# articles

title: Quick Thought: Is there a Soul?
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 04/15/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/quick-thought-is-there-a-soul-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Three problems with physicalism: Number one, physicalism can’t account for our mental lives. Problem number two is that physicalism can’t give you free will. Third problem is physicalism can’t give us an enduring self or identity over time.</p>

<p>The better explanation is dualism. It’s the idea that human beings are composites of body, brain, and soul. The physical and the non-physical.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/videos/challenge-response-there-is-no-soul" target="_blank">Read more and watch the video</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-is-there-a-soul-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-is-there-a-soul-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-is-there-a-soul-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Same-Sex Marriage Can’t Afford to Be Tolerant
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/15/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-same-sex-marriage-can-t-afford-to-be-tolerant
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Mere Orthodoxy’s Matt Anderson <a href="http://mereorthodoxy.com/naive-young-evangelicals-illiberal-dna-gay-rights-movement/" target="_blank">explains</a> why “an anti-liberal approach toward dissenting views is part of the DNA of the logic of the current gay rights argument”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Imagine, for a moment, that cultural conservatives are right that the family which begins within the union of a man and a woman is a morally unique institution, irreplacable in its role in society and inimitable in its shape by other voluntary associations of free adults, such as gay unions...</p>

<p>Then grant this simple premise: that humans are fundamentally and inescapably truth-telling beings, and that falsehoods require an elaborate and complex support structure if they are to take hold and endure for a long period of time. A child might believe that Santa Claus is real and get on with the world just fine. But as they grow older, the kinds of backflips, self-deceptions, and tricks they would have to go through in order to maintain such a belief would be dazzling.</p>

<p>Now, momentarily return to that peculiar and strange thought that same-sex sexual relationships, whatever other goods [they] have, lack particular features which make heterosexual relationships morally unique. Given human sexuality’s clear importance, and given humanity’s truth-telling nature, what kind of artifice would need to be in place to support and sustain such a deception within a society over a long period of time? What kind of intervention into the course of normal human affairs would a society have to undertake in order to obscure the morally relevant differences between those forms of sexual behavior that can generate children and those that cannot? What kind of construct would we have to build in order to maintain the premise that all consenting erotic associations are equal, that the union of the lives of two adults (even where children are introduced via the tragedy beneath adoption or through the artifice of technology) is of the same kind as those families where a man and a woman’s love and life together introduces a third member into the community who bears witness, within their very bodies, of the love of that mother and father for each other and for no one else in a way that removing children from their biological parentage necessarily diminishes? And once this structure is built, would it have the structural integrity to allow for meaningful and public dissent? Or would it be so fragile, because false, that it had to “stamp out”&nbsp;competing accounts of the world?</p>

<p>Erasing or obscuring the moral uniqueness of the traditional nuclear family unit—<em>if</em> there is one—would require, dare I say, both an extensive and elaborate artifice that attempted to reconfigure not simply the family, but all those institutions which the family has some bearing upon. Maintaining such a support would require the most powerful and influential institutions in American life, of which there are currently (by way of hypothesis) three: <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/rihanna-joins-miley-cyrus-in-slamming-indianas-anti-gay-religious-freedom-law" target="_blank">entertainment</a>, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/religious-right-hates-indianas-rfra-fix-but-big-business-loves-it/440250/" target="_blank">business</a>, and <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/connecticut-governor-lifts-indiana-travel-ban-over-religious" target="_blank">the government</a>. And as long as those dominant institutions established such an outlook on the world, any remaining institutions would come under significant pressure to reform themselves accordingly.</p>

<p>In other words, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0047DX11G/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=B0047DX11G&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=mereorth-20&amp;linkId=U7XWQMPEDZIRRWB2" target="_blank">as Seana Sugrue argued once</a>, same-sex marriage will lead to a soft-despotism <em>because it has to.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="http://mereorthodoxy.com/naive-young-evangelicals-illiberal-dna-gay-rights-movement/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>

<p>This is a similar point to the one Frank Beckwith made when he <a href="/w/race-sex-and-marriage" target="_blank">likened</a> <em>bans against</em> interracial marriage to the <em>endorsement</em> of same-sex marriage—both require the intrusive force of law to maintain because neither reflects the truth about what marriage is, either denying sex is relevant or insisting race is.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-same-sex-marriage-can-t-afford-to-be-tolerant" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-same-sex-marriage-can-t-afford-to-be-tolerant" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-same-sex-marriage-can-t-afford-to-be-tolerant" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Quick Thought: Animal Death before the Fall?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/09/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/quick-thought-animal-death-before-the-fall-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When the Bible was written, writers and historians were free to shift some things around a to make a point, and it wasn’t considered deceptive or an error. It was a different way of writing. It’s the same with Genesis.</p>

<p>“How do I deal with animal death given Genesis 1?”&nbsp;The presumption is that Genesis 1 teaches animals did not die until after the fall. If you’re an old-earther, that’s a problem. Animals did die before the fall on an old-earth view, so that would seem like the old-earthers are at odds with the Scripture.</p>

<p>I don’t see where it says that animals didn’t die before the fall in Genesis 1, and I can see an interpretation of Romans 5, which would bring someone to that conclusion. Paul isn’t talking about all creatures, he’s talking about human beings. He’s not addressing the question of animal death in the passage.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/videos/on-an-old-earth-view-how-do-you-reconcile-animal-death-before-the-fall-with-genesis-1" target="_blank">Read more and watch the video</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-animal-death-before-the-fall-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-animal-death-before-the-fall-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-animal-death-before-the-fall-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Quick Thought: Does God Owe His Creation Anything?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/29/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/quick-thought-does-god-owe-his-creation-anything-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Parents do have an obligation to their children, so it seems that God would have an obligation to His creation.</p>

<p>The two scenarios do not have the same moral obligations. God is not obliged to anyone. Human beings are under God, and God communicates duties that relate to His perfections and role as King of the Universe.</p>

<p>Parent’s are under the authority of God. Therefore, they do have duties and obligations.</p>

<p>God didn’t have to save anybody. He has no obligation to forgive and show mercy. When God offers forgiveness to us, He goes above and beyond.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/videos/does-god-owe-his-creation-anything" target="_blank">Read more and watch the video</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-does-god-owe-his-creation-anything-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-does-god-owe-his-creation-anything-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-does-god-owe-his-creation-anything-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why the Supreme Court Should Let States Choose Their Marriage Policy
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/28/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-the-supreme-court-should-let-states-choose-their-marriage-policy
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Supreme Court will hear arguments <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/27/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSKBN0NI20G20150427" target="_blank">today</a> on whether or not it’s constitutional to define marriage as a man and a woman. Please keep in mind that, contrary to what you might be hearing, the Supreme Court isn’t deciding whether or not to <em>ban</em> same-sex marriage. The option to ban it isn’t something they’re considering (nor should they). Rather, they’re deciding whether or not same-sex marriage will be <em>required</em> in all 50 states. If they decide the Constitution does not require it, the states will be left to choose their own marriage policy.</p>

<p>The questions the justices will answer are <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/" target="_blank">these</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?</p>

<p>2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s important to reiterate that this is a question about the Constitution: Does the Constitution <em>require</em> same-sex marriage? The judges’&nbsp;preference as to which marriage policy they think is <em>better</em> should not determine the outcome, and we can only hope it won’t.</p>

<p>Ryan Anderson summarizes the <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/21/what-you-need-to-know-about-gay-marriage-and-the-supreme-court/" target="_blank">situation</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>1. There simply is <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/03/memo-to-supreme-court-state-marriage-laws-are-constitutional" target="_blank">nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage</a>...</p>

<p>2. The <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/03/memo-to-supreme-court-state-marriage-laws-are-constitutional" target="_blank">overarching question before the Supreme Court</a> is not whether a male-female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the Constitution...</p>

<p>3. As <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/the-supreme-court-and-the-future-of-marriage" target="_blank">Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito pointed out two years ago</a>, there are two different visions of what marriage is on offer... Our Constitution is silent on which of these visions is correct...</p>

<p>4. The only way the Court could strike down state laws that define marriage as the union of husband and wife is to adopt a view of marriage that sees it as an essentially genderless institution based primarily on the emotional needs of adults and then declare that the Constitution requires that the states (re)define marriage in such a way...</p>

<p>5. Everyone in this debate is in favor of marriage equality. Everyone wants the law to treat all marriages in the same ways. The only disagreement our nation faces is over what sort of consenting adult relationship is a marriage...</p>

<p>6. Marriage exists to bring <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it" target="_blank">a man and a woman together as husband and wife, to be father and mother</a> to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father...</p>

<p>7. Redefining marriage to make it <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it" target="_blank">a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage</a>: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches that mothers and fathers are interchangeable...</p>

<p>8. There is no need for the Court to “settle”&nbsp;the marriage issue like it tried to settle the abortion issue. Allowing marriage policy to be worked out democratically will give citizens and their elected representatives the freedom to arrive at the best public policy for everyone... Judges should not cut this process short.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of Anderson’s <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/21/what-you-need-to-know-about-gay-marriage-and-the-supreme-court/" target="_blank">post</a>. You can read summaries of the amicus briefs that have been filed on both sides <a href="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2015/04/guide-to-amicus-briefs-in-obergefell-v-hodges-the-same-sex-marriage-cases.html" target="_blank">here</a>. For more on this topic, see “<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/01/understand-the-same-sex-marriage-issue.html" target="_blank">Understand the Same-Sex Marriage Issue</a>.”</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-the-supreme-court-should-let-states-choose-their-marriage-policy" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-the-supreme-court-should-let-states-choose-their-marriage-policy" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-the-supreme-court-should-let-states-choose-their-marriage-policy" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Fetal Homicide Laws Are a Problem for Pro-Choicers
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/29/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/fetal-homicide-laws-are-a-problem-for-pro-choicers
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A recent murder in Colorado has been shaking up the state. Dynel Lane lured a woman who was seven months pregnant to her home and cut her daughter, Aurora, out of her womb. Aurora didn’t survive.</p>

<p>Because Colorado law didn’t allow for prosecuting Lane for murder, a fetal homicide bill has been proposed. As with California’s <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/8/1/s187" target="_blank">fetal homicide law</a> (yes, even California has one!), the bill <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27914502/gop-lawmakers-introduce-fetal-homicide-bill-after-longmont" target="_blank">excludes any kind of abortion</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Under the new bill, prosecutors would be allowed to pursue murder and assault charges in cases involving “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from conception until live birth.”</p>

<p>The language said it wouldn’t apply to acts committed by the mother, medical procedures or legally prescribed medication.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Even though the bill specifically excludes deaths caused by the mother’s choice, the pro-choice politicians are objecting to it. They don’t want to set a legal precedent by calling an unborn human being a “<a href="http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2015A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/B3528BC0613C6C1787257E15006272AA?Open&amp;file=268_01.pdf" target="_blank">person</a>,”&nbsp;even if the cases it applies to are strictly limited. This fear is understandable. In order to protect abortion, they can’t allow a logical foot in the door. Once you admit that a fetus can be “murdered,”&nbsp;you raise questions that are difficult for pro-choicers to answer. David Harsanyi <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/16/meet-the-real-abortion-extremists/" target="_blank">explains</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The truth is that pro-choice advocates don’t want district attorneys prosecuting people for killing fetuses because it sets up two dangerous debates.</p>

<p>First, the act of humanizing unborn babies that women want to keep means humanizing unborn babies others do not want to keep. Aurora got a name, but the other third-trimester babies disposed of aren’t as fortunate.</p>

<p>Secondly, <em>any</em> admission by liberals that life in the womb is human life worthy of protections sets up a host of uncomfortable philosophical questions and legal precedents. For starters, how can the act of killing a fetus—granted, for different purposes and with very different levels of violence—end a human life in one instance and not the other?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This murder has upset the people of Colorado, and with good reason. Real life examples can sometimes <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2011/11/how-should-we-use-graphic-images.html" target="_blank">reveal moral truths</a> to us in a way that propositional arguments can’t. There’s currently a law against “unlawful termination of pregnancy”&nbsp;in Colorado, but of course, that addresses the rights of the mother, not the child, and it carries different penalties from those for murder. Put a name to the deceased fetal human, and suddenly, “unlawful termination of pregnancy”&nbsp;doesn’t seem like enough—not when we know the question of whether or not Lane could be charged with murder depended entirely on whether or not the autopsy could prove Aurora <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/27/no-murder-charges-in-attack-on-pregnant-woman-in-colorado-da-says/" target="_blank">lived outside the womb</a> for at least a moment before dying. It’s obvious to people something is wrong with a law that makes that kind of an irrelevant distinction.</p>

<p>When it comes to standing against a law that would prosecute people like Lane for murdering fetal human beings like Aurora, these politicians would rather bite that bullet than create a law that might make people think a little too carefully. But if they’re worried about consistent, logical thinking leading from a fetal homicide law to fetal human rights, perhaps they should also worry about how their consistent thinking in <em>rejecting</em> a fetal homicide law will appear to the people of Colorado who viscerally recognize the morally horrific nature of this recent murder.</p>

<p>They risk people thinking too much either way.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffetal-homicide-laws-are-a-problem-for-pro-choicers" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffetal-homicide-laws-are-a-problem-for-pro-choicers" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffetal-homicide-laws-are-a-problem-for-pro-choicers" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Finding Truth: False Worldviews Reduce the Human Person
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/24/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/finding-truth-false-worldviews-reduce-the-human-person
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>This week, we’re discussing the chapter “How Nietzsche Wins”&nbsp;in Nancy Pearcey’s</em> <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK401" target="_blank">Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes</a><em>, which covers the second of <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-i-lost-my-faith-at-an-evangelical-college#.W6lgIxNKijQ" target="_blank">five principles</a> for evaluating worldviews: “Identify the Idol’s Reductionism”&nbsp;(see links to the previous posts below).</em></p>

<p>Every false worldview, since it puts something that is less than God (an idol) in the place of God (as the ultimate reality and source of all things), will have an understanding of the human person that is less than the image of God. And as Nancy Pearcey demonstrates throughout this chapter, “When we reduce people to anything less than fully human, we will <em>treat</em> them as less than fully human.”&nbsp;So in order to think through the implications of a worldview, we need to identify how the idol of that worldview reduces the human being. For example:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What the dominant classes hold as true tends to shape social and political practice. If the elites hold a materialism that reduces humans to computers, then they will treat people like computers. Thinking will be reduced to computing: the neuroelectrophysiology of the brain. People will be judged solely by how well they perform their assigned functions. And when they stop functioning, they will be tossed in the garbage heap with the other electronic trash.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Do you recognize in that quote the idea that human value is <em>instrumental</em> (i.e., based on what a person can do) rather than <em>intrinsic</em> (based on the kind of being the person is)—the very understanding of human value that leads people to reject the unborn human being’s right to life?</p>

<p>Pearcey’s explanation of Enlightenment and Romantic worldviews—where they come from and what they lead to—clarifies the reason why there are such harsh political divisions in this country. The difference is deeper than politics. The divide on contentious issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/04/sexual-expression-is-a-worldview-issue.html" target="_blank">marriage</a> goes all the way down to the person’s worldview. (For one example of this, see the worldview differences that led atheist commenters on this blog to <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/atheism-and-universal-human-rights#.W6lfwhNKijQ" target="_blank">argue against universal human rights</a>.)</p>

<p>This tells me two things: 1) It will take more to resolve this nation’s differences than merely settling specific political issues (which may, in fact, not even be possible in light of the worldview divide), and 2) making disciples of Christ is a more revolutionary act than any kind of political work.</p>

<p>A while back, I posted “<a href="https://www.str.org/blog/the-true-story-of-christian-missionaries#.W6leKBNKijQ" target="_blank">The True Story of Christian Missionaries</a>,”&nbsp;reporting on a researcher’s discovery that in nations where missionaries stressed conversion, salvation by grace through faith, and the importance of Bible reading, the eventual result was democracy, religious liberty, literacy, lower infant mortality, economic growth, and more: “The work of missionaries... turns out to be the single largest factor in insuring the health of nations.”&nbsp;(See also what happened in <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/values-fight-poverty#.W6leJRNKijQ" target="_blank">18th century England</a> when a million people became Christians.)</p>

<p>This isn’t to say we should seek to bring others to Christ <em>because</em> this will change the world. Rather, it means that those who think direct attempts to change the world are a better use of resources than the Great Commission are not only mistaken about the value of the Great Commission (which both addresses our greatest human need and glorifies God in the greatest possible way), they’re also mistaken about the most effective means of changing the world!</p>

<p>Yes, God may call you to social action—perhaps even as a politician, as He did <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/happy-birthday-wilberforce#.W6lezhNKijQ" target="_blank">William Wilberforce</a>. But when you see the tragedy of all that’s happening in this world, I don’t want you to be deceived into thinking your efforts as an apologist to bring people to Christ are <em>less</em> valuable than social action. Since worldviews drive all societal policies, what’s at stake in your work is not only the eternal souls of human beings, but also an increased acceptance of the only worldview that recognizes the fullness of our personhood (unlike views based on a non-personal ultimate reality) and calls us to treat human beings <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/this-is-the-kind-of-culture-christianity-creates#.W6lfQxNKijQ" target="_blank">in a manner worthy of that understanding</a>.</p>

<p>After discussing how both Enlightenment and Romantic worldviews devalue our personhood, Pearcey makes an important observation:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The puzzling question is why these worldviews are at all popular. After all, what we long for most of all is to be known and loved for who we are as unique persons—a longing that can be met only if the divine is a person.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As Christians, we have the advantage in worldview discussions because not only do we have the truth, we also have what people are yearning for. They’re waiting to hear!</p>

<p>And now it���s your turn to continue the discussion. Any ideas from the chapter you’d like to comment on? If you have your own blog (or Facebook page, Twitter account, etc.), I’d love to see you write your own posts on this chapter and link to them below, along with your comments (hat tip to <a href="http://www.challies.com/reading-classics-together/would-you-like-to-read-a-christian-classic-with-me" target="_blank">Tim Challies</a> for this idea). I can only talk about so much in a single blog post, but we can expand our discussion through your posts. I want to give you the chance to bounce your ideas off each other.</p>

<p>Next Friday, we’re on to Principle #3 in “Secular Leaps of Faith”&nbsp;to test the worldview idols to see if they contradict reality.</p>

<p><strong>Posts in this series:</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/read-nancy-pearcey%E2%80%99s-finding-truth-with-me#.VWXwkllViko" target="_blank">Book Club Introduction</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-foreword#.VWXwAVlViko" target="_blank">Week One: Foreword</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-i-lost-my-faith-at-an-evangelical-college#.VWXwz1lViko" target="_blank">Week Two: I Lost My Faith at an Evangelical College</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-twilight-of-the-gods#.VWXwWFlViko" target="_blank">Week Three: Twilight of the Gods</a></li>
	<li>Week Four: False Worldviews Reduce the Human Person</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-secular-leaps-of-faith#.VWXwcVlViko" target="_blank">Week Five: Secular Leaps of Faith</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-why-worldviews-commit-suicide#.VWXw71lViko" target="_blank">Week Six: Why Worldviews Commit Suicide</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-free-loading-atheists#.VWXwMllViko" target="_blank">Week Seven: Free-Loading Atheists</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-how-critical-thinking-saves-faith#.VWXws1lViko" target="_blank">Week Eight: How Critical Thinking Saves Faith</a></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Twitter:</strong> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&amp;q=%23strread&amp;src=typd" target="_blank">#STRread</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&amp;q=%23findingtruth&amp;src=typd" target="_blank">#FindingTruth</a></p>

<p><strong>Articles mentioned in this chapter that illustrate reductionism and its consequences:</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/02/14/how-neuroscience-can-help-us-find-true-love/" target="_blank">How Neuroscience Can Help Us Find True Love</a>—“Darling, dopamine floods my caudate nucleus every time I look at you.”</li>
	<li><a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/" target="_blank">Scientists Say Free Will Probably Doesn’t Exist, but Urge: “Don’t Stop Believing”</a>—Study showing “the antisocial consequences of deterministic beliefs”</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/the-end-of-neurononsense" target="_blank">The End of Neurononsense</a>—A researcher “found that people who hold the reductionist view—who deny the special status of the human species in nature, who believe behavior is determined by physical processes alone—were far more likely to agree with the maltreatment of humans.”</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.humphrey.org.uk/papers/2006Consciousness.pdf" target="_blank">Consciousness: The Achilles Heel of Darwinism? Thank God, Not Quite</a> (PDF)—“Consciousness has to be an illusion. The reason is obvious: If nothing in the physical world can have the features that consciousness seems to have, then consciousness cannot exist as a thing in the physical world.”</li>
</ul>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffinding-truth-false-worldviews-reduce-the-human-person" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffinding-truth-false-worldviews-reduce-the-human-person" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffinding-truth-false-worldviews-reduce-the-human-person" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Don’t Take a Leap of Faith
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/27/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/don-t-take-a-leap-of-faith
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>In today’s culture, people take “faith”&nbsp;and “belief”&nbsp;as religious wishful thinking, not the kind of intelligent step of trust the Bible has in mind when it uses those words.</em></p>

<p>In the past, I’ve encouraged you to ban words like “faith”&nbsp;and “belief”&nbsp;from your vocabulary. They’re too easily misunderstood.</p>

<p>I had a chance to put that advice into practice in one of my own “moments of truth”—for a national TV audience.</p>

<p>If you recall, I said that in today’s culture, people take “faith”&nbsp;and “belief”&nbsp;as religious wishful thinking, not the kind of intelligent step of trust the Bible has in mind when it uses those words.</p>

<p>Instead, I said, use the language of truth during your moments of truth so there’s no confusion. Simply put: Talk about facts, not faith.</p>

<p>The occasion was the taping of a full hour of crossfire-style debate hosted by Lee Strobel. My opponent was New Age guru Deepak Chopra, the best-selling author of more than 20 million books.</p>

<p>Strobel’s opening question to me was, “Greg, what do you think the future of faith looks like?”</p>

<p>This is exactly the kind of situation I warned you about—the word “faith”&nbsp;twisting in the wind in all its troublesome ambiguity. Here was the essence of my response:</p>

<p>Lee, we have to be clear on what we mean by “the future of faith.”&nbsp;We could mean “the future of religion”—faith as a noun—or we could mean “the future of acts of trust”—faith as a verb.</p>

<p>In one sense, the future of religion is the same as it’s ever been. If your religious beliefs are accurate, there is tremendous hope. But if your religious views are false, if you’re taking a leap of faith trusting in fantasy, there is no hope.</p>

<p>Whatever was true 1000 years ago about religion is true today. Reality doesn’t change just because beliefs change. And reality has a way of bruising those who don’t take it seriously. This is why Christianity has never encouraged a leap of faith.</p>

<p>If we get reality wrong and trust in a fantasy, a mistake, we’re going to get injured. Our job is to do the best we can to get the facts right, to have accurate religious views—faith as a noun—then act consistently with those facts—faith as a verb.</p>

<p>So, if truth is your goal, I’m optimistic about the future of faith. If it’s not, if people turn instead to leaps of faith and wishful thinking, then I’m pessimistic.</p>

<p>This was my opening salvo. A vigorous debate followed. From the outset, though, I wanted to set the tone. Regardless of whatever Dr. Chopra had in mind, as a Christian I was interested in reality, in truth—not in rosy fantasies or wishful thinking.</p>

<p>By contrast, Chopra championed feelings and experience over religious doctrine and dogma. This is dangerous advice.</p>

<p>Mark this: Feelings make life beautiful, but careful thinking—reason—makes life safe.</p>

<p>Feelings are misleading indicators. People can feel safe even when in desperate peril. They can also feel completely conflicted and distraught when doing what is right.</p>

<p>This is like the used car salesman who tells you, “Drive the car, but don’t look under the hood.”&nbsp;You may enjoy the ride, but you��ll never know if he’s selling you a lemon or not.</p>

<p>Never trust anyone who tells you to rely on experience over right thinking. Most requests to banish judgments come just before someone says or does something that ought to be judged.</p>

<p>They say, “Experience, not reason is the best guide for truth,”&nbsp;just before making claims you should be inspecting very carefully, but they’re telling you not to. They rob you of the tools necessary to separate good from evil, wisdom from silliness, safety from peril.</p>

<p>In life there are lots of lemons. And many of them are spiritually deadly. “Look before you leap”&nbsp;is sage advice. It applies especially to leaps of faith.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdon-t-take-a-leap-of-faith" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdon-t-take-a-leap-of-faith" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdon-t-take-a-leap-of-faith" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Expect to See This Argument against Religious Freedom
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/11/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/expect-to-see-this-argument-against-religious-freedom
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Based on Frank Bruni’s <em>New York Times</em> article “<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=3&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CCUQFjAC&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2015%2F04%2F05%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2Ffrank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html&amp;ei=WPsiVeiyKYuwogS_7YDYDQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNGlh0F72RZPoJxmnr0YzdYTyrOa0w" target="_blank">Bigotry, the Bible, and the Lessons of Indiana</a>,”&nbsp;wherein he says “how easily”&nbsp;the “very traditions and texts that inform many Christians’&nbsp;denunciation of same-sex relationships... can be [and are being] understood in a different way,”&nbsp;it sounds to me like the argument that may soon be taken up against our religious freedom will go something like this:</p>

<p>Some Christian churches endorse homosexuality and same-sex marriage, therefore homosexuality and same-sex marriage are compatible with Christianity. Therefore people who oppose homosexuality and same-sex marriage aren’t <em>really</em> motivated by their religion; they’re motivated by bigotry. And since their opposition doesn’t have its basis in religion (but only in bigotry), therefore we aren’t required to protect their “freedom”&nbsp;to teach and act in accordance with those beliefs.</p>

<p>Watch for it.</p>

<p>(See responses to Bruni’s article by <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/christians-frank-bruni-lgbt-religious-liberty/" target="_blank">Rod Dreher</a> and <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2015/04/frank-bruni-commands-christians-to-cave-on-homosexuality/" target="_blank">Owen Strachan</a>.)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fexpect-to-see-this-argument-against-religious-freedom" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fexpect-to-see-this-argument-against-religious-freedom" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fexpect-to-see-this-argument-against-religious-freedom" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Evolutionary Ethics Fails to Account for Objective Morality
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 04/14/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-evolutionary-ethics-fails-to-account-for-objective-morality
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Two years ago, I had the chance to debate an atheist professor at Weber State University in Utah on the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values. The writings of Bill Craig and Paul Copan have shaped a lot of my thinking in this area, as I’m sure you’ll see below. In my opening argument, I made the case for God as the ontological foundation for objective morality. Then I raised five problems for an evolutionary view of ethics that make it an implausible alternative. Here are the problems I outlined in the debate:</p>

<p><strong>(1) Evolution cannot account for moral values:</strong> Moral values do not fit in the ontology of naturalism. On a naturalistic view, our moral values are the result of biological evolution, purely for the purpose of survival and reproduction. But how would such a herd morality be binding and true?</p>

<p>Atheists recognize the unnatural fit. Philosopher of science Michael Ruse writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The position of the modern evolutionist... is that humans have an awareness of morality... because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth... Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says “Love thy neighbor as thyself,”&nbsp;they think they are referring above and beyond themselves... Nevertheless... such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction... and any deeper meaning is illusory...<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>J.L. Mackie, one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the 20th century, said this: “Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without an all-powerful god to create them.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p><strong>(2) Evolution cannot account for moral obligations:</strong> If humans are simply more developed animals, why think there are moral duties to which they are obligated? Male great white sharks are under no obligation to refrain from forcibly copulating with female great whites. Male lions are under no obligation to refrain from killing all the young lion cubs in a pride they have just taken over. Notice, we do NOT use moral terms to describe such behavior. We do <em>not</em> call the shark’s behavior “rape”&nbsp;and we do <em>not</em> call the lion’s behavior “infanticide.”</p>

<p>Natural science is a descriptive enterprise, only telling us what <em>is</em> the case, not what <em>ought</em> to be the case. For example, nature can describe what it is to be healthy, but it cannot generate a moral obligation to be healthy.</p>

<p>Prominent American philosopher Richard Taylor recognizes this problem for naturalism:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The idea of political or legal obligation is clear enough... Similarly, the idea of an obligation higher than this, referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some lawgiver higher... than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can... be understood as those that are imposed by God... But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of moral obligation... still make sense? ...The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>On a naturalistic view, there is nothing to issue moral commands and there is no <em>one</em> to serve as the appropriate authority standing behind our moral obligations. As Taylor states, in the absence of God, the concept of moral obligations is incoherent.</p>

<p><strong>(3) Evolution cannot adequately explain human value:</strong> On a naturalistic evolutionary scenario, human beings are nothing special. The universe comes into existence through the Big Bang and, through a blind process of chance and necessity, evolves all the way through to us. The same process that coughed up humans also coughed up bacteria. Thus, there is nothing intrinsically valuable about being human. Indeed, on this view, to think humans beings are special is to be guilty of speciesism, the view that one’s own species is somehow superior to other species.</p>

<p>Atheist Richard Dawkins offers a bleak assessment of human worth on an atheistic worldview:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference... DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>But what other result should we expect from valueless, cause-and-effect physical processes? There is no reason to think that an impersonal, valueless process could produce valuable, rights-bearing persons.</p>

<p><strong>(4) Evolution cannot adequately explain moral accountability:</strong> If God does not exist, there is no basis for moral accountability. On naturalism, who or what imposes moral obligations upon us? And who or what would hold us to those obligations? In a purely material universe, there is no moral accountability. What difference would it make to disregard your moral obligations to whomever? In an atheistic universe, why would you ever set aside self-interest for self-sacrifice?</p>

<p><strong>(5) Evolution cannot adequately explain human freedom:</strong> If we are the products of evolutionary forces, how did moral freedom and responsibility emerge? There is no reason to think, given our supposed materialistic and deterministic origins, that we have free will. Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel states that there is “no room for agency in a world of neural impulses, chemical reactions, and bone and muscle movements”; naturalism strongly suggests that we are “helpless”&nbsp;and “not responsible”&nbsp;for our actions.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>Of course, if there is no free will, then no one is morally responsible for anything. Determinism puts an end to objective moral duties because on this worldview, we have no control over what we do. We are nothing more than puppets in a cause-and-effect universe.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,”&nbsp;in <em>The Darwinian Paradigm</em> (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-9. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">J. L. Mackie, <em>The Miracle of Theism</em> (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1982), 115-116. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Richard Taylor, Ethics, Faith, and Reason (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1985), p. 83-84. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 132-133. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Thomas Nagel, <em>The View from Nowhere</em> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 111, 113. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-evolutionary-ethics-fails-to-account-for-objective-morality" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-evolutionary-ethics-fails-to-account-for-objective-morality" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-evolutionary-ethics-fails-to-account-for-objective-morality" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Finding Truth: Twilight of the Gods
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/17/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/finding-truth-twilight-of-the-gods
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Today is our third week discussing Nancy Pearcey’s <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK401" target="_blank"><em>Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes</em></a> (see links to the previous posts below). The chapter “Twilight of the Gods”&nbsp;goes into more detail about the first of five principles in Pearcey’s <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-i-lost-my-faith-at-an-evangelical-college#.W6lgsRNKijQ" target="_blank">Romans-1-based template</a> for evaluating worldviews: “Identify the idol.”</p>

<p>Pearcey first reminds us what follows from the fact that we’re rational beings:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Because we are created in God’s image as rational and responsible beings, we all have a philosophy—not necessarily one learned out of a textbook, but an overall view of life by which we make sense of the world. The biblical view of human nature implies that we are “incapable of holding purely arbitrary opinions or making entirely unprincipled decisions,”&nbsp;writes Albert Wolters. (p. 58)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Now we get to the first step for evaluating these systems of thought created by rational human beings:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[T]hose who reject the Creator will create an idol. They will absolutize some power or element immanent within the cosmos, elevating it into an all-defining principle—a false absolute. When evaluating a worldview, then, the first step is to identify its idol. What does it set up as a God substitute?</p>

