# articles

title: Abortion and Slavery: The Same Old Arguments
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/31/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/abortion-and-slavery-the-same-old-arguments
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In an article on Slate, pro-choicer Mary Elizabeth Williams <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/" target="_blank">argues</a> that the unborn are living human beings:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.</p>

<p>When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But then she says, “So what?”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/w/why-not-use-ridicule-" target="_blank">Yesterday</a> I wrote about how our worldview affects our view of human beings, which affects the way we treat human beings. For Williams, the live, unborn human being is, as she says, “a life worth sacrificing”—worth sacrificing if “the boss”&nbsp;wants to get rid of him for the sake of the life she would rather have.</p>

<p>How is this complete power of one human being over another not slavery? For Williams, this isn’t a problem, because in her view, “all life is not equal.”&nbsp;She’s bought the idea of instrumental human value—that is, the idea that human beings are on a scale of worth, according to their characteristics and abilities. And apparently, if you’re higher up on that scale, then your desires trump the natural rights of someone who is lower.</p>

<p>Abraham Lincoln <a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/fragments-on-slavery/" target="_blank">commented</a> on the absurdity and danger of citing instrumental value to justify the use of power to impose one’s will on other human beings (thanks to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/scott.klusendorf/posts/137568676405628" target="_blank">Scott Klusendorf</a> for pointing to this):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is <em>color</em>, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.</p>

<p>You do not mean <em>color</em> exactly? You mean the whites are <em>intellectually</em> the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.</p>

<p>But, say you, it is a question of <em>interest</em>; and, if you can make it your <em>interest</em>, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The arguments for slavery were the same as the arguments now for abortion: <em>Human beings are only instrumentally valuable. Some people are worth less than others because they lack particular qualities that I have. Therefore, my desires trump their rights.</em></p>

<p>The arguments against slavery were the same as the arguments now against abortion: <em>All human beings are intrinsically valuable and have equal natural rights, regardless of their characteristics.</em></p>

<p>The arguments are the same then and now because the two options presenting themselves to us haven’t changed and won’t ever change. Slavery and abortion aren’t just random, unconnected controversial issues, they’re rooted in our view of human beings, and they illustrate the two possible directions in which our country can go as we move forward. Will we embrace intrinsic human value or instrumental human value?</p>

<p>Whatever we decide as a nation, don’t think for a moment that the principle we settle on will <em>only</em> be applied to abortion.</p>
</div>

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


title: What Science Can’t Prove
topic: Science
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/04/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-science-can-t-prove-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>If science can’t even disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God?</em></p>

<p>I often hear the comment, “Science has proved there is no God.”&nbsp;Don’t ever be bullied by such a statement. Science is completely incapable of proving such a thing.</p>

<p>I’m not saying that because I don’t like science, but rather because I know a little about how science works. Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can’t find.</p>

<p><em>Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.</em></p>

<p>For example, can science prove there are no unicorns? Absolutely not. How could science ever prove that unicorns don’t exist? All science can do is say that scientists may have been looking for unicorns for a long time and never found any. They might therefore conclude that no one is justified in believing that unicorns exist. They might show how certain facts considered to be evidence for unicorns in the past can be explained adequately by other things. They may invoke Occam’s Razor to favor a simpler explanation for the facts than that unicorns exist. But scientists can never prove unicorns themselves don’t exist.</p>

<p>Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn’t exist. That’s a misuse of the discipline. Such a claim would require omniscience. The only way one can say a thing does not exist is not by using the inductive method, but by using a deductive method, by showing that there’s something about the concept itself that is contradictory.</p>

<p>I can confidently say for sure that no square circles exist. Why? Not because I’ve searched the entire universe to make sure that there aren’t any square circles hiding behind a star somewhere. No, I don’t need to search the world to answer that question.</p>

<p>The concept of square circles entails a contradictory notion, and therefore can’t be real. A thing cannot be a square and be circular (i.e., not a square) at the same time. A thing cannot be a circle and squared (i.e., not a circle) at the same time. Therefore, square circles cannot exist. The laws of rationality (specifically, the law of non-contradiction) exclude the possibility of their existence.</p>

<p>This means, by the way, that all inductive knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty.</p>

<p>If you want to know something for certain, with no possibility of error—what’s called apodictic certainty in philosophy—you must employ the deductive method.</p>

<p>There have been attempts to use the deductive method to show that certain ways of thinking about God are contradictory. The deductive problem of evil is like that. If God were all good, the argument goes, He would want to get rid of evil. If God were all powerful, He’d be able to get rid of evil. Since we still have evil, then God either is not good or not powerful, or neither, but He can’t be both.</p>

<p>If this argument is sustained, then Christianity is defeated, because contradictory things (the belief that God is both good and powerful in the face of evil) cannot be true at the same time. The job of the Christian at this point is to show there isn’t a necessary contradiction in their view of God, that genuine love does not require that there be no evil or suffering, and that preventing such a thing is a non-function of God’s power. I think that can be done, and I’ve addressed that issue in another place (see <em><a href="/w/the-strength-of-god-the-problem-of-evil">The Strength of God and the Problem of Evil</a></em>).</p>

<p>So don’t be cowed or bullied by any comments that science has proven there is no God. Science can’t do that because it uses the inductive method, not the deductive method. When you hear someone make that claim, don’t contradict them. Simply ask this question: “How can science prove that someone like God doesn’t exist? Explain to me how science can do that. Spell it out.”</p>

<p><em>Some take the position that if science doesn’t give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That’s simply the false assumption of scientism.</em></p>

<p>You can even choose something you have no good reason to believe actually does exist—unicorns, or leprechauns, for that matter. Make that person show you, in principle, how science is capable of proving that any particular thing does not exist. He won’t be able to. All he’ll be able to show you is that science has proven certain things do exist, not that they don’t exist. There’s a difference.</p>

<p>Some take the position that if science doesn’t give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That’s simply the false assumption scientism. Don’t ever concede the idea that science is the only method available to learn things about the world.</p>

<p>Remember the line in the movie <em>Contact</em>? Ellie Arroway claimed she loved her father, but she couldn’t prove it scientifically. Does that mean she didn’t really love him? No scientific test known to man could ever prove such a thing. Ellie knew her own love for her father directly and immediately. She didn’t have to learn it from some scientific test.</p>

<p>There are things we know to be true that we don’t know through empirical testing—the five senses—but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. (Even this, though, is debated among philosophers of science.) However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.</p>

<p>One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they’re using science illegitimately. They’re misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.</p>

<p>The way many try to show God doesn’t exist is simply by asserting it, but that’s not proof. It isn’t even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law—natural law—must explain everything. If it can’t explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.</p>

<p>Scientists haven’t proven God doesn’t exist; they’ve merely assumed it in many cases. They’ve foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they’ve really said something profound, when all they’ve done is given you an unjustified opinion.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-science-can-t-prove-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%2Fwhat-science-can-t-prove-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%2Fwhat-science-can-t-prove-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: In the Name of Jesus
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/04/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/in-the-name-of-jesus
content:
            <div> 
		<p><strong>Will God answer your prayer if you don't end with, "In Jesus' name, Amen?" Learn what praying in the name of Jesus really means.</strong></p>

<p>I taught this week on the call of Abraham and the development of God's missionary call through the nation of Israel as they were responsible to communicate the truth of God to the cultures around them. They were given that great commission. The great commission didn't start in Matthew 28. It started with Abraham in Genesis 12, the first three verses there. "Abraham, chosen by God to raise up a nation who would then be God's priests to the world so that they would be a blessing to all of the nations."</p>

<p>They had a unique role in the great monotheistic religion. The Jews were supposed to reflect morality to the world. Israel was to witness to the name of God. When they talked about the name of God and witnessing to God's name, that does not mean that they were to let everybody know what they called God, "Yahweh." Their goal wasn't to cover the countryside with evangelists who just let everybody know what the right word for God was. It meant something different.</p>

<p>This is where I think Jehovah Witnesses really miss the point by making the big fuss about God's real name, Jehovah. Even the word Jehovah is a conflated name using portions of two different Hebrew words. We're not even sure what the tetragrammaton really was and what it was pronounced like. After you translate it into other languages, it has a different sound anyway.</p>

<p>What is surprising, though, is that Christians, have a very similar practice. We think we are doing something spiritual and end up doing something superstitious. In the process we don't really do the spiritual thing that we intended to accomplish. The "name of God" or "in the name of Jesus" means something different than repeating those words.</p>

<p>Read the New Testament. It says there, "Go out unto all the world, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit." It says "Anything you ask in my name, that will I do." We have presumed that what that means is that we must add a phrase after both prayer and baptism in order to make it work. We dip them and say, "In the name of Jesus" or "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."</p>

<p>Just about every time we finish praying we tack this phrase on at the end, "In the name of Jesus. Amen." We do that because we were told to pray in the name of Jesus and God would answer. We expect that in doing so it seals the power of the prayer. I think that is superstitious because praying in the name of Jesus doesn't mean saying, "In the name of Jesus."</p>

<p>I read through the New Testament once looking for every teaching on prayer or example of one. It is a great practice to do. Go down to your local Bible bookstore, buy yourself a little pocket rocket, one of those small, palm-sized New Testaments. I like the New American Standard myself. Start with Matthew and go right through to Revelation. You can skim read if you like, but look for every example of prayer in the New Testament.</p>

<p>"Grace to you and peace in the Lord Jesus Christ." That would be an example of a prayer that you see oft times at the beginning and sometimes at the end of Epistles. Paul says, "For this reason I bow my knees before the Father", he reflects a prayer there. "I pray that the eyes of your heart might be opened, that you would understand the length and breadth and depth of the love of Christ which is beyond comprehension." Paul gives a prayer there.</p>

<p>One thing you will notice when you highlight every prayer, every supplication on towards God that is uttered in the text of the New Testament is that you will never see a New Testament prayer that ends with the phrase "In Jesus' name. Amen," even though the same text teaches you to pray in Jesus' name. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to draw the conclusion that we are, first, to pray in the name of Jesus, and second, praying in the name of Jesus doesn't mean ending your prayer with the phrase "In the name of Jesus. Amen," because it is never done in the New Testament.</p>

<p>Ending prayers with that phrase might do nothing whatsoever to the efficacy of your prayer. I even submit that it might be hurting your prayer, depending on what you mean by the phrase.</p>

<p>What does it mean to pray in the name of someone if it doesn't mean saying, "In the name of..."? Here's what it means.</p>

<p>The name of someone, in the sense that the Bible authors used it, was what the person stood for, the substance of their character, or their authority. Israel was to witness to God's name, I mentioned. That means they were to witness to His character and who He is. Like it says in Exodus 34:6-7, "The Lord, God, compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in loving kindness and truth, who keeps loving kindness for a thousand." You see there a phrase that was repeated six times at least in the Old Testament. This is testifying to the name, or nature, or power, or substance of God. When we pray in the name of Jesus or baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, what we are doing is acting in their authority, in their stead, according to their command, and consistent with their desires.</p>

<p>When we pray in the name of Jesus it might be better for us to drop the phrase "In the name of Jesus" altogether because generally we don't mean, "I am praying in the authority of Jesus Christ." You know what we probably mean when we say "In the name of Jesus. Amen" ? Practically speaking, it means the prayer is over. That is the Christian exit. Amen. Translated it means, the prayer is over, let's go do what we were doing, or let's eat.</p>

<p>There is power in praying in the authority of Jesus Christ, by the authority He has given you, consistent with His character, His desire, and His will. It's like when we say, "Stop in the name of the law." The policeman is saying that because he is standing in the place of the law and speaking on behalf of it. To the degree that he speaks for the law, then he can enforce the law and he has authority. When he steps outside of the law, he has lost his authority even though he still says, "Stop in the name of the law."</p>

<p>It might be better for us to start our prayers with that phrase instead of ending it. But don't even use that phrase. It would be better to start your prayers by saying, "Father, I come before you, not in my own power, not in my own righteousness, not in my own capability. I come before you in the authority of Jesus, your Son, who gave me access in this faith in which I stand because of His blood. I come on the merits of Jesus, not on my own merits." Ladies and gentlemen, that's what praying in the name of Jesus is. When you come on the basis of Jesus' merits, then you are heard for Jesus' sake. I think it would be better to start out that way and when you end, just stop praying when you are done. You don't have to say anything at the end.</p>

<p>If you are praying in a group and you don't want to leave people mystified as to what is happening, you could just simply say, "The prayer is over, let's eat," or ,"We're done, let's go on." The important thing is not what you say with your mouth. Dispense with the empty words. Get rid of them. Instead, approach the throne of God based on the authority of Jesus Christ. If you are thinking that way and that is your attitude, it doesn't matter what you say at the end of the prayer. God will hear you according to His promise.</p>
</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-name-of-jesus" 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-name-of-jesus" 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-name-of-jesus" 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: Confusion about Grace
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/17/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/confusion-about-grace
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As I was looking into the LDS Church’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_anointing" target="_blank">second anointing</a> (which I wrote about <a href="/w/a-second-endowment-ceremony-" target="_blank">yesterday</a>), I came across a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130622185109/http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Mormon/2334690" target="_blank">response</a> to the idea (written by a Mormon), which I think illustrates very well the problem I described in <a href="/w/a-second-endowment-ceremony-" target="_blank">my post</a>—that is, the difficulty we (Mormons and Christians) have in communicating theological ideas to each other because we use the same terms so differently.</p>

<p>As I explained yesterday, it seems that most LDS Church members are not aware of the second Endowment (a temple ceremony where members who have been deemed worthy are sealed to all the highest rewards of <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng" target="_blank">exaltation</a> in the afterlife—godhood, etc.—that they’ve been striving for), and this anonymous blogger was expressing his skepticism about the validity of such a ceremony, even if it exists. Listen to how he explains his <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130622185109/http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Mormon/2334690" target="_blank">objection</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I personally believe that a person’s calling and election is NOT made sure through a second endowment. I believe this because we are saved by grace, and not works, lest any man should boast because of works. Thus, Prophets cannot seal this great blessing through temple work. This blessing only comes from Jesus Christ himself verbally telling you that you are sealed up in promise….</p>

<p>I want you to know that only Jesus Christ is the fountain of living waters. I believe these living waters represent total forgiveness of all sins and the love of God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This doesn’t sound so far off from something we might say, right? Christ gives total forgiveness. We’re saved by grace, not works. Were we to stop there and not dig deeper, we might leave thinking we’re in agreement. But then he continues:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I do not think that [Jesus] would count any ordinance sealing a person’s calling and election made sure as valid. A man is not saved by his works or his covenants, we are saved by grace after we have faith enough to live. A person whose calling and election is made sure still has debts to pay, but it is made sure because Christ knows most assuredly by the person’s faith that they will pay their debts most absolutely.</p>

<p>Achieving the same greatness as God has is not instant, it is a process even after you are promised to become greater than anything you can imagine.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Do you see the problem? How is “saved by grace, not works” and “total forgiveness of sins” compatible with the idea that a person “still has debts to pay” and “will pay his debts most absolutely”?</p>

<p>When this blogger says, “A man is not saved by his works or his covenants,” he can’t mean it’s not possible for a ceremony in the temple to be <em>required</em>, because the covenants Mormons make in the first Endowment, along with the ceremony in which they’re <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-38-eternal-marriage?lang=eng" target="_blank">sealed to their spouse</a> for eternity, are all <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng" target="_blank">necessary for exaltation</a> to the highest level of heaven and godhood. And every day, baptisms are performed for the dead so that they will be able to progress to a higher level of heaven. Clearly, works are done, by people, in temples, that count towards their becoming worthy of exaltation. So what can he mean?</p>

<p>Here’s what I suspect he’s thinking: It’s not a work of man that <em>awards</em> our blessings. Rather, only Christ can <em>bestow</em> blessings on us—both the blessing of having the commandments and ordinances we need to follow <em>and</em> the blessings that we receive if we follow them. The giving of the laws we need to follow is called grace, and the giving of the reward is called grace, simply because they come from God and we couldn’t have come up with them on our own. The fact that works must be done in order for God to deem a person worthy of receiving a blessing does not contradict their idea of grace. The works themselves didn’t <em>create</em> the blessings, only God creates and gives the blessings. <em>That</em> is what they call grace. This is how they reconcile the talk of grace in the Bible with the list of works in the “<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng" target="_blank">plan of salvation</a>” they follow.</p>

<p>So conditional covenant-making (making promises and fulfilling requirements) in the temple does not violate the idea of grace for them. I don’t think it would have bothered this blogger at all if there were an additional covenant ceremony God required in order for us to be found worthy of the ultimate blessings. What he objects to is the idea that a ceremony performed by men can <em>seal</em> (i.e., guarantee) the receipt of blessings when only God can announce the giving of such a thing. As long as God <em>gives</em> the blessing, as long as the reward itself is not something we could create on our own, regardless of what works are required to be worthy of receiving it, their idea of grace is preserved.</p>

<p>As for the term “faith,” when he says, “We are saved by grace after we have faith enough to live,” he’s talking about faith that the plan of salvation is the God-given way to live and progress to exaltation, not faith in Christ’s sacrifice (except as far as it makes the plan of salvation possible). As he explains, Christ knows we will continue to pay our debts through the plan of salvation if we have sincere faith in His intention to reward the followers of this plan.</p>

<p>You can see the communication problem.</p>
</div>

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


title: You Don’t Care about Children after They’re Born
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/22/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/you-don-t-care-about-children-after-they-re-born
content:
            <div> 
		<p>With all the discussion about abortion today, you might be hearing a charge frequently leveled against pro-life activists: “You only care about children in the womb. You don’t care about them after they’re born!”</p>

<p>The problem is that this is really just a slogan (which ultimately, I think is a partisan political slogan meant to promote larger government), and as a slogan, it will take a little work to get past because your friend might not have thought it through very carefully. Ask questions: “What do you mean, I ‘don’t care about them’?” “What actions do you think I would take if I really did care about them?” If the answer is a political solution you disagree with, then: “Are you open to the idea that I think there’s a better way to care for them than your way? Maybe you’ve missed the ways that I and my fellow pro-lifers have been caring for them.”</p>

<p>Sometimes a conversation about this will reveal the objection is just a smoke screen. Greg spoke to a woman on the radio a few years ago about this charge of inconsistency, and when it came down to it, there was nothing Greg could have done that would have been enough for her. <a href="https://str-legacy.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/podcast/blog/movinggoalline.mp3" target="_blank">Listen here</a>. The discussion is instructive.</p>

<p>So don’t let this charge neutralize you. Don’t be afraid of it. Dive into it and see if you can work through it with your friend.</p>

<p>And because speaking out for defenseless human beings whose lives are at stake is a worthy cause in itself, here’s a final question to ask: “Do you understand that even though I can’t do everything, saving people’s lives is still a worthy cause to devote myself to?”</p>

<p>Scott Klusendorf <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2012/12/short-story-scott.html" target="_blank">captured this idea</a> well:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Joe found the young girl unconscious in her upstairs closet. By the time he got there, the structure was a raging inferno. No one else dared go inside. Scooping up the girl, he took his only exit, straight out the second story window and into the bushes below. The girl lived. For his part, Joe sustained three cuts and two sprained ankles—and an avalanche of questions. The media wanted to know how he planned to pay for the girl’s food, clothing, and health care now that he’d rescued her. The evangelical pastor asked if the time spent saving the girl from temporal flames might be better spent saving people from eternal ones. The social justice coordinator of the Catholic parish insisted that if Joe truly cared about saving lives, he’d care about all life and spend equal time rescuing poor workers from corrupt corporations. The local Congressman asked if he supported tax hikes aimed at reducing fire risk. Joe just kept looking at the girl.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

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


title: Paul, Romans and Homosexuality
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/04/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/paul-romans-and-homosexuality-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans contains what most readers consider the Bible’s clearest condemnation of same-sex relations. Recent scholarship reads the same text and finds just the opposite. Who is right?</em></p>

<p>To most readers, the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans contains the Bible’s clearest condemnation of same-sex relations—both male and female. Recent scholarship, though, reads the same text and finds just the opposite—that homosexuality is innate and therefore normal, moral, and biblical.</p>

<h2>Reconstructing Romans</h2>

<p>In Romans, Paul seems to use homosexuality as indicative of man’s deep seated rebellion against God and God’s proper condemnation of man. New interpretations cast a different light on the passage.</p>

<p>Paul, the religious Jew, is looking across the Mediterranean at life in the capital of Graeco-Roman culture. Homosexuality in itself is not the focus of condemnation. Rather, Paul’s opprobrium falls upon paganism’s refusal to acknowledge the true God.</p>

<p>It’s also possible Paul did not understand the physiological basis of genuine homosexuality. John Boswell, professor of history at Yale, is among those who differ with the classical interpretation. In <em>Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality</em> he writes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons...It is not clear that Paul distinguished in his thoughts or writings between gay persons (in the sense of permanent sexual preference) and heterosexuals who simply engaged in periodic homosexual behavior. It is in fact unlikely that many Jews of his day recognized such a distinction, but it is quite apparent that—whether or not he was aware of their existence—Paul did not discuss gay persons but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Paul is speaking to those who violate their natural sexual orientation, Boswell contends, those who go against their own natural desire: “’Nature’&nbsp;in Romans 1:26, then, should be understood as the personal nature of the pagans in question.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>Since a homosexual’s natural desire is for the same sex, this verse doesn’t apply to him. He has not chosen to set aside heterosexuality for homosexuality; the orientation he was born with is homosexual. Demanding that he forsake his “sin”&nbsp;and become heterosexual is actually the kind of violation of one’s nature Paul condemns here.</p>

<p>Both views can’t be correct. Only a close look at the text itself will give us the answer. The details of this passage show why these new interpretations are impossible:<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<blockquote>
<p>For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.</p>

<p>For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.</p>

<p>Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.</p>

<p>For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Let me start by making two observations. First, this is about God being mad: “For the wrath of God [orge] is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...”</p>

<p>Second, there is a specific progression that leads to this “orgy”&nbsp;of anger. Men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”&nbsp;(v. 18). They exchanged “the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator”&nbsp;(v. 25). Next, “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity...”&nbsp;(v. 24). They “exchanged the natural [sexual] function for that which is unnatural�� (v. 26). Therefore, the wrath of God rightly falls on them (v. 18); they are without excuse (v. 20).</p>

<p>This text is a crystal clear condemnation of homosexuality by the Apostle Paul in the middle of his most brilliant discourse on general revelation. Paul is not speaking to a localized aberration of pedophilia or temple prostitution that’s part of life in the capital of Graeco-Roman culture. He is talking about a universal condition of man.</p>

<p>Regarding the same-sex behavior itself, here are the specific words Paul uses: a lust of the heart, an impurity and dishonoring to the body (v. 24); a degrading passion that’s unnatural (v. 29); an indecent act and an error (v. 27); not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v. 28).</p>

<p>There’s only one way the clear sense of this passage can be missed: if someone is in total revolt against God. According to Paul, homosexual behavior is evidence of active, persistent rebellion against one’s Creator. Verse 32 shows it’s rooted in direct, willful, aggressive sedition against God—true of all so-called Christians who are defending their own homosexuality. God’s response is explicit: “They are without excuse”&nbsp;(v. 20).</p>

<h2>Born Gay?</h2>

<p>What if one’s “natural”&nbsp;desire is for the same sex, though? What if his homosexuality is part of his physical constitution? There are four different reasons this is a bad argument. The first three are compelling; the fourth is unassailable.</p>

<p>First, this rejoinder assumes there is such a thing as innate homosexuality. The scientific data is far from conclusive, though. Contrary to the hasty claims of the press, there is no definitive evidence that homosexuality is determined by physiological factors (see “Just Doing What Comes Naturally,”&nbsp;Clear Thinking, Spring, 1997).</p>

<p>There’s a second problem. If all who have a desire for the same sex do so “naturally,”&nbsp;then to whom does this verse apply? If everybody is only following their natural sexual desires, then which particular individuals fall under this ban, those who are not aroused by their own gender, but have sex anyway? Generally, for men at least, if there is no arousal, there is no sex. And if there is arousal, according to Boswell et al, then the passion must be natural.</p>

<p>Third, this interpretation introduces a whole new concept—constitutional homosexuality—that is entirely foreign to the text. Boswell himself admits that it was “in fact unlikely that many Jews of [Paul’s] day recognized such a distinction,”&nbsp;and that possibly even Paul himself was in the dark.</p>

<p>If Paul did not understand genuine homosexuality, though, then how can one say he excepted constitutional homosexuals when he wrote that they “exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural”? This argument self-destructs.</p>

<p>Further, if Paul spoke only to those violating their personal sexual orientation, then wouldn’t he also warn that some men burned unnaturally towards women, and some women towards men? Wouldn’t Paul warn against both types of violation—heterosexuals committing indecent acts with members of the same sex, and homosexuals committing indecent acts with members of the opposite sex?</p>

<p>What in the text allows us to distinguish between constitutional homosexuals and others? Only one word: “natural.”&nbsp;A close look at this word and what it modifies, though, leads to the most devastating critique of all.</p>

<h2>Natural Desire or Natural Function?</h2>

<p>Paul was not unclear about what he meant by “natural.”&nbsp;Homosexuals do not abandon natural desires; they abandon natural functions: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another...”&nbsp;(1:26-27).</p>

<p>The Greek word kreesis, translated “function”&nbsp;in this text, is used only these two times in the New Testament, but is found frequently in other literature of the time. According to the standard Greek language reference <em>A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature</em><sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup>, the word means “use, relations, function, especially of sexual intercourse.”</p>

<p>Paul is not talking about natural desires here, but natural functions. He is not talking about what one wants sexually, but how one is built to operate sexually. The body is built to function in a specific way. Men were not built to function sexually with men, but with women.</p>

<p>This conclusion becomes unmistakable when one notes what men abandon in verse 27, according to Paul. The modern argument depends on the text teaching that men abandoned their own natural desire for woman and burned toward one another. Men whose natural desire was for other men would then be exempted from Paul’s condemnation. Paul says nothing of the kind, though.</p>

<p>Paul says men forsake not their own natural desire (their constitutional make-up), but rather the “natural function of the woman.”&nbsp;They abandoned the female, who was built by God to be man’s&nbsp;sexual complement.</p>

<p>The error has nothing to do with anything in the male’s own constitution that he’s denying. It is in the rejection of the proper sexual companion God has made for him—a woman: “The men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts...”&nbsp;(v. 27).</p>

<p>Natural desires go with natural functions. The passion that exchanges the natural function of sex between a man and a woman for the unnatural function of sex between a man and a man is what Paul calls a degrading passion.</p>

<p>Jesus clarified the natural, normal relationship: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said ’For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse]’&nbsp;(Matthew 19:4-5)?”</p>

<p>Homosexual desire is unnatural because it causes a man to abandon the natural sexual complement God has ordained for him: a woman. That was Paul’s view. If it was Paul’s view recorded in the inspired text, then it is God’s view. And if it is God’s view, it should be ours if we call ourselves Christian.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">John Boswell, Christianity, <em>Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality</em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 109.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Ibid., p. 111.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Citations are from the <em>New American Standard Bible</em>, copyright 1977, The Lockman Foundation.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (University of Chicago Press).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpaul-romans-and-homosexuality-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%2Fpaul-romans-and-homosexuality-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%2Fpaul-romans-and-homosexuality-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 Presence of Death
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/24/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-presence-of-death
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Our world is so different from a mere century ago. Today we routinely undergo minor surgeries, hardly giving a second thought to the anesthesia and antibiotics that make them minor.</p>

<p>But what we consider minor today could have easily been a life and death (not to mention terrifyingly painful) situation in a time without these medical advances. What would it have been like to live then, when an awareness of death was a constant part of life? When one’s own death, even from a minor accident, was always a real possibility? And what have we lost because of our current lack of awareness?</p>

<p>Ecclesiastes 7:2 says, “It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, because that is the end of every man, and the living takes it to heart.” Our chances of meeting death are still 100%, but we rarely contemplate this because we rarely bump into this reality. And what happens when we don’t “take our impending death to heart”? We can slip right into living smaller lives, where the big questions of existence and meaning surrounding death are easily overrun by the constant stream of trivialities right in front of us.</p>

<p>What have we lost, both as individuals and as a culture, without the presence of death? When I look at the depth and beauty of the music, art, literature, and theology of the past, I have to wonder. There’s a good possibility our comfort has led to much of our cultural sickness and spiritual apathy (just as it did for the ancient Israelites). I certainly don’t want to go back to the days when a broken leg could result in death. Still, it’s sobering to think our relief from present pain and death has come at such a cost.</p>

<p>And that cost is an unsettling reminder of who we are as fallen creatures, because it means our sinfulness and rebellion against God corrupts even moral goods like the use of antibiotics to alleviate suffering. Rather than translating the comfort and ease medicine brings us into unhindered opportunities to seek and worship God, we’ve turned it into a tool to enable us to avoid thinking about Him.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-presence-of-death" 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-presence-of-death" 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-presence-of-death" 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: Unstringing the Violinist
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/04/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/unstringing-the-violinist
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Judith Jarvis Thompson’s “Violinist”&nbsp;argument is one of the most compelling ever offered in favor of abortion on demand, but it’s deeply flawed. Here’s where it goes wrong.</em></p>

<p>I remember exactly where I was the first time I heard Judith Jarvis Thompson’s “Violinist”&nbsp;argument. I was driving south on the 405 freeway in Los Angeles listening to a radio talk-show. It shook me up so much I almost had to pull over.</p>

<p>Not only was the argument compelling, but Thompson made a stunning concession when she acknowledged the full personhood of the unborn. Having conceded what pro-lifers were trying to prove, she short-circuited their argument from the outset.</p>

<p>My first impulse was to throw in the towel. The argument couldn’t be answered, I thought. This is often the case with carefully worded philosophical treatments. At first glance they appear compelling. On closer inspection, though, the flaws begin to show. In this instance, the problems with Thompson’s argument are fatal.</p>

<h2>The Violinist Argument</h2>

<p>The details of Judith Jarvis Thompson’s argument are important, so I will quote her illustration in full. Entitled “A Defense of Abortion,”&nbsp;it first appeared in 1971 in the <em>Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs</em>.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<blockquote>
<p>I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.</p>

<p>It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.</p>

<p>Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you <em>have</em> to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, “Tough luck, I agree, but you’ve now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.”&nbsp;I imagine you would regard this as outrageous,<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Judith Jarvis Thompson correctly shows that an additional step is needed to bridge the gap between the premise that the unborn is a person and the conclusion that killing the unborn child is always wrong. What’s needed is the additional premise that taking the life of a person is always wrong. Killing, however, is sometimes permissible, most notably in self-defense.</p>

<p>The reasoning in the violinist illustration is very tight. Thompson accurately represents the pro-life position, and then offers a scenario for us to consider. The analysis employs two powerful techniques of argumentation: an example that appeals to moral intuition followed by a logical slippery slope.</p>

<p>The logical slippery slope works like this. When one thing is immoral, and a second is logically similar in a morally relevant way, the moral quality of the one “slips over”&nbsp;into the other. For example, murder is immoral, and some think capital punishment is similar enough to murder to make capital punishment immoral too.</p>

<p>Thompson is counting on a certain moral intuition—our sense of justice—rising to the surface when we consider the plight of the kidnapped woman used as a host against her will to support the life of a stranger.</p>

<p>She then asks us to consider if having an abortion is a meaningful parallel to unplugging the violinist. Both circumstances catch the woman by surprise. Both the violinist and the unborn child are attached to her body, which both need in order to survive. Both will release her in nine months.</p>

<p>Thompson’s view is that disconnecting the violinist is morally justified even though he’ll die, and there seems to be merit to this appeal. To stay connected would be heroic—“a great kindness,”&nbsp;in her words—but, like all acts of heroism, it is voluntary and not morally required.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> If that’s the case, then it’s moral to abort a child, even if he or she is a fully human person, just like the violinist. If the first is morally acceptable (unplugging the violinist), and if the second (having an abortion) is similar to the first in a relevant way, then the second should be acceptable also.</p>

<p>A recent book, <em>Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent</em>,<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> uses the same approach. Author Eileen McDonagh points out that if a woman’s liberty is being threatened in some fashion—if she is being attacked, raped, or kidnapped—then the law gives her the latitude to use lethal force to repel her attacker.</p>

<p>Pregnancy, McDonagh argues, is this kind of situation. “If a woman has the right to defend herself against a rapist, she also should be able to use deadly force to expel a fetus,”&nbsp;she writes.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> In pregnancy, a woman is being attacked by another human being—from the inside, not from the outside. Therefore, she has the moral liberty to repel her attacker by killing the intruder.</p>

<p>It does seem obvious that a woman ought to be allowed to protect herself from an attacker and use lethal force to do so, if necessary. If this is true, then we must concede the legitimacy of abortion, which, McDonagh claims, is parallel in a relevant way.</p>

