# articles

title: Burden or Freedom
topic: Christian Living
author: Melinda Penner
date: 07/17/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/burden-or-freedom
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Rachael Slick, the daughter of an apologist, has <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/" target="_blank">written an article</a> recounting her theological and apologetic training growing up—and her subsequent rejection of Christianity. I don’t intend to comment on the details, especially about her family and what did or didn’t happen, because we only have her account from her perspective. I do want to make one observation about what she writes about what she understood and believes now.</p>

<p>She never mentions the Gospel.</p>

<p>I’m not saying she was not taught it, I imagine she was along with all of the other things she says she was taught. But from her own account, the Gospel doesn’t appear to have made an impression on her amidst all the other facts of Christianity she learned. What comes across is her efforts and sincere desire to measure up and obey God, but inevitable discouragement at her failure to do so. She writes in her conclusion about the freedom she has found in rejecting Christianity and that burden.</p>

<p>The burden of the law crushes, and the Gospel frees us of that burden. We can’t measure up to the law, even though obedience is important. The Gospel gives freedom because of God’s unfailing forgiveness through Jesus. It’s understandable that Rachael searched for freedom from the guilt of the law. It’s tragic that, for whatever reason, the freedom and relief of God’s mercy and grace didn’t make an impression on her.</p>

<p>It’s a good reminder that as apologists, whether we’re talking to skeptics or training our children, we return frequently and regularly to the core of the message—the Gospel of reconciliation with God through Jesus. God is not angry with us anymore, but offers us free, unmerited love and forgiveness that is unfailing and abundant. Obedience flows from gratitude, not an effort to measure up. All the facts and details of Christianity are important. Answering challenges from critics is important. But they should not overwhelm and obscure the message that we’re trying to convey, the Gospel. Say it often and clearly.</p>
</div>

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


title: Is the Bible Legend?
topic: History
author: Melinda Penner
date: 07/09/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-the-bible-legend-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>C.S. Lewis, who was a literary scholar long before he was a Christian, makes the scholarly point that the Gospel accounts read nothing like legend or myth. Some critics compare them to historical fiction, but Lewis also points out that that is a fairly modern genre of literature that was unknown until about 400 years ago. Lewis wrote:</p>

<p>I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, and myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know none of them are like this. Of this text, there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage...or else, someone unknown writer...without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative...The reader who doesn’t see this has simply not learned how to read.</p>

<p>Claiming the Gospels are myth has become popular among atheists recently, but there’s a very good reason why experts have never treated the Bible as myth or historical fiction. Literary scholars know the difference between myth and eyewitness accounts. Whether they believe them is different matter. They recognize the characteristics and note the differences.</p>

<p>Timothy Keller makes a number of other observations that count toward the Bible’s early historicity. (from <a href="http://issuu.com/gospeldelta/docs/gospel_christianity_1.0p" target="_blank">Gospel Christianity 1.0 Participants Guide</a>)</p>

<ul>
	<li>Legends are written down long after events they allegedly recount; Mark and Luke wrote just 30-40 years after Jesus’&nbsp;death. All of the Gospels were written in the lifetimes of those who witnessed Jesus.</li>
	<li>Jesus’&nbsp;miracles couldn’t have been invented in early accounts. Events like Jesus feeding thousands would have been contradicted by eyewitnesses still living.</li>
	<li>The Gospels include counter-productive details that wouldn’t have been made up if the goal was to promote their message. Jesus expresses a desire to avoid the cross, cries out that God has forsaken Him.</li>
	<li>The literary form is detailed in a way legend is not. For example, John 21 mentions 153 fish caught.</li>
</ul>

<p><a href="http://www.str.org/publications/recycled-redeemer#.UdM3mhbtXF8" target="_self">Greg takes a close</a> look at the claims that the Gospel mimic other deity myths. The claim just doesn’t hold up to fact.</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-the-bible-legend-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-the-bible-legend-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-the-bible-legend-" 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: Everybody’s Got the Same Problem—Mentoring Letter June 2011
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/10/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/everybody-s-got-the-same-problem-mentoring-letter-june-2011
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Greg offers a unique tactic in answering a challenge about the problem of evil. Everybody has to answer the question—but only Christianity has an answer.</em></p>

<p>After decades of addressing the problem of evil, I have discovered an approach that has massively simplified my task, one that subtly turns the tables on atheists, hanging them—appropriately—on the horns of their own dilemma.</p>

<p>Here’s how it works. I do not begin my response with tactical concerns (maneuvering on the specifics), but rather with a strategic point (the big picture) meant to show that the atheist himself is not off the hook with the problem of evil.</p>

<p>To set the stage, I begin by clarifying the challenge in vivid terms. I spell out the logic of the complaint. Then I offer an anecdote, illustration, or graphic piece of news (there’s always some horror in the headlines) accentuating the gravity of the atheist’s protest. In short, I try to increase the emotional force of the objection.</p>

<p>Next, I tell the audience I do not grapple with the problem first as a theologian, or a philosopher, or even as a Christian, but as a human being trying to make sense of my world. Evidence of egregious evil abounds. How do I account for such depravity?</p>

<p>But, I am quick to add—and here is the strategic move—<em>I am not alone</em>. As a theist, I am not the only one saddled with this challenge. Evil is a problem for everyone. Every person, regardless of religion or worldview, must answer this objection.</p>

<p><em>Even the atheist</em>. What if someone is assaulted by personal tragedy, distressed by world events, victimized by religious corruption or abuse, and then responds by rejecting God and becoming an atheist (as many have done)? Notice that he has not solved the problem of evil. He has simply eliminated one possible answer: theism.</p>

<p>The atheist cannot raise the issue, turn on his heal, and smugly walk away. His objection is that evil actually exists, objectively, as a real feature of the world. Otherwise, why raise the complaint? Even if theism fails to give a satisfying answer, the problem doesn’t disappear. Evil remains.</p>

<p>The atheist still has to answer the question, “How do I explain evil now, as an atheist? How do I answer the problem of evil from a materialistic worldview?”&nbsp;He no longer has the resources of theism to draw from. So what is he left with?</p>

<p>There is only one solution for him. The atheist must play the relativism card. Morality is either the product of a social contract or a trick of evolution. That is the best materialism can do. <em>His own answer</em> to the problem of evil, then, is that there is no problem of evil. Morality is an illusion. Whatever is, is right. Nothing more can be said.</p>

<p>Do you see the difficult place this puts the atheist? If this is the right answer to the problem of evil, then his initial complaint vanishes. The only evil that can get traction as a problem against God must be the real deal—objective evil—not something that is merely a cultural or biological invention.</p>

<p>Here’s the irony. The existence of evil initially made the atheist furious, yet his own worldview turns the objective evil he was so livid about into a complete illusion.</p>

<p>The great 20th century atheistic philosopher Bertrand Russell wondered how anyone could talk of God when kneeling at the bed of a dying child. His challenge has powerful rhetorical force. How can anyone cling to the hope of a benevolent, powerful sovereign in the face of such tragedy?</p>

<p>Then Christian philosopher William Lane Craig offered this response: “What is the atheist Bertrand Russell going to say when kneeling at the bed of a dying child? ’Too bad’? ’Tough luck’? ��That’s the way it goes’?”&nbsp;No happy ending? No silver lining? Nothing but devastating, senseless evil?</p>

<p>They cannot speak of the patience and mercy of God. They cannot mention the future perfection that awaits all who trust in Christ. They cannot offer the comfort that a redemptive God is working to cause all things to work together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. They have no “good news”&nbsp;of hope for a broken world. Their worldview denies them these luxuries.</p>

<p>Which brings me to the most important question to ask of the problem of evil: Which worldview has the best resources to make sense of this challenge?</p>

<p>The answer is not atheism. The answer to evil is God, in Jesus, on a cross, at Calvary. The particulars still need to be developed. But I start with the strategic issue first. That sets the stage. Only afterward do I get into details.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Feverybody-s-got-the-same-problem-mentoring-letter-june-2011" 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%2Feverybody-s-got-the-same-problem-mentoring-letter-june-2011" 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%2Feverybody-s-got-the-same-problem-mentoring-letter-june-2011" 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: Book Review: Cold-Case Christianity
topic: Christian Living
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 07/09/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/book-review-cold-case-christianity
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Let me put my cards on the table. <a href="http://www.str.org/na?q=..." target="_blank">J. Warner Wallace</a> (Jim to those who know him personally) is one of my best friends. For almost 10 years, we’ve been invested in each other’s life. We’ve done ministry together. We’ve served in the local church together. We’ve led student mission trips together. Our families have spent time together (my teenage daughter regularly crashes at his house and gets spoiled by Jim’s wonderful wife, Susie). And now we’re speaking together, as colleagues at Stand to Reason. Jim is a close friend, partner, and ally.</p>

<p>So yes, as I offer a review of Jim’s book, <em><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK372" target="_blank">Cold-Case Christianity</a></em> (CCC), you could argue that I’m biased. However, if you dismiss my book review as unreliable on the sole basis of bias, then you need to read Jim’s book! In chapter 14, he deals with a similar charge of bias against the disciples. And had you read it already, you’d know bias does <em>not</em> preclude one from being reliable, as Jim’s “Mark Hillian”&nbsp;illustration demonstrates (see page 246). So, don’t dismiss this review before you consider the reasons why I think you need to read Jim’s book.</p>

<p>The secular university is a huge mission field. We need smart Christians who will earn their Ph.Ds. and go on to do high-level apologetic work in a multitude of academic fields. To this end, I thank God for the William Lane Craigs, Alvin Plantingas, and J.P. Morelands of the contemporary apologetics movement. However, this is just one point of what should be a multi-pronged strategy. Not only do apologists need to make incursions into the Academy, but we must continue our infiltration of the church. The average church-goer needs to be equipped with “the weapons of our warfare”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 10:3-5) in order to fend off the secularism of our culture, to protect the impressionable hearts and minds of our children, and to advance the gospel with unbelieving friends and family. To this end, I thank God for the Lee Strobels and now, with his writing of CCC, the J. Warner Wallaces of the contemporary apologetics movement. To this latter strategy, Jim makes an extraordinary contribution.</p>

<p>In this book, Jim does four key things as he defends the reliability of Gospels, that will appeal to the non-specialist masses sitting in our churches:</p>

<p><strong>#1—Cold-Case Christianity is accessible.</strong> If we don’t make apologetics accessible to the average Christian, we run the risk of making it seem irrelevant. I’ve talked to that man or woman with the deer-in-the-headlights look after attending one of their first apologetics conferences. I’ve heard their “if-this-is-what-apologetics-is-then-it-isn’t-for-me”&nbsp;dismissals. Thus the contemporary apologetics movement is in need of more translators and Jim steps up with this offering.</p>

<p>No, no, no, he does not put the cookies on bottom shelf. Hear me carefully; I’m not saying we need to dumb down things. No, Jim actually raises the bar—just check out his historical work in chapters 11 through 13—but does so without blowing people out of the water. And because of this, CCC is also a tremendous tool for Christians to use with their skeptical friends. It’s the kind of book you can confidently give to an unbeliever, knowing they’re in good hands with Jim.</p>

<p><strong>#2—Cold-Case Christianity is interesting.</strong> As far as I know, Jim is the only man on the planet who could’ve written this book. He’s a cold-case homicide detective <em>and</em> a first-rate apologist. The combination allows Jim to weave gripping stories and illustrations into his apologetic. It’s one of the most engaging apologetics books I’ve ever read. Seriously.</p>

<p><strong>#3—Cold-Case Christianity teaches the reader how to think, not just what to think.</strong> This could be the most valuable aspect of the book. Jim doesn’t lay out a laundry list of apologetic pat answers. Using his training as a detective and experience in the courtroom, Jim teaches the reader how to think well through the first ten chapters. Yes, ten whole chapters. Indeed, it takes up the entire first half of the book, but it’s indispensable. Jim lays down a foundation for thinking carefully not just about the Gospels, but for all areas of truth.</p>

<p><strong>#4—Lastly, and most importantly, Cold-Case Christianity is backed up by a writer who lives what he writes.</strong> Any bias I may have toward Jim is actually a benefit, not a barrier. I’ve seen Jim, outside of the limelight. I’ve been on mission trips where he and I have shared sleeping quarters with a bunch of foul-smelling high school boys. I’ve watched Jim go head-to-head with advocates of atheism. And through it all, I’ve seen a man who loves Christ, loves people, and whose life overflows with integrity.</p>

<p>Thankfully, Jim’s life has also spilled out onto the pages of CCC, giving the reader a small glimpse of what I’ve observed for years. It’s only after seeing this man practice what he preaches that I became a J. Warner Wallace-onian (again see page 246!). Go buy the book and read it, and your bias for Jim and his work will grow 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%2Fbook-review-cold-case-christianity" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbook-review-cold-case-christianity" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbook-review-cold-case-christianity" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Atheists Should Accept the Grim Truth Wherever They Find It
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/03/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/atheists-should-accept-the-grim-truth-wherever-they-find-it
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In an article in The Guardian titled “<a href="http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/09/life-without-god-bleak-atheism" target="_blank">Yes, life without God can be bleak. Atheism is about facing up to that</a>,”&nbsp;Julian Baggini argues that atheists shouldn’t hide the fact that life without God can be “pretty grim”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[T]here’s an...important reason why we should not choose a word that is “positive, warm, cheerful”&nbsp;[to brand atheism]: although many atheists are all those things, atheism itself is none of them...</p>

<p>Atheists should point out that life without God can be meaningful, moral and happy. But that’s “can”&nbsp;not “is”&nbsp;or even “should usually be.”&nbsp;And that means it can just as easily be meaningless, nihilistic and miserable.</p>

<p>Atheists have to live with the knowledge that there is no salvation, no redemption, no second chances. Lives can go terribly wrong in ways that can never be put right... Not much bright about that fact.</p>

<p>Stressing the jolly side of atheism not only glosses over its harsher truths, it also disguises its unique selling point. The reason to be an atheist is not that it makes us feel better or gives us a more rewarding life. The reason to be an atheist is simply that there is no God and we would prefer to live in full recognition of that, accepting the consequences, even if it makes us less happy. The more brutal facts of life are harsher for us than they are for those who have a story to tell in which it all works out right in the end and even the most horrible suffering is part of a mystifying divine plan. If we don’t freely admit this, then we’ve betrayed the commitment to the naked truth that atheism has traditionally embraced.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And on the “more disturbing”&nbsp;“threat of moral nihilism”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Anyone who thinks it’s easy to ground ethics either hasn’t done much moral philosophy or wasn’t concentrating when they did...In an atheist universe, morality can be rejected without external sanction at any point, and without a clear, compelling reason to believe in its reality, that’s exactly what will sometimes happen.</p>

<p>So I think it���s time we atheists ’fessed up and admitted that life without God can sometimes be pretty grim.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I respect very much Baggini’s desire to accept the consequences of truth and live in light of reality, no matter the cost. But I think he’s mistaken about this desire being unique to atheists, and consequently, about this being a selling point, because of course religious people who similarly care about truth also desire to “live in full recognition”&nbsp;of the truth about reality, accepting the consequences.</p>

<p>Being convinced that the Christian God exists, we accept the truth of our sinfulness, the reality of God’s justice and wrath, the existence of Hell, and our need for redemption through the sacrifice of Christ. And yet, it is the atheists’&nbsp;distaste for these very things that they often use to argue against Christianity.</p>

<p>If atheists want to make their selling point the fact that they have “traditionally embraced”&nbsp;a “commitment to the naked truth,”&nbsp;whatever it is, however disturbing, then let them live out this principle when it comes to assessing Christianity. The question of whether or not God is a monster, or Hell is unjust, or Jesus was <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/03/it-was-the-best-of-actions-it-was-the-worst-of-actions.html" target="_blank">despicable</a>, or the cross was child abuse shouldn’t enter into the discussion at all until they determine whether or not these things reflect reality. If, according to atheists, a distaste for reality (including a non-moral reality) has no bearing on whether or not a person ought to accept it—and it is, in fact, a <em>selling point</em> to accept a “grim”&nbsp;truth one finds distasteful—then they shouldn’t allow their distaste for Christianity to play a part in their arguments.</p>

<p>When they can’t assess Christianity in a way that’s consistent with their proclaimed principle, it starts to look like they’re more committed to accepting atheism at any cost than they are committed to accepting <em>truth</em> at any cost.</p>
</div>

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


title: Back-to-School Survival Guide
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Guest Author
date: 07/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/back-to-school-survival-guide
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Here are four key points of knowledge kids should know before they leave high school.</em></p>

<p><em>By Scott Klusendorf</em></p>

<p>Tomorrow is back-to-school day for most students, and that means getting our kids ready for classes. I’m not talking about hitting the school supplies section at Office Depot or the clothing sale at Robinson’s-May. I mean preparing them intellectually to persuasively defend their Christian views on unfriendly turf.</p>

<p>Parents, you may want to grab pen and paper, because in a moment I’m going to give you a “Back to School Survival Guide”&nbsp;with four key points of knowledge your kids should know before they leave high school.</p>

<p>What brought this on was a conversation I had recently with a new youth pastor. He knew I had been one ten years ago and he asked a pointed question: “As a former youth pastor, if you had it to do over, what would you do differently?”</p>

<p>I shot back immediately, “Teach kids to think.”</p>

<p>Why the emphatic response? It was not because I had a bad experience as a youth pastor, but because the teaching philosophy so prevalent at the time placed little value on the life of the mind. True, there was a healthy focus on relationships, group building, entertainment, practical tips on dating, self-esteem, etc. But the so-called experts who trained youth pastors in the 1980s, though well-intentioned, said little about training kids to think.</p>

<p>So, here goes. If I had it to do over again, my purpose statement as a youth pastor would be “to build young Christian thinkers for a public defense of the faith.”&nbsp;I would concentrate my teaching on four key areas:</p>

<ul>
	<li>The relationship between philosophy and Christian faith</li>
	<li>The relationship between science and Christian faith</li>
	<li>The relationship between bio-ethics and Christian faith</li>
	<li>The relationship between history and Christian faith</li>
</ul>

<p>I’m not going to cover these four areas exhaustively today, but I will give a couple of points from each that are essential. Many of you will no doubt think of other things I have left out, and in a moment you can give me your take on what’s missing and how our churches can do more to prepare our kids. I’ll also suggest a couple of resources for each of the four areas.</p>

<h2>The relationship between philosophy and Christian faith</h2>

<p>We need to do two things here: provide our kids with basic thinking tools and use those tools to refute the prevailing philosophy of our day: relativism.</p>

<p>We must provide our kids with the tools of thought needed to recognize basic fallacies. Here are two examples.</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>Fallacy #1: Begging the question. In other words, assuming what you are trying to prove.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Abortionist Henry Morgantaler of Canada has said, “Abortion is good because it prevents the birth of would-be criminals.”&nbsp;In other words, children raised in minority homes where they are largely unwanted grow up to commit crimes. Since a high percentage of abortions are performed on minority women, maybe abortion is good for society. It cuts downs the crime rate.</p>

<p>Well, maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. But it’s irrelevant as a moral consideration. The only question that matters morally is, What is the unborn? If the unborn are human, then killing them to prevent crime cannot be justified. The only way Morgantaler’s argument works is if you begin with the assumption that the unborn are not human—which is the very point abortion advocates want to prove. Imagine me saying, Let’s kill toddlers to prevent them from committing crimes when they get older. No one would argue this way because we know toddlers are human. Hence, only by assuming that the unborn are not human persons can we justify killing as a social good.</p>

<p>The point to underscore with our kids is this: Instead of proving their case with facts and arguments, abortion advocates like Henry Morgantaler simply assume it’s truth within the course of their rhetoric. We must teach our kids not to let them get away with these assumptions.</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>Fallacy #2: Attack the person rather than the argument (ad hominem fallacy). Christians are attacked this way all the time:</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Roseanne Barr said on her T.V. talk show, “You know who else I can’t stand is them people who are anti-abortion. I hate ’em. They are ugly, old, geeky, hideous men. They just don’t want nobody to have an abortion ’cuz they want you to keep spitting out kids so they can molest them.”</p>

<p>What if she’s right? Would this in any way refute the pro-life claim that the unborn are human persons? Clearly, it does not. The attack, therefore, is not only distasteful, it’s totally irrelevant to the argument the pro-lifer is making.</p>

<p>We also need to help our kids refute relativism (i.e. the idea that what’s right and what’s wrong is up to us). There are three key reasons why relativism fails (there are many more).</p>

<p>Relativism is self-refuting; it can’t live with it’s own rules. When a relativist says, “Don’t force your morality on me,”&nbsp;simply ask, “Why not?”&nbsp;Any reply he gives is an example of him forcing a view on you.</p>

<p>Relativism cannot say that anything is wrong or evil, including intolerance. If morals are relative, why be tolerant? In other words, who are you to say I should be tolerant? Perhaps tolerance is a virtue for you but not for me. Why are you forcing it on me?</p>

<p>The fact is that if morals are relative, there is no difference between Mother Theresa’s morality and Adolph Hitler’s morality. Hitler wasn’t evil; he just had preferences different from our own.</p>

<p>Those of you that listen to this show may remember an example provided by Greg Koukl. He was talking to an aid in a chiropractor’s office to find out what she thought about morality. Greg asked, “Is it wrong to torture babies for fun?”&nbsp;She thought a moment and said, “Well, I wouldn’t want to do that to my baby.���&nbsp;Greg persisted: “That’s not what I asked you. I didn’t ask if you liked torturing babies for fun; I asked if it is wrong to torture babies for fun?”&nbsp;She was caught and she knew it. She quickly changed the subject.</p>

<p>Finally, it is impossible to live as a moral relativist. As C.S. Lewis points out in Mere Christianity, a man who claims that morality is relative will complain if you break a promise or cut in line. To borrow an example from Dr. Moreland, the next time someone says morality is relative, steal his or her stereo. You can bet your last dollar they will protest. “You can’t do that!”</p>

<p>Oh, really? Why not?</p>

<p>(Resources: Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl.)</p>

<h2>The relationship between science and the Christian faith</h2>

<p>Two essential tasks here. First, we must define our terms and, second, we must defeat evolutionary thinking by arguing for intelligent design (rather than the age of the earth).</p>

<p>First, we need to define our terms: What do we mean by “science”&nbsp;and “faith?”</p>

<p>Robert Tracinski wrote in the Daily News, August 29, 1999, The Christian view of creation rests on “blind faith,”&nbsp;with absolutely no evidence.</p>

<p>Actually, it doesn’t. Christian faith, properly understood, is not a leap in the dark, but is based on evidence. St. Paul (1 Cor. 15) is clear: If Christ did not physically and historically rise from the dead, we are dead in our sins, our faith is in vain, and we, among all men, are to be pitied.</p>

<p>Christian opposition to the general theory of evolution, for example, is not based on blind faith, but evidence. We think evidence gathered from observing the universe points to an intelligent designer. To refute our claim, you must present evidence that we are wrong. It does no good to accuse us of “blind faith.”</p>

<p>By science, do you mean an objective look at the evidence or a refusal to look at the evidence because of your world view?</p>

<p>James Watson, Nobel prize winner, has said, “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical, coherent evidence, but because the only alternative is special creation, and that is clearly incredible.”</p>

<p>George Wald of Harvard University and a Nobel Prize winner said, “One need only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”</p>

<p>Next, we must be able to defend intelligent design rather than dispute the age of the earth.</p>

<p>In order for the general theory of evolution to be fact, you must prove two things.</p>

<p>First, you must prove abiogenesis, i.e. that life developed spontaneously from non-life. Try this. Ask an evolutionist to please explain how that happened. The answer? “Nobody knows.”</p>

<p>Greg Koukl asks a great question: “If you don’t know how it happened, how do you know that it happened?”</p>

<p>Evolutionist Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker, has written, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed.”</p>

<p><em>Question: If living things look designed, as Dawkins concedes, then how do you know they weren’t designed?</em></p>

<p>To sum up, evolution is called fact, but you can’t have the fact of evolution unless you have the fact of abiogenesis.</p>

<p>You must prove that life forms change from simple to complex over time, providing some proof of transitional forms from the fossil record. The evidence does not support this. The fossil record does not contain the transitional forms needed to prove Darwin’s theory.</p>

<p>Again, the important thing to note is this. When Christians argue for intelligent design, they point to the evidence. Perhaps we are mistaken, but we are not appealing to blind faith. If we are wrong, go ahead and prove it. But you must do it with facts and arguments. Casually dismissing our evidence because of your world view will not do.</p>

<p>(Resources: STR web site www.str.org—You can download free commentaries on evolution. Also, you can order Phillip Johnson’s excellent book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.</p>

<h2>The relationship between bio-ethics and Christian faith</h2>

<p>Simplify the debate. Show there is only one question to resolve, What is the unborn?</p>

<p>The answer to that question trumps all other considerations. It is key to answering virtually every objection to the pro-life view. Here are two examples.</p>

<ol>
	<li>“Abortion is a private matter between a woman and her God.”&nbsp;I agree, privacy is important. But do we allow parents to abuse their children as long as they do so in the privacy of their own home? Clearly, privacy isn’t the issue, but “What is the unborn?”&nbsp;If the unborn is a human person, it deserves the same protection other children do.</li>
	<li>“Many poor women cannot afford another child.”&nbsp;Perhaps so, but when human beings get expensive, may we kill them? What would we think of a mother who killed a toddler who was taxing the family budget? “That’s different,”&nbsp;you say, “The unborn aren’t human like those toddlers.”&nbsp;But all you’ve done is prove my point: the relevant issue isn’t economic hardship, but what is the unborn?</li>
</ol>

<p>Demonstrate that there is no relevant difference between a child in the womb and one that is already born. True, there are differences, but are those differences morally relevant? That is to say, are they significant in the way abortion advocates need them to be?</p>

<p>The unborn differs from the newborn in four ways, none of which are relevant to its status as a human being. Those four ways are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. The acronym SLED is a helpful reminder of those differences.</p>

<ul>
	<li>Size: The unborn are smaller then newborns, but since when has size had anything to do with the rights that people have? Men are generally larger than women, does that mean they deserve more rights? Is Shaquille O’Neal more of a person than feminist Gloria Steinem simply because he is larger? Clearly size isn’t the issue.</li>
	<li>Level of development: True, the unborn are less developed than newborns, but this too is morally irrelevant. A newborn, for that matter, is less developed than a toddler. A toddler is less developed than an adolescent. An adolescent is less developed than an adult. But we speak of all as equally human. Is a child of four, for example, less of a person because she has not yet developed sexually? It follows, then, that the ability to perform human functions is not a necessary condition for human personhood. Rather, a person is one with the natural, inherent capacity to give rise to personal acts—even if she lacks the current ability to perform those acts. People who are unconscious do not have the present capacity to perform personal acts. We don’t kill them because of it, nor should we kill the unborn.</li>
	<li>Environment: True, the unborn is located in a different place, but how does a change in location suddenly change a non-human entity into a human one? Did you stop being human when you walked from your house to the car? From the kitchen to the den? Clearly, where one is has no bearing on who one is. A child in the incubator of her mother’s womb is no less a child then the one being sustained by neonatal technology. Ladies and gentlemen, you don’t stop being human simply because you have a different address.</li>
	<li>Degree of dependency: If viability is what makes one human, then all those dependent on kidney machines, heart pace-makers, and insulin would have to be declared non-persons. There is no ethical difference between an unborn child who is plugged into and dependent upon its mother and a kidney patient who is plugged into and dependent upon a kidney machine. Siamese twins do not forfeit their right to live simply because they depend on each others circulatory systems.</li>
</ul>

<p>We can see, then, that the unborn child differs from a newborn one in only four ways—size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency—and none of those differences are good reasons for disqualifying it as fully human.</p>

<p>Resources: Precious Unborn Human Persons (Koukl)</p>

<h2>The relationship between history and the Christian faith</h2>

<p>Christianity stands or falls based on the historical reality of Christ and the resurrection (1 Cor. 15). The Jesus Seminar alleges that Jesus did not do what the New Testament writers said he did. The eyewitness accounts, members say, are not reliable. Why? Because over time, Christ’s followers reconstructed what He said and did.</p>

<p>First, there is no evidence that the New Testament writers made things up. Rather, it is merely assumed that because the Gospel accounts contain supernatural elements, they must be false. But this is to rule out the evidence a priori. Instead of looking at the evidence for the supernatural deeds of Christ, we simply say it couldn’t have happened because of our naturalistic world view will not allow it.</p>

<p>Another term for this is scientism, the belief that only science can tell us what’s true. But this is clearly self-refuting. To say that science is the only truth is to make a philosophic claim, not a scientific one. Try proving scientifically that science is the only truth.</p>

<p>Besides, we know lots of things to be true that cannot be proven scientifically. For example, we know that it is wrong to torture toddlers for fun. Can you prove that scientifically? It’s a category mistake to say you can (or should).</p>

<p>The fact that Jesus’&nbsp;closest followers wrote the New Testament documents does not mean they freely made things up about him. Again, if you believe that they did, you must show evidence for that claim, not merely assume its truth.</p>

<p>Craig Blomberg makes an excellent point. Jewish scholars are the foremost authorities on Hitler’s Holocaust against the Jews. It is Jewish researchers, after all, who have created museums and gathered eyewitness testimony. They clearly have an ideological purpose, but they have also been most faithful and objective in reporting the facts. Only anti-Semite racists question their scholarship.</p>

<p>Why should the New Testament writers be treated any differently? Is it fair to assume that just because they were followers of Christ, they made things up? If the Jesus Seminar members have proof for their claims, fine. Let them come forward with the evidence. But there is no good reason for our kids to accept their claims on blind faith. We can do better than that.</p>

<p>Resource: The Case for Christ (Lee Strobel)</p>

<p>To conclude my thoughts, ladies and gentlemen, we must prepare our kids for school intellectually as well as materially. That means we must help them understand four key relationships (or, if you will, areas of thought) pertaining to their Christian faith:</p>

<ul>
	<li>The relationship between philosophy and faith</li>
	<li>The relationship between science and faith</li>
	<li>The relationship between bio-ethics and faith</li>
	<li>The relationship between history and faith</li>
</ul>

<p>What is your church youth pastor doing to educated students on these four areas? How about your pastor? What about you parents? We as guardians of the young must certainly do more than prepare them intellectually, but we must never do less.</p>
</div>

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


title: How Christians Can Deal with Tragedy
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/13/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-christians-can-deal-with-tragedy
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em><strong>It’s a good thing before trials come to put our thoughts in proper order about how to deal with difficulties and tragedies that God allows in our lives, and not to let them shake us from what the Truth is, if we are in possession of it.</strong></em></p>

<p>Friends of mine in Northern California, Neil and Anna, like a lot of Christian couples at one time or another, met with tragedy last year: the loss of a child. Their second child was born just before Thanksgiving—a second little girl, Caroline—and soon after, they found that the baby had serious medical complications. Then they learned that the baby might not make it, which is what happened. They lost her just nine days after she was born.</p>

<p>Most Christians don’t go through this kind of tragedy, but we go through other difficult things. And when bad things happen, we are shaken in our confidence because, though we understand how this can happen in theory, we don’t always understand how it can happen to us.</p>

<p>What was sweet about my friends’ circumstance is the way that Neil and Anna dealt with this before the Lord, and how their theological convictions and their understanding of apologetics informed the way they dealt with this tragedy. In other words, they had a robust Christian worldview. And when I say “robust,” I mean more than just their belief that Jesus died for their sins.</p>

<p>The Christian worldview is so much more expansive than the central truths that sit on the threshold of the Christian relationship with God. In other words, those fundamental beliefs are at the doorway. They’re what we put our trust in to get into relationship with God. But the Christian worldview and the way it influences our life is so much more than those basic and necessary beliefs. It’s sad that so many Christians are still just inside the doorway, in terms of their views. They don’t know enough about Christianity to richly inform their lives the way the truths of Christianity, which are the truths of reality, informed the life of Neil and Anna as they faced this tremendous challenge emotionally, spiritually, and personally.</p>

<p>I’d like to read to you a section of what Anna wrote in reflection soon after her newborn baby died. This picks up at the point in which they realized that their baby is not just sick, but she will likely die, lost to them, at least for this time.</p>

<p>Anna Mammen wrote:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Caroline’s death was now a very real possibility [based on the news they’d just received]. I remember everything turning black and feeling like the bed was going to open up and swallow me. I felt my heart had been ripped from my chest, and that I was freefalling into the blackest abyss I could imagine. And I didn’t know what to do. I kept asking, “What do I do? I don’t know what to do! How can this happen?”</p>

<p>I also remember saying, “How will we go on? How will I raise my first daughter, Mary Katherine?” Neil [her husband] held me, and we cried, and I sobbed. And then my mom came in, and she cried with us, and I sobbed, and we prayed, and then my mom left us alone, and I sobbed some more.</p>

<p>And then Neil started feeding me...and feeding me...feeding me lines of Truth. He gently said, “She’s not ours. We don’t deserve her. This happens every day, all over the world. We’re not special. We will go on. We will have more kids. We will not let this harden us.” And I was comforted.</p>

<p>Now, you may think that those are strange things to say and to take comfort in, but let me tell you why it wasn’t for us. You see, when I met Neil, he had two passions that stood out. One was for something known as apologetics: investigation to questions such as, “Is the Bible True?” I mean, really capital-T True, or is it full of errors? Is it a book of fairy tales and wishful thinking? How can you trust that it’s accurate? Isn’t it just a copy of a copy of a copy? Is there solid evidence that Jesus ever even lived at all, much less died and rose again? Are the places and people in the Bible real? What sources outside of the Bible can back up the Biblical accounts of history? Is there enough evidence to be convincing? Would it hold up in a court of law? How does evidence for the Truth of Christianity compare for the evidence of other religions?</p>

<p>Now, why I’m bringing this up is because in that moment, up until that time—the worst day in my life—I was so thankful I didn’t have the added burden of questioning my belief and faith in God, and that’s because I hadn’t made the decision to become a Christian based on tradition or emotion. I had a faith that stood upon reasonable evidence.</p>

<p>Second, Neil and I both grew up in homes passionate about theology. For the nine years we’ve been married, we’ve enjoyed discussing the tough questions of life and death and God and reality, questions like, “Is God good? Uninvolved? Indifferent?” “If God is good, why does He allow suffering in the world?” “Why do bad things happen to good people?” “What about miracles? Who gets them, and when, and why? Are they only for the really good people? How does my faith play into miracles?” “Does God punish His people?”</p>

