# articles

title: This One Thing Could Destroy Christianity Completely…
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/this-one-thing-could-destroy-christianity-completely
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It will take only one thing to destroy Christianity completely. One thing will render the Christian faith worthless. One thing will make your hope in Christ vain. One thing will make Christians the objects of scorn and contempt—and with good reason.</p>

<p>If the most bizarre thing Christians believe turns out to be false—if a brutally crucified man didn’t walk from his tomb, if Jesus never rose from the dead—then, Paul conceded, Christianity will be finished, and we of all people are “most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:19).</p>

<p>If Jesus rose from the dead, then everything critical to Christianity is true. If Jesus stayed dead, everything uniquely important about Christianity is false. It’s all or nothing.</p>

<p>But is it true? Do we have good reason to trust in the resurrection? I’ll give you three evidences—firmly rooted in history—that make the case, along with questions (in italics) you can use to maneuver tactically in conversations this Easter on this issue.</p>

<p>First things first, though: <em>What is the minimum we’d have to show to verify a resurrection?</em> Well, it seems we’d only need to show that a person was truly dead at one point in time and then was truly alive at a later point in time. <em>Would that do it? If not, why not?</em> Our strategy will focus on those two points. This is where history helps out.</p>

<p>Only three essential facts are needed to make our case that Jesus died then rose. Here they are: 1) Jesus was dead and buried. 2) The tomb was empty. 3) The disciples were transformed. That’s all. Nothing fancy. Nothing complicated.</p>

<p>Note two critical details about these facts. First, each piece of evidence is about something completely earthly. Nothing supernatural, only natural—a corpse, an empty tomb, and apparent personal encounters of some sort changing doubters into believers.</p>

<p>Second, though most New Testament scholars do not think Jesus rose from the dead (there’s a split decision on that question), on the main they affirm all three minimal facts. The critics side with us on the essentials, confirming that the basic evidences themselves are historically reliable. Let’s look at them one by one.</p>

<p><strong>Jesus was dead and buried. </strong>There is no academic dispute on this point. After brutally beating and flogging Jesus, battle-seasoned Roman soldiers executed Him on a cross and declared Him dead, plunging a spear through His chest for good measure. He was then embalmed with 80 pounds of spices, wrapped up, and sealed in a stone tomb.</p>

<p><em>So, based on the record, is it reasonable to conclude Jesus survived that ordeal?</em> If not, the first piece of the resurrection puzzle is in place: Jesus was dead. Now on to our second piece: Was Jesus alive at a later time? The last two facts address this concern.</p>

<p><strong>The tomb was empty Sunday morning. </strong>Nearly three-quarters of all scholars agree here, since the empty tomb was never disputed by anyone at the time, even the Jews and Romans. <em>Why was Jesus’ body never produced to quell the rumor of resurrection?</em> Present the corpse, end the controversy. Pretty simple.</p>

<p>Here’s the question: <em>Where was the body? Stolen? By whom?</em> The Jews wanted Jesus dead. So did the Romans. That leaves the disciples. <em>But why would they carry off Jesus’ corpse? And how would they get past the guard?</em> The record shows they did not expect a resurrection anyway, and some resisted the claim when they heard of it. Plus, the disciples had nothing to gain by lying except being beaten, whipped, stoned, crucified, or beheaded. This is why virtually all historians today reject this option.</p>

<p><strong>The disciples were transformed</strong>. Even the most critical scholars acknowledge that the disciples proclaimed the resurrection at their peril because they <em>thought</em> they’d encountered the risen Christ. Many paid the ultimate price—including the skeptic James and the former executioner of Christians, Paul—choosing death rather than retraction.</p>

<p><em>What did they all see? Whom did they meet with, walk with, even eat with?</em> Some say they imagined—or hallucinated—the risen Christ. <em>How? Different people, at different times, in different locations—individually and in groups—all imagining the same thing at the same time or having the same hallucination at the same time? Really?</em></p>

<p>Note that hallucinations, like dreams, are entirely private experiences. Others can’t join you in your sensory delusions. It doesn’t happen, especially over and over again with different groups of people. Something else was going on. <em>What was it? And if, possibly, a hallucination or an imagining of some sort, what of the empty tomb?</em></p>

<p>Which brings us to our final, most important question: <em>What single explanation makes sense of all of the historical details that virtually every academic in the field agrees on—the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, and the transformation of the disciples and the skeptics? What single interpretation accounts for all the facts?</em></p>

<p>Here it is, the answer Peter gives—the only answer that fits all the evidence: “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:32). Those who disagree must solve this problem: <em>“What is a better explanation of the facts?”</em></p>

<p>In the final analysis, the one thing that could destroy Christianity turns out to be the one thing that verifies everything important. Put simply, He is risen.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthis-one-thing-could-destroy-christianity-completely" 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%2Fthis-one-thing-could-destroy-christianity-completely" 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%2Fthis-one-thing-could-destroy-christianity-completely" 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: Strengthen Your Convictions about the Truth by Feeding Your Beliefs
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 04/30/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/strengthen-your-convictions-about-the-truth-by-feeding-your-beliefs
content:
            <div> 
		<p>All of our lives have been upturned. Our schedules are in disarray, our minds distracted by legitimate concerns and trivial time-wasters, our hearts distressed by losses and fears. C.S. Lewis warns there is a particular danger to our reasoned convictions about truth in the midst of all of this. Joe Rigney explains in his book <em><a href="https://smile.amazon.com/Lewis-Christian-Life-Becoming-Theologians/dp/1433550555/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1588262276&amp;sr=8-2">Lewis on the Christian Life</a></em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Imagination is often the main avenue for temptation. In Lewis’s mind, often “the battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other.” Imagination provokes our emotions, and our emotions carry out a blitz on our belief. We believe Christianity to be true based on good evidence, but then bad news, or danger, or peer pressure creates a mood that makes Christianity appear less probable. Or we want to do some action that God forbids, and we find that it would be very convenient for Christianity to be false, and so our desire to sin carries out a blitz. In these cases, we have not discovered new evidence against Christianity; our desires and fears, fed by imagination, lure us away.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>How do we fight being lured away from our beliefs by imagination and emotions according to Lewis? Rigney continues:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[W]e must strengthen our convictions about the truth. We know that our moods will change; the blitz will come. So we have to teach our moods “where they get off.” We do so by holding the doctrines of Christianity before our minds every day. Daily prayers, daily reading of the Scriptures, gathering together with other believers—these are essential for the Christian life. “We have to be continually reminded of what we believe. Neither this belief nor any other will automatically remain alive in the mind. It must be fed.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are many ways we can “hold the doctrines of Christianity before our minds every day,” but I want to suggest a particular strategy you can use over this next month to structure your day around communion with God. It’s a free guide by Trevin Wax titled <em><a href="https://csbible.com/psalmsin30/">Psalms in 30 Days: A Prayer Guide through the Psalter</a></em>. He has divided up all 150 Psalms into 30 days of morning, afternoon, and evening prayer times, arranging them along with other written prayers and confessions of faith. Here’s a brief <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/pray-all-the-psalms-with-me-the-next-30-days/">description</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Every prayer time begins with a call to prayer and includes the <em>Gloria,</em> the Lord’s Prayer, and closes with a biblical blessing.</p>

<p>The morning prayer guide includes a “confession of faith” taken from Scripture, the ancient creeds, or a recent confession released in celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. The evening prayer guide includes a “confession of sin” and a biblical promise of absolution to all who repent.</p>

<p>The morning and evening prayers also include songs from Scripture as well as written prayers from Christians through the ages, and a time set aside for you to intercede on behalf of others and bring your personal requests to the Lord.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest of <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/pray-all-the-psalms-with-me-the-next-30-days/">what Trevin Wax has to say about his project</a>, and then <a href="https://csbible.com/psalmsin30/">download the guide</a>. I encourage you to use this opportunity to create a new, grounding routine in your life to keep you on track in the midst of the chaos and uncertainty we’re all experiencing.</p>
</div>

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


title: Did God Ordain Abortion as Punishment for Infidelity?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/24/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-god-ordain-abortion-as-punishment-for-infidelity-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Though abortion is inconsistent with the Christian worldview, some people point to a Bible passage they believe ordains abortion. Numbers 5:11–31 cites an unusual test for adultery. If a husband suspects his wife is unfaithful, he’s to bring her before a priest, where a ritual takes place to determine her guilt or innocence. The woman takes an oath and drinks bitter water—a concoction of holy water and dust from the tabernacle floor. Verse 27 describes one possible outcome.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This procedure employs a providential sign from God to indicate infidelity. If the woman is guilty, “her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry,” a curse that some suggest amounts to an “intentional miscarriage.” If so, they claim, this demonstrates that God ordained abortion.</p>

<p>There are several reasons, however, why they’re mistaken and that the passage probably isn’t referring to a type of miscarriage, let alone an abortion.</p>

<p>First, even if the original Hebrew suggests a miscarriage (the child dies), it still wouldn’t support the abortion-choice position. If a child dies in this scenario, it’s because of<em> God’s judgment, </em>not <em>a woman’s private decision</em>. Even if the passage indicates an intentional miscarriage, it doesn’t justify abortion any more than God killing David’s son (2 Sam. 12:14, 18) justifies infanticide. God is the author and sustainer of life. If anyone has the right to take life, He does. In this ritual, there’s nothing in the potion itself that can reveal the woman’s guilt or innocence. The potion is merely symbolic. The curse comes from God and not any human being. There is no parallel here with elective abortion.</p>

<p>But does this text even mention miscarriage? The NIV is one of the few popular translations that renders the passage, “Her womb will miscarry.” Note, though, the NIV is a “dynamic equivalent” translation and not a precise word-for-word translation. The <a href="http://www.lockman.org/nasb/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">NASB</a>, on the other hand, is more precise, rendering the passage “her thigh will waste away.” The popular ESV doesn’t refer to a pregnancy, miscarriage, or child either. The NIV��s rendering, therefore, is imprecise. If you don’t have access to the original language, stick with a word-for-word translation like the NASB, my own go-to translation when doing careful Bible study.</p>

<p>What, then, is meant by “her thigh will waste away”? When the meaning of the original language is ambiguous, it’s important to turn to a key interpretive principle: Never read a Bible verse. Never try to understand the meaning of a text in isolation from its context. Read as much as you can before and after the passage in question to help you determine what it means. In this case, the context indicates an entirely different meaning than what abortion-choice advocates suggest.</p>

<p>Look at what the verse immediately <em>following</em> the curse says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, then the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. <em>But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.</em>” [NASB, emphasis mine.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice how the blessing is contrasted with the curse. If the woman is guilty, “her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away.” If she is innocent, “she will then be free and conceive children.” Two things stand out when you read the blessing with the curse. One, the blessing of future fertility suggests that the curse is bareness, not miscarriage—and certainly not abortion. Children were a blessing from the Lord, and barrenness was a curse, so the contrast between the curse in verse 27 and the promise in verse 28 makes perfect sense. Two, the woman would “conceive children,” suggesting that a child had not yet been conceived. Rather, conception would be a future blessing based on her innocence.</p>

<p>This understanding is consistent with the rest of scripture and <a href="/w/am-i-against-abortion-just-because-i-m-a-christian-" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Christian theology</a>. The Bible teaches it’s wrong to kill innocent human beings and routinely assumes pre-born humans are fully human, with a full human nature (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2049%3A1&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Isa. 49:1</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+1%3A5&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jer. 1:5</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+1%3A41&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Luke 1:41</a>; etc.). Since we also know from science that the unborn are true human beings, killing the unborn would be killing a human being. According to Scripture, that’s wrong. Our understanding of Numbers 5:11–31 is consistent with that view.</p>
</div>

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


title: Three Reasons Why College Students Leave Christianity
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/18/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/three-reasons-why-college-students-leave-christianity
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The following was originally published <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/t/ask-greg-koukl-february-10-14-2020/26892/8">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: With your years of engaging with college students, what are the top 3 reasons why Christians fall-out from their faith (and choose other religion or be an atheist), and how can we help them to get back with Christ?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Marvin, first you need to know that my information is somewhat second hand, since in my university experience (over 85 campuses to date), I haven’t engaged a lot of “deconverted” former Christians. From pieces they’ve written, though, and also from polls addressing the issue, I do have a sense of some of the things going on.</p>

<p>Principally, Christians that “lose their faith” frequently never had much confidence in it to begin with. The current data shows that those who jettison Christianity in college have already begun to fade in junior high and high school but only went public when they entered the secular environment of the academy. Simply put, we lost them early while they were still in church under our watch.</p>

<p>Their chief general reason for dropping out is this: The questions they asked in church as teenagers were never answered—and often were never even welcome. Since they had no good evidence Christianity was actually true, they had no good reason to stick with it when the cultural pressure in the university pushed them away from Christianity rather than towards it.</p>

<p>Here’s another issue that may initially surprise you until you think about it a moment: sex. It’s much easier to follow the rules when friends and family and youth leaders are looking over your shoulder. Move hundreds or even thousands of miles away, though, and everything changes. There are few external incentives encouraging the Christian to be virtuous. Just the opposite. To complicate matters, a recent refrain from non-Christians is that if God exists He can’t be good since He doesn’t allow us to satisfy our sexual impulses—however varied they might be—at will. This is compelling for young people looking for love in all the wrong places.</p>

<p>The third significant speed bump for college kids is a host of issues regarding the Bible—slavery, patriarchy, apparent ethnic cleansing and genocide, sexual restraints, etc. These are tougher issues because they require big-picture thinking about God’s designs and also an understanding both of the purpose of the Mosaic Law and the prevailing cultural conditions in the ancient Near East that the Law was speaking into and was, in many cases, improving.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-reasons-why-college-students-leave-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%2Fthree-reasons-why-college-students-leave-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%2Fthree-reasons-why-college-students-leave-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: PragerU: The Intolerance of Tolerance
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/16/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/prageru-the-intolerance-of-tolerance
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Greg shares how to navigate today's meaning of tolerance in a new video by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.prageru.com/video/the-intolerance-of-tolerance/" rel="" target="_blank" title="">PragerU</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What does it mean to be tolerant? The dictionary defines tolerance as respect for opinions, beliefs, and practices that differ from your own. But in our polarized cultural climate, it has come to mean something else entirely. Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason, sorts it all out.</p>
</blockquote>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ENKJBDMOjt4"></iframe></div>
</div>

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


title: Why Did God Let This Happen? Is It God’s Plan?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/25/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-did-god-let-this-happen-is-it-god-s-plan-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The following was originally published <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/t/ask-greg-koukl-february-10-14-2020/26892/10">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 Lin: I am in Wuhan, China. The Corona virus started from my city and it spreads all over the world. The city is locked down: we are not allowed to leave the area. We have been isolated 16 days and we don’t know when is the end. The situation is still tough: more than 10 thousands are infected, 700 more died, based on official report. Many families are broken and suffering. Unaccountable people will face much difficulties in their livings in the coming weeks… My question is why God let it happen? Is it God’s plan?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>First, my heart goes out to you in this difficult situation. It sounds like you’re holding up well so far, though, and I’m glad to hear it.</p>

<p>The question “Why did God let this happen? Is it God’s plan?” is complicated since there is more than one answer depending on what sense of “God’s plan” you have in mind. In one sense the answer is “No.” In another sense the answer is “Yes.”</p>

<p>First, a qualifier. Virtually every question that starts with the phrases “Why <em>did</em> God…?” or “Why <em>didn’t</em> God…?” simply cannot be answered with any certainty, since the answers to those questions are usually hidden in the mind of God and He rarely reveals to us what He’s up to.</p>

<p>Two different elements are in play here: the big picture of evil in the world, and the smaller picture of specific evils that happen at specific times, in specific places, hurting specific people. The second element is the subject of your question.</p>

<p>First to the larger issue of evil in the world, though. This question has plagued Christian thinkers and philosophers for ages, but the general consensus is that evil in the world is not an argument against God if it’s possible He has a good reason to allow it for a time—usually to accomplish a greater good. Virtually everyone—Christian or not—who has thought about that option considers it sound. But what greater good could there be with a plague like the Corona virus? That, of course, is difficult for us to tell.</p>

<p>I want you to think for a moment about hardship you may have encountered in the past—even evil things that have happened to you—that you now look back on and can see God’s good plan resulting from the evil that was done. Most Christians who have been around for a while have experiences like that. One clear biblical example is Joseph. He endured great evil and hardship against him, though God accomplished a great good out of it. As Joseph said to his brothers, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to…preserve many people” (Gen. 50:20).</p>

<p>This brings us to two different notions of God’s “plans.” Of course, it is never God’s desire (one sense of “God’s plan”—His moral will) that evil things happen, yet man’s rebellion against God has resulted in a world that is broken. Now God purposes to take the bad and use it for good (the second sense of “God’s plan”—His sovereign will), just as He did with Joseph. Remember, at no time during Joseph’s entire life of suffering did he know how God was working. Only at the very end did he see it. Yet, God was there, nonetheless.</p>

<p>I read a line from a secular author this morning regarding those who have fallen prey to terrible circumstances like you are facing. He wrote, “What wisdom there is in the universe that decided your paths were necessary, I don’t understand.” We do understand, though, at least in part. The world is broken and so are we, and God is working in the midst of it to bring good out of it even if we don’t see it now.</p>

<p>So we know there is a kind of a war going on, and we know where to turn and whom to trust in the darkest hours. But as to why a particular soldier in this war dies on a particular spot on a particular day in a particular battlefield is a question only God knows the answer to. We are in the middle of this great story of God’s working on the earth to bring redemption to a broken world, and there are casualties. That is why Jesus told us, “In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world” (Jn. 16:33).</p>

<p>I have written in more detail about these things in <em><a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk421.htm">The Story of Reality</a></em>, chapters 14 and 23. You may want to take a look at them if you have the opportunity.</p>

<p>One final thought. Your question is often brought up by skeptics who are looking to discredit the Christian worldview based on evil in the world. I know that’s not your concern, but still you may be facing people that raise this issue. For them, I have a simple question: What is the alternative?</p>

<p>Let’s say the skeptic refuses to believe in God because he sees the evil around him. Notice, though, that when he rejects God, the evil around him doesn’t simply disappear. It’s still there. The question remains. How does he make sense of evil in the world now that he’s an atheist? What resources does his materialism provide for him to answer that problem from within his worldview, and what resources does atheism provide to bring comfort and solace in the hardest of times?</p>

<p>You see, even with the unanswered questions we face as Christians, the alternatives fare far worse. An atheistic worldview cannot make sense of evil in the world. By contrast, what you see in China now is exactly the kind of thing we would expect to see if the Bible’s view of the world were accurate, even though we are deeply distressed by these events.</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-did-god-let-this-happen-is-it-god-s-plan-" 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-did-god-let-this-happen-is-it-god-s-plan-" 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-did-god-let-this-happen-is-it-god-s-plan-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Should a Church Host a Small Group for Christians Who Struggle with Same-Sex Attraction?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/26/2020
source:
https://www.str.org/w/should-a-church-host-a-small-group-for-christians-who-struggle-with-same-sex-attraction-

content:
            <div> 
		<p>When I speak at certain events, I’m asked a myriad of questions about sex, homosexuality, and other gender-related topics. Recently, I was asked by a young woman whether I think it’s permissible for her church to host a small group devoted to Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction (SSA). Apparently, she suggested the idea to her church, but it was opposed. She wondered whether there was a good reason behind her church’s rejection of the idea.</p>

<p>Keep in mind what is meant by a “Christian who struggles with SSA.” This refers to a professing believer who experiences romantic attraction to the same sex. This Christian, though, does <em>not </em>consider their SSA to be good or healthy. They do <em>not</em> identify as gay or queer. They do <em>not</em> call themselves a “gay Christian.”</p>

<p>Rather, they believe <a href="/w/are-we-accountable-for-unchosen-sinful-desires-" rel="noopener">their SSA is a result of their sinful nature</a>. They know that to satisfy their SSA—either through sexual fantasy or through homosexual behavior—is to commit sin. They want to obey Scripture, follow the commands of Christ, and never succumb to their same-sex sexual temptations. That is why this person is referred to as a Christian who <em>struggles </em>with SSA. They are struggling and fighting against their same-sex sexual temptation to sin. Sometimes, however, they give in to their temptations—either in thought or deed—and commit sin. In the event of such a failing, they confess to God, ask for His forgiveness, notify their accountability partner, and then pray that God would help them flee from further temptation. In other words, they are repentant of their sin and sinful inclination. I know of countless Christians who have shared with me that they experience what I just described.</p>

<p>Such a person, I would argue, is <em>exactly the same as any other professing Christian</em>. Every believer experiences some desires (whether sexual or other) that, if they yielded to them, would be considered sin. So, there is nothing unusual about a Christian who struggles with SSA. They are a normal Christian believer in every sense of the word. The only difference is that they experience a different kind of temptation. Of course, we all experience our own unique temptations.</p>

<p>Should a Christian who struggles with SSA have a small group available at their church where they can connect with others who have a similar struggle? I had two thoughts when the young woman told me about the resistance she experienced at her church.</p>

<p>First, it’s possible that church wrongly considers homosexual behavior to be the worst sin. If so, then the church’s opposition towards homosexuality could rise to the point where the leadership is resistant to anything related to that particular sin. But as I’ve written in the past, <a href="/w/homosexuality-worst-sin-all" rel="noopener">homosexuality is not the worst sin</a>.</p>

<p>Second, it’s also possible the leadership fears that bringing believers who struggle with SSA together within a group will lead to moral compromise. Of course, we don’t want to create an environment that promotes sin rather than works to prevent it. That’s why whenever I’ve talked to people involved in these groups, they tell me that they have mature believers who facilitate the group. It’s not just a free for all. They have a leader who directs the group towards spiritual maturity through Bible study, instruction, book reading, prayer, accountability, and other activities that nurture everyone’s faith. They set up systems to keep contact information confidential and limit outside exposure so people’s privacy can be respected. To be honest, these are the same things I see in other small groups that serve a targeted group of people (e.g. those who struggle with porn, substance abuse, etc.).</p>

<p>I understand that many people are neither knowledgeable about nor comfortable with homosexuality and consequently don’t know how to properly respond. But brothers and sisters in Christ who struggle with SSA are just like other believers. They would greatly benefit from a small group that is filled with loving and compassionate Christians who can walk with them through their challenges. A small group will give them an opportunity to be vulnerable, confess their sins to one another, hear from others who share their struggle, be held accountable, get continual prayer for their challenges, and be supported by those who have walked this journey before them.</p>

<p>Ideally, however, I would love to see Christians who struggle with SSA in a “regular” small group—not one specifically for people with SSA—and feel comfortable sharing their struggle. Everyone in the group would simply be seen as a believer who struggles with some sin. Everyone in the group would accept everyone. Everyone would pray for and encourage others. They would “all be one,” just as Christ prayed (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+17%3A21&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jn. 17:21</a>).</p>

<p>Small group settings have been incredibly powerful in my own life. My wife and I have hosted small groups for 20 years and found the vulnerability, accountability, prayer, and friendship to be life-giving. We had the privilege of creating a group that gave those who struggled with SSA the freedom to share their struggle and feel just like any other believer (because they were). I realize not every corner in the church may be there just yet. In time, however, I think it’s possible. For now, we should allow churches to host groups that support and encourage believers who struggle with SSA.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-a-church-host-a-small-group-for-christians-who-struggle-with-same-sex-attraction-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-a-church-host-a-small-group-for-christians-who-struggle-with-same-sex-attraction-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-a-church-host-a-small-group-for-christians-who-struggle-with-same-sex-attraction-" 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 Non-Christians Think of Christians and Christianity?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Keith Plummer
date: 02/19/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-do-non-christians-think-of-christians-and-christianity-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Each semester, I teach an introductory apologetics course to undergrads who are in either their junior or senior year. The class is designed to be comprehensive, covering topics such as the biblical basis for apologetics, defending and commending the faith by our words and our lives, understanding and responding to cultural assumptions that make Christianity seem implausible, engaging people at the level of their desires and imaginations as well as their intellects, and responding to frequently encountered objections. Our required text is <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Apologetics-Cross-Introduction-Christian-Witness/dp/0310524687/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=apologetics+at+the+cross&amp;qid=1582143413&amp;sr=8-1" rel="" target="" title="">Apologetics at the Cross</a> </em>by Joshua Chatraw and Mark Allen, a volume which I highly recommend.</p>

<p>One of the assignments I require of students is that they interview a non-Christian using a series of questions I’ve prepared. By “non-Christian,” I mean anyone who would not claim to be trusting in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. That includes atheists, agnostics, adherents to other world religions, and those who might describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” Students are free to supplement my questions with their own if they’d like, as long as they make sure to ask all of the ones I give them. (In response to two of their conversation partner’s answers, students also have to ask one of the Columbo Tactic questions, but they can’t use the same question both times.)</p>

<p>The aim of the interview is not for students to actually <em>do</em> apologetics. I just want them to become more comfortable talking with non-Christians and to establish a habit of asking questions and listening attentively. I also want them to see firsthand how and where the ideas that we discuss in the classroom are at work in the lives of people they know.</p>

<p>Here are the required questions:</p>

<ol>
	<li>How would you describe your personal spiritual beliefs?</li>
	<li>Do you believe God exists? If so, why, and what do you believe God is like? If not, why?</li>
	<li>What has your exposure to Christianity been?</li>
	<li>As best as you can, describe what you think Christianity teaches.</li>
	<li>Who do you believe Jesus was and why?</li>
	<li>What do you think about the Bible?</li>
	<li>What is your honest perception of Christians?</li>
	<li>What are your top reasons for not believing the Christian faith is true?</li>
	<li>Do you have any objections to Christianity? If so, what?</li>
	<li>Is there anything that could persuade you that Christianity <em>is</em> true? If so, what? If not, why?</li>
</ol>

<p>Reading through the responses is always interesting and sometimes disheartening—disheartening because it’s a revealing glimpse into the prevalence of misconceptions that exist about the Christian faith and the work that needs to be done to correct them. Another reason for heartache is that some of the objections people raise to the faith are due to mistreatment they’ve experienced and/or misconduct they’ve observed on the part of those professing to be followers of Jesus. I haven’t kept a running tally, but there are a few recurring responses that I’ll briefly discuss below.</p>

<p>Those who deny or are skeptical about God’s existence frequently offer the lack of evidence as a reason for their disbelief. I’ve noticed that it’s especially the absence of <em>scientific </em>evidence to which many appeal. This reveals a number of things. First, it shows the prevalence of the assumption of scientism, namely that science is the only reliable means of ascertaining what is true or real. Many take it as a given that empirical verification is the sole means of determining that something actually exists. Indeed, we do learn much about reality by way of our senses, but to insist that reality is restricted to that which is capable of being detected by our senses is, as Alvin Plantinga has observed, like the drunkard who loses his car keys at night and insists that they must be under the street light because that’s the only place he can see. Science is invaluable for learning about the workings of the natural world, but it can’t tell us about everything. To acknowledge this is not to be anti-scientific; it’s simply to recognize science’s limits. The God of the Bible is not a part of the natural world but its Creator and Preserver. As theologian James Dolezal says, "God isn't the greatest thing in the world—because God isn't a thing in the world. God is the reason there is a world." To attempt to find God using the same means we employ to detect finite natural entities is to deny an essential component of Christian belief—namely that God transcends and gives being to all else.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Another noteworthy point is that the majority of responses to the question about what Christianity teaches has to do with ethics and morality. According to most of those interviewed, Christianity teaches things like how to become a better person, to love others, to forgive, etc. In other words, the perception of many unbelievers is that Christianity is primarily an ethical code; it’s heavy on right conduct but light on redemption and grace. I’d like to think that this misunderstanding is primarily due to non-Christians having little to no contact with genuine Christians. I’m sure that in some instances this is the case. However, I have to admit to a lurking fear that this is not wholly to blame. There’s no way to be sure, but I can’t help wondering how many of those who so responded did so <em>as a result</em> of interaction with believers. In any event, it’s a good reminder to me of the necessity of keeping Jesus and the message of the cross central in my conversations with the lost. The cross was necessary because of the reality of our rebellion, so we can’t escape addressing conduct (and shouldn’t try). But it’s crucial that we so emphasize the Christ-centered gospel of grace that we don’t contribute to any misguided notions that biblical Christianity is essentially a self-improvement plan.</p>

<p>There aren’t many surprises among responses about what non-Christians object to regarding Christianity. People frequently bring up opposition to homosexuality. Another frequently-encountered response is that Christians are hypocritical. In some cases, this is born out of non-Christians really having been hurt by professing Christians. In others, it’s a general accusation not associated in any particular offense. Every now and then, however, respondents express an appreciation and respect for the Christians they know.</p>

<p>What, if anything, could persuade people that Christianity is true? Many of the answers to this question have something to do with a personal experience of God or some kind of empirical proof. One person, for example, replied, “I would absolutely be able to be persuaded to believe. But it would take actually hearing or seeing a physical God or Heaven and Hell to get me to believe. Or even some solid proof that humans have a soul and that it’s an actual part of us.” Answers like this take us back to the widespread assumption of scientism.</p>

<p>One of the things I want students to take away from this assignment is the realization that apologetics, while it does involve responding to objections and answering questions, requires so much more. It requires taking people seriously by asking questions. This conveys interest in them and can also serve them by helping them, perhaps for the first time, to give more concentrated thought to what it is that they actually believe. Some of their answers will reveal misconceptions about what Christianity actually teaches, in which case we can gently and respectfully offer clarification and correction.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">I believe there is scientific evidence that strongly points to the existence of God such as the fine-tuning of physical constants and evidence for the universe having a beginning but this is of a different nature than the kind of evidence that many seem to have in mind when they appeal to the lack of evidence for God’s existence. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-do-non-christians-think-of-christians-and-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%2Fwhat-do-non-christians-think-of-christians-and-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%2Fwhat-do-non-christians-think-of-christians-and-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: Humans Are Still Evolving
topic: Science
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/11/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/humans-are-still-evolving
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It was an ominous introduction: “Evolution waits for no man.” I had been scanning my news feed and ran across this article: “<a href="https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/humans-still-evolving-3-recent-adaptations">Humans Are Still Evolving: 3 Examples of Recent Adaptations</a>.” It piqued my curiosity. Plus, I wasn’t surprised to see a popular-level article around this time, given that <a href="/w/darwin-day-is-not-really-about-darwin" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Darwin Day</a> was just around the corner. So, I wondered what new evidence had emerged that demonstrates Darwinian evolution. What changes can we see in humans today that shed light on a mechanism that can evolve fish into <em>Homo sapiens</em>? I had to keep reading.</p>

<p>Keep in mind <a href="/w/ask-the-right-question-about-evolution" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the critical question that needs to be asked</a> whenever someone is making a case for evolution: What definition of evolution is being used? There are several ways to categorize the different definitions. I often use the following system:</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Change over time</strong>: According to this definition, everything changes. Clouds evolve, cities evolve, and GPAs evolve. Everything evolves. I’ve never heard of anyone denying that change occurs over time.</li>
</ul>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution" rel="noopener"><strong>Microevolution</strong></a>: According to this definition, <em>small</em> changes take place within a species to create new characteristics. It is often thought these changes occur as a result of mutation and natural selection. Common examples include <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/antibiotic_resistance.htm" rel="noopener">bacterial resistance to antibiotics</a>, the changes in beak size among “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches" rel="noopener">Darwin’s finches</a>,” or the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution" rel="noopener">change in color of the British population of peppered moths</a>. As with the first definition, I don’t run across people who deny that this type of “evolution” can occur. These changes are observable (empirical) within a human lifetime.</li>
</ul>

<ul>
	<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution" rel="noopener"><strong>Macroevolution</strong></a>: According to this definition, large-scale changes take place above the taxonomic level of species. In other words, a macroevolutionary change would include reptiles evolving into birds, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1553008.stm" rel="noopener">wolf-like creatures evolving into whales</a>, or <a href="https://www.npr.org/2010/07/05/127937070/the-human-edge-finding-our-inner-fish" rel="noopener">fish evolving into humans</a>. These large (macro) changes are believed to be the result of the same fundamental process that occurs with <em>micro</em>evolution, but over a longer period of time (e.g. hundreds of thousands of years). That’s why this type of evolution isn’t empirical. It’s this definition of evolution that is doubted by scores of people, <a href="https://dissentfromdarwin.org/" rel="noopener">including thousands of PhD scientists around the world</a>.</li>
</ul>

<p>The problem with most popular articles on evolution is that the authors equivocate on the definition of evolution. They fail to draw a distinction between these different definitions. The result? Any empirical evidence of change over time or <em>micro</em>evolution (definitions 1 and 2) is assumed to demonstrate that <em>macro</em>evolution (definition 3) is true. The average reader thinks, <em>If</em> <em>bacterial resistance to antibiotics is an example of evolution, then evolution must be true! </em>But that’s precisely what’s in question! Is the mechanism that leads a bacteria to develop resistance the same mechanism that can create a bacteria in the first place or evolve it into a fish?</p>

<p>With this equivocation in mind, consider the examples cited in the article of how “humans are still evolving.” The first example says, “We are cooling down.” Average human temperature has traditionally been 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (37 degrees Celsius). <a href="https://elifesciences.org/articles/49555" rel="noopener">New research</a>, however, indicates the average is now 97.9 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s suggested that a decline in inflammation or living indoors has led to this “evolutionary” change.</p>