<h2>Parallels That Aren’t Parallel</h2>

<p>The key question in any slippery slope appeal is whether the two situations are truly similar in a morally relevant way. If not, then the illustration is guilty of a logical slippery slope fallacy. The analogy fails and the argument falls apart.</p>

<p>Are there important differences between pregnancy and kidnapping? Yes, many.</p>

<p>First, the violinist is artificially attached to the woman. A mother’s unborn baby, however, is not surgically connected, nor was it ever “attached”&nbsp;to her. Instead, the baby is being produced by the mother’s own body by the natural process of reproduction.</p>

<p>Both Thompson and McDonagh treat the child—the woman’s own daughter or son—like an invading stranger intent on doing harm. They make the mother/child union into a host/predator relationship.</p>

<p>A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. A mother’s womb is the baby’s natural environment. Eileen McDonagh wants us to believe that the child growing inside of a woman is trespassing. One trespasses when he’s not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there.</p>

<p>Thompson ignores a second important distinction. In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being’s life through poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.</p>

<p>Third, the violinist illustration is not parallel to pregnancy because it equates a stranger/stranger relationship with a mother/child relationship. This is a key point and brings into focus the most dangerous presumption of the violinist illustration, also echoed in McDonagh’s thesis. Both presume it is unreasonable to expect a mother to have any obligations towards her own child.</p>

<p>The violinist analogy suggests that a mother has no more responsibility for the welfare of her child than she has to a total stranger. McDonagh’s view is even worse. She argues the child is not merely a stranger, but a violent assailant the mother needs to ward off in self-defense.</p>

<p>This error becomes immediately evident if we amend Thompson’s illustration. What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected <em>to her own child</em>? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that? And what would we think of her if she did?</p>

<p>Blood relationships are never based on choice, yet they entail moral obligations, nonetheless. This is why the courts prosecute negligent parents. They have consistently ruled, for example, that fathers have an obligation to support their children even if they are unplanned and unwanted.</p>

<p>If it is moral for a mother to deny her child the necessities of life (through abortion) before it is born, how can she be obligated to provide the same necessities after he’s born? Remember, Thompson concedes that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. If her argument works to justify abortion, it works just as well to justify killing any dependent child. After all, a two-year-old makes a much greater demand on a woman than a developing unborn.</p>

<p>Thompson is mistaken in presuming that pregnancy is the thing that expropriates a woman’s liberty. Motherhood does that, and motherhood doesn’t end with the birth of the child. Unlike the woman connected to the violinist, a mother is not released in nine months. Her burden has just begun. If Thompson’s argument works, then no child is safe from a mother who wants her liberty.</p>

<p>In the end, both Thompson’s and McDonagh’s arguments prove too much. They allow us to kill any human being who is dependent upon us, young or old, if that person restrains our personal liberty.</p>

<p>The simple fact is, in a civilized society no one has the freedom to do whatever she wants with her own body. Liberty unfettered by morality is the operative rule of anarchy, not civilization. At any given moment, each of us is constrained by hundreds of laws reflecting our moral responsibilities to our community. The most primal of those rules is the obligation of a mother to her helpless child. This is one of the reasons the public outcry against Susan Smith was so intense.</p>

<h2>Susan Smith Morality</h2>

<p>Susan Smith shocked the nation with the murder of her children. She believed her two young boys were an obstacle to remarriage, so she placed them in her car, fastened their seat belts, and drove them into the lake.</p>

<p>Smith’s crime was especially obscene because she violated the most fundamental moral obligation of all: the responsibility a mother has for her own children. Yet wouldn’t Susan Smith be exonerated by Thompson’s and McDonagh’s logic? These children were kidnappers and interlopers, trespassing on Smith’s life, depriving her of liberty. Why not kill them? Those boys were attacking her. It was self-defense.</p>

<p>Last year, a couple in New York was arrested when authorities learned they took a 10-day vacation to Florida and left their young children behind to fend for themselves. If McDonagh’s and Thompson’s arguments work, these parents should be released from jail because they bear no more obligation towards their own children than they do to strangers across town or burglars who break into their house. Those children were invading their privacy, trespassing in their home, stealing their food.</p>

<p>This argument is frightening for two reasons. First, it must reject the notion of parental responsibility in order to succeed. Second, in spite of that weakness, people in high places think it’s compelling. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in the <em>North Carolina Law Review</em>, has admitted that Roe v. Wade was deeply flawed, and instead quoted the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in support of abortion. Women get pregnant, she argued, men don’t. Abortion gives women a shot at equality. She then cited Thompson for support.</p>

<p>The responsibility a mother has toward her child supersedes any claim she has to personal liberty. If it doesn’t, if Thompson’s and McDonagh’s arguments succeed, then release Susan Smith. Release the deadbeat Florida tourists. If parenthood is an act of heroism, if mothers have no moral obligation to the children they bear, if child-rearing is a burden “above and beyond the call of duty,”&nbsp;then no child is safe, in the womb or out.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Judith Jarvis Thompson, “A Defense of Abortion,”&nbsp;Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1971), p. 47.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Note the appeal to moral intuition here.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Philosophers call heroic efforts “supererogatory acts,”&nbsp;behavior that is not obligatory, but is praiseworthy if done, like a soldier throwing himself on a grenade, sacrificing his life to protect his comrades.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Eileen McDonagh, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent (New York, Oxford University Press, 1996).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Quoted in Nat Hentoff, “The Tiny, Voiceless Enemy Within,”&nbsp;Los Angeles Times, 2/3/97, B-5.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>

<h2>Resources for Additional Study</h2>

<p><a href="http://edrmx.rxdtq.servertrust.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD125" target="_blank">Pro-Life 101: Making Your Case</a></p>

<p><a href="http://edrmx.rxdtq.servertrust.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=DVD008" target="_blank">Making Abortion Unthinkable DVD</a></p>

<p><a href="http://edrmx.rxdtq.servertrust.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD167" target="_blank">Great Abortion Debate!</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%2Funstringing-the-violinist" 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%2Funstringing-the-violinist" 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%2Funstringing-the-violinist" 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: Was Jesus Worshiped?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/was-jesus-worshipped-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I want to speak about a topic that was introduced a few weeks back by a couple of different callers who were contesting the deity of Jesus and whether or not the New Testament actually taught that. One of the arguments that I raised in favor of Jesus’&nbsp;deity was that He was worshiped. We’ll get to that in just a moment.</p>

<p>I was actually paid a very nice compliment last week. One of my students from an ethics class I taught came up to me and said that he had recently been in a debate with a man who was in favor of capital punishment. This former student went into the debate armed with some material that he’d learned from the class and actually did a very credible job. In fact, after the debate his opponent said something to the effect, “I was surprised at how well you argued and how clearly you thought and how effectively you debated this issue. I didn’t expect it.”&nbsp;Apparently he didn’t expect a good clear argument from someone taking a more conservative Christian position.</p>

<p><strong>What I’m about to show you are fair and reasonable conclusions to a textual problem of the alleged worship of Jesus Christ. You don’t need to consult a bunch of experts. You can be an expert by consulting the text in a reasoned fashion.</strong></p>

<p>I was really glad to hear that for his sake. But this student made the comment that he had just parroted my material. I took exception with that because you cannot go into a debate situation and do an effective job by simply parroting somebody else’s material, especially in a debate where there is repartee—conversation back and forth, answering issues, new things brought up. You’ve got to know the material to be effective. I thought this individual did well because he’d studied, not because he simply had my notes and had attended class. He knew the material and he wasn’t simply parroting it; he was debating an issue he understood, though some of that understanding he got from the class.</p>

<p>That brings us to our topic today. A few weeks ago this issue came up about the deity of Jesus and the questions of whether He was actually worshiped in the New Testament. I got caught short on some information. The reason I brought up the student who was in the debate is that there are times where even I have to use somebody else’s research. I end up parroting what somebody else researched, their ideas, their opinions. Partly I do that because, like anybody else, my time is limited and the subjects are broad and deep. But the times that I can do my own research are the times when I really own the material.</p>

<p>What I’d like to do today is demonstrate for you how I did my own research dealing with a particular topic. I won’t give you just the conclusions of my research; I’ll walk you through step by step how I did the research so you can learn the process yourself.</p>

<p>When dealing with a biblical problem some of you say, “Well, I don’t know Greek.”&nbsp;Listen, you don’t need to know Greek in order to solve many of the difficult problems. I don’t know Greek either. But I think you’ll see that what I’m about to show you are fair and reasonable conclusions to a textual problem of the alleged worship of Jesus Christ. You don’t need to consult a bunch of experts. You can be an expert by consulting the text in a reasoned fashion and I’m going to show you how I did it in solving this question about whether Jesus received worship, as I would argue, as opposed to receiving mere respect, as others have suggested, and how you can do it too, in resolving other biblical issues.</p>

<p>Now, I want to add this caveat as well. Some of the details make this seem a little bit tedious, in keeping with Thomas Edison’s observation that genius—in this case theological genius—is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. A lot of discovery in this kind of study is just plain work. I’m going to show you how I did the work and explain the conclusions I came to by demonstrating this process.</p>

<p>Our conversation, as you may recall, went something like this:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Greg:</strong> Jesus received worship. Only God was to receive worship. Therefore, Jesus is God.</p>

<p><strong>Caller:</strong> The word used to describe what people did with Jesus (<em>proskuneo</em>) was also used in Rev 3:9 where God says “...Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan,...to come and bow down (same word—<em>proskuneo</em>) at your feet...”&nbsp;Therefore Jesus wasn’t being worshiped.</p>

<p><strong>Greg astutely replied:</strong> Abadee, abadee, abadee, abadee.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The point was well made and I was caught short on information.</p>

<p>An observation at this point was that we simply couldn’t leave the issue here. For one reason, the point that my caller made really didn’t solve anything. He offered an alternative explanation, he didn’t offer an argument. He said that Jesus wasn’t worshiped, but He was merely bowed down to like the bowing down (which is obviously not worship) recorded in Revelation. Now, that’s not an argument; that’s an assertion. What he didn’t do was offer evidence why he believed that Jesus was being bowed down to and not worshiped in the same way as the word is used in other passages to denote worship of God.</p>

<p><strong>Now words are equivocal; words by themselves can mean different things. But in context they are univocal, they are usually unambiguous. The context helps narrow and refine the focus of a particular meaning so that in many cases the meaning cannot be missed. The context always determines the meaning.</strong></p>

<p>The second observation is that nothing really had been affirmed about the use of the word <em>proskuneo</em>. The only thing established was the fact that the use of this word in reference to Christ doesn’t <em>necessarily</em> and <em>automatically</em> mean men worshiped Him. So it remains for us to solve the problem, “What does <em>proskuneo</em> mean when it is applied to Jesus? How do we go about solving this problem?”&nbsp;I’m going to show you in detail how to answer this kind of question.</p>

<p>Keep in mind our goal. Our goal is to determine the meaning of a word in its particular context. Now words are equivocal; words by themselves can mean different things. But in context they are univocal, they are usually unambiguous. The context helps narrow and refine the focus of a particular meaning so that in many cases the meaning cannot be missed. The context always determines the meaning. So we’re faced with the question, what clues, if any, does the context give us about this word <em>proskuneo</em> as it relates to the person of Jesus Christ.</p>

<p>Of course to know the context we have to know what the words are and where the words are located and here is where a couple of very useful tools come into play. You need two things, basically. First, you need an exhaustive concordance. <em>Strong’s Concordance</em> is one example. <em>New American Standard Concordance</em> is another. These concordances list where particular words are used in the text. They’re keyed to the English translation so you won’t get every place where the word <em>proskuneo</em> is used, you will get places it is translated into English as “worship.”&nbsp;But other times it is translated as “bow down.”&nbsp;That won’t show up under “worship,”&nbsp;you have to look under ��bow down.”</p>

<p>How can you find every place in the New Testament that a particular Greek word is used so that you can examine all of the contexts and come to some conclusions about how the word is used? You do that by using a Greek concordance, a concordance that lists all the Greek words and not the English words. The Greek concordance that I use is called <em>Wigram Englishman Concordance of the New Testament</em>. You might say, “I don’t know Greek, how can I look it up?”&nbsp;Now what’s important about this is that this book is coded to the numbers in <em>Strong’s</em> and the <em>New American Standard Concordances</em>. You can look up an English word in <em>Strong’s</em> and find the number. You look up the same number in <em>Wigram</em> and it will give you the Greek word, in this case <em>proskuneo</em>. Then underneath <em>proskuneo</em> you will find every single reference of <em>proskuneo</em> in the New Testament, along with the way that it is translated in the King James Translation. It will enable you to look at all of the contexts so that you can see how the word is used.</p>

<p>Incidentally, if you’d like to get a copy of <em>Wigram’s</em>, I bought mine at The Christian Discount Bookstore in Whittier. The concordance will help you find the word and the corresponding number; the number will help you locate the Greek word in <em>Wigram’s.</em></p>

<p>Having gone to <em>Wigram’s</em> and looked up the word in question, <em>proskuneo</em>, I found that the word actually occurs 59 times in the New Testament. As I read through every single one of those verses—and this is what you must do if you want to do a thorough job—I realized that there were some conclusions I could draw immediately that represented a series of facts which became my working material.</p>

<p>The first fact is this: Jesus said to <em>proskuneo</em> no one but the Father. This is in Matthew 4 and Luke 4, parallel accounts of Jesus’&nbsp;temptation in which Satan asks Jesus to bow down. The word used is <em>proskuneo</em>. We also see the angel in Revelation 19:10 and 22:9 saying, “<em>proskuneo</em> no one but the Father.”</p>

<p>Second point, there are 22 references citing the Father receiving <em>proskuneo</em>.</p>

<p>Third point, we also see that Jesus received <em>proskuneo</em> (14 references).</p>

<p>Fourth point, 14 additional references indicate improper <em>proskuneo</em> of the devil, demons, idols or the beast of Revelation. In other words, people worshiping the devil, demons, idols, falling down before them, that was not right and it was clear from the context that it wasn’t right. And there are three other cases where men or angels are <em>proskuneoed</em>, worshiped. Cornelius fell down in Acts 10:25 and the Apostle John—surprisingly the beloved apostle himself—fell down before the angel of Revelation in 19:10, 22:8 and he was corrected for doing this.</p>

<p>The fifth fact is that we also see men receiving <em>proskuneo</em>, the point my caller was bringing up. One time the action was forced by God (Rev 3:9). The only other time was in Matthew’s Gospel (8:26), “The slave therefore falling down, <em>prostrated himself</em> [<em>proskuneo</em>] before him, saying, ’Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.’”&nbsp;This was the story Jesus told of the man who owed much and then was forgiven that debt after being threatened with being hauled off and thrown into the debtors’&nbsp;prison.</p>

<p><em>proskuneo</em></p>

<p>The most important things about what I’ve done so far is that these five observations bring us to one simple conclusion and raise one simple question. The simple conclusion is that there is a type of <em>proskuneo</em> that is worship reserved to God alone, and there is a type of <em>proskuneo</em> that can be done with men—a bowing down, a courtesy, a sign of deference and respect, a tipping-the-hat, so to speak. In other words, sometimes it’s okay and sometimes it isn’t. What’s the difference?</p>

<p>Here’s the simple question: How would one distinguish between bowing low to a man in respect, which is allowed, and true worship, which is forbidden? Or more specific to our task, “Did people worship Jesus or did they merely bow low in respect?”&nbsp;To answer that we have to go back to the text.</p>

<p>As I looked at these texts, I realized something. There is a type of <em>proskuneo</em> that cannot be mistaken for mere courtesy. In Acts 10:25 Cornelius fell at Peter’s feet and <em>proskuneo</em> (“worshiped”) him. In Revelation 19:10 and 22:8 John fell at the angel’s feet twice and <em>proskuneo</em> (“worshiped”) him. Both Cornelius and John were seriously reprimanded. Why?</p>

<p>The reason they were reprimanded is that <em>proskuneo</em> is generally translated to bow down but—listen closely—if a person is already down, the addition of <em>proskuneo</em> must indicate worship. Cornelius didn’t fall at Peter’s feet and then bow down, he was already down. John didn’t fall down at the angel’s feet and then bow down, he was already down. They both fell down and worshiped. Ergo the strong words of correction: “Worship God, not me.”</p>

<p>Remember the words of the devil in the temptation in Matthew 4:9? “And he said to Him, ’All these things will I give You, if You <em>fall down and worship</em> me.’”&nbsp;No possibility of mistaking that. Then Jesus said to him, “Begone, Satan! For it is written, ’You shall <em>worship</em> the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’”</p>

<p>There are six different references that include the phrase “falling down”&nbsp;with the worship of God. In fact, the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures in Revelation were always keeling over at the foot of the throne and worshiping (<em>proskuneo</em>) the Father (1 Cor 14:25, Rev 4:10, 5:14, 7:11, 11:16 and 19:4).</p>

<p>By the way, it isn’t just falling down and worshiping that’s condemned. There are twelve references where demons, idols or the beast of Revelation are merely <em>proskuneo,</em> worshiped (no reference to “falling down”) and it’s condemned. But the addition of the notion of falling down in other places merely makes the meaning impossible to miss in the context.</p>

<p>Does this happen with any mere man? Only once in Matthew 18:26, “The slave therefore falling down, <em>proskuneo</em> (“prostrated himself”) before him, saying, ’Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.’”&nbsp;Keep in mind, though no editorial comment is made whether this is right or wrong. And let’s face it, this guy is groveling for his life in the illustration that Jesus is giving. He may have been attempting to worship, we simply don’t know. This doesn’t tell us about the particular meaning of the word.</p>

<p>Now to the point of our study: what kind of <em>proskuneo</em> was given to Jesus?</p>

<p>The word <em>proskuneo</em> is used fourteen times of Jesus. There are six different times <em>proskuneo</em> is used of Jesus where it seems clear from the context that courtesy, respect or deference is in view. The leper came to Him and <em>bowed down</em> to Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.”&nbsp;In Matthew 9:18, “While He was saying these things to them, behold, there came a synagogue official and he <em>bowed down</em> before Him, saying, ’My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live.’”&nbsp;In Matthew 15:25, we see a Canaanite woman whose daughter was demon-possessed bowing down before Him and saying, “Lord, help me!”&nbsp;In Matthew 20:20 the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him on behalf of her sons, <em>bowing down</em> and making a request of Him. Nothing in the context indicates that anything other than deference or respect is going on.</p>

<p>There are two cases that are not clear. The demon possessed man from Gadarenes, Mark 5:6. And also Mark 15:19, the soldiers are bowing down and mocking Jesus. We don’t know if they are mocking deference or mocking worship. It just doesn’t say. So let’s just set those aside for the time being.</p>

<p>But what of the other eight references of <em>proskuneo</em> to Jesus? You tell me based on what we’ve already covered. Matthew 2:2, 8, 11, “’Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to <em>worship</em> Him.’...[Herod says,] ’Go and make careful search for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, that I too may come and <em>worship</em> Him.’...And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother and they <em>fell down</em> and <em>worshiped</em> Him...”&nbsp;Matthew 28:9, “And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and <em>took hold of His feet</em> and <em>worshiped</em> Him.”</p>

<p>The Magi and the Christ child with the miraculous star overhead, the disciples with the risen Jesus, are not falling down and then bowing down; they’re already down. They are falling down and, as the <em>New American Bible</em> accurately translates it, worshiping Jesus Christ.</p>

<p>What of the other cases? Matthew 14:3, Peter gets out of the boat and walks on the water. Peter starts to sink, Jesus reaches out and saves him. And when they got into the boat the wind stopped. And those who were in the boat <em>worshiped</em> Him saying, “<em>You are certainly God’s Son!”</em>&nbsp;These people are not just tipping their hats to an esteemed person. In Matthew 28:17 it says, “And when they saw Him, [the risen Jesus Christ whom they knew had been dead and was now alive] they <em>worshiped</em> Him.”&nbsp;And then in John 9:38 the man blind from birth is healed. He said, “Lord, I believe.”&nbsp;And he <em>worshiped</em> Him. Hebrews 1:6, “And when He again brings the first-born into the world He says, ’And let all the angels of God <em>worship</em> Him.’”</p>

<p>These verses show much more than mere respect, much more than deference, much more than courtesy. Jesus is being worshiped. Yes, there are times when the word <em>proskuneo</em> is used of Jesus and other men and it doesn’t refer to worship. The context tells us. We looked at the context and especially the use of the phrase “falling down and worshiping.”&nbsp;It seems hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus is being worshiped.</p>

<p><strong>We have just done an exhaustive analysis of the context and came to the fair and reasonable conclusion that Jesus was worshiped. Does that mean it’s right? No, we could be wrong. But the evidence is compelling that on some occasions Jesus received the kind of <em>proskuneo</em>, worship, that was to be reserved for God alone.</strong></p>

<p>As I said, the context is the most important factor in determining the meaning of a word. We have just done an exhaustive analysis of the context and came to the fair and reasonable conclusion that Jesus was worshiped. Does that mean it’s right? No, we could be wrong. But the evidence is compelling that on some occasions Jesus received the kind of <em>proskuneo</em>, worship, that was to be reserved for God alone.</p>

<p>There are a number of places where the deity of Christ seems to be inferred (I would say implied, i.e., it was the intent of the author). All we need is one concrete anchor regarding Jesus’&nbsp;deity to justify the inference. We have several; this is one of them. Jesus, clearly, received worship. If He did, then we’ve proven His deity.</p>

<p>I’ll close with the words of C.S. Lewis. He writes, “Among the Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He were God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among pantheists, like the Hindus of India, anyone might say that he is part of god or one with god. There would be nothing very odd about that. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God in their language meant the Being outside of the world who had made it and was infinitely different than anything else. And when you have grasped that concept you will see that what this man said was quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.”&nbsp;I agree.</p>

<p>At least that’s the way I see it.</p>

<p><strong>Resources for Additional Study</strong></p>

<p><a href="http://edrmx.rxdtq.servertrust.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD123" target="_blank">The Trinity: A Solution, Not a Problem</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%2Fwas-jesus-worshipped-" 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%2Fwas-jesus-worshipped-" 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%2Fwas-jesus-worshipped-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Exodus 21:22 Says about Abortion
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/04/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The Torah’s teaching about accidental “miscarriage”&nbsp;has been hotly contested concerning the value of the unborn. Is it pro-life or pro-abortion? Here are the facts. You decide.</em></p>

<p>Most attempts to argue against abortion from biblical texts are misdirected. In the absence of specific prohibitions of abortion in the Scripture, Christian pro-lifers quote equivocal passages.</p>

<p>Some citations use personal pronouns to describe the unborn, but many of these are in poetry texts, so the conclusion is not entirely convincing. God’s personal acquaintance with the unborn can be explained by His omniscience. After all, some texts make it clear that God “knows”&nbsp;us even before we’re conceived.</p>

<p>One text, however, is strong. Exodus 21:22-25 is usually used to argue that the Bible assigns a lower value to the unborn than to other humans. Rabbis and Jewish thinkers I’ve discussed this point with on the radio have been especially adamant—even irate. I think the evidence shows, though, that Moses taught just the opposite. If I’m right, we have a powerful argument for the value Scripture puts on the life of the unborn.</p>

<h2>Dead or Alive?</h2>

<p>The New American Standard Bible (NASB) renders Exodus 21:22-25 this way:</p>

<blockquote>And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></blockquote>

<p>This translation suggests that if a miscarriage takes place and the child is lost, the antagonists are simply fined, but if the mother dies in the scuffle, then the penalty is “life for life.”&nbsp;In the Torah, it seems, the unborn is not considered fully human.</p>

<p>Theologian Millard Erickson notes that in this view, “the <em>lex talionis</em> [life for life] is applied only if the mother is harmed. On this basis it is concluded that the fetus was not considered a soul or a person, and thus is not to be thought of as fully human.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>At issue is the phrase translated “she has a miscarriage.”&nbsp;There is an assumption made about this word that is crucial. In English, the word “miscarriage”&nbsp;implies the death of the child. <em>Webster’s New World Dictionary</em> defines miscarriage as, “The expulsion of the fetus from the womb before it is sufficiently developed to survive.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> In the struggle, the child is aborted, and so a fine is levied.</p>

<p>Here’s the crux of the issue: Does the Hebrew word carry the same meaning? Is it correct to presume that the miscarriage of Exodus 21:22 produces a dead child, just like an abortion? This is the single most important question that needs to be answered here. If it does, the English word “miscarriage”&nbsp;is the right choice. If it does not, then the picture changes dramatically.</p>

<p>Are we justified in assuming that the child is dead? The answer is in the original language. There’s a history of how these words are used in the Hebrew Bible, and that history is important. Let’s look at it.</p>

<h2><em>Yeled</em> and <em>Yasa</em></h2>

<p>A word’s meaning in any language is determined in two steps. We learn a word’s range of meaning—its possible definitions—inductively by examining its general usage. We learn its specific meaning within that range by the immediate context.</p>

<p>The relevant phrase in the passage, “...she has a miscarriage...,”&nbsp;reads “<em>w?yase û ye ladêhâ”</em> in the Hebrew. It’s a combination of a Hebrew noun, <em>yeled</em>,&nbsp;and a verb, <em>yasa</em>, and literally means “the child comes forth.”&nbsp;The NASB makes note of this literal rendering in the margin.</p>

<p>The Hebrew noun translated “child”&nbsp;in this passage is <em>yeled</em><sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> (<em>yeladim</em> in the plural), and means “child, son, boy, or youth.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> It comes from the primary root word <em>yalad</em>,<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> meaning “to bear, bring forth, or beget.”&nbsp;In the NASB <em>yalad</em> is translated “childbirth”&nbsp;10 times, some form of “gave birth”&nbsp;over 50 times, and either “bore,”&nbsp;“born,”&nbsp;or “borne”&nbsp;180 times.</p>

<p>The verb <em>yasa</em><sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> is a primary, primitive root that means “to go or come out.”&nbsp;It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB—escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. It’s translated with some form of “coming out”&nbsp;(e.g., “comes out,”&nbsp;“came out,”&nbsp;etc.) 103 times, and some form of “going”&nbsp;445 times.</p>

<p>What’s most interesting is to see how frequently <em>yasa</em> refers to the emergence of a living thing:</p>

<p>Genesis 1:24 “Then God said, ’Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’; and it was so.”</p>

<p>Genesis 8:17 [to Noah] “Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth...”</p>

<p>Genesis 15:4 “This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body...”</p>

<p>Genesis 25:25-26 “Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob.”</p>

<p>1 Kings 8:19 “Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you, he shall build the house for My name.”</p>

<p>Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”</p>

<p>2 Kings 20:18 “And some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, shall be taken away; and they shall become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.”</p>

<p>As you can see, it’s common for <em>yasa</em> to describe the “coming forth”&nbsp;of something living, frequently a child. There is only one time <em>yasa</em> is clearly used for a dead child. Numbers 12:12 says, “Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”</p>

<p>Note here, that we don’t infer the child’s death from the word <em>yasa</em>, but from explicit statements in the context. This is a still-birth, not a miscarriage. The child is dead before the birth (“whose flesh is half eaten away”), and doesn’t die as a result of the untimely delivery, as in a miscarriage.</p>

<p><em>Yasa</em> is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated “miscarriage”&nbsp;in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?</p>

<h2>Clues from the Context</h2>

<p>This inductive analysis shows us something important: Nothing about the word <em>yasa</em> implies the death of the child. The context may give us this information, as in Numbers 12:12, but the word itself does not.</p>

<p>This leads us to our next question: What in the context justifies our assumption that the child that “comes forth”&nbsp;is dead? The answer is, nothing does. There is no indication anywhere in the verse that a fine is assessed for a miscarriage and a more severe penalty is assessed for harming the mother.</p>

<p>This becomes immediately clear when the Hebrew words are translated in their normal, conventional way (the word “further”&nbsp;in the NASB is not in the original):</p>

<blockquote>“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life...”</blockquote>

<p>The text seems to require a fine for the premature birth, but injury to either of the parties involved incurs a more severe punishment.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> Millard Erickson notes that “there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis [life for life] to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, concludes:</p>

<blockquote>“There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (nepes) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages...”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></blockquote>

<h2>Two Rejoinders</h2>

<p>Two further objections need to be dealt with. First, if this is a premature birth and not a miscarriage, why the fine?</p>

<p>Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often can’t breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.</p>

<p>Anyway, even if the fine was for the miscarriage, this wouldn’t prove the child was less than human. A few verses later (v. 32), Moses imposes a fine for the death of a slave, but this doesn’t mean the slave is sub-human.</p>

<p>Second, was this the only word that could be used to indicate a miscarriage? No. Two other words were available to convey this particular meaning, if that’s what the writer had in mind: <em>nepel</em> and <em>sakal</em>. These are used seven times in the Hebrew text.</p>

<p>The noun <em>nepel</em><sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> means “miscarriage”&nbsp;or “abortion,”&nbsp;and is used three times:</p>

<blockquote>Job 3:16 “Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light.”</blockquote>

<blockquote>
<p>Eccl. 6:3-4 “If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, ’Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.’”</p>

<p>Psalms 58:8 “Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The verb <em>sakal</em><sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> means “to be bereaved”&nbsp;and is used four times, including one time when it’s actually translated “abort”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Genesis 31:38 “These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks.”</p>

<p>Exodus 23:26 “There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.”</p>

<p>Hosea 9:14 “Give them, O Lord—what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.”</p>

<p>Job 21:10 “His ox mates without fail; his cow calves and does not abort.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didn’t use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth.</p>

<p><em>Yasa</em> doesn’t mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of <em>yeled</em> with <em>yasa</em> suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated “miscarriage.”&nbsp;Why? Because the word doesn’t mean the baby is still-born. It simply means the child comes out.</p>

<h2>Three Questions</h2>

<p>When someone raises this issue with you, ask these three questions.</p>

<p>First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word “miscarriage”&nbsp;entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. <em>Yasa</em> doesn’t mean miscarriage; it means “to come forth.”&nbsp;The word itself never suggests death.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If it’s never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?</p>

<p>Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? There’s nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldn’t indicate that the child wasn’t fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).</p>

<p>Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didn’t mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.</p>

<p>Regardless of the translation, it’s clear that killing the child—and the text does refer to the unborn as a child—is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable—even powerful—argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">The 1995 updated version of the NASB now renders this verse, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined...”&nbsp;etc.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Millard Erickson, <em>Christian Theology</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 555.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3"><em>Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition</em> (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1984).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Strong’s Index word #3206.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Definitions come from the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance. For further documentation, see the <em>Hebrew/English Lexicon of the Old Testament</em>, by Brown, Driver and Briggs, the standard lexicon of ancient Hebrew.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Strong’s Index word #3205.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Strong’s Index word #3318.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">The New International Version is correct in rendering this passage, “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.”<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Millard Erickson, <em>Christian Theology</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 556.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Gleason Archer, <em>Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 248.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Strong’s Index word #5309.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Strong’s Index word #7921.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Again, in the Numbers passage the context indicates the death, not the word <em>yasa</em> itself.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>

<h2>Resources for Additional Study</h2>

<p><a href="http://edrmx.rxdtq.servertrust.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD017" target="_blank">Student Survival Kit CD</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%2Fwhat-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: You Can Change Our Culture’s Mind on Abortion
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/22/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/you-can-change-our-culture-s-mind-on-abortion
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Today is the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. In 2012, over a million human lives were ended through abortion in the United States, bringing the number of abortions up to 55 million since the Supreme Court decision in 1973.</p>

<p>Sanctity of Human Life Sunday—the Sunday closest to the January 22nd anniversary—was last weekend, and you may have heard your pastor preach on intrinsic human value and the horror of abortion. Maybe you’ve resolved to support pro-life organizations or individuals who you think are making a significant difference. That’s valuable, but I don’t want you to think that the fight is “out there”&nbsp;in the hands of some elite group of influencers and policy makers. When our culture turns around on this issue, it will not be mainly because of big-name activists. The change will occur because of small-scale interactions, through millions of conversations where people like you convince one person at a time to protect the weakest members of our human family.</p>

