly seems obvious. After all most pastors are involved in ministry before they are ordained today. Why couldn't this also be the case in the early church?

This leads to my second point; there is clear evidence that the authors of the New Testament saw the laying on of hands as more than an act of affirmation. As scholars Bruce Malina and John Pilch point out, in ancient Near Eastern Cultures the concept of a person involved three zones; hands and feet, mouth and ears, and heart and eyes. The hands and feet represent the persons "capabilities of doing, making, building, constructing, having a physical effect on others and on one's environment." Because of this, "the laying on of hands becomes a natural symbol of the transfer of physical activity and force." (1998, 98-102) In the case of the Apostles laying on of hands to appoint elders was also a transitive act, one that seemed to transfer both a specific function in the Church and the authority to carry out that function. 1 Timothy 4:14 portrays this idea where Paul writes, "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you." Clearly, the laying on of hands was not merely seen as an affirmation but a ritual of bestowing gifts and functions in the Church by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

There are many more points to be made about this book, especially when it comes to the chapter on Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Nevertheless I think this review is lengthy enough as it is. My overall view of Viola and Barna's work here is one of frustration. The central problem with this book is that it extrapolates to the extreme. If there are problems and theological questions regarding the pastorate, the sermon or even the sacraments then they need to be radically changed, if not thrown out entirely.

Viola and Barna want to argue that steeples and pulpits can prevent the gospel from being preached effectively. They do this by trying to argue these things are as far from the Biblical message as pagan temples and Roman emperors. There is nothing wrong per say about arguing this point, however, the problem lies in the fact that if we do say these things inherently or even tend hinder the spread of the gospel we seem to be also saying that most aspects of our culture cannot be used to effectively spread the gospel. This seems to go against the whole point of 1 Corinthians which was to get the Corinthians out of an elitist mindset, whether this was due to pride from perceived self-righteousness, or from societal achievements. If Viola and Barna are right, then we are led straight back into the legalism they are trying to get us out of! Making the same mistake as the Anabaptists, Viola and Barna effectively want a Church completely separate from the norms and institutions of its surrounding society. As the Anabaptists found out, you can't refuse to participate in society and expect society to function or sit by and allow a substantial portion of the population to become non-functioning.

But perhaps Viola and Barna are merely arguing that the Pastorate and liturgy just can't be seen as normative for the Church. Meaning that denominations are in the wrong for enforcing such practices in contexts where they aren't needed and don't work. Putting the fact that Viola and Barna clearly believe that something like the house church model should be normative for the Church aside, it seems that this would require abolishing denominations. This simply isn't possible. It would require us to virtually have churches with no fleshed out doctrine of the nature of church practice or the doctrine of the Church outside of doing what works. What has worked better is having specific denominations for separate ethnicities and people groups, but who have pretty much the same doctrinal beliefs. This is why Paul travels to different areas and plants churches instead of taking converts with him, as Jesus did. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were trying to create a global movement, a movement which might look a bit different culturally in various regions, but one that all proclaimed the resurrected Christ.

One final note; I realize this book is meant to be but one in a series, some are more focused on Biblical exegesis and interpretation than others. However, if Viola's and Barna's arguments from scripture are anything like they are here, even if they are more developed, they simply don't seem to stand up to scrutiny. Even many of the historical claims seem rather dubiously established.

References

DeSilva, David (2000). Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlocking the New Testament Culture. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press.

Pilch, John & Bruce Malina (1998). Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. 

Melgar, C. (2013). Paul's use of Jewish exegetical/rhetorical techniques in 1 Corinthians 1:10-3:23. Review & Expositor, 110(4), 609-620.

Shelley, Bruce (2008). Church History in Plain Language. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Niswonger, Richard (1988). New Testament History. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Saving Christian Movies: Bringing Respectable Christian Films Back From the Dead

With numerous Christian films like God's Not Dead, Heaven Is For Real and Saving Christmas, it seems that Christians are getting a larger say in hollywood, largely because of all the money these films are making. And yet, strangely, secular and Christian reviewers are staunchly critical of these movies. The most recent of these; Saving Christmas, actually has been recognized by IMDB as the worst movie ever in terms of user reviews on their site. Likewise, in the case of God's Not Dead, Christian reviewers tended to see the movie as shallow and uncharitable. Having watched at least some of these movies myself, I can't help but feel the same way. There seems to be a huge disconnect between what these movies are arguing for and reality, let alone the truth of the Christian viewpoint historically. This has had the ironic result of discrediting Christianity even more by demonstrating Christians who don't seem to understand atheists, homosexuals or the nonreligious in general. But why is this the case?

