# articles

title: Truth Is a Strange Sort of Fiction: The Postmodern Turn Part 2
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/2006
source: https://www.str.org/w/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>If you genuinely believe there is no truth, can you still be a Christian?</em></p>

<p>[Author’s note: Most of what follows builds upon what was discussed in “<a href="http://www.str.org/publications/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-1#.V82Z1qOZORs">Truth Is a Strange Sort of Fiction: Part I</a>”&nbsp;found in the last issue of <em>Solid Ground</em>. To make the most out of what follows, it might be best to review those thoughts before you begin.]</p>

<p>I have been arguing that there’s been an odd shift in our culture of late. By and large, people are skeptical about truth. They are increasingly convinced that we live in a place of perpetual twilight where no one sees reality clearly, where knowledge of the world as it is in itself is simply out of reach.</p>

<p>Since Jesus said He came to bear witness to the truth—that is, to tell us the way the world actually is—this growing uncertainty about truth puts the ambassador for Christ at a significant disadvantage.</p>

<p>I used the word “odd”&nbsp;to describe this skepticism because just surviving day to day requires we get some things right, that we know truth in certain particulars even if omniscience escapes us. Nevertheless, the conviction prevails; sometimes the most obvious things go unnoticed.</p>

<p>I started my discussion last time by reflecting on a handful of basic concepts that implicitly govern nearly everything we do or think: knowledge, belief, truth, and justification. Curiously, these notions are so familiar to us it’s very easy not to notice them at all. They are, in a sense, hidden in plain view.</p>

<p>But confusion on these things causes us to say foolish things that would never occur to us if we were being more thoughtful. So I took some time to slow down and look more carefully at these concepts, notions that each of us is very familiar with in an implicit way, but maybe have not reflected on as such.</p>

<p>Here is what we discovered.</p>

<p>We noted that to have a belief is to hold that something is true—that it fits the world as it really is (what we called the “correspondence”&nbsp;view of truth)—and when our belief <em>does</em> fit, our belief actually <em>is</em> true. Our reasons or evidence for our beliefs (called “justification”) give us confidence that we’re right. When our evidence rises to a certain level���not necessarily certainty, but more than mere probability—we can claim to have knowledge. That threshold seems to be when we have evidence that gives us confidence “beyond a reasonable doubt.”</p>

<p>When talking about knowledge, then, we have both truth and belief joined together, and the glue that holds them together is evidence—our justification.</p>

<p>I then said that each of these is absolutely vital to the Christian message and, therefore, crucial for every one of Jesus’&nbsp;ambassadors. Now I want to tell you why.</p>

<h2>A Bold Proposition</h2>

<p>Let me start this next portion of our conversation with a bold claim: If you genuinely believe there is no truth (in the sense that we’ve been talking about it), then it is impossible for you to be a Christian.</p>

<p>I understand this is a troubling statement for some, especially those who identify strongly with Jesus Christ but who are also sympathetic to some of the defining ideas of the postmodern culture. Therefore, I want to be careful to give my reasons.</p>

<p>If I’m right in this claim, by the way, you can immediately see why people who think there is no truth would not take Christianity seriously. For one, no one will search for that which she thinks is impossible for her to find. Further, if Jesus came to bear witness to truth as He claimed (John 18:37), then truth is central to the Christian account of things. Yet if there is no truth (of the kind Jesus seemed to have in mind), then Christianity is fantasy of the first order, like chasing after unicorns, leprechauns, or North Pole elves.</p>

<p>But why would I think this bold claim is a reasonable one? The simple answer is that being a Christian requires faith, and the kind of faith Jesus and His disciples talked about requires a particular understanding of truth to get off the ground. The equation is simple: No truth, no faith. No faith, no Christianity. Therefore, no truth, no Christianity.</p>

<p>Think about this statement for a moment: “Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him”&nbsp;(Hebrews 11:6).</p>

<p>The first thing you may notice about this passage is that, according to the writer, there is something essential to any proper pursuit of God. That essential element is called faith. Second, you might have noticed that the writer hints at two distinct aspects of this faith he is concerned about, and the second is dependent upon the first.</p>

<p>In order to have the kind of faith the Bible talks about there must first be knowledge of certain facts. Specifically in this case, one must hold that God exists. If you recall, this is the first kind of knowledge we talked about in our last conversation. We called it “knowledge <em>that</em>,”&nbsp;also called “propositional knowledge.”&nbsp;Certain facts are essential to Christianity and it is vital that you believe them.</p>

<p>But the writer doesn’t stop with knowledge. Something else is needed for genuine faith. He writes about God rewarding “those who <em>seek</em> him.”&nbsp;Do you notice a shift here? The first requirement was something passive: knowledge. This second requirement, though, is not passive, but active, and it is the active element that is actually rewarded.</p>

<h2>Ancient Words</h2>

<p>Though this passage doesn’t go into detail, it echoes a thought we find many times in the teachings of Jesus and of those He trained to take His message after Him. We often use the words “believe”&nbsp;and “faith”&nbsp;interchangeably. This happens in the Bible, too (the words translated “faith”&nbsp;and “believe”&nbsp;are both derived from the same root word). However, they are not always synonyms.</p>

<p>Ancient Christians understood this. They actually identified three essential elements of a believer’s conviction about his Savior to distinguish mere belief from biblical faith. They used the Latin words <em>notia</em>, <em>assensus</em>, and <em>fiducia</em> to describe the difference. These words mean knowledge, assent, and trust.</p>

<p>The ancients first understood that facts were essential. There was a foundation of propositional knowledge that could not be dispensed with. These believers cared about getting the main things right. In fact, they felt so strongly about this they were willing to die for those things they believed true regarding Jesus of Nazareth.</p>

<p>They also understood that facts alone, even when you assent to them, will not help you. Information in the abstract is certainly not worth dying for. They saw a clear difference between affirming a proposition (knowledge and assent), and actively relying on what they believed. It does no good for an ailing diabetic to know <em>that</em> insulin will rescue her. Knowledge alone doesn’t save. Something else is needed.</p>

<p>Ancient Christians used the word <em>fiducia</em> to describe this critical ingredient. It means trust. According to them, biblical faith was neither a belief without evidence (the kind of religious wishful thinking often called a “leap”&nbsp;of faith), nor merely a simple assent to propositions (what we referred to earlier as “know <em>that”</em>). It was knowledge in action. It was assent combined with active reliance. Each was necessary. None could be dispensed with.</p>

<p>The sad fact is, every Sunday churches across America are filled with “believers”&nbsp;who are not Christians. Their knowledge is not deficient. They readily affirm all the correct doctrines about Jesus. But they are still completely lost because they are missing the third vital ingredient: trust. They know <em>about</em> Jesus, they assent <em>to</em> Jesus, but they have never trusted <em>in</em> Jesus, and this is evident from the way they live their lives.</p>

<p>Some Christians are very sensitive on this point and they should be. We all know those who pray the sinner’s prayer, nod their heads to the right doctrinal statements, get their “fire insurance,”&nbsp;and then disappear, never to be seen again—spiritual miscarriages instead of spiritual births.</p>

<p>There’s a difference between mere “belief”&nbsp;and biblical faith, between decisions and conversions. Even in the Gospels many <em>believed</em> in Jesus, after a fashion, who apparently never put their <em>trust</em> Him (Judas comes immediately to mind).</p>

<h2>A Trick Question</h2>

<p>Now we come to a very important juncture in our discussion. I want to make good on my claim that if you genuinely believe there is no truth, then it is impossible for you to be a true follower of Christ. I’ll do that by asking a trick question (I’m warning you in advance because I want you to think about it before you answer).</p>

<p>Here’s the question: Does faith save you? To help you think carefully about the answer, let me suggest an illustration.</p>

<p>Pretend for a moment that you are a diabetic on the verge of diabetic coma. Pretend also that I present you with a hypodermic syringe and a small vial that I said was insulin. Would you trust me to give you an injection to save your life?</p>

<p>I think you already see the thrust of my illustration. First, you know (or at least have heard) that the Bible teaches salvation by faith. Second, the illustration shows a clear contrast between mere belief and active trust (the point I’ve just been making). You already believe that insulin can give you relief. But you remain in danger until you take a step of faith and actively entrust yourself to my care. So I suspect you would assent to my offer.</p>

<p>If you did, however, you would be dead for your effort because all the sincerity of your childlike trust could not change the fact that the vial in my illustration does not really contain insulin. It is only saline. You had genuine faith to be sure—<em>fiducia</em>, belief in action, trust. But you are dead, nonetheless.</p>

<p>Now let me ask the question again: Does faith save you? Clearly, the correct answer is no. Faith cannot save anyone. To be sure, accurate knowledge <em>in itself</em> cannot save. But genuine faith <em>in itself</em> cannot save either. Muslim suicide bombers overflow with authentic faith. Trust can be misplaced, and often is.</p>

<p>Christian salvation is when accurate knowledge is <em>combined with</em> active trust. The thing you put your trust in must be capable of doing what you're trusting it to do. If Jesus is not insulin, but only saline, the Christian is lost in her sins no matter how strong or how genuine her faith is.</p>

<p>Faith cannot save you. Only the One you’re trusting <em>in</em>—Jesus—can save. But Jesus can only save if He can really, actually, truly do what you are trusting Him to do.</p>

<p>In other words, Jesus cannot save unless your beliefs about Him are accurate, unless they are true. Therefore, if there is no truth, there is no saving faith. And if there is no saving faith, there is no Christianity.</p>

<p>Further, when Jesus calls for faith, He expects belief and trust. But to have belief is to actually hold that certain things about Jesus are true. And if someone is possessed of the conviction that nothing really is true, then the kind of faith Jesus requires will be impossible for him. Thus it will be impossible for him to be a Christian.</p>

<p>I want you to see—in fact, it is absolutely vital for your to see—that there is a prior foundation that makes genuine biblical faith possible, and that foundation is objective truth. If there is no truth, then Christian faith is a mere placebo. It soothes, but it cannot heal.</p>

<p>This may be why Jesus had more to say about truth than He did about faith. He said that authentic worship had to be based on truth (John 4:24). He taught that truth was the secret of genuine freedom (John 8:32). He wanted His followers to be sanctified in truth with God’s Word which was truth (John 17:17). He promised that everyone who valued truth would hear His voice (John 18:37). Indeed, Jesus was so filled with truth Himself (John 1:14) He personally identified Himself with it: “I am...the truth”&nbsp;(John 14:6).</p>

<p>If Jesus Himself was dedicated to truth, how can any person claiming to be a follower of His deny there is truth in the way Jesus understood it?</p>

<p>Let me suggest a reason. This probably is not the entire reason, but I think it’s part of it. Since propositional truths can’t save anyone, then either truth of this sort is irrelevant, or it’s dangerous, a hold-over from the arrogance—and subsequent oppressiveness—of modernism.</p>

<p>You can see now, I hope, that this concern is misguided. We all agree that affirming true propositions is not <em>sufficient</em> to be a Christian. But just because true propositions are not sufficient doesn’t mean they are not <em>necessary</em>. Certain things must be true before genuine faith makes any difference.</p>

<h2>A Brief Review</h2>

<p>So far we have learned that it is entirely possible to believe something, yet not exercise the kind of <em>faith</em> that Jesus had in mind. Christianity is not just a matter of affirming facts. It is about active trust. You must exercise faith <em>in</em> someone, in our case, Jesus.</p>

<p>Then I tricked you with a question you thought you knew the answer to. On further reflection, though, you realized your answer was only part of the solution. Faith—active trust—is not enough to save. The object of our trust must be worthy of our trust. Our faith must be properly invested in what is true, and we must believe it to be so. If there is no truth, then, there is no possibility of Christian faith.</p>

<p>This is why I said that if you’re a Christian who really believes there is no truth, then in spite of all your sincerity, you are not a Christian. Christianity requires faith, faith requires belief, and belief requires truth. So, if you deny truth, then the kind of faith Christianity requires is impossible.</p>

<p>Do you see that any speculation, any philosophy, any point of view, that denies something as essential to Christianity as objective truth is not a philosophy that is according to Christ? It is a philosophy that is according to men. It is not a philosophy to be embraced. It is a philosophy to be guarded against. It is not a philosophy to be relished. It is a philosophy to be resisted. It is a philosophy to be torn down.</p>

<p>That philosophy is called postmodernism, and that is what I want to talk with you about in the <a href="http://www.str.org/publications/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-3#.V82aHaOZORs">next issue of <em>Solid Ground</em>.</a></p>

<h2>Putting Your Knowledge into Action</h2>

<p>Remember, Jesus said He came to bear witness to the truth—that is to tell us the way the world actually is.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the kind of faith Jesus and His disciples talked about requires a particular understanding of truth to even get off the ground</p>

<p>The equation is simple: No truth, no faith. No faith, no Christianity. Therefore, no truth, no Christianity.</p>

<p>Remember the three essential parts to saving faith: knowledge, assent, and trust (notia, assensus, and fiducia).</p>

<p>Remember the “insulin illustration.”&nbsp;It doesn’t help to put our trust in something if our belief does not reflect true facts. And it doesn’t matter if we have true facts if we don’t exercise trust in that truth.</p>

<p>When talking to someone who’s concerned about reaching our postmodern culture, you can agree that affirming true propositions are not sufficient to be a Christian—but they are necessary.</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-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-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%2Ftruth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-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%2Ftruth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-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: Moreland’s Defense of Inerrancy
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/12/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/moreland-s-defense-of-inerrancy
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The conversation in the <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/06/gospel_contradi.html#comments" target="_blank">comments section</a> for “Gospel Contradictions”&nbsp;reminded me of Moreland’s dense yet brief article, “<a href="http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_inerrancy_moreland.html" target="_blank">The Rationality of Belief in Inerrancy</a>”&nbsp;wherein he argues that it’s rational to believe in inerrancy even in the face of some unexplained counterexamples.</p>

<p>Moreland begins with a summary of the arguments against inerrancy (e.g., you’re not justified in believing in inerrancy unless you can explain away all proposed counterexamples). His response centers on an illustration from science: When forming hypotheses, scientists treat anomalies as <em>alleged</em> counter instances when the background context and the overall class of instances support the hypothesis. Rather than focusing on a single anomaly, allowing it to refute the theory, they take into account the evidence as a whole and suspend judgment on the single anomaly.</p>

<p>He describes three principles used when developing scientific theories:</p>

<p>1. In forming a theory, you start with the clear cases, not the borderline ones.</p>

<p>2. The presence of as yet unexplained anomalies does not necessarily disprove the theory.</p>

<p>3. 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.</p>

<p>Moreland then gives an example that illustrates these principles:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>A standard organic chemistry test by Morrison and Boyd discusses a certain kind of chemical reaction known as halohydrogenation. This kind of reaction was supposed always to happen in a certain way based on scientific theories explaining halohydrogenation. <strong>However, a clear, refuting counterexample was found which, if judged simply by the evidence for that case in isolation from the evidence for the hypothesis, provided a refutation of the hypothesis. But scientists suspended judgment on this case and engaged in <em>ad hoc</em> harmonization attempts from 1869-1933. At that time they discovered a new, hitherto unknown factor which severed the counterexample from its class</strong>.</p>

<p><strong>Why were they rational in doing this? Because the evidence for treating the counterexample as a real refutation had to be sufficiently strong to overturn the combined evidence from a variety of sources that the hypothesis was true.</strong> If the counterexample was judged on its own terms, various interpretations that harmonized it with the hypothesis would have been ruled out. But this is not the correct epistemic situation. <strong>The counterexample was a member of a class, and the evidence supporting the hypothesis from the rest of the class was relevant to the situation</strong>&nbsp;[Emphasis mine].</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Moreland argues that the same is true with Scripture. One could possibly point to specific instances that, if they were all we had to consider, would render inerrancy a less rational position than the alternative. However, if we take all of the instances of Bible texts into consideration and view the class as a whole in light of the available background information (God’s existence and character, the resurrection, etc.), we are justified in treating the alleged contradictions as any scientist would treat anomalies by harmonizing them or by concluding that we don’t yet have all the necessary information to explain them.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmoreland-s-defense-of-inerrancy" 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%2Fmoreland-s-defense-of-inerrancy" 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%2Fmoreland-s-defense-of-inerrancy" 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: LDS View of Atonement Clarified
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/06/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/lds-view-of-atonement-clarified
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There’s a parable printed in the official LDS (Mormon) teaching manual, <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng" target="_blank"><em>Gospel Principles</em></a>, that illustrates well the difference between our view of the atonement and the LDS view, and it can be helpful in clarifying that difference with your LDS friends.</p>

<p>In <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-12-the-atonement?lang=eng" target="_blank">this parable</a> (pp. 75-77), originally told by Elder Boyd K. Packer (of the <a href="https://www.lds.org/church/leaders/quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles?lang=eng" target="_blank">Quorum of the Twelve Apostles</a>), a man finds himself in debt so deep that repayment is impossible. As he’s about to be thrown into prison by his creditor, he cries for mercy, but the creditor demands justice. The narrator tells us:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also? There is a way! The law of justice <em>can</em> be fully satisfied and mercy <em>can</em> be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.</p>

<p>The debtor had a friend. He came to help...He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.</p>

<p>“I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison...You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So far, this is a familiar story to us. But while we expect it to end here with the gratefulness of the debtor, the LDS story goes on:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The mediator turned then to the debtor. “If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?”</p>

<p>“Oh yes, yes...You saved me from prison and show mercy to me.”</p>

<p>“Then,”&nbsp;said the benefactor, ��you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The debtor is still a debtor who must still pay. However, Jesus is now the one he must pay back, according to his new terms which require a different payment as an alternative to the previously required payment of spiritual death. For LDS people, Jesus has made our debt manageable by creating a new payment plan:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Our sins are our spiritual debts. Without Jesus Christ, who is our Savior and Mediator, we would all pay for our sins by suffering spiritual death. But because of him, if we will keep his terms, which are to repent and keep his commandments, we may return to live with our Heavenly Father.</p>

<p>It is wonderful that Christ has provided us a way to be healed from our sins.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, Christ has provided the way for us to follow; He, Himself, is not the way. He made forgiveness possible “<em>if</em> we do our part”&nbsp;(p. 75); He has not secured our forgiveness. By contrast, Greg wrote about the biblical view of the atonement using two extremely moving illustrations in the second half of the <a href="/w/the-christ-of-the-passion-what-the-movie-couldn-t-show-" target="_blank">March/April 2004 Solid Ground</a>. The difference is profound and life-altering.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flds-view-of-atonement-clarified" 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%2Flds-view-of-atonement-clarified" 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%2Flds-view-of-atonement-clarified" 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 Is a Strange Sort of Fiction: The Postmodern Turn Part 3
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-3
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Opening teaser: Postmodernism is on a crash course with Christianity. In fact, we’ve already collided. Here’s how to sort through the wreckage.</em></p>

<p>[Author’s note: Much of what follows builds upon what was discussed in “Truth Is a Strange Sort of Fiction: Part I &amp; II”&nbsp;found in the last two issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>. To make the most out of what follows, review those thoughts before you begin. <a href="http://www.str.org/publications/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-2#.V82aQqOZORs">Read part 2 here.</a>]</p>

<p>I started my discussion last time by making a dramatic claim. I said that if someone genuinely believed there was no objective truth, then it was impossible for him to be a Christian. I said this for two reasons. First, because a very particular understanding of “truth”&nbsp;is central to Jesus’&nbsp;teaching. Second, because that view of truth is the very thing being rejected by postmodernism. Unless this challenge is answered, Jesus’&nbsp;message will never rise above the status of a curious sideshow to an emerging culture.</p>

<p>How did this come to be? That’s where I would like to turn my attention next.</p>

<h2>Back to the Ancients</h2>

<p>For thousands of years, very educated people and very ordinary people shared a handful of common-sense beliefs about knowledge.</p>

<p>First, they believed in persons and in things, that is, they thought there were “knowers”&nbsp;(them) and things to be known (the outside world). Further, they were convinced that they were <em>capable</em> of knowing something about that mind-independent world “out there.”</p>

<p>The ancients believed they had access to the world through certain tools of discovery that would connect them to reality in a trustworthy way. Chief among these were the basic reliability of the senses and the fundamental principles of reason.</p>

<p>They also had a deep conviction there was guidance from the unseen world—revelation—that could shed light on the process. The Christian thinkers especially understood that since God knew everything, their own knowledge was always, in a sense, secondary to His. Their human knowledge ultimately depended on God who could speak and aid them in their quest for truth.</p>

<p>The Christian view, then, was an amalgam between revelation and reason. Early Christian thinkers called this “faith seeking understanding.”&nbsp;For them, trust in the reliability of God’s revelation went hand in hand with careful thinking. They were two sides of the same knowledge coin.</p>

<p>Each of these—trust in the senses, trust in reason, and trust in revelation—gave the ancients and the Medievals confidence they could form accurate beliefs about their world. They believed that if they explored the world carefully and reflected on it thoughtfully in light of the guidance of revelation, it was possible for them to know the world as it was in itself—not exhaustively, not perfectly, but accurately as far as it went.</p>

<p>These people were called realists because they believed there was a real world to be known and that they could know at least some of it correctly and truthfully.</p>

<h2>The Moderns</h2>

<p>In the Enlightenment era (roughly 1550 to the mid-1900s), this equation was radically altered. In a bold stroke, the moderns banished God—along with anything that claimed to be His revelation—and made man the autonomous center of the universe. James Emery White calls it the “second fall.”</p>

<p>The first fall led to God’s expulsion of humans from the Garden of Eden. The second fall occurred when we returned the favor [and]...ceased operating with any reference to a transcendent truth, much less a deity.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Reason, not revelation, became the measure of all things (rationalism), and was coupled with the primacy of sense experience (empiricism) as the primary means of knowledge.</p>

<p>This approach, however, introduced new problems. Enlightenment thinkers began to turn skeptical thinking that all knowledge of the outside world came to us through distorting filters, barriers that stood between us and reality. With our access compromised, any knowledge they thought they had was suspect.</p>

<p>In the 17th century, French philosopher Rene Descartes’&nbsp;theory that we are trapped behind our “ideas of sensation”&nbsp;became widely accepted in Europe. Following Descartes’&nbsp;lead, Scottish philosopher David Hume argued we are “trapped”&nbsp;behind our sense impressions with no direct contact with world. Immanuel Kant, a contemporary of Hume, concluded we can never know the world as it really is. We only know the appearances of things (the <em>phenomena</em>), not the things themselves (the <em>noumena</em>).</p>

<p>Notice what happened here. The realists of old were being replaced with non-realists, skeptics who denied we could know the objective world since we no longer had direct access to it. Instead, all we could know are appearances, a world “constructed”&nbsp;for us by our sense experiences.</p>

<p>This “constructivism”&nbsp;handed down from the moderns set the stage for the more radical skepticism of the postmodern world.</p>

<h2>Postmodernism</h2>

<p>Let me pause at this point to offer a qualifier. Some will consider the characterization of postmodernism I am about to offer unconscionably spare. It is a complex cultural movement with many facets. My intention, however, is not to survey the field, but to offer a broad overview on the single issue that is most relevant to Christianity: the postmodern view of truth and knowledge.</p>

<p>In the 19th century, Prussian philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued that all knowledge was “perspectival.”&nbsp;Everything we think we know comes from some personal perspective that disqualifies us from ever possessing objective truth. “Truths are illusions,”&nbsp;he wrote, a “mobile army of metaphors.”</p>

<p>Though it took nearly a hundred years for his idea to come home to roost in the culture at large, Nietzsche’s views launched a monumental cultural shift, the “turn”&nbsp;from the modern to the postmodern.</p>

<p>By 1970, postmodern views of knowledge began to take root in Western civilization. Coined initially as a description of architectural trends, the word “postmodern”&nbsp;was first used as a term of cultural analysis by French sociologist Jean-Francois Lyotard. He characterized postmodernism as “incredulity toward meta-narratives.”</p>

<p>A narrative is a story. Every culture or sub-cultural group has one. It is their account of reality. A <em>meta</em>-narrative is an over-arching story, a story that is true for everyone, trumping all the rest. Lyotard’s deep skepticism (“incredulity”) that any individual account could be known to be the universally accurate story (“meta-narrative”) is at the heart of the postmodern view of knowledge.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>There is a reason for this doubt. Postmoderns think the influence of language so powerfully distorts our perception of reality that all hope of knowing the one true story (if it even exists) vanishes. Cultural biases have so seriously blinded us, we can never know things as they really are.</p>

<p>What we think we know about the “outside”&nbsp;world is merely a reflection of our cultural language on the inside, the “story”&nbsp;we find ourselves trapped within. Therefore, all claims to know objective truth are false because each of us is imprisoned, incapable of seeing beyond the limits of our linguistic constructions.</p>

<p>Though postmodernism is a reaction to modernism, notice how it retains one of its most debilitating elements—constructivism, but adds a twist to it. Instead of being stuck “behind”&nbsp;our sense impressions, we are stuck “inside”&nbsp;our language which manufactures reality for us.</p>

<p>And the barrier is impermeable. No one can ever get at the real world. Since all knowledge is socially constructed, postmodernists despair of knowing any universal truths at all.</p>

<p>No appeal to the fundamental principles of reason will help break the impasse, either. Rationality itself becomes a casualty in postmodernism, rejected in part because of its abuse in the hands of the moderns and in part as just another social construction.</p>

<p>The use of reason was not unique to the Enlightenment, though. It was also a tool of premoderns as well, of both Medievals and ancients. Rejection of the intellectual corruptions of modernity does not require a wholesale rejection of reason, but that is largely how it has gone.</p>

<h2>Postmodern “Truth”</h2>

<p>What becomes of truth on this view? The word “truth”&nbsp;is still used by postmodernists, to be sure, but the meaning is so radically recast it can be safely said that there is no truth in what had been the ordinary and more natural sense of the word.</p>

<p>Some Christian postmoderns are defensive at this point. Since the word “truth”&nbsp;is still in their Christian vocabulary, to claim that they deny truth is taken as libel. Their complaint is disingenuous, though. Nothing remains of the former notion that a true statement describes the real world accurately. The old meaning is gone. Only the letters remain, and these letters signify entirely different notions.</p>

<p>The word “truth”&nbsp;could describe the internal harmony of the ideas of a story. When a story is well-composed, when its ideas fit together nicely in a mesh of interconnecting details, one might say those stories are “true”&nbsp;to themselves, that is, they stick together or cohere well without contradiction. This is called the “coherence”&nbsp;view of truth: True statements are part of an internally consistent “web”&nbsp;of beliefs that support each other.</p>

<p>On this view, narratives describing completely different worlds can still be equally true as stand-alone stories. Consider the <em>Chronicles of Narnia</em> and <em>The Lord of the Rings</em>.</p>

<p>We’d never say that any detail of Narnia was true in a way that made any detail of Middle Earth false. That Aslan and Aragorn are both <em>the</em> king at the same time presents no conflict because they are in different stories.</p>

<p>In similar fashion, different narratives constructed by diverse cultures or religious communities are never actually in conflict because they represent distinctive stories. The “truth”&nbsp;of one does not render the other false. Any claim that an individual culture or a particular religion has the true story is either dismissed as nonsense or vigorously opposed as a throwback to the oppressive imperialism of modernism.</p>

<p>“Truth”&nbsp;could also be used as a synonym for belief. Since different cultural groups construct different worlds, these worlds are “true”&nbsp;for them because they believe them. All beliefs are truths for those who hold them; all truths are mere beliefs. That is all anyone is entitled to say. Truth in the traditional sense of the word—an accurate description of the world—is gone. Only the story remains. If one culture’s story serves them well (the “pragmatic”&nbsp;view of truth), why find fault?</p>

<p>In some ways, these ways of looking at truth are very attractive, especially in light of the exploitation and abuse that sometimes accompanied Enlightenment convictions about truth and reason. The postmodern view looks humble and tolerant to many. But there are problems.</p>

<p>First, it’s not at all clear that postmodernism escapes either the arrogant dogmatism or the abusiveness of its predecessor. Though the field is awash with variations on the postmodern theme, there is little sense that the rank and file are open to the possibility the paradigm itself may be mistaken. In addition, postmodern political correctness has produced its own brand of mean-spirited intolerance for those who do not follow in its step. This is especially obvious on university campuses.</p>

<p>Second, for the follower of Christ there is a very steep price to be paid. The postmodern definition of truth not only is very different from what most people seem to mean when they use the word “truth.”&nbsp;It’s also clearly not the way the prophets, the Apostles, or Jesus Himself used the word. They did not seem to be telling us their story. Instead, they seemed to be telling us <em>the</em> story, the way the world actually is.</p>

<h2>The Postmodern Turn and Christianity</h2>

<p>If you recall our discussion in the first two installments, you will immediately see the challenge that postmodern views of truth pose for Christianity. I argued that if someone genuinely believed there was no objective truth, then it was impossible for him to be a Christian. But objective truth is precisely the thing denied in the postmodern view of knowledge.</p>

<p>If this view prevails, Christianity is eviscerated. Paul himself said that if certain things were not actually the way he claimed they were—that is, true in the classical sense of the term, objectively true—then our faith is worthless and Christians should be pitied.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> A story cannot save anyone. Salvation requires a genuine Messiah because our sins are real, not fictitious.</p>

<p>Let me give just one example of the consequences postmodernism has for Christianity. It’s taken from a theology book I read in graduate school. It’s called <em>The Theme of the Pentateuch</em>, by David Clines.</p>

<p>My copy was a second edition which included an unusual “Afterward.”&nbsp;Under a section entitled, “The Modern and the Postmodern,”&nbsp;Professor Cline repents of the “modernist”&nbsp;sins that informed the writing of his first edition and assures us that he is now an obedient, card-carrying postmodern:</p>

<p>A key difference between <em>The Theme of the Pentateuch</em> and any book I would write on the Pentateuch now can be described as the difference between the modern and the postmodern. I mean by the modern the period since the Enlightenment, when, in a word, rationality became enthroned over dogma. <em>The Theme of the Pentateuch</em> exemplifies the interests of the modern period, in which the texts have unity and determinate meaning, and in which texts are to be viewed as the expression of their author’s consciousness...</p>

<p><em>Nowadays I tend rather to believe that texts do not have meaning in themselves</em>, and that what we call meaning is something that comes into being at the meeting point of text and reader. If that is so, then meaning is reader-dependent and reader-specific, and <em>there are in principle as many meanings as there are reader</em>s...</p>

<p>Who is to say, I would now ask, what meanings are and are not “legitimate”?...I have to accept that my interpretations are relative to myself, and I cannot rule out those of others as being “illegitimate”...No one can judge for us, and <em>no one can say in a postmodern age that some interpretations are “legitimate”&nbsp;and others are “illegitimate.”...The postmodern turn has put an end to the “modern”&nbsp;idea that the meaning of a text is the meaning intended by the author</em><sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> [emphasis added].</p>

<p>This is a radical statement in light of historic Christianity. What are we to make of the Bible on Cline’s view? Indeed, what are we to make of Cline’s own work, <em>The Theme of the Pentateuch</em>? Is the professor trying to educate us on what Moses had in mind when he penned the Torah, or are such interpretations of Cline’s own book entirely up to the reader? If the former, then Cline has betrayed his postmodernist confession. If the latter, of what use is his book?</p>

<p>The dilemma Professor Cline finds himself in immediately suggests a lethal problem with postmodernism. I will address that problem in the <a href="http://www.str.org/publications/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-4#.V82afaOZORs">next issue of <em>Solid Ground</em>.</a></p>

<h2>Putting Your Knowledge into Action</h2>

<ul>
	<li>Keep in mind that our common-sense beliefs about knowledge and truth have served us well since the time of the ancients principally because they are sound.</li>
	<li>Remember that the classical Christian tradition taken as a whole did not cast reason and faith as opposites, but as allies (“faith seeking understanding”).</li>
	<li>The problem with modernism was not its view of truth and reason. Premoderns used them both and so must postmoderns to make any progress with their ideas.</li>
	<li>The chief problem with the Enlightenment was placing man in the center where God belonged. Truth, knowledge, meaning, and significance all crumbled quickly into confusion—and eventually despair of one kind or another—as a result.</li>
	<li>When talking with Christian postmodernists, ask if Jesus is actually, in reality, the Savior, or is He just the Savior in a story. If just a story, ask how a fictional Jesus can save any of us from actual sin.</li>
</ul>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">James Emery White, <em>Serious Times</em> (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 18. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Lyotard was reacting to what he saw as the negative influences of modernity—understood as the Enlightenment’s rejection of religion as a possible sphere of knowledge and its acceptance of scientism, the view that science is the only sure path to knowledge and progress. Lyotard rejected this modern view as, in essence, “straitjacketing”&nbsp;human individuality and cultural diversity. Consequently, he grew skeptical of <em>any</em> meta-narrative that claimed to offer a complete, totalizing account of who we are as human persons. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">In 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, Paul used this language to describe those who deny the resurrection of Christ. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">David Clines, <em>The Theme of the Pentateuch</em>, 2nd ed. (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 130-133. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</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%2Ftruth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-3" 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-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-3" 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-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-3" 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 Da Vinci Code Cracks
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2006
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-da-vinci-code-cracks
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>“Everyone loves a conspiracy.”</em></p>

<p><em>- Robert Langdon, Harvard Religious Symbologist,</em> The Da Vinci Code</p>

<p>I never thought it would happen. There I was, at a dead standstill in the middle of the 405 in Los Angeles traffic, and I didn’t care. The gridlock could continue all day as far as I was concerned.</p>

<p>I wasn’t complaining. I wasn’t fidgeting. I wasn’t even paying attention. Instead, I was riveted to the words flowing from my in-dash CD player. A talented reader was keeping me spellbound with a tale of murder, suspense, and intrigue.</p>

<p>The story was called <em>The Da Vinci Code</em>.</p>

<p>I’m not alone. To date nearly 50 million copies of Dan Brown’s thriller have kept the midnight oil burning around the world. And those were the hardbound edition. The soft cover just came out with an initial release of five million. And then there’s the movie.</p>

<p>No question about it, <em>The Da Vinci Code</em> is <em>the</em> blockbuster hit who’s only rival in publishing success is the Bible. Which is ironic. Dan Brown’s tale is a frontal assault on the Jesus of Christianity that millions have placed their simple trust in for 2000 years.</p>

<p>Brown dishes up a convoluted conspiracy of corrupted Gospels, doctrinal deception, theological suppression, book burning, the Holy Grail and, climactically, Jesus’&nbsp;secret marriage to Mary Magdalene whose progeny remain to this day. The Vatican lurks in the shadows, of course—maneuvering, manipulating, even murdering—suppressing the real truth for two millennia.</p>

<h2>Jesus Gets an “Upgrade”</h2>

<p>According to Brown, the epicenter of the massive deception foisted on Christians the world over is the Council of Nicea, which met in 325 A.D. at the behest of Constantine. From this meeting “sprang the most profound moment in Christian history.”</p>

<p>Here are the “facts”&nbsp;related to us through Dan Brown’s character, the historian Sir Leigh Teabing:</p>

<p>“The Bible is a product of <em>man</em>, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book...”</p>

<p>“[Jesus’] life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land.”&nbsp;Teabing paused to sip his tea and then placed the cup back on the mantel. “More than <em>eighty</em> gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them.”</p>

<p>“Who chose which gospels to include?”&nbsp;Sophie asked.</p>

<p>“Aha!”&nbsp;Teabing burst in with enthusiasm. “The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great...”</p>

<p>“Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian tradition, and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as the Council of Nicaea.”</p>

<p>Sophie had heard of it only insofar as its being the birthplace of the Nicene Creed.</p>

<p>“At this gathering,”&nbsp;Teabing said, “many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon—the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course the <em>divinity</em> of Christ.”</p>

<p>“I don’t follow. His divinity?”</p>

<p>“My dear,”&nbsp;Teabing declared, “until <em>that</em> moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet...a great and powerful man, but a <em>man</em> nonetheless. A mortal.”</p>

<p>“Not the Son of God?”</p>

<p>“Right,”&nbsp;Teabing said. “Jesus’&nbsp;establishment as ’the son of God’&nbsp;was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.”</p>

<p>“Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’&nbsp;divinity was the result of a <em>vote</em>?”</p>

<p>“A relatively close vote at that,”&nbsp;Teabing added...</p>

<p>“And I assume devout Christians send you hate mail on a daily basis?”</p>

<p>“Why would they?”&nbsp;Teabing countered. “The vast majority of educated Christians know the history of their faith...”</p>