<p>Making the pro-life case is completely within your ability, I promise you. You just need to arm yourself with some information, a game plan, and some tools to help you get started. So I’ve put together a short list of resources, chosen for their simplicity, clarity, and accessibility. There are no textbooks in this list, and you don’t have to be a philosopher to understand any of this material. There are many resources available that go into greater depth, but I confined my list to a few essentials that cover the basics and will effectively equip anyone wanting to enter into this fight for <a href="/w/mr.-candidate-how-does-religion-inform-your-view-on-abortion-" target="_blank">universal human rights</a>.</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong><a href="/w/pro-life-crash-course" target="_blank">Pro-Life Crash Course</a></strong>: This post gives an overview of how to argue for the pro-life position and includes links to resources that can clarify the points further, if you’d like to learn more. Familiarize yourself with the main points you’ll need to cover. Pro-life arguments are simple—that is, you do not have to learn heaps of information in order to address the most important question: what is the unborn?</li>
	<li><strong><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD125" target="_blank">Pro-Life 101</a></strong>: Now that you have the outline in mind, Scott Klusendorf fills in the details in these CDs. The set also includes a debate (so you can hear how he responds to objections) and a booklet, <em>Pro-Life 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to Making Your Case Persuasively</em>.</li>
	<li><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD238" target="_blank"><strong>Tactics</strong></a>: It doesn’t matter how much you know about abortion if you don’t have the confidence to enter into conversations about controversial topics with people you’d like to persuade. Greg Koukl’s Tactics material (available as a <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK316">book</a>, <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD238">CDs</a>, MP3s, or <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK426">DVD</a>—whichever format works best with your learning style) will teach you how to do this effectively, and it’s the most valuable material I’ve ever encountered as an apologist. And again, the skills taught in Tactics can be learned and used by anyone.</li>
	<li><strong><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK366" target="_blank">The Unaborted Socrates</a></strong>: This book is short and brilliant. The best way to describe it is a cross between Pro-Life 101 and Tactics (see above). See what it looks like when you put the material from those two resources together, and learn by example how to use what you learned in Pro-Life 101 in a persuasive, non-threatening conversation. This book is the simple and powerful pro-life arguments spoken with clarity through a fictional dialogue between Socrates, a doctor, a philosopher, and a psychologist.</li>
	<li><strong><a href="http://www.abort73.com/videos/this_is_abortion/" target="_blank">This Is Abortion</a></strong>: The ancient Roman poet Horace said, “Less vividly is the mind stirred by what finds entrance through the ears than by what is brought before the trusty eyes.”&nbsp;Abortion is mostly hidden from our eyes, and that makes it easy to forget what we’re talking about—the deaths of young human beings. This video takes the term “choice”&nbsp;out of the dark and truthfully shows us the victims of abortion (but see the next link before you watch).</li>
	<li><strong><a href="/w/how-should-we-use-graphic-images-" target="_blank">How Should We Use Graphic Images?</a></strong>: The graphic images are powerful and painful. If we’re going to respect the people we’re trying to persuade, there’s a right way and a wrong way to introduce these images and the truths they reveal. This short video of Scott Klusendorf serves as a good example of how to compassionately prepare people for what they’re about to see. He also gives a defense of using graphic pictures as a persuasive tool, citing an example of how true, yet brutal, images helped to end human rights abuses in the past.</li>
</ul>

<p>It’s up to you now. Won’t you join the fight?</p>
</div>

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


title: Be a Parable of God’s Grace
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/10/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/be-a-parable-of-god-s-grace
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve been continuing this year to follow James Gray’s ideas for <a href="http://scriptoriumdaily.com/james-gray-on-mastering-the-bible/" target="_blank">mastering the Bible</a> (reading one book of the Bible over and over for a month—the shorter ones sometimes sixty times or more). After only one year of this, I’ve found that my understanding of the New Testament and love for the Person and work of Jesus has increased exponentially, and I recommend it to you.</p>

<p>This month, I’m reading Titus, and I’m completely taken by 3:1-7 because of its relevance to all of us who try to persuade others about the truth of Christianity and meet with anger or rudeness:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Why are we to be “peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men,”&nbsp;even—no, <em>especially</em>—to those who treat us poorly? Paul says it’s because when God showed His kindness and love to us malicious, hateful human beings, He saved us completely by grace. We weren’t righteous. We didn’t deserve it.</p>

<p>This is the gospel. So when we, likewise, are kind to people, we illustrate something very important about the gospel to them. We reflect the kindness of God that flows out from Him towards people who haven’t earned it. This is why Paul concludes his thought by saying we need to “be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.”&nbsp;Coming at the end of this section, it would seem that a big part of why these deeds are profitable is that they illustrate grace and the gospel to the world around us.</p>

<p>Throughout salvation history, God has used visual parables to teach people truths about Himself (the institution of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:22-33&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">marriage</a>, the rescue of the Israelites from <a href="/w/did-god-condone-slavery-" target="_blank">slavery</a>, the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%208-9&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">temple</a>, etc.), and when we are gracious to others, we become part of a parable of God’s grace. What an incredible, humbling thought! It brings new weight and depth to the importance of being a kind and patient ambassador.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbe-a-parable-of-god-s-grace" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbe-a-parable-of-god-s-grace" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbe-a-parable-of-god-s-grace" 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: Homosexuality: Know the Truth and Speak It with Compassion
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 02/04/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/homosexuality-know-the-truth-and-speak-it-with-compassion
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Homosexuality is here to stay. In fact, it’s becoming more a part of our culture every day. As a result, we need to know the truth and speak it with compassion more than ever.</em></p>

<p><em>Editor’s Note:</em></p>

<p><em>The following excerpt is taken from</em> Apologetics for a New Generation<em>: A Biblical &amp; Culturally Relevant Approach to Talking About God, in which Sean McDowell, as general editor, has assembled a group of modern Christian thinkers to help you to communicate the gospel in a winsome way that will win those around you. ©2009 Harvest House Publishers. Used with permission. May not be further reproduced. All rights reserved.</em></p>

<p>It’s not surprising people think Christians hate homosexuals. They see the way we often treat them.</p>

<p>Kyle’s sad story was similar to others I’d heard. After 25 years of immersion in the gay lifestyle, he wanted out. His choice to follow Jesus meant a day-to-day struggle to stay celibate because simply becoming a Christian didn’t change his same-sex desires. With God’s help, though, he was winning the battle.</p>

<p>Kyle thought his church would be a safe harbor during the storm. But when he “came out”&nbsp;to his pastor and a counselor, both told him to never speak of his plight again. His church forced him back into the closet.</p>

<p>Fifteen years of celibacy later, Kyle came out a second time. <em>Surely things have changed</em>, he thought. <em>It must be safe now. After all, everyone has struggles and temptations.</em> This time he hoped his new church would come alongside and pray for him. But he was mistaken. They turned a blind eye to his struggle, discouraged him from serving, and relegated him to attending and tithing.</p>

<h2>Back into the Closet</h2>

<p>Our formula for gays is predictable: Condemn and convert. Rebuke their behavior, blast them with the Bible, and then try to win them over with a cliché.</p>

<p>“Sodomy is sin,”&nbsp;we proclaim. Then we quote our “clobber passage,”&nbsp;a verse that condemns homosexuals or even commands their execution. “But there’s hope,”&nbsp;we reassure them. “God hates the sin but loves the sinner.”&nbsp;That’s not what they hear, though. They hear one word: “hate.”</p>

<p>Armed with Bible verses for bullets, we’re locked and loaded, ready to fire at the first sign of a homosexual. But there’s no grace in a gunshot. Instead of offering hope and healing, we inflict more injury.</p>

<p>We shouldn’t be surprised when gays go back into the closet after they try to come out in the church. Worse, many go back into the lifestyle, sometimes through a “gay church”&nbsp;that shows them the love, grace, and respect they had hoped to get from us.</p>

<p>Predictably, younger people often perceive Christianity negatively. The Barna Group found that young people think Christians are not only opposed to homosexuality but also show “excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians.”&nbsp;Ninety-one percent of young non-Christians and 80 percent of young churchgoers perceive Christianity as “anti-homosexual.”</p>

<p>More tragically, the Barna study found that younger Christians complained their church failed to help them apply biblical principles to their friendships with gays. Young people lack arguments and tactics needed to maneuver in conversation and navigate moral dilemmas in a thoughtful but loving way. Consequently, young people think they must choose between their faith and their friends who are gay. If their friendships mean more to them than their theology, they will choose their friends over their faith every time.</p>

<p>Something is wrong here. Clearly, we need a new approach. Our young people think they’re faced with a difficult moral dilemma. But they don’t have to abandon their gay friends just because homosexuality is wrong. There is a third option, but it’s something that’s rarely taught or modeled in church.</p>

<h2>Know the Truth</h2>

<p>Our new approach incorporates two key elements: truth and compassion. Truth speaks to the content of our message. Compassion addresses the manner in which it’s conveyed. It’s a winning combination based on principles found in 1 Peter 3:15—defend the truth with gentleness and respect.</p>

<p>Truth starts with a biblical understanding of homosexuality. Although there are six main passages on the subject, for strategic reasons I recommend using Romans 1:26-27 as your primary text. It’s in the New Testament, so you sidestep the challenge that the Old Testament verses don’t apply to us today. Romans also addresses both male and female homosexuality and outlines the real problem: rebellion against God and rejection of His created order. This makes it difficult to argue that the behavior condemned in the passage is something other than homosexuality.</p>

<p>Knowing the biblical truth about homosexuality is important because many people deny that God condemns homosexual behavior. Indeed, they go to great lengths to reinterpret those six passages. Although they’re not successful, their claims sound appealing to people who don’t carefully interpret the Bible. If we learn and understand these verses, clearing up this distortion is easy.</p>

<p>Religious arguments, however, are often immediately dismissed by non-Christians. So knowing the truth doesn’t mean we learn only biblical arguments. An effective strategy also incorporates secular arguments. This includes appeals to natural law, the common good, and public health. If you can base your views on evidence that make sense even to nonreligious people, you’ll be able to speak with anyone.</p>

<p>Getting them to consider your ideas can be difficult though. That’s why it’s critical to present our views in a conversational manner. We’re not typically trained to do that. Too often we try to persuade by making statements instead of asking questions. This immediately raises defenses. Suppose you’re discussing whether homosexuality is genetic and say, “Even if being gay is genetic, that doesn’t mean that it’s right.”</p>

<p>Your friend replies with, “Sure it does! I can’t deny how I’ve been created.”&nbsp;Now what? Another statement? Their defenses are up, and the conversation grinds to a halt.</p>

<p>Questions, on the other hand, are friendly and more engaging. They invite discussion. Rephrase your statement with a question: “I’m curious to know your thoughts on this. Can you tell me why you think if something is genetic, it must be right?”&nbsp;This is disarming. It doesn’t provoke the same knee-jerk reaction. Instead, there’s a give and take. People naturally respond to questions, and the discussion moves along.</p>

<p>Or you can gently challenge their belief with a question like this: “Do you think any behavior is morally appropriate simply because it has a genetic link?”&nbsp;Notice that even though you’re asking a question, you’re still making your point. Just because a behavior has a genetic component, that doesn’t make it right. Making your point with a question is friendlier.</p>

<p>Another way to incorporate questions into your conversation is to use the “burden of proof”&nbsp;rule. Applying this rule makes discussions about homosexuality less difficult and more engaging. The burden of proof is simply the responsibility to give proof—credible reasons—in favor of a point of view. The rule is simple: The people who offer an opinion bear the burden to give reasons for it. If they make a claim, it is their job to defend it, not yours to refute it.</p>

<p>Too often Christians ignore this rule. Someone says something like, “Christianity is a homophobic religion,”&nbsp;and off we go defending ourselves. This is unnecessary. Why should we do all the work, when they made the statement? They made the claim, so it’s their job to defend it.</p>

<p>Simply ask, “How did you come to that conclusion?”&nbsp;or “What reasons do you have for thinking that’s true?”&nbsp;Then sit back and quietly listen. The question gently shifts the burden back where it belongs—on the person who made the claim. It asks them to give reasons for their view, which is a legitimate request. It also makes our job easier by taking the pressure off us to respond.</p>

<p>Questions allow us to make our points and advance the discussion in disarming ways. When we incorporate questions, our discussions about homosexuality become less intimidating. We can make our points without pushing our views on others. And we spend less time in the hot seat, responding to claims we have no obligation to address.</p>

<h2>Speak It with Compassion</h2>

<p>We need to add one more critical element to temper our approach. If we know the truth and know how to help others see it, yet we don’t communicate it in a way that shows we care, we’ll botch the whole thing. We need to be moved with empathy and to express that clearly. It might be difficult for us to relate to having same-sex attractions, but we’ve all been in tough situations and struggled with things we knew were wrong. When we’re not compassionate, we come off as cold and harsh. We forget we’re talking to human beings who have feelings just like us.</p>

<p>The combination of truth and compassion works. It’s biblically consistent and cultivates healthy relationships with gays and lesbians. This is a delicate balance though. If you come on too strong with your religious views, you’ll be labeled homophobic. If you get too friendly with the gay community, you’ll be tagged a compromiser by someone in the church. It doesn’t have to be that way. You can hold that homosexual behavior is wrong but still have a Jesus-like influence on gays and lesbians by nurturing positive relationships with them.</p>

<p>What does it look like to speak the truth with compassion? Three principles can help us live this out practically. One, treat homosexuals as you would anyone else. Two, don’t make the gospel more difficult than it is. And three, aim to make a long-term difference, not just a short-term statement.</p>

<h2>Treat Homosexuals as You Would Anyone Else</h2>

<p>This may seem like obvious advice, but many Christians act differently around homosexuals. They get uneasy. Their nonverbal communication, their behavior, and the direction of their conversation all change.</p>

<p>When gay men and women come to church, we create new rules. I remember teaching at a church that asked a lesbian to change seats because she was sitting next to another female. That’s strange. I doubt this church splits up people who gossip. It’s unlikely they ask unmarried couples living together to sit in different sections. Why treat a gay person any differently?</p>

<p>The simple answer is, we shouldn’t. We should treat homosexuals as we would any other person. Show them the same dignity, kindness, and respect you would show someone who isn’t gay. Here are two specific suggestions for doing this.</p>

<p>First, make friends with a gay man or woman. Get to know them personally, their dreams, their fears, and their challenges. Play tennis with them. Go to their social gatherings. Get to know their families and friends. Be vulnerable about your own struggles and failings. When you treat them like your other friends, they’re likely to reciprocate. They’ll be vulnerable too.</p>

<p>I know this may sound radical to some, but it’s very powerful. I remember one friendship I had with a gay man. Though he knew about my Christian beliefs, I was sensitive not to bring up homosexuality unless it came up naturally in conversation. I simply focused on our friendship as I would with any other person.</p>

<p>Then one day he brought up his own doubts about the gay lifestyle. He asked me about his options. He asked me about Christianity. That’s when knowing the truth—and how to defend it—really helped. We talked for hours about his lifestyle, the truth of Jesus, and where his life was headed. That kind of vulnerability and honesty is what you can expect from a real friendship. When we treat gays and lesbians like anyone else, we build relationships that create healthy intimacy. This increases our ability to make a difference in their lives.</p>

<p>A friend of mine made great friendships with two gay men he worked with, even though he was outspoken about his Christian convictions. He never tried to change them, confront their behavior, or hammer them about their lifestyle. Instead, he treated them like his other friends and waited patiently for an opportunity.</p>

<p>One day his gay friends approached him. “You’re different from other Christians we know. Most harass us about being gay, but you treat us like your other friends. We appreciate that.”&nbsp;From that point on, his relationship with them turned a corner. There was a new level of honesty in their conversation that allowed my friend to share the truth about this faith with them.</p>

<p>Second, don’t expect homosexuals to change their lifestyle before they come to church. Several years ago, two gay men showed up to a church. They walked in, holding hands, and sat down. People next to them went ballistic. “That’s disgusting,”&nbsp;they snickered. I realize it’s difficult for some believers to tolerate homosexual affection, but they should be grateful those men even came to church. Besides, gay men and women don’t need to come to church after they’re gay, but because they’re gay. We’re all guilty; we all need transformation and forgiveness. Gays and lesbians are no less welcome than gossipers and gluttons.</p>

<p>By treating homosexuals like anyone else, you create opportunities to speak the truth. This first principle can be put another way: When it comes to homosexuals, our desire for them is not heterosexuality, but holiness. We’re not trying to make gays straight. We’re trying to lead them straight to Jesus, just as we would anyone else. Once they trust Him, He transforms their life from the inside out. So to know the truth isn’t merely about the truth of homosexuality—whether it’s right or wrong—but the truth of Jesus and His power to transform men and women.</p>

<h2>Don’t Make the Gospel More Difficult Than It Is</h2>

<p>“The gospel is offensive enough,”&nbsp;Gregory Koukl of Stand to Reason says. “Don’t add any more offense to it.”&nbsp;The basic gospel message is the bad news of sin and judgment before the good news of grace. We all need a pardon. That message doesn’t initially give people a warm, fuzzy feeling. In fact, it’s offensive to most people. That’s a big reason so many reject Jesus. We should never remove the offense that’s inherent to the gospel, but there’s no need to make it more difficult than it already is.</p>

<p>Here are a few ways we can apply this principle. First, let’s stop saying we’re “anti-homosexual.”&nbsp;The Bible isn’t anti-homosexual; it’s anti-homosexual behavior. This is a critical difference. When asked, “Are you anti-homosexual?”&nbsp;it’s better to be precise.</p>

<p>Answer that you have nothing against homosexuals—your concern is their behavior. Christians are not anti-drunks. We’re against drunkenness. We’re not anti-liars. We think lying is wrong. We’re not against the person who sins. Rather, we oppose the sinful behavior. Following Jesus’&nbsp;example, we love and care for people regardless of their shortcomings. Saying we’re anti-homosexual confuses the issue and compounds an already difficult situation.</p>

<p>Second, let’s avoid offensive ways of presenting our arguments. A common tactic to respond to the “since homosexuality is natural it must be moral”&nbsp;argument is to offer a counterexample. “Well, pedophilia is natural to some people, but that doesn’t make it moral.”&nbsp;Though this response might be technically sound, it is unnecessarily harsh and often misunderstood. People erroneously infer that you mean homosexuals are pedophiles. An alternative and less crass response might be to ask, “If lying to keep yourself out of trouble were natural, would that make it right?”&nbsp;This counterexample makes the same point without the offensive content.</p>

<p>Third, don’t treat homosexual behavior as the most detestable crime against God. When we make it the supreme evil, we add unnecessary offense. Gays will conclude that we think all sin is bad, but their sin is the worst. And if their sin is the worst, they’ll conclude they are the worst. But the Bible doesn’t teach that homosexuality is the greatest evil. In fact, it’s listed right alongside stealing, coveting, getting drunk, and lying.</p>

<p>Next, don’t call homosexuality a choice. It’s not. This is hard to swallow for many Christians. Although homosexual behavior is a choice, homosexual attraction is not. I have no reason to think there’s a “gay gene,”&nbsp;but I don’t believe people choose to be attracted to the same sex. Homosexual attraction is a condition that often begins to develop at a very young age—too early to be a product of choice.</p>

<p>When you say homosexuality is a choice, this is a tip-off that you don’t understand homosexuality or homosexuals. It becomes obvious you have no idea what gays and lesbians experience.</p>

<p>“You think it’s a choice?”&nbsp;they ask. “Why would I ever choose to be gay? It’s painful to be gay in this world. I would never choose this for myself.”&nbsp;Not only are they offended, they’ll disqualify other things you say because you don’t understand them. You’ll lose your ability to be an influence.</p>

<p>Sometimes even saying homosexual behavior is a choice will not get you off the hook because it’s too easily misunderstood. The problem is, the word “choice,”&nbsp;in this context, carries with it the idea of choosing one’s sexual orientation. My suggestion is to avoid the word “choice”&nbsp;altogether when talking about homosexuality. It’s too confusing.</p>

<p>Finally, avoid the cliché, “God loves the sinner, but hates the sin.”&nbsp;It rarely gives hope to gay men and women. One former gay man confessed that he could never process this statement when Christians said it. Gays don’t see themselves as people who struggle with a homosexual problem. Being gay is who they are, not just what they do. Telling them that God hates their sin strikes at the core of who they perceive themselves to be. It’s unhelpful and produces the opposite effect you intend.</p>

<p>Now that we know what not to do, let’s talk about our strategy to move us forward.</p>

<h2>Make a Long-Term Difference, Not a Short-Term Statement</h2>

<p>I recently taught on apologetics at a university. My goal was to show how to make our message persuasive and yet gracious. After the event, I stopped at a local coffee shop for a dose of caffeine before the long drive home.</p>

<p>The barista served up my coffee and then asked about my day. I told her I gave a talk about how Christians can share biblical truth in a more friendly, relational, and winsome manner.</p>

<p>“Oh! You need to speak at <em>my</em> university,”&nbsp;she insisted. “We’re sick of ’evangelistic alley.’&nbsp;It’s a walkway in the center of campus where Christians hold signs and yell at students. Some of them shout that God is going to judge fags. There’s no discussion with them. They just want to be heard. You should teach <em>them</em>.”</p>

<p>Though my heart sank, I realized the barista was on to something. The Christians of “evangelistic alley”&nbsp;were settling for a short-term goal—declaring that homosexuality was sin that should be “repented”&nbsp;of—while squandering their long-term opportunities. Stopping sin can be worthwhile, but it isn’t the only goal. It certainly shouldn’t be pursued at the expense of making a more critical, long-term impact.</p>

<p>The long-term plan with homosexuals should be obvious: Help them to know Christ. It’s the same strategy we have with other non-Christians regardless of their sin. But it’s not a quick process. It rarely is with any non-Christian, but this is especially true with homosexuals. Yet we often act as if our most important goal is to change homosexual behavior in the short term rather than waiting patiently to make a more significant difference in the future.</p>

<p>God can give you opportunities to speak the truth with compassion anytime in a person’s life. Don’t try to make a moral statement today if it jeopardizes your chance of influencing people at a more opportune time tomorrow. Think long-term.</p>

<p>One time when I was teaching at a church on homosexuality, the parents of a 25-year-old gay man asked me for advice. “He wants to bring his boyfriend over for dinner,”&nbsp;they said, “but we told him that homosexuality is against God’s design. He can come over, but his boyfriend must wait somewhere else. They need to know where we stand.”</p>

<p>I’m sympathetic to their moral concern, but making a moral statement today might lessen their influence tomorrow. It’s also unnecessary. Their son already knows their view on homosexuality. Why hurt his feelings and alienate him? There may come a time when their son is disillusioned about his life and more open to hearing the truth. If his parents have been careful not to judge and harass him unnecessarily, he’s more likely to turn to them for guidance. If, however, his parents have burned their bridges with him, he’s not likely to turn to them for advice.</p>

<p>Once, while I was teaching at a church on homosexuality, the parents of a lesbian woman approached me. They were pleasantly surprised by my emphasis on truth and compassion. As they told their story, it was clear to me they were living out this principle perfectly.</p>

<p>Their daughter lived at a substance-abuse group home with other gays and lesbians. Every weekend the parents invited their daughter and her gay friends to their home and treated them like family. Their daughter’s friends even called them Mom and Dad. Loving them was only the first step, though. These gays and lesbians needed both love and truth. So the parents invited them to church. After several months, the daughter and her friends accepted the offer because the parents showed them the kind of love and acceptance they’d expect from their own family. There wasn’t a misguided attempt to make a short-term statement, only the parents’&nbsp;long-term plan to have an influence.</p>

<p>There may be times when you’re asked a direct question and you have no choice but to respond in a way that sounds offensive. Sometimes that’s unavoidable. But we don’t want to unnecessarily damage our relationship with gays and lesbians. Remember to focus on the influence you can have over the course of their life.</p>

<h2>The Value of the New Approach</h2>

<p>Homosexuality is here to stay. In fact, it’s becoming more a part of our culture every day. Each successive generation is more accepting of the gay lifestyle. Barna’s research found that “people 35 and younger are...substantially more likely to consider homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle; and notably more likely to approve of clergy conducting or blessing gay marriages.”&nbsp;The Barna report concluded that “over the long term, we expect to see a growing acceptance of...homosexuality as Baby Busters and Mosaics, the youngest generation, become more influential in public policy and business policy.”</p>

<p>As a result, we need to know the truth and speak it with compassion more than ever. Our youth will be our future leaders. They’ll be our doctors, teachers, and lawyers. In 30 to 40 years, one of today’s youth will be leading our country as president. The minds of young people today carry ideas that will affect our world tomorrow. Although the Barna Group’s findings paint a dim picture of our future, we can brighten our prospects by reaching out to young people in the right way. We’ll minimize the drastic changes that are expected in public policy as a result of the influence of pro-gay generations.</p>

<p>Young believers will also find this approach refreshing. Rather than being faced with the choice of keeping their faith or their gay friends, now they’ll keep both. Their lasting friendships will give them opportunities to graciously share their convictions about homosexuality and ultimately about Jesus.</p>

<p>The most important reason to use this new approach is this: We know it works. It’s been tried and tested. When we know the truth and speak it with compassion, we see the difference it makes. We build lasting friendships with gay men and women. We improve our chances to communicate our convictions on homosexuality. Gays and lesbians reconsider their lifestyle. And people who thought Christians only hate homosexuals now know we care.</p>

<p>We still have a long way to go, but our journey now has more direction. Though we’re still locked and loaded, we’ve exchanged our bullets for truth and our clichés for compassion. Once ill-equipped to meet the challenge of homosexuality, now we’re ready to answer the gay community’s need for truth and healing. And though we forced Kyle back into the closet, our new approach will reach in to draw him out.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhomosexuality-know-the-truth-and-speak-it-with-compassion" 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%2Fhomosexuality-know-the-truth-and-speak-it-with-compassion" 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%2Fhomosexuality-know-the-truth-and-speak-it-with-compassion" 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: Never Read a Bible Verse
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/04/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/never-read-a-bible-verse
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If there was one bit of wisdom, one rule of thumb, one single skill I could impart, one useful tip I could leave that would serve you well the rest of your life, what would it be? What is the single most important practical skill I’ve ever learned as a Christian?</p>

<p>Here it is: <em>Never read a Bible verse.</em> That’s right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read a paragraph at least.</p>

<h2>My Radio Trick</h2>

<p>When I’m on the radio, I use this simple rule to help me answer the majority of Bible questions I’m asked, even when I’m totally unfamiliar with the verse. It’s an amazingly effective technique you can use, too.</p>

<p>I read the paragraph, not just the verse. I take stock of the relevant material above and below. Since the context frames the verse and gives it specific meaning, I let it tell me what’s going on.</p>

<p>This works because of a basic rule of all communication: Meaning always flows from the top down, from the larger units to the smaller units, not the other way around. The key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words.</p>

<p>The numbers in front of the sentences give the illusion the verses stand alone in their meaning. They were not in the originals, though. Numbers were added hundreds of years later. Chapter and verse breaks sometimes pop up in unfortunate places, separating relevant material that should be grouped together.</p>

<p>First, ignore the verse numbers and try to get the big picture. Then begin to narrow your focus. It’s not very hard or time consuming. It takes only a few moments and a little observation of the text.</p>

<p>Begin with the broad context of the book. What type of literature is it history, poetry, proverb? What is the passage about in general? What idea is being developed?</p>

<p>Stand back from the verse and look for breaks in the narrative that identify major units of thought. Ask, “What in this paragraph or group of paragraphs gives any clue to the meaning of the verse?”</p>

<p>There’s a reason this little exercise is so important. Words have different meanings in different contexts (that’s what makes puns work). When we consider a verse in isolation, one meaning may occur to us. But how do we know it’s the right one? Help won’t come from the dictionary. Dictionaries only complicate the issue, giving us more choices, not fewer. Help must come from somewhere else close by: the surrounding paragraph.</p>

<p>With the larger context now in view, you can narrow your focus and speculate on the meaning of the verse itself. Sum it up in your own words.</p>

<p>Finally and this is critical see if your paraphrase makes sense when inserted in the passage. Does it dovetail naturally with the bigger picture?</p>

<p>Here is an excellent example of how effective this paraphrase technique can be.</p>

<h2>Jesus, the Uncreated Creator</h2>

<p>In John 1:1 the writer states plainly that “the Word was God.”&nbsp;In verse three he provides backup support for this claim. John writes, “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”</p>

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

<p>Those who deny the deity of Christ offer this rebuttal, though. “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. 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 with the exception of Billy. In the same way, every created thing was created by Jesus with the exception of Jesus Himself. Jehovah created Jesus first, then Jesus created everything else. Jesus is not God.”</p>

<p>Note that this rebuttal turns on the ability to replace “apart from Him”&nbsp;with the phrase “with the exception of Jesus.”&nbsp;Allegedly they’re synonymous. Okay, 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 Disneyland. 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>Let me give you some other examples.</p>

<h2>Having a “Peace”&nbsp;About It</h2>

<p>Colossians 3:15 is a text that is constantly misunderstood by well-meaning Christians. Paul writes, “And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.”&nbsp;Some have accurately pointed out that the Greek word for “rule”&nbsp;means to act as arbiter or judge. They see this verse as a tool for knowing God’s will for our lives.</p>

<p>The conventional thinking goes something like this. When confronted with a decision, pray. If you feel a “peace”&nbsp;in your heart, go ahead. If you don’t feel peace, don’t proceed. This internal sense of peace acts like a judge helping you make decisions according to the will of God. A paraphrase might be: “And let feelings of peacefulness in your heart be the judge about God’s individual will for your life.”&nbsp;Is this what Paul means?</p>

<p>This is a classic example of how knowledge of the Greek can be dangerous if context is not taken into consideration. The word “peace”&nbsp;actually has two different meanings. It could mean a sense of inner harmony and emotional equanimity. Paul seems to have this definition in mind in Philippians 4:7: “And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”&nbsp;This is the subjective sense of peace.</p>

<p>The word also has an objective sense. It sometimes means lack of conflict between two parties formerly at war with each other. This definition of peace is what Paul intends in Romans 5:1: “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”&nbsp;(Note the distinction between the peace of God and peace with God in these two verses.)</p>

<p>What sense of peace did Paul have in mind when writing to the Colossians? The Greek gives us no indication because the same word is used in all three cases. Once again, context is king. The specific meaning can only be known from the surrounding material.</p>

<p>In verse 11, Paul says that in the Body of Christ there are no divisions between Greek and Jew, slave and free, etc. He appeals for unity in the body characterized by forgiveness, humility, and gentleness. He then adds that harmony (“peace”) should be the rule that guides our relationships.</p>

<p>Paul has the objective sense of peace in mind here lack of conflict between Christians not a subjective feeling of peace in an individual Christian’s heart.</p>

<p>This becomes obvious when we join the suggested paraphrases with the context:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. And beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. And let feelings of peacefulness in your heart be the judge about God’s individual will for your life, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful.</p>

<p>vs.</p>

<p>Put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. And beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. And let harmony, not conflict, be the rule that guides you, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The first is completely foreign to the context; the second fits right in with everything that comes before and after. In the context of Colossians 3, there is no hint of using internal feelings as a divine stamp of approval on our decisions. Personal decision-making is not the point of the paragraph. Harmony and unity in the Body is.</p>

<h2>“If I Be Lifted Up”</h2>

<p>John 12:32 is another case where a phrase can have two widely divergent meanings. It’s not uncommon for worship leaders to quote this statement of Jesus: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”</p>

<p>We “lift up”&nbsp;the Lord when we exalt Him and declare His glory. If we focus on Jesus and ascribe glory to Him, the power of Christ is released to transform the hearts of those listening and they are drawn to Him. This is the meaning the worship leader has in mind, but it isn’t what Jesus is talking about.</p>

<p>When we apply our paraphrase test by adding the very next verse, the results look like this: “’And I, if I be exalted before the people, will draw all men to Myself.’&nbsp;But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die”&nbsp;(John 12:32-33).</p>

<p>Oops. Praising Jesus will kill Him? I don’t think so. No ambiguity now. In this instance, being “lifted up”&nbsp;clearly means to be crucified.</p>

<p>Understanding this phrase in context sheds light on another familiar passage, John 3:14-15: “And as Moses lifted up [raised in the air] the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up [raised in the air] that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.”</p>

<p>Our paraphrase looks like this: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be crucified that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.”</p>

<p>This makes perfect sense. Jesus had to be crucified before salvation could be offered, an appropriate lead-in to the verse that comes next, the most famous salvation verse in the world: John 3:16.</p>

<p>Let’s try another.</p>

<h2>“My Sheep Hear My Voice”</h2>

<p>Many have taken this statement by Jesus in John 10 to refer to the Christian’s acquired ability to “hear”&nbsp;God’s personal instructions to him. “Hearing God’s voice”&nbsp;is advocated as a very useful skill that aids optimal Christian living. Allegedly, this is a learned ability one gains as he matures in Christ. It enables him to sense Jesus’&nbsp;will in any given situation as he “hears”&nbsp;Jesus’&nbsp;voice.</p>

<p>Jesus has nothing like this in mind, though. I know because of the context surrounding the verse and a key clarification John himself gives early in the chapter. In verse six, John explicitly states that when Jesus speaks of His sheep “hearing His voice”&nbsp;He is using a figure of speech.</p>

<p>The word “voice,”&nbsp;then, can’t actually mean some kind of inner voice because a thing is never a metaphor of itself. It’s a picture of something else. Jesus must be referring, in a figure, to something else that the phrase “hear my voice”&nbsp;represents. What is it?</p>

