# articles

title: Coffee Cup Christianity
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/03/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/coffee-cup-christianity
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This might sound a little creepy: I know how you read your email. I promise I’m not stalking you, but I know there’s something you never do when you get a message from a friend.</p>

<p>You never open the email, skip the first three pages, and read just one line on the fourth page. No one, in fact, takes that approach with their mail. By skipping the context of the email and ignoring the flow of thought, you wouldn’t know what that line meant on the fourth page. If it’s wrong to read your <em>friend’s</em> mail that way, then why do we read <em>God’s</em> mail that way?</p>

<p>We open the <em>letter </em>to the Philippians, skip the first three chapters, and read verse 14: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Message received. Close the letter. We’re done here!</p>

<p>We even plaster that verse on a mug, publicizing our mistake. I call this “Coffee Cup Christianity,” and it’s killing our biblical literacy. We’ve become accustomed to seeing isolated Bible verses and presume we know their meaning. Too often, however, we merely insert our own meaning into a Bible verse, thereby overwriting what God was trying to tell us.</p>

<p>It’s not just on coffee cups. We see isolated verses on calendars, walls, phone cases, and just about anywhere you can post text.</p>

<p>Sadly, Coffee Cup Christianity violates one of the most basic and well-known principles of interpretation: context. It’s a principle known not only among Bible readers. Many people in our culture understand it. Tragically, we apply it when reading <em>man’s</em> word but neglect it when reading <em>God’s</em> word. Coffee Cup Christianity leads to three dangerous problems.</p>

<p><strong>First, Coffee Cup Christianity overwrites God’s intended meaning with your own.</strong> The verses before and after a Bible verse are the context. They clarify what the author is talking about. The word “buck,” for example, means dollar if the context is about money but means deer if the context is about hunting. Notice that changing the context changes the meaning of the smaller unit of text.</p>

<p>The same is true with Scripture. That’s why you want to first read the context of any verse before trying to understand what it means. In the Bible’s case, it’s the Holy Spirit who inspired not only the verse you’re trying to understand, but also the context to help you understand it. Coffee Cup Christianity often ignores the Spirit’s inspired words, leaving a context vacuum, which we quickly fill with our own context from our own life situation. Since context drives the meaning of a verse, your own life context may be changing the true meaning of the words of Scripture, overwriting what God intended to tell you. In effect, we’re infusing our meaning into Scripture and granting it divine authority.</p>

<p><strong>Second, Coffee Cup Christianity leads to missing important lessons from God.</strong> My daughter was taught a Sunday school lesson on Jesus’ parable about the “night neighbor” in Luke 11:5–8. The story is about a man who is woken at midnight and resists giving his neighbor some bread but eventually shares it. If you read the parable in isolation from its context, the lesson seems obvious: sharing is a virtue. But when you read the context (Luke 11:1–4 and 9–13), which is about Jesus’ teaching on prayer, a different lesson emerges: the importance of the persistence of prayer. Coffee Cup Christianity makes you miss important lessons the Holy Spirit intends to teach.</p>

<p><strong>Third, Coffee Cup Christianity models bad interpretive methods.</strong> Despite the faulty approach to understanding the Bible, people assure me that we can still glean valuable lessons even if we miss the point of the passage. They tell me, <em>It’s no big deal. Even if Jesus wasn’t teaching about sharing, it’s still an important lesson to follow. </em>I vigorously disagree. I <em>do </em>agree sharing is an important virtue. If you want to make that point, though, use a passage that specifically implores us to share (e.g. 2 Cor. 9:7). It’s unethical to take a text that teaches one lesson and force it to teach a different one. That twists God’s Word and models a dangerous interpretive method for others.</p>

<p>If we handle God’s Word in this manner, we hand young believers faulty tools, rendering them incapable of accurately handling the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). They’re the most important generation because they’re the <em>next </em>generation. We’re short-circuiting the health of tomorrow’s church if we give them license to replace God’s words with their own meanings.</p>

<p>Coffee Cup Christianity needs to end. It’s lazy, unethical, and dangerous. It elevates our own meaning above God’s and passes it off as divine writ. We don’t read what our friends have written with such carelessness. Let’s no longer do it with what God has written.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcoffee-cup-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%2Fcoffee-cup-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%2Fcoffee-cup-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: A Reminder of What Will Not Change Today
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/03/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-reminder-of-what-will-not-change-today
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A quote by J.I. Packer in <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Packer-Christian-Life-Knowing-Walking/dp/1433539527/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=packer+on+the+christian+life&amp;qid=1604364035&amp;sr=8-1">Packer on the Christian Life</a></em> seemed appropriate for today’s election:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Whatever cultural shifts take place around us, whatever socio-political concerns claim our attention, whatever anxieties we may feel about the church as an institution, Jesus Christ crucified, risen, reigning, and now in the power of his atonement, calling, drawing, welcoming, pardoning, renewing, strengthening, preserving, and bringing joy, remains the heart of the Christian message, the focus of Christian worship, and the fountain of Christian life. Other things may change; this does not.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Let’s remember what is most important today—the things that will not change regardless of the election results. Perhaps after the election you will feel overjoyed. Jesus Christ is still the focus of our worship. Perhaps the election will bring more suffering into your life. Jesus Christ still strengthens. Perhaps it will bring you hope, perhaps discouragement. Jesus Christ is still risen and reigning, greater than all others, above all others. And whether you feel devastated or elated, whether you face suffering or an alleviation of suffering, whether you lose or win politically, no one and nothing can stop God from fulfilling his promise to</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[cause] all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And why can nothing stop him?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+8%3A28-29&amp;version=NASB">Rom. 8:28–29</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The truth is, conforming you to the image of his Son, not ensuring your comfort, is the Father’s good plan for you. And conforming you to the image of his Son, not ensuring your comfort, is what he has promised. He will do this when things go the way you want them to. He will do this when the bottom falls out of everything you care about. He <em>will</em> do this. This will not change.</p>

<p>After the election, it’s okay to grieve what might have been. It’s okay to rejoice at what you think will come. But regardless of how it turns out, because of the truth of who God is and what he is doing in this world, we ought to be people <a href="/w/politics-will-not-save-us">who stand out from the crowd</a> as those who securely rest in the knowledge that our future—whether painful or comfortable—is in the unfailing hands of God, “those who weep, [living] as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice…for the present form of this world is passing away” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A29-31&amp;version=NASB">1 Cor. 30–31</a>), and we know that as it passes, it <em>will</em> accomplish the predestined ends for which God created 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-reminder-of-what-will-not-change-today" 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-reminder-of-what-will-not-change-today" 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-reminder-of-what-will-not-change-today" 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: Street Tactics – Part 5
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/street-tactics-part-5
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Having a specific plan is always a huge benefit when you’re forced to navigate troubled waters. Indeed, it’s hard to even get launched if you don’t know which direction it’s best to go when a gale starts blowing.</p>

<p>It’s one of the reasons so many Christians have difficulty engaging the world Jesus has sent them into as ambassadors. The cultural waters they find themselves in are stormier by the day, and many believers—battered by the squall—stay tied to their mooring for fear of being swamped by the tempest just beyond their anchorage.</p>

<h2>Weathering the Storm</h2>

<p>There is a way out, though, a fairly simple approach to get you through the breakers and out into open water—a navigational game plan that is extremely safe, surprisingly straightforward, and amazingly effective.</p>

<p>Simply put, the key to navigating effectively with others in choppy spiritual waters is to <em>use questions</em>. Carefully placed queries are the foundation of a tactical game plan that will keep you from getting capsized.</p>

<p>The basic plan is simplicity itself. <a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="">[i]</a></p>

<p>Step one has a single purpose: <em>Gather information</em>. What precisely is the complaint, the objection, or the challenge your friend is offering? Step two: <em>Find out the specific reasons</em>—if he has any, and if he can articulate them—for holding the contrary view he’s advancing.</p>

<p>These two steps provide you with a kind of map you can use to navigate dangerous waters. The moves are gentle and non-confrontational, compelled by a genuine curiosity and a desire to understand. Step three is more advanced: <em>Make a point</em>—but always try to use questions when you do.</p>

<p>This last phase of the plan is where verbal sparring is more likely to begin since you’re taking the initiative—though in a careful, shrewd way—to offer a contrary opinion or to point out a weakness or a flaw in the other’s view.</p>

<p>This is the point where Street Tactics—a refinement of the final phase of that basic plan—enter in. For most of this year, I’ve been giving you a primer on this approach in STR’s bi-monthly issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>.<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title="">[ii]</a></p>

<p>Street Tactics involve having a <em>specific</em> set of questions at the ready to keep you in the driver’s seat of a conversation when you’re engaged with a critic of Christianity on a particular topic. Though encounters like these are somewhat “head-to-head” affairs, our tactical maneuvers are meant to provide safety for you in the conversation while encouraging the objector to think more carefully about his complaints or consider problems he may not have been aware of.</p>

<p>My pattern in this tutorial series has been to provide insight on the weaknesses of a challenge then offer a specific line of questions in the form of mini-dialogues that you can use to get started addressing that weakness in an amicable, yet incisive, way.</p>

<p>In this <em>Solid Ground</em>, I’d like to answer some confusions about a theological matter you may have struggled to deal with in the past, then provide sample, question-guided mini-dialogues to help you navigate that issue when it comes up in conversations with others.</p>

<p>Our focus will be on a somewhat technical (though vital) point of theology—the Trinity. It’s a huge speed bump for many, especially atheists, Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. These all reject the Trinity, but they object to it on different grounds.</p>

<h2>The Trinity: Two Too Many</h2>

<p>Atheists and skeptics think the Trinity is absurd. Muslims protest, pointing out that Jesus never said, “I am God. Worship me.” Jehovah’s Witnesses are strict unitarians on biblical grounds, and Mormons, though they affirm Scripture, are polytheists, regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct gods.</p>

<p>Since the charge of contradiction is so common, I’ll tackle that first. Here’s how one objector put it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three times one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar, if we add two to one we have but one. Each one is equal to himself and the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title="">[iii]</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>We might sympathize with this agnostic’s concern (the Trinity is a bit weird, after all), but the inaccuracies and distortions in this statement are legion—none of the declarations reflects a correct understanding of the doctrine. It’s a “straw man,” an easy-to-defeat distortion of the authentic view.</p>

<p>A basic definition might clear things up. A <em>contradiction</em> is a structurally simple thing, in logical terms: A = non-A. When we affirm one thing and simultaneously affirm its negation, we have contradicted ourselves.</p>

<p>If, for example, I said there is only one God but then claimed there were three separate, distinct, and individual gods, that would be a contradiction. This is not the Christian position, though. The first half is classical Christian theology, but the second half is the Mormon view.</p>

<p>If I said God subsists in three distinct persons but then claimed God is a perfect unity—one nature and only one person, that would be a contradiction. This is not the Christian position, though. The first half is the Christian view, but the second half is the Muslim view.</p>

<p>However, if I said there is only one who is God by nature, and the one God subsists in three distinct persons who equally share the divine nature—one individual divine being with three distinct centers of consciousness—that would not be a contradiction. That would be strange, but it would not be contradictory.</p>

<p>Do not miss a critical element in resolving difficulties like these: <em>Precision matters</em>. Getting basic concepts correct is vital. What <em>specifically</em> do critics mean by “contradiction”? What <em>precisely</em> do Christians mean by “Trinity”? Clearing up this confusion is crucial. It’s the goal of our first tactical question—some form of the query “What do you mean by that?”</p>

<p>Properly understood, the Christian view simply is not contradictory. Period. This doesn’t make it true, of course (that must be established on separate grounds), but clearly it doesn’t fail because of incoherence, and that’s the issue here.</p>

<p>The stumbling block for many is the three-in-one notion. It seems problematic on its face. However, not all three-in-ones are contradictions. A single triangle has three angles (a “tri-angle”). It also has three sides, so it’s three in one twice. No one balks at this concept, though. One family can have three members: Dad, Mom, and little Johnny. No problem there, either.</p>

<p>These are not illustrations of the Trinity, mind you. It’s just a way of parrying this objection by giving examples of three-in-ones that are not contradictions. As long as the first claim is not negated by the second claim—that is, as long as the precise way that a thing is three is different from the way it is one—there is no conflict, no inconsistency, and no incongruity.</p>

<p>Here is how I would manage the discussion.</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“The Trinity doesn’t make sense.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Really? Why not?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“It’s an absurd contradiction.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Oh? What exactly is the contradiction?” [Note my initial requests for clarification.]</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Because you can’t have three in one. It’s a contradiction. You have three gods and one God at the same time. That’s nonsense.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“You’re right. That would be nonsense if it were what we believed.<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title="">[iv]</a> I think I see the confusion. Let me ask you a question. How many people in your family?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Four. My wife, and me, and our two kids. Why?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“So you have four people in your family? You have four in one? Impossible. That’s a contradiction. If you can’t have three in one, how can you have four in one?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“That’s different.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“How?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Because a family is one thing and the people who make up that family are another thing. They’re not the same, so there’s no contradiction.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Exactly. That’s my point. As long as the <em>one</em> (one <em>family</em>) is different from the <em>four</em> (four <em>people</em>), you’re in the clear. Right?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“That’s right.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“The same with the Trinity. When Christians talk about the Trinity, they mean one thing (one God) is different from the three things (three persons). Do you see how that’s not a contradiction?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, you’ve got a point, but that doesn’t make it true.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“You’re right. It doesn’t. But it does show it’s not contradictory, right?”</p>

<h2>“I am God. Worship Me.”</h2>

<p>As for Jesus never uttering the precise words “I am God. Worship me,” there is a point here. As far as the record reveals, he never uttered those exact words—or anything that, to <em>our</em> ears, is equivalent. But why is that significant?</p>

<p>If I said, “Here are my daughters, Annabeth and Eva,” but never said the exact words “I am a parent,” would it make sense to charge I never claimed to be a dad? Hardly. I can affirm I’m a parent in a host of unmistakable ways.</p>

<p>The fact is, there are multiple ways to make an assertion. In Jesus’ case, he said plenty of things that made his divine claim clear. Remember, Jesus wasn’t speaking to “our ears.” He was speaking to first-century Jews. His claims, in Jewish parlance, were unmistakable.</p>

<p>By calling God his Father and saying he was the Son of God, Jesus was asserting equality with God, a clear claim to deity. The Jews, to <em>their</em> ears, understood it perfectly: “You, being a man, <em>make Yourself out to be God</em>” (Jn. 10:33).<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title="">[v]</a></p>

<p>That kind of claim was blasphemy, a capital crime<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title="">[vi]</a> (the same as it would be in Islam, by the way), which is why the Jews sought to kill Jesus a number of times, yet he eluded them. They eventually succeeded, though, and blasphemy was the precise reason the Jewish court had him executed:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I Am….” Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy….” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. (Mk. 14:61–65)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Note, he was not condemned for claiming to be Messiah. The Jews expected a deliverer, so it could hardly be a crime to claim to be the Promised One. Jesus’ blasphemy was saying he was the son of the blessed one—God, himself.</p>

<p>Again, this doesn’t prove Jesus was God, but it’s clear he made the claim—in multiple ways, on multiple occasions. To unpack that point, here’s how a conversation might look.</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Where did Jesus ever say, ‘I am God. Worship me’? He never did.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, I think you’re right about Jesus not using those exact words. But let me ask you a question. Is that the <em>only</em> way someone could claim to be God? Could Jesus claim to be God using other words?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“How could he do that?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“As a Muslim, what other words would indicate to you that someone was claiming divinity? What if someone used the sacred Jewish name for the eternal God and applied it to himself?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Did Jesus do that?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Yes. He said, ‘Before Abraham was born, <em>I am</em>.’<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title="">[vii]</a> That’s God’s name for himself right out of the burning bush in Exodus 3:14. What if one of his closest followers claimed he created everything that was ever created?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Where is that?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“That’s in John 1:3. What if Jesus never said, ‘Worship me,’ but he readily <em>received</em> worship from others?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“That would be pretty bad.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, you can find that in Matthew 14:33. Jesus walked on water then calmed the storm, and the disciples in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘You are certainly God’s Son!’ There are half a dozen verses like this in the New Testament.<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title="">[viii]</a> One last thing.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“What’s that?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Do you know <em>why</em> Jesus was executed?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, he made the Jews mad.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“He sure did. You can read in the historical account of his trial about <em>why</em> they were angry. Jesus was sentenced to death for blasphemy, for claiming to be the Son of God—which the Jews clearly understood as a claim to deity.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I didn’t know that.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“So, one, being identified as the omnipotent creator of everything that ever was created, two, applying to himself the unique, holy name for God (a name the Jews wouldn’t even pronounce, it was so sacred), three, receiving worship from men, and four, being executed for blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God—is it fair to say that’s pretty close to saying, ‘I am God’?”</p>

<h2>A Solution, Not a Problem</h2>

<p>Answering the complaints about the Trinity for Bible believers like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons is a little more complex, but not much. The basics aren’t really difficult.</p>

<p>This is not the place for a full biblical defense of the Trinity,<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title="">[ix]</a> but in a certain sense the solution is remarkably simple. First, have a clear understanding of what Christians mean by the Trinity—what the basic elements are—and, second, take an honest, straightforward, unbiased look at Scripture.</p>

<p>On the biblical side, I have always maintained that the Trinity is a solution, not a problem. Here’s why. The doctrine of the Trinity is the only way of understanding what the Word says about God that doesn’t reduce Scripture’s statements about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to a mass of contradictions.</p>

<p>First, a definition. James White offers a concise characterization: “Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”<a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title="">[x]</a> Put most simply, there is one “what” and three “whos.”</p>

<p>Notice three critical pieces of the definition. First, there is only one who is God by nature. Two, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are personally distinct from each other. Three, each of them is fully God. To prove that the Trinity is biblical, then, we simply show that each of these elements is taught in the text.</p>

<p>In actual practice, the process occurred in reverse. Early Christians noticed the basic elements in the writings then formulated the Trinity as an explanation that harmonized the texts, providing a solution to the apparent problem.</p>

<p>Here’s how those details play out.</p>

<p>Early Christians were monotheists because Judaism was monotheistic. The doctrine, foundational to Hebrew theology, is found famously in Deut. 6:4, the great <em>Sh’ma Yisrael</em>: “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!” That’s the first piece. <a href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title="">[xi]</a></p>

<p>The idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons is so obvious in the text, it’s one of the chief reasons people reject the Trinity. The three are present in distinct forms at Jesus’ baptism, for example (Lk. 3:21–22). Also, in the upper room, Jesus says that when he goes away, he will send the Spirit—who is from the Father—and the Spirit will testify about him (Jn. 15:26). That’s the second piece.</p>

<p>Finally, each of the three persons of the Trinity is either called God, has characteristics unique to God, or exercises divine prerogatives. For example, God is Creator, yet the Word (who became Jesus) created all things ever created (Jn. 1:3, 14). Jesus forgives sins that only God can forgive (Mk. 2:5–12). The Spirit is omnipresent (Ps. 139:7–9) and is eternal (Heb. 9:14)—both characteristics unique to God. Peter said that lying to the Spirit is lying to God (Acts 5:3–4). And on and on. Passages like these are legion. That’s the third piece.</p>

<p>These are the three pieces we draw on in conversation to help a critic see that the Trinity is a solution, not a problem. Here’s a dialogue focusing on a unitarian<a href="#_edn12" name="_ednref12" title="">[xii]</a> (such as a Jehovah’s Witness).</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I know you object to the Trinity because it’s not scriptural, but could you please tell me exactly why?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Because the Bible teaches there’s only one God.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I agree.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“No you don’t. You’re Trinitarian.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right. But believing in one God is part of the definition of the Trinity. No problem for me. Why is that a problem with you?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“But you think the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God. That’s three gods, not one.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Hmm…. So what, precisely, is your understanding of the definition of the Trinity?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“That the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. That’s three gods.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Actually, our view is a little different from that. Our view is that the one God has three separate centers of consciousness, but each equally shares the divine nature, so each is equally God—one ‘what’ and three ‘whos,’ so to speak.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“But that doesn’t make sense. Who did Jesus pray to if he’s God? Nobody prays to himself.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“You’re right. Jesus didn’t pray to himself. He prayed to the Father.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“So you admit that Jesus is different from the Father.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Of course I do. That’s part of the definition of the Trinity.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Don’t you see how confused that is?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Confused? Didn’t you just tell me you agreed with me so far?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“How?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, you said you believe the Bible teaches there is only one God, right?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“So do I. You also agree that Jesus is so different from the Father that they can both talk with each other, right?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Then, so far we are in complete agreement on what the Bible teaches. Are you with me?”<a href="#_edn13" name="_ednref13" title="">[xiii]</a></p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Sure. But you also believe Jesus <em>is</em> God.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right, but what if I could show you this is <em>also</em> something the Bible teaches?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“But it doesn’t.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Can I give you one example? Who is the creator of everything that’s ever been created?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Jehovah. Isaiah 44:24: ‘I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone.’”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right. I agree. Good verse: ‘I, <em>the Lord</em>…by <em>myself</em>…all <em>alone</em>.’ By the way, when John talks about the Word in the beginning of John 1, who is he talking about?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“He means the one who was born as Jesus: ‘The Word became flesh and dwelt among us,’ John 1:14.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Exactly. But John also says in that same passage that the Word created all things that were ever created: ‘All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being’—John 1:3. Have you read that before?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Sounds familiar.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“So if the Bible teaches that <em>Jehovah</em> is the creator, and it also teaches that a different person, <em>the Word</em>, is Creator, then <em>you</em> have a contradiction. So how do you solve that problem?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I’m not sure.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“This is why the early church used the word ‘Trinity’: three distinct persons all sharing the same single divine nature. It’s a solution, not a problem.”</p>

<p>This same basic tactical pattern of questions can be used to draw attention to many of the other ways the Bible reveals Jesus’ divinity—he is called God, he receives worship, he is the only savior, he is consistently referred to as <em>the Lord</em>, etc., etc.—and also for the divinity of the Holy Spirit.</p>

<p>Remember your basic strategy for addressing the challenge of the Trinity: The Trinity is a solution, not a problem. It’s not a contradiction, but rather an elegant explanation to resolve what otherwise would be an intractable biblical difficulty.</p>

<div>&nbsp;
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="edn1">
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="">[i]</a> I provide a more comprehensive treatment of the tactical approach in <em>Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions</em>,<em> 10<sup>th</sup> Anniversary Ed. </em>(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019).</p>
</div>

<div id="edn2">
<p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title="">[ii]</a> Find “Street Tactics 1–4” <a href="https://www.str.org/solid-ground">archived at str.org</a>.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn3">
<p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title="">[iii]</a> Robert Ingersol, “The Foundations of Faith,” <em>The Works of Ingersoll</em>, Vol. 4, 1895, 266.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn4">
<p><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title="">[iv]</a> Notice, I go out of my way to affirm anything I can agree with. It’s tactically sound, and it’s also good manners.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn5">
<p><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title="">[v]</a> See also John 5:18, John 19:7, Mark 2:5–7, and John 8:56–59.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn6">
<p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title="">[vi]</a> Leviticus 24:16.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn7">
<p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title="">[vii]</a> John 8:58.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn8">
<p><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title="">[viii]</a> For a complete treatment of this point, see “<a href="/w/was-jesus-worshipped-">Was Jesus Worshiped?</a>” at str.org.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn9">
<p><a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title="">[ix]</a> For a more thorough treatment, see “<a href="/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1">The Trinity: A Solution, Not a Problem</a>,” parts 1&nbsp;<a href="/w/the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-2">and 2</a>, at str.org.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn10">
<p><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title="">[x]</a> James White,<em> The Forgotten Trinity </em>(Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998), 26.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn11">
<p><a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11" title="">[xi]</a> See also Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 45:5, and 45:21b, 22.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn12">
<p><a href="#_ednref12" name="_edn12" title="">[xii]</a> A unitarian holds there is one God and he is a unity, that is, is only one person.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn13">
<p><a href="#_ednref13" name="_edn13" title="">[xiii]</a> I call this little review “narrating the debate.” Find more details on this technique in <em>Tactics</em>,<em> 10<sup>th</sup> Anniversary Ed.</em>, 93.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstreet-tactics-part-5" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstreet-tactics-part-5" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstreet-tactics-part-5" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Is Your Christianity Merely a Means to a Social Justice End?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/10/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-your-christianity-merely-a-means-to-a-social-justice-end-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It seems C.S. Lewis thought it a demonic strategy to distract Christians from their primary mission by convincing them to treat Christianity as a means to advance social justice. Look what he wrote in Chapter 23 of <a href="https://www.cslewis.com/uk/books/paperback/the-screwtape-letters-letters-from-a-senior-to-a-junior-devil-c-s-lewis-signature-classic/9780007461240/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em>The Screwtape Letters</em></a>.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the following is an excerpt from a senior demon writing to his nephew, helping him undermine the Christians he’s charged with deceiving. The “Enemy” is God.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My point is <em>not </em>that Christians shouldn’t care about the sick, the homeless, the widows, the orphans, and the oppressed. Of course we should. Our compassion and behavior should flow naturally from our faith and worldview.</p>

<p>We shouldn’t confuse that, though, with the central mission of Jesus, which was to preach the truth (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+1%3A38&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Mark 1:38</a>) and save that which was lost (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+19%3A10&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Luke 19:10</a>) by becoming a ransom for many (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+20%3A28&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Matt. 20:28</a>). Sure, he healed the sick and performed many miraculous signs, but these were also intended to authenticate his main message: the gospel.</p>

<p>Our role, consequently, is to be an ambassador for Jesus and to proclaim the message of reconciliation (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+5%3A18-20&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">2 Cor. 5:18–20</a>). That’s our fundamental identity and mission. Though in the process, our love for all humanity should compel us to have compassion for those in need (and meet those needs!). But we don’t want to mold Christianity into our own making by using it “as a means to anything—even to social justice.”</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-your-christianity-merely-a-means-to-a-social-justice-end-" 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-your-christianity-merely-a-means-to-a-social-justice-end-" 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-your-christianity-merely-a-means-to-a-social-justice-end-" 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 Could an Oxford Professor of Mathematics Think Christianity Is True?
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/27/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-could-an-oxford-professor-of-mathematics-think-christianity-is-true-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>How could an Oxford professor of mathematics think Christianity is true? That’s the question addressed by a new documentary featuring <a href="https://www.johnlennox.org/about">John Lennox</a> titled <em><a href="https://againstthetide.movie/">Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science</a></em>. The film will be in theaters on <a href="https://www.fathomevents.com/events/against-the-tide">November 19</a> for one night only, but I was able to see a screener ahead of time, and I enjoyed it.</p>

<p>In the film, Lennox doesn’t go too deeply into any one argument for the truth of Christianity. Instead, it’s more of a conversational overview of many basic arguments (the cosmological argument, fine tuning, the resurrection, etc.). Interviews with Lennox are interspersed with quotes from high-profile atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) and clips from Lennox’s past debates to give a sense of the opposing view.</p>

<p>Because Oxford, Cambridge, and Israel serve as a backdrop for these arguments, the film is visually beautiful, and Lennox, as always, is such a likable character that the film remains engaging, even for those (like me) who are already familiar with the arguments. As I said, no argument is explained or debated at length, but this makes the film a good way to introduce the field of apologetics to believers or an excellent opportunity to invite a non-believing friend to view it with you and discuss the ideas raised by both Lennox and the atheists afterwards.</p>

<p>Watch the trailer below, and then take a look at <em><a href="https://againstthetide.movie/">Against the Tide’s website</a></em>, which includes more info along with a link to purchase tickets.</p>

<p class="text-align-center"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jAQ_DedPfbU" width="560"></iframe></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-could-an-oxford-professor-of-mathematics-think-christianity-is-true-" 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-could-an-oxford-professor-of-mathematics-think-christianity-is-true-" 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-could-an-oxford-professor-of-mathematics-think-christianity-is-true-" 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: Sin Leads to Contradictions
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/13/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/sin-leads-to-contradictions
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last month, Matthew Paul Turner <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CCvnte8DmLG/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">announced</a> he’s gay and is planning to divorce his wife. I’m honestly sad for him and his family. I don’t pretend to understand the turmoil he’s experiencing, his wife’s heartache, or the wounds his children will endure for years to come.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, it’s painful to see Matthew and his wife make <a href="https://religionnews.com/2020/07/17/christian-author-matthew-paul-turner-comes-out-as-gay-announces-divorce/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">numerous claims</a> in their public statements that illustrate the contradictory nature of <a href="/w/a-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-part-1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">claiming a biblical worldview while seeking divorce to satisfy same-sex desires</a>.</p>

<ul>
	<li>Matthew says he’s “ready to embrace freedom, hope, and God as a gay man,” but he’s divorcing his wife and is now (presumably) open to pursuing a romantic/sexual relationship with another man. Both of these actions are <a href="/w/marriage-doctrine-alone-disqualifies-pro-gay-theology" rel="noopener" target="_blank">condemned by the God</a> he’s claiming to “embrace.”</li>
	<li>His wife says she and her husband are “deeply committed to our family,” but they are deciding to divorce, which <em>ruptures</em> their family.</li>
	<li>He says that his utmost desire is to “put the well-being of our kids first," but they will divorce, which does <em>not</em> elevate the well-being of their kids.</li>
	<li>He says he will continue to write books about “wholeness, hope, and God's love for children,” but, as a father, he reflects the heavenly Father to his kids while telling them that he—their father—is deciding to break up with their mom.</li>
</ul>

<p>I’m not writing this to heap additional condemnation on him or his family. He’ll have to reckon with God about his decisions. In fact, we’re all guilty of decisions that violate God’s commands. I know I’ve tried to rationalize my sin and now recognize the futility of that process. I’m simply noting how sin twists, destroys, and leaves a path of destruction in its wake. And, as in this case, trying to justify sinful decisions also leads to contradictions.</p>

<p>He asked for prayer at the end of his post, and I will do what he asked. My prayer for him, though, is that he would pursue Jesus and honor God with his life.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsin-leads-to-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%2Fsin-leads-to-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%2Fsin-leads-to-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: How Red Pen Logic Was Born
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/03/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-red-pen-logic-was-born
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was born to teach. It started with helping classmates after class, then morphed into a part-time tutoring gig, and, finally, ended in a professional teaching career. And I loved everything about the job, <em>except one thing.</em></p>

<p>Ask any teacher what they love about the job, and there will be one glaring omission: <em>grading.</em> Yet, teachers spend a good deal of their time—maybe more time than lecturing—evaluating student work.</p>

<p>I used to hate grading. It was tedious and felt like an <em>add-on</em> to the job. It wasn’t what I signed up for. There was teaching, and there was grading. These were two different things, I thought. I was wrong.</p>

<p>As I became a more experienced teacher, I realized grading provided an essential teaching opportunity. As a result, I always had a red pen close at hand. When I wasn’t in front of my students teaching a lesson, you could find me assessing assignments, grading essays, and evaluating exams.</p>

<p>The red pen played a crucial role in the educational development of my students. With it, I questioned their assumptions, exposed their errors, and challenged them to think critically. You see, a good teacher doesn’t merely tell his students <em>that</em> they’re wrong. A good teacher shows his students <em>why</em> they’re wrong so that they don’t make the same mistake twice. He corrects because he cares.</p>

<p>Last year, I was scrolling through social media, and, frankly, I was discouraged at all the bad thinking that undergirded much of what I was reading. Then it hit me: What if someone applied the red pen to this flawed thinking? And <a href="https://www.facebook.com/redpenlogic"><em>Red Pen Logic with Mr. B</em></a> was born.</p>

<p>In the last few months, <em>Red Pen Logic </em>has grown in popularity. Through our engaging and sharable educational graphics and videos, we are helping people—especially young people—assess bad thinking by using good thinking. And we have a lot of fun in the process.</p>

<p>Here’s your homework assignment: “Like” the Red Pen Logic <a href="https://www.facebook.com/redpenlogic">FB page</a> so you don’t miss any of our educational graphics, and “Subscribe” to the Red Pen Logic <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmIwZDSKSeNboqWKtgX7UrA">YouTube channel</a> so you don’t miss a single training video.</p>

