# articles

title: Why Hate Shouldn’t Be a Crime
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2004
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-hate-shouldn-t-be-a-crime
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The passage of C-250 in the Canadian Parliament this spring pushed hate crime legislation to new extremes. Can one be against hate crimes, yet still oppose hate crime laws? Here are three good reasons we must resist this trend.</em></p>

<p>I was introduced to the concept of hate crimes like most Americans, from the front page of the morning paper. When I began reading the details of the story I was sickened. By the time I finished the account in the <em>LA Times</em>, I wanted to cry.</p>

<p>In Laramie, Wyoming, a homosexual student from the university there had been brutally beaten, robbed, and tied to a wooden ranch fence. He was found unconscious by a man on a bicycle who first thought he was a scarecrow.</p>

<p>The police arrested two men and two women in connection with the attack. The men allegedly lured their victim from the Fireside Bar, a campus hangout, by telling him they were gay. They drove in a truck to a remote spot and beat the young man mercilessly. His skull was smashed with a handgun. His hands and face were cut and his body was burned. Strung up on the fence, he was exposed overnight to 30 degree temperatures. His life was hanging by a thread. A few days later, at a hospital in Fort Collins Colorado, 22-year-old Matthew Shepard died.</p>

<p>Since this brutal murder in Wyoming in 1998, the effort to pass hate crime legislation—with expanded language to include “sexual preference”—has shifted into overdrive. In spite of its proper intent to curb these attacks, such legislation is ill conceived.</p>

<p>I am against hate crimes, but I also am against hate crime laws for three reasons. First, they criminalize thought, not behavior. Second, they do not protect individuals, but rather select classes of people. Third, they actually encourage hostility towards one group of people, Christians.</p>

<h2>Criminal Thought</h2>

<p>George Orwell once said that sometimes the first duty of a responsible person is to restate the obvious. Note the obvious: Hate crime laws criminalize thought, not conduct. Assault is already punishable under existing statutes. This legislation levies an additional penalty solely for the attitude of heart: a motive called hate.</p>

<p>One of our most cherished freedoms is the liberty to think as we see fit, even if our thoughts are ignoble. A man’s inner life has been his own. His conduct was under jurisdiction of the law, but not his convictions. Thoughts could not be made criminal.</p>

<p>Until recently, the law has been completely uninterested in penalizing motive. Whether one was driven to commit a crime by greed, malice, love, or hate was irrelevant. Only the conduct mattered. As far as the law was concerned, one could believe as he wished. He could like or dislike according to his whim. He could love or hate as he pleased.</p>

<p>Hate crime legislation changes all that. Now motive as well as conduct can be punished. This is a frightening step. “At the end of the day,”&nbsp;wrote former ambassador Alan Keyes, “government can govern men’s actions; it cannot govern their hearts. And when it attempts to govern their hearts, that is simply an excuse for the worst kind of tyranny.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Keyes’&nbsp;remarks are not mere hyperbole. In April, by a vote of 59 to 11, the Canadian Parliament passed bill C-250 criminalizing the expression of “hate”&nbsp;for homosexuality. The text reads:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of...an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is just the first step. Svend Robinson, the MP who authored C-250, wants the law to go beyond punishing incitement to hatred to criminalizing the anti-homosexual speech itself. It makes one wonder how an unfettered debate on same-sex marriage will be able to proceed (“All those opposed to same-sex marriage...you’re under arrest”).</p>

<p>The thin religious exemption included in C-250 gives Christians little cause for comfort. <em>World</em> magazine reports that...</p>

<blockquote>
<p>...at least one Saskatchewan court has already held that certain Bible passages expose homosexuals to hatred. Even without C-250, London, Ontario, officials recently slapped a Christian mayor with a $10,000 fine for refusing to proclaim “Gay Pride Day.”&nbsp;A Christian businessman in Toronto was fined $5,000 for refusing to print materials for a gay-rights group.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Hate crime legislation not only criminalizes thought and, in Canada, speech. It also creates another anomaly. Isn’t it odd that, in this case, assaults animated by emotion are considered more abhorrent, not less? Generally, passion is a mitigating factor. Courts show lenience for crimes committed under its influence, reserving their greatest condemnation for calculated evil, thus the difference between first and second degree murder.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Hate crime legislation turns that equation on its head. Is a hit-man more noble because he lacks emotional connection to his victim? A person who commits a crime of passion is immoral, granted. But isn’t it more twisted to assault, torment, or murder without any feeling of malice? Such a person is not just immoral, he’s a monster.</p>

<p>Further, the present trend sometimes seems to make the motive more serious than the assault itself. Representative Barbara Cubin (R-Wyoming) said, “We will not stand for the arbitrary killing of other people <em>due to any hateful act of intolerance</em>.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan said, “Angelinos have no tolerance for crimes <em>motivated by hatred or bias of any kind”</em><sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> [emphasis added in both].</p>

<p>Why the qualifications? Why not say, “We will not stand for the killing of other people. <em>Period</em>.”&nbsp;Or “Angelinos have no tolerance for crimes <em>done for any reason”</em>? The crime itself is reason to lament, but in these cases it’s the motive that causes the outcry.</p>

<p>But it’s worse than that. Hate crime legislation doesn’t make all hate connected with assault illegal, only certain types of hate.</p>

<h2>A Class Action</h2>

<p>This is the second consequence of hate crime legislation. To paraphrase a line from George Orwell’s <em>Animal Farm</em>, though all hate is equal, some hate is more equal than others.</p>

<p>Consider this. According to <em>Webster’s New World Dictionary</em>, “Hate implies a feeling of great dislike or aversion, and, with persons as the object, connotes the bearing of malice.”&nbsp;On this meaning, virtually any crime of passion could be construed as a hate crime because it entails malice towards persons.</p>

<p>However, all crimes of passion are not actionable as a hate crimes. Why not? Because they don’t involve a protected <em>class</em> of people. This raises a question. Is hate crime legislation about hate <em>per se</em> or is it really about something else?</p>

<p>Columnist George Will observed that such laws mandate penalties for particular <em>government-disapproved</em> states of mind.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> He is only partially correct. The government is not as concerned with the hateful state of mind as it is with the particular group of people the hate is directed toward.</p>

<p>The result of criminalizing malice under certain circumstances is that only certain types of people get protected. Will observes, “Surely Shepard’s assailants would deserve no less severity if he were not gay and their motive had been, as it may partly have been, pure sadism.”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>Yet this is not the case. In a state with hate crime legislation, penalties levied for an assault on me personally would be milder by statutory requirement than for <em>the very same assault</em> on a Matthew Shepard. Why? Because as a straight, white male I do not belong to a class protected by this law.</p>

<p>Hate crime legislation, then, turns out to be not really about hate, but politics. It’s not hatred for the victim that is punished. That’s covered under existing statutes. Rather, it’s hatred for a protected class—African-Americans, Jews, homosexuals, etc.—that’s punished under hate crime laws.</p>

<p>Such legislation makes two crimes out of one. The murder is a crime against the victim. The hate is a crime against the victim’s group. Yet how does one make sense of a crime against a group that is a <em>different crime</em> from the one against the victim?</p>

<p>Groups have no rights according to the Constitution. Only individual persons have rights (or groups that become legal persons, like corporations<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup>). Even class action lawsuits follow this pattern. Only individuals who are harmed can collect damages, even though their case is argued collectively.</p>

<p>Hate crime laws create a whole new category of faceless, personless victims—the injured class. They identify crimes against no one in particular, but crimes nonetheless, offenses that are punishable. They don’t prohibit all hate, only politically incorrect hate.</p>

<h2>A “Climate”&nbsp;of Hate</h2>

<p>Just as these laws are used to defend certain classes of people, they can also be used to oppress a certain class of people. They can serve as a legal tool to enforce a particular moral and political point of view that goes by the misnomer of “tolerance.”&nbsp;This is the third problem with hate crime legislation. It encourages many to actually blame Christians for incidents like the death of Matthew Shepard.</p>

<p>As soon as the terrible incident in Wyoming hit the national press, a torrent of criticism descended upon the Christian community.</p>

<p>Martin Marty, a prominent religious thinker from the University of Chicago, wrote that “anti-gay”&nbsp;Christians do not act in the name of Jesus. Rather, “Christian rhetoric...stirring hate”&nbsp;contributed to the death of Matthew Shepard.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> In the <em>LA Times</em>, Robert Scheer said, “Trafficking in the presumed judgments of the divine is a road map to the outer limits of civic intolerance.”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>These have joined a chorus of voices claiming that Christians, through their moralizing, are promoting a climate of hate. The phrase of choice is “less than.”&nbsp;By claiming homosexuality is evil, Christians demote homosexuals to a “less than”&nbsp;status. If a homosexual is “less than,”&nbsp;he is marked in a way that makes him an object of scorn, hatred, and physical abuse.</p>

<p>This is twisted logic. In Los Angeles, KABC talk show host Al Rantel—himself a homosexual—noted that this kind of thinking would make Alcoholics Anonymous responsible every time a drunk gets beat up in an alley. It simply does not follow that moral condemnation of homosexuality encourages gay bashing any more than condemning Christian “intolerance”&nbsp;promotes Christian bashing.</p>

<p>Such a tactic is equally dangerous to those who use it. According to them, taking a moral position is called hate. But objecting to hate is also a moral position. Are those who demonize Christians for their views equally guilty of hate-mongering? Clearly, this kind of attack is not really about principle, but politics once again.</p>

<p>Columnist John Leo has noted, “The political advantage of using ’climate’&nbsp;arguments is that you can discredit principled opposition without bothering to engage it. All you have to do is connect the pope, your local rabbi, or any other adversary to a gruesome murder, and your work is done.”</p>

<p>Leo concludes, “Beware of arguments based on climates or atmospheres. Most of them are simply attempts to disparage opponents and squelch legitimate debate.”<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>Hate crime legislation is not the answer. It turns the government into thought police, and turns the law into a club to enforce political correctness. Those felled by its blow will be Christians and others like them.</p>

<p>Instead, existing laws should be enforced to give equal protection to all classes of people, punishing the crime and not the frame of mind.</p>

<p>For Believers, though, there is a frame of mind that needs attention.</p>

<h2>Made in His Image</h2>

<p>Christians have an impulse to distance themselves from people like Matthew Shepard. Though his assault was lamentable, some have reasoned, he was, after all, a homosexual—evil and an abomination to God. Sporting signs with slogans like “Aids Cures Fags,”&nbsp;they go public with their crusade by disrupting graveside ceremonies. This makes me want to weep.</p>

<p>There is no question in my mind that homosexuality is an egregious evil. Christians need to be reminded, however, that no matter how far we try to distance ourselves, we are more similar to Matthew Shepard than we are different from him.</p>

<p>There are at least two things each of us share with Matthew, maybe three. First, like us, Matthew Shepard is a human being made in the image of God. His value transcends whatever evil he may have been guilty of. This makes the brutal crime against him unconscionable.</p>

<p>Second, Matthew Shepard is fallen, as we are. We stand beside him in the dock, guilty of our own crimes against our Creator. Paul asks, “Are we better than they? Not at all, for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin.”<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<p>Finally, for the homosexual that turns to Christ for forgiveness, we share the same Savior. Christ’s blood was shed for us equally: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>For these reasons all Christians should be grieved and angered at this injustice. They should condemn without qualification the brutalizing of Matthew Shepard, a human being who is, in all the important ways, just like us.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Alan Keyes, “The Trouble with Hate Crimes,”&nbsp;WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary, 10/16/98. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Lynn Vincent, “Remaining Silent,”&nbsp;<em>World</em>, May 8, 2004 <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Note that in first degree murder the act of premeditation—the planning and preparation—is criminal, not the motive. The motive by itself is not a crime. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">“Gay Student’s Killing Prompts Tolerance Resolution,”&nbsp;<em>LA Times</em>, 10/16/98, A-17. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Matt Lait, “Panel OKs Changes to Help Police Crack Down on Hate Crime,”&nbsp;<em>LA Times</em>, 11/11/98, B-1. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">George Will, “Whatever the Reason, a Murder Is a Murder,”&nbsp;<em>LA Times</em>, 10/14/98, B-7. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">With corporations, the group is handled as an individual who can suffer harm, collect damages, enter into contracts, and be held liable (sued) as an individual “person.”&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Martin Marty, “The Desecration of Civic Discourse,”&nbsp;<em>LA Times</em>, 10/18/98, M-1. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Robert Scheer, “Hate Rhetoric Opened Door for a Murder,”&nbsp;<em>LA Times</em>, 10/14/98. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">John Leo, “Avoid ’Climate’&nbsp;Control,”&nbsp;<em>U.S. News &amp; World Report</em>, 11/9/98, 20. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Romans 3:9. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Romans 6:23. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

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


title: Doing What Comes Naturally
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2002
source: https://www.str.org/w/doing-what-comes-naturally
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Is homosexuality “natural”? Do gays have a “right”&nbsp;to adopt children?</em></p>

<p>Rosie O’Donnell is the latest celebrity to go public as a homosexual and take the stand as a champion of gay adoption rights. Her challenge has reignited the controversy about rights and wrongs based on what is “natural.”</p>

<p>The argument goes something like this. There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. The animal kingdom is filled with examples of same-sex erotic behavior. Further, scientific evidence indicates that sexual orientation is physically pre-determined. Condemning homosexuality and restricting adoption rights is wrong because sexual desires are not chosen; they are part one’s physical constitution.</p>

<p>There are two claims here that propel this kind of argument. The first is that homosexuality is “natural.”&nbsp;The second is that if a condition is natural, then it must be moral.</p>

<h2>Mother Nature’s Way</h2>

<p>On the surface, there seems to be some truth to the claim that homosexuality is natural. It’s not unusual, for example, to see male dogs mount each other in an erotic way. There are two problems with this view, however.</p>

<p>First, the observation is flawed because it assumes that erotic <em>behavior</em> in other mammals is the same as homosexual <em>desire</em> in human beings.</p>

<p>Male homosexuals engage in sodomy not because of an attraction to a physical body part (women have that body part, too), but rather because of an attraction to a gender. They are <em>male</em> erotic, and sodomy is an expression of that desire.</p>

<p>Does the animal kingdom display this kind of same-gender eroticism? When a male dog mounts another male dog, is it because he’s attracted to the <em>male gender</em> of the other dog?</p>

<p>I don’t think so. This same poor pooch will slavishly mount sofas or shrubs or anything else available, including the leg of your dinner guest. None of these things are the <em>object</em> of the canine’s sexual lust; they are merely the <em>subject</em> of it. The dog does not desire your unfortunate visitor. He simply desires to be stimulated. This may prove that dogs masturbate. It doesn’t prove they have homosexual desire in any way parallel with humans.</p>

<p>Secondly, the view asserts that simply because the condition “occurs in nature”&nbsp;it is “natural.”&nbsp;But by this use of the word all sorts of things would be natural—humans mating with animals, children drinking cleaning fluid, rain forests being replaced with concrete—because all would be occurring “in nature.”&nbsp;Human beings are part of nature by this definition, and therefore all and any human conduct would be natural. Virtually nothing could ever be considered unnatural on these terms.</p>

<p>Generally we mean something else when we say that replacing virgin forests with parking lots, imbibing poison, and copulating with beasts are not natural. Things are natural if they fit the pre-technological, natural order of things; they are functioning according to their primitive <em>pattern</em> or <em>purpose</em>, and that’s key. A natural sexual desire, then, is a desire that serves to accomplish a sexual goal in the primitive order of things.</p>

<p>However, this definition of “natural”&nbsp;doesn’t help the homosexual either. According to the primitive natural order of things (evolution), the natural purpose of sex is reproduction, getting one’s genes into the next generation. But homosexuals don’t reproduce, so homosexuality can’t be “natural”&nbsp;on this definition either.</p>

<p>Further, wouldn’t one consider it unnatural if someone had eyes, but couldn’t see, or ears and couldn’t hear? Why is it then deemed natural to have male genitals, but be dispositionally incapable of using them to accomplish their reproductive purpose with the opposite sex?</p>

<p>Homosexuality does not seem to be natural in any meaningful sense of the word. Therefore, its morality cannot be defended by a mere appeal to nature. What if the focus was turned, though, from the external patterns of nature to the internal design of one’s own nature? What if homosexual desire were dictated by internal biological mechanisms?</p>

<h2>“I Was Born This Way”</h2>

<p>Much has been made of the correlation between homosexual desire and certain physical anomalies: size differences in neurons in the anterior hypothalamus (LeVay), unique “tags”&nbsp;on the genetic code (Hamer), incidence of homosexuality among twins (Bailey and Pillard), etc.</p>

<p>The term “sexual orientation”&nbsp;itself implies biology rather than preference. Sexual desires are not mere preferences, but a direction one is forced to face (“orientation”) because of predetermined physical factors.</p>

<p>This argument won’t work for a number of reasons. First, the empirical evidence that homosexuality is genetic is meager to non-existent.</p>

<p>Columbia University Psychiatrists William Byne and Bruce Parsons report, “Recent studies postulate biologic factors as the primary basis for sexual orientation. However, there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>None of the suggested scenarios connecting either chemistry or physiology with homosexual desire has played itself out empirically. There are reasons to doubt it ever will.</p>

<p>For one, we already have experience with male bodies and female hormones in the case of transsexuals<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> who inject hormones to change their physical appearance. Female hormones, being physical things, influence a male’s physical body—secondary sexual characteristics like size of breasts, facial hair, etc. But do those <em>physical</em> changes also give rise to changed sexual <em>desire</em>? The answer is no.</p>

<p>This is a double whammy against the argument that physical conditions predetermine sexual desires. First, the absence of female sexual characteristics in the bodies of male homosexuals indicates that their basic physical chemistry is not different from heterosexual males. Male homosexuals have bodily chemistry that produces male sexual characteristics, just like heterosexual males. This is <em>prima facie</em> evidence that the genetics are the same.</p>

<p>This point can be stated another way that is so obvious it often goes unnoticed. What kind of sex is natural for the homosexual when one considers the physical body that nature has given him? It’s obvious that a homosexual’s genitalia are fit for a woman, not for a man. At best, a homosexual’s body is giving him mixed signals: mental homosexual desires coupled with physical heterosexual body parts. The shape of his physical body proves that, at least in one sense, his desires are not natural.</p>

<p>There’s a second problem. The infusion of female hormones into male homosexuals can create secondary <em>physical</em> female characteristics, but not sexual desire. Instead, they are artificial changes forced upon the physical body because of a <em>prior mental desire</em> unrelated to physical chemistry.</p>

<p>I am not implying that all homosexuals desire female bodies. I’m only making the point that efforts by transsexuals to change their physical bodies tell us something about the relationship of physical constitution to sexual desire.</p>

<p>Because of a prior sexual desire, the transsexual seeks to change his physical characteristics. In other words, the desire comes first, then the physical change is made, not the other way around. In fact, a homosexual’s physical body will go back to its natural state if he stops taking female hormones. The desire was <em>prior</em> to the physical condition, not a <em>result</em> of it.</p>

<p>At best, the scientific evidence may show that some homosexuals share physical anomalies. Whether those similarities are unique to homosexuals and necessary for homosexual desire has never been established by science. And there are counter-indicators: homosexual genetic “tags”&nbsp;shared by non-homosexuals; homosexuals that don’t manifest the tags; etc.</p>

<p>The correlations between homosexual desire and the physical body, when they can be found, appear to be accidental, not necessary. To establish a physical cause one must show a consistent direct relationship, that every person with homosexual desire has a physical characteristic shared by all homosexuals and not possessed by heterosexuals. Yet in one study of identical twins who were homosexuals, the genetic marker was missing in nearly 20% (7 out of 40) of the cases.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> It’s hard to establish that a physical characteristic A causes behavior B if in a significant number of cases there is behavior B and no physical characteristic A.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Science has shown nothing that even approaches a genuine <em>universal and necessary</em> physical difference. If there is just one male with true homosexual desires who doesn’t have the requisite “gay”&nbsp;physical condition then I have made my point: A physical condition is not an adequate explanation for the existence of a homosexual desire. Something else is going on.</p>

<h2>Nature vs. Nurture</h2>

<p>Such a necessary physical marker will never be found, I think, and for a very important reason. All constitutional arguments seem to face a serious objection. They ignore the evidence that much—if not all—of homosexual desire is developmental rather than constitutional.</p>

<p>The constitutional homosexuality argument turns on the claim that homosexual desire is dictated by physical conditions. Offered as evidence are studies of identical twins separated at birth and raised in completely different environments, yet who turn out to be homosexual. The determining factor in the shared homosexual desire, it seems, is not environment (nurture)—which was completely different—but constitution (nature)—which was identical.</p>

<p>This strains at a tiny gnat and swallows a huge camel. In the case of the twins, a small sampling of people share a similar physical characteristic and a similar sexual desire, implying that the shared physical state causes the shared sexual orientation. Yet there are millions of people in the opposite situation. They share the same physical conditions, yet possess entirely different sexual tastes.</p>

<p>Homosexual twins are an exception that is completely eclipsed by the rule: millions of people with the same physical machinery (genetics)—same plumbing, wiring, and chemistry—but utterly disparate sexual desires. The great similarity is physical; the overwhelming dissimilarity is developmental.</p>

<p>One can examine every physical aspect of 100,000 males—a full assessment of their body parts, hormone levels, blood chemistry, etc.—and never be able to determine <em>from the physical evidence alone</em> who has a desire for the same sex,<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> even though one to two thousand in that group would be so inclined.</p>

<p>To sharpen the point, one wouldn’t be able to know <em>any</em> particulars about the nuances of anyone’s sexual desire by examining his physical make-up—who was hot for redheads rather than brunettes, who turned on to Twiggies instead of Reubens, who was sensually rabid, or who was sexually listless. Ergo, since so many people have the same basic physiology, yet differ radically in both sexual tastes and environment, it seems to follow that <em>developmental</em> factors—the formation of sexual tastes as one matures—are the preeminent influence in sexual preference.</p>

<p>Second, one’s own sexual tastes change over time with no change in his physical body. Heterosexuals can manifest homosexual desires, homosexuals can manifest heterosexual desires, yet there is no change in diet, no alteration of genes, no injections taken, no brain surgery performed. There’s no physical modification of any kind, only a change in mind.</p>

<p>If homosexuality were constitutional, no one could be heterosexual at one point in life and homosexual at another point without some corresponding physical change. This is a clue that sexual tastes are largely developmental.</p>

<p>For this reason, it is a monumental mistake for Christians to blithely claim that if homosexuality isn’t genetic it must be chosen. It should be obvious that, even though acting out one’s desires requires a choice, the desires themselves are not chosen. It’s equally a mistake to say that since sexual preference is not chosen, it must be genetic. There’s a third alternative.</p>

<p>Psychologists talk of the “formative period”&nbsp;of sexual identity. There seems to be no physical or chemical reason, for example, why heterosexual men should be attracted to certain women and not others, but most will not entertain fantasies about their mothers or sisters. Why not? This aversion is not dictated by physical factors of any sort. It must therefore have a non-physical cause, in this case, social taboo.</p>

<p>It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that a large body of research indicates a strong correlation between failed father-son relationships and homosexuality.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> Sexual preference is not solely physical; it’s at least partially developmental. And if it’s developmental at all, then I’ve made my point, because that which develops is clearly not the body, but a mental frame of mind.</p>

<p>The homosexual advocate fails to make the case that his sexual orientation is either natural in the broad sense—a normal occurrence in nature—or natural in the narrow sense—determined by his physical constitution. Yet even if homosexual desire were discovered to be completely physiological, it still wouldn’t follow that the conduct was moral.</p>

<h2>Is and Ought</h2>

<p>Columnist Robert Scheer noted that, “Homosexuality in the vast majority of cases is a condition that is given and not chosen, and must therefore be honored as part of the natural order of things.”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> Scheer’s comments reflect a standard misconception about homosexuality and ethics: If we can find a connection between homosexuality and nature, then we must surrender our moral objections to it. The error is in thinking that one has anything to do with the other. It doesn’t.</p>

<p>Philosopher David Hume argued that it is impossible to produce a deductively valid argument with factual premises and an ethical conclusion. In short, you can’t get an “ought”&nbsp;from an “is.”&nbsp;This is called the naturalistic fallacy.</p>

<p>In layman’s terms, just because a behavior is “natural”&nbsp;doesn’t make it right. This is obvious on a moment’s reflection. Does a natural tendency towards violence justify assault? Does a natural desire for food justify theft? Does a natural aversion to homosexuals justify gay-bashing?</p>

<p><em>Animals</em> do what comes naturally. We are not mere beasts, but human beings protected by morality from the tyranny of our natural appetites. <em>The difference between “just doing what comes naturally”&nbsp;and principled self-restraint is called civilization.</em></p>

<p>Further, persisting in this line of reasoning annihilates the argument for adoption rights by homosexuals. If homosexuality is right because it’s natural, then adoption must be wrong because it’s unnatural. If nature dictates morality, and the natural consequence for homosexuals is to be childless, then it’s unnatural—and therefore immoral—for homosexuals to raise children. Artificial insemination of lesbians or adoptions by homosexual couples would be wrong by their own argument. The same principle governs both issues.</p>

<p>My goal here has not been to prove that homosexuality is immoral, though I’m convinced it is, but rather to refute one of its common justifications. The morality of homosexuality can never be defended by any appeal to nature, but only by an appeal to moral rules. Nature alone can never provide us with those.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> Rosie O’Donnell and those like her must find another way to make their case.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Byne, William and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised: <em>Archives of General Psychiatry</em>,” March, 1993, vol. 50, 228-39, cited in Larry Burtoft, <em>Setting the Record Straight</em> (Colorado Springs: Focus on the Family, 1994), 9. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">One who has undergone surgery to change his or her sex. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Hubbard, Ruth, “The Search for Sexual Identity; False Genetic Markers,”&nbsp;<em>The New York Times</em>, August 2, 1993, A15. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Logically, this is called <em>modus tollens</em>: If A, therefore B. Not B, therefore not A. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Friedman, Richard C. and Downey, Jennifer. “Neurobiology and Sexual Orientation: Current Relationships,”&nbsp;<em>Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences</em>, Spring 1993, vol. 5, no. 2, 131-153 (136), cited in Burtoft, 18. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">See Joseph Nicolosi, <em>Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality</em> (Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson), and Elizabeth Moberly, <em>Psychogenesis: The Early Development of Gender Identity</em> (Boston: Routledge &amp; Kegan Paul Ltd., 1983). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Robert Scheer, “The Ellen Controversy Revisited,”&nbsp;<em>LA Times</em>, May 6, 1997, B7. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">By “nature”&nbsp;I mean appealing to things simply as they are, or the mere facts of nature. I do believe moral arguments can be based on nature in a different sense: natural teleology, function, or design, as in the natural law arguments of Aristotle and Aquinas. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</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%2Fdoing-what-comes-naturally" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoing-what-comes-naturally" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoing-what-comes-naturally" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Silly-putty Bible Study
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2005
source: https://www.str.org/w/silly-putty-bible-study-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>To many Christians, the Bible is like putty. Just add the Spirit and it can be molded into almost anything at all.</em></p>

<p>21st Century kids have cell phones, DVD players, and X-boxes. When I was a kid we had simpler delights. One was a handful of malleable goo that could be pulled, twisted, or distorted into any shape imaginable. It was called Silly Putty®.</p>

<p>Sadly, many Christians use their Bibles like Silly Putty®. Just add the Spirit and the Bible becomes putty in their hands, able to be molded into almost anything at all. Rather than approaching the Scripture as a treasure of truth for all Christians, some Evangelicals have the dangerous habit of searching the text for a personal “promise”&nbsp;or “word”&nbsp;of guidance from the Spirit that is <em>unrelated to the text’s original meaning</em>.</p>

<p>Often, the results turn out to be silly. Other times, they are dangerous. Regardless of the outcome, this practice is always a bad habit. Here’s how it often looks.</p>

<h2>The Holy Spirit Give-Away</h2>

<p>Instead of studying to find the objective meaning of a passage and then making personal application of that scriptural truth to their lives, many Christians read the Bible looking for verses or isolated phrases the Spirit “impresses”&nbsp;on them with personal messages that are foreign to the context.</p>

<p>For example, a Christian woman who has been praying for her family’s conversion stumbles upon Acts 16 during her quiet time. Her eyes settle on Paul’s response to the Philippian jailer who asked, “What must I do to be saved?”&nbsp;“Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved,”&nbsp;Paul answered, then added “you and your household”&nbsp;(v. 29-31).</p>

<p>Encouraged by these words, the woman begins to claim the “promise”&nbsp;that <em>her own</em> household will be saved, with the justification that “The Holy Spirit gave me this verse.”</p>

<p>Why would she use that particular wording to describe what she experienced? Because in the normal, natural understanding of that passage, the verse wasn’t “hers”&nbsp;to begin with.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Rather, she believes that, under the Spirit’s influence, there was a mystical transformation that took place causing the meanings of the words to change just for her, conveying a private message not intended <em>by</em> the original author (Luke, in this case) and not intended <em>for</em> anyone else. It was a private message from God just for her <em>incorporating</em> the words of the biblical text, but not previously <em>in</em> those words.</p>

<p>Notice, her confidence is not based on the objective meaning of the passage, but on the unique subjective meaning given to her by the Spirit in the moment. I—or any other Christian, for that matter—could not claim that verse for myself unless the Holy Spirit “gave”&nbsp;the verse to me, as well.</p>

<p>Experiences like these are powerful because they seem intensely personal. But there’s a problem: Acts 16:31 is not her promise. It’s the Philippian jailer’s promise, if a promise at all.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Using the passage as she has done is an abuse of God’s Word. It’s also deeply relativistic.</p>

<p>Relativism is the defining characteristic of the age, and has influenced the church in subtle yet profound ways. When an objective claim (a verse) communicates completely different meanings (“truths”) to different subjects (people), that’s relativism. Since truth is not in the objective meaning of the words, but in the personal, subjective experience of the reader—in this case, an experience allegedly caused by the Holy Spirit—a personal prompting can be “true for me, but not for you.”&nbsp;Since there are different experiences for different people, there are different “truths”&nbsp;for each.</p>

<p>Let me speak plainly: <em>There is no biblical justification for finding private, personal messages in texts originally intended by God to mean something else.</em> This approach is the wrong way to read the Bible. One reason I know this is because of what the Bible teaches about itself.</p>

<h2>The Bible on Bible Study</h2>

<p><em>First, the Bible teaches that the written words of Scripture are inspired.</em></p>

<p>“All scripture [<em>graphe,</em> Gr.—the “writing”] is inspired by God”&nbsp;( 2 Timothy 3:16). The wording here is important. Paul says that the <em>writing itself</em> is “God breathed,”&nbsp;not the thoughts, impressions, or private messages that occur to us when we read the writing.</p>

<p>God told Moses to speak to Pharaoh the specific <em>words</em> of God: “I will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to <em>say”</em>&nbsp;(Exodus 4:12). “Let them hear My <em>words</em>,”&nbsp;God said later at Horeb, “so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth”&nbsp;(Deuteronomy 4:10). These are the “living <em>words”</em>&nbsp;that Stephen said have been passed on to us (Acts 7:38).</p>

<p>God told Jeremiah, “Write in a book all the <em>words</em> I have spoken to you”&nbsp;(Jeremiah 30:2). He said to Isaiah, “My <em>words</em> which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring”&nbsp;(Isaiah 59:21).</p>

<p>God has always been concerned with the words, because precise words are necessary to convey precise meaning. That’s why Paul confidently refers to God’s revelation not as words of human wisdom, but as “<em>words</em>...taught by the Spirit”&nbsp;(1 Corinthians 2:13).</p>

<p><em>Second, the Bible teaches it is important to accurately understand these inspired words of Scripture.</em></p>

<p>Note Jesus in Luke 10:25-28:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”&nbsp;And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?”&nbsp;And he answered and said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”&nbsp;And He said to him, “You have answered correctly.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jesus did not ask, “What does the Spirit say to you on this issue?”&nbsp;He asked, “What is <em>written</em>? How does it <em>read</em>?”&nbsp;Then He waited to see if the lawyer got it right.</p>

<p>There is a correct and incorrect way to read the Bible. Paul tells Timothy to handle the Word accurately to avoid bringing shame on himself (2 Timothy 2:15). Jesus scolded the Pharisees for not understanding the Scripture properly. He then made an argument for the resurrection that hinged on the tense of a word: “I <em>am</em> the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living”&nbsp;(Matthew 22:29-32).</p>

<p><em>Third, the Bible teaches that private interpretations do not yield the accurate meaning.</em></p>

<p>Peter is clear on this point. He writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God&nbsp;(2 Peter 1:20-21).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because there is a divine author behind prophecy, the Apostle argues, there is a particular truth—a determinate meaning—that God intends to convey. Individual, personalized interpretations that distort this meaning only bring danger (note the reference to false prophets and false teachers in the next verse).</p>

<p>The same reasoning applies to all Scripture, not just to words of prophets, because the same rationale applies—the same Divine author stands behind the entire Bible.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> The meaning God originally intended through the inspired writers is the same meaning for anyone reading the verse today.</p>

<p>Simply put, “a text cannot mean what it never meant.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> Whenever God speaks, He has a particular truth in mind that fanciful interpretations obscure. We are not free to extract our own personalized revelations from Scripture. The Holy Spirit did not mean one thing when Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, for example, and then something entirely different when we read it 2000 years later. There are no private messages in the Bible.</p>

<p><em>Fourth, the Bible teaches we are to be diligent in study to get the accurate meaning.</em></p>

<p>The “good hand of the Lord”&nbsp;was upon Ezra specifically because Ezra “had set his heart to <em>study</em> the law of the Lord”&nbsp;(Ezra 7:9-10). The New Testament Bereans were called noble precisely because they went back to the words of the text, “<em>examining</em> the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so”&nbsp;(Acts 17:11).<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>In Paul’s last words before his death he admonished Timothy to “be <em>diligent</em> to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth”&nbsp;(2 Timothy 2:15).</p>

<p>Paul warned of a time when the church “will not endure sound doctrine,”&nbsp;but instead will turn to “myths”&nbsp;that “tickle”&nbsp;the ears (2 Timothy 4:3). Truth is the antidote, he said, preached faithfully and accurately. Success in this depends on diligent work, not on “hearing”&nbsp;from the Spirit.</p>

<p><em>Fifth, the Bible teaches we must guard the accurate meaning from being distorted, twisted, or maligned.</em></p>

<p>This is clear from a number of passages. Jude writes (1:3):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you <em>contend</em> earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Paul assured the Corinthians that he was “not walking in craftiness or <em>adulterating</em> the word of God”&nbsp;(2 Corinthians 4:2). By contrast, Peter warned that the “untaught and unstable”&nbsp;<em>distort</em> Paul’s words, “to their own destruction,”&nbsp;he adds (2 Peter 3:16).</p>

<p>Anticipating his imminent martyrdom, Paul told Timothy, “Retain the <em>standard of sound words</em> which you have heard from me...<em>Guard...the treasure</em> which has been entrusted to you”&nbsp;(2 Timothy 1:13-14).</p>

