Cowan Chronicles

If Ron Paul Were President in 1941...

2011-12-26T21:22:00.002-06:00

Ron Paul touts himself as a "non-interventionist" in his foreign policy. He believes that we should have few if any military bases in foreign countries, that we should have few if any defense treaties with other countries, and that we should not involve ourselves in any military conflicts unless we are directly attacked. This means no military interventions like Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo, etc. It means we should not have troops in South Korea and definitely should not bother to help the South Koreans defend themselves against any North Korean invasion. That's their business not ours.

For all those out there who are enamored with Ron Paul and his foreign policy, I ask you to consider some implications of his views. Specifically, I ask you to imagine what would be the case if Ron Paul had been President of the U.S. in 1941 when the U.S. (in actual history) was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and subsequently entered into World War II. Think about it: If Ron Paul had been President in 1941. . .

China would probably still be under Imperial Japanese occupation.

The Philipines would still be under Imperial Japanese occupation.

Some of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska would still be under Imperial Japanese occupation.

Korea, Burma, and most of SE Asia would be under Imperial Japanese occupation.

Australia would very well have been invaded by Imperial Japan and would still be under its occupation.

Nazi Germany would still exist and would still be occupying most of continental Europe and problably Russia too and possibly Great Britain.

Nazi Germany would still occupy most of North Africa and would likely have extended its rule to Palestine and other parts of Arabia.

Ron Paul supporters might object to all this by saying, "Wait a minute! Paul does believe in military responses to agression against the United States. Japan attacked the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor. And then the Nazi's declared war on us. So, Paul would not have objected to our participation in World War II." However, this response falters on the fact that if Ron Paul were President in 1941, we would not have had any naval or military bases in Pearl Harbor for the Japanese to attack in the first place! And even if we had military bases in Pearl Harbor, the Japanese would not have attacked us given Paul's non-interventionist policies. They would have gone about their business and invaded the Philipines, Australia, etc., and not had to worry about our naval fleet in Pearl Harbor.

Ron Paul's foreign policy would have been naive and dangerous then (not to mention cruel), and it's naive and dangerous now.

Christian Hedonism Challenged

2011-10-13T22:57:00.003-05:00

I just ran across this very insightful critique of Piper's Christian hedonism by Reformed philosopher and theologian Paul Helm. Though Piper's views on this emphasize some elements in Christian theology and living that have been sadly neglected and that we should recapture today, I have never been able to get past the feeling that he has gone too far. Helm offers a much-needed corrective. I hope all the Piper fans out there will read Helm's blog with an open mind.

Women's Subordination Revisited

2011-06-29T14:32:00.003-05:00

The latest issue of the philosophy journal Philosophia Christi features an exchange between egalatarian Adam Omelianchuk and myself over my 2009 article "The Metaphysics of Subordination: A Response to Rebecca Merrill Groothuis." As you might guess, Omelianchuk argues that I have failed to adequately defend the coherence of the distinction complementarians make between woman's equality of being/value and subordinate function. I respond that he begs the main question, primarily through the use of an obscure and undefined notion of "ontological inferiority." I'll let the reader decide who is right. I invite comments by those who have read all three articles.

Scooby Doo and Philosophy

2011-06-17T23:28:00.003-05:00

Because my son loves it and gets me to watch it with him, I have become a pretty ardent fan of the Scooby Doo cartoons and movies over the last couple of years. So I was much intrigued when I heard about a blog by David Leonard that brought out some connections of Scooby Doo to some aspects of my chosen profession, philosophy. Though I might quibble with a few points, it is very interesting reading. Most of all, it should remind us that philosophical/worldview ideas permeate every aspect of our culture, even kid's cartoons. David Leonard's blog post is on the website of the MacLaurin Institute at this address:

http://www.maclaurin.org/blogscoobydooepistemology

Thor -- Reluctant Messiah

2011-05-09T14:31:00.002-05:00

I just saw the new Thor movie. I really liked it. Not my favorite superhero moview, but still worth seeing. I am sure that other bloggers will notice some of the same themes and ideas in the film that I'm about to mention, and will probably explore them more fully. Nevertheless, I want to make my own observations before reading what others have to say.

What struck me most about the storyline is the almost unmistakable parallel with Philippians 2:5-11. Not a perfect parallel, mind you, but a parallel nonetheless. According the the Apostle Paul, the Second Person of the trinity, Jesus, was fully divine and had every right to "grasp hold" of his divine prerogatives. He was/is the king of all creation. Yet, out of deference to the Father's will and for love of humanity, he did not grasp hold of his divine privileges, but humbled himself and took on human flesh. He bacame a man, and even humbled himself to the point of dying on a cross for the salvation of the human race. As a result, the Father has now highly exalted Jesus to his former status as the divine king, even giving him the "name that is above every name."

Now think about the Thor movie (spoiler alert!). Unlike Christ, Thor (Chris Helmsworth), the thunder "god," is arrogant and egotistical. He thinks his father Odin is foolish and that he can do a better job as king of Asgard. Up to this point, Thor is anything but a parallel to Christ. But to teach him a lesson, Odin banishes Thor to the Earth and "empties" him of his god-like powers. Thor becomes a man. Though unwillingly, Thor experiences, like Christ, a kenosis and an incarnation. He takes on the humble status of a human being. In the course of the film, Thor comes to realize that there are bigger and better things to live for than himself and that he doesn't necessarily have all the wisdom that he thought he did. And when his evil brother Loki sends a giant, flame-throwing robot to earth in search of Thor and which threatens humanity, Thor sacrifices his life (yes, he dies!) to save the human race. In giving his life, Thor even pleads with Loki to take his life instead of the humans' lives. So, in Thor, we interestingly have the motifs of kenosis/incarnation as well as a substitutionary death. Then, of course, follows resurrection and exaltation. In response to Thor's new-found humility, Odin gives Thor back his life and his "divine" status, returning to him his famous hammer, Mjolnir, which allows him to go on to defeat Loki. Not only this, but before he leaves the Earth, Thor promises his human love-interest (Natalie Portman) that he will return to Earth after he defeats Loki. As events would have it, though, the technology that would allow Thor to return are destroyed in the battle and the movie ends with both Thor and his human friends on Earth wondering when (and if) he will make his return--though all are hopeful.

So, ironically, what we have in Thor is the story of a pagan, Norse god, re-telling the Christian story of the incarnate God dying for the fallen human race, rising again to achieve victory over the forces of darkness, and ascending into heaven, from whence we eagerly anticipate his return. It's kinda funny (and actually gratifying) where the gospel turns up these days!

Resurrection Debate

2011-02-28T21:50:00.002-06:00

I will be participating in a debate on the resurrection of Jesus on April 4, 2011, at Cedar Grove Baptist Church in Leeds, Alabama. A great lead-up to Easter! I'd appreciate prayers and your attendance if possible.

Apologetics Conference on Islam

2010-12-28T14:26:00.006-06:00

The Third Annual Apologetics Resource Center/Southeastern Bible College Apologetics Conference is scheduled for January 28-29, 2011. This year's theme is Islam and Christianity: In the Balance. The conference will feature former Muslim, David Nasser, and a dialogue with the imam of the Birmingham Mosque. For more information and to register, visit the ARC website:

http://www.arcapologetics.org/

Review of "Salvation and Sovereignty"

2010-12-09T19:45:00.002-06:00

My review of Ken Keathley's recent book, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach, was just published in the journal , Themelios. You can access it here:

www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications

Debate on the Problem of Evil

2010-11-10T15:44:00.012-06:00

This past Monday I had the privilege of participating in a debate on the question, "Why does a good God allow evil and suffering?" The debate was held at the University of Montevallo, Alabama, sponsored by the Christian Ministries Association there. My opponent was Dr. Michael Patton, philosophy professor at U Montevallo. I believe that the debate was very civil, and we had a good exchange of views. I don't think it's appropriate to try to declare any official winner of such events. As in any formal debate, both sides scored some points. I'm satisfied if the audience came away with a better understanding of the issues under discussion and of the various arguments that may be offered by both sides. If it leads people to think more deeply about the question of God's permission of evil, that's a good outcome. If helps to strengthen the faith of believers and causes unbelievers to question theirs, that's even better. For what it's worth, though, I think I was able, with God's help, to make a good and convincing case that God allows evil to bring about a greater good and that the existence of inexplicable evils in the world is no strong evidence against God's existence. For all who were present, especially my students and friends from Southeastern Bible College and Birmingham Theological Seminary, I want to say thank you! For your further perusal and for the benefit of those who couldn't be there, I have pasted my opening remarks below.

Opening Statement

A Debate on “Why Does a Good God Allow Evil and Suffering?”
University of Montevallo
November 8, 2010

On August 30, 2005, Americans watched in horror as the storm surge of hurricane Katrina broke several levies that kept water out of New Orleans and 80 percent of the city was flooded. Many people there lost their lives and tens of thousands were left homeless. In February, 2005, John Evander Couey, a convicted sex-offender, snuck into the home of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford of Homosassa, Florida, and kidnapped, raped, and murdered her.

If God—a being who is all-powerful and all-knowing—exists, then he could have prevented all of these terrible events. And since he is supposedly all-good, we might well think that he would prevent these things. So how could an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being stand by and allow such evils? Some have found the paradox of evil to be unsolvable. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus threw up his hands in despair of solving it, asking, “Is he [i.e., God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

The Greater Good Defense
Throughout the centuries, theists—those who believe in God—(especially Christian theists) have offered what I take to be an adequate answer to the problem of evil. Speaking very generally, the answer has been that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. Now there have been several candidates for what might constitute God’s morally sufficient reason. I don’t have the time to discuss the pros and cons of all of the proposals. So let me just tell you what I think is God’s reason for allowing evil and then elaborate on it. God allows whatever evils exist in his creation in order to bring about a greater good. Historically, this is known as the Greater Good Defense (GGD). Somewhat more formally, GGD states that

God allows an instance of evil E only if E is necessary to bring about some greater good G that could not be brought about unless E occurs.
The idea that good can come out of evil and suffering is a common feature of our experience. There are lots of mundane examples. I might deny my son some prized privilege in order to teach him the value of the Golden Rule or to help him develop some virtue like patience or diligence. Or, if he commits some petty crime in his teenage years, I might let him spend a night in jail to deter him from worse crimes. Much less mundane, consider the experience of John Walsh, the producer of the program America’s Most Wanted. Walsh’s son was kidnapped and murdered, an unmistakable moral evil. Yet this tragedy led Walsh to start his TV program which has proven decisive in saving the lives of many other kidnapped children and bringing the perpetrators to justice.

Christians would appeal to the Bible for further concrete examples that are directly related to God. Consider the biblical account in which the patriarch Joseph is sold into slavery by his brothers (Gen. 37:25-28). Though Joseph suffered terribly from the evil done him, at the end of the story, after his family and many others had been saved from famine by his rise to prominence in Egypt, he was able to declare, “You planned evil against me; God planned it for good to bring about the present result—the survival of many people” (Gen. 50:20).

It is evident, then, that evil can often lead to considerable goods; goods that, in at least many cases, we can see to be greater than the evils that serve as their precondition. So, it is my contention that God is morally justified in allowing evil because he intends to use that evil to bring about greater goods. Now it probably cannot be proven that all the evil that God has permitted in his creation will ultimately result in the production of goods that outweigh the evils. Nevertheless, it seems that the theist can claim that it is possible that they will. And given a justified belief in God (and I believe that belief in God is eminently justified for many reasons), then it is highly probably—indeed virtually certain—that he has good reasons for allowing the evils he does. And this means that God has a morally sufficient reason to permit the evils that he does.

At this point, many atheists and agnostics may respond by saying, “Yeah, I can grant that God may have good reasons for allowing many of the evils we see in the world. But there are lots of evils that we don’t see leading to greater goods. For example, there are lots of children who are raped and killed, but their daddies don’t start a TV show that leads to the greater goods that came from the death of Walsh’s son. There are lots of people who are sold into slavery—even today—but their suffering doesn’t save a multitude from a famine. In such cases, we can’t see a good reason that would justify God in allowing these evils. So, isn’t it likely that in these cases, there simply isn’t a good reason that would justify God in allowing them? Shouldn’t we conclude that these are pointless evils? And therefore, shouldn’t we conclude that God—a least a good God—doesn’t exist?

There is an assumption in this objection, one that is almost certainly false. The assumption is that if God has a good reason for allowing some particular instance of evil, then I (we) should be able to see it. By way of analogy [borrowed from Daniel Howard-Snyder], suppose that I’m rummaging around in my fridge looking for a carton of milk. We would all assume that if there were a carton of milk in my fridge, I’d be able to see it. So, when I don’t see one after looking very carefully, it’s right for me to conclude that there likely is no carton of milk in the fridge. So it is with God’s reasons for allowing evil, says the atheist. If God has a reason, I should expect to see it. Since I don’t see it, there must not be a good reason.

However, the milk in the fridge analogy is the wrong analogy. Consider another scenario. Suppose that I’m standing just on the outside edge of my neighbor’s vegetable garden, and I’m looking to see if there is a snail somewhere in the garden. We would all agree that even if there were a snail in the garden, I should not expect to see it—not from where I’m standing. Likewise, there is no good reason to think that if God has a good reason for allowing some particular instance of evil, we’d always be able to see it. And there are good reasons to think that we would not always be able to see God’s reasons for allowing evil. For most of us theists, we believe that we are finite, while God is unlimited in knowledge and wisdom and power. In fact, it is part of the standard belief of most theists that God is incomparable (Isa. 40-45), that his ways are past finding out (Rom. 11:33), and that his ways are not our ways (Isa. 55:8). God is transcendent and very different from us. Moreover, we are sinful and the sin in our hearts clouds our minds and limits our understanding of God and his ways even further.

At the very least, we should understand our relation to God on the analogy of young children in relation to their parents. As Stephen Wykstra has pointed out, parents often have good reasons for doing things to and for their young children that their children cannot begin to fathom—things which the children may think are unjustifiably bad. Consider a small child’s vaccination shots. The child suffers pain and cannot comprehend the reasons for it. Yet there are good reasons to give those shots which justify such infliction of pain. So, clearly, the fact that the child cannot see a reason for the pain is no reason for him to believe that his parents had no good reason.

So, given what we know about God (that he is transcendent and infinitely wiser than we are) and given what we know about ourselves (that we are limited and sinful), what should be our reasonable expectation with regard to God’s reasons for permitting evil? Would we expect in every case to see them? Or might we expect, in at least some cases, to be mystified? The answer is obvious.

Therefore, we have no justification for believing that there are in fact pointless evils in the world. The fact that we cannot always see God’s good reasons for allowing evil is no basis for thinking that he has no such reasons. And let me reiterate that if we have good independent reason to believe in God, then we can know that there are no pointless evils. And indeed we do have evidence for the existence of God in the form of the fine-tuning of the universe for life, the existence and nature of human consciousness, and the existence of objective moral values—all things that find their best explanation in the existence of an intelligent, morally perfect creator of the universe and all it contains.

The Incoherence of the Atheist’s Argument from Evil
This last point leads me to another important consideration in dealing with the question of why God allows evil, especially when it comes up in discussions with atheists. That consideration is this: insofar as the atheist objects to the existence of God by appealing to what he takes to be real pointless evils in the world, he appears to embrace the notion that there really are things in the world that are objectively evil. One cannot point, say, to the kidnap and murder of Jessica Lunsford and say that that event was an evil for which God could have no good reason unless one also admits that there is such a thing as objective morality. By objective morality I mean real moral values and principles that do not depend upon our subjective endorsement for their validity and truth.

But here’s the rub. One cannot say that something like Jessica Lunsford’s murder is objectively evil such that a good God couldn’t or wouldn’t allow it unless God exists! In other words, the existence of objective moral values depends upon the existence of God, a morally perfect law-giver who provides the ontological foundation for their existence. As the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky once wrote, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”

This point is widely acknowledged among atheists. Many of them openly admit that on a naturalistic, atheistic worldview, objective moral values make no sense. J.L. Mackie, one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the 20th century said, “Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful god to create them.” Richard Dawkins, the outspoken atheist, explains it this way:
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
James Rachels writes, “Man is a moral (altruistic) being, not because he intuits the rightness of loving his neighbor, or because he responds to some noble ideal, but because his behavior is comprised of tendencies which natural selection has favoured.” Michael Ruse, another atheist philosopher, says, “Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” Lastly, atheist Richard Taylor writes, “To say that something is wrong because. . .it is forbidden by God, is also perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong. . .even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable.”

Why is that? Well, it has to do with the atheist’s picture of the universe and his view on the nature of human life. According to atheistic naturalism, all that exists is the physical universe, and everything that exists sprang from a cosmic accident several billion years ago. The universe was not created by an intelligent being for some grandiose purpose. The Big Bang occurred simply as the result of natural processes, unguided, undesigned. It follows from this that human beings are nothing special. Human beings exist simply because some of our distant ancestors developed some random mutations that naturally selected them for survival. We are not special, we are simply lucky. And the history of evolution—which exhibits an incredible indifference to the birth and extinction of millions of entire species—shows us that the human race is eventually destined to perish like the dinosaur. In fact, the atheist-naturalist story has a very predictable outcome. The story will end with the heat-death of the entire universe as all the stars gradually burn out, all the planets turn cold, and every living thing dies.

Given this picture of the world, what basis is there for affirming the existence of objective moral values or the sanctity of human life? It should be fairly clear, therefore, that the atheistic worldview cannot provide a ground for objective moral values. If atheism is true, then Dostoyevsky is right—everything is permitted. Which means that the atheist cannot object to the existence of God on the basis of objective evils like the murder of Jessica Lunsford. . .unless God exists! This means that the atheist argument from evil, insofar as it appeals to objective moral evils, is simply incoherent. If there are objective moral values, then God exists. And that means that there are good reasons why bad things happen even if we can’t always know what those reasons are.

Dante's Inferno Meets Lewis's Great Divorce

2010-10-02T21:42:00.002-05:00

Just finished a very intriguing sci-fi novel: Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, Inferno. These are my favorite sci-fi writers. They still claim the fame of the best sci-fi novel of all time, The Mote in God's Eye. In this one, they tell the story of a man, John Carpenter, who dies and wakes up in hell.--and hell is precisely as described in Dante's famous "Inferno." At first, Carpenter thinks he's been kidnapped by aliens who are playing a very cruel joke on him. It only slowly dawns on him where he really is. Guided by, of all people, Benito Mussilini, Carpenter tries to make his escape from hell--down the same route taken centuries before by Dante himself (Yes, Dante's Divine Comedy is a true story!!!--in the novel, that is).

I won't give away the rest of the story, but it was a fun read (though sometimes very dark). In an editorial by the authors at the end of the book, they specifically state that they are trying to tell a story that combines Dante's geography of hell with C.S. Lewis's theology (as described in his The Great Divorce). This made the book all that more intriguing to me, given that Niven and Pournelle are well-known mainstream sci-fi authors. Though both Dante's and Lewis's theology are a bit skewed biblically, I think they (esp. Lewis) have some valuable things to teach us. And I was delighted to see that Niven and Pournelle had learned some of the lessons, and are teaching them to others through this very good novel. Read it!!

On the Mosque at Ground Zero

2010-08-20T10:01:00.005-05:00

Though I personally oppose the building of the mosque near ground zero that has been in the press of late, John Mark Reynolds at Scriptorium Daily has a very interesting contrary take on the issue that I think is worth conisidering. A key comment from his post reads:

Americans instinctively oppose the 9/11”mosque,” because we don’t see fair
play from the Muslim world. We must overcome this justifiable irritation,
allow it to be built, and then trumpet our demands for equal treatment using
it as an example.

Read the whole post here.

Nullification is the Solution

2010-07-30T22:04:00.004-05:00

The more I read and study constitutional law and politics, the more convinced I am becoming that the best solution to contemporary federal tyranny, is the practice of nullification. This is an old and venerable strategy of state governments which believe that federal laws and policies are unconstitutional (which usually means that they are overstepping the bounds of their enumerated powers). In nullification, the state government simply declares the federal law unconstitutional, ignoring and refusing to obey or enforce it.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison advocated nullification in their famous Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in the face of John Adams' Alien and Sedition Act. They called upon states to reject the requirements of the Act. In recent times, states have forgotten this strategy, but modern libertarians are trying to bring it back as the best and most efficient way of resisting the ever-expanding power of the federal government. Derek Sheriff has recently written and editorial outlining some of these efforts and explaining the importance of convincing our state governments of its contitutionality and usefulness. You can read his article here. I encourage all freedom-loving people to read more about it and contact your state legislators to let them know that you want them to use the strategy of nullification. You can also visit the Tenth Amendment Center and NullifyNow websites to learn more:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

http://www.nullifynow.com/

Public University Attacks Religious Freedom

2010-07-28T14:44:00.004-05:00

An even worse judicial atrocity than the injunction of Arizona's immigration law today was the ruling (read it here) of a federal judge upholding the expulsion of a grauduate student from Eastern Michigan University. The student was expelled from the school's counseling program because she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong and therefore refused to counsel homosexual clients.

Critics of the ruling are saying that it will undoubtedly lead to other Christian students who have the moral sanity to oppose homosexuality will also be dismissed from state universities. Is this what the 1st Amendment is all about? Will the political ideologies of left-wing crazies drive Christians completely out of the public square? I dare say that such an outcome would be welcome to many liberals in our society. The student's lawyers intend to appeal the ruling. We should pray for their success.

Federal Judge Issues Injunction on Arizona Immigration Law

2010-07-28T14:18:00.001-05:00

Today a Federal Judge decided in favor of the Obama administration and issued an injunction to halt enforcement of the most controversial features of the immigration law recently passed by the Arizona legislature (read about it here). The law requires that people stopped by police for other legitimate reasons can be asked about their immigration status if police suspect they are illegal immigrants. The injunction places a hold on the law until other courts can decide its constitutionality.

The injunction is patently absurd since the law does nothing more than allow police to enforce federal laws already on the books. Moreover, the injunction is an egregious encroachment on states' rights, using unconstitutional federal power to prevent a state from protecting its citizens.

Some Arizona sheriffs have vowed to enforce the Arizona law despite the injunction. To them, I say "Hurrah!" More power to them. My advice to the Arizona governor and legislature is to publicly repudiate the injunction and exercise their constitutional right to nullify federal laws and rulings they deem to be unconstitutional violations of the 10th Amendment (which this injunction is). The time is now to put an end to the blatant over-reach of the federal government in the last 100 years!

Lame Duck Nightmare

2010-07-26T16:11:00.002-05:00

Commentator Charles Krauthammer has made some scary predictions about what a lame-duck Democratic congress could and possibly would do after being slaughtered in the upcoming November elections. Read the article here.

DeYoung Reviews Platt's Radical

2010-07-06T15:12:00.002-05:00

Kevin DeYoung has recently written a review of David Platt's new book, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream. As one who has been a bit suspicious of the new call for "radical Christianity," I appreciate DeYoung's balanced but serious criticism. You can read the review here, together with a charitable response by Platt himself.