<p>Class dismissed.</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-red-pen-logic-was-born" 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-red-pen-logic-was-born" 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-red-pen-logic-was-born" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How to Prepare for the Next Cultural Revolution
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/02/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-prepare-for-the-next-cultural-revolution
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Christians have been caught off guard. The current revolution sweeping society today was largely unexpected by most believers. That’s understandable in one sense. No one is a prophet. Who knows what new philosophy will capture the culture’s attention? In another sense, it <em>is</em> our fault that so many believers have embraced a false philosophy—critical theory—and are attempting to parrot it back into the church. There’s a simple reason why: lack of training.</p>

<p>Sadly, my thesis here is doomed from the get-go. Claiming that Christians need more training is a yawner. Mention the word “education,” and eyes glaze over. Boring! There’s no pizzazz to claiming that the antidote to our failure is training. Virtually no one gets excited when you suggest adding theology and apologetics classes to the weekly diet of believers. But that’s precisely why we’ve failed to protect believers from succumbing to critical theory.</p>

<p>Few Christians even knew what it was before it came crashing on the scene. Critical theory is a philosophy that is at odds with the Christian worldview. Instead of teaching that humans are valuable creatures made in God’s image, it says we are defined by our classification in groups: sex, race, class, and gender identity, to name a few. Instead of the main problem being sin—breaking God’s laws—it says the main problem is the oppression of others. Instead of the solution being divine (and human) forgiveness, it says the solution is activism to overthrow those in power and correct the inequality. Instead of the ultimate goal being a restored relationship with God, it says the goal is liberation from oppression.</p>

<p>Though critical theory differs from Christianity in fundamental ways, far too many Christians embraced it. Why? They didn’t recognize its ideas before they became mainstream. Instead, they became intrigued by its novelty and syncretized it with their faith.</p>

<p>That’s why we need to be ready for the next false philosophy—in a year, in five years, or in a decade—that will spawn the next cultural revolution. I can’t predict what it will be, but I know it will happen. I also know what we can do to be ready, prevent Christian defectors, and answer the challenge when it arrives. Here are two ways to prepare for the next revolution:</p>

<p><strong>First, inoculate, don’t isolate</strong>. Christians <em>will </em>be exposed to false ideas. It isn’t a matter of if, but when. The problem with the current approach—isolating believers from false ideas—is that it’s dangerous. We think we’re doing them a favor by sheltering them from the harm of mistaken ideas. That also seems easier since it requires less work. Such a strategy only works for so long. In the case of critical theory, we’ve known about it for decades but mostly ignored it. When it showed up on our streets and in our churches, Christians were caught flat-footed. We didn’t recognize it, didn’t know it was embedded in a false worldview, and consequently, many believers succumbed to it.</p>

<p>The better approach is to <em>inoculate</em>. This is similar to how we protect our bodies against a virus. To inoculate against polio, for example, you ingest an attenuated (weakened, but alive) virus. Your immune system responds by producing an army of antibodies, killer cells that are created specifically to destroy that virus. Then, when your body is exposed to polio, your immune system isn’t caught off guard. It recognizes the virus and marshals the army of antibodies that is already prepared to neutralize it before it can seriously infect you.</p>

<p>The same is true with false ideas. We need to teach believers false ideas and philosophies, why people believe them, and what’s wrong with those reasons. That way, when they come across those ideas in the future, they can identify them (Col. 2:8) and destroy them (2 Cor. 10:4–5). Had we taken this approach with critical theory, we would have had fewer Christians advocating its ideas within the church.</p>

<p><strong>Second, teach worldviews</strong>. One of the best ways to inoculate against false ideas is to equip believers in worldview training. A worldview is a collection of attitudes, beliefs, and values about the world around us. Everyone, whether they know it or not, has a worldview. Francis Schaeffer said that worldviews “bring forth with inevitable certainty” ideas that play themselves out in culture. In other words, if society has bought into a worldview, its ideas will be manifest in the behavior of its citizens.</p>

<p>Therefore, studying ideas categorized by worldview is strategic. There are thousands of ideas in the world—some good and some bad. It can be overwhelming to learn them all and understand each of their nuances. There are less than a dozen worldviews, however, making learning all of them—and the ideas that flow from them—an achievable task.</p>

<p>Once a person has studied worldviews, it makes spotting false philosophies easier. If you see an idea being played out in society and know it flows from a false worldview, then you can immediately determine whether it’s wise to adopt or reject it. It makes the task of discerning truth from error achievable.</p>

<p>Had believers studied worldviews, they would have recognized that critical theory is embedded in naturalism, a false ideology that denies the foundations of the Christian faith. Now that we know the importance of worldview training, we can prepare for the next cultural revolution.</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-to-prepare-for-the-next-cultural-revolution" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-prepare-for-the-next-cultural-revolution" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-prepare-for-the-next-cultural-revolution" 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 Was Canceling People before It Was Cool
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/26/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-was-canceling-people-before-it-was-cool
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Long before the woke awoke, there was God. He could spot an injustice in an instant or a microaggression a mile away. Despite God’s god-like capacity to dig up dirt on people (and we’re talking really old dirt), current cancel culture is fighting mightily to dethrone God at his own game.</p>

<p>Earlier this summer, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/business/boeing-resignation-niel-golightly.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Boeing’s 62-year-old communication executive resigned after only six months on the job</a>. Did he violate a company policy? No. Did he break a law earlier in the summer? Nope. Did he commit a crime last year? Not at all. Then, why was he forced to resign? He wrote an article arguing that women shouldn’t serve in combat. Controversial today? Yes. But he penned his piece <em>33 years ago</em>. Back then, he was a Navy pilot, and his article—however wrong people believe it to be <em>today</em>—contributed to the culture’s debate on that question.</p>

<p>It didn’t matter that the executive denounced his own arguments soon after his piece was published. It didn’t matter that he has promoted females within the company. It didn’t matter that the Boeing president described the executive’s contributions to the company as “substantial even in a short time.” Today’s cancel culture will never let any wrong go unpunished. That’s why a Boeing employee found it fair to dig up the decades-old article, bring it to the attention of Boeing leadership, and complain about its contents. Canceled!</p>

<p>But long before Boeing’s “zero tolerance for bigotry of any kind” (the president’s own words explaining Boeing’s policy), someone else was the chief of cancel culture: Yahweh. That’s right! The Alpha and the Omega has been there from the beginning of time, noting every no-good deed <em>anyone</em> has <em>ever committed</em>, <em>is committing</em>, or <em>will ever commit</em>. That gives the man upstairs a huge leg up on cancel culture.</p>

<p>Boeing ain’t got nothin’ on God. They—along with the world’s woke—are the biggest Johnny-come-latelies. For better or for worse, though, there are five significant differences with God’s approach to canceling people.</p>

<p><strong>First, God knows <em>every </em>wrong you commit</strong>. It’s not just your behavior. He even knows your evil thoughts and intentions, too. Being omniscient has its perks. Our heavenly Father has the capacity to recall <em>everything </em>you’ve done, even if you didn’t tweet it or post it on Facebook (or Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, Parler, or YouTube—MySpace might be beyond God’s reach, though). Your list of naughties fills every row in a 20 terabyte Excel file. Today’s cancel culture has the knowledge of a gnat compared to God.</p>

<p><strong>Second, God cancels you in a more significant way.</strong> Today’s wanna-be cancel culture simply shames you, fires you, or robs you of your prestige. Sure, that’s bad. God, however, doesn’t just cancel you—he condemns you. You don’t just lose your job—you lose your soul. Kinda makes losing your job feel more like a hangnail.</p>

<p><strong>Third, God’s moral standard never changes.</strong> In God’s economy, you won’t be caught off guard with a new moral rule next week: “Surprise, peanut butter cups are racist!” No way, José! (Besides, peanut butter cups are proof of God’s existence, especially the <a href="https://www.hersheys.com/reeses/en_us/products/reeses-big-cup-king-size-bar-2-8-ounces.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Big Cup</a> ones with the extra peanut butter.) Sexual sin that was wrong 4,000 years ago is—you guessed it—<a href="/w/aren-t-the-apostle-paul-s-sexual-ethics-outdated-" rel="noopener" target="_blank">still wrong today</a>. Not so with today’s wishy-washy cancel culture. Their standard changes with the times. Ever seen a boat tossed about on the stormy sea? Neither have I. But if you did, that would be cancel culture today—unanchored. They’ll cancel you today, for something you did three decades ago, according to a standard invented a few years ago. Can you spell a-n-a-c-h-r-o-n-i-s-t-i-c? Sure you can…I just spelled it for you. Just copy my letters.</p>

<p><strong>Fourth, God loves you.</strong> Whew, finally we get to some positive differences. God loves me? That’s right, the king of cancel culture actually cares about you. Sure, he’s ready to cancel you for your latest lust, racist rant, or tax evasion, but at least he’s on your side. He wants to help you. He’s not like the wild woke who won’t wait to wreck you for your wicked wrongs. He wuvs you! With him on your side, anything is possible, including (drum roll please!)...</p>

<p><strong>Fifth, God offers a pardon.</strong> He’s willing to cancel your cancelation. Though your rap sheet might be miles long, God’s willing to wipe the slate clean. That’s like giving every canceled person a chance to get un-canceled (Greek: <em>uni-canceleio</em>, but don’t quote me on that—it might be an Italian pasta). That’s amazing. Does that mean the king of cancel culture wants to give you a break because he loves you? That’s right! Instead of canceling you, he’s willing to <a href="/w/why-is-jesus-necessary-" rel="noopener" target="_blank">cancel his son</a>. There’s no way cancel culture would ever let the blame shift away from you. They’d call you out and watch you crash and burn. In fact, that would probably be the headline: “[Insert your name here] Crashed and Burned Last Monday When He Ate a Peanut Butter Cup.” Secular culture loves to see people fall, but God loves to restore those who have fallen.</p>

<p>I know cancel culture isn’t going to change its tune anytime soon. Therefore, let’s follow the example of God, who extends grace to those who fall (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%204%3A7&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Eph. 4:7</a>). Instead of gleefully watching someone’s demise, let’s try to restore them (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+6%3A1&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gal. 6:1</a>). Maybe if we do that enough, we can cancel cancel culture.</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-was-canceling-people-before-it-was-cool" 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-was-canceling-people-before-it-was-cool" 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-was-canceling-people-before-it-was-cool" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Thinking Critically about Critical Race Theory
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 09/08/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/thinking-critically-about-critical-race-theory
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I suspect you’ve been a bit surprised—and maybe even confused—about the ongoing social chaos starting with George Floyd’s death. You’re not alone. A lot of people are.</p>

<p>Clearly, Floyd’s death was tragic, even horrific. All decent people acknowledge that. But the tsunami of accusations about America’s “systemic racism” and “white privilege” that followed has caught a lot of Christians off guard.</p>

<p>What’s going on here? Is our culture this corrupt? Are all white people really racist? Those are the questions many are asking.</p>

<p>It may surprise you to learn that this mayhem isn’t really about racism per se but about something much larger—indeed, an entire worldview—and you need to understand it. The worldview is known as Critical Theory and it’s actually been around a long time.</p>

<p>Critical Theory divides the world into two groups: the oppressors and the oppressed. Those groups are made up of smaller cultural groups defined by race, sex, sexual preference, gender identity, etc. When this worldview focuses on race, it’s called Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT divides people into groups by race, the white oppressors and the oppressed non-whites.</p>

<p>According to CRT, the fundamental problem with America is its “whiteness,” its caste system based on skin color. The lighter your skin, the closer you are to the top of the system. Since the United States was founded by white men, racism has been woven into the tapestry of the American experiment from the beginning, and it continues to corrupt every aspect of American life. Our “original sin,” then, according to CRT, is whiteness.</p>

<p>A culture’s “salvation” from that fall begins when the oppressors become “woke”—when they see and repent from their own sins as oppressors and begin to dismantle the inherently oppressive structures of their culture. Since whites can’t see their own racism (according to CRT), they need to learn to see the world through the CRT lens. Only then will racial equality be possible.</p>

<p>For CRT, then, salvation comes through law, not grace. Forgiveness only comes after complete and on-going capitulation.</p>

<p>Ultimately, CRT is rooted in a blend of two worldviews: Marxism (the oppressor/oppressed element) and secular humanism (the belief that humanity is capable of self-fulfillment and rescue by self-effort apart from God). However, once God is removed, so is any objective standard defining what it means to live a fulfilled, moral life. Without that anchor, we quickly drift into subjectivism and relativism—feelings rule, in other words.</p>

<p>This poses a problem for the Critical Race theorist. CRT’s whole framework is ethical. Oppression is wrong. But why is oppression wrong? Why does every black life matter? In a world without God, these “ethics” are nothing more than personal preferences, mere opinions.</p>

<p>There’s a better alternative to CRT—Christianity.</p>

<p>Christianity says our fundamental problem is sin. True original sin places all humanity on equal footing. No one is exempt. “All have sinned,” Paul said, “and fall short of the glory of God.” Yes, sin includes racism, discrimination, and bigotry, but it includes much more. Yes, oppressors are sinners, but so are the oppressed, in their own ways.</p>

<p>CRT’s solution succeeds only in causing more division. Instead of dividing people by race, though, Christianity unifies people—we are all fallen image-bearers, and we can all be equal in Christ: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”</p>

<p>Christianity provides the best reasons to believe that oppression is wrong. Every human being is made in the image of God. “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”</p>

<p>It’s not the color of our skin or any other physical characteristic that gives people value, worth, and dignity. Rather, being made in the image of God is the great equalizer. This is where racial unity must begin.</p>

<p>Ultimately, CRT is incompatible with Christianity. This isn’t to say racism and oppression don’t exist. They do. Bigotry abounds among fallen people of every race, and multitudes are really hurting.</p>

<p>As Christians, we fight for both justice and mercy. Micah reminds us, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” We do the hard work of humbly applying biblical truth to all areas of life, opposing oppression when we encounter it, while pointing people to Jesus, the ultimate unifier.</p>

<p>I hope this adds some clarity to the social chaos going on. I know there are still questions, but there’s no need to yoke ourselves to any Marxist, man-centered philosophy to find the answers.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthinking-critically-about-critical-race-theory" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthinking-critically-about-critical-race-theory" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthinking-critically-about-critical-race-theory" 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: Farewell to an Old Friend
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/15/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/farewell-to-an-old-friend-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s a reflection my brother Dave wrote that he used as a eulogy for his good friend, Crawford, who died of cancer a week or so after becoming a Christian. Dave never actually had this exact conversation with Crawford, but it reflects both the sentiments his friend shared and the reality his friend was graduating to.</p>

<blockquote>
<p align="center"><strong>Farewell to an Old Friend<br>
By David Koukl</strong></p>

<p>I got a call from an old friend. He said he was leaving, and would I drop by to see him off?</p>

<p>When I arrived, I could see he was uneasy, like he wasn’t sure he was in the right place. No bags. No one with him. Just a slip of paper in his hand. He smiled a bit when he saw me.</p>

<p>“Thanks for coming,” he said as he hugged me. He was trembling, his breathing labored, his embrace weak. He wasn’t well. I knew this would be his last trip.</p>

<p>There was a bench nearby, and we sat. “Thanks for coming,” he said again. “I’m glad you’re here. I don’t understand. I mean, this trip. I’ve never taken one like it. I don’t really know what to expect. A friend told me about it, said they had room for me. But I only made my reservation a few days ago. I should have made it sooner. Don’t know why I put it off. He told me not to worry. They’d have my place ready when I got there.”</p>

<p>He looked down at the paper in his hand. He slowly lifted it to me. “He said this is all I needed.”</p>

<p>He handed me the paper. It had his name and the date, not much else. He pointed to the bottom. The paper had been stamped. In red letters were the words “PAID IN FULL.” He looked at me and then looked down at the paper.</p>

<p>“I didn’t pay for this. I never could have. Another man paid it, all of it. It was expensive. He said he did it so I could go. He gave everything.”</p>

<p>He looked back up at me, tears welling up in his eyes. “Why would someone do that? Why for someone like me? I thought there must be a mistake.” He looked down again. “I had to tell him, you know. I couldn’t go without telling him, you know, what I’ve done, so many things I regret. I felt so guilty, you know.”</p>

<p>“Yes…I know,” I replied. “What did he say?”</p>

<p>My friend looked back at me with a puzzled look. “He said he knew,” he replied, “He knew it all already, every bad thing I had ever done, and yet he paid for me anyway. He told me never to worry about it again, that it was finished…it’s finished.</p>

<p>“So here I am,” he said as he looked around, the uneasiness again evident in his face.</p>

<p>“What is it?” I asked.</p>

<p>He looked back at me for a long time, then looked down again. “I’m afraid,” he said. “What’s going to happen? I don’t know how it will be, you know. That’s why I wanted you here.” He looked up again. “Do you know what it’ll be like? Can you tell me what will happen?”</p>

<p>“Yes, I can tell you a little. Sit back and rest. Don’t worry, everything will be all right now. Everything’s been taken care of.</p>

<p>“When it’s time, he will call you. You’ll know his voice. When you hear your name, just close your eyes. In that moment, even before you can open your eyes again, you’ll be aware that something is different; something is very different. Your pain—your pain is completely gone. Your legs are no longer cold, your chest is no longer heavy.</p>

<p>“But there’s something else, something added, something new. You feel…light. As if the weight of the world has been lifted from your soul. You feel surprisingly…amazingly…alive. More alive than you’ve ever felt before, in a way you’ve never felt before.</p>

<p>“You chance a breath. You draw it in slowly, waiting for the pain, waiting for the cancer in your lungs that’s been your cruel master for so long to command, “No further.” And yet he is silent. He is gone. You breathe, deeply, fully.</p>

<p>“And now, again something new, something different in the air. A fragrance. You exhale and breathe in again, tasting more. No, not a fragrance, not something <em>in</em> the air but something <em>of</em> the air, as if the very air itself is alive. It’s pure, no...no, more than pure. It’s beyond pure, beyond amazing. You can’t describe it.</p>

<p>“You breathe in again deeply, fully, wonderfully, and then…you hear it. A sound. A sound around you. A sound everywhere. It’s beautiful. What is it? Music? Is it music? No, no, no, no. It’s more than music. Voices? Yes, it...it sounds...sounds like voices, but <em>more</em> than voices.</p>

<p>“And then, without knowing how you know, all of a sudden you know. You know what it is. Angels. Heavenly angels. It’s angels! A choir of heavenly angels filling the air with the most beautiful sound you can ever imagine.</p>

<p>“You’re caught up in rapture as you listen, and then you realize your eyes are still closed and all this is happening in only a moment.</p>

<p>“You hold them closed. ‘Do I dare open them? What will I see? Everything so new, everything so unbelievable.’ You slowly, ever so slowly, begin to open your eyes. As you do, you notice first only brilliant light, dazzling and blazing brighter than even the sun, and yet—strangely—it doesn’t hurt your eyes.</p>

<p>“As you look around, you see others—other people, people from everywhere, all dressed in robes, white robes, their robes shining with brilliant light. You look down at yourself. You’re no longer in your bedclothes. You’re wearing a white robe, too! A brilliant, white robe like the multitudes around you. You notice that though your robe is gleaming. <em>It’s</em> not the source of the light but seems to be <em>reflecting</em> the light, as the moon does of the sun.</p>

<p>“You look to the sky, but there is no sun. Where is this light coming from? Now you notice the multitudes, turned with hands upraised. The angels, turned, hands upraised. All singing in beautiful harmony, words of praise, all turned toward the source of the light.</p>

<p>“As you turn, you behold one like the Son of Man, dressed in a long robe, with a golden sash around his chest. The hair of his head is white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes are like a blazing fire. His feet are like polished bronze, his voice like the roar of many waters, his face is like the sun shining at its brightest.</p>

<p>“When you see him, you fall at his feet. You feel him place his hand upon your shoulder, and you hear him say, ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, the Living One. I was dead, and behold, now I am alive forever and ever!’</p>

<p>“And as he raises you up, wiping the tears from your eyes, he draws you close and softly whispers in your ear, ‘Well done, Crawford. Enter into the joy of your King.’”</p>

<p>As I sat there on the bench with my friend, I noticed a peace had come over him. He was now calm, his eyes closed, his face serene. I realized he was no longer with me but had already begun his journey.</p>

<p>“Farewell, my friend. We will miss you. Farewell, until we meet again.”</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%2Ffarewell-to-an-old-friend-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffarewell-to-an-old-friend-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffarewell-to-an-old-friend-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Give Greg a Call Tuesday
topic: Announcements
author: Stand to Reason
date: 11/02/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/give-greg-a-call-tuesday
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Give us a call Tuesday 4:00–6:00 p.m. (PT) with your question, comment, or challenge for Greg. He will be taking calls during both hours of the podcast.</p>

<p>The number to call during the live program is <a href="tel:(855) 243-9975">(855) 243-9975</a> in the U.S. Outside the U.S., call <a href="tel:(562) 424-8229">(562) 424-8229</a>.</p>

<p><a href="/broadcast">Listen live online</a>. The episodes are posted Wednesday and Friday.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgive-greg-a-call-tuesday" 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%2Fgive-greg-a-call-tuesday" 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%2Fgive-greg-a-call-tuesday" 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: Make a Difference: Be One of the 100
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 08/11/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/make-a-difference-be-one-of-the-100
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If there’s one thing plaguing the church today, it’s what I call the “three SH’s.” You’ve likely seen one or more in action…</p>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>SHALLOW—</strong>Inch-thick faith with no deep grasp of “what” and “why” one believes.</p>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>SHRILL—</strong>Loud, ungracious, argumentative, and off-putting to others.</p>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>SHUSH—</strong>Choosing silence when we should speak. Afraid and unsure—so we “shush.”</p>

<p>You get the idea. The upshot is that modern Christianity is in crisis. Christians are confused. Some well-known Christian personalities have walked away from the faith. All this at a time of extreme upheaval in American society.</p>

<p>And that’s why Stand to Reason is so needed. Thanks to good friends who support us, STR equips thousands of believers like you to think clearly and deeply about your faith, to <a href="https://www.str.org/ambassadors-creed">confidently defend it</a>, and to do so in a warm and gracious manner. But so much more needs to be done.</p>

<p>That’s why, today, I’m asking you to take a bold step to give confidence to even more believers by <a href="https://www.str.org/partner">becoming a Strategic Partner</a>, pledging to support STR with an automatic monthly gift.</p>

<p>This month, we’re seeking 100 new Strategic Partners, so as a special incentive beyond <a href="https://www.str.org/partner">the usual benefits</a>, when you join with a monthly gift of $25 or more, we’ll send the pastor you designate a Tactics Gift Pak. It includes my book <em>Tactics</em>, the comprehensive <em>Tactics Video Study </em>DVD with six in-depth training sessions, and a quick-reference card with a downloadable video. You’ll help equip a pastor and the congregation he serves—maximizing your impact at a time of urgent need.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.str.org/partner">Be one of the 100</a>. As you support us, we will support you and a church gravely afflicted by the “SH’s.”</p>

<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9q9f1lv2iEY" width="560"></iframe></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmake-a-difference-be-one-of-the-100" 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%2Fmake-a-difference-be-one-of-the-100" 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%2Fmake-a-difference-be-one-of-the-100" 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 We Always Do What Jesus Would Do?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/21/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/should-we-always-do-what-jesus-would-do-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>WWJD? Should we always do what Jesus would do? I think the answer is obvious: No.</p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong. I love Jesus. He’s God. There’s no person who is a greater arbiter of what’s right and wrong. There’s no person who could do better than he would do. Generally speaking, we should take our cues from his life and public ministry.</p>

<p>But if we are honest, we shouldn’t—and can’t—always do what Jesus would do. Here are three examples where Jesus did something we should not do.</p>

<p><strong>Jesus made certain claims.</strong> In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+10%3A30&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John 10:30</a>, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” Newsflash: Jesus is God, and you are not. No offense. I’m sure you’re trying to be godly, but that only goes so far. Don’t say things like that.</p>

<p><strong>Jesus had certain prerogatives</strong>. He cited Mosaic laws and “upgraded them.” For example, Jesus affirmed that adultery is sin but then provided his own addition: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+5%3A27-28&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Matt. 5:27–28</a>). Jesus can modify divine commands. You can’t. Deal with it.</p>

<p><strong>Jesus had a different mission.</strong> His job was to be a ransom for many (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+20%3A28&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Matt. 20:28</a>). No person on the planet should attempt to participate in the plan he carried out. He emptied himself, took on human nature, and willingly went to the cross (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+2%3A5-8&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Phil. 2:5–8</a>) <em>in order to fulfill a grand redemptive plan</em>. Though we’re also involved in the Father’s plan, we don’t play the same role. Christ is the redeemer. We are his ambassadors (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+5%3A20&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">2 Cor. 5:20</a>). Stay in your lane.</p>

<p>The WWJD question should prompt us not to <em>do</em> what Jesus did, but to <em>answer that question exactly the way</em> Jesus did. What would Jesus do? He would do the will of the Father (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%206%3A38&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jn. 6:38</a>). We should do the same.</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-we-always-do-what-jesus-would-do-" 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-we-always-do-what-jesus-would-do-" 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-we-always-do-what-jesus-would-do-" 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 Need to Elevate Debate
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/06/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/we-need-to-elevate-debate
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve seen a lot of debates in my life, but last week’s was one of the best. Both sides were clear about their positions. They offered a premise and defended it with reason and evidence. There was no illogic, no disrespect, and no name-calling. By the end of the debate, both cases were so compelling, it was hard for me to figure out who “won.”</p>

<p>Of course, I’m talking about my son’s recent tenth-grade debate. With his debate partner, he took on two other classmates with the resolve “The United States federal government should remove all Confederate statues from federal buildings.” It lasted an hour and a half, and there was a volley of reasons and counter-reasons from each side. It was clear precisely what was being argued, and it was evident precisely how it was argued.</p>

<p>Not so with the first presidential debate. With nearly unanimous consent, it was considered the worst presidential debate in history. The candidates were rude, talked over each other, and either name-called or put the other person down. What were their arguments? I could hardly tell if they had any. I was so distracted by their rudeness and posturing.</p>

<p>Out of curiosity, my wife and I watched a portion of the <a href="https://youtu.be/_8YxFc_1b_0" rel="noopener" target="_blank">1980 Reagan-Carter debate</a>. It was night and day. There was no talking over each other. I could hear every spoken word. They were both respectful. What has happened?</p>

<p>The presidential candidates could learn a lot from my son’s tenth-grade class. I’m not bragging. They just knew when to speak, when to listen, and how to appropriately respond. They articulated their position and cited research to support their side. No one belittled another person.</p>

<p>Sadly, it feels like the presidential debate mirrored what I routinely see transpire on social media: showmanship, put-downs, and gotchas. Even if someone presents a well-reasoned argument in an online forum, it often comes with a side of snarkiness.</p>

<p>There’s no need (in fact, it’s wrong) to be rude or demonize our opponents the way we do. We can disagree—even vehemently—with a person but still speak respectfully to him. That’s called civility. C.S. Lewis <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/56965-i-remember-christian-teachers-telling-me-long-ago-that-i" rel="noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man���s actions, but not hate the bad man.... I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life—namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Although it would be nice if presidential debates were improved, I’m more interested in elevating debate in everyday conversations. It would make society much more civil. I’m not suggesting that every engagement is a debate or should be a debate. I’m simply referring to the situation where two people hold different positions and discuss their views. That happens all the time.</p>

<p>Here are five (of course there are more) quick suggestions to elevate debate in a healthy way.</p>

<ol>
	<li>Let the other person make and finish a point.</li>
	<li>Assume the most charitable interpretation of the other person’s view.</li>
	<li>Offer reasons and evidence for your opinion.</li>
	<li>Don’t demean people who hold a different position than you.</li>
	<li>Concede an opposing point if it has merit (that doesn’t mean you “lost”).</li>
</ol>

<p>We can do 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%2Fwe-need-to-elevate-debate" 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-need-to-elevate-debate" 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-need-to-elevate-debate" 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: Try This Simple, Three-Step Maneuver When You’re Hit with a Barrage of Objections
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/01/2020
source:
https://www.str.org/w/try-this-simple-three-step-maneuver-when-you-re-hit-with-a-barrage-of-objections

content:
            <div> 
		<p>Running the gauntlet is no fun. Historically, it was a military punishment. Offenders were forced to run between two lines of soldiers who would beat them with sticks. Like I said, not a party.</p>

<p>Sometimes, though, you’ll have to run a gauntlet of sorts, too. Occasionally you’ll be battered by a barrage of challenges coming at you in rapid-fire succession—sometimes from an individual and sometimes from a group ganging up on you with each one delivering his own broadside at your convictions.</p>

<p>Steamroller types—critics who constantly interrupt, piling objections on top of objections—are clear offenders here, and in <em>Tactics</em> I offer a precise strategy to manage their interruptions. Many who make you run the gauntlet, though, are not malicious—the contenders aren’t necessarily rude or looking to draw rhetorical blood—but the sheer number of their challenges can still be overpowering.</p>

<p>You’ll confront the gauntlet in face-to-face encounters with others, but you’ll also confront it in print or on webcasts, in something you’re reading or watching.</p>

<p>Here’s one example from an internet interview of Green Bay Packer quarterback Aaron Rodgers by IndyCar racing icon Danica Patrick. Rodgers had a seemingly rich religious life growing up as a Christian, but then his concerns about Christianity led him in a different spiritual direction:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Religion can be a crutch…something that people have to have to make themselves feel better. And because it’s set up binary, it’s us and them. It’s saved and unsaved. It’s heaven and hell. It’s enlightened and heathen. It’s holy and righteous and sinner and filthy…. What type of loving, sensitive, omnipresent, omnipotent being wants to condemn most of his beautiful creation to a fiery hell at the end of all this?&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, what do you do when you’re getting banged about by a bunch of challenges like these? I want to offer you a simple, three-step tactical maneuver to help you run that gauntlet without getting thrashed: slow down, isolate, and assess.</p>

<p><strong>First</strong>, when hit with a tsunami of objections, <em>slow things down</em>, especially when facing a group. Part of the power of the gauntlet is its ability to disorient and confuse, so take a moment to collect your thoughts. I’ve sometimes said, “Wow. There’s a lot there. Give me a moment to take it all in.” Do the same when reading or watching. Don’t panic. Instead, take a deep breath, pause, then ponder.</p>

<p>What do I ponder? That’s the <strong>second</strong> step. I carefully <em>isolate the specific concerns</em>, extracting them from the rhetorical noise. The sheer volume of piled-on charges can seem overwhelming. Isolating the claims breaks the larger challenge into parts I can deal with one at a time.</p>

<p>You might say, “Let me see if I understand you. It seems to me your concerns are…,” then list them as clearly, as accurately, and as fairly as you can. Don’t let an aggressive group gang up on you. Calmly say, “Hold on. One at a time, please.”</p>

<p>Some charges are explicit and some are implied. Get them all out in the open. In Rodgers’s case, there are three. One, religion can be a crutch people need to feel better. Two, religion sets up binary “us and them” categories that seem abusive. Three, a good, noble God wouldn’t “want to” condemn people to a fiery hell.</p>

<p>Now our <strong>third</strong> step: <em>Assess the challenges one by one</em>, as you’re able.</p>

<p>What of the “crutch” claim? With this one, I always move <em>towards</em> the objection,* not away from it. I embrace it. Yes, Christ is a kind of “crutch.” That’s because handicapped people need crutches. Everyone has a crutch (even Rodgers) since fallen people are disabled in different ways. Here’s the real question: Can the crutch they’re leaning on hold them? Christ can. And yes, of course true forgiveness makes us feel better. That’s a virtue, not a vice.</p>

<p>Now the “binary” issue. Again, I move towards the objection. Religion <em>is</em> binary. Non-religion is, too. Virtually everything important is clarified with binary categories. With doctors it’s “sick” and “healthy.” With justice it’s “innocent” and “guilty.” With religious claims it’s “true” or “false.”&nbsp; With Rodgers it’s “those who divide people into binary categories” and “those who don’t,” or maybe “us progressives” and “them conservatives.” It can’t be avoided. What’s the alternative?</p>

<p>What of the character of God? Notice the qualities Rodgers left out of his list: justice and holiness. Isn’t God also good? And does a good God treat evil people the same as good people? Isn’t that precisely the complaint with the problem of evil: Why doesn’t a “loving, sensitive, omnipresent, omnipotent being” do something? These are questions Rodgers needs to answer, but they are not problems for us.</p>