<p>Do you realize you cannot distort something unless it has a specific, correct meaning that is able to be twisted? You cannot retain the standard of sound words unless the <em>words</em> are the standard for accuracy. You cannot contend for the same sound doctrine for everyone that protects us from myths—a “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”—if each individual Christian can receive his own personal message from the text.</p>

<p><em>Finally, the Bible never teaches the subjective, individualized interpretation approach.</em></p>

<p>Where does Scripture advance the idea that the Holy Spirit changes the meanings of the words of the text for individual readers? Where does the Bible teach that private messages lurk between lines wanting only the Holy Spirit’s touch to bring them to life? Where does God’s Word suggest the relativistic, take-the-verse-out-of-context-for-my-own-private-use approach? It’s not there.</p>

<p>If you think God is telling you something through Scripture that is not connected to the meaning of the words in their context, it can’t be God because He chose to communicate through language, not around it. God will not twist, distort, or redefine His own Word for our private consumption.</p>

<p>“We cannot make [the Bible] mean anything that pleases us, and then give the Holy Spirit ’credit’&nbsp;for it,”&nbsp;Fee and Stuart wrote. “The Holy Spirit cannot be called in to contradict Himself, and He is the one who inspired the original intent.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>The Bible speaks clearly on this question. The written words of Scripture are God-breathed, chosen specifically by the Holy Spirit for their precision. There is a correct way to read them and an incorrect way. Private interpretations do not yield accurate meanings. Instead, diligent study and careful examination of the text deliver to us unadulterated truth, a treasure we are to guard and protect from shameful distortion and abuse.</p>

<h2>The OT in the NT</h2>

<p>How is it, then, that Old Testament verses cited by New Testament writers sometimes seem so far removed from their original context? This is a fair question to which there are a couple of explanations, depending on the citation. Most hinge on our core principle: Meaning is always based on the author’s intent.</p>

<p>Since the principle author of Scripture is God, He may have intended more than what the Old Testament authors were aware of and may clarify His original meaning in subsequent writings.</p>

<p>God may have intended multiple meanings or multiple levels of meaning, or an immediate literal sense and an additional spiritual sense, or possibly a double fulfillment (e.g., prophecy and apocalyptic literature). The New Testament writers have insight into these meanings that we do not because they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They had a direct connection, in a sense, to the Author’s intent.</p>

<p>There are other possibilities. Sometimes when a writer notes that the Scripture has been “fulfilled,”&nbsp;he may mean that a type has been fulfilled—a divinely inspired pattern or symbol—and not specific verses themselves. God’s history sometimes repeats itself (e.g., Jeremiah 31:15 vs. Matthew 2:17-18).</p>

<p>A later author may not be <em>finding</em> new meaning in a text, but <em>giving</em> new meaning to it. For us, then, the question is what did Matthew mean in his <em>use</em> of Hosea (for example), not what Hosea originally meant.</p>

<p>In no case, however, are New Testament authors relativizing the text for their own private use. Rather, they are revealing formerly hidden <em>objective</em> meanings in the text that might have been implicit but are now made explicit for application to the whole Christian community. This is critical since I have been arguing that God does not take verses out of context <em>as a means of conveying private messages to individual readers</em>.</p>

<h2>No Power in Words</h2>

<p>Christians err in thinking the words of Scripture are somehow vested with power. Just speak the words—“claim the verse”—and power is released to serve us. This is not so. God’s Word is alive, but in a very specific sense (see Hebrews 4:12-13). His words do not have a life of their own. That is an occult view of language, not a biblical one. There is only power in God, in whose mind the words originate.</p>

<p>Therefore, the words are only alive as they serve God’s original intent. They only have power when used as God purposed. There is no power when God’s words are twisted, distorted, or adulterated for our private use. We cannot claim divine authority for a verse when we are using it in a way God did not intend. This is not Christianity. It is superstition.</p>

<p>Anyone teaching the Bible out of context, therefore, is not teaching the Bible at all, regardless of how much they “baptize”&nbsp;their inventions with Holy Spirit language. A reflection on a Bible passage in a morning quiet time, a devotional reading, or a Sunday sermon may be edifying, encouraging, and uplifting. But if it’s not the message of the text—God’s message—it lacks power even when it’s quoted “chapter and verse.”</p>

<p>There is a legitimate activity of the Holy Spirit making unique, personal <em>application</em> in our lives. But this is based on the <em>objective</em> meaning of a passage. The Spirit does not give new information not already resident in the inspired words. The curriculum, so to speak, is standardized for all Christians. Every person has equal access to the meaning, at least in principle. The Spirit “illuminates”—sheds light on—the Word, helping us to see what is already there in words the Spirit Himself inspired through the initial writers (see 1 Corinthians 2:10-16). He then aids us in personal application.</p>

<p>Whether claiming promises during difficult times or citing verses to substantiate a view, make sure the texts you use to prove your point actually mean what you think they mean. Always be on the alert when reading books or listening to sermons. Are the authors or speakers simply quoting verses to buttress their points, or are they interpreting the Scripture carefully by looking at the details of the text?</p>

<p>Misconstruing a passage neutralizes the Word of God. It robs Scripture of its authority and influence. The entire reason we go to the Bible in the first place—to get God’s truth and apply it to our lives—is thwarted when we ignore the context.</p>

<p>Simply “claiming”&nbsp;a verse doesn’t make it our own. Only when we are properly informed by God’s Word the way it was written—in its context—can we be transformed by it. Every piece becomes powerful when it is working together according to the Spirit’s design.</p>

<p>The sword of the Spirit is the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17). Used properly, it parries deception and pierces the heart. It protects us from error. A sword made of putty, though, has no power. It pierces nothing. It offers no protection. And it has no place in the arsenal of a Christian.</p>

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

<ul>
	<li>First, don’t look for private messages in the Bible. They’re not there. Do not “claim”&nbsp;verses that are not intended for you or your circumstances.</li>
	<li>When others say “God gave me this verse”&nbsp;(or “God gave me this verse <em>for you”</em>), check to see if the context is being abused. If you suspect so, raise a question: “I’m curious. How exactly did you get that meaning/promise/application from this verse?”</li>
	<li>Always direct the discussion back to the meanings of the words, sentences, and paragraphs as understood in their original context. Like the Bereans, examine the text.</li>
	<li>When someone says “You’re putting God in a box,”&nbsp;tell them, “It’s never a mistake to try to use God’s Word the way He intends.”&nbsp;You’re actually taking Him <em>out</em> of the box of private interpretation, subjectivism, superstition, and error.</li>
	<li>Purchase a book to help you with your own biblical interpretation skills, then study it and begin to apply it immediately.</li>
</ul>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">She would never say, for example, “The Holy Spirit gave me the fourth commandment.”&nbsp;It’s already hers. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Of course, there is a legitimate activity of the Holy Spirit making unique, personal <em>application</em> in our lives. But this is based on the <em>objective</em> meaning of a passage. The Spirit does not give new information not already resident in the inspired words. The curriculum, so to speak, is standardized for all Christians. Every person has equal access to the meaning. The Spirit “illuminates”—sheds light on—the Word, helping us to see what is already there in words the Spirit Himself inspired through the initial writers (see 1 Corinthians 2:10-16). He then aids us in personal application. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">It’s not clear to me that Paul was making a promise even to the jailer other than that if his family believed, they would be saved, too. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">This is also the reason we do not “practice”&nbsp;at prophecy. It is not an act of human will. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Fee, Gordon, &amp; Stuart, Douglas <em>How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 27. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Ibid., 26. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</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%2Fsilly-putty-bible-study-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%2Fsilly-putty-bible-study-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%2Fsilly-putty-bible-study-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Confusing Moral Logic of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2004
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-confusing-moral-logic-of-embryonic-stem-cell-research
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The embryonic stem cell research debate is remarkable because neither side—pro-life or pro-abortion—seems to understand the moral logic of its views.</em></p>

<p>Presumably, people who are pro-life hold their views for a reason and are not just emoting. The same could be said of pro-choicers. I’ve long suspected that’s not always the case, though. The recent debate about embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) confirms my doubts.</p>

<p>ESCR is an amazing effort on the leading edge of medical science that some suggest offers promise of effective treatment for Alzheimer’s, diabetes, Parkinson’s, and a host of other tragic and debilitating diseases. Human embryos in the first two weeks of gestation are comprised entirely of unique stem cells that have the remarkable ability of transforming into a wide variety of spare cellular parts.</p>

<p>There’s an abundance of these embryos currently available that are destined for the trash can: the frozen remnants of over-ambitious in vitro fertilization (IVF) attempts. Though ESCR destroys these living human zygotes, in the minds of many this research is ethically permissible. “The embryos are going to die anyway. Why not make good use of them?”</p>

<p>Two questions in this debate need to be carefully considered and not dismissed with name calling, histrionics, or political posturing. First, is it reasonable to expect that the scientific community can fulfill it’s buoyant (and as yet thoroughly unsubstantiated) claims of future medical miracles? Second, even if ESCR proponents’&nbsp;wildest dreams were realized, is research on human embryos right?</p>

<p>I’m concerned here with the second question. Is it justified to take the life of some innocent human beings to bring benefit to others?</p>

<h2>Moral Logic</h2>

<p>The ESCR debate of the moral question is remarkable to me for two reasons. First, how could those who are pro-abortion feel the need to defend the act of cutting up a human embryo to farm it for its cells? Second, how could those who are pro-life countenance the thought? The answer to both is the same: To a large degree, neither side seems to understand the moral logic of its views.</p>

<p>An action is unethical when it violates a moral rule. Car theft is wrong because it violates a larger principle: It’s wrong to steal another’s property. That same rule has other applications, however. The moral principle covering car theft equally covers plagiarism. If someone objects to car theft, but condones her own theft of another’s ideas, it’s fair to question her commitment to the broader principle: Stealing is wrong. It begins to look like emotions and personal preferences are driving her choices, not moral thinking.</p>

<p>The moral logic pertaining to any pre-born human life can be stated simply. It’s wrong to kill innocent human beings. Both abortion and ESCR kill innocent human beings. Therefore, both abortion and ESCR are wrong. Pro-lifers, presumably, affirm this moral equation. Pro-choicers, by and large, deny it because of the second premise. To them, no bona fide human being is sacrificed, just a “clump of cells.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<h2>Only One Question</h2>

<p>I have argued elsewhere<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> that only one question needs to be answered to resolve what many think is a complex moral problem. That question is, What is it? Both abortion and ESCR kill something that is alive. In fact, both destroy the same thing at different stages of development. Whether it’s right or not to take that life depends entirely on what it is we’re killing.</p>

<p>Let me put it as clearly as I know how. If the zygote or embryo or fetus is not a human being, no justification for either abortion or ESCR is necessary. However, if it is a human being, no justification for taking his or her life is adequate.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> This single, succinct ethic is adequate to cover contingencies on both sides of the question.</p>

<h2>Ethical Confusion</h2>

<p>The pro-life view stands or falls on this moral equation. So does the pro-choice view, which makes the conduct of many on both sides confusing.</p>

<p>If abortion itself is morally acceptable—if it’s legitimate to destroy fully-formed human children right up to the point of birth (and even during delivery, in the case of partial-birth abortion)—why would anyone flinch at the idea of carving up a week-old embryo? Why the compulsion to defend destroying a “lump of cells”&nbsp;the size of a pinhead for medical benefit when it’s completely legal and acceptable to destroy a fully-formed human fetus for any reason what so ever?</p>

<p>Equally incomprehensible to me, a stunning number of pro-lifers have rallied in support of ESCR for the very same reasons pro-choicers classically have justified abortion: It doesn’t look human; it’s in the wrong location (a petri dish, not a uterus); it’s too small to be of moral consequence; it’s human, but not a human being; it’s alive, but not a life; and others will gain tremendous benefit.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>When pro-lifers embrace a pro-choice rationale in support of ESCR, though, they undermine their entire moral enterprise.</p>

<h2>What Is It?</h2>

<p>By any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of the human race. From the moment of conception the embryo is an <em>individual</em>. The zygote is distinct from mother, father, and other living things, having her own unique genetic fingerprint.</p>

<p>The embryo is <em>living</em>, characterized by metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>The embryo is <em>human</em>, carrying DNA with a human genetic signature.</p>

<p>Finally, the embryo is an individual <em>being</em>: a self-contained, self-integrated living entity with her own nature. She has the innate capacity to proceed through the full series of human developmental stages. All that’s needed is proper nurture and environment, the same as you and I.</p>

<p>The embryo, therefore, from the very moment of conception is an individual, living, human being, a bona fide member of the human family. Her cells are not yet individuated (they haven’t developed unique vocations as bone cells, skin cells, etc.). Yet she is still an individual self (though not yet self-aware), and will remain herself for her entire life until death. She will never <em>become</em> a human; she already <em>is</em> one. That’s incontrovertible science.</p>

<h2>Whence Value?</h2>

<p>The crux of the moral puzzle has to do with value: What gives human beings their worth? There are two general possibilities. Either human value is derived from some extrinsic, changeable quality (size, level of development, location, social convention, etc.), or humans are valuable in themselves because of some intrinsic, unchangeable quality that is part of their created nature.</p>

<p>Classically, western civilization has affirmed the latter, a conviction summed up eloquently by our Foundering Fathers as the cornerstone of our human rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are <em>created</em> equal, that they are endowed by their <em>Creator</em> with certain unalienable rights.”</p>

<p>This one moral conviction has been the impulse for every human rights crusade up to the end of the 20th century, from the abolition of slavery in the United States and England, to child labor laws, to the war crimes trials at Nuremberg, to Dr. Martin Luther King’s crusade for civil rights in the ’60s.</p>

<p>Of course, the Founders may have been wrong, but such ideas have consequences.</p>

<p>Remove the moral foundation and the moral edifice built upon it topples.</p>

<p>Here’s the problem. If humans are valuable because of some transcendent quality, then human value is <em>intrinsic</em>. It exists regardless of any physical or functional changes—size, location, abilities, etc. Conversely, if any physical or functional change affects human value, then that value can only be <em>extrinsic</em>, dependent on external factors. Human value becomes conditional. The danger is, when value is functionally defined, there is no basis for inalienable human rights. Whatever can be functionally defined, can be functionally defined away.</p>

<h2>“Personhood”&nbsp;and Value</h2>

<p>To say that an embryo is human but not a human <em>being</em> is shorthand for saying the embryo is property, not a person, and therefore has no privileged status. But what is the relevant moral difference between human beings and human persons? If the standard is sound that has always grounded human rights—transcendent human value—then this is a false move.</p>

<p>If humans beings are intrinsically valuable because of something innate—something <em>non-physical</em>—then their physical status has no bearing on their membership in the human family. Humans are valuable simply in virtue of their shared humanity. They do not become valuable only if they satisfy some additional “personhood”&nbsp;requirement.</p>

<p>It turns out that personhood language is a ruse. As a rule, it has merely been legal terminology used to exclude certain human beings from protection under law. Historically, this subterfuge has consistently disenfranchised the weak and vulnerable: Black slaves in the Dred Scott decision of 1857, defective children and the elderly under the Third Reich, the unborn since Roe v. Wade in 1973, and now ESCR on the threshold of the brave new world of the 21st Century.</p>

<h2>The Horns of a Dilemma</h2>

<p>These facts place both groups supporting ESCR—pro-lifers and pro-choicers—on the horns of a painful dilemma. For the pro-life crowd, every reason offered for affirming the sanctity of human life at later stages of development applies to human life at the earliest stages. The same continuity of moral logic decides both questions.</p>

<p>Similarly, pro-choicers can only succeed in their task by denying intrinsic human worth, valuing only those humans they deem to have the right size, to be in the right location, or to have the “proper”&nbsp;functional capabilities. But this undercuts all the human rights campaigns they hold so dear. The objection of some to <em>creating</em> embryos for the purpose of ESCR (as opposed to limiting research to IVF discards) is equally confusing. Why not create embryos for research if they have no intrinsic value anyway?</p>

<p>Further, some proponents of ESCR have distinguished between therapeutic cloning (cloning done for research), and reproductive cloning (that done to eventually produce a human baby). They affirm the first, but oppose the second, (for the moment). But what moral argument distinguishes the two that still keeps any commitment to inalienable human rights intact?</p>

<h2>Functionalism Fails</h2>

<p>The pro-choice enterprise in any of its forms is doomed to fail because it ultimately reduces human value to functional terms.</p>

<p>For example, columnist Michael Kinsley dismisses embryonic value because of size. They are “microscopic groupings of a few differentiated cells.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> First, this only works if human size determines human value. Second, since size is relative, human value based on size would be relative, too. If bigger is better and smaller is lesser, what is the proper frame of reference for comparison? All human beings are much bigger than some things and much smaller than others.</p>

<p>For Kinsley, embryos are so small compared to him that their moral status is negligible. But for others, contemplating the size of the universe is enough to convince them all human beings are insignificant. Compared to Michel Kinsley, embryos have no value. Compared to the size of the cosmos, Mr. Kinsley has no value. Both conclusions are flawed for the same reason: Size does not determine value.</p>

<p>Location fares no better as a criteria for human worth. If you are a valuable human being, do you cease being valuable because you move from the kitchen to the den? Or from the store to the sidewalk? Or simply roll over in bed? If it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being at one location, then it’s wrong to kill that same innocent human being located somewhere else. This is obvious and axiomatic.</p>

<p>Even so, some pro-lifers lose sight of this logic when it comes to ESCR. Senator Orrin Hatch thinks that the moral status of an embryo in a petri dish is different from one in it’s “proper”&nbsp;environment attached to a uterus. He believes the first will never become a human being and the second already is one. Note, the only difference between the two is location. The embryo itself is exactly the same in each instance.</p>

<p>Following this rationale to its logical conclusion reveals its flaws.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> What if science were to advance beyond IVF to the point where artificial wombs could successfully domicile human embryos for the full nine months of gestation until “birth”&nbsp;(a technological eventuality, some say).<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> Applying this same moral logic—the human isn’t a real human unless it’s in the right environment—what is pro-lifer Hatch to do now? This full-term fetus would not be human and, following the logic of ESCR, could legitimately be mined for his spare biological parts.</p>

<p>Clearly, location can’t be the deciding factor. All human beings have some core quality that gives them equal and unalienable rights, and this valuable thing is not altered by anything physical or functional.</p>

<p>This is why the “benefit”&nbsp;argument for ESCR (“Think of all the people it will help”), even if true, has no merit. If embryos are in fact valuable human beings, then the end does not justify the means in this case. We do not sacrifice human beings for medical purposes regardless of the good it might bring others.</p>

<p>Eric Cohen, resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is particularly cogent:</p>

<p>They appeal to the suffering of loved ones (or celebrities) to make the argument for destroying human embryos. Such suffering is real and often horrible. <em>But suffering is not an argument</em>, and the case for embryo research must rest on some notion of what embryos <em>are</em> [i.e., “only one question”], what standing they should be accorded, and the moral consequences of using them as means for our own benefit<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> [emphasis added].</p>

<p>Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission calls ESCR “nothing more than biotech cannibalism, in which we eat our young in order to better our own medicinal condition.”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<h2>Consistently Pro-Life</h2>

<p>The moral logic of the pro-life position, consistently applied, is adequate to inform not only the abortion issue, but ESCR as well.</p>

<p>When asked “What gives any human being value?”&nbsp;Christian pro-lifers have the resources to answer that question. When the human being exists, all of her intrinsic qualities exist, including her transcendent value. This answer, though, does not allow us in ESCR to tie human value to size, location, or level of development without destroying our case for innate human worth at the same time.</p>

<p>This logic also answers another question: What should we do with the extra embryos? Following our moral principles, since embryos are each valuable human beings, we should treat them like anyone else. They should neither be wantonly destroyed, auctioned off for medical experimentation, nor farmed for their valuable body parts. Instead, they should be adopted (implanted in new mothers) or allowed to die naturally. To avoid this problem in the future, IVF should be done only with the number of eggs that can safely be carried by the mother without risking “selective reductions”&nbsp;(abortion).</p>

<p>In ESCR, most embryos are harvested at seven days. A seven-day-old embryo is just 14 days away from a beating heart.</p>

<p>For those who are pro-life, there is only one answer to the question of embryonic stem cell research: No. Anything else undermines our entire moral endeavor and completely destroys the transcendent case for all human rights.</p>

<p>That’s what the moral logic requires. Unless, of course, there really is no moral continuity to our position. Unless we are just emoting.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">This description, by the way, applies to every human being. We’re all “blobs of tissue.”&nbsp;What is it that makes an adult clump of cells more valuable than a fetal clump of cells? <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2"><em>Precious Unborn Human Beings</em>, and <em>Making Abortion Unthinkable—The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion</em>, both available from Stand to Reason. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Remember, all human beings have gender, even humans at various stages of development during pregnancy. A human at any stage is either a he or a she. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">See Scott Klusendorf's work at <a href="http://www.str.org/na?q=...">http://www.str.org/free/bioethics/stemcell.htm</a> for a more detailed analysis of these issues. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">This is the standard, scientific characterization of life. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Michael Kinsley, “If You Believe Embryos Are Humans...”,&nbsp;<em>Time</em>, June 17, 2001. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">This tactic is called “Taking the Roof Off,”&nbsp;or <em>reductio ad absurdum</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">I owe this observation to Melinda Penner of STR. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Eric Cohen, “Kerry’s Zealotry—Extremism in Defense of Science Is No Virtue,”&nbsp;<em>The Weekly Standard</em>, July 5, 2004. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Richard Land, “Religions Divided on Stem Cell Issue,”&nbsp;<em>Los Angeles Times</em>, 7/21/01. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

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


title: Deity of Christ: Case Closed
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/2000
source: https://www.str.org/w/deity-of-christ-case-closed-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Understanding the Trinity may be impossible, but proving the Trinity is not especially difficult. You don’t need to master theology and philosophy. All you need is one irrefutable argument. Here it is.</em></p>

<h2>Deity of Christ: Case Closed</h2>

<p>Understanding the Trinity may be impossible, but proving that the Trinity is scriptural is not an especially difficult task. One needs only to define the Trinity accurately, then show that the Bible teaches the details of the definition. It makes no difference whether the word “Trinity”&nbsp;appears in the text or not. It only matters if the doctrine is taught there.</p>

<p>The definition of the Trinity is straightforward: there is only one God and He subsists as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One God in three persons. Simple.</p>

<h2>How to Prove the Trinity</h2>

<p>If you want to prove the Trinity, then, all you need to do is show that three specific truths are taught in Scripture. First, there’s only one God. Second, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are truly distinct persons. Third, each has the essential attribute of deity. That’s it.</p>

<p>The first item - the oneness of God - is virtually uncontested by those challenging the Trinity on Scriptural grounds. Almost all who hold Scripture in high regard acknowledge the famous <em>Shema</em> of Deuteronomy 6:1, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!”</p>

<p>The second, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are truly distinct persons, is denied by modalists like Oneness Pentecostals. They hold there is one God who manifests Himself in different “modes”&nbsp;at different times, sometimes as the Father and sometimes as the Son. The popular illustration of the Trinity that a man can be a father to his son yet, in other modes, a husband to his wife and a brother to his siblings is a fine illustration of this second-century heresy, and not the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. In this view the Father and the Son are both fully God, but there is no genuine distinction between the persons, only a linguistic distinction.</p>

<p>The third, that the distinct persons are each fully God, is denied by Arians like Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jesus and the Father are distinct persons, they say, but do not share the essential attribute of deity. Only the Father is God. Jesus is a lesser, created “god.”</p>

<h2>The Irrefutable Argument</h2>

<p>My purpose is to answer the Arian challenge by giving an airtight, scriptural proof for the deity of Jesus Christ. This technique is so simple you should be able to sketch it out on a napkin from memory the next time someone knocks on your door.</p>

<p>Remember, you don’t have to master every counter-argument to every verse thrown at you. All you need is one unequivocal textual proof to make your case. Here it is. It comes from the Gospel of John.</p>

<p>Most discussions of this nature focus initially on John 1:1. It says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”&nbsp;That’s the way your Bible reads. But the Jehovah’s Witness’s <em>New World Translation</em> renders the verse this way: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”</p>

<p>The heated discussion that follows is almost never productive. Don’t waste your time wrestling with Greek grammar neither of you understand. Just drop down two verses. Verse three says, “All things came into being by Him [the Word], and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”&nbsp;The NWT is virtually the same: “All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.”</p>

<p>Have your visitor read the verse out loud. Then take out a napkin or a piece of scratch paper and draw a large box. Explaining that this box represents everything that exists. Run a line right through the middle of the box, dividing everything that exists into two categories. It will look something like this:</p>

<p><img src="/documents/20123/287941/everything-exists.png/424a11bc-b2a5-7619-ff71-8192505af50f?t=1589212569729"><br>
<span style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span></p>

<p>On the left side write “all things that never came into being,”&nbsp;that is, all things that exist but have never been created. Ask your friend, “What goes in that box?”&nbsp;If he says “God”&nbsp;he got the right answer. God is the only thing that exists that has never been created. God alone is eternal and uncreated. Put the word “God”&nbsp;in the left-hand side of your box.</p>

<p>Label the right side “all things that came into being,”&nbsp;that is, all created things. Write “all created things”&nbsp;there. Everything in this box was created through Jesus, according to verse three. Ask your friend if he understands that. Now write “created through Jesus”&nbsp;outside the box and run an arrow to the right side. Your box should now look something like this:</p>

<p><img src="/documents/20123/287941/everthingthatexists.png/7771d733-6cbb-9271-4258-8155d13370eb?t=1589212569640"></p>

<p>Take a moment to point out to your guest how this illustration is structured. The larger box includes everything there is, was or ever will be. Each particular existent falls into one of two categories: created or not created.</p>

<p>According to the law of excluded middle either a thing was created or it wasn’t created - there is no third option - so the categories are all-encompassing. According to the law of non-contradiction a thing can’t be both created and not created, so the categories are mutually exclusive. Any particular thing has to be one or the other. It’s very simple.</p>

<p>Next you’re going to determine what category Jesus belongs in. Take a coin out of your pocket. Tell your guest this coin represents Jesus Christ. Hand him the coin and ask him to place Jesus in the category where He belongs.</p>

<p>The first impulse of a Jehovah’s Witness, of course, is to place Jesus in the category of “all things that came into being”&nbsp;because that’s what their theology dictates. In keeping with the teaching of Arius in the early fourth century, there was a time “when the Word was not.”&nbsp;Jesus was the first created being and everything else was created by Jehovah through Jesus.</p>

<p>But John 1:3 doesn’t allow that option. Look at the wording carefully. John says, “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being,”&nbsp;or in the NWT,“...and apart from him not even one thing came into existence”&nbsp;(emphasis mine).</p>

<p>John says the same thing two different ways for emphasis and clarity: everything that ever came into being owes its existence to Jesus, who caused it all to happen. If Jesus <em>caused</em> all created things <em>to come</em> into existence, then He must have existed <em>before</em> all created things <em>came</em> into existence. Therefore, the Word could not have been created.</p>

<p>In other words, if Jesus created everything that has come into being, and Jesus also came into being (as they contend), then Jesus created Himself. He would have to exist as Creator before He existed as a created thing, which is absurd. Therefore, Jesus can’t be placed in the square labeled, “all things that came into being.”</p>

<p>Just a side note. Much is made of the Greek word <em>dia</em>, translated “by”&nbsp;in the first phrase, but can also be translated “through.”&nbsp;But it makes no difference whether all things were created “by”&nbsp;Jesus or “through”&nbsp;Jesus with Jehovah as the agency (as the Witnesses suggest). The point is that in either case Jesus is existing before the creation of all things that ever came into being.</p>

<p>So, the coin can’t be placed on the right. At this point your visitor may want to place Jesus somewhere on the paper outside the larger box. But, as we’ve seen, you can’t do that. These categories are all-encompassing and mutually exclusive; there’s no “place”&nbsp;outside to put Him. Everything goes on one side of the larger box or the other.</p>

<p>If Jesus can’t be placed on the right side with created things, then He must go on the left with uncreated things, identifying Jesus as the uncreated Creator. Jesus is God.</p>

<h2>Two Rejoinders</h2>

<p>I have only come across two rejoinders to this proof for Jesus’&nbsp;deity. Each is so weak it merely serves to bolster our argument.</p>

<p>The first goes something like this. “Wait a minute, Greg. You didn’t read the verse carefully. You missed something in the text. Notice the phrase ’apart from Him.’&nbsp;The apostle excludes Jesus from the count in this verse. If you said, ’Apart from Billy, the whole family is going to Disneyland’&nbsp;you wouldn’t mean that Billy wasn’t part of the family, just that he wasn’t included in the count. Every member of the family is going to Disneyland <em>with the exception of</em> Billy. In the same way, every created thing was created by Jesus <em>with the exception of</em> Jesus Himself. Jehovah created Jesus first, then Jesus created everything else.”</p>

<p>Note that this rebuttal turns on the ability to replace “apart from Him”&nbsp;with the phrase “excluding Jesus.”&nbsp;Allegedly they’re synonymous. OK, let’s try the replacement and see what happens. The verse then looks like this: “With the exception of Jesus, nothing came into being that has come into being.”</p>

<p>If your brow is furrowed trying to figure this out, I’m not surprised. The reconstructed phrase is nearly nonsense. Strictly speaking, it means that Jesus is the only created thing that exists. Read it again and see for yourself. Obviously, the phrase “apart from Jesus”&nbsp;can’t mean “with the exception of Jesus.”&nbsp;These phrases are not synonymous.</p>

<p>“Apart from Him”&nbsp;means something entirely different. It means “apart from His agency.”&nbsp;It’s the same as saying, “Apart from me you’ll never get to San Diego. I’ve got the car.”&nbsp;Apart from Jesus’&nbsp;agency nothing came into being that has come into being. Why? Because Jesus is the Creator. He is God. That makes perfect sense in the context.</p>

<p>The second attempt at refutation comes from a handful of more sophisticated Arians who know better than to lean on the bent reed of the first rejoinder. They go back to the opening phrase “In the beginning”&nbsp;and note that it is anarthrous, that is, it has no article in the original Greek. Since John merely writes “In beginning”&nbsp;he could be meaning “in <em>a</em> beginning.”</p>

<p>Jehovah created Jesus, the story goes, at some indeterminate time in the past. Then after some unspecified second beginning (“a beginning”), He created everything else through Jesus. The details of verse three apply only to what happens after this second beginning. That’s the argument.</p>

<p>This grasping-at-the-wind is an example of what I call “Bedtime Story.”&nbsp;Here the detractor tells a story to put your argument to rest, but like all mere stories there is no foundation in fact. Nothing in the details of the text itself suggests this alternate translation. In fact, even the NWT renders it accurately.</p>

<p>Further, it strains at a gnat and swallows a camel. A focus on the gnat in verse one misses the camel two verses later. The phrases “all things”&nbsp;and “nothing”&nbsp;in verse three admit of no time restrictions. The only alternate “facts”&nbsp;available are found in the wishful thinking of those whose theology demands another reading. It’s clear from the text that Jesus is God.</p>

<h2>Parrying the Counter-Attack</h2>

<p>Objections that Jesus is distinguished from the Father in other passages (as when He prays to the Father in John 17) merely bolster our defense of the Trinity. Agreed, Jesus is not the Father. Jesus can talk to the Father because each is a separate person, but as Creator, Jesus shares the same divine essence as the Father. Remember our definition: there is only one God and He subsists as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Obviously, then we’d expect to find evidence of personal interaction among each of them.</p>

<p>Remember, don’t let your guest play “What About?”&nbsp;and drag you all over the New Testament. Keep bringing the issue back to John 1:3. All other verses must be understood in light of the unmistakable fact that Jesus is the uncreated Creator.</p>

<p>One parting thought. This exercise also resolves the translation controversy of verse one. Is the Word fully God or merely “a god”? John’s teaching in verse three makes unmistakable the intent of his opening remark: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God <em>and the Word was God</em>.”</p>

<p>And that settles it.</p>

<p>This technique is so simple you should be able to sketch it out on a napkin from memory the next time someone knocks on your door. Don’t waste your time wrestling with Greek grammar neither of you understand. If Jesus <em>caused</em> all created things <em>to come</em> into existence, then He must have existed <em>before</em> all created things <em>came</em> into existence.</p>

<p>Remember, don’t let your guest play “What About?”&nbsp;and drag you all over the New Testament. Keep bringing the issue back to the unmistakable fact that Jesus is the uncreated Creator.</p>
</div>

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


title: Can a Soul be Cloned?
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/1998
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-a-soul-be-cloned-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The cloning confusion continues.</p>

<p>Doctor Richard Seed, a cum laude graduate from Harvard with a Ph.D. in physics, has promised to produce the first human clone in less than two years in a clinic in the Chicago area, if he gets funded.</p>

<p>“We are going to become one with God,”&nbsp;he boasted. “We are going to have almost as much knowledge and almost as much power as God.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Public response was immediate. The White House condemned the project as “unethical.”&nbsp;The Food and Drug Administration announced that regulation of human cloning is in its jurisdiction because the procedure presents “serious health and safety issues”&nbsp;for the mother and her unborn. A presidential commission has recommended an immediate federal ban on all human cloning research.</p>

<p>Many Christians are nearly apoplectic about the prospect. I’ve consistently heard comments like, “It’s wrong to play God,”&nbsp;or “A clone wouldn’t have a soul,”&nbsp;conjuring up the specter of an army of blank-eyed zombies shuffling stiffly across darkened moors.</p>

<p>I’m glad the country is shaken by the possibility of human cloning, but I’m not sure they really know why the procedure is questionable. I have little confidence that even Christians understand the issue.</p>

<h2>Ethical Confusion</h2>

<p>First, how is the government going to make any sense out of its alarm? How, for example, can the FDA challenge cloning out of concern for the safety of the unborn when abortion can’t be challenged for the same reason? Does a mother still have the right to do whatever she wants with her own body? Is the federal government now becoming anti-choice?</p>

<p>The White House has condemned human cloning, and politicians are lining up to voice their opposition. Legislation is already being drafted to prohibit it. The political posturing is confusing, however.</p>

<p>How are we to take seriously the President’s claim that cloning is unethical? A thing is considered unethical when it violates a moral rule. Car theft is unethical because it’s a specific violation of a larger principle: It��s wrong to steal another’s property.</p>

<p>That same rule has other applications, however. The ethical principle that covers car theft equally covers plagiarism. If you object to car theft based on the broader rule against stealing, but then condone your plagiarism on a term paper, it’s fair to question your commitment to the broader moral principle.</p>

<p>It seems like you’re picking and choosing based on what’s convenient rather than on a genuine commitment to morality. If an ethical rule is not applied consistently, then moral claims begin to look like mere personal preferences. There’s no reason to take them seriously.</p>

<p>My question of the President is this: Precisely what ethical rule does cloning violate? (Incidentally, this is an important question for Christians to answer, too.) This is a mystery I’d like to have cleared up.</p>

<p>Here is the problem. Whatever rule the President might suggest is going to have other applications as well. Mr. Clinton and other members of Congress condemn as unethical the manipulation of human genes. However, these same people do not consider it unethical to completely destroy a fully developed human child through partial-birth abortion. Why is it wrong to manipulate genetic material to create a human, but completely acceptable to destroy the human created from those very same genes?</p>