<p>Despite the vast diversity of religions and philosophies, they all start by putting something created in the place of God. (pp. 60-61)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>To identify the idol of any system of thought, we need to look for “the convictions that engage us most deeply and drive our behavior.”&nbsp;Since <em>every</em> worldview has these convictions, even atheist systems have these idols:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[I]t is impossible to think without some starting point. If you do not start with God, you must start somewhere else. You must propose something else as the ultimate, eternal, uncreated reality that is the cause and source of everything else. The important question is not which starting points are religious or secular, but which claims stand up to testing.</p>

<p>The advantage of using the biblical term <em>idol</em> is that it levels the playing field. Secular people often accuse Christians of having “faith,”&nbsp;while claiming that they themselves base their convictions purely on facts and reason. Not so. If you press any set of ideas back far enough, eventually you reach an ultimate starting point—something that is taken as the self-existent reality on which everything depends. This starting assumption cannot be based on prior reasoning, because if it were, you could ask where <em>that</em> reasoning starts—and so on, in an infinite regress. At some point, every system of thought has to say, This is my starting point. There is no reason for it to exist. It just “is.”</p>

<p>If starting premises do not rest on reasons, how can they be tested? Although you cannot argue <em>backward</em> to their prior reasons, you can argue <em>forward</em> by spelling out their implications, then testing those implications using both logic and experience. (pp. 62-63)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Philosophies, she says, are a kind of secular religion. Not every religion includes a god, morality, or even rituals, but they all acknowledge a “self-existent, eternal reality that is the origin of everything else... No other factor is genuinely universal among religions.”&nbsp;She concludes, “Religions are a lot more like philosophies than most people think. And philosophies are a lot like religions.”</p>

<p>Since secular philosophies, like religions, point to an ultimate reality, they can be evaluated, just as religions can, by identifying their idols. For example:</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Paganism</strong>: The idol “is Nature itself, or a spiritual substance interconnecting all of nature.”</li>
	<li><strong>Plato and Aristotle</strong>: “The ultimate formative principle within the universe was what they called rational forms.”</li>
	<li><strong>Scientific materialism</strong>: “What is ultimately real is matter—molecules in motion.”</li>
	<li><strong>Marxism</strong> (a “denomination”&nbsp;of materialism): “Economic conditions are the ultimate explainer.”</li>
	<li><strong>Empiricism</strong>: “What we can really rely on are empirical facts—what we can see, feel, weigh, and measure... Makes an idol of the sensory realm. Whatever is not susceptible to empirical testing is not real.”</li>
	<li><strong>Rationalism</strong>: “The sole source and standard of knowledge are ideas in the mind known by reason.”</li>
	<li><strong>Romanticism</strong>: “The ultimate foundation for truth was... the creative imagination.”</li>
</ul>

<p>Whatever our idol is, everything else we encounter in the world is explained in terms of that idol. Or at least, we <em>attempt</em> to explain things in those terms; everything that doesn’t fit is “either denied, redefined, or dismissed as unreal.”</p>

<p>In the end, while other worldviews can teach us true things within the areas they focus on, “whatever is genuinely good and true finds its true home within Christianity.”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Christianity alone provides what the greatest philosophers and sages have sought all along: a coherent and transcendent framework that encompasses all of human knowledge. (p. 89)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Tell us what you thought of this chapter in the comments below. Did you find anything interesting or new? Any questions or disagreements? Next Friday, we’ll move on to the second principle (“Identify the idol’s reductionism”) described in the next chapter, “How Nietzsche Wins.”</p>

<p><strong>Posts in this series:</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/read-nancy-pearcey%E2%80%99s-finding-truth-with-me#.VWXwkllViko" target="_blank">Book Club Introduction</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-foreword#.VWXwAVlViko" target="_blank">Week One: Foreword</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-i-lost-my-faith-at-an-evangelical-college#.VWXwz1lViko" target="_blank">Week Two: I Lost My Faith at an Evangelical College</a></li>
	<li>Week Three: Twilight of the Gods</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-false-worldviews-reduce-the-human-person#.VWXxC1lViko" target="_blank">Week Four: False Worldviews Reduce the Human Person</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-secular-leaps-of-faith#.VWXwcVlViko" target="_blank">Week Five: Secular Leaps of Faith</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-why-worldviews-commit-suicide#.VWXw71lViko" target="_blank">Week Six: Why Worldviews Commit Suicide</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-free-loading-atheists#.VWXwMllViko" target="_blank">Week Seven: Free-Loading Atheists</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-how-critical-thinking-saves-faith#.VWXws1lViko" target="_blank">Week Eight: How Critical Thinking Saves Faith</a></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Twitter:</strong> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&amp;q=%23strread&amp;src=typd" target="_blank">#STRread</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&amp;q=%23findingtruth&amp;src=typd" target="_blank">#FindingTruth</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffinding-truth-twilight-of-the-gods" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffinding-truth-twilight-of-the-gods" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffinding-truth-twilight-of-the-gods" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Charles Babbage, Father of the Computer
topic: History
author: Melinda Penner
date: 04/23/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/charles-babbage-father-of-the-computer
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Charles Babbage was born in London in 1791 and is considered the father of the computer and one of the most influential scientists in history. He was an Anglican Christian who believed science and the Bible are compatible. He believed we should use our best knowledge and imagination to know God as best we can. He believed the authenticity of Scripture and used his scientific endeavors to demonstrate its reliability and to understand it better. He understood that theology is a knowledge-based study and that science has limits of what it can prove or disprove.</p>

<p>Babbage’s scientific expertise spanned a variety of fields. He invented the first mechanical computer. In 1821, Babbage was asked to evaluate the accuracy of the astronomical tables. He formulated his idea for mechanical computation, though his machines were never completed. He later developed designs for a machine capable of broader computations and programming, using punch cards. His plans were used to build a functioning difference engine in 1991, proving that his theories were workable.</p>

<p>He also analyzed the efficiency of the British postal system and proposed the idea of standard postage, which was adopted. He published a book on the economy of manufacturing and proposed what came to be known as the Babbage principle—the idea of division of labor. Having workers specialize instead of doing a variety of tasks, some of which involve activities below their skill level, results in more efficient productivity and profitability. Babbage was a pioneer in absolute measurement, and worked on a project to tabulate all the constants of nature. His work in measurements was essential in building the machinery for manufacturing in the industrial revolution. He studied railways and showed the superiority of the broad gauge for railways; and he invented the cowcatcher.</p>

<p>Babbage wrote books exploring his religious convictions. He acknowledged three sources of knowledge: a priori, general revelation from creation, and special revelation from God. He wrote about the design argument and the works of the Creator that are open to our examination, which provide a firm basis for Christianity. He wrote in support of miracles, responding to David Hume’s objections: “We must not measure the credibility or incredibility of an event by the narrow sphere of our own experience, nor forget that there is a Divine energy which overrides what we familiarly call the laws of nature.”</p>

<p>After his death, Babbage’s son used his father’s designs to create six small demonstration pieces of the difference engine. One was sent to Harvard where Howard Aiken later discovered it. It influenced his design of the Mark 1 electro-mechanical computer, which was built by IBM and used during WW2.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcharles-babbage-father-of-the-computer" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcharles-babbage-father-of-the-computer" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcharles-babbage-father-of-the-computer" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Every Idea Has Consequences
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/13/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/every-idea-has-consequences
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Do you know someone who thinks legalizing same-sex marriage won’t change anything? Here’s how to help them understand: Buy them a flight to Canada. Why? Since same-sex marriage has been legal there for a decade, they’ll see, firsthand, how it’s changed the culture.</p>

<p>I got a taste of that change last month when I spent 10 days teaching in the province of Alberta. During my trip, I gave 24 presentations in 6 days, traveling approximately 700 miles. I spoke at churches and schools, to students and adults, and through sermons, lectures, and conference sessions. I delivered the keynote at a fundraiser for a Christian school and was also interviewed on a national call-in television show on the topic of homosexuality. It was the busiest week of my career.</p>

<p>I also got to experience how the legalization of same-sex marriage has impacted the freedoms of Canadian Christians. It turns out many believers are intimidated to express their faith in public. There are three examples that come to mind.</p>

<p>While teaching students at a Christian school tactics in sharing their convictions, I asked them to give me examples of challenges they face when sharing their faith. Everyone was silent. I asked again, reminding them I’m a friend who’s here to help them. Still nothing. “I guess I don’t really do that,”&nbsp;blurted out one student. That was the typical response I got in most classes.</p>

<p>At an evening church event, I taught about the importance of being an ambassador for Christ and gave specific techniques of communicating God’s message of reconciliation to non-believers. Afterwards, a couple approached me. “We are surprised by what you said. Our church teaches a lot about doctrine, but we never hear about how to share that with others.”</p>

<p>The night before I flew back home, I preached a Saturday evening sermon on Islam. After the service, I went out to dinner with some Canadian friends. We indicated to the waitress we were Christians to see if there was any interest in a religious conversation. Her silence on the subject suggested she was neither a believer, nor interested in talking about it. So, we asked more direct questions about whether she was raised in a religious tradition. Eventually, she admitted she <em>was</em> a Christian. In fact, she was an attendee of the church I spoke at earlier that evening.</p>

<p>Two things surprised me about our interaction with the waitress. First, even after it was established we were kindred spirits, she said nothing about being a Christian. It was as if the topic was off limits. Second, one of my Canadian friends at the table remarked, “I can’t believe we just had a conversation about our faith with the waitress.”&nbsp;It surprised her that we had talked to a stranger about Christianity in public.</p>

<p>Every idea has consequences. My Canadian friends tell me that since same-sex marriage was legalized, religious liberties have been reduced. Conservative Christians in Canada are the holdouts to adopt the new thinking on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The culture has used the force of law to bully believers so fewer of them share their faith. Instead, Christians are circling their wagons.</p>

<p>The United States is probably about 20 years behind Canada. Although Hollywood produces a steady stream of postmodernism, relativism, and a radical redefinition of family, Americans haven’t been as quick to adopt these ideas. Canadians, though, have embraced them.</p>

<p>With the imminent legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States, intimidation of Christians may quickly have a silencing effect. It’s only a matter of time. We need to prepare for what’s coming.</p>

<p>Christianity has a history of surviving—even thriving—amidst persecution. For the first few hundred years after its inception, following Christ was illegal and believers were hunted, burned, and fed to lions. Despite the opposition, Christianity experienced explosive growth.</p>

<p>I fear that in the upcoming era of hostility, we won’t see growth. Instead, we’ll see decline through two means: cleansing and compromise. Nominal Christians—believers in name only—will abandon Christianity. Since they aren’t firmly rooted in the faith, it will be too costly for them to retain the title “Christian.”&nbsp;Instead, they’ll be cleansed from the Church (John 15:2).</p>

<p>Others will compromise. They’ll continue to claim Christ, but will abandon orthodoxy in favor of a more palatable and politically-correct Christianity. By approving of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, they’ll remove themselves as targets. As an example, the Presbyterian Church USA (different than the Presbyterian Church of America, but larger) officially affirmed same-sex marriage a few weeks ago.</p>

<p>Let it not be so with you.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fevery-idea-has-consequences" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fevery-idea-has-consequences" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fevery-idea-has-consequences" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Quick Thought: Inerrancy and Inspiration
topic: Theology
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 04/09/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/quick-thought-inerrancy-and-inspiration
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Do we have to think the Bible is the word of God in order to benefit from it? 2nd Timothy 3 talks about the Bible being God-breathed. Inerrancy is the idea that everything the Bible affirms as true is actually true.</p>

<p>You don’t have to believe in inerrancy to affirm that Christianity is true. Christians can debate this topic, but you don’t need it to have Christianity. Is God’s existence essential to Christianity? Of course. However, if you take inerrancy out of Christianity, you can still have Christianity.</p>

<p>Even if you don’t have inerrancy or inspiration, you still have the general reliability of the scriptures as a historical source on the life, actions, and teachings of Jesus. Just from that, we could make a case that Jesus rose from the dead, and Christianity is true.</p>

<p>Maybe inspiration and inerrancy are not essential, but they are important.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/videos/challenge-response-christians-fight-too-hard-for-inerrancy-and-inspiration" target="_blank">Read more and watch the video</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-inerrancy-and-inspiration" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-inerrancy-and-inspiration" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-inerrancy-and-inspiration" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Van Leeuwenhoek: Father of Microbiology
topic: History
author: Melinda Penner
date: 04/16/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/van-leeuwenhoek-father-of-microbiology
content:
            <div> 
		<p><a href="https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/microscopic-magnificence/" target="_blank">Antony van Leeuwenhoek</a> was a Dutch Calvinist born in the 17th century who became the father of microbiology. He was a draper by trade and owned his own business in Delft, Holland. He didn’t have any scientific training, but he was in awe of God’s creation and wanted to study it to understand it better. He felt this was loving God with his mind.</p>

<p>He became interested in lens making as a hobby and developed a unique technique for making lenses that required no grinding. He never shared his technique with anyone. In fact, he never published a scientific paper. His work came to light in his correspondence with the Royal Society in London. He was the first to record observations of bacteria, spermatozoa, and blood flow in capillaries. He was also the first to observe infusoria (tiny aquatic life), vacuoles (a structure in cells), and the banded pattern of muscle fibers. He proved that microscopic organisms procreated, which differed from the prevailing scientific view that they generated spontaneously.</p>

<p>In 1676, he sent his observations of microscopic single-celled organisms to the Royal Society. These were unknown at the time, and the Society doubted his findings. They sent a team of experts to visit van Leeuwenhoek, and they confirmed what he had reported.</p>

<p>Van Leeuwenhoek was always secretive about the specific techniques of his work. He never allowed anyone to see his best microscope lenses, or the many microscopes he built over time. Very few of his microscopes and lenses survived. It wasn’t until the 1950s that anyone was able to recreate his technique for the fine lenses he made.</p>

<p>He remained humble because of his lack of scientific training, despite being inducted into the Royal Society and being visited by Peter the Great and other dignitaries.</p>

<p>Antony always approached his work with reverence, wondering at the details of God���s creation large and small. He viewed his work as providing more evidence of God’s greatness. He believed science could be studied to glorify God.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fvan-leeuwenhoek-father-of-microbiology" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fvan-leeuwenhoek-father-of-microbiology" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fvan-leeuwenhoek-father-of-microbiology" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Real Bloodiest Day in America
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/15/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-real-bloodiest-day-in-america
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Excerpt about abortion and adoption from the <a href="/w/choosing-your-gender-february-17-2015-" target="_blank">February 17th, 2015</a> podcast with Greg Koukl.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="NExcaZkUYNs" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NExcaZkUYNs?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>When you consider the number of children whose pregnancies catch their mothers by surprise - something like half of the pregnancies in this country are unplanned, and about half of those end in abortion. Those are very rough figures, but even so, approximately 3,000 per day in this country end in abortion. Think about that number. When one man dies, it’s a tragedy. When a million die, it’s a statistic. Remember that from Mao Tse-tung, or Lenin, or Stalin, or some monster like that? These numbers sometimes get away from us. Wow, <em>three thousand</em>.</p>

<p>On Sept 11th, 2001, 2,977 people died as a result of that terrorist attack on American soil. That’s 23 less than the 3,000 average that die every day, day after day, for forty-plus years now since Roe vs. Wade. So you want to put it in perspective? Time magazine called 9/11 the bloodiest day on American soil since the Civil War. They were wrong. Every single day is a bloodier day. 3,000.</p>

<p>The fact is, many women would rather kill their child than give their child up for adoption. Go figure, right? But it’s a fact, and those of you who are working in this business know the girls that will say, “Oh no, I could never do that to my child,”&nbsp;speaking of adoption! But would readily consider abortion. It is demonic. I don’t know what other word to use to describe it. How could a person be convinced that it is a nobler thing to terminate the life of their unborn child rather than give that life to someone else to care for?</p>

<p>The difference for them, I think, is they realize if they carry to term, give birth, and give the child away to someone else, then that will be tremendously emotionally traumatic for them, which is true. They think lying for half an hour on an abortion table is going to settle this with no trauma. They’re wrong about that. They are just flat out wrong. It may not be as much trauma as giving away a child that you gave birth to, but it isn’t that there’s no trauma in it. And maybe it’s better for you to suffer to save.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-real-bloodiest-day-in-america" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-real-bloodiest-day-in-america" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-real-bloodiest-day-in-america" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Finding Truth: I Lost My Faith at an Evangelical College
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/10/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/finding-truth-i-lost-my-faith-at-an-evangelical-college
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Welcome to the second week of our discussion of Nancy Pearcey’s <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK401" target="_blank"><em>Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes</em></a>. (And if you’re here as an atheist because you misunderstood the title of this post, double-welcome!) For more info on what we’re doing and what you’ve missed so far, see the links at the end of this post.</p>

<p>In this opening chapter, we get an overview of where this book will take us. Nancy Pearcey guides us through <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+1&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Romans 1</a>, using it to create a template for examining any worldview. She follows Paul’s five-step argument this way:</p>

<h2>1. We all have access to evidence for God through creation.</h2>

<p>The evidence we find in creation includes not only the existence of life and the universe, but also the evidence of human nature—our own personhood:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>How do humans constitute evidence for God? Because they are personal agents. In philosophical terminology, <em>personal</em> does not mean warm and friendly. A personal being is a conscious agent with the capacity to think, feel, choose, and act—in contrast to an unconscious principle or substance that operates by blind, automatic forces (such as the forces of nature). The existence of personal beings constitutes evidence that they were created by a personal God, not by any non-personal cause...</p>

<p>Because humans are capable of knowing, the first cause that produced them must have a mind. Because humans are capable of choosing, the first cause must have a will. And so on. Philosopher Étienne Gilson captures the argument neatly: because a human is a <em>someone</em> and not a <em>something</em>, the source of human life must be also a <em>Someone</em>. (p. 29)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>For this book, Pearcey will focus on the evidence of human nature, examining worldviews to see if they can adequately explain what we know to be true about human beings.</p>

<h2>2. We all suppress the evidence for God from creation.</h2>

<h2>3. We all create idols to take the place of God.</h2>

<blockquote>
<p>The most fundamental decision we all face over the course of our lives is what we will recognize as the ultimate reality, the uncaused source and cause of our existence. Everything else in our worldview depends on that initial decision. The Bible speaks of this foundational choice in terms of who or what we worship. (p. 35)</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>4. God gives us up to the consequences of our idols—to a “debased”&nbsp;mind.</h2>

<p>Pearcey says of the Greek word for “mind”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The church fathers often translated <em>nous</em> as the faculty for evaluating and directing the course of one’s life: “the eye of the soul.”&nbsp;So it is no great stretch to translate the word as worldview, the convictions by which we direct our lives. (p. 40)</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>5. God gives us up to the consequences of our idols—to “dishonorable”&nbsp;behavior.</h2>

<blockquote>
<p>Romans 1 tells us that idolatry leads to a “debased”&nbsp;worldview, which opens the door to oppression, injustice, and all the other evils listed at the end of the chapter. What is the connection between idols and immoral behavior? The link is that idols always lead to a lower view of human life. The Bible teaches that humans are made in the image of God. When a worldview exchanges the Creator for something in creation, it will also exchange a high view of humans made in God’s image for a lower view of humans made in the image of something in creation. (p. 44)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So (1) the evidence for God is in front of us, but (2) we suppress that knowledge and (3) create idols to replace God. The resulting (4) warped worldview leads to (5) warped, harmful behavior: “The principle is that those who dishonor God inevitably dishonor themselves and others.”</p>

<p>Pearcey then outlines five principles of a Romans-1-based “game plan”&nbsp;for assessing worldviews (including our own):</p>

<ol>
	<li>Identify the idol</li>
	<li>Identify the idol’s reductionism (i.e., how it recreates the concept of the human person in its own image, leading to a low view of human life)</li>
	<li>Test the idol: Does it contradict what we know about the world?</li>
	<li>Test the idol: Does it contradict itself?</li>
	<li>Replace the idol: Make the case for Christianity</li>
</ol>

<p>What stood out to you in this chapter? Any questions? Any points you’d like to make? We welcome your discussion below.</p>

<p>Next week, we’ll begin going through these five principles, so read Principle #1: “Twilight of the Gods,”&nbsp;and we’ll see you here on Friday.</p>

<p><strong>Posts in this series:</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/read-nancy-pearcey%E2%80%99s-finding-truth-with-me#.VWXwkllViko" target="_blank">Book Club Introduction</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-foreword#.VWXwAVlViko" target="_blank">Week One: Foreword</a></li>
	<li>Week Two: I Lost My Faith at an Evangelical College</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-twilight-of-the-gods#.VWXwWFlViko" target="_blank">Week Three: Twilight of the Gods</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-false-worldviews-reduce-the-human-person#.VWXxC1lViko" target="_blank">Week Four: False Worldviews Reduce the Human Person</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-secular-leaps-of-faith#.VWXwcVlViko" target="_blank">Week Five: Secular Leaps of Faith</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-why-worldviews-commit-suicide#.VWXw71lViko" target="_blank">Week Six: Why Worldviews Commit Suicide</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-free-loading-atheists#.VWXwMllViko" target="_blank">Week Seven: Free-Loading Atheists</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-how-critical-thinking-saves-faith#.VWXws1lViko" target="_blank">Week Eight: How Critical Thinking Saves Faith</a></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Twitter:</strong> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&amp;q=%23strread&amp;src=typd" target="_blank">#STRread</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&amp;q=%23findingtruth&amp;src=typd" target="_blank">#FindingTruth</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffinding-truth-i-lost-my-faith-at-an-evangelical-college" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffinding-truth-i-lost-my-faith-at-an-evangelical-college" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffinding-truth-i-lost-my-faith-at-an-evangelical-college" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Quick Thought: My Adult Child Walked Away from Christianity
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 04/29/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/quick-thought-my-adult-child-walked-away-from-christianity
content:
            <div> 
		<p>What if you have adult kids that have walked away from Christianity?</p>

<p>Number one, you have to pray regularly for them.</p>

<p>Number two, ask them what they believe and why they believe it. Then, listen patiently. Create a space in your relationship where they feel safe to have these conversations.</p>

<p>Lastly, ask permission to offer your thoughts. If you’ve allowed them to open up, they’ll be more willing to receive your input. Be patient, and expect that this dialogue may take years.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/videos/what-can-a-parent-do-when-their-grown-children-have-walked-away-from-christianity#.VUFeJK1Viko" target="_blank">Read more and watch the video</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-my-adult-child-walked-away-from-christianity" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-my-adult-child-walked-away-from-christianity" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-my-adult-child-walked-away-from-christianity" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Quick Thought: Putting Them Out of Their Misery?
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/15/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/quick-thought-putting-them-out-of-their-misery-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Years ago, I debated a physician-assisted suicide initiative. I was against it for what they considered religious reasons. Therefore, they thought I was forcing my religious point of view on other people.</p>

<p>I pointed out that their point of view was equally religious. Certainly suicide will end the physical misery here, but what happens afterwards?</p>

<p>If there is a hell, as Jesus indicated, and those who have not been forgiven of their crimes go there, then they won’t be ending their misery through physician-assisted suicide.</p>

<p>Both sides are making religious assumptions, and that is especially true when it comes to doctor-assisted suicide.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/videos/putting-them-out-of-their-misery" target="_blank">Read more and watch the video</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-putting-them-out-of-their-misery-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-putting-them-out-of-their-misery-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-putting-them-out-of-their-misery-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Quick Thought: Bake for Them Two?
topic: Christian Living
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 04/22/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/quick-thought-bake-for-them-two-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>In response to Ten Thousand Places blog’s viral post called “<a href="http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/" target="_blank">Bake for Them Two</a>.”</em></p>

<p>In reference to Matthew 5, one of the Roman laws stated that a man could be required to carry a Roman soldier’s equipment for up to a mile. Jesus referenced that law and told his followers in 5:41, “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”</p>

<p>The author of the blog post says, “If you believe gay marriage is immoral and a gay couple comes into your shop and asks you to bake a cake for their wedding, what should you do? ...Christians, our Jesus said go with them two.”</p>

<p>I think this can be, rhetorically, very powerful. It sounds like the loving and tolerant thing to do. Is Jesus saying that if a man forces you to steal another man’s cloak that you should steal for him two? Jesus was a carpenter. If somebody hired Jesus to carve an idol, should he carve for him two? I would guess [the author of this post] would say no. Why not? Because it’s immoral.</p>

<p>The example that Jesus gives is of carrying a Roman soldier’s equipment is amoral. It’s not wrong to carry a soldier’s equipment in and of itself. With same-sex marriage ceremony, our view is that it is immoral, that it’s wrong, and therefore shouldn’t be celebrated.</p>

<p>It’s certainly not the intent to hurt people. However, if you celebrate something that God has clearly communicated is sin, then you are actually the one who is hurting people by encouraging their sinful behavior. The key question here is this: Is this sinful behavior? If it is, then Jesus’&nbsp;teaching doesn’t apply.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/videos/bake-for-them-two" target="_blank">Read more and watch the video</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-bake-for-them-two-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-bake-for-them-two-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-bake-for-them-two-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: RFRA Is Not Jim Crow
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Melinda Penner
date: 04/03/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/rfra-is-not-jim-crow
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In the controversy over the Indiana law, comparisons are again being made between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage: We’ve all realized that banning interracial marriage was bigotry and wrong; we should admit the same about same-sex marriage. One commentator drew the comparison on another line claiming that bigotry of interracial marriage was religiously motivated.</p>

<p>The comparison is not an accurate one in any way.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/" target="_blank">Frank Beckwith</a> has made the observation that the ban on interracial marriage was not one that was founded on nature and natural function. Couples have been marrying interracially for millennia. It was a relatively recent move to ban it by law that was motivated out of hatred and racism. Race has nothing to do with the natural function of marriage and procreation. That’s why it’s been a rare thing historically to ban it.</p>

<p>This is fundamentally different than same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has never been practiced before, in any culture, at any time in history. There’s never been a ban because it never happened. That’s the opposite of interracial marriage.</p>

<p>While many of the bigots in the past used the Bible to justify their actions, this was always a minority of people who claimed to be Christians. And the movement for treating all people equally has been deeply grounded in the Bible. As has happened many times over the years, religion was misused to justify their sin, but the Bible did not motivate the sin.</p>

<p>Critics claim that the Indiana law protecting religious conscience will be used to discriminate against gay people. You know what reason we have to be skeptical of that claim? The bakers and photographers who’ve objected to being compelled to participate in same-sex weddings have no history of refusing service to gay individuals. Their conscientious objection is to the activity of a wedding for gay people, not against gay individuals. There’s a significant difference between baking a cake for a gay person’s birthday and baking a cake for a wedding celebration of a same-sex couple. No one has claimed a conscience objection to the former, only the later.</p>

<p>There’s another real difference between the Indiana law and Jim Crow laws. The Indiana law gives religious people a standing if sued to defend themselves against illegitimate discrimination. The law doesn’t compel them to do or not do anything. Jim Crow laws compelled businesses to deny service to individuals, even if they objected to the discriminatory laws. Business owners had no freedom to provide service, even when their religiously-informed consciences objected.</p>

<p>The comparison between the religious objections to same-sex marriage and interracial marriage is a false one. They should be corrected at every opportunity. Religious liberty protection should be extended in the cases of participating in the celebration of same-sex marriage because it’s in no way like Jim Crow.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frfra-is-not-jim-crow" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frfra-is-not-jim-crow" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frfra-is-not-jim-crow" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Responding to Skepticism (And the Proper Use of Tactics)
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/27/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/responding-to-skepticism-and-the-proper-use-of-tactics-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Jonathan Morrow has a post on “<a href="http://www.thinkchristianly.org/how-to-break-free-from-skepticism-with-one-simple-question/" target="_blank">How to Break Free from Skepticism with One Simple Question</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Whether from a well meaning friend or an aggressive critic, the problem of skepticism can be hard to break free from. The unspoken assumption of skepticism is that if it’s possible you could be wrong about something, then you can’t know it. Usually this comes in the form a “How do you know that you’re not wrong?”&nbsp;(which could be repeated forever...)</p>

<p>This is mistaken. Here’s why. <em>Just because it’s possible I <em>could</em> be wrong about a belief, <em>it does not follow that I am wrong</em> about that belief.</em></p>

<p>In other words the mere <em>possibility</em> that I could be wrong doesn’t mean that I actually am wrong. I’m going to need some reasons to think my belief is mistaken before I should begin to doubt that particular belief.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jonathan recommends asking skeptics to provide some of those reasons (see how he words the question he asks, along with conversational examples, <a href="http://www.thinkchristianly.org/how-to-break-free-from-skepticism-with-one-simple-question/" target="_blank">here</a>). He says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Ask them this question and clarify what the real issue is and then have a <em>productive</em> spiritual conversation exploring the evidence together [all emphases in original].</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes people misunderstand the use of tactics, and so, object to them (or worse, misuse them). The goal of tips like this one isn’t to shut down the unbeliever, it’s to <em>open up</em> the conversation by turning it away from speculation, vague opposition, and defensiveness, and drawing out the real, substantive objections so they can be openly discussed and considered.</p>

<p>In other words, when you’re having a personal conversation with anyone about spiritual things, the purpose of using questions like Jonathan’s is to increase your understanding of that person and his perspective so that you can personalize your response, treating him with dignity as a valuable, unique human being, and having his ultimate good as your goal.</p>

<p>After you’ve finished a conversation, assess how you’re doing at this by asking yourself: Do I know more about this person and his beliefs than I did before? Was I, as a result of understanding him better, able to better personalize my explanations in a way that made sense to <em>him</em>, in light of his background, beliefs, and level of understanding of Christianity?</p>

<p>Everything we say and do when talking to others about Christianity <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/01/be-a-parable-of-gods-grace.html" target="_blank">teaches them about Christianity</a>. Some people may find this counter-intuitive because the word “tactics”&nbsp;seems so impersonal, but the tactics are intended to help you move away from rote answers into the kind of meaningful interaction that communicates God’s view of the value and dignity of every human being.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fresponding-to-skepticism-and-the-proper-use-of-tactics-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fresponding-to-skepticism-and-the-proper-use-of-tactics-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fresponding-to-skepticism-and-the-proper-use-of-tactics-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Pastor Calls Trinity “The First Throuple”
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/13/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/pastor-calls-trinity-the-first-throuple-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Rev. Dr. Jeff Hood is committed to following “love is love”&nbsp;to its <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jeffhood/the-first-throuple/" target="_blank">logical conclusion</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Three men married each other in a traditional Buddhist ceremony on Valentine’s Day in Uthai Thani Province, Thailand. Joke, Bell and Art have become famous sharing their beautiful story of love and commitment. While critics have said their relationship makes a mockery of marriage, I can only say that the Thai throuple has strengthened my belief in the magical and mysterious ways of love. With the dawn of legal same-sex marriage, we can expect more and more proponents and defenders of a new normative couple-based way of viewing relationships and marriage. I would argue that these folks are just as wrong as those fighting same-sex marriage. If love is love for same-sex couples, then surely love is love for the throuples. Person after person who has shared the story of Joke, Bell and Art have called them, “The First Throuple.”&nbsp;This is the only part of this story I couldn’t disagree with more. We all know that the first throuple was God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I posted about the argument “<a href="https://www.str.org/blog/%E2%80%9Clove-is-love%E2%80%9D-isn%E2%80%99t-enough#.W6lk4xNKijQ" target="_blank">love is love</a>”&nbsp;last week, explaining that there’s no principled way to stop the argument at same-sex marriage. It will move on to approve other arrangements, with the same punishment of “Bigot!”&nbsp;for anyone who disapproves.</p>