ARC Podcast

2010-06-25T10:39:00.004-05:00

The Apologetics Resource Center (to which I belong) has started a new monthly podcast entitled Faith, Truth, and a Can o' Worms. Our first cast discusses, among other things, the question, "Is Islam a religion of peace?" Here's the iTunes address:

http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/faith-truth-and-a-can-o-worms/id378689415

Colson on Avatar

2010-03-03T10:44:00.003-06:00

I want to encourage all readers to take a look at Charles Colson's blog today entitled, "Waiting by the Phone: Avatar and Salvation from Beyond." He provides a short but very poignant Christian assessment of the recent Avatar film. Here's the link:

http://www.informz.net/pfm/archives/archive_956798.html

New Name for Blog

2010-02-19T20:47:00.002-06:00

Hey, Here's an idea for your few readers out there. Help me come up with a new name for this blog. I've never really liked "Cowan Chronicles"--it's kinda lame and it's not a chronicle anyway. Ideas???

Blogging Blues

2010-02-19T20:35:00.002-06:00

I've decided that if I'm gonna have a blog, I oughta post new stuff on it more often. When I first started this blog, I had a good amount of stuff to post, but as any readers I have out there know, it's defintely slowed down in the last couple of years. I really do think that blogging is a good forum for discussing important things and getting out one's ideas. Of course, it presupposes, too, that one has good ideas in the first place that others will want to read (though the lack of good ideas doesn't seem to prevent many people from blogging away almost everyday!). And I suppose that maybe it's my conscientiousness about wanting to make sure that I have something worthwhile to say and not just put out a bunch of meaningless drivel that keeps me from posting more often. Well, I do really want to post more often and I am determined to do so. I hope to have something worthwhile to say when I do, too, though of course I can't make any promises. If any of you out there have some suggestions for things I might talk about on this blog, please feel free to make them.

Debate and Apologetics Conference

2009-12-22T11:07:00.002-06:00

The Apologetics Resource Center and Southeastern Bible College will host their second annual apologetics conference on January 29 & 30, 2010. The conference theme this year is: God: His Existence and Nature. The conference will kick off on Friday night with a DEBATE on the existence of God featuring Doug Geivett of Talbot School of Theology and Bruce Russell of Wayne State University. On Saturday, Doug Geivett and the ARC staff (including yours truly)will offer a slate of lectures on various apologetics topics, primarily focused on tough questions related to the nature of God (e.g., Is the trinity illogical?, If God knows the future, can I be free?, Is the Bible the Word of God?, etc.). Visit the conference website and register today!

www.arcapologeticscon.com

The Nobility of Soldiering

2009-11-11T21:19:00.003-06:00

On this Veterans' Day I thought I would share some brief reflections on the nobility of the profession of soldiering. Specifically, I want to point out four ways that we can see the nobility of soldiering in the Bible. In Scripture, the nobility of soldiering can be seen in. . .

1. The positive portrayal of soldiers. In the Old Testament consider especially Joshua and David, two military men are are heroes of the faith (and heroes of the faith at least in part because of their soldiering. In the New Testament, there is, first, the centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant (Matt. 8:5-10). When the centurion expressed his belief (based on his own experience as a military officer who expected his subordinates to carry out his orders) that Jesus could heal his servant with just a word, Jesus said, "I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel." Second, we have the example of Cornelius (Acts 10), the God-fearing centurion who was the first Gentile convert to Christianity.

2. The prayers for success in war. In numerous places, God's people prayed for success in battle against their enemies and God answered their prayers positively (Num. 21:1-3; Josh. 10:12-14; Judges 16:28-31; etc.). Especially poignant is David's praise to God in Psalm 144:1: "Blessed be the Lord, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle."

3. The direct biblical legitimizing of the idea of a just war and of soldiering. In Ecclesiastes 3, we have a well-known poem (think of The Birds famous song, "Turn, Turn, Turn") that gives us a series of contrasting human activities all of which have their appropriate times. Among these we read, "A time for war and a time for peace" (v. 8). The idea is that sometimes war is the right thing to do. Also, in Luke 3:10-14, we read of soldiers who came to John the Baptist to repent of their sins and be baptized. They ask John what they are to do now with their lives. Implied is the question, "Should we quit the army?" John tells them simply, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages." Hereby we have as clear an endorsement of the legitimacy of soldiering as we could ask.

4. The use of military metaphors to describe the Christian life. I will leave it to the reader to check out how many times the New Testament speaks of Christians as "soldiers" and likens our pursuit of Christ-likeness as a war (cf., e.g., 2 Cor. 10:3-6; Eph. 6:10-13; 2 Tim. 1-4).

In these and other ways, the Bible underscores the nobility of being a soldier. Let us honor those who serve well in defense of our country.

States Rights and Liberty

2009-10-02T23:01:00.002-05:00

I have been watching with great interest the growing states' rights movement. Many states have introduced and some have recently passed resolutions asserting their sovereignty over the federal government under the 10th Amendment, an constitutional amendment all but forgotten these days by conservatives and liberals alike. This amendment was designed to make explicit what was implicit in many parts of the constitution and was presupposed by most of the Founders, namely, that the United States was a federation of sovereign, independent states (read: nations), and not a singular nation. The federal goverment was not designed as a national government, but as an extention of the various state governments designed to serve their collective interests. The set-up was intended, in part, to preserve the sovereignty of the states except within a very narrow range of responsibilities delegated the federal government. Thus, it was also intented to preserve individual liberties.

The current states' rights movement is trying to prevent and roll back the incroaching tyranny of an all-encompassing and all-powerful national government that is presently, let's face it, leading us gradually (but not too gradually!) into socialism and the eradication of personal liberty. I encourage the readers to learn more about this movement by visiting the website of the Tenth Ammendment Center (www.tenthamendmentcenter.com). For some history of the constitution's emphasis on liberty and states' rights and its application for today, read this helpful article by Frank Chodorov:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/30/state-sovereignty-a-revolutionary-movement/

Atheists Endorse ID Theory

2009-09-24T23:33:00.004-05:00

Believe it or not, a growing number of atheists and agnostics are endorsing intelligent design theory as legtimate science. Some are even going so far as to say that it provides evidence for a purposive designer (though not necessarily God) that is superior to to any evidence in favor of Darwinism. The "wedge" that Phillip Johnson started hammering in the 1990s into the "log" of Darwinist hegemony over science is finally starting to split the log! Read about this amazing development in an article by Peter Williams at the website of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Here's the link:

http://epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=66&ap=1

Interview for The Love of Wisdom

2009-06-23T21:47:00.002-05:00

Jim Spiegel and I have been interviewed by Joe Gorra at the website of the Evangelical Philosophical Society concerning our new book, The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy. You can link to the interview here:

http://www.epsociety.org/blog/labels/love%20of%20wisdom%20(book).asp

Article on Women's Subordination

2009-05-30T18:13:00.003-05:00

For those who have an interest in the debate among evangelicals regarding the subordination of women to their husbands and male leadership in church, my article "The Metaphysics of Subordination: A Response to Rebecca Merrill Groothuis," has just been published in the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. You can read the article here:

http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-14-No-1/The-Metaphysics-of-Subordination-A-Response-to-Rebecca-Merrill-Groothuis

The gist of the article is this: Groothuis argues that the common distinction made by complementarians between women being subordinate in role but equal in being/value is logically incoherent. I argue that she is mistaken, that the distinction is coherent. Unless I am mistaken, this exchange between Groothuis and myself represents the first time that more or less pure philosophy has entered into this debate.

Article on the Meaning of Life

2009-05-27T00:02:00.002-05:00

I was just invited to post a short article on the meaning of life from an evangelical perspective on the Patheos Public Square website. This is a cite that posts multiple viewpoints on important and current topics that impact our society. You can read my piece at:

http://www.patheos.com/Explore/Additional-Resources/Why-Me-God-and-the-Meaning-of-Life.html

Enjoy!

Thomas Sowell on Obama's Supreme Court Pick

2009-05-26T23:19:00.002-05:00

Barack Obama has made his first Supreme Court appointment, justice Sonia Sotomayor. Even the most casual follower of the story can see that she is the posterchild for postmodern political correctness and judicial activism. By her own testimony her gender and ethnicity will influence her decisions. And she thinks that someone (like herself) of a particular ethnicity and gender may be better equipped to make certain decisions because of her ability to "empathize." Forget the rule of law and the facts of the case--what matters is empathy! One wonders, given her postmodern view of law and culture, if she can empathize with a white male who stands before her bar looking for justice? On her own terms, we already know the answer. I encourage readers to read the commentary by Thomas Sowell on Sotomayor's appointment at this link:

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/05/27/sotomayor__empathy_in_action?page=full&comments=true

The Missing Link? Gimme a Break!

2009-05-25T10:57:00.002-05:00

Before you watch the HistoryChannel's "The Link" program tonight about the new primate fossil "Ida" that is all the rage the last few days, take a look at this link:

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/05/20/ida_the_holy_grail_of_evolutionary_specu_1

The author easily debunks all the hype.

Good Discussion of Waterboarding

2009-05-13T23:47:00.002-05:00

Rich Lowery has written an insightful post on the ethics of waterboarding, making some points that are seldom heard in the debate--such as the fact that the morality of this practice depends on the context or circumstances in which it is used. Obviously, there are situations where it would clearly be wrong, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of morally permissible cases. See Lowery's column at this link:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTE1NGU4NDQxOWU2YTZiOWM2N2Q4YjQ4OGEzZjZhZGM=&w=MQ==

Spiegel on Cowan and Spiegel's Book

2009-05-12T12:28:00.002-05:00

Please check out Jim Spiegel's comments concerning our new book The Love of Wisdom (B&H, 2009) on his blog (link below). He does a great job explaining some of our reasons for writing the book and the benefits we hope it gives the readers. Look for comments of my own in the next few days.

http://wisdomandfollyblog.com/

Cowan on Moody Radio

2009-04-21T15:11:00.002-05:00

For those who might be interested, I will be appearing briefly on Moody Radio South tomorrow morning (April 22, 2009) at approx. 6:40 AM (central time), WMFT Radio FM 88.9. I speak about the need for theology and apologetics in the church to help the church be salt and light in the world.

Cal Thomas on Obama's Stem Cell Reversal

2009-03-13T22:47:00.002-05:00

This week President Obama lifted the Bush administration's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Not unexpected, but no less troubling. Obama is now allowing your tax money and mine to be used to destroy human life for the purpose of scientific research--and unnecessary and spurious research at that. Cal Thomas's column today give good moral and political analysis of this decision. Read it here:

http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2009/03/12/journey_to_destruction

Brits Skeptical of Darwinism

2009-03-02T11:56:00.002-06:00

I found Chuck Colson's latest commentary pleasantly surprising--even astounding! A recent survey conducted on the occasion of Darwin's 200th birthday shows that less than 40% of the British populace believe Darwin's theory of evolution and more than half embrace the intelligent design theory! As non-religious as most Brits are, Colson is right that it's still hard to erase the knowledge of God written on the heart. See Colson's article here:

http://www.informz.net/pfm/archives/archive_738033.html

21st Century Apologetic Challenges

2009-02-17T21:55:00.003-06:00

The apologetics conference at Southeastern Bible College on Jan, 30-31 was a smashing success. We had close to 200 people show up and the feedback we received was very positive. The lecture recordings are available at the school website (http://www.sebc.edu/) under the podcast link. For your edification I post below my opening plenary lecture in which I explain what I think will be the most significant apologetic issues the church will face in the next few years.

21st Century Apologetic Challenges

By Steven B. Cowan
Presented at Southeastern Bible College
January 30, 2009

But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence. (1 Pet. 3:15)
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor. 10:3-5

These text speak to us of the need and obligation of God’s people to engage in the discipline of apologetics; to defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints. In connection with this biblical mandate we offer this conference on “Defending the Faith in the 21st Century.” And the title of my presentation tonight is “21st Century Apologetic Challenges”. That title might sound a bit presumptuous if understood a certain way. I suppose that one could take this to mean that my talk is about all the issues and topics regarding apologetics—the defense of the Christian faith—that the church will face throughout the 21st century, from the present through 2099. If that were what my talk is about, then I would be very presumptuous indeed and have a pretty high opinion of my prophetic abilities! Of course, there is no way that I can know all the challenges and attacks that Christians will face over the course of the next 91 years. I dare say I can’t even tell you all that we will face in the next ten years.

But what I think I can tell you about are the apologetics challenges that we are now facing or are on the verge of facing, some of which I believe will be significant and on-going challenges for some time to come, perhaps for a decade or two. That is, I can and I will talk to you about what I and other Christian apologists think are the most significant issues in the area of apologetics that we most need to focus our attention on—those things that are or are about to become most pressing; those things that the people in our society who we hope to reach with the gospel will use as reasons or excuses to reject Christianity. These are those issues that every Christian who wants to be salt and light in the world and make a difference for the cause of Christ needs to know something about and “be ready to make a defense for the hope that they have” (1 Pet. 3:15).

The Cultural Status of Christianity
Before I actually lay out these challenges, though, I want to say a few words about the place that Christianity currently occupies in Western and American culture. This is important because it’s our cultural status that partly explains why we are facing the apologetic issues that we are. There are basically two expressions that indicate the current cultural status of Christianity.

First, we must take note that we in the West and even in America live in a post-Christian culture. Most westerners have left Christianity behind. They have “moved on” as it were from what they see as an outmoded, irrelevant religion to other more reasonable and more useful forms of thought and life.

The church’s prestige and influence have given way to the authority of science and government.
Categories like sin and redemption have given way to the concepts of dysfunction and therapy respectively.
Self-sacrifice has been replaced with self-indulgence and self-fulfillment.
Moral law has been overshadowed by moral relativism.

There is no longer any belief in the authority or relevance of the Bible. Indeed, there is even precious little knowledge in our society of the Bible’s contents much less any belief in the truth of its contents. Rather than a cultural consensus of real and nominal Christianity, we have today a pluralism of religious beliefs, all seen as equally valid and valuable. There is the firm belief that religious knowledge—real knowledge of religious truths—is unavailable; that all we can truly know is the here and now, the world present to our empirical observations. In a word, secularism.

There is an obsession with personal autonomy and self-expression. My life is my life, and I have the right to do with it as I please without constraint by anyone or anything, least of all by religion and some external system of morality. In the words of Albert Mohler of Southern Seminary,

The worldview of most Americans is now thoroughly secularized, revolving around the self and its concerns, and based on relativism as an axiom. We Americans have become our own best friend, our own therapist, our own priest, and our own lawgiver. The old order is shattered, the new order is upon us.[1]

But, not only do we live in a post-Christian culture, we see evidence all around us that we are increasingly living in an anti-Christian culture. What I mean is that there are elements in Western (even American) culture that are becoming openly hostile toward Christianity. This should not surprise us since the Christian worldview is diametrically opposed the values of the new culture. This hostility comes out in the open whenever Christians stand up to speak out important social issues. Again, to quote Mohler,

To proclaim biblical truth to this culture is to risk social isolation, outright rejection, and, in some cases, potent attacks. . . .The Church which proclaims that adultery, premarital sex, and homosexuality are inherently and unquestionably sinful will quickly discover what it means to be cut off from the cultural mainstream. The preacher who takes on the divorce culture and takes his stand for the enduring covenant of marriage will run into direct confrontation with society's attraction to "open marriage" and what some now describe as "serial monogamy." The Christian who stands in defense of the unborn will be told that her voice is unwanted, unheeded, and unwelcome--and in no uncertain terms.[2]

In some places in the West, strong measures have actually been taken to silence the voice of Christians in the public square. Just a few years ago, a pastor in Sweden was sent to prison for preaching a sermon on Leviticus 18 & 20 condemning homosexuality as sinful. More recently in Canada a Christian was fined $6000 for printing 3 Bible verses against homosexuality, and a pastor was told it is a hate crime to hand out gospel tracts. In great Britain a couple was denied the opportunity to adopt a child because it was alleged that their Christian faith might prejudice them against a homosexual child placed in their care. Also in Canada, a Christian ministry (MacGregor Ministries) lost its tax-exempt status because they insist that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult.

Even in the US, some cities and states have passed legislation that has the effect of limiting free speech on religious and moral issues. A Philadelphia law was used recently to indict 11 Christians for a hate crime for staging a legal protest against homosexual activism. Witness also the huge outcry against pastor Rick Warren’s participation in President Obama’s inauguration ceremony because of the stance his church takes on moral and social issues.

Beyond this, Christianity and Christian believers have become the objects of ridicule and slander. Recall a few years back when a young homosexual man was brutally murdered in Wyoming and Katie Couric on NBC’s Today show said that it was the fault of all the fundamentalist Christians who preach against homosexuality. Recall the recent “documentary” by Bill Mahr, Religulous, that makes fun of religious believers and presents them as fools, idiots, and quacks.

And I hope you haven’t missed the media blitzes that happen every year around Christmas and Easter in which TV networks and news magazines like Time and Newsweek broadcast documentaries and publish articles designed to debunk and discredit Christian beliefs (and never give opportunities for contrary presentations from conservative scholars).

I believe that this hostility against Christianity will only increase in the next few years and become more brazen and bold and dangerous.

This is the cultural position of Christianity in our society—we and our churches are seen as vestiges of a by-gone era that threatens the health and happiness of the new secular world order. In light of our current status, then, what are the apologetic issues that we will face in the coming years?

Three Crucial Challenges
No doubt there are many questions and issues that we will face in the area of apologetics, but I think that there are three that stand out.

First, we will confront continued and rigorous attacks on the authority of the Bible. Challenges to biblical authority and reliability are nothing new, of course, but the nature of the attacks have taken on a different flavor in recent days. There are two specific ways that the Bible is being undermined and dismissed in recent days that many of you may not be familiar with.

The challenge of the so-called pagan roots of Christianity. This challenge is actually quite old. It was a prominent charge over a century ago, that many central Christian doctrines such as the virgin birth, and the death and resurrection of Jesus, were simply borrowed by early Christians from ancient pagan myths like that involving the Egyptian god Osiris or the Persian deity Mithras. It is alleged that every popular religion in the ancient world had its myths of virgin-born, dying and rising saviors. If Christianity was going to compete in the first-century market-place of ideas, then it too had to come up with its own story of a virgin-born, dying and rising god. So, the early Christians just took these myths from other religions, tweaked them a little bit and imposed them on the biography of this Palestinian Jew named Jesus. Of course, the implication of all this is that Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin, he did not die for the sins of the world, and he was not raised from the dead. Such theological beliefs were the invention of the early church.

This theory of the pagan origins of Christianity was laid to rest almost a century ago due to a lack of any concrete evidence for it and the fact that the alleged parallels between the pagan myths and Christian doctrine were superficial at best. Nonetheless, it has come roaring back in recent years. In their recent book, The Laughing Jesus, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy refurbish this old accusation, writing, “The Jesus story has all the hallmarks of a myth. The reason for this is quite simple. It is a myth. Indeed, not only is it a myth, it is a Jewish version of a pagan myth!”[3] This idea has been popularized in Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code and in a recent issue of U.S. News and World Report, and other places.

The challenge of an alleged politicized canonization process. New Testament scholars Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels have made a name for themselves in recent years arguing that the New Testament Canon—that collection of books that the church has considered divinely inspired and authoritative—came about primarily as the result of political motives. They allege that in the earliest days of Christianity (i.e., in the mid-to-late first century) there was no settled Christian orthodoxy, no clear definition of what it means to be a Christian—in particular, there was not just one view about the identity and mission of Jesus. Some followers of Jesus thought him divine, others did not. Some thought he brought a social message, others a message about divine redemption, others an esoteric Gnostic teaching. And, of course, associated with all these different “Christianities” were different sets of “scriptures,” different books purporting to give us the right interpretation of Jesus and his message, and none of them had any claim to more legitimacy than any other. For example, there were numerous gospels that circulated besides those found in the NT such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary.

So, why did the books we have in the canon make it in and the others did not? Well, according to scholars like Ehrman and Pagels it was all about power and politics. One particular group of Christians gained the upper hand politically and suppressed the teaching and writings of the others, establishing themselves as orthodox Christianity and the others as heretics. But the so-called orthodox school really has no more claim to legitimacy than those now seen as heretical. Bart Ehrman describes what happened this way:

This one form of Christianity [the party that came to be known as “orthodox”] decided what was the “correct” Christian perspective; it decided who could exercise authority over Christian belief and practice; and it determined what forms of Christianity would be marginalized, set aside, destroyed. It also decided which books to canonize into Scripture and which books to set aside as “heretical,” teaching false ideas. . . . And then, as a coup de grace, this victorious party rewrote the history of the controversy, making it appear that there had not been much of a conflict at all, claiming that its own views had always been those of the majority of Christians at all times. . ., had always been “orthodox” (i.e., the “right belief”) and that its opponents in the conflict, with their other scriptural texts, had always represented small
splinter group invested in deceiving people into “heresy”. . .[4]

Both of these challenges to the Bible seek to undermine its authority as a word from God. If key Christian doctrines were borrowed from pagan myths, then the message of the gospel is not unique—it’s just one more ancient myth among many. If what we know today as Christianity and its Bible are just one version of a diverse cacophony of Christian voices, one invented by the political machinations of evil men, then again, the message of Scripture is just the message of men and not God. Contemporary Americans may then safely ignore it.

Second, we will confront an ever-bolder, New Atheism. You have all heard of them, the unholy trinity: Richard Dawkins with his book The God Delusion, Sam Harris and his Letter to a Christian Nation, and Christopher Hitchens’ God is not Great. These are the leaders of a new movement of atheists. Of course, atheism has been around for thousands of years, and the US has had a population of atheists hovering around 8 or 9 percent for many decades. But the new atheists are different. They are more vitriolic, more antagonistic toward religion than most of their predecessors. And they are openly evangelistic, seeking to win people to their cause. Why? Because of a couple of twin convictions: (1) religion is dangerous and the source of most of humanity’s problems, and (2) atheistic humanism is the key to the success and happiness of the human race. On the danger of religion, Dawkins has this to say:

I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect.[5]

More generally. . .what is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that faith itself is a virtue. Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument. Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them. . .to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for future jihads or crusades.[6]

Sam Harris writes, “We have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith perpetuates man's inhumanity to man,”[7] and that “no real foundation exists within the canons of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any of our other faiths for religious tolerance and religious diversity.”[8]

Now I should say, along with many critics of the new atheists (which includes both religious and non-religious people), that the arguments they give against the existence of God and the danger of religion are quite simply pathetic. They are simplistic and misleading. For example, the best that Dawkins can say in response to the recent intelligent design arguments is,”Who designed God?”—a question both irrelevant and silly. Moreover, these writers often caricature the arguments of their opponents rather than dealing with them in their strongest forms. Nevertheless, their books are huge best-sellers. They are reaching and influencing a very wide audience. No doubt their influence is partly responsible for the increase in the number of self-professed atheists in the nation (from 9 to 11 % in recent years). Where biblical illiteracy abounds and Christians shirk their duty to engage in apologetics, we will only see this movement gain greater ground.

The third most significant apologetic challenge that we will face in the coming years is the ongoing accommodation of Christians to the culture. What I mean is that one of the biggest—perhaps the biggest—reason that people in our culture will find to reject Christianity in days ahead is the fact that most people who name the name of Christ have nothing significant to offer our culture by way of an alternative to what they already have. Christianity is losing its saltiness; it has become worldly. There are two specific ways in which this worldliness manifests itself.

