The Sanctity of Life, Personhood and “After-Birth Abortion”

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 249

Jim continues the discussion (started in PCM Podcast #245) related to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva’s paper for the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” Jim also discusses the recent lawsuit filed by two parents of a four-year-old child with Down syndrome.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

The Sanctity of Life, Personhood and “After-Birth Abortion”

"The Hunger Games" and Human Nature

The Hunger Games hit the big screen this past weekend. True to the book, the movie took the viewer on an adventurous ride to a post-apocalyptic future, frighteningly reminiscent of ancient Rome’s barbaric approach to "public entertainment." As the story unfolds, the protagonist – a 16-year-old girl whose hunting skills give her a better chance at survival than her much younger sister – volunteers to enter "the arena" in her place. In this fictitious futuristic world, denizens of “the Capitol” force a yearly ritual upon the subjugated peoples of the “twelve districts.” One boy and one girl from each district are selected at random to fight to the death in an arena of horrors, as some symbolic punishment for the rebellion that the Capitol had suppressed decades earlier.

The trilogy of books – and now, it seems, the movie – resonate with the audience because they tell a story as old as man. It is the story of the struggle against injustice and unfairness, the desire to see virtue prevail, the sense that it is just and right for the “good” to win and for evil to be thwarted. The reader can’t help but be attracted to young Katniss. Her selfless offer to face near-certain death in order to spare her sister makes her instantly appealing, and intriguing. But her resistance to the evil that is being perpetrated upon her, and her cleverness in dealing with the injustice she faces, seals her attraction. She is … good, and we know it. The people who created and run “the games,” by contrast, are evil. They inflict pain and suffering … because they can, or for the pleasure of seeing it unfold. They have lost their humanity and have become empty shells of human beings, going through the motions of life but not having even a mere fraction of what makes Katniss so fully alive.

I would venture to say that this story, though conjured up wholly in the mind of the author, is as relevant today, in this culture, as it would be in any human culture at any time. The struggle against the arrogance of power; the recognition of the value of honesty, fidelity, altruism, selfless love, sacrifice – the intuitive attraction we feel when we encounter virtue – these things seem to be built into the very nature of what it means to be human. Yes, many, perhaps most, human beings depart from this ideal. They become coarsened as a result of what life throws at them. For some, perhaps too many, they revel in the evil into which they allow themselves to descend. But we recognize them, and their acts, for what they are – perversions of the good. And we keep coming back to the standard, to a recognition of the permanence and rightness of the values that Katniss embodies. And we hope, however vainly, that those who have fallen astray will repent and seek redemption.

But why should this be so? Where does the grounding for such eternal truths exist? If atheism is true, as so many people seem to hold today, then we should have no particular reason to recognize good as good, or to embrace the struggle of the lonely fighter with the just cause against the forces of evil arrayed against her. "Good" is simply a point of view, an opinion of like or dislike, enjoyment or displeasure. In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, does it not make more sense to simply view morality as whatever the prevailing view of the culture is? "Good" becomes what the majority - what the collective or the State - define it to be. In Katniss’ world, for instance, sacrificing 23 people a year for the sake of the “greater good” of the society would seem a relatively small price to pay.

We should not be deceived. Though those who derive benefit from barbarity may not complain – as is true of the ruling classes of all tyrannies – we nonetheless suffer no confusion as to what truly is the good. The virtues of selflessness and willingness to sacrifice for the other; the value of friendship for the sake of the other, and not so as to exploit another; the recognition that evil must be resisted and fought – these things that resonate with us as we watch Katniss, make no sense in a culture whose morality is situational, or based on the randomness that evolution presupposes.

Christianity, by contrast, provides a much better explanation for what we feel, what we know to be true. We intuitively recognize the existence of good because it is objectively there. We may rebel against it, and we may fool ourselves some or even most of the time about how well we are responding to it. But throughout history, and from culture to culture, that basic core sense of “the good” remains - with variations perhaps but largely intact. And we find ourselves naturally attracted to it – drawn to it even against our will – because the Author of all goodness has left that homing beacon within us. He, of course, sets the standard of good, and our view of true good is at best a dim reflection of what it really is. We may even disagree as to particular applications, but in recognizing that good and evil are real, that they occupy distinct and actual places in the universe, we take that first small step back home.

"The Hunger Games" and Human Nature

After Birth Abortion? Seriously?

“When we start out trying to make ourselves stupid, we often end up being even more stupid than we set out to be.” I’m paraphrasing something I once heard in a talk by noted Christian apologist and author, J. Budziszewski. He was talking about the human capacity for self-deception, and the inevitable downward slide that occurs when we deny obvious truths about ourselves, and our nature, and seek to do what we feel like doing. Another great Christian thinker, Francis Schaeffer, put it this way: “what was unthinkable yesterday is thinkable today and common-place tomorrow.” The deterioration in a culture from lax morality is progressive, spreading like cancer in a body, or rust on a chunk of steel.

