# articles

title: Is One Way the Only Way?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 06/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-one-way-the-only-way-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We are continuing our series on <em>Answering Gosptacles</em> with what might be the most pervasive gosptacle that we’ve looked at so far. The exclusivity of Christ as the only way of salvation is deeply offensive to our relativistic and pluralistic culture.</p>

<p>There are <em>three</em> ways that this view—Jesus is the only way—is being challenged. First, there are some who mistakenly think that Jesus can be true for them, but not for others. That is, He is the only way <em>for some</em>. This idea stems from a theological confusion. Simply put, they misunderstand the gospel. Second, there is the explicit teaching that there are many ways to God. This idea is called religious pluralism. Third, there is a view that tries to argue for both <em>one way</em> and <em>many ways</em>. In this view, Jesus is the only way of salvation. However, explicit faith in Christ is <em>not</em> required for salvation. This is referred to as Christian inclusivism.</p>

<p>In this talk, I evaluate each of these challenges and show that each is mistaken. You can watch the entire presentation here.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="RU77A6kVVes" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RU77A6kVVes?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>

<p>If you missed the first two parts of my <em>Answering Gosptacles</em> series, then click <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/05/is-the-bible-full-of-contradicitons.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/05/has-science-buried-god.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-one-way-the-only-way-" 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-one-way-the-only-way-" 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-one-way-the-only-way-" 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 Rewards of Memorizing a Book of the Bible
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/15/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-rewards-of-memorizing-a-book-of-the-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>You must read <a href="http://nautil.us/blog/this-man-memorized-a-60000_word-poem-using-deep-encoding" target="_blank">this article</a> about an actor who memorized and then performed all of <em>Paradise Lost</em> (over 60,000 words). I say you must because I want to convince you to take up the long-term practice of slowly memorizing short books of the Bible (see two of my past attempts to convince you <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/05/you-really-can-memorize-whole-books-of-the-bible.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/02/memorizing-the-bible-changes-you.html" target="_blank">here</a>), and I think the description of how this practice changed his experience and knowledge of the text is both accurate and compelling.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[John] Basinger didn’t just remember the words; it would be a mistake, says Seamon, to interpret Basinger’s performance as “simply a remarkable demonstration of brute force, rote memorisation.”</p>

<p>In order to memorize the epic poem, he spent a lot of time repeatedly analyzing its meaning and structure. Acting researchers emphasize this strategy, Seamon notes: “Deep encoding requires actors to attend to the exact wording of lines, and it is the focus on exact wording to gain an understanding of the characters that yields verbatim memory, instead of merely the retention of gist.”...</p>

<p>Actors like Basinger use deep encoding to give “honest, spontaneous performances, ones that focus on communicating the meanings underlying the literal words,”&nbsp;according to psychologists Helga and Tony Noice...Basinger, Seamon says, “really got into the story, what Milton was trying to convey.”&nbsp;Noice and Noice suggest that this would aid his recall: “Bodily action and emotional response, in addition to semantic analysis, can enhance human memory.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Memorizing in order to perform the words from the perspective of the author forced him to work on truly understanding the meaning of what he was reading. From the big picture to the smallest word, it all had to make sense to him.</p>

<p>He beautifully describes what this kind of memorization does to you:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“During the incessant repetition of Milton’s words, I really began to listen to them,” says Basinger, “and every now and then as the whole poem began to take shape in my mind, an insight would come, an understanding, a delicious possibility.”...</p>

<p>For his part, Basinger says his years of effort have let him explore <em>Paradise Lost</em> as if it were a physical space. “As a cathedral I carry around in my mind,”&nbsp;he says, “a place that I can enter and walk around at will.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I can’t believe how well he captured the experience with that image. Imagine knowing books of the Bible this way. And you really can do this. There was nothing at all special about the man’s memory:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Nothing in Basinger’s tests suggested that his memory was otherwise irregular or exceptional. ”His memory for everyday tasks appears entirely normal for someone his age,”&nbsp;Seamon says. “He still forgets where he puts his keys.”&nbsp;For those of us who struggle to remember to-do lists, it’s encouraging to know: “Our findings are in agreement with other research on world-class memory performers,”&nbsp;Seamon says, “which indicates that exceptional memorizers are made, not born.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Pick a book of the Bible, and start today with two verses. Add two verses a day. Speak them out loud as if you’re reading a letter (the Epistles) or telling a story (the Gospels). If you don’t understand what you’re memorizing, struggle with it until you do. When that book—from start to finish—becomes “a cathedral you carry around in your mind,”&nbsp;move on to the next book and start again. You may not perfectly remember every word of a particular book a year after you’ve moved on, but the intimate knowledge you will carry of that “cathedral”—its architecture and floor plan, the images on its stained glass windows, its unique sounds and smells—will remain with you. You will forever know it as one who has thoroughly explored all its corners, not merely as one who peeked in its windows.</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-rewards-of-memorizing-a-book-of-the-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-rewards-of-memorizing-a-book-of-the-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-rewards-of-memorizing-a-book-of-the-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: One God. One Son. One Way. Here’s Why.—Mentoring Letter June 2016
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/-one-god-one-son-one-way-here-s-why-mentoring-letter-june-2016
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>STR speaker, Alan Shlemon, recently wrote about a Tweet he sent that packed a lot of theology into 138 characters. I liked it so much I’m passing his advice on to you. Here’s what Alan wrote.</em></p>

<p>Twitter is not the place to post profound theology. You’re limited to 140 characters to make your point. Nevertheless, I recently tweeted the reason Jesus is the only way to Heaven and had two characters to spare!</p>

<p>Here it is: “There’s only one way to Heaven because there’s only one God that exists who’s made only one offer of forgiveness through His only one Son.”&nbsp;Though I didn’t write a lot, I still said a lot. Now let’s unpack it.</p>

<p>You’ll notice I wrote “one”&nbsp;several times. That’s because one excludes two. Okay, that’s not particularly profound, but it’s important. One God precludes two gods or multiple gods and that means there’s only one Being we must listen to about our eternal destiny. Here’s what I mean about each component of the tweet.</p>

<p>One God: We have many good reasons to believe God exists. For one, everything that’s created needs a creator. This is hard to deny since it’s our universal experience, without exceptions. The world’s existence requires a Creator. Even if you lean towards Big Bang cosmology, a Big Bang still needs a big Banger. All matter, space, and time came into existence because of someone or something. That creator of all things is God.</p>

<p>Given that God is real, we also know there can only be one ultimate Being in the universe. This is simple common sense. If there’s a being greater than God, then He would be God. He is the one who is ultimately in charge and who we are accountable only to. We also know from revelation that there’s only one God. The one God has plainly spoken to humanity through Scripture and told us there are no other gods.</p>

<p>The universe, then, is God’s creation. He is the King and He rules over His Kingdom, His domain. He is our Sovereign and we are His subjects.</p>

<p>One offer: Since there is only one God, there is only one offer of forgiveness, because there’s no one around to make an additional offer. The one God makes the terms of the one offer of pardon, whether we like the terms or not.</p>

<p>Fortunately, the one God is merciful and His terms are gracious. Even though we consistently violate His laws, He still is willing to grant us pardon. We can either accept the pardon and be released, or we can pay the penalty ourselves. It’s our choice.</p>

<p>One Son: Since the one God makes only one offer of forgiveness, we must learn the details of His offer from Him. It turns out, God has appointed an advocate to appeal on our behalf, His one Son. The Son is God’s “next of kin,”&nbsp;making Him a divine being and without guilt. He is, therefore, the only candidate to fulfill the terms of the pardon.</p>

<p>God arranges a trade: our guilt for His Son’s innocence. The guilty are made innocent and the innocent is made guilty. We are absolved from our crimes while the Son is punished.</p>

<p>One way: Since there is only one God who has made only one offer through His only one Son, there can be only one way to Heaven. We live under God’s jurisdiction. The crimes we have committed are against Him. Consequently, He is the only One who can offer a pardon. That is why there is only one way.</p>

<p>Suppose you were convicted of a crime committed on United States soil, which is under U.S. jurisdiction. Only the U.S. government has the authority to pardon. You can accept the terms of the pardon and go free, or you can reject the pardon and pay the penalty for the crime. There are no other “ways.”&nbsp;No other country can offer you a pardon. It is the U.S. way or there is no way.</p>

<p>That is why Jesus is the only way. As I said in my tweet, “There’s only one way to Heaven because there’s only one God that exists who’s made only one offer of forgiveness through His only one Son.”</p>

<p>In His grace,</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%2F-one-god-one-son-one-way-here-s-why-mentoring-letter-june-2016" 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-one-god-one-son-one-way-here-s-why-mentoring-letter-june-2016" 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-one-god-one-son-one-way-here-s-why-mentoring-letter-june-2016" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Are Christians to Blame for the Orlando Shooting?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-christians-to-blame-for-the-orlando-shooting-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Like you, I was horrified to hear of the tragic mass killing in Orlando last month. A man opened fire in an Orlando nightclub, killed 49 innocent human beings, and injured another 53. It was the largest mass shooting in U.S. history and the worst terrorist attack in the United States since September 11.</p>

<p>As with any tragedy like this, people wanted to know, Why? Many clues pointed to a familiar explanation: Islamic terrorism. The man was a Muslim, born in a Muslim family, and pledged his allegiance to Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS.</p>

<p>Despite the obvious connection to Islam, some people speculated that Christians were also to blame. Because believers hold to a man-woman marriage ethic, it was suggested, our Bible-based morality against homosexual sex and legislative efforts against same-sex marriage created a climate of hate that made it easier to demonize the LGBT community.</p>

<p>Although I strongly disagree with that analysis, some Christians (including a pastor and a prominent TV personality) added fuel to the fire by suggesting that since the victims of the Orlando shooting were all guilty of the sin of homosexuality, they deserved to die. These comments played into the worst of our culture’s impression of what Christians believe about the LGBT community.</p>

<p>Let me be perfectly clear. This tragic event had nothing to do with Christianity. Followers of Christ neither condone the killing nor believe those innocent people deserved to die. I know this because I know something about two things: the Bible and Christianity.</p>

<p>First, let me set the record straight about what Christianity says about the Orlando shooting. The Bible teaches that <em>all</em> human beings are made in the image of God. That means men and women who identify as gay or lesbian are intrinsically valuable. They are—just like every other person on the planet—the pinnacle of God’s creation. Nothing they do can remove their inherent worth because it’s grounded in the fact that they are image bearers of God. Therefore, there is <em>never</em> any place for degrading talk or dehumanizing behavior towards those who identify as LGBT. They are people to be loved and treated with respect.</p>

<p>Furthermore, though they may engage in homosexual behavior, which Scripture unequivocally teaches is sin (e.g. Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10), their violation of God’s command does not make them deserve death. What the Orlando killer did was blatantly wrong, and nothing justifies his behavior.</p>

<p>It is true, though, that any sin you or I commit makes us deserve to be punished by God. In that sense, yes, we <em>all</em> deserve to die. That’s been the case since Adam and Eve. That punishment, though, does <em>not</em> mean we deserve to be gunned down or murdered. It means we’re to be separated from God for eternity. Further, the punishment is rendered after the resurrection and only adjudicated by God, the Creator and judge of our souls. God’s wrath is never to be taken into our own hands.</p>

<p>Some people have pointed to Leviticus 20:13, which says that people who engage in homosexual behavior, “shall surely be put to death.”&nbsp;But there are two extremely important qualifications about this passage. First, people who committed homosexual acts, under the Levitical system, were not the only ones killed. The same chapter commands that adulterers and children who curse their parents be put to death for their moral crimes. Homosexuals, therefore, were not singled out. Furthermore, the punishment was to be carried out only by Israel’s government. Citizens were never allowed to take the law into their own hands.</p>

<p>Second, this command (and the other 612 commands) is part of the Mosaic Law, a system of government under the theocracy of Israel. Today, we are no longer under that theocracy and, therefore, no longer bound by that covenant’s commands. It is true, though, that there are some universal morals that God expressed in the Mosaic Law that still apply today. That’s why similar commands are re-expressed in the New Testament. However, Jeremiah foretold that God will establish a new covenant—a new contract—between Him and His people (Jer. 31:31-34). That prophecy was realized when Jesus <em>fulfilled</em> the righteous requirements of the Mosaic Law and instituted a new covenant in His blood (Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 22:20). Therefore, today we are only bound by the law of Christ, the New Covenant, which not only does away with the death penalty for crimes against God, but also vigorously opposes murder.</p>

<p>Our response to homosexuals is not one of violence, vengeance, or malice. Rather, it is love. We’re called to love those who identify as LGBT. Love, biblically speaking, means that we care so much about them that we tell them about God’s message of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:17-20). Since every human being has committed crimes against God, every one of us deserves to be punished. That means we are all destined to be separated from Him. God, however, offers to pardon anyone who turns from his rebellious life and submits his life to Him. That message of hope is what Christians are commanded to share with all people, whether it’s the Muslim who fights for Allah or the one who identifies as LGBT.</p>

<p>No matter what we say or do, people may not believe that we love everyone, even those who identify as LGBT. We’re commanded, though, to be responsible for our part, which is to be faithful to tell about God’s offer of a pardon in a clear and compassionate way. The results, we leave up to God. It’s His job to convict people of sin and regenerate their souls.</p>
</div>

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


title: How We Should Treat Political Opponents
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 06/04/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-we-should-treat-political-opponents
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Mark Galli has a good <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjDjeK2iYvNAhVMwWMKHVZ7CjoQFggcMAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianitytoday.com%2Fct%2F2016%2Fjune%2Fwin-win-on-lgbt-rights.html&amp;usg=AFQjCNHBDpKxHxWIWVjqfGeM9hGEiJH30w&amp;sig2=fkvsBJGvoHovjPVesDrbxQ&amp;bvm=bv.123664746,d.cGc" target="_blank">editorial</a> in the current <em>Christianity Today</em> issue. I disagree with a couple of points. But I appreciate his primary message—reminding Christians that we’re to love and care for those who oppose and persecute us.</p>

<p>He makes an important point very succinctly that I took a long <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/06/why-we-need-to-go-back-to-basics-and-make-a-case-for-our-worldview.html" target="_blank">blog post</a> to make. Religious conservatives and LGBT activists are arguing from two very different metaphysics and are therefore talking past each other. He writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The first group believes that sexual mores are rooted in God-given teaching and the natural order. The second group believes every individual has the right to determine how to live sexually...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is a seemingly irreconcilable situation. While the legal issues are significant and worth fighting for, Christians also need to remember we cannot hold hatred and animosity toward others no matter how they revile us for Jesus’&nbsp;sake. And we are called to a higher ethic than only protecting our rights.</p>

<p>But I disagree with a couple of other points.</p>

<p>Mark writes, “Yet we also believe that the Lord calls us to look out for the interests of our political opponents. So, we must not seek legislation that protects our freedom if that same legislation denies the rights of people with whom we disagree.”</p>

<p>He’s making a good point here, reminding us of the call to look beyond our own interests. But I’m not sure of the “rights of people with whom we disagree”&nbsp;that he’s referring to. Since it’s the discussion in our culture right now, I think he’s referring to the rights of gay people to marry others of the same sex, and transgender people to use bathrooms of the sex they identify with, and generally the demand not to have others disagree with their behavior. If so, I don’t think these are rights they can claim at all. A right is a just claim to something. The U.S. Declaration of Independence states the grounding and source of rights quite succinctly: they are God-given. And we can also find sufficient grounds for rights in natural law. In neither of these can rights be found to force others by law to support what is immoral and unnatural. If there is no right, then I don’t see a responsibility to protect those rights. If Galli is referring to the rights to be safe, not be harassed and harmed, then I certainly agree. But I’m not familiar with any legislation that would take away that right or any other just rights claims made by those we disagree with.</p>

<p>A few paragraphs later Galli expands on his good point about going above and beyond. He equates Jesus instructing His followers to help a Roman soldier carrying his load with a Christian baker baking not just one, but two cakes for a same-sex wedding. I get his general point about the higher ethic Christians are called to, but I don’t think his example is a good parallel. A Roman soldier enlisting a Jew to carry his load may be unjust but it’s not an immoral activity in any way. A modern vendor being involved in a same-sex wedding is, arguably, being involved in an immoral activity, which is why Christians are objecting to being forced by law to do so.</p>

<p>Galli’s overall points are good ones. And his conclusion is wise counsel:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In the meantime, what would happen to us if our liberties were trashed and we were forced to suffer penalties and indignities for our faith? Jesus says that we’ll enjoy a reward, and that our reward will be great. Sounds like a win win to us. Maybe that’s why he also said, “Fear not.”</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%2Fhow-we-should-treat-political-opponents" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-we-should-treat-political-opponents" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-we-should-treat-political-opponents" 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 Important Distinction about Orlando and Islam
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/29/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/-an-important-distinction-about-orlando-and-islam
content:
            <div> 
		<p>After the Orlando shooting, there was an almost reflexive response by analysts who gave the usual talking points about how Islam is a religion of peace and its practitioners are peaceful people. What the Orlando killer did, many Muslims and pundits said, had nothing to do with Islam. Terrorists are simply hijacking Islam. True Muslims oppose the Orlando killer’s behavior. Saying the shooting was Islamic terrorism wrongly brands all Muslims as violent people or terrorists. There needs to be more nuance, though.</p>

<p>One of the things I routinely call for when I teach on this subject is the importance of making a critical distinction between two things: Islam and Muslims. Islam is the religion and its teachings. Muslims are the people who follow Islam. These two are different. Just because a religion teaches something, that doesn’t mean all of its practitioners believe or obey that teaching.</p>

<p>The same is true with the distinction between Christianity and Christians. The Bible, for example, teaches that God hates divorce, that it violates our vow to God, and is forbidden with a few exceptions (I know this is debated, but that’s not my point here). Divorce, in most cases, is a sin and prohibited for Christians. There are many Christians, though, who don’t follow biblical teaching on this topic and have divorced, contrary to biblical guidelines. It’s fair to say, then, that although Christianity teaches that divorce is wrong, many Christians don’t observe that teaching.</p>

<p>The same is true with Islam and Muslims. Islam teaches that violent jihad is a valid Islamic doctrine. This is taught in three authoritative sources of Islam. The Qur’an, what Muslims believe is the literal word of Allah, teaches violent jihad in the Medinan surahs (the passages allegedly revealed to Mohammed when he lived in Medina). Read <a href="https://www.clearquran.com/009.html" target="_blank">surah 9 of the Qur’an</a> for just one example. The hadith, what Mohammed said and approved of, also teaches violent jihad. Read Sahih Muslim, book 1:29-33 for just one example. Finally, the Sunnah, the life example set by Mohammed, teaches violent jihad. Read <em>The Life of Mohammed</em> by Ibn Ishaq for just one example. My point is not to give all the citations from each of these three sources. I provide some in <em><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK331" target="_blank">The Ambassador’s Guide to Islam</a>,</em> and they are also available with a quick Google search. My point is that Islam—the religion and its teaching—affirms that violent jihad is a valid Islamic doctrine.</p>

<p>To be clear, I’m <em>not</em> saying that Islam teaches that any Muslim can attack any non-Muslim at any time and for any reason. The commands to engage in jihad have conditions that need to be met before Muslims can attack. Also, once certain conditions are met, Muslims must cease hostility. I’m simply saying that Islam affirms violent jihad.</p>

<p>Some people are critical of my comments, claiming that I’m demonizing Muslim people. That’s not true. I’ll be the first to say that most Muslims are <em>not</em> violent people. Not only is my family from the Middle East, but over the years I’ve known and interacted with Muslims of all stripes. When they’ve come to my family’s home, they are kind, respectful, and even bring gifts. When I’ve visited their homes, they are hospitable, gracious, and kind. I’ve been going to mosques in both the United States and the Middle East (and taking Christian groups to them) for years and never have had a problem.</p>

<p>These Muslims don’t observe the command to fight. Many of them try to reform Islam by making it less violent, while others are simply ignorant of its teachings. Around 70% of Muslims are nominal (Muslim in name only). They don’t study the Qur’an, hadith, or Sunnah. They don’t even attend their local mosque. They’re born in a Muslim family or Islamic country and adopt Islam by default. These Muslims want to lead peaceful lives.</p>

<p>That’s why I’m mystified by the backlash against those who point out that Islam—the religion and its teachings—affirms that violent jihad is a valid Islamic doctrine, while also recognizing that most Muslims are ignorant of those teachings or reject them. This is an accurate and honest view that makes the important distinction between Islam and Muslims.</p>

<p>Furthermore, this view makes sense of reality. There are many acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims who cite Islamic authoritative sources as justification for their actions. There are also many Muslims who denounce these violent acts and refuse to engage in violent jihad. To deny either that Islamic sources affirm violent jihad or that many Muslims don’t live consistently with those teachings is to deny reality.</p>

<p>As ambassadors for Jesus, however, we’re commanded to proclaim the message of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-20) to all Muslims, whether nominal or adhering to violent jihad doctrine. Though governments may distinguish between different kinds of Muslims, the Gospel does not. Every Muslim, indeed every person, is guilty of committing crimes against God and deserves to be punished. God, though, offers a pardon to every one of us. That’s the message we’re commanded to share with every Muslim we encounter.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-an-important-distinction-about-orlando-and-islam" 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-an-important-distinction-about-orlando-and-islam" 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-an-important-distinction-about-orlando-and-islam" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Ready for the Knock on Your Door
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Tim Barnett
date: 07/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/ready-for-the-knock-on-your-door
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Most of us have answered a knock on our door, only to discover a smiling, well-dressed couple—<em>Watchtower</em> publication in hand—standing on the other side, waiting to talk with us about the gospel according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.</p>

<p>I used to dread these encounters. In fact, while they were introducing themselves, I’d be frantically thinking up excuses to get them off of my porch and out of my life.</p>

<p>I came to realize, though, that I avoided these conversations because I was not equipped to engage the Witnesses in a thoughtful way. They seemed to know their stuff. I didn’t. They trained for hours prior to our conversation. I hadn’t trained at all. I only knew <em>what</em> I believed. I had no idea <em>why</em> I believed it.</p>

<p>For instance, I’d try to make the case that Jesus is God (a doctrine they reject), yet had few good reasons to offer them to support my belief. To make matters worse, they had quick responses to my points they could recite at will. As a result, I’d leave the discussion feeling bested by the couple at my door and unsure about my own convictions. Many Christians have had the same experience, maybe even you.</p>

<p>Those awkward encounters are a thing of the past, though, because I have since learned some things that tip the scales in my favor, and I want to pass those ideas on to you so you don’t have to run for cover the next time Jehovah’s Witnesses knock on your door.</p>

<p>I want to give you some tools to help you make the greatest impact possible in your conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses. To simplify the process, we’ll focus on a single issue, on one vital question: <em>Who is Jesus?</em></p>

<h2>Quote Their Bible, Not Yours</h2>

<p>To start with, I want you to make a strategic move that will save you a lot of trouble in your conversations. Answering the question, “Who is Jesus?,”&nbsp;involves using straightforward passages of Scripture to make our case. Even though the Jehovah’s Witness Bible, the New World Translation (NWT), is actually <em>mistranslated</em> in a number of places to support their doctrines, it can still be used by us to effectively make our points.</p>

<p>Have the Jehovah’s Witness open their NWT and read aloud the passages you suggest to them. There are three reasons why this strategy works so well.</p>

<p>First, by using the translation they trust, it completely sidesteps unhelpful disputes about what the Bible says. Second, your argument will have a greater impact since you’re using a translation they’re comfortable with. I know I’m skeptical when I read a work from a competing religious group. Jehovah’s Witnesses are no different. They’ll have their guards up if you cite your translation, but not if you use their NWT. Third, Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t likely take literature that you offer them, but they will always have their NWT with them. If you show them the real Jesus using their own book, then they’ll never be without the truth.</p>

<h2>Only One Question</h2>

<p>A host of issues can get you sidetracked with Jehovah’s Witnesses if you’re not careful—soul sleep, celebrating birthdays or Christmas, blood transfusions, Heaven, Hell, war, even the Holy Spirit. Don’t go there. None of these are the <em>most</em> important issue. The goal of your conversation is to answer only one question: <em>Who is Jesus?</em> How you answer this question changes everything.</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the archangel Michael was the very first being in the universe created by Jehovah-God. Michael was then used by God to create the rest of the universe. Later, at the appointed time, Michael was born to the virgin Mary as a human being, thus ceasing to be an angel. Then after His <em>spiritual</em> resurrection, Jesus resumes His identity as Michael. That is the Jehovah’s Witness answer to the question, “Who is Jesus?”&nbsp;Jesus, is the archangel Michael incarnate.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>By contrast, Christians hold that Jesus is the eternal, second Person of the Trinity. Jesus wasn’t <em>created by</em> Jehovah-God; He <em>is</em> Jehovah-God. Christianity stands or falls on its view of Christ. If we can demonstrate that Jesus <em>is</em> Jehovah, then the high tower of the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine comes crashing down.</p>

<p>The salvation of anyone, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, depends on an accurate understanding of and belief in God the Son. Jesus said, “I told you that you would die in your sins, for <em>unless you believe that I am He</em> you will die in your sins”&nbsp;(Jn. 8:24).<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Here Jesus is claiming to be the ��I AM”&nbsp;recorded in Isa. 43. The irony is that Isa. 43 is the chapter where Jehovah’s Witnesses derive their name. Isaiah writes, “You are my witnesses,”&nbsp;declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He”&nbsp;(Isa. 43:10).</p>

<p>Jehovah says His true witnesses will believe of Him that “<em>I am He</em>.”&nbsp;Yet, Jesus says true believers must believe of <em>Him</em> that “<em>I am He</em>.”&nbsp;In fact, this claim, coupled with Jn. 8:58 (“...before Abraham was, I am”), was the reason the Jews tried to stone Jesus (Jn. 8:59). His point was clear: Rejecting Jesus’&nbsp;deity is rejecting salvation itself. That’s why our question, “Who is Jesus?,”&nbsp;is the only question we should focus on.</p>

<h2>What’s in a Name?</h2>

<p>There are many convincing arguments for the deity of Christ in the Bible. You want to be as strategic as possible, though, when a Jehovah’s Witness is standing at your door. Our general goal is to get them thinking—to put a stone in their shoe, so to speak. We want them walking away pondering an important point we’ve made. That won’t work if we trot out standard verses for Christ’s deity like Jn. 1:1 and Jn. 20:28. Jehovah’s Witnesses have heard those verses countless times. They’ll be waiting for you with well-rehearsed responses. They’re trained to answer these challenges <em>without even thinking</em>.</p>

<p>We need a different strategy. I’m not saying to never use Jn. 1:1 or Jn. 20:28. They offer clear support for Jesus’&nbsp;deity and should be used. Just don’t start with them. Make your visitors think through some other passages first, verses they probably haven’t considered and haven’t been trained to respond to.</p>

<p>Our basic strategy is to demonstrate that Jesus is identified as Jehovah. If we can show that Jesus is Jehovah, then the Jehovah’s Witness belief system comes crashing down. So here’s the question: <em>Is Jesus ever identified with Jehovah?</em></p>

<p>The simple answer to this question is, yes. You may be thinking, “What is so special about Jesus being recognized as Jehovah? Well, this requires some background information. The proper name for God in the Hebrew Bible is <em>YHWH</em>. This divine name is called the <em>tetragrammaton</em>, which means “four-letters.”&nbsp;The <em>tetragrammaton</em> was so sacred to ancient Jews that the name was never written in full, or even spoken. In fact, Jews for centuries would substitute the divine name with the name <em>Adonai</em>. This led to confusion over exactly how the divine name should be pronounced.</p>

<p>Eventually, Jews began to place the vowels from Adonai (a-o-a) between the consonants YHWH. The result was Yahowah, or Jehovah. So the name Jehovah turns out to be a man-made construction, rather than a biblical term.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<h2>Jesus Is Jehovah</h2>

<p>With these preliminary issues out of the way, let’s dive into a persuasive argument showing Jesus is Jehovah. It involves two straightforward passages of Scripture, one from the New Testament, and one from the Old Testament. All you have to do is connect these passages together.</p>

<p>Ask your visitors to take out their NWT and turn to Ps. 102:25-27. The psalmist writes,</p>

<p>Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth,</p>

<p>And the heavens are the work of your hands.</p>

<p>They will perish, but you will remain.</p>

<p>Just like a garment they will all wear out.</p>

<p>Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away.</p>

<p>But you are the same, and your years will never end. (NWT)</p>

<p>There are two key questions you need to ask about this passage. First, <em>who</em> is this text about, that is, who does the “you”&nbsp;in the passage refer to? Make sure you get a clear answer. If they are paying attention to the context, they’ll recognize that this text is about Jehovah. The first verse of the Psalm declares, “O Jehovah, hear my prayer. Let my cry for help reach you...”&nbsp;This entire Psalm is actually a short prayer to Jehovah. Indeed, David uses Jehovah’s name seven times in the Psalm. Clearly, the <em>who</em> in the passage is Jehovah.</p>

<p>Second, <em>how</em> is Jehovah described in this text? We are told Jehovah created the heavens and the earth (v. 25), that He does not change—Jehovah is immutable (v. 26-27)—and that Jehovah is eternal (v. 27). He is, therefore, the unique, eternal, changeless, creator God.</p>

<p>Once you have agreement on these points (which should not be at all controversial for the Jehovah’s Witness), kindly ask your guests to turn in their NWT to Heb. 1:10-12. Before you jump right in, though, it’s important to first establish the context. Apologist Ron Rhodes writes:</p>

<p>You might want to point out that the whole focus of Hebrews 1-3 is to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus Christ—including His superiority over the prophets (1:1-4), the angels (1:5-2:18), and Moses (3:1-6). How is this superiority demonstrated? Christ is shown to be God’s ultimate revelation (1:1); He is affirmed as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe (1:2-3); and He is said to have the very nature of God (1:3).<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>In verse 5, we read, “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ’You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?”&nbsp;The obvious answer to this hypothetical question is that God never said that to <em>any</em> angel. Rather, in Mark 1:11, God says to <em>Jesus</em>, “You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.”&nbsp;This rules out the false doctrine taught by the Watchtower that Jesus is the archangel Michael. Heb. 1 has more to say, though, in v. 6-8:</p>

<p>But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”&nbsp;Also, he says about the angels: “He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.”&nbsp;<em>But about the Son</em>, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.”&nbsp;(NWT)</p>

<p>Clearly, these verses are speaking about the Son. It’s tempting at this juncture to point out that with other translations in verse 8 the Father says to the Son, “Your throne, <em>O God”</em>&nbsp;(ESV), instead of the NWT’s, “God is your throne.”&nbsp;Also, in verse 6 every modern translation says the angels <em>worship</em> the Son. The NWT translates that word <em>obeisance</em> to preserve their anti-Trinitarian doctrine.</p>

<p>Never mind. Let that all go for now. Instead, look closely at the beginning of verse 8, “But about the Son, He says...”&nbsp;So, God is talking about the Son in verses 8 and 9. Now, <em>still talking about the Son</em>, the author continues in Heb. 1:10-12:</p>

<p>And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end,”&nbsp;(NWT)</p>

<p>Do you recognize these words? They are taken directly from Ps. 102:25-27. Remember that our Jehovah’s Witness friend has <em>already agreed</em> that the description in the Psalm is of the eternal, changeless, creator Jehovah. The “you”&nbsp;in the Psalm is God. Yet, the author of Hebrews, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, clearly attributes <em>these same attributes</em> to the Son. The “you”&nbsp;in Heb. 1:10-12 is Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is being identified with Jehovah. So, is Ps. 102:25-27 about Jesus, or is it about Jehovah? The answer is, yes, because Jesus <em>is</em> Jehovah.</p>

<h2>Responding to Rejoinders</h2>

<p>I’ve used this argument on Jehovah’s Witnesses and have yet to receive a <em>reasonable</em> response. In many instances, my guests had no answer to the argument at all. Of course, that doesn’t mean they had nothing to say. There are three basic responses you will likely hear after presenting this argument: a dodge, a downplay, or a distortion.</p>

<p>The first and most common response is to <em>dodge</em> the argument by citing other passages they think teach that Jesus is the first created being. It may be helpful at this point to narrate the discussion. Graciously point out that they have not adequately responded to your specific argument. You might want to say something like this:</p>