<p>Here now is a pastor who is warning against “defenders of a new normative couple-based way of viewing relationships and marriage,”&nbsp;calling the Trinity “the first throuple.”</p>

<p>And lest you think this kind of reasoning couldn’t possibly <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/a-response-to-matthew-vines-the-bible-doesn-t-support-same-sex-relationships#.W6lldhNKijQ" target="_blank">reach your church</a>, consider <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jeffhood/toward-a-christian-perspective-on-polyamory-a-conversation-between-rev-danny-cortez-and-rev-dr-jeff-hood/" target="_blank">this conversation</a> Hood had with another pastor, in which Hood refers to God as “the Holy Polyamorous Trinity.”&nbsp;The pastor he’s interacting with is Danny Cortez, who recently <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/06/02/there-is-no-third-way-southern-baptists-face-a-moment-of-decision-and-so-will-you/" target="_blank">announced his approval of homosexuality and same-sex marriage</a> (the church voted to keep him as pastor). Cortez’s church wasn’t “out there”&nbsp;theologically. In fact, it’s located near Biola, and I have a friend who attended there as a Talbot student. No doubt there were other students there, as well.</p>

<p>The number of things you’ll be called a “bigot”&nbsp;for not endorsing will only increase, and possibly even in your own church. Are you ready?</p>

<p>One of the most difficult lessons I’ve had to learn in my life is that sometimes the best thing you can do for someone you love is not the “nice”&nbsp;thing. Sometimes love is truly painful because it requires <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/gay-or-straight-we-all-must-decide-if-we-love-jesus-above-all-else#.W6ll9BNKijQ" target="_blank">truth</a>.* Sometimes truth, even spoken in love, causes that person you love so much to be angry with you. Maybe even hate you. Can you bear up under this? Your love needs to be strong enough for you to be willing to sacrifice your friendships and your reputation—to carry that pain of rejection and loss for the sake of those very friends who will hate you. How much easier it is to be “nice”&nbsp;and endorse things in loved ones that will destroy them! But that’s not love, that’s self-protection.</p>

<p>Friends, be ready to sacrifice yourself out of love for others. The kind of love you need only comes from God. Ask Him for it.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. (1 John 3:16)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>*This doesn’t mean you must constantly confront everyone with their sin, only that there’s a time and place for affirming and arguing for the truth God revealed to us. Greg discusses this <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/new-prophets-and-words-from-god-march-10-2015#.VQDJnmTF_OZ" target="_blank">here</a>, starting at the 2:31:00 mark.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpastor-calls-trinity-the-first-throuple-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpastor-calls-trinity-the-first-throuple-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpastor-calls-trinity-the-first-throuple-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: RFRA Reaction Is Driven by Agenda, Not Principle
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/rfra-reaction-is-driven-by-agenda-not-principle
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On the show <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/indiana-freedom-of-religion-law-march-31-2015#.VRwPFJPF8uE" target="_blank">yesterday</a>, nearly every single question Greg was asked had something to do with Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This is the law (<a href="http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/03/26/comparing-the-federal-rfra-and-the-indiana-rfra/" target="_blank">modeled after</a>* Chuck Schumer’s bipartisan 22-year-old federal law) which <a href="https://www.indianahouserepublicans.com/clientuploads/PDF/RFRA/SEA101%20RFRA%20Law.pdf" target="_blank">states</a> that the government “may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion”&nbsp;only if doing so 1) “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest”&nbsp;and 2) “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”</p>

<p>Perhaps that sounds nothing like what you’ve heard.</p>

<p>Everything I posted about the Arizona RFRA last year (see “<a href="https://www.str.org/blog/the-truth-about-arizona-s-religious-freedom-bill#.W76FLhNKijQ" target="_blank">The Truth about Arizona’s Religious Freedom Bill</a>”) applies today, including the same <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/28/dumb-uneducated-and-eager-to-deceive-media-coverage-of-religious-liberty-in-a-nutshell/" target="_blank">media hysteria and misinformation</a>.</p>

<p>In Joe Carter’s <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-you-should-know-about-religious-freedom-restoration-acts" target="_blank">explainer</a> of RFRAs (see also his “<a href="http://blog.acton.org/archives/77182-7-more-essential-articles-on-religious-freedom-restoration-acts.html" target="_blank">7 (More) Essential Articles on Religious Freedom Restoration Acts</a>”), he points out:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Currently, 19 states have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (AL, CT, FL, ID, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, NM, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, and VA). Ten other states have religious liberty protections that state courts have interpreted to provide a similar (strict scrutiny) level of protection (AK, MA, ME, MI, MN, MT, NC, OH, WA, and WI). With some exceptions (such as Mississippi), the state versions are almost exactly the same as the federal version.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>One federal law and 19 state laws exist** (note that the same Connecticut currently calling for a boycott of Indiana is included on that list), and yet no one can point to a single instance where a RFRA was misused to create any of the Jim-Crow-type scenarios the media are warning us about. As John McCormack <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained-900641" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[A] small number of conscientious objectors declining to participate commercially in same-sex weddings is quite different than the specter of Jim Crow for gay Americans—hotels and restaurants turning away gay people simply because they are gay.</p>

<p>The point of RFRA is not to discriminate against gay Americans. It is supposed to prevent the government from discriminating against religious Americans.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What’s happening now is hardly a reason for you to panic.</p>

<p>Unless you believe in freedom of religion.</p>

<p>Consider this comment by “Indrid Cold,”&nbsp;posted on a <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CCwQqQIwAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fthe-new-intolerance-1427760183&amp;ei=OkobVbVPkauiBOu-gGA&amp;usg=AFQjCNELxY6Jy1GFWvcBDbX5vaX32epI-w&amp;sig2=GMq_OAB1cfyFOu69-OEiBA&amp;bvm=bv.89744112,d.cGU" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal article</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The realities of being gay trump any “super friend man-in-the-sky”&nbsp;delusion. There is no circumstance of genuine damage that might occur were a business compelled to provide service to a gay customer. A business must, as a condition of being IN business, offer its product or service to all those willing to pay. If the proprietor refuses to do so, that business should be forced to close its doors. The space will be quickly filled by individuals who understand this simple business requirement.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Leaving aside this commenter’s misunderstanding of both the purpose of the law and the fact that the florists, photographers, and bakers have objected to participating in <em>events</em> they disagree with, not to serving people with a particular sexual orientation—leaving that aside, consider what this person is saying here: My religion (worldview) trumps all other religions. And because every other religion is a delusion, no harm comes to you when I make you go against your conscience and follow <em>my</em> religion... because I’m only making you do what the right religion says you should do. And obviously, since I’m right, making you do what I want you to do is right.</p>

<p>You know what that is? That’s the end of freedom of religion. Denny Burk <a href="http://www.dennyburk.com/its-the-justices-stupid-roddreher-explains-why-religious-liberty-is-the-issue-of-2016-election-cycle/" target="_blank">writes</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In an <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/indiana-a-religious-liberty-bellwether/" target="_blank">essay</a> posted this morning, [Rod Dreher] argues that the take-away from the Indiana RFRA is not the law itself, but the media “freak out”&nbsp;that happened in response. It reveals just how deep our nation’s indifference is to religious liberty and just how willing some of our elites are to stamp it out. And it won’t stop with RFRA’s. He says that churches that support traditional marriage will soon face attacks on their tax-exempt status. If you think this isn’t coming, you aren’t paying attention.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You’d think the following might occur to Indrid Cold: “Wait a minute... what if Christians forced <em>my</em> business to work on projects promoting Chrsitianity and man-woman-only marriage? What if saying no to them meant we’d be forced to close our doors? Maybe we should find a way to balance government coercion and sincerely-held convictions that will protect <em>everybody</em>.”</p>

<p>Or perhaps the governor of Connecticut might think: “I’m really grateful I’m free to not participate in the economy of a state that’s promoting ideas contrary to my sincerely-held beliefs—thank goodness no one can force me to do otherwise. Wait a minute... isn’t that what that florist in Washington was asking for? Maybe there’s a way for both of us to have our freedom and still achieve the government’s interests.”</p>

<p>I find the fact that this occurs to nobody on the other side to be more distressing than anything else because it indicates people are thinking according to <em>agenda</em> rather than <em>principle</em>. Principle-thinking says, “Since we don’t all have the same view, we should come up with a principle that balances government interest and freedom of religion—one we won’t mind living under if we find ourselves on the other side of the freedom dilemma someday.”&nbsp;Agenda-thinking says, “Let’s do whatever it takes to crush every viewpoint but ours (don’t worry—we’ll just stop them from doing the same to us if they ever try).”</p>

<p>It’s hard to imagine a society as large as ours remaining free for long without principled laws governing how to manage differences of deeply-held belief. Opponents of RFRAs seem shocked—<em>shocked</em>—by the fact that some citizens out there have beliefs different from their own. And in effect, they’re citing the very existence of these contrary beliefs as evidence RFRAs should be repealed. That is, “We know people exist who have the wrong beliefs, therefore we can’t have religious freedom laws because that might enable people to act on those beliefs.”</p>

<p>If you only support freedom of religion until you come up against religion you disagree with, you don’t support freedom of religion. The differences of belief don’t prove we should <em>get rid of</em> religious freedom laws, they prove our <em>need</em> for them. Why would we ever have needed a guarantee of freedom of religion in the Constitution if it weren’t the case that A) significantly different views exist, and B) human nature leads people to try to stamp out opposing views?</p>

<p>Here’s the bottom line: The kind of response we’re seeing from people who oppose Indiana’s RFRA proves just how much we need these laws if we’re to continue to function as a diverse society.</p>

<p>*A clarification from <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained-900641" target="_blank">John McCormack</a>: “Indiana’s RFRA makes it explicit that the law applies to persons engaged in business as well as citizens in private lawsuits, but until quite recently it had <a href="http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Nos.-13-354-13-356-bsac-Christian-Legal-Soc.pdf" target="_blank">always been understood</a> that federal RFRA <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/was-arizonas-religious-freedom-bill-much-ado-about-nothing" target="_blank">covered businesses and private lawsuits</a>. (See <a href="http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/03/26/comparing-the-federal-rfra-and-the-indiana-rfra/" target="_blank">this post</a> by law professor Josh Blackman for more on these matters.)”</p>

<p>**Another bill in Arkansas is waiting to be signed.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frfra-reaction-is-driven-by-agenda-not-principle" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frfra-reaction-is-driven-by-agenda-not-principle" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frfra-reaction-is-driven-by-agenda-not-principle" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Three Steps to Protect Christian Wedding Vendors
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/08/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/three-steps-to-protect-christian-wedding-vendors
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s the recommendation for Christian wedding vendors I mentioned <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/alan-shlemon-dealing-with-homosexuality-and-transgender-issues-in-the-church-with-truth-and-compassion-april-7-2015#.VSVRFhPF8uE" target="_blank">on the show yesterday</a>:</p>

<p>The basic strategy here is to put the prospective client off in a legitimate way so they don’t call back, or have them disqualify themselves without the vendor having to weigh in explicitly regarding his willingness to participate in a same-sex marriage (SSM). I suggest the vendor follow these steps.</p>

<ol>
	<li>Don’t initially answer the question, “Will you perform a SSM service?”&nbsp;or “Will you provide your floral/baking/photography service for a SSM?”&nbsp;Instead say you’ll need to get some information first before you can go any further. Have a basic form you fill out in your first conversation with all customers listing the full name of each “wedding”&nbsp;participant, the name of the person officiating the event and the event location, if they have that information. You don’t need to tell them this at the time, but your goal is to find out if the request is legitimate, or just an attempt to legally corner you and provide grounds for a lawsuit (it happens). Once you’ve gathered the relevant information, tell them you’ll need to check out the details, thank them for the call, say, “Goodbye,”&nbsp;and then hang up. Do not say you will call them back. If they resist, tell them you simply cannot go any further with their request unless you have the basic info. If they persist, simply thank them for the call and hang up. The form should be filled out for every potential client, since they may not reveal up front that their request is for a SSM. You will only be able to determine this by getting the names of the bride(s) and/or groom(s). You may even need to ask if this is a same-sex wedding or a heterosexual wedding if you’re not sure, but say nothing that might indicate your own views. Next, follow up to see if the request is legitimate. If not, you can simply ignore future requests from this party, telling the caller that according to your research, this was not a legitimate request. If you discover it is legitimate, with luck the client will not call back, having chosen other vendors who are not so difficult to work with. If the client does call back and it’s a legitimate event, move to step two.</li>
	<li>Ask the clients what they are looking for in a vendor. Do they want someone who is excited for them, who will celebrate with them, and whose support and approval of the event will naturally be reflected in their work? Of course they would. If that’s the case, tell them that you would not be their best choice because you could not bring any of that to the service you would provide. You do not agree with these kinds of events, you have religious compunctions about them, and it would injure your conscience to participate. Ask them, “Do you want this kind of person serving your wedding?”&nbsp;Do not say, at this point, that you refuse to participate in the event, though. Instead, give them plenty of room to disqualify you themselves. If they do, you’re off the hook. If not, proceed to step three.</li>
	<li>This is where each vendor has to decide for himself what to do. If he cannot, in good conscience, serve an event like this, then he should decline. The risk is that such a decision could expose him to legal risk. If serving the event violates only his tastes and subjective sensibilities, but would not be sin in his judgment, then he might want to do the event in spite of the discomfort and save himself any legal hassles.</li>
</ol>

<p>One final note: Keep tabs on what the ADF (<a href="http://www.adflegal.org/" target="_blank">Alliance Defending Freedom</a>) is doing. They deal with these kinds of issues on a regular basis and may be developing <a href="http://adflegal.org/forms/download-protect-your-ministry?_ga=1.144474613.1126313766.1486578073" target="_blank">strategies to legally protect</a> Christian vendors and churches who seek to exercise their rights of refusal on this.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-steps-to-protect-christian-wedding-vendors" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-steps-to-protect-christian-wedding-vendors" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-steps-to-protect-christian-wedding-vendors" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Finding Truth: Foreword
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/03/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/finding-truth-foreword
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We’re starting our <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/03/read-nancy-pearceys-finding-truth-with-me.html" target="_blank">book club</a> today. If you didn’t hear about it earlier, don’t worry—it’s not too late to join us! Today we’re only covering the foreword to Nancy Pearcey’s book <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK401" target="_blank"><em>Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism and Other God Substitutes</em></a>, so you’ll be able to easily catch up with the first chapter for next week. (If you purchase it through STR and use the coupon code “STRread,”&nbsp;you’ll also receive a CD of Greg’s interview with Nancy Pearcey and get a 15% discount.)</p>

<p>In his foreword, Richard Pearcey counteracts the popular notion of faith as “a commitment so private and so personal that evaluation and evidence are irrelevant”&nbsp;by stressing the non-subjective nature of the claims made by Christianity. A few examples given by Pearcey:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile,”&nbsp;states 1 Corinthians 15:17. Some people may balk at the linkage of fact to commitment, but the dynamic worldview set forth in the biblical data welcomes the connection... Thomas was not persuaded by looking inward to his heart, but by evaluating evidence in the external world. He then made a commitment on the basis of relevant facts, not because of a lack of facts and certainly not against them...</p>

<p>When John the Baptist was in prison and facing capital punishment, he sent followers to ask if Jesus really was the Messiah. Jesus’s response was to adduce publicly observable miracles that lined up with previously given biblical indicators on how to identify the coming Messiah... Because these events were public, their status as facts could be confirmed by friend and foe alike. (pp. 14-16)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The tying of theology to historical events in the world—the appeal of people such as Moses and Paul to historical occurrences as evidence of God’s power, character, and plan for His people—is uniquely Jewish and Christian. The Bible is not a retelling of untestable visions received by prophets, but a <em>history</em> experienced by a people over thousands of years.</p>

<p>Since “a falsified ’faith’&nbsp;is quite properly a discarded faith,”&nbsp;and “a confirmed faith, or better, a well-grounded <em>trust</em>, is well worth embracing by the whole person,”&nbsp;this book aims to enable you “to identify truth that merits trust.”&nbsp;Richard Pearcey sums up what you’ll find in <em>Finding Truth</em> this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[A]ll who engage this book will find encouragement to think humanely and critically about possible answers to ultimate questions. You will be invited to consider how verifiable historic Christianity incisively and rightly answers the great questions of life, “outperforms all competing worldviews,”&nbsp;and “fulfills humanity’s highest hopes and ideals,”&nbsp;as Nancy Pearcey states in this book.</p>

<p>Finding Truth articulates a set of key strategic principles by which to evaluate the authenticity of any worldview, whether encountered in the classroom, at the office, in the news, or on the street. In this book you will be equipped to critically examine secularism and other idols of our day as they are advanced in the garb of politics, science, entertainment, or religion.</p>

<p>You will also see doctrines of atheism and materialism put to the test, to assess whether they stand up under critical thinking. And you will explore faiths such as relativism and postmodernism, to consider whether they merit the informed trust of the human being (pp. 18-19).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What did you think of the foreword? Anything that intrigues you about the coming pages? Anything you disagreed with? Any questions? Any thoughts? Let’s talk about it in the comments below or on Twitter (#STRread).</p>

<p>Next Friday, be ready for Part One: “I Lost My Faith at an Evangelical College.”</p>

<p><strong>Posts in this series:</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/read-nancy-pearcey%E2%80%99s-finding-truth-with-me#.VWXwkllViko" target="_blank">Book Club Introduction</a></li>
	<li>Week One: Foreword</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-i-lost-my-faith-at-an-evangelical-college#.VWXwz1lViko" target="_blank">Week Two: I Lost My Faith at an Evangelical College</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-twilight-of-the-gods#.VWXwWFlViko" target="_blank">Week Three: Twilight of the Gods</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-false-worldviews-reduce-the-human-person#.VWXxC1lViko" target="_blank">Week Four: False Worldviews Reduce the Human Person</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-secular-leaps-of-faith#.VWXwcVlViko" target="_blank">Week Five: Secular Leaps of Faith</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-why-worldviews-commit-suicide#.VWXw71lViko" target="_blank">Week Six: Why Worldviews Commit Suicide</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-free-loading-atheists#.VWXwMllViko" target="_blank">Week Seven: Free-Loading Atheists</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-how-critical-thinking-saves-faith#.VWXws1lViko" target="_blank">Week Eight: How Critical Thinking Saves Faith</a></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Twitter:</strong> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&amp;q=%23strread&amp;src=typd" target="_blank">#STRread</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&amp;q=%23findingtruth&amp;src=typd" target="_blank">#FindingTruth</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffinding-truth-foreword" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffinding-truth-foreword" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffinding-truth-foreword" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Jesus Said about Homosexuality
topic: Theology
author: Melinda Penner
date: 04/07/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-jesus-said-about-homosexuality
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality? That’s the challenge offered to Christians who cite the Bible as the basis for their convictions about same-sex marriage. My answer: Jesus said something in Leviticus 18:22-23, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10.</p>

<p>The Bible’s view of the Bible is that it is God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”&nbsp;Jesus is God, therefore all of the Bible is His Word, not just the parts in red in the four Gospels.</p>

<p>Jesus spoke about everything from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21. And that includes anything in the 66 books about homosexuality.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-jesus-said-about-homosexuality" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-jesus-said-about-homosexuality" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-jesus-said-about-homosexuality" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Ready Yourself with Joy for Whatever Opposition Comes
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/14/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/ready-yourself-with-joy-for-whatever-opposition-comes
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As a follow-up to <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/03/pastor-calls-trinity-the-first-throuple.html" target="_blank">yesterday’s post</a>, David Mathis has <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/you-can-t-arrest-the-gospel" target="_blank">some good words</a> about “readying ourselves for whatever opposition comes”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The days of gospel persecution in the United States no longer just hang on the distant horizon; they are already here, at least for some. It’s beginning with the bakers, florists, and photographers. Before long, the consensus may be that faithful biblical exposition is “hate speech.”</p>

<p>For 350 years, the church on American soil has enjoyed relatively little affliction for her fidelity to the Scriptures. This nation, though, is an anomaly in church history...</p>

<p>Jesus said as much. “A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they <em>will</em> also persecute you”&nbsp;(<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%2015.20" target="_blank">John 15:20</a>). Paul picks up the refrain. “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus <em>will</em> be persecuted”&nbsp;(<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Timothy%203.12" target="_blank">2 Timothy 3:12</a>). The Scriptures seem to suggest we should be more concerned if we’re not being persecuted, than if we are...</p>

<p>To say we will suffer opposition is not to say that the spread of the gospel will be stymied. In fact, what we learn from Peter and John in <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%204.3%E2%80%934" target="_blank">Acts 4:3-4</a>, and from the life of the apostle Paul, and from Jesus himself, is that arrest and advance go together in God’s invincible story...</p>

<p>Christians are not a dour people, even in the darkness of a dungeon. We don’t whine and bellyache as our society lines up against us and our convictions. We plead. We grieve. But beneath it all we have untouchable strongholds of joy. Even in the worst, most inconvenient, most lonely days, we rejoice. The suffering days are good days for gospel advance. We have great cause to be optimistic about our good news, to “joyfully accept”&nbsp;prison and the plundering of our possessions and even our freedoms.</p>

<p>After all, they can take our civil liberties, garnish our wages, and smear our names, but they cannot take our Treasure, who is “a better possession and abiding one.”</p>

<p>So we are not surprised. We do not retreat. Instead, grounded in God’s eternal promises, armed with joy in him, and assured of victory in the end, we ready ourselves for whatever opposition comes.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/you-can-t-arrest-the-gospel" target="_blank">the rest</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fready-yourself-with-joy-for-whatever-opposition-comes" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fready-yourself-with-joy-for-whatever-opposition-comes" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fready-yourself-with-joy-for-whatever-opposition-comes" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Articles on the Religious Freedom Fiasco
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/08/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/articles-on-the-religious-freedom-fiasco
content:
            <div> 
		<p>1. “<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-post-indiana-future-christian-religious-liberty-gay-rights/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=the-post-indiana-future-christian-religious-liberty-gay-rights" target="_blank">The Post-Indiana Future for Christians</a>”&nbsp;by Rod Dreher—an interview with a “practicing Christian law professor at one of the country’s elite law schools”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>To elites in his circles, Kingsfield continued, “at best religion is something consenting adult[s] should do behind closed doors. They don’t really understand that there’s a link between Sister Helen Prejean’s faith and the work she does on the death penalty. There’s a lot of looking down on flyover country, on middle America.</p>

<p>“The sad thing,”&nbsp;he said, “is that the old ways of aspiring to truth, seeing all knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality, they don’t hold. It’s all about power. They’ve got cultural power, and think they should use it for good, but their idea of good is not anchored in anything. They’ve got a lot of power in courts and in politics and in education. Their job is to challenge people to think critically, but thinking critically means thinking like them. They really do think that they know so much more than anybody did before, and there is no point in listening to anybody else, because they have all the answers, and believe that they are good.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>2. In “<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/christians-frank-bruni-lgbt-religious-liberty/" target="_blank">Christians ’Must Be Made’&nbsp;to Bow</a>,”&nbsp;Dreher responds to Frank Bruni’s “<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=3&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CCUQFjAC&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2015%2F04%2F05%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2Ffrank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html&amp;ei=WPsiVeiyKYuwogS_7YDYDQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNGlh0F72RZPoJxmnr0YzdYTyrOa0w" target="_blank">Bigotry, the Bible, and the Lessons of Indiana</a>”&nbsp;article in the <em>New York Times</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Bruni enlists liberal Evangelical professor David Gushee in his crusade: “Conservative Christian religion is the last bulwark against full acceptance of L.G.B.T. people.”</p>

<p>So, having defined the enemy, the one thing standing between them and cultural hegemony, what do they propose to do? This (emphasis mine):</p>

<p>Creech and Mitchell Gold, a prominent <a href="http://www.mgbwhome.com/" target="_blank">furniture maker</a> and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, <a href="http://www.faithinamerica.org/" target="_blank">Faith in America</a>, which aims to mitigate the damage done to L.G.B.T. people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry.”</p>

<p>Gold told me that church leaders <strong>must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”</strong></p>

<p><strong>His commandment is worthy—and warranted.</strong></p>

<p>Not “must be persuaded,”&nbsp;but “must be made.”&nbsp;Compelled. Forced. And not forced to change our behavior, but forced to change what we believe. Because You Must Approve.</p>

<p>And just how do Bruni and his militant Social Justice Warriors plan to force us to repudiate our beliefs? We are going to find out. Indiana and Arkansas showed that most Americans don’t much care about religious liberty—and in fact, people like Bruni and the newspaper he works for have contempt for it, at least when it is practiced by “conservative Christians.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>3. <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2015/04/frank-bruni-commands-christians-to-cave-on-homosexuality/" target="_blank">Another response to the Bruni article</a> by Owen Strachan:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Our worship is now compelled and instructed, just as in days past. But we are not dealing with a state church, or at least not an established one. We are dealing with a cultural intelligentsia that offers us a grand bargain: we can give up our sexual ethics and be just fine, or we can hold onto them and be smashed into conformity. It’s really this stark: the Bible should be “rightly bowing”-Bruni’s actual phrase!-to secular rationalism. In other words, we have an authority, and it is not Scripture. It is the culture.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>4. Ross Douthat responds to RFRA objections in “<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CCAQqQIwAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2015%2F04%2F05%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2Frosss-douthat-interview-with-a-christian.html&amp;ei=3e8iVd6KGoLloAS_k4CYAw&amp;usg=AFQjCNEPbJSLvdd3ei8IZMpfPDWbVcpgXA&amp;bvm=bv.89947451,d.cGU" target="_blank">Interview With a Christian</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>[S]egregationists felt justified by scripture too. They got over it; their churches got over it; so will yours.</em></p>

<p>It’s not that simple. The debate about race was very specific to America, modernity, the South. (Bans on interracial marriage were <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/" target="_blank">generally a white supremacist innovation</a>, not an inheritance from Christendom or common law.) The slave owners and segregationists had scriptural arguments, certainly. But they were also up against one of the Bible’s major meta-narratives—from the Israelites in Egypt to Saint Paul’s “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free.”</p>

<p>That’s not the case with sex and marriage. The only clear biblical meta-narrative is about male and female. Sex is an area of Jewish law that Jesus explicitly makes stricter. What we now call the “traditional”&nbsp;view of sexuality was a <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/dec/19/rome-sex-freedom/" target="_blank">then-radical</a> idea separating the early church from Roman culture, and it’s remained basic in every branch of Christianity until very recently. Jettisoning it requires repudiating scripture, history and tradition in a way the end of Jim Crow did not.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>5. Scott Ott explains how a reporter set up a mom and pop pizza place in “<a href="http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/01/story-about-1st-business-to-publicly-vow-to-reject-gay-weddings-was-fabricated-out-of-nothing/" target="_blank">Story About First Business to ’Publicly Vow to Reject Gay Weddings’&nbsp;Was Fabricated Out of Nothing</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Memories Pizza didn’t blast out a news release. They didn’t contact the media, nor make a stink on Twitter or Facebook. They didn’t even post a sign in the window rejecting gay-wedding catering jobs. They merely answered questions from a novice reporter who strolled into their restaurant one day—who was sent on a mission by an irresponsible news organization.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>6. More details from Dreher on what the resulting internet mob did to Memories Pizza: “<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/into-the-christian-closet/" target="_blank">Into the Christian Closet</a>.”</p>

<p>7. Andrew Walker has an idea for how Christian bakeries could respond to governmental coercion in “<a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/04/a-note-from-creator-cakes" target="_blank">A Note from Creator Cakes</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>So, we will serve same-sex wedding services. We will do so unhappily and with a bothered conscience. But if we must do so with a bothered conscience, we reserve the right as a condition of the marketplace to bother others’&nbsp;consciences as well. If we are coerced into baking for events we disagree with, we will return the favor and use the funds of those we disagree with to fund the organizations they disagree with. If you are unhappy with this new policy or it conflicts with your own convictions about marriage, we invite you to take your business elsewhere.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Farticles-on-the-religious-freedom-fiasco" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Farticles-on-the-religious-freedom-fiasco" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Farticles-on-the-religious-freedom-fiasco" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How RFRA Works
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-rfra-works
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s a really helpful infographic from <a href="http://1stamendmentpartnership.org/resources/" target="_blank">1st Amendment Partnership</a> explaining “<a href="http://1stamendmentpartnership.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/FAM101-How-RFRA-Works-Infographic-R5.png" target="_blank">How RFRA Works</a>.”&nbsp;It clarifies why Religious Freedom Restoration Acts have never, nor will ever, create a Jim-Crow-type society:</p>

<p><img alt="" height="2231" src="/Media/Default/BlogPost/blog/FAM101-How-RFRA-Works-Infographic-R5.png" width="900"><img src="https://www.str.org/Media/Default/BlogPost/blog/FAM101-How-RFRA-Works-Infographic-R5.png"></p>

<p>(HT: <a href="https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/583282023609036801" target="_blank">@MZHemingway</a>)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-rfra-works" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-rfra-works" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-rfra-works" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Read Nancy Pearcey’s Finding Truth with Me
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/20/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/read-nancy-pearcey-s-finding-truth-with-me
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Two weeks from today, we’re starting something new on the blog. It’s a book club of sorts. (My coworkers here are pushing me to call it Stand to Readin’. We’ll see.) We’ll read through Nancy Pearcey’s latest book, <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK401" target="_blank"><em>Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes</em></a>, and then come together here each Friday to discuss that week’s reading. (If you use Twitter, use the hashtag #STRread to chat with people during the week as you’re reading.) I’ve seen this work on a couple of other blogs, so let’s give it a try!</p>

<p>To get a taste of the book, listen to the <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/nancy-pearcey-finding-truth-march-17-2015#.VQtO5WTF_OY" target="_blank">interview</a> Nancy Pearcey did on the podcast this week (if you purchase the book <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK401" target="_blank">from Stand to Reason</a>, you’ll receive a CD copy of the interview along with the book—use the coupon code “STRread”&nbsp;for 15% off). You can also read this <a href="http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/finding-truth" target="_blank">review by Tim Challies</a>. And here’s what Greg said in his endorsement:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Nancy Pearcey has the unique ability of getting to the heart of things in the cultural conversation. Pearcey’s penetrating critique of the worldview “idols”&nbsp;of our age is chock-full of gems. Better, it equips us with an easy-to-follow game plan for assessing any worldview. This is one of those books that not only challenges the critics; it also gives a huge dose of confidence to the Christian who will catch himself walking away from its pages saying, “Gosh, this stuff really <em>is</em> true.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Greg loves the book, and I’ve loved all her past books, so this should be good. If you’re interested, <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK401" target="_blank">purchase the book</a> and read the foreword by April 3rd. We’ll do a chapter a week after that (for seven weeks) and see how it goes. If there’s enough interest, we’ll try this again sometime with another book. I hope to see you here on April 3rd.</p>

<p><strong>Posts in this series:</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li>Book Club Introduction</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-foreword#.VWXwAVlViko" target="_blank">Week One: Foreword</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-i-lost-my-faith-at-an-evangelical-college#.VWXwz1lViko" target="_blank">Week Two: I Lost My Faith at an Evangelical College</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-twilight-of-the-gods#.VWXwWFlViko" target="_blank">Week Three: Twilight of the Gods</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-false-worldviews-reduce-the-human-person#.VWXxC1lViko" target="_blank">Week Four: False Worldviews Reduce the Human Person</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-secular-leaps-of-faith#.VWXwcVlViko" target="_blank">Week Five: Secular Leaps of Faith</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-why-worldviews-commit-suicide#.VWXw71lViko" target="_blank">Week Six: Why Worldviews Commit Suicide</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-free-loading-atheists#.VWXwMllViko" target="_blank">Week Seven: Free-Loading Atheists</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.str.org/blog/finding-truth-how-critical-thinking-saves-faith#.VWXws1lViko" target="_blank">Week Eight: How Critical Thinking Saves Faith</a></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Twitter:</strong> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&amp;q=%23strread&amp;src=typd" target="_blank">#STRread</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&amp;q=%23findingtruth&amp;src=typd" target="_blank">#FindingTruth</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fread-nancy-pearcey-s-finding-truth-with-me" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fread-nancy-pearcey-s-finding-truth-with-me" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fread-nancy-pearcey-s-finding-truth-with-me" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: When Whitefield Was Mistaken about the Voice of God
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/18/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-whitefield-was-mistaken-about-the-voice-of-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In Tim Keller’s book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Experiencing-Awe-Intimacy-God/dp/0525954147/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1425774436&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=prayer" target="_blank"><em>Prayer</em></a>, he stresses the idea that proper prayer comes out of our knowledge of God, which we increase by immersing ourselves in the Bible. It’s our knowledge of who God is that directs how we pray and the types of things we pray about. The greater our knowledge of God, the richer and more varied our prayers.</p>