<p>We read and chew on and discuss and argue and go to conferences and listen to podcasts on long road trips about these issues, because we find them interesting and worthwhile, and they are part of the diet of our lives. So, when I found myself face to face with that black abyss, Neil fed me the statements of solid conclusions we’d already thought through, and it stabilized me.</p>

<p>I know that for me, personally, cherubs and clichés of guardian angels and some fuzzy picture of an old man in the sky with a long beard wouldn’t have been enough, as my daughter lay dying 30 miles from my house. In fact, tradition and my religious upbringing instantly vanished, and couldn’t have been less important. But Neil reminded me of these Truths, and I grabbed hold of them, and they were my lifeline.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Then she explains, one by one, what Neil meant by the statements of Truth that he fed her that were reminders of what she knew, and stabilized and comforted her in the midst of this tremendous loss, though clearly it did not take away the pain of the loss.</p>

<p>I think this is an important part of their perspective on their tragedy and a point that I want you to get, which is the reason that I’m reading Anna Mammen’s words. Here are the Truths: “She is not ours. We don’t deserve her. This happens every day all over the world. We’re not special.” Here’s what those things meant. Here’s the substance of them.</p>

<p>“She’s not ours.” [Neil] meant that she’s God’s. She, like you and I, were made in His image, with a purpose and a set number of days, and has a life beyond the nine months [while she, Caroline, was growing in her mother, Anna] and the nine days on this earth. While we pray she touches your hearts and she changes us, makes us more sensitive, softer, and loving, makes this world a better place, beyond all that, she is a soul eternal. She isn’t a concept in the past tense. She’s her own precious person, still existing right now.</p>

<p>Neil said, “We don’t deserve her.” He meant we are fallen. We are imperfect people who fall short of the glory of God, yet He saved us. Every good gift, including the nine days with Caroline, comes from Him. Throughout our marriage, Neil has made comments, whenever blessings have come our way, that we are undeserving of them. We get a new car, and he’d at some point say, “You know, we don’t deserve this.” When we bought our home, at some point, he’d comment, “We’ve been so blessed. You know, we don’t deserve any of this.” And then I’d respond, “I know, I know. You’re right.” And when Mary Katherine was born, we said the same thing. So when he said, “We don’t deserve Caroline,” I knew exactly what he meant, and I agreed, and the blessing of our coming to the conclusion that we don’t deserve something, that we aren’t owed or entitled to anything by God, is that it stops the root of bitterness and anger from taking hold and growing.</p>

<p>In other words, what she’s saying is she could be thankful for what she was given, because that’s on the plus side. And she was only given nine days with her daughter Caroline, but she didn’t even deserve the nine days, and they take those nine days as a blessing, and see the blessing that continues to follow, even after Caroline is gone.</p>

<p>Neil said, “This happens every day, all over the world. We’re not special.” Again, that’s true. We are no more special than any of you. No one escapes suffering or death. When I look out across this room, my heart aches for what I know many of you have gone through, and are going through, in all kinds of scenarios, and even now, with our daughter right over there, [dying, as it turned out] throughout the course of this week, we’ve heard from some of you the tragic stories of your lives. And we’ve commented to each other, “How are they surviving that? Now, that would’ve been so hard. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be to lose your mom, to face cancer, to suffer abuse, to manage chronic pain day in and day out.”</p>

<p>Then she concludes, after offering these reflections for our encouragement the things that have encouraged her, she says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>This is not the last of our suffering. And whatever you’ve been through, it’s not the last of yours, either. We aren’t special. And finally, Neil also said, “We know where Caroline’s going, and we will see her again.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I know it must still be tremendously difficult for them. You can pray for God’s mercy to be heavy upon them, as I have been, and it will a long, long time before they get out from underneath the moment-by-moment pain of losing that baby.</p>

<p>Isn’t it interesting how knowledge of the Truth makes all the difference? And isn’t it sad how those who have not been enriched in knowledge of the Truth, both in the apologetics that were mentioned—the reasons why we believe what we believe—to hold us firmly during the tough times, and the theological understanding of how God works, who He is, and the reality that we’re not special.</p>

<p>As Christians, we’re not rescued from the contingencies of living in a fallen world. People all over the world suffer, including Christians. Sometimes people say, “Why would God allow this to happen to me?” Why wouldn’t He?</p>

<p>Tom Brewer, one of my first teachers in Christianity, said to me when I was but a year or so old in the Lord, “Jesus is not the bridge over troubled waters. But He will pull you through the troubled waters if you can stand the tow.” I have had many, many occasions to reflect on that as I faced my own troubled waters, and pled with God to rescue me out of them...which, as it turns out, He almost never does. When you think of the things that you’ve faced in your life, the hardships that have confronted you, and the times that you’ve prayed for God to change it, to end it, to take it away, to rescue you, to relieve you of this burden, how many times has He actually answered the prayer in that way? I would suggest, probably precious few. That certainly is true in my case. In fact, I can’t think, in 36 years, of any time when I have faced some crisis that I had some miraculous rescue.</p>

<p>The observation of my own life—and I think this is something the Mammens would agree with in the trial they’re facing right now—is that God doesn’t usually rescue us out of troubles, but rescues us in them, rescues us through them. Sometimes He does rescue us out of it by some sovereign act of grace. But generally, that doesn’t happen. By His sovereign act of grace, He rescues us through it. And when we look back on it after it’s over, we say, “I’d never want to go through that again.” But isn’t it true that most of the time we look back and say, “I’m glad I did go through it for what God did in me in the midst of that”? And that’s the way He rescues us.</p>

<p>It’s a good thing before trials come to put our thoughts in proper order about how to deal with difficulties and tragedies that God allows in our lives, and not to let them shake us from what the Truth is, if we are in possession of it.</p>

<p><em>[The above article is a transcript from a Stand to Reason radio commentary.]</em></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-christians-can-deal-with-tragedy" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-christians-can-deal-with-tragedy" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-christians-can-deal-with-tragedy" 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: Enjoy This Fourth of July Week
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/02/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/enjoy-this-fourth-of-july-week
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Have a happy Fourth of July, and remember: We’re to love all—friends and enemies, fellow countrymen and those around the world—but it’s not wrong to have a special love for your child that goes beyond your love for other children. It’s not wrong to have a special love for your family that goes beyond your love for other families. And it’s not wrong to have a special love for your country and its people that goes beyond your love for other countries. God has placed us in various circles (families, churches, cities, countries) that He intends for us to specially love and care for.</p>

<p>It’s the street where everyone cares specially for his own garden that the most beauty happens for all. Everyone loses on the street where no one feels a particular attachment to his own garden, where no one has a special desire to lovingly tend to the space that has been given to him and his family. So don’t be afraid to specially love and work for the good of the country you find yourself in. If you’re Canadian, I hope you love Canada. If you’re Australian, I delight in seeing you love Australia. And since I’m an American, I’ll celebrate the birthday of my country and seek its blessing (though there are other countries), just as anyone would celebrate the birthday of his own child and seek his blessing (though there are other children).</p>

<p>If you react negatively to those who say “God bless America,”&nbsp;ask yourself if anyone hearing a father pray specifically for his son would scold him for not praying instead for “all the children of the world.”&nbsp;Would anyone feel the need to point out that his son is imperfect and unworthy of his special prayers? Do we not rather see the beauty of his familial love? Are we not touched by it and reminded to love our own? Let us love our own more, not less, and rejoice in others loving their own.</p>

<p>From last year’s <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/07/god-bless-america.html" target="_blank">post</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>On this Fourth of July, I say, “God bless America!”&nbsp;But saying “God bless America”&nbsp;doesn’t mean, “God, give us prosperity and everything we want.”&nbsp;I’m asking God for good things, but those good things include His granting the people of this nation conviction of our sin, repentance, grace, faith, wisdom, justice and mercy in our treatment of each other, knowledge of the truth, trust in Him, and even suffering, if that suffering will bring about everything else on the list.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Have a happy Fourth of July!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fenjoy-this-fourth-of-july-week" 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%2Fenjoy-this-fourth-of-july-week" 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%2Fenjoy-this-fourth-of-july-week" 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 New Response to the Violinist Argument
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/10/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-new-response-to-the-violinist-argument
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The “Violinist”&nbsp;argument for keeping abortion legal is an illustration created by Judith Jarvis Thompson for the purpose of clarifying our moral intuitions about abortion by considering a parallel situation. The Violinist story goes like this (see the full, original story <a href="/w/unstringing-the-violinist" target="_blank">here</a>): A woman wakes up to find she’s been attached without her consent to a famous violinist who needs the help of her kidneys for the next nine months in order to live. If the woman detaches herself from him, he will die.</p>

<p>According to Thompson, since it’s clear that the woman ought not be forced by law to remain attached to this man (though he is a person with rights), in the same way, the law ought not force a woman to remain attached to an unborn child who is similarly using her body to live (though he is a person with rights).</p>

<p>In response to this bodily rights argument, <a href="http://www.jfaweb.org/Meet_the_Mentors.html" target="_blank">Stephen Wagner</a>, <a href="https://equalrightsinstitute.com/leadership-team/josh-brahm/" target="_blank">Josh Brahm</a>, and <a href="http://www.jfaweb.org/Meet_the_Mentors.html" target="_blank">Timothy Brahm</a> (along with others—see <a href="http://www.jfaweb.org/Training/DeFactoGuardian-v03.pdf" target="_blank">acknowledgments</a>) have developed a new illustration that more closely parallels the situation of a pregnant woman (including those who are pregnant by rape), which they call “The Cabin in the Blizzard.”&nbsp;From Stephen Wagner’s paper, “<a href="https://www.jfaweb.org/jfa-blog/2015/10/13/a-response-to-the-strongest-violinist" target="_blank">De Facto Guardian and Abortion</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Imagine that a woman named Mary wakes up in a strange cabin. Having gone to sleep in her suburban home the night before, she starts to scream frantically. She goes to the window and sees snow piled high. It appears she is snowed in. On the desk by the window, she finds a note that says,</p>

<p>“You will be here for six weeks.</p>

<p>You are safe, and your child is, too.</p>

<p>There is plenty of food and water.”</p>

<p>Since she just gave birth a week ago, she instinctively begins tearing through each room of the cabin looking for her infant son. She finds an infant in a second room, but it is not her infant. It is a girl who appears to be about one week old, just like her son. Mary begins to scream.</p>

<p>Pulling herself together, she goes to the kitchen area of the cabin and finds a huge store of food and a ready source of water. The baby begins to cry, and she rightly assesses that the baby is hungry. Mary sees a three-month supply of formula on the counter in the kitchen area.</p>

<p>Now imagine that the police show up at the cabin six weeks later, and Mary emerges from the cabin. After determining she is in good health, albeit a good bit frazzled, one policeman says, “We’ve been investigating this situation for some time. The Behavioral Psychologists from the nearby University of Lake Wobegon are responsible. We’ll bring them to justice. We’re so glad you’re okay. Is there anyone else in the cabin?”</p>

<p>Mary said quietly, “There was.”</p>

<p>“There was?”&nbsp;The police hurry past her to the cabin. They search the cabin and find the infant formula unopened on the counter. They find the infant dead on a bed. The coroner confirms that the infant died from starvation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We can see that Mary was wrong for not feeding the baby in this situation, regardless of the fact that she did not consent to these demands being placed on her. As Wagner points out, our moral intuition tells us her obligation to feed the child exists even if her only option is to use her own body to breastfeed that child, causing her great discomfort. And even if the note Mary found had a fourth line saying, “If the child in the cabin dies, you will be rescued immediately,”&nbsp;we still would not think her justified in killing the baby either actively or passively.</p>

<p>Wagner analyzes why this obligation exists:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What’s going on here? My colleague Timothy Brahm and I, in trying to put our finger on what seems to be happening in her case, called her a <em>de facto guardian</em>. It just happens to be the case, for whatever reason, that Mary is now in a situation in which she is the only person in the vicinity who can help a child in need. It’s as if Mary is now situated in the same way a parent or guardian is situated most of the time, but in Mary’s case, it’s by accident. Finding herself situated as a parent, she now shoulders the <em>same obligations of a parent or guardian</em>, and in her case, temporarily. It’s as if the obligations slipped over onto her by the accident of the situation...</p>

<p>A parent’s moral obligations, at least for feeding and sheltering their children, are so strong that we say there should also be laws forcing parents to do these things. If the moral obligations of a <em>de facto guardian</em> like Mary are simply the same obligations of a parent, yet temporary, then they must also be legal obligations. In other words, it should not be legal for a person in the <em>de facto guardian</em> position to neglect the feeding and sheltering of the child.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Wagner’s paper explores different variations of the cabin story (formula vs. no formula, the existence of severe physical difficulties, the baby is her own child, she’s trapped for two years instead of six weeks, etc.), responds to objections, and explains why this illustration is a much more accurate analogy to pregnancy than is Thompson’s Violinist. The full <a href="https://www.jfaweb.org/jfa-blog/2015/10/13/a-response-to-the-strongest-violinist" target="_blank">paper</a> is worth a read.</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-new-response-to-the-violinist-argument" 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-new-response-to-the-violinist-argument" 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-new-response-to-the-violinist-argument" 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 Jesus the Only Way?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/17/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-jesus-the-only-way-2
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>A view called “inclusivism”&nbsp;has been a cancer spreading in the church for years now reaching epidemic proportions.</em></p>

<p>It was Rosh Hashanah, one of the holiest days on the Jewish liturgical calendar, and I was sitting before an audience of 300 religious Jews doing my best to explain to them why Jesus was the only way of salvation.</p>

<p>I wasn’t alone. My Jewish host had also asked another Christian clergyman to weigh in with me on issues the audience was interested in. The question of Jesus was the first one, and he had a completely different take on the matter than I did.</p>

<p>Yes, Jesus was the only way, he said, but that was largely irrelevant to our audience because they were religious Jews, honoring God the best way they knew how. God took that, implicitly, as devotion to Jesus and thus they were all saved <em>by</em> Jesus even though they didn’t believe <em>in</em> Jesus.</p>

<p>As stunning as such a statement was coming from a Christian, it didn’t surprise me. This view (called “inclusivism”) has been a cancer spreading in the church for years now reaching epidemic proportions.</p>

<p>It wasn’t appropriate (nor helpful) to have a “that’s-your-interpretation-not-mine”&nbsp;battle in front of our listeners, but I did press the issue a bit further by asking for any New Testament verse that supported the assurance he had just given the audience. He quoted Mark 9:40, “Those who are not against Me are for Me.”&nbsp;Since these nice Jewish people before us weren’t <em>against</em> Jesus, they must be <em>for</em> Him, he reasoned.</p>

<p>He had misquoted slightly (“For <em>he</em> who is not against <em>us</em> is for <em>us”</em>), but the bigger concern had to do with the larger context of the verse. In this passage, Jesus referred to those outside His core group of disciples who were performing miracles in His name. Jesus was referring to <em>His own followers</em>, then, not unbelieving Jews.</p>

<p>By contrast, when Jesus was talking with <em>Jews</em> who rejected His Messianic claim, His response was exactly the opposite: “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters”&nbsp;(Matt. 12:30).</p>

<p>Clearly, this second set of circumstances was more like those we faced that day. Therefore, the passage giving warning, not assurance, was the relevant one for our audience. In fact, this was exactly the answer other New Testament authorities gave when referring to audiences like ours that afternoon.</p>

<p>When Jesus faced devout religious Jews who denied He was the Messiah, He said, “Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins”&nbsp;(Jn. 8:24).</p>

<p>When Peter stood before the Jewish leadership as a criminal for preaching the Gospel to Jews, he said, “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under Heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved”&nbsp;(Acts 4:11).</p>

<p>When Paul reflected on his Jewish countrymen’s rejection of Jesus, he said, “I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes”&nbsp;(Romans 10:1-4).</p>

<p>There is no room in any of these passages (or the rest of the New Testament, for that matter) for the kind of assurances my friend gave the Jewish audience that day.</p>

<p>Further, if this is the same message the early disciples delivered, why were they beaten, jailed, and executed first by Jews and later by gentile authorities? An inclusivist message would bring no such reprisal—it’s completely unoffensive. The message the early Christians preached, by contrast, cost many of them their lives.</p>

<p>No, the early Christians had the right message—Jesus’&nbsp;message. The other Christian clergyman with me that day did not. Nor do any others speaking for Christianity who advance this distorted gospel. Their soothing message helps no one. Instead, it gives false hope to multitudes on the gravest of issues, their eternal destinies.</p>

<p>Some messages sound soothing, but give false comfort. STR’s approach is to give the truth, yet with grace and wisdom. We don’t want our manner to be a stumbling block to attracting people to Christ, but we also don’t want the truth of our message to be sacrificed simply to protect people’s feelings.</p>

<p>This problem is so pronounced, we recently created a helpful teaching CD to address this growing challenge “<a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD305" target="_blank">Two Miracles: The Cross and the Resurrection.</a>”&nbsp;You might also find helpful a <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK109" target="_blank">booklet with a compilation of over 100 verses</a> where Jesus claimed He was the only way to reconciliation with the Father.</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-jesus-the-only-way-2" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-jesus-the-only-way-2" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-jesus-the-only-way-2" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Treating the Symptoms and the Disease
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/11/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/treating-the-symptoms-and-the-disease
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Followers of Jesus Christ face two extremes in the discussion of Christianity and citizenship. Do we aggressively invade culture, offering political solutions, or divorce from culture, trusting the Spirit to change hearts? The biblical approach is not one or the other; Christians must do both.</em></p>

<p>Followers of Jesus Christ face two extremes in the discussion of Christianity and citizenship.</p>

<p>One side seeks a divorce from culture. Arguments don’t persuade, they say. That’s the job of the Spirit who works most effectively through the simple preaching of the Gospel. Let God first change the hearts, then the culture will follow. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.</p>

<p>Radical activists, on the other hand, aggressively invade culture with political solutions. Christians are to be politically active, is their motto, salt and light to a dying world. Return America to its Christian roots and restoration will follow. Don’t ignore the symptoms. Change hearts by providing the proper political and moral climate.</p>

<p>The biblical approach, though, is not either one or the other. Christians must do both.</p>

<p>When a patient is sick, a doctor’s ultimate goal is to bring healing by curing the disease. Yet, he doesn’t ignore the pain, anguish and debilitation the disease causes. He must treat the symptoms and the disease. Both are necessary for a suffering patient.</p>

<p>In the same way, we must recover an interest in our culture, becoming involved citizens seeking not a Christian nation, but instead establishing a just government. As Christians we must also be fully committed in word and deed to our creed, reliably outlined for us in the Scriptures.</p>

<p>Evangelical author Michael Horton has said, “Political solutions are not ultimate for the same reason that medical solutions are not ultimate. In the end, we all die from something. That does not mean that we ignore the symptoms, nor that we refuse to follow the doctor’s instructions and do what we can to remain alive, but it does mean that we do not treat them as the answer to life’s greatest questions.”&nbsp;[Michael Horton, <em>Beyond Culture Wars</em>, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p. 59.]</p>

<p>In short, government cannot can’t cure the disease by making people good in an ultimate sense. It can, though, control the symptoms somewhat by restraining sinful men from being as bad as they can be. And this is a good thing.</p>

<h2>The Difference Between Symptoms and Disease</h2>

<p>Sometimes well-meaning Evangelicals confuse things by campaigning for political solutions to solve what are essentially spiritual problems. The way to avoid this is to carefully distinguish between Gospel, moral teaching, and partisan political viewpoints.</p>

<p>Gospel defines what is necessary for Christians to believe in order to attain salvation. It answers the question, “What must I do to be saved?”&nbsp;The answer is not political, but personal and theological.</p>

<p>Moral teaching consists of conduct that is obligatory for obedient Christians, yet does not determine their salvation. Christians are saved by God’s unmerited grace, not by properly casting their vote in an election.</p>

<p>Political viewpoints are developed by applying moral convictions and personal preferences to issues of the public good.</p>

<p>Confusion results when Christians hold political views that seem to be inconsistent with biblical principles or morality. The temptation is strong to make “Christian”&nbsp;political correctness the litmus test for faith. No particular political view, however, is a requirement for salvation. Our Christianity is determined not by our view of the deficit, or taxes, or even of abortion, but by our view of Christ.</p>

<p>One caveat here. Though political viewpoints <em>per se</em> should not be a test of the faith, there are some positions that seem to be profoundly un-Christian since they conflict so directly with a biblical view of the world. Abortion and homosexuality immediately come to mind. It’s possible to be a Christian and hold these views, but something is clearly wrong. If their Christianity completely fails to inform their political life, then it may not be relevant to the rest of their life, either. If this is a pervasive pattern, their claim to be Christian is meaningless.</p>

<h2>Interacting Positively with Culture While Speaking the Truth</h2>

<p>Christians are not going to “take America back.”&nbsp;America is lost and only God can save it. Christians can be used by God, though, to treat the symptoms through positive interaction with culture. They can also play a redemptive role in the lives of individuals to cure the disease by being faithful to speak the truth.</p>

<p>This does not mean making a “Christian nation”&nbsp;in which the theological doctrines of the Bible are explicitly woven into the fabric of government, or by giving Christians a preferential place in the public square. Rather, it involves working together with our neighbors to create a just nation concerned for the common good.</p>

<p>Acrimony and shrill histrionics won’t accomplish that. Instead, we must recover the art of persuasion. Moral and rational appeals done incisively, yet graciously, can go a long way to replace coercive political action.</p>

<p>The Bible has been rejected by many as an authority. Merely quoting chapter and verse amounts to throwing Scriptural rocks at people’s heads. It just makes them angry. Paul told the Colossians to, “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person”&nbsp;(4:6). This is good counsel for us, too.</p>

<p>We can form our arguments on the basis of common grace and natural revelation, rather than on the basis of church and redemption. We can make our point in public by natural law and not by Scripture. It’s the same truth, just a different tactic. We can accommodate our language, though not our message. We can blend with our culture and become “all things to all men,”&nbsp;yet still maintain the values and conduct of the Christian faith.</p>

<p>Christians have no trump card in the debate on public policy. The legitimacy of our views in the public square comes solely from our appeal to the common good and justice for all in faithfulness to the commands of Scripture.</p>

<p>Yes, we must continue to proclaim the simple Gospel—the faith of the Fathers—which alone can cure the disease of sin. When it comes to politics, though—to treating the symptoms—our message isn’t the faith of our Fathers, but rather the moral and political philosophy of our Founders.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftreating-the-symptoms-and-the-disease" 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%2Ftreating-the-symptoms-and-the-disease" 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%2Ftreating-the-symptoms-and-the-disease" 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: Late-term Abortion
topic: Bioethics
author: Melinda Penner
date: 07/03/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/late-term-abortion
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=uCX-tLqETpk" target="_blank">recording of the counseling</a> a woman received who went in for a late-term abortion—what she was told about the procedure and what to expect. The callousness with which they discuss killing the baby is disturbing. In fact, they repeatedly refer to the baby as “the pregnancy.”&nbsp;They also dissemble when the woman asks about the baby experiencing pain, which babies clearly do by 20 weeks.</p>

<p>(HT: <a href="http://www.challies.com" target="_blank">Challies</a>)</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flate-term-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%2Flate-term-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%2Flate-term-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: Christians Aren’t Allowed to Be Jerks
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/christians-aren-t-allowed-to-be-jerks
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Unpleasant, hostile, conniving, catty, arrogant, complainer, gossip—Christians with traits like these bring discredit not just on themselves, but also the Gospel of Jesus Christ.</em></p>

<p>One of my callers had a valid question. He asked if there is such a thing as mean-spirited Christians. My answer was, yes, Christians do all kinds of bad things, unfortunately.</p>

<p>I have to confess to you, I get discouraged when I hear of Christians being unpleasant. On the one hand, it’s understandable when Christians trip up and fall into error. I never get down on people who are seeking to live a Christian life and fail, even when they fail consistently in a difficult area. They’re working on it.</p>

<p><strong>I get discouraged when I hear of Christians being unpleasant.</strong></p>

<p>To me it’s an entirely different thing, though, when believers have consistent behavior patterns that are deeply offensive to God.</p>

<p>I just heard of a former friend of mine who’s been living with his girlfriend. (By the way, if you’re a non-Christian, I don’t expect you to understand this. I can appreciate that this is silliness to you.) Part of being a Christian means you play by certain rules, because being a Christian means you’re a follower of Jesus Christ. He leads; you follow. What He says, you do. That’s the way it’s supposed to be, at least. That’s the point of referring to Jesus as “Lord.”</p>

<p>When I found out my friend had been with this girl for ten years, I asked a mutual acquaintance, “Why didn’t he get married?”&nbsp;He said, “Because he’s got all the pleasures of being married without having to walk down the aisle. They’ve been living together for five or six years. They know it’s wrong, but they still do it.”</p>

<p>I thought, “What does it mean for them to call Jesus ’Lord’&nbsp;if they’re fully content to continue living in complete defiance of His desires?”</p>

<p>“But I love Jesus. I’m a Christian. Hallelujah, praise the Lord! Saved by grace, happy condition; sin as you please because there’s remission!”</p>

<p>Jesus called that hypocrisy.</p>

<p>Frankly, I don’t actually run into many Christians who are living together. Usually, Evangelicals who tolerate sin aren’t quite so blatant. The ones I run into more frequently are like the ones my caller mentioned, people who are just unpleasant or mean-spirited. I have a hard time with that.</p>

<p>I don’t understand how a Christian can talk about love, then feel he has complete liberty to be nasty, unpleasant, conniving or catty—a jerk, to put it simply.</p>

<p>This happens with Christian leaders more often than I’d like to admit. I don’t understand how people who say they love Jesus can get their backs up so quickly and be so consistently hostile to others. You know them, and so do I. “Oh yeah, what’s-his-name. What a jerk. Don’t sit next to him at worship. What’s he even doing in church anyway? And he’s in leadership!”</p>

<p>Friends, we don’t have the liberty to be jerks. It’s not allowed. We don’t have the liberty to be mean-spirited. It’s not allowed.</p>

<p>“Oh, now you’re putting me under the law.”</p>

<p>No I’m not. I’m not talking here about your justification. A Christian is justified by Jesus alone, not his own efforts. That’s a given. I’m actually presuming you’re already justified (though, if you keep living in rebellion to Christ, that’s a good reason to doubt it).</p>

<p>Justification is not the issue. Simple obedience is. Paul writes, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age”&nbsp;(Titus 2:11-12).</p>

<p><strong>A godly person is alert to the details of his conduct so he can be more like Christ.</strong></p>

<p>This is why I so appreciated the response of a friend this morning when I pointed out what I thought might be a small, character flaw developing in his life. He essentially said, “Thank you.”</p>

<p>Now that’s a godly person. A godly person is alert to the details of his conduct so he can be more like Christ. Contrast that with the so-called Christian who says, “Leave me alone. Get off my back. Don’t criticize. Who are you to judge?”&nbsp;That’s the spirit of the world, not the spirit of Christ.</p>

<p>It’s the job of those in the Body of Christ—leaders, peers, friends—to give feedback so that each of us might live righteously. Why? For one, because our lives are laid bare before the world. Others are watching. That’s why Peter writes, “Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles.”&nbsp;Why? “So that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation”&nbsp;(1 Peter 2:12).</p>

<p>Peter then adds, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution...For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men”&nbsp;(1 Peter 2:13, 15).</p>

<p>What happens instead? We have Christians who are nasty and offensive. They exercise their “right”&nbsp;to be jerks and bring discredit not just on themselves—which they do consistently—but also on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.</p>

<p><strong>You ought to thank people for correcting you. They’re telling you something about yourself that others see and that is destructive in your own life.</strong></p>

<p>You know, if you’re one these people, guess what. Everybody sees it. Guess what else. People don’t like you. Did you ever think about that? You want to be liked, but if you’re nasty, and arrogant, if you’re a complainer and a gossip, people don’t like that. And if you consistently do what people don’t like, they won’t like you.</p>

<p>If you want to be liked, why don’t you try being more likable? What’s so hard about that? Not only will others see it and glorify God, but others will see it and like you more. Your testimony will be stronger. More than that, you’ll feel a lot better.</p>

<p>The only way that can happen, though, is if you’re willing to put the defenses down and not get your back up when someone corrects you. You ought to thank people for correcting you. They’re telling you something about yourself that others see and that is destructive in your own life. It makes other people dislike you, and hurts the cause of the Gospel.</p>

<p>They tell you these things for your good. If they’re not telling you, then I don’t think they love you that much. Or maybe they’re too scared of your reaction. Maybe they think you’ll bite their heads off if they were honest. Bad sign.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-aren-t-allowed-to-be-jerks" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-aren-t-allowed-to-be-jerks" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fchristians-aren-t-allowed-to-be-jerks" 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: No Stable Rights without Intrinsic Human Value
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/25/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/no-stable-rights-without-intrinsic-human-value
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Kelsey Hazzard, the president of Secular Pro-Life, is not religious, so in her <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/12/pro-abortion-rabbi-dont-impose-your-science-on-me/" target="_blank">response</a> to a pro-choice rabbi’s article pleading with pro-lifers to not impose their religion on the country, she counters that the rabbi is actually insisting that pro-lifers not “impose their <em>science”</em>&nbsp;on the country. An excerpt (the rabbi’s remarks are indented):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You possess a (not THE) definition of what constitutes life.</p>

<p><em>The Princess Bride</em> was wrong; there is no such thing as mostly dead and slightly alive. You are one or the other. It is a scientific question with a right or wrong answer. The “many truths”&nbsp;approach does not work when the issue is one of objective fact.</p>

<p>And you won’t back down from trying to defend it. There is much integrity to that consistency.</p>

<p>But, like all things religious, it is also potentially dangerous.</p>

<p>How is it “religious”&nbsp;when there are millions of pro-lifers in the United States with no religion? It can’t just be because there are religious folks who agree with us; most religious people also agree that human trafficking is immoral, but we don’t call human trafficking a religious issue.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Hazzard is right about being able to scientifically pinpoint exactly when a human being begins to exist as a live, whole organism. It always amazes me that pro-choicers who take the more mystical approach, saying that life is infused into a human organism at some date after the beginning of its existence, accuse pro-lifers of making an inappropriately <em>religious</em> determination on the beginning of life.</p>

<p>But of course, most pro-choicers know that the fetal human being is scientifically <em>alive</em>. What they’re <a href="/w/mr.-candidate-how-does-religion-inform-your-view-on-abortion-" target="_blank">really objecting to</a> is the idea of intrinsic human value—i.e., the idea that every member of the <em>Homo sapiens</em> species is valuable, regardless of his or her individual characteristics and abilities, because every human being shares the same valuable human nature (which reflects the objective value of God). And usually, it’s this idea of intrinsic human value and its corresponding <em>universal</em> equality and human rights that they’re dismissing as being “religious”&nbsp;(which to them means “not part of objective reality”).</p>

<p>Hazzard recognizes that human value and rights are objectively real, and she can argue for them by appealing to our moral intuition (see <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131211130324/https://sites.google.com/site/roeflip/" target="_blank">here</a>, for example), but not by appealing to science. Universal human rights depend on a shared human nature and intrinsic human value, which can’t be verified scientifically because the scientific method is not capable of detecting things like intrinsic value. Unfortunately, in a society infected by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism" target="_blank">scientism</a>, people have all the wiggle room they need to illegitimately dismiss a scientifically unmeasurable idea they disagree with from the public square by labeling it “religious,”&nbsp;since they can count on our culture interpreting that to mean “a subjective matter of preference.”</p>

<p>I found Hazzard’s comment, “[W]e don’t call human trafficking a religious issue,”&nbsp;to be particularly instructive as an illustration of how unstable rights are when the idea of objective, intrinsic human value is rejected. For of course, human trafficking <em>was</em> labeled a subjective religious issue when it suited the purposes of those who wished to traffic in African slaves.</p>

<p>From Chuck Colson’s preface to William Wilberforce’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Christianity-Hendrickson-Christian-Classics/dp/1598561227/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1374188380&amp;sr=8-1-fkmr0&amp;keywords=a+practical+view+of+christianity+hendricks" target="_blank"><em>A Practical View of Christianity</em></a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Pitt moved that a resolution be passed binding the House to discuss the slave trade in the next session. The motion was passed. But then another of Wilberforce’s friends, Sir William Dolben, introduced a one-year experimental bill to regulate the number of slaves that could be transported per ship.</p>

<p>Now sensing a threat, the West Indian bloc rose up in opposition. Tales of cruelty in the slave trade were mere fiction, they said. Besides, warned Lord Penrhyn ominously, the proposed measure would abolish the trade upon which “two thirds of the commerce of this country depends.”&nbsp;Angered by Penrhyn’s hyperbole, Pitt pushed Dolben’s regulation through both houses in June of 1788.</p>

<p>By the time a recovered Wilberforce returned to the legislative scene, the slave traders were furious and ready to fight, shocked that politicians had the audacity to press for morally based reforms in the political arena. “Humanity is a private feeling, not a public principle to act upon,”&nbsp;sniffed the Earl of Abingdon. Lord Melborne angrily agreed. “Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life,”&nbsp;he thundered.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The time and place may change, but the objections <a href="/w/abortion-and-slavery-the-same-old-arguments" target="_blank">never change</a>. “There is no real harm! Our quality of life depends on it! A belief in universal human rights is religious and has no place in politics!”</p>

<p>Thankfully, in terms of the pro-life fight in this country, our legal system is already built on the foundation of universal, unalienable human rights, so we don’t have to fight for legal recognition of their existence. And happily, since atheists are capable of apprehending moral truths, many accept unalienable human rights, even though objective rights and value—grounded in a standard above human beings, and not dependent on our preferences—are <a href="/w/atheism-and-universal-human-rights" target="_blank">inconsistent</a> with their worldview. What we must do is clarify the indisputable fact that the unborn are members of the human race (as Hazzard does in her <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/12/pro-abortion-rabbi-dont-impose-your-science-on-me/" target="_blank">article</a>), and then <a href="/w/mr.-candidate-how-does-religion-inform-your-view-on-abortion-" target="_blank">hold people</a> to our nation’s established ideals.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fno-stable-rights-without-intrinsic-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%2Fno-stable-rights-without-intrinsic-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%2Fno-stable-rights-without-intrinsic-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: Presuppositions and the Gospel of John
topic: Theology
author: Melinda Penner
date: 07/11/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/presuppositions-and-the-gospel-of-john
content:
            <div> 
		<p>John Shelby Spong, a retired bishop of the Episcopal church and participant in the Jesus Seminar, has a new book he summarized in a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shelby-spong/gospel-of-john-what-everyone-knows-about-the-fourth-gospel_b_3422026.html?ref=topbar" target="_blank">recent article</a>. He gives six reasons his book expands on for why the Gospel of John is not a reliable, historical source. J. Warner Wallace responded to it on the <a href="/w/james-boccardo-unsilenced-giving-voice-to-the-gospel-july-9-2013-" target="_blank">podcast</a> this week.</p>

