Something to look forward to this week

I’m in a good mood today. The national and international news certainly isn’t what has made me happy. This week we start an apologetics class at our church.

For the last three years we have been meeting to tackle ways to defend the Christian faith. We watched a DVD series, we critiqued a debate between an atheist and a Christian, and we’ve read books that challenged us in many ways.

This time we are doing a couple of things. Steve Bruecker is going to discuss various tactics we can employ in discussions with those who don’t agree with us. We want to be good ambassadors, so there are effective and ineffective ways to interact with others. We want to avoid bitter arguments and raised voices. We also want the person who has raised objections to share the burden of proof.

Steve will be using tactics suggested by Greg Koukl, a popular Christian apologist and radio show host. Greg has written a book called Tactics, which was of the ten top best-selling apologetics books last year, so it obviously has useful things to say.

I will be leading discussions that are based on another of Greg’s books—Faith Is Not Wishing. This is a collection of essays he has written that cover a wide range of issues. Some of these include the idea that Jesus is just another in a long line of mythological figures who shared the same story line, the complaint that God is just a crutch, the idea that evil in this world shows that God doesn’t exist, and the new tolerance that’s so big in our society. Each essay has much to discuss, so I’m looking forward to this part of our classes.

The real fun of the classes will be the people in attendance. We have a lot of people from previous classes, so that will be great catching up with them. They are sharp and able to engage in good discussions. About a third of the class will be made up of new people. It’s always nice to hear how they got interested in apologetics and how they are able to incorporate our class information into their daily lives into practice.

The real key to the class is whether we make it work in the real world. So many people today are critical of Christianity and don’t hesitate to express their views. It’s a good thing that there are solid answers that we as confident Christians can give them.

Faith Is Not Wishing--8

One of the chapters in Greg Koukl's book Faith Is Not Wishing deals with a topic that gets me steamed every time it is raised. It has to do with hate crime legislation. In this essay, Greg says it makes sense to be against hate crimes, yet still oppose hate crime laws. I agree totally with his position – hate crime legislation is a frontal assault on fundamental liberties that should not be restricted, and represent an unfair use of power to prop up the legitimacy of politically correct values.

The first reason Greg opposes hate crime laws has to do with criminal thought. It's obvious – hate crime laws criminalize thought, not conduct. We can already punish assault using existing statutes. This legislation of hate crime levies an additional penalty solely for the attitude of heart. Government can coerce actions, but it should not attempt to govern people's hearts. When it tries to do this, it creates excuses for the worst kind of tyranny.

The second complaint Greg has for hate crime legislation focuses on the types of hate that are stressed. Virtually any crime of passion could be construed as a hate crime because it entails malice toward persons. However, all crimes of passion are not considered hate crimes under this new legislation since they do not involve a protected class of people. This leads to a key question – Is hate crime legislation about hate per se or is it really about something else? We see that such laws mandate penalties for particular government-disapproved states of mind. Only certain types of people gain protection from hate crime legislation. If a gay was attacked, the person doing it would receive a heavier penalty than a person who attacked me. That's because I don't belong to a class protected by the law. So this law has to do with groups of people, but groups have no rights, according to the Constitution.

A final argument Greg has with this type of legislation is the oppression that comes with it. These laws can serve as a legal tool to enforce a particular moral and political point of view that goes by the misnomer of "tolerance." So, for example, if a gay is attacked, it encourages many to actually blame Christians for such incidents. By claiming homosexuality is evil, Christians, according to critics, demote homosexuals to a "less than" status. That makes the homosexual marked in a way to become an object of scorn, hatred, and physical abuse. Greg points out this kind of thinking would make Alcoholics Anonymous responsible every time a drunk gets beat up in an alley. It does not follow that moral condemnation of homosexuality encourages gay bashing. To those who want hate legislation, people taking a moral position are hatemongers. But objecting to hate is also a moral position. So, are those who demonize Christians for their views equally guilty of hate-mongering? I have seen something like this out at Palomar College where a group claiming to be against hate lashed out with hateful language itself.

Hate crime legislation is not the answer. It turns the government into thought police and turns the law into a club to enforce political correctness. Existing laws should be enforced to give equal protection to all people, punishing the crime, not the frame of mind.

A final note: We as Christians believe homosexuality is an evil. But we are all fallen individuals made in the image of God. We must always be grieved and angered at any injustice.

