Reflections on Christian Service

I attended an awards assembly this evening with my teenage son. He had written an essay on the value of military service, so the speeches and theme this night had to do with the traditions of service. And though this assembly was conducted at a Christian school, none of the comments made addressed the question of why people are willing to sacrifice in service to another. As I sat listening, a comment I had heard many years ago occurred to me: we are living on the fumes of past generations. Especially in the United States, many of us are living out the finest traditions of service, but few seem to remember what the generations that came before us – especially that first group of Patriots that set this great experiment in ordered liberty into motion - knew. Not only do our freedoms derive from the God that created us, but the idea of “service” makes the most sense within the context of a Christian worldview. Their vision of the benefits of service lingers with us, but many seem to be forgetting the reason - the value - behind service.

Consider: many people draw satisfaction and a sense of purpose from serving others. They may never wonder why this is so, but simply recognize the satisfaction it allows them feel. Others seek out and enjoy – whether secretly or not – the recognition that service to others may entail. However worthy their efforts, they are being done not exclusively for the benefit of the other, but also for the benefit of the doer. This may seem an unfair criticism, especially when one considers that a growing number of people seem to have no interest in serving others, regardless of motivation. But this comment is an observation, not a judgment. It is simply the case that in serving others, we usually obtain some level of reward, whether purely psychological or not.

If, then, these efforts are but an approximation of something else – some purer sense of service that we approximate but never quite reach – just what is that something else? In the Christian tradition, it is referred to by the label agape love: the love of the other for the sake of love. It is a love freely given, a love that seeks no reward. In its highest forms, it manifests in acts of great self-sacrifice, such as when a person lays down his life for the safety of – for the sake of – the other.

And where do we learn of the value of such love. Where does such love find its grounding? Certainly not in the world of Darwinian evolution, a world characterized by random selection and the “survival of the fittest.” No, it is from Jesus’ own lips that we hear these stirring, yet challenging and troubling, words:

“This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.(John 15:12-13)

Consider also the Christian command to love one’s enemies:

“You have heard that it was said,‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.(Matt. 5:43-45)

Finally, what example does Jesus give during his last hours on Earth? He could not have made the point clearer, as he washed the feet of his disciples, an act of profound humility and love. (John 13)

The apostle John said that all things that have ever come into being have come through the Logos, the son of God. (John 1) So perhaps it is to be expected that we, the image-bearers of God, would have within us the seed of such great love. Perhaps there will always be something tugging at us, that God-shaped whole in our heart that draws us out of ourselves and toward others in acts of loving service. That draws us ultimately back to the One who created us.

But to an increasingly secular world that has forgotten its roots, the debt owed to Christianity for improving our world is worth noting. From the hospitals and other institutions that bear the names of Christian saints to the great universities that were founded to train up new generations to bring the message of Christianity to a fallen world; from the many people of faith who have fallen in the service of this great country to those faithful still among us serving unnoticed wherever there is need - we owe indeed a great debt of gratitude for a faith that inspired such selfless love.

Vigilance is said to be the price of freedom. But that vigilance cannot be directed solely outside the gates. We must look inward and return our hearts and our minds to faith in the One who emptied himself to become one of us and who took on our sins to restore us to right relationship with God.

And showed us the true meaning and value of service in the process.

Reflections on Christian Service

Abortion, Analogies and Viability

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 253

In this podcast, Jim reads a listener letter challenging his prior use of analogies when make the pro-life case. What kinds of analogies are reasonable when discussing the nature of fetal humans? Jim also discusses the alleged immorality of Old Testament laws.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Abortion, Analogies and Viability

Do All Religions Lead to God?

Maybe you've heard the parable of the six blind men and the elephant. In this parable, six blind men feel a different part of an elephant and come to different conclusions regarding what the elephant is actually like.

One blind man grabs the tusk and says, "An elephant is like a spear!" Another feels the trunk and concludes, "An elephant is like a snake!" The blind man hugging the leg thinks, "An elephant is like a tree!" The one holding the tail claims, "An elephant is like a rope!" Another feeling the ear believes, "An elephant is like a fan!" The last blind man leaning on the elephant's side exclaims, "An elephant is like a wall!"

This parable is often used to illustrate a view known as religious pluralism. Like the blind men, no religion has the truth. Rather, all religions are true in that they accurately describe their personal experience and the spiritual reality they encounter, given various historical and cultural backgrounds.

There are various types of religious pluralism, but one way to define it is as follows: "the view that all religious roads - certainly all major or ethical ones - lead to God or to ultimate reality and salvation."1 This idea is commonly reflected in such statements as "All religions basically teach the same thing" or "All roads lead to the top of the mountain."