<p>The critical thing in understanding Spong’s view of John is his presuppositions, just as much as the reasons he gives. He claims that the book was written long after the eyewitnesses were dead by a handful of people. What he doesn’t volunteer is that he believes this because of a presupposition. John’s Gospel has a high Christology (theology of Jesus’&nbsp;divinity) and has the most unique material not included in the other three Gospels. Spong thinks that high Christology must have taken some time to evolve, well past the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. And he believe that unique material in the Gospel must have come from sources other than the group that followed Jesus. So from the start, the conclusion is that the Gospel couldn’t have been written by John.</p>

<p>Greg <a href="/w/the-jesus-seminar-under-fire" target="_blank">explains in this article</a> why these two presuppositions are wrong. J. Warner gives <a href="/w/the-apostles-wrote-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-accounts" target="_blank">further reasons here</a>.</p>

<p>J. Warner offered a couple of rules of thumb to watch out for when reading something by someone with strong presuppositions he brings to the material.</p>

<ol>
	<li>Be careful of how presuppositions shape analysis of details</li>
	<li>Be careful of overstatements because they betray presuppositions.</li>
</ol>

<p>Spong claims that Jesus never uttered the “I am”&nbsp;sayings or the “Farewell Discourse.”&nbsp;But that’s because these are unique and have no parallel in the other Gospels. He presumes that uniqueness means later authors made it up. But that’s not even consistent with our ordinary lives. People with tremendous credibility have unique remembrances. Historical accuracy doesn’t require corroboration; it requires reliability from people in a position to know.</p>

<p>Spong says that none of the famous miracles in John happened—Jesus turning water into wine, feeding 5000, or raising Lazarus from the dead. What he doesn’t tell us is that he doesn’t think miracles happen so, of course, these miracles never occurred. Since he doesn’t think they happened in history, he has to surmise some literary reason for them.</p>

<p>He thinks that figures of speech used in the Gospel prove that it’s not to be taken literally. But we use figures of speech all the time along with speaking literally. It certainly isn’t a clue that nothing is literal.</p>

<p>Finally, he believes that the supremity of Jesus’&nbsp;miracles indicates that they’re exaggerations. Jesus makes 150 gallons of wine, not just one. Well, since Spong doesn’t think Jesus even turned one gallon of water into wine, it kind of seems irrelevant to his analysis of the historicity of this miracles that it was 1 or 150. He’s ruled out these miracles from the get go so this factor hardly counts against them.</p>

<p>Jim pointed out in the podcast that Spong betrays his purpose in the conclusion of the article—to update our understanding of the Gospels so they’re less offensive. That’s his fundamental presupposition—a goal that directs his analysis from beginning to end.</p>

<p>Jim provides further explanation how to analyze the evidence fairly in his book <em><a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK372" target="_blank">Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels</a></em>. He explains how to approach the evidence for the Gospels in a methodical and factual way.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpresuppositions-and-the-gospel-of-john" 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%2Fpresuppositions-and-the-gospel-of-john" 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%2Fpresuppositions-and-the-gospel-of-john" 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: Your Life Is a Letter
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/02/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/your-life-is-a-letter
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Paul says that we are “living letters”&nbsp;that others read. Greg makes a suggestion for a way to apply wisdom when engaging others.</em></p>

<p>Long ago I heard an insight someone offered about being a Christian that I have never forgotten. Here it is: You may be the only “living Bible”&nbsp;some people ever read.</p>

<p>No single phrase I can think of captures as artfully what it means for you to be an ambassador for Christ. To the majority of non-Christians in your life, you are their link to the only truth that can impart eternal life.</p>

<p>You are like the Corinthians who Paul referred to as “our letter...known and read by all men...cared for by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 3:2-3).</p>

<p>Your life is a letter. Your life is read by all men. Your life is written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God.</p>

<p>Further, you are our letter, cared for by us, all of us at Stand to Reason who work hard on your behalf. That is why I write you regularly with affection in my heart, “exhorting and encouraging and imploring...you as a father would his own children”&nbsp;(1 Thess. 2:11).</p>

<p>So as a kind of spiritual father, I am always looking for new ways to help you shine for those who only know about Christ through you. I know yours is a weighty responsibility, but I have some ideas that might help.</p>

<p>One of the unique things we provide at STR is insight on practical ways you can be a better “letter,”&nbsp;simple things you can keep in mind to be more attractive as an ambassador.</p>

<p>Consider, for example, the element of wisdom, one of the <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/the-ambassador-model#.UdM9EhbtXF8" target="_blank">three defining characteristics</a> (along with knowledge and character) of an effective representative of Christ. Wisdom is an artful method—a skillful, tactical, fair, and diplomatic use of knowledge. What are some simple ways you can improve in the area of wisdom?</p>

<p>First, follow the Master. Though Paul is known for using the word “ambassador”&nbsp;to describe God’s representatives (2 Cor. 5:20), Jesus was the one who modeled it best. Who can forget exchanges such as these:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”&nbsp;But He detected their trickery and said to them, “Show Me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?”&nbsp;They said, “Caesar’s.”&nbsp;And He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”&nbsp;(Luke 20:22-25)</li>
	<li>“The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?”&nbsp;And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, “If we say, ’From heaven,’&nbsp;He will say to us, ’Then why did you not believe him?’&nbsp;But if we say, ’From men,’&nbsp;we fear the people, for they all regard John as a prophet.”&nbsp;And answering Jesus, they said, “We do not know.”&nbsp;(Matt. 21:25-27)</li>
	<li>But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.”&nbsp;But He said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a house divided against itself falls. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?”&nbsp;(Luke 11:15, 17-18)</li>
	<li>Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water I will give him shall never thirst, but the water I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”&nbsp;The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water.”&nbsp;(John 4:13-15)</li>
</ul>

<p>Reflecting on Jesus’&nbsp;deft way of engaging, maneuvering, and managing His interactions with others—especially those hostile to His ideas—is always a great way to improve your own skills.</p>

<p>Second, I’ve found that using tactics like Columbo, Steamroller, Suicide, or Taking the Roof Off can really make things easier, but keeping track of the details of how they work can be hard. So having a written summary of the specifics can really be helpful to help you maneuver with grace and confidence in conversations.</p>

<p>Remember, you already are Christ’s ambassador, a “living letter”&nbsp;given to others telling of God’s message of hope for them. With Jesus as your example, you can be a better “Living Bible”&nbsp;to all those who God brings into your life.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyour-life-is-a-letter" 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%2Fyour-life-is-a-letter" 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%2Fyour-life-is-a-letter" 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 Cyrus Cylinder
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/18/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-cyrus-cylinder
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a letter to “all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon,”&nbsp;Jeremiah warned them they would be there for a while as a result of their blatant disregard of the covenant they had made with God. But, he says in a familiar passage:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“For thus says the Lord, ’When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place. For I know the plans that I have for you,’&nbsp;declares the Lord, ’plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope...I will restore your fortunes and will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you,’&nbsp;declares the Lord, ’and I will bring you back to the place from where I sent you into exile’”&nbsp;(Jeremiah 29:10-14).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God, through the prophet Isaiah, told how this would be accomplished:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“It is I who says of Cyrus, ’He is My shepherd! And he will perform all My desire.’&nbsp;And he declares of Jerusalem, ’She will be built,’&nbsp;and of the temple, ’Your foundation will be laid’”&nbsp;(Isaiah 44:28).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And Daniel was ready when the prophesied time was fulfilled:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. So I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek Him by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes... “So now...for Your sake, O Lord, let Your face shine on Your desolate sanctuary...[F]or we are not presenting our supplications before You on account of any merits of our own, but on account of Your great compassion. O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and take action!”&nbsp;(Daniel 9:1-19)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And God was true to His word:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia—in order to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah��the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he sent a proclamation throughout his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying, “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, ’The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all His people, may the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up!’”&nbsp;(2 Chronicles 36:22-23)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Until recently, the Bible contained the only evidence for the return of the Jews under a decree given by Cyrus. But in 1879, an archeologist excavating a Babylonian temple discovered a clay cylinder inscribed with Cyrus’s <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1880-0617-1941" target="_blank">description</a> of his reign wherein he lists as one of his accomplishments the return of some of the peoples conquered by the previous king to their own lands to worship their gods.</p>

<p>That cylinder, which is normally on display <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1880-0617-1941" target="_blank">at the British Museum</a>, is now touring the United States, and if you’re at all able to go <a href="http://cyruscylinder2013.com/venues/" target="_blank">see it</a>, you should. You can read more on the tour’s <a href="http://cyruscylinder2013.com/" target="_blank">website</a> about how Cyrus’s approach to ruling a pluralistic society (as represented by the Cylinder) has played a part in history, including the influence it had on America’s founders.</p>

<p><img alt="CyrusCylinder" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e00994299488330192ac139038970d " src="https://media.britishmuseum.org/media/Repository/Documents/2014_10/1_6/3c884272_4ca4_49b4_8ec4_a3b7006c3411/mid_00032368_001.jpg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width:70%" title="CyrusCylinder">The British Museum says the Cylinder is a symbol of religious freedom and tolerance, but it’s much more than that. It’s a reminder of God’s love, His gracious mercy, and His unstoppable plan to redeem us through Christ despite (and indeed, because of) the faithlessness and weakness of humanity. It’s a symbol of His sovereignty over history and all those who are in power for the sake of His own good purpose.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes (Proverbs 21:1).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This cylinder exists because the God who is real acted in history for us—“not on account of any merits of our own, but on account of His great compassion.”</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-cyrus-cylinder" 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-cyrus-cylinder" 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-cyrus-cylinder" 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: Psychological Confidence vs. Convictions
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/13/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/psychological-confidence-vs-convictions
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Think about this. A smart person is smart enough to know he’s smart. A dumb person is often too dumb to know he’s dumb, so he thinks he’s smart, but he’s not. So both of them think they’re smart, but only one is really smart and the other is dumb.</p>

<p>So here’s my question: Do you think you’re smart? If you do, is it because you are smart and you know it, or because you’re actually too dumb to know how dumb you are?</p>

<p>How do you answer that question? There’s only one way to solve this problem. You take a test. That is, you need an outside, objective standard to resolve the issue.</p>

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

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

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpsychological-confidence-vs-convictions" 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%2Fpsychological-confidence-vs-convictions" 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%2Fpsychological-confidence-vs-convictions" 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: Virtues of an Ambassador for Christ: Everyday
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 07/25/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/virtues-of-an-ambassador-for-christ-everyday
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>A suggestion to be intentional and vigilant about being an attractive ambassador in everyday life</em></p>

<p>Yesterday on the freeway my moments of tender intercession were interrupted by outbursts of unkind words tumbling from the same lips previously dedicated to prayer. Yes, fresh and bitter water from the same spring (James 3).</p>

<p>The problem? Drivers who tailgate. They drive me nuts. California freeways are full of them and one was close at my heels.</p>

<p>The decent thing to do was to change lanes and let him pass, which I did—eventually. As the offender sailed by, though, I repaid him with a glare. Not as bad as I might have responded, but still not good.</p>

<p>My former piety now collapsed into conviction (“the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God”—also from James) and my prayer turned to confession. Mea culpa. I beat my breast, squared things with God, and returned to my previous enterprise.</p>

<p>Sixty seconds later it happened again. Another tailgater, another lane change, another scowl (though not as intense as before), another verse (“Don’t repay evil for evil”), and another confession.</p>

<p>You’d think that prayer would place me above such temptations, but it doesn’t seem to work that way for me. Instead, I have to stay on the alert. And having a concise conception of what is expected of me as a good ambassador helps me keep on track.</p>

<p>Years ago I asked myself what it would look like if I listed the intellectual and moral attributes an ambassador for Christ should possess. I had in mind something like the Boy Scout Law I had memorized as a youngster (be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, etc.).</p>

<p>My musings led to a list of ten virtues. I then spent time clarifying precisely how I thought each virtue played its way out in day-to-day conduct. The full version of the Ambassador���s Creed is listed below. You may want to print it out and tape it to your bathroom mirror or fix it to your fridge to keep the ideas fresh in your mind.</p>

<p>The creed has been a great help to me. I reread it every month as a regular reminder of the kind of man I want to be for Christ.</p>

<p>I find that if I’m not vigilant and intentional about my character, it’s easy to become shrill, thoughtless, unkind, uncharitable, self-centered...your basic LA freeway lout. Christ and His Kingdom deserve better than that, though, and reflecting on the Ambassador’s Creed helps me to live closer to my calling.</p>

<h2>Ambassador’s Creed</h2>

<p>An ambassador for Christ is...</p>

<ul>
	<li>Ready. An Ambassador is alert for chances to represent Christ, will not back away from a challenge or an opportunity, and will not be stumped by the same challenge twice.</li>
	<li>Patient. An Ambassador won’t quarrel, but will listen in order to understand, then will with gentleness seek to respectfully engage those who disagree.</li>
	<li>Reasonable. An Ambassador has informed convictions (not just feelings), gives reasons, asks questions, and aggressively seeks answers.</li>
	<li>Tactical. An Ambassador adapts to each unique person and situation, maneuvering with wisdom to challenge bad thinking, presenting the truth in an understandable and compelling way.</li>
	<li>Clear. An Ambassador is careful with language and will not rely on Christian lingo or gain unfair advantage by resorting to empty rhetoric.</li>
	<li>Fair. An Ambassador is sympathetic and understanding towards others and will acknowledge the merits of contrary views.</li>
	<li>Honest. An Ambassador is careful with the facts and will not misrepresent another’s view, overstate his own case, or understate the demands of the Gospel.</li>
	<li>Humble. An Ambassador is provisional in his claims, knowing that his understanding of truth is fallible. He will not press a point beyond what his justification allows.</li>
	<li>Attractive. An Ambassador will act with grace, kindness, and good manners. He will not dishonor Christ in his conduct.</li>
	<li>Dependent. An Ambassador knows that effectiveness requires joining his best efforts with God’s power.</li>
</ul>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fvirtues-of-an-ambassador-for-christ-everyday" 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%2Fvirtues-of-an-ambassador-for-christ-everyday" 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%2Fvirtues-of-an-ambassador-for-christ-everyday" 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 Art of Leading Congregational Worship
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-art-of-leading-congregational-worship
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I suspect you’ve seen this in church before: The worship band begins to play a well-known hymn. The congregation confidently joins in. Then the band creatively adds a little unexpected extra space between stanzas, and a few people get caught singing loudly through the silence. Everyone is immediately on guard, hesitant. Sometimes we recover, but as the creative liberties increase, the number of people worshiping steadily decreases. We wait quietly, listening, watching the band worship as our limited time together slips away.</p>

<p>The art of leading congregational worship is being lost, and I think we are all poorer for it. James K.A. Smith sums up very well my thoughts on this in his “<a href="http://forsclavigera.blogspot.com/2012/02/open-letter-to-praise-bands.html" target="_blank">An Open Letter to Praise Bands</a>”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>1. <em>If we, the congregation, can’t hear ourselves, it’s not worship</em>. Christian worship is not a concert. In a concert (a particular “form of performance”), we often expect to be overwhelmed by sound, particularly in certain styles of music. In a concert, we come to expect that weird sort of sensory deprivation that happens from sensory overload, when the pounding of the bass on our chest and the wash of music over the crowd leaves us with the rush of a certain aural vertigo. And there’s nothing wrong with concerts! It’s just that Christian worship is not a concert. Christian worship is a collective, communal, congregational practice—and the gathered sound and harmony of a congregation singing <em>as one</em> is integral to the practice of worship. It is a way of “performing”&nbsp;the reality that, in Christ, we are one body. But that requires that we actually be able to hear ourselves, and hear our sisters and brothers singing alongside us. When the amped sound of the praise band overwhelms congregational voices, we can’t hear ourselves sing—so we lose that communal aspect of the congregation and are encouraged to effectively become “private,”&nbsp;passive worshipers.</p>

<p>2. <em>If we, the congregation, can’t sing along, it’s not worship</em>. In other forms of musical performance, musicians and bands will want to improvise and “be creative,”&nbsp;offering new renditions and exhibiting their virtuosity with all sorts of different trills and pauses and improvisations on the received tune. Again, that can be a delightful aspect of a concert, but in Christian worship it just means that we, the congregation, can’t sing along. And so your virtuosity gives rise to our passivity; your creativity simply encourages our silence. And while <em>you</em> may be worshiping <em>with</em> your creativity, the same creativity actually shuts down congregational song.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Worship leaders, if you look out over the congregation and you see that we are not singing with you, something has gone wrong. Are you jamming alone up there for extended periods of time? Are you changing well-known melodies just enough to surprise us and make us hesitant to sing out, and/or adding flair that we can’t follow? Are you choosing soloistic songs with complicated melodies rather than musically simple ones designed for group singing?</p>

<p>The best thing you can do is to consider carefully the purpose of your role as you make your decisions for each service. You have the noble position of enabling all of us to draw together as one before God to express our love and honor through a powerful medium. If you can keep that goal in mind—the goal of enabling the <em>congregation</em> to worship—and ruthlessly shed anything, however musically tempting, that doesn’t advance that goal, we will thank you.</p>

<p>[HT: <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2013/05/29/the-difference-between-congregational-worship-and-a-concert/" target="_blank">Justin Taylor</a>]</p>
</div>

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


title: Losing Your Salvation in Ephesians 1:14-3
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/13/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/losing-your-salvation-in-ephesians-1-14-3
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I’ve used <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+1&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">Ephesians 1</a> in the past, usually focusing on the last two verses, when asked if a person can lose his salvation:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[H]aving also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But Fred Sanders has come up with a concise way of <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scriptorium/2013/06/eno-snaisehpe-ephesians-one-backwards/" target="_blank">expressing</a> the complexities of what it would look like to lose your salvation, in light of the full flow of thought in Ephesians 1:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Instead of asking, “can you lose your salvation,”&nbsp;ask, “if Ephesians 1 is true of you, how could it reverse its momentum and come untrue of you?”</p>

<p>By Ephesians 1, I mean specifically the one long Greek sentence that is verses 3-14, which explores the “complete spiritual blessing”&nbsp;with which God has blessed us in Christ. As far as I can tell, for it to run in reverse would require something like this:</p>

<p>The guarantee on our inheritance has been voided and its possession will now be forfeited; God has removed his seal, the Holy Spirit, from us. We no longer believe the word of truth, so it is no longer the gospel of our salvation. We have been un-predestined, have lost the inheritance, and are back outside of Christ. The mystery of God’s will for the summing up of all things in Christ in the fullness of time has gone opaque and become irrelevant. An unlavishing of grace has taken place. We do not have redemption through the blood of God’s beloved Son, so our trespasses are not forgiven. We are unadopted, have stepped out of our predestination to that goal, so we will never stand holy and blameless before God in love. We have been unchosen from before the foundation of the world. No longer being in Christ, we are no longer recipients of every spiritual blessing in him. And perhaps God’s glorious grace, and his wisdom in salvation, will still be praised, but not by looking at us. Avert your eyes.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We don’t talk enough about how much is involved in our salvation. When we flatten it out to merely a decision we make, without reference to the work of God and how and why our status has changed due to our <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2013/04/08/union-with-christ-joy-and-confidence-before-god/" target="_blank">union with Christ</a>, the idea that we can stop believing and fall away seems a lot more credible than when we look at the big picture of what has taken place.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flosing-your-salvation-in-ephesians-1-14-3" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flosing-your-salvation-in-ephesians-1-14-3" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flosing-your-salvation-in-ephesians-1-14-3" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Conversation on a Plane—Mentoring Letter October 2011
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/18/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/conversation-on-a-plane-mentoring-letter-october-2011
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Since conversations can get awkward, I have a suggestion that could make your job easier: Get back to basics.</em></p>

<p>First, ask questions and listen, a lot. Second, don’t swing for the fences. Instead, just try to get on base. Try to make one good point stick.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example of how that basic approach worked for me on a 47-minute flight from Los Angeles to San Jose recently. I’d settled in for the short hop expecting to get some work done when a middle-aged gentleman sat down next to me.</p>

<p>Stuart, a world-traveling frequent-flier, was in an expansive mood and clearly wanted to talk. He had strong opinions about religion, ideas he advanced without invitation and without reservation. I tossed up a quick “Lord, help me”&nbsp;prayer. Then I listened. And waited. And watched for an opportunity.</p>

<p>We talked the whole flight. Or I should say, Stuart talked the whole flight. I listened, mostly, because Stuart had a lot to say. His extensive travels and survey of world religions had convinced him that, in spite of his Catholic upbringing, the teaching of every religion ultimately boiled down to the same thing. The common core? Love—peaceful coexistence, people getting along.</p>

<p>By contrast, those folks who thought their own religion was the right one, they were the problem. The word “hate”&nbsp;slipped in at this point, along with the word “racket,”&nbsp;describing religion’s passion for passing the hat.</p>

<p>My three-word prayer went off again in my mind. But still I listened. Every sentence I heard contained details I disagreed with, but simply contradicting Stuart wouldn’t have helped, so I held my tongue and waited.</p>

<p>I did express concern he might have missed the main point of these different religions, and I mentioned that the existence of racketeers in religion doesn’t make all religion a racket (he agreed). Other than that, I said almost nothing. I let him talk.</p>

<p>Eventually Stuart asked what religion I was and I said Christian. He grunted, “So you’re saying 90% of the people in the world are wrong and going to Hell?”</p>

<p>“Well, I didn’t say that,”&nbsp;I responded, carefully choosing my own battlefield. “I just don’t think they can all be right.”</p>

<p>Unruffled, Stuart glanced sideways at me and smiled. He was clearly impressed with his own musings. “So, do you think I’ve done a good job thinking this through?”</p>

<p>“Well, since you asked...no, I don’t think you have, Stuart.”&nbsp;A startled look replaced his smile, but he didn’t get angry because I was answering him, not attacking him. “I certainly don’t say that with any animosity,”&nbsp;I continued, “and you have done a lot of thinking about it. But no, I don’t think you’ve thought through this issue well.”</p>

<p>“For example, you’ve considered what seem like similarities in religion, right? But what of the differences?”&nbsp;I shrugged. “Look, when you think about it, Islam is not about love, but submission. Christianity is not about love, but forgiveness. Buddhism is not about love, but escaping suffering. Hinduism is not about love, but escaping the illusion of the world. Love may be significant in each, but it’s not the central message of each. Why think a modest similarity is more important than the massive differences?”</p>

<p>I paused as he absorbed the point. “As to your comment about 90% being wrong, I don’t see how anyone can avoid that, no matter how much love they have for people. Look, maybe my religion is mistaken. Maybe they’re all wrong. But even if one group gets it right—pick any one, it doesn’t matter which—that means all the rest, 75 to 90% of the people on the planet, got it wrong. It’s not hate; it’s just simple math.”</p>

<p>When we landed in San Jose, our chat came to a friendly close. I shook Stuart’s hand, wished him all the best, and then quietly entrusted him to God.</p>

<p>Two things stood out for me about this encounter that I don’t want you to miss.</p>

<p>First, I waited a long time before jumping in with both feet. Instead of sounding off the first time I heard something I disagreed with, I waited for the right moment. When I wasn’t sure of the best way to maneuver, I chose silence and attentive listening.</p>

<p>Second, when my opportunity arrived I was genial, but direct, giving Stuart one main thing to think about, one “stone in his shoe.”&nbsp;I wanted him to see that it just didn’t add up to say all religions were true. We can all be wrong, but we can’t all be right.</p>

<p>So here’s my advice for your in your daily encounters. First, shoot up a quick prayer for help, then be patient. Listen, a lot. Ask plenty of questions. Wait for the right opportunity before weighing in. Second, take what God gives you, even if it’s less than you hoped for. Don’t swing for the stands. Just try to get on base. Make one good point.</p>

<p>It’s not really that tricky. It just takes getting back to basics.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fconversation-on-a-plane-mentoring-letter-october-2011" 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%2Fconversation-on-a-plane-mentoring-letter-october-2011" 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%2Fconversation-on-a-plane-mentoring-letter-october-2011" 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: Inherent Legal Difficulties in Same-Sex Marriage
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/26/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/inherent-legal-difficulties-in-same-sex-marriage
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last year, I wrote about the <a href="/w/same-sex-marriage-won-t-be-enough" target="_blank">legal difficulties</a> that same-sex marriage will inevitably bring. Marriage, the public recognition and upholding of a union between a man and a woman, naturally arose because of a biological reality about men and women—i.e., the fact that their union is the kind of union that creates children which need the <a href="/w/ryan-anderson-what-is-marriage-" target="_blank">permanency</a>, sexual exclusivity, and <a href="/w/fathers-don-t-mother" target="_blank">complementarity</a> supported by this public recognition in order to flourish. Despite the current push to reject sexual complementarity as the basis of a family, our concept of family still involves children, and yet there’s no getting around the fact that in order for a child to exist (leaving aside cloning), a man and a woman must be involved.</p>

<p>So what happens when a definitional change is forced onto naturally occurring institutions (both marriage and family)? That’s what the UK is finding out as it tries to create new laws to hold up a new definition. It’s turning out to be not as simple as they thought, and the Church of England is pushing for better <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10101900/Church-of-England-gives-up-fight-against-gay-marriage.html" target="_blank">legislation</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[Rt Revd Tim Stevens, Convenor of the Lords Spiritual] made clear that the bishops would look not only at strengthening opt-outs for those who oppose a new definition of marriage but at the future practicalities for people in same-sex unions.</p>

<p>He signaled that bishops would seek to introduce a notion of adultery into the bill and extend parental rights for same-sex partners.</p>

<p>Under the current bill people in a same-sex marriages who discover that their spouse is unfaithful to them would not be able to divorce for adultery after Government legal experts failed to agree what constitutes “sex”&nbsp;between gay or lesbian couples.</p>

<p>The bishops are also seeking to change a provision which says that when a lesbian woman in a same-sex marriage has a baby her spouse is not also classed as the baby’s parent.</p>

<p>The result is that in some cases children would be classed as having only one parent...</p>

<p>“The bill now requires improvement in a number of other key respects, including in its approach to the question of fidelity in marriage and the rights of children.”</p>

<p>“If this bill is to become law, it is crucial that marriage as newly defined is equipped to carry within it as many as possible of the virtues of the understanding of marriage it will replace.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Extra legislation is needed to try to <a href="/w/race-sex-and-marriage" target="_blank">artificially</a> create a similarity between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage <em>because the two are inherently different in ways that are relevant to the institution of marriage</em>.</p>

<p>Lesbian activist Masha Gessen says that because of these inherent differences and the resulting need for a new legal system to accommodate same-sex couples, the institution of marriage “should not exist”&nbsp;(see the first link in this post for a transcript, or listen <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=nJrmBocx0o4" target="_blank">here</a>):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[F]ighting 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...I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality [of my children having five parents]. And I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, there’s no way to make same-sex marriage <em>exactly</em> like marriage because of the issue of children, therefore something entirely new must be created for all. The problem is that creating a new, man-made institution by force of law will lead to many unintended consequences. And as Robert Oscar Lopez points out in <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/06/10293/" target="_blank">The Public Discourse</a>, in France the tide of public opinion has been turning against same-sex marriage as people learn more about the children-related legal changes it will bring, including the push to promote <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-exploitation-of-surrogate-mothers/2013/05/24/90bc159e-c4b0-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html" target="_blank">surrogacy</a>, which treats both women and children as commodities.</p>

<p>Lopez concludes that the dropping support in France, taking place as knowledge <em>increases</em>, shows that same-sex marriage in this country is not inevitable, nor can opposition to it be explained by a lack of information.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Finherent-legal-difficulties-in-same-sex-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%2Finherent-legal-difficulties-in-same-sex-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%2Finherent-legal-difficulties-in-same-sex-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: Less Is More: A Case for the Resurrection
topic: History
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/01/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/less-is-more-a-case-for-the-resurrection
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Alan’s monthly letter for July 2013</em></p>

<p>Dear Friend,</p>

<p>Go ahead and skip church this Sunday. No need to give thanks for your next meal. You might as well throw this letter in the trash, too. Christianity is a meaningless religion and a waste of time...if...If what? If the resurrection of Jesus is not a historical fact, your faith is a joke. Christianity stands or falls on whether Jesus of Nazareth walked out of His tomb the Sunday after His death.</p>

<p>These aren’t my words. This is not my reasoning. This is the message of Scripture. If I were to write an epistle for the Bible, however, I would never make the central claim of my religion falsifiable. I would never make it possible to prove it’s false. That’s what the apostle Paul does, though.</p>

<p>In 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 he writes, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith...And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins...If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.”</p>

<p>Did you catch what he’s saying? If the resurrection didn’t happen, then Christianity is false and you are to be pitied since you’re spending your short life on earth serving a dead man.</p>

<p>This is why knowing the evidence for the resurrection is important. Traditionally, people have defended the resurrection by appealing to the Bible. Since the Bible is the word of God, they reason, and it says that Jesus rose from the grave, then Jesus must have indeed been resurrected.</p>

<p>There are many liabilities to this approach, though. It’s easy for skeptics to punch holes in this reasoning: The Bible is a human book, it’s full of contradictions, there are many errors, and the list goes on. Though these objections are answerable, you can get off track and waste time.</p>

<p>Some of the brightest Christian thinkers have developed a new, more powerful approach. It’s called the “minimal facts argument.”&nbsp;They ask, what historical facts can be discovered surrounding the resurrection? In determining those facts, they only consider data that meet two criteria. First, there must be strong evidence for them. Second, the data must be accepted by virtually all scholars on the subject, even the skeptical ones.</p>

<p>One of the advantages of the minimal facts argument is you don’t have to assume the Bible is the word of God. It can be regarded as merely an ancient volume of literature containing 27 separate books and letters. This makes the evidence more believable to skeptical audiences. Plus, it reduces the amount of data that needs to be accepted to a minimum (just five facts).</p>

<p>What facts, then, do virtually all New Testament scholars—even the skeptical, non-Christian ones—consider historically reliable?</p>

<ol>
	<li>Jesus died by crucifixion.</li>
	<li>Jesus’&nbsp;tomb was empty after His burial.</li>
	<li>Jesus’&nbsp;disciples sincerely believed He rose from the dead and appeared to them.</li>
	<li>Paul, the church persecutor, converted and began preaching about the risen Jesus.</li>
	<li>James, the skeptic, converted and began preaching about the risen Jesus.</li>
</ol>

<p>Scholars have various reasons for accepting each of them. Once these historical facts are acknowledged, you are faced with a simple question: What is the best explanation for <em>all</em> the facts? This is a standard approach to any investigation.</p>

<p>Skeptics offer many naturalistic accounts. Some say the disciples stole the body, others say Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross, and others think Jesus’&nbsp;followers hallucinated His return. None of these explanations—or the others that are usually offered—makes sense of all the facts.</p>

<p>That’s why this approach is powerful. If skeptics’&nbsp;ideas don’t explain what needs to be explained (the five minimal facts), then they can be rejected.</p>

<p>The biblical account, on the other hand, explains all the facts. That Jesus rose from the grave incorporates all the facts and has the greatest explanatory power.</p>

<p>Each time I go to Hume Lake Christian Camps this summer, I’ll be teaching high school students (and many staff) this effective defense. What could be more crucial to know than <em>the</em> historical fact that the Christian faith hinges on: the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.</p>

<p>Thanks for making this education possible for hundreds of students this summer.</p>

<p>With warm thanks,</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon</p>
</div>

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


title: Fathers Don’t Mother
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/19/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/fathers-don-t-mother
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In the past when I’ve claimed that mothers and fathers are both necessary because they make unique, complementary contributions to the lives of their children (e.g., see “<a href="/w/we-don-t-need-mother-and-father-anymore-">We Don’t Need ’Mother’&nbsp;and ’Father’&nbsp;Anymore?</a>”), some have expressed skepticism, asking for more evidence and a better description of the differences.</p>

<p>In an <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/the-distinct-positive-impact-of-a-good-dad/276874/" target="_blank">article</a> in <em>The Atlantic</em>, W. Bradford Wilcox explains what research is revealing on this subject:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What this view [that dads are dispensable] overlooks, however, is a growing body of research suggesting that men bring much <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/03/what-are-fathers-for/children-are-better-off-with-a-father-than-without-one" target="_blank">more</a> to the parenting enterprise than money...As Yale psychiatrist Kyle Pruett put it in <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/kyle_pruett_on_fatherhood_salpart/" target="_blank"><em>Salon</em></a>: “fathers don’t mother.”</p>

<p>Pruett’s argument is that fathers often engage their children in ways that differ from the ways in which mothers engage their children. Yes, there are exceptions, and, yes, parents also engage their children in ways that are not specifically gendered. But there are at least four ways, spelled out in my new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Parenthood-Biological-Scientific-Perspectives/dp/0231160690" target="_blank"><em>Gender and Parenthood: Biological and Social Scientific Perspectives</em></a> (co-edited with <a href="http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Kathleen-Kline/127944378" target="_blank">Kathleen Kovner Kline</a>), that today’s dads tend to make distinctive contributions to their children’s lives.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Some excerpts from his description of these four differences:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>The Power of Play:</strong>&nbsp;“In infants and toddlers, fathers’&nbsp;hallmark style of interaction is physical play that is characterized by arousal, excitement, and unpredictability,”&nbsp;writes psychologist <a href="https://psychology.ucr.edu/about-our-department/faculty/developmental-psychology/" target="_blank">Ross Parke</a>, who has conducted dozens of studies on fatherhood, including a study of 390 families that asked mothers and fathers to describe in detail how they played with their children. By contrast, mothers are “more modulated and less arousing”&nbsp;in their approach to play...[F]athers typically spend more of their time engaged in vigorous play than do mothers, and play a uniquely physical role in teaching their sons <em>and</em> daughters how to handle their bodies and their emotions...</p>