I thought about these concepts recently, when I read about the paper published by two “ethicists” that made the case for what they termed “After-Birth Abortion,” subtitled “Why Should the Baby Live?” Using the “logic” of the pro-abortion movement, they argued that the reasons that justify abortion for pre-born human beings were equally applicable for babies in the days following birth. If the one is legal, the other – if we are to follow principle – should be as well. Unthinkable? Stupid? At first, I hoped that the piece was done to make the opposite point, using the revolting nature of the idea to prove that the whole concept of “legal” abortion needs to be reconsidered. But sadly that does not appear to be the case.

There is a “common sense” test that most people intuitively can make use of. The Founders of this country understood this. That’s why they put such stock in the idea of government “of, by and for” the people. We didn’t need philosopher kings or iron-fisted dictators because a properly educated and informed populace could make the best decisions for themselves. This of course presupposed some level of moral training and reasoning and a proper grounding for understanding from whence human rights come. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” they proclaimed, “that we are “endowed by our Creator” with certain rights that cannot be taken from us. Central among these rights, of course, is the right to life, which government sacred duty is to protect.

Abortion on demand seems to have deadened that sensibility. Enshrined as it now is with Constitutional dimension, we seem to be forgetting that the right to life doesn’t come from the Constitution, but from a much higher source. The Constitution was meant to give structure to that higher source, at least as it relates to the running of a government. It cannot legitimize something that so clearly violates that higher law. We simply don’t get to kill innocent human beings for the reasons that today are used to justify abortion. We certainly don’t get to diminish the value of human life – as the authors do – by drawing strained distinctions between “potential” and “actual” persons. That kind of thinking led to places like Auschwitz.

A paper like “After-Birth Abortion” should serve as a wake-up call. The idea that the law should allow the murder of newborn babies for whatever reason, or no reason at all, like some primitive culture from the distant past, should be revolting. That revulsion should then prompt us to consider the deeper question: if the authors are right in their analysis – if killing new born children is in principle the same as killing pre-born children, because they are merely “potential” persons - then something is dreadfully wrong with the rationale for abortion.

Christianity helped to put a stop to child sacrifice (as well as slavery and many other barbaric customs), as the message of human worth and dignity that stems from the Bible began to take hold in the cultures that it penetrated. That is the role of the church again today; to be the “salt” and “light” that Jesus exhorted his followers to be. Like the addict who finds himself strung out, sick, and alone, we need to look backward to see where we went off course. We need to reject the self-centered and short-sighted philosophy that promised “free love” with no consequences, and embrace the concept of self-sacrifice and love of neighbor (of whatever size) that once made this country the beacon of freedom and hope for the rest of the world. Our addiction to pleasure, and our glorification of self, and of self-centeredness, may have begun with tiny steps, but they have exploded into something horrific, as the squelched cries of millions of aborted babies testify against us.

It’s time to put a stop to the downward spiral. It's time to return to the common sense that now seems increasingly uncommon. We can stop allowing ourselves to be “stupid” to the consequences of our choices. We can stop viewing the unthinkable as acceptable. We can turn back to what we once knew and embraced as a country and a people.

And if we don’t turn back - if we don't put a stop to this madness - I shudder to think what horrors tomorrow's tomorrow may hold.

After Birth Abortion? Seriously?

October Baby, Christianity and the Arts

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 248

Jim previews the new pro-life theatrical release, October Baby. This powerful new movie is an excellent opportunity to talk about life, God, forgiveness, and healing. In addition, the movie may open up a deeper discussion of the relationship between Christianity and the arts. How should we, as Christians, engage the world through art and entertainment? Jim also answers listener email about “personhood” and the impact of worldview.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

October Baby, Christianity and the Arts

Is Our Will Really Free?

In a recent post, I argued that God, despite His immense power, does not force us to accept Him. In the end, He respects our freedom by allowing us the choice of whether to let Him in or to say no to Him.

A reader took issue with this claim, saying:

For me, this represents the fundamental flaw in Christian logic and ultimate judgment - that we can ‘decide’ to believe, or not believe. That we are ‘free’ to believe, or not believe. This is crucial because in the end, we’re judged on our heartfelt belief . . . as if it were our conscious decision. If you really had a choice in what you truly believed, you could decide to believe that Islam is the one true faith. Of course, you’d have to become familiar with the basic premises and claims of Islam. You’d have to learn that not believing would result in eternal punishment. And then, Tuesday morning at 9am, you’d simply turn-on your belief... THIS CONCEPT IS ABSURD! There is no free-will when it comes to heartfelt beliefs! ...But it is irrational to punish or reward someone for their most heartfelt beliefs. That’s because, in the end, they cannot control what they truly believe.

