Presuppositionalism and Beauty | Backpack Radio Reflection Episode #111

Episode #111: “Presuppositionalism and Beauty” (November 11, 2012)

I turned to the archives for this episode because it was categorized under “Art.” Hey, I like Art! I want to talk about Art! Give me some Art!

Okay, so, like, after listening, a commoner like myself might ask—in the fashion of that oldie-but-goodie commercial for Wendy’s in which the elderly lady asks Where’s the beef?—“Where’s the Art?”

It’s there, folks. But you gotta listen. You’ll need to make some inferences. You’ll need to put two and two together. Plus, there’s a little something specific at the end.

This episode focuses on the “Presuppositional Apologetic Method,” and the guest is Lindsay Brooks, deejay/musician/apologist (Artist!). Brooks was very articulate, and engaging. Though I wanted more arttalk, I can see—I acquiesce—to the importance of doing groundwork first. In order to properly discuss the meaning and nature of Art (notice how I’m using a big “A” throughout), one must understand the context of the conversation.

Brooks points out that when the Apostle Paul moves into his own discussion process, if you will, in Acts 17, he does something pretty radical; he begins with the premise that the One True God exists. In a sweeping and rather bold move, Paul removes all idols by simply not acknowledging their legitimacy. Wow! Basically, the bedrock of this apologetic method, then, is sola scriptura: the Bible is the ultimate authority on life.

Allow me to try to identify some important terms and people that keep coming up in my commoner’s life, even though I try—often enough—to suppress the truth in unrighteousness:

• Presuppositionalism: we inevitably, inescapably begin all discussions with presupposed notions. We cannot not come to the table with a set of defining beliefs. Are we really ever able to objectively escape ourselves, or do we carry our worldviews with us? This is more associated with Reformed types.
• Evidentialism: I think I am personally going to dub this the “Show Me The Money” apologetic method (and if you don’t know to what that is referring, I am definitely the wrong girl for you). This is the idea that evidence is what leads to belief. If you can cough up the evidence, you can sway the masses. This is more associated with Fundamentalism and the Christians you might meet with tracts and stuff (though Reformed types sometimes have tracts too). These folks are more likely to show up with a dinosaur bone, as well.
• Cornelius Val Til: big thinker, articulator of presuppositionalism. Why don’t we name our children “Cornelius” anymore? Wasn’t that one of the ape’s names in the great classic movie, Planet of the Apes? 
• Greg Bahnsen: His mentor was Van Till. He carried the torch. “The Transcendental Argument”: Knowledge and logic are only possible if there is a God. This gets pretty confusing, but it makes sense. How can linear, sensical thought even happen without an Absolute? So, like, God makes rationality possible. Ho Hey, as The Lumineers might say. 

There you go. Theology made easy! I need help from the big guys!

So, one thing you might especially take away from this is that presuppositionalism would imply there is no such thing as neutrality. We cannot really be neutral about anything. We have our presuppositions with us at all time.

Onto Art!

Um, I heard hints of it. Lindsay Brooks began formulating his ideas on universals, his understanding of a beauty that is transcendent. In my favorite quote from the episode, he said, “I live and breathe the pursuit of the awesome.”

That’s awesome, right there.

I liked where we were going. I’m ready for a little more. How does Art fit in? What role does objectivity play in beauty?

Really, there’s so much to say on Art. Is there such thing as “good” Art? How is that defined? By whom? What is “bad” Art? What is the purpose of Art? Ah, Art. The pursuit of the awesome!

Jennifer Bell is mostly a writer, but she's also an English teacher. The author of two books of fiction, she lives with her husband and two kids in Phoenix.

Covenantal Apologetics | Backpack Radio Reflection Episode #178

Episode #178: Covenantal Apologetics

Oh, I loved this one! The guest is K. Scott Oliphint, a professor at Westminster in Philly, and he’s got a book out. He sounds like he really knows his stuff.

Let’s see if they let me post this one.

I guess I want to talk about the importance of getting into it. Of going all analytical. Of “over-thinking,” whatever that means.

This very morning, I was driving my kids to school and they launched into an impromptu comparison of the churches we’ve attended. Among the things they noted was the fact that, at this church, there’s a ball pit in the home where we go for our small or community group meetings, which is a vast improvement over the non-pit offerings of other churches. The ball pit, one of my kids said, is “awesome.” But, she continued, “someone kicked me in the head” in the pit. Alas, it’s a trade off. When one picks a church, one must consider whether or not there is a ball pit—but one must understand the risks: You Might Get Kicked In The Head.

And by sharing this, I am illustrating what exactly?

We make our choices based on what we believe, on what we value.

Here’s the thing: I’m not much of a theologian or an apologist. I prefer reading Ernest Hemingway, probably Charles Dickens, and maybe even obscure poetry or some William Faulkner’s wild prose over and above this hard-core doctrinal stuff. That said, I think it’s super important. One has to get over one’s own prejudices and weaknesses. The apologetic must come first. If you’re a Christian, but you don’t really know why—or if you can’t speak intelligently about beliefs—it’s a problem. I think it’s why we Christians get a bad reputation. We kinda sound dumb. It isn’t our odd dating habits or even the whole creationism thing; it’s that we can’t adequately back up our beliefs about these things. We get a little stupid.

So, like, don’t pick your church because you get to play in the ball pit. Go for the apologetic, the Truth.

All this to say that I really liked this episode. I found it rigorous, substantive, good for the soul.

I know I think anecdotally. This has been highlighted more and more in my life as a writer. I’ll be approached to look at some piece of analytical writing and I’ll kinda wince at the dryness of it all. I’m sure the analytical-types read my stuff and ask, “But where’s the content?” I’m all like, You have to earn your content through story.

The interesting thing is that God does it this way too. I don’t want to say that He “earns” His content, but God talks doctrine often enough by using story. He “backs up” the apologetic with the life of Abraham or Isaac or Moses or Joseph or Hannah or Elizabeth or Mary.

So don’t diss story.

But don’t diss apologetics, either.

My guess is that many a fine Christian is backing off this stuff because it seems so esoteric. Really, that can’t be right. God did give us exciting stories like the Red Sea parting and King David doing stuff you see in the movies—but He also gave us the book of Romans. Go figure.

This episode will give you some apologetics to ponder. This way, you go beyond Ball Pit Thinking.

  

Jennifer Bell is mostly a writer, but she's also an English teacher. The author of two books of fiction, she lives with her husband and two kids in Phoenix.