<p>The context tells the story. Jesus says, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me,”&nbsp;and then adds, “and I give eternal life to them”&nbsp;(27-28). Note the sequence: His sheep hear His voice. They follow Him in response. He then gives them eternal life. Hearing Jesus’&nbsp;voice is a figure of speech for the inner working of the Holy Spirit that leads to our salvation. It results in salvation; it’s not the result of salvation. It’s applied here to non-believers destined for the Kingdom, not believers already in the Kingdom.</p>

<p>This makes perfect sense in the broader context of the chapter. The Jews have no trouble hearing Jesus’&nbsp;words. They know what Jesus is saying. Their problem is that they don’t respond with belief. Why don’t the Jews “hear”&nbsp;Jesus by responding with belief? Jesus tells us plainly. They don’t “hear”&nbsp;because God is not “speaking”&nbsp;to them. They are not among the sheep the Father has given to the Son (26).</p>

<p>The voice being referred to here is not the still, small voice of private direction given by God to Christians, but the effective call of the Holy Spirit bringing non-Christians to salvation.</p>

<p>Our paraphrase test comes to our aid once again:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. Mature Christians have the ability to sense My personal direction for their lives and obey it, and as a result I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all...</p>

<p>vs.</p>

<p>You do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. The ones that the Father gives me my sheep are the ones that respond to my message and believe in me, and as a result I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The first view actually makes salvation dependent on the ability to get personalized communications from God. The second makes salvation dependent on the Father, which is Jesus’&nbsp;point in the passage.</p>

<p>To Jesus, “hearing”&nbsp;God is not an advanced skill one must develop to open lines of communication to the Father. It’s a figure of speech. Hearing Jesus’&nbsp;voice is not getting individual, personalized direction. It’s getting saved. It’s the result of the Father drawing the non-believer into Jesus’&nbsp;arms.</p>

<h2>Daily Bread?</h2>

<p>This raises legitimate questions about daily devotionals that build a short message from a single verse. In my view, such quiet-time helps can be inspirational, but they come with an obvious drawback.</p>

<p>Fortunately, the liability can be overcome by remembering our basic rule: Never read a Bible verse. Instead, read a paragraph, at least. Always check the context. Observe the flow of thought. Then focus on the verse.</p>

<p>Remember, meaning always flows from the top down, from the larger units to the smaller units. A reflection on a Bible passage from a sermon or a devotional may be edifying, encouraging, and uplifting. If it is not the message of the text, though, it lacks biblical authority even when the quote comes right out of the Word of God.</p>

<p>If you will do this one thing if you will read carefully in the context applying the paraphrase principle you will begin to understand the Bible as God intended. Without the bigger picture you’ll be lost.</p>

<p>Only when you are properly informed by God’s Word the way it is written in its context can you be transformed by it. Every piece becomes powerful when it’s working together with the whole.</p>

<p>It’s the most important practical lesson I’ve ever learned...and thing single most important thing I could ever teach you.</p>

<h2>For Further Reading</h2>

<p>Russell, Walt <em>Playing with Fire How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul</em>. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2000.</p>

<p>Koukl, Gregory <a href="#">“The Perils of Prooftexting”</a>&nbsp;<em>Solid Ground</em>, Sept-Oct 1999</p>

<p>Sire, James <em>Scripture Twistin</em>g. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980.</p>

<p>Carson, D.A. <em>Exegetical Fallacies</em>. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.</p>

<p>Fee, Gordon, &amp; Stuart, Douglas <em>How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth</em>. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.</p>
</div>

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


title: Is the New Testament Text Reliable?
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/04/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-the-new-testament-text-reliable-
content:
            <div> 
		<link href="https://unpkg.com/littlefoot/dist/littlefoot.css" rel="stylesheet">
<style type="text/css">p {
word-wrap: break-word;
	overflow-wrap: break-word;
}
</style>
<p><em>The phrase, “The Bible’s been translated and recopied so many times...”&nbsp;introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can.</em></p>

<p>In the spring of 1989 syndicated talk show host Larry King interviewed Shirley MacLaine on the New Age. When a Christian caller contested her view with an appeal to the New Testament, MacLaine brushed him off with the objection that the Bible has been changed and translated so many times over the last 2000 years that it’s impossible to have any confidence in its accuracy. King was quick to endorse her “facts.”&nbsp;“Everyone knows that,”&nbsp;he grunted.<a href="#fn:1" rel="footnote">1</a></p>

<p>This appeal to common knowledge is enough to satisfy the ordinary, man-on-the-street critic of the New Testament. The “telephone”&nbsp;game is often used to demonstrate how reasonable this objection is. Whisper a message to one person and transfer it from person to person, ear to ear, in a circle. Then compare the message’s final form with the original. The radical transformation of the original phrase in so short a period of time is always good for a few laughs. This comparison is enough to convince the casual skeptic that the New Testament documents are equally unreliable.</p>

<p>The argument against the reliability of the New Testament texts can be stated very simply. How can we know that the documents we have in our possession accurately reflect originals destroyed almost two millennia ago? Communication is never perfect; people make mistakes. Errors are compounded with each successive generation, just like the message in the telephone game. By the time 2000 years pass, it’s anyone’s guess what the original said.</p>

<p>It’s easy to state the problem, and some may think merely raising the objection makes the argument itself compelling. Yet offering evidence on its behalf is a bit more difficult.</p>

<p>Usually the complaint is raised by people who have little understanding of the real issues. In cases like this, an appeal to common knowledge is more often than not an appeal to common ignorance. Like many questions about Christianity, this objection is voiced by people who haven’t been given reliable information.</p>

<h2>Just the Facts, Ma’am</h2>

<p>The question of authenticity is not really a religious concern at all; it’s an academic one. It can be answered in an academic way totally unrelated to spiritual convictions by a simple appeal to facts, an apologetic technique I call “Just the Facts, Ma’am.”</p>

<p>The objection at first glance is compelling. When we try to conceptualize how to reconstruct an original after 2000 years of copying, translating, and copying some more, the task appears impossible. The skepticism, though, is based on two misconceptions about the transmission of ancient documents like the New Testament.</p>

<p>The first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linear, as in the telephone example—one person communicating to a second, who communicates with a third, etc. In a linear paradigm, people are left with one message and many generations between it and the original. Second, the telephone game example depends on oral transmission, which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something written.</p>

<p>Neither assumption applies to the written text of the New Testament. First, the transmission was not linear but geometric—e.g., one letter birthed five copies, which became 25, which became 200, and so on. Secondly, the transmission in question was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way that oral communications cannot be.</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 can confidently reconstruct the text from existing manuscript copies even though the copies themselves have differences and are much younger than the autograph (i.e., the original).</p>

<p>Pretend your Aunt Sally has a dream in which she learns the recipe for an elixir that would continuously maintain her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs into the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days her appearance is transformed. Sally is a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of what comes to be known as “Aunt Sally’s Secret Sauce.”</p>

<p>Sally is so excited she sends hand-written instructions to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages—no photocopier) giving detailed instructions on how to make the sauce. They, in turn, make copies which each sends to ten of her own friends.</p>

<p>All is going well until one day Aunt Sally’s pet schnauzer eats the original copy of the recipe. Sally is beside herself. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps. Their copies are gone, too, so the alarm goes out to their friends in attempt to recover the original wording.</p>

<p>They finally round up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When they spread them out on the kitchen table, they immediately notice some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. One has a misspelled word, though, one has two phrases inverted (“mix then chop”&nbsp;instead of “chop then mix”) and one includes an ingredient that none of the others has on its list.</p>

<p>Here is the critical question: Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe? Of course she could. The misspelled words can easily be corrected, the single inverted phrase can be repaired, and the extra ingredient can be ignored.</p>

<p>Even with more numerous or more diverse variations, the original can still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence given the right textual evidence. The misspellings would be obvious errors, the inversions would stand out and easily be restored, and the conclusion drawn that it’s more plausible that one word or sentence be accidentally added to a single copy than omitted from many.</p>

<p>This, in simplified form, is how the science of textual criticism works. Textual critics are academics who reconstruct a missing original from existing manuscripts that are generations removed from the autograph. According to New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce, “Its object [is] to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question.”<a href="#fn:2" rel="footnote">2</a></p>

<p>The science of textual criticism is used to test all documents of antiquity—not just religious texts—including historical and literary writings. It’s not a theological enterprise based on haphazard hopes and guesses; it’s a linguistic exercise that follows a set of established rules. Textual criticism allows an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.</p>

<h2>How Many and How Old?</h2>

<p>The ability of any scholar to do effective textual criticism depends on two factors. First, how many existing copies are there to examine and compare? Are there two copies, ten, a hundred? The more copies there are, the easier it is to make meaningful comparisons. Second, how close in time are the oldest existing documents to the original?</p>

<p>If the numbers are few and the time gap is wide, the original is harder to reconstruct with confidence. However, if there are many copies and the oldest existing copies are reasonably close in time to the original, the textual critic can be more confident he’s pinpointed the exact wording of the autograph.</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 the available textual evidence.</p>

<p>The important First Century document The Jewish War, by Jewish aristocrat and historian Josephus, survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th Century—four centuries after they were written.<a href="#fn:3" rel="footnote">3</a> Tacitus’&nbsp;Annals of Imperial Rome 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.<a href="#fn:4" rel="footnote">4</a> Thucydides’&nbsp;History survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus’&nbsp;History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.<a href="#fn:5" rel="footnote">5</a></p>

<p>Bruce’s comments put the discussion in perspective: “No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals.”<a href="#fn:6" rel="footnote">6</a></p>

<p>For most documents of antiquity only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-2000 years or more. Yet scholars are confident of reconstructing the originals with some significant 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>By comparison with secular texts, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style)!<a href="#fn:7" rel="footnote">7</a></p>

<p>Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.<a href="#fn:8" rel="footnote">8</a></p>

<p>Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) back to the 4th Century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government at Christmas, 1933, for £100,000,<a href="#fn:9" rel="footnote">9</a> is dated c. 340.<a href="#fn:10" rel="footnote">10</a> The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350.<a href="#fn:11" rel="footnote">11</a> 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 (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century.<a href="#fn:12" rel="footnote">12</a> 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.<a href="#fn:13" rel="footnote">13</a></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. 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 around A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),<a href="#fn:14" rel="footnote">14</a> showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that most of the papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, though most of the other manuscripts contain the four Gospels. 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 the early church Fathers known as “patristic quotations.”</p>

<p>Early in the history of the Church Greek documents, including the Scriptures, were translated into Latin. By the 3rd and 4th Centuries the New Testament was translated into Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, etc. These texts helped missionaries reach new cultures in their own language as the Gospel spread and the Church grew.<a href="#fn:15" rel="footnote">15</a> Translations of the Greek manuscripts (called “versions”) help modern-day textual critics answer questions about the underlying Greek manuscripts.</p>

<p>In addition, there are ancient extra-biblical sources—characteristically catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church fathers—that record the Scriptures. Paul Barnett says that the “Scriptures...gave rise to an immense output of early Christian literature which quoted them at length and, in effect, preserved them.”<a href="#fn:16" rel="footnote">16</a> Metzger notes the amazing fact 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.”<a href="#fn:17" rel="footnote">17</a></p>

<h2>The Verdict</h2>

<p>What can we conclude from this evidence? New Testament specialist 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 Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.<a href="#fn:18" rel="footnote">18</a></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.<a href="#fn:19" rel="footnote">19</a></p>

<p>Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums 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.”<a href="#fn:20" rel="footnote">20</a></p>

<p>This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we’d have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void 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 altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.</p>

<div class="footnotes">
<ol>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:1">
	<p>Larry King with Shirley MacLaine, spring 1989. <a href="#fnref:1" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:2">
	<p>Bruce, F. F., The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 19. <a href="#fnref:2" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:3">
	<p>Barnett, Paul, Is the New Testament History? (Ann Arbor: Vine Books, 1986), 45. <a href="#fnref:3" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:4">
	<p>Geisler, Norman L., Nix, William E., A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 405. Note: Bruce records two existing copies of this document (p. 16) but Barnett claims there’s only one (p. 45) and that single copy exists in partial form. To be conservative, I’ve cited Geisler &amp; Nix’s statistics. <a href="#fnref:4" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:5">
	<p>Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 34. This number consists of 457 papyri, 2 uncials and 188 minuscule manuscripts. <a href="#fnref:5" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:6">
	<p>Bruce, 16-17. <a href="#fnref:6" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:7">
	<p>Geisler &amp; Nix, 402. <a href="#fnref:7" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:8">
	<p>Ibid. <a href="#fnref:8" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:9">
	<p>Metzger, 45. <a href="#fnref:9" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:10">
	<p>Geisler &amp; Nix, 392. <a href="#fnref:10" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:11">
	<p>Ibid., 391. <a href="#fnref:11" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:12">
	<p>Ibid., 389-390. <a href="#fnref:12" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:13">
	<p>Metzger, 39-40. <a href="#fnref:13" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:14">
	<p>Geisler &amp; Nix, 388. <a href="#fnref:14" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:15">
	<p>Barnett, 44. <a href="#fnref:15" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:16">
	<p>Ibid., p. 46-47. <a href="#fnref:16" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:17">
	<p>Metzger, 86. <a href="#fnref:17" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:18">
	<p>Wallace, Daniel, “The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?,”&nbsp;Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June, 1991, 157-8. <a href="#fnref:18" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:19">
	<p>Geisler and Nix, 475. <a href="#fnref:19" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:20">
	<p>Carson, D.A., The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 56. <a href="#fnref:20" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-the-new-testament-text-reliable-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-the-new-testament-text-reliable-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-the-new-testament-text-reliable-" 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: Intrinsic Human Value Has to Be Taught
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 01/09/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/intrinsic-human-value-has-to-be-taught
content:
            <div> 
		<p>For some reason, we human beings have a real problem with the concept of intrinsic human value. If a group of people doesn’t look like us, or has different customs, or lacks some of our abilities, we think it’s <em>obvious</em> they’re not truly human. Have we ever been right about this? Ever?</p>

<p>I came across this appalling description of the early days of Australia in Bill Bryson’s <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sunburned-Country-Bill-Bryson/dp/0767903862/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1357670387&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=in+a+sunburned+country" target="_blank">In a Sunburned Country</a></em>:&nbsp;</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For most Europeans the Aborigines were simply something that was in the way—“one of the natural hazards,” as the scientist and natural historian Tim Flannery has described it. It helped to regard them as essentially subhuman, a view that persisted well into the twentieth century. As recently as the early 1960s, as John Pilger notes, Queensland schools were using a textbook that likened Aborigines to “feral jungle creatures”…. Such was the marginalization of the native peoples that until 1967 the federal government did not even include them in national censuses—did not, in other words, count them as people.</p>

<p>In <em>Taming the Great South Land</em> William J. Lines details examples of the most appalling cruelty by settlers toward the natives—of Aborigines butchered for dog food;…of another chased up a tree and tormented from below with rifle shots…. What is perhaps most shocking is how casually so much of this was done, and at all levels of society. In an 1839 history of Tasmania, written by a visitor named Melville, the author relates how he went out one day with “a respectable young gentleman” to hunt kangaroos. As they rounded a bend, the young gentleman spied a form crouched in hiding behind a fallen tree. Stepping over to investigate and “finding it only to be a native,” the appalled Melville wrote, the gentleman lifted the muzzle to the native’s breast “and shot him dead on the spot.”</p>

<p>Such behavior was virtually never treated as a crime—indeed was sometimes officially countenanced. In 1805 the acting judge advocate for New South Wales, the most senior judicial figure in the land, declared that Aborigines had not the discipline or mental capacity for courtroom proceedings; rather than plague the courts with their grievances, settlers were instructed to track down the offending natives and “inflict such punishment as they may merit”—as open an invitation to genocide as can be found in English law…. Sometimes, under the pretense of compassion, Aborigines were offered food that had been dosed with poison (pp 187-188).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Subhuman, not counted as people, openly and casually killed because they were “in the way.” This is what human beings do to other human beings. The group of people being disposed of might change from century to century and place to place, but the reasoning used against them remains the same: they don’t look like us, they can’t do what we do, they’re not fully human.</p>

<p>In Australia in the 1800s, there was a culturally accepted standard for qualifying as a human being, and the Aborigines didn’t meet it. When, for the first time, white people were convicted and hanged for slaughtering a group of them, “two of the accused protested, with evident sincerity, that they hadn’t known killing Aborigines was illegal” (p. 189).</p>

<p>How is it possible they didn’t know they were committing murder? Can you see our capacity for deceiving ourselves when it comes to the subject of which human beings are “truly human”? After all the evidence of our past egregious failures, why would any of us trust ourselves to set a line defining who’s in and who’s out? And yet, we do. We <em>are</em>.&nbsp;</p>

<p>We always recognize the horror of defining human beings out of the human family <em><a href="/w/moral-blind-spots" target="_blank">after the fact</a></em>, once we no longer have anything to gain by oppressing those particular people. But how can we prevent these atrocities from occurring in the first place? How can we end the one we’re in the middle of? We have to recognize and then fight the human tendency we have to deny the value of people who are different from us. We have to <em>teach</em> intrinsic human value—the value of every human being, regardless of his looks, his size, or his ability—because our selfish drive to remove people who are “in our way” prevents us from naturally seeing and accepting universal human rights.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fintrinsic-human-value-has-to-be-taught" 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%2Fintrinsic-human-value-has-to-be-taught" 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%2Fintrinsic-human-value-has-to-be-taught" 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 Moral Mischief of Abortion
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 01/01/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-moral-mischief-of-abortion
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Abortion choice advocates often engage in logical gymnastics to avoid the inconsistency of their view. Despite their efforts, the misstep in their thinking is obvious. This wouldn’t be as grave a concern if the impact was limited to their own lives. One could argue we should adopt a “live and let live”&nbsp;policy. But abortion-choice has tragic consequences: It results in the death of 3,000 unborn children each day in the U.S. alone.</p>

<p>An example of this inconsistency is evident when asking abortion-choice advocates about the use of thalidomide in the 1950s. Doctors used to prescribe this drug to pregnant women suffering from morning sickness. Then they discovered its tragic side effects: Many children were born without limbs. Their arms or legs were missing or were severely atrophied. Thousands of children, many who are disabled adults today, were exposed to this harmful chemical while in their mother's womb.</p>

<p>Abortion-choice advocates would rightly condemn the continued use of thalidomide in pregnant women. Why? The drug causes irreparable harm to unborn children.</p>

<p>But here’s the irony. Pro-choice activists are opposed to <em>harming</em> an unborn child with thalidomide, but in favor of <em>killing</em> that same child through abortion. If the former is wrong, the latter is egregious. We wouldn’t prevent a mother from violently shaking her son, but permit her to shoot him instead. That’s inconsistent.</p>

<p>Some say I’m being unfair. They claim that consistency demands that a person behave the same way only in similar situations. The child is wanted when a woman takes thalidomide, but is unwanted when she seeks an abortion. Therefore, since the situations aren’t the same, the unborn doesn’t need to be treated in the same way.</p>

<p>But this makes my point, not theirs. On the pro-choice view, equals are treated unequally. Both the wanted and unwanted child are valuable human beings. Whether or not their mother wants them can’t affect their status. They should both be treated consistently, in a manner that upholds their intrinsic dignity.</p>

<p>Frankly, I’m mystified why abortion-choice advocates even care that unborn children are affected by thalidomide. They’ve told me unborn children aren’t persons, don’t feel pain, and don’t have fears and dreams. Why are they so concerned with these fetuses?</p>

<p>I don’t think they have a choice. People can see kids born without limbs. The images are disturbing. If abortion-choice advocates don’t condemn what is a visible and obvious injustice, they’ll come across as callous and cruel.</p>

<p>But whereas the effects of thalidomide are graphic, the horror of abortion is hidden. No one sees unborn children who are dismembered. It’s a crime committed out of sight. That’s why they permit abortion. It also explains why many pro-lifers are apathetic about this issue.</p>

<p>Imagine, however, if abortion was defined as something else. Instead of taking unborn life, it involved killing children at Little League. Coaches would round up a few kids, drag them off into left field, and beat them with a bat. People would be outraged. Christians would stop being merely pro-life in their attitude and would do something to end the killing. Even non-Christians would join the cause. Abortion would be outlawed in a heartbeat.</p>

<p>But abortion isn’t visible. You can’t see its effects the way people saw children harmed by thalidomide. Yet the truth is that killing human beings through abortion is like killing them at Little League. The victims are just younger.</p>

<p>Once thalidomide was seen harming children, its demise was certain and swift. Until abortion is seen for its grim reality, it will remain legal. And abortion-choice advocates will continue to hold an inconsistent view.</p>
</div>

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


title: Marriage Law
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/16/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/marriage-law
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Ryan T. Anderson (an author of the paper “<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155" target="_blank">What Is Marriage</a>,”&nbsp;published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy) is one of the clearest writers on the issue of marriage that I know of, and I’m looking forward to the release of the book <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1353094624&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=ryan+t.++anderson" target="_blank">What Is Marriage</a></em> next month.</p>

<p>Today, I came across this concise <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/08/how-marriage-fared-in-the-2012-election/" target="_blank">summary</a> by Anderson of why we ought not to change our legal definition of marriage from the “conjugal”&nbsp;view to the “emotional bond”&nbsp;view:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Our marriage law should reflect <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155" target="_blank">the truth about what marriage is</a>: a pre-political institution springing from human nature itself. Government should not redefine or recreate marriage, nor should it obscure the truth about what marriage is. Recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages would weaken marriage as a social institution. It would redefine marriage as essentially an emotional bond, thus rendering marital norms arbitrary and less intelligible. It would further de-link childbearing from marriage and deny, as a matter of law, the importance of a mother or a father in a child’s life. The outcomes associated with such absence are <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggests-differences-matter/" target="_blank">far from promising</a>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>While this brief statement obviously doesn’t explain the full argument for each of these points, it’s helpful to have a list of the categories of arguments that need to be considered before we take the drastic measure of fundamentally changing marriage as a culture. To research more detail on each of these points, you can start by searching our website or scanning the <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/ethics/" target="_blank">ethics category</a> on this blog. A few examples:</p>

<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><a href="http://www.str.org/w/the-competing-views-of-marriage?inheritRedirect=true" target="_blank">The Competing Views of Marriage</a><br>
<a href="/w/inconsistent-same-sex-marriage-advocates" target="_blank">Inconsistent Same-Sex Marriage Advocates</a><br>
<a href="/w/same-sex-marriage-won-t-be-enough" target="_blank">Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Be Enough</a></p>

<p>This is <em>the</em> most difficult subject to discuss with people. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t have a friend or loved one who thinks changing the definition of marriage will be in his or her best interest, and nobody enjoys saying no to them. But there are serious consequences to tampering with a naturally occurring institution like marriage. The view that we can endlessly remake ourselves into whatever we like is false. Male and female are real categories. The differences—biological, emotional, psychological—are real. The need for both is real. The union of the two, complementary sexes is unique, with unique public consequences.</p>

<p>Civilization is much more fragile than we realize, and marriage—the male-female union that builds our society—is much more central to civilization than people understand. If we decide to thumb our nose at reality, reality will not be forgiving.</p>
</div>

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


title: Inconsistent Law on the Unborn
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/24/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/inconsistent-law-on-the-unborn
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Did you know it’s wrong to kill an unborn child according to California state law? You will be prosecuted for murder if you do (e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson" target="_blank">Scott Peterson</a>). There’s only one exception: when a physician kills the child <em>at the request of the mother</em>.</p>

<p>Doesn’t that seem odd? An unborn child is protected under the law like you and me. She is granted full human value. But in a moment’s request by her mother, an unborn child is transformed from a valuable human being into a valueless blob of tissue. She can be killed with impunity.</p>

<p>This is bizarre, inconsistent, and sad.</p>

<p>Imagine a hypothetical situation where a woman is pregnant with identical twin girls. Now suppose one of the twins is prematurely delivered at around the 25<sup>th</sup> week of pregnancy (typical pregnancies around last 40 weeks). The born twin is automatically protected under the law. Her sister still inside the womb, however, can be killed at any time during the remainder of her gestation. Although both girls are the same developmental age, one twin is safely protected <em>outside</em> the womb, while her sister is vulnerable <em>inside</em> the womb.</p>

<p>The only difference between the twins is their location. Otherwise they are identical.&nbsp; But, as Francis Beckwith aptly recognizes, “Where one is has no bearing on who one is.” Our laws should not exclude members of the human community from legal protection simply because of their location. But that’s what is happening.</p>

<p>I realize that some abortion-choice advocates argue that this inconsistency can be resolved by eliminating fetal homicide laws. But that’s the wrong solution because the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yeaRok0nPE&amp;t=2m28s" target="_blank">science of embryology proves the unborn are human beings</a>. Therefore, they should be protected.</p>

<p>The solution would be to eliminate abortion-choice laws. That would protect all human beings, even those inside the womb.</p>
</div>

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


title: A Good Reason for Evil
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/20/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-good-reason-for-evil-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>What is evil? Could it have a purpose? Here is a view of evil from an adult rather than a childish perspective.</em></p>

<p>The first step in answering the problem of evil is this: We’ve got to get clear on what this thing “evil”&nbsp;actually is. It does seem to follow that if God created all things, and evil is a thing, then God created evil. This is a valid syllogism. If the premises are true, then the conclusion would be true as well.</p>

<p>The problem with that line of reasoning is that the second premise is not true. Evil is not a thing. The person who probably explained it best was St. Augustine, and then Thomas Aquinas picked up on his solution. Others since them have argued that evil has no ontological status in itself.</p>

<p>The word ontology deals with the nature of existence. When I say that evil has no ontological status, I mean that evil, as a thing in itself, does not exist.</p>

<p>Let me give you an illustration to make this more clear. We talk about things being cold or warm. But coldness is not a thing that exists in itself; it has no ontological status. Coldness is the absence of heat. When we remove heat energy from a system, we say it gets colder.</p>

<p>“Cold”&nbsp;isn’t a thing. It’s a way of describing the reduction of molecular activity resulting in the sensation of heat. So the more heat we pull out of a system, the colder it gets. Cold itself isn’t being “created.”&nbsp;Cold is a description of a circumstance in which heat is missing. Heat is energy which can be measured. When you remove heat, the temperature goes down. We call that condition “cold,”&nbsp;but there is no cold “stuff”&nbsp;that causes that condition.</p>

<p>Here’s another way of looking at it. Did you ever eat a donut hole? I don’t mean those little round sugar-coated lumps you buy at the donut shop. I mean the hole itself. Donut holes are actually what’s left when the middle is cut out of a donut. There’s a space called a hole, a “nothing,”&nbsp;the condition that exists when something is taken away. Same thing with a shadow. Shadows don’t exist as things in themselves; they’re just the absence of light.</p>

<p>Evil is like that. Evil isn’t like some black, gooey stuff floating around the universe that gloms onto people and causes them to do awful things. Evil is the absence of good, a privation of good, not a thing in itself.</p>

<p>When God created the universe, he created everything good. He made a universe that was perfectly good. Everything was as it should be. After God was completely done with creating everything, something happened that reduced the good in the world. That loss of good is called evil.</p>

<p>That’s why in Genesis 1 we read “it was good”&nbsp;many times. From the record we know that God didn’t create evil. But something did happen in which evil-the loss of good-took place, and as a result a lot of other grotesque things came about.</p>

<p>So donut holes don’t exist; they’re just the absence of donut. Shadows don’t exist; they’re just the absence of light. And evil doesn’t exist; it’s just the absence of good.</p>

<p>The next question is, if God created everything good, why would He allow evil to infect His creation?</p>

<p>Satan would be the first example of an independent source of evil. Adam and Eve would also be a source of evil with regard to the human race. They didn’t get Satan’s evil; they initiated their own. Satan influenced them—he made his own hole in goodness—but Adam and Eve made their own holes in goodness. They’re responsible for their own evil.</p>

<p>It isn’t that Satan did something bad and passed that stuff on to them, because evil is not a stuff. This is a key point in this discussion. They cannot “dip into”&nbsp;evil because it’s not a thing to dip into. When we make a shadow, we don’t do it with shadow stuff, but by blocking existing light.</p>

<p>In the same way, evil doesn’t cause our actions. In fact, it’s the other way around. Our actions are what cause evil-or the loss of goodness-in us, and that loss of goodness does have an impact on future actions, giving us a predisposition to cause further evil.</p>

<p>God did not create Adam and Eve with bad stuff in them. What He did was to create them with a capability to rebel against Him or choose to do wrong. This is called moral free will, and it’s a good thing, but it can be used for bad. It can be used to rebel against God, which digs out a hole in goodness, so to speak.</p>

<p>Satan and man both used their free moral agency to originate actions that fell short of the goodness of God. I’m sure God had a good reason for allowing evil. It has caused a lot of suffering, but that suffering has, in turn, also brought about a lot of good under God’s direction.</p>

<p>When you forgive someone who’s wronged you and you treat him kindly, is that a good thing? Sure it is, but you couldn’t forgive him if he hadn’t done something bad against you. I’m not saying that we should do evil so that the good of forgiveness could come about. I’m showing that it’s not a contradiction to claim that good can come out of evil.</p>

<p>It’s not good to promote evil itself, but one of the things about God is that He’s capable of taking a bad thing and making good come out of it. Mercy is one example of that. Without sin there would be no mercy. That’s true of a number of good things: bearing up under suffering, dealing with injustice, acts of heroism, forgiveness, long-suffering. These are all virtues that cannot be experienced in a world with no sin and evil.</p>

<p>Now the real question at this point is, “Was it worth it? Good can come out of evil, but was it worth it in the long run, the measure of good that comes out of the measure of evil in the world?”&nbsp;And my response is that the only One who could ever know that is God. You and I couldn’t know that because our perspective is too limited. Only God is in a position to accurately answer that question.</p>

<p>Apparently God thinks that, on balance, the good is going to outweigh the evil that caused the good, or else He wouldn’t have allowed it to happen. Christ paid a tremendous price, an example of the tremendous love God had for us. God would not be able to show His sacrificial love unless there was something to sacrifice for.</p>

<p>Here’s the problem, and this is why we don’t think that, on balance, it’s really a fair trade. We think that life is about giving us pleasure and making us happy. That’s what we think. This view is very prevalent in the United States. Our personal happiness, pleasure, and enjoyment are the most important things in life.</p>

<p>That’s not what the Bible teaches at all, though. There are aspects of enjoyment, but the ultimate reason we were created was not so we can have fun and enjoy life. God’s purpose for creating us was to develop us into certain types of people who were fit to spend eternity with Him. He does that by conforming us to His image by helping us grow through the process of living in a fallen world.</p>

<p>This is part of the message of the book of Hebrews. Even Jesus was conformed-made mature-by the process of suffering. In God’s mind, the goal of the process-being conformed to the image of His Son-is a much greater good than the bad of the evil that we have to put up with on this earth. The balance is definitely on the side of good.</p>

<p>I admit that this is not an easy issue, and part of the reason is that we bring some baggage to the discussion. Part of the baggage is that we have this idea that if God put us here on this earth and created the world for us to live in, then it seems to make sense that the summum bonum-the greatest good-is our immediate sense of personal pleasure and satisfaction. Therefore, if there is some circumstance in which we can’t have immediate satisfaction, then God must either have abandoned us, not exist, or be evil for allowing such a thing.</p>

<p>Last weekend I had a conversation with a young man about homosexuality. He challenged me with this point: Why would God create people as homosexuals if He didn’t want them to experience the pleasure of homosexual sex?</p>

<p>Now, of course, I didn’t agree with Him that God created people to be homosexuals. It wasn’t God’s design that they have this desire. But even if I conceded such a thing, why must I admit that-since one was created with a capacity for pleasure-only a mean, cruel God would allow conditions in which they’d have to say no to that pleasure?</p>

<p>When you think about it for a moment, doesn’t it strike you as odd that we’ve developed a view that in order for us to acknowledge God as good, He must give liberty to all of our passions? And if God doesn’t give liberty to all of our passions-if He doesn’t allow us what we want, when we want it-if He ever asks for self sacrifice, if He ever allows a condition in which we hurt, in which we suffer, in which we are inconvenienced, if He ever allows a circumstance in which our bodily desires are not given full reign, then certainly He must be a cruel God? Isn’t that an odd view?</p>

<p>Do you know what kind of person thinks that way? A child. A child sees what it wants and goes to get it, and if it’s stopped, that child puts up a fuss.</p>

<p>I was with a little two-year-old today who wanted to go into the house while wearing muddy shoes. She was stopped, and she put up a fuss when her shoes were removed. Mom and Dad knew, though, that there were other things more important than their daughter’s desires at that moment. Now she didn’t understand it. All she knew was what she wanted (understandably, by the way, she’s a two-year-old; that’s the way two-year-olds think).</p>

<p>Unfortunately, we’ve bred a society that are, in many ways, like a bunch of adult two-year-olds, grown-ups who believe it’s their divine right to feel every pleasure they can possibly feel, to never encounter any difficulty, any pain, any suffering. And if they do, then God must be a cruel God.</p>