<p><strong>Encouraging risk:</strong> In their approach to child-rearing, fathers are more likely to encourage their children to take risks, embrace challenges, and be independent, whereas mothers are more likely to focus on their children’s safety and emotional well-being. “[F]athers play a particularly important role in the development of children’s openness to the world,”&nbsp;<a href="http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/78723" target="_blank">writes</a> psychologist Daniel Paquette...</p>

<p><strong>Protecting his own:</strong> Fathers play an important role in protecting their children from threats in the larger environment...Of course, mothers can do this, to an extent. But fathers, by dint of their size, strength, or aggressive public presence, appear to be more successful in keeping predators and bad peer influences away from their sons and daughters. As psychologist <a href="http://udel.edu/%7Erobp/" target="_blank">Rob Palkovitz</a> notes in our book, “paternal absence has been cited by multiple scholars as the single greatest risk factor in teen pregnancy for girls”...</p>

<p><strong>Dad’s discipline:&nbsp;</strong>...In surveying the research on gender and parenthood for our book, Palkovitz observes that fathers tend to be firmer with their children, compared to mothers. Based on their extensive clinical experience, and a longitudinal study of 17 stay-at-home fathers, Kyle Pruett and psychologist Marsha Kline Pruett agree. In <a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Partnership_Parenting.html?id=C3E5-d6e8vQC" target="_blank"><em>Partnership Parenting</em></a> they write, “Fathers tend to be more willing than mothers to confront their children and enforce discipline, leaving their children with the impression that they in fact <em>have</em> more authority”... In their view, mothers and fathers working together as co-parents offer a diverse yet balanced approach to discipline.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>According to Wilcox, studies also show that the presence of a good father in an intact family greatly lowers the risk of delinquency for boys, teenage pregnancy for girls, and depression for both boys and girls.</p>

<p>Read the rest of the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/the-distinct-positive-impact-of-a-good-dad/276874/" target="_blank">article</a> for more details.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffathers-don-t-mother" 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%2Ffathers-don-t-mother" 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%2Ffathers-don-t-mother" 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: Exodus International Is Closing
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/21/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/exodus-international-is-closing
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I was saddened and surprised to hear that Exodus International is <a href="http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2013/06/exodus-international-alan-chambers-apologies-to-gays.html" target="_blank">closing down</a>. For over a decade, I’ve benefited from their conferences, teachers, and insight. I’ve also referred many people with unwanted same-sex attractions to them. Since Exodus boasted the largest network of agencies providing therapy, they were one of my first go-to organizations when I needed to connect people to a trustworthy ministry.</p>

<p>During the last year, however, I’ve been hesitant to recommend Exodus to others. I read Exodus blogs and heard their staff say things that I wasn’t comfortable with, theologically. I noticed that people who I respected were leaving or distancing themselves from the organization. The closer I paid attention to what was going on, the more I sensed things were amiss.</p>

<p>I’m not privy to all the details surrounding Exodus and its leadership. I’m not writing to point out their mistakes. I’m more interested in looking to the future with <a href="https://www.restoredhopenetwork.org/" target="_blank">Restored Hope Network</a> (RHN). This is an organization that sprung up last year that I believe will serve to meet similar needs that Exodus once did. In fact, several of the board and staff that left Exodus years ago started RHN. They all seem to be theologically sound.</p>

<p>Their mission statement reads: “Restored Hope is a membership governed network dedicated to restoring hope to those broken by sexual and relational sin, especially those impacted by homosexuality. We proclaim that Jesus Christ has life-changing power for all who submit to Christ as Lord; we also seek to equip His church to impart that transformation.”</p>

<p>Be sure to also read their <a href="https://www.csmedia1.com/restoredhopenetwork.org/rhn-press-release-6-20-13.pdf" target="_blank">press release</a> responding to the closure of Exodus.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fexodus-international-is-closing" 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%2Fexodus-international-is-closing" 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%2Fexodus-international-is-closing" 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 Apostles Wrote the Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts
topic: History
author: J. Warner Wallace
date: 06/27/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-apostles-wrote-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-accounts
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When you write a book that seeks to evaluate the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, you shouldn’t be surprised to find that some critics will attack the premise that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts in the first place. Several skeptics have either emailed me or posted comments questioning whether or not the Gospels are truly eyewitness accounts. After all, the accounts are not written as first-person narratives, and there are no direct statements in the Gospels suggesting that they were written by people at the scene. Luke, for example, slips into first-person narrative for portions of his account in the Book of Acts, why don’t the other Gospel authors do something similar when writing their own “eyewitness accounts”? Why don’t these authors simply identify themselves more directly so we can understand their specific role as eyewitnesses? It’s certainly true that the authors of the Gospels take a reserved and humble approach to their own identity within the narrative, and this is not uncommon in ancient literature of the time. But there are several good reasons to believe that the Gospels are, in fact, eyewitness accounts:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><b>Attributed Statements</b><br>
The New Testament authors repeatedly referred to themselves as eyewitnesses, even if they did not make overt statements including their names. In the last chapter of John’s Gospel, the author tells us that he is testifying and that his testimony is true. Language such as this presumes the author has seen something that he can describe as eyewitness testimony. In addition, the authors of 1 John and 2 Peter identify themselves as eyewitnesses who directly observed Jesus, and were not inventing clever stories (1 John 1:1,3 and 2 Peter 1:16). While Luke clearly states he is not an eyewitness to the events in his gospel, he does tell us that he is relying on the true eyewitnesses for his information (Luke 1:1). These cumulative statements are consistent with the notion that the authors of the Gospels saw themselves as eyewitnesses who were recording history.</p>

<p><b>Apostolic Strategy</b><br>
This is consistent with the way these authors behaved in the Book of Acts. It’s interesting that the strategy used by the apostles to share the truth of Christianity was consistent with their role as eyewitnesses. When the apostles chose to share what they believed with the unbelievers in their midst, they did so by proclaiming the truth of the resurrection and their own status as eyewitnesses. This is consistent throughout the Book of Acts. The apostles identified themselves as eyewitnesses, shared the truth as eyewitnesses, and eventually wrote the Gospels as eyewitnesses.</p>

<p><b>Ancient Support</b><br>
The earliest writings of the church fathers simply confirm the eyewitness nature of the Gospel authors. Papias, for example, described Mark’s Gospel as a record of Peter’s teachings related to what Peter saw and heard from Jesus. According to Papias, while Mark was not himself an eyewitness to the events described in his Gospel, he did accurately record the firsthand experiences of his teacher and mentor, Peter.</p>

<p><b>Authoritative Selection</b><br>
Finally, the Canon of Scripture reflects the eyewitness nature of the Gospel accounts. One of the primary criteria for the selection of the Canon was the issue of eyewitness composition. The original Gospels were protected and revered based on their apostolic authorship, and late documents were rejected by the early Church Fathers based on the fact they were considered to be fraudulent narratives offered by authors late in history who were not actually present for the life and ministry of Jesus. The criterion of eyewitness authorship became foundational to the selection process.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A straightforward reading of the Book of Acts reveals that the apostles saw themselves as eyewitnesses. The early Church recognized this and formed the Canon around the historic, apostolic record related to Jesus. While&nbsp;<a href="http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/how-can-the-gospels-be-eyewitness-accounts-if-they-include-things-the-writers-didnt-see/">features of the Gospels may still be challenged</a>&nbsp;by those who deny the eyewitness nature of the texts, the best inference from the evidence is that the Gospels were intended to be eyewitness accounts.</p>

<p>J. Warner Wallace is the author of&nbsp;<a href="http://coldcasechristianity.com/cold-case-christianity-by-j-warner-wallace/">Cold-Case Christianity</a></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-apostles-wrote-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-accounts" 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-apostles-wrote-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-accounts" 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-apostles-wrote-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-accounts" 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 an Attractive Ambassador
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/25/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/be-an-attractive-ambassador
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>You already <em>are</em> Christ’s ambassador—how can you be a better one? With Jesus as your example how to maneuver in conversations, you can be a better “living Bible”&nbsp;to all those who God brings into your life.</em></p>

<p>Long ago I heard an insight someone offered about being a Christian that I have never forgotten. Here it is: You may be the only “Living Bible”&nbsp;some people ever read.</p>

<p>No single phrase I can think of captures as artfully what it means for you to be an ambassador for Christ. To the majority of non-Christians in your life, you are their link to the only truth that can impart eternal life.</p>

<p>You are like the Corinthians who Paul referred to as “our letter...known and read by all men...cared for by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts”&nbsp;(2 Cor. 3:2-3).</p>

<p><em>Your</em> life is a letter. <em>Your</em> life is read by all men. <em>Your</em> life is written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God.</p>

<p>Further, you are <em>our</em> letter, cared for by <em>us</em>, all of us at Stand to Reason who work hard on your behalf. That is why I write you regularly with affection in my heart, “exhorting and encouraging and imploring...you as a father would his own children”&nbsp;(1 Thess. 2:11).</p>

<p>So as a kind of spiritual father, I am always looking for new ways to help you shine for those who only know about Christ through you. I know yours is a weighty responsibility, but I have some ideas that might help.</p>

<p><strong>One of the unique things we provide at STR is insight on practical ways you can be a better “letter,”&nbsp;simple things you can keep in mind to be more attractive as an ambassador.</strong></p>

<p>Consider, for example, the element of wisdom, one of the three defining characteristics (along with knowledge and character) of an effective representative of Christ. Wisdom is an artful method—a skillful, tactical, fair, and diplomatic use of knowledge. What are some simple ways you can improve in the area of wisdom?</p>

<p>First, follow the Master. Though Paul is known for using the word “ambassador”&nbsp;to describe God’s representatives (2 Cor. 5:20), Jesus was the one who modeled it best. Who can forget exchanges such as these:</p>

<p>“Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”&nbsp;But He detected their trickery and said to them, “Show Me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?”&nbsp;They said, “Caesar’s.”&nbsp;And He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”&nbsp;(Luke 20:22-25)</p>

<p>“The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?”&nbsp;And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, “If we say, ’From heaven,’&nbsp;He will say to us, ’Then why did you not believe him?’&nbsp;But if we say, ’From men,’&nbsp;we fear the people, for they all regard John as a prophet.”&nbsp;And answering Jesus, they said, “We do not know.”&nbsp;(Matt. 21:25-27)</p>

<p>But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.”&nbsp;But He said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a house divided against itself falls. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?”&nbsp;(Luke 11:15, 17-18)</p>

<p>Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water I will give him shall never thirst, but the water I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”&nbsp;The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water.”&nbsp;(John 4:13-15)</p>

<p><strong>Reflecting on Jesus’&nbsp;deft way of engaging, maneuvering, and managing His interactions with others—especially those hostile to His ideas—is always a great way to improve your own skills.</strong></p>

<p>Second, I’ve found that using tactics like Columbo, Steamroller, Suicide, or Taking the Roof Off can really make things easier, but keeping track of the details of how they work can be hard. So having a written summary of the specifics can really be helpful to help you maneuver with grace and confidence in conversations.</p>

<p>That’s why we’ve put together a handy tool that will keep some of the most useful tactics close at hand to help you out—<em>Tactics Quick-Reference Guide</em> card.</p>

<p>Remember, you already <em>are</em> Christ’s ambassador, a “living letter”&nbsp;given to others telling of God’s message of hope for them. With Jesus as your example how to maneuver in conversations, you can be a better “Living Bible”&nbsp;to all those who God brings into your life.</p>
</div>

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


title: Be Ready to Discuss Same-Sex Marriage Today
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/26/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/be-ready-to-discuss-same-sex-marriage-today
content:
            <div> 
		<p>We should be hearing the decisions from the Supreme Court on Prop 8 and DOMA today (see “<a href="https://www.str.org/blog/now-we-wait-for-the-ruling#.W6l5mxNKijQ" target="_blank">Now We Wait for the Ruling</a>”&nbsp;to review what’s being decided). Regardless of what happens, you can expect to see and hear a lot of discussion on this topic on social media and among family and friends.</p>

<p>To equip you for that conversation, Ryan Anderson has a helpful, concise article titled “<a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/22/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-supreme-courts-marriage-cases/" target="_blank">5 Things You Need to Know about the Supreme Court’s Marriage Cases</a>.”&nbsp;Here are the five things he covers:</p>

<p>1. Courts Shouldn’t Redefine Marriage</p>

<p>2. President Obama and the Government of California Didn’t Do Their Duty [defending laws passed by citizens and legislators]</p>

<p>3. Telling the Truth About Marriage Matters for Policy</p>

<p>4. Redefining Marriage Would Have Bad Consequences</p>

<p>5. What You Can Do to Prepare for the Rulings</p>

<p>It’s a short, readable <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/22/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-supreme-courts-marriage-cases/" target="_blank">article</a> with links to follow for more information (you can view a summary of the article as an infographic <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/25/infographic-what-you-should-know-about-marriage/" target="_blank">here</a>). Post it, pass it on, and take a few minutes to learn from it so you can engage others today graciously and persuasively.</p>

<p>[UPDATE: Joe Carter gives a summary of the decisions in “<a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/06/26/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-cases/" target="_blank">9 Things You Should Know About the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Cases</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%2Fbe-ready-to-discuss-same-sex-marriage-today" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbe-ready-to-discuss-same-sex-marriage-today" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbe-ready-to-discuss-same-sex-marriage-today" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What’s Wrong with Being Seeker-Centered?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/21/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-s-wrong-with-being-seeker-centered-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I am astounded in many ways by why it is so difficult for us as a church to simply follow the directions. Why is that so hard? I’m talking about how the church comports itself and how it marshals its efforts in order to have the kind of impact that God intends it to have in the world. It is not even clear to me anymore that the church—speaking in generalizations now, and there are always exceptions -even knows what it is all about, what it is meant to do.</p>

<p>I wrote our letter to our Stand to Reason people for December about reflections on the nature of the church, our task in the world, and what Stand to Reason has done this year to help other Christians to fulfill that obligation. I start out with a simple reflection that at Christmas time there are these wonderful hymns. If we look at them, they are absolutely stunning if we pay attention to the words, and we can’t help but worship when we speak the words that are expressed in these hymns. They are so much about God and His purpose, and spoken in such sublime language. There is no “I”&nbsp;and “we”&nbsp;in those hymns. The focus is all on God. Then after Christmas we go back to singing about ourselves, our experience, and how lucky God is to love us, because now we feel wonderful. I think, Is this what the church thinks it is about? Does the church think this is about them? Do we think that God is about us? I certainly get that feeling from the songs.</p>

<p>A couple of weeks ago, I was teaching a group on the issue of decision making and the will of God—a good group of people, by the way. I enjoyed my time with them, but part of what we do in that teaching is go through the passages that are pressed into service as prooftexts for a faulty view, and I actually get people to read the passages. Remember, never read a Bible verse. And if somebody quotes a Bible verse to you to prove a point, it really is valuable for us to go back and look at the verse to find out if it makes the point.</p>

<p>We were looking at Romans 8. The passage talks about being led by the Spirit and frankly, we have a 20th century definition of that term and we read it back into the text in a way that Paul never intended. How do I know that? Because I have read the text. He uses the phrase twice, once in Romans 8 and the other in Galatians 5, and he means the same thing in both cases, and he does not mean getting nudges or indications by the Spirit as to what we should do next. That is not what Paul means. He means something different.</p>

<p>So, I am going through the passage and I read the paragraph to give the context and flow of thought. I asked the question, “What does Paul mean by the phrase ’led by the Spirit?’”&nbsp;That’s the question, isn’t it? It is a Biblical term. What does the Biblical writer mean by the term? Not what does 20th Century Christianity mean by it? We get that wrong all the time.</p>

<p>I asked a question about Paul’s meaning of the phrase, and almost in unison, these good people did, I think, what they have grown accustomed to doing in small groups. I asked them about the passage and immediately they lifted their eyes from the passage and begin to ponder. Then I began getting responses. “Well, I think it means this.”&nbsp;“I think it means that.”&nbsp;“I think it means the other thing.”&nbsp;That wasn’t my question, of course. I am not interested in what anybody thinks about what the phrase “led by the Spirit”&nbsp;means. I want to know what Paul meant, and we cannot figure out what Paul meant by lifting our eyes and pondering and reflecting on the term. We have to lower our eyes back to the text and look at the sentences of the text to figure out inductively what it is that Paul was talking about in that passage.</p>

<p>Why is it so hard for us to keep our eyes on the text? It’s not that difficult. Just read it. It isn’t that tricky. It is not in cipher. And there is so much there that is practical for us.</p>

<p>I talked this morning with my brother Dave, who lives in Florida, about his church. It is a seeker-centered church. Most churches that try to be seeker sensitive end up being seeker centered. The church becomes for the seeker rather than Christians. My brother has tried to get them to look at what God has already said we should be doing by simply going back to the text. His analysis is very simple. This church is meant to fulfill the Great Commission. What is that? The Great Commission is not simply evangelism. Read it yourself—Matthew 28:19 &amp; 20. “All authority has been given me on heaven and earth,”&nbsp;Jesus says, “Go therefore and make Christians.”&nbsp;Oops, it doesn’t say that. It says, “Go therefore and make disciples.”</p>

<p>Many seeker-sensitive churches use the church for evangelism rather than making disciples. They all get together for a service and they preach the Gospel. No wonder the Christians are dropping by the wayside. They are not getting taught. There is nothing more complicated or deep out of the Scriptures in the Saturday evening service than that which a non-regenerate person can understand. That is shallow. That’s not milk, that’s not even skim milk. That’s water. Nothing wrong with water when you are evangelizing, but evangelization is not the Great Commission and it doesn’t happen in the church.</p>

<p>The Greek word for church is <em>ekclesia</em>. <em>Ek</em> for “out.”&nbsp;<em>Clesia</em> portion is from <em>caleo</em>, which is “called.”&nbsp;The church is the “called-out ones.”&nbsp;We are called out of the world to be separate. So when the church service is the place non-believers come to get the Gospel where do the believers get discipled? In the small groups—not so. There are small groups in that church. But what is happening in the small groups? The same thing as the services. You cannot disciple people unless you have disciplers, and frankly, they cannot be expected to know anything if they’ve never been taught. And what is the nature of the Gospel that is going out in the service to the mass gathering? Well, it’s no Gospel at all. It is the seeker Gospel. It’s the Gospel without the bad news. It is the good news with no bad news. People are coming to have purpose in their lives, but they are not coming to get saved from sin. Lack of purpose isn’t the problem; sin is the problem. It turns out that not even the Gospel is being preached.</p>

<p>I’ve talked with a number of churches who have gone through “Forty Days of Purpose.”&nbsp;The problem is that there is no Gospel in those forty days of purpose. It’s used as a technique to get to non-believers to the church but they hear a message of good news without any bad news.</p>

<p>The Great Commission requires evangelism as a logical priority, but that just gets you to the place where you start to fulfill it. You do evangelism for the purpose of building disciples in the church. And in fact, you see that practiced in the early church. Acts 2—all those people get saved, then what happens? They were devoting themselves to the Apostles’&nbsp;preaching and to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Acts 8, the Apostles dealing with the problem of the Hellenistic widows who were not being fed said we are not going to feed them. It is not our job to wait tables. We can’t take time away from—and he doesn’t say evangelism—he says we cannot take time away from teaching the word. So they appoint stewards in the church to take care of them.</p>

<p>The church is the place where the Christians are discipled so they can go out and do the works of ministry and go into the marketplace and have an impact for Christ. That’s what Jesus taught, that’s what He modeled. That’s what the early disciples taught, that’s what they modeled. The message in the marketplace was not a message of purpose; it was a message of sin and salvation. Bad news, good news. They turned the world upside down with that message.</p>

<p>Here is the solution to the church’s problem. We have to abandon the seeker model and we have to adopt the Biblical model. Ooh, that sounds so arrogant. You are saying what they are doing is not Biblical? Yes! This is not rocket science. Find me anywhere in the Scriptures where the church gathers as Christians for the purpose of watering down the Gospel message and getting people to come into their church congregation. The church gathered for training and edification of believers, then they went out with the message of sin and salvation so people could get right with God before they could even begin to think about whatever purpose God had for their lives. First things first. That is the consistent model in every single time in the book of Acts where the Gospel is preached.</p>

<p>In all 14 times the Gospel is preached where we have detail of what they said, there is not a single occasion where anyone was invited to have a relationship with God. There is not a single occasion where anyone is told that if they become Christians their life will get better, they will have more purpose, and everything will fall together. There is not a single occasion where the Apostles said that God loves them. The word love appears nowhere in the book of Acts. Now, is the love of God manifest there? Sure. But it is not the central message. It isn’t what leads to salvation. It is not what the Gospel is all about. The love of God is manifest in the efforts that He took to rescue a fallen human race. That’s the measure of His love. But the message is about fallen human beings, about sin and righteousness and judgment, and that Jesus came to restore man to their Savior against whom they have persistently rebelled. That’s the message that saves.</p>

<p>Wonder why your church may not be prospering? Maybe because you haven’t followed the directions. Fulfill the Great Commission. Go and make disciples. Sure, you have to evangelize to do that. Go and evangelize, then bring them into the church and train them to be disciples that can go out and do evangelizing better. Fulfill the Great Commission. Don’t change your church service into a seeker service so everyone can come in and feel comfortable. Frankly, non-Christians shouldn’t feel comfortable in a church because they aren’t right with God yet; and if they are, it’s probably because we’ve changed the message.</p>
</div>

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


title: The Bible: Different from All the Rest
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/23/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-bible-different-from-all-the-rest
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I haven’t read <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Unlikely-Convert-Professors-Christian/dp/1884527388/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1369343604&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=secret+thoughts+of+an+unlikely+convert" target="_blank">The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert</a></em> by Rosaria Butterfield yet, but after reading a few interviews with her, there’s one aspect of her conversion from lesbian feminist professor to Christian that I can’t stop thinking about: the role the Bible played in her conversion. It’s awe-inspiring seeing that book through her eyes. Here are some examples from various articles:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“‘<a href="https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/from-radical-lesbian-to-redeemed-christian" target="_blank">I tried to toss the Bible</a> and all of its teachings in the trash—I really tried,’&nbsp;she says. ’But I kept reading it, reading it not just for pleasure, but reading it because I was engaged in a research program trying to refute the religious right from a lesbian feminist perspective...After my second or third, maybe fourth, pass through the entire Bible something started to happen. The Bible got to be bigger inside me than I. And it absolutely overflowed into my world.’”</li>
	<li>“<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/january-february/my-train-wreck-conversion.html?paging=off" target="_blank">I started reading the Bible.</a> I read the way a glutton devours. I read it many times that first year in multiple translations. At a dinner gathering my partner and I were hosting, my transgendered friend J cornered me in the kitchen. She put her large hand over mine. ’This Bible reading is changing you, Rosaria,’&nbsp;she warned.”</li>
	<li>���<a href="http://rosariabutterfield.com/" target="_blank">I went from being someone</a> who felt that I was responsible and entitled to interrogate the Bible to someone who believed that the Bible had authority over my life and therefore had the responsibility and entitlement to interrogate me. That truth—that the Bible interrogates me—does not stop with conversion. Therefore, the post-conversion issues raised in <em>Secret Thoughts</em> are in some ways proof of the fruit of Christian living, insofar as they reveal a heart searching to have the Bible interrogate it.”</li>
	<li>“<a href="http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/05/13/engaging-gay-activists-on-campus-101-2/" target="_blank">And after two years</a> of meeting with my Christian neighbors, getting to know some of their church members, and reading the Bible multiple times through in a year, I noticed something about this text.
	<p>&nbsp;</p>

	<p>It <em>was</em> different from all the rest.</p>

	<p>It had an integrated revelation, a vast and capacious philosophy about sin and redemption, and a God-man who was no effeminate runway model or martyr...The Bible promised understanding after obedience, not the other way around (John 7:17). That stopped me in my tracks: Did I want to understand why homosexuality was a sin from God’s point of view, or did I just want to argue with Him? After two years of this, the Bible got to be bigger than me. It overflowed into my world. I realized that the Bible was my holy highway to a living God; that through it I could learn what God wanted of me and why, and through it I could send my pleas to His throne of grace. The Bible transmitted the language and lexicon of a Holy God, transforming me to grow in His likeness. It truly was the only way.”</p>
	</li>
</ul>

<p>The fact that we have access to a book powerful enough to change us so completely is astonishing to me. The Holy Spirit moving through the inspired words of God creates new people who know and love Him. We say we know it’s the word of God, but do we really see it as Butterfield sees it? If not, here’s her recommendation:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.worldmag.com/2013/03/journey_of_grace/page2" target="_blank">[S]ome powerful things happen</a> when you read the Bible many, many times in a year, from Genesis to Revelation, and in multiple translations. I really encourage Christians to do that, and not to read the Bible as though you’re reading your horoscope. I don’t think it’s really meant to be read like that.</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%2Fthe-bible-different-from-all-the-rest" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-bible-different-from-all-the-rest" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-bible-different-from-all-the-rest" 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: Nature or Nurture?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/01/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/nature-or-nurture-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Lady Gaga’s mega-hit song, “Born this Way,”&nbsp;expressed what many believe: Homosexuality is hardwired in the genes. And if genetic, immutable. And if innate, nonvoluntary. And if not chosen, morally benign. There is therefore (to paraphrase Paul), now no condemnation for homosexuals.</p>

<p>To many, that reasoning flows unhindered given Gaga’s starting point. But was she right?</p>

<h2>Birth of the Born-that-Way Theory</h2>

<p>The “constitutional homosexuality”&nbsp;conviction was launched in part by a landmark study by Harvard-trained neurobiologist Simon LeVay, published in <em>Science</em> in 1991. LeVay noted that the hypothalamus of homosexuals was smaller than in heterosexuals,<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> leading some to believe homosexuality had a biological basis.</p>

<p>Two years later, Harvard geneticist Dean Hamer published his research in <em>Science</em>, arguing there was a “statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>LeVay and Hamer’s studies received worldwide coverage. The implications were obvious. Since homosexuality had a bio-genetic cause, it’s immutable and morally acceptable. Case closed.</p>

<p>What never made the headlines was the storm of scientific criticism that followed, prompting LeVay to clarify his research. In <em>Discover Magazine</em> he wrote, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are ’born that way,’&nbsp;the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Hamer’s conclusions also came under fire. Attempts to corroborate his claims failed,<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> so he retreated. “The best recent study,”&nbsp;Hamer conceded, “suggests that female sexual identification is more a matter of environment than heredity.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> He told <em>Scientific American</em> that homosexuality was “absolutely not”&nbsp;rooted solely in biology.</p>

<p>Research involving identical twins had disproved that theory.<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> Since identical twins have identical genes, if one twin was homosexual, the other should be, too. That’s not what the research showed, though.</p>

<p>Using a registry of 25,000 twins, Northwestern’s Michael Bailey showed that homosexuality occurred in both twins only one in nine times.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> Bailey concluded that the data “did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors”&nbsp;for homosexuality.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> The study also failed to rule out environmental factors. Since most twins share the same home, it’s possible their common environment was a factor in their common same-sex attraction (SSA).</p>

<p>Despite the growing scientific evidence against it, though, the born-gay theory persists.</p>

<h2>Choice to be Gay?</h2>

<p>Cynthia Nixon, star of <em>Sex and the City,</em> recently infuriated the gay community when she told the <em>New York Times</em> she chose to be gay. “For me, it is a choice,”&nbsp;she said. “I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice.”<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>Nixon’s case is an exception, however, and doesn’t explain most homosexuality. Clearly, the vast majority of homosexuals never chose their orientation. Indeed, some try to repress homosexual impulses, but are unsuccessful. Many Christians with SSA would happily choose otherwise if they could, but they can’t. SSA is not a choice. People choose <em>behaviors</em>, but they don’t choose <em>desires</em>.</p>

<p>If homosexuality is neither genetic nor a choice, what explains it? There is no single cause; multiple factors contribute. Some pathways, however, predominate. The following explanation, though not the only one, resonates with a high percentage of same-sex attracted people in the United States.</p>

<h2>Made, Not Born</h2>

<p>Homosexuality is a <em>developmental</em> condition, not principally about sex, but about <em>gender identity</em>. In short, homosexuals are made, not born.</p>

<p>Gender identity, like personality, is a non-physical trait. It’s a person’s subconscious belief about what sex he is. Though everyone is born <em>biologically</em> either male or female, <em>psychologically</em> their gender identity develops over time, primarily between early childhood and puberty.</p>

<p>Here is the key factor: A person is always attracted to the <em>biological sex</em> that is the opposite of his or her <em>psychological gender identity</em>. A male gender-identified person (either male or female) will be attracted to a female body. Likewise, a female gender-identified person (either female of male) will be attracted to a male body. <em>Opposites always attract.</em></p>

<p>A person’s psychological gender identity is strongly influenced—though not determined—by his biological sex. Most boys develop a male gender identity and most girls develop a female one.</p>

<p>A heterosexual’s gender identity <em>matches</em> his biological sex. A homosexual’s gender identity is <em>opposite</em> his biological sex.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> Because male homosexuals psychologically identify as female (I’ll explain how later), they’re sexually attracted to other males. They don’t <em>consciously</em> think they’re girls (though some may). Rather, their gender confusion is <em>subconscious</em>.</p>

<h2>Heterosexual Development in Males</h2>

<p>In normal heterosexual development, a boy develops a male identity when he identifies with and bonds with his father (and other males around him) during his first years of life.</p>

<p>Though a boy initially deeply connects with his mother as she holds and feeds him, the mother-son bond extends to the father when he gives his son attention, affection, and affirmation. When Dad provides these three essentials, his son’s <em>source</em> of gender identification shifts from mother to father.</p>

<p>As he grows, the boy will continue to draw his identity from males. He’ll pursue male friends. He’ll model male behavior and mannerisms. He’ll understand other boys. Maleness will become familiar to him.</p>

<p>Girls, on the other hand, will seem mysterious and odd. They talk, play, and relate so differently than boys he’ll take less interest in them. Females—the <em>other</em> gender—will become increasingly unfamiliar to him.</p>

<p>At puberty when a boy’s sexual interest emerges, his mysterious opposite—girls—begins to intrigue him. Their former “weirdness”&nbsp;is now attractive, even stimulating. “Exotic becomes erotic,”&nbsp;Cornell’s Daryl Bem quipped.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> The foreign gender is the sexually appealing gender. Again, opposites attract.</p>

<h2><strong>Homosexual </strong>Development <strong>in Males</strong></h2>

<p>This process isn’t automatic, though. Under certain circumstances, gender identity development follows a different path.</p>

<p>Sometimes with boys the identification with mother fails to transfer to father. In some families, the son won’t connect with a father who seems weak, passive, withdrawn, or hostile. Bonding is difficult if the boy thinks his father is unsafe. Further, if his mother has a strong personality and the son is overly attached to her, it will be especially hard for him to connect with his dad.</p>

<p>An unhealthy marriage complicates matters. When parents don’t relate well to each other, the father is less involved with the family, thus appearing passive instead of strong, interesting, and benevolent—the role model his son needs.</p>

<p>The assertive, over-involved mother steps into the gap—understandably—lavishing the needed attention, affection, and affirmation on her son. Because her marriage is unfulfilling, Mom may unwittingly use her son to satisfy her emotional needs, making it even more difficult for the boy to attach to his father.</p>

<p>In cases where the son is sensitive and introspective, every experience is intensified. The father’s disinterest in or rejection of him—whether actual or perceived—is magnified and internalized. The result: The son feels anxious or ill-at-ease with his father and other males.</p>

<p>Sexual abuse by an older male may also result in homosexuality. The physical and psychological trauma may cause the boy to view men as dangerous. Instead of connecting with his father and other boys, he’ll gender identify with the “safer”&nbsp;females.</p>

<p>Because of his failure to transition, the boy develops a self-protective “defensive detachment”&nbsp;towards masculinity, causing him to feel anxious around other males. Though he has a natural longing for male bonding, he might grow up with a subtle, hostile disposition towards males.</p>

<p>The boy will look to his mother, sister, or other girls as his gender role models. He’ll mimic their mannerisms and model their behaviors, eventually identifying more with them than males.</p>

<p>Boys, on the other hand, will become increasingly unfamiliar to him. Because of his psychologically defensive posture, he’ll grow more distant from them. They’ll become the different, mysterious, <em>other</em> gender.</p>

<p>At puberty when his sexual interest emerges, he’ll perceive males as his opposite. The male gender—the different and exotic—will seem erotic. The website, www.peoplecanchange.com, created by former homosexuals, summarizes the process:</p>

<p>As long as we felt that men were the opposite from us, while we identified with women as our sisters, we remained attracted to our opposite—the mysterious, unknown masculine...Being sexually attracted to them felt natural. Initially, at least, we didn’t feel homosexual so much as we felt genderless and, lacking sufficient maleness within ourselves, attracted to that which we felt would make us feel masculine and whole.</p>

<p>Growing up masculine-deprived, homosexual men pursue other men to satisfy their craving for the male connection and the affection they never received as children. Their desire is not principally about sex, though. Instead, they hope to achieve wholeness through sexual acts with men who appear to have the masculinity they lack. The encounters don’t satisfy, though, since the underlying gender identification needs are not met.</p>

<p>Does this explain every case of homosexuality? No. Not all homosexual males have a female gender identity. The majority of men with SSA that I<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup> speak to, though, do have gender identity issues. Almost every time I teach on homosexuality, a homosexual man tells me his upbringing included many of the elements just described.</p>

<p>Sometimes gender identity is not the issue, though. When men in prison have sex with each other it’s usually more about dominance than gender identity. Also, in the Middle East, strict gender segregation encourages young men to sexually experiment with other men.</p>

<p>Though the list of causes given above is not exhaustive, these patterns are commonly reported by gay men. No particular dynamic <em>dictates</em> a boy will lean towards homosexuality. Scientific research, though, indicates that psychological factors play a key role in SSA.</p>

<h2>Biology and Gender Identity</h2>

<p>Though not the primary influence, nature can play a secondary role in gender identity. It doesn’t <em>predetermine</em> orientation, but it can <em>predispose</em> it when biological factors influence a boy’s ability to identify and connect with other males.</p>

<p>For example, boys born with athletic abilities are more likely to play team sports, allowing them to connect and identify with other boys. Those who are less athletic, but more creative and inclined towards the arts are less likely to experience the male bonding those on sports teams experience.</p>

<p>Also, children born with sensitive dispositions are more likely to internalize real or perceived rejection by their fathers or other males. Boys with rough-and-tumble temperaments are less sensitive to emotional wounds and tend not to internalize them as deeply.</p>