<p>The assessment step is something you may need to do on your own, at your leisure, when the pressure is off. That’s okay. Most of us are not quick on our feet facing a barrage of challenges unless we’ve prepared for them in advance.</p>

<p>So, whenever you face a gauntlet, remember these three steps. First, slow things down. Second, isolate the objections. Third, assess their significance. It’s a good way to sidestep a thrashing.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>*See <em>Tactics, 10<sup>th</sup> Anniversary Edition</em>, chapter 18, for an explanation of this move.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftry-this-simple-three-step-maneuver-when-you-re-hit-with-a-barrage-of-objections" 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%2Ftry-this-simple-three-step-maneuver-when-you-re-hit-with-a-barrage-of-objections" 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%2Ftry-this-simple-three-step-maneuver-when-you-re-hit-with-a-barrage-of-objections" 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 Problem of Evil Is Still a Problem
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/02/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-the-problem-of-evil-is-still-a-problem
content:
            <div> 
		<p>God has a problem. Skeptics and atheists love to point it out. They claim there is evil in the world that God either <em>can’t</em> destroy or<em> won’t</em> destroy. If he can’t destroy it, then he’s not all powerful. If he won’t destroy it, then he’s not all good. Either way, that’s not a God they can believe in.</p>

<p>This challenge is nothing new. It’s been around for millennia, but so have many thoughtful responses. Christians have typically offered a theodicy—a theological explanation of why God allows evil. For example, some say evil is a necessary consequence of human free will, or that God allows evil to accomplish a greater good, or that God uses evil to mold us into better people.</p>

<p>Non-believers rarely find these theodicies compelling. I’m not surprised. No matter how <em>logical</em> a theodicy might sound, the amount of misery is <em>existentially</em> too grievous to accept. How can a good and powerful God allow so much evil in one person’s 80-year existence?</p>

<p>Skeptics find the problem of evil so repugnant and our solutions so hollow because they refuse to accept a fundamental reality that every Christian believes in: life after death. It’s an essential truth that’s part of a coherent Christian worldview. Because believers <em>accept</em> this truth, the solution to the problem of evil is palatable. But because skeptics <em>reject</em> this truth, the solution to the problem of evil remains unconscionable.</p>

<p>Christian doctrine teaches that our existence extends past our physical death. God’s people will live <em>forever </em>in paradise, free from evil, pain, and suffering. If you don’t believe that, the problem of evil remains an intractable problem. Even Christians have a hard time truly internalizing the reality of an eternal paradise after their death. When they do, however, it makes theodicies more convincing.</p>

<p>The apostle Paul, for example, endured incredible evil, suffering, and pain. In his letter to the church in Corinth, Paul describes how he went without food, water, sleep, and clothes. He was imprisoned, flogged, beaten, pelted with stones, shipwrecked three times, and received 39 lashes (it’s thought that 40 lashes would kill you) on five different occasions (2 Cor. 11:23–27). Paul’s misery surpassed what most people endure in a lifetime. Yet, in the same letter, he describes his horrific experiences as “momentary, light affliction” (2 Cor. 4:17).</p>

<p>First, it’s remarkable he describes his experience as a “light” affliction. Something is going on in Paul’s mind to enable him to downplay the significance of so much evil. Second, he describes his plight as “momentary.” It does, in fact, occur only for a relative moment. He says his trials produce “an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison<em>.</em>” Notice that Paul <em>compares</em> the evil he endures in this life to a future paradise that will last an eternity.</p>

<p>Lutheran pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer shared Paul’s perspective. His anti-Nazi dissidence got him arrested, and he suffered great evil for it. On the last day of his imprisonment, he delivered a devotional on Isaiah 53 for his fellow inmates. Before being led away for execution, he told a fellow prisoner, “This is the end, but for me it is the beginning of life.” Bonhoeffer was later stripped naked and hanged.</p>

<p>Bonhoeffer understood not only the fleeting nature of his earthly life but also the eternal state of the next. Though he experienced evil during his earthly days, these harms were dwarfed by the blissful eternity with God that would begin soon after his physical death.</p>

<p>What Bonhoeffer understood is the truth that skeptics reject. It’s almost impossible to put the problem of evil into perspective if you believe we only exist from the cradle to the grave. Even a meager amount of evil during an 80-year life can seem unfair and unnecessary. If our earthly existence is all there is, a theodicy will seem like a poor excuse for a capricious God who is impotent to prevent evil.</p>

<p>But the calculus changes completely when you accept the essential truth that our existence extends beyond our physical death. No amount of evil, pain, or suffering in a human lifetime will overwhelm you if it’s compared to an <em>endless</em> paradise. Even if you experience evil for 50 years, how will that compare after you’ve lived for 5,000 years without a single tear? What about after <em>5 million years</em> in a perfect paradise? No matter the evil in your life, it will dwindle into insignificance as you compare it to an increasingly longer blissful existence that stretches into eternity.</p>

<p>I get it that skeptics reject that truth—a future eternal state. But if you’re going to demand a solution to the problem of evil, you need to consider the coherence of the Christian worldview. You can’t presuppose a story about a God who allows evil but then deny the story’s ending—because in the story, God solved the problem of evil 2,000 years ago. If we accept that solution, the only evil we will face is what we are allotted during our earthly existence. After that, evil will never touch us. We won’t even hear it whimper. It will be vanquished from existence.</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-problem-of-evil-is-still-a-problem" 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-problem-of-evil-is-still-a-problem" 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-problem-of-evil-is-still-a-problem" 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 Mathematical Argument for the Existence of God
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/19/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-mathematical-argument-for-the-existence-of-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Reasonable Faith has a new video answering the question “How do we explain the astonishing applicability of math to the physical world?”</p>

<p>The mathematical argument for the existence of God goes like this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>1. If God does not exist, the applicability of mathematics is just a happy coincidence.</p>

<p>2. But the applicability of mathematics is <strong>not</strong> just a happy coincidence.</p>

<p>3. Therefore, God exists.</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="text-align-center"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QJBOiZXkKu8" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>For more brief videos explaining arguments for the existence of God, see their previous work:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/a-simple-explanation-of-the-cosmological-argument">The Kalam Cosmological Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/could-good-and-evil-exist-without-god-">The Moral Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/a-finely-tuned-universe-necessity-chance-or-design-">The Fine-Tuning Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/the-contingency-argument">The Contingency Argument</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/an-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus">An Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus</a></li>
</ul>
</div>

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


title: Here’s Another Reminder to Be Gracious During 2020
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/22/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/here-s-another-reminder-to-be-gracious-during-2020
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The “other side” is crazy. I get it. They’ve lost it. You just want to blast them. I know exactly how you feel because I feel the same way. I have the most clever, funny, and position-destroying comments on the tip of my tongue (or—in the case of social media—my fingertips). Ninety-nine out of a hundred times, though, I hold off from delivering that jab, even though the jerk deserves it.</p>

<p>I want to be gracious, and right now that’s a virtue in short supply.</p>

<p>This year has been out of control. Unfortunately, so have many people’s manners. This is a reminder to be gracious to others—especially when it’s easy not to.</p>

<p>I’m not saying I’m perfect—far from it. This is a reminder for myself, as well.</p>

<p>I appreciate the maxim “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.” This is often stated in the context of in-house debates among Christians. The point is that Christians need to be unified around the essentials of their faith. For example, the deity of Christ, the Bible being the word of God, the bodily resurrection of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and the physical return of Jesus. These, if you will, constitute mere Christianity, and Christians should unify around these core teachings.</p>

<p>When it comes to non-essentials, however, like the method of baptism, the details of the end times, or the debate over God’s sovereignty versus our free will, we need to give people and denominations freedom to differ. After all, there will <em>always</em> be times when we see things differently, and that’s okay.</p>

<p>That brings us to the final point in the maxim that reminds us to be gracious in all conversations. This, of course, should apply not only to debates among Christians but also to engaging anyone on any topic. No matter what you’re discussing, you should be gracious, kind, and charitable.</p>

<p>The Bible is full of commands for Christians to treat each other well. Jesus says, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+13%3A35&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jn. 13:35</a>). Paul tells us to “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+4%3A2&amp;version=NIV" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Eph. 4:2</a>). I could go on and on talking about the emphasis the Bible puts on how Christians are to regard one another.</p>

<p>The command to be gracious also applies to engaging someone outside the household of faith. Paul tells us, “Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col%204%3A5-6&amp;version=NIV" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Col. 4:5–6</a>). He also reminds us that “the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+tim+2%3A24-25&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">2 Tim. 2:24–25</a>).</p>

<p>If you’re discussing a controversial topic with another Christian <em>or anyone for that matter</em>, it’s fine to offer your points, to state your reasons, and even to <a href="/w/apologetics-isn-t-argumentative" rel="noopener" target="_blank">vigorously make your case</a>. Always do it, though, in a charitable manner, as if you’re speaking to a fellow <a href="/w/the-imago-dei-in-man" rel="noopener" target="_blank">image-bearer of God</a>…because you are.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhere-s-another-reminder-to-be-gracious-during-2020" 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%2Fhere-s-another-reminder-to-be-gracious-during-2020" 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%2Fhere-s-another-reminder-to-be-gracious-during-2020" 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: Street Tactics – Part 4
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/street-tactics-part-4
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Street Tactics are specific conversation maneuvers you can use to navigate graciously, safely, and effectively in what otherwise would be difficult interactions with others.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="">[i]</a></p>

<p>I devoted the last three issues of <em>Solid Ground</em> to the topic, showing how to engage specifically with the problem of evil, atheism, and abortion, respectively.<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title="">[ii]</a> In each case, I offered insight on the weaknesses of the opposing view then suggested specific questions you could use to get rolling, along with samples of ways your dialogues might play out.</p>

<p>In this issue, I’d like to address a handful of smaller challenges that often come up. First, I’ll offer you insight on problems with the objections themselves, then I’ll provide sample conversations to show you how to employ those insights productively. The dialogues always start with simple questions you can use to get the discussion moving forward in a safe, relaxed way.</p>

<h3>Silent Christ</h3>

<p>Tim Barnett and I recently dealt with a challenge to the pro-life view on Twitter that seemed compelling to many, especially since the authority being cited was Christ.<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title="">[iii]</a> Here’s what the woman tweeted:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In the Gospels, Jesus speaks often about how to treat people. He covers a LOT of turf on the sick, lepers, the afflicted, the poor, widows, daughters, sons, tax collectors, travelers, strangers, learned men, fools, the old &amp; the young. BUT NOT ONE WORD ABOUT THE UNBORN.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You might call this the “silent Christ” line of logic because some people attach great significance to Jesus’ presumed silence on a number of current controversial issues (though it’s worthy to note that many who hold to “silent Christ” seem to care little about what he actually <em>does</em> say when it interferes with their personal desires—but that’s another issue).</p>

<p>I say “presumed” because it’s clear the Gospels are not exhaustive accounts of Jesus’ teaching. John admits as much (Jn. 20:30, 21:25). The historical accounts do not cover everything Jesus said or did—indeed, hardly any of it, according to John. They are selective records of the words and deeds of Christ that mattered to his immediate mission.</p>

<p>You have probably already figured out the problem with the “silent Christ” approach. Actually, there are two. The first, I just hinted at. We cannot say with confidence what Jesus <em>never</em> said unless we have a complete record of everything he <em>did</em> say, which we don’t.</p>

<p>Put another way, it’s difficult to conclude anything about what Jesus <em>did not</em> condemn based on the limited written record of what he <em>did</em> condemn. The fact that the record was silent doesn’t mean Jesus was silent. We simply have no direct evidence one way or another.<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title="">[iv]</a></p>

<p>Second, what if he actually <em>was</em> silent—if in his entire ministry he never uttered a single word about the unborn? What do we conclude about Jesus’ view on abortion then? I’ll tell you. Nothing. Nothing at all. Even if Jesus did not utter a single word about the unborn, his silence tells us nothing about his views.</p>

<p>Here’s why. It’s a variation of the first problem. You cannot conclude anything about what Jesus <em>approved</em> <em>of</em> based on what he did not<em> condemn</em>. Even if he said nothing about abortion—which is likely since it wasn’t the kind of public moral issue it is now—it’s a mistake for anyone to assume his approval.</p>

<p>As far as we know, Jesus never weighed in on slavery, capital punishment, spousal abuse, sex trafficking, racism, and child sacrifice, to name a few. Do we infer from this reticence that he approved of such things? Of course not. This is a perfect example of a flawed argument from silence.<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title="">[v]</a></p>

<p>Given our understanding of the problem this challenge poses, here’s how it might play out tactically in a conversation, this time dealing with the “silent Christ” move to endorse homosexuality.</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Jesus never said a thing about homosexuality.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I’m not sure what you’re getting at. If that’s true, why is that significant?” [This request for clarification is almost always our first tactical step. It’s a variation of the question “What do you mean by that?”]</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, if Jesus objected to homosexuality as much as you Christians do, then he would have mentioned it, but he never did.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, I have a couple of questions about that. Do you mind if I ask them?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Go ahead.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“First, how do you know Jesus <em>never</em> said anything about homosexuality? Are you a student of the life and teachings of Jesus?” [This question is a version of our second tactical question, “How did you come to that conclusion?”]</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Not really, but I did read the Gospels once, and I didn’t see anything about homosexuality.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Do you think <em>everything</em> Jesus said over three and a half years of public ministry was recorded in the four Gospels?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Of course not.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Then how can you say Jesus never said anything about homosexuality if most of what he said wasn’t written down?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, if it was really important to him, then I think there’d be something about it in the Gospels.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“That confuses me.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Why?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“It has to do with my second question for you. Let’s just say you’re right. Let’s say Jesus never uttered a word about homosexuality. Do you think that since Jesus never <em>condemned</em> homosexuality, he must have been <em>okay</em> with it?” [Checking to make sure we’re not misunderstanding or misrepresenting the view.]</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“You got it.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, that would mean Jesus approved of slavery.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“What!”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, he never mentioned anything about that, either, as far as we know, so his silence on slavery must mean approval, too.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“That’s ridiculous!”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I agree with you there, but that creates a problem for you, doesn’t it? Are you still comfortable arguing that whatever Jesus didn’t condemn, he approves of?” [Closing the point off with a question.]</p>

<p>Notice, by the way, the impulse with both of these issues—abortion and homosexuality—for critics to cite Jesus for support. Cleary, they want Christ on their side. Why? Why should it matter to them what Jesus taught? The answer is obvious. Most people think Jesus is someone substantial to be reckoned with. If he agrees with them, that’s a plus for their view.</p>

<p>Letting Christ argue for us, after a fashion, is a sound tactic I’ve dubbed “What a Friend We Have in Jesus.” When done legitimately­­­—trading on Jesus’ actual statements and not on his silence—it’s a move we can make, too, and it’s often a shrewd choice. <a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title="">[vi]</a></p>

<h3>“Who Created God?”</h3>

<p>This question comes up frequently with children. Unfortunately, it also comes up regularly with adults who ought to know this is not an appropriate question to ask a theist. American atheist Michael Shermer raised it during my national radio debate with him, and Oxford’s Richard Dawkins is convinced it’s a significant rebuttal to theists since “even children know to ask it.”</p>

<p>It’s not, for a simple reason: <em>No one</em> believes God was created. No theist believes it, and no atheist believes that if the Christian God were real he’d be the kind of being who had a beginning—which makes it a bit odd when educated atheists ask the question “Who created God?”</p>

<p>The challenge often surfaces as a rebuttal to the cosmological argument, a rationale for God’s existence based on the existence of the cosmos. One form of that argument reasons that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and since the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause—ergo God.<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title="">[vii]</a> Simply put, a Big Bang needs a Big Banger. Pretty straightforward, it seems to me.</p>

<p>“Who created God?” is a standard parry to this point, but it fails on two counts.</p>

<p>First, it deftly disregards the argument proper by deflecting the attention elsewhere. Asking, “Who created God?” does nothing to address the main concern. If the universe is not eternal, then what caused it to “bang” into existence? The question is a fair one and needs to be answered, not ignored. Since the effect is the natural realm, then something <em>outside</em> the natural realm must be its cause—a conclusion that puts naturalism in serious jeopardy.</p>

<p>To sidestep the native persuasiveness of this argument, atheists deploy the “Who created God?” gambit, essentially charging that the theist’s view suffers the same liability. The query, though, merely deflects the argument; it doesn’t answer it.<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title="">[viii]</a> Simply brushing the reasoning aside does nothing to weaken its force. That’s the first problem.</p>

<p>The gambit is a misstep in a second way. The theist’s view does not suffer the same liability since the cosmological argument only applies to things that <em>begin</em> to exist. As I pointed out, no one in the discussion—theist or atheist—thinks a self-existent Being <em>came</em> into being.<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title="">[ix]</a> The notion itself is nonsense.</p>

<p>This doesn’t prove God exists, of course. It only shows that the “Who created?” question is not a meaningful question to ask a theist regarding God, though it is an appropriate one to ask a naturalist regarding the universe.</p>

<p>There’s one final concern about this challenge I’ll mention briefly before we go to the sample dialogue, and maybe you noticed it. The question is flawed in yet another way. It’s similar to questions like “Do you still beat your wife?” The question itself presumes something that may not be true.</p>

<p>These are called “complex questions”<a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title="">[x]</a> since any answer to the query implicitly <em>affirms</em> something else that may not be true. In this case, asking, “Who created God?” assumes God was created, which is a false move, as we’ve seen.<a href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title="">[xi]</a></p>

<p>That said, here’s how I would approach this issue using Street Tactics.</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Who created God?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“What do you mean?” [That basic first question again.]</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, you seem to think the universe needed a creator, so you believe in God. All I’m asking, then, is, ‘Who created God?’”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“You may not have realized it, but you’re assuming something when you ask that question. What do you think you’re assuming?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“What do you mean?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, if I asked you if you’ve stopped beating your wife, what would I be assuming with that question?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“That I had been beating my wife.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right. So, what are you assuming now when you ask, ‘Who created God?’”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, I guess I was assuming God was created.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Exactly. So why would you think if there was a God, he would need to be created?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, you think the universe was created.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right, I do. I believe that because the universe came into being. Which, apparently, you believe, too. But let me ask you a question. Do you think that if the kind of God I am talking about actually existed, he would need to be created?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Maybe.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I’m confused. Why would a self-existent being need to be created? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction in terms? Why are you asking, ‘Who created God?’ when the kind of God both of us are talking about would never need to be created in the first place?”</p>

<p>If one of your children raises this issue, you might amend your dialogue this way: “If I asked you, ‘Are you still cheating on your tests in school?’ what would I be assuming?” Let them chew on it a bit until they get the right answer—about their tests and about God—maybe with a little help from you.</p>

<p>Next, you can ask them, “Okay, since your question assumes God was created, what makes you think he was created? Is that what the Bible teaches? [Interaction] No, the Bible teaches that God is eternal. Do you know what that means? [Interaction] It means God never had a beginning, and he will never have an end. Do you see that it doesn’t really make sense, then, to ask the question about the beginning of God if he had no beginning?”</p>

<p>You get the idea. Pursue an interactive conversation with them where you tease out these concepts with questions. I think they’ll catch on pretty quickly.</p>

<h3>“That’s Just Your Interpretation”</h3>

<p>This challenge is a parry that is difficult to counter because it’s both compelling and misleading at the same time.</p>

<p>First, there is a legitimate point to this charge. In one sense, <em>everything</em> is a matter of interpretation. How do we get thoughts from one person’s mind into the mind of another? Short of a Vulcan mind-meld, symbols of some sort are required—facial expressions, body language, and an occasional grunt or groan or growl do some of the work. Generally, though, words are the medium we use to convey an idea or communicate a flow of thought.</p>

<p>Language—both verbal and non-verbal—has its liabilities, of course. The recipient has to grasp the symbols and make sense of them, and this process has pitfalls. Communication can be a hazardous enterprise.</p>

<p>We learn to communicate reasonably effectively, though, because one simple rule guides the process, and normally it’s a rule we intuitively apply. On the receiving side, the goal is always <em>to</em> <em>figure out</em> <em>what the author means</em>. We achieve that by paying close attention to the words in the context of the sentences and the paragraphs they form.</p>

<p>The basic process is not really controversial since we employ it automatically in every act of communication we engage in. Curiously, the notion is only an issue when the Bible is brought into play. I said the “that’s just your interpretation” challenge was a “parry” because it’s almost always meant to deflect a biblical point rather than consider it. That is the “misleading” part.</p>

<p>Yes, in principle the point has merit. The challenge is almost always disingenuous in practice, though, because it rarely reflects a challenger’s honest desire to determine the precise truth of a text. Rather, it’s meant to illicitly dismiss or silence an opposing point of view.</p>

<p>Notice the wording: “That’s <em>just</em> your interpretation.” The word “just” is the giveaway. It signals an attempt to relativize your understanding of the verse’s meaning. “It’s <em>merely</em> your interpretation. It’s <em>only</em> your take on the text. My alternate view is <em>just as legitimate</em> as yours. You have <em>your</em> truth; I have mine.”</p>

<p>This maneuver, of course, violates the rules and, if followed consistently, destroys all communication. Legitimate interpretations are not based on what the <em>listener</em> thinks, but on what the <em>author</em> thinks.</p>

<p>Of course, when we use a text, it’s always possible we’ve misunderstood it or have distorted the meaning in some way, but this is not—in my experience, at least—what the challenger has in mind.</p>

<p>What’s the solution? There’s only one: <em>Always go back to the words of the text.</em></p>

<p>At Stand to Reason, we have a rule: Never read a Bible verse. Our point is, we never determine the meaning of <em>one</em> verse in isolation from the rest of the verses around it that form the larger flow of thought that our passage is embedded within—the context, in other words.</p>

<p>So, here’s the basic strategy that will inform our tactical moves in a conversation when we face this criticism: Always drive the discussion back to the text. What can we learn about the author’s intent by focusing on the words and the sentences in a passage? Here’s the Street Tactics application of that strategy.</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“That’s just <em>your</em> interpretation.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“What do you mean, it’s just my interpretation?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, you have your interpretation and I have mine.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I agree. I <em>have</em> given you <em>my</em> take on the passage, but it sounds like you’re saying more than that.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“What do you mean?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, it sounds like you’re suggesting that one interpretation is just as good as another.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right, it’s personal. It’s up to the individual. We all have our own interpretations of things. Who’s to say who’s right?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I’m curious, then, why do you hate homosexuals so much?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“What! I never said that.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, that’s <em>my</em> interpretation of your words, and like you said, one person’s interpretation is just as good as another’s.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“But I never said anything about gay people. You’re twisting my words!”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“But how can I ‘twist’ your words if there’s no right meaning to them?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“You’re being ridiculous.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“You’re right. I am being ridiculous. But I’m following your rules, not mine.<a href="#_edn12" name="_ednref12" title="">[xii]</a> So it looks like every interpretation is not equally legitimate, then, is it?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, I still disagree with your view of what the Bible means in that verse.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Fair enough. How about if we go back to that passage and look at it together? If you think I’m misunderstanding the author’s meaning, you can tell me where you think I went wrong and why. Will that work for you?”</p>

<p>Street Tactics are not silver bullets. There’s no guaranteed way to persuade a person to your side of things. Having a clear idea of how certain objections go wrong, though, and having a few good questions at the ready to move you forward in a friendly conversation can put the odds in your favor.</p>

<div>&nbsp;
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="edn1">
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="">[i]</a> I provide a more comprehensive treatment of the tactical approach in <em>Tactics—A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions</em>,<em> 10th Anniversary Ed. </em>(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019).</p>
</div>

<div id="edn2">
<p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title="">[ii]</a> Find these articles archived at str.org.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn3">
<p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title="">[iii]</a> Find the response in Barnett’s excellent <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmIwZDSKSeNboqWKtgX7UrA" id="" rel="" target="" title="">“Red Pen Logic” series on YouTube</a>.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn4">
<p><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title="">[iv]</a> I say “no direct evidence” because sometimes we can infer Jesus’ view on something he didn’t speak about based on his view on a related thing he did weigh in on. This insight does not help the pro-choice view, though.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn5">
<p><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title="">[v]</a> There are rare cases when an argument from silence is legitimate, but this is not one of them.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn6">
<p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title="">[vi]</a> In <em>Tactics</em>,<em> 10th Anniversary Ed.</em>, chapter 18, I go into some detail on how to legitimately employ this approach.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn7">
<p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title="">[vii]</a> This form, popularized in recent times by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument</p>
</div>

<div id="edn8">
<p><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title="">[viii]</a> This move is called the <em>tu quoque</em> (“You too!”) fallacy.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn9">
<p><a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title="">[ix]</a> This is another fallacy called a “straw man”—subtly misrepresenting another’s view, then finding fault with it.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn10">
<p><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title="">[x]</a> Another type of fallacy, by the way, where a question is based on an assumption that has not been established.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn11">
<p><a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11" title="">[xi]</a> I go into more detail on the problem with the question “Who created God?” in chapter 7 of <em>The Story of Reality</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017).</p>
</div>

<div id="edn12">
<p><a href="#_ednref12" name="_edn12" title="">[xii]</a> This move is an example of the Taking the Roof Off tactic, detailed in <em>Tactics</em>,<em> 10th Anniversary Ed.</em>, chapter 13.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstreet-tactics-part-4" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstreet-tactics-part-4" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstreet-tactics-part-4" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Would We Know Good without Evil?
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/07/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/would-we-know-good-without-evil-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Would we know good without evil? Could good exist without evil? Can God truly be good if he can’t choose evil? These are interesting questions I received from a reader:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My question centers around Taoist Dualism. Under this premise there cannot be good without evil. However, as a Christian, God is purely good and he exists. My question is: would we know good if there was no evil? Can good truly exist without evil? How can God exist as purely good when he cannot choose evil as he is bound by his own character? Would that really be considered good?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>First, as Christians, we know good can exist without evil because God is self-existent and was good without the existence of any evil.</p>

<p>Next, would we <em>know</em> good if there were no evil? I’ll answer this in terms of God’s goodness since he is the foundation and standard of all goodness: The answer is yes and no. Yes, we would know and appreciate much of God’s goodness if there had never been evil in the world. Goodness is objectively beautiful, and that can be seen and appreciated regardless of the existence of evil. God’s love, beauty, kindness, wisdom, etc. would have been seen without the presence of any evil—and <em>was</em> seen and enjoyed by the persons of the Trinity. (Think also, for example, of a child who has good, loving parents. That child doesn’t have to see bad parents in order to apprehend and enjoy the goodness of his own parents. He apprehends the objective goodness of goodness regardless.)</p>

<p>However, there are aspects of God’s good character that we <em>wouldn’t have seen</em> if evil had never existed—for example, his wrath against sin, his justice, and most importantly, his grace. This is why I think, in the end, we will know God more fully having lived in a fallen world than we would have known him in an unfallen world—simply because, in this world, we have seen and experienced his grace, power, justice, love for enemies, etc. in ways we wouldn’t have otherwise. This doesn’t mean evil has <em>changed</em> God in any way. It merely means it has <em>revealed</em> aspects of who he is that we <em>wouldn’t have seen</em> otherwise. So it serves a purpose in helping us know God’s goodness—not by way of contrast (as if we have to see evil in order to see its opposite), but merely because its existence reveals God’s reaction against evil through his actions in history—his justice as well as his grace. See these posts for more:</p>

<ul>
	<li><a href="/w/evil-and-the-cross">Evil and the Cross</a></li>
	<li><a href="/w/pain-now-the-land-of-happy-later">Pain Now, the Land of Happy Later</a></li>
</ul>

<p>As for whether God can be truly good if he only ever chooses the good—and only ever <em>can</em> choose good because that is who he is—I do not think that negates his goodness. In fact, I think that’s the essence of what it means to be good. He is praiseworthy precisely because his character is perfectly good. It would be a defect in him if any part of him wanted to choose evil yet resisted. The more a person naturally chooses to do what’s good out of his or her own character, the more we praise that person as being truly good. God is the ultimate expression of that. There is <em>nothing</em> inside of him that leans towards anything less than the perfectly good. This isn’t rightfully described as being “bound” by something, as if his character is something <em>outside</em> of himself that controls him. His character is not <em>outside</em> of himself. His character is <em>him</em>. He is who he is. He does what he does because of who he is. And who he is is perfectly good; therefore, everything he does is perfectly good.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwould-we-know-good-without-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%2Fwould-we-know-good-without-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%2Fwould-we-know-good-without-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: Has Moral Fortitude Gone the Way of the Dinosaur?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/16/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/has-moral-fortitude-gone-the-way-of-the-dinosaur-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Would you say you are faithful to Christ? When it comes to doing something you desperately want—but is biblically immoral—do you still do it? This isn’t a question only for you. I ask it of myself, too. I’d like to think I’d remain faithful even when it’s not convenient or expedient to do so. This weekend I was reminded of the fictional story of Jane Eyre, and it made me wonder whether I have the moral fortitude to always do what is right.</p>

<p>Nineteenth century author Charlotte Brontë weaves a romantic rags-to-riches tale of an orphan girl who becomes the governess at Mr. Rochester’s home and eventually falls in love with him. Her dreams come true when they pledge to wed each other, but she’s surprised when—at the altar—someone reports Mr. Rochester is already married. It turns out his wife is still alive but has become mentally ill, self-destructive, and insane. Mr. Rochester justified marrying Jane because he no longer considered himself married to his first wife.</p>

<p>Jane, of course, is devastated to discover this news. Being a faithful Christian, she can’t in good conscience marry Mr. Rochester. She holds him accountable to the sacred vows he pledged to his wife.</p>

<p>Not to let a charming and intelligent woman escape him, Mr. Rochester attempts to win Jane back. He does everything to persuade her to live with him. Jane could be his mistress and they could live happily ever after.</p>

<p>Jane describes the crushing temptation to give in to Mr. Rochester’s plea:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I was experiencing an ordeal: a hand of fiery iron grasped my vitals…. Not a human being that ever lived could wish to be loved better than I was loved; and him who thus loved me I absolutely worshipped.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You can feel Jane’s grief and pain. Marrying Mr. Rochester is everything that she could ever want at that moment.</p>

<p>Jane continues to express her turmoil:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My very conscience and reason turned traitors against me, and charged me with crime in resisting him. They spoke almost as loud as Feeling: and that clamored wildly. “Oh, comply!” it said…. “Soothe him; save him; love him; tell him you love him and will be his. Who in the world cares for <em>you</em>? or who will be injured by what you do?”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. She could have the love of her lifetime. It would be so easy. After all, Mr. Rochester’s wife was virtually out of the picture. No one would be hurt by their action.</p>

<p>It was as if Brontë is instructing the reader in an ethics lesson on the <a href="/w/minimalist-ethic-too-minimal" rel="noopener" target="_blank">minimalist ethic</a>—the principle that a behavior is permissible as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. Both Jane and Mr. Rochester would be happy to be together, and no one would be hurt. Who wouldn’t move forward with such a calculus?</p>

<p>But consider how Jane answers this moral dilemma.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad—as I am now. Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be. If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I love those last lines. Our morals don’t exist to guide us when we’re not tempted. Rather, they exist for times when we face the crushing temptation to do wrong. What is the worth of morals, asks Jane, if you break them whenever it’s convenient? They’re worth nothing, of course. Brontë’s heroine has the moral fortitude to do what’s right, even when every fiber in her body is screaming to act in the opposite direction and her dream of marrying the man she loves is at stake.</p>

<p>It’s unlikely you or I will face a circumstance similar to that of Jane’s. It’s certain, however, that we will face many circumstances where we either succumb to our desires or surrender to God. Would a modern believer also make the right decision like Jane? Does a person of such moral fortitude only exist in a fictional fairy tale like Jane Eyre? Or is that a decision that you and I would make as well? I’d like to think that, when the time comes, I’d be faithful to make the right choice even if that meant forsaking that which benefits me so greatly.</p>