Our lifestyles are not really different from those around us. Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has said that “the ultimate apologetic is our lives.” That is, the most persuasive argument that you can give to an unbeliever as to why he ought to believe that Christianity is true, is a life radically transformed by faith in Jesus Christ. But, that only works if your life-style is noticeably different from that of unbelievers. But consider. . .

The divorce rate among Christians is almost the same as among the irreligious.
Christians give only about 3% of their income to charitable causes, including church.
We spend 7x more on entertainment than on spiritual activities.
We make most of our important decisions based on self-interest or utilitarian considerations (like unbelievers) rather than biblical principle—b/c most Xns don’t really know the Bible that well and so don’t have a biblical worldview.

Our lifestyles are not noticeably different from that of the world. Of course, we don’t take drugs or watch X-rated movies and the music we listen to has Christian lyrics. But, our lives—how we spend our time and our money, and the kinds of things we seem to care most about—are still mostly about ourselves, our desires, our comforts, our plans and purposes for the here and now.

We have also accommodated the world by our retreat from the objective truth and knowability of the Christian faith. For many years our culture has taught us that the only things that can be known, the only things that rise above the level of mere subjective opinion, are those things that are accessible to the empirical sciences. Through science we can have knowledge of nature and this-worldly matters. But, those things that lie outside the domain of science—religion and ethics—these can only be taken on faith. And Christians have bought into this philosophy and retreated from the intellectual defense of the Christian faith into pragmatism and experientialism. We offer Christianity to people not because we can show that it is true, but because it can offer them practical assistance with their daily lives and lead them into wonderful, warm, fuzzy religious experiences.

And now, in more recent days, some in what’s called the emergent church movement have even further accommodated culture by following it into the quagmire of postmodern relativism which does not simply deny that we can know the truth in religion and morality, but denies that there is any such thing as truth at all! Of course, this implies that Christian truth-claims, Christian doctrine like the deity of Christ and the sinfulness of man, are not objectively true, but are just the opinions of our particular sub-culture.

Such cultural accommodations threaten to make it impossible for Christianity to have any real and lasting relevance to the world in which we live. Why should people care about a religion that offers them only a different, cleaned-up version of the same kind of self-centeredness they already have? Why should they take seriously a faith that cannot be known to be true and which is simply one of many equally valid narratives they could adopt? And the reason why I say that this is an apologetics issue is because this kind of cultural accommodation makes apologetics impossible. It becomes impossible because, on the one hand, no one will take our apologetic arguments seriously when we don’t sem to care enough about what we believe to actually live it out; or, on the other hand, by denying that there is any Christian truth to defend, we deny any need for apologetics in the first place. I believe that this cultural accommodation is one of the major reasons why our youth are leaving the church and not coming back.

Well, these are the major apologetic challenges we face today in the 21st century. There are others, of course. We continue to face challenges from other world religions like Islam and Buddhism, as well as cultic groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. There cultural and ethical issues like same-sex marriage and cloning and stem cell research. In light of all of these issues and in light of the biblical mandate to defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints, I believe that we have a calling to fulfill in out time. These things call us, first, to repent of our cultural accommodations by owning and living out the Christian values we say we believe and by standing steadfast on the conviction that Christianity is true—it’s really true—and that it can be known to be true. And then we are called to meet the other challenges head-on, first, with a robust defense of natural theology showing as rigorously and persuasively as we can that God actually exists and that his existence is something that can be known, not simply believed; and, second, with a thorough rebuttal of those who would undermine the authority of Scripture with groundless speculations about pagan myths and early church conspiracies. This, my brothers and sisters, is what we must do to give a defense in the 21st century.

NOTES
[1] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “Transforming Culture: Christian Truth Confronts Post-Christian America” internet article (2009) (http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=1) accessed January 27, 2009.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Freke and Gandy, The Laughing Jesus (NY: Harmony, 2005), 55.
[4] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities (Oxford, 2003), 4.
[5] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 2006), 284.
[6] Ibid., 308.
[7] Sam Harris, The End of Faith (NY: WW. Norton and Co., ??.), 11.
[8] Ibid.

Christianity in a Post-Christian Culture

2009-01-27T22:06:00.002-06:00

I just ran across a recent broadcast of the White Horse Inn radio program dealing with the topic of the relationship between Christ and culture. Michael Horton and his cohorts hit the nail on the head regarding issues of church and state, Christian political and cultural involvement, etc. They say some very encouraging and some very challenging things to those of us opining Obama's election and generally just wondering how to be salt and light in our society today. Check it out here:

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=2009-1-4

Apologetics Conference

2009-01-06T22:27:00.006-06:00

I want to make all my readers (all 3 of them!) aware of an upcoming apologetics conference co-sponsored by the Apologetics Resource Center and Southeastern Bible College. The theme of the conference is "Defending the Faith in the 21st Century" and the featured keynote speaker is yours truly. ARC staff will be conducting numerous breakout sessions covering important apologetics, ethical, and cultural issues. The conference will be held on the campus of Southeastern Bible College on January 30 & 31. For more info and to register, go to: http://sebc.edu/Defending-the-Faith-in-the-21st-Century_56_pg.htm.

The Tyranny of the Spineless and the Ignorant

2008-11-06T21:12:00.004-06:00

Barack Obama is now the President-elect. The question is why? Well, of course, we all know why he got elected--he got the most electoral college votes. But, why did he get the most electoral college votes? I want to suggest that he won because Americans live under a form of tyranny. It's a tyranny that has actually been dominating the political scene for many years. It is the tyranny of the spineless and the ignorant. Let me explain.

In the past, tyranny has been that of the evil monarch or the elite oligarchy. When the American Republic was established, the founders built into our system of government some safeguards to avoid a form of tyranny peculiar to democracies, namely, the tyranny of the majority. All citizens were recognized to have "certain unalienable rights," thus guaranteeing that every individual and every minority would have their most basic liberties protected against a potentially tyrannical majority. But, now we face a new and frustrating form of tyranny for which there may be no easy cure. It is the tyranny imposed by two groups of people in our society, two groups that probably overlap significantly (i.e., it's mostly one group with two characteristics). These groups are, as I have suggested, the spineless and the ignorant.

It is common knowledge that about 40% of Americans are more or less liberal in their political views. It is also the case that about 40-45% are conservative. But that means that about 15-20% of Americans are committed to neither liberal nor conservative principles. This small minority in the middle of the American political spectrum--often referred to as moderates or independents--actually control the outcome of national elections. These so-called "moderates", in my humble opinion, are spineless. That is, they have no political backbone. They are not committed to, nor do they stand for, any significant moral or political principles. The spineless middle ground folks vote on the basis of pure self-interest; they vote their "pocket books." They are the ones who constantly remind us, "It's the economy stupid." For them, economics is the only thing that really matters. They do not or cannot see beyond themselves and their small personal world. They do not live for anything bigger than themselves.

I strongly disagree with liberals politically, but at least I can respect that they, like conservatives, have principles that they beleive in and are willing to stand for; principles that reflect values bigger than themselves. But, here's the problem that both liberals and conservatives face: neither side can win national elections without the help of the spineless. Which means that both sides find themselves having to compromise, weaken, or downplay their most cherished principles in order to gain the support of the spineless. The recent presidential campaigns show ample evidence of this. Consider the fact that Republicans felt the need to nominate John McCain, widely recognized as no friend of true conservatives, in order to reach out and gain the support of the spineless. And, of course, McCain's campaign was largely aimed at garnering their support.

Obama did not escape the tyranny of the spineless either. I'm convinced that he is a true blue liberal. His record shows him to be the MOST liberal senator, and if he truly had his way, he would turn this into a near-socialist state. In his primary campaign, he presented himself as he actually is, a liberal. This of course was the appropriate strategy for getting the liberal base behind him. But, after he got the DNC nomination, he presented himself as a moderate. Why? Because he had to win the support of the spineless. He won the election b/c his appeal to the spineless was more convincing to them than McCain's.

Many of the new tyrants also suffer from the malady of ignorance, and they are joined by a large number of others from both sides of the political spectrum who suffer from this malady as well. Howard Stern's man-on-the-street interviews a few weeks ago proved that a lot of African-Americans were horribly ignorant of the moral, political, and ecomomic issues facing our country. They voted for Obama solely because he is black. Many other Americans of of various ethnic backgrounds are likewise ignorant and voted for him because they liked the way he looked and talked--style over substance. No doubt at least a few voted for McCain simply because of subjective impressions of his personality and style and not because of his policies. These, the ignorant, are also tyrants with whom we have to do.

So, what can we do to throw off the yoke of these tyrants and allow elections to be won and the nation governed by principle rather than a catering to this worthless minority of Americans who have no vision or concern for the common good? I have no idea how to accomplish it, but it seems to me that the following things have to happen:

1. We need a complete overhaul of how national elections are conducted so as to make it possible for a candidate to win with only 34-40% of the popular vote. This probably means constructing some way to allow for real, meaningful 3-party elections in which all three candidates have a reasonable chance of winning. I'm not sure how such a thing could be done, but I'm thinking about it.

2. We need to require that in order to be eligible to vote a person has to have some modicum of familiarity with the issues of the day. A legal vote must be an informed vote. It is no secret to political philosophers that a great weakness in democracy is the ever-present danger of the nation being ruled by ignoramuses. We'll that danger is not a danger anymore--it is a reality. And we need some way to alter this reality. An educational requirement of some sort may sound elitist to many ears, but I think it is a necessity if we truly care about the common good.

God, Caesar, and the Election

2008-11-02T16:17:00.003-06:00

Take a listen to the sermon I preached today on Matt. 22:15-22, where Jesus gives his famous command, "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God." I lay out what Jesus' words say to us about the relationship between church and state, our obligations both to God and to country, and I make some important applications relevant to the upcoming election. Here is the link:

http://www.gracecovenantbaptist.org/media/Special/God_and_Caesar.mp3

Black Conservatives Speak Out!

2008-11-02T16:06:00.004-06:00

You gotta see this video from a black conservative urging other black Americans to vote for McCain. He also takes a great stab at those conservatives who won't vote for McCain because he isn't conservatve enough. It's a bit raw in places, but worth it. Check it out here.

Same Sex Marriage: A Really Bad Idea

2008-10-30T20:02:00.006-05:00

I just read a very insightful and troubling article by S.T. Karnick in Salvo magazine on same-sex marriage. He carefully details the social and legal ramifications that will follow from same-sex marriage if it were to become the law of the land. It is essentally the imposition of an oppressive tyranny of a minority over the rest of us that will eradicate manhy freedoms we take for granted (including free speech) and create many new positive "rights" that will further limited our freedoms. You can read Karnick's article here.

Concerns about Obama

2008-10-21T18:26:00.010-05:00

The election is only two weks away and it stilllooks like Barack Obamahas a good chance to become he next US president. Those who know me know that I think that prospect is just about the worst thing that could happen to this country politically. Some of the reasons why I think this have been highlighted recently in some blog posts by Christian philosopher Doug Geivett on his blog. Two things that Doug highlights are: (1) the suspicions that many of us have that Obama has marxist leanings, suspicions actually confirmed by Obama's frequent lunch companion James Pethokoukis, professor at the University of Chicago; and (2) the worry that Obama isn't up to the task of dealing with America's enemies, a worry greatly exacerbated yesterday by his own running mate, Senator Joe Biden! Biden actually said in no uncertain terms that our enemies will be emboldened to "test" Obama because they peceive him as a dove--which means that Biden thinks that an Obama presidency actually increases the risk of terrorist attacks (or worse) on Amiercan soil. I encourage my readers to look at Doug's blog enties on these topics, found at the following links:

http://douggeivett.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/why-would-a-university-of-chicago-professor-call-obama-a-marxist/

http://douggeivett.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/spinning-joe-biden/

Lessons from Acts 2:1-21

2008-09-25T21:36:00.003-05:00

In Sunday School at my church, we have just begun a series on the Book of Acts. It's my assignment this coming Sunday to teach chapter 2, vv. 1-21, the first half of account of the Day of Pentecost. Though I know that some of this will be controversial to many people, including perhaps some of the readers of this blog (assuming there are any!), I have come to the conclusion that we can learn the following lesons from this text:

1. Jesus Christ reigns in heaven over the earth today. I know this because Pentecost indicates that he has kept his promise to send the Holy Spirit to the world. This in turn indicates that his ascension placed him on the throne of heaven where he reigns over his Kingdom.

2. The gift of tongues is the ability to speak a human language that one has not learned through natural means. It is NOT the gibberish we hear in charismatic churches.

3. That Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled in the Christian church (the new Israel). When Peter quotes Joel's prophecy made on behalf of Israel, and applies it to the arrival of the Spirit in the midst of the church, what other conclusion should we reach? BTW, that the church is Israel is already indicated earlier in Acts chapter 1 in two ways. First, Luke makes a point that the gathering of Christians in the upper room numbered 120, the required number for the Jewish Sanhedrin. Second, the necessity to replace Judas so that the number of apostles would remain 12--why the necessity of 12? Everyone knows that it's because the apostles of the church represent the heads of the 12 tribes of Israel.

4. That cataclysmic, apocalyptic language in prophetic literature (the moon turning to blood, the sun going dark, etc.) is not to be taken literally, but is symbolic of earthly events that have religious and political significance (e.g., see Isa 13:1-22). This point should give us caution in how we interpret other prophetic literature like the Book of Revelation.

Points 2 - 4 may be strongly challenged by those of certain theological and eschatological persuasions, but I suggest that this text in Acts 2 makes them pretty clear.

What is a Good Sermon?

2008-08-06T21:46:00.002-05:00

“That was a good sermon, Preacher.” These are words that preachers are usually thankful to hear, and are often uttered by church-goers on their way out the door of the church after a Sunday service. The uttering of these words, though, presupposes that not all sermons are good. To designate a particular sermon as “good” is to recognize (at least implicitly) that some sermons are bad. But, how do we know the difference? What makes a good sermon good? I believe that the Word of God can help us answer this question so that our judgments about good and bad sermons is not subjective, but objective. Here are the major marks of a good sermon (NOTE: these and other marks of good sermons are discussed in greater detail in J.I. Packer’s, A Quest for Godliness, pp. 281-289).

First, a good sermon is expository. That is, a good sermon has as its primary goal to lay open and explain a particular passage of Scripture. Paul tells us that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). It is because Scripture is profitable to the life of the believer, that ministers are commanded to “Preach the Word” (2 Tim. 4:2). Preachers are given the duty to feed God’s people, and their food is the Holy Scripture. So, a good sermon is one that explains the meaning of a biblical text; it helps the listener gain the mind of God, not the mind of the preacher. Therefore, when you hear a sermon and want to figure out if it was good or not, ask yourself, “Do I understand this biblical text better than I did before hearing this sermon? Have I learned what this text means?”

Second, a good sermon is doctrinal. No text of Scripture is isolated from the rest of Scripture. The Bible is one book and all of its parts are consistent with each other. Biblical interpreters follow the principle that “Scripture interprets Scripture.” This means, as far as preaching goes, that a good sermon will set the text being preached in the larger context of God’s revelation. It will show how the text fits into the “larger scheme of things” and will quote or allude to other biblical passages that address related topics. In other words, as part of helping the listener understand the meaning of the sermon text, the sermon should show the listener something of the whole mind of God on the topic at hand; how the text fits with other things the Bible says on the topic. So, ask, “Does this sermon help me understand better the whole counsel of God on this topic?”

Third, a good sermon is Christ-centered. Christ–his person and work–is ultimately what the Bible is all about. Paul said to the Corinthians, “I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). A good sermon will revolve around Christ. It will either explain what Christ has done for sinners, or point us to our need for him, or show us the appropriate response to his saving grace. Therefore ask, “Does this sermon exalt Jesus? Does it increase my esteem for him? Does it humble me before his majesty and grace? Does it help me love and serve him better? Does it draw me to repentance and faith?”

Fourth, a good sermon is experimental (to use an old Puritan term). That is, it is practical. And by practical I do not simply mean that the sermon leaves us with a list of “do’s and don’ts.” The Word of God describes itself as “sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). Think about the response of the people in Jerusalem to Peter’s Pentecost sermon and you will know what I am talking about. Luke tells us that they “were pierced to the heart” (Acts 2:37). A good sermon will wound consciences, or build characters, or stir the soul to praise God, or move the will to action or the mind to fruitful reflection. And thus, when the preacher offers specific points of application, the listener is ready to respond either by following the promptings of the Holy Spirit or resisting Him in sinful rebellion. In either case, a good sermon will not leave you the way you were before you heard it. So ask, “Has this sermon changed me in some way? Has it drawn me closer to Christ? Has it pricked my conscience and prompted me to repentance and faith? Has it stirred in me a deeper desire to please God and shown me practical ways in which I can do it?”

I want to encourage all the saints who read this to evaluate every sermon you hear by these principles. May it be the case that the next time you say, “That was a good sermon, preacher,” that those words not be based simply on what you may subjectively “like” or find enjoyable, but that those words express the considered opinion of one who understands what God expects of a good sermon.

Who Does Obama Think He Is?

2008-07-22T11:28:00.000-05:00

Check out this excellent article by political commentator Charles Krauthammer on the arrogance and audacity of Barrack Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/obamas_egoaccomplishment_gap.html

Obama, Politics, and Facts

2008-07-17T15:35:00.002-05:00

Check out the link below to a column by renowed economist Tom Sowell who comments on some of Barrack Obama's political views on such things as the minimum wage and capital gains taxes, and how they are contradicted by hard, economic facts. Enlightening. . .

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/07/15/are_facts_obsolete?page=full&comments=true

My Summer Reading List

2008-06-24T12:34:00.004-05:00

I have no idea if anyone would have much interest in what I'm reading this Summer, but. . .who knows? At least some of these are important books that I would highly recommend. So, here it is:

D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisted.

David F. Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant.

Samuel E. Waldron, MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto.

Tom Challies, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment.

George R.R. Martin, et al, Hunter's Run.

Ben Bova, Titan.

David Weber, Off Armageddon Reef.

Finally Finished!

2008-05-25T17:06:00.002-05:00

Some of the readers out there may be aware that I have been writing (with Jim Spiegel of Taylor U) a Christian intro to philosophy text. Well, it's finally finished. We sent the manuscript to the publishers last week. It has been a labor of love for me, a project that we have been excited to work on. Part of me will miss working on it, but it is a great relief to have it done--I may actually get some sleep now!

The book is entitled, The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy. It will be published by Broadman & Holman in Spring of 2009. I hope you will all buy a copy and help me pay a few bills!

Undermining Freedom to Save Freedom? A Review of The Golden Compass

2008-02-06T10:17:00.000-06:00

The following brief review of the film The Golden Compass was recently published in Areopagus Journal (Sept-Oct 2007).

It was one of the best movies I have seen in a while. And it was one of the worst movies I have seen in a while. Let me explain. When it comes to purely aesthetic qualities (acting, cinematography, special effects, plot development, etc), The Golden Compass should (and most likely will) win some awards. Based on the first novel in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series, the movie tells the story of a girl named Lyra who, according to the Wikipedia article, is “an orphan living in a fantastical parallel universe in which the dogmatic dictatorship of the Magisterium threatens to dominate the world. When Lyra’s friend is kidnapped, she travels to the far North in an attempt to rescue him and rejoin her uncle” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Compass_(film)).

Those who have read Pullman’s novels or have followed the press on the film know that Pullman’s stories are militantly atheistic. Intentionally offering a contrast to C.S. Lewis’s Narnia series, His Dark Materials portrays God as a bumbling tyrant served by the malevolent Magisterium (an unsubtle stand-in for the Catholic Church and perhaps all organized Christian groups). The heroes of the story are the “free inquirers”—those dedicated to science and reason, rather than religious dogmatism.

Though the film’s atheism and antagonism toward religion is more subdued than that in the novels, it is present nonetheless. Right at the beginning of the story, one scientist, Lord Asriel (Lyra’s uncle), seeks funding to explore the possibility of the existence of a substance called “Dust” which supposedly permeates and composes all things. The Magisterium opposes the investigation of Dust and calls those who believe in it “heretics.” The Dust seems to be a metaphor for materialism, the view that reality is entirely composed of matter—which entails that spiritual, non-physical things do not exist. So, right at the beginning we have a clash of fundamental worldviews: the theistic worldview in which God exists as the Creator and Sustainer of all things, and atheistic materialism. Like the novels, the movie leaves no doubt as to which side reason belongs. The Magisterium is portrayed as stiflers of free inquiry, dogmatic fideists who simply desire to maintain their cultural authority and influence. The scientific materialists, of course, are the defenders of rationality and tolerance.

So, it was a good movie in one sense. As an adventure story it was riveting and suspenseful—downright fun, in fact. The characters were likable and believable. But, whatever aesthetic qualities the movie has, they are overshadowed by the false worldview being subtly foisted on the unsuspecting children (and adults) who view it, not to mention the egregious stereotype and straw man constructed for religion.

For this reviewer, the most absurdly ironic thing about this movie (and perhaps the books too), is the idea that atheistic materialism is put forth as the savior of free will. In the film’s last scene, the witch Serafina warns the aeronaut Lee Scoresby of a great war that is coming, a war in defense of “nothing less than free will.” This is not simply a remark about the tyrannical ambitions of the Magisterium. It is an allusion to the idea that God, if he exists, would make human freedom impossible. What is ironic about this is that the alleged defense of free will is being made in the name of atheistic materialism, a view diametrically opposed to any notion of free will. If all I am is a collection of atoms whose every motion is dictated by the command of blind physical laws, then how can I be free in any relevant sense? What’s more, how can there be any real meaning and purpose to life if all there is or ever has been is the physical universe? Serafina is right. The battle between theism and atheism is a battle over no less than free will—and meaning and human dignity, too. But, the threat to those things is not theism, but atheism.

Over 40 million and counting

2008-01-24T12:50:00.000-06:00

Two days ago, January 22, 2008, marked the 35th anniversary of the landmark decision of the Supreme Court known as Roe v. Wade, a decision that effectively permitted abortion on demand in the United States. The anniversary came and went with hardly a mention in the mainstream press. I must confess that I would've overlooked it myself except for stumbling on a reminder in an online news story and in Doug Groothuis's blog. Most Americans are sadly unaware that since 1973 well over 40 million unborn children have been slaughtered. Though the number of abortions has decreased in recent years, it still remains a fact that a woman can kill her baby for almost any reason at almost any time in her pregancy--and many, many women (and the abortion providers) still take advantage of the Supreme Court's permisssion of this atrocity. The stats are that 1 in 5 pregnancies today end in abortion.

40 million and counting. . .

Two Reactions to the Doctrine of Hell

2007-11-26T23:54:00.000-06:00

I have found that people react in two very different ways when they learn about the traditional Christian doctrine of hell. The doctrine, of course, is the biblical teaching that unrepentant sinners will suffer eternal torment in a place called hell (cf. Matt. 25:46, etc.). The first reaction that I will describe is by far the most common one today. The second one is (IMHO) the correct one, but seems to be strongly disfavored in our contemporary postmodern culture.

The first, more common, reaction to the notion of hell goes like this: "Ugh! God must be a mean, sadistic ogre!" The basic idea behind this popular reaction is that the doctrine of hell, if it's true, casts negative aspersions on the character of God. That is, hell is seen as inconsistent with the idea that God is good and loving.