<p>“The twist is this,”&nbsp;Teabing said, talking faster now. “Because Constantine upgraded Jesus’&nbsp;status almost four centuries <em>after</em> Jesus’&nbsp;death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a <em>mortal</em> man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history.”&nbsp;Teabing paused, eyeing Sophie. “Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s <em>human</em> traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.”</p>

<p>“Fortunately for historians,”&nbsp;Teabing said, “some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert. And, of course, the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi...The scrolls highlight glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications, clearly confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda—to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ and use His influence to solidify their own power base”&nbsp;(231-234).</p>

<p>Though this is a work of fiction, Teabing’s testimony has rocked the confidence of many Christians. It’s understandable. There is an implicit trust relationship between writers of historical fiction and their readers. Readers expect an imaginary tale, but they trust the background information to be accurate. They count on the author to do his homework.</p>

<p>Brown invites that trust. An alert placed just before the Prologue under the bolded heading “FACT”&nbsp;reads, “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”</p>

<p>It’s no wonder Christians are shaken. Teabing’s account is so lucid, so compelling, so convincingly told. The more controversial details are offered up as common knowledge to insiders, academics, historians, and intellectuals in general. Only the foolish faithful are still in the dark, unwitting dupes of Constantine and the Vatican.</p>

<p>But Dan Brown has betrayed our trust. For alert readers this is obvious even before second-checking the details.</p>

<p>How is it physically possible, for example—given that Jesus’&nbsp;life “was recorded by thousands,”&nbsp;with more than eighty gospels being freely circulated for hundreds of years—for Constantine to gather up all of the handwritten copies from every nook and cranny of the Roman empire by the 4th century and destroy the vast majority of them?</p>

<p>With all the conveniences of modern technology at my disposal, I couldn’t do that with yesterday’s <em>L.A. Times</em> circulating in Orange County. How could Constantine’s minions do it by hand on foot over the entire civilized world of that time? Previous Roman rulers—Diocletian in 303 and Maximian in 304<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup>—had tried and failed miserably.</p>

<p>Another question: If the deity of Christ was an idea invented by Constantine and completely foreign to Christ’s followers who viewed Him as a mere mortal, what explains the “relatively close vote”&nbsp;at Nicea? (In actual fact, with only two Egyptian bishops dissenting—Theonas and Secundus—out of 318 bishops,<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> the vote wasn’t close at all.)</p>

<p>Again, if the early records of Jesus’&nbsp;life are so corrupted and compromised with “countless translations, additions, and revisions,”&nbsp;if “history has never had a definitive version of the book,”&nbsp;from where does Teabing derive his reliable, authentic, unimpeachable biographical information about Jesus?</p>

<p>Finally, how does Teabing know that thousands of Jesus’&nbsp;followers wrote accounts of His life if the great bulk of these records were destroyed? This is the classic problem for conspiracy theorists: If all evidence was eradicated, how do they know it was there in the first place?</p>

<p>These problems are obvious on first glance. After a little sleuthing, however, more glaring discrepancies surface.</p>

<p>Brown claims Constantine’s book-burning wasn’t completely successful, that the famous Dead Sea Scrolls found in caves in Qumran “highlight glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications, clearly confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda—to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ.”</p>

<p>Brown might be forgiven for not getting the date right (the first scrolls were discovered in the 1940s, not ’50s). He cannot be forgiven, however, for another misstep: <em>The Dead Sea Scrolls say nothing of Jesus.</em> There were no gospels in Qumran. Not one shred or shard or bit of pot mention His name. This is a complete fabrication.</p>

<h2>The Council of Nicea</h2>

<p>A full accounting of the misinformation, falsehoods, inventions, and distortions littering Brown’s fiction is not possible here. I am not concerned now with Brown’s fanciful conspiracy tales of the Holy Grail, Mary Magdalene’s alleged marriage to Jesus, nor with the secret identity of His progeny living now in Paris under cover and out of reach of the Vatican. Another issue is more foundational.</p>

<p>None of those claims can be taken seriously unless Brown first undermines the historical legitimacy of the canonical Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Only then can his revisionist history go forward.</p>

<p>Sir Teabing is Brown’s mouthpiece for this effort. Teabing claims these records were tampered with by Constantine at the Council of Nicea. To advance his own a political agenda, the Roman emperor rewrote history, destroying the true records that cast Jesus as a mere mortal and replacing them with documents that advanced the man of Nazareth as the divine Son of God.</p>

<p>Since this is the pivot upon which Brown’s entire yarn spins, it’s vital to ask, “What really happened at Nicea?”</p>

<p>If you want to know the true details of any event, it’s best to consult those who were actually there. Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius, archdeacon of Alexandria, both wrote extensively about the controversy. They were also the central figures of the theological debate, along with the presbyter Arius, also of Alexandria.</p>

<p>The basic facts are these.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Emperor Constantine summoned the Council and presided over it from June 14 to July 25, 325 A.D. 318 bishops attended along with two presbyters each. Three main points were discussed: the Easter question, the Meletian schism, and the divinity of Christ. Since this last issue was the precipitating reason <em>for</em> convening the council in the first place, it could hardly have been fabricated <em>by</em> the Council, as Teabing asserts.</p>

<p>In fact, <em>everyone</em> in attendance at Nicea, including the Arians, regarded Jesus as the “Son of God,”&nbsp;however variously they may have understood its meaning. Arius denied the full deity of Christ, true enough, but didn’t think Jesus was a mere mortal. Rather, he argued, Jesus was a unique creature, a human body with no rational human soul. Instead, He was indwelled by a created, pre-incarnate spirit called the Logos. Ironically for Brown, then, the dissenting party led by Arius denied both the deity <em>and</em> the true humanity of Christ.</p>

<p>After a pitched debate and failed attempts at compromise offered by Eusebius, the orthodox party prevailed. The vote, as noted before, was a landslide with only two bishops opposing the final accords, affirming what had been taught from the beginning. Jesus was not a mere man; He was the son of God.</p>

<p>Surprisingly, even the early heretics agreed on this score.</p>

<h2>The Heretics Speak</h2>

<p>The first great doctrinal challenge to the church was Gnosticism. It existed in seminal form in the 1st century. In the 2nd century, though, it became a full-blown competitor with apostolic Christianity.</p>

<p>Though Gnosticism was a complex mixture of beliefs, at its core was a radical dualism between spirit and matter in which matter was inherently evil and spirit inherently good.</p>

<p>For the “Christian”&nbsp;forms of Gnosticism, then, it was unthinkable Christ could have a real physical body. Instead, some claimed, He only appeared embodied, giving rise to a heresy called Docetism (from the Greek <em>dokeo</em>, “to appear”&nbsp;or “seem”).</p>

<p>This raised problems for the incarnation. Note John’s warning in the face of the growing tendency to deny Jesus’&nbsp;humanity: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.”&nbsp;What was the test? “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has <em>come in the flesh</em> is from God”&nbsp;(1 John 4:1-2). Early on, belief in a genuine incarnation was a test of orthodoxy. Mere appearances wouldn’t do.</p>

<p>Here’s the important point: Gnosticism <em>affirmed</em> that Jesus was divine. It fell afoul of Christianity in its denial of Jesus’&nbsp;true human mortality, not His divine nature. This proves that Jesus’&nbsp;divinity was not an invention of Constantine in the 4th century.</p>

<p>Even more damaging for Dan Brown, the vast majority of so-called “lost”&nbsp;gospels (particularly those from Nag Hammadi) were Gnostic in nature. Any unqualified appeal by Brown to Gnostic writings, then, is self-defeating. Many Gnostics would never, even in principle, affirm that Jesus was “a mortal prophet...a man nonetheless.”</p>

<p>Modalism surfaced next. It insisted Jesus was God, but denied any real distinction between the divine persons. Rather, Jesus was one mode of manifestation of God. In the Old Testament God revealed Himself as Father, in the New Testament as Son, and since Pentecost as the Holy Spirit.</p>

<p>The testimony of the heretics is an embarrassment for Brown. Both of these early heresies, in play for more than a 100 years before the reign of Constantine, affirmed the full divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. This is exactly the <em>opposite</em> of what you’d expect if Brown’s assertions were correct.</p>

<p>But there’s more:</p>

<ul>
	<li>The book of Romans, an uncontested Pauline epistle written c. 55 A.D., shows that the notion of Jesus’&nbsp;divinity was circulating within 20 years of the crucifixion. Note the opening: “...declared <em>the Son of God</em> with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord.”—<em>Romans</em> 1:4</li>
	<li>Ignatius (AD 110-130) affirms Jesus as God: “We also have a Physician <em>the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word before time began</em>, but who afterwards became also man of Mary the virgin.”—<em>The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians</em></li>
	<li>Irenaeus (AD 115-190) writes: “...in order that through <em>Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God</em>, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ’every knee should bow’...”—<em>Against Heresies</em> X.1</li>
	<li>Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165) writes: “In these books, then, of the prophets we found Jesus our Christ foretold as coming, born of a virgin...and <em>being called the Son of God</em>.”&nbsp;<em>The First Apology of Justin</em>, XXXI</li>
</ul>

<p>The ancient documents—available for anyone to read—speak clearly on this issue. Christ’s establishment as the Son of God was <em>not</em>&nbsp;“officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea.”&nbsp;Rather, for three centuries before Constantine, massive numbers of early followers of Christ—both inside of orthodoxy and out—believed Jesus was “the Son of God.”</p>

<h2>Constantine’s Great Deception?</h2>

<p>Brown is mistaken on still another claim. He asserts, “The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great.”&nbsp;This is a remarkable statement because the canon of Scripture <em>was never at issue at Nicea</em>, for good reason. For all practical purposes, the legitimacy of the four standard gospels had been decided centuries before.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Though the Old Testament canon had been fixed before the time of Christ, the formal concept of New Testament canon did not develop until the 2nd century. Early on, the authoritative “rule”&nbsp;(or “canon”) was the teaching of either the Apostles commissioned directly by Christ, or those who were companions of apostles and wrote under their authority and tutelage (e.g., John Mark, companion of Peter and author of the Gospel of Mark, or Luke, the companion of Paul).</p>

<p>When the last apostle died, the emphasis naturally shifted to the written record of their instruction, the Gospels and letters (epistles) they left behind. Therefore, the preeminent question about any work was, Did it have apostolic authority?</p>

<p>Controversy arose only when a Gnostic named Marcion (c. 150 A.D.) flatly rejected, for theological reasons, works that until then had been accepted as authentic for nearly a century.</p>

<p>In the debate that ensued, <sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> the early church identified three categories of text. The “Homologumena”&nbsp;consisted of those books that received unanimous support by all church leadership. This included 20 of the 27 New Testament books, <em>including all four Gospels</em>.</p>

<p>The “Antilegomena”&nbsp;were those contested. They received support from some members of church leadership, but not others. Some were ultimately rejected (Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, the Second Epistle of Clement). Others were ultimately accepted (Revelation, Jude, James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 &amp; 3 John).</p>

<p>The final group—called variously the Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, or simply the “heretical books”—were “set aside as altogether worthless and impious,”&nbsp;according to Eusebius. These included hundreds of documents that received no support from the church and were considered completely spurious by all orthodox fathers. This group included more than 50 (not 80) apocryphal gospels, with the Gospel of Thomas specifically singled out by Eusebius as part of this group.</p>

<p>The most ancient catalog of canonical works is the Muratorian Canon (c. AD 200). This record was discovered by Ludovico Muratori in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and published by him in 1740. Though the first portion of the fragment is missing, it mentions Luke and John specifically as the third and fourth Gospels—strongly implying Matthew and Mark came before it. In fact, Irenaeus quotes directly from all four canonical Gospels 30 years <em>before</em> the Muratorian list.</p>

<p>The inclusion of John is ironic in light of Teabing’s claims. The fourth Gospel is an irritation to liberal critics because of its “high Christology.”&nbsp;It is replete with mentions of Jesus as the Son of God, an idea Teabing says didn’t surface for another 155 years.</p>

<p>If Brown is correct about the Nicean conspiracy, we would <em>not</em> expect to see the four canonical Gospels singled out and affirmed early in the historical record. Yet that’s exactly what we <em>do</em> find.</p>

<p>Works like the Gospel of Phillip or the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene)—which feature so prominently in Brown’s novel—were never taken seriously by the early church. Rather, they were opposed for a very good reason. They, like the other Pseudepigrapha, were late-comers. They lacked any connection with the original apostles and contradicted the records written by those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus’&nbsp;life.</p>

<p>Why should we trust the Gospel of Phillip, for example, against Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? Do we have evidence Philip and Mary are early, authentic, and reliable? How do we know they are “unaltered,”&nbsp;as Teabing claims? Brown cannot just <em>say</em> these things; he must <em>show</em> these things. Unless, of course, he’s simply writing a work of fiction.</p>

<p>No, the actual historical evidence shows an early consensus on the Gospels. The canonical Gospels had broad acceptance and were in early use by the church. The Gnostic Gospels like Thomas, Mary, and Philip were not. Nor were the “more than eighty gospels considered for the New Testament.”&nbsp;Which is why, in actual fact, they were never even considered.</p>

<h2>No Lost Books</h2>

<p>Still, many people are disturbed by the possibility of lost books of the Bible. Have archaeologists uncovered ancient biblical texts that cast doubt on the current canon of Scripture? Is it possible the Bible is incomplete?</p>

<p>These questions can be answered without ever doing any research. No ancient tomes need to be read, no works of antiquity perused. Curiously, the entire issue can be answered by careful consideration of one word: Bible.</p>

<p>The whole question of allegedly lost books of the Bible hinges on what the word Bible means. To a Christian, “Bible”&nbsp;means the inspired Word of God, which includes the notion of God’s authorship and His miraculous preservation.</p>

<p>The second possible definition of “Bible”&nbsp;concedes no supernatural ground. According to this view, the Bible is not God’s inspired and inerrant word. Rather, it is merely a statement of human beliefs adopted as creed by early Christian leaders.</p>

<p>On this view, the Bible represents a collection of books chosen by the early church to represent its own beliefs. A book that didn’t make the cut was rejected for one reason: early Christians didn’t accept its theology. The cause was human and political, not divine and supernatural. This is Dan Brown’s view.</p>

<p>So, the options are these: Either the word “Bible”&nbsp;means those books that are divinely inspired, or it means a mere a human document representing the beliefs of a religious group known as Christians. Given these two definitions, could any books of the Bible be lost?</p>

<p>Whether the supernatural claim is accurate or not, the first definition of “Bible”&nbsp;allows for no lost books because God cannot lose something. The lost books thesis would be reduced to this: “Certain books that almighty God was responsible to preserve got lost.”&nbsp;If the Bible is the Word of God (the first definition), then God’s power guarantees no portion of it could ever be misplaced.</p>

<p>Could there be lost books given the second definition, that the Bible is of human origin, a collection of works reflecting the beliefs of early church leaders? The lost books thesis would be reduced to this: “Early church leaders rejected certain books as unrepresentative of their beliefs, that actually reflected their beliefs.”&nbsp;The contradiction is obvious. If the Bible is a collection of books that early church leaders decided would represent their point of view, they have the final word on what is included. Any books they rejected were never part of their Bible to begin with. Even by the second definition lost books of the Bible are a misnomer.</p>

<p>“Lost books”&nbsp;advocates often point out that rediscovered texts were missing because the Fathers suppressed them. Bible critics think this strengthens their case. Instead it destroys their position by proving the “lost books”&nbsp;were not lost, but discarded. The early church acted fully within its authority when it rejected as non-canonical the Gospel of Thomas, for example. The leaders rightfully decided it did not represent the church’s beliefs.</p>

<p>Has archaeology unearthed previously unknown ancient texts? Certainly. These books might be interesting, noteworthy, and valuable. The rediscovery of manuscripts such as the Gospel of Thomas is significant. Such books might be lost books <em>of antiquity</em>, great finds, even wonderful pieces of literature, but they are not lost books <em>of the Bible</em>.</p>

<h2>Dating the Gospels</h2>

<p>Even though there can be no lost books of the Bible, this doesn't ensure the existing historical accounts of Jesus’&nbsp;life are accurate. That relies on another argument showing the canonical gospels were written early, boosting their credibility over second century competitors like the Gospels of Philip and Mary.</p>

<p>This argument hinges on two facts virtually uncontested in academic circles. First, the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written by the same author. It is irrelevant to my point whether or not the author actually was Luke the “beloved physician”&nbsp;and companion of Paul, as the early church believed. The important thing is that Luke/Acts form a literary unit. Second, the Apostle Paul was executed sometime during the Neronian persecution of the mid-60s. This also is not in dispute.</p>

<p>Here’s the argument. First, the narrative in Acts ends abruptly with Paul in jail during his first Roman imprisonment, around 62. Why does it end this way? Most likely because this is when the account was written. Second, Luke’s Gospel was written before Acts, placing it in the early ’60s to late ’50s. Third, even the most liberal critics place Mark and Matthew before Luke, with Mark generally considered the most primitive.</p>

<p>This places the first gospels in the mid to late-’50s and possibly much earlier, putting them, <em>on the outside</em>, only 25 years from the crucifixion—powerful evidence for their reliability. The shorter the time, the less likely the distortion, the less chance for accretion of legend and fanciful stories, especially with so many firsthand witnesses still alive including most of the apostolic band.</p>

<p>Eminent New Testament scholar John A. T. Robinson gives another reason to be confident the Gospels were written early:</p>

<p>One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period—the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple—is never once mentioned as past fact.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>Since Luke recorded Jesus’&nbsp;prophesy of the temple’s destruction (Luke 21:6), it is unthinkable he would not have pointed to its fulfillment had Jerusalem already fallen. Is it reasonable to believe not one Gospel writer would mention this to vindicate his message if the Gospels were late and this event had already taken place?</p>

<p>In fact, Robinson argues forcibly that every book of the New testament was completed before 70. By contrast, no one places the Gnostic contenders earlier than the second century.</p>

<p>Teabing is wrong when he says, “There is no definitive account of the life of Jesus.”&nbsp;We have four of them, written early, being actively used by the church centuries before Constantine.</p>

<h2>The Bible’s “Evolution”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></h2>

<p>In <em>The Da Vinci Code</em>, Sir Leigh Teabing states the Bible “has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book.”&nbsp;Is he right?</p>

<p>The question of the authenticity of the New Testament is not really a religious question; it’s an academic one. “Textual criticism”&nbsp;is the name for the scholarly method used to test all documents of antiquity, not just religious texts. It’s not a haphazard effort based on hopes and guesses, but a careful linguistic process allowing an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.</p>

<p>Success depends on two factors. First, how many copies exist? Second, how old are the manuscripts? If the numbers are few and the time gap wide between the original and the oldest copy, the autograph is harder to reconstruct. However, if there are many copies and the oldest are reasonably close in time to the original, the scholar can be more confident she's pinpointed the exact wording of the initial manuscript.</p>

<p>For most documents of antiquity only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-2000 years or more. Yet scholars are confident they can reconstruct the originals with a high degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these. Even Sir Teabing must rely on this process to form educated opinions about the ancient past.</p>

<p>The manuscript evidence for the New Testament, by comparison, is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts. These are represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style).<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>Uncial manuscripts providing virtually complete New Testaments date back to the 4th Century and earlier. Codex Sinaiticus is dated c. 340.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest, dated c. 325-350.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.</p>

<p>The most fascinating evidence comes from fragments dated before the time of Constantine. The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt. Known as the John Rylands Papyri and barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup> showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 40-60 years of its composition.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that most of these ancient papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament. Even so, the textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.</p>

<p>Two other cross-checks on the accuracy of the manuscripts remain: 1) ancient versions and 2) patristic quotations, citations by early church Fathers.</p>

<p>Early in the history of the Church the Scriptures were translated into Latin. By the 3rd and 4th Centuries the New Testament had been translated into Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian, among others. These texts helped missionaries reach new cultures in their own language as the Gospel spread and the Church grew.<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup> Translations—called “versions”—help modern-day scholars answer questions about the underlying Greek manuscripts.</p>

<p>In addition, there are ancient extra-biblical sources—catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church Fathers—that cite Scripture at great length. Bruce Metzger notes, amazingly, “if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [the patristic quotations] would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.”<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>

<p>Since we have manuscripts from a range of dates, if the Gospels were radically transformed as Teabing says&nbsp;we would expect to find discrepancies in the earlier manuscripts that have survived. But we do not. The early minuscules are virtually the same as the later uncials.</p>

<p>Dan Brown has not done his homework. He is simply mistaken in his assessment of the New Testament documents. The biblical records actually show more textual integrity than any other of the works of antiquity that historians like Sir Leigh Teabing must rely on to ply their trade. The Bible has not been changed. The claim that it has is nothing more than urban legend.</p>

<p>It ought to be clear by now that Dan Brown, though a clever author, is no historian. Virtually nothing in <em>The Da Vinci Code</em> that touches Christianity or the Bible is sound. Indeed, every time Sir Teabing says dismissively, “It’s a matter of historical record,”&nbsp;be prepared for a complete fabrication.</p>

<p>Enjoy the book, if you care to read it. But never forget, <em>The Da Vinci Code</em> is a work of <em>fiction</em>, nothing more.</p>

<h2>Playing Sherlock</h2>

<p>You don’t need to be a scholar to beat Brown at his game. Do your own historical sleuthing. The primary source material is available to virtually anyone, especially if you have access to the internet. Nothing is hidden or suppressed. Many of the ancient documents are available on Amazon.com or can simply be “Googled.”</p>

<p>In the <em>Anti-Nicene Fathers</em> you’ll find ten full volumes of primary source documentation from before the Council of Nicea (available in hardbound or on the internet) affirming the early belief that Jesus was the Son of God. These include <em>Against Heresies</em>, the vigorous refutation of Gnosticism by Irenaeus of Lyon (ca. 125-202), and <em>Against Praxeas</em> (c. 208), a polemic by Tertullian against modalism and in defense of the Trinity.</p>

<p>The definitive source for early church history is Philip Schaff’s <em>History of the Christian Church</em>. In Volume II, 548-556, Schaff chronicles the development of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ through the first three centuries before the Council of Nicea. Find a detailed account of the Council proceedings themselves—drawn principally from the eyewitness accounts of two of the central players, Eusebuis and Athanasius—in Volume III, 622-633.</p>

<p>Athanasius wrote two works on the deity of Christ—<em>Defense of the Nicene Definition</em> and <em>On the Incarnation of the Word</em>—powerful evidence the Nicene decision was theological, not political.</p>

<p>The original Dead Sea Scrolls can be found in the Rockefeller Museum and the Shrine of the Book, both in Jerusalem under the care of Israel, not the Vatican. Microfilm copies of the Scrolls are available in over 80 libraries around the world, including the Huntington in Pasadena. Websites devoted to the Dead Sea Scrolls include the Israel Museum site, the Library of Congress site, and The Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nothing in the scrolls speak of Jesus.</p>

<p>For Gnostic texts use the Nag Hammadi Library Index Search at <a href="http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html">http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html</a>.</p>

<p>For an exhaustive list (over 150 documents) of other early writings, some in their original languages with translation and commentaries including the Gospel of Phillip and the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), go to <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/">www.earlychristianwritings.com</a>.</p>

<h2>Putting Your Knowledge into Action</h2>

<ul>
	<li>You might want to consider reading <em>The Da Vinci Code</em> yourself or listening to it on CD as I did to get familiar with the story.</li>
	<li>Remind people the book is a work of <em>fiction</em>. Even background details may be inventions. Why believe any of the story is sound?</li>
	<li>Point out that Brown’s claims about the Jesus and Nicea are contradicted by the primary source documents themselves.</li>
	<li>Ask which historians have actually endorsed Brown’s ideas. According to ancient history scholar Paul Maier, not a single notable one has.</li>
	<li>Inquire how it’s physically possible to gather up and destroy the vast majority of biblical manuscripts scattered around the entire 4th century Roman empire.</li>
	<li>Next time someone says, “The Bible’s been changed through revision and translation,”&nbsp;ask if they’ve ever actually studied how the ancient documents were handed down.</li>
</ul>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Schaff, Philip, <em>History of the Christian Church</em>, Vol. II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), 66, 68. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Schaff, Vol. III, 629. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Ibid., 622-633. Schaff drew extensively from the accounts of Eusebius and Athanasius. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">“Nicea did not settle the canon, as one might expect, but the Scriptures were regarded <em>without controversy</em> as the sure and immovable foundation of the orthodox faith”&nbsp;[emphasis added], Schaff, Vol. II, 523. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">See Geisler, Norman L., Nix, William E., <em>A General Introduction to the Bible</em> (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), ch. 17, and Schaff, Vol. II., 516-524, for a thorough discussion. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Robinson, John A. T., <em>Redating the New Testament</em> (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 13. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">This material is taken from a larger treatment of this topic found in the January ’05 issue of Stand to Reason’s newsletter, <em>Solid Ground</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Geisler, Norman L., Nix, William E., <em>A General Introduction to the Bible</em> (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 402. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Ibid., 392. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Ibid., 391. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Ibid., 389-390. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Metzger, Bruce M., <em>The Text of the New Testament</em> (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 39-40. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Geisler and Nix, 388. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Barnett, Paul, <em>Is the New Testament History?</em> (Ann Arbor: Vine Books, 1986), 44. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Metzger, 86. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16"> ↩</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%2Fthe-da-vinci-code-cracks" 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-da-vinci-code-cracks" 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-da-vinci-code-cracks" 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: Religious Freedom
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Melinda Penner
date: 03/22/2006
source: https://www.str.org/w/religious-freedom
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We got a little history lesson at the STR office yesterday thanks to a stamp.&nbsp; As Wendy opened the mail, she noticed a envelope covered with a half dozen stamps to make $.37.&nbsp; All but one of the stamps were obviously old, and quite beautiful.&nbsp; One printed in 1957 had a banner with the words "Freedom of Religion," which celebrated the tri-centennial of the "Flushing Remonstrance."&nbsp; We'd never heard of it so we looked it up.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It turns out that the <a href="http://flushingfriends.org/history/history-of-flushing-meeting/">Flushing Remonstrance</a> was a declaration of religious freedom made by the Quakers in Flushing, New York, in response to government interference with their religious meetings.&nbsp; It turns out to be a precursor to the First Amendment that predates the Virginia state bill of rights that the Founders drew from heavily to formulate the Bill of Rights.&nbsp; The "Flushing Remonstrance" demonstrates that the value of religious freedom was part of the fabric of our country at the beginning, little more than a generation after the Pilgrims and the Jamestown Colony.&nbsp; It also demonstrates that the practice of religious tolerance took some time to perfect even though each religious group came to the U.S. looking for freedom.</p>

<blockquote>
<p><span face="Garamond, Times New Roman, serif"><strong>A respected Flushing colonist, Henry Townsend, held a Quaker meeting in his home and was fined and banished. This prompted a protest from Flushing citizens, which is perhaps the earliest demand for freedom of religion made by American colonists to their political superiors. It is dated December 27, 1657, and is drawn up and signed by Edward Hart, the Town Clerk, Tobias Feake, the Schout (sheriff) and twenty-eight other citizens. This document, known as the Flushing Remonstrance, respectfully but firmly argues the cause of religious freedom.</strong></span></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%2Freligious-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%2Freligious-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%2Freligious-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: More Than Just a "Reduction"
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/23/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/more-than-just-a-reduction-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><span face="Times New Roman">The article titled "</span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501730.html" target="_blank">Too Much to Carry</a><span face="Times New Roman">" posted on washingtonpost.com is a difficult read.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>The author, Liza Mundy, spent time with a doctor who performs "selective reductions" for women who are pregnant with multiple fetuses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>To improve the chances of a successful birth of one or two of the children, the weakest one (or ones) is eliminated, or the one with a genetic abnormality, or the one most conveniently located, or the one who is not of the preferred sex.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span></span></p>

<p><span face="Times New Roman">The article is heartbreaking in terms of the women who go through this, and even more disturbing in terms of the babies who are singled out to lose their lives. Here's how one decision went that day:</span></p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p><span face="Times New Roman">The test results for Jane and Emma stacked up like this: A: XX, B: not tested, C: XY, D: XX. Two girls, one boy, one unknown. The known ones all normal. And so, for this last reduction procedure of the day, one decision had been made. Evans would reduce B, which was most accessible. As for the other one, he told the women they could have two girls -- that is, he could keep A and D -- or they could have a boy and a girl, in which case he would keep C and one of the girls. "If you want one of each, I'll keep one of each," Evans told them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>They wanted one of each....</span></p>

<p><span face="Times New Roman">He injected the potassium chloride, and B, the first fetus to go, went still.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>"There's no activity there," he said, scrutinizing the screen. B was lying lengthwise in its little honeycomb chamber, no longer there and yet still there. It was impossible not to find the sight affecting. Here was a life that one minute was going to happen and now, because of its location, wasn't. One minute, B was a fetus with a future stretching out before it: childhood, college, children, grandchildren, maybe. The next minute, that future had been deleted.</span></p>
</blockquote>

<p><span face="Times New Roman">What makes this all the more difficult to read is the fact that all the children were purposely implanted in the women by their choice and with their greatest hopes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>All of this heartache, the choosing of who would die, and the death itself could have been avoided if the women had only implanted what they would be willing to carry to term.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; (The financial cost of failure is a small price to pay in light of these considerations.)&nbsp; </span>But reading the account of the women's reactions throughout the article, I suspect that in their eagerness to be sure that at least one embryo implanted, they weren't thinking carefully ahead of time about what "selective reduction" would mean when they had to face it in reality. </span></p>

<p><span face="Times New Roman">One woman described what I know would haunt me if I were ever to go through this:</span></p>

<blockquote dir="ltr">
<p><span face="Times New Roman">"Now that I know my two daughters, looking at them, I think: It could have been you," she continued. "You terminated an embryo that could have turned into a baby you would love as much as the ones that you have, and that's hard....&nbsp; </span></p>

<p><span face="Times New Roman">"</span><span face="Times New Roman"><span face="Times New Roman">I could have ended up with one of these being gone, and the one that is gone could have been one of these."</span></span></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%2Fmore-than-just-a-reduction-" 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%2Fmore-than-just-a-reduction-" 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%2Fmore-than-just-a-reduction-" 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: “Society Says” Relativism
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2006
source: https://www.str.org/w/-society-says-relativism
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>For some, ethics is nothing more than a social contract to insure survival. Compliance is the highest good, breaking ranks the greatest evil, regardless of the issue. This may make sense on television, but it doesn’t work in the real world.</em></p>

<p>For many in the world, the moral legitimacy of a U.S. military incursion into Iraq hinged on one issue: United Nations support. For them it is clear that, <em>all other things being equal</em>, armed invasion would be indefensible unless a single detail changed: U.N. approval.</p>

<p>At the heart of this view is the conviction that morality is a result of community consensus, in this case the international community. There can be no “majority of one.”&nbsp;The guiding ethical principle is simple: Don’t buck the system. This is the same approach implicit in both “social contract”&nbsp;and postmodern views of ethics.</p>

<p>Many of us have seen this moral calculus before—on TV.</p>

<h2>Star Trek Morality</h2>

<p>“Trekkers”&nbsp;will recall the Prime Directive of the Federation prohibiting the crew of the Enterprise in <em>Star Trek</em> from interfering with alien civilizations. Moral standards are set internally, by one’s culture. What’s right for one society isn’t necessarily right for another. Since morality is relative—all competing values are equally legitimate—the crew of the Enterprise was forbidden to intrude.</p>

<p>On this view, morality is determined by the group. Generally the relevant group is the larger cultural unit: the tribe, the linguistic community, the nation-state. In some cases, the ruling social unit can be expanded to a consortium of cultures, like the United Nations, but the basic principle is still the same: the majority rules.</p>

<h2>Morality as Social Contract</h2>

<p>Classical thinkers saw the apparently innate tendency of all human beings to think and act according to moral categories (what Francis Schaeffer called “moral motions”) as evidence for God.</p>

<p>Others disagreed. To them, morality represented nothing more than a social contract. As 17th Century English philosopher Thomas Hobbs famously put it, life in an unregulated state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”&nbsp;In order to avoid such a fate, humans consent to live by a set of rules called morality.</p>

<p>This “Star Trek morality,”&nbsp;otherwise known as conventionalism, teaches that each society survives because of consensual moral arrangements each individual is obliged to honor. Morality is relative to culture, determined by popular consensus, expressed through laws and customs. Each person (or each country in the case of an international “community”&nbsp;like the U.N.) fulfills his end of the contract by keeping the code of the group.</p>

<h2>No Immoral “Aliens”</h2>

<p>Star Trek morality has serious problems in any of its applications. First of all, since each society is “alien”&nbsp;to another, no society could be judged immoral by another’s standards, no matter how bizarre or morally repugnant they may seem.</p>

<p>The torture of prisoners by military regimes, the injustice of totalitarian governments, and the apartheid of racist administrations would all be outside the reach of moral assessment on this view. One might counter that these policies, in many cases, are not the will of the people, but only of those in power. This rebuttal, though, fails twice.</p>

<p>First, why should one accept that the population at large is the relevant “society”&nbsp;determining morality, instead of those who have the power to rule? If one has an obligation to obey society, then which society does one obey? This ambiguity is a weakness of conventionalism.</p>

<p>Culture is complex, with many overlapping internal “societies”&nbsp;making claims on us. Behavior acceptable at the gym in the morning is considered gauche at a dinner party later that evening. The moral convictions of one’s religious community may be at odds with the demands of his business community. Which group is primary? Culture is not homogeneous, making it impossible for it to define a common standard of behavior.</p>

<p>Second, the rejoinder also misses the point. Maybe such injustices don’t always represent the will of the people, but what if they did? The kangaroo courts of the French Revolution had popular support. So did the Third Reich, to a great degree. Do we grant French anarchists and German Nazis moral justification on this basis?</p>

<h2>Nazis at Nuremburg</h2>

<p>Indeed, the Nazis essentially used the Star Trek defense at Nuremberg. Advancing a notion called legal positivism, the German leadership claimed that the International Military Tribunal had no moral legitimacy to preside over the trials.</p>

<p>In <em>The Law above the Law,</em> John Warwick Montgomery describes their argument:</p>

<p>The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and that they therefore ought not rightly be condemned because they deviated from the <em>alien value system</em> of their conquerors<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> [emphasis added].</p>

<p>The Tribunal didn’t accept this justification. In the words of Robert H. Jackson, chief counsel for the United States at the trials, the issue was not one of power—the victor judging the vanquished—but one of higher moral law. “[The Tribunal] rises above the provincial and transient,”&nbsp;he said, “and seeks guidance not only from International Law, but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization...”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>The first serious problem with the social contract view is that it violates our deepest moral intuitions, the foundational “assumptions of civilization.”&nbsp;Some things seem wrong regardless of what “society”&nbsp;says, including plundering innocent Jews, pressing them into forced labor, and exterminating them. If the Star Trek view is sound, then governmentally sponsored genocide can only be silently observed. If there is no law above society, then society cannot be judged.</p>

<h2>No Immoral Laws</h2>

<p>This leads to the second problem with Star Trek morality: There can be no such thing as an immoral law. If society is the final measure of morality, then all its judgments are moral <em>by definition</em>.</p>

<p>An attorney once called Stand to Reason’s radio talk show with this challenge. “When are you going to accept the fact that abortion on demand is the law of the land?”&nbsp;she asked. “You may not like it, but it’s the law.”</p>

<p>Her point was simple. The Supreme Court had spoken, so there is nothing left to discuss. Since there is no higher law, there are no further grounds for appeal. End of issue. This lawyer’s tacit acceptance of conventionalism suffered because it confused what is right with what is legal.</p>

<p>When reflecting on any law, it seems sensible to ask, “It may be legal, but is it right? It’s the law, but is the law good? Is it just?”&nbsp;If these are proper questions, then there appears to be a difference between what a person has a <em>liberty</em> to do under the law and what a person <em>should</em> do according to sound moral judgment. Conventionalism renders this distinction meaningless. There is no majority of one to take the moral high ground. As ethicist Louis Pojman puts it, “Truth is with the crowd and error with the individual.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>When any human court—even a de facto court like the United Nations—is the highest authority, then morality is reduced to mere power, either the power of the government or the power of the majority. If the courts and the laws define what is moral, then neither laws nor governments can ever be immoral, even in principle. Compliance is the highest good, breaking ranks the greatest evil, regardless of the issue.</p>

<h2>No Room for Improvement</h2>

<p>Another absurd consequence follows from the social contract view. Not only is it impossible to criticize society from without; it can’t even be opposed from within. Star Trek morality makes it impossible to morally reform a society from either direction.</p>