<p>The Bible not only gives rise to our prayers, it also gives us certainty of God’s response to us. We learn there, in His very words, what He has promised us and how He sees us. Our emotions and impressions, on the other hand, are not reliable indicators of God’s response. Therefore, Keller cautions, “[W]e cannot be sure he is speaking to us unless we read it in the Scripture.”</p>

<p>As an illustration of this, Keller tells a story about the great preacher <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/biographies/i-will-not-be-a-velvet-mouthed-preacher" target="_blank">George Whitefield</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If we leave the Bible out, we may plumb our impressions and feelings and imagine God saying various things to us, but how can we be sure we are not self-deceived? The eighteenth-century Anglican clergyman George Whitefield was one of the spearheads of the Great Awakening, a period of massive renewal of interest in Christianity across Western societies and a time of significant church growth. Whitefield was a riveting orator and is considered one of the greatest preachers in church history. In late 1743 his first child, a son, was born to he and his wife, Elizabeth. Whitefield had a strong impression that God was telling him the child would grow up to also be a “preacher of the everlasting Gospel.”&nbsp;In view of this divine assurance, he gave his son the name John, after John the Baptist, whose mother was also named Elizabeth. When John Whitefield was born, George baptized his son before a large crowd and preached a sermon on the great works that God would do through his son. He knew that cynics were sneering at his prophecies, but he ignored them.</p>

<p>Then, at just four months old, his son died suddenly of a seizure. The Whitefields were of course grief-stricken, but George was particularly convicted about how wrong he had been to count his inward impulses and intuitions as being essentially equal to God’s Word. He realized he had led his congregation into the same disillusioning mistake. Whitefield had interpreted his own feelings—his understandable and powerful fatherly pride and joy in his son, and his hopes for him—as God speaking to his heart. Not long afterward, he wrote a wrenching prayer for himself, that God would “render this mistaken parent more cautious, more sober-minded, more experienced in Satan’s devices, and consequently more useful in his future labors to the church of God.”</p>

<p>The lesson here is not that God never guides our thoughts or prompts us to choose wise courses of action, but that we cannot be sure he is speaking to us unless we read it in the Scripture.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If a greater man of God than we will ever be can be mistaken about impressions, then none of us should depend on them. You can read what Greg has written on this subject in <a href="http://www.str.org/w/does-god-whisper-part-1?inheritRedirect=true" target="_blank">Does God Whisper? Part 1</a>, <a href="http://www.str.org/w/does-god-whisper-part-2?inheritRedirect=true" target="_blank">Part 2</a>, and <a href="http://www.str.org/w/does-god-whisper-part-3?inheritRedirect=true" target="_blank">Part 3</a> or <em><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK397" target="_blank">The Ambassador’s Guide to the Voice of God</a>.</em></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-whitefield-was-mistaken-about-the-voice-of-god" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-whitefield-was-mistaken-about-the-voice-of-god" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-whitefield-was-mistaken-about-the-voice-of-god" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Quick Thought: Combating Apathy among Youth
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 04/02/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/quick-thought-combating-apathy-among-youth
content:
            <div> 
		<p>How do we combat apathy within our youth? Number one, question them. Start forcing them to answer questions about what they believe and why they believe it. Introduce questions and challenges, and help them to see that they don’t know as much as they think they know.</p>

<p>Second, you can role-play with them. That has a way of exposing them and letting them see that they don’t know a whole lot. Sometimes, that can be very helpful in waking them up from their apathy.</p>

<p>Get them off the sidelines and into the game. We need to create opportunities for them to get outside those church walls and get into real live conversations with unbelievers, skeptics, atheists, and their non-Christian friends.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/videos/how-should-one-combat-apathy-within-a-young-adult-training-setting" target="_blank">Read more and watch the video</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-combating-apathy-among-youth" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-combating-apathy-among-youth" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-combating-apathy-among-youth" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Premarital Counseling Needs to Include This
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/31/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/premarital-counseling-needs-to-include-this
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Before you tie the knot, pastors and counselors try to tell you what you need to know for a healthy and successful marriage. I remember being advised about communication styles, conflict resolution, birth control, personality, etc. It felt comprehensive.</p>

<p>There’s one thing, though, that needs to be added to the list of topics discussed <em>before</em> marriage: infertility counseling. I realize that subject sounds like a bummer to talk about just before a couple marries and goes off to be fruitful and multiply. Based on the situations couples face these days, however, waiting to talk about it until <em>after</em> a couple is facing infertility is far too late.</p>

<p>Here’s why. Once a husband and wife find out they can’t get pregnant, things change. They, understandably, get very emotional about the fact they can’t have children. People in their life stage are popping out kids left and right. Every friend’s pregnancy announcement is another bittersweet ordeal.</p>

<p>In an attempt to fix the problem, the couple pursues the help of fertility doctors. Sometimes they consider procedures that may be ethically questionable because they are passionately committed to the end result of having kids.</p>

<p>Not only have couples told me they felt this way, but I know firsthand as well. My wife and I also dealt with infertility. I remember how I felt, how my wife felt, and how hard we tried to get pregnant. We went through counseling. It was a long and tumultuous time. We met with infertility specialists, took numerous tests, and even had surgery in an attempt to increase our chances of getting pregnant. For a time, it felt like our decisions were largely driven by our emotions.</p>

<p>Thankfully, by God’s grace, we got pregnant naturally after four years of infertility. In retrospect, though, it seemed like we were willing to try anything to get pregnant. I’m not saying we would have done something medically unethical, but I was afraid we might.</p>

<p>I’ve now spoken with several couples who faced a similar situation. Unfortunately, they weren’t able to get pregnant naturally. Instead, they used fertility treatments that put them in a moral dilemma. For example, one couple I recently spoke with used in vitro fertilization. They had multiple eggs fertilized, and then the embryos were implanted in the wife’s womb. The problem was that the wife was now pregnant with five children. Their doctor advised them to abort three of them. He said to attempt to carry all five children would likely result in a premature delivery that would take the lives of all their kids. What should they do?</p>

<p>My advice is to never create more embryos than you’re willing to implant and never implant more embryos than you’re willing to carry. But it was too late for that advice.</p>

<p>Once you’re married and facing infertility, your judgment can become clouded. I’m not saying every couple loses all rationality. Many, though, act before they think or seek good advice because they’re desperate to have kids.</p>

<p>Couples need to be counseled about fertility treatments <em>before</em> they get married and find themselves deep in a moral dilemma where lives are at stake. That way they can reason through the decision-making process prior to an emotional ordeal that jeopardizes clear thinking.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpremarital-counseling-needs-to-include-this" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpremarital-counseling-needs-to-include-this" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpremarital-counseling-needs-to-include-this" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: When the Real Jesus Is Preached
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/28/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-the-real-jesus-is-preached
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I argued against preaching a “<a href="https://www.str.org/blog/christians-you-will-suffer#.W6ljUBNKijQ" target="_blank">life-improvement Jesus</a>”&nbsp;earlier this week. Now here’s an excerpt from Michael Reeves’s book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Rejoicing-Christ-Michael-Reeves/dp/0830840222/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1427510903&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=michael+reeves" target="_blank"><em>Rejoicing in Christ</em></a> (as posted in <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CB4QFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianitytoday.com%2Fct%2F2015%2Fmarch%2Fbest-way-to-become-like-jesus.html&amp;ei=UBoWVf6IEoyzogTR1oDgBw&amp;usg=AFQjCNFjLtQs7QoS6SIOXcNqhKcYRB6rsQ&amp;sig2=KeOLeIuJ-Ijkxxi29cXw-g&amp;bvm=bv.89381419,d.cGU" target="_blank">Christianity Today</a>) explaining what happens when the <em>real</em> Jesus is preached:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Life, righteousness, holiness, and redemption are found in Jesus, and found by those—and only those!—who look to him. Perhaps I should be clearer: It is not that we look, get some sense of what Christ is like, and then go away and strain to make ourselves similar; we become like him <em>through the very looking</em>. The very sight of him is a transforming thing. For now, contemplating him by faith, we begin to be transformed into his likeness (2 Cor. 3:18), but so potent is his glory that when we clap our eyes upon him physically at his second coming, then “when Christ appears, we shall be like him, <em>for we shall see him as he is”</em>&nbsp;(1 John 3:2).</p>

<p>That full, unveiled, physical sight of the glorified Jesus will be so majestically effacing it will transform our very bodies around us. The sight of him now by the Spirit makes us more like him spiritually; the sight of him, then, face to face, will finally make us—body and soul—as he is...</p>

<p>The light of his perfection exposes our imperfection more than any wielding of the law ever could. It makes us see ourselves aright. As John Calvin put it, “man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face.”&nbsp;But it does more than expose: it <em>overcomes</em> our imperfection and so liberates us. And it cures us far more effectively than any effort at self-improvement...</p>

<p>[I]t is the very grace of God, appearing from heaven in Christ, that turns hearts from worldly passions to godly passions. Where self-dependent efforts at self-improvement must leave us self-obsessed and therefore fundamentally unloving, the kindness of God in Christ attracts our hearts <em>away</em> from ourselves and <em>to him</em>. Only the love of Christ has the power to uncoil a human heart.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CB4QFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianitytoday.com%2Fct%2F2015%2Fmarch%2Fbest-way-to-become-like-jesus.html&amp;ei=UBoWVf6IEoyzogTR1oDgBw&amp;usg=AFQjCNFjLtQs7QoS6SIOXcNqhKcYRB6rsQ&amp;sig2=KeOLeIuJ-Ijkxxi29cXw-g&amp;bvm=bv.89381419,d.cGU" target="_blank">excerpt</a> in Christianity Today, or get the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Rejoicing-Christ-Michael-Reeves/dp/0830840222/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1427510903&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=michael+reeves" target="_blank">book</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-the-real-jesus-is-preached" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-the-real-jesus-is-preached" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-the-real-jesus-is-preached" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Quick Thought: Do Humans Really Have Free Will?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/02/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/quick-thought-do-humans-really-have-free-will-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was reading a book recently that asked the question, “Do we have free will? If you don’t think we do, please turn to page 3.”&nbsp;When you turn to page 3, it says, “Gotcha.”&nbsp;Point being, we all have a basic awareness that we are making decisions that are ours, and we have at least some significant measure of freedom.</p>

<p>The question becomes, how does this play into theological issues? On the one hand, you have the reformed point of view that says God chooses us. On the other hand, there is scripture that says that we choose God. If you believe that God chooses us, then that seems to deny a free choice on our part.</p>

<p>What is free will? There are three different categories. The first category is determinism. The second category is freedom. In the third category, you’re doing what you want, but you couldn’t have done otherwise.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/videos/do-humans-really-have-free-will" target="_blank">Read more and watch video</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-do-humans-really-have-free-will-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-do-humans-really-have-free-will-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquick-thought-do-humans-really-have-free-will-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Christians, You Will Suffer
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/25/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/christians-you-will-suffer
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I had a brief interaction with an atheist on Twitter a couple of weeks ago that unexpectedly turned to the issue of suffering when she said:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You clearly never had a time you were hurt. I don’t mean sick. I don’t mean heart broken. I mean literally a near death experience or rape or abusive relationship... You can keep floating on a [expletive] cloud thinking Jesus will do everything for you but it’s a lie. What makes you so special?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That surprised me at first because it didn’t seem to have anything to do with the tweet she was responding to, and I was confused as to why she would assume I’d never been through anything traumatic. But then in subsequent tweets, when she revealed she had been raped, it became clear that her trauma had played a central role in her becoming an outspoken, obviously angry “antitheist.”&nbsp;She’s a self-described antitheist now because she thinks Christianity teaches Jesus “will do everything for you”&nbsp;to give you a perfect life, and now she knows that’s a lie. The rape proved her understanding of Christianity false.</p>

<p>So it made sense for her to reason that since I believe Christianity is true, I must still be under the delusion that Jesus is making my life special, which means I obviously never encountered any evil or suffering to shake that delusion.</p>

<p>Hear me, everyone: This is a failure of the church.</p>

<p>A friend of mine who was deeply suffering once said to me that many Christians are in for “an epic letdown”&nbsp;when they realize their preconceived notions about what God is expected to do for us are false. Pastors who preach a life-improvement Jesus are leading people down this precarious path to disillusionment.</p>

<p>If suffering disproves your Christianity, you’ve missed Christianity. The Bible is filled with the suffering of those whom God loves. The central event of the Bible is one of suffering. Love involves suffering. “We know <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+3%3A16&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">love</a> by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”&nbsp;That means suffering.</p>

<p>But Christianity also promises justice for evil. And grace. And life from death. Resurrection. New bodies. Hope. Jesus is the only hope for true pain. Without Him, there’s nothing left to do but rail against God with the most perverse insults imaginable.</p>

<p>The truth is that even if you’ve been taught these things, a time will come when an experience will make this real to you, and then you will struggle to learn how to entrust yourself to God when you can’t trust He’ll protect you from pain and tragedy, can’t trust that things will get better. The only thing you can trust is <em>Him</em>. That He is good. That He knows what suffering is. That if He was willing to give His son over to death for us “because of His <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+2%3A1-10&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">great love</a> with which He loved us,”&nbsp;then we know His love won’t stop there—He’ll withhold nothing else from us that we should have. The good He seeks for us is to <a href="/w/pain-now-the-land-of-happy-later" target="_blank">reveal Himself</a> and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+8%3A28-37&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">conform</a> us to the image of His Son. We will suffer no pain without purpose.</p>

<p>Go to the Christians who learned this before you—<a href="/w/how-our-suffering-glorifies-god" target="_blank">Richard Wurmbrand</a>, <a href="http://www.worldmag.com/2014/02/walking_through_fire" target="_blank">Elisabeth Elliot</a>, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=2&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CCQQFjAB&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianitytoday.com%2Fct%2F2010%2Foctober%2F12.30.html&amp;ei=Pi4SVcj6FYW4ogSFyIDgCA&amp;usg=AFQjCNFhVsolzjux39suq0xwE4ATY0bpqQ" target="_blank">Joni Eareckson Tada</a>, <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/a-woman-of-whom-the-world-was-not-worthy-helen-roseveare-1925-2016/" target="_blank">Helen Roseveare</a>, <a href="/w/the-secret-of-rejoicing-while-suffering" target="_blank">Corrie ten Boom</a>, <a href="http://www.mundanefaithfulness.com/home/2015/3/22/homecoming" target="_blank">Kara Tippetts</a>—Christians who learned through torture, death, disability, rape, terror, and terminal disease the truth of Paul’s “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+4%3A10-13&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">secret</a>”&nbsp;to facing a life of pain: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”</p>

<p>I said to the atheist, “Those who suffer know Him better,”&nbsp;and I meant it. He is the God who knows suffering. He is the God who suffered. He is the God who works beauty through suffering. He is the God who resurrects.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-you-will-suffer" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-you-will-suffer" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-you-will-suffer" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Moment of Truth
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/18/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-moment-of-truth
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>When you are faced with</em> the <em>question, here’s how you should respond.</em></p>

<p>While you’re on the lookout for your moments of truth this year—those brief windows of opportunity God gives you to sow a seed for the Kingdom—inevitably you will be asked the question.</p>

<p>It’s one of the most important questions anyone can ask you. It’s also one of the easiest to answer—it can be done in one word—yet at the same time it’s one of the hardest. A simple “yes”&nbsp;is wildly misleading.</p>

<p>Dennis Prager asked me this question when I was a guest on his radio program. Larry King seems especially fond of asking it frequently of his Christian guests on CNN. And Deepak Chopra fired it off at me it in our national TV debate on “Faith Under Fire.”</p>

<p>Here’s the question, in Chopra’s words: “Then you’re saying that people who don’t believe just like you are going to Hell.”</p>

<p>Someone once said that if you word the question right, you can win any debate. Dr. Chopra’s question was a classic case in point. A simple “yes”&nbsp;would have been accurate, but in this instance the correct answer would not have told the truth.</p>

<p>Fortunately, I was able to sidestep Chopra’s challenge. I did this for two reasons.</p>

<p>First, that wasn’t the point I’d been making, and I said so. My point was different. Since Chopra and I were grappling with serious issues no one could avoid—God, truth, salvation, eternity—everything rides on our answers.</p>

<p>Our discussion wasn’t idle banter. Ideas have consequences. Everyone is in the game and eternity is the ante. If Chopra is right and Koukl is wrong, I lose. If the reverse, Chopra loses—and so does everyone who reads his books, attends his seminars, or watches our debate and believes what he says.</p>

<p>Second, Dr. Chopra’s goal was not to clarify a theological point. In the gamesmanship of the moment, he was losing ground, so he offered up a challenge he hoped would tip me off balance, discrediting me with the audience.</p>

<p>If I had answered directly—“Yes, people who don’t believe just like me are going to Hell”—the debate would be over. Chopra’s query would have succeeded at painting me with an ugly stereotype, and he knew it.</p>

<p>People wouldn’t hear the voice of Jesus calling all men to repentance, offering reprieve and rescue from a judgment they will all face. Instead they would hear exactly what Chopra intended them to hear: conceit and condescension, an ideologue wishing people into Hell simply because they disagreed with him.</p>

<p>When you are faced with the question, here’s how you should respond.</p>

<p>Don’t meet it head on. Take my tack and parry the challenge. Tell them the question misses the point. Tell them everything is at stake and everyone is at risk, including you. Each will have to stand before God and give an account. That’s the reality, and it’s not good news because we’re all guilty in the final analysis.</p>

<p>But there’s another reality that is good news. God has made provision for clemency. If anyone accepts the pardon God offers through Jesus, they will not be punished as they deserve but will instead receive the kindest mercy of all, complete forgiveness.</p>

<p>If they ask about those who never heard, tell them that’s a more complicated issue. Simply put, God will judge each according to the light he’s been given. (Ultimately, they will still be lost, but your answer emphasizes that no one is lost out of ignorance, correcting a misunderstanding that calls into question God’s goodness.)</p>

<p>The key is to sidestep the trap while still telling the truth. This isn’t always easy. Jesus’&nbsp;claim that “Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins” (John 8:24)&nbsp;is less popular now than ever. Be prepared to clarify Jesus’&nbsp;point.</p>

<p>As a good ambassador, don’t let this moment of truth slip away. But don’t let anyone else twist the truth, either, by the way they frame the question. You’re in charge.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-moment-of-truth" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-moment-of-truth" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-moment-of-truth" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Refusing to Serve Individuals vs. Refusing to Participate in Events
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/02/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/refusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When people say Christians want to “refuse service to gays,��&nbsp;the implication is that Christians don’t want to engage in economic transactions with people because of their sexual orientation—as if they’re turning people away with, “We don’t serve your kind here.”</p>

<p>This is not the case, and it hasn’t been the case in any of the well-known incidents involving photographers, bakers, etc. that I’m aware of. Consider the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-florist-same-sex-wedding-20150218-story.html" target="_blank">story</a> of Barronelle Stutzman, the florist in Washington:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Robert Ingersoll and his husband, Curt Freed, said they had spent thousands of dollars and had been buying flowers from Arlene’s for nearly a decade when Ingersoll asked Stutzman to provide flowers for their wedding in 2013.</p>

<p>Stutzman declined, writing in <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=541829599171173&amp;id=179760432044760" target="_blank">a Facebook post</a> later that it was because of “my relationship with Jesus Christ.”</p>

<p>“I believe, biblically, that marriage is between a man and a woman,”&nbsp;Stutzman wrote. “That is my conviction, yours may be different.”</p>

<p>Stutzman said Ingersoll gave her a hug, said he “respected my opinion,”&nbsp;and left.</p>

<p>[<em>The Washington Times</em> <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/18/barronelle-stutzman-christian-florist-who-refused-/?page=all" target="_blank">adds</a> that she “referred the men to several other local florists.”]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Does that sound like “We don’t serve your kind here”? Please note that a gay couple “spent thousands of dollars and had been buying flowers from Arlene’s for nearly a decade.”&nbsp;That’s absolute proof that Stutzman was not discriminating against them <em>on the basis of their sexual orientation</em>. She merely didn’t want to participate in a same-sex wedding.</p>

<p>Why is there no room in our society for this?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mrm.org/about" target="_blank">Aaron Shafovaloff</a> sent me an illustration this morning that he uses to help people understand the distinction between not serving a person <em>because he is gay</em> and not participating in a same-sex wedding (an event supporting and celebrating a view of marriage that is deeply objected to <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/01/understand-the-same-sex-marriage-issue.html" target="_blank">for numerous reasons</a>):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>A heterosexual couple walks into a marketing and print shop. They ask to have a banner designed and printed to promote an event for some friends. The event is the monthly “Advocacy Meetup for Genderless Marriage.”&nbsp;The group, by principled extension, promotes same-sex marriage, since they believe marriage is a genderless institution.</p>

<p>At this particular advocacy meetup, only heterosexual couples happen to attend. And the couple in the shop asking for the banner happen to be orthodox Jews who believe marriage is a gendered institution. They are ordering and purchasing the banner as a favor to liberal friends promoting the meetup.</p>

<p>Both the potential seller and buyers are heterosexual religious conservatives who believe that marriage is a gendered institution. Yet the owner of the marketing and print shop refuses service. Should this business be successfully sued or penalized? Should any parties be able to collect damages? Why or why not?</p>

<p>Think about it: For the florist, baker, or photographer who wanted to follow their conscience, it didn’t ultimately matter <em>who</em> was ordering their services. Rather, what mattered to them was the morally objectionable message and the nature of the event being celebrated and promoted.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>One could just as easily flip this illustration around and make it about a person who is <em>for</em> same-sex marriage declining to make a banner for a rally promoting man-woman-only marriage. In both cases, the sexual orientation of the individual placing the order is irrelevant. In both cases, it’s their convictions about the <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/the-competing-views-of-marriage.html" target="_blank">meaning of marriage</a> that the owners don’t want to compromise, not their hatred <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/04/its-about-the-difference-between-men-and-women.html" target="_blank">or bigotry</a> towards anyone because of their sexual orientation.</p>

<p>Some are saying, “So what if participating in a same-sex marriage goes against a person’s conscience? It’s wrong to object to same-sex marriage, so it’s okay to force her to do the right thing.”&nbsp;This attitude reflects a low view of human dignity. Instead, I agree with Luther that “it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.”&nbsp;This is the Christian view.</p>

<p>In Romans 14, Paul stresses the importance of not violating our conscience when he cautions us not to engage in anything we’re not convinced is okay—that is, anything we can’t, in good conscience, do <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+10%3A25-31&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">to the glory of God</a>.* He says, “Each person must be <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14:4-6&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">fully convinced</a> in his own mind.... [T]o him who thinks anything to be <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14%3A12-14&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">unclean</a>, to him it is unclean.”&nbsp;We’re not to “put a stumbling block in a brother’s way,”&nbsp;“<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+8:11-13&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">wounding</a> his conscience”&nbsp;by causing him to do something he believes he shouldn’t do—even, Paul says, if that person is refraining from doing something that, in reality, is okay for him to do. You can’t “do all to the glory of God”&nbsp;if you’re not convinced what you’re doing brings glory to God. It’s an affront to human dignity to force a person into this situation.</p>

<p>This is why I’m strongly against forcing any person, regardless of his beliefs, to violate his conscience, and why I’m for RFRAs (not to mention the First Amendment), which are meant to respect this truth about human dignity. People should not be forced to promote or participate in events they profoundly disagree with. They should not be forced by law to violate their conscience. As Aaron concluded:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Compelling someone else’s speech (through creative or expressive services) can be a soft form of slavery.... To argue in essence, “But giving people liberties and freedoms might enable them to act unethically toward others”&nbsp;is fundamentally to argue against the Constitution. Liberties and freedoms require vulnerabilities and risks that are worth having.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The First Amendment is meant to protect us from people who think they can perfect society if only they’re given enough control over everyone’s words and actions. Accepting the reality of diversity, even with its risks and imperfections, is what a free society does.</p>

<p>_________________</p>

<p>*Paul is referring specifically to the Old Testament holiness code here, but the same principle should apply to unclear moral situations, as well.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frefusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frefusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frefusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Spiritually Investing in the Lives of Your Kids—Mentoring Letter April 2015
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/spiritually-investing-in-the-lives-of-your-kids-mentoring-letter-april-2015
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>A simple way to invest spiritually in the lives of your kids</em></p>

<p>Here’s a clever drill I’ve stumbled upon that’s got to be the simplest, most efficient way to make a spiritual investment in the lives of your kids. I picked it up at my daughters’&nbsp;classical Christian school where they use it to great effect.</p>

<p>It’s an ingenious repetition/response exercise called a “callout”&nbsp;you can employ anytime you’re with your kids to teach them the practical value of Bible verses, proverbs, or other short, instructional sayings to guide their conduct.</p>

<p>This is how it works. Tell your kids you want to teach them a game to help them memorize practical sayings, some from the Bible. Here’s one you might start with: A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger (Prov. 15:1). Tell them you’ll say the first parts, and they can respond with the second parts, like this:</p>

<p>A gentle answer...(parent)</p>

<p>Turns away wrath. (child)</p>

<p>But a harsh word...(parent)</p>

<p>Stirs up anger. (child)</p>

<p>Be sure to put some emotion into it, animating your lines in a way that’s appropriate to the words. Speak gently with the first half, but growl out the “harsh word”&nbsp;portion, letting the kids ham up their anger in response. You get the idea. They’ll love it. Plus, they’ll memorize the verse almost instantly. And so will you.</p>

<p>You might want to put your callouts on 3x5 cards for review or post them on the refrigerator for little eyes to see. Review your callouts regularly with your kids—in the car, at the dinner table, etc.—then press them into service as the moment demands. Eventually when your kids start to bicker, all you’ll need to say is, “A gentle answer...,”&nbsp;and they’ll fill in the rest.</p>

<p>There are dozens of aphorisms—shorty, pithy, instructive sayings—that can be made into callouts to encourage your children to practice biblical virtues or other practical habits. Bible proverbs are especially adaptable to callouts.</p>

<p>The one who guards his mouth...</p>

<p>Preserves his life.</p>

<p>The one who opens wide his lips...</p>

<p>Comes to ruin. (Prov. 13:3)</p>

<p>Or...</p>

<p>Trust in the Lord with all your heart...</p>

<p>And do not lean on your own understanding.</p>

<p>In all your ways acknowledge Him...</p>

<p>And He will make your paths straight. (Prov. 3:5-6)</p>

<p>Your lessons need not be limited to Bible verses, though. Established cultural wisdom works too, like, “A stitch in time... saves nine,”&nbsp;or “Don’t put it down... put it away,”&nbsp;or “The fun is more fun... when the work is done.”&nbsp;Here’s some more we’ve used:</p>

<p>• God is opposed to the proud... but gives grace to the humble. (James 4:6)</p>

<p>• Those who are faithful with little... will be faithful with much. (Lk. 16:10)</p>

<p>• The fear of man... brings a snare... But the fear of the Lord... is the beginning of wisdom. (Prov. 29:25, 9:10)</p>

<p>• Pleasant words... are like honeycomb... sweet to the soul... and healing to the bones. (Prov. 16:24)</p>

<p>• Do all things... without grumbling or disputing. (Phil. 2:14)</p>

<p>Using callouts is an ingenious yet simple concept that not only helps your kids; it helps you, too. Practice them regularly, and don’t forget to be energetic. Emotion and animation make the callouts more memorable.</p>

<p>Oh, keep in mind that just because kids can quote the callout doesn’t mean they’ll practice the principle—at first. That takes more time. They’re children, after all. Stick with it, though, and you’ll see results. Remember, “He who tends the fig tree...”&nbsp;Well, you can fill in the rest.</p>

<p>And one more callout comes to mind at this Easter season: “He is risen... He is risen indeed!”&nbsp;Critics hotly contest Christianity’s central claim, but your support equips and mobilizes gracious Christian Ambassadors to make an intellectually fair and incisive case for the truth. One believer told us he answered an atheist’s challenge about dying and rising gods—a false parallel to Jesus from mythology—after learning about it in an STR newsletter.</p>

<p>I’m counting on your strong support now to keep STR moving forward at this pivotal time. Will you send your gift of support this month to help us deliver the print, online, audio, and video resources you and others rely on to live out your convictions with confidence?</p>

<p>As thanks for your gift, I want to send you Brett Kunkle’s DVD, “Why I Am a Christian.”&nbsp;Brett shows the one best reason to anchor our lives in the claims of Scripture.</p>

<p>Please be sure to ask for your copy of Brett’s DVD when you send your gift. Thanks for standing with STR.</p>

<p>In Him,</p>

<p>Gregory Koukl</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fspiritually-investing-in-the-lives-of-your-kids-mentoring-letter-april-2015" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fspiritually-investing-in-the-lives-of-your-kids-mentoring-letter-april-2015" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fspiritually-investing-in-the-lives-of-your-kids-mentoring-letter-april-2015" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Anomalies Don’t Necessarily Disprove Christianity
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/06/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/anomalies-don-t-necessarily-disprove-christianity
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last week, Biola hosted a panel discussion between William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, and John Lennox (moderated by Hugh Hewitt) on the topic of “<a href="http://watch.biola.edu/god-science/" target="_blank">God, Science, and the Big Questions</a>.”</p>

<p>In response to a question posed to William Lane Craig about the biggest challenge to Christianity from science that Christians need to work on, J.P. Moreland (at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpJm-qX3rW0#t=83m04s" target="_blank">1:23:04</a>) reminded the audience that a theory (scientific, theological, etc.) ought not be rejected just because there’s an anomaly that can’t yet be reconciled with it. Instead, it’s legitimate to take time to work on finding an answer that resolves the alleged contradiction. He referenced the work he’s done on how to evaluate theories in light of anomalies:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I did a study of how people weigh and change theories, and one of the things I learned is that a theory of any kind—if it’s an economic theory, a scientific theory, it could be a theological theory—will have core commitments that are called the “paradigm carriers.”&nbsp;They’re the key things to the theory... And then there will be less important commitments that are around the periphery of the theory.</p>

<p>Now, when does it become reasonable to think that an anomaly on the periphery—a problem—turns out to really be a falsification of the theory, as opposed to an anomaly that we can explain or it’s okay for us to work on it over a while?</p>

<p>Here’s what I think it is:... If the evidence for the central part of the theory is stronger than the evidence that this [anomaly] falsifies the theory, then you are within your intellectual rights to say I don’t have an answer to this yet, but I can’t bring myself to think it falsifies the theory—not because I don’t want to, [but] because we have a ton of evidence for this theory.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He then gives an example of how this has worked for a scientific theory in the past. His ideas on this subject are well worth thinking about, as I think people often misunderstand how to evaluate evidence and anomalies, thinking any anomaly ought to put an end to consideration of the theory (in this case, Christianity). This is simply a misunderstanding of how evidence works.</p>