<h2>Not Nice to Fool with Mother Nature</h2>

<p>Christians are not much clearer in their thinking about cloning.</p>

<p>I hear two common objections from believers. The first is that those who would clone a human are trying to play God. The concern here is a bit unclear. “Playing God”&nbsp;could mean two different things.</p>

<p>It could mean that creating a human is something only God can do. In that case, cloning would be impossible and the issue would be moot. Man could try to clone, but he’ll never succeed. Creation is something only God can accomplish. Dr. Ian Wilmut disproved this view with Dolly, the famous cloned sheep.</p>

<p>The phrase could also mean that creating a human is something only God should do. Like the builders of Babel’s great tower, would-be cloners are trespassing on divine territory. Dr. Seed’s boastful comment, “We are going to have almost as much knowledge and almost as much power as God”&nbsp;seems to affirm as much.</p>

<p>But this second objection needs justification. It seems we create human beings all the time. It’s called parenting. In fact, we create clones, too, in the case of identical twins. That doesn’t seem to offend God at all.</p>

<p>“But twinning is one thing,”&nbsp;some say. “It’s natural. Artificial cloning is different.”</p>

<p>I asked one woman why she assumed God would not allow a clone to have a soul. “It’s not a natural process,”&nbsp;she said. I then asked her if she was against artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization. Neither of those are natural, but she had no problem with them.</p>

<p>Further, if God withholds souls for “unnatural”&nbsp;forms of reproduction, what of the thousands of children born through in vitro fertilization or other reproductive technologies? Are they all without souls?</p>

<p>“Oh, no, they have souls,”&nbsp;she assured me. But why would God give souls to them and not to the others? “Because the clones are more unnatural.”&nbsp;When I hear comments like these I begin to suspect that Christians are making it up as they go along.</p>

<h2>The Night of the Living Dead</h2>

<p>The second objection to cloning I hear from Christians is that a clone wouldn’t have a soul. All attempts at successful cloning could at best only produce a race of vacant-eyed zombies. Believers who make such statements demonstrate they are not clear on what a soul is or what a soul does.</p>

<p>Once a seven-year-old boy called the radio show and asked, “What is a soul?”&nbsp;Simply put, I told him, your soul is your invisible self. A soul lives in a body similar to the way a hand wears glove. A soul makes the body move much like your hand makes the glove move. When you remove your hand from the glove, the glove can’t do anything. The same thing happens to a body when the soul leaves. It just lies there.</p>

<p>I went on to make two clarifications to my young caller. First, souls aren’t actually in bodies in exactly the same way a hand is in a glove. Our hands are physical, but our souls are not. Souls are invisible, but they are still real.</p>

<p>Second, if we wore gloves all the time and never took them off, some people might say we didn’t really have any hands at all because they never saw them. They’d say that gloves were the only things that were real, that hands didn’t actually exist.</p>

<p>This would be a mistake because when we look closely at gloves, it becomes very clear that they would not be able to do the things they do all by themselves. Hands do things that gloves alone can’t do.</p>

<p>In the same way, souls do things that mere physical bodies can’t do.</p>

<h2>The Soul Chip</h2>

<p>Just today I heard a report on the radio that a group of scientists are working vigorously to produce a very special kind of computer chip. It will be placed behind the eye and will be capable of recording every single thought, memory, and sensation. It’s called the “soul chip.”</p>

<p>This project is doomed to failure for a very simple reason. It is not possible to record thoughts, memories, or sensations in that way on a computer chip because none of those things are physical. Your thoughts don’t have chemical composition. Your memories don’t weigh anything. Your sensations don’t take up any space.</p>

<p>These scientists have confused the hand with the glove. They credit the body (and computer chips) with being able to do things only a soul can do. Here’s how I know.</p>

<p>Think for a moment about five mental states you are capable of: thoughts, sensations, desires, beliefs, and willings. Each of these is a unique ability you have. Each is completely your own. They are utterly private unless you choose to reveal them.</p>

<p>By contrast, all physical things are—at least in principle—available for inspection by anyone. Physical things have physical characteristics that can be examined equally by all parties. If all physical things have physical properties and are also third-person public, and if your mental states have no physical qualities and are utterly private, then your essential self is not the same as your physical body. The hand is not the glove.</p>

<p>Your soul is your essential self, the thing you reflect on when you introspect. It is the source and “container”&nbsp;of every one of your thoughts, sensations, desires, beliefs, and willings. Even if you had no body you would still be yourself, because that which is essentially you is not physical.</p>

<p>Your private mental states cannot be recorded on a computer chip. The only way to make a record of a thought or sensation is for the one experiencing it to report it in words. The mental state itself is not recorded, only a description of it. Since mental states are first-person private, the individual himself must report them before they can be recorded on computer chips.</p>

<p>In fact, mental states are so private they not only can’t be recorded, they often can’t even be described in words by the one who is having them. The word “ineffable”&nbsp;is used for personal experiences that are incapable of being expressed.</p>

<h2>Humans without Souls?</h2>

<p>Note that each of these mental states are necessarily oriented to the first-person. The ability to have first-person experiences (thoughts, sensations, etc.) is not a characteristic of matter. It takes an immaterial self to have a first-person perspective.</p>

<p>Therefore, anything that has a conscious, first-person perspective—anything that can do the things only a soul can do—must have a soul (or, to put it more accurately, must be a soul).</p>

<p>The idea that there might be human beings with no souls walking around the earth is completely absurd. A human without a soul can’t have thoughts or beliefs, can’t have desires or sensations, and can’t make any decisions. They do nothing, they don’t even breathe. Human beings without souls are called corpses.</p>

<p>If a human clone is ever made—and I see no good reason why it can’t be done—it will have a soul, like all sentient creatures. Souls don’t appear magically out of thin air by an act of God. Instead, they seem to the product of the miracle of human reproduction set into motion from the beginning by God Himself.</p>

<p>Further, all creatures that have conscious mental states are ensouled. Humans souls are different from those of other creatures, though, in that they bear the image of God. Therefore human beings have transcendent value. This one fact makes all the difference.</p>

<h2>One Simple Rule</h2>

<p>Earlier I asked what general ethical rule would the President offer as a guideline to judge the morality of cloning. Here it is: Human beings bear the image of God, and therefore have transcendent and intrinsic value.</p>

<p>Once you understand what a soul is, what it does, and what makes it valuable, the cloning issue comes into focus. Cloning might turn out to be unethical, but only because it violates a core principle of human dignity that is also violated by abortion. Ethical arguments against the one are also arguments against the other.</p>

<p>All humans have value, including any future clones, because each bears the imprint of God. This foundational principle is at the core of all morality pertaining to the treatment of others. A person’s value does not depend on how he began life, what his body looks like, or even whether he is wanted, but on what he is: God’s image-bearer.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Nightline, January 7, 1998. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>

<p>Would a clone be a <em>faux</em> human being, a physical facade with nothing inside?</p>
</div>

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


title: In the Presence of Hostile Witnesses
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2001
source: https://www.str.org/w/in-the-presence-of-hostile-witnesses
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I had every reason to be confident going into the debate. How could I lose? I was defending an irrefutable proposition: Objective truth can be known.</p>

<p>My debate opponent had happily agreed to defend the opposite view: objective truth can’t be known. He would be forced to explain how he knows that nothing can be known, how he’s absolutely sure there’s nothing absolutely certain.</p>

<p>As you can see, I couldn’t lose. Or could I?</p>

<p>What was I missing? My opponent was too smart to make such an obvious blunder. He was no fool. In fact, he was a brilliant man. He held a Ph.D. in philosophy, was a member of the Jesus Seminar, and had even translated the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.</p>

<p>Worse for me (in a way), he was an affable, winsome, and engaging personality. And he was making his case on his home turf.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> Many of the young adults packed into the student union lounge were his own students.</p>

<p>It seemed a little too easy and that made me nervous. I must be missing something. What did he know that I didn’t know? What flaw in my ideas had alluded me?</p>

<p>I was about to find out. And that’s a good thing.</p>

<h2>Peer Review</h2>

<p>None of us wants his views proven wrong, especially his most cherished ones, regardless of which side of the fence we’re on. But if we want to cultivate a sensible faith, we need to be aware of our own powerful instincts for theological self-preservation.</p>

<p>This instinct is so strong, in fact, that sometimes we are tempted to intellectually circle the wagons and guard against the slightest challenge to our beliefs. This strategy, however, provides a false sense of security. The opposite approach actually provides much more safety.</p>

<p>In Medieval times when a knight threw his gauntlet—an armored glove—into the arena, it was a challenge to fight. This was his signal to the world he was willing to take on a challenger. He was in the game.</p>

<p>In the same way, Christians need to throw down the gauntlet. Instead of digging in behind the trenches to defend against attackers, we should tear down our defenses. We should throw our ideas into the arena and invite attack by hostile witnesses.</p>

<p>In academic circles this is called “peer review.”&nbsp;Philosophers, scientists, and theologians present their ideas in professional forums and solicit critique. They test the merit of their thoughts by offering them to people who are inclined to disagree.</p>

<p>Last year I attended a three-day conference entitled “Design and Its Critics.”&nbsp;Here the best minds in the Intelligent Design movement-Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Nelson, to name a few—assembled to make their case. But they weren’t alone. They’d invited the top Darwinian thinkers in the country to listen to their ideas and take their best shots. It was one of the most invigorating and intellectually honest encounters I’d ever witnessed.</p>

<p>The idea of peer review is based on a very sound notion. If our ideas are easily destroyed by those acquainted with the facts, they ought to be discarded. But if our ideas are good, they will not be upended so easily. In the process, we’ll learn what the other side knows, and may be surprised at how weak their resistance really is.</p>

<p>This lesson was driven home to me quite unexpectedly one day while sitting in my own library minding my own business.</p>

<h2>A Knock on the Door</h2>

<p>While preparing for a radio show one Sunday afternoon, I heard a knock on my front door. When I answered, two middle-aged women smiled at me pleasantly, bundles of apocalyptic literature in hand. Would I like to see their material?</p>

<p>I mentioned there were two at the door, but only the one in front—the one who’d knocked—spoke. The second stood quietly in the back, watching. Jehovah’s Witnesses go out in pairs, one experienced Witness and one new disciple. The neophyte makes the initial contact, while the mentor waits protectively in the background, ready for a flanking maneuver should the young cadet get into trouble.</p>

<p>I knew I had very little time to make an impact. For one, I was preparing a commentary for radio and was running against the clock. Still, I didn’t want to send my visitors away empty-handed.</p>

<p>Second, door-to-door cult missionaries usually have little time for anyone who is biblically literate. Once I showed my hand, I knew they’d disappear quickly looking for an easier mark.</p>

<p>“I’m a Christian,”&nbsp;I began. I directed my comments to the younger convert, the one less influenced by the Watchtower organization and hopefully more open to another viewpoint.</p>

<p>“It’s clear we have some differences, including the vital issue of the identity of Jesus. I believe what John teaches in John 1:3, that Jesus is the uncreated Creator. This makes Him God.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>Mention of the deity of Christ was all that was needed to bring the rear guard into action. The person in the shadows spoke up for the first time. I honestly wasn’t prepared for her response.</p>

<p>“You’re entitled to your opinion and we’re entitled to ours,”&nbsp;was all she said. No question, no challenge, no theological rebuttal. This was a dismissal, not a response. She turned on her heel and started for the next house, young cadet in tow, in search of more vulnerable game.</p>

<p>I cast about for something to say that might slow their retreat. “You’re also entitled to be wrong in your opinion,”&nbsp;I blurted out, but the retort had no effect.</p>

<p>I admit it wasn’t a devastating rejoinder, but it was all I could think of in the moment. “Clearly we both can’t be right,”&nbsp;I added, “even though we’re both entitled to our opinions.”&nbsp;I was hoping for some kind of reaction, some kind of engagement, but my challenge went unanswered.</p>

<p>As they marched down the walkway I fired my final salvo, vainly hoping for a response: “Obviously, you’re not interested in hearing any other point of view than your own.”&nbsp;Then they were gone.</p>

<h2>Gun Shy</h2>

<p>In the moments that followed a host of questions flooded my mind. Did I use the right tactic? Would a different approach have been more effective? Did anything I say leave a good impression? Did I plant even a seed of doubt in their minds?</p>

<p>I’ll probably never know the answer to those questions, but the meeting was still educational. Notice a couple of things about this short exchange.</p>

<p>What did these two missionaries do when they encountered someone who was biblically literate? What was their first response when I mentioned my background and then gave a thumbnail sketch of an argument striking right at the heart of their most cherished doctrine?</p>

<p>They backed off. They bailed out. They ran away.</p>

<p>What’s wrong with this picture? If you were convinced that the medicine you held in your hand would save the life of a dying patient, would you turn on your heel, letting him perish just because he didn’t like the taste of the treatment? In the same way, isn’t it strange that a door-to-door evangelist out to save the world would take flight at the first sign of any of opposition?</p>

<p>These Jehovah’s Witnesses missionaries were in a battle for human souls, yet they fled at the first sound of gunfire.</p>

<h2>Three Revelations</h2>

<p>This encounter taught me three things about these missionaries.</p>

<p>First, they weren’t very confident in their message. Why should I take a single moment to consider an alleged message from God that God’s messenger herself wouldn’t lift one finger to defend? Why should I respect the cause of a soldier who retreats at the first sign of resistance?</p>

<p>Second, these missionaries could not have been very interested in my salvation. If they were genuinely concerned about rescuing my lost soul, their first impulse should have been to find out what I believed and why, then correct my errant theology. Isn’t that why they go door to door, to witness to the lost, to give them the truth about Jehovah God and invite them to join the Watchtower organization?</p>

<p>But they didn’t even listen to my point of view, much less try to correct my error. Do you know what that tells me? They didn’t care much about my eternal destiny.</p>

<p>Third, I learned they didn’t take the issue of truth very seriously, either. Religious evangelism is a persuasive enterprise. The evangelist thinks his view is true and opposing views are false. He also thinks the difference matters, which is why he’s trying to change people’s minds. Follow the truth, you win. Follow a lie, you lose—big time.</p>

<p>A commitment to truth (as opposed to a commitment to an organization) means an openness to refining one’s own views. It means increasing the accuracy of one's understanding and being open to correction in thinking.</p>

<p>A challenger might turn out to be a blessing in disguise, an ally instead of an enemy. An evangelist who’s convinced of his view should want to hear the very best arguments against it.</p>

<p>One of two things would then happen. He may discover that some objections to his view are good ones. The rebuttal helps him make adjustments and corrections in his thinking, refining his knowledge of the truth. Or it may turn out he’s on solid ground after all. Developing answers to the toughest arguments against him strengthens both his witness and his confidence in his religion.</p>

<h2>A Lesson Learned</h2>

<p>There’s a lesson here for Christians: Don’t be too quick to back down from opposition.</p>

<p>First, as intelligent or aggressive as your opponent might seem, he still is, in fact, perishing without Christ. You don’t know what internal struggles he’s facing that don’t show through his confident or gruff exterior. You don’t know but that God will use your simple, gracious, but direct challenge to his beliefs and begin to melt his rebellious heart. It happens.</p>

<p>Second, you might learn something yourself. Maybe you’re the one mistaken, at least in part. Or maybe your view is right, but the way you defend it is flawed. If your bad arguments are refuted, ditch them. The case for Christianity is too good to be compromised by faulty defenses.</p>

<p>Third, maybe you’re not mistaken. If so, you want to be certain your convictions can stand up to the most rigorous analysis. When it does, the confidence you gain will be worth its weight in gold.</p>

<h2>Not Quick on Your Feet?</h2>

<p>This does not mean you must charge headlong into every skirmish that comes your way. Maybe you don’t consider yourself fast enough on your feet to keep up with someone who’s quicker than you in an intense discussion. No problem. Don’t feel under pressure to immediately answer every question asked or every point made.</p>

<p>For tactical reasons you may want to adopt the posture of a neutral observer. Shift from argument mode to fact-finding mode.</p>

<p>Try this. Say something like, “Interesting point. I’d like to hear more. Let me ask some questions about your view and your reasons for it so I understand it. Then let me think about it. We can talk more later.”&nbsp;This shows you take the other person’s view seriously and also buys you valuable time.</p>

<p>Ask probing questions (Columbo tactic), but don’t try to win your case just then. Take notes if you need to. Make sure you understand the challenge or the objection clearly. Then do some work on your own—maybe even enlisting others in the process—and come back prepared.</p>

<p>If your discussion was just part of a chance meeting, you may not be able to revisit the topic with the same person, but you’ll be prepared next time the issue comes up.</p>

<p>This is a wonderful way to completely take the pressure off you. It’s not a retreat, just a different type of engagement. It greatly reduces your anxiety level, strengthens your own confidence, and prepares you to be more effective next time around.</p>

<h2>Courage Under Fire</h2>

<p>My debate with the learned professor went remarkably smoothly. I wasn’t blind-sided or buffaloed. Instead, I learned through experience what I had expected was true, but wasn’t completely sure of. The other side was advanced with empty, self-refuting slogans and post-modern platitudes. My own argument was on solid ground.</p>

<p>This taught me a powerful lesson. Don’t retreat in the face of opposition. Too much is at stake. Be the kind of soldier that instills respect in others because of your courage under fire.</p>

<p>Make your case in the presence of hostile witnesses. Throw your gauntlet into the arena and see what the other side has to say. It’s one of the most effective ways to establish your case and help you cultivate sensible faith over time.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">My debate was with Dr. Marv Meyer at Chapman University. The debate was entitled “Is Truth True?”&nbsp;A tape is available through Stand to Reason. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">An irrefutable Biblical argument for the deity of Christ based on this verse (John 1:3) is featured in the tape, “The Trinity: A Solution, Not a Problem,”&nbsp;and also in the article “The Deity of Christ: Case Closed.”&nbsp;The tape is available through Stand to Reason. Find the article for free on our web site at str.org in the back issues of <em>Solid Ground</em>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

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


title: Pockets of Agnosticism
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/11/1994
source: https://www.str.org/w/pockets-of-agnosticism
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I mentioned a little while ago that I was challenged by a thought made by a professor of mine, and the thought had to do with the notion of pockets of agnosticism in our lives. He simply made the observation that all Christians have pockets of agnosticism in their lives.</p>

<p>Now agnosticism simply is uncertainty, lack of knowledge. Technically speaking, an agnostic when expressing his world view says, “I don’t really know whether God exists or not. I don’t know what the structure of the world is. I am withholding judgment.”&nbsp;In a broader sense it is simply, in people’s lives, uncertainty about those things which are true. And the point that he was making is that all of us as Christians, and you can expand that to all of us as human beings, regardless of what it is that we happen to believe in, have pockets of agnosticism in our lives. We have times of uncertainty. We may have a conviction about a particular thing—about God’s existence or about His non-existence, for that matter, but we have times when we are pressed, and we get to reflecting, and we are just not quite sure.</p>

<p>First of all, I want to say I think if we are honest we would all acknowledge that that’s true. No matter what it is that we happen to believe in or disbelieve in, we’d all have to acknowledge that that’s true. That one has pockets of agnosticism is not necessarily a negative reflection on his belief, whatever it happens to be. This is not a reflection on any particular belief that there are problems with it, or uncertainties associated with it. This is a problem of knowledge in general. There is no system of belief that you will ever have that is going to answer all of the questions all of the time in a way that is coherent and satisfies all of your thinking. It seems that the nature of reality and the limitations of knowledge are such that there are going to be things that we’re just not certain about. And so in a sense, we have to place our bets with the best hand.</p>

<p>I have spoken in the past here on the air and there is also a talk that I do called “Hell, Yes, the Terrifying Truth”&nbsp;in which I talk about the reality of hell. To put it in a thumbnail fashion, my greatest fear is that maybe I am right about God’s judgment, and wrong about His mercy. In other words, maybe I’m one of those people who is going to go to hell and suffer eternity with God’s punishment. Now, I don’t think that I am, but occasionally this issue confronts me and I wake up in the middle of the night sometimes and I think about this. I think the nighttime is important because you are half asleep and you’ve got your normal defenses down and you are kind of more in touch with your core self. Then some things begin to pop up that you don’t always take the time to observe about your feelings or beliefs, although I am well aware of this particular one, that I could be wrong. I am aware that at some fundamental level, some deep level, that I have some agnosticism with regards to the issue of the truthfulness of Christianity.</p>

<p>Now, I don’t want you to hear that and get all worried. I am not going to bend in my faith and don’t get worried for me. Don’t get worried for yourself. Someone might get worried for themselves in this fashion: “Well, look, Koukl is the professional apologist. He’s the one that has studied this. He should be more certain than anyone else about the truthfulness of Christianity. And if he is uncertain then where does that leave the average Joe?”</p>

<p>Keep in mind what I’m asserting here. I’m asserting that every view, no matter how well you know something, has a level of uncertainty. I’m saying that’s okay because you don’t have to be perfectly certain in some things to justify a belief in that thing. As I mentioned earlier, you kind of go with the odds and the odds are greatly in our favor. This was part of what I detailed in the talk “You Bet Your Life”&nbsp;this morning when I confronted the issue of atheism vs. some form of theism.</p>

<p>There is a way to respond to this and I will tell you how I respond to it. What I don’t try to do is to conjure up some kind of feeling of confidence because it is precisely at these times that the feelings are lacking. And you’ve gone through those times as well, which points out, by the way, if your Christian faith is principally feeling, then you’re going to be victimized by those moments when the feelings aren’t there. When you don’t feel like God is with you, and He is not walking by your side, and you don’t have the peace that passes all understanding and you’re going to say where did God go? Not only that, even if you did have the feeling, I’m not sure that helps much because there are a lot of people who have good feelings about beliefs they have that are patently false. So, feelings have a place, but you must be careful in letting those feelings ground or act as the foundation to what you believe because when they do, sooner or later, they are going to fail you. You have to have more than that.</p>

<p>Here I am laying in the middle of the night wondering, and where do I go? Well, I go back to the basics, frankly. I start thinking about my basic truths for the existence of God. It’s my knowledge of the divine that makes the difference to me.</p>

<p>Now, this plays a very, very important part in my faith. Here’s the part that it plays: I mentioned before that we all have levels of agnosticism, even you, and I can prove that. If Jesus were standing right by your side, physically—robes, beard, sandals and all—and He could do for you everything that He could do for the apostles when He was there, if He was standing right next to you, do you think you would have more confidence? Do you think you would be more obedient? Would you share your faith more effectively or more aggressively? Would you pray with more fervor? I’m sure the answer to all those things is yes, which makes the point that without Jesus standing right next to you, you have less confidence, though you believe. Part of your faith statement is that Jesus is not only in fact right here with you, but He lives inside of you. The difference is the sense of conviction and deep belief. At some level we’re not really sure He’s inside of us or we would act as if He were beside us, is my point.</p>

<p>Here’s a very important point, and I will end on this. The point that it makes is that there is a direct relationship between our confidence in the evidence and our exercise of faith and consistency of our Christian life. Some people say, well, if I had more evidence that Christianity was true, that would work against my faith. That’s ludicrous because that would mean it would be a good thing if the bones of Jesus were found in a grave somewhere. That would prove rationally that Christianity was false and so then we could go believing it with tremendous spiritual faith because all the facts were against it. That, of course, is idiocy and no one, not even the apostle Paul or Jesus for that matter, would have accepted that notion of faith. The fact is, as we get more evidence to ground our faith and encourage us we can exercise a more effective and consistent faith, as I pointed out before, as if Jesus were right next to us. And that’s what strengthens me in those times when I face my own agnosticism.</p>
</div>

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


title: Obtaining a Better Resurrection
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/10/1994
source: https://www.str.org/w/obtaining-a-better-resurrection
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are times in the Old Testament when God does not rescue His righteous from destruction and He allows them to perish. The book of Hebrews Chapter 11 has an account of some of those times.</p>

<p>Why do some Christians suffer and other don’t. I guess I’d have to say that all Christians suffer as human beings and as Christians to some measure. But Christians suffer in different measures and so the question is: Why does God allow a different measurement of suffering and why does He allow one person to suffer much more than another person? I can’t answer this specific question because I don’t know what is in the mind of God regarding those issues. Why me and not them?</p>

<p>By the same token you can ask why do some people have it a lot better than others? Why do some people seem to get everything and have everything go their way and others seem to run into barricades all the time? That’s another one I can’t answer for the same reason, I don’t know God’s mind on this with regards to individuals.</p>

<p>But if you look at Hebrews Chapter 11 it talks about the nature of faith, which is trust and confidence in God’s capability to take things where He wants them to go; and the writer of Hebrews talks about different people that entrusted themselves to God, some of whom experienced miraculous deliverance. In fact, I think Daniel is mentioned here indirectly in verse 33 where it says that by faith some conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises and shut the mouths of lions—referring certainly here to Daniel. But then it goes on in verse 35, and I think this is a very, very important verse in Scripture. It’s the <em>et al</em>. Verse 35 says, “Women receive back their dead by resurrection and others [<em>et al</em>] were tortured, not accepting their release in order that they might obtain a better resurrection. And others experienced mocking and scourging and, yes, also chains. In imprisonment they were stoned, they were sawed in two, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword,”&nbsp;etc. and you can read the rest. It shows that faith works in both circumstances, and God is working in both circumstances to accomplish whatever His goals are. Some people get rescued others don’t, but God is involved in both and faith is involved in both.</p>

<p>Now we have a little hint here in verse 35 as to why that might be the case. It say, “Some were tortured not accepting their release in order that they might obtain a better resurrection.”&nbsp;Let’s talk about that for a quick moment. How is it that someone can obtain a better resurrection? Well, Paul tells Timothy that physical exercise profits little. To those of you who are working real hard to get your body in shape, Paul says, Well, you know, it’s all right. But godliness is a means of great gain, for it holds a promise not only for the present life but also for the life to come.</p>

<p>So it’s like you have two bodies, right? You have a spiritual body and you have a physical body. You can pump iron and get your physical body in shape and Paul says, Ho hum. But if you want to get your spiritual body in shape, whatever that means, he calls it “godliness that holds a promise for the life to come,”&nbsp;which would be the resurrection. so no here is what it looks like. One thing that I think is safe to infer from that verse, though we are not sure what is entailed in the life to come, is there does seem to be levels of growth and maturity in that life, and there are rewards, and some people get more than others. Jesus talks about different rewards for different people for different things that they have accomplished, and it seems by this comment here that there are also different levels of spiritual fitness in the life to come. That’s why Paul says godliness holds a promise not just for this age but also for the life to come.</p>

<p>My inference is that if you become spiritually fit in this life, that fitness carries over into the next life, and I suspect it carries over and accomplishes something in the next life that you will not be able to accomplish for yourself in the next life. I think this suggests—and I could be wrong on this—that when you are in the resurrection you can’t catch up to somebody else who developed spiritually more than you did in this life. This is why Paul is encouraging you to develop spiritually in this life.</p>

<p>What does this term “better resurrection”&nbsp;mean? Well, it seems from other passages that there is a suggestion that the quality of spirituality, the fitness of our souls, in the after life, in the resurrection, is somehow commiserate with the spiritual exercise that we do in this life. This is why Paul made the comment there to Timothy about physical exercise vs. spiritual exercise, which he calls godliness.</p>

<p>When it comes to this phrase “obtaining a better resurrection”&nbsp;I suspect what that means is that because they were allowed to suffer for their faith their spiritual selves were being built up and strengthened and increased, brought to a deeper or a richer maturity. Paul talks about this in other passages, as well, when he talks about his physical body as wearing down or being beaten up. But his spiritual man, his inner man, is being built up and is flourishing. So it looks like God gives opportunities through suffering to increase the flourishing of our spiritual selves.</p>

<p>This is, by the way, almost the universal testimony of Christians who have survived deep personal conflict and pain and suffering. They reflect on it and they know intuitively that what has been accomplished, as God has worked through them, is the deepening of their spiritual nature and an enrichment and maturing of their inner selves, their inner man, and they wouldn’t want to exchange that for anything, even if it meant that they wouldn’t have to go through the pain that they went through.</p>

<p>This allows us to look at our trials and tribulations not as a curse, but as a grace because God is giving us an opportunity to grow in the inner man in a way that will have eternal implications and consequences—a kind of growth that we wouldn’t have been able to have if He didn’t allow us to go through this, and a kind of growth we wouldn’t have been able to catch up with in the after life. It’s a one shot deal in these circumstances, and I suspect that this is why we are encouraged in the Scriptures to engage suffering, to embrace it and trust God and live godly through the process. Peter says in 1 Peter 4, “I believe that for those who suffer according to the will of God we are to entrust ourselves to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.”&nbsp;Maybe this is an answer to the question.</p>

<p>One of the reasons that some Christians go through more difficulty than others is God is allowing them an opportunity to do meaningful spiritual exercise in this life so as to build up their spiritual bodies, that they will be enriched in the life to come in a way that they couldn’t be enriched unless they had dealt with this in a godly manner in faith in this life.</p>
</div>

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


title: Take a Tip from Lt. Columbo
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/01/1999
source: https://www.str.org/w/take-a-tip-from-lt.-columbo-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Have you ever taken a verbal beating when trying to talk about Jesus? If so, I’ve got a tip for you. It’s the simplest tactic imaginable to help stop a challenger in his tracks, turn the tables, and put you back in the driver’s seat. And it can be done almost effortlessly. Here’s an example.</p>

<p>Once in a restaurant in Seattle, I got into a chat about religion with the waitress. My comments were all met with an approving nod until I said, “When it comes to religion, people believe a lot of very foolish things.”&nbsp;Then a shadow of disapproval crossed her face.</p>

<p>“That’s an oppressive view, not letting people believe what they want to believe.”</p>

<p>Now, much can be said about this simple remark. For example, did you notice how just challenging a view was seen as a threat to personal liberty, a “forcing”&nbsp;of my beliefs on others? I ignored that problem, though, and zeroed in on a more fundamental flaw. I asked a simple question.</p>

<p>“So you’re saying I’m wrong then?”</p>

<p>She balked. “No...uh, I’m...uh...I’m just trying to understand your view.”</p>

<p>I chuckled. “Be honest; admit it. You think I’m wrong, oppressive. If I’m not wrong, then why are you correcting me?”</p>

<p>It was clear that even she believed some people were wrong (me, in this case). Like many who espouse this confused sense of tolerance, though, the waitress couldn’t play by her own rules. I tried to clarify.</p>

<p>“Listen, either Jesus is the Messiah or He isn’t, right?”&nbsp;I asked. She nodded agreement. So far, so good. “If He isn’t the Messiah, then the Christians are wrong. If He is the Messiah, then the Jews are wrong. So one way or another somebody’s right and somebody’s wrong. Right? Everyone can’t be right at the same time, can they?”</p>

<p>It was a simple question that gently boxed her in. Her only response: “All religions are basically the same, after all.”&nbsp;This comment was a direct contradiction to what she had just agreed to. I suspect it was a stock retort.</p>

<p>In response, I asked another question, “Oh? In what way?”</p>

<p>Those four words had a remarkable effect on her. Her jaw fell slack and her face went blank. She didn’t know what to say. She had obviously never looked closely at other religions. If she had, she’d have known they were worlds apart. Why did she say all religions were the same, then? I suspect she’d gotten away with it many times before.</p>

<p>After stumbling around a bit, she offered up a diversion: “Well, no one can ever know the truth about religion.”</p>

<p>This is another assertion that should never go unchallenged, so I calmly asked, “Why would you believe a thing like that?”</p>

<p>The turn-about caught her by surprise. The waitress was used to asking this question, not answering it. I was violating the rules and she wasn’t prepared for the change in roles. I waited patiently, not breaking the silence, not letting her off the hook.</p>

<p>Finally she ventured an odd response, considering my question. “The Bible’s been changed and re-translated so many times over the centuries.”</p>

<p>This was another dodge, having nothing to do with the issue. Even if the Bible vanished from the face of the earth, some knowledge of God would still be possible, in principle.</p>

<p>But I chose a different tack. “Oh? Have you actually studied the transmission of the text the Bible?”</p>

<p>Once again, the question stalled her for a moment. “No, I’ve never studied it.”&nbsp;It was a remarkable admission, given her confident assertion just moments before, but she didn’t seem the least bit bothered.</p>

<p>I didn’t have the heart to say what I might have in a case like this: “Then what you’re saying is you’re sure about something you really know nothing about.”&nbsp;Instead, I simply said I’d studied Bible transmission extensively, assured her that the academic results were in, and the biblical manuscripts had not been corrupted over time...</p>

<p>One by one her options evaporated and she began to get uncomfortable. “I feel like you’re backing me into a corner,”&nbsp;she complained.</p>

<p>I wasn’t trying to bully her intellectually, but rather challenge her politely with fair questions. She was beginning to feel trapped because that’s what careful questioning does: It boxes you in by eliminating foolish options.</p>

<h2>A Tip from Lt. Columbo</h2>

<p>This was the tactic of Lieutenant Columbo, the bumbling and seemingly inept TV detective whose remarkable success was based on an innocent query: “Do you mind if I ask you a question?”</p>

<p>The key to this tactic is to go on the offensive by dismantling another person’s viewpoint with carefully selected questions. The tactic can be played out Columbo style—halting, head-scratching, and apparently harmless—or pursued more aggressively, like a lawyer in a courtroom.</p>

<p>“Columbo”&nbsp;is most powerful if you have a plan of attack. Generally when I ask a question I have a goal in mind. I’m alerted to some weakness, flaw, or contradiction in another’s view that I want to expose in a disarming way.</p>

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

<h2>Burden of Proof</h2>

<p>Christians should get out of the habit of trying to refute every fantasy a nonbeliever imagines or every claim he manufactures out of thin air. Don’t take up the defense when the other person is the one making the claim. Why let him off so easily?</p>

<p>For example, I was on a popular secular talk radio program in Los Angeles making a case for intelligent design over evolution. When a caller used the Big Bang theory to argue against a Creator, I said the Big Bang worked in my favor. It seems to me, any Big Bang needs a Big “Banger.”</p>

<p>The caller disagreed. The Big Bang doesn’t need God, he claimed. Then leading off with the phrase “One could say...,”&nbsp;he spun a lengthy science fiction tale for the audience on how everything came from nothing.</p>

<p>“You’re right,”&nbsp;I responded. “’One could say’&nbsp;anything he wants. But giving good reasons why we should believe the story you just told is another thing altogether.”&nbsp;It wasn’t my job to disprove his fairy tale. It was his job to demonstrate why anyone should take his musings seriously.</p>

<p>The waitress in Seattle is another good example. Each time she offered a foolish religious challenge of her own, I asked a simple question. She was speechless not because I was clever, but because, I suspect, she’d never before been challenged to defend her own claims.</p>

<p>Remember, the one making the claim shoulders the burden of proof. For far too long we’ve let non-Christians contrive fanciful challenges, then sit back and watch us squirm. If they tell the story, it’s their job to defend it. It’s not our job to refute it.</p>

<h2>Three Key Questions</h2>

<p>Sometimes I design questions to trap a person in his own bad thinking. Other times I’m after more information so I can know how to proceed further, so my questions are more open-ended.</p>

<p>The most effective question you can ask in most circumstances is some variation of “How do you know?”&nbsp;or “Why should I believe what you believe?”&nbsp;Kevin Bywater of Summit Ministries has offered a three-step formulation of this approach that can tame the most belligerent critic.</p>