<p>Now I realize that some of you might be thinking, Come on, Koukl, you’re really whitewashing this, aren’t you. How can so much egregious suffering be justified?</p>

<p>I don’t at all mean to brush away the terrible impact of evil on people’s lives. But I’m talking about a frame of mind that we do seem to have, a frame of mind that we are first and our pleasures are first and God owes that to us. And if He denies us our pleasures to any degree, then there must be something wrong with Him.</p>

<p>Now if God is a good God, and He denies us our pleasures, then I’ll tell you one thing, there’s a good reason He does so. That’s what it means to be a good God. I’m not going to buy the idea-the infantile idea that Americans have-that in order for God to be considered good, He has to give me everything I want, when I want it, or conversely, He must protect me from every injury and every difficulty. No, it’s fair to say that God has allowed suffering in the world for very good reasons, even though we’re not clear on all of those reasons.</p>

<p>By the way, what’s the alternative? If you conclude there’s no God because of the existence of evil, then there’s no possibility of ever redeeming that evil for good.</p>

<p>British philosopher Bertrand Russell said that no one can sit at the bedside of a dying child and still believe in God. My response to Mr. Russell is, “What would you say to a dying child?”&nbsp;What could an atheist say? “Too bad”? “Tough luck”? “Bum deal”? You see, in that circumstance, there’s no possibility of redemption for that evil. In fact, it doesn’t seem to make sense to even call it evil at all if there is no God.</p>

<p>But with God, at least there’s the possibility that the evil can be used for good. That’s the promise of the Scriptures.</p>

<p>And so, instead of the syllogism, “God created all things, and evil is a thing, therefore God created evil,”&nbsp;we start from a different point. “All things God created are good-which is what the text says-and evil isn’t good, therefore God didn’t create evil.”&nbsp;Then we can progress to, “If God created all things, and God didn’t create evil, then evil is not a thing.”</p>

<p>You see, those two syllogisms are just as valid as the first one (if God created all things, and evil is a thing, then God created evil), and it seems that the premises are more reliable. The premises seem to be accurate and true.</p>

<p>The questions we have to ask ourselves are: Do we have reason to think that God is good, and do we have reason to think that evil is not a thing? If we have good reasons to think those two things, then our new set of syllogisms work.</p>

<p>We can then strongly trust that when God does allow a privation of good (evil) to influence our lives, He does it not for evil designs, but ultimately for good purposes.</p>

<h2>Resources for Additional Study</h2>

<p><a href="http://edrmx.rxdtq.servertrust.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD106" target="_blank">Evil, Suffering, &amp; the Goodness of God</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-good-reason-for-evil-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%2Fa-good-reason-for-evil-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%2Fa-good-reason-for-evil-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: Race, Sex, and Marriage
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/25/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/race-sex-and-marriage
content:
            <div> 
		<p>You may have already seen Rev. Dr. Phil Snider’s two-minute <a href="http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2012/10/phil-sniders-impressive-substitute-for-honest-communication-racism-gay-marriage-and-the-bible/" target="_blank">speech</a> to the Springfield City Council in support of adding “sexual orientation”&nbsp;and “gender identity”&nbsp;to the categories of protected people in the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance.</p>

<p>Snider began by giving religious arguments against the ordinance. Then, in a surprising twist, he revealed that all of his comments were quotes from white preachers in the ’50s and ’60s; he had merely used the phrase “gay rights”&nbsp;instead of “racial integration.”&nbsp;Snider closed by saying, “I hope you will not make the same mistake. I hope you will stand on the right side of history.”</p>

<p>The video has been viewed over two million times and is being used to argue that opposing same-sex marriage is analogous to opposing interracial marriage. Tom Gilson of Thinking Christian had this to say about Snider’s video:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I wish he hadn’t called his skit an argument. It wasn’t one. It was a play, a set piece with a surprise ending that generated emotion where reason is called for; a drama play-acting as reasoned discussion. It had a powerful effect, but that’s a poor substitute for honest communication.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You can see the video of the speech (which Gilson calls “reason steamrolled by emotion”) and read Gilson’s full analysis of Snider’s argument and why it fails over at <a href="http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2012/10/phil-sniders-impressive-substitute-for-honest-communication-racism-gay-marriage-and-the-bible/" target="_blank">Thinking Christian</a>.</p>

<p>But what about the charge that traditional marriage supporters are making the same mistake as the racial segregationists? In a <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/" target="_blank"><em>Public Discourse</em></a> article, Francis Beckwith explains why anti-miscegenation laws are not analogous to opposing same-sex marriage. In fact, he says, it’s the opposite. It’s the same-sex marriage <em>advocates</em> who are making the same mistake as the racial segregationists:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the reason for these [anti-miscegenation] laws was to enforce racial purity, an idea that begins its cultural ascendancy with the commencement of race-based slavery of Africans in early 17th-century America and eventually receives the imprimatur of “science”&nbsp;when the eugenics movement comes of age in the late 19th and early 20th centuries...</p>

<p>Anti-miscegenation laws, therefore, <em>were attempts to eradicate the legal status of real marriages</em> by injecting a condition—sameness of race—that had no precedent in common law. For in the common law, a necessary condition for a legitimate marriage was male-female complementarity, a condition on which race has no bearing...</p>

<p>[T]he fact that a man and a woman from different races were biologically and metaphysically capable of marrying each other, building families, and living among the general population is precisely why the race purists wanted to forbid such unions by the force of law. And because this view of marriage and its gender-complementary nature was firmly in place and the only understanding found in common law, the Supreme Court in <em>Loving</em> knew that racial identity was not relevant to what marriage requires of its two opposite-gender members. <em>By injecting race into the equation, anti-miscegenation supporters were very much like contemporary same-sex marriage proponents, for in both cases they introduced a criterion other than male-female complementarity in order to promote the goals of a utopian social movement: race purity or sexual egalitarianism</em>.</p>

<p><em>This is why, in both cases, the advocates require state coercion to enforce their goals. Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage.</em> The reason for this, writes libertarian economist Jennifer Roback Morse, is that “marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government.”&nbsp;Hence, this explains its standing as an uncontroversial common law liberty. “By contrast,”&nbsp;Morse goes on to write, “same-sex ’marriage’&nbsp;[and same-race-only marriage] is completely a creation of the state...”&nbsp;[emphases mine].</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We don’t have separate bathrooms for white people and black people. We do have separate bathrooms for men and women. This is because men and women are different in ways that are significant enough for society to acknowledge and take into account when those differences are relevant. And while differences in race are not relevant to marriage, differences in sex <em>are</em> relevant to creating and raising children. The important thing to note here is that the government is merely acknowledging an already-existing institution (one based on biological <a href="/w/inconsistent-same-sex-marriage-advocates" target="_blank">realities</a>) when it recognizes male-female marriage. The public effect of the male-female union is unique, and therefore, the government is uniquely interested in 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%2Frace-sex-and-marriage" 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%2Frace-sex-and-marriage" 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%2Frace-sex-and-marriage" 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: Mr. Candidate, How Does Religion Inform Your View on Abortion?
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/17/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/mr.-candidate-how-does-religion-inform-your-view-on-abortion-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In the vice presidential debate last week, this question was asked of the candidates:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country, please talk personally about this, if you could.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The two candidates focused on the idea that life begins at conception, but I don’t think that’s where the true controversy lies. Here’s how I would love to hear a pro-life politician answer this question in two minutes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Saying that life begins at conception isn’t a controversial statement. It’s a question of science. Ask any embryologist and he can tell you that what’s growing in the mother’s womb is a whole, living, human boy or girl at his or her earliest stage of development, with his or her own unique DNA that will remain the same through all stages of development, from conception to death.</p>

<p>What’s controversial is that I think every human being is valuable simply because he or she is a member of the valuable human race. I don’t think human beings have to earn their rights by having certain characteristics like the “correct”&nbsp;race, or gender, or size, or ability, or age.</p>

<p>In other words, it’s the fact that I think we ought to be upholding universal human rights that’s the controversial position.</p>

<p>Now as a Christian, I do believe it’s my duty to protect the natural rights of human beings—to protect universal human rights—because human beings are the kind of being that’s valuable. But one doesn’t have to be a Christian to agree with universal human rights. There are many people of other religions, or no religion, who also want to uphold universal human rights.</p>

<p>The idea that we’re all created equal and equally possess unalienable rights regardless of our differences (race, size, age, ability, etc.) is a founding principle of this nation. Sadly, in the past, we allowed the government to define some human beings out of the human family by requiring they have certain preferred characteristics (like white skin) in order to qualify for protection.</p>

<p>Our failures in the past to hold our government accountable to our professed principle of unalienable rights for <em>every</em> human being led to serious human rights violations. I don’t want to repeat that same mistake. Instead, I would like to hold us to that founding principle.</p>

<p>You asked for a personal answer, and I agree that there are many emotions involved on all sides of this question. But I don’t want to confuse the issue by giving the impression that this is a matter of personal preference. Regulating subjective preferences is not the role of government, so answering as if the abortion issue were merely personal wouldn’t clarify what’s at stake. The issue of human rights is a public issue, and the protection of the lives of human beings is an area of public life that requires the government’s involvement.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

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


title: The “Insider” Movement
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/01/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-insider-movement
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Muslim Followers of Christ?—</em></p>

<p><em>A Look Inside the “Insider Movement”</em></p>

<p><em>By Gregory Koukl and Alan Shlemon</em></p>

<p>It was like being in the middle of a “Twilight Zone”&nbsp;episode where you enter a room thinking it’s one place only to discover you’ve been transported to a different world.</p>

<p>There I was,<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> at a missions conference in a large Evangelical church in the Midwest where I’d come to be taught—from seasoned missionaries with years of experience in the field—the most effective way to reach Muslims for Christ. What I heard next, though, left me speechless.</p>

<p>“I never ask a Muslim to become a Christian,”&nbsp;the missionary told us. “That’s because Muslims can enter the Kingdom of God <em>as Muslims</em>, and still remain Muslim”—Muslim followers of Christ, in a sense.</p>

<p>For 1400 years, he explained, the debate has been Christianity v. Islam, Jesus v. Muhammad, the Bible v. the Qur’an. But Jesus never asked a single person to become a “Christian.”&nbsp;Both Jesus and Paul spoke only of the Kingdom of God. Christians can enter God’s Kingdom, but Muslims can as well.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>When a second missionary mentioned “Muhammed,”&nbsp;he quickly added, “Peace be upon him,”&nbsp;the standard Muslim benediction for any reference to the prophet.</p>

<p>I looked around me, wondering if I was in a church or a mosque. I waited for a gasp from the audience, but none came, not even a murmur. I looked at a missions pastor seated at my table, but he didn’t flinch. No one seemed to note anything amiss.</p>

<p>Except for me.</p>

<h2>Muslims for Christ?</h2>

<p>This approach, known as the Insider Movement (IM), has been gaining momentum for decades overseas. Practitioners of this method work in foreign countries far from the eyes of the churches that support them. Many Christians, unaware of the movement, have unwittingly funded it with their donations. Only recently have American Christians been exposed to the details.</p>

<p>When I first heard of the IM, I found it hard to believe Christian missionaries actually embraced it. Then I met Anwar Hossein. Anwar was raised Muslim in Bangladesh. When he became a Christian in 1978, however, he was completely transformed by the power of the Gospel. Soon he was a church leader working with the Bengali Bible Society.</p>

<p>One day an American missionary came to Anwar with a proposal. He offered a strategic partnership—funded by Americans—to help Anwar reach Bangladesh for Christ. There was only one condition: Anwar had to become a Muslim again.</p>

<p>Anwar was stunned. <em>I am no longer a Muslim,</em> he thought to himself. <em>I found Jesus Christ. I’ve been freed from the bondage of Islam. Now I’m being asked to return to the religion that enslaved me?</em></p>

<p>Anwar initially refused the offer, but eventually he was seduced by the promise of generous American funding. It was simply too good to pass up. But money wasn’t the only thing that enticed him. Missionaries in Bangladesh—as in all Muslim countries—were facing what seemed like insurmountable obstacles.</p>

<h2>All Things to All Men</h2>

<p>Ostensibly, the IM is driven by the desire to make the Gospel attractive and meaningful by communicating in a way that is least offensive and most persuasive given Muslim cultural and religious sensibilities. Missiologists call this <em>contextualization</em>. In Paul’s words, it’s an attempt to “become all things to all men”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 9:22). Potentially, the IM approach could solve real problems in the mission field.</p>

<p>First is the <em>problem of dismissal</em>. Muslims tend to dismiss the Gospel out of hand because of theological concepts they take to be blasphemous. For example, they think the term “Son of God”&nbsp;implies God had sexual relations with Mary to produce the child, Jesus. In addition, making anything equal with God, or suggesting that any created being shares kinship with God or qualities belonging only to Him, is a reprehensible sin called “<em>shirk”</em>&nbsp;that compromises the oneness (“<em>Tawheed”</em>) of Allah.</p>

<p>Second is the <em>problem of failure</em>. Western missionaries have been working among Muslims for decades with little to show for their efforts. There is tremendous pressure from mission agencies and their donors to get results. From a support perspective, nothing succeeds like success. Meager harvests—or no harvests at all—simply don’t inspire donors to persevere for the long haul. Funds begin to dry up.</p>

<p>Third is the <em>problem of persecution</em>. It is difficult—if not impossible—for former Muslims to live as Christians in an Islamic country. Threats, harassments, and persecutions become a way of life for them. Since apostasy from Islam is a capital crime in some Muslim countries, visible converts frequently forfeit their lives.</p>

<p>Fourth is the <em>problem of extraction</em>. Since a convert’s family is often the first (and most intense) source of persecution, these new Christians are driven out of their homes and often completely out of their communities, an exile that separates them from the very people who desperately need to hear the message of forgiveness the Christian is in the best position to provide.</p>

<p>The Insider Movement purports to offer a solution to each of these problems. The key to the approach is to keep new converts “inside”&nbsp;the Muslim socio-religious community<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> where they can be most effective. They “self-identify”&nbsp;as Muslims, even though they are now followers of Jesus (who they refer to as <em>Isa</em>). This kinship with Islam takes different forms, depending on the IM advocate.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>As members of the Muslim community, “Muslim followers of Jesus”&nbsp;practice many of the same behaviors as other Muslims. Many “insider”&nbsp;Christians still pray at the mosque (though in their hearts they pray to Jesus) and study the Qur’an. They confess the Islamic creed (the <em>shahada</em>): “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet”—the first of the five “Pillars of Islam.”&nbsp;Indeed, some observe all the pillars: reciting the <em>shahada</em>, offering the daily prayers, giving alms, fasting during Ramadan, and completing a pilgrimage to Mecca (the <em>hajj</em>).</p>

<p>These are merely external behaviors, after all (the thinking goes), hollow religious forms that in themselves do not conflict with the Christian’s newfound faith. “Muslim”&nbsp;means “one who submits to God,”&nbsp;which is true of any follower of Christ.</p>

<p>As far as appearances go, then, insider Christians are often indistinguishable from Muslims, which is precisely the point: They are <em>inside</em> Islam, self-identifying as Muslims, not Christians. Instead of preaching Christianity, they preach submission to Allah (which they take as synonymous with “God”) in His Kingdom by believing in His Messiah, <em>Isa</em>.</p>

<p>A Muslim, then, does not have to abandon his religious or cultural identity to follow Christ. That’s the appeal. It’s an innovative approach to missions that avoids the problems of the past.</p>

<p>It’s not only safer for new converts, it’s effective (IM proponents claim). Since persecution is substantially reduced with this method, there is usually no extraction. The offensive elements of Christianity are side-stepped, new converts stay connected with their existing social networks, and Muslims by the thousands are responding, reports claim.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> Veteran missionaries are elated with the results, and satisfied donors are happily funding success once again.</p>

<p>One other “contextualization”&nbsp;needs to be mentioned, though.</p>

<h2>The Word Abides Forever?</h2>

<p>Surprisingly, Scripture itself has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks to Muslim missions.</p>

<p>“Seekers and believers from Muslim backgrounds,”&nbsp;one scholar explained, “regularly single out the term ’Son of God’&nbsp;as the biggest obstacle to reading the Gospel. Some will not even touch a Bible because they fear this blasphemous term is in it.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>Self-described Muslim follower of Christ, Mazhar Mallouhi, expressed his passion to see the Scriptures put in a form Muslims could consider. ”In order for Christ to be naturalized among Muslims,”&nbsp;he said, “I see it as critical that the Scriptures be <em>re-presented</em> in a manner that they can fully understand and accept”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> [emphasis added].</p>

<p>That’s exactly what some translators have been providing, a <em>re-presentation</em> of God’s Word. To avoid alienating Muslims, many IM proponents have endorsed “Muslim-friendly”&nbsp;translations of Scripture—versions that replace terminology that’s offensive to Islamic sensibilities with more acceptable words.</p>

<p>All filial language pertaining to God, for example, is modified in these translations. To Muslims, any reference to the kinship of Jesus with the Father (e.g., “the Son of God”) is blasphemous. For this reason, God’s declaration at the Transfiguration (Luke 9:35), “This is my <em>Son</em>, whom I have chosen...”&nbsp;(NIV) has been changed to, “This is the <em>beloved Messiah</em> whom I have sent...”</p>

<p>In the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19) Jesus’&nbsp;words, “baptizing them in the name of the <em>Father</em> and of the <em>Son</em> and of the Holy Spirit”&nbsp;(NIV), have been changed to “baptizing them in the name of <em>God</em> and <em>His Messiah</em> and the Holy Spirit.”</p>

<p>Even filial language referring to believers as God’s children is too intimate for Muslims and must be amended. Therefore, in the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:2), the address “<em>Father,</em> hallowed be your name”&nbsp;(NIV) has been changed to “<em>Our loving, heavenly Lord</em>.”</p>

<p>In Luke 11:13, Jesus makes a powerful comparison between our human parents and our heavenly Father: “If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him”&nbsp;(NIV). One IM translation, though, removes any reference to the Father. The replacement—“Lord of the world”—completely misses Jesus’&nbsp;point.</p>

<p>On the surface, Muslim-friendly translations and other IM methods seem like innocent innovations, clever methods of spanning the cultural divide between Christians and Muslims. Adapting our <em>methods</em> is one thing. Changing our <em>message</em>, though, is quite another. Paul did the first. The Insider Movement is doing the second.</p>

<h2>Sensitivity or Syncretism?</h2>

<p>There is a big difference between contextualization and syncretism. Contextualization is a noble enterprise that seeks to <em>clarify</em> vital theological points, not <em>obscure</em> them. It puts truth in language meaningful to outsiders and leverages cultural forms into redemptive analogies, forming bridges of effective communication.</p>

<p>By contrast, syncretism takes a foreign theology, ideology, or religious practice and marries it with a contrasting belief system. It combines two religions into one. This blurring of distinctions between biblical Christianity and Qur’anic Islam<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> separates the Insider Movement from the great tradition of Christian missions that came before it.</p>

<p>The Five Pillars, for example, are not benign behaviors devoid of meaning. Rather they represent the theological core of Islam, precepts and practices that distinguish Muslims from non-Muslims.</p>

<p>The <em>shahada</em> is a creedal confession, an explicit declaration of allegiance and submission to Allah and his prophet. The fast of Ramadan is not merely a dietary ritual, but a commemoration of the reception of a false scripture (the Qur’an) by a false prophet (Mohammed) from a deceiving spirit (an “angel of light”). <sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>Paul wrote, “What fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial?...Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate...and do not touch what is unclean”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 6:14-17).<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> In this passage Paul invokes the prophet Isaiah (52:11) condemning Israel’s own syncretism with pagan theologies of their day.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>

<p>No genuine follower of Jesus has any business aligning himself in any way with these doctrines. They are off limits. When someone identifies himself as Muslim, he declares himself a follower of Mohammed and the Qur’an, not a follower of Jesus and the New Testament. It’s the difference between darkness and light.</p>

<h2>Adulterating the Word</h2>

<p>Paul assured the Corinthians he was “...not walking in craftiness or adulterating the Word of God”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 4:2). Instead, he preached “Christ Jesus as <em>Lord”</em>&nbsp;(v. 5), a title of divinity. He then recounts the persecutions he was willing to endure for this message (v. 8-12).</p>

<p>To adulterate means to debase or corrupt by adding inferior elements. This is precisely what IM “Muslim-friendly”&nbsp;translations have done. Paul fled persecution when he could (e.g., Acts 17:10), but he did not avoid persecution by distorting vital details of the Gospel.</p>

<p>Yes, “Son of God”&nbsp;and “Messiah”&nbsp;or “servant of God”&nbsp;all pick out the same individual, Jesus of Nazareth. But each phrase tells us something completely different—and vitally important—about Him.</p>

<p>That Jesus is the Son of God is not some tertiary doctrine. There is no more noble idea than that God became a man to suffer with us and for us. There is no more sublime a declaration of Scripture than that “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth”&nbsp;(John 1:14).</p>

<p>That certain Christian concepts offend Muslims is no excuse to change the message. The phrase “Son of God”&nbsp;was no less offensive to Jews of Jesus’&nbsp;time than to Muslims of our own time. Think of Jesus’&nbsp;response when asked at His trial: “Are you the Son of God?”&nbsp;(Luke 22:70). He didn’t say, “Call me ’servant’&nbsp;instead.”&nbsp;He simply said, “I Am,”&nbsp;and in virtue of that confession was led away to crucifixion.</p>

<p>If Jesus Himself would not abandon this testimony, even in the face of execution, then neither can we. If we change, hide, or deny the very doctrines Jesus and the disciples were persecuted for proclaiming, then we’ve crossed the line. Better that we carefully explain the doctrine to dispel mistaken understandings of it than adulterate the Word of God to accommodate false religious ideas.</p>

<p>Modified translations introduce two additional problems for Muslim evangelism. First, it reinforces the most frequently raised objection Muslim’s raise about the Bible: the text is not reliable because it’s been corrupted through transmission over time. The charge is completely without merit—until now. Insider Movement translations serve to confirm Muslim suspicions about Scripture.</p>

<p>Second, a significant appeal of the Gospel is that we share with God the intimacy a father shares with his children—so much so, we can call Him “<em>Abba</em>,”&nbsp;the Aramaic for “Daddy”&nbsp;(Rom. 8:15). This is completely unheard of in Islamic theology. Muslims know nothing of friendship with God. Christianity, though, offers something entirely different and uniquely satisfying. We are able to “draw near”&nbsp;to God because of Jesus.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> This emotionally powerful appeal is completely nullified with IM translations.</p>

<h2>Spiritual Battle</h2>

<p>Paul tells us the real battle we face in the world is not against “flesh and blood”—the actual humans we encounter—but rather against an unseen host, “the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places”&nbsp;(Eph. 6:12). The weapons of this warfare are often false ideas—lofty things “raised up against the knowledge of God”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 10:5)—meant to either compete with the truth directly, or indirectly take the wind out of the sails of the Great Commission.</p>

<p>Currently Islam, representing the largest mission field in the world, is in the center of that battle. This religion dominates the land mass from North Africa to Asia between 10 and 40 degrees north latitude, what missiologists call the “10/40 window.”</p>

<p>The Insider Movement, though, is not the answer to winning this spiritual war. Billed as an innovative approach to contextualization, it has morphed into syncretism. It offers a policy of appeasement and capitulation under the guise of cultural sensitivity.</p>

<p>Samuel Zwemer, the famous 20th century missionary to Muslims, wrote, “The yawning chasm between the devout Moslem and the devout Christian...cannot be bridged by rickety planks of compromise. Syncretism would be equivalent to surrender.”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>IM is a broad movement and not everyone working hard to contextualize has fallen into excess, true enough. Compromise, though, often happens little by little, bit by bit. Those in the midst of it often can’t see the foundation crumbling. Instead, they become defensive and even belligerent toward dissenters.</p>

<p>Scores of field missionaries who’ve served for decades in Muslim countries—many as part of the IM movement—are raising the alarm about its dangers. Anwar Hossein, after two frustrating years of fruitless effort in the IM, left the movement and renewed his work with the Bengali Bible Society. He is now a vocal opponent of the IM, warning American churches of its excesses.<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>

<p>Below is a list of affirmations and denials we hope will serve as boundaries to avoid those excesses and prevent missionaries from becoming casualties of the spiritual conflict in the future.</p>

<ul>
	<li>We affirm becoming “all things to all men”&nbsp;culturally, in theologically benign ways. We reject syncretistic identification with false religious systems.</li>
	<li>We affirm using translations that are accurate, yet still culturally sensitive. We reject any attempts to make the message more palatable by adulterating God’s word.</li>
	<li>We affirm that faith in Jesus is the only way to enter the Kingdom of God, i.e., the Church. We reject that practicing Muslims have a part in God’s Kingdom.</li>
	<li>We affirm that Muslims can retain elements of their culture and still embrace Christ. We reject there can be a “Muslim follower of Jesus”—one who practices the foundational Pillars of Islam who is also a faithful disciple of Christ.</li>
	<li>We affirm that all genuine followers of Jesus be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in obedience to Jesus’&nbsp;command in the Great Commission. We reject any efforts to keep them “inside”&nbsp;in a way that prevents them from identifying with a local community of Christians.</li>
</ul>

<p>If you are a donor to missionaries or organizations working with Muslims, ask specifically if they are involved with the Insider Movement or use any of its techniques. If so, ask what methods they employ. Be alert for terms in their literature like “insider,”&nbsp;“C5”&nbsp;or “C6,”&nbsp;and “Jesus mosque.”&nbsp;Try to verify any claims they make of dramatic numbers of conversions.</p>

<p>The Insider Movement, an approach without parallel in the history of missions, has proved an inadequate answer to the challenges of Muslim evangelism. In the assessment of one seasoned missionary in the field—with 20 years experience in 10 Muslim countries—it completely underestimates the deep demonic strongholds in Islam.<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>

<p>By contrast, the Holy Spirit is working in an unprecedented manner among Muslims worldwide, according to well-documented reports. Converts to Christianity testify to dramatic visions, dreams, and other miraculous interventions by God that result in near-immediate, genuine, conversions.<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>

<p>This harvest is taking place amidst the difficult, but faithful work of missionaries carefully contextualizing the Gospel in creative ways that are loyal to the text. Syncretism is not the answer. Rather, the only honorable, durable success is that which comes from “the manifestation of truth, commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 4:2).</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Alan Shlemon. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Jesus and the Qur’an, <a href="http://www.jesusandthequran.org/blog/2009/05/04/kingdom-circles-2/">www.jesusandthequran.org/blog/2009/05/04/kingdom-circles-2/</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu3Lnaj7M_k">www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu3Lnaj7M_k</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Rebecca Lewis, “Promoting Movements to Christ within Natural Communities,”&nbsp;in <em>International Journal of Frontier Missiology</em> (24:2 Summer 2007), 75. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">The Insider Movement is a broad enterprise encompassing a host of methods and approaches. Not every IM practitioner embraces or advocates every practice described here, but all agree on the need to maintain Muslim identity. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Frequently, though, these figures are impossible to verify, and sometimes directly contradict what others in the field are reporting. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Rick Brown, “Part I: Explaining the Biblical Term ’Son(s) of God’&nbsp;in Muslim Contexts,”&nbsp;in <em>International Journal of Frontier Missions</em> (22:3 Fall 2005), 92. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Paul-Gordon Chandler, <em>Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road</em> (Rowman &amp; Littlefield Publishers 2008), 206. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Some have referred to this amalgam of Christianity and Islam as “Chrislam.”&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Note Paul’s strong words in Gal. 1:8. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">All remaining Scriptural references are from the NASB. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">I realize Paul was making a different application in this passage than I am making here, but the basic point still stands. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">See especially the book of Hebrews: 4:16, 7:19, 7:25, 10:1, and 10:22. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Samuel Zwemer, <em>The Moslem World</em>, vol. 9 (London: Nile Mission Press, 1919), 112-113. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Joshua Lingel, Jeff Morton, Bill Nikides, ed., <em>Chrislam: How Missionaries Are Promoting an Islamized Gospel</em> (Garden Grove, CA: i2 Ministries Publishing, 2011), 231, 236. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Reference on file. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">See Stuart Robinson, <em>Mosques &amp; Miracles: Revealing Islam and God’s Grace,</em> 2nd ed. (Upper Mt. Gravatt, Australia: CityHarvest Publications, 2004), 263-274, and Mark Robinson, “Ministering to Muslims,”&nbsp;<em>Leadership NOW!</em> Jan. 2002, 18. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16"> ↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

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


title: An Economist Argues for Sex-Selection Abortion
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/27/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/an-economist-argues-for-sex-selection-abortion
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In an <a href="http://qz.com/11664/why-indian-parents-should-be-allowed-to-choose-whether-to-have-girls/" target="_blank">article</a> titled “Why Indian parents should be allowed to choose whether to have girls,” economist Atanu Dey reacts to the situation in India of “tens of millions” of “missing girls” by saying that the recent laws against sex-selection abortion are the wrong way to go:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Government interference in the personal lives of people is nothing remarkable or new for India. After all, Indians endured British colonial rule until 1947 and following that, socialist governments took over which continued to enforce the rules inherited from the colonial period. So the denial of reproductive rights to women in India should not come as a surprise. This, however, is a particularly heartless move. It condemns too many girls to lives of great misery and to some to a death penalty for the crime of being born a girl.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Let me get this straight…leaving aside the fact that we don’t kill people to prevent them from having difficult lives, according to Dey, it’s a very bad thing for a girl to be “condemned” to death for being born a girl, and it’s “heartless” for the government to cause this situation to occur. However, allowing the parents to save her from this fate by giving her the death penalty for the crime of being <em>conceived</em> a girl is compassionate…to the girl…because it saves her from the death penalty.</p>

<p>I’ve seen some seriously confused pro-choice arguments before, but I can’t imagine anything ever topping that one. He continues:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Parental rights, one assumes, includes the freedom to decide when and how many children to have, and if possible, the freedom to choose the sex of their children. Forcing people to have children of an undesired sex is an infringement of those rights. The parents have the responsibility of bringing up their children, not the government.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What on earth is he talking about? What is this right to choose the sex of your child? You have no control over the sex of your child. “Designer baby” statements like this one are always said in a way that makes it sound as if parents can pick and choose the characteristics of their child. Please, never forget: When it comes to designer babies, there is never just one child involved whose genes are being chosen. No, there are many children who are being killed until the “right” child comes along. <a href="/w/genetic-selection-involves-killing" target="_blank">Genetic selection involves killing</a>.</p>

<p>Second, I agree that the parents have the responsibility of bringing up their children (or at the very least, protecting those children while they’re under their care). That’s exactly the point. This responsibility would seem to be in opposition to their desire to kill the children they don’t want, so I’m not sure how this helps Dey’s case.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Technology provides tools which are always neutral although economic agents using them are motivated by ends to which one may attach moral values. Those who want to use technology to limit human freedom are naturally opposed to those who use it to increase their choices.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s astounding to me that Dey can’t recognize the monstrosity of his own language. Imagine technology had been invented in Germany in 1940 that would locate all the Jews who were attempting to hide their identity, and that technology was being used successfully to support the Nazis’ choice to raise only Aryan citizens. Would one label the objectors to this as those who “want to limit human freedom,” who are “naturally opposed to those who use technology to increase their choices”? Doesn’t the choice being made make all the difference?</p>

<p>Using the emotionally-laden terms “freedom” and “choice” while glossing over the nature of the choice actually being discussed does nothing but create obfuscatory rhetoric. The government limits all sorts of choices. There is no freedom to steal, or freedom to assault, or freedom to kill, no matter how much technology exists to assist those choices.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>By restricting information which may be useful for parents to make an informed choice whether or not to have a female child, the government is sacrificing the right of a child to a decent life in order to protect the “rights” of a fetus. If people cannot avoid having girls that they do not want, they will be forced to have more children to reach their desired number of sons, and to ration their resources to the detriment of girls….</p>

<p>In the end, in the contest between the people and the government, the drive for freedom proves to be stronger and eventually overcomes the forces that seek to limit freedom. The government will fail in this case as well—as it must for the sake of the girls.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So there you have it. Killing girls because they’re girls is now being spun as a compassionate act being done in the best interest of girls.</p>

<p>Disgusting.</p>

<p>British colonial rule did indeed interfere in personal lives by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29" target="_blank">preventing the killing of women</a>. And it seems to me that this tradition is one India should be proud to continue.</p>
</div>

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


title: Living Biblically
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/30/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/living-biblically
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Rachel Held Evans has written a book titled <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Year-Biblical-Womanhood-Liberated-Covering/dp/1595553673/?tag=thegospcoal-20" target="_blank">A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband “Master,”</a></em>&nbsp;and she seems to be making the same mistakes as a similar book: <em>The Year of Living Biblically: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible</em> (which I discussed <a href="/w/why-is-it-okay-to-wear-mixed-fibers-" target="_blank">here</a>).</p>

