Month: October 2008

Connecting to the Past

I was at a concert at our Seminary tonight where a group performed that plays the classic rock oldies from the 50’s and 60’s. Our Seminary president asked me if I was familiar with that music. I told him that my Dad raised me on it. When he and I went driving anywhere, he always had that music on and I have come to know it better than modern music. (Though I hesitate to use the term. I think much that is labelled as music today disgraces the muses.)

I recalled later on how I used to watch the Super Mario Brothers Super Show everyday. My Dad would record it and I’d watch it when I got home. In each episode, they’d also play an old song from that period normally and I’d ask my Dad what it was every day when he got home and much of those songs still remain with me. When I hear the music, I can often recall the episode that the song was played in.

I love this kind of concert also because it connects me with the past. It reminds me of something. Those old songs are still good. We have a lot of new stuff today and while I’m hard on much today, there is a degree of modern stuff I do like. I like to listen to Evanescence. I’m a huge RPG fan and Final Fantasy music drives me wild. As a Smallville fan, I love listening to Remy Zero sing “Save Me.” My crazy side also likes Weird Al Yankovic.

All modern musicians though are in debt to the musicians of the past. It was through trial and error that much of music was improved and the introduction of new ideas. Consider harmony. It was considered a scandal when it first came and today, most of us can’t even imagine the thought of music without harmony. While much has improved, there are still great old classics. How many of us in the Christian community love the great old hymns still?

But surely there’s more to this than music. Right?

We need to connect with our past. Christianity did not just pop up in the 20th century. Science did not just suddenly show up one day. Philosophy did not begin with Descartes. Many studies have been going on for a long time. While we may not have had some of the advances we have today, particularly in science, let us not lose sight of the fact that science was going on.

My roommate was once shown about someone who apostasized who is a young man who apparently also reads a lot and asked if my library could compare to his. He said it did and noted something very important about this young man’s library. There were no works in it by the ancients. Plato and Plutarch were nowhere to be found. 

I was talking to a good friend of mine today and was thinking about a lot of things he’s going through. As I was at that event of our Seminary’s tonight, I was thinking about this connection and it occurred to me that it seems my friend could have a good dose of modernism. Modern thinking is good in many ways, but it needs to be tempered by ancient thinking.

The ancients thought in ways that we didn’t. A lot of the questions that they raised have yet to be answered by us. When one reads Plato and/or Aristotle, one sees a totally different style of thinking than in our modern and contemporary philosophers. I’m not saying that all Plato and Aristotle said was right. It wasn’t. It was a different way of thinking though and they did get a lot of things right.

So, if you want to study philosophy, you need to go back and read the ancients. If you want to study science, you need to read Aristotle also with works like “Physics” and “De Caelo” as well as scientists like Kepler, Galileo, Newton, etc. If you want to study history, read Plutarch, Josephus, and Tacitus. If you want to study theology, read Aquinas, Augustine, the Reformers, and the church fathers. I could go on.

In doing so, you develop new categories and allow not just one time period to tilt your perspective. Each of us to a degree is also a product of our times and the way to cure that is to go outside our times. Read the giants that came before us. They have much to say to us and we only hurt ourselves if we refuse to listen.

Connecticut Lifts Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Normally, I don’t like to go into politics here, but this is one of those areas where there is a tie between Christianity and politics. Interestingly, politics was originally about producing a good state. Today, it seems to be just about producing a state and often, goodness has nothing to do with it. In fact, it seems the antithesis of politics.

I have here an article from the DrudgeReport on the decision:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93NOK900&show_article=1

For all who are interested, The Connecticut State Constitution can be found here:

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/connecti.txt

I found this decision not surprising, but very depressing. Especially since the reasoning behind it is nonsensical. Consider this from the first article.

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

What equal protection principles though? Perchance there are more, but I am wondering what one is being protected from in this case. Is the report wishing to say that all people are equal? In a sense, they are, but in a sense they are not, and this is a very fine distinction that must be made if we are to understand what is going on. 

I can look at our government easily and say that based on our Constitution, that we believe all men are created equal. That is equal in ontology though, that is, our nature. We are all fully human. No one is 99% human. Everyone is 100% human. That’s what humanity is. You either are human or you don’t. Now you can act ways that are or are not humane, but you cannot change your ontology. 

We all know that men and women are different though. Blacks and whites are different, but not in ontology. There are some diseases black people are more prone to and there are some white people are more prone to. This is not a racist statement. This is simply a matter of fact. To point out a difference in race is not to be a racist.

We also know the sexes are different, and we should all be thankful for that. (This single guy definitely is.) Not only in their reproductive systems, but in other ways men and women are different. A Harvard president had to step down for saying men might be better at certain things than women. There was a huge outcry from the world but one question was never asked. “Was what he said true?” Well if it was, then it’s true. There are things women are better at than men. That’s not sexism in any way. It’s simply truth. If you said women are less human for what they can’t do as well as men, then that would be sexist, and vice-versa.