Faith Is Not Wishing--part 7

The next section of Greg Koukl's book Faith Is Not Wishing deals with an issue we hear often, especially from the new atheists. It has to do with the idea that there is a conflict between faith and science. Critics of Christianity say science tells us what's real while religion tells us fairy stories that can be comforting but have nothing to do with the real world. Greg, instead, argues that the object and domain of science should be the natural, physical world, but the goal of science should not be to produce naturalistic explanations, but rather to follow the evidence wherever it leads to find truth. In other words, science should be about getting the right answers, not the right kind of answers (materialistic ones).

Even some Christians find comfort in the idea of science and religion as occupying two complementary but totally separate realms. Natural science studies the physical universe while the non-physical realm belongs to religion. Science cannot tell us of the ultimate origin of the universe nor discuss the governance of the universe.

Greg says that, at first glance, the two-realms of view is inviting, but he sees problems with it. Why should we accept the view that science reigns supreme in the area of the empirical?

For thousands of years science was viewed differently. The old tradition had one aim-- to identify ideas worth believing. But by the modern era there was a shift in science from a general methodology aimed at determining truth to one that was solely empirical. Science became the final measure of all truth.

Greg sees three errors in the view that religious theories should not intrude in science. First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Some metaphysical issues might have empirical support. Think about near-death experience research or conclusions on the existence of a creator based on Big Bang cosmology or the fine-tuning of the universe.

Secondly, it commits the straw man fallacy by assuming that those who advance intelligent design make no use of scientific methods. This is simply not true. Those who promote intelligent design are quite happy to present an abundance of properly gathered scientific evidence for their viewpoint if they're allowed to. Instead, what they run up against are major scientific journals which summarily disqualify them.

Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific view (materialistic macro- evolution) does not have religious significance. But this is false. Any view about ultimate origins has metaphysical ramifications. In this case, if evolutionary naturalism is a true description of how life developed on earth, then the only room for God is in the imagination of the faithful.

Christianity is, by its very nature, wedded to the physical realm known by the senses. But modern man apart from religion lives in a two-story house where nature/science/reason occupy the bottom floor while meeting/value/freewill are in the second floor. Because modern individuals are told there should be no interaction between the upper story and the lower story, people try to live in the lower floor. But human dignity and purpose are crushed in the gears of nature's determinism. So people without religious beliefs must take a leap apart from reason into the upper story of meaning and significance. They pay a heavy price for this – schizophrenia and loss of rationality.

But Greg suggests an alternative – restore to the scientific process the classical emphasis on truth. Science and theology can still have their separate domains, but they need not be arbitrarily isolated from one another. After all, early scientists believed they were "thinking God's thoughts after him" and saw no problem merging the two. It may be the case that physical phenomenon might be caused by an agent rather than a prior physical event. Though science is restricted to examining physical effects, when causes are inferred, there should be no limitation to the physical world.

Those who believe in intelligent design claim that issues like origin and governance can be properly inferred using empirical methods. For example, take a look at forensic medicine. Medical examiners use scientific methods to determine if an individual died of natural causes or by foul play. It may have been a heart attack or an intelligent agent may have been involved. In the same way, scientific evidence could, in principle, indicate that creation was the result of an agent rather than chance physical factors. Think about the old movie Contact in which researchers use scientific methods to infer intelligent causes. I wonder what Carl Sagan would say if he knew his book and movie were used to justify respect for intelligent design.

Faith Is Not Wishing--part 6b

Last time I only finished half of one of Greg Koukl's chapters in Faith Is Not Wishing. He was discussing a complaint often brought against Christianity – historical bloodletting in the name of God. Is Christianity a blood-thirsty enterprise?

In the last blog I covered two of Greg's points. First, the crimes leveled against Christianity have been exaggerated. Secondly, the greatest evil in the world actually came from the ones who denied God's existence. Consider Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. Enough said.

Another point Greg brings up has to do with the teachings of Christ. It certainly is true that there has been oppression and bloodshed as a result of Christianity, but the question is simple – did this come because it is a religious duty of Christianity or a logical application of the teachings of Christ? If not, then any violence done in his name cannot be laid at his feet. Critics can't hold Christianity responsible when so-called Christians violate the written instructions. Jesus spoke often about the need for us to love, and this extended to even our enemies (John 14:15 and Luke 10:29-37). You can't find any Christian teaching that mandates forcible conversion to the faith or coerces adherence to biblical doctrines.