<h2>Homosexual Development in Females</h2>

<p>At least three possible pathways lead to lesbianism. First, at some point in childhood a girl subconsciously decides that being female is either unsafe or undesirable, so she begins to identify with the male gender. This can happen for several reasons.</p>

<p>A girl might view her mother or other females as weak. Some husbands can be controlling or even abusive towards their wives. A girl whose mother is mistreated may not want to be like her. She’ll reject her mother’s gender and identify with males. At puberty, she’ll be attracted to women who are (to her) the opposite gender.</p>

<p>Likewise, a girl who is sexually abused by a man may conclude it’s not safe to be female. To avoid further pain, she’ll begin identifying with stronger, less vulnerable males. As her sexual desires develop, she’ll see females as her opposite and be attracted to them. Sadly, celebrity lesbians like Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O’Donnell, and Melissa Etheridge have publically admitted they were sexually abused as children.</p>

<p>A second pathway to lesbianism is broadly referred to as LUG, or Lesbian Until Graduation. Sometimes high school and college-aged girls experiment with lesbianism, yet plan to go “straight”&nbsp;after graduation. Some succeed. Others never give up same-sex activity.</p>

<p>A third pathway occurs in older females after a bitter experience like divorce. These women seek a sensitive and understanding female friend who provides safety and comfort in the midst of extreme emotional pain caused by a man. The powerful and intimate emotional bond sometimes leads to sexual bonding.</p>

<p>Again, these pathways are not exhaustive, nor determinative. Everyone’s journey is unique and how one interprets a life event varies from person to person.</p>

<h2>Is Change Possible?</h2>

<p>For many, the question of changing one’s sexual orientation has been settled. The “experts”&nbsp;have spoken. Change is not possible. No “ex-gays”&nbsp;exist. As it turns out, though, the evidence indicates just the opposite.</p>

<p>First, note one ancient report claiming this kind of change actually took place. In 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Paul says some Christians in Corinth had been homosexual (“Such <em>were</em> some of you...”), yet experienced significant change. That many reject the Bible as the Word of God is irrelevant to my point. I’m appealing to this ancient letter on historical grounds, not spiritual, to show that some people in ancient Greece left homosexuality behind.</p>

<p>Recent studies indicate the same thing. An article published in <em>Psychological Reports</em> in 2000 investigated 882 dissatisfied homosexuals. After pursuing some form of therapy, 34% of the participants reported shifting their orientation to an exclusively or almost exclusively heterosexual orientation. They experienced statistically significant reductions in “homosexual thoughts and fantasies”&nbsp;and improvements in their “psychological, interpersonal, and spiritual well-being.”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>One long-term study in 2007 by Jones and Yarhouse was recently published in the <em>Journal of Sex &amp; Marital Therapy</em>.<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup> It’s been hailed as one of the most rigorous studies ever designed to investigate the possibility of change. Researchers followed 98 people with unwanted same-sex attractions for over six years. 15% of the participants reported “substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and subsequent conversion to heterosexual attractions and functioning.”&nbsp;The most surprising result, though, was that subjects classified as “truly gay”—those with the highest levels of homosexual attraction, fantasy, and behavior—reported the greatest amount of change.</p>

<p>Clinicians and other scientists have reported successes for over a century. Back in 1882, Jean-Martin Charcot, the “father of modern neurology,”&nbsp;described how “the homosexual became heterosexual”&nbsp;as a result of his treatments. In the 1920s, Freud reported sexual orientation change through psychoanalysis. Researchers continued to report similar findings throughout the 20th century: Wilhelm Stekel in the 1930s, Frank Caprio and Albert Ellis in the 1950s, Russell Monroe and Edward Glover in the 1960s, Irving Bieber in the 1970s, Karolynn Siegel in the 1980s, and Houston MacIntosh in the 1990s, to name just a few.</p>

<p>Given such convincing evidence, it’s not surprising a recent psychiatry textbook, <em>Essential Psychopathology &amp; Its Treatment</em>, concluded that homosexual orientation can change and that therapy isn’t necessarily harmful:</p>

<p>Recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted.<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>

<p>According to clinical data, thousands have personally experienced this change. Each year, more people publicly declare they are no longer homosexual.</p>

<p>Nicholas Cummings, past President of the American Psychological Association (APA), was Chief of Mental Health at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco for 20 years. He personally worked with over 2,000 patients with same-sex attraction. His staff (six of whom were gay) saw an additional 16,000 homosexuals. Cummings estimates that hundreds of people under his care changed their sexual orientation. He also notes that approximately 7% of those 16,000 patients experienced some measurable change, many going on to marry and live heterosexual lives.<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>

<p>Cummings’s data can’t be dismissed. He’s been a lifelong champion of gay and lesbian rights, and was the first APA leader to appoint the Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Issues.</p>

<p>Given this evidence, how can some still claim that sexual orientation change isn’t possible? Multiple, independent lines of evidence would all have to be faulty or fraudulent. Over the last 100 years, hundreds of professionals who’ve treated homosexuals would have to be either mistaken or lied about their findings.</p>

<p>Are therapists working with homosexuals today all fabricating success stories? Are religious and secular organizations providing counseling to homosexuals all misrepresenting their results? Are thousands of heterosexuals who once lived as homosexuals faking? Is every person I’ve met over the years who’s claimed to have changed been lying?</p>

<p>As professor of psychiatry Tiffany Barnhouse said, “The frequent claim by ’gay’&nbsp;activists that it is impossible for homosexuals to change their orientation...accuses scores of conscientious, responsible psychiatrists and psychologists of falsifying their data.”<sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup></p>

<p>Skeptics point to problems. Not all those pursuing change eliminate all same-sex attraction. Other “ex-gays”&nbsp;become ex “ex-gays,”&nbsp;returning to SSA. These critics, though, don’t apply the same standards to other conditions. People being treated for depression, for example, still feel depressed at times. Others fail entirely. Yet that doesn’t mean depression can’t be treated. The same is true with many other psychological conditions.</p>

<p>Does this mean change is easy? No. Is everyone successful? Not at all. Does success always entail total transformation? Rarely. Should we try to change people who don’t want to change? Of course not. But is it <em>possible</em> for some homosexuals to experience substantial and enduring change? Absolutely. That’s good news, given how many people experience unwanted SSA. They have hope.</p>

<h2>The Best Hope</h2>

<p>Though change in sexual orientation is possible, our mission as ambassadors for Christ is not to help homosexuals become heterosexual. We don’t labor to change their desires, but to make them disciples—followers of Jesus committed to holiness regardless of particular sins, temptations, or inclinations.</p>

<p>The root problem for anyone is neither biological (nature), nor environmental (nurture). It’s spiritual. Those former homosexuals in ancient Corinth weren’t simply changed; they were transformed through a real encounter with the living Christ. New birth brought new life.</p>

<p>The same fresh start is available to everyone. God is there to forgive, and God is there to restore, regardless of individual struggles. And that is the best hope for anyone, homosexual or heterosexual.</p>

<p>*This article has been adapted from Alan Shlemon’s new book, <a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK379"><em>The Ambassador’s Guide to Discussing Homosexuality</em></a>, available at str.org.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">“A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,”&nbsp;Simon LeVay in <em>Science</em> (Vol. 253, No. 5023, Aug. 30, 1991), 1034-1037. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Hamer et al., “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,”&nbsp;<em>Science 261</em> (1993), 321-327. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">“Sex and the Brain—Neurobiologist Simon LeVay Found a Link between Brain Structure and Homosexuality,”&nbsp;David Nimmons, <em>Discover Magazine</em>, March 1994, 64. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Rice et al., “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28,”&nbsp;<em>Science</em> 284 (1999), 665-667. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Hamer and Copeland, <em>Living with Our Genes: Why They Matter More than You Think</em> (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1998), 188. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Anastasia Toufexis in “New Evidence of a ’Gay Gene,’”&nbsp;<em>Time</em>, November 13, 1995, Vol. 146. Issue 20, 95. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Michael Bailey et al., “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample,”&nbsp;<em>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</em> 78 (2000). The 11% figure is the “pairwise”&nbsp;concordance. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Ibid. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Retrieved February 15, 2012, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/cynthia-nixon-wit.html?_r=2&amp;pagewanted=3. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Or, possibly, he has a weak male gender identity predisposing him to SSA. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;��</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Daryl Bem, “Exotic Becomes Erotic: A Developmental Theory of Sexual Orientation,”&nbsp;in <em>Psychological Review</em> (1996, Vol. 103, No. 2), 320-335. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">All first-person references are to co-author Alan Shlemon. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Nicolosi, Byrd, and Potts, “Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation: a Consumer Survey of Conversion Therapy Clients,”&nbsp;<em>Psychological Reports</em> (June, 2000), 1071-1088. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">Jones, &amp; Yarhouse, “A Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Sexual Orientation Change,”&nbsp;<em>Journal of Sex &amp; Marital Therapy</em>, 37 (2011), 404-427. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Kilgus, Maxmen, and Ward, <em>Essential Psychopathology &amp; Its Treatment</em> (New York: W. W. Norton &amp; Company, 2009), 488. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">Retrieved January 8, 2013, from http://narth.com/docs/cummings.html. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">Tiffany Barnhouse, “What Is a Christian View of Homosexuality?”&nbsp;<em>Circuit Rider</em> (February, 1984), 12, quoted in Neil Whitehead, <em>My Genes Made Me Do It!: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation</em> (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1999), 255. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17">&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%2Fnature-or-nurture-" 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%2Fnature-or-nurture-" 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%2Fnature-or-nurture-" 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: “Common” Temptation
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/24/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/-common-temptation
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I heard very, very sad news this last week, and many of you are aware of this. A very well known evangelical leader in southern California has stepped down from ministry because of sexual indiscretion. He has offered his resignation and it was accepted in his church. I’m not going to mention his name right now because it’s not really that important. Those of you who know, know; and those of you who don’t, don’t need to know. But you need to know this...</p>

<p>“If any man thinks he stands, let him take heed lest he fall.”&nbsp;Hearing of this situation and the whole raft of things like this in the last couple of years sends a shiver down my spine. It does so because it is a reminder to me, as Paul himself said in 2 Corinthians that “there is no temptation that has overtaken you that is not common to man.”&nbsp;In other words, there is not a single person within the sound of my voice who is not capable of doing just about anything, given the right circumstances. Who is not capable of divorce? Who is not capable of infidelity? Who is not capable of becoming addicted to pornography? Who is not capable of child molestation? Who is not capable of murder? Who is not capable of theft? Who is not capable of torture? Human beings are what they are: broken people. And if we are not on our guard, men and women, we will be victimized by that brokenness.</p>

<p>Certainly we are in the process of being mended and that’s a wonderful aspect of the good news of knowing Jesus Christ personally and having the reality of the Holy Spirit in our lives to mend us. But even so, the darker side is there, and the darker side will overcome us if we are not vigilant. We need to be vigilant; we need to invite people into our lives to be accountable to, to confess to, to have visibility of our lives, to correct us and we need humbly to take that correction.</p>

<p>I’ll make just one last very personal remark. I want to give you an illustration of just what I’m talking about. Last night I went into the hotel room after speaking at a dinner and there on top of the television was a device used to select pay movies. One of the pay movies was an X-rated movie. Underneath it said that you could call the desk and have them block that channel out if you wanted to, apparently for adults who had children who might inadvertently push the button and watch one of those shows.</p>

<p>I want to tell you what I did immediately, my friends. I know myself. The very first thing before I had a chance to think very much about it is I picked up that phone, I dialed the desk and asked them to please block out the channel. Had I not done that then, then after my session last evening I would have been very vulnerable to temptation and, frankly, might not have had the strength to call the desk and block it out later. So I did it immediately. I’m not trying to impress you with this. I’m just giving you an example of how we can plan ahead to protect ourselves of that which we know we are vulnerable to. And I’m just as vulnerable as anyone.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-common-temptation" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-common-temptation" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-common-temptation" 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: Ancient Wisdom for Modern Times—Mentoring Letter June 2013
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/31/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/ancient-wisdom-for-modern-times-mentoring-letter-june-2013
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Greg uses Solomon’s advice for engaging an opponent in a biblical way</em></p>

<p>June 1, 2013</p>

<p>Sometimes you will encounter a daunting foe who is, in some way, your superior—a feared professor, a respected elder family member, an articulate supervisor or executive at work.</p>

<p>When this happens there is a temptation—especially if you’ve had some training or done some study in apologetics—to “show what you know,”&nbsp;to step into the fray armed with all your facts and take your superior down a peg or two.</p>

<p>In situations like that, it’s a good idea to consider Solomon’s counsel from Proverbs 25:6-7:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Do not claim honor in the presence of the king, And do not stand in the place of great men; For it is better that it be said to you, “Come up here,” Than for you to be placed lower in the presence of a prince...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Solomon’s point is simple: In the company of superiors, don’t start high, positioning yourself as their equal. You might get knocked down. Instead, start low and move up. Earn your place at the head of the table by the quality of your contribution.</p>

<p>Years ago, I witnessed a powerful example of this wisdom at a conference called “Design and Its Critics.”&nbsp;I’d wrangled a seat in the audience of a professional gathering where Intelligent Design proponents had invited their strongest detractors—secular scientists and philosophers—to engage them through a point/counterpoint format of aggressive, academic peer review.</p>

<p>During the Q&amp;A after a presentation by ID leader Stephen Meyer, Dr. Clifford Matthews, a senior member of the evolutionary scientific establishment, laid into him, vigorously and (in my view) uncharitably attacking his ideas.</p>

<p>I was stunned. Glancing around me I wondered what would happen next.</p>

<p>Dr. Meyer never missed a beat. Completely unperturbed, he addressed Dr. Matthews by name, expressed genuine respect for his work, thanked the professor for what Meyer had himself learned from the scholar’s research over the years, and confessed being flattered that such an accomplished academic would attend his own presentation and offer a critique.</p>

<p>Stephen Meyer wisely positioned himself as the lesser before the greater. Though Meyer was an accomplished academic in his own right, he engaged Dr. Matthews with his hat in his hand, as it were, not as the professor’s equal, but as his student.</p>

<p>Meyer then systematically, graciously, and decisively answered the criticism.</p>

<p>Notice the pattern. Meyer started low, and then moved up. He generously acknowledged the superior status of his opponent, and then earned the respect of the audience by the quality of his contribution, made even more impressive by his grace under fire.</p>

<p>It’s a lesson I’ve never forgotten. In fact, I’ve had my own opportunities to put it into play.</p>

<p>When I debated Deepak Chopra for an hour on national TV, I realized I was facing a David and Goliath situation. Chopra was the most well-known New Age guru in the world, with 20 million book sales to his credit. I was the guy no one had heard of.</p>

<p>I knew I could not compete with a man whose first name had become an international brand in itself. Not only was the tide against me, I knew I would seem “uppity”&nbsp;if I tried to position myself as Chopra’s peer. I wanted to come in low, respectful, and courteous, and then launch my critique from there.</p>

<p>With this in mind, I made two strategic moves. First, I would show deference to my opponent by always addressing him as “Dr. Chopra”—never the familiar “Deepak.”&nbsp;Second, instead of pitting Dr. Chopra against Mr. Koukl, I set him against Jesus Christ. “Dr. Chopra says this,”&nbsp;I’d point out, “but Jesus said otherwise.”&nbsp;The audience, then, would be forced to choose between Deepak Chopra and Jesus of Nazareth.</p>

<p>There are other advantages to coming in “lower.”&nbsp;You won’t have as far to fall if you get knocked down, and there’s lots of room to ascend in the eyes of others if you acquit yourself well.</p>

<p>Never forget Solomon’s point: In the company of superiors, start low and move up. Don’t start high and risk getting knocked down.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fancient-wisdom-for-modern-times-mentoring-letter-june-2013" 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%2Fancient-wisdom-for-modern-times-mentoring-letter-june-2013" 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%2Fancient-wisdom-for-modern-times-mentoring-letter-june-2013" 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: Principles of Successful Business from Proverbs
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/24/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/principles-of-successful-business-from-proverbs
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Principle #1: Exercise complete dependence on God.</em></p>

<ul>
	<li>3:5-7 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and he will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes, fear the Lord, turn away from evil.</li>
	<li>16:3 Commit your works unto the Lord and your plans will be established.</li>
	<li>22:1 A good name is to be more desired than great riches.</li>
</ul>

<p><em>Principle #2: Work hard and stick to it, don’t let laziness or sleep rob you of success.</em></p>

<p>Work hard.</p>

<ul>
	<li>13:11b The one who gathers by labor increases (wealth).</li>
	<li>27:18 He who tends the fig tree will eat its fruit.</li>
	<li>12:11 He who tills the land will have plenty of bread, but he who pursues vain things will have poverty in plenty.</li>
	<li>28:19 He who tills the land will have plenty of food, but he who follows empty pursuits will have poverty in plenty.</li>
	<li>18:19 He also who is slack in his work is brother to him to destroys.</li>
	<li>21:25-26 The desire of the sluggard puts him to death, for his hands refuse to work. All day long he is craving while the righteous gives and does not hold back.</li>
</ul>

<p>Stick to it.</p>

<ul>
	<li>12:24 The hand of the diligent will rule but the slack hand will be put to forced labor.</li>
	<li>12:27 A slothful man does not roast his prey, but the precious possession of a man is diligence.</li>
	<li>10:4 Poor is he who works with a negligent hand, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.</li>
</ul>

<p>Don’t be lazy.</p>

<ul>
	<li>19:15 Laziness casts into a deep sleep and an idle man will suffer hunger.</li>
	<li>22:13 The sluggard says, “There is a lion outside. I shall be slain in the streets.”</li>
	<li>10:26 Like vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is the lazy one to those who send him.</li>
	<li>30:15 The leech has two daughters, “Give”, “Give”...</li>
</ul>

<p>Get up!</p>

<ul>
	<li>20:13 Do not love sleep, lest you become poor. Open your eyes and you will be satisfied with food.</li>
	<li>6:9-11 (also 24:33-34) How long will you lie down, oh sluggard? When will you rise from your sleep? “A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest”—and your poverty will come in like a vagabond and your need like an armed man.</li>
</ul>

<p><em>Principle #3: Exercise honesty and uprightness in all business dealings.</em></p>

<p>Dishonesty offends God.</p>

<ul>
	<li>11:1 A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight.</li>
	<li>20:23 Differing weights are an abomination to the Lord, and a false scale is not good.</li>
	<li>16:11 A just balance and scales belong to the Lord, all the weights of the bag are his concern.</li>
	<li>20:10 Differing weights and differing measures, both of them are abominable to the Lord.</li>
</ul>

<p>Dishonesty is bad business.</p>

<ul>
	<li>10:2a Ill-gotten gains do not profit.</li>
	<li>13:11a Wealth obtained by fraud dwindles.</li>
	<li>15:27a He who profits illicitly troubles his own house.</li>
	<li>19:22b It is better to be a poor man than a liar...</li>
	<li>20:17 Bread obtained by falsehood is sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth will be filled with gravel.</li>
	<li>21:6 The getting of treasure by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor, the pursuit of death.</li>
	<li>28:16b He who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.</li>
</ul>

<p><em>Principle #4: Wise planning provides long term stability.</em></p>

<ul>
	<li>21:5 The plans of the diligent lead surely to advantage, but everyone who is hasty comes surely to poverty.</li>
</ul>

<p>Look to the Lord in your planning.</p>

<ul>
	<li>16:9 The mind of a man plans his way but the Lord directs his steps.</li>
	<li>21:31 The horse is prepared for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the Lord.</li>
</ul>

<p>Sow timely to reap bountifully.</p>

<ul>
	<li>6:6-8 Go to the ant, oh sluggard, observe her ways and be wise, which having no chief, officer or ruler, prepares her food in the summer and gathers her provision in harvest.</li>
	<li>30:25 The ants are not strong folk, but they prepare their food in the summer.</li>
	<li>20:4 The sluggard does not plow after the autumn, so he begs during the harvest and has nothing.</li>
</ul>

<p>Organize your efforts.</p>

<ul>
	<li>24:27 Prepare your work outside and make it ready for yourself in the field. Afterwards, then build your house.</li>
	<li>27:23-24a Know well the condition of your flocks and pay attention to your herds, for riches are not forever...</li>
	<li>30:27 The locusts have no king, yet all of them go out in ranks.</li>
</ul>

<p>Be a learner.</p>

<ul>
	<li>24:4 By knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches.</li>
</ul>

<p><em>Principle #5: Be aware of both the advantages and disadvantages of wealth.</em></p>

<ul>
	<li>30:8-9 Give me neither poverty nor riches. Feed me with the food that is my portion lest I be full and deny Thee and say, “Who is the Lord?”&nbsp;or lest I be in want and steal and profane the name of my God.</li>
</ul>

<p>Riches can give you favor and opportunity.</p>

<ul>
	<li>19:4 Wealth adds many friends, but a poor man is separated from his friends.</li>
	<li>19:7 All the brothers of a poor man hate him. How much more do his friends go far from him? He pursues them with words, but they are gone.</li>
	<li>14:20 The poor is hated even by his neighbor, but those who love the rich are many.</li>
	<li>10:15 The rich man’s wealth is his fortress. The ruin of the poor is their poverty.</li>
</ul>

<p>Riches can provide a false hope.</p>

<ul>
	<li>11:28 He who trusts in his riches will fall.</li>
	<li>18:11 A rich man’s wealth is his strong city and like a high wall in his own imagination.</li>
</ul>

<p>Riches can be temporary and fleeting.</p>

<ul>
	<li>23:4-5 Do not weary yourself to gain wealth, cease from your consideration of it. When you set your eyes on it, it’s gone. For wealth certainly makes itself wings, like an eagle, that flies toward the heavens.</li>
</ul>

<p>Riches can breed egotism and arrogance.</p>

<ul>
	<li>18:23 The poor man utters supplications but the rich man answers roughly.</li>
</ul>

<p><em>Principle #6: Generosity leads to financial success.</em></p>

<p>Give to the Lord.</p>

<ul>
	<li>3:9-10 Honor the Lord from your wealth, and from the first of all your produce, so your barns will be filled with plenty and your vats overflow with new wine.</li>
</ul>

<p>Give to others.</p>

<ul>
	<li>11:25 The generous man will be prosperous and he who waters will himself be watered.</li>
	<li>19:17 He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the Lord and He will repay him for his good deed.</li>
	<li>11:24a There is one who scatters yet increases all the more.</li>
	<li>19:16 Many will entreat the favor of a generous man and every man is a friend to him who gives gifts.</li>
</ul>

<p><em>Principle #7: Avail yourself frequently of wise counsel.</em></p>

<ul>
	<li>15:22 Without consultation, plans are frustrated, but with many counselors they succeed.</li>
	<li>20:18 Prepare plans by consultation and make war by wise guidance.</li>
	<li>11:14 Where there is no guidance, the people fall, but in the abundance of counselors, there is victory.</li>
	<li>24:6 By wise guidance you will wage war, and in the abundance of counselors, there is victory.</li>
</ul>

<p><em>Principle #8: Act on each opportunity presented you. Don’t wait or procrastinate.</em></p>

<ul>
	<li>10:5 He who gathers in summer is a son who acts wisely, but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who acts shamefully.</li>
	<li>14:23 In all labor there is profit, but mere talk leads only poverty.</li>
	<li>26:15 The sluggard buries his hand in the dish. He is weary of bringing it to his mouth again.</li>
	<li>19:24 The sluggard buries his hand in the dish and will not even bring it back to his mouth.</li>
</ul>

<p><em>Miscellaneous thoughts:</em></p>

<p>Pay your bills and your taxes.</p>

<ul>
	<li>11:24 There is one who withholds what is justly due, but it results only in want.</li>
</ul>

<p>Beware of credit.</p>

<ul>
	<li>22:7 The rich rules over the poor and the borrower become the lender’s slave.</li>
</ul>

<p>Discern proper and improper advantage.</p>

<ul>
	<li>22:16 He who oppresses the poor to make much for himself, or who gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.</li>
</ul>

<p>Pursue excellence.</p>

<ul>
	<li>22:29 Do you see a man who is skilled in his work? He will stand before kings.</li>
</ul>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fprinciples-of-successful-business-from-proverbs" 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%2Fprinciples-of-successful-business-from-proverbs" 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%2Fprinciples-of-successful-business-from-proverbs" 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: Compromise Is Not an Option
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/01/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/compromise-is-not-an-option
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Alan’s monthly letter for June 2013</em></p>

<p>Dear Friend,</p>

<p>Do you agree with God? What would it take for you to declare something good that God says is bad? Money, power, or fame? Unfortunately, many believers are willing to part ways from Scripture for a lot less.</p>

<p>At Stand to Reason’s 20th anniversary conference at Biola, I addressed three areas where Christians are compromising in the church. One area, in particular, is homosexuality. Believers are bullied into thinking they’re backward and intolerant. That makes it more likely they’ll cave in to cultural pressure.</p>

<p>Part of the problem is that the culture—and increasingly believers—are buying into false ideas about homosexuality. Many Christians, for example, think that same-sex attraction is biological or genetic and, consequently, unchangeable. They think same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. They think the Bible is either neutral or condones homosexual behavior. And they feel that if you think homosexuality is wrong, then you can’t love a person who says they’re gay.</p>

<p>Christians who hold a biblical view on homosexuality are becoming an endangered species. It’s common for a believer to compromise when a friend or family member tells them they’re homosexual. They believe that loving them means accepting their behavior.</p>

<p>But equating love with acceptance is odd. I’m betting these parents didn’t operate on this principle when their children were growing up. When their kids stole, swore, or lied, they didn’t accept their behavior in the name of “love.”&nbsp;They disciplined them. They loved them while they corrected their behavior.</p>

<p>This principle doesn’t evaporate with age—it continues to apply as adults. You can believe homosexual behavior is wrong and be compassionate, tolerant, and loving towards gay-identified individuals. There’s nothing contradictory about that. Disapproval doesn’t diminish love. Every parent knows this.</p>

<p>Editor of Biola University’s school newspaper, Elisabeth Sallie, wrote an article about same-sex attraction among some of the Biola students and alumni. She made a clear and uncompromising assessment of the biblical issues the university faces. Her most important sentence, though, emphasized the critical balance between truth and compassion: “We don’t have to compromise our biblical doctrine to be a community that exemplifies grace, love, and care for every individual.”</p>

<p>Because many believers are losing sight of this principle, denominations are falling like dominoes. The Anglican Church and Episcopal Church USA were the first to fall. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) abandoned the biblical view of homosexuality in 2009. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) made a similar move in 2011. Churches that resist are demonized and pressured until they succumb.</p>

<p>You and I, however, will not falter from the truth. We must “stand firm in the faith”&nbsp;(1 Cor. 16:13). We don’t make Scripture subject to our desires. Rather, Scripture is an authority over us. Otherwise, it is a meaningless book.</p>

<p>That’s one of the reasons why I’m thankful for you. You’re not willing to compromise your convictions. You stand by the Word of God and then you stand by me in support of my work. I’m grateful that I can count on you.</p>

<p>I’m also excited to tell you that I’ve finished writing <em>The Ambassador’s Guide to Understanding Homosexuality</em>. This book will help believers understand what Scripture and science say about homosexuality. It will also help communicate that knowledge in a winsome and gracious way. I’m looking forward to its publication this August. It’s one more reason I can thank you for standing with me.</p>

<p>Standing firm,</p>

<p>Alan Shlemon</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcompromise-is-not-an-option" 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%2Fcompromise-is-not-an-option" 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%2Fcompromise-is-not-an-option" 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: Pleasure as Ethics
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/pleasure-as-ethics
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When morality is reduced to personal tastes, people exchange the moral question, “What is good?”&nbsp;for the pleasure question, “What feels good?”&nbsp;They assert their own desires, then attempt to rationalize their choices with moral language. In this case, the tail wags the dog. Instead of morality constraining our pleasures (“I want to do that, but I really shouldn’t”), our pleasures define our morality. This effort at ethical decision-making is really nothing more than thinly veiled self-interest—pleasure as ethics.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fpleasure-as-ethics" 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%2Fpleasure-as-ethics" 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%2Fpleasure-as-ethics" 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: Spiritual Warfare: Truth Encounters
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/07/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/spiritual-warfare-truth-encounters
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Greg discusses what the Bible teaches about the true nature of spiritual warfare—truth encounters, rather than power encounters</em></p>

<p>My wife and I recently went to a garage sale where the woman who was hosting it asked me what I did for a living. We got into a very wide-ranging conversation about spiritual things. She announced to me later in the conversation that she was Jewish, but her basic goal in life was to be a good person—and that she would never try to change anybody’s religious view. When she found out that we had adopted children, she said, “Boy, you know, I’d think about being a foster parent because I could help kids,”&nbsp;which I thought was great. And she said, “I wouldn’t want to impose my religion on them, though. I wouldn’t make any imposition like that. Values, yes; religion, no.”</p>

<p>Based on reality as I understand it, there is God, and Jesus is Messiah and is the only source of redemption, through whom God seeks to redeem those who are estranged from Him. Success in life from this vantage point, which is the Truth, is reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. There exists a spiritual battle then to move people toward or away from grasping this reality.</p>

<p>There is spiritual warfare where, as Paul says in Ephesians 6, “It is not just a battle between flesh and blood,”&nbsp;as it were. That is, it’s not just the things that are happening in our view, physically, but it is the things that are going on in the spiritual realm, behind the scenes where the battle is.</p>

<p>I think many Christians are sensitized properly to the broader issue of spiritual warfare, but what they might not be so aware of is what form the spiritual warfare takes. For many Christians, the form spiritual warfare takes is power encounters with Satan or demons, where you’re casting them out and binding their power through prayer to suppress the demonic activity. If that’s true, then I suspect some people are actually missing what spiritual warfare most often entails.</p>

<p>There we were at a garage sale, having a friendly conversation, and as far as I know, there were no demons sitting on the gutters or fluttering about in the background, but there was no question to me that there was a battle that was raging. And with this woman, at least, the devil was winning because of the false ideas she believed that keep her from reconciliation with God.</p>

<p>During the second session of “The Bible Fast Forward”&nbsp;teaching , I teach about the Fall of man. When man rebelled, a number of things happened that created huge barriers between man and God that need to be overcome for reconciliation to take place. These barriers include God’s anger and wrath towards rebellion, spiritual death, and the debt of sin. We owe God perfect obedience. Once we incur the debt of disobedience, what do we pay with? Certainly not our good deeds; we already owe Him that. The Fall plunged mankind into two kinds of slavery: slavery to sin and slavery to Satan.</p>

<p>In fact, fallen man willingly follows his new leader. In Ephesians 2:2, speaking of the Ephesian Gentiles who are now Christians, Paul says, “You formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.”&nbsp;Even more, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:4, “The God of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving.”</p>

<p>In Acts 26, Paul says he was sent by Jesus to the Gentiles to “open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the dominion of Satan to God.”</p>

<p>Paul writes Timothy at the end of his own life about the desire to influence non-Christians so that they might escape the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.</p>

<p>John writes in 1 John 5:19, “The whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”&nbsp;You wonder why things are a mess? This is part of the reason.</p>

<p>Here is the insight that I wanted to offer about spiritual warfare. Given that the world walks according to the prince of the power of the air, that non-Christians, according to Paul, are blinded by the god of this world, under his dominion and live in darkness, these people are held captive by him to do his will. If the whole world lies in the power of the evil one, do you think the people in slavery realize they’re enslaved? Generally speaking, are they aware of their captivity to Satan? I think the answer is no.</p>

<p>There is something that is going on that keeps them enslaved, but they are not aware of it because what is being used to enslave them is not some dark, supernatural force that’s evident in their lives. They’re not demon-possessed. The forces of darkness do not hold them down, as if they lived in a horror movie. They’re just living they’re regular lives. Everything appears to be just fine.</p>

<p>They’re being held captive by the ideas they believe. Satan gained rulership originally by deception, and currently maintains it by craftiness, deceit, and subterfuge. This was the strategy in the Garden of Eden, and it is the strategy today. The devil does not stand in the Truth, Jesus said. There is no Truth in him. Whatever he speaks is a lie, and this dear woman at the garage sale believes that the religious details weren’t the issue. All that matters is that you live a basically good life. That’s why she wouldn’t instruct any foster children regarding a belief system, but only in values because she simply wants them to be good people and live a good life.</p>

<p>This presumes that anyone can live the kind of good life that is necessary to satisfy God. Is that possible? She thinks it is because she’s been persuaded, one way or another, of an idea called moralism. It is enough to keep her from humbling herself before God and begging for forgiveness because she probably thinks she’s basically a good person.</p>

<p>The M.O. of the Enemy is to fight the kind of spiritual warfare that will convince her of a lie. The battle exists because she is not held completely and totally captive. There’s no overt supernatural bondage.</p>

<p>The fundamental nature of spiritual warfare is not, in my view, power encounters with the devil, but rather Truth encounters opposing the lies and the deception of the Enemy.</p>

<p>With that in mind, think again about what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5. “Though we walk in the flesh”—that is, in the human nature as physical beings—“we do not do our warfare according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.”&nbsp;Wow! That sounds powerful. But what is Paul talking about? The next sentence says we are destroying speculations, which are like theories. “We are destroying speculative theories and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”</p>

<p>You see, when Paul gets precise about spiritual battle, he says, the battle that is being waged is not just a battle between flesh and blood, it is a battle of ideas. Where the idea gains ground, Satan captures people by feeding them falsehoods that they believe, and that’s all he needs to delude them and enslave them.</p>

<p>We find the same emphasis in the longest passage that talks about spiritual warfare in detail, Ephesians 6:10-20. Here it doesn’t say, “Take up the full armor of God so that you may be able to resist in the evil day and having done everything to stand firm, therefore having girded your loins with prayers of spiritual power.”&nbsp;Instead it says, “...having girded your loins with Truth.”</p>

<p>Truth is the first element of our spiritual weaponry. And Paul goes on to tell more about the armor, but he doesn’t talk about how we pray at this point. He does get to it eventually, at the end of the passage, verses 18-20. But he doesn’t instruct the Ephesians to pray against the powers and principalities, but rather to pray for the saints to persevere, and to pray for Paul, that he might speak the Truth with boldness. Read it yourself.</p>