<p>The first is a clarification question: “What do you mean by that?”&nbsp;It’s delivered in a mild, genuinely inquisitive fashion.</p>

<p>This question accomplishes a couple of things. First, it immediately engages the non-believer (or the believer, if the difference of opinion is an in-house, theological point) in an interactive way. Second, it’s flattering because you’ve expressed a genuine interest in knowing more about the other��s view. Third, it forces him to think more carefully—maybe for the first time—about exactly what he does mean. Fourth, it gives you valuable information, so be sure to pay attention to the response.</p>

<p>Here’s the second question: “Now, how did you come to that conclusion?”&nbsp;This is a gentler variation of “Where did you get your facts?”&nbsp;Though it’s similar in content, it has a nicer tone, graciously assuming the non-Christian has actually thought through the issue carefully instead of just making an assertion.</p>

<p>The additional information he gives you puts you in a better position to assess his view. You now know <em>what</em> he thinks, but you also know <em>how</em> he thinks. In addition, he’s also tipped you off about the <em>way</em> he reasons, giving you valuable information on how to proceed if you choose to.</p>

<p>I say, “If you choose to...”&nbsp;because you may not want to move forward just then, nor are you obliged to. You don’t always have to hit a home run. Sometimes just getting on base will do, and the first two questions accomplish that.</p>

<p>If you want to proceed, your third question suggests an alternative. Ask, “Have you ever considered...,”&nbsp;and then finish the sentence in a way appropriate to the issue. Offer an alternative view that gently challenges his beliefs, possibly exploiting a point of weakness you uncovered in the answers to your first two questions.</p>

<p>Of course, this last step requires you to have an option you can explain clearly that gives him reason to abandon his view for a better answer.</p>

<p>Reflect for a moment on the tone of these three questions. They are very probing, but still quite amicable. They also employ the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”&nbsp;You don’t have to worry about “turnabout”&nbsp;with these questions, because you wouldn’t mind (I hope) having that person ask them of you.</p>

<h2>The Professor’s Ploy</h2>

<p>The Columbo tactic is a good one to use in the classroom. Some professors are fond of taking pot shots at Christianity with remarks like “The Bible is just a bunch of fables.”&nbsp;Well-meaning believers sometimes take up the challenge and duel with the professor. This rarely works. The Christian can’t win this power struggle. The “man with the microphone”&nbsp;always has a massive advantage.</p>

<p>There’s a better way. Instead, simply ask, “Professor, how did you come to your conclusion?”&nbsp;(our second question). Make him shoulder the burden of proof. After all, he’s the teacher. The question offers an adequate challenge, but deftly sidesteps the power struggle.</p>

<p>At this point professors have a ploy. Sensing your offensive they ask, “Oh, you must think the Bible is inspired by God. Why don’t you prove that to the rest of the class, then?”&nbsp;In one quick move they cleverly switched the burden of proof back on you.</p>

<p>Don’t take the bait. Falling into this trap is fatal. Instead, shift the burden back on the professor where it belongs. After all, he made the claim.</p>

<p>Respond this way. “Frankly, Professor, it doesn’t matter what I believe. My views aren’t the issue; yours are. I’m the student, not the teacher. I’m here to learn, and you’ve just made a claim. I simply want to know your reasons, if you have any. That’s all.”</p>

<p>You might be tempted to add, “Or should I just take your belief on blind faith?”&nbsp;Don’t. It’s a fair rejoinder, but then you’d be back in the power struggle again.</p>

<p>Don’t miss this point: The Christian doesn’t have to be the expert in everything. If we keep the burden on the other side when they’re making the claim, we don’t have to know it all. In fact, we can be effective knowing very little if we ask the right questions. After all, everyone in the discussion has a point of view. There’s no reason to let the other side have a free ride.</p>

<p>When someone says to you, “The Bible’s been changed so many times,”&nbsp;or “No one can know the truth about religion,”&nbsp;or “All religions are basically the same,”&nbsp;don’t retreat in silence. Instead, simply raise your eyebrows and say, “Oh? What do you mean by that?”&nbsp;and, “How did you come to that conclusion?”</p>

<p>You’ll be pleasantly surprised to find out that most critics, when asked some very basic questions, aren’t prepared to defend <em>their</em> faith. As with the emperor and his new clothes, all it takes is one person to calmly say, “You’re naked,”&nbsp;and the game is 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%2Ftake-a-tip-from-lt.-columbo-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftake-a-tip-from-lt.-columbo-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftake-a-tip-from-lt.-columbo-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Settle for Merely Reading a Book When You Can Master It?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/1998
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-settle-for-merely-reading-a-book-when-you-can-master-it-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>How to Read Less More, and Twice as Fast</em></p>

<p>If you’re like me, you really want to read more effectively, but you don’t know how and can’t find the time. Solomon wrote, “The writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> I agree. The stacks of unopened volumes in my own library weary me just looking at them.</p>

<p>To make matters worse, even the good books we read teach us nothing. We forget the details almost immediately because our goal is to finish the book, not master the material.</p>

<p>I have a plan to change that. I want to show you how you can read less, more. It’s based on one simple idea: It’s better to thoroughly read one or two good books than “finish”&nbsp;ten or twenty by reading them cover to cover and then moving on.</p>

<p>The idea raises two practical problems. First, how do we know if a book is worth investing time in? Second, what techniques will allow us to read thoroughly, yet quickly, leading to mastery?</p>

<h2>Four Pages a Day</h2>

<p>Don’t think you’ve got to read 50, 25, or even 10 books a year to stay educated, informed, and equipped. Instead, I want you to think about carefully reading just six books during the next twelve months.</p>

<p>For some of you the idea may seem overwhelming. It isn’t. It’s 60 days per book, or four pages per day for a 200 page title. Even a person who reads very casually can accomplish this, especially using the tricks I’ll show you.</p>

<p>I want you to consider devoting two months to one book. The object is not simply to read from beginning to end, though. The goal is to master the contents. I’m going to show you how to read a book in such a way that at the end of two months you can say, “I own this book.”</p>

<p>For that you need a system. Don’t start from the beginning and read through word by word to the end. That’s a mistake. The key is to read through the book more than once at different levels. I’m going to show you how. Follow these four steps for non-fiction books: overview, preview, read, and postview.</p>

<h2>Overview the Book</h2>

<p>Every book does not deserve a good reading. The initial overview allows you to determine whether a title deserves your attention by giving you a sense of the main thrust of the book in five to twenty minutes.</p>

<p>Start by reading the jacket cover. Read the table of contents. Skim the book’s preface and the introduction. Read the conclusion in the last three pages of the book. Browse through the index in the back. Note the publisher and the date of publication.</p>

<p>If you don’t like what you see, abandon the effort and look for a better book. You’ve only lost five minutes and saved hours of fruitless reading.</p>

<p>If the treatment looks promising, though, page through the entire book at the rate of 2-3 seconds per page. Don’t try to “speed read.”&nbsp;This first step is a casual one. Let your eyes stroll over the material as your gaze falls on the text and enjoy the process of serendipitous discovery.</p>

<p>The overview takes less than twenty minutes in the extended form and can be done while you’re browsing in the bookstore. If you like what you see, buy the book to read more thoroughly later.</p>

<p>The overview is always the first step of thorough reading, even if you already own the book and have decided to read it (or it’s been assigned to you for a class).</p>

<h2>Preview the Book</h2>

<p>Go through the book a second time. Sit down and read it at a slower rate, but still not word for word. I suggest you skim at the rate of four to ten seconds per page. Force yourself to move quickly.</p>

<p>Obviously, you’re not reading all the words. You’re skimming. I read the headings and the first sentence of each paragraph. Get a feel for the author’s main case and his progression of thought.</p>

<p>This is more aggressive reading than you did in the overview, but still casual. Don’t linger, though. Force yourself to push ahead, turning the page every four to ten seconds. Break the book in as you go, gently creasing each page as you move forward. You’ll be amazed at how much you’ll absorb during this quick preview phase.</p>

<p>When you’re done, write a summary sentence or two on the title page capturing the main thrust of the book. Answer the question, “What is this book about?”&nbsp;“What is the book trying to accomplish?” Use pencil because you may want to change the summary after you’ve read the book more thoroughly.</p>

<p>The second step of our approach will take 20 to 40 minutes at four to ten seconds per page, depending on the book. You’ll have gone through the whole book twice—overviewing and previewing—in about an hour, with a summary statement capturing the central idea of the book.</p>

<p>This “layering”&nbsp;method embeds the book’s basic ideas in your mind in a way that won’t happen if you simply start at the first page and read through to the end. The first layer—the overview—gives you a general sense of the material and allows you to decide whether the book is worth reading or not. The preview clarifies the basic content and organization of the book, and gives you the author’s approach and main argument.</p>

<h2>Read the Book</h2>

<p>Now it’s time to actually read the book. This can be done in multiple sessions, one chapter at a sitting.</p>

<p>Start by quickly previewing the chapter once again, 4-10 seconds per page. This is very important. It reacquaints you with the material, but takes only minutes. Then read the text word for word, as quickly as possible.</p>

<p>Don’t linger and don’t regress (don’t reread what you’ve just been over). Don’t stop to underline, either. It slows you down. Instead, use a pencil and make a vertical line in the margin to mark those things worthy of note. You’ll come back to those places later. You don’t want to lag here, even though you’re reading carefully.</p>

<p>Complete this phase by writing, in pencil, a summary sentence or two in the big white space above the title at the beginning of each chapter. Try to capture the main point of the section. Use pencil because you may want to make changes when you postview the chapter.</p>

<h2>Postview the Chapter Immediately</h2>

<p>Go back over the chapter focusing on the marks you made in the margin. Review the material, interacting with the author’s ideas and making further notations. At the end of each chapter or in the flyleaf sketch a quick outline or recall pattern. Look at the summary you placed at the beginning of the chapter and see if it’s accurate and precise. Refine it if you need to.</p>

<p>Go through each chapter in the same way. Preview it, skimming quickly, then read it carefully but at a good clip, making your notations during the postview. If you take a break and resume your reading a day or more later, review your summaries at the beginning of the book and each preceding chapter before you pick up where you left off. This will only take a few short minutes, but will set the stage for your next session.</p>

<p>This is aggressive reading. When you’re done you’ll have gone through the book at least four times in a fairly short period of time working from the whole to the parts to the whole again. You’ll have brief chapter summaries and an outline—handy tools for quick review in the future—and a solid grasp of the material.</p>

<p>In the future when you simply skim through the book again, all the information will come back to you. You’ll be able to clearly state who the author is, his main point, the structure (development) of his thought, if his views are correct (why or why not) and what difference it makes. You’ll have mastered the book, not just read it.</p>

<h2>Double Your Reading Speed Instantly</h2>

<p>Let me give you an additional tip that will double your reading speed in one step. Use your finger as a pointer and move it along underneath the sentences at the fastest comfortable speed you can read. You can read above your finger, ahead of it, or behind it, whichever is most comfortable for you.</p>

<p>This forces you to read more aggressively, with more concentration. Don’t be afraid to push yourself a little bit. Go as fast as you can and still grasp the material. Don’t stop, pause, or reread portions of what you’ve just covered (regressing). Keep up with your moving finger, just like following the bouncing ball.</p>

<p>Again, this is not “speed reading,”&nbsp;taking in a whole page at a glance. You’re still reading every word just as you normally would, but you’re using your finger as a pacer , increasing your speed and keeping your eyes from drifting.</p>

<p>You’ll be surprised how dramatically your reading speed will increase. If you’re reading 150 words a minute (a relatively slow rate) you can jump to 300 words per minute simply by consistently using your finger as a speed guide. Just move it underneath the words and follow along. Your comprehension and retention will improve too, even though you���re moving faster.</p>

<h2>Finding the Time</h2>

<p>Anyone is fully capable of mastering six books a year, but it won’t happen by itself. It takes a plan (which I’ve just given you) and the will to apply a modest amount of time to your goal. Thirty minutes three or four times a week is all you need.</p>

<p>First, turn off the TV. The average person watches two to three hours of TV a day. Most of you can read 50 books a year in that time. Devote some of your TV time to reading. Skip the nightly news. It’s the worst possible source of information and almost always puts people in a bad mood. Instead, use that half hour to read. You’ll be amazed at how much you���ll get done and how civilized you’ll feel as a result.</p>

<p>Here are some other ways to redeem pockets of useful time for reading. Try getting up half an hour earlier in the morning. Go into the family room before the household is up and read. Or redeem the time you spend sitting in the bathroom. Just ten minutes a day will get even slow readers 150 pages a month. That’s six books a year. I also keep a book with me in the car so I can read while waiting for an appointment or stuck in line.</p>

<p>Think for a moment what six books you would like to have mastered a year from now. You can do it. Choose your titles carefully, then apply the plan. This may be one of the most rewarding habits you’ll ever develop. I hope you start today.</p>

<h2>Overview</h2>

<p>Get a sense of the book in 5-10 minutes.</p>

<p>Read jacket copy, contents, skim preface &amp; introduction, read conclusion (last 3 pages) and skim the index. Note publisher and date of publication.</p>

<p>Quickly page through the entire book at the rate of 2-3 seconds per page.</p>

<p>Determine if you want to read the book more thoroughly, give it away, or file it for future reference.</p>

<h2>Preview</h2>

<p>Skim entire book at a slower rate (4-10 seconds per page), breaking the book in as you go.</p>

<p>Look for structure, outline, key facts and concepts.</p>

<p>Write a quick summary for the book in pencil on title page.</p>

<h2>Read</h2>

<p>Preview each chapter again before you read it to get the structure (4-10 seconds per page).</p>

<p>Read every word at fastest comfortable speed using a pointer so you won’t wander, hesitate, regress, or lose your place. Mark the margin, but don’t underline the text.</p>

<p>Write a 1-4 sentence summary in pencil at the beginning of the chapter.</p>

<p>Sketch a quick outline or recall pattern.</p>

<h2>Postview Immediately</h2>

<p>Re-read the chapter quickly, focusing on marked sections, interacting with the text.</p>

<p>Refine your 1-4 sentence summary at the beginning of the chapter.</p>

<p>Review at regular intervals, looking over recall patterns and summary material.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Eccl. 12:12. <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%2Fwhy-settle-for-merely-reading-a-book-when-you-can-master-it-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-settle-for-merely-reading-a-book-when-you-can-master-it-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-settle-for-merely-reading-a-book-when-you-can-master-it-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Christians Are Getting Upset about Cloning for the Wrong Reasons
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/1997
source: https://www.str.org/w/christians-are-getting-upset-about-cloning-for-the-wrong-reasons
content:
            <div> 
		<div>
<p>In the movie, “The Boys from Brazil,”&nbsp;it was used to try to recreate Hitler. In “Jurassic Park,”&nbsp;it was employed to bring back an entire prehistoric era to life. In “Multiplicity,”&nbsp;Michael Keaton used it to try get twice as much work done and still have time to play golf.</p>

<p>This past year, the stuff of movies and science-fiction became reality. A sheep named Dolly was born that was an exact physical replica of a previously existing adult. Dolly has no father. She is the result of a “virgin”&nbsp;birth, a miracle of technology. Dolly is a clone.</p>

<p>Because the technology that produced Dolly could be theoretically applied to humans, the response from the public was immediate. A recent poll showed that 93% of Americans think that cloning humans is a bad idea, and 66% felt it was even a bad idea to clone animals. More than 50% said they wouldn’t even eat an animal that was a clone.</p>

<p>Martin Marty of the University of Chicago said, “Guarding what is left of human distinctiveness has to be at issue here.”&nbsp;Nigel Cameron, head of the Center for Bio-Ethics and Human Dignity at Trinity International University, said, “Part of our notion of human dignity is that we are different. Cloning of humans diminishes the dignity in all of us.”</p>

<p>A letter to the editor of the <em>LA Times</em> read, “It’s my body, my choice, right? But what if I want my body cloned and warehoused for spare parts? Upon what basis can government decide what I can or cannot do with my body? Will this be the same basis upon which abortion is legal? After all, my clone would be more of my personal body than a fetus is to its mother.”</p>

<p>Even President Clinton weighed in with an opinion. “Each human life is unique,”&nbsp;he said, “born of a miracle that reaches beyond laboratory science...I believe we must respect this profound gift and resist the temptation to replicate ourselves.”</p>

<h2>What Is Cloning?</h2>

<p>Cloning can mean a couple of different things. In 1993, Dr. Jerry Hall and Dr. Robert Stillman, infertility researchers at George Washington University, successfully split a human zygote into two separate zygotes with the same genetic makeup, essentially the same process that occurs naturally with identical twins. They had created a clone, a second individual with the exact genetic blueprint of the first. Hall and Stillman didn’t have the technology to allow their “twins”&nbsp;to survive full term. The birth of Dolly, though, changed all that.</p>

<p>Dolly, the cloned lamb, was a very unique kind of twin. Her genetic double was an adult born years earlier. A team headed by Dr. Ian Wilmut, an embryologist at the Rosland Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland, evacuated the genetic material from the ovum of a sheep. When the nucleus from a cell of an adult sheep was electrically fused to the egg, it developed normally into a fetus, and eventually into a lamb.</p>

<p>What is remarkable about Dolly is that this is the first time an animal has been cloned from an adult. It is also the first mammal that has no biological father. Dolly is a time-delayed twin.</p>

<p>Virtually all of the confusion about the morality of cloning can be clarified once we answer two very basic questions, one factual and one ethical. First, what manner of being does cloning produce? Is it human? Would it have a soul? Second, what are our moral obligations to a clone? Can we use clones to create a race of slaves or as a living warehouse of human parts?</p>

<h2>What Does Cloning Produce?</h2>

<p>Think of a clone as a twin. In 1993, Hall and Stillman did not create anything unusual. They artificially replicated the same process that happens all the time in nature: identical twinning. The process that produced Dolly was more complex, but the end result was the same.</p>

<p>Clones are no more exact copies than any two identical twins are. Twins are different persons with distinct bodies and souls and personalities. The only thing they share is the blueprint by which their physical bodies were built.</p>

<p>This is important. There seems to be a lot of confusion on this point. Cloning does not reproduce one’s self, but only an identical twin of one’s body. If you took one of your cells and cloned it, the result wouldn’t be another one of you, but rather a twin brother or sister. Identical twins have separate and distinct bodies. They also have distinct souls.</p>

<p>All creatures that normally possess souls would still have souls even when cloned. Sensations, thoughts, purposings, beliefs, and desires are all functions of a soul. A moment’s reflection will show that material objects are not the kinds of things that possess features like thoughts or intentions. My table has no desires. My computer has no beliefs.</p>

<p>If only souls have these qualities, then any creature that has sensations, thoughts, etc., must be ensouled, including animals. The historical view of the church has been that all sentient creatures have souls. Animals have a different kind of soul than we do—they’re not made in God’s image, nor do they seem to be able to survive the death of their bodies—but they have souls. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be alive.</p>

<p>Any time an additional human being is reproduced, regardless of the method, the result is a human being. It’s not a faux human being, a physical facade with nothing inside. A human clone would be a bona fide human being, and all humans have souls that bear God’s image.</p>

<p>Cloning is nothing more than another form of reproduction—asexual reproduction, similar to what happens whenever identical twins are conceived. A human being comes into being by a certain biological process. This process proceeds naturally forward through bisexual reproduction: intercourse and impregnation. The same biological result, though, can be accomplished through different mechanics—in vitro fertilization, implantation, for example, or cloning.</p>

<p>Whatever manipulations of technology are used to create a genuine human being, humans are still humans. Human genetic material fertilizing a human egg produces a human being. And all human beings have souls. This leads us to our second question, the one concerning our moral obligations.</p>

<h2>What Makes Us Distinct and Valuable?</h2>

<p>Having determined what a human clone is—a human being made in the image of God—the ethical questions become much easier to resolve. What seems to be at issue here for many is the question of human distinctiveness. Human beings are unique in some way, and that uniqueness gives them value. In what way are humans special?</p>

<p>If one is a physicalist and believes that the only things real are physical things, then reproducing an exact physical copy destroys the one claim to uniqueness anyone has: his body. If there were ten Mona Lisas instead of one, the one that hangs in the Louvre wouldn’t be priceless.</p>

<p>Christians are not physicalists, though. This is a very important point, striking at the heart of the biblical world view. The concern about the loss of human distinctiveness through cloning is evidence of a culture—and a church—that is profoundly influenced by physicalism.</p>

<p>What makes a human distinct, unique, and valuable has nothing to do with his physical body—neither its shape, its state of health, nor the manner in which it enters the world. It doesn’t matter how this “tent”&nbsp;is stitched together (to use the Apostle Paul’s metaphor), whether it is big or small, whether it is perfect or imperfect, or whether it was assembled by hand or by machine. Our nature—one made in the image of God—makes us different, not our bodies.</p>

<p>With that idea clearly in focus, the moral questions are much easier to sort out. Since all human beings bear God’s image, there is no moral difference between a child conceived the regular way and a child conceived through cloning. Since human cloning produces an identical twin, then our treatment of human clones must be guided by the same morality that applies to any other twin.</p>

<p>But won’t cloning make it possible to create a race of human slaves? That can be accomplished already without cloning technology. It’s called parenthood. Why can’t Mom and Dad use their children for slaves? The answer has nothing to do with how the children were conceived, but everything to do with what kind of beings they are. If children born through normal fertilization can’t be used for slaves or farmed for their body parts, then clones can’t be used for that purpose either.</p>

<p>If our laws and sense of moral obligation protect any human being from such abuse, then they are sufficient to protect human clones from such abuse. This, though, is both the solution and the problem.</p>

<h2>The Real Dangers of Cloning</h2>

<p>Melinda Penner has observed that God gave us both the ability to use technology and the moral rules to guide our progress. Our problem is that most of those who subdue God’s world are not submitted to God’s rules.</p>

<p>The threat of the “brave new world”&nbsp;is not technology—it isn’t cloning. The threat is in losing sight of what makes a human valuable. We crossed that bridge a long time ago. We entered the brave new world when we began to talk and live as if there is a human life that is not worthy of the respect and care it inherently deserves. This makes cloning dangerous for two reasons.</p>

<p>The first danger is that clones might be treated as less than human. The appropriate environment for a child is a family. Because of the unique origin of a child that is a clone, it will be tempting to claim she is truly a parentless child created by—and owned by—the scientist who simply assembled her biological parts.</p>

<p>To treat a human being merely as property is deeply immoral. A clone, then, must be a member of a family who cares for her and protects her just as they would any other child.</p>

<p>The second danger is that many human beings will be destroyed in the trial and error period required to perfect the process. The 48 embryos that Hall and Stillman eventually produced all perished. The Rosland Institute needed 400 implants to make Dolly. I have argued at length in other places that the unborn is a human person from the moment of conception. As soon as the unborn human comes into being, she is fully human in all relevant ways. This means that when any embryo perishes, a valuable human being has died.</p>

<p>Cloning experiments using embryos destined to perish are morally unacceptable. On one ethical level, they are no different than doing the same experiments on any other human person. This is the same factor that makes some forms of in vitro fertilization unethical.</p>

<p>I am not against cloning per se. It seems to me that the ethical question pertains not to the mechanics of making a baby, but to the way the baby will be treated during her life, from the moment of her conception through adulthood.</p>

<p>Whatever moral obligations apply to a child born the regular way, those same obligations—the rights, responsibilities, privileges, and values—also applies to any child conceived through reproductive technology, including cloning.</p>

<p>No person made in the image of God is illegitimate. All humans have value, regardless of how they came into the world, because each bears the imprint of God.</p>
</div>
</div>

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


title: Faith & Wishing
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2000
source: https://www.str.org/w/faith-wishing-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If you “ju<em>st take Christianity on faith” you may be in trouble...</em></p>

<p><em>Taking Ch</em>ristianity “on faith” may mean trouble...</p>

<p>I don’t like the word “faith.”</p>

<p>It’s not that faith isn’t valuable. True biblical faith is essential for salvation. But faith is often deeply misunderstood in a way that hurts Christianity and harms Christians.</p>

<p>Some think that having a level of certainty about the truth of Christianity makes “belief” unnecessary or irrelevant. That kind of knowledge undermines genuine faith and offends God.</p>

<p>The reasoning goes something like this. We all know God wants us to have faith. In fact, without faith, it’s impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6). However, gathering evidence for God and Christianity leaves little room for faith. After all, how can one have faith in something he knows is true? Faith, then, is opposed to knowledge. Therefore, apologetics undermines the faith project and thus displeases the Lord.</p>

<p>On this view, faith is believing the unbelievable, clinging to your convictions when all the evidence is against you. Faith is a “leap,” a blind, desperate lunge in the darkness. When doubts or troubles beset us we’re told to “just have faith,” as if we could squeeze out spiritual hope by intense acts of sheer will.</p>

<p>This view of faith reduces Christian conviction to religious wishful thinking. We can hope, but we can never know.</p>

<p>But this will never work. Someone once said, “The heart cannot believe that which the mind rejects.” If you are not confident the message of Scripture is actually true, you can’t believe it even if you tried.</p>

<p>The “I just take Christianity on faith” attitude can’t be the right approach. It leaves the Bible without defense, yet Peter directs us to <em>make</em> a defense for the hope that is in us.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Also, the biblical word for faith, <em>pistis</em>, doesn’t mean wishing. It means active trust. And trust cannot be conjured up or manufactured. It must be earned. You can’t exercise the kind of faith the Bible has in mind unless you’re reasonably sure that some particular things are true.</p>

<p>In fact, I suggest you completely ban the phrase “leap of faith” from your vocabulary. Biblical faith is based on knowledge, not wishing or blind leaps. Knowledge builds confidence and confidence leads to trust. The kind of faith God is interested in is not wishing. It’s trust based on knowing, a sure confidence grounded in evidence.</p>

<p>The following biblical examples suffice to make my point:</p>

<h2>Blood, Boils, Frogs and Flies</h2>

<p>Israel’s exodus from Egypt was depicted in a clever animated film called “The Prince of Egypt.” After seeing the movie, my wife and I spent time reading the original account in the Hebrew Scriptures.</p>

<p>Though I’d read this passage a number of times, something jumped out at me I hadn’t seen before, a phrase God kept repeating over and over.</p>

<p>Reading the encounter with God at the burning bush, we sense Moses’ reluctance to be God’s deliverer. And it’s understandable. Why would Pharaoh, the most powerful leader in the world, submit to a renegade? Why would two million Hebrew slaves follow a murderer and a defector?</p>

<p>“What if they won’t believe me, or listen to me?” Moses demurred. “What if they say, ’The Lord hasn’t appeared to you’?”</p>

<p>What God didn’t say in response is as important as what He did say. He didn’t say, “Tell Pharaoh he’s just going to have to trust you on this one. Tell the Hebrews they’ve got to have faith.”</p>

<p>Instead God asked, “What’s that in your hand?”</p>

<p>“A staff,” Moses answered.</p>

<p>“Throw it on the ground.”</p>

<p>So he threw it down, and it became a serpent.</p>

<p>“Stretch out your hand,” the Lord said. “Grab it by the tail.”</p>

<p>Reluctantly, Moses did as he was told. When he grabbed the snake, it became a staff again.</p>

<p>“Do this,” God said, “and then they’ll believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, has appeared to you.”</p>

<p>More signs followed that got the people’s attention: the river of blood and frogs covering the land; the gnats, flies, and locusts; the boils and the pestilence; the hail, the darkness, and finally the angel of death. All for one purpose: “<em>That they might know</em> there is a God in Israel.” This phrase is repeated no less than ten times throughout the account.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>What was the result? “And when Israel <em>saw</em> the great power which the Lord had used against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord, and they <em>believed</em> in the Lord and in His servant Moses” (Exodus 14:31).</p>

<p>Note the pattern: a powerful <em>evidence</em> (miracles, in this case), giving the people <em>knowledge</em> of God, in Whom they then placed their <em>faith</em>. Knowledge -some level of certainty—went before belief in each of these cases.</p>

<p>God didn’t ask Pharaoh, the Hebrews, or even Moses for mindless faith, blind leaps, or wishful thinking. He demonstrated His power, giving them good reason to believe, resulting in obedience. First, Pharaoh and the Hebrews were given good reason to <em>know</em>. This then grounded their investment of <em>faith</em> (active trust) in God.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>In the animated feature, Miriam sings a song of deliverance which includes the refrain, “There can be miracles when you believe.” But the reality was just the opposite. Miracles didn’t <em>follow</em> belief; they <em>preceded</em> it. Acts of power led to knowledge, which then allowed faith to flourish.</p>

<h2>Taking the Easy Way Out?</h2>

<p>Fast forward to the New Testament and you’ll find the same pattern in the life of Christ.</p>

<p>In Mark 2, we encounter Jesus speaking to a group gathered in a home in Capernaum. A crowd blocks the front door, keeping a paralytic—being carried by his four friends—from gaining an audience with the Healer. The only way in is from above, so they dig through the earthen roof and lower the deformed man down on a pallet.</p>

<p>Jesus is impressed. Seeing their faith He says to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”</p>

<p>His words offend the scribes, though, who grumble among themselves at such an audacious claim. ��Who can forgive sins but God lone?” they whisper.</p>

<p>Jesus, aware of their complaint, puts a question to them. “Which is easier to say to the paralytic, ’Your sins are forgiven’; or, ’Arise, take up your pallet and walk’?”</p>

<p>How would you respond? If you were in Jesus’ position, would it be easier for you to claim to forgive sins or claim to heal paralysis? The correct answer is it’s always easier to boast about something no one can check up on than to claim to have supernatural powers and be put to the test.</p>

<p>Jesus knew it looked like He was taking the easy way out, until His next remark: “But in order that you may <em>know</em> that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He then turned to the paralytic—“I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.” Then, in the sight of everyone, the paralytic got up and got out.</p>

<p>Jesus gives us the same lesson we find in Exodus. He proves something that can’t be seen—the forgiveness of sins—with evidence that can be seen—a dramatic healing. Jesus heals “in order that you may know.” Once again, the concrete <em>evidence</em> allows the doubters to <em>know</em> the truth so they can then <em>trust</em> in the forgiveness Christ could give.</p>

<h2>The Apostle Peter</h2>

<p>On to the book of Acts and Peter’s dramatic sermon on Pentecost. The crowd is both amazed and bewildered at the manifestations of the Spirit they see with their own eyes.</p>

<p>Peter takes his stand before the throng. It isn’t intoxication they witness, he tells them, but inspiration, prophecy being fulfilled in their midst by the hand of God. He recounts that Jesus—even though attested to by miracles, signs, and wonders—had been murdered at the hands of godless men. Death couldn’t hold Him in the grave, though. He has risen. Not only did King David himself foretell such a thing; Peter and the rest of the disciples had witnessed the risen Christ themselves. The promise of the Father, the Holy Spirit, was now being poured out in a way that Peter’s entire audience could see and hear.</p>

<p>He closes with a statement tailor-made for all those who think that certainty somehow diminishes genuine faith: “Therefore let all the house of Israel <em>know for certain</em> that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>When the crowd hears the evidence—the miracles, the fulfilled prophecy, the witnesses of the resurrection, the powerful manifestations of the Spirit in their midst—the people are pierced to the heart. They are <em>convinced</em> of their error, they <em>know</em> the truth, and thousands <em>believe</em>, putting their <em>trust</em> in the Savior.</p>

<h2>Hear, See, Handle, Believe</h2>

<p>The Beloved Disciple brings it all together for us in 1 John. He opens his letter with the evidence of his own eyewitness encounter with Christ. Notice how many senses he appeals to:</p>

<p>What was from the beginning, what we have <em>heard</em>, what we have <em>seen</em> with our eyes, what we <em>beheld</em> and our hands <em>handled</em> concerning the Word of Life—and the life was <em>manifested</em>, and we have <em>seen</em> and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was <em>manifested</em> to us—what we have <em>seen</em> and <em>heard</em> we proclaim to you also...</p>

<p>Then he closes his letter like this:</p>

<p>And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may <em>know</em> that you have eternal life.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>To John, faith wasn’t a blind leap. It wasn’t wishing on a star. It was grounded in evidence that led to knowledge. It was certain.</p>

<p>The record is clear from the Old Testament, to the Gospels, from the very beginnings of the early church, to the epistles of the apostles: Biblical faith isn’t wishing, it’s confidence. It’s not denying reality, but discovering reality. It’s a sense of certainty grounded in evidence that Christianity is true—not just “true for me,” but actually, fully, and completely true.</p>

<p>Spiritual growth involves increasing our knowledge <em>and</em> our certainty of God. So there are two things here: first knowledge, and second confidence in what we know.</p>

<p>How do we increase confidence? Wish harder? Hope against hope? Stop our ears to the sounds of the critics without, and ignore the doubts of the agnostic within? This will never work, because confidence cannot be fabricated. It must be earned. As you gather substantiating evidence, your confidence grows automatically and your faith is deepened.</p>

<p>Faith is not about wishing, but about confidence, and the facts make the difference. You get a hold of the facts, you study, you learn—even a little—and you’ll realize you’re not just wishing on a star about eternal things. You’ll realize Christianity is really true.</p>

<p>And that changes everything.</p>

<h2>Psychological Confidence vs. Convictions</h2>

<p>A smart person is smart enough to know he’s smart. A dumb person often is too dumb to know he’s dumb, so he thinks he’s smart. So both of them think they’re smart, but only one is and the other is dumb. How can they tell which one is which? They need an outside standard.</p>

<p>This illustrates the problem of psychological confidence. Most people feel they’re right about what they believe. But everyone’s obviously not right. Some people are right and some are wrong. So how do you know the difference when each feels just as certain he’s correct as the other does?</p>

<p>The answer: One needs more than internal psychological confidence. He needs outside evidence. That’s why careful Christians don’t just have “faith.” They have <em>convictions</em>. They have beliefs that are anchored to objective evidence because they know the dangers of putting too much faith in psychological confidence.</p>

<h2>Anti-intellectual Churches</h2>

<p>Don’t make it your goal to change your church, at least not initially. Rather, have a goal to establish a beach-head by assembling a stable group of Christians who value the life of the mind. Your group can then be a catalyst influencing other things happening in the church.</p>

<p>Consider your group a focal point from which you can do one-on-one discipleship adding to your number through multiplication, like Jesus did. Your group might turn into a vital resource that others in your church can turn to when they have questions, as long as it has three things: visibility, excellence, and a good attitude.—GK</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">1 Peter 3:15. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Cf., Exodus 6:7, 7:5, 7:17, 8:10, 8:22, 9:14, 9:29, 10:2, 14:4, and 14:18. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Of course, Pharaoh’s “faith” was not expressed in humble surrender leading to salvation, but in obedience under compulsion. The point is, he was compelled to act based on the unmistakable evidence of God’s power. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Acts 2:36. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">1 John 5:11-13. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>

<p>If you “just take Christianity on faith” you may be in trouble...</p>
</div>

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


title: When the Bride Is a Groom
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/1999
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-the-bride-is-a-groom
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Same-sex marriage is not about tolerance, freedom, or justice. &nbsp;It’s about something else.</em></p>

<p>More and more, courts are considering the turbulent topic of same-sex marriage.&nbsp; The fact that courts would consider such an issue shows how successful “homosexual rights”&nbsp;activists have been.</p>