Now this challenge is interesting from a number of perspectives. First, if the writer really “believed” what he was saying, he would not bother to write. Consider the claim he is making: he thinks Christianity has it wrong in its doctrine regarding free will. He thinks instead that “heartfelt beliefs” are not things that you have any choice in, because no one can control what they truly believe. But by this reasoning, I may simply be one of those who have a heartfelt belief that free will actually exists, even though it really does not. So, why try to convince me that I’m wrong? Why try to get me to see that my view on free will is actually false? The argument self-destructs; to convince me to change my view of free will, the challenger must also agree that beliefs, heartfelt or otherwise, are things that can be changed.

Secondly, the idea that it is irrational to punish or reward someone for their heartfelt beliefs cannot survive scrutiny. Consider legislation outlawing “hate crimes.” Are these not a reflection by society that certain views – when they cause a person to act antisocially – are worthy of condemnation? Was this not the point of the Nuremberg War Trials – that Nazi ideology and the evil it spawned were volitional, however "heartfelt," and worthy of punishment?

In fairness to the writer, part of what he is saying is no doubt accurate: it is nonsensical to claim to “believe” something which one holds to be not true. I cannot “believe” in Santa Claus while at the same time concluding from the evidence that he does not exist. By contrast, however, “belief” in something isn’t a mystical experience that is separate from the mind. We don’t close our eyes and “feel the force,” as if belief in God required access to a power source that we could tap into or manipulate. God gave us minds and the capacity for reason so that we would use them, not sit idly by waiting to be overwhelmed by a fairytale “conversion experience.”

A moment's reflection will show that there are indeed times in which we “decide” to believe. Take for example the issue of commitment to a relationship: a person can decide that true love means staying committed to their spouse, even if the relationship is shaky. Acting on that belief, they can work on restoring the relationship. By contrast, a person can also choose to believe that divorce is a better option in the event that they are unhappy. There is "evidence" to support either position, so action must be based on "belief" despite not having perfect knowledge of the future.

Or take for example the choice that a soldier makes. He “believes” in his country and wants to serve it, even though he does not have full knowledge of each of the principles upon which it once stood, now stands, or will stand in the future. What he does know, however, supports his commitment of will to defend it against all enemies. He may have moments of doubt, but a properly grounded belief will see him through those doubts.

In each example, there may be moments in which belief falters, and that is usually due to temptation – to jettison the old for something new, to run from danger. But consider what this temptation is: often, it is simply the desire to think first and foremost of oneself and not of others. The deeper we dig, what we find time and again is man in his natural condition. This issue of free will – this question that we are examining - is the question of man’s rebellion against God. Man chooses to throw off the shackles of the creature and exercise instead – or at least try to – the prerogatives of God. What better way to do this than to ignore – no, to reject – God’s very existence? Despite the overwhelming evidence built into nature of incredible intelligence, sublime artistry and immense power, the modern atheist insists that this vast complexity can be explained by human minds as the product of random chance and time. The hubris of such as position, when viewed from the perspective of God, must indeed be laughable.

In the end, a person is free to reject the evidence of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. Perhaps some do for what the challenger calls “heartfelt” reasons. But most, I suspect, never take the time to assess the evidence, to consider its plausibility, to weigh and balance what has come to us from antiquity. Doing so might require them to make changes in the way they view the world... and their place in it.

The atheist who rejects belief in God is not the object of unfair treatment; he is not unfairly prevented from having faith by some“heartfelt belief" that he can't seem to shake, as if he wants to believe and is being punished for lacking the ability. It is not as if his mind, though seeking God, is being "overcome" against his will by his "heartfelt" but erroneous beliefs.

No, he is freely choosing how he will view the world. He is directing his will away, rather than toward, his creator. He is choosing to reject God because he remains in rebellion against God. But God remains, as does the evidence, for anyone who wants to give the question a closer look.

Is Our Will Really Free?

Witnessing the Witnesses

In evangelism, the approach matters at least as much as the content. It's not just what we say but how we say it that determines our effectiveness. Many Christians shudder when called to defend the faith even when acting so boldly in our training or online debates. Like an "expert" shower-singer challenged to take the stage, we need to be ready to put our practice to the test. Fortunately, most people find it easier to obtain the right tactic than master enough knowledge for every situation. That's good news since a less educated winsome manner comes across better than a rude intellectualism.

Reflecting on a recent encounter lead me to investigate a biblical approach. While the following account involves Jehovah's Witnesses, the same general guidelines apply to any gospel outreach. In my assessment of the dialogue, I've identified four key& phases of biblical evangelism which I will mention along the way and list out at the end.

Returning from a jog the other day I noticed a team of Jehovah's Witnesses canvassing my neighborhood. For all the wrong reasons it's always the wrong time when the knock comes at my door. So I decided to seize the opportunity by approaching them on my terms. I've always prayed for God to prepare me to make an impact on people and it occurred to me this was one of those times (Phase 1: Prayerfully Watch).