<p>What would it take to prepare me to make the moral decision when the time comes? I don’t know for sure. I believe, though, it doesn’t just happen naturally. We don’t automatically choose faithfulness to God in the face of insurmountable temptation simply because we are Christians. I suspect making the difficult choice is possible after a lifelong habit of yielding to the Spirit in smaller decisions. Then, when more challenging decisions come our way, we are prepared. I pray I am ready when the time comes.</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-moral-fortitude-gone-the-way-of-the-dinosaur-" 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-moral-fortitude-gone-the-way-of-the-dinosaur-" 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-moral-fortitude-gone-the-way-of-the-dinosaur-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Not Every Racial Incident Is Motivated by Racism
topic: Christian Living
author: Aaron Brake
date: 05/14/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/not-every-racial-incident-is-motivated-by-racism
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As a Christian and a law enforcement officer, I am deeply concerned with both justice and morality. The recent killing of Ahmaud Arbery in Brunswick, Georgia, has sparked controversy, and I would like to humbly offer a few thoughts as well as a note of caution regarding the responses I have heard from the public in general and Christians in particular. First, some common ground I hope everyone can agree on:</p>

<ol>
	<li>Racism is evil.</li>
	<li>The loss of human life is tragic.</li>
	<li>God is concerned with justice, and we should be too.</li>
	<li>The guilty should be punished.</li>
</ol>

<p>These first four points are (I would hope) uncontroversial. Now a word of caution:</p>

<ol>
	<li value="5">Not every racial incident is motivated by racism.</li>
</ol>

<p>By “racial incident,” I am specifically referring to an encounter involving two parties, who are two different races, which ends in violence. And by “motivated by racism,” I mean that the provocation for the act of violence included racial prejudice or bias.</p>

<p>I hold points 1 through 5 to be true, and there is no inconsistency or contradiction. I also believe point 5 should be no less uncontroversial than 1 through 4.</p>

<p>Over the years, we have seen numerous racial incidents put before us in the media, often involving a white police officer shooting a black citizen. In fact, many readers are able to recognize or even name some of these individuals who lost their lives: Michael Brown, Alton Sterling, Walter Scott, and more (by contrast, very few, if any, are able to name the many white individuals killed by white officers or black individuals killed by black officers). Every one of these incidents involving the loss of human life is tragic (point 2). And we should be concerned with justice and ensuring the guilty are punished (points 3 and 4). We can hate the evil of racism (point 1), and it still doesn’t necessarily follow that any of these events were motivated by racism (point 5).</p>

<p>These episodes create frustration and anger not only for the public but for police officers as well, since any shooting or generic police encounter involving a white officer and black suspect is often automatically assumed to be motivated at least in part by racism, even if there is no clear evidence of this. These events give the public, politicians, and preachers an opportunity to virtue signal and condemn racism, when, in fact, all of us are uninformed regarding the totality of facts and circumstances regarding these cases, including the intent and motivation. We often know only what the media reports, and the narrative changes over time as more information becomes available (think of the “Hands up, don’t shoot” false narrative in connection with the Michael Brown shooting). Minimally, this means we should all be more cautious in attributing motivation to an action when we are largely speaking from ignorance. The existence of racism in general does not demand the presence of racism in the particular.</p>

<p>From personal experience, believe me when I say that the vast majority of police officers couldn’t care less about your skin color. I’ve had partners who are white, black, Hispanic, and Asian. Muslim, Christian, and atheist. Good officer safety and a partner you can trust make things like race and ethnicity irrelevant to the job. Police officers care about protecting one another, protecting the public, enforcing the law, and going home safe to their families. Of course, this doesn’t mean racism doesn’t exist; it does. It doesn’t even mean that police officers can’t be racist; they can. It just means the overwhelming majority of police officers don’t care what you look like; they want to perform their duties safely and go home to their families.</p>

<p>However, the recent killing of Ahmaud Arbery was not carried out by police officers but by citizens Greg and Travis McMichael (though Greg is a former detective and district attorney investigator). A major relevant difference is that the McMichaels were not uniformed police officers in the performance of their lawful duties. Whether you view their actions as unlawful, dangerous, foolish, murderous, or none of the above, point 5 above still stands: Not every racial incident is motivated by racism. Unlawful, dangerous, foolish actions, and even murder, can be committed without a scintilla of racism involved. It happens every day.</p>

<p>Over the last week, I have heard pastors and politicians condemn the evil of racism based on this tragic shooting. And of course, we should all condemn the evil of racism. But not one of these individuals is in a position to know this killing was motivated by racism. It may very well turn out that racism was a factor. But wisdom dictates we refrain from such assumptions lacking adequate warrant and justification (Prov. 13:16). Wisdom dictates we exercise caution in hastily attributing racist motivation and evil intent to individuals we don’t even know (Prov. 29:20). And Christians especially should be cautious lest they become guilty of slander (Eph. 4:31). As James 1:19 states, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.” Unfortunately, in this day and age of social media, we are more often than not tempted to be slow to listen, quick to speak, and quick to become angry, myself included.</p>

<p>In the meantime, we can still mourn the loss of human life (point 2). We can demand justice and the punishment of the guilty (points 3 and 4). We can hate evil, sin, and racism (point 1). And as more information becomes available, if the evidence supports it, we can condemn this act as an example of racist bigotry. Until then, individuals, including Christians, may be doing more harm than good by perpetuating a false narrative and engaging in slander. As <a href="https://slowtowrite.com/is-it-racist-to-kill-a-black-man/?fbclid=IwAR3-FJelQYatnQkjWyp0toZ34ZsYAXxQ_mdcSo-S9wGNP0ZfrjRez9O0qTs">Christian writer Samuel Sey states</a>, “Injustices against black men are not synonymous with racist injustices against black men. And if we react to these injustices in a careless and slanderous manner, we’re not just guilty of sin, but we’re also guilty of contributing to the divisions, tensions, and anxieties in our society.” Sey concludes his article “Is It Racist to Kill a Black Man?” this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Many white people routinely fail to recognize the level of anxiety they burden black people with because of their idle and careless words about supposed racism. And I fear, Travis and Greg McMichael and many careless people—white, black, and all people—have made some black people, especially young black people afraid to jog in peace.</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%2Fnot-every-racial-incident-is-motivated-by-racism" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnot-every-racial-incident-is-motivated-by-racism" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnot-every-racial-incident-is-motivated-by-racism" 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 Abortion Lies Mimic the Movie “The Island”
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/10/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-abortion-lies-mimic-the-movie-the-island-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>How does a culture accept a plan to create human clones and then kill them to harvest their body parts? They tell lies. That’s the story behind the movie <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em>The Island</em></a>. I’ve been showing that film (or parts of it) when I teach on cloning for several years. Last week, my family watched it. I was eager to process some of its ideas with my kids.</p>

<p>On the surface, it's a fun, sci-fi action movie starring several Hollywood A-listers. What makes it interesting, though, are some of the questions it raises:</p>

<ul>
	<li>What does it mean to be human?</li>
	<li>Is it ethical to create human clones?</li>
	<li>Would a clone have a soul?</li>
	<li>Can we use the body parts of clones for our own benefit?</li>
	<li>Can we disqualify some humans from being valuable?</li>
</ul>

<p>The movie is about a cloning facility that secretly manufactures clones for wealthy people who invest large sums of money to have “spare parts” available when they need them. When the clones are matured, they harvest their body parts, thereby also killing the clones.</p>

<p>How does the cloning facility convince the culture it’s morally permissible to hack up human clones and harvest their body parts? They lie.</p>

<p>First, they call the clones “agnates.” They use language to dehumanize them.</p>

<p>Second, they don’t tell the investors that the clones are bona fide human beings. Rather, they’re told the agnates are “an organic frame…maintained in a persistent vegetative state. They never achieve consciousness. They never think or suffer or feel pain…joy, love, hate.” As is obvious in the movie, that’s not true. The clones look and behave exactly like human beings because they <em>are</em> human beings.</p>

<p>During a defining moment in the movie, two of the clones who have escaped ask a sympathetic employee why the world doesn’t care that human clones like themselves are killed inside the facility. “They don’t know,” he answers. “They think you’re vegetables simmering in a jelly sack.” The world is led to believe a falsehood about the value of human clones.</p>

<p>This is similar to the dishonesty behind abortion. I’ve had conversations with abortion-choice advocates for two decades, and they often deny the unborn are bona fide human beings. Instead, they refer to them as an “it,” a “fetus,” a “clump of cells,” an “unwanted pregnancy,” or—if they’re generous—a “potential human.” All their language, however, is the same. It’s dehumanizing. It’s also a lie.</p>

<p>Maybe their intent isn’t to lie, but abortion clinics aren’t telling their clients the truth. Like the cloning facility in <em>The Island</em>, they look for language to convince women that their abortion won’t kill a valuable human being.</p>

<p>“There is no doubt,” writes world-renowned abortion-rights champion Peter Singer, “that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.” Countless other abortion-rights activists, doctors, and scientists claim that it is a scientific fact that an individual human life begins at conception.</p>

<p>That’s why abortion-choice advocates typically don’t argue the science. After all, the evidence is quite compelling. Instead, they dehumanize unborn human beings by what they call them and how they describe them. It’s the same strategy of misinformation from the movie <em>The Island</em>.</p>

<p>It’s amazing that this movie, despite being produced by mainstream Hollywood, answers several of the above questions correctly. It points out it’s wrong to declare some humans as less than valuable. It’s wrong to harvest body parts from clones. It’s wrong to kill innocent human beings, no matter how they come into existence. It’s wrong to use people as a means to someone else’s end. That’s impressive. It’s also ironic that a Hollywood flick holds a more accurate view of human value than most abortion-choice advocates.</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-abortion-lies-mimic-the-movie-the-island-" 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-abortion-lies-mimic-the-movie-the-island-" 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-abortion-lies-mimic-the-movie-the-island-" 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 2020 Is Taking a Toll on Your Soul
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/05/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-2020-is-taking-a-toll-on-your-soul
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’m going to tell you something that will explain what you’re likely feeling about this turbulent year. No doubt, you’ve witnessed a series of tragic events unfold before your eyes. You’ve also probably felt an inordinate pressure to say the right thing about each of them. Like you, I’ve been hesitant to comment for fear I’ll be blasted by someone who sees things differently. It’s been frustrating and fatiguing, to say the least, and I believe <a href="https://twitter.com/rcaldw/status/1267814067227357189">this short comment</a> by a Texas pastor explains the reason why we feel this way. Here’s what he wrote:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Could it be that God didn’t wire us to carry every event, taking place in every part of the world, at every moment, as if it were ours? Could it be that technology has produced a faux omniscience and omnipresence that is hurting mankind and not helping it?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is an important assessment. Through the internet and social media, technology has given us ringside seats to every event, tragedy, and evil act that happens in any part of the planet. That’s not something we’re created to handle. It’s made possible, though, because of the internet. Though technology often helps us, it also creates two problems that hurt our soul: faux omnipresence and faux omniscience.</p>

<p>Up until the last fraction of human existence, we’ve only had to carry events that directly affect us, our family/friends, and our local community. Today, with the internet and social media, we can witness <em>every</em> evil event. If we miss it, a recording is readily replayed online. The carnage is funneled through our eyes and embedded in our soul. What we witness can be in the next town, the next state, or on the other side of the planet. No matter where it happens, we see it. It’s like we��re everywhere.</p>

<p>But it’s a faux omnipresence. We’re not actually there, but we’re made to experience these events like we were. We soak them in and feel the pain that others feel, albeit to a lesser degree. We scroll through our news feed and witness another tragedy. Then another. In a matter of minutes, we’ve watched multiple evil events. It’s overwhelming.</p>

<p>God, who <em>is </em>omnipresent can handle all that evil, pain, and tragedy. He’s capable. He has the emotional and psychological bandwidth to witness his creation repeatedly commit evil and not become overwhelmed. Finite humans, though, are not God. We don’t have the capacity to handle inordinate amounts of evil. This faux omnipresence hurts us.</p>

<p>Our faux omnipresence leads to a faux omniscience. We think we’re present at these tragedies, so we’re tricked into thinking we understand what happened. We saw it online, after all. It was in high definition. Because we “witness” these events, we’re expected to know the truth about what happened, make an immediate evaluation, and then say the right thing about it. Finite humans can’t be perfectly accurate, though. Even still, we comment, post, and emote. We argue and then divide. Our online debating adds another layer of stress. All this happens after a single tragedy. There’s more, though. Another horrific event is around the corner. We repeat the cycle and the stress builds. This faux omniscience hurts us, as well.</p>

<p>I appreciate Charles Spurgeon’s similar concern, when he addressed pastors in training. Recognizing their potential to take on overwhelming burdens, <a href="https://archive.spurgeon.org/misc/aarm07.php">he warned them</a> of making this mistake.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Many servants of God are made to feel their weakness in another way, <em>by an oppressive sense of responsibility…. </em>Do not take an exaggerated view of what the Lord expects of you. He will not blame you for not doing that which is beyond your mental power or physical strength…. We are not the Father, nor the Saviour, nor the Comforter of the Church. We cannot take the responsibility of the universe upon our shoulders. [Emphasis in original.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There’s only so much one person can take, says Spurgeon. Plus, to presume you can handle all the world’s hurt is to take on an exaggerated view of yourself. God is the only one capable of carrying that weight.</p>

<p>Though online technologies can hurt us, I’m not a Luddite. I don’t doubt that scientific advancements have helped us communicate, protect people, care for vulnerable people, and do many other good things.</p>

<p>Progress, though, often comes with a price. Though <em>Inherit the Wind</em> is a disastrous retelling of the “Scopes Monkey Trial” of 1925, I resonate with one of Henry Drummond’s speeches in the movie.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it. Sometimes I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says, “All right, you can have a telephone, but you lose privacy and the charm of distance. Madam, you may vote but at a price. You lose the right to retreat behind the powder puff or your petticoat. Mister, you may conquer the air, but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It's hard to imagine the wonder of flight that birds effortlessly enjoy. Why? We’ve all grown up in a world with planes. We sip sodas in leather seats, 38,000 feet in the air, while cities zip by at 600 mph. A flying bird is no big deal. We fly faster and higher. We’ve lost our wonder.</p>

<p>Technology that makes the internet and social media possible might move us forward in some ways, but we pay for it in other ways. We experience a faux omnipresence and faux omniscience, causing us to carry all the hurts of the world. “Could it be that God didn’t wire us to carry every event…as if it were ours?”</p>

<p>Naysayers might object: “We need to know what’s happening around the world, to stay abreast of current affairs. We must learn from our collective experience.” While I agree it’s important to learn from tragic events that occur outside our immediate community, we can become overwhelmed by the barrage of negative news. We’re not created to soak in every tragedy as if it were ours. “Progress,” like Drummond says, “has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it.” It takes a toll on our souls.</p>

<p>Perhaps, then, we should take better care of ourselves. Here’s what I suggest. First, unplug from the internet and/or social media. This is mandatory. Set up times when you walk away without taking sneak peeks. Second, spend time in nature. For example, take a hike through the woods and observe the simplicity and beauty of God’s creation. I love to notice delicate flowers or watch the gentle dance of birds in the trees. It helps me escape—for a time—the harsh reality I must eventually return to. Third, pray and discern when and where you can shoulder other people’s burdens, and find friends who can help carry yours. This is a biblical mandate. Finally, develop a habit of giving thanks to Jesus, the one who took on our burdens. Without him, we’d be in bigger trouble and hurting even more. He encourages us to come to him and promises, “You will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:29–30).</p>

<p><em>[You can listen to an audio version of this material with additional content on an STR podcast <a href="/w/comment-of-the-year">here</a>.]</em></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-2020-is-taking-a-toll-on-your-soul" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-2020-is-taking-a-toll-on-your-soul" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-2020-is-taking-a-toll-on-your-soul" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Supreme Court Needs a Hermeneutics Lesson
topic: Philosophy
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/02/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-supreme-court-needs-a-hermeneutics-lesson
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I bet you can pass a test the U.S. Supreme Court just failed. Let’s see if I’m correct. If you read the sentence “He drives like a maniac” in 2 Kings 9:20, how would you determine what was meant by that phrase? You have two options. The first is to consider <em>your own cultural context</em> and likely conclude it’s a reference to someone driving recklessly with a car. The second option is to study what the <em>author</em> of 2 Kings <em>intended to communicate</em> in <em>his cultural context</em>. If you guessed the second option, you are correct.</p>

<p>Words have meaning. Discovering the meaning of a word—whether it’s in the Bible, a cell phone text, or the Constitution—is called hermeneutics, a fancy term for the process of interpreting words and discovering their meaning.</p>

<p>There are three possible sources of meaning for any written document: the author, the text, or the reader. Although to many it seems obvious to determine the meaning of words by discovering the author’s intent, not everyone agrees. With the 20<sup>th</sup> century rise of postmodernism, the idea that truth and meaning are relative to every individual, the focus has shifted away from the author. Meaning can now come from the text or—worse—is created by the reader.</p>

<p>When you abandon the author’s intent, the rigid meaning of a text becomes malleable. Written words that meant one thing when they were written can mean something else later. A reader can insert new meaning into words that the author never intended.</p>

<p>That’s what happened with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Historically, the legislation prohibited employment discrimination based on sex. For example, a woman couldn’t be denied a job or fired simply because she was female. That’s fair. The recent court ruling, however, expanded the meaning of the word “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The problem is that the authors of Title VII—writing in 1964—didn’t have that meaning in mind when they authored the legislation.</p>

<p>Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf">majority opinion</a>, acknowledged that those who drafted the 1964 Civil Rights Act had biological categories in mind for “sex.” “But,” he added, “the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.” In other words, the word “sex” can be invested with new meaning other than the authors’ original intent. That’s breaking a cardinal rule of interpretation, one that he has upheld in the past.</p>

<p>In a 2018 <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/17-530/">Supreme Court opinion</a>, Gorsuch warned about redefining words that make up a law. He wrote,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Written laws are meant to be understood and lived by. If a fog of uncertainty surrounded them, <em>if their meaning could shift with the latest judicial whim</em>, the point of reducing them to writing would be lost. <em>That is why it’s a “fundamental canon of statutory construction” that words generally should be “interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning…at the time Congress enacted the statute.</em>” [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What’s the point of writing laws down in words, Gorsuch asks, if the meaning of those words can change? His answer: There is no point. If we ignore what an author meant when he penned a law, then that law can change as often as someone redefines the words of that law.</p>

<p>That would be as absurd as someone reading, “He drives like a maniac,” and redefining the biblical phrase to refer to someone’s ability to drive a car. It <em>can’t </em>mean that because cars didn’t exist when the author wrote 2 Kings. It was never in his mind.</p>

<p>In this recent ruling, sex is redefined to include not only the biological categories of male and female, but also sexual orientation and gender identity. But sex <em>can’t </em>mean that because those concepts didn’t exist when the authors of the 1964 Civil Rights Act drafted this legislation. They were never in their mind.</p>

<p>Don’t misunderstand. I’m not addressing the policy question of whether sexual orientation or gender identity should be a factor in employment. That’s a separate (although related) question. The point I’m raising is about the <em>method</em> by which the court ruled. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf">dissenting opinion</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Many will applaud today’s decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court’s updating of Title VII. But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity <em>should be</em> outlawed. The question is <em>whether Congress did that in 1964</em>. It indisputably did not. [Emphasis in original.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Why did the Supreme Court rule to invest the word “sex” with a meaning foreign to the authors of Title VII? Their proper role is to <em>interpret</em> existing law, not <em>create</em> new law.</p>

<p>By redefining sex in Title VII, the Supreme Court in effect enacted new legislation, a prerogative of Congress and not the judicial branch. If a new law is needed, follow the Constitution’s directive by passing a new bill by majority vote in the House and Senate and get the President to sign it. Instead, the court circumvented the legislative process through interpretive gymnastics.</p>

<p>The words of a law should be interpreted by what they meant at the time they were written. In this case, that requires discovering what the drafters (authors) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act meant when they referred to sex. Gorsuch knows this basic principle of hermeneutics. For whatever reason, he failed to follow his own advice and shifted the meaning of sex with the “latest judicial whim.”</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-supreme-court-needs-a-hermeneutics-lesson" 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-supreme-court-needs-a-hermeneutics-lesson" 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-supreme-court-needs-a-hermeneutics-lesson" 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: 4 Ways Questions Keep You Safe in Scary Conversations
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 08/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/4-ways-questions-keep-you-safe-in-scary-conversations
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Talking with others about controversial, volatile topics like the gospel is scary. I get it. It scares me, too. In spiritual conversations, landmines abound. It’s understandable that some are skittish. I’ve found a good way to minimize the risk, though, and increase my courage. I use questions. <em>Questions keep me safe.</em></p>

<p>I want to give you four ways questions can increase <em>your</em> margin of safety, too, while still providing a great opportunity for you to make a difference.</p>

<p><strong>First, questions get you going.</strong> Most people find that starting a spiritual conversation is a bit awkward. Using a well-placed question, though, is a safe way for more timid types—and aggressive types, too—to get off the bench and into active conversation. It helps you ease into the game, so to speak, in a genial, non-threatening way, especially when your question shows a personal interest in the other person.</p>

<p>I had a fun conversation once with a witch in Wisconsin simply by asking about her necklace—a five-pointed star called a pentagram often associated with the occult. “Does that jewelry have spiritual significance?” was all I said. Yes, it did. She was “a pagan,” and happy to talk about the particulars. More questions followed as I probed for detail on her views. I was relaxed and so was she. It was painless.</p>

<p>There’s a reason questions make the initial stages of a conversation so much easier. Once you ask, it’s the other person’s turn to answer. Your job is done for the moment. All you need to do is listen. It’s simple. Once you’re rolling, the conversation almost always gets easier as opportunities for more questions present themselves.</p>

<p><strong>Second, questions get you valuable “intel.”</strong> Like I said, sometimes there are landmines out there, and it’s safer if you find them in advance.</p>

<p>Once, on a flight out of LAX, I chatted amiably with a thirty-something passenger sitting next to me. As I gently drew him out with questions, I learned he was not a Christian, though he used to be. In fact, he said, he used to be a preacher’s kid. What had happened to his preacher dad? “Oh, he’s still alive. He’s just not a preacher anymore. In fact, he’s not a Christian anymore, either.”</p>

<p>Valuable intel? You bet. As I listened more to his story, the outlines of his spiritual topography came into focus. It wasn’t a pretty picture. If I’d jumped into the conversation leading with the gospel, I’m sure I would have hit a tripwire. In situations like this one, questions often reveal obstacles in your path you can carefully maneuver around if you know where they are.</p>

<p><strong>Third, questions protect you from having to defend your own view.</strong> The reason is simple. If you’re asking questions, you’re not making statements. Since the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, you’re in the clear. If you stick with questions, you’ll have nothing to defend, so you’re in a safe place, not vulnerable to counterattack.</p>

<p><strong>Fourth, starting with questions makes exiting easier, so entering is easier, too.</strong> Flying home after nearly two weeks of grueling work in Paraguay, I had a midnight layover in São Paulo, Brazil. I was tired and didn’t want to talk. I was also hungry, but I didn’t trust the airport restaurants, having had a bad experience in Uganda a month earlier.</p>

<p>I saw a young American chatting in Portuguese with a waitress, so I asked for his advice. He gave the restaurant a thumbs up, so I suggested we sit together to enjoy our meal. I learned quickly why this young Yank spoke Portuguese so well; he was an LDS missionary. Now I was at loggerheads with myself.</p>

<p>It was a great opportunity to witness, of course, but to be completely candid, I did not want to endure an evening of evangelism with a Mormon missionary at midnight in Brazil after two weeks of talks. Like I said, I was tired.</p>

<p>Then it dawned on me. I didn’t have to mentally commit myself on the front end to a lengthy bout with a non-believer. If I was willing to simply start with a few questions about his own Mormon beliefs, I could easily exit whenever I ran out of gas. Plus, asking about his views was a lot simpler than preaching about my own. It gave me the sense of safety I needed to step out.</p>

<p>You may be wondering if I actually make a difference for the gospel focusing principally on questions. I do. And you will, too. Questions will help you ease into conversations, they’ll give you valuable intel, they’ll allow you to sidestep the burden of proof until you’re in a solid position to defend your own view, and they’ll make it easy to exit when it’s time to go. Put simply, <em>questions keep you safe</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%2F4-ways-questions-keep-you-safe-in-scary-conversations" 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%2F4-ways-questions-keep-you-safe-in-scary-conversations" 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%2F4-ways-questions-keep-you-safe-in-scary-conversations" 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 Justice, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly with Our God
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/07/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-justice-love-mercy-and-walk-humbly-with-our-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>During these last couple of weeks, we have not weighed in on the conflict that’s seized our beloved country, and some have wondered about our silence. It’s not because we haven’t been thinking and praying hard on the issues. We have.</p>

<p>The present situation is somewhat of a Gordian knot—a tangle of evil events, emotions, and reactions—and Proverbs consistently counsels against haste in judgment and speaking out of turn. Up until now, I have chosen that road. It gives me an opportunity to listen, to reflect, to fact-check, to get wise counsel, and to carefully examine this social turmoil from a larger worldview perspective.</p>

<p>On a personal note, for years I have been grieving the heartbreaking rise of racial tensions in our communities. I was horrified when I learned of the terrible death of George Floyd and then horrified again by the destructive response that followed and the innocent people killed and lives ruined in its wake. And I am not alone; we all grieve together.</p>

<p>As a Christian thinker, I want to untie that knot, and I’m frustrated as an apologist that I don’t have the power to do so, to present a line of thinking that will remedy the problem and bring healing to all of us.</p>

<p>The biggest reason I can’t is that this isn’t just a “problem” to be solved by clever thinkers. Our communities will only ultimately be repaired as its individuals are spiritually reborn. This is a battle that requires a spiritual solution.</p>

<p>It’s a time to get on our knees and pray for the Lord’s intervention—for wisdom for our leaders, for truth to prevail, for hearts to be changed, for grace to be extended.</p>

<p>The government—as an extension of God’s justice—must be just. We, the people, also have an obligation before God. We are not to return evil for evil, but rather to overcome evil with good.</p>

<p>Our responsibility as Christ’s ambassadors is clear: do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8). One friend pointed out that this process best proceeds in reverse: first, walk humbly, then be merciful, then—with those virtues informing our actions—do justice.</p>

<p>As an organization, we are going to stay on mission, training Christians to think clearly to defend the truth of classical Christianity and classical Christian values—which includes the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, regardless of race or political views. As an organization, we are going to fulfill our vision of providing confidence for every Christian, clear thinking for every challenge, and courage and grace for every encounter. It is what you have counted on us to provide for 27 years.</p>

<p>Some may think I have not said enough here and will want me to champion a particular political solution. I understand the impulse, but that is not Stand to Reason’s calling as an organization. It is not what God has gifted us best to do. We’re going to stick to the business God has given us to accomplish—teaching the truth of Christianity, including the truths of human dignity and equality, justice, and the peace that God’s grace can bring to our communities as we each consciously and deliberately live out our Christian virtues.</p>

<p>We just received a letter from a dear member of our STR community. She wrote, “Keep up the marvelous work you do for Christians, striving to share God’s Word.” No matter what happens in our culture at large, at Stand to Reason we are committed to keeping our hand to that plow, serving the kingdom, building ambassadors in knowledge, wisdom, and character.</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-justice-love-mercy-and-walk-humbly-with-our-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%2Fdo-justice-love-mercy-and-walk-humbly-with-our-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%2Fdo-justice-love-mercy-and-walk-humbly-with-our-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: Today’s Tumultuous Times Are the Result of a Worldview
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/28/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/today-s-tumultuous-times-are-the-result-of-a-worldview
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Imagine you don’t know you have COVID-19 but experience fever and nasal drip. You take a Tylenol for the fever and an antihistamine for the nasal drip. You begin to feel better after a day, but soon the symptoms return. Plus, you start coughing and feel short of breath. You could address the new symptoms, but what you begin to realize is that you have a more fundamental problem—a virus—that is the root of all your problems. Unless you get at the core issue and kill the virus, the symptoms will keep presenting themselves.</p>

<p>That’s the problem with our current cultural symptoms. “Cancel culture,” “intersectionality,” “white privilege,” “microaggression,” and many other buzz words today are the logical consequences of an idea—<a href="https://shenviapologetics.com/intro-to-critical-theory/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">critical theory</a>—that has taken a foothold in our society. Unless we address the problem at its core, no amount of symptom alleviation will solve the problem.</p>

<p>This isn’t only the case with critical theory; it’s the case with any worldview. If someone has swallowed <a href="/w/truth-contemporary-philosophy-and-the-postmodern-turn" rel="noopener" target="_blank">postmodernism</a> (the idea that truth is relative), you won’t get very far trying to convince them that sex outside of marriage is wrong. To them, <em>they</em> are the arbiter of right and wrong. The critical discussion that needs to take place is at the worldview level so they can see that right and wrong are objectively—not subjectively—true.</p>

<p>If someone has adopted naturalism (the idea that nature is all there is), you’ll struggle to show them that Jesus rose from the grave. To them, there is no God who can cause supernatural events. The critical discussion that needs to take place is at the worldview level so they can see there <em>is</em> a God who can act in creation.</p>

<p>If someone has bought into critical theory, you won’t get very far showing them the problems with cancel culture and intersectionality. To them, the world is divided into oppressors and the oppressed (a social binary). The critical discussion that needs to take place is at the worldview level so they can see that critical theory presumes a faulty view of reality. Consequently, its proposed solutions are also mistaken.</p>

<p>Trying to change someone’s mind without addressing the underlying worldview feels like hitting your head against a wall. That’s why I love Francis Schaeffer’s insight (from <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Manifesto-Francis-Schaeffer/dp/1581346921/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=christian+manifesto&amp;qid=1595901082&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank"><em>A Christian Manifesto</em></a>) into the futility of only addressing the symptoms of a worldview.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.</p>

<p>They have very gradually become disturbed over permissiveness, pornography, the public schools, the breakdown of the family, and finally abortion. But they have not seen this as a totality—each thing being a part, a symptom, of a much larger problem. They have failed to see that all of this has come about due to a shift in world view—that is, through a fundamental change in the overall way people think and view the world and life as a whole....</p>

<p>What we must understand is that the two world views really do bring forth with inevitable certainty not only personal differences, but also total differences in regard to society, government, and law.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This explains why you might discuss cancel culture or intersectionality with an advocate of such ideas but fail to make any meaningful progress. I know I have. The problem, as Schaeffer so eloquently articulates, is that we see and address the bits and pieces of a much more fundamental worldview. We fail, though, to address the underlying problem.</p>

<p>So while I’m suggesting the correct course of action is to <a href="https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-all-content/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">get equipped on critical theory</a> so you can address cultural concerns at the more fundamental level, we Christians need to learn a lesson. It’s currently late in the game to <a href="http://intersectproject.org/faith-and-culture/neil-shenvi-are-social-justice-critical-theory-and-christianity-compatible/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">learn about critical theory</a> so we can undermine its effect on culture. I still think we should do it, but Christians are responding to a problem rather than preemptively addressing it.</p>

<p>Therefore, let’s start learning about the worldview and ideas that will revolutionize our culture in 10 years, 20 years, and 50 years. Let’s develop a system of training Christians so we’re not caught off guard like we are today (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians+2%3A8&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Col. 2:8</a>). It takes effort and energy to make education a priority, but we need to do it so we can destroy false ideas (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+10%3A3-5&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">2 Cor. 10:3–5</a>). After all, there’s no virtue in being late to the party when it comes to corrosive ideas that degrade our culture and make it more hostile to the gospel and Christian worldview.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftoday-s-tumultuous-times-are-the-result-of-a-worldview" 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%2Ftoday-s-tumultuous-times-are-the-result-of-a-worldview" 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%2Ftoday-s-tumultuous-times-are-the-result-of-a-worldview" 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: Street Tactics – Part 3
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/street-tactics-part-3
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On September 11, 2001—a day <em>Time</em> magazine called the bloodiest day on American soil since the Civil War—two jumbo jets slammed into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, another crashed into the western section of the Pentagon, and a third was forced down in a field in Pennsylvania when the terrorist pilots were overwhelmed by courageous passengers.</p>

<p>To put the toll in perspective, in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, 168 people died. In New York City on 9/11, twice as many firefighters and policemen alone were crushed under 500,000 tons of cement and steel. On that other “day of infamy,” December 7, 1941, 2,335 servicemen lost their lives at Pearl Harbor. More victims than that—2,977—were buried beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and that field in Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>Of course, this is old news. Here’s something you may not have known. <em>Time</em> magazine was wrong. September 11, 2001 was not the bloodiest day on American soil since the Civil War. In truth, the number of human lives crushed out on 9/11 is less, on average, than the number of children who have died every single day, day after day, for over 47 years through abortion right here on American soil.</p>