Also in our world, everyone has equal rights. That is, there are some things that people are not allowed to take from you within reason. You have a right to liberty, but that doesn’t mean you have the liberty to go rape a girl you find attractive. Note also you have a right to the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to happiness. The government is not entitled to make you happy. They are just to protect you in your pursuit of it.

Homosexuals don’t want the same rights though. They want different rights. They want a right that others don’t have and that is the right to marry someone of the same sex. That has not been observed because of what sexual intercourse is. It is the method whereby the human race continues and if you are a homosexual in union with another homosexual, that is not going to happen. Homosexuals do not reproduce together. It is not because a part in the system is broken, such as in the case of sterile parents, but it is because the system itself cannot bring about that function. 

What we are doing is a dangerous activity. We are re-defining what the world is to suit our purposes, including what marriage is. If you have the right to marry who you wish, then how long until someone says they want to marry their sister? Why can’t NAMBLA get to have what they want? How long will it be before Mormon women have to start dealing with polygamy again?

Ultimately though, I believe the problem is much deeper. Homosexual marriages will strike at what it means to be a man and a woman. They will be seen as interchangeable in their most unique area and in the end, we will have male and female be simply social constructs. There is no objective male or female nature. Society simply creates that idea. 

Well why can’t society just construct human nature then and re-define what it means to be a human?

And when we do that, won’t some people be ruled out by definition?

Either we will bow ourselves to reality or we will try to re-create reality after our own desires. The latter is a dangerous game no one has ever survived.

I don’t think we’ll be the first.

Sound-Bite Culture

In the last presidential debate we had here in America, the candidates had very little time to speak. I was watching this and wanted to scream at Tom Brokaw a number of times. It’s almost as if he wanted to do anything to make sure an actual discussion of the issues wouldn’t break out. How is it that any candidate can explain their economic policy in one minute?

Now you all know that this isn’t a political blog. I won’t deny that I have strong political opinions and I do pray about this election, but I think what happened that night is simply an indicator of the way our culture is going and to an extent, it affects all of us. At the time, I currently have a number of philosophical issues I’m mulling over in my mind and I find it hard to sit down and really focus on one. Focus is not a gift of mine.

This sadly affects us in apologetics also. Our culture expects answers to come quickly and frankly, a lot of issues just can’t be solved on that timescale. I used to belong to a church and we went out one night a week for witnessing. One night before we go out, our pastor is speaking and then with the crowd suddenly says to me “Okay. You’ve got 90 seconds. Explain to us the problem of those who’ve never heard.”

Friends. That is a real problem and there are many answers to it and I think they’re worth debating back and forth, but I think anyone with an answer would agree, excepting universalists, that you really can’t answer a question like that in 90 seconds and even a universalist might want time to explain their case instead of just saying “Everyone will be saved.”

Today, I’m at work and a co-worker comes to me and wants to know what I believe as a Christian and he tells me that his church teaches that if you’re a good person and you don’t really do anything bad (I had to qualify that one immediately) but don’t believe in God, you go to Hell. Meanwhile, if Hitler repents on his deathbed, he goes to Heaven. He wanted to know if I agreed with that.

I did.

So then he asks me how it can be just for someone like that to go to Hell. (Isn’t it interesting? It’s always just to allow people to go to Heaven who are sinners, but it’s never just to allow sinners to go to Hell.)

I decide that we need to start at the beginning and start talking about the nature of God. I go through some of the attributes of God and what they mean and then point out that if that is true, and this question must be understood within the Christian framework, then it would follow that all sin is divine treason against a holy and perfect God wanting to kick him off the throne.

My reply that I got? “But you still haven’t answered my question.”

I’ll also note I did not take long in explaining this. I’ll be surprised if I took three minutes tops. I believe the question of Hell needs to be answered and there are answers, but you can’t answer a question like that in just three minutes often. Is it any wonder we don’t get to discuss fundamental ideas because we can’t discuss foundational issues enough?

Now we get interrupted. I’m the kind of guy that if I’m interested in the conversation, we can be interrupted and I can come right back and see you when I’m free and pick up exactly where I left off. I start talking to him again about this topic and the next thing I hear is “Well, I don’t remember reading about Hell in the Old Testament.”

Okay. We’ve switched the goalposts. All of a sudden, we’re on the topic of the origins of Hell. That’s fine. I can handle it. I start then talking about the Essenes and the intertestamental period and the Apocrypha. Unfortunately, this guy didn’t recognize any of this stuff which I found revealing. It makes me realize we are getting just soundbites to argue with when the issues underlying them aren’t understood at all.

But, lo and behold, here comes an interruption again.

When we get back together, again, I’m continuing but then I hear, “Wait a second. Why are you as a Christian reading non-Christian books?” Wow. Where did that come from? Again, I was happy to answer the question. I didn’t get much time and shortly afterwards, it was time to clock out which means the next day I work with this person, the topic could go anywhere.