<p>For many years homosexuals simply wanted the government out of their bedrooms.&nbsp; They wanted freedom to do as they pleased in the privacy of their own homes.&nbsp; With the exception of a few archaic, unenforced laws, homosexuals can now live without legal interference.&nbsp; As one writer put it, the closet door is wide open.&nbsp; Homosexual characters take the lead in TV sitcoms.&nbsp; They’ve been elected to Congress and sit on the President’s cabinet.</p>

<p>But liberty and influence have not been enough.&nbsp; Homosexuals are after bigger game.&nbsp; This debate is not about hate versus tolerance.&nbsp; It’s not about justice.&nbsp; It’s not even about the liberty to make life-long unions.&nbsp; It’s about something else.&nbsp; Homosexuals want the courts to give them by force what the public would not voluntarily cede:&nbsp; respect and honor.</p>

<h2>Malice, Tolerance, and Approval</h2>

<p>The goal is to remove any hint of social stigma attached to homosexuality.&nbsp; One way to accomplish that is to depict all moral concern about the issue as malice.&nbsp; If you think the behavior is wrong, then you’re guilty of spreading hatred.</p>

<p>News accounts speak of “hostility against gay people,”&nbsp;“mean-spirited efforts,”&nbsp;and “hate mongers.”&nbsp; Activist David Mixner calls detractors “demagogues”&nbsp;and “morals police, who are determined to impose their values on our lives.”<a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftn1" id="_ftnref1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a></p>

<p>Malcolm Boyd, a homosexual Episcopal priest, is even more colorful.&nbsp; He depicts those who oppose same-sex marriage as “religious inquisitors who quote Scripture even while they light the ’faggots’&nbsp;to burn, turn the screw of the rack to draw more blood and screams, and hammer nails into countless bodies on numberless crosses in order to murder the human spirit.”<a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftn2" id="_ftnref2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a></p>

<p>Yet most who think homosexual behavior is immoral and destructive are civilized people who bear no ill-will against homosexuals personally.&nbsp; They are willing to tolerate homosexuality, in the classical sense of tolerance.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The concept of tolerance is reserved for behavior or ideas one thinks are either incorrect or immoral.&nbsp; Do you tolerate homosexuality?&nbsp; If so, then you must think homosexuality is morally questionable.&nbsp; If you think it’s morally benign, then you don’t tolerate it.&nbsp; You agree with it.&nbsp; We don’t “tolerate”&nbsp;people who share our views.&nbsp; They’re on our side.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This essential element of tolerance--disagreement--has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept.&nbsp; Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant.&nbsp;</p>

<p>No, this controversy is not about tolerance in any meaningful sense of the term.&nbsp;</p>

<h2>Homosexuals Can Already “Marry”</h2>

<p>The same-sex marriage debate is also not about liberty to establish loving, long-term commitments.&nbsp; In fact, it’s done all the time.</p>

<p>In San Francisco, 163 homosexual couples who registered as domestic partners at City Hall, celebrated with a mass “wedding service,”&nbsp;replete with flowers and gowns, in some cases.</p>

<p>The&nbsp;<em>L.A. Times</em>&nbsp;reports that “gay unions or commitment ceremonies, once an underground ritual, have blossomed in the past few years, especially in Los Angeles and New York, with a whole industry--from caterers to travel agents--rising to help out.”<a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftn3" id="_ftnref3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a>&nbsp; Mainline publishers offer books, like HarperCollins’&nbsp;<em>The Essential Guide to Lesbian and Gay Weddings</em>, to help plan the festivities.</p>

<p>Author and activist David Mixner tacitly admits that no law prevents such unions:</p>

<p>“As for Patrick and me, we are going to get married.&nbsp; We both are blessed because our families and many or our straight friends plan to participate in the ceremony and celebrate with us.&nbsp; I guess we could wait until everyone approves and the laws of the land say we can legally get married, but then I guess Rosa Parks could have waited until the laws of Alabama said she could ride in the front of the bus.&nbsp; She refused to give up her dignity in the face of unjust laws--and so do Patrick and I.<a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftn4" id="_ftnref4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a>”</p>

<p>Mixner candidly points out that nothing stops him from such a commitment.&nbsp; Any homosexual who wants to pledge to a life-long, monogamous union may do so.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The fact is, homosexuality is already tolerated in this country.&nbsp; Homosexuals are allowed to pursue their “lifestyles”&nbsp;without reprisal for their conduct, even to the point of forming committed, monogamous unions.<a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftn5" id="_ftnref5" name="_ftnref5" title="">[5]</a>&nbsp; Homosexuals want something more than tolerance.&nbsp; Their demand is often couched in rights language.</p>

<h2>Rights and Freedom</h2>

<p>Mixner writes in&nbsp;<em>Time</em>, “The effort to ban same-sex marriage would deny us the&nbsp;<em>basic rights</em>&nbsp;accorded to our neighbors and friends.”&nbsp; Later he adds, “Although I am sad that people are so frightened of Patrick’s and my love, I refuse to allow anyone’s discomfort to be the reason why we should be&nbsp;<em>less free</em>&nbsp;than other Americans”&nbsp;[emphasis added].&nbsp;<a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftn6" id="_ftnref6" name="_ftnref6" title="">[6]</a></p>

<p>The claim that homosexuals don’t have the same rights as others is misleading.&nbsp; Survey the Bill of Rights or any legislation that proceeds from it.&nbsp; Nowhere are homosexuals excluded as beneficiaries of any right that others enjoy.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Strictly speaking, even the right to marry is shared equally with homosexuals.&nbsp; Any homosexual has the same right to an officially sanctioned marriage to an eligible member of the opposite sex of his choosing as I do.</p>

<p>“But I’m not interested in the opposite sex,”&nbsp;he responds.&nbsp; “I want to marry who I want.”&nbsp; Yet no citizen has the right to marry whomever he wants.&nbsp; I cannot marry my daughter nor my neighbor’s wife.&nbsp; If I loved two women, I couldn’t marry them both.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The fact is, homosexuals have the same freedoms as others, but for personal reasons most don’t choose to exercise them (I say “most”&nbsp;because some homosexuals do exercise their right to heterosexual marriage).&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>Homosexuals want an additional freedom no one else now has.&nbsp; They want the legal freedom to redefine marriage to fit their own preference.</em></p>

<h2>What Is Marriage?</h2>

<p>Is the definition of marriage arbitrary, or is it fixed, grounded by some deep moral logic?&nbsp; If the boundaries of the institution of family are infinitely flexible, then any definition that meets with general approval is acceptable.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This view provides no refuge for same-sex marriage advocates, though.&nbsp; On what grounds do they demand a revision?&nbsp; If marriage is merely a socially constructed institution, then society&nbsp;<em>may</em>&nbsp;reconstruct its definition, but it has no&nbsp;<em>obligation</em>&nbsp;to do so.&nbsp; Instead, it may continue to “arbitrarily”&nbsp;conclude that homosexual marriage is not a real marriage.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Attempting to circumvent this convention with a moral appeal does no good either.&nbsp; Columnist Charles Krauthammer makes the point when he asks if homosexual marriage is allowed, why not polygamy or incest (or any number of permutations, I might add)?&nbsp;</p>

<p>“The problem here is not the slippery slope.&nbsp; It is not that if society allows gay marriage, society will then allow polygamy or incest.&nbsp; It won’t.&nbsp; The people won’t allow polygamy or incest.&nbsp; Even the gay-marriage advocates won’t allow it.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The point is&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;they won’t allow it.&nbsp; They won’t allow it because they think polygamy and incest wrong or unnatural or perhaps harmful.&nbsp; At bottom, because they find these practices psychologically or morally abhorrent, certainly undeserving of society’s blessing.&nbsp; Well, that is how most Americans feel about homosexual marriage&nbsp;[emphasis in the original].&nbsp;<a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftn7" id="_ftnref7" name="_ftnref7" title="">[7]</a>”</p>

<p>Appeal to the arbitrary nature of marriage is self-defeating.&nbsp; If, however, marriage is not arbitrary but fixed, tied to something beyond mere preference or opinion, there’s another obstacle.&nbsp; It’s not clear, in that case, that the notion of homosexual marriage is even intelligible.</p>

<h2>You Can’t Marry Your Canary</h2>

<p>Let me put this question to you.&nbsp; Should the government allow me to marry my canary?&nbsp; Ought the courts force the public to sanction nuptials between me and my Macintosh?&nbsp; The idea is bizarre, of course, but what makes it bizarre?&nbsp; The answer is:&nbsp; Marriage is not the kind of thing one has with animals or machines.</p>

<p>Marriage is something in particular.&nbsp; We’ve always known that.&nbsp; In&nbsp;<em>Jones v. Hallahan</em>, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “Marriage was a custom long before the state commenced to issue licenses for that purpose.&nbsp; In all cases, marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman, and we have been presented with no authority to the contrary.”</p>

<p><em>Black’s Law Dictionary</em>&nbsp;concurs:&nbsp; “Marriage is defined as the civil status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>Webster also agrees:</p>

<p>“Marriage is a state of being married or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband and wife.&nbsp; Also the mutual relation of husband and wife abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social, legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.”</p>

<p>Marriage, by definition, involves not men and machines or people and their pets, but one man and one woman.&nbsp; Legally, culturally, or linguistically there is no other kind of marriage.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Crying “discrimination”&nbsp;misses the point.&nbsp; Of course it’s discriminatory, in the same way as denying matrimony to a man and his canary would be.&nbsp; It discriminates between a proper application of an institution and an improper one.&nbsp; This is not an arbitrary discrimination, but one based on the essential nature of a vital social unit--the family.</p>

<p>Homosexual marriage is a nonsense concept.&nbsp; Some men can eat a light bulb, but that doesn’t make glass and metal food.</p>

<h2>Natural Law</h2>

<p>The definition of marriage is deeply grounded in natural law.&nbsp; Earlier, David Mixner likened the debate about same-sex marriage to Rosa Park’s struggle for dignity as a Black human being.&nbsp; The two are kin, but not in the way Mixner imagines.</p>

<p>Harry Jaffa, Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Natural Law, observes:</p>

<p>“Nature and reason tell us that a Negro is a human being, and is not to be treated like a horse or an ox or a dog, just as they tell us that a Jew is a human being, and is not to be treated as a plague-bearing bacillus.&nbsp; But with the very same voice, nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman, and that sexual friendship is properly between members of opposite sexes, not the same sex.<a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftn8" id="_ftnref8" name="_ftnref8" title="">[8]</a>”</p>

<p>Jaffa’s observation catches homosexual rights advocates on the horns of a dilemma.&nbsp; “There is no argument by which one can condemn slavery,”&nbsp;he says, “that does not at the same time condemn homosexuality.&nbsp; [One must] abandon the argument&nbsp;<em>against</em>&nbsp;slavery or the argument&nbsp;<em>for</em>&nbsp;homosexuality” [emphasis in the original].&nbsp;<a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftn9" id="_ftnref9" name="_ftnref9" title="">[9]</a></p>

<p>Jaffa’s approach is not based on whim, convention, or theological authority.&nbsp; He appeals to an obvious, self-evident order of nature--natural law--known not by divine revelation, but by reason and conscience.&nbsp; This natural law informs the convention.&nbsp; This is why only one concept of marriage has prevailed, universally, since time began.</p>

<h2>Treating Equals Equally</h2>

<p>Not all agree.&nbsp; To limit marriage to members of the opposite sex is harmfully prejudicial.&nbsp; One Hawaii Court ruled it was gender discrimination in violation of that state’s equal protection clause.&nbsp; It’s simple injustice.&nbsp;</p>

<p>But is it?&nbsp; The basic rule of justice is that equals should be treated equally.&nbsp; To claim injustice, then, is to claim equality of the parties concerned.&nbsp; The debate about same-sex marriage is not about whether homosexuals, as human beings, are equal with other human beings, as was the case with Rosa Parks.&nbsp; It’s about whether homosexuality is equal with heterosexuality, and therefore should receive equal legal status and equal social respect.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It should only be given equal status if it is, in fact, equal.&nbsp;&nbsp;<strong>This is the heart of the issue:&nbsp; the equality of homosexual relationships with heterosexual relationships.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>Legal marriage does not give any liberties to a couple they could not have easily exercised without it.&nbsp; Today, “living together”&nbsp;is as common as matrimony, maybe more so.&nbsp; Couples routinely set up housekeeping, share income and expenses, share sexual favors, and even raise children, all without marriage.&nbsp;</p>

<p>What such couples don’t enjoy is respect.&nbsp; Marriage is society’s way of welcoming a couple into the community, declaring the union honorable and legitimate.&nbsp; It’s the community’s official stamp of support and approval.</p>

<p><strong>Legalizing homosexual marriage will not give homosexuals a new liberty.&nbsp; It will give them a new social standing.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>David Link, contributor to&nbsp;<em>Beyond Queer:&nbsp; Challenging Gay Left Orthodoxy</em>, laments “how hard it is for a same-sex couple to achieve the modest&nbsp;<em>respectability</em>&nbsp;married heterosexual couples take for granted”&nbsp;[emphasis added].&nbsp;<a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftn10" id="_ftnref10" name="_ftnref10" title="">[10]</a></p>

<p>The courts and legislatures are being pressed into service for one purpose:&nbsp; to force society, through the institution of legal marriage, to accord the same respect and acceptance to homosexual unions that heterosexual unions now enjoy.&nbsp; It would force the rest of us to treat as equal those relationships we know aren’t equal.</p>

<p>David Mixner’s article subtitle--“I have a right to marry, even if others disapprove”--turns out to be an oxymoron.&nbsp; It amounts to “I have a right to your approval, even if you don’t approve.”</p>

<p>When the dust settles, this whole enterprise certainly&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;about one group forcing it’s morality on another.&nbsp; In this case, though, homosexuals are not the offended, but the offenders.</p>

<p>For more, read&nbsp;<a href="http://www.str.org/publications/same-sex-marriage-challenges-and-responses#.V82eHKOZORs"><em>Solid Ground</em>&nbsp;“Same-sex Marriage: Challenges and Responses”</a></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<p><a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftnref1" id="_ftn1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a>David Mixner, “No One Has to Send a Gift,”&nbsp;<em>Time</em>, 12/16/96, 45.</p>

<p><a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftnref2" id="_ftn2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a>Larry Stammer, “Episcopalians Focus on Church Inclusion of Gays, Lesbians,”&nbsp;<em>L.A. Times</em>, 4/12/97, B-4.</p>

<p><a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftnref3" id="_ftn3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a>Michael Quintanilla and Connie Koenenn, “Legalities Aside, Gays Still Stand on Ceremony,”&nbsp;<em>L.A. Times</em>, 12/6/96, E-1.</p>

<p><a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftnref4" id="_ftn4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4]</a>Mixner, ibid.</p>

<p><a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftnref5" id="_ftn5" name="_ftn5" title="">[5]</a>Of course, one can always cite exceptions, but the same could be said for any group.&nbsp; Homosexuals may not be respected or admired--something classical tolerance does not require--but they have the liberty to live as they choose.</p>

<p><a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftnref6" id="_ftn6" name="_ftn6" title="">[6]</a>Mixner, ibid.</p>

<p><a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftnref7" id="_ftn7" name="_ftn7" title="">[7]</a>Charles Krauthammer, “When John and Jim Say, ’I Do,’”&nbsp;<em>Time</em>, 7/22/96, 76.</p>

<p><a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftnref8" id="_ftn8" name="_ftn8" title="">[8]</a>Harry Jaffa,&nbsp;<em>Homosexuality and the Natural Law</em>&nbsp;(Claremont, CA:&nbsp; The Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, 1990), 19.</p>

<p><a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftnref9" id="_ftn9" name="_ftn9" title="">[9]</a>Jaffa, 29.</p>

<p><a href="https://archive.str.org/publications/when-the-bride-is-a-groom#_ftnref10" id="_ftn10" name="_ftn10" title="">[10]</a>David Link, “Gay Rights Not Just for Activists Anymore,”&nbsp;<em>L.A. Times</em>, 1/21/99</p>
</div>

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


title: Star Light & the Age of the Universe
topic: Science
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/01/1998
source: https://www.str.org/w/star-light-the-age-of-the-universe
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>When you look up into the midnight sky do you see stars? Or are the lights in the heavens mere appearances, images created in transit? The answer settles the question of whether the creation of the universe was recent or ancient.</em></p>

<p>One fact has continued to hold my attention in the ongoing debate between creationists on the age of the universe. I can see stars. On a clear night I see thousands of them. Astronomers seem to know a lot about these twinkling specks of light in the heavens, even though they are very far away.</p>

<p>This observation prompts a simple question for those who believe the universe is relatively young—thousands of years old and not billions. Do stars exist? Are these astronomers measuring characteristics of actual heavenly bodies when they apply their discipline?</p>

<p>“Of course stars exist,”&nbsp;is the reply. “We can see them.��&nbsp;But this raises a problem for the young-earth view. The existence of stars <em>the way we see them</em> is evidence for an old earth, not a young one. If some stars are millions of light years away, then their light must have traveled for millions of years for us to see it, making the recent-creation view impossible.</p>

<h2>Appearance of Age</h2>

<p>This point has not been lost on young-earthers, who offer a standard response. Genesis indicates that when God created Adam and Eve they appeared as adults. In the same way, God created the universe with the appearance of age. Light from stars millions of light years away from the earth was created in transit. Observers on earth (Adam and Eve) could see the star instantly, in spite of the great distances, in spite of the fact that the universe was only days old.</p>

<p>This tidy rejoinder seems so sensible at first glance it’s easy to be mislead by it. It’s irresistible to those Christians who have a weakness for snappy explanations that save the paradigm. Such answers may fend off attack for the moment, but often do not have the backbone to survive closer scrutiny. This one does not.</p>

<p>First, this comeback is a tacit admission that the universe does, in fact, appear old. This concedes a tremendous amount of ground, weakening the young-earther’s case considerably. Isn’t it safer to draw conclusions on the way things actually look rather than suggest some divine sleight of hand?</p>

<p>Second, it’s not clear that the observation is even accurate. There is a difference between the appearance of maturity and the appearance of age. True, Adam and Eve were created as adults. There’s no evidence, though, that they appeared <em>old</em>—that is, aged.</p>

<p>When something appears aged, there is evidence that the passage of time has left its mark. There may be calluses on the hands, wrinkling of the skin due to sun exposure, or plaque build-up in the circulatory system. These are bona fide signs of age. Simply being physically mature is not the same as aging.</p>

<p>Starlight actually shows signs of age. The distance it needs to travel to be visible on earth requires the passage of massive amounts of time. Starlight is not <em>mature</em>; it is <em>old</em>.</p>

<p>Third, even if the account suggests Adam was created with the appearance of age, where in the text do we get the idea that the entire universe was created like that? There was a practical necessity for creating the first humans as adults. They had to accomplish adult tasks right from the outset. What practical necessity required God to instantly create other features of the world with the appearance of age?</p>

<p>Why the “appearance”&nbsp;of millions of years of erosion on the moon? Why the deep canyons half way around the world from Eden that “appear”&nbsp;to have been slowly carved out of solid rock by running water? Why do the walls of these canyons reveal earth that “appears”&nbsp;to have been laid down one millimeter at a time by ancient accretions of atmospheric dust?</p>

<p>“God’s ways are not our ways,”&nbsp;they reply. True enough, but that only applies when we know <em>how</em> God has acted but don’t understand <em>why</em>. Without an explicit statement from the text that the entire universe actually was created with the appearance of age, and lacking good reason why God might do so, we have no justification for assuming He did. The case gets weaker and weaker as the layers of speculation mount.</p>

<p>These are serious problems for the God-created-the-light-in-transit theory. The view, however, faces a far more formidable challenge.</p>

<h2>A City on a Hill</h2>

<p>It is tempting to think of starlight simply as a generalized glow, like the steady luminescence of a light bulb. If we think of a star as a massive light bulb in space, it’s easy to imagine how God would have no trouble creating the undifferentiated glow in transit. Starlight, though, is not just a glow, but a record of turbulent events that, on this view, never actually took place.</p>

<p>Imagine a hiker, traveling at night through a dark and desolate countryside toward a glow on the horizon. Rounding a bend in the trail, he discovers that the radiance comes from a city in the distance. From afar the light is ill-defined, but as he gets closer the glow of the city reveals itself as a composite collection of thousands of detailed activities. A lot is going on, even though from a distance all is generalized into a steady glow.</p>

<p>He could have discovered this from a long way off if he had the right instruments—a powerful telescope, for example. Looking with the naked eye the hiker sees only radiance, but with magnification he could have seen the small pieces of life in the city that made up the whole.</p>

<p>Here is the important point. The distant light of a city is not undifferentiated luminosity with a life of its own. It is a composite whole made up of many parts, the events of life in the city. Take away the events and the light vanishes.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>If our traveler paused in the distance to ponder the glow on the horizon and concluded it was light created in transit giving the mere “appearance”&nbsp;of a city, then all of the smaller particulars that made up the composite glow (details visible to him through a telescope, even at a distance) would be mere “appearances”&nbsp;also, illusions. All of the particular circumstances of life in that city never really happened. They were just part of a light show.</p>

<p>If starlight was created in transit, then the details astronomers see through the telescope never really took place. On this view the whole universe would be, as one author quipped, a cosmic film-set.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Stars may be there, but we can’t see them now and probably never will. They’re too far away to actually be viewed for millions of years, some for billions.</p>

<p>This confronts us with an odd dilemma: The real heavenly bodies that do exist will never be seen,<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> and the stars we think we see don’t actually exist.</p>

<h2>Supernova as Super Illusion</h2>

<p>In 1054, Medieval stargazers witnessed a burst of light in the constellation Taurus that shone with the light of a million suns. They had witnessed a supernova, an exploding star hurtling debris into space leaving the Crab Nebula as its remnant. Three other such events have been optically observed in recorded history (1006, 1572, and 1604), and the remains of 120 supernovas have been detected by astronomers.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Here is my question: Have supernovas ever happened? If the young-earth explanation for the apparent age of the universe is true, then the answer is no. There have never been any supernovas. Such an explosion close enough to be actually witnessed by us during human history (within, say, 10,000 light years) would have obliterated life on our planet. All those that appear further away merely represent light created in transit and not the supernova itself.</p>

<p>On this view, the Crab Nebula currently exists—presumably<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup>—but the star that medieval astronomers thought they saw explode to create the nebula never did. It <em>looks</em> like a star exploded a billion years ago, but nothing existed a billion years ago. The universe is young, not old. Appearances to the contrary, all supernovas have been fictions, mere heavenly light shows fabricated by God.</p>

<h2>What Is Truth?</h2>

<p>This view breeds skepticism not limited to supernovas. If all we see now in the heavens are images created in transit, how do we know any distant heavenly bodies exist at all? If God needed them only “for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> mere images work just fine.</p>

<p>This view undermines all observational disciplines, including science and history. What else do we think exists that doesn’t? What else in the world is an illusion created by God? What is real and what isn’t?</p>

<p>We can’t appeal to the Bible to rescue us from our skepticism for three reasons. First, the Scripture seems to say that God created actual heavenly bodies. “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able,”&nbsp;God tells Abraham.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> He doesn’t say count the light images.</p>

<p>Second, the words on the pages of my Bible are conveyed to my mind in the same way starlight is—through light. Why should I trust what I see looking down at the page when I can’t trust what I see looking up at the sky?</p>

<p>Third, the entire notion of the Bible as a source of truth is undermined. The standard definition of truth entails correspondence. A statement is true if it corresponds to reality, that is, if it describes things as they really are. The biblical claim that Jesus is the Messiah is true only if Jesus actually is the promised One. The resurrection is true only if Jesus actually rose from the dead. The statements correspond to true conditions in the objective world. When someone knowingly makes a statement that does not correspond to actual circumstances we say he lied.</p>

<p>If the Scripture unambiguously states we see stars in the heavens<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> and we don’t, then the Bible’s claim does not correspond to reality. It is false, and the Bible has deceived us. We don’t see stars, only fabricated lights. Our ultimate source of truth has become unreliable. We are stuck with a Scripture that is only true “for me,”&nbsp;true for those who choose to believe it. It’s not true to what is really there.</p>

<h2>How Long, Oh Lord?</h2>

<p>The young-universe creationist is in an untenable spot. If the earth is six to ten thousand years old, then virtually nothing we see outside of our solar system is real. All observational astronomy of distant heavenly objects is a fiction. There were no supernova explosions billions of years ago. The only stars we behold are “shooting stars,”&nbsp;bits of intergalactic dust that burn up in our atmosphere.</p>

<p>God has fabricated images of events that never happened, but passes them off as if they did. The Bible deceives us. If distant stars are real, no human would know it for millions, even billions, of years. That which is seen doesn’t exist, and that which exists will never be seen.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if we see real stars when we look heavenward, and those stars are a billion light years away, then they must have existed a billion years ago.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> If our eyes and our instruments can be trusted, then the universe is ancient. When the Bible tells us to behold the stars, it speaks the truth.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">This is true even of the steady glow from a light bulb, by the way. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Alan Hayward, <em>Creation and Evolution</em> (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985), p. 100. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Unless someone thinks the return of Christ will be delayed for millions of years. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4"><em>The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia</em> (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983), p. 819. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">I have to qualify this statement with the word “presumably”&nbsp;because no one can be sure if the Crab Nebula actually exists right now. To be sure, we’d have to wait until we can see light from the thing itself, which won’t appear for eons. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Gen. 1:14. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Gen. 5:15. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">See also Deut. 4:19, Neh. 4:21, Job 22:12, and Psalm 8:3. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">The fact that we don’t see these stars in real time is not a limitation to this critique. In one sense, we never see anything in real time. There is always a delay based on the speed of light—186,000 miles per second. The sunlight we see now represents conditions on the sun eight minutes ago. The important thing is that they are not illusions, but rather images of real events that are time-delayed. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</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%2Fstar-light-the-age-of-the-universe" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstar-light-the-age-of-the-universe" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstar-light-the-age-of-the-universe" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Perils of Proof-Texting and How to Avoid Them
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/1999
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-perils-of-proof-texting-and-how-to-avoid-them
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Virtually every Christian with a theological point of view thinks his view is scriptural. Why shouldn’t he. He has a proof-text he can quickly quote in his defense.</p>

<p>If you’re not careful, though, simply picking out a verse that seems to support your view may result in pitting one text against another, creating an apparent contradiction. This may be satisfying for the moment because the verse affirms your pet doctrine. But your take on the passage may be wrong, and the conflict created with other texts undermines the authority of the Bible in general.</p>

<p>Part of what we do on the radio show is dispute different theological views. A caller gives me his opinion and cites supporting verses. I can almost hear him settling back in his chair and folding his arms. His work is done, or so he thinks.</p>

<p>My verses say one thing; his appear to say another. As long as he can find a verse that—at least at first glance—supports his view, he’s satisfied. Whenever the issue comes up, he can simply quote his pet text.</p>

<p>Taking a casual approach to proof-texting doesn’t solve the conflict. It merely intensifies it. How? Because, as I mentioned, when my verses say one thing and his appear to say another if we simply camp on our verses we affirm a contradiction.</p>

<p>So how do we solve this problem? We keep one goal in mind. Our question should be, “What does the Bible teach?”, not simply “What does our verse seem to teach?”&nbsp;How do we learn what the Bible teaches? By choosing an interpretation that makes the best sense out of all the relevant verses?</p>

<p>That takes more work than simple proof-texting. If there’s an apparent conflict, we must try to solve it. It is not enough to point to a verse that supports our position. If all of the Bible is God’s Word and without error, then we must also consider the scriptural evidence that seems contrary to our theology and attempt to factor it into our answer.</p>

<p>If we are convinced God would not contradict Himself in the Bible—if we have a high view of Scripture—when you something looks like a contradiction, we are going to try to resolve it in a reasonable fashion. We will try to find a legitimate way to harmonize apparently contradictory verses.</p>

<p>Here is the principal way I resolve the problem of opposing verses: Determine whether the verses being cited are univocal or equivocal. Let me explain what I mean.</p>

<p>Univocal verses speak with one voice (“uni-vocal”) and are, therefore, unambiguous. Even after looking at the text from a number of different angles, it’s hard to imagine any alternate meanings.</p>

<p>Equivocal verses, on the other hand, have more than one possible meaning. One interpretation may appear most obvious, but upon further study others suggest themselves.</p>

<p>Noticing that the meaning of a certain verse or passage may be equivocal is a key to resolving the problem of apparent contradictions. Is it possible one or more of the proof-texts have more than one reasonable meaning? If so, then choosing one of the alternate meanings could remove the apparent contradiction. If one verse seems completely inflexible (univocal, or unequivocal), then adapt the more flexible verse (the equivocal one) to bring harmony.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example. Is baptism necessary for salvation? Is it necessary to be water baptized after one’s profession of faith before one can receive the gift of forgiveness and new life through regeneration? Or is baptism a proper act of obedience after one becomes a Christian?</p>

<p>In the first case the order would be faith, then baptism, resulting in salvation. In the second case the order would be faith, resulting in salvation, followed by baptism.</p>

<p>Verses seem to support both sides. In Acts 2:38 we read, “And Peter said to them, ’Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”&nbsp;If the repentant believer is baptized “for the forgiveness of sins,”&nbsp;then repentance and belief are not enough. The order here appears to be faith, then baptism, resulting in salvation.</p>

<p>This verse seems very straightforward. To some, simply quoting it is enough. The problem comes when one flips over a few pages to Acts 10:44-48. There we read:</p>

<p>While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”&nbsp;And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.</p>

<p>Notice what’s happening. Peter preaches the Gospel to Cornelius and his household. In the midst of Peter’s sermon, the Holy Spirit falls on those listening and they manifest spiritual gifts.</p>

<p>This is irrefutable evidence to Peter that these Gentiles have “received the Holy Spirit just as [he] did.”&nbsp;Other verses make it clear that possessing the Holy Spirit in the New Testament sense is proof of salvation (see Ephesians 1:13-14 and Romans 8:9).</p>

<p>After these Gentiles are regenerated, Peter announces it is appropriate for them to be baptized. The order in Acts 10 is faith, resulting in salvation, followed by baptism.</p>

<p>Here’s the problem. Apparently Acts 2 teaches that salvation comes after water baptism, and Acts 10 indicates it can come before. This is a contradiction. Unless these passages are harmonized, merely asserting one verse against another actually does violence to the authority of God’s Word.</p>

<p>This is when we must ask our question: Are either of the passages equivocal? That is, are there any legitimate alternative readings?</p>

<p>The Acts 10 passage seems completely inflexible in its meaning. The sequence of events leaves no question (though I’m open to suggestions) that the order is faith/regeneration/baptism. Peter’s response is unmistakable.</p>

<p>Further, when the Jews later take issue with Peter about his involvement with Gentiles, he simply recounted the event and they were satisfied (Acts 11:1-18). In this passage regeneration clearly follows faith, not baptism:</p>

<p>“If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”&nbsp;And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life”&nbsp;(Acts 11:17-18).</p>

<p>Notice baptism isn’t even mentioned here, only the salient details of regeneration: repentance, faith, and salvation. By all appearances, Acts 10 is unequivocal. Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation.</p>

<p>What about in Acts 2? Is it possible this passage means something different than it appears to at first? On closer inspection the answer is yes. The key is in the grammar.</p>

<p>In Acts 2, the command to repent is in the plural, as is the reference to those who receive the forgiveness of sins (i.e., “All of you repent so all of you can receive forgiveness”). The command to be baptized, however, is in the singular (i.e., “Each of you should be baptized”).</p>

<p>This makes it clear that repentance, not baptism, leads to salvation, since an individual’s baptism cannot cause the salvation of the entire group. Individual (singular) baptisms do not result in corporate (plural) salvation.</p>

<p>As it turns out, then, the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins”&nbsp;modifies repentance, not baptism. A more precise rendering might be, “Let all of you repent so all of you can receive forgiveness, and then each who has should be baptized.”</p>

<p>If there is any question about which translation of Acts 2:38 is appropriate, Acts 10 and 11 give us the answer. Clearly, Peter’s Gentiles were not getting baptized in order to bring about their salvation. They were baptized as a result of salvation. The clear (unequivocal) teaching in Acts 10 and 11 informs the ambiguous (equivocal) nature of Acts 2:38.</p>

<p>If we are to be scripturally balanced, our theological views should take into account the full body of scriptural references when considering an issue.</p>

<p>Here’s a tip. Go to your Bible concordance and look up all the forms of the word “baptize”&nbsp;(e.g., “baptism”&nbsp;or “baptized”). Next write each reference on a 3x5 card or record it in a computer word processing file. This will allow you to look at all the references together and begin to group them according to content.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>For example, many of the texts will be about John’s baptism. Put them in one group. Others will be about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Put those in another. There are references to the baptism of Moses and baptism by fire. Jesus refers to yet another, the baptism of trial (“Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”&nbsp;Mark 10:38).</p>

<p>This is how to systematically study any doctrine or topic. Take all the verses pertaining to a particular issue and look closely at what they say. Then begin drawing conclusions from that broad base of research—instead of proof-texting favorite verses—so you don’t miss anything.</p>

<p>The exercise takes a little time, but it can be a lot of fun and the results are very satisfying. Doctrines begin to unfold before your eyes, giving you a solid biblical understanding on any issue. By drawing instruction from the full counsel of God on the subject, you are able to make informed judgments that are biblically balanced.</p>

<p>You’ll also notice that by surveying the full range of teaching in the New Testament on an issue (baptism, in this case) many distortions simply fade away.</p>

<p>This approach to resolving Bible conflicts always takes biblical inerrancy for granted:<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> The Bible is the Word of God. God can’t err. Therefore, the Bible can’t err. When faced with apparent contradictions, we always look for a way to harmonize. We do this by employing a core precept of interpretation: Interpret the unclear in light of the clear.</p>

<p>When all is said and done, there still may be apparent contradictions. Though time and scholarship have resolved many problems, some still remain. At that point we should acknowledge the difficulty and choose the view that in our opinion is best supported by the relevant passages, being open to better alternatives if they present themselves. Then we should be charitable and understanding to those who disagree.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Find examples of this on our web page at www.str.org. Check under “Quick Studies”&nbsp;for a summary of business principles from the book of Proverbs, a look at the evangelistic messages of the Apostles in Acts, and a thorough analysis of the New Testament teaching on prayer. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Establishing biblical inerrancy is a separate task. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>

<p>If you think you’re on safe theological ground because of a pet verse, better look twice. Simple proof-texting has its perils. Here’s how to avoid 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%2Fthe-perils-of-proof-texting-and-how-to-avoid-them" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-perils-of-proof-texting-and-how-to-avoid-them" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-perils-of-proof-texting-and-how-to-avoid-them" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Arguing Is a Virtue
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/1999
source: https://www.str.org/w/arguing-is-a-virtue-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Imagine living in a world in which you couldn’t separate truth from error. You wouldn’t be able to tell food from poison, or friend from foe. You couldn’t tell good from bad, right from wrong, healthy from unhealthy, or safe from unsafe. Such a world would be a dangerous place. You wouldn’t survive long.</p>

<p>What protects us from the hazards of such a world? Some say the Word of God, but that’s not entirely true. Something else is necessary before we can accurately know the Bible’s teaching. Yes, the Bible is first in terms of authority, but something else is first in terms of the order of knowing.</p>