After an eight mile jog and a toddler-filled stroller, I changed course in the direction of a well-dressed married couple Frank and Sheila (Phase 2: Engage). "What brings you out this fine day?" I inquired. Frank, a middle-aged former Roman Catholic, carried most the conversation as we walked the sidewalk with Sheila following close behind listening carefully and offering the occasional soft-spoken supplement to Frank's points. He started by telling me how they "were out sharing the truth about Jesus." What a wonderful place to start, I thought. So I took Frank up on his offer and asked if we could take a short walk together.

I said it's a worthy question to ask whether biblical claims are true (Phase 3: Reflect). After exchanging evidences for biblical reliability, it seemed we both held a high view of Scripture. So I wondered why they would want to spend their day sharing the "truth of Jesus" with classical Christians like me when their view is virtually the same? So I bluntly asked them to tell me the difference.

At first, they explained how only 144,000 of the saints enter heaven but that the rest of us will experience life on a renewed earth. They said my questions would be answered in more detail if I attended one of their Bible studies. I listened as Frank thumbed through his New World Translation Bible reading selected proof-texts to support this view. My questions about the contextual relevance of those verses (Psalm, Isaiah, and Revelation) caused Frank to rethink his use of them. I didn't push very hard since I sensed there were bigger differences to come. But when they didn't come, I chose to press them a bit (Phase 3: Discern).

I looked at Frank then Sheila and said, "We've been talking for a while so by now you can see I'm not going to get angry if you bring up something to which I disagree. If the basics of protestant Christianity are inaccurate, then there could be a lot at stake for me and others who share my view. Let me give you an illustration. There are many kinds of cancer, right? If a doctor told me I had cancer, I would want to know exactly what kind it was. 'Where in my body was the cancer?' 'To which stage has it progressed?' and 'How long do I have to live?' are the first questions that come to mind. A doctor who wouldn't clarify these things for me but instead tells me it's the same as all the other kinds of cancer, would not be serving my best interests. So please, shoot straight and tell me what's wrong with the belief that Jesus is the second person of a triune God who took upon himself the sin of those who trust in Him so that they stand blameless; welcomed into the eternal Kingdom of God?"

Without hesitation, Frank resumed as if he’d never stopped. "Jesus isn't God, but was created by Jehovah as the first of all creation," he answered. I was relieved yet horrified at the same time. Relieved that the focal point where we should have started was finally revealed. Horrified in anticipation of the task ahead. I began citing Scripture that seem clear about Christ's claims to deity. I pointed to the "Son of Man" title He used of Himself and examples of Jesus' divine deeds and statement such as forgiving sins and speaking on His own divine authority. These, I added, resulted in charges of blasphemy by the Jewish leaders who sought his death. I told of the "I am" reference in John 8 as well as the response to the rich young ruler in Mark 10 where Jesus said "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." I asked Frank and Sheila if they thought Jesus was a good teacher as the rich man accused Him of. If He was good then He was claiming to be God. I could have continued, but didn't want to abuse their patience.

For the first time in our conversation, Frank and Sheila stood silent. I don't presume to think I changed their minds that day. Maybe I barraged them with too much at once and overwhelmed them. Perhaps they were silent because they weren't getting their message through to me. Or maybe, hopefully, they were thoughtfully considering some of the things I said. I can’t know for sure. Before parting, I reminded them that much was discussed and that we both had much to think about. I asked for a way to contact them so Frank pulled out a few publications and wrote his phone number on one of them (Phase 4: Follow through). I have yet to contact him since that day but hope to do so soon.

As a recap, here are the four phases we went through with Frank and Sheila along with their biblical and pragmatic justification:

#1 Watch: Pray that you will be used by God to introduce more people to Him. With salvation in Him comes responsibility. Not only prepare yourself but be keen to opportunities that may arise when you don't expect them. And pray for the ability to let God speak through you as he has promised He will (Luke 12:12, Matt 28:20, Isa 21:8)

#2 Engage: Make the move. No one likes to go out of their way and spend extra time, but Christians are tasked with a greater calling. If you don't approach people who God leads you to, maybe no one will. When you do, ask questions. This serves the two-fold purpose of clarification and instruction. Jesus' used questions in counteless encounters as teaching points. Be sure to pay careful attention to responses and reflect on their perspection and reasoning. In Acts 3:6, we see Peter relate with the need of the crippled begger. Paul's sums up an effective missionary: "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some" (1 Cor 20:22b). It's wise to relate to the world others find themselves in.

#3 Discern In every conversation there will come a point where you must decide whether to press on, change the topic, or end the discussion. No conversation lasts forever. The nature of evangelism is so incredibly important that it shouldn't be given up easily. But no one can control how the other party receives your interaction. I was very fortunate that Frank and Sheila were kind and respectful. Religious topics can become very heated because of short tempers or emotional hot spots. Always be prepared to end the conversation if the other person demonstrates repeated disinterest or refuses to consider sound reasoning. Continuing& an unwelcome dialogue can do more harm than good and it wastes God's valuable resource - you. Jesus himself instructed his first disciples to enter homes and towns where welcomed while guaranteeing some will reject them.