<p>I’d love to talk about the interpretation of some of these <em>other passages</em> with you, but before we move forward, I want to get your thoughts on the argument I’ve already presented. If you don’t have a response or need some time to think about it, I’m fine with that. But as it stands right now it looks like the author of Hebrews provides a powerful argument for Jesus being identified as Jehovah.</p>

<p>If your guests need more time, then give it to them. Don’t be a unpleasant and act like you’ve got them in a corner. Our aim is to get them thinking. We’re putting a stone in their shoe. When they agree to think about it, you’ve accomplished your goal. This might be a good time to schedule another visit so you can follow up on this argument.</p>

<p>The second response I’ve encountered is to <em>downplay</em> the attributes in Heb. 1 to fit the description of a created creature. But this simply will not work because the <em>same attributes</em> in this passage are used to describe Jehovah. Are we to believe that the infinite God of the universe is being described in the same terms as a mere creature? Ps. 102 is not the description of a created, finite, changing creature; rather, it is a description of the eternal, unchanging Creator. The only honest way to make sense of these two passages is to affirm that Jesus and Jehovah are the same.</p>

<p>Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the archangel Michael changed from an angel into a human named Jesus. Then, after Jesus’&nbsp;death and resurrection, he changed back to Michael again. This is a <em>substantial</em> alteration of one’s being, to say the least. This certainly is not the immutable Being described in Ps. 102 or Heb. 1. The Christian view is not vulnerable to this charge, since we teach that the Second Person of the Godhead <em>added</em> a human nature without altering His immutable divine nature.</p>

<p>Third, sometimes a Jehovah’s Witness will resort to <em>distorting</em> the argument. I’ve had a few take me back to Hebrews 1:8-9.</p>

<p>But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”&nbsp;(ESV)</p>

<p>The Jehovah’s Witness might point out that this quote from Psalm 45:6-7 is about Solomon. The author of Hebrews takes a passage about Solomon and applies it to Jesus. Does this prove, then, they ask, that Jesus is Solomon? If not, then the application of Psalm 102 to Jesus does not prove He is Jehovah.</p>

<p>This response, though, <em>distorts</em> our argument. Psalm 45 shows that, since Solomon was a <em>type</em> of Christ, then some things true of Solomon will also be true of Christ. Ps. 102 also teaches that some things true of Jehovah are likewise true of Christ. But that is not because Jehovah is a type of Christ. It is because Jehovah <em>is</em> Christ, evidenced by the unique, divine characteristics they both share—eternality, immutability, etc. <em>That’s</em> the point being distorted.</p>

<p>The approach I’ve outlined for you can have a powerful impact on your guests.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> Don’t be surprised, though, if they don’t convert right there on your doorstep. These things take time. Plus, it’s not our job to convict or to convert, but to speak with grace and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. Only God can lift the Watchtower’s veil of darkness that obscures the truth from Jehovah’s Witnesses. Your job is to communicate the truth as clearly and persuasively as possible, then let God use His truth to set people free.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Ron Rhodes, <em>Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witness ­</em>(Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2009), 173-174.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">All Bible passages are taken from the ESV unless otherwise stated<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Ron Rhodes, 50-51.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Ibid., 178.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">This same approach can be used with a number of passages from the Old testament referring to Jehovah that are applied in the New Testament to Jesus. For example: Gen. 1:1, Is. 45:18 vs. Jn. 1:1-3; Is. 45:23 vs. Phil. 2:9-11; Is. 45:21 vs. Acts 4:10-12, Jn 4:14; Is. 44:6 vs. Rev. 1:17; and many others like this.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fready-for-the-knock-on-your-door" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fready-for-the-knock-on-your-door" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fready-for-the-knock-on-your-door" 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: Should Christians Pull Their Kids out of Public Education?
topic: Christian Living
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 05/13/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/should-christians-pull-their-kids-out-of-public-education-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I recently answered the question “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw0aUTzfUqg" target="_blank">Should Christians keep children in public schools to be ’salt and light?’”</a>&nbsp;for our weekly video blog. This, and the larger question of whether Christians should allow their kids to be publicly educated, period, are questions I have been wrestling with for some time. I tread carefully with this question because I know many good Christian parents who enroll their kids in the local public school, and I also know many good Christians who are public school administrators and teachers. And I certainly don’t want to offer simplistic answers that minimize the gravity and implications for my brothers and sisters in Christ. I also know that school districts within the same states and even the same local region can vary widely in terms of their quality, culture, and commitments, so I don’t want to paint with too broad of a brush and be dismissive of the entire enterprise without taking these things into account. But, given the current cultural context, I think this is a question every Christian parent must seriously grapple with and do so year-in and year-out.</p>

<p>Let me offer a question to my Christian friends whose kids are being publicly educated, or who are working in public education, that should help guide this conversation: What is your tipping point? In other words, can public education and all that it involves disintegrate to a level where you would say “enough is enough”&nbsp;and pull your kids out? Of course, I would hope your simple answer is yes. But beyond that, you must begin to outline some specific criteria. You must make explicit the tipping point in your own mind so that you can effectively evaluate whether your local public school has reached that point. Andrew Walker summarizes this well in his article <a href="http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/how-the-federal-government-is-transforming-public-education" target="_blank">“How the Federal Government is Transforming Public Education”</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Christian parents need to establish a tipping point.</strong> This may be the most important response to consider. What actions taken by your local school will be sufficient for you to re-evaluate public education? Is having a teacher reprimand your child for his or her belief about marriage, sex, and gender acceptable? Will you allow them to be in schools where bathroom policies are based on gender identity rather than biological sex? Not establishing a tipping point could leave your child over-exposed to environments they shouldn’t be in. Not thinking about a tipping point is irresponsible and will communicate carelessness about a child’s education and Christian formation. This is not a call to exit the public schools; it is a call to vigilance. It is advisable that spouses have a candid conversation and establish a line in the sand.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, what’s your tipping point? Christian parents, I’m pleading with you to consider this question carefully and, indeed, to even write out specific criteria that will guide you into the future. The challenges are coming at breakneck speed. For example, entire school districts are <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/texas-schools-go-trans/" target="_blank">adopting pro-transgender policies</a> and will use coercion to enforce them. Therefore, you and I <em>cannot</em> simply float along with the cultural currents, as the church has for the last century, without reaping serious consequences, which we certainly are now. As one possible example, <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/christian-principal-goes-into-exile-public-education/" target="_blank">here is a Christian principal</a> who has reached a tipping point in his role as administrator.</p>

<p>I know this opens up a huge conversation, and there are significant practical consequences for individuals and families to face (e.g. leaving a job as a public school teacher or moving from a two-family income household to one in order to homeschool). And of course, the way in which we are most effectively salt and light in the culture must be carefully reflected upon too. But before you consider those things, maybe first we need to spend some time rethinking our views about education itself. Is there a Christian view of education and if so, what it is? What does Scripture say? And given these things, what does wisdom demand from us in this day and age? Biblical thinking about education and our role in it will help clarify what our tipping point(s) should be.</p>

<p>Here are a few resources to get you thinking about a Christian view of education:</p>

<h2>BOOKS</h2>

<ul>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Childrens-Sake-Foundations-Education-School/dp/1433506955/" target="_blank">For the Children’s Sake: Foundations of Education for Home and School</a> by Susan Schaeffer Macaulay</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Education-Human-Flourishing-Perspective-Integration/dp/0830828125" target="_blank">Education for Human Flourishing</a> by Paul Spears and Steven Loomis</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Word-Rethinking-Foundations-Education/dp/1621380041" target="_blank">Beauty in the Word: Rethinking the Foundations of Education</a> by Stratford Caldecott</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Norms-Nobility-Education-David-Hicks/dp/0761814671/" target="_blank">Norms and Nobility: A Treatise on Education</a> by David Hicks</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Abolition-Man-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652942/" target="_blank">The Abolition of Man</a> by C.S. Lewis</li>
</ul>

<h2>ARTICLES</h2>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160518000349/http://www.breakpoint.org/the-center/columns/indepth/18883-the-role-of-education-1" target="_blank">The Role of Education - Part 1</a> by Glenn Sunshine</li>
	<li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160518000402/http://www.breakpoint.org/the-center/columns/indepth/18959-the-role-of-education-2" target="_blank">The Role of Education - Part 2</a> by Glenn Sunshine</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-1-number-4/myth-value-free-education" target="_blank">The Myth of a Value-Free Education</a> by Ronald Nash</li>
	<li><a href="http://www.worldmag.com/2014/09/why_christian_education" target="_blank">Why Christian Education</a> by Jim Drexler</li>
</ul>

<p>Take a first step. Now. Read an article. Discuss the question of a tipping point with your spouse, trusted family member, friend, or mentor. Purchase one of the books above. Take action immediately. The Body of Christ is responsible for raising up the next generation of Christian ambassadors, so doing nothing is not an option.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-christians-pull-their-kids-out-of-public-education-" 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%2Fshould-christians-pull-their-kids-out-of-public-education-" 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%2Fshould-christians-pull-their-kids-out-of-public-education-" 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: Questions about Transgender Theories to Consider
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Melinda Penner
date: 05/04/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/questions-about-transgender-theories-to-consider
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/doubting-your-common-sense-may-4-2016#.VypjB6MrLGI" target="_blank">today’s podcast</a>, Greg talks about an <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/23/bathroom-wars-humiliate-normal-majority/" target="_blank">article</a> discussing how people who object to radical changes in our society, like transgender bathrooms, are being bullied to abandon their reasonable sensibilities and objections. <a href="https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2016/05/03/7-questions-transgender-theories/" target="_blank">Tevin Wax has some good questions</a> about this radical new theory of sexuality. If you’re challenged about your views, it might be helpful to have some of these fair questions in mind to try to engage in a respectful and useful discussion about these highly charged issues. The questions also constitute some very good reasons why we shouldn’t accept the new theory on human sexuality.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fquestions-about-transgender-theories-to-consider" 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%2Fquestions-about-transgender-theories-to-consider" 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%2Fquestions-about-transgender-theories-to-consider" 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 the Bible Full of Contradictions?
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/11/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-the-bible-full-of-contradictions-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“The Bible is full of contradictions!”&nbsp;We hear it all the time from skeptics and atheists as if it’s common knowledge. But is it true?</p>

<p>I’ve devoted the last few months to answering this question. What I have discovered is that many <em>alleged</em> contradictions arise because an unfair standard, or false expectation, is applied to the Bible. Most modern readers just <em>assume</em> that the biblical authors wrote like we do today in the twenty-first century. Consequently, they end up applying a twenty-first century standard to an ancient document. This is a gross mistake. In fact, most claims of Bible contradictions stem <em>from the reader misunderstanding, and even misrepresenting, the author’s intent</em>. The alleged contradictions stem from the reader, not the author.</p>

<p>Some of these <em>false</em> expectations include:</p>

<ol>
	<li>Selection (or omission) of certain facts <em>is</em> a denial of other facts.</li>
	<li>If something is accurate, then it must also be precise.</li>
	<li>Ordering of events must <em>always</em> be chronological.</li>
	<li>Time compressing events of a story is errant.</li>
	<li>Mysteries in the Bible are irreconcilable.</li>
</ol>

<p>For each false expectation, I offer a corresponding <em>helpful principle</em> that will allow you to properly understand that author’s intent in light of the context and literary genre. My hope is that these principles will help you as you read and study God’s Word.</p>

<p>You can watch the entire presentation here:</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="YQgR3BrBhss" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YQgR3BrBhss?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-the-bible-full-of-contradictions-" 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-the-bible-full-of-contradictions-" 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-the-bible-full-of-contradictions-" 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: Does Ezekiel’s Vision of a Temple Contradict Christianity?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/04/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-ezekiel-s-vision-of-a-temple-contradict-christianity-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/doubting-your-common-sense-may-4-2016#.VyoogqMrLGI" target="_blank">today’s podcast</a>, Greg received a question about the detailed vision of a temple at the end of Ezekiel (chapters 40-48)—specifically, about the section on offerings introduced by verse 45:22: “On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a bull for a sin offering.”</p>

<p>If this is a reference to the Messiah at the end of the age, then clearly this is a problem for Christianity because Jesus, “having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God”&nbsp;(Hebrews 10:12). He won’t be offering any sacrifices in a future temple.</p>

<p>This is something I’ve looked into in the past, and interpretations of the chapters describing Ezekiel’s vision vary. Here’s a brief summary of a few different positions from the ESV Study Bible:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>With regard to the meaning of this passage as a whole:</p>

<p>(1) Some interpreters understand this vision as a prophecy that will be fulfilled literally, with a rebuilt temple and Israel dwelling in the land according to its tribes—a future millennial kingdom on the earth...Many who hold this position believe that literal animal sacrifices will be offered, but that in the future millennial kingdom they will function as reminders of the complete and sufficient death of Christ, a function different from what they had in the OT.</p>

<p>(2) Other interpreters see this vision of a new temple and a renewal of the land of Israel as an extended, detailed metaphor predicting the presence of God among his people in the new covenant age (that is, his presence in the church).</p>

<p>(3) Another view is that the vision predicts God’s presence among his people in the new heavens and new earth (cf. <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/Isaiah+66.17/" target="_blank">Isa. 66:17</a>; <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/2+Peter+3.13/" target="_blank">2 Pet. 3:13</a>; <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/Revelation+21.1/" target="_blank">Rev. 21:1</a>), not as physical details that will be literally fulfilled but as symbolic indications of the great blessings of that future age. In this interpretation, the details about worship and sacrifices are symbols of the centrality of worship of God: the temple represents the orderliness and beauty of God’s heavenly dwelling place; the priests and their sacrifices represent the service and worship of all God’s people; the division of the land represents the allocation of places to live for all God’s people; and the river represents the outward flow of God’s blessings to his people forever.</p>

<p>(4) Finally, it is possible that there are both literal and symbolic elements in this vision, and that, as with the visions in <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/Ezekiel+1/" target="_blank">Ezekiel 1</a>, this vision describes future realities that cannot be fully expressed in terms of Ezekiel’s present realities. Almost all interpreters agree that <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/Ezekiel+40-48/" target="_blank">Ezekiel 40-48</a> is one of the most difficult passages in the entire Bible.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s also possible the answer is simply this: Ezekiel’s vision conveys <em>instructions</em>, not predictions. There’s a <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel+39%3A29-40%3A2&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">clear break</a> at the beginning of the vision in chapter 40 from the prophecy in chapter 39, and from this point forward, the chapters read like commands (“You shall do this,”&nbsp;“These are the statutes,”&nbsp;etc.), with warnings for the people to repent and follow these commands (e.g., <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eze+45%3A9&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">45:9</a>), rather than descriptions of the future. Though the instructions for the building and running of a temple are given in a vision, the genre of the passage is more like the tabernacle instructions in Exodus than it is like the prophecy in the previous chapter. There’s no unconditional announcement in chapters 40-48 that this is what <em>will</em> take place. In fact, there’s a conditional element introduced in 43:9-11:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now let them put away their harlotry and the corpses of their harlotry and the corpses of their kings far from Me; and I will dwell among them forever.</p>

<p>As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan. If they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the house, its structure, its exits, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws. And write it in their sight, so that they may observe its whole design and all its statutes and do them.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>“<em>If they are ashamed</em>...let them...”&nbsp;“Now let them...<em>and I will</em>...”&nbsp;“Write it...<em>so that they may observe</em> its whole design.”&nbsp;In other words, these last few chapters are <em>instructions</em> God was calling the people to follow, conditional instructions with conditional results. They did not repent and follow them, and so the temple was <em>not</em> built and God did <em>not</em> dwell among them in this way. Instead, Christ came with His unconditional salvation, and the Lord filled His new temple (His people) with His Spirit in a way that far surpassed the way in which Israel failed.</p>

<p>They failed because, as fallen human beings, we’re not morally capable of the kind of obedience required to deserve the dwelling of God among us. This is what God taught all humankind through Israel’s history. We needed to understand that even when given perfect knowledge of all of God’s commands, we <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+3%3A21-22&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">could never save ourselves</a> through the Law because the problem lies in <em>us</em>. His Law <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+8%3A1-3&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">doesn’t have the power</a> to change our morally broken souls, and no merely human prince could <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+10%3A1-10&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">perfect us with his sacrifices</a>. We have an undeniable, absolute need for God’s merciful, undeserved redemption and regeneration. The purpose of Israel and all its history was to prepare the world for Jesus and the Gospel.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (Galatians 3:21-22)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>For now, in terms of Israel, we remain in Romans 11:25-32:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[A] partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in...For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And how beautiful that mercy will be!</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now if [Israel’s] transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!...For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (Romans 11:15)</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%2Fdoes-ezekiel-s-vision-of-a-temple-contradict-christianity-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-ezekiel-s-vision-of-a-temple-contradict-christianity-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-ezekiel-s-vision-of-a-temple-contradict-christianity-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Has Science Buried God?
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/18/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/has-science-buried-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As I travel around speaking, the vast majority of the questions I get have to do with the intersection of science and faith. Has science made miracles impossible? Is there any scientific proof for God? Is faith in God a blind leap in the dark? What about evolution? How old is the earth?</p>

<p>Some people see no compatibility between science and faith. For example, last September, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote an article in <em>The New Yorker</em> titled <em><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists" target="_blank">“All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists.”</a></em>&nbsp;In the article, Krauss writes, “This commitment to open questioning is deeply tied to the fact that science is an atheistic enterprise.”&nbsp;He goes on to say, “It’s ironic, really, that so many people are fixated on the relationship between science and religion: basically, there isn’t one...It’s inevitable that it [science] draws people away from religion.”</p>

<p>It is no surprise that many people view science as a <em>gosptacle</em>. They don’t think you can believe in science and rationally believe in God. In part two of my <em>Answering Gosptacles</em> series, I take this challenge head-on. I demonstrate how a biblical understanding of faith is compatible with science. In fact, there are a number of places where modern scientific evidence points towards a Creator and Designer of the universe. Therefore, science should strengthen your faith rather than destroy it.</p>

<p>You can watch the entire presentation here.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="/Mc1Z-eLCR6Q" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//Mc1Z-eLCR6Q?rel=0"></iframe></div>

<p>If you missed part one of my <em>Answering Gosptacles</em> series, then click <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/05/is-the-bible-full-of-contradicitons.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>

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


title: The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 05/21/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-new-apostolic-reformation-nar-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The May issue of <em>Christianity Today</em> features a <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiqoZ7N2uTMAhVCzIMKHfoeCNQQFggdMAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianitytoday.com%2Fct%2F2016%2Fmay%2Fcover-story-inside-popular-controversial-bethel-church.html&amp;usg=AFQjCNGIjlEuvBJcwuXYKtuS6OYhl0RXgA&amp;sig2=5wlt6_Qu2_DD4DoGNAMWiw" target="_blank">cover story on Bethel Church</a> in Redding, CA. Their pastor, Bill Johnson, was asked about his association with the New Apostolic Reformation. This is a movement full of theological error. Its primary doctrine is that the office of apostle is active today, that God gives special revelation to these apostles, and that the church’s effectiveness in the world is dependent on following them.</p>

<p>Greg <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/doug-geivett-the-new-apostolic-reformation-february-24-2015" target="_blank">interviewed Doug Geivett</a> on the topic. Doug and Holly Pivec co-authored a <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1683591720?pf_rd_p=183f5289-9dc0-416f-942e-e8f213ef368b&amp;pf_rd_r=2VGNTCTD05B6EG5JR1R1" target="_blank">book</a> on the topic. And Holly keeps up-to-date on a <a href="http://www.spiritoferror.org" target="_blank">blog devoted to the topic</a>.</p>

<p>It’s a growing movement, and you’ll probably come across it sooner or later.</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-new-apostolic-reformation-nar-" 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-new-apostolic-reformation-nar-" 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-new-apostolic-reformation-nar-" 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 Plan for Teaching Apologetics to Your Children
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/15/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-plan-for-teaching-apologetics-to-your-children
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In&nbsp;<a href="http://www.str.org/publications/a-practical-plan-to-equip-the-next-generation-solid-ground-may-2016#.VzPSaBUrKL8" target="_blank">this month’s&nbsp;<em>Solid Ground</em></a>, “A Practical Plan to Equip the Next Generation,” Brett builds his plan on an ancient educational model:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>As our oldest daughter approached the junior-high years, my wife and I began to rethink our views on educating and discipling our kids. We were dissatisfied with things we were seeing in her life, not only academically, but also spiritually and morally. In that process of reevaluation, we discovered an ancient approach to education called “classical education,” stretching back to the Classical Greeks and Romans and formalized in the Middle Ages. Educator Susan Wise Bauer offers a concise description of this approach:</p>

<p>Classical education depends on a three-part process of training the mind. The early years of school are spent in absorbing facts, systematically laying the foundations for advanced study [Grammar Stage]. In the middle grades, students learn to think through arguments [Logic Stage]. In the high school years, they learn to express themselves [Rhetoric Stage].</p>

<p>While not an exhaustive definition, it gets us started and highlights the three-stage pattern of classical education called the&nbsp;<em>trivium</em>….</p>

<p>The medievals believed this&nbsp;<em>trivium</em>&nbsp;pattern corresponded to the universal human experience of learning. It accurately captures the manner in which young minds are best trained. Thus, we should take this ancient approach to education and breathe into it new life for our modern context. Indeed, the trivium provides us with a three-stage approach to discipling the next generation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Brett goes on to apply the trivium approach to apologetics instruction, outlining a plan for you to use this strategy to train your children in the truth.</p>

<p>The article was originally published as a chapter in&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/New-Kind-Apologist-Strategies-Addressing/dp/0736966056/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1463013237&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=a+new+kind+of+apologist" target="_blank">A New Kind of Apologist</a></em>, a collection of essays addressing current apologetics topics and strategies for reaching our culture (Alan also has a chapter); so after you finish reading the article, make sure you check out the rest of the book.</p>

<p><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/05/a-plan-for-teaching-apologetics-to-your-children.html" target="_blank">COMMENTS</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/explore#&amp;format=BlogPost">Read more posts</a></p>
</div>

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


title: We’re Meant to Represent Our King in This Foreign Land
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 05/10/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/we-re-meant-to-represent-our-king-in-this-foreign-land
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Bible says that Christians are <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+5%3A17-21&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">ambassadors for Christ</a>. At STR, we’ve highlighted three skills an ambassador needs to develop to be effective representing our King: <a href="http://www.str.org/about/ambassadors-creed" target="_blank">knowledge, wisdom, and character</a>. I’ve been reminded recently that essential to being an ambassador is being a representative in a foreign country. For most of us in Western culture, our culture hasn’t been all that foreign to us. But it’s becoming increasingly foreign territory populated by people who speak a different language and have very different values. But that’s <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/08/living-as-expatriates.html" target="_blank">where ambassadors belong</a>. This foreign land is precisely where ambassadors are meant to be representing our Sovereign.</p>
</div>

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


title: Why #GiveElsaAGirlfriend Shouldn’t Surprise Anyone
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/07/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-giveelsaagirlfriend-shouldn-t-surprise-anyone
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been asked to respond to the <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/giveelsaagirlfriend-turning-frozen-princess-weak-compromise-lgbt-fans-455192" target="_blank">recent campaign</a> to get Disney to make Elsa the first lesbian princess. Disney is currently working on <em>Frozen 2</em>, which is sure to be another box office hit. In fact, the first <em>Frozen</em> film grossed more than a billion dollars worldwide, making it the biggest animated box office success in cinema history.</p>

<p>Some LGBT activists and <em>Frozen</em> fans have created the viral hashtag #GiveElsaAGirlfriend to urge the sequel’s writers to make Elsa Disney’s first lesbian queen. They believe that Disney is long overdue to have a lesbian represented in their films.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Dear <a href="https://twitter.com/Disney" target="_blank">@Disney</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GiveElsaAGirlfriend?src=hash" target="_blank">#GiveElsaAGirlfriend</a></p>
- Alexis Isabel (@lexi4prez) <a href="https://twitter.com/lexi4prez/status/726603926221541376" target="_blank">May 1, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script type="text/javascript" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GiveElsaAGirlfriend?src=hash" target="_blank">#GiveElsaAGirlfriend</a> normalising a f/f relationship will help queer young kids accept &amp; understand their sexuality, that rep is so important</p>
- tammy (@octaviabIake) <a href="https://twitter.com/octaviabIake/status/726624511915753472" target="_blank">May 1, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script type="text/javascript" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>

<p>Some people, including many Christians, were surprised at the news. I, for one, found <em>their surprise</em> a little surprising. In fact, anyone shocked by this news hasn’t been paying attention to what’s going on in the culture.</p>

<p>Let me give you <em>three</em> reasons why we shouldn’t be surprised by this attempt to turn Elsa into a lesbian.</p>

<p><em>First</em>, Hollywood has had openly gay characters in movies and TV for years (shows like Will and Grace and Modern Family come to mind). Granted, it hasn’t been as prevalent in movies, but it’s hard to find a show on TV today that doesn’t have a gay character. It was only a matter of time before this kind of thing made its way to movies and TV shows <em>for kids</em>. From a worldly mindset, this is a natural progression. Whether or not Disney makes Elsa a lesbian character remains to be seen, but make no mistake, the day will come. Some LGBT groups will not rest until their ideology is propagated in every area of education and media. If Jesus doesn’t come back first, it <em>will</em> come.</p>

<p><em>Second</em>, one of the schemes of the devil is to suppress the guilt we feel from sin by normalizing it. If everybody’s doing it, or everyone agrees with it, then this helps <em>suppress</em> feelings of guilt and shame. If Satan can get us to invite sin into our homes through entertainment so that we can laugh at it and cheer for it, then it’s a win for him. When we invite sin into our <em>homes</em>, we are inviting it into our <em>hearts</em>.</p>

<p>It has long been the known that the LGBT agenda is to <em>normalize</em> homosexual behavior. That’s not a secret. If they can normalize it, then it will invariably become an accepted <em>moral</em> norm. As a result, people who think homosexual behavior is wrong become the <em>immoral</em> ones. This leads to my last point.</p>

<p><em>Third</em>, this strategy is consistent with a culture that is thoroughly <em>relativistic</em>. If one believes <em>cultural relativism</em> is true - that the culture decides what is right and wrong - and wants to change the culture’s moral opinion, then to make something “moral,”&nbsp;you must get the culture to agree with you. Many LGBT activists know this. In fact, they have devoted considerable effort to changing moral opinion through changing laws, modifying education curriculum, and influencing media. People who resist their agenda are ridiculed and called names like homophobe, bigot, and intolerant.</p>

<p>The world is going to do what the world is going to do. It’s our job as Christians to remain faithful to Christ and our moral convictions. As with any kids movie, Christian parents are going to have to make a judgment call on what is appropriate for their children.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-giveelsaagirlfriend-shouldn-t-surprise-anyone" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-giveelsaagirlfriend-shouldn-t-surprise-anyone" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-giveelsaagirlfriend-shouldn-t-surprise-anyone" 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: Does Having Homosexual Friends Mean You’re Unequally Yoked?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/27/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-having-homosexual-friends-mean-you-re-unequally-yoked-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I had the privilege—and was humbled by the opportunity—to preach to a congregation of 3,000 believers at Calvary Chapel Chino Valley this past Sunday morning on “Homosexuality: Truth and Compassion.”&nbsp;One of the points I made during my message was that Scripture doesn’t teach that we have to cut ties with family, friends, and co-workers who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). In fact, I argued, we should make our relationships with them a high priority.</p>

<p>Notice, I didn’t say we should make them the “highest”&nbsp;priority. Our relationship with God comes first, followed by our relationships with our spouse and/or children if we have them. My point, though, was that relationships are the bridge by which we can show love, share truth, or explain the Gospel to those who identify as LGBT. We should do what we can to nurture them.</p>

<p>Someone asked me after my sermon how my point applies in light of Paul’s warning in 2 Corinthians 6:14 to “not be yoked together with unbelievers.”&nbsp;She wanted to know if there are instances where we don’t want our relationship with those who identify as LGBT to be too close. I thought that was a great question.</p>

<p>In the passage, Paul paints a picture of two oxen that are yoked together with a wooden harness to enable them to pull a load together. If one ox steers to the right, though, it can pull the other ox in the same direction. Paul warns believers not to be bound—yoked—with unbelievers because of the possibility they might be pulled in an unbiblical direction.</p>

<p>My colleague Greg Koukl <a href="/w/is-friendship-with-unbelievers-being-unequally-yoked-" target="_blank">gives a few examples</a> of such relationships: “I think certainly marriage would be an example of that. Certain types of business deals and partnerships would be examples of that. Wherever you’re in a circumstance where you’re tied together so much that their way of life, their values, and their worldview will function to pull you off the straight and narrow either in your beliefs, convictions, or in your behaviors.”</p>

<p>It’s also important to remember that Paul gives us freedom to maintain a type of relationship with unbelievers, to “associate”&nbsp;with them (1 Corinthians 5:9-11). His concern, though, is that we don’t become yoked with them.</p>

<p>The question is, could a close relationship with a friend, family member, or co-worker who identifies as LGBT qualify as being unequally yoked? Yes. Would every relationship qualify? No.</p>

<p>You have to determine if your relationship is one where you are yoked—strongly connected—together with them. One question you can ask yourself is, <em>Am I moving towards the other person’s position, views, or behaviors?</em> If you don’t find yourself pulled towards values and behaviors, then it’s possible you’re not yoked with them and your relationship isn’t a problem. If you find yourself changing to be more like them (not necessarily in acting out homosexual behavior, but in adopting their values, beliefs, and convictions), then being yoked with them is a problem. You should probably back off or build some healthy boundaries.</p>

<p>This, though, is not a special rule only for your relationships with those who identify as LGBT. This applies to <em>any</em> relationship, including those with heterosexuals. As Greg suggests, even a relationship with a business partner could be a problem. If their unbiblical practices are steering you away from conducting your business ethically, you should reconsider your partnership.</p>

<p>Determining which relationships are a problem might be clear in some cases but not in others. When it’s not clear, I would ask for input from those who know you well and can give you an objective assessment of your relationships. Also, pray and ask God for wisdom (James 1:5), and seek counsel from trusted friends (Proverbs 12:15, 15:22) or wise leaders in the church.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-having-homosexual-friends-mean-you-re-unequally-yoked-" 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%2Fdoes-having-homosexual-friends-mean-you-re-unequally-yoked-" 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%2Fdoes-having-homosexual-friends-mean-you-re-unequally-yoked-" 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: God Will Not Call You into Something He Has Already Called You Out Of
topic: Christian Living
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 05/10/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-will-not-call-you-into-something-he-has-already-called-you-out-of
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“How do I share Christ with someone who is an agnostic?”&nbsp;a college student asked after a talk I gave last month at a church in Oklahoma. Then she added, “My boyfriend is agnostic, but I feel like God has called me into this relationship.”&nbsp;Uh-oh. It’s decision time. I just met this girl a few minutes ago, yet she is my sister in Christ. Do I simply answer her first question about evangelism and ignore her later statement about being “called”&nbsp;to date a non-Christian?</p>

<p>I always tell students that loving people well means telling them the truth, even if it upsets them. A Mormon won’t be too happy when you share with them that they worship a different Jesus, but you still speak the truth. Truth-telling is an important way to love people. The Apostle John instructs, “Let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth”&nbsp;(1 John 3:18).</p>

<p>I couldn’t let this go. This young Christian college student has admitted to dating an unbeliever and needs to be lovingly challenged. However, I know this might cost me. She really seemed to enjoy the talk I just gave, but if I confront her, it will put a damper on her enthusiasm and even sour her entire experience with me. As I worked up the courage to speak, I was reminded of Francis Schaeffer’s words: “Truth carries with it confrontation. Truth demands confrontation; loving confrontation, but confrontation nevertheless.”</p>

<p>So I started with a question. “What do you mean ’God has called you into this relationship?’”&nbsp;She explained their friendship started with her sincere attempts to share Christ with him before there was any romantic interest. Over time, their friendship moved into dating, and she felt that she had God’s endorsement. Then she revealed that they were planning to get married.</p>