Our culture is getting dumber simply because we can only think in those kind of sound-bites. We don’t know how to analyze issues deeply. We don’t know how to ask questions any more. All we know is how to feel things. We have become the gods of our own universes. It seems that if we cannot grasp an idea immediately, it cannot be true.

It’s going to have to start with us also. I have to improve my focus as well. I’m a product of my culture in some ways also. I believe learning truth is worth overcoming this problem though. Do you?

Beyond Application

I was talking to a friend today about doctrine and pondering something that I’d heard Greg Koukl once say on the Trinity. Koukl says that he’s only heard one sermon on the Trinity and he was the one who preached it. I could say the same thing. Churches today do not give sermons on topics of doctrine. Instead, it is all application.

At my old church, I remember being in Sunday School and going through the book of Joshua and it seemed that the only reason the book of Joshua was written so that Israel would know to obey God. Now I realize that that was an application they should have drawn out of the book, but there is much more to Joshua such as knowing the covenant nature of God and his workings through history to keep that covenant.

If all we are told is to obey God, that frankly won’t be enough. Obedience to God entails a number of things we need to understand. What kind of God are we obeying? What is his nature? Why should we obey? What are the consequences for disobeying? What are the rewards for obeying? What is the nature of sin in disobedience?

What we have to understand is that in following through with an application, there is always a reason why we are doing what we do. Consider this especially in the area of sexual ethics. Our young people are simply told “True Love Waits.” Why are we to not have sex before marriage? Well, the Bible says not to and you could experience such guilt and shame and get pregnant or get an STD.

I have this strange inkling that if that is all that a guy and girl have in their heads along with a few verses from Paul, that when they’re alone at his apartment one night and are watching a romantic DVD, that it’s not going to be enough and their passion will take over and it will be quite easy for them to reason away what they should do.

Not only that, if they don’t have any of the consequences mentioned, they could start thinking that the church was wrong on that. If the church was wrong on that, well what else could they be wrong on? Could it be that the church is simply a controlling organization that is wanting to hold back its members from pleasure?

Now all that was said is well and good to a point, but the kids need more. They need to know the nature of sin and the nature of sex and why sex without marriage is sin. What does it mean to be in a covenant? What does it mean to love someone? Is sex simply a physical action or does it involve more than just the bodies? 

All of the applications that we are to have are not out there floating in the void. They are based on doctrines and those doctrines are the ones not taught. What does the average church member know about the doctrine of the Trinity? What do they know about the atonement? What do they know about the view of Scripture? What do they know about the Problem of Evil?

That last one is especially one that the average Christian needs. One of the biggest reasons people apostasize from the faith for is the Problem of Evil. They are not equipped in their worldview to have a place where evil fits in. Then, lo and behold, here comes some great evil into their life and they throw the faith away and spend their lives railing against a God they don’t even think exists but never cared about them anyway.

Why do we have just application though? Could it be that we often see ourselves as just machines in a naturalistic universe? We are not human beings but human doings? We describe ourselves not by our ontology but by our function? All we are are creatures that are meant to perform a certain way. Let us dare not ask fundamental questions about reality. Let’s talk about being good, but let us dare not sit around and discuss what goodness itself is.

Now of course, in saying all of this, I am not saying I am against application. It’s definitely needed. My concern is that we have the cart before the horse. Application is built on the deeper doctrines. Because X is true in a Christian worldview, then you do or don’t do Y. Without that, we simply have a religion where the goal is to be a good person and if that’s the case, then why not say the good Muslim is saved or the good atheist?

I look forward to the day when we hear more of doctrine. Could it be that when we do that, we might even see more of people acting like Christ?

One At A Time

Readers of my blog know that I recently reviewed the movie “Religulous” here. I emailed a group that Bill Maher talked to in the movie, the Trucker’s Chapel, this morning before leaving for work in the hopes that eventually I and some others could go and train some of the truckers there in the hopes that the next time a Bill Maher comes by, they will be ready.

Will this happen? I don’t know. It’s up to them. Nevertheless, as an apologist, I believe this is the way to be. Yes. I’m supposed to be out there answering the critics, and I am doing such. However, a large part of what I do is equipping the saints so that they will be all the more prepared when they go to the Starbucks or are in the locker room or are standing around the water cooler. 

I realize this as SHOULD everyone in ministry. We do what we do because others don’t always have the drive, time, ability, etc. Many of us might have basic skills in medicine, for instance, but when it comes to a more serious disease, we go out to those who are skilled as doctors. While you could see them when you have a mere case of the sniffles, they are there more for when you have a serious disease that you can’t handle on your own.

For the Christian though, he is called to certain capacities by accepting Christ. He is called to evangelize even if he is not necessarily an evangelist. He is called to encourage and counsel, even if he is not a professional counselor. He is called to answer the skeptics, even if he is not meant to be a professional apologist.

What is my hope then in what I do? I’m not out to create professional apologists, though if some come along, I have no complaints! My hope is to get the average man on the street prepared. There has been a recent upsurge in attacks on the faith. We have the new atheists out there writing. We have movies like Religulous and even before that, the Da Vinci Code, which was also a book, and the popular internet movie “Zeitgeist.”

