I think you have to be qualified to critique someone. The qualification comes not merely in your knowledge of the subject upon which your critique is based (which is very important), but also in your relationship with the person. I have many “friends” (especially in the blog world) who feel the need to contact me every time they see that I have gone astray. I don’t hear from them at all except when they are going to lower the hammer, “coming to my aid” to show me my error. “Oh, no. Not an email from _________.” I normally just ignore all correspondence I get from these certain people. You know the type because you have them in your life as well. And woe to those when this type of fault finding defines our marriages. It is better to live in the corner of an attic without your iPhone than to live with such a person.
But these people are not really my “friends”. They are simply fault-finders. And it is not just me they attack, they have a track record of fault-finding in everyone. Whether or not their critique is correct, I, personally, don’t listen to them because they have not gained my ear. And neither should you. Well, neither should you if you want to keep your sanity and be productive. The sad fact is that we live in a world where the fault-finders out number the encouragers.
The Proverb, “the wounds of a friend are better than the kisses of an enemy” (Proverbs 27:6) is true. But don’t fail to notice something: I find nowhere in this verse that the wounds are what establishes the friendship. It is encouragement, belief in, and true knowledge of the individual that comes from long fraternity. I often tell people that we need to live by the 10/1 rule. You have to have ten words of encouragement before you are qualified to give one word of correction.
One of my favorite movies this time of year is Christmas Vacation. At the risk of getting one of those emails from my “friends” who will not like me speaking about a secular movie such as this, I think the illustration is appropriate to what is happening in the Mike Licona situation. Watch the following video. The first part represents the publication of Mike’s Resurrection of Jesus. The last part represents the reaction of a fault-finder.
“I dedicate this house to the Griswald family Christmas: 25,000 lights!!!”
“The little lights aren’t twinkling, Clark.”
“I know Art and thanks for noticing.”
Mike Licona:
“I dedicate this book to the defense of the Christian faith!: 718 pages!!!”
“The little lights are not twinkling, Mike.”
“Thanks for noticing.”
I am not saying that Mike Licona’s little lights are not twinkling in this case. But one thing is for sure: theologically speaking, we all have lots of little lights that don’t twinkle. We will get them fixed in heaven. However, let us notice first all the 25,000 other lights that are shining bright to the glory of the Lord. If some of the”big” lights are out, we do need to draw attention to them most certainly. But we must face the fact that all our lights don’t twinkle as they should. And how rare is it for people’s lights to be on at all?
Destroying people is easy. It is building them up that takes time, patience, tact, serious thought, and the ability to draw attention to the good 10/1 over the not so good.
17 replies to "The Little Lights aren’t Twinkling, Mike Licona"
Titus 3:9.
I haven’t read the book. No telling when or if I’ll ever get to it with the volume of other reading I’ve wanted to do. From what I understand, out of 718 pages, it’s a very minor section, from a paragraph to maybe a few pages. Other than that one point about the graves opening, everything else I’ve heard indicates the rest of the book is pretty solid.
I know little about Geisler. This episode isn’t giving me any motivation to read one of his books. And you’re right; it’s easy to tear down. It’s much harder to build a relationship from which to offer correction.
I’m not sure what kind of hierarchy exists among the “evangelical elite”, but when I first heard about Geisler demanding a response from Licona, I wondered why Licona didn’t respond with “I don’t answer to you. I’ll get to it when I get to it.” That’s what I would have done.
You might find this helpful at this particualr moment, Michael:
1. People who IGNITE our passion: These people are very resourceful people who always make a positive contribution to our world. They rarely leave without leaving us feeling uplifted, impelled to great growth and more aware of further possibilities. They are our models, we study their ways and customize them for ourselves. We lean on them for direction. We gain energy from their courage and maturity. They are clearly an addition to who we are and what we are doing.
2. People who SHARE our passion: These are our teammates and together we know the whole is greater than its parts. We do not spend a lot of time trying to get along or determining who is in charge. We are bound together for a purpose and together we stimulate each other for better outcomes. Together we rejoice in our successes and weep in our disappointments. These people make a positive contribution to our lives.
3. People who CATCH our passion: These are very trainable people who catch our passion. Although this requires energy on our part, we are glad to cooperate because we sense the possibilities in them. It is in the sharing of ourselves that we stir our own passion to serve and grow because we see the immediate effect it has upon them.
4. People who ENJOY our passion: These are very nice people, they come in large numbers and we love to have them around. They clap, laugh and build our egos. They fill the pews, the rooms and programs. But the truth of the matter is they contribute very little. They do not add to our passion, nor do they seriously diminish it. They simply enjoy it.
5. People who SAP our passion: These are very draining people who consume our passion relentlessly. Gordon says, “I discovered as time went by that every cluster of people (business, school, and church) has a percentage of these people.” They will be drawn to a healthy group of people and will remain until they become self-sustaining or until they are pushed away. A healthy cluster of people will loss its vitality (passion) mysteriously and unpredictably because there are simply too many very draining people to sustain. The life of the group becomes problem or crisis oriented and forward movement becomes impossible. If they are permitted to relentlessly drain leaders of their passion it will ultimately create a climate in which no one will want to serve in leadership. This is true on a personal level as well as group level.
I got it from http://bit.ly/u763gP
Bev Hislop’s trans-formed blog
Are some folks saying:
“The Little Lights aren’t Twinkling, Norman Geisler”
Went through this in the last decade. I decided then that I was going to be encouraging rather than discouraging. One can be an encourager and still defend the faith.
Oh, man! There goes my whole philosophy of ministry!
What Geisler has done is shameful and more evangelicals need to rise up and call him on it.