<p>Dr. Moreland previously wrote about this in an article titled “<a href="http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_inerrancy_moreland.html" target="_blank">The Rationality of Belief in Inerrancy</a>.”&nbsp;Here, from <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/morelands-defense-inerrancy#.W1tzn9gzrdc" target="_blank">my summary of his article</a>, are three principles we ought to keep in mind when developing and evaluating theories:</p>

<ol>
	<li>In forming a theory, you start with the clear cases, not the borderline ones.</li>
	<li>The presence of as yet unexplained anomalies does not necessarily disprove the theory.</li>
	<li>No one instance (or even a few) of a class has the power to prove or disprove a theory about that class (even if, taken alone, it would seem to); it’s studied as a member of its larger class, in light of the evidence of the other examples of its kind.</li>
</ol>

<p>One important insight I learned from <a href="http://coldcasechristianity.com/" target="_blank">J. Warner Wallace</a>—who spent his career dealing with evidence—is that evidence is messy. We shouldn’t expect everything to line up perfectly. There will be anomalies or things that will remain unexplained, and yet it’s still reasonable to settle on the conclusion that makes the best sense of all of the evidence as it stands, even with loose ends. The loose ends shouldn’t panic you.</p>

<p>The whole panel discussion is worth watching.</p>

<p>(You can find the podcast series on creation and evolution Dr. Craig referenced in the discussion <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s9" target="_blank">here</a> and specifically, his response to the problem reconciling population genetics with Adam and Eve—the challenge he cited that initiated the conversation about anomalies—can be found in <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s10-11" target="_blank">Part 11</a>.)</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="NpJm-qX3rW0" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NpJm-qX3rW0?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanomalies-don-t-necessarily-disprove-christianity" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanomalies-don-t-necessarily-disprove-christianity" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanomalies-don-t-necessarily-disprove-christianity" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How to Help Transgender Children
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/13/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-help-transgender-children
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I received a question today from someone who didn’t know how to address a friend’s Facebook post celebrating transgenderism. The truth is, most people who promote these things are interested in doing the loving thing. They’re just wrong about what the loving thing to do is.</p>

<p>Consider this excerpt from the article “<a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/09/heres-what-parents-of-transgender-kids-need-to-know/#.VK_QDmSb5xx.twitter" target="_blank">Here’s What Parents of Transgender Kids Need To Know</a>”&nbsp;by Walt Heyer:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Studies <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25180172?log$=activity" target="_blank">indicate that</a> two-thirds of transgenders suffer from multiple disorders at the same time, or comorbidity. The top three disorders evidenced in transgenders are depression (33 percent), specific phobia (20 percent) and adjustment disorder (15 percent). A child who states a desire to identify as the opposite sex has a two-thirds chance of having a co-existing disorder...</p>

<p>Your child needs psychiatric or psychological help, not a change of wardrobe or hairstyle. Anyone working with a transgender needs to look for, and treat, comorbid disorders. Biologically, it is impossible for a doctor to change a boy into a girl, no matter how much surgery is performed or how many hormones are administered. I know; they tried it on me.</p>

<p>I came into this world a boy. Starting in early childhood, I frequently cross-dressed as a girl. I thought I was born in the wrong body. A nationally-prominent PhD diagnosed me as a transgender with gender dysphoria. Eventually, I underwent the full recommended hormone therapy and the gender reassignment surgery and became the female Laura Jensen. I lived and worked successfully as a female transgender in San Francisco for several years until I was diagnosed with my own comorbid disorder.</p>

<p>With proper diagnosis and treatment with psychotherapy, I found the sanity and healing gender change could not provide. Trangenderism was my outward expression of an undiagnosed comorbid disorder, and gender-change surgery was never necessary. I detransitioned and returned to my male gender, like so many others do who regret changing genders...</p>

<p>As a child transgender myself, I can tell you I needed help. I did not need to dress as a girl at home and at school, with all the stress that would have brought. There is no doubt in my mind that if I would have been encouraged to go off to school dressed up as a female it would have escalated my anxiety and deepened my depression and my desire to commit suicide.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I suggested to the person asking me the question that he respond to his Facebook friend with something like this: “I really appreciate your desire to be gracious and help people. That’s a great motivation, and I share that with you. Since we both want to help transgender people, here’s my question for you: Hypothetically, if it were the case that people are actually <em>harmed</em> by denying their biological gender, would you still encourage them to do so?”</p>

<p>I think that’s a good way to move the conversation away from the fruitless “you hate them, but I love them”&nbsp;debate and onto the only question that matters: What will actually <em>help</em> them?</p>

<p>Here are a few more relevant links:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CB0QFjAA&amp;url=http://online.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120&amp;ei=Z8SkU7HbCYXZoATV5YJA&amp;usg=AFQjCNH5GNdwoFfHxiOmmQ9aUkkXzZPRDA&amp;sig2=O6RjkN9TB1YN-87s3NZ6og" target="_blank">Transgender Surgery Isn’t the Solution</a>—“When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings.”</li>
	<li><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/11/dont-assume-we-should-change-the-body-to-match-the-mind.html" target="_blank">Don’t Assume We Should Change the Body to Match the Mind</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/11/trouble-in-transtopia-murmurs-of-sex-change-regret/" target="_blank">Trouble in Transtopia: Murmers of Sex Change Regret</a></li>
</ul>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-help-transgender-children" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-help-transgender-children" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-help-transgender-children" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Did Christ Descend into Hell?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/03/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-christ-descend-into-hell-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>My son is memorizing the Apostles’&nbsp;Creed and asked me about the phrase, “He descended into hell.”&nbsp;Did Jesus really go to hell? I didn’t think he did, so I checked Wayne Grudem’s excellent <em>Systematic Theology</em> for an answer.</p>

<p>I discovered the Apostles’&nbsp;Creed was not written by a single person or approved by a church council at a specific time. It gradually took form between 200 A.D. and 750 A.D. The first version, by St. Irenaeus, didn’t include the phrase, “He descended into hell.”&nbsp;Rather, Rufinus first inserted it in 390 A.D.</p>

<p>Rufinus, however, did <em>not</em> intend the phrase to mean that Christ descended into hell. He simply meant that Christ was “buried.”&nbsp;It was a literary device to emphasize that Christ actually died. Rufinus meant Jesus “descended into the <em>grave</em>.”</p>

<p>There were at least five more versions of the Creed after Rufinus, but none of them contained his expression. It wasn’t until 650 A.D. that someone inserted it again. Then, people didn’t seem to know Rufinus’&nbsp;intended meaning of the phrase. They began to speculate as to how to harmonize the claim that Christ went to hell with the rest of Scripture. Some said Christ went to hades or the netherworld. Others said He actually went to hell. Of course, many today still try other ways to explain the phrase.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that the Apostles’&nbsp;Creed didn’t originally include the phrase “He descended into hell.”&nbsp;Even when Rufinus inserted it, he never intended it to mean that Christ actually went to hell. This is besides the fact that there is no biblical justification for such a claim.</p>

<p>There seems to be at least three options for Christians today. One, they can recite the creed in its current form and simply remember in their mind that the phrase “He descended into hell”&nbsp;is a figure of speech for Christ descending into the grave. Two, they can recite the creed by changing the words to “He descended into the grave.”&nbsp;And three, they can simply omit the phrase.</p>

<p>Personally, I lean towards omitting the phrase when I recite the creed. Option two, however, is nice because you can keep speaking along with everyone else if you’re saying it in a group.</p>

<p>Grudem has an extended article on this question that was published in the <em>Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society</em>. You can read it <a href="http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/he-did-not-descend-into-hell_JETS.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-christ-descend-into-hell-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-christ-descend-into-hell-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-christ-descend-into-hell-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Memorizing the Bible Changes You
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/28/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/memorizing-the-bible-changes-you
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Joe Carter has a five-part series on <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-memorization-feeds-your-imagination" target="_blank">memorization</a> over at the Gospel Coalition that’s worth reading. I’m a huge <a href="/w/you-really-can-memorize-whole-books-of-the-bible" target="_blank">proponent</a> of memorizing the Bible:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When we have the entire Bible available as an app on our smartphones, it seems an unnecessary waste of time and effort to memorize specific verses or the grand narrative of the story. By relying on technology to do our remembering for us, we have forgotten the moral aspect of memorization. “A trained memory wasn’t just about gaining easy access to information,”&nbsp;says Jonathan Foer, referring to the ancient world, “it was about strengthening one’s personal ethics and becoming a more complete person.”&nbsp;Foer adds that the thinking of the ancients was that only through memorization could ideas truly be incorporated into one’s psyche and their values absorbed. “Indeed, the single most common theme in the lives of the saints—besides their superhuman goodness—is their often extraordinary memories,”&nbsp;Foer notes.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Oddly enough, in the post, Carter hit on the two things that motivated me most when I first started to work seriously on extensive memorization. Here’s the first:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“My philosophy of life,”&nbsp;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-Einstein-Science-Remembering-Everything/dp/0143120530?tag=thegospcoal-20" target="_blank">says Ed Cooke</a>, a British author and Grand Master of Memory, “is that a heroic person should be able to withstand about ten years in solitary confinement without getting terribly annoyed.”</p>

<p>Cooke has already memorized the bulk of John Milton’s <em>Paradise Lost</em> and is working on doing the same with the works of Shakespeare. “Given that an hour of memorization yields about ten solid minutes of spoken poetry, and those ten minutes have enough content to keep you busy for a full day, I figure you can squeeze at least a day’s fun out of each hour of memorization—if you should ever happen to find yourself in solitary confinement.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Chances are I’ll never be in a concentration camp or zombie apocalypse without a Bible, but I was inspired by stories of Christians who <em>were</em> to be ready to bring the Bible to the people around me. Crazy? Maybe. But it keeps me going.</p>

<p>The second inspiration for me was <a href="/w/st.-patrick-s-day" target="_blank">St. Patrick</a>. When I read his <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385491638/qid=1116812091/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-2583375-8588130?v=glance&amp;s=books&amp;n=507846" target="_blank"><em>Confession</em></a>, I saw passages from the Bible interwoven seamlessly into everything he wrote. The words just came naturally out of him because they had become a part of him. I wanted that to be true of me, too. Here’s how Joe Carter described this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For church fathers like Augustine, memorization of the Biblical text helped to make Scripture function like a second language. It has been observed, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Book-Memory-Medieval-Cambridge-Literature/dp/0521716314/?tag=thegospcoal-20" target="_blank">says Mary Carruthers</a>, that Augustine wrote “not only in Latin but ’in Psalms,’&nbsp;so imbued is his language with their phrasing and vocabulary.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No other kind of study has done more for increasing my knowledge and understanding of the Bible than memorization, so I encourage you to read “<a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-memorization-feeds-your-imagination" target="_blank">How Memorization Feeds Your Imagination</a>”&nbsp;and see the list of parts 2-5 at the end of his post.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmemorizing-the-bible-changes-you" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmemorizing-the-bible-changes-you" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmemorizing-the-bible-changes-you" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Truth and Compassion in Action
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/02/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/truth-and-compassion-in-action
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Alan’s monthly letter for March 2015</em></p>

<p>Gay activists prepared to protest FIRE Church in Concord, North Carolina. Their event leader posted their plan on Facebook: “We will have a silent protest as the service is going and let them have it as they leave for the day. Remember we will be peaceful and respectful, something they don’t understand. We are going to STAND TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY to show that our love is stronger than their hate.”</p>

<p>FIRE Church was started by Michael Brown, a radio talk show host, author, and speaker. He wrote <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Queer-Thing-Happened-America-Strange/dp/0615406092/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1424827889&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=a+queer+thing+happened+to+america" target="_blank"><em>A Queer Thing Happened to America</em></a>, a book addressing the biblical, moral, and cultural case against homosexuality. He’s also spoken extensively on the topic. That made his church a perfect target.</p>

<p>Brown, in anticipation of the protesters’&nbsp;arrival, posted a blog titled “<a href="http://lineoffireblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/fire-church-welcomes-charlottes-lgbt.html" target="_blank">FIRE Church Welcomes Charlotte’s LGBT Community</a>.”&nbsp;He wrote:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>On behalf of FIRE Church, I want to extend to you the warmest welcome and let you know that we are thrilled that you are here with us on Sunday. We have been praying for you for a long time! As always, you will only meet with love, kindness, and respect from the FIRE leadership and congregants, and we proclaim to you once again the amazing grace of God. Jesus died to save us from our sins, heterosexual and homosexual alike, and only in Him can we find forgiveness, redemption, and transformation... Our doors are open to you, our hearts are open to you, and as Jesus gave Himself for your salvation and well-being, we are committed to following in His footsteps. Should you ever want to have an open forum for the purpose of mutually respectful discussion on the issues that divide us, we would gladly host that event in our church building or participate in one of yours. Let us know what we can do to help make that happen.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Scott Volk, a pastor at FIRE Church, posted a note on a local gay website, where the protest was announced: “I just want you to know that you’ll be greeted with the same love and compassion as we always endeavor to show anyone—you are more than welcome!”&nbsp;He even invited any protestor to his home for an evening meal to see that he and his church are not hateful.</p>

<p>When the protestors arrived, they were warmly greeted by church leaders who offered them water and snacks, shared the truth with them, and invited them to join the service. Within a short time, the protestors dispersed, explaining the church members were too kind and loving to protest.</p>

<p>Wouldn’t it be great if <em>all</em> Christians behaved this way? Brown and the FIRE Church congregation were uncompromising in their convictions. They taught what Scripture taught: Homosexual behavior is a sin. They were also gracious and compassionate in their manner. That’s the way Jesus behaved. John 1:14 describes Jesus as “full of grace and truth.”</p>

<p>Speaking the truth in love doesn’t guarantee a positive outcome. Sometimes the truth is offensive or hard to hear, and no amount of compassion can soften a hard heart. Even Jesus experienced rejection at times. In this case, though, it worked.</p>

<p>After LGBT community members of the local gay website heard what happened, many responded. One person wrote, “I want to hear more about this Jesus.”&nbsp;Another wrote, “Even I would be welcome there? It would be an honor to meet Scott Volk and Dr. Brown. I’m beginning to see light as very attractive.”</p>

<p>The protest organizer called Brown’s radio show the next day to publically apologize for the protest. He said, “Once we got there Sunday morning, we were greeted with absolutely perfect love. I mean, it was fantastic.”</p>

<p>That’s why my presentation on homosexuality is subtitled “Truth and Compassion.”&nbsp;It’s not just a clever title. It’s a specific strategy for how the body of Christ must move forward on this controversial topic. We must stand for the truth, yet speak it with compassion.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftruth-and-compassion-in-action" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftruth-and-compassion-in-action" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftruth-and-compassion-in-action" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Homosexuality to Holiness
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/03/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/homosexuality-to-holiness
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Our hope for homosexuals is not heterosexuality, but holiness. We’re not trying to make them straight, but lead them straight to Jesus.</em></p>

<p>When I teach on homosexuality, I’m often asked about how a believer can bring up the topic of homosexuality with a friend or family member who identifies as gay or lesbian. I’m always puzzled by this question. It assumes we’re supposed to go through life and try to figure out non-believers’&nbsp;sins and bring them up in conversation so they’ll consider stopping the prohibited behavior. But we can’t expect non-Christians to act like Christians. As my pastor often says, “Don’t put family rules on those outside the family.”</p>

<p>Our hope for homosexuals is not heterosexuality, but holiness. We’re not trying to make them straight, but lead them straight to Jesus. In almost every case where I’ve seen a man or woman with same-sex attraction abandon a life fulfilling homosexual desires, it was because they first committed their life to Christ. Then, with the Holy Spirit in their heart, they were transformed from the inside out and began to live obediently to the standard of Scripture.</p>

<p>That’s why my advice to believers is not to focus on behavior modification of non-Christians. That’s only a band aid. If you really want to say something about your convictions that is also relevant to them, tell them about Jesus Christ. Homosexual men and women who don’t know Christ, like any other non-Christian, need to hear the offer to be pardoned from their crimes against God. Only then can there be true healing.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhomosexuality-to-holiness" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhomosexuality-to-holiness" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhomosexuality-to-holiness" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Not All Judgment Is Wrong
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/16/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/not-all-judgment-is-wrong
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If you’ve been to Starbucks lately, you might have noticed a new campaign to lift the consciousness of caffeinated patrons. Quotes from intellectual and spiritual virtuosi now grace their talls, ventis, and grandes “to get people talking,”&nbsp;their website says.</p>

<p>Starbucks’&nbsp;moments of truth might become one of yours, a pretext for friendly, thoughtful conversation that might turn into a divine appointment of sorts.</p>

<p>Consider this contribution by popular author Deepak Chopra: “Attractive people judge neither themselves nor others.”&nbsp;In this Dr. Chopra seems to reflect the sentiments of Jesus (whom he admires) when He warned, “Do not judge, lest you be judged”&nbsp;(Matthew 7:1).</p>

<p>Jesus’&nbsp;comment, though, is almost universally misunderstood because of an inherent conflict in the condemnation of judging that goes unnoticed to almost everyone but Him.</p>

<p>Here’s the problem. Judgment always entails assessment. Is Chopra’s analysis an assessment? It seems to be. So is Jesus’. This raises a difficulty. Taken without qualification, the statement “You shouldn’t judge”&nbsp;is self-refuting, being itself an example of judgment.</p>

<p>Jesus qualified His comment, however, in a way that Chopra did not.</p>

<p>And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?... You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye (Matthew 7:3, 5).</p>

<p>Jesus did not condemn all judgments, only hypocritical ones—arrogant condemnations characterized by disdain and condescension. Not all judgments are of this sort. In fact, even in this passage Jesus actually enjoins a different kind of judgment once the hypocrisy has been dealt with (“first take the log out of your own eye, then...”).</p>

<p>There are two other kinds of judging in Scripture that are not condemned, but commanded. Some judgments are judicial, proper when done by proper authorities. Judges judge. They pass sentence. That’s their job. Church discipline is of this sort (Matthew 18:15-20, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, Galatians 6:1).</p>

<p>Jesus did not come initially for this kind of judgment—He offered mercy, not sentencing (John 3:17, 12:47)—but He will certainly return with this kind. Appointed by the Father as final judge (John 5:22, 27; Acts 10:42, 17:31), He will spare no one.</p>

<p>Other judgments are assessments—appraisals of right or wrong, wise or foolish, accurate or inaccurate, rational or irrational. This kind of judgment is not forbidden; it is commanded. Jesus’&nbsp;instructions “Do not give what is holy to dogs”&nbsp;(Matthew 7:6) require this kind of judgment (What is “holy”? Who are the “dogs”?). Peter reminds us to “be of sound judgment”&nbsp;since “the end of all things is at hand”&nbsp;(1 Peter 4:7).</p>

<p>Some assessments are moral. Paul commands this kind of judgment: “Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them”&nbsp;(Ephesians 5:11). This is to be done not “according to appearance,”&nbsp;but by “righteous”&nbsp;standards (John 7:24) according to Jesus, who chastised the Jews for their failures here: “And why do you not judge even on your own initiative what is right?”&nbsp;(Luke 12:57).</p>

<p>A judicial action, a factual assessment, a hypocritical arrogance—all are judgments. Only the third is disqualified by Jesus. The first two are actually virtues in their proper settings, and therefore commanded by Scripture.</p>

<p>Let me be clear on why all of this matters. The Christian message at its core entails a message of judgment. The “good news”&nbsp;of the Gospel is only good against the bad news of judgment. As ambassadors for Christ, we cannot avoid this.</p>

<p>Shallow aphorisms like Chopra’s&nbsp;“Attractive people judge neither themselves nor others”&nbsp;are wildly popular because they pander to a rebellious heart by promoting an indiscriminate tolerance. But they strike a blow at the very heart of the Gospel.</p>

<p>I have said many times, “The Gospel is offensive enough, don’t add any more offense to it; but we dare not remove the offense that is inherent to the Gospel.”</p>

<p>The Christian message starts with a judgment and it will end with a judgment for those who do not heed it. Jesus was hated, in part, because he testified of the world’s evil deeds (John 7:7). But it is never in bad taste to tell people the truth when the truth really matters. That’s what faithful ambassadors do, even over coffee at Starbucks.</p>

<p>And you’re not alone. We stand with you each and every month as you face challenges to the Christian message in the public square and seek to answer the faulty judgments that tear at the fabric of our world.</p>

<p>For the Kingdom,</p>

<p>Gregory Koukl</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnot-all-judgment-is-wrong" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnot-all-judgment-is-wrong" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnot-all-judgment-is-wrong" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Biased Constraint of Scientism
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/19/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-biased-constraint-of-scientism
content:
            <div> 
		<p>With his unique background as a detective, <a href="http://coldcasechristianity.com/" target="_blank">J. Warner Wallace</a> has been filling a hole in the field of apologetics by teaching people how to assess evidence. In your conversations with friends about Christianity, you’ll likely encounter misunderstandings as to <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/04/what-counts-as-evidence.html" target="_blank">what counts as evidence</a> and how much/what kind of evidence is needed in order to reach a reasonable conclusion.</p>

<p>Here’s what he has to say about the charge that Christians are too biased to fairly evaluate evidence:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If you’re like me, you have non-believing friends who claim that Christians are biased. They know that we, as Christians, believe in the existence of God, so they assume that we are unable to evaluate the evidence properly. Non-believers are convinced that Christians start out with a presupposition that clouds our judgment. In truth, however, many of our “rational”, “science based”&nbsp;friends are far more <a href="http://coldcasechristianity.com/?p=3538" target="_blank">constrained by their presuppositions</a>.</p>

<p>Remember that ALL of us have a point of view, but this does not necessarily mean we are unfairly biased. Bias has nothing to do with holding a viewpoint. Bias occurs when this viewpoint eliminates certain forms of evidence and evidential conclusions before we even begin the investigation. And while atheists may argue that Christians have this kind of bias, a quick examination of the culture’s reliance on science reveals that just the opposite is true. I bet you’ve heard a friend say something similar to: “I am a science and evidence person. Truth can only be determined empirically, and science is the only way to really know truth.”&nbsp;When people make statements like this, they may be revealing something more than a point of view; they may be exposing a rigid bias that is grounded in an over-reliance on science known as “scientism”...</p>

<p>[T]he Christian worldview has the ability to embrace natural explanations without rejecting the supernatural ones out of hand. An over-reliance on science (often described as “scientism”) causes us to reject anything supernatural before we even begin to investigate an explanation. Which of these two approaches is most prejudicial?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of his <a href="http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/the-dangers-of-scientism-and-an-over-reliance-on-science/" target="_blank">post</a>. (See also “<a href="http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/what-precisely-qualifies-as-evidence-everything/" target="_blank">What Qualifies As Evidence? Everything!</a>”)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-biased-constraint-of-scientism" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-biased-constraint-of-scientism" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-biased-constraint-of-scientism" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Advice on Becoming an Apologetics Speaker
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/07/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/advice-on-becoming-an-apologetics-speaker
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I often get asked for advice on becoming an apologetics speaker. Here’s how I respond (my answer assumes the person is already knowledgeable about apologetics—to <em>begin</em> learning, start <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/a-plan-to-begin-a-year-of-learning#.W5G7bJMzrdc" target="_blank">here</a> and consider enrolling in an online apologetics program like Biola’s <a href="http://www.biola.edu/academics/sas/apologetics/maca/distance/" target="_blank">master’s degree</a> or <a href="http://www.biola.edu/academics/sas/apologetics/certificate/" target="_blank">certificate program</a>):</p>

<ul>
	<li>Start seeking out opportunities at your church (in small groups, Sunday school classes, youth groups, etc.) to teach. This is a good way to begin getting some experience speaking. You can work on your skills and see if this is something you should pursue.</li>
	<li>Consider attending <a href="http://crossexamined.org/what-is-cia/" target="_blank">CrossExamined Instructor Academy</a> in North Carolina for a few days one summer (this year it’s happening on August 13-15). You’ll prepare presentations and then get evaluated by instructors like Brett, Greg, and J. Warner Wallace.</li>
	<li>For more help honing your speaking abilities, Greg has recommended <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Exceptional-Presenter-Proven-Formula-Open/dp/1929774443/ref=sr_1_1_twi_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1425596365&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+exceptional+presenter" target="_blank"><em>The Exceptional Presenter</em></a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Made-Stick-Ideas-Survive-Others/dp/1400064287/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1417734990&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=sticky+ideas" target="_blank"><em>Made to Stick</em></a>.</li>
	<li>J. Warner Wallace has a whole category on his website for “<a href="http://coldcasechristianity.com/category/writings/case-making-writings/" target="_blank">Christian Case Making</a>.”&nbsp;Go through what he has there (here’s one <a href="http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/three-simple-strategies-to-help-you-become-a-better-christian-case-maker/" target="_blank">example</a>), and you’ll find practical instructional material like “<a href="http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/three-simple-rules-for-apologetics-multimedia-presentations/" target="_blank">Three Simple Rules for Apologetics Multimedia Presentations</a>.”</li>
</ul>

<p>Jim has thought carefully through a lot of this, so if you’re in Southern California, you should consider attending a class at Biola that’s happening next weekend:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>March 13-14, 2015</p>

<p>A PROGRAM FOR DAILY APOLOGETICS IMPACT</p>

<p>Featuring J. Warner Wallace, MA</p>

<p>What exactly are you planning on doing with your all of your study in apologetics? This practical apologetics class will help you answer that question as you develop a strategy to establish and grow your cultural influence, find the place where you can contribute to the apologetics community on a regular basis, master your use of social media, and achieve realistic goals as a persuasive Christian communicator. J. Warner Wallace is a master of daily impactful apologetics activity and he will guide us through some key steps to help us all “ramp it up.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The cost for the class is $95. You can register <a href="http://www.biola.edu/academics/sas/apologetics/events/#JWWallace" target="_blank">here</a>. (I believe they’ve offered this class before, so if you miss it this time, <a href="https://www.biola.edu/apologetics/events" target="_blank">watch for it</a> in the future.)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fadvice-on-becoming-an-apologetics-speaker" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fadvice-on-becoming-an-apologetics-speaker" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fadvice-on-becoming-an-apologetics-speaker" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Are the Chick-fil-A Cows on to Something?
topic: Philosophy
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/08/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-the-chick-fil-a-cows-on-to-something-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Alan’s monthly letter for February 2015</em></p>

<p>“EAT MOR CHIKIN,”&nbsp;urge the Chick-fil-A cows on highway billboards. After all, they don’t want to be eaten. Maybe it is wrong to eat animals. Granted, they still advocate eating other animals (chickens) so maybe they’re not entirely consistent. But consistency might be too much to expect from cows.</p>

<p>Some advocates of veganism (<em>not</em> vegans who avoid meat for health reasons), however, are more extreme than our bovine friends. Not only do they claim eating animals is wrong, but they believe it’s a form of unjust discrimination known as speciesism. That is, according to veganism.com, “The devaluation of the interests of those who don’t belong to the human species.”&nbsp;These people believe sentient animals—those capable of emotion, pain, and pleasure—are deserving of the same right to not be eaten as humans. Chick-fil-A cows would agree.</p>

<p>I agree on one point. By eating meat we <em>are</em> discriminating—we are saying that eating animals is permissible. That’s because our culture has been influenced by Judeo-Christian values. This worldview teaches that God made humans in His image, making them more valuable than animals.</p>

<p>That’s not all it says, though. We are also stewards of creation, the environment, and animals. While using animals for food is permissible, abusing them is not.</p>

<p>Advocates of veganism that argue in the same vein as veganism.com sound neither Christian nor theist. Therein lies <em>their</em> problem. If there’s no God, there’s no way to justify caring about animals. Where would animal rights come from if God doesn’t exist? A right is a just claim to something. It doesn’t appear out of thin air. Without a transcendent rights giver, you can’t ground the claim that animals deserve to not be eaten.</p>

<p>The problem for veganists is even worse. Because they’re atheists, they also believe in naturalistic evolution. Evolution, however, teaches three things that are inconsistent with the claims of veganism. One, if evolution is true, there is no creator and animal life is accidental. Nothing endows animals with value. The same blind and random evolutionary process that led to the emergence of cows also led to ants, mosquitos, and cockroaches. Evolutionists can’t say that sentient animals are valuable just because they are sentient.</p>

<p>Two, evolution teaches that natural selection operates on all living things. That means the strong survive and the weak are eliminated (selected out). When weaker sentient animals are eaten by stronger humans, that’s not a problem. It’s just evolution doing its thing. That’s not consistent with the message of veganism, though, which says we should help weaker species survive even when they are not fit.</p>

<p>Three, according to evolutionists, morality is an illusion. That means there is no “should”&nbsp;or “ought”&nbsp;to justify the claims of veganism that humans <em>should</em> not eat animals and we <em>ought</em> not to discriminate against them.</p>

<p>According to atheism and evolution, then, you can’t justify the idea that it’s wrong to eat sentient animals. There are just some vegans out there <em>saying</em> you shouldn’t eat them.</p>

<p>It’s also worth noting the double standard. On the one hand, advocates of veganism claim that eating sentient animals is discriminatory. Their view, however, also discriminates against non-sentient animals like ants, mosquitos, and cockroaches. Why only protect <em>sentient</em> animals from consumption? Making sentience the determining quality is arbitrary.</p>

<p>Advocates of veganism, in the context of an atheistic worldview, are impotent to complain about carnivores. Their worldview is unable to instill value in sentient animals. Moreover, they can’t object on moral grounds because, on the atheistic/evolutionary worldview, morality is arbitrary at best and an illusion at worst.</p>

<p>The Christian worldview, however, puts humans and animals in right relation. Humans are more valuable than animals and so eating meat is permissible. We should still protect animals from unnecessary abuse, though, because humans are given the responsibility to be good stewards of creation. This belief, however, can only be justified biblically.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-the-chick-fil-a-cows-on-to-something-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-the-chick-fil-a-cows-on-to-something-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-the-chick-fil-a-cows-on-to-something-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: We Still Need the Old Answers
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/11/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/we-still-need-the-old-answers
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a <a href="http://edge.org/conversation/yuval_noah_harari-daniel_kahneman-death-is-optional" target="_blank">conversation on Edge.org</a>, historian Yuval Noah Harari discussed how society may change in the future due to advances in technology. He foresees a time of social change and unrest when the elite can afford advanced medicine (possibly even achieving eternal life on earth, he says) and the poor are left farther and farther behind. He compares his predicted social problems to the upheaval caused by the Industrial Revolution:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What is certain is that the old answers were irrelevant [in dealing with the results of the Industrial Revolution]. Today, everybody is talking about ISIS, and the Islamic fundamentalism, and the Christian revival, and things like that. There are new problems, and people go back to the ancient texts, and think that there is an answer in the Sharia, in the Qur’an, in the Bible. We also had the same thing in the 19th century. You had the Industrial Revolution. You had huge sociopolitical problems all over the world, as a result of industrialization, of modernization. You got lots of people thinking that the answer is in the Bible or in the Qur’an. You had religious movements all over the world...</p>

<p>Eventually, people came up with new ideas, not from the Sharia, and not from the Bible, and not from some vision. People studied industry, they studied coal mines, they studied electricity, they studied steam engines, railroads, they looked at how these developments transformed the economy and society, and they came up with some new ideas.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ross Douthat responded to Harari by making “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-the-case-for-old-ideas.html" target="_blank">The Case for Old Ideas</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>New ideas, rooted in scientific understanding, did help bring societies through the turbulence of industrialization. But the reformers who made the biggest differences—the ones who worked in the slums and with the displaced, attacked cruelties and pushed for social reforms, rebuilt community after it melted into air—often blended innovations with very old moral and religious commitments.</p>

<p>When technological progress helped entrench slavery, the religious radicalism of abolitionists helped destroy it. When industrial development rent the fabric of everyday life, religious awakenings helped reknit it. When history’s arc bent toward eugenics, religious humanists helped keep the idea of equality alive...</p>