I don’t expect the attacks on the faith to decrease but to increase.

75% of our students leave the church and go off to college and lose their faith. Many of the books of the new atheists are prominently known. The Mormon church claims to baptize a Baptist church every week and if they continue growing at the rate they are, they will soon be on the path of being their own world religion.

Why is this happening?

It’s because we dropped the ball.

We ran into an emotional bunker. Christianity does involve emotions, but it is not purely an emotional event. It is rooted in truth, which is intellectual. Christianity makes claims about the real world. It tells you certain things about the universe, morality, the nature of human beings, etc. It is an intellectual faith because it is a true faith.

It’s time we acted like it and that requires all of us to do our part and not just the ones that do so professionally. I enjoyed having the Mormons visiting me and my roommate for a number of weeks. However, I realize that while I hopefully planted pebbles in their shoes, what’s going to go happen when they go to the next door?

Let’s suppose that door was slammed in their face. What will that tell them? A Mormon will interpret it as persecution and will say that Satan is trying to block the spread of the restored gospel and this is a sign of it. While not using the terminology of the restored gospel, the Jehovah’s Witnesses will treat a slammed door the same way.

Let’s imagine another scenario.

Let’s suppose they left and thought “Those guys knew their stuff, but the next ones will be easier,” and they find out that there are a couple of people at the next house who know their Bibles and can deal with their claims as well. Let’s suppose that this kind of thing happens consistently. Are the Mormons going to be hesitant to go to talk to a Christian eventually? Will the words of Christians consistently lead them to doubt? Rest assured, seeing Christians that are ignorant consistently doesn’t lead them to doubt.

The Mormons don’t hesitate going door-to-door though. Why should they? The strategy works well and they don’t generally meet informed Christians. What if they did though? What if the new atheists knew that the last people they wanted to encounter were Christians? What if Bill Maher started having his knees shake when he knew that Christians were seeing his movie?

The world is not afraid of us. Why should they be? Until they think we’re a force to be reckoned with, we can expect they will continue.

How do we change this?

Friend. I realize you’re not going to be able to address everyone in the world. I realize who you can address though. You can address that man at Starbucks. You can address the one in the locker room. You can address the one at the water cooler. You can address your children. I also practice this method with my limited scope now. I recently have had two co-workers get interested in Christian apologetics. They’re already talking to their family. The word is spreading.

Will this happen overnight? No. But then, the Mormon church didn’t reach where it was overnight. While we condemn their theology, I sadly think we can learn something from their devotion. When the cults are putting us to shame with their evangelism and study, it’s time we noticed. When atheists are thinking about issues Christians don’t even know exist, it’s time we noticed.

It can happen, but whether it will or not is up to you.

Must I Change My Views On Science?

I recently read “The Myth of God Incarnate” edited by John Hick. If there was an argument that was supposed to be persuasive in there, I didn’t see it. It seems to be the idea in non-Christian literature to assume that not only is your opponent’s position completely false, but they have no arguments for it that are worth bringing up. Nowhere will you see the exegesis of John 1:1 or Jesus’s claims of deity even in Mark. I digress though. I wish to discuss another point.

In John Hick’s own essay in the book, he speaks of how the resurrection alone does not prove the deity of Christ. To that, I agree. It’s that Jesus claimed to be God and resurrected that matters. It is not that a resurrection happened but who was resurrected. The resurrection was the vindication of his claim in that they had put him to death as a blasphemer and God raised him showing their claim was wrong.

However, that is also not the point. In this section, Hick cites George Caird with an interesting situation and one point in it I really wish to discuss. Caird wants us to imagine that a good friend who we had good reason to believe was really dead turns out to have been seen to be alive again by reliable witnesses. Caird says in this “You would certainly feel compelled to revise some of your ideas about science.”

Why?

Where did we get this strange idea that miracles means you throw science out the window. Miracles are interactions within the laws of nature that happen to be by God. If I catch an apple falling from a tree, no one thinks that the laws of science need to be re-examined. Instead, they realize an outside interference has set in. Science does not deal with that. Science tells you what happens when there is no interference.

Now it could be that if dead people started consistently coming back to life, then we might have reason to re-examine our science. However, in this case, if we have reason to believe that God performed a miracle, then there is no need to re-examine science. A Christian doctor, for instance, could fully believe that one of his patients was healed in response to prayer, and still go on to the next one and prescribe medication. (If anything, it would change the doctor’s view of prayer and not his view of medicine.)

And in fact, if this kind of event happened, it would be our view of God that would be affected. Some of us would think “You know, God apparently does more miracles in our age than I thought he did.” This would not change many of our fundamental ideas however. We would scarcely doubt upon this happening that God was triune for instance.

Yet as I see an objection like this from Caird, it just leaves me puzzled. I believe a science teacher could see a miracle take place like a resurrection and still go to a class and teach that when people die, their bodies decay. (Granted, said teacher might need to take a few days off from work in order to get past the shock though.)