<p>This view requires not only that outsiders remain morally mute in the face of things like the Holocaust of the Third Reich, but that even Germans <em>within</em> the Reich would have been wrong for resisting. Instead, they had a moral obligation to participate in the murder of innocent people. That’s part of the contract. All those under the authority of the Third Reich—their ruling society—would have been morally bound to cooperate in genocide.</p>

<p>There are actually two problems here. The first is called the Reformer’s Dilemma.</p>

<p>Moral reformers typically judge society from the inside. They challenge their culture’s standard of behavior and then campaign for change. If morality is defined as the present society’s standard, though, then challenging that standard would be an act of immorality by definition. Social reformers would not be moral after all, but rather moral <em>outcasts</em> precisely because they opposed the status quo.</p>

<p>Corrie Ten Boom and other “Righteous Gentiles”&nbsp;risked their own lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. William Wilberforce sought the abolition of slavery in the late 18th century in the United Kingdom. In the ’60s, Martin Luther King fought for civil rights in the United States. In Germany, Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer challenged Christians to oppose Hitler.</p>

<p>We count these people as moral heroes precisely because they had the courage to fight for reform. According to Star Trek morality, however, they are the worst kind of moral criminals because they challenged the moral consensus of their own society.</p>

<h2>Moral Nonsense</h2>

<p>Star Trek morality faces another difficulty with moral improvement. It makes the whole concept incoherent. If a society’s laws and cultural values are the ultimate standards of behavior, then the notion of improving those laws or values is nonsense. A social code can never be improved; it can only be changed.</p>

<p>Think of what it means to improve something. It means to increase in excellence by raising to a better quality or condition. How would one know if he’d increased the quality of something? Only by noting that some change has brought it closer to an external ideal.</p>

<p>A bowler improves when he raises his average closer to 300, the perfect game. A baseball pitcher shows his increased skill by the decreasing number of batters he allows on base. If he strikes out every batter, he’s attained perfection. In either case, an outside standard is used as the measure of improvement.</p>

<p>What would it mean to improve a society’s moral code? It can only mean that the society would have to change its laws and values to more closely approximate genuine goodness. If no objective good exists, if the social contract is itself the highest possible law, then there is no way to improve the quality of the contract.</p>

<p>A society can abolish apartheid in favor of equality. It can adopt policies of <em>habeas corpus</em> protecting citizens against unjustified imprisonment, or guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. No one could ever claim, though, that these are moral <em>improvements</em>. All that can be said is that society changed its tastes.</p>

<p>With Star Trek morality, the society’s standard is the ultimate. There is no objective ethical ideal to emulate. Moral <em>change</em> is possible, but not moral <em>improvement</em>. Improvement means getting better, and there’s nothing better—on this view—than any society’s current assessment of morality.</p>

<h2>Selfless Is Selfish</h2>

<p>There’s a final twist in the social contract view of morality. If moral rules can somehow be reduced to a personal survival code, then ethics is ultimately self-centered. This seems to turn morality on its head: The moral rule to be self<em>less</em> only has legitimacy if it accomplishes a self<em>ish</em> end. Selflessness has now become selfishness.</p>

<p>If morality is simply self-interest in disguise, then as long as I ensure my self-interest—personal survival—all my conduct would be “moral.”&nbsp;I could still rape, murder, and steal as long as I get away with it. A dictator at the top of the pecking order of power could do as he pleases—including purging his country of millions of undesirables—with no moral ramifications.</p>

<p>I’ve heard two ways of responding to this charge. The first is that this works only if one doesn’t get caught. True enough and precisely my point. Such actions are only undesirable <em>if</em> one gets caught. Genocide is only suspect because it endangers <em>my</em> personal safety (<em>I</em> might get caught), not because the behavior itself is despicable.</p>

<p>The second response is that since living this way breaks the contract, it’s not a fair criticism of the contractual system itself.</p>

<p>Normally that would be a reasonable defense, but not in this case. Here the flaw is in the contract itself because it has no grounds for enforcement. On what basis does one find fault with the renegade? He broke the contract. But what obligates him to keep the agreement? Star Trek morality only works if one must keep her end of the bargain in the first place as an <em>extra-contractual</em> obligation.</p>

<p>One can’t demand she live “morally”—according to the contract—without smuggling morality in the back door to begin with. Such moral obligations can’t be explained by the contract because they are prior to it. Ethics can’t be explained <em>by</em> culture because it’s a moral rule that applies <em>to</em> culture.</p>

<p>Star Trek morality might sound plausible in a TV script, but real life is more complex. This view of ethics rules out the possibility of moral critique of any culture from without or within, reduces morality to power, and makes nonsense of the idea of moral improvement. It also leaves individual nations beholden to the collective will of morally misguided governments and brutal regimes.</p>

<p>The social contract view may explain some behavior and even some social institutions. However, it can’t explain the human moral enterprise because some ethical principles must be in place (e.g., “people ought to honor their contractual agreements”) before any contract has force.</p>

<p>Ethical theory aside, a simple reflection is sufficient to show that the social contract view simply rings false. When someone cuts in line and you object by saying, “You shouldn’t do that,”&nbsp;what do you mean? Is your meaning, “Your action encourages others to cut in line in the future. It’s therefore in your own self-interest to play by the rules”? Of course not. You mean the opposite: Line-cutting is wrong precisely <em>because</em> it promotes self-interest over fairness.</p>

<p>Sometimes we are compelled to rise above the “provincial and transient”&nbsp;and interfere in the affairs of other cultures or ignore the consensus of the international community. That’s why even Captain Kirk ignored the Prime Directive so often. It wasn’t just good TV. It was good moral thinking.</p>

<p><em>Portions of this article were excerpted from Gregory Koukl’s book,</em> <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK125">Relativism—Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air</a><em>, co-authored with Francis Beckwith (Baker). It’s available through Stand to Reason.</em></p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">John Warwick Montgomery, <em>The Law above the Law</em> (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1975), 24. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Robert H. Jackson, <em>Closing Address in the Nuremberg Trial</em>, in 19 <em>Proceedings in the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal</em> 397 (1948), quoted in John Warwick Montgomery, <em>The Law above the Law</em> (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1975), 26. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Louis P. Pojman, <em>Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong</em> (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1990), 25. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</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%2F-society-says-relativism" 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-society-says-relativism" 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-society-says-relativism" 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: Is Jesus the Only Way?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2006
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-jesus-the-only-way-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The most taxing objection to the biblical message of salvation that I face is: What about the good, sincere person who has never heard about Jesus?</em></p>

<p>“Mr. Koukl, I want to get in a pointed comment here.”&nbsp;The talk-show host hesitated, dramatizing the moment for his radio audience. “We were talking about the person in Southeast Asia,”&nbsp;he continued, “the pagan or Buddhist or anyone who has never heard of western Christianity. Father Kidney said, according to his [Roman Catholic] faith, that person may be saved if he is honest and follows his religion. Do you believe that, or do you believe he is damned?”</p>

<p>Inside I winced. The question was phrased so bluntly that my answer was bound to offend. In fact, it even offended me.</p>

<p>“No, I don’t believe he will be saved without the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”</p>

<h2>The Despicable Doctrine</h2>

<p>This challenge has nipped at the heels of Christian apologists for ages, causing some to limp through their witness with shrugs and apologies or lash back with “narrow”&nbsp;dogma.</p>

<p>It is the most taxing objection I face and also the most odious to others, a true stumbling block, foolishness. At face value, it’s a bit much in a postmodern culture even to the committed believer.</p>

<p>To non-Christians, it’s a despicable doctrine. If hearing the name of Jesus is a requirement for salvation, entire cultures would be consigned to perdition, reducing the Almighty to a petty racist. Is that fair? Is it just?</p>

<p>Rabbi Weiss voiced the opinion of the Reformed Jews that evening on the radio:</p>

<p>I would have to state very squarely...we don’t accept that at all. We believe that the Almighty would have to be a very cruel, very unfeeling God that would make it necessary for so many millions of his children who are not in contact and who never have been in contact with anybody to spread the good news, to be damned eternally.</p>

<p>Even C.S. Lewis drew the circle wider than most Evangelicals would feel comfortable with. He distinguished between those who aggressively evade the Son of God and those who reject Him out of “honest ignorance or honest error.”</p>

<p>Of the latter, Lewis says, “If their intentions were as good as I suppose them to have been...I hope and believe that the skill and mercy of God will remedy the evils which their ignorance, left to itself, would naturally produce.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<h2>The Common Denominator</h2>

<p>Is it possible that the Bible lends support to this idea? Paul argues against works salvation by appealing to a single common denominator of the redeemed of every age. God justified New Testament believers the same way He justified Old Testament believers—by faith.</p>

<p>If there is this continuity of salvation, and Old Testament believers had never heard of Jesus, then there has to be a different common denominator marking those accepted and justified by God other than knowing the name of the Savior.</p>

<p>What of Melchizedek, a priest of El Elyon (a Canaanite name for God Most High)? <sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Or Rahab, a heathen hooker who knew only that the Hebrew God was “God in heaven above and on the earth beneath”?<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Peter tells Cornelius that “...God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him”&nbsp;(Acts 10:34-35). Lydia was simply a “worshiper of God”&nbsp;whose heart the Lord opened to respond to Paul’s message (Acts 16:14).</p>

<p>Doesn’t it make sense that, as Rabbi Weiss argued, “...all human beings, as long as they are decent, as long as they uphold the fundamental commandments...are promised a place in the world to come”?</p>

<p>Some New Testament texts seem to indicate this. Paul writes “[God] will render to every man according to his deeds...For there is no partiality with God”&nbsp;(Romans 2:6, 11). Jesus Himself states, “An hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment”&nbsp;(John 5:28-29).</p>

<p>Bruce Demarest asks, “Could it be that on the basis of the general knowledge of God that all possess, a person, out of a deep sense of need, might throw himself on the mercy of God and be accepted?”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>This is the question. How do we answer it?</p>

<h2>What Must I Do?</h2>

<p>Fundamentally, the question of salvation is a question about criteria. With the Philippian jailer, we ask, “What must I do to be saved?”&nbsp;How do we know what God wants?</p>

<p>I put this question to a group of Christians. Their answer: God must reveal Himself. For example, He’s revealed “His eternal power and divine nature...through what has been made”&nbsp;(Romans 1:20).</p>

<p>“Is the issue of salvation, though, a question of <em>who</em> God is—His attributes—or of what God <em>wants</em>—His desires?”</p>

<p>They thought for a minute. “What He wants,”&nbsp;they agreed finally.</p>

<p>“Look at Betty at the end of the table. We can know some general things about her by observation. But how can we know her desires?”</p>

<p>Their response was immediate, “She has to tell us.”</p>

<p>The same is true with God. He reveals something of <em>His nature</em> through the created order. But we cannot know <em>His desires</em>—specifically, what we must do to be saved—unless He tells us. Only when God speaks can we move beyond vague inference to specifics.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>The fact that God has spoken is foundational to the Christian message. We don’t have to guess what He wants. He’s told us, and when God speaks, His Word puts an end to speculation.</p>

<p>So far, two things seem obvious. First, the issue is not whether we worship God <em>our</em> way, but whether we worship God <em>His</em> way, according to His desires. Two, we cannot know what that is unless He tells us.</p>

<p>Jesus said we must worship the Father in spirit and truth (John 4:23). Paul and Peter both emphasize “true knowledge”&nbsp;of God;<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> John records that Jesus is the “true light”&nbsp;and “true vine”&nbsp;(John 1:9, 15:1). Indeed, the first of the Ten Commandments demands fidelity to the only true God.</p>

<h2>The Problem of Sincerity</h2>

<p>Most people in the world worship something beyond themselves. Some kind of god is the object of their religious attention and—with complete sincerity—they pay obeisance. But why assume this is enough? Has God said that mere sincerity is adequate? No, the Bible seems to say just the opposite.</p>

<p>In his sermon on Mars Hill, Paul argues that worshiping in ignorance is not adequate (Acts 17:23). Later, he makes the point clear when he pours out his heart to the Romans regarding his brethren, the Jews: “I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge”&nbsp;(Romans 10:2).</p>

<p>Zeal needs to be based on truth, not sincerity. Canaanites worshiping Molech did so zealously, but Molech was a non-god, an idol. Zeal is not an adequate defense. In fact, it can have disastrous results if not wedded to right knowledge (Canaanite “worship���&nbsp;included child sacrifice).</p>

<h2>The Problem of Goodness</h2>

<p>What of the good person, though? Surely, God will not reject him? Even the Scriptures claim as much.</p>

<p>Granted, if a man keeps God’s law, he’ll have no problem with God. Paul and Jesus both affirm this. However, the next question is vital: Where is such a man?</p>

<p>Poll people on the definition of “basically good”&nbsp;and you’ll notice something interesting. Virtually everyone thinks he’s a good person. Invariably, when we’re left to decide what’s really bad, we always come out fairly clean in the analysis. Our standards are generous because our self-interests are involved. The temptation to cover our own tracks is strong.</p>

<p>When measured by God’s standards, though, the picture is much different. Even when Jesus reduced all God’s commands to two simple maxims—love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself—our lives are still moral disasters.</p>

<p>Where is the good Buddhist, the good Hindu, or the good Muslim? Where is the good Christian, for that matter? They just don’t exist. Every mouth is closed. God’s absolute standards silence every claim to self-righteousness making the whole world accountable to God (Romans 3:19).</p>

<h2>Man on the Run</h2>

<p>This is a critical point, one misunderstood by many Christians: <em>People are not ultimately condemned for their rejection of Christ. They are punished for breaking God’s law.</em> True, disbelief keeps them from the antidote, the cross, sealing their doom (Jesus’&nbsp;point in John 3:18). However, when the books are finally opened at the last judgment, men are judged by their <em>deeds</em>, and everyone so judged perishes because they are each guilty (Revelation 20:11-15).</p>

<p>We err in assuming that many would turn to God if they had the chance. People reject the light given them not out of ignorance, but out of willful suppression of truth (Romans 1:18-19). When left to himself, man runs <em>from</em> God not <em>towards</em> Him. Whether there’s a wholesale rejection of the entire Gospel in its clarity or a refusal on the more basic level of general revelation—God’s witness in nature—man is equally at fault.</p>

<p>The heathen who’s worshiping an idol in the jungle has already exchanged the truth for a lie. He’s not only under judgment for lawlessness (as all men are); he’s rejected the Father (general revelation) before he’s even heard of the Son. If someone tunes you out before you tell her the whole story, you’re not obliged to go further. In fact, she wouldn’t listen to you if you did.</p>

<p>Even so, God wants none to perish and labors to bring people into the kingdom (1 Timothy 2:4). Peter counts the delay of Christ’s return not as slowness, but as patience so the guilty would repent rather than perish (2 Peter 3:9).</p>

<p>Note, if sinful man doesn’t seek God, but instead runs from Him, then God must make the first move to block man’s retreat. This means that no “heathen in Africa”&nbsp;begins a genuine search unless God has first moved in him to do so (John 6:44).</p>

<p>If God has to turn our heads, at least in some measure, before we can respond to the Gospel, then God must supply specific information as part of the process. God will not supernaturally pull us to Him, then deny us the information needed to respond to His call.</p>

<p>The act of calling and the revelation necessary for a response to the call are inseparable parts of the rescue plan. If God does the first, He provides the second, either through a human messenger or through direct supernatural communication.</p>

<h2>Forming an Answer</h2>

<p>So far we’ve covered critical ground. First, God only punishes those who are guilty. He owes no one a pardon. If He offers pardon to some and withholds mercy from others, God is not unjust to punish the guilty. Second, guilty people don’t seek God; they run from Him. Third, God takes the initiative to pursue us out of love.</p>

<p>With all these elements in place, we can construct a response to our initial challenge.</p>

<p>For anyone to come to God he must come on God’s terms, details only God can tell us. The continuity of salvation, the common denominator through all ages, has been man’s expression of active faith in the mercy and the promise of God. All past believers—Abraham, Melchizedek, Rahab—demonstrated this redemptive trust. The specific content of this revelation, however, has grown through time. Abraham knew a little, David knew more, the prophets still more. The apostles (and you and I through their word) were the best informed of all.</p>

<p>We don’t know what the content was for Melchizedek, Job, or Jethro. We do know what God has revealed for us today: the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the final statement, the perfect expression of God’s mercy, the purest object of faith. Today, Jesus is the acid test of what anyone really thinks of the Father (John 5:37-38).</p>

<p>God can give this information in two ways. It’s certainly possible that in isolated situations He communicates directly as He did with Abraham. In that case, though, the God revealed will be the true God, not Buddha, Allah, Krishna, Rah, Zeus, or Mother Earth. In short, the God the heathen discovers through direct revelation will be the Lord Jesus.</p>

<p>Usually, however, the message of the true Savior comes on the lips of a preacher bearing the good news (Romans 10: 14-15). When God touches someone’s heart to seek Him, He will move heaven and earth to bring that person the message.</p>

<p>Biblical examples abound. Rahab responded to her rudimentary knowledge of the God of Israel and God brought the Jewish spies right to her door (Joshua 2:1). Phillip “preached Jesus”&nbsp;to the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah on the road to Gaza (Acts 8:26-39). Peter brought “the words by which you will be saved”&nbsp;to the household of Cornelius, the God-fearer (Acts 10:23-48, 11:14). The Lord opened Lydia’s heart “to respond to the things spoken by Paul”&nbsp;(Acts 16:14). Each was given specifics in response to their seeking.</p>

<p>In <em>Death of a Guru</em>, Rabindranath Maharaj tells his story. Rabi was a young Yogi, a Guru and a member of the Brahman caste. He’d experienced astral travel to other planets, had psychedelic experiences, and received yogic visions. Deep meditation led to higher and higher states of consciousness.</p>

<p>Rabi discovered, though, that each step closer to his Hindu gods was a step farther from the true God he sought in his heart. When confronted with the utter emptiness of life and the shallowness of religion, he cried out, “I want to know the true God, the Creator of the universe!”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> God responded by bringing the Gospel to him through the witness of a young woman named Molli.</p>

<h2>The Real Issue</h2>

<p>Christians can be confident of this: Anyone seeking God in truth will find Him and be accepted by Him. Yet the Bible teaches that the “heathen”&nbsp;of any land—even ours—will seek his Creator only if God has already moved in his heart to do so. And God will finish the job, always providing the details necessary to complete the work of faith.</p>

<p>This, however, isn’t the real issue for man on the street. When he faces God, there will be no discussion about the heathen who never heard. Instead, the question will be: What about those who have heard? What about him? Did he bend his knee and ask Jesus for forgiveness?</p>

<p>God does not condemn anyone for rejecting a Jesus he’s never heard of. Men are held accountable for their own moral crimes against God, and for rejecting the Father, whose voice is heard everywhere.</p>

<h2>Putting Your Knowledge into Action</h2>

<ul>
	<li>Assure challengers that no one is lost for rejecting a Jesus he’s never heard of. God will judge each person by the light given him and the life he has lived.</li>
	<li>Point out, though, that this is not good news. God’s fingerprints are evident everywhere, and we all know we consistently fail to live as we ought, so none of us has an excuse.</li>
	<li>God can reach any person in any circumstance. He is not limited by geography, technology, language, or culture. Anyone seeking the true God on His terms will be found by Him. The God they find will not be the false Gods of competing religions, but Jesus Himself.</li>
	<li>Don’t let questions about the unevangelized distract from the most important issue: What will each of <em>us</em> do with the message we’ve heard?</li>
</ul>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">C.S. Lewis, <em>God in the Dock</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 110. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Genesis 14:18-20 <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Joshua 2:11 <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Bruce Demarest, <em>General Revelation</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 260. See Calvin, <em>Corpus Reformatorum</em>, vol. XXIV, pp. 301-9; vol. XXV, p. 267; vol. XLIX, pp. 307-8. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Knowing God’s moral desires—the law written on our hearts—would be an exception. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Colossians 2:2, 3:10; 2 Peter 1:3, 8. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Maharaj, Rabindranath R., <em>Death of a Guru</em> (Philadelphia and New York: A.J. Holman, 1977), 122. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&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%2Fis-jesus-the-only-way-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%2Fis-jesus-the-only-way-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%2Fis-jesus-the-only-way-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: The Intolerance of Tolerance
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2006
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-intolerance-of-tolerance
content:
            <div> 
		<link href="https://unpkg.com/littlefoot/dist/littlefoot.css" rel="stylesheet">
<style type="text/css">p {
word-wrap: break-word;
	overflow-wrap: break-word;
}
</style>
<p><em>Tolerance, one of America’s noblest virtues, has been so distorted it’s become a vice.</em></p>

<p>There is one word that can stop a follower of Christ in his tracks as he seeks to “give an account for the hope”&nbsp;that is in him. That word is “tolerance.”&nbsp;Tolerant people do not “force”&nbsp;their personal views on others. They are impartial, non-judgmental, and neutral. Each person is permitted to decide for himself. No “forcing”&nbsp;personal views.</p>

<p>This idea is especially popular with postmoderns, that breed of radical skeptics whose ideas command unwarranted respect in the university today. Their creed, “There is no truth,”&nbsp;is often followed by a demand for tolerance.</p>

<p>In spite of all the confident bluster, the appeal self-destructs because it actually asserts two truths, one rational and one moral: the “truth”&nbsp;that there is no truth—a clear conflict—and the truth that one ought to tolerate other’s viewpoints. Their confusion serves as a warning that the postmodern notion of tolerance is seriously misguided.</p>

<p>This neutrality—one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism—is a myth. Worse, it’s a ruse, a swindle, and a hoax, a passive-aggressive tolerance trick.</p>

<h2>The Tolerance Trick</h2>

<p>By the relativists’&nbsp;definition of tolerance true tolerance is impossible. Let me give you a real-life example.</p>

<p>A few years back I spoke to a class of seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines. I wanted to alert them to this “tolerance trick,”&nbsp;but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board. The first expressed the current understanding of tolerance:</p>

<p>All views are equally valid; no view is better than another.</p>

<p>All heads nodded in agreement. Nothing controversial here. Then I wrote the second sentence:</p>

<p>Jesus is the Messiah; Jews are wrong for rejecting Him.</p>

<p>Immediately hands flew up. “You can’t say that,”&nbsp;a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. “That’s disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?”</p>

<p>“Like you’re doing right now?”&nbsp;I pointed out. “It happens to me all the time and doesn’t bother me at all. Why should it?”</p>

<p>“But your view is intolerant,”&nbsp;she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn’t see was that the first statement also violated itself.</p>

<p>I pointed to the first statement and asked, “Is this a view, the idea that all views are equally valid?”&nbsp;They all agreed.</p>

<p>Then I pointed to the second statement—the “intolerant”&nbsp;one—and asked the same question: “Is this a view?”&nbsp;They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them.</p>

<p>If all views are equally valid, then the view that Jews are wrong for rejecting Jesus is <em>just as true</em> as the view that Jews are right for rejecting Jesus. But this is hopelessly contradictory: “All views are equally valid, including the view that all views are not equally valid,”&nbsp;or “All views are equally valid and not equally valid at the same time.”</p>

<p>They’d been taken in by the tolerance trick. If this is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because “tolerance”&nbsp;turns out to be contradictory gibberish.</p>

<h2>Escaping the Trap</h2>

<p>“Would you like to know how to get out of the trap?”&nbsp;I asked. They nodded. “Reject this distortion of tolerance and return to the classical view.”&nbsp;Then I wrote these two principles on the board:</p>

<p>Be egalitarian regarding persons.</p>

<p>Be elitist regarding ideas.<a href="#fn:1" rel="footnote">1</a></p>

<p>“Egalitarian”&nbsp;was a new word for them. Think “equal,”&nbsp;I said. Treat others as having equal standing in value or worth. This first principle, loosely equated with the word “respect,”&nbsp;is at the heart of the classical view of tolerance. Treat people with equal respect and deference.</p>

<p>They knew what an elitist was, though. An elitist was a snob, someone who thought he was better than others.</p>

<p>“Right,”&nbsp;I said. “When you are elitist regarding ideas, you acknowledge that some ideas are better than others. And they are. Some are good; some are bad. Some are true; some are false. Some are brilliant, others are foolish, and many are dangerous.”</p>

<p>“Here’s the key,”&nbsp;I summed up. “True tolerance applies to how we treat <em>people</em>, not how we treat <em>ideas</em>.”</p>

<p>We respect people who hold different beliefs from ours by treating them with courtesy, allowing them a place in the public conversation. Though we may strongly disagree with their <em>ideas</em>, tolerance requires us to be civil towards <em>them</em> in spite of our differences.</p>

<h2>Topsy-Turvy</h2>

<p>The postmodern definition of tolerance turns the classical formula on its head.</p>

<p>Be egalitarian regarding ideas.</p>

<p>Be elitist regarding persons.</p>

<p>Since all ideas are equal, if you reject another’s ideas you are automatically accused of disrespecting the person (as the student did with me). On this new view no idea or behavior can be opposed, even if done graciously, without inviting the charge of incivility.</p>

<p>Ironically, this results in the very elitism regarding persons relativist are trying to avoid. The “intolerant”&nbsp;one can be publicly humiliated, labeled as bigoted, disrespectful, ignorant, indecent and—ironically—intolerant. Sometimes you can even be sued, punished by law, or forced to attend re-education programs.<a href="#fn:2" rel="footnote">2</a></p>

<p>Tolerance has thus gone topsy-turvy: Tolerate most beliefs, but don’t tolerate (show respect for) those who take exception with those beliefs. Contrary opinions—especially politically incorrect ones—are labeled as “imposing your view on others”&nbsp;and quickly silenced.</p>

<h2>Three Elements of Tolerance</h2>

<p>This classical view, though largely absent from the public square, can still be found in dictionaries. According to Webster’s,<a href="#fn:3" rel="footnote">3</a> the word “tolerate”&nbsp;means to allow or permit, to recognize and respect others’&nbsp;beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.</p>

<p>Tolerance, then, involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with or doesn’t like (3) while respecting the person in the process.</p>

<p>Notice that we cannot truly tolerate someone <em>unless</em> we disagree with her in some way. This is critical. We don’t tolerate people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. True tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong, yet still choose to treat decently.</p>

<p>This essential element of classical tolerance—disagreement (elitism regarding ideas)—has been completely lost in the postmodern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you are called intolerant no matter how you treat her.</p>

<p>This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise true tolerance, yet expressing that conviction brings the accusation of intolerance. It’s a “Catch-22.”&nbsp;According to this approach, true tolerance becomes impossible.</p>

<p>The myth of tolerance forces everyone into an inevitable conflict. Each person in any debate has a point of view he thinks is correct. Each person thinks that those who differ are wrong. <em>No one ever satisfies the demands of the postmodern definition of tolerance.</em> That is why the “neutrality”&nbsp;of postmodern tolerance is a myth.</p>

<h2>Three Faces of Tolerance</h2>

<p>Adding to the confusion is the fact that tolerance could apply to different things—persons, behaviors, or ideas—and the rules are different for each.</p>

<p>Tolerance of <em>persons</em>—what might be called “civility”&nbsp;or “respect”—is at the heart of the classical view of tolerance: the freedom to express one’s ideas without fear of reprisal.</p>

<p>We respect those who hold different beliefs than our own by treating them courteously and allowing their views a place in the public discourse. We may strongly disagree and vigorously contend against them, but we still show respect for the individual in spite of the differences.</p>

<p>Tolerating <em>behavior</em> is another issue. In free societies, a person may believe as she likes—and usually has the liberty to express those beliefs—but she may not behave as she likes. Some behavior is a threat to the common good. Rather than being tolerated (allowed, though disagreed with), it is restricted by law. Historically, our culture has emphasized tolerance (respect) of all persons, but never tolerance of all behavior.</p>

<p>The liberty to act, called tolerance of <em>behavior,</em> is an entirely different issue. Our laws demonstrate that a man may believe what he likes—and he usually has the liberty to express those beliefs—but he may not behave as he likes. Some behavior is a threat to the common good. Rather than being tolerated, it is restricted by law. In Lincoln’s words, there is no right to do wrong.</p>

<p>Finally there is tolerance of <em>ideas</em>. Tolerance of persons requires that each view gets a courteous hearing, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth. The view that no person’s ideas are any better or truer than another’s is absurd. Reason and intellectual integrity require we treat some ideas as better than others. Any other approach is foolish, even dangerous because ideas have consequences. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.</p>

<p>Think of the word “acceptance”&nbsp;as a synonym for “tolerance.”&nbsp;Accept (respect) all people based on our shared humanity. Don’t accept—treat as legitimate—all behavior or all ideas. Some conduct is unacceptable and some ideas are unsound.</p>

<p>These three categories are frequently conflated by muddled thinkers. If one rejects another’s ideas or behavior, he’s automatically accused of rejecting the person and being disrespectful.</p>

<p>To say I’m intolerant of a person because I disagree with his ideas is confused. On this view of tolerance, no idea or behavior can be opposed, regardless of how graciously, without inviting censure and the charge of incivility. Instead of hearing, “I respect your view,”&nbsp;those who differ in politically incorrect ways are told they are bigoted, narrow-minded, and intolerant.</p>

<h2>Sticks and Stones</h2>

<p>This is nothing more than old fashioned name-calling. A case in point was an attack made in my community paper on Christians who were uncomfortable with the social pressure to approve of homosexuality. I wrote the following letter to the editor to show how the postmodern notion of tolerance had been twisted into a vice instead of a virtue:</p>

<p>Dear Editor:</p>

<p>I am consistently amazed to see how intolerant South Bay residents are to moral views other than their own. Last week’s letters about homosexuality were cases in point. One writer even suggested that your publication censor alternate opinions!</p>

<p>This narrow-mindedness and self-righteous attitude about sexual ethics is hypocritical. They challenge what they view as hate (it used to be called morality) with caustic and vitriolic attacks. They condemn censure by asking for censorship (there’s a difference). They accuse others of intolerance and bigotry, then berate those same people for taking a view contrary to their own.</p>

<p>Why is someone attacked so forcibly simply for affirming moral guidelines about sex that have held us in good stead for thousands of years?</p>

<p>Not only that, the objections are self-defeating. The writers imply that everyone should be allowed to do and believe what they want and that no one should be permitted to force their viewpoint on others. But that is their viewpoint, which they immediately attempt to force on your readers in an abusive way.</p>

<p>Those with opposing beliefs were referred to in print as bigots, lacking courage, disrespectful, ignorant, abominable, fearful, indecent, on par with the KKK, and—can you believe it—intolerant.</p>

<p>Why don’t we abandon all of this nonsense about tolerance and open-mindedness? It’s misleading because each side has a point of view it thinks is correct. The real issue is about what kind of morality our society should encourage and whether that morality is based on facts and sound reasoning or empty rhetoric.</p>

<h2>Intellectual Cowardice</h2>

<p>Most of what passes for tolerance today is nothing more than intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word “intolerant”&nbsp;are unwilling to be challenged by other views, to grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It is easier to hurl an insult—“you intolerant bigot”—than to confront an idea and either refute it or be changed by it. In the postmodern era, “tolerance”&nbsp;has become intolerance.</p>

<p>As ambassadors for Christ we choose the more courageous path, “destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God”&nbsp;(2 Corinthians 10:5). In a gracious and artful way we speak the truth, then trust God to transform minds.</p>

<p>Whenever you are charged with intolerance, always ask for a definition. When tolerance means neutrality, that all views are equally valid and true, then no one is ever tolerant because no one is ever neutral about his own views. Point out the contradiction built into the new definition. Point out that this kind tolerance is a myth.</p>

<p>The classical rule of tolerance is this: Tolerate persons in all circumstances by according them respect and courtesy even when their ideas are false or silly. Tolerate (i.e., allow) behavior that is consistent with the common good. Finally, tolerate (i.e., embrace and believe) ideas that are sound. This is still a good guideline.</p>

<h2>Putting Your Knowledge into Action</h2>

<ul>
	<li>Keep in mind that virtually all charges of intolerance are no more than simple name-calling.</li>
	<li>When someone calls you intolerant, always ask for a definition. Ask him what he means when he says you’re intolerant (or arrogant).</li>
	<li>If he claims you’re intolerant because you think you’re right and everyone else is wrong, ask if he thinks his own views are right.</li>
	<li>The fact is, everyone thinks his own views are correct; that’s why he believes what he believes (no one knowingly believes falsehoods). If he says his views are true for <em>him</em>, ask why he’s talking to you. Point out that it sure looks like he’s trying to push his correct, “tolerant”&nbsp;view on you.</li>
	<li>Finally say, “I’m confused. Why is it when <em>I</em> think <em>I’m</em> right, I’m intolerant or arrogant, but when <em>you</em> think <em>you’re</em> right, you’re just right? What am I missing here?”</li>
	<li>Be sure to wait for an answer.</li>
</ul>

<div class="footnotes">
<ol>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:1">
	<p>This way of putting it comes from Peter Kreeft of Boston College. <a href="#fnref:1" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:2">
	<p>This has happened in a number of communities regarding the homosexuality issue. <a href="#fnref:2" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:3">
	<p><em>Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition</em> <a href="#fnref:3" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-intolerance-of-tolerance" 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-intolerance-of-tolerance" 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-intolerance-of-tolerance" 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 Is a Strange Sort of Fiction: The Postmodern Turn Part 4
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-4
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Postmodern Self-Destructs</em></p>

<p>[Author’s note: Most of what follows builds upon what was discussed in “Truth Is a Strange Sort of Fiction: Parts I—III”&nbsp;found in the last three issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>. To make the most out of what follows, it might be best to review those thoughts before you begin. <a href="http://www.str.org/publications/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-3#.V82a56OZORs">Read part 3 here.</a>]</p>

<p>A few years back I participated in a debate in which I had almost every reason to believe I would get crushed.</p>

<p>My opponent, Dr. Marv Meyer, had a Ph.D. in Early Christian Studies from Claremont and had authored a popular translation of the Gnostic <em>Gospel of Thomas</em> (the copy of <em>Thomas</em> in my own library was Dr. Meyer’s work). He was a fellow of the controversial Jesus Seminar, and was proficient in seven languages (English, Ancient Greek, Coptic, Latin, Hebrew, German, and French), with limited skills in Ugaritic, Aramaic, and Arabic. To top it off, he was not only erudite; he was genial, and gracious.</p>

<p>In short, Marv Meyer was a really smart, really likable guy—the hardest kind of opponent to debate. Plus, we were going head to head on his home turf, Chapman University.</p>

<p>I, on the other hand, had no Ph.D., no prestigious professional appointments, had not been on CNN, ABC, or made multiple appearances on the the History Channel (as he had), and spoke only English and just enough CaliMex to order a taco.</p>

<p>Even so, I had what I thought was an unbeatable advantage. I knew that Dr. Meyer, in spite of his impressive credentials and winsome style, could not win the debate, at least on rational grounds.</p>

<p>Here’s why. The topic of the debate was the postmodern view of knowledge. The debate was entitled “Is Truth True?”&nbsp;Does anything about this title strike you as odd? The conflict evident in the title itself was not only the undoing of Dr. Meyer that evening, but is also the reason the postmodern understanding of truth is doomed to failure.</p>

<p>Let me explain. Remember that in postmodernism (PM), there is no truth in the ordinary, natural sense of the word. “Truth”&nbsp;is either a story well constructed, a cultural narrative that works for a local community, or simply a synonym for “belief.”</p>

<p>What we think we know about the “outside”&nbsp;world is merely a reflection of our cultural language from the inside, the “story”&nbsp;we find ourselves trapped within. Therefore, all claims to know objective truth are false because each of us is imprisoned, incapable of seeing beyond the limits of his linguistic constructions.</p>

<p>But this way of understanding the world is deeply flawed. Postmodern views of truth and knowledge have a handful of afflictions, each of them lethal. No degree in philosophy is required to discover these problems. The blunders become quickly obvious on a moment's reflection. That’s why Marv Meyer didn’t have a chance.</p>

<h2>Falling on Its Own Sword</h2>

<p>The first problem is one ordinary folks readily see. A sophisticated refutation is not required because postmodernism defeats itself. Here’s what I mean.</p>

<p>Every statement is about something. For example, the sentence “Cats chase rats”&nbsp;is about cats. Sometimes statements include themselves in what they refer to. The statement “All English sentences are false”&nbsp;is about all English sentences, including itself.</p>

<p>In this last case, you can immediately see a predicament. The statement has within it the seeds of its own destruction. If all English sentences are false, then the English sentence declaring so must also be false, and if false, then easily—and appropriately—dismissed.</p>