The elephant parable, while attractive to many, suffers from a number of problems:

Problem #1: The parable is an analogy, not an argument.

An argument is a conclusion supported by reason or evidence. But notice that the elephant parable is simply an analogy (or illustration). No arguments, evidence, or reasons are given as to why we should believe that all religions are true. The elephant analogy is simply a story. But the story may be false! In other words,

One problem with this mountaintop (or elephant-and-blind-men) analogy is that analogies don't prove a point, they only illustrate it. While analogies may be powerful, they may only illustrate false, misleading ideas.2

In fact, a Christian could just as easily conceive of an analogy which "proves" the truthfulness of the Christian faith:

Let's switch the analogy: If Jesus is truly unique, maybe the world's religions are like a maze or labyrinth with one way out; what if God in Christ steps into this maze to help us walk through it?3

This analogy doesn't prove that Christianity is actually true, does it? Likewise, the religious pluralist must do more than offer illustrations.

Problem #2: Religious pluralism is patently false.

All religions are basically the same, except when it comes to the nature of God, the nature of man, sin, salvation, and the afterlife. In other words, all religions are not basically the same! It's the differences that matter. William Lane Craig provides this sharp critique of what he calls "unsophisticated religious pluralism," the idea that all religions are true and/or are teaching basically the same thing:

Now this view, which one often hears expounded by laypeople and college sophomores, is rooted in ignorance of what the world's great religions teach. Anyone who has studied comparative religions knows that the worldviews propounded by these religions are often diametrically opposite one another. Just take Islam and Buddhism, for example. Their worldviews have almost nothing in common. Islam believes that there is a personal God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and holy, and who created the world. It believes that people are sinful and in need of God's forgiveness, that everlasting heaven or hell awaits us after death, and that we must earn our salvation by faith and righteous deeds. Buddhism denies all of these things. For the classical Buddhist ultimate reality is impersonal, the world is uncreated, there is no enduring self, life's ultimate goal is not personal immortality but annihilation, and the ideas of sin and salvation play no role at all. Examples like this could be multiplied.4

Religious pluralism is patently false because it violates the known laws of logic. For example, the law of non-contradiction states that A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. God cannot be both personal and impersonal. God cannot both exist as a Trinity and not exist as a Trinity. Since various religions teach contradictory things, all religions cannot be true. Religious pluralism violates the law of non-contradiction and is therefore necessarily false.

Problem #3: The parable begs the question.

Remember, the question under consideration is whether or not the different religions of the world are really experiencing and/or describing the same reality or God, albeit in a limited sense. But the parable begs the question by starting with the assumption that the blind men are in fact doing this very thing! In other words, the parable tells of the blind men feeling or experiencing different parts of the elephant (reality/God) which is the very thing under debate.

Problem #4: The parable commits the self-excepting fallacy.

The religious pluralist who tells this parable claims everyone is blind, except the religious pluralist himself! In other words, there is an objective perspective presented here. However, if all religious views are essentially blind, this would include the religious view of religious pluralism. But the religious pluralist conveniently exempts himself, having somehow escaped the spiritual blindness which has enveloped all other religious views and has come to see the truth of religious pluralism! In so doing, the religious pluralist claims to have the only objective perspective:

In fact, he wouldn't know that the blind men were wrong unless he had an objective perspective of what was right! So if the person telling the parable can have an objective perspective, why can't the blind men? They could - if the blind men suddenly could see, they too would realize that they were originally mistaken. That's really an elephant in front of them and not a wall, fan, or rope. We too can see the truth in religion. Unfortunately, many of us who deny there's truth in religion are not actually blind but only willfully blind. We may not want to admit that there's truth in religion because that truth will convict us. But if we open our eyes and stop hiding behind the self-defeating nonsense that truth cannot be known, then we'll be able to see the truth as well.5

Problem #5: The parable is self-defeating.

If all religions are true, then Christianity is true. But Christianity teaches that non-Christian religions are false, and therefore not all religions are true. So if all religions are true, then not all religions are true! That can't be right! Let's break this down:

1. If all religions are true, then Christianity is true.
2. All religions are true.
3. If Christianity is true, then non-Christian religions are false.
4. If non-Christian religions are false, then not all religions are true.
5. Therefore (from 1 and 2), Christianity is true.
6. Therefore (from 3 and 5), non-Christian religions are false.
7. Therefore (from 4 and 6), not all religions are true.
8. Therefore (1 through 7), if all religions are true, then not all religions are true.