<p>I don’t doubt the average human body temperature is now 0.7 degrees cooler. But how is this a meaningful evolutionary change? At best, this is an example of microevolution. Here’s the real question: How does a change in average body temperature explain how humans developed hearts or vision or consciousness? That’s what I—and other reasonable skeptics—want to know. Sometimes I’m told that changes in average body temperature are not intended to provide evidence for macroevolutionary development of a heart and circulation. Okay, but then this example of “evolution” seems to be a yawner.</p>

<p>The second example in the article is the fact that our genes are constantly changing. Apparently, the <a href="https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/33/7/1726/2578764" rel="noopener">change in our diets has induced changes in our genetics</a>. That doesn’t sound surprising. I’m sure all kinds of environmental factors can affect our genes. Again, this is merely a microevolutionary change. Observing genetic variation within a species isn’t incredible. Plus, it seems there are limits to how much change can occur and an organism remain alive.</p>

<p>The final example is the fact that <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/366" rel="noopener">our bones are becoming lighter</a>. “Less nomadic hunting and more settled livestock-raising meant that the need for heavier, more durable bones decreased.” Again, this isn’t earth-shattering. It’s a microevolutionary change.</p>

<p>No one doubts that human characteristics change over time. In fact, I would argue that God designed human beings with a capacity to adapt to their environment. DNA’s flexibility allows the human species to adapt (within a range) to a changing environment. Human microevolution is evidence of intelligent design.</p>

<p>Now maybe this article wasn’t intended to be an apologetic for macroevolution. Maybe it’s meant to be read by those convinced of macroevolution and not those who are skeptics. Fair enough. But then here’s my problem with this approach. They lump together <em>all types of change</em> as “evolution” rather than tease out the various definitions. Again, that’s equivocation. It’s a convenient strategy for those who intend to keep the general public believing that “humans are still evolving” and that any change—no matter how insignificant—is evidence that wolves can become whales.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhumans-are-still-evolving" 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%2Fhumans-are-still-evolving" 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%2Fhumans-are-still-evolving" 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 Super Bowl Ad Fox Won’t Show You
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/30/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-super-bowl-ad-fox-won-t-show-you
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We’re so used to hearing people argue for “choice” that I suspect many give little thought to the actual choice being made. An organization called <a href="https://facesofchoice.org/about-us/">Faces of Choice</a> wants to change that by showing us the faces and stories of real abortion survivors who were victims of that word. From <a href="https://facesofchoice.org/about-us/">their website</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Faces of Choice was birthed to bring awareness to a demographic of survivors that has gone largely unnoticed: those who were aborted but survived. While highlighting a few of the thousands of stories of survivors of abortion, who are living in the United States and throughout the world, we wish to emphasize the themes of hope, love, forgiveness, and often reconciliation, which characterize their lives.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Faces of Choice is in the news right now because after several months of attempted negotiations, <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2020/01/29/fox-allows-super-bowl-ad-with-drag-queens-wont-approve-pro-life-commercial/">Fox declined their request to purchase advertising time</a> during the Super Bowl.</p>

<p>While it’s disappointing they’re being denied that audience, the good news is that <em>you</em> can still bring attention to their message by watching and sharing <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD4KD8X4Tj4">their ad</a> (which doesn’t use the word “abortion”) or the more detailed <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&amp;v=hm24p8cBPKQ&amp;feature=emb_logo">two-minute version of the video</a> posted below. As they say, “‘Choice’ is not merely a word. ‘Choice’ is a person.”</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="hm24p8cBPKQ" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hm24p8cBPKQ?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

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


title: Should We Divide over Homosexuality?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/should-we-divide-over-homosexuality-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The culture has been pressuring Christians to pick a side: celebrate homosexuality and same-sex unions or continue to consider them sinful. Is this question something Christians should divide over, or can we agree to disagree?</p>

<p>Fortunately, we can <a href="https://youtu.be/6mow26mFSdc">turn to Jesus for an answer</a>. In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+7%3A15-20&amp;version=NASB">Matthew 7:15–20</a> Jesus warns us against false prophets—wolves in sheep’s clothing. How will we recognize them? “You will know them by their fruits,” Jesus explains. “Every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.” Reading His point in context (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+7%3A13-29&amp;version=NASB">Matt. 7:13–29</a>), Jesus clarifies what He means by good and bad fruit. He says that good fruit is exhibited by “everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice” (Matt. 7:24). What does bad fruit look like? Jesus says it’s “everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice” (Matt. 7:26). In other words, good fruit is obeying Jesus and bad fruit is disobedience. This is straightforward and consistent with the teaching of Jesus found elsewhere (Jn. 14:15).</p>

<p>Given the discussion about the Bible and homosexuality, who are the ones disobeying Jesus? Who are the wolves in sheep’s clothing encouraging bad fruit? We only need to look at <a href="https://youtu.be/8OqtqNEtvM0">Jesus’ teaching on sex, gender, and marriage</a> to understand who is leading others to violate it.</p>

<p>In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+19%3A4-6&amp;version=NASB">Matthew 19:4–6</a>, Jesus cites and upholds the Genesis account of creation (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen+1%3A27&amp;version=NASB">Gen. 1:27</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen+2%3A24&amp;version=NASB">2:24</a>), where man and woman are created, joined together in marriage, and become one flesh. By doing so, Jesus affirms the duality of the sexes and the complementarity of male-female marriage. Jesus’ view can be summed up this way: Marriage (which includes sexual activity) is about <em>one man</em> with <em>one woman</em> becoming <em>one flesh</em> for <em>one lifetime</em>. <a href="/w/marriage-doctrine-alone-disqualifies-pro-gay-theology">Jesus’ teaching on marriage alone, therefore, disqualifies same-sex unions</a>.</p>

<p>That’s why it’s also not surprising that in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mar+7%3A20-23&amp;version=NIV">Mark 7:20–23</a>, Jesus cites sexual immorality as a behavior that defiles a person. The Greek word for “sexual immorality” is <em>porneiai</em>, which first-century Jews would have considered to include the sexual sins listed in the Levitical law (including <a href="/w/is-the-leviticus-prohibition-of-homosexuality-irrelevant-">homosexuality from Lev. 18:22 and 20:13</a>). So, despite some people’s claims that <a href="/w/jesus-didn-t-say-anything-about-homosexuality">Jesus never said anything about homosexuality</a>, it’s clear that He did.</p>

<p>This is to say nothing of the prohibitions of homosexual sex in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+1%3A26-27&amp;version=NASB">Romans 1:26–27</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+6%3A9-11&amp;version=NASB">1 Corinthians 6:9–11</a>, and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+tim+1%3A9-11&amp;version=NASB">1 Timothy 1:10</a>. Given these passages, the Genesis creation account of humanity, and Jesus’ sexual ethics, it’s no surprise that the Church has taught for 2,000 years (and Judaism for thousands of years before) that homosexual sex is sin and that marriage is only between a man and woman.</p>

<p>Therefore, teaching that homosexual sex or same-sex marriage is morally permissible is a significant and serious departure from biblical orthodoxy and Jesus’ message. Scripture says that those who pursue ongoing, unrepentant homosexual sex (or any sin for that matter) will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9). That’s serious. The consequences are eternal.</p>

<p><strong>Churches, Pastors, and Leaders</strong></p>

<p>Should we divide over a church, pastor, or leader who teaches that homosexual behavior is permissible and celebrates same-sex unions? Due to the egregious theological error and the grim penalty associated with it, a believer is justified in parting ways from such a pastor or church. Why? They are giving practicing homosexuals confidence that they can enter the kingdom of God despite Scripture’s caution that they can’t (1 Cor. 6:9).</p>

<p>Jesus warned us precisely of such people—wolves in sheep’s clothing. They look like us, but their teaching stands in contrast to biblical orthodoxy. Jesus’ stern rebuke is haunting: “I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matt. 7:23). Disciples of Jesus must follow His cue. We can’t tolerate sitting under the teaching or authority of a church, pastor, or leader who practices or promotes lawlessness.</p>

<p>I’ll admit I’m reluctant to divide over any matter because I know Christ longs to see His church be unified. That’s my desire, as well. In fact, I’m not one to make a fuss over common denominational differences. I routinely am invited by and grateful to speak at Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic, Coptic, Orthodox, and other theologically unique congregations. But I draw the line when a church rejects the authority of Scripture.</p>

<p><strong>Friends and Family</strong></p>

<p>Does that mean we should divide ourselves from people, friends, and family who adopt errant thinking? It’s likely they’ve been misled by a church or leader. Wolves have led them astray. But though their theological error might be the same, the impact is different. Christ confronted many people who were mistaken about spiritual matters, but He still pursued them. He built relationships for the purpose of building a bridge to communicate compassion and share the truth.</p>

<p>Again, it’s wise to follow Jesus’ approach. We can continue in our relationships with people who are theologically mistaken, but we must be vigilant to not succumb to their same error. Scripture presents this tension by giving us freedom to associate with non-Christians (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+5%3A9-11&amp;version=NASB">1 Cor. 5:9–11</a>) while being careful to “<a href="/w/does-having-homosexual-friends-mean-you-re-unequally-yoked-">not be yoked together with unbelievers</a>” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+6%3A14&amp;version=NASB">2 Cor. 6:14</a>). Keeping our relationships provides an opportunity to communicate the truth or share the gospel.</p>

<p>Though some may see this as a contradictory approach (leave an errant church, but not an errant person), I think it’s consistent with Christ’s view. Jesus wants to protect His church and keep her free from blemish (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+5%3A27&amp;version=NIV">Eph. 5:27</a>) but also desires to ransom individuals who are lost (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+10%3A45&amp;version=NIV">Mk. 10:45</a>). I have the same desire: I’m fiercely protective of the church but focused on reaching the lost. That’s why I’ll divide over false teaching but reach out to those who hold false views.</p>

<p>It’s worth noting that many <a href="/w/a-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need-part-2">advocates of pro-gay theology attempt to employ Jesus’ teaching on good and bad fruit to support <em>their </em>position</a>. They twist Jesus’ words to suggest bad fruit is psychological harm or suffering that LGBT people experience because of the Church’s traditional sexual ethic. But the “fruit” that Jesus is referring to is not about the <strong><em>consequence</em></strong> of the teaching, but the <strong><em>conduct</em></strong> promoted by the teacher. The irony of their citing this passage is that Jesus’ teaching doesn’t vindicate advocates of pro-gay theology—it condemns them.</p>
</div>

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


title: Diagnose before You Treat
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/diagnose-before-you-treat
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I worked as a physical therapist for 10 years, and so I still get asked today, “What exercises can I do to help my back pain?” It’s a troubling question. I wish I could suggest a few back bends or stretches to make their pain go away. Instead, my answer always disappoints them. “I can’t say what treatment plan will help unless I know your diagnosis first.” They probably think to themselves, <em>No wonder he doesn’t practice physical therapy anymore. He can’t help anyone!</em></p>

<p>The reality is that it’s very difficult to solve back pain unless you know what’s causing it. It could be a muscle, a bone, a nerve, a ligament, a disc, or a combination of them. Even if you know, for example, that the pain is caused by a disc pinching a nerve, you still can’t know which direction to move your back to reduce the pain. Extension exercises might alleviate the pain, or they might aggravate it. It all depends on the type and location of the problem. That’s why I can’t offer a treatment plan unless a doctor (or someone else) provides a diagnosis. That was the procedure when I worked at the hospital.</p>

<p>It’s equally challenging to help someone who asks me, “What should I say to my non-Christian friend who refuses to believe in Christianity?” Again, that’s a tough question. I need to have a “diagnosis” before I can provide a “treatment.” I can’t offer something to say until I have more information about their unbelief. What are they thinking? Are they raising objections, and if so, what are they? Are they angry with Christians? Did they grow up with a religious background? If so, what happened? There’s a lot to be explored before one can know how to respond.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.biola.edu/directory/people/john-coe">John Coe</a>, director of the Institute of Spiritual Formation at Biola University, provides a helpful distinction. He says there are <em>reasons</em> for unbelief and <em>causes</em> for unbelief. Reasons for unbelief are intellectual objections. For example, one might claim there’s no evidence for God, that miracles are impossible, that the Bible is wrong about sexuality, or that the soul doesn’t exist. These objections can be genuine obstacles to the gospel and can be addressed by apologetics.</p>

<p>But there can also be <em>causes</em> for unbelief, which are based in emotional thinking. When emotion is driving the will, reason can take a back seat. This type of unbelief can be a greater or more complex obstacle to the gospel than an intellectual objection. Often, causes of unbelief stem from dysfunctional relationships, childhood experiences, betrayal by a loved one, or other traumatic emotional events. Attempting to address a <em>cause</em> for unbelief by treating it as a <em>reason</em> for unbelief will fail.</p>

<p>I remember attending California State University in Long Beach and talking to a student who was unwilling to follow Christ. I asked her to read an apologetics book with me. After we read and discussed each chapter together, I asked what her position was on the central tenets of Christianity: God, Jesus, the resurrection, etc. Her answers all sounded great. God? He exists. Jesus? He’s the son of God. The resurrection? It happened. Soul? We have one. <em>Great,</em> I thought, <em>She must be ready to trust Christ! </em>“Absolutely not,” she replied. I was confused. Why wouldn’t she follow Jesus? All her intellectual questions had been answered.</p>

<p>While it’s true she didn’t have <em>reasons</em> for unbelief, it turned out she had <em>causes</em> for unbelief. She was in an illicit sexual relationship she didn’t want to give up, she was doing drugs with her friends, and she was drinking heavily on the weekends. She was living life for herself, and it felt good to be in control. Why would she want to give up all that “fun?” Addressing her intellectual questions about Christianity didn’t move her closer to God because that wasn’t what was holding her back. She was emotionally addicted to the vices in her life and her belief that she controlled it all. Had I been mindful of the distinction between reasons and causes for unbelief, I may have been more productive.</p>

<p>That��s why you need to diagnose before you treat. Before we can offer advice to someone struggling with what to say to a non-Christian friend, we need to understand what’s going on in their life. Is there a reason for unbelief or a cause for unbelief? The best way to understand that about a person is to start with a loving and trustful relationship. Then be intentional about spending time with them, asking them questions, and learning about their life. <a href="https://www.covenantseminary.edu/francis-schaeffer-the-man-and-his-message/">Francis Schaeffer once noted</a>, “If I have only an hour with someone, I will spend the first 55 minutes asking questions and finding out what is troubling their heart and mind, and then in the last 5 minutes I will share something of the truth.” Notice Schaeffer’s order and emphasis. First, he takes (a lot of) time to diagnose. He asks questions and finds out what is troubling their heart and mind. Then&nbsp;he can offer a treatment. He can say something significant that will help them only because he’s taken the time to know them and understand their unbelief.</p>

<p>Whether you’re involved in healthcare or spiritual care, you need to diagnose before you treat. I often suggest to people who have a friend that is reluctant to become a Christian to begin by spending an evening with them at a coffee shop. Sit down and ask them questions, listen to them unfold the story of their life, and find out what is troubling their heart and mind. Don’t plan to respond that evening. Your only motive should be to understand them. Finally, pray and ask God to help you discover their diagnosis. Then you can know the treatment plan and how the Great Physician can provide healing.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdiagnose-before-you-treat" 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%2Fdiagnose-before-you-treat" 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%2Fdiagnose-before-you-treat" 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 1
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/street-tactics-part-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The tactical game plan I often speak of is a powerful strategy, but it has a modest liability; there is a speed bump I want to help you navigate.</p>

<p>I outline the plan itself in detail in the book <em>Tactics—A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions</em>.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="">[i]</a> It’s a formidable tool to keep you in the driver’s seat of otherwise difficult or discomfiting conversations with skeptics and challengers—yet in a safe, genial, and amazingly effective way.</p>

<p>Using tactics has transformed my ability to make a difference for Christ. Simply put, the key to maneuvering effectively in spiritual conversations with others is to <em>use questions</em>. Carefully placed queries are the core of the tactical game plan. I call the plan “Columbo” after the iconic Lt. Columbo of a bygone TV era who was amazingly successful using the same approach.</p>

<p>The final stage of the plan, though, has a limitation.</p>

<p>The first two steps of the 3-step plan are simplicity itself, of course, allowing you to make tremendous headway in a conversation even when you have zero insight into the challenge you’re facing and no skill at verbal maneuvering.</p>

<p>Step one has a single purpose. Your goal is not to preach the gospel or to give evidence for Christianity or even to mention Jesus. All you want to do at this point is get the lay of the land. You need a clear picture of what you’re up against.</p>

<p>To find out what you’re facing, what the other person believes, or what his precise objections are, focus at the outset on one task and one task only: <em>gathering information</em>. Ask clarification questions in a gentle, curious, probing way (“I’m confused a little by what you said. Can you clear this up for me? What did you mean by that?”)</p>

<p>Step two builds on the information you gathered with the first step. Once you have clarity on <em>what</em> a person believes, you then want to know <em>why</em> he believes it. I call this <em>reversing the burden of proof</em> since it’s your friend’s responsibility (“burden”) to provide reasons (“proof”) for the claim he’s just clarified in response to your initial question. It’s not your job to refute it—at least not at first. Initially, it’s his job to defend it.</p>

<p>Notice that at this stage of the game plan you haven’t taken on any risk since you haven’t advanced your own view in any way. You’re simply using questions to ease into the shallow end of the pool, so to speak. No pressure; no worries. So far, so good.</p>

<p>The final step is the trickier one.<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title="">[ii]</a></p>

<p><br>
<strong>The Speed Bump</strong></p>

<p>The third step of the game plan is a bit more challenging since you will not be using questions passively to <em>gain</em> information of some sort (either your friend’s ideas or his reasons for them). Instead, you will be using questions actively to <em>give</em> information of a specific kind­—in this case, to point out a weakness or a flaw in the other person’s view.</p>

<p>Which brings us to the speed bump. The final maneuver of the game plan requires three things you may not have: one, insight into the weakness or flaw; two, insight into what questions to use to exploit the liability; and three, a basic blueprint in your mind of how you will direct the initial moves of the unfolding conversation—your opening query, your friend’s likely response, and your next couple of moves.</p>

<p>This final phase takes you into the deeper end of the pool, and that is what I want to help you with. In the next few issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>, I’m going to give you a primer on what I call “Street Tactics.” I use this phrase because this last step in our strategy is usually where the verbal sparring begins.</p>

<p>First, I will introduce a standard challenge you’re likely to face “on the street.” Then I’ll go into some detail on how the challenge falters. Finally, I will provide mini-dialogues showing the questions I would personally use to initiate and prosecute my critique. I’ll follow up, in some cases, with variations that will help you respond to possible turns the talk might take as the conversation unfolds.</p>

<p>These mini-dialogues are not complete conversations, of course. My goal isn’t to give you a rigid script. Rather, I want to provide ways of getting you started on a specific challenge so you can move forward effectively in a friendly and disarming fashion.</p>

<p>Certain questions (rendered in bold in the dialogues below) are key, though, especially the initial ones, since they provide a launching pad to get you started. I suggest that you memorize them or at least have the gist of their substance clear in your mind. I want you to have these opening moves at the ready so you can immediately take the initiative, going on the offensive yet in an inoffensive way.</p>

<p>Usually, my first questions are designed to give me valuable information that sets the stage for what follows (Columbo #1). Further questions may probe the rationale for a person’s belief (Columbo #2). The key to Street Tactics, though, is using carefully selected queries to expose an objection’s flaws and thus disarm it (Columbo #3).</p>

<p>Let’s tackle our first challenge, arguably one of the toughest a Christian has to face—the problem of evil.</p>

<p><br>
<strong>The Problem with the Problem of Evil</strong></p>

<p>Answering the challenge of suffering and evil is a constant task for Christians, and understandably so. There is one thing every person knows, no matter where he lives or when he lives. Everyone knows the world is broken. Things are not the way they’re supposed to be. That’s the complaint. But there’s a problem with this protest most critics don’t consider.</p>

<p>Contrary to popular belief, the problem of evil is not a good argument against God. It’s actually one of the best arguments for 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>Put most simply, in order for the world <em>not</em> to be the way it’s supposed to be (the problem of evil), there needs to be a way the world <em>is</em> supposed to be (perfectly good). Pretty basic.</p>

<p>Three significant concerns undercut the atheist’s challenge at this point.</p>

<p>Here is the first. In a strange way, the atheist is skewered by his own objection. The problem of evil—the challenge of one’s worldview accounting for the existence of staggering human misery and stunning moral depravity—is not merely a <em>Christian</em> problem; it is a <em>human</em> problem. Getting rid of God doesn’t get rid of the perplexing complaint. <em>Everyone</em> has to grapple with it—even atheists.</p>

<p>So how do atheists answer their own protest—the charge of an incurable worldview contradiction—when it’s turned back on them? They can’t. What could it possibly mean for them to say that the world is not the way it’s <em>supposed</em> to be? Their materialist worldview provides no resources to account for the existence of genuine evil.</p>

<p>It gets worse for the atheist, though, since he faces a second hurdle.</p>

<p>When someone protests that bad things happen, there are two ways to understand this complaint that need to be distinguished from each other but rarely are: a relativist’s way or an objectivist’s way. Here’s what I mean.</p>

<p>On the one hand, those who have a <em>relativistic</em> impulse are quick to describe moral judgments as mere personal matters. That’s the “don’t push your morality on me” crowd. “I have my morality; you have yours,” they say.</p>

<p>Here’s the rub. If they stick to their relativism, then the problem of evil vanishes since the word “bad” simply refers to an event or an action the relativist doesn’t happen to like. Good and evil are reduced to personal preference. Who’s to judge? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, after all.</p>

<p>This is not what the objector has in mind, of course, when he raises his grievance against Christianity. He means something else. In that moment, his complaint is about real, <em>objective</em> evil—evil “out there, in the world”—ergo his challenge.</p>

<p>So which is it? Does he mean things happen he doesn’t <em>like</em> (relativism), or does he mean things happen that are <em>actually bad</em> (objectivism) regardless if people like them or not? He can’t have it both ways—both his convenient relativism and his favorite objectivist complaint against God—since they conflict. Most skeptics, though, have never considered this clash within their own worldview. <a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title="">[iii]</a></p>

<p>If the atheist surrenders his relativism to rescue his protest, though, a final obstacle assails him, arguably the most daunting.</p>

<p>As we’ve seen, 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>Think about this comment: “I read in the newspaper that writers don’t exist. The article seemed convincing. What’s your opinion?”</p>

<p>You see the problem immediately, of course. Without writers, there would be no articles in newspapers to deny the existence of writers in the first place. The second—the newspaper article—depends on the first—the writer. The claim self-destructs.<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title="">[iv]</a></p>

<p>In a similar way, 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>Now that the problems with the atheist’s challenge are clear in our minds, here is the strategic thinking that will guide our tactical response: Before we answer the atheist’s concern about God and evil,<em> he needs to show that the challenge itself is coherent—that the very concept of evil is intelligible in a world without God.</em></p>

<p>Philosophers call this the “grounding problem,” the difficulty of asserting morality when there is no basis for (“grounding”) or source of morality to account for it. As I have written elsewhere, “Atheism cannot even make sense of the notion of a ‘broken’ world to begin with, so the problem of evil turns out to be just as lethal for atheists as it appears to be for theism.”<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title="">[v]</a></p>

<p>In sum, then, there are three hurdles for the atheist who raises the problem of evil against theism:</p>

<ol>
	<li>A worldview problem: Making sense of evil in the world is a problem that plagues atheists, too, yet their materialism provides no way to resolve the difficulty since they cannot explain the existence of evil from within their worldview.</li>
	<li>A relativism problem: If there is a genuine problem of evil, then moral relativism is false because objective evil exists.</li>
	<li>A grounding problem: Atheism cannot explain the source of the very moral obligations that are necessary for there to be a problem of evil in the first place.</li>
</ol>

<p>Our strategy on the street will be to exploit these problems using questions. Note, though, that in this case we will not be answering the atheist’s challenge directly by showing how evil is compatible with a good, powerful God. That more complex issue is difficult to untangle quickly, so we will sidestep it for the moment.<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title="">[vi]</a></p>

<p>Instead, our strategy will be to press the skeptic on the incoherence and inconsistency of his challenge.</p>

<p><br>
<strong>Evil in the Street</strong></p>

<p>Now that we know the flaws in this objection, we can look at the best tactical ways to expose them when someone raises the problem of evil against theism in conversation.</p>

<p>I find it’s always best if I’m prepared with a move to get me going right out of the gate. Here’s my standard opening question regarding the challenge of evil:<strong> “What, exactly, is the problem?”</strong> [Columbo 1] The query may seem like an empty one (the problem seems obvious), but it accomplishes two tactically significant objectives.</p>

<p>First, this question immediately buys me time—if only a moment or two—so I can collect my thoughts and strategize my next moves. Second, it’s always to my advantage to have a challenger spell out his concern in precise terms since it removes ambiguities for both of us by pressing for precision about an objection.</p>

<p>Here’s my second move: <strong>“So you believe in evil then?” </strong>[Columbo 1]<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title="">[vii]</a></p>

<p>Again, this seems like a restatement of the obvious, but it confirms an important detail in the conversation, plus it provides a smooth bridge to any of the dialogue strategies below.<br>
&nbsp;</p>

<p align="center"><em>The Worldview Problem</em></p>

<p class="indent"><strong>“So you believe in evil then?”</strong></p>

<p class="indent">“Yes, of course I do. That’s my objection.”</p>

<p class="indent">“<strong>So as an atheist, how does <em>your</em> worldview account for the existence of evil? </strong>How would you answer your own question, given the concern you pose?” [Columbo 3]</p>

<p class="indent">“What do you mean?”</p>

<p class="indent">“Well, there’s evil in the world, right?”</p>

<p class="indent">“Of course.”</p>

<p class="indent">“As a theist, I think evil happens when someone violates a perfect standard of good, when things deviate from how they’re supposed to be. That makes complete sense to most people, and it fits my own worldview perfectly. <strong>But how does atheism make sense of that?</strong>” [Columbo 3]</p>

<p class="indent">“I don’t get what you mean.”</p>

<p class="indent">“Well, the rules have to be real before they can be violated to cause the evil you’re objecting to, right? And, on your view, they’d have to be physical to be real. But moral rules aren’t physical. <strong>So how do you solve that problem?</strong>”</p>

<p align="center" class="indent">*&nbsp; *&nbsp; *&nbsp; *</p>

<p class="indent">“So you believe some standard of good has been violated, resulting in evil.”</p>

<p class="indent">“That’s it.”</p>

<p class="indent">“Well, you’re an atheist, right?”</p>

<p class="indent">“Sure.”</p>

<p class="indent">“And you don’t believe in God or in anything outside the physical world. Is that right?”</p>

<p class="indent">“Right.”</p>

<p class="indent">“Are the moral laws you’re talking about physical or nonphysical?”</p>

<p class="indent">“I’m not sure what you mean.”</p>

<p class="indent">“Well, on your view, if the broken moral rules causing evil are not physical, then they don’t exist and there can’t be a problem of evil. But if they do exist, they must be physical—have physical shape and weight, extend in space, be governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, etc. So which is it?” [Columbo 3]<br>
&nbsp;</p>

<p align="center"><em>The Relativism Problem</em></p>

<p class="indent"><strong>“So you do believe in evil then?”</strong></p>

<p class="indent">“Yes, of course. That’s my objection.”</p>

<p class="indent"><strong>“What do you mean by ‘evil’? </strong><strong>How would you define it?” </strong>[Columbo 1]</p>

<p class="indent">“Well, I think it’s a matter of opinion.”</p>

<p class="indent">“So there are no universal rules governing all people at all times in all places?”</p>

<p class="indent">“Of course not. It’s all relative.”</p>

<p class="indent">“Now I’m confused. It sounds like you’re asking how God could allow so much evil in the world when there is no real evil. How would you fix that?” [Columbo 3]</p>

<p class="indent">“But I do believe in evil. That’s my complaint.”</p>

<p class="indent">“But you just told me everything’s relative, that there’s no absolute standard. So then evil would just be a violation of your personal opinions.”</p>

<p class="indent">“Right. It’s what I <em>personally</em> believe is wrong.”</p>

<p class="indent">“<strong>So you’re asking me how can there be a God who allows things to happen <em>that you don’t like</em>? Why is that a good objection against God? </strong>What am I missing here?” [Columbo 3]</p>

<p align="center">*&nbsp; *&nbsp; *&nbsp; *</p>

<p class="indent">“When you object to evil, are you saying that certain things bother you <em>emotionally</em>? Or are you saying that certain actions are <em>wrong in themselves</em> regardless of how you feel, and that’s what makes God’s existence unlikely?”</p>

<p class="indent">“I’m not sure what you’re getting at.”</p>

<p class="indent">“Let me put it another way. <strong>Is rape wrong?</strong>” [Columbo 3]</p>

<p class="indent">“Of course it is.”</p>

<p class="indent">“Now, do you mean it’s wrong regardless of what a person or a society thinks, or is it only wrong from your perspective?”</p>

<p class="indent">“It’s wrong for me.” [relativism]</p>

<p class="indent">“Then I don’t understand your complaint. <strong>You don’t think God exists because some things happen that are wrong for <em>you</em>? How is that a problem?</strong>”<br>
&nbsp;</p>

<p align="center"><em>The Grounding Problem</em></p>

<p class="indent"><strong>“So you believe in evil then?”</strong></p>

<p class="indent">“Yes, of course.”</p>

<p class="indent">“You’re an atheist, though, so I don’t understand your question.”</p>

<p class="indent">“What do you mean?”</p>

<p class="indent"><strong>“If there is no God, how can there be any evil in the world?”</strong> [Columbo 3]</p>

<p class="indent">“I don’t get your point.” [Be prepared for people to be confused about the grounding concern.]</p>

<p class="indent">“Well, when you talk about evil, you’re basically saying some kind of moral rule has been broken, that the person doing evil has broken that rule. Right?”</p>

<p class="indent">“I guess so.”</p>

<p class="indent"><strong>“Then who made those moral rules?”</strong> [Columbo 3]</p>

<p align="center" class="indent">*&nbsp; *&nbsp; *&nbsp; *</p>

<p class="indent"><strong>“What exactly is the problem?”</strong></p>

<p class="indent">“It’s obvious. Bad things happen. If there really was a good God, like you say, then He wouldn’t allow all that bad stuff.”</p>

<p class="indent"><strong>“I’m not sure I understand what you mean by ‘bad.’ Can you help me out?”</strong> [Columbo 1]</p>

<p class="indent">“You know, things like rape, torture, murder—that sort of thing.”</p>

<p class="indent">“You just gave me <em>examples</em> of evil. But why would you label <em>those</em> things evil and not call, say, kindness or heroism evil? You must have some standard in mind. <strong>Where do you get the standard that distinguishes good from evil?</strong>” [Columbo 3]</p>

<p align="center">*&nbsp; *&nbsp; *&nbsp; *</p>

<p class="indent"><strong>“Is there a speed limit on the street by your house?”</strong> [This question is meant to set up Columbo 3, below.]</p>

<p class="indent">“Of course.”</p>

<p class="indent">“If you exceeded the speed limit, would you be breaking the law?”</p>

<p class="indent">“Sure.”</p>

<p class="indent"><strong>“Where did that law come from?” </strong>[Columbo 3]</p>

<p class="indent">“The sign is right there. It’s obvious. Anyone can read it.” [Here he’s confused how he <em>knows</em> the law with the <em>source</em> of the law itself—a common mistake. Your question is about the second, not the first.]</p>

<p class="indent">“Sorry. I’m not asking if you can see the sign. I’m asking you where the sign came from. What if I made the sign? [relativism] Would you be obligated to obey that sign?”</p>

<p class="indent">“Of course not. Individual people don’t set the speed limits. The government does.”</p>

<p class="indent">“I agree completely. <strong>So what governing authority makes the laws of the universe that are violated when people do evil things?</strong>” [Columbo 3]</p>

<p class="indent">“I’m not following you.” [This confusion is common.]</p>

<p class="indent">“Well, you’re saying that people are breaking the speed limit of the universe, so to speak—the problem of evil. If there are no real speed limits, then there is no real evil. <strong>I’m just asking where the speed limits come from. Any idea?</strong>” [Columbo 3]</p>

<p><br>
That’s Street Tactics—maneuvering in tough conversations by using a plan with specific questions meant to expose a weakness or a flaw in someone’s view. It’s easier than you think if you follow the steps.</p>

<p>First, get a clear take on your friend’s view. Make sure you understand it. If there are any ambiguities, use your first Columbo question, “What do you mean by that?” (or some variation), to clear them up.</p>

<p>Second, reflect on the challenge or do some research to zero in on its weaknesses or its failings. Most of the maneuvers in Part 2 of the <em>Tactics</em> book are meant to help you find flaws and exploit them.</p>

<p>Third, chart a course for your conversation—as I have done for you in the examples above—using a mixture of questions (especially clarification questions) to keep your friend engaged while you move forward to expose the liabilities you’ve discovered. Be sure to have the first couple of moves clear in your mind—even memorized—so when the challenge comes up, you’ll have your first question at the ready. This single bit of prep will save you lots of stress.</p>

<p>At first you’ll need to plan ahead and practice a bit by doing a conversation dry run, of sorts. As you employ these principles, though, the process will become almost second nature—a kind of mental “muscle memory.” You’ll be able to move ahead easily in conversations that used to be daunting and discomfiting, staying securely in the driver’s seat on a productive route—all without speed bumps.</p>