Now, those who react to hell in this first way can wind up in one of two positions. (1) they can become atheists or agnostics. These, like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), believe that the Bible does teach the doctrine of hell and that the God of the Bible must therefore be really bad and unworthy of serious belief. Alternatively, (2) they can convince themselves that the Bible doesn't really teach the doctrine of hell--perhaps the texts that seem to teach this are not to be taken literally or are simply not true--and they continue to believe in a good and loving God. For the latter group, God (as they understand him) simply would never consign anyone to eternal torment.

The second (I think correct and biblical) reaction to the doctrine of hell is: "Whoa! I must really be bad!" The idea here is that the doctrine of hell, if it's true, casts negative aspersions NOT on God, but on us! Hell, on this view, is perfectly consistent with God's goodness and love. In fact, on this view, if hell did not exist, God would be wicked! He would be unconcerned about justice; uncaring toward the victims of our unrighteous deeds. He would be someone who simply winks at sin and never holds people accountable for the evil that they do. Hell, then, is an indictment against us. It points us to the sad truth about our sinful condition. It points us to the biblical teaching (confirmed in our daily experience) that human beings are morally corrupt, depraved, desperately wicked.

Those who react to hell in this second way are not disposed to see an inconsistency between God's goodness and hell. Rather, they are strongly inclined to feel an inconsistency between God's goodness and the gracious and merciful way he treats us deperados. That is, there seems to be a "problem of God's goodness"--why and how can he be so kind and good to us who are so bad? Why is it that we are not all cast into hell from the moment of our first breaths? (This was the question and the theme of Jonathan Edwards' great sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God").

The problem with the first reaction to hell is that it starts with the assumption that human beings are basically good (or, if bad, not all that terribly so). No wonder then that a God who makes a hell is seen as a malicious ogre! But, if we begin with the assumption that human beings are basically wicked (an idea taught on almost every page of Scripture (cf. Rom. 3:10ff., Eph. 2:1-3, etc.)), one will cry out with Paul, "Oh wretched man that I am! Who will save me from this body of death?" (Rom 7:24). And one will stand awestruck and eternally grateful when one finds that the God who owes him only His eternal wrath casts his sins into a sea of everlasting forgetfulness. Then one will know just how amazing God's grace truly is.

Dawkins-Lennox Debate

2007-10-10T15:00:00.000-05:00

Last week, a debate was held at the University of Alabama-Birmingham between atheist Richard Dawkins and Christian theist John Lennox, both of Oxford University. Though the format was less than ideal, it was still a lively and worthwhile exchange. You can order CDs or DVDs of the debate from Fixed Point Ministries (www.fixed-point.org). Also, the next issue of Areopagus Journal, the apologetics magazine that I edit for the Apologetics Resource Center, will feature a column discussing the debate and adding some arguments and responses to Dawkins that could have been made by Lennox if time had permitted. You can order Areopagus Journal at www.arcapologetics.org.

Perpetual Teenagers

2007-10-02T12:06:00.000-05:00

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has a great commentary on and review of Diana West's new book The Death of the Grown-Up. You can link to it here:

(http://almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1013.

The book and Mohler's commentary lament the cultural phenomenon of near-perpetual adolescence. Many pundits and scientists in our society are telling us that adolescence now extends from puberty to age 34. Age 34! Can you believe it? We live in a society that refuses to grown up. West suggests that it's worse than that--people in our society don't know how to grow up. Moreover, the adult generation seems to work hard to emulate teenagers and 20-somethings. The young people set the cultural agenda and the older folks bend over backwards to accomodate and imitate them. This is, as West points out, a new phenomonon. In earlier times, the young folks looked up to adults and sought to imitate them. What kids wanted to do was to grow up; to become part of the larger (adult) society. But, apparently there is no more adult society. The adult society is collapsing into a perpetual teenager society.

Truth be known, the whole idea of the "teenager" as a distinct demographic entity is a late 20th-century invention. Before the 1950s, there was no such thing as teenagers. There were simply human beings in their teen years working hard in preparation for an adulthood that came very much sooner than age 34. Prior to the 20th-century adulthood usually arrived around age 16 or 17 when the average young man had to go to work an contribute to the family or start one of his own. And the average 16 or 17 year-old woman got married and started having babies. And these young peope were NOT children! The average 16 or 17 year-old a century or more ago was a mature-thinking adult! He/she could handle the reponsibility of adulthood because he/she had spent his/her early teen years learning to do so! But no more. Now we have 34-year-old teenagers who have no desire to grow up and probably couldn't if they wanted to!

Now I'm not saying that we need to return to a culture in which people have to grow up by age 16 or 17. After all, growing up by that age was somewhat a matter of economic necessity. But, there is no virtue in prolonging adolescence (you will only think there is if you think that the purpose of life is "living for the weekend"--which it's not). Requiring our kids to grow up by 20 or 21 isn't asking too much. Maybe even 18 or 19 is reasonable too. Of course, those of us who have "put away childish things" will have to teach them how. Are there enough of us left?

Future Publications

2007-08-20T16:33:00.000-05:00

To whom it may concern, I wanted to let you know about a couple of my writing projects that will be seeing publication in the near future (Lord willing). The Christian philosophy journal Philosophia Christi just accepted my article, “’It Would Have Been Good for that Man if He Had not Been Born’: Human Sinfulness and Hell as a Horrendous Evil." In this article, I argue against the claim that the traditional doctrine of hell constitutes a horrendous evil (an evil which would make the one who suffers it have a life that is not worth living) that calls into question the existence of God. Hopefully this article will be in print in a few months.

Also, Broadman-Holman just agreed to publish the introduction to philosophy text that James Spiegel (Taylor U) and I are currently writing. This book should be finished some time next Spring and then released early in 2009. We hope in this book to capture a niche in the market between the extremes of Christian philosophy texts that are broad in their coverage but superficial, and ones that are more indepth, but cover only a few topics. We also intend to aim at accessibility for an undergraduate audience.

Government, Justice, and Romney

2007-08-03T09:50:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago I posted on the Christian view of government and how it should and should not affect whether a Christian could vote for Mitt Romney for U.S. President. I just discovered an ariticle by Christian scholar John Mark Reynolds making the very same case, but much more thoroughly and effectively than me. I hope all Christians will heed his timely wisdom. Here's the link:

http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2007/04/20/this-next-presidential-election-truly-and-impartially-administer-justice/

Teaching on Book of Exodus

2007-07-18T14:58:00.000-05:00

For those who might be interested, you can hear recordings of Bible studies given by myself and Mike Gaydosh on the Book of Exodus during the Sunday School hour at our church. The link is given below. You can also find our lessons on Genesis and Daniel at the same site.

http://www.gracecovenantbaptist.org/Exodus.html

Spider-Man and the Mortification of Sin

2007-07-17T15:51:00.000-05:00

Okay, I know I've taken my time to get around to it, but I finally saw Spider-Man 3 today. I took my time mainly to save money and go to the discount theater. Also because some of my acquaintances told me it wasn't all that good. After having seen it, I must beg to differ. I really enjoyed it. I'm not yet sure which of the Spidey flicks is my favorite, but this one is a contender.

There are several reasons for this judgment. For one thing, the special effects and action sequences are top notch. I even liked (contrary to some of the aforementioned friends) the romance aspects of the movie (though the scene in the Jazz Club was silly--and Peter Parker be-boppin down the street in a zoot suit was downright goofy!). But, what I liked the most about the movie were the obvious spiritual metaphors in the plot.

For the observant Christian viewer, there are some clear connections (intended or unintended I'm not sure) with Christian theology. I haven't read many reviews of the movie, so perhaps others have already pointed this out--but the black-suit/red suit contrast echoes the biblical theme of taking off the old man and putting on the new man. Along with that theme is the idea of the Christian's struggle agains indwelling sin and the importance of mortifying it. In the film, Spider-Man's body (or is it his suit?) is infected with an alien substance that amplifies his negative characteristics (e.g., his selfishness, desire for revenge, etc.) and turns him into the black-suited Spider-Man. He is led to do some pretty dastardly things under the suit's influence. Eventually Spider-Man realizes that he is being dominated by an evil force and has to fight with all his might to remove the black suit. Interestingly (and this can't be an accident), the climax of his struggle takes place in a church. The symbolism is striking. With the implied help of divine grace, Spider-Man is able to tear off the black suit (the old man with its carnal lusts) and put on the red suit (the new man renewed in holiness and virtue).

Of course, the movie sounds the Christian "bell" with less than crystal clarity. At one point in the movie, Aunt May reminds Peter that he is a "good man" who will find his way. Christians know that there is no one good but God. But, perhaps this is just Aunt May's distorted sentimentalism. When she says this to Peter, he doesn't look entirely convinced. Maybe he knows better--knows, that is, that he really isn't all that good. At the end of the movie he is able to forgive Marko Flint for killing his uncle mainly because he realizes (and confesses) that he has done some bad things too--reminiscent of the Christian call to forgive others because we are forgiven sinners ourselves. In any case the movie does seem a bit ambiguous about whether evil is something outside us that seeks to dominate otherwise good people, or whether evil come from within us. But, as I see it anyway, the movie tends to lean in the latter (Christian) direction as suggested by the fact that the alien substance amplifies bad tendencies in people rather than creates them.

The first Spider-Man movie gave us the well-worn catch-phase "With great power comes great responsibility." This third installment ends with a new one: "We can always choose to do what is right." From a Christian point of view, this is only true with qualification. The Apostle Paul said that "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so], and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:7-8). However, those who have been given the new birth, who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, can always choose to do what is right. We can indeed take off the old man and put on the new, and "be imitators of God" (Eph. 5:1). Not because we are intrinsically good, but because God is "at work in us to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

Eskeptic on the Evolutionary Basis of Religion

2007-05-30T10:08:00.000-05:00

In the most recent edition of eskeptic (www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-05-30.html), skeptic Paul Gabel gives a detailed account of communist Russia's failed attempt to eradicate religion through persecution. He rightly points out that these tactics have little chance of success. Religious (and to some degree Christian) belief not only survives in Russia but characterizes the majority of the population. This is not atypical among persecuted Christian peoples. As the church father Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." What is interesting and difficult to take seriously is Gabel's preferred explanation for why the communists could not succeed. Here it is in his own words:

My personal theory, which is as plausible and unprovable as any other, is that a
religious sense exists as a consequence of the evolutionary process. Over
millions of years hominids with larger brains were favored due to their improved
ability to interact socially, communicate linguistically, and obtain food. As
computational power expanded, these same brains incidentally acquired the
ability to grasp their loneliness in the larger world and to anticipate their own deaths. Those who could not imagine a purpose for living turned to less purposeful lives and were marginally less likely to survive to reproductive age, or even to be interested in reproduction. As people without purpose were weeded out of the gene pool, increasingly large percentages of the surviving population were capable of turning their powerful minds to thoughts of gods, whose “existence” would itself become the purpose of life. Man became an animal that could no longer “live in a world it is unable to understand.”

What is almost ludicrous about this theory is Gabel's implied claim that religion ought to be eliminated from human society. Religion, Gabel apparently thinks, is a bad thing and we would be better off without it. Though religion is "built-in" to our species by evolution, Gabel points to examples of people who resist certain natural impulses (e.g., priests and nuns who make vows of celibacy) to show that, if we value rationality and humanism, we "can overcome a natural religious tendency."

But if religion is really hardwired into us as a survival mechanism, why would or should we wish it to be eradicated any more than we (including Gabel, I suppose) would want to eradicate our sexual desires? If religion contributes to survival, then why not keep it around? Indeed, if most people still "feel the need" for religion, then it probably, on Gabel's theory, is still performing a survival function at least for those people--and on evolutionary grounds that would be a good thing (insofar as athiests can talk coherently about "good" and "bad").

Perhaps Gabel thinks that religion has outlived its usefulness as a survival mechanism; perhaps he might point to religious oppression in the world (Inquisition, Crusades, etc.) to show that religion is now harmful, not benificial. Now rationality and humanism are better suited to our survival. But, why should we believe that? Why can't we see even religious oppression as part of the survival mechanism inherent in religion per se?--people have an innate impulse to defend their religious convictions when they feel them threatened because in their genes is an unconscious "awareness" that religion is necessary for human survival. (I'm not advocating this view, just arguing that there is no reason why Gabel's own theory shouldn't lead to this conclusion rather than the one he would likely draw.)

Would Gabel claim that there is something inherently immoral about religious oppression? It's hard to see how he could say that on his own principles. Neither can he say that rationality and humanism are somehow morally better ways for us to live. His only argument will have to be a pragmatic one, one that shows that religion doesn't contribute to survival as well as some other mechanism. But, I think he would be hard pressed to prove that.

Science and Falsification

2007-05-02T15:12:00.000-05:00

In a recent issue of eskeptic (www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-05-02.html), Robert Ehrlich contributed an interesting piece titled "Science Will Never Explain Everything: That is Why it is So Useful." In the article, Ehrlich wrote:

Science is powerful because it often provides explanations before
observations are made. As Yogi Berra once remarked, “prediction is hard —
especially about the future.” The nature of scientific theories is to make
surprising predictions — the more surprising, the more confident we can be
in the theory should the prediction be fulfilled.
On occasion religious figures also make predictions, most notably about the
end of the world, but I am unfamiliar with any example where the failure of the
world to end on schedule caused a reassessment of the religious leaders in their
fundamental beliefs. Instead, the holy man and the faithful sometimes make some
recalculations, and come up with a new date for the end of the world, or else
give up trying with their faith unshaken — for that is the nature of faith which
requires no evidence to justify it, yet somehow paradoxically it craves
confirming evidence when it can get it.

In this quote, Ehrlich is refers the idea that scientific theories usually have implications which can formulated into predictions about potential empirical observations. The idea, as Ehrlich envisions it, goes something like this: Imagine a scientific theory T. Scientists think hard about T and figure out that if T were actually true, then we ought to be able to see or observe in the world some other phenomenon O. In other words, theory T predicts observation O. So, the scientists go out into the world to look for O. If they find O, then that observation provides some confirming evidence for T. If they don't find O--or, more seriously, if they discover that not-O (i.e., O is false), then theory T is thereby falsified. And the scientist, being the rational creature that he is, will no longer entertain T as a scientific theory.

Because this is how Ehrlich characterizes science, he thinks that science is eminently more rational and useful than religion and religious people. Religious beliefs, he thinks, tend to be unfalsifiable--primarily, it seems, because religious people won't give up their beliefs when they encounter falsifying evidence. This is Ehrlich's point when he talks about the fundamentalist preachers who predict the end of the world. They predict that Armageddon will occur on a certain date, but when the prediction fails to come true, they find some way to go right on believing, simply making adjustments to their theories to cover up the unpleasant failed prediction.

Now I agree with Ehrlich that some Christians (and cultists) may hold on to implausible beliefs in the face of significant falsifying evidence. What I take issue with is his implicit assumption that scientists are immune from this kind of thing. In fact, Ehrlich (at least as far as this article would suggest) holds a pretty naive view of science and how it works. It is true that scientists make predictions from their theories and seek to test them in the way Ehrlich suggests. But, Ehrlich is mistaken in thinking that falsification works in the simple, straightforward way that he describes. Contemporary philosophers of science will tell you that it is virtually impossible to decisively falsify any but the simplest scientific theories. Why? Because--just like those fundamentalist preachers--a scientific theory can be adjusted and modified almost endlessly in minor and major ways to account for, incorporate, or avoid potentially falsifying evidence. And scientists do this kind of thing all the time!

I point this out not to call the rationality of science into question. I believe that it would be a mistake to let a plausible and promising scientific theory be rejected just because an initial prediction of the theory failed to materialize. If a small adjustment in some peripheral details of a theory can be made that leaves the major aspects of the theory intact, but also has the fortuitous consequence that the failed prediction is no longer a prediction of the theory at all (and thus no longer potentially falsifying), then by all means the scientist should make the adjustment and continue their research program. Such a practice is eminently rational. It is only when "anomalies" increase greatly and the adjustments to the theory become more and more ad hoc that scientists should abandon the theory. But, if this is rational for scientists to do, then one cannot automatically object when religious people do similar things. (I would argue that the problem with the Armageddon predictors is just that their adjustments are ad hoc.)

Let me end, however, with this observation. It seems to me that there is one scientific theory that, if we follow Ehrlich's view of science, ought to be discarded immediately. I speak of Darwinian evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution based on natural selection predicts that there ought to be millions and millions of transitional forms in the fossil record. However, to date, not a single undisputed example of a transitional form has been found--despite many decades of careful searching. On Ehrlich's criteria, the theory of evolution has been falsified. Will Erhlich follow his own advice and now repudiate the theory of evolution?

Virginia Tech and Human Depravity

2007-04-20T10:52:00.000-05:00

This week began with the news of the horrible events at Virginia Tech. Such senseless violence is incomprehensible. My first thought when I heard the news of the massacre of 32 people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time when Cho Seung Hui mercilessly took their lives was, "How could any human being do such a thing?" I don't think I'm the only person to have reacted that way. I suspect that most people in our country have had that thought. Of course, that question arises from people who have been morally educated and trained to hate this kind of violence--rightly so.

But, after a few moments, when I had thought about it some more, I came to realize that my question was misguided. From the perspective of a Christian worldview, a better question has to be: "How come I haven't done this kind of horrible violence?" The Bible teaches that all of us are sinners from birth (Ps. 51:5, Eph. 2:1-3) and that deep down in our hearts, apart from the saving work of Christ, there lies a spirit of rebellion against God, a spirit of perversity and violence no less malevolent than that exhibited by Cho Seung Hui (see Rom 3:10ff.).

I have come to realize, then (and I hope the readers do to), that an appropriate response to the Virginia Tech massacre--after the response of outrage and sympathy--is: "There but for the grace of God go I."

A Mormon President?

2007-04-05T17:15:00.000-05:00

Driving to work this morning I listened to a radio talk show in which the hosts and their callers were discussing the hoopla over Mitt Romney running for President of the U.S. The hoopla, of course, concerns the fact that Romney is a Mormon. Most conservative Christians understand that Mormonism is a pseudo-Christian cult. They believe things that are antithetical to essential Christian doctrines. For example, Mormons believe that God was once a man on another planet who lived a good Mormon life and then graduated to become a god himself and form and populate his own planet with his own spirit children. And they believe that we, the spirit children of this "god", can likewise achieve godhood by our being good Mormons and then move on to rule over and populate our own planets.

Pretty wild, eh? And because Romney, as a Mormon, probably believes these anti-Christian doctrines, many Christians are saying that they could never vote for him for President. One caller to the radio program adamantly insisted that he could not vote for a man who advocates what he, as a Christian, considers sin. And Romney's heretical beliefs are sinful. Ergo, he cannot vote for Romney. This attitude I believe to be fairly common among conservative Christians. But, this attitude toward Romney is totally and completely wrong-headed. What's more, it is patently unbiblical. And I say this as someone who agrees that Mormonism is a cult and that Romney's beliefs are sinful.

A few centuries ago, the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther said, "I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian." His point was that being a Christian did not automatically make one a good ruler. And, on the flipside, being a Muslim (or follower of some other false religion) did not automatically make one a bad ruler. Good rulership falls under the rubric of God's common grace and natural revelation and it falls on the Christian and the non-Christian alike. Luther believed that unbelievers can and do establish just governments and that being a Christian was not a requirement for being a good government leader. Unbelievers can have the wisdom and knowledge required to rule a nation.

Where did Luther get this idea from? He got it from the Bible! The Bible gives us many examples of political leaders who were not followers of the one, true God; who were idol worshippers no less than Mitt Romney, and portrays many of this rulers as just and wise. It portrays their rule and authority as legitimate in the eyes of God and worthy of Christian submission and respect. Examples include Nebuchadnezzar who was served faithfully by Daniel and his friends Shadrach, Mishach, and Abednego; Darius of Persia who Daniel also served; and then there was Cyrus of Persia whom God called, "My annointed one" (Messiah). Think also of Ahaseurus whom Esther married and submitted to along with her uncle Mordecai. And there is Ben-Hadad of Aram who was served by Naaman, the soldier converted to the true faith by Elisha. In the New Testament, think of Felix and Festus who were given respect and obedience by Paul--they were not perfect morally or religiously, but their rule was seen as legtimate and to be submitted to. Consider as well how the apostle Paul commanded all Christians everywhere to submit to the governing authorities whoever they were--because they are ordained by God (Rom 13). Paul said this when Nero was on the throne of Rome.

I point all of this out to argue that there can be no theological reason to refuse to vote for Mitt Romney. Unless one has been deceived into believing the view called theonomy (and its half-baked sister, the Religious Right) which holds that Christians have an obligation to work for the establishment of specifically Christian governments, then there can be no objection per se to electing a Mormon. The only issue that matters is: what does he stand for? What are his values and principles? What policies will he implement? Will he establish and maintain justice? The Bible does not teach that we have to have Christian governments; it only teaches that we should have just governments. And a government can be just whether or not the President and other leaders are Christian.

Skepticism and Faith

2007-03-21T15:50:00.000-05:00

I recently received a form letter from Kendrick Frazier, editor of the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, invinting me to subscribe to that publication. For those who don't know, the Skeptical Inquirer is a magazine dedicated to questioning and debunking myths, superstitions, conspiracy theories, urban legends, and other ideas that the publishers consider hair-brained--like religion. That I would get such and advertisement is not all that interesting. What was of interest was something Frazier said in that part of his letter where he set out a definition of the term "skepticism." He wrote: "skepticism is just a common-sense unwillingness to take anything on faith."

When I read that definition my first response was bewilderment. My second response was to chuckle. My third response was to shake my head in a brief exertion of pity for Frazier who is apparently in the grip of a powerful self-delusion. Why would I say that? Because it is patently and obviously false that anyone can live with an unwillingness to take anything on faith. That is, it is impossible not to take at least some things on faith. And if skepticism is defined as an unwillingness to take anything on faith, then no one is (or even can be) a skeptic--least of all Frazier and his skeptical cohorts at the Skeptical Inquirer!

Let me prove my point by listing a few items that I am fairly confident that Frazier believes but that he has no choice but to take on faith:

1. There is a mind-independent external world.
2. There are other minds than his own.
3. He has existed for more than 5 minutes.
4. His cognitive faculties (intellect, senses, etc.) are reliable.
5. Consciousness is a physical/natural phenomenon.
6. Evolution occured.
7. Science is the only (or most authoritative) source of knowledge.
8. He can live without taking anything on faith.

None of the above beliefs can be proven with certainty. Many of them cannot be proven in any sense, but must be assumed or presupposed. In either case, faith is involved.

The Tomb of Jesus Still not Found

2007-03-05T10:33:00.000-06:00

Last night I watched the Discovery Channel special The Lost Tomb of Jesus. In the program, it is hypothesized that a tomb discovered in 1980 in Talpiot, Israel (near Jerusalem) held the bones of Jesus of Nazereth and his family, in particular, his wife Mary Magdalene and his son Jude, the Virgin Mary, and James, Jesus' brother. The clear and undisputed facts are that the tomb contained 10 ossuaries (bone boxes), one carrying the inscription "Jesus, son of Joseph," and others with the names "Mary," "Mariamne Mara," "Jude, son of Jesus,"and "Matthew." From these facts, it is (tentatively) concluded that this timb is very likely the tomb of the Jesus worshipped by Christians for 2,000 years.