<p>[T]he assumption, deeply ingrained in our intelligentsia, that everything depends on finding the most modern and “scientific”&nbsp;alternative to older verities has been tested repeatedly—with mostly dire results. The 19th-century theories that cast themselves as entirely new and modern were the ones that devastated the 20th century, loosing fascism and Marxism on the world.</p>

<p>Which makes Harari’s concluding provocation feel like an unintended warning: “In terms of ideas, in terms of religions,”&nbsp;he argues, “the most interesting place today in the world is Silicon Valley, not the Middle East.”&nbsp;It’s in Silicon Valley that people are “creating new religions”—techno-utopian, trans-humanist—and it’s those religions “that will take over the world.”</p>

<p>He could be right. But if those new ideas are anything like the ones that troubled the 20th century, we may find ourselves looking to older ones for rescue soon enough.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read all of <a href="http://edge.org/conversation/yuval_noah_harari-daniel_kahneman-death-is-optional" target="_blank">what Harari had to say</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-the-case-for-old-ideas.html" target="_blank">Douthat’s response</a>. (For a novelized version of a treatise against transhumanism, read C.S. Lewis’s&nbsp;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/That-Hideous-Strength-Space-Trilogy/dp/0743234928/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1425937594&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=that+hideous+strength" target="_blank"><em>That Hideous Strength</em></a>.)</p>

<p>I posted a quote <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/you-can%E2%80%99t-get-western-morality-from-science#.W6lmsBNKijQ" target="_blank">last week</a> from an atheist who warned that science can be used to promote a wide variety of values: “There is no more reason to think science can determine human values today than there was at the time of Haeckel or Huxley [who argued for eugenics based on science].”&nbsp;Anyone looking to technology to <em>lead</em> our society as a “new religion”&nbsp;will eventually find it can’t be counted on to create and uphold beliefs in intrinsic human value, universal human rights, or even compassion. By its very nature, <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/naturalists-still-view-science-prescriptive#.W6lm4RNKijQ" target="_blank">it’s not capable of that</a>.</p>

<p>Humanity is what it is. Read Shakespeare and you’ll find you can relate, even though he lacked your technology. Even if I didn’t think Christianity is true, it would still seem to me that wisdom about ethics and human flourishing is more likely to reside in the time-tested ideas that built thousands of years of civilization than in something brand new.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-still-need-the-old-answers" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-still-need-the-old-answers" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-still-need-the-old-answers" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Can a Socio-Cultural Revolution Be Reversed?
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/18/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-a-socio-cultural-revolution-be-reversed-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In an <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/539053/gay-marriage-racism-everyone-misses-about-inevitability-social-change?utm_content=buffera9725&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=buffer" target="_blank">article</a> in <em>The Week</em>, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry addresses the popular understanding “that social change driven by appeals to science and reason is (a) good and (b) irreversible.”</p>

<p>Gobry’s article was written in response to a question asked by his colleague: “Can you point to any socio-cultural revolution—in race, gender, and now sexual orientation—that’s ever been halted or reversed?”&nbsp;The rhetorical question was meant to be a statement about the inevitability of a permanent change in the definition of marriage, but Gobry <em>can</em> point to something:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Like other socio-cultural revolutions, it started out as a fringe idea and became mainstream seemingly overnight...</p>

<p>Like other socio-cultural revolutions, it draped itself under scientific accoutrements...</p>

<p>Like other socio-cultural revolutions, it advanced under the banner of moral progress...</p>

<p>Like other socio-cultural revolutions, some Christians jumped on the bandwagon, and those who stuck to traditional teachings were branded as backward fundamentalists...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What cultural phenomenon is he talking about? Racism. As it turns out, the <em>advancing</em> of racism has more in common with the current marriage revolution than does the <em>ending</em> of racism (see more on that topic <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/10/race-sex-and-marriage.html" target="_blank">here</a>). And that revolutionary advance was neither good nor irreversible, as time has proved. Read the whole article “<a href="http://theweek.com/articles/539053/gay-marriage-racism-everyone-misses-about-inevitability-social-change?utm_content=buffera9725&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=buffer" target="_blank">Gay marriage, racism, and what everyone misses about the inevitability of social change</a>”&nbsp;for more details on each of the above points. Here’s his conclusion:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The conventional wisdom sees our civilization’s still-incomplete turn away from racism over the past 50 years as the cornerstone case for the inevitability, goodness, and irreversibility of socio-cultural revolution. In fact, it was not a “socio-cultural revolution”; it was the halting and reversing of a socio-cultural revolution.</p>

<p>Can we draw any lessons from this? Well, that’s risky business. But one potential lesson is that while socio-cultural revolutions are reversible, they take a long time to play out—150 years in this case.</p>

<p>In any case, it turns out, not all social change is irreversible, and some social changes are good, but others are bad. And maybe, just maybe, history is on the side of orthodox Christians after all.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It may take a long time, but because marriage existed before politics, politics won’t be able to force it into a new, artificial shape forever. The truth of what it is, why it exists, and why it’s necessary for a functioning society will eventually prevail. Not before <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/01/understand-the-same-sex-marriage-issue.html" target="_blank">damage</a> is done, but eventually.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-a-socio-cultural-revolution-be-reversed-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-a-socio-cultural-revolution-be-reversed-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-a-socio-cultural-revolution-be-reversed-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Misquoting God Part 2
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/02/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/misquoting-god-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p><a href="http://www.str.org/publications/misquoting-god-solid-ground-january-2015#.V82Y-aOZORs">Read part 1</a></p>

<p>I would like to rescue you from a mistake virtually every Christian makes now and then when they go to the Bible that prevents you from knowing what God is saying to you personally in His Word. You may not thank me, though, because some of what I have to say will probably irritate you.</p>

<p>In the last issue of <em>Solid Ground</em>,<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> I explained why the question “How does <em>this verse</em> apply to my life?”&nbsp;is often the wrong one to ask when studying Scripture. The reason is that, in most cases, God did not give verses of the Bible as discrete, individual pieces of information which on their own—isolated from the larger narrative—are to meant be applied piecemeal to our lives.</p>

<p>Instead, there is a flow of thought tied to—and therefore critical to—the meaning of each part. “Going with the flow”&nbsp;of the broader passage is key to accurately determining how the text’s particulars apply to our individual lives. That “flow”&nbsp;includes not just the paragraph, the chapter, or even an entire book, but sometimes also involves (as we’ll see later) where the writing is positioned in the flow of history—the flow of the biblical storyline—as God’s promises and purposes are worked out through Israel, and later through the church.</p>

<p>If you miss this flow of thought, you’ll likely miss the meaning. If you miss the meaning, you’ll miss what God is actually saying in the text. If you miss that, well, you’ve missed everything. Worse, you might be doing yourself and others harm by passing on as God’s lesson something He had nothing to do with.</p>

<p>Sometimes this concept is better caught than taught, so let’s explore a few examples to make the point clearer.</p>

<h2>A Thousand-Year Day</h2>

<p>On occasion in the age of the Earth controversy, proponents of an ancient universe press into service a verse from 2 Peter to bolster their view that Genesis 1 allows for a long passage of time. Their reason: “...with the Lord one day is like a thousand years...”&nbsp;(2 Pet. 3:8). Days don’t always mean days, they conclude. They could mean millennia.</p>

<p>Regardless of the validity of that particular point regarding the use of the word “day,”&nbsp;this is not what Peter had in mind. He gives a simple simile: “a day is <em>like</em> a thousand years.”&nbsp;He then reverses himself (a point often missed in this discussion), “...and a thousand years <em>like</em> one day.”&nbsp;Why the turnaround?</p>

<p>A closer look at Peter’s flow of thought (v. 3-8) clears up the confusion. In the last days, he says, mockers will come challenging the promise of Christ’s return (v. 3-4). Nothing’s happened for so long, they maintain, nothing’s <em>ever</em> going to happen.</p>

<p>Peter reminds them that dramatic interventions by God <em>have</em> taken place, and there’s more to come. God’s plan is surely unfolding, <em>but at His pace</em> (v. 5-7). Peter’s apparently conflicting statements are meant to instruct us that God’s personal <em>experience</em> of time is nothing like ours. Ask a child to wait a week for something special and it seems like an eternity, but for adults “the years fly by.”</p>

<p>Peter is not giving any instruction on calculating time here. Rather, he’s reminding us that the psychological <em>sense</em> of time’s beat is subjective. He’s warning us not to be seduced by the <em>feeling</em> of tardiness. The passage of a day or even a thousand years is nothing <em>to God</em> (v. 8). To us He may seem slow—“as <em>some</em> [humans] count slowness.”&nbsp;For God, though, there is no sluggishness, only patience. He is slow to visit wrath, but He is quick to extend mercy (v. 9).</p>

<h2>Making Metaphors</h2>

<p>These next passages are pastors’&nbsp;favorites since they make popular fodder for sermons. Jesus stills the storm. Peter walks (momentarily) on water. We find a record of the tempest in Matt. 8:23-27, Mk. 4:36-41, and Lk. 8:22-25, and of Peter’s attempt in Matt. 14:30-33. The sermon take-away: Jesus can “still the storms”&nbsp;in your life. “Keep your eyes on Jesus”&nbsp;and you won’t “sink.”</p>

<p>Notice the temptation when teaching from the Gospels (or any narrative, for that matter) to make metaphors of historical events in the text that, as it turns out, were included in the account to make entirely different points.</p>

<p>Certainly, if Jesus can command the forces of nature He is fully <em>capable</em> of quieting the tempests in our lives. That doesn’t mean He <em>will</em>, of course. He might, rather, walk us <em>through</em> them—which is more often the case in actual practice. (As one of my early mentors pointed out, Jesus is not the bridge <em>over</em> troubled waters, but He can pull you <em>through</em> the troubled waters if you can stand the tow.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup>)</p>

<p>Regardless, Jesus’&nbsp;help in time of trial is not why this account is in the narrative. At best that’s a secondary—and therefore less important—application. The writers were making a different point. Why did the inspired authors include this event in the record? What conclusions did <em>they</em> want us to draw from it?</p>

<p>In this case, there’s no mystery since the account itself provides the answer—easy to see if you follow the flow. Note the authors’&nbsp;virtually identical application at the end of each version: “They were fearful and amazed, saying to one another, ’<em>Who then is this,</em> that He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey Him?<i>’”</i>&nbsp;(Lk. 8:25)<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> and “Those who were in the boat <em>worshiped</em> Him, saying, ’<em>You are certainly God’s Son</em>!’”&nbsp;(Matt. 14:32-33).</p>

<p>When Jesus works these wonders, the authors do not reduce the events to metaphors. They offer no counsel about keeping our eyes on Jesus who will quell the conflicts in our lives. They include these events not so much to comfort us with Jesus’&nbsp;<em>capabilities</em> as to instruct us on Jesus’&nbsp;<em>identity</em>. This is about Him, not us, about the person of Christ, not our personal woes.</p>

<p>Clearly, there is a lesson about trust in the midst of difficulties in these accounts (weak faith is upbraided in each of them), but that instruction is grounded in a more central point: We are in the care of the very Master of the universe. We are safe because Jesus is God.</p>

<p>Do not make metaphors out of historical events in the text. Do not make a secondary application into the primary one and miss the very point the original writers were making in the first place. Instead ask, “What does the <em>writer</em> mean to communicate by including this event in his account? What is <em>his</em> point?”&nbsp;Then look to the flow for the answer and draw your lessons from that.</p>

<h2>Everything’s Good</h2>

<p>One of the most magnificent promises in the Bible is one that’s almost universally misunderstood, at least in part. It’s Roman’s 8:28, loosely quoted, “All things work for good.”</p>

<p>The fact is, though, all things don’t work out “good.”&nbsp;Some things work out very bad, even for Christians. This can be incredibly disheartening when Romans 8:28 is your fallback verse in hard times, yet conditions don’t appear to improve.</p>

<p>The problem is not in the promise, but in people’s reading of the promise. First, the passage: “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose”&nbsp;(Rom. 8:28).</p>

<p>Notice first there are confidence phrases in this promise and there’s a qualifier. “We <em>know</em>,”&nbsp;“God <em>causes</em>,”&nbsp;and “<em>all</em> things”&nbsp;are the confidence builders. Some readers miss the qualifier, though: “to those <em>who love God</em>, to those who are <em>called according to His purpose</em>.”</p>

<p>Everything doesn’t work out well for everyone. For the individuals afflicted by it, most of the world’s misery is wasted. Only the one who loves God—the genuine Christian, in Paul’s meaning (“called according to His purpose”)—can rest on Paul’s assurance.</p>

<p>Even so, a gnawing doubt remains: “But don’t good, godly, faithful Christians often find themselves enduring intractable difficulties that some grapple with even to their graves? Where’s the ’good’&nbsp;in that? Whatever happened to ’God doesn’t close a door, but He opens up a window’?”</p>

<p>Here’s the problem. We often take “work together for good”&nbsp;to mean that whatever loss we suffer in life will be repaid with interest later on in life. We suffer relational heartbreak, only to later marry a much more suitable person than the one we lost. Romans 8:28. We lose our job, only to secure a more lucrative position down the line. Romans 8:28.</p>

<p>And sometimes that happens. Testimonies abound. But that’s not what this verse promises. Paul has something entirely different in mind. You’ll find it when you follow the flow to the next verse: “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined <em>to become conformed to the image of His Son”</em>&nbsp;(Rom. 8:29).</p>

<p>When hard times assault us, we claim Romans 8:28 with one “good”&nbsp;in mind, yet God has an different “good”&nbsp;in store: For the committed Christian, God pledges to use every hardship, disappointment, trouble, or affliction <em>to make us more like Jesus</em>—“conformed to the image of His Son.”</p>

<p>Maybe you lose the girl and then remain single—like Jesus—the rest of your life. Maybe your stock options fall through and you remain poor—like Jesus—the rest of your life. Maybe you’re convicted of a crime you did not commit and you suffer unjustly—like Jesus—the rest of your life.</p>

<p>God’s promise: None of it will be wasted. That is the assurance of Romans 8:28-29. And that is as “good”&nbsp;as it can get—becoming like Jesus. Nothing better.</p>

<h2>Two or Three Gathering</h2>

<p>This next passage is usually cited to build confidence for group prayer. “Jesus is right here with us,”&nbsp;we’re told, “since after all, ’Where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst’&nbsp;(Matt. 18:20).”</p>

<p>I have often wondered if anyone using the verse this way ever asked themselves where Jesus was when they were praying alone in private, or when the group consisted of four or more. <sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> No, something else is going on here. Once again, the flow tells the story.</p>

<p>The preposition “for”&nbsp;at the beginning of our verse (often dropped when recited, as above) is our first clue this sentence does not stand alone, but is a concluding statement at the end of a line of reasoning. It alerts us to the verse before it that starts with the word “again,”&nbsp;alerting us to go back further still. When we do, we discover that the concept of “two or three”&nbsp;is repeated multiple times in the section, a notion Jesus lifts from Deut. 19:15.</p>

<p>The flow reveals that verses 15-20 form a unit instructing in church discipline that’s sandwiched between two other lessons on repentance, forgiveness, and restoration.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> Jesus’&nbsp;lesson is governed by a common-sense notion from the Law, “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed”&nbsp;(v. 16), technical legal language requiring multiple attestation to affirm a charge of misconduct.</p>

<p>Here is Jesus’&nbsp;point in verse 20: When the church follows the specific procedure He outlines to resolve the issue of sin in the Christian community, then the leadership can rest assured He is “with them”&nbsp;in their decision. Indeed, Jesus is “there in their midst”&nbsp;conferring His authority to the process. It’s a promise of divine sanction of a procedure, not divine presence in group prayer.</p>

<p>Ironically, plenty of groups cite this promise to assure themselves of Jesus’&nbsp;presence in prayer, while precious few apply the lesson of church discipline that Jesus had in mind in the first place.</p>

<h2>Prosperity, Welfare, and Hope</h2>

<p>Our next passage is among the most cherished passages in Scripture of late, yet is also the most abused. Jeremiah 29:11 simply reads, “’For I know the plans that I have for you,’&nbsp;declares the Lord, ’plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.’”</p>

<p>This verse shows up everywhere—on bookmarks, bumper stickers, posters, graduation cards, signature lines in emails, even cross-stitched onto pillows—cited as God’s personal promise to every believer who finds himself in severe straits.</p>

<p>Here’s our question: Is this a proper Christian promise? We deal with that question like we’ve dealt with the rest—by going with the flow. In this case, though, the flow takes us beyond the verse, beyond the chapter, and even beyond the book of Jeremiah itself.</p>

<p>To get started, let’s look at the entire promise, not just that portion commonly quoted.</p>

<p>“When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place. For I know the plans that I have for you,”&nbsp;declares the Lord, “plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you,”&nbsp;declares the Lord, “and I will restore your fortunes and will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you,”&nbsp;declares the Lord, “and I will bring you back to the place from where I sent you into exile”&nbsp;(Jer. 29:10-14).</p>

<p>Notice that this promise is directed to a specific group of people (“I will visit <em>you”</em>) in a peculiar set of circumstances (Babylonian exile), details already provided in the opening verse of the chapter:</p>

<p>Now these are the words of the letter which Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the rest of the elders of the exile, the priests, the prophets and all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon&nbsp;(29:1).</p>

<p>Follow the flow and you’ll discover more boundaries the author places on the promise. Verses 2-7 show God’s intention to limit the promise to a precise set of circumstances in Judah’s history. Verse 10 identifies the exact time of the promise’s fulfillment (“When seventy years have been completed”). And verse 14 gives the specific content of the “plans for welfare”&nbsp;and the “future... hope”&nbsp;(“I will restore your fortunes and will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you”).</p>

<p>In Jeremiah 29, then, God does not confer a nebulous, generalized promise of prosperity for any believer in any age. Indeed, the New Testament theology of suffering guarantees just the opposite for us.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> Instead, God gives a <em>specific</em> assurance of <em>particular</em> benefit to a <em>distinct</em> group of people at a <em>precise</em> time. This is exactly how Daniel understood Jeremiah 70 years later when he read this passage, then humbled himself in confession and repentance on behalf of the nation to trigger the pledged restoration (Dan. 9:1ff).</p>

<p>More problematic for the one tempted to individualize Jeremiah’s promise for himself, not even the letter’s recipients could do that. Jeremiah’s word was not for those <em>individual</em> captives—the elders, the priests, the prophets, the people—since virtually none would be alive long enough to cash it in. It was a promise of future welfare for the <em>nation</em>, not of prosperity for any particular <em>person</em>.</p>

<p>There’s something else I want you to notice: two predictions in this chapter for God’s people, not just one. The first is the familiar one, the encouraging promise of restoration, welfare, a future, and a hope. The second also gives an assurance, but of an entirely different kind:</p>

<p>Behold, I am sending upon them the sword, famine and pestilence, and I will make them like split-open figs that cannot be eaten due to rottenness. I will pursue them with the sword, with famine and with pestilence, and I will make them a terror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse and a horror and a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations where I have driven them&nbsp;(Jer. 29:17-18).<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>Who wants to stitch <em>that</em> on a pillow? The “them”&nbsp;of this ominous word are also Jews—the ones who refused to obey Jeremiah and join those in exile, but instead followed the lead of the false prophets and stayed in Jerusalem.</p>

<p>Jeremiah 29, then, records two distinct and opposite plans for God’s people: one for welfare and not calamity, the other for calamity and not welfare. For those looking for personal promises in this passage, which of these two applies to them? Fortunately, this passage does not predict calamity for you or me. But neither does it predict welfare. Both predictions in this passage are for the tribe of Judah and for Judah alone.</p>

<p>There’s one final “flow”&nbsp;you must not miss governing the meaning of this chapter: the larger flow of God’s covenantal dealings with Israel. It’s right there at the beginning of the promise, but you might have missed it:</p>

<p>When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, <em>I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place</em>. For I know the plans that I have for you...</p>

<p>Sounds a bit like these plans God has in mind are actually designs He’s mentioned before—not something new, but a reaffirmation of a prior promise. As it turns out, it is.</p>

<p>Keep in mind there are two covenants in play here at this point in history with the Jews. The first is the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3) where God promises protection for Abraham’s seed who will ultimately bring blessing to all the nations of the earth.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> The second is the conditional Mosaic Covenant (Leviticus, Deuteronomy) promising prosperity for obedience and cursing for disobedience.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>Jeremiah is writing to warn a nation in disobedience that they are about to suffer the consequences previously promised (Mosaic Covenant), but also to remind God’s people of His pledge of ultimate restoration (Abrahamic covenant).<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> Both blessing <em>and</em> cursing are in store for Jeremiah’s audience, then, precisely what God promised nearly a thousand years before:</p>

<p>So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, <em>the blessing and the curse</em> which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the Lord your God has banished you, <em>and you return to the Lord your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul</em> according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, <em>then the Lord your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you</em>&nbsp;(Deut. 30:1-3).</p>

<p>Notice the highlighted phrases that almost word for word repeat what we find in the promise of Jer. 29:12-14.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> There’s really nothing new here. God simply reaffirms His covenant faithfulness to His chosen people during a time of extreme chastisement. There are short-term plans for discipline, but long-term plans for prosperity. Both are completely consistent with the covenants God had already pledged for Israel.</p>

<p>Neither plan has anything directly to do with New Testament Christians. The church must take its promises from other passages.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<h2>WDJD—What Did Jesus Do?</h2>

<p>When Jesus confronted the Sadducees on the question of resurrection, what did Jesus do? Jesus corrected them: “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures”&nbsp;(Matt. 22:29).</p>

<p>Two things are immediately obvious from this statement. First, in Jesus’&nbsp;mind there were right and wrong answers to theological questions, and in this case the Sadducees got it wrong. Second, they faltered, in part, because they did not understand the text.</p>

<p>God promises His Word will not return void, that is, it will succeed in the matter <em>for which He sent it</em> (Is. 55:11). If you use God’s words in a way other than what God intended, though, it will do you no good. <em>Your</em> efforts <em>will</em> return void. Instead, follow the flow and you’ll be much less likely to miss the powerful things God is saying to you personally in His Word.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Find it at http://www.str.org/publications/misquoting-god-solid-ground-january-2015#.V82Y-aOZORs <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">I owe this insight to Tom Brewer. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Cf. Mark 4:41, Matt. 8:27. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Of course, Jesus <em>is</em> with us whenever we pray, wherever we pray, but that’s not what this passage is about. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Cf. v. 12-14 and v. 21-35. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">The NT is filled with references, but for starters read through 1 Peter, especially 1:6-7, 2:19-21, 4:1, 4:12-19, and 5:8-10. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Verses 15-32 give the entire prophecy. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;���</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">A promise fulfilled in its ultimate sense through Jesus and the New Covenant. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Find those details in Deut. 28-30. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Find the covenantal promise of the land in Gen. 15:18-21. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">See also Deut. 4:24-31. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">E.g., “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you”&nbsp;(Heb. 13:5), etc. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmisquoting-god-part-2" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmisquoting-god-part-2" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmisquoting-god-part-2" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Tim Keller Started to Pray
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/06/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-tim-keller-started-to-pray
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been reading Tim Keller’s new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Experiencing-Awe-Intimacy-God-ebook/dp/B00INIXGIO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1423269397&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=prayer" target="_blank"><em>Prayer: Experiencing Awe and Intimacy with God</em></a>. There was a time in my life when I loved and looked forward to prayer. I’m not sure how it happened, but I drifted away from it, and now, as the struggles of life have made me increasingly aware of my need and my dependence on God, I’ve been trying to rekindle that habit. What a difference communion with God through prayer makes! I’ve known this to be true, both intellectually and experientially, yet I still let my prayer life falter.</p>

<p>In his book, Keller gives a wonderfully motivating illustration of how we should view prayer:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In the second half of my adult life, I discovered prayer. I had to.</p>

<p>In the fall of 1999, I taught a Bible study course on the Psalms. It became clear to me that I was barely scratching the surface of what the Bible commanded and promised regarding prayer. Then came the dark weeks in New York after 9/11, when our whole city sank into a kind of corporate clinical depression, even as it rallied. For my family the shadow was intensified as my wife, Kathy, struggled with the effects of Crohn’s disease. Finally, I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer.</p>

<p>At one point during all this, my wife urged me to do something with her we had never been able to muster the self-discipline to do regularly. She asked me to pray with her every night. <em>Every</em> night. She used an illustration that crystallized her feelings very well. As we remember it, she said something like this:</p>

<p>Imagine you were diagnosed with such a lethal condition that the doctor told you that you would die within hours unless you took a particular medicine—a pill every night before going to sleep. Imagine that you were told that you could never miss it or you would die. Would you forget? Would you not get around to it some nights? No—it would be so crucial that you wouldn’t forget, you would never miss. Well, if we don’t pray together to God, we’re not going to make it because of all we are facing. I’m certainly not. We <em>have</em> to pray, we can’t let it just slip our minds.</p>

<p>Maybe it was the power of the illustration, maybe it was just the right moment, maybe it was the Spirit of God. Or, most likely of all, it was the Spirit of God using the moment and the clarity of the metaphor. For both of us the penny dropped; we realized the seriousness of the issue, and we admitted that anything that was truly a nonnegotiable necessity was something we could do.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I included Keller’s description of his difficulties at the beginning of that excerpt, but I hesitated to do so. None of us should think we’re in any less dire circumstances just because we don’t have cancer or didn’t go through a terrorist attack. Mundane, ordinary lives are just as in need of the Holy Spirit’s work as anyone with unusual suffering. We need God. Our souls are empty and hungry without Him. Don’t starve yourself!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-tim-keller-started-to-pray" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-tim-keller-started-to-pray" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-tim-keller-started-to-pray" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: About Those Crusades…
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/07/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/about-those-crusades-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Since the Crusades are back in the news, these excerpts from a 2005 <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CB4QFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianitytoday.com%2Fct%2F2005%2Fmayweb-only%2F52.0.html&amp;ei=ZG7WVNnGJcvloAS5j4KACA&amp;usg=AFQjCNHlRh8Hb4pUq-lSxkxMEDcm0rV-6A&amp;sig2=bsPfNij-pokfWfpmu09pjQ&amp;bvm=bv.85464276,d.cGU" target="_blank">article</a> by Crusade historian Thomas F. Madden will help you brush up on the basics:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.</p>

<p>Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them... When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.</p>

<p>With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.</p>

<p>That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Madden says there were two central goals of the Crusades:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:</p>

<p>How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them?... Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?</p>

<p>“Crusading,”&nbsp;Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an “an act of love”—in this case, the love of one’s neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, “You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ’Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’”</p>

<p>The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ...</p>

<p>It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth... Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Obviously, there are more complexities involved, so read the rest of Madden’s <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CB4QFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianitytoday.com%2Fct%2F2005%2Fmayweb-only%2F52.0.html&amp;ei=ZG7WVNnGJcvloAS5j4KACA&amp;usg=AFQjCNHlRh8Hb4pUq-lSxkxMEDcm0rV-6A&amp;sig2=bsPfNij-pokfWfpmu09pjQ&amp;bvm=bv.85464276,d.cGU" target="_blank">article</a> for more.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabout-those-crusades-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabout-those-crusades-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabout-those-crusades-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: “Love Is Love” Isn’t Enough
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/06/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/-love-is-love-isn-t-enough
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>[Warning: The content linked below from established news sources promotes different kinds of love, and you will find it disturbing.]</em></p>

<p><a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/galloping-toward-gomorrah-new-york-bestiality/" target="_blank">Love is love.</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23726120" target="_blank">Love is love.</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/01/15/a_woman_describes_her_sexual_relationship_with_her_estranged_father/?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=socialflow" target="_blank">Love is love.</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11119062/Incest-a-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html" target="_blank">Love is love.</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light" target="_blank">Love is love.</a></p>

<p><a href="http://nypost.com/2015/02/27/thai-throuple-believed-to-be-worlds-first-gay-married-trio/" target="_blank">Love is love.</a></p>

<p>Be careful about the arguments you make for same-sex marriage. You may be <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/where-s-the-marriage-equality-for-throuples#.WbHM4tN94Xo" target="_blank">arguing for more than you bargained for</a>. “Love is love”&nbsp;has no <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/inconsistent-same-sex-marriage-advocates#.WbN_nNN94Xo" target="_blank">principled way</a> to exclude from public endorsement the types of relationships you think ought to be excluded. “Love is love”&nbsp;isn’t enough.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-love-is-love-isn-t-enough" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-love-is-love-isn-t-enough" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-love-is-love-isn-t-enough" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: You Can’t Get Western Morality from Science
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/05/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/you-can-t-get-western-morality-from-science
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Atheist John Gray <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists" target="_blank">argues in the Guardian</a> that atheists who think science alone can support their preferred system of morality are fooling themselves:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It’s probably just as well that the current generation of atheists seems to know so little of the longer history of atheist movements. When they assert that science can bridge fact and value, they overlook the many incompatible value-systems that have been defended in this way. There is no more reason to think science can determine human values today than there was at the time of Haeckel or Huxley [who argued for eugenics based on science]. None of the divergent values that atheists have from time to time promoted has any essential connection with atheism, or with science. How could any increase in scientific knowledge validate values such as human equality and personal autonomy? The source of these values is not science. In fact, as the most widely-read atheist thinker of all time argued, these quintessential liberal values have their origins in monotheism...</p>

<p>It’s impossible to read much contemporary polemic against religion without the impression that for the “new atheists”&nbsp;the world would be a better place if Jewish and Christian monotheism had never existed. If only the world wasn’t plagued by these troublesome God-botherers, they are always lamenting, liberal values would be so much more secure. Awkwardly for these atheists, Nietzsche understood that modern liberalism was a secular incarnation of these religious traditions...</p>

<p>To be sure, evangelical unbelievers adamantly deny that liberalism needs any support from theism... Canonical liberal thinkers such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant may have been steeped in theism; but ideas are not falsified because they originate in errors. The far-reaching claims these thinkers have made for liberal values can be detached from their theistic beginnings; a liberal morality that applies to all human beings can be formulated without any mention of religion. Or so we are continually being told. The trouble is that it’s hard to make any sense of the idea of a universal morality without invoking an understanding of what it is to be human that has been borrowed from theism. The belief that the human species is a moral agent struggling to realise its inherent possibilities—the narrative of redemption that sustains secular humanists everywhere—is a hollowed-out version of a theistic myth. The idea that the human species is striving to achieve any purpose or goal—a universal state of freedom or justice, say—presupposes a pre-Darwinian, teleological way of thinking that has no place in science. Empirically speaking, there is no such collective human agent, only different human beings with conflicting goals and values. If you think of morality in scientific terms, as part of the behaviour of the human animal, you find that humans don’t live according to iterations of a single universal code. Instead, they have fashioned many ways of life. A plurality of moralities is as natural for the human animal as the variety of languages.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As Gray says, “It’s not that atheists can’t be moral—the subject of so many mawkish debates. The question is which morality an atheist should serve.”&nbsp;And <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/08/utilitarian-atheists-arent-just-as-moral-theyre-differently-moral.html" target="_blank">that is the problem</a>. Too many atheists still don’t understand the <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/atheism-and-universal-human-rights.html" target="_blank">extent</a> to which their moral <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/01/intrinsic-human-value-has-to-be-taught.html" target="_blank">views</a> are <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/07/no-stable-rights-without-intrinsic-human-value.html" target="_blank">influenced</a> by theism, and therefore they still don’t understand the consequences of banishing that theism.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-can-t-get-western-morality-from-science" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-can-t-get-western-morality-from-science" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-can-t-get-western-morality-from-science" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Object to the Procedure, Not the Patient
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/27/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/object-to-the-procedure-not-the-patient
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A doctor in Michigan wrongly <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/18/doctor-discrimination-baby/23642091/" target="_blank">refused</a> to take a lesbian couple’s baby as a patient. This is simply a misunderstanding and misapplication of the conscience rights people have been fighting for. No one should be forced to participate in <em>procedures</em> or <em>events</em> one objects to, but it’s a different matter to refuse to treat or serve someone because one objects to him or her personally.</p>