<p>Evans “set out to follow all of the Bible's instructions for women as literally as possible for a year to show that no woman, no matter how devout, is actually practicing biblical womanhood all the way.”&nbsp;But in an excellent <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/a_year_of_biblical_womanhood" target="_blank">review</a> of Evans’s book, Kathy Keller explains where Evans’s hermeneutics went wrong:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The best way to accomplish both of your goals would have been to attempt to live by all the commandments the Bible <em>genuinely</em> addresses to Christian women, while discussing the rules of responsible interpretation along the way. I would have been glad to read a book like that, whether I agreed with its conclusions or not. However, that is not the book you wrote. Instead, you began your project by ignoring (actually, by pretending you did not know about) the most basic rules of hermeneutics and biblical interpretation that have been agreed upon for centuries.</p>

<p>Perhaps the most basic rule—agreed upon by all branches of Christianity—is that Jesus’&nbsp;coming made the Old Testament sacrificial system and ceremonial laws obsolete. Because Jesus taught that “all foods are clean”&nbsp;(<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mark%207.19" target="_blank">Mark 7:19</a>), and God told Peter not to call impure the things God has made pure (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2011.9" target="_blank">Acts 11:9</a>), and because the entire books of Galatians and Hebrews explain this change at length, all Christians have known that observing the “clean laws”&nbsp;of the Old Testament is no longer incumbent on them.</p>

<p>Jesus called himself the final temple (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%202.21" target="_blank">John 2:21</a>) and offered himself as the final sacrifice, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%201.29" target="_blank">John 1:29</a>). This is why no Christian anywhere has offered sacrifices since the crucifixion, nor observed the rules of temple worship (cf. Galatians and Hebrews). This most fundamental rule of interpretation is based on the fact that the Bible is the story of God’s salvation coming into the world, climaxing in Jesus, and therefore we can’t read the first part of the Bible as if Jesus never came in the last part.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That last line is exactly right, and it’s the most important point. It’s as if Evans has no idea what the Bible is actually about—no concept of the big picture of how all the parts fit together and why. And without this understanding, there are bound to be abuses of the text. (Read the full review <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/a_year_of_biblical_womanhood" target="_blank">here</a>.)</p>

<p>I���ve noticed that questions about the relationship of Christians to the Old Testament Law have increased quite a bit lately. I suspect this has something to do with the rising pressure to accept same-sex marriage, which is often accompanied by the charge that Christians are picking and choosing Old Testament laws to follow. My theory is that Christians are asking themselves for the first time, “Hey, why <em>aren’t</em> we following all the Old Testament laws?”&nbsp;As a result, I’ve had questions from numerous Christians who are concerned they aren’t acting in a way that pleases God.</p>

<p>It’s crucial that we think through the issue of the Old Testament Law as Christians. In fact, this issue stirred up incredible passion on the part of Paul (see Galatians especially) and dominated much of his writing. If you’re unsure about our relationship to the Law, you could start with the <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/a_year_of_biblical_womanhood" target="_blank">review</a> and this brief article by Arnold Fruchtenbaum: “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20171106100038/https://www.ariel.org/mbs006e.htm" target="_blank">The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ</a>”&nbsp;(whose view is slightly different from Keller’s). Then just take up Galatians, then Hebrews, then move on to the rest of Paul’s letters. <a href="http://scriptoriumdaily.com/james-gray-on-mastering-the-bible/" target="_blank">Read the same book over and over</a> several times in a row, and follow the arguments carefully.</p>

<p>This issue is too central to the gospel and the Christian life to not look into it carefully. The freedom of the gospel and the beauty of God's moral law are intended to bring us joy. If you’re suffering anxiety about your standing before God, I urge you to set aside the time you need to discover what God has said.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[B]efore faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3).</p>

<p>It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery...You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace (Galatians 5).</p>

<p>But whatever things [in my adherence to the Law] were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings (Philippians 3).</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fliving-biblically" 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%2Fliving-biblically" 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%2Fliving-biblically" 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 Canaanites: Genocide or Judgment?
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 01/01/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-canaanites-genocide-or-judgment-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Is God’s perfect character compromised by the genocide of the Canaanites in the Old Testament? Is God good?</em></p>

<p>The assault on theism by the so-called “New Atheists”&nbsp;has principally focused on three areas. People like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett have argued, broadly, that reason is on their side, science is on their side, and morality is on their side.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>One justification for the atheists’&nbsp;claim to high moral ground is what seems to them to be the patently immoral conduct of the God of the Old Testament. According to Richard Dawkins, for example, God is not only a delusion, but a “pernicious delusion”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>As an aside, it seems ironic that an atheist who denies the existence of objective morality can overflow so readily with moral indignation. But that’s another matter. The deeper concern is that this challenge needs an answer, not so much for hardened atheists like Dawkins (who are unlikely to be satisfied with any explanation), but because atheists are not the only ones troubled.</p>

<h2>Say It Ain’t So</h2>

<p>Though many parts of Dawkins’s charge have been answered by thoughtful Christians, certain passages in the Old Testament even give believers pause. Like these:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you...<em>you shall utterly destroy them</em>. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them...For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. But thus you shall do to them: You shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire&nbsp;(Deut. 7:1-5).<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, <em>you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them</em>, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God&nbsp;(Deut. 20.16-18).</p>

<p>Now go, attack the Amalekites and <em>totally destroy</em> everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; <em>put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys</em>&nbsp;(1 Sam 15:2-3).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Strong words. Reading them brings to mind horrible terms like “genocide”&nbsp;or “ethnic cleansing.”&nbsp;Could this command really come from the God of all grace and mercy, the same God who, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, “became flesh, and dwelt among us...full of grace and truth”&nbsp;(Jn. 1:14)?</p>

<p>Maybe not, according to some.</p>

<h2>But Did He Mean It?</h2>

<p>Authors like philosopher Paul Copan (<em>Is God a Moral Monster?</em>) have argued, somewhat persuasively, that taking these commands entirely at face value would be to misread the genre. God gave the directives, to be sure (the Jews hadn’t thought this up on their own), but one must accurately understand God’s intention before he can accurately assess God’s commands.</p>

<p>First, the wording should be understood in the context of ancient Near Eastern military narrative, the argument goes. Ancient writings commonly traded in hyperbole—exaggeration for the sake of emphasis—especially when it came to military conquest. The practice is evident throughout battle reports of the time. “Joshua’s conventional warfare rhetoric,”&nbsp;Copan writes, “was common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts in the second and first millennia B.C.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Therefore, phrases like “utterly destroy”&nbsp;(<em>haram</em>), or “put to death men and women, children, and infants”—as well as other “obliteration language”—were stock “stereotypical”&nbsp;idioms used even when women or children were not present.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> It decreed total victory (much like your favorite sports team “wiping out”&nbsp;the opposition), not complete annihilation.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>Second, Copan argues, women and children probably weren’t targets since the attacks were directed at smaller military outposts characteristically holding soldiers, not noncombatants (who generally lived in outlying rural areas). “All the archaeological evidence indicates that no civilian populations existed at Jericho, Ai, and other cities mentioned in Joshua.”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>Third, on Copan’s view the main purpose of the conquest was not annihilation, but expulsion—driving the inhabitants out—and cleansing the land of idolatry by destroying every vestige of the evil Canaanite religion<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> (e.g., “You shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.”&nbsp;Deut. 7:1-5). Further, this process would be gradual, taking place over time: “The Lord your God will clear away these nations before you little by little. You will not be able to put an end to them quickly, for the wild beasts would grow too numerous for you”&nbsp;(Deut. 7:22).</p>

<p>Finally, the record shows that Joshua fully obeyed the Lord’s command:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded...He left nothing undone of all that the Lord had commanded Moses&nbsp;(Josh. 10:40, 11:15).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Still, at the end of Joshua’s life it was clear that many Canaanites continued to live in the land, left to be driven out gradually by the next generation (Josh. 23:12-13, Judges 1:21, 27-28). According to Copan, if Joshua did all that was expected of him, yet multitudes of Canaanites remained alive, then clearly the command to destroy all who breathed was not to be taken literally, but hyperbolically.</p>

<p>If these arguments go through—if God did not command the utter and indiscriminate destruction of men, women, and children by Joshua’s armies, but simply authorized an appropriate cleansing military action to drive out Israel’s (and God’s) enemies—then the critic’s challenge is largely resolved, it seems.</p>

<p>It’s quite possible, then—at least according to some thoughtful observers—that the “genocide”&nbsp;charge is based on an inaccurate understanding of what the text actually means. But not everyone agrees.</p>

<h2>Yes, God Meant It</h2>

<p>Researchers like Clay Jones see it differently.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> He understands these passages principally in terms of judgment, not displacement. Even if some hyperbolic and stereotypical language is in evidence, still there’s no escaping the implications that a major incentive for the conquest was judgment. Note:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“It is <em>because of the wickedness of these nations</em> that the Lord your God is driving them out before you...”&nbsp;(Deut. 9:5).</p>

<p>“Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these <em>the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled��</em>&nbsp;(Lev. 18:24-25).</p>

<p>“When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations...<em>because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you”</em>&nbsp;(Deut. 18:9, 12).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God was angry. Indeed, He was furious. And with good reason. Even by ancient standards, the Canaanites were a hideously nasty bunch. Their culture was grossly immoral, decadent to its roots. Its debauchery was dictated primarily by its fertility religion that tied eroticism of all varieties to the successful agrarian cycles of planting and harvest.</p>

<p>In addition to divination, witchcraft, and female and male temple sex, Canaanite idolatry encompassed a host of morally disgusting practices that mimicked the sexually perverse conduct of their Canaanite fertility gods: adultery, homosexuality, transvestitism, pederasty (men sexually abusing boys), sex with all sorts of beasts,<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> and incest. Note that after the Canaanite city Sodom was destroyed, Lot’s daughters immediately seduced their drunken father, imitating one of the sexual practices of the city just annihilated (Gen. 19:30-36).</p>

<p>Worst of all, Canaanites practiced child sacrifice. There was a reason God had commanded, “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech”&nbsp;(Lev. 18:21 NIV):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Molech was a Canaanite underworld deity represented as an upright, bull-headed idol with human body in whose belly a fire was stoked and in whose outstretched arms a child was placed that would be burned to death...And it was not just infants; children as old as four were sacrificed.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>And:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>A bronze image of Kronos was set up among them, stretching out its cupped hands above a bronze cauldron, which would burn the child. As the flame burning the child surrounded the body, the limbs would shrivel up and the mouth would appear to grin as if laughing, until it was shrunk enough to slip into the cauldron.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Archaeological evidence indicates that the children thus burned to death sometimes numbered in the thousands.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>The Canaanites had been reveling in debasements like these for centuries as God patiently postponed judgment (Gen 15.16). Here was no “petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser”&nbsp;(to use Dawkins’s words). Instead, here was a God willing to spare the Canaanite city of Sodom for the sake of just ten righteous people (Gen. 18:32), a God who was slow to anger and always fast to forgive (note Nineveh, for example).</p>

<p>But is there not a limit? Indeed, what would we say of a God who perpetually sat silent in the face of such wickedness? Would we not ask, Where was God? Would we not question His goodness, His power, or even His existence if He did not eventually vanquish this evil? Yet when God finally does act, we are quick to find fault with the “vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser.”</p>

<p>The conquest was neither ethnic cleansing nor genocide. God cared nothing about skin color or national origin. Aliens shared the same legal rights in the commonwealth as Jews (Lev. 19:34, Lev. 24:22, Deut. 10:18-19). Foreigners like Naomi and Rahab were welcome within their ranks.</p>

<p>God cared only about sin. The conquest was an exercise of capital punishment on a national scale, payback for hundreds of years of idolatry and unthinkable debauchery.<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup> Indeed, God brought the same sentence of destruction on His own people when they sinned in like manner.</p>

<h2>Cleaning House</h2>

<p>In the process of executing His sentence against the Canaanites, God would be cleansing the land of every vestige of their debased religion (e.g., tearing down the high places) to establish a land of spiritual purity and religious truth so God’s strategy to save all the nations of the world could go forward (Gen. 12:3).</p>

<p>God’s rescue plan to save mankind depended on the theological purity of Abraham’s seed, Israel. The cancer of idolatry needed to be cut out for the patient—God’s plan of redemption—to survive. Syncretism with pagan religions would have corrupted Israel’s theological core. By purging the land of this evil, God ensured that redemption—forgiveness for the evils of any nation—would be available in the future for people of every nation.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, instead of completing the conquest of Canaan and driving its people out as commanded, the Jews capitulated (Judg. 1:28-33). Blending in with their enemy’s godless culture, they quickly were corrupted by it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The sons of Israel lived among the Canaanites...took their daughters for themselves as wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods. The sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth&nbsp;(Judg. 3:5-7).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Before long the Jews had adopted all the degrading and detestable habits God had condemned Canaan for in the first place.<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup> The book of Judges—a record of the ���Canaanization”&nbsp;of Israel—ends on this sinister note: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes”&nbsp;(Judg. 21:25). Eventually, the same judgment that fell on the debauched Canaanites, fell upon the corrupted Jews for the very same reasons.</p>

<p>Many balk, though, at the suggestion that non-combatants—women and children—were among the victims. This is partly because they assume the conquest was primarily a military action—combat. It was not. It was principally a sentence of judgment, with the punishment carried out by Israel’s army against the entire Canaanite people.</p>

<p>Characteristically, God deals not with individuals, but with nations as a whole when grand designs are in play. Since Canaanite sin was regular and systematic—the entire adult population participated in the idolatrous system—God judged the entire nation. Women were no less guilty than men, and in many cases they were the principal instigators.</p>

<p>When a community sins, there are consequences for every member of the population, even children. When Israel did evil and God brought famine and drought, adults and children suffered alike. Every act of corporate judgment sustains collateral damage.</p>

<p>Without question, the Canaanite adults got their just deserts. Regarding the children, I personally take comfort in the fact that, on my view, those who die before the age of accountability are ushered immediately into Heaven.<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>

<p>But there is another reason God seems justified in taking any life—even “innocent”&nbsp;life—anytime He wants.</p>

<h2>Two Questions</h2>

<p>It’s always a good idea when fielding any challenge to try to get specific about the specifics. What <em>exactly</em> is the skeptic’s complaint here? If the conquest took place as the narrative describes, what precisely is evil about the destruction of the Canaanites? Was it evil for God to command it, or was it evil for Israel to obey it?<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup></p>

<p>It certainly seems that if God <em>does</em> exist, and if He <em>were</em> to have morally sufficient reasons for decreeing the destruction of a group of people, then the <em>means</em> by which he carries it out would be somewhat inconsequential. Whether God chose famine, wild beasts, pestilence, or sword (Ezek. 14:12-23), if the authority to destroy is there, then the means of judgment is incidental. Thus, if it was right for God to <em>command</em> the conquest, it seems right for Israel to <em>obey</em> the command.</p>

<p>But was God right? I’ve already shown that if God needed morally sufficient reasons for killing the Canaanites, he had them in abundance. However, if God <em>is</em> God, does He even <em>need</em> to justify what He does with His creation? Does God <em>need</em> to give a reason to build up or to tear down, to plant or to uproot&nbsp;(Jer. 45:4)? Does God <em>need</em> to answer for taking the life of any person, even an innocent one?</p>

<p>When Job lost everything dear to him, he did not rail against God, but worshiped Him saying, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord”&nbsp;(Job 1:21). Reflecting on the sovereignty of God, the Apostle Paul asked, “Does not the potter have a right over the clay?”&nbsp;(Rom. 9:21)?</p>

<p>If this approach seems a bit severe, let me make an observation.</p>

<p>When people argue against capital punishment, they often form their appeal this way: “Capital punishment is wrong because man should not play God.”&nbsp;The same sensibility is reflected when people argue that cloning is suspect because the right to create life is God’s alone, not man’s.</p>

<p>I don’t think these arguments themselves ultimately succeed (that is, the morality of either capital punishment or cloning must be decided on other grounds). Still, I think the intuitions they trade on are sound.</p>

<p>Making life and taking life are the appropriate prerogatives of God. He has privileges that we do not. Though <em>we</em> shouldn’t play God, certainly <em>God</em> can play God, so to speak. Just as the owner has latitude the hired hand does not, the Creator has freedoms creatures do not share.</p>

<p>That’s part of what we mean when we say God is “sovereign.”&nbsp;The Maker has complete authority over what He has made—not simply in virtue of His power (omnipotence), but in virtue of His rightful ownership. Everything God created is His. He can do as He likes with anything that belongs to Him—which is everything.</p>

<p>Appealing to the sovereignty of God is not meant to silence opposition with a power move (How dare you question God!). Rather, it’s meant to put the issue in proper perspective. God has full and appropriate authority when it comes to issues of life and death. Being the Author of life, He has the absolute right to give life or to take life away whenever He wishes.</p>

<h2>The Heart of the Problem</h2>

<p>Put another way, God is God and we are not. He is not to be measured by our standards. Rather, we are to be measured by His. And that brings us to the root of our difficulty with God’s judgment of the Canaanites. The heart of the problem is the heart, ours.</p>

<p>In a certain sense, the lesson of the conquest is a simple one: God punishes evil. For many in our culture, though, the Canaanite offenses simply are not offensive. “Divination, sexual adventure, adultery, homosexuality, transvestitism, all evil? Please.”</p>

<p>Virtually every crime on the Canaanite rap sheet is common fare in our communities or can be found one click away on the internet. Children are not being torched on church altars, to be sure, but thousands die daily in abortion clinics sacrificed (literally) to the gods of choice and convenience.</p>

<p>There’s little doubt the wording in God’s commands regarding the conquest includes hyperbole. This is true of every narrative, ancient and modern. But literary devices are always meant to clarify meaning, not obscure it. God’s clear message was that punishment was coming, and it would be poured out with a fury upon all the inhabitants of a corrupt nation that had reveled in its debauchery for centuries.</p>

<p>This was not carte blanche for genocide or ethnic cleansing, but rather a directive limited in time to the conquest, limited in scope to the Canaanites, and limited in location to the Promised Land.</p>

<p>Yes, Joshua claimed he “finished”&nbsp;the job, though Canaanites remained. In light of all the details in the account, though, clearly the conquest wasn’t complete, only Joshua’s portion. He’d been completely faithful to do everything he could do <em>on his watch</em> (and here I think Joshua was using hyperbole, too). He then passed the baton to the next generation who was to follow his faithful example and finish the task.</p>

<p>In the process of judging, God would be cleansing, clearing out a safe place for truth to flourish so that Israel might rise up as a “kingdom of priests”&nbsp;to the nations, bringing the blessing of Abraham to all peoples—Jew and gentile alike.</p>

<p>It may turn out, though, that this explanation—or any explanation true to the text—is not going to satisfy the belligerent skeptic. People like Richard Dawkins and other critics “playing at omniscience”<sup id="fnref:18"><a href="#fn:18">18</a></sup> are simply ignorant of the deeper designs in play.</p>

<p>Further, since we’ve all been “morally velocitized”&nbsp;by our own depravity, any response by God that takes sin seriously will seem inordinate to us. In fact, the temptation is strong even for Christians to sanitize the account so that God looks less extreme. “Most of our problems regarding God’s ordering the destruction of the Canaanites,”&nbsp;Clay Jones writes, “come from the fact that God hates sin, but we do not.”<sup id="fnref:19"><a href="#fn:19">19</a></sup></p>

<p>Atheists read the account of Canaan’s conquest and sniff with moral indignation at the suggestion a holy God could be within His rights to destroy the Canaanite people along with their culture. I suspect, though, that Jones has a more accurate assessment:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We do not appreciate the depths of our own depravity, the horror of sin, and the righteousness of God. Consequently, it is no surprise that when we see God’s judgment upon those who committed the sins we commit, that complaint and protest arises within our hearts.<sup id="fnref:20"><a href="#fn:20">20</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">I responded to each of these points in issues of <em>Solid Ground</em> for May, July, and September 2008, and in STR’s <a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk327.htm"><em>The Ambassador's Guide to the New Atheists</em></a> (str.org).&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Richard Dawkins, <em>The God Delusion</em> (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 31. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">All scripture citations taken from the NASB unless otherwise noted. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Paul Copan, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1353265120&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=paul+copan"><em>Is God a Moral Monster?</em>—<em>Making Sense of the Old Testament God</em></a> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 171.&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Copan, 175-6. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">See also Deut. 2:34 and 3:6. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Copan, 176. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Ibid., 181, 178. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Clay Jones, “<a href="http://www.clayjones.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/We-Dont-Hate-Sin-PC-article.pdf">Why We Don’t Hate Sin so We don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites: An Addendum to ’Divine Genocide’&nbsp;Arguments</a>,”&nbsp;<em>Philosophia Christi</em> n.s. 11 (2009): 53-72.&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">This may explain God’s command to destroy even domestic animals. “No one would want to have animals around that were used to having sex with humans.”&nbsp;Jones, 66. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Jones, 61. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">Ibid., see footnote. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Ibid., 62 see footnote. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">In the case of the Amalekites, God’s judgment was for their unprovoked ambush of His people when en route to the land (1 Sam. 15, Deut. 25:17-19). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">See also 2 Kings 17:16-17. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">For more on this issue, see Ronald Nash, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/When-Baby-Dies-Ronald-Nash/dp/0310225566/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1353029388&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=when+a+baby+dies"><em>When a Baby Dies</em></a> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999).&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">I owe this insight to Peter J. Williams when I heard him speak on, “Does the Old Testament Support Genocide?”&nbsp;A video of that talk can be found here: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZz8WM2ZggY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZz8WM2ZggY</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:18">Peter J. Williams. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:18">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:19">Jones, 53. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:19">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:20">Ibid., 71. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:20">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-canaanites-genocide-or-judgment-" 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-canaanites-genocide-or-judgment-" 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-canaanites-genocide-or-judgment-" 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: Medical Equipment Determines Human Value?
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/11/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/medical-equipment-determines-human-value-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Telegraph in the UK <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9581895/Maria-Miller-I-would-vote-to-lower-abortion-limit-from-24-to-20-weeks.html" target="_blank">reports</a> that the new women’s minister favors lowering the abortion upper limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Maria Miller <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9578905/Cathy-Newman-how-the-agony-of-my-abortion-made-me-see-both-sides.html" target="_blank">told the Telegraph</a><strong> </strong>it was “common sense” to lower the legal limit at which a pregnancy can be terminated in order to “reflect the way science has moved on”.</p>

<p>Thanks to advances in care for children born very prematurely, it is now possible for doctors in some cases to save the lives of babies born before 24 weeks.</p>

<p>The medical advance raises the moral dilemma of whether it is right to end pregnancies which could result in a healthy child, or to lower the window and rob some women of the right to make their own choice.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Of course the writer means “pregnancies which could result in a healthy child <em>if it were developing</em> <em>outside of the womb</em>.” My guess is he wouldn’t have a problem with ending “a pregnancy” that could result in a healthy child if allowed to develop naturally <em>in</em> the womb. So the argument is, if we have the medical equipment necessary to remove a child from a mother’s womb at a certain age and keep that child alive, then that’s the point at which it becomes morally problematic for a mother to remove her child. How does that follow?</p>

<p>Now don’t get me wrong, I’m happy with their lowering the age to 20 weeks; if we can save younger human beings, great! But this whole line of thinking is just bizarre. The argument <em>might</em> make sense if one were to say, “In order to preserve the woman’s choice to not continue a pregnancy <em>and</em> preserve the life of the unborn child, let’s disallow abortion and instead remove the child from the mother when medical advances allow for this.” That conclusion would at least follow.</p>

<p>But the argument is not saying, “Since medical science can sustain the life of a child after 20 weeks, therefore, after that time, a woman ought to be able to remove her child and connect it to life support.” Instead it’s arguing, “Your child could live outside you, therefore you’re <em>not</em> allowed to take him out.”</p>

<p>This non-sequitur conclusion shows that this whole argument is really about determining human value. The unspoken premise here is that if a child can live outside his mother with the help of medical equipment, then that child has value and a right to life, <em>whether or not he’s actually outside of his mother at the time</em>.</p>

<p>But how on earth do advancements in science outside of a mother change the value and rights of the human being growing inside a mother? Isn’t it an odd and arbitrary measure of human value to say that if equipment exists somewhere in the world that could keep a child alive <em>outside</em> of his mother, then any child that age has a right to live <em>inside</em> his mother, and abortion shouldn’t be allowed after that time?</p>

<p>A <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9578905/Cathy-Newman-how-the-agony-of-my-abortion-made-me-see-both-sides.html" target="_blank">related article</a> asks a question:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Although the odds remain stacked against survival at that age, it’s true that the onward march of science is saving some babies born before 24 weeks…. Is it right that we terminate pregnancies which might, with the medical care now available, result in healthy babies?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If the presence of life-sustaining equipment determines the right of a child <em>to live inside his mother</em> without the threat of abortion (or at least “raises a moral dilemma”), then this is bad news for pro-choicers, because mothers <em>already</em> have the equipment necessary to sustain that child’s life not just at 20 weeks, but at ten weeks, or even one day. So why not ask, “Is it right to terminate human beings which might, with the natural environment now available to them, result in healthy babies?” According to this existence-of-life-sustaining-equipment principle, <em>every </em>child has a right to live inside his mother.</p>

<p>Of course, this is not how I argue for the rights of unborn human beings. I’m merely pointing out the absurdity of determining human value by the existence of medical equipment. But notice that the writers of these two quotes are on the right track in this: They recognize it’s morally problematic to allow women to abort unborn human beings that “might result in healthy [born] babies.” That is, they see that the being in the womb is the same being who will be born, and that we have an obligation to help that being make it through this process, if it’s physically possible.</p>

<p>For some reason, they’re aware of this obligation only when thinking in terms of available medical equipment. But if they can see the problem with aborting a child when medical equipment could sustain him, surely we can help them see it’s equally morally problematic to abort when the mother has the ability to complete the pregnancy. Might not the pregnancy result in a baby in either case?</p>
</div>

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


title: Truth and Compassion on Homosexuality?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/13/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/truth-and-compassion-on-homosexuality-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A lot of people are skeptical about my talk titled, “Homosexuality: Truth and Compassion.” Many homosexuals scoff at the title. Many Christians are suspicious that compassion means compromise. But truth and compassion is about Christians balancing their convictions with a love towards homosexual men and women. It doesn’t mean compromise, although it might not be easy to practice either.</p>

<p>What does it look like? Let me give you one example (of the many I’ve heard across the country). I was privileged to meet a couple who lives this principle out in their lives. Their daughter is a lesbian. She’s 31 years old and lives in a recovery home for homosexuals who struggle with substance abuse. Although she disagrees with her parents’ stance on homosexuality, she knows they love her and care for her.</p>

<p>Routinely, their daughter comes to visit and stays the weekend at their home. She enjoys time with her family. And she doesn’t come alone. She often brings several homosexual men and women over from the recovery home to spend the night. Why? They all crave and enjoy the selfless love these parents give them. They come over and feel like part of the family. They even call the couple “mom” and “dad.”</p>

<p>During one Thanksgiving holiday, this couple not only invited their family over for the day, but also invited several of the homosexual men and women from the recovery home. Together they found common cause to give thanks for what they have. More importantly, this couple fostered a vital relationship between two communities of people who are too often at odds with each other.</p>

<p>Frankly, it was refreshing to hear how this couple is living a healthy balance between truth and compassion. They are uncompromising on their moral stance and relentless in their love for their daughter and this community.</p>

<p>This couple is also seeing the benefits of their efforts. Many of the homosexual men, recognizing the value of the love shown them, are opening up. One confessed, “I haven’t had any male influence in my life in years since my dad left when I was five.” Another man, when asked to come to church with the family, commented that he’d like to go, but thought he couldn’t because he was homosexual and HIV+. The couple told him it didn’t matter. Now he comes to church with them. In fact, many of the homosexual men and women often come to church with them.</p>

<p>These opportunities have been possible because this couple refused to react to homosexuality in stereotypical ways. Instead, they decided to treat these men and women with love and respect – <em>the same way they treat any other people</em>. They saw people who were hurting, welcomed them in, and showered them with love and attention. It is a priceless gift that is expressed by the commendable character of an effective Christian ambassador.</p>
</div>

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


title: Euthyphro’s Dilemma
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/07/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/euthyphro-s-dilemma-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Plato’s challenge concerning the nature of goodness is still being heard today: Is an act right because God says it’s so, or does God say it’s so because it’s right?</em></p>

<p>Plato’s famous dilemma concerning the nature of goodness is still being raised today as a serious challenge to Christianity. Is an act right because God says it’s so, or does God say it’s so because it’s right? The question first surfaces in Plato’s dialog <em>Euthyphro</em>.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<h2>The Challenge</h2>

<p>In Plato’s dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup>, Socrates is attempting to understand the essence of piety and holiness:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>Socrates:</em> And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?</p>

<p><em>Euthyphro:</em> Certainly.</p>

<p><em>Socrates:</em> Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?</p>

<p><em>Euthyphro:</em> No, that is the reason.</p>

<p><em>Socrates:</em> It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The dilemma Euthyphro faced is this: Is a thing good simply because the gods say it is? Or do the gods say a thing is good because of some other quality it has? If so, what is that quality? The problem stumped Euthyphro.</p>

<p>In more recent times, Plato’s approach has been used as an assault on the coherence of Christianity. 20th century British philosopher and atheist, Bertrand Russell, formulated the problem this way in his polemic against the faith, <em>Why I Am Not a Christian</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<h2>The Problem</h2>

<p>Russell’s version is an attempt to show an internal flaw in the Christian’s notion of God and goodness. Is a thing right simply because God declares it so, or does God say it is good because He recognizes a moral code superior even to Him?</p>

<p>This problem presents a dilemma because one is forced to choose between two options, both ultimately hostile to Christian theism. The believer is caught between a rock and a hard place.</p>

<p>On the one hand, God reigns and His Law is supreme. As the ultimate Sovereign, He establishes the moral rules of the universe. His commands are absolute. We must obey.</p>

<p>Ethicist Scott Rae describes the view: “A divine command theory of ethics is one in which the ultimate foundation for morality is the revealed will of God, or the commands of God found in Scripture.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> This view is known as ethical voluntarism.</p>

<p>At first blush this seems correct, until we realize the liabilities. The content of morality would be arbitrary, dependent on God’s whim. Though God has declared murder, theft, and debauchery wrong, it could have been otherwise had God willed it so. Any “immoral”&nbsp;act could suddenly become “moral”&nbsp;by simple fiat.</p>

<p>Further, it reduces God’s goodness to His power. To say that God is good simply means that He is capable of enforcing His commands. As Russell put it, “For God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong.”</p>

<p>This is the position of Islam,<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> but it is unacceptable to the Christian. Morality is not arbitrary. God is not free to call what is wrong right, and what is right wrong. The text is clear: “It is impossible for God to lie”&nbsp;(Hebrews 6:18). God cannot sin.</p>

<p>But the alternative seems no better. If the Christian asserts that morality is not arbitrary, he is caught on the second horn of the dilemma. If the standard itself is absolute such that not even God can violate it, doesn’t this make the Almighty Himself beholden to a higher law? The Sovereign becomes the subordinate.</p>

<p>In each case, Christianity loses. Either God is not good, or He’s not sovereign. That’s the dilemma.</p>

<h2>Grounding</h2>

<p>Plato’s challenge forces us to consider an important detail in any discussion on the nature of morality: grounding.</p>

<p>The word “ground”&nbsp;originally meant “the lowest part, base, or bottom of anything.”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>In philosophy it refers to the foundation or logical basis of a claim. Euthyphro’s task was to identify the logical grounding of piety or virtue. What base does morality “stand on”?</p>

<p>Frank Beckwith and I chose a title for our book on relativism that paints a word picture: <em>Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air</em>. Our point: Relativists who make any claim to knowledge have no basis for their assertion. They are standing not on solid ground, but on thin air.</p>

<p>A law is only as legitimate as the authority upon which it rests. The U.S. government can’t pass laws governing Canadians. Our federal laws apply only to the people of this country. Individuals can’t make up laws that apply to their neighbors. They don’t have that authority.</p>

<p>The founders of our country argued that even governments are subject to a higher law. Certain truths are transcendent, they argued, grounded not in human institutions but in God Himself. This appeal to higher Law was their rational justification for the morality of the American Revolution.</p>

<p>The problem of grounding morality is a difficult one for atheists who claim one can have ethics without God. Certainly, an atheist can act in a manner some people consider “moral,”&nbsp;but it’s hard to know what the term ultimately refers to. It generally means to comply with an objective standard of good, a Law given by legitimate authority. However, without a transcendent Lawmaker (God), there can be no transcendent Law, and no corresponding obligation to be good.</p>