Centrally, I believe this is because the Evangelical Church as a whole has committed a fundamental miscalculation as to how best to relate to its surrounding culture. Evangelical leaders see pop-culture as the language through which ideas are now communicated. So they reason, it seems logical that we have to explain the gospel through the language or medium of pop-culture in order for it to make sense to the unbeliever. Hence, churches began selling t-shirts, having bands play on stages in their newly built auditoriums and producing all sorts of other merchandise. The problem is pop-culture doesn't operate this way at all. Pop-culture does not allow ideas in general to be communicated but specifically, ideas that are entertaining. Pop-culture acts as the hub for all things fun, entertaining, pleasurable and delicious. Thus it is impossible to communicate the gospel through this hub without making it into something fun and entertaining.

Well of course this doesn't work out very well, especially when churches are also committed to taking the gospel seriously and devoting their lives to Christ. And so this creates an equally awkward and confused tone in everything Evangelicals try to say to, in and through pop-culture. The message of the gospel sounds at one minute to be something beneficial and attractive and a matter of life or death at another. Christianity is simultaneously displayed as a "relationship" that is hip and a serious commitment filled with obligations and huge intellectual and ethical questions. Likewise non-believers are seen as fun loving one moment and heartless, sadistic, Godless heathens the next.

Evangelicals themselves then have their language confused. We just haven't nailed down how we relate to our culture.

To offer a different approach I think on the nature of language our culture uses different mediums to communicate different kinds of ideas. For ideas in entertainment we use pop-culture, music and commercials, for intellectual ideas, news outlets, journals, magazines and documentaries are used. Here, Christians have engaged in these kinds of mediums, but often with little theological education or understanding (i.e. the 700 club or Glen Beck on Fox News). Here the failure is just on understanding and utilizing the enormous intellectual resources at our disposal. The Church has existed for 2 millennia, and over this time numerous thinkers have defended and explained brilliantly the Christian faith. Even today thinkers like N.T. Wright, James K.A. Smith, Alvin Plantinga and James Sire among numerous others are presenting the case for Christianity and the cogency of Christian beliefs and yet few Christians seem to be listening, despite their interest in communicating the truth of Christianity to our society.

Malicious Misunderstandings: A Postmodern Critique of Kurt Echenwald's Newsweek Article

Newsweek has posted a piece on the Bible that has gained a lot of attention. The author, Kurt Echenwald clearly has a bone to pick with Evangelicals.

I do sympathize with some of the frustrations he has, such as evangelicals refusal to entertain the notion that evolution and conservative Christian faith might actually be compatible. But overall Kurt is just plain uncharitable. This can be seen in the very beginning of his article;

"They wave their Bibles at passersby, screaming their condemnations of homosexuals. They fall on their knees, worshipping at the base of granite monuments to the Ten Commandments while demanding prayer in school. They appeal to God to save America from their political opponents, mostly Democrats. They gather in football stadiums by the thousands to pray for the country’s salvation.

They are God’s frauds, cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side orders for lunch. They are joined by religious rationalizers—fundamentalists who, unable to find Scripture supporting their biases and beliefs, twist phrases and modify translations to prove they are honoring the Bible’s words.

This is no longer a matter of personal or private faith. With politicians, social leaders and even some clergy invoking a book they seem to have never read and whose phrases they don’t understand, America is being besieged by Biblical illiteracy."

I mean really, claiming that there is some serious problems in evangelical subculture is one thing, but to commit such blatant ad-hominem like this and then have the audacity to claim that it is evangelicals who are the hateful bigots totally unwilling to see past their own opinions is just downright hypocritical.