<div>__________________________
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="edn1">
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="">[i]</a> See Gregory Koukl, <em>Tactics—A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, 2<sup>nd</sup> Ed. </em>(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019).</p>
</div>

<div id="edn2">
<p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title="">[ii]</a> If you’re not familiar with the basic game plan, the first five chapters of <em>Tactics</em> will get you completely up to speed. It’s good to have that foundation in place before you attempt the slightly more advanced step, Street Tactics. Be sure to get the expanded 2<sup>nd</sup> edition of <em>Tactics</em>, though.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn3">
<p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title="">[iii]</a> In <em>Tactics</em>, I call this particular version of self-refutation “Sibling Rivalry Suicide.” Keep in mind that not all atheists are relativists, or materialists, for that matter. The vast majority are, though.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn4">
<p><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title="">[iv]</a> In <em>Tactics</em>, I call this error “Infanticide Suicide.”</p>
</div>

<div id="edn5">
<p><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title="">[v]</a> Gregory Koukl, <em>The Story of Reality</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 87. I go on to explain why the problem is <em>not</em> lethal for theists at all, since there are additional factors that decisively nullify the objection.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn6">
<p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title="">[vi]</a> I engage that question thoroughly in <em>The Story of Reality</em>, chapter 14.</p>
</div>

<div id="edn7">
<p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title="">[vii]</a> Notice, by the way, the persistent use of clarification questions (Columbo 1) both to confirm important information and to keep the conversation moving forward in a friendly, interactive way.</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-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%2Fstreet-tactics-part-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstreet-tactics-part-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Must Ben Shapiro Do to Be Saved?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/18/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-must-ben-shapiro-do-to-be-saved-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Does a person need to put their faith in Jesus to be saved?</p>

<p>That was the underlying question conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro put to Roman Catholic Bishop Robert Barron in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oDt8wWQsiA">episode 31</a> of his Sunday Special.</p>

<p>Ben Shapiro pulls no punches <a href="https://youtu.be/0oDt8wWQsiA?t=979">when he asks,</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>What’s the Catholic view on who gets into Heaven and who doesn’t? I feel like I lead a pretty good life—a very religiously based life—in which I try to keep, not just the Ten Commandments, but a solid 603 other commandments, as well. And I spend an awful lot of my time promulgating what I would consider to be Judeo-Christian virtues, particularly in Western societies. So, what’s the Catholic view of me? Am I basically screwed here?</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>Same Question, Different Responses</h2>

<p>In asking this, Shapiro is asking the same question as the rich young ruler—albeit in a less elegant way. It’s the most important question a person can ask: <em>What must I do to inherit eternal life?</em></p>

<p>Like the rich young Jewish ruler from the first century, Shapiro qualifies his question with a list of good deeds. Both young Jewish men boast of their religiosity and their sincerity to keep the Law.</p>

<p>Although their questions are similar, the answers they each receive are different.</p>

<p>In Jesus’ response, He shows the rich ruler that he—like all of us—falls short of God’s perfect standard (Mark 10:21). In fact, he has not even kept the <em>greatest</em> commandment to love God above everything else, including his wealth. Jesus’ point is clear: You can’t enter God’s kingdom <em>by</em> <em>working</em>.</p>

<p>Paul makes the same point in his letter to the Romans. He says, “For by works of the law <em>no human being will be justified in his sight,</em> since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). Paul adds, “<em>For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,</em> and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, <em>to be received by faith” </em>(Rom. 3:23–25a).</p>

<p>In His short encounter with the rich ruler, Jesus illustrates how <em>not</em> to inherit eternal life. But, in an encounter with <em>another</em> Jewish ruler, He explains <em>how to</em> inherit eternal life.</p>

<p>Speaking to Nicodemus, Jesus says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that <em>whoever believes in him</em> should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).</p>

<p>Here’s what we learn from Jesus’ interactions with these two Jewish leaders.</p>

<p>First, good works won’t work. Second, eternal life is received by faith—believing in Jesus.</p>

<p>Contrast Jesus’ response to Bishop Barron’s:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>No. The Catholic view—go back to the Second Vatican Council [which] says it very clearly.</p>

<p>Christ is the privileged route to salvation. God so loved the world He gave His only Son that we might find eternal life, so that’s the privileged route. However, Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the explicit Christian faith can be saved. Now, they’re saved through the grace of Christ indirectly received, so the grace is coming from Christ. But it might be received according to your conscience.</p>

<p>So if you’re following your conscience sincerely—or, in your case, you’re following the commandments of the Law sincerely—yeah, you <em>can</em> be saved.</p>

<p>Now, that doesn’t conduce to a complete relativism. We still would say the privileged route—the route that God has offered to humanity—is the route of His Son. But, no, you <em>can</em> be saved. Even, Vatican II says, an atheist of good will can be saved.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The belief that someone can by saved today without explicit faith in Christ is called <em>inclusivism</em>. Barron does a good job laying out the inclusivist position—a position taught by the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, Bishop Barron doesn’t give any <em>biblical</em> support for the view.</p>

<h2>Why I Am Not an Inclusivist</h2>

<p>There are a number of reasons why I am <em>not</em> an inclusivist. One of the most compelling arguments <em>against</em> inclusivism is found in the account of Cornelius. In Acts 10 and 11, Luke records what Cornelius is like.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, <em>a devout man</em> who <em>feared God</em> with all his household, <em>gave alms generously</em> to the people, and <em>prayed continually to God.</em> (Acts 10:1–2)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Cornelius seems to have a lot going for him. But he’s got a problem: <em>He’s never heard the gospel. </em>Knowing how Cornelius has responded to the light he’s been given, God gives him more light. He sends him a vision. In the vision, an angel tells Cornelius to send for a man named Peter.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And he [Cornelius] told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, “Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; <em>he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, </em>you and all your household.” (Acts 11:13–14)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice the text says that Cornelius <em>isn’t</em> saved at this point. He has to hear “the message” by which he can be saved.</p>

<p>God-fearing? Yes.</p>

<p>Devout and sincere? True.</p>

<p>Generous and religious? Absolutely.</p>

<p>Even Peter is impressed by Cornelius’s spiritual accolades. Now notice what Peter <em>doesn’t</em> do. He doesn’t reassure Cornelius that he has been saved “by grace indirectly received”—as Barron put it. He isn’t saved by “sincerely following his conscience.” He doesn’t speak of two routes to God: a “privileged route” received by faith in Christ and another route where faith in Christ isn’t required.</p>

<p>No, the text says Cornelius needed to hear a message “by which he will be saved.”</p>

<p>What was <em>that</em> message? We are not left guessing. Peter tells us,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And he [Jesus] commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness <em>that everyone who believes in him </em>receives forgiveness of sins <em>through his name. </em>(Acts 10:42–43)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Even with all of his spiritual nobility and religious sincerity, <em>Cornelius was still lost and in need of salvation.</em> If inclusivism were true, Peter would not have needed to make a trip to Cornelius. But Peter had to make the trip because—as Paul says—“How will they <em>call on him</em> in whom they have not <em>believed?</em> And how are they to <em>believe in him </em>of whom they have <em>never heard?</em> And how are they to <em>hear </em>without someone <em>preaching?</em>” (Romans 10:14–15).</p>

<p>How can people call on Jesus if they have not believed in Jesus? The answer is, <em>they can’t</em>. How are people going to believe in Jesus if they have never heard of Jesus? The answer is, <em>they can’t.</em> How are they going to hear the good news if no one tells them the good news? The answer is, <em>they won’t</em>.</p>

<p>Paul’s line of thinking is clear and straightforward. If no one is <em>sent</em> to these people, then there will be no one to preach the good news. If no one <em>preaches</em> to these people, then they will not hear the good news. If these people do not <em>hear</em> the good news, then they cannot believe. And if they do not <em>believe</em>, then they cannot be saved.</p>

<h2>One Way to Be Saved</h2>

<p>In sum, Paul tells us that the people need to hear and believe the gospel in order to be saved. <em>There is no other means of salvation</em>. By the way, this is consistent with Peter’s testimony. He says, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is <em>no other name</em> under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).</p>

<p>Notice he doesn’t merely say that there is no other <em>savior</em>. He says there is no other <em>name</em>. His name—Jesus’ identity—seems necessary. That’s why Peter tells Cornelius, “Everyone who believes <em>in him </em>receives forgiveness of sins <em>through his name”</em> (Acts 10:43).</p>

<p>The story of Cornelius should be an encouragement to us because it shows the lengths to which God will go to make sure people seeking after God will hear the gospel so that they can be saved. God had given Cornelius <em>some</em> light—through creation and conscience—but this was <em>not</em> enough light to save him. Since Cornelius responded positively to the light he was given, God gave him <em>more</em> light—specifically, the gospel.</p>

<h2>Inclusivism Is a Bad Idea</h2>

<p>Ideas have consequences. And bad ideas have victims.</p>

<p>Inclusivism is a bad idea because it gives people—like Shapiro—false hope that they can have eternal life <em>without coming to Jesus on His terms</em>. Those who refuse to come to Jesus will not receive life (John 5:40). Jesus explicitly states, “I told you that you would die in your sins, <em>for unless you believe that I am he</em> you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).</p>

<p>Bishop Barron is wrong. Shapiro <em>cannot</em> be saved by “following the commandments of the Law sincerely.” Paul addresses this very thing in his letter to the Galatians. He says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Gal. 2:16).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Shapiro’s good works <a href="/w/god-cares-more-about-behavior-than-most-people-think" rel="" target="" title="">will never be enough</a>. Only those who put their trust in Christ will receive eternal life.</p>

<p>The answer to Shapiro’s question isn’t hard. In fact, the apostle Paul answers the question <em>“What must I do to be saved?”</em> in a single sentence.</p>

<p>“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).</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-must-ben-shapiro-do-to-be-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%2Fwhat-must-ben-shapiro-do-to-be-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%2Fwhat-must-ben-shapiro-do-to-be-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: Four Ways to Help Your Kids Navigate the World of Screens
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/03/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/four-ways-to-help-your-kids-navigate-the-world-of-screens
content:
            <div> 
		<p>On our daughter’s sixth birthday, my wife and I made a big parenting blunder—although, we didn’t know it <em>at the time.</em> At the time, it seemed like a good idea. At the time, we felt like the greatest parents in the world. But we weren’t. Far from it.</p>

<p>My daughter loves to sing. She sings everywhere—in the shower, in her bedroom, in the car. So getting her an iPod for her birthday made sense.</p>

<p>Looking back, we made a mistake. We never considered how this little device could change our little girl. We were unaware of the power of technology to transform its user. And I don’t think we’re alone. My suspicion is, most parents haven’t considered the impact smartphones and screens are having on their kids.</p>

<p>I want to share with you some of the things I’ve learned and offer some practical steps to help our kids navigate the world of screens.</p>

<h2>Two Temptations</h2>

<p>When it comes to technology, there are two temptations to avoid. On the one hand, there are people who think technology is totally <em>neutral</em>. On the other hand, there are people who think technology is totally <em>evil</em>. Both views are mistaken.</p>

<p>Technology <em>isn’t</em> evil. From a biblical perspective, technology is a God-given tool. We know that God is a creator (Gen. 1:1). Since we are created in His image, we display God’s image when we create.</p>

<p>It’s interesting that Jesus is described as a <em>tekton</em> in Scripture. This Greek word is related to the English word “technology.” It means craftsman or artisan. When applied to Jesus, it’s translated “carpenter.”</p>

<p>Technology can be a tool for human flourishing, but human beings in their depravity can use it as a tool for human destruction. We see examples of both in Scripture.</p>

<p>For example, God instructs Noah to build a boat (Gen. 6:13–16). God uses this piece of technology to save the human race. But technology is also used for evil. God warns against making and worshiping idols (Ex. 20:1–4).</p>

<p>Technology <em>isn’t</em> neutral, either. Whether we realize it or not, the technology we use is always <em>communicating</em> something—a worldview. And that worldview will, ultimately, shape who we become.</p>

<p>For example, if you saw that 2020 Super Bowl halftime show on your TV, you were streaming a worldview into your living room. And <a href="https://foundationworldview.com/in-the-age-of-super-bowl-stripper-poles-our-kids-must-be-prepared-to-answer-this-question/?fbclid=IwAR1Loj1oslmOO0Y_QZ_GT45dsJRZ7k1MLl5pwwvOAoBt1taZhq1_Gvny0tc">that worldview</a>—set of beliefs—has the ability to transform our beliefs, values, and behaviors. After all, what we believe will determine what we value, which will determine how we behave, which will determine who we become.</p>

<p>Anyone watching J. Lo and Shakira perform at this year’s Super Bowl halfime show could come to believe that women are sex objects. And if you believe women are <em>sex objects</em>, you will begin to value them as such. Once you begin to value them as sex objects, you will begin treat them as sex objects.</p>

<p>This isn’t complicated. Technology communicates ideas, and ideas have consequences.</p>

<p>Technology is a God-given tool for our good. But it has the power to transform the user—for good or for ill. Just as a microphone has the ability to transform my voice, a smartphone has the ability to transform everything about us—our mind, our relationships, and our identity.</p>

<h2>Helping Kids Navigate Screens</h2>

<p>So, how do we help our kids use screens well? Here are some suggestions.</p>

<p><em>First, inoculate your kids.</em></p>

<p>There are two different extremes we need to avoid. We can’t simply <em>isolate</em> our kids from technology. That isn’t going to work. We can attempt to hold off on using screens <em>as long as possible. </em>But our kids are going to eventually encounter screens. It’s inevitable. If it’s not at your house, it might be at a friend’s house. So, <em>isolation</em> isn’t the answer.</p>

<p>I’m not saying we jump in with both feet. <em>Immersion</em> isn’t the answer either. We can’t just toss our kids into the deep end of the culture and hope they learn to swim. That would be irresponsible parenting.</p>

<p>I think the best approach is <em>inoculation</em>. We gradually introduce technology in a way that supports the health of our kids while warning them about the possible dangers.</p>

<p><em>Second, model healthy screen use.</em></p>

<p>We often expect more from our kids than we expect from ourselves. For many of us, our phone is the first thing we look at when we wake up and the last thing we see before going to sleep. If we want our kids to practice healthy screen habits, we need to model healthy screen habits.</p>

<p>For many of us, this is going to be hard because we have bad screen habits. Remember, your kids are looking to you to be an example. Don’t let them down.</p>

<p><em>Third, create screen-free times and screen-free locations. </em></p>

<p>When it comes to screens and social media, boundaries are blessings. So here are some boundaries that will help.</p>

<p>First, set aside specific <em>times</em> when screen use is not allowed. For example, you could make Sunday a tech-free day. Instead, go for walks. Play a board game. Build a puzzle. Kids talk when they are busy doing something.</p>

<p>Second, create screen-free <em>locations</em>. For example, the dinner table should be a “no phone zone.” The dinner table is a place where our kids should build relationships with each other and with their parents. Screens at the table rob our children of this.</p>

<p>Here’s a principle to put into practice: Wherever you eat a meal, there should be no devices.</p>

<p>These are just two ways to confront the problem of the “omnipresent screen.” Our kids need time away from screens. Their physical and mental health depends on it.</p>

<p><em>Fourth, be brave. </em></p>

<p>We need to be better at standing up against our kids. We are the grown-ups. That means we’re in charge. There are many situations where we don’t ask; we tell.</p>

<p>By the way, this goes for a whole host of decisions. What my girls eat for dinner, whether they go to church, and what they watch on TV aren’t up for debate. It’s <em>not</em> a democracy. Dad and mom know best.</p>

<p>We’ve been socialized by the culture to think it’s normal to give a three-year-old an iPad so she can binge-watch Paw Patrol, or to hand a ten-year-old your smartphone so he can play Fortnite with his friends.</p>

<p>If you start saying “no” to your kids when they ask to use their favorite screen, they aren’t going to be happy. But your job isn’t to keep them happy; it’s to keep them healthy. So, be brave.</p>

<h2>Find A Balance</h2>

<p>The struggle over when and how to use technology is not easy. It’s <em>also</em> not new. The apostle John wrestled with this same question—albeit with a different technology. He said,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete. (2 John 1:12)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>John had a dilemma. Should he continue to use technology—paper and ink—or not? Notice John isn’t saying technology is bad. We wouldn’t have the Gospel of John if he had. He seems to be saying there is a time to use technology. And there is a time to put it away. As parents, we need to do our best to find a balance that works best for our kids.</p>
</div>

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


title: How Can Christianity Be Shared in a Culture of Diversity?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/04/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-can-christianity-be-shared-in-a-culture-of-diversity-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The following was originally published <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/t/ask-greg-koukl-february-10-14-2020/26892/24">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 Carl: How can Christianity be firmly shared in a culture of diversity as the view that makes the most sense of the world as we find it? How can Christianity fit in the realm of relativism without violating the person?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Karl, the trends of the culture can be a bit daunting in light of clear scriptural teaching about the Christian view of reality. There is a temptation many Christians have to present a “kinder and gentler” version that seems to fit better with the “culture of diversity” and with relativism. This, I think, is what’s happening in what has come to be known as ”progressive Christianity.”</p>

<p>In a diverse culture, the challenge we face is that Christianity simply seems to be out of step with more “enlightened” trends. Keep in mind, though, that this has always been the case for Christianity. Two thousand years ago, Christian views and Christian values were vigorously countercultural. There was no attempt made by Christians, though, to try to form-fit Christianity to the culture’s ideas, to blend into the cultural backdrop. Yes, Paul did say he would become all things to all men in order that by all means he might win some (1 Cor. 9:22). Yet he was speaking only of morally neutral cultural trends that didn’t compromise the deep truth of Scripture.</p>

<p>In the same way, we should blend into the culture that we find ourselves in as much as possible in non-moral areas that don’t compromise the basic truths of the Bible. Christianity simply does not fit in a relativistic view of the world. Nor does such a view provide any meaningful grounds for respecting the personal rights of individuals.</p>

<p>I realize that in our culture today, taking exception with another person’s view is defined as dehumanizing, as “violating the person.” However, the relativistic view undergirding that impulse provides absolutely no basis for us to respect anyone. Only the Christian worldview based on the idea that there is a God who grounds objective morality and who made human beings in His image can do that.</p>

<p>This is the conversation we need to have with others in a gracious, genial, but direct fashion. We can show that Christianity is, as I like to put it, “the best explanation for the way things are” by demonstrating with kindness and sound reason that truth is not relative, and that there is a God who grounds human purpose, meaning, and value. The current ethic simply cannot do it. Those who try have their “feet firmly planted in mid-air.”</p>

<p>There is a wonderful section in the article “Creating a Culture of Resilience” (titled “<a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/julaug/why-christians-should-end-their-search-for-relevance.html?type=next&amp;number=2&amp;id=135013">Why Christians Should End Their Search for ‘Relevance’</a>” online) that was featured in <em>Christianity Today</em>, July/August 2006. Author Mark Sayers writes this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>True relevance to this culture will not come by accommodating its demands, but by developing the kinds of people who can resist them. If we can cultivate resilience rooted in the gospel, able to withstand even tremendous scorn and pressure, we may yet have a posture that will be effective for mission in the post-Christian West—once our neighbors’ impossible dreams of utopia without restraint come to their inevitable, disappointing end.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-can-christianity-be-shared-in-a-culture-of-diversity-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-can-christianity-be-shared-in-a-culture-of-diversity-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-can-christianity-be-shared-in-a-culture-of-diversity-" 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: Where Do We Draw the Line with Homosexuality?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/10/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/where-do-we-draw-the-line-with-homosexuality-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I recently <a href="/w/should-we-divide-over-homosexuality-" rel="noopener">wrote</a> about whether Christians should divide over homosexuality. One of the points I made was that though it’s appropriate to leave a church or pastor who is a false teacher, we should not divide from family and friends who hold to errant teaching (e.g. pro-gay theology). Someone kindly offered some criticism regarding my post. They wrote:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I’m with you on just about all, but Scripture does talk about “having nothing to do with them” in church discipline concerning an unrepentant believer. I know you’ve said play tennis, go to lunch, etc. as a strategy to win them over…&nbsp;The Bible says along with having nothing to do with them—for the explanation—so that they’re driven to repentance. I think maybe not applying this biblical mandate is actually coddling the sin and even spawning more victims.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>They also gave an example of how someone in their family divorced his wife (with whom he had three children), embraced homosexuality, and brought tremendous pain to the family. He was still included as a family member and loved, but became an alcoholic and ultimately died of health issues. It seems like my advice would lead to harm in the preceding situation. How, then, should this not be an issue we divide over?</p>

<p>It grieves my heart to hear this story. Unfortunately, I’ve heard many stories like it. Though I understand the harm that family experienced, I want to explain why I still hold to my view.</p>

<p>It appears the person concerned with my view is referencing the <a href="/w/can-churches-discipline-for-the-sin-of-homosexuality-" rel="noopener">biblical procedure for church discipline</a> described by Jesus in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+18%3A15-20&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener">Matthew 18:15–20</a> and Paul in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor+5%3A1-13&amp;version=NASB" rel="noopener">1 Corinthians 5:1–13</a>. The first step is to confront a brother’s sin. If he repents, then “you have won your brother” (v.15). If he doesn’t listen, take two or more with you. If he still doesn’t listen, you tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, then Jesus says to “let him be to you as a Gentile or tax collector” (v. 17). Paul appears to be encouraging the church to follow Jesus’ final step of excommunication in the 1 Corinthians 5 passage. Of course, the goal in this discipline is not to kick someone out of the church, but rather to encourage repentance and restoration. But if they refuse to turn from their sin, then the bigger concern is to protect the believers with a church body by removing the unrepentant sinner. Sin left unchecked within a body of believers is dangerous to the health of the church. After all, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough,” Paul warns (1 Cor. 5:6).</p>

<p>What these passages tell me is this procedure is a matter of church discipline to be performed under church authority. Otherwise, how can a person be excommunicated <em>by</em> the church and <em>from</em> the church if the discipline isn’t being conducted <em>within</em> the church?</p>

<p>My assumption—and I could be wrong about this—was that the man who divorced his wife and pursued homosexuality was engaging in this behavior outside the context of a local church body and, consequently, outside of a church’s jurisdiction. Therefore, you can’t apply the steps of church discipline in this case. If he was a part of a church, then I agree that the church should have followed Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching and corrected the man. If he refused to repent, then it would be appropriate to “have nothing to do with him.”</p>

<p>But that’s not what I was talking about in my previous post. I was saying that we shouldn’t end our relationship or part ways with someone <em>merely because they hold to </em><a href="/w/how-pro-gay-theology-is-undermined-in-one-step" rel="noopener"><em>errant theology</em></a>. Though they could have pursued such theology because they wanted to justify someone’s behavior, it’s also possible they were deceived by a leader who misled them. Either way, that doesn’t mean we can’t call them out on their view, nor does it mean we should pretend that all is well if they begin to live out their errant theology. It just means we don’t automatically end the relationship because they’re mistaken.</p>

<p>I’d also add that I’m not suggesting we stay silent when someone makes decisions that damage the lives of others. If a friend or family member is making poor life choices and hurting people, then I agree we should call them out.</p>

<p>What happened in the real-life scenario described by the author of my critique is not a situation addressed in my previous post. This man sinned when he divorced his wife, sinned when he embraced homosexuality, and sinned when he abused alcohol. Of course his family and local church body (if he was under their authority) should hold him accountable. But merely holding to pro-gay theology doesn’t necessarily result in those actions. And holding orthodox views doesn’t preclude someone from such sinful behaviors.</p>

<p>Therefore, I agree that man should not be coddled but called to account for the harm he committed. But that kind of accountability goes beyond what I was talking about in my previous post.</p>
</div>

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


title: Is It Impossible to Know What Happens When We Die?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/11/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-it-impossible-to-know-what-happens-when-we-die-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The following was originally published <a href="https://connect.rzim.org/t/ask-greg-koukl-february-10-14-2020/26892/25">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 Dylan: How would you recommend approaching an agnostic who is convinced that we can’t know what happens when we die (until we die)? I have a good friend who I have had many great conversations with about Christianity but that is the line he keeps on using. And even says he takes comfort in not knowing… What would the pebble be that you would put in his shoe?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Dylan, my question of your agnostic friend would be, “<em>Why</em> are you convinced that we can’t know what happens when we die until we die?” Your next step will depend on his answer.</p>

<p>It may be that he’s convinced we can’t know anything unless science confirms it. There are a number of problems with this view. First, it’s self-refuting since the statement itself—“We can’t know anything unless science confirms it”—is a statement held to be true by those who believe it, yet cannot itself be confirmed by science. The view commits suicide—to use the language in <a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk470.htm">Tactics</a>—since it cannot fulfill its own demand for legitimacy.</p>

<p>Second, there are a host of things we must know to be true by other means than science in order for science to get going in the first place. That includes the truth of the basic reliability of our senses, the truth of reason and logic, the truth of inference, the truth of cause and effect, the truth of the uniformity of causes in a natural world, etc., etc.</p>

<p>Finally, science <em>has</em> in fact weighed in on this issue, in a certain sense. There is a massive amount of scientific research that has been done on near death experiences (NDEs). I don’t mean popular bestsellers you find on the rack at the drugstore. I mean serious, peer-reviewed, scientific analyses that lend a tremendous amount of evidential credibility to the idea that our souls are separate from our bodies and can be in other physical locations and, it appears, in a nonphysical dimension in a way that can be actually tested.</p>

<p>I recommend you take a close look at the book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Death-Exploring-Evidence-Immortality/dp/1592445098/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=beyond+death&amp;qid=1581722209&amp;sr=8-1">Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality</a></em> by philosophers J.P. Moreland and Gary Habermas. Pay special attention to the documentation of what are known as “remote viewing” events.</p>

<p>Although I understand your friend’s doubt about knowing what happens when we die, there are good reasons why such unmitigated skepticism is not justified. Also, I don’t really understand the comfort he takes in his conviction. It reminds me of the person who refuses to go to a doctor because he might find out he has a deadly disease. There is an odd sort of comfort in that ignorance, I guess, until the truth is finally known. By then, though, it may be too late.</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-impossible-to-know-what-happens-when-we-die-" 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-impossible-to-know-what-happens-when-we-die-" 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-impossible-to-know-what-happens-when-we-die-" 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: Having a Baby Didn’t Stop Her from Achieving Her Goals
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/28/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/having-a-baby-didn-t-stop-her-from-achieving-her-goals
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Olympic athletes are amazing people. It takes incredible discipline and sacrifice to compete at the Olympic level. They give up a lot: eating certain foods, sleeping in, vacationing, and spending time with friends and family. That’s true not only of Olympians, but also other professional athletes.</p>

<p>So, if you wanted to run a mile in six minutes, it would take some serious training. If you wanted to run 13.1 miles (a half marathon) at a 6:12 mile pace, you’d have to sacrifice a lot. But if you wanted to do that while you’re pushing your ten-month-old daughter in a stroller to break the Guinness Book of World Records, then you’d have to make some significant sacrifices and do some serious training.</p>

<p>That’s why <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-mom-beats-world-record-for-fastest-half-marathon-while-pushing-baby-stroller" rel="noopener">Julia Webb’s story</a> is so incredible. In 2016, <a href="https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20810253/famous-running-mom-and-her-9-month-old-smash-stroller-half-marathon-record/">she broke the Guinness Book of World Records’ half marathon time</a> with her nine-month-old daughter. Last year she gave birth to her third child, and last month <a href="https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a30246995/julia-webb-half-marathon-while-pushing-stroller/" rel="noopener">she broke the world record</a> <em>again</em> with her then ten-month-old daughter (who was a larger baby, and it was on a hillier course). “I have just felt called to run my whole life. This is what I was made for,” <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-mom-beats-world-record-for-fastest-half-marathon-while-pushing-baby-stroller" id="" rel="" target="" title="">she said</a>. And having a baby didn’t stop her.</p>

<p>Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not suggesting that having a child won’t dramatically affect your life. It will. Nor am I saying that having a child won’t prevent you from accomplishing some things in life. It can and often does. That’s okay. In fact, that’s a good thing. A child is a valuable gift from God. We’re supposed to make sacrifices for them, and to do so is honorable.</p>

<p>But in the case of Julia Webb, having a child (three children, in fact) did not stop her from doing what she loves and competing at an elite level. She didn’t use her children as an excuse or complain they held her back.</p>

<p>When I read this story, it reminded me of my <a href="/w/golden-globe-awards-speech-defends-abortion" rel="noopener">earlier post</a> where I wrote about Michelle Williams, who suggested that she couldn’t have pursued and advanced her acting career without aborting her unborn child. Julia Webb is an example of someone who neither aborted her child to achieve her goals nor gave up what she loves because she had 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%2Fhaving-a-baby-didn-t-stop-her-from-achieving-her-goals" 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%2Fhaving-a-baby-didn-t-stop-her-from-achieving-her-goals" 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%2Fhaving-a-baby-didn-t-stop-her-from-achieving-her-goals" 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: Two “Don’ts” and One “Do” to Make You a Better Spouse, Parent, Friend, and Christian Ambassador
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/02/2020
source:
https://www.str.org/w/two-donts-and-one-do-to-make-you-a-better-spouse-parent-friend-and-christian-ambassador

content:
            <div> 
		<p>I started this piece intending to do something I’ve never hazarded before—offer advice about marriage. But I changed my mind, sort of; I have lengthened my reach.</p>

<p>First, I have no expertise in marriage. Far from it. After 21 years of experience, I still know almost nothing about the topic. Second, through my many mistakes, I’ve stumbled upon a triad of tips that I’m convinced will increase goodwill in any marriage but will also improve harmony with everyone in your life—spouse, children, siblings, friends, etc.</p>

<p>There’s a reason these tips will make a difference for you, married or not. Christian ambassadors are on duty 24/7 with every person they encounter. Arguably, the most powerful tactic to increase your influence is good old-fashioned kindness. That’s why Peter tells us to defend the faith “with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet. 3:15).</p>

<p>Common kindness takes many forms, but I’ll limit my focus to three principles since a triplet is simple to keep track of. Plus, it’s personal for me. These are the ones I’m focusing on—for a long season, I suspect—so I can be a better husband, father, friend, and ambassador. There are two “don’ts” and one “do.”</p>

<p><br>
<strong>Don’t Pick at Small Stuff</strong></p>

<p>Here’s the first one: <em>Don’t pick at small stuff</em>. Relationships—especially close ones like marriages—are delicate things, easily bruised. There are enough weighty issues to confront. Don’t waste effort on inconsequentials. It’s not worth it. It’s a terrible habit of mine, and I need to constantly repress the impulse to correct trivial mistakes.</p>

<p>If your wife says, for example, “That gray car rolled right through that stop sign,” don’t tell her it wasn’t gray, but brown. If your husband refers to your cat as “he,” and it’s female, don’t take issue (cat gender is meaningless to men). If your kid says you’re driving 85, don’t say you were only going 82. It’s still speeding. You get my point.</p>

<p>Sure, sometimes precision is important, but in mundane matters, it generally isn’t. Usually, perfect accuracy is not critical, so let it go. Don’t draw attention to the mistake. Petty corrections create a negative environment that can launch useless squabbles.</p>

<p>Solomon said to abandon a quarrel before it breaks out (Prov. 17:14). That’s good advice. Every time you have an urge to correct someone, ask, “Is that actually necessary? Will it really matter? Does it change anything significant?” If not, don’t do it.</p>

<p>Most menial corrections are small darts that don’t draw much blood. Never mind. Little wounds add up and slowly degrade relationships. It’s not gracious to correct someone for no good reason. Don’t sweat the small stuff. It’s unkind.</p>

<p><br>
<strong>Don’t Retaliate</strong></p>

<p>Here’s the next one: <em>Don’t retaliate.</em> Our strongest instinct is for self-preservation, so it’s natural to lash back when we feel threatened. But this is precisely what we are not allowed to do. At least five Scripture passages forbid it.*</p>

<p>Of course, committed Christians don’t blatantly return evil for evil, especially in close relationships; we implement our reprisals in subtler ways. To be painfully candid, on self-examination I have realized that virtually every device my seasoned Christian heart devises to respond to hurt is a cleverly disguised, subtle attempt at retaliation.</p>

<p>There is a better solution. Bless instead. Overcome evil with good. That is not an easy alternative, but I read this sage advice once a week to remind me of its wisdom:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When you decide to return good for evil, you’re choosing to stop yanking on the rope of conflict and making the knot so tight it can never be untied. By simply dropping your end of the cord, you loosen the tension and preserve the possibility that the still-loose knot might somehow be untangled by the two of you. [Paraphrased from Lee Strobel’s <em>Outrageous Claims</em>.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Simply put, don’t tighten the knot. Bless, do not curse. Measure your own motives when you react to hurt. Is your response a true blessing or a clever retaliation in disguise? Let David’s prayer be yours: “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me and know my anxious thoughts; and see if there be any hurtful way in me” Ps. 139:23–24.</p>

<p><br>
<strong>Show Gratitude</strong></p>

<p>Finally, <em>show gratitude</em>. Lots of it. Paul Tripp wrote that lasting joy is the product of constant gratitude. There is a special grace in being grateful, in simply saying to those close to you, “Thank you. I appreciate that. You did a good job.”</p>