<p>The doctor’s stated reasoning for rejecting the patient was this: “After much prayer following your prenatal (visit), I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients.”&nbsp;Either this doctor did not think carefully through this situation (not understanding the distinction between objecting to <em>procedures</em> and objecting to <em>patients</em>, thinking it would go against her conscience to serve lesbians), or she was basing this decision on her expected inability to connect with the parents because they’re lesbians.</p>

<p>If the second is the case, what a lost opportunity as a Christian! As ambassadors of Christ, it’s our honor to serve people in love, thereby demonstrating to others the mercy Christ showed us. How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear if we don’t allow them in our presence?</p>

<p>If the first is the case, we need to do a better job of informing people’s consciences. There’s a world of difference between not participating in a lesbian wedding by providing the flowers and not selling flowers to someone because she’s a lesbian. There’s a problem with gay activists blurring this distinction; let’s not add to this problem by making the same mistake.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/414253/md-wrong-refuse-lesbians-baby-care-wesley-j-smith" target="_blank">In response to this story</a>, Wesley J. Smith reposted some medical conscience guidelines he created to help people evaluate situations such as this one:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>- Except in rare and compelling circumstances in which a patient’s life is at stake, no medical professional should be compelled to perform or participate in procedures or treatments that take human life.</p>

<p>- The rights of conscience should apply most strongly in elective procedures, that is, medical treatments not required to extend the life of, or prevent serious harm to, the patient.</p>

<p>- It should be the procedure that is objectionable, not the patient. In this way, for example, physicians could not refuse to treat a lung-cancer patient because the patient smoked or to maintain the life of a patient in a vegetative state because the physician believed that people with profound impairments do not have a life worth living.</p>

<p>- No medical professional should ever be forced to participate in a medical procedure intended primarily to facilitate the patient’s lifestyle preferences or desires (in contrast to maintaining life or treating a disease or injury).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You can read the rest of his proposed guidelines <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/12/pulling-the-plug-on-the-conscience-clause" target="_blank">here</a>. As he <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/414253/md-wrong-refuse-lesbians-baby-care-wesley-j-smith" target="_blank">says</a> of this pediatrician story, “[T]his isn’t an example of the kind of case in which conscience protections should apply.”</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fobject-to-the-procedure-not-the-patient" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fobject-to-the-procedure-not-the-patient" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fobject-to-the-procedure-not-the-patient" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Eye “Is Optimized for Our Vision Purposes”
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/04/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-eye-is-optimized-for-our-vision-purposes-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We’ve posted before about the problem of atheists declaring that the design of this or that body part is sub-optimal (and therefore, isn’t designed). Electrical engineer Bill Pratt <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/01/sub-optimal-design.html" target="_blank">explained</a> it this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Over the years, I have often heard young engineers, who did not design a particular [integrated circuit], criticize the design of that IC by saying it is sub-optimal, that they could do a better job. I have then seen these same engineers eat crow when they finally talk to the original designer and discover the <em>constraints</em> that original engineer was under when he designed the IC and the <em>purposes</em> for which he designed the IC.</p>

<p>It is <em>impossible</em> to judge a design as optimal or sub-optimal without knowing the <em>purposes of the designer</em> and without knowing the <em>constraints</em> the designer faced during the design.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Now an article posted on Science Daily reports that the “<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150227131018.htm" target="_blank">mystery of the reverse-wired eyeball</a>”&nbsp;(a problem <a href="https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/new-study-scientists-discover-that-inverted-retina-blind-spot-is-not-a-bad-design/?utm_content=buffer6ddb2&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=buffer" target="_blank">cited by atheists such as Richard Dawkins</a> as being evidence of poor “design”) is “solved”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>From a practical standpoint, the wiring of the human eye—a product of our evolutionary baggage—doesn’t make a lot of sense. In vertebrates, photoreceptors are located behind the neurons in the back of the eye—resulting in light scattering by the nervous fibers and blurring of our vision. Recently, researchers at the Technion—Israel Institute of Technology have confirmed the biological purpose for this seemingly counter-intuitive setup.</p>

<p>“The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today,”&nbsp;said Erez Ribak, a professor at the Technion—Israel Institute of Technology. “Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes”...</p>

<p>Previous experiments with mice had suggested that Müller glia cells, a type of metabolic cell that crosses the retina, play an essential role in guiding and focusing light scattered throughout the retina. To test this, Ribak and his colleagues ran computer simulations and in-vitro experiments in a mouse model to determine whether colors would be concentrated in these metabolic cells. They then used confocal microscopy to produce three-dimensional views of the retinal tissue, and found that the cells were indeed concentrating light into the photoreceptors.</p>

<p>“For the first time, we’ve explained why the retina is built backwards, with the neurons in front of the photoreceptors, rather than behind them,”&nbsp;Ribak said.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s funny how the writer refers to the “biological purpose”&nbsp;of this “evolutionary baggage.”&nbsp;There is no such thing as “purpose”&nbsp;in “evolutionary baggage”—there’s only what happens to survive. And yet, looking at things such as the eye, this science writer can’t help but use the word.</p>

<p>It’s also funny he would refer to the “mystery of the reverse-wired eyeball,”&nbsp;as if we should have assumed there was a secret to discover about <em>why</em> the eye is the way it is—why it <em>ought</em> to be the way it is. Why should anyone assume there’s a mystery to be solved here—that there’s a purpose waiting to be discovered, explaining why this setup actually is optimal? There’s no reason to assume the structure is optimal if it’s the result of random events (it certainly isn’t “built”), so there’s no “mystery.”&nbsp;Calling the structure of the eye a “mystery”&nbsp;would require an assumption of purpose and optimal design, and that’s not an assumption that can be supported by unguided evolution. Why use this kind of language?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(HT: <a href="https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/new-study-scientists-discover-that-inverted-retina-blind-spot-is-not-a-bad-design/?utm_content=buffer6ddb2&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=buffer" target="_blank">Wintery Knight</a>)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-eye-is-optimized-for-our-vision-purposes-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-eye-is-optimized-for-our-vision-purposes-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-eye-is-optimized-for-our-vision-purposes-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Thinking Carefully about Mormonism (and Mormon Epistemology)
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 02/17/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/thinking-carefully-about-mormonism-and-mormon-epistemology-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Nothing is more central to the defense of Mormon scripture, Mormon doctrine, and the existence of the Mormon Church than a personal testimony. Also referred to as a “burning in the bosom”&nbsp;or “spiritual witness,”&nbsp;the Mormon testimony amounts to positive spiritual feelings about the LDS religion. At the end of the day, this personal, private, subjective experience is crucial to Mormon confidence, so you must be prepared to deal with it. In this talk, I lay down some important groundwork for understanding knowledge and then apply these insights to Mormonism. I think it provides some helpful ways to engage your Mormon friends.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="QkatJzXkCx8" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QkatJzXkCx8?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthinking-carefully-about-mormonism-and-mormon-epistemology-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthinking-carefully-about-mormonism-and-mormon-epistemology-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthinking-carefully-about-mormonism-and-mormon-epistemology-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Have Grace for Fellow Christians on the Age of the Earth
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/31/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/have-grace-for-fellow-christians-on-the-age-of-the-earth
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The age of the earth is not a topic we discuss much on our website. We have an article by Greg on why he believes in an old earth, but not every employee we’ve had has agreed with that, and it’s not something we take a hard stance on as an organization. (We do, however, affirm the primacy of Scripture and a historical Adam and Eve, and we’ve argued against theistic evolution). We think Christians can take different positions on the age of the earth and still be orthodox—that the difference is often one of biblical interpretation rather than one of biblical rejection, and that the real fight on our hands when it comes to creation is not with our fellow believers, but with the naturalists.</p>

<p>But while the controversy over the age of the earth is not an area of my expertise, I have a great interest in promoting grace among Christians on this issue. I receive letters from time to time from people who are angry about what Greg has said about this and are convinced the old earth position is rooted in a low view of the Bible that will tear down the faith.</p>

<p>I don’t think this is necessarily true of old-earthers (though it may be true for some), and it shouldn’t be assumed. A few years ago, I posted a <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/how-old-is-the-earth#.WLTEhRIrJR0" target="_blank">video of R.C. Sproul</a> (who holds to a <a href="http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-rc-sprouls-position-creation/" target="_blank">literal six-day creation</a>) exhibiting grace on this issue, and I think he models well the grace we need to have for each other.</p>

<p>To that same end of promoting grace, you ought to read a post by Justin Taylor titled “<a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2015/01/28/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/" target="_blank">Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods</a>.”&nbsp;An excerpt to get you started:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I want to suggest there are some good, textual reasons—in the creation account itself—for questioning the exegesis that insists on the days as strict 24 hour periods. Am I as certain of this as I am of the resurrection of Christ? Definitely not. But in some segments of the church, I fear that we’ve built an exegetical “fence around the Torah,”&nbsp;fearful that if we question any aspect of young-earth dogmatics we have opened the gate to liberalism. The defenders of inerrancy above show that this is not the case. And a passion for <em>sola Scriptura</em> provides us with the humility and willingness to go back to the text again to see if these things are so.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Old-earthers, respect the admirable passion of young-earthers to honor the Word of God. Young-earthers, understand that many old-earthers share that passion and do not see a contradiction between an old earth and the Word of God. You will likely still disagree with each other on the age of the earth after reading Taylor’s article, and I’m not saying you shouldn’t continue to debate it, but my hope is that grace will increase.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhave-grace-for-fellow-christians-on-the-age-of-the-earth" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhave-grace-for-fellow-christians-on-the-age-of-the-earth" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhave-grace-for-fellow-christians-on-the-age-of-the-earth" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Constantine Didn’t Influence the Canon
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/08/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/constantine-didn-t-influence-the-canon
content:
            <div> 
		<p>By now you’ve probably read, or at least heard about, Newsweek’s cover article, “<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html" target="_blank">The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin</a>”&nbsp;by Kurt Eichenwald. Here’s what <a href="http://drbrianmattson.com/journal/2015/1/6/the-great-missing-canon-question" target="_blank">Brian Mattson had to say</a> about the article’s claim that Constantine influenced the assembling of the biblical canon:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>There’s an even stronger historical indicator, however, that by the time Constantine reigned the books of the New Testament were near universally understood.</p>

<p>In 331 Constantine <a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iv.vi.iv.xxxvi.html" target="_blank">wrote a letter</a> to Eusebius of Caesarea asking him to prepare 50 Bibles for use in Rome’s churches. Remember, books were not printed at this time; they were copied by hand. A commission for 50 volumes was an astonishingly large request and a massive undertaking.</p>

<p>If you look carefully, there is something very important missing in the letter.</p>

<p>It apparently never occurred to the Emperor to instruct Eusebius <em>what books to include in the Bibles.</em> And it never occurred to Eusebius <em>to even ask</em>. There is only one plausible interpretation of these deafening silences: the status of the Christian canon was implicitly understood. Can you imagine a world in which there is hot controversy over the number of books in the New Testament, receiving a request from the <em>Emperor of the known world</em> for copies of the Bible, and <em>not</em> clarifying what he wanted in them? Neither can I.</p>

<p>That’s because there was no hot controversy. Whatever messy confusion had existed about the question had obviously been so settled in the public mind that Constantine didn’t feel the need to specify, and Eusebius didn’t feel the need to ask. Moreover, I would suggest that for <em>that level</em> of implicit understanding, the question must have been settled for a <em>very</em> long time.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="http://drbrianmattson.com/journal/2015/1/6/the-great-missing-canon-question" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fconstantine-didn-t-influence-the-canon" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fconstantine-didn-t-influence-the-canon" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fconstantine-didn-t-influence-the-canon" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: If God Could Save Him, God Could Save Anybody
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/02/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-god-could-save-him-god-could-save-anybody
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In Greg’s <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/nabeel-qureshi - -seeking-allah-finding-jesus-march-25-2014#.VJIUUGTF_OY" target="_blank">interview with Nabeel Qureshi</a> earlier this year about his book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Allah-Finding-Jesus-Christianity/dp/0310515025/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1418870073&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=seeking+allah+finding+jesus" target="_blank"><em>Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus</em></a>, Nabeel told the story of how David Wood (now of <a href="http://www.acts17.net/" target="_blank">Acts 17 Apologetics</a> - a ministry to Muslims) challenged him to consider the evidence for the truth of Christianity after they met on the debate team in college and became good friends. Nabeel eventually believed, and it’s a great story. But the story Nabeel <em>didn’t</em> tell was how David Wood became a Christian. I knew David became a Christian in jail where he was serving time for attempted murder, but I didn’t know the extent of the darkness he was living under.</p>

<p>If you know someone you think is beyond God’s ability to save, watch this and have hope.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="DakEcY7Z5GU" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DakEcY7Z5GU?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>Nabeel became a Christian because David became a Christian. And David became a Christian because Randy, his cellmate, was a Christian. The story David <em>didn’t</em> tell was why Randy was there, in jail, in his cell. But you can hear a taste of this story if you listen <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/bobby-conway-the-fifth-gospel-how-to-live-out-the-gospel-december-16-2014#.VJIUN2TF_OY" target="_blank">here</a> at 0:37:17.</p>

<p>God’s grace is surprising, and sometimes even shocking.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord”&nbsp;(1 Corinthians 1:27-31).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And His power is beyond measure. A change like David Wood’s isn’t humanly possible. But the truth is, neither is the regeneration of any person.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?”&nbsp;And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible”&nbsp;(Matthew 19:25-26).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We have a God “who <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+4%3A16-21&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">gives life to the dead</a> and calls into being that which does not exist,”&nbsp;for whom all things are possible.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-god-could-save-him-god-could-save-anybody" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-god-could-save-him-god-could-save-anybody" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-god-could-save-him-god-could-save-anybody" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/24/2014
source: https://www.str.org/w/i-heard-the-bells-on-christmas-day
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day”&nbsp;is the <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/12/18/the-original-i-heard-the-bells-on-christmas-day/" target="_blank">Christmas song</a> I love the most, and I can never listen to it without tears. I wish it were better known. Justin Taylor <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/12/18/the-original-i-heard-the-bells-on-christmas-day/" target="_blank">explains its origins</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The lyrics originate from the poem “Christmas Bells”&nbsp;by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, written on Christmas day in 1863. But the original was not a feel-good song but one born in grief. Longfellow’s wife had died in a fire in 1860. And on December 1, 1863, the widower received the news that his eldest son, 19-year-old Charley, had been nearly paralyzed by a gunshot wound fighting for the Union in the Civil War. It was with that background that he penned this poem about the dissonance between the Christmas bells, the singing of “peace on earth,”&nbsp;and the world around him of injustice and violence—ending with the hope for eschatological peace.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here’s part of <a href="http://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/christmas-bells" target="_blank">Longfellow’s poem</a>&nbsp;“Christmas Bells”:</p>

<p style="text-align: center;">I heard the bells on Christmas Day<br>
Their old, familiar carols play,<br>
And wild and sweet<br>
The words repeat<br>
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!...</p>

<p style="text-align: center;">And in despair I bowed my head;<br>
“There is no peace on earth,”&nbsp;I said;<br>
“For hate is strong,<br>
And mocks the song<br>
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”</p>

<p style="text-align: center;">Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:<br>
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;<br>
The Wrong shall fail,<br>
The Right prevail,<br>
With peace on earth, good-will to men.”</p>

<p>God is not dead, nor doth He sleep. Jesus’&nbsp;incarnation and resurrection prove this. Have hope in your pain, and have a joyful Christmas tomorrow.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fi-heard-the-bells-on-christmas-day" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fi-heard-the-bells-on-christmas-day" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fi-heard-the-bells-on-christmas-day" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Pro-Life Killers: An Oxymoron
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/01/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/pro-life-killers-an-oxymoron
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Alan’s monthly letter for January 2015</em></p>

<p><em>Please note: Stand to Reason does not condone violence to end the harm of abortion and does not knowingly associate with those who do.</em></p>

<p>On May 1, 2009, Scott Roeder walked into Reformation Lutheran Church, pulled out a gun, and shot George Tiller in the head at point blank range. Tiller used to perform late-term abortions. Every pro-life leader and organization I know condemned the killing of Tiller.</p>

<p>Some abortion-choice advocates, however, think we’re inconsistent. They think that if pro-lifers truly believed the unborn was a human being, we would condone Tiller’s murder. After all, the analogy goes, if a madman attempts to kill a toddler at a park, it’s permissible to protect the child even if lethal force is necessary. In the same way, killing an abortionist before he performs an abortion protects a child whose life is in danger.</p>

<p>Pro-lifers, however, almost unanimously oppose violence to stop abortion. Some abortion-choice advocates believe this betrays their true beliefs. They argue that either pro-lifers are being inconsistent or they don’t actually believe the unborn is a human being.</p>

<p>It turns out, though, that killing an abortion doctor is not parallel in relevant ways to killing a madman who attempts to murder a toddler. There are at least three important differences with this analogy worth highlighting.</p>

<p>First, killing an abortion doctor probably wouldn’t save the lives of unborn children. If you stop the madman in a park, you <em>would</em> save the life of the toddler. That’s because it’s highly unlikely that another madman would take up the hunt to kill the very same toddler. Killing an abortion doctor, however, <em>would not</em> save the life of a child whose mother is abortion-minded. The pregnant woman could still procure an abortion by seeking any number of qualified physicians. The child will still die no matter what happens to a single abortionist.</p>

<p>In fact, killing an abortionist would simply result in more lives lost. Not only would unborn children still die, but now the doctor is dead and the life of the person who killed the abortionist is also in jeopardy. This is hardly a pro-life act.</p>

<p>This raises a second dissimilarity. It might not be possible to reason a madman out of killing a toddler in the park, short of killing him. This is not true, however, of an abortion doctor. All it takes to stop a physician from performing an abortion is the verbal request of the mother.</p>

<p>The lesson is clear. We need to change women’s minds. That can be done by persuading them that their unborn are valuable human beings and by meeting the needs of women facing crisis pregnancies. No violence is needed.</p>

<p>A third difference in the analogy is the legality of the act. It’s <em>not</em> illegal to use lethal force against a madman who attempts to kill a toddler. It <em>is</em> illegal to use lethal force against an abortionist. To be clear, I’m not saying that what is legal is moral, nor am I suggesting that civil disobedience is never warranted. I’m simply pointing out a key difference—the legality of the act involved—that needs to be factored into the equation.</p>

<p>With that in mind, killing an abortionist takes the law into one’s own hands by committing an evil. As my colleague, Greg Koukl, <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/pulling-the-trigger-on-abortion#.VIpIsGTF_OY">writes</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[This] vigilante tactic serves to unravel the fabric of the social contract when the official rule of law, which, though imperfect, is still a productive force for the common good in the land. Rule of law in this country has not broken down as it did in Nazi Germany. It’s still in effect. It’s still accomplishing good. It’s still mitigating the impact of evil in the world. The minute we take a shot at the rule of law by taking the law into our own hands in this way we pull the leg out of one of the most important things that holds up our social structure.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Instead of vigilantism, the more effective approach is to work to change minds and culture. If a woman believes that abortion kills her innocent son or daughter <em>and</em> has the support of loving people to help her through her crisis pregnancy, it’s hard to imagine she would still make the wrong choice.</p>

<p>That’s why pro-lifers have a two-pronged approach to saving the lives of unborn children. They try to change minds through the art of pro-life persuasion and serve the needs of abortion-minded women.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpro-life-killers-an-oxymoron" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpro-life-killers-an-oxymoron" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpro-life-killers-an-oxymoron" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: From Emergent to Evangelical, through Apologetics
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/03/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/from-emergent-to-evangelical-through-apologetics
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I pray that my friends who drifted out of Christianity by way of the Emergent Church movement would discover what Matt Rawlings <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140706072335/http://pastormattblog.com/2013/07/24/how-apologetics-saved-my-faith/" target="_blank">discovered</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I became a Christian at 24 after a cancer diagnosis. I had been an atheist for 10 years but came to God on my knees in desperation. I left Capitol Hill (and politics altogether) to learn about Christianity. I attended what many believed was a conservative seminary but had slowly slipped into liberalism by the time I arrived in 1999. I was sold on “higher criticism”&nbsp;(or a skeptical approach to the historicity and inerrancy of Scripture) and joined the then growing “Emergent Church”&nbsp;movement. Within a few years, I was where Rob Bell is now—a soft universalist with a condescending attitude toward conservatives. Yet, I was also spiritually dead and was struggling with depression. I was quickly sliding back into the atheism I had thought I had left behind when I went to my knees to pray for my life in 1997...</p>

<p>I opened [<em>The Case for a Creator</em>] with a bad attitude. After all, my seminary professors had told me that “apologetics is dead!”&nbsp;and that “Generation-X and- desired experience not ’answers.’”&nbsp;I was even more resistant when I saw the first few chapters take on evolution. I was convinced Genesis 1-11 was all myth, Darwin had been proven correct and that only nutters questioned it. But after reading Strobel’s interaction with Dr. Jonathan Wells and Dr. Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, I realized I had no real counter argument to intelligent design...</p>

<p>I was introduced to evangelical Christians who, contrary to the depiction of my then fellow liberal emergents, were not “knuckle dragging, mouth breathers enslaved to a narrow, reactionary faith”&nbsp;but brilliant, loving people engaging the culture with grace and truth. I dove headlong into evangelical theology and conservative Biblical scholarship. I found my faith growing strong and a strong desire to learn more and serve God with more zeal than I ever could have imagined.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140706072335/http://pastormattblog.com/2013/07/24/how-apologetics-saved-my-faith/" target="_blank">the whole thing</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffrom-emergent-to-evangelical-through-apologetics" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffrom-emergent-to-evangelical-through-apologetics" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffrom-emergent-to-evangelical-through-apologetics" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Misquoting God Part 1
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/23/2014
source: https://www.str.org/w/misquoting-god-part-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Verses Commonly Misunderstood, Mischaracterized, or Maligned</em></p>

<p>It doesn’t happen often, but this time I was caught completely flatfooted, struck dumb by a challenge from a young Christian woman in Cairo.</p>

<p>I’d been teaching “Never Read a Bible Verse”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> to Egyptian believers at the Focus on the Family Middle-East Student Leadership Institute. I was specifically addressing the reckless tendency of Christians to wrench Old Testament verses out of context and then “claim”&nbsp;them as promises for themselves when one of the students offered a challenge that left me speechless.</p>

<p>“Are you saying the Old Testament doesn’t apply to my life?”&nbsp;the frustrated believer blurted out. “Many times in tough circumstances I’ve claimed Ex. 14:14: ’The Lord will fight for you while you keep silent.’<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Now you’re telling me this promise is not for me? Then how <em>do</em> I apply that verse to my life? And if that verse has no relevance for me today, then why is it in the Bible? What Old Testament verses <em>can</em> I claim for myself?”&nbsp;she asked. “Tell me one verse I can count on.”</p>

<p>I realized I was caught in a quandary. Clearly she was making a mistake invoking Ex. 14:14 in her personal circumstances. Moses wasn’t offering a principle or a promise for Christians dealing with opponents. In fact, the New Testament teaches the polar opposite. In the face of opposition, the Christian is to give an account, not remain silent.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>But there was a deeper problem. What of her challenge? What <em>could</em> she count on in those texts? Was it true that countless Scripture verses have no relevance or application to us as believers? What’s the point, then, of citing any Old Testament passage?</p>

<p>I went back to my hotel that night to ponder her challenge. In the quiet of my room I poured over the passage. What was I missing? What was the solution to this dilemma? Then my eyes rested on verse 13 and a light went on in my mind. I chuckled to myself, closed my Bible, and climbed into bed.</p>

<p>The next day I told the class about the challenge and about my late-night struggle with the text. I then told them of my relief at finding a promise right in the same passage that I could claim for myself in a few days when boarding my jet to leave Cairo and return to America:</p>

<p>Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the Lord which He will accomplish for you today. <em>For the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you will never see them again, forever</em>.</p>

<p>I delivered the words slowly, with drama and gravity, so it took a moment for my Egyptian friends to get the gag. Then the whole class exploded into laughter.</p>

<p>Sure, I pointed out, it was a ridiculous misapplication of the passage. But exactly what was the mistake? If they denied me my “promise,”&nbsp;wouldn’t that reduce the verse to irrelevancy, adding even more Scripture to the ash heap since there’d be no application of that particular verse for my life today?</p>

<p>To clear up the confusion, I told them, we needed to go back 400 years to learn how a really good idea had an unusual consequence.</p>

<h2>The Parts and the Whole</h2>

<p>In 1551, French printer Robert Stephanus added verse numbers to the chapter divisions inserted in Scripture in the 13th century. This made navigating the text much easier, of course, but it caused a problem, too.</p>

<p>The numbering of individual sentences (or even phrases, sometimes), tempts readers to take the text as a collection of discrete statements having meaning and application in isolation from the larger work. Ergo, “How does <em>this verse</em> apply to my life?”</p>

<p>But God did not give the Bible as a collection of aphorisms—short, pithy, helpful statements—to be applied piecemeal to our lives.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> He gave historical accounts, descriptions of events, biographies, poems, sermons, letters, and the like. The meaning of the parts of a passage is connected to the meaning of the whole.</p>

<p>Meaning flows from the larger unit to the smaller unit. The sentence helps us understand the meaning of an individual word in the sentence. The paragraph helps us understand what the sentence means. The chapter helps us understand the paragraph’s role in the larger narrative. And the genre and historical context help us understand the book.</p>

<p>Proper understanding of the whole, therefore, is key to understanding the meaning of—and the proper application of—the parts. We cannot simply isolate a sentence or two and ask, “How can I stick this line into my life?”&nbsp;Instead, we have to follow the flow of thought to know how the broader passage speaks to the particulars of our individual experience.</p>

<p>This was the problem with my Christian sister in Cairo. She thought that if every verse <em>on its own</em> did not have some application to her life, it was superfluous. Remove the verse references, though, and the picture changes dramatically.</p>

<p>Application comes not from discreet sentences, but from the passage’s narrative flow of thought or its logical flow of thought—both more obvious when the numbers don’t get in the way. The Red Sea <em>narrative</em>, then, has plenty of relevance for believers even if <em>individual verses</em> can’t be applied in isolation from the context.</p>

<p>To avoid this problem when gleaning instruction from the text, ignore the chapter and verse divisions and focus on the bigger picture. The numbers aren’t inspired, anyway, and they sometimes get in the way of the God-given flow.</p>

<p>This mistake happens so often with Christians, I thought I’d explore a few examples of passages commonly misunderstood, mischaracterized, or maligned because readers disregard the flow of thought. Let’s start with an easy one.</p>

<h2><strong>Your Best</strong> <strong>Life Now?</strong></h2>

<p>I’ve heard this first verse quoted frequently as teaching “positive mental attitude,”&nbsp;sometimes by Christians who should know better. Here’s how it’s usually cited: “As a man thinks in his heart, so he is”&nbsp;(Prov. 23:7).</p>

<p>Think positive thoughts, make positive confessions, you’ll become a positive person—that’s the idea. Whatever your focus on the inside, will become the reality on the outside. Your mental attitude makes you. Thoughts shape destinies.</p>

<p>Of course, there’s truth to this point. The thoughts you fix your mind on can make a big difference in the kind of person you become. “Set your mind on the things above,”&nbsp;Paul told the Colossians. “If there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise,”&nbsp;he wrote the Philippians, “dwell on these things.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> This is not what the Sage had in mind, though, in Proverbs.</p>

<p>The reason we miss the point of this proverb is because it’s universally misquoted. It actually reads, “For as <em>he</em> thinks within himself, so <em>he</em> is.”&nbsp;The writer speaks of a specific man, not any man. But who? The answer is right there in the passage. Here’s the entire section, Prov. 23:6-8:</p>

<p>Do not eat the bread of a selfish man, or desire his delicacies; for as <em>he</em> thinks within himself, so he is. He says to you, “Eat and drink!”&nbsp;but his heart is not with you. You will vomit up the morsel you have eaten, and waste your compliments.</p>

<p>Clearly, this passage has nothing to do with positive thinking. This text gives a straightforward warning to keep your guard up around selfish people. Their egocentrism tempts them to be duplicitous, disingenuous, and two-faced. Don’t fawn over them. Don’t court their favor. Don’t waste your efforts trying to win their approval.</p>

<p>Three chapters later we find a related warning:</p>

<p>He who hates disguises it with his lips, but he lays up deceit in his heart. When he speaks graciously, do not believe him, for there are seven abominations in his heart (Prov. 26:24-25).</p>

<h2><strong>Blessed are </strong>the <strong>Blind?</strong></h2>

<p>Sometimes a closer look at the context reveals what a verse does <em>not</em> mean—it eliminates options—even if the precise meaning still eludes us. Jesus’&nbsp;encounter with Thomas, the doubting disciple, is a case in point.</p>

<p>As you recall, Thomas famously refused to believe in the resurrection unless he could physically touch Jesus’&nbsp;wounds. Later, Jesus appeared and obliged him, with this chastisement: “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed”&nbsp;(Jn. 20:29).</p>

<p>I actually heard a pastor from the pulpit use this verse to fault apologetics. Whatever Jesus meant by His remark, though, He certainly did <em>not</em> mean that faith shouldn’t be tied to evidence. How do I know? I kept reading. Let’s remove the verse numbers and see what we discover.</p>

<p>Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”&nbsp;Many other <em>signs</em>,<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> therefore, Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book; but <em>these have been written that you may believe</em> that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (Jn. 20:29-31).</p>

<p>Do you see the problem? If Thomas was wrong for asking for evidence, then why in the very next verse does John say <em>the purpose of his entire Gospel was to document miraculous evidence</em> meant to aid belief for salvation? Miraculous signs, after all, are intended to be <em>seen</em>.</p>

<p>No, Jesus had something else in mind than the legitimacy of evidence. This insight doesn’t clarify Jesus’&nbsp;meaning, of course, but it does seem to eliminate a popular false reading.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<h2>Bad News about the Good Samaritan</h2>

<p>I uncovered the problem with the parable of the Good Samaritan completely by accident. I’d been searching the Gospels to determine the part “social justice”&nbsp;actually played in the teachings of Christ. I discovered that most of the times Jesus mentioned the poor and downtrodden, He was making a point about something else. (See the April 2014 mentoring letter online at str.org.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup>) This, as it turns out, is the case with the Good Samaritan.</p>

<p>Find the full narrative in Luke 10:25-37. In my Bible, though, the parable is sectioned off from the rest of the text with the title “The Good Samaritan”&nbsp;between verses 29 and 30. Headings like this can be helpful, but they can hinder, too.</p>

<p>Here’s our question: Why did Jesus tell the Samaritan tale? Anyone beginning at verse 30, as the heading encourages, is going to miss the point entirely, because it’s not in the parable. Yes, there’s a lesson about prejudice and bigotry there, and a powerful picture of compassion and mercy. No question. But that’s not the reason Jesus told the parable to begin with. That reason is embedded in an exchange before it, a dialog many neglect because the heading gets in the way.</p>

<p>An expert in the Law asks Jesus what he must do to earn eternal life. Jesus asks what the Law demands. He answers with the two great commandments, for which Jesus commends him. “You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live.”&nbsp;Simple enough.</p>

<p>The lawyer needs clarification, though. He asks, “And who is my neighbor?”&nbsp;The reason for his question, though, is the hinge pin of the entire episode. He was “<em>wishing to justify himself”</em>&nbsp;(v. 29).</p>

<p>For myself, there has not been a single moment in my 41 years as a Christian that I’ve kept either of those commands. I’m crushed daily under the intolerable weight of both obligations with no hope of self-vindication. Apparently, though, the lawyer felt more confident, depending, of course, on who Jesus meant by “neighbor.”&nbsp;Precisely who did Jesus want him to love as he loves himself? Jesus’&nbsp;answer: Your most despised enemy. Every day. Without faltering, and without failing. “Do this and you will live.”</p>