The fundamental position is then that the only kind of science that will have to be re-examined is a science that is based on a naturalistic worldview that says that such cannot happen. If you live in a world and you think that all that happens is the result of naturalistic processes alone and dead people don’t come back to life, then you most certainly have to re-examine your science. If, on the other hand, you believe in a God who is capable of raising the dead to new life, then there is no need to re-examine your science.

As a Christian, I realize the value of science, but I do not believe it is the ultimate ground of truth and there are objects that don’t work according to scientific processes strictly. While my body works according to them, my typing out these words right now I do not believe to be the result of scientific processes but the result of a free-will decision on my part. (One could argue that my fingers moving and hitting the keys are a result, but I trust that my readers understand the point being made.)

When God interferes, I also don’t see a need to abandon science. Because he happened to impregnate a virgin girl, I see no reason to throw out the idea that generally speaking, sex is essential for reproduction. (I seriously doubt Joseph did also seeing as they had other children. Chances are Joseph and Mary decided to use God’s technique for bringing new life into the world. They had no reason to abandon the belief that children came through sexual reproduction because a virgin birth had taken place in the family.)

It is my hope that good Christian scientists will rise up also who will present such a view to the atheistic community. They will show not only scientific reasons for believing in the existence of God, but just do good science. Their goal will be to point out to the world that they believe in God, but they also believed he created a world of order that can be studied and that does not go against the Christian faith in either way.

Time will tell if my request is answered or not.

The Joy of Teaching

I know a friend I’ve commented on before will certainly enjoy this blog. I was thinking of writing on something different for awhile, but then events happened today that made me decide to change my mind. I was at my workplace today on my lunch break reading a book waiting to see if someone else would come by when a friend of mine came in and introduced me to his Dad.

Now I’m pleased to meet his Dad and the first thing I do is give my sympathies. (Hey! I work with this guy! I can’t imagine someone having to have lived with him any longer!) Then my friend tells me that he was trying to explain to his Dad the Law of Noncontradiction.

Anyone who is a teacher out there can imagine the smile I got on my face.

Readers. I have preached, but even when I preach, I am more of a teacher than anything else. If you hear a sermon from me, it will sound more like a seminar session than anything else. My preaching is teaching. I enjoy nothing more really than sitting down and talking with someone about issues of faith and explaining them. In fact, one of my favorite visits from the Mormons was when they asked us questions about the Trinity. My roommate knew at this point, “Stay out of the way.” Once I start on that topic, I’m good to go. 

What made this conversation such a thrill was that since he told me he was trying to explain it to his Dad, I learned something else. That obviously meant that he was talking about this kind of thing outside of our conversations. It was so interesting to him that he found it essential to pass it on to those nearest to him.

It’s so wonderful to see new minds getting interested in these topics and passing them on. One thing I love as a teacher especially is what I call the “Eureka” moment. That’s the time when you can look into a student’s eyes and realize all of a sudden that they get it! The light has shed! It is hard to say who is more excited by that. Is it the teacher or the student?

Things get even better for me though. Not only does this friend tell me that he was trying to explain it to his Dad, but later on he sees me again and asks a question about the topic. Now, not only do I know that he is explaining the stuff and getting into it away from me, he is also wondering about it and already learning to ask questions.

A good teacher loves questions.

I then ask more about the reading. I ask him if his brother is reading that book. “No. He’s reading Case for Christ.” I’m just as pleased! I talk to his brother later and we have a good talk. It starts with Bruce Metzger as that’s the chapter he’s on now so I’m able to point him to other works Metzger has written and we discuss some of the other scholars in that book and I explain that Strobel gives you a good and basic grasp.

Why? When he asked about Metzger’s other works I mentioned “The Bible in Translation” to which he said “Does he just say what he said in Strobel?” I had to explain that he said much more. Strobel is meant to help you get your feet wet really. The good thing Strobel does, and he’s a blessing to the evangelical world for this, is that he shows you were to go for more by interviewing the leading minds in the field.

It is so pleasing though to see other minds getting into this field. Teaching brings that joy. It is passing on the knowledge. Gaining knowledge is excellent, but when you see other people coming to learn that knowledge and pass it on themselves, it makes it all worthwhile. It’s those moments that you most learn why you do what you do.

And it’s something I wouldn’t trade for anything. Teaching. It’s a great joy, and we should thank those who do it and do it well.

Recovering Our Ground

Last night, I wrote on the movie “Religulous” and how this is an indictment. Amazingly, the other side keeps saying over and over that they’re not allowed to critique religion or debate it. One wonders where these people are. Religion is hardly treated as sacred any more. You can find several jokes on television shows about religion and our government isn’t exactly friendly to it anymore.

Is my concern with Maher’s *coughs* arguments? No. My concern is that he thinks they’re arguments. Too many times, it seems that these ideas that have been blown out of the water a constant number of times are presented as if they were garlic to Dracula. If we present these, the Christian will have to run and hide from the obvious truth.