Kurt really shows how much nerve he has when he further writes; "Newsweek’s exploration here of the Bible’s history and meaning is not intended to advance a particular theology or debate the existence of God."

Really? So saying evangelical's theology of the Bible is completely wrong and even dangerous to society is NOT itself the promotion of any sort of theology? I think a certain post-modern thinker; Lyotard, would have some important things to say at this point. This article, from the get go, is claiming to be completely unbiased and objective while at the same time clearly promoting an agenda that is equally questionable on an "objective" basis. Kurt is promoting a textbook example of a metanarrative. He is claiming that what he states here is just fact and requires no belief or assent to truth. As a result, evangelicals can be thought of as nothing else than those who would deny reality and reason for their own personal benefit. Well on modernist suppositions this cannot be tolerated! Evangelicalism must be phased, if not whiped out from all intellectual discussion because there is no discussion to be had. Clearly this is the absurdity of modern thinking and it is also why Christians should gladly accept the postmodern critique of modernism.

Moving on then, Kurt now turns to casting doubt on the Biblical text. He points out that all we have of the Bible are copies of copies of copies. If this is true he asks, then how can anyone know what the original Bible actually said? Furthermore he points out, what we know about these copies demonstrates that much has been changed from the originals. He throws out classic examples such as Matthew 7 and Mark 16. But bizarrely he acts as though evangelicals have never heard about these criticisms, let alone given a good response to them.

Here we see two further affects of getting sucked in to these metanarratives, as Lyotard calls them. Firstly, Kurt appears to contradict himself; if we have so many copies that we can track how they have changed from the original, and changed drastically, doesn't it seem to follow that we can construct at least a good amount of what the original probably looked like? It seems that Kurt has guzzled his own kool-aid spiked with "Misquoting Jesus." Secondly, Kurt also reveals himself to be quite disconnected with reality. The fact is virtually every evangelical apologist of the past half century has responded to these kinds of claims. These same evangelical apologists which Kurt claims have had so much of a negative impact on secular society. So much that Kurt has never apparently never bothered to read any of them.

So for those like Kurt here are some good responses to the kinds of arguments brought up in this Newsweek article;  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/newsweek/, http://michaeljkruger.com/a-christmas-present-from-the-mainstream-media-newsweek-takes-a-desperate-swipe-at-the-integrity-of-the-bible-part-1/, http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/12/29/newsweek-on-the-bible-so-misrepresented-its-a-sin/.

There are further mishaps that are quite hilarious such as Kurts firm belief in the infamous Constantine Conspiracy. You know, the idea that Constantine was really the one who was responsible for forming the New Testament Canon and core Christian doctrines like the Trinity (even though he was an Arian who disagreed with much of what the Councils he organized concluded). None of these sorts of claims are all that new either and have been made and responded to by every skeptic and every defender of the Christian faith.

Existence of God Handout

My Apologies but God Does Exist

There are numerous issues and topics related to apologetics and only one of these is the existence of God. When it comes to God’s existence, the Christian apologetic has focused on philosophical and scientific arguments.

The Structure of Arguments:

Arguments for the existence of God are generally expressed as syllogisms. These are lists of claims from which a new claim or claims can be deduced. For example;

1)    All bread gets moldy

2)    Wheat is a form of bread

3)    Therefore, wheat gets moldy

There are 2 qualifications for all these kinds of arguments; that they are valid and sound. Validity means that the last statement follows from the last two statements. So the above argument would not be valid if it stated that some bread gets moldy, wheat is a form of bread, and therefore wheat gets moldy. If only some bread gets moldy, then it does not follow that wheat gets moldy just because it is a kind of bread. For an argument to be sound, it must be true. Here is where the debate for most arguments lie. An argument might be valid but make false claims. In the case above, someone might point to a kind of exotic or experimental kind of bread that can be made which never gets moldy.

All syllogisms have as their goal to start with uncontroversial claims and end with controversial claims. In other words, all arguments want to start with ideas everyone believes to be true and draw from those ideas new ideas which few people believe to be true.

A Reasonable Faith:

Kinds of Arguments for God’s Existence;

1)    Cosmological- Arguments from the existence of the universe.

2)    Teleological- Arguments from the purpose or function of the universe.