The problems with this hypothesis are so numerous that it would take a book to explain them all. Below I will briefly mention a few of the more prominent problems. For those who want more, let me encourage you to take a look at the blogs of NT scholars Ben Witherington and Darrell Bock:

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/

http://dev.bible.org/bock/

The major problems, as I see it, are these:

1. The statistics. The maker of the documdrama hired a statistician who concluded that there was a 1 in 600 chance that the tomb was NOT that of Jesus of Nazareth. IOW, it is a high probability that this is Jesus' family tomb. But, this conclusion is based on some unwarranted assumptions. First, that the first "Mary" in the tomb was the "Jesus" in the tomb's mother. There is no evidence to indicate that. It could have been a sister, a cousin, a wife, etc. Second, there is no evidence that the second "Mary" (Mariamne Mara) was Jesus' wife--again, even given the DNA testing, it could have been a half-sister or a cousin or an aunt. So, the program is totally bogus when it asks how many Jesus's in Jerusalem would have had a father named Joseph, a mother named Mary, and a wife named Mary, and then concludes that it's 1 in 600 that this wasn't Jesus of Nazareth. What should have been asked instead was how many Jesus's in Jerusalem would have had a father named Joseph and two female relatives named Mary--and the answer is: a whole heck of a lot! Joseph, Jesus, and Mary were very common names in 1st-century Israel (e.g., 1 in 4 women were named Mary!). One statistician on Witherington's blog calculates that the actual odds that this IS Jesus' tomb are (at best) 1 in 400--IOW, highly unlikely! And if you throw in the fact that we have no evidence at all (outside this tomb) that the NT Jesus had a son or a close relative named Matthew, then the odds get even worse.

2. The Names. The program postulates that Mary Magdalene was also known as Mariamne (a dimunitive form of Mary), and they cite a second century Gnostic text, The Acts of Philip, as proof. There are two problems here. First, there is no evidence from the first century to confirm this view (Mary Magdalene is consistently referred to as "Mary" in the NT) and simply taking the Gnostic text's word for it is anachronistic. Second, the Mariamne in the Acts of Philip is described as the the sister of Philip and is nowhere identified as Mary Magdelene. Also, the show says that the term "Mara" on the same ossuary means "master", and thus shows that Mariamne (Mary) was a leader in the Christian Church and this supports the view that it was Mary Magdalene in that tomb. However, "Mara" is a well-known, shortened variant of "Martha." So, the ossuary inscription simply reads "Mary Martha" and indicates either that one woman had two names or that two women were buried in the same ossuary.

Also, it is important to point out that Jesus is nowhere called by his friends and followers in any documents we have "son of Joseph" (cf. Luke 3:21). The fact that this phrase occurs on the ossuary is a huge prima facie reason to deny that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. And when we add that another name in the tomb (Matthew) is nowhere else associated with Jesus' family, the basis for that denial is even stronger.

Have they found the lost tomb of Jesus? I don't think so.

Hooked on 24

2007-01-31T15:34:00.000-06:00

Encouraged by other Christian philosopher-friends, I try not to watch a lot of TV. There are only a couple of shows I watch on a regular basis. One of them, fairly recently acquired, is 24. The show is addictive, and I have to say that I am hooked. It must be the incessant cliffhanger endings on each episode.

However, the more I watch the program, the more I find myself analyzing its underlying philosophy and worldview. There is no doubt that the show is "politically conservative" and that's why a lot of conservatives rave about it, I'm sure. But, all kinds of ethical issues and questions come up if you pay close attention. Questions about the justice of war. Questions about the morality of torture in wartime. Trust and honesty (or the lack thereof). Many of the ethical decisions made by the characters (esp. the main character Jack Bauer) seem based on utilitarian considerations--the idea that what's right is bringing about the most happiness for the most people--though there are times when Jack makes more principled decisions as a deontologist would.

I would be very interested in what any readers out there think about 24 from a Christian and/or ethical viewpoint. Are the themes in the show and the actions of its protagonists consistent or inconsistent with Christian belief? Or sometimes consistent and sometimes not? How and when?

Should the Qur'an be Used for an Oath of Office?

2006-12-07T09:16:00.000-06:00

Recently elected Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is a Muslim, and he wants to use the Qur'an and not the Bible to take his oath of office. Take a look at the editorial posted on Doug Groothuis' blog responding to this issue which outlines the problems with Ellison's request and the potential cultural disaster that could result if it is granted. Groothuis' blog is found at:

http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

Will Muslims Take Over the World?

2006-12-01T10:17:00.000-06:00

I have been reading a facinating and troubling book entitled America Alone by Mark Steyn. The thesis of he book is that within a few decades at most America will be standing alone against a fascist Islamic empire that encompasses not only the Middle East and a lot of Asia, but most of Europe as well. This empire will not come about by military force. It will come about because Muslim immigrants will take over many European countries from the inside.

The possibility for this Islamic conquest has arisen because, while the Muslim birth rate in these European countries is high (and their populations growing), the birth rates of the native French, Italians, Germans, Spanish, etc., is in serious decline--in fact the birth rates in these countries is low enough to invite the possibility of the extinction of these European peoples.

Consider thre birth rate in the United States. Steyn reports that in the U.S., there are 2.1 births per woman--the level which demographers claim is barely sufficient for a stable population. In other words, Americans are having just enough children to replace those who die. If this rate of birth continues or increases a little, then America can escape an Islamic take-over from within. But, the birth rates among non-Muslims in these European nations is well below 2.1. They are in serious population decline. This also means that the native populations in Europe are getting "older"--there are more senior citizens compared to younger citizens. This forecasts economic disaster for these European welfare states before very long, with many of the younger Muslims (who will be in the majority soon) poised to seize control of the governments of these nations.

Charles Martel is turning over in his grave! What he did in 732 by defeating the Muslims at the Battle of Tours (preventing them from moving from Spain into central Europe), is being undone by the economic stupidity, political correctness, and self-indulgence of his descendants.

What can we do about this Muslim take-over of Europe and (possibly) the world? If Steyn is right, it is probably too late for Europe. "Eurabia" (as he calls it) is likely a foregone conclusion. And even if the Europeans could do something to prevent this disaster, they don't have the political guts to do it. As for America, we need to do two things. First, we need to educate people about this threat. We don't want to live in an Islamic theocracy. But that may lie down the road if we don't wake up. Second, we need to start having babies.

So, ladies and gentlemen, lisen up! Forget about that new house or new boat you want to buy. Forget about the dream vacations you can take when you're not saddled with children. Let go of your self-indulgent lifestyle! The common good is at stake here! Go home. Put on some romantic music. Turn the lights down low. Get into bed and start saving the world!

Skeptics Just Don't Get Moral Argument

2006-10-17T11:26:00.000-05:00

In a recent edition of eskeptic (www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-10-03.html), Robert Eberle reviews Francis Collins's book The Language of God. Because Collins is a theistic evolutionist who believes in Darwinian evolution but believes that it is guided by God, Eberle has both praise and criticism of the book. He praises Collins for his defense of evolution, but goes on the attack when Collins offers arguments for God's existence, especially when he offers the moral agument for God's existence which contends that God is the best explanation for the existence of objective morality. Eberle writes,

To a large extent Collins relies on arguments from the works of C.S. Lewis for his justification that God must exist. He is particularly smitten by the idea of a universal Moral Law which, like Lewis, appears to him as being something that could only be divinely authored. It is obvious, Collins asserts, that something like the awareness of right and wrong has to have come from some higher power, else why would it exist across all cultures and be unique to the human species?
In fact, Collins asserts, beside this moralistic awareness, it is such things as “the development of language, awareness of self, and the ability to imagine the future” that are part of the enumeration of the specific characteristics of modern humans. The fact that language, for example, is the product of a reasoning mind that, over time, develops as a result of genetically derived mental improvements makes it difficult for the reader to accept the author’s declarations. If language is a uniquely human quality, and it has come about from genetically driven evolution, why no reasoning that provides the justification for the development of ethical behavior? To Collins, the very awareness of what is right and wrong can only be from some divine power, but his reasoning does not support it. Although elsewhere in the book he is highly critical of the “god of the gaps” argument employed by Intelligent Design creationists, who chase down the gaps in scientific knowledge to proclaim that this is where God intervenes, Collins’ deduction that evolution cannot account for the Moral Law is just another gap. He reviews some of the modern evolutionary explanations for the evolution of the moral sentiments, but he dismisses them as inadequate, and then draws his conclusion. This is the fallacy of personal incredulity — “I can’t think of how X can be explained naturally, ergo X must have a supernatural explanation.”

The basic idea behind Eberle's critique of Collins is this: Since Collins can see how evolution can provide an explantion for language and mind, he ought to be able to see how evolution can provide and explanation for morality, too. He ought, that is, to avoid the god-of-the-gaps with regard to morality just like he avoids hte god-of-the-gaps with regard to language and mind. Unfortunately, Eberle's critique of Collins is doubly defective.

First, Eberle and Collins both think that science in general and evolution in particular can and do provide an adequate explanation for the origin of human consciousness and it's capacities for language, reasoning, etc. But, it does nothing of the sort. There is no scientific theory on the table anywhere in the world that even comes close to providing a naturalistic account of the mind--and this is something that even atheist philosophers and neuro-scientists are aware of. No evolutionary "just-so" story cuts mustard here. Even Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic and eskeptic admitted this fact in a recent debate with Doug Geivett at the Universtity of Alabama at Birmingham. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that a naturalistic account of mind is impossible, but the point is that Eberle and Collins ought to know better than to write and talk as if such an account is "in the bag". Not only is it not in the bag, nobody has the remotest clue as to how a naturalistic account of the mind might go. This is why it is disingenuous at best to accuse the intelligent design guys of the god-of-the-gaps.

Second, even if there were a naturalistic account of the mind and language, this would have no bearing on the question of morality. This is where I think Collins has got it right and Eberle has missed the boat. Eberle thinks that defenders of the moral argument simply commit his so-called fallacy of personal incredulity--we can't (yet) explain morality naturally, therefore, it must have a supernatural origin. Perhaps Collins' version of the moral argument for God commits this fallacy, but most philosophers who defend the argument do not. The problem for a naturalistic account of morality is not simply that it seems hard to explain it natually. Rather, it's that the existence of an objective morality seems postively inconsistent with naturalistic principles (as even failed naturalistic ethical theories seem to show). In fact, Eberle himself proves the point when he goes on to say. . .

Collins then compounds the problem with his arguments by asserting, without foundation, that altruism is unquestionably good, and that it can only be explained by the existence of the Moral Law. The fact that the goodness of altruism is a subjective judgment and open to considerable debate is ignored. Furthermore, he never addresses the studies that have shown that altruism is not unique to the human species, and he never explains why the altruistic behavior of a member of the group could not be something that evolved, initially, simply as a necessity for the survival of the group.

What Eberle says here is that Collins fails to realize that morality may not be objective. That is, moral properties and values may simply be subjective beliefs that we have adopted as a species in order to better survive--but, there is nothing objectively true or binding about morality. Here Eberle is echoing the sentiments of other evolutionary naturalists like Dawkins and Ruse who claim that morality is simply a social convention coughed up by evolution, but as such is jsut an illusion--there's nothing objectively good about altruism and nothing objectively bad about rape and murder. But, this is precisely why Eberle's critique of Collins' moral argument fails. Collins is trying to explain why a objective moral law exists. And naturalism just won't do as an explanatory hypothesis. Sure, if morality is a subjective illusion and there really isn't such a thing as right and wrong, then evolutionary naturalism provides a perfectly good expalanation for why we all mistakenly think that right and wrong exist. But, if an objective moral law really does exist, then naturalism is almost certainly false. And it would seem that even Eberle would have to agree in that case that no fallacy of personal incredulity has been committed.

What Must We Believe?

2006-08-31T15:38:00.000-05:00

Are there things that I must believe if I can legitimately call myself a Christian? In our atheological age, it is always good to be reminded that there are indeed some essential doctrinal truths--truths that define the very essence or being of the Christian faith. Christians, of course, differ among themselves over many doctrinal issues. nevertheless, there at least seven doctrinal issues that Christians throughout the ages have considered essential. In what follows, I will describe these seven doctrines and provide a biblical justification for them. I invite readers to comment and ask questions.

1. The Deity and Humanity of Christ
It is essential to the Christian faith that Jesus of Nazareth is God incarnate. This means that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. As the Chalcedonian Definition puts is, Jesus is “truly God and truly man.” He has two distinct natures, human and divine, which are “unconfused, unchanged, indivisible, and inseparable.”

That Jesus is God is clearly taught in the Bible. John declares, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Paul wrote that Jesus was “in very nature God” (Phil. 2:6) and that in him “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). The Lord Jesus himself, referring to Moses’ encounter with God in the burning bush, declared, “Before Abraham was born, ‘I Am’”—for which the Jews took up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

Jesus’ full humanity is also set forth plainly in Scripture. He was “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4); he grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52); he hungered and thirsted (Luke 4:2; John 19:19); he died (John 19:30). Both John and Paul underscore the dual nature of Christ by teaching that in Christ God became a man. John says that the divine Word “became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14), and Paul explains that though Jesus was in very nature God, he “emptied himself. . .being made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7).

2. The Trinity
Belief in the deity of Christ necessitates affirming the doctrine of the Trinity. Some people, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, mock the idea the Jesus is God by asking such questions as, “Well, if Jesus was God while on the earth and he died on the cross, then who was running the universe while he was in the grave?” and “If Jesus was God, then who was he praying to in the Garden of Gethsemene?” What those who ask such questions fail to realize is that the doctrine of the Trinity is designed (in part) to directly address those kinds of issues! Since the universe was obviously still under divine control while Jesus was in the grave, and since Jesus would not likely pray to himself, there must be more than one divine person! This logic finds confirmation in the Bible. When Jesus (who is God) was baptized, we are told that the Holy Spirit descended upon him like a dove and a voice spoke from heaven and said, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased” (Matt. 3:17). Three distinct and divine persons are simultaneously present in this event: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Does this mean that Christians believe in three gods? Not at all. The doctrine of the Trinity is not the view that there are three gods. Neither is it the absurd view that there are three gods and one God at one time. Early church leaders explained that the Son and the Holy Spirit were of the same essence or substance with the Father, though they are nevertheless distinct personalities. Though containing an element of mystery that we may never fully understand, the doctrine of the Trinity asserts that there is one and only one God, who exists simultaneously in three personalities.

3. Original Sin
Having a right view of Jesus requires a right view of human beings. We believe that Jesus is our Savior. We believe that he died for our sins (see below). We in fact believe, as several biblical texts indicate, that Jesus had to die—his death is somehow necessary for our salvation (see Luke 24:26; Rom. 3:26). Moreover, as we will see, our salvation is secured not by any of our works, but by grace alone through faith alone. For all of this to make sense, human beings must all be in a certain condition. Theologians call this condition original sin. This means that every human being is born into a state of guilt and corruption inherited from our first parent, Adam. In other words, we are born sinners. We are born, that is, with a nature that is bent toward sin and rebellion and which is incapable of doing any good in the sight of God.

Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Worse, “there is none who does good, not even one” (Rom 3:12). Worse still, “the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7-8). David explains why we are in such a terrible condition when he says of himself, “I was. . .sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5). Paul echoes this idea when he says that all of us are “by nature objects of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). We come into the world in a state of original sin because Adam, as the representative of the whole human race, sinned on our behalf: “the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men. . . . through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:18, 19).

The implication of original sin is that we all naturally stand under the just condemnation of God with no hope that we can earn his favor and escape his wrath. This is where Jesus comes in.

4. The Substitutionary Atonement
Romans 5:8 announces the gracious news: “But God demonstrates his own love toward us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” We cannot save ourselves. We cannot do anything to escape God’s just wrath. But God the Father, in love and mercy, sent God the Son to die for us. For Christ to die for us means that he died on our behalf, for our benefit. More than that, however, he died in our stead. The Apostle John states that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins. . .” (1 John 2:2). That big word “propitiation” has to do with the satisfaction of God’s wrath; with the appeasement of God’s just anger toward our sin. Paul makes this even clearer in Romans, when he writes,

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement [ propitiation], through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)

Notice that Paul not only uses the important word “propitiation” in this text, but he also clearly connects the death of Christ with God’s justice. Christ was presented as a sacrifice on the cross so that God might be seen as both “just and the one who justifies”—Just because he does not leave our sins unpunished, and the justifier because he punishes Christ in our place and imputes to us his perfect righteousness through faith (vv. 21-22).

All of this means that Christ’s death on the cross served as a substitutionary atonement. He died as our substitute to satisfy the demands of God’s holy justice regarding our sin. It is only because of the substitutionary death of Christ that those who believe are saved. This is why the substitutionary atonement is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith.

5. The Resurrection of Jesus
The Christian faith stands or falls on the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. Paul made it clear that “if Christ is not raised, then your faith is worthless” (1 Cor. 15:17). If Christ is not raised, then he is still dead and buried. If Christ is not raised, then we have no reason to believe his exalted claims about himself, namely, that he is the incarnate God who determines the eternal destinies of every human being. If Christ is not raised, then we have no hope that our sins have been forgiven—we would be, as Paul woefully laments, “still in [our] sins.” As the Apostle says elsewhere, Christ “was raised because of our justification” (Rom. 4:25). In other words, Jesus’ resurrection guarantees us that the Father accepted his death on the cross as payment for our sin. Without his resurrection, we would have a sure indication that his death on the cross accomplished nothing at all.

“But now Christ has been raised from the dead,” declares Paul (1 Cor. 15:20). He was seen alive again by Peter and the other apostles, as well as James and Paul, and even 500 people at one time (see 1 Cor. 15:3-8)![ii] So, those who believe may have assurance that their sins are forgiven, and that just as Christ was raised from the dead, so they will be, too.

6. Justification by Faith Alone
“Justification” is the act by which God declares sinners just or righteous in his sight. Every pseudo-Christian religion holds that faith on the part of the sinner plays a role in justification. Genuine Christianity, however, teaches that justification is by faith alone. Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, the International Church of Christ, and other pseudo-Christian religions deny that justification is by faith alone. Rather, they teach that justification is by faith plus works. For example, though the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are clear that God’s grace is necessary to put a person on the road to justification, and to give him strength to pursue holiness, they also declare that justification comes at the end of a process in which the sinner, through moral effort and good works, achieves true, inward righteousness. In other words, for the Catholic (and others) justification follows sanctification.

The biblical view, however, is that justification precedes sanctification. By grace alone through faith alone, God declares sinners justified. Then, by the power of the Holy Spirit, justified sinners enter into the pursuit of holiness. As Scripture says, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). And how could it be any clearer than it is in Romans 4:5, where we are told: “However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.”

Salvation is an unmerited gift of God’s sovereign mercy. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is crucial to preserving this truth. If our good works play any role in acquiring justification, then salvation is not entirely by grace, and it would not be true (contrary to Eph. 2:9) that no one could boast.

7. The Second Advent of Christ
Though often left out of these types of discussions, it is another essential doctrine that Jesus Christ, who departed the earth shortly after his resurrection (Luke 24:50-5; Acts 1:9-11), will return bodily ot this planet. Jesus told his disciples before his crucifixion, "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and receive you to myself" (John 14:3). After his ascension, the angels told the disciples, "This Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come in the same manner that you have seen him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11). This is why the Apostles' Creed declares that Christ "ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead."

One of the reasons why the Second Coming if Jesus is essential is that Christians believe (and the Bible teaches) that we are currently living in what Scipture calls "this age" (cf. Mark 10:29-30; Luke 20:34-36; 1 Tim. 6:17-19, etc.), and age characterized by corruption, imperfection, sin, death, and pain. Christian believe and hope that "this age" is not the final state, that it will give way to "the age to come" in which we will live in incorruptable resurrection bodies that are free of disease, pain, sin, and death. The demarcation between "this age" and "the age to come" is the return of Christ. This is why Paul reminds us of the importance of pursuing holiness in this life. The reason is hat we are not citizens of this world or age, but "our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil 3:20).

CONCLUSION
Before I close this brief article, I want to head off a possible misunderstanding. I have called the six doctrines outlined above the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. By that I mean that these doctrines are of the esse of the Christian faith; that is, they constitute the very being of Christianity. Without these doctrines, there would be no Christianity. I have also said that these doctrines are necessary for a person to legitimately call himself a Christian.

Now does this mean that a person who does not believe all six of these doctrines is automatically lost and going to Hell? Does this mean that a person must understand and believe all six of these doctrines before he can be saved? The answer to both questions is “no.” I dare say that few people who are converted to faith in Christ have a full understanding of the Trinity, for example. Theologians have a hard time delineating exactly how much a person has to believe and understand before he can be converted, and so it is safe to not be dogmatic at this point.

However, this much can be said with confidence: any person who understands these doctrines and their significance for the Christian worldview, yet conscientiously denies any one of them—that person is not a Christian (or, at least, you and I have no reason to believe that he is a Christian). What this means is that a person may ignorantly espouse a heresy without being a heretic. But a person who knowingly embraces a heresy is a heretic whose eternal soul is in danger. This is why Christians must defend sound doctrine and reach out in love to those who are in error.

[Most of this article previously appeared in my "The Genuine Article: The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith," Areopagus Journal 2:3 (July 2002): 31-35.]

Church for Skeptics

2006-08-22T16:01:00.000-05:00

A TV ministry program called Church for Skeptics hosted by Dan Arsenault is now available online. Myself and other members of the Apologetics Resource Center staff participate in several episodes. Check it out at:

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=church+for+skeptics

A Time for War

2006-08-08T16:54:00.000-05:00

King Solomon in his masterwork Ecclesiastes (actually God's masterwork) wrote, "For everything there is a season." Among the things for which there is a season, he continued, there is a "time for war and a time for peace" (Eccl 3:8). I have come to believe in recent days that now is a time for war. No, I'm not talking about spiritual warfare--I'm talking about real, guns and bombs warfare.

In the last month, tha nation of Israel has been engaged in a life-or-death struggle with the terrorist army "Hezbollah." They are doing what any sane nation would do if attacked by such thugs. They are waging war to defend themselves and to secure a lasting and just peace. Yet, the cry from every corner it seems is that Israel must restrain herself. The U.N. and others are calling for a ceasefire, acting as if the worst possible scenario is further fighting and bloodshed. They are wrong. A worse outcome is a "peace" that is not just and not permanent. And this pseudo-peace will be the inevitable result if Israel does anything less than wipe Hezbollah from the face of the earth.

The pacifists and those who believe that "one man's terrorist is just another man's freedom-fighter" refuse to come to grips with the fact that there are people, organizations, and nations who are bound and determined by fanatical religious conviction to eradicate not only Israel from the Earth, but the U.S. and every other free nation as well. They have ipso facto declared war on all of us. There is no negotiating with them. There is no ceasefire possible with radical Islam--a religion of hate and violence. Any so-called ceasefire would only be an opportunity for them to reorganize and rearm and plot and plan more destruction.

I believe that the right course of action is for our government, and every other free government that is courageous enough to do it, to declare war on radical Islam. To vow to destroy and bring regime change any organization or nation that has cried "death to America" or harbors or supports Islamist terrrorism in any way. This means Hezbollah. This mean Syria. This means Iran.