<p>Self-destructive views like these are commonly called self-refuting statements. Because they cannot satisfy their own standard, they fall on their own sword, so to speak, and commit suicide. This is precisely what happens with the postmodern view of knowledge.</p>

<p>Postmodernists reject the notion of truth in any objective (correspondence) sense because they think language insulates us from reality. They write books and give lectures employing detailed, carefully constructed arguments meant to convince detractors that their conclusions are sound. They take great pains to persuade naysayers to take their views seriously. Why? Because they are convinced that PM offers an <em>accurate</em> description of the way things are.</p>

<p>How are we to take their assessment? It seems we have only two options. First, we can take the evaluation as its advocates intend (though they don’t quite put it in these words)—as an objectively true, trans-linguistic, trans-cultural explanation of how knowledge works. Simply put, we can agree with them that they got it right.</p>

<p>But this is precisely what we are not allowed to do given PM. No one can escape the linguistic trap, not even postmodernists.</p>

<p>The only alternative left is to apply the deliverances of postmodernism to postmodernism itself. In that case, PM is reduced to nothing more than a linguistic construction.</p>

<p>But this renders the postmodern view trivial, a regional, parochial perspective that has no more claim to universal legitimacy than any other view. It can simply be ignored by any of us not interested in playing that particular language game.</p>

<p>The postmodern view is doomed in either case.</p>

<h2>It’s True there Is No Truth</h2>

<p>There is a simple, straightforward way of putting this problem. When the postmodernist claims there is no truth, an obvious question comes to mind: “Is that true?”&nbsp;In other words, is the claim that there is no truth <em>itself</em> a true statement, or is it false? If false, then false. If alleged true, then false again.</p>

<p>There is no easy way out of this predicament, though some exit strategies have been tried. For one, postmodernists who have heard this line before simply dismiss it. To them it’s sophomoric, a word trick.</p>

<p>They cannot get off that easily, though, because there is no verbal sleight of hand here. This is not a trivial objection. It’s an appeal for intellectual honesty and integrity.</p>

<p>Presumably, postmodernists want others to take their view seriously. They want us to believe them when they argue there are no descriptions of reality anyone can be confident of, that an accurate understanding of “how things really are”&nbsp;is forever beyond our reach.</p>

<p>But the moment one does, he runs headlong into an immovable obstacle. If one takes seriously the claim that there are no reliable statements of fact, then the postmodernist’s assessment itself should not be trusted. Her view of truth and knowledge is a reliable insight only if it’s gained <em>outside</em> the confines of language. Yet she offers it while, by her own admission, she is captive <em>inside</em> the linguistic constructions she says blind us all.</p>

<p>It’s as if she were saying, “You and I are both blind,”&nbsp;and then adds, “Now let me tell you what the world <em>really</em> looks like.”</p>

<p>Implicitly, postmodernists think they have beaten the language game, at least in this instance. But if they can escape the trap, why can’t anyone else? This kind of problem has been around for a while. C.S. Lewis gets to the heart of it:</p>

<p>In the old days it was supposed that if a thing seemed obviously true to a hundred men, then it was probably true in fact. Nowadays the Freudian will tell you...their thoughts are psychologically tainted at the source. And the Marxist will tell you...their thoughts are “ideologically tainted”&nbsp;at the source.</p>

<p>Now this is obviously great fun; but it has not always been noticed that there is a bill to pay for it...Are all thoughts thus tainted at the source, or only some?...</p>

<p>If they say that all thoughts are thus tainted, then, of course, we must remind them that Freudianism and Marxism are as much systems of thought as Christian theology...They have sawn off the branch they were sitting on. If, on the other hand, they say that the taint need not invalidate their thinking, then neither need it invalidate ours. In which case they have saved their own branch, but also saved ours along with it.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Postmodernists are shackled by a clear contradiction that no amount of dismissive hand waving will dispel. This fact became painfully obvious in my debate with Marv Meyer. I defended the resolve “Objective truth exists and can be known,”&nbsp;while Dr. Meyer took the opposing side.</p>

<p>I want you to notice something about formal disputes like these. To debate, Dr. Meyer must argue against one view and in favor of another. This argument takes a very particular form: The view he opposes (mine) is false; the view he promotes (his) is true.</p>

<p>True to type, this is precisely what happened. With grace and considerable skill, the professor pointed out the failings—and dangers—of my own perspective. Aristotle, it turns out, was wrong; Derrida was right. Mr. Koukl is mistaken; Marv Meyer is correct.</p>

<p>Do you see the problem here? Dr. Meyer marshaled an array of facts, truth, and knowledge for the purpose of persuading his audience that facts, truth, and knowledge were all sophisticated fictions.</p>

<p>In the course of the debate I pointed this out to the audience. I mentioned that Dr. Meyer was forced by the nature of debate itself to make use of the very thing he was denying in the debate, dooming his effort to failure from the outset. Indeed, merely by showing up, Dr. Meyer had implicitly affirmed the resolve I was defending, effectively conceding the debate to me from the beginning.</p>

<p>I further pointed out to the audience that every vote cast for Dr. Meyer as the winner of the debate meant the voter had been persuaded that Dr. Meyer’s view was (objectively) true and mine was (objectively) false. Therefore, every vote for my opponent was really a vote for me.</p>

<p>The audience laughed, but the point wasn’t lost on them. When the final tally came in, the good professor got only one vote (apparently someone wasn't listening). This wasn’t because I was clever. It was because the view he was defending was obviously false, a fact that couldn’t be missed once the problem was carefully pointed out.</p>

<p>In the final analysis, the postmodernist claims to know what she claims cannot be known: what’s really going on with the world. She says, “There is no way the world actually is,”&nbsp;then adds, “and that’s the way the world actually is.”</p>

<p>This view, taken seriously, is essentially telling us not to take it seriously. As one wag put it: “When you find someone who tells you there is no truth, he’s telling you not to believe him, so don’t.”</p>

<h2>Talking Like a Modernist?</h2>

<p>Postmodernists have a second response to the charge their view is self-contradictory and therefore false. “You’re just talking like a modernist,”&nbsp;they say. “You’re trying to judge postmodernism by Enlightenment rules of logic. We don’t play that language game.”</p>

<p>Of course, this reply is not really an answer; it’s a dismissal, a dodge. It also misses a very important point: Concerns about contradiction and other rules of logic are not rooted in modernism at all. They are not arbitrary designs of Western minds anyone can opt out of, like how many jumps are allowed in a game of checkers. Their use goes back to the ancients who simply acknowledged them as inescapable features of reality.</p>

<p>There’s a reason for this. Some things are basic and indispensable to certain enterprises. If you want to communicate using language, for example, you’re pretty much going to have to use subjects and verbs to do so. That’s because the nature of communication entails principals (subjects) engaged in some sort of action (verbs).</p>

<p>Notice, that it doesn’t much matter what language one speaks, what culture one is from, or what period of history one lives in. Because moderns use subjects and predicates doesn’t mean this is <em>distinctively</em> modern to be rejected along with any of modernism’s vices, real or imagined. Ancients used them, too, because they were essential to communication. They were not accidental characteristics of some particular way of talking.</p>

<p>All linguistic communication works the same way because of how reality is structured. Subjects and verbs are essential to communication given the nature of communication itself.</p>

<p>In the same way, some things are basic and essential to discursive thought. The principles of reason are among them. They are brute facts of the world obvious to anyone willing to take time to reflect on them.</p>

<p>Even those who do not know the <em>term</em>&nbsp;“law of non-contradiction”&nbsp;certainly know the concept. No one taught them this; they picked it up through contact with reality. Because God made each of us with the faculty to recognize these features of the world, we subconsciously employ the principle—and frequently recognize violations of it—regardless of our native language or culture. Indeed, anyone attempting to refute the laws of reason must employ them in the process.</p>

<p>It follows, then, that self-contradictory views are necessarily false no matter <em>when</em> one lives (modern or ancient), or <em>where</em> one lives (East or West). There is no getting around this, and no amount of postmodern wishful thinking will change it.</p>

<p>Some may <em>say</em> they are comfortable with contradiction, but this is unconvincing. If they were really comfortable with contradiction, they wouldn’t find fault with modernism, which is postmodernism’s contradiction in many ways.</p>

<p>When someone appeals to rules of reason, he’s not talking like a modernist; he’s talking like a human being. Alleged “alternate logics”&nbsp;are really nothing more than fantasy, and when they’re taken too seriously they’re called insanity.</p>

<h2>We Do Know Things</h2>

<p>Postmodern views of truth and knowledge have a second fatal flaw. We actually do know objective truth, in many instances. This is amazingly simple to demonstrate.</p>

<p>A few months ago I was in Washington, D.C., a complex city laid out by its designer like a square wheel with broken spokes, creating an angular maze that is a navigational nightmare.</p>

<p>We consistently arrived at our various destinations, however, visiting the Lincoln Memorial, the Arlington National Cemetery, the D.C. zoo, and an occasional Starbucks. We made it back safely to our hotel every evening, rarely getting off track. How did we do that? We found our way using a remarkable little invention called a map.</p>

<p>Did you ever think about what takes place when you use a map? Maps give us a representation of reality that we initially believe is accurate, that is, we hold their information to be true in the objective (correspondence) sense. There is a simple way to test to see if that belief is correct. We find our current location on the map, plot a course, and move out. If our beliefs are true, we get where we intend to go. If not, we’ll learn that soon enough.</p>

<p>Notice that perfection is not required in this enterprise. Sometimes we get it wrong, but even then we know we’re wrong because of new, accurate information that shows us our error.</p>

<p>This little exercise repeats itself thousands of times a day, every day of our lives in the countless details we encounter as we navigate in our world.</p>

<p>Our beliefs about reality are like that map. We are constantly testing our beliefs to see if they are true, that is, if they match up with the world. We lay them on top of what we think is reality and then look for a fit. We pay attention to our awareness&nbsp;of our environment. We form beliefs. We then test those beliefs against the world. When they match up, we know our beliefs are true. We drive and then arrive.</p>

<p>Every time we use a map, or take medicine, or drive on the freeway, or navigate from the bedroom to the bathroom in the middle of the night, we prove postmodernism false. Virtually everything we do successfully relies on getting some of our beliefs about the world right. If we couldn’t consistently know objective truth, we’d be dead in a day.</p>

<h2>Truth, a Strange Sort of Fiction?</h2>

<p>Jesus said He came to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37). He condemned spiritual leaders who withheld the “key of knowledge,”&nbsp;thereby hindering others from entering the Kingdom (Luke 11:52). Therefore, truth and knowledge are essential to Christianity.</p>

<p>Yet postmodernism denies the kind of truth and knowledge Jesus and his followers spoke about. In PM, “truth”&nbsp;is just a fiction—a strange sort of fiction, but fiction nonetheless.</p>

<p>This puts Postmodernism on a crash course with Christianity. In fact, it has already collided. PM is a philosophy that is not in accord with Christ, which makes it surprising that so many in the church are enamored with it. That will be my focus in the next and<a href="http://www.str.org/publications/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-5#.V82ar6OZORs"> final installment of this series in <em>Solid Ground</em>.</a></p>

<h2>Putting Your Knowledge into Action</h2>

<ul>
	<li>Learn to recognize the self-refuting views of postmodernism. Once you understand how PM’s claims about knowledge and truth “commit suicide,”&nbsp;you’ll be able to graciously point out this flaw to others.</li>
	<li>Remember that postmodernists want us to take their view seriously. Remind them of that when they claim there is no truth (i.e., there are no reliable statements of fact). Taking them seriously means applying their own view to their own claims, which ultimately sinks their ship.</li>
	<li>Understand that the rules of logic are not inventions of modernism or the Enlightenment. They are necessary tools every human being uses to navigate the map of life in every era by every culture.</li>
	<li>Don’t let questions about language or disputes about <em>how</em> we know things distract from the most important fact: We actually <em>do know</em> many things about reality. Otherwise, we would not survive a single day.</li>
</ul>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">C.S. Lewis, <em>God in the Dock</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 271-2. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</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%2Ftruth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-4" 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-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-4" 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-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-4" 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 Is a Strange Sort of Fiction: The Postmodern Turn Part 5
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2007
source: https://www.str.org/w/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-5
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Christianity and Postmodernism—The “Emerging Church”</em></p>

<p>[Author’s note: Most of what follows builds upon what was discussed in “Truth Is a Strange Sort of Fiction: Parts I—IV”&nbsp;found in previous issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>. To make the most out of what follows, it might be best to review those thoughts before you begin. <a href="http://www.str.org/publications/truth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-4#.V82bAaOZORs">Read part 4 here.</a>]</p>

<h2>An Emerging Church for Each Generation</h2>

<p>Each new generation that emerges in culture needs a new generation of Christians to speak to it in its own cultural language.</p>

<p>This has always been true, for an obvious reason. As time passes, things change. Language changes. Customs change. More importantly, ideas change. Unless, we engage those new ideas, we will be speaking into the air. Thus, all emerging generations need an emerging church with a fresh understanding of—and sensitivity to—the new culture.</p>

<p>According to emerging church pioneer Dan Kimball, the term “emerging church”&nbsp;simply refers to “churches who were focusing on the mission of Jesus and thinking about the Kingdom in our emerging culture.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>I was part of just such a generation of “emerging Christians”&nbsp;nearly 35 years ago. The year was 1973. The emerging church then was called the Jesus Movement. Emerging Christians were called “Jesus freaks,”&nbsp;hippies with religion.</p>

<p>Now more than three decades later much has changed. Hairlines have receded, waistlines have advanced, and that which was new has become old. I am now the “establishment”&nbsp;to an emerging postmodern generation that is both foreign and sometimes hostile to many of us in the old guard. To reach it, we need a new emerging church for the same reason we needed the Jesus Movement in the ’60s and ’70s. It’s the same reason any foreign culture needs missionaries.</p>

<p>Effective cross-cultural ambassadors for Christ are alert for any artificial hindrances to the Gospel and try to remove them. They then try to blend in with the locals as much as possible.</p>

<p>When you think of it, this is the goal of all productive missionaries—to get as culturally “near”&nbsp;as possible to those they’re trying to reach. The closer one is in the theologically neutral elements of language, customs, clothing, and culture, the fewer barriers exist to dealing with the underlying ideas that are contrary to the truth.</p>

<p>In fact, this was exactly the strategy of history’s most accomplished missionary, the Apostle Paul. Whether speaking to Greek or Jew, he tried to conform to culture as much as possible without compromising his own biblical values. “I have become all things to all men,”&nbsp;he wrote, “so that I may, by all means, save some”&nbsp;(1 Corinthians 9:22).</p>

<p>In order, to “save some,”&nbsp;though, Paul did more than blend into culture in every way he could. He also had to understand, engage, and—in some cases—tear down the peculiar ideas of his generation that were hostile to the Gospel or else he was wasting his time.</p>

<p>This is true for ambassadors for Christ in any age. Nearly a hundred years ago, J. Gresham Machen, the last of the great Princeton theologians, wrote:</p>

<p>False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the Gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>There are inherent perils to this enterprise, however. Those who fight fires sometimes get consumed by them. New cultural ideas present new cultural threats for those who do not recognize their dangers.</p>

<p>Paul warned us not to be taken captive to deceptive philosophical traditions of men that were not according to Christ (Colossians 2:8). This cannot be done unless we have a working knowledge of two things: the dangerous philosophies of men Paul warned of, and the life-giving truth of Christ that is their antidote.</p>

<p>The problem is, 21st century Christians are no more astute in either area than those of us who went before them in our time. In the ’60s, we properly understood that the church needed a certain flexibility of cultural expression. Yet we were too quick to abandon the wisdom of those who had gone before us and fell headlong into a host of perils. Finding the balance was a painful process of trial and error. As is often the case, the new wave embraced the future too eagerly, while the old guard held too tightly to the past.</p>

<p>This struggle cannot be avoided, it appears. New generations emerge for a reason. They are conceived in the midst of conflict between old and new. The new distances itself from the perceived shortcomings of the past and embraces the promises of a fresh way of thinking. The old, like MacArthur’s old soldier, doesn’t exactly die. Instead, it slowly fades away, fighting all the while as the new generation emerges to replace it.</p>

<p>This is the situation we find ourselves in now in the first decade of the 21st century, and it defines the missional challenge facing today’s emerging church. How do we contextualize the Gospel message for a new generation without either falling victim to its excesses or isolating ourselves from spiritual fathers who have so much to offer precisely because they fought similar battles a generation ago?</p>

<p>There needs to be a fresh strategy to reach this new generation, agreed. We need the emerging church, in my opinion. Today’s diversity requires its diverse approach. Yet like the Jesus Movement before it, the postmodern emerging church faces the challenge of how to be culturally relevant without becoming captive to cultural ideas.</p>

<p>True to form for the old guard, I have my concerns. If the postmodern view of truth and knowledge bankrupts Christianity, and if it is itself a bankrupt view—points I have argued in previous issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>—then why is postmodernism so attractive to so many Christians, especially among the young?</p>

<h2>The 21st Century Emerging Church—What and Why</h2>

<p>Postmodernism holds an appeal for emerging Christians for a variety of reasons.</p>

<p>First, the emerging generation has a deep mistrust for the deliverances of modernity. In their view, the Enlightenment was a philosophical tidal wave that left a legacy of dogmatic absolutism, oppression of minorities, abuse of the environment, a detached and self-centered individualism, and despair.</p>

<p>Second, to emerging Christians conventional Christian churches provide little relief from these excesses. Evangelicalism is thick with problems, most—according to many emerging Christians—because of a slavish dependency on modernism.</p>

<p>Emerging Christians, then, are reacting to a church establishment that deeply offends them. They have been embarrassed by what appears to them to be systemic hypocrisy. They are unsettled by what they take to be indifference toward the poor, a fear of (and therefore hostility towards) diversity, and a dogmatism borne of religious conceit.</p>

<p>Third, many young people are attracted to the emerging church because certain sociological aspects are appealing. The emphasis on community, social consciousness, inclusiveness, and an absence of “arrogant”&nbsp;theological rigor, are all refreshing changes from what many grew up with.</p>

<p>Finally, the new generation of Christians has been profoundly influenced by the changing philosophical climate regarding truth and knowledge. Certainty is a luxury of the previous era. Humble skepticism and tolerance are now the operational concepts.</p>

<p>The driving force for many emerging Christians, therefore, is not orthodoxy, but orthopraxy; not right thinking, but right living—a practical “love lived out”&nbsp;way of life.</p>

<p>Much of this appeal was captured in a video clip I viewed of a sermon by pastor Doug Pagitt of Solomon’s Porch, an emerging church in Minneapolis that describes itself as “a community seeking to live the dreams and love of God in the way of Jesus.”</p>

<p>Listening to Pagitt and cruising the web site I felt myself drawn to the community, interaction, expression, freedom, spontaneity, and genuine affection the people seemed to have for each other at “the Porch.”&nbsp;Pagitt’s manner was especially winning, providing a unique appeal to many who feel out of place in more “conventional”&nbsp;churches.</p>

<p>I’m not endorsing this group (I actually have reservations about Pagitt’s theological and philosophical views), but it does provide a snapshot of many of the emerging church’s attractive elements.</p>

<p>Interestingly, virtually everything creative and compelling about Solomon’s Porch I saw in the Jesus Movement 35 years ago. With the exception of guys with earrings, I thought I was viewing a clip from a time capsule from my own early days as a Christian.</p>

<p>Such counter-cultural efforts are as vital now as they were then. But the dangers now are also the same—the emerging church cutting itself off from its past, reinventing the theological wheel, thinking it has discovered the poor and other social ills it alone seeks to heal, loving everyone as long as they are like them theologically and culturally, and critiquing the established church by the culture instead of holding both the culture and the church (including them) accountable to the truth of the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”&nbsp;(Jude 3).</p>

<p>In order to do this last thing, one must believe there is such a truth and that it can be known. Herein is the rub. We were confident of this in the Jesus Movement. I see no such confidence now.</p>

<h2>Emerging vs. Emergent</h2>

<p>At this point a critical distinction is necessary. I have been speaking in general terms about the emerging church, which is a broad and multifaceted group, culturally and theologically. Even so, two distinct streams seem to diverge. Scot McKnight, a friendly but thoughtful critic of the movement, distinguishes two major forces in the emerging church: a missional force and a postmodern force.</p>

<p>This difference, it seems to me, is one of <em>method</em> vs. <em>message</em>. The vast majority of those in the emerging church—as high as 90%, according to Kimball—are engaged in a cross-cultural, missional enterprise that aggressively seeks to contextualize the timeless message of the Gospel using methods more friendly to postmoderns.</p>

<p>This move alone has drawn fire from the old guard. In my opinion, much of this criticism has been shallow. Far too much blood is being spilt on inconsequentials: order of worship, style of preaching, type of music, seating arrangements, and the like.</p>

<p>Though these <em>functions</em> are biblical, no particular <em>forms</em> are mandated. Most of these objections are little more than vindication of the cultural status quo. We have much bigger fish to fry.</p>

<p>My own concerns are theological and philosophical, not cultural. My uneasiness with the movement is not with the emerging church in general, but with a subgroup on the vanguard that I fear is being seduced by a postmodern culture God intended them to transform, not be transformed by. This subgroup goes by the name “Emergent,”&nbsp;a proper noun identifying those following the lead of the Emergent Village.</p>

<p>Neither of these groups—the emerging church nor the Emergent Church—is a monolith, true enough. I appreciate that many are sensitive to broad generalizations that may not fit them. But singling out specific people on specific offenses also has its perils. Some writers are notoriously vague and equivocal in their language. Others seem to cry “foul”&nbsp;regardless of accuracy if they’ve been cited in criticism.</p>

<p>Therefore, rather than spotlighting personalities, I’ve chosen to focus on a handful of specific ideas where the meanderings of some Emergent thinkers give me pause.</p>

<h2>Four Concerns</h2>

<p>For me, four concerns form the watershed: the truth/knowledge equation, the authority of the Bible, the work of the cross, and the Great Commission.</p>

<p>First, does Christianity give us an accurate picture of the way the world really is, and can we know it? This is just another way of asking if the claims of classical Christianity are true in the objective, correspondence sense.</p>

<p>Because there is little objectivity (here to be understood as “detachment”) regarding knowledge, some seem to think knowledge of the objective world is not possible. Truth may exist in the mind of God, but it’s something we can never know with certainty. Yet the Bible clearly—and frequently—speaks of truth, knowledge, and certainty as if each were attainable in significant measure by mortal men.</p>

<p>The price to pay for this mistake is high. Remember, faith does not save. You are saved by the One you put your faith <em>in</em>, so you better invest that faith wisely. If you have an unshakable faith and your facts are wrong, then you have an unshakable delusion. And delusions don’t save.</p>

<p>Second, in what sense is the Bible God’s authoritative communication to us? Do we find between its covers the very words of God or merely the poetic narratives of ancient shepherds? If Scripture asserts something, can it be trusted? Does God underwrite the accuracy of the specific claims in the text? Paul says that the writings are profitable to accomplish a host of vital spiritual tasks precisely because they are the very “breath of God”&nbsp;itself (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Was Paul right?</p>

<p>Third, did Jesus actually pay for anything or purchase anything when He suffered so terribly on that cross? Did He die <em>for</em> us, that is, in our place? What did Isaiah mean when he penned the words, “He was pierced through for <em>our</em> transgressions. He was crushed for <em>our</em> iniquities. The chastening for <em>our</em> well-being fell upon Him...The Lord has caused the iniquity of <em>us all</em> to fall on Him”&nbsp;(Isaiah 53:5-6)? Is the idea that Jesus willingly died in our place a sublime expression of divine love or a crime of “cosmic child abuse”?</p>

<p>Finally, is Jesus a singular Savior or just a first among equals? Was Jesus’&nbsp;answer to the problem of sin truly the “narrow gate”&nbsp;(Matthew 7:13-14), or is the way to life a broad one that many eventually find? Does the Great Commission start with a message of sin or of social justice? Is it primarily about discipleship or about redistribution of wealth?</p>

<p>According to Tony Campolo, a sympathetic voice regarding Emergents, “These [Emergent] church members...tend to reject the exclusivistic claims that many evangelicals make about salvation. They are not about to damn the likes of Gandhi or the Dali Lama to Hell simply because they have not embraced Christianity.”</p>

<p>By contrast, when the Apostle Peter explained to the gentile Cornelius his own commission by Jesus, here’s what he said:</p>

<p>And He <em>ordered</em> us to preach to the people, and <em>solemnly</em> to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins&nbsp;(Acts 10:42-43).</p>

<p>Each of these questions needs an answer, and I have been troubled with much that I’ve heard from Emergent leaders in response. Postmodernism has its dogmas of denial on each of these issues. When these denials are embraced by any Christian, they are like atomic acid, burning right through the foundation of the faith.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, the views that give me pause seem to be indistinguishable, in the main, from theological liberalism. Granted, they do differ in intellectual motivation. Liberal views are driven by a modernist animus, while these Emergent views by postmodern sentiments, but ideologically they both seem to end up in the same bed.</p>

<p>Scott Pruett’s comment on STR’s blog captures perfectly the emerging tale of two distinct emerging churches:</p>

<p>It seems to me that the Emergent movement is poised to split into at least two directions. One headed toward an amalgamation of theological liberalism and postmodernism. The other being a more raw, unpretentious, and informal expression of orthodox Christianity. Of course, the later is to be preferred, and so long as it is not condescending toward those who continue to appreciate (though not elevate) their liturgies and traditions, it may ultimately be a fresh wind in the body of Christ.</p>

<h2>Reaching the Emerging Culture: A Strategy</h2>

<p>My own Christian journey has been deeply influenced by the late Francis Schaeffer. Though he addressed the failings of a modern world, he was very prescient in anticipating the needs of the postmodern one. Nearly 50 years ago he wrote, “Before a man is ready to become a Christian, he must have a proper understanding of truth, whether he has fully analyzed his concept of truth or not.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Knowledge for the Enlightenment mind was limited to the facts of the material realm—the “lower story”—discovered by the empirical methods of science. Meaning, significance, value, and religion were relegated to an “upper story”&nbsp;leap of faith. Truths in the upper story were only “true for you,”&nbsp;what we now call “subjective truth.”</p>

<p>To address this confusion, Schaeffer coined the term “true Truth.”&nbsp;This is not a meaningless redundancy, but an attempt to repair a confusion spawned by modern distortions of the term and intensified in the postmodern era. “We are not saying what we are trying to say,”&nbsp;he argued, “unless we make completely clear that we are talking about objective truth when we say Christianity is true.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Further, Schaeffer new that Christians had a powerful ally in this war of ideas: reality. In point of fact, man is made in the image of God and must live in the world God created. Though ideas change, the fundamental nature of reality does not. Though culture shifts, human beings stay the same:</p>

<p>“In practice then, we do have a point for conversation...There is common ground between the Christian and the non-Christian because regardless of a man’s [belief] system, he has to live in God’s world.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>Consequently, every person who rejects the truth of “the God who is there”&nbsp;must live in a contradiction between what he <em>says</em> he believes and the way the world <em>actually is</em>. He speaks of a world filled with morality, meaning, order, and beauty even though he denies the God whose existence makes such things possible.</p>

<p>Put more directly, everyone is already deeply convinced of the truth, even when he denies it. True, our culture is driven by a postmodern impulse, but deep down each of us is a common-sense realist. Those who are not are either dead, in an institution, or sleeping in cardboard boxes under the freeway.</p>

<p>Knowing this gives us a tremendous advantage whether we're talking with an ancient, a medieval, a modern, or a postmodern. The key to dealing with moral relativism, for example, is realizing that for all the affirmations, no one really believes it. When I lectured at Berkeley I asked a question I pose frequently in those situations: Why do we all feel guilty?</p>

<p>“Maybe it’s a cultural construction,”&nbsp;I offered. “But there’s another possibility. Maybe you <em>feel</em> guilty...because you <em>are</em> guilty. Is that in the running?”</p>

<p>I have asked this question countless times on campus. No one has ever stopped me afterwards and said I was wrong. They could not. They new better. Which makes my closing statement all the more powerful. “The answer to guilt is not denial,”&nbsp;I said. “The answer to guilt is forgiveness. And this is where Jesus comes in.”</p>

<p>Schaeffer’s approach is simple. We can start with the truth of the world as each person already knows it to be, and the truth of her own lost condition, which she is already painfully aware of, and offer a solution that resonates with her deepest intuitions about herself and reality.</p>

<p>I am convinced that Schaeffer’s insights for the moderns of his time apply equally to the postmoderns of ours.</p>

<p>To begin with, the false understanding of truth must be dealt with. Schaeffer was clear on this:</p>

<p>We are talking about real <em>truth</em>, and not something vaguely religious which seems to work psychologically...We are talking about <em>real guilt</em> before God...We are talking...about real <em>history</em>, that the death of Jesus was not just an ideal or a symbol, but a fact of space and time...<em>Until he understands the importance of these three things, he is not ready to become a Christian”</em><sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> [emphasis in the original].</p>

<p>Three more things are then required for orthodox evangelicalism to become, as Schaeffer put it, “a thing of strength and beauty”&nbsp;to others.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>First, since “true Christian faith rests on content,”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup>&nbsp;“the full doctrinal position of historic Christianity must be clearly maintained.”&nbsp;Second, honest questions must be given honest answers, not merely exhortations to “Just believe.”&nbsp;Third, there must be an exhibition in the church, individually and corporately, of God in our lives showing convincingly that Christianity is not just a set of doctrines, but an authentic way of life.</p>

<p>From the beginning this has been Stand to Reason’s way.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> Our guiding philosophy has been very simple: The Gospel is offensive enough; don’t add any more offense to it. But we dare not remove the offense inherent to the Gospel. This is a message we must be crystal clear about.</p>

<p>I will close with the words of one of my mentors, J.P. Moreland:</p>

<p>Postmodernism is a form of intellectual pacifism...It is the easy, cowardly way out that removes the pressure to engage alternative conceptual schemes, to be different, to risk ridicule, to take a stand outside the gate. But it is precisely as disciples of Christ, even more, as officers in His army, that the pacifist way out is simply not an option. However comforting it may be, postmodernism is the cure that kills the patient, the military strategy that concedes defeat before the first shot is fired...And it is an immoral, coward’s way out that is not worthy of a movement born out of the martyrs’&nbsp;blood.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>I think he’s right.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Dan Kimball, <a href="http://www.vintagechurch.org/ourstory">http://www.vintagechurch.org/ourstory</a>.&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">J. Gresham Machen, <em>What Is Christianity?</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 162, as quoted in William Dembski and James Kushiner, <em>Signs of Intelligence</em> (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001), 59. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Francis Schaeffer, <em>Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy</em> (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990), 156. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Ibid., 137. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Ibid., 139. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Ibid., 189. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Ibid., 146. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">See STR’s “Ambassador’s Creed”&nbsp;at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">J.P. Moreland, “Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn,”&nbsp;plenary address to the Evangelical Theological Society, November 2004. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</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%2Ftruth-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-5" 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-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-5" 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-is-a-strange-sort-of-fiction-the-postmodern-turn-part-5" 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 Sinner-Friendly Bible
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Melinda Penner
date: 12/05/2005
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-sinner-friendly-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Our latest radio show is up on the site.&nbsp; Greg talked a bit about some of the new Bible translations:&nbsp; the gender-neutral Bible, and one characterized as "sinner friendly."&nbsp; Just as a minor example of the updates are some of the names.&nbsp; Instead of Peter, James, etc. the translator uses Rocky and Brett.&nbsp; I can't get Rocky Balboa out of my mind and he doesn't seem to fit in the Biblical text.&nbsp; The justification for these extreme translations is to make it relevant for modern people.&nbsp; The translators ask, What matters is getting people to read the Bible.&nbsp; Well, if they're not reading God's message, then they're not reading "the Bible."&nbsp; It's true in these instances:&nbsp; You can't tell a book by it's cover.</p>

<p>Greg also answered a question about the value and purpose of fasting, a Biblical passage not practiced much these days.&nbsp; A caller also asked about resolving the discrepancy between unconditional election and people who lose their faith.&nbsp; One caller challenged the premise of STR claiming that Jesus said to preach the Gospel, not defend it.&nbsp; It was a lively show.</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-sinner-friendly-bible" 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-sinner-friendly-bible" 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-sinner-friendly-bible" 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: A Stone in the Shoe
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/01/2002
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-stone-in-the-shoe
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I never set out to win someone to Christ. You may be surprised to learn that, even though I want to be an ambassador for Christ in every situation. My goal is a different more modest one that you may want to adopt as your own. Let me explain, it all starts with open eyes.</p>

<p>I believe opportunities will abound for you if you just keep your eyes open.</p>

<p>Your opportunity might be a salesman at the front door, a chance encounter at the bank, a casual conversation on an airplane, or chatting with a waitress at your dinner table. It could be anyplace, anytime. The question you need to answer in advance is, “When God opens that door, what will my strategy be?”</p>

<p>I think that in some circles there’s pressure for Christian ambassadors to “close the sale”&nbsp;as soon as possible. When pressed for time, get right to the meat of the message. Get to the Gospel. If the person doesn’t respond, you’ve still done your part. Shake the dust off your feet and move on.</p>

<p>A wise ambassador, though, weighs his opportunities and adopts an appropriate strategy for each occasion. Sometimes, the simple truth of the cross is all that’s needed. The fruit is ripe for harvesting. Bump it and it falls into your basket.</p>

<p>Usually, though, the fruit is not ripe; the nonbeliever is simply not ready. He may not even have begun to think about Christianity. Dropping a message on him that, from his point of view, is meaningless or simply unbelievable doesn’t accomplish anything. In fact, it may be the worst thing you can do. He rejects a message he doesn’t understand, and then he’s harder to reach next time.</p>

<p>Now here is my own more modest goal. I want to put a stone in his shoe. All I want to do is give him something worth thinking about. I want him to hobble away on a nugget of truth he can’t simply ignore because it continues to poke at him.</p>

<p>Whether the opportunity is a short one with a transient audience or a long one with a captive audience, my goal is the same—a stone in the shoe. Let me give you some examples.</p>

<p>I wrote you last year about an attorney who didn’t understand why Jesus was the only way. As you recall, in his case I didn’t go for the close, building to a point of decision where I asked, “Do you want to receive Christ?”</p>

<p>Instead, I put a stone in his shoe. I gave him two questions to think about. He needed to digest vital information before he’d be ready for a genuine commitment. If he ever made a decision to trust Jesus, I wanted it to be informed and thought out, a choice that lasted, not an emotional reaction made in the heat of the moment that he’d later abandon.</p>

<p>Last spring I spoke to an audience of 400 students in a ballroom in the middle of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) campus. Most were not Christians. My strategy with that large group was the same as with the attorney.</p>

<p>I’d heard that most of the non-believers on campus thought Christians were stupid. That was my lead in.</p>

<p>“I understand many of you think that Christians are stupid. Well,”&nbsp;I admitted, “many of them are,”&nbsp;then quickly added, “but many non-Christians are stupid too, so I don’t know what that gets you. What I want to show you is that even if some Christians are stupid, Christianity is not stupid. I’m not here to convert you. I want to give you something to think about.”&nbsp;I then talked to them about the failure of relativism. I left them with a stone in their shoe.</p>

<p>As it turned out, while taking questions from the audience afterwards I was able to give more detail about Christ, but only after I laid the groundwork making the message not only coherent to them, but believable. I took one step at a time.</p>

<p>Some people are good “closers.”&nbsp;They’re good at getting the sale. They’re gifted in evangelism and they harvest with almost no effort. “You don’t need all that fancy stuff. Just give them the simple Gospel. It always works for me.”</p>

<p>What they don’t realize is that harvesting often comes easily for them because, in God’s sovereignty, many ambassadors came before them planting, watering, and weeding, one by one tending to the plant, cultivating healthy growth until it was ripe and ready to reap.</p>

<p>Think of your own journey to Christ. Chances are you didn’t go from a standstill to total commitment. Instead, God dealt with you over a period of time. There was a season of reflection as you sorted out the details, hobbling about on the little stones other ambassadors had dropped into your shoe. You can do the same thing for someone else.</p>

<p>Follow the strategy I use when God opens a door of opportunity for me. I don’t know how long the door will be open, so I pray quickly for wisdom (James 1:5), then ask myself, “In this circumstance, what is one thing I can say, one question I can ask, one thought I can leave that will get him thinking?”&nbsp;Then I try to put a stone in his shoe.</p>