3)    Moral/Axiological- Arguments from the nature/existence of morals.

4)    Arguments from Reason/logic

5)    Ontological- Arguments from the idea or definition of God.

Cosmological

An example of a Cosmological argument is the Kalam Cosmological argument. It is named after the Islamic philosopher who developed it;

1)    Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

2)    The universe began to exist.

3)    Therefore the universe has a cause.

You’ll notice first of all that this argument doesn’t conclude that God exists. It only argues the modest claim that the universe was caused to exist. This is because there is actually a second part of the argument which operates differently than the first. This second part goes like this;

If something caused the universe to exist what must we say about it? First of all, we must say that whatever caused the universe, it must be timeless and spaceless, because it created space and time (i.e. the universe). This means that the cause is eternal and isn’t made of material (doesn’t have a body). What’s more, it must be enormously powerful and intelligent to create a universe this massive and complex. Finally, the cause of the universe must be personal, meaning it (or he/she) must be capable of making decisions and thereby has free will. This means that the cause of the universe is either God or something like God.

This may sound like the end of the argument, but there are always ways of critiquing or “attacking” arguments. Here the critic of this argument could attack either (1) or (2) as unsound aka false claims. But the theist can also provide further arguments in support of both claims.

In supporting (1) we can argue that everything we observe that begins to exist was caused to exist. We might further argue that if things did come into out of existence out of nothing then it makes no sense why just anything and everything doesn’t pop into existence around us.

In supporting (2) we can point to the overwhelming scientific consensus that the Big Bang marked the beginning of our universe. As an aside the Big Bang theory is not a theory of what caused the universe to come into existence but merely a theory that the universe expanded from a singularity (something like a black hole) 14 billion years ago. In reality, the Big Bang theory is evidence for Christianity more than it is evidence 

against it.

Teleological argument

An example of a Teleological argument is Anthropic (Fine-Tuning) Argument;

If the speed of expansion of the universe had been one part in one million million slower than the universe would have collapsed in on itself before temperatures cooled below ten thousand degrees. If the speed of expansion had increased that same amount would have prevented the formation of galaxies, stars and planets.

Had the gravitational force been slightly greater, then every star in the universe would be a blue giant and would go supernova long before habitable planets could develop. Had it been slightly lower, then heavier elements essential to the formation of life would have never formed.

If the electric charge of electrons had been only slightly different then stars would not have been able to burn hydrogen, or they would have never exploded. In both cases heavier elements necessary for life to evolve.

The difficulty in providing a natural explanation to this kind of fine tuning is that whatever natural explanation you come up with would probably be incredibly fine-tuned itself. This seems to lend positive evidence to the claim that a supernatural entity of supreme intelligence and power created the universe we see today.

Moral Argument

Moral arguments generally run as follows;

1)    If objective moral values and duties exist then God must exist.

2)    Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3)    Therefore, God must exist.

In support of (1) theists argue that because objective moral duties are not just descriptive but also prescriptive then there must be a prescriber for them. We could also say that moral duties operate like laws and so must have been established by a law giver. This law giver must have both the goodness and the power to uphold and enforce these laws. Thus this law giver must be God.

In support of (2) theists argue that it seems apparent that moral values and duties are objective. It seems impossible to believe that if someone murders children they are actually only breaking a social norm and not doing something that is objectively evil.

Argument From Reason

Arguments from reason usually are negative, meaning that they try to disprove naturalism (the belief that nature is all that exists) more than they prove God exists.

A simplified version of this argument would look like this;

1)    If naturalism is true then no beliefs form on the basis of claims or ideas.

2)    But beliefs do form on –the basis of claims (like the claim that God does not exist).

3)    Therefore naturalism is false.

As odd as this argument might seem it is actually a powerful argument. The key statement is (1) and the argument behind it is this; if naturalism is true then all beliefs and thoughts in the mind are really just byproducts of physical reactions in the brain. But if this is true then no belief is really justified on the basis of evidence and arguments, but is only believed because of physical reactions in the brain.

But clearly we do form beliefs on the basis of evidence or claims that are true. This is what every self-respecting atheist and skeptic of all things supernatural thinks! So it is equally clear that naturalism must be false.