<p>We cannot grasp the authoritative teaching of God’s Word without using our minds properly. Therefore the mind, not the Bible, is the very first line of defense God has given us against error.</p>

<p>In order to understand the truth of the Bible accurately, our mental faculties must be intact, and we must use them properly as God intended. We demonstrate this fact every time we disagree on an interpretation of a Biblical passage and then give reasons why our view is better than another’s. Simply put, we argue for our point of view, and if we argue well we separate truth from error.</p>

<h2>Arguing Is Good</h2>

<p>Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength”&nbsp;(Mark 12:30). Loving God with the mind is not a passive process. It’s not just having thoughts about God. Rather, it’s coming to conclusions about God and His world based on revelation, observation, and careful thinking.</p>

<p>Both a process and a skill are involved. There is a way that thinking works, a tool that needs to be employed. What is the tool we use in our observations of the world that help us separate fact from fiction? That tool is reason, the ability to use our minds to sort through observations and draw accurate conclusions about what is true. Rationality is the tool God has given us to acquire knowledge.</p>

<p>Generally, this is not a solitary enterprise. It’s best done in the company of others who dispute our claims and offer competing ideas. In short, we argue. Sometimes we are silent partners, listening, not talking, but the process is going on in our minds just the same.</p>

<p>The ability to argue well is the essence of all clear thinking. That’s why arguments are good things—arguing is a virtue because it helps us discover what’s true.</p>

<p>This is not rationalism, a kind of idolatry of the mind that places man’s thinking at the center of the universe. Rather, it’s the proper use of the faculties God has given us to understand Him and the world He’s made.</p>

<h2>What Is an Argument?</h2>

<p>There’s a difference between an argument and a fight. Christians are not to be acrimonious, nasty, or harsh, fighting for the fight’s sake. Paul warns against such quarreling and abuse (2 Timothy 2:24-25).</p>

<p>An argument is not a fight or a quarrel, but a reasoned and principled disputation about matters of fact. Arguments are important, therefore, because they help us discover the facts and find the truth. If you think about it, much of the New Testament consists of arguments in written form—Paul, Peter, and the others arguing for a critical point of truth.</p>

<p>Think of an argument like a simple house, a roof supported by walls. The roof is the conclusion and the walls are the supporting ideas. By testing the walls we can see if they are strong enough to keep the roof from tumbling down. If the walls are solid, the conclusion rests securely on its supporting foundation. If the walls collapse, the roof goes flat and the argument is defeated.</p>

<p>Some arguments are not really arguments at all. Many people try to build their roof right on the ground. Instead of erecting solid walls—the supporting ideas that hold the conclusion up—they simply assert their view and pound the podium.</p>

<p>An argument is different from an assertion, though. An assertion simply states a point. An argument gives supporting reasons why the point should be taken seriously. The reasons, then, become the topic of mutual discussion or analysis. Opinions by themselves are not proof. A mere point of view is not worthy of belief. Belief requires reasons.</p>

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

<p>If you find yourself stymied in a discussion, you may be looking for an argument that’s not there. Ask yourself, “Did they give me an argument or just make an assertion?”&nbsp;If the latter is true then say, “Well, that’s an interesting opinion. What’s your argument? Why should I believe what you believe? Give me your reasons.”</p>

<p>Don’t let them flatten you by dropping a roof on your head. Make them build walls underneath their roof. Ask them for reasons or facts to support their conclusion.</p>

<h2>Fight Phobic</h2>

<p>If the notion of truth is central to Christianity, and the ability to argue central to the task of knowing the truth, why do some Christians often get so upset when you try to find the truth through argument and disagreement?</p>

<p>Two things come to mind. First, some fear division. When people are free to express strong differences of opinion it threatens unity. Just when the Bible study starts getting interesting, someone jumps in to shut down dissent to keep the peace. This is very unfortunate.</p>

<p>True, sometimes Christians get distracted by useless disputes. Paul warns against wrangling about words and quarreling about foolish and ignorant speculations (2 Timothy 2:14, 23-24). But Paul also commands us to be diligent workmen handling the word of truth accurately (2 Timothy 2:15). And, because some disputes are vitally important, Paul solemnly charges us to reprove, rebuke, and exhort when necessary (2 Timothy 4:1-2). This cannot be done without some confrontation, but disagreement need not threaten genuine unity.</p>

<p>To be of one mind biblically doesn’t mean all have to share the same opinion. It means a warm fellowship based on communion with Christ in the midst of differences, not abandoning all attempts at refining our knowledge by enforcing unanimity. True maturity means learning how to dispute in an aggressive fashion, yet still maintain the harmony of the body and the unity of peace.</p>

<p>There’s a second reason Christians resist arguments. Some believers unfortunately take any opposition as hostility, especially if it’s their view being challenged. In some circles it’s virtually impossible to take exception with a cherished view or a respected teacher without being labeled malicious. This is a dangerous attitude for the church.</p>

<p>The minute one is labeled mean-spirited simply for raising an opposing view, it cuts off debate. This simply isn’t fair. We avoid what may be a legitimate discussion by simply calling names. Worse, we compromise our ability to know the truth.</p>

<p>It’s absolutely imperative that we not silence dissent in this way. We ought to learn how to argue fairly, reasonably, and graciously. We need to cultivate the ability to disagree with civility and not take opposition personally. We also must have the grace to allow our own views to be challenged with evidence, reasoning, and Scripture. Those who refuse to dispute have a very poor chance of growing in truth.</p>

<h2>“And If Your Brother Sins...”</h2>

<p>Sometimes a different objection is raised. Some refuse to even consider a public critique of another’s ideas unless that person has first been confronted privately. According to Jesus’&nbsp;directives in Matthew 18:15-17, this should be done before going public with an analysis, they say.</p>

<p>I don’t think that’s what Jesus had in mind, though. Note the specific wording of the passage: “And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.”</p>

<p>Three things are worthy of note here. First, the pattern given in Matthew 18 is meant for a brother who is in sin (v. 15). Second, it initiates a process in the local congregation (“the church”&nbsp;v. 17) where individual discipline can be carried out. Third, if it runs its course, the correction results in excommunication from the local body (v. 17). The local community of faith has the responsibility of correcting moral error in its midst because they’re the only ones in a position to do so.</p>

<p>To my mind, none of these apply when you critique someone’s ideas or teaching. When brothers in Christ disagree about an issue of doctrine, it’s fully appropriate to register the differences publicly, particularly when the teaching in question has been public.</p>

<p>This is the New Testament pattern. Paul’s own letters are, in many cases, public refutations of error being taught by others in the church. In some cases, he even mentions the names of those who have faltered, either doctrinally or morally (1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 1:15, 4:10, 14). An especially noteworthy example is when Paul publicly corrects the apostle Peter while many others are present (Galatians 2:11, 14). This was no private confrontation about sin, but a public correction of wrong doctrine.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the person’s heart is not the issue in such a dispute. His doctrine is. The proper way to judge doctrine is not to look at a teacher’s personal spirituality, but at his teaching. Further, it��s important not to strain at the gnat—concern about Matthew 18—and swallow the camel—the Biblical arguments raised against one’s teaching. An unbiblical doctrine can’t be ignored just because the critic fails to fulfill the directives of Matthew 18.</p>

<h2>Retaining the Standard</h2>

<p>There is no reason to threaten our unity by frivolous debate. However, many debates are not frivolous, but are worthy of our best efforts.</p>

<p>Paul told Timothy to retain the standard of sound words, and to guard the treasure which had been entrusted to him (2 Timothy 1:13-14). He told Titus to choose elders who could exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict, teachers, he said, who must be silenced (Titus 1:9, 11).</p>

<p>This kind of protection of the truth is not a passive enterprise. It’s active and energetic. Arguments are good and dispute is healthy. They clarify the truth and protect us from error and religious despotism.</p>

<p>When the church discourages principled debates and a free flow of ideas it leads to shallow Christianity and a false sense unity. No one gets any practice learning how to field contrary views in a gracious and productive way. The oneness they share is contrived, not genuine. And they lose the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff.</p>

<p>When arguments are few, error abounds.</p>

<p>If we argue well, we separate truth from error.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Farguing-is-a-virtue-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%2Farguing-is-a-virtue-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%2Farguing-is-a-virtue-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: Thanksgiving
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 11/19/1994
source: https://www.str.org/w/thanksgiving
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I thought it would be interesting to read Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation in light of the recent understanding of the separation of church and state. By the way, Thanksgiving has been celebrated since 1621, but it became a national holiday thanks to Abraham Lincoln. Thanksgiving isn't just a time to give thanks, because we ought to be giving thanks on a regular basis. It is a time when we give thanks&nbsp;corporately,&nbsp;as a community—and specifically as a nation, as Abraham Lincoln did in 1863.</p>

<p>I was trying to remember where this was exactly in the Civil War—1863—I guess the tide had just turned. Gettysburg was the turning point in early July—the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of 1963—and the 4th Vicksburg fell under Grant after a long five or six month siege there. So there was a big turning point in July and things started going the way of the Union, so there was plenty to give thanks for in a sense. Yet at the same time there was a tremendous war continuing, and lives were still being lost. It was two bloody years before the Civil War would end.</p>

<p>In any event in the midst of this difficult time, President Abraham Lincoln declared Thanksgiving a national holiday and he did so with these words.* Listen closely, especially in light of the present atmosphere of so-called separation of church and state.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of God. [What a way to start! Can you imagine any president making a Presidential Proclamation today that started this way?] It is the duty of nations as well as of men to owe their dependence upon the over-ruling power of God." [It gets better.] "To confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that with genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon. And to recognize the sublime truth announced in the [watch this] Holy Scriptures, and proven by all history that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord. We know that by His divine law, nations like individuals are subject to punishments and chastisements in this world. May we not justify fear that the awful calamity of Civil War, which now desolates the land, may be a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people.</p>

<p>We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace too proud to pray to the God that made us.*</p>

<p>It has seemed to me fit and proper that God should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people.</p>

<p>I do, therefore, invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea, and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our benevolent Father who dwelleth in the heavens."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And so we have done now for some 131 years. We've done it for a long time. We have set aside the day. On that day all over this country the post office is closed, banks are closed, people take off the national holiday. But are they taking off the holiday that Abraham Lincoln instituted in 1863? No,&nbsp;not quite, because such a thing in now illegal in this country. It is essentially illegal for there to be a national holiday in which we give thanks to the God that made us. We recollect that we owe everything to Him. We confess our sins with contrition, and we ask for His mercy and give Him praise for his love, for all of His care for us.</p>

<p>We can't do that anymore. You can't do it in schools. You can't do it in public places. You can't do it just about anywhere in which the government owns the property. You can't even put a cross on a hill in San Diego because people are offended by that. Why? Because it's in government air, I guess.</p>

<p>Now, my point is not to try to get prayer back into schools. My point is to show how ridiculous the present atmosphere of so called separation is, and how far removed the notion of separation of church and state that is popularized now is from what was understood by our forefathers, and when people pretend that this is the way it has always been, that that is not the original notion of non-establishment that the Constitution speaks about.</p>

<p>Notice how natural it was for someone like the President of our country—many would say the greatest president that our country has ever seen, President Abraham Lincoln—in the midst of a trial to call the nation to repentance, prayer and thanksgiving to God. I think he's probably the saddest president that our country has ever seen. His country was being torn asunder. And he suggested that the country may be punished by God, who made us all, who are violating the laws that He has given us in His Holy Scriptures—laws that are clear to all.</p>

<p>What a thing to say. What a man. And what a change we have gone through since then to be at the place we are now.</p>

<p>____________________</p>

<p>*Correction: The first two paragraphs of the quote are from Abraham Lincoln's "<a href="http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/fast.htm" target="_blank">Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day</a>," March 30, 1863. The rest quoted here is from Lincoln's October 1863&nbsp;<a href="http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/thanks.htm" target="_blank">Thanksgiving proclamation</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%2Fthanksgiving" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthanksgiving" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthanksgiving" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Developing Courage
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/04/2001
source: https://www.str.org/w/developing-courage
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I want to talk about something that has been on my mind for a while. I have been thinking about virtues, particularly virtues that should be characteristics of Christians and leaders. My work with Bob Vernon, former Assistant Chief of Police in Los Angeles, and his ethics training has got me thinking about this more and more for my own life and also for training Christians. Since our goal is to build ambassadors for Christ at Stand to Reason that have an accurate mind and use an artful method and also have an attractive manner, then this area is of concern to me. Something happened last week that brought one aspect of character right to the forefront for me and I want you to consider it today.</p>

<p>Just outside of a mall that I visit regularly a woman was murdered. She was stabbed to death directly in front of a restaurant I visit with some regularity. This woman was stabbed to death in broad daylight. That’s really the key for my comment.</p>

<p>She was a 66 year-old woman who refused to give up her car during a car-jacking attempt. The killer was Joshua Daniel Lee, we know his name because he has been caught. He was caught by two men who were working on a sign in a restaurant adjacent to the restaurant that I’ve been to. What is stunning about the circumstances, not that these two workmen captured this bad guy, but that there were other people standing around that didn’t try to stop him. He murdered this woman with a folding knife. Do you know how hard it is to kill somebody with a folding knife? He didn’t shoot her. He stabbed her a bunch of times with this folding knife. Apparently, he had attempted to steal the car by getting into the back seat of the SUV she was driving. The car was still rolling and she tumbled out of the front seat and he out of the back right after her.</p>

<p>Reading here in the <em>L.A. Times:</em>&nbsp;“Witnesses said they saw her tumble out of the driver’s seat followed by the attacker, who began stabbing her repeatedly with a folding knife. As 22-year-old Joshua Daniel Lee of Hawthorne jogged away, he was tackled and held by two sign repairmen who police called heroic. One of the repairmen, Jason Campbell, 20, said he and a partner, Greg Nakorkal, 21, noticed Lee when they arrived at the Red Robin at Hawthorne and Artesia Boulevards to fix a broken light fixture. While they were working, ten minutes later, they heard a woman scream, ’Call 911. Someone call 911.’&nbsp;Campbell and Nakorkal ran outside, saw her fall from her car, which was still in drive and rolling toward a valet, when the carjacker jumped out and attacked. Campbell said the suspect’s demeanor was enraged. After stabbing the victim many times, he walked away leaving the knife and the victim lying in the parking lot in front of stunned witnesses. Campbell said he and his partner saw him stabbing and stabbing and stabbing her. ’There were all these people just standing around and watching.’&nbsp;When the guy was done, he looked at everyone with a puzzled expression, dropped the knife, and started to walk away. He then broke into a jog, after that these two boys ran after him, tackled him and held him down until the police got there and then they went back to work at the restaurant. One of them said, ’If only someone would have thrown a purse or a cell phone at the guy’s head, that lady would still be alive. But nowadays, people just care about themselves.’&nbsp;One of the victim’s long time neighbors, also an elderly man 71 years old, said this he wondered why no one rushed to help her during the attack. He says, ’I can’t believe it happened in broad daylight and people just stood there. I would have thrown my walker at him. Anything, just to stop him.’”</p>

<p>We’ve heard these stories before, haven’t we? The question is, why does this happen? And there is a simple reason. It’s not because these people didn’t think there was great harm going on. It’s that the people standing by did not have a certain virtue. And the virtue is called courage.</p>

<p>In some ways, it’s not surprising that they wouldn’t have the virtue because to a great degree there are not many opportunities that we have to develop the virtue of courage. In a more agrarian society we are faced with more physical threats, physical hardship, difficulty that we have to rise to the occasion to deal with. But there is a sense in which I think we do have opportunities. But there is a difference nowadays from what there used to be. Now we’re kind of soft and easy and everything is done for us, and the least little pain causes us to grimace and cry out “Stop!”&nbsp;It’s nothing really when you stop to think about it, but it is just that we are wimps.</p>

<p>One of the virtues that we simply have not been attentive to develop is the virtue of courage, but it is a very important virtue, ladies and gentlemen. Because courage doesn’t just express itself in physical ways, it expresses itself in non-physical ways as well, such that there is physical courage and there is what might be called moral courage.</p>

<p>Let me tell you what courage is, first of all. Courage is the willingness to act in the face of fear. It is not the absence of fear, and that is what a lot of people think. It doesn’t require courage to act in a circumstance where there is no fear. You have to have fear in order to show courage. Courage is the willingness to act in the face of fear. When everything tells you not to do something in the face of threat but you still act, then you have courage.</p>

<p>Sometimes the threat is physical. In this circumstance there was a man who was armed, so there is a threat to those who would go to help the woman. Maybe the threat is more modest, given the circumstances, because he is not that well armed and you don't have to jump in front and be the shield for the knife yourself to stop him. And I imagine if one person had jumped in, more would help out.</p>

<p>Fortunately, these two boys, who apparently couldn’t respond quickly enough to save the woman’s life, did so quickly enough to catch the perpetrator. I think it was pretty brave of them to do that. There were two of them, so it made it easier to tackled the guy and get him down. Good for them. They had some courage. So physical courage is the willingness to act in the face of physical threat. But there is also another kind of threat.</p>

<p>There is a threat of loss you might have if you pursue a certain appropriate course of action. This is called moral courage. That’s when people are willing to suffer loss of some sort in order to do what is right. The loss may be mild. It may be loss of peer respect or approval. It may be a loss of financial gain if you avoid a business deal that could make you money, but is immoral. You make the tough decision for the right reasons. You are willing to experience sacrifice, suffer loss in some sense, because you want to do what is right. That is moral courage.</p>

<p>There is precious little of either in our culture today. You have opportunities to express moral courage every single day. If you want to build your virtue of courage, you are not going to build it overnight. You don’t have to wait for a war to start so you can charge the line of fire to build your courage. In fact, you will not be able to demonstrate a large amount of courage in big issues if you have not developed courage in the smaller things.</p>

<p>Developing courage is an important attribute, and not just physical courage but moral courage, as well, which we face every day. The way to face a serious threat is to build our capabilities of courage in the smaller things. It may sound silly, but I’ve tried to develop physical courage just by not wincing and complaining when experiencing small physical pain. These are small opportunities that I have to build my physical courage.</p>

<p>The same is true of moral courage. You will not survive well as a Christian in this culture unless you have developed your ability in the area of moral courage. You will dishonor your Savior unless you have moral courage because there are more opportunities than ever before to do what is wrong with full social approval.</p>

<p>I want to encourage you to be thinking about the small ways to develop your moral courage, that is, start with the small things and do what is right. Don’t make the small compromises. Don’t be embarrassed about sharing your faith and bringing up spiritual issues. Take that opportunity when it is appropriate. Don’t run from that. And in the practice of doing that, in the expression of small acts of courage, even if they seem insignificant, you will strengthen yourself and your virtue of courage so that it is more robust and it is there when you need it for the bigger challenges. I encourage you to think of those things you’re facing right now that are small opportunities to strengthen your courage.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdeveloping-courage" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdeveloping-courage" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdeveloping-courage" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Choose a Church
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/22/1995
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-choose-a-church
content:
            <div> 
		<p>How do you choose a good church? This question comes up frequently and I’m glad it does. It shows people are asking the right questions.</p>

<p>I belong to a charismatic congregation and so theologically, I’m charismatic. I believe in the kinds of things that charismatic churches characteristically believe in with regards to the spiritual gifts. I think worship ought to be exuberant. I believe that God can work through miracles. I believe that the gifts that were in evidence in the early church are still available today. But being charismatic theologically doesn’t mean that you go along with a lot of the crazy things that are associated with a charismatic group.</p>

<p>Having a good church is really valuable. Here are the criteria that I usually give for a good church.</p>

<p>First of all, you have to go to a church that has a high view of the Scriptures. In other words, you want to go to a church that believes that the Bible is the word of God, and what they mean by that is word by word the word of God. There are no mistakes in it. This view is called verbal plenary inspiration. Inerrancy. Infallibility. They believe that the Bible is the authority. They teach from it word by word on Sunday so that you might learn what the Bible has to say and use that as a standard for your daily life.</p>

<p>I suggest that any of the bona fide translations are good for study. The King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version. These are all helpful. I personally prefer the New American Standard Bible. If you want something a little easier to read, there are many study Bibles in the NIV. I would steer you away from the King James Version only because the language is archaic, unless you went with the New King James Version. I recommend the King James Version for a very select group of people: people who are 350 years old or older!</p>

<p>The second thing is that you go to a church where you can be useful. I think it is a mistake for people to hang around churches where they get spoon fed every week and there is nothing they can do in the church because the pastor has a control problem and never lets anyone else get involved with anything. Find a church where you can practice your gifts.</p>

<p>The third thing is you find someplace where you can be accountable. What that means is that people know who you are and know what your life is like so they can encourage you to love and good deeds, as it says in Hebrews 10. When I say accountable, there is an edge on that. I am accountable in relationships too, and I confess my sins to certain people. When I do certain things that I am not supposed to do, I check up with these guys because that helps me to live properly. It’s hard to do that in a large church unless you have a small group strategy. Other people must have visibility of your life because then you are really part of the life of a community of faith.</p>

<p>The final thing is a fairly broad category. You must go to a church where you feel you can be fed spiritually. This would entail the notion of teaching the Bible, but it goes beyond that. It entails an idea of having a worship pattern that meets your particular needs as a Christian. You want to go to a church where you feel you are a part of this community and it’s directing your life in some significant fashion, such that you are growing spiritually. It’s not just what you do for two hours on Sunday and then do what you want the rest of the week. You want a church that sees Christianity as a full-orbed, full life and will help meet that need in your life.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-choose-a-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%2Fhow-to-choose-a-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%2Fhow-to-choose-a-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 Keep from Getting Spiritually Weird
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/02/1994
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-keep-from-getting-spiritually-weird
content:
            <div> 
		<h2>Part 1</h2>

<p>One of my students observed that a whole lot of folks who have gone spiritually weird seemed to start out great, but their lives as honorable Christians ended early. They found themselves unequipped to deal with the hardship and tribulation that inevitably faces every believer. They’d become ineffectual and disenchanted Christians.</p>

<p>Others are not sunk by hardship, but by success. At the pinnacle of their ministries they get involved in sexual immorality, misappropriate funds, or simply turn into jerks, bringing shame on the cross of Christ. They become disbarred Christian leaders expelled from the Christian community. Sometimes they even find themselves in prison.</p>

<p>Sometimes they never get caught or corrected, and in a way that’s worse, because they quietly teach views that in the long run don’t bring maturity and completeness in Christ, but actually prolong spiritual adolescence, even though these teachers come across as spiritually profound.</p>

<p>So this student asked a very simple but important question: “How do you survive in the long haul as a Christian?”&nbsp;In other words, how do you keep from getting spiritually weird?</p>

<p>So I’ve put some time and thought into it and I’m going to suggest a few things I think can make a difference.</p>

<p>First, what kind of people get spiritually weird? People who are looking for <em>quick fixes</em> frequently get weird.</p>

<p>It seems like every couple of years a new fad comes down the pike promising a, deeper richer, fuller, Christian life. If you’ve been around for a while you know what I mean. In my twenty years as a Christian we’ve had Power in praise; the “second blessing”&nbsp;as key to the powerful Christian life; speaking in tongues; heavy-handed submission to church leadership; binding, loosing and rebuking of demons, name it and claim it, the School of the Prophets, hearing the voice of God, power evangelism. These are all fads, ladies and gentlemen, evangelical joy-toys. They each may emphasize something that has biblical merit, but they do so in an unbalanced way, and each fails utterly as a panacea, as the one particular and principle thing that makes your Christian life “work.”</p>

<p>It is uniquely American to want an easy way out, especially a way out that is not painful and requires no work. That American value has crept into our American Christianity. So we have these seminars to get it all taken care of in a weekend. Want mental health? Get hands laid on you and you’ll have mental health overnight. Want spirituality? Have a vision, get the baptism, or speak in tongues. Want your problems to disappear? Simply praise the Lord. Want to be rid of temptation and sin? Have the demon cast out. Want to done with the aggravation of decision making? Let God speak to you.</p>

<p>Instead of being devoted to developing spiritual maturity and attaining Scriptural knowledge, we want the quick fix. Instead of developing mastery, we want magic. Instead of learning our lessons, we want the master sitting next to us during the tests of life whispering His answers into our ears. We anticipate an A in the exam of life not because we know the material, not because we’ve mastered the content and it’s become a part of us, but because we’ve cheated.</p>

<p>You will notice, by the way, that these extreme things do not stay around long, and that the effects of these fads fade over time. That’s why the church as a whole has to move on to its next fast-fix.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example. Recently I read an article on Momentous, a new “Christian”&nbsp;encounter seminar that has earned the praise of many participants, but has also drawn the attention of concerned ministers and counter-cult groups like the Christian Research Institute (CRI).</p>

<p>The article quoted Rex Julian Beaber, an attorney and psychologist familiar with encounter groups. He made this observation: “The grand lesson of the whole marathon group encounter movement is that the effects are very short-lived...It is very difficult to change another human being...[People] confuse emotional intensity with significance. What are they doing now that they weren’t doing before? Were they unemployed people who now have jobs?...Are they best friends with someone they couldn’t forgive? The evidence of real change is usually trivial.”&nbsp;<em>LA Times</em>, Sunday, April 17, 1994, p. E2</p>

<p>Let me run that by you again: “[People] confuse emotional intensity with significance.”&nbsp;We move from one experiential high to another and call that spirituality. In the meantime our lives are chaotic and we wonder why God seems to be right next to us one minute and then the next minute He’s gone. The Spirit has departed. The anointing has left. Now what?</p>

<p>“But this is a humanistic, non-Christian, skeptic’s perspective!”&nbsp;you say. “He’s a psychologist, for goodness’ sake.”</p>

<p>May be, but I have to agree with him on this point. In my twenty years as a Christian I have seen precious few who seemed substantially changed by any of these intense, quick-fix experiences. Yes, we have times of profound insight and radical paradigm shifts, and the Holy Spirit can work some dramatic, significant changes—and maybe some of you have experienced things like that. But I think quantum leaps in growth are rare, and for the most part we don’t control the circumstances that stimulate them. It’s not <em>our</em> spiritual tricks—our fads, our joy-toys—that make the difference in those times. Instead, God visits something upon us sovereignly.</p>

<p>No, there are no shortcuts. But there is a secret to long-term to stability and genuine maturity. I say “secret”&nbsp;with tongue in cheek because it’s no secret at all, that’s one of the reasons it’s often ignored. This is the antidote to the quick fix: stick with the basics, the dull, ordinary disciplines that have been around for millennium and have served a very good purpose, to build solid Christian people over time.</p>

<p>How do we attain a deeper, fuller, richer Christian life? By following the fundamental, basic disciplines of Christianity God has given us, revealed in the Bible. Prayer. Fellowship with accountability. Bible study. Meditation and memorization. Practicing Christian virtue. Obedience. Repentance. Worship. Fasting. All of these ordinary, every day type of things, that every single Christian person can do.</p>

<p>It’s the practice of these things in a consistent manner over a long period of time that builds deep spirituality. Not some power encounter with God or the devil. I’m not disregarding powerful spiritual encounters people have with God. Those are valuable and God determines when they happen. But people who seek those sometimes get other kinds of experiences besides God. Not only that, it often substitutes a dramatic emotional experience for substantive, real, genuine transformation of character.</p>

<p>But what of the advanced stuff, the secrets? Well, there are no secrets. In Christianity everything is public. You never need to buy a book that says, “Here are the secrets to the Christian life. Here is the inside scoop.”&nbsp;<em>Many</em> things are important in our Christian walk; no one <em>particular</em> thing is preeminent.</p>

<p>When you understand this, a whole new world seems accessible to you. You don’t need to chase after the next seminar or hot Christian best-seller to find out how to flip on the spiritual switch, to connect with God in a secret, esoteric way that only the ascended masters of Christianity can pass on to you, for a fee.</p>

<p>Many of these seminars are led by godly people who love Jesus, and I’m not impugning their motive or character. I’m just saying that people go to things like this, proclaim great transformation in their lives, when in reality they are confusing an emotional reaction with substantial change. And such change usually doesn’t happen in a weekend. It doesn’t happen by employing some peculiar trick that someone stumbled onto.</p>

<p>One of the hard truths of spiritual growth is that it takes time an persistence and consistent application. It doesn’t take secret knowledge. It’s doesn’t take a special voice from God or a special inside track with the Holy Spirit. There’s nothing hidden. It’s available to all and you can find it between the covers of the book to be read by anyone. Everything that is to be known and practiced as Christian discipline are there in the Scriptures taught plainly.</p>

<p>The point that I’m making is that you don’t have to plug into some deep, hidden, specialized, higher knowledge in order to be a profound Christian. You don’t have to “hear the voice of God”&nbsp;to live the optimal Christian life. There are times when one can say God “speaks”&nbsp;to people with special guidance, but it isn’t the kind of thing that is the ordinary part of the Christian’s walk. And those who pursue that kind of thing end up frequently on the junk pile of Christianity. That&nbsp;doesn’t mean they all become apostate, but what does happen is a serious time of disillusionment and ineffectiveness.</p>

<p><strong>So the first way to keep from becoming spiritually weird is to stick with the basics and don't go for the quick fix.</strong> Stick with the old tried and true. Don’t go off on these tangents. Usually the new stuff is just an alleged short cut to a destination that has only one route: the simple, persistent application of classical spiritual disciplines over time in the power of the Holy Spirit. This is very important because there’s a lot of goofy stuff out there.</p>

<p>In regards to your Christian life, be a plodder. The times when we see significant, consistent change is when we’ve been applying ourselves over a long period of time. As a matter of fact, that’s the kind of change we’re not usually even aware of, like growing a few inches taller over the course of a year. It’s the kind of thing other people reflect to us, but we don’t always see ourselves.</p>

<p>The first thing, then, is stick to the basics and don’t look for the quick fix. The “secret”&nbsp;is that there is no secret except for consistency and time. Don’t go after the evangelical joy toys. Instead plod on with the basics. That’s what builds true spirituality, in my opinion. It’ll also go a long way to protect you from excess.</p>

<h2>Part 2</h2>

<p>I was talking last week about how to keep from getting spiritually weird. I’d like to give you some more thoughts on that. The first way to keep from getting spiritually weird is stick to the basics and don’t look for the quick fix, spiritually. Don’t go after the evangelical joy toys. Instead plod on with the ordinary Christian disciplines: prayer, Bible learning, fellowship and accountability, worship, obedience, the practice of Christian virtue, that kind of thing. What kind of people get spiritually weird? People who are looking for quick fixes; they get weird.</p>

<p>A second kind of person gets weird. That’s the person who’s attracted to theological novelty. If you have a taste for the novel, it’s very easy for you to get weird. People who are drawn to theological new, strange, fascinating, flashy, showy, extreme, get weird.</p>

<p>So our second guideline is simply: to keep from getting spiritually weird, <strong>avoid theological novelty; or, to put it another way, err on the side of conservatism.</strong></p>

<p>It seems that it’s the goofy, extreme things that cause problems. What is novel? Something that’s new, as opposed to that which has been once for all delivered to the saints, as Jude puts it.</p>

<p>Some people have a spiritual appetite for secrets, for the inside scoop, for special hidden knowledge. They like that kind of thing. It’s appealing, it’s titillating. If you’re like that, look out. Your kind is prone to get weird. The second century heresy known as Gnosticism was spawned by a desire to know more detail about the supernatural world. When people started probing into the spiritual realm for novelty, new stuff, stuff that the Bible didn’t tell them about, the spiritual realm provided it for them. They got all kinds of juicy stuff, but it was heresy and it destroyed their faith and the faith of others.</p>

<p>I anticipate a response here. The classic response to my warning to be careful of the novel, new, strange, flashy kinds of things and instead, stick with the conservative stuff, is “You can’t put God in a box. If God wants to work through a Holy Ghost ’laugh-in’&nbsp;[one of the current weird rages], then who are we to pass judgment on it?”</p>

<p>My response is that we have a responsibility to pass judgment on it, first off. We can’t simply assume that because it has a supernatural character to it it must be from God. It is our responsibility to judge those things. We are to look at them carefully. That’s part of our job. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, there’s something wrong with not doing that. And sure, there is the chance that I might quench the Spirit. God might be doing something that’s really kind of bizarre by my standards, and I’ll say Hey that’s too bizarre for me, I’m going to err on the side of conservatism and I’m going to opt out for the time being, and then I would quench the Spirit. But I want to tell you something, better take the chance of “quenching”&nbsp;the Spirit than becoming a cultist. The Spirit will survive the alleged quenching; you may not survive the imbalance that may—and frequently does—result.</p>

<p>Yes, God can work through anything, and if He wants to deepen your spirituality with a good belly-laugh, that’s His business. But, no thanks for me. I’d&nbsp;just as soon take my chances at quenching the Spirit a little bit and stay sane, than got off into something marginal and go whacko. It’s better to err on the side of conservatism than to see your Christian life sabotaged or your witness discredited because of some trendy silliness.</p>

<p>What kind of people get weird? People who are attracted to novelty. I’ve got to raise the question: But how do you know if something is novel? Well, to know what’s <em>novel</em> you’ve got to know what’s <em>normal</em>. We learn from this that people also get weird because they don’t know the normal Christian things. Simply put, they don’t know the truth.</p>

<p>This leads us to our third guideline to keep us from becoming spiritually weird: <strong>know the truth</strong>. And you can see how this fits with our first point of not looking for quick fixes for spiritual maturity, but instead plodding along with the basics. In order to stick to the basics you must know the basics.</p>

<p>You must know the nature of God. You must know the person of Christ and the nature of man. You must know the work of the cross. You must know the nature of revelation. Virtually every significant error in Christendom at large is an error in one of those areas.</p>

<p>You’ve got to know doctrine. Sorry, there’s no other way. That’s the only way to be protected. And remember what I said yesterday if you want to build your faith? Build your knowledge, because knowledge undergirds&nbsp;faith. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. You can’t know what’s theologically weird and avoid it unless you know what’s theologically normal.</p>

<p>If you want a book recommendation, try the relatively short book on doctrine <em>Know the Truth</em>, by Milne (IVP). Or for something more thorough, I’d suggest you pick up a copy of <em>Christian Theology</em>, by Erickson (Baker). Then start reading with your Bible open. “But that’s a lot of material.”&nbsp;Right. So what? You’ve got the rest of your life. Just start and learn what is true. Do you want the rest of your life to be a normal Christian life or a weird one? Your choice.</p>

<p>Another related thought that will help, I think. <strong>Know something about church history, about the development of Christian thought.</strong> Why is that important? Because people have been getting weird for 2000 years. And a record of the history of the church demonstrates that fact, but it also makes it clear what is weird and what isn’t. What was rejected and what was accepted and the reasons why, in most cases. Most of the errors being made now have been made a number of times in the past. My previous reflection on Gnosticism was possible because I knew a little about church history.</p>

<p>This is the issue of catholicity. The word “catholic”&nbsp;means universal. A belief passes the test of catholicity if it can be shown to be part of the belief system of the church at large down through history. Actually, the test of catholicity is more of a guideline because the church can be—and has been, in my view—in error on certain issues for long periods of time. But if your view is out of step with the conventional view of the church, you better be really certain that Scripture unequivocally backs you up.</p>