<p>The simplest way to develop gratitude is to express gratefulness, so be alert for every opportunity to show appreciation to others for what they have done. Catch them doing something right. Find the good and fuss over it. “If there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise,” Paul said, “dwell on these things” (Phil 4:8).</p>

<p>When I was a kid, my dad had us all thank Mom after dinner for the meal she’d cooked. Soon, it became a habit for us. Now, at the end of each day, I take a knee by my bed and quietly thank God for the good—and the bad—He’s given me that day. As Paul put it, “In everything give thanks” (1 Thess. 5:18).</p>

<p>Being grateful is a virtue. It is a kindness returned. Ingratitude, however, is an ugly vice and robs both giver and receiver.</p>

<p>So here’s the simple formula:&nbsp;One, stop finding fault in little things. Two, don’t return evil for evil. Three, be lavish with your gratitude. Not too complicated, and it will improve every one of your relationships, especially your marriage.</p>

<p>___________________</p>

<p>*Rom. 12:14–19; 1 Pet. 3:9; 1 Thess. 5:15; Prov. 20:22, 24:29</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftwo-donts-and-one-do-to-make-you-a-better-spouse-parent-friend-and-christian-ambassador" 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%2Ftwo-donts-and-one-do-to-make-you-a-better-spouse-parent-friend-and-christian-ambassador" 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%2Ftwo-donts-and-one-do-to-make-you-a-better-spouse-parent-friend-and-christian-ambassador" 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: Two Practical Ways to Promote Biblical Literacy at Home
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 03/17/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/two-practical-ways-to-promote-biblical-literacy-at-home
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We have a crisis in the church.</p>

<p>Simply put, people don’t know their Bibles. This includes many who have been Christians for decades.</p>

<p>This became evident to me last summer while attending a Christian family camp. One evening, the camp’s guest speaker used a portion of his sermon time to administer a “Bible literacy test.” (I believe he was using the collected data for his Ph.D. research)</p>

<p>The test consisted of twenty multiple-choice questions. For example, one question asked, <em>Who wrote Philemon?</em> The options were Paul, Philemon, Onesimus, or John.</p>

<p>Of the 150 or so people in attendance, most were <em>longtime</em> Christians who had attended the camp for years. Before taking the test, there was a lot of nervous laughter. When we got the results the next day, we found out why.</p>

<p>The camp—on average—failed miserably. This result was eye-opening to me. These weren’t new believers. These were people who grew up in the church, attend church regularly, and love the Lord. Yet, the majority displayed very little knowledge of biblical truth.</p>

<h2>Raising Biblically Literate Kids</h2>

<p>As a Christian parent, I’m committed to helping my kids know God’s word—His special revelation to us. This isn’t merely about memorizing Bible trivia or getting a good mark on a Bible test. Rather, it is through God’s word that we get to know what God is like. The Bible is primarily a story about God. He is the main character. Over and over, the Bible says, “God loves,” “God hates,” “God says,” “God desires,” “God does.” Every time we read the Bible, <em>we get to know its Author.</em> We get to know His character, His desires, His personality.</p>

<p>This is why Solomon says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My son, <em>if</em> you receive my words and treasure up my commandments with you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; yes,<em> if</em> you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, <em>if </em>you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, <em>then</em> you will understand the fear of the Lord and <em>find the knowledge of God.</em> (Proverbs 2:1–5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p><em>If </em>we want to grow our knowledge of God, <em>then ­</em>we need to seek, receive, and treasure what’s in God’s word. Of course, this is easier said than done. We get distracted. We get busy. It’s more convenient to flip on Netflix than to flip open the Bible. Over time, God’s people drift from God as they disregard His word—a recurring theme in Scripture.</p>

<p>For instance, the prophet Hosea tells us that “there is no faithfulness or steadfast love, and no knowledge of God in the land” because Israel had “forgotten the law of [their] God” (Hosea 4:1, 6).</p>

<p>Here’s the question: <em>What can we do—as parents—to promote biblical literacy at home?</em></p>

<p>Here are two practical ways to cultivate deeper understanding of God’s word in the hearts of your children.</p>

<p class="indent">1. <em>Listen to the Bible as a family.</em></p>

<p class="indent">Reading the Bible seems like a no-brainer. Many families have been successful at making this a regular part of their routine. In my house, this hasn’t always worked very well. My kids have had a hard time paying attention to me reading the Bible, especially if I attempt to read long passages to them. Many times I’d end up spending more time trying to get them to stay focused than actually reading the text. This can be discouraging.</p>

<p class="indent">Now we do things a little differently.</p>

<p class="indent">My kids love listening to <em>dramatized</em> audiobooks. These are different from most audiobooks. Traditional audiobooks have a single reader reading the book. Dramatized audiobooks—on the other hand—combine the theatrical aspects of film with the content of an audiobook.</p>

<p class="indent">For example, <em>Focus on the Family</em> has produced the complete series of <a href="https://store.focusonthefamily.com/radio-theatre-the-chronicles-of-narnia-set">The Chronicles of Narnia</a> in this format. The captivating dialogue, dramatic music, and realistic sound effects all serve to immerse the listener in the story. The production is so entertaining that the 22 hours it takes to complete the series flies by.</p>

<p class="indent">I’ve lost count of how many times my eight-year-old has gone through this series. At this point, she is able to effortlessly quote large sections of the book. I’ll often catch her saying the lines along with the characters <em>as the audiobook is playing</em>.</p>

<p class="indent">Furthermore, on a few occasions, she has made connections between <em>The Chronicles of Narnia</em> and what’s currently happening in her life. She��s said things like, “That was just like when Edmond…” or, “This reminds me of when Aslan said….” It’s as if the <em>details</em> of the story have become a part of her. The words are hidden in her heart, so to speak.</p>

<p class="indent">All of this got me thinking. What if there were a dramatized audio Bible that was as enjoyable to listen to as the Narnia series? And what would happen if my kids listened to it over and over again—committing God’s Word to memory?</p>

<p class="indent">After some hunting around, I found it.</p>

<p class="indent">It’s called <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Inspired-Bible-Experience-Audio-International/dp/B000N85TZ0">Inspired By...The Bible Experience</a>, and it’s awesome!</p>

<p class="indent">Using the Today’s New International Version (TNIV), this dramatized audiobook truly brings the Scriptures to life. Right now, we are working through the New Testament, which takes about 20 hours to complete. We listen in the car, before bed, and during lazy afternoons. Sometimes it’s playing in the background as my girls are playing.</p>

<p class="indent">I think memorizing individual Bible verses is a good idea. My girls have weekly verses to memorize for their Awana program. But there is a liability to <em>this</em> kind of Bible memorization. The verses are usually memorized without any regard for the actual context of the verse. Our kids end up knowing the verse without understanding how the verse fits into the bigger story. It’s like getting your kids to memorize puzzle pieces without ever showing them how they fit together within the bigger picture.</p>

<p class="indent">Listening to large portions of Scripture gives them the bigger picture while <em>also</em> hearing the verses that we want them to memorize. For example, my eldest has memorized Mark 2:17. It says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="indent">And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="indent">This is a precious truth. But merely memorizing what Jesus said still leaves us with a lot of questions. What exactly did Jesus hear to prompt this response? Who is Jesus responding to? Where is this dialogue happening? None of these questions can be answered without knowing the context.</p>

<p class="indent">The practice of routinely listening to <em>The Bible Experience</em> has enabled my kids to see verses <em>in their context</em> as they begin to store up God’s word in their hearts.</p>

<p>To build up biblical literacy, we don’t just want our kids to understand the <em>micro-narratives</em> within each book of the Bible. We also want them to understand the <em>macro-narratives</em> of each book in relation to the whole. This leads to the second practice to promote biblical literacy.</p>

<p class="indent">2. <em>Watch the Bible Project together.</em></p>

<p class="indent">The Bible can be a confusing book. That’s because it’s not actually <em>one</em> book. It’s sixty-six God-inspired works that have been combined under one cover. Unfortunately, many Christians have a hard time seeing the Bible as anything more than a disjointed collection of books.</p>

<p class="indent">As we read (or listen) through the Bible, it’s easy to get lost in the micro-narrative—the specific details of what’s going on in the story. Don’t get me wrong, getting the details straight is an important part of Bible study. However, this can cause a <em>biblical near-sightedness</em>. We can lose sight of the big picture—or macro-narrative.</p>

<p class="indent">I want my kids to understand the <em>big picture </em>of each of the books of the Bible and how each fits into the even larger narrative of the whole Bible.</p>

<p class="indent">For example, our kids should understand how the account of the Exodus fits into the larger story of the book of Exodus, and how that fits into the larger story of the Old Testament and the Bible as a whole.</p>

<p class="indent">If you want your kids to understand the Bible with the big picture in mind, then I strongly recommend using the fabulous, short videos created by the <a href="https://thebibleproject.com/">Bible Project</a>. More specifically, the Bible Project has created visually engaging videos that summarize each book of the Bible.</p>

<p class="indent">How do the Psalms fit into the Old Testament? What is Leviticus all about? Why did Paul write Galatians? These are the kinds of questions that get answered as you watch.</p>

<p class="indent">In our home, after everyone’s pajamas are on and teeth are brushed, we snuggle up in bed, open YouTube, and watch one of these videos. We are working through the whole Bible, one book at a time.</p>

<p class="indent">Our goal is to go through each summary video—from Genesis to Revelation—and then start over.</p>

<p>Like you, I want to raise kids who <em>think and act biblically</em>. But this will only happen if they are biblically literate. They need to <em>know</em> their Bible. And once God’s word is implanted in their hearts and minds, they will be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:17).</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftwo-practical-ways-to-promote-biblical-literacy-at-home" 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%2Ftwo-practical-ways-to-promote-biblical-literacy-at-home" 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%2Ftwo-practical-ways-to-promote-biblical-literacy-at-home" 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: Politics Will Not Save Us
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 02/12/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/politics-will-not-save-us
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The full craziness of election season will soon be upon us. As a Christian, how will you view it? How will you respond to it? How will you interact with others when its topics and controversies fill your social media feeds? The answer may depend on how you view politics itself.</p>

<p>In “<a href="https://breakpoint.org/millennials-and-the-false-gospel-of-politics/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz--Rc2dlJd52s4rbys8avbzAD_PpwOCAHJlrRyamlKID2BjVOBmNy8teNRnQXv1-1bmRPIcbBZYRnXXzTtDZ2wQjfox5lA&amp;_hsmi=83190660">Millennials and the False Gospel of Politics</a>,” John Stonestreet and Shane Morris reflect on how our view of politics is evolving:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[Theodore] Dalrymple thinks the rising generation of American voters is seeking more from politics than just good laws. They’re seeking salvation—they’re seeking a cure for the world’s evils, and an escape from what feels like a meaningless existence. Having abandoned any hope that these things will come from God, they’re left hitching their hopes to the next election, to the next Supreme Court ruling, or the next session of Congress.</p>

<p>“There is an evangelical tone to their declarations,” Dalyrmple writes, “a sorting of the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats, the saved from the damned. They do not merely want formal changes…[t]hey demand a reform of the human heart and intend to bring it about.”</p>

<p>But of course, politics can never deliver those things.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is unsettling, and it’s a cause for reflection. Are we, as Christians, looking to politics to deliver something it can’t deliver? How much false hope are we placing in fallen human beings? These are questions we should carefully consider as we enter this tension-filled time, adjusting our passions and hopes appropriately.</p>

<p>None of this is to say that Christians shouldn’t be politically aware and active. We should neither give up working towards the good nor fall into despair when the good (as we can best determine it) seems far out of reach. It <em>is</em> to say we need to be realistic about what politics can accomplish and place only as many eggs in its basket as it’s meant to carry.</p>

<p>This is not something our society is doing particularly well.</p>

<p>In a fallen world, hopes for a human-created utopia are sure to be dashed—whether one’s party wins or loses. Winning does not prevent disappointment; it merely delays it. For, ultimately, the world your preferred politicians create will never be quite what you hoped.</p>

<p>Because of that, when this election is over, many who are looking to politics for a sense of meaning in their lives will be devastated. If you find yourself among them, remember that our hope in this life and the next is grounded in a sovereign God who is on His throne, a God who will bring about a perfect society in the end, and who will sustain each of us through any injustice—or even mere foolishness—man can (and will) create now. Because of our peace with God and our rest in the future He is guiding into place, we can be a stable force in our society at this time.</p>

<p>And when politics fails us (as it surely will in one way or another), let’s live in such a way that those who are surprised to see we are not destroyed by our losses will ask us “to give an account for the hope that is in [us]” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+3%3A15&amp;version=ESV">1 Peter 3:15</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%2Fpolitics-will-not-save-us" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpolitics-will-not-save-us" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpolitics-will-not-save-us" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What We Need to Learn about Prayer from the Early Church
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 02/05/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-we-need-to-learn-about-prayer-from-the-early-church
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Prayer is hard for me. There are seasons in my life where I’m just not consistent. Life gets busy. Distractions abound. And my prayer life takes a hit.</p>

<p>I don’t think I’m alone. My suspicion is that many professing Christians today struggle with this. Interestingly, I don’t think the early church shared this challenge.</p>

<p>The Bible speaks a lot about prayer. In fact, there are about <em>thirty </em>references to prayer in the book of Acts alone. This is more than any other book in the New Testament.</p>

<p>The book of Acts provides a recorded history of the vital role prayer played in the lives of the disciples, who were completely dependent on God. In fact, prayer precedes almost every major event of the early church. Prayer <em>precedes</em> the filling of Holy Spirit, multiple healings, bold preaching, and comfort for persecuted believers.</p>

<p>If we want improve our prayer life, it might be helpful to look to the early church for direction.</p>

<h2>Devotion to Prayer</h2>

<p>From the inception of the church, the early Christians were <em>devoted</em> to prayer. It was the driving force behind all that they did. Immediately following Jesus’ ascension into Heaven, the eleven disciples returned to the upper room in Jerusalem. Luke records that the <em>first</em> activity of the disciples was to join together “devoting themselves to prayer” (Acts 1:14). From the very beginning of the early church, <em>prayer has been primary.</em></p>

<p>At the end of Peter’s famous sermon at Pentecost, there is a similar act of devotion to prayer by the new believers. Acts 2:42 records, “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread <em>and the prayers</em>” (emphasis added). The church had just grown from a little over 100 people to about 3000 people, and their <em>first</em> response was devotion to prayer.</p>

<p>The disciple’s devotion to prayer was both ongoing and central. In Acts 6, the disciples were given the task of appointing seven deacons to serve the widows. It was important for the disciples to delegate this work since they did not want to be distracted from their specific calling. Once again, the disciples announce, “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4). It is these devoted prayers that God works through to accomplish His will.</p>

<h2>Acts through Prayer</h2>

<p>Throughout the book of Acts, God uses prayer as a means to achieve His ends. In almost every case, prayer precedes powerful works. First, prayer precedes the filling of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:3 is directly tied to the devoted prayer of the disciples in Acts 1:14. Luke intends his reader to make this connection. To make this even more clear, in Acts 8:15, Peter and John pray that the Samaritans would receive the Holy Spirit. Luke records, “Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:17).</p>

<p>After the first recorded incident of persecution from the council of the high priest, Peter reports to his friends everything that has taken place. Together they pray to God, and “<em>when they had prayed, </em>the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:31, emphasis added). Therefore, on three separate occasions, the Holy Spirit responds to the prayers of the early disciples.</p>

<p>Second, God uses prayer to lead people to salvation in Christ. The most notable is the conversion of Saul, a persecutor of the church. While Stephen is being martyred for his faith, he prays for his persecutors and cries out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60). This prayer would have included Saul, who was at the execution. Stephen’s prayer is followed by Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus in Acts 9.</p>

<p>Third, God answers specific prayers to rescue His disciples. In Acts 12, Luke records that Herod had beheaded James, the brother of John, and was planning to do the same to Peter. While Peter was in prison, “earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church” (Acts 12:5). Incredibly, at the same time the disciples are praying for Peter, an angel of the Lord helps Peter escape from prison. This demonstrates the awesome power of prayer to affect the circumstances of persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ.</p>

<h2>Discipline of Prayer</h2>

<p>Prayer for the early church was a spiritual habit; it was a regular practice. Numerous examples could be given, but let’s just consider two observations.</p>

<p>First, before healing the lame beggar in front of the gate of the temple, Luke says, “Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour” (Acts 3:1). Peter and John were <em>intentional</em> about making time for regular prayer. Likewise, when Luke and Paul were in Philippi, they went to “the place of prayer” (Acts 16:16). Again, the early Christians set aside regular time for prayer.</p>

<p>It is also noteworthy that the disciples were not limited to praying in the temple. On one occasion, Luke says, “Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray” (Acts 10:9). So, the disciples would commit time to pray <em>no matter where they were in their travels.</em></p>

<p>Not only did the disciples commit specific time to prayer, but they also prayed continually. A mark of true discipleship is being in<em> constant</em> communication with God through prayer. In his first letter to the church at Thessalonica, Paul commands them to “pray without ceasing…for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you” (1 Thess. 5:17–18). And this is what we see in the early church (Acts 6:4).</p>

<p>After considering the prayer life of the early church, there are (at least) three takeaways to help develop a healthier prayer life.</p>

<h2>Pray Like Your Life Depends on It</h2>

<p>The importance of prayer in the Christian’s life cannot be overstated. This is made especially evident by the explicit and implicit references to prayer in the book of Acts. However, many Christians live life as if prayer is <em>unnecessary</em>. In other words, for the early church, prayer was <em>essential</em>. However, for today’s church, prayer is <em>optional</em>.</p>

<p>This is in large part due to the lack of dependence on God. When life is comfortable, prayer takes a back seat to everything else. However, this is not the life Jesus has called His disciples to live. In fact, Jesus said, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 16:24–26). When a person chooses to take up their cross and follow Christ, they cannot endure without prayer; they <em>depend</em> on it.</p>

<h2>Set Aside Time to Pray</h2>

<p>One of the challenges for Christians living in the twenty-first century is the constant distraction of the world. These come in a variety of forms, but all serve to pull the believer away from spiritual disciplines. For a Christian to grow in spiritual maturity, they must be intentional about setting aside time to talk to God.</p>

<p>Following the example of the early church, this time needs to be <em>consistent</em> and <em>structured</em>. Unfortunately, prayerlessness is rampant in the church. The pervasiveness of social media, online entertainment, and other technology provides one distraction after another. If contemporary Christians are going to plug into God through prayer, they are going to have to intentionally unplug from their electronic devices.</p>

<h2>Don’t Give Up</h2>

<p>There are many in the church who have tried praying but did not receive the answer they were looking for. As a result, they have given up praying. However, the testimony of the early church should encourage us to never give up. For example, the disciples were continuously devoted to prayer even when they did not get the answers they wanted. God answered the disciple’s prayer to save Peter out of King Herod’s hands. But James, the brother of John, was not so fortunate.</p>

<p>It is safe to assume that the disciples, including Peter, prayed that God would save James from being killed. When God allowed James to be beheaded by Herod, the disciples could have given up. They could have assumed prayer was a waste of time. But if they had, then Peter might not have been saved.</p>

<p>We can learn a lot about prayer from the early church. If you—like me—want a healthy prayer life, then pray like your life depends on it, set aside time to pray, and don’t give up.</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-we-need-to-learn-about-prayer-from-the-early-church" 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-we-need-to-learn-about-prayer-from-the-early-church" 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-we-need-to-learn-about-prayer-from-the-early-church" 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 Deal with Criticism
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/10/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-deal-with-criticism
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I had just finished preaching the Sunday morning message and was making my way through the foyer to grab a coffee. On my way, a gentleman from the congregation tapped me on the shoulder and said, “Your message this morning was very confusing. I prefer spirit-filled teaching to your academic style.”</p>

<p>These words were like a knife being plunged into my chest. They seemed to come without any warning, like being blindsided on the football field. In that moment, I didn’t know how to respond; I was speechless. Fortunately, a friend, who was standing close by and could see the look on my face, stepped into the conversation.</p>

<p>That wasn’t the only reaction to my sermon I received that morning. In fact, most of the feedback I received was very positive. But it didn’t matter how many words of encouragement I got. The criticism was all I could think about.</p>

<p>Was I unclear in the points I was trying to communicate? Was the Spirit absent from my preaching? Did I fail in my responsibility to preach God’s word? All of these questions, and many more, flooded my mind in the days that followed.</p>

<p>Dealing with criticism isn’t easy. It’s probably the hardest thing I’ve had to learn since joining Stand to Reason. As my public profile and ministry has grown, so has the onslaught of criticism.</p>

<p>I don’t think my situation is unique. Everyone receives criticism. My suspicion is that criticism is more prevalent today than ever before because of social media. Everyone has an opinion, and social media gives us a platform to express those opinions. If someone doesn’t like what you said, or what you did, or what you believe, they can express it on social media. Opinions that were once kept private are made public. Moreover, the “comment” features on most social media platforms are treated as an invitation to criticize—just go read through the comments of any YouTube video.</p>

<p>Criticism comes in all forms. Sometimes it’s helpful. Other times it’s hurtful. Sometimes it comes in the form of a short comment or tweet. Other times it’s a long, multiple-page rebuttal. Sometimes it comes from a close friend. Other times it comes from a hostile foe. Whatever the criticism, my strategy in dealing with it is always the same.</p>

<h2>Isolate the Criticism</h2>

<p>The first step is to isolate the criticism. This isn’t always easy. Oftentimes the criticism isn’t clearly spelled out. Furthermore, the criticism may be riddled with rhetoric or interlaced with insults. When this happens, you need to do your best to strip the criticism down to its “unvarnished” claim—and there may be a lot of varnish to strip away.</p>

<p>To isolate the criticism, it might help to summarize the criticism <em>in your own words</em>. When you do, try to be as accurate and succinct as possible.</p>

<p>It may help to look at a real-world example. On a YouTube video titled “Witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses,” one commenter offered the following criticism of my talk:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Sad your [sic] home every time they knock on your door. Shouldn’t you be out preaching your message. [sic] You better read Colossians 1:15 which clearly states—Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Then read proverbs 8:22–30 that explains Jesus beginning before the world was.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We can summarize the criticism this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Tim is not using his time wisely, and the Bible teaches that Jesus is a created being.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>After you isolate the criticism, it’s time to assess whether or not it has merit.</p>

<h2>Assess the Criticism</h2>

<p>The second step is to assess the criticism. Once you have distilled the criticism down to an isolated claim—a summary statement—it’s time to evaluate whether the criticism has merit.</p>

<p>Oftentimes, there is something valuable that we can glean from criticism. We chew the meat and spit out the bones, so to speak. This takes humility and a willingness to look afresh at one’s beliefs and behavior.</p>

<p>We should ask, <em>is the criticism valid?</em> Remember, not all criticism is bad. Some criticisms are completely warranted in light of evidence. If the criticism has merit, we ought to take heed and learn from it. This may mean changing our tone, or our beliefs, or our behavior. As Solomon writes, “Whoever heeds reproof is prudent” (Prov. 15:5).</p>

<p>Criticism has the ability to make us better. But not all criticisms are equal. Some have merit. Some don’t. When a criticism <em>doesn’t</em> have merit, it’s best to simply let it go. This is easier said than done. After all, doing what is wise—and, therefore, what is right—can be hard.</p>

<p>I’ve come to see every criticism as an opportunity to be used for my personal development. Even <em>unwarranted</em> criticisms provide an opportunity for growth. Solomon says, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Prov. 15:1). When I’ve been unfairly criticised, I am provided with an opportunity to practice self-control—one of the fruits of the Spirit. Everything in me may <em>want</em> to return in kind with a harsh response, but wisdom dictates that I should offer a soft answer.</p>

<p>Well, what does that look like? You could respond by saying something like, “Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts. I will take what you’ve said under consideration.”</p>

<p>When we assess the criticism from the YouTube commenter, we have to spit out some bones before we get to the meat. The first part of the criticism amounts to a personal attack. This really doesn’t merit a response. However, the second part of the criticism is a <em>legitimate</em> criticism. I’m <em>not</em> saying it’s true. I’m saying it is a legitimate attempt to undermine the claim that Jesus is God—which was the thesis on my video. Therefore, this part of the criticism warrants a response.</p>

<h2>Engage the Criticism</h2>

<p>The third step is to engage the criticism—<em>if necessary</em>. This qualification is really important. Most of the time, it’s not necessary to respond to a criticism. In fact, it’s <em>wise</em> not to. This is especially true if you’re engaging critics on social media.</p>

<p>Criticism is personal. When someone criticizes your deeply held beliefs, it’s hard not to take it personally. You feel wronged. Your natural instinct is to get defensive. However, it’s important to fight against this instinct.</p>

<p>Please learn from my mistakes. I’ve tried engaging criticisms with both snarky comebacks and detailed responses. Each case was motivated by the need to defend myself—to undo a wrong that was done to me. Unsurprisingly, both responses led to undesirable consequences.</p>

<p>However, there are times when it’s appropriate to engage the criticism. For example, if the criticism is directed towards Christianity, then it’s entirely appropriate to respond to the charge. In these instances, we should do our best to address the <em>criticism</em>, not the <em>critic</em>. This will help take the personal element out of the interaction.</p>

<p>Using the example above, the YouTube commenter’s criticism was that I wasn’t using my time wisely and that the Bible teaches Jesus is a created being. The first part was merely an attack on me (i.e. how I use my time and how often I preach). Rather than try to defend myself, I just let this go. The second part of the criticism demanded an adequate response. But rather than interact with the <em>critic</em> directly, I chose to respond to the <em>criticism</em> on its own merits. You can read my engagement with this criticism <a href="/w/was-jesus-the-first-created-being-">here</a> and <a href="/w/does-proverbs-8-22-teach-that-jesus-was-created-">here</a>.</p>

<p>Criticism <em>still</em> isn’t easy. I’ll probably never get used to it. But my outlook towards criticism has changed. This is because <em>I have a plan</em>. No longer am I caught flat-footed. No longer am I caught tongue-tied. When criticism comes—and it <em>will</em> come—I remember my three-step strategy: isolate, assess, and engage.</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-deal-with-criticism" 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-deal-with-criticism" 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-deal-with-criticism" 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: Harvester or Gardener?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/harvester-or-gardener-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I have a confession to make. I haven’t led anyone to Christ in over 30 years. I know that sounds unbelievable, bizarre—even borderline lame—but from one perspective, it makes perfect sense.</p>

<p>I want to tell you why I’ve been, by one measure, such a spiritual loser. I also want to show you how what I have to say may radically improve your effectiveness as a voice for the gospel.</p>

<p>First, though, the backstory.</p>

<h2>Simple Times, Simple Gospel</h2>

<p>I became a Christian during the Jesus Movement in Southern California in the early 70s. Evangelism back then was fairly simple: Share the simple gospel, answer a few simple questions, invite a person to simply receive Christ, pray. And lots did. Not too complicated. Would that were still the case.</p>

<p>That was almost half a century ago. Times have changed. The gospel is not “simple” anymore, nor are the questions people ask. Of course, the gospel is still the gospel. That hasn’t changed, or rather, it shouldn’t change—though more “progressive” types continue to fiddle with it, hoping to tickle postmodern ears.</p>

<p>No, the truth is still the truth. The way people <em>hear</em> it has changed dramatically, though, because the cultural conversation has changed dramatically.</p>

<p>Fifty years ago, Christian words and Christian doctrines made sense to people, more or less, even if folks didn’t always believe them or, if believing, didn’t live them out. Clearly, the doorkeepers of culture back then were increasingly <em>post</em>-Christian, but they had not become <em>anti</em>-Christian, as they are now.</p>

<p>Worse, the hostility nowadays is not just against the gospel—which has always been a “stumbling block”—but against virtually every detail of the biblical view of reality, including what it means to be human, what it means to be gendered, what it means to be moral, even what it means for something to be “true.”</p>

<p>Bestseller lists frequently feature rhetorically powerful offerings challenging virtually every aspect of the Christian worldview. Consequently, in the thinking of the rank and file, the smart folks have weighed in and found Christianity wanting, so they have no reason to give our message a second thought.</p>

<p>Worse, for many, the words of hope we offer are taken as words of veiled hatred of outsiders—bigotry towards those who don’t believe our spiritual views or obey our moral convictions.</p>

<p>In short, the culture has moved on. Unfortunately, our methods have not. They’ve remained largely static. We continue to be dedicated to outdated devices, using Christian language largely unintelligible to non-Christians. People don’t understand our ideas, so they don’t understand our message—which to them seems obsolete, antiquated, and irrelevant.</p>

<p>And that confusion can be spiritually lethal, as Jesus points out.</p>

<h2>Road Kill</h2>

<p>In Matthew 13, Jesus relates the famous parable of the sower. The first seeds sown, He says, fall beside the road, and birds swoop down and eat them. No mystery here. Hard ground, no growth. Some people just won’t listen. Not too complicated. But that was not Jesus’ point.</p>

<p>In His clarification to His disciples, He explains what He meant. “When anyone hears the word of the kingdom,” He says, “<em>and does not understand it</em>, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road” (Matt. 13:19).</p>

<p>The seed is sown, true enough. It’s “in his heart,” Jesus says. Yet it’s not understood, so it’s easily snatched away by the devil.</p>

<p>By contrast, Jesus tells them, “The one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word <em>and understands it</em>; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty” (Matt. 13:23).</p>

<p>So here is the question. According to Jesus, what is the chief difference between the first and the last, between the faithless and the faithful, between the one who bears nothing and the one who bears an abundance? The difference is this: The second <em>understands</em> the message; the first does not. As a result, they’re road kill.</p>

<p>This insight is central, I think, to Paul’s exhortation in Colossians 4:5–6:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know <em>how you should respond to each person</em>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Vital to my point is Paul’s last phrase. Circumstances are unique, and people are individuals. They sit at different places along the continuum between total rejection and complete surrender. If our personal evangelistic game plan emphasizes only the end of that journey—the harvest—then we are not following Paul’s directions because we are not crafting our communication uniquely <em>to each person</em>.</p>

<p>The cookie-cutter approach that worked so well 50 years ago now leaves listeners mystified, dumbfounded, confused—in a word, without understanding—so that the seeds scattered are easily snatched away. The evil one steals the word we have sown because the message itself is largely incoherent. It is not intelligible to many given the unique cultural circumstances we find ourselves in.</p>

<p>I’d like to offer an antidote based on an insight that suggests a more fruitful approach.</p>

<h2>Spadework</h2>

<p>I want you to think about an aphorism that’s not especially profound in itself but has profound implications for our approach to sharing the gospel. It’s a truism that has completely transformed my approach to evangelism. Here it is:</p>

<p><em>Before there can be any harvest, there always has to be a season of gardening.</em></p>

<p>Fruitful harvest, in other words, is always dependent on diligent spadework: sowing, watering, weeding, nurturing. Here is how I put the point in the new, expanded edition of <em>Tactics</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Before someone ever comes to Christ, there is always a period of time—a season, if you will—when they are thinking about the gospel, mulling it over, wondering whether it might be true. They may be putting out little probes by asking questions. They might even be fighting back a bit. But still, they’re wondering—maybe praying secretly, <em>God, are you real?</em> <sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>That’s what I was doing as a college student at UCLA in 1973. I was testing the waters, asking questions, pushing back, and—eventually—listening. “When this happens in someone’s life,” I concluded in <em>Tactics</em>, “it’s an opportunity for you and me to do some spadework, what Francis Schaeffer called ‘pre-evangelism.’”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>The night I finally trusted the Lord—a Friday night, September 28, 1973—my younger brother Mark came to my apartment for a visit, intent on continuing his efforts to bring me to Christ. I cut him off.</p>

<p>“Mark,” I said, “you don’t have to tell me about Jesus anymore. I’ve already decided I want to become a Christian.” It took me a few minutes to peel him off the ceiling, then I bowed my head, confessed my need, pled for mercy, turned my life over to Jesus, and began walking with Him.</p>

<p>There is something in this exchange I do not want you to miss. When I was ready, I responded—no fuss, no pushback, no hesitancy. That’s the way it is with ripe fruit. It’s easy to pick. All it takes is a little bump, and it falls into the basket. The gardening came first; that was the hard part. In evangelism, when the spadework is done well, the harvest pretty much takes care of itself. The first makes the second possible.</p>

<p>This is precisely Jesus’ point in a familiar Gospel text.</p>

<h2>Two Seasons, Two Workers</h2>

<p>Consider Jesus’ comments in John 4—the well-known woman at the well passage. I want you to notice something Jesus says after that famous conversation that teaches an important lesson that is not so well known.</p>

<p>The disciples arrive on the scene just as the Samaritan woman leaves for Sychar to tell others about the amazing man she’d met at the well. Here is what Jesus then says to the twelve:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Already he who reaps is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for life eternal; so that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. For in this case the saying is true, “One sows and another reaps.” I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored and you have entered into their labor. (Jn. 4:36–38).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I had read this passage for years without noticing a critical calculus of evangelism embedded in that conversation. In this exchange, Jesus identifies <em>one field</em> but distinguishes between <em>two different seasons</em>—sowing and reaping, gardening and harvesting. He identifies <em>one team</em> but distinguishes between <em>two types of workers</em>—those who sow and those who reap, those who garden and those who harvest.</p>

<p>For Sychar, the reaping season was at hand. Someone else had done the heavy lifting, but the disciples now had the light labor. They were going to gather the low hanging fruit, the easy pickin’s. Again, the harvest is easy when the crop is ready.</p>