#4 Follow through Don't expect every encounter will end with hand-in-hand prayer. Big change takes time and your job isn't to convince but to represent God well while the Holy Spirit does the heavy lifting. Nonetheless it's important to finish what you started. If you don't care about people, then you won't be a good evangelist. Sincere caring will lead you to see how your ideas were considered and maybe to address issues that you couldn't readily answer at the moment. Let's again look to Paul's example here. The apostle traveled widely around the mediteranian world planting churches as he went, but he didn't stop there. He sent others to assist in teaching the new Christians a greater understanding of God's truth. Paul reflected greatly on these churches he helped to plant as can be seen in the many letters he wrote to them. Many of the letters show concern and continued instruction in theology to help them in their understanding. Other times he passionately scolds them. In others he reminds them that he was just like them and understands what they're going through. If we're serious, we should do no less.

There are many useful resources out there to prepare you to share your faith. One I recommend is Just Walk Across the Room by Willow Creek pastor Bill Hybels. For reaching Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, a great free resource to address the biggest problems within each system written by New Testament historian Dr. Michael Licona is Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock: what to say to Jehovah's Witnesses when they knock on your door. A timely contribution is a $1.99 audio posted yesterday by Harvest apologist Lenny Esposito Help! There's a Cultist at my Door!

Witnessing the Witnesses

Answering Objections to Adam and Eve

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 247

Jim responds to scientific objections related to the existence of Adam and Eve as a single source couple for the human race. In addition, Jim answers listener email regarding abortions that follow rape, evangelism from a Reformed perspective, motives behind all sin, and the expanding definition of marriage.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Answering Objections to Adam and Eve

Why Growing Closer to God Is Such A Slow Process

My last post addressed the question whether free will could truly be said to exist if one believes, as Christianity teaches, that man is born with original sin. I argued that man remains free, despite this fallen nature, because he acts in accordance with his desires. Unlike a robot or lower animal, operating on programming or instinct, man has the capacity to weigh and balance, to imagine, and to foresee, at least in part, the consequences of his choices. Man therefore has the capacity to transcend his programming - his nature - and to become something different, something better. And so, more is expected of him.

Christianity also teaches that we cannot transform ourselves, at least not in a manner sufficient to satisfy a perfect God. We must allow Him into our lives – no, we must make Him master of our lives – so that He can do that work within us. But this is a slow process and the question I left open in the last post is why this must be so. Why can’t we simply decide to “love God” and throw off on our own the shackles of sinfulness?

I submit that the answer to that question also lies within our nature. We are imperfect, limited beings seeking to approach a perfect, holy God. We need simply look around us to see why this must be a slow, progressive process, and not one that can be accomplished quickly. Consider for a moment the way we learn. We do not possess instincts like the lower animals. We can’t, without first being taught and much practice, jump onto a narrow ledge and remain perfectly balanced, the way a cat does. We cannot “download” into our minds a program from a computer and have instantaneous and complete knowledge of a subject. Instead, the progress toward any goal is a slow and laborious one.

Amazing progress is of course possible. Think for a moment about being thrust into the cockpit of a modern airliner on final approach. You would see a jumble of displays and readouts, light and dials and gauges, all perfectly arranged and providing a steady stream of information. You might even recognize a few, and their significance, if you took the time to focus on a particular instrument. But even with the pilot standing nearby ready to explain, you would be unable to make sense of the whole. She, of course, sees everything with clarity, effortlessly scanning the readouts and able to respond with the precision needed to bring thousands of tons of metal floating softly back to earth.

Or think of a surgeon conducting open-heart surgery. You’ve seen pictures, no doubt, of the body’s interior, but peering in over his shoulder, you would see a mass of flesh, and tissue and blood. The idea that you could precisely introduce an instrument into the mix and leave the patient the better for it is laughable. Yet the surgeon can do precisely that. His experience allows him to see with clarity what looks to you like chaos.

What we can derive from this is that we are slow and progressive in our ability to learn. It takes considerable time, and repetition and effort, to achieve the mastery that the pilot or the surgeon demonstrates. They take years to reach their respective goals, and they can no more will themselves to be masters of their craft on day one than we can step off a building and float safely to earth.

Applying this observation to God is of course different. God is a not a plane or a body; he is not something for us to master or manipulate. What is He? The Bible says he is “love,” and most religions, if they don’t exactly agree, would at least agree that He is ultimate goodness. And where do we first begin to development a facility for love? We do that within the context of relationships. We move from infancy to adulthood, and as we do so, we move from “takers” of love and affection to mature adults with the capacity to give. In its highest form – agape love – we express the capacity to love without condition and without expectation for return. We express love for the sake of love. This too is a lengthy process. Like the surgeon or the pilot, we do not simply decide to love others and live out that decision perfectly. The road is marked by many obstacles and many ups and downs.