<p>So this persuades me, from the Scripture, of something that I see every day. The principle way that the devil captures and enslaves people in this culture is through false ideas. And since I’ve become more, in a sense, sensitized to that, I have become more aware of the false messages that are preached all around me that hold people in slavery to Satan.</p>

<p>They are “lofty things raised up against the knowledge of God.”&nbsp;They are speculations and they sound great. Be a good person; that’s really what matters. But, friends, that is a lie because the truth is nobody is a good person. Jesus said it Himself. “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”</p>

<p>Therefore, my commitment to making a difference for the cause of Christ has to do with this whole area of understanding the lies of the world, and trying to replace them in a gracious yet incisive manner with the Truth of God, so that people see reality as it actually is. That is the nature of the most common kind of spiritual warfare we all need to 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%2Fspiritual-warfare-truth-encounters" 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%2Fspiritual-warfare-truth-encounters" 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%2Fspiritual-warfare-truth-encounters" 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, Conviction, and Jesus Are Relevant
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/07/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/truth-conviction-and-jesus-are-relevant
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Larry Taunton has an <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/listening-to-young-atheists-lessons-for-a-stronger-christianity/276584/" target="_blank">article</a> in <em>The Atlantic</em> describing what his organization found when they asked college students who were actively involved in campus atheist groups the question, “What led you to become an atheist?”&nbsp;He told a particularly telling story about why an atheist named Phil left his church:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[Phil’s youth leader’s] Bible studies were particularly meaningful to him. He admired the fact that Jim didn’t dodge the tough chapters or the tough questions: “He didn’t always have satisfying answers or answers at all, but he didn’t run away from the questions either. The way he taught the Bible made me feel smart.”</p>

<p>Listening to his story I had to remind myself that Phil was an atheist, not a seminary student recalling those who had inspired him to enter the pastorate. As the narrative developed, however, it became clear where things came apart for Phil. During his junior year of high school, the church, in an effort to attract more young people, wanted Jim to teach less and play more. Difference of opinion over this new strategy led to Jim’s dismissal. He was replaced by Savannah, an attractive twenty-something who, according to Phil, “didn’t know a thing about the Bible.”&nbsp;The church got what it wanted: the youth group grew. But it lost Phil.</p>

<p>An hour deeper into our conversation I asked, “When did you begin to think of yourself as an atheist?”</p>

<p>He thought for a moment. “I would say by the end of my junior year.”</p>

<p>I checked my notes. “Wasn’t that about the time that your church fired Jim?”</p>

<p>He seemed surprised by the connection. “Yeah, I guess it was.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A few of the themes that emerged from the atheists through this study:</p>

<ul>
	<li>They had attended church</li>
	<li>The mission and message of their churches was vague</li>
	<li>They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life’s difficult questions</li>
	<li>They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously</li>
</ul>

<p>Taunton notes:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>These students heard plenty of messages encouraging “social justice,”&nbsp;community involvement, and “being good,”&nbsp;but they seldom saw the relationship between that message, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. Listen to Stephanie, a student at Northwestern: “The connection between Jesus and a person’s life was not clear”...</p>

<p>[T]hey often concluded that church services were largely shallow, harmless, and ultimately irrelevant.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I’m sorry to say that my experience has taught me these atheists are not referring merely to liberal churches. I’ve visited quite a number of churches, and I’d say that at 90% of those, I’ve heard nothing but moralism.</p>

<p>Churches, often for good reasons, want to increase their membership. So to get people’s attention, they operate under the assumption that they must be relevant. They look around and say that self-improvement is relevant. Practical is relevant. Fun is relevant. Being just like the culture around us is relevant.</p>

<p>All this relevancy is making us <em>irrelevant</em> by removing every true and glorious thing from Christianity that makes us unique. Where is Jesus? Where is the Gospel? Where is the context for the actual Bible passage being cited? Where is our connection to history and the great Christian thinkers? Where is the theology? Where is the centrality of God in every message? Where are the answers that every human being cries out for? We would trade these weighty things for a boring sermon we could have heard on Oprah?</p>

<p>Relevance is not conformity. What’s <em>relevant</em> to human beings made in the image of God is the historical reality of Jesus and His payment on the cross for our sins, given freely out of “the great love with which He loved us,”&nbsp;in order to remove our objective guilt and reconcile us to God, upholding both God’s perfect, good justice and His beautiful, awe-inspiring grace. What’s relevant is hearing this, learning about this, and responding to this in worship to God and love shown to our neighbor.</p>

<p>When we avoid saying these things as a strategy for drawing people, we betray both our lack of conviction and our lack of love for these truths. Is the story of God and His work in the world the treasure hidden in the field for which we happily sacrifice all else because we value it above all else, or isn’t it? If you act as if it is not, then don’t be surprised when people like these atheists see right through you and walk away.</p>

<p>Read the full <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/listening-to-young-atheists-lessons-for-a-stronger-christianity/276584/" target="_blank">article</a>.</p>
</div>

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


title: Are Words in Your Brain?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/24/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-words-in-your-brain-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Is there a <em>you</em> in there that is making your body happen?</em></p>

<p>I have in front of me the L.A. Times from January 24, 2000. It’s a front-page article entitled “A Scalpel, a Life, and a Language.”&nbsp;It’s actually a rather phenomenal story about a man who had a brain tumor and they were attempting to remove the brain tumor without damaging his language capability.</p>

<p>They used the surgery for an opportunity to help map the brain out a little bit more because he was conscious during the procedure. The brain doesn’t have any pain cells, you can’t feel anything.</p>

<p>They mapped the brain by asking him questions, touching probes to his brain and checking his inability to recognize certain pictures. Then when they removed the probe, he could name the picture immediately. He actually recognized the picture but he couldn’t think of the word of it. This allowed them to learn some things about how the brain interacts with the mind to produce language.</p>

<p>What’s remarkable about this is that they got it wrong, frankly. It’s a remarkable article. They conclude that the words are in the brain.</p>

<p>The article starts like this: “In every human thought and reflection, there is a word.”&nbsp;By the way, that’s controversial. If that’s true, you can’t think unless you have language. But the problem is, of course, how do you learn language without thinking about it before hand? It seems to me you’ve got to be able to think before you can learn something because learning is a process of thinking. And then you might learn words that help you to think in a more precise or specific way. But it doesn’t strike me that you’ve got to have words in order to think because you would never be able to get started in the learning language process if that were the case.</p>

<p>In any event the article says, “In every human thought and reflection, there is a word. For Paul Sailor, the essence of all his words is concealed in the cells along the pastel furrow of brain tissue behind his ear just to the left of the surgeon’s probe.”</p>

<p>Just think about that statement for a moment. Do you think words are concealed in the tissue of your brain? Now if they were, then you should be able to cut around and find that noun or adjective, if the physical thing is stuck in your brain somewhere.</p>

<p>What this article does is highlight the tendency of taking all mental activities and trying to reduce them to physical things. In the field of neurophysiology, the idea that one is a substantial soul that works with his body to produce language is archaic, is a folklore, a fairy tale. What we know now is that there is no soul, so they say. Time Magazine declared in a 1995 article that there is no soul. We don’t know what consciousness is, but one thing we know is, it ain’t a soul. There’s no YOU in there that is making your body happen. The lights are on but nobody is home.</p>

<p>The reason they say (and this is almost an exact quote, I’m not making this up) scientists have been looking for the soul for 100 years and haven’t been able to find it . The second reason: There is no space in the brain for it to fit. You think about that.</p>

<p>Do you think that if a soul really existed it would need any space to fit? The soul is not physical, so it needs no physical space. And if it did exist, you would not be able to find it with a physical instrument that is meant to measure only physical things. Of course, scientists can’t find it. It isn’t the kind of thing you can find with the scientific methodology. Why? Because scientific methodology was meant to measure physical things, not non-physical things like souls.</p>

<p>Of course, this isn’t an argument for the soul. But it just goes to show that you can’t disqualify the existence of the soul simply because science can’t find it.</p>

<p>It’s like going into a house and looking around for an invisible man. You come out and say, “You said there was an invisible man in your house. I went in there and looked all over, and I didn’t see him anywhere. I looked under the bed, in the closet, in the attic in the basement. I looked everywhere and I didn’t see him.”&nbsp;Well, that is ridiculous because you don’t find invisible men by looking for them in that way. They are invisible.</p>

<p>That’s why it is misdirected to simply dismiss the existence of the soul because one can’t find it with their physical instruments. Here is an article that assumes the soul doesn’t exist, and that things like sentences and words and language are actually physical things that are in the brain somewhere. That’s why they can say in the article, “For the first time neurobiology is revealing exactly where nouns, verbs, sentences, and the concepts they articulate are rooted in the brain.”&nbsp;One has to just think about it for a few seconds to know there ain’t no nouns in your brain.</p>

<p>By the way, there ain’t no nouns on this piece of paper I am reading from. There’s just ink shaped in a certain way. And the way the ink is shaped indicates that this ink shape on this page is referring to a noun that itself is not physical.</p>

<p>You know how I know nouns aren’t physical? Because the noun “table”&nbsp;can be in a whole bunch of places at the same time. Physical things can’t be that. You can have “table”&nbsp;in all kinds of different conversations, I could read it, I could speak it, I could put it on a CD disc. All these tokens, all these representative things, things that stand for nouns, can be everywhere. The nouns can attach themselves to these symbols very easily because they can be everywhere. Physical things can’t be in more than one place at one time, therefore the nouns aren’t physical. And you aren’t going to find nouns by looking at the chemical content of this paper and this ink. Language is not physical and it ain’t located in your brain.</p>

<p>There may be certain parts of your brain that are used by your soul in a cooperative unified relationship to produce language such that if some part of the physical stuff is gone awry, then you are not able to partner in the same way and make language or recognize language. There is certainly an interdependency between the soul and body. No doubt about that at all.</p>

<p>That’s all this shows. This experiment demonstrates correlation. It doesn’t demonstrate identity. It doesn’t prove that the nouns, parts of speech, thoughts, and sentences are identical with stuff in your brain. They aren’t the same thing.</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-words-in-your-brain-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-words-in-your-brain-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-words-in-your-brain-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Value of Philosophy
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/24/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-value-of-philosophy
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>An historical perspective on how philosophy has significantly defined our culture, and how the church has responded.</em></p>

<p>We had a conference for Stand To Reason a couple of weeks ago and Dr. J.P. Moreland was one of our speakers. He spoke to our church about the circumstance that American Christians find themselves in now, seriously marginalized, considered a little bit whacko and encouraged, directly or indirectly to take their Christianity back to their closet where it belongs and not poke their spiritual noses in anybody else’s business with it. It hasn’t always been that way in this country. There has been a significant change in attitude since the Civil War and he talked about that, this idea that religion should be privatized is a result of something else that Christians actually had something to do with. After the Civil War it became evident that Protestant Christianity, especially in this country, was taking some severe hits from three different directions. One, from philosophy—the impact of Kant and Hume. Second from German higher critics. And the third from Darwinian evolutionary philosophy. So from Biblical criticism, science and philosophy, Christianity was taking a hit. Instead of standing up and doing the hard work of responding to the critics, Christians basically opted out and said, It doesn’t matter what the facts say, I feel Jesus in my heart and that’s all that really matters to me. So we opted for a subjective pietism instead of hard thinking on the issues, and therefore we lost our place in the public square.</p>

<p>One of the things that Dr. Moreland has emphasized, and I will say in my own life has been very, very important, is that if you want to compete in the marketplace of ideas you have to understand the language of ideas. And you have to understand ideas. There is a discipline that has traditionally addressed those things and the discipline is philosophy. This is why there are many times I have incorporated certain tools of philosophy in trying to answer the question. The reason is because the tools have been very helpful to me and they’re the tools of thought.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, by the way, if many of you are thinking of Colossians Chapter 2 where Paul says, “Do not be taken captive by vain philosophies, according to the tradition of men instead of according to Christ,”&nbsp;that Paul is talking about something very particular there. He is not saying that you ought not have anything to do with philosophy at all. He said you ought to be careful of being captivated by vain philosophies that are in the tradition of men. There is a difference between the tools of philosophy, which are the fundamental tools of thought—and you can’t avoid them even if you wanted to—and the opinions of philosophers on different things. Paul was referring to a particular set of opinions of a particular philosophy that was contrary to Christ. In his case, it was probably some pre-gnostic influence. Gnosticism, which took the field in a robust form there in the second century, was there in a seminal form in the first century and the Apostles had to deal with it. Paul is saying be careful of these philosophies of men, but he is not saying that you ought not be involved in philosophy whatsoever because if you stay away from philosophy, which trains you in the tools of thinking, then it isn’t that you won’t do philosophy. You will do it. In other words, you will do your thinking. You just won’t do it very well. You won’t have the categories that are necessary to make the finer distinctions on the critical issues.</p>

<p>In the last three or four years I’ve been receiving some training that has really helped me in that, so I want to commend this to you, this idea that learning about philosophy helps you in understanding your faith more clearly. In fact, it seems pretty evident to those who have studied church history, especially the anti-Nicean fathers, and actually all those right around that period of time, the time of the second, third and fourth centuries, when critical debates about the nature of the person of Jesus and the nature of God and the Trinity were taking place, that the Fathers would not have been able to prevail in effectively defending the truth if they did not have some philosophic distinctions that allowed them to make their points clearly. In other words, these men were students of philosophy. If you think of any of the great thinkers of that period of time, Irenaeus, Augustine, later on in the medievals, like Anselm and Pascal and others like them, Thomas Aquinas, these are people who made phenomenal contributions to the field of Christian theology and Christian thought. All of these people were very, very careful and rigorous philosophers. In fact, that’s how they were able to make a contribution.</p>

<p>There are some of you out there who simply still feel very, very resistant to letting your child go to university to study philosophy. There’s a couple of thoughts I want to toss out to you. I have to admit that these are not my thoughts. They are Melinda’s thoughts as we talked about this a couple weeks ago. So the next four points I’ve stolen from “The Enforcer.”&nbsp;It shows that she’s a clear thinker as well as a powerful and effective Terminator.</p>

<p>The first is this: Why is it that we don’t send our kids to study philosophy in college? Is it because we’re afraid that Christianity is not going to stand up? Sometimes that’s the case. Maybe there’s an underlying belief that Christianity can’t be tested against these other theories of knowledge. I guess you have to ask yourself whether you are willing to pit your child, equipped with a solid, clear understanding of Christianity, against any ideas at a university, because those ideas are wrong. They can be refuted, but it’s going to take somebody doing the hard work to be able to do that. So possibly part of our reluctance in letting our kids study philosophy is that we’re afraid that their faith can’t stand up to that. I’m here to say it can.</p>

<p>Secondly, our goal in studying philosophy is not to study the philosophies of men per se, but primarily to learn how to think. In other words, to manage the tools of philosophy, the tools of thought, and then understand what other people have thought so we can see whether they really and genuinely comport with reality. We use our tools to make that distinction, to come to that decision.</p>

<p>Third, it’s not the philosophy department’s fault that children have lost their faith. It’s the church’s fault because we have sent them out of our religious communities without training them to think for themselves, and to think effectively, and to think well.</p>

<p>Finally, if you think that you are going to protect your child by keeping him out of the field of philosophy, keep in mind that from a worldly perspective, all fields are dangerous. Do you think that by sending them to the science or literature departments they are going to escape philosophy? No way. That they are going to escape worldly thinking? No way. Those professors have philosophies that can also damage your child’s faith as well. They don’t always admit it, but sometimes they do quite clearly. “Yes, I am out to destroy your faith,”&nbsp;some of them say that from the outset.</p>

<p>My point is simply this. The way to deal with vain philosophies, wherever they may be found, is to have good philosophy, not to abandon the art of critical thinking altogether. And if the church is to survive in the twentieth century as an important and significant player in the marketplace of ideas, then those who are members of the church are going to have to recapture the traditional emphasis on the mind and learn to manage and use the tools of thought in defense of the Gospel.</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-value-of-philosophy" 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-value-of-philosophy" 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-value-of-philosophy" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Faith and Philosophy
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/24/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/faith-and-philosophy
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>For some Christians, faith and philosophy are strange companions. When used properly, though, philosophy is a friend, not a foe, an ally, not an antagonist.</em></p>

<p>“Stay away from the philosophy department,”&nbsp;is the advice frequently given by well-meaning pastors and parents to their college-bound charges. “It will ruin your faith.”&nbsp;No doubt their caution is an attempt to pass on Paul’s warning not to be taken captive by the empty and deceptive traditions of men (Colossians 2:8). This admonition to students, though, is based on a misunderstanding of Paul and the nature of philosophy.</p>

<h2>Tools of Thought</h2>

<p>Setting aside for the moment the question of whether a faith that’s capable of being ruined through rigorous analysis is even worth having, I have this comment. Those who give such advice err by not distinguishing the tools of philosophy from the opinions of philosophers.</p>

<p>Paul’s warning, of course, was against certain opinions of men that were not according to Christ. Ironically, the tools of philosophy have helped to safeguard the church from the empty and deceptive traditions Paul was referring to. Careful philosophical thought has been vital in protecting Christians since Nicea from the “elementary principles of the world”&nbsp;that concerned Paul.</p>

<p>When Christians abandon these fundamental tools of thought, what remains are ad hoc theologies justified by scattered proof texts rather than by rigorous and clear-headed thinking coupled with a focused look at the Scriptures. Believers try to add the roof before they build the walls.</p>

<p>This brings me to the issue of the integration of philosophy and theology. Sometimes difficult questions are answered by an appeal to theological slogans. Often the intentions are good, but the point is so misstated it creates more confusion than clarity.</p>

<h2>Sloppy Slogans</h2>

<p>There’s nothing wrong with catchy ways of expressing a conclusion based on careful consideration. In fact, Jesus was a master at using short, pithy statements (known as aphorisms) to drive a point home. Sloganeering in the hands of the unskilled, though, tends to be a sloppy business. The kernel of truth is lost beneath a pile of misleading chaff.</p>

<p>Many slogans are not answers, but clever dismissals. No careful work has been done to justify the verdict. Let me explain.</p>

<p>One truism I’ve heard regarding the problem of God’s sovereignty versus man’s freedom goes something like this: “God is a gentleman. He won’t tamper with your free will.”&nbsp;The statement has a ring of truth to it, and as a slogan it has populist appeal. Yet, more often than not, the statement is like a roof hanging in mid-air; the more demanding foundational work needed to support it simply has not been done.</p>

<p>For example, this maxim is vulnerable to a couple of simple observations. First, the Scripture doesn’t make this particular claim about human freedom. It doesn’t even imply that God is a gentleman who won’t interfere with our lives. To the contrary, there are a number of biblical examples that indicate just the opposite.</p>

<p>Take Paul on the road to Damascus, for instance. He was in total rebellion against God. He dragged Christian men, women, and children into prison and even presided over executions. Paul was, in his human will, an enemy to the cross of Christ. So God knocked him off his horse on the Damascus Road, blinded him, then spoke to him like thunder from the sky (Acts 9:3-7). Was God tampering? It looks like it.</p>

<p>Consider poor Nebuchadnezzar. God had him chewing grass with the cows in the fields of Babylon for three years until he finally looked heavenward, came to his senses, and gave God the glory (Daniel 4:28-37). Was there any divine pressure here? Seems like it to me.</p>

<h2>Prayer and Free Will</h2>

<p>Second, the notion that God doesn’t tamper with our free will presents problems in the area of prayer. For example, what exactly are we asking for when we pray for someone’s salvation? Aren’t our very words, “God, change this person”? Aren’t we asking God to intervene by influencing a person’s will in order to elicit a response of faith? It seems difficult to argue that God doesn’t tamper with free will and then pray this prayer.</p>

<p>The problem doesn’t just present itself when praying for someone’s salvation, though. It includes prayer for anything involving human agency.</p>

<p>God answers prayer in two ways. He can respond directly, like he did when Peter was in jail and an angel released him. Since there was no human involvement, no one’s will was violated. The same is true when Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes or raised Lazarus from the dead.</p>

<p>It seems, however, that most of our requests entail God’s mediate action, in which the answer involves the agency of another person. Characteristically, we’re not rescued by angels. Usually, God doesn’t multiply food or raise the dead in direct, immediate response to our prayers. Instead, the garden variety of prayer sets the will of God against the will of man.</p>

<p>Our prayers for a new job involve a human decision to hire. Our requests for the protection of the unborn speak to intentions of legislators and judges. Our petitions for good grades relate, in part, to the benevolence of a professor. In fact, with many prayer requests, the contrary will of a person is the precise issue of concern. Most prayers appeal to God to prevail upon other human wills. In effect we’re praying, “God, use Your will and Your power to overcome the power and will of others.”</p>

<h2>Did God Do It?</h2>

<p>I have a friend who was on her way to India with Youth With a Mission when she was diverted to Thailand because of an air-traffic controller’s strike. Upon her arrival, she discovered that the YWAM team there had been praying for more helpers. They hailed her rerouting as a wonderful answer to their prayers.</p>

<p>Consider this, though. Labor strikes happen when individuals with grievances agree together not to go to work. If a strike is the result of human choices, in what sense did God answer the missionaries’&nbsp;prayers? It seems that without the direct agency of God on the wills of men, apparent answers to prayer are mere accidents.</p>

<p>This illustration points to an even larger issue: Does God have a plan? Is His plan something He merely desires, or is it something He decides will happen? Does God guarantee the outcome of His desires, at least in some cases?</p>

<p>If God cannot determine people’s actions in some way, how is it possible for Him to have a plan? Clearly, God does have a plan. Therefore, it follows that our understanding of human freedom is not accurately expressed by the slogan, “God won’t tamper with free will.”</p>

<p>However we resolve this issue, we must give fair consideration to the fact that God does seem to tamper with the wills of men. Sometimes He does so aggressively, even in ways (like causing air-traffic controller strikes) that seriously inconvenience a lot of other people. If He didn’t, history would simply be the chaotic record of human impulse instead of the grand unfolding of God’s design.</p>

<h2>Beliefs Worth Having</h2>

<p>In tackling difficult questions, I try to work from the known to the unknown, and this short discussion hopefully gives us some fixed points to aid our navigation. Where this ultimately leads regarding the question of human freedom depends on further considerations.</p>

<p>This reflection only raises the question and begins to define the landscape. There are many issues that need to be pondered: What are the necessary pre-conditions for a free act? What are the different ways of understanding free will? What role does character play? Does man have a nature that seriously restricts his options?</p>

<p>This is where the tools of philosophy come in, being carefully employed to serve theology. Ad hoc assessments and theological slogans aren’t adequate. It’s easy to state a belief. It’s much more difficult to build an argument that will weather rigorous scrutiny.</p>

<p>That’s the only way to have a belief worth holding, though. Such a faith can’t avoid philosophy, nor should 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%2Ffaith-and-philosophy" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffaith-and-philosophy" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffaith-and-philosophy" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Jesus, Propositions, and the True Message of the Gospel
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/24/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/jesus-propositions-and-the-true-message-of-the-gospel
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Is it possible to find truth in statement and propositions, or is Truth only in a Person?</em></p>

<p>The pastor at church this morning went through the last chapter of the book of Luke, the road to Emmaus, and the interesting things going on there. Something really stood out for me. It has to do with the emerging church and those in the emerging church—which I understand aren’t all—that take issue with the notion that truth is propositional and objective. In fact, there are some (Robert Weber, for example, who wrote <em>Ancient Future Faith</em>) who simply deny that propositions exist. This strikes me as odd insofar as the denial is in the form of a proposition!</p>

<p>What’s more important is that truth is communicated to us in propositions in the Scripture. Paul says, “All writings are God-breathed”&nbsp;(2 Timothy 3). Now it is impossible to communicate in writing intelligibly without using propositions. I should qualify that. It is impossible to communicate very much information without using propositions. Why did I just change it? Because I guess somebody could push me on things like, “Yikes!”&nbsp;or “Uh!”&nbsp;We make these sounds and they aren’t propositions, but they do communicate something. Disgust, surprise, anger, hostility. But do you notice that the content is just a little bit lean? So I guess it is, in principle, possible to communicate little bits of information without using propositions, but not very much. For the most part, if you want to communicate very much in writing you have to do so with propositions.</p>

<p>However, these Christians—who are not too thrilled with Paul it seems but who really like Jesus—seem to think that truth is really a person, and that person is Jesus. Therefore, truth is not about propositions, it’s about relationship. They get this from John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth...and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through Me.”&nbsp;This is a remarkable statement that Jesus has made and it’s just filled with all kinds of profound meaning. But my response to those who read that passage and say, “Jesus said truth is a person. Truth used to be expressed in words. Now truth is a person. Truth is about relationship, not about propositions.”</p>

<p>My response to this is yes, but then Jesus was confused. What? Yes, Jesus was confused at that point. What do you mean he was confused? You’re the one who’s confused, buddy! No, Jesus was. It’s obvious. Why do you say that? Because he said in John 14 that truth was a person. Then just a little while later, He says He will send the Spirit of truth. So now apparently truth is a spirit. Wait, is truth a person—Jesus—or is truth a spirit because Jesus and the Spirit aren’t the same. They’re different. “I will go away and send you the Spirit.”&nbsp;See they’re different. So first He says Jesus is the truth. There’s a shift. We went from words being truth to now Jesus being truth. All right. But wait because now we’re saying the Spirit is the truth. Then He changed His mind again. Later on\the same evening, same setting, same people, He says, “Sanctify them in truth, Father. Thy word is truth”&nbsp;(John 17). Ugh! Make up your mind!</p>

<p>Is truth a person? Is truth a spirit? Or is the truth a word? It started out with truth being the words, then He says it’s Him, then He says it’s the Spirit, then He says it’s words again. So now we’ve come full circle. So Jesus straightened it all out. He was confused when He said that truth was Him. He was working on it a little bit more, and He got it wrong a second time when He said that truth was a spirit. And now He finally figured it out and we’re back where we started where truth is a word again.</p>

<p>This way of putting my response is a “tongue in cheek”&nbsp;way of saying that maybe those who think that Jesus changed the definition of truth to a person, didn’t read Him right. Maybe He was using a figure of speech. Maybe He was saying He personified truth. He was Mr. Truth, just like you might say that Tiger Woods is Mr. Golf. The perfection of golf is so characterized by Tiger Woods that we can call him Mr. Gold. Jesus is so characterized by communicating truth, representing truth, telling us the truth, maintaining truth, living out the truth that He is truth, after a fashion. However, that certainly doesn’t mean that there is no truth of propositions, no truth of words, no truth in the objective sense. Truth is not a person, not really. Truth is still a relationship between a claim and the way the world really is.</p>

<p>This brings me back to Matthew 24 and the road to Emmaus where Jesus runs into some guys after His resurrection. They’re all flustered because this was the man they thought was going to rescue all of Israel. Jesus asks them what’s going on. They ask Him if He hasn’t heard that the whole city is in uproar because of the things that have happened with regards to this man Jesus. They tell Him they’re followers of Jesus and that they’ve heard He was crucified but has risen. They don’t know what to think. Jesus said to them,“Oh foolish men and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.”&nbsp;That’s language friends. That’s propositional statements.</p>

<p>I want to tell you something. This passage comes at the end of the Gospel of Luke, which means not only is it at the end of Jesus’&nbsp;life, but why does Luke include this here at the end of the account of Jesus’&nbsp;life? Because when you’re at the end of an account or teaching of anything, you sum it all up so people get the important things. And this is the summary, friends.</p>

<p>By the way, in verse 32, Jesus disappears—poof!—and the men recognize that it was Jesus. “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”&nbsp;Do you think propositional truth mattered to Jesus? It seems so.</p>

<p>Later on while they were telling these things to the others, Jesus stood in their midst and gave them undeniable evidence that it was Him. In verse 44, He says near the end—where the really important things are written—“These are my words which I spoke to you while I was still with you that all things which are written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”&nbsp;Déjà vu all over again. It sounds just like verse 25 and 26, 27. Yes. He repeats it, i.e., Luke repeats the statement Jesus made two different times at the end of his ministry. Why? Because it’s so important.</p>

<p>Verse 45: “Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. Thus it is written...”&nbsp;Luke positioned these things right at the end of his account because they are actually at the end. Jesus is leaving the most important things also. Notice that Jesus is not saying, Don’t go around acting like you’ve got the truth and everyone else is wrong. Embrace doubt and mystery.</p>

<p>No, Jesus says something entirely different. First, He says there are propositional truths that explain me and my mission very clearly. It is not just in this Gospel, but it goes all the way back to Moses and pretty much continuous since him. Then He says, Go out and give ’em Heaven. He says, I’m sending you forth. Repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed. When you look how Peter characterizes this in Acts 10, he says that He commanded us to preach. Well, we better obey by doing that.</p>

<p>Therefore, if there are Christians, emerging or otherwise, who deny that this is the main point of the Gospels, then they are missing it entirely. And obviously those who deny there are propositions and that propositional truth matters are flying in the face of these very clear statements at the end of the Gospel of Luke.</p>
</div>

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


title: Two Miracles
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 05/01/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/two-miracles
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A Christian’s theology is minimally defined by two miraculous events.</p>

<p>The first miracle no one ever saw, because it could not be seen except by God alone. The second miracle only a few saw, but multitudes have experienced. These miracles happened within days of each other in the middle of the Jewish month of Nissan, in the spring of 33 A.D. It was the week of Jesus’&nbsp;passion.</p>

<h2>Best Christmas Verse You’ll Never Hear</h2>

<p>Traditionally, Easter is the time we reflect on these two events. I think, however, we should start four months earlier, with Advent. It may seem odd to talk of Christ’s suffering at Christmas—it’s not very festive—but there’s a simple logic joining the two that’s often missed because of Yuletide habit.</p>

<p>Usually we focus on Nativity passages—shepherds, angels, wise men, “no room at the inn,”&nbsp;mangers, etc. But you will hear nothing of one of the most significant New Testament texts on the birth of Christ since it’s not in the birth narratives. It’s not even in the Gospels.</p>

<p>Here is the most important Christmas verse you’ll never hear on Christmas:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore, <em>when He comes into the world</em>, He says, “Sacrifice and offering you have not desired, but a <em>body</em> you have prepared for me. In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have taken no pleasure." Then I said, “Behold, I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written of me) to do your will, oh God”&nbsp;(Heb. 10:5-7).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Note the opening words: “When <em>He</em> comes into the world...”&nbsp;Who is “He”? The babe in the manger. On that first Christmas, the eternal Son of God surrendered His perfect human self to His Father as the future unblemished offering for the sins of fallen human beings.</p>

<p>This verse tells us the precise reason the Son came to Earth. He did not come principally to teach love, peace, and pity for the poor. He came to submit Himself to something unspeakably violent and brutal. Every crèche ought to have a cross hanging over it, because Jesus was born to die.</p>

<p>“The Son of Man [came] to give His life a ransom for many,”&nbsp;Jesus said.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> A ransom is the price paid to purchase something. What would Jesus buy? Lost souls. At what price? “...a body you have prepared for Me.”&nbsp;He would give the life of His body to provide forgiveness for our souls.</p>

<p>And this you do find in the birth narratives—everywhere.</p>

<p>God speaks to Joseph in a dream telling him Mary will bear a son who “will <em>save</em> His people from their sins.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> The angels appear to shepherds that first Christmas night and say, “Today in the city of David there has been born for you a <em>Savior</em>, who is Christ the Lord.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> Days later Simeon encounters the infant Jesus at the temple: “Lord, you can let your bondservant depart in peace...for my eyes have seen Your <em>salvation</em>...”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<p>Earlier Zacharias had prophesied over his infant son, John the Baptist, that He would “...give to His people the knowledge of <em>salvation</em> by the <em>forgiveness of their sins</em>...”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> This same John would point to Jesus 30 years later and say “<em>Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”</em><sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>

<p>Jesus came to save—to rescue from imminent danger. What was the threat? God Himself.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> How would Jesus rescue us from the Father? First, He lived the life we should have lived. Second, He died the death we all deserved. Third, He made a swap, a trade.</p>

<p>From the very beginning, this divine plan had been unfolding. Passion week was the pivot point of thousands of years of prophecy, promise, and expectation. A transaction would take place that had been planned since the dawn of time. For Jesus, though, this meant betrayal, humiliation, acute physical suffering, and unimaginable emotional agony.</p>

<p>The drama unfolded on a small outcropping outside the walls of ancient Jerusalem. It was called Golgotha, the “place of the skull.”&nbsp;We know it as Calvary, the place of the cross. It was the place of the first miracle.</p>

<h2>The First Miracle</h2>

<p>Crucifixion is a cruel form of execution, generally reserved for slaves and rebels. Death is agonizing and slow, the result of shock, exposure and, eventually, suffocation.</p>

<p>For Jesus, though, the pain of the cross pales in the face of a greater anguish. There is a deeper torment that cannot be seen, one no words can adequately express. It’s more excruciating than the lashes tearing Jesus’&nbsp;flesh from His frame, more dreadful than the nails that pin His body to the timbers. It is a dark, terrible, incalculable agony—an infinite misery—that God the Father unleashes upon His sinless Son as if He were guilty of an immeasurable evil.</p>

<p>Why punish the innocent One?</p>

<p>Nailed to the top of the cross is an official notice, a certificate of debt to Caesar, posted at the place of punishment as a public notification of Jesus’&nbsp;crime of sedition. It reads, “King of the Jews.”&nbsp;The cross is payment for this debt. When punishment is complete, Caesar’s court will cancel the debt with a single Greek word stamped upon the parchment’s face: <em>tetelestai</em>. Paid, completed, done, finished.</p>

<p>Of course, being king of the Jews is not the real crime Jesus pays for. Hidden to all but the Father is another decree of debt nailed to that cross, identifying our crimes—the “decrees against us”—before our Sovereign.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup></p>

<p>In the darkness that shrouds Calvary from the sixth to the ninth hour, the divine transaction takes place. <em>Jesus makes a trade with the Father.</em> Punishment adequate for all the crimes of all humanity—every murder, every theft, every lustful glance, every hidden act of vice, every modest moment of pride, every monstrous deed of evil—punishment adequate for every crime of every person who ever lived—Jesus takes upon Himself as if guilty of all.</p>

<p>And in the end, the cross does not take Jesus’&nbsp;life. He does not die of exposure, or loss of blood, or suffocation. Rather, when the full payment is made, when the last of the debt melts away and the justice of God is fully satisfied, Jesus dismisses His spirit and dies.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup></p>