Greg claims that Christianity has actually been the greatest force for good in the history of the world. After all, it is part of the Judeo-Christian morality that says human beings are made in the image of God and therefore have transcendent value.

Greg specifically lays out four areas where Christianity has transformed the world for the better. First is education. Modern education owes its origins to Christianity. Think of the Reformation – the goal was to get the Bible into the hands of the common man. To do this, primary public education was important. It's hard to believe, but most of the Ivy League schools were started with theological intentions. Missionaries spread out around the world, creating literate societies wherever they went.

A second area where Christianity has improved things has to do with human rights. William Wilberforce, a Christian, spent a lifetime working to abolish slavery in England and the British Commonwealth. It was Christian missionaries who entreated European powers to intervene in Africa to stop the slave trade carried on by the Arabs.

A third positive result of Christianity has been acts of mercy. Think of Mother Teresa, a humble Christian who spent her life serving the poor people of Calcutta. William Booth started the Salvation Army, and Chuck Colson began Prison Fellowship. George Mueller started orphanages all over 19th-century England. Many historians acknowledge that evangelist John Wesley's preaching saved England from a bloody revolution like that in France. Most of the social reforms in England between 1787 in 1850 were the outcome of evangelical Christians trying to help the poor.

Finally, Christianity has done wonderful things through its missionaries. They have tackled social evils throughout the years. In India, for example, they worked tirelessly to stop child marriage, the immolation of widows, temple prostitution, and untouchability. They opposed foot binding, opium addiction and the abandoning of babies in China. In the continent of Africa they opposed polygamy, the slave trade, and the destruction of twins. All over the world they have opened schools, hospitals, clinics, medical colleges, orphanages, and leprosaria. Missionaries often protected indigenous peoples against their own governments or rapacious business interests.

Does Christianity have a perfect record? Of course not. But Greg has pointed out the true record of the followers of Jesus, and it's much better than some would tell you.

Faith Is Not Wishing--part 6a

I love history. It was my minor in college, so I was especially interested in reading Greg Koukl's chapter called "Christianity's Real Record " in his book Faith Is Not Wishing. He deals with the question of whether followers of Christ actually have been the cause of great evil in the world.

Current critics of Christianity and religion in general see a history littered with examples to support their point of view. They bring up witchhunts, crusades, and religious jihad. For example, Thomas Friedman, a popular New York Times columnist, said our battle is not really against terrorism but against any religion that claims to be true, which he calls "religious totalitarianism."

What is his solution? Pluralism, the idea that "God speaks multiple languages." But Greg points out the self-defeating nature of Friedman's argument. Friedman's claim that God is a pluralist is, in fact, a narrow, exclusivist religious claim that he thinks is true. He's dogmatic about this doctrine of God, and is also militant about it since he believes people who disagree with him should be silenced.

Friedman actually misdiagnoses the problem, according to Greg. Friedman sees it as religious dogma, but everyone, including Friedman, is dogmatic about issues of truth. The problem is not religious dogma, but religious error. The problem with Muslim terrorists is not fundamentalism, but that their fundamental beliefs are simply false.

Another key problem with Friedman is his complaint that religion has been responsible for more devastation than anything else in history. But the crimes themselves have been exaggerated. In some cases, conflicts that appear to be religious in nature are actually political or cultural wars that divided along religious lines (Northern Ireland is a prime example). Yes, people did die in the Crusades, the Inquisition, religious wars of the Reformation, and the Salem witch trials. However, the numbers of deaths are far smaller than what some people have suggested. In addition, the Crusades were a defensive war, the Spanish Inquisition involved the government more so than the church, and the Salem witch trials were stopped by Christians.

Friedman's look at history is incorrect also because the greatest evil in the world actually comes from those who deny God's existence. The greatest evil has always resulted from a denial of God, not pursuit of him. Greg points out that noted radio talk show host Dennis Prager has said, "In the 20th century alone, more innocent people have been murdered, tortured, and enslaved by secular ideologies – Nazism and communism – then by all religions in history." Think about communist China, the USSR, and Cambodia – millions were slaughtered in each of these countries where people in charge were convinced that there is no God to whom they must answer.

The above represents only half of Greg's chapter on Christianity's real record. I'm going to save the other half for a future blog.

Faith Is Not Wishing--part 5

We have discussed four chapters in Greg Koukl's book Faith Is Not Wishing. Probably the biggest attack on Christianity is the problem of evil – this is what Greg tackles next.

