Debunking ‘Patronizing Nonsense’

[soso]

Are You a Dangerous Christian?

Debunking ‘Patronizing Nonsense’

By: John Stonestreet|Published: January 12, 2017 6:00 AM

Topics: Christian Living, Church Issues, Theology

How far can Christianity be reduced /before it’s no longer Christianity?
We need to be able to answer that question with a firm answer.

듣기 Listen Now | Download

One of C. S. Lewis’ most famous arguments is his so-called “trilemma,” laid out in “Mere Christianity.”

Because of the things Jesus said and did, reasoned Lewis, He must either have been a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.

* mere; bare minimum 최소한도의

He made this point to debunk the most common secular misconception of Jesus, which has only grown more popular in the last half century. “I can accept Jesus /as a great moral teacher,” says the secularist. “Maybe He was a kind of first-century Gandhi. But I can’t accept him as God in human flesh.”

Lewis called this idea “patronizing nonsense.” Apart from the historic belief that Jesus is God and man, born of a virgin,

that He died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead /on the third day, Lewis could see no future for Christianity.

“Mere” or bare-minimum Christian faith, he argued, requires a belief in these miracles.

Yet many today still insist that some kind of stripped-down, “bare-essentials” Christian faith is possible,

and that the ancient summaries like the Apostles’ Creed are too exclusive.

During a sit-down interview with pastor Tim Keller /just before Christmas, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof suggested that Christianity can survive without the virgin birth or Resurrection.

“I deeply admire Jesus and his message,” he said, “but am also skeptical of themes that have been integral to Christianity—the virgin birth, the Resurrection, the miracles, and so on.” Are these really that essential to the Christian faith? Isn’t it possible to be a Christian /without embracing them?

* integral; necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental.

Keller replied that you can’t remove Jesus’ miraculous entry /into the world or His miraculous return to life “without destabilizing the whole of Christianity. A religion can’t be whatever we desire it to be.”

He went on to explain that the main point of Jesus’ teaching, and of the New Testament, is not a moral maxim, but a message:

that Jesus Christ is God in human form, Who was and did everything () the ancient creeds say. And believing this is essential.

As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15, if Christ did not rise /from the dead, our faith is vain, and we Christians are to be pitied /above all people.

Now as far as I’m concerned, Keller knocked it out of the park. But judging by the letters to the editor,

it seems () many readers felt differently.

One United Church of Christ minister chided the paper /for allowing an evangelical to represent Christianity.

The creeds, she wrote, “are not tests of faith for individuals,” and “the virgin birth is not central.”

* chide; scold or rebuke.

And a religion professor at Hofstra University scolded the Times /for giving a “platform” to Keller’s “dangerous” reading of Christianity.

If you know anything about Tim Keller, a lot of adjectives come to mind. But “dangerous” isn’t one of them. But to those //who prefer patronizing nonsense /to historic Christianity, there’s nothing more dangerous /than someone //who can convincingly articulate the miraculous doctrines /at the core of our faith.

*** patronizing nonsense; 자기격하 몰상식

*** patronize; treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.

The verb condescend used to be free of any hint of the offensive superiority it usually suggests today. It could mean literally "to go or come down" or, figuratively, "to willingly lower oneself to another’s level," senses that are still occasionally encountered in writings on the Bible. The idea of self-consciously lowering oneself is implied in the "patronizing" sense of condescending.

In our culture of skepticism and unbelief, being winsome doesn’t guarantee a warm reception. But messengers like Keller not only make the claims of historic Christianity more accessible in our secular culture, they model what it looks like to be both loving and—as our critics put it— “dangerous.”

At our 2017 Wilberforce Weekend the Colson Center is hosting two of the most dangerous Christians around

—Ravi Zacharias and Os Guinness.

May 19^th through the 21^st in Washington D.C. This will be our biggest event yet, and we want you to be there.

Why? Because “dangerous Christianity” can’t be outsourced to the professionals alone.

[All //who follow Christ] are to be informed and equipped to proclaim Him to the world around them.

So visit WilberforceWeekend.org to reserve your spot—and be strengthened /as you contend for the faith delivered once for all.

Further Reading and Information

Are You a Dangerous Christian?: Debunking ‘Patronizing Nonsense’

Be informed and equipped, as John recommends, to model true Christianity. Join with hundreds of believers at the 2017 Wilberforce Weekend in Washington, DC. Click here for more information.

Resources

Am I a Christian, Pastor Timothy Keller?
Nicholas Kristof | New York Times | December 23, 2016

The Diversity of Christian Belief
Letters to the Editor | New York Times | January 3, 2017

Wilberforce Weekend 2017
website

Available at the online bookstore

Mere Christianity
C. S. Lewis | HarperOne Publisher

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
Lee Strobel | Zondervan Publisher | December 2013