<p>Jesus was not opining on the virtues of social justice or racial reconciliation or brotherly love or being nice to neighbors. He wasn’t talking about goodness at all, but badness. He was talking about the impossibility of self-justification (remember, the lawyer had asked, “What shall <em>I do</em> to inherit eternal life?”&nbsp;v. 25).</p>

<p>The parable of the Good Samaritan is a story about the bad news. It’s not about the Samaritan’s goodness; it’s about our badness. Our complete inability to fulfill those two simple laws and justify ourselves.</p>

<h2>If... My people</h2>

<p>I’ve saved the most controversial passage for last. You’re probably familiar with this verse—it might even be a favorite—but before you get fidgety, make note of the ellipsis (...) in the heading above. It signals something has been left out of the citation. Something has been omitted. Such omissions are usually innocuous. Other times, though, they can be deadly to meaning.</p>

<p>Here’s how 2 Chron. 7:14 is characteristically quoted:</p>

<p>If... My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from Heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.</p>

<p>The “promise”&nbsp;is cited frequently when Christians gather to pray for their country and its civic leaders, something Scripture both models (Rom. 10:1) and commands (Jer. 29:7, 1 Tim. 2:1-2). Thus, American Christians invoke 2 Chron. 7:14, trusting God will heal a repentant America of its calamities and afflictions. The basic equation is this: If Christians (“My people”) repent (“turn from their wicked ways”), God will restore national prosperity (“heal their land”).</p>

<p>Oddly, that equation does not seem to square with history. Arguably, the church was most spiritually robust in the first century, but Jerusalem, the epicenter of vibrant Christianity, was leveled by the Romans in 70 A.D. As Christianity got stronger in the Roman Empire, Rome got weaker, finally collapsing when sacked in 410 A.D. By contrast, the Third Reich was strong in part <em>because</em> the church was weak.</p>

<p>The historical pattern does not bear out for a reason. The promise has been misunderstood and, therefore, misapplied. The reason for the confusion is three dangerous little dots. Always beware the ellipses.</p>

<p>The “promise”&nbsp;claimed in verse 14 is only half of a longer grammatical unit (a lengthy sentence, in this case) that begins in verse 13. The shorter citation is misleading because 30 words between “if”&nbsp;and “My”&nbsp;have been replaced by an ellipsis in the way this passage is quoted.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> Do you think those words might have some relevance to God’s point? As it turns out, they’re vital. Let’s add the missing pieces (in italics):</p>

<p>Thus Solomon finished the house of the Lord and the king’s palace, and successfully completed all that he had planned on doing in the house of the Lord and in his palace. Then the Lord appeared to Solomon at night and said to him, “I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice. If <em>I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and</em> My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from Heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”</p>

<p>Take note of the phrase, “I have heard your prayer.”&nbsp;God’s words here were in response to a specific prayer. What prayer was that? 2 Chron. 6 provides the answer.</p>

<p>2 Chron. 7 is the <em>second</em> part of an exchange between Solomon and God. In a night vision, God gives a point-by-point response to specific requests Solomon made during a lengthy petition offered during the temple consecration (6:13-42). Solomon’s prayer in chapter 6 is answered by God in chapter 7.</p>

<p>The chart below matches Solomon’s specific requests with God’s specific response:</p>

<table class="table" style="margin-bottom: 1rem;">
	<thead>
		<tr>
			<th scope="col">Solomon’s Prayer</th>
			<th scope="col">God’s Response</th>
		</tr>
	</thead>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td>6:19 “Have regard to the prayer of Your servant, O Lord My God, to listen to the cry and to the prayer which Your servant prays before You.”</td>
			<td>7:12 “Then the Lord appeared to Solomon at night and said to him, ‘I have heard your prayer…’”</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>6:26 “…when the heavens are shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against You…”</td>
			<td>7:13 “If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain��”</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>6:28 “…if there is locust or grasshopper…”</td>
			<td>7:13 “…if I command the locust to devour the land…”</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>6:28 “…if there is pestilence…”</td>
			<td>7:13 “…or if I send pestilence among My people…”</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>6:24, 26 “…and if Your people, Israel…pray toward this place and confess Your name and turn from their sin when You afflict them…”</td>
			<td>7:14 “…and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways…”</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>6:25 “…then hear You from Heaven and forgive the sin of Your people Israel…”</td>
			<td>7:14 “…then I will hear from Heaven, will forgive their sin…”</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>6:25 “…bring them back to the land which You have given to them and to their fathers…”<br>
			<br>
			6:27 “…send rain upon the land…”</td>
			<td>7:14 “…and will heal their land.”</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

<p>When the narrative is read as a unit, as it should be, the meaning of 7:13-14 is straightforward. This passage is an answer from God to a specific appeal from Solomon that He remove His hand of judgment from the Jews if they repent and seek His mercy (6:24, 25, 27). When God punishes Israel with locust and pestilence, their genuine repentance will bring forgiveness and healing (7:13-14).</p>

<p>Some have sought exegetical cover by taking “My people”&nbsp;to include God’s people in any age, but this simply will not work. If you made a pledge to your son in a letter that opened “My child,”&nbsp;your daughter born later couldn’t claim the promise simply because she was also now your child. Your original intention was to a specific individual under a specific set of circumstances. Any other use would be abuse. It’s simply not what you had in mind when you wrote the letter.</p>

<p>In the same way, 2 Chron. 7:14 is not a blanket promise for anyone considered God’s “people”&nbsp;in any era. Rather, Solomon specifies ten times in the passage that the “My people”&nbsp;in view is “Israel”&nbsp;(cf. 6:14, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33).</p>

<p>“If... My people”&nbsp;is not a promise by God to heal the self-inflicted wounds of American culture. It’s a promise by God to stay judgment against His people, Israel, that’s tied to prior covenant promises to the Jews, specifically God’s promise to David (6:15-17, 7:17-18) and promises regarding the land God gave to the Hebrews (6:25, 27).</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with praying for America. In fact we should, but 2 Chron. 7:11-14 is not the reason. This provision applies to unique circumstances in Israel’s history, not America’s.</p>

<p>What, then, can Christians take from the narrative? 2 Chron. 6-7 exemplifies a pattern, not a promise, of God’s mercy to those who humble themselves and repent (note Nineveh in Jonah). This is especially true when the appeal is tied to covenant promises.</p>

<p>God’s pledge pertaining to Christians is the New Covenant of forgiveness grounded in the final sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:15-23), but this promise is individual, not national.</p>

<p>More broadly, it can be an encouragement for any country to pray aggressively as Solomon did in light of God’s mercy. The same God who answered Solomon might answer other penitents as well.</p>

<p>I close with something I’ve written elsewhere that sums up the gravity of neglecting the flow of thought of any Bible passage:</p>

<p>Misconstruing a passage neutralizes the Word of God. It robs Scripture of its authority and influence. The entire reason we go to the Bible in the first place—to get God’s truth and apply it to our lives—is thwarted when we ignore the context.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/publications/misquoting-god-part-2-march-2015#.V82YrqOZORs">Read part 2 here</a></p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">This is an important talk and also a short booklet on how to properly interpret the Bible. It’s available at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">All Scripture references are from the <em>New American Standard Version</em> of the Bible unless otherwise noted. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Note Matt. 10:19-20, 27-28; Acts 18:8; Eph. 6:19-20; Col. 4:3-4, to cite just a few verses. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">With a few exceptions, like much of the book of Proverbs. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Col. 3:2 and Phil 4:8. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">I.e., attesting miracles. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">It could be, for example, that the testimony of Thomas’s friends should have been adequate. Jesus, then, would have been faulting a demand for evidence in the extreme, something “skeptics”&nbsp;are prone to. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">See STR Mentoring Letter, April, 2014. [link] <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">The NIV and the ESV render the text a little differently (13 “<em>When</em> I shut up the heavens... 14 <em>if</em> my people...”), but the variation does not affect my point. The details of v. 13 are essential to understanding the promise of v. 14. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">“Silly Putty Bible Study,”&nbsp;<em>Solid Ground</em>, Sept. 2010. [link] <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmisquoting-god-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmisquoting-god-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmisquoting-god-part-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Can We Learn from a Catholic Thinker? Aquinas and Natural Law
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 01/20/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-can-we-learn-from-a-catholic-thinker-aquinas-and-natural-law
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I want to sketch out Thomas Aquinas’&nbsp;theory of natural law by distinguishing between the four kinds of law he outlines in the <em>Summa Theologiae</em> and then discussing his conception of the Good. Afterward, we’ll ask if Aquinas’&nbsp;view is compatible with a biblical view.</p>

<p>Thomas Aquinas synthesizes philosophy and theology to arrive at his theory of natural law. In the <em>Summa</em>, he begins his treatise on the essence of law by stating the definition of law in general as “a dictate of practical reason in the prince who governs some perfect community.”&nbsp;Thus, law has an essential relation to reason. By distinguishing between four kinds of law, Aquinas demonstrates that ultimately, all law is subject to Divine Reason, or eternal law.</p>

<p><strong>#1 - Eternal Law:</strong> This first law represents the timeless principles found in the physical and moral world by which “the whole community of the universe is governed.”&nbsp;Since “all laws proceed from the eternal law,”&nbsp;ontologically, the eternal law is the measure of all other laws, and thus they find their derivation from the eternal law.</p>

<p><strong>#2 - Natural Law:</strong> Aquinas begins his discussion of the second kind of law, natural law, by making a distinction. Not only is a law in the reason of a ruler, but it “can be in something... as in the ruled and measured.”&nbsp;More precisely, natural law is that law which is imprinted upon our human nature and directs us toward our natural good or end. In reference to Aquinas’&nbsp;view of natural law, J. Budziszewski terms this kind of law “as moral principles that we cannot not know”&nbsp;(from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Written-Heart-Case-Natural-Law/dp/083081891X" target="_blank"><em>Written on the Heart</em></a>, p. 61). As such, natural law is a reflection of the eternal law found within the structure of human reason.</p>

<p><strong>#3 - Divine Law:</strong> The third law, divine law, is defined as that law which is revealed in the Christian Scriptures. In contrast to the teleology of natural law, divine law pertains to our “supernatural ultimate end”: our reconciliation with God Himself. According to Aquinas, there are two kinds of divine law. There is the old law, found in the Old Testament, and the new law, found in the New Testament. Divine law is necessary because unaided human reason cannot apprehend the whole of eternal law. Thus, divine law is also a reflection of the eternal law in the form of special revelation.</p>

<p><strong>#4 - Human Law:</strong> Lastly, Aquinas sets out a fourth law, human law. Human law is simply the derivation of civil law (or the laws of a nation) from the principles of natural law. In this kind of law we observe that “human reason must proceed to dispose of more particular matters.” Thus, human law in the United States would include traffic laws, tax laws, specific criminal laws, etc.</p>

<p>With a description of Aquinas’&nbsp;four kinds of law, the necessary framework is in place to understand his conception of the Good and its relation to his natural law theory. Following Aristotle, Aquinas held that to understand the essential nature, or essence, of a thing (and thus, the Good of that thing), one must know its <em>telos</em> (from the Greek meaning purpose or end). For Aquinas, the end of man is human flourishing. However, in contrast to Aristotle, Aquinas’&nbsp;theological underpinnings provide a more robust view of human flourishing, one that is in accordance with the Design Plan or eternal law of God. Therefore, the Good of man is the perfecting of a human nature that <em>reflects</em> the eternal law, which is accomplished through the perfecting of human flourishing <em>in accordance</em> with the eternal law.</p>

<p>Aquinas clarifies his view of human nature by outlining the four basic human goods we discover by observing our natural inclinations. Those goods are life, procreation, knowledge and sociability. The realization of these basic ends constitutes the perfection of human nature (the Good). With this Good in mind, it follows that the rules for right conduct would be conducive to human flourishing if they are derivative from laws that are natural to us. Therefore, Aquinas’&nbsp;theory of natural law enables us to share in God’s eternal law by providing basic moral principles grounded in human nature and “that we cannot not know,”&nbsp;from which we derive human laws (or rules of right conduct) that are completed by the revelation of divine law found in the Christian Scriptures.</p>

<p>So is Aquinas’&nbsp;account compatible with biblical Christianity? Well clearly God’s eternal law and His divine law and human law, as Aquinas defines them, are seen and referenced in the biblical record. But what about natural law? I think so and here’s why.</p>

<p>Romans 1:19-20 indicates that God provides general revelation to all, such that man can see and understand His “eternal power and divine nature”&nbsp;in the created order. How is this so? According to Genesis 1:26-27, man is made in the image of God, and thus we are created with the rational and moral capacities that enable us to see the truth of God in general revelation. Furthermore, Romans 2:14-15 states that men “instinctively know what the law requires”&nbsp;because “what the law requires is written on their hearts.”&nbsp;Thus, as creatures with rational faculties we are able to discern God’s natural law through His creation and our own human nature.</p>

<p>At this point, one might object: If the preceding account is true, doesn’t it follow that all men should know right and wrong? However, all men do not know right and wrong, and even when they are able to differentiate, they do not always choose what is right.</p>

<p>A further examination of the biblical record not only states this reality (Romans 7), but it gives us an adequate explanation for the state we find man in. According to Romans 1:18, men “by their wickedness suppress the truth.”&nbsp;In other words, man is sinful and this condition leads to his denial of the truth of natural law. As Budziszewski argues, “we pretend to ourselves that we do not know what we really do know”&nbsp;(from <em>Written on the Heart</em>, p. 182). In addition, as Romans 6:23 states, the penalty of our sin and suppression of the truth is death.</p>

<p>Fortunately, in His unspeakable grace and mercy, God has not only revealed Himself in the created order but He has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, so that He might remedy our hopeless condition and provide a way in which man might fulfill his ultimate end: reconciliation to God Himself. As Romans 5:11 promises, “through our Lord Jesus Christ... we have now received reconciliation.”&nbsp;Amen.</p>

<p><strong>*Aquinas quotes taken from the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Selected-Writings-Penguin-Classics-Aquinas-ebook/dp/B002RI9JR8" target="_blank"><em>Summa Theologiae</em>, ed. and trans. by Ralph McInerny (London: Penguin Books, 1998</a>).</strong></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-can-we-learn-from-a-catholic-thinker-aquinas-and-natural-law" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-can-we-learn-from-a-catholic-thinker-aquinas-and-natural-law" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-can-we-learn-from-a-catholic-thinker-aquinas-and-natural-law" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Could “Good” and “Evil” Exist without God?
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/28/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/could-good-and-evil-exist-without-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Reasonable Faith has released another apologetics video, and this one explains the moral argument for the existence of God. (If you missed their kalam cosmological argument video, watch it <a href="/w/a-simple-explanation-of-the-cosmological-argument" target="_blank">here</a>.)</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="OxiAikEk2vU" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OxiAikEk2vU?rel=0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcould-good-and-evil-exist-without-god-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcould-good-and-evil-exist-without-god-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcould-good-and-evil-exist-without-god-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How (and Why) to Make Habits, Not Just Resolutions
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/07/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-and-why-to-make-habits-not-just-resolutions
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On the <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/change-of-circumstances-or-change-of-heart-january-6-2015#.VK17BWTF_OZ" target="_blank">show yesterday</a>, Greg recommended developing good habits rather than merely making resolutions. To that end, Joe Carter has <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/dont-just-make-a-resolutionmake-a-habit" target="_blank">some practical advice</a> on how to go about doing this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Habits emerge because the brain is constantly looking for ways to save effort. God designed our brains to automate mundane and rote tasks (such as walking) in order that we might have more mental energy to spend on spiritual or cultural tasks (such as worship or creating songs).</p>

<p>Every habit starts with a behavioral pattern called a “habit loop,”&nbsp;which consists of a cue, routine, and reward. The cue is a type of trigger that tells your brain to go into automatic mode and begin the routine, which is the behavior itself. The final step is the reward, an internal or external stimulus that satisfies your brain and helps it remember the habit loop...</p>

<p>To create a new virtuous habit, apply the following four steps...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read about those steps <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/dont-just-make-a-resolutionmake-a-habit" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>

<p>Once, many years ago, when I asked a pastor for help with being more disciplined in prayer and Bible reading, I was chastised for “trying to do things in my own strength.”&nbsp;This was not only unhelpful, it was bewildering and demoralizing. You may also hear something similar, but don’t believe it. We’re explicitly called to discipline ourselves “for the purpose of godliness”&nbsp;in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+timothy+4%3A7-10&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">1 Timothy 4:7-10</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[D]iscipline yourself for the purpose of godliness; for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance. For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+9%3A24-27&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:24-27</a> likewise exhorts us to “exercise self-control in all things,”&nbsp;to “discipline your body and make it your slave,”&nbsp;just as athletes do, for we are training for a much better prize than any athlete ever worked for. God has said there is “promise for the present life and also for the life to come”&nbsp;in your “labor and strife”—your <em>discipline</em>—to seek to know, follow, and worship Him more fully. According to 1 Timothy, we do this <em>because</em> we have fixed our hope on our living Savior, not <em>in spite of Him</em>. He is the one who provided us with the means to deepen our knowledge and appreciation of Him, so how does it honor Him to neglect those means?</p>

<p>It’s true, you can’t do this “in your own strength.”&nbsp;You definitely need the Holy Spirit to empower your fight to discipline your mind and body, so ask Him. Then fight.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-and-why-to-make-habits-not-just-resolutions" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-and-why-to-make-habits-not-just-resolutions" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-and-why-to-make-habits-not-just-resolutions" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Bible Is Not a Game of Telephone
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/09/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-bible-is-not-a-game-of-telephone
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In his <a href="http://danielbwallace.com/2014/12/28/predictable-christmas-fare-newsweeks-tirade-against-the-bible/" target="_blank">response</a> to the now infamous <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html" target="_blank">Newsweek article</a> by Kurt Eichenwald attacking the Bible, Dan Wallace succinctly explained why the transmission of the Bible was not like a game of Telephone (bullet point formatting added by me for ease of reading):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The title of Eichenwald’s section that deals with manuscript transmission is “Playing Telephone with the Word of God.”&nbsp;The implication is that the transmission of the Bible is very much like the telephone game—a parlor game every American knows. It involves a brief narrative that someone whispers to the next person in line who then whispers this to the next person, and so on for several people. Then, the last person recites out loud what he or she heard and everyone has a good laugh for how garbled the story got. But the transmission of scripture is not at all like the telephone game.</p>

<ul>
	<li>First, the goal of the telephone game is to see how <em>badly</em> the story can get misrepresented, while the goal of New Testament copying was by and large to produce very careful, accurate copies of the original.</li>
	<li>Second, in the telephone game there is only one line of transmission, while with the New Testament there are multiple lines of transmission.</li>
	<li>Third, one is oral, recited once in another’s ear, while the other is written, copied by a faithful scribe who then would check his or her work or have someone else do it.</li>
	<li>Fourth, in the telephone game only the wording of the last person in the line can be checked, while for the New Testament textual critics have access to many of the earlier texts, some going back very close to the time of the autographs.</li>
	<li>Fifth, even the ancient scribes had access to earlier texts, and would often check their work against a manuscript that was many generations older than their immediate ancestor. The average papyrus manuscript would last for a century or more. Thus, even a late second-century scribe could have potentially examined the original document he or she was copying.</li>
</ul>

<p>If telephone were played the way New Testament transmission occurred, it would make for a ridiculously boring parlor game!</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Wallace’s piece responds to many other errors in the Newsweek article, as well. You can read the whole thing <a href="http://danielbwallace.com/2014/12/28/predictable-christmas-fare-newsweeks-tirade-against-the-bible/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-bible-is-not-a-game-of-telephone" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-bible-is-not-a-game-of-telephone" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-bible-is-not-a-game-of-telephone" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Understand the Same-Sex Marriage Issue
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/23/2015
source: https://www.str.org/w/understand-the-same-sex-marriage-issue
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Supreme Court will soon be ruling on whether or not the Constitution allows for defining marriage as one man and one woman. If you’re the kind of person who cares about treating people fairly and having just, principled laws, this is not the time to depend on feelings or vague ideas you’ve picked up in the culture about marriage. This is the time to think carefully. We can do better than “<a href="/w/where-s-the-marriage-equality-for-throuples-" target="_blank">love</a> is <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/01/15/a_woman_describes_her_sexual_relationship_with_her_estranged_father/" target="_blank">love</a>.”&nbsp;Much is at stake, and you can’t know what is fair and just unless you first understand what marriage is and how society is affected by it.</p>

<p>To that end, I’ve collected posts (mainly from this blog), divided them into broad categories, and provided brief summary quotes for each. Even if you just read the quotes, you’ll get a basic understanding of the ideas involved. If you read the posts themselves, you’ll find even more links to pursue.</p>

<p><br>
<strong><em>What this argument is really about (“only one question”)</em></strong></p>

<p><a href="/w/it-s-not-about-equality" target="_blank">It’s Not About Equality</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>The term “marriage equality,”&nbsp;if it means “the right to marry whomever you want,”&nbsp;is simply not an accurate term for what same-sex marriage supporters are advocating—not if they favor any restrictions whatsoever (age, number of people, incest, etc.). The truth is that nearly everyone <em>does</em> favor a definition of marriage that has boundaries and thereby denies “marriage equality”&nbsp;to some category of couple (or group). [In other words, the question we need to answer is, what is marriage?]</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/w/now-we-wait-for-the-ruling" target="_blank">Now We Wait for the Ruling</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>If marriage is a particular thing, then everyone has a right to take part in that institution as it stands, regardless of their personal characteristics. But to be part of the institution, they must be part of <em>the institution</em>. They <em>don’t</em> have a right to change that institution into <a href="/w/the-competing-views-of-marriage" target="_blank">something different</a> simply because they don’t want to be part of it the way it is.</p>

<p>Imagine a public park builds a tennis court so that people can come to play tennis. Nobody should be denied the right to play tennis games there. Period. It’s a public park, open to all. One day, a group of basketball players comes to the park, wanting to play a game, but they find they can’t play basketball on a tennis court. They immediately go to City Hall to complain: “Everyone has the right to competitive exercise with a ball on that court! We’re being denied our rights based on our status as basketball players!”&nbsp;Can you see the problem? The fact that they don’t want to play tennis doesn’t give them the <em>right</em> to demand that the government build a different court at the park. Their right isn’t to “competitive exercise with a ball”&nbsp;(tennis shares that in common with basketball, but it can’t be <em>reduced</em> to that), their right is to play tennis on that court, just like everybody else.</p>

<p>Please don’t take that illustration farther than it’s intended to go. I’m merely trying to show that rights aren’t being denied simply because a person (or group of people) doesn’t want to take part in something. The park promises the same thing to all. It doesn’t promise “competitive exercise with a ball,”&nbsp;it promises tennis. And tennis excludes basketball—not out of prejudice, but by nature. One could certainly argue over whether the park ought to change that court into something different, but <em>as things stand</em>, no rights are being violated. Neither justice nor equality <em>demands</em> that the park change its court to accommodate the desires of the basketball players to play a different game in that space. The same is <a href="/w/it-s-not-about-equality" target="_blank">true for marriage</a>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/w/it-s-about-the-difference-between-men-and-women" target="_blank">It’s about the Difference Between Men and Women</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>Our objection to same-sex marriage is not about a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. If we were saying that homosexuals were lesser people unworthy of rights, then one might have an argument for this being an example of bigotry. But the case we’re making isn’t about a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals (it’s not even about whether or not homosexuality is morally wrong); it’s about the difference between <em>men and women</em>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/w/ryan-anderson-what-is-marriage-" target="_blank">Ryan Anderson: What Is Marriage?</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>[O]nly if marriage is defined as a conjugal union between sexually complementary spouses is there a reason for the monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence that marriage entails. When we remove the key component of sexual complementarity from the definition, none of these other aspects will logically hold. And weakening marriage in this way will cause much harm to our society.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/w/inconsistent-same-sex-marriage-advocates" target="_blank">Inconsistent Same-Sex Marriage Advocates</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>The concept of marriage that “has always been”&nbsp;is one where the <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155" target="_blank">boundaries are principled</a> because they’re conformed to the nature of reality—the complementary differences between men and women.</p>

<p>The reproductive system is the only bodily system that requires another person to complete it. The bringing together of two physically complementary persons completes this system, and that is the type of union that society has an interest in protecting because that act is the act that produces children (whether or not it does so in any particular case). If the union of a man and a woman didn’t have the social consequences of creating a family by nature, marriage (the stabilization of that union by society) would <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/05/5263" target="_blank">never have existed</a>.</p>

<p>Why define marriage as two people? Because two people complete the union that society has an interest in protecting.</p>

<p>Why define marriage as a man and a woman? Because those are the complementary persons whose union creates new life.</p>

<p>The traditional marriage advocate is arguing not from bigotry or even from tradition, but from <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299550/marriage-and-presidency-ryan-t-anderson" target="_blank">principles</a> of reality that remain unchanged despite anyone’s personal preferences.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/w/only-one-question-what-is-marriage-" target="_blank">Only One Question: What Is Marriage?</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>Every state law will draw lines between what is a marriage and what isn’t a marriage. If those lines are to be drawn on principle, if those lines are to reflect the truth, we have to know what sort of relationship is marital, as contrasted with other forms of consenting adult relationships... I’ll answer three questions: what is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what are the consequences of redefining marriage?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><br>
<em><strong>Consequences to do with children</strong></em>—both having them and caring for them (also applies to adoption). This is the area where studies are helpful. There are plenty of studies about what happens when a child doesn’t have a mother or doesn’t have a father. I tend to trust these more than studies that are specifically about children of same-sex parents because they aren’t so politically charged. The biggest problem for children of same-sex parents is that they’re denied what they need—a mother and a father, and we have plenty of evidence this causes problems.</p>

<p><a href="/w/same-sex-marriage-won-t-be-enough" target="_blank">Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Be Enough</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>Marriage can’t be separated from biological realities. And that’s why this upheaval won’t end when same-sex marriage is accepted—why Gessen’s ultimate goal is the end of marriage. I’m glad to hear her honesty about this.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/w/inherent-legal-difficulties-in-same-sex-marriage" target="_blank">Inherent Legal Difficulties in Same-Sex Marriage</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>Despite the current push to reject sexual complementarity as the basis of a family, our concept of family still involves children, and yet there’s no getting around the fact that in order for a child to exist (leaving aside cloning), a man and a woman must be involved. So what happens when a definitional change is forced onto naturally occurring institutions (both marriage and family)? That’s what the UK is finding out as it tries to create new laws to hold up a new definition. It’s turning out to be not as simple as they thought.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/w/fathers-don-t-mother" target="_blank">Fathers Don’t Mother</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>In the past when I’ve claimed that mothers and fathers are both necessary because they make unique, complementary contributions to the lives of their children (e.g., see “<a href="/w/we-don-t-need-mother-and-father-anymore-" target="_blank">We Don’t Need ’Mother’&nbsp;and ’Father’&nbsp;Anymore?</a>”), some have expressed skepticism, asking for more evidence and a better description of the differences. In an <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/the-distinct-positive-impact-of-a-good-dad/276874/" target="_blank">article</a> in <em>The Atlantic</em>, W. Bradford Wilcox explains what research is revealing on this subject.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.michiganfamily.org/index.php/what-every-child-needs/" target="_blank">What Every Child Needs: The Unique Contributions of Mothers and Fathers</a> (pamphlet distilling info from many studies)</p>

<p><br>
<em><strong>Consequences for marriage</strong></em></p>

<p><a href="/w/kolodny-i-will-dance-on-traditional-marriage-s-grave" target="_blank">Kolodny: I Will Dance on Traditional Marriage’s Grave</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>In the end, the results of divorcing marriage and children from complementary biology will include unprecedented government intrusion, increasingly dubious technological practices, the viewing of children as commodities, serious legal complications, and the unethical use of women’s bodies. Indeed, these results are already underway.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/w/michaelson-gay-culture-will-affect-marriage-not-the-other-way-around" target="_blank">Michaelson: Gay Culture Will Affect Marriage, Not the Other Way Around</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>Other unions do not complete the human reproductive system and create children, therefore monogamy and permanence are not central. Rather, what’s central is the sexual and emotional fulfillment of the participants, and who’s to say there’s one best way to accomplish that? Therefore, the radical activists seek “liberation”—the freedom to seek their own fulfillment however they see fit. No boundaries, no rules, no societal expectations. Each person acting as his own god, defining for himself what it means to be human.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><br>
<em><strong>Objections</strong></em></p>

<p><a href="/w/marriage-in-polygamy-is-still-one-man-one-woman" target="_blank">Marriage in Polygamy Is Still One Man, One Woman</a> (i.e., “Marriage is always changing—we used to have polygamy.”)</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Sometimes people cite polygamy as evidence that the definition of marriage has changed over time, proving it to be malleable according to the culture. But even in the case of polygamy, has there really been a change in the definition of marriage? While I could see someone today wanting to define marriage as one man and multiple women, I don’t think that’s how people viewed it in the past. That is, they didn’t see their situation as one big marriage where everybody was married to everybody else. Rather, marriage was still simply one man and one woman. It’s just that the man was allowed to have <em>more than one marriage</em>. We haven’t changed the definition of marriage, we’ve only limited the number of concurrent marriages a person can have.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/w/race-sex-and-marriage" target="_blank">Race, Sex, and Marriage</a> (i.e., “People used to be against interracial marriage, too.”)</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We don’t have separate bathrooms for white people and black people. We do have separate bathrooms for men and women. This is because men and women are different in ways that are significant enough for society to acknowledge and take into account when those differences are relevant. And while differences in race are not relevant to marriage, differences in sex <em>are</em> relevant to creating and raising children. The important thing to note here is that the government is merely acknowledging an already-existing institution (one based on biological <a href="/w/inconsistent-same-sex-marriage-advocates" target="_blank">realities</a>) when it recognizes male-female marriage. The public effect of the male-female union is unique, and therefore, the government is uniquely interested in it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><br>
<em><strong>Two helpful non-STR articles</strong></em></p>

<p><a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it" target="_blank">Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/05/5263/" target="_blank">Two Steps from Reasonable About Marriage</a></p>

<p><br>
<em><strong>Information from the Bible / theology</strong></em></p>

<p><a href="/w/worshipping-images-of-ourselves" target="_blank">Worshiping Images of Ourselves</a></p>

<p><a href="/w/sexual-expression-is-a-worldview-issue" target="_blank">Sexual Expression Is a Worldview Issue</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/discerning-the-will-of-god-concerning-homosexuality-and-marriage" target="_blank">Discerning the Will of God Concerning Homosexuality and Marriage</a> (John Piper)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/the-other-dark-exchange-homosexuality-part-1" target="_blank">The Other Dark Exchange: Homosexuality Part 1</a>, <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/the-other-dark-exchange-homosexuality-part-2" target="_blank">Part 2</a> (John Piper)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2012/05/23/gay-christianity-refuted/" target="_blank">James White’s Response to Matthew Vines</a></p>

<p><br>
<em><strong>More resources</strong></em></p>

<p><a href="/w/same-sex-marriage-challenges-and-responses" target="_blank">Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses</a></p>

<p><a href="http://store.str.org/SearchResults.asp?Search=same-sex+marriage+quick+reference&amp;Submit=Search" target="_blank">Same-Sex Marriage Quick-Reference Guide</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225" target="_blank">What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Marriage-Twelve-Arguments-Sanity/dp/1618906046/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1412715846&amp;sr=8-2" target="_blank">Defending Marriage: Twelve Arguments for Sanity</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Funderstand-the-same-sex-marriage-issue" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Funderstand-the-same-sex-marriage-issue" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Funderstand-the-same-sex-marriage-issue" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