The problem of evil drove Einstein away from the God of the Bible. It was part of the inspiration for the atheism of British philosopher Bertrand Russell. For so many people it has been the number one complaint against Christianity.

Some people suggest God would like to do something about evil but is unable to do so. Rabbi Harold Kushner delivered this answer in this popular book Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People? This God cannot inspire a rescue. There's not much comfort to be gained from worshiping a God like this.

Back to Bertrand Russell for a minute. He wondered how anyone could talk of God while kneeling at the bed of a dying child. This, of course, is a powerful image, which seems devastating to the Christian worldview. But there's a simple response – what is the atheist Bertrand Russell going to say to that dying child? Too bad? Tough luck? That's the way it goes?

Greg brings up an important point. If God does not exist, the one thing we can never do is call something evil or tragic. When we use terms like this, we require some transcendent reference point, some way of keeping score. If there is no standard, then there is no good or bad. As C. S. Lewis said, "My argument against God was that the universe seems so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"

In fact, if there is no God, it's hard to even make sense of the notion of evil. Instead, all we can say is that stuff just happens. We can say we don't like this stuff, but we can't call it evil.

We still have a key question – where was God? Why didn't he intervene in evil situations? But Greg says we don't really want God to end evil, not all of it. How much evil happens every day unnoticed and unlamented because we are the perpetrators, not its victims? Think of adultery, lying, abortion, and other evils that occur on a day-to-day basis. We actually don't want God to be sniffing around the dark recesses of our own evil conduct. As somebody once said, if God heard your prayer to eliminate evil and destroyed it all at midnight tonight, where would you be at 12:01?

So why doesn't God stop the evil? The answer is the same one when we ask another question, "Why doesn't God stop me every time I do wrong?" We end up with an obvious point – human moral choice give us dignity but at the same time make serious evil possible.

Actually, suffering, tragedy, and evil function as warning signals. The pain we see tells us that our world is broken, that something is amiss. If God took away the pain, we would never deal with the disease. And the disease will kill us, sooner or later.

Greg points out that God has done something about evil, the most profound thing imaginable. He has sent his Son to die for evil men. God offers us mercy instead of the punishment we deserve.

Eventually, God will get rid of evil. Until then, he has a different strategy. It's called forgiveness. That's something we can access right now.

Faith Is Not Wishing--part 4

This is my fourth blog dealing with Greg Koukl's book Faith Is Not Wishing. I'm spending time on this book because so many of his chapters reference common criticisms leveled at Christianity. For example, this chapter concerns people who have never heard the gospel, ones who are basically good and sincerely worship God in their own way. Would God send them to hell for not hearing about Jesus?

Greg admits that it is the most taxing objection he faces and also the most odious to others. To non-Christians, it's a despicable doctrine. After all, if hearing the name of Jesus is a requirement for salvation, entire cultures would be sent to hell, meaning God becomes a petty racist. Is that fair? Is that just?

Paul argues against works salvation by saying there is a single common denominator for people of all ages and cultures – faith. We think of Old Testament believers like Melchizedek or Rahab. In the New Testament we encounter Cornelius and Lydia, non-Jews who are shown grace. In Romans 2, Paul says God "will render to every man according to his deeds… For there is no partiality with God."

Greg points out that most people in the world worship something beyond themselves with complete sincerity. Is this enough? Has God said that this is adequate? No. In his sermon on Mars Hill, Paul indicates that worshiping in ignorance is not adequate (Acts 17:23). He also indicates in Romans 10:2 that the Jews were zealous for God, but their zeal was not based on knowledge.

But what of the good person? God won't reject him or her? And actually, the Bible agrees: If a man keeps God's law, he'll have no problem with God. But here's the key question: Where is such a person? When measured by God's standards, we fall so far short. Where is the good Buddhist, the good Hindu, or the good Muslim? Actually, where is the good Christian? They don't exist. God's absolute standards silence every claim to self-righteousness. This is bad news because it makes the whole world accountable to God. This is critical to Greg's presentation here – People are not ultimately condemned for their rejection of Christ; they're punished for breaking God's law.

He says we make a big mistake when we think people are basically good and would turn to God if they had the chance. Romans 1:18-19 tells us that people reject the light given them not out of ignorance, but out of willful suppression of truth. We run from God, not towards Him.