<p>Perhaps you have come to your relationship with STR through a stone in your shoe that was placed there during a conference, listening to our broadcast or by reading some of our materials.</p>

<p>All of us at STR thank you for your prayers and generous support. STR is committed to providing you with training materials and relevant teaching geared to help you walk through your doors of opportunity.</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%2Fa-stone-in-the-shoe" 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%2Fa-stone-in-the-shoe" 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%2Fa-stone-in-the-shoe" 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: Perpetual Adolescence
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Melinda Penner
date: 04/21/2005
source: https://www.str.org/w/perpetual-adolescence
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We heard J.P. Moreland make the observation once that in Western culture, adolescence lasts well into the adulthood years. It's a topic well worth the attention of Christians so we can effectively evaluate how this cultural influence affects us and our children. Adolescence is a fairly recent developmental stage along with the common allowance for the excessive attitudes and behaviors to teenagers express. Prior to the comfort and wealth of western culture in the last 100 years, children took responsibility much earlier. Often religious ceremonies such as confirmation and bar mitzvah marked the transition. Childhood transitioned to adulthood and the responsibilities of helping the family because it was necessary for survival. Though our survival doesn't depend on it now, the health of our churches and culture do, I believe, because leadership and responsibility are the marks of adulthood. And I also believe that many of our children suffer because their parents are emotional adolescents.</p>

<p>Think about the typical youth group. It's all fun and games, with the general attitude that the program has to accommodate the wildness of the age group. Instead, youth group should be a time of training for the youth to take on the leadership roles of church and life, to take responsibility for nurturing their own faith and belief.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/" target="new">Al Mohler</a> posts the first of two articles on this topic. Today he focuses on boys and tomorrow girls.</p>

<p>"We now face the phenomenon of perpetual boyhood on the part of many males. Refusing to grow up, these young men function as boys well into their twenties--some even into their thirties and beyond. An extended male adolescence marks the lifestyles, expectations, and behavior of far too many young males, whose masculine identity is embraced awkwardly, if at all.</p>

<p>"When does a boy become a man? The answer to this must go far beyond biology and chronological age. As defined in the Bible, manhood is a functional reality, demonstrated in a man's fulfillment of responsibility and leadership."</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fperpetual-adolescence" 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%2Fperpetual-adolescence" 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%2Fperpetual-adolescence" 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: An Audience of One
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/2001
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-audience-of-one
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>As ambassadors for Christ, we often never know the true impact of our efforts. Yet every once in a while we get a glimpse...</em></p>

<p>Radio is an odd medium because it is hard to know what kind of impact we’re having. For the most part, the communication is all one way. I sit in the studio and talk. Three lines are flashing, callers waiting. My screener and engineer watch through the glass as I speak. An audience of five.</p>

<p>Are there more? Probably, but I have no reliable way of knowing. There could be tens of thousands listening, or only a dozen. We’re in the dark. We never know the true extent of our impact.</p>

<p>Even so, every once in a while we get a glimpse of what God has been doing. We get letters. I have included one below that gives such a glimpse, and it touches me deeply each time I read it.</p>

<p>The writer, Josh Runyan, is a name I recognize. He and his wife have been part of Stand to Reason for years. They have encouraged us. We have helped them. But the one Josh writes about is a name I did not recognize, at least until just recently.</p>

<p>Josh has written to tell me about his friend, Tom. Read this carefully because there is a lesson and an encouragement for you in this.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>September 24, 2001</p>

<p>Dear Stand to Reason,</p>

<p>I would like to tell you of a friend of mine in whose life STR splayed a part.</p>

<p>As all who knew him would say, he was a good and successful man. He flew Navy fighters off aircraft carriers, went to Top Gun, and according to his daughter “even looked a little like Tom Cruise, but more handsome.”</p>

<p>About six years ago, God powerfully entered his life causing him to realize that without Jesus he was still incomplete. The Holy Spirit worked through his wife, church, and not insignificantly, STR.</p>

<p>Almost every week he would record your show and then listen to it later while doing household projects or driving. He used your training materials and also learned from the wider community of scholars Greg introduced, people like William Lane Craig, Scott Klusendorf, J.P. Moreland, and Philip Johnson.</p>

<p>He later began leading Bible studies and drew on your teaching. Probably the two things from STR he used the most in his own life were Greg’s teaching on decision making and Greg’s model of being a winsome communicator.</p>

<p>I know all this because we would routinely get together and discuss the shows or teachings, critiquing, dissecting, but almost always affirming what we had heard. STR supported him and he was also a supporter of STR.</p>

<p>His name is Tom McGuinness and he was one of the pilots flying American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane that hit the World Trade Center on September 11th. He is survived by his wife, Cheryl, and two teen-age children, Jennifer and Tommy, all committed followers of Jesus Christ.</p>

<p>I was his friend and I know he would have wanted me to say thank you.</p>

<p>Sincerely,</p>

<p>Josh Runyan</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I want to thank Josh for his kind letter. It is powerful as well as poignant. It encourages us at STR to face another day of hard work and spiritual battles knowing that through our efforts in the Lord we leave behind a legacy, even though we're often in the dark and will never know the true extent of our impact.</p>

<h2>An Audience of One</h2>

<p>What’s true for us as an organization is also true of any ambassador for Christ. It’s very hard to quantify the true extent of our influence. We may prepare for each contingency in a conversation, pray through each encounter, and profess the truth with care. We may talk, engage, and cajole. We may witness with great patience, clarity, and grace, yet fail to see a measurable effect.</p>

<p>At Stand to Reason we are not especially burdened by this fact because long ago we decided to let faithfulness be our focus, not results. We knew we couldn’t bring the increase anyway. Only Christ could do that. Results were a secondary, not primary, measure of our legitimacy.</p>

<p>Instead, we work to please an audience of One. Our first goal has been to do what is good and right in pursuing our ministry, to represent truth with honor and accuracy, to be careful in our approach, to be winsome and attractive.</p>

<p>Put another way, we’ve sought in our knowledge an accurately informed message, in our wisdom an artful method, and in our character an attractive manner. Our deepest desire is not to hear applause from the multitudes, but rather a solitary voice from our audience of One saying, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”</p>

<p>Judging from Josh Runyan’s comments, Tom McGuinness left behind his own legacy, not just with his wife Cheryl and his children, Jennifer and Tommy. Tom’s legacy is also with the many others he influenced as a winsome and attractive ambassador for the Lord Jesus Christ, in Whose arms he now rests.</p>

<h2>Building Your Legacy by Passing It On</h2>

<p>It touches us at Stand to Reason to know that in our own way we played a part in building an ambassador for Christ named Tom McGuinness, a pilot on American Airlines flight 11, the first plane to hit the World Trade Center.</p>

<p>However, though Tom’s story is poignant, his life in one sense was no more significant than the life of each one of you who reads these words right now, you who serve quietly, often in the dark, often not knowing the true extent of your impact, laboring silently before your audience of One.</p>

<p>It’s always nice when people thank us for what they’ve received from STR. But the greatest thanks we can get from anyone who has learned from us is rather than passing the blessing back to me, they pass it on to someone else.</p>

<p>Tom had taken what he learned and was passing it on to others around him. Who knows how many of those—of crew or passengers—who perished on flight 11 at the World Trade Center were influenced by Tom McGuinness and his witness for Christ (though we do know that 1800 came to his memorial, including many non-Christians touched by Tom’s life)? And who knows how many others were changed by those ambassadors for Christ who Tom himself helped equip?</p>

<p>In the same way, you keep passing it on. Every ambassador for Christ is building his or her legacy. We go out in obedience doing what is right, speaking what is true. We try to do so in the most accurate, gracious, and compelling way that we are able. Sometimes we do a better job than other times, but we focus on faithfulness first, results second.</p>

<p>Every once in a while you will get a glimpse. Sometimes the glimpse you get will show that God has used you in surprising ways. Sometimes you will learn that the person you were talking to in a given situation was not be the person you had the greatest impact on. Instead it was a bystander, an eves-dropper, sitting in the next row on the airplane, or behind you in class, or working in the adjoining cubicle, listening in on a conversation you meant for someone else and seemed to be going nowhere.</p>

<p>Some call this “ricochet evangelism.”<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> You aim your message in one direction and it ricochets in another, hitting a completely different target. Of course, the final resting place of our message is not up to us, is it? It’s up to our Savior, the Sovereign whom we represent.</p>

<h2>No Time for Fear</h2>

<p>The events of September 11, 2001, will forever be burned into our minds. I hope they will remind us to number our days as we consider Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 5:15-16: “Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.”&nbsp;Whether God gives us many more years or whether He calls us home tonight, we want to be found faithful.</p>

<p>Now is not the time for any kind of fear. It’s not the time to pull up the drawbridge for fear of harm or fear of inconvenience. It is the time for ambassadors equipped with knowledge, tactical wisdom, and character to seize the moment as agents of change for the Kingdom of heaven when the world needs them most.</p>

<p>We may not feel up to the task God takes us into. That’s the time to remember the loaves and the fishes. The little boy in the crowd had little to give, but he gave what he had to his audience of One. When placed in the hands of Jesus, they were multiplied to feed the multitudes.</p>

<p>In the same way, we take what we have and place it in the hands of the Savior. We may never see the size of the crowd He feeds through our effort. But it is enough to give what we have to Him—our skills, our gifts, our capabilities, our opportunities—and He will take care of the rest.</p>

<p>Don’t ever underestimate your significance before your audience of One.</p>

<p>For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost.</p>

<p>For the want of the shoe, the horse was lost.</p>

<p>For the want of the horse, the rider was lost.</p>

<p>For the want of the rider, the battle was lost.</p>

<p>For the want of the battle, the war was lost.</p>

<p>For the want of the war, the kingdom was lost.</p>

<p>All for the want of a nail.</p>

<div>
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> I first heard this term from Lee Strobel.</p>
</div>
</div>

<p>As ambassadors for Christ, we often never know the true impact of our efforts. Yet every once in a while we get a glimpse.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fan-audience-of-one" 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%2Fan-audience-of-one" 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%2Fan-audience-of-one" 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: Do Christians have a bias?
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 09/19/2005
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-christians-have-a-bias
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Philosopher J.P. Moreland points out that when a Christian deals with issues like science and faith, or the historicity of the Gospels, it's fair to say that he's biased in that he has a point of view, like everyone else. But a Christian's bias doesn't inform his conclusions in the same way that biases inform the conclusions of a naturalistic scientist—like Carl Sagan—or a liberal critic of the Life of Christ—like Jesus Seminar's Marcus Borg. Both Sagan and Borg start out, a priori, with the idea that there either is no God or that God does not directly intervene in the machinery of the universe. Their bias arbitrarily eliminates options before the game even gets started. These men must come up with conclusions that leave God out of the picture because their philosophy demands it. There can be no evidence for a miracle—whether the miracle of creation or the miracle of the resurrection—because miracles just can't happen. A Christian is not so encumbered. He believes in the laws of nature, but is also open to the possibility of God's intervention. Both are consistent with his world view. This means that he can follow the evidence wherever it leads him, unhindered by a metaphysical view that automatically eliminates supernatural options before even viewing the evidence. The bias of the Christian broadens his categories, making him more open-minded. The believer has a greater chance of discovering truth, then, because he can follow the evidence wherever it leads, and that's the critical distinction.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-christians-have-a-bias" 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%2Fdo-christians-have-a-bias" 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%2Fdo-christians-have-a-bias" 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: No “Lost” Books
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2002
source: https://www.str.org/w/no-lost-books
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Has archaeology unearthed ancient biblical texts that cast doubt on the current canon of Scripture? Is it possible that Christians don’t have the true Bible?</em></p>

<p>Browsing through the religious section in your local bookstore, you’re likely to stumble on a handful of titles that suggest the discovery of “lost books”&nbsp;of the Bible. Generally, these represent works that were “politically incorrect”&nbsp;according to the theological notions of the time. Branded as spurious by early church leaders, they were discredited and destroyed. Luckily, a handful of copies survived. Archaeologists have rescued these previously “lost books”&nbsp;of the Bible. The <em>Gospel of Thomas</em>, unearthed in the Nag Hammadi library in Upper Egypt in 1945, would be an example.</p>

<p>Invariably, this sends a jolt through the system of the conscientious Christian. Could it be that archaeology has unearthed ancient biblical texts that cast doubt on the current canon of Scripture? Is it possible the Bible that Christians have is incomplete?</p>

<p>It may be hard to believe, but this question can be answered without ever reading any of the books in question. No research needs to be done, no ancient tomes addressed, no works of antiquity perused. Curiously, the entire issue can be answered by a close look at one word: Bible.</p>

<h2>The Bible Divine</h2>

<p>The whole question of alleged lost books of the Bible hinges on what one means by the word “Bible.”&nbsp;It can only mean one of two things, it seems to me. There is a religious understanding of the word, and there is a more secular definition.</p>

<p>When one asks an evangelical Christian what the Bible is, he’s likely to say simply, “It’s God’s Word.”&nbsp;When pressed for a more theologically precise definition, he might add that God superintended the writing of Scripture so that the human authors, using their own style, personalities and resources, wrote down, word for word, exactly what God intended them to write in the originals. This <em>verbal plenary inspiration</em> is a critical part of the Christian definition of the word “Bible.”</p>

<p>The key concept for our discussion is the phrase “exactly what God intended them to write.”&nbsp;This is a critical part of the first definition of the word “Bible,”&nbsp;the idea that God was not limited by the fact that human authors were involved in the process.</p>

<h2>Man’s Mistakes</h2>

<p>A common objection to the notion of inspiration is that the Bible was only written by men, and men make mistakes. This complaint misses the mark for two reasons.</p>

<p>First, it does not logically follow that because humans were involved in the writing process, the Bible must necessarily be in error. Mistakes may be possible, but they’re not necessary. To assume error in all human writing is also self-defeating. The humanly derived statement, “The Bible was written by men, and men make mistakes,”&nbsp;would be suspect by the same standards. The fact is, human beings can and do produce writing with no errors. It happens all the time.</p>

<p>Further, the challenge that men make mistakes ignores the main issue—whether or not the Bible was written <em>only</em> by men. The Christian accepts that humans are limited, but denies that man’s limitations are significant in this case because inspiration implies that God’s power supersedes man’s liabilities.</p>

<p>A simple question—Columbo style—serves to illustrate this: “Are you saying that if God exists, He’s not capable of writing what He wants through imperfect men?”&nbsp;This seems hard to affirm. The notion of an omnipotent God not being <em>able</em> to accomplish such a simple task is ludicrous. If, on the other hand, the answer is “No, I think He is able,”&nbsp;then the objection vanishes. If God is capable, then man’s limitations are not a limit on God.</p>

<p>The divine inspiration of the Bible automatically solves the problem of human involvement. If God insures the results, it doesn’t matter if men or monkeys do the writing, they will still write exactly what God intends. That is part of what it means for the Bible to be divinely inspired.</p>

<p>The important thing for our purpose here is not to defend the notion of divine inspiration, but to understand that God’s authorship and supernatural preservation are <em>necessarily entailed</em> in the first definition of the word “Bible.”&nbsp;The Bible is the 66 individual books contained under one cover that are supernaturally inspired by God, and are preserved and protected by His power.</p>

<h2>The Bible Secular</h2>

<p>The second definition of the word “Bible”&nbsp;is not religious, and therefore assumes no supernatural origin. This view says that while Christians treated the Scriptures as divinely inspired, they were mistaken. The Bible merely represents a consensus, a collection of books chosen by the early church to reflect its own beliefs.</p>

<p>A book that didn’t make the cut was rejected for one reason: Early Christians didn’t accept its theology. The cause was human and political, not divine and supernatural. Christianity is no different from other religions that have collections of authoritative writings. Even individual professions identify certain books as official representations—“bibles”—of their respective fields. The Bible, then, is merely a collection of books chosen by the early church to represent its own beliefs.</p>

<p>So we have two possible meanings for the word “Bible,”&nbsp;a supernatural one and a natural one. Either the Bible is divinely given and divinely preserved—the conservative Christian view—or it’s merely a human document representing the beliefs of a religious group known as Christianity—the view of just about everyone else. Given either of these two definitions, could any books of the Bible be <em>lost</em>?</p>

<h2>No Lost Books</h2>

<p>Start with the first meaning, the supernatural definition of the Bible. Is it possible that books could be lost from a Bible of this sort? The answer is certainly no. Remember, on this view God Himself is supernaturally preserving and protecting the integrity of His work.</p>

<p>Regardless of whether the Christian claim about inspiration is accurate or not, it is obvious that on this definition it is not possible God would misplace His own book. The “lost books” thesis would thus be reduced to, “Certain books that almighty God was responsible to preserve and protect got lost.”</p>

<p>This is silly. God would be both almighty and inept at the same time. If the Bible is in fact the inspired Word of God, then the power of God Himself guarantees that no portion of it will ever be lost. There will always be a fully adequate testimony of His Word in every generation.</p>

<p>Could there be lost books given the second definition? What if Christians are wrong in attributing God’s stewardship to the Scriptures? What if the Bible ultimately turns out to be merely a product of human design? If that’s the case, then the term “Bible”&nbsp;refers not to the Word of God (the first definition), but to the canon of beliefs of the leaders of the early church (the second definition). Is it possible that books could be lost from a Bible of this sort?</p>

<p>The answer again is certainly not. The “lost books”&nbsp;thesis would be reduced to this: “Early church leaders rejected certain books as unrepresentative of their beliefs that they actually believed reflected their beliefs.” The contradiction is obvious.</p>

<p>If the Bible is a collection of books the early church leaders decided would represent their point of view, then they have the final word on what is included. Any books they rejected were never part of their Bible to begin with, so even by the second definition, “lost books”&nbsp;of the Bible would be a misnomer.</p>

<p>Consider this scenario. You decide to write a book about your personal beliefs drawing from stacks of notes containing reflections you’ve collected over the years. After recording the ones you agree with, you discard the rest. Later, someone rummaging through your trash comes upon your discarded notes. Could he claim he’d stumbled upon your lost beliefs?</p>

<p>“No,”&nbsp;you respond, “these were not lost. They were rejected. If they were really my beliefs, they’d be in the book, not in the garbage.”</p>

<p>It’s ironic that “lost books”&nbsp;advocates often point out that rediscovered texts were missing because the early Church Fathers suppressed them. It’s true; they did. Critics think this strengthens their case, but it doesn’t. Instead it destroys their position by proving that the “lost books”&nbsp;were not lost but discarded, rejected as not representative of Christian beliefs. Therefore, they did not belong in the Christian Bible. If they never were <em>in</em> the Bible in the first place they couldn’t be lost <em>from</em> the Bible.</p>

<h2>Recall Vote?</h2>

<p>Another approach to Scripture is worth mentioning. Some academics, like those of the Jesus Seminar, reject the idea that the Bible has supernatural origins. Since the Bible is just man’s opinion anyway, why not have a recall vote? Amend the text to fix what is now considered defective or out of step with the times.</p>

<p>Such a reshuffling of the biblical deck—tossing out some books and including others to reflect what the church currently believes about spiritual truth—is certainly an alternative on a naturalistic view of the Scripture. If the members of the Jesus Seminar want to include the Gospel of Thomas in <em>their</em> bible, they’re welcome to. Keep in mind though, they would not be restoring a “lost book”&nbsp;of the Bible, but merely redefining the canon to fit modern tastes.</p>

<p>Regardless of how you view the Scripture—as supernatural or as natural—there is no sense in which there could be lost books of the Bible. If the Bible is supernatural—if God is responsible for its writing, it’s transmission, and its survival—then God, being God, doesn’t fail. He doesn’t make mistakes, He doesn’t forget things, and He’s not constrained by man’s limitations. God can’t lose His lessons.</p>

<p>However, if the Bible is not supernatural—as many will contend, especially those who claim to have found lost books—one faces a different problem. By what standard do we claim these are bona fide lost books of the canon of the early church? If, from a human perspective, the Bible is that collection of writings reflecting the beliefs of early Christianity, then any writings discarded are not books of the Bible by very definition.</p>

<p>Has archaeology unearthed previously unknown ancient texts? Certainly. Are they interesting, noteworthy, and valuable? Some. Are they missing books of the Bible? The answer is no. Two thousand years later, the rediscovery of something like the Gospel of Thomas may be archaeologically significant. It might be a lost book of antiquity, a great find, even a wonderful piece of literature. But it is not a lost book of the Bible.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fno-lost-books" 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%2Fno-lost-books" 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%2Fno-lost-books" 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: Is God Just a Crutch?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2005
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-god-just-a-crutch-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Are You a Christian because You Were Born in America? Would you Be a Muslim If You Were Born in Iraq? Maybe. But So What?</em></p>

<p>Sometimes your best “moments of truth”&nbsp;are not opportunities you create, but ones that find you. You don’t have to hunt for them. Dissenters will gladly lay them in your lap.</p>

<p>For example, my niece, Kirsten, emailed me this challenge from a friend:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Uncle Greg,</p>

<p>I have a friend, Aiman, who has really been drilling me on Christianity and what I believe in. It’s great because he’s forcing me to stay on top of what I believe and keeping me from becoming a lazy Christian. However, I’m finding myself backed into a corner on questions I feel like I should be able to defend easily.</p>

<p>For example, Aiman, thinks I am a Christian because of where I grew up and because of what has happened in history (Christianity would not be as large a religion if it were not for Constantine). I am starting to think this is partly true. I know I made the decision to accept Christ. But the chances are much slimmer that I would be a Christian if I grew up in a Muslim country where I would not know about Christianity. Right?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I’ve heard this kind of challenge before, many times. It takes a couple of different forms:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“You believe in God because you need an emotional crutch.”</li>
	<li>“The New Testament was written by Christians, and they were biased.”</li>
	<li>“You are pro-life because you’re a man.”</li>
	<li>“Your belief in one true religion is intolerant.”</li>
	<li>“You are a Christian because you were born in America.”</li>
</ul>

<p>Each of these trade on the same fundamental error. Do you see it? Find it by asking yourself this question: What are these objections about?</p>

<p>In these examples, the Christian’s views are dismissed because a) he has an emotional need, b) he is biased, c) he is a certain gender, d) he has a character flaw (intolerance), d) he comes from a certain social or cultural background.</p>

<p>Did you notice that each of these objections is about the <em>believer</em>, not his <em>belief</em>? This is a clue to the problem with all such attacks. You can never know anything about the truth of a person’s beliefs by focusing on anything about the believer. You might learn something interesting about his psychology, his culture, or his social background. But you will never learn anything about the accuracy of his views. To learn that, you must focus on the ideas themselves.</p>

<p>Here’s how I responded to Kirsten:</p>

<p>Consider two men, one a pediatrician in New York and another a pygmy in the Congo. Each describe the cause of sickness in different ways. The pediatrician faults germs, the pygmy, spirits. The doctor invokes medicine for healing, the pygmy, magic. Each believes exactly what his culture has taught him and lives as if it were so.</p>

<p>Here is my question: Who is correct, the doctor or the pygmy?</p>

<p>Do you see that you can never know the answer to that question by noting which culture each was raised in, or by pointing to the cultural influences that formed each belief? The cultural, emotional, psychological, or historical reasons people believe tell you only about their cultures, emotions, history, or psychological states. They tell you nothing about whether germs or demons cause disease, whether the earth is flat or round, or whether Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) is true or false. To get to the answer to those questions you have to look at those things.</p>

<p>Yes, if you grew up in a Muslim country, chances are you'd be Muslim. I agree. But what follows from that? Nothing. Nothing at all. It’s merely a curiosity of counter-factuals, of what might have been. In order to get to the truth of the matter about religion, Aiman is going to have to do better than that. To quote Lewis, “You can only find out the rights and wrongs by reasoning—never by being rude about your opponent’s psychology.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> And, I might add, never by making observations about the influence of history on the spread of one’s religion.</p>

<p>Aiman has his cart before his horse. He thinks he can discredit you views by citing the historical or psychological influences that shaped them. But he must first discredit your views by reason before it becomes meaningful to ask why you would believe such foolish things (e.g., “She was raised that way,”&nbsp;“She needed an emotional crutch,”&nbsp;or “It’s what her culture believes because Constantine became a Christian in the 4th century”).</p>

<p>Examining the motives (or historical influences) of one’s view may tell you interesting things about psychology or about history, but it can never tell you anything about the legitimacy of a view itself.</p>

<h2>The Genetic Fallacy</h2>

<p>Kirsten’s challenger had made a common blunder, one I’m sure you’ve encountered. He focused on the <em>origin</em> of a belief, not its <em>content</em>. Whenever you’re faced with a challenge that focuses on you—your psychological states, your cultural conditions, your personal biases—and not your beliefs, a red flag should to go up.</p>

<p>German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach was the first to suggest that God was nothing more than a psychological projection. Religion to him was a universal neurosis. God is merely a placebo, a crutch, a function of religious wishful thinking. Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Karl Marx (“Religion is the opiate of the people”) all traded on this same theme.</p>

<p>When someone disqualifies a belief based on its origin (its genesis), they have blundered into the genetic fallacy.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Any challenge put this way is beset with problems because it is fired at the wrong target. There’s a difference between what <em>causes</em> or <em>motivates</em> a person to believe and what <em>justifies</em> the belief.</p>

<p>Can someone be biased and still be accurate, or emotionally crippled and still be correct? Certainly. Does it follow that since I want God to exist, then He doesn’t exist, that since it comforts me to think He loves me, then I must be fantasizing? This is crooked logic.</p>

<p>How does what we wish to be true influence what actually is true? A non-believer can no more disprove God by citing the emotional advantages of belief than a Christian can prove God exists by citing the emotional motivations for denial (and they are legion). Put simply, psychological motivations give you information about the <em>one</em> who believes, but they tell you nothing about the <em>truth</em> of his beliefs.</p>

<p>No one can refute an idea by showing—even correctly—the psychological reasons a person happens to believe it. Why? Because psychological motivations have nothing to do with whether a belief is true or not. That evidence must come from other sources.</p>

<p>People have all kinds of twisted motivations to believe things that actually turn out to be true. Others have noble motivations to believe things that are false. Therefore, challenging a belief based on its source gets us nowhere.</p>

<p>Someone says that Christians just want a father figure. I say, “Maybe we do and maybe we don’t, but what does that have to do with whether God exists or not?”&nbsp;I could be wrong in my belief that God is a protective father, and the critic could be wrong in thinking God is a mere psychological projection. Assessing our psychological condition, however, isn’t going to get either of us any closer to the truth.</p>

<p>C.S. Lewis explains why this approach fails:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.”&nbsp;You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself...If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at arithmetic...but only <em>after</em> you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely mathematical grounds...In other words, you must show <em>that</em> a man is wrong before you start explaining <em>why</em> he is wrong<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> (emphasis in the original).</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>Reasons, Not Desires</h2>

<p>Lewis exposes this ruse as an evasion, not an argument. Our question—Does God exist?—must be answered with reasons first, not dismissed with misleading talk about motives or desires.</p>

<p>Suppose I observe the apparent order and design of the universe and conclude some intelligent Being is responsible for them. How could you refute me? There’s only one way: address the reasons themselves.</p>

<p>It does no more good to say one loves the idea or hates the idea than it does to dismiss his conclusion because he has heartburn. Reasons cannot be chased away by desires, motivations, or upset stomachs.</p>

<p>If my reasons to believe in God are not dependent on my emotions, then assessing my psychological states misses the mark entirely. One can never answer the question, “Is God just a crutch?”&nbsp;by looking at motivations.</p>

<p>The question of motivation only enters in as a psychological curiosity once the hard work of refutation has been done. Give me convincing arguments that God doesn’t exist before you ask why I’d believe in such a fantasy.</p>

<p>Many detractors, though, are simply not up to the effort of careful thought. It’s easier, instead, to ignore the arguments and fault the feelings. In this kind of intellectual bullying, Lewis points out, “refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<h2>Variations on the Theme</h2>

<p>The genetic fallacy is the stock-in-trade of political discourse.</p>

<p>A newspaper headline on affirmative action reads, “National Group Says Board Is Motivated by Politics.”&nbsp;But what does motivation have to do with the merits of affirmative action?</p>

<p>A presidential candidate’s concerns about embryonic stem cell research are dismissed as “anti-science”&nbsp;or “pandering to the religious right.”&nbsp;Neither tell you anything about the morality of ESCR.</p>

<p>Some seem to think that gender makes a difference in the abortion debate. However, since arguments have neither testicles nor ovaries, gender is completely irrelevant. An argument is either a good one or a bad one. The sex of the person voicing it makes no difference. Note, by the way, that the Blackmun court of <em>Roe v. Wade</em> fame was comprised of nine men, no women.</p>

<p>Yes, a pro-lifer might be a man. He might also be uncaring, unloving, and insensitive to the plight of women. He might have a host of other unspecified character flaws, as some claim. But none of these factors bears on the question of whether it’s moral to take the life of an innocent, unborn human being.</p>

<p>Sadly, Christians are often guilty of this error. I’ve frequently heard the content of modern psychology dismissed as bogus simply because it came from irreligious people who hated God. Would these same ideas magically morph into truth when tumbling from the mouth of a Christian?</p>

<p>A prominent Christian talk show host dismissed the work of homosexual scientist Simon LeVay in search of a “gay gene”&nbsp;with the remark, “But he’s gay.”&nbsp;Just because a person may have a motive to deceive, though, doesn’t mean his research is deceptive.</p>

<p>Never forget Lewis’s rule: First you must show <em>that</em> a man is wrong before you start explaining <em>why</em> he is wrong.</p>

<h2>God in Man’s Image?</h2>

<p>If men were to invent a god, what would he be like? If we fashioned a god of our choosing, would we create a god like the one in the Bible?</p>

<p>A god formed by human hands would mirror human sensibilities and human proclivities. He would think and act, more or less, like we do. As our invention, his morality would reflect our desires. When we erred, he’d cluck his disapproval and dismiss our frailties with an affectionate kids-will-be-kids shrug. After all, nobody’s perfect. And this is the kind of god many people believe in. Not Christianity, though.</p>

<p>The curious thing about the God of the Bible is how unlike us He is. His wisdom confuses us; His purity frightens us. He makes moral demands we can’t live up to, then threatens retribution if we don’t obey. Instead of being at our beck and call, He defies manipulation. In His economy, the weak and humble prevail and the last become first.</p>

<p>Is the Christian God the kind of god men would create if left to our own devices? Or have we seen the true God and trembled, closed our eyes, hid our faces, and turned our backs with distracting talk about motives and psychological states?</p>

<p>If someone insists that Christ a crutch, I guess I’d have to agree. Crippled people need crutches. Is He <em>just</em> a crutch? No. Thoughtful Christians can give reasons to show that God is real regardless of their motivations for accepting Him. The truth of Christianity doesn’t rest on our feelings.</p>

<p>But I’d press a further point. I’d want to know about their crutch. We’re all crippled in some way; we’re all leaning on something. What are they putting their trust in?</p>

<p>More to the point, can their crutch can hold them? That’s the real question. And focusing on feelings can’t answer it.</p>

<h2>Putting Your Knowledge into Action</h2>

<ul>
	<li>Next time someone says, “God is an emotional crutch,”&nbsp;or “You’d be a Muslim if you were born in Iraq,”&nbsp;tell them, “You’re probably right.”&nbsp;Then ask them to explain what that has to do with the truth of your beliefs.</li>
	<li>Offer the illustration of the doctor and the pygmy. Ask them to explain how they would know whether medicine or magic is the best way to deal with disease.</li>
	<li>Ask yourself the question: What is this objection about? If the challenge to Christianity focuses on the Christian—his feelings, motives, fantasies, conduct, culture, etc.—a genetic fallacy may be lurking in the background.</li>
	<li>Flush the fallacy into the open with questions. Make your challenger deal with your beliefs, not any subjective factors that distract him from the main issue: truth.</li>
</ul>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Lewis, Clive Staples, <em>God in the Dock</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 274. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">When the offending source of belief is psychological, it’s called the psychogenic fallacy. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Lewis, Clive Staples, <em>God in the Dock</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 272-3. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</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%2Fis-god-just-a-crutch-" 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%2Fis-god-just-a-crutch-" 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%2Fis-god-just-a-crutch-" 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: Culturally Aware Apologetics
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/11/2001
source: https://www.str.org/w/culturally-aware-apologetics
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The culture I deal with is a mixed one, a clash of the modern with the postmodern. It therefore requires an eclectic approach best summed up by the word “ambassador.”</p>

<p>The “modern”&nbsp;mind is a product of enlightenment thinking entailing a conviction that the world is a certain way and can be known. There is truth and error, and human beings have the faculty to distinguish between them. Reason and rationality matter. The world has meaning and we understand our place in it.</p>

<p>Postmodernism, by contrast, is a radical relativism that encompasses all of reality. “The truth about reality itself is forever hidden from us,”&nbsp;writes James Sire of postmodernism. “Those who hang on to their metanarrative as if it really were the master story, encompassing or explaining all other stories, are under an illusion.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Postmoderns are more interested in stories than “facts”&nbsp;and are pluralistic, comfortable with a variety of views and lifestyles and sensitive to dogmatism. They are communal, deeply concerned with relationships, and hungry for a spirituality that is not institutional, but personal, practical, and experiential.</p>

<h2>Clash of Cultures</h2>

<p>Two movies capture the distinction between the modern and postmodern mind. The first, “Moonstruck,”&nbsp;is a romantic comedy with a sub-plot about a middle-aged wife named Rose whose husband is having an affair. One evening Rose meets a professor who provides the kind of warm interaction she hasn’t known for years. He invites her to his place. She says declines and he asks why. “Because I know who I am,”&nbsp;she answers. Rose resists temptation because an act of unfaithfulness would violate her character. Her life has meaning. Her moral confidence and strong sense of self allow her to choose virtue in spite of loneliness. This is a profound freedom.</p>

<p>The new style is different. Freedom is not found in virtue, but in emancipation from the moral chains of the past, a perspective captured in the movie “Pleasantville.”&nbsp;Here those who hold to classical virtues are depicted as shallow, one-dimensional, empty, and abusive. Morality—as with all truth—is relative, an invention of the powerful to control the oppressed.</p>

<p>The movie ends, appropriately, in a contradiction. In the final scene David the teenage protagonist of the story, comforts his mother, a divorcee involved with a man nine years her junior. Her life is, in her words, “all f...d up. It is not turning out the way it is supposed to be.”</p>

<p>David gently wipes the mascara-blackened tears from her cheek and says with eyes glowing, “Mom, there <em>is</em> no way it’s supposed to be.”&nbsp;He smiles. She lifts here eyes and the tears stop while she ponders the significance of this sage advice. “How did my son get so wise?”&nbsp;she asks, and the credits roll.</p>

<p>The contradiction in “Pleasantville”&nbsp;is two-fold. In spite of the moral and conceptual relativism implicit in David’s closing comments, the movie is largely dedicated to denigrating the modernist tradition as intolerant, abusive, and oppressive—wrong, in other words. Further, David’s mom, in contrast to Rose, has been living a self-centered, profligate life, without regard for virtue or morality. She’s messed up precisely because there <em>is</em> a way life is supposed to be and she’s not living it.</p>

<p>Our current culture is a dynamic amalgam of these two world views—the modern and the postmodern—in collision with each other. As such, there is no one technique that is most effective. Instead, we need a broad, flexible method: the ambassador approach.</p>

<h2>The Effective Ambassador</h2>

<p>Paul tells us “We are ambassadors for Christ”&nbsp;(2 Corinthians 5:20). An effective ambassador has three essential skills. First, an ambassador must have some basic knowledge of the character, mind, and purposes of his king. Second, this knowledge must be deployed in a skillful way. There’s an element of wisdom, a tactical and artful diplomacy that makes his message persuasive. Paul says, “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person”&nbsp;(Colossians 4:6). Finally, there is character. The kindness, even-handedness, and respect the ambassador shows for those who differ can either make or break his message.</p>

<p>An ambassador is able to adapt to either the modern or the postmodern mindset. Since the approach is flexible by design, he can be effective regardless of what changes he is confronted with. This means intentionally contextualizing the truth of Christianity to the specific circumstances he faces.</p>

<p>The tactical element is critical to the effectiveness of this approach. Two different tactics have been effective even with postmoderns because of a couple of simple truths. First, fairness, gentleness, and respect are always in style, and they add persuasiveness to speech regardless of the message. Second, if Christianity is true, then every person who denies it must live in a contradiction. On one side is the pull of their postmodern convictions; on the other, the tenacious pull of reality.</p>