Marriage has been rightly seen as the best vehicle for fully developing this capacity because it involves focusing our “love” wholly upon the other. It’s no wonder then that the standard wedding vow contains the promises that sound so strange to our modern ears – to love, honor and respect someone in sickness… in bad times…when things are at their worse? Really? Why would anyone choose to persist in loving someone who can give nothing of the original “bargain” back? And then children are brought into the equation, and for the first time we understand what love also entails – a sense of devotion and vulnerability that we could never quite understand if we haven’t experienced it ourselves.

This is all fine and good, the skeptic might respond. But God could have shortcut this whole process, couldn’t He? He could have made us instantly ready for all these things, so He remains at fault for the current mess we are in.

I hope the above examples lead you to the same conclusion as they lead me. Flying a plane is difficult, as is surgery. Loving a spouse or a difficult child also takes time, effort and practice. But God is not a mere person or a skill to master. He is ultimate perfection. Gaze up into the night sky or into the recesses of the living cell, and marvel for a moment at the extreme intelligence and power that He encompasses. We are closer to the ant, or the amoeba, than we are to Him. Multiply the difficulty of mastering a skill, or fully loving another person, not by a million or a billion or a gazillion – but by infinity. That is the task that awaits any human being with the audacity to think that he can relate to God as an equal.

Of course God must do the work. There can be no other way. And the process of relating to perfection - of someday interacting with ultimate and perfect goodness - is a slow and progressive one. But despite His immense power, He does not force our hand. In the end, He respects our freedom by allowing us the choice of whether to let Him in to start the process.

Why Growing Closer to God Is Such A Slow Process

Apologetics Q and A

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 246

In this special edition podcast, Jim plays the audio from his recent talk at a Sanctified Thinkers meeting. This group of Christians watched the Christopher Hitchens, William Lane Craig debate and then used this meeting to discuss some of their questions and concerns. Jim facilitated the meeting and responded to a variety of issues, from the relationship between Mithras and Jesus, the nature of the Trinity, the reasonable (or unreasonable) nature of the Virgin Conception and more.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Apologetics Q and A

Why We Remain Free Despite Our Fallen Nature

Evil is not a created thing, but is instead the measure of the extent to which a particular thought or act departs from "the good." That was the point of a recent post. Drawing on the work of Augustine and other early Christian thinkers, I concluded that God allows for evil - for human beings to think and act in a way that is contrary to his perfect will - because that is the only way "free will" could exist. He could make us robots or mere things, but he could not make us "free" without the capacity for "evil" to also exist.

The problem with short essays is that the work of giants such as Augustine or Aquinas cannot be encapsulated in 750 words. These posts are meant simply to convey a basic principle, or to generate interest in the ideas and some discussion. Sometimes the discussion that emerges reflects the misunderstanding that can result from a superficial treatment of a topic. One challenger commented:

"If people inevitably commit evil (as Christians believe), then we don't have free will. A god who allowed a tendency to evil to be inherited doesn't sound good to me."

Making sense of this challenge requires first that we consider what is meant by "evil." In my post, I used the term quite broadly, meaning any departure from God's will. Consequently, evil could mean something serious, like genocide, or it could mean something minor, like demeaning someone, or anything in between. While all acts of rebellion may be contrary to God's will, it is self-evident that some acts of rebellion against God (eg. rape, murder, genocide) are more serious and more despicable than others. Consequently, while it is true that all people "inevitably commit evil," it is not as if all people feel a compulsion to commit heinous acts of violence or depredation. The common element in all "evil" however is the exercise of the will directed at achieving one's own ends whenever those ends do not coincide with God's perfect will. Sometimes those ends might be laudable, and sometimes not. But the common feature is the desire for "control" - of one's self, of others, of one's environment. In the final analysis, it is the desire to throw off the yoke of God and to be one's own master - the very essence of rebellion.

Does this feature of the human species negate free will, as the challenger asserts? Hardly. Because when we act in our own interest, and we pursue our own base ends, we nonetheless act in a volitional manner. We do what is pleasing to us, what we find to be desirable. The opposite of that would be to act on compulsion, or by instinct. Unlike the lesser animals, whose behavior appears largely programmed, human beings have the capacity to reflect upon their behavior. While they might experience temptations or urges, they retain the capacity to act in accordance with their will and not simply due to some biological imperative. To say, then, that our ability to choose to act in accordance with our pleasure is evidence of a lack of free will is incoherent. It is not as if we are forced, for example, to eat things that are disagreeable to us, or to do things we would rather not do. What we choose to do is most often simply an expression of our innermost desires.