<p>By the way, some of what is basic to American evangelicalism today is actually historically novel. We think that what we believe is ordinary, right? And, in fact much of what we believe is new: for example, the emphasis in evangelical America on hearing the voice of God to live the optimal Christian life; the view that the church will disappear seven years before the visible return of Christ—the rapture—this is new; extreme individualism, personal peace &amp; prosperity, the emphasis on mental health, all new and recent. So, because of these recent things that we are not alert to, as being kind of novel, we’ve got a lot of weirdness associated with Christianity because people are doing strange things that they fancy God “told”&nbsp;them to do. You have Christians getting weird because they’re trying to figure out the timing of the “secret”&nbsp;coming of Christ, or because they’re treating God like a cosmic bellhop instead of the Lord of the universe. Christians get weird when God becomes their personal financial wizard, when the Mercedes is a sign of spiritual maturity. So you can have financial holy trinity: Dave Delgado, Tony Robbins and Jesus H. Christ. That’s weird. All of these things are historically recent, and that ought to be a clue to us that they are novel, and novelty makes Christians weird.</p>

<p>Another value of being familiar with history is that you realize that the things which you hold dear theologically, to a great degree are trends. <em>We</em> think that everything <em>we</em> believe is what Christianity <em>really</em> is. But much of what we believe—speaking here of the secondary things, not the principle, primary catholic issues—actually reflects trends in Christianity that come from our culture and they are not part of what Christianity essentially is. This doesn’t mean the beliefs are necessarily false,—it could be trendy and true—but it forces us to ask ourselves whether what we believe is <em>merely</em> a trend or not. And if you have some perspective on the development of Christian thought, if you’ve done some reading in Christian history, even a little bit, you realize that we are deeply influenced by those trends and you are more capable in identifying trends and separating those from the truth of Christianity. And clinging to the later, and eschewing the former.</p>

<p>And so our second and third points are kin to the first. Stick with the basics and avoid theological novelty. In order to do that, know the truth and know what the church has characteristically believed and practiced. That will help keep you from becoming spiritually weird.</p>

<h2>Part 3</h2>

<p>This leads us now to our fifth point of how to keep from becoming spiritually weird. And it has to do with how tightly we hold onto certain doctrinal positions. Now, I’ve changed some of my doctrinal convictions since I’ve been a Christian. I haven’t really changed on the fundamentals. Though my understanding of them has become more precise In the last 20 years. But there are a whole bunch of things that fall into a broader category of what I call Christian folklore that I have changed drastically. And so, my next point is simply this: to avoid getting spiritually weird, <strong>you have to stay teachable</strong>.</p>

<p>Now, how do you stay teachable? Well, first, you have to be a student, and you have to be a student continually. Some might say, well it’s easy for you to say this, Koukl, because you like learning, apparently. And the truth is, I do. And some people don’t like learning so much. And I understand that. And it makes me feel good because of my personal likes, my natural tendencies, I more readily do those kinds of things that will protect me. But it doesn’t mean that others are no less responsible for protecting themselves just because they don’t happen to like learning as much.</p>

<p>You are obliged as a Christian to continue learning about spiritual things. This is the command of the Scripture. You may learn at a different rate than others, but you need to keep learning. You need to consider yourself a student. And what the heck—you’ve got the rest of your life. Sixty-six books in the Bible seems like a lot, but you’ve got, forty, fifty, sixty years for it. That’s a lot of time. You don’t have to have it all tomorrow. You don’t have to have all your theology tightened down and all the hatches battened down in the next year or so. You can just be a continual student and move slowly at your own pace, but progressively, through the teachings of the Scripture. And as you do that, the fact that you are a student, the fact that you are continuing to learn will help you to be teachable. After all, you are seeking teaching if you are a student. So be a student, continually.</p>

<p>Second, be honest about your limitations. We have to hold our ideas about what is true with a little bit of a loose grip. Now, I’m not suggesting that you become capricious, changing your views every other day, or that you abandon your beliefs about a particular thing over night. But I am encouraging you to keep in mind what Chuck Colson has said. That “human beings have an infinite capacity for self-deception.”&nbsp;We think we know something for sure. But it’s very, very simple for us to deceive ourselves because there are other things that are going on. Things that are underneath the surface that motivate us to want to see a thing a certain way. I’m not suggesting that we can never know something without a sense of conviction that it’s actually true. But what I am saying is that we ought to have a sober attitude about our own capability to see things the way we want to see them or the way we are used to seeing them. We like the status quo; we don’t like to change the way we believe. We often times have a personal investment in those beliefs. So the tendency is to overlook some things that sometimes are very obvious that would demonstrate for us that our beliefs are actually in error. So we have to be aware that we can deceive ourselves and because of that we have to be willing to look hard at even things that we hold dear in our own theology.</p>

<p>Now, how do we know when to change and when to stand firm? Here’s what I suggest: We should hold onto something that we believe as tenaciously as the credibility of the ideas permit. What does that mean? I’ll explain. There are some things that I’ve researched and thought through very extensively. These are the convictions I cling to very strongly. I’ve done the work to justify the determination and tenacity with which I cling to those particular beliefs. Even so, by the way, I still pretty regularly ask myself the question “Are you wrong about this, Greg?&nbsp;Maybe you’re mistaken.”&nbsp;I look as honestly as I can at the other point of view. Is there merit in the idea? Is there error in the thinking? Is there misapplication of a verse? Am I being blind to something that is obvious to everyone else? And I’ve got to acknowledge that possibility even on the things that I think I really know well. I ask myself quite frequently, and often times because of the challenge I receive on this program, “Am I mistaken?”&nbsp;Maybe I’m not getting it. Maybe I’m blind to something that’s obvious to everyone else. And so I have to go back to the process myself. I go back to my research, examine my reasons to see if my convictions are well grounded.</p>

<p>So I hold my views quite tenaciously on the issues that I’ve done the work on. But there are other things that I haven’t done the work on. And because of that, I can’t hold to those views tenaciously. I can say to you, as I frequently do here on the show, “This is my feeling right now, but I could be mistaken. I could be wrong. I need to do some more work on this.”&nbsp;And you know, it is very healthy for you to learn to say the phrase “I could be mistaken.” Not just in theological matters, but in all of your relationships, frankly. It’s just really a good thing, when you are in an argument or a discussion, when you are having a difference of opinion with a friend or a spouse or an employer or a co-worker, to be willing to say, to genuinely entertain the idea that “I could be mistaken on this.” One thing it will do is save you a lot of humiliation when, later on, you find that you are mistaken. At least you’ve admitted the possibility. So be sure that you have the capability and that you are in the habit of acknowledging that you could be mistaken. And to say that genuinely because you realize the limitations of your thinking on a given subject, and because you realize your human tendency to deceive yourself.</p>

<p>Now there are times when I’ll say, “I could be mistaken, but I’ll tell you what, I really don’t think I am on this one.”&nbsp;But what I’ll then do, is give reasons. You see, the reason I say that is not because I’m bull headed. I’ll sit down and I’ll give you the reasons why. And if you can refute the reasons, I’ll abandon my view. It has happened before. Or if your reasons are good enough to alter my view, I’ll change it in some fashion. And in that regard, you will do me a favor. And there is no reason for me to tenaciously hang on to a view that is just flat out false. And this is why it is always good for us to be in the habit of encouraging other people to express their disagreements with what we believe. Because one of two things is going to happen: either we are going to find out that their reasons are bad ones, and be more confirmed in our own thinking or we are going to find out there are some flaws in our thinking and we will abandon the bad thinking and come closer to the truth. Both ways, we win, right?</p>

<p>So, to stay teachable, you need to continue being a student and secondly, you have to hold your convictions with a strength that is commensurate with the soundness of the ideas and the research that supports those convictions. You have to be willing to say “I could be wrong on this, but if I’m wrong, here are my reasons, if I’m wrong you tell me why.”&nbsp;So what kind of people get weird? People who are looking for quick fixes, instead of knowing and applying the basics. People who are attracted to novelty because they don’t know the truth very well and don’t know something about the history of Christian thinking. Those are the kind of people who get weird. Now, some people don’t know these things simply because they are not teachable. And people who are not teachable, people who are calcified, locked in to a way of thinking, people who won’t bend, people who are even unwilling to consider flexing, people who cannot integrate new information, who cannot integrate new ideas, who cannot assess them fairly, these kind of people are vulnerable to getting spiritually weird. Don’t you be one of them.</p>

<h2>Part 4</h2>

<p>The next point I want to share with you is related to this idea of flexibility, teachability and integrating new information that will allow you to have a clearer, more accurate view of the truth. People get weird when their understanding of the truth is not balanced. In other words, they’re unbalanced in their doctrine. They’re not careful in their understanding of the full counsel of the Scripture. Now, when I refer here to balance, I am referring to something very particular. I’m referring to a kind of knowledge, and not a time management principle. I’m not talking about people who spend too much time doing one thing and not another. The particular kind of balance that I think is the biggest concern for a Christian—though the other has its value and is important—but the particular kind of balance that relates to people becoming spiritually weird has to do with balance in the area of knowledge. Balance, the way that I’m using it, is the ability to integrate all the teaching of Scripture on a particular topic.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example. I believe that people who are extreme pacifists, in other words, people who believe that it’s wrong to fight under any circumstances, and certainly wrong to take someone’s life under any circumstances, are people I believe who are not only adopting an immoral position in itself, but they are sometimes doing so with justification from the Scriptures from the Old Testament where it says “Thou shalt not kill,”&nbsp;as they read it at least. Consequently, they are theologically weird because they are imbalanced in their knowledge about what the Scripture teaches about this issue. What they have done, folks, is camp on one verse and commit themselves to a particular understanding of what that verse means, and they’re also apparently not teachable. In the King James, the verse reads “Thou shalt not kill”—that is not what it means. The Hebrew word is very clear there, it means “Thou shalt not murder.”&nbsp;It’s not a commandment against taking any life whatsoever. It’s a commandment against taking innocent life. That’s the commandment. But some who are extreme pacifists will argue from the Bible that it teaches that you should never take any life under any circumstance, and they will quote this verse. The reason that this view is imbalanced is because, though one might infer that meaning from that isolated passage, there are other passages which makes it impossible for you to hold that particular viewpoint. For example, in the same section of the Bible that says “Thou shalt not murder,”&nbsp;it also says that when someone does murder their life should be taken by the ruling authorities. Capitol punishment is not only allowed in the Old Testament, it is commanded under quite a number of circumstances.</p>

<p>Now, the point I’m making here is this: a person who focuses in on only one aspect of the teaching and doesn’t take into account all of the relevant verses to develop a position that keeps all those verses’&nbsp;in tension and doesn’t violate any of them, is a person who is out of balance. If you don’t know the different things, you focus on one area to the exclusion of others and you get out of balance. And when you get out of balance you get spiritually weird. If you focus on one part of a doctrine and you don’t integrate the rest then your understanding is without balance.</p>

<p>Folks, balance doesn’t mean taking a little bit of this and a little bit of that. It isn’t taking a little bit of grace and a little bit of law, as if having a little bit of each gives us balance. We’ve kind of got even amounts of each—that’s balance. That’s not balance. The reason that it’s not balance in the sense that I’m talking about is because that way of approaching Christian living is a Biblical distortion. The Bible doesn’t tell us to take a little bit of grace and a little bit of law. The balance I’m talking about is a balance of true knowledge. Balance means understanding enough of the Scripture, so that you have the breadth not to distort any particular thing. That comes with time, by the way. It doesn’t happen over night. I hope that this doesn’t put a burden on you that you have to be perfect over night. That isn’t what I mean. I’m giving you these guidelines so that they will give you something to shoot for and to pursue.</p>

<p>By the way, I think that you will notice how many of these things that I’ve talked about in this series really have to do with knowledge. And if our knowledge is sound and accurate and reasonably precise and broad, then we are going to be protected from being spiritually weird in a lot of different ways. Now, one of the problems with assessing balance, especially for Christian leaders, is that there isn’t a Christian leader or teacher who thinks he’s unbalanced. We all think we’re balanced. So that’s a liability we have to live with. But in your pursuit of this virtue, maybe the best thing is to not think about trying to get balance, <em>per se</em>, but rather to think about having a breadth of understanding of the Scriptures, or of the issues that you deal with. And having a breadth of understanding will help you accomplish balance.</p>

<p>A lot of my own contribution that I make here on the air involves bringing other information or other thinking to bear on a particular issue that someone raises. Then I encourage the callers to work this information into the formula of their thinking. They say, “This is my view. Here is why I believe it.”&nbsp;And I say, “Wait a minute, there’s a couple of other things that you haven’t taken into consideration. Integrate those things into your view now and your view will be more balanced.”&nbsp;Balance is when all of the relevant factors and relevant information is taken into consideration in order to draw a conclusion about someone. So, people get weird when their knowledge and therefore their application gets out of balance.</p>

<p>People get weird for another reason. They get weird because they don’t have a healthy sense of vulnerability. Because they’re not vulnerable, they don’t stay accountable, and they fall prey to a few things. What do I mean by vulnerability? Vulnerability is a willingness to see yourself as a traveler with everyone else. Not to allow yourself to be placed on a pedestal as some kind of super human Christian, but rather to be transparent about your liabilities and your limitations as a human being.</p>

<p>Many Christians aren’t tested in this area simply because they don’t expect themselves to be on a pedestal. But this is a serious problem for those who are in Christian leadership because they are placed there and they think they have to maintain an image of some kind of spiritual perfection. As a result, they are not vulnerable. They are not readily willing to admit their weaknesses and their moral liabilities. This is true of all Christians, I think, in some measure, and to the degree that it’s true, it is dangerous. But it is more true and therefore more dangerous to Christian leadership because of the unique demands of their particular position.</p>

<p>Many Christians—and this includes many, many Christian leaders—don’t want people to see that there is a real human being in there that has to come out from behind the podium when he’s done with his sermon or lecture, and live among human beings, and struggle with the same things everyone else struggles with. There are well known teachers that come to mind—you could probably think of them—for whom it’s really hard to imagine that they ever really struggle with anything—morally or otherwise. They just seem so perfect. Well, if you have that feeling about someone else, then that’s a tip to you that they may not be very vulnerable in a proper way. I don’t mean you have to spill your guts all the time and tell every nasty sin, but I’m talking about a general quality. Instead they become somewhat of an icon or image, instead of being a human being. When they do that they not only do a disservice to us, they also put themselves in an ironically vulnerable position of becoming weird in some fashion. Here’s why. Because of our fear of admitting our liabilities or humanness, we are not particularly eager to let anyone have access to us on that level. We’re private. We don’t want people to know we’re kind of nasty inside. In other words, we don’t want to be accountable to others for the darker side.</p>

<p>Let me give you an illustration. If you have a big spiritual name to protect—or think that you do—then you won’t want anyone to know about your struggle with pornography. Because you are not vulnerable in that way, you will not be inclined to report to another brother on a regular basis and confess to him your recent sins in that area. Gulp. Report to someone on my recent sins in this area? Yeah, right. Well, if you say that, that is an evidence that you are not being vulnerable. And because of your lack of vulnerability—your inability or unwillingness to admit that you have some liabilities in this area, that you may be open to sin in this area—you are not going to surround yourself with people to be accountable to. Therefore you can get hurt big time.</p>

<p>Let me tell you something, not for effect, but simply for your education. I have a Christian brother who I answer to on that particular issue—pornography. Why? Because I know my vulnerabilities. (How embarrassing. People are going to think, golly.) No, it’s not embarrassing, not really. And I’ll tell you two reasons why. I have no delusions—nor does he, nor should you—about what I am capable of as a fallen human being. What’s there to be embarrassed about? We ought all be aware of the fact that we can do just about anything. We are all capable of just about anything. Secondly, because I am accountable to him I usually don’t have much to confess. See how that works?</p>

<p>Be accountable. But before you can be accountable, you have to be vulnerable. Only if we are vulnerable about our limitations because of what we know we are capable of doing or being in the shadows, in the darkness, in the hidden places where other eyes are not upon us will we be willing to be accountable. The key to accountability is that there be nothing hidden in our lives. In other words, have nothing in your life that you would be ashamed to have others find out about, or to have others discover suddenly.</p>

<p>I heard of one guy who was on the pastoral staff of a church, and somebody had a word of knowledge and nailed this guy publicly for his problem with pornography, which apparently he was not dealing with. How would you like that? Somebody out of the blue nails you publicly for a sin that you thought was secret to everyone but God. Well, let me tell you a secret. God can whisper that sin into someone else’s ear. It’s possible, and it has happened.</p>

<p>Now, how do you protect yourself against that? Very simple. Don’t have anything in your life that someone can discover. Have enough visibility, vulnerability, accountability in your life such that you have disclosure about what it is that you are doing. The way to keep from getting uncovered or discovered suddenly is to have godly people in your life who can already see everything. Get it? “Well, gee, I sure wouldn’t want them to see this and that and the other.”&nbsp;Of course you wouldn’t. That’s why when they are allowed to see everything you quit doing those things. That’s the point. By the way, this is called confessing to one another. All right? Got it?</p>

<p>Now what are the key areas you should be accountable, to be alert to? There are actually three areas that are the biggest areas of downfall for Christians, especially Christian leaders: money, sex and power. Or you can insert pride there for power. It’s basically the same thing. Money, sex and pride. How do you protect yourself against these three major stumbling blocks? You make each of these areas objects of total disclosure. Not to everyone, but to some people in your circle of mature Christian friends. People that you humbly give power to in your life. Yes, it takes humility, but that’s the point. You see, this is what Christianity entails to a great degree—a willingness to confess our sins one to another and humbly give others access to our lives so that we don’t continue in the sin.</p>

<p>What kind of people get spiritually weird? People whose knowledge of the truth is not in balance. People whose lack of vulnerability does not allow them to be accountable, does not allow disclosure of their moral habits to others. Or simply put, they refuse to confess their sins to others so that they may be healed. Refusing to be vulnerable in this way actually causes you to be vulnerable to getting weird. And that’s no fun.</p>

<p>So keep in mind all of these areas. Each one of them is important, and as I mentioned a few moments ago, most of them that we’ve discussed the last couple of weeks have to do with the area of knowledge. If you know things rightly, if you spend some time to get clarity on the truth, if you spend some time to get a refined understanding of that which is true, to get some of the details down, if you have some perspective of Christian thinking so that you know what’s been weird in the past, and what is ordinary, if you know properly, if your mind is being renewed, if you have a true knowledge, that will protect you from becoming spiritually weird. And if you take your own awareness, your own accurate self-awareness that you are nothing special spiritually, and you are just as vulnerable to sin as anyone else, if you take that seriously and are willing to be vulnerable with that truth to others, if you are willing to not act like a spiritual icon, someone on a pedestal, but as a human being which is what you are, if you are willing to take that self knowledge seriously and then allow others to take it seriously about you, then you will be more inclined to be accountable. You must realize that you and everyone else have the capability of being and doing as badly as anything can be done. You have the possibility of getting spiritually weird. You have the capability of committing any sin in the book. That happens to be true, and if you think not then your view of yourself is too high. You don’t have a clear understanding of your own fallenness.</p>

<p>A friend of mine who I hadn’t seen in a while called me recently, and I have to get back to him. His name is Rob Mehl, a singer, composer. He wrote a song and said in this song “Be as holy in the shadows as you are in the light.”&nbsp;The only way you can really do that, frankly, is if you have true knowledge, and you have other Christians in your life that are with you in the shadows, as it were, so they can see whether you are holy or not. That takes vulnerability. That takes courage. That takes some humility, as well. But that will keep you and protect you from becoming spiritually weird.</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-keep-from-getting-spiritually-weird" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-keep-from-getting-spiritually-weird" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-keep-from-getting-spiritually-weird" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Bible Translated, Retranslated, and…Changed? No Chance.
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2000
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-bible-translated-retranslated-and-changed-no-chance
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“The Bible has been changed and translated so many times over the last 2000 years, it’s impossible to have any confidence in its accuracy. Everyone knows that.”</p>

<p>This invocation of common knowledge is enough to satisfy the ordinary, man-on-the-street critic of the New Testament, and the challenge has stopped countless Christians in their tracks. But it’s remarkably easy to answer if you know a few simple details.</p>

<p>The complaint is understandable. Whisper a message from person to person, then compare the message’s final form with the original. The radical transformation in so short a period of time is enough to convince the casual skeptic that the New Testament documents are equally unreliable.</p>

<p>How can we know the documents we have in our possession correctly reflect originals destroyed two millennia ago? Communication is never perfect. People make mistakes. Errors are compounded with each generation. After 2000 years of copying, recopying, translating, and copying some more, it’s anyone’s guess what the original said.</p>

<p>It’s easy to state the problem, and some may think that merely raising the objection makes the argument itself compelling. Yet offering concrete evidence is a bit more difficult. Usually the complaint is raised by people who have little understanding of the real issues.</p>

<p>In cases like this, an appeal to common knowledge is often an appeal to common ignorance; the people don’t have reliable information.</p>

<p>The question of the authenticity of the New Testament is not really a religious question; it’s an academic one. It can be answered without any reference to personal “faith.”&nbsp;Instead, all that’s needed is a simple appeal to facts, a little technique I call “Just the Facts, Ma’am.”</p>

<h2>Just the Facts, Ma’am</h2>

<p>It’s hard to imagine how one can reconstruct an original after 2000 years of copying, recopying, and translating. The skepticism, though, is based on two misconceptions about the textual history of ancient documents like the New Testament.</p>

<p>The first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linear—one person telling a second who talks with a third, etc., leaving a single message many generations removed from the original. Second, the objection assumes oral transmission which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something written.</p>

<p>Neither assumption applies to the text of the New Testament. First, the transmission was not linear, but geometric—e.g., one letter birthed 50 copies which generated 500 and so on. Secondly, the transmission was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way oral communications cannot.</p>

<h2>Reconstructing Aunt Sally’s Letter</h2>

<p>Let me illustrate how such a test can be made. It will help you to see how scholars confidently reconstruct an original from existing manuscript copies even though the copies have differences and are much younger than the autograph.</p>

<p>Pretend your Aunt Sally learns in a dream the recipe for an elixir that preserves her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs to the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days Aunt Sally is transformed into a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of “Sally’s Secret Sauce.”</p>

<p>Aunt Sally is so excited she sends detailed, hand-written instructions on how to make the sauce to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages—no photocopier or email). They, in turn, make copies for ten of their own friends.</p>

<p>All goes well until one day Aunt Sally’s pet schnauzer eats the original copy of the recipe. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps, so the alarm goes out to the others in attempt to recover the original wording.</p>

<p>Sally rounds up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When she spreads them out on the kitchen table, she immediately notices some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. Of the remaining three, however, one has misspelled words, another has two phrases inverted (“mix then chop”&nbsp;instead of “chop then mix”) and one includes an ingredient none of the others has on its list.</p>

<p>Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe from this evidence? Of course she can. The misspellings are obvious errors. The single inverted phrase stands out and can easily be repaired. Sally would then strike the extra ingredient reasoning it’s more plausible one person would add an item in error than 25 people would accidentally omit it.</p>

<p>Even if the variations were more numerous or more diverse, the original could still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence if Sally had enough copies.</p>

<p>This, in simplified form, is how scholars do “textual criticism,”&nbsp;an academic method used to test all documents of antiquity, not just religious texts. It’s not a haphazard effort based on hopes and guesses; it’s a careful linguistic process allowing an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.</p>

<h2>How Many and How Old?</h2>

<p>Success depends on two factors. First, how many copies exist? Second, how old are the manuscripts?</p>

<p>If the numbers are few and the time gap wide between the original and the oldest copy, the autograph is harder to reconstruct. However, if there are many copies and the oldest are reasonably close in time to the original, the scholar can be more confident she’s pinpointed the exact wording of the initial manuscript.</p>

<p>To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular texts from antiquity that have been reconstructed with a high degree of certainty based on available textual evidence.</p>

<p>Josephus’&nbsp;First Century document <em>The Jewish War</em> survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th Century—four centuries after they were written.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> Tacitus’&nbsp;<em>Annals of Imperial Rome</em> is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in partial form in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Thucydides’&nbsp;<em>History</em> survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar’s <em>Gallic Wars</em>, eight copies of Herodotus’&nbsp;<em>History</em>, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s <em>Iliad</em> has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Note that for most documents of antiquity only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-2000 years or more. Yet scholars are confident they have reconstructed the originals with a high degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.</p>

<h2>The Biblical Manuscript Evidence</h2>

<p>The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning by comparison. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts. These are represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style).<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>Uncial manuscripts providing virtually complete New Testaments date back to the 4th Century and earlier. Codex Sinaiticus is dated c. 340.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest, dated c. 325-350.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.</p>

<p>The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments. The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt. Known as the John Rylands Papyri and barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 40 years of its composition.</p>

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

<h2>Ancient Versions and Patristic Quotations</h2>

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

<p>Early in the history of the Church, the Scriptures were translated into Latin. By the 3rd and 4th Centuries the New Testament had been translated into Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian, among others. These texts helped missionaries reach new cultures in their own language as the Gospel spread and the Church grew.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> Translations of the Greek manuscripts (called “versions”) help modern-day scholars answer questions about the underlying Greek manuscripts.</p>

<p>In addition, there are ancient extra-biblical sources—catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church fathers—that cite Scripture at great length. Bruce Metzger notes, amazingly, that “if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [the patristic quotations] would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.”<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<h2>The Verdict</h2>

<p>What can we conclude from this evidence? Professor Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential—spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side-by-side comparison between the two main text families (the <em>Majority Text</em> and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>

<p>Scholar D.A. Carson sums it up this way: “The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants.”<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>

<p>This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason: If we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds, we’d have to reject every work of antiquity and declare null every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium, A.D.</p>

<p>Has the New Testament been changed? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.</p>

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

<ul>
	<li>Next time someone says, “No one knows what the original New Testament said,”&nbsp;use this Columbo-style question: “Have you studied how the ancient documents were handed down?”&nbsp;Be prepared for a blank stare. They haven’t.</li>
	<li>Tell them there are tens of thousands of pages of ancient copies in museums around the world that can be compared for their differences.</li>
	<li>Mention the academic verdict of “textual criticism”&nbsp;shows that nothing significant has been altered. Walk them through the “Aunt Sally’s Secret Sauce”&nbsp;illustration so they can see how this can be known.</li>
	<li>This is not spiritual “faith,”&nbsp;but scholarly fact.</li>
</ul>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Barnett, Paul, <em>Is the New Testament History?</em> (Ann Arbor: Vine Books, 1986), 45. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Geisler, Norman L., Nix, William E., <em>A General Introduction to the Bible</em> (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 405. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Metzger, Bruce M., <em>The Text of the New Testament</em> (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 34. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Geisler and Nix, 402. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Geisler and Nix, 392. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Ibid., 391. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Ibid., 389-390. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Metzger, 39-40. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Geisler and Nix, 388. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Barnett, 44. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Metzger, 86. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Wallace, Daniel, “The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?,”&nbsp;<em>Bibliotheca Sacra</em>, April-June, 1991, 157-8. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Geisler and Nix, 475. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Carson, D.A., <em>The King James Version Debate</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 56. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-bible-translated-retranslated-and-changed-no-chance" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-bible-translated-retranslated-and-changed-no-chance" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-bible-translated-retranslated-and-changed-no-chance" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Kinds of Freedom
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/07/1996
source: https://www.str.org/w/two-kinds-of-freedom
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last week, an issue came up that hinged specifically on the definitions of words. &nbsp;</p>

<p>Do you know what clear thinking is?&nbsp; It’s like a clear picture, one that’s in focus.&nbsp; When you get a snapshot back from a holiday and look at it, if it wasn’t in focus it will appear blurry. &nbsp;</p>

<p>In the same fashion, if we want our thinking to be clear, it must be in focus.&nbsp; If there are words whose meanings are blurry to us, then the meanings they convey to others are going to be blurry as well.&nbsp; It’s hard to come to good conclusions if we are ambiguous about our topic.</p>

<p>Sometimes, clearing up a controversy or a confusing issue is just a matter of being careful how we define our words, or at least choosing a word with a very precise fashion.&nbsp; So, keep in mind that sometimes the crux of an issue depends on what you mean by the particular words you use.</p>

<p>Talking about precision in language, here’s something I recently read on the jacket of a book.&nbsp; The title of the book isn’t important but what was said on the jacket really caught my eye, relating to this question of precision in language.&nbsp; It uses the concept of freedom in what I think is a somewhat ambiguous way. &nbsp;</p>

<p>Here’s what it says:&nbsp; “Jesus didn’t come to make you holy, though holiness is good.&nbsp; Jesus didn’t come to sanctify you, though you ought to be involved in the process of sanctification.&nbsp; Jesus didn’t come to make you a good church member.&nbsp; He didn’t come to teach you and others to know him…” &nbsp;</p>

<p>Apparently this author thinks Jesus didn’t come to make you holy, to sanctify you, to make you a good church member, to know Him and teach others to know Him.&nbsp; He came for a different reason, alleges this author:&nbsp; “Jesus came to set you free…” is the real reason He came, “…to allow you to laugh, to allow you to be free of the prisons that even religion will put you in.&nbsp; Your heritage is freedom.”</p>

<p>Let me tell you why I was a bit frustrated and surprised to see this on the jacket of a Christian book, written by an author who (from what I could tell) not only has a good publisher, but seems to have good credentials.&nbsp; It struck me that he was confused on the idea of freedom. &nbsp;</p>

<p>Classically speaking, there are actually two types of freedom.&nbsp; One is freedom of permission, which is a kind of political freedom having to do with social and legal rights.&nbsp; In a more general sense, this could mean freedoms that are not only protected by law in society, but freedoms in which you are unrestricted by law.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Freedom in this sense means lack of restraint.&nbsp; When people think about being free, they think about doing whatever they want.&nbsp; They don’t think about anything encumbering them.&nbsp; I remember when I was a young man growing up in the sixties.&nbsp; To me, freedom was “doing your own thing,” the lack of restriction, the lack of obligation.&nbsp; That's the first kind of freedom.</p>

<p>I was watching a video recently called&nbsp;<i>“Tom and Huck.”</i>&nbsp;&nbsp; It’s a recent remake of&nbsp;<i>“Tom Sawyer,”</i>&nbsp;with the characters of Huck Finn and Becky Thatcher and the whole cast.&nbsp; When Tom Sawyer went to visit Huck Finn, Huck had a little getaway, a small cave by a creek, with trees above him, and a barrel in a tree where he could climb out and look over his domain, which was basically nothing but a corner of the woods.&nbsp; Of course, Tom thought this was great because Huck was experiencing what Tom thought was true freedom.&nbsp; And that’s the way Huck sees it, until the end of the story when he decides to return to civilization.&nbsp; Tom can’t figure out why, and Huck says, “Because it gets cold out here at night.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>But the initial idea Huck was conveying is,&nbsp;<i>Gee, if you’re really free, you don’t have any restraints or responsibilities; you can do whatever you want to do.</i>&nbsp; This is the most popular notion freedom today, the liberty to do whatever you please. &nbsp;</p>

<p>This was not the view of freedom the Founders had.&nbsp; Certainly there was a notion of pursuit of happiness, but they didn’t have this idea of autonomous freedom where the really desirable freedom is doing whatever you want to do.&nbsp; That's anarchy, not civilization. &nbsp;</p>

<p>The Founders had a different kind of freedom in mind, some might call it the freedom of personal integrity, or a developmental freedom, if you will.&nbsp; This is the ability of a mature person to act well as a unified self.&nbsp; In a sense, it’s a freedom to be all that we can be—the freedom of being educated and capable and expert in some areas—as opposed to being free to do what your passions lead you to do in the moment, and ultimately becoming nothing in the process.</p>

<p>Last year, one of my teachers was reflecting on a comment by Dorothy Hamill, the famous skater of an era gone by.&nbsp; Someone asked Hamill, “Didn't you miss your childhood?”&nbsp; They were presuming that she had her childhood stolen from her because of the rigors of practice to become a world-class skater.&nbsp; Dorothy Hamill then made a very interesting remark.&nbsp; She said, “How many people do you think would like to be where I am right now?” referring to her wealth, fame, and level of accomplishment. &nbsp;</p>

<p>Of course, it was a rhetorical question.&nbsp; Lots of people would like to be where Dorothy Hamill is now, but her point was that her accomplishments--and the rewards of those accomplishments--cost her something.&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>In a sense, she purchased one kind of freedom by sacrificing another kind.</b>&nbsp; This is a very important lesson in life.</p>

<p>The freedom to be a bum is the freedom to accomplish nothing whatsoever; to make no mark, to make no difference, to become nothing.&nbsp; That kind of freedom comes cheap, but in the end it's very costly.&nbsp; The freedom worth sacrificing for is the freedom to be something great and to do something meaningful.&nbsp; One could say that a Dorothy Hamill—or a concert pianist, or a theologian, or a clear thinker, or a sports hero or--you fill in the blank--has a tremendous amount of freedom gained because there was a season in which they were willing to surrender a cheaper freedom to be able to gain a skill which gave them a much deeper freedom.</p>

<p>This is why I’m troubled by the jacket of this book I mentioned earlier.&nbsp; It appeals to this cheap, inconsequential kind of freedom that many people pursue, this “freedom to be free” in some kind of vague, unclear sense.&nbsp; The author says, “Jesus didn’t come to make you holy,” but I think holiness&nbsp;<i>is</i>&nbsp;a kind of freedom.&nbsp; “Jesus didn’t come to sanctify you,” but isn’t sanctification a kind of freedom?&nbsp; “He didn’t come to teach you and others to know Him,” but isn’t knowing Him the route to freedom?&nbsp; So it’s odd to contrast those things against "real" freedom, which is…what?&nbsp; It’s not really clear to me.</p>

<p>No, Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”&nbsp; The verse that comes before it, John 8:31, says:&nbsp; “If you abide in my word, then you are truly disciples of mine, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” &nbsp;</p>

<p>In other words, surrendering to proper discipline and authority—in this case, the Word of God—builds in you a genuine, deep and rich freedom.&nbsp; Much better than being a slave to the moment, right? &nbsp;</p>

<p>It seems that the best example we have of a free man, in the deepest sense of the word “freedom,” was Jesus Christ.&nbsp; Here is someone who had His humanity fully realized, no blemish of sin, perfectly fulfilling what He was created to be. &nbsp;</p>

<p>But it’s interesting that Jesus did not possess the kind of hedonistic freedom that most are actually referring to when they talk about being free.&nbsp; In one sense, His life was entirely His own and He gave it up freely, as He stated.&nbsp; But in another sense, He was completely given to the designs of the Father on His life.&nbsp; He was fully submitted to the Father in everything He did and, in the process of being fully surrendered to the Father, was able to accomplish things that fulfilled His purpose and transformed the world.&nbsp; He was a fully free man, in the best sense of the term, and a complete slave according to the cheaper version of freedom.&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>He became a slave in the first sense to be free in the fullest sense.</b></p>

<p>Someone once said that only slaves can set others free.&nbsp; The only people who make a real difference are those who willfully enslave themselves to particular responsibilities,&nbsp; causes, or purposes, along with all the demands those things make on their lives.&nbsp; A bum with no demands on his life whatsoever, who has not submitted himself to any restraints or responsibilities, leaves no tracks in this world. &nbsp;</p>