<p>The fact is, roughly half of pregnancies in this country are unplanned, and roughly half of those end in abortion. Consequently, the most dangerous place for a baby to be in America is resting in her mother’s womb.</p>

<p>In this <em>Solid Ground</em>, I want to show you how to make that location a safer place by teaching you how to use precisely placed questions to challenge the moral legitimacy of the pro-choice view in conversations you have with others.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="">[i]</a> It’s a general approach I call “Street Tactics.”<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title="">[ii]</a></p>

<p>My basic strategy when making the pro-life case is to focus on the single, decisive, defining issue in the debate, an approach I call “Only One Question.” Here is how I initiate my plan in conversation.</p>

<h3>“Daddy, Can I Kill This?”</h3>

<p>The very first set of questions I use in conversation on this issue sets the stage for my larger strategy. It should be your first move, too.</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Consider this analogy,” I offer. “Your child comes up <em>behind</em> you while you’re working at some task and asks, ‘Daddy/Mommy, can I kill <em>this</em>?’ What is the one question you must ask before you can answer their question?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I need to ask them, ‘What is it?’”<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title="">[iii]</a></p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Exactly. The reason is obvious. First we have to know <em>what</em> we’re killing before we know if it’s <em>okay</em> to kill it. If it’s a spider, smash it. If it’s their little <em>brother</em>, time for a talk. Does that make sense?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Sure, so far.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“So let’s apply that reasoning to the abortion question using our vital question ‘What is it?’ If the unborn is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is <em>necessary</em>.<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title="">[iv]</a> Do as you wish. Remove the offending tissue. Have the abortion. Do you agree with that?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Of course I do. I’m pro-choice.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Good. Next step. However, if the unborn <em>is</em> a human being, then no justification for abortion is <em>adequate</em>.”<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title="">[v]</a></p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, I’m not sure about that one. What are you getting at?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Fair enough. Let me clarify with another question. Though the answer may seem obvious, and I don’t mean to patronize you, here it is. Do you think it’s okay to kill a defenseless human being for the reasons most people give to justify abortions: because they have a right to privacy or choice, because the human being is too expensive, because they just don’t want to take care of him, because he interferes with their career, etc.?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Of course not. But a fetus isn’t a human.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“We’ll get to that in a minute. So in principle, then, you agree with those two general statements I asked you about?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, I guess—so far.”</p>

<h3>Pushback</h3>

<p>This is progress, of course, but conversations like this do not always go smoothly. Often, there’s resistance, so I’ve included an extended conversation below as a tutorial for two reasons.</p>

<p>First, it provides a general model for how you might navigate objections on this point. Second, it reinforces our conviction that answering only one question is the key to resolving the abortion issue. The dialogue starts with a pro-abortion challenge:<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title="">[vi]</a></p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Abortion is a private choice between a woman and her doctor.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Do you mind if I ask you a question? Do we allow parents to abuse their children if done in privacy or with the consent of their doctor?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Of course not, but that’s not fair. Those children are human beings.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I agree. But that shows that the issue isn’t really privacy at all but rather whether or not the unborn is a human being, right?’”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“But many poor women can’t afford to raise another child.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Yes, I understand. But when kids get too expensive, can we kill them?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Of course not, but aborting a fetus is not the same as killing a kid.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“So once again, the real question is, ‘What is the unborn? Is a fetus a human just like a youngster?’”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Why do you insist on being so simplistic? Killing defenseless human beings is one thing. Aborting a fetus is another.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“So we’re agreed: If abortion actually killed a defenseless human being, then the issue wouldn’t be complex at all. The question is, ‘What is the unborn?’”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Do you really think a woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Many homeless people are unwanted. Can we kill them?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“But it’s not the same.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“That’s the issue, then, isn’t it? Are they the same? If the unborn are truly human like the homeless, then we can’t just kill them to get them out of the way. We’re back to my first question, ‘What is the unborn?’”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“But you still shouldn’t force your morality on women.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I get your point, but would you ‘force your morality’ on a mother who was physically abusing her two-year-old?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Sure, but that’s not the same.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Why not?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Because you’re assuming the unborn is human like a two-year-old.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“And you’re assuming she’s not. You see, this is not really about privacy, or economic hardship, or complexity, or not being wanted, or forcing morality. The real question is, ‘What is the unborn?’ Answer that question, and you’ve automatically answered the others.”</p>

<p>You might think of other concerns I haven’t mentioned. Each can be dispatched with a simple test question. Ask, “What would be the relevance of this objection if we were talking about a clear-case example of a human being?”</p>

<p>Note, I have not made the case yet that the unborn <em>is</em> a human being. That will come shortly. I’m merely pointing out there’s just one issue to resolve, not many. Answering the one question “What is the unborn?” answers almost all the others.</p>

<p>Hopefully, you’ve been somewhat successful at this point in helping the pro-abortion person understand your point about the single, decisive, defining issue in this controversy. It’s time for our next step. We started with the <em>strategic</em> foundation of our argument. Next I want you to see the <em>moral</em> foundation.</p>

<h3>Moral Logic</h3>

<p>I want you to be crystal clear on the simple moral logic of the pro-life position.<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title="">[vii]</a> It is the ethical bedrock of the view. Here it is:</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">Premise 1: It’s wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being.</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">Premise 2: Abortion intentionally takes the life of an innocent human being.</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">Therefore: Abortion is wrong.</p>

<p>Notice a couple of things immediately. First, the <em>form</em> of the argument is right. The conclusion follows naturally and logically from the first two statements. That’s easy to see. This, then, is a <em>valid</em> argument. So far, so good. If the <em>premises</em> turn out to be true, then it is also a <em>sound</em> argument—that is, completely reliable based on the simple force of logic. But are the premises true? That’s where controversy comes in.</p>

<p>The first premise seems obviously correct. Few would dispute this commonsense moral notion as a general rule. If you want to be more precise to cover possible exceptions, you could add the phrase “…for the reasons most people give to justify abortion.” We clearly do not consider killing justified because our victim stood in the way of our career, was a financial burden, had a physical defect, interfered with our personal freedoms, etc.</p>

<p>Your initial pushback, then, is going to be about the accuracy of premise two. As we saw above, you’re going to encounter resistance to the claim that the unborn are bona fide human beings. Our questions, then, are designed to help your friend see that the unborn are 1) <em>alive</em> and growing, 2) <em>distinct</em> from their mothers (i.e., not the mother’s body, strictly speaking), and 3) individual <em>human</em> beings.</p>

<p>Here’s how that conversation might look, with the pro-abortion person initiating the challenge:</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“The government shouldn’t tell me what I can do with my own body.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Can the government say what you can do with your body concerning your two-year-old?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“That’s different. He’s outside my body. We’re talking about my uterus. They can’t dictate what I do with my uterus any more than they can force me to donate my kidney.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I agree with you,<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title="">[viii]</a> but that has nothing to do with the pro-life view. Pro-lifers are not asking you to give up your uterus. Pro-lifers are saying the government should be able to protect a growing human being <em>inside</em> your body just like it does a growing human being <em>outside</em> your body.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“But we’re talking about my uterus, not a human being like an infant.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I thought we were talking about what was <em>in</em> your uterus.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Okay, but that’s not a human being.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">���It isn’t? Then what is it?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“It’s just tissue, I guess. Nobody knows.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, let me ask you a few questions about this mysterious thing inside the uterus of a pregnant woman. Is this thing alive?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“No one really knows when life begins.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“That wasn’t quite the question. I asked if it was alive, not when life begins. So let me ask another way. Is this unidentified thing inside a pregnant woman’s uterus growing?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Yes, it’s growing.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“How can it be growing if it’s not alive?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Hmm… Okay, you’ve made your point. It’s alive. It’s living tissue, part of my own body, and the government has no say over my tissue growing in my body.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I’m sympathetic with that point in principle, but I don’t think this tissue that’s <em>in</em> your body is actually <em>part</em> of your body, strictly speaking.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Of course it is.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Did you ever watch CSI?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Sure.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“When the forensic pathologist finds remains of a human body, how do they know which person the remains belong to?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“They do a matching DNA test.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right. If the DNA from the tissue matches the DNA sample from a known individual, then they know the tissue was part of their body.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“So if you were pregnant, and someone took a DNA test of the piece of tissue growing in your uterus, would its DNA match your DNA?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well…no.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right. Then whatever is growing <em>inside</em> a pregnant woman’s body is not part of <em>her</em> body, is it? It’s tissue from a different body with different DNA.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I guess so.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“So here’s the next question: What kind of foreign thing would be growing inside your uterus if you were pregnant.���</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I can’t say for sure.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, let’s go back to CSI again. If forensic pathologists found a piece of tissue at a crime scene, how would they know if that tissue came from a human being or from some other creature?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I guess they’d do another DNA test.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right, but this test isn’t looking to identify a certain <em>individual</em>, but rather a certain <em>kind</em> of individual—maybe a human or maybe some other organism, right?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Okay.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“So if we took a piece of tissue from that living thing growing in your uterus that is not you but something else, what kind of DNA do you think it would have?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I don’t know. I’m not a scientist.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“You don’t need to be a scientist to know the answer to my question. Let me ask it another way. What kinds of things naturally and predictably grow inside a pregnant woman’s uterus?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, offspring.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Good. So we agree on that. Now, if there’s an ‘offspring�� growing in a woman’s uterus, what <em>kind of</em> offspring do you think it is?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I guess it would be a human offspring. But that doesn’t mean it’s a human being. An acorn is not an oak.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“What is it, then?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“It’s a seed.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right. What <em>kind</em> of seed?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“An oak seed.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right. An acorn is an oak in the seed stage, and a full-grown tree is an oak in a mature stage. But they’re both oaks, right?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“But the unborn is just a zygote, or a fetus, or whatever.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right, but what <em>kind</em> of zygote, or fetus, or whatever?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Human?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Exactly. So it looks like we know a lot about what’s growing inside a pregnant woman’s uterus, don’t we? It’s not merely her <em>tissue</em>, but her human offspring. Someone <em>else</em>—an unborn human being—is in there at varying stages of development. So now that we’ve solved that mystery, let me take this a step further. Do you think the government should be allowed to protect your offspring when the child is <em>outside</em> of your body but not when he’s <em>inside</em> your body?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Yes, I do.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Tell me, why should the government be allowed to protect your offspring on the <em>outside</em> of your body?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Because children are valuable.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right, I agree. But that creates a problem for you now, doesn’t it?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“How so?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well if your children are valuable outside your body—say, right after they’re born—why aren’t those same children valuable just a couple of inches away, hidden inside your body? Why does the <em>location</em> of your child make any difference to the <em>value</em> of your child?”</p>

<p>You see how this works. Of course, those who have strong pro-abortion convictions are not likely to change their minds immediately, but your tactical questions have forced them to think about the facts that really matter instead of parrying with rhetoric that simply obscures the real issue.</p>

<p>At this point, you’re going to encounter another dodge. Since you’ve clearly established that abortion kills an actual human being (the second premise of our argument), the only recourse the pro-choice person has is to modify his commitment to the first premise of our moral logic: It’s wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being.</p>

<p>Here’s the common counter: It’s not really wrong to kill a human <em>being</em>. It’s only wrong to kill a human <em>person</em>, and the unborn are not real persons, only <em>potential</em> persons.</p>

<h3>The “Personhood” Shell Game</h3>

<p>At this point, you <em>must</em>, without exception, ask this question: “What’s the difference?” Ask what the precise differences are between a disposable human being and a valuable human person. Point out that it’s absolutely essential they answer your question and clarify the distinction they’ve imposed. Here’s why.</p>

<p>Those who offer this personhood qualifier have divided the human race into two distinct categories—human persons and human non-persons. Those in the first group have full protection of the law. Those in the second group, on the other hand, can be killed with impunity for virtually any reason, oftentimes at government expense. Considering the grave consequences of this divide, those who split humanity in this way must be absolutely clear on which human beings are on which side of that line.</p>

<p>Some may answer by offering a list of attributes they think are necessary to qualify a human being as valuable—certain characteristics or capabilities that distinguish him from an expendable human non-person. These lists vary in content, of course, with different people championing different criteria.</p>

<p>At this point, other questions are necessary: Where did you get the list? Who gets to decide which humans qualify and which do not? Does everyone get to make up his own list of qualities needed to transform a mere human into a valuable person? What about lists that exclude Blacks, or Jews, or Muslim Serbs, or gypsies, or the mentally defective, or gays—all examples of “human non-persons” of the past? What makes one person’s list “better” than any other?</p>

<p>You see my point. The “personhood” disqualifier has a dark past. It is nothing more than a crafty shell game, legal legerdemain meant to disqualify some bona fide members of the human family from being protected members of the human community. It’s a convenient scheme for some to stigmatize others when it’s in their interest to disenfranchise them.</p>

<p>This ruse has been tried before, and history is strewn with the wreckage—from the Dred Scott decision of 1857 declaring black slaves chattel property to the “Final Solution,” when the Third Reich decreed that millions of humans had no inherent right to live and were eliminated as <em>lebensunwertes leben</em>—“life unworthy of life.”</p>

<h3>S.L.E.D.</h3>

<p>The characteristics disqualifying the personhood of the unborn usually fall in one of four categories: <em>size</em> or physical appearance (the unborn doesn’t look like a person), <em>level</em> of development (the unborn lacks the abilities real persons have), <em>environment</em> (the unborn isn’t located in the same place as real persons),<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title="">[ix]</a> or <em>degree of dependency</em> (the unborn is not “viable,” i.e., it’s too physically dependent on others to be a person).</p>

<p>This list of distinctions, commonly known as the “S.L.E.D.” test,<a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title="">[x]</a> is riddled with difficulties since each qualifier ends up disqualifying clear-case examples of valuable human beings.</p>

<p>It turns out there is no meaningful moral difference between a human being and a human person. All attempts to make this distinction end in disaster. Your probing questions press that point.</p>

<h3>One Final Question</h3>

<p>Here is your parting salvo. Ask, “Were you ever an unborn child?” It doesn’t seem to make sense to say anyone was once a sperm or an egg because neither by itself is a human being. Does it make sense, though, to talk about the way we were <em>before</em> we were born?</p>

<p>“Did you turn in your mother’s womb, or kick when you were startled by a loud noise? Did you suck your thumb? Were those your experiences or someone else’s? If you were once the unborn child your mother carried, then you must accept an undeniable truth: Killing that child through abortion would have killed you. Not a potential you. Not a possible you. Not a future you. Abortion would have killed <em>you</em>.”</p>

<p>And so the logic stands. You have shown:</p>

<ul>
	<li>The unborn is a living being, separate from her mother.  </li>
	<li>The kind of being she happens to be is human.  </li>
	<li>Humans are valuable in themselves and not for what they can do, for what they can be, or for what they can give to others.  </li>
	<li>Abortion takes the life of a valuable, innocent, human being without proper justification. Therefore, abortion is terribly wrong.  </li>
</ul>

<p>And you did it all with questions.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="edn1">
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="">[i]</a> By the way, the points offered in this piece have been used effectively by pro-lifers in school debates, Facebook and blog posts, articles, etc. Get more resources by searching for “abortion” at str.org.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn2">
<p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title="">[ii]</a> In the last two editions of <em>Solid Ground</em> I applied this approach to the problem of evil and to atheism. See “<a href="/w/street-tactics-part-1">Street Tactics – Part 1</a>” and “<a href="/w/street-tactics-part-2">Street Tactics – Part 2</a>.”</p>
</div>

<div id="edn3">
<p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title="">[iii]</a> Some might say the next question is “Why?” If they do, remind them their back is turned, then ask, “Isn’t there a more important question to ask <em>first</em>?”</p>
</div>

<div id="edn4">
<p><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title="">[iv]</a> I suggest that you memorize this statement.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn5">
<p><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title="">[v]</a> Memorize this one, too.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn6">
<p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title="">[vi]</a> This dialogue is adapted from Gregory Koukl, <a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk113.htm"><em>Precious Unborn Human Persons</em></a>, available at str.org.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn7">
<p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title="">[vii]</a> I use the phrase “moral logic” because this is a logically valid syllogism with moral terms in both a premise and the conclusion.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn8">
<p><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title="">[viii]</a> Notice how, as a tactical concern, I try to agree as often as I can with legitimate points.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn9">
<p><a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title="">[ix]</a> This qualifier is implicit in abortion laws that distinguish between humans <em>in</em> the womb and those <em>outside</em> the womb.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn10">
<p><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title="">[x]</a> The S.L.E.D. Test was first introduced by Stephen Schwarz in the book <em>The Moral Question of Abortion</em>.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

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


title: What Do You Mean by Evil?
topic: Philosophy
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 06/25/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-do-you-mean-by-evil-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It was standing room only as people lined the back of the packed room. Students were even sitting in the aisles. This was the scene during one of the three talks I gave at Hume Lake Christian Camps last year.</p>

<p>I spoke to more than 300 students on that Wednesday morning, as they filled Memorial Chapel seeking an answer to one of the most difficult questions a Christian is faced with: What about evil and suffering? My first talk that morning was on the problem of evil.</p>

<p>There’s a reason why we all wrestle with this issue at one time or another. It’s because everyone experiences evil to some extent, and certainly everyone experiences suffering at some point in life. Keep that in mind for a minute.</p>

<p>The so-called “problem” is usually presented as three premises followed by a conclusion. Its intent is to show an internal contradiction between the nature of God and the story of reality. Also known as “the rock of atheism,” the problem of evil argument goes like this:</p>

<p>An omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate evil. An omnipotent God would be able to eliminate evil. But evil exists. Therefore, God is either too sinister to care about people or too weak to oppose evil. God most probably does not exist at all.</p>

<p>To the group, I wanted to make two simple points clear, and I’d like to do the same with you. First, I’m approaching this not as a trained apologist or theologian. I’m approaching it as a human being who lives in the same world as you. I have to answer this problem for myself! The reason I asked you to keep the thought that we all wrestle with evil and suffering in your mind for a minute is my second simple point: The problem of evil is a human problem. It’s not just for the theist to answer—everyone has to answer it. Even the atheist.</p>

<p>I’d take it a step further and say that the atheist who gets rid of God with this objection doesn’t actually solve the problem. He merely eliminates one of the possible solutions. You see, he still has to answer the question, “What do I make of all this evil?”</p>

<p>Since we all share the problem, the real issue here is figuring out who has the best answer. I think the Christian theist does, and I’ll share with you one of the many reasons why. In fact, I think as we explore this issue we’ll see that the problem itself hints at the solution.</p>

<p>The first thing we have to do is to define evil. We all agree that evil exists, so it has to be “something.” But is it “some thing”? There’s a difference. Evil is not a thing, in that it has parts or is made of matter. It’s not stuff. I can’t purchase a half-pound of evil at the deli counter. This is important, because if it’s not “some thing,” then God didn’t create it.</p>

<p>For the students at Hume Lake, I explained it like this. We all agree that the problem is real. There is evil in the world. Evil is something, but it’s something like a donut hole is something. It’s actually defined by what it’s not. A donut hole is the absence of donut; evil is the absence of good. Evil is the privation of good. It’s the falling short of goodness.</p>

<p>Let’s take it a step further. If evil is the absence of good, then we have to agree that there is also good. If we are saying there’s such a thing as good, then there has to be a standard by which we are judging good and evil. Evil is the departure from a standard of good.</p>

<p>Have you ever asked yourself what’s necessary for there to be evil in the first place? This is actually a profound question, because if evil is something (it exists), it leads to two conclusions: relativism is false, and so, too, is atheism.</p>

<p>Both systems of belief (relativism and atheism) say moral truths aren’t real and there’s no objective ethical standard. In order to be a consistent relativist or atheist, one has to say that morality is either an invented social construct, a matter of personal preference, or an illusion. Famous atheist Richard Dawkins proved&nbsp;this point when <a href="https://www.amazon.com/River-Out-Eden-Darwinian-Science/dp/0465069908/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=river+out+of+eden&amp;qid=1593047864&amp;sr=8-1">he wrote</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[In a] universe of electrons and selfish genes…some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>On relativism’s view, the problem of evil evaporates, and the atheist proves his position false by even raising the objection of it. This is why the problem itself hints at the solution.</p>

<p>C.S. Lewis does well <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=mere+christianity&amp;qid=1593048047&amp;sr=8-1">explaining this</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of <em>just</em> and <em>unjust</em>? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You see, by raising the objection, one must acknowledge not only the existence of evil, but also the existence of goodness and an objective standard by which to distinguish good from evil. They presume God’s existence before they can even begin to argue that God doesn’t exist.</p>

<p>So the next time someone raises the problem of evil, ask them, “What do you mean by evil? Is it something?”</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-do-you-mean-by-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%2Fwhat-do-you-mean-by-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%2Fwhat-do-you-mean-by-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: Abortion Is Not a Reproductive Right
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/20/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/abortion-is-not-a-reproductive-right
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Abortion-choice advocates routinely refer to abortion as a reproductive right. That’s misleading. Abortion isn’t about reproduction. It <em>can’t</em> be about reproduction. The word “reproduction” is formed from the combination of “re” (again) + “produce” (to make). It means to produce again, make a copy, or—in our context—simply to create another human being.</p>

<p>Abortion, however, refers to just the opposite, even if you grant the euphemistic definition usually offered: “the termination of a pregnancy.” To terminate is almost <em>opposite</em> of producing something. That’s one reason why it doesn’t make sense to classify abortion as a reproductive right.</p>

<p>In every elective abortion, a couple already has made a body. Two human beings have produced another human being by re-producing. Though a couple <em>does</em> have a reproductive right, it is only during the time that <em>precedes</em> the act of reproduction. Any action taken upon the product of reproduction is no longer about reproduction.</p>

<p>According to the law of biogenesis, living things reproduce other living things. Specifically, species reproduce their own kind at the moment of conception. Dogs beget dogs, birds beget birds, and humans beget humans. It is scientifically impossible for two humans to reproduce something that is not a human but then later becomes one. The immediate product of human reproduction is another human being, even by the admission of abortion-choice advocates.</p>

<p>Abortion, then, is not a reproductive right since reproduction has already taken place. The couple has produced a new human being. Reproduction is complete. They still have a reproductive right, but only as it pertains to producing an<em> additional </em>human being, if they choose. That right doesn’t refer to their <em>newly produced</em> human being.</p>

<p>An important transition occurs at the moment of conception. One right ends and two rights begin. The couple’s right to reproduce (or not reproduce) ends because they’ve exercised that right. Two new rights begin: parental rights and human rights. Now that the couple has reproduced another human, they are parents. Parents, by definition, have parental rights as well as parental responsibilities. In addition, the new child—unmistakably a human being—has human rights.</p>

<p>Therefore, abortion is not a reproductive right. Abortion is an action taken by one or more parents on their offspring. To refer to the parents’ action on their existing child as a reproductive right is incorrect based on what we know about reproduction. Any action taken towards their existing child is a <em>parental</em> action, not a <em>reproductive</em> one. Abortion, then, is a parental act, and its effect is on the <em>existing</em> child, not a <em>potential </em>child.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabortion-is-not-a-reproductive-right" 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%2Fabortion-is-not-a-reproductive-right" 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%2Fabortion-is-not-a-reproductive-right" 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: Learn How to Interpret the Bible through My 10-Part Video Series
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/08/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/learn-how-to-interpret-the-bible-through-my-10-part-video-series
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Do you have a system of biblical interpretation? The reality is, <em>everyone</em> has a system of biblical interpretation. The only question is whether your system is a good one or a bad one. Does it <em>help</em> or <em>hinder</em> your ability to understand what <a href="/w/putting-words-in-god-s-mouth" rel="noopener" target="_blank">God is saying</a> in Scripture?</p>

<p>I created a 10-part video series on hermeneutics, a fancy term for the study of interpreting a written text. For Christians, the most important book to interpret correctly is the Bible. After all, <a href="/w/you-can-t-obey-god-unless-you-know-what-he-said" rel="noopener" target="_blank">you can’t obey God unless you know what He said</a>. Take some time to watch these 30-minute videos (for free) where I unpack basic principles of interpretation and apply them to various passages in the Bible.</p>

<p>You can find the entire series <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoCtBcnaHo6P8TbPslGAKLrUkzgI8Ei_D" rel="noopener" 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%2Flearn-how-to-interpret-the-bible-through-my-10-part-video-series" 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%2Flearn-how-to-interpret-the-bible-through-my-10-part-video-series" 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%2Flearn-how-to-interpret-the-bible-through-my-10-part-video-series" 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 “All of God and None of Me” Biblical Guidance for Sharing Christ?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/02/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-all-of-god-and-none-of-me-biblical-guidance-for-sharing-christ-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>At times, I get asked what role the Holy Spirit plays when using a “system” like the tactical game plan. It’s all so mechanistic and man-centered, some seem to think. Too much dependence on human effort for them. Where’s room for the Spirit?</p>

<p>It’s a fair question, but I think it’s based on a misunderstanding. The fact is, I don’t have to worry about “leaving room for the Spirit” when engaging others for Christ. Let me tell you why.</p>

<p>First, the misunderstanding. Some have a sense there’s a felt leading, or a guiding, or a prompting by the Spirit that directs the Christian along a certain course when he’s involved in spiritual service. The Spirit “speaks,” and they follow.</p>

<p>On this view, we intuit where we think the Spirit is telling us to go, and then we move in that direction, giving Him the credit for the results produced as we follow. “All of God and none of me,” the slogan goes.</p>

<p>Scripture does not teach this, though, and it does not seem to be the way the early Christians operated, either. As I read through Acts, for example, I get no sense the disciples are tilting their ears towards Heaven, listening for whispers while emptying themselves of every bit of self effort, “getting out of the way” so the Spirit can work.</p>

<p>Once in a rare while in Scripture a supernatural intervention provides new direction, but not usually. The disciples knew their job—broadly, the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19–20)—and they did their job using the unique gifts the Spirit had given them.</p>

<p>That’s why Peter admonishes, “As each one has received a special gift, <em>employ it</em> in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God…so that in all things God may be glorified…” (1 Pet. 4:10­–11). Simply put, God gives gifts, then He expects us to employ them responsibly.</p>

<p>Please don’t misunderstand. It’s always right to give God the glory for every good thing that happens in our lives—in ministry or otherwise—since “every good thing given and every perfect gift” is from Him (Jas. 1:17). “Apart from Him we can do nothing” of spiritual substance (Jn. 15:5).</p>

<p>That’s not the issue. The question, rather, is about the active role of the Spirit working vs. our active role in being used. Does God do everything and we contribute nothing? If so, any human machination—including the tactical approach—would be fleshly and all “techniques” called into doubt.</p>

<p>That was not the biblical way for Jesus’ disciples, though. Neither is it the way for us. Quite the contrary. Yes, God is going to work, but He expects us to work, too—and work hard.</p>

<p>Paul talks of anticipating “fruitful <em>labor</em>” when released from prison (Phil. 1:22). He says we all “<em>labor</em> and strive” for godliness, having fixed our hope on the living God (1 Tim. 4:8–10). “For this purpose also I <em>labor</em>,” he says regarding proclaiming Christ, “striving according to His power, which mightily works within me” (Col. 1:29). Jesus talks about disciples “<em>laboring</em>” in different ways in John 4:38.</p>

<p>Simply put, we work and God acts. Not too complicated. Hardly an “all of God and none of me” proposition. In a certain sense, of course, we <em>are</em> empty <em>apart</em> from Him. But <em>in</em> Him we are full of all sorts of capabilities because of our gifting in the Spirit.</p>

<p>Let me put it the most practical way I know. <em>When it comes to the role of the Holy Spirit vs. our role in kingdom work, the formula is 100% God and 100% man</em>. God is 100% responsible for His side of the equation—and I guarantee He will fulfill it—and we are 100% responsible for ours.</p>

<p>For me as Christ’s ambassador, for example, my job is to communicate the truth as clearly, as faithfully, as graciously, and as persuasively as possible. I am 100% responsible for that. God does everything else since only He alone can cause the increase.</p>

<p>When I sit down to write, I pray for God’s help, then I go to work. When I stand up before an audience, I trust God for the gifts He’s given me, then I go to work. My <em>attitude</em> is one of dependence, and my <em>posture</em> is one of abiding, but my <em>focus</em> is on the task at hand, not on the Spirit.</p>

<p>When I do that, sometimes things flow effortlessly. Other times, though, I labor hard at my task. In all cases, God is at work within me “both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Phi. 2:13).</p>

<p>I’m convinced, by the way, that the tactical game plan itself is a work of the Holy Spirit—not dictated or “inspired” in a biblical sense, of course, but rather a result of the Holy Spirit working through the gifts He has entrusted to me.</p>

<p>So, no, I do not worry about the Spirit’s role. He’s good for it. I trust Him, then I focus on laboring at my own unique task—the one He’s given me and gifted me for.</p>

<p>When it comes to evangelism, the tactical game plan is a terrific means God uses to help. And it will help you, too, as you trust Him for the results.</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-all-of-god-and-none-of-me-biblical-guidance-for-sharing-christ-" 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-all-of-god-and-none-of-me-biblical-guidance-for-sharing-christ-" 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-all-of-god-and-none-of-me-biblical-guidance-for-sharing-christ-" 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 Roadmap for Assessing Articles
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/03/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-roadmap-for-assessing-articles
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Some Christians say their faith <em>supports</em> abortion. That’s what one author recently wrote. Because I’m a Christian and a proponent of the pro-life view, I was curious about her case.</p>

<p>After reading the article, though, I felt confused. I didn’t have a handle on her reasoning. The article felt hollow. Then, it dawned on me. There was nothing there. She didn’t provide a defense for her view. The article <em>felt</em> hollow because it <em>was</em> hollow—devoid of substantive reasoning.</p>

<p>I want to provide you with the steps I took to assess this article so you might have a plan to assess articles you come across, especially ones that challenge your religious convictions.</p>

<p>In the article, “<a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qjd3b7/the-argument-for-abortion-as-a-religious-right">The Argument for Abortion as a Religious Right</a>,” the author claims the right to an abortion is protected by the freedom to exercise religion, and that Christianity “allows—and sometimes even requires—abortion.” Is that true? Or is the author mistaken? These three steps are a roadmap to help you assess an article.</p>

<p><strong>First, slow down</strong>. When you first read the article, it can feel overwhelming. The author is a professional. The article is long and has been published, which gives it an aura of credibility. In this example, the author cites Christian, Muslim, and Jewish adherents to make her case. The article seems credible and compelling. You might wonder how you could doubt its conclusion. Maybe they’re right.</p>

<p>When you’re discouraged and the odds don’t seem in your favor, this is precisely the time to slow down. Take a deep breath. Don’t panic. Instead, set apart some time to think carefully about the article. They might be right, but maybe they’re wrong. You won’t find out by making a snap judgment. Instead, plan to walk slowly through the next two steps.</p>

<p><strong>Second, determine the claim.</strong> It can be easy to get baffled by fancy writing or distracted by the article’s length. It’s critical to sort through all the clever rhetoric and get to the heart of the matter. What is the author’s claim? What’s the main idea they are trying to convince the reader to believe?</p>

<p>In this article, the author asserts abortion is a religious right. She specifically claims Christianity allows for—even requires—abortion. Bold claim, indeed, but now that we know the author’s claim, we can move on to the final step.</p>

<p><strong>Third, look for evidence. </strong>Here’s where the rubber meets the road. Does the author deliver on their claim? Do they provide reasons for their view, or are they merely asserting their opinion? After all, it’s easy to offer an unsubstantiated claim. It’s more difficult, though, to provide evidence for your view. Without reasons, you don’t have to take the article seriously.</p>

<p>What evidence, then, did the author provide that the Christian faith “allows for—even requires—abortion?” None. The author didn’t make a biblical case or provide any moral reasoning. That’s why it felt hollow.</p>

<p>Rather, the author made a misleading move—either intentionally or unintentionally. To persuade the reader, she cited a Christian who holds the view that Christianity supports abortion. Reverend Katey Zeh, an ordained Baptist minister, is quoted in the article as saying, “There’s a lot of folks who are pro-choice or support reproductive dignity and freedom because of their faith and not in spite of it.” That’s not evidence that Christianity supports abortion, but rather it’s evidence there are Christians who support abortion. Those are very different things.</p>

