Goodness Isn't the Issue. Badness Is.

 

“I’m basically a good person. My good deeds outweigh my bad.”

This is the most common answer I have heard from non-Christians in response to the question, “Why should God allow you into heaven?”

But this answer actually has its root in original sin.

After Adam and Eve rebelled against God, they experienced guilt and attempted to hide from Him. They also experienced shame, and so they attempted to cover themselves through their own effort. Once Adam and Eve became corrupt, they couldn’t produce anything better than themselves, i.e., all they could produce was corruption. Each one of us is born into this world as a little fallen Adam and Eve. And like Adam and Eve, fallen humankind today attempts to hide and cover from God. But rather than sew fig leaves together, one of the most prevalent ways we attempt to cover our moral shame and guilt is by appealing to our own moral “goodness.” That is, we point to our “basic human goodness” and “good deeds” in an attempt to justify ourselves before God. Often this even becomes a rationalization as to why we don’t need God, e.g., “Why do I need God? I’m living a good enough life on my own.”

Ironically then, these “good deeds” performed by fallen human beings, when appealed to as evidence of one’s own goodness or as an excuse to ignore the need for God, are a testimony not to moral virtue and meritorious character but rather to a continued state of rebellion against God. It is an attempt to cover one’s own guilt and shame by the power of the flesh, i.e., our own hard work and self-effort, just as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden. This is moralism, the attempt to fix and perfect oneself in the power of self, and it is antithetical to the gospel of grace.

This is an important point to grasp. What I am saying is that man’s charade of “good deeds” is in reality often self-serving, and therefore not “good” at all! They allow unregenerate men and women to continue to hide and cover from God, suppressing the truth of their need for Him, while at the same time allowing them to point to their works and say, “See, look at all the good things I’ve done. I’m a good person.”

How then should we respond to those who reject the gospel of grace and attempt to hide and cover from God through good works?

First, Everyone Thinks They are “Basically Good”

If there is one thing I have learned while working in jail, it is that most everyone thinks they are “basically good,” murderers, rapists, and child molesters included. Inmates convicted of horrendous crimes still manage to find a way to justify themselves in the sight of God and man:

Sure officer, I made a mistake, who hasn’t? Maybe what I did could even be considered “wrong” (whatever that misused and misunderstood word means). But you know what? I’ve done a lot of good things too. I’m basically a good person.

Often when people say “I’m basically good” what they have in mind is comparing themselves with other people. They might say something like,

Well, I’ve done some bad things, but I’m not like that guy over there. Look at what he does. All in all, I think I’m pretty good.

Even among convicted criminals there is a “code among thieves,” a list of do’s and don’ts, even a moral hierarchicalism by which certain actions are judged more heinous than others and a rationalization of one’s own actions becomes possible. The petty thief points to the drug abuser and says, “I’m basically good.” The drug abuser points to the kidnapper and says, “I’m basically good.” The kidnapper points to the murderer and says, “I’m basically good.” The murderer points to the child molester and says, “I’m basically good.”

But it isn’t criminals alone who are plagued by this mentality. It is the average law-abiding citizen as well. And in my experience, this type of moralism even impacts police officers, often at an even deeper level. In fact, I think moralism in general is more perceptible (and can be a greater danger) among those who work in the criminal justice system due to the simple fact that we are confronted with a corrupt aspect of society every day that others only see on TV. In the face of daily evil it is easy for individuals involved in criminal justice to retreat to the state of mind which says,

Look at that guy over there. Look at his charges. Look at what he’s been convicted of. I’m not like him, that’s for sure. I could never do something like that. I’m basically a good person.

Moralism can be one of the biggest obstacles to the gospel.

The problem with all of these comparisons is that they do not take into account the universal corruption of sin that affects all of humankind. If fallen, unregenerate human beings are your standard of comparison, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that you are “basically good.” All you need to do is find someone a little bit worse off than you! Comparing one depraved human being with another depraved human being will always produce this result. But this type of comparison has the wrong reference point.

Jesus is our correct reference point, and Jesus said quite plainly, “No one is good except God alone” (Luke 18:19). Paul says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23) and “There is none righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10). In other words, there is none who are “basically good.” Basically good compared to whom? Certainly not God; and it is God who we will stand before on Judgment Day, not fallen unregenerate man.

Second, Niceness Isn’t Goodness.

Okay, so everyone thinks they’re basically good, and no one lives up to God’s standard of holiness. But there are a lot of nice people. What about them?

In short, niceness is not goodness and being nice is easy much of the time. C.S. Lewis stated, “Everyone feels benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment.”[1] Isn’t this true? It is easy to be nice when there is money in the bank, food on the table, and sunshine on your face. But we often see the true nature of humankind emerge when things aren’t going so well. When the chips are down and times are tough, the “basic goodness” of humankind, more often than not, quickly vanishes.

Furthermore, basic human niceness doesn’t even qualify as goodness. Jesus Himself said,

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full (Luke 6:32-34).

In other words, these sorts of acts simply reflect the normal human niceness we see in most every area of society. Even the white supremacist mom bakes Toll House Cookies for all the little white supremacist kids on the block, but it doesn’t follow from this that she is a morally good person![2]

True moral goodness is much closer to the teaching “love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44) which no fallen human being can do apart from God’s grace. Again, Jesus said quite plainly, “No one is good except God alone” (Luke 18:19). Niceness isn’t goodness, and we need to know the difference.

Third, Goodness Isn’t Even the Issue. Badness Is.

When someone says, “I’m basically a good person, my good deeds outweigh my bad,” they are assuming at least two things. First, they are assuming they have done more good than bad. Considering that we are guilty of numerous sins every day in thought, word, and deed, I don’t think this is true of anyone. Second, they are assuming that doing good works somehow counteracts all the bad things they’ve done. But this mentality completely misunderstands the concepts of law and justice.

To illustrate this,[3] imagine I pull you over for running a red light. In an attempt to avoid a ticket, you explain to me, “Sir, you don’t understand. You see, before I ran that red light, I stopped legally for 100 red lights. And after you let me go here, I am planning on stopping legally for another 100 red lights. You see? My legal stops outweigh my illegal failures to stop. I’m basically a good driver. Therefore, I don’t deserve this ticket.”[4]

Or what about the murderer who appears before a judge and says, “Your honor, I confess. I murdered that man. But you don’t understand. I let hundreds of other people live! You see your honor? My good deeds outweigh my bad. I’m basically a good person! Therefore, you should allow me to go free.”

We intuitively sense there is something wrong with these excuses. So what’s the problem? It’s this:

You cannot make up for breaking the law by keeping the law; keeping the law is what you are supposed to do.

In other words, you don’t get a check in the mail or a get out of jail free card for being a law-abiding citizen. That is the standard you are held to! The issue is not that we keep the law most of the time. The problem is that we break it on occasion! And when we do, we deserve to face the consequences of our actions.

The same goes for God’s law. Goodness is not the issue; badness is. The issue is not that we do what we are supposed to on occasion, the issue is that we have broken God’s law many times over and stand as condemned sinners before Him who deserve to be punished. In other words, we don’t get rewarded for keeping God’s law, keeping God’s law is what we are supposed to do. And justice requires that we be punished for when we don’t.

This, my friends, is why salvation must be by grace, and why any works-oriented salvific system is doomed to failure.

For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph. 2:8-9).

You can’t make up for breaking the law by keeping the law. Keeping the law is what you are supposed to do. And when we appear before God on Judgment Day, the appropriate attitude before the most holy, most perfect, most wise, most just Creator and Savior will not be,

Well, you see God, you don’t understand. Let me tell you how this works. Check it out: my good deeds outweigh my bad. I’m basically a good person.

I imagine God would look at us the same way the judge might look at the murderer who said, “Yeah, but I let hundreds of other people live!” and would appropriately respond, “Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matt. 7:23). Rather our attitude should be one of humility, reverence, and gratitude, one which says, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner” (Luke 18:13).

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

---

[1] Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 49 (emphasis his).

[2] Thanks to Clay Jones for this illustration.

[3] Thanks to Kevin Lewis and Jim Wallace for these illustrations.

[4] If anyone actually has the fortitude to attempt this excuse the next time they are pulled over, please let me know how the officer responds!

Goodness Isn't the Issue. Badness Is.

Can the Gospels Be Defended As Eyewitness Accounts?

I’m sometimes surprised skeptics resist the claim (at least) that the gospels are written as eyewitness accounts. We can argue about whether