If this is the case, then God must make the first move to block man's retreat. Again, this is important because it means that no "heathen in Africa" begins a genuine search unless God has first moved in him to do so (John 6:44).

Here's Greg's message up to this point. First, God only punishes those who are guilty. Second, guilty people don't seek God; they run from him. Third, God takes the initiative to pursue us out of love.

How does God pursue us? It certainly possible that in isolated situations he communicates directly. This he did with Abraham. There are so many stories coming today out of restrictive Muslim countries of people having dreams and encountering Jesus in them. This happens all around the world. Greg tells the story of an Indian who was a member of the Brahman caste. He had experienced astral travel to other planets, had psychedelic experiences, and received yogic visions. He found that each step closer to his Hindu gods was actually a step farther from the true God that he sought in his heart. When confronted with the utter emptiness of life and the shallowness of religion, he cried out, "I want to know the true God, the Creator of the universe." God responded by bringing the gospel to him through the witness of a young woman. Usually, however, the message of the true Savior comes on the lips of a preacher who comes bearing the good news (Romans 10:14-15).

We know based on the Bible and cultural stories that anyone seeking God in truth will find him and be accepted by him. God does not condemn anyone for rejecting a Jesus he's never heard of. Rather, men are held accountable for their own moral crimes against God and for rejecting the Father, whose voice is heard everywhere.

Faith Is Not Wishing--part 3

The third chapter in Greg Koukl's book Faith Is Not Wishing has a intriguing title: "Was Jesus a Fraud?" He's referring to the fact that some people believe the story of Jesus was just a recycled version of ancient pagan religions. This has been a recent criticism that many skeptics are using to challenge Christianity. Is Jesus just a copycat messiah?

Greg starts by looking at the ancient historical accounts of the life of Jesus. The authors do not appear to be writing fairy tales for future generations. For example, the opening words of the author Luke talk about compiling an account handed down by eyewitnesses. He's referring to the use of oral tradition, a huge part of the Jewish society of the time. He and the other gospel writers are aware that they are relating a remarkable story, but they are obviously convinced that the events in these accounts really happened. Their accounts include vivid details of observers who witnessed the events or, in Luke's case, a chronicler who had obtained the information from people who are actually there. C. S. Lewis once remarked that he knew myths from his literary studies, and the gospels do not read as myths.

One internet documentary has challenged the authenticity of these gospel accounts. It's called Zeitgeist: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. According to this account, the Egyptian sun god Horus was born on December 25 of a virgin. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, and three kings followed it to locate the new-born savior. At the age of 30 he was baptized and began his ministry. Horace had twelve disciples and performed miracles. After being betrayed, he was crucified, buried for three days, and then resurrected. Sound familiar? The documentary claims other gods followed this same structure, including Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithras. Osiris, another Egyptian god, also follows this pattern of a dying and resurrected god.

What's the Christian response? First, the facts listed above in the previous paragraph are almost all false. For example, Osiris did not rise bodily from the dead, and neither Horus, Mithras, or Krishna were born of a virgin. In addition, the dating of these myths causes a big problem for skeptics because most of them actually postdate the time of Jesus.

But what about the myths of dying and rising gods which predate the Christian era? Claims made regarding Jesus of Nazareth are distinct from them in three critical ways – Jesus was a real human whose resurrection happened at a particular place and time on earth, the mythical deities were tied to the repeated seasons of the agricultural cycle (Jesus's resurrection was a one-time event), and Jesus died as a vicarious sacrifice for sins. Greg spends time on the first point above – the historicity of Jesus. Scholars both liberal and conservative overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a man of history. For example, Will Durant, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, says this about the gospels: "No one reading the scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them… After two centuries of higher criticism, the outlines of the life, character, and teachings of Christ remain reasonably clear and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man."

So, there are plenty of reasons to reject the complaint of critics who say Jesus was a fraud.

Faith Is Not Wishing--part 2

Another chapter in Greg Koukl's book called Faith Is Not Wishing has an intriguing title – "Is God Just a Crutch?" Greg deals well with that attack on theism.

Atheists like to talk a lot about emotional and cultural factors that might induce somebody to become committed to Jesus. They claim the concept of God is a crutch. But Greg points out that no one can refute an idea by showing the psychological reasons a person happens to believe it. You can't refute someone's views by faulting his feelings. This is the key to his entire chapter.