<p>Reverend Zeh admits that even though the Bible “does not mention abortion specifically, popular attitudes towards abortion in Christianity have changed with the ages.” Again, that there might be pro-choice Christians is noteworthy. The real question, though, is <em>why</em> are they pro-choice? What about their religious convictions drives them to support abortion?</p>

<p>Without an answer to that question, the author’s logic is mistaken. The fact that someone is Christian and holds a certain view does not mean that view is consistent with Christianity. If that were true, then someone could claim Christianity is racist by merely citing a Christian who is racist.</p>

<p>It’s also worth noting that Christian teaching vigorously rejects her claim. It’s widely understood that Scripture teaches it’s wrong to kill innocent human beings, and it’s scientifically established that the unborn is a human being. Therefore, Christianity teaches that abortion is wrong. Not only is there no compelling evidence <em>for</em> the author’s claim, there is evidence <em>against</em> it.</p>

<p>After going through these three steps, I was able to see the article didn’t stand up to scrutiny. That’s why I’d encourage you to keep these steps in mind when you come across an article. It will help you to make sense of what you’re reading and possibly see the error in the author’s thinking.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-roadmap-for-assessing-articles" 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-roadmap-for-assessing-articles" 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-roadmap-for-assessing-articles" 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: Contradictory Religions Can’t All Be True
topic: Philosophy
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 05/27/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/religions-can-t-all-be-true
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Recently, a co-worker raised an issue that stumps a lot of Christians. “I look at religions as paths up the mountain of truth,” she said. “They all lead to God, just in different ways.”</p>

<p>I silently prayed, then responded with a question. “What do you mean, ‘All religions lead to God, just in different ways’?” I asked.</p>

<p>“It’s like climbing a mountain,” she explained. “There are many trails up, but they all lead to the same end.” Then she gave examples—a Jewish trail, an Islamic trail, a Christian trail, etc.</p>

<p>“Every hiker starts on what he thinks is the correct path,” she continued. “Some of the paths even intersect at times. But ultimately, each one ends at the top of the peak.”</p>

<p>My friend’s philosophy—the idea that all religions are legitimate roads to God with no single correct or true path—is a popular notion you’ve heard before. It’s called “religious pluralism,” and it can be hard to respond to. Here’s how I engaged my co-worker.</p>

<p>First, I found common ground. I agreed that sometimes world religions do have similarities and “cross paths.” Islam, Christianity, and Judaism share similar doctrines. Each teaches there’s one, personal God who is holy, all-powerful, and just. They also teach that we are sinful and need salvation, which includes an eternal afterlife.</p>

<p>Then I asked another question: “What about the differences?”</p>

<p>There’s a reason I asked this question. The fact is, the religions my friend mentioned differ drastically in important ways. Steven Turner said it best in his <em>Modern Thinkers Creed</em>: “We believe that all religions are basically the same…. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.”</p>

<p>Turner’s point? It’s the differences that matter, not the similarities.</p>

<p>I admitted to my friend that sometimes we do see similarities among world religions, especially the main monotheistic ones—Islam, Judaism and Christianity. But being similar and being equally true are entirely different things.</p>

<p>The most significant difference, I pointed out, is Jesus Christ—who He is and what He did. According to Christianity, Jesus is the God-man who was crucified and rose from the dead. On this claim, the Christian faith stands or falls. Paul was clear on this when he wrote in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+15%3A12-19&amp;version=NASB">1 Corinthians 15</a>, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless.” He then adds that Christians are to be pitied above all men if Jesus is still in the grave.</p>

<p>Judaism and Islam <em>contradict</em> Christianity here, I pointed out, since they deny Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead. If two major religions deny the central tenet of another major religion, then they can’t all be true. Religious pluralism must be false.</p>

<p>“Jesus <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A6&amp;version=NASB">said</a>, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me,’” I told her. The pluralist position fails because Jesus cannot <em>be </em>the only way and <em>not be</em> the only way at the same time. He couldn’t have <em>been</em> raised and <em>not </em>raised. He couldn’t <em>be</em> God and <em>not be</em> God. Since these religions teach contradictory things, I concluded, they cannot all be true.</p>

<p>“I’ve never thought about it that way,” she admitted. Then we went back to our work.</p>

<p>Notice I didn’t feel pressured to share the gospel with her just then. I’d given her enough to think about for the moment. I didn’t even offer a defense for the Christian worldview. I simply put a stone in her shoe; I gave her something to think about. The next time she thinks about religious pluralism, that stone will annoy her in a good way. Mine was a simple approach you can use, too.</p>
</div>

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


title: How to Avoid Falling for Fake News
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 07/15/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-avoid-falling-for-fake-news
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It used to be a lot easier to tell truth from error—at least when it came to news media. Tabloids—like Weekly World News and the National Enquirer—with sensational headlines and outlandish articles weren’t taken seriously. “Hilary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby” wasn’t fooling anyone. The line between <em>fake</em> news and <em>real</em> news was a lot clearer. But something changed.</p>

<p>Over time, the primary objective of journalism subtly shifted from <em>informing</em> to <em>entertaining</em>. News sources—like CNN, The New York Times, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal—rely on big audiences because big audiences bring in big advertising dollars. In <em>The Power of Critical Thinking</em>, philosophers Chris MacDonald and Lewis Vaughn write:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>After all, news outlets—whether print, electronic, or online—are businesses with profit margins to maintain, salaries to pay, and shareholders to please. A news organization makes most of its money not from selling its product (news) through subscriptions or direct sales but from selling opportunities for other companies to advertise to the news outlet’s audience.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Consequently, news reports may be skewed—deliberately or not—to satisfy their advertisers, their audience, or their shareholders. Reporters may put opinions before facts. They may play up only one aspect of the story while downplaying the rest. And news that might offend audiences may be ignored altogether.</p>

<p>Given the current state of news reporting, how do we decipher truth from falsehood? I think some critical thinking will help.</p>

<p>Here are three steps we can take to avoid being fooled by fake news.</p>

<p><strong>1.&nbsp;</strong><strong>Beware of bias.</strong></p>

<p><em>Everyone</em> comes to a news report with a set of prior beliefs or opinions. Some of those beliefs are grounded in sufficient reasons; others aren’t. Incidentally, many of us hold beliefs we absorbed from the culture or inherited from our family without sufficient evidence. These prior beliefs cause us to form judgments or opinions <em>before</em> looking at the facts. And if we’re not careful, these biases can create blind spots in our thinking.</p>

<p>Furthermore, we all have a particular view of the world—a worldview. Our worldview shapes our beliefs about how the world <em>is</em> and how it <em>ought to be</em>. This can also affect how we filter news reports—for good or for ill. If our worldview is accurate—matching reality—then it may help us see with more clarity. However, if our worldview is mistaken, it may blind us to the truth.</p>

<p>So, how do we deal with our bias? The <em>first step</em> is acknowledging that you have one. Here are some questions to help you better understand your own biases:</p>

<ul>
	<li>What are my prior beliefs before reading (watching) the news report?</li>
	<li>Do I want this news report to be true (or false) so my prior beliefs will be vindicated?</li>
	<li>How would I feel if the facts of this news report contradicted my prior beliefs?</li>
	<li>Am I willing to change my prior beliefs if good evidence is provided?</li>
	<li>Is the news report attempting to play toward a particular narrative?</li>
</ul>

<p>Our biases have the power to trick us into believing fake news. For many people, it’s easier to shoehorn inconvenient facts into our preconceived ideas rather than change our beliefs. But when we fail to account for our biases, we fool ourselves.</p>

<p><strong>2.&nbsp;</strong><strong>Read with reasonable skepticism.</strong></p>

<p>Most news reports go beyond merely giving an accurate assessment of events. That’s why I have a rule: <em>Read with reasonable skepticism.</em></p>

<p>There are two extremes to avoid: extreme gullibility and extreme skepticism. On the one hand, when we read (or watch) something we <em>agree</em> with, we may uncritically accept it as true. For instance, “CNN says it. I believe it. That&nbsp;settles it.” On the other hand, when we read (or watch) something we <em>disagree</em> with, we may universally reject it as false. For instance, “CNN is fake news and cannot ever be trusted.” Both approaches are bad.</p>

<p>Don’t uncritically believe everything you read. But don’t uncritically doubt everything, either. Rather, ask yourself what main claims (or ideas) are being presented, and then look for the evidence of those claims.</p>

<p>Here are some questions to help you think critically about the substance of a news report:</p>

<ul>
	<li>What specific claims are being presented?</li>
	<li>What are the reasons (or facts) being used to support the claims?</li>
	<li>Are they reporting <em>all</em> the facts or only <em>selected</em> facts?</li>
	<li>Does the news report contain emotional appeals or reporter opinions?</li>
	<li>What are the sources (e.g. peer-reviewed studies, expert testimony)?</li>
</ul>

<p>Remember, it’s only after you have identified the claims and the reasons for those claims that you can properly evaluate whether or not to believe the claims.</p>

<p><strong>3.&nbsp;</strong><strong>Dig for truth.</strong></p>

<p>We ought to be concerned with truth—<em>wherever it leads.</em> Sadly, many people are more concerned with being right than believing right things. Sometimes the truth can be uncomfortable because it bucks up against our tightly held beliefs. Winston Churchill famously said, “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.”</p>

<p>So, what can we do to avoid falling for fake news? Simply put, dig for truth.</p>

<p>This is easier said than done. It may require reading multiple news sources—yes, even the ones you tend to disagree with. You may need to verify a study being cited or fact-check an expert witness. This all takes work, but the payoff is worth it.</p>

<p>Proverbs 18:17 says, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” If we care about truth, we need to begin closely examining news media.</p>

<p>If&nbsp;you want to avoid being taken in by fake news, follow these three steps. First, don’t fool yourself. Do your best to identify the beliefs and assumptions that influence how you filter news media.</p>

<p>Second, don’t be fooled by news outlets. Unfortunately, news is no longer about merely presenting all the facts. Misleading and unsubstantiated claims abound. As a critical thinker, it’s your job to identify those claims so you’re not taken in by them.</p>

<p>Third, follow truth wherever it leads. Be willing to change your mind. Rather than bending reality to fit our beliefs, we must fight with all our strength to bend our beliefs to fit what is 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%2Fhow-to-avoid-falling-for-fake-news" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-avoid-falling-for-fake-news" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-avoid-falling-for-fake-news" 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: Seven Apologetics Books Every Teen Should Read
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/19/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/seven-apologetics-books-every-teen-should-read
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I try not to dwell on disappointments. But there is one disappointment I think about a lot. In fact, it drives my motivation for ministry.</p>

<p>My great regret: <em>I didn’t discover apologetics until I was in my early twenties.</em></p>

<p>I can’t change my past, but I can do my best to make sure this doesn’t happen to others. My mission in ministry is to expose students to the rich intellectual resources Christianity has to offer. Incidentally, there are a lot of really good apologetics works. My bookshelves are lined with them. Unfortunately, most of these works are not written for a younger audience.</p>

<p>I often get asked about which apologetics books I recommend <em>for students</em>. Here is the list I normally offer. Rather than overwhelm you with options, I’ve selected <em>one</em> book for each of the <em>seven</em> essential topics below.</p>

<ol>
	<li><strong>Truth Book</strong><br>
	<br>
	One of the biggest challenges—in scope, not substance—facing young people is the challenge of relativism and religious pluralism. Students need to be able to identify and refute these flawed philosophies. That’s why I always recommend Paul Copan’s book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/True-You-But-Not-Overcoming/dp/0764206508/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=">True for You But Not for Me</a></em>. Copan uses short, easy-to-follow chapters to answer over 30 objections to the Christian faith.<br>
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li><strong>God Book</strong><br>
	<br>
	Many Christian students believe God exists but are unable to give good reasons why. This is where William Lane Craig’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Guard-Defending-Faith-Reason-Precision/dp/1434764885/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=">On Guard</a></em> comes to the rescue. Craig lays out three philosophical arguments for the existence of God in a manner accessible to students. He also addresses objections against each argument and tackles the problem of evil. An added benefit of this recommendation is that it exposes students to one of the greatest living Christian philosophers.<br>
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li><strong>Bible Book</strong><br>
	<br>
	The church does a good job teaching stories from the Bible. But we haven’t done a good job showing why we should trust the Bible <em>in the first place</em>. If you want your students to understand why we should trust the Bible, I recommend J. Warner Wallace’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates-dp-1434704696/dp/1434704696/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&amp;me=&amp;qid=1589295451">Cold-Case Christianity</a></em>. Wallace applies his sharp detective mind to the Gospels to show they can be trusted.<br>
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li><strong>Resurrection Book</strong><br>
	<br>
	The bodily resurrection of Jesus is central to Christianity. If Jesus has <em>not</em> been raised, our faith is futile. But most students think this is something we have to take on <em>blind</em> faith. In reality, we have good reasons to believe Jesus rose from the dead. A great book for students on the resurrection is Lee Strobel’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308/ref=dp_ob_title_bk">The Case for Christ</a></em>.<br>
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li><strong>Science Book</strong><br>
	<br>
	It never fails. In every Q&amp;A session with students, someone asks a science-related question. Many young people are under the impression that science and faith are incompatible. That’s why we need to introduce students to <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Science-Explain-Everything-John-Lennox/dp/1784984116/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=">Can Science Explain Everything?</a></em> by John Lennox. In this short book, the Oxford mathematician dispels common misconceptions about science and Christianity and reveals how they work together.<br>
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li><strong>Worldview Book</strong><br>
	<br>
	Everyone has a worldview—a set of ideas about the world. And these ideas have consequences for how we live and interact in the culture. Many students struggle to navigate contemporary challenges to their Christian faith and values. In <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Students-Guide-Culture-John-Stonestreet/dp/0830778772/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1589295741&amp;sr=1-2">A Student’s Guide to Culture</a></em>, John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle give students the tools to live differently and be a light in a culture that sometimes feels overwhelming.<br>
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li><strong>Conversation Book</strong><br>
	<br>
	The most important book—besides the Bible—on my shelf is <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Tactics-10th-Anniversary-Discussing-Convictions/dp/0310101468/ref=sr_1_1?crid=31YOZRM2BKFW6&amp;dchild=1&amp;keywords=tactics+koukl&amp;qid=1589296156&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=tactics%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C145&amp;sr=1-1">Tactics</a></em> by Greg Koukl. This book helps students take the <em>content</em> they have learned and move into the <em>conversation</em> with safety and confidence. Over and over, students tell me how the tactical game plan helped them share their convictions with friends and family.</li>
</ol>

<p>So, there you have it. These are the seven books I believe will expose students to good apologetics from great apologists. Happy reading!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fseven-apologetics-books-every-teen-should-read" 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%2Fseven-apologetics-books-every-teen-should-read" 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%2Fseven-apologetics-books-every-teen-should-read" 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: Jesus Tips the Balance of the Islamic Scale
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/16/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/jesus-tips-the-balance-of-the-islamic-scale
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In the movie<em> Avengers: Infinity War</em>, the supervillain, Thanos, <a href="https://youtu.be/Vx5prDjKAcw" rel="noopener" target="_blank">presents his “adopted” daughter with a double-ended blade</a>. Balancing it on his finger, he notes it’s “perfectly balanced, as all things should be.” Maybe Thanos’ vision for the universe is balanced, but when it comes to Allah’s judgement on your fate, you don’t want balance—you want the scales to tip in your favor. At least, that’s what Muslims want.</p>

<p>Islam has a merit-based system of salvation. Whether you enter into paradise or not is based on your works. Two angels follow you during your life. One angel tracks your good deeds and another tracks your bad deeds. At the final resurrection, all of your good and bad deeds are placed on a scale <a href="https://quran.com/21" rel="noopener" target="_blank">(surah 21:47</a>, <a href="https://quran.com/7" rel="noopener" target="_blank">7:8–9</a>). If your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds, you go to paradise. If your bad deeds outweigh your good deeds, you go to Hell. Although some Muslims tell me that additional factors can play a role in your destiny, they confirm that the Islamic system of salvation is based on individual merit.</p>

<p>The Christian Scriptures teach something similar. God is also going to judge each person according to their deeds. The arbitration is stricter, however. Christian theology teaches that you are disqualified from Heaven if you commit even a <em>single</em> crime. You could live a life that most people would characterize as good but still be guilty and deserve judgment. That means good people can’t go to Heaven. Only perfect people go to Heaven. With this system, no person on the planet would make the cut. That’s bad news.</p>

<p>The good news is that God loves the people He created and doesn’t want them to be banished from His presence. He offers a pardon for those who commit crimes against Him. The pardon works by substituting someone else to incur your punishment (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+2%3A24&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">1 Pet. 2:24</a>). Instead of paying for own your crimes, someone else does.</p>

<p>It’s no ordinary person who takes your place, though. It’s a divine person, Jesus. He lived a perfect life (even <a href="https://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/sinless_jesus.htm" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Islamic sources affirm</a>) on your behalf. Therefore, not only is your criminal record wiped clean, but His flawless behavior is credited to your “account.” When God judges your life, He bases His decision on the performance of the substitute. With all good deeds and no bad deeds, your record is perfect.</p>

<p>For the Muslim who is concerned about which way the balance scale will tip, this is great news. Jesus’ substitution in your place affects both sides of the scale. His death cancels all your bad behavior, eliminating the weight of your bad deeds. His perfect life weighs down the side that measures your good deeds. With no bad deeds on one side and all good deeds on the other, the scale of justice is tipped in your favor. You don’t have to wonder about your destiny. Jesus takes care of both sides of the ledger.</p>

<p>How can you receive this pardon? It requires a trade. Jesus takes your place. As your substitute, He incurs your punishment and provides you with a perfect record. In return, you turn over the ownership of your life to God. You’re no longer in charge. God directs your destiny.</p>

<p>To be clear, that’s not easy. It is good, though. After all, the God who directs your destiny is the One who knew you before He formed you in the womb (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+1%3A5&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jer. 1:5</a>). He cares for you. He wants the best for you. He loves you (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+3%3A16&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jn. 3:16</a>). He’s worthy of your trust.</p>

<p>There’s an additional bonus that comes with God’s offer. Since your pardon is based on the perfect life of Jesus, there’s no longer a need to produce good deeds to earn God’s favor. In Islam, angels record your deeds and Allah weighs them in the end. Muslims spend their lives pursuing good works and following the Five Pillars—required rituals intended to earn God’s favor. If you trust Jesus to stand in your place, however, you no longer need to produce good works to merit eternal life. You are free from the bondage of a life striving to earn God’s favor. You never could do it, anyway. Remember, God requires perfection.</p>

<p>Thankfully, if you trust Jesus to be your substitute, meeting the standard of perfection is possible. God will cancel your crimes and credit your account with Jesus’ record. That’s a promise that will tip the balance in your favor.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjesus-tips-the-balance-of-the-islamic-scale" 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%2Fjesus-tips-the-balance-of-the-islamic-scale" 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%2Fjesus-tips-the-balance-of-the-islamic-scale" 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: Jesus Makes Sure We “Stay Gold”
topic: Christian Living
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 07/22/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/jesus-makes-sure-we-stay-gold-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In one of my favorite books, <em>The Outsiders </em>by S.E. Hinton, young Johnny Cade lies dying from severe burns he received after saving a group of school children from a fire. He has a simple parting message for his dear friend, Ponyboy: “Stay gold.”</p>

<p><em>The Outsiders </em>is a story of friendship, loyalty, and struggle. The boys are divided by socioeconomic status—blue-collar “greasers” verses upper-class “socials.” Much of the story takes place in a rundown, abandoned church where Johnny and Ponyboy hide from authorities after a fight ends when a “social” is stabbed to death.</p>

<p>During their exile, Ponyboy reads to Johnny from Robert Frost’s “Nothing Gold Can Stay”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Nature’s first green is gold,<br>
Her hardest hue to hold.<br>
Her early leaf’s a flower;<br>
But only so an hour.<br>
Then leaf subsides to leaf.<br>
So Eden sank to grief,<br>
So dawn goes down to day.<br>
Nothing gold can stay.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Frost’s poem gets them thinking. “Nothing gold can stay.” Spring’s leaves fall in autumn. All good things must end. Their youth will fade, along with their innocence, which gets increasingly tarnished by sin.</p>

<p>Before he dies, Johnny urges Ponyboy to “stay gold.” Remain innocent. Don’t let the tragedies of life corrupt you.</p>

<p>That’s my encouragement to you, too. “Stay gold,” especially when your times are defined by darkness: sickness, social distancing, racial tensions, etc.</p>

<p>Life <em>is</em> hard. Count on it. “Eden sank to grief,” wrote Frost. Man is “born to trouble as surely as sparks fly upward,” Job lamented (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job+5%3A7&amp;version=NIV" id="" rel="" target="" title="">Job 5:7</a>). “In the world you will have tribulation,” <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16%3A33&amp;version=NKJV" id="" rel="" target="" title="">warned Jesus</a>.</p>

<p>Our lives will continually be troubled with trial and tribulation, but <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16%3A33&amp;version=NKJV">Jesus didn’t stop there</a>: “These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”</p>

<p>For Ponyboy and Johnny, this life was all they had. “Stay gold” meant work harder, be better, rise above the circumstances, pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps. For us, it means something entirely different.</p>

<p>Yes, we find ourselves in uncertain times, but we lean on someone much stronger than ourselves. We lean on Jesus. Jesus has overcome this world and so provides a peace that cuts through the tribulations we experience. Jesus’ peace is secured by a promise—the promise of future glory, guaranteed by His cross.</p>

<p>We’ve been purchased with a price, and there are no “returns” in the economy of God. Having been bought, in our most desperate times we look to Jesus for shelter in a world gone wrong. When we lean on Him and the promises of God, we’re able to rise above our current circumstances.</p>

<p>But there’s more. In Jesus we find our innocence again. Jesus makes sure we “stay gold.” <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+61%3A10&amp;version=NASB">Isaiah said it so well</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I will rejoice greatly in the Lord,<br>
My soul will exult in my God,<br>
For He has clothed me with garments of salvation,<br>
He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You and I are wrapped in Christ’s righteousness. Preserved in this fallen world for something more.</p>

<p>I’m not saying we aren’t affected by the world around us. We are. I’m not saying you and I won’t sin. We will. What I am saying is that when we find forgiveness in Jesus, we’re made innocent through the Innocent One.</p>

<p>Though the world may lose its luster as “dawn goes down to day,” we know there’s a new day coming. A better day. A day defined by God’s radiant glory. A day absent of viruses, and racism, and death, and degradation. With every moment, we draw closer to that day.</p>

<p>In the world, it’s true: All good things come to an end as innocence gives way to sin. But that’s not the end of <em>our</em> story. Our story ends in victory and total peace. Innocence restored. Gold, which never loses its shine. With these things in mind, we can have peace and be of good cheer because Jesus has overcome the world.</p>
</div>

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


title: You Can’t Obey God Unless You Know What He Said
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/05/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/you-can-t-obey-god-unless-you-know-what-he-said
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Bible says, “There is no God.” If that doesn’t sound right to you, it’s because I’ve cited Psalm 14:1 out of context and violated a basic, but critical, rule of interpretation. This example highlights why every believer should study how to interpret the Bible. Although most believers say they don’t have a system of biblical interpretation, the truth is that every believer <em>does </em>have a set of assumptions and questions they bring to the biblical text. The question is whether that system is good or bad. Does it <em>help</em> or <em>hinder</em> your ability to understand God’s Word?</p>

<p>This is an important question. Christians will read the Bible from today until the day they die and base their hopes, theology, and major life decisions on what it says. If you want to obey God, you need to understand what He said. That’s why it’s crucial to interpret it correctly.</p>

<p>There are three principles of biblical interpretation: context, history, and genre. Each one should prompt you to ask a question of the passage you’re reading.</p>

<p><strong>Flow of Thought:</strong> Here’s the first question: What is the author talking about in the surrounding text? This is a question about context. To get the answer, read the sentences—or even the paragraphs—before and after the passage. Once you discover how the author’s ideas connect with each other, it will help you hone in on the meaning of the passage you’re reading. In fact, you can’t be confident you know the meaning of a verse or passage unless you know its context.</p>

<p>If I told you, “I got a buck,” do I have a dollar or a deer? You don’t know because you don’t have any context. Suppose I tell you, “I just went hunting, I got a buck, and I’m bringing it back in my truck.” Now you have context. You know the word “buck” refers to a deer. But what if I told you, “I brought my wallet, I got a buck, and I can buy that candy bar for you.” With this different context, you know “buck” refers to a dollar. Notice, the <em>same</em> word (“buck”) has a <em>different</em> meaning when you change the context. The context determined one meaning and excluded the other.</p>

<p>The same principle applies when you read the Bible. You have to read the context of a passage to determine its meaning. If you don’t, you risk creating a context vacuum that’s quickly filled with your own life situation. The circumstances of your life become the new context for the Bible passage, and that creates a new meaning that was never intended by the biblical author.</p>

<p><strong>Historical Setting: </strong>Here’s the second question: What historical occasion prompted the author to write? Every passage has a history behind it. The more you discover about why the author penned his prose, the better chance you’ll have to understand his message.</p>

<p>In his letter to Philippi, for example, Paul pled with his brethren to be united and serve one another. To persuade them, he highlighted how Christ emptied Himself, took on humanity, became a bondservant, and willingly died on a cross (Phil. 2:5–8). Why did Paul emphasize Christ’s downward progression?</p>

<p>Knowing the history helps. Philippi was inhabited by retired military men, who were accustomed to rank. Philippian social structure, then, became stratified, encouraging people to pursue higher positions of power and demand others serve them. Unfortunately, this attitude trickled into the church. Believers no longer behaved with humility but sought higher positions of power in the church and demanded to be served.</p>

<p>Paul contrasted the behavior of the Philippian believers with Christ’s incarnation. While Christians were climbing the social ladder, Jesus had descended from divinity to death. Paul wrote the passage to present Jesus as a model of humility to the Philippian church. Without historical knowledge of Philippi’s stratified social structure, it’s difficult to understand why Paul wrote these verses.</p>

<p><strong>Type of Writing:</strong> The final question is, what literary style (or genre) is the author using? The Holy Spirit inspired the biblical authors to write using different genres: narrative, law, epistle, apocalyptic literature, history, wisdom, and parable. Each genre has its own interpretive principles.</p>

<p>For example, animal lovers would be saddened to read the news headline “Indians Slay Tigers,” especially if they thought Indian poachers killed a few tigers. If the article was found on a sports page, though, they’d be relieved to know that the Cleveland Indians (a baseball team) beat the Detroit Tigers. Notice that all three words, “Indians,” “Slay,” and “Tigers,” take on a different meaning by simply changing the genre.</p>

<p>In the same way, words and sentences in the Bible take on different meanings depending on the literary style. Get the wrong genre, and you’ll get the wrong meaning.</p>

<p>All three principles of biblical interpretation (context, history, and genre) are needed to understand God’s Word. If you want to obey God, you need to understand what He said.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-can-t-obey-god-unless-you-know-what-he-said" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-can-t-obey-god-unless-you-know-what-he-said" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-can-t-obey-god-unless-you-know-what-he-said" 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: Find What’s Good in Movies
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 05/06/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/find-what-s-good-in-movies
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s overwhelming. Movies are replete with gratuitous sex, violence, and profanity. It’s hard to watch anything without being bombarded by false messages and/or filthy content.</p>

<p>I was recently asked by a student what a Christian’s attitude should be regarding movies since most promote immorality in some form. I told him my approach: remember, recognize, and respond.</p>

<p><strong>Remember</strong>: Scripture tells us we’re citizens of heaven (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+3%3A20&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Phil. 3:20</a>). This world is not our home. The United States (or whatever country you live in) is not your permanent residence. You are a foreigner (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+2%3A11&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">1 Pet. 2:11</a>). That means you shouldn’t be surprised by the relentless stream of immoral behavior that’s infused and promoted in our media. It’s expected.</p>

<p>There may have been a time when television shows and movies were more wholesome. That time has gone. Nothing seems to stem the tide. It will only get worse. Expect that, and you won’t be surprised or caught off guard when it happens.</p>

<p><strong>Recognize</strong>: Instead of focusing only on the negative aspects of a movie, try to recognize positive elements as well. Some families like to watch a movie and then ask their kids to “find the lie.” The parents’ goal is to teach their kids to analyze a movie. They identify the inconsistency with the Christian worldview and, consequently, the lies the movie tells about reality (e.g. money brings you happiness, sex outside of marriage is more satisfying, etc.). Though the intent is good, it can create a cynical attitude about anything not overtly Christian. Ironically, this approach also lies about secular media by assuming there is nothing good in it.</p>

<p>Instead of focusing only on finding the lie, find the truth. Look for what’s true, good, or beautiful in a movie. Virtually every film contains a redeeming element: an admirable character, a heroic act, or a noble quest. Granted, it’s possible some movies might be so over-the-top bad or evil that they’re not worth watching at all. I’m talking about movies in general, though.</p>

<p>I recently watched <em>I Am Legend</em> with my teenage son. It’s a movie where a man-made virus kills off most of the world’s population, leaving zombie-like creatures to feast on those who remain. If you’ve seen the trailer, you might be tempted to write it off as a mindless monster movie.</p>

<p>You can find the good, though. Even in the trailer, you hear the protagonist (played by Will Smith) comment, “God didn’t do this. We did.” It’s an accurate reflection that the evil in this world is caused by man, not our Maker. Furthermore, Smith’s character, a type of savior, has many admirable qualities and works relentlessly to find a cure. Eventually (spoiler alert), he sacrifices his own life and saves humanity—get this—by his blood. The similarities to the biblical narrative are interesting, to say the least. The point, though, is to make a habit of recognizing the good in movies, not just the bad.</p>

<p><strong>Respond</strong>: Yes, many movies promote unbiblical ideas. That’s a given. The third step is to learn to respond to them. If you’re paying attention, you’ll spot the lie. That’s not hard. What’s critical is to interpret it through the lens of the Christian worldview. Does the movie depict traditional morals as prudish and outdated (e.g. <em>Pleasantville</em>)? Learn how to explain how biblical ethics help people flourish. Is a case made to kill people to save the environment (e.g. Thanos in <em>Avengers: Infinity War</em>)? Explain how to solve moral dilemmas and determine the greater good. Does the main character help someone commit suicide because of a disability (e.g. <em>Million Dollar Baby</em>)? Make a case for the intrinsic value of all human beings, regardless of ability. Find the lie, but respond by making a case for the truth.</p>

<p>The world is broken. People are not perfect. We can’t expect heaven on earth. Everyone, though, is made in God’s image, and people will reflect what’s good at times despite their fallenness. Sure, identify what’s wrong in this world so you’re not caught off guard. But also find what’s good. Remember, recognize, and respond.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffind-what-s-good-in-movies" 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%2Ffind-what-s-good-in-movies" 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%2Ffind-what-s-good-in-movies" 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 It Possible Some Mormons Are Saved?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/03/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-it-possible-some-mormons-are-saved-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Is it possible some people in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are saved? A caller asked Greg this question on <a href="/w/greg-s-recipe-for-getting-through-a-crisis">the show this week</a>. I think it’s <em>theoretically possible</em>, but as to whether there actually <em>are</em> any people identifying as Mormons who are saved, I’m doubtful. Here’s why.</p>

<p>The Mormon understanding of both <a href="/w/who-is-the-god-of-mormonism-">God</a> and <a href="/w/lds-view-of-atonement-clarified">the gospel</a> are radically different from the true God and gospel in ways that are relevant to salvation. For Mormons, God is the same species we are; He’s just farther along in His development. He’s <a href="/w/is-god-an-exalted-man-">an exalted man</a>, who, like other men, has a physical body. Our highest goal (according to LDS theology) is <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng">to become just like Him</a> so that, along with our spouse, we can lead our own world populated by our own spirit children. This is accomplished through the LDS gospel, <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng">a plan we must follow and fulfill</a> in order to achieve our goal of becoming gods. (Follow the links for more details.)</p>

