Ben and Ravi

Today I watched Ben interview Ravi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIMwWtt_EVQ

Before getting to the main point:

1. I've now watched Ben interview Ravi, W. L. Craig, and Bishop Barron. Of the three, Ravi is the most compelling communicator. Craig is dry. Although Barron is affable, he strikes me a joyless.

By contrast, Ravi projects warmth and kindliness. Has a soothing soft-spoken delivery. Due to his vast experience conversing with folks around the globe, he can dip into countless personal anecdotes. He has a more existential emphasis than Craig, although the "meaning of life" is part of Craig's apologetic menu. 

As a young Christian I read some of his stuff, but found it too superficial. So it's nice to come back to him after so many years.

2. Lots of seasoned wisdom in Ravi's answers to Ben. Because he's from India, and continues to do ministry in the Third World, as well as the west, he brings a cosmopolitan perspective to bear, in contrast to apologists whose experience is more provincial and ethnocentric. 

3. I can't tell from his answer what he thinks the role of religion plays in formulating law and public policy. He doesn't think we should impose our religious beliefs on other people, but laws are inherently coercive, and some ethical philosophy or another must inform law and public policy. 

We can draw a roughhewn distinction between forcible conversion and/or penalizing religious minorities, on the one hand, from laws that exemplify the social ethics of a particular faith. 

4. Although I think Ravi usually gave good answers, they might not hold up well if he was having a conversation with a savvy atheist like Graham Oppy or Erik Wielenberg. It might require a more philosophical thinker than Ravi to defend his answers.

5. In his answers to Ben, Ravi took many opportunities to build bridges between Christianity and Judaism. But when it came to leading Ben across the bridge from Judaism to Christianity, I thought Ravi gave a weak answer. You can listen to it for yourself.

His weak answer was ironic since he knew Ben was going to ask him a question like that, even if he couldn't predict just how Ben would frame the question. It's the question Ben is most interested in hearing the Christian answer to, as well why most viewers tune in to watch Ben interview Christian apologists. 

I suspect the reason for Ravi's weak answer is that his ministry is mostly geared to Muslims, Hindus, atheists, and Nones. So he hasn't had occasion over the years to developed a sophisticated answer to that question. Even though he knew it would come up during the interview, he hasn't had time over the years to work out a well-developed answer. 

6. Here's Ben's question:   

Let's talk about an area where we disagree, and that is on the veracity of the NT v. the OT. Let's begin with a broader philosophical framework: what do you think Christianity adds to the world that Judaism didn't in the first place?

i) They never even got around to the veracity of the NT. There's no lack of material on that topic. Two useful treatments are: Peter Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? and Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View.

ii) So how would I answer the question: what do you think Christianity adds to the world that Judaism didn't in the first place? 

Here's an illustration: in preparation for a painting, some painters first do a series of drawings. For instance, they sketch artistic models from different angles. One creative decision is which angle will best fit into the overall composition of the painting. 

The drawings may be wonderful artwork in their own right. So the painting doesn't replace the drawings. You don't throw the sketchbook away. In a sense, the painting may not even be better than the drawings. But it's more complete. And the painting is the goal of the drawings. They were done with a view to the painting, not vice versa. 

iii) What's the point of the tabernacle or animal sacrifices? Do they have any independent significance? Or does their value lie in what the symbolism points to? There's nothing intrinsically redemptive about animal sacrifice. That can't really atone for sin. As tokens of redemption, they point to the need for a Redeemer. For final redemption. 

iv) In OT history, God sends prophets, God raises up kings, God establishes a priesthood. All these offices mediate God. But you don't encounter God himself. It's just a procession of human representatives speaking and acting on God's behalf and in his place. It's so repetitious, and it never culminates in God himself or direct religious experience. It's buffered and filtered through intermediaries. 

Oh, there's Jewish mysticism, but from what I can tell, that's ersatz mysticism. Grafted onto Judaism from Neoplatonism. Foreign to Judaism. And a literary or philosophical construct instead of having an actual mystical experience of God. 

But with the Incarnation, there's a direct encounter between God and man. Yahweh comes to us, in person. Even more so than in theophanies. To actually meet God face-to-face. Of course, we're human, so God uses a human vehicle. We can relate to that more naturally than angelophanies or fire theophanies. We're not angels. Fire is inanimate.  

There's a paradox to divine revelation. Humans have the greatest affinity for fellow humans. Nothing is more like us or as much like us as another human being. So the closest approach God can make to us is by becoming one of us. By coming to us as a human being. 

But not just a human being. On the other side of the human side is the divine side. To take a comparison, don't you wish you could just ask God any question and he'd answer you in an audible voice? The voice would sound human. It would use human language. Yet God would be the speaker. Behind the voice would be the mind of God. By virtue of the Incarnation, we meet God from the human side of God, yet we meet God himself. God is on the other side of the human side. It's different than a prophet speaking for God.

Of course, most Christians don't have face-to-face encounters with Jesus, although there are credible reports of Jesus appearing to people right up to our own day. But in the world to come, every believer will have an opportunity to meet God himself. Not just priests, prophets, or angels–but the God behind the messengers.  

v) In my experience, Jews typically reduce religion to ethics. (Islam does the same thing.) There's little interest in God, as such. Rather, God is the necessary ground for personal and social ethics. That's his function. God has an instrumental role to play, by providing the underpinnings for social mores. But the orientation is horizontal rather than vertical. 

In Christian theology, God is the exemplar and source of all finite goods. Although God is not a substitute for finite goods, finite goods are not a substitute for God.