If your belief leads to an absurd conclusion, then it becomes necessary to reexamine your belief. The only conceivable premise that the religious pluralist could deny is premise 3. But to deny premise 3 is to not take the claims of Christianity seriously. It is in fact a distortion of historic, orthodox Christianity which has always maintained that Jesus is the only path to salvation. This brings up a related point: the religious pluralist must often resort to a type of religious reductionism in order to maintain his view.

Attempts to reduce all religions to their lowest common denominator usually succeed only in distorting them. Homogenizing religions is a costly price to pay to eliminate religious diversity, for in the end the religions must sacrifice the very features that make them unique and appealing in the first place.6

Problem #6: The parable is radically skeptical.

Ken Samples elaborates on this point:

The elephant analogy implies a radical skepticism concerning knowledge of God; namely, that no one, or in this case no religion, can really know God satisfactorily. But if God is by and large unknowable, then how is a person able to know that God is unknowable? In fact, for that matter, would anyone even know that God exists?7

Furthermore, Christians would argue that God has in fact revealed Himself both in general revelation (creation and conscience) and special revelation (Scripture and Christ). If Christianity is true, then we can abandon our radical skepticism concerning knowledge of God in favor of the radical claims of Christ: "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).

Problem #7: The parable proves the opposite.

While this parable is used with the intention of showing that all religions are true, the exact opposite conclusion could be drawn: all religions are in fact false! Why? Because none of the blind men have an accurate picture of the elephant! Ken Samples again explains:

Ironically, while the elephant analogy attempts to validate the truth of all religions, if taken to its logical conclusion the story really shows that all religions fail to identify God adequately. So rather than affirming religious truth, the analogy implies that all religions, at least in large measure, are based on false or misleading claims.8

An analogy which leads you to the opposite intended conclusion cannot possibly be a good one.
________________________________________

1 Kenneth Richard Samples, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 161.
2 Paul Copan, True For You, But Not For Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith, Rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2009), 123.
3 Ibid.
4 William Lane Craig, Hard Questions, Real Answers (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 150-151.
5 Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 49.
6 Samples, Without a Doubt, 164.
7 Ibid., 167.
8 Ibid.

Do All Religions Lead to God?

Cheating and the Christian Worldview

Yesterday’s paper carried the story of the latest in a series of cheating scandals that have plagued our nation's schools in recent years. This one involved "gifted" students using their skills to hack into their high school's computer to alter attendance and grades for some of the less fortunate students... for a fee, apparently. The article included the following reflections on cheating:

“The incident is the latest cheating scandal to shake high schools across the country. Five students in Great Neck, N.Y., face felony charges for allegedly collecting up to $3,500 per test to take the SAT and other college entrance exams for dozens of other teens late last year. They were charged with felonies related to fraud and criminal impersonation. In March, nine students in San Jose faced suspension or expulsion for using stolen test answers obtained by one of the teens, who broke into a classroom and logged on to a school computer. But the list of cheaters could be a lot longer.More than 35 percent of teens nationwide said they cheated with a cell phone, and half said they used the Internet to cheat in school, according to a 2009 poll by Common Sense Media of San Francisco."

But, the article went on, 

"Some say it’s not cheating. Perhaps worse, the survey also found that nearly 1 in 4 teens didn’t consider it cheating to store notes surreptitiously on a cell phone to use during a test. Berkeley High’s principal acknowledged the need to address what appeared to be widespread acceptance of cheating and to help students understand that the hacking, ultimately, was a criminal act. “I would like to see our community, namely our families and staff, use this incident as a springboard for discussions on ethics, integrity and honesty,” Scuderi said.

A springboard for discussions, indeed.  But how should we ground those discussions? Having untethered ourselves, and our culture, from a transcendent source of truth, how do we convey to young people why they should care about truth.  After all, as long as they don't get caught, doesn't cheating actually help them get better grades, which they hope will translate into more opportunity for success, for wealth, prestige, power and position?  All those things they're supposed to care about in this consumer oriented culture? And without a lot of the work and stress that actually earning success can bring?

The trend is fairly easy to discern.  A half-century after public schools were "sanitized" of any "dangerous" references to God, religion or the Bible, the "elite" in our culture seem perplexed at what has developed.  No longer do teachers fear loud talking and spitballs; today's student often pose a physical threat to classmates and faculty, and don't seem to share in what several generations ago we would have considered to be bare minimums as it relates to public behavior. The question students ponder today is not whether a thing is right or wrong, true of false, good or wicked; no, today’s question is more like “what’s in it for me?” and “how likely I am to get caught?” 

As a prosecutor, I’ve seen the deterrent value of law enforcement. This only works, however, when the chances of detection and punishment are perceived as significant. But police cannot be everywhere, and teachers cannot monitor everything their students do. As our Founders noted, this experiment in ordered liberty – in self-government of, by and for the people – is suited only for a nation whose culture is grounded in notions of self-restraint. Morality cannot be imposed by force from outside; it must be taught in the home. Truth and integrity become habits of the heart if children are raised in an intentional, and Biblically guided, manner.

As the Founders also knew, Christianity provides the grounding for proper character development.  The Bible is the word of the God “of Truth” and it puts the highest of premiums on the importance of both living in, and telling, the truth.  Indeed, as followers, we are to worship God in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24).  Truth has saving power: those who believe in Jesus and become his disciples “will know the truth and the truth will set them free.” (John 16:13) Those who practice the truth come into the Light, so that their deeds can be manifested as coming from God. (John 3:20-21)  But those who do evil shun the light.  They are followers of the father of lies, the devil, the one in whom there is no truth. (John 8:44) The unrighteous suppress the truth by exchanging the truth for a lie and worshiping the created rather than the Creator. (Romans 1:18-25) 

Isn’t this what these young students are doing? Worshiping all the goods and pleasures that “success” can bring and willing to cut corners to achieve them? 

Proper character develop requires that we teach our children the truth. Indeed, the Christian walk requires that we speak truth to each other for we are members of one another. (Ephesians 4:25)

The book of Proverbs teaches that “A truthful witness saves lives, But he who utters lies is treacherous.” (Proverb 14: 25) A child who understands the "treachery" of lying will be more inclined to resist the temptation to cheat. Knowing that life consists of more than simply material success and pleasure, he will understand that there are long-term consequences to running from the truth, consequences that have more to do with the corruption of his soul than with any worldly punishment he might fear.  Cheating may seem attractive - finding the easy way out always does - but seeing it for what it truly is can eliminate much of its enticement.  Even if he believes he could have gotten away with it.

Putting aside the practical reasons, Paul may have summed it up best in his letter to the Corinthians, when he reminded them that “love rejoices with the truth.”  (1 Corinthians 13:6) In this world of increasing pressure on students, of ever-mounting expectations, stress, and anxiety, what our children need more than anything else is a return to the kind of joy that bubbles up within us when we turn our hearts and minds - in spirit and in truth - back to the One who made us.

Cheating and the Christian Worldview

Common Sense Truth

"What is truth?" Pontius Pilate wasn't the first to ask this.

The question, at first blush, sounds profound. In reality, I think we all know the answer to this age-old inquiry. I say that because we presuppose a certain definition of truth in our speech and actions every day of our lives. Perhaps the problem is not that we do not know what truth is but rather that we do not know that we know. And the reason we do not know that we know is simply because we haven't taken the few moments necessary to reflect on the nature of truth.

Three Views on Truth

Historically, there have been three dominant theories of truth put forth by philosophers:1

First, there is the pragmatic theory of truth: truth is what works. Three major problems with this view are as follows:

Problem #1: the view seems counter intuitive. For example, there are some true beliefs which are not very useful (e.g., the belief that my cat has grey and white fur), and some false beliefs which may turn out to be very useful (e.g., my false belief that people actually read my blogs is useful motivation to continue writing them).

Problem #2: the view is self-defeating. If truth is what works, than the pragmatic theory itself must not be true, since most philosophers throughout the ages have not held to the pragmatic theory but rather have found the correspondence theory to be much more useful!

Problem #3: the view implies relativism. Imagine two individuals who hold contradictory beliefs. On the pragmatic view, as long as these contradictory beliefs are useful for the respective individuals who hold them than we would have to conclude they are both true. But if that is the case than truth is relative, a view which itself is untenable and self-refuting.

Second, there is the coherence theory of truth: truth is logical consistency (coherence) among a set of beliefs an individual holds. Three major problems with this view are as follows:

Problem #1: this view implies that contradictory propositions can be true. On this view, it is possible for two different people to hold contradictory beliefs yet both beliefs to be "true" as long as these beliefs cohere with each individuals web of belief respectively. This leads to the absurd notion that contradictions can both be true.

Problem #2: for the same reasons as problem #1, and like the pragmatic view, this view implies relativism. On the coherence view, what is true is relative to each individual's belief system. Two contradictory beliefs may both be "true" as long as they cohere with their respective systems. But relativism is false, therefore like the pragmatic view the coherence theory must be rejected.

Problem #3: this view, like the pragmatic view, seems counter intuitive. The reason is that the coherence theory cuts the knower off from the real world. What is true is not what matches reality but rather what coheres within a given system of belief. But most people intuitively understand that truth has something to do with the way the world  really is.

Coherence is important, but not enough. It is a necessary condition for truth, but by itself it is not a sufficient one.

Finally, there is the correspondence theory of truth: truth is when an idea, belief, or statement matches (or corresponds with) the way the world actually is (reality).

This may rightly be labeled the "common sense" view of truth. While not taught explicitly in Scripture, it is assumed throughout both the Old and New Testaments. The correspondence theory of truth states that an idea, belief, or statement is true if it matches, or corresponds with, reality. In this sense, reality is the truth-maker and the idea, belief, or statement, is the truth-bearer. When the truth-bearer (an idea) matches the truth-maker (reality) they are said to stand in an “appropriate correspondence relationship” and truth obtains.2 Consider the following statements:

1. Barack Obama is the current President of the United States.

2. The city of Los Angeles is located in California.

3. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.

Are these statements true? They are if in fact they match reality. Statement number 1 is true if in reality Barack Obama is the current President of the United States. Statement 2 is true if in fact the city of Los Angeles is located in California. And statement 3 is true if abortion really does take the life of an innocent  human being. Easy enough, right? Aristotle put it this way:

To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false.3

A Case for Correspondence

Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland notes two main arguments which have been advanced in favor of the correspondence theory of truth: the descriptive and the dialectical.4

The descriptive argument simply presents specific cases which help illustrate the concept of truth. For example, in Moreland’s bookstore case, an individual named Joe has the thought “Richard Swinburne’s book The Evolution of the Soul is in the bookstore.” When Joe enters the bookstore and sees the book he actually experiences truth, a correspondence relation between his thought and reality. Again, this is the “common sense” definition of truth since it is the view we all presuppose in our daily actions and speech, i.e., everyone assumes the correspondence theory of truth when reading a medicine label or dialing a phone number.5 This leads to the second argument.

The dialectical argument asserts that those who deny the correspondence theory of truth or present alternative theories actually presuppose the very thing they reject, showing the self-defeating nature and incoherence of their alternative view. Moreland presents this argument in the form of a dilemma:

Those who reject the correspondence theory either take their own utterances to be true in the correspondence sense or they do not. If the former, then those utterances are self-defeating. If the latter, there is no reason to accept them, because one cannot take their utterances to be true.6

In other words, either a purposed view of truth corresponds to reality or it does not. If it does, the arguer presupposes the correspondence view, the very thing he rejects when arguing for an alternative view. On the other hand, if a purposed view does not correspond to reality then we have no reason to accept it.

In short, denying the correspondence theory of truth is an implicit admission that one’s view should not be taken seriously, for only a view which matches the way things really are is worthy of our attention and belief. Contrary to the postmodern adage, truth is not "stranger than it used to be." Rather, truth is what we have taken it to be all along and what we assume it to be everyday.

Correspondence and the Christian

Is the correspondence theory of truth optional for Christians? Not according to the apostle Paul:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead (1 Cor. 15:14-15). 

Our belief in the resurrection is not true simply because it works for us (the pragmatic view) nor because it is consistent with our web of belief (the coherence view). The Christian belief in the resurrection of Christ is true because it is an objective fact of history that corresponds with reality! Christian philosopher Douglas Groothuis concludes,

Therefore, the correspondence view of truth is not simply one of many options for Christians. It is the only biblically and logically grounded view of truth available and allowable. We neglect or deny it to our peril and disgrace.7

_________________________________________

1 The following summaries and critiques are taken from Steven B. Cowan and James S. Spiegel,  The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy (Nashville: B&H, 2009), 35-45.

2 J.P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit's Power (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 80.

3 Aristotle, Metaphysics, book 4, chapter 7.

4 Moreland, Kingdom Triangle, 81-82.

5 See R. Scott Smith, Truth and the New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005), 174-180.

6 Moreland, Kingdom Triangle, 82.

7 Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 110.

Common Sense Truth

Please Welcome Our Newest Blogger, Aaron

Aaron grew up in a Christian home and placed his trust in Jesus at a young age, but it wasn’t until he began engaging in conversation with non-Christian friends and family members that he was challenged to start examining what he believed and why he believed it. It was during this journey into apologetics that Aaron discovered the solid, rational basis for the Christian worldview. The continued study, increased knowledge, and growth in confidence led to a desire to help show others what he was so excited to find out himself: Christianity can be shown to be true! This passion eventually led him to Biola University where he pursued a MA in Christian Apologetics. He is currently working toward a second MA in Theology at Talbot School of Theology. Aaron’s interests include a variety of subjects relating to theology, philosophy, and apologetics. When he is not spending time with his family he enjoys reading, writing, lifting weights, and training in mixed martial arts. He is a Deputy Sheriff in Southern California where he has worked in custody operations and as a part-time arrest and control technique instructor. Aaron has had the great privilege of speaking at local churches and high school groups on various topics including apologetics, abortion, Islam, moral relativism, Mormonism, and the problem of evil.

I know that Aaron will be a great addition to the PleaseConvinceMe Blog and I'm excited to see what he will bring to the discussion.

Please Welcome Our Newest Blogger, Aaron

The Reliable Jesus of Nazareth

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 252

In this podcast, Jim answers listener email related to the reliability of the Biblical account of Jesus. In the wake of Bart Ehrman’s recent ebook, “Did Jesus Exist?” Jim reviews the historical evidence for Jesus’ existence and talks about pre-Christian mythologies that resemble Jesus. Jim also discusses the merits and liabilities of organized debates.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

The Reliable Jesus of Nazareth

Belief in God Is Not a Feeling

“Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him.” Obi-Wan’s admonition to Luke Skywalker sums up what some skeptics probably think about Christianity. If it were real, they would be able to “feel it” in some tangible way, and perhaps also be able to manipulate its power. A skeptic I spoke with recently framed it this way:

“I don't ‘feel’ God in my heart the way most theists claim to, I don't see any external justification for his existence, and I simply see no good reason to believe. So why is it my fault that I don't believe? God supposedly created me just the way I am, after all. So, I’m not ‘rejecting God’ since he never made himself known to me in any real way. So why is non-belief a crime at all? What is the effect of non-belief that is so horrible?”

These thoughts express, I suspect, what Americans are thinking in larger and larger numbers. Raised in a culture led in many arenas by a secular – and in many instances anti-religious – elite, they feel increasingly confident that their view that nature is “all there is” comports with the way things actually are.

So, what is wrong with “non-belief?”

I suppose the first and quickest answer is that the thought itself is a bit incoherent. Consider what is being said. “Belief” is that state of mind in which one concludes that a fact is true. I believe that the car is red. I believe that John’s explanation regarding the accident is false. There is, of course, an issue of certainty. My belief regarding the car’s color may be mistaken, due to poor lighting; or my belief that John is lying may be wrong. But it makes little sense to say that, as to the car’s color, I have no belief. Or that I am hearing John’s explanation but believe nothing about it. Claiming to have “no belief” may seem high-minded and impartial, but it simply mistakes the way the human mind works. Whether we will it or not, our minds naturally move toward forming and reassessing beliefs.

As it relates to the question of ultimate things, one must acknowledge that complete certainty is not possible. So it’s fair for someone to say “I believe there probably isn’t a God, that the evidence I perceive of his existence is less compelling than the evidence which supports a conclusion that he does not exist.” But this begs the question: what is it that you are relying on in forming this belief?

And this takes me to the second point, the one raised at the outset. If one approaches this assessment with the unspoken premise that God would cause himself to be “felt” in the manner suggested in Star Wars, then believing he is not there gains traction, since few, if any, people have such mystical experiences. Most committed believers I know never have such “feelings.” They conclude from the testimony of their senses, and the working of the reason of their minds, that a staggeringly complex and exquisitely organized creation requires a Creator. Though there are numerous logical proofs that support the belief in the existence of the immensely powerful and intelligent being behind all this, the common sense notion that something cannot be created by nothing has been more than sufficient for most people who ever walked this Earth.

As it relates to Jesus, and his divinity, the case is an historical one. The body of evidence relating to Jesus, safeguarded and passed down through the centuries, establishes that he lived, that he was crucified and that he rose from the dead, leaving behind an empty tomb and galvanizing a following that changed the course of history. In so doing, he fulfilled numerous prophecies that predated his birth. The resurrection and the miracles he performed provide a solid foundation upon which one’s belief can rest. Numerous authors have detailed the evidence, but the PleaseConvinceMe website (here and here, for example) is as good a starting point as any for beginning to examine the logical proofs as well as the historical evidence.

So, is “non-belief” a crime? No more so that not believing in the power of medicine is the cause of someone’s death. A person with a fatal disease is not “punished” for refusing to get medical help; it is the disease, and not the lack of belief, that is causing the problem. So too with matters eternal. Christianity teaches that God’s law is written on our hearts, so that we are all “without excuse.” Our own consciences will testify against us in the end. Christians do not believe God punishes us for “not believing.” He punishes us for rebellion – for the things we said and did which manifested this rebellion - by separating himself from us. Mercifully, he also provides the means for re-uniting with him, through the work of Jesus.

Feelings are a wonderful part of human life. But in this galaxy, and in this time, they’re not particularly reliable in reaching sound conclusions or making wise decisions.

Belief in God Is Not a Feeling

Why Christians Should Get to Know the Bible

Is there a way to use the Bible to get someone interested in knowing more about the Bible? I’ve thought about this question for many years. As I learned more about the Word, and spoke more with people who called themselves Christian but knew little or nothing about what the Bible teaches, I wondered about the best approach to take. Here, in a nutshell, is one possible approach to make the case for studying the Bible from the Bible.

Most people who call themselves Christian will acknowledge that the Bible is the inspired word of God. What this means to them varies. Usually they will insist that the Bible is not literal, leaving them free to add meaning as they choose, and to ignore passages that are difficult. But why do such people seem to have no interest in ever learning Scripture? After all, even if the Bible is not literal, it must mean something. Why think of it as "inspired" if its wisdom is largely ignored? There are many possible answers to this question, but the most likely seems to be that they don't see the need to do the hard work of learning not just what the Bible says, but also its history and context.

So, I sometimes begin by asking such a person whom Jesus might have been referring to in Matthew 7:21-22, where He warned about false prophets and added that not all who “prophesied,” “cast out demons” and “performed miracles” in His name will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Instead, it is “he who does the will of My Father.” In John 8:12, Jesus calls himself the light of the world; “he who follows Me will not walk in darkness, but will have the Light of life.” And then in verses 31-32: “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." Finally in 1 John 2:3-6 “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.”

It seems pretty obvious that the Bible teaches – including the words of Jesus Himself – that there are those who know of Him, who may even invoke His name, who He will not recognize, because they have not in truth followed Him. But if invoking His name, or calling oneself a believer, is not enough, what then must one do to follow Him? Scripture provides the answer: we must love God not just with our heart and soul and strength, but also with our mind, Mark 12:30 We must study and know the Word of God. How else can we be "salt and light" to a fallen world Matt. 5:13 or represent Christ as His ambassadors (2 Corinth. 5:17)?

The Bible tells us that we should “not be conformed to this world” but instead be “transformed” by the renewal of our minds, that by testing we can discern what is the will of God, “what is good and acceptable and perfect” Rom. 12:2. We must “abhor what is evil and hold fast to what is good" Rom. 12:9. God intends the Scripture to be this source of the knowledge of good, as it is “inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

In studying the Word, we are to “be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” 2 Tim. 2:15. Writing to the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul thanked God that when they received the word of God which they heard from him, they “accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” 1 Thess. 2:13. And to Timothy, Paul urges him “retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me” and to “guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.” 2 Tim 5:13-14.

In short, as the Apostle Peter wrote, we are to always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, doing so with gentleness and reverence. 1 Peter 3:15 It takes knowledge, and thoughtfulness, to do this. Studying and knowing the Bible is, necessarily, the first step.

Changing someone's view of the importance of Scripture is easier said than done. This approach may be a start, but there are no doubt many other, and better, ones. If you've had some success in this endeavor, please take a moment to write me at Al@pleaseconvinceme.com with the approach you took.

Why Christians Should Get to Know the Bible

Islam Training Session

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 251

In this podcast, Jim plays a recent comprehensive training session on the history and nature of Islam. Joe Carey from Radical Truth trained the members of recent Muslim Missions Trip led by Alan Shlemon (of Stand to Reason). This special 2-hour edition of the PCM Podcast contains Joe’s training in its entirety.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Islam Training Session

The Miracle of Easter

For Christians all across the globe – men, women and children of all races, nationalities and cultures - this is Holy Week, a week during which we remember the Passion, Death and Resurrection of our Savior. Adorning the buildings where Christians will gather, and often adorning their persons, the symbol of the cross is everywhere present. The reality behind the cross is quite jarring – it conjures up the vision of a man, beaten and bloody, going to a certain, and gruesome, death, in a manner diabolically calculated to maximize pain and suffering while also depriving the victim of any semblance of human dignity.

Why do we continue to “celebrate” this event? Why do we sanctify– make holy – this holiday?

Indeed, as the Bible makes clear, the cross is a "stumbling block" and "foolishness" for those who do not believe, but for those who are called, it is the "power" and "wisdom" of God. Why this is so requires us to understand the idea of atonement, the "balancing of the books" that Jesus accomplished through his death and resurrection.

Why does Jesus’ death on the cross matter to God, or to us? Doesn’t everyone die, and if so, what makes Christ’s death any different? To answer these questions, we must first see our lives from God’s perspective. As a perfect being, He endowed us with free will, which we used to rebel against Him. This created a rift in the relationship, a chasm between God and man. So, why did He make us that way? Why couldn’t He just accept us as we are?

Good questions, and ones we will never fully understand here. But we can glimpse the answer when we consider it from the perspective of love. What makes a loving relationship meaningful is the volitional aspect of it; if love is coerced or bought, it is not love, but something else, something less satisfying, less pleasing. A master has a relationship with a servant, but what the servant feels for the master is obligation, not love. The tyrant can command his subjects to kneel before him, but he cannot compel them to love him. Payment or punishment, or any other tool of coercion, can accomplish a result, but it cannot change the mind, nor the heart. It is only when love is freely given, and when love can be lost, that we truly value it. What we want, in the end, is relationship, and that requires free will, not intelligent robots who perform according to preset programming but are incapable of feeling. And so too with God.

Jesus' act of love on the cross - in freely laying down his life - makes no sense until we consider from what this act saved us. Christians believe that God stands ready to punish us for our transgressions against His law. Punishment for transgressing the law is of course a requirement of justice. But God, as an eternal and perfect being, demands perfect justice. What does perfect justice entail? At minimum, it demands that all transgressions be appropriately punished. What, then, is the appropriate punishment for violating the law of a perfect and eternal being? Separation from Him, as a very minimum. Why? For the same reason that law-abiding people don’t share their homes and lives with outlaws. Even without moving toward active punishment, the very first thing one would expect from justice is that it does not countenance injustice to be committed in one’s presence. But this “minimal” punishment of separation is also the bad news. Because He is eternal, our separation from Him is also eternal. Permanent separation from an infinitely perfect being – while knowing that He is there and being unable to share eternal bliss with Him and with others – is a form of torment that makes any earthly torture seem mild by comparison. It is the nature of the result – and not any sadistic purpose on God’s part – that makes Hell such a horrible place.

We can’t make sense of this “bad news” without first getting out of our mind the common notion that God will be impressed with our good deeds. We think somehow that we are good enough and that God will see that and reward this goodness. Christians believe that He won’t. That indeed is bad news.

So, how does Jesus getting nailed to a cross saves us? I suppose the precise answer is “it doesn’t.” What saves us is Jesus taking in our place the punishment we deserve. Christians believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man. As a fully human being, He accomplishes something that no other human being has done: complete perfection. He is the only man who lived without transgressing God’s law. Therefore, He is the only man whom God, in His justice, cannot punish. If God punishes Him anyway, he would be guilty of the cosmic “child abuse” of which skeptics like Christopher Hitchens and other new atheists accuse Him. It is for this reason that Jesus tells His disciples that no man takes His life. He willingly gives it up.

Why? Because as an eternal being, Jesus is the only kind of being who can absorb the eternal and infinite punishment God can rightly impose upon us. God the Father pours out His wrath on Jesus and Jesus accepts this wrath, even though He did not deserve it, so that we don’t have to. The cross is simply the mechanism by which this transaction was completed. The resurrection then proves that Jesus was indeed the God-Man who possessed the power to “balance the books.”

In so doing, perfect justice has been fulfilled. Because Jesus offers this gift to us even though we do not deserve it, perfect mercy is also satisfied. He does not force us to accept this gift, and many do not. Nonetheless, perfect justice and perfect mercy are balanced. The debt owed a perfect God is paid and we are “saved” from the punishment we otherwise deserve – punishment that is the necessary and natural byproduct of separation from a perfect being. Once we accept the gift, we open ourselves up to a process which God will complete in us, making us ready to reunite with Him. This solution is the kind of perfect elegance we should expect from such a being.

This answer, of course, leaves much to be said. After all, thousands of pages have been written about Christian beliefs over the past two thousand years. And there is no doubt that others have tackled this subject in a more meaningful and intelligent manner. My hope is that, perhaps, it can serve as the start of a conversation.

But for today anyway, it is enough that we reflect, and give thanks, that on this day so many centuries ago, this perfect plan found perfect execution in the loving sacrifice of our Lord.

The Miracle of Easter

Easter and the Resurrection of Jesus

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 250

With Easter just a few days away, it’s a great opportunity to review the nature of the Resurrection and the evidence that supports the claim of the Gospel eyewitnesses. How does the Christian explanation hold up when compared to all other possible explanations for the alleged Resurrection of Jesus?

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Easter and the Resurrection of Jesus