<p>Think about the people who have had the greatest possibility for impact, people like the President of the United States.&nbsp; One could argue that his life is the&nbsp;<i>least</i>&nbsp;free because every minute of his life is planned out and accounted for.&nbsp; Yet, because of this slavery he’s free to be one of the most powerful men in the world.</p>

<p>This truth applies whether you’re Christian or not.&nbsp; If you really want to have the freedom to make a difference and leave a mark in this world—to change things for the better—then you have to be willing to surrender a cheap freedom, a hedonistic moment-by-moment freedom.&nbsp; You have to be willing to put your shoulder to the grindstone and put in the time—to do some reading and study, to give to other people, to become a slave of other people’s schedules in some sense—so that you can be free to accomplish great things. &nbsp;</p>

<p>If that’s true for anybody, it’s certainly true for the Christian, because there’s something greater and more valuable for him to be enslaved to.&nbsp; It’s a slavery that doesn't bring disaster and destruction, but life.&nbsp; The power of the Holy Spirit, not just your own power, is available for the task. You can take your loaves and fishes and Jesus can multiply them and feed the multitudes.&nbsp; That’s called leveraging, but it requires giving up those loaves and fishes, a surrendering of what you have.&nbsp; A slavery, of sorts. &nbsp;</p>

<p>That’s what dads do with families.&nbsp; Do you want to raise a good family?&nbsp; You have to be a slave to the family.&nbsp; You can’t be a good father and have cheap freedom; it just isn’t the way it works.&nbsp; For moms it’s the same way.&nbsp; For leaders of organizations, of Christian groups, it’s the same way. &nbsp;</p>

<p>Do you want to have the freedom to have an impact by writing an article or a book?&nbsp; You’ve got to sit down and do the study and write the dog-gone piece.&nbsp; It’s a lot of work, and you give up a lot of other things, but that’s the tradeoff.</p>

<p>Do you want to be free to make a big difference?&nbsp; Then you have to count the cost and decide what you want to surrender—what kind of low-order freedoms you want to let go���so that these greater and higher freedoms can be accomplished.</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-kinds-of-freedom" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftwo-kinds-of-freedom" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftwo-kinds-of-freedom" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Evolution: Dancing on the Titanic
topic: Science
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/1998
source: https://www.str.org/w/evolution-dancing-on-the-titanic
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Evolution is on its way out.</em></p>

<p><em>It’s only a matter of time before the iceberg hits.</em></p>

<p>The current evolution/creation controversy is based on two fundamental errors. First, the issue is cast as a conflict between the indisputable facts of science and the dogmatic faith of religious fundamentalists. Second, two entirely different definitions of science are used interchangeably, obscuring the true nature of the discussion.</p>

<h2>Facts vs. Faith</h2>

<p>Douglas Futuyma opens <em>Science on Trial</em>, his compelling polemic against creationism, with these words: “Fifty-seven years after the Scopes trial, fundamentalist religion and evolutionary biology are again fiercely at odds, and science is still on trial.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Futuyma’s words echo the sentiments of the academic rank and file: Creationists are obscurantist flat-earthers whose commitment to superstition keeps them in darkness. The verdict of science is clear. Darwinian evolution is an indisputable fact.</p>

<p>This characterization is simply false.</p>

<p>Following the complete failure of the Origin of Life Conference in Berkeley in the late 80’s to produce a plausible scenario for how life itself chemically evolved, Dr. Robert Shapiro wrote a book entitled <em>Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth</em>. (“Creation”&nbsp;here refers to biochemical evolution.) Shapiro is an educated skeptic, an eminent chemist from New York University and an expert in his field. In his book he decimates the reigning ideas of how life could have evolved from non-life.</p>

<p>Michael Denton wrote <em>Evolution: A Theory in Crisis</em> to show that the original scientific objections to evolution that faced Darwin—and were argued powerfully by his contemporaries—still apply after more than 100 years of scientific research and progress.</p>

<p>Both of these books were written by non-religious people raising scientific objections to evolution. Shapiro remains an evolutionist, hoping that the future will turn up more evidence for biochemical evolution than the past has been able to produce. Denton ends his analysis with this statement: “The Darwinian theory is the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century,”&nbsp;and then adds, “like the Genesis-based cosmology which it replaced.”</p>

<p>You have no friends of religion here. These men are inside of the established scientific community, not outside of it. Yet each offers scientifically rigorous and compelling arguments against the idea that known natural processes are adequate to explain the biological complexity of our world.</p>

<p>Michael Behe is a cellular biologist with impeccable credentials. In his book <em>Darwin’s Black Box</em>, he shows that the irreducible complexity of life can’t be explained by Darwinian gradualism.</p>

<p>James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe’s work:</p>

<p>There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject—evolution—with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>Niles Eldridge, one of the world’s leading experts in vertebrate fossils, describes the actual situation paleontologists face:</p>

<p>No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yield zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>This problem is so severe it has spawned an entirely new school of evolutionary thinking—punctuated equilibrium, championed by Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould. It’s also spawned a bitter feud between Gould’s camp and traditional Darwinists like Richard Dawkins who still hold to gradualism in spite of the paucity of fossil evidence for it.</p>

<p>Phillip Johnson has made a fair observation when he states, “If eminent experts say that evolution according to Gould is too confused to be worth bothering about, and others equally eminent say that evolution according to Dawkins rests on unsubstantiated assertions and counterfactual claims, the public can hardly be blamed for suspecting that grand-scale evolution may rest on something less impressive than rock-solid, unimpeachable fact.”</p>

<p>We are within our rights to question the stability of the entire enterprise. But the minute we do, we run into a second problem.</p>

<h2>Two Faces of Science</h2>

<p>Science has two definitions. The first is the most well known. Science is about a methodology—observation, experimentation, testing, etc.—that allows researchers to discover the facts about the world. Presumably, this is what evolution is about—the facts of science. Science in this sense has prompted the litany of concerns expressed above by evolutionists.</p>

<p>The second definition of science involves the philosophy of naturalistic materialism: matter and energy governed by natural law. Any view that doesn’t conform to this definition is not scientific.</p>

<p>These two definitions are not always compatible. Evolution is a case in point. At first blush it seems like evolution is about scientific facts. But when facts suggest design, the second definition is invoked. The philosophy always trumps the methodology. That is, any scientific methodology (first definition) that supports intelligent design is summarily disqualified by scientific philosophy (second definition) as “religion disguised as science.”</p>

<p>Futuyma says, “Where science insists on material, mechanistic causes that can be understood by physics and chemistry, the literal believer in Genesis invokes unknowable supernatural forces.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Creationists claim, however, that these forces are knowable, at least in principle. Consider this analogy. When a dead body is discovered, an impartial investigation of the scene might indicate foul play and not accident. In the same way, evidence could, in principle, indicate an agent in creation rather than chance. This is not faith vs. evidence, but evidence vs. evidence.</p>

<p>Notice how Futuyma conflates these definitions in the following statement taken from <em>Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution</em>, the most widely used college evolutionary textbook:</p>

<p>The fact is, in a scientific sense, there can be no evidence for supernatural special creation. Belief in special creation must rest on faith, on the authority of the Bible and its most literal interpreters. The fundamental conflict, then, is between two incompatible ways to knowledge. Science emphasizes evidence and logical deduction, and is forever uncertain. It deals not with irrefutable facts engraved on stone tablets, but with hypotheses that may be refuted by tomorrow’s experiments and concepts formulated by fallible human minds. The best scientific education encourages skepticism, questioning, independent thought, and the use of reason.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>How does Douglas Futuyma know in advance there “can be no evidence for supernatural special creation”? Because it’s stipulated by definition. Even if evidence is available, it cannot be allowed. Further, no independent thought regarding the fact of evolution (as opposed to the method of evolution) is allowed either, in spite of Futuyma’s assertions to the contrary. Any denial of evolution is simply not “science.”</p>

<h2>Darwinism as Dogma</h2>

<p>Clearly, the paradigm is paramount and everything must be done to save it. Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin is very candid about this fact. In <em>The New York Review of Books</em> he makes this remarkable admission:</p>

<p>Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science <em>in spite of</em> the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...<em>in spite of</em> the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our <em>a priori</em> adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> [emphasis in the original].</p>

<p>Here Richard Lewontin, distinguished Harvard Genetics Professor, admits that the apparatus of science is not geared to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, but rather to produce philosophically acceptable answers.</p>

<p>Phillip Johnson sums it up: “The reason for opposition to scientific accounts of our origins, according to Lewontin, is not that people are ignorant of facts, but that they have not learned to think from the right starting point.”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<h2>Presumed Guilty</h2>

<p>Once one presumes evolution, many of the pieces seem to fit. If you simply presume someone associated with a crime is guilty, you’re bound to find some pieces of evidence that appear incriminating. But if your suspect produces an airtight alibi, you must rework your presumptions.</p>

<p>In the same way, Darwinism has fatal flaws, in spite of some circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. The mechanism (natural selection) is not adequate to do the work it needs to do. Behe and others have made this clear. The gradualist pathways from one transition to another cannot be reconstructed, as Gould has pointed out. Robert Shapiro of NYU admits there is no current evidence that life could come from non-life. Paleontologists can compare fossils all they want, but if evolutionary processes cannot even produce the most basic amino acid sequences necessary for life, then the game can’t even get started.</p>

<p>To label creationist efforts as “religious zealots conducting stealth campaigns,”&nbsp;as one editorial did, skirts the issue entirely. It is easier to dismiss any objections to evolution as flat-earth religion than to intelligently and fairly engage the facts in public discourse.</p>

<h2>Three Errors</h2>

<p>The view that “religious”&nbsp;theories should not intrude in science is guilty of a several of logical errors.</p>

<p>First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models might have some factual support. We see the blending, for example, in near-death experience (NDE) research, or conclusions about the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology.</p>

<p>Second, it commits the straw-man fallacy by assuming that creationists make no use of scientific methods. This is not the case. Creationists are happy to present an abundance of scientific evidence for their view, if they’re allowed. This evidence needs to be addressed instead of disqualified.</p>

<p>Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific views do not have religious significance. This is false. All cosmological views have metaphysical significance. If evolutionary naturalism is true, the only place for God is in the imagination of the faithful.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<h2>Read This Book!</h2>

<p>I want to recommend a book that gets right to the heart of this issue in a clear and accessible way. It’s called <em>An Easy-to-Understand Guide for Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds</em> by Phillip Johnson.</p>

<p>You’ll get first-rate advice on how to be a player in this discussion without getting bogged down in unnecessary details. You don’t need a technical background, just a simple game plan. It’s an easy read and a powerful tool that will help you expose the real issue in this debate.</p>

<p>The evolution/creation controversy is not about evidence. It’s about the power of an academic elite to enforce a philosophy. This fact is becoming increasingly obvious to the public. Once this becomes clear, then evolution will have to stand on its own merits and it won’t be able to do so.</p>

<p>Evolutionists are dancing on the Titanic. If it were not for philosophical strong-arming in the field of science, Darwinism would have become an historical curiosity long ago. It’s only a matter of time before the iceberg hits.</p>

<h2>Extra Thought</h2>

<p>Those who hold that science, by nature, cannot be integrated with theological views about the nature of the world, are out of step with a long history of science in which this arbitrary, modern distinction was not made. Most of the founders of modern scientific disciplines, including these that follow, were Christians whose world-view was thoroughly integrated in their scientific practice.</p>

<p>George Cuvier (1769-1832)—Great French naturalist, founded comparative anatomy</p>

<p>Carolus Linnaeus (1707-78)—Founder of modern taxonomy, the scientific classification of plants and animals</p>

<p>Blaise Pascal (1623-62)—The French mathematical prodigy, founded modern probability theory, advanced differential calculus and modern hydraulics, and invented of one of the first mechanical calculators</p>

<p>Michael Faraday (1791-1867)—Discovered electromagnetic induction and developed the first dynamo</p>

<p>Gregor Mendel (1822-84)—Established the foundational tenets of modern genetics</p>

<p>Copernicus (1473-1543)—Laid the foundation of modern astronomy with heliocentric theory of planetary motion</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Douglas Futuyma, <em>Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution</em> (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc., 1983), p. 4. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">James Shapiro, “In the Details...What?”,&nbsp;<em>National Review</em>, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Niles Eldridge, <em>Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory</em> (New York: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 1995), p. 95. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Douglas Futuyma, p. 12. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Ibid., p. 18. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,”&nbsp;<em>The New York Review of Books</em>, January 4, 1997. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Phillip E. Johnson, “The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism,”&nbsp;<em>First Things</em>, November 1997. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">See <em>Solid Ground</em>, January/February, 1997. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8"> ↩</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%2Fevolution-dancing-on-the-titanic" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fevolution-dancing-on-the-titanic" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fevolution-dancing-on-the-titanic" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Give ’em Heaven
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/21/1992
source: https://www.str.org/w/give-em-heaven
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I want to talk about what I did the last couple of weeks. Some of you were around last year—I’d like to think that I have not lost any listeners, but I have gained a few. Although, I think that a few people who were around last year are not around anymore after the last four or five weeks of our conversation together. But that’s okay. Their loss, in one sense, because I think the things we do here are helpful no matter what your perspective. It will help sharpen your tools and help you to think better, even if you disagree.</p>

<p>In any event, if you recall this time last year—I returned from my week and a half fishing adventure in Wisconsin. This recent time was six days in northern Minnesota and then I went over to our place in northern Wisconsin. I spent some time with my mom in a cabin we have on a lake and did some fishing there—When I returned last time, things were pretty dismal for me. I talked about what I called “giving the truth but not the life”&nbsp;and the pace of my own life and the pace of the lives of Americans in general and Christians in particular as they imported much of American cultural values into Christianity and then deified them, made them part of the religious obligation to do more, read more, pray more, get better, better, better every year and reach for the stars, so to speak. I talked about how I thought that was destructive.</p>

<p>My time in Wisconsin allowed me to reflect on some of that partially because my health was deteriorating as a result of the stress in my own life. I can say with satisfaction that in the last year there have been a lot of changes in my own feelings and my own attitudes. This is just a quick update for those of you who were with us last year and may have listened intently, not just because this was going on in my life but because it was a mirror of what was happening in your own life and you really needed to be encouraged in this area. And I hope that you were.</p>

<p>I want to share with you now in brief that a lot of things have changed. I’m much more mellow than I was a year ago. I can’t really say that I don’t take things as seriously—I do—but things have changed. A lot of the stress, the negative stuff, is gone and my view of life is a little different. As you know, for a whole month last summer I watched no T.V. And then on the heels of that commitment of a month of fasting of T.V. I really haven’t picked up the T.V. habit since then. That’s really changed quite a bit of the stress levels in my life. And a lot of good things have happened. So just as a quick update for those of you who were around last year, I took some of the same exhortations that I gave last year to heart and I’m a different person this year. And I hope that you are too as you reflected on the pace of your own life, that maybe you imported some destructive values of our own culture into your Christian life and destroyed some of the rest that you might experience as a Christian. And that’s an important part of it even though I’m in somewhat of a high stress job—and I know many of you are as well—it doesn’t mean that we have to buy a whole value system that is ultimately destructive to our quality of relationship with God and also our productivity in this world. We don’t have to be better every year. We don’t have to do more every year. We don’t have to read more Bible every year than we did last year. We don’t have to pray more than we did last year. We don’t have to check off our list of things that are must-do’s in every Evangelical notebook because a lot of those things are simply not in the Bible and they’re destructive.</p>

<p>Anyway, I don’t want to get off on that. I just simply want to say that I’m in a different attitude this year, coming back from that time, than I was last year . And I want to reflect on two things that I had an opportunity to reflect on that may be helpful to you at this point in your life.</p>

<p>We end this show every time with the same ending, basically. In two and a half years I can honestly say that this ending has not become a rote exercise for me, but is actually coming from my heart. I encourage people not to be “afraid to stand up and be counted for what’s right and true and good.”&nbsp;That’s what I’m attempting to do here on the air. That’s what I want to model for you and I want to encourage you that you’re not the only ones in the battle; there are still thousands that have not bowed their knees to Baal. I am one of them and there are others with you as you attempt to stand for the Lord, as you purpose to stand for what is right and true and good even though it seems as if all those around you have abandoned that. My goal is to encourage you to stand with me and with many others for those high ideals. But in the process “give the world a piece of your mind,” of course, when you do that.</p>

<p>But what I want you to do in addition to that is to represent Jesus Christ, the Rulership, the Kingdom of God and to “go out and give ’em heaven.”&nbsp;We end with that phrase every week, “give ’em heaven.”&nbsp;And I’m concerned that his statement is not just a coy, trite, religious slogan or doesn’t become one of those things to you, but we actually have some substance in that statement.</p>

<p>What is it we’re about as Christians? What is it we’re doing? Are we just giving a piece of our mind, merely? Are we just talking about what we think? Are we concerned only about ideas?</p>

<p>Now I believe that there’s been a tremendous imbalance—and I talk about this—that the ideas have not been addressed enough. That’s why we have a show like this. I think it’s unique because much of Christian radio has abandoned that aspect of their responsibility: to love God with their mind and to influence the rest of culture with their thoughts because the battle is a battle for ideas more than anything else. Yes, it’s a spiritual battle, but it’s a battle for ideas. I think Christians have abandoned that to a great degree.</p>

<p>However, I’m speaking now to my audience and I have a feeling who my audience is more than a couple of years ago because you’ve been talking to me for the last two and a half years. And I think that one thing you and I have to remind ourselves of is that we are not just to present ideas but to present ourselves as living examples of what Christ is to this world. This is why I end by saying “give ’em heaven,”&nbsp;not just “give ’em a piece of your mind,” but “give ’em heaven”&nbsp;as well. That really relates to the day to day practical experiences of our lives. What are we doing moment to moment? What do people see us about? What are we about on a moment to moment basis, because frankly most of the time we aren’t engaged in discussions that allow us to give the world a piece of our minds about the critical issues of life. Instead, we are enmeshed in the critical issues of life living those things out.</p>

<p>I was in Minnesota for five days. I’ll just give you two illustrations and bring to a conclusion the point that I’m making. I really have two different things I want to reflect on if I have time before I get to your calls. The first thing has to do with giving them heaven. What does it mean to give people heaven?</p>

<p>I was at Ada Lake just of Brainerd, Minnesota—a great fishing area—and I’d hired a guide who turned out to be a Christian. We had great fellowship there for three days. But I was holed up in this little cottage on Lake Ada apart from those times that my guide came and picked me up and took me out on his fancy boat. Right next door to my cottage—here I was: single—a bachelor—with very few financial responsibilities, except for those things that pertain to me, and I had this whole cottage to myself. It was a two bedroom cottage (I couldn’t get a smaller one, it’s the way they come)—Right next door to me was another two bedroom cottage and in that cottage was a young family with three children and a mother and father. Tim and Brenda, the parents, were in their late twenties, the children, Amy, Heather and Cole: youngsters, fun, interesting, but poor. As a matter of fact, there were two other kids younger than they and they were left at home because they were too young to go camping.</p>

<p>Here’s a guy that was a machinist and they’d packed their whole family and trundled down the highway from Wausau, Michigan, six hours to this lake in the far north to have a little fishing vacation with the family. Frankly, it reminded me of the Koukl adventures when I was a kid and we had our five plus two and seven people piled into our car with everything hanging off the sides as we made our way up into northern Wisconsin for our little junkets in the summer.</p>

<p>What was interesting is that this family was an unassuming family, poor, and I knew they were poor because they’d go our fishing in this little twelve foot aluminum boat with a six-horse motor that they’d rented from the lodge. This was his one-week vacation that he’d saved up all year for to go out and splurge $200 for the cabin for a week early in the season so he gets the price break. He and his wife and three kids piled in with life preservers on and fishing poles dangling out from every side of the boat as they puttered out into the bay with the little six-horse motor where they could catch bluegill and skinny northern pike. They didn’t just catch these fish; they kept them and filleted them out—I mean fillets that looked like the size of a quarter on some of those things. These people were eating fish for breakfast and the rest they were freezing to take home for food.</p>

<p>I was struck deep in my heart by this. My heart went out to them. I’ll be honest, I didn’t dig deep down in my pockets and give them a bunch of money; I think that would have been insensitive. But I was moved by compassion by the state of this family and they were a gracious family. They were nice, they were pleasant, they were ordinary. They weren’t complaining and moaning because they were poor, they were making due with what they had trying to build a family in the process. Here were these young kids, they didn’t know they were poor. They were running in and out of the water, kicking balls around and tossing bones to the dog and talking up a storm and wanting to know why I let my fish go.</p>

<p>To be honest with you, the next day I caught a couple of decent northern pike, my guide and I filleted them out and I gave them to the family. I said, “Look it, I caught these, I normally would let them go. But you like them so why don’t you have these.”&nbsp;Northern pike are good eating fish, too. I spent time with the kids in my free time. I’d talk with them and pal around with them. I spent an evening talking with the folks just shooting the breeze telling them fishing stories and showing them some fishing tackle and how to use it. One time Tim and I went out on our own in my little boat and putted across the lake and I was going to show him a few things and he was just getting back into fishing. Well, I just caught one fish and he caught none so I didn’t show him a few things, but I told him a few things.</p>

<p>I want to tell you something about how I felt about the whole process. All of that was rather minor, my contribution, but it was something. What it amounted to was my attempt to give a little heaven to these people. When I left I had a lot of food I couldn’t take on the plane—it was a housekeeping cottage—I had more food than I could handle so I gave it to them. I said, “Look it, I can’t eat this, I’m going, so you guys take this,”&nbsp;and I gave it to them.</p>

<p>It was a delicious feeling in my heart, friends, to be able to do something minor, something small, something not even worth waving a flag about—and that isn’t my intention here. It’s just to point out that a big part of being a Christian is going beyond ourselves and reaching out and doing something for other people in a way that sometimes has nothing to do with the proclamation of the Gospel. Frankly, I don’t even think that I got an opportunity to share the Lord with these folks, though I looked for one.</p>

<p>I’m not the kind of person that will barge my way into a circumstance and say, “Well, talking about God,”&nbsp;which we weren’t talking about but we are now. I’m not saying that that’s wrong and I’ve done that on a few occasions, but it’s just not my style. I pray for an opening and I look for one and I move towards one and if God provides one, fine, and if He doesn’t I just move on.</p>

<p>But in this case I don’t even think I talked to them about Christianity, but this brings me back to what I mean when I say that we should give people heaven. In my view, and this is something that is really overlooked by many Christians, we think of Christianity: what is Christian activity? What do Christians do? They tell other people about Jesus.</p>

<p>I was on Dennis Prager’s show some time last year and a Christian person called in. Dennis asked him, “What’s the goal of your life?”&nbsp;He said, “To tell others about Jesus.”&nbsp;Dennis asked, “What then?”&nbsp;And he said, “When those people become Christians they tell others about Jesus.”&nbsp;Dennis asked, “What then?”&nbsp;He answered, “Then they tell people about Jesus.”</p>

<p>I understood where this person was coming from, but I think Dennis was making a good point. The point is that Christianity has got to be something more than a Christian Amway system where we just keep building more and more distributors and never sell any product. It’s got to have more substance to it and the substance is this: Jesus went about doing good to all men. He went out doing good deeds. It says in that famous verse about salvation by grace, Ephesians 2:8-10, it says that we are saved by grace through faith, not of ourselves, but by grace, a gift of God that no one should boast. Then the very next verse says “we were created by God for good works that we should walk in them.”</p>

<p>So what I mean when I say to give people heaven is that we should make it a priority in our life not to just get as many signatures on the dotted line of the fire insurance as possible. Part of the goal of our life is to do good. It’s to establish righteousness and justice. It’s treating people with respect. Why? So they’ll receive the Lord? That’s nice if they do, but that’s not why we do it. If we do that then we’re doing the kind of thing that I argue against frequently on this program, we’re treating people merely as means to ends, merely as fodder for the Gospel. I don’t think that’s entirely honoring to God. Certainly it’s honoring to God that people would come to Him and we would proclaim the Gospel but we aren’t to see people merely as Gospel fodder. We are to see people as valuable human beings whether they come to Jesus Christ or not.</p>

<p>Part of our responsibility in giving people heaven is just not telling them about Jesus. It’s treating them with respect, caring for them, doing good to them, doing acts of kindness. That doesn’t mean just saying “have a nice day.”</p>

<p>The Scriptures are replete with examples of this, with scriptures telling us to do this. Hebrews 10:24: we’re to stimulate one another to good deeds, not just to love but to good deeds. Jesus went around doing good. Paul encourages us to do good to all men, especially to the household of the faith.</p>

<p>What strikes me, my friends, and I’ll leave you with this thought, in our pursuit of happiness in this society—And that’s basically what we’re in. We’ve victimized by that. A society that says, “Pursue happiness, be fulfilled, be satisfied. That is the highest goal in life.”&nbsp;I think happiness is a pathetic goal in life, but that’s another topic—But in a society that says this, what happens is when we’re pursuing our own satisfaction, we’re often robbed of the joyful pain of sacrificing for someone else. Why do I say joyful pain? Because that’s what it is. It costs us something to sacrifice, it’s painful. But I want to tell you a secret. There is something delicious in the process of doing good to someone else, especially if it costs us something. David said, “I will not give the Lord that which costs me nothing.”</p>

<p>Part of what I have to ask myself as a growing Christian, as a developing human being, is am I paying a price for somebody else’s happiness, for somebody else’s fulfillment, for somebody else’s justice, for somebody else’s care? And if I’m not, I’m not only robbing them, I’m robbing myself. This is part of what makes human beings real and deep, and fulfilled and satisfied, and functional and human.</p>

<p>We may not be able to solve the problem of their lives—I couldn’t lift this poor family out of their poverty, and maybe they didn’t want to be lifted out of it, I don’t know. I don’t see poverty as a mark of shame, personally. I do see welfare as that, but I don’t see poverty as that—We may not be able to solve all their problems, but we can, as one of my friends mentioned last night, suspend their burden for a while, if only for a few moments. That’s worthwhile.</p>

<p>That was one thing that really impressed me. As a Christian my job isn’t just to defend the Gospel. We need to do that. We need to proclaim it. We need to defend it. But part of what it means to be a Christian is to “give them heaven.”&nbsp;That may be in little bits and doses, as you go through the day, in a way that is totally unconnected with the verbal proclamation of the Gospel, but it is part of the Good News: giving that goodness to people and doing acts of good deeds. Frankly, I don’t think there’s enough emphasis on that as Christians.</p>

<p>My point is that as you do that, you not only fulfill the broader commission to influence this world with our new natures, but we’re also doing something good for ourselves. We are fulfilling our humanness in the deepest and most profound sense, in the deep sense that Jesus was human. We are fulfilling our humanness. We are going beyond our selfishness and we’re sacrificing, we are experiencing some pain on behalf of someone else to experience the joyful pain of self-sacrifice.</p>

<p>At least that’s the way I see 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%2Fgive-em-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%2Fgive-em-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%2Fgive-em-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: Acknowledge and Engage Doubts
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/29/2014
source: https://www.str.org/w/acknowledge-and-engage-doubts
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Tim Keller had this to say about doubt in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1417036239&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+reason+for+god" target="_blank"><em>The Reason for God</em></a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>A faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it. People who blithely go through life too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions about why they believe as they do will find themselves defenseless against either the experience of tragedy or the probing questions of a smart skeptic. A person’s faith can collapse almost overnight if she has failed over the years to listen patiently to her own doubts, which should only be discarded after long reflection.</p>

<p>Believers should acknowledge and wrestle with doubts—not only their own but their friends’&nbsp;and neighbors’. It is no longer sufficient to hold beliefs just because you inherited them. Only if you struggle long and hard with objections to your faith will you be able to provide grounds for your beliefs to skeptics, including yourself, that are plausible rather than ridiculous or offensive. And, just as important for our current situation, such a process will lead you, even after you come to a position of strong faith, to respect and understand those who doubt.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The point is not that doubt is good in and of itself—we ought never be <em>pleased</em> about our doubts (the goal, after all, is to eventually <em>discard</em> them). But rather, the point is that whether a person yet realizes it or not, there are questions that must be thought through and answered, and if we ignore those questions at first, a time will come when they will be forced upon us.</p>

<p>Don’t let those questions build up. Take them slowly, one at a time.</p>

<p>(HT: <a href="http://www.thinkchristianly.org/" target="_blank">Jonathan Morrow</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%2Facknowledge-and-engage-doubts" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Facknowledge-and-engage-doubts" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Facknowledge-and-engage-doubts" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: From Theism to Naturalism via Deism
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/11/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/from-theism-to-naturalism-via-deism
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I've known there are different levels of belief in God: theism, <a href="/w/the-faith-of-our-fathers" rel="noopener" target="_blank">deism</a>, and atheism (you might add agnosticism). I rarely thought of them as a succession, however. I’ve been reading James Sire’s book on worldviews, <a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk479.htm" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em>The Universe Next Door</em></a>, and was intrigued by his comment about the way these three worldviews connect:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Deism is the isthmus between two great continents—theism and naturalism. To get from the first to the second, deism is the natural route. Perhaps without deism, naturalism would not have come about so readily…. In intellectual terms the route is this: In theism God is the infinite-personal Creator and sustainer of the cosmos. In deism God is reduced; he begins to lose his personality, though he remains Creator and (by implication) sustainer of the cosmos. In naturalism God is further reduced; he loses his very existence.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Sire explains that once a person has accepted deism, the next logical step is naturalism. French philosopher Julien Offray de La Mettrie exemplifies this point. He writes, “It seems to me that the greatest degree of probability is in favor of this belief [that God exists].” But it doesn’t matter, says La Mettrie: “It is a theoretic truth with little practical value.” Sire unpacks this thinking:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The reason he [La Mettrie] can conclude that God’s existence is of so little practical value is that the God who exists is <em>only </em>the maker of the universe. He is not personally interested in it nor in being worshiped by anyone in it. So God’s existence can be effectively discounted as being of no importance. It is precisely this feeling, this conclusion, which marks the transition to naturalism.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think this underscores the importance of teaching proper theology to guard from this potential progression. God, for example, is transcendent, which means he is separate from his creation. God is also immanent, which means he is present in his creation in a personal and relational way. Without his immanence, we fall back into deism, where God is merely creator but never intervenes.</p>

<p>God is not only the creator, but also the sustainer. He <em>does</em> intervene. Jesus is the epitome of God’s immanence and, consequently, also the strongest evidence against deism.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffrom-theism-to-naturalism-via-deism" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffrom-theism-to-naturalism-via-deism" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffrom-theism-to-naturalism-via-deism" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="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 Creating a Context Vacuum Sucks Us into Overwriting God’s Word
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/18/2020
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-creating-a-context-vacuum-sucks-us-into-overwriting-god-s-word
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s easy to overwrite the meaning of God’s word. We can do it without trying because the process is almost automatic. That’s why we need to vigilantly develop <a href="/w/you-can-t-obey-god-unless-you-know-what-he-said" rel="noopener" target="_blank">good Bible reading habits</a>.</p>

<p>Reading a Bible verse <em>in context </em>is necessary to understand the verse’s meaning. That’s because the context—the text before and after a verse—determines the meaning of the verse. Change the context, and you change the meaning.</p>

<p>Consider the following phrase:</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;">“He needs a pitcher.”</p>

<p>Does the person need a water jug or baseball player? You don’t know because you lack context. It becomes clear when I add more text.</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;">“The coach called. He needs a pitcher. Can one of the other players fill in?”</p>

<p>It’s obvious that “pitcher” is referring to a baseball player. Consider a different context, though:</p>

<p style="padding-left: 40px;">“The waiter is asking for your help. He needs a pitcher. Fill it with water and bring it to him.”</p>

<p>Changing the context changes the meaning of the word “pitcher” (now it means jug).</p>

<p>What happens, then, when you <a href="/w/coffee-cup-christianity" rel="noopener" target="_blank">read a Bible verse but don’t read the context</a>? Two unfortunate consequences occur. First, you ignore the words the Holy Spirit provided to help you understand the meaning of the verse. You may miss out on what God is trying to communicate. Second, you create what I call a context vacuum. When there’s no context, <a href="/w/double-the-trouble-if-you-ignore-the-context" rel="noopener" target="_blank">your mind instantly fills the void with something from your experience</a>. It’s an automatic process.</p>

<p>For example, what comes to mind when you read the following sentence: “Give it to the alien”? Most people will think of an extra-terrestrial because, perhaps, they enjoy science fiction movies. That sentence, however, is written in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut+14%3A21&amp;version=NKJV" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Deuteronomy 14:21</a> (an alien is a non-Israelite). But because you read it out of context, your mind quickly filled the context vacuum with something from your own life context—the idea of an extra-terrestrial. Since the verse now has a different context than what was originally in the Bible (and context determines meaning), <a href="/w/twisting-jesus-words" rel="noopener" target="_blank">you overwrite the meaning of the verse with a new meaning</a> that was imposed by your own mind. Our minds do this instantly.</p>

<p>Consider another sentence: “He drives like a maniac.” Most likely your mind thought of a person driving his car recklessly on the road. That’s because I created a context vacuum by leaving out the sentences before and after. Your mind instantly filled the vacuum with an idea from your own life experience: recently driving a car on the road. Your personal experience became the context for the sentence, and since context determines meaning, you made the meaning of the sentence be about a reckless car driver.</p>

<p>Those words are from <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+kings+9%3A20&amp;version=NIV" rel="noopener" target="_blank">2 Kings 9:20</a>, however, and are about a person controlling (or not controlling) a chariot. Reading the verse in isolation creates a context vacuum that is quickly filled with our own life context, which creates a new meaning. God’s intended meaning is overwritten by our own meaning.</p>

<p>These first two examples might seem innocuous (even humorous), but <a href="/w/the-supreme-court-needs-a-hermeneutics-lesson" rel="noopener" target="_blank">this error can have more serious consequences</a> for theology and decision-making.</p>

<p>Greg Koukl tells the story of a woman he met who was seeking God’s will regarding a new romantic relationship, even though she was already married. As she flipped through the Scripture, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+4%3A24&amp;version=KJV" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Ephesians 4:24</a> jumped out at her. The verse says, “Put on the new man” (KJV). She took that phrase as God speaking to her through his Word and followed its “advice” by divorcing her husband and putting on a new man.</p>

<p>Her grievous interpretation is caused by the process I just outlined. She read a verse out of context, and then her own life situation (considering a new man) quickly filled the context vacuum. Her life context created new meaning to the verse, which overwrote God’s intended meaning.</p>

<p>If we’re going to take God seriously, we need to take his words seriously. Reading Bible verses or passages in isolation from their context is a recipe for interpretive disaster. There’s no need to do that. The skill needed to learn the context is easy: <a href="/w/learn-a-secret-skill-of-pastors-to-help-understand-the-bible" rel="noopener" target="_blank">reading</a>. If you can read a Bible verse <em>out of context</em>, then you can also read it <em>in context</em>. There’s no excuse.</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-creating-a-context-vacuum-sucks-us-into-overwriting-god-s-word" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-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-creating-a-context-vacuum-sucks-us-into-overwriting-god-s-word" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="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-creating-a-context-vacuum-sucks-us-into-overwriting-god-s-word" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