<h4>God Saves through Hearing the Gospel</h4>

<p>Now, can someone who is trusting in these things—this LDS god and this LDS gospel—be saved? Here’s the problem: God saves <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+10%3A14-17&amp;version=NASB">through hearing the true gospel</a> for a reason. Ephesians 1:4–6 says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, <em>to the praise of the glory of His grace</em>, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And in Philippians 2:8–11, we read,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Being found in appearance as a man, [Jesus] humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, <em>to the glory of God the Father</em>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The goal of all things is the glory of God—and in particular, the glory of His grace. This is why He saves through our believing the gospel and trusting in Christ—because by this, God and His grace are glorified. To save through another god or gospel would be to give His glory away to something not worthy of it, a terrible thought. Imagine God glorifying a false god and the enslavement of people to a yoke of rules for earning godhood! It’s unthinkable.</p>

<p>Since God saves through hearing the gospel—that is, when someone hears what Christ has done and puts his faith in Him—I can’t see someone getting saved from <em>within</em> the LDS church because the gospel simply isn’t taught there.</p>

<p>The possible scenario Greg offered was a person with orthodox Christian beliefs who was drawn out of a Christian church into the LDS Church, not realizing how different LDS theology is from biblical theology. That seems like the only possible scenario to me where someone who calls himself a Mormon could be a Christian. But even if that were true for someone, I don’t think it could be true for long. It’s hard to imagine God leaving a saved person in the LDS Church, disconnected from His people, of whom Christ is “the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God” (Col. 2:19; see also <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+4%3A11-16&amp;version=NASB">Eph. 4:11–16</a>).</p>

<p>The caller to <a href="/w/greg-s-recipe-for-getting-through-a-crisis">the podcast</a> asked her question because of conversations she’d had with Mormons she met on a <a href="https://maventruth.com/game-plan/#immersiveExperience">Utah mission trip</a>. How could they speak of Christ as their rock and comforter the way they do and not be saved? The question is understandable. When talking to Mormons, it’s easy to hear them speak about their savior’s grace and miss the differences between us. You have to dig a little deeper. Not only do they ascribe different meanings to the same terms we use (“grace,” “God,” “gospel,” etc.), but on a more fundamental level, they also view Jesus’ role in their lives differently.</p>

<h4>Jesus, a Means to an End?</h4>

<p>A couple of years ago, I joined hundreds of other Christians in Manti, Utah, where, for decades, the LDS Church produced the “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMpHTCDo3DM">Mormon Miracle Pageant</a>” for two weeks every summer—a play depicting the events of the Book of Mormon as well as the story of Joseph Smith and the beginnings of the LDS Church—for tens of thousands of Mormons, on the hillside of the Manti temple (last year was the final year). We Christians were there, outside the grounds, to talk to Mormons who were waiting for the pageant to begin, and the conversations I had were eye opening.</p>

<p>In the pageant, the stories of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon were woven around the story of a husband and wife in the 1800s, who, desiring to be together forever (something the LDS Church promises people), join the new church and make the trek out West with them to Utah.</p>

<p>It was the ending of the pageant that stunned me. After the wife dies halfway through the play, everything leads up to the final, climactic moment when the husband dies and joyfully goes to meet, not his savior, but <em>his wife</em>. That was the reward he longed for, and that was the reward the LDS Church wanted to hold out to us, the audience, as the greatest thing they have to offer.</p>

<p>Jesus was nowhere to be seen in this final moment of triumph.</p>

<p>When I saw this, my mouth fell open. And that night, I couldn’t stop thinking about it. Just as, in Athens, Paul’s “spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols” (Acts 17:16), I was deeply disturbed by this unmistakably clear depiction of their theology. But even more than that, I was heartbroken for a people who think they know Jesus, but who are placing their hope in something worth <em>far</em> less than the true Jesus.</p>

<p>So, in the following days, I decided to ask the people I talked to this question: What is your highest goal for eternity? Without exception, the answer I received was some form of “To be with my spouse.” I explained to one couple how surprised I had been when I saw the end of the pageant. For Christians, I said, our highest goal is to be with Jesus, so the ending of the pageant was unexpected and jarring. He responded, “Well, Jesus is the way we get to be with our spouse.” Dumfounded, I said, “You mean, He’s a means to an end?” “Yes,” he nodded, “He’s <em>the way</em>.”</p>

<p>And <em>that</em>, dear friends, is the most telling difference between Mormons and Christians. For Mormons, Jesus is our literal brother (“just a brother,” some at Manti told me, “not someone we worship”), a fellow spirit child of our heavenly father and mother—someone who has made it possible for us to follow a plan to reach our goal. For Christians, <em>Jesus</em> is our goal. We unite with Him <a href="/w/christians-don-t-view-jesus-as-a-means-to-an-end">for His own sake</a>. We are saved by Him, for Him, and to Him. Yes, we will also be in fellowship forever with everyone else who is united to Him, but that is secondary to being with Christ. Not only do LDS and Christians trust in different gods, not only do we believe in different gospels, but our views of <em>who Christ is to us</em> are drastically different in a fundamental way. Christianity is <em>all about</em> being united to Christ. This is not the case for Mormonism, as much as they speak reverently of Him.</p>

<h4>They Need to See Jesus</h4>

<p>I spent the rest of my time in Manti trying to find ways to move their eyes from their spouses and <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng">hoped-for exaltation to godhood</a> to the much bigger prize, Jesus—trying to give them a glimpse of who He really is so that they might be drawn to seek out more. I wish I had thought to read them Philippians 3:7–10 and then ask what they thought of Paul’s love for Jesus. Would they like to know Jesus in that way—as greater than everything, even their spouse?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him….</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+13%3A33-14%3A6&amp;version=NASB">John 14:1–3</a>, Jesus comforts His disciples, who are devastated to hear Him say, “Where I go, you cannot follow Me now.” Why are they devastated? <a href="/w/the-disciples-loved-jesus">Not because they want Him to do something for them</a>, but because they don’t want to be parted from Him, as Jesus’ words of comfort make clear:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, <em>I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>And what of the ending of Revelation—the climax of the entire Bible? Indeed, there is a marriage there, but it’s not the eternal sealing to one’s spouse that Mormons seek:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready…. Then [the angel] said to me, “Write, ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.’” And he said to me, “These are true words of God.” (Rev. 19:7–9)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God has “seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6–7). It’s all about Jesus. But seeing Jesus as He is doesn’t happen naturally:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor. 4:3–4)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Holy Spirit ends that blindness. He removes that veil. He makes us into new creatures who see Jesus in a new way (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+5%3A16-17&amp;version=NASB">2 Cor. 5:16–17</a>)—not just as someone we admire and respect, but someone about whom we say, “To live is Christ and to die is gain [because then we will be with Christ]” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+1%3A21-23&amp;version=NASB">Phil. 1:21–23</a>), someone who makes all other things look like rubbish by comparison.</p>

<p>Mormons do not see Jesus as He is because they are not yet new creations, and sometimes you have to dig deeper before that becomes clear.</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-it-possible-some-mormons-are-saved-" 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-it-possible-some-mormons-are-saved-" 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-it-possible-some-mormons-are-saved-" 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: Stand to Reason’s 27th Anniversary
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/stand-to-reason-s-27th-anniversary
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Today is the 27th anniversary of the birth of Stand to Reason, and it’s really hard to imagine all that God has done during that time in our lives and in yours. We live for Christ, but we work tirelessly for you, and we continue to be gratified as we hear of the impact our efforts have had in the lives of so many of you.</p>

<p>And it’s been a synergistic effort. You have helped us so faithfully as partners, and you’ve also helped so many others as you’ve taken what you’ve learned and “paid it forward” in the lives of countless Christians. You are our vital “third column”—faithful ambassadors with boots on the ground&nbsp;reaching people we could never reach without you.</p>

<p>That’s why every one of you can take pride and satisfaction in this huge milestone because of your contribution to our community effort for the kingdom—laboring with your specific gifts to build a legacy with us for Christ.</p>

<p>Here is our commitment to you.</p>

<ul>
	<li>We will keep our hands to the plow and serve at our individual posts judiciously, creatively, and industriously for your spiritual strength and well-being.</li>
	<li>We will continue to be students of our crafts, of our content, and of the virtues we encourage in other ambassadors so we can provide a place of “safety in confidence” for you during these tumultuous times.</li>
	<li>We will continue to trust in and rely on the Lord to bring the increase in your lives.</li>
</ul>

<p>I have deep gratitude in my heart for all of you in our growing STR community, and I’m so proud to serve beside you in this wonderful work of God known as Stand to Reason.</p>

<p>Thank you, and congratulations!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstand-to-reason-s-27th-anniversary" 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%2Fstand-to-reason-s-27th-anniversary" 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%2Fstand-to-reason-s-27th-anniversary" 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: Suicide and the Need for Hope
topic: Christian Living
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 04/22/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/suicide-and-the-need-for-hope
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s the most difficult topic I’ve ever spoken on, and it might be the most important one I’ve ever addressed. From the reaction of my audiences in Orange County, Minneapolis, and most recently, San Diego, it’s clear that suicide is an issue Christians need to grapple with.</p>

<p>Suicide is the second leading cause of death among those aged 10–34, and statistics say that by the time you finish reading this article, someone will have taken his own life.</p>

<p>Suicide is more common than many think, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve been personally affected by this issue.</p>

<p>In 2011 my cousin took his own life, and just this past June a dear friend did the same. Both left behind loved ones who had to wrestle with the same question: Why? Why do people commit suicide?</p>

<p>In a general sense, the answer is simple. Some people are convinced they’re better off dead than alive. But why do they think this? Probably because they’ve lost hope in this life. And why have they lost hope?</p>

<p>As Christian influence fades in our culture, the suicide rates have climbed. There’s been a shift in ideas, and ideas have consequences. For one, we’ve been heavily influenced by the view that the physical realm is all there is and everything happens by purely naturalistic processes.</p>

<p>This naturalism is captured best in the words of Carl Sagan: “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”</p>

<p>If Sagan is right, then so is Thomas Hobbes who famously observed that life in an unregulated state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”</p>

<p>If naturalism is true, then our only hope is ourselves, and our salvation comes only from human effort trying to generate meaning from more education, more power, more fame, or more money.</p>

<p>But what happens when we fail? We quickly find ourselves in a cycle of disappointment with no end.</p>

<p>Why did David Carradine, Robin Williams, Anthony Bourdain, Kate Spade and a host of other notables take their own lives when they “had it all”? Because those at the pinnacle of “success” were still empty and without hope.</p>

<p>In the end, naturalism can’t deliver on its promises and is, at bottom, a narcissistic view of reality that leaves its disciples empty and lost, without hope, believing they’re better off dead than alive.</p>

<p>The naturalist is not the only one who struggles with suicidal impulses, though. Just because we’re Christian doesn’t mean we’re not vulnerable to the lies of the world. Even the Christian can lose hope, but he does so for different reasons.</p>

<p>One of them is legalism, the idea that our relationship with God—and ultimately our salvation—depends on how well we perform. Any Christian who’s constantly measuring himself by his performance will be constantly disappointed.</p>

<p>Legalism leaves us hopeless because, in the long run, we can never measure up. Day after day, we let God down. When we tie our salvation to our performance, we lose sight of God’s grace. Life gets unbearable because God becomes a far-off angry father.</p>

<p>No one ever measures up. That’s the reality of fallenness and the point of the gospel. The Law is a teacher pointing us to our need to be rescued. And this rescue comes through the grace of God found in Jesus of Nazareth.</p>

<p>If we trust in our own efforts, there is no hope. The Psalmist says, “If you, Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” Then he adds, “But there is forgiveness with You, that You may be feared” (Ps. 130:3–4).</p>

<p>For the one who trusts in Christ, God keeps no record of wrongs. If He did, no one could stand. But there is hope for every single child of God because there is full forgiveness.</p>

<p>We have been rescued and rescued completely. This is the truth we lean on in times of hopelessness.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsuicide-and-the-need-for-hope" 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%2Fsuicide-and-the-need-for-hope" 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%2Fsuicide-and-the-need-for-hope" 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: COVID-19 and Christian Hope
topic: Theology
author: Jonathan Noyes
date: 04/09/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/covid-19-and-christian-hope
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’m not praying for God to stop COVID-19. Instead, I’m praying for something else, something more important.</p>

<p>Romans 5:3 says we should “exult in our tribulation.” Why? Because, as Paul continues, “tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.”</p>

<p>In these three verses, Paul provides an insight into why God allows suffering in our lives. He describes a chain of transformation consisting of four links that ultimately connect our tribulations to the deep love of God.</p>

<p>Here is the ultimate takeaway: <strong>Suffering is necessary in the Christian life because it leads to a hope that transcends our current circumstances and releases the love of God into our lives.</strong></p>

<p>The first link in our chain is <strong>tribulation</strong>. Suffering during tribulation is unavoidable in a fallen world, but for us it has a purpose. Paul says tribulation produces <strong>perseverance</strong>, the second link. Trusting God while enduring the hard things of life eventually results in a stubborn determination to finish the race.</p>

<p>Do we persevere through the easy things? No. We persevere through suffering. Without suffering, there’s nothing to endure. Suffering changes us. It teaches us tenacity.</p>

<p>The chain’s third link connects perseverance to<strong> character</strong>. Proven character is the quality of a person who has been tested and passed the test. A person with proven character is a sturdy veteran, not a green recruit, someone who’s been through the battle and is still standing.</p>

<p>The fourth link in the chain of transformation ties proven character to<strong> hope</strong>. This is not just any hope, though. It’s the hope of the gospel. As God develops our character in the present, He can be relied on for the future, too. We’re confident of our destiny because of our current, unchanging standing with God. “Having been justified by faith” (5:1), we have forever peace with God through Christ. We can trust Him, even in troubling times.</p>

<p>Look at our links: tribulation to perseverance, perseverance to character, and character to hope. And this hope will never disappoint, because it is chained to the anchor of the steadfast love of God.</p>

<p>God knows our trials and our tribulations, but He doesn’t usually rescue us out of them. Rather, He allows us to suffer for good reason—to gain a hope that does not disappoint, because “the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.”</p>

<p>Ironically, suffering through tribulation turns out to be the best way for us to become grounded in the love of God. Though it sounds counterintuitive—suffering sometimes causes us to doubt God’s love—it’s still true. The way God redeems pain and suffering in our lives actually becomes a powerful part of the answer to the challenge of evil in the world.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Message-Romans-World-Bible-Speaks/dp/0830812466/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1586409737&amp;sr=8-2" id="" rel="" target="" title="">John Stott says</a> that being sure of the love of God is “the major secret of joy, peace, freedom, confidence, and self-respect.” I agree. But how do you know God loves you while you’re suffering? Because of the magnificent chain linking us—through tribulation and suffering—to the love of God poured out in our lives.</p>

<p>King David expressed it this way: “My cup overflows. Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever” (Ps. 23:5–6).</p>

<p>The fact that God has chosen you and given you the gift of the Holy Spirit shows His immeasurable love for you. Even during times of self-quarantine and COVID-19. Indeed, especially during these times.</p>

<p>God loves you and isn’t allowing suffering to victimize you. He has a purpose in it, even if you can’t see it. The suffering of tribulation produces perseverance. Perseverance produces proven character. Proven character produces a hope that will never disappoint.</p>

<p>So no, I’m not praying for God to stop COVID-19. I already know He will. Eventually, this too shall pass. Rather, I’m praying that in the midst of the pain of crisis, you and I stay confident that God will use these difficulties to build perseverance, proven character, and hope in each of us, His 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%2Fcovid-19-and-christian-hope" 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%2Fcovid-19-and-christian-hope" 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%2Fcovid-19-and-christian-hope" 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: Street Tactics – Part 2
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/street-tactics-part-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p>One critical challenge you will not be able to avoid as a Christian ambassador is the challenge of the atheist. Yet, most Christians are not prepared for—and are therefore understandably apprehensive about—encounters with them. I want to help you be ready when the opportunity comes your way.</p>

<p>There are two reasons engaging with atheists can be daunting.</p>

<p>First, the most vulnerable part of any worldview is its foundation. Undermine that, and you undercut every single thing resting upon it. Destroy the footings, and the whole lot crumbles.</p>

<p>It’s an effective general strategy we use often at STR, but there’s a reason atheism&nbsp;puts us on the defensive side of that approach. Our story starts, “In the beginning, God….” If there is no God, then there is no story and Christianity never gets off the ground. Simple.</p>

<p>Second, atheists are often confident, aggressive, and unyielding. Plus, their complaints against theism initially make sense to a lot of people who are on the fence. Their points are often rhetorically clever and complex, making them difficult for Christians to counter.</p>

<p>That’s one reason they’ve been effectively turning heads in recent years. According to a current Pew Research Center poll, those who describe themselves as atheists account for 4% of U.S. adults, up from 2% in 2009. That’s a 100% increase in the last decade.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="">[i]</a> There’s even a popular tutorial available providing tactical training to help atheists make an atheist out of you.<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title="">[ii]</a></p>

<p>With the spate of deconversion stories recently making their rounds on the internet, it’s clear the approach is having an impact on Christians. That’s why you need to be prepared with specific plans to help you engage the issue thoughtfully and with grace when you encounter it.</p>

<p>In the book <em>Tactics—A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions</em>,<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title="">[iii]</a> I detail the larger plan for engaging with non-Christians. Here, though, I’m focusing on one application of that plan that I’ve called “Street Tactics,” a battery of specific questions you can use to challenge a dissenter on a particular topic. This approach keeps you in the driver’s seat of the conversation in a pleasant way, protecting you from the risk associated with more head-to-head encounters.</p>

<p>First, I give you some insight into the specific weaknesses of the challenge offered. Then I provide specific questions to get you started (rendered in bold) along with samples of how the initial stage of a dialogue might unfold.</p>

<p>Those initial questions are important. When dealing with a tough issue, it’s always good to have an opening move at the ready. If you’re prepared with a question giving you something to say right out of the gate, it gives you a safe launching pad into the conversation.</p>

<p>When I know my first move, it relaxes me and gives me confidence since I’m the one taking the initiative in the conversation. It gets me going in a friendly way, yet with little risk.</p>

<p>I explained the general Street Tactics approach in <a href="/w/street-tactics-part-1" rel="" title="">the last issue of <em>Solid Ground</em></a>. There, I gave the guidance you need to maneuver though the minefields of one the most frequent challenges you’ll face, the problem of evil.<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title="">[iv]</a></p>

<h3>Three Moves</h3>

<p>Of course, there is a plethora of issues atheists raise and a rack of titles offered by thoughtful Christians responding to them.<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title="">[v]</a> My purpose here is not to retrace that ground.</p>

<p>Instead, I want to give you insight into three general moves you’ll face with atheists and then provide some tactical questions to get you moving forward comfortably in conversation on those concerns, yet with a minimum of risk.</p>

<p>Take note, the goal of this approach is not to close the deal. We’re not in harvest mode here. Instead, I want to help you do a little gardening by offering a few simple questions to get your friend thinking. I call it “putting a stone in his shoe.”</p>

<p>There are three errors you will consistently confront when talking with atheists. The atheist’s first misstep is a defensive move, a deflection. By redefining the word “atheist,” he attempts to absolve himself of any responsibility to defend his own view. His second move is another redefinition, this time of the word “faith,” distorting it to make it impossible for <em>you</em> to defend <em>your</em> view. Finally, there’s the blanket dismissal, “Believing in God is irrational. There is no evidence.”</p>

<p>Before I go further, though, let me give you a general maneuver. My first response when somebody tells me he’s an atheist is, <strong>“Really? That’s interesting. What kind of atheist are you?”</strong></p>

<p>My question trades on the simple fact that atheists do not agree on everything. Most atheists are materialists—convinced that nothing exists except physical things known empirically by the five senses—but not all are. Some believe in objective morality; some do not. Some flutter back and forth between atheism and agnosticism, depending on the definitions.</p>

<p>Asking this question has a number of advantages.</p>

<p>First, I want the atheist to see I’m not shocked or intimidated by his announcement but rather curious about his convictions and comfortable learning more about them. An opening question like this also buys me time to think about where I might go next with my queries.</p>

<p>Next, this question immediately forces the atheist to begin thinking about his own view in a more precise fashion, something I’m convinced most atheists have rarely done.</p>

<p>My second general question is, <strong>“Why are you an atheist?”</strong> I have no idea how my friend is going to respond—except to offer a vague claim that there is no evidence for God or that theism is irrational (I’ll deal with those canards in a moment).<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title="">[vi]</a></p>

<p>Notice, since I’m the one initiating the conversation, I’m in the driver’s seat. Because I’m using questions, there’s no pressure on me. I’m in student mode, not persuasion mode. It’s a safe place to be.</p>

<p>With your initial queries in place, let’s move on to the three faulty maneuvers I mentioned that atheists frequently make.</p>

<h3>Atheism Lite</h3>

<p>Oddly, many atheists apparently no longer believe there is no God. Instead, they say, they merely <em>lack belief in God</em>. They don’t claim God <em>doesn’t</em> exist. Rather, they simply don’t believe He <em>does</em> exist.”</p>

<p>Atheists are not un-believers, then. They are simply non-believers. Since a non-belief is not a claim, it requires no defense. Thus, atheism secures the inside lane as the default view of reasonable people. Or so atheists think. That’s the strategy here.</p>

<p>Some will attempt to find safe harbor in a vague agnosticism. Since they don’t <em>know</em> God exists (“Theoretically, it’s possible He does”), they’re not really atheist but agnostic—in knowledge limbo on the issue.</p>

<p>These moves are almost always disingenuous coming from someone who is clearly a committed atheist. True agnosticism is an intellectually noble position, of course. But that’s not what’s going on here.</p>

<p>Theism, atheism, and agnosticism are not <em>knowledge</em> categories, but <em>belief</em> categories. Most of our beliefs are fallible—capable of being false—yet we still think they’re true, often with good reason. If agnosticism merely means lack of certainty, then each of us is agnostic on just about everything. This is silly.</p>

<p>The label “skeptic” often suffers from the same linguistic subterfuge since most self-described skeptics are not the least bit skeptical about their own skepticism; they are fully committed atheists.</p>

<p>Here is the insight that betrays the flaw in this verbal sleight of hand: Atheists may lack a belief <em>in</em> God, true enough, but they do not lack a belief <em>about</em> God. They are neither agnostics nor non-believers. Rather, they are believers of a certain kind: <em>They actually believe that there is no God</em>, even if they don’t know for sure.</p>

<p>The root word “theism” means the existence of God, and the prefix “a” is a negation. An atheist, then, is one who holds “not God,” or “God is not.” In plain language, atheism is the belief that there is no God. This is not linguistically complicated. It never has been.</p>

<p>If I were an atheist, I would not take this route. I’d fear people would think I was cheating with words, betraying weakness, not strength. This, as it turns out, is exactly what’s happening. Yes, there is a difference between non-belief and un-belief, but there is no refuge here for the atheist. Here’s why.</p>

<p>If you asked me which rugby team was the best in England, I wouldn’t know where to start. Since I have no beliefs about the quality of rugby competition in the U.K., I am truly a <em>non</em>-believer regarding the question. I am neutral.</p>

<p>This is not the case with atheists, though, since they are not neutral on the God question. If they were, they wouldn’t be writing books or doing debates. No one pontificates on their non-beliefs. There’d be nothing to talk about.</p>

<p>Richard Dawkins is currently the world’s most famous atheist. He makes his case in his best-selling book,<em> The God Delusion</em>. If God is really a delusion, then He does not exist. Simple. Theists say there is a God, and atheists like Dawkins contend they’re wrong—even delusional. Thus, atheists argue that <em>there is no God</em>—hardly a non-belief.</p>

<p>Look, anyone who has a point of view has a belief he <em>thinks</em> is true even if he doesn’t <em>know</em> it’s true. Atheists have a point of view. This makes them believers of a particular stripe: They believe God doesn’t exist.</p>

<p>With that insight clearly in place, here is how I would proceed in a conversation with someone I’m convinced is actually a standard, run-of-the-mill atheist in spite of his evasiveness.</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Given your claim that you simply lack a belief in God, would you mind if I ask you a question?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“No. Go ahead.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I’m going to make a statement, and I’d like you to respond to it. Okay?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Sure.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>“Here it is: God exists. </strong>What do you personally believe about that statement?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Like I told you before, I don’t know for certain.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Right. I got that. <strong>But I’m not asking you what you <em>know</em>. I’m asking you what you <em>believe</em></strong>.<strong>”</strong></p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>“</strong>I’m agnostic.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“If you were truly an agnostic, you’d have no opinion one way or the other. From what you’ve said so far, though, you’re not neutral on the subject of God. So let me put the issue another way. Given my statement ‘God exists,’ it seems you have one of three choices.<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title="">[vii]</a> You could either affirm the statement (that would be my view, theism), you could deny the statement (that would be atheism), or you could completely withhold judgment since you have no opinion one way or another (agnosticism). Can you think of any other logical options?”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“No, not really.”<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title="">[viii]</a></p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>“So what’s your view—affirm, deny, or withhold?”</strong></p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Like I said, I lack a belief in God.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I get that. <strong>But that’s not one of the logical options available here. Are you really saying you have no opinion on this matter? If so, then what are you trying to convince me of?</strong> It doesn’t sound like you simply want me to ‘lack a belief in God.’ It sounds like you want me to believe there is no God. Which is it?<strong>”</strong></p>

<p>The purpose of this line of questioning is to even the playing field. Both the Christian and the atheist have a conviction—a belief—and those beliefs are at odds. Fair enough. That means both have a view to defend. If you’re not clear on this issue, you’ll always be on the defensive and the atheist will have a free ride in the discussion. Don’t let that happen.</p>

<h3>Fanciful Faith</h3>

<p>The atheist’s first maneuver keeps him from having to defend his own view. The second is an attempt to keep you from defending yours. The ploy is a common one, a mistake in thinking even Christians have unwittingly abetted, so it’s an error made on both sides of the aisle.</p>

<p>Suppose I claim that atheism is lame since atheists don’t believe in science. After all, they don’t believe in God because they can’t see Him, but they can’t see atoms either, so their existence must be in question, too. Since atoms are pretty foundational to science, atheists, then, must not believe in science.</p>

<p>You can immediately see the errors here. I have misrepresented the atheist’s view in a number of ways, easily “defeating” the distortion. This is not only bad manners, it���s bad thinking—an informal fallacy called a “straw man.” Erect a caricature of someone’s view (the straw man), then easily knock the scarecrow down.</p>

<p>This is precisely what atheists continue to do with “faith.” Peter Boghossian is typical. “The word ‘faith’” he writes, “is a very slippery pig…. Malleable definitions allow faith to slip away from critique.”<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title="">[ix]</a> He’s right on this point, of course. Definitions should not be malleable. Twisting the definition of faith to suit his own purposes, though, is not the answer, just as twisting the definition of atheism (by Christians or by atheists) is equally illicit. Boghossian himself acknowledges he’s redefining the term to suit his purposes.<a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title="">[x]</a> Don’t let atheists do it.</p>

<p>Boghossian defines the “faith virus”<a href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title="">[xi]</a> as either “belief without evidence,” or “pretending to know things you don’t know.”<a href="#_edn12" name="_ednref12" title="">[xii]</a> In fact, “if one had sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a particular claim, then one wouldn’t believe the claim on the basis of faith. ‘Faith’ is the word one uses when one does not have enough evidence to justify holding a belief.”<a href="#_edn13" name="_ednref13" title="">[xiii]</a> This, of course, is circular.<a href="#_edn14" name="_ednref14" title="">[xiv]</a></p>

<p>Clearly, faith is critical to Christianity, so it’s an obvious target. Let me say respectfully, though, that it does not matter how atheists like Boghossian define faith or even how some misinformed and confused Christians characterize it. It only matters how <em>Christianity itself</em> defines faith. Otherwise, the critic will be jousting with scarecrows. For this we must go back to the Christian’s authority, the Bible.</p>

<p>The biblical accounts are replete with appeals to evidence to justify its claims.<a href="#_edn15" name="_ednref15" title="">[xv]</a> The summary at the end of John’s Gospel should be enough to make this basic point:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore <em>many other signs</em> [miracles] Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so <em>that you may believe</em> that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (Jn. 20:30–31)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No appeal to blind faith here. Simply put, in the context in which it’s used, the Greek word for biblical faith—<em>pistis</em>—means active trust, and this trust is continually enjoined based on reasons and evidence.</p>

<p>It’s tiresome having to keep correcting this distortion, but you must insist on this definition in your conversations with atheists or you’ll have no grounds for discussion—and little ability to defend your view. Your insistence is based on a simple rule: If someone wants to critique a view, then he has to critique the view itself and not something else.</p>

<p>A single question should suffice to clear the air: <strong>“It’s clear we have a different understanding of ‘faith.’ If you are critiquing my view, though, what is more important, <em>your</em> definition of my view or <em>my</em> definition of my view?”</strong></p>

<p>The perpetual distortion of faith by atheists is tied to another misconception.</p>

<h3>“Show Me the Money”</h3>

<p>There’s a reason atheists insist that Christian faith is blind. They’re convinced there is no evidence for God, so belief in Him is irrational and faith in Him must be a leap. But the assertion is baseless; it’s simply not true.</p>

<p>The easiest way to get to the heart of the issue is to ask probing questions. Here’s my first one:<strong> “Precisely, what is irrational about belief in God?”</strong> Here I’m looking for specifics. It’s not enough for the atheist to respond, “It’s just dumb.” Exactly <em>what</em> is “dumb” about it?</p>

<p>An irrational belief is one that either contradicts good reason or flies in the face of solid evidence to the contrary, so ask, “<strong>How does belief in God violate reason, and what is the evidence against belief in God?”</strong></p>

<p>Any evidence <em>contrary</em> to theism would actually be evidence <em>for</em> atheism, since it’s the only other alternative—in rational terms, either A or non-A, either God or not God. But giving evidence for atheism is precisely what many atheists are trying to avoid with the first maneuver mentioned above.</p>

<p>The question<strong> “What exactly is the evidence for atheism and therefore against theism?”</strong> is in order here. Some have offered the problem of evil, but <em>objective</em> evil in the world—the only kind of evil that matters in this complaint—ironically turns out to be evidence <em>for</em> God, not <em>against</em> Him, as I demonstrated in the last issue of <em>Solid Ground</em>. I’m open to hearing other suggestions, but the offerings have been thin.</p>

<p>Evidence for God, by contrast, abounds, and tomes have been written detailing it. These include arguments for the beginning of the universe (cosmological arguments, e.g., the Kalam), arguments from obvious design of all sorts in the natural realm (teleological arguments), and arguments based on objective morality (the moral argument), to name just a few. There is Lewis’s argument from desire, there is evidence based on well-documented miracles, and there is historical evidence in support of Jesus’ resurrection.</p>

<p>When an atheist claims there is no evidence, then, I have a few questions for him.</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>“What specific arguments for God have you considered?”</strong></p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“I haven’t seen any.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>“Well, if you haven’t considered the arguments for God, how do you know no such evidence exits?”</strong></p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Well, I have considered some of them.”</p>

<p class="indent" style="margin-left: 40px;">“Good. <strong>Then please tell me which ones you’ve thought about and what, in your opinion, is wrong with them. How, specifically, have they failed?”</strong></p>

<p>You might even ask, <strong>“What would count as legitimate evidence for God, in your mind?”</strong> This query tests the atheist’s intellectual honesty.</p>

<p>These questions are good ones even if you’re not versed in the arguments for God themselves. If the atheist gives any content, make note of it, thank him for it, and tell him you’ll give his ideas some thought. There’s no obligation to answer every challenge on the spot, especially if a particular issue is out of your depth. Do some research later, on your own, when the pressure is off.</p>

<p>The key here is to not settle for vague generalities. Make the atheist spell out the specific shortcomings of belief in God, if he can. I want him to be clear on the exact reasons why belief in God is nonsense.</p>

<p>A warning is in order here. Often, there’s a shell game going on. There is a difference between having credible reasons to believe something and having reasons adequate to convince a hardened skeptic. The claim that there is no evidence is not the same as saying the evidence available is not convincing. That’s a different matter. A piece of evidence is an indicator, not necessarily a decisive proof.</p>

<p>Generally, a thoughtful theist’s approach is what’s called abductive reasoning. All things considered, what is the best explanation for the way things are? That’s a matter for thoughtful discussion, not thoughtless dismissal.</p>

<p>When atheists keep asking, “Where’s the evidence?” they’re either not paying attention or they’re misunderstanding the role of evidence—both odd since they identify themselves as the party of reason.</p>

<p>There’s much to discuss with atheists, but clearing the air on these three critical misperceptions—or in one case, outright distortion—is critical to making progress.</p>

