Deeper Waters

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Often times, the skeptic will come to us and say “Well, if God ordered the massacre (loaded terminology of course) of the Amalekites, then I just can’t worship a God like that.” The trouble with such a claim is that when we Christians mean God, we mean the only God that is and that there are no other options. If we are right and that is the way God is, then that is the way he is. 

Furthermore, if you understand the concept of God, you understand that he must be supreme goodness. Even if you say “I don’t see how that is a good act” that does not mean you don’t accept it. You simply trust that God being all wise and God being able to work all things towards a right end and having all justice will be all good in his actions.

Now some of you who read me and know my tendency for debate are sitting there maybe thinking, “That’s right. Those skeptics need to hear it how it is!” Dear Christian though. My quarrel tonight is not with the skeptic. My quarrel is with you and lest you think I am simply pointing fingers, it is with me as well.

This occurred to me last night in my prayers. I really ponder sometimes that we know things and we don’t realize we know them. When we suddenly take two of our beliefs though and put them together we realize a truth that we should have acknowledged all along. I wonder what it would mean for many of us if we wrote out the greatest truths we believe and see how many of them work together. It might be interesting also to see how many don’t work together.

I have noted before that one of the things I thank God for is his constancy and how I can rest assured that when I come to him, that he is always the same. Consider that with worship though. If you worship God, it must be for who he is. He is not going to change so that you can worship a different God. You are to adapt to him. Not only will he not change his nature for you. He cannot do so! (Yes my friends. I affirm the immutability of God meaning there are some things he cannot do.)

Do you worship him as he is now? You might as well then! He’s not going to change! If you are to worship him now as he is, then why aren’t we? Now I’m not saying all worship is a deliberate time set aside for an experience called worship. My belief is more that while such time can be good, and indeed, this blogger should do it as well, that worship is not meant to be an event but is meant to be a life that is lived.

Do we have this awareness that the same God that was there when we went to bed last night is the same one that was there when we woke up this morning? Do we find ourselves capable of worshipping God when things are going well for us? Then we should keep in mind that he is the same God when things are not going well for us. I’m not saying don’t mourn or grieve or even bring your questions to God when you are suffering, but do so in the context of worship. I believe that for a grieving soul, even their grievances can be an act of worship.

Mainly though, we must realize this. God won’t change. What about us though? Are we growing to be more like Christ or are we not? It’s one of the two. Which one is it for you? He won’t change for you. Are you going to change for him?

Today blog readers, I celebrate a year. About a year or so ago, DeeperWaters stopped having new posts for a few days. (And I thank those of you who kept reading anyway!) Why? Because your blogger was moving to a new town. This day a year ago, I was on the road and heading towards a place to live that I’d never seen. I’d seen the town of course, but never the place where I live now. While now my computer and game systems are hooked up and connected and my bedroom is fully furnished, a year ago, there were boxes on the floor and just a mattress in my bedroom I slept on that first night.

I thought about this a lot last night. It’s amazing how one’s life can change so much. I still think to myself at times that I really am here and that I really am going to Seminary. I’m still blown away by it all and still amazed that someone like myself is here.

My roommate and I have made several good friends as well through the school, the church, and work. It seems as soon as we moved in that we were already hobnobbing with the leadership. We are friends with people who have high positions in both places and have both already become recognized. I believe it’s providence watching over us.

Every time I’ve been in a financial bind also, something has come through always. The doors have opened that have enabled me to keep my schooling going and they seem to remain open. I know I’ve got several friends looking out for me and are willing to do whatever they can to make sure I make it to the end.

Friends are the main thing. I have often said this on my blog. My friends mean everything to me and last night, I tried to do a mental review of all the new friends I’d made in a year. It’s quite touching as more and more names and faces keep popping into one’s mind and you realize just how blessed you are to know them.

There are the new experiences also. My roommate and I are members of the Y. I’ve never been one before and now, I find I quite enjoy it and one of the plans for when I get a better job so I can afford to do more is to take swim lessons. My roommate, who I swear has gills, is a great blessing. There is one thing that he does that most others don’t do.

Nothing.