<p>“You’re not going to like what I have to say,”&nbsp;I cautioned, “but I want you to know that I say this in love to you as my sister in Christ.”&nbsp;She nodded in acknowledgment. “I don’t think God has called you into this relationship. In fact, I think He has clearly called you out of it.”&nbsp;In 1 Corinthians 7:39, Paul says that a widow “is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.”&nbsp;Paul is clear, a believer is to marry another believer.</p>

<p>Why this prohibition? I took her to 2 Corinthians 6:14-15, where Paul writes, <b>“</b>Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?”&nbsp;Here Paul explains the why. We are not to “yoke”&nbsp;ourselves together with unbelievers in spiritual pursuits, like marriage. Such close associations—“fellowship”&nbsp;with unbelievers—can easily compromise one’s faith in Christ.</p>

<p>She persisted in her claim about God’s calling, so I asked her what she would think if I told her God had called me to sleep with a woman I found attractive who wasn’t my wife. “Well, that’s an extreme example, and I don’t think my situation is similar,”&nbsp;she responded, conscious of where I was heading with this illustration.</p>

<p>“Certainly I think that adultery is more grievous than dating a non-Christian, but the same principle applies in both situations. So hear me out. Do you think God would call me into an adulterous relationship with another woman?”</p>

<p>“Of course not,”&nbsp;she responded.</p>

<p>“Right, because He has already laid out His will on this issue in the Bible. No matter how sincerely I believe God has called me to sleep with a woman who is not my wife, you would <em>not</em> buy it because you know God is not going to contradict His own Word. In the same way, God has already spoken on the issue of entering into close intimate relationships with unbelievers. No matter how sincerely you believe God has called you to date and marry your unbelieving boyfriend, it cannot be the case that He has because God is not going to contradict His own Word.”</p>

<p>I offered her a closing challenge. “If you want to glorify God in this situation, why don’t you break up with this guy and live in obedience to His Word?”&nbsp;I delivered it gently, but directly. We eventually wrapped up the conversation and parted ways. Did she leave happy with me? No. Indeed, my mood was somber following our conversation. And not merely because she was not pleased with me, but because there are serious lifelong consequences waiting if she continues down this path.</p>

<p>To equip students with the truth means they will also have to face the implications of the truth. This young believer had to face the facts of God’s Word. Truth doesn’t always feel warm and fuzzy, but the truth can ultimately transform.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-will-not-call-you-into-something-he-has-already-called-you-out-of" 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%2Fgod-will-not-call-you-into-something-he-has-already-called-you-out-of" 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%2Fgod-will-not-call-you-into-something-he-has-already-called-you-out-of" 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 Is the New Ideal
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/30/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/same-sex-marriage-is-the-new-ideal
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Continuing on the theme of <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/04/when-and-why-feminism-is-anti-feminine.html" target="_blank">yesterday’s post</a>: Because our culture values equality, and because we (not believing in intrinsic human value anymore) think sameness is necessary for equality of value to exist, this also explains the anger many have towards the existence of gender roles in marriage. Why despise patriarchy? Because it entails one member of the marriage having a “higher”&nbsp;position than the other. If our value is determined by roles, and one role is deemed more valuable than the other, then the roles <em>by nature</em> are an expression of inequality. Equality can never exist as long as there are differences between “husband”&nbsp;and “wife.”</p>

<p>But it’s hard to deny the existence of natural gender roles when biological realities force those roles upon us. A woman gives birth, a woman nurses the child, a woman is naturally separated from the role of provider for a time. So in order to keep an equality of roles (since it’s believed equality of value depends on it), it’s argued that we need free contraception, abortion, child care, and whatever else can protect women from their unique womanly ability to have and raise children. They must be able to live their entire lives as men. That’s how equal value must be maintained in a society where intrinsic human value is rejected.</p>

<p>Now we come to the next step in this reasoning. If the highest ideal for marriage is sameness between the partners (not to mention barrenness), then it naturally follows that the new ideal is same-sex marriage. And in fact, I have seen articles that imply this. For example, this <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/30/supreme_court_gay_marriage_john_roberts_dissent_is_wrong_about_polygamy.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top" target="_blank">article from Slate</a> argues that, unlike polygamy (which the writer considers to be a step <em>backwards</em> from the ideal due to increased inequality), same-sex marriage “builds upon and further strengthens the norm of spousal equality within marriage.”&nbsp;It does more than just “further strengthen”&nbsp;sameness. If sameness is the goal for marriage partners, then same-sex marriage embodies an <em>ultimate</em> sameness that opposite-sex marriage can never achieve, even though it strives for it.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has observed, marriage as it now exists is egalitarian: The spouses have become equal under law...This is indeed a revolution in the law, and a recent one at that: Full spousal equality was achieved as a matter of law only in the 1970s. As a matter of fact, it is still a work in progress.</p>

<p>Marriage is only appealing to same-sex couples because marriage under our Constitution is now equal. As a union of equal spouses, marriage is very well suited to same-sex couples. And because the older pattern of gender-differentiated roles makes a lot less sense in same-sex marriages, the extension of marriage to gays entrenches its egalitarian aspect.</p>

<p>In other words, from a constitutional perspective that takes as its lodestar an ordered system of equal liberty, same-sex marriage is a very important but not a radical reform that builds on, extends, and further entrenches marriage’s egalitarian and constitutional character. This is why women’s groups have so long championed the cause of same-sex marriage. It is why patriarchal societies despise gay rights and know nothing of same-sex marriage.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It “further entrenches marriage’s egalitarian character”&nbsp;because <em>it takes it a step further</em> along the “historical trajectory”&nbsp;the writer claims marriage is on. It embodies what this Slate writer believes all marriages should aspire to—sameness. If sameness (what they call “equality”) is the ideal, then same-sex marriage is the ideal of the ideal. Gone are the differences between the sexes that might disturb that “equality,”&nbsp;the differences that result in fertility and its unequal demands on the two sexes, the differences that reality keeps forcing into our lives, disrupting our dream of sameness.</p>

<p>At the root of much of the craziness in our society today is the desire for equality. We have a deep human thirst for equality of value, but having removed its foundation, we have no way to ground it. Since we have denied the reality of God as the grounding of human equality, we must now deny many more obvious realities in order to enforce a cheaper equality of sameness.</p>

<p>This is the result of a secular worldview. Only within a worldview where God created us in His image can we affirm and celebrate both equal value and the diversity of reality.</p>
</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-is-the-new-ideal" 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-is-the-new-ideal" 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-is-the-new-ideal" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Could Acceptance of Abortion Be a Matter of Ignorance?
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/26/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/could-acceptance-of-abortion-be-a-matter-of-ignorance-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was reading Eric Metaxas’s <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Grace-William-Wilberforce-Campaign/dp/0061173886/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1464209399&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=amazing+grace+metaxas" target="_blank">Amazing Grace</a></em> (a book about William Wilberforce), and I came across this passage:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The popular attitude toward abolition was another story [i.e., in contrast to the political setbacks]. Among the nonpolitical classes, abolition was more and more accepted...The change in popular sentiment toward abolition had been rapid. Just a few years before, there had been widespread and genuine ignorance of the horrors of the slave trade, but now suddenly the trade and all of its varied horrors were on everyone’s lips. <a href="http://www.eyemagazine.com/blog/post/charts-change-minds" target="_blank">Posters of the <em>Brookes</em></a> [a diagram showing how people were transported on the slave ship] were everywhere, as were images of <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/wedgwood-abolitionist" target="_blank">Josiah Wedgwood’s imploring African</a> in chains. Cowper’s poem “The Negro’s Complaint”&nbsp;was not only well known as a poem, but had been set to music and was sung in the streets; also that year, a nineteen-year-old poet named Samuel Taylor Coleridge won a gold medal at Cambridge for his “Ode Against the Slave Trade.”&nbsp;[Links added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The abolitionists worked hard to reveal to people the truth about what slavery <em>was</em>, and public sentiment turned against it as ignorance dwindled. But hearing about their success actually depressed me because I couldn’t help but compare it to our situation today. Never before have we had a more <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/09/whats-really-in-the-planned-parenthood-videos.html" target="_blank">public revelation</a> of what abortion <em>is</em> than this past year’s <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/29/a-quick-and-easy-guide-to-the-planned-parenthood-videos/" target="_blank">Planned Parenthood videos</a> (see also <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/08/the-planned-parenthood-videos-organ-donations-and-euphemisms.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/08/the-seventh-planned-parenthood-video-ordinary-everyday-evil.html" target="_blank">here</a>), yet we saw no “rapid change in popular sentiment”&nbsp;toward abortion. We saw all of its ugliness laid bare, and we remained frighteningly unmoved. The hardness of our nation’s soul was impenetrable.</p>

<p>Or so I thought. But then I saw this video. Could it be that our acceptance of abortion, like acceptance of the slave trade, is still mainly a matter of ignorance?</p>

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

<p>If the reactions in that video are typical, maybe we really haven’t done enough revealing yet. I pray that’s the case.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcould-acceptance-of-abortion-be-a-matter-of-ignorance-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcould-acceptance-of-abortion-be-a-matter-of-ignorance-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcould-acceptance-of-abortion-be-a-matter-of-ignorance-" 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: Intersex People Don’t Prove There Are More Than Two Sexes
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/20/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/intersex-people-don-t-prove-there-are-more-than-two-sexes
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/eric-smith-%E2%80%93-summit-ministries-%E2%80%93-equipping-students-with-a-christian-worldview-may-20-2016#.Vz8-F5MrLGI" target="_blank">today’s podcast</a>, Alan responds to Jonathan Merritt’s “<a href="http://religionnews.com/2016/05/14/3-reasons-conservative-christians-will-lose-the-transgender-debate/" target="_blank">3 Reasons Conservative Christians Will Lose the Transgender Debate</a>.”&nbsp;Part of Merritt’s argument is that the existence of <a href="http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex" target="_blank">intersex</a> persons shows “it is generally true...that there are only two sexes. But not always,”&nbsp;and I was reminded of part of an excellent <a href="https://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/podcast-intersex/" target="_blank">post</a> by Alastair Roberts that addresses the claim being made by Merritt:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It seems clear to me, as it generally seems to be to medical science, that human bodies are structured to be sexually reproductive—to be male and female—and humanity is a sexually dimorphic species. There is clearly considerable natural variation consistent with humanity’s dimorphic form, but there is an obvious difference in principle between <em>variation</em> and <em>defect</em>, even if not always clear in the most marginal cases in practice, where, for instance, function may be retained in an abnormal or impaired form (<em>abnormal</em> forms are not necessarily <em>defective</em> forms, although they frequently are). Sexual organs with intersex conditions are typically characterized by defect—usually manifested in infertility, for instance—and can’t adequately perform certain functions that sexual organs are supposed to perform.</p>

<p>Intersex bodies and bodies with intersex conditions are not evidence of further sexes in addition to male and female, even though particular types of intersex conditions may possess distinct and identifiable characteristics. <strong>[The] sexual organs of intersex persons are not ordered to some different sexual end of their own, but are abnormally and/or defectively lacking in the typical functional male or female form, imperfectly related to the ends of male and female sexual organs.</strong> Their abnormality is usually connected with evidence that the ordinary processes of sexual differentiation have gone awry in some recognizable manner. <strong>That they are generally considered defective doesn’t arise from the rarity of such conditions, but from the fact that they can’t effectively do what sexual organs are supposed to be able to do.</strong> They are disordered male or female bodies, or bodies that are neither male nor female. At the very least, to claim that they are a further sex would seem to require some far-reaching re-evaluation of how we determine bodily organs to be functional or not.</p>

<p>There may be some sort of an empirical spectrum between male and female, albeit one overwhelmingly populated at the poles. However, <strong>the existence of such an empirical spectrum is not proof against sexual dimorphism, because there remain only two functional forms of sex around which specific human beings are clustered. All intermediate forms are departures from these, without an integral purpose of their own.</strong> [Bold emphases added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of <a href="https://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/podcast-intersex/" target="_blank">Roberts’s post</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fintersex-people-don-t-prove-there-are-more-than-two-sexes" 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%2Fintersex-people-don-t-prove-there-are-more-than-two-sexes" 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%2Fintersex-people-don-t-prove-there-are-more-than-two-sexes" 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: Textual Variants: It’s the Nature, Not the Number, That Matters
topic: History
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/24/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/textual-variants-it-s-the-nature-not-the-number-that-matters
content:
            <div> 
		<p>While taking questions at a recent event, a young girl stood up and boldly stated, “The Bible has been changed so many times over the last 2000 years, it’s impossible to know what it originally said.”&nbsp;As ammunition for her claim, she cited the hundreds of thousands of differences between the New Testament manuscripts. This fact alone was supposed to convince us that the New Testament documents are unreliable.</p>

<p>Does the New Testament we possess correctly reflect the words the authors penned in the first century? Leading textual critic Bart Ehrman says, no.</p>

<p>In his bestselling book, <em>Misquoting Jesus</em>, Ehrman writes, “What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways...There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”</p>

<p>These places where the manuscripts differ from one another are called <em>variants</em>. A textual variant is any place among the manuscripts in which there is variation in wording, including word order, omission or addition of words, even spelling differences.</p>

<p>Most scholars put the number of variants for the New Testament at around 400,000. This is a staggering number when coupled with the fact that there are only about 138,000 words in the Greek New Testament. That means there are almost <em>three variants per word</em>.</p>

<p>Do you feel the weight of this challenge? You should. No other document from the ancient world has this many textual variants. Yet, I believe that the New Testament is the most reliable document from antiquity. How can this be?</p>

<p>When it comes to the New Testament, it’s not the <em>number</em> of variants that’s important, it’s the <em>nature</em> of the variants. It’s not the <em>quantity</em> of the differences; it’s the <em>quality</em> of the differences.</p>

<p>There are <em>four</em> kinds of textual variants. Variants are categorized by whether or not they are viable, and whether or not they are meaningful. A variant is <em>viable</em> only if the variant has a good possibility of being part of the original wording. A variant is <em>meaningful</em> only if it changes the meaning of the text.</p>

<h2>Neither Viable nor Meaningful</h2>

<p>Most of the variants fall into this category. For example, differences in spelling make up 70% of <em>all</em> textual variants. These are very easy for Greek scholars to detect. These variants have no hope of being in the original, and they don’t alter the meaning of the text.</p>

<h2>Viable, but Not Meaningful</h2>

<p>These are variants that could be part of the original text. However, they ultimately make no meaningful change to the text. For example, New Testament manuscripts spell John’s name two different ways in Greek: Ιω?ννης and Ιω?νης. Both are viable options.</p>

<p>We just don’t know if John’s name was spelled with one “ν”&nbsp;or two. Of course, this trivial detail does not change the meaning of any particular passage.</p>

<h2>Meaningful, but Not Viable</h2>

<p>These are variants that do change the meaning of the text, but they could not possibly be in the original. For example, the earliest and most important manuscripts of Luke 6:22 say, “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man.”</p>

<p>However, we have a single eleventh century manuscript, Codex 2882, which says, “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil.”&nbsp;Notice this ancient document does not include the phrase “on account of the Son of Man.”&nbsp;This is a meaningful variant. In the first case, Jesus is offering a blessing on those who are hated and mistreated <em>because</em> of their allegiance to Christ. In the second case, Jesus is blessing anyone who is hated and mistreated <em>for any reason</em>. Since this aberrant reading only occurs in one late manuscript, it is not viable.</p>

<h2>Viable and Meaningful</h2>

<p>Meaningful <em>and</em> viable is the smallest and most significant group of variants. These have a good chance of being authentic <em>and</em> they change the meaning of the text. This group accounts for <em>less than 1%</em> of all textual variants. If you do the math, less than 4,000 variants of the 400,000 <em>total</em> variants are both viable and meaningful.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example from 1 John 1:4. New Testament scholars debate over whether this text should say, “And we are writing these things so that <em>our</em> joy may be complete”&nbsp;or “And we are writing these things so that <em>your</em> joy may be complete.”&nbsp;There are important manuscripts that record the word ’your’&nbsp;(?μ?ν), and there are important manuscripts that record the word ’our’&nbsp;(?μ?ν). In the original language, these two words differ by only one letter. The meaning of 1 John 1:4 is clearly altered depending on which rendering is used.</p>

<p>It is this small subset of variants that is a legitimate cause for concern. However, no major doctrines depend on any meaningful and viable variants. In fact, Bart Ehrman was once asked if these variants put the core tenets of Christian orthodoxy in jeopardy. Ehrman responded, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”</p>

<p>This young girl thought that the mere fact of hundreds of thousands of differences in the manuscripts was enough to conclude that the New Testament text has been hopelessly corrupted. However, it’s not the <em>number</em> of variants that’s important, it’s the <em>nature</em> of the variants. Most variants are trivial, affecting nothing. In fact, more than 99% fall into this category.</p>

<p>There are only a small number of meaningful variants that are viable. But even these affect no cardinal doctrine. The New Testament has an impressive transmission history that should give Christians confidence that we have the words written by the apostles. You can learn more about how we can reproduce the original New Testament to a high degree of certainty in Greg Koukl’s article <a href="/w/-misquoting-jesus-answering-bart-ehrman" target="_blank"><em>“Misquoting”&nbsp;Jesus? Answering Bart Ehrman</em></a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftextual-variants-it-s-the-nature-not-the-number-that-matters" 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%2Ftextual-variants-it-s-the-nature-not-the-number-that-matters" 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%2Ftextual-variants-it-s-the-nature-not-the-number-that-matters" 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: Letting God Take the Heat
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/letting-god-take-the-heat
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Over the last decade as a Stand to Reason speaker, I’ve been yelled at, cursed at, and even threatened. Somehow, though, I haven’t yelled back, cursed back, or threatened anyone. In fact, I respond to such attacks in a rather calm way. How do I keep my cool? Here’s my secret: I let God take the heat.</p>

<p>It’s a principle that’s based on the recognition that God is our King and we are His children. He’s in charge and we’re His followers. As we live our lives, we abide by His commands and proclaim His message. If people get upset with what I’m saying or doing, I point them to God. I show them that I’m simply following God’s commands or saying what He says is true. That way I absolve myself of the responsibility and put the “blame”&nbsp;where it belongs: on God.</p>

<p>To be clear, I’m not talking about being a jerk for Jesus. If you come across as harsh, offensive, or condescending, then the problem is with you. You’re at fault, and you deserve what’s coming. You can’t pass the blame onto God. In those cases, you need to repent of your action and adopt biblical ideas.</p>

<p>I’m talking about times when you are faithful to the teachings of Scripture. If you’re attacked in those situations, then let God take the heat. Don’t take it personally. Though they may be mad at you for what you’re saying or doing, remember that you’re representing God and they’re really mad at Him. When I see things this way, it helps me to avoid getting upset with the person, which, in turn, helps me not retaliate.</p>

<p>For example, when I say that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, sometimes people get angry and claim I’m narrow-minded. Even though I feel uneasy when that happens, I try to remember to let God take the heat. After all, <em>Scripture</em> teaches there’s only one way to Heaven, not <em>me</em>. That’s why, in this case, I point them to what Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me”&nbsp;(John 14:6). If they have a problem with that idea, they need to take it up with Christ, not me. I let Him take the heat by directing them to His words.</p>

<p>I also find my blood boils when I’m described as a bigot because of my teaching on homosexuality. Although I’m ready with a witty, but obnoxious retort, I’m thankful the Holy Spirit intercedes. He reminds me that <em>God</em> designed humans to function heterosexually and <em>He</em> declared homosexual behavior a sin. That’s when I let God take the heat. Instead of losing my cool, I remember I’m representing God’s principles and simply point them to Matthew 19:1-6. In this passage, Jesus summarizes the biblical model for sex and marriage as occurring only between a married man and woman. In other words, I hold a view on this topic because it’s Jesus’&nbsp;view. People upset with my view need to address the source of my belief—Jesus—and take it up with Him.</p>

<p>Not in every instance do I point someone to Scripture or even say anything. Most times I simply remind myself that their anger is ultimately a result of God’s position on a matter. Whether I’m talking about the Gospel, homosexuality, Islam, evolution, abortion, or other topics, I try to let God take the heat. That way, I’m not inordinately burdened or tempted to respond with malice.</p>

<p>Letting God take the heat helps prevent three problems.</p>

<ol>
	<li><strong>It helps prevent pride.</strong> When you think people’s objections or anger are a result of your thinking, you’re taking credit for God’s principles and ideas. Although you may convey biblical ideas, the responsible party is God, not you. You’re merely an ambassador and your job is to proclaim God’s message in a clear and gracious manner. As Jesus said, “No servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him”&nbsp;(John 13:16). Stay humble by keeping a proper perspective of who is really the author of the truth you’re communicating.</li>
	<li><strong>It helps prevent unnecessary stress.</strong> When people are upset with <em>me</em>, I feel responsible. <em>I’ve</em> done something wrong or said something that made them angry. That’s stressful. The reality, though, is that they’re probably upset with God (whether they acknowledge it or not). He demands people submit to Him and His ideas. Since that’s not a popular concept, it’s understandable people get upset with Him. The benefit of letting God take the heat is that you don’t burden yourself with the responsibility of thinking you’re the problem.</li>
	<li><strong>It helps prevent a revengeful attitude.</strong> If you know people are upset with God’s principles and not your own, then you’re less likely to get back at them. Scripture reminds us: “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ’It is Mine to avenge; I will repay,’&nbsp;says the Lord”&nbsp;(Romans 12:19). I’m not suggesting you don’t respond. Rather, your response is less likely to be motivated by retaliation and more by clarification. After all, God’s responsible for the ideas and you’re responsible for clearly and graciously conveying them.</li>
</ol>

<p>The point is not to memorize my responses. It’s to remember the principle to let God take the heat. After all, He’s God. It’s His problem. He’s the Savior. Let Him bear the burden. Jesus even reminds us that “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first”&nbsp;(John 15:18). He’s the ultimate problem for people who won’t submit to Him. At the same time, we should strive to not draw unnecessary anger on ourselves. Paul notes, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone”&nbsp;(Romans 12:18). One way to do that is to let God take the heat.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fletting-god-take-the-heat" 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%2Fletting-god-take-the-heat" 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%2Fletting-god-take-the-heat" 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: Argue Rationally and Take Responsibility for Your Arguments
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/24/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/argue-rationally-and-take-responsibility-for-your-arguments
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a New York Times op-ed titled “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/opinion/sunday/stop-saying-i-feel-like.html" target="_blank">Stop Saying ’I Feel Like,’</a>”&nbsp;Molly Worthen says we need to pay attention to a recent evolution in language. In the last decade, people have begun to preface their claims with “I feel like.”&nbsp;And, she says, “[M]ake no mistake: ’I feel like’&nbsp;is not a harmless tic.”&nbsp;She argues that our shift towards couching our claims as subjective opinions reflects, and will increase, our inability to engage in “civilized conflict.”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Natasha Pangarkar, a senior at Williams College, hears “’I feel like,’&nbsp;in the classroom on a daily basis,”&nbsp;she said. “When you use the phrase ’I feel like,’&nbsp;it gives you an out. You’re not stating a fact so much as giving an opinion,”&nbsp;she told me. “It’s an effort to make our ideas more palatable to the other person.”...</p>

<p>This linguistic hedging is particularly common at universities, where calls for trigger warnings and safe spaces may have eroded students’&nbsp;inclination to assert or argue. It is safer to merely “feel.”...</p>

<p>Yet here is the paradox: “I feel like”&nbsp;masquerades as a humble conversational offering, an invitation to share your feelings, too—but the phrase is an absolutist trump card. It halts argument in its tracks.</p>

<p>When people cite feelings or personal experience, “you can’t really refute them with logic, because that would imply they didn’t have that experience, or their experience is less valid,”&nbsp;Ms. Chai told me.</p>

<p>“It’s a way of deflecting, avoiding full engagement with another person or group,”&nbsp;Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn, a historian at Syracuse University, said, “because it puts a shield up immediately. You cannot disagree.”</p>

<p>Democracy is premised on civilized conflict. The greatest advance of the modern age has been our ability to argue about society’s most pressing questions without resorting to physical violence (most of the time). Yet the growing tyranny of feelings in the way Americans talk—about everything from how to fund public education to which presidential candidate to support—exerts a subtler kind of coercion on the public sphere...</p>

<p>We should not “feel like.”&nbsp;We should argue rationally, feel deeply and take full responsibility for our interaction with the world.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/opinion/sunday/stop-saying-i-feel-like.html" target="_blank">article</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fargue-rationally-and-take-responsibility-for-your-arguments" 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%2Fargue-rationally-and-take-responsibility-for-your-arguments" 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%2Fargue-rationally-and-take-responsibility-for-your-arguments" 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 Gospel’s Answer to the Problem of Evil
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/28/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-gospel-s-answer-to-the-problem-of-evil
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In “<a href="https://derekzrishmawy.com/2014/02/20/a-very-brief-gospel-centered-defense-against-the-problem-of-evil/" target="_blank">A (Very) Brief, Gospel-Centered Defense against the Problem of Evil</a>,”&nbsp;Derek Rishmawy explains how we can know, through the Gospel, that God is indeed all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, despite the existence of evil:</p>

<blockquote>
<ol>
	<li>If God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, I have good reason to believe both that he exists, and that he is unfathomably powerful.</li>
	<li>Furthermore, if he is good enough to send his only-begotten Son to die on behalf of a sinful, rebellious world he loves, he is unfathomably good.</li>
	<li>Next, if God is wise enough to use what is objectively the most horrifying, and initially apparently pointless, event in human history—the unjust murder of the Godman - for the salvation of the world, then it is entirely reasonable to trust he has a good enough reason for allowing the evil that he currently does.</li>
	<li>Finally, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the promise that ultimately evil will be judged, removed, and made right. There is comfort and hope for the future.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

<p>I love this. Read the rest of his <a href="https://derekzrishmawy.com/2014/02/20/a-very-brief-gospel-centered-defense-against-the-problem-of-evil/" target="_blank">post</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-gospel-s-answer-to-the-problem-of-evil" 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-gospel-s-answer-to-the-problem-of-evil" 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-gospel-s-answer-to-the-problem-of-evil" 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: Christian Storytelling Should Be Both True and Beautiful
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/12/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/christian-storytelling-should-be-both-true-and-beautiful
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/brian-godawa-%E2%80%93-god-against-the-gods-storytelling-imagination-and-apologetics-in-the-bible-may-11-2016#.VzNqPxUrKL8" target="_blank">yesterday’s podcast</a>, Brett talked to screenwriter and author Brian Godawa about Christian artists, beauty, truth, and storytelling. Art is indeed a powerful vehicle for expressing truth, but as Brian explains in the interview, when we use story merely as a tool to communicate a message, neglecting the beauty of the craft, we tend to end up with preachy propaganda. He argued that beauty is an aspect of the truth about God that we must not downplay when speaking through artistic forms:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When we talk about God and theology, we often talk about things like: we have to have a proper epistemology (or theory of knowledge), we have to have a proper ethic (or system of morality), we want to have a notion of ontology (or reality)—this is what traditional categories are in terms of philosophy. And [with] theology, you could talk about soteriology, salvation, these kinds of things. But what is often lacking in there is <em>aesthetic</em>. There are so many Scriptures in the Psalms and many places where it talks about the <em>beauty</em> of God’s holiness...My point being, beauty is not just something there to be appreciated; it’s actually part of the whole theology of how God communicates Himself.</p>

<p>So to the extent in which you ignore that or downplay beauty is just as if you were to downgrade any element of truth that we should have, whether it’s Christ’s nature as God, or whether it’s soteriology and salvation, or the work of the Spirit. [In the same way as these,] beauty is a part of that understanding.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Telling stories in a way that reflects God’s beauty testifies to the beauty of our God. Beauty itself is an apologetic for God because it reveals His beauty, just as making a case for the truth of the gospel through apologetic arguments reveals His truth, and serving people in love reveals His love. As Christians, we ought to be declaring God’s beauty to the world through our art. Brian had some good words of encouragement and warning for Christian artists:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I want to encourage Christians who are artists to do two things equally: Seek to value your craft and beauty as high as the truth, and secondly, seek to study and know your God (study theology and study apologetics) because [these are] both two sides of one, unified truth. And to the extent in which you’re imbalanced in either of them, it will show in your art. You’ll either have bad art that is preachy, or you’ll have art that is teaching falsehoods because you don’t understand how truth is embodied in it. So seek to pursue them both...</p>

<p>Study your craft. Do everything you can to learn it...But pursue that beauty in a way that will value the craft equally with the truth.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Listen to the rest of the <a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/brian-godawa-%E2%80%93-god-against-the-gods-storytelling-imagination-and-apologetics-in-the-bible-may-11-2016#.VzNqPxUrKL8" target="_blank">interview</a>, and if you’re an artist, consider attending the <a href="http://www.thecanvasconference.com/about/" target="_blank">Canvas Conference</a> in Portland later this year, where they’ll be exploring this very topic. From their website:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Canvas Conference humbly exists to inform all acts of human creativity and beauty with biblical, gospel-centered theology for the worship of the triune God<em>...</em>. We want to help build strong theological foundations for the artist and, likewise, to push Christians to pursue creative orthodoxy in their theological craft...</p>

<p>The Canvas Conference seeks to build bridges between the artist and the theologian by inviting God to take center stage in every human endeavor. We want to watch the Lord as he puts theology and creativity in their proper place. We want to show that creativity begins and ends with the God of Christian Scripture. It is our Creator who created us in his image to create. Thus, we should do so for his glory, for our good, and for the benefit of all.</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%2Fchristian-storytelling-should-be-both-true-and-beautiful" 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%2Fchristian-storytelling-should-be-both-true-and-beautiful" 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%2Fchristian-storytelling-should-be-both-true-and-beautiful" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Would God Create a Massive Universe?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/06/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-would-god-create-a-massive-universe-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>From time to time, an atheist will say to me that the size of the universe is evidence that A) we’re insignificant, and B) it wasn’t created by God (since there’s so much “wasted space”). In his book <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Look-Live-Behold-Soul-Thrilling-Sin-Destroying/dp/0764212516/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1462396822&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=look+and+live" target="_blank">Look and Live</a></em>, Matt Papa reflects on a purpose for the massive size of the universe:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>One of the best places to see the glory of God is <em>up</em>. The Bible says “the heavens declare the glory of God”&nbsp;(Psalm 19:1 NIV). This means the skies are saying something. And that something is this: “God is massive, eternal, creative, powerful.”</p>

<p>We should listen to them. Consider these fun space facts:</p>

<ul>
	<li>You could fit one million earths inside our star, the sun.</li>
	<li>In a larger star named Betelguese, you could fit one billion (1,000,000,000) suns or 262 trillion (262,000,000,000,000) earths.</li>
	<li>The largest star in the universe is the VY Canis Majoris. It would take 9.3 billion (9,300,000,000) suns to fill Canis Majoris.</li>
	<li>It would take 11,666,192,832,000,000 earths to fill Canis Majoris.</li>
	<li>If Canis Majoris were put in our sun’s place, it would extend past Saturn.</li>
</ul>

<p>Feeling small yet?...</p>

<p>Why in the world would God make something so massive and wild?</p>

<p>Assuming we are the only life in this endless black (which I do), couldn’t He have just made the earth, the moon, and the sun? Or perhaps even just the earth with some sort of self-illumination?</p>

<p>But no. He didn’t.</p>

<p>He made a terrifying, endless, beautiful, unexplored, unexplorable abyss. He made an immeasurable, untamed ocean of mega stars, galaxies, quasars, and black holes in which we are a mere floating speck.</p>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>The heavens declare the glory of God.</p>

<p>The Artist must have wanted to tell us something about himself. He is the real terrifying, endless, beautiful, unexplored, unexplorable Abyss. He is the immeasurable, untamed Ocean of truth, wisdom, goodness, and light in which we are a mere floating speck.</p>

<p>Holy.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So yes, the massive size of the universe does reveal our insignificance <em>in comparison to the God of the universe</em>, and that inspires our awe. But at the same time, He created it this way for this precise purpose of revealing His glory to us, and that means that despite how insignificant we are compared to Him, He stooped down out of love for us and declared us to be significant to Him.</p>
</div>