Which leads then to the next question: why do we possess such desires? This is a much trickier question. Why does the lion devour its prey? Why does it look upon the jungle as a place to hunt, to exercise dominion, to kill? It is built into its nature, yes, but as a result of that nature, it derives pleasure or satisfaction from its actions. It operates according to its programming. But we are not lions. We have the capacity for thought, for reflection, for self-assessment, for insight. We can see the long term consequences of our actions. We can develop empathy for others. While we may derive pleasure from doing wrong, we also possess the capacity to see the law that urges us to do right. The lion can be tamed, given enough time and effort. But it must be done from outside. Its instinct must be overcome. Man, by contrast, has the capacity to transcend his programming - his nature - and to become something different, something better.

The question is how he does this. The secular humanist believes man is basically good and that with enough education and enlightenment, he can correct himself. Man - the center of all things - remains the center in this worldview. Christianity, by contrast, teaches that man's fallen nature is like quick-sand. The temptations that we experience, while not instincts or compulsion, are nonetheless powerful and difficult to master. We can struggle to escape but in the end our efforts are not sufficient. We cannot tame ourselves - our natures - nor can we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.

The good news of Christianity, of course, is that we need not. God does the work of redemption, including the initial overture in which he beckons us home. We need simply say yes. He can then perfect us, make us ready to stand in the presence of perfection. (More on this in my next post.)

Yes, God is responsible for allowing man to have this fallen nature - this tendency toward evil - and for giving man the free will to act on that desire. But he did not saddle us with instinct that takes away the volitional nature of our acts. Instead, he bestowed upon us his very image - the imago dei. He provided us the capacity that he gave to no other animal, for self awareness and self control. Most importantly he gave us the capacity for choice - to say yes to him, and to let him complete a work in us.

And that makes him very good indeed.

Why We Remain Free Despite Our Fallen Nature

Character Counts!

In an election season one issue comes to the front more than any other: character. Whether attacking another candidate's history or defending one's own consistency the underlying issue is almost always one of character. Attacking it, defending it, questioning it, and debating it. Character is ultimately what gives voter's confidence in what a candidate believed in the past and will do in the future. Not unlike politics, character of leaders of various religious movements counts as strong testimony to the legitimacy of their claims. It's one thing to say something, but it's a whole other thing to live consistently with what's said. If character counts for choosing political leaders, perhaps the credibility of religious leaders should be examined likewise.

In his brief theological treatise Basic Christianity, theologian John Stott provides Jesus' character as evidence for Christ's claims. The claims of Christ include those he made implicitly and explicitly during his time on earth documented in our extant New Testament writings. The greatest of these include his unique relationship with God, his own divine authority, and his miraculous acts. Since the claims of Christ are mulitply attested in early independent sources and consistently represented through 27 books of the New Testament, Stott concludes we're justified in calling them reliable. But even if we are to grant him that much, we must still ask ourselves - are they true?

Attempting to show reliability by merely stating that a claim is historical is misleading at worst and inadequate at best. Whether the claims were made in history is a different question than whether the content of those claims is true. After all, people can claim anything they want. There were so-called messiahs throughout and since second temple Judaism. As C.S. Lewis famously proposed, there are three options regarding our decision with the claims of Christ. If he wasn't Lord, the only remaining options are liar or lunatic (Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, p54-56). So to find out which claims are more likely true, it's important to examine life demonstrated by the one making the claims.

If the sort of things Jesus said are true, the evidence should be seen in how he lived his life. Whatever we may believe about him, it's clear what we know of Jesus is different from any other religious founder. Most notably, his character shows no flaws where we would expect to see them. For someone well acquainted with the doctrine of sinful man, we see in Jesus one who had no sin in him. He was tempted like we are, but never ever made the wrong moral choice.

When the rich man addressed him as "Good teacher" asking how he could inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:17-18). What follows is one of two possible conclusions. Either Jesus is not good or he isn't God. The New Testament is consistent in it's message that Jesus lived without sin. Therefore, since moral perfection is "good," and only God is good, then Jesus is God. What we get with this verse is both the divinity of Christ and his own self-claimed moral perfection. Jesus also pointed to himself as the means of redemption for sinful man. Many more verses can be cited (see Greg Koukl's Jesus the Only Way: 100 Verses), but there's more than merely what Jesus said about himself.

Those closest to Christ agreed with him on this point. They lived with him, studied under him, and suffered for his sake. As devoted Jews they too understood the depravity of man, yet they upheld the testimony of Christ's sinlessness despite having every reason not to. While some witnesses explicitly state Christ's spotless nature (1 Pet 2:22, Heb 9:14, 1 John 3:5), the gospel writers seem only to mention it as an incidental aside from their primary message. While the sinful nature of all other central figures is exposed, Jesus, about whom much more is said, rests immune. While friendly witnesses would be expected to portray Jesus well, let's see what his enemies say of him.