Seriously. He goes and enjoys his own thing and that is far better than any pushing. My roommate does not push me to do things, and I find that extremely helpful in getting up my own motivation to do them. I am not doing something to please him then. I’m doing it because I want to and not because he wants me to.

Learning my way through the school system has been a challenge. At first, I felt overwhelmed with all the work, but my first semester was probably the hardest. I started with three classes and I was told that I had jumped in on the deep end. Still, I managed to pull through all of them and do great in all of them as well.

I’ll also say my knowledge and capabilities have improved definitely. I find myself better prepared in engaging arguments from the other side and even asking questions more of my own side in order to get better answers. Christianity needs the best defenders that it can get in an age becoming more and more hostile to the notion of truth itself.

It’s also been an experience learning better discipline as I try to turn the computer off at a decent time, leave gaming for a specific time, watch Smallville at a specific time, and do my reading at a specific time. All of this while keeping up with my internet duties including bringing the blog to you my faithful readers.

So here’s to a year! Let’s hope for many more!

My roommate introduced me to a friend of his and while we haven’t interacted much, I have liked what I’ve seen so far. I’ve been informed that he’s gone through some hard times lately. I don’t know the details, but it seems to involve the death of a friend at a young age. My guess is a battle from cancer, but again, I’m not certain.

I write for him tonight.

This friend is very angry from what I gather and to that, I say “good.” Dear Christian. It’s okay to be angry. In fact, it’s commanded of us. Ephesians 4:26 tells us to be angry and sin not. We see in the life of Christ that he got angry a number of times. The stoics pride themselves on concealing their emotions, and I do like a lot of stoic thought on how to react to the world, but Christ was not of that manner. He openly wept and openly had anger.

While we can rejoice that those who die in Christ are now in a better place, we should not be saying “Celebrate! They’re dead!” We’ve lost something. It’s okay to grieve and/or get angry. We all deal with it in different ways and the Christian who tells you that you should simply rejoice and not cry or be angry about it is one that deserves to be smacked.

1 Thess. 4:13 tells us that we grieve. The difference is we don’t grieve like those who have no hope. We do realize that we are separated for now, but we will see each other again someday. What we are saying is temporary. That doesn’t mean it’s less painful, but we should not treat a temporary reality like it’s an eternal one.

Part of it also I believe in this case is that the friend was young. He will never get married. He will never have children. He will never have a family. We should all grieve for something like that. It seems many people get cut off in the prime of life and there’s no rhyme or reason to it. It’s natural for us to go to God and ask “Why?”

I also think God welcomes these questions. The Psalms are full of them. The prophet Habakkuk is noted that he spoke to God on behalf of the people. Jeremiah had his share of complaints to God concerning the ministry that he was doing. Of course, we can’t forget the book of Job where Job wishes for an audience with God.

Of course, I think we should also watch how we approach God. God doesn’t mind us approaching him with honest doubts and questions provided we’re not doing so with the mindset that we are the ones calling the shots an that we know better than him. In fact, it is part of his grace that he welcomes those questions as it shows we trust in him.

Why does such suffering happen? Frankly, we don’t know. We know the general that things are working for a greater good, but we don’t know the particular. That’s why it can be hard to trust at times. That’s all we’re told to do though is trust. We’re not told to avoid grieving or to not get angry. We are simply told to trust.

We’re never told it’ll be easy either, but most things worthwhile aren’t. God hasn’t given us an answer for the particulars again, but he has given us himself. He has given us his Holy Spirit and the reminder of the cross that he is the God who comes and suffers with us. God is not aloof to human suffering. The Son came and suffered on our behalf. We serve the God who dealt with the problem of evil in a more personal way than any other religion.

I have sympathy for this friend also and an open ear and this is the best we can often give to those suffering. Our presence means more than our answers. While I am an apologist, I do not wish to be one here. I wish to be the counselor and friend more than anything else. There will come a time for the apologetics later, but it is not now.

Friend. I pray for you. I hope all goes well.