<p>But before He does, a single Greek word escapes His lips: <em>Tetelestai</em>. It’s translated, “It is finished,”<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup> but this is not a sigh of relief. It is a “loud cry”&nbsp;of victory.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> The divine transaction is complete.</p>

<p>Jesus took our guilt so we could take His goodness. That’s the trade.<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">12</a></sup>&nbsp;Paul put it this way, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup></p>

<p>The story is told of a king who, having discovered a theft in the royal treasury, decrees that the criminal be publicly flogged for this affront to the crown. When soldiers haul the thief before the king as he sits in his judgment seat, there in chains stands the frail form of the king’s own mother.</p>

<p>Without flinching, he orders the old woman to be bound to the whipping post in front of him. When she is secured, he stands up, lays down his imperial scepter, sets aside his jeweled crown, removes his royal robes, steps down to the whipping post, and enfolds the tiny old woman with his own nearly naked body. Bearing his back to the whip, he orders that the punishment commence. Every blow meant for the criminal—his mother—lands with full force upon the bare back of the king, until the last lash falls.<sup id="fnref:14"><a href="#fn:14">14</a></sup></p>

<p>In like manner, during those dark hours when Jesus hung from the cross, the Father took those who would put their trust in Christ and wrapped us in His Son who shields us, taking every blow that we deserve.<sup id="fnref:15"><a href="#fn:15">15</a></sup></p>

<p>This was not an accident. It was planned. The prophet Isaiah described it 700 years earlier:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Surely <em>our</em> griefs He Himself bore...He was pierced through for <em>our</em> transgressions. He was crushed for <em>our</em> iniquities. The chastening for <em>our</em> well-being fell upon Him, and by <em>His</em> scourging <em>we</em> are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way. But the Lord has caused <em>the iniquity of us all</em> to fall on <em>Him</em>&nbsp;(Isaiah 53:4-6).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In case it has not occurred to you, this is the reason Jesus is “the only way.”&nbsp;He is the only one who solved the problem by paying the debt we owed. No other man did this. No other man could. Jesus alone, the perfect Son of God, canceled the debt for whoever trusts in Him. Without Him, we cannot be saved from our overwhelming guilt. Without Him, every one of us would have to pay for our own crimes. And that would take forever.</p>

<p>That is the miracle of the cross, the miracle that couldn’t be seen, the trade. For those who find shelter in Jesus, the anger of God has been spent, unleashed on the body of Christ. The result: God is not angry at us anymore.</p>

<p>Let that thought sink into your soul. For those under the cross, <em>God is not angry anymore</em>. He <em>cannot</em> be angry. Since He already poured all His anger out on His Son, He is emptied of His wrath and is satisfied:<sup id="fnref:16"><a href="#fn:16">16</a></sup></p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore, having been justified by faith, <em>we have peace with God</em><sup id="fnref:17"><a href="#fn:17">17</a></sup> through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we exult in hope of the glory of God&nbsp;(Rom. 5:1-2).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Of course, this news sounds wonderful to us in hindsight. On that Friday night, though, there were no poetic reflections on atonement or justification. There was just a bloody, brutally beaten corpse hanging from a cross.</p>

<p>Jesus was dead. And he was taken down, and he was buried. And the women were weeping, and the men were hiding. And it was night. And it was day. And it was night again. And it all seemed over. That was the end of it.</p>

<p>And then, something remarkable happened. Exactly <em>what</em> happened has mystified historians. Whatever it was, it changed everything.</p>

<h2>The Second Miracle</h2>

<p>Here is what historians <em>do</em> agree on. Today, the vast majority of New Testament scholars—including secular/critical scholars—agree to four facts of history:<sup id="fnref:18"><a href="#fn:18">18</a></sup></p>

<ul>
	<li>First, Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross and laid in a tomb.</li>
	<li>Second, the tomb was empty Sunday morning.</li>
	<li>Third, numerous individuals (including skeptics like James and hostiles like Saul of Tarsus) experienced what they took to be the resurrected Jesus.</li>
	<li>Fourth, belief in the resurrection transformed their lives and launched a movement that altered history.</li>
</ul>

<p>What historians <em>don’t</em> agree on is what best explains these four facts, but there aren’t many options. Consider the handful of improbable scenarios meant to explain away those conclusions.</p>

<p>Some skeptics suggest Jesus never really died. Rather, He fainted on the cross, was taken for dead, was entombed alive, then revived in the coolness of the cave.</p>

<p>This would mean Jesus suffered all the physical abuse described in the historical accounts—being beaten, scourged, pinned to a cross with nails in hands and feet, exposed naked all afternoon in the April air, and speared through his chest—was declared dead by a battle-seasoned Roman centurion,<sup id="fnref:19"><a href="#fn:19">19</a></sup> embalmed with 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes,<sup id="fnref:20"><a href="#fn:20">20</a></sup> laid out on a cold stone slab, and sealed in the grave. Then, a couple of days later, Jesus felt a lot better, got up, rolled away the rock, eluded the Roman guard, and convinced his doubtful disciples He was the resurrected Lord of life.</p>

<p>Any skeptic who falls for that story is not skeptical enough.</p>

<p>Maybe the women went to the wrong tomb. That’s possible in principle, but it would have been an easy mistake to rectify. Since both the Jewish leaders and the Romans knew where Jesus was buried, and both groups wanted Him to stay dead,<sup id="fnref:21"><a href="#fn:21">21</a></sup> don’t you think someone would have quickly pointed to the correct tomb and ended the confusion? The story would have never gotten off the ground.</p>

<p>Instead of producing the corpse, though, the leaders manufactured a lie: The disciples stole the body.<sup id="fnref:22"><a href="#fn:22">22</a></sup> This was the earliest attempt to explain away the empty tomb,<sup id="fnref:23"><a href="#fn:23">23</a></sup> but it’s wildly implausible. The disciples who were hiding out of fear would have had to regroup, brave an armed Roman guard, quietly roll away the massive stone, and spirit off the body of Christ without waking the soldiers who were, amazingly, sleeping on duty. Not likely. And what would motivate the theft?</p>

<p>Worse, it would mean <em>the disciples themselves knew</em> Jesus had not, in fact, risen from the dead. Why would these men face so much suffering for a lie they manufactured? Common sense dictates that no one would contrive a tale that gains him nothing but misery. The basic rule regarding lying is this: Invent a lie that benefits you, not one that gets you beaten, whipped, scourged, stoned, drawn and quartered, or crucified upside down. Again, a skeptic who believes this is far too gullible.</p>

<p>Maybe the appearances were hallucinations. Really? A group hallucination? How exactly does that happen? Hallucinations are first-person private mental states, like dreams. How do you produce exactly the same detailed dream in the minds of a dozen people at exactly the same time, multiple times, especially in the minds of those who are complete doubters like Thomas, James, and Saul? By the way, do you know the difference between a dream and reality? I do. I suppose the disciples did, too.</p>

<p>No, hallucinations won’t do, either.</p>

<p>What would transform a group of shivering, shaking, terrified men who had abandoned Jesus—one even denying he knew Him—scattering, hiding from the authorities, door locked, lights out? What could account for their metamorphosis into vibrant witnesses for Jesus standing in the face of powers who threatened to scourge, imprison, and execute them for proclaiming a risen Christ?</p>

<p>What would change Saul of Tarsus, a man so dedicated to his religion he rounded up men and women to be bullied, beaten, and killed for following Jesus? What would cause such a man to turn on a dime and take his place with those he persecuted, eventually sacrificing his own life for the very Gospel he previously despised? What best explains that?</p>

<p>Only one answer will do, in Peter’s words, “This Jesus, God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.”<sup id="fnref:24"><a href="#fn:24">24</a></sup></p>

<p>And if risen, then <em>Jesus is the son of God</em> because He was declared to be so “with power by the resurrection from the dead”&nbsp;(Rom. 1:4). And if risen, <em>we have been forgiven</em> because “He who was delivered over for our transgressions...was raised because of our justification”&nbsp;(Romans 4:25). And if risen, <em>we now have no condemnation</em> because Jesus “who was raised, who is at the right hand of God...intercedes for [us]”&nbsp;(Rom. 8:34).</p>

<p>Two miracles. The first miracle a trade that ends the battle with God, bringing mercy, forgiveness, and atonement. The second miracle a defeat of death that secures eternity of glory for those who put their trust in Christ.</p>

<h2>The Open Door</h2>

<p>One day we will lay hold of the promise of both miracles in their fullness. “The door on which we have been knocking all of our lives will open at last,”&nbsp;C.S. Lewis wrote.<sup id="fnref:25"><a href="#fn:25">25</a></sup></p>

<p>On that day because of the first miracle—the miracle of the cross—we will hear, “...and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more”&nbsp;(Heb. 10:17). On that day because of the second miracle—the miracle of the resurrection—we will hear, “Enter into the joy of the Lord”&nbsp;(Matthew 25:21).</p>

<p>It is the reason Jesus was born.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Matt. 20:28. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">&gt;Matt. 1:21. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Lk. 2:10-11. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Lk. 2:29-38. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Lk. 1:76-77. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Jn. 1:29. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">Matt. 10:28. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Col. 2:13-14. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Note the centurion’s response, “When the centurion...saw <em>the way</em> He breathed His last, he said, ’Truly, this man was the Son of God.’”&nbsp;(Mk. 15:39) <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Jn. 19:30. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Mk. 15:37. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">The full “trade”&nbsp;combines substitutionary atonement (Jesus dying in our place) with justification (Jesus’&nbsp;merit credited to our account). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">2 Cor. 5:21. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:14">I do not know the source of this story. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:14">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:15">Note that since Jesus was God, then God Himself took the punishment we deserve. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:15">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:16">This is the meaning of the word “propitiation”—God’s wrath is satisfied (see 1 Jn. 2:1-2). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:16">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:17">This is not the peace <em>of</em> God (subjective), but rather peace <em>with</em> God (objective) upon which the peace <em>of</em> God is based. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:17">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:18">Here we are talking about 75-99% of professional scholarship, depending on which claim is in question. Find superb summaries of this approach in Habermas and Licona, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886"><em>The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus</em></a> (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 43-80, and William Lane Craig, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Faith-Christian-Truth-Apologetics/dp/1433501155/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1364420204&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Reasonable+Faith">Reasonable Faith</a>,</em> Third Edition (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 348-400.&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:18">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:19">Mk. 15:44-45. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:19">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:20">Jn. 19:39-40. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:20">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:21">Matt. 27:62-66. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:21">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:22">This attempt is clear evidence the body was missing. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:22">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:23">Matt. 28:13. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:23">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:24">Acts 2:32. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:24">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:25">C.S. Lewis, <em>The Weight of Glory</em> (San Francisco: HarperCollins: 1949), 41. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:25">&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%2Ftwo-miracles" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftwo-miracles" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftwo-miracles" 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: Evidence for the Soul
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/24/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/evidence-for-the-soul
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>An apocryphal story of Greg’s backyard deck serves to illustrate an important lesson about the nature of human identity.</em></p>

<p>I’m having a dispute with my neighbor and I want you to help me settle it. I need your advice, because I want to keep good relations with my neighbor, but at the same time, I think he stole something from me, but I’m not sure.</p>

<p>My neighbor and I both have decks in our back yards. In fact, our decks are exactly alike, almost. He built his long before I built mine. I liked what I saw, so I made one just like it, according to the exact same plan. I put it together with screws, just the way he did. But there was one, big difference. I used this new wood-polymer product called Trex which doesn’t splinter, rot, warp or split. It looked great.</p>

<p>So, our decks looked identical, except that my was beautiful Trex and his was splintered and weather-beaten.</p>

<p>Well, I got back from being out of town one week and I noticed that a bunch of the planks of my deck had been removed and replaced with planks that were all worn out. When I looked over my fence, I noticed that my neighbor had beautiful Trex planking in the exact same spots that my deck had the old planks. Does this look suspicious or what?</p>

<p>A few days had passed before I had a chance to talk to him. I noticed that a lot more planks had been transferred. Then when I got back from Chicago two weeks ago I looked out in my back yard and, low and behold, my entire deck looked like his used to look, and his looked brand new with that beautiful Trex material that doesn’t splinter, rot, warp or split.</p>

<p>I think my neighbor stole my deck. But he says he didn’t. Now, he admitted that he exchanged the boards. Here was his explanation. Can you believe this?</p>

<p>He said, “No, that deck in your back yard is still the same deck. It still has the same shape. It’s located in the same place. It underwent some change, but the change was piece by piece. Therefore, it’s still the same deck—your deck—even though it now looks a lot older.”</p>

<p>I said, “Listen, if I have a lawn chair in my possession that is constructed of all the exact same physical parts that yesterday made up your lawn chair, even if I disassembled it on your property and reassembled it piece by piece on my property, it’s still your chair, right?”</p>

<p>I said, “Just because this deck was reassembled piece by piece in the same place—my backyard—it’s not the same deck because it’s made out of completely different stuff—your junky wood. And you want to say that just because that beautiful thing you now call ’your deck’&nbsp;is still in the same place in your yard and underwent its transformation piece by piece, that even though it looks different it’s still the very same deck, and therefore you own it?”</p>

<p>I said, “You’re nuts. Anyone can see that if you change all of the parts on my deck, it’s no longer the same deck. It’s a different deck. Period. I’m studying philosophy. I know how that works. I know about personal identity. You can’t pull the wool over my eyes.”</p>

<p>Here’s my question to you. Do I have a case? Whose deck is in his back yard? Did he steal my deck?</p>

<p>Now, I have a confession to make. This didn’t really happen. It’s a story. But there’s a very important lesson here about the nature of things, especially the nature of identity regarding physical things. If I smashed a chair to pieces, the physical stuff would still remain, but the chair would be gone. Purely physical things can be destroyed simply by disassembling them in some way.</p>

<p>A physical thing’s identity is determined by its precise physical makeup, the assembly of particular physical parts. If you change any of the physical parts of a thing, it’s not really the same thing, as a whole, that it was before. And if you change all of its physical parts, there can be no question in your mind that you don’t have the same physical thing anymore. That’s why it was no longer my deck in my back yard. He stole it from me.</p>

<p>If you’re clear on this, then I want to ask you the question I asked a young man at Cypress College last week. I was giving a lecture on the relationship between faith and science and whether there was a necessary conflict between the two. During the Q&amp;A afterwards one young man got very hot under the collar and loudly challenged just about everything I’d said.</p>

<p>Now, he didn’t argue with me—I’m choosing my words carefully here—he yelled at me. It wasn’t an argument because he gave no reasons why my view was not accurate. He just kept telling me I was wrong, wrong, wrong, that science gave us facts about the world and religion was just silly opinion that no one could ever properly claim was true.</p>

<p>His point was, only science can give us true information about the world. Theology can’t, not even in principle.</p>

<p>I asked him why he believed that, what were some good reasons I should believe his view that religious claims could never be shown to be true, even in principle. There was an embarrassing silence, because he had no reasons to give. I asked him again. He accused me of twisting the issue and then loudly recited his opinion, without support, without reasons, without defense (which is a common tactic).</p>

<p>So I asked him this question, in true Columbo form: “When were you born?”&nbsp;More silence. He didn’t trust the question because he didn’t know where I was going with it, so I asked again. “Come on, when were you born?”</p>

<p>“1975.”</p>

<p>��What day?”</p>

<p>“May 1.”</p>

<p>“So you were born on May 1, 1975?”</p>

<p>“That’s right.”</p>

<p>Then I asked my follow-up question. “Is the body you possess today the same body you had on May 1, 1975?”</p>

<p>Again he balked. He tried to say it was, but then I pointed out that his physical body was quite a bit larger now, it has a different appearance, and it has different qualities. More to the point, it’s made up of completely different physical stuff. In fact the molecules in our bodies are almost completely exchanged every seven years. So at 21 years of age he’s had at least three completely different physical bodies. Just like the deck, it’s not the same thing any more.</p>

<p>I then pointed out the conclusion that was beginning to dawn on everyone, including him. “If you were born on May 1, 1975, and your physical body in front of me right now did not even exist as a physical body in 1975, then you are not your physical body, are you?”</p>

<p>“That’s totally irrelevant!”</p>

<p>Why? Because it’s not a scientific argument.</p>

<p>This man characterizes the tendency of some to simply ignore good arguments they don’t want to deal with or aren’t capable of answering (or maybe never even thought about). You’ll never hear, “Boy, that’s an interesting point and I don’t know how to answer it. It seems to make your case, but there might be something wrong with it. Let me think about it for a while to see if it’s flawed.”</p>

<p>No, they won’t do that. Instead, they resort to the steamroller. They overpower you with noise, aggressiveness and simple, unthinking denial.</p>

<p>Listen, if there are good arguments for something, and no arguments against it, then you have a rational obligation to believe it, at least until other evidence surfaces. That’s the way clear thinking works.</p>

<p>But in this case any argument was going to be irrelevant. Why? Because he was convinced of his own point of view regardless of evidence and regardless of reason. Nothing I said would ever make a difference. Some people are like that. Don’t let it be you.</p>

<p>Here’s the question. What is it about human beings that allows us to maintain our identity over time—such that we can say we’re still ourselves—even when we go through such radical physical changes that we can have entirely different bodies?</p>

<p>I’ll give you a clue, the same clue I gave to the young man at Cypress College: it’s not anything physical. Why? Because all the physical parts are replaced piece by piece every seven years. If you’re 42 years old you’ve had 6 completely different bodies. Can you ever possess a different body? Sure. You do it all the time.</p>

<p>What is it that makes the difference? If it’s not something physical, it must be something non-physical. That’s simple. You are not physical. You are a non-physical something that sustains its identity through time even though the physical body you possess and use makes radical changes.</p>

<p>What are you? Now we know. What are you called? I think the term rational soul does just fine. Don’t you?</p>
</div>

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


title: Giving the Truth but Not the Life
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/24/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/giving-the-truth-but-not-the-life
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>How many of us have become that which, in a time of clearer thinking, we swore we’d never be, and hindered someone from hearing our message because of our behavior?</em></p>

<p>People ask me, “How was your vacation?”&nbsp;I want to say good, restful, enjoyable, and it was all those things to a degree, but it was also kind of disturbing as well. So I want to tell you about something that happened on my vacation and what I believe the Lord is saying to me at this season in my life.</p>

<p>I need to start out by saying that this last year, especially the last six months, have been an extremely stressful time for me. I’ve been doing two shows, teaching two classes at Hope Chapel, I’ve been taking two classes in grad school, I’ve been fulfilling my other responsibilities at Hope, been doing outside speaking and trying to get some writing done. That’s just my professional life. It says nothing of my private life (I still have to do the laundry, folks) or my social life, which has been nil.</p>

<p>As a result of being squeezed like this for such a long time I’ve had trouble with my health, with my breathing, actually, a kind of stress asthma causing me to gasp for air, a feeling like I was suffocating.</p>

<p>It wasn’t until the third day in Wisconsin that I was breathing normally again. But it didn’t last. By the time I’d finally started to relax the trip was nearly over and I started feeling suffocated again. As I realized I’d be returning in a few days I started to get that squeezed feeling.</p>

<p>It’s a little hard to describe the effect it had on me, but it’s important to tell you about this. I got angry, very angry. I resented the thought that I had to return to the demands, the deadlines. I was trying to cram as much relaxation into the week as I possibly could—if you can imagine this, I wanted to rest and fish hard at the same time—but the calendar told me it was a losing battle; I just had a couple of days left. I was testy, cranky, not always civil towards those I was with.</p>

<p>And another thing, I didn’t want to pray; I didn’t want to read my Bible. That was “work.”&nbsp;Frankly, I didn’t want to think about God at all. God was part of my profession. I was on vacation; I was relaxing. I just wanted to be left alone to fish, I wanted to be left alone to chop wood, I wanted to be left alone to repair the pier, I wanted to just be. Paul’s words to the Thessalonians echoed in my mind: “...make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you”&nbsp;(1 Thess 4:11). That sounded very appealing.</p>

<p>Then I was hit by a startling thought. It was this: Did I have a relationship with God or did I just have a Christian profession? I could give others the way and the truth, but had I ceased to be able to give them the life because the life had been squeezed out of me by the pace of my own life?</p>

<p>Why am I telling you this? First, because I’m not going to lie to you about what it means for me to be a Christian. When I defend Christianity it’s not the “apple-pie-in-the-sky-in-the-sweet-by-and-by”&nbsp;version. It’s the real thing, friends, as much as I can be in touch with it, Christ walking with man—me, in this case—in the nuts and bolts of life, down on the hardtop where life is really lived, because, frankly, that’s where you live it as well.</p>

<p>But I’m also telling you this for another reason: I care about you. And I’ve been around the Lord long enough to know that if something is happening in my own life, it’s probably happening in the lives of those He has given me to speak to, and right now that’s you. This isn’t just for those who are deeply involved in Christian work like I’ve been; it’s for those who are deeply involved in the American life.</p>

<p>I always told myself I’d never marry the corporation, even before I became a Christian, that what I wanted was a part-time job and a full-time family. How many of us have become that which, in a time of clearer thinking, we swore we’d never be?</p>

<p>When I lived overseas in Southeast Asia, it gave me an opportunity to reflect on American values. It’s pretty hard to do that unless you go away, kind of like asking a fish what it’s like to be wet. If you’ve always been immersed in water, wetness is pretty much an unknowable thing. The same is true with being immersed in your own value system; you’re robbed of perspective.</p>

<p>One thing I became aware of when I wasn’t culturally “wet”&nbsp;anymore, so to speak, was that this sense of super-charged growth, our “manifest destiny”&nbsp;to expand in all areas of our lives, our quest to lay hold of the gusto, our value that bigger is better and more is better and newer is better and richer is better, to “Be, all that you can be,”&nbsp;that was an American value. That was a cultural value, not a Christian one, and God isn’t an American.</p>

<p>This realization may shed new light on 1 John 2:15. John says, “Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.”</p>

<p>Could it be, that acquiescence to a “hurry syndrome,”&nbsp;even in spiritual things, a “do, do, do, grow, grow, grow”&nbsp;mentality, is really another way of loving the world? Could it be that this kind of frantic productivity, this obsessive love of growth, is not Christian at all, but just American?</p>

<p>In the medical realm growth out of control is called cancer; it’s a type of malignancy. Cancer does not bring life; it brings death. Certainly I’m for growth; certainly I’m for progress, in a fashion. But I’m wondering if the definition that we’ve applied to growth and progress in our Christian life is not more of an American kind of thing than it is a biblical thing, and the pursuit of that kind of thing actually undermines genuine, stable, fruitful, life-giving spirituality.</p>

<p>I realize there are seasons in life, my friend. But more and more these seasons of output become less the exception and more the rule, don’t they, the status quo: “It’s just for a couple of months.”&nbsp;“It’s just for a year.”&nbsp;“It’s just for a couple years.”&nbsp;And before we know it the children are grown, and we have nothing to say to our spouse anymore, and we’re tired of God, and we shake our fist towards the heavens and ask “Why have you forsaken me?”&nbsp;And we never realize we’ve been following the wrong set of rules.</p>

<p>How do we resolve this? I’m not sure. This kind of reassessment probably falls into the category of “work out your salvation in fear and trembling,”&nbsp;and it therefore is very individual. I’m not sure, but I’m personally taking the next six months to rethink these issues and to re-tool my life. I have to trim my sails; I have to specialize more. I have determine the specific things I do best and let the other things go. I have to move slower, I have to do less better, I have to say “no”&nbsp;more often, and may even have to make less money.</p>

<p>You might be saying, “But I can’t afford to cut back.”&nbsp;Why? Nine times out of ten one of two things, and maybe both, is operating. One, you are operating according to the wrong sense of values, values that say, for example, that every child has to have his own bedroom, that you have to have two cars in the garage instead of one, etc. There used to be a time when two cars in the family was rare. And things still got done. Groceries got bought; clothing got washed. Of course, Mom had to spend more time at home with the children, which is not so fashionable anymore.</p>

<p>Another reason most people are not able to cut back is that they have bought this values system and have organized their budget around two incomes, around working 60 hours a week and working 50 weeks out of the year, and they have allowed their employers to demand this of them, and consequently if they cut back now they wouldn’t be able to pay the bills because they’ve committed themselves to a whole bunch of things that they really shouldn’t have committed themselves to in the first place if their values were different.</p>

<p>Could it be that we’ve accepted a definition of the good life that brings neither goodness nor life?</p>

<p>But one thing I would warn against. Sometimes our solutions to this kind of thing is mechanistic and American. We ask, “What more can I do to fix this?”&nbsp;So we commit ourselves to read our Bible more, to pray more, to give ourselves more to others’&nbsp;needs when we may be on the brink of crippling ourselves to the point where we won’t be able to give to anyone for a long time.</p>

<p>If your life is consumed by work and you’re neglecting your family and the critical spiritual dimensions of life, including productive involvement in the family of Christians, you may need to trim your professional sails and give yourself more to the classic disciplines of the faith—prayer, Bible study, etc.</p>

<p>But if you’re already consumed with giving in your Christian community, you may have to seriously throttle back and ask whether you have a relationship with God or merely a Christian job.</p>

<p>If your service to Jesus Christ has become consistently laborious, well, you can still give others the Way and the Truth (which is fundamental, don’t get me wrong, and if that’s all we can give at a moment in time it’s still substantial) but you won’t be able to give them the Life. When our own lives become a burden and a chore, when in our Christian lives we feel like we need a vacation from God, something is desperately wrong in the way we view our commitment to Jesus and our contribution to the Body.</p>

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

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgiving-the-truth-but-not-the-life" 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%2Fgiving-the-truth-but-not-the-life" 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%2Fgiving-the-truth-but-not-the-life" 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 Jesus’ Two Natures Compatible?
topic: Theology
author: Melinda Penner
date: 04/24/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-jesus-two-natures-compatible-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Are Jesus’&nbsp;human and divine natures compatible? Is this an impossibility that makes Christianity irrational?</em></p>

<p>There are a number of issues that must be considered to address the intelligibility of the incarnation. First, the groundwork of metaphysics must be laid. What are a nature and a person? Is it possible for one person to have more than one nature? How can three persons of the Trinity be individuated in one substance? Second, we must turn to concerns regarding the compatibility of two natures in one person. Can the divine and the human co-exist in one individual? The problems of knowledge, will, and temptation must be answered plausibly. We will consider these issues and conclude that the incarnation is metaphysically possible and belief in it is rational. I will present a model for these answers consistent with Christian orthodoxy.</p>

<p>I have long been impressed at the philosophic and theological sophistication of the early church councils as they addressed the challenges raised to and in the church. The ecumenical councils draw the parameters around orthodox faith, and any solutions postulated must be found within these limits. There are also philosophic categories that seem somewhat clear and must be respected when attempting to synthesize the information from the Bible about the incarnation. These are my concerns as I attempt to describe a rational account for the incarnation, and I find that it is possible to answer the questions within these constraints. The solution to the incarnation must affirm that Jesus is one person with divine and human natures, and the second person of the Trinity.</p>

<p>A person is a category of immaterial conscious substance. There seem to be three types of persons that we know of: God, angels, and humans. Persons are essentially souls. There are some capacities that are common to all persons: cognition, rationality, affect, volition, desire, perception, and morality are examples. The substance person cannot be analyzed in functional terms or the properties it possesses; rather it is constituted by a set of ultimate capacities and the universals it exemplifies, regardless whether or not they are ever realized. The mere possession of the capacities and universals counts for personhood.</p>

<p>Jesus is a person in virtue of being God, therefore He is of the same type of conscious being as humans. It would not be appropriate or possible for Jesus to become a non-person, for instance an animal or a non-conscious thing.</p>

<p>Substances possess properties and remain identical to themselves through time and change. Joshua Hoffman and Gary S. Rosenkrantz define substance in their book Substance: Its Nature and Existence:</p>

<p>X is a substance = df. X is an instance of a concrete category, such that: it could have a single instance throughout an interval of time (non-minimal).</p>

<p>A substance can be instantiated as an individual, concrete particular, a member of a general kind, that is traceable through a duration of time. The instantiation of a substance possesses the properties predicated of it. A substance is a natural kind that is marked off by “a set of its ultimate capacities that are possessed by it solely in virtue of the substance belonging to its natural kind.”&nbsp;Membership in the natural kind is constant through a person’s existence, it tells us what a thing is, and the individuation of the kind is the ground of identity through change.</p>

<p>A substance cannot loose its essence and continue to exist. This is necessarily true if Jesus is to remain identical to the second person of the Trinity through the incarnation. The Council of Nicaea affirmed that Jesus was of one substance with the Father and the Spirit; He shared in the identical personal natural kind and continued to throughout the incarnation.</p>

<p>Persons qua persons are immaterial substances, but it is a unique property of human persons that they possess material bodies, thus it must be a property of the nature and not personhood. A nature is a set of essential properties that further mark off what sort of thing an individual is. There are three kinds of persons that we know of: God, angels, and humans. The further distinction between these kinds of persons is the natures they possess.</p>

<p>Orthodoxy holds that all of God’s properties are essential, but angels and humans have essential properties in virtue of their natures and accidental properties in virtue of their individual existence. Among God’s necessary properties are perfection, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Jesus could not lose these and continue to be identical to the second person of the Trinity.</p>

<p>In determining what are the essential properties of human nature, we must take into consideration the distinction between what is universal to all humans versus what is essential to all humans. Thomas Morris points out that it is universal that all human persons live on the surface of the earth, but that does not mean that it is essential that they do. Humans could live in a space lab for their entire bodily duration and still be human. It is also the case that all humans sin, but that is a universal property not an essential one since it is possible for humans to live without sin. Morris points out a further distinction that follows from this, “In order to be fully human, it is not necessary to be merely human. An individual is merely human just in case it has all the properties requisite for being fully human...and also some limitation properties as well.”&nbsp;This distinction will be helpful in solving issues of apparent incompatibilities between divine and human natures. Jesus is fully human, all that humanity was meant to be; the rest of the members of the human race are merely human, limited by the influence of sin.</p>

<p>The best test I can think of for determining what is essential to human nature is to ask the question: Is it possible for human beings to exist without a particular property? When this test is administered to many properties that appear to be essential to humanity, it becomes clearer that most properties are probably contingent on the kind of bodily, earthly existence we experience now. For instance, I began thinking that sexual interest and emotional needs for relationship were essential; however, it seems very likely from the Biblical witness that humans will not function sexually in the after life, nor have the kinds of emotional needs for others that we have now. It could be that these contingent needs are precursors to more ultimate satisfactions that we will experience in Heaven. Many nature property candidates fall by the wayside in the conceivability test.</p>

<p>The properties that seem to be essential to human nature are those that the professor presented in class, with one exception in my opinion. A substance S has the essence or nature of humanity iff(df):</p>

<p>1. S is a person (a soul).</p>

<p>2. S is or has been embodied as a living organism of the natural kind homo sapiens (with a micro-structural blueprint, which marks it as a natural kind) such that:</p>

<p>2.1 normally, S apprehends objective reality (universals and particulars; tokens and types) perceptually</p>

<p>2.2 S’s development (the realization of S’s higher-order capacities) is (at least partly) tied to the development of S’s body</p>

<p>The one point of disagreement in the form of the definition given in class is the spirit capacity for relationship with God. I think this is a better candidate for a capacity of persons because the two examples of persons we know of besides God do have relationship with Him (and actually He has relationship with the other persons of the Trinity). And if it is a capacity of persons to behave morally, and morality seems to be necessarily grounded in God’s existence, then it appears that all persons would have the capacity for relationship with God to ground their morality and the obligation feature that follows.</p>

<p>It has been suggested that the definition of human nature would be improved with the qualification that embodiment is only possible. I think that it is an essential property of human nature to be or have been embodied, not possibly embodied. If the incarnation was necessary in any way (and there appear to be several good reasons why it was) then bodily existence is necessary for humans, otherwise Jesus could have taken on human nature and remained immaterially existent. Since it seems that His physical incarnation was likely necessary, then it seems reasonable to conclude that physical embodiment is not accidental to human nature.</p>

<p>With this metaphysical framework set, we can propose an analysis of what a human being is. A human is:</p>

<p>1. a personal substance</p>

<p>2. that possesses the set of essential properties of human nature, and</p>

<p>3. is embodied in its usual state of existence.</p>

<p>Jesus was fully human by this analysis.</p>

<p>God is also a substance, but instead of the usual one-to-one correspondence of persons and substance that we are familiar with, God is three persons in one substance. The divine nature, shared by all three persons of the Trinity, is able to be instantiated only once. God is a union of three persons. The witness of the Bible is that God is one (Deut. 4:35). It also seems necessarily true that there can only be one being with the divine essence if God’s maximal attributes are understood in a comparative sense. God’s attributes cannot be exceeded or rivaled by any being.</p>

<p>Though unique, there appears to be no incoherence to the concept. This substance has the essential properties of divine nature. Each person of the Trinity is a center of consciousness with His own personal capacities.</p>

<p>Jesus was a preexistent personal soul with a divine nature that added a human nature, and thus a body, to His substance. Again, though it is a unique case for a person to have two natures, it seems possible for two personal natures to be coexemplified as long as their essential properties are not mutually exclusive. Because the second person of the Trinity had the same personal substance as the incarnated Jesus, they are identical persons. Though this person added a new nature, His essential properties did not change. Because natures are essential properties which cannot be lost without going out of existence, Jesus continues to have two natures. The incarnation was not a temporary event.</p>

<p>There are some particular objections to the coexemplification of certain properties of divinity and humanity that must be considered. Appealing to Morris’&nbsp;distinction between universal and essential properties, and between fully human and merely human can answer these sorts of objections, such as contingency and omniscience. Contingency is universal in most cases of humans in virtue of being created beings, but it does not seem to exclude the idea of an infinite being taking on a human nature.</p>

<p>Omniscience is another particular case that seems to be incompatible with limited human nature. Limited knowledge also does not have to be essential to humans. Limited knowledge may be a result of being contingent beings, not human qua human. It also may be a limitation of embodiment in unglorified form. It certainly seems likely that in Heaven with glorified bodies and an eternal amount of time to learn, that our set of knowledge will increase beyond what is imaginable now.</p>

<p>But what of the reverse: Can God limit His knowledge? Jesus seemed to exemplify genuine limits on His knowledge at times. There are examples in the Gospels where Jesus’&nbsp;intent seemed to be to learn propositional knowledge. This seems to be the natural implication in Luke’s statement that “Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men”&nbsp;(Luke 2:52). There are other cases where Jesus seems to truly acquire propositional knowledge (John 11:34; 18:34).</p>