As we might expect, Jesus' critics were unkind. They called him a blasphemer, friend of sinners, and sabbath breaker. In the proper context, these accusations were serious enough to portray him as a social outcast, rejected by God, and worthy of capital punishment. Ironically, it also speaks well of his character. The charge brought against him by the Jews was for insurrection which was a political crime rather than a moral one. Moreover, he was brought before King Herod and the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate only to be found guiltless by both.  His accusers depended on false witnesses, rejected his messianic identity, and misrepresented his claim to be king. Often overlooked, the silence of any accusations from earlier in his life should be noted. With the zeal of his enemies, it must have frustrated them greatly to have nothing but lies to use against him.

From how he's depicted by friends and foes alike we've seen Christ wasn't just sinless but the only one who ever was in a culture where universal human depravity was presumed. For most of us who grow closer in our relationship with God, our human sinfulness brightly contrasts from God's almighty perfection. However, as his followers learned more of Jesus' closeness with the Father, his utter absence of sin became even more apparent to all.

Unless his claims were true, the types of things he said would be that of a megalomaniac. Christ's claims centered around himself and that the destiny of mankind depend on how people respond to him. This truth comes as an unexpected paradox. Jesus taught that he "came not to be served but to serve and be a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45, Matt 20:28). He spoke of himself first in his words but put himself last by his deeds. He was misunderstood and rejected by his foes and even abandoned and betrayed by friends. Ultimately he was shamed, tortured, and killed for living consistently with his true message and identity. Amidst the scorn, he prayed for those who hated him. His teaching was unique and unpopular, yet he wasn't a fanatic. He simply spoke the truth and lived it consistently. 

Character Counts!

Reflections on the Problem of Evil

One of the most common challenges to the Christian worldview is the problem of evil. In its common syllogistic form, the challenge can be reduced to this:
God created all things

• Evil is a thing
• Therefore God created evil.

This challenge is not new. In the 4^th century, St. Augustine tackled it, as did St. Thomas Aquinas centuries later. What we call evil, they explained, is in fact a deprivation of the good and is therefore not really a “thing” at all. Like the hole in a donut, it describes what is not there, what is missing.

But this does not always satisfy the challenger. Often, they may counter: an all powerful, all loving God would not have allowed deprivations any more than he would have created evil. God still remains at fault, in their view, because he is the originator of the system that results in this "non-thing" -evil - which we rightly view as bad.

This response has superficial appeal. It seems to accept the difference between a deprivation and a thing, and confronts the believer with the same challenge: a good God would never have allowed such deprivations in the first place. But this challenge actually misses the point of the distinction that Augustine and Aquinas drew; through sloppy thinking, it continues to view evil as a thing, even though it pretends not to and adopts the language of deprivation.

Consider: what we see as evil, whether a thought or an act, can only be gauged if we first hold in our minds what the good would be. For example, using a knife to cut someone is evil when done by the assailant but not by the surgeon. Setting off an explosion is evil when used to harm others but not when used to carve out a tunnel. The knife and the cutting; the bomb and the blast – these may be “things’ in a manner of speaking, but any measure of evil in their use depends not on what they are, but on the extent to which their use departed from God’s perfect will.

We know this intuitively. And because some of us are better at knowing God’s will than others, we may mistakenly call something evil when in truth it is not. For example, a law prohibiting abortions would be viewed as “evil” by those who believe that a woman has the right to choose; they would view the act of stopping a woman from aborting her unborn child to be a departure from the “good” of free choice. This of course would be wrong. It would not be evil at all, but instead good, because such a law would comport with, and not defy, God’s will.

Those who reject Augustine’s approach will insist that each of these examples - stopping the woman by force of law, setting off the explosive, cutting into a person - are things regardless of what label we choose to attach to them. They will insist that a good God would not have created the potential for such actions to occur, would not have allowed for evil to arise. But this misunderstands the point: what constitutes evil is not the action or the thing, but the use to which it is put. God, as the infinite expression and definition of good, is by necessity the ultimate standard of what is good. Consequently, what we describe as evil is in reality a rough gauge of the extent to which the thought or act in question departs from God’s nature or will, or at least what we understand that nature or will to be.

So, why does God allow evil? Because when he gave us free will, he meant for us to have, well, free will. The opposite of free will would be directed will. Whatever actions we took would be controlled, the way a robot’s or computer’s would be. In such a world, there would be no abortions, no stabbings, no hidden minefields. But such a world would not know freedom. God allows evil, even though he never created it, because if He does not allow us to depart from His perfect will - if he does not allow us to "do evil" - then free will would be an illusion.

Why he felt creating such free will beings was important, or worth doing, is of course a different question. Many have concluded - perhaps without fully considering the issue - that God made a poor choice. But whatever his reasons, one thing is clear: a world in which evil was prevented might be preferable to some, but it would be a world stripped too of free will. And that would be a very different world indeed.

Reflections on the Problem of Evil