It is a time for war.

Two Books on the Best-sellers List

2006-06-27T10:11:00.000-05:00

I was just browsing through the local newpaper and noticed what seemed to me to be an ironic juxtiposition of two books on the New York Times Best Sellers list. Under fiction, the number 4 ranked best seller is Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkin's The Rapture, the lastest installment in their "Left Behind" series (actually the new prequel series to Left Behind). Will their nonsense never stop??!--I guess not, not as long as Christians (and non-Christians, too!) keep wanting to buy this drivel.

What's very interesting to me, though, is that right alongside The Rapture, the number 1 best seller this week under non-fiction is Ann Coulter's Godless-- a book that exposes the religious nature of political liberalism. I have been reading Coulter's book myself with great delight. Though her satire is sometimes too biting for my taste, her analysis of liberal ideology seems to me to be right on the money.

But why do I find the juxtipostion of these two books so interesting? Both books are written by Christians, both books are no doubt being read by many conservative Christians (with approval of their respective theological messages, no doubt). And yet, the underlying theological themes of each book couldn't be more different! The Left Behind books teach a particular view of the relationship between Christianity and earthly culture that is patently pessimistic. The world is going to Hell in a handbasket, and all that poor persecuted Christians can do is hang on for the rapture. There is no call for cultural engagement, no need to be salt and light so as to transform human culture and make it better as we wait for Jesus' return.

Coulter, on the other hand, seems to care very much about cultural engagement (she's actually doing it!). She has written several books, including Godless, in which she challenges unbiblical thinking in the political realm; she is "destroying arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God." It seems to me that Coulter's approach to Christ and Culture is much closer to the Bible's view than LaHaye's and Jenkin's. Many Christians may not agree with her approach or with some of her political views, but she is nonetheless seeking to fulfill the Bible's cultural mandate.

The irony, though, is that Christian readers like both books and yet have no clue that their underlying presuppostions about the Christian's relation to culture are completely contradictory. Go figure.

Christian Philosophy in China!

2006-06-22T13:07:00.000-05:00

Hi, folks! I'm sorry I haven't posted in a while, but I've been busy. I have been trying to make the transition to my new position as Associate Professor of Philosophy and Aplogetics at Southeastern Bible College. Moveover, I have just recently returned from a trip to China. Sponsored by the Society of Christian Philosophers, I was invited to give lectures on various aspects of Christian philosophy at Xiamen University in Xiamen, China. Can you believe it? It still amazes me that I could go to that country and give lectures that more or less defended Christianity at a secular Chinese university. I guess what amazes me even more is that such a thing is becoming almost impossible to do in the good ole USA!

For those who may be interested, here are the titles of the lectures gave. If there is any interest, I may give some details later on their actual content:

"Religion and Science: Are They Compatible?"
"Do We Have Religious Knowledge?"
"A Christian Ethical Theory"

After each lecture, there was oportunity for extended Q&A. There was a lot of good discussion, though I have to say that most of the questions the students asked had little to do with the content of my lectures. In fact, I found it quite humorous that the first question asked on the afternoon of my first lecture was, "What do you think of the Da Vinci Code?" American pop culture has very long arms!!!

Three Apologists Every Christian Should Know

2006-05-19T14:10:00.000-05:00

The next issue of Areopagus Journal (due out in a week or two) will highlight the contribution of three 20th-century men to the field of apologetics (the rational defense of the Christian faith). These three men are C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, and Alvin Plantinga.

These men are significantly different in their aproaches to apologetics, as well as in their various intellectual skills. Yet, in their own way, they have made a huge impact on the Christian church and on our culture. Of course, there are many other contemporary apologists we could have highlighted in this journal issue. We did not select these three because we agree with everything they wrote. We don't. These were selected because, without doubt, they have had the greatest overall influence on the field--Lewis and Schaeffer primarily at the popular level, and Plantinga at the academic level.

I hope that you will order a copy of the journal and read about these giants of the faith. You can order Areopagus Journal at: www.arcapologetics.org.

The Gospel of Judas: More Gnostic Nonsense

2006-04-19T16:55:00.000-05:00

Last Sunday night I watched the National Geographic Special on “The Gospel of Judas.” As usual with other recent programs of this sort that deal with the topic of the historical Jesus, I came away somewhat frustrated, perhaps even angry—not because the program attacked my personal beliefs or challenged the truth of Christianity, but because (once again) shoddy historical research and politically motivated revisionist history were being passed on to a gullible, biblically illiterate public as indisputable fact.

The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic gospel similar in many respects to other “lost” gospels that have become the subject of popular discussion in recent years due to the popularity of the best-seller, The Da Vinci Code—works such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. As The Gospel of Judas has it, Judas was not the villain that orthodox Christians have portrayed for 2000 years. Rather, he was Jesus’ most trusted disciple, and the only one who truly understood his mission. According to the story, Jesus actually gave Judas the task of “betraying” him so that Jesus could die on the cross and be freed from his physical body (Gnostics believe physical stuff to be evil). So, Jesus’ betrayal and death were apparently not evil acts in themselves, but spiritual necessities designed to release Jesus from a physical prison. Rather than an evil traitor, Judas was actually a hero and the recipient of the secret knowledge (gnosis) required for true salvation.

Now why is this a big deal? Why would we think this Gnostic gospel anything more than a harmless historical curiosity? It’s because the producers of the National Geographic special, inspired by the revisionist history of Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman (the two scholars given the bulk of the airtime on the show), are pushing the idea that the Gospel of Judas presents us with a picture of Jesus and of early Christianity that is just as authentic, and perhaps more authentic, than the portrait of Jesus and the church that we find in the four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Ehrman and Pagels have made a name for themselves in recent years by pushing the thesis that in early Christianity there was no “orthodoxy,” no single standard of belief about the identity and mission of Jesus. Instead, the early church manifested a great deal of doctrinal diversity with many different, even conflicting, views of Jesus. What is their proof for this idea?—the so-called Gnostic Gospels, many of which were contained in the Nag Hammadi library, a collection of Gnostic works discovered in Egypt in 1945. So, according to Pagels and Ehrman (and the National Geographic Society), there existed in the early church about 30 gospels, not just four, and these gospels show that early Christianity was a mosh-posh of theological traditions and it wasn’t until the third and fourth centuries that the camp we call “orthodox Christianity” one supremacy through political oppression of opposing version of Christianity.

It ought to be enough to respond to this theory with one word: hogwash! For that is exactly what it is. Unfortunately, many people (even church-going people) are being misled by the likes of Pagels and Ehrman. So, a more substantial response is called for. There is not time or space here to be thorough, but let me offer the following remarks in rebuttal:

1. The Gnostic Gospels cannot support the Pagels-Ehrman thesis about early church diversity for several reasons. First, because the Gnostic gospels (including the Gospel of Judas) did not exist in the early church. The manuscripts of the Nag Hammadi library were transcribed between A.D. 350-400. And there is no evidence whatsoever that any of these books were written before A.D. 150. Before that time, the Gnostic gospels were unknown—which is a strong indication that they were not written until after that time. Concerning the Gospel of Judas, we have a reference to it in the works of the church father Irenaeus in the year 180. So, we can know that this gospel existed at that time. However, there is no reason to think that it existed prior to that time. Second, we know that all four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written in the first century, during the apostolic era. What is more, some time before Irenaeus, the canonical gospels became universally accepted throughout the church as authoritative and divinely inspired works. For instance, the Muratorian Canon (c. 170) lists the four gospels along with 16 other New Testament books as homologoumena (books accepted as authoritative by all the church). Though containing many differences, these four gospels nevertheless tell the same basic story about Jesus and identify him as fully human and fully divine (and they paint Judas as a traitorous villain). No other gospels as close to the life of Jesus as these four existed in the early church, least of all the Gnostic gospels.

2. There is ample evidence from early Christian documents that there was a single, orthodox Christian faith from the very beginning. First Corinthians was written by Paul about A.D. 55. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, Paul speaks of the gospel message he “received” and “passed on” to others. That message included the account of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (the latter is especially important since Gnostics do not believe in a bodily resurrection). The words of this text are written in a highly formulaic style indicative of a creedal statement. So, what Paul is saying is that he had earlier “received” this creed and had passed it on to the Corinthians. When did Paul receive this doctrinal tradition? No doubt, he received it on his visit to Jerusalem as recorded in Galatians 1:18-19). This means (as most critical scholars acknowledge) that this creed dates no later than A.D. 40, within ten years of Jesus’ death. This same Paul also says in Galatians (his earliest epistle, written about A.D. 49) that there is only one gospel message, and any teacher who deviates from that message is accursed—a clear indication of a standard of orthodoxy. Elsewhere, Paul states that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:5). Throughout the New Testament, in books known to be early first century documents, there are numerous exhortations to hold on to sound doctrine and warnings against false doctrine (Matt. 24:4-14; Col. 2:8-9, 16-23; 2 Tim. 4:1-5; Heb. 13:9; 2 Pet. 2; 1 John 2:18-23; 4:2-3; Jude). All of this is a clear indication that there was a discernable Christian orthodoxy in the early, first-century church, long before the advent of Gnosticism and the writing of the Gnostic gospels.

3. Another point is worth mentioning. The earliest Christian canon was the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament. These Scriptures taught that the world (and material things) was created by God and was inherently good. This fact explains very clearly why the Gnostic gospels could not possibly have been taken seriously by early Christians and could not possibly have been just one, competing “version” of Christianity. The Gnostics rejected the goodness of the created order and they rejected the authority of the Old Testament, believing that the God of the Old Testament was not really God, but an evil spirit who rebelled against the true God. The presence and authority of the Old Testament in the early church provides the reductio ad absurdum to the Pagels-Ehrman thesis that Gnosticism was an authentic expression of early Christianity.

Christianity vs. Immigration Reform?

2006-04-06T14:40:00.000-05:00

Watching the news in recent days you would never guess that Christians are anything but anti-immigration reform and pro-illegal immigrants. Spokesmen for the church in the media (usually Catholic) seem, for the most part, to advocate preventing the government from stopping illegal immigration from Mexico. In particular, they oppose the government's doing anything to stop churches/Christians from aiding or even harboring illegal immigrants. Appeals are made to the ethics of Jesus, to his concern for the down-trodden and outcast, to his demand that his followers "give a drink of water" to the thirsty.

Well, I'm a Christian. A Bible-believing Christian. A Christian who takes the teachings of Jesus very seriously (as divinely inspired and inerrant, in fact). And I just don't get it. I don't see the connection between Christian faith and Jesus' teaching on the one hand, and the aversion to immigration reform on the other. In fact, as a Christian, I believe that it is morally wrong to abet, harbor, or employ an illegal alien. This does not mean that I think we shouldn't sympathize with the plight of the impoverished Latin Americans who are seeking a better life in this country. It doesn't mean that I think we shouldn't feed them if their hungry or clothe them if they're naked (we should, after all, obey the teachings of God rather than men).

However, I also believe that, as a Christian, when I hand the illegal alien a drink of water with one hand, I ought with the other hand to dial up the U.S. Border Patrol and turn them in for a quick deportation to their home country. God establishes human government in order to establish and maintain justice, and to secure the peace and safety of its citizens (Romans. 13:1-7). And I am called as a Christian to submit to the governing authorities and support them in their God-given task.

It seems evident to me that by not securing our border and allowing the constant flood of illegal immigrants to cross our borders the government is failing in its duty to protect our security. This is a national security issue! Any one of those illegals could be carrying a nuclear bomb! Moreover, to harbor the illegal aliens and not turn them over to the authorities is to disobey the government laws (just laws, by the way) without sufficient cause, and to encourage more people to break those laws.

No, there is nothing un-Christian about supporting immigration reform and the enforcement of immigration laws. Quite the contrary. It is a failure of Christian duty to do otherwise.

The Da Vinci Code: Coming Soon to a Theater Near You!

2006-03-24T09:08:00.000-06:00

In just a few weeks, the movie adaptation of Dan Brown's bestseller The DaVinci Code will hit the silver screeen. How should Christians respond to this? Should we take notice? Should we see the movie? Should we protest? Should we rant and rave about one more attack on Christians in the culture war?

I suggest that we not rant and rave or protest per se. I do suggest that we see the movie, perhaps even read the book. For one thing, judged purely as a work of literature, it is a descent novel (and I trust an exciting movie). It is not Tolstoy or Hemingway, but it is a page-turner and a good piece of escapist fiction--I know, I've read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it--accept when the author made me mad with some of his absurd claims about church history. For another thing, if we are going to criticize something, we need to know what we're criticizing (and btw the book contains no gratuitous or explicit sex or violence). Finally, I think the release of this movie can allow Christians an opportunity to speak the truth in love to our neighbors, many of whom will be deceived and misled by the erroneous historical claims made by Brown.

So why not see the movie, read and study some of the Christian reviews and critiques of the book, and then deliberately set out to engage your friends and neighbors in a loving, but hopefully fruitful dialogue about the real Jesus who is God in the flesh, who died on the cross to save us from our sins.

Sovereignty and Free Will Revisited

2006-03-02T13:05:00.000-06:00

Cedar of lebanon asked some good questions about an earlier blog post on the relationship between God's sovereignty and human freedom. His post and my response are somewhat lengthy, so I enter it here as a new post...

cedar of lebanon said...
I was having trouble with this argument and one of the problems I thought I saw was that the two options, Job A or Job B, did not seem to be a true moral choice where there is clearly right and wrong.

My first gut reaction at this point is to say that you may have missed the point of my argument. The whole point was that if a person makes a choice (a moral one or not) without a sufficient reason for that choice, then he is acting arbitrarily and irrationally-- a mark typically seen with people and actions which we deem non-morally culpable. The conclusion being that libertarianism suggests that agents are not morally responsible for their actions. Anyway, let's see where you go with this...

To promote thought regarding this I have re-written the discussion, but replaced the character and the choices with something more familiar.

Suppose there is a person named Joseph, who is trying to decide between two options. Let us label the first option "sleep with Potaphar’s wife" and the second option "run." And let us suppose that there are reasons in favor of Joseph choosing to sleep with her, and other reasons in favor of Joseph choosing to run. The former we will call RA and the latter RB. Now RA may include such factors as the desire for pleasure, a feeling of power and importance, and so on. But, other equally significant factors support running, so that RB includes the fact the God would be pleased if he ran, he would not betray Potiphar, and so on.

Now suppose that Joseph finally decides to accept the offer to sleep with her. We need to ask the question, then, "Why did Joseph choose this option?" The libertarian, being an indeterminist, cannot say that the reasons Joseph had for this option—RA—compelled or determined that Joseph choose that option. Joseph, being free, could have done otherwise. But, I want to suggest that if Joseph had free will when he choose to sleep with her, then his actions were random and arbitrary in such a way that he could not possibly be morally responsible for choosing to do this.The libertarian, of course, will cry foul at this point. "How can Joseph’s choice be arbitrary since he had some reasons—RA—for choosing it?"

Well, I can agree that RA can be meaningfully cited as reasons for why Joseph chose to sleep with her, but I submit that the libertarian has answered the wrong question. The salient question is not, "Why did Joseph choose to sleep with her?", but "Why did Joseph choose to sleep with her rather than run?" I do not think that the libertarian can answer this question satisfactorily.In fact, I believe that the libertarian indeterminist is caught on the horns of a dilemma: The question is, "Why did Joseph choose to sleep with her rather than run?" Either there is an answer to this question or there is not. If there is an answer, then Joseph's choice is determined (and indeterminism is false). If there is no answer, then Joseph's choice is made arbitrarily. So, if indeterminism is true, then Joseph's choice is a random choice, and his moral responsibility for that choice is vitiated. Let me present this dilemma a bit more formally:

(1) Either there is a causally sufficient reason why Joseph chose to sleep with her rather than run, or there is not.
(2) If there is a causally sufficient reason why, then Joseph's choice is determined.
(3) If there is no causally sufficient reason why, then Joseph's choice is arbitrary.

In defense of (3), let us imagine three different scenarios regarding the relative weight of the reasons Joseph may have with respect to the two options. First, suppose that Joseph's reasons for choosing either option are equally weighted. That is, let it be the case that RA provides no motivation to prefer sleeping with her to running, and vice versa. If so, then it seems that there is no reason why Joseph chose sleeping with her rather than running, even though he did have the considerations of RA in favor of sleeping with her. Would not his choice to sleep with her rather than run be just as arbitrary as if he had no reasons for choosing either option (i.e., if both RA and RB did not exist)? So it seems. So, how does adding equally weighted reasons for the respective options diminish the arbitrariness of the choice in such a way as to ground Joseph's moral responsibility?

The difficulty does not go away if we assume that RA and RB are not equally weighted. Suppose that RA makes the choice of sleeping with her more preferable, so preferable in fact that it would be clearly irrational to choose to run. The indeterminist/libertarian would still maintain that there is no causally sufficient reason why Joseph chooses to sleep with her (if in fact he does choose to sleep with her). Joseph is perfectly capable of choosing to run in this situation. But, the compatibilist can reply that moral responsibility would come down, on this view, to having the ability to make an irrational choice. And who would want such an ability?

But, what if RA is weightier than RB, but not by a great margin? That is, would our assessment of Joseph's moral responsibility be any different if he had some reason to prefer sleeping with her to runing, yet that reason was not so overwhelmingly preferable that running instead would seem obviously crazy? I don't think so. It would still turn out to be irrational to choose to run if Joseph could not say anything in explanation of his choice.

To see this, imagine two possible worlds, W1 and W2, that both contain our character Joseph. And let us assume that in both worlds he has some small preference for sleeping with Potaphar’s wife as opposed to running (but not a very strong preference). Now suppose also that in both worlds Joseph opts for running (the less preferable choice). Intuitively, is seems possible for such a choice to be made, and we would not, in ordinary situations, immediately charge someone who made such a choice with irrationality. Let us suppose, for example, that in W1 Joseph, if asked why he chose to run rather than sleep with her, would reply, "I just had a gut feeling about sleeping with her." We would be prone, I think, to accept this answer and not consider Joseph irrational because acting on a gut feeling is often the appropriate thing to do and does in fact constitute a reason for Joseph to really prefer running after all. It's the presence of this reason that explains why we are willing to give Joseph's rationality (in W1) the benefit of the doubt.

However, suppose that things are slightly different with respect to Joseph in W2. Suppose that he had no gut feelings about running that influenced him to choose it in spite of adultery’s apparent preferability. We ask, "So even though adultery seemed more preferable on purely rational grounds, you chose to run because it appealed to you in some unspecifiable way?" Joseph replies, "No, sleeping with her appealed to me more. I just picked running. No reason." It would be safe to conclude that Joseph is irrational. He quite arbitrarily chose to run rather than commit adultery against clear reasons for the latter, and he did so for absolutely no reason. Hence, it would seem that the indeterminist wants us to ground responsibility in the ability to act irrationally. But, I submit that there is no reason that we should go along with this. When people act irrationally and arbitrarily, we tend to think that they are defective in some way—in a way that causes us to mitigate their moral responsibility. So, it would seem that libertarian free will is actually inconsistent with moral responsibility.

What do I conclude from all this? When confronted with the apparent problem of reconciling God’s sovereignty and free will, there is no reason to follow the Arminian in opting for free will and rejecting divine sovereignty, nor is there any need to paradoxically hold these concepts in tension. Because the only motivation for holding on to free will—the need to preserve moral responsibility—has no force. Moral responsibility does not require free will, and thus there is no reason, no motive, to diminish God’s sovereignty.

+++ I believe there are difficulties with this argument. Please comment. Thank you. cs +++

Well, cs, after reading your revision of the argument, substituting the Joseph story for my Smith's job-offer story, I honestly can't see any relevant differences that would cause me to change my view or revise my assessment of the story's significance. If Joseph chooses the less preferable option (preferable from his own perspective, mind you) for absolutely no reason, then Joseph is acting irrationally--irrationally in such a way as to make us think that there is something wrong with him. He makes the less preferable choice as sort of a "glitch" in his will--a choice that is very hard to even describe as a real choice rather than as an accident, something that happens to him, rather than something he does. If I actually met this "Joseph" character, and he told me that he literally made the "choice" for no reason, I would have to conclude either (1) he is lying (perhaps to himself as well as me) and he really does have a reason for his choice after all, or (2) he is sick or mentally defective--in which case he is not morally responsible.

If you think my assessment is mistaken, I'd be glad to entertain any critical remarks you might have.

Alabama Churches Set Ablaze!

2006-02-03T11:03:00.000-06:00

I awoke early this morning to the news that six churches in rural Alabama (Bibb and Chilton counties) had been damaged by fire during the night. At least two of the churches were burned to the ground. Though investigators have not yet said so, this is undoubtedly the work of arsonists.

Race does not appear to be a factor since the churches set ablaze represented both black and white congregations. This suggests that the motive of the arsonist(s) could have been religious or perhaps political. Of course, it could have simply been the misdeeds of some nihilistic teenage pranksters with too much time on their hands. But, in our cultural climate, with more and more antagonism being aimed at conservative Christians in the so-called "culture war," my money is on the hypothesis that the arsonist was someone with a chip on his shoulder, someone who has come to dispise evangelical Christians or "organized religion."

Whoever it was, let us pray that the police catch him (or them) soon, before they can do this again.

We Need Judge Alito Now!

2006-01-17T22:12:00.000-06:00

Once again, an activist, liberal-leaning, life-hating Supreme Court has made the wrong ruling! Today, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the Oregon law that permits physician-assisted suicide. Both Justices O'Conner and Kennedy, purported to be conservatives, sided with majority to perpetuate the culture of death that has prevailed in that state for several years now.

This decision, of course, is just part of the trend that Americans have had to live with for many years--the trend to move our society further and further away from commonsense moral values and a respect for the sanctity of human life. In 1973, they legalized abortion on demand. A couple of years ago, the court struck down all the nation's anti-sodomy laws, paving the way for the possibility of same-sex marriage down the road. A few months ago, they undermined one of our most basic liberties, the right to private property, by allowing cities to use the concept of public domain to take people's homes and sell them to private corporations to enhance the local economy. In many of the more recent cases, Justice O'Conner has been the deciding vote in very close 5-4 decisions by the court.

Fortunately, she is about to retire. And, Lord willing, Judge Samuel Alito will take her place and swing the balance of the court back in the direction of sanity. We need him and others like him on the Supreme Court now! He and Judge Roberts are long overdue!

The one good thing that came out of the court's decision today is that we all got to see Judge Robert's true colors--he joined Scalia and Thomas in desenting from the court's life-hating decision to allow Oregon doctors to continue killing human beings.

Do You Know How to Interpret the Bible?

2006-01-03T15:59:00.000-06:00

Everyone has an opinion of what particular passages of Scripture mean. Too often I hear things like "That's just your interpretation" or "This text means to me. . ."--as if there is no right interpretation of biblical texts and as if any interpretation is as good as another.

However, nothing could be further from the truth. Any biblical text means what its original author intended it to mean, nothing more, nothing less. What's more, we can learn that meaning if we are willing to work hard at it. There is a science of interpreting books, including the Bible. That science is called "hermeneutics." Those who sudy biblical hermeneutics learn the appropriate rules and procedures for interpreting the Bible so that they can give intelligent, informed answers when people ask them about the meaning of a passage of Scripture.