Tonight, a friend of mine and I went to see the movie Eagle Eye. I didn’t really know much about it except I was told that it was a government conspiracy movie. As entertainment, I enjoyed the movie, but as we left, I found myself speaking of it as anti-Bush propaganda. I’m a strong conservative and my friend was surprised when I described the movie that way and said “In what way?” (Note. Spoilers ahead if you plan to see it. You might want to wait.)

Let’s see. You have a start with an identification of a Muslim target that turns out to be incorrect later. Compare that to the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Meanwhile, you also have an attack on the Patriot Act as a threat to our civil liberties. Finally, since all of this has taken place, we need to have a regime change. 

Readers know my blog is not really about politics. I have said this is about philosophy. What does what I’ve said have to do with philosophy? Everything. My friend was completely unaware of all the connections, but as soon as I pointed them out he caught on and could not believe that he had not seen them before.

There are three levels of philosophy. The first is level one. Consider works like Plato and Aristotle. How many people have read Aquinas or Augustine? Can your average man on the street tell you anything about the ideas of Descartes and Spinoza? Is the average student in the high school classroom aware of the works of Hume and/or Kant?

Probably not.

This is part of the problem. Let’s suppose you think Spinoza was crazy in his philosophy, which I personally do. You at least need to know what he thought. Let’s suppose you think Kant opened up a can of worms. You need to know what he thought. Let’s suppose you’re a dyed-in-the-wool Aristotlean even. You need to know what Plato thought.

This is the first level and it’s the foundational level. It is where we get the philosophy from and where the arguments are argued at. If you want to have a real viewpoint on epistemology, you go here. If you want to discuss ethical theory, you go here. If you want to make a point about the body/soul problem, you go here.

Eagle Eye is level two. This is the level of media. This is the level of illustration and we will come back to it after talking about level three. (Trust me. I skip ahead for a reason.)

Level three is what happens around your dinner table. When you discuss how you function as a family, that is level three. When you are interacting with your fellow man, you are having level three. Now if you were discussing a philosophical issue, you’ve moved more into the area of level two, but the application of philosophy is at level three.

Today, level two is where the action usually is.

Like I said, most people will probably never pick up Plato and read him. Sad, but true. Today, we live in a society where most people get their worldview from the media. They go to a movie and get some belief about reality. They watch a TV show or hear a song or play a video game or read a fictional novel and get opinions from those also. 

To some extent, we all probably do this. However, if this is your only source, there is a serious problem. Please note that I am not against the use of the media to express philosophical ideas. I encourage it in fact. I have on my shelf some books like “Harry Potter and Philosophy”, “The Matrix and Philosophy”, and “Superheroes and Philosophy.” There is a whole line of books like that and I think they’re excellent as they use the issues of the media to discuss philosophical topics.

I am against though the story being used without any foundational idea to back it. Our Lord told parables, but he could also argue his point aside from a parable. He used his as illustrations, but when he wanted to express the values themselves, he spoke to us and told them what they were. The sermon on the mount is not a parable. It has parables in it, but these are illustrations of points that have been made prior.

In a postmodern world though, a story is used in the absence of an argument. People are moved through stories. There’s no doubt about that. That’s why it can be dangerous as ideas can be sneaked in on us without us realizing it. This is one reason I believe Plato was quite careful about the stories and music that would be allowed in his city. (That’s in the Republic, one of those foundational works.)

This is also why we need Christians in Hollywood. The anti-Christian worldviews of today are readily promoted. Imagine the impact if we could get Christians making movies that show a Christian worldview! Imagine if Christians had their own version of Oprah in the public eye recommending books that millions of people would turn into bestsellers!

The tragedy is we’re missing these wonderful tools of communication. If someone like Saint Paul were alive today and saw the means of communication we have, he’d be thrilled. (I believe this would also include internet blogs. I think all Christians should be blogging. I recommend getting a copy of Hugh Hewitt’s book “Blog” to show this.)

When you are receiving something from some output of media, also ask yourself about it. What worldview is being sent across? I think it’s fine to enjoy something even if the writer is non-Christian. It’s just important to be aware of what is going on. 

Philosophy is everywhere. You can’t avoid it. It is better to have a good one than a bad one and to know the foundations rather than just what you see at the movies.