<h2>The “Columbo”&nbsp;Tactic</h2>

<p>Lieutenant Columbo was the bumbling and seemingly inept TV detective whose remarkable success was based on an innocent query: “Do you mind if I ask you a question?”&nbsp;The key to this tactic is to maneuver through an encounter—halting, head-scratching, and apparently harmless—with carefully selected questions. Columbo is most powerful if you have a plan of attack, if you ask questions with a goal in mind. You may be alerted to some weakness, flaw, or contradiction in another’s view you can expose in a disarming way.</p>

<p>There are literally hundreds of ways to do this offering tremendous advantages. It’s interactive, inviting the other person to participate in dialogue. It’s a good tactic to use at work because no “preaching”&nbsp;is involved. The Columbo tactic allows you to make good headway without actually stating your case. More importantly, a carefully placed question shifts the burden of proof to the other person where it often belongs.</p>

<p>Using the Columbo tactic accomplishes a couple of things. First, it immediately engages the non-believer in an interactive, relational way. The questions are probing, but still quite amicable. Second, it’s flattering because you’ve expressed a genuine interest in knowing more about the other’s view. Third, it forces her to think more carefully—maybe for the first time—about exactly what she believes. Fourth, it gives you valuable information, putting you in a better position to assess her view. You learn <em>what</em> she thinks, but also <em>how</em> she thinks.</p>

<h2>The Suicide Tactic</h2>

<p>The suicide tactic makes capital of the tendency of many views to self-destruct when given the opportunity. Such ideas get caught in the noose of their own cleverness and quickly expire. These are commonly known as self-refuting views.</p>

<p>At first it would seem this rational approach to truth would put off a postmodern who rejects such methodology as illicit holdovers from the modern era. In practice, though, this seldom happens. Postmoderns still care about truth, in spite of their protests. They are human beings made in the image of God. As such, they live in a world in which their claims collide with reality. This tactic is meant to exploit that tension.</p>

<p>The simple truth is, no one is really a relativist, a fact that surfaces readily when one’s guard is down. They wax eloquent about relativism, but in the next breath complain about crooked politicians, legal injustice, and intolerant Christians—all meaningless if relativism is true. When they do this they’re not advancing personal opinions. They actually believe these things are wrong. Their own objective view morality is surfacing.</p>

<p>Even postmoderns hold that certain concepts—justice, tolerance, fairness, etc.—are meaningful, common-sense notions. Further, they bring up the problem of evil as an argument against God and engage in moral discussions to determine the “right”&nbsp;course of action in a situation. These seem to be legitimate ways of talking. Yet if relativism were really true, they are nonsense notions because each derives its meaning from its relationship to an objective moral rule. Relativists find themselves in the unenviable position of having to admit there is no such thing as evil, and no actual obligation of justice, fairness, or tolerance. They may philosophize confidently about the death of truth, but in practice this is too big a price to pay.</p>

<h2>Is Truth True?</h2>

<p>In a debate on postmodernism I participated in at Chapman University, I defended what seemed to be a very modest claim: Objective truth can be known. My opponent, Dr. Marv Meyer, was forced to argue against the proposition, effectively stating he knew truth couldn’t be known.</p>

<p>The debate reminded me of a construction worker who complained one day about the air quality in Los Angeles. “This smog is killing me,”&nbsp;he said. “I need a break. I’m going out back to have a smoke.”&nbsp;His comment entailed a contradiction. He said one thing was objectionable, and then blithely proceeded to do the very thing he objected to, sensing no conflict between the two.</p>

<p>Dr. Meyer’s claim was much the same. First, he claimed that knowledge was a certain way. Second, he claimed he knew it to be so. All the while he argued all such claims are false. In my final remarks, I encouraged the audience to cast their votes for Dr. Meyer, then reminded them what such a vote would mean, that my opponent convinced them his view was true and mine was false. A vote for Marv, then, would be a vote for the resolve: Objective truth <em>can</em> be known. Professor Meyer got one vote. My success was not due to cleverness on my part, but to the fact that even postmoderns must live in God’s world. The suicide tactic was effective.</p>

<p>When someone is graciously disarmed in the context of a respectful discussion, there is more openness to consider the Christian story. When people become aware they actually do believe in morality, this has explanatory power for something else they know intuitively: the personal guilt that each is painfully aware of.</p>

<p>At this point I make a suggestion. “Maybe we feel guilty because we <em>are</em> guilty. Is that a possibility? If it is, then denial (relativism) is not going to solve the problem. Only forgiveness can do that. This is where Jesus comes in.”</p>

<p>This brings us right to the foot of the cross in a way that is relational, interactive, and without the feel of dogmatism. It’s a way of appealing to a postmodern mindset without adopting a postmodern epistemology.</p>

<p>Further, this is a truth I don’t need to convince them of. They already know it. Note the frank admission in the final words of Douglas Coupland’s ode of the postmodern man, <em>Life After God</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Nowhere is my secret: I tell it to you with an openness of heart that I doubt I shall ever achieve again, so I pray that you are in a quiet room as you hear these words. My secret is that I need God—that I am sick and can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me give, because I no longer seem to be capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me love, as I seem beyond being able to love.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Coupland, the quintessential postmodern, knows that his sickness is a moral sickness—an inability to be virtuous—that only God Himself can heal. Christians who are careful ambassadors have a way of making sense of that gnawing angst. Relativism is not liberty; it’s bondage. Yes, there is a problem, but there’s also a solution. There is meaning. We’re not alone. Someone does care. There is reason to hope.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">James Sire, <em>The Universe Next Door</em>, 3rd ed., (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 178-9. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Douglas Coupland, <em>Life After God</em> (New York: Pocket Books, 1994), 359. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</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%2Fculturally-aware-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%2Fculturally-aware-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%2Fculturally-aware-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: Archaeology, the Bible, and the Leap of Faith
topic: Science
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/2002
source: https://www.str.org/w/archaeology-the-bible-and-the-leap-of-faith
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Does the archaeological&nbsp;accuracy of the Bible have anything to do with it’s truth claims? Not according to many world-class archaeologists. There’s a catch, however, which tells us volumes about modern man and his dilemma.</em></p>

<p>I have held for a long time—along with many Christian apologists—that archaeology is a great ally of Christians. It is one evidence of the Divine authorship of the Bible because it consistently vindicates the historical accuracy of Scripture.</p>

<p>Imagine my shock when I learned that many world-class archaeologists disagree.</p>

<p>I was flying to Israel reading an article in the 20th anniversary issue of <em>Biblical Archaeology Review</em> <sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> in which scholars addressed three issues: the greatest achievements of biblical archaeology, its greatest failures, and the challenges it continues to face. As I read through the article, I noticed two themes unfold.</p>

<p>The first was a concern voiced by many of the contributors—some of them Jewish archaeologists, some Christian (though not evangelical or conservative)—who bemoaned the attempts of fundamentalists to use archaeology to “prove”&nbsp;the religious claims of the Bible.</p>

<p>This was an embarrassing revelation to me because I had been advocating that very thing. Yet here were prominent archaeologists saying that this misuse of their discipline deeply annoyed them.</p>

<p>There was a catch, though—the second theme. These same archaeologists continued to maintain with equal conviction that their research had confirmed, by and large, that the history of the Bible was sound.</p>

<h2>Confused Convictions</h2>

<p>Sometimes these two themes were played out side by side. Menahem Mansoor, a professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said:</p>

<p>Biblical archaeology’s greatest significance is that it has corroborated many historical records in the Bible. Biblical archaeology has failed to deter people who seek to validate religious concepts by archaeological finds. These people should not confuse fact with faith, history with tradition, or science with religion.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>Israel Finkelstein, co-director of excavations at Tel Megiddo and professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, said:</p>

<p>The most obvious failure [of archaeology] has been the abuse of the “old Biblical archaeology”&nbsp;by semi-amateur archaeologists. I refer to the romantic days when a special breed of archaeologists roamed the Middle East with a spade in one hand and the Scriptures in the other. These were the times of desperate attempts to prove that the Bible was correct.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>David Ussishkin, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, made similar comments about the problems of drawing religious conclusions based on the historical evidence in the Scriptures even while he made this interesting admission:</p>

<p>A fundamental question asked all over the world during the last two centuries is, Is the Bible true? Do the narratives related in it represent real events and are the figures mentioned there real people who lived and acted as the Biblical text tells us they did?...In general, the evidence of material culture fits the Biblical account beginning with the period of the settlement of the tribes of Israel in the land of Canaan and the establishment of the kingdom of Israel. Hence, archaeological data are consistent with the view that at least this part of the Biblical account is, in general, true and historically based.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Aren’t these statements odd? These eminent scholars admit archaeological evidence demonstrates that the historical record of the Bible is reliable, by and large. Yet they add a disclaimer warning us not to draw religious conclusions from the accurate history in the Scriptures.</p>

<p>My question is, “Why not?”&nbsp;Because, they say, this would be confusing history with religion, facts with faith.</p>

<p>Yet isn’t this precisely the point of the biblical narrative? Isn’t this the unique feature of Judaism and Christianity, that its religious claims are rooted in history? Isn’t this the whole point of God acting, that His revelation is given in the context of events that can be measured and quantified?</p>

<h2>Seeing the Unseen</h2>

<p>We learn a lesson regarding this from Jesus. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus caused a stir when He forgave the sins of a paralytic. As the scribes noted, forgiving sins was God’s privilege, not man’s. Further, how could anyone know if Jesus was telling the truth? It’s easy to make claims about an invisible realm that can’t be tested.</p>

<p>Jesus understood this, so He gave the people some tangible evidence. He said, “’In order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—He said to the paralytic—’I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.’”&nbsp;(Mk. 2:10-11)</p>

<p>This supernatural healing was an historical event, what Jesus’&nbsp;biographers called an “attesting miracle.”&nbsp;Jesus gave them something they could see in the physical realm to substantiate a claim He was making about something they couldn’t see in the spiritual realm. History proved religion. Facts substantiated faith.</p>

<p>The historical record in the Hebrew Bible serves the same purpose. The great redemptive act in the history of the Jews was their escape from slavery in Egypt. In the writings of Moses we find an historical record of the events leading up to this exodus.</p>

<p>If we could show that these events took place largely as described in this account—that ten plagues culminating in the death of the firstborn of Ramses II shook the foundation of the greatest nation on earth at the time, and that the Hebrews then escaped across the Red Sea with the Egyptian army destroyed in its wake—wouldn’t it be fair to say this history has “religious”&nbsp;significance?</p>

<p>The record itself claims as much. In Exodus 9:14 we find this statement: “For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> Once again, a series of observable, historical events (plagues) were meant to verify unobservable, spiritual truths.</p>

<p>The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth serves the same purpose in the New Testament. If, using the accepted cannons of historical research, we demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead—as four different detailed records of Jesus’&nbsp;life claim—wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that this fact has something to do with the veracity of the Christian faith?</p>

<p>The apostle Paul thought so. He said that if Jesus had not risen from the dead, then Christians, of all people, ought to be pitied.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> The truthfulness of Christianity, just like the truthfulness of ancient Judaism, is necessarily tied to historical events. These redemptive claims cannot be separated from the facts of history, because history is a record of the redemptive acts themselves.</p>

<h2>Strange Schizophrenia</h2>

<p>When world-class archaeologists acknowledge that their research supports the Bible’s historicity, and then in the next breath warn, “This doesn’t mean the Bible is true,”&nbsp;they admit to a strange schizophrenia.</p>

<p>Dr. Francis Schaeffer described this malady in a little book entitled <em>Escape from Reason</em>. Schaeffer’s analysis helps us understand why archaeologists say the Bible is accurate—that their craft has overwhelmingly demonstrated the reliability of the Bible as an historical text—yet continue to assert this has nothing to do with the truthfulness of Scripture in other areas.</p>

<p>Schaeffer explains that modern man lives in an oddly fractured world. His life is lived on two different planes. Picture a two-story house with no staircase connecting the upper story with the lower story. The lower story consists of one kind of reality—facts, science, the laws of nature, rationality, logic, the world as it really is. The upper story is where values, meaning, religion, faith, morality, and God reside.</p>

<p>The tragedy of modern thinking is that there is no way to bring the two together. Schaeffer calls this the “line of despair.”&nbsp;There is no way to extract transcendent meaning from the mere facts of life. There is no way to infer religion or morality from the details of the world as it really is. The line that separates the lower story from the upper story is absolute and impermeable.</p>

<p>Modern man is split in two. In the lower story—the “real”&nbsp;world—he is imprisoned in a machine-like universe of cause and effect, matter in motion. His life is determined by natural forces which cannot be violated and which he cannot control. Mankind is dust in the wind, leading to despair.</p>

<p>Modern man’s only hope is what Schaeffer calls the “upper-story leap.”&nbsp;Meaning and significance cannot be found in the facts of the real world. Therefore, they must be fabricated by our imagination and believed against all fact and reason. Man invents significance, value, and morality for himself by making an irrational, blind leap of faith into the upper story. This alone gives hope, but it’s only a placebo. It gives nothing substantial to answer our despair. It only makes us feel better.</p>

<p>Listen to Schaeffer’s sober description of the plight of modern man:</p>

<p>What we are left with runs something like this: Below the line there is rationality and logic. The upper story becomes the non-logical and the non-rational. There is no relationship between them. In other words, in the lower story, on the basis of all reason, man as man is dead. You have simply mathematics, particulars, mechanics. Man has no meaning, no purpose, no significance. There is only pessimism concerning man as man. But up above, on the basis of a non-rational, non-reasonable leap, there is a non-reasonable faith which gives optimism. This is modern man’s total dichotomy.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<h2>Faith in the Real World</h2>

<p>This theme plays itself out daily in our culture. Pick up any newspaper or tune in to any talk show where moral or religious issues are being discussed. You’ll see this upper-story leap in evidence.</p>

<p>In the <em>Los Angeles Times</em> one writer, commenting on the Pope and Catholicism, gave the “fashionable”&nbsp;perspective: “Religions are concerned with spiritual matters that are subjective, personal and private. One need have no proof or justification for one’s spiritual beliefs, because no one has the right to presume to judge the validity of those beliefs.”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>To this man, religious claims are in a separate category from fact. Spiritual beliefs are inventions of one’s own mind or blind leaps of faith. In neither case do they have anything to do with the real world. Therefore, there can be no objective foundation from which to make judgments.</p>

<p>This writer is describing Schaeffer’s upper story. Belief can’t be analyzed by fact or by argument because ultimately there is no relationship between religious belief and fact. There is no connection between the content of the upper story—value, meaning, significance, morals, religion, God—and the facts of the real world in the lower story. To suggest otherwise is foolish, false, and in today’s culture, rude.</p>

<p>Even our legal system operates by these rules. Gone is the confidence of the Founding Fathers who wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”&nbsp;The men who penned the <em>Declaration of Independence</em> held that the transcendent truths which were the foundation of the Revolution were also facts of the real world, facts so real they staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on them. No line of despair here.</p>

<p>That has radically changed, though. In a recent Supreme Court Case, the court ruled, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> Even the Supreme Court admitted that issues of the upper story are completely subjective. We’ve gone from self-evident, transcendent truths to every man defining truth for himself.</p>

<p>This same “upper-story leap”&nbsp;is echoed in modern science. The late Stephen Jay Gould—outspoken Harvard paleontologist and popular writer on evolution—claimed:</p>

<p>Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us. [Now we know that] no intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature, (though Newton’s clock-winding God might have set up this machinery at the beginning of time and then let it run). No vital forces propel evolutionary change. And whatever we think of God, His existence is not manifest in the products of nature.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>In spite of statements like these, Gould held that evolution presents no threat to religion, and that many of his colleagues believe in God. How can we make sense out of Gould’s apparently contradictory views? It only makes sense if “God beliefs”&nbsp;are not in the real world of the lower story, but in the “faith”&nbsp;world of the upper story.</p>

<p>Notice the impermeable barrier between the upper and lower stories. The world evolved by natural laws. Divine intentions had nothing to do with it. Believers are welcome to cling to the idea of God as long as they understand that their religious language has nothing to do with reality. It’s just a religious placebo. In the real world we know better. We’re the mindless product of molecules clashing in the universe. Nothing more.</p>

<p>The schizophrenia of modern man permeates the public discourse and influences the disciplines of science and the dictates of law. We shouldn’t be surprised, then, to find the same thing in history and archaeology.</p>

<h2>Restoring Harmony</h2>

<p>The archaeologists I cited hold that religious truth has nothing to do with reality. The Bible is accurate where it touches history, but it is a misuse of archaeology, they claim, to suggest that such things can substantiate one’s private, personal, upper-story leap of faith.</p>

<p>Why do these scholars hold this? Because they must. They are modern men.</p>

<p>There’s a reason the Bible is a record of history and not merely a list of religious beliefs. God has tied religious claims—which can’t easily be tested—to historical events—which can be verified to a significant degree.</p>

<p>By their very nature the events of the Bible have ramifications for transcendent truth. If Jesus rose from the dead as a point of historical fact, intellectual honesty requires we not dismiss it as an interesting but meaningless fact of history. Instead, we are forced to concede with the apostle Paul that Jesus of Nazareth was “declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead.”<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>For the Christian, there is no “second story leap.”&nbsp;Instead, there is harmony between our spiritual convictions and the particulars of our world. Archaeology—along with recorded history, science, philosophy, etc.—gives our faith a real purchase point, a secure footing. We are not just guessing; we’re not making this up; we’re not merely emoting. The truths of history and the truths of Christianity are linked together, both part of the real world.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1"><em>Biblical Archaeology Review</em>, May/June 1995. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Ibid., 29. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Ibid., 27. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Ibid., 32. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5"><em>New American Standard Bible</em>, and throughout. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">1 Corinthians 15:19. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Francis Schaeffer, <em>Escape from Reason</em>, in <em>The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer</em> (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1968), vol. 1, 237-8. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8"><em>L.A. Times</em>, April 27, 1995. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9"><em>Casey vs. Planned Parenthood</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Quoted in Phillip Johnson, <em>Reason in the Balance</em> (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 75. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Romans 1:4. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</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%2Farchaeology-the-bible-and-the-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%2Farchaeology-the-bible-and-the-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%2Farchaeology-the-bible-and-the-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: I’d Like to Have an Argument, Please.
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2002
source: https://www.str.org/w/i-d-like-to-have-an-argument-please.
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>A solid argument can be built just like a solid house: walls first, then the roof. Here’s a building plan, plus three ways arguments collapse.</em></p>

<p>I want to teach you how to assess a basic argument. How can you know if an argument is a good one or not?</p>

<p>There’s no magic to this. The tools of thinking are simple ones. Anyone can employ them skillfully with a little practice. If you have the right equipment you can make a lot of progress even if you don’t consider yourself an intellectual whiz-kid.</p>

<p>Think of an argument like a simple house, a roof supported by walls. The roof is the conclusion and the walls are the supporting ideas. In the lingo of logic, the walls are called premises and the whole structure of the building is called a syllogism.</p>

<p>Syllogisms have a particular form and contain certain facts. When the form is right and the facts are true we say that the argument is sound, that the walls are strong enough to support the roof. The conclusion is true, resting securely on its supporting foundation.</p>

<p>Our goal in clear thinking is to see if the walls are solid or can be knocked down. If the walls go down, the roof goes flat and the argument is defeated.</p>

<h2>A House with No Walls</h2>

<p>First, an observation. Some arguments are not really arguments at all. In terms of our house illustration, many people try to build their roof right on the ground. Instead of erecting solid walls—the supporting ideas that hold the conclusion up—they simply assert their conclusion and pound the podium.</p>

<p>An argument is different from an assertion, though. An assertion simply states a point. An argument gives supporting reasons why the point should be taken seriously. The reasons become the topic of mutual discussion or analysis. But if there are no reasons, there’s little to discuss. Opinions are opinions, not proof. A mere point of view cannot be taken seriously as worthy of belief. That requires reasons.</p>

<p>Roofs are useless when they’re on the ground. In the same way an assertion without evidence doesn’t do any work. I frequently get calls from people who think they’re giving me an argument, when all they’re doing is forcefully stating a point of view. They sound compelling, but a closer look reveals an emperor with lots of bluster, but no bloomers. My job is to recognize that the roof is laying flat on the ground and simply point it out.</p>

<p>If you find yourself stymied in a discussion, you may be looking for an argument that’s not there. Ask yourself, “Did they give me an argument or just make an assertion?”&nbsp;If the latter is true then say, “Well, that’s an interesting opinion. What’s your argument? Why should I believe what you believe? How did you come to that conclusion? Give me your reasons.”</p>

<p>Don’t let them flatten you by dropping a roof on your head. Make them build walls underneath their roof. Ask for reasons or facts to support their conclusion.</p>

<h2>Three Ways an Argument Can Go Bad</h2>

<p>Any real argument—as opposed to an assertion—has three parts. It has a particular form, it affirms particular facts, and it uses particular words or terms to make its point. When an argument goes bad, the problem is either in the form, the facts, or the terms.</p>

<p>First, an argument’s form can be bad. Let me give you an example. Take this syllogism: “All men are cheerful. John is a man. Therefore, John is cheerful.”&nbsp;This is a simple argument containing two statements (premises) and a conclusion. The conclusion is dependent on the first two statements. The first is the major premise—all men are cheerful. The second is the minor premise—John is a man. The final statement is the conclusion—John is cheerful.</p>

<p>Notice the form of this argument. It’s clear that if the facts of the first statement are true, that all men are cheerful, and if the facts of the second statement are true, that John is a man, then the conclusion follows naturally. If you accept the truth of the first two statements, the truth of the third is automatic. One “follows”&nbsp;from the other. When the form is correct we say the argument is “valid.”</p>

<p>What about this one: “All men are cheerful. Jane is not a man. Therefore, Jane is not cheerful.”&nbsp;A moment’s reflection shows this doesn’t work. Even if it were true that all men are cheerful and Jane is not a man, it still wouldn’t follow that Jane is not cheerful. Women can be cheerful, too.</p>

<p>We use the term “fallacy”&nbsp;to describe an argument that has a faulty construction. There are different types of fallacies listed in logic books, and I won’t detail them here. Many of them, though, are obvious upon a little reflection. Just ask yourself, “Does it follow that because A and B, therefore C?”&nbsp;Does it follow that (A) because all men are cheerful, and (B) Jane is not a man, that (C) Jane is therefore not cheerful?</p>

<p>When the form is bad—when the conclusion does not follow from the premises—it’s called a <em>non sequitur</em>, Latin for “it does not follow.”&nbsp;Non sequiturs cannot be trusted. It may be Jane is not cheerful, but you can’t know that from the information provided.</p>

<p>Even when the form is right there still may be problems. Facts can also make an argument go bad. Accurate form (a valid argument) does not guarantee that the statements themselves are accurate. What if it’s not true that all men are cheerful? Maybe some are gloomy. What if John is not a man, or not even human? Maybe John is a robot or the name of Socrates’&nbsp;pet Schnauzer.</p>

<p>Take the argument, “All unicorns live in Ireland. Pegasus is a unicorn. Therefore, Pegasus lives in Ireland.”&nbsp;Acknowledging that the form is valid (it is) doesn’t at the same time commit you to the existence of unicorns or tell you anything about where they live. The factual questions about unicorns is a separate issue.</p>

<p>If the facts in the statements are wrong, then the argument still fails even though the form is right. Clear thinking requires we look closely at the facts as well as the form. The statements themselves must be true.</p>

<p>The third way an argument can go wrong is in the terms. The meanings of the words may not be clear. This is called “equivocation.”&nbsp;Basically, equivocation means a vagueness, ambiguity, or uncertainty. If somebody states her opinion very clearly and then under challenge becomes less sure of her position, we say she’s equivocating. She waffles; she’s uncertain.</p>

<p>Sometimes words are equivocal. They are unclear, uncertain, or may have multiple meanings that become confused with each other in the discussion. This creates problems for an argument.</p>

<p>Look at this example: “All men are cheerful. John is a man. Therefore, John is cheerful.”&nbsp;The word “man”&nbsp;may be equivocal. It’s unclear whether “man”&nbsp;means a grown male or simply a member of the male gender. The phrase “all men are cheerful”&nbsp;could refer to all adult males and exclude boys.</p>

<p>Our argument would falter through equivocation if we meant this: “All men [adult males] are cheerful. Little Johnny is a man [male gender]. Therefore, little Johnny is cheerful.”&nbsp;See the problem? What is meant by “men”&nbsp;in the first sentence isn’t the same as what is meant by “man”&nbsp;in the second sentence. There is confusion—equivocation—on the term “man.”</p>

<p>Here’s a real-life theological example: “Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.”</p>

<p>The form here seems correct—the conclusion follows from the premises. It also seems that the individual statements are true. But something’s wrong here. God is not the kind of being that has a mother. Where did we go wrong?</p>

<p>The problem becomes more obvious when we take it a step further: “Mary is the mother of God. God is a trinity. Therefore, Mary is the mother of the Trinity.”&nbsp;This, of course, is patently false. But why is there a problem if the form is sound and the facts are in order?</p>

<p>The problem lies with the terms. There’s an equivocation here on the phrase “Jesus is God.”&nbsp;Jesus is a very unusual individual. Yes, He is God, but He’s also fully human. Jesus is one person with two natures, the nature of God and the nature of man.</p>

<p>When we say Jesus is God, we are not saying His humanity is divine. That would be a contradiction. We are saying He is God in that He has a divine nature. Mary is the mother Jesus in the sense that she’s the mother of His physical body. She is the mother of His humanity, not the mother of His divinity.</p>

<p>Equivocation on these terms—the lack of clarity—makes false a seemingly sound conclusion. The facts are right. The form is right. But the conclusion is false because the meanings of the terms are ambiguous. They’re equivocal.</p>

<p>Recently I got a call from a gentleman who said, “Jesus is God. God is a trinity. Therefore, Jesus is a trinity.”&nbsp;He thought he constructed his argument right, but clearly the conclusion is false. Therefore there must be something wrong with the facts. Either Jesus is not God or God is not a trinity. Of course, this was his point. He was challenging the notion of the Trinity on logical grounds.</p>

<p>My caller’s error, though, was not in the form or the facts of the argument, but in an equivocation in the words. When Christianity teaches that Jesus is God, it doesn’t mean that Jesus and God are identical. Jesus has the nature of God, but He is not everything that God is. God subsists in three persons; Jesus is only one person.</p>

<p>What was missing here was a clarification of terms. The clarification had to be made—and the equivocation removed—for this attack on the Trinity to be defeated.</p>

<p>Some of the assessment of an argument is based on the clarity of the concepts involved. This is why precision with words is critical to clear thinking.</p>

<h2>Invisible Walls</h2>

<p>Sometimes it’s very difficult to assess an argument because the full form of the argument is not stated. The elements aren’t listed one, two, three as they were above. Some of the parts are taken for granted—“understood”&nbsp;by the participants—in the process of conversation. This streamlines conversation, but it can also allow bad facts to go undetected.</p>

<p>Once a homosexual said to me, “Jesus never condemned homosexuality.”&nbsp;Though this is only one sentience, it’s actually a full argument in shorthand, streamlined for brevity. The conclusion didn’t need to be stated. I got the point. I was wrong for attacking homosexuality on moral grounds. Because Jesus never condemned homosexuality, it is therefore morally acceptable behavior.</p>

<p>Notice, though, that the conclusion is not the only thing taken for granted here. The minor premise is stated and the conclusion is assumed, but what of the major premise, our first step in the argument? The unspoken major premise—the invisible wall holding up this argument—contained a serious flaw that went undetected.</p>

<p>We discover the flaw by asking what kind of major premise is needed to make this argument work. The full argument would have to look something like this: Whatever Jesus did not explicitly condemn is morally acceptable. Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuality is morally acceptable.</p>

<p>The form of this argument is good; nothing amiss there. But look closer at the major premise. Its facts are bad; this statement is clearly false. It doesn’t seem to be true that whatever Jesus doesn’t directly condemn is morally acceptable. Jesus never condemned slavery, child abuse, wife-beating, or gay-bashing, but that proves nothing.</p>

<p>Many Christians are caught flat-footed here, sensing something is wrong, but not knowing what it is. Sometimes we have to look more closely and identify the unspoken premise. That can be done by asking a simple question: “Are you saying that if Jesus doesn’t specifically condemn something, then He condones it?”&nbsp;When they say no (and they must, because such a view is untenable), ask, “Then what’s your point?”&nbsp;Don’t get into a fuss. Just ask the question calmly and directly. The silence that follows proves the game is up.</p>

<p>A Jehovah’s Witness once called me and said, “The Trinity isn’t mentioned in the Bible.”</p>

<p>The unspoken point was obvious: “Therefore, the Trinity is not biblical.”&nbsp;I asked, “Are you saying that anything not specifically mentioned in the Bible cannot be true?”&nbsp;(the invisible wall).</p>

<p>He was in trouble here because lots of things aren’t mentioned specifically in the Bible that still find support in the Scripture. The word “monotheism”&nbsp;isn’t in the Bible, or the word “Jehovah,”&nbsp;as a point of fact.</p>

<p>“No,”&nbsp;he answered.</p>

<p>“Then what’s your point?”&nbsp;I responded, and the argument was over.</p>

<p>Often times the flaw in an argument—the “fact”&nbsp;that’s wrong—is hidden in an unspoken assumption that your opponent takes for granted. Kick the unspoken premise into the open. Usually that’s all that’s needed for the whole structure to come tumbling down.</p>

<h2>The Obligation of Reason</h2>

<p>To assess a genuine argument and not a mere assertion, examine the structure. Observe the form of the argument. Examine the facts. Look for hidden statements that may not have been expressed. Finally, examine the terms to see if there’s any equivocation, any ambiguity or lack of clarity.</p>

<p>If the argument is sound—if the form is valid, the facts accurate, and the terms clear and precise—then the conclusion is true. Period. In fact, the conclusion is irrefutable; it’s not even possible to be mistaken.</p>

<p>This demonstrates the compelling nature of rationality. There is a bomb-proof quality about deductive logic. If one is faced with a logically valid argument with clear terms and accurate facts, he has a rational obligation to believe the conclusion, even if he doesn’t like what he finds. This is called intellectual honesty.</p>

<p>Rationality has nothing to do with what we like; it has to do with what is true. That’s why it’s such a useful tool for all who are interested in knowing the way the world really is.</p>

<p>A solid argument can be built just like a solid house: walls first, then the roof. Here’s a building plan, plus three ways arguments collapse.</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-d-like-to-have-an-argument-please." 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-d-like-to-have-an-argument-please." 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-d-like-to-have-an-argument-please." 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: Christianity’s Real Record
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2002
source: https://www.str.org/w/christianity-s-real-record
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>It’s easy to characterize religion as a blood-thirsty enterprise, a perpetrator of witch hunts, crusades, and religious jihad. But has Christianity been the cause of such evil, or does the truth turn out to be just the opposite?</em></p>

<p>It’s easy to characterize religion as a blood-thirsty enterprise. History seems to be strewn with the wreckage of witch hunts, crusades, and religious jihad. If God does exist, a caller to my radio show offered, He ought to be tried for crimes against humanity.</p>

<p>The recent terrorist attacks have added a new twist: Our battle is not against terrorism per se, but against any religion that claims to be true. Thomas Friedman writing in the <em>New York Times</em> called it “religious totalitarianism.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Friedman’s solution: pluralism, the idea that “God speaks multiple languages.”&nbsp;No one faith is exclusively true. Instead, all faiths are legitimate paths to God and anyone who claims otherwise is the enemy. Friedman’s call to arms, however, is misguided for three reasons.</p>

<h2>Friedman Fails</h2>

<p>First, it’s self-defeating. The issue is not God’s linguistic ability, but whether anything particular is true about God and whether God has made any specific demands on us regarding conduct, worship, or salvation. Do the details matter to God?</p>

<p>Friedman says no; God is a pluralist. He fails to recognize that this is a narrow, exclusivist (excluding non-pluralists), religious claim that he thinks is true. Not only is he dogmatic about this doctrine of God, he’s also militant. Those who disagree should be silenced. Friedman counters what he mistakenly perceives to be “religious totalitarianism” (in fact, most exclusivist religions are not militant) with the genuine article. His view commits suicide.</p>

<p>Second, Friedman misdiagnoses the problem, which he thinks is religious dogma. Of necessity, though, everyone (including Friedman) is dogmatic about issues of truth. It can’t be otherwise. Any claim is either true or false. If true, then those that contradict are wrong by simple force of logic.</p>

<p>The problem is not religious <em>dogmatics</em>, but religious <em>error</em>. The problem with Muslim terrorists is not fundamentalism, but that their fundamental beliefs are simply false. Ironically, Friedman’s pluralism prevents him from asking the only question that really matters: What religion is true?</p>

<p>Finally, it’s just erroneous that religion has been responsible for more carnage than anything else in history. The challenge has two parts. An allegedly factual observation about history is then taken as an inherent criticism of religion in general and Christianity in particular.</p>

<p>This is misguided. First, the crimes themselves have been exaggerated. Second, the greatest evil in the world actually comes from those who deny God’s existence. Third, Christianity cannot be held responsible when people do un-Christian things. Finally, Christianity’s real record of goodness is without peer in world history.</p>

<h2>Exaggerations</h2>

<p>The first problem with this objection is that many “religious”&nbsp;crimes have been misconstrued or greatly exaggerated.</p>

<p>Many conflicts that appear at first glance to be religious in nature are actually political or cultural wars that divide along religious lines. The strife in Northern Ireland is not a theological dispute about Catholicism vs. Protestantism <em>per se</em>, but rather a cultural power struggle between two groups of people. In like manner, much of the conflict in Eastern Europe and the Middle East is the result of ethnic hostilities, not genuine religious differences.</p>

<p>The Crusades, the Inquisition, some of the religious wars of the Reformation, and the Salem witch trials, on the other hand, were more theological. Even so, the record is not as grim as many make it.</p>

<p>Thousands of witches were not burned at the stake. The Salem witch trials resulted in only nineteen executions before it was stopped by Christians. The Spanish Inquisition involved thousands and the Crusades tens of thousands, not millions.</p>

<p>Of course, it’s tragic when even a handful of innocent lives are taken. Injustice isn’t justified because the numbers diminish. But an accurate accounting does serve to put things in perspective, especially when one considers the alternative: Has atheism fared better?</p>

<h2>Greatest Murderers</h2>

<p>The simple fact of history is that the greatest evil has always resulted from denial of God, not pursuit of Him. Dennis Prager has noted, “In this [20th] century alone, more innocent people have been murdered, tortured, and enslaved by secular ideologies—nazism and communism—than by all religions in history.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>Grab an older copy of the <em>Guinness Book of World Records</em> and turn to the category “Judicial,”&nbsp;sub-heading “Crimes: Mass Killings.”&nbsp;You’ll find that carnage of unimaginable proportions resulted not from religion, but from institutionalized atheism.</p>

<p><em>Guinness</em> reports, “The greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against another is the 26.3 million Chinese killed during the regime of Mao Zedong between 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed...the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32.25 and 61.7 million.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>In the USSR, Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimated that state repression and terrorism took over 66 million lives from 1917 to 1959 under Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>The worst per capita genocide happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. According to <em>Guinness</em>, “More than one third of the eight million Khmers were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>The greatest evil does not result from people zealous for God. It results when people are convinced there is no God to whom they must answer.</p>

<h2>“I Never Knew You”</h2>

<p>The third problem—one often overlooked—is captured in a question: Is oppression and bloodshed either a religious duty of Christianity or a logical application of the teachings of Christ? If not, then violence done in the name of Christ cannot be laid at His door.</p>

<p>Imagine yourself a builder who sent out crews with detailed, written instructions for their work. Instead of building, though, they destroyed. Would you be responsible? That would depend on one thing: the written instructions.</p>

<p>One can’t hold Christianity responsible when so-called Christians violate the written instructions. The fault is not with Christ, but with people who disobey Him.</p>

<p>Jesus was quite clear on this: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments”&nbsp;(John 14:15). His command to love extended even to one’s enemy (Luke 10:29-37).</p>

<p>The Apostle John reflects the same view: “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother”&nbsp;(1 John 3:10).</p>

<p>Nothing in Christian teaching itself mandates forcible conversion to the faith or coerced adherence to Biblical doctrines. The teachings of Christ do not lead logically to wanton bloodshed.</p>

<p>Jesus Himself warned of interlopers, wolves in sheep’s clothing. His assessment of them is unmistakable: “<em>I never knew you</em>. Depart from Me, <em>you who practice lawlessness”</em>&nbsp;(Matthew 7:23).</p>