The first 2006 issue of ARC's magazine Areopagus Journal will be about hermeneutics. If you care about "rightly dividing the Word of God", then I strongly encourage you to purchase that issue and get a crash course in biblical interpretation. You can order it at:

www.arcapologetics.org

Debate on Intelligent Design

2006-01-03T15:37:00.000-06:00

New Orleans Seminary is hosting a debate on Intelligent Design theory to be held in Marietta, Georgia at Johnson Ferry Road Baptist Church on Feb. 3-4, 2006.

The two main speakers are William Dembski, one of the premier defenders of ID, and Michael Ruse, a prominent critic of ID. Other participants include William Lane Craig, Frank Beckwith, Martin Hewlett, and Wesley Elsberry. Make plans to attend this important event.

A Third Option in Church/State Relations

2005-12-20T16:20:00.000-06:00

No doubt you have noticed that around Christmas time the perennial debate over the relationship between church and state tends to heat up. Christians want to put up their Nativity scenes at the courthouse and the secularists want to stop them. Then the discussion goes round and round over the intent of the Founding fathers in the constitution's statements about religion and whether allowing a place for religious expression in the public square is tantamount to a government endorsement of religion.

The debate, it seems to me, is always polarized between two extremes, both of which were clearly seen in the recent Fox News Special on "Religion in America." On the one hand are the Separationists who believe that religion has no place whatsoever in the public square and that the government should keep religious expressions out of public facilities and meetings completely. On the other hand are the Majoritarians who believe that "majority rules" and that whatever religion happens to be in the majority should have access to the public square and a priviledge position in the culture at large. Majoritarians rightly think that separationism violates their right to the free exercise of religion. However, a case can be made that the majoritarian view really is tantamount to a government establish of religion. And so there is always the inevitble stand-off.

However, this stand-off could be greatly alleviated if both sides relaized that there is a third alternative. its an alternative that has traditionally been defended by Baptists, by the way--but most Baptists today have forgotten it. It is called Accommodationism. This is the view that the government should, as far as is practically possible, accommodate (not endorse) the free exercise of religion. In other words, to use just one example, the government should not set up Nativity scenes at the courthouse nor pay to have it done, but it should make public space available to private citizens to do so if they like. They should also make such space available to the Jews, Muslims, and atheists. The government should say to everyone, regardless of their religious views, "Ya'll come!"

Accommodationism provides for a free market of ideas. No one's rights are violated, and the government isn't establishing or endorsing any faith. This, it seems to me, is much closer to what our founding fathers intended.

Preventing Dumbness: The Role of Philosophy in the Academy, the Pulpit, and the Pew - Part 3

2005-11-21T12:29:00.000-06:00

In the Pew
By speaking of the role of philosophy "in the pew," I mean to refer to the role of philosophy in the life of the average Christian believer as he seeks to live his life before the face of God each day and provide salt and light to the culture in which he lives. Much of what I have said above is applicable to the average believer. Apologetics and logic, especially, are disciplines that each and every Christian ought to spend some time studying in order to fulfill the obligations enjoined on him by the Great Commission (Matt. 2:19-20) and First Peter 3:15.

Beyond these, however, let me add a couple of more roles that philosophy can play in the life of the Christian in the pew. First, insofar as philosophy deals with the history of ideas and with the most basic questions that people ask—"What is real?", "How do we know?", "What is right and what is wrong?", "What is beautiful?""—it can help the Christian be a well-rounded, culturally literate citizen who can make a meaningful contribution to the well-being of his society. Unless you think that evangelism is the only reason Christians have been left in the world, then you will agree that we have a contribution to make to culture as culture, to society as society; that we have a responsibility to our fellow citizens to participate in establishing sound public policy, to make and support good art and good music, etc. Philosophy, through the study of the history of ideas and through philosophical analysis of ideas, can enable Christians to be responsibly engaged in these and every other aspect of human society, avoiding the mistakes of the past as well as the present. In line with my earlier discussion of "faith seeking understanding," philosophical study can also help the Christian inject Christian principles and values into the various spheres of culture, drawing out, for example, the implications of the Christian worldview for politics, education, art, and science.

Second, and closely related to the first point, philosophy can strengthen the Christian’s ability to discern truth from error. The Word of God tells us to "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1) and to avoid being "carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14). The study of God’s Word is basic to this task, of course. But, I have pointed out that understanding and applying the Bible and formulating sound doctrine from the Scriptures is enhanced by theology’s handmaid, philosophy. Think, for example, of how many Christians have been snared by the Jehovah’s Witnesses who have charged the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity with absurdity. Certainly, a carefully study of the Scriptures are absolutely crucial to preventing thins kind of tragedy. Yet, also helpful if not necessary would be a careful philosophical defense of these doctrines which show their logical coherence. I believe that such apologetic material, designed to help Christians avoid falling victim to false religions and philosophies, ought not to be the purview of the ivory tower alone, but ought to be placed in the hands of the average Christian.

Conclusion
I know that I have barely scratched the surface of the issue of the role of philosophy in the Christian circles. I have left many questions unanswered. My primary goal here, however, was not to answer every question, but to simply pique enough interest among the Christians gathered here to at least take this issue seriously. If what I have said is anywhere near true, as general and undeveloped as it is, and if the anti-intellectualism that has gripped the church for decades is to be eradicated, then philosophy—good, Christian philosophy—must given a more significant role in the academy, the pulpit, and the pew. I think that we Christian philosophers already know this. Philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, J.P. Moreland, and William Lane Craig have been saying similar things for years. The task for us is to convince everybody else!

Preventing Dumbness: The Role of Philosophy in the Academy, the Pulpit, and the Pew - Part 2

2005-10-31T14:16:00.000-06:00

In the Pulpit
Time does no permit me to say everything that might be said here, but I will focus on what I take to be the two most vital roles that philosophy can play in the life of the minister of God’s Word. First, philosophy is crucial if the minister is to fulfill the requirements of his apologetic calling. Of course, as First Peter 3:15 makes clear, all Christians are called to the apologetic task. Yet, the Gospel minister has a special responsibility here. People have tough questions. Many times these tough questions are an obstacle to faith. "Is it really rational to believe in the Christian God in our (post)modern society?" "How could a good and all-powerful God allow the attacks of September 11?" "Hasn’t critical biblical scholarship undermined the historical reliability of the Bible?"

In past generations, ministers seldom had to deal with theses kinds of questions because most people in our society would give mental assent to God’s existence and goodness, and to the authority of Scripture. But, no more. As Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said recently to a group of seminary students, "[T]he apologetic task has never been more pressing, more urgent or more important. Indeed, I believe that at this critical time of cultural and intellectual transition, the Christian ministry, taken as a whole, must be understood as an apologetic calling."

The teaching and preaching of today’s gospel ministers must be heavily seasoned with apologetics. And I need not tell you the vital role that philosophy must play in apologetics. Minister’s, then, must read and study philosophical and apologetical works so that they can meet the challenges of our day in their pulpits.

Another way in which philosophy may play a role in the pulpit is in the area of logic. If you take a look at homiletics textbooks from days gone by, you will notice something that is universally absent from modern homiletics texts. They almost always contained chapters on logic and argumentation. Why? Because it was assumed that most if not all sermons would contain at least one argument. And this being the case, it was incumbent upon preachers to know how to formulate valid and sound arguments.

Now I happen to think that it is still incumbent upon preachers to know how to formulate good arguments. And I think this because I think that any good sermon will contain at least one argument, even if only an argument for the superiority of a particular interpretation of a text over against other possible interpretations. I long for the day in which homiletics texts once again include chapters on logic and argumentation. I think that this would greatly improve the quality of preaching in our pulpits.

I can recall hearing one sermon in which the preacher argued that in heaven human beings will be sexless—neither male nor female. Why? Because in Matthew 22:30 Jesus said, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven." But, anyone with a little logic in his head can see that the preacher’s conclusion does not follow from this text. In fact, this text supports neither the sexlessness of humans nor angels. All that follows logically from this text is that in heaven there will be no marriage. These and other similar errors could be avoided with a little training in logic. Fortunately, some seminaries and Christian colleges have courses in logic, but these are seldom required for the average divinity student. However, they should be required, or at least logic should be incorporated into homiletics. In either case, logic is a branch of philosophy, and training in logic is thus one important way that philosophy can play a role in the pulpit.

Preventing Dumbness: The Role of Philosophy in the Academy, the Pulpit, and the Pew - Part 1

2005-10-24T13:31:00.000-05:00

Some months ago, in my earliest blog posts, I discussed the the relationship between faith and reason and the importance of Christians to live by the motto "Faith Seeking Understanding." I would like to build on that discussion over the next few weeks by writing about the role of philosophy in the Chirstian life. A few years ago, I presented a paper at a regional meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society called "Preventing Dumbness: The Role of Philosophy in the Academy, the Pulpit, and the Pew." The overall goal of the paper was to offer some suggestions for how Christians in these three areas can avoid anti-intellectualism and the "dumbing down" of the faith. I post that paper here in three parts.

In the Academy
By the "academy" here I mean the Christian academy—the faculties of Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries, in particular those specializing in biblical and theological studies. What role may philosophy play in the academy regarding the alleviation of dumbness? The question, of course, presupposes that dumbness infects the Christian academy. Now it is not my intent to be pejorative or condescending in any way. There are many fine scholars in the Christian academy and I doubt that any Christian scholar wants or intends to be anti-intellectual or to uphold anything other than the highest intellectual and academic standards. Nevertheless, as William Lane Craig has written, "a measure of philosophical training can be a valuable asset to the systematic theologian." And we might add the biblical scholar, as well.

Theologians and biblical scholars make claims that have philosophical implications. Yet, often they do not realize those implications. At other times, theologians may try to articulate some Christian doctrine which, if they had some philosophical background, they might be able to articulate better and more clearly because philosophy is able to provide some concepts and technical vocabulary. In other words, as J.P. Moreland would put it, philosophy can help theology clarify internal conceptual problems. Wayne Grudem’s discussion of God’s omnipresence illustrates both of these problems simultaneously. Grudem defines God’s omnipresence as follows: "God does not have size or spatial dimensions and is present at every point of space with his whole being, yet God acts differently in different places." At first blush, this definition appears incoherent. Indeed, I think it is incoherent as it is stated. How can a being have no size or spatial dimension, and yet literally be present at every point of space? This seems equivalent to saying that God is not located in space, and yet he is present at every locale in space, a contradiction if ever there was one. Of course, Grudem is not totally unaware of the difficulty, and in his elaboration of this doctrine he appears to struggle to make sense of it. He asserts that God cannot be contained by any space, and that we should "guard against thinking that God extends infinitely far in all directions so that he himself exists in a sort of infinite, unending space." Well and good. But, then, he tries to illustrate God’s omnipresence on the analogy of a water-filled sponge. Water is present everywhere in the sponge, but is distinct from the sponge. But, this analogy clearly speaks of God in spatial terms in precisely the way that Grudem himself says that we ought not. Further, the analogy does not allow for God’s whole being to be present at every space. All of the water in the sponge is not present at any one place in the sponge.

I think that the philosopher can be of great help with this doctrine, and it would not take a great deal of time and trouble for the theologian to study and avail himself of the resources that the philosopher can provide in this regard. Philosophical theologians have resolved this paradox by explicating God’s omnipresence as a function of his omniscience and omnipotence. God, being a Spirit (cf. John 4:24), and thus immaterial, cannot literally be present at any location in space. That is, his being is not at any place. But, since he is omniscient, he knows about any and every place and what is going on there. And because he is omnipotent, he can extend his causal power to any and every place at will. So, to say that God is omnipresent is, strictly speaking, to speak figuratively. But, nothing of consequence is lost because, on this view, god is still "present" at every place in all the ways that matter. He knows every place and is able to act at every place.

Philosophy can also provide the discipline of theology, as it does other disciplines, with what J.P. Moreland calls "external conceptual problems." These would be problems arising in theology due to conflict with well-established propositions derived from sources outside theology. More technically,

An external conceptual problem arises for a theological doctrine or theory T when T conflicts with some doctrine of another theory T’, when T’ and its doctrines are rationally well-founded.

For example, certain astronomical observations regarding the distance of other galaxies from our own may be said to provide an external conceptual problem from science for Young-Earth Creationism. From the field of philosophy, an external conceptual problem for theology might be the philosophical arguments for an A-theory of time which (it could be argued) is inconsistent with the idea that God exists outside of time. In the face of such external conceptual problems (assuming for the sake of argument that these opposing theories are rationally well-founded), the theologian who held to Young-Earth Creation or Divine Timelessness would have to modify or jettison his views. In any case, the theologian’s appreciation and understanding of God’s revealed truth would be enhanced by engaging the challenges posed by these problems.

Another way in which philosophy may play an important role in the Christian academy is in the integration of academic disciplines. The term "university" has its etymology in the union of "unity" and "diversity", meaning that the university (which was created by Christians, by the way) is a place where the diversity of disciplines find their unity in a common frame of reference, a common worldview based in shared truths and values. Of course, most universities today, including Christian universities, are universities in name only. The various disciplines and departments do their work in relative isolation from each other, with little or no cognizance of how their research impacts other disciplines, and often reaching conclusions on the same subject matter that are mutually contradictory. In some Christian schools, the faculty of the Religion Department teaches special creation, while across the quad at the Biology Department the professors advocate theistic evolution. The English Department imbibes a deconstructionist view of language while the History Department "naively" plods along thinking that history is objectively knowable. Such problems usually go unnoticed because there is very little communication and interaction between the various disciplines.

But insofar as the academy sees value in having an integrated and consistent curriculum, where each department practices its discipline within the framework of a Christian world and life view—to that extent it should see the value of philosophy in providing the intellectual tools for achieving that goal. For reasons already cited above, philosophy as a discipline is uniquely qualified to guide the Christian university in the integration of the disciplines.

A Book on the Case for God

2005-10-17T16:27:00.000-05:00

Some of the blog readers may be interested to know that a book on the case for God's existence has just come out in which yours truly has an article defending what is known as the moral argument for God's existence. The book is titled, The Big Argument: 24 scholars explore why science, archaeology, and philosophy have proven the existence of God, edited by Michael Westacott and John Ashton (Master Books). You can pre-order the book from Amazon.

Muslims and The Deity of Christ

2005-10-05T10:09:00.000-05:00

Probably the most significant obstacle to a Muslim coming to faith in Christ is the Christian belief in the deity of Christ. Islam’s absolute monotheism has no room for the idea that God is triune and thus no room for thinking that Jesus is the Second Person of the triune Godhead. What’s more, Muslims view God as so transcendent that it would be beneath God, somehow defiling to God, for Him to become a man.

How is a Christian to remove these obstacles and lead his Muslim friends to faith in Christ? There isn’t space here to give a full-blown, detailed answer, but let me offer this suggestion: Ask your Muslim friend why it would be beneath God or defiling to God to become a man. Chances are, he will have a hard time explaining exactly why God’s becoming a man is such a bad thing. If so, you will then have an opportunity to explain why God becoming a man is a good thing.

First, it is a good thing for God to become a human being in Jesus because it is a good thing for us to know God. Our finitude and sinfulness hinder us from having a clear and firm understanding of God’s character. What better way, then, for God to make Himself and His will known than to take on human flesh and show us God’s character face-to-face in his daily actions?

Second, the incarnation of God demonstrates more clearly than anything the love and compassion He has for His creatures. Sure, God’s condescending to become a man is humiliating, but rather than defile God, this humiliation exalts Him as a God of love and mercy. Is it defiling for a grown man to get down on the floor and play games with his children and talk baby talk with them? Of course no. It’s compassionate and loving. Why then is it bad for God to come down to our level and talk our language and live our life in order to deliver us from sin?

If the Muslim argues that it is somehow impossible for God to become a man, again, ask him, why? Why is it impossible for the omnipotent Creator of the universe to take on human flesh? Although some clever philosophers have tried to argue that the idea of one person who is both God and man is contradictory, none of those arguments hold water.

God and Katrina

2005-09-01T09:47:00.000-05:00

My heart goes out to all those who are suffering in the wake of hurricane Katrina, especially my extended family members living in and near Hattiesburg, Mississippi. In this time of trouble, I am reminded of the verse in the prophet Isaiah:

"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." (Isa. 45:7)

We should never think that God is uninvolved when calamities like Katrina occur. God is the one who causes these things to happen for his own good reasons. And for all who are suffering at this time, God's Word calls us to contemplate what God may be trying to tell us at this time. Some people, God is testing. Some people, God is purifying. Some people, God is warning. Some people God is judging.

Vanilla Sky, Cryogenics, and Materialism

2005-08-22T15:36:00.000-05:00

I just watched the movie Vanilla Sky with Tom Cruise--I know, I know, I'm very much behind the times. But, I couldn't help but bring it up on the blog given the clear implications of the movie's message regarding the nature of human beings.

The movie really does tout the possible virtues of cryogenic technology (for those who don't know, cryogenics refers to the "science" of freezing the bodies or brains of people who have died in the hope or expectation that the future will see a cure for what killed them, and then they can be "resurrected" to a virtual immortality). I just wanted to make a philosphical comment for those who may be "enamored" by the possibility of such technology.

Cryogenics presupposes a materialist view of the human mind. The idea that people can die, be frozen, and then thawed out to live again assumes that the mind is nothing more than the brain and its physical functions. There is an implicit denial that humans have an immaterial soul that is the true seat of one's personality and can survive the death of the body. For on this traditional view of humans beings the "cryogenic hope" is a fool's errand--when one dies, his soul leaves his body and then goes to either heaven or hell. There is no possibility of being brought back by human technology.

It is not my purpose here to defend the traditional view (though I am inclined to do so), but simply to help any readers who might think that cryogenics is "neat" and maybe "worth a try" to see the philosophical (and theological) implications of their views.

The Simpsons and Christian Pluralism

2005-08-15T10:14:00.000-05:00

Did anybody see The Simpsons last night? A very interesting episode. Though thoroughly hilarious as usual, its message was a bit disturbing--though I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Homer and Bart were in the process of converting to Catholicism (with their priest played appealingly by Liam Neeson), while Marge, Ned Flanders, and Rev. Lovejoy are desperately trying to keep them from falling into the errors of "popery."

After the rip-roaring rescue of Bart by taking him to a Protestant theme park ("The Catholics don't have anything like this!"), the episode ends with Bart asking why the Protestants and Catholics can't just get along and accept each other. After all, they're all Christians and their differences are minor points of doctrinal minutia.

Though seeming to uphold the value (perhaps even truth) of the Christian faith, the episode not-so-subtly teaches that doctrinal truth doesn't matter, and that the 500 year-old dispute between Catholics and Protestants was/is trivial. Wrong on both counts.

New Apologetics Blog

2005-08-10T15:55:00.000-05:00

The ministry that I work for--the Apologetics Resource Center--has just started a new blog dealing with issues in Christian apologetics. Myself, Jason Dollar, and otehr ARC staffers are participants. The blog will emphasize Christian response to current and on-going issues in our culture. The blog is called "From the Front Lines" and can be accessed at www.arcapologetics.org/blog.

What Is the Church and Why Should I Care? - Part 6

2005-08-01T12:59:00.000-05:00

VI. So What?

We have seen that the church is: (1) A gathered community whose members have entered into a solemn covenant with each other; (2) comprised of baptized believers in Christ who have entered into a life of discipleship; (3) led by gifted pastors who have been called and ordained by the Holy Spirit; (4) shows its true allegiance to Jesus by three marks: preaching the gospel, administering the ordinances, and practicing church discipline; and (5) has the mission of worshipping God, edifying believers, and reaching the world with the gospel.

There are a lot of practical applications that we could pursue in light of these truths. Yet, the one basic application that comes out of this study is the obligation of every Christian to be a member of a local church. Notice again what we have seen in the course of this study. Christ has created the local church for the express purpose of helping Christians grow in Christ. Apart from the ministry of a local church you cannot grow into a healthy, mature Christian. Christ has given to each believer the church, which has gifted teachers to help you learn the doctrines you are supposed to believe and the lifestyle you are supposed to live. Christ has given you other believers to hold you accountable and to encourage you. It is Christ’s desire that Christians congregate publicly to worship him together, and he desires that his disciples work together to evangelize the world.

For Christ’s purposes for the church to be fulfilled, for his purposes for you to be fulfilled, you have to make a covenant commitment to a local church, to submit to its pastors, and to put your spiritual gifts to use for the sake of others. This is what the early Christians did. Notice what Luke tells us in Acts:

The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. (Acts 5:12-13)

After Ananias and Sapphira were struck down by the Holy Spirit for their terrible sin, we read that "none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly." This text tells us that many unbelievers in Jerusalem had great respect for the new church, but kept their distance because they were afraid of the serious—even "deadly"—consequences of joining the church. What we need to note here is that the church was seen as something that could be joined, and this tells us that the church had a clearly defined membership. It was known who was in and who was out. But we can go further than this by looking more closely at the word "join" that Luke uses in this text. The Greek word used here is kollao and it means "to glue" or "cement together." Don Whitney comments that in the context of Acts 5:13, the word kollao

doesn't refer to an informal, merely assumed sort of relationship, but one where you choose to "glue" or "join" yourself firmly to the others. . .The same "glue word" is used in the New Testament to describe being joined together in a sexual relationship (1 Corinthians 6:16) and being joined to the Lord in one spirit in salvation (1 Corinthians 6:17 . . . Clearly this kind of language doesn’t refer to a casual, superficial, or informal relationship.

So when it says in Acts 5:13 that no insincere believer dared joined them for a while, the glue word used there speaks of such a cohesive, bonding relationship that it must be referring to a recognized church membership.(Spiritual Disciplines within the Church, p. 46)

The early Christians understood their duty to be committed members of a local church. It is important that Christians today understand this, too. To shun this duty is to shun Christ’s gift to you. To neglect church membership is to neglect your obedience to Christ. If you love Jesus, you love what he loves; and Jesus loves the church. If you are a Christian, but not a member of a local church, you should make this your first priority.

What Is the Church and Why Should I Care? - Part 5

2005-07-28T10:09:00.000-05:00

V. The Church Has Three Ministries that the Lord Has Givenit to Perform

We conclude our study on the nature of the church by discussing her mission. The mission God has given the church is that she fulfill three vital ministries—a ministry to God, a ministry to believers, and a ministry to the world.

(1) Ministry to God: Worship. The first and foremost purpose of the church is to worship God. The Bible has a lot to say about worship. The place to start is with Jesus words to the Samaritan woman: "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). To worship in spirit means to worship God with a sincere heart, a heart that loves him and desires to please him. Only believers can worship God in spirit. To worship in truth means to worship in accordance with God’s Word; to worship only as God instructs us to worship.

(2) Ministry to Believers: Edification. The church has been given the responsibility to build up believers in their faith (See Matt. 28:19-20; Eph. 4:11-12; 1 Thes. 5:14-15). Helping others grow in Christ is not just the duty of pastors. All Christians are commanded to encourage each other, warn each other, comfort each other, and uphold each other. There is no such thing as a "Lone Ranger Christian." Without the help of other believers, a Christian will wither up and die! This is why the Book of Hebrews says, "And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching" (Heb. 10:24-25). Here we are reminded of the importance of helping each other grow in Christ. But notice that this duty is connected with the command to not neglect assembling together. The saints cannot be edified if the saints don’t meet!