Of course, this game can be played the other way around. Maybe it's the atheist who uses his or her beliefs as a crutch, an invention of that person's non-religious wishful thinking. In fact, it was Aldous Huxley who said he bought into atheism because it gave him the freedom to do what he wanted in the area of sexuality.

The key here is simple – objections about the believer, rather than the belief are not valid. Whatever cultural, emotional, psychological, or historical reasons people have tell you only about their cultures, emotions, history, or psychological states.

When someone focuses on the origin of a belief, not its content, this is called the genetic fallacy. Very well-known thinkers have committed this error – Sigmund Freud, Frederick Nietzsche, and Karl Marx all said God was nothing more than a psychological projection. Psychological motivations give you information about the person who believes, but they tell you nothing about the truth of his or her beliefs. Psychological motivations have nothing to do with whether a belief is true or not.

If someone says to us that Christians just want a father figure, there's a simple answer. We say, "Maybe we do and maybe we don't, but what does that have to do with whether God exists or not?" As C. S. Lewis said, "You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong."

So we have to start with reasons first, rather than misleading talk about motives or desires. The atheist needs to give the Christian a convincing argument that God does not exist before asking why the Christian would believe in such a fantasy. Of course, it's easier for the atheist to ignore the argument and fault the feelings.

What I find interesting is Greg's final comments in this chapter. If men were to invent a God, he asks, what would he be like? Would we create a God like the one in the Bible? Wouldn't we want Him to reflect our desires by dismissing our shortcomings? But the God of the Bible is so unlike us. His wisdom confuses us and his purity frightens us. He makes moral demands that we can't possibly live up to. He does not come running to us when we call on him.

If somebody insists that Jesus is a crutch, there is an element of truth to this. After all, crippled people need crutches. At least he is a crutch that we can lean on. What is the atheist putting his trust in? Can his crutch hold him?

Faith Is Not Wishing--part 1

This coming spring our apologetics group will be going through a short but extremely thoughtful book called Faith Is Not Wishing by Greg Koukl. I wanted to highlight some of his chapters here.

The first chapter deals with the concept of faith. Atheists see an inverse relationship between knowledge and faith. They believe the more knowledge of this world that is gained, the less spiritual faith people will have. They see faith as a leap in the dark, a desperate clinging to something when no information is available. It is often seen as wishful thinking. But Koukl points out that biblical faith is very different – it actually comes out of knowledge. It means active trust. He gives an example in the book of Exodus where Moses through the power of God brings forth miracles. In Exodus 14:31, we see the result: "And when Israel saw the great power which the Lord had used against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord, and they believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses." There's a definite pattern we see in this story--giving the people knowledge of God, in whom they then place their active trust. The key point is that knowledge went before belief. God didn't ask the Hebrews or Moses for mindless faith, blind leaps, or wishful thinking.

The same is true in the New Testament. In Mark 2 Jesus says to a paralytic that his sins were forgiven. Scribes grumbled about such an audacious claim. So Jesus said, "But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home." Jesus gave the same lesson that we saw in Exodus. He provided something that can't be seen (the forgiveness of sins) with evidence that can be seen, in this case a dramatic supernatural healing. Again, the concrete evidence allowed the doubters to know the truth so they could then trust in the forgiveness Jesus could give.

Other places in the New Testament follow the same pattern. Peter's sermon on Pentecost ends with this statement: "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him [Jesus] both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." In 1 John the author ends his letter by saying, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life."

Biblical faith isn't wishing; it's confidence. It's not denying reality, but discovering reality. It's a sense of certainty grounded in evidence that Christianity is true – not just "true for me," but actually, fully, and completely true. So knowledge comes first, and confidence follows. So we need to gather evidence, which will increase our knowledge and deepen our faith. Today, thanks to the Internet and other sources, it's easy to gather evidence for the reliability of the Christian faith. Let me know if you'd like some ideas of places to go for further evidence.

Quick answers to difficult questions

Sometimes when we talk with others about Christianity, we don't have a lot of time to develop our answers. Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason, has two quick answers to two difficult questions.

The one issue that usually gets brought up as an attack on Christianity is the problem of evil. If there is a good God, why is there evil? Greg suggests an initial question – "So you believe in objective evil then?" If the challenger doesn't, the problem goes away. If there's no objective evil, there is no problem of evil. That should take care of relativists who raise this issue.