<h2>Go for the Gold?</h2>

<p>Some Christians are convinced we should try to get to the gospel in every encounter. Go for the gold. Press for the decision. Close the deal. I think the impulse is right-hearted, of course, but it’s wrongheaded; there are problems with this approach.</p>

<p>One, I’ve already alluded to. I suspect we are not spending enough time listening to people long enough to learn their cultural language, so to speak. If we do not first listen to understand <em>their</em> views, how will we be able to communicate in such a way that they will understand <em>ours</em>? If we speak words of truth, but they fall on uncomprehending ears, there will be no understanding. Those precious gospel seeds will get whisked away and, in that conversation at least, the devil will have the day.</p>

<p>There’s another problem. What happens when a massive number of Christians gifted as gardeners rather than as harvesters are presented with a harvesting model of evangelism that’s inconsistent with their spiritual temperament? I’ll tell you. They sit on the bench, inactive, out of play. The idea of pressing someone for a decision—especially in today’s hostile environment—is simply too unsettling, too disconcerting, and, frankly, too frightening.</p>

<p>I sympathize completely. The fact is, most of us are not good closers. Consequently, we never get into the game. And when gardeners don’t garden, for whatever reason, then the harvest suffers. Remember the sluggard from Proverbs. He did not plow after autumn, so he had nothing when harvest time came ’round (Prov. 20:4).</p>

<p>Please do not misunderstand me. Harvesting is critical. There would be no kingdom expansion without it. But there would be no harvesting without good gardening, so without the spadework, there’s no kingdom growth, either. Remember, one sows; the other reaps.</p>

<p>This is why I do not feel compelled to sprint for the finish line if the circumstances don’t warrant it. Instead, I have a different goal.</p>

<h2>Lowering the Bar, Raising the Impact</h2>

<p>When I’m in a conversation I hope will lead to spiritual matters, I never have it as an immediate goal to lead that person to Christ. I make no effort to get them to sign on the dotted line. I don’t try to “close the deal.” In fact, I don’t have it as a goal to even get to the gospel, though I may end up there.</p>

<p>Do I want that person to come to Christ? Of course I do. Is the gospel necessary for that? Again, of course. It’s the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16).</p>

<p>Getting to the gospel is not the issue, though. Returning for a moment to the parable of the sower, the problem is the <em>ground</em> the seed falls on. There’s no <em>understanding</em>. The hard ground needs tilling first before the seed has any chance of taking root.</p>

<p>I have adopted, therefore, a more modest goal when I engage others in conversation. It’s one I communicate clearly at the outset of virtually every talk I give to a secular audience. Here’s what I tell them:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I’m here tonight because my life has been deeply changed by an ancient teacher. His name is Jesus of Nazareth. Decades ago while I was a student at UCLA, I began to think more carefully about the claims Jesus made about Himself, the claims He made about the nature of reality, and the claim He made on my own life. After thinking hard on the issues, asking a lot of questions, and doing a lot of arguing, I finally came to the conclusion that Jesus got it right, that He saw the world the way it really was. I realized the smart money was on Jesus, so I began to follow Him.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Then I say something they do not expect to hear. I tell them I’m not there to convert them. “I have a more modest goal,” I say. “<em>I just want to put a stone in your shoe</em>. I just want to annoy you a little bit, but in a good way. I want you leaving this auditorium with something I said poking at you, something that gets you thinking, because I think Jesus of Nazareth is worth thinking about.”</p>

<p>Then I move forward with my talk, whatever it happens to be. I make it clear to them that I’m not in harvest mode. Instead, I’m gardening.</p>

<p>At this point you may be wondering, <em>Does this guy ever get to the gospel?</em> The answer is simple: Of course I do. Then the next question: <em>When do you get to the gospel?</em> Here’s my answer: I get to the gospel whenever I want.</p>

<p>I know that may sound cheeky, but here’s what I’m getting at. I do not feel forced to squeeze the gospel into the conversation in an artificial way simply because someone told me I have to. Jesus didn’t even do that.</p>

<p>Jesus took His time. He carefully weighed His words to be sensitive to His audience and to the unique circumstances He faced. Lots of times He went only halfway. He gave the bad news then let it weigh upon His listeners. Only later—after they were exhausted from shouldering the crushing weight of their own sin—did He say, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). Rest from what? Rest from the burden of the bad news, from the hopeless load of living according to the law. Yes, He got to the good news, but first He gardened.</p>

<p>In the many years I have taught this concept publicly in front of audiences, I’ve watched carefully when I tell them about the importance of gardening before harvesting. I can see in their eyes something slowly beginning to dawn on them.</p>

<p>Here is what the expression on their faces tells me they’re thinking: <em>I can do this.</em> And they are right, of course. They can. Yes, I’ve lowered the bar a bit for them. But a lower bar gets them off the bench and into the garden, and that means a bigger harvest in the long run.</p>

<h2>Who’s in Your Garden?</h2>

<p>Which brings me back to my original confession, the one that made me sound like a lame Christian, an evangelism loser.</p>

<p>Years ago, I realized I was not a harvester but a gardener. My efforts for decades—on radio and at public events, speaking in churches and at universities, writing books and articles—have all been, largely, to serve a single end: gardening.</p>

<p>The reason I haven’t personally prayed with someone to receive Christ in over three decades is I haven’t really tried. I’m not in harvesting mode because I’m not a harvester; I’m a gardener. And so, I suspect, are most Christians. They just haven’t thought of themselves that way since the option was never really open to them.</p>

<p>There’s something else you need to know, though. You need to know who’s been in my garden.</p>

<p>Does the name J. Warner Wallace sound familiar to you? He’s the legendary cold-case detective who, as an atheist, applied his considerable investigative skills to the eyewitness reports in the Gospels. In the process, he became a believer, then an apologist, and then a bestselling author. You might have read his books: <em>Cold-Case Christianity</em>, or <em>God’s Crime Scene</em>, or <em>Forensic Faith</em>.</p>

<p>Or maybe you’ve heard of Abdu Murray, former Muslim now Christian apologist and current senior vice president with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. You might have read his books, too: <em>Saving Truth</em>, or <em>Grand Central Question</em>, or <em>Seeing Jesus from the East</em>.</p>

<p>You may know <em>of</em> them, but here’s something you probably don’t know<em> about</em> them: They were both in my garden. When J. Warner Wallace was still an atheist, he was listening to our broadcast. When Abdu Murray was still a Muslim, he was listening to me on the radio. And I’ve met many other Christians just like them.</p>

<p>Do you realize what happened? I was patiently—and unknowingly—doing spadework on Jim, and Abdu, and the others, then somebody went into <em>my</em> garden and harvested <em>my</em> crop. Do you think I care? Of course not; we’re all on the same team. Schaeffer’s “pre-evangelism” was the gardening essential for that bountiful harvest.</p>

<h2>Bringing in the Sheaves</h2>

<p>In the Body of Christ, different people have different gifts.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> When it comes to working the field, some sow and some reap—as Jesus taught.</p>

<p>If what I have written so far really bothers you—if you think I’m letting people off too easily and I’m not pushing them to get to the meat of the matter quickly enough—you’re probably a harvester. And I’m glad you are. We need you.</p>

<p>If, on the other hand, what I’ve said encourages you, if you’re thinking, “I can do that,” then you are probably a gardener. That would be most Christians, I suspect, and we need you, too.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>If that’s the case, if it’s beginning to dawn on you that you might be a gardener like me, then make it your modest goal to try to put a stone in an unbeliever’s shoe. Focus your efforts on giving him just one thing to think about. That’s plenty good for starters.</p>

<p>Don’t worry about the endgame. Instead, get busy doing some spadework. Think about getting into conversations using the game plan outlined in the new, expanded edition of <em>Tactics</em> to help you start gardening effectively.</p>

<p>Remember, you don’t have to swing for the fences. You don’t even have to get on base, in my view. All you have to do is get into the batter’s box, then let the Lord take things from there. That’s the secret—and the beauty—of gardening.</p>

<p>If you do that—if you get off the bench and get into play in simple ways that are friendly yet moderately challenging, I think you’re going to see a dramatic difference in your impact for the gospel.</p>

<p>Don’t ever forget, the more gardeners we have, the bigger the harvest is going to be. Then both “he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together” in the bountiful result.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Gregory Koukl, <em>Tactics—A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, 10<sup>th</sup> Anniversary Edition,</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019), 18. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Both 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 make this point clearly. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">For those concerned that my approach may miss opportunities, keep in mind that the “praying to receive Christ” practice is not part of the New Testament pattern. It entered the life of the church only a few hundred years ago. In Acts, people simply preached persuasively and listeners believed. The Holy Spirit brought conviction that led to humble faith. The closest thing to an altar call in the New Testament was a baptism, but that came after faith, not before it. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fharvester-or-gardener-" 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%2Fharvester-or-gardener-" 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%2Fharvester-or-gardener-" 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: Mary, Joseph, and Jesus Were Not Refugees
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 12/19/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/mary-joseph-and-jesus-were-not-refugees
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There is a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/09/us/nativity-refugee-display-trnd/index.html">thought-provoking image</a> circulating the internet that depicts a nativity scene unlike most we’re familiar with. It’s a picture of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, each in separate cages. This image is <em>powerful</em>, especially in light of the current political climate. But is it <em>truthful</em>?</p>

<p>The power of this nativity rests in the assumption that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were refugees. After all, if Mary, Joseph, and Jesus weren’t refugees, then the portrayal of them in cages doesn’t make any sense.</p>

<p>My friend <a href="https://www.wesleyhuff.com/bio">Wesley Huff</a> recently gave his thoughts regarding the controversial nativity on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/wesleylivingstonehuff/photos/a.278288259563794/522994161759868/?type=3&amp;theater">Facebook</a>. Huff is a currently working on his doctorate at The University of Toronto in New Testament and works with the campus ministry <a href="https://p2c.com/students/ultimate-questions/members/wesely-huff/">Power to Change</a>.</p>

<p>Here’s what he had to say about the provocative nativity scene.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Admittedly, I might be wading into something a little more political than I want to get involved in. But I’ve noticed a number of posts recently that either label or portray Mary, Joseph, and Jesus as “asylum seekers” or “refugees.” This claim is ahistorical….</p>

<p>But it has gained new traction with the portrayal by Claremont United Methodist Church’s nativity scene, of placing Mary, Joseph, and Jesus in the manger, in separated cages. The image of this scene, which is very visceral and does convey a very strong emotional stance on the issue, has gone viral in the last few weeks—as I think it should. This is both a clever and emotionally intuitive piece, which if it were correct would be a powerful point in and of itself.</p>

<p>First, I want to say that this post is <em>not</em> a political one but an attempt to correct for the sake of truth and historical clarity. The issue at the American border and refugees globally is not the focus of this post and so therefore, my personal opinion on this important and polarizing issue will not be discussed (here and now, at least).</p>

<p>Second, the impetus for the claim that Jesus’ little family were refugees comes from the Gospel of Matthew, which states:</p>

<p>After they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to look for the child to kill him.” Then he got up, took the child and his mother during the night, and went to Egypt. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+2%3A13-14&amp;version=NET">Matt. 2:13-14</a>)</p>

<p>The United Nations defines refugees as “people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country.” So at face value, yes, it appears that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus fled conflict and persecution and went from Judea to Egypt, therefore, crossing an international border. <em>So, why would I claim this claim is incorrect and misinformed?</em></p>

<p>Well, the main issue is that despite what modern borders look like today, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus never left the Roman Empire. They didn’t escape from one country to another or cross an international border, as we would understand it. Instead, they left the Roman province of Judea to seek sanctuary in the Roman province of Aegyptus.</p>

<p>The Roman Empire at this time would have been understood similar (although the comparison is not perfectly analogous) to the current USA, in that independent vassal states had local authority and autonomy (to a point) but were part of and ruled by the Empire proper.</p>

<p>So, for the sake of analogy, I want you to picture a modern day couple: Maria and José, who are traveling with their baby boy Jesús, all born and raised in Arizona. They are fleeing Tempe, Arizona and seeking temporary shelter in San Diego, California due to a discriminatory magistrate judge who they feel is unjust and would pursue persecution within their home state. Would we consider this modern couple as refugees seeking asylum? No, if words have meanings and those meanings matter then no one in our hypothetical modern-day nativity scene were refugees. Not according to what that term is understood to legally and rationally mean.</p>

<p>So, it does not make historical sense to take a modern definition, apply it to a situation within antiquity using a modern lens of both situation and geographical borders, and then try to apply it to make a political point.</p>

<p>The political situation in question is a pressing and serious issue. I think people on both ends of the partisan divide can agree on that. But this type of argumentation, that is based on misunderstanding and ignorance at best and misrepresentation at worst, is not the way to go about it. It is far too full of holes and far too susceptible to critique simply because it is anachronistic and untrue….</p>

<p>To finish: I don’t fault those who have been making this claim and sharing these types of stories. Not everyone has graduate degrees in history, I understand that. Very few people are wolves in sheep’s clothing. However, I think we should always pursue a position that seeks understanding and truthful representation, so I hope this is seen as an olive branch for correction and not a sword of division.</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%2Fmary-joseph-and-jesus-were-not-refugees" 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%2Fmary-joseph-and-jesus-were-not-refugees" 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%2Fmary-joseph-and-jesus-were-not-refugees" 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 Top Ten Videos of 2019
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/31/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-top-ten-videos-of-2019
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Did you miss any of these most-viewed videos of 2019? Here’s your chance to catch up! (Transcripts are included in the posts below, and you can find more videos on our <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/STRvideos/videos">YouTube channel</a>.)</p>

<ol>
	<li value="10"><a href="/w/does-god-promise-to-heal-our-land-">Does God Promise to Heal Our Land?</a></li>
	<li value="9"><a href="/w/reaching-your-lgbt-friends-with-truth-and-compassion">Reaching Your LGBT Friends with Truth and Compassion</a></li>
	<li value="8"><a href="/w/where-do-moral-laws-come-from-">Where Do Moral Laws Come From?</a></li>
	<li value="7"><a href="/w/the-burden-free-step-in-discussing-christian-beliefs">The Burden-Free Step in Discussing Christian Beliefs</a></li>
	<li value="6"><a href="/w/focus-on-gardening" rel="" target="" title="">Focus on Gardening (Which Kind of Evangelist Are You?)</a></li>
	<li value="5"><a href="/w/how-to-avoid-the-professor-s-ploy">How to Avoid the Professor’s Ploy</a></li>
	<li value="4"><a href="/w/apologetics-is-simply-a-means-to-this-end" rel="" target="" title="">Apologetics Is Simply a Means to This End (Do You Have Good Arguments? Save Them for Later)</a></li>
	<li value="3"><a href="/w/does-jesus-endorse-blind-faith-">Does Jesus Endorse Blind Faith?</a></li>
	<li value="2"><a href="/w/the-unexpected-way-to-effectively-make-your-point">The Unexpected Way to Effectively Make Your Point</a></li>
	<li value="1"><a href="/w/want-to-share-the-gospel-start-with-this-question">Want to Share the Gospel? Start with This Question</a></li>
</ol>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-top-ten-videos-of-2019" 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-top-ten-videos-of-2019" 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-top-ten-videos-of-2019" 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 and How You Should Mark Up Your Books
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/17/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-and-how-you-should-mark-up-your-books
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“Marking up a book is not an act of mutilation but of love.” That’s Mortimer Adler’s claim from his article “<a href="http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/adler.html">How to Mark a Book</a>.” I second his sentiment. I love to engage an author’s thoughts by marking up a book with my agreements, rebuttals, and personal thoughts that spring to my mind when I chew on the material. I get more out of the book by having interacted with it in that way.</p>

<p>I find three obvious benefits when I mark up a book (Adler, of course, provides more).</p>

<ol>
	<li>It keeps me focused on the <em>author’s</em> thoughts. I tend not to tune out when I’m looking for ways to interact with the material. I pay closer attention to the points and arguments made, looking for opportunities to agree or disagree.</li>
	<li>It keeps me focused on <em>my</em> thoughts. I’m more mindful of my own ideas and assessment of the content when I’m writing them down.</li>
	<li>It helps me remember the book better when I pick it up years later. I’ll often take a book from my bookshelf to see what it says. When I find my underlines, highlights, stars, and notes, I’m quickly brought back to the thoughts and interactions I had with the author from years ago. I’m able to readily get reacquainted with the ideas of the book as well as my thoughts about those ideas.</li>
</ol>

<p>For some people, they’ll find they have (some, maybe a little) extra time this Christmas break, and it’s a great time to catch up on some well-needed reading. When you do, consider marking up the book. Adler’s ideas in this <a href="http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/adler.html">article</a> are extremely valuable. He shows the powerful benefits of the practice and responds to several objections raised against it.</p>

<p>And don’t forget to consider Greg Koukl’s <a href="/w/why-settle-for-merely-reading-a-book-when-you-can-master-it-">thoughts</a> on how to read a book, 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%2Fwhy-and-how-you-should-mark-up-your-books" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-and-how-you-should-mark-up-your-books" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-and-how-you-should-mark-up-your-books" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Golden Globe Awards Speech Defends Abortion
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/14/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/golden-globe-awards-speech-defends-abortion
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I often hear abortion defended for two reasons: rape and the life of the mother being in jeopardy. It turns out these are two of the <em>least</em> common reasons why women have abortions in the United States. That’s not according to me, but according to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization started by Planned Parenthood.</p>

<p>Consider <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj-r0tcvLh8" rel="noopener">Michelle Williams’s acceptance speech</a> last week at the Golden Globe Awards. She talked about decisions she’s made in her life that have allowed her to “live a life of her own making” and that wouldn’t have been possible “without employing a woman’s right to choose.” In other words, she couldn’t have pursued and advanced her career without killing her child through abortion.</p>

<p>It turns out that Williams’s explanation, according to the Guttmacher Institute, is the number one reason women have abortions. Their <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives" id="" rel="" target="" title="">research article</a> cites “Having a baby would dramatically change my life” as the number one reason, accounting for 74% of the women who had abortions in 2004. The subcategories of that reason include “Would interfere with education,” “Would interfere with job/employment/career,” and “Have other children or dependents.”</p>

<p>Sadly, the <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/tables/370305/3711005t3.pdf" id="" rel="" target="" title="">top six “most important reasons”</a> why women have abortions are all <em>socio-economic</em> reasons and account for 86% of all abortions. In fact, ��Was a victim of rape” accounts for &lt;0.5%, and the life of the mother being in jeopardy isn’t even identified as a quantifiable reason since it rarely occurs today (health of the mother is mentioned, but the report is referring to treatable and not life-threatening conditions).</p>

<p>Though abortion-choice advocates love to use rape and the life of the mother as rhetorically powerful reasons for why abortion should remain legal, they don’t explain why most women have abortions. The number of women who have abortions because of rape or their own life being in danger pales in comparison to the number of women who, like Williams, will kill their unborn child to fulfill their life goals.</p>

<p>I’m mad that our laws permit such a barbaric practice like abortion, but I’m sad for people like Michelle Williams. She’s also a precious human being made in the image of God. But she’s been deceived into believing it’s worth sacrificing your child for fame and fortune. I pray that one day she realizes her grievous error and turns to the One who makes all life worth cherishing.</p>

<p>Source: “<a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives" rel="" target="" title="">Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives</a>,” in <em>Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health</em>, 2005, 37(3):110–118.</p>
</div>

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


title: The Top Ten Posts of 2019
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/26/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-top-ten-podcasts-of-2019
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We’ve reached the end of the year, so it’s time for the annual roundup of top posts. Here are the 2019 posts that received the most views this year. Enjoy!</p>

<ol>
	<li value="10"><a href="/w/mary-joseph-and-jesus-were-not-refugees">Mary, Joseph, and Jesus Were Not Refugees</a> – “There is a thought-provoking image circulating the internet that depicts a nativity scene unlike most we’re familiar with. It’s a picture of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, each in separate cages. This image is <em>powerful</em>, especially in light of the current political climate. But is it <em>truthful</em>?”</li>
	<li value="9"><a href="/w/why-men-can-speak-on-abortion">Why Men Can Speak on Abortion</a> – “Unfortunately, any male pro-life advocate involved in the abortion debate will eventually, at one time or another, hear something like the following protest from an abortion-choice female: ‘You’re a man. Men can’t get pregnant. Abortion is a women’s issue. Therefore, you can’t speak on abortion.’”</li>
	<li value="8"><a href="/w/why-is-the-old-covenant-obsolete-">Why Is the Old Covenant Obsolete?</a> – “Though I agree with [Andy] Stanley that the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete, I have many concerns about the book [<em>Irresistible</em>], and I think the root of those concerns may be his understanding of <em>why</em> the Old Covenant is obsolete.”</li>
	<li value="7"><a href="/w/did-jesus-die-on-a-torture-stake-">Did Jesus Die on a Torture Stake?</a> – “There are a number of problems with the view that Jesus died on a stake. Rather than provide a comprehensive case, let me give you five <em>talking points</em> for the next time a Jehovah’s Witness tells you Jesus died on a stake.”</li>
	<li value="6"><a href="/w/why-evidence-will-not-convince-some-atheists">Why Evidence Will Not Convince Some Atheists</a> – “[I]t is tempting to think belief in God comes down to the evidence <em>and nothing else</em>. On this view, it’s as if we have an ‘evidence meter’ in our heads. And when the ‘evidence meter’ reaches a certain level, we believe in God. But is it really that simple? Does belief in God <em>merely</em> depend on evidence?”</li>
	<li value="5"><a href="/w/are-your-kids-ready-to-respond-to-these-pro-abortion-arguments-">Are Your Kids Ready to Respond to These Pro-Abortion Arguments?</a> – “One feels a unique kind of horror when witnessing a great evil being treated as ordinary—even boring—as everyone nods and smiles in response. Which brings me to the video below.”</li>
	<li value="4"><a href="/w/why-did-god-create-people-if-he-knew-so-many-would-go-to-hell-">Why Did God Create People if He Knew So Many Would Go to Hell?</a> – “There’s much more to this story than a ‘joyful life’ vs. a ‘miserable life’ for human beings. Since God is the center of all things, not us, we need to look a little more closely at <em>Him</em> in order to answer this question.”</li>
	<li value="3"><a href="/w/most-politically-incorrect-bible-passage">The Most Politically Incorrect Bible Passage</a> – “Though Paul’s statement might be the most <em>politically incorrect</em> passage, it’s also a <em>powerfully correct </em>passage. These are the words of our Creator, the One who sustains the universe in existence and grants our every breath. Truer words cannot be spoken.”</li>
	<li value="2"><a href="/w/if-you-want-your-kids-to-own-their-faith-teach-them-to-think-critically-about-their-faith">If You Want Your Kids to Own Their Faith, Teach Them to Think Critically about Their Faith</a> – “It’s my responsibility to teach my kids <em>how to act</em>.... But right behavior is not my only goal. I’m also deeply committed to teaching <em>right thinking</em>. In other words, it’s not only my responsibility to teach my kids <em>how to act</em>; it’s also my responsibility to teach them <em>how to think</em>.”</li>
	<li value="1"><a href="/w/does-bible-teach-life-begins-first-breath">Does the Bible Teach That Life Begins at First Breath?</a> – “The author of Genesis is not telling us when all human beings come to life. The Bible doesn’t teach that <em>every</em> man comes to life at first breath any more than it teaches that <em>every</em> woman comes from the rib of a man (Gen. 2:21–22). If we want to know what the Bible teaches about when life begins, we are going to have to look elsewhere.”</li>
</ol>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-top-ten-podcasts-of-2019" 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-top-ten-podcasts-of-2019" 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-top-ten-podcasts-of-2019" 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 Second Discussion on Homosexuality and the Transgender Movement
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/02/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-second-discussion-on-homosexuality-and-the-transgender-movement
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If a non-Christian identifies as gay, how should a Christian respond to them? Should they attempt to convince them of&nbsp;<a href="/w/the-bible-and-homosexuality" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Scripture’s sexual ethics</a>? Or should the believer pursue some other goal? Is there any hope for the person who experiences unwanted same-sex attraction? Were they born that way?</p>

<p>These questions, and many more, are addressed in&nbsp;<a href="https://reallifewithjackhibbs.org/video/the-lgbtq-movement-how-should-the-christian-respond-part-2/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">part two of my conversation with Jack Hibbs</a>.</p>

<p>(Part one can be found&nbsp;<a href="/w/a-discussion-on-homosexuality-and-the-transgender-movement" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.)</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="blqDjJOe4o8" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/blqDjJOe4o8?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-second-discussion-on-homosexuality-and-the-transgender-movement" 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-second-discussion-on-homosexuality-and-the-transgender-movement" 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-second-discussion-on-homosexuality-and-the-transgender-movement" 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: Stewardship Report
topic: Announcements
author: Stand to Reason
date: 01/07/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/stewardship-report
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Stand to Reason is committed to wise financial stewardship and strive to put financial support directly to ministry activity to fulfill STR’s mission: to train and equip Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square. STR has been recognized by third-party organizations that monitor non-profit fiscal management. <a href="https://ministrywatch.com/compare.php"><strong>MinistryWatch</strong></a> has analysis of STR’s fiscal management; the current rating can be found on their page. A summary of STR’s latest 990 financial report is <a href="https://str-pdfs.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Stand_to_Reason_2018_Form_990.pdf" target="_blank">available here</a>.</p>

<p>Stand to Reason is overseen by a board of directors:</p>

<ul>
	<li>William Bradford, Chairman</li>
	<li>Steve Carmichael</li>
	<li>Martin Caveza</li>
	<li>Craig Hazen</li>
	<li>Greg Koukl, President of Stand to Reason</li>
	<li>Richard Moselle</li>
</ul>

<p>Key employees are Greg Koukl, President, and Meg Crowley, Executive Director, and Derek White, Director of Operations.</p>

<p>In 2019, Stand to Reason pursued its mission to equip Christian ambassadors. Some benchmarks of that activity include:</p>

<ul>
	<li>2.1 million YouTube views</li>
	<li>38,000 Facebook Followers&nbsp;&nbsp;</li>
	<li>9,500 Instagram Followers&nbsp;</li>
	<li>39,000 Twitter Followers&nbsp;</li>
	<li>Over 1,682,034 training pieces were mailed or emailed</li>
	<li>20,748 CDs, MP3s, DVDs, books, and PDFs were distributed</li>
	<li>2,340,073 articles were viewed on the website</li>
	<li>992,835 visits were made to the website</li>
	<li>More than 551,472 podcasts were downloaded</li>
	<li>52 radio broadcasts on about 123 stations</li>
	<li>714,220 unique users visited the website during the year</li>
	<li>121,982 downloads of STR’s app</li>
	<li>101 teaching events by STR speakers</li>
	<li>Greg taught in Paraguay, the Philippines, Israel, and Uganda; Alan taught in Australia, Brazil, and Israel.</li>
	<li>STR hosted the reTHINK Apologetics Student Conference in Southern California, Texas, Alabama, and Minnesota with over 7500 students, leaders, and parents.</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%2Fstewardship-report" 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%2Fstewardship-report" 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%2Fstewardship-report" 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: Unborn Babies May Be Able to Feel Pain Earlier Than 24 Weeks
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/23/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/unborn-babies-may-be-able-to-feel-pain-earlier-than-24-weeks
content:
            <div> 
		<p>An <a href="https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3">article in the Journal of Medical Ethics</a> argues there’s a good possibility that fetal human beings can feel pain earlier than the previously accepted 24 weeks. The <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7903507/Unborn-babies-feel-pain-24-week-abortion-limit-scientists-say.html">Daily Mail reports</a> from the UK:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Unborn babies may be able to feel pain before reaching 24 weeks, say scientists – meaning they could suffer as they are being aborted.</p>

<p>Until now, the consensus of medical opinion has been that foetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks’ gestation, after which abortion is illegal in Britain except in special cases.</p>

<p>But two medical researchers, including a ‘pro-choice’ British pain expert who used to think there was no chance foetuses could feel pain that early, say recent studies strongly suggest the assumption is incorrect.</p>

<p>The studies indicate unborn babies might be able to feel ‘something like pain’ as early as 13 weeks, they say.</p>

<p>Women going for abortions who have reached this stage of pregnancy should be told the foetus could experience pain while being terminated, they argue. And medical staff should ask if the woman wants it to be given pain relief.</p>

<p>To carry on regardless of new evidence ‘flirts with moral recklessness’, they write in the influential Journal of Medical Ethics.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here’s the most surprising part:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The lead author of the controversial article is British professor Stuart Derbyshire, who has acted as a consultant to the Pro-Choice Forum in the UK and Planned Parenthood, a leading American pro-choice organisation.</p>

<p>In 2006, he wrote in the British Medical Journal that avoiding talking to women seeking abortions about foetal pain was ‘sound policy based on good evidence that foetuses cannot experience pain’.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The fact that a man who has “acted as a consultant” for pro-choice organizations (and who previously argued that fetal human beings younger than 24 weeks can’t experience pain) has come to these new conclusions gives weight to his arguments. They can’t be dismissed by pro-choicers as mere “pro-life propaganda.”</p>

<p>Of course, the ability to feel pain is not a magical thing that turns a human body into a valuable human “person” such that pain determines the point at which killing should be illegal. Human beings are human beings at <em>every</em> level of development, whether they currently have the ability to feel pain or not, and the lack of ability to feel pain doesn’t justify killing them. So this changes nothing in terms of pro-life arguments for the unborn’s right to life. But it’s also the case that a pregnant woman who knows her unborn child feels pain might reflect just a bit longer on the living human being inside her and on what abortion is and does, and it could save lives. And if this information leads to Britain lowering the age limit on abortion, then all the better.</p>

<p>Let us hope it’s <em>not</em> the case that the only thing this new information about fetal pain accomplishes is a policy of giving unborn children painkillers before they are violently killed.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Funborn-babies-may-be-able-to-feel-pain-earlier-than-24-weeks" 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%2Funborn-babies-may-be-able-to-feel-pain-earlier-than-24-weeks" 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%2Funborn-babies-may-be-able-to-feel-pain-earlier-than-24-weeks" 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: Talking to Jehovah’s Witnesses? Start Here
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Tim Barnett
date: 01/07/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/talking-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-start-here
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It may come as a surprise, but some of the most popular articles on the Stand to Reason blog are on the topic of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, in 2019, two of the top ten articles were on <em>specific</em> challenges from Jehovah’s Witnesses.</p>

<p>The reason for this isn’t complicated. People—like you and me—are being challenged by Jehovah’s Witnesses and, as a result, are looking for answers.</p>

<p>Over the last few years, I’ve responded to a number of objections from Jehovah’s Witnesses. Until now, these articles were scattered all over the STR website. I decided it would be helpful to put them all in one place.</p>

<h2>Common Beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses Refuted</h2>

<p><a href="/w/where-do-jehovah-s-witnesses-get-their-name-">Where Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Get Their Name?</a><br>
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they <em>alone</em> are God’s chosen witnesses to the world. As justification for their self-designation, they cite Isaiah 43:10. By applying this verse to themselves, Jehovah’s Witnesses testify that they are the only true witnesses of Jehovah. But is that what this verse is really communicating?</p>

<p><a href="/w/is-jesus-the-archangel-michael-">Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?</a><br>
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael. Here we evaluate the evidence they present and show that it doesn’t hold up.</p>

<p><a href="/w/did-jesus-die-on-a-torture-stake-">Did Jesus Die on a Torture Stake?</a><br>
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus did not die on a cross. Instead, they believe He died on a stake. There are a number of problems with this view. Rather than provide a comprehensive case, let me give you five <em>talking points</em> for the next time a Jehovah’s Witness tells you Jesus died on a stake.</p>

<p><a href="/w/did-jesus-rise-physically-from-the-dead-">Did Jesus Rise Spiritually from the Dead?</a><br>
Jehovah’s Witnesses take the resurrection of Jesus to be <em>non-physical</em>. Jesus’ physical body <em>did not</em> rise; He only rose as a spirit being. However, we have good reasons to believe the body that died on the cross is the same body that rose three days later, leaving an empty tomb.<br>
<br>
<a href="/w/nine-early-church-fathers-who-taught-jesus-is-god">Did Constantine Invent the Deity of Jesus at the Council of Nicea?</a><br>
Jehovah’s Witnesses think Emperor Constantine invented the deity of Christ in the fourth century at the Council of Nicea. However, a look at quotes from the early church fathers shows this is an egregious misrepresentation of the facts. In this article, I offer a list of quotations that <em>predate</em> the Council of Nicea to demonstrate that the early church believed Jesus is God.</p>

<p><a href="/w/what-is-the-trinity-">Is the Trinity a Pagan Invention?</a><br>
Few doctrines of the Christian faith are more essential than the Trinity, yet many people are deeply confused about its nature. Sadly, this can prevent individuals from truly knowing God (Jn 17:3).</p>

<h2>Common Challenges to the Deity of Jesus Refuted</h2>

<p><a href="/w/was-jesus-the-first-created-being-">Was Jesus the First Created Being?</a><br>
When Christians try to argue for the deity of Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses are quick to bring up Colossians 1:15. But what does this verse really teach?</p>

<p><a href="/w/does-proverbs-8-22-teach-that-jesus-was-created-">Does Proverbs 8:22 Teach That Jesus Was Created?</a><br>
When you tell Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus is uncreated, they are likely to take you directly to Proverbs 8:22–30 in their New World Translation (NWT). They believe this is undeniable proof that Jesus was the first created creature. But is that what this verse is actually teaching?</p>