<p>Trappist monk Thomas Merton put the challenge this way:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>As I wrote in <em>Relativism</em>, “a ’moral’&nbsp;atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn’t believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or cooks. He believes the food just appears, with no explanation and no sufficient cause.”<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> The atheist’s morality has no grounding.</p>

<p>Does the Christian fare any better, though? That is the challenge of Euthyphro’s dilemma.</p>

<h2>The Solution</h2>

<p>The general strategy used to defeat a dilemma is to show that it’s a false one. There are not two options, but three.</p>

<p>The Christian rejects the first option, that morality is an arbitrary function of God’s power. And he rejects the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.</p>

<p>The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.</p>

<p>Could God simply decree that torturing babies was moral? “No,”&nbsp;the Christian answers, “God would never do that.”&nbsp;It’s not a matter of command. It’s a matter of character.</p>

<p>So the Christian answer avoids the dilemma entirely. Morality is not anterior to God—logically prior to Him—as Bertrand Russell suggests, but rooted in His nature. As Scott Rae puts it, “Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good.</p>

<h2>A Second Problem</h2>

<p>The Christian’s job is not done, though, because Bertrand Russell’s observation suggests a second problem. Socrates’&nbsp;challenge to Euthyphro has not been met. What is “good”? It doesn’t help to say that God is good unless we know what the term refers to.</p>

<p>If the word “good”&nbsp;means “in accord with the nature and character of God,”&nbsp;we have a problem. When the Bible says “God is good,”&nbsp;it simply means “God has the nature and character that God has.”&nbsp;If God and goodness are the very same thing, then the statement “God is good”&nbsp;means nothing more than “God is God,”&nbsp;a useless tautology.</p>

<p>The answer to this problem hinges on the philosophical notion of identity, expressed symbolically as A = A. When one thing is identical to another (in the way I’m using the term), there are not two things, but one.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> For example, the president of Stand to Reason (Gregory Koukl) is identical to the author of this article. Everything that’s true of the one is true of the other.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> The author and the president are the same. They are not two, but one.</p>

<p>According to Christian teaching, God is not good in the same way that a bachelor is an unmarried male. When we say God is good, we are giving additional information, namely that God has a certain quality. God is not the very same thing as goodness (identical to it). It’s an essential characteristic of God, so there is no tautology.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<h2>Knowing Goodness</h2>

<p>A proper understanding of Christian teaching on God removes one problem, yet we still face another: What is “good”? How can we know goodness if we don’t define it first?</p>

<p>The way Abraham responded when he first learned of God’s intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah gives us a clue to the answer:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly? (Genesis 18:25)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here’s the question. How did Abraham know justice required that God not treat the wicked and the righteous alike? As of yet, no commandments had been handed down.</p>

<p>Abraham knew goodness not by prior definition or by some decree of God, but through moral intuition. He didn’t need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>Even the atheist understands what moral terms mean. He doesn’t need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes.</p>

<p>This is precisely why the moral argument for God’s existence is such a good one. The awareness of morality leads to God much as the awareness of falling apples leads to gravity. Our moral intuitions recognize the effect, but what is the adequate cause? If God does not exist, then moral terms are actually incoherent and our moral intuitions are nonsense.</p>

<p>Christians need not fear Plato on this score. When Euthyphro’s dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the Biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead, ethics are grounded in His holy character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God’s immutable nature.</p>

<p>Further, no outside definition of piety is necessary because morality is known directly through the faculty of moral intuition. God’s laws express His character and—if our moral intuitions are intact—we immediately recognize those Laws as good.</p>

<p>This doesn’t mean Christianity is true, only that it’s is not handicapped by Plato’s challenge to Euthyphro.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">There is some debate whether this word should be pronounced “u-THY-froh”&nbsp;or “U-thuh-froh.”<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Plato, <em>The Dialogues of Plato</em>, translated by J. Harward, Robert Maynard Hutchins, ed., vol. 7 of <em>Great Books of the Western World</em> (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), 195.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Bertrand Russell, <em>Why I Am Not a Christian</em> (New York: Touchstone, Simon &amp; Schuster, 1957), 12.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Scott Rae, <em>Moral Choices—An Introduction to Ethics</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 31.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Rae, 32.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Quoted in Phillip Yancy, “The Other Great Commission,”&nbsp;<em>Christianity Today</em>, October 7, 1996, 136.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Frank Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, <em>Relativism—Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 169.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Rae, 32.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">The term “identical twins”&nbsp;is, strictly speaking, a misnomer. Twins aren’t identical to each other. Each twin is identical to herself and only similar to the other.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">FPhilosophers know this as Leibnitz’&nbsp;law of the indiscernability of identicals.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">This distinguishes between the “is”&nbsp;of essential predication and the “is”&nbsp;of identity mentioned earlier. The word “is”&nbsp;can mean a couple of things.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Something like this has to be the case. Regardless of how one grounds the concept of goodness, another could always ask, “But what makes <em>that</em> notion good?”&nbsp;To avoid a vicious regress, one must eventually appeal to some irreducible, primitive concept known by intuition.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>

<h2>Resources for Additional Study</h2>

<p><a href="http://edrmx.rxdtq.servertrust.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK125" target="_blank">Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air</a></p>

<p><a href="http://edrmx.rxdtq.servertrust.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD119" target="_blank">Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air CD</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%2Feuthyphro-s-dilemma-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%2Feuthyphro-s-dilemma-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%2Feuthyphro-s-dilemma-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: Is Christmas Pagan?
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/01/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-christmas-pagan-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Greg sets the record straight on some old rumors about the origin of Christmas and separates the concepts of the meaning of Christmas from the spirit of Christmas.</em></p>

<p>The question of whether Christmas is pagan enters into the idea of cultural practices. Some have made the assertion that Christmas has pagan origins. Christmas does not have pagan origins, but there are winter celebrations that are pagan. There was, for example, a saturnal celebration around the time of Christmas that pagans celebrated, which was actually a temptation for Christians to participate in that had pagan content to it. So the church changed the day that they celebrated the birth of Christ. They used to celebrate it in the Spring. But the church said, We can celebrate it any time we want. Let’s celebrate it at the same time the pagans are celebrating their pagan festival. It’ll act as a contrast to that pagan festival because our celebration is the birth of the God-man, Jesus Christ. It has Biblical content. Plus it will protect Christians from being wooed away by this other celebration to participate in what was a pagan celebration.</p>

<p>It was really a wise thing that they did and the kind of thing that many missionaries do even nowadays. They take the momentum of a cultural practice—a cultural practice that may even have religious content to it, offensive religious content—and they redeem that for Christianity. They redefine what people have been doing. They reinvest it with new meaning. They capture the cultural form and they reinvest it with spiritual meaning.</p>

<p>By the way, there is an example of this in the Bible. Circumcision was practiced by the Egyptians before it was practiced by the Jews. It was a cultural practice which had some religious significance. God captured the practice, gave it to Abraham, reinvested it with new meaning and it became a religious rite for Abraham to worship his creator.</p>

<p>We think of circumcision as this really holy thing in the Old Testament associated with the covenant, which it was. But it wasn’t that way originally. By golly, it seems to me that if God can do such a thing—take a practice that had heathen content to it, save the practice, reinvest new information to it—then it certainly is okay for the church to do it.</p>

<p>We’ve done that many times. We’ve done that in other cultures and it served to offer a springboard for us into cultures using cultural forms and reinvesting them with new meaning. If you read Don Richardson’s books Eternity in Their Hearts or Peace Child, this is what he talks about. They captured cultural forms that had one meaning and reinvested it with a new meaning, and this became a springboard to reach into these cultures with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And we’ve done the same thing with Christmas.</p>

<p>Now there is nothing at all wrong with that. We’re not celebrating a pagan holiday because the pagan holiday was the saturnal and we’re not worshiping the god of Saturn, or whatever the content was. We are not doing that. If you listen to the words of the song “Oh Christmas Tree, Oh Christmas Tree,”&nbsp;the original was written with the Christmas tree being a type of Jesus Christ. You look at the words and the gospel is in the words of the Christmas tree. So this is not a Christmas tree that we’re putting in our house as an idol to some tree god, or something like that. No, this is a tree that we are using as a cultural expression that can be invested with religious meaning for the Christian.</p>

<p>The same thing with the giving of gifts. That may have had a pagan meaning for others who practiced the other holiday. But for us giving of gifts is appropriate because it reflects the gift that God gave us in the person of Jesus.</p>

<p>My point is that we have liberty in reinvesting cultural forms with spiritual meaning. We have done that with Christmas. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that at all. I think it’s good and healthy for us to do so.</p>

<p>I think it can be legalistic to say one should not celebrate Christmas. There are different ways the term legalism can be used. One way it’s used is to mean that we take laws that aren’t God’s laws, but are in fact man’s laws, and we make them equal with God’s laws. For example, we take a man’s law that says we shouldn’t smoke. Now the Bible doesn’t say we shouldn’t smoke, it doesn’t say you shouldn’t drink, it doesn’t say you shouldn’t go to movies. We take our rules that we apply in our church or denomination and apply it to all Christians. That’s a type of legalism. In other words, we make things wrong that the Bible doesn’t make wrong.</p>

<p>It appears that is what is going on with Christmas. If you celebrate the birth of Christ, then you’re doing something wrong. My point is, this view is legalistic in that it makes things that aren’t Scripturally wrong and it makes them wrong. It makes something a rule to apply to men when God didn’t give them that rule.</p>

<p>I think the practice of Christmas is fully legitimate even though there may have some pagan elements that were originally associated with a celebration at this time. That doesn’t make our celebration of Christmas the same as that old celebration. In fact, it’s quite different. We are celebrating the birth of Jesus.</p>

<p>Now, we aren’t obliged to do so. There is nothing in the Scripture that says that we ought to, but it strikes me that it is entirely appropriate. It is appropriate, but not obligatory. If you look back in the Old Testament, one of the things that God did is He arranged for the Jews to celebrate festivals that He established to remind themselves of the significance of that event by participating in these annual festivals year to year.</p>

<p>Even Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, wasn’t given by God in the Scriptures. It’s something that they do to recollect a deliverance, a special deliverance, that God gave them during what we call the inter-testamental period, those 400 years between Malachi and Jesus. Theirs is a festival that is commonplace now but which doesn’t have its source in a direct command in Scripture; but it does function like many of those other things that are in Scripture. It reminds people year to year of God’s faithfulness and His goodness.</p>

<p>What we do on Christmas is focus on the birth of Jesus Christ. I don’t understand how anyone can look at the Christmas carols that we sing during this time and say that this is pagan.</p>

<p>Even if the word Christmas came from the Catholic Christ Mass, it doesn’t mean that now. This is a fallacy—going back to the original etymology of the word, and holding that if you say this word you are affirming that meaning instead of the meaning that you hold the word to have at the present moment. Words don’t work that way. What the word Christmas means is the day that Christians celebrate the birth of Christ. That is what it means. There is not a bit of paganism in that, and for anyone to say that 500 years ago it meant this is inconsequential. It doesn’t mean that anymore. When we say the word Christmas, we are not blaspheming. It just doesn’t mean that. It just seems to be much ado about nothing.</p>

<p>Should a Christian celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ? That’s really what we are talking about. Some say no. Why? Because when you celebrate the birth of the Messiah, you are doing something pagan. How does that make any sense? Should someone have a Christmas tree or stockings? That’s a separate question. But should someone celebrate the birth of Christ? How could anybody object to that. I don’t agree with the assessment of the stockings or Christmas tree either. Frankly, there are probably all kinds of things I could find in their daily life—their little habits and things that they do—that if you went back to their beginnings their foundation has all kinds of questionable ideology, but they don’t have that significance for people now.</p>

<p>Actually, the language thing is a real important parallel because our words change meaning as time goes on. They are tokens for a particular meaning. At one point in history a word meant a particular thing, at a later point that word means something different so you can’t say that when you use the term later on you’re referring to the earlier meaning. That doesn’t make sense.</p>

<p>By the same token, Christmas trees and gifts and stockings, and that kind of thing, are tokens also. Now tokens are only things that represent something else, like a bus token. A bus token represents a ticket to ride on the bus. It doesn’t have meaning or value in itself; it’s simply a token of something else. Technically, this other thing is called a type. Now it may have been that a Christmas tree was a token in the past of a pagan type. It betokened worshiping nature, for example. The Christmas tree for a Christian no longer betokens worshiping nature. It betokens worshiping Jesus.</p>

<p>A Christmas tree doesn’t mean anything to me. It means Christmas trees are part of Christmas. The significant point here is that my tree has no pagan content. That’s the critical issue. There is a difference between the true meaning of Christmas and the spirit of Christmas. They are entirely different things. One of them is theological, the second one is emotional.</p>

<p>The true meaning of Christmas has to do with Jesus Christ. It isn’t about love, it isn’t about giving, it isn’t about peace on earth, it is about Jesus Christ. The other things may be related, but it isn’t about those things.</p>

<p>The spirit of Christmas, in my view, has to do with the feeling you have. The feeling is a result of your past experiences with Christmas. For me, the spirit of Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus. But this is why I can say, I have a Christmas tree not because the Christmas tree reminds me of Jesus, though I could imagine for some people it does, and if you were taught early on that the Christmas tree is representative of theological truth, then that becomes a theological meaning for you. But for me a tree and ornaments are just my cultural expression that has to do with the emotional impact with Christmas, and I think that’s fine.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-christmas-pagan-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-christmas-pagan-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-christmas-pagan-" 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: Plantinga Reviews Mind and Cosmos
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/27/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/plantinga-reviews-mind-and-cosmos
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The New Republic has published an excellent <a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/110189/why-darwinist-materialism-wrong" target="_blank">review</a> of atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s book, <em>Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False</em>, by Alvin Plantinga.</p>

<p>Here are excerpts from the review listing the four areas where Nagel objects to materialist naturalism as being reasonable:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>1. <em>Mind and Cosmos</em> rejects, first, the claim that life has come to be just by the workings of the laws of physics and chemistry...As Nagel remarks, “It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis.”</p>

<p>2. The second plank of materialist naturalism that Nagel rejects is the idea that, once life was established on our planet, all the enormous variety of contemporary life came to be by way of the [unguided] processes evolutionary science tells us about: natural selection operating on genetic mutation, but also genetic drift, and perhaps other processes as well...[Nagel:] “[T]he more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes.”</p>

<p>3. [Nagel] thinks it is especially improbable that consciousness and reason should come to be if materialist naturalism is true. “Consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science.”</p>

<p>4. According to Nagel, materialist naturalism has great difficulty with consciousness, but it has even greater difficulty with cognition. He thinks it monumentally unlikely that unguided natural selection should have “generated creatures with the capacity to discover by reason the truth about a reality that extends vastly beyond the initial appearances.”&nbsp;He is thinking in particular of science itself.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Plantinga explains each of these areas in more detail, and his review is fascinating. I’ve resisted the temptation to quote more extensively because 1) there’s too much good stuff in there, and I wouldn’t know where to stop, and 2) you really should read <a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/110189/why-darwinist-materialism-wrong" target="_blank">the whole thing</a>.</p>

<p>But I will close with an illustration given by Plantinga in response to an objection we’re likely to hear to the arguments above: “But the improbable happens all the time. It is not at all improbable that something improbable should happen.”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Consider an example. You play a rubber of bridge involving, say, five deals. The probability that the cards should fall just as they do for those five deals is tiny—something like one out of ten to the 140th power. Still, they did. Right. It happened. The improbable does indeed happen. In any fair lottery, each ticket is unlikely to win; but it is certain that one of them will win, and so it is certain that something improbable will happen. But how is this relevant in the present context? In a fit of unbridled optimism, I claim that I will win the Nobel Prize in chemistry. You quite sensibly point out that this is extremely unlikely, given that I have never studied chemistry and know nothing about the subject. Could I defend my belief by pointing out that the improbable regularly happens? Of course not: you cannot sensibly hold a belief that is improbable with respect to all of your evidence.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fplantinga-reviews-mind-and-cosmos" 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%2Fplantinga-reviews-mind-and-cosmos" 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%2Fplantinga-reviews-mind-and-cosmos" 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 Wrong Shall Fail, the Right Prevail
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 12/24/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-wrong-shall-fail-the-right-prevail
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This Christmas carol is always relevant in a fallen world, but this year it seems especially apt:</p>

<p style="text-align: center;">I heard the bells on Christmas day<br>
Their old familiar carols play<br>
And wild and sweet the words repeat<br>
Of peace on earth, good will to men</p>

<p style="text-align: center;">In despair I bowed my head<br>
“There is no peace on earth,” I said<br>
“For hate is strong and mocks the song<br>
Of peace on earth, good will to men”</p>

<p style="text-align: center;">Then pealed the bells more loud and deep<br>
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep<br>
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail<br>
With peace on earth, good will to men”</p>

<p>Christmas isn’t just about God’s love and peace. It’s also about justice. Jesus took on <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-14&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">human flesh</a> and came to live among us as one of us so that God could be <em>both</em> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%203:21-26&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">just and gracious</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested…even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. <strong>This was to demonstrate His righteousness</strong>, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; <strong>for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God expressed His wrath against evil on the cross, and He did this so that He could pardon us, showing us mercy without compromising justice. And what of the one who won’t join himself to Jesus to stand before God in His righteousness? God’s expression of wrath on the cross is a picture of the justice that is to come.</p>

<p>Either way, God’s perfect justice will prevail. Every act of evil will be fully punished. God is not dead, nor doth He sleep; the wrong shall fail, the right prevail. God is the Right. He has prevailed, He does prevail, and He will prevail. His perfect presence sweeps away evil. And because of the coming of Jesus who now stands before God in the place of His people, this is cause for rejoicing, not fear. Take refuge in God’s mercy, united to Christ, and let God’s justice be a comfort to you.</p>

<p>Don’t be afraid to celebrate Christmas this year, even in the midst of national pain. Justice and the victory of the Good One are safe and sure. And that fact outshines any and every evil act.</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-wrong-shall-fail-the-right-prevail" 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-wrong-shall-fail-the-right-prevail" 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-wrong-shall-fail-the-right-prevail" 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: Tips to Help You Think Clearly
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/20/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/tips-to-help-you-think-clearly-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>I stumbled upon a very helpful list of maxims of clear and careful thinking that I’m passing on to you. It comes from James Beverley and is gleaned from a section entitled “How to Think and Reason Correctly”&nbsp;in his book</em> Holy Laughter and the Toronto Blessing, <em>published by Zondervan.</em></p>

<p>I stumbled upon a very helpful list of maxims of clear and careful thinking that I’m passing on to you. It comes from James Beverley and is gleaned from a section entitled “How to Think and Reason Correctly”&nbsp;in his book <em>Holy Laughter and the Toronto Blessing</em>, published by Zondervan.</p>

<ul>
	<li>Emotion does not settle issues of truth.</li>
	<li>Tradition is not always right.</li>
	<li>Do not give human authority figures uncritical allegiance.</li>
	<li>Be careful of the way you use words. Words are tools. They must be used properly and carefully.</li>
	<li>Do not force people into limited or false options.</li>
	<li>Do not use name-calling or put-downs as a debate tactic (argumentum ad hominem).</li>
	<li>Be careful of accusations based solely on the presumed origin of a given idea or practice (the genetic fallacy). The popularity or unpopularity of something does not make it either true or false.</li>
	<li>The fact that something is either an old or a new idea does not automatically make it correct (chronological snobbery).</li>
	<li>Be careful in the use of “guilt by association.”&nbsp;Do not dismiss good ideas or practices by letting your imagination take them to inappropriate extremes.</li>
	<li>Be prudent when using the “slippery slope”&nbsp;argument (not all slopes are slippery; i.e. “b”&nbsp;does not necessarily follow “a”&nbsp;in all cases).</li>
	<li>Be alert to cause and effect errors (post hoc propter hoc).</li>
	<li>Make sure that conclusions follow from adequate evidence and support (non sequitur does not follow). Do not accept clichés or popular slogans uncritically.</li>
	<li>Do not “stack the deck,”&nbsp;i.e. only point out observations that support your pet theory, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.</li>
	<li>Be wary of generalization. Remember that the truth is not always in the middle.</li>
	<li>Do not take ideas or people out of context.</li>
	<li>Understand that spiritual discernment means being ready to admit to weakness or limitation in that very gift; being willing to abandon “shortcuts”&nbsp;in return for the demanding spiritual disciplines that produce lasting fruit; and resisting the temptation to judge the hearts of others.</li>
</ul>

<p>From Clear Thinking Vol. 2 No.3, Winter 1997, Stand to Reason (copyright 1997—Do not copy without permission.)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftips-to-help-you-think-clearly-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%2Ftips-to-help-you-think-clearly-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%2Ftips-to-help-you-think-clearly-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: Christmas and Culture
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/01/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/christmas-and-culture
content:
            <div> 
		<p><strong>I'd like to talk to you about some things I've been reflecting on recently regarding my own feelings about Christmas.</strong></p>

<p>I've got a confession to make. The past few years I've been having some difficulty getting into the "spirit of Christmas," and I've often wondered why. Maybe you've had the same difficulty.</p>

<p>Even mentioning the phrase "spirit of Christmas" raises some issues for me. It's usually uttered in the context of criticizing the excesses of the holiday season. Christmas season used to start just after Thanksgiving. Now it seems Thanksgiving has been lost all together, swallowed up by an ever expanding Christmas commercial period that devours one sixth of our calendar year. That's pretty pathetic, in a way.</p>

<p>In response many bemoan the loss of the "true meaning" of Christmas or, as I mentioned earlier, the true "spirit of Christmas". But what's offered as the true meaning or the spirit of Christmas is almost as pathetic as what it replaces. The true meaning of Christmas--it is suggested--is giving. It's love, joy, peace, and good will to men, that kind of thing.</p>

<p>On this view of the season one could imagine God saying, "Well, it's that time of year again, Christmas, the season of giving, the season of joy and peace and good will towards men. Let's see, how will I celebrate this year? I think I'll become a man, sacrifice myself as a gift to mankind. That will be my gift during this time of good will on earth and peace toward men. That would be a fitting statement for this season."</p>

<p>Now, of course, none of these things--peace, giving, etc.--are pathetic in themselves, but they pale in significance to the event which authored Christmas two thousand years ago. The point is that it's God's miraculous act of incarnation that's the very foundation of those things characteristic of Christmas; God's act authored it, gave it substance, meaning and context. To talk about the true meaning of Christmas and not focus on Jesus is to admire the aroma and ignore the meal. If I can turn a literary reference on its side a bit, it's the clothes without the emperor. It reduces Christmas to packages, beautifully wrapped and ribboned with nothing inside. And thatispathetic because of what is lost; it's a pathetic trade-off.</p>

<p>So I understand the substance of Christmas, and without that the spirit of Christmas goes begging.</p>

<p>But I want to turn this around and look from just a little different angle for a moment and bring us back to my earlier comment about the difficulty I have in getting into the spirit of Christmas lately, even though now I have a deeper understanding of its true substance.</p>

<p>To be quite honest with you, when I think about Christmas, especially about the emotional significance it has for me, I think very little about Jesus. Instead, I think of nearly 20 Christmases I spent--the first 20 years of my life--with a dozen or so people that deeply defined what the Christmas spirit is for me. In this sense, I'm not speaking of Christmas in a theological way, but an emotional way. This is what made Christmas feel a certain way, a way it doesn't feel anymore.</p>

<p>The beautiful thing about Christmas for me, was that it was always the same; it was a still point in the changing fortunes of a child's world. With Christmas I always knew what to expect. And the sameness and consistency of that holiday created a deep sense of safety, and a delicious sense of anticipation for me.</p>

<p>In fact, as the years passed the sequence became almost magical. Papa--we called my grandfather Papa--and my grandmother would always arrive early Christmas Eve. With Mom and Dad, the five kids and the rag tag assembly of visitors, relatives, friends and, as we grew older, sweethearts, the house was chaos, but it was a pleasant kind of chaos.</p>

<p>Mom was very clever with decorations and there was homespun warmth about the house mixed with the scent of pinecones. Presents were strewn in happy disarray on the floor beneath the tree. There were festive drinks of course--hot cocoa or eggnog--and lots of tasty things to nibble. There were always a few Christmas caroles, Dad's baritone on course, Mom singing harmony, the kids off-key. Though I know better now, nothing seemed really planned. It just kind of magically happened.</p>

<p>Christmas dawn initiated a ritual we repeated every year. All nine of us would station ourselves in a semicircle around the mountain of gifts that had seemed to have erupted during the enchanted twilight between barely falling asleep and waking.</p>

<p>Papa played Santa, creaking around the tree like an old squirrel rummaging for nuts. Each little parcel he picked up was a treasure which he examined carefully, grunting his "ho-ho-ho's". He'd extend his arms, squint through the glasses perched on the end of his nose, and announce the fortunate recipient, then deposit the bundle in his arms.</p>

<p>We were not financially well off as a family; in fact, I think we were poor. But somehow, as the dawn gave way to morning, the pile of booty at our feet grew.</p>

<p>No one was allowed to open anything until Papa had whittled the mountain down box by box. Then we'd open one present apiece, in turn, sharing each other's discovery, going round and round the circle until the last gift was gone. It seemed to take all day. Sometimes it did. And it was wonderful.</p>

<p>That's what the Christmas spirit is--or was--functionally, for me. And it won't quite be the same, I suspect, until I take my place at the other end of the stage making memories for my own children when that time comes. And even then it will be different. Then I was a child; now I am a man. And the world looks very different from this end of life.</p>

<p>In the mean time I can only catch snatches of that Christmas feeling. Becoming a Christian has changed my life deeply, but it really hasn't changed Christmas for me. For me becoming a Christian didn't add as much of a new dimension to Christmas as it did a new dimension to life, which included every day on the calendar. I comprehend the substance of Christmas as I never have before and, as I mentioned, it's tragic when that substance is lost.</p>

<p>But Jesus has never been the spirit of Christmas for me, that is, the emotional pleasure of the season. He is the meaning of the season, not the feeling of the season.</p>

<p>I suspect that for many of us the feeling of the season has to do with what we were raised with. And if you took the traditions away, those warm, meaningful events--songs, smells, sounds, movies, people, decorations--for many of us you'd essentially be taking Christmas away, too. It just wouldn't be the same.</p>

<p>There's a sweetness to the holiday that can't be captured in religious terms. Ultimately, though, as with every other good and perfect thing, that sweetness comes down from above from the Father of lights during this season of lights. Like Scrooge's second ghost, He merrily dispenses a special grace on unsuspecting recipients, good and evil alike, during this time of year.</p>

<p>I guess I'm saying that Christmas can be experienced on a couple of different levels, and each has distinct value in its own right. It has a substance--a meaning--and that substance is God's gift in Christ. It also has a feeling--a spirit--an emotional sweetness that even those who know nothing of Christ can enjoy. And that universal sweetness, that holiday joy, turns out to be God's gift as well.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristmas-and-culture" 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%2Fchristmas-and-culture" 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%2Fchristmas-and-culture" 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: Augustine on Evil
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 12/20/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/augustine-on-evil-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Is God the author of evil or its helpless victim? St. Augustine’s answer has been the most intellectually credible and emotionally satisfying solution to this vexing problem.</em></p>

<p>One doesn’t need a Ph.D. in theology to look around the world and realize something is desperately wrong. The existence of evil is one of the most vexing challenges a Christian—or any person, for that matter—must grapple with. It’s occupied the minds of great Christian thinkers since the beginning, including St. Augustine (354-430). For much of his life he worked hard at a solution.</p>

<p>Augustine’s approach was not just brilliant; it was practical. His insight is intellectually credible <em>and</em> emotionally satisfying in that it gives hope and offers meaning to the Christian trying to make sense out of life in a fallen world.</p>

<h2>Two Aspects of the Problem</h2>

<p>The problem of evil can be phrased in several ways. One approach addresses the origin of evil, prompting the syllogism (a series of statements that form a reasoned argument): 1) God created all things; 2) evil is a thing; 3) therefore, God created evil. If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.</p>

<p>This formulation, if sustained, is devastating for Christianity. God would not be good if He knowingly created evil.</p>

<p>Augustine realized that the solution was tied to the question: What is evil? The argument above depends on the idea that evil is a thing (note the second premise). But what if evil is not a “thing”&nbsp;in that sense? Then evil did not need creating. If so, our search for the source of evil will take us in a another direction.</p>

<p>Augustine approached the problem from a different angle. He asked: Do we have any convincing evidence that a good God exists? If independent evidence leads us to conclude that God exists and is good, then He would be incapable of creating evil. Something else, then, must be its source.</p>

<p>If Augustine’s approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion. First: 1) All things that God created are good; 2) evil is not good; 3) therefore, evil was not created by God. Second: 1) God created every thing; 2) God did not create evil; 3) therefore, evil is not a thing.</p>

<p>The key to success here, is the truthfulness of two premises. If Augustine can offer evidence through natural theology that God exists as Creator and also that God is good, making everything He created also good, then the conclusion—evil is not a thing—automatically follows.</p>

<p>This is Augustine’s strategy. If evil is not a thing, then the case against Christianity stated in the original syllogism is unsound because one of its premises is false. The critical question is: What is evil?</p>

<h2>Digging a Hole in Goodness</h2>

<p>Central to Augustine’s idea of goodness (and, consequently, evil) was the notion of being. To Augustine, anything that had being was good. God as the ground of being was perfectly good, along with everything he brought into being. This goodness was a property that came in varying degrees.</p>

<p>With this foundation Augustine was now prepared to answer the key issue: “Where is evil then, and whence, and how crept it in hither? What is its root, and what its seed? Or hath it no being?”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> To this Augustine answered: “Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name ’evil.’”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>Augustine observed that evil always injures, and such injury is a deprivation of good. If there were no deprivation, there would be no injury. Since all things were made with goodness, evil must be the privation of goodness: “All which is corrupted is deprived of good.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>The diminution of the property of goodness is what’s called evil. Good has substantial being; evil does not. It is like a moral hole, a nothingness that results when goodness is removed. Just as a shadow is no more than a “hole”&nbsp;in light, evil is a hole in goodness.</p>

<p>To say that something is evil, then, is a shorthand way of saying it either lacks goodness, or is a lower order of goodness than what ought to have been. But the question remains: “Whence and how crept it in hither?”</p>

<p>Augustine observed that evil could not be chosen because there is no evil <em>thing</em> to choose. One can only turn away from the good, that is from a greater good to a lesser good (in Augustine’s hierarchy) since all things are good. “For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil—not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Evil, then, is the <em>act</em> itself of choosing the lesser good. To Augustine the source of evil is in the free will of persons: “And I strained to perceive what I now heard, that free-will was the cause of our doing ill.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> Evil was a “perversion of the will, turned aside from...God”&nbsp;to lesser things.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<h2>Flawed Perfection</h2>

<p>Augustine’s solution has not been satisfying to some. Friedrich Schleiermacher snorted at the concept that God gave good creatures the freedom to do bad. If a being is perfect in its goodness, he held, it would never sin even if it were free to. Evil would then have to create itself <em>ex nihilo</em>, which is ridiculous.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup></p>

<p>However, it doesn’t follow that moral perfection necessarily entails immutability. That’s a different type of perfection, a perfection in being. Schleiermacher’s objection confuses the two. The fact that a perfectly beautiful vase is capable of being broken doesn’t take away from its aesthetic perfections. In the same way, it makes sense to say that man was created morally perfect (morally whole or complete, at his proper level of goodness), even though he wasn’t immutable in this perfection.</p>

<p>The objections raised by atheist philosophers J.L. Mackie and Antony Flew are more substantial.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> Isn’t it possible that God could have created man immutable in his goodness, yet still have the opportunity to freely choose in other areas? Won’t man have immutable goodness in heaven? And will he not also have freedom to choose among certain options? Why not here on earth? Couldn’t God construct man’s nature such that evil simply was not an option?</p>

<p>Mackie and Flew are right in one regard. God could have created such a world. Freedom in the larger sense (the ability to make choices) does not require freedom in the narrow sense (the ability to make <em>moral</em> choices).</p>

<p>They miss the big picture, though: God would not have accomplished a second purpose. He not only wanted free creatures; He also wanted plenitude, that is, the greatest good possible. Plenitude—the highest good, the best of all possible worlds—requires more than just general freedom; it requires moral freedom, and that necessarily entails the possibility of evil.</p>

<p>Since all that God made is good, even those things which appear evil only appear that way because of a limited context or perspective. When viewed as a whole, that which appears to be evil ultimately contributes to the greater good.</p>

<p>For example, certain virtues couldn’t exist without evil: courage, mercy, forgiveness, patience, the giving of comfort, heroism, perseverance, faithfulness, self-control, long-suffering, submission and obedience, to name a few. These are not virtues in the abstract, but elements of character that can only be had by moral souls. Just as evil is a result of acts of will, so is virtue. Acts of moral choice accomplish both.</p>