<p>How could the omniscient divine mind be contained by a limited human mind when joined in the one person of Jesus? Aquinas’&nbsp;solution was that Jesus the man fully realized all of the latent capacity for knowledge that is natural for a human to have, but He was not omniscient. Proximity to the divine essence inspired the full realization of the human capacities. In addition, Jesus exemplified the state of body and soul common in the after life when the greater capabilities of the soul will not be limited by the present conditions of physical union to the body. Jesus’&nbsp;soul dominated His physical restrictions to realize it’s fullest potential. Though this solution gets Jesus a larger stock of knowledge than the usual human being, even an optimally functioning human mind is only finite and not omniscient.</p>

<p>One solution would be to suggest that Jesus had two minds, but the mind seems to be the rational capacity of the soul. Two minds would mean Jesus had two souls and two identities, and that is metaphysically unacceptable based on the account laid out earlier. Morris characterizes the relation between the two minds of Jesus as asymmetrical: As God, He was aware of the human mind, but as a man, He was not aware of the divine mind and functioned as if it were the only one He possessed. Morris proposes that Jesus had two centers of consciousness. He believes that while Jesus was one person, there were two hypostases. Though Morris does recognize the burden of solving the apparent problem of synchronic identity, I do not believe his metaphysical characterization can accomplish that. Richard Mull defines hypostases as a self-subsisting person, not simply a center of consciousness. This is the language the ecumenical councils used to affirm the unity of Jesus’&nbsp;person (hypostases) with two natures. It does not appear that a satisfying metaphysical account can be given for the two minds view that also affirms one personal identity.</p>

<p>Richard Swinburne seems to endorse a similar view in The Christian God and cites Thomas Morris, as well. Swinburne characterizes his version of the two minds view as two separate belief tracks, the human belief track being unaware of the divine belief track. The belief tracks operate in the nature, so that Jesus had a divine way of thinking and acting and a human way of thinking and acting. Each nature also has a separate will. However, I do not believe Swinburne gives enough justification to override the previous metaphysical account of the personal substance possessing the rational and volitional capacities constituting one rational individual.</p>

<p>The other possibility is that Jesus had one mind and one intellect and did not make use of His omniscience. This would be consistent with the kenosis by addition advocated by Millard J. Erickson. When Jesus added human nature to His personal substance in the kenosis, He willingly chose not to make use of His divine attributes during His duration on earth. He retained His divine essence, but added human nature and chose to live with human limitations. But as Erickson points out, the divine also limited the human nature in that it prevented Jesus’&nbsp;human nature from be merely human. The influence of the divine nature helped Jesus to live fully as a human without any of the limitations of sin and contingent creation.</p>

<p>On this view, then, Jesus willed to limit the knowledge He made use of as a man to a subset of His divine knowledge. But as fully human and not merely human, Jesus’&nbsp;realized the ultimate cognitive capacity natural to humans. In this way, the second person of the Trinity remained omniscient, but also lived as a limited human during His mission.</p>

<p>A question that has challenged the orthodox view of the incarnation since the early first millennium is the nature of Jesus’&nbsp;will. How many wills did Jesus have? Constantinople III concluded that Jesus had two wills and rejected monothelytism. This is the only issue of the first six ecumenical councils that I am aware of that I take issue with their conclusion because I believe it was based on an ill-conceived metaphysic. Constantinople was wrong in locating the will in the nature. The will is an active power that is a capacity of soulish creatures. More specifically, persons have rational wills; this is true of different beings that belong to the category of persons, including humans, angels, and God. So the will seems to be a soulish capacity, and the rational will is a capacity of persons. All persons also have natures, but their natures are unique to each kind, so it seems reasonable to place the will in what is common to all who have one. If a person is a soul, then Jesus had only one will. He had one will as the preexistent second person of the Trinity and did not add another when He added a human will.</p>

<p>How do we reconcile Jesus’&nbsp;words, “Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done”&nbsp;(Luke 22:42)? This verse was a primary motivating factor in the Council’s conclusion. It appears that Jesus’&nbsp;human will was in conflict with the divine will. A few of things should be said regarding this.</p>

<p>First, Jesus’&nbsp;human will was never in opposition to the divine purpose because, due to His impeccability, Jesus’&nbsp;human will was in perfect subordination and coordination with the divine will. This is another example of the divine influencing the human nature to be fully human.</p>

<p>Second, Jesus may not have been using “will”&nbsp;in a technical sense, but rather was referring to a desire. It could be that since different kinds of persons have different kinds of desires that desires are influenced by dispositions in the nature. The nature is what gives the personal faculties their unique essence, so different kinds of persons would have different kinds of desires because of their different natures. As an embodied human being, Jesus had a disposition to be fearful of the suffering and death that lay ahead of Him. Swinburne points out that it is not necessary to act on a desire, especially when there is also a countervailing stronger desire. Jesus’&nbsp;desires influenced by His divine nature would always be stronger than those influenced by His human nature. Swinburne says, “A divine individual could not have what we normal humans so often have—a strong desire, not outweighed by a contrary desire, to do an action less good than the best available.”&nbsp;What Jesus expressed in His prayer was a real human desire to avoid the cross, yet His will to carry out His mission remained constant and unmoved by the influence of His divine nature.</p>

<p>Third, this prayer to the Father is consistent with the conclusion that each person of the Trinity has their own will. The second person of the Trinity submitted His will to the Father’s. This does not imply disagreement; the wills of the Trinity are perfectly consonant and are always concurrent with one another because they share the same nature and same desires.</p>

<p>On this account, Jesus was saying, “Not my desire, but Yours be done.”&nbsp;His human desire was different than the Father’s, but because of His single will, which is perfectly coordinated with the Father’s and the Spirit’s, He did not act on that desire. Instead He acted on the overriding desire of His divine nature to carry out the work of salvation.</p>

<p>Another challenge of the incompatibility of the coexemplification of the divine and human is temptation. The testimony of the Bible is that Jesus was tempted (Luke 4:2), but Scripture also tells us that God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). This must be reconciled if the incarnation is to be found rational.</p>

<p>It is possible that there is an equivocation on the term “temptation”&nbsp;in these passages. Reflecting on the background concepts of Jesus’&nbsp;human nature and God’s nature is helpful. God is perfect without defect; it is impossible for sin to appeal to God. Therefore, God cannot be tempted. However, as a human, Jesus could be tempted in a different sense because of the weaknesses innate in human nature.</p>

<p>Sin never was attractive to Jesus since He was God, but as a human being He recognized possible means of fulfilling desires He possessed as a human being. The presentation of an unviable means could cause the experience of the unfulfilled desire to be more difficult. There is an innate weakness in the nature of being a contingent being that is aggravated by the presentation of illegitimate means of fulfillment. So even if Jesus knew that He would not sin, He still struggled with the weaknesses made more poignant by the options made available to Him. The temptation was directed to the vulnerability of these innate weaknesses and caused the struggle with unfulfilled desires. For example, the fear of the cross was real and natural for a human being, and there was the struggle with this fear to go through with it, though it was certain He would. After 40 days without food, Satan’s suggestion to turn the stones into bread was not a means attractive to Jesus, but it would still heighten the struggle to continue His fast. The temptation goes to the struggle with the legitimate desire, not the illegitimate means to fulfill it.</p>

<p>Another option is that Jesus did not know He could not sin, and He feared He might. But this would mean that temptation appealed to Jesus, that the illegitimate means was attractive to Him. This would seem impossible for a divine person who is repulsed by sin. In addition, though Jesus’&nbsp;knowledge may have been voluntarily limited, by the time of His ministry He was aware of His divinity and should have known that it was impossible for Him to sin.</p>

<p>Swinburne offers another option. He points out that Jesus willingly limited the exercise of His divine capacities in a way that made Him operate in a limited way and feel limited. Swinburne also points out the difference between sinning and not doing the greatest good. It is wrong to be attracted to sin, but it is not wrong to have a desire to do a good that is not the greatest good possible. As a man, Jesus was never tempted to sin, but He could be tempted to not perform the best action, especially when this exploited a natural human weakness.</p>

<p>This very well could characterize Jesus’&nbsp;request in the Garden of Gethsemene. The only weakness I find in this option is that when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, the options offered were in fact sinful, not just a lesser good. But this could be an explanation for other temptations Jesus experienced.</p>

<p>I must admit that this issue provides the least satisfactory answers for me. Temptation as the aggravation of unfulfilled desires does not seem to capture temptation as we experience it. Temptation qua temptation seems to be an attraction to the object. Swinburne’s characterization seems to best capture this feature. The intelligibility of the incarnation does not require a satisfying answer, only a rationally possible answer and that has been offered.</p>

<p>It has been demonstrated that particular objections to the coexemplification of the divine and human natures can be answered; and I believe the analysis offered provides grounds to believe that similar objections can be answered reasonably. It has been shown that it was possible for Jesus to willingly limit Himself to experience life as a human, and yet remain God with His essential attributes. It is possible to be a personal substance with two distinct natures. Jesus was fully man, not a mere man; He exemplified human nature operating at its fullest potential. Jesus was able to accomplish His mission and show us God’s great intent for humanity.</p>

<p>The concept of the incarnation bears up under philosophic scrutiny. The ancient creeds of Christendom and the articulation of one of the most fundamental Christian doctrines is found to be rational and commendable.</p>

<h2>Bibliography</h2>

<p>DeWeese, Dr. Garry, Philosophical Theology lecture, Talbot School of Theology, Spring 2001.</p>

<p>Erickson, Millard J., The Word Became Flesh, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1991.</p>

<p>Hoffman, Joshua, and Gary S. Rosenkrantz, “Omnipotence,”&nbsp;Philip L. Quinn and Charles Taliaferro, Eds., A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1997.</p>

<p>Hoffman, Joshua, and Gary S. Rosenkrantz, Substance: Its Nature and Existence, London and New York: Routledge, 1997.</p>

<p>Moreland, J.P. and Scott Rae, Body &amp; Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics, Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.</p>

<p>Morris, Thomas, The Logic of God Incarnate, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1986.</p>

<p>Muller, Richard A., Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1986.</p>

<p>Swinburne, Richard, The Christian God, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.</p>

<p>Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae III, q.10, a.2,c &amp; ad 2um. Found in McCord Adams, Marilyn, What Sort of Human Nature?, Milwaukee: Marquette University, 1999.</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-jesus-two-natures-compatible-" 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-jesus-two-natures-compatible-" 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-jesus-two-natures-compatible-" 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: My Debate on the Grounding of Morality
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 05/21/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/my-debate-on-the-grounding-of-morality
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Was I nervous? Yes, absolutely. Of course, this wasn’t my ordinary speaking event. On April 5, about 170 people packed a room at Weber State University, to watch my formal debate with professor of philosophy <a href="http://faculty.weber.edu/rgreene/" target="_blank">Dr. Richard Greene</a>. The question: Can there be objective moral values and obligations without God? Each debater had 20 minutes for opening arguments, a 10-minute rebuttal, about 40 minutes of joint Q &amp; A from the audience, and a 5-minute conclusion.</p>

<p>Dr. Greene had home field advantage. He has been teaching classes at Weber State for about eight years and a number of his students came out for the debate. 65% of the attendees indicated on a pre-debate survey that they held Dr. Greene’s view, that morality is best explained without God.</p>

<p>I won’t rehearse all the details of the debate here as I’ve posted the video below, but it was a lively give-and-take and I thoroughly enjoyed it (particularly in hindsight!). Certainly, as a rookie debater—this was my second formal debate in my ten years of work at Stand to Reason—there are areas I can grow in and arguments I can improve. Indeed, I knew I was make some mistakes and drop some balls, and in my immediate post-debate reflections, it was difficult not to obsess over those things afterward. The experience reminded me of what rookie NFL quarterbacks say about the speed of the game and how fast it seems to be moving during their rookie year. However, seasoned veterans will talk about how the game has “slowed down”&nbsp;and how they see so much more now, after years of practice and game experience. Well, as a rookie debater I definitely felt the “speed”&nbsp;of the debate. Lots of things were said, I had organize my thoughts quickly, and then figure out what to respond to and how best to respond.</p>

<p>As I’ve reviewed some of the “game film,”&nbsp;there are several things I need to work on and improve. First, I needed to address more of the details that Dr. Greene discussed. In particular, Dr. Greene threw out a few possible ways he thinks we can have morality without God, mentioning Plato’s view and utilitarianism as examples. I responded to his claim that all he had to show were mere possibilities, but I also I needed to spend a few moments showing how Plato’s view is inadequate to ground morality. In regards to utilitarianism, I needed to distinguish between the meta-ethical foundations of ethics (which was the topic of our debate) from normative systems of ethics. Second, during the Q&amp;A there was a question regarding free will and after my response, Dr. Greene claimed there was no free will (around 1:30:45 in the video). Unfortunately, I failed to hammer him on the incompatibility of determinism and moral responsibility. Third, I really needed to draw the audience’s attention to the fact that Dr. Greene did not knock down my contentions, nor answer a number of the arguments I raised. I think I needed to push him harder in my responses. Well, I plan to go back and watch the entire “game film”&nbsp;a few times and also have some folks help me evaluate. I can and will learn from my mistakes in attempt to improve my debate skills and master the arguments.</p>

<p>For me, the highlight of the debate came from an unexpected source—a group of high school students. The debate was scheduled at the tail end of a <a href="http://www.str.org/na?q=..." target="_blank">Utah Mission trip</a> I was leading for Upland Christian Academy, a Christian high school in Southern California. We had spent the previous four days sharing Christ with Mormons around the Salt Lake Valley. However, all week I was regretting the decision to coincide the mission trip and debate, feeling like my attention was torn between the two. In contrast, the high schoolers kept sharing their excitement about the debate. “That’s nice,”&nbsp;I thought to myself, “but I’ll never do this again!”&nbsp;God needed to change my perspective.</p>

<p>The afternoon of the debate, students helped with set up and created signs to post around campus. During the debate, they sat at the individual tables, collecting surveys from attendees and facilitating questions for the Q &amp; A. Afterward, they helped clean up. When it was all said and done, we returned to our host church for a late night debrief.</p>

<p>But rather than being worn out from a long day, the students were beaming. Their excitement was palpable. They couldn’t wait to discuss the debate. As they shared their thoughts and feelings, it was clear this event was a huge faith-builder. They didn’t just get a behind-the-scenes peek at my debate preparation and nervousness. They didn’t just get to help with debate details, like room setup. They felt like they had just walked side-by-side with me, into hostile territory, and then watched as one of their own Christian leaders stepped up in a public venue to defend the truth of Christianity. And from their perspective, our arguments won the day. Here’s how sophomore Micah summarized it:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[L]ately, the secular world seems to dismiss Christians and Christianity, and theology in general, as an outdated form of science or philosophy. Brett totally proving them wrong was a very fun thing to see. Dr. Greene, the atheist professor, made bottomless and obviously last-minute mocked-up arguments that held no weight. He simply displayed possibilities, rather than giving a real objective moral basis without God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>After hearing from students, I realized the entire endeavor was worthwhile. Studying for countless hours was worth it. Balancing the trip and the debate was worth it. Constantly fighting back my nerves was worth it. It was all worth it to build the God-confidence of those 20 high school students.</p>

<p>Here is video of the debate for your enjoyment!</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="63795886" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/63795886?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmy-debate-on-the-grounding-of-morality" 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%2Fmy-debate-on-the-grounding-of-morality" 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%2Fmy-debate-on-the-grounding-of-morality" 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: Leaping from Frogs to Morality
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/24/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/leaping-from-frogs-to-morality
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Learn how to be consistent in your moral reasoning.</em></p>

<p>I talk about morality, because moral issues are among the most important things we could ever consider. With my commitment to clear thinking about Christianity comes a parallel commitment to clear thinking about morality. Since I have this focus, my mental motors are always running, so to speak. I notice when things just don’t make good sense, even when I’m half asleep.</p>

<p>That happened to me yesterday morning as I was waking up. My clock radio came on in the middle of a show about animals hosted by Warren Eckstein. He seems to be a nice enough guy, answering questions about the care and training of pets of all kinds.</p>

<p>Eckstein may be a wonderful veterinarian, but when he ventures into moral areas he’s an amateur. During the twilight between sleeping and waking, I listened while he launched into a commentary that was so absurd it actually got me chuckling, waking me up even more.</p>

<p>Apparently, there had been some comments made by another talk show host on Eckstein’s station about students’&nbsp;objections to dissecting frogs. Such an objection, the host had said, showed that those students didn’t show courage. The students weren’t motivated by moral sensitivity as they claimed, he said. Indeed, it’s actually an example of moral confusion that so much importance would be given to the morality of dissecting frogs.</p>

<p>Mr. Eckstein wasn’t happy with that. He was also a bit upset with the tendency to cast anyone who loves animals (which he does) and believes in animal rights (which he does) as an extremist. To Eckstein, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is rather extreme (I think the term he used was “eccentric”), though he agrees with some of their concepts.</p>

<p>The extremist, according to Eckstein, demands that if you believe in animal rights, you shouldn’t be wearing a belt, eating Big Macs, or using animal products of any kind. All those things come from animals whose rights have been violated to get those products, so there does seem to be an inconsistency with those who claim animal rights, but still use animal products.</p>

<p>To Eckstein, though, such an appeal for consistency was extreme. He was quite upset by the demand that if he felt dissecting a frogs was immoral, he was under obligation to apply that view consistently to other areas as well. There’s a middle ground, he claimed. You don’t have to be an extremist to love animals.</p>

<p>Eckstein clearly thought dissecting a frog was immoral, though. In his words, it was “wrong.”&nbsp;It was also unnecessary. Students could use a CD-ROM program that does the same thing, essentially. It just seemed wrong to him for a frog to suffer such indignity.</p>

<p>One caller asked, “If the frog is already dead, how is it a violation of a frog’s rights to slice him up in class?”&nbsp;Mr. Eckstein replied, “If you hire a hit man to kill somebody else, you’re just as guilty of the crime as he is.”</p>

<p>Eckstein equated the life of the frog with the life a human being, and the crime of killing a frog with the crime of killing a human being (which strikes me as muddled to begin with). But he also thought that if you simply dissected the frog, that was tantamount to hiring the “hit man”&nbsp;who collected the frog and “offed”&nbsp;it in the first place.</p>

<p>I have some reflections on Mr. Eckstein’s point of view that have to do with the nature of moral reasoning. Obviously, I think it’s a mistake to equate hiring a hit man for a human being-and the moral responsibility you bear for participation in the murder of a human being-with the dissection of a frog. Humans have transcendent value. Frogs do not.</p>

<p>But I’m not going to address that issue here. I have a different concern: Mr. Eckstein’s claim that he has no obligation to be consistent in his moral reasoning.</p>

<p>It seems to me that Eckstein can only say it’s wrong to dissect frogs if he argues from a basis of a larger principle. He can’t simply assert it’s wrong to dissect frogs. He must demonstrate that this particular action is a specific application of a broader moral rule. The question I want to ask is this: What moral principle is being violated by frog dissection? And if there’s a sound moral principle at work here, then it seems that same principle has other applications, too, that ought to be just as sound as the application to dissecting a frog.</p>

<p>Here is why consistency is so important in moral reasoning. Specific moral views-e.g., it’s wrong to dissect a frog-are applications of broader moral principles. The moral rule in the Bible that it’s wrong to murder is an application of a broader principle. It’s the kind of rule that springs forth from an underlying notion that gives sense to a moral rule.</p>

<p>We find this underlying notion a number of times in the Scriptures, but the time that it’s connected with the notion of murder comes in Genesis 9, right after the flood. God, talking to Noah, says, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man”&nbsp;(Genesis 9:6).</p>

<p>This is the first mention of capital punishment. God says that there is an extreme punishment-surrendering your life-when you commit an extreme crime. The extreme crime here is murder, and the reason it’s a crime is because of the kind of creature a human being is.</p>

<p>The underlying principle would be: Human beings are valuable because they are God’s image-bearers. This requires that we don’t take the life of a human being without proper justification.</p>

<p>As I mentioned earlier, moral principles have many applications. The principle of the value of man in God’s image also has application to the unborn who shares this image of God. This is why Christians especially (and indeed other pro-lifers who aren’t Christians) are so adamant about abortion-some 36 million killed since 1973-because we see this as a serious violation of the image of God in man. Human beings are the kind of creatures that ought not be treated this way, killed because they’re in the way and can’t defend themselves.</p>

<p>That same principle applies elsewhere, a point I emphasize whenever I speak to pro-life groups. Sometimes we get abusive towards those who are in favor of abortion. Pro-lifers can get very uncivil and acrimonious. But if we argue for the need to protect the lives of children because they’re made in the image of God, then that same rule applies to how we treat those who disagree with us on abortion. Consistency demands this. If we’re inconsistent here, if we do not apply the rule evenly across the board, we are called hypocrites, aren’t we? And we are, in that regard.</p>

<p>So there’s a message here for pro-lifers, that we ought to be consistent in the application of our moral rules. If we are inconsistent in our application of a moral rule, it looks like we don’t really believe in the rule itself. Rather, it looks like we simply don’t like abortion and are trying to force our preferences on others. We’re just playing with words so we can enforce our private, parochial opinion about the unborn. That’s the jam you get into if you’re not consistent in applying what you claim is a moral rule.</p>

<p>Mr. Eckstein faces the same problem. If he says that it’s wrong to dissect a frog, I’m going to have to ask him why. I need to know the underlying moral principle.</p>

<p>For example, he might respond by saying that the underlying moral principle is that it’s wrong to take an animal’s life for the sake of mere human benefit. That’s a violation of their rights. (Maybe that’s not his exact point, but it’s something akin to that.)</p>

<p>If that’s the principle that renders frog dissection immoral, that very same principle also makes eating meat, wearing leather shoes, or wearing a leather belt equally wrong. If I buy the belt, if I buy the Big Mac, I’m paying the hit man, according to the moral reasoning of Mr. Eckstein.</p>

<p>If Eckstein objects to frog dissection for the reasons he gave, consistency requires that he quit eating meat. How can he object to dissecting the frogs, but not to eating them? The same rule applies.</p>

<p>If it’s true that it’s morally wrong to use an animal for mere human benefit, then that rule covers a variety of areas. If Eckstein is going to object to frog dissection, he’d better be consistent if he wants anyone to take his moral rule seriously. If he doesn’t take the rule itself seriously by using it consistently, we have no good reason to take his application of that rule to frog dissection seriously, either.</p>

<p>This principle of moral thinking applies to us as well. We are also obligated, if any moral principle is true, to live by that principle consistently, or else no one need take our moral view seriously.</p>

<p>One final thought on the issue of deteriorating values as evidenced by this concern for frogs. Apparently, Mr. Eckstein thought the students who stood up against the frog dissection showed good values.</p>

<p>My suspicion is that it was Dennis Prager who made the comment that concern about frog dissection was evidence of the slipping values. I understand why he said this. When he asks high school audiences whether they would save their dog who was drowning or a human being who was drowning (and he asks this question routinely), they always give the same response. One-third say they’d save the human being, one-third say they’d save the dog, and the other third can’t decide.</p>

<p>Doesn’t it strike you as a deterioration of values when high school students get seriously exercised about the dissection of a dead frog, but two-thirds of them can’t see that it’s more important to save a human being who’s drowning than it is to save a dog?</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fleaping-from-frogs-to-morality" 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%2Fleaping-from-frogs-to-morality" 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%2Fleaping-from-frogs-to-morality" 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: Will Right and Wrong Always Be Obvious?
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/16/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/will-right-and-wrong-always-be-obvious-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A person doesn’t have to know the Bible in order to know right and wrong, right? Well, yes and no. It all depends on what value system is being fed to that person by society. A society saturated in a Christian understanding of morality will reinforce that understanding, even among its atheists. A society without the background of Christianity behind it will enforce a different understanding of morality. Atheists have the mistaken idea that objective morality is simply obvious to everyone, but the truth is, it’s not. All one has to do is look back through history (and in other cultures today) to see that this is so. Our damaged consciences are <a href="/w/abortion-and-the-malleable-conscience" target="_blank">malleable</a>.</p>

<p>Is murdering your child right or wrong? Ask these <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISme5-9orR0" target="_blank">mothers</a> in India, where it’s commonplace in some areas to let your girl die if you prefer a boy. Ask <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide" target="_blank">pre-Christian cultures</a>. This is why I think atheists are being far too hasty when they argue that Christianity is expendable—unnecessary for a good society. If we see atrocious moral crimes in cultures not influenced by Christianity, we have no reason to think our current standards will continue in a culture that rejects Christianity.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/uk-pol-we-should-kill-disabled-children-like-we-kill-deformed-lambs" target="_blank">Case in point</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You might recall that British politician, Colin Brewer, who last year said that disabled children should be killed to save taxpayer money. You might recall that at the time he apologized and stepped down in disgrace. But you probably didn’t know that he was re-elected to his old seat this year. And he’s at it again.</p>

<p>This time, he reportedly compared disabled children to deformed lambs that need to be culled. In an interview with none other than the Disability News Service, Councillor (yeah, they spell it that way) Brewer said that perhaps we should be treating disabled children like the runt of a litter of lambs which are often disposed of by smashing them against the wall.</p>

<p>“If they have a misshapen lamb, they get rid of it,”&nbsp;he said. “They get rid of it. Bang.”</p>

<p>Bang? That’s sound fiscal policy, huh? And that’s what it is, according to Brewer. He said that disabled people are just too expensive to care for so some may just have to go.</p>

<p>“We are just animals,”&nbsp;Brewer continued. “You can’t have lambs running around with five legs and two heads. It would be put down, smashed against the wall and be dealt with.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As I’ve written before, <a href="/w/intrinsic-human-value-has-to-be-taught" target="_blank">intrinsic human value has to be taught</a>. A society’s view of the human person and its value will affect what that society views as being moral: We are just animals. Imperfect animals aren’t worth the trouble. Therefore, there’s a case to be made for killing them rather than caring for them. That conclusion reasonably follows from the non-Christian premise. As Christianity fades in influence and a different view of the human person gains acceptance, don’t expect that our society will continue to recognize that conclusion to be immoral. At that point, people will still consider themselves to be perfectly moral...but only because they’re judging themselves by a <a href="/w/why-not-use-ridicule-" target="_blank">different standard</a> of morality.</p>

<p>It’s difficult for us to recognize the depth our depravity when “everyone else is doing it.”&nbsp;Ask Gosnell’s nurses. Only the truth can awaken and sharpen our consciences, and for that to happen, the truth has to be heard and esteemed.</p>

<p>For now, there’s an outcry brewing against this politician in the UK, and that’s a good sign. But it’s not as if he’s a lone voice out there (see <a href="/w/peter-singer-rejects-inalienable-human-rights" target="_blank">Peter Singer</a>). As our belief in intrinsic human value wears away, we should expect to see more like him. Just consider <a href="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/uk-pol-we-should-kill-disabled-children-like-we-kill-deformed-lambs" target="_blank">this</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But here’s the thing—[Brewer] was just re-elected earlier this month to his old seat. That means that being pro-infanticide and culling the disabled is no longer a deal breaker in European politics.</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%2Fwill-right-and-wrong-always-be-obvious-" 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%2Fwill-right-and-wrong-always-be-obvious-" 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%2Fwill-right-and-wrong-always-be-obvious-" 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: Mediate and Immediate Causes
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 04/24/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/mediate-and-immediate-causes
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Philosophy helps us recognize God’s involvement in our lives—indirect as well as direct involvement.</em></p>

<p>One of the things I think that helps and assists our clear thinking is learning some philosophic distinctions. Part of the value of philosophy is to learn to think carefully. Part of the way that philosophy does that is to make distinctions that you might not have considered, but these distinctions actually help you to do mental work that you might not have been able to do without those distinctions. The specific thing that I’m interested in right now are philosophic distinctions that are meant to do practical, theological work.</p>

<p>I think some people have this idea that philosophy is just a game and there is no real practical ramification. I do think that there are some philosophies that are just experimenting. It’s much like science in that regard, where people start tinkering with things and have no particular end in view. In the process of tinkering with things, they may stumble upon something that may have a practical application. That is true with philosophy. You might just study it for the fun of mental tinkering, and in the process of doing so you stumble upon some way of looking at something or some distinction that you had not been aware of before that allows you to do something meaningful, especially in the area of theology, something that really has an impact on your spiritual life , or your defense of your faith, or your understanding of God’s character, or a reconciling some notion in the Bible that may seem to be contradictory at first glance.</p>

<p>I made the distinction in a recent commentary between two types of causes, an event cause versus agent causation. The value of knowing the difference between agent and event causation is that it allows you to answer some questions about the nature of prayer and why some prayer gets answered and some doesn’t. The distinction is at the heart of cosmological arguments, arguments from cause to effect. Cosmological arguments hinge on the distinction between agent and event causation.</p>

<p>I got into a conversation with my younger brother, and his wife, my dear sister-in-law, thought it was the craziest thing in the world because we started to talk about whether donut holes exist or not, or whether shadows exist or not. That seemed like the most pointless conversation because it’s kind of like talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin. But it wasn’t mindless at all. It was very engaging. Plus it cashes out in a very important way in theology.</p>

<p>The question of whether donut holes exist or whether shadows actually exist figures into the problem of evil. People say God created all things; evil is a thing, therefore God created evil. That is logically valid, but it’s not sound because the second premise is false. If it were sound it would necessarily follow that God is responsible for evil. How do you get out of it?</p>

<p>The second premise, that evil is a thing, is false because evil isn’t a thing. Augustine developed this line of reasoning and Thomas Aquinas picked up on it and others since then.</p>

<p>All the modern thinking that solves the problem of evil follows this line of thinking. Evil is not a thing, it is an absence of something. Augustine said it is a privation of good. So it is not some thing that needs to be created, it is an example of something that is missing, that is not there that ought to be there. Talk about donut holes helps us understand this idea. You are really identifying something that is missing—the inside of the donut. Shadows are really are the absence of light being cast in a particular area, being blocked out by an image, which creates the outline we call a shadow. But it is something missing, not something there. It is the absence of light on the wall when you put your hands up and make those funny forms.</p>

<p>Here is an example where a philosophic discussion about donut holes actually cashes out in a very powerful way to help to resolve one of the most vexing problems for Christians, the problem of evil. It puts it in terms we can understand.</p>

<p>I would like to talk about another aspect of causation. We talked about agents versus events causing things. But there is another distinction I think that is helpful in solving some theological problems for us, it is the difference between mediate and immediate causes. Or you might call it direct and indirect, or ultimate and secondary causes. This distinction, too, can help us do some important, valuable, practical theological work.</p>

<p>Let me give you an illustration of the difference between indirect and direct causes. You go to play pool. You lean over the pool table, you draw back your cue stick and fire it forward, striking the cue ball, hitting the eight ball which then goes into the pocket. Now, here is the question: What caused the eight ball to go into the pocket? Well, you could say that the cue ball caused it. You could say that the cue stick caused it. You could say that the pool player caused it. Or you caused it. All would be right, but the distinctions need to be clarified in order to understand the action properly.</p>

<p>You acted willingly to strike with a cue stick into a cue ball and drive the eight ball into the pocket. The immediate cause of the eight ball going into the pocket was the cue ball hitting it, but there was another cause prior to that, a kind of an ultimate cause—the person playing pool. You were the ultimate cause of that whole series of events taking place, even though there are a couple of mediating circumstances in between.</p>

<p>This also is an illustration, by the way, of the difference between an agent causation and an event causation. The agent (you playing pool) moved the cue stick (an event), which strikes the cue ball (also an event), striking the eight ball (an event), which drops the eight ball into the pocket (another event). Here is where the agent acting causes a series of events that results in something.</p>

<p>How does this relate to theological issues? Sometimes we have theological confusion because of our inability to distinguish between these two types of causes. An obvious example would be medicine and prayer. Most Christians would say that it is legitimate to pray and ask God to heal us immediately. What I mean by immediately is not right now, but by a direct act of His will. There is nothing in between God’s willing and our healing. God’s supernaturally answering our prayer by causing a healing in our physical body. However, if He doesn’t do that, He can act in a different way. He can direct the hands of the surgeon or use medicine in an indirect fashion to cause healing.</p>

<p>If you pray for healing and you get healed, you thank God, right? But what happens if you pray for healing and you don’t get healed right away so you go to the doctor. Is it appropriate to thank God for that? The doctor was the immediate cause with regards to you that helped you get better, but behind the doctor was God creating her. God allowed her to have the education and the expertise, the insight, the wisdom to do the job on you that brought your healing. So the doctor became kind of the indirect cause of God’s acting. We can thank God for healing directly because it is supernaturally done, or we can thank God for what He did through other people.</p>

<p>That is an obvious illustration. I think a less obvious illustration is in the area of psychology. Some people are really against psychologists or counselors helping you out unless it’s very strictly right from the Bible verse by verse. I don’t hold that view personally, though I do think there are serious problems with the field of psychology. Some of it, much of it, maybe most of it is contrary to Christianity. However, I think that if we trust in Christ, we can go to Him and ask Him to solve our personal problems and He can do so immediately. I mean by that directly, not necessarily right now. We pray and wait for Him to do His work in our lives. Sometimes we wait a long time, but that is God’s timing.</p>

<p>But it may also be the case that God chooses to help us, not through an immediate action of His, but through mediating His grace, His wisdom, His care, His understanding, through other people. It may be another brother or sister in Christ. It may be a spouse or a family member. That help may come to you just through comfort that person offers or wisdom they might offer from the Scriptures, or it might come because that person has observed human behavior for a long time and studied and used their capabilities to be able to recognize things that the rank and file can’t recognize in terms of behavior patterns. Therefore, God mediates His grace, Jesus mediates His sufficiency, if you will, through the means of other people, and that other person may be a counselor. That is another illustration.</p>

<p>Some people may take exception with the illustration. That’s fine. But I think it is a fair distinction and it doesn’t require us to write off all kinds of counseling because we believe that Jesus is sufficient. Jesus is sufficient, I believe that. Although you have to answer the question, sufficient for what? And how is His sufficiency mediated? That’s really the question here. Is it always given to us through an immediate involvement with God, or can He sometimes mediate His sufficiency through another tool? I think, frankly, most of the time He does it through others and this is why the corporate body of Christ is so important.</p>

<p>God is the ultimate cause whose good effect is mediated through a variety of means.</p>
</div>

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