<p><a href="/w/is-christ-inferior-to-the-father-">Is Christ Inferior to the Father?</a><br>
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was a <em>lesser deity</em> than the Father. To justify this belief, they point to verses that spotlight Jesus’ <em>submission</em> to the Father (e.g., Jesus said, “The Father is greater than I,” in John 14:28). How should we respond?</p>

<p><a href="/w/what-does-it-mean-for-jesus-to-be-the-son-of-god-">What Does It Mean for Jesus to Be the Son of God?</a><br>
According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, if Jesus is the Son of God, then He isn’t God. However, this misunderstands what is meant by “Son of God.”</p>

<p><a href="/w/what-does-it-mean-that-jesus-is-god-s-only-begotten-son-">What Does It Mean That Jesus Is God’s Only Begotten Son?</a><br>
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus was <em>literally</em> begotten. If Jesus was begotten, then he is a created being. Therefore, he cannot be God. Many Christians are unequipped to address this challenge primarily because it trades on the definition of a Greek word. However, once you understand the definition of the Greek work in play, the challenge evaporates.</p>

<p><a href="/w/if-jesus-is-god-why-does-he-call-the-father-my-god-">If Jesus Is God, Why Does He Call the Father “My God?”</a><br>
On multiple occasions, Jesus explicitly calls the Father “my God.” According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus cannot have a God if He is God. However, this assumes what needs to be proved.</p>

<p><a href="/w/how-could-jesus-be-god-if-he-didn-t-know-the-time-of-his-return-">How Could Jesus Be God if He Didn’t Know the Time of His Return?</a><br>
Jehovah’s Witnesses love to cite Mark 13:32 as proof that Jesus cannot be God. If Jesus is God, then He is omniscient. But this text says the Son is <em>not</em> omniscient. After all, it identifies something the Son doesn’t know. Therefore, Jesus can’t be God. How do we respond?</p>

<h2>Common Challenges to the Personhood of the Holy Spirit Refuted</h2>

<p><a href="/w/why-believe-the-holy-spirit-is-a-person-">Is the Holy Spirit an Impersonal Force?</a><br>
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead. Instead, they believe that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal active force. Yet, the New Testament attributes three primary characteristics of personhood to the Holy Spirit: will, mind, and emotions.</p>

<p><a href="/w/three-common-objections-to-the-personhood-of-the-holy-spirit">Three Common Objections to the Personhood of the Holy Spirit</a><br>
Is the personhood language used for the Holy Spirit merely personification? Why doesn't the Holy Spirit have a personal name? How can a person fill people?</p>

<h2>Tools for Better Conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses</h2>

<p><a href="/w/ready-for-the-knock-on-your-door">Ready for the Knock on Your Door</a><br>
Most of us have answered a knock on our door, only to discover a smiling, well-dressed couple—<em>Watchtower</em> publication in hand—standing on the other side, waiting to talk with us about the gospel according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I want to give you some tools to help you make the greatest impact possible in your conservations with Jehovah’s Witnesses.</p>

<p><a href="/w/being-tactical-with-jehovah-s-witnesses">Being Tactical with Jehovah’s Witnesses</a><br>
In our discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses, we need to be tactical. That is, we need to anticipate their typical maneuvers to better guide the conversation. Follow these three strategies to make the most out of your conversation.</p>

<p><a href="/w/you-might-be-a-gardener">You Might Be a Gardener</a><br>
Speaking with Jehovah’s Witnesses about spiritual things can be frustrating at times. I think this is because we don’t usually see the immediate fruit of our labor. <em>All that we see is the labor.</em> After frequent fruitless spiritual conversations, we might be tempted to ask, <em>What’s the point?</em> Don’t give up. You might be a gardener, not a harvester.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftalking-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-start-here" 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%2Ftalking-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-start-here" 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%2Ftalking-to-jehovah-s-witnesses-start-here" 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: Together We Will Strengthen, Hold Fast, and Engage
topic: Announcements
author: Stand to Reason
date: 12/03/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/together-we-will-strengthen-hold-fast-and-engage
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s Giving Tuesday! Greg explains the special gift we have ready for you <a href="/donate" rel="" target="" title="">when you give to the work of Stand to Reason </a>this December and invites you to join us as we work to build confidence for every Christian, clear thinking for every challenge, and courage and grace for every encounter.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="gbRz48DOmxQ" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gbRz48DOmxQ?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftogether-we-will-strengthen-hold-fast-and-engage" 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%2Ftogether-we-will-strengthen-hold-fast-and-engage" 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%2Ftogether-we-will-strengthen-hold-fast-and-engage" 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 Abortion before Implantation Biblically Permissible?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/01/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-abortion-before-implantation-biblically-permissible-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I recently spoke at a church on the topic of embryonic stem cell research and was challenged by an audience member who gave a biblical defense for killing the early human embryo. The attendee cited Leviticus 17:11, which says, “For the life of the creature is in the blood.” She argued that shortly after conception, the developing human embryo is still travelling down the fallopian tube and has not yet implanted in the uterus (the woman’s womb). Prior to implantation, she argued, there’s no blood. And without blood, there’s no life, as Leviticus 17:11 suggests. Therefore, killing the embryo before implantation should not be described as killing a human life.</p>

<p>Since January 22 is the 47<sup>th</sup> anniversary of Roe v. Wade (the landmark Supreme Court decision that made abortion the “law of the land” in the United States), I thought it would be appropriate to address this claim that challenges a component of the pro-life position.</p>

<p>There are several ways to respond. You can challenge the facts of the claim, or you can accept the claim and follow it to its logical—and possibly absurd—conclusion. Let’s begin by challenging the facts.</p>

<p>First, scientifically speaking, an individual human life begins at conception, not at implantation. This is a biological maxim. It’s even <a href="https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/">the opinion of most scientists</a>. A <a href="/w/biologists-overwhelmingly-agree-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization">recent survey of biology professors</a> at over 1,000 institutions around the world revealed the following result: 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed that human life begins at conception. Only 4% rejected that view. Therefore, the claim that the pre-implanted human embryo is not a living human being goes against scientific understanding.</p>

<p>Second, the human embryo <em>before</em> implantation is identical to the human embryo <em>after</em> implantation. There’s no difference in <em>kind</em>, only in <em>degree of development</em>. The pre-implanted embryo is not a different creature with different DNA than the post-implanted embryo. Rather, both are the same kind of organism with the same DNA. That means if it’s permissible to kill the human embryo <em>before</em> implantation, there’s no morally significant reason why we shouldn’t be able to kill it <em>after</em> implantation.</p>

<p>These are scientific considerations, though. They challenge the facts of the claim. It turns out, however, that you can also respond to this challenge by employing a tactic we teach at Stand to Reason: Taking the Roof Off (also known as <em>reductio ad absurdum</em>). This approach begins by accepting their claim as true and then asking what logically follows. If their claim leads to a ridiculous outcome, then we can reject their rationale. As you’ll see, there are at least three absurd consequences to their view.</p>

<p>First, assume it’s true that Leviticus teaches humans are alive only when they have blood in them. It turns out there’s no blood in the human embryo even immediately <em>after</em> implantation. In other words, according to the rationale that a human is alive only when he or she has blood inside, that would mean even an implanted embryo isn’t alive. <a href="https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/women-s-health-issues/normal-pregnancy/stages-of-development-of-the-fetus">It isn’t until day 21 (or 2 weeks after fertilization) that red blood cells form and a heart begins to pump blood.</a> On this view, not only would killing the pre-implanted human embryo be permissible, but so would killing the human embryo after implantation and, indeed, during the first three weeks of gestation.</p>

<p>Second, if life is in the blood, then some animals that don’t contain blood are not alive. Jellyfish, for example, lack a brain, lungs, a heart, and blood but are clearly alive. Insects, amoebas, and many other animals that don’t have blood are also living. How does this understanding of Leviticus 17:11 make sense of living creatures that don’t have blood? It can’t.</p>

<p>A third absurdity is that if life is in the blood, then anything with blood should be living. For example, a fresh human corpse would still be “alive.” After all, immediately after death, a dead body still contains living red blood cells (alive for a limited time, of course). Surely we wouldn’t say it’s possible to kill a human corpse simply because it has blood in it. That would be absurd.</p>

<p>At this point it’s reasonable to wonder what the Leviticus passage actually means if it doesn’t mean what was suggested by the attendee of my event. That’s a fair question, but let me offer a thought. Even if we don’t know the <em>correct</em> interpretation of Leviticus 17:11, that doesn’t mean we can’t be confident of the <em>incorrect</em> interpretation. Surely the passage can’t mean that only humans with blood are living human beings who deserve protection because of the absurdities that arise given that understanding.</p>

<p>Reading the passage in context, however, gives us a clue as to the meaning of the words in verse 11. God tells Moses, “I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood.” The principle: Don’t eat blood. Why? God explains His rationale in the next verse: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and <em>I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves</em> on the altar; <em>it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life</em>.” (Emphasis mine.) God forbids eating blood because it gives the animal life and, during animal sacrifice, the blood is spilt to atone for your sins and give you life.</p>

<p>This is a picture of the atoning work of Christ, whose spilt blood washes our sin away and gives us life. Since we now have life, we’re called to protect the life of every human being, no matter their stage of development.</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-abortion-before-implantation-biblically-permissible-" 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-abortion-before-implantation-biblically-permissible-" 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-abortion-before-implantation-biblically-permissible-" 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 Top Ten Podcasts of 2019
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/27/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-top-ten-podcasts-of-2019-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Below are the most-listened-to podcasts of 2019—ten of Greg’s long-running podcast, and, as a bonus, the top three episodes of our shorter podcast, <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/strask-with-greg-koukl/id1030958668">#STRask</a> (the podcast I do with Greg). Take a look at the topics, have a listen, and see what you think! (For more podcast archives, see <a href="/podcasts">here</a>.)</p>

<ol>
	<li value="10"><a href="/w/are-we-christians-because-of-constantine-">Are We Christians Because of Constantine?</a> – “Greg responds to the argument that we’re only Christians because Constantine spread the religion, then he takes calls on medical intervention and abortion for babies with a fatal condition, the closing of the canon, the point of God creating us, and dealing with a hostile questioner.”</li>
	<li value="9"><a href="/w/science-culture-and-intelligent-design">Science, Culture, and Intelligent Design</a> – “Greg talks to Amy about her time at the Discovery Institute Summer Seminar, then he answers a question about how to get people interested in apologetics-related questions.”</li>
	<li value="8"><a href="/w/frustration-with-two-christian-films">Frustration with Two Christian Films</a> – “Greg talks about two Christian movies he recently saw, then he takes questions on the date of Jesus’ birthday, rebaptism, marrying people who have been divorced twice, and whether Jesus died on a pole or a cross.”</li>
	<li value="7"><a href="/w/interview-christopher-yuan-holy-sexuality-and-the-gospel-1">Interview: Christopher Yuan – Holy Sexuality and the Gospel</a> – “Alan interviews Christopher Yuan about his new book, <em>Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by God’s Grand Story</em>.”</li>
	<li value="6"><a href="/w/how-not-to-read-the-bible">How Not to Read the Bible</a> – “Greg does a whole hour of mentoring on how to avoid the common pitfalls Christians fall into when they read the Bible and some principles on how to read it well.”</li>
	<li value="5"><a href="/w/interview-alisa-childers-on-progressive-christianity">Interview: Alisa Childers on Progressive Christianity</a> ��� “Tim and Amy talk to Alisa Childers about ‘5 Signs Your Church Might Be Heading Toward Progressive Christianity.’”</li>
	<li value="4"><a href="/w/a-tragic-story-of-someone-who-listened-for-messages-from-god">A Tragic Story of Someone Who Listened for Messages from God</a> – “Greg tells a story of someone whose trust in God was hurt when he followed what he thought was a message from God, then he answers questions about the scariness of living forever and whether pornography justifies divorce.”</li>
	<li value="3"><a href="/w/reasons-to-think-hell-is-eternal-conscious-torment">Reasons to Think Hell Is Eternal Conscious Torment</a> – “Greg gives reasons to think Hell is eternal conscious torment then answers questions about getting into spiritual conversations and the Native American ‘Creator’ vs. the biblical God.”</li>
	<li value="2"><a href="/w/a-conversation-with-an-atheist">A Conversation with an Atheist</a> – “Greg talks about the need to get the definition of ‘faith’ right, then he takes a call from an atheist.”</li>
	<li value="1"><a href="/w/interview-michael-behe-darwin-devolves">Interview: Michael Behe – Darwin Devolves</a> – “Greg interviews Dr. Michael Behe on the subject of his new book, <em>Darwin Devolves: The New Science about DNA That Challenges Evolution</em>.”</li>
</ol>

<p><br>
<strong>#STRask</strong></p>

<ol>
	<li value="3"><a href="/w/-strask-august-22-2019">August 22, 2019</a> – “Questions about whether a nine-year-old atheist would go to Hell, how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament laws, Proverbs 1:28 and backsliders, and how to respond to beggars.”</li>
	<li value="2"><a href="/w/-strask-february-28-2019">February 28, 2019</a> – “Questions on the nature of the visions of prophets in other religions and whether people are saved once for all no matter what.”</li>
	<li value="1"><a href="/w/-strask-august-1-2019">August 1, 2019</a> – “Questions about whether Greg’s view of reading the Bible misses our subjective response and whether Numbers 12:6–8 says God doesn’t always speak clearly.”</li>
</ol>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-top-ten-podcasts-of-2019-1" 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%2Fthe-top-ten-podcasts-of-2019-1" 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%2Fthe-top-ten-podcasts-of-2019-1" 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: Upgrade Your Tactics with Knowledge
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/upgrade-your-tactics-with-knowledge
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There’s a simple question I ask Muslims when I want to get to the gospel in under 60 seconds. Although I’ll tell you the question in a moment, my goal is not to talk about Islam per se. Rather, through this example, I want to teach you a strategy and explain <em>how</em> I arrived at the question. That way you can use the same method to formulate your own effective questions when you talk with <em>any </em>person on <em>any </em>topic.</p>

<p>At Stand to Reason, we often talk about conversational tactics (e.g. the Columbo Tactic), techniques that help you engage people in spiritual discussions. The power of these tactics is manifest when you can persuasively yet graciously engage a person even when you don’t have a ton of information about their religious convictions or worldview.</p>

<p>But what if you had knowledge of the person’s religion or background? How might that impact your ability to engage that person in a productive way? Spoiler alert: Having knowledge can <em>amplify </em>your impact.</p>

<p>First, though, consider a typical conversation between a Christian and a Muslim. The Christian might begin by employing the Columbo Tactic, asking about <em>what </em>a Muslim believes and <em>why </em>they believe it. Don’t get me wrong; that’s a powerful approach. I teach believers to do that all the time. The questions might help you understand several important topics: Islamic beliefs, religious practices, and even some common ground with Christianity. That’s helpful, but I believe having prior knowledge about Islam can help you ask more powerful questions.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example of how learning about Islam helped me streamline my conversation. Consider the following four pieces of information about Islam:</p>

<ol>
	<li>Two angels follow each person throughout their life. One angel tracks all of your good deeds, and the other tracks all of your bad deeds.</li>
	<li>Islam has a merit-based system of salvation. After each person is resurrected, they enter Heaven or are damned to Hell based on the amount and weight of their good and bad deeds.</li>
	<li>Muslims must believe in Jesus, but only as a revered prophet.</li>
	<li>The Quran identifies the gospel as a true revelation from Allah.</li>
</ol>

<p>With those pieces of knowledge in mind, here’s the question I ask a Muslim if I want to get to the gospel in under 60 seconds: Are you 100% certain you’re going to heaven? Every Muslim answers the same: No. My follow-up question is, “Would you like to have 100% confidence?” If they say yes (they often do or are at least intrigued to see what I’ll say), then I offer to point them to what Jesus said in the Gospels about the kingdom of God. That means I’m able to present the gospel from the words of Jesus, and I get there in under 60 seconds.</p>

<p>Now that you know the question, here’s how the knowledge I learned about Islam helped me develop that question. First, notice I ask the Muslim if they’re 100% confident they’ll go to Heaven. I know they’re typically not 100% confident because they can’t know the tally the angels have kept of their good and bad deeds. They don’t know how the scales will tip. This part of the question is based on my knowledge of facts 1 and 2.</p>

<p>Second, notice I ask them to consider what Jesus said about entering the kingdom of God. They’re likely to be open to what Jesus said because their highest authority—the Quran—demands they believe in Jesus as a prophet. This is based on my knowledge of fact 3.</p>

<p>Finally, I point them to Jesus’ words in the Gospels. The Quran identifies the <em>Injil </em>(the gospel) as a revelation given to Jesus. Muslims, at least in principle, are open to reading Jesus’ words in the New Testament. This is based on my knowledge of fact 4.</p>

<p>Having some basic knowledge of Islam helped me formulate a question and strategy to bring the conversation to a place where I can share the gospel. I’m not saying you must be an expert in Islamic studies. Nor am I saying you need to take a semester course on Islam. I used basic information about the Muslim’s faith. The more you can learn about the religion, though, the more likely you’ll be able to leverage that knowledge to ask informed and powerful questions.</p>

<p>It’s important to clarify that I’m not suggesting that this should be the only question you ask or that your goal should be to always get to the gospel in under 60 seconds. People aren’t gospel fodder. They aren’t valuable or deserving to be befriended <em>only because they can be witnessed to. </em>Every person is valuable in and of themselves. Therefore, getting to know them, talking with them, and valuing them is important simply because they are fellow image-bearers, even if you don’t get to present the gospel.</p>

<p>You can use this approach, however, with <em>any</em> person, of <em>any</em> background, and on <em>any</em> topic. Just take some time to learn about their religion or worldview, and then find a way to harness that knowledge to ask even more effective questions.</p>
</div>

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


title: Three Things I Learned at ETS/EPS
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/27/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/three-things-i-learned-at-ets-eps
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Since I started working for Stand to Reason, I’ve had the opportunity to attend the Evangelical Theological Society’s (ETS) annual meeting. This meeting runs alongside the Evangelical Philosophical Society’s (EPS) annual meeting. These meetings are in a different city each year and take place in a giant conference center with hundreds of attendees. During ETS/EPS, theologians, philosophers, and apologists all gather to hear academic papers on a host of topics.</p>

<p>ETS/EPS is one of the highlights of my year. For me, it provides an opportunity to learn from intellectual giants, build relationships with likeminded Christians, and encourage—and be encouraged by—saints who are on the front lines.</p>

<p>I always leave ETS/EPS feeling energized for another year of ministry. As a result, it has come to play a significant part in my spiritual endurance and growth.</p>

<p>As I reflected on this year’s meeting, three takeaways came to mind.</p>

<p>First, we have <em>a</em> <em>deep bench.</em></p>

<p>There are <em>a lot</em> of smart people proclaiming and defending the gospel. However, if you only listened to the media and Hollywood, you might get the impression that Christians are a bunch of buffoons—in addition to being intolerant bigots. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.</p>

<p>Christianity has a rich intellectual tradition. And many contemporary Christian scholars are carrying on that tradition. These include Wayne Grudem, William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Michael Heiser, Michael Licona, N.T. Wright, J.P. Moreland, and Gary Habermas.</p>

<p>But there are many more than this “starting lineup.” We have a deep bench of experienced philosophers and theologians most people have never heard of. They aren’t well known. They don’t have best-selling books. But they are producing critical contributions to their respective fields of study.</p>

<p>Furthermore, it was encouraging to see so many <em>young</em> Christian apologists at the meeting. These are young men and women who are hungry to learn from Christian scholars with the hope of disseminating this information to a wider audience.</p>

<p>Second, we have <em>a common faith.</em></p>

<p>There were many different views represented at ETS/EPS. There were creationists and evolutionists, Calvinists and Arminians, annihilationists and traditionalists, just to name a few. Yet, despite all of our tertiary differences, we are united in Christ.</p>

<p>As I talked with brothers and sisters I disagreed with, Paul’s words to the church in Ephesus entered my mind:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+4%3A4-6&amp;version=NIV">Eph. 4:4–6</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>When we disagree with someone—even a fellow Christian—we can unintentionally think of him or her as the enemy. This thinking breeds disunity in the body of Christ. ETS/EPS is a yearly reminder that even in the midst of meaningful disagreement, we share a common faith.</p>

<p>Third, we have <em>a</em> <em>lot to learn.</em></p>

<p>ETS/EPS is an academic meeting where I learn a lot. By the end of each day, I am intellectually exhausted. Probably the most important thing I learn is that I have a lot to learn.</p>

<p>Attending ETS/EPS is a humbling experience. In some cases, it has helped strengthen my convictions. However, it has also helped weaken some of my convictions by identifying areas of misplaced confidence.</p>

<p>Our goal as apologists is <em>truth</em>. This requires the humility to admit where we’ve been wrong.</p>

<p>So, what did I learn at ETS/EPS? We have Christian scholars doing incredible work in important academic fields. This work aids apologists as they serve on the front lines. We have Christian unity. Although we may differ on many tertiary beliefs, there are fundamental convictions that unite us. And—above all—we need Christian humility.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-things-i-learned-at-ets-eps" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-things-i-learned-at-ets-eps" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthree-things-i-learned-at-ets-eps" 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 Critical Theory Suppresses Healthy (and Necessary) Arguments
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/05/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-critical-theory-suppresses-healthy-and-necessary-arguments
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I appreciate the work <a href="https://shenviapologetics.com/" id="" rel="" target="" title="">Neil Shenvi</a> has done to understand and explain critical theory and how it has permeated many of the conversations in our culture, particularly about race. I appreciate him because he has shown himself to be fair, recognizing the truth about evil episodes in the history of our nation and offering a non-sensationalistic evaluation of the arguments and solutions proposed by critical theorists.</p>

<p>In Shenvi’s <a href="https://shenviapologetics.com/compromised-a-long-review-of-tisbys-color-of-compromise/" id="" rel="" target="" title="">review</a> of Jemar Tisby’s book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Color-Compromise-American-Churchs-Complicity/dp/0310597269/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+color+of+compromise&amp;qid=1575507191&amp;sr=8-1" rel="" target="" title=""><em>The Color of Compromise</em></a>, he makes some important general points about how critical theory suppresses healthy analysis of ideas:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Contemporary critical theorists—exemplified by popular scholars like <a href="https://shenviapologetics.com/quotes-from-sensoy-and-diangelos-is-everyone-really-equal/">Robin DiAngelo</a>—divide reality into oppressed groups and their oppressors along axes of identity like race, class, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, age, and so forth.</strong> Dominant oppressor groups (men, whites, the rich, heterosexuals) subjugate oppressed groups (women, people of color, the poor, LGBTQ+ individuals) not primarily through physical violence, but through hegemonic power, the ability of dominant groups to impose their values, norms, and expectations on culture….</p>

<p>I’ve documented the <a href="https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-and-christianity-part-1/">many ways</a> in which basic Christian doctrine conflicts with the presuppositions of contemporary critical theory, but its approach to truth is particularly relevant.</p>

<p>According to contemporary critical theorists, <strong>oppressor groups conceal their bids for power under the guise of “reason” and “objective arguments.”</strong> Even when these desires are subconscious, dominant groups are blinded by false ideologies that function to maintain their privilege. In contrast, oppressed groups have special access to truth that enables them to “see through” these specious appeals. <strong>Oppressors should therefore recognize their own blindness and defer to the lived experience of marginalized groups.</strong></p>

<p>This basic feature of contemporary critical theory becomes exceptionally important for Christians discussing controversial topics like racism and reparations. <strong>Discourse between Christians must non-negotiably be based on two premises: 1) we should assume the best of other believers’ motivations and 2) we should appeal to Scripture as the ultimate, sufficient, and perspicuous authority on all subjects.</strong> In contrast, contemporary critical theory would undermine both of these principles, by 1) insisting that privileged Christians are, consciously or unconsciously, motivated by a desire to maintain power and 2) insisting that “objective” appeals to reason, evidence, or even Scripture are unavoidably tainted by privilege. [Emphasis in original.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Shenvi argues that we can’t let these ideas prevent our careful analysis of controversial topics:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We should certainly be willing to examine our own hearts and interrogate our motives. But we must not allow the desire to be on the “right side” of Tisby’s admonitions overwhelm our commitment to careful reflection and rational deliberation….</p>

<p>We’re all commanded to ���consider others better than ourselves,” to “be slow to speak and quick to listen,” and to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Most importantly, all of our doctrine, beliefs, and practices have to be open to scrutiny. For this reason, embracing a hermeneutic of power which dismisses white, male, Eurocentric voices as blind and irrelevant is exceptionally dangerous. All Christians should be committed to pursuing truth and justice within the bonds of love and peace and under the authority of the Bible. <strong>To fail to do so, and to embrace patterns of thought antithetical to Scripture, even for the sake of temporal causes that we deem worthy and righteous, would be compromise indeed.</strong> [Emphasis in original.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This topic is too important to <em>not</em> think carefully about it. I encourage you to read Shenvi’s <a href="https://shenviapologetics.com/compromised-a-long-review-of-tisbys-color-of-compromise/">full review</a> for his insights on Tisby’s book and critical theory in general. And for more from Shenvi on the topic of critical theory, see “<a href="https://ratiochristi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/E-Book-Engaging-Critical-Theory-and-the-Social-Justice-Movement.pdf">Engaging Critical Theory and the Social Justice Movement</a>” (only 28 pages!) or, if you prefer video, see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnmJX5hEenY">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%2Fhow-critical-theory-suppresses-healthy-and-necessary-arguments" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-critical-theory-suppresses-healthy-and-necessary-arguments" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-critical-theory-suppresses-healthy-and-necessary-arguments" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Does Human Life Begin When We Take Our First Breath?
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/11/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-human-life-begin-when-we-take-our-first-breath-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are those who say human life begins when we take our first breath. Does the fact that unborn children don’t breathe air mean they aren’t yet live human beings? Does the Bible teach this in Genesis 2:7 when it talks about the “breath of life” in the account of the creation of Adam, as some claim?</p>

<p>The first thing to note when responding to those who hold this view is that Genesis 2:7 isn’t about <em>Adam’s</em> breath. Here’s what it says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Adam breathing isn’t what gave him life. The point is that God gave life to Adam <em>by breathing life into him</em>. This passage is about God giving life to His creation. There is nothing in here about <em>Adam</em> breathing—though, of course, we can assume Adam began to breathe after being given life since that’s the way adults normally function. (Note, here, that according to 2 Timothy 3:16, Scripture is also “breathed out by God.” God “breathing” something out is not about God’s literal breath but about the giving of something from God to us.)</p>

<p>Second, Adam is a unique situation. How God created the first human being is not related to how human beings are created today, so it doesn’t make sense to draw conclusions from how God gave life to the first man (by <em>His</em> “breath,” not Adam’s) that apply to every single human being who was subsequently born in the normal way. In fact, there is no mention of God <em>ever</em> “breathing the breath of life” into any other human being—not even Eve, though she was also directly created by God. Adam was unique, the first living human being. God gave him life in a special way to start everything off. After him, Eve was taken out of already-living Adam—made from his rib, not non-living dust. It makes sense that there would be no breathing of life into her because she was made from living material. After Eve, like begat like—complete human beings, whose essence is both body and soul, beget complete human beings. Children come from the joining of a living man and woman; so in the same way as Eve, there is no special breathing of life into them, either.</p>

<p>The third thing to note is that the unborn <em>are</em> “breathing”—that is, like human beings in other stages of development, they’re receiving the oxygen they need for their cells to function, though not through their mouths. Yes, Adam required breath to live, but again, Adam was a special case. He was created and given life as an adult man. Adam started breathing air at that time because that’s how adult men receive oxygen. It doesn’t follow from the fact that God gave life to Adam at a developmental stage where one breathes through one’s mouth that therefore no human being is alive until he also breathes through his mouth. The unborn begin life in a completely different way from Adam—they’re not created as adults from non-living material; they begin <a href="/w/abortion-advocates-fail-biology">when an egg and sperm come together</a>, and they receive oxygen the way every human being is designed to receive oxygen at that stage of life. Just because an unborn child is not an <em>adult</em> and doesn’t take in oxygen <em>the way</em> an adult does, that doesn’t mean he isn’t receiving the oxygen he needs to live; and it certainly doesn’t mean he isn’t a live human being.</p>

<p>But perhaps the person challenging you is not arguing that being able to breathe air is the all-important difference between the born and unborn that makes us human. He is more likely arguing, based on his reading of Genesis 2:7, that the moment we first breathe is the moment God gives each of us a soul (see <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/readers-respond/bs-ed-rr-abortion-law-letter-20180807-story.html">here</a> for an example of this). If, after some careful clarifying questions, you determine that this is the argument he’s making, go through an explanation of the Genesis passage with him, and then take him to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A5-45&amp;version=NASB">Luke 1</a>, where he will see that John the Baptist was “filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb” (v. 15) and “leaped in [Elizabeth’s] womb <em>for joy</em>” (v. 44) when Mary, pregnant with Jesus, greeted Elizabeth. This is not a description of a soulless body.</p>

<p>When talking about newly-conceived human beings—and not the first (and only) adult man directly created from non-living matter by God—the Bible gives no indication that there is a time before birth when we are not whole human beings but merely bodies without souls. If one is going to <em>speculate</em> that God completes the essence of a human being by adding a soul at some point <em>after</em> conception, please keep in mind that <em>all</em> this can be is speculation. There is no good biblical reason to think it’s true; and, in fact, the Luke 1 passage seems to directly contradict 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%2Fdoes-human-life-begin-when-we-take-our-first-breath-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-human-life-begin-when-we-take-our-first-breath-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-human-life-begin-when-we-take-our-first-breath-" 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 Women Flocked to the Early Church
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/16/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-women-flocked-to-the-early-church
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a talk by Michael Kruger on “<a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/tgc-podcast/dynamic-ministry-women-early-christianity/">The Dynamic Ministry of Women in Early Christianity</a>,” Dr. Kruger explains why, contrary to the opposite charge people tend to make today, early Christianity was mocked for being too pro-women.</p>

<p>After going through the historical data we have about the number of women in the early church (possibly as much as two-thirds of the church), their involvement in ministry, their learning of theology, etc. (which, as he points out, was all highly unusual for religions at the time), he offers some reasoned speculations as to <em>why</em> so many women flocked to Christianity, contrasting what they would have found in Christianity versus other religions at the time:</p>

<blockquote>
<ol>
	<li>Christianity gave women real opportunities for involvement in this religion with honor and dignity….</li>
	<li value="2">Christianity had a very different sexual ethic than the broader Greco-Roman world [i.e., “They promoted sexual purity for both spouses in marriage”—see <a href="/w/sexual-expression-is-a-worldview-issue">here</a> for more on that]….</li>
	<li value="3">The Christian condemnation of divorce….</li>
	<li value="4">Christians condemned female infanticide….</li>
	<li value="5">Christianity condemned female child brides.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

<p>His commentary on all of these points is <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/tgc-podcast/dynamic-ministry-women-early-christianity/">well worth listening to</a>. Our culture is unthinkingly swimming in Christian ideas at this point, so it’s easy to miss how revolutionary those ideas were when the early church began living by them despite derision and persecution from the surrounding culture.</p>

<p>Those who assume Christianity is anti-women simply because different roles are laid out for men and women in the family and in the church have missed the broader picture of Christianity’s view of women as well as the numerous implications that view (not to mention other aspects of theology) had for society. It was Christian theology—the value of women (including newborn women) and bodies, the purpose of sex and marriage, and more—that drew in women and created a dramatically new world for everyone.</p>

<p>For more, see <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Crossroads-Second-Century-Shaped/dp/0830852034/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1YSBSMMCP6F4J&amp;keywords=christianity+at+the+crossroads+michael+kruger&amp;qid=1579145727&amp;sprefix=christianity+at+the+%2Caps%2C197&amp;sr=8-1">Kruger’s book</a> <em>Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church</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%2Fwhy-women-flocked-to-the-early-church" 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-women-flocked-to-the-early-church" 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-women-flocked-to-the-early-church" 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 Discussion on Homosexuality and the Transgender Movement
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 12/04/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-discussion-on-homosexuality-and-the-transgender-movement
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’m not trying to convince the world to adopt biblical sexual ethics, especially as they pertain to the LGBT movement. I’m trying to equip believers to stand firm on the truth and not capitulate to secular culture’s pressure to change the church’s view.</p>

<p>That’s what I told Jack Hibbs on a <a href="https://reallifewithjackhibbs.org/video/the-lgbtq-movement-how-should-the-christian-respond-part-1/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">recent episode of <em>Real Life</em></a>. It’s part one of a two-part series where I was invited to discuss homosexuality and the transgender movement with Pastor Jack Hibbs. What is the current state of the church on sexuality, and how can we compassionately but truthfully address this topic? I address questions like these in this series. Check it out!</p>

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

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-discussion-on-homosexuality-and-the-transgender-movement" 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-discussion-on-homosexuality-and-the-transgender-movement" 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-discussion-on-homosexuality-and-the-transgender-movement" 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 Is the Kingdom of Heaven?
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 11/13/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-is-the-kingdom-of-heaven-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Some Bible terminology can seem strange to our modern ears. We are so removed from the original time and place of its writing that understanding its meaning can require some work. I think this is true about the phrase “the kingdom of heaven.”</p>