(3) Ministry to the World: Benevolence and Missions. We are to reach out to the unbelieving world with benevolent concern; to work for justice in the world and to care for the sick and poor in his name (Matt. 25:31-40). Even more importantly, we are to minister to the world through missions, by taking the gospel message to our families, our neighbors, and to the ends of the earth. We seek to evangelize the world and bring into God’s kingdom people from every tribe and nation. As Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations."

What Is the Church and Why Should I Care? - Part 4

2005-07-15T15:10:00.000-05:00

IV. The Church Is Distinguished by Three Marks

There are three marks or indications by which we can tell a true church from a false church; three marks by which we can tell if a church is a church in God’s eyes.

(1) A true church preaches the gospel. In Acts 2:42, a text we saw earlier, we are told that the early church devoted itself to the apostles’ "doctrine." Primarily this refers to the message about the Person and Work of Christ; the gospel message which is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). This message includes as well any and all doctrines that flow out of the gospel message. A true church teaches the gospel and clings to the Word of God. A church which fails in this is not really a Christian church. Notice the seriousness with which Paul addresses this issue:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal. 1:6-9)

Paul pronounces a curse on those who preach a false gospel, such as the Judaizers who taught that one must follow the ceremonial law of Moses if one was truly to be saved. We may presume that any church which preaches a false gospel, or fails to teach the true gospel of justification by faith alone, would receive the same curse.

(2) A true church faithfully administers the ordinances in accordance with God's Word. The ordinances, of course, are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We have already addressed the meaning and importance of baptism, but the New Testament equally stresses the significance of the Lord’s Supper. Looking at Acts 2:42 once again, we note that another thing the early church devoted itself to was "the breaking of bread." This is most likely a reference to the Lord’s Supper. This ordinance symbolizes the sacrificial death of Christ, the bread representing his broken body, and the cup representing his shed blood. Paul speaks of our solemn obligation with regard to this rite:

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Cor. 11:27-29)

A true church observes both the ordinance of baptism and the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, and it does so with reverence, guided by the teaching of the New Testament.

(3) A true church practices church discipline. The Lord Jesus commands the church to hold members accountable to holy living. We find an allusion to this in his Great Commission:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. (Matt. 28:19-20a)

Jesus tells the church to teach Christian disciples to obey all of his commands. He also gives us specific instruction on what to do if a church member fails in this regard:

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matt. 18:15-17)

Jesus expects the church to confront sinful church members with their sin, and he lays out the procedures to follow in doing so. But, if a church fails to carry out biblical church discipline, allowing sin to flourish in the church unchallenged, then Jesus has very harsh words for that church:

"To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: ‘These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.’" (Rev. 2:18-23)

A church that fails to discipline wayward members is under God’s judgment, and ceases to be a true church. J.L. Dagg, the famous Baptist theologian, once said, "When discipline leaves a church, Christ goes with it."

What Is the Church and Why Should I Care? - Part 3

2005-07-07T13:59:00.000-05:00

III. The Church Is Overseen by Elders Appointed by the Holy Spirit

The church, as we have seen, is not just an informal meeting. Nor is it disorganized and haphazard in the way it conducts its work. The Lord has established a way for the church to be organized and properly managed. This God-given organization is outlined in the Book of Acts at the end of Paul’s First Missionary Journey.

They preached the good news in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. "We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God," they said. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. (Acts 14:21-23)

Notice that before the apostles left these churches in God’s hands, they appointed elders in each church. We learn more about biblical elders from Paul’s farewell speech to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20. In verse 28, Paul says to them, "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood." There are several things we learn about elders from this text and the earlier one in Acts 14. First of all, each church had a plurality of elders. That is, there was more than one elder appointed in each church.

Second, we have a job description of the elders. The elders are said to be both overseers and shepherds. An overseer is a leader, a supervisor. A shepherd is one who cares for the flock, feeding them, comforting them, and guiding them. As shepherd of God’s flock, a pastor is one who teaches, warns, corrects, and encourages the members of the church. The elders/pastors, then, are the spiritual leaders of the local church. It is their responsibility to provide direction to the ministry of the church, and to guide the spiritual growth of each church member.

Third, notice that Paul says that it is the Holy Spirit who put the elders in their leadership positions. Though the church is involved in appointing elders, ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who puts them in office. And this means that the elders are ultimately responsible to God, not the church. It also means that church members have solemn duties to their pastors. Paul outlines some of these duties in his first letter to the Thessalonians:

Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. (1 Thes. 5:12-13a)

There are two duties required of Christians in this text:
(1) Christians are to acknowledge their pastors' right to lead. The NIV translates the Greek as "respect." Other translations say "appreciate" or "know" your pastors. But, the Greek carries more the idea of "acknowledge" or "recognize." The idea here is that church members are to acknowledge that their pastors are indeed their pastors! They are to consciously submit to the elders’ leadership.

(2) Christians are to esteem their pastors. The NIV says it well when it tells Christians to hold their pastors in "the highest regard." Pastors deserve to be respected, not so much because they are anything special in themselves, but because of the noble work they have been called to do. The author of Hebrews echoes Paul’s instructions, writing,

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb. 13:17)

This verse commands Christians to obey their pastors. Why? Because the pastors have the difficult task of watching out for the souls of God’s flock, and Christians are called to make their job joyful and not burdensome. This requires obedience on the part of the congregation.

What Is the Church and Why Should I Care? - Part 2

2005-06-27T15:18:00.000-05:00

II. The Church Is Comprised of Baptized Believers

After his glorious resurrection, the Lord Jesus issued his Great Commission to his disciples with these words:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matt. 28:19-20)

This text tells us that the church is supposed to do four things: (1) Go, (2) make disciples, (3) baptize those disciples, (4) teach those disciples. For our purposes in this chapter, we will focus on item (3), baptism.

We are told by the Lord Jesus that the church is to make disciples and that the church is to baptize those disciples. As most Christians know, baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. It also serves as the believer’s "pledge of allegiance" to Jesus. It is the way in which a person makes his profession of faith public and formally commits himself to being a disciple of Jesus. As such, baptism is often called the Christian's "first (public) act of obedience."

Because of this, it should go without saying that membership in a local church requires baptism. Only Christians can be members of local churches. The church is a gathered community of those who have become disciples of Jesus. But, one cannot be a true disciple if one refuses to obey Christ’s commands, and one of his commands is baptism. And this is why we see in the New Testament that every time someone believes in Jesus, he is baptized before his entrance into the visible, local church.

With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:40-41)

Notice the sequence here. First, the people received the word. That is, they believed the gospel and were saved. Second, they were baptized. Then, thirdly, they were added to the church. So, the church consists of baptized believers.

What Is the Church and Why Should I Care? - Part 1

2005-06-21T15:27:00.000-05:00

In an age in which the church is often ignored or belittled, I will offer over the next few weeks a multi-part essay on the nature and importance of the church. Part one is posted below.

What is the Church and Why Should I Care?
by Steven B. Cowan

PREFACE

"I don’t need organized religion. I can worship God my own way in the privacy of my own home."
"I do not belong to a local church, but I belong to the universal church made up of all who believe in Jesus."
"Can’t I just think of my little home Bible study group as my church? Why do I have to join a formal organization to please God?"

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard these kinds of things from professing Christians. Many religious people today seem to have little regard for the "traditional" local church, for what is often called "organized religion." There are perhaps many reasons for this. For one thing, churches do not always care for their members as they should. Hurting, spiritually-needy people sometimes fall through the cracks and are neglected by the church leaders and other members. Little wonder then that people who have been "burned" by churches would want nothing to do with "organized religion." For another thing, people in our relativistic, self-centered culture simply do not want the accountability the comes from membership in a local church. Add to this the fact that churches have done a poor job in recent generations of educating their members on the nature and importance of the local church—even denying at times that the Bible teaches formal church membership—and people outside the church have all the excuse they need to stay away.

Yet the Bible speaks much about the church. It tells us that Christ established the church; that he died for the church, and that he loves the church. Moreover, the Bible does teach (as we will see) that Christians should join themselves to organized, local churches. For these reasons, it is crucial that those who name the name of Jesus understand what the church is and what our relationship to the church should be. In this essay, we will outline the nature of the church under five headings and explain why you should care about being a part of a local church.

I. The Church Is a Gathered Community

Though the Bible does speak of a universal church that is composed of all Christian believers everywhere, and which is invisible (see Matt. 16:18; Eph. 5:23-32; Heb. 12:22-23), the Bible is very clear that this universal church is to have concrete expression in particular places by Christians gathering together to form local churches, local communities of believers. This is proven, first of all, simply from the word "church" itself. This term comes from the Greek ekklesia, which means "assembly" or "congregation." So, a church is an assembly or gathering together of people.

But, we can say more. In Acts 2, after Peter’s famous Pentecost sermon, we are told that 3000 people converted to faith in Christ. In verse 42, we learn that these new converts "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." Notice that one of the several activities that these early disciples is said to have devoted themselves was "fellowship." This term comes from the Greek koinonia, which has to do with people joining together for mutual benefit; having a shared life together as we see later in Acts chapters 4 and 5.

So a church is more than simply a meeting; more than a loose and casual gathering as when people get together for a party or at City Hall to vote on business. No, a church is a congregation of people who have a shared life together, a fellowship. The church is a community.

One of the most wonderful images of the church in the New Testament is the image of the "Body of Christ" This image makes it plain that the church is an intimate fellowship that exists for the mutual benefit of all church members. The Apostle Paul describes the church in 1 Corinthians 12:4-27 using the image of the Body of Christ.

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. . . Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Among other things, this passage clearly teaches at least three important truths about the members of the Body of Christ:

(1) Each Christian is given a spiritual gift for the mutual benefit of the whole church (v.7).
(2) The church needs each gifted member (vv.15-18).
(3) Each gifted member needs the whole church (v. 21).

What may we conclude from this? For one thing, we must say that the Body of Christ is healthy in so far as each member contributes his spiritual gifts for the good of all the other members. For another, since the church is a gathered community, there is the clear implication that each member of the church ought to have a commitment to the church. If a person exists in this kind of intimate fellowship in which he faithfully shares his gifts with the others, and they share with him, then that must involve a mutual commitment of each member to all the other members. We call this kind of commitment a covenant. For the church to be a gathered community, functioning as a healthy Body of Christ, requires that those who are gathered together enter into covenant with one another.
[to be continued...]

Reconciling Divine Sovereignty and Free Will? - Part 3

2005-06-15T11:16:00.000-05:00

So far, I have argued (1) that the Bible does not teach libertarian freedom, and (2) that libertarian freedom is not necessary for moral responsibility.

I turn finally to the third reason to reject libertarianism: it can be shown that not only is libertarianism unnecessary for moral responsibility, it is positively inconsistent with moral responsibility. That is, if a person has free will such that his actions are indetermined, he cannot be morally responsible for his actions. Let me give you an argument to show you why.

Suppose there is a person named Smith, who is trying to decide between two job offers. Let us label the first job "JobA" and the second job "JobB." And let us suppose that there are reasons in favor of Smith choosing JobA, and other reasons in favor of Smith choosing JobB. The former we will call RA and the latter RB. Now RA may include such factors as that the salary is higher than that of JobB, the location is in a low-crime area, and so on. But, other equally significant factors support JobB, so that RB includes the fact that the location is closer to family, the work is easier, and so on. Now suppose that Smith finally decides to accept the offer for JobA. We need to ask the question, then, "Why did Smith choose JobA?" The libertarian, being an indeterminist, cannot say that the reasons Smith had for JobA—RA—compelled or determined that Smith choose that job. Smith, being free, could have done otherwise. But, I want to suggest that if Smith had free will when he choose JobA, then his actions were random and arbitrary in such a way that he could not possibly be morally responsible for choosing JobA.

The libertarian, of course, will cry foul at this point. "How can Smith’s choice be arbitrary since he had some reasons—RA—for choosing it?" Well, I can agree that RA can be meaningfully cited as reasons for why Smith chose JobA, but I submit that the libertarian has answered the wrong question. The salient question is not, "Why did Smith choose JobA?", but "Why did Smith choose JobA rather than JobB?" I do not think that the libertarian can answer this question satisfactorily.

In fact, I believe that the libertarian indeterminist is caught on the horns of a dilemma: The question is, "Why did Smith choose JobA rather than JobB?" Either there is an answer to this question or there is not. If there is an answer, then Smith's choice is determined (and indeterminism is false). If there is no answer, then Smith's choice is made arbitrarily. So, if indeterminism is true, then Smith's choice is a random choice, and his moral responsibility for that choice is vitiated. Let me present this dilemma a bit more formally:

(1) Either there is a causally sufficient reason why Smith chose JobA rather than JobB, or there is not.
(2) If there is a causally sufficient reason why, then Smith's choice is determined.
(3) If there is no causally sufficient reason why, then Smith's choice is arbitrary.

In defense of (3), let us imagine three different scenarios regarding the relative weight of the reasons Smith may have with respect to the two job offers. First, suppose that Smith's reasons for choosing either job are equally weighted. That is, let it be the case that RA provides no motivation to prefer JobA to JobB, and vice versa. If so, then it seems that there is no reason why Smith chose JobA rather than JobB, even though he did have the considerations of RA in favor of JobA. Would not his choice to accept one job rather than the other be just as arbitrary as if he had no reasons for choosing either job (i.e., if both RA and RB did not exist)? So it seems. So, how does adding equally weighted reasons for the respective jobs diminish the arbitrariness of the choice in such a way as to ground Smith's moral responsibility?

The difficulty does not go away if we assume that RA and RB are not equally weighted. Suppose that RA makes the choice of JobA more preferable, so preferable in fact that it would be clearly irrational to choose JobB. The indeterminist/libertarian would still maintain that there is no causally sufficient reason why Smith chooses JobA (if in fact he does choose JobA). Smith is perfectly capable of choosing JobB in this situation. But, the compatibilist can reply that moral responsibility would come down, on this view, to having the ability to make an irrational choice. And who would want such an ability?

But, what if RA is weightier than RB, but not by a great margin? That is, would our assessment of Smith's moral responsibility be any different if he had some reason to prefer JobA to JobB, yet that reason was not so overwhelmingly preferable that choosing JobB instead would seem obviously crazy? I don't think so. It would still turn out to be irrational to choose JobB if Smith could not say anything in explanation of his choice.

To see this, imagine two possible worlds, W1 and W2, that both contain our character Smith. And let us assume that in both worlds he has some small preference for JobA as opposed to JobB (but not a very strong preference). Now suppose also that in both worlds Smith opts for JobB (the less preferable job). Intuitively, is seems possible for such a choice to be made, and we would not, in ordinary situations, immediately charge someone who made such a choice with irrationality. Let us suppose, for example, that in W1 Smith, if asked why he chose JobB rather than JobA, would reply, "I just had a gut feeling about JobB." We would be prone, I think, to accept this answer and not consider Smith irrational because acting on a gut feeling is often the appropriate thing to do and does in fact constitute a reason for Smith to really prefer JobB after all. It's the presence of this reason that explains why we are willing to give Smith's rationality (in W1) the benefit of the doubt.

However, suppose that things are slightly different with respect to Smith in W2. Suppose that he had no gut feelings about JobB that influenced him to choose it in spite of JobA's apparent preferability. We ask, "So even though JobA seemed more preferable on purely rational grounds, you chose JobB because it appealed to you in some unspecifiable way?" Smith replies, "No, JobA appealed to me more. I just picked JobB. No reason." It would be safe to conclude that Smith is irrational. He quite arbitrarily chose JobB rather than JobA against clear reasons for the latter, and he did so for absolutely no reason. Hence, it would seem that the indeterminist wants us to ground responsibility in the ability to act irrationally. But, I submit that there is no reason that we should go along with this. When people act irrationally and arbitrarily, we tend to think that they are defective in some way—in a way that causes us to mitigate their moral responsibility. So, it would seem that libertarian free will is actually inconsistent with moral responsibility.

What do I conclude from all this? When confronted with the apparent problem of reconciling God’s sovereignty and free will, there is no reason to follow the Arminian in opting for free will and rejecting divine sovereignty, nor is there any need to paradoxically hold these concepts in tension. Because the only motivation for holding on to free will—the need to preserve moral responsibility—has no force. Moral responsibility does not require free will, and thus there is no reason, no motive, to diminish God’s sovereignty.

Reconciling Divine Sovereignty and Free Will? - Part 2

2005-06-13T16:04:00.000-05:00

In the last post, I pointed out that the Bible nowhere teaches that human beings have libertarian freedom. All that Scripture clearly teaches in this area is moral responsibility. Nevertheless, I noted that a critic could argue that, Scripture's silence notwithstanding, moral responsibility requires libertarian freedom as a necessary condition.

So, the second reason to reject libertarianism is that there is no compelling reason to believe that libertarianism—the ability to do otherwise— is a necessary condition for moral responsibility. To see this, let me introduce what is known in philosophical literature as the Frankfurt Counterexample. The contemporary philosopher Harry Frankfurt formulated an ingenious scenario or example in order to refute the notion that we need alternative possibilities or the ability to do otherwise in order to be responsible for our actions. He tells the following story.

Suppose there is a mad-scientist named Black and another man named Jones. Jones has been deliberating on who to vote for in the next Presidential election, either Bush or Hillary Clinton. Black would very much like Jones to vote for Clinton (this is why he is a mad scientist!). And let us suppose that Black has secretly implanted in Jones’ head a device which constantly monitors Jones’ every thought and action, and is also able, if Black pushes the right buttons, to control Jones’ thoughts and actions (but it doesn’t do this all the time).

Now, if Jones chooses to vote for Clinton on his own, then Black will do nothing. He will just sit back and let it happen. But, if Jones begins to choose to vote for Bush, then Black will intervene, push the right buttons and force Jones to vote for Clinton.

Now, let us suppose that Jones does decide on his own, without any manipulation from Black, to vote for Clinton. Two questions: Could Jones have done anything other than vote for Clinton? It wouldn’t seem so. Was he morally responsible for his actions? Indeed he was.

So, here is a case in which it is apparent that a person can be morally responsible without having the ability to do otherwise. I do not mean to suggest that this gives us all we might want in reconciling divine sovereignty and moral responsibility, but I do think it accomplishes this much: it shows that it is not at all obvious anymore that having the ability to do otherwise is necessary for moral responsibility.
[to be continued. . .]

Reconciling Divine Sovereignty and Free Will? - Part 1

2005-06-07T13:22:00.000-05:00

I will present in three parts a paper I read a couple of years ago at the Birmingham Southern Baptist Founders Fraternal dealing with the thorny issue of the relationship between God's sovereignty and human freedom. I hope the readers find it useful. Comments welcome.

RECONCILING DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY AND FREE WILL?
By Steven B. Cowan

[Part 1]

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass. . .

Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; so that there is not anything befalls any by chance, or without his providence. . .
(The Second London Baptist Confession, 3.1, 5.2)

These statements from the Second London Confession reflect the biblical testimony that God is absolutely sovereign over his creation. Nothing happens apart from his will, his control. Since most of you here today would agree with this doctrine, I will not rehearse the biblical texts which support it. But, let me simply go on record as saying that I think that the Bible teaches this doctrine most clearly and unambiguously.

Of course, as our Arminian brothers will be quick to remind us, the doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty and meticulous providence poses a threat to human freedom. If God ordains everything that comes to pass, including the future actions of human beings, then it seems that human beings cannot do other than what they in fact do. And, that being the case, how can they be free? How can they be morally responsible for their actions? The Arminian, as you know, thinks that if God is this sovereign, this much in control, then we cannot be free and responsible. And thus he chooses to preserve human freedom by mitigating God’s sovereignty in some way. Most often this is done by saying that God chooses to limit his sovereignty to allow room for human freedom.

Now those of a Reformed or Calvinist persuasion are not comfortable with this solution primarily because of our conviction regarding what the Scriptures teach about God’s sovereignty. Yet, I have heard many Calvinists, faced with this apparent conflict between God’s sovereignty and human freedom say something like this: "Well, I know that the Bible teaches that God is absolutely sovereign. And it sure seems that the Bible also teaches that humans have free will. The Bible teaches both, so I must affirm both. I can’t explain how they fit together. It’s a mystery. So, we must be content to hold sovereignty and free will in tension."

Before I go any further, I need to point out that both the Arminian and the Calvinist who takes this approach to the problem have something very significant in common. They both share the same view of free will—that is, they both affirm the libertarian definition of free will. On this view a person has free will when he has the ability to do otherwise. In other words, imagine a person who stands at a fork in the road, who is deliberating on whether to go right or left. Now suppose that he chooses to go left. According to the libertarian, the person’s choice was a free choice if, in the very same circumstances, he could have gone right instead. This is what we mean by the ability to do otherwise. And this view of freedom, obviously, entails that a free choice will not be determined in any way.

The Calvinist who wants to hold free will in tension with God’s sovereignty does so because he cannot see any clear way to reconcile God’s sovereignty with freedom understood in this libertarian sense. And I want to suggest that he cannot see any clear way to reconcile them for good reason: they cannot be reconciled! God’s sovereignty and libertarian freedom are undeniably and immutably contradictory! If God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, then it follows with irresistible logic that nothing other than what he ordains can come to pass. And this means that if God ordains that Steve Cowan give a lecture at the Birmingham Founders Fraternal on April 25, then Steve Cowan cannot do other than give that lecture. So, if God is sovereign, then neither Steve Cowan nor anyone else has the ability to do otherwise—that is, no one has freedom in the libertarian sense.

The upshot of this, of course, is that, since contradictions cannot be true, God’s sovereignty and human free will cannot be held in tension. On this score, the Arminian is right: we must choose between God’s absolute sovereignty and libertarian freedom. The Arminian, of course, will say that we ought to choose libertarian freedom and mitigate or diminish God’s sovereignty. However, I suggest that we go the other way; that we choose God’s sovereignty as clearly taught in the Bible, and say goodbye to libertarian freedom.

There are three reasons for this. First, I think it needs to be pointed out, despite what many people believe, that the Bible nowhere directly teaches libertarianism. Search the Scriptures to your heart’s content and you will never find that the Bible affirms that humans have the ability to do otherwise. Now what you will find is that the Bible clearly and strongly affirms human moral responsibility. God gives us commandments and he expects us to keep them. And when we don’t, he holds us morally accountable. So, there is no denying that the Bible teaches moral responsibility.

Now the reason that many people think that the Bible teaches free will (in the libertarian sense) is that they assume or presuppose that moral responsibility requires libertarian free will. In other words, people come to the biblical text with an a priori philosophical presupposition that libertarianism is a necessary condition for moral responsibility. But, the Bible nowhere affirms that presupposition. But, of course, someone might say that even though the Bible doesn’t directly affirm that libertarianism is a necessary condition of moral responsibility, it is certainly plausible to believe it is. The Bible doesn’t teach libertarianism, but there are lots of things we believe and ought to believe that the Bible doesn’t teach, e.g., that 2+2=4. So, perhaps we ought to accept libertarianism any way. This leads me to my next two reasons to say goodbye to libertarianism. . . [to be continued]