<p>Both atheists and Christians make claims. It’s an even playing field in that sense. Both are required to give reasons for their views. We’re ready to do that, demonstrating that our confidence in God is grounded not in wishful thinking but in a body of evidence that needs to be addressed rather than dismissed as naught.</p>

<p>Use these questions as friendly probes in conversation. They’re formidable tools to keep you in the driver’s seat of otherwise difficult interactions with those trying to undermine the very foundation of Christianity: God.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="edn1">
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="">[i]</a> “U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace,” Pew Research Center, Oct. 17, 2019.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn2">
<p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title="">[ii]</a> Peter Boghossian, <em>A Manual for Creating Atheists</em> (Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2013). Find my response to Boghossian’s project in “Tactics for Atheists,” <em>Solid Ground</em>, May-June 2019, at str.org.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn3">
<p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title="">[iii]</a> Gregory Koukl, <em>Tactics—A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, 10<sup>th</sup> Anniversary Ed. </em>(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019).</p>
</div>

<div id="edn4">
<p><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title="">[iv]</a> See “Street Tactics I,” <em>Solid Ground</em>, Jan-Feb 2020, at str.org.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn5">
<p><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title="">[v]</a> Standouts include Turek and Geisler’s <em>I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist</em>, J. Warner Wallace’s <em>God’s Crime Scene</em>, and Ravi Zacharias’s <em>Can Man Live without God?</em></p>
</div>

<div id="edn6">
<p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title="">[vi]</a> Often atheists will reflexively invoke the problem of evil. In the last issue of <em>Solid Ground</em> I gave tactics to deal with that challenge.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn7">
<p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title="">[vii]</a> I owe this line of thinking to my philosopher friend Douglas Geivett.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn8">
<p><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title="">[viii]</a> This would be an intellectually honest answer, unless he can offer a fourth option, which he can’t since it doesn’t exist.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn9">
<p><a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title="">[ix]</a> Boghossian, 22–23.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn10">
<p><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title="">[x]</a> Ibid., 80.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn11">
<p><a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11" title="">[xi]</a> Ibid., 68.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn12">
<p><a href="#_ednref12" name="_edn12" title="">[xii]</a> Ibid., 23-24.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn13">
<p><a href="#_ednref13" name="_edn13" title="">[xiii]</a> Ibid., 23.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn14">
<p><a href="#_ednref14" name="_edn14" title="">[xiv]</a> I go into detail on Boghossian’s mangling of “faith” in “Tactics for Atheists,” <em>Solid Ground</em>, May-June 2019.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn15">
<p><a href="#_ednref15" name="_edn15" title="">[xv]</a> Whether or not a critic believes the accounts is irrelevant to the question. My point here is only that, since the Bible offers reasons for faith, biblical faith is not blind. Whether those reasons are persuasive to a skeptic or not is a different issue.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

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


title: How Should I Answer a Child Who Asks Where God Came From?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/15/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-should-i-answer-a-child-who-asks-where-god-came-from-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The following was originally published <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/t/ask-greg-koukl-february-10-14-2020/26892/18">here</a> as part of a <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/t/ask-greg-koukl-february-10-14-2020/26892">Q&amp;A with Greg Koukl</a> on <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/">RZIM Connect</a>. </em></p>

<blockquote>
<p>Question from Jim: What would you say is the easiest way for my three children under the age of eight when they ask me where did God come from? Who made God? To help them understand in their age group how to understand it?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jim, let me start answering your question by offering you some basic content to the issue that I included in <em><a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk421.htm">The Story of Reality</a></em>, chapter 7. Then I’ll suggest a way of taking this content and breaking it down a little so children might understand it better. Here’s what I wrote:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It��s pretty common, nowadays, to hear people ask the question, “Who created God?” Children ask it frequently, of course, but we expect it from them. Pretty much everything they encounter came from somewhere else, so it’s natural for them to ask where God came from.</p>

<p>Adults, I think, should realize this is not a proper question. I have never met anyone (believer or non-believer) who thought that if God existed—at least the kind of God we’re talking about—He would be the kind of being that needed to be created. That’s why it strikes me as strange when these very same people ask, “Who created God?” The question presumes that God was created, but no one believes that, certainly not Christians, so this is not a question any theist has to answer.</p>

<p>An eternal, self-existent Being has no beginning, so He needs no creator. This doesn’t prove such a Being exists, of course. It only shows that those who believe in God do not have to answer inappropriate questions about His origin.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Okay, that said, here’s how I would approach this issue with a youngster. Notice that the question is what’s called a “complex question,” that is, a question that’s based on an assumption that has not been established. The statement “Are you still beating your wife?” is an example of a complex question, and the flaw is obvious.</p>

<p>Same thing here. The question “Who created God?” presumes that God was created. That’s the presumption you want to flush out in your conversation with your kids.</p>

<p>You might say to them, “When you ask, ‘Who created God?’ you’re assuming something. What are you assuming when you asked this question? For example, if I asked you, “Are you still cheating on your tests in school?” what would I be assuming with that question?” Let them chew on it a bit until they get the right answer—about their tests and about God—maybe with a little help from you.</p>

<p>Next you can ask them, “Okay, since the question assumes that God was created, what makes you think He was created? Is that what the Bible teaches? [Interaction] No, the Bible teaches that God is eternal. Do you know what that means? [Interaction] It means God never had a beginning and He will never have an ending. Do you see that it doesn’t really make sense, then, to ask the question about the beginning of a being that had no beginning?”</p>

<p>I think you get the idea. Pursue an interactive conversation with them where you tease out these concepts with questions. I think they’ll catch on pretty quickly.</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-should-i-answer-a-child-who-asks-where-god-came-from-" 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-should-i-answer-a-child-who-asks-where-god-came-from-" 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-should-i-answer-a-child-who-asks-where-god-came-from-" 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: Look at Christ, the Perfect Image of God
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/20/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/look-at-christ-the-perfect-image-of-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I love hearing Michael Reeves <a href="/w/knowing-jesus-makes-you-a-better-thinker">talk about Jesus</a>, so I jumped at the chance to listen to him yesterday on the free <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Z7ZsVthWw">live stream of Ligonier’s national conference</a>. I was not disappointed. His topic was “Christ the Image of God,” and you can listen to it below (starting at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Z7ZsVthWw&amp;t=980s">16:20</a>).</p>

<p>After describing Jesus beautifully and compellingly, Reeves explains how our true humanity—the way we were meant to be as creatures made in the image of God—is restored by being in Christ and looking at Him, the perfect image of God:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Our only hope of wholeness is in Christ, the image of God. Humanity can be mended nowhere else….</p>

<p>Do you remember Paul’s argument in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+3&amp;version=NASB">2 Corinthians 3</a>? It’s worth turning to. In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul was thinking of Moses, who asked to see—to look—upon the glory of the Lord. And the result was, we read, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the Law in his hand as he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know the skin of his face shone because he’d been talking with God.</p>

<p>And Paul writes, commenting on that, 2 Corinthians 3:18: “And we all [like Moses] with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.” Created in the image of God that we might be like God—sharing His life, His vitality, His loving, holy character—we become what we were made to be by looking to Christ, who <em>is</em> the image of God. Beholding Him, we become most truly human. And all our faculties—our minds, our hearts, our lives—get aligned right, and we are transformed into His image.</p>

<p>Friends, it matters what you fix your gaze on every day. Life, righteousness, holiness, redemption are found in Jesus, and are found by those—and <em>only</em> those—who look to Him believingly.</p>

<p>And perhaps I should be clearer: It is not that we look, get some sense of what He’s like, and then go away and strain to make ourselves like Him. No, no, we become like Him <em>through</em> the very looking. The very sight of Him is a transforming thing. And so, for now, contemplating Him by faith, we <em>begin</em> to be transformed into His likeness. But so potent is His glory that when we clap eyes upon Him physically at His second coming, then, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+3%3A2&amp;version=ESV">1 John 3:2</a>: “When He appears we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is.” That full, unveiled, physical sight of the glorified Jesus will be so majestically affecting, it will transform our very bodies around us. The sight of Him now, by the Spirit, makes us more like Him spiritually. The sight of Him then, face to face, will finally make us—body and soul—as He is.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If you want to look at Jesus more deeply, I recommend Reeves’s book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rejoicing-Christ-Michael-Reeves/dp/0830840222/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=rejoicing+in+christ&amp;qid=1584644296&amp;sr=8-1"><em>Rejoicing in Christ</em></a>.</p>

<p>Right now, Ligonier is offering free live streaming of <em>all</em> of their teaching series as a way to support Christians whose church gatherings are being canceled. They offer <a href="https://www.ligonier.org/blog/all-teaching-series-now-free-stream/?utm_source=ligonier&amp;utm_medium=slider">suggestions for series</a> relevant to our current health and economic crisis, or you can <a href="https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/">browse all of their topics</a>. I encourage you to take advantage of their generous offer while you can.</p>

<p class="text-align-center"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/95Z7ZsVthWw?start=980" width="560"></iframe></p>
</div>

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


title: Christians Can’t Play Mortal Kombat
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/christians-can-t-play-mortal-kombat
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There’s a lesson to be learned from the violent video game <em>Mortal Kombat</em>. During a match, two players duel to the death by controlling their on-screen avatars. As you pummel the other player, his health dwindles to a dangerous low. Your bludgeoned opponent stumbles, struggling to stay on his feet. The video game detects your likely victory and bellows ominously, “Finish him!” commanding you to deliver one final and deadly blow.</p>

<p>Christians are often tempted to deliver a final, verbal blow when sharing their religious convictions and noting their “opponent’s” faltering view. But taking the “Finish him!” approach is unbecoming of an ambassador for Christ. If you’re in mortal combat, that makes sense. But if you’re a Christian attempting to share the truth, it’s a big mistake.</p>

<p>I’ve seen this occur with both in-person conversation and online interaction. This scenario plays out when a Christian starts with the presumption that the non-believer is an opponent and the goal is to win the argument. As the conversation unfolds, the Christian presents some powerful points, causing the non-believer to reconsider his own view. In his mind the Christian thinks, <em>I’ve got him on the ropes. I need to deliver one final, verbal blow to destroy his position…Finish him! </em>But if he follows through on this instinct, he’ll make himself appear like the victor and the unbeliever feel like the loser and less likely to consider the truth.</p>

<p>Sharing your faith, however, should not be <em>Mortal Kombat</em>. People are not our enemy, and we’re not trying to kill anyone. Although the stakes in evangelism are life and death, our goal is not to destroy an argument but to reach the person with the truth.</p>

<p>Though there might be an instance when you’ve made a powerful point, that doesn’t mean you have to continue aggressively advancing your position till your friend concedes your view. If you sense he’s seeing your point, it can be prudent to back off a little and let him save face.</p>

<p>A few years ago, I was talking to a non-Christian about the subject of Islam. He asked me if I believe Christians and Muslims worship the same God. My initial answer: No. Our conversation went back and forth for a minute until I provided the following hypothetical situation. I asked him to imagine what would happen if Jesus appeared in the room. I told him that every Christian around us would bow down to <em>worship</em> that person, Jesus, <em>as God</em>. But no Muslim in that room would bow down to worship Jesus as God. That’s because Christians believe Jesus is God and Muslims vigorously deny that. How is it possible, then, that both Christians and Muslims worship the same God when they don’t both worship Jesus as their God?</p>

<p>The man paused, smiled, and said, “Hmmm…let me think about that.” I sensed he found my point somewhat persuasive. Even though he wasn’t fully convinced, I could tell his position was weaker. At that point, I could hear the words in my mind, <em>Finish him!</em> <em>Deliver a final blow. Crush his view</em>. I could have piled on another point and claimed victory. But that’s not what an ambassador for Christ does. We’re not trying to win an argument but to reach the person with the truth.</p>

<p>There was no need to hammer my point home and injure his self-image in front of me, a stranger. So, I let him save face and allowed the conversation to naturally transition to another topic. I put a stone in his shoe and felt comfortable enough to let the Holy Spirit continue—perhaps at a later time—to convict him of the truth of my point.</p>

<p>This approach reminds me of how Francis Schaeffer engaged those who sought to converse with him. Jerram Barrs, a Schaeffer scholar, <a href="https://www.covenantseminary.edu/francis-schaeffer-the-man-and-his-message/">writes</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Shaeffer would be filled with compassion for them…. Always he would pray for them and seek to challenge them with the truth. But this challenge was never given aggressively. He would say to us (and he would model for us): “Always leave someone with a corner to retire gracefully into. You are not trying to win an argument or to knock someone down. You are seeking to win a person, a person made in the image of God. This is not about your winning; it is not about your ego. If that is your approach, all you will do is arouse their pride and make it more difficult for them to hear what you have to say.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That’s what I’m talking about—leaving someone a corner to retire gracefully into. Otherwise, your <em>“Finish him!” </em>mentality will emotionally bruise them and leave them more resistant to the truth. Let’s remember that people—even those who might oppose us—are valuable image bearers of God. Though their false ideas need to be addressed, their souls need to be handled with care.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-can-t-play-mortal-kombat" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-can-t-play-mortal-kombat" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-can-t-play-mortal-kombat" 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: Apologetics Isn’t Argumentative
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/07/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/apologetics-isn-t-argumentative
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Some people discount apologetics because being argumentative is wrong. I agree…being argumentative <em>is</em> wrong. But <a href="https://youtu.be/ncCtfgdxnmQ" rel="noopener">apologetics isn’t argumentative</a>. At least, it shouldn’t be.</p>

<p>When a drunk driver crashes into a crowd of people, we don’t fault the car. The problem is the manner in which the car was driven. He drove while inebriated and was negligent. In other words, we distinguish between the thing itself (the car) and the manner in which it’s driven (drunk).</p>

<p>In the same way, we can distinguish between <em>apologetics</em> and the <em>manner in which it is practiced</em>. A person can have an argumentative personality. He can be belligerent, crass, and hostile. That manner is expressed when he participates in an apologetics conversation. In fact, it could be expressed in any interaction. <a href="/w/apologetics-doesn-t-have-to-be-a-slug-fest" rel="noopener">The problem is not with apologetics</a>,&nbsp;but with the character of the person.</p>

<p>This is a good reminder that everyone who calls himself a follower of Jesus must ask himself: What kind of ambassador am I? Am I good one or a bad one? Our character—how we come across to other people—says something about the person we represent. In this case, Christians represent Christ, and we need to be mindful of what we communicate about our King.</p>

<p>In fact, some of the highest profile apologists in the world—<a href="https://www.johnlennox.org/" rel="noopener">John Lennox</a>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.jpmoreland.com/" rel="noopener">J.P. Moreland</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rzim.org/speakers/ravi-zacharias" rel="noopener">Ravi Zacharias</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reasonablefaith.org/" rel="noopener">William Lane Craig</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://leestrobel.com/" rel="noopener">Lee Strobel</a>—are incredibly winsome people. Their apologetic engagements are patient, kind, and friendly.</p>

<p>Having good character is what prevents a person from making apologetics argumentative. When apologetics is in the hands of a winsome ambassador, it can drive the conversation in a healthy, kind, and productive way.</p>
</div>

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


title: You’re Probably Doing It Wrong: Tips for Speaking to a Camera
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/31/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/you-re-probably-doing-it-wrong-tips-for-speaking-to-a-camera
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I consider myself a pretty tech-savvy person. I’m able to pick up most gadgets and figure out how to use them without cracking open up the manual. However, I recently found out I’ve been using one piece of technology all wrong.</p>

<p>The world has changed. Most of us find ourselves stuck at home in isolation from family, friends, and co-workers. Where I live, we are no longer able to gather in groups of five or more. Consequently, we’ve been forced to rely on technology—like our webcams—for our communication and community. Co-workers are meeting on Zoom. Family and friends are connecting on Skype. Pastors and ministry workers are live streaming on Facebook and YouTube. All of this has us talking to a camera.</p>

<p>I used to think that speaking in front of my webcam was a no-brainer. Turn it on and go. But I recently found out there is a right way and a wrong way to speak on camera. <em>And most of us do it wrong.</em></p>

<p>Speaking to someone through a camera is different from speaking in person. One of the biggest obstacles is <em>connecting</em> with the person on the other end of the video. But there are some things we can do to help build a bridge between speaker and viewer.</p>

<p>Karl Faase, the CEO of Olive Tree Media, offers <a href="https://vimeo.com/401232380/a868a0e4c0?fbclid=IwAR3WQawkcKH5OwO6vLeHS6rCmf46dZoYja335Edrpfe3pOCso26LTXm_G3Y">seven tips</a> for better speaking on camera. (You can find all seven tips <a href="https://vimeo.com/401232380/a868a0e4c0?fbclid=IwAR3WQawkcKH5OwO6vLeHS6rCmf46dZoYja335Edrpfe3pOCso26LTXm_G3Y">here</a>.)</p>

<p><em>Tip #1 – Set Your Camera at Eye Level</em></p>

<p>This easy to do and makes a huge difference. It is very difficult to connect with someone when you’re staring up their nose or down on their forehead. Before you start speaking, set your camera—your phone, laptop, or webcam—so that it’s at eye level.</p>

<p><em>Tip #2 – Be Aware of Your Environment</em></p>

<p>We need to be aware of what is being picked up on the camera. Be sure to keep your environment clean. You don’t want your audience to be distracted by what’s around you.</p>

<p><em>Tip #3 – Keep the Light on Your Face</em></p>

<p>Your audience wants to see your face. This is where lighting comes into play. Lighting can be difficult, especially since most of us don’t have professional lights. Faase offers a helpful principle: make sure you have more light on you than behind you. This will allow your audience to see the most important thing on camera: <em>you.</em></p>

<p><em>Tip #4 – Check Your Audio</em></p>

<p>If you talk to a videographer, he will tell you that audio is more important than video. People will put up with poor video if the audio is good. But they won’t put up with bad audio. So, make sure you have a good microphone and you’re in a space with limited echo.</p>

<p><em>Tip #5 – Look at the Camera</em></p>

<p>Have you ever talked with someone face-to-face who didn’t make eye contact? It’s awkward and uncomfortable. That’s because eye contact is one of the best ways to connect with another person. No eye contact, no connection.</p>

<p>We can mimic eye contact by looking directly into the camera while we are speaking. This will feel odd at first, but it will help build rapport.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It’s so important that we stay connected through this current situation. Fortunately, we have technology that, when used properly, will help. Each of these five tips will help connect you with others at a time when we all feel disconnected. Happy videoing!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-re-probably-doing-it-wrong-tips-for-speaking-to-a-camera" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-re-probably-doing-it-wrong-tips-for-speaking-to-a-camera" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-re-probably-doing-it-wrong-tips-for-speaking-to-a-camera" 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 Are Some Good Ways to Start Spiritual Conversations?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/08/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-are-some-good-ways-to-start-spiritual-conversations-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The following was originally published <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/t/ask-greg-koukl-february-10-14-2020/26892/19">here</a> as part of a <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/t/ask-greg-koukl-february-10-14-2020/26892">Q&amp;A with Greg Koukl</a> on <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/">RZIM Connect</a>. </em></p>

<blockquote>
<p>Question from Theja: Can you kindly tell us some good starting/bridging points or tactics that leads to the gospel or points towards it in our conversations? Any good conversation starters in your experience throughout the years.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Sure, Theja, and thanks for the question. In the book <em><a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk470.htm">Tactics</a></em>, I chart a game plan that is easy to follow to help Christians initiate conversations in a comfortable, safe, and productive way. The key to the game plan is using friendly questions to draw the other person out, to get some sense of their views, and to understand their reasons for the views they hold.</p>

<p>I realize I haven’t said anything about getting to the gospel with this technique. That’s because I’ve discovered it’s much easier to navigate in conversations with people using questions, then watch carefully for an opportunity to move towards the gospel when an opening presents itself. This is a less aggressive approach than some people take, but I’ve found it to be not only the most effective when talking with others, but it’s also the easiest to employ for Christians who are a little more on the timid, or bashful, or shy side.</p>

<p>If you want a question that will take you immediately into a spiritual conversation, here is the one I suggest: What do you think happens when you die? You might lead into the question by first asking if the person you’re talking to would be willing to share their opinion about something you’re curious about. Then tell them it’s an issue you’ve been thinking about and you’re interested in other people’s point of view. Then you can ask the question.</p>

<p>Listen to them carefully, and if there are any ambiguities in their answer, ask more clarification questions. Finally, once you understand their view, ask them why they think this is what happens after they die. Now you’re looking for their reasons for their view, if they have any.</p>

<p>I find that asking questions like this allows me to be much more relaxed and allows the other person to be more relaxed, too. I’ve also seen some pretty surprising results in the process. It’s amazing what the Holy Spirit will do with this approach.</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-are-some-good-ways-to-start-spiritual-conversations-" 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-are-some-good-ways-to-start-spiritual-conversations-" 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-are-some-good-ways-to-start-spiritual-conversations-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How to Read Your Bible During a Pandemic
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 04/21/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-read-your-bible-during-a-pandemic
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted a glaring weakness in humanity. We live with the mistaken notion that we have something: control. Despite our wisdom, scientific acumen, and technological progress, the world has been brought to its knees by an enemy we cannot see.</p>

<p>For those of us with religious convictions, it has led us to focus again on the One who <em>is </em>in control. Our attention has rightly turned to God and His word, which is forever true and forever unchanging (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+1%3A24-25&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">1 Pet. 1:24–25</a>). Many believers have welcomed our need to lean on God and set our sights on Scripture.</p>

<p>While this refocus is right, we should remind ourselves to practice <a href="https://youtu.be/ut0jA0OvQ5g" rel="noopener" target="_blank">proper interpretive principles</a>. When we read Scripture, we should <a href="/w/my-most-controversial-teaching" rel="noopener" target="_blank">strive to understand what God is saying</a>. There’s no benefit to reading the Bible if we unintentionally miss the meaning of the text. Holy-Spirit-inspired transformation can only occur if we correctly understand (and apply) what God is communicating to us.</p>

<p>Recently, I started teaching an online series (on Facebook) on how to interpret the Bible. If you have a Facebook account, you can join me live on Wednesdays at 1:00 p.m. (PT). In each episode, I teach an interpretive principle and then walk through a <a href="/w/putting-words-in-god-s-mouth" rel="noopener" target="_blank">biblical passage that has been commonly misinterpreted</a>. I explain how the principle exposes the error and guides the reader to the correct meaning.</p>

<p>The first three episodes are <a href="https://www.facebook.com/677546855674210/videos/839001316619637/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/677546855674210/videos/217177732869857/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/677546855674210/videos/228184148293347/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>

<p>If you don’t have a Facebook account, the first two episodes are on YouTube <a href="https://youtu.be/ff7LxdUV4GE" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://youtu.be/JbPpmCKoBN8" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>. (See the first episode below.) Keep following <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK9clHWD7H4HxFlr2KreJ2w" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Stand to Reason’s YouTube channel</a> as we release additional episodes.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ff7LxdUV4GE" width="560"></iframe></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-to-read-your-bible-during-a-pandemic" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-read-your-bible-during-a-pandemic" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-read-your-bible-during-a-pandemic" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How to Stay Married in Quarantine
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 04/16/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-stay-married-in-quarantine
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The coronavirus crisis has consequences. There are health concerns, economic worries, education turmoil, and employment uncertainties. These aren’t the only concerns, though. In fact, there is one consequence of this crisis you may not have considered.</p>

<p>China was the first to lock down key areas with the hope of stopping—or at least slowing—the spread of the virus. The government ordered families to shelter in place. After weeks in isolation, many families emerged from quarantine physically whole but <em>relationally</em> broken. While many were shielded from sickness, they were powerless against marital problems. In the aftermath of China’s lockdown, the media is <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/divorces-spike-in-china-after-coronavirus-quarantines?fbclid=IwAR2IG2DJ8c34ViH5yAT3DBHRwBbibSx6XwDPZQP7jkV1sc4AfGLQ4MmATpg">reporting</a> a surge in divorces.</p>

<p>The coronavirus has produced unique circumstances. We are now spending more time with our families. Some have lost jobs. Some have kids home from school. All of this intensifies tension at home.</p>

<p>This should serve as a warning. Hardship often makes marriage harder. Quarantine creates quarrels. Isolation intensifies issues. Therefore, we need to be diligent in guarding our marriages.</p>

<p>In response, my wife and I are producing a series of videos titled “Marriage Under Quarantine.” Our hope is that this series will give you practical tools to protect your marriage in this pandemic.</p>

<p>We want husbands and wives to watch these videos together. You can watch the series live at 7:30 PM (ET) each Wednesday night on the Cedarview Community Church <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/cedarviewtv/videos">YouTube channel</a>.</p>

<p>You can check out the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kzKP1hcBlU">first episode</a> below.</p>

<p class="text-align-center"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7kzKP1hcBlU" width="560"></iframe></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-to-stay-married-in-quarantine" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-stay-married-in-quarantine" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-stay-married-in-quarantine" 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 Message from Greg on the COVID-19 Upheaval
topic: Announcements
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/19/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-message-from-greg-on-the-covid-19-upheaval
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I know the recent public health crisis has caused concerns and complications for everyone. Kids are out of school, workers are stranded at home, public hangouts are vacated, and people are scared. These are unusual times. I understand.</p>

<p>STR’s speaking events and conferences—including Birmingham reTHINK—are being canceled or postponed, grounding our speakers indefinitely, and we are re-ordering our schedules and our work plans to adjust. It’s hard to know what other difficulties you and I will have to confront in our personal lives and at STR as a result of the temporary disruptions: the depression of the economy, restrictions in travel, the availability of goods and services, the longer-term social and economic impact the present alarm might cause—or the harm that befalls your family if someone gets sick.</p>

<p>Don’t forget, though, Americans are a hardy breed, and we Christians are even hardier since, to paraphrase Paul, we know whom we have believed and we are convinced that He is able to guard what we have entrusted to Him until that day (2 Tim. 1:12). We have a safety net others do not.</p>

<p>I’m hoping and praying that this current health threat will play itself out before long, just as others have. It’s wise, though, that we take the kind of precautions appropriate to the circumstances, those that the CDC and other government agencies—both national and local—have advised. Our team is doing that, and we trust you are taking care of your own health and safety and the welfare of those close to you.</p>

<p>For us at Stand to Reason, though, the course is clear. We are going to stay steady at the helm. We are going to keep our hands to the plow. We have an important job to do and, while observing common-sense health safeguards, we are going to continue to move forcefully ahead with our mission and with our vision.</p>

<p>For our speakers, our altered travel schedules free up time for us to focus on other important things that might have been on the shelf while we were crisscrossing the country. None of us will have any difficulty redirecting our energies in profitable ways until the circumstances change. We have much to keep us busy.</p>

<p>Ironically, there may be a silver lining for you, too, during this current inconvenience. More time at home means more time together with family, more time to interact with those you love and cherish, and more time to give attention to important things that may have been neglected.</p>

<p>And remember, “social distance” doesn’t mean complete isolation, especially in a digital age. At STR we have podcasts, articles, videos and DVD courses that can strengthen you and your family during tough times. They will equip you to give hope to others during the current uncertainty. I urge you to share STR resources via email or social media with those in your network. Many people have time, and they are paying attention. You have an unprecedented opportunity to inspire faith instead of fear.</p>

<p>This is all just another way of saying we are here for you. If we can help you in any way, please let us know. If you need prayer, call us or email us (info@str.org). And be alert for those who may need your own help or encouragement, inside your family or outside. Pray for them. And pray together as a family—out loud, in a group. Remind them that God is in control.</p>

<p>We need prayer, too, for the health of our team, for the health of our larger STR community, and for STR’s financial stability during this time. The market has taken a temporary tumble because of the panic, and job schedules have been interrupted. It’s hard to know what effect this disruption will have for us economically. As for me, I’m not worried that this will be a problem given the incredible team of financial partners we have, but it is a possibility, thus the need for persevering prayer.</p>

<p>As for the present turmoil, this too shall pass. It always does. In the mean time, we at STR are going to stay calm, we are going to do our jobs without being distracted, and we are going to adjust to new circumstances as they present themselves. Simply put, we are going to be faithful and trust the Lord. Not a bad prescription for any challenge we face.</p>

<p>We are not afraid. I have great confidence in our team and in our larger STR community to step up and give our best regardless of the challenges—just as we have always done in the past. We have a tremendous Stand to Reason family. I am proud to be laboring beside you as part of 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-message-from-greg-on-the-covid-19-upheaval" 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-message-from-greg-on-the-covid-19-upheaval" 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-message-from-greg-on-the-covid-19-upheaval" 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 Are the Most Powerful Arguments for the Existence of God?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-are-the-most-powerful-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The following was originally published <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/t/ask-greg-koukl-february-10-14-2020/26892/15">here</a> as part of a <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/t/ask-greg-koukl-february-10-14-2020/26892">Q&amp;A with Greg Koukl</a> on <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/">RZIM Connect</a>. </em></p>

<blockquote>
<p>Question from Marvin: What are the top most powerful arguments for the existence of God, and if there’s a logical order in which we should present them.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Marvin, this one is fairly easy for me since I have two favorites I think are relatively easy to follow and are really powerful evidences for God.</p>

<p>Let me introduce the first one—my favorite—with a question: What is the most frequently raised objection against theism of any sort? If you answered “the problem of evil,” you’d be right. There’s a reason for this. There is one thing every person knows, no matter where he lived or when he lived. Everyone knows the world is broken. Things are not the way they’re supposed to be. That’s the complaint. And they don’t simply mean that things happen they don’t like. That’s relativism. They mean there really are evil, wicked things that take place (objectivism).</p>

<p>Since this awareness is universal—it’s an obvious and undeniable feature of reality—we can use it as an ally to make our case for God. Contrary to popular belief, the problem of evil is not a good argument <em>against</em> God. It’s actually one of the best arguments <em>for</em> God. The problem with the problem of evil is that if God <em>does not</em> exist, there can be no real evil to object to. Here’s why.</p>

<p>The complaint about evil itself requires transcendent, universal laws that govern the world—objective morality—in order for real evil to exist as a violation of those laws. Transcendent moral laws require a transcendent lawmaker—God. Saying the world is “supposed” to be a certain way requires a “sposer,” so to speak—someone who intended the world to be much better than it is.</p>

<p>If there is no God, then there is no transcendent moral lawmaker. If no lawmaker, then no universal moral laws we’re all obligated to obey. If no moral laws, then no broken laws. If no broken laws, then no problem of evil. Simply put, then, if there is no God, there can be no evil (or good, for that matter).</p>

<p>Yet there <em>is</em> a problem of evil (we all know this), so there must be broken laws, so there must be laws, so there must be a transcendent law <em>maker</em>, so there must be a God.</p>

<p>If you want the philosophic mumbo jumbo, here it is. This approach is classically called the moral argument for God’s existence. Stated as a syllogism, it looks like this:</p>

<ul>
	<li>If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).</li>
	<li>But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).</li>
	<li>Therefore, there is a God.</li>
</ul>

<p>The form of the syllogism is valid (<em>modus tollens</em>), and the premises are true. Therefore, the argument is sound.</p>

<p>My second favorite argument for God’s existence is a little easier. It has a fancy name—the Kalam cosmological argument—but it’s really easy to understand. By the way, a “cosmological” argument is any argument for God’s existence that’s based on the mere existence of the cosmos, the universe.</p>

<p>Here’s the basic idea.</p>

<ul>
	<li>First, for anything that came into existence, there must have been something that caused it to come into existence. Clearly, effects have causes. Pretty basic, and entirely consistent with our common-sense experience of the world.</li>
	<li>Second, the material universe (the cosmos) came into existence sometime in the past. Virtually everyone affirms this point because of the widespread and, I think, justified belief in the Big Bang.</li>
	<li>Therefore, the material universe must have had a cause.</li>
</ul>

<p>Put most simply, “a Big Bang needs a big Banger.” The bang didn’t bang itself. Note, by the way, that this line of thinking puts the cause of the cosmos outside of the material universe. So the cause would have to be immaterial, intelligent, powerful, and personal—since only persons can start a causal chain of events.</p>

<p>This argument doesn’t prove the God of the Bible, of course, but it gets us pretty close, and it’s a great springboard to other arguments and other evidences for Christianity.</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-are-the-most-powerful-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-are-the-most-powerful-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-are-the-most-powerful-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