Then there's his follow-up question – "What do you mean by evil?" Normally, people will give all sorts of examples of evil, like murder, torture, child abuse. Greg says we should ask them instead to tell us what it is that makes those things objectively evil in the first place. This can lead to a discussion, when there's more time, about transcendent moral law and the need for a transcendent moral law maker. In other words, God must exist before you can even raise the objection about evil. If there's no God, there are simply your preferences.

The second issue raised against Christianity involves Jesus being the only way. Greg has a pretty sharp answer for that issue: "Well, that's what Jesus thought. Do you think he had any insight into spiritual things?" The advantage now is with you because the critic must take on Jesus. Good luck.

This paragraph is my own suggestion about this second issue. When people complain about Jesus being the only way, they usually follow it up with a criticism of Christianity as being narrow-minded or intolerant. Of course, we simply need to point out that these people are just as narrow-minded since they believe they are right just as much as we believe we are right. They seem to be just as intolerant about our views as they say we are about theirs.

Now, there are obviously ways to get deeper into these issues. But these responses can keep us from being inarticulate or defensive. Try them out sometime.

Where does morality come from?

This is a quick blog today dealing with similar ideas obtained from two different sources.

The first is from Greg Koukl, a great source of wisdom and practical knowledge about all apologetics issues. He’s on the radio every Sunday from 2-5 p.m. on KBRT-AM 740. If you can’t listen to him, go to his web site (str.org) for downloads and great articles.

He was talking to someone about the issue of morality. He claims atheists can be moral, but they have no grounding (ultimate reason) for their morality. He ended the conversation by saying something simple but profound. Atheists and evolutionists can talk a good morality line, but they fail at a key point. Evolution is descriptive—it tries to tell what happened. But morality is prescriptive—it tries to tell what we ought to do.

These are two very different things. They don’t overlap. You can talk all you want about how things came about, but you’ll never be able to say why we should obey the rules that you say have evolved.

The second reference to this concept came about from a CD I’m listening to. It’s The Lamb and the Fuhrer by Ravi Zacharias, an imagined discussion between Jesus and Adolf Hitler. This question came up: “How can you make moral judgments in a world without moral laws?" We see this today—people refuse to say things are truly immoral because they have jettisoned the idea of moral laws, existing beyond the whims and opinions of fallible human beings. If there is no higher morality and it’s all a matter of taste, then we can’t judge anything as immoral.

But it’s impossible to live this way, so we hear people complaining of true moral issues (“the war is wrong,” “that’s immoral,” he’s guilty of genocide,” etc.). We need to call them on it. If they have turned their back on the existence of a God who has standards of morality, they can only say they don’t like the issue at hand. Morality becomes an issue like flavors of ice cream—we like some and dislike others.

Those who say God doesn’t exist don’t want to do this, so they act as if there is true morality in their issues. They have smuggled in Christian morality while rejecting the God who established the standards. Again, we need to remind them of their double-mindedness.

A vision statement we should all embrace

At our church, Emmanuel Faith, the board and pastor have released a vision statement for the year 2020. This sets up their view of what the church should emphasize over the next ten years. I wanted to tell you about one part that struck me as vitally important for Christians everywhere.

Here's the sentence that I wanted to focus on: "We will train all generations in our church family to know, explain and defend what we believe in order to engage and impact our culture for Christ."

Why is this important to me? Because this is the area of apologetics, a rational defense of the Christian faith. The church has awakened to the value of apologetics as part of a way to reach a secular age. Back in the 1980s a movie came out about Jesus that the church felt was unfair--The Last Temptation of Christ. What was the reaction? People went to the studios in L.A. to protest. Not a very intellectually satisfying thing to do, and not a way to show the world where the truth lay. Compare that to the Christian reaction to The Da Vinci Code, another in a long line of attempts to discredit Christianity. This time many good books poured forth, strongly rebutting the history and theology of Dan Brown. Christianity showed it had good reasons to oppose the message of this book.

Many Christian teens go off to college and walk away from their faith. Is it because the professor have some powerful insights that can wreck Christianity? Nope. Instead, these teens have never heard of how to defend their faith from false and misleading charges. They don't know there are good, sound, rational reasons to believe there is real truth, that there is a God, that the New Testament is reliable, that Jesus existed and did what the gospels say he did.

I'm glad the vision statement sees the importance of apologetics, which needs to be presented to "all generations" as the statement reads. It's not a philosophical exercise for pointy-headed older people. All Christians, no matter their age or scholarly abilities, should be shown how to think through their faith. Christianity, in the words of Greg Koukl, is "worth thinking about." I hope your church feels the same way.