<p>The kingdom of heaven is a central theme running all the way through the Gospel of Matthew. In fact, the phrase “the kingdom of heaven” is used over <em>thirty times</em> in Matthew’s Gospel. However, many Christians are confused about what it means.</p>

<p>Interestingly, Matthew is the only Gospel writer to adopt this terminology. The others opt to use the phrase “the kingdom of God” instead. <em>So, what is “the kingdom of heaven?”</em></p>

<p>Many believe that Matthew uses “the kingdom of heaven” instead of “the kingdom of God” simply to avoid using the term “God.” It is certainly true that there was a Jewish tendency to avoid writing the divine name in the first century. However, Matthew <em>does</em> invoke the term “God” on numerous occasions. Moreover, Matthew uses the phrase “the kingdom of God” on four occasions (Matt. 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43). So, there must be more going on than merely using the phrase “the kingdom of heaven” to avoid the word “God.” There must be another purpose for this phrase.</p>

<p>A more plausible explanation is that Matthew did not want his Jewish readership to misunderstand the <em>nature</em> of the kingdom. The Jews were anticipating a <em>physical</em> kingdom, not a <em>spiritual </em>kingdom. However, while standing before Pilate at His trial, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36).</p>

<p>The use of the word “heaven” would certainly help emphasize and reinforce the <em>spiritual</em> nature of the kingdom.</p>

<h2>Proclaiming the Kingdom of Heaven</h2>

<p>Both the introduction to John the Baptist and the initiation of Jesus’ ministry are accompanied with the <em>proclamation </em>to “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Just a few verses later, Matthew writes, “And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and <em>proclaiming</em> the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people” (Matt. 4:23 cf. Matt. 9:35). Using the phrase “the gospel of the kingdom,” Matthew explicitly connects the kingdom of heaven with the gospel.</p>

<p>When Jesus sends out His disciples, He also commissions them to proclaim, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:7). It is significant that John the Baptist, Jesus, and the disciples all preach the same message and each follows with the command to repent. In fact, the call to repentance is grounded in the imminent coming of the kingdom of heaven. Everyone must repent <em>because </em>the kingdom of heaven is near.</p>

<p>Furthermore, those who disobey this command are like chaff that will be separated from the wheat and burned with unquenchable fire (Matt. 3:12). Therefore, <em>rejecting</em> the kingdom of heaven has eternal consequences.</p>

<p>In addition, proclaiming a message that is counter to the kingdom of heaven is condemnable. In Jesus’ seven woes to the scribes and Pharisees, He says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! <em>For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.</em> For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves (Matt. 23:13–15).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is a stern warning not to draw people away from the kingdom of heaven by presuming that one can enter the kingdom <em>by his own righteousness</em>. In fact, Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21).</p>

<h2>Describing the Kingdom of Heaven</h2>

<p>In contrast to the condemnation given to false teachers, Jesus offers <em>blessings</em> to members of the kingdom. Jesus begins His Sermon on the Mount discourse by blessing the “poor in spirit, ­for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3). At the end of the Beatitudes, Jesus also references the kingdom of heaven. This time He says, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:10). In either case, the kingdom is offered to those who put God’s kingdom before their own self-interest.</p>

<p>Jesus’ description of the kingdom of heaven almost seems upside-down. Jesus instructs His disciples, saying, “Among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11–12). Here Jesus is contrasting the <em>natural </em>birth into the world with the <em>spiritual</em> birth into the kingdom of heaven.</p>

<p>Multiple times in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus tells His listeners that they must become like children in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. He says, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3–4). He also said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14–15). In the same way little children rely on the help and direction of their parents, <em>citizens of the kingdom must rely on their Heavenly Father for everything.</em> Jesus is commanding childlike trust in God to enter the kingdom.</p>

<p>After describing the importance of trusting and relying on God, Jesus gives His famous teaching on the difficulty of the rich person entering the kingdom of heaven. This is not a coincidence. The reader of Matthew’s Gospel is meant to contrast the child, from the previous text, with the rich person. Unlike a child, who is dependent on others, the rich person can fall into the delusion of <em>self-sufficiency</em>. There us only room for one King in the kingdom of heaven, and that position is already taken.</p>

<p>Many of Jesus’ parables focus explicitly on the kingdom of heaven. More specifically, there are a series of references to the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 13 and again in chapters 20 and 22. Each of these gives a glimpse of what the kingdom is like.</p>

<p>In describing the kingdom of heaven, Jesus draws comparisons to everyday experiences. He compares the kingdom to sowing seed in a field, which produces weeds with the wheat. The weeds are allowed to grow up with the wheat until the harvest; however, they will ultimately be bound into bundles and burnt (Matt. 13:24–30).</p>

<p>Similarly, the parable of the dragnet compares the kingdom of heaven to a net containing good and bad fish. They are all gathered together but will later be separated. Jesus explains, “So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 13:49–50). Even though God allows believers and unbelievers to live in His world together, they will be separated at the final judgment.</p>

<p>The kingdom of heaven is described as a <em>valuable hidden treasure</em>, which is worth more than all that one owns (Matt. 13:44) and something that should be sought after like a merchant in search of a pearl of great price (Matt. 13:45–46). The listener is meant to see how something that appears insignificant and small is actually of greatest value.</p>

<p>In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, Jesus makes it clear the no one enters the kingdom <em>based on their accomplishments.</em> Instead, Jesus looks at the heart’s response to His grace. From a human perspective, this seems counterintuitive. However, this parable displays the generosity of God as He gives out more grace than <em>anyone</em> deserves. In fact, the kingdom of heaven is precisely for those who do not deserve it but choose to put their faith in God (Matt. 21:31–32).</p>

<h2>Timing the Kingdom of Heaven</h2>

<p>The kingdom of heaven is spoken of in both <em>present</em> and <em>future</em> tense. The phrase is repeated that the kingdom of heaven is <em>at hand </em>(Matt. 4:17). Jesus’ first coming is the <em>inauguration</em> of the kingdom. This means that Jesus is the immediate, present experience of the kingdom of heaven. For those who submit to Jesus, He will rule over their lives.</p>

<p>The kingdom of heaven is also spoken of in the <em>future tense</em>. One of the most notable instances of this takes place when Jesus is instructing his disciples on how to pray. Jesus prays, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). This prayer only makes sense if the kingdom has not yet fully come.</p>

<p>Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is both <em>now</em> and <em>not yet</em>. It is <em>present</em> and it is <em>future</em>. It will finally culminate with the second coming of Jesus Christ. Jesus says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne…. Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matt. 25:31, 34)</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>Applying the Kingdom of Heaven</h2>

<p>The kingdom of heaven has important applications for us today. First, the message of the kingdom of heaven is a genuine offer from God to rule in the hearts of those who believe in His name. Submission to the kingship of God is what brings true freedom. Those who resist and reject God’s kingdom are in bondage. This may sound counterintuitive, but those outside the kingdom of God are inside the kingdom of Satan (Eph. 2:1–3).</p>

<p>Second, as citizens of the kingdom of heaven, believers should be motivated <em>to build the kingdom through proclaiming the kingdom</em>. This was the central message of Jesus and the disciples, and it should be our message too.</p>

<p>Third, the kingdom of heaven provides comfort and hope for Christians who are suffering. God is King over all circumstances. No matter what happens in this life, all will be made right when God’s kingdom 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%2Fwhat-is-the-kingdom-of-heaven-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-the-kingdom-of-heaven-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-the-kingdom-of-heaven-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Can We Be Friends with People Who Are Different from Us?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/22/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-we-be-friends-with-people-who-are-different-from-us-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It isn’t often I agree with Ellen DeGeneres and Elton John, but recently I found myself approving of their comments.</p>

<p>DeGeneres was criticized for attending a football game with former President George W. Bush. She’s a lesbian and was hanging out with someone who probably upholds a Christian sexual ethic and thereby believes homosexual sex is immoral. Apparently, that didn’t bother her (nor should it) to the point where she would refuse to attend a game with him. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSZtjol7mJA">She said in her defense</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I’m friends with George Bush. In fact, I’m friends with a lot of people who don’t share the same beliefs that I have.... Just because I don’t agree with someone on everything doesn’t mean that I’m not going to be friends with them. When I say, “Be kind to one another,” I don’t mean only the people that think the same way that you do. I mean be kind to everyone.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Can I get a hearty “Amen?”</p>

<p>Elton John <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/elton-john-admire-ellen-standing-211211403.html">came to DeGeneres’s defense</a>. “I admire Ellen for standing up and saying what she said.... George Bush has made a lot of mistakes. I made a lot of mistakes. Ellen DeGeneres has made a lot of mistakes…. People need to come together…. They need to respect people’s view on life.”</p>

<p>Can I get a second “Amen?”</p>

<p>Now, I don’t know if they follow this principle consistently or have backtracked on their statements (I don’t follow these people closely), but isn’t that what many Christians have been saying for decades now? We might not share the same beliefs as people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc., but that doesn’t mean we can’t be friends with them or love them. Christians have been claiming that’s <a href="/w/the-false-dilemma-propagated-by-pro-gay-advocates" rel="noopener" target="_blank">an appropriate ethic</a> and living it out with real people for years.</p>

<p>But a noisy segment of the population tells us that’s not possible. Anything less than total acceptance of their “identity” and “who they are” means, in their opinion, <a href="/w/even-love-and-hate-need-to-be-clarified" rel="noopener" target="_blank">we don’t love them</a>. In fact, we’re told we’re <a href="/w/the-myth-of-hate" rel="noopener" target="_blank">hateful</a>. Unfortunately, many people adopt this same belief.</p>

<p>My hope, though, is that the people who don’t believe friendship and love are possible with those who differ on significant issues will listen to DeGeneres and John on this point. Christ modeled this behavior while on earth. That’s why I see that most <a href="/w/truth-and-compassion-on-homosexuality-" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Christians genuinely love people</a>, even those with whom they disagree.</p>
</div>

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


title: Why Are Pro-Choicers Bothered by Images of Aborted Clumps of Cells?
topic: Bioethics
author: J.T. Wynn
date: 11/26/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-are-pro-choicers-bothered-by-images-of-aborted-clumps-of-cells-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>One thing that convinces me that the pro-life position is true is, interestingly enough, the behavior of pro-choicers. Obviously, pro-lifers believe that abortion takes the lives of “<a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk113.htm">precious unborn human persons</a>.” But ironically, the behavior of pro-choicers <em>also</em> reveals that, deep down, they also believe abortion takes the lives of innocent human persons.</p>

<p>A recurring pattern that emerges in interactions with pro-choicers is how they are unwilling to engage the arguments of pro-lifers. They instead seek to silence, censor, and shout down pro-life evidence. And on the occasions where they cannot ignore pro-life evidence, where they are forced to respond, their words and actions betray the deep internal insecurities that reveal what they <em>really</em> think abortion is and does.</p>

<p>It’s like the pro-choice advocates know they cannot win a fair debate on the issue and instead must use sheer power to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Witness how there are so few (if any) formal debates between spokespeople from each side on college campuses today. It’s not for lack of trying, though. Pro-life campus groups are always willing to host and sponsor formal debates in the university setting. But pro-choice groups usually demure and decline the invitation to debate, opting instead to pronounce the matter settled.</p>

<p>This has forced pro-lifers to use alternative methods to present their ideas on campus; and it has forced pro-choicers to use alternative methods in responding, as well.</p>

<p>Here’s a recent case in point.</p>

<p>Last week, the pro-life organization Created Equal set up a display at Georgia State University (Atlanta, GA). The public university relegated Created Equal’s displays to the free speech area on campus between certain hours of the day. (One would think the entirety of a taxpayer-supported university campus would have First Amendment free speech protections at all times, but that’s another issue for another time and place).</p>

<p>According to Created Equal, before they arrived on campus, the GSU administration sent out a <a href="https://www.createdequal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/GSU_email.jpg">campus-wide email</a> to its students. The email, released by local newspaper The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC), <a href="https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/anti-abortion-group-display-graphic-images-videos-georgia-universities/DLJB8Z93AT8870qVwDabeJ/">revealed</a> that GSU was “not excited about the upcoming appearance” of the pro-lifers, and explained why GSU “would allow speech that is hateful or mean-spirited” on GSU campus.</p>

<p>Now why is a pro-life display “hurtful, sometimes deeply so,” if the unborn are not human persons? If the unborn are merely tissue mass, as the pro-choice side claims, then why would it deeply hurt anyone to see that our society is complicit in the removal of mere clumps of cells? It’s only hurtful if pro-life displays remind people of their guilt—the kind of guilt that one presumably wouldn’t feel since abortion doesn’t terminate the life of a baby. Or does it?</p>

<p>Let’s do a thought experiment: Suppose a fringe group believes that appendectomies and tonsillectomies are murder. The rest of us counter that appendixes and tonsils are just human organs and not whole human beings themselves. Suppose, further, this fringe group says, all right, they’ll display images of appendectomies and removed tonsils on public college campuses. Would anybody care to block their pictures? Would anybody claim this is “hate speech” and deeply hurtful?</p>

<p>Most of us would say, go ahead, we don’t feel any guilt over having our appendixes removed, and those pictures would actually prove our case that organs are not human persons. Their displays wouldn’t drive us to the point of censoring and covering pictures by standing in front of them.</p>

<p>But that’s the rub, isn’t it? Pictures of aborted fetuses have arms, heads, and faces. Appendixes and tonsils do not have faces that will never smile nor eyes that will never open again.</p>

<p>While GSU’s email to students gives lip service to upholding “First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of expression,” does it take away with its left hand what it claims to give with its right? Created Equal claimed that a person connected to the university even stepped in front of their sign to block students from seeing it. They’ve documented their claims in a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7aJq_haRts">video</a> on their YouTube channel.</p>

<p>They say that actions speak louder than words. And the actions of the pro-choice movement literally shout out that even they don’t believe their own stated rhetoric.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-are-pro-choicers-bothered-by-images-of-aborted-clumps-of-cells-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-are-pro-choicers-bothered-by-images-of-aborted-clumps-of-cells-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-are-pro-choicers-bothered-by-images-of-aborted-clumps-of-cells-" 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’s the Best Explanation?
topic: Philosophy
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-s-the-best-explanation-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Imagine driving home one evening to find a broken window on the side of your house. As you go inside, you realize your 80-inch 4K television is missing (the one you just bought for the big game!). You glance down and notice footprints that lead from the broken window to the missing television. Immediately, you ask yourself a question: What happened? You’ve now begun a common yet powerful and rational process that is also a tool that can point people to God.</p>

<p>This type of thinking is known as abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation. Two steps are involved. First, you gather facts, Second, you ask, what’s the best explanation for those facts? Your answer must make sense of <em>all</em> the facts, not just <em>some</em> of them.</p>

<p>In the scenario I just mentioned, you observed three facts: a broken window, a missing television, and footprints. The natural next step is to ask, what’s the best explanation for those facts? Suppose you surmise that a tornado blew through your neighborhood. It broke the window and sucked the television out. That probably wouldn’t be the best explanation. Though a tornado can break a window and even suck a television out of your house, it can’t account for the footprints (or the fact that <em>nothing </em>else was broken or missing in your house). The tornado only explains two of the three facts, but not <em>all</em> of them.</p>

<p>Your next thought is that maybe a thief stole your television. He (or she…women love those new 4K televisions too!) broke through the window, tracked dirt through the house, and stole your television. Notice your thief explanation makes sense of <em>all the facts</em>, not just <em>some</em> of them. It has the greatest explanatory power (of the two theories) and is the best explanation.</p>

<p>Scientists and researchers engage in this type of reasoning. An archaeologist who discovers a sharp, pointy rock asks, “Is the shape of this rock the result of natural forces, or did a person chisel it for the purpose of making an arrowhead? Which is the best explanation?” A detective who finds a dead body in an alley asks, “Did this person die of natural causes, suicide, or was he killed?” He gathers clues and asks, “What theory best explains the facts of this case?”</p>

<p>This type of reasoning is equally at home in many apologetics-related subjects. We can use it to make a case for the Christian worldview. Here are two quick examples.</p>

<p>With recent advances in technology, scientists can study microscopic things like DNA molecules. It turns out DNA contains a four-character digital code. In humans, this code contains the design blueprints for making a human body. Geneticist and biochemist Craig Venter, known for developing the first draft sequence of the human genome, says, “Life is basically the result of an information process, a software process. Our genetic code is our software, and our cells are dynamically, constantly reading our genetic code.” The process is far more elaborate than can be mentioned here, but we do know at least three facts. 1) DNA contains a four-character digital code. This is nothing short of information, analogous to computer software. 2) The code found in DNA is the blueprint for how to construct every cell, tissue, and organ in our body. 3) There are systems in the body that read the DNA code and then manufacture tiny parts based on that code. These microparts assemble to form cells, tissues, and organs.</p>

<p>Given these three facts, we can use abductive reasoning to determine the best explanation. What best accounts for the design blueprints encoded in our DNA? We know from our universal experience that program code comes from a programmer. Even the simplest smartphone apps require an intelligent mind to write software code. The same should be true of DNA. There must be an intelligent mind that provides design blueprints in the four-character digital code present in the “software” of our DNA.</p>

<p>This same reasoning can be applied to the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Historians (even secular or atheist ones) have acknowledged a dozen facts pertaining to the death of Jesus. Four of those facts are: 1) Jesus died by crucifixion. 2) Jesus’ tomb was empty three days later. 3) The disciples of Jesus had experiences in which they saw the risen Jesus. 4) Paul, who once persecuted Christians and the Church, had a dramatic reversal in his behavior and began proclaiming he encountered the risen Christ.</p>

<p>What’s the best explanation for those four facts? Although naturalistic explanations (Jesus swooned, disciples lied, stolen body, wrong tomb, etc.) can explain <em>some</em> of the facts, none of them can account for <em>all</em> the facts. For example, claiming the disciples visited the wrong tomb can account for fact 1, but not facts 2,3, and 4. Claiming the disciples stole the body can account for facts 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4. The only explanation that seems to make sense of all the facts is that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. That theory has the most explanatory power.</p>

<p>This type of reasoning is incredibly powerful because it draws upon a well-accepted principle of reasoning. It’s the approach I take when I’m training believers on these topics, and it’s one 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%2Fwhat-s-the-best-explanation-" 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-s-the-best-explanation-" 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-s-the-best-explanation-" 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: Inside Out
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/inside-out
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Years back, I lectured to a capacity crowd at the University of California at Berkeley. I made the case against moral relativism simply by pointing out how every day of our lives we each encounter—and ultimately violate—genuine, deep morality.</p>

<p>This discovery, I noted to the audience, had explanatory power since it accounts for something else we all know—the personal feelings of guilt each of us experiences. Then I asked the question I pose frequently to groups like that: “Why do we all feel guilty? Maybe guilt is just a cultural construction,” I offered. “But here’s another possibility. Maybe we <em>feel</em> guilty…because we <em>are</em> guilty. Is that option in the running?”</p>

<p align="left">You may think this a bold stroke, but there was no risk for me at all. I have asked this question many times of audiences, and no one has ever stopped me afterward and told me they never experienced guilt. They knew better. More to the point for this tactic, <em>I knew better</em>.</p>

<p align="left">Even though I had never met a single one of them before that night, there was something I knew to be true for each of them on the <em>inside</em> that they couldn’t keep from revealing on the <em>outside</em>—and they knew it, too. That insight is at the heart of a maneuver I want to introduce you to that has served me well for years.</p>

<p>The Inside Out tactic is not so much a specific maneuver as a frame of mind, an insight to help you maneuver confidently—even creatively, sometimes—in conversations. In a sense, you have inside information on others that they will eventually acknowledge, sometimes unwittingly, if you just pay attention.</p>

<p>A perfect example came from one of atheism’s most colorful apologists, Richard Dawkins. According to his naturalistic worldview, morality is just a relativistic trick of evolution to get our selfish genes into the next generation. Nothing more—“no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> Yet at another time he railed against the God of the Old Testament as a vindictive, bloodthirsty, homophobic, racist, genocidal, sadomasochistic, malevolent bully.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>Do you see the problem? This is not Dawkins’s naturalism speaking. Instead, it’s his commonsense moral realism doing the talking. His protest makes no sense in his minimalist molecules-in-motion world but is perfectly consistent with the world that actually exists—God’s world.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Notice here that there is something true on the inside for Dawkins—something he <em>knows</em>—that he cannot help but display on the outside in unguarded moments. When he’s defending his philosophical turf, he tells the lie. When his guard is down, his humanity betrays him and he tells the truth in spite of himself.</p>

<p>Why does this happen?</p>

<h2>Mannishness</h2>

<p>The Inside Out tactic is based on an insight I learned from the late Francis Schaeffer that has helped me navigate more confidently in conversations with others about Christ. He called it the “mannishness of man.” Strange phrase, agreed, but a provocative notion, nonetheless.</p>

<p>Schaeffer’s insight is tied to this question: What does it mean to be human? Here is one answer, the response of naturalism—the worldview currently governing science. According to pop “Science Guy,” Bill Nye, we’re just “a speck, on a speck, orbiting a speck, among other specks.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> “We emerged from microbes and muck,” Carl Sagan declared. “We find ourselves in bottomless free fall…lost in a great darkness, and there’s no one to send out a search party.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>And they are right, of course, in a world without God. Humans are nothing but cogs in the celestial machine, cosmic junk, the ultimate unplanned pregnancy, left to build our lonely lives on the “firm foundation of unyielding despair,” as atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell put it. Nihilism—bleak “nothing-ism.”</p>

<p>Yet no one really believes this, not deep inside. Solomon said God has set eternity in our hearts.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> There is a better answer—a more accurate answer—to the question “What does it mean to be human?” And we all know it.</p>

<p>Simply put, in Schaeffer’s words, “Man is different from non-man.”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> Human beings are special, unique, unlike anything else in the created realm, “crowned with glory and honor,” as David put it.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> That is the “mannishness of man.”</p>

<p>At the core of our beings lies a mark, an imprint of God Himself—not <em>on</em> us, as if foreign and attached, but <em>in</em> us, as a natural feature built <em>into</em> our natures. This mark is part of what makes us what we are, who we are. We would not be humans without it, only creatures.</p>

<p>Sagan says we are cousins of apes.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> That is Mother Nature’s assessment, of course. Father says different. Because of this mark, we are not kin to apes. We are kin to the God who made us for Himself.</p>

<p>Because we all live in God’s world and are all made in God’s image, there are <em>things all people know</em> that are embedded deep within their hearts—profound things about our world and about ourselves—even though we deny them or our worldviews disqualify them.</p>

<p>“That which is known about God,” Paul wrote, “is evident <em>within</em> them; for God made it evident <em>to</em> them” (Rom. 1:19). That which is already on the inside—put there by God Himself—eventually shows itself on the outside—in actions, in language, and in convictions. Our “mannishness” cannot be suppressed.</p>

<p>This knowledge can make a big difference in our conversations. Here is my tactical application of the mannishness of man: <em>The profound truths we all know on the inside always eventually reveal themselves on the outside.</em> All you need to do is listen.</p>

<p>Sometimes the Inside Out factor reveals itself in unusual ways.</p>

<h2>Two Deaths</h2>

<p>In the waning days of summer, 1997, two well-known and well-loved women died within days of each other, but the public reaction to each death was radically different. Mother Teresa passed away peacefully at 87—her death a quiet conclusion to a noble life well lived. Princess Diana died in her prime at 36—her death a tragic, “untimely” intrusion into a life filled with promise.</p>

<p>Why did so many react so differently to the same kind of event—a life ending, a human being dying? From one point of view—an atheistic, materialistic one—no one dies “before her time.” Death is death and arrives when it arrives. There is no timeliness for anything since there is no timetable—no schedule, no plan of how things are supposed to be. Everything just is.</p>

<p>In a God-less universe where all meaning is of our own making, what could it possibly mean to say someone died an “untimely” death? It means that <em>people know better</em>. It means they know life has ultimate purpose and deep significance that transcends private projects. In spite of their pontifications to the contrary, their mannishness gives them away.</p>

<p>And there are lots of things like this, if you look for them. People endorse moral relativism for convenience but then are mortified at the genuine evil that assails the world and struggle with guilty consciences for their participation in it. They deny conscious design in the universe but reflexively invoke the wonders of “Mother Nature” when overwhelmed by the magnificence of God’s world. They deny Father, so they praise Mother. Et cetera. Et cetera.</p>

<p>Understanding this Inside Out pattern provides a powerful technique to get someone thinking. “The truth that we let in first is not a dogmatic statement of the truth of the Scriptures,” Schaeffer wrote, “but the truth of the external world and the truth of what man himself is. This is what shows him his need. The Scriptures then show him the real nature of his lostness and the answer to it.”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>Here’s how Schaeffer’s insight can be useful for us. Listen to the way people talk. Watch for when—from their own mouths—their acknowledgment of reality intrudes on their philosophies. Then exploit that tension by asking a question.</p>

<p>In a world without purpose, why is Princess Di’s death a tragedy? If there is no ultimate, universal morality, how can anything be really evil? Why try to talk someone out of a suicide? If there is no meaning to life, what’s the point?</p>

<p>Mother Teresa finished her course, and Princess Diana did not. That is the victory and the tragedy of those events in the waning days of summer, 1997. But only because there is a divinely intended purpose—a noble end humans have been designed for that sin, sadly, cuts short.</p>

<h2>Broken</h2>

<p>Here is another example—kin to the one above—of the “inside” truth finding its way to the “outside.” Everyone knows something has gone terribly wrong with the world. We call it “the problem of evil,” and it prompts us to ask, “Why is there so much badness in the world?”</p>

<p>There is a wrinkle to this concern, though, another detail each of us also knows. The <em>world</em> is broken, true enough. But <em>we</em> are broken, too. Though humans have inherent dignity, we are also cruel. The evil is “out there,” as it were, but it is also “in here”—in us.</p>

<p>We are not machines that are malfunctioning, though. We are not bodies that are ailing. We are subjects who revolted, rebels who are now morally corrupted. We are guilty, and for this we must answer.</p>

<p>Again, each of us knows this deep down inside. It was the Inside Out point I traded on in my Berkeley lecture. We are the “others” doing those evil deeds we object to. Deep inside us is a gnawing awareness of our own badness producing a feeling we universally recognize: guilt.</p>

<p>In our moral wretchedness, we are also profoundly guilty. We owe. We are in debt, not to a standard, not to a rule, not to a law, but to a Person—to the One we have offended with our disobedience. And this is not good news, since our guilt has severe consequences.</p>

<h2>Justice or Mercy</h2>

<p>Each of us longs for justice. We speak of it often, especially when we’ve suffered injustice. That’s the inside revealing itself on the outside again. Justice is not satisfied in this life, though. It is satisfied in the next.</p>

<p>At the end of the Bible we find a dark passage.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> It tells of the final event of history as we know it, a great trial on a great plain where a great multitude of the accused—the guilty ones—stand before a judge. The books of death are opened, each of our moral lives laid bare for all mankind to see—the record in the books the basis for a final reckoning, a last judgment.</p>

<p>Before the judge stand all the beautiful, broken, guilty ones, each shut up under sin.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> Every mouth is also shut, each voice muted, silenced from any defensive appeal or any excuse.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> The record in the books speaks for itself.</p>

<p>Here is Sagan’s “bottomless free fall”—mankind “lost in a great darkness.” He is right about that, since we are all guilty, and no judge owes a pardon. Atonement must be made. The debt must be paid. Justice must be perfect.</p>

<p>There is something else, though. I did not leave the students at Berkeley in despair, abandoned under the weight of blame we all share. “The answer to guilt is not denial,” I told them. “That’s relativism. The answer to guilt,” I said, “is <em>forgiveness</em>. And this is where Jesus comes in.”</p>

<p>I have made that point many times to audiences, and every time I say those words something moves inside me. Forgiveness. Mercy. Repair. Restoration. Rebirth. New life. Hope. This is what each of our souls longs for.</p>

<p>Sagan is right when he says we are lost, but he is wrong when he says there is no one to send out a search party. Clearly, humans need rescuing, and we cannot rescue ourselves. Help must come from the outside. From outside of us. From outside of Sagan’s closed cosmos. From outside of this world.</p>

<p>And the search party has arrived. The Rescuer has come. He is the One who calls to us: “Come to me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest…for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matt. 11:28–29).</p>

<h2>Our Restless Souls</h2>

<p>Augustine of Hippo most famously described the restlessness of the human soul and also its proper place of repose. “You have made us for Yourself, O Lord,” he wrote in his <em>Confessions</em>, “and our hearts are restless until they can find rest in You.”</p>

<p>I think it’s safe to say that this restlessness, this sense of longing, this ineffable yearning to be filled—or maybe yearning to be fixed—is a universal human affliction, a malady that has nothing to do with our natural appetites, since satisfying them never sates the hunger of our hearts.</p>

<p>Two facts of the human condition lie at the heart of our inescapable sense of longing. One is that we are broken. We’ve already spoken of that. The second is this: It hasn’t always been this way. There remains a remnant of former beauty the brokenness cannot efface, yet something has gone missing that must be replaced. We feel a “sweet pain…a primal memory deep in our souls reminding us of the way the world started—good, wonderful, whole, complete.”<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>

<p>We were made for something better, and we scrap and scrape to climb back up, to return to the heights. That struggle is central to just about every film we have ever seen and every story we have ever read. The “triumph of the human spirit,” they say—God’s image forcing its way to the surface, to the outside. The exceptions, of course, are the dark, nihilistic yarns, the dystopian tales that tell the lie that we are nothing.</p>

<p>Note the conflicting visions—the vision buried deep in our humanity, and the contrary vision flowing from the atheistic, nothing-ism view.</p>

<p>Atheism, of course, denies the guilt. It must. Without Good, there is no Bad. It also denies the beauty. Again, it must. If no God, no guided design, only biological accidents, physical parts stuck together without reason or purpose—cosmic junk. Man is nothing and his life means nothing. Atheism leaves us, once again, with naught.</p>

<p>No, our true longing is a hunger that atheism simply cannot satisfy, a thirst it cannot quench. Holly Ordway was an atheist who watched her soul suffer injury, corrupted by a belief that did not fit reality:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>My atheism was eating into my heart like acid…. I could not have explained the source of my own rationality, nor of my conviction that there were such things as truth, beauty, and goodness. My worldview remained satisfying to me only insofar as I refrained from asking the really tough questions.<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ordway was not drawn to God initially because of DNA, irreducible complexity, or the finely-tuned constants of the universe. Rather, she first saw God in John Keats, John Donne, and Gerard Manly Hopkins. In short, she was alerted to God by beauty.</p>

<p>As an atheist, she had been dining on despair for years, and she was starving. “However satisfied I declared myself intellectually…atheism…was a terrible place to live,” she realized. “It was the winter of my soul.”<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>

<p>The thaw began when, as a newly-minted college professor, Ordway reread the canonical poets of English literature and for the first time realized that the soul-satisfying beauty of their verse flowed naturally and natively from their Christian view of the world—<em>God’s</em> world:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I sensed something deeper in the poems I was reading. I could feel power thrumming in the lines of the poems, an electricity of meaning, drawing from some source beyond my reach.<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The world of Hopkins, Keats, and Donne was a world where transcendent beauty made sense, where longing and hunger could be satisfied, where rising up from the fall was possible—a world where there was hope. Inside her, something moved—“My heart in hiding/Stirred…,” “...hope, wish day come…” (Hopkins).</p>

<p>A realistic hope, though, or empty wish? C.S. Lewis answers: “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”<sup id="fnref:18"><a href="#fn:18">18</a></sup></p>

<p>This other world was the one Ordway hungered for. This was the understanding that made sense of the actual world she lived in. But there was also a dark side to her discovery.</p>

<p>The understanding of reality that made sense of beauty and meaning and hope also made sense of this world’s brokenness—both completely unintelligible in Holly Ordway’s atheism. The disturbing part for her was this: The brokenness that was real was also moral—and personal. “I considered myself a ‘good person,’” she wrote, “but in my heart I was afraid to be judged on the real self behind my outward image.”<sup id="fnref:19"><a href="#fn:19">19</a></sup> She was guilty, and she knew it.</p>

<p>French philosopher Guillaume Bignon found his own naturalistic atheism being challenged as he encountered Christ in the New Testament.<sup id="fnref:20"><a href="#fn:20">20</a></sup> Nevertheless, the cross confused him. “Why did Jesus have to die?” he asked over and over again as he worked through the historical accounts of Jesus’ life. It made no sense to him.</p>

<p>Then something completely unexpected happened. “God reactivated my conscience,” he told me. “That was not a pleasant experience. I was physically crippled by guilt, not knowing what to do about it.”</p>

<p>Suddenly it dawned on him, “<em>That’s</em> why Jesus had to die. Because of <em>me</em>. Because of <em>my</em> guilt.” He immediately surrendered all his brokenness to the only One who could repair it, giving all his guilt to the only One who could forgive. When he did, “The feelings of guilt just evaporated.”</p>

<p>Atheism cannot do this. It cannot explain the beauty and wonder of being human. And it has no answer to human brokenness. It cannot provide the consolation of true forgiveness. We are fallen, guilty, lost. We cry out.</p>

<p>Here is our remedy, stated simply in a Christmas card I received from a friend: “The birth of Christ…invites us to believe that the cries of a broken world have actually been heard—a Savior was born.”<sup id="fnref:21"><a href="#fn:21">21</a></sup></p>