Take, for instance, the concept Maher used of the Trinity that was actually modalistic. (And note that the guy defending the Trinity was also using a modalist concept.) One wonders if Maher never thought that the Niceans would catch such an obvious error. You may think that the Niceans were wrong, but they would not overlook, “Guys. God is giving birth to himself in this view.” No. That is actually unipersonalism which is a direct contradiction of Trinitarianism.

What’s sad is not only that this seems to stump Christians, but Maher is convinced that it’s a good point as is whoever was speaking to him. All one would have to do is pick up a book by a Trinitarian Christian scholar and learn what the real view is. I don’t mind people bringing up hard questions to me on my Christianity. I mind them presenting straw men like this and thinking they’ve done something.

This brings me to my point. We need to recover our ground.

Some of you will think I’m an odd duck. (Okay. A lot of you already think that.) There are many times I’ll go to bed at night and be thinking about all the reading I can get in the next day. I simply love learning something new and I get excited and energized by being in a good debate. Most of my money aside from bills, goes to books.

As I write this, I just got finished with a shopping spree on Amazon. I’m having to write a paper for class that’s a philosophical defense of the Trinity and so I ordered some more books with the thoughts of Aquinas and Augustine on the doctrine. Thus, I’m quite excited. I look forward to getting new books and just digesting them. (Although my “to read” pile is enormous now!)

Now I’ll grant you my readers that I need to read more. I need to have more discipline not only in my reading but in my thought life. If any of you dare think for a moment that all I do is read, then please get rid of that idea. In fact, I wish I spent more time reading. I wish I was more capable of focusing my thoughts. I digress, but I did it also so many would have no pre-conceived notions.

I’d like you to think though of a sports team that claims to be a great team. They claim to be #1. The problem is though that when the other teams come to town, this #1 team doesn’t want to play any longer. They accuse the other teams of wanting to destroy their record and they’re just ignorant of their great ability.

Now I realize it’s not a perfect analogy, but I don’t see the church much differently. We have the idea that we have the truth. I agree with it. We think everyone else is wrong. I also agree. The trouble is, we don’t act like it. Imagine if the #1 team never went out on the field to practice but still claimed to be the best. One would think them ludicrous. Are we any better? Do we spend any time practicing through Bible Study, reading, and prayer? (And I say this to myself as well.)

If we have the truth, then we should be glad to enter the area of the intellect. There was a day and age when the church was seen as a bastion of intellectual truth. Now, it’s seen as anything but. The least intelligent people are those who are religious. It is the secularists that have all the brains in the society. 

The truth is that Maher should have been terrified to make such a documentary. He should have wanted to avoid gatherings of Christians like the plague. Instead, he didn’t hesitate to go to them. Why? Because he thought he could bank on the stupidity of Christians and too often, it seems as if he was not disappointed.

Do you think we have the truth? The best way to answer is not with yes or no. The best way to answer is by your actions. Do you think Christ is the truth as he claimed? Then live accordingly. Don’t cower and hide and run into an emotional shell every time some criticism comes up. We need to boldly approach the throne of grace, but we also need to boldly enter the public square and be able to say to the skeptics, “Bring it.”

Imagine if just 20% of the Christian community could do that! What a difference it would make!

Or maybe I just have a pipe dream.

You, my readers, will determine if I do or not.

Religulous

Many of you by now know that Bill Maher’s new documentary “Religulous” opened up today. At the start, Bill Maher describes himself as a seeker and gives an interesting look at his family history as being one who went to church with a Catholic father and a Jewish mother. Religion was never an integral part of his life. 

Apparently, he never progressed past that stage in his understanding of religion.

It’s really a shame too. As I watched this film, I was deeply troubled. By the “arguments?” No. Not at all. This was a childish level of argumentation. What saddens me is that the Christians he interviewed could not answer his questions. I find it deeply troubling that in the 19th century, B.B. Warfield places apologetics high up on a list of areas Christians are to be knowledgable in. Today, most of us don’t even know what it is.

Now as I say that, I realize that there are limitations. Many of you are students in your own fields and aren’t going to be able to spend most of your time studying your faith. I realize that. If you are a lawyer, for instance, you will need a good study in law. If you are a journalist, you will be studying the stories you write on. However, just as you can know the statistics of your favorite sports team or the plot of your favorite TV series, you can know some serious truths about the religion you hold.

Sadly, too many don’t.

For instance, on his travels, Bill Maher stops at a Trucker’s Chapel. Now I think it’s great that truckers are meeting together and having chapel. The problem is that none of them could really answer his claims. One of them got right up and walked out. Maher asked them why they believe so many things that aren’t taught in their Bibles such as the immaculate conception.

Apparently, Maher has this idea that Protestants believe in that….

And sadly, that wasn’t caught either.

He also asked about faith and described it as believing in something without evidence. This is the common straw man version of faith and the one that I have to deal with on a regular basis. True faith is not believing in something without evidence, (Sorry Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.) but in trusting that which has shown itself to be reliable.