Secularism's ongoing debt to Christianity--an atheist perspective

On his radio show (Stand to Reason), Greg Koukl mentioned a powerful essay by an atheist. The title was different than what I expected from a non-believer: "Secularism's Ongoing Debt to Christianity." Doesn't sound like Christopher Hitchens, does it? I want to explore his points in some detail in the future, but for now here's a good response from a website (rustylime.com).


In his recent post in the online journal American Thinker called “Secularism Ongoing Debt to Christianity,” Secular Atheist and author John D. Steinrucken made quite a surprising admission. One only need to read the title of the article to see that what followed was a drastic departure from the normal anti-religious rhetoric coming from more prominent Atheists and Secularists. And what a change indeed. Rather than claiming that “religion poisons everything,” Steinrucken actually asserts that religion, more specifically the Judeo-Christian conviction, actually is the efficient cause for the wide-spread liberty and freedom that secularism has enjoyed in the West since its inception. Not only does he assert that Secularism was fostered in what could loosely be called “Christendom”, but actually that the fate of Western Secularism is intertwined with the survival of the Judeo-Christian worldview in the West as well. As goes the latter, so goes the former as it were.

What is most striking about his article is the forthright admission of the inability of Secularism to ground any kind of moral standard. This has been a topic of interest on RL for quite some time now, and on this, Steinrucken seems to be on the side of the faithful. Score one for the home team. Now, before all my fellow theists get too elated, Steinrucken is not making the case that such morals are REAL, only that the BELIEF in objective morals, such as can only be grounded by religious convictions about the justice of God, objective truth, and the real and universal value of human persons, is pivotal to the survival of a free Western society.

To that end he says, "Those who doubt the effect of religion on morality should seriously ask the question: Just what are the immutable moral laws of secularism? Be prepared to answer, if you are honest, that such laws simply do not exist! The best answer we can ever hear from secularists to this question is a hodgepodge of strained relativist talk of situational ethics. They can cite no overriding authority other than that of fashion. For the great majority in the West, it is the Judeo-Christian tradition which offers a template assuring a life of inner peace toward the world at large -- a peace which translates to a workable liberal society."

Well put. Later he even goes so far as to say, “Secularism has never offered the people a practical substitute for religion.” He briefly alludes to the failed attempt at Secular utopias that ended up causing some of the worst crimes against humanity ever perpetrated in the history of mankind. Those secular attempts for utopia, “when actually put to the test, have not merely come to naught. Attempts during those two centuries to put into practice utopian visions have caused huge sufferings. “ Sadly, we have no want of examples that affirm his statement – Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, Hoxha’s Albania, Castro’s Cuba, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and on and on. It is no small thing that the most secular century has been, hands down, the bloodiest century in human history – a fulfillment of Nietzsche’s dark prediction that the death of belief God would mark the beginning of the most violent era in human history. People would replace their faith in God with faith in the state – “barbaric nationalistic brotherhoods” as he called them.

We get a sense that Steinrucken has read Nietzsche and has imagined the same fate. What most people don’t know is that Nietzsche did not only make a prediction about the 20th century, but also the 21st - and it doesn’t get any better. Nietzsche saw that the 20th century would at the very least have some residual moral sentiment left over from the 19th century and such a sentiment would curb the barbarism. The 21st century however would have no such sentiment. He predicted a “total eclipse of values.” If it was so easy for the Secular Utopias to marginalize, then criminalize, then euthanize vast swaths of their citizens even with residual values, how much more easy will it be to do so when values are entirely passé? However, where Nietzsche saw the inevitable, Steinrucken desires to avoid such a societal collapse.

Here again I must remind my fellow theists not to get too excited. Steinrucken is not advocating for some widespread conversion to faith. His point is that it is in the secularists’ best interest to see to it that the moral grounding found in the Judeo-Christian tradition is preserved. This is because should secularism do away with that foundation, and then one day find itself in disfavor and itself under the thumb of some radical ideologue hell-bent on purging society of the godless and the infidel, the secularist will have no one to defend them because no one will be left to decry the real injustice of it all.

I will end where he ends, “It is not critical that they themselves believe, only that they should publicly hold in high esteem the institutions of Christianity and Judaism, and to respect those who do believe and to encourage and to give leeway to those who, in truth, will be foremost in the trenches defending us against those who would have us all bow down to a different and unaccommodating faith.”