<p>There are times when clever arguments evade you. That’s when a simple declaration of the truth may be all that’s needed. “Come unto me…” is an offer of meat to hunger and drink to thirst. Touch the existential nerve, the deep profound desire that throbs in every fallen human being made in the image of God.</p>

<p>Listen carefully in your conversations. Listen for when a person’s mannishness speaks. When they tell the truth—and they must, eventually—point it out.</p>

<p>My question to the audience at Berkeley was a direct application of the Inside Out tactic. I addressed those students confidently since I knew that even though a person can run from God, he cannot run from himself.</p>

<p><strong>Adapted from the completely revised and expanded 10<sup>th</sup> anniversary edition of <em>Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions</em>, due out November 2019.</strong></p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Richard Dawkins, <em>River Out of Eden</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1996), 133. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;���</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Richard Dawkins, <em>The God Delusion</em> (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 31. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Note, I’m not suggesting that Dawkins’s specific <em>complaint</em> is sound, but rather that objectivist moral <em>assessments</em> like this are completely at home in the actual world, not in his <em>faux</em> reality. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Bill Nye’s June 5, 2010 “Humanist of the Year” award acceptance speech in San Jose, CA. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Carl Sagan, <em>Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space</em> (New York: Random house, 1994), 6, 51. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Ecclesiastes 3:11. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Francis Schaeffer, <em>He Is There and He Is Not Silent</em>, in <em>The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, Vol. I </em>(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 278. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Ps. 8:5, NIV. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Sagan, ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Francis Schaeffer, <em>The God Who Is There</em>, in <em>The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, Vol. I </em>(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 140–141. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Rev. 20. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Gal. 3:22. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Rom. 3:19. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Gregory Koukl, <em>The Story of Reality</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 83. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Holly Ordway, <em>Not God’s Type</em> (Chicago: Moody, 2010), 27. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Ibid., 27, 32. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">Ibid., 31. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:18">C.S. Lewis, <em>Mere Christianity</em> (New York: Simon &amp; Schuster, 1952), 106. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:18">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:19">Ordway, 51. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:19">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:20">http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/november/how-french-atheist-becomes-theologian.html. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:20">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:21">My thanks to Jonathan Noyes. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:21">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Finside-out" 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%2Finside-out" 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%2Finside-out" 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: Two Serious Doubts about Modern Darwinian Theory
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/23/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/two-serious-doubts-about-modern-darwinian-theory
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In this video for <a href="https://www.prageru.com/video/evolution-bacteria-to-beethoven/" id="" rel="" target="" title="">PragerU</a>, Stephen Meyer gives a quick summary of “two serious doubts about modern Darwinian theory”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Cambrian Explosion: The sudden appearance of new animals which evolutionary theory has failed to explain.</p>

<p>The DNA enigma: The implausibility of random mutations producing the information needed to build new forms of animal life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>For more on this topic, see Meyer’s book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071483/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=darwin%27s+doubt&amp;qid=1571799054&amp;sr=8-1">Darwin’s Doubt</a></em> or Douglas Axe’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Biology-Confirms-Intuition-Designed/dp/0062349597/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=undeniable&amp;qid=1571799032&amp;sr=8-1">Undeniable</a></em>.</p>

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

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftwo-serious-doubts-about-modern-darwinian-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%2Ftwo-serious-doubts-about-modern-darwinian-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%2Ftwo-serious-doubts-about-modern-darwinian-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: If We Condemn Modern-Day Genocide, Why Don’t We Condemn God for Destroying the Canaanites?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/25/2019
source:
https://www.str.org/w/if-we-condemn-modern-day-genocide-why-don-t-we-condemn-god-for-destroying-the-canaanites-

content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a <a href="https://www.michaeljkruger.com/is-the-god-of-the-bible-a-genocidal-maniac/">post</a> titled “Is the God of the Bible a Genocidal Maniac?” Michael Kruger’s third point is crucial for anyone who’s trying to make sense of God’s judgment of the Canaanites:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Third, <em>God uses a variety of instruments to accomplish his judgment</em>. Sure, God could just miraculously take all the lives of the Canaanites in a single instance. But, he has a history of using various means to bring judgment. Throughout Scripture, such means have included natural disasters, disease and pestilence, drought, economic collapse, and yes, even <em>human armies</em>. At numerous points throughout biblical history God “raises up” a human army to accomplish his purposes. And in the Canaanite conquest, God used the nation of Israel as his instrument of judgment.</p>

<p>It is here that we come to a key difference between the Canaanite conquest and modern day genocide. Yes, both involve great loss of life. And both involve human armies. But the former is done as an instrument of God’s righteous judgment whereas the latter is humans murdering others for their own purposes. On the surface, there may be similarities. But, they are decidedly not the same act.</p>

<p>An example might help. Imagine a scenario where one human injects another human with a deadly toxin which causes that person to die. Is that murder? Well, it depends. If this was done by a gang member who wanted to knock off a rival gang member, then the answer would be yes. But, if this was done by an official at a federal prison who was authorized by the state to administer lethal injection, then the answer would be no.</p>

<p>On the surface, the two acts might look the same. But, everything comes down to whether the <em>taking of life is properly authorized</em>. The issue is not whether a life is taken, but how and why it is taken.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is a key point, and it’s one that people who object to God’s judgment often haven’t grasped. I, as an individual, do not have the right to lock someone up in my house, but the government has the right (and duty) to lock up criminals. Therefore, if I lock someone up, I should be morally condemned, but the government is not similarly condemned for doing the same thing. Why? Because <em>there is a relevant, defining difference between the government and me</em>. The government has authority—and a role—that I do not. And because of that relevant difference between us, one can’t reason from the fact that <em>I</em> should be morally condemned for locking someone up that therefore the <em>government</em> ought also to be condemned for this.</p>

<p><em>In the same way</em>, one can’t reason from the fact that people committing genocide for their own illegitimate purposes ought to be condemned that therefore God ought also to be condemned for judging a nation through its destruction. Just as there’s a relevant, defining difference between individuals and the government, so there is a relevant, defining difference between human beings and God, our Creator and Judge. He has the authority to judge a culture through the destruction of its people; we do not. Therefore, we are condemned if we wipe out a nation; God is not. Authority and purpose matter here.</p>

<p>The difference between our authority and the government’s is something we all acknowledge and are familiar with, so it’s a good analogy to help you explain this important distinction to people who are objecting to God’s judgment of the Canaanites.</p>

<p>As Kruger concludes, “In the end, the conquest of Canaan remains a difficult and complex issue. And yet, if the conquest is viewed within the context of the Christian worldview, rather than from outside of it, then the objections quickly fade away.” This point is absolutely the key to making sense of the various aspects of Christianity. You have to consider Christianity <em>in light of its entire worldview</em>. You can’t evaluate the destruction of the Canaanites under the assumption that the Israelites were simply using “God” as an excuse for killing their enemies and then come to the conclusion that Christianity is morally terrible—because <em>that isn’t Christianity</em>. If you’re going to evaluate the morality of <em>Christianity</em>, you need to evaluate it as it presents itself, with all of its pieces intact, not with atheistic assumptions tacked on (for more on this, see <a href="/w/the-new-atheists-and-the-old-testament">here</a>).</p>

<p>Read all three of Kruger’s helpful summary points about the judgment of the Canaanites <a href="https://www.michaeljkruger.com/is-the-god-of-the-bible-a-genocidal-maniac/">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%2Fif-we-condemn-modern-day-genocide-why-don-t-we-condemn-god-for-destroying-the-canaanites-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-we-condemn-modern-day-genocide-why-don-t-we-condemn-god-for-destroying-the-canaanites-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-we-condemn-modern-day-genocide-why-don-t-we-condemn-god-for-destroying-the-canaanites-" 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 Porn Affects Your Brain
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/15/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-porn-affects-your-brain
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Your brain is amazing.</p>

<p>Weighing in at three pounds, your brain contains roughly 90 billion nerve cells—called <em>neurons</em>—with trillions of cell connections—called <em>synapses</em>. When connected together, these synapses form back roads, highways, and superhighways in your brain that signals travel along.</p>

<p>Brain scientists used to think the brain was like a fixed machine—that it couldn’t be changed. However, we now know that the brain has the ability to change continuously throughout an individual’s lifetime. This is referred to as <em>neuroplasticity</em>. In fact, your brain changes <em>every time you think.</em></p>

<p>Consider how you would learn to play the guitar. As you play the G chord, your brain sends a signal to your fingers telling them what to do. As that signal moves from neuron to neuron, those activated nerve cells form connections. Neuroscientists like to say, “Neurons that fire together, wire together.” As a result, these newly connected neurons form pathways.</p>

<p>Furthermore, you can think of a neurological pathway like a path in the woods. Every time someone walks the path, <em>it gets more established</em>. Similarly, every time a signal travels down a pathway of neurons, the pathway gets more established.</p>

<p>It’s because of this biological phenomenon that you have the ability to pick up a guitar after years of practice and are able to play with very little effort.</p>

<p>Now consider how years of prolonged exposure to watching pornography affects your brain.</p>

<p>As you watch pornography, you are wiring your brain to respond sexually to images on a screen. Just as playing the guitar changes your brain, watching pornography changes your brain. Whether it’s your lover or your laptop, you are creating new neurological pathways in your brain.</p>

<p>In his book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Wired-Intimacy-Pornography-Hijacks-Brain/dp/0830837000/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=wired+for+intimacy&amp;qid=1571093591&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1">Wired for Intimacy</a></em>, neuroscientist William Struthers says, “With repeated sexual acting out in the absence of a partner, a man will be bound and attached to the image and not a person.”</p>

<p>This is why many people prefer <em>virtual</em> pornography to <em>real</em> sex. In the book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Changes-Itself-Frontiers/dp/0143113100/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1U6E7KRXSC05Z&amp;keywords=the+brain+that+changes+itself&amp;qid=1571093566&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=the+brain+that+chan%2Caps%2C402&amp;sr=1-3">The Brain That Changes Itself</a></em>, psychiatrist and researcher Norman Doidge talks about two pleasure systems in the brain: the <em>exciting-pleasure</em> system and the <em>satisfying-pleasure</em> system. The first deals with <em>anticipation</em>, while the second deals with <em>satisfaction</em>.</p>

<p>During anticipation, <em>dopamine </em>is released. Dopamine is a neurochemical associated with feelings of euphoria, bliss, motivation, and concentration. It’s often referred to as the “feel-good hormone.”</p>

<p>Internet pornography—with its endless images of naked women—provides <em>bursts of dopamine</em> in the brain with each new image. The brain is constantly ramped up into higher levels of excitement.</p>

<p>As time goes on, pornography users <em>need more dopamine</em> to get the same feeling—the same “high.” I believe this is why many who watch pornography on a regular basis describe their experience as an addiction similar to drug use.*</p>

<p>Consequently, habitual pornography consumers constantly need both <em>novelty</em> of images and <em>variety</em> of images to get aroused. The porn-affected brain is primarily addicted to novelty, not sex. It’s chasing after new naked women, new unrealistic scenarios, and new sexual positions. This is why some will spend hours scrolling through <em>hundreds</em> of images at a time.</p>

<p>Pornography is <em>all</em> anticipation and <em>no</em> satisfaction. It provides exaggerated levels of excitement, which no real woman could ever provide. After all, a real woman—no matter how attractive—is still only <em>one</em> woman.</p>

<p>Dopamine isn’t the only neurochemical that affects pornography users. In fact, pornography triggers all of the same neurochemicals that are released during real sex.</p>

<p>For example, <em>oxytocin</em>—also known as the “love hormone”—helps create strong feelings of attachment, calmness, and security. In women, oxytocin is released during childbirth and breastfeeding and helps solidify the bond between mother and child. This chemical is <em>also</em> released during sex. This helps women bond to their mate—to their source of pleasure. In men, there’s a hormone called <em>vasopressin</em> that does something similar. It’s linked to monogamy in males.</p>

<p>Human beings are incredible creatures designed to be in <em>monogamous</em> relationships. We are wired for pair bonding. But, again, think about the implications for the pornography user. Because of these important neurochemicals, they become unnaturally wedded to pornography—to pixels on a screen.</p>

<p>Given how the brain works, it’s easy to see how pornography leads to sexual<em> bondage, </em>not sexual freedom. All of this is bad news for those trying to stop watching pornography.</p>

<p>Don’t lose heart. There is good news.</p>

<p>The good news is neuroplasticity <em>works both ways</em>. If porn pathways and high hormone levels aren’t reinforced, they’ll eventually disappear. The brain that changes due to pornography <em>can change back.</em></p>

<p>Ultimately, those addicted to pornography need more than a brain-change. They need a <em>heart-change</em>. Jesus said,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A34-36&amp;version=ESV">John 8:34–36</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Freedom from sin begins with giving your life to God. When we put our faith in Christ, God gives us a new heart and puts his Spirit within us so that we can walk in newness of life (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eze+36%3A26&amp;version=ESV">Ezekiel 36:26</a>). He sets us free from the bondage of sin and gives us the power to overcome the power of sin—including <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9Dp4YMt7c8">the power of pornography</a>.</p>

<p>*Some contest that this should be classified as an addiction.</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-porn-affects-your-brain" 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-porn-affects-your-brain" 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-porn-affects-your-brain" 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 Sons Are Exempt from the Law
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/14/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-sons-are-exempt-from-the-law
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve written in the past about how followers of Christ should view the Mosaic Law (see <a href="/w/should-followers-of-christ-observe-the-torah-">here</a> and <a href="/w/why-we-re-not-under-the-mosaic-law">here</a>), and it struck me as I was reading Matthew 17:24–27 that this is a moment when Jesus addresses the new relationship between His faithful followers and the Law. Here’s what it says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?” He said, “yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?” When Peter said, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are exempt. However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice that while Jesus is discussing a specific Mosaic Law—<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ex+30%3A13-16&amp;version=NASB">Exodus 30:13–16</a>: “The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel…. You shall take the atonement money from the sons of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting”—He points out how a fundamental change in the relationship between His followers and the Father (i.e., their adoption as sons) changes their relationship to the Law. In a nutshell, the temple tax law no longer has jurisdiction over them as sons.</p>

<p>We see this same idea of no longer being under the Law because of our adoption as sons in Galatians:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. <em>But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.</em> (Gal. 3:23–26)</p>

<p>But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, <em>so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons</em>…. Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. (Gal. 4:4–7) [Emphases added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice, also, in the Matthew passage, that though Jesus and Peter didn’t <em>need</em> to follow the Law, this didn’t mean they were <em>forbidden</em> from following it. Rather, they were to act according to the laws of the land in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense to the people around them (who would mistakenly assume Jesus and Peter were in rebellion against God if they refused to follow the temple tax law).</p>

<p>This view of the Law follows closely what we see in Paul’s life. Though he made it clear he wasn’t under the jurisdiction of the Law (because, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+7%3A1-6&amp;version=NASB">Romans 7:1–6</a> says, he had been released from the Law when he died with Christ*), still, like Jesus, Paul “walked orderly” under the Law while in Israel (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+21%3A17-26&amp;version=NASB">Acts 21:17–26</a>) so that the Jews around him would not take offense, “so that [he] might win those who are under the Law” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+9%3A19-21&amp;version=NASB">1 Cor. 9:19–21</a>).</p>

<p>Sometimes people will argue against the explicit teachings of Paul about the Law by pointing to Jesus’ words about following the Law in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+5%3A17-20&amp;version=NASB">Matthew 5:17–20</a>. But it’s not the case that <a href="/w/why-we-re-not-under-the-mosaic-law">Jesus’ teaching in that passage</a> contradicts Paul’s, which is why, in the very same book of Matthew, we find Jesus Himself commenting on how our adoption as sons (ultimately accomplished through His death and resurrection) changes our relationship to the Law.</p>

<p>______________________________</p>

<p>*I’m speaking of being under the Mosaic Law specifically; we still act in a way that <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+pet+1%3A13-16&amp;version=NASB">reflects</a> God’s <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+pet+2%3A9-12&amp;version=NASB">character</a> regardless of the fact that we’re <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+7%3A1-6&amp;version=NASB">not under the jurisdiction</a> of the Mosaic Law, and the Law still <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+tim+3%3A16-17&amp;version=NASB">instructs us</a> as to what God’s character ought to look like in our lives. For more, see “<a href="/w/answering-an-objection-to-grace-why-not-sin-">Answering an Objection to Grace: Why Not Sin?</a>”</p>
</div>

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


title: Why Studying Apologetics Makes Me Worship
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/07/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-studying-apologetics-makes-me-worship
content:
            <div> 
		<p>John Stonestreet’s <a href="https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/life/entertainment/story/2019/nov/09/land-israel-and-our-historical-faith/507690/" rel="" title="">reflection</a> on what it was like to see biblical locations in person on his recent trip to Israel reminds me why I love studying apologetics:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Seeing these places, where the events of the Bible actually took place—not in some dream-time or fictional world, but right here, on this very soil—well, it’s incredible.</p>

<p>There is actually a place where Jericho once stood. The bluff where King David built his palace is a real bluff. The mountain where Elijah called down fire from heaven <em>exists</em>.</p>

<p>And, as we continue to talk about time after time on BreakPoint<em>,</em> archaeology continues to validate these accounts. These discoveries not only verify the truthfulness of the Bible, they remind us how thoroughly grounded the Christian faith is in actual history.</p>

<p>In just the last year, the existence of the biblical <a href="https://www.breakpoint.org/archaeology-the-philistines-and-the-old-testament/">Philistines</a> and <a href="https://www.breakpoint.org/breakpoint-the-biblical-edom-unearthed/">Edomites</a> has been confirmed by new discoveries, as has <a href="https://www.breakpoint.org/breakpoint-cnn-and-586-bc/">the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem</a>, and even an <a href="https://www.breakpoint.org/breakpoint-small-seal-big-deal/">obscure official in the court of King Josiah</a>….</p>

<p>One member of our editorial team tells of how, during his own visit to Israel years ago, he went to the synagogue in Capernaum—which almost certainly stands on the site where Jesus preached and cast out a demon, as is recorded in Mark 1 and Luke 4. Because of the synagogue’s layout and size, archaeologists can say, to within a few feet, that “Jesus stood here.”</p>

<p>Think about that for a second. The God of the universe in human form, the Word who became flesh, stood <em>here.</em> What a mind-boggling concept! And what a reminder that Christianity isn’t some subjective religious experience, or a mere expression of personal piety, as we too often seem to imply.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If you’ve ever been to a museum where you saw an item that belonged to someone in history—particularly if he (or she) was a hero of yours (Lincoln, Wilberforce, etc.)—you know the feeling that comes with seeing that tangible object. There’s awe and wonder as you’re brought close to that historical person. There’s a sense of, “Wow, his hands touched that object. He <em>really</em> existed…in reality…in the world I’m in. And that’s a piece of him right there in front of me.”</p>

<p>It’s not that you didn’t truly think Lincoln or Wilberforce existed before you saw the object. Rather, there’s just something about <em>seeing</em> evidence of the reality of their existence that brings the truth home in a new way. This is the kind of experience I think John Stonestreet is referring to in the post above, and it’s also why I went into apologetics.</p>

<p>When I’m contemplating evidence and arguments for the <em>reality</em> of Jesus and His resurrection, that same sense of awe and wonder comes over me as the reality of Christianity is brought home to me in a new and striking way. I <em>see</em> the evidence in front of me, and I’m reminded once again that He <em>really</em> existed…in reality…in the world I’m in. And I worship.</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-studying-apologetics-makes-me-worship" 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-studying-apologetics-makes-me-worship" 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-studying-apologetics-makes-me-worship" 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 Changing Views of Mormons
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/09/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-changing-views-of-mormons
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If you regularly talk with members of the LDS Church (Mormons) about their beliefs, you likely have already discovered you can’t assume you know which official doctrines of their church they believe (which is why it’s always best to ask them questions about what they think before offering rebuttals!). Now a new book by Jana Riese titled <em>The Next Mormons: How Millennials are Changing the LDS Church</em> offers some insight into the statistics on their changing beliefs, and Eric Johnson (of <a href="https://www.mrm.org/">Mormonism Research Ministry</a>) summarizes its findings <a href="https://www.mrm.org/the-next-mormons">here</a>.</p>

<p>The changes in beliefs, in some cases, are simply following the culture and are probably similar to trends in Christian churches (e.g., changes in views on homosexuality and sex changes). But some of the changes are baffling. For example, according to Johnson’s review of the book, only 51% of millennials are “confident” that “Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, ” 53% that “LDS First Presidency are prophets today,” 55% that “God is exalted person of flesh and bone,” and 50% that the “Book of Mormon is literal/historical.” The numbers for Gen X are similar.</p>

<p>After the baby boomers are gone, one wonders how long the LDS Church can survive with only half of its members being confident that the foundational beliefs that distinguish it from other churches are true. But what isn’t a mystery is one reason <em>why</em> their beliefs are changing. I think the answer can be found here (from Johnson’s <a href="https://www.mrm.org/the-next-mormons" id="" rel="" target="" title="">article</a>):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>LDS leaders are very clear that what they say should be taken seriously. However, when individual Mormons were polled, the general authorities came in fifth on the list of authority. The top five were</p>

<ol>
	<li>Own conscience</li>
	<li>Promptings from the Spirit</li>
	<li>Family members</li>
	<li>Scriptures</li>
	<li>LDS General Authorities</li>
</ol>

<p>It would seem that “one’s own conscience” and “promptings from the Spirit” are closely related, with both based on one’s feelings.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I wasn’t surprised to find “conscience” and “promptings from the Spirit” at the top of the list (since Mormons place a great deal of emphasis on receiving personal revelation), but I was very surprised to see “LDS General Authorities” so low. During the year and a half when I regularly visited with LDS sister missionaries, I considered the most encouraging progress to be when one of them became convinced she should place the Bible above her prophets, judging what her authorities tell her by what she finds in the Bible. Now, nearly 20 years later, it appears the general authorities have lost their position of influence—not officially, but in practice.</p>

<p>Even back when I was meeting with the missionaries, though they placed the Bible below their general authorities, they placed “promptings of the Spirit” <em>above</em> their general authorities, saying they would pray about revelations in order to receive confirmation from the Spirit. I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that this practice of judging their church officials (which, in effect, meant placing themselves above official revelations) eventually relegated those officials and their teachings to an even lower status of authority.</p>

<p>As fallen human beings, our feelings are unreliable (even for those who have the true Holy Spirit), so it’s not hard to see how placing the priority on those first three sources of authority will lead to more fluid doctrine as people are influenced by the culture around them. Of course, placing <em>anything</em> other than an objective, unchanging text at the top of the list will lead to changes in beliefs (see “<a href="/w/the-danger-of-building-your-theology-on-anything-other-than-the-bible">The Danger of Building Your Theology on Anything Other Than the Bible</a>” for an example from the Christian community)—even church authorities, as they are also human beings who will be influenced by culture—but placing one’s own opinions and impulses at the top will do this even more so. And now that it seems even family members are taken more seriously than the general authorities, even that somewhat-stabilizing influence of older officials committed to traditional LDS doctrines is being lost. “Everyone doing what is right <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+21%3A25&amp;version=NASB">in his own eyes</a>” has never turned out well for anyone, certainly not for keeping a church together, so it will be interesting to see where this leads.</p>

<p>See the rest of Eric Johnson’s <a href="https://www.mrm.org/the-next-mormons">article</a> for more statistics and analysis, and for more on official Mormon beliefs and suggestions for your conversations with Mormons, see “<a href="/w/who-is-the-god-of-mormonism-">Who Is the God of Mormonism</a>” and “<a href="/w/verses-for-your-conversations-with-mormons">Verses for Your Conversations with Mormons</a>.”</p>
</div>

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


title: Does Your Belief in Demons Affect How You Live?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/05/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-your-belief-in-demons-affect-how-you-live-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Do you believe in demons? If you’re a Christian, most likely you do. But does your belief in demons affect how you live? Does it change your prayer? Does it make any difference?</p>

<p>C.S. Lewis wrote, “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.”</p>

<p>To be honest, I believe in Satan and demons, but my belief in them makes little difference in how I live. There are two reasons for that. One, I often feel awkward talking about them for fear that people might think I’m (spiritually) weird. Two, I don’t know exactly what they do and what I can do to affect their activity.</p>

<p>That’s why I was excited to interview my friend, <a href="http://www.timmuehlhoff.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Tim Muehlhoff</a>, about his recent book on spiritual warfare. Though his book was written for the purpose of helping marriages (the book’s title is <a href="https://www.ivpress.com/defending-your-marriage" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em>Defending Your Marriage: The Reality of Spiritual Battle</em></a>), we took the principles of spiritual warfare and applied them to apologetics. In other words, what could Satan and/or demons do to thwart apologetic encounters? What should apologists be mindful of when sharing our convictions with others? How might we specifically address demonic activity? Tim provides answers to these questions and others.</p>

<p>Check out my <a href="/w/interview-tim-muehlhoff-spiritual-warfare-in-apologetics" rel="noopener" target="_blank">interview with Tim on the STR podcast</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%2Fdoes-your-belief-in-demons-affect-how-you-live-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-your-belief-in-demons-affect-how-you-live-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-your-belief-in-demons-affect-how-you-live-" 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 the Beauty of Justification by Faith and the Power of the Bible
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/30/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-reminder-of-the-beauty-of-justification-by-faith-and-the-power-of-the-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>To celebrate the anniversary of Martin Luther <a href="https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-is-reformation-day/">sparking the Reformation</a> with his <a href="https://www.uncommon-travel-germany.com/martin-luther-95-theses.html">95 Theses</a>, Ligonier Ministries’ documentary <em>Luther: The Life and Legacy of the German Reformer</em> will be available for free on YouTube through Friday. (After that time, you can find it on <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Luther-Life-Legacy-German-Reformer/dp/B07ZF2WS1F/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=luther&amp;qid=1572383304&amp;sr=8-7">Amazon</a>.) The documentary is a good reminder of the beauty of justification by faith and the power of the Bible.</p>

<p>Luther was keenly aware of his sin, and no works prescribed by the church could ease his conscience. He knew he didn’t have the righteousness he needed to escape the wrath of God. Because of this, he said, “I did not love, no rather I hated the just God who punishes sinners.” From the <a href="https://www.ligonier.org/store/luther-the-life-and-legacy-of-the-german-reformer-dvd/" rel="" target="" title="">documentary</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>This inner turmoil went on for years until finally, in an instant, Luther was overcome. He began to see the words of Romans 1:17 clearly, as Paul meant them to be understood—that we are justified by faith alone, not by our works. And the gospel—hidden for so long—began suddenly to burn within him:</p>

<p>“At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words…. There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: The righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Luther feared God’s perfect justice and was tormented by his sin until he realized the magnificent truth that God is <em>both</em> “<em>just and the justifier</em> of the one who has faith in Jesus”—that God has not lowered His standard of righteousness and justice one iota, yet <em>at the same time</em> the perfect righteousness we need to stand before God is given to us “apart from the Law…even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+3%3A21-26&amp;version=NASB">Rom. 3:21–26</a>).</p>

<p>No other religion resolves the tension between justice and grace—either the standard must be lowered and justice denied as our sins are swept under the rug, or the perfect standard is upheld and we are left in despair, unable to meet that standard. Elsewhere, there is either forgiveness without justice or justice without forgiveness. But not in Christianity. God’s solution of upholding <em>both</em> justice and grace through Jesus’ loving, self-sacrificial suffering on the cross for us always astounds me with its brilliance, simplicity, and beauty.</p>

<p>This is what Luther rediscovered in the Scriptures. I thank God that He revealed His gospel so clearly to us in His Word, and that we have access to it in our own language. For a long time, this was not the case. As the documentary says, “The Scriptures themselves had been all but lost to the average parishioner, and this, perhaps, was the greatest tragedy of all.” I hope you are <a href="/w/a-long-term-plan-to-know-your-bible">fully taking advantage</a> of the fact that we are free to read and study the Bible whenever we want!</p>

<p>Ligonier’s documentary doesn’t shy away from Luther’s sins (particularly his writings condemning the Jews). But even his sin shines a light on the gospel. <a href="/w/free-to-say-we-ve-sinned">We need never hide our sins</a> (or the sins of other Christians) because the essence of Christianity <em>is the gospel</em>, which presupposes our sin. In fact, we’re told that “if we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10). Be encouraged by the fact that God so powerfully used a sinner like Martin Luther to advance the gospel despite his sin. The gospel is greater than any man and also necessary for every man, no matter how great he seems to us.</p>

<p>The documentary closes with this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>There’s something else Luther’s story proves. However dark the century becomes, however powerful the opposition, God will never allow the light of the gospel to be fully extinguished. And just when the fire appears to be fading forever, God will make it burn more brightly than ever before.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Amen. May you be encouraged in the gospel this week, thanking God for the Scriptures that revealed it to us.</p>
</div>

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


title: Biologists Overwhelmingly Agree That Human Life Begins at Fertilization
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/16/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/biologists-overwhelmingly-agree-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In an <a href="https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/">article</a> titled “I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular,” Steve Jacobs summarizes research he did for his dissertation on the abortion debate:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I surveyed thousands of Americans using Amazon’s <a href="https://www.mturk.com/">MTurk</a> service. I found that most Americans believe that the question of “when life begins” is an important aspect of the U.S. abortion debate (82%); that most believe Americans deserve to know when a human’s life begins in order to give informed consent to abortion procedures (76%); and that most Americans believe a human’s life is worthy of legal protection once it begins (93%). Respondents also were asked: “Which group is most qualified to answer the question, ‘When does a human’s life begin?’�� They were presented with several options—biologists, philosophers, religious leaders, Supreme Court Justices and voters. Eighty percent selected biologists, and the majority explained that they chose biologists because they view them as objective experts in the study of life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is good news, and it surprised me. If Americans care about when human life begins, and 93% think every human being—even the youngest—is worthy of legal protection, <em>and</em> they will trust the expertise of biologists, then this is good news for protecting unborn human life. (This is assuming, of course, that when confronted with the facts from biologists, these same people would stick to their responses and turn against abortion. I’d like to think that would happen, but I don’t think we can assume that. We human beings have a way of justifying what we want—if not in one way, then in another.)</p>

<p>Next, Jacobs “emailed surveys to professors in the biology departments of over 1,000 institutions around the world,” and the results weren’t even close:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>As the usable responses began to came in, I found that 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed that a human’s life begins at fertilization, with 240 (4%) rejecting that view. The majority of the sample identified as liberal (89%), pro-choice (85%) and non-religious (63%). In the case of Americans who expressed party preference, the majority identified as Democrats (92%).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Interestingly, the biologists were open about this <em>until</em> they were told the study was being undertaken to inform the debate over abortion, at which time, Jacobs reports, he started receiving hostile responses. He proposed three possible reasons for their objecting to the study:</p>

<blockquote>
<ul>
	<li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/motivated-reasoning"><em>Motivated Reasoning</em></a>: Respondents experience cognitive dissonance when they recognize that their view of a fetus as a human complicates their political convictions in regard to abortion policy.</li>
	<li><a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=1123807"><em>Cultural Cognition</em></a>: Respondents fear that public recognition of the scientific views they are expressing could lead to <em>other</em> people supporting abortion restrictions.</li>
	<li><a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2319992"><em>Identity-Protective Cognition</em></a>: Respondents fear that expressing their views may serve to estrange them from pro-choice liberals, on whom they might rely for social, emotional, or financial support.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>

<p>My guess is that the second reason was likely the biggest one on the minds of biologists, who probably fear that if the public hears there is an unequivocal beginning to human life, then care for the lives of unborn human beings might outweigh care for the desires of the mothers, and these biologists want to make sure the mothers will be taken into consideration.</p>

<p>But it makes no sense for them to try to keep people from connecting the dots between the biological facts and the abortion debate. The debate over abortion would be much better served if we all started from a place of truth. Human life begins at fertilization. That’s simply a scientific fact of reality. Let’s just all be honest about that and then move the debate on from there.</p>

<p>These biologists, though they knew the truth, were seemingly angry that this truth about human life might cause people to give greater consideration to the human rights of the unborn, but this is precisely where the debate <em>needs</em> to happen. The pro-choice side needs to openly offer arguments as to why we should think the claims of the mother (career, money, convenience, family size, the child’s sex and abilities, etc.) carry more weight than the claims of the unborn child (i.e., life). Some <a href="/w/a-new-response-to-the-violinist-argument" id="" rel="" target="" title="">already are</a> making <a href="/w/abortion-and-slavery-the-same-old-arguments">these arguments</a>, of course, but I think a good portion of the public is not aware of the fact that the starting point of human life is <a href="/w/abortion-advocates-fail-biology">really not controversial</a> among biologists at all. What’s <a href="/w/mr.-candidate-how-does-religion-inform-your-view-on-abortion-" rel="" target="" title="">controversial</a> is the question of whether or not <em>every</em> human being is valuable and has a right to life. The debate is over which—if any—of a mother’s interests justify ending the life of another human being—her child—in order to secure those interests.</p>

<p>Why can’t we all just be open and honest about that?</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbiologists-overwhelmingly-agree-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization" 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%2Fbiologists-overwhelmingly-agree-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization" 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%2Fbiologists-overwhelmingly-agree-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization" 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>
            
          