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


title: How Neuroscience Points to Dualism
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/27/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-neuroscience-points-to-dualism
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Michael Egnor has a fascinating <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/wilder_penfield102789.html" target="_blank">post</a> on neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield’s evidence-based conversion from materialism to dualism:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Penfield began his career as a materialist, convinced that the mind was wholly a product of the brain. He finished his career as an emphatic dualist.</p>

<p>During surgery, Penfield observed that patients had a variable but limited response to brain stimulation. Sometimes the stimulation would cause a seizure or evoke a sensation, a perception, movement of muscles, a memory, or even a vivid emotion. Yet Penfield noticed that brain stimulation <em>never evoked abstract thought...</em>.</p>

<p>Penfield noted that intellectual function—abstract thought—could only be switched <em>off</em> by brain stimulation or a seizure, but it could never be switched <em>on</em> in like manner. The brain was necessary for abstract thought, normally, but it was not sufficient for it. Abstract thought was something other than merely a process of the brain...</p>

<p>Furthermore, Penfield noted that patients were always aware that the sensation, memory, etc., evoked by brain stimulation was done <em>to</em> them, but not <em>by</em> them. Penfield found that patients retained a “third person”&nbsp;perspective on mental events evoked by brain stimulation. There was always a “mind”&nbsp;that was independent of cortical stimulation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s worth reading the rest of the <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/wilder_penfield102789.html" target="_blank">post</a> to see the relevant quotes from Penfield himself.</p>
</div>

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


title: When (and Why) Feminism Is Anti-Feminine
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/29/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-and-why-feminism-is-anti-feminine
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Alastair Roberts has a really interesting article at Mere Orthodoxy titled “<a href="https://mereorthodoxy.com/why-we-should-jettison-the-strong-female-character/" target="_blank">Why We Should Jettison the ’Strong Female Character,’</a>”&nbsp;in which he argues that the current trend of strong female characters in pop culture, while attempting to be feminist, actually degrade the value of women and their femininity because they subtly teach a woman’s value lies in how well she succeeds in acting like a man.</p>

<p>The article is quite long, so here are a few of the relevant quotes to give you an overview (and hopefully inspire you to read the rest):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The female action heroines may have many relatable personal traits, interests, and concerns for the typical girl or woman—as I have already noted, few of these heroines are merely clumsy gender-switches of male characters. However, all too often, their prominence and the recognition of their importance in the narrative rests almost entirely upon the fact that they have in some crucial respects followed a typically male path, or that they exhibit relatively male tendencies, interests, and aptitudes in key areas. Their claim to strength and the stature of their personhood lies, less in the confident development and pursuit of determined and unapologetically womanly character—with the considerable scope that provides for resisting flat stereotypes—than in their capacity to prove themselves on men’s terms, as fighters who can excel at typical male interests and activities.</p>

<p>Were such characters rare or occasional exceptions, it could fairly be claimed that they serve to resist the closure of certain possibilities to women—a worthwhile end indeed. However, when they increasingly represent a norm among the most prominent female characters in popular culture, they cease to be a message of empowerment and become something closer to an indictment upon the natural strengths and tendencies of women relative to men as a sex...</p>

<p>The recurring characterization problems with such Strong Female Characters arise in no small measure from the struggle to show that men and women are interchangeable and can compete and cooperate with each other on the same terms. As I have already noted, this falsehood serves no one. It sets women up for frustration and failure as they have to justify their agency on men’s terms and it produces an embarrassment about male strengths that should be celebrated rather than stifled. It reflects a drive towards intense gender integration and de-differentiation in the wider world...</p>

<p>The fact that women’s stature as full agents is so consistently treated as contingent upon such things as their physical strength and combat skills, or upon the exaggerated weakness or their one-upping of the men that surround them, is a sign that, even though men may be increasingly stifled within it, women are operating in a realm that plays by men’s rules. The possibility of a world in which women are the weaker sex, yet can still attain to the stature and dignity of full agents and persons—the true counterparts and equals of men—seems to be, for the most part, beyond people’s imaginative grasp...</p>

<p>The problem also lies with the lack of female characters that teach men to respect women <em>as women</em>, not only to the extent that they can play to male strengths. Without denying that some women can and do effectively play to male strengths, they should not have to do so in order to be valued as full agents.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Roberts then explains how the Bible succeeds in showing the value of women in their full, unapologetic femininity. I encourage you to read <a href="https://mereorthodoxy.com/why-we-should-jettison-the-strong-female-character/" target="_blank">what he says</a>.</p>

<p>I’ve been thinking for a while about our culture’s push to make everyone and everything the same. We have confused equality with sameness—believing that equality can only result from sameness (and in this case, everyone must be the same as a man). I’m convinced this is a result of our society’s loss of belief in intrinsic human value. If we are all made in the image of God, then we are all equally intrinsically valuable, regardless of our traits and natural abilities. This means we can recognize and embrace our differences without fearing any loss of dignity and value. But if we <em>deny</em> intrinsic value, if we believe our value comes from the characteristics we express, then how will we argue that men and woman are equally valuable? The only way to get to equality, on that view, is to deny all differences.</p>

<p>And that is what our culture has been feverishly doing for a while now. The denial of differences doesn’t reflect reality, and it leads to a loss of appreciation for the diverse male and female traits, squeezing everyone into the same mold, but it’s the only bulwark against inequality of value a godless society can offer.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-and-why-feminism-is-anti-feminine" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-and-why-feminism-is-anti-feminine" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-and-why-feminism-is-anti-feminine" 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: Archaeological Find Supports Pre-Exilic Date for Biblical Texts
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/14/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/archaeological-find-supports-pre-exilic-date-for-biblical-texts
content:
            <div> 
		<p>CBS News <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ancient-handwriting-may-shed-light-on-age-of-bible/" target="_blank">reports</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>JERUSALEM—Israeli mathematicians and archaeologists say they have found evidence to suggest that key biblical texts may have been composed earlier than what some scholars think.</p>

<p>Using handwriting analysis technology similar to that employed by intelligence agencies and banks to analyze signatures, a Tel Aviv University team determined that a famous hoard of ancient Hebrew inscriptions, dated to around 600 BC, were written by at least six different authors. Although the inscriptions are not from the Hebrew Bible, their discovery suggests there was widespread literacy in ancient Judah at the time that would support the composition of biblical works.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/world/middleeast/new-evidence-onwhen-bible-was-written-ancient-shopping-lists.html" target="_blank">explains more</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The new study, <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/04/05/1522200113.abstract" target="_blank">published on Monday</a> in&nbsp;<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/proceedings_of_the_national_academy_of_sciences/index.html?inline=nyt-org" target="_blank">the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a>, combined archaeology, Jewish history and applied mathematics, and involved computerized image processing and the development of an algorithm to distinguish between the various authors issuing the commands.</p>

<p>Based on a statistical analysis of the results, and taking into account the content of the texts that were chosen for the sample, the researchers concluded that at least six different hands had written the 18 missives at around the same time. Even soldiers in the lower ranks of the Judahite army, it appears, could read and write...</p>

<p>One of the longstanding arguments for why the main body of biblical literature was not written down in anything like its present form until after the destruction and exile of 586 B.C. is that before then there was not enough literacy or enough scribes to support such a huge undertaking.</p>

<p>But if the literacy rates in the Arad fortress were repeated across the kingdom of Judah, which had about 100,000 people, there would have been hundreds of literate people, the Tel Aviv research team suggests.</p>

<p>That could have provided the infrastructure for the composition of biblical works that constitute the basis of Judahite history and theology including early versions of the books of Deuteronomy to II Kings, according to the researchers.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s amazing how many different angles there are from which we can examine the truth of the Bible. (Here’s <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/evidence-early-dating-gospels" target="_blank">another recent one</a>.)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Farchaeological-find-supports-pre-exilic-date-for-biblical-texts" 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%2Farchaeological-find-supports-pre-exilic-date-for-biblical-texts" 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%2Farchaeological-find-supports-pre-exilic-date-for-biblical-texts" 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: Shattering the Icons of Evolution
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 04/25/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/shattering-the-icons-of-evolution
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Tonight’s the night! Join me right here, on <a href="https://plus.google.com/events/cl1udhu2385rg7cfu8l6m7pr2sk" target="_blank">Google+</a>, or on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHBVCfAjxY0&amp;feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">YouTube</a> at 6:30 p.m. (PT) to see the live video feed of “Shattering the Icons of Evolution.”&nbsp;I’ll be talking about how to recognize and respond to the different categories that arguments for macroevolution fall into: exaggerated extrapolations, egregious errors, and equivocal evidence.</p>

<p>(Don’t worry if you can’t watch it live. After tonight, you’ll be able to watch the video here anytime.)</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="VHBVCfAjxY0" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VHBVCfAjxY0?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshattering-the-icons-of-evolution" 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%2Fshattering-the-icons-of-evolution" 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%2Fshattering-the-icons-of-evolution" 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 Liberty Is Under Fire Once Again
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/religious-liberty-is-under-fire-once-again
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Religious liberty laws are back in the news again, and I’m seeing a huge amount of misunderstanding out there, so here are a few posts (from previous flare-ups) explaining religious liberty laws:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/04/rfra-reaction-is-driven-by-agenda-not-principle.html" target="_blank">RFRA Reaction Is Driven by Agenda, Not Principle</a>—If you only read one of these posts, read this one.</li>
	<li><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/04/how-rfra-works.html" target="_blank">How RFRA Works</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/04/rfra-is-not-jim-crow.html" target="_blank">RFRA Is Not Jim Crow</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/03/the-truth-about-arizonas-religious-freedom-bill.html" target="_blank">The Truth about Arizona’s Religious Freedom Bill</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/03/hobby-lobby-case-are-religious-exemptions-unconstitutional.html" target="_blank">Hobby Lobby Case: Are Religious Exemptions Unconstitutional?</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/04/refusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events.html" target="_blank">Refusing to Serve Individuals vs. Refusing to Participate in Events</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/02/lgbt-activist-says-we-should-be-allowed-to-discriminate-against-ideas.html" target="_blank">LGBT Activist Says We Should Be Allowed to Discriminate against Ideas</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/04/articles-on-the-religious-freedom-fiasco.html" target="_blank">Articles on the Religious Freedom Fiasco</a></li>
</ul>

<p>What happened in Georgia (please read <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/28/georgia-governor-caves-to-big-business-vetoes-religious-freedom/" target="_blank">Ryan Anderson’s analysis</a> of the situation) has proved it doesn’t matter how the law is watered down or what compromises are made by lawmakers; when a law protecting religious liberty is proposed, hysteria ensues (see the track record in the links above), religious liberty is called <a href="http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2016/3/29/down-in-georgia-heres-what-the-medias-insistence-on-scare-quotes-on-religious-liberty-tells-you" target="_blank">“religious liberty”</a>&nbsp;by the press, and the law is mischaracterized as a license to discriminate—even though that doesn’t remotely describe <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/04/how-rfra-works.html" target="_blank">how these laws work</a>, and as I wrote <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/04/rfra-reaction-is-driven-by-agenda-not-principle.html" target="_blank">last year</a>, “One federal law and 19 state laws exist...and yet no one can point to a single instance where a RFRA was misused to create any of the Jim-Crow-type scenarios the media are warning us about.”</p>

<p>But that doesn’t matter, because the people throwing their full weight against these laws are opposed to diversity. They have no interest in working out a way for everyone to live together in peace. Their goal is to crush religious liberty and force everyone to actively agree with them in word and deed, and if achieving that goal requires stirring up a little hysteria, misinformation, and anti-religious bigotry, then clearly they have no problem with that. The strategy, after all, is effective.</p>

<p>And don’t think Christians are immune to this strategy. In a comment I saw today on Facebook, a Christian said this, closely mirroring what is endlessly repeated to us by the media: “I see most of the current conservative fights in states for ’religious freedom’&nbsp;as thinly veiled attempts to institutionalize the biases of a narrow religious perspective at the expense of those who don’t agree with them.”&nbsp;(Note the scare quotes.)</p>

<p>The irony of his statement is that the <em>exact opposite</em> is true. Upholding a person’s right to opt out of doing something that goes against his beliefs (e.g., performing a same-sex marriage ceremony) is in no way <em>institutionalizing</em> any perspective, but using the government to force a person to act according to some other group’s beliefs (and against his own) most certainly <em>is</em>. That’s the very definition of “institutionalizing the biases of one perspective at the expense of those who don’t agree with them.”&nbsp;How did everyone get so mixed up about this?</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Freligious-liberty-is-under-fire-once-again" 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-liberty-is-under-fire-once-again" 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-liberty-is-under-fire-once-again" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: If I Believe Abortion Is Murder, Why Don’t I Say That?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/26/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/if-i-believe-abortion-is-murder-why-don-t-i-say-that-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>After speaking on abortion at a recent event, a Christian man asked me why I didn’t say, “Abortion is murder.”&nbsp;For the record, I did state that abortion kills an innocent human being, that it’s wrong, and that it should be illegal. It’s true, though, I never used the word “murder,”&nbsp;even though I believe abortion is a type of murder.</p>

<p>When I teach on abortion, I’m not merely conveying facts or giving a motivational speech. I’m trying to train my audience in the art of pro-life persuasion. In other words, I’m teaching pro-lifers <em>how</em> to convince others of the pro-life view. In order to do that effectively, one must understand abortion-choice advocates, their thinking, and how they might respond to what we say.</p>

<p>Simply saying abortion is murder might be personally satisfying and get you high fives from other pro-lifers, but it isn’t likely to help a person move towards the pro-life view. They may not believe the unborn is a human being or that she has the same right to life. Therefore, the claim that abortion is murder skips a few logical steps.</p>

<p>For example, imagine an atheist tells you, “Christianity is a fairy tale.”&nbsp;Obviously that wouldn’t be persuasive, but you definitely wouldn’t think his statement was reasonable because it came out of the blue. There were no logical steps that led to that conclusion. Their statement assumes that Christianity is false, but they haven’t shown that to be the case. In that situation, you might be unwilling to continue the conversation. If they want to claim Christianity is a fairy tale, they have to <em>first</em> give reasons why Christianity is false.</p>

<p>In the same way, pro-lifers must <em>first</em> show that the unborn is a human being and that abortion kills that being before they can claim it’s murder. Jumping to the rhetorically explosive claim (from the perspective of someone who favors abortion) that abortion is murder is more likely to shut down their willingness to dialogue.</p>

<p>The same is true when referring to abortion as a holocaust. Between pro-lifers, we can all agree that the 50+ million innocent human beings killed through abortion <em>is</em> a holocaust. People not persuaded by the pro-life view, though, don’t see it that way. To them, it sounds like an unjustified claim. If we want to say abortion is a holocaust, we should first show that abortion kills an innocent human being and present data that indicates how many abortions have occurred in a particular time period. If they believe your evidence, then taking the next step by claiming abortion is a holocaust will be more believable.</p>

<p>Again, I think abortion is murder and believe its legalization has resulted in a holocaust. When I’m training pro-lifers how to dialogue with people who aren’t pro-life, though, I usually teach them not to use terminology that will alienate our friends who disagree.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-i-believe-abortion-is-murder-why-don-t-i-say-that-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-i-believe-abortion-is-murder-why-don-t-i-say-that-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-i-believe-abortion-is-murder-why-don-t-i-say-that-" 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: Target, Transgender, and the Use of Bathrooms and Fitting Rooms
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/22/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/target-transgender-and-the-use-of-bathrooms-and-fitting-rooms
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Target recently stated: “We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity. Everyone deserves to feel like they belong.”&nbsp;Here are my quick thoughts about their comments and this question.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="GbIBjf5usfo" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GbIBjf5usfo?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftarget-transgender-and-the-use-of-bathrooms-and-fitting-rooms" 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%2Ftarget-transgender-and-the-use-of-bathrooms-and-fitting-rooms" 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%2Ftarget-transgender-and-the-use-of-bathrooms-and-fitting-rooms" 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: Yes, the Evolutionary Process Does Depend on Randomness
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/31/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/yes-the-evolutionary-process-does-depend-on-randomness
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Atheists will often assert that evolution is <em>not</em> random. (In fact, I was having this conversation just last night!) This is true if we’re talking about the natural selection part of the process, but natural selection can only select from what already <em>exists</em>. It’s the mutations that must provide the new genetic information, and mutations do not <em>occur</em> according to what is needed for an organism to survive; they can only cause the being to survive (and thus be selected) after they happen to occur. Stephen Meyer <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/about_a_bike_lo102722.html" target="_blank">explains</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Yes, of course, natural selection is a “nonrandom”&nbsp;process as Dawkins correctly insists. Rates of reproductive success correlate to the traits that organisms possess. Those with fitness advantages will, all other things being equal, out-reproduce those lacking those advantages. Got it. Understood.</p>

<p>Yet, clearly, there is more to the evolutionary mechanism than just natural selection. Instead, the standard neo-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism comprises (1) natural selection and/or (2) genetic drift acting on (3) adaptively random genetic variations and mutations (of various kinds). Moreover, as conceived from Darwin to the present, natural selection “selects”&nbsp;or acts to preserve those random variations that confer a fitness (or functional) advantage upon the organisms that possess them. It, further, “selects”&nbsp;only <em>after</em> such functionally advantageous variations (or mutations) have arisen. How could it do otherwise? Selection does not <em>cause</em> novel variations; rather, it sifts what is delivered to it by the random changes (e.g., mutations) that <em>do</em> cause variations. Such has been neo-Darwinian orthodoxy for many decades.</p>

<p>All this means that as a mechanism for the production of novel genetic information, natural selection does nothing to help <em>generate</em> functional DNA base (or amino acid) sequences. Rather it can only <em>preserve</em> such sequences (if they confer a functional advantage) <em>once they have originated</em>. In other words, adaptive advantage only accrues <em>after</em> the generation of new functional genes and proteins—after the fact, that is, of some (presumably) successful random mutational search. It follows that even if natural selection (considered separately from mutation) constitutes a non-random process, the evolutionary mechanism <em>as a whole</em> depends precisely upon an ineliminable element of randomness, namely, various postulated or observed mutational processes. (Nor is any of the above particularly controversial within evolutionary biology...)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of the <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/about_a_bike_lo102722.html" target="_blank">post</a>, and see <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/11/random-mutation-natural-selection-and-information.html" target="_blank">here</a> for more on why the creation of all life through a random development of meaningful genetic information is, as Meyer said, “<em>overwhelmingly</em> more likely to be <em>false</em> than true.”</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyes-the-evolutionary-process-does-depend-on-randomness" 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%2Fyes-the-evolutionary-process-does-depend-on-randomness" 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%2Fyes-the-evolutionary-process-does-depend-on-randomness" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: We Perceive the Moral Reality around Us
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/23/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/we-perceive-the-moral-reality-around-us
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In Brett’s <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/we-hold-these-truths-to-be-self-evident#.Vxq70OYrLGI" target="_blank">monthly letter</a>, he points out the similarity between our ability to perceive (and have knowledge of) moral reality and our ability to perceive physical reality:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[T]he idea of self-evident moral truths represents the ground floor of moral reasoning. Such truths are known to us by way of our moral intuitions. An intuition is a faculty of knowing. It’s a reflective way of seeing something. It’s a way of knowing that is immediate and direct. You see something, you reflect for a moment, and you simply come to see the truth of the matter...</p>

<p>To help students grasp this concept better, I compared their moral perception to their sense perception. Sight via the eyes is the faculty we use to see the physical reality around us. If a dog walks in front of me, I see it and know it exists. If you asked me <em>how</em> I know, I would respond, “Because I see it. It’s self-evident. I just see that dog walking in front of me.”&nbsp;If you asked me to prove it, I would simply point to the dog and say, “Look! It’s right there. Can’t you see it?”&nbsp;If you said, “No, I don’t see any dog,”&nbsp;I would conclude there is something wrong with your sense perception, that your eyesight is not working properly. However, I would <em>not</em> conclude that I was not actually seeing a dog.</p>

<p>In the same way, our moral intuitions are a faculty we use to “see”&nbsp;the moral reality around us. I see that torturing children for fun is wrong, or murder is wrong, or dishonesty is a vice, and thus apprehend moral truth. If you asked me <em>how</em> I know, I would respond, “Because I see it. It’s self-evident. I just see that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong.”&nbsp;If you asked me to prove it, I would simply point to the action of torturing young children and say, “Look! The truth is right there. Can’t you see it?”&nbsp;If you said, “No, I don’t think torturing babies for fun is wrong,”&nbsp;I would conclude there is something wrong with your moral perception. However, I would <em>not</em> conclude that it was not actually wrong to torture babies for the pure pleasure of it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/we-hold-these-truths-to-be-self-evident#.Vxq70OYrLGI" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-perceive-the-moral-reality-around-us" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-perceive-the-moral-reality-around-us" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-perceive-the-moral-reality-around-us" 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: Discrimination Is Legitimate When the Distinction Is Relevant
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/15/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/discrimination-is-legitimate-when-the-distinction-is-relevant
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Is it wrong to discriminate against biological males by denying them access to women’s bathrooms? When I was asked about this today, I pointed to a <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2008/07/false-compariso.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201157011a9fa970b#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201157011a9fa970b" target="_blank">comment</a> I wrote years ago on the blog:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When differences are relevant, it’s not an invalid systemic discrimination. For example, if two guys walk into a bar and the bartender says, “I can’t serve people like you—get out!”&nbsp;Is that wrong? Illegal? One can’t say until one knows <em>why</em> the discrimination is occurring. If the bartender is saying “get out”&nbsp;because the guy isn’t white, then that’s invalid. Why? Because a person’s race is completely irrelevant to the issue of drinking at a bar. But what if he says “get out”&nbsp;because the guy is only fifteen? In that case, the age is relevant because drinking affects youth differently, they don’t have the developmental ability to handle the impairment, etc. Yes, we systemically discriminate against fifteen-year-olds by law because of differences between them and adults, but it’s not invalid to do so.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I wrote that in 2008 as part of a discussion about same-sex marriage. My overall point in the comment was that just as we separate men from women in bathrooms because the differences between the sexes are relevant to bathrooms, so we ought to support opposite-sex marriage because the differences are likewise relevant to marriage. The example of the bathroom was meant to demonstrate the legitimacy of government discrimination according to sex when it comes to marriage (<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/10/race-sex-and-marriage.html" target="_blank">unlike discrimination according to race</a>, which is irrelevant to marriage).</p>

<p>But instead of following the accepted bathroom logic forward to opposite-sex marriage, our society chose same-sex marriage and pushed its distinction-denying logic back to the bathrooms (as I predicted <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/03/embracing-the-absurd.html" target="_blank">here</a> and explained <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/06/the-birth-of-transableism-why-our-culture-bites-absurd-bullets.html" target="_blank">here</a>). This is where we find ourselves now.</p>

<p>Is your biological sex related to what goes on in bathrooms and locker rooms, particularly when it occurs in front of other people? Yes. But so is biological sex related to marriage. As a society, we denied that was the case with marriage, and now we’re just following that reasoning to its logical, absurd conclusion.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdiscrimination-is-legitimate-when-the-distinction-is-relevant" 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%2Fdiscrimination-is-legitimate-when-the-distinction-is-relevant" 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%2Fdiscrimination-is-legitimate-when-the-distinction-is-relevant" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Are Mormons Approaching Orthodoxy?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 04/13/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-mormons-approaching-orthodoxy-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Richard Mouw, professor of Faith and Public Life and former president of Fuller Seminary, has written a piece at First Things titled “<a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy" target="_blank">Mormons Approaching Orthodoxy</a>.”&nbsp;It’s a lengthy article and there is much that needs responding to, but it’s too much for a single blog post. So let me just offer a few thoughts on some of his key points.</p>

<p>(1) First, Mouw sets up a false dichotomy when he writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>At stake in this dispute is a choice between two approaches to Mormon teachings and practice. One is skeptical and presumes that Mormonism is a deeply heretical form of Christianity, so much so that dialogue is impossible. The other is more trusting and is willing to entertain the possibility that Mormonism has the resources for theological self-criticism and self-correction, and that dialogue might help in this process. Recent Mormon history suggests the latter approach is more fitting, and more in keeping with the way Mormons themselves understand their tradition.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>These are not our only two choices. Why can’t one presume Mormonism is deeply heretical <em>and</em> that dialogue with Mormons is still possible? This is a third option, and it’s actually the option I personally practice. And with this approach, I’ve had many productive conversations with Mormons through the years.</p>

<p>(2) Second, Mouw gives us no reason to think that “Mormonism has the resources for theological self-criticism and self-correction.”&nbsp;I’m willing to “entertain the possibility,”&nbsp;but Mouw has to provide some good reasons <em>why</em> we should think so. So, what are those resources? The seeming uncertainty of one past LDS president in a couple of interviews is not enough reason to think Mormonism can self-correct. Indeed, Mormon apologists <a href="https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/does_president_hinckley_understand_lds_doctrine" target="_blank">were quick to correct</a> any perceived misunderstandings of Hinckley’s comments. Later, Mouw asks, “Or will we adopt the more optimistic assumption that Mormonism is capable of self-reformation?”&nbsp;I wish I could be optimistic about this. But again, I need some reasons why I should be optimistic. Actually, I think we have good reason to be pessimistic of the LDS capacity for self-correction because of the LDS view of the Bible as corrupted (see the LDS <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.8?lang=eng" target="_blank">Article of Faith #8</a>). God’s Word is our primary resource for self-reformation, and LDS theology undermines the Bible so as to strip it of its authority.</p>

<p>(3) Third, Mouw puts a lot of stock in LDS president Gordon B. Hinckley’s interview comments regarding the <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-5-the-grand-destiny-of-the-faithful?lang=eng" target="_blank">Lorenzo Snow couplet</a>, but why? Why not examine the larger teaching of the church and, in particular, go directly to the founder of Mormonism and its preeminent prophet? Joseph Smith clearly taught God “was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”&nbsp;(See “Chapter 2: God the Eternal Father”&nbsp;in <em>Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith -</em> pages 36-44.) Or just read the Mormon scriptures: “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.20?lang=eng" target="_blank">Doctrine &amp; Covenants 132:20</a>). Or just consult the teaching found on the official LDS church website: <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng" target="_blank">Becoming Like God</a>. Instead, Mouw writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The second view, the one that I accept, is that Hinckley was signaling a decision on the part of the Mormon leadership to downplay the Snow couplet within the corpus of Mormon teachings about the deity, not just to outsiders, but within their own community.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Again, Mouw simply asserts this without giving us any justification to accept it. However, he does discuss what, or who, has significantly influenced his own views:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I must confess that my own decision to presume sincere Mormon self-questioning has been strongly influenced by many conversations over the past fifteen years in my role as co-director of the Mormon-Evangelical dialogue with my friend Robert Millet.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Could it be that Mouw takes this naive view because his friendship with Mormons has distorted his views about their doctrine? I certainly think one can have close friendships with Mormons <em>and yet</em> understand LDS views are absolutely heretical.</p>

<p>(4) Fourth, Mouw assures us Mormons want to keep the “becoming gods”&nbsp;theology “on the margins of their historic teachings”&nbsp;by referencing three Millet affirmations:</p>

<ol>
	<li>“One is that the strong emphasis on deification in LDS thought has to be seen in connection with the theosis tradition in traditional Christianity. Patristic writers make frequent appearances in Millet’s writings, as well as C. S. Lewis’s insistence that God ’will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature.’”</li>
	<li>“Millet also argues that the LDS version of theosis, like the traditional Christian formulations, does not entail turning human beings into equals of the Godhead in glory and power, much less rivals. ’We do not believe,’&nbsp;says Millet, ’we will ever, worlds without end, unseat or oust God the Father or His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ...I am unaware of any authoritative statement in LDS literature that suggests that men and women will ever worship any being other than those within the Godhead.’&nbsp;He specifically appeals to the clarification offered by President Gordon Hinckley, in a 1994 conference address. The LDS teaching about deification, Hinckley asserted, ’in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so.’&nbsp;As a loving Father, God wants his human children to ’approach him in stature and stand beside Him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom.’”</li>
	<li>“A third emphasis in Millet’s presentation of the Mormon view is the insistence that the path to deification is possible only ’through the cleansing and transforming power of the blood of Jesus Christ.’&nbsp;He cites Joseph Smith’s teaching that our goal of becoming ’heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ’&nbsp;is possible only ’through the love of the Father, the mediation of Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”</li>
</ol>

<p>If you’re familiar with Mormon doctrine, you know that any Mormon can you look you in the eyes and sincerely affirm all three affirmations that Millet outlines here, <em>while at the same time</em> affirming that God the Father was once a man and that we will become gods ourselves. Furthermore, what authority does Robert Millet have to influence official LDS teaching? Is there any good reason to think Millet can sway the machine that is the LDS church? Is there any past record of Millet influencing official doctrinal change?</p>

<p>(5) Fifth, Mouw can’t be unaware of the terminology problem between LDS and orthodox Christians, can he? He writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Hodge is making an important distinction here. A person’s actual trust in Christ is not the same as his theological account of what goes into a proper trust in Christ. Hodge assumed that the former can be legitimate even when the latter is faulty, and in Schleiermacher’s case, he took seriously the liberal Protestant theologian’s expressions of spirituality and the hymns he chose to sing. Hodge seems to have been convinced that what Schleiermacher “meant”&nbsp;when he was singing about Jesus was a more accurate expression of his personal faith in Jesus than the Christology he outlined in his systematic theology. I’ve drawn a similar conclusion from Mormon hymnody.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Wow. Mouw knows LDS use the same terms but have completely different meanings, right? When Mormons talk about Jesus, they mean the literal firstborn son of the Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, a created being, and our literal older spirit brother. But later, Mouw writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And when it is accompanied by a genuine willingness to engage in serious conversation with others, as it is in the Evangelical-Mormon dialogue, it can be a sign of a sincere desire to bring a historically heterodox tradition into greater conformity with the orthodox Christian consensus.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So it seems Mouw thinks that LDS theology is merely heterodox (out of step with orthodoxy but falling short of heresy), not actually heretical. So clearly he misunderstands orthodox LDS doctrine, which is heretical through and through.</p>

<p>(6) Sixth, Mouw suggests our works are a better test for true faith than is our theology:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What did those tears “mean”&nbsp;in relationship to, say, the first half of the Snow couplet? Were the words that the LDS scholar was singing informed by his desire to become his own “god”? Or did his personal experience of what it took for him to be reconciled to God the Father “mean”&nbsp;that he looked forward to the eschatological posture of kneeling in praise and adoration at the “glorified throne,”&nbsp;in gratitude for “hands pierced and bleeding to pay the debt”? I choose the latter interpretation with considerable confidence, with the conviction that a person’s piety is often a better test of his faith in God than are his theological formulations.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God gives us a better test for eternal life in John 17:3: knowing the one true God. So yes, according to God our “theological formulations”&nbsp;are vitally important. If Mormons worship a radically different God than Christians, we can’t both have eternal life, no matter how pious a life we live.</p>

<p>Of course, I would love to see Mormons approach orthodoxy. Unfortunately, Richard Mouw does not give us any good reason to think this is actually happening.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-mormons-approaching-orthodoxy-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-mormons-approaching-orthodoxy-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-mormons-approaching-orthodoxy-" 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 Best One-Sentence Answer to Show Why God Is True—Mentoring Letter April 2016
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/01/2016
source:
https://www.str.org/w/the-best-one-sentence-answer-to-show-why-god-is-true-mentoring-letter-april-2016

content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>I would like to offer you, in a nutshell, what I think is the simplest, most powerful way, strategically, to make your case as a Christian.</em></p>

<p>I would like to offer you, in a nutshell, what I think is the simplest, most powerful way, strategically, to make your case as a Christian. I have been using it a long time in a variety of ways, though it really came together for me quite by accident recently when my eldest daughter, then about eight years old, asked me an important question.</p>

<p>“Papa,”&nbsp;Annabeth asked, “How do we know God is true?”&nbsp;She was already a Christian, baptized at six, but was now trying to connect the dots, not regarding the “What?”&nbsp;but regarding the “Why?”</p>

<p>What do you say to a youngster who already believes in God, but is not sure why belief in God is defensible? That was my challenge. And nothing technical would do, not at her age.</p>