One of the truckers instead gives his personal testimony. Friends. This is a problem in the church today. We think our personal testimony alone counts as an argument. It doesn’t. It only feeds the mindset of delusion in the mind of the skeptics and makes them think that religion is all about what it does for the holder of the position.

I’m not saying though to throw personal testimonies out entirely. I’ve used them before when dealing with Mormons especially as they place so much emphasis on them. When they give their testimony, I have mine in play also. I prefer the advice of C.S. Lewis though. When you go out and witness, let your arguers go forward first. They will demolish the arguments the people you’re witnessing to are holding to. Then, when that is done, the people with the testimonies can come forward. Testimonies are fine provided they’re not in isolation. I have no problem with saying “Here’s all the reasons why I believe in Jesus, and I can also tell you what a difference following him has made in my life.”

Much of what Maher goes after in this movie is also Pop Christianity. If he wants to go after people that think a voice in their head is God talking to them always, go ahead. If he wants to go after people who think believing something without evidence is a virtue, go ahead. (Note I don’t think that that is what Christianity is but if someone thinks that is the case, then please demolish that idea. Such a view only hurts the rest of us and the cause in the long run.)

Also, the ideas of Christianity shown are often those like the Word of Faith teachers. The only intellectual in the Christian field I respect that I saw interviewed was Francis Collins. Collins is a scientist though. I say that because what kind of questions did Maher ask him? He asked him historical questions. Maher would have been better off to have gone to someone like Ben Witherington III to ask questions about history. Likewise, if he had wanted science questions, he should not go to Witherington, but to Collins.

Maher seems to assume all Christians come from the same stock as well. The belief is that we are all YEC creationists and we are all futurists. This just isn’t so. There are many different beliefs that fall within orthodoxy. There are also good and solid intellectual Christians who will defend each of these views.

When Maher goes to the doctrine of the Trinity, it is hideous. As he is driving in his car talking, someone brings up how the story is that God impregnates Mary who ends up giving birth to him and he dies on a cross for himself. Now I haven’t phrased it exactly, but that is the gist of what was said and all of my readers out there who know the Trinity doctrine are groaning. Indeed, they’re groaning more when Maher points out that that is a good point.

Unfortunately, the only person who answers him on this, is the guy who plays Jesus at the Holy Land experience and he gives a terrible answer of saying that the Trinity is like water. It can be ice, steam, or liquid. I know about the Triple point of water idea, but that is not what most of us have in mind and the problem is this man was giving the idea of Modalism instead and Bill Maher laughs at that view all the while holding to a Modalist interpretation. Both of them had a wrong understanding of the Trinity.

Think about it though friend. When was the last time you were in a church service and the topic under discussion was the doctrine of the Trinity?

The last time for me was probably the last time I preached on the Trinity.

No no no. It’s more important to hear the stuff that relates to what’s going on in your personal life. Don’t get me wrong. It’s important to hear how Christianity works on the practical level, but it should be practiced on that level because of truths that come from a foundational level. Why do we hold to the sacredness of marriage? Well, because we’re Christians. Sorry. That answer won’t cut it. Maybe we should consider what marriage is and what the nature of it really is? (Maybe this would also help us for the same-sex marriage debate?)

Maher’s arguments relating to miracles are also built on a naturalistic worldview. It is amazing that people that approach him don’t question his presuppositions. Did anyone consider asking “Excuse me. Why should I believe miracles can’t take place?” Could Maher have been capable of defending a presupposition of naturalism?

Naturally, he has a view that science and religion contradict. Those sitting next to us at the theater I think found it odd that there was an astronomer at the Vatican. It’s quite natural though. The Vatican had an observatory at the time of Galileo. Science was always important to them. The Galileo debate was more about politics than anything else. Also, Galileo was involved in a number of debates in his life. Most were not with the church. Most were with the secularists of the day who brought the church into it since they could bring about greater punishments. Galileo was messing with Aristotle after all and disrupting the Aristotlean worldview.

Was man at the center of the universe then? Yep. It was also not the place to be. In Aristotle’s system, the outer circles was where God dwelt. If you were in the center, you were away from God. Today, we think it a good thing to be at the center of the universe and we read such an idea back into the medievals. They would not have thought the same.

Bill Maher is also a Christ-myther who tells us how the story of Jesus was also the story of Mithra, Horus, and Krishna.

Sources cited?

Well, he mentions the Egyptian Book of the Dead but says nothing of where in it the story of Horus is found. He also points out how he was crucified as well while saying the book was written in 1280 B.C. Crucifixion though was a punishment of the Phoenicians and it was not around at the time the Book of the Dead was written.

But hey, most of the audience I’m sure will eat it up and accept it. They’re great people of faith after all.

Friends. Bill Maher holds a Christ-myth position and that isn’t even answered by anyone he meets? This should sadden us greatly simply because the Christ myth belief is on the far fringe of scholarship. If you want to be taken seriously in the area of the history of Christianity, you don’t say that you’re a Christ-myther.