<p>The actual track record for genuine disciples of Jesus Christ—those who follow the written instructions—is much different. Two Biblical teachings have made Christianity the greatest force for good in the history of the world.</p>

<p>First is the teaching that God reigns over a moral universe He created. He requires virtuous behavior from His subjects and will one day judge each person’s conduct with perfect justice.</p>

<p>Second, Christian morality is informed by the notion that human beings are made in the image of God and therefore have transcendent value. This has been the foundation for Christian ethics for 2,000 years.</p>

<p>Love for Christ and a desire to obey Him has transformed the world in four areas: education, human rights, acts of mercy, and general moral transformation of culture.</p>

<h2>Education</h2>

<p>Modern education owes its origins to Christianity. The reason is simple. One of the goals of the Reformation was to get the Bible into the hands of the common man, in the language of the common man. This did no good if he didn’t know how to read. Primary public education, then, was part of the foundation for the Reformation.</p>

<p>Historian Earle Cairns writes in <em>Christianity through the Centuries</em>:</p>

<p>Education was one of the earliest concerns of the colonists, according to the pamphlet <em>New England’s First Fruits</em>. This was in the tradition of the Reformation because Calvin and Luther had emphasized the need of education so that the individual could read his Bible and so that leaders for the church and state could be trained. The Bible had first place in their curricula and that of the educational institutions of early America, and classical training took second place as an aid to the full knowledge of the Bible.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>In fact, almost all of the Ivy League schools were started with theological intent—Yale, Harvard, Brown, et al. Our own educational system was founded on the need to teach citizens to read the Bible and to provide leadership for the church and state.</p>

<p>This was the pattern wherever Christianity went. In <em>A Concise History of the Christian World Mission</em>, Herbert Kane reports, “In China...missionaries...operated thousands of elementary schools, as well as hundreds of high schools, as well as thirteen full-fledged Christian universities.”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>Missionaries made Africa literate. Kane notes, “There are 860 known languages and dialects in Africa. A hundred years ago fewer than twenty had a written form. Since then five hundred have been reduced to writing—all the work of missionaries.”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>These dedicated Christians created written languages for many African tribes where no writing existed. “The missionaries had to start from scratch—inventing scripts, writing textbooks, and opening schools. For many decades they were the sole purveyors of education...In 1923 only one hundred of the six thousand schools in British Africa were government schools. As late as 1961, 68 per cent of all the school children in Africa were still in mission schools.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>The first president of Ghana and one of the earliest presidents of Kenya—a former Mau Mau insurrectionist leader—acknowledged the debt they owed missionaries in laying a foundation for their country’s independence.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> Liberia, Ghana, Nigeria, Chad, Zaire, Uganda, Tanzania, and Zambia all had Christian presidents at one time or another.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<h2>Human Rights</h2>

<p>In the nineteenth century, William Wilberforce spent a lifetime working to abolish slavery in England and the British commonwealth. Cairns records, “Slavery was ended in British possessions by an act passed just before Wilberforce’s death in 1833,”&nbsp;an achievement, he adds, that “would have been impossible without the work of Wilberforce and his evangelical friends in Parliament.”<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<p>Opposition to slavery by Christians here in America led us into Civil War. Their objection was based on the Christian belief that human beings are free people before God and ought not be owned by anyone else. This conviction was the moral foundation for abolition.</p>

<p>David Livingston, an adventurer who charted the dark regions of Africa, was actually a missionary. “By his travels in Central Africa, [Livingston] exposed the Arab slave trade as ’the open sore of the world.’”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> In fact, it was Christian missionaries who entreated European powers to intervene in Africa to stop the slave trade carried on by the Arabs.</p>

<p>True, European countries also participated in slavery, but always under protest. This protest, driven largely by the moral impulse of Christians, eventually prevailed. Kane reports:</p>

<p>By precept and example [missionaries] inculcated the ideas and ideals of Christianity—the sanctity of life, the worth of the individual, the dignity of labor, social justice, personal integrity, freedom of thought and speech—which have since been incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drawn up by the United Nations.<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>

<h2>Acts of Mercy</h2>

<p>Mother Theresa was well known as a humble Christian who spent her life in service to the poor people of Calcutta. She was one of many.</p>

<p>George Mueller relied on prayer and selfless dedication to start orphanages all over nineteenth century England. Mueller’s contemporary and fellow countryman John Howard devoted his life and his sizable fortune to prison reform. Historian Earle Cairns notes that “before his death in 1790 from jail fever, which he caught while inspecting a vile prison, he traveled fifty thousand miles and spent thirty thousand pounds of his own money on prison reform.”<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>

<p>In America, people like William Booth with The Salvation Army and Chuck Colson with the Prison Fellowship have worked tirelessly to alleviate staggering human suffering.</p>

<p>Evangelist John Wesley was possibly without peer in his impact. “Historians readily acknowledge that Methodism ranks with the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution as one of the great historical phenomena of the [eighteenth] century, and some subscribe to the idea that <em>Wesley’s preaching saved England from a revolution similar to that of France”</em>&nbsp;[emphasis added].<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup> As a result of Wesley’s work, reforms were instituted so there was no need for revolution.</p>

<p>Cairns reports, “Most of the social reforms [in England] between 1787 and 1850 were the outcome of evangelical effort for the poor.”<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup> Kane notes, “In China [the missionaries] operated 270 hospitals...These accounted for more than half of all the hospitals in the country. Today India has 450 hospitals in the Christian Medical Association.”<sup id="fnref:18"><a href="#fn:18">18</a></sup></p>

<p>For every well known servant of Christ to the poor and downtrodden there have been thousands upon thousands more who served quietly, unnamed and unnoticed.</p>

<h2>Salt and Light</h2>

<p>Even secular observers have conceded the contribution of the faithful followers of Christ. “Thinking largely of Africa, Professor E. A. Hootan of Harvard said: ’As an anthropologist, I have completely reversed my opinion of missionaries. These men and women have contributed more to our knowledge of the peoples of the world than have the entire ruck of professional travelers and explorers. They may have done more than the anthropologists themselves.’”<sup id="fnref:19"><a href="#fn:19">19</a></sup></p>

<p>Herbert Kane sums up the noble contribution of the true followers of Christ:</p>

<p>The missionaries of the nineteenth century were a special breed of men and women. Single-handedly and with great courage they attacked the social evils of their time: child marriage, the immolation of widows, temple prostitution, and untouchability in India; foot-binding, opium addiction, and the abandoning of babies in China; polygamy, the slave trade, and the destruction of twins in Africa. In all parts of the world they opened schools, hospitals, clinics, medical colleges, orphanages, and leprosaria. They gave succor and sustenance to the dregs of society cast off by their own communities. At great risk to themselves and their families they fought famines, floods, pestilences, and plagues. They were the first to rescue unwanted babies, educate girls, and liberate women.<sup id="fnref:20"><a href="#fn:20">20</a></sup></p>

<p>“Above all,”&nbsp;Kane sums up, “they gave to the non-Christian world the most liberating of all messages—the gospel of Christ. They converted savages into saints; and out of this raw material they built the Christian church, which is today the most universal of all institutions.”<sup id="fnref:21"><a href="#fn:21">21</a></sup></p>

<p>This is Christianity’s real record, not a history of evil, violence, and debauchery, but a legacy of radical transformation for good.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Thomas Friedman, “The Real War,”&nbsp;<em>New York Times</em>, 11/27/01. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Dennis Prager, <em>Ultimate Issues</em>, July-September, 1989. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Donald McFarlan, ed., <em>Guinness Book of World Records 1992</em> (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1991), 92. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Earle E. Cairns, <em>Christianity through the Centuries</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 365. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">J. Herbert Kane, <em>A Concise History of the Christian World Mission</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1982), 167. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Ibid., 166. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Ibid., 141. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Ibid., 143. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Ibid., 144. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Cairns, 397. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Kane, 100. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Ibid., 169. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Cairns, 397. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Ibid., 382. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">Ibid., 397. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:18">Kane, 168. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:18"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:19"><em>Christian World Facts</em> (New York: Foreign Missions Conference of North America, 1941), 96, as quoted in Kane, 170. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:19"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:20">Kane, 100. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:20"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:21">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:21"> ↩</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%2Fchristianity-s-real-record" 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%2Fchristianity-s-real-record" 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%2Fchristianity-s-real-record" 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: Christianity and Science: Are They Compatible?
topic: Science
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2005
source: https://www.str.org/w/christianity-and-science-are-they-compatible-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Is there a conflict between faith and science? I think not. Rather, I think the current quarrel between the two has been contrived. A specific error—an arbitrary definition of science—is holding science hostage. I’d like to suggest a solution.</p>

<p>One book serves as a helpful launching point for reflection on this error. Though published in 1988, it remains a useful foil for a discussion on the issue.</p>

<p><em>Science Held Hostage</em><sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> is an attempt to quiet the ongoing hostilities between evolutionists and scientific creationists and bring some order to the debate about origins. Authors Van Till, Young, and Menninga argue that this is not a conflict between theology and science, but a conflict arising from a misunderstanding of the different roles theology and science play. Science and religion are not enemies, but partners complimenting each other. Put simply, religion tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go.</p>

<p>Understanding the unique goals of the two fields, the different questions they seek to answer, and the different arenas they address, will put the issue in its proper perspective and quiet the conflict, the authors argue.</p>

<h2>Two Complimentary Realms</h2>

<p>According to Van Till,<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> the goal of natural science is simple: to study the physical universe, no more and no less. Non-physical systems are, by definition, excluded. As such, the modern notion of natural science is necessarily wedded to empiricism.</p>

<p>When scientists attempt to draw metaphysical conclusions from physical data, they’ve stepped out of line. Natural science can explain the “what,”&nbsp;but not the “why.”&nbsp;It answers questions about physical properties, physical behavior, and the formative history of the observable universe. That’s all.</p>

<p>The non-physical realm, on the other hand, is the object of a different sort of inquiry. Science cannot tell us of the ultimate origin of the universe. Since science uses empirical data—that known by the five senses—something must exist first for science to examine. Questions regarding an immaterial “something”&nbsp;that might have produced the material realm can’t, even in principle, be answered by science.</p>

<p>Neither can science answer questions about the governance of the universe, though it’s quite capable of drawing conclusions about its behavior. Even the so-called laws of nature are not truly laws. They don’t compel behavior; they merely describe it. That which is behind this behavior is not natural, but supra-natural, outside the proper domain of science.</p>

<p>“Questions of origin and governance—important questions both—must be directed toward whatever serves as the source of answers to one’s religious questions,”&nbsp;Van Till says.</p>

<p>He wags his finger at both evolutionists and creationists. Serious problems arise when either science or theology step out of its respective domain. The result is folk science, in Van Till’s terms, science held hostage by ideology, either by the creationists or the evolutionists.</p>

<p>The book ends with two stern warnings. The first is to creationists who promote their folk science despite the inadequacy of their research. The second is to evolutionists who promulgate the folk science of reductive materialism and evolutionary naturalism.</p>

<p>When either group draws metaphysical conclusions from scientific evidence, they’ve violated the rules. “The choice between an autonomous or a theonomous perspective on the governance of physical behavior cannot be settled on the basis of scientific investigation.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup>&nbsp;“On such matters,”&nbsp;he adds, “the natural sciences have <em>nothing</em> to contribute”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> [emphasis mine].</p>

<h2>What is Science?</h2>

<p>At first glance, the two-realms view is inviting. There does appear to be a difference between scientific claims and theological ones. Keeping them distinct seems to eliminate the confusion and also deals with the problem of bias. On closer investigation, though, it is unconvincing.</p>

<p>Van Till’s principal error is his restrictive definition of science. It falls short on two counts. First, it is arbitrary and unhelpful. Second, it destroys Christianity.</p>

<p>The author argues that science should be king in the area of the empirical, that theology should reign in the area of the non-empirical, and never the twain shall meet. But why should we accept Van Till’s modern view of science? Such a definition ignores a long history of fruitful scientific inquiry that was not marked by this distinction.</p>

<p>For millennia science was viewed differently. The older tradition had one aim: to identify ideas worth believing. According to Aristotle something was scientific if it was assured or certain, regardless of which realm it referred to. The important thing was whether or not a view was properly justified. It was also distinguished by its “know-why”—its comprehension of first causes—as opposed to its “know-how.”</p>

<p>During the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance this view began to change. The emphasis switched to methodology. Instead of starting with directly intuited first principles, scientists offered ad hoc theories to predict events (e.g. planetary motion) and then tested them by observation.</p>

<p>The shift in science from a general methodology aimed at determining truth to one that was solely empirical was complete by the modern era. Scientific empiricism became scientific imperialism: science as the final measure of all truth. This view is called <em>scientism</em>. Science deals with fact. All else, including morality and theology, is mere opinion, personal preference, and private fantasy.</p>

<p>Though Van Till vigorously opposes the modern notion of scientism, his definition of science opens the door to it. Even though he admits reality beyond the physical realm, he is unwilling to admit any discoverable relationship between the two. Anyone who starts with empirical science, then, must end with empirical, physicalistic conclusions.</p>

<p>To say that science alone deals with formative history is begging the question because it disallows God's intervention in the process by very definition. The author solves the conflict between science and theology by merely defining it away and then upbraiding those who don't honor his boundaries.</p>

<p>The most glaring example is Van Till’s representation of creation science as “creation folk science.”&nbsp;Why the pejorative label? Because creation science “strives to warrant its belief in a particular concept of divine creation by means of <em>unconventional interpretations</em> of selected empirical data”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> [emphasis mine]. But why must interpretations be conventional (in Van Till’s sense of the word) to be valid? Only if one has decided beforehand—by definition—that certain interpretations of the data cannot be considered.</p>

<p>Van Till errs in that he makes an absolute of his definition of science and then cites examples of those that violate his perimeters. The author baldly asserts that <em>his</em> view <em>is</em> science and then criticizes others for deviating from this canon. This is unfair.</p>

<h2>Three Errors</h2>

<p>The view that “religious”&nbsp;theories should not intrude in science is guilty of several logical errors.</p>

<p>First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Metaphysical issues, however, might have some empirical support. We see the blending, for example, in near-death experience research, or conclusions on the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology.</p>

<p>Second, it commits the straw-man fallacy by assuming that creationists make no legitimate use of scientific methods. This is not the case. Creationists are happy to present an abundance of properly gathered scientific evidence for their point of view if they’re allowed. This evidence needs to be addressed instead of summarily disqualified.</p>

<p>Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific view—materialistic macroevolution—does not have religious significance. This is false. All cosmological views have metaphysical ramifications. If evolutionary naturalism is a true description of biological development on Earth, then the only place for God is in the imagination of the faithful.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<h2>The Death of Christianity</h2>

<p>The approach in <em>Science Held Hostage</em> creates another difficulty that’s hard to avoid. Though all the authors are professing Christians<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup>, their definition of science eviscerates their own faith.</p>

<p>Christianity is, by definition, wedded to the physical world. The Bible indicates in many places that theological truth is so manifest in nature that man is guilty before God for not recognizing it (e.g., Romans 1:18ff).</p>

<p>If Van Till is correct that nature has “nothing to contribute”&nbsp;to our knowledge of God, then the claims of Christianity are relegated to the arena of philosophic speculation. Miracles—if possible at all—would be devoid of any theological significance. If the resurrection of Jesus really happened, it would only mean that a man, once dead, now lives. Nothing more.</p>

<p>What happens, then, when a religious “authority”&nbsp;like the Bible makes statements about the empirical realm, including both science and history? If the Scripture errs when it repeatedly enjoins us to draw theological conclusions from the empirical data, it loses its claim to authority. Why trust a theology that’s grounded on unreliable data?</p>

<p>This approach is an example of what the Dr. Francis Schaeffer called an “upper story leap.”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> In Schaeffer’s view, modern man has divorced nature—the particulars—from grace—the universals. Nature inhabits the “lower story”&nbsp;and is accessed by science and reason. It’s governed by cause and effect and is therefore mechanistic and determined. The transcendent realities—meaning, value, and free will—are in the “upper story”&nbsp;where grace resides. These are known by faith.</p>

<p>The key here is that there is no interaction between the upper story and lower story. (Recall Van Till’s bold comment, “On such matters [as origin and governance of the universe] the natural sciences have nothing to contribute.”)</p>

<p>In the lower story human dignity and purpose are crushed in the gears of nature’s determinism. So, Schaeffer suggests, man must take a leap apart from reason into the upper story of meaning and significance. Man restores his own sense of innate value, but the price he pays is schizophrenia and loss of rationality.</p>

<p>Van Till’s own upper story leap allows him to make this rather daring statement: “The oft-heard claims that natural science either confirms or discredits a theistic concept of divine governance or validates some particular concept of the status of the physical universe in a relationship to deity is careless talk that exposes a failure to honor the boundaries of the scientific domain.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>I can’t help but think of the Apostle Paul’s comment to the Corinthians<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> that Christians of all people are most to be pitied if the resurrection is not an historical (read “scientific,”&nbsp;“empirical”) fact. Van Till would have little respect, it seems, for such “careless talk.”</p>

<h2>A “New”&nbsp;Idea</h2>

<p>I’d like to suggest an alternative: Restore to the scientific process the classical emphasis on truth. This is where the issue of bias takes on a completely new light.</p>

<p>Philosopher J.P. Moreland points out that when a Christian deals with issues like science and faith, it’s fair to say he’s biased in that he brings certain assumptions to the process, just like everyone else. A Christian’s bias, though, doesn’t inform his conclusions in the same way that biases inform the conclusions of a scientist restricted by Van Till’s definition.</p>

<p>The current bias of science arbitrarily eliminates certain answers before the game even gets started. Scientists <em>must</em> come up with conclusions that leave God out of the picture because their definition of science demands it.</p>

<p>A Christian is not so encumbered. She believes in the laws of nature, but is also open to the possibility of supernatural intervention. Both are consistent with her worldview. She can judge the evidence on its own merits, not hindered by a definition of science that automatically eliminates supernatural options before the evidence is viewed.</p>

<p>As a result, the Christian’s bias broadens her categories making her more open-minded. She has a greater chance of discovering truth, because she can follow the evidence wherever it leads. That’s the critical distinction.</p>

<h2>Two Interacting Realms</h2>

<p>This approach streamlines the quest for truth without destroying legitimate distinctions between science and theology. There is nothing wrong with the idea that each has its separate domain. The problem comes only when they are arbitrarily isolated from one another, as Van Till advocates.</p>

<p>In practice, science does not merely study the physical universe. It also posits causes to physical effects. Van Till’s view forces us to accept that all physical effects have prior <em>physical</em> causes. This is unnecessarily restrictive. Where does one get the idea that physical phenomenon cannot be caused by an agent?</p>

<p>The object and domain of science should be the physical world, but it’s goal should be truth, not merely physical explanations. Though science is restricted to examining physical <em>effects</em>, when <em>causes</em> are inferred, there should be no such limitation.</p>

<p>A simple example makes this point. We use our faculties to explore the world around us. Mine, for the moment, are exploring the words on this page. As I write I choose specific physical objects as symbols that convey meaning to a reader. The reader has seen empirical symbols like these in his environment for years and, through induction, has learned the “language”&nbsp;of the symbols, the invisible meaning behind them. Through a process that includes empirical factors, a transaction takes place between two minds and those minds meet.</p>

<p>Note that part of this process is phenomenal, but not all of it. There is a relationship between the empirical and that which cannot be measured by the senses. An examination of the natural world (“science”) is helping to give information—meaning—about that which is supra-natural. But Van Till seems to think this is an illegitimate relationship.</p>

<p>Ironically, he uses this very example to come to the opposite conclusion. He says that, when examining words on a page, science is “wholly incapable of discovering its meaning.”<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> He should have added the phrase, “on its own.”&nbsp;It certainly can be used in conjunction with other methods, as the example above shows.</p>

<p>To make the point another way, if we saw a vase levitate and move in a non-random fashion around the room, would it be reasonable to infer the possibility of a metaphysical reality from this evidence in the physical universe? I think so. At least it shouldn’t be excluded by very definition.</p>

<p>Those who believe in intelligent design claim that issues like origin and governance can be properly inferred using empirical methods. Consider forensic medicine. Medical examiners use scientific methods to determine if an individual died of natural causes or by foul play. Was it a heart attack or was an intelligent agent involved? In the same way, scientific evidence could, in principle, indicate that creation was the result of an agent rather than chance physical factors.</p>

<p>Philosopher and mathematician William Dembski puts it in perspective when he writes, “It is the empirical detectability of intelligent causes that renders Intelligent Design a fully scientific theory.”<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> Consider the SETI project, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Here is an especially noteworthy example of using scientific research methods to infer intelligent causes, as the movie <em>Contact</em> demonstrated.</p>

<p>I conclude, therefore, that there is no good reason why science—the “what,”&nbsp;the empirical—can’t help us understand the meaning��the “why,”&nbsp;including the theological “why”—behind all that is.</p>

<h2>Methodology or Theology?</h2>

<p>Ultimately, authors Van Till, Young, and Menninga don't solve the problem they set out to remedy in <em>Science Held Hostage</em>. Their definition of science is too restrictive. It takes into consideration neither the history of science nor the Scriptural teaching on natural theology, both of which are friendly to an integration of theology and science.</p>

<p>Science examines the physical world, fair enough. But it need not be limited to <em>material</em> explanations for what it finds. When truth is at issue, our goal should be to find the best explanation, not just one that fits our arbitrary definitions or our naturalistic philosophy.</p>

<h2>Putting Your Knowledge into Action</h2>

<ul>
	<li>When the issue of science and religion come up, always ask this question: What is most important for science, finding the <em>right</em> answers (the truth), or finding the right <em>kind</em> of answers (materialistic ones)? The current definition of science favors the second, not the first.</li>
	<li>When the issue of bias comes up, point out that not all bias is equal. It depends on how the bias informs the search for truth. Naturalistic bias eliminates certain answers before the evidence is in. Christian bias, however, allows science to follow the evidence where it leads.</li>
	<li>Don’t take the restricted definition of science lying down. The goal of science should be truth, not merely physical explanations. Be prepared to argue that empirical methods <em>can</em> lead to non-empirical conclusions—i.e., intelligent agency—by giving some examples (e.g., forensic science, Big Bang cosmology, SETI, etc.). In fact, essential elements of Christianity (the creation of the universe and the resurrection of Christ, for example) depend on it.</li>
</ul>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Van Till, Young, and Menninga, <em>Science Held Hostage</em> (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">For simplicity’s sake, I will refer to the authors collectively simply as “Van Till.”&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Van Till, 24. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Ibid., 25. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Ibid., 153. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">See <em>Solid Ground</em>, January/February, 1997, Stand to Reason. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">“Each of the authors of this book...is wholly committed to the Christian faith, firmly believing that God and the physical universe are related in a way that is profoundly portrayed by the Creator-Creation metaphor.”&nbsp;Van Till, 174. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Schaeffer, Francis A., <em>Escape from Reason</em>, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1968). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Van Till, 40. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">1 Corinthians 15:12-19. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Van Till, 16. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">William Dembski, “The Intelligent Design Movement,”&nbsp;<em>Cosmic Pursuit</em>, Spring, 1998, 24. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>

<p><em>In the current rift between science and religion, a single error in thinking has created the gap.</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%2Fchristianity-and-science-are-they-compatible-" 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%2Fchristianity-and-science-are-they-compatible-" 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%2Fchristianity-and-science-are-they-compatible-" 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: Arguments that Commit Suicide
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2001
source: https://www.str.org/w/arguments-that-commit-suicide
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Some ideas have the tendency to self-destruct when given the opportunity. Your job is simply to point it out, and then watch the view quietly commit suicide.</em></p>

<p>While in the process of cultivating sensible faith, we sometimes realize that defending against an opponent takes no work on our part at all. Sometimes the easiest way to deal with an opposing view is not to feed him more information, but to use a tactic that reveals a flaw in his thinking. One of the most effective approaches is what I call the “suicide”&nbsp;tactic.</p>

<p>Someone once said that if you give a man enough rope, he’ll hang himself. The suicide tactic makes capital of the tendency of many arguments to self-destruct when given the opportunity. Such ideas get caught in the noose of their own cleverness and quickly expire.</p>

<p>These are commonly known as self-refuting views, that is, ideas that defeat themselves. Views that commit suicide are often obvious. The statement “My brother is an only child”&nbsp;is one such example. Another was found printed on a philosophy student’s t-shirt. The front sported the caption, “The statement on the back of this shirt is false.”&nbsp;The back read, “The statement on the front of this shirt is true.”</p>

<h2>If It’s True, It’s False</h2>

<p>A self-refuting view is necessarily false. It’s not even possible for it to be true. If it’s false it’s false, but if it seems true at first glance, it still proves itself to be false. Here’s why.</p>

<p>Philosopher J.P. Moreland points out that every statement is about something. For example, the sentence “Dogs have fleas”&nbsp;is about dogs. Sometimes statements include themselves in what they refer to. The statement “All English sentences are shortÌ&nbsp;is about all English sentences, including itself. When a statement fails to satisfy its own criteria of validity, it is self-refuting. It can’t possibly be true.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>For example, the sentence “I cannot speak a word in English”&nbsp;is self-refuting when spoken in English. The claim that there are no sentences more than five words in length is also necessarily false (count the words).</p>

<p>In the same way, views that commit suicide already have within them the seeds of their own destruction. They express contradictory—and therefore self-defeating—concepts. Your job is simply to point it out, then watch the view quietly commit suicide. If you’re alert, it can be done almost effortlessly, as Charlie Brown demonstrates in this exchange with Sally:</p>

<p>Sally: “’No!’&nbsp;That’s my new philosophy. I don’t care what anyone says, the answer is ’No!’.”</p>

<p>Charlie Brown: “That’s your new philosophy, huh?”</p>

<p>Sally: “Yes! I mean, ’No!’...[Despairing] You’ve ruined my new philosophy.”</p>

<p>This happens all the time. During a radio broadcast, I took exception with the theology of some televangelists. I was immediately challenged by a caller who said, “You shouldn’t be correcting Christian teachers publicly on the radio.”&nbsp;I answered, “Then why are you calling to correct me publicly on my radio show?”</p>

<p>Others, convinced that arguing is prohibited by Scripture, proceed to argue tenaciously that I am being disobedient to biblical commands by taking contrary positions with my callers.</p>

<p>Some reject the whole task of apologetics because reason is never adequate to discover truth. They then painstakingly list the reasons they think their opinion is true.</p>

<p>Here are some other conspicuous examples I’ve encountered over the years.</p>

<p>“There is no truth.”&nbsp;(Is that a true statement?)</p>

<p>“There are no absolutes.”&nbsp;(Are you absolutely sure?)</p>

<p>“No one can know any truth about religion.”&nbsp;(And how, precisely, did you come to know that truth about religion?)</p>

<p>“Science is the only sure method of finding truth.”&nbsp;(Oh? What scientific experiment taught you that truth?)</p>

<p>Here are some other straightforward examples of self-refuting statements. How would you reveal their flaws?</p>

<p>“You can’t know anything for sure.”</p>

<p>“Talking about God is meaningless.”</p>

<p>“You can only know truth through experience.”</p>

<p>“I don’t think we should push anyone’s values.”</p>

<p>Though these are obvious examples of self-refuting statements, sometimes the flaws are more subtle.</p>

<h2>Moral Relativism Self-Destructs</h2>

<p>Whenever someone says, “You shouldn’t force your morality on me,”&nbsp;always ask, “Why not?”&nbsp;Usually the response is going to be an example of her forcing her morality on you. To make sense out of the objection, she’ll have to state a moral rule while denying any moral rules exist. Such attempts reduce to, “You’re wrong for saying people are wrong,”&nbsp;or more bluntly, “You shouldn’t judge, you narrow-minded bigot.”</p>

<p>Such statements are often appeals for tolerance. One shouldn’t try to change another’s beliefs. But this is not an improvement. The exhortation itself is an attempt to persuade you to change your “intolerant”&nbsp;beliefs.</p>

<p>As a case in point, I was having a friendly conversation with a non-Christian when the subject of homosexuality came up. He immediately took offense at my “judgmental”&nbsp;view.</p>

<p>“You see, that’s the problem with Christians,”&nbsp;he said. “They’re always judging other people’s morals.”&nbsp;He was momentarily struck dumb when I pointed out that this was an interesting moral judgment of his own. Backpedaling, he regrouped and tried a different angle.</p>

<p>“Okay,”&nbsp;he conceded after some chin-scratching. “I guess it’s all right to judge, as long as you don’t try to force your morality on others.”&nbsp;He thought this would solve his problem. He was wrong.</p>

<p>“Is that your morality?”&nbsp;I asked. He nodded. “Then why are you forcing it on me?”&nbsp;He was back to square one.</p>

<p>After a couple of more false starts he threw up his hands in despair. “It’s not fair. I can’t find a way to say it that will work.”&nbsp;He thought I was playing word tricks on him.</p>

<p>I had to chuckle. “You can’t find a way because there is no way. Your statement is contradictory; it can’t be true.”</p>

<p>Moral relativists always get caught in this bind. It’s as if he said, “There are no moral rules; here’s one.”</p>

<p>The only way to be a consistent relativist is to say, “I feel that’s wrong, but my judgment is only my personal opinion and has nothing to do with you. Please disregard my comments.”</p>

<p>C.S. Lewis observes:</p>

<p>Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining “It’s not fair”&nbsp;before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if...there is no such thing as Right and Wrong...what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one?<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>A person can wax eloquent with you in a discussion on moral relativism but will complain when somebody cuts in front of him in line. He’ll object to the unfair treatment he gets at work and denounce injustice in the legal system. He’ll criticize crooked politicians who betray the public trust and condemn intolerant fundamentalists who force their moral views on others. Yet each of these objections is meaningless, a victim of self-destruction.</p>

<h2>Is Truth True?</h2>

<p>In a debate on postmodernism I participated in at Chapman University, I defended what seemed to be a very modest claim: Objective truth can be known. My opponent, Dr. Marv Meyer, was forced to argue against the proposition, effectively stating he knew truth couldn’t be known.</p>

<p>The debate reminded me of a construction worker who complained one day about the air quality in Los Angeles. “This smog is killing me,”&nbsp;he said. “I need a break. I’m going out back to have a smoke.”&nbsp;His comment entailed a contradiction. He said one thing was objectionable, and then blithely proceeded to do the very thing he objected to, sensing no conflict between the two.</p>

<p>Dr. Meyer’s claim was much the same. First, he claimed that knowledge was a certain way. Second, he claimed he knew it to be so. All the while he argued all such claims are false. My work was done before I even started.</p>

<p>In my final remarks, I told the audience I happily agreed with a number of things my opponent had said. They proved my case.</p>

<p>“When you are asked to vote tonight on this debate,”&nbsp;I said, “many of you will vote for Marv—that is to say, he convinced you that his perspective was true and mine was false. If that happens, then I have surely succeeded. I will gladly take every vote for Marv as a vote for the resolve: Objective truth <em>can</em> be known.”</p>

<p>The “Christian”&nbsp;version of postmodernism fares no better. Some Christian thinkers flirt with relativism, baptizing it with religious language. “There are two kinds of truth,”&nbsp;they say, “God’s Truth and man’s truth. God’s Truth is absolute and can only be known by Him. We can only know man’s truth, which is limited and relative to our personal perspectives.”</p>

<p>My question is: Which kind of truth is reflected in that statement? If it’s God’s Truth, how did they come to know what only God can know? If it’s merely man’s fallible perspective, then why should I trust such a sweeping generalization about the issue of absolute truth?</p>

<h2>Religious “Suicide”</h2>

<p>The notion of religious pluralism, that all religions are equally true, is also self-refuting.</p>

<p>If all religions are true, then Christianity is true. But part of the truth of Christianity is that other religions are false. Either Christianity is correct and others are false, or some other view is true and Christianity is false. Either way, all religions can’t be true.</p>

<p>A common objection to the notion of biblical inspiration goes something like this. The Bible was only written by men. It’s a book filled with human ideas, and all human ideas are flawed. Therefore, the Bible is flawed.</p>

<p>If all human ideas are flawed, however, then the idea that all human ideas are flawed is also a flawed idea, forcing the contradiction. The objection self-destructs.</p>

<p>C.S. Lewis cites a related example. In response to the Freudian and Marxist claim that all thoughts are tainted (either psychologically or ideologically) at their source, Lewis writes:</p>

<p>If they say that all thoughts are thus tainted, then, of course, we must remind them that Freudianism and Marxism are as much systems of thought as Christian theology or philosophical idealism. The Freudian and the Marxian are in the same boat with all the rest of us, and cannot criticize us from the outside. They have sawn off the branch they are sitting on. If, on the other hand, they say that the taint need not invalidate their thinking, then neither need it invalidate ours. In which case they have saved their own branch, but also saved ours along with it.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Hinduism as a religious view also seems compromised by contradictory notions. It claims that reality as we know it is an illusion—<em>maya</em>. We’re each part of the illusion and have no true individual identity.</p>

<p>Here’s my question. If I am part of the illusion, how could I know it? How could I possess true knowledge that I don’t exist, or have any knowledge at all if I’m not real? Do the individuals in a dream know they’re mere phantoms? Does Charlie Brown know he’s a cartoon character?</p>

<p>The Hindu concept that the world is an illusion contradicts the idea that I can have the knowledge that I’m only an illusion, rendering Hinduism self-refuting.</p>

<p>The most common escape route from this problem is the Eastern claim that the law of contradiction is a Western notion and doesn’t apply in Eastern thought, like Hinduism. Contradictory notions are equally true in their thinking. But this ploy is no less self-destructive. If contradictory notions are equally true in Eastern religion, then the opposite view, that contradictions do matter, must also apply.</p>

<h2>Freedom, Rationality, and Knowledge</h2>

<p>Some hold that everything in life is determined by prior physical conditions and there is no freedom of the will. This would also be the case if there is no soul. If there is no first-person center of our existence that exercises free will, then all of our “choices”&nbsp;are merely inevitable results of blind physical forces.</p>

<p>Here’s the problem. Without freedom, there can be no rationality. No one would be able to choose his beliefs based on reasons but would hold his beliefs because he’d been predetermined to do so.</p>

<p>That’s why it’s odd when someone tries to argue for determinism. His conviction could not be based on reasons—the merits of the view itself—but on prior conditions that caused his belief. He’d be “determined”&nbsp;to believe in determinism, while others would be “determined”&nbsp;to disagree.</p>

<p>Therefore, if there is no free will, no one could ever know it. Every one of our thoughts, dispositions, and opinions would have been predetermined instead of chosen based on good reasons.</p>

<p>There are others who limit the area of knowledge to those things that can be empirically tested. To them, all knowledge is based on observation. But is this a truth they have observed? Further, have they observed <em>all</em> knowledge in order to know what all knowledge is like?</p>

<p>Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame calls this suicidal tendency the “philosophical tar baby.”&nbsp;If you get close enough to use the idea on someone else, he says, you’re likely to get stuck fast to it yourself.</p>

<h2>You Are What You Eat?</h2>

<p>I once saw a sign in a restaurant that read, “You are what you eat.”&nbsp;I pointed out to the waitress that if we are what we eat, then we couldn’t be something until we’ve eaten something. But we can’t eat something until we are something. So we must be something before we eat something. Therefore, it’s not true that we are what we eat.</p>

<p>The waitress looked a me and said, “You’ll have to talk to the manager.”</p>

<p>Always be alert for arguments with suicidal tendencies. Ask the question, “Does that position carry with it the seeds of its own destruction?”&nbsp;Don’t feel like you have to do all the work refuting a bad argument. Keep you eyes open and stay alert. When you discover an opponent’s view is self-refuting, ask a question that exploits the problem. Then let him sink his own ship.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">J.P. Moreland, <em>Scaling the Secular City</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987), 92. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">C.S. Lewis, <em>Mere Christianity</em> (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 5. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">C.S. Lewis, <em>God in the Dock</em>, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 272. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</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%2Farguments-that-commit-suicide" 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%2Farguments-that-commit-suicide" 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%2Farguments-that-commit-suicide" 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 Christ of “The Passion”: What the Movie Couldn’t Show
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2004
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-christ-of-the-passion-what-the-movie-couldn-t-show-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Jesus was not a victim. No one took His life from Him. Not Jews. Not Romans. He gave it willingly and purposefully. It was the reason He was born.</em></p>

<p>“The Passion of the Christ”&nbsp;is an historically precise, visually stunning, and viscerally moving portrayal of the crucifixion of Jesus. Yet the most important detail of Jesus’&nbsp;final hours is not in the film.</p>