<p>I thought for a moment how I could say something meaningful in a simple way. Then a thought crystalized in my mind. “Annabeth,”&nbsp;I said, “the reason we believe God is true is that God is the best explanation for the way things are.”&nbsp;The minute I said it I realized I had summed up in a single sentence a major thrust of how for decades I have approached defending Christianity.</p>

<p>When I wrote Relativism almost 20 years ago, my goal was to show that objective morality was an undeniable feature of the world. That’s why people complain so readily about the problem of evil. There can only be a real problem of evil if real morality has been violated.</p>

<p>The atheist cannot easily deny the problem of evil, but he cannot make sense of it, either. What accounts for something as odd as a genuine moral obligation? Transcendent moral laws require a transcendent moral lawgiver, it seems. Make-me-up morality simply will not do. God is the best explanation for the way things are.</p>

<p>Lately Annabeth seems to have internalized the concept, at least a bit. She asks me, “Papa, how do atheists explain...”&nbsp;and then fills in the blank with something she has been wondering about that seems to make no sense in an atheistic worldview, but fits right in with Christianity.</p>

<p>Once, Annabeth banged the flat of her hand down on the table and said, “If I bang my hand down, then I am the one who banged it. So who banged the Big Bang?”&nbsp;Again, God is the best explanation for the way things are.</p>

<p>Richard Dawkins opens his best-selling The Blind Watchmaker with the words, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”&nbsp;But given the problems with Darwinism (more on that in a moment), maybe living things “appear”&nbsp;to be designed for a purpose because they actually are designed for a purpose. God is the best explanation for the way things are.</p>

<p>The same approach works in other ways, too. There are all kinds of theories about what happened on that first Easter Sunday and soon following. It turns out, though, that all fall desperately short, but one. The resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb, or for the disciples’&nbsp;experience of what they thought was the risen Christ, or for the meteoric rise of the early church.</p>

<p>Note the advantage to this strategy. There is no need to dismissively deny the possibility of other options. We can give fair consideration to the alternatives. We are not offering the only explanation, just the best one, all things considered.</p>

<p>The larger point we want to make is this: As a worldview, Christianity has superior explanatory power. Important details of the Christian picture of reality seem to fit the way the world actually is. It resonates with our deepest intuitions about reality. This “fit”&nbsp;is the classical definition of truth. Truth is when your beliefs “fit”—correspond to—the way the world actually is.</p>

<p>Christian theism can make sense of morality. It can explain the cause of the Big Bang. It can account for the “appearance”&nbsp;of design. Christianity also provides the reason why humans are both beautiful and broken (we’re made in the image of God, but we’re also fallen). And it also has the answer to human brokenness: the consolation of true forgiveness.</p>

<p>Next time your own convictions are challenged, remember this strategy: The Christian worldview is the best explanation for the way things are. It’s a sound and flexible approach to showing the inadequacies of the alternatives.</p>

<p>One of those alternatives, Darwinian evolution, continues to falter badly, as I mentioned. STR speaker Tim Barnett reveals why in his eye-opening talk, “Shattering the Icons of Evolution.”&nbsp;In it, Tim gives you stunning, specific examples to show why evolution is a bad fit for the facts of biology. And why the evidence points instead to an intelligent designer.</p>

<p>I’d like to send you Tim’s message on DVD as our thanks for your gift this month. Will you give to equip Christian ambassadors who know what they believe and why? Your support now means more believers bringing Christ’s truth to the world with grace and intelligence to win hearts and minds.</p>

<p>Let me add that this month marks STR’s 23rd anniversary. Because of friends like you, STR has reached and equipped multiplied thousands since 1993. And we give God all the glory.</p>

<p>Be sure to ask for “Shattering the Icons of Evolution”&nbsp;as you give. Thanks for your friendship and for partnering with STR again this month.</p>

<p>Yours because His,</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%2Fthe-best-one-sentence-answer-to-show-why-god-is-true-mentoring-letter-april-2016" 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-best-one-sentence-answer-to-show-why-god-is-true-mentoring-letter-april-2016" 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-best-one-sentence-answer-to-show-why-god-is-true-mentoring-letter-april-2016" 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: Surprise! Life Does Begin at Conception
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/28/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/surprise-life-does-begin-at-conception
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It seems that sometimes, when it serves the story, the fact that life begins at conception is perfectly clear to both scientists and the media. Sarah Knapton, Science Editor at the UK Telegraph, writes in an article titled “<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/26/bright-flash-of-light-marks-incredible-moment-life-begins-when-s/" target="_blank">Bright Flash of Light Marks Incredible Moment Life Begins When Sperm Meets Egg</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Human life begins in bright flash of light as a sperm meets an egg, scientists have shown for the first time, after capturing the astonishing ’fireworks’&nbsp;on film.</p>

<p>An explosion of tiny sparks erupts from the egg at the exact moment of conception.</p>

<p>Scientists had seen the phenomenon occur in other animals but it is the first time is has been also shown to happen in humans.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As I’ve <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/10/mr-candidate-how-does-religion-inform-your-view-on-abortion.html" target="_blank">explained before</a>, as much as people say <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/01/challenge-no-scientific-consensus-on-when-human-life-begins.html" target="_blank">they deny</a> the fact that life begins at conception, there really is no scientific controversy over when human life begins; the controversy is over when human life is <em>valuable</em>. Unfortunately, when people use the word “life”&nbsp;in this context to mean <em>only</em> what they consider to be <em>valuable</em> human life, they quietly smuggle this crucial distinction out of their claim via the misuse of language, thereby covering up the claim they’re <em>really</em> making—that is, the claim that some human life isn’t valuable.</p>

<p>I’m convinced there are many people who don’t realize they’re doing this—better to convince yourself there really is no human life at conception than to recognize it and then have to justify killing that human life. I don’t think people want to admit the distasteful truth to themselves that they’re dividing human beings into two groups: those whose lives we respect and those we don’t (a move that has never ended well for human rights—see <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/01/intrinsic-human-value-has-to-be-taught.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2011/01/moral-blind-spots.html" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/01/different-but-equal.html" target="_blank">here</a> for more on this). This article at least blows the smoke away from the issue.</p>

<p>In truth, though, the article is bad news. Listen to how they intend to use this information:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Researchers from Northwestern University, in Chicago, noticed that some of the eggs burn brighter than others, showing that they are more likely to produce a healthy baby.</p>

<p>The discovery could help fertility doctors pick the best fertilised eggs to transfer during in vitro fertilisation (IVF).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, they’re planning to use this knowledge to aid in their eugenics (see <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/01/a-new-eugenics-for-a-new-day.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/the-return-of-eugenics/" target="_blank">here</a> for more on the eugenics of our day)—creating many new <em>human lives</em> (as the science editor above affirms) and then implanting those that display the brightest light while disposing of the rest.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsurprise-life-does-begin-at-conception" 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%2Fsurprise-life-does-begin-at-conception" 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%2Fsurprise-life-does-begin-at-conception" 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 Scientist’s Answers May Reflect His Worldview More than Science
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/06/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-scientist-s-answers-may-reflect-his-worldview-more-than-science
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In this short video from <a href="http://www.ligonier.org/blog/universe-had-beginning/" target="_blank">Ligonier</a>, Stephen Meyer demonstrates not only some evidence for a beginning of the universe, but also how a scientist’s worldview and biases can direct and constrain his findings, distorting what he considers to be “scientific”—sometimes without his even realizing it. Even a scientist as great as Einstein.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="64WpGhpjkHg" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/64WpGhpjkHg?rel=0"></iframe></div>

<p>Of course, one may easily say, “Christian scientists will have the same problem!”&nbsp;That’s fair. This is why you must always consider carefully whether a scientist is making a fair interpretation <em>of the evidence at hand</em>—i.e., that the evidence actually points to his conclusion—and that one of his interpretive principles isn’t to rule out a particular conclusion that falls outside his worldview, prior to and regardless of the evidence (as Einstein did).</p>

<p>(HT: <a href="http://www.challies.com/a-la-carte/a-la-carte-april-6-0" target="_blank">Tim Challies</a>)</p>
</div>

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


title: Tweeting the Only Way to Heaven
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/08/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/tweeting-the-only-way-to-heaven
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Twitter is not the place to post profound theology. You only get 140 characters (including spaces) to say something. Nevertheless, I recently posted on Twitter the reason why Jesus is the only way to Heaven (and I did it with two characters to spare!). I wrote: “There’s only <em>one way</em> to Heaven because there’s only <em>one God</em> that exists who’s made only <em>one offer</em> of forgiveness through His only <em>one Son</em>.”&nbsp;Though I didn’t <em>write</em> a lot, I still <em>said</em> a lot. It just needs to be unpacked.</p>

<p>You’ll notice I wrote “one”&nbsp;several times. That��s because one excludes two. You’re probably thinking, <em>Wow, that was profound.</em> I know it sounds simple, but it’s important. One God precludes two gods or multiple gods, and that means there’s only one being we must listen to about our eternal destiny. Here’s what I mean about each component of the tweet.</p>

<p><strong>One God:</strong> We have good reason to believe that God exists and that He is the only one. Everything that is created needs a creator. This is a universal experience and it’s without exception. That means creation needs a Creator. Even if you lean towards Big Bang cosmology, a big bang needs a big Banger. All of space, time, and matter must have been brought into existence by someone or something. We call that being “God.”</p>

<p>Given that God is real, we also know there can only be one ultimate being in the universe. This is a matter of logic. If there were a being greater than God, then He would be God. Therefore, it is that being who is ultimately in charge, and we are accountable only to Him. We also know there is only one God by revelation. The one God has plainly spoken to humanity (through Scripture) and told us there are no other gods.</p>

<p>Therefore, the universe is God’s kingdom. He’s the King and it’s His domain. He’s the sovereign and we’re His subjects.</p>

<p><strong>One offer:</strong> Since there’s only one God who exists, there can only be one offer for forgiveness. There’s no other being out there to even make an additional offer. We are left with the terms of His pardon, whether we like them or not.</p>

<p>Fortunately, the one God is loving and His terms are gracious. Even though we’ve committed crimes that violate His code of conduct, He is willing to grant us a pardon. We can accept the pardon and be acquitted or pay the penalty ourselves. It’s our choice.</p>

<p><strong>One Son:</strong> Since the one God makes only one offer for forgiveness, we have to discover the details of His offer from Him. It turns out He’s appointed an advocate to appeal on our behalf: His one Son. The Son is God’s next of kin, making Him a divine being and without guilt. He is, therefore, a suitable candidate to fulfill the terms of the pardon.</p>

<p>God arranges a trade: our guilt for His Son’s innocence. We are absolved from our crimes while the Son is punished. The guilty are made innocent and the innocent is made guilty.</p>

<p><strong>One way:</strong> There’s only one God who’s made only one offer through His one Son. That’s why there is only one way to Heaven. We live under God’s jurisdiction. We’ve committed crimes against Him. He’s the only one who can offer a pardon. That’s why there is only one way.</p>

<p>It’s like getting arrested by the FBI. You’re guilty of committing a crime on United States soil, which is under U.S. jurisdiction. Only the U.S. government has the authority to offer you a pardon. You can accept the terms of the pardon and go free or pay for the crime. There are no multiple paths to freedom. No other country can offer you a pardon. It’s the U.S. way or there’s no way.</p>

<p>That’s why Jesus is the <em>only</em> way. As I said in my tweet, “There’s only <em>one way</em> to Heaven because there’s only <em>one God</em> that exists who’s made only <em>one offer</em> of forgiveness through His only <em>one Son</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%2Ftweeting-the-only-way-to-heaven" 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%2Ftweeting-the-only-way-to-heaven" 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%2Ftweeting-the-only-way-to-heaven" 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 Practical Plan to Equip the Next Generation
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 04/25/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-practical-plan-to-equip-the-next-generation
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I grew up in a Christian home. I came to Christ at five and was baptized at six. My family was committed to the local church. My dad faithfully taught Sunday school, led small groups, and was even an elder. My mom was always involved in ministry as well. I grew up attending Sunday school, Royal Ambassadors, and Awana. As a teenager, I was the model youth group kid, a student leader in high school, and a ministry intern as a senior, even committing my life to full-time vocational ministry before I graduated.</p>

<p>Then I met Dr. David Lane.</p>

<p>It was my freshman year in college and the course was Philosophy 101. Dr. Lane systematically dismantled the Christianity I grew up with. In class. In front of everyone. And I was not ready. But why not? I had spent the first eighteen years of my life in the church. Wasn’t that enough time to prepare me to engage the world for Christ?</p>

<p>Sadly, the majority of our Christian students aren’t ready either. They’re not prepared for the serious intellectual challenges awaiting them, let alone the barrage of moral challenges from an increasingly secular culture. It’s a huge reason why we continue to hemorrhage youth from our churches.</p>

<p>Thank God I discovered apologetics amidst Professor Lane’s intellectual assault on my Christianity. Apologetics helped rebuild my faith in Christ, and I became convinced of its absolute necessity for student discipleship. That’s right, I said necessity. Apologetics is not optional in a post-Christian culture. It’s not just for the nerdy youth group kid “who’s into that kind of stuff.”&nbsp;God is a rational God, and we are made in His image. Therefore, every student is rational by design, instinctively gathering reasons and evidence as they seek to make sense of the world around them and form a coherent set of beliefs about reality. As the church equips a new generation for the cause of Christ, we must begin with the conviction that apologetics is an indispensable tool.</p>

<p>Now, I’m under no false pretense that if we simply give students apologetics we’ll automatically secure their faith in Christ for a lifetime. Human beings are not just thinking beings; we’re emotional, experiential, and volitional as well. That’s why 1 Peter 3:15(NASB) the apologist’s theme verse begins and ends with two very important phrases. Peter starts with this reminder: “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.”&nbsp;Apologetics should be done amidst a certain kind of life, one where we surrender more and more of ourselves to Christ. When we do this, He transforms us. A life transformed by Christ is the requisite context for making “a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.”&nbsp;Peter ends the verse with a picture of such an apologetic: it is gentle and respectful.</p>

<p>So, while apologetics training is necessary to disciple the next generation, it is not sufficient by itself to form fully devoted followers of Jesus. However, this does not minimize its necessity. The mind plays a prominent role in our spiritual transformation, “Be transformed by the renewing of your mind”&nbsp;(Romans 12:2 NASB), and&nbsp;therefore, we ignore the minds of the next generation to our own peril.</p>

<p>Maybe you’re already convinced but wondering, “How can we effectively equip a new generation with apologetics?”&nbsp;Let me share some ideas that are borne out of my own experience teaching students as a youth pastor for eleven years, as a parent now for eighteen years and as Stand to Reason’s Student Impact director for the last twelve years. I’ve made plenty of mistakes in all three roles, but my experience has allowed me to hone an approach that can be effective at home, at church, at youth group, or in a Christian school.</p>

<h2>Back to the Future</h2>

<p>Before we look forward in the formation of the next generation, let’s first look to the past. If we can lay aside what C.S. Lewis called chronological snobbery, “the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited,”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a>&nbsp;</sup>we will discover long-forgotten insights to help forge a path forward. So for a moment, I want you to lay aside modern educational models and contemporary youth ministry approaches and programs and consider an ancient model.</p>

<p>As our oldest daughter approached the junior-high years, my wife and I began to rethink our views on educating and discipling our kids. We were dissatisfied with things we were seeing in her life, not only academically, but also spiritually and morally. In that process of reevaluation, we discovered an ancient approach to education called “classical education,”&nbsp;stretching back to the Classical Greeks and Romans and formalized in the Middle Ages. Educator Susan Wise Bauer offers a concise description of this approach:</p>

<p>Classical education depends on a three-part process of training the mind. The early years of school are spent in absorbing facts, systematically laying the foundations for advanced study [Grammar Stage]. In the middle grades, students learn to think through arguments [Logic Stage]. In the high school years, they learn to express themselves [Rhetoric Stage].<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>While not an exhaustive definition, it gets us started and highlights the three-stage pattern of classical education called the trivium. In the early years of elementary school, called the Grammar Stage, children’s minds are like sponges. There is a natural wonder at the world around them and a corresponding love of learning. Young children are primarily interested in the what questions. They want to know facts about the world, and they absorb and memorize them with ease.</p>

<p>Nearing the middle-school or junior-high years, a student��s mind grows in its ability to analyze and think abstractly. During this phase, called the Logic Stage, students are asking the why questions. Many adults perceive such questioning to be a direct challenge to their authority, but often it’s merely the outworking of our natural inclination to sort things out for ourselves. At this stage, students want to know if there are good reasons to believe the so-called facts they were given at younger ages and to see if those facts provide a coherent picture of the world.</p>

<p>As students approach high school and enter the Rhetoric Stage, they grow in their ability to communicate. During this stage, students build on the first two stages by taking the what and the why and communicating what they’ve learned through the <em>how-to</em> of writing and speaking. Research, writing papers, giving speeches, debating and the like force students to articulate what they’ve come to believe as true.</p>

<p>The medievals believed this trivium pattern corresponded to the universal human experience of learning. It accurately captures the manner in which young minds are best trained.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Thus, we should take this ancient approach to education and breathe into it new life for our modern context. Indeed, the trivium provides us with a three-stage approach to discipling the next generation:</p>

<p>Stage 1: Teach the What - Grammar Stage (primary focus of grades 0-4)</p>

<p>Stage 2: Teach the Why - Logic Stage (primary focus of grades 5-8)</p>

<p>Stage 3: Teach the <em>How-To -&nbsp;</em>Rhetoric Stage (primary focus of grades 9-12)</p>

<p>Outlining a general approach is vital. First, it keeps us from getting lost in the details of training. Without the big picture, we may wander aimlessly, looking for the latest and greatest video series or searching for that one comprehensive curriculum package. Certainly, individual tools are important, but we need to understand the larger strategy within which our tools fit and make sense. Second, it brings to light the requisite context for effective training. Apologetics is the why, but there must be an appropriate foundation of the what in place first for the why to secure it.</p>

<p>So first, we must be convinced of the necessity of apologetics, and second, we must have a larger discipleship framework in place into which we fit apologetics. Now we’re ready to explore the practical how-tos.</p>

<h2>Stage 1: Teach the What</h2>

<p>Before we can teach our students how to defend what we believe, they must know what it is we actually believe. They must first engage theology, the study of God. Apologetics is properly understood as a sub-branch of theology; theology is its foundation. When should theological training begin? As soon as our kids can speak.</p>

<p>From the youngest of ages, we need to teach children God’s attributes, Trinitarian doctrine, the deity of Christ, the meaning of the cross, the nature of Scripture, the nature of man, and the nature of the church. Grab any standard systematic theology and its table of contents will give you an overview of theological topics to teach. Of course, we need to communicate theology in an age-appropriate manner, so a child’s first exposure will be basic, but it will also be foundational. Just as learning language during the Grammar Stage of classical education provides the building blocks for all future learning, learning the language of theology builds a foundation for future training in apologetics. Here are three practical steps for this stage.</p>

<p>1. Reading.</p>

<p>Read, read, read. I cannot emphasize this enough. Start by reading to them. Read children’s Bibles, individual biblical stories, classical stories, and any Christian children’s books you can get your hands on. Read to them at home, at church, and at school. Reading is an indispensable tool in teaching theology. It’s no accident God gave us His Word in written form and not on a DVD. We want our students’&nbsp;learning to be primarily from words, not images.</p>

<p>2. Catechism.</p>

<p>A catechism is simply a summary of Christian doctrine. It is generally laid out in question-answer format and is a fantastic tool to build a theological foundation in our kids. My wife and I are currently working our way through a children’s version titled First Catechism<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> with our three-year-old son and seven-year-old daughter. We ask them a catechism question, “Who made you?”, and they memorize the answer, “God.”&nbsp;Trust me. You will be astonished by your preschooler’s ability to memorize large portions of information. By having our kids memorize the catechism, we are pouring into them the raw theological material we will build upon in later years. My wife and I also teach the class for two and three-year-olds at our local church and are taking them through this catechism as well.</p>

<p>3. Memorization.</p>

<p>Capitalize on your kids’&nbsp;capabilities by having them memorize significant theological pieces. In addition to the catechism, have them memorize important passages of Scripture and the great creeds of the church. Singing praise songs and hymns is a great way to memorize theological content as well. Here is a list of ten important items to have children memorize:</p>

<p>First Catechism</p>

<p>Apostles Creed</p>

<p>Nicene Creed</p>

<p>Attributes of God</p>

<p>Ten Commandments</p>

<p>Lord’s Prayer</p>

<p>Psalm 23</p>

<p>The Beatitudes</p>

<p>The Great Commandment (Matthew 22:37-39)</p>

<p>The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20)</p>

<p>Sadly, this is where much of our Christian education stops. Whether it’s children, youth, or adults, we just keep teaching the what and never equip our people with the why.</p>

<p>I recently role-played an atheist with a group of adults at a local church in Southern California. An older gentleman began to engage me while I was “in character”&nbsp;as an atheist, telling me he had been a Christian for more than thirty years. He then began his defense of Christianity with the “God-said-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it”&nbsp;approach, stating emphatically that the Bible was the Word of God. I simply responded, “Why do you think the Bible is the Word of God?”&nbsp;Silence. He had no answer. He was stuck in the what and could not answer the why.</p>

<p>Laying the theological foundation in stage one, the Grammar Stage, is just the beginning. Now we must move on to the apologetics training in stage two.</p>

<h2>Stage 2: Teach the Why</h2>

<p>Around fourth or fifth grade, a student’s mind grows significantly in its capacity for abstract thought. As their ability to reason grows, they begin to transition from what questions to why questions. Don’t be surprised if they begin to question you and challenge your answers at this stage. And don’t be threatened by it either. Instead, capitalize on it. They’ve reached the Logic Stage and are now ready for a good dose of apologetics.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>This is the time for arguments for God’s existence, evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and reasons why the Bible is not only historically reliable, but also divinely inspired. In addition, we must help them overcome objections to Christianity, such as the problem of evil and suffering, moral relativism, religious pluralism, and challenges to the Bible. When we equip them with “the reason for the hope”&nbsp;we have in Christ, we help secure the theological foundation of stage one and strengthen their confidence that Christianity is objectively true. Here are three practical steps for this stage.</p>

<p>1. Ask them questions first.</p>

<p>Don’t wait for students to raise questions and challenges; be proactive and provoke their questions. Question the theological training you provided in stage one: “You believe God is all-powerful and all-loving, but how do you know He exists in the first place?”&nbsp;And then wait. Let them struggle to answer, and then question their answers. Struggling can create some healthy internal motivation for our students to care about the questions and seek out satisfying answers.</p>

<p>2. Never shut down their questions.</p>

<p>Create a safe space for students’&nbsp;doubts by allowing them to ask any and all questions. And when they ask, affirm them in their questioning. According to recent research by the Fuller Youth Institute, students who were free to express their doubts during high school showed greater faith maturity in college.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> If you shut down their questions, they won’t stop questioning, they’ll just seek answers elsewhere without you.</p>

<p>3. Answer four key questions.</p>

<p>The case for Christianity is a cumulative one. That means there is no apologetic silver bullet, no single argument that establishes the entire case. Instead, we must help students identify the key components of our cumulative case and supply them with the supporting reasons and evidence. Have them answer these four key questions to establish the truthfulness of Christianity:</p>

<p>Does truth exist?</p>

<p>Does God exist?</p>

<p>Does God act (miracles)?</p>

<p>Does God speak (Scripture)?<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>By the time a student graduates from our home or our ministry, she must move beyond merely believing the truth to actually knowing the truth. What’s the difference? Philosophers generally define knowledge as justified true belief. If I know something, not only do I believe it to be true, but it’s supported by adequate reasons. The theological training of stage one supplies the true beliefs of Christian orthodoxy and the apologetic training of stage two provides the reasons and justification. Together they furnish our students with knowledge of the truth.</p>

<h2>Stage 3: Create “How-To”&nbsp;Experiences</h2>

<p>In the Rhetoric Stage, high school age, roughly it’s time to get the theological and apologetic training out of the classroom and into real life. The best way to learn something is to teach it to someone else, and the rhetoric stage forces students to do just that. Students must learn to take the what and the why of Christianity and communicate it in a coherent and reasonable manner. We need to create experiences in which students have the opportunity to articulate what they believe and why they believe it. Here are three practical examples.</p>

<p>1. Role-play.</p>

<p>I love being invited to an unsuspecting youth group to role-play an atheist or Mormon. By interacting with my non-Christian character, students are forced to explain and defend their Christian views. Unfortunately, most Christian youth are ill-equipped to do so. Worse, they don’t know how ill-equipped they are. After I thoroughly dismantle their responses through the role-play, the students’&nbsp;eyes are opened and many are motivated to learn the what and the why. Over time, continued role-play can help students hone their ability to articulate the truth.</p>

<p>2. Invite guests.</p>

<p>Don’t just role-play non-Christian characters with your students, invite the real thing. After teaching your students about the Trinitarian nature of God, invite Jehovah’s Witnesses into your home or youth group to discuss the topic. Teach your students about the nature of salvation and invite Mormon missionaries over for a conversation on the matter. Once you’ve equipped your students with arguments for God’s existence, ask your atheist neighbor to discuss the topic with them. When students are forced to have real-time conversations with real-life people, their learning increases exponentially.</p>

<p>3. Visit another religious site.</p>

<p>As a youth pastor, I would teach my students about other religions. I knew they would eventually encounter a friendly Hindu neighbor, a kind Muslim classmate, or some other person who held opposing beliefs, but I wanted to be the one to expose them to those ideas first. My strategy was inoculation, not isolation. So after teaching about a religion like Buddhism and offering a biblical and philosophical critique, I would arrange a field trip to the local Buddhist temple. A monk gave us a tour, explained their basic beliefs and practices, and answered students’&nbsp;questions. Everything the students learned in the classroom prior to the field trip came to life as they engaged a Buddhist monk in the flesh. The encounter was exciting, and it gave students an opportunity to get the theology and apologetics out of the classroom and into a real conversation.</p>

<p>Again, they were forced to articulate the truth, and in doing so, they learned the truth in a deeper and more meaningful way.</p>

<h2>Training Must Be Intentional</h2>

<p>It’s time to stop bemoaning the exodus of students from our churches and start doing something intentional to stop it. The world is certainly serious about stripping students of their Christian faith. Atheist Daniel Dennett speaks for many when he said, “They will see me as just another liberal professor trying to cajole them out of some of their convictions, and they are dead right about that, that’s what I am, and that’s exactly what I am trying to do.”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> They’re intentional out there in the world. We’d better get intentional here in the church.</p>

<p>This three-stage plan of training provides a practical strategy that can be implemented immediately. Take it and use it. Build on it and add your own ideas. But do not wait to start training up the next generation. Too much is at stake.</p>

<p>This is excerpted from <em>A New Kind of Apologist: Adopting Fresh Strategies, Addressing the Latest Issues, Engaging the Culture</em>, edited by Sean McDowell, Harvest House Publishers</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">C.S. Lewis, <em>Surprised by Joy</em> (New York: Harcourt Brace &amp; Company, 1955), 207. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Susan Wise Bauer, “What is Classical Education?”&nbsp;Available online at http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classical-education/. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">It’s certainly not the only, or even primary, indicator of academic “success,”&nbsp;but standardized test scores from the Association of Classical and Christian Schools indicate classically trained students clearly outperform their publicly educated counterparts: http://www.accsedu.org/what-is-cce/statistics_at_a_glance. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">It is a short 38-page booklet of theological Q &amp; A for kids, published by Great Commission Publications. You can order it online at http://www.gcp.org/ProductDetail.aspx?Item=020030. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Of course, this doesn’t mean they won’t begin asking “why”&nbsp;questions earlier or that you cannot begin teaching apologetics at younger ages. But generally speaking, they are most definitely ready to begin apologetic training in fourth or fifth grade. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">The research was conducted by Kara Powell &amp; Brad Griffin. Read more online at http://stickyfaith.org/articles/i-doubt-it. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Norm Geisler and Frank Turek wrote an excellent book answering these four questions entitled, <em>I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an</em> <em>Atheist</em> (Crossway, 2004). I suggest every high schooler read this book before they graduate. There is also an excellent starter apologetics book for middle school students entitled, <em>Living Loud: Defending Your Faith</em> (B &amp; H Publishers, 2002), that Geisler co-wrote with Joseph Holden. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Daniel Dennett, <em>Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon</em> (New York: Penguin Group, 2006), 53. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&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%2Fa-practical-plan-to-equip-the-next-generation" 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-practical-plan-to-equip-the-next-generation" 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-practical-plan-to-equip-the-next-generation" 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 Right to Life Is Not Like the Right to Drive
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/02/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-right-to-life-is-not-like-the-right-to-drive
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Christopher Kaczor, author of <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Abortion-Question-Routledge-Bioethics/dp/041573293X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1459376676&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=the+ethics+of+abortion" target="_blank">The Ethics of Abortion</a></em>, has an interesting <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/07/equal-rights-unequal-wrongs" target="_blank">post</a> at First Things (from 2011) explaining how two human beings could have an equal right to life, yet the killing of one could be a worse wrong than the killing of the other. (See his post for the six reasons he lists that “justify the common moral intuition that late abortion is worse than early abortion, without justifying early abortion and without denying human equality.”)</p>

<p>His post is written in response to those who argue that a gradualist view of the right to life explains why, for example, killing an adult human is a greater moral wrong than killing a human in the womb. (The gradualist view is the idea that one attains the right to life when one reaches the proper level of development, age, location outside the womb, etc.) Responding to the argument comparing the right to life to other rights like the right to vote (which we don’t have until we reach a particular age), he says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We should reject, for example, the analogy between the gradual development of a right to life and the gradual attainment of other rights. There is a radical difference between the right to life and the rights to vote or drive or hold public office. Those rights can be enjoyed only by those who can meet the corresponding responsibilities. Five-year-olds have no right to drive, because they cannot meet the responsibilities of drivers. But the right to life does not have any corresponding responsibilities, and so it may be enjoyed by those who cannot discharge any duties, like children before the age of reason or mentally handicapped adults. Although some rights are attained gradually as the person matures, the right to life is not one of them.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The difference between <a href="http://www.str.org/blog/a-shift-in-rights#.VvxPHBIrJZ0" target="_blank">positive and negative rights</a> comes into play here. A positive right (the right to be provided with or have access to something—a right that is created by the government, man-made and dependent on time and place) can be tied to a responsibility that justifies that right. A negative right, on the other hand, is a right to not have something we already possess <em>taken away</em>. The right to life is not a positive right promising the provision of something by the government; it’s a negative right preventing the government (or anyone else) from taking away what is already ours.</p>