<h2>The Best of All Worlds</h2>

<p>A world that had never been touched by evil would be a good place, but it wouldn’t be the best place possible. The best of all worlds would be a place where evil facilitated the development of virtues that are only able to exist where evil flourishes for a time. This would produce a world populated by souls that were refined by overcoming evil with good. The evil is momentary. The good that results is eternal.</p>

<p>What good comes out of a drive-by killing, someone might ask, or the death of a teenager through overdose, or a daughter’s rape, or child abuse? The answer is that a commensurate good doesn’t always come out of those <em>individual</em> situations, though God is certainly capable of redeeming any tragedy. Rather, the greater good results from having a world in which there is moral freedom, and moral freedom makes moral tragedies like these possible.</p>

<h2>A Heavenly Twist</h2>

<p>This observation reveals an interesting twist in this problem. If morality <em>freely chosen</em> can only happen in a world where evil is possible, then heaven will be a place where there will be no moral growth, where moral choices will not be possible because all the inhabitants of heaven will be immutably good. There is a type of soulish growth only available to inhabitants of a fallen world.</p>

<p>Two Scriptural observations lend credibility to this view. First, in recounting the great heroes of faith, the writer of Hebrews mentions that some were <em>rescued</em> by faith, but others <em>endured</em> by faith “...in order that they might obtain a better resurrection”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> (Heb. 11:35).&nbsp;Second, Paul tells Timothy that “...godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come”&nbsp;(1 Tim. 4:8).</p>

<p>Both of these verses indicate that conditions in this life affect conditions in the next. Bearing up under evil in this life improves our resurrection in the next. Godliness in this life brings profit in the next. These benefits are not available after this life or there would be little urgency to grow now; all eternity would be left in which to catch up.</p>

<p>It appears that a deeper, more profound good results when virtue is won by free, moral souls struggling with evil, rather than simply granted to them as an element of their constitution.</p>

<h2>Spoiled Goodness</h2>

<p>Augustine knew that evil was real. Independent evidence (natural theology) was enough to convince him that God existed and that everything He created would be good. Evil, then, must be something real, but not a “thing”&nbsp;in the conventional sense. Evil is not a created thing, but spoiled goodness made possible by the free moral agency of rational creatures. Evil is not something present, but something missing, a privation.</p>

<p>The challenge that God could have created a world of free-will creatures immutable in their goodness is answered by the notion of plenitude, the greatest good. The possibility of evil also makes a greater good possible. God made a world in which true moral decision-making and development of virtues is possible in humans, manifest by persons whose character is formed through growth and struggle.</p>

<p>There’s a sound reason why God has allowed evil. It doesn’t conflict with His goodness. God is neither the author of evil, nor its helpless victim. Rather, precisely because of His goodness He chooses to co-exist with evil for a time.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Augustine, <em>Confessions</em>, VII: [V] 7.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Augustine, <em>The City of God</em>, XI, CHAP. 9.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Augustine, <em>Confessions</em>, VII: [XII] 18.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Augustine, <em>City of God</em>, XII, CHAP. 6.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Augustine, <em>Confessions</em> VII: [III] 5.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Ibid., [XVI] 22.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 3, 138.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">See J.L. Mackie, “God and Omnipotence,”&nbsp;<em>Mind</em>, April 1955, and Antony Flew, “Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom,”&nbsp;<em>New Essays in Philosophical Theology</em>, 1955 (referenced in <em>Encyclopedia of Philosophy</em>, Vol. 3, 138).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Scripture quotations are from the <em>New American Standard Bible</em>.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Faugustine-on-evil-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%2Faugustine-on-evil-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%2Faugustine-on-evil-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 Christian Divorce Rate
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/27/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-christian-divorce-rate
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We hear all the time that Christians divorce as often as everyone else, but <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/09/25/factchecker-divorce-rate-among-christians/" target="_blank">it turns out</a> this isn’t exactly true:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>People who seriously practice a traditional religious faith—whether Christian or other—have a divorce rate markedly lower than the general population.</p>

<p><em>The factor making the most difference is religious commitment and practice.</em></p>

<p>What appears intuitive is true. Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes—attend church nearly every week, read their bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as <em>perfect </em>disciples, but <em>serious</em> disciples—enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public, and unbelievers….</p>

<p>W. Bradford Wilcox, a leading sociologist at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, finds from his own analysis that “active conservative Protestants”&nbsp;who regularly attend church are 35 percent <em>less likely to divorce</em> compared to those who have no affiliation. Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent <em>more likely</em> to divorce, compared to secular Americans.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This holds true for religions other than Christianity, as well (as this <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/09/25/factchecker-divorce-rate-among-christians/" target="_blank">chart</a> from Wilcox’s study shows).</p>

<p>Before you ask—no, this doesn’t prove anything about Christianity. But truth and accuracy are important, and I’ve heard the misleading Christian divorce statistic (the one that includes everyone who identifies as Christian, regardless of their practice) used by both Christians and non-Christians to make points, so I wanted to help clear up the misconception on this one.</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-christian-divorce-rate" 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-christian-divorce-rate" 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-christian-divorce-rate" 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: Inconsistent Same-Sex Marriage Advocates
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/05/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/inconsistent-same-sex-marriage-advocates
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In Australia, same-sex marriage activists are upset that polyamorists are trying to jump on their equality bandwagon. From <em><a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwizpL7drZTWAhUT2GMKHUo8DHIQFggoMAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnational-affairs%2Fsame-sex-marriage-campaigners-distance-themselves-from-polyamorists-demands%2Fnews-story%2F3f7b357f2631a1378cc2be582566ffe1&amp;usg=AFQjCNHxlGKutG438R5HH-0uX3J2vS41Tw" target="_blank">The Australian</a></em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>THE main lobby group promoting gay marriage yesterday distanced itself from polyamorists demanding to be included in the proposed reforms, saying marriage involving more than two people would undermine a traditional institution.</p>

<p>As reported yesterday by <em>The Australian</em>, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has come under attack from polyamorists, including some who are members of her party, for insisting that marriage should be between two people of any sex, but no more than two.</p>

<p>Greens volunteer and polyamorist Naomi Bicheno wrote on Senator Hanson-Young's Facebook page: "I am disappointed that it has come across as an official party policy position of against polyamory instead of simply pro marriage equality."</p>

<p>Another person posting on Senator Hanson-Young's page, Chris Atlee, wrote: "If you support marriage equality shouldn't that include supporting polyamorous marriage as well? After all, it doesn't affect any of us does it?"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here's the problem: There's no principled way to exclude polyamory from marriage, if one adopts the principles being argued by same-sex marriage advocates.</p>

<p>They argue: <em>Marriage is about making a contract with the person you love.</em></p>

<p>They argue: <em>Marriage equality (the right to marry whom you want) is a civil rights issue.</em></p>

<p>They argue: <em>Other marriage constructions will not affect your marriage.</em></p>

<p>All of these arguments support polyamory equally as well as same-sex marriage. So now, when it suits them, they're calling on the authority of "tradition," without any means of justifying their preference for two people only.</p>

<p>There is, in fact, no principle behind their preferred boundaries at all. All they can do is declare their definition to be the correct one:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Alex Greenwich, the national convener of Australian Marriage Equality, told <em>The Australian</em> that his lobby group's concept of marriage was "what it's always been" of "two people who rely on each other in a relationship to the exclusion of all others".</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That actually is <em>not</em> the concept of marriage that "has always been." The concept of marriage that "has always been" is one where the <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155" target="_blank">boundaries are principled</a> because they're conformed to the nature of reality - the complementary differences between men and women.</p>

<p>The reproductive system is the only bodily system that requires another person to complete it. The bringing together of two physically complementary persons completes this system, and that is the type of union that society has an interest in protecting because that act is the act that produces children (whether or not it does so in any particular case*). If the union of a man and a woman didn't have the social consequences of creating a family by nature, marriage (the stabilization of that union by society) would <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/05/5263" target="_blank">never have existed</a>.</p>

<p>Why define marriage as two people? Because two people complete the union that society has an interest in protecting.</p>

<p>Why define marriage as a man and a woman? Because those are the complementary persons whose union creates new life.</p>

<p>The traditional marriage advocate is arguing not from bigotry or even from tradition, but from principles of reality that remain unchanged despite anyone's personal preferences.</p>

<p>By contrast, these same-sex marriage advocates are refusing to apply their principles equally to everybody. This is inconsistency at best and bigotry at worst.</p>

<p>*The individual cases may vary in terms of the production of actual children, but it's not the government's job to ensure that marriage <em>does</em> lead to children, it's only its job to protect it because it's the <em>kind of union</em> that leads to children, and therefore needs to be protected because of what naturally will result from it in general.</p>
</div>

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


title: Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Be Enough
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/31/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/same-sex-marriage-won-t-be-enough
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last month, at a Sydney Writers Festival <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506" target="_blank">panel discussion</a> on the question, “Why get married when you could be happy?” Russian-American journalist Masha Gessen had this to say about same-sex marriage:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist [<em>cheers from the audience</em>].</p>

<p>That causes my brain some trouble. And part of why it causes me trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally....</p>

<p>[After my divorce,] I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three.... And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality. And I don't think that's compatible with the institution of marriage.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This just illustrates the fact that the institution of marriage is inextricably connected with children and reflects an unchangeable reality: One man + one woman = children. The reproductive system is divided in half���the man has one half, the woman has the other—and when they come together, the result is a whole, functioning system that creates children. Therefore, the state protects the union between a man and a woman. By doing this, the children are legally protected.</p>

<p>Gessen wants to fight for marriage to legally include different types of relationships because she wants the government to declare there is no difference between a heterosexual union and a homosexual one. But there is a difference. A very important difference based on the unchangeable realities of biology. A difference that’s relevant because it’s at the very heart of the institution of marriage. A difference that justifies the government treating the <em>different</em> unions <em>differently</em>.</p>

<p>So Gessen is conflicted. She wants the unions to be treated the same, but she recognizes that, by nature, they create fundamentally different situations. And since the institution of marriage can’t accommodate a union that has only one woman and one woman (because another person—a man—is needed somewhere in the picture in order for a family to be created), she understands that an entirely new legal system must be created in order for the government to be able to address her situation.</p>

<p>So here’s the thinking (a summary in my words, not hers): “I want all unions to be treated the same, but since we’re not the same, due to biological realities beyond our control, and since marriage can never work for the union and children I have, we need to drop marriage and come up with a new idea so we can all be the same under that new system.” Or even more succinctly stated, “You shouldn’t have marriage because we can’t have marriage.”</p>

<p>Marriage can’t be separated from biological realities. And that’s why this upheaval won’t end when same-sex marriage is accepted—why Gessen’s ultimate goal is the end of marriage.</p>

<p>I’m glad to hear her honesty about this.</p>

<p>[HT: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130725055801/http://www.biblesociety.org.au/news/what-sort-of-marriages-do-homosexual-people-want" target="_blank">John Sandeman</a> (click to see more quotes from the panel)]</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsame-sex-marriage-won-t-be-enough" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsame-sex-marriage-won-t-be-enough" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsame-sex-marriage-won-t-be-enough" 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: Ask for Tolerance
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/20/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/ask-for-tolerance
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If you’re placed in a situation where you suspect your convictions will be labeled intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded, and judgmental, turn the tables. When someone asks for your personal views about a moral issue—homosexuality, for example—preface your remarks with a question.</p>

<p>You say: “You know, this is actually a very personal question you’re asking, and I’d be glad to answer. But before I do, I want to know if you consider yourself a tolerant person or an intolerant person. Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view? Do you respect diverse ideas, or do you condemn others for convictions that differ from yours?”&nbsp;Let them answer. If they say they’re tolerant (which they probably will), then when you give your point of view it’s going to be very difficult for them to call you intolerant or judgmental without looking guilty, too.</p>

<p>This response capitalizes on the fact that there’s no morally neutral ground. Everybody has a point of view they think is right, and everybody judges at some point or another. The Christian gets pigeon-holed as the judgmental one, but everyone else is judging, too. It’s an inescapable consequence of believing in any kind of morality.</p>
</div>

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


title: Are Homosexuals Going to Hell?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/15/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-homosexuals-going-to-hell-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The answer to this question is easy. Yes, they’re going to hell.</p>

<p>But guess what? Liars are going to hell too. So are gluttons, drunkards, and adulterers. Do you see a pattern here? <em>Everyone</em> is going to hell.</p>

<p>There’s nothing special about people who engage in same-sex intercourse. Whether you go to Heaven or Hell has nothing to do with the <em>kind</em> of sin you’ve committed. It’s about moral culpability. Guilty people deserve to be punished and innocent people go free. That’s a basic principle of justice.</p>

<p>The problem is that this question often carries with it an incorrect assumption: Homosexuality is so offensive that it’s unforgivable. Violators go directly to Hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.</p>

<p>But this is not true. Homosexuality is not the worst sin as I’ve mentioned in a <a href="/w/homosexuality-worst-sin-all" target="_blank">previous post</a>. God doesn’t have special rules that govern how to levy punishment on homosexuals.</p>

<p>Perhaps rephrasing the question would help: Can people with same-sex attractions (SSA) go to Heaven? Yes, they can. Even if they’ve engaged in homosexual behavior, it’s still possible to be pardoned for their actions. This is no different than those who are selfish, steal, or commit adultery. People who commit these crimes can be pardoned from the punishment they deserve.</p>

<p>Even though that’s good news, believers are still berated for their moral views on homosexuality. But Christians didn’t make them up. God did. It’s like yelling at the DMV employee for failing your driving test. He’s just telling you the rules of the road. He didn’t invent them. Blame someone else.</p>

<p>Besides, it’s not like God is pointing the finger just at homosexuals. God’s an equal opportunity judger. Some people who went to church last Sunday will be in Hell. Some people who study the Bible will be there too. Why? Those people have also committed crimes that render them guilty. And going to church or reading the Bible doesn’t earn them a pardon.</p>

<p>That’s because we don’t get to make the rules for reconciliation. God does. So being a “good person” doesn’t matter. Seeking to be “sincere” is irrelevant. Trying to be “true to yourself” won’t help. It’s God’s <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Kingdom</span>: He’s the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">King</span> and it’s His <span style="text-decoration: underline;">dom</span>ain. He decides the terms for acquittal.</p>

<p>He also shows no partiality towards whom He pardons. A churchgoer has no advantage over a homosexual. Each has an equal chance at forgiveness no matter what they’ve done.</p>

<p>This is great news. As I've written in a <a href="/w/does-god-punish-gay-people-being-who-they-are" target="_blank">previous post</a>, God is willing to grant us “a pardon for our bad behavior….We can accept the pardon and go free or pay the penalty ourselves. It’s our choice. That means a man or woman can live a lifetime of homosexual behavior and still be acquitted.”</p>

<p>Although it sounds too good to be true, people who are exonerated know it’s anything but easy. The process involves an important trade: we give God a lifetime of allegiance in return for a pardon. That means we’re no longer the absolute arbiter of our life. Rather, we hand over that privilege to the judge who negotiated our freedom.</p>

<p>Fortunately, the judge is good and looks after us. He knows that even though we’re absolved from our crimes and freed from our punishment, justice has not been completed. Our guilt has been lifted, but needs to be placed on another. So, the judge makes arrangements with a willing substitute to bear the blame: His next of kin.</p>

<p>The substitute is agreeable to trade his innocence for our guilt even though a transaction like that isn’t normally allowed. In this instance, however, the substitute is able to make the trade because the judge sanctioned the deal. It’s also fair because He’s willing and He’s willing because He’s family. It’s a family affair.</p>

<p>Who wouldn’t take a judge up on that offer? Who wouldn’t be grateful to his next of kin for His trade? God has done everything possible to keep people out of Hell. Some people just aren’t willing to accept the terms.</p>

<p>I’m not here to declare who is going to Hell or not. That’s not the point of this post, nor is it for me to decide. That’s God’s job.</p>

<p>But I can offer some tactical advice. Sometimes you can’t answer the question this post raises with a simple yes or no. It’s not because you’re avoiding the difficult question, but because you don’t want to give a misleading answer. Plus, you want to make sure the person is asking because they genuinely want to listen to your response and not just pose a gotcha question.</p>

<p>So I suggest you rephrase the question with the following: Can homosexuals go to Heaven? Then you can clarify an important truth. Everyone is guilty, including me.&nbsp;There’s no special sin that damns some people to judgment while others get off easier. Therefore, everyone deserves to be punished. That includes homosexuals <em>and</em> heterosexuals. They might not be responsible for the same crime, but they’ll all get jail time because they’re guilty. That’s bad news.</p>

<p>But everyone – even a homosexual – is given the same chance to avoid punishment. The same offer is made to everyone under the King’s domain, no matter what their offense. That’s why it’s called the “gospel” – it’s good news.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-homosexuals-going-to-hell-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%2Fare-homosexuals-going-to-hell-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%2Fare-homosexuals-going-to-hell-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: Is Mormonism Just Another Christian Denomination?
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2012
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-mormonism-just-another-christian-denomination-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Not long ago I read a stunning (and scathing) response in a blog post by a Christian woman who was furious with those taking exception with the “Christian”&nbsp;convictions of a well-known Mormon media personality.</p>

<p>“If only you would get on your knees and pray asking God to give you the wisdom and the discernment you need, you would see and know [this Mormon] is the real deal,”&nbsp;she wrote. “But instead you...ridicule him and the Mormon church...[rather than] doing your own research.”</p>

<p>Mormonism is ultimately no different from other Christian denominations, she insisted, like Baptists and Methodists who teach the same thing about Jesus the Mormons do. Questioning Mormonism’s legitimacy as a Christian denomination, she added, is uneducated, mocking God, and borderline Satanic. Those who do should be ashamed of themselves and ask God’s forgiveness.</p>

<p>She ended her indictment with these words: “I only ask one thing. Before you go condemning someone, go to God and ask for HIS [sic] explanation of things.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>

<p>Sound advice, it seems to me (advice she might have followed herself).</p>

<p>This woman is not alone. Not only is her view the view of many Christians, but it’s the claim of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) itself, at least at the moment.</p>

<p>Are they right?</p>

<h2>What’s In a Name?</h2>

<p>The answer to the question “Is Mormonism a Christian denomination?”&nbsp;hinges entirely on the meaning of two words: “Christian”&nbsp;and “denomination.”</p>

<p>The word “Christian”&nbsp;has become almost infinitely flexible of late. Since precision is necessary to say anything meaningful—and since questions about denominations are theological ones—I will use the word “Christian”&nbsp;in its ordinary, historical, <em>theological</em> sense.</p>

<p>I will use the phrase “classical Christianity”&nbsp;to refer to the form of Christianity recognized by that name for nearly two millennia. It has distinctive doctrines distinguishing it from other religions and also from other sects that bear a superficial resemblance because of shared vocabulary, yet differ at some defining doctrinal point.</p>

<p>I am not assuming, here, that classical Christianity is <em>true</em> Christianity—that it faithfully expresses the most primitive (i.e., ancient) understanding taught by Jesus Himself. That <em>is</em> my conviction, but I’m not addressing the issue here. I’m simply trying to be clear on terms.</p>

<p>I will also use the word “denomination”&nbsp;in its standard sense. A religious denomination is a subset of a larger religion. It holds to all the distinctives of the parent group—the <em>sine qua nons</em>, or bare essentials—and differs from other denominations of that group only in secondary or tertiary ways.</p>

<p>If an alleged denomination denies some defining doctrine of the larger group, or if it advances a unique doctrine of its own that is inconsistent with a central teaching of the parent religion, then it is not a denomination of that religion. It is a separate and distinct religious group.</p>

<p>For example, mainstream Mormons reject as legitimately Mormon those groups who continue to practice plural marriage.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> These factions may share many things in common with “orthodox”&nbsp;LDS, yet they promote a central practice that deviates sufficiently from core Mormon theology to disqualify them as LDS “denominations.”</p>

<p>A denomination is Christian, then, if 1) the denomination <em>shares</em> the core doctrines that historically distinguish Christianity from other religions, and 2) the denomination has no core doctrines <em>at odds</em> with the core doctrines of classical Christianity. Their basic worldviews must overlap at their defining points.</p>

<p>Note that the similarity critical here is shared foundational <em>doctrines</em>, not shared religious <em>terminology</em>. This is important. Religious words and phrases can have radically different meanings to different groups.</p>

<p>If Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity, then everything doctrinally central to classical Christianity is also <em>central</em> to LDS theology, and nothing doctrinally central to LDS theology is <em>inconsistent</em> with classical Christianity.</p>

<p>Is this the case? Is classical Christianity and the teachings of the LDS fundamentally the same (as the blogger asserted)? Are the differences between LDS and Baptists basically the same <em>kind</em> of differences as between Baptists and Methodists? Or is Mormonism a separate religion that shares religious vocabulary with the others, but not their foundational belief system?</p>

<p>I’m not asking if Mormonism is <em>true</em> right now. I’m asking if it’s <em>Christian</em> in the classical sense of the term. Let’s see.</p>

<h2>Separate, but Equal?</h2>

<p>To answer this question, I purchased the most up-to-date, authoritative guide to Mormonism available <em>LDS Beliefs—A Doctrinal Reference</em><sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> issued by LDS book publisher Deseret Books.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> Entries are arranged alphabetically by topic. Here is what I found under the heading “Christian”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>A Christian is one who accepts the scriptural, prophetic, and Spirit-delivered testimony of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. A Christian believes...that [Jesus] is the Son of God and God the Son...[who] took upon himself the burden of the sins and sufferings of all humankind and made forgiveness and deliverance available through faith on his name and through acceptance of the terms and conditions of his gospel; that he rose from the dead...A Christian is one who acknowledges his or her sin and weakness and recognizes that peace and happiness and salvation come only through applying the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. A Christian knows full well that there is no other name by which salvation comes except the name of Jesus Christ&nbsp;(109-110).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This sounds stellar, at first glance. No problems here. Under the entry “God,”&nbsp;we find this description:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>God is the only supreme governor and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life...God is infinite, while men and women on earth are finite&nbsp;(262).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Again, everything seems in order, until you glance over to the facing page and read more details under the heading “Godhead.”</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Godhead consists of three personages: God the Eternal Father, Jesus Christ the Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost. [Joseph Smith] referred to these three as God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator. <em>The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s</em>...These three are <em>separate and distinct</em> personages and <em>beings</em>. This understanding...stands in <em>stark contrast</em> to efforts on the part of traditional Christian thinkers to maintain the <em>ontological oneness</em> of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit&nbsp;(263) [Emphasis added].</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What? The Godhead consists of three separate and distinct gods: first, second, and third? The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s? Suffice it to say, this is a vastly different understanding of God than found in classical Christianity.</p>

<p>Now you see why I warned that shared religious <em>terminology</em> can be misleading if the doctrinal <em>content</em> is not the same. It simply is not enough to say, “We believe in Jesus,”&nbsp;even when a string of orthodox theological terms are tacked onto the confession.</p>

<p>The earliest debates in Christianity were about the nature of God and the person of Jesus. They were meant to distinguish classical Christianity from the theological corruptions of look-alike contenders.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> Ancient Arians, Ebionites, Gnostics, and Pelagians all “believed in Jesus,”&nbsp;yet all were opposed by the early church as non-Christian sects with theological poison in their veins.</p>

<p>Even in Paul’s time there were conflicting characterizations of Christ, with false notions gaining a footing in the church. That’s why he warned of “another Jesus”&nbsp;and a “different gospel”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 11:4).</p>

<p>Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do <em>people</em> say that I am?”&nbsp;then, “Who do <em>you</em> say that I am”&nbsp;(Matt. 16:13-15), because the details mattered. “Those who worship God,”&nbsp;He told the woman at the well, “must worship Him in Spirit and <em>truth”</em>&nbsp;(Jn. 4:24).</p>

<p>As to the Mormon characterization of God, I will disregard the clear contradiction on facing pages of <em>LDS Beliefs</em> that God is “infinite, while men and women on earth are finite,”&nbsp;yet has “a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.”&nbsp;Instead, the important thing you need to notice is the explicit distinction made between LDS beliefs and those of “traditional Christian thinkers.”</p>

<p>The distinction, it turns out, is massive.</p>

<h2>The One or the Many?</h2>

<p>Nicea was the very first creedal line in the sand distinguishing primitive, apostolic Christianity from imposters who shared theological terminology, but not theological content. Yet <em>LDS Beliefs</em> labors to distance Mormonism from the Nicene formula.</p>

<p>The Mormon Godhead consists of “three beings”&nbsp;who each “possess all of the attributes of godliness in perfection,”&nbsp;that are “a divine community”&nbsp;sharing “no mystical union of substance.”&nbsp;Instead, they “are as distinct in their persons and individualities as are any three persons in mortality”&nbsp;(263-264).</p>

<p>Not only is this an explicit rejection of Nicea, it is also is an explicit affirmation of polytheism. Note, “God the first...God the second...and God the third”&nbsp;are “separate and distinct beings.”</p>

<p>To be fair, Mormonism denies this charge: “The LDS belief in...three beings within the Godhead...is not to say that we are polytheistic”&nbsp;(263). However, also to be fair, this assertion is hard to take seriously.</p>

<p>Polytheism—from <em>poly</em>- (many) and <em>theos</em> (god)—is the belief in or worship of more than one god. There is nothing ambiguous about this word. Anyone can do the math. Mormonism is polytheistic, in spite of any complaints to the contrary.</p>

<p>The explanation offered on how Mormonism avoids a contradiction in its own theology—both one God and three Gods—appears under the heading “Monotheism”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In the ultimate and final sense of the word, there is only one true and living God...We believe in one God <em>in that</em> we believe in one <em>Godhead</em>, one divine presidency of the universe...three Gods...three beings...and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one&nbsp;(436).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Note the qualification. Mormonism is “monotheistic”&nbsp;<em>in the sense that</em> three distinct Gods comprise what was earlier referred to as one “divine community.”&nbsp;“Their unity of purpose and operation is such as to make their edicts one, and their will the will of God”&nbsp;(264).</p>

<p>However, the assertion of divine oligarchy does not rescue Mormonism from the charge of polytheism. A belief in multiple, distinct gods is polytheistic, even if the LDS refuses to call it that. Religious groups are free to define their own beliefs. They are not free to redefine the English language.</p>

<p>Again, I want to emphasize I am not trying to determine which view is <em>correct</em>, but rather to show that these views are radically <em>different</em>.</p>

<p>Mormonism explicitly denies the foundational <em>sine qua non</em> of classical Christianity, the Nicene Creed, by asserting polytheism in its place. So how in good faith can they continue to claim to be a denomination of Christianity when they deny the core?</p>

<p>The correct answer is, ultimately, they are not. They are a distinct religion meant to <em>replace</em> classical Christianity. It is why Mormonism was founded in the first place.</p>

<h2>The Genesis of “Restoration”</h2>

<p>As a 15-year-old in Palmyra, New York, Joseph Smith sought wisdom from God regarding which Christian denomination was the true and accurate one. Members of his family were Presbyterian, but he was leaning (at the time) toward Methodism. According to his testimony, two personages appeared to him, the Father with the Son, who told him he “must join none of them, for they were all wrong...that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt...[teaching] for doctrines the commandments of men...”<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>According to Joseph Smith, a “Great Apostasy”&nbsp;had corrupted the church from the outset. As the “prophet of the restoration,”&nbsp;Smith would restore what had been lost—the very Gospel itself—and establish the one, true “restored church,”&nbsp;the LDS. Indeed, LDS stands for “latter-day saints.”&nbsp;<em>Mormons</em> are the saints of these latter days, not those who had for 2,000 years been commonly called “Christians.”</p>

<p>Of course, a Christianity without the true Gospel could not be considered true Christianity. Worse, this necessarily makes classical Christianity at theological odds with Mormonism. This conclusion cannot be avoided.</p>

<p>Joseph Smith claimed God told him the current Christian creeds were “an abomination,”&nbsp;that those who professed them were “all corrupt,”&nbsp;their doctrines mere “commandments of men.”&nbsp;The Apostle Paul wrote, “Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, his is to be accursed”&nbsp;(Gal. 1:8).</p>

<p>If Joseph Smith’s divine mission was to restore the lost gospel, then the gospel classical Christians have been preaching would be “another gospel,”&nbsp;a gospel that Paul cursed. By force of logic, if we take LDS claims seriously, then Mormonism could not have any legitimate kinship with classical Christianity since the historical church has promoted a different gospel, a corrupt gospel, and a cursed gospel for two millennia.</p>

<p>Oddly, <em>LDS Beliefs</em> denies this. Under the heading “Only True Church”&nbsp;(referring to Mormonism) the authors claim this “does not mean that men and women of other Christian faiths are not sincere believers <em>in truth</em> and <em>genuine</em> followers of Christ. It does not mean we believe that most of the doctrines in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant Christianity are false”&nbsp;(461) [Emphasis added].</p>

<p>Forgive me, but this statement strikes me as misleading in the extreme. No explanation is given as to why other Christian denominations could be “genuine”&nbsp;followers of Christ “in truth”&nbsp;when Joseph Smith calls their creeds “abominations.”&nbsp;How could it be true? The very existence of Mormonism dictates the opposite.</p>

<h2>Correcting the Corruption</h2>

<p>One of the critical doctrines unique to Mormonism and central to the renewal is eternal marriage. The phrase “family values”&nbsp;has a very different meaning to Mormons than to classical Christians. Under the heading “Marriage”&nbsp;we read:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Latter-day Saints have a unique understanding of how ’the family is ordained of God’&nbsp;because of our belief that we lived in a family setting as spirits before we came to earth...We lived in the family of God, where we were taught, reared, and nurtured by Heavenly Parents...(211).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mormons value marriage and family above all else because God Himself had a wife and a family, too, with each of us as His children in the pre-existence. Family, then, is the divine, eternal order. As God’s offspring, “All men and women...are literally the sons and daughters of Deity [sic]”&nbsp;(441).</p>

<p>This is not just a radically different understanding of <em>marriage</em> compared to classical Christianity. It is a radically different understanding of <em>salvation</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We understood that the plan of salvation provided the means whereby we could be united as families throughout all eternity in a state of perfect happiness and joy...[Mormon parents desire] the building of a home and family and of a kingdom of their own; to the laying of the foundation of eternal increase and power, glory, exaltation and dominion, worlds without end...Salvation is a family affair...Full salvation consists of the continuation of the family unit in celestial glory. <em>Those for whom the family unit continues have eternal life; those for whom it does not continue do not have eternal life</em>, for heaven itself is but the projection of a righteous family into eternity&nbsp;(211-213) [Emphasis added].</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Classical Christians have never held to “eternal marriage”&nbsp;for two very good reasons. First, Jesus denied it (Matt. 22:29-30). Second, the church never taught it. Yet it is central to the Mormon understanding of eternal life. It “is a requisite for exaltation in the highest glory or kingdom of God”&nbsp;(407).</p>

<h2>If Words Mean Anything</h2>

<p>Our question has been a simple one: Is Mormonism just another Christian denomination? I take the word “Christian”&nbsp;in its ordinary, historical, <em>theological</em> sense—what I’ve called “classical Christianity”—as I do the word “denomination.”&nbsp;Any denomination of Christianity would, by definition, share its core doctrines and promote no beliefs at odds with those doctrines.</p>

<p>By these criteria, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a denomination of Christianity. It denies doctrines central to classical Christianity, and Christianity denies doctrines central to the LDS. Though it has collected some of the “doctrinal debris”—to quote Elder Maxwell (463)—left over from the Christianity of history, Mormonism is a completely different religion.</p>

<p>Indeed, with the exception of shared moral values, I am not aware of a single major theological doctrine of Mormonism that overlaps classical Christianity at crucial junctures. The two religions differ on the basic nature of God, the person of Christ, the extent of special revelation, the fall, man, eternal marriage, the priesthood, the afterlife, the atonement, sin, salvation, and Satan.</p>

<p>Do not be confused. If Mormonism is Christian, then classical “Christianity”&nbsp;is not.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">http://www.milesmcpherson.com/2010/09/03/glenn-beck/comment-page-2/ <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">See, for example, this news release featuring LDS apostle Elder Quentin Cook: <a href="http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/senior-church-leader-appeals-to-media-to-make-distinction">http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/senior-church-leader-appeals-to-media-to-make-distinction</a>. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Millet, Olson, Skinner, and Top, <em>LDS Beliefs—A Doctrinal Reference</em> (Salt Lake City: Deseret Books, 2011). All further page references will be from this source. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Deseret is wholly owned by Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">All groups do this, of course—even the LDS—and they must in order to maintain their theological distinction from other religious groups. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5"> ↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6"><em>Pearl of Great Price</em>, Joseph Smith—History 2:19. <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%2Fis-mormonism-just-another-christian-denomination-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-mormonism-just-another-christian-denomination-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-mormonism-just-another-christian-denomination-" 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>
            
          