<p>What viewers do not see cannot be filmed. While three hours of darkness cloak the cross a transaction takes place that has been planned since the dawn of time.</p>

<p>This transaction entails a crucial fact obscured by the controversy surrounding the film: Jesus was not a victim. No one took His life from Him. Not Jews. Not Romans. He gave it willingly and purposefully. It was His choice, what He wanted.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> In fact, it was the reason He was born.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> From the beginning, as predicted in the ancient scrolls, a divine plan had been unfolding.</p>

<p>Though conceived by a miracle, Jesus has humble beginnings. He is born, as the prophet foretold,<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> in Bethlehem, in a manger, among lowly people of modest circumstance. Yet there is a persistent testimony in those early days that He is no ordinary child. The statements of the angel Gabriel, Jesus’&nbsp;mother Mary, Zacharias the priest, the heavenly host at His birth, Simeon and Anna in the temple, and the magi all center around one message: Jesus is the very Son of God, the promised Messiah of Israel, and the Savior of the world.</p>

<p>After John the Baptist begins preaching in the wilderness, Jesus quietly initiates His ministry, yet His time of obscurity is short. Jesus’&nbsp;popularity accelerates and begins to eclipse that of John, who dutifully steps aside, giving Jesus the spotlight.</p>

<p>Soon it is impossible not to take sides. Unconventional from the outset, Jesus challenges both the practices and the prejudices of a religious establishment He openly confronts. This endears Him to the common people who flock to Him in great numbers. He speaks with authority and vigor, investing old truths with fresh, new insight. He works miracles—healing, casting out demons, even raising the dead.</p>

<p>Jesus quickly becomes a phenomenon, inciting curiosity and interest wherever He goes. His following grows rapidly, but knowing these loyalties run shallow He does not entrust Himself to anyone.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> It will not be long before the masses become disenchanted. Jesus does not yield to the agenda of any group. Instead, He speaks the truth and lets the chips fall where they may.</p>

<p>The party soon ends. Jesus does not just criticize the leaders; He condemns the people as a whole as wicked and sinful.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> After miraculously feeding thousands, He laments openly to the masses that they come to Him merely to have their stomachs filled. They do not hunger for the Bread that brings eternal life, Jesus Himself.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> His listeners respond with shock, disappointment, and derision. It becomes clear that following Jesus brings hardship and difficulty, not glory, power, and prosperity. The people turn away from Jesus en masse and most of His disciples depart. Though the twelve remain, one, Jesus notes, “is a devil,”&nbsp;portentous of a time of growing opposition that now awaits Him.</p>

<p>As the group of Jesus’&nbsp;followers dwindles, He withdraws, spending more time in obscure areas and gentile regions while He invests Himself in training the twelve. Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, is a testimony to the Apostles’&nbsp;deepening commitment to this enigmatic man. Jesus gives them a glimpse of His glory at the Transfiguration and talks plainly of His imminent death, though they do not understand.</p>

<p>Jesus’&nbsp;conflict with the people, especially the religious leadership, intensifies. He attacks their doctrine, conduct, dress—anything indicative of shallow religious piety that hides the spiritual poverty within each of us. He leaves nothing untouched, rebuking religious self-righteousness more than anything else. He has patience with repentant sinners and those with weak faith, but He has none for religious hypocrisy. Spiritual pride hardens the heart, preventing a humble admission of guilt.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> It is the most pernicious obstacle to restoring an authentic relationship with the Father. Jesus’&nbsp;unrelenting assault calcifies His opposition who now actively plot His death.</p>

<p>The circumstances ripen for disaster as Jesus’&nbsp;hour of decision rapidly approaches. Calvary looms before Him; Jerusalem is now Jesus’&nbsp;only objective. He knows what awaits Him. The raising of Lazarus hardens the resolve of His enemies. The Triumphal Entry creates a surge of attention, but the celebration rings hollow. In a matter of days the same people will demand His death, trading “Hosanna”&nbsp;for “Crucify Him.”&nbsp;In spite of the imminent danger to His life, Jesus stands boldly against religious hypocrisy and its root cause, unbelief.</p>

<p>Passion week is not only the end of Jesus’&nbsp;journey, it is the final resolution of thousands of years of prophecy, promise, and expectation. The die is cast; the final act of the drama is about to be played out. Jesus’&nbsp;life will soon be in the hands of those who hate Him, but it is the Father, not Jesus’&nbsp;enemies, who is in control.</p>

<p>In a matter of hours the Messiah will be dead, but those hours tick by slowly. Some of the time Jesus spends with the ones He loves the most, those to whom He has given every waking moment for the last three years. He gathers them close to prepare them for the dark days ahead. The rest of His time is spent in agony, humiliation, and suffering.</p>

<p>Crucifixion is a cruel form of execution, generally reserved for slaves and rebels. Death is agonizing and slow, the result of shock, exposure and, eventually, asphyxiation. Hanging from a cross constricts the diaphragm, inhibiting breathing. The only way to get air is to release pressure on the arms by pushing up against the nails that pierce the feet, requiring continual effort that could go on for days. Exhaustion eventually overtakes the victim and he suffocates.</p>

<p>For Jesus, though, the pain of the cross pales in the face of a greater anguish. There is a deeper torment that cannot be seen, one no camera can capture and no words can express, more excruciating than nails pinning Jesus’&nbsp;body to the timbers, more dreadful than lashes ripping flesh from His frame. It is a dark, terrible, incalculable agony, an infinite misery, as God the Father unleashes his fury upon His sinless Son as if guilty of an immeasurable evil.</p>

<p>Why punish the innocent One? Nailed to the top of the cross is an official notice, a certificate of debt to Caesar, a public display of Jesus’&nbsp;crime: “The King of the Jews.”&nbsp;The cross is payment for this crime. When punishment is complete, Caesar’s court will cancel the debt with a single Greek word stamped upon the parchment’s face: <em>tetelestai</em>. Finished. Paid in full.</p>

<p>Being king of the Jews is not the crime Jesus pays for, however. Hidden to all but the Father is another certificate nailed to that cross.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> In the darkness that shrouds Calvary from the sixth to the ninth hour, a divine transaction is taking place; Jesus makes a trade with the Father. The crimes of all of humanity—every murder, every theft, every lustful glance; every hidden act of vice, every modest moment of pride, and every monstrous deed of evil; every crime of every man who ever lived—these Jesus takes upon Himself as if guilty of all.</p>

<p>At the last, it is not the cross that takes Jesus’&nbsp;life. He does not die of exposure, or loss of blood, or asphyxiation. When the full payment is made, when the last of the debt melts away and the justice of God is fully satisfied, Jesus simply dismisses His spirit with a single Greek word that falls from His lips: “Tetelestai.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> It is finished. The divine transaction is complete.</p>

<p>You see, there are actually three passions in “The Passion of the Christ.”&nbsp;The passionate intensity of God’s anger at us for our sins collides with the passionate intensity of God’s love for us, causing the passionate intensity of the agony of the cross to be shouldered by God Himself in human form.</p>

<p>The story is told of a king who, having discovered a theft in the royal treasury, decrees that the criminal be publicly flogged for this affront to the crown. When soldiers haul the thief before the king as he sits in his judgment seat, there in chains stands the frail form of the king’s own mother.</p>

<p>Without flinching, he orders the old woman to be bound to the whipping post in front of him. When she is secured, he stands up, lays down his imperial scepter, sets aside his jeweled crown, removes his royal robes, and enfolds the tiny old woman with his own body. Baring his back to the whip, he orders that the punishment commence. Every blow meant for the criminal lands with full force upon the bare back of the king until the last lash falls.</p>

<p>In like manner, in those dark hours the Father wrapped us in His Son who shields us, taking the justice we deserve. This is not an accident. It was planned. The prophet Isaiah described it 700 years earlier:</p>

<p>Surely our griefs He Himself bore...He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way. But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>No other man did this. No other man could. Jesus alone, the perfect Son of God, He paid the debt so that whoever trusts in Him will not perish under God’s punishment, but have life with Him fully and forever.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> Jesus is the Savior of the world. Without Him the world could not be saved from its overwhelming debt.</p>

<p>Permit me to share a final story. Harry Ironside used to tell about a young Russian soldier who, because his father was a friend of Czar Nicholas I, had been made paymaster in one of the barracks.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<p>The young man meant well, but his character was not up to his responsibility. He took to gambling and eventually gambled away a great deal of the government’s money. In due course the young man received notice that a representative of the czar was coming to check accounts, and he knew he was in trouble.</p>

<p>That evening he got out the books and totaled up the funds he owed. Then he went to the safe and got out his own pitifully small amount of money. As he sat and looked at the two he was overwhelmed at the astronomical debt versus his meager funds. He was ruined.</p>

<p>The young soldier determined to take his life. He pulled out his revolver, placed it on the table before him, and wrote a summation of his misdeeds. At the bottom of the ledger where he had totaled up his illegal borrowings, he wrote: “A great debt! Who can pay?”&nbsp;He decided that at the stroke of midnight he would die.</p>

<p>As the evening wore on the soldier grew drowsy and eventually fell asleep. That night Czar Nicholas, as was sometimes his custom, made the rounds of the barracks. Seeing a light, he stopped, looked in, and saw the young man asleep. He recognized him immediately and, looking over his shoulder, saw the ledger and realized all that had taken place.</p>

<p>He was about to awaken him and put him under arrest when his eye fastened on the young man’s message: A great debt! Who can pay? Suddenly, with a surge of magnanimity, he reached over, wrote one word at the bottom of the ledger, and slipped out.</p>

<p>When the young man awoke, he glanced at the clock and saw that it was long after midnight. He reached for his revolver to end his life. But his eye fell upon the ledger and he saw something he had not seen before. There beneath his writing, “A great debt! Who can pay?”&nbsp;was written a single word: “Nicholas.”</p>

<p>He was dumbfounded. It was the Czar’s signature. He said to himself, “The czar must have come by when I was asleep. He has seen the book. He knows all. Still he is willing to forgive.”</p>

<p>The young soldier then trusted the word of the czar. The next morning a messenger came from the palace with exactly the amount needed to meet the deficit. Only the czar could pay, and the czar did pay.</p>

<p>We compare God’s righteousness to our own tawdry performance and we ask: “A great debt to God! Who can pay?”&nbsp;But then the Lord Jesus Christ steps forward and signs His name to our ledger: “Jesus Christ.”</p>

<p>Only Jesus can pay, and He does. He has completed the transaction. He has canceled the debt. It is finished. It only remains for us to trust in His promise.</p>

<p>That is something “The Passion of the Christ”&nbsp;does not reveal. It is something no movie could ever show.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">John 10:17-18. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Hebrews 10:5-7. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Micah 5:2. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">John 2:24-25. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Matthew 11:20-24. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">John 6:1-71. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Luke 18:9-14. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Colossians 2:13-14. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">John 19:30. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Isaiah 53:4-6. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">John 3:16. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Most of the words of this account are not mine. Unfortunately, I am unable to cite the source of this rendition of Ironside’s story. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</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%2Fthe-christ-of-the-passion-what-the-movie-couldn-t-show-" 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-christ-of-the-passion-what-the-movie-couldn-t-show-" 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-christ-of-the-passion-what-the-movie-couldn-t-show-" 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: Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2004
source: https://www.str.org/w/same-sex-marriage-challenges-and-responses
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Western civilization is shuddering under a tidal wave of activism in favor of same-sex marriage. Here is a careful response to their most compelling arguments.</em></p>

<p>America is entangled in the most heated battle of the culture wars to date. Many consider it a Waterloo. State supreme courts and city governments, senators and congressmen, community leaders, celebrities, and even clergy all have mounted a powerful offensive in support of gay “marriage.”&nbsp;What follows is a point-by-point reply to those who are demanding this revision of civilization.</p>

<h2>Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights</h2>

<p><strong>“We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination.”</strong></p>

<p>There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don’t have the same legal <em>liberties</em> heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don’t have the same legal <em>benefits</em> as married couples.</p>

<p>The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.</p>

<p>I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.</p>

<p>Let me illustrate. Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, “Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have.”&nbsp;No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.</p>

<p>The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection clause.</p>

<p>The second complaint is more substantial. It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals—non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers—share those benefits, either. Why should they?</p>

<p>If homosexual couples face “unequal protection”&nbsp;in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?</p>

<p>The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she—and they—are still covered).<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilize”&nbsp;the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.</p>

<p>Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council sums the issue up nicely:</p>

<p>“Gay citizens”&nbsp;already have the same right to marry as anyone else—subject to the same restrictions. No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is the nature of marriage itself.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p><strong>“They said the same thing about interracial marriage.”</strong></p>

<p>This challenge has great rhetorical force, but it is a silly objection.</p>

<p>Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. “That’s the same thing you said about the last guy,”&nbsp;he snaps. “Yes,”&nbsp;the clerk replies. “We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke.”</p>

<p>In the same way, it simply is not relevant that the same <em>objection</em> has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the <em>circumstances</em> are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.</p>

<p>Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.</p>

<p>This approach won’t work to justify polygamous or incestuous unions (“In the past people wouldn’t allow interracial marriages, either.”). It is equally ineffectual here. The objection may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p><strong>“We shouldn’t be denied the freedom to love who we want.”</strong></p>

<p>Columnist Ellen Goodman writes, “The state is on shaky ground when it tries to <em>criminalize sexual relations of the consensual living arrangements of adults</em>.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> In San Francisco, a giddy newly “married”&nbsp;lesbian celebrates, “Now we’re not second-class citizens; now <em>we can have a loving relationship</em> like every other married couple we know.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> Another opines, “Anybody who is in love and <em>wants to spend the rest of their life together</em> should be able to do it”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> [emphasis added in all].</p>

<p>These remarks reflect a common misconception: Same-sex marriage will secure new liberties for homosexuals that have eluded them thus far. This will not happen because no personal liberty is being denied them. Gay couples can already do everything married people do—express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance,<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any of these things.</p>

<p>Homosexuals can even have a wedding. Yes, it’s done all the time. Entire cottage industries have sprung up from Hollywood to the Big Apple serving the needs—from wedding cakes to honeymoons—of same-sex lovers looking to tie the knot.</p>

<p>Gay marriage grants no new freedom, and denying marriage licenses to homosexuals does not restrict any liberty. Nothing stops anyone—of any age, race, gender, class, or sexual preference—from making lifelong loving commitments to each other, pledging their troth until death do them part. They may lack certain entitlements, but not freedoms.</p>

<p>Denying marriage doesn’t restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage license doesn’t give liberty; it gives respect.</p>

<p>And respect is precisely what homosexual activists long for, as one newly licensed lesbian spouse makes clear: “It was a moving experience after a truly lifelong commitment, to have a government entity say, ’Your relationship is valid and important in the eyes of the law.’”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> Another admits, “This is about other people recognizing what we have already recognized with each other for a long time.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> And another: “I didn’t start out feeling this way, but that piece of paper, it’s just so important I can’t even put it into words. It’s so important to have society support you...It’s about society saying you’re recognized as a couple.”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>Ironically, heterosexuals have been living together for years enjoying every liberty of matrimony without the “piece of paper.”&nbsp;Suddenly that meaningless piece of paper means everything to homosexuals. Why? Not because it confers liberty, but because it confers legitimacy. Note this telling passage from <em>Time</em> magazine’s “Will Gay Marriage be Legal?”</p>

<p>Ultimately, of course, the battle for gay marriage has always been about more than winning the second-driver discount at the Avis counter. In fact, the individual who has done most to push same-sex marriage—a brilliant 43-year-old lawyer-activist named Evan Wolfson—doesn’t even have a boyfriend. He and the others who brought the marriage lawsuits of the past decade want nothing less than full social equality, <em>total validation</em>—not just the right to inherit a mother-in-law’s Cadillac. As Andrew Sullivan, the (also persistently single) intellectual force behind gay marriage, has written, “<em>Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form social approval imaginable”</em><sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> [emphasis added].</p>

<p>Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant. Columnist Jeff Jacoby summed it up this way in <em>The Boston Globe</em>:</p>

<p>The marriage radicals...have not been deprived of the right to marry—only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a “marriage.”&nbsp;They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don’t want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically—by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn’t civil rights.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<h2>The Meaning of Marriage</h2>

<p>The controversy about same-sex marriage churns principally around the definition of marriage. Activists deny the traditional view, that marriage is about children. Instead, marriage is an ever changing, socially-constructed institution constantly being redefined by society. There is no essential connection with children. Rather, at the core of the enterprise are two people in love.</p>

<p><strong>“Marriage is about love.”</strong></p>

<p>Understandably, love is a predominant theme in discussions about marriage. “As long as people love each other,”&nbsp;one person asserted, “it shouldn’t matter whether they are the same sex. What’s important in marriage is love.”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>Initially, this seems hard to deny. In our culture, love is often the immediate motivation for marriage. On reflection, though, it’s clear that love and marriage don’t always go together. In fact, they seldom do.</p>

<p>If marriage were about love, then billions of people in the history of the world who thought they were married were not. Most marriages have been arranged. Love may percolate later, but only as a <em>result</em> of marriage, not the <em>reason</em> for it.</p>

<p>Further, if love were the <em>sine qua non</em> of marriage, no “for better or for worse”&nbsp;promises would be needed at the altar. Vows aren’t meant to sustain love; they are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.</p>

<p>The state doesn’t care if the bride and groom love each other. There are no questions about a couple’s affections when granting a license. No proof of passion is required. Why? Because marriage isn’t about love.</p>

<p>Yes, love may be the reason some people get married, but it isn’t the reason for marriage. It may be a constituent of marriage, but it isn’t the purpose of marriage. Something else is.</p>

<p><strong>“Marriage is constantly being redefined.”</strong></p>

<p>The definition of marriage has not been in flux in the way people suggest. In fact, marriage itself has not been redefined at all. Because there have been variations on the theme does not mean there has been no theme. From the dawn of civilization marriage has always been between men and women.</p>

<p>There have been changes. Historically some have been denied marriage (e.g., the young, the genetically aberrant, and interracial couples). Others were allowed to marry more than once, either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy). Spousal rights have altered and traditions have evolved. But marriage has still been marriage. And spouses have always been male and female.</p>

<p>To say something has changed is to say some core thing has remained the same. When an old curtain is changed into a work smock, or an irresponsible bachelor becomes a conscientious dad, something stays the same, the cloth and the man, in these two cases.</p>

<p>In the midst of these obvious changes in marriage, what feature remains the same? What is the essential core that makes marriage distinct from any other relationship? In spite of the variations, spouses have always been male and female. Why? What is unique about this human pairing?</p>

<p><strong>“Not all marriages have children.”</strong></p>

<p>Initially it is easy to resist any suggestion that “marriage”&nbsp;and “family”&nbsp;are essentially connected with “offspring.”&nbsp;Clearly, not all families have children. Some marriages are barren, by choice or by design.</p>

<p>This proves nothing, though. Books are written by authors to be read, even if large ones are used as doorstops or discarded ones help ignite campfires. The fact that many lie unread and covered with dust, or piled atop coffee tables for decorative effect doesn’t mean they were not destined for higher purpose.</p>

<p>In the same way, the natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions prove the rule, they don’t nullify it. Marriage is intrinsically about and for children.</p>

<p>Ironically, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike confirmed this while lining up to wed at city halls on Valentines day. “After seven years and the birth of a baby,”&nbsp;the <em>L.A. Times</em> reported, “Robert Manzo and Anna Parker decided to make their union official for 9-month-old Kyle, who they believe should have the legal protection that a marriage gives to a family.”<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>

<p>More than 300 miles away, Kathy Palmer-Lohan stood in line in San Francisco with her partner, Laura, who was seven months pregnant. “We’re having kids,”&nbsp;Palmer-Lohan said, “and [marriage] gives some formality to the relationship and the family structure.”<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>

<p><strong>“Marriage is a social construction we can redefine as we please.”</strong></p>

<p>What is marriage? There are only two possible kinds of answers to this question: Either marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose (a natural “teleology”) or they do not. If not, marriage is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture like knickers or bow ties, fashions that change with the times. Marriages defined by convention can be anything culture defines them to be. No particular detail is essential.</p>

<p>It is not possible, however, that marriage is a social construction. Here’s why.</p>

<p>Columnist Dennis Prager has observed, “Every higher civilization has defined marriage as an institution joining members of the opposite sex.”<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup> I agree with Prager’s position on marriage, though I take exception with one of his words.</p>

<p>I don’t think marriage has been <em>defined</em> by cultures. Rather, I think it has been <em>described</em> by them. The difference in terms is significant. If marriage is defined by culture, then it is merely a construction that culture is free to change when it desires. The definition may have been stable for millennia, yet it is still a convention and therefore subject to alteration. This is, in fact, the argument of the those in favor of gay marriage.</p>

<p>The truth is, it is not culture that constructs marriages or the families that marriages begin. Rather, it is the other way around: Marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. Bricks aren’t the result of the building because the building is made up of bricks. You must have the first before you can get the second.</p>

<p>Societies are large groups of families. Since families are constituent of culture, cultures cannot define them. They merely observe their parts, as it were, and acknowledge what they have discovered. Society then enacts laws not to create marriage and families according to arbitrary convention, but to protect that which already exists, being essential to the whole.</p>

<p>Why has civilization always characterized families as a union of men and women? Because men and women are the natural source of the children that allow civilized culture to persist. This is the <em>only</em> understanding that makes sense of the definition, structure, legitimacy, identity, and government entitlements of marriage. This <em>alone</em> answers our question, “What is marriage?”</p>

<p>Marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of cultures. Families—and therefore marriages—are logically prior to culture.</p>

<p>If the definition of marriage is established by nature, then we have no liberty to redefine it. In fact, marriage itself wouldn’t change at all even if we did. Philosopher Francis Beckwith has wryly observed, “Just because you can eat an ashtray doesn’t make it food.”&nbsp;Linguistic tricks can’t change what nature has already determined something to be. Neither ashtrays nor same-sex marriage provide the nourishment intended by food or families, respectively.</p>

<p>The fact that same-sex couples can legally adopt changes nothing. This, too, subverts the purpose of marriage by robbing families (and children) of a vital ingredient: mothers <em>and</em> fathers. By licensing same-sex marriage, society declares by law that two men or two women are equally suited to raise a child, that mothers and fathers contribute nothing unique to healthy child-rearing. This is self-evidently false. Moms and dads are not interchangeable.<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup></p>

<p>Marriage begins a family. The purpose of family is to produce the next generation. Therefore, family is designed by nature for children. This description alone is consistent with our deepest intuitions, which is why every culture since the birth of time has recognized this. No other characterization fits what societies have been doing for millennia.</p>

<p>Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. That’s why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids.</p>

<p>Government has no interest in affirming any other kind of relationship. It privileges and sustains marriage in order to protect the future of civilization.</p>

<p>Same-sex marriage is radically revisionist. It severs family from its roots, eviscerates marriage of any normative content, and robs children of a mother and a father. This must not happen.</p>

<p>Homosexuality is broadly tolerated in this country. Gays are allowed to pursue their “lifestyles”&nbsp;without reprisal, even to the point of forming committed, monogamous unions. They may not be universally respected or admired, but they have the liberty to live as they choose. This is all they have the right to demand.</p>

<p>For more on this issue, read <a href="http://www.str.org/na?q=..."><em>Solid Ground</em>&nbsp;“When the Bride Is a Groom”</a></p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Government only privileges relationships that contribute to government interests. It has no interest in stable relationships in general, only in stabilizing particular kinds of relationships—generally, economic relations tied to commerce (e.g., corporations) and those where children may be involved. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Peter Sprigg, “Questions on Same-Sex Unions Answered: Responding to Andrew Sullivan,”&nbsp;<a href="http://www.frc.org">www.frc.org</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Some have charged that the Bible condemned interracial marriage. This allegation is misleading. Scripture only prohibited the inter-<em>religious</em> marriage that usually resulted from interracial unions in the ancient Near East. This rule protected Jews from idolatry. Interracial marriages as such were not forbidden. In fact, there is good evidence Moses married a black African woman. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">As quoted in <em>L.A. Times</em>, 3/12/04, E1. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5"><em>L.A. Times</em>, 2/14/04, A1. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6"><em>L.A. Times</em>, 2/14/04, B20. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">This is not automatic, as with married couples, but can be easily arranged. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8"><em>L.A. Times</em>, 2/13/04, A28. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9"><em>L.A. Times</em>, 2/14/04, B 20. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10"><em>L.A. Times</em>, 3/21/04, A24. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">John Cloud, “Will Gay Marriage be Legal?”&nbsp;<em>Time</em>, 2/21/00. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Jeff Jacoby, “Gay Marriage Isn’t Civil Rights,”&nbsp;<em>The Boston Globe</em>, 3/7/04. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13"><em>L.A. Times</em>, 2/15/04, B1. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14"><em>L.A. Times</em>, 2/15/04, B17. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15"><em>L.A. Times</em>, 2/15/04, B17. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Dennis Prager, “Probing the Massachusetts Justices’&nbsp;Minds,”&nbsp;<a href="http://townhall.com">townhall.com</a>, 2/10/04. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">The same is true when singles adopt, by the way, which I also oppose for the same reasons. The only exception is when there is no other alternative for a child (any loving relationship is better for a child than an institution), but this is not usually the case. A mother and a father should always have first priority in adoption. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17"> ↩</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%2Fsame-sex-marriage-challenges-and-responses" 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%2Fsame-sex-marriage-challenges-and-responses" 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%2Fsame-sex-marriage-challenges-and-responses" 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: Resolving Bible Difficulties: Paul vs. James
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2003
source: https://www.str.org/w/resolving-bible-difficulties-paul-vs.-james
content:
            <div> 
		<p>For some Christians, one of the thorniest problems in the Bible is the apparent contradiction between Paul and James.</p>

<p>In Romans 5:1-2, Paul writes, “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.”</p>

<p>James seems to say just the opposite, “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> This appears to be a first-rate contradiction.</p>

<p>I have seen people needlessly twist themselves into theological pretzels trying to deal with this problem. There are a few unresolved conflicts in the Bible, but this is not one of them.</p>

<h2>Justified by Faith</h2>

<p>In Romans 4:1-5, Paul lays out his case for justification by faith. He goes back to the very beginning, citing Abraham as the prime example:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”&nbsp;Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Paul makes two points here. First, if Abraham is justified by works, if salvation is his personal accomplishment, dependent on his effort alone, then he can brag about it. Second, any system of works makes God indebted to the one who qualifies. Salvation is not a gift, but a wage paid to the one who earns it.</p>

<p>Then Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 to prove that neither is the case: “Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.”</p>

<h2>Two Terms</h2>

<p>Two different terms used to illustrate Abraham’s salvation. The first is “reckoned,”&nbsp;and the second is “justified.”&nbsp;As you will see, these are two aspects of a single act of redemption.</p>

<p>The word “reckoned”&nbsp;is a term that emphasizes an action God takes on behalf of poor sinners. To “reckon”&nbsp;means “to credit to the account of.”&nbsp;God responds to our spiritual poverty with the abundant gift of righteousness. He places it into our empty bank accounts, under our names. In Paul’s words, “Though [Jesus] was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>This transaction took place early in Abraham’s life. We read in Genesis 15:6, “Then he [Abraham] believed in the Lord and He <em>reckoned</em> it to him as righteousness.”&nbsp;Paul reminds us that Abraham “grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to perform. Therefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>From that time on God saw not Abraham’s spiritual poverty, but his wealth. Abraham’s moral bank account was rich with God’s righteousness.</p>

<p>“Justification,”&nbsp;our second term, is the result of this transaction. It means “to declare free of blame; to absolve.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> Because God reckons righteousness to us, He declares us free from guilt, absolved, and pardoned. Reckoning, the action, leads to justification, the result. Therefore, salvation is a result of justification, which comes by faith.</p>

<h2>Ever Heard of the Ten Commandments?</h2>

<p>Salvation must come from God and not ourselves for one very good reason: Our bank accounts are truly empty. Once, while I was discussing God’s qualifications for heaven with a waitress, she said, “God will approve of me.”</p>

<p>“How do you know that?”&nbsp;I asked.</p>

<p>The question was a pivotal one, but she’d never considered it. After a long, awkward silence she offered feebly, “Well, I don’t take drugs.”</p>

<p>“That’s good, but I think God is concerned about more than that,”&nbsp;I countered. “Have you heard of the Ten Commandments?”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> I began to list them.</p>

<p>1) Have you ever given allegiance to anything else above God in your life?</p>

<p>2) Have you ever used any thing as an object of worship or veneration?</p>

<p>3) Have you ever used God’s name in a vain or vulgar fashion?</p>

<p>4) Have you always honored God by worshiping Him on a regular basis?</p>

<p>5) Have you ever disobeyed or dishonored your parents?</p>

<p>6) Have you ever murdered anyone? (Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 that if you’re merely angry with a brother, you violate this principle).</p>

<p>7) Have you ever had sex with someone other than your spouse? (Jesus said that if you look upon someone and entertain the thought, you’re guilty of sin here.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup>)</p>

<p>8) Have you ever taken something that was not yours?</p>

<p>9) Have you ever told an untruth about someone else?</p>

<p>10) Have you ever desired to have something that was not yours?</p>

<p>We’d only gotten through two before she began to wilt. “Now you’re making me feel guilty,”&nbsp;she complained. That’s the point. We <em>are</em> guilty, each one of us. This is God’s Law. These are God’s requirements. Yet is there anyone who doesn’t consistently violate every one?</p>

<p>Any attempt to whittle down God’s requirements to make them easier is doomed. The Pharisees tried this, asking Jesus which commandment was the foremost of all.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> Jesus answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”&nbsp;Which of us does not violate both commands hundreds of times a day?</p>

<h2>The Built-in Defeater</h2>

<p>We want to compare ourselves to other people, but that doesn’t work. We may fancy ourselves law-abiding citizens, but the truth is we’re a lot more like Hitler than like Jesus Christ, and His righteousness is the standard.</p>

<p>Saved by works? The Law gives us no hope because it has a built-in defeater to any attempt at justification by works: The Law demands perfection: “Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation <em>to keep the whole Law”</em>&nbsp;(Galatians 5:3).</p>

<p>James agrees. He writes, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become <em>guilty of all”</em>&nbsp;(James 2:10).</p>

<p>In God’s view, there are only two kinds of people: innocent and guilty. One violation of the Law—just one sin—makes you guilty. This is enough to silence the most noble mortal, closing every mouth in order that “all the world may become accountable to God”&nbsp;(Romans 3:19).</p>

<p>“The Scripture,”&nbsp;Paul concludes, “has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe”&nbsp;(Galatians 3:22).</p>

<p>There is only one hope: God’s mercy. The Scripture is replete with this teaching. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God”&nbsp;(Ephesians 2:8). “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace”&nbsp;(Romans 10:6). “If righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly”&nbsp;(Galatians 2:21).</p>

<p>That’s why Paul states clearly, “Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies [absolves] the ungodly, his faith is reckoned [credited] as righteousness”&nbsp;(Romans 4:5).</p>

<p>But we still have a problem. Why does James contradict Paul by saying we’re justified by works and not by faith alone? He even quotes Abraham as proof of his point, just as Paul did.</p>

<h2>One Word, Two Meanings</h2>

<p>Whenever one encounters an apparent contradiction, it’s good to keep in mind a basic rule: Always first explore the possibility of a reconciliation between the two. Not all statements that appear to contradict actually do.</p>

<p>Take the two statements “Napoleon was a very big man”&nbsp;and “Napoleon was not a big man; he was a small man.”&nbsp;At first glance, these two sentences appear contradictory. The word “big”&nbsp;is equivocal, though; it can mean two different things. Napoleon was a big man regarding his impact in <em>history</em>, but was small in <em>physical size</em>.</p>

<p>Consult any dictionary and you’ll discover that virtually every word has more than one meaning. The word “peace,”&nbsp;for example, could mean cessation of hostility between two parties. When a war is over and the fighting stops, there’s peace. Romans 5:1 carries this sense: “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have <em>peace</em> with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”</p>

<p>“Peace”&nbsp;could also refer to peace of mind, a freedom from anxiety or worry. This is what Paul had in mind when he promised that, after prayer, “the <em>peace</em> of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> Proper interpretation of any passage depends on a clear understanding of which meaning is in view.</p>

<p>The word “justify”&nbsp;is no different. It has two meanings, not just one. In addition to “absolve, declare free of blame,”&nbsp;it can also mean “to demonstrate or prove to be just, right or valid; to show to be well founded.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>This second definition is what we usually mean when we use the word “justify”&nbsp;in English. “Justify your position,”&nbsp;we say. We’re asking for evidence; we want proof.</p>

<p>The Bible frequently uses this sense of the word “justify.”&nbsp;Jesus taught that a person’s true nature will be evident in his conduct:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil. And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus teaches here that the man with good treasure brings forth good fruit, which “justifies”&nbsp;him. This external display demonstrates the quality of the man within. This is not justification in the sense of salvation. One’s words don’t absolve him (first definition). Rather, they bear testimony of the inner man (second definition).</p>

<h2>The Crux</h2>

<p>Now we face a key question. Which definition did James have in mind? How do we know when he uses the word “justify,”&nbsp;that James is not referring to salvation—as Paul clearly is—but rather is pointing to the proof of salvation? That’s the question.</p>

<p>This is remarkably simple to determine, since the cause must come before the effect. Salvation must come first before it can be evidenced in a changed life.</p>

<p>When Paul makes his case for justification by faith, he cites the beginning of Abraham’s walk with God in Genesis 15:5-6: “And He took him outside and said, ’Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.’&nbsp;And He said to him, ’So shall your descendants be.’&nbsp;Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.”</p>

<p>The justification James has in mind comes much later in Abraham’s life, recorded in Genesis 22:12: “And he said, ’Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him, for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”</p>

<p>Paul and James are cite two different times in Abraham’s life, events separated by 25 years. <em>They can’t be referring to the same thing</em>.</p>

<p>The works of Abraham that James mentions were a result of justification which came by faith a quarter of a century earlier. Abraham was not being saved again. Rather, he was showing evidence of his salvation. He was being confirmed in the justification by faith that had already been accomplished years before.</p>

<p>Abraham’s faith was no passive, intellectual exercise. He proved his faith to God. The words of the text show this to be true: “Now <em>I know</em> that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”&nbsp;God witnessed Abraham’s faith first-hand, as it were. It was demonstrated. That’s why James concludes, “And the Scripture was <em>fulfilled</em> which says, ’And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’”<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>James speaks to the man who is all talk and no action with the simple message that true salvation always proves itself. That’s why he asks, “What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can <em>that</em> faith save him?”<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> The apostle John echoes the same sentiment: “The one who says, ’I have come to know Him,’&nbsp;and does not keep His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him.”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<h2>One Coin, Two Sides</h2>

<p>James and Paul go together like two sides of the same coin. They don’t conflict with each other; they complement each other. Both teach us something vital. Paul looks at what goes on internally; James talks about the external results. Paul says, “We’re saved by faith.”&nbsp;James says, “This is what saving faith looks like.”</p>

<p>My own interpretive paraphrase captures the sense of it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>(21) Consider Abraham for a minute (remember him, the father of true faith?). His life is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. He demonstrated to everyone the content of his faith when he obeyed God by offering up Isaac on the altar. (22) His action was a clear, visible demonstration to us that his faith was not a bunch of words. To him, faith and works went hand in hand; they were two sides of the same coin. The exercise of one caused the other to grow. (23) Years before, God had declared Abraham righteous because of his faith (“And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”&nbsp;Genesis 15:6). Abraham’s obedience regarding Isaac was visible proof that God’s earlier declaration of his faith was accurate and well deserved. Abraham’s actions fulfilled God’s word, demonstrating his friendship with God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The entire truth is conveniently captured for us in one passage, Titus 3:4-8:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy statement, and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God may be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Christians need “justification”&nbsp;plus “justification.”&nbsp;Faith alone saves, but faith that is alone is not the genuine article. It’s not saving faith.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">James 2:24. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">2 Corinthians 8:9. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Romans 4:21-22. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4"><em>The American Heritage Dictionary</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Exodus 20:1-18. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Matthew 5:28. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Mark 12:28-31. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Philippians 4:7. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9"><em>The American Heritage Dictionary.</em> <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Matthew 12:35. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">James 2:23. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">James 2:14. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">1 John 2:4. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&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%2Fresolving-bible-difficulties-paul-vs.-james" 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%2Fresolving-bible-difficulties-paul-vs.-james" 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%2Fresolving-bible-difficulties-paul-vs.-james" 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>
            
          