<p>As further evidence of the absurdity of the gradualist view, Kaczor offers this scenario:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In addition, some human beings in utero are <em>more</em> physiologically developed than some human beings after birth. Compare a pregnancy that continues two weeks past the due date to a baby born prematurely at twenty-five weeks. The more physiologically developed human being remains within the uterus; the less physiologically developed human being is found outside his or her mother in the nursery. If the gradualist view were true, killing a baby born at twenty-five weeks would be more justifiable than aborting one at forty-two weeks’&nbsp;gestation. No one thinks this, not even the gradualists.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of “<a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/07/equal-rights-unequal-wrongs" target="_blank">Equal Rights, Unequal Wrongs</a>.”</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-right-to-life-is-not-like-the-right-to-drive" 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-right-to-life-is-not-like-the-right-to-drive" 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-right-to-life-is-not-like-the-right-to-drive" 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: Should a Woman Be Punished for Getting an Abortion When Abortion Is Illegal?
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/06/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/should-a-woman-be-punished-for-getting-an-abortion-when-abortion-is-illegal-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A transcript from the Stand to Reason broadcast April 6, 2016.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/does-pro-life-logic-mean-women-who-get-abortions-should-be-punished-april-6-2016#.VxALWZMrLGI" target="_blank">Listen to the podcast...</a></p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Alan, there’s been a little bit of a flap that’s come up in the process of the issues discussed in the presidential campaign and this one has to do broadly with the issue of abortion. I think it represents, in some ways, a strategic challenge to pro-lifers so I thought it’d be a good idea if we chatted about it a little bit. Why don’t you take a moment and describe the nature of this issue that’s come up and what challenge that represents to the pro-life view.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: The question has come up about whether, if abortion was ever made illegal in the future, would we punish women who pursue and actually get an abortion? If we did punish them, what kind of punishment would they get? What’s fair? What’s just? This question has been brought up, as you mentioned, on the campaign trail, and so Christians and pro-lifers have been weighing in on the issue. Of course, abortion choice advocates think pro-lifers are put on the horns of a dilemma. Basically, the idea is, “Look, if we say we’re not going to punish women who have an abortion, then it appears as if we’re inconsistent in our value for the unborn.”&nbsp;It’s almost as if we really don’t believe that the unborn is a human being and that a woman has unjustly killed an innocent human being.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Which under normal circumstances would be a homicide, and so it seems as though we’re saying, “Well, we’re just going to give her a pass on a homicide.”</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: That’s right. Allegedly, we don’t actually believe the unborn is a human being.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Yes, that’s one horn of the dilemma.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Exactly. Then, the other side is, what if we say women should be punished in some way for the crime of abortion. Then we come across as harsh, callous, and uncaring. Here are women who are in a vulnerable situation. They’re facing a crisis pregnancy and they feel they have no way out. They make a decision to have an abortion and then we punish them.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: I think it might be good to get some of these issues on the table. Not so much that we’re taking a big stand on it one way or another, but to help people to understand what are the issues to think about in an issue like this because pro-lifers would like to see abortion abolished. The only way to really abolish abortion, ultimately, is to make it illegal, and then the incidents of abortion would shrink to virtually nothing, which would be good for the unborn. Then that raises the policy concern, now what do we do if abortion is made illegal with all of the women who might be seeking an illegal abortion? Do we give them a pass or not? This discussion has this strategic element in making pro-lifers look bad. What has been the discussion so far that you’re familiar with on this?</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: As you said, I obviously care a lot about the pro-life issue. So many people have sent me articles that have tried to answer this question. One of them was in The Federalist and the title is called “Why Pro-Lifers Don’t Support Punishing Women for Abortion” by Rachel Lu. I’m not going to be able to do her article justice here, but I do want to point out one of the illustrations that she presents in making the case that she thinks that we should not punish women for abortions if it was ever criminalized. Basically, she creates an illustration with suicide. She says, look, up until the 1960s, suicide was illegal. Of course, if somebody was to attempt suicide and succeed, obviously, you couldn’t prosecute because, of course, they’re dead. However, a lot of the attempted suicides are unsuccessful. It said, when that happened, we didn’t turn around and then punish the person who committed this crime even though we might think, biblically speaking, that trying to take your own life is a moral wrong because...</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: It’s a type of homicide.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: It’s a type of homicide, right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Self-homicide.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: That’s right. It’s wrong to kill an innocent human being even when that human being is yourself.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Right.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: If you were to take away the theology of it and even if it was the case that yes, suicide was still a crime, she points out we didn’t punish these people in the same way we would punish somebody who killed another person.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Mm-hmm (affirmative) or attempted to kill another person.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Or attempted to kill another person, that’s right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Yeah.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: One of the points she makes, she says, look, people who are suicidal typically aren’t a public safety risk. She says anyone who wants to end his own life probably needs support and care, not punishment.</p>

<p>Then, she says, abortion could be seen in a similar sense. Women who attempt to take the life of their own child are also in a similar distressing situation as a person who might attempt suicide. Therefore, there’s no reason to think that these abortive women pose, she says, “A broader threat to public safety in the same way that a person who attempts suicide does not pose a threat to the public safety.”&nbsp;That’s one perspective that’s being offered.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: You know, I’d never thought about the suicide angle. This is the first that I heard about it, but it does seem to be at least something to think about, and what this underscores, Alan, I think is that there’s a huge divide between two kinds of questions here. One is the moral question about the action. Is the action in question right or wrong? That’s one question. The second one is the policy question. If it is wrong, then what should be done for people who commit the wrong or attempt to commit the wrong. Those are different issues, completely different issues. One might be capable of solving the first without being capable of solving the second. I’m speaking here of the rank and file pro-lifer. I guess, I’m trying to simplify the issue somewhat for the pro-lifer who could say, You know what? I don’t know what to do. We’ll talk some more about some of the possibilities here, but couldn’t a person just simply say, You know what? I don’t know how the law ought to deal with people who attempt abortion or have abortion, whether it’s the mother, whether it’s the doctor. I don’t know about that. We can’t ever make that kind of decision about the policy concern unless we’re clear on the moral concern.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: That’s right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Ambiguity in the policy concern doesn’t necessarily mean there’s ambiguity in the moral concern. It’s is within our capability to address the moral question even if we’re not specialists in the area of law.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: That’s right. Strategically speaking, that’s an important point for, like you said, every day people who are pro-life. They’re pressed with this question and they feel like if they can’t answer this legal question as to what punishment should be given then therefore their entire pro-life view is somehow destroyed or undermined. Of course, it’s not the case.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Even if the charge were leveled at us – and I’m thankful to Scott Klusendorf for this observation – because even if the charge could be leveled at us accurately that we’re inconsistent, what Scott says is, “All right. What does that prove about abortion?”&nbsp;It proves nothing about abortion. It just says something about us.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: That’s right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: That we’re inconsistent. Maybe, we ought to be viciously consistent and punish the woman, maybe, but we’re not willing to do that. It certainly doesn’t follow that if we are being inconsistent in our view, that our view is false.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: That’s right. The pro-life case stands or falls on the merits of its own case.</p>

<p>Whether there’s a scientific defense that you can make for the full humanity of the unborn and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, the unborn, whether that’s true or not has nothing to do with our consistency on this position or whether we come across as callous, harsh, mean, cruel, or anything.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: If it’s wrong to take a life of an innocent human being and abortion does that, then abortion is wrong. If there’s no relevant moral difference between an innocent human being and an innocent human person – and this is where the SLED Test comes in – then the moral logic remains intact. Nothing anybody can say or argue even successfully about our consistency or commitment to our view has any bearing on that argument. It’s a really important takeaway for pro-lifers. Let’s focus on that which we know because before any policy issue can be decided, there has to be a moral assessment done first.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Let’s figure out if whatever is in question is in fact immoral and then, given that it is immoral, what action do we take, what public policy needs to be in place, and what punishments if any need to be in place in light of that. Even though we can separate those two and encourage pro-lifers not to worry about the second because it takes a set of law-making skills we don’t know all have. But we can still make the case against abortion. Then, let the lawmakers who are skilled at that kind of thing sort out the appropriate consequences.</p>

<p>I think this illustration you give with suicide is helpful in this regard that there really are a number of factors to weigh with regards to punishment either of a woman who has an abortion or the doctor who provides it. Do you think that it makes more sense to bring legal action against the doctor rather than the woman? Is there a difference between those two participants if abortion were to be considered illegal?</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Yeah, I would think so. Maybe there are exceptions, but I think in most cases, the abortion provider would definitely need to be held accountable in a more severe way. I don’t know if it’s appropriate to punish a woman who gets an illegal abortion, but I do know that the physician performing an abortion should be punished more severely. Certainly, I think the physician definitely is the one who would be the most culpable because they’re more aware of what’s going on. They’re aware of what they’re doing. They would know what the law says about their particular practice or the service that they’re providing. They know all the medical details about the unborn they’re killing.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: This kind of discussion can only be had if it is clear that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. If abortion were to be made illegal, it’ll be because there’s a broad consensus in our society that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being and shouldn’t be done. Once we have that kind of moral clarity in our society, then it’ll be clearer to discuss what the appropriate punishments are.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: It’s the same kind of discussion we would have about infanticide, which is largely not in question now. That’s homicide. It should be actionable. If a mother and a doctor together conspired to kill the baby then they would both be held liable in appropriate ways as the law is construed right now. The only way to discuss the case of abortion meaningfully is if we’ve already come to a consensus in our culture, that this is a serious wrong. Then, the question is, how do you prevent it from happening? It seems to me that in the case of the doctor, if there are no providers, there are not going to be abortions. Let’s just face it. We only need to favor punishments that are sufficient to stop or discourage the illegal act. Punishing the doctors will be sufficient to do that.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Well, doctors could still provide abortions illegally.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Right. But abortion would be vastly curtailed. Passing laws and punishing behavior doesn’t stop all of those acts, whatever the law is, but it vastly reduces it. And punishing doctors is enough to do that in the case of abortion.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: This was the case even before Roe v. Wade.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: The point I’m making though is that doctors provide abortions, and if doctors were not providing abortions, there would be drastically fewer abortions. Illegalizing abortion conjures up a picture of women laying in an alley between two dumpsters and somebody using a coat hanger to do the job. But this isn’t what happened even before Roe v. Wade. It was by and large doctors that used their facilities to do illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade, but they were medically responsible abortions.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Right, right. This is even according to Planned Parenthood’s own medical director Mary Calderone. She was the medical director in the 1950s and said prior to Roe v. Wade, prior to the legalization of abortion, that illegal abortion, for the most part, was a safe procedure and that they were done by physicians who are in good standing with their communities.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: This back alley abortion scare is largely red herring.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Right. I’m sure it happened at some point.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Right, right.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Obviously, to the degree to which people try to scare others into thinking, “Man, if we illegalize abortion now, that’s what’s going to happen. We’ll send all the women into back alleys.”</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Right.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Chances are, no. What’s going to happen is women will still receive abortions from physicians who will be willing to do them illegally.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Now, with that in place then, if the penalty was severe for the physicians, then it discourages them from performing abortions because of the risk of punishment.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Yeah, that’s true.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: If we want to stop abortion because abortion is the taking of an innocent human life without justification, then the best way to do it is to go to the source. It’s like almost... It reminds me kind of the drug users.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: You have drug users and pushers. As far as I could tell, most of the law enforcement effort is not on users.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Small change, they’re not going to fuss with that. The pushers are are the ones who are more responsible for the drug trade, so you cut it off at the source.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: It’s most effective to focus your jurisprudence on the source. Plus in the case of abortion, women are often motivated by emotion and taken advantage of, not given all the information to make a fully-informed decision.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Right. Notice with the example that you just gave with drug pushers and drug users, we would say that taking drugs is wrong. It’s a moral wrong. Yet, we would not be inconsistent in our view if we focus on laws that punish drug pushers. We recognize drug users are doing something wrong, but we also recognize that it’s the drug pushers who are creating the problem. When we say we should punish the drug pushers, we are not being inconsistent in our position regarding drug use.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: That’s a great observation. I think, and understandably, there’s a bit of a tendency sometimes to think of drug users as victims of sorts because they have a habit that, maybe they exercised some choice that got them into it, but now they can’t control themselves and so compassion is an appropriate response where it ought to measure or influence the way we deal with them legally. However, pushers are a whole different thing. We don’t have compassion on the pushers because they’re not in a difficult, emotional situation. They’re exploiting people’s lives for money. Without the pushers, you’re not going to have the drugs by and large; without the doctors who are exploiting women’s difficult circumstances for money, you probably aren’t going to have abortion. Again, just experimenting with this way of approaching this, it seems like the judicial emphasis should be on the provider, not on the woman who arguably is being victimized by her circumstances and by her feelings at the same time.</p>

<p>The key thing for us, and this is kind of where we’re landing right now, we’re not taking a position on the legal policy questions. At Stand to Reason we are not equipped to deal with all the vicissitudes that relate to the appropriate punishment for a particular crime. That takes a different set of skills. Those are legal people. Those are lawmakers. They know how this works.</p>

<p>This is another thing to keep in mind. We already have fetal homicide laws in place including in the great state of California, right here. There was a time when abortion was illegal forty-three years ago, and presumably, and I don’t know what the details were then legally, but presumably, since it was illegal, there were punishments that were in place. We aren’t starting from ground zero here, are we? We have legal precedents from when abortion was illegal. Point being, on the one hand, this is a complex legal question how you prosecute wrongdoing, and we have resources in place so those people who are good at that can figure out the details. We have fetal homicide laws as a precedent. We have passed laws against abortion in the past. We have suicide laws. We have drug laws. Don’t go after the user, go after the pusher. There’s a lot of thinking that could be done to come up with a fair and just policy of punishment. But we don’t have to answer that question now because that’s the second step after the first step has been solved.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: That’s right.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: The question that confronts us now is, is it wrong to take a life of an innocent human being and does abortion do that? We can answer both those questions. That’s the issue to stay focused on when confronted with this dilemma. Don’t take the bait. Just focus on the question that matters now, and that is the moral question. Once we get that resolved and that’s clear, then we could take the second step with a specialist in the field to decide how to proceed with regards to the law. Alan, thank you so much for spending some time with us.</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon: Oh, yeah. I enjoyed it. Thanks, Greg.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl: Yeah, it’s always great to have Al with us.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-a-woman-be-punished-for-getting-an-abortion-when-abortion-is-illegal-" 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%2Fshould-a-woman-be-punished-for-getting-an-abortion-when-abortion-is-illegal-" 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%2Fshould-a-woman-be-punished-for-getting-an-abortion-when-abortion-is-illegal-" 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: Be Willing to Submit to Our Good God on the Issue of Homosexuality
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/08/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/be-willing-to-submit-to-our-good-god-on-the-issue-of-homosexuality
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I received an email from a college student who was struggling to figure out “if a Christ-centered, monogamous homosexual relationship is just as godly as a heterosexual one.”&nbsp;He had many questions. Is the Old Testament law about homosexuality really a law we still need to follow? Didn’t Jesus fulfill the law? Isn’t the Old Covenant obsolete? He had prayed, read books and blogs, and talked to numerous people on all sides of the issue, but he couldn’t resolve the conflicting messages he was getting from them. He said, “I know that this topic requires faith, but I need proof somehow.”</p>

<p>He closed his email with this: “I’ve tried justifying the combination of acting upon homosexuality and being a follower of Christ, but I’m really not sure anymore that there is sufficient, or any, proof to back it up. This is honestly a cry for help. I’ve lived with having a foot in both worlds at the same time, and it isn’t working.”</p>

<p>I’m posting my response to him below in the hope that it will reach others who are in the same situation.</p>

<p>First, a few questions:</p>

<ol>
	<li>When you say it “would be new”&nbsp;for you to believe Christ died on the cross for your sins, does that mean you don’t yet believe it?</li>
	<li>When you say you’re trying to decide whether or not homosexuality is wrong, does that mean you’re trying to determine what you think about the matter, or that you’re trying to determine what the Bible says about it? The next question clarifies this a bit more...</li>
	<li>If, hypothetically, you were convinced that the Bible said homosexuality is wrong, would you submit to that, or would you reject it if it didn’t seem right to you?</li>
</ol>

<p>You need to seriously think through those foundational questions because their answers will affect how you go about answering your primary question. If you do not yet believe that Jesus died for your sins, or you do not trust the Bible enough to submit to it as the Word of God, then you might not ever get anywhere trying to answer your question about homosexuality. Those questions really need to be settled first in your own mind.</p>

<p>If you do believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then discovering whether or not it says homosexuality is wrong doesn’t take faith, it takes a proper study and interpretation of the text. The faith (trust) comes when you submit to what you find there even if, emotionally, you have difficulty understanding <em>why</em> it’s there. Since we’re fallen, we can expect that we will not always easily see what’s right. We’re affected by our sin and our culture, and our understanding is distorted. This is why God has given us a written standard by which we can measure everything.</p>

<p>The struggle you must go through first of all is to be willing to submit to what God says—<em>whatever it turns out to be</em>. You need to settle in your own mind whether or not you’re willing to do this <em>before</em> you figure out what God has said. That is the deeper, more important issue (see “<a href="/w/gay-or-straight-we-all-must-decide-if-we-love-jesus-above-all-else" target="_blank">Gay or Straight, We All Must Decide if We Love Jesus above All Else</a>”), and as long as you are holding out on whether or not you’ll trust and obey God until you see if you agree with what He says, you’ll never come to a conclusion on this. Decide whether or not you trust Him <em>first</em>, and then that will take some of the emotion, uncertainty, and fear out of figuring out what He has said on this topic. If He is trustworthy, then obeying Him is the best thing to do, no matter what it turns out to be, no matter how difficult or how disappointing. <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/03/christians-you-will-suffer.html" target="_blank">Suffering</a> is part of the Christian life because we’re in a fallen world, and sometimes we suffer for doing what’s right. Yet that’s still better than the suffering that eventually comes from doing what’s wrong in an effort to grab what God has not given to us.</p>

<p>As for the Law, here’s an article Greg wrote on our relationship to the Old Testament Law: “<a href="/w/how-does-the-old-testament-law-apply-to-christians-today-" target="_blank">How Does the Old Testament Law Apply to Christians Today?</a>”&nbsp;Though laws and penalties specific to times and places (such as ancient Israel) may change over time, the very character of God is what determines what is moral throughout time. There are laws everywhere, in every country, that continue to reflect the moral character of God—against murder, stealing, etc.</p>

<p>Many of the laws in the Old Testament were meant to visually represent Jesus and the gospel to the people (such as the temple, the sacrifices, the Passover, etc.). These were just shadows pointing to what would be fulfilled in Jesus. Now that we have Him, the shadows are no longer part of our covenant. And since, unlike ancient Israel, the church is not a physical nation, we don’t need the laws that separated Israel from other cultures—laws put in place by God to protect and build up a culture out of which would come the Bible and the Messiah. The purpose of those laws has been completed.</p>

<p>Sexual morality and immorality, however, has not changed, because it’s grounded in our nature—in the creation order—according to the character of the God who created us for His purpose. Other laws (such as the sacrificial system) are logically subsequent to creation, but our sexuality is part of creation itself. Sexual immorality is referred to in 1 Corinthians 6 as being sin against our own bodies. And what is sexual immorality? It’s anything that goes against the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+19%3A3-9&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">created order</a> of one man and one woman becoming one flesh in the covenant of marriage. This was the understanding of sexual morality at the time, so whenever sexual <em>immorality</em> is spoken against in the New Testament, that includes anything contrary to this—including homosexuality. (This has been the clear understanding of the text throughout the millennia of Judaism and Christianity—until recently, when our culture began to push for the acceptance of homosexuality.)</p>

<p>And while laws such as the sacrificial system pointed to a gospel that has now been fulfilled by Christ, the one-flesh marriage of a man and a woman points to the marriage of Christ and the church (according to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A22-33&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Ephesians</a>), and this has <em>not</em> yet been fulfilled. The union of man and woman is still pointing to this future event. Jesus says there will be no marriage in heaven. This is likely because, at that point, the thing that marriage and the marital union pointed to will have been fulfilled in the marriage of Christ to the church. (See this <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/06/start-preparing-to-defend-marriage-within-the-church.html" target="_blank">N.T. Wright quote</a>.) After it’s fulfilled by the real thing, there will be <a href="/w/a-note-to-the-unmarried-and-childless" target="_blank">no more shadow</a>—no more marriage. And until then, any other kind of union is a rejection of the purpose of marriage and a rebellion against God.</p>

<p>Sometimes it’s easy to get lost in an individual verse here and there, so as you’re looking at individual verses, don’t lose sight of the big picture of God’s creation of us, our nature, and our purpose. Here are a few more relevant posts for you that touch on aspects of your email:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/answering-an-objection-to-grace-why-not-sin-" target="_blank">Why Not Sin?</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/did-paul-know-about-homosexuality-" target="_blank">Did Paul Know about Homosexuality?</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/worshipping-images-of-ourselves" target="_blank">Worshipping Images of Ourselves</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/a-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-part-1" target="_blank">The Reformation the Church Doesn’t Need Part 1</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/a-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-part-2" target="_blank">The Reformation the Church Doesn’t Need Part 2</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/what-does-god-s-love-look-like-" target="_blank">What Does God’s Love Look Like?</a></li>
</ul>

<p>I also recommend <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Really-Teach-about-Homosexuality/dp/1433549379/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1448384406&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=kevin+deyoung+homosexuality" target="_blank">Kevin DeYoung’s book</a> if you haven’t read it yet.</p>

<p>It’s unclear to me from your email whether you’re simply trying to decide your view on this controversial topic, or if this is more personal because you’re attracted to men and you desire a relationship. If it’s the latter, consider how your desire to be close to another person could be clouding your ability to understand an issue that may be more clear than you think, and try to adjust for that. Boy, is that easy to say but hard to implement! As a single person in my 40s, I know what it’s like to be alone and assume that I’ll never be married. I’ve always said that the temptation that could bring me down—the one I fear more than any other—is being tempted to a relationship that would not be pleasing to God, for whatever reason. I know well the pull of the desire to love and be loved by a partner. It is incredibly strong. I pray for God to help me desire Him and His will even above this strongest of desires, and I pray often for single Christians—both heterosexual and homosexual—who, like me, struggle with loneliness. One book you might find helpful is Wesley Hill’s <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Washed-Waiting-Reflections-Faithfulness-Homosexuality/dp/0310330033/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1448383505&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=reflections+on+homosexuality+and+christian+faithfulness" target="_blank">Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality</a></em>. There’s an emotional component to your question (beyond the hermeneutical question of what the Bible says) that this might help address for you.</p>

<p>And finally, sometimes people who have same-sex attraction try to ease their burden by deciding it’s less sinful than they previously thought. But that’s not the way to ease the burden. The burden of sin is eased not by making our sins smaller, but by seeing the gospel as bigger. The truth is that we are all desperately sinful, but Christ’s sacrifice covers <em>all</em> of it. All of our wrong actions, and all of our wrong desires. Everything. We rest in that, and we’re <a href="/w/free-to-say-we-ve-sinned" target="_blank">free to openly say we’ve sinned</a> because He covers all guilt. He’s bigger than all of it, no matter how big it is. We don’t have to deny the height of our sin, because we rest completely in Him and His righteousness. <a href="/w/answering-an-objection-to-grace-why-not-sin-" target="_blank">Neither does this give us a license to sin</a>, because we are new creatures in Christ.</p>

<p>I hope something in here brings you some clarity.</p>

<p>Don’t ever take this subject lightly. It affects real people and involves real pain. But don’t ever take <em>God</em> lightly, sidestepping Him in a misguided attempt to help someone ease that pain. Only the true God, in <em>all</em> of His truth, is big enough to conquer pain.</p>
</div>

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


title: How Can You Use Your Knowledge to Serve Others?
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/12/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-can-you-use-your-knowledge-to-serve-others-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>These <a href="http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2016/04/no-man-right-idle-2/" target="_blank">words by Matt Perman</a> apply as much to non-physical resources (like your theological and apologetic knowledge) as they do to any other kind of resource:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It makes no sense for us to live in a society of abundance while half the world lives in great need, and not be diligent and creative and eager to figure out ways to use our abundance to help meet those needs.</p>

<p>When we look around and see our comfort, privilege, and affluence, we shouldn’t fall into the trap of asking “how can I get more of this?”&nbsp;As Kingdom-minded Christians, our first thought should be: “how can I use this technology/money/time to serve—especially those in greatest need?”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I was reading <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+13&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">John 13</a> this morning and thinking about how central being a servant is to Christianity. This utterly amazes me every time I read it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end...Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’&nbsp;feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Knowing that all things were His, and that He had come from God and was going back to God—that is, knowing His infinitely high position above all those around Him—Jesus washed His disciples’&nbsp;feet. Let that sink in for a moment. The text actually intimately connects these two facts about Jesus—His high position (and its corresponding abundance) and His humble act of service. His service is, in fact, the way in which He loved them.</p>

<p>From the incarnation to the cross, this was Jesus’&nbsp;life; He <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+2%3A3-11&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">humbled Himself</a> to serve others. He defined love for us as service. To love is to serve. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+10%3A42-45&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">To be great is to be a servant</a>. It’s good to seek to increase your knowledge, but consider Matt Perman’s words: How can you use the abundance you already have <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/08/use-your-knowledge-to-serve-others-not-judge-them.html" target="_blank">to serve</a> those who are in need of it?</p>

<p>As always, I recommend Matt’s <a href="http://www.whatsbestnext.com/blog/" target="_blank">blog</a>.</p>
</div>

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


title: Are Vestigial Eyes Evidence of Evolution?
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/12/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-vestigial-eyes-evidence-of-evolution-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Evolutionists love to point to vestigial structures in the biological realm as evidence for evolution. The argument goes like this: Some organisms contain structures that were once functional in their evolutionary past but have now become useless (or almost useless). In <em>The Greatest Show on Earth</em>, Richard Dawkins writes, “Vestigial eyes are evidence of evolution. Given that a cave salamander lives in perpetual darkness so has no use for eyes, why would a divine creator nevertheless furnish it with dummy eyes, clearly related to eyes, but non-functional?”</p>

<p>What can we say in response? First, Dawkins asks a loaded question. That is, built into his question is a <em>false assumption</em>. He assumes that God must have created the cave salamander with non-functional eyes <em>to begin with</em>. But that isn’t the creationist’s position at all.</p>

<p>Vestigial structures are entirely <em>consistent</em> with a Creator. These could be structures that were <em>initially</em> designed, but then lost their function through adaptation to a particular environment. Everyone agrees that genuine vestigial structures started out functional and then became non-functional. So, at most, this seems to be evidence for <em>devolution</em>; it’s the degrading of a structure or organ, which was already present. What evolutionists need to show is how the organism got the fully functional structure <em>in the first place</em>.</p>

<p>Maybe some of you have driven an older car in which the air-conditioning didn’t work anymore. The fact that something in the car has <em>become</em> non-functional doesn’t mean the car was never designed in the first place. In fact, it would be foolish to ask, why would an engineer furnish a car with a dummy air-conditioning unit that is non-functional? Of course, this falsely assumes that an engineer actually put a non-functional air-conditioning unit in the car to begin with. Furthermore, the fact that an air-conditioning unit no longer functions does not mean it wasn’t <em>originally</em> intelligently designed.</p>

<p>Both the evolutionist and creationist can explain vestigial eyes. In fact, they explain vestigial eyes in the same way. However, what the evolutionist needs to explain is <em>how the eyes originated in the first place</em>. The loss of a useful organ does not explain its origin.</p>

<p>So merely pointing to a vestigial structure isn’t good enough. The advocate of macroevolution needs to provide evidence for the <em>production</em> of new functional structures, not merely evidence of their <em>destruction</em>. Therefore, in a trivial sense, yes, vestigial eyes are evidence for evolution. Cave salamanders <em>changed</em>. They had functional eyes, and now they don’t. But you are never going to explain the origin of new functional structures, organs, and body plans by providing evidence of a mechanism that breaks 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%2Fare-vestigial-eyes-evidence-of-evolution-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-vestigial-eyes-evidence-of-evolution-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-vestigial-eyes-evidence-of-evolution-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: When God Doesn’t Promise
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-god-doesn-t-promise
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Nervously I asked my friend, “Is your daughter a Christian?”&nbsp;“No,”&nbsp;she replied, “but that’s okay!”&nbsp;I thought to myself, <em>That’s strange. Why would a mother be okay that her college-aged daughter wasn’t a Christian?</em> Before I even asked, though, she began to clarify. “God promised me that if I raise my daughter in the ways of the Lord, she won’t depart from her faith when she’s older. I’ve done my part and raised my daughter as a Christian. I can rest in God’s promise that my daughter will return to the faith that she was raised in.”</p>

<p>My friend was referring to King Solomon’s instruction in Proverbs 22:6. “Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it.”&nbsp;The key question, though, was whether my friend understood God’s Word correctly.</p>

<p>Imagine you’re reading a newspaper. On the front page, you notice a picture of a fisherman standing next to a six-foot-long fish. The headline reads, “Catfish Hunter Wins Big Game.”&nbsp;Before reading the article, you’d assume the story is about someone catching a large fish.</p>

<p>What if I told you that although this headline is real, it wasn’t on the front page of the newspaper and the picture that accompanied it wasn’t of a fisherman with a large fish? Rather, the headline was in the sports section of the newspaper and the picture was of James Augustus “Catfish”&nbsp;Hunter, a baseball pitcher who helped the New York Yankees win a World Series game. You’d think, <em>Oh, I get it...“Catfish”&nbsp;was his nickname and he won a baseball game.</em></p>

<p>Notice that the exact same words (“Catfish Hunter Wins Big Game”) take on a completely different meaning when you realize they are in the sports section of the newspaper. That’s because you know that sports articles sometimes use words in a different way than front page stories.</p>

<p>For some reason, though, many Christians are unaware of this same principle when they read the Bible. They inadvertently ignore the different genres the Bible was written in, which can cause confusion when trying to understand what God says.</p>

<p>The Holy Spirit, though, inspired the biblical authors to write Scripture in different literary styles. For example, there is narrative, law, poetry, proverbs (or wisdom literature), gospel, parable, and epistle. More importantly, each of these genres has different interpretive principles. That means how you interpret a Bible verse in Romans (an epistle) will be very different from how you interpret a verse in Proverbs. Failing to apply the correct interpretive principles will result in a faulty interpretation. You’ll miss what God is saying.</p>

<p>When it comes to Proverbs, there’s one interpretive principle to never forget: <em>Proverbs are not promises.</em> You can’t claim them from God. Rather, Proverbs are basic truths of life. They explain how life generally works. Therefore, they teach <em>probable</em> outcomes, not <em>guaranteed</em> outcomes.</p>

<p>Take a modern proverb, for example. “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”&nbsp;Is it <em>probably</em> true that if you eat a lot of fruit (like apples), you’re more likely to be healthy and won’t need to see a doctor as much? Sure. Is it <em>guaranteed</em> that if you eat an apple each day, you will <em>never</em> need a doctor? Of course not.</p>

<p>Consider Proverbs 16:7. Solomon writes, “When a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”&nbsp;Were the apostle Paul’s ways pleasing to the Lord? Yes. We’re Paul’s enemies at peace with him? No. They beat him, put him in prison, and cut off his head. That’s hardly peaceful. Does that mean God didn’t fulfill His promise? No, because Proverbs are not promises. Solomon is giving a basic principle, explaining how life generally works out.</p>

<p>Therefore, when we read Proverbs 22:6, we should understand it as a general principle of life and <em>not</em> a promise from God. There’s no guarantee that a child raised in the Christian faith will remain a Christian or will return to their faith if they’ve fallen away.</p>

<p>Interpreting this passage as a promise is problematic for at least three reasons. One, it ignores the Holy Spirit’s work in inspiring the author to write in that particular literary style. When you ignore the genre of the biblical text, you end up putting words in God’s mouth. You make Him promise results He’s never promised. Two, it models a mistaken interpretive method. Others who hear this interpretation can be more likely to also misunderstand this passage. Three, it can harm a person’s faith. If you believe God has promised you something, and He doesn’t deliver, then this could cause you to doubt God’s faithfulness.</p>

<p>All these pitfalls can be avoided, though, by remembering an easy principle: Proverbs are not promises. Even though we lose the ability to claim them as guarantees from God, we still gain something important. We are able to receive Solomon’s wisdom the way the Holy Spirit intended us to. Proverbs is chock full of practical advice that applies to almost every area of life. Following its principles will, as Solomon writes in chapter 1, help you “to know wisdom and instruction...and increase in learning.”&nbsp;What a gift we have in God’s word!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-god-doesn-t-promise" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-god-doesn-t-promise" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-god-doesn-t-promise" 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: Loving Someone Doesn’t Mean Accepting Their Behavior
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/loving-someone-doesn-t-mean-accepting-their-behavior
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We all have people in our lives with whom we disagree. We’re against some people’s <em>ideas</em>. We’re against some people’s <em>behaviors</em>. We’re against some people’s <em>attitudes</em> and <em>inclinations</em>. Despite our differences, though, in most cases we’re still in a relationship with them. We might not <em>say</em> we “love”&nbsp;them, but oftentimes we <em>do</em> love them in a non-romantic, I’m-committed-to-you kind of love.</p>

<p>Sometimes I think our hypersensitive and superficial world wants to change that, though. If you say someone is wrong, you’re labeled as mean, hateful, or some other pejorative term. This is especially true when it comes to homosexuality. If you believe your friend or family member’s homosexual behavior is morally wrong, you’re probably thought of as unloving. Indeed, it’s no longer enough to tolerate a person who satisfies their same-sex attraction; you’re expected to celebrate them.</p>