Maher also asks about the grand religious buildings and asks if these are the kind of things Jesus would have in mind. In reality, when the Medievals built them, they wanted the worshipper to realize that he was entering a place that was meant to be seen as a place of worship of God. They were designed with great beauty and awe to reflect the image of the one that the people were coming to worship.

Maher also speaks of the idea of judging. He asks if Christ taught us to not judge. Not at all! John 7:24 has him even commanding us to judge. Jesus in Matthew 7:1 is talking about hypocritical judging. Why aren’t people answering this?

The homophobia aspect is also interesting as Maher points to Fred Phelps immediately. One can only twinge as he interviews a girl with a “God hates fags” sign and she says “I don’t hate them, but God does.” (Never mind also that if I heard God hated something and I didn’t, that I’d want to change my stance quickly.) Of course, the Bible doesn’t say that. I don’t hate homosexuals at all. Homosexuality is another matter.

Maher also interviews a Jew and speaks about the things that you could be put to death for in the OT that were violations of the Sabbath. Never mind that this was a society meant to take the holiness of God seriously as a nation that was to reflect him. Why is a man put to death for picking up sticks? This isn’t a simple slip. This is a case of someone who would know the law and was living in defiance of it. If one defied a king in an earthly society, they would face judgment for it. The same in this case. 

Overall though, I think this movie should be seen as a wake-up call to the church. Why was Maher able to make a movie like this? Because much of it sadly represents the true Christian mindset today. Most of our Christians just aren’t equipped. They easily feed ideas that Dawkins and others have about religion and make skeptics out of everyone else. I don’t blame a number of people for being atheists when I see the way Christians are today.

There are people out there like Maher that need to be answered. I realize we can’t all specialize in everything. For instance, interent apologist J.P. Holding and myself work together on a number of projects. We both specialize in different areas and we both realize we can turn to the other when those areas come up. If you don’t know everything in some field, (And who does?) that’s fine. I would hope you would at least be able to point out some flaws in someone’s thinking, recommend a good resource for them, or be able to say something like “That’s a good question. Let me do some research and see what I can find out.”

The future of the church and the future of numerous souls depend on it. Maher’s charge to us is serious. Are we going to accept it or wave the flag of surrender?

Forgiveness: It’s Not Optional

I was at work today dealing with a customer who got irate with me at one point. It’s understandable. At work, I’m a shy recluse and most of my communication is done through non-verbal means. When I finally explained it though, she was immediately apologetic and said that here she was being rude to me and I was looking out for her and trying to help her and was begging my forgiveness.

Frankly, it didn’t bother me, but I saw something going on there and thought that the experience was divine. Indeed, forgiveness must always be divine. There is something in forgiveness in that you say that you will overlook what the other person did to you and treat them practically as if it didn’t happen. Now in some cases, I don’t think doing the latter is necessarily proper and in some, it’s not biblical. We’ll get to those.

In Matthew 6:14-15, we read that if we forgive our fellow man his sins, our heavenly Father will forgive us ours. If we don’t, he won’t. Now I don’t think this is taken to mean that you must forgive to earn your salvation. I believe it’s a statement speaking about the nature of those who have salvation. They will forgive their fellow man.

For Christians though, we do not have an option of if we will forgive or not. We simply forgive. It does not mean we always like it. It does not mean it is always easy. I have to do things every day that are Christian duty that I don’t necessarily like and don’t necessarily enjoy. The point is that we are commanded to do something and our feelings are irrelevent to if it should be done or not.

Now there are some things though that I do think it’s good to have caution for. If someone harms your children for instance and you forgive them, it doesn’t mean that when you go out to dinner with your spouse, you call them up and let them be a babysitter. Forgiveness simply means that you will not make them pay for the sin they committed against you.

It also does not mean there are no consequences. In the Heavenly court, you are redeemed and your sins are no longer counted against you, but that does not mean there are no consequences in the earthly realm. While king David repented, his son still died. While a criminal today can repent of his crime, it does not mean he gets to avoid jail.

However, it is still not optional, and that is the main point. We have been forgiven a great deal and the good news for us is that it’s freely given. How often do we stop and think about this forgiveness? Some readers might know that I have described sin before as divine treason. That’s quite a serious charge and God simply looks at that charge and lets us off the eternal hook.

Consider this: Let us suppose that God created us and we failed and he let us go our own way then and did not send a redeemer. Could anyone fault him for doing so? Could anyone say “You owed us forgiveness! You owed us a way!”? Upon what basis. God does not even owe you this very breath that you have. 

Yet while he was under no burden to do something for you, he did it anyway. He sent his Son to grant you forgiveness of the divine treason that you committed against him and even allowed you to be a part of his kingdom forever. When taken in that way, it is quite clear how one can say that forgiveness is not an option. Are you saying a sin committed against you is worse than one committed against God?

He gave up his greatest for you? What’s he asking you to give up? Your pride at least in this regard. Let that other person go. If you cannot do that, then have you really experienced the forgiveness that he offers?