Recommended Resources:

Apologetics:

1)    Reasonablefaith.org- Dr. William Lane Craig answers numerous questions about the existence of God and Christianity in an easily accessible way

2)    Peterkreeft.com- Peter Kreeft presents a long list and defense of arguments for God’s existence.

3)    Premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable?- Hosted by Justin Brierley, “Unbelievable?” gathers both Christian and nonChristian scholars together to discuss challenging theological and philosophical questions on a weekly basis.

4)    Biologos.org- Scientists and scholars wrestle with reconciling science with scripture and doctrine from an evolutionary creationist perspective.

5)    Equip.org- Scientists and scholars wrestle with reconciling science with scripture and doctrine from a young/old earth creationist perspective.

6)    Bethinking.org- A website with a large database of articles from a wide range of topics written by scholars in various fields to answer tough questions about the Christian faith.

Theology and Church:

7)    Whitehorseinn.org- a website with numerous podcasts and articles related to Christian theology developed by the well-respected theologian; Michael Horton.

8)    Barna.org- a useful site discussing the Christian sub-culture of America. Numerous studies provide valuable insights into issues such as why high school and college students are leaving the church in such high numbers.

9)    Ccel.org- Christian Classics Ethereal Library is a massive database of classic Christian writings from throughout the past 2,000 years of church history, and it’s all available for free.

 Theopedia.com- Sort of like Wikipedia, but for all things related to Christian doctrine.

Apathetic Individualism; Not Caring What Other People Think

Individualism, particularly in its modern forms, is a toxic plague to the Western world. It has produced generation after generation of persons raised to believe they could behave as they wished with little to no consequences. Persons who saw themselves as the locus of their social circles and their own achievements as having prime importance. These tendencies may seem harmless enough, but on a societal scale they produce an unsustainable set of cultural values. If people believe they are totally independent of one another, they will not care for one another. This idea can be broadly termed apathetic individualism since it is the individual who has no interest in their fellow citizens thoughts, ideas or behaviors and the value that this is the way society should be.

Apathetic Individualism is what I call a micro-worldview, because people hold it in isolation to other ideas and ideologies, which do not appear to cohere together. For instance, clearly no one believes that we shouldn't care what our family members think or how our friends feel. This principle is meant to be applied to strangers and society at large. Even still, this idea has extremely unsettling implications. These include; the complete deconstruction of community, the elimination of humility as a virtue and the decoherence of personal rights and liberties.

Destruction of Community;

Broadly speaking a community is a group of people attached by common experience, identity, interests, goals etc. By definition then, a community cannot exist where each individual sees their own experience, identity, interests and goals as set a part from and against all other individuals. This belief is not only toxic to communities, it's absolutely lethal.

Granted, there is the qualification noted above that this micro-worldview is not universally applicable. However, even though there are the exceptions of friends and family, these exceptions appear completely arbitrary. This is because the reasoning used to establish the claim that we shouldn't care what other people think is generally the power others have over us if we do care what they think.

To unpack this reasoning a bit more, suppose that someone is in an argument with their significant other. Suppose further that this someone yells at their partner that they are worthless, ugly and unlovable. A reasonable reaction of this someone's partner would be to deny having any emotional investment in said someone's opinion. In other words, denying that she cared what he thought. To admit we care about one another's opinion of us then, is to give them power over us. However, the people closest to us then have the most power over us since we, by definition, care more about what they think. So if this reasoning is to be applied anywhere, it should be applied to our family and friends.

Moreover, to suggest that we should not care what others think of us because we cannot afford to allow them to have any power or influence over us, is to suggest that others having power over us is bad. Thus, hidden in this idea is the assumption that we should be completely free of the influence of others. In other words, to be a completely self-empowered individual.

The Elimination of Humility;

Supposing the ethic that we should be a completely self-empowered individual is true, it seems also to follow that we should believe our individuality and self-expression is of the upmost importance. This is incompatible with the traditional view that humility is to be valued. Humility, if it is to be defined with any meaning, must carry with it the notion that we ought not to think of ourselves too much, nor think too much of ourselves.

Humility then, requires a right and proportional view of oneself in contrast and with respect to one's community and society at large. However, if we ought not to care what others think of us, then we must see our selves only in relation to ourselves. In other words, we are self-defining and self-empowered. Self-expression, no matter how belligerent or inconsiderate, must be seen as appropriate and even encouraged.

The Decoherence of Human rights and liberties;

To say someone has a right is to say that they deserve an object or service. Conversely, to say someone has a liberty is to say they deserve to be allowed to perform an action, provide a service or possess an object. Simultaneously, to say someone deserves something is to say someone else owes them said thing.

Given these ideas, to say we shouldn't care what other people think creates a self-defeating view of human rights and liberties. This is because such views discourage and demonize virtually any action which gives one person power over another. So if I deserve money from another person, I need them to give me that amount of money. But supposing they fail to do so I am left vulnerable. Conversely, if I owe another person a certain amount of money, I am obligated to give them said amount of money and if I fail to do so, I can be punished or discredited as a member of the community.

Furthermore, if we shouldn't care what others think of us or what they think in general, it seems natural to dually suppose that we shouldn't care what they think they deserve from us. We should only care about what we deserve; self-expression and empowerment. But here's the rub; how can we care about what we deserve without also caring about what others think about what they owe us? Liberties and rights, then, do not make sense given the micro-worldview that we shouldn't bother ourselves about the thoughts and opinions of others.

With the decoherence of human rights and liberties, the elimination of humility and the deconstruction of communities, it is difficult to see how society could possibly function. Society, by definition, involves a group of people interacting with one another but if we fail to value the beliefs of others, then we fail to interact with them on any meaningful level. The conclusion of all of this is simply that if the micro-worldview described above is absolutized, it leads to the complete unraveling of society itself. This should, at the very least, lead us to question the validity of apathetic individualism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional clarifications and discussion;

It is clear that people don't hold to the worldview that we ought not care what others think in isolation. Many would argue that we should choose carefully who we care about and whose opinions we value. This position appears to make a great deal of sense, at least more sense than simply believing that others opinions don't matter. However, this also carries with it at least 2 main difficulties. Firstly that others opinions affect us whether we choose to value them or not and secondly that choosing whose opinions we value seems to assume that we already have the self-empowerment to choose whose opinions matter to us.

With regard to the first difficulty, it is a matter of fact that we cannot live in isolation. Other people's beliefs and opinions impact us on a day to day basis on every level of life. The president of the United States along with Congress can decide to implement a draft into the military in order to go to war. The way our neighbors and coworkers vote affects the laws which we must abide. The attitudes of drivers around us on our way to work, largely govern their behavior on the road and our reactions to them. We cannot simply announce that these people's opinions hold no value in our lives. The fact is, to function in society, we must value the opinions of others whether we recognize it or not.

This leads to the second difficulty, which is closely related to the first. To believe we can choose whose opinions we value is to assume that we have the power to choose who affects our lives or not. To value something is to give it significance and meaning. So to say you have the power to choose whose beliefs and opinions matter to you is to assume that you distribute meaning and significance to other people. When stated explicitly, this appears to be absurd and completely ridiculous because it is absurd and completely ridiculous.

If we do not have the power to choose who affects us and who does not, then we are forced to care about what others think about us and about everything and everyone we interact with on a daily basis. If we must care about what others think then we must reject apathetic individualism. Given this, we should also reject even the view that we should simply choose carefully whose opinion we value.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Better Viewpoint;

Given the conclusions above, it seems that we should care about everyone's opinion equally. Clearly this will not do, merely because it is not possible. We cannot value a stranger we are not even aware of in the same way we value our parents or siblings even though the actions and opinions of both can affect us a great deal. The better viewpoint then is to place a subjective sort of value on the opinions and values of certain people more than others, purely on the basis of our limitations, not our importance. I value the opinion of my father, not because I simply desire to bless him but because he brought me into this world and so he deserves my respect. I won't value the opinions of a total stranger as much because I have no connection to them and so have fewer obligations to them. I must value that which is actually most important to me, not what appeals to me the most. I do not matter in the grand scheme of things, I only matter in relation to those who value me.