<p>It’s not just non-believers who think this way. I hear this kind of talk even from Christians who adopt pro-gay theology, the view that the Bible is gay-affirming or neutral about homosexual sex. They usually baptize this idea by saying God loves everyone and we’re all His children. While it’s certainly true God loves everyone, He also makes moral demands throughout the Bible.</p>

<p>In fact, all through Scripture we see God and Jesus point out sin but still love the people who engage in it. Romans 5:8 says, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”&nbsp;We not only engaged in wrong behavior, our attitudes and inclinations were against God. That’s because we’re all born with a spiritually genetic condition that produces a natural inclination towards beliefs, desires, and behaviors that God says are wrong. We’re all born that way. We all have an orientation towards sin. Despite our moral crimes and hostility towards God, He still loves us.</p>

<p>Why is it, then, that gay-affirming Christians don’t accuse God of being unloving when He condemns immoral thoughts, desires, and behaviors? He, of all personal beings in the universe, makes the most number of moral demands on the lives of free people. He also levies the harshest judgments. Given this harsh record, He’s still described as loving.</p>

<p>That’s why it’s possible for us, human beings made in God’s image, to do the same. In fact, we’re commanded to love people even though every person we encounter does wrong. Certainly there are some people who don’t love others with whom they disagree, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t many Christians who love people they think are violating God’s commands. I can think of all sorts of situations where I’m against a person’s ideas, desires, inclinations, or behavior but still genuinely love them. Here are three quick examples.</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>The Church</strong>: I’ve been going to church for a long time. I’ve worked with pastors, elders, and other staff. I’ve worked in youth ministry, participated on a pastoral search team committee, and served on a commission board. During this time, I’ve met many fellow believers who are - let’s just say - not my type. We didn’t get along. Our quarrels were over who they were, what they believed, and what they want to accomplish in the church. Despite my grievances with them, I loved these brothers and sisters. I worked hard to treat them with respect and show them I care in light of our many disagreements.</li>
	<li><strong>My family</strong>: I have family relationships with people I have issues with. My kids sometimes misbehave (boast, lie, cheat, etc.) and I discipline them for their immoral behavior. Do I still love them? Absolutely! In fact, I would argue that if I didn’t love them, I wouldn’t discipline them when they act immorally. I’ll offer an even more extreme example. If my daughter (when she is older) moved in with her boyfriend, I’d be vigorously opposed and angry with my daughter. She might try to tell me she’s in love with him, that it’s natural to be together, and that they’re made for each other. There’s no excuse she could give me that would make me condone her behavior, but there’s also nothing she could do to stop me from loving her. I’ve also had situations where I thought my wife’s behavior or attitude was wrong (and, by the way, many times where she’s thought <em>my</em> behavior or attitude was wrong!). Sometimes my concerns with her have lasted many months. Despite these issues, I love my wife, dearly! I’ve even had family members (who claimed to be Christian) divorce for unbiblical reasons, rendering them ineligible to remarry. When they asked me to attend their next wedding, I told them I couldn’t because of what Scripture teaches about marriage, divorce, and remarriage (Matthew 5:32, Luke 16:18, etc.). That’s a big deal, but I still love that family member. If you were to ask them today, “Does Alan love you?”&nbsp;I can guarantee they’d emphatically say, “Yes!”&nbsp;Why? Because I can oppose people’s attitudes and behaviors, but still love them.</li>
	<li><strong>My friends</strong>: I’ve had non-Christian friends throughout my life. All of them engage in behaviors I would describe (because Scripture describes) as sin. I know some of them have sex before marriage. Some cheat on their taxes. Some steal movies by downloading them illegally. Some find it natural to lie when they get in trouble. Some find it natural to lust when they see attractive women. The list goes on. But I love those friends. I spend time with them, go to the movies with them, play tennis with them, talk about my hopes and dreams and fears with them, and basically behave how you’d expect someone to behave with a friend they love. I don’t celebrate their sinful behavior, but I do love <em>them</em>. Is it hard for me to love them? No. I love to love them! Why? Because Christians who uphold classical Christianity and classical Christian values routinely love people whom they believe are in rebellion towards God. It’s not that hard when the Holy Spirit lives in you.</li>
</ul>

<p>It doesn’t matter how a friend who identifies as gay describes himself to me. He might say he’s a gay man, has a natural attraction towards the same sex, engages in gay sex, or something else. It doesn’t matter if his description is about his behavior, identity, inclination, sexual attraction, gender, or whatever. I know I love him (or her, in the cases where they identify as lesbian) even though Scripture claims his inclinations are misdirected and condemns his behavior.</p>

<p>I’m not denying there are Christians who are hateful towards homosexuals. I know there are. I’ve met a few and spoken to them about their feelings. <em>But these people are not the same as the vast majority of conservative Christians I’ve talked to across the country over the last decade who unapologetically affirm Scripture’s condemnation of homosexual sex, yet vigorously love those who engage in it.</em> Ignoring this distinction is irresponsible and assumes the worse of people who practice true civility.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Floving-someone-doesn-t-mean-accepting-their-behavior" 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%2Floving-someone-doesn-t-mean-accepting-their-behavior" 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%2Floving-someone-doesn-t-mean-accepting-their-behavior" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Are You Debating?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/15/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-are-you-debating-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Tim Challies posted “<a href="http://www.challies.com/articles/7-rules-for-online-engagement?utm_content=buffer5b33a&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=buffer" target="_blank">7 Rules for Online Engagement</a>,” a summation of advice found in Tim Keller’s <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Center-Church-Balanced-Gospel-Centered-Ministry/dp/0310494184/ref=sr_1_1?sr=8-1&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;keywords=center%2Bchurch&amp;tag=dietofbookwor-20&amp;qid=1457951149" target="_blank">Center Church</a></em>, and I wanted to highlight one of the rules here:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The sixth rule is Calvin’s and states <em>Seek to persuade, not antagonize, but watch your motives</em>! “It is possible to seek to be winsome and persuasive out of a self-centeredness, rather than a God-centeredness. We may do it to be popular. On the other hand, it is just as possible to be bold and strongly polemical out of self-centeredness rather than God-centeredness. And therefore, looking very closely at our motives, we should be sure our polemics do not unnecessarily harden and antagonize our opponents. We should seek to win them, as Paul did Peter, not to be rid of them.” The goal is not to vanquish an opponent or the people who have been led astray by him, but to win them all to the truth.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>“We should seek to win them, not to be rid of them.” That’s always a good reminder!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-are-you-debating-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-are-you-debating-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-are-you-debating-" 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: Atheism Isn’t Simply a Lack of Belief
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/03/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/atheism-isn-t-simply-a-lack-of-belief
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Many atheists don’t like the term “atheist.”&nbsp;They take atheism to be just the default position. I’ve even heard some atheists state that atheism is not really a belief at all. Rather, they assert it is <em>simply a lack of belief.</em></p>

<p>Given this redefinition, most atheists are taken aback when theists demand they provide evidence for their atheism. After all, they’ll assert, we don’t demand evidence from people who lack belief in Santa Claus. Moreover, we’re told that everyone who lacks belief in Santa is technically an “a-santa-ist.”&nbsp;However, no one has ever labeled them with that term. Furthermore, the atheist might point out that most people don’t believe in the thunder god Thor (as much as you might like the movie), but no one calls them “athorists.”</p>

<p>Continuing this line of thinking, they will point out that everyone agrees that the athorist and the asantaist aren’t forced to prove that Thor and Santa don’t exist. The burden of proof would actually be on the person who claims that Thor and Santa <em>do</em> exist. Likewise, the theist is told that it’s up to him to prove that God exists. It is not the atheist’s responsibility to prove that He doesn’t.</p>

<p>But is this really what atheism amounts to? Is it merely a lack of belief in God? The answer is a resounding, No! Atheism is <em>not</em> simply a lack of belief. It is <em>not</em> the default position. Let’s get our terms straight. The theist affirms the statement, “There is a God.”&nbsp;The agnostic says, “I do not know if God exists”&nbsp;or “You cannot know God exists.”&nbsp;The atheist affirms the statement, “There is no God.”&nbsp;These are <em>all</em> beliefs.</p>

<p>To say you simply <em>lack a belief</em> about something is to say that you have <em>no beliefs</em> about it. For example, if you asked me, “Who is the best female polo player in Europe?”&nbsp;I wouldn’t know where to start. Why? Because I have <em>no beliefs</em> about the quality of women’s polo in Europe, or any other country for that matter. I truly lack a belief regarding that question.</p>

<p>This is not the case with atheists. People don’t write books about things they don’t have any beliefs about. No one debates about non-beliefs. If they did, there would be nothing to talk about.</p>

<p>This attempt to change the definition of atheism to a lack of belief is a tactic to try to shift the burden of proof. But it won’t work. The belief that there is no God <em>is a belief</em>. And if the atheist thinks it is a <em>reasonable</em> belief, he should have reasons to believe it.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fatheism-isn-t-simply-a-lack-of-belief" 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%2Fatheism-isn-t-simply-a-lack-of-belief" 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%2Fatheism-isn-t-simply-a-lack-of-belief" 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 People Change Their Minds about Abortion?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/30/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-people-change-their-minds-about-abortion-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Do people change their minds about abortion? Some say no. They believe that people are committed to one side or the other and no one ever changes their mind. This is false. People <em>do</em> change their minds about abortion. Many who once identified as pro-choice now claim they are pro-life. Pro-life persuasion works. Using the right tactics is the key.</p>

<p>Last Monday, I spent the entire day teaching Oregon Right to Life students at an amazing annual pro-life camp called <a href="https://www.ortl.org/get-involved/events-camps-contests/camp-joshua/" target="_blank">Camp Joshua</a>. I presented the case against abortion, explained the science and philosophy supporting our pro-life position, and made them role-play the tactics of persuasion. The following day, I took the students to the streets of downtown Portland and had them perform an informal survey about abortion with random people in the streets. This gave the students an opportunity to strike up conversations about abortion with people who vigorously disagree with them and practice the pro-life persuasion skills they learned the day before. As a result of this training, these students walked away from this experience with a confidence to share their pro-life convictions. It’s a confidence you rarely see anywhere else in the Church. These high schoolers can now talk to anyone they come in contact with about abortion because they just did that with dozens of adult strangers in the diverse downtown area of Portland.</p>

<p>Not only were these students trained, but many of them saw something remarkable happen: People changed their minds about abortion. Wait, what? That’s right, some people changed their minds <em>on the spot</em>.</p>

<p>Heresy! That’s impossible! People can’t change their mind on the spot! If you change a person’s mind, you probably won an argument but lost a [insert a powerfully rhetorical phrase suggesting that “winning”&nbsp;an argument means you damage a relationship in some way]. That’s just not true.</p>

<p>People change their minds on abortion every year in downtown Portland as a result of bold and thoughtful high schoolers using the right tactics. Here are three (though not all) tactics that helped change minds this year.</p>

<p><strong>Tactic #1: Talk about abortion.</strong> You’re probably thinking, <em>That doesn’t sound very profound, Alan. What else would anyone talk about?</em> What I mean is to focus your conversation on <em>abortion</em>, not closely-related topics like choice, privacy, rape, and economic hardship. If you follow these rabbit trails instead of talking about abortion itself, then you’re not likely to change anyone’s mind. You’ll simply talk for hours, days, or weeks about all these other issues, but never about abortion. Then you’ll come to me and say, “Sorry Alan, but changing minds on abortion doesn’t work. It sounds good in theory, but it’s just not possible.”&nbsp;I’ll remind you, though, that talking about other tangential issues isn’t the same as talking about abortion.</p>

<p>Indeed, I taught Camp Joshua students an important tactic to help them stay focused on abortion and the status of the unborn: Trot Out the Toddler (TOTT). This tactic involves a simple line of questions that helps the pro-lifer show an abortion-choice advocate why the rabbit trail they’re on is <em>not</em> as important as talking about abortion itself. During our debrief, several students shared that TOTT worked perfectly at bringing the conversation back to the issue of abortion. That way they could focus their short time with passersby on abortion and the status of the unborn, rather than the many side discussions that normally arise.</p>

<p><strong>Tactic #2: Make a scientific case for your view.</strong> Many abortion-choice advocates believe that the only type of reasoning pro-lifers have to offer involves a religious-based argument. Although we can certainly make a case against abortion from Scripture, a savvy pro-lifer knows that many people don’t consider the Bible authoritative, and therefore, they must use sources that secular people trust. Since science is an authority in many people’s minds, I trained Camp Joshua students how to make a scientific case for the full humanity of the unborn from the moment of conception. Not only does this avoid the charge that our pro-life view is merely a religious view, but it’s a powerful persuader of the truth. The high school students were able to simply point people to the science of embryology to show that the unborn is a human being. Several students reported that their scientific defense was convincing to people in downtown Portland.</p>

<p><strong>Tactic #3: Use images of the unborn.</strong> We live in a culture that thinks and learns visually. Powerful images have been used to persuade people on topics like cruelty to animals, the civil rights movement (for African Americans), the effects of smoking, and many other causes. The pro-life movement would be remiss not to leverage the persuasive power of truthful images that depict the unborn. That’s why a key component of the pro-life case involves showing images of the unborn at various stages of development. This is not a substitute for an argument (we make a compelling scientific and philosophical argument for our position), but rather it complements our case. Many people are stunned to see images of a nine-week-old human embryo that looks like a little human being (because it <em>is</em> a little human being, after all). Even abortion-minded women sometimes change their minds when they see images of embryonic development or ultrasounds of their own children.</p>

<p>Occasionally, images of abortion are necessary. These graphic pictures (or videos) show the violent nature of abortion and its effect on the unborn. Though they are hard to look at, they depict the procedure better than words ever could. If people want abortion to remain legal, then it’s only fair that we see abortion and what does to other human beings.</p>

<p>I teach pro-lifers to use graphic visual aids very carefully. They are taught not to spring them on people with little to no warning. Instead, they give people advanced warning of exactly what they’re going to see and an opportunity to decline seeing them. That way they don’t betray people’s trust when they’re talking to them.</p>

<p>My students practiced this approach last week. They had a few occasions where they offered to show graphic images to people during their conversations about abortion. Some people declined, but some agreed to see them. One man changed his mind about abortion right after seeing the pictures. “That’s messed up,”&nbsp;he said. That’s because the graphic images conveyed an important truth: Abortion kills a vulnerable and defenseless human being.</p>

<p>These are just a few of the tactics I taught last week. There are many more. The important thing to remember is that the art of pro-life persuasion works. People change their minds on abortion. Using the right tactics is the key.</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-people-change-their-minds-about-abortion-" 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-people-change-their-minds-about-abortion-" 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-people-change-their-minds-about-abortion-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Easter Says to Those Who Are Suffering
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/29/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-easter-says-to-those-who-are-suffering
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last week, I read through a Holy Week devotional from Desiring God titled <em>Your Sorrow Will Turn to Joy</em> (<a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/books/your-sorrow-will-turn-to-joy" target="_blank">available for free</a> on their website—get it for next year!), and I very much appreciated these words by David Mathis from the end of the book:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Christ has been raised. Day no longer is fading to black, but night is awakening to the brightness. Darkness is not suffocating the sun, but light is chasing away the shadows. Sin is not winning, but death is swallowed up in victory.</p>

<p>Indeed, even agony will turn to glory, but Easter doesn’t suppress our pain. It doesn’t minimize our loss. It bids our burdens stand as they are, in all their weight, with all their threats. And this risen Christ, with the brilliance of indestructible life in his eyes, says, “These too I will claim in the victory. These too will serve your joy. These too, even these, I can make an occasion for rejoicing. I have overcome, and you will more than conquer.”</p>

<p>Easter is not an occasion to repress whatever ails you and put on a happy face. Rather, the joy of Easter speaks tenderly to the pains that plague you. Whatever loss you lament, whatever burden weighs you down, Easter says, “It will not always be this way for you. The new age has begun. Jesus has risen, and the kingdom of the Messiah is here. He has conquered death and sin and hell. He is alive and on his throne. And he is putting your enemies, all your enemies, under his feet.”</p>

<p>Not only will he remedy what’s wrong in your life and bring glorious order to the mess and vanquish your foe, but he will make your pain, your grief, your loss, your burden, through the deep magic of resurrection, to be a real ingredient in your everlasting joy. You will not only conquer this one day soon, but you will be more than a conqueror (Rom. 8:37)...</p>

<p>Easter announces, in the voice of the risen Christ, “Your sorrow will turn into joy”&nbsp;(John 16:20), and “no one will take your joy from you”&nbsp;(John 16:22).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>With the cross and resurrection at its core, Christianity need never deny the reality of evil and suffering because Jesus has proven Himself to be greater than all of it. He didn’t just overcome it, He overcame <em>through</em> it. The cross was the very means by which He secured joy: “[F]or the joy set before Him [He] endured the cross, despising the shame”&nbsp;(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+12%3A1-3&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Hebrews 12:2</a>). In this same way, all evil will be swallowed up. We will, in our resurrection, see that what we suffered was the means by which we gained joy, and the “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+4%3A17-18&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">eternal weight of glory</a>”&nbsp;produced by our affliction will turn the suffering we experienced into a drop of dye lost in an ocean.</p>

<p>Sometimes we’re tempted to think evil is stronger than God, but when we understand that every attempt evil makes to harm us is working <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+8%3A28-29&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">for our good</a>, we’ll see that all of evil’s weapons have been removed from it; there is nothing left it can use against us.</p>
</div>

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


title: We Were Loved and Saved by Our Trinitarian God
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/25/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/we-were-loved-and-saved-by-our-trinitarian-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Derek Rishmawy <a href="http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/03/three-mistakes-to-avoid-in-goo.php" target="_blank">describes</a>&nbsp;“the triune shape of the gospel,”&nbsp;correcting the idea that the Father had to be convinced by the Son to love us:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Many critics have rejected the atonement as the satisfaction of God’s justice and wrath because they’ve gotten the impression that somehow the picture is about a loving Jesus going to the cross in order to satisfy an angry Father who’s just out for blood. And even when it’s not explicitly taught this way, unless corrected, many people in the pews can get the impression that God somehow has to be convinced he ought to be merciful.</p>

<p>But this is not what we see in Scripture. Instead, we have a portrait of the triune God of holy love who purposes from all eternity to redeem sinners for himself, before it ever entered their minds to repent he looked to embrace us in Christ (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Eph.%201.4-5" target="_blank">Eph. 1:4-5</a>; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Pet%201.20" target="_blank">1 Peter 1:20</a>). God revealed his love for us in that while we were still sinners, cursing God with every breath, that the Son came to die for us (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%205.8" target="_blank">Romans 5:8</a>). God doesn’t have to be convinced or persuaded to love us, nor does the Father need to be convinced by the Son.</p>

<p>Indeed, Jesus makes it clear that the Father loves the Son precisely because the Son goes willingly to lay down his life for the sheep just as the Father desires because of his great love for us (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%2010.14-18" target="_blank">John 10:14-18</a>). Hebrews makes clear that the Son does so in the power of the Spirit (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Heb%209.14" target="_blank">Hebrews 9:14</a>). This is the triune shape of the gospel: Father, Son, and Spirit beautifully and harmoniously accomplishing the salvation of sinners.</p>

<p>In that case, we have to understand that God is not moved <em>from</em> wrath <em>to</em> love because of the death of Christ. He is moved <em>by</em> love to satisfy his wrath (i.e. judicial opposition to sin) against us by removing our guilt and enmity through the blood of his cross. Whatever else our people understand, they must see that mercy and grace are <em>God’s</em> idea and accomplishment before it ever enters our minds, because God, by his very nature, <em>is</em> love.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/03/three-mistakes-to-avoid-in-goo.php" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>

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


title: A Note to the Unmarried and Childless
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/19/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-note-to-the-unmarried-and-childless
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Some listeners to <a href="/w/spending-time-with-excellent-teachers-march-16-2016-" target="_blank">Wednesday’s podcast</a> were <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/03/links-mentioned-on-the-31616-show.html#comments" target="_blank">troubled</a> by Greg’s statement that “part of being a human being before God is getting married and having a family.”&nbsp;As single people, this seemed to them to be a painful denigration of their humanity—a claim that single people are failing God and are not fully human.</p>

<p>I don’t think that’s what Greg intended to convey, but I do understand the pain involved with being single, and I have thought quite a bit about how I should view marriage and my singleness as a Christian. I’m posting my response to the commenters here because I’m sure there are many others out there who grieve their singleness.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Getting married and having kids <em>is</em> part of being human (i.e., it’s an aspect of humanity that has played a central role in human societies throughout time, created by God to teach about the union of Christ and His church, contribute to our sanctification, etc.)—given to us for our good and His glory, but it doesn’t follow that if one does not take part in those things that one is not fully human, nor does it follow that one has failed God if one doesn’t marry and have children (only if one despises those things do I think one fails). God calls some to one thing, some to another. I understand the pain of not taking part in these things (believe me), but that doesn’t mean I ought to minimize the role they play in humanity.</p>

<p>The problem in our culture today is that it <em>does</em> minimize the value of marriage and children. That is the error that was being addressed on the show. In a time when culture devalues marriage and children, that is the time when the church ought to speak of their great value as creations of God. This is the time we are in.</p>

<p>Am I grieved that I’m not taking part in these things? Absolutely. It is likely that Jesus also grieved over not having these things, so we’re in good company there. But these things, great as they are, are merely shadows symbolizing what’s to come for us as Christians—i.e., our union with Christ in the resurrection, being united to Him forever and enjoying our place in His body of believers. True, we don’t have the shadow (marriage and children) now, but we will one day have the reality. And that will be much, much better than any shadow that points to that reality in this life.</p>

<p>But even though it makes us sad, let’s honor that shadow now, not deny or denigrate it (and, in fact, the grief itself honors it because our longing for it testifies of its goodness and beauty), knowing that the complete fulfillment of it <em>will</em> eventually be experienced by us. We know better than most what it means to long for its fulfillment, and that understanding of longing is something we can contribute to the body of Christ, as we should <em>all</em> be longing for its fulfillment rather than being content with the shadow.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I hope those words will bring some peace to those who need it.</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-note-to-the-unmarried-and-childless" 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-note-to-the-unmarried-and-childless" 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-note-to-the-unmarried-and-childless" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Bible Does Not Approve of Everything It Records
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/02/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-bible-does-not-approve-of-everything-it-records
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Our young people face an unprecedented assault on their faith. It seems to come at them from every side. One area that is effectively used by the enemy is social media. On media like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, it is very easy for people to share rhetorically powerful posts that can leave young Christians scrambling to find an answer.</p>

<p>Recently, my 14-year-old niece showed me a meme that generated a lot of debate on Instagram. The meme pictured a Bible lying on its side with hundreds of colored tabs sticking out of it. The meme said, “The Good Book? Pink tabs are for murder, purple for human or animal sacrifice, blue for rape, yellow for slavery, and green for misogyny.”</p>

<p><a class="asset-img-link" href="http://str.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb08c1b542970d-pi"><img alt="GoodBookMeme2" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb08c1b542970d img-responsive" height="228" src="http://str.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb08c1b542970d-320wi" title="GoodBookMeme2" width="249"></a></p>

<p>The question that this meme was trying to raise was pretty clear: How can a book that contains murder, animal or human sacrifice, rape, slavery, and misogyny be called good?</p>

<p>When challenges like this come up, I have a question: <em>Does a book necessarily approve of everything it records?</em> The answer is obviously, no. Consider your favorite news reporter. Just because she tries to accurately report on immoral events, like murder and rape, that does not mean she is an evil person. In fact, the news reporter could be a good person and abhor the immoral behavior that she reports.</p>

<p>So this challenge rests upon a demonstrably false assumption. This challenge assumes that everything <em>contained</em> in the Bible is <em>commended</em> by the Bible. This is simply not true. There are many things in the Bible that are <em>described</em>, but not <em>prescribed</em>. For example, David’s sin of murder and adultery are faithfully <em>recorded</em> in Second Samuel. However, it would be a gross mistake to conclude that God, therefore, <em>approved</em> of those immoral acts. On the contrary, the Bible condemns both murder and adultery (Exodus 20:13, 14).</p>

<p>Therefore, it is mistaken to think that God approves of all that the Bible records. So going through the Bible and marking off every instance of murder, animal or human sacrifice, rape, slavery, and misogyny will not tell you if the Bible is a good book or not.</p>

<p>There is a reason the Bible is called the Good Book, and it has to do with all the evil that is recorded in the Bible. Romans 5:6-10 says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Bible shows us just how wicked we really are. Read it for yourself. Everyone who has ever drawn breath is a sinner. Paul calls us all “ungodly”&nbsp;and deserving of the wrath of God. That is the <em>bad news</em>. The good news is that God has a plan to save us. The Bible is a record of the unfolding of the plan of redemption. So the Bible is called “the Good Book”&nbsp;because it contains the good news that Christ has died to save sinners like you and me. That sounds pretty good to me.</p>
</div>

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


title: Why the New Definition of Tolerance Is Dangerous
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/11/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-the-new-definition-of-tolerance-is-dangerous
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I received an email objecting to one of Greg’s commentaries <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/the-intolerance-of-tolerance#.VtDlxJMrLGI" target="_blank">on tolerance</a>. In the commentary, Greg explains that tolerance “involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.”&nbsp;In other words, only <em>disagreement</em> calls for toleration; otherwise, it’s simply agreement (or apathy). But not according to the email I received:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You said on Feb 4, 2013—“Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.”</p>

<p>Wrong. Tolerance is removing the right/wrong judgement from your view of other people &amp; beliefs, as long [as] those people and their beliefs don’t impede the freedom or well-being of others.</p>

<p>What you’re describing is holding your nose and lying about being tolerant. That’s not tolerance, that’s empty condescension.</p>

<p>“We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”—Karl Popper</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Of course, this response perfectly illustrates Greg’s description of the current understanding of “tolerance,”&nbsp;and it struck me, as I read it, how dangerous this view of tolerance is. Here’s what he’s really saying: “It’s wrong for you to think my views are wrong. Therefore, if you think my views are wrong, then I have a right to shut you up.”</p>

<p>Keep in mind that his complaint here isn’t even about “intolerant”&nbsp;actions; it’s about beliefs. He argues that “intolerance”&nbsp;means holding a judgment <em>in your mind</em> against someone else’s beliefs. And intolerance (i.e., incorrect beliefs), according to him, <em>should not be tolerated</em>. How far people will go to uphold this new “tolerance”&nbsp;remains to be seen. Considering the fact that <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/" target="_blank">40% of Millennials</a> favor government censorship of speech, the future doesn’t look promising.</p>

<p>Notice also that his reasoning doesn’t work the other way around—i.e., Greg wouldn’t be allowed to say to <em>him</em>, “’Tolerance’&nbsp;means that if you think I’m wrong, then I have a right to shut you up,”&nbsp;because baked into this new definition is a preference for a particular set of political positions (i.e., anything his side deems essential for the “well-being of others”). If you agree with those positions, you’re declared “tolerant.”&nbsp;If you disagree, you’re intolerant.</p>

<p>This new definition of tolerance is nothing but a political tool to accomplish the very opposite of tolerance.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-the-new-definition-of-tolerance-is-dangerous" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-the-new-definition-of-tolerance-is-dangerous" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-the-new-definition-of-tolerance-is-dangerous" 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: Risen—The Movie
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Melinda Penner
date: 02/26/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/risen-the-movie
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We (most of the STR office staff) just got back from seeing the movie <em><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTVLfn5i8g" target="_blank">Risen</a></em>. I think it’s one of the best Christian movies I’ve seen, and it’s a movie that would be interesting (and not embarrassing) to bring a non-Christian to. There’s one omission, but it’s a significant one.</p>

<p>The Roman tribune Clavius is Pilate’s right hand keeping order in Jerusalem. So on Friday afternoon, Pilate sends him out to Golgotha to finish up the crucifixions taking place. He’s there to make sure everyone is dead and is surprised to find Jesus already dead.</p>

<p>On Saturday, Pilate calls on him to secure the tomb Jesus is buried in to appease the Jewish leaders’&nbsp;concerns about His body being stolen. It’s interesting how the character of Clavius is used to walk through the evidence—the overwhelming evidence—why Jesus is dead and the tomb is secure. There’s no question a demoralized rabble is getting into that tomb.</p>

<p>Pilate sends him out to the tomb on Sunday to investigate how the tomb was opened and the body stolen. Clavius is an intelligent man and begins a thorough investigation. He examines the evidence at the tomb, and it can’t be explained by a grave robbery. He interviews the witnesses and eventually interrogates Mary Magdalene and Bartholomew. Bartholomew has a silly smile on his face. Some of our staff thought that made him seem silly. I thought that if He’d actually seen Jesus alive after mourning his death that he would be giddy and have a smile nothing could wipe off his face. Clavius is finally confronted with incontrovertible evidence, and he’s literally stunned.</p>

<p>The movie doesn’t leave it inconclusive for the audience to decide. The evidence for Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection is about facts and reality, not subjective opinion. That’s a unique take for a movie about Jesus and, I think, one of the most significant things about this movie. It’s consistent with the Bible’s claims about the resurrection. It happened. He was physically resurrected, not a specter or spiritual presence. The reality and Clavius’&nbsp;response to it aren’t left open for the audience to decide for themselves. It happened, and there’s ample rational evidence to believe that.</p>

<p>Early in the movie, it’s clear Clavius is a pluralist. He’s a typical Roman—there are many gods and it’s subjective which ones you pray to. Even Yahweh is one more in the pantheon, no more true or superior to the others. But what Clavius confronts in the evidence he finds is objective truth. It calls for abandoning all the other gods and following the true way. This is very similar to our own culture now. Kind of amazing that we have so much in common with the Romans. This is the Christian message—a claim about reality and truth.</p>

<p>I liked the disciples’&nbsp;joy. That would be the response to seeing the man they loved alive again. They are changed men and not afraid of anything, ready to obey His Great Commission.</p>

<p>The one omission is the Gospel—the reason Jesus suffered that tortuous death and then rose to defeat death. Forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with the Father. It’s one detail, but it’s a glaring omission. The message we hear Jesus teach in the movie is love. There were a few great moments in the movie where a simple exchange of words could have conveyed Jesus’&nbsp;purpose. The movie does convey that the evidence compels a decision about Jesus.</p>

<p>The movie goes the whole length of the course and then stumbles an inch from the finish line. But it may as well be a mile because of the significance of that omission.</p>

<p>It’s well worth seeing. The violence isn’t too graphic, so it’s suitable for older children. It does what so many portrayals of Jesus’&nbsp;life don’t do—it deals in the realm of facts and reality. But Jesus’&nbsp;message wasn’t about loving each other. It was about how great the Father’s love that He gave His only begotten Son to take the penalty of our sin so we could enjoy reconciliation with Him.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frisen-the-movie" 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%2Frisen-the-movie" 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%2Frisen-the-movie" 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 Fundamental Premise behind Ehrman’s Claims
topic: History
author: Melinda Penner
date: 03/23/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-fundamental-premise-behind-ehrman-s-claims
content:
            <div> 
		<p><a href="/w/michael-kruger-on-bart-ehrman-s-claim-we-can-t-trust-the-holy-week-gospel-accounts-may-27-2016-" target="_blank">Listen</a> to Greg Koukl and Michael Kruger discuss the Ehrman article.</p>

<p>Just in time for Holy Week—it’s just about a tradition now for Christmas and Easter—Bart Ehrman is raising the <a href="http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162306" target="_blank">same old doubts</a> about the New Testament documents. His conclusion is that we can’t know what really happened during the first Holy Week. The historical claims of the Gospels are unreliable.</p>

<p>One of Ehrman’s <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/04/bart-ehrmans-latest-book-how-jesus-became-god.html" target="_blank">fundamental premises</a> behind pretty much everything he writes is that the New Testament documents were not written by <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/10/based-on-eyewitness-accounts.html" target="_blank">eyewitnesses</a>. They were written very long after the events and are therefore unreliable products of <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/03/the-gospels-oral-history-not-oral-tradition.html" target="_blank">oral transmission</a> or just plain fiction.</p>

<p>If you learn some basic facts about the dating of the New Testament writings, you can see the problems with Erhman’s conclusions. This <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBxoNiTyfHw&amp;feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">video by Frank Turek</a> is a great, short explanation of evidence for the early dating of the New Testament books. There’s ample reason to believe the Gospels were written by the eyewitnesses Matthew, Mark, and John, and Luke is the investigative report of interviewed eyewitnesses.</p>

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

<p>The problems of memory and oral transmission Ehrman brings up to undermine the Gospels’&nbsp;reliability are undercut when you realize that not that much time had passed when the accounts were committed to writing by the people who witnessed them. These were astounding events, which tends to burn things into memory. The events were also shared by many people, which helps support accurate memories and details. And the eyewitnesses began relaying these events to others very shortly after the resurrection. The Holy Week details were part of what they taught over and over from the beginning. And Luke interviewed many people for his account so he was able to get corroboration from various eyewitnesses.</p>

<p>Lee Strobel quotes A.N. Sherwin-White of Oxford in his <a href="https://stream.org/easter-killed-atheism/" target="_blank">recent article</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is the resurrection a legend? Not a chance. A. N. Sherwin-White of Oxford said it took more than two generations of time in the ancient world for legend to develop and wipe out a solid core of historical truth. Yet we have a report of the resurrection—that Jesus appeared to named individuals and groups of eyewitnesses—which has been dated to within <em>months</em> of Jesus’&nbsp;death.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ehrman always sows doubt with a few issues. But looking at the scholarly evidence demonstrates that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts written within the living memories of the authors and others who lived through the events. They’re reliable accounts.</p>

<p>You can find Greg’s evaluation of Ehrman’s claims about the New Testament in this <a href="/w/-misquoting-jesus-answering-bart-ehrman" target="_blank">issue of Solid Ground</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-fundamental-premise-behind-ehrman-s-claims" 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-fundamental-premise-behind-ehrman-s-claims" 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-fundamental-premise-behind-ehrman-s-claims" 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: Helping Students Think about the Evidence for Macroevolution
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/15/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/helping-students-think-about-the-evidence-for-macroevolution
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When I meet someone who claims that <em>evolution is a fact</em>, I have two questions for him. First, I need to find out what he means by <em>evolution</em>. To do this, I employ a variation of the first Columbo question: <em>What do you mean by evolution?</em> The term evolution can be used to mean a number of <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/students-don't-have-to-be-intimidated-by-evolution#.Vtz1sMcjmOp">different things</a>. Therefore, it’s important to find out precisely what they mean.</p>

<p>Broadly speaking, evolution can be divided into two categories: <em>micro</em>evolution and <em>macro</em>evolution. Microevolution is the process where small-scale biological change occurs in an organism by selecting some characteristics. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is the idea that all of the diversity of life is descended from a common ancestor through an unguided, natural process.</p>

<p>Second, if this person <em>really</em> means macroevolution is a fact, then I have a follow-up question. I need to find out <em>why</em> he thinks evolution is a fact. To do this, I employ the second Columbo question: <em>How did you come to that conclusion?</em> That is, what do you think is the best evidence for macroevolution that warrants your calling it a fact?</p>

<p>Don’t be surprised if the person gives you a blank stare. As a general rule, most people are not prepared to actually defend what they believe. After a talk I gave recently, a young university student came up to me and asserted that the evidence for macroevolution is overwhelming. Taking my own advice, I asked him, “What do you think is the best evidence?”&nbsp;He responded, “There is too much to even name one!”</p>

<p>I thought that was an odd response so I pushed back, “Well, what do you think is the best one?”&nbsp;He obviously was not prepared to answer my question because he awkwardly hemmed and hawed for about 30 seconds. I broke the silence by pointing out the obvious; he was struggling to defend his assertion.</p>

<p>Not everyone will be caught off guard by your second question. In fact, if they have even a basic knowledge of evolutionary biology, they should be able to point to some purported evidence for macroevolution. This is where your job gets a little more difficult since you may not know exactly how to respond to each particular challenge.</p>

<p>What I’d like to offer you is a helpful way of categorizing the evidence that is offered in support of macroevolution. By identifying which group any <em>particular</em> evidence belongs to, you will be able to offer a <em>general</em> response. After assessing numerous arguments for evolution, I have found that each falls into one of three categories: exaggerated extrapolations, egregious errors, and equivocal evidence.</p>

<p>The first is <em>exaggerated extrapolations</em>. This is probably the most common mistake made by evolutionists. It’s a mistaken <em>projection</em>. Evolutionists take genuine evidence of <em>micro</em>evolution and think that if they add enough time, they will get <em>macro</em>evolution.</p>

<p>Consider an exaggerated extrapolation found in every senior level high school biology textbook: Darwin’s finches. In fact, many consider this to be an <em>icon of evolution</em>. While Charles Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands, he studied 13 different species of finches. The most important observable differences between these species were the size and shape of their beaks. Darwin concluded that their beaks were highly adapted to different food sources, and that all of these finches share a common ancestor.</p>

<p>Now this may be a fascinating discovery, but it is an incredible extrapolation to go from <em>observed</em> changes in finch beaks to the assertion that this provides evidence that all of life is descended from a universal common ancestor.</p>

<p>An informed reader may want to protest, “Darwin’s finches were never meant to prove macroevolution.”&nbsp;Fair enough. But this is exactly my point. Any example of microevolution is not the kind of thing that qualifies as evidence of macroevolution.</p>

<p>Darwin’s finches provide us with evidence of the powers of natural selection and adaptation. It’s a great example of microevolution-in-action. However, it would be a gross mistake to think that adding time <em>makes</em> this evidence for macroevolution. Macroevolution is a different category; therefore, it needs its own evidence.</p>

<p>The second category is <em>egregious errors</em>. This amounts to evidence based on mistaken <em>information</em>. They don’t get their facts right. Probably the most egregious error in the textbooks today is the argument for evolution from Haeckel’s embryos. This is a little ironic since Darwin thought this was the <em>strongest</em> argument in favor of his theory. In fact, on September 10th, 1860, Charles Darwin wrote a letter to the American botanist Asa Grey. In this letter, he tells Grey that “embryology is to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of change of forms, and not one, I think, of my reviewers has alluded to this.”</p>

<p>What was he referring to? In the late 1800s, German biologist Ernst Haeckel drew a series of embryos from different animals (e.g. a human, a chicken, a salamander, a fish). Darwin argued that these embryos showed remarkable similarity in their earliest stage. As a result, he understood this to be confirmation of his theory. In short, the early similarity of the embryos shows that they shared a common ancestor.</p>

<p>The story may sound convincing, but there’s a problem. Haeckel faked his drawings. Photographic images of these early embryos show that they actually don’t look similar. Moreover, in 1997, the scientific journal <em>Science</em> included a short article titled “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered.”&nbsp;In the article, the author states, “It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.”</p>

<p>If macroevolution is as established as evolutionists claim, then they shouldn’t be using false or outdated evidence. When an egregious error is used to substantiate macroevolution, the best thing to do is point it out. Truth is always the best means of combating error.</p>

<p>Finally, the third category is <em>equivocal evidence</em>. This is evidence that could be evidence of macroevolution, <em>but</em> could also be evidence of intelligent design. So the evidence can be <em>interpreted</em> in different ways. As a result, I believe the evolutionist comes to a mistaken <em>conclusion</em>.</p>

<p>I would put <em>homology</em> in this category. Homology is one of the strongest evidences ever put forward for macroevolution. Homology has to do with the similarity between organisms. Evolutionists understand this similarity to be evidence of <em>common descent</em>. For instance, the human arm, cat leg, whale flipper, and bat wing all have a strikingly similar bone pattern in their forelimb. They each start with one big bone, which is connected to two smaller bones, which is connected to even smaller bones. Finally, there is a five-digit pattern.</p>

<p>Is this evidence for common descent? Well, it <em>could</em> be. But this similarity could equally be explained by <em>common design</em>.</p>

<p>I want to use an illustration to help us get at answering this question. In 2001, Apple launched a new portable media player they called the iPod. Since its release, the iPod has changed over time. There has been the iPod shuffle, the iPod nano, the iPod touch, the iPod mini, and even the short-lived iPod photo. Obviously, there is much similarity between these devices. The question is, <em>what best explains this similarity?</em></p>

<p>Someone with an overactive imagination could assert that one evolved into the next over a long period of time. Some evolved bigger screens, while others lost their screens. Some evolved color screens, and then color screens evolved into touch screens. A select few even evolved a sophisticated camera.</p>

<p>Of course, no one believes the iPod evolved without intelligent intervention. That is, everyone agrees that the similarity of these devices is due to a common designer: Apple. In the same way, the similarity we find in the bat wing and the whale flipper can be equally attributed to a common designer, who made both.</p>

<p>Therefore, similarity could be interpreted as evidence for evolution from a common ancestor, or creation from a common designer. It’s equivocal evidence.</p>

<p>Now, I actually don’t think it’s a coin flip. In fact, a common designer is a better scientific explanation of both the <em>irreducible complexity</em> we see in certain biological features and the <em>specified complexity</em> we find in the diversity of life. So the designer hypothesis has more explanatory power.</p>

<p>Furthermore, a common designer explains similarity that evolutionists believe is <em>not</em> due to a common ancestor. For instance, evolutionists assert that the whale eye, human eye, and mouse eye are similar because of common descent. But what about the octopus eye? It is also similar to the mammalian eye. Well, evolutionists are forced to conclude that the octopus eye must have evolved <em>completely independent</em> of the vertebrate eye. Don’t miss this. Not only did the incredible complexity of the eye evolve once through an unguided process, but it also evolved multiple times. They call similarity that cannot be explained by common descent <em>convergent evolution</em>. However, a common designer could explain the similarity in these different mammals’&nbsp;eyes <em>and</em> the octopus eye.</p>

<p>Every evidence offered to support macroevolution that I’ve encountered up to this point fits into one of these three groups. Once you have determined which category the evidence belongs to, you can respond accordingly. Exaggerated extrapolations fail to provide the right kind of evidence, and egregious errors fail to provide the kind of evidence that is right. With these out of the way, the evolutionist is left with equivocal evidence to make their case. The problem is, these can be equally used to make the case for an intelligent designer.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhelping-students-think-about-the-evidence-for-macroevolution" 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%2Fhelping-students-think-about-the-evidence-for-macroevolution" 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%2Fhelping-students-think-about-the-evidence-for-macroevolution" 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 Pro-Choice Atheist’s Inconsistency
topic: Bioethics
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/09/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-pro-choice-atheist-s-inconsistency
content:
            <div> 
		<p>One of the ways to be a good ambassador for Christ is to be a <em>good listener</em>. Oftentimes, we are so busy trying to win the argument that we fail to listen to the person making the argument. I believe that we would be much more effective if we would just stop talking and start listening. It has been my experience that if you listen to an atheist long enough, they will give you the rope to hang their arguments with.</p>

<p>Specifically, I’m listening for internal contradictions or inconsistencies in their own view. If you are attentive, you’ll be able to identify and expose these inconsistencies.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example. This week I made a comment on Twitter that generated some hostility from abortion advocates. One person erroneously interpreted my pro-life stance as merely a <em>religious</em> position. This faulty assumption led her on a tirade against the God of the Bible. She believed that if she undermined my Christian faith, then she’d undermine my pro-life view.</p>

<p>As a general rule, I try not to get sucked into unfruitful conversations with atheists on social media. Of course, there is a time and place for it, but I didn’t think this person was open to truth. I was ready to let this go when she said something that caught my attention. She started to attack the moral character of God. To make her point, she brought up what she referred to as the “genocides”&nbsp;committed by God in the Old Testament. Clearly, she did not think God had the right to kill people in the Bible. In fact, she thought that these atrocities turned God into an evil monster.</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/luv2research">@luv2research</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/timothybarnett">@timothybarnett</a> Read the story of Noah- looks like genocide to me.</p>
- Julie Anne (@julieannecs) <a href="https://twitter.com/julieannecs/status/701811192734609408">22 February 2016</a></blockquote>

<p><script type="text/javascript" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></p>

<p>This argument comes up with some regularity with many Internet atheists. My point here is not to answer this challenge specifically. What caught my attention was that she was adamantly pro-choice. In fact, her profile picture said, “Still Standing with Planned Parenthood.”&nbsp;She didn’t realize it, but her argument against God was inconsistent with her pro-choice convictions.</p>

<p>She strongly believed in a woman’s right to choose to kill her child through the act of abortion. On her view, the mother’s right to kill her child supersedes the child’s right to live.</p>

<p>With this rationale in your mind, consider her argument against God. She chastised God for taking human life when He used His right to choose. Think about these two claims next to each other. When the Creator of all life takes the life of one of His creatures, He’s a moral monster. However, when a woman takes the life of her child, she’s just exercising her right.</p>

<p>Do you see the blatant inconsistency? When it’s a woman making the choice to kill an innocent human being, <em>she’s justified and commended</em>. When it’s God making the choice to kill wicked people for their wickedness, <em>He’s unjustified and condemned</em>. But doesn’t the Creator have rights over His creation? If anyone is justified in taking life, it would be the Creator of all life.</p>

<p>This pro-choice atheist was caught in a dilemma. She could not consistently condemn God for taking human life while advocating for a woman’s right to do it. Obviously, <em>if</em> a mere creature has the right to kill another creature, how can she logically think the Creator of every creature does not? If she were actually consistent, she would be celebrating God’s right to choose. Of course, she won’t do that because her worldview is <em>self-centered</em>. To admit that God has any rights over His creation would call into question the way she lives her life. That is, if God is in charge, then she can’t be. So, rather than remain consistent in her view, she was willing to sacrifice reason at the expense of autonomy.</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-pro-choice-atheist-s-inconsistency" 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-pro-choice-atheist-s-inconsistency" 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-pro-choice-atheist-s-inconsistency" 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 Resurrection Changes Everything
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/26/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-resurrection-changes-everything
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Kenneth Samples has a <a href="http://www.reasons.org/blogs/reflections/the-resurrection-christianity%E2%80%99s-most-dangerous-idea" target="_blank">post</a> about “the Christian faith’s most dangerous idea”&nbsp;at Reasons to Believe:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“Dangerous ideas”&nbsp;in such disciplines as philosophy, theology, and science often challenge the standard paradigm (accepted model) of the day. These so-called unsafe ideas have radical implications for how people view reality, truth, rationality, goodness, value, and beauty, and can sometimes contravene what many people believe. Not only do such revolutionary ideas threaten accepted beliefs, but they also contain explosive world-and-life view implications for all humanity...</p>

<p>Naturalists (nature is the exclusive reality) believe that death is the final end of one’s life and existence and there is no escape from this inevitable consequence. In other words, the Grim Reaper doesn’t play favorites. Not only does everyone die but everyone also stays dead forever. There are no exceptions to this certain naturalistic fate.</p>

<p>From this perspective, any belief system that affirms life after death is sheer wishful thinking. Death is the great equalizer—it comes for everyone. This life is all there is so make the most of it. There is, then, no meaning to life other than what people can hope to create for themselves. Yet this bleak predicament fills men’s hearts with legitimate angst and dread. Everything that a person builds in this life is broken down completely and permanently by death.</p>

<p>In stark contrast to the naturalistic worldview’s melancholy and hopeless dilemma, historic Christianity’s <em>most dangerous idea</em> is that one man—Jesus Christ—died but didn’t remain dead. Following his public crucifixion, he rose from the dead on the first Easter morning. Therefore at the center of Christianity’s earliest preaching and teaching (kerygma) is the solemn proclamation that Jesus Christ lived on Earth, conquered death, and thus remains the living Savior and Lord.</p>

<p>Several strands of formidable evidence back Jesus’&nbsp;historic bodily resurrection from the grave. These interwoven elements include the empty tomb, Jesus’&nbsp;post-crucifixion appearances, the transformation of the apostles, the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, the change in the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day, and finally the emergence of the historic Christian church itself.</p>

<p>The implications of this perilous proposition are staggering and life-changing.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of his <a href="http://www.reasons.org/blogs/reflections/the-resurrection-christianity%E2%80%99s-most-dangerous-idea" target="_blank">post</a>, or read his whole book on this subject, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007KNTR04/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&amp;btkr=1" target="_blank"><em>7 Truths that Changed the World: Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas</em></a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-resurrection-changes-everything" 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-resurrection-changes-everything" 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-resurrection-changes-everything" 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: Fantasy or Reality?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2016
source: https://www.str.org/w/christianity-fantasy-or-reality-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Once I was sitting on an airplane next to a stockbroker. He asked me what I did for a living and I told him I was a writer. When he asked what I wrote about, immediately I faced a problem. I wanted to tell him that I write about religion, specifically Christianity, but I didn’t want him to make a mistake many people make when they think about those two things.</p>

<p>Most people nowadays would not say that the religious stories believers believe are actually false (it would be impolite to put it that way, and might even be considered intolerant). At the same time, though, they do not think they’re really true, either, in any deep sense of the word.</p>

<p>Instead, people are tempted to think of religion as a kind of spiritual fantasy club—true for you, but not necessarily true for me. Find the club you like—the one that meets your personal needs, that gives you rules to live by that are respectable (but not too demanding), that warms your heart with a feeling of spirituality. That’s the point of religion. Do not, however, confuse religious stories with reality. They don’t give you the kind of information about the world that, say, science does. Yes, believing in God is useful to a point, but religion taken too seriously is, in some ways, like believing in Santa Claus—quaint if you’re a child, but unbecoming of an adult.</p>

<p>I am convinced this is a completely misguided approach to religion, and I did not want the stockbroker thinking this is what I had in mind—that my faith is an exercise in spiritual wishful thinking, the kind of delusion Karl Marx once called the “opiate of the people.”&nbsp;My comments to the stockbroker, then, were informed by a very particular way of understanding Christianity, a way even many Christians have not fully grasped.</p>

<h2>The Central Question</h2>

<p>Here I need to ask you a rhetorical question. It’s a question I don’t want you to answer (I’ll answer it for you), but one I want you to think about as if you did have to answer it. Here is that question: What <em>is</em> Christianity?</p>

<p>Some say Christianity is a religious system people follow. Others say it is a guide for living a fulfilling life, or maybe a way of finding peace with God, or maybe a system of ethical principles to live by. Some might say Christianity is not really a religion at all, but rather a relationship with God, or a relationship with Jesus. This way of putting it might be confusing to some, but I think I understand what those who say this are getting at.</p>

<p>These answers all have some truth to them as far as they go. The problem is, I do not think they go far enough. They are all too “thin,”&nbsp;in a certain sense. Each is a look at Christianity from the “inside,”&nbsp;so to speak, from the perspective of the Christian living out his or her individual “beliefs”&nbsp;or “personal faith.”&nbsp;That is certainly part of it, and I think these answers would have made complete sense to the stockbroker. But there is something missing.</p>

<p>The answer to the question “What is Christianity?”&nbsp;turns out to be much bigger than any one of those things because it includes something important from the “outside”&nbsp;as well as the inside. The way Jesus understood religion was not simply as a private, spiritual view, or as a subjective source of ethics, or even as a personalized “relationship”&nbsp;with God. It was much bigger than any of those things. Jesus understood religion first from the outside, not from the inside.</p>

<p>Here is what I am getting at. The correct answer to the question “What is Christianity?”&nbsp;is this: <em>Christianity is a picture of reality</em>.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> It is an account, or a description, or a depiction of the way things actually are. It is not just a view <em>from the inside</em> (a Christian’s personal feelings, or religious beliefs, or spiritual affections, or ethical views, or “relationship”&nbsp;with God). It is also a view <em>of the outside</em>. It is a view of the world out there, of how the world really is in itself.</p>

<p>Put another way, Christianity is a worldview. The Christian view is not the only way of viewing the world, of course. It has competition. Every religion and every secular philosophy claims to represent reality in a true and accurate way. Indeed, every person has a view like this of some sort. Everyone has in his or her mind a story about the way the world actually is, even if he hasn’t thought about it much or worked out all the details.</p>

<p>In this sense, there is no difference between an atheist and a religious person. None. Each believes particular things to be true about the world. I am not using the word “believe”&nbsp;here like some people use the word “faith,”&nbsp;that is, a <em>mere</em> belief with no thought, rationale, or justification behind it. I do think that happens with religious people, and I also think that happens with atheists, but that is not what I’m talking about here.</p>

<p>A person’s “belief,”&nbsp;in my sense of the word, is simply his view of some detail of the world that he holds to be accurate. That’s all. And both scientists and saints have beliefs of this sort. There’s nothing unusual going on here.</p>

<p>Now of course, just because they believe things about the world does not mean they <em>know</em> their beliefs to be true. That is something else entirely. But they still <em>think</em> they are true, otherwise they would not believe them. Instead, they would believe different things and think those things true instead.</p>

<p>Since everyone—religious person, atheist, scientist, skeptic—believes his beliefs are true, it has always struck me odd when some have been faulted simply for thinking their views correct. They’ve even been labeled intolerant or bigoted for doing so. But what is the alternative? The person objecting thinks his own views correct as well, which is why he’s objecting. Both parties in the conversation think they’re right and the other wrong. Why, then, is only the religious person (usually) branded a bigot for doing so?</p>

<p>All of us have beliefs about the world we think are accurate. All of us have a worldview picture—at least a rudimentary one—forming in our minds, even if we are not consciously aware of it. Every religion tells a story of reality. Every philosophy and every individual outlook on life is a take on the way someone thinks the world actually is. There is no escaping it. These stories are meant to bring order to our beliefs, to explain the “pieces”&nbsp;of reality that we encounter in life, whether big things or little things, important or inconsequential.</p>

<p>All worldviews are not equal, though. Some have pieces that seem to fit together (internally) better than others, and some have pieces that seem to fit reality (externally) better than others. If they are good stories—that is, if they explain many things, especially the most important things, in a way consistent with our normal encounters with the world—then we have more confidence the stories are accurate, which is just another way of saying the worldview is true, at least for those parts that fit well.</p>

<h2>True Story</h2>

<p>The Christian Story starts out a long, long time ago, long before Jesus. How long ago is a matter of debate, but that does not concern us here. One thing that does concern us is this: The Christian story is different from other stories in a significant way. This story does not start with the words, “Once upon a time.”&nbsp;Why? Because this story is not meant to be understood as a fairy tale or a myth.</p>

<p>When my eldest daughter was young, she read <em>The Chronicles of Narnia</em>. After finishing the first book she asked me, “Papa, is the story about the wardrobe and Peter and Susan and Lucy and Edmund and the lion a true story?”</p>

<p>“No, it’s not,”&nbsp;I told her. “Some stories are true, and some stories are not true. The story about Narnia is fiction.”&nbsp;(I did tell her, though, that some fictional stories like Narnia are actually <em>about</em> true stories, even though the stories themselves are not true.) The Christian story, I was careful to point out, is not like the Narnia story. It isn’t make believe. It is a true story.</p>

<p>Now, when I say this story is a true story, I’m using the word “true”&nbsp;in its ordinary sense. I don’t mean “true <em>for</em> me.”&nbsp;I mean “true <em>to</em> reality.”&nbsp;I mean the things the Story describes actually exist and the events in the Story really happened (or, in some places, are yet to happen).</p>

<p>This is the same as saying, as I did earlier, that Christianity is a picture of reality. This is the story of the way the world really is. That’s the kind of story I’m telling. It’s history, not fiction. This was the point I was trying to make with the stockbroker. I didn’t want him to think the Story was my personal spiritual fantasy, my religious fairy tale, or my make-believe-to-make-me-feel-happy kind of story.</p>

<p>This point is important for another reason. One of our deepest questions about our world is, “What went wrong?”&nbsp;We know the world is broken, but we wonder how that happened, and to some degree we want to fix it. Those two issues are related. Answer the first and you might be able to answer the second.</p>

<p>That’s why for the Christian Story a myth or a fairy tale simply will not do. Make-believe accounts do not actually explain anything. They only illustrate problems in clever, imaginative ways. When a boy asks his father how he got the scar on his face, if his father begins with the words “once upon a time,”&nbsp;the boy immediately knows his father is not giving him an answer to his question. Only a true-life experience can give a true-life scar.</p>

<p>The world is wounded, this we know. Answering the question of how it got to be wounded requires more than a myth. It requires an accurate account of reality. This point about reality applies to every detail of the Story I am telling. The narrative is history, and if it is not, it explains nothing.</p>

<h2>Math Not Bigotry</h2>

<p>If our Story is really true in the deep sense, then it ought to be obvious that other religion stories, taken as complete pictures of the world, are simply mistaken. This does not mean, of course, they are wrong at every point. That would be a foolish mistake for me to make. There are many individual things a religion might teach that are completely sound, as far as they go. I mean, rather, that if the Story is true, all other stories <em>taken as a whole</em> cannot be true as well. To say otherwise would also be a foolish mistake.</p>

<p>A man once told me I was probably one of those bigoted people who thought 90% of the world was wrong about their religion. I agreed with the 90% part, but I told him it had more to do with math than with bigotry.</p>

<p>Think about this. Some religions teach Jesus is the Son of God and others deny it. Fair enough. But is it not clear that somebody is right and somebody is wrong on that score? There is simply no getting around it.</p>

<p>The great monotheistic faiths understand God as a distinct, individual person, whereas some Eastern religions see God as the impersonal sum of everything all put together. Is it not clear that, if there is a God, both of these notions cannot be true about Him at the same time? Clearly, massive numbers of people are mistaken on one side of this issue or the other.</p>

<p>When anyone dies, they <em>might</em> go to heaven, or they <em>might</em> go to hell, or they <em>might</em> be reincarnated, or they <em>might</em> disappear into nothing at all. But even a child can see they cannot do them all at the same time. Multitudes—the majority even—must be mistaken. Again, that’s not bigotry. It’s simple math.</p>

<p>And notice, I am not wasting our time by citing debates about angels dancing on pinheads. No, I am speaking of the heart of things, the foundations, the deep structures, the most basic claims about reality that religions make.</p>

<p>So then, though it’s the rage these days to say all religions are basically the same, it turns out not to be the case at all. What ought to strike us, rather, is how unlike each other they really are. When it comes to the most important things, each religion’s picture of reality is quite different from the others. And those differences simply cannot be smoothed over by invoking naïve stories about blind men and elephants that do not really get to the heart of the matter.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>And it’s also not going to do any good dismissing our account of the world as “your truth”&nbsp;in favor or your own story called “my truth.”&nbsp;Since believing something can’t make it true (otherwise there’d be no difference between believe and make-believe), it makes no sense calling any belief a “truth”&nbsp;as if they were the same thing.</p>

<p>Confused talking leads to confused thinking. Some beliefs are true. Others are not. The difference matters. If a story is not accurate to reality, it’s not any truth at all, so it can never be <em>my</em> truth or <em>your</em> truth, even though we may believe it. It can only be our delusion, or our mistake, or our error, or whatever else you may want to call it. But it could never be our “truth.”&nbsp;I hope that’s clear.</p>

<h2>The Narrow Way</h2>

<p>Which brings us to a related issue. To many, the Christian Story seems so narrow in light of today’s sensibilities it’s almost suffocating. Only one way to Heaven? That is nearly impossible for most people to take seriously. As one bumper sticker states, “God is too big to fit into one religion.”&nbsp;And those who think differently think too highly of themselves and their own beliefs. Does God really care about the theological details? After all, isn’t He more interested in how a person behaves than in what he believes?</p>

<p>It might be helpful to note that even though Christians are faulted for being small-minded for this view, the idea was not invented by them. Christians promote the “narrow way”&nbsp;because Jesus Himself was the author of it. He made the claim repeatedly, many times in many ways. Every disciple on record whom Jesus personally trained to carry on after Him delivered the same message: There is a narrow way to eternal life that few find, but a wide way to destruction that many follow. Indeed, “Christian”&nbsp;was not the label the followers of Jesus initially used of themselves. Rather, they called their group “the Way,”&nbsp;in light of Jesus’&nbsp;own claim.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Of course, some will quickly note that just because Jesus taught it does not automatically make it true, and they would have a point. But it does seem to make the narrow view more difficult to dismiss. Jesus of Nazareth is a person most people are inclined to take seriously—which is why they freely quote Him when it suits their purpose.</p>

<p>But why would Jesus, of all people, say such a thing? Wasn’t Jesus’&nbsp;main message about equality, fairness, social justice, loving our neighbors—<em>inclusion</em>, in a word, not <em>exclusion</em>?</p>

<p>It is fashionable these days to presume such things about Jesus, but those were not the reasons He came—at least not the reasons He gave. Jesus cared about those issues, no question, which is why we find them scattered here and there within His teaching, but they were not the heart of it, not according to Him.</p>

<p>No, there is a reason Jesus made this controversial claim about Himself, and it had nothing to do with arrogance, bigotry, or small-minded exclusion—a kind of cruel trick played on unsuspecting people to guarantee their damnation. Rather, it had to do with the nature of reality—a very real problem with man and his world that needed a very real solution.</p>

<p>Humanity is afflicted with a moral disease called sin. Rebellion has created an enormous debt. There is only one antidote: payment. Either Jesus pays for us, or we pay for ourselves. It’s that simple. That is why He is the only way of salvation. <em>He is the only one who solved the problem, since He is the only one who paid the price</em>. He paid so we wouldn’t have to pay. This is not fantasy. It is fact. We sinned in time-space history—the real world. Jesus died in time-space history—the real world.</p>

<p>And that is my point, for the moment. It has not been my goal here to expound on the reason Jesus is necessary, or to defend that claim (I have done both elsewhere), but rather to make clear the kind of claim we (and Jesus) have been making. And this is a point that non-Christians and even many Christians have not been fully clear on. <em>When Christianity talks about Jesus, it means to be talking about reality, not religious fantasy.</em> If we were just making things up, we could easily contrive answers that were more convenient. Reality, however, is not always so accommodating since facts are stubborn things.</p>

<p>Some of the facts in question are those underwritten by our common experience. There are two things we all know to be true about life. First, the world is not the way it is supposed to be. Second, we are not the way we are supposed to be. These are not guesses. These are facts. And if there is a solution to those problems, then that must be in the realm of fact, too, or else nothing is solved.</p>

<p>Jesus offers Himself as that solution, a claim underwritten by the singular facts of His remarkable life, death, and return from the grave. Yes, His claims are subject to verification and debate, but they should not be dismissed simply because they are uncomfortable or unpopular.</p>

<p>If you are looking for a psychological lift for the moment, a temporary bromide to relieve the distress of life—Marx’s “opiate of the people”—then you are welcome to your religious fantasy, whatever it may be. Be advised, though, it might soothe for the moment, but it will never heal since it does not address reality.</p>

<p>If, however, you want genuine healing instead of emotional distraction, then you need a genuine Healer. That is what Jesus offers: genuine healing, actual restoration with God, true forgiveness—reality, not fantasy.</p>

<p>This material is excerpted from <em>Credo—The Story of Reality</em>, a new book by Gregory Koukl to be released December, 2016.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">I am grateful to Chuck Colson for the insight that Christianity is a view of reality. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">I have written an entire article about this confusion titled, “The Trouble with the Elephant.”&nbsp;You can find it by searching for it by name at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Jesus’&nbsp;comments about the “narrow way”&nbsp;can be found in Matthew 7:13-14, and His clam to be “the way, the truth and the life”&nbsp;can be found in John 14:6. His disciples repeated the idea in many places, notably Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:1-4, 9. Find 100 such verses collected in the booklet, <em>Jesus, the Only Way—100 Verses</em>, available at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>

<p>I have become convinced that, in general, people are confused about religion. Somewhere along the way, folks got it into their minds that religion was a kind of spiritual fantasy club—true for you, but not necessarily true for me. Find the club that warms your heart and meets your personal needs. Do not, however, confuse religious stories with reality. That is a different thing entirely.</p>

<p>Surprisingly, many Christians have been caught up in this confusion. They do not believe their beliefs are really true in any deep sense of the word. You can tell by the way they live their lives. In this month’s <em>Solid Ground</em> I address that confusion. I do not really argue in favor of the Christian claim about the world (as I often do). Instead, I simply want to clarify what kind of claim we are making.</p>

<p><a href="https://str-legacy.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/pdf/sg/DigitalSG_0316-v5.pdf" target="_blank">Read <em>Solid Ground</em></a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristianity-fantasy-or-reality-" 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-fantasy-or-reality-" 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-fantasy-or-reality-" 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>
            
          