I think good ole Norm is trying to coat the bottom of Mike’s sled with a little extra cereal coating hoping he’ll never make it home to even plug the lights in! In other words, he’s turned a slippery slope into a luge course by spittin’ on Mike’s sled and hoping it sticks and freezes! and that dog won’t hunt…
It is a good post. And a very important one.
My only question is where was it when people were tearing apart Rob Bell?
I don’t agree with Bell, but the way he was taken down was unfair.
Eric Miller (from previous thread) wrote:
“The conflict isn’t simply that “Resurrection of the Saints” isn’t historical. That is a blatant misrepresentation of the controversy. The issue IS inerrancy. Dr. Licona has said:
“It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend, as Wedderburn notes. We may also be reading poetic language or legend at certain points, such as Matthew’s report of the raising of some dead saints at Jesus death (Mt 27:51-54) and the angel(s) at the tomb (Mk 15:5-7; Mt 28:2-7; Lk 24:4-7; Jn 20:11-13”
If there are embellishments and legends in Scripture that undercuts any view of inerrancy. I like Dr. Licona but people need to stop downplaying the seriousness of his assertions.
http://normangeisler.net/public_html/ResponseMLEPS.html”
Eric, if you happen to chance upon this thread, thanks for providing the link above. I just read it and it’s a convincing and substantive refutation. Thank you for your comment.
TUD-
“If there are embellishments and legends in Scripture that undercuts any view of inerrancy. I like Dr. Licona but people need to stop downplaying the seriousness of his assertions.”
But what if that portion was representing a genre that was not meant to portray historical events (as opposed to the Resurrection), yet was being used to proclaim something different? The text was not then “in error”. This is about genre, not inerrancy.
@Rick, comment 9:
Excellent point.
Great movie, Christmas Vacation. My entire family, even extended to cousins and second cousins all make sure to annually watch this at Christmas, and it is always playing in the background at our get togethers and meals, sometimes just muted, but always there.
It’s definitely the classic christmas movie of my generation. (I’m 46), but even my Mom and the other older family members love it.
And hardly a family get-together goes by all year round, where at least a few lines are not quoted or scenes recalled from the film.
While I’m not surprised Geisler would do this, I believed Mohler had the wisdom and sense to to see this situation more in the way Michael does.
I completely agree with Michael on this.
His example of Revelation 20 is perfect. I am innerrantist but I definitely do not take the thousand years literally.
But there is no way I would call someone non-innerant who believed it to be literal. Just as Michael says, it’s a hermeneutical issue all the way.
It has nothing at all to do with innerancy.
It’s a sad situation and I hope Mike Licona the best in the future and that this ridiculous thing goes away quickly, but hopefully with Geisler and Mohler seeing and owing up to the mistake they have made here.
@Eric. You said the exact same thing in the post in the last thread. Here again is the problem with what you said.
“”The conflict isn’t simply that “Resurrection of the Saints” isn’t historical. That is a blatant misrepresentation of the controversy. The issue IS inerrancy. Dr. Licona has said:
“It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend, as Wedderburn notes. We may also be reading poetic language or legend at certain points, such as Matthew’s report of the raising of some dead saints at Jesus death (Mt 27:51-54) and the angel(s) at the tomb (Mk 15:5-7; Mt 28:2-7; Lk 24:4-7; Jn 20:11-13”
If there are embellishments and legends in Scripture that undercuts any view of inerrancy. I like Dr. Licona but people need to stop downplaying the seriousness of his assertions.”
Notice that the text says “could” and “may.” So time for my own questions.
Have you tried to find out what Licona means by embellishments?
Do you know what Licona’s book originally was and who his target audience was at the time.
Have you read the book yourself?
I’ve read Geisler’s postings on this. They’re not convincing. Geisler is not an authority here because he is not a NT scholar and does not show familiarity with their work.
I haven’t read the book, but do you know what it seems like the upshot of this whole things is to me?
It seems like Licona is saying that *even though* there is a possibility that the gospels contain myth, *even though* they are written in the style of greco-roman biographies, and so it is hard to tell where fact ends and myth starts, the available evidence *still* points very strongly to the fact that Jesus lived, died, and rose again! How ridiculously compelling is that? That is so incredibly heartening to me.
What is more convincing, someone saying to you, “There were angels at the tomb, many rose when Jesus did, and the resurrection of Jesus is true. I know all this things because the bible says them.”
OR, someone saying “I’ve looked at the evidence for these three things. The first two seem like they *may* have elements of mythology and may not have really happened. But from what I can see, the third one pretty much definitely happened.”
That’s incredible! That kind of biblical scholarship should have people jumping up and down in excitement: though they may deny the presence of angels, though they may deny many biblical events, *even skeptics* cannot deny the strong probability that Jesus *actually* rose from the dead.
I just can’t stop ranting about how incredible that is. I can’t believe any Christian would tear someone down for saying that. If that isn’t a compelling argument for Christianity, nothing is. It’s certainly better than saying “the bible is inerrant so everything in it is true. How do we know it’s inerrant? Oh, because it says in there that it’s inerrant. Since it’s inerrant, we must believe what it says about itself being inerrant.”
While I have read neither book directly and can only draw conclusions from what is contained within this and related posts; I have frequently observed the fallacy of one assuming your personal interpretation at any point in time is the same thing as the “original intent” of the scripture as we refer to it.
We would be wise to agree, disagree, debate, research and pray about what the true and inspired intent of any passage without accusing another of denying the inerrancy of the scripture. The scripture alone is the scripture and our personal conclusions no matter how well researched and logically constructed remain our conclusions alone. Yes there are some foundational essentials truths about Christianity contained in the bible and a lot of room to agree to disagree without believing ourselves omniscient enough to put words into another’s mouth or to be 100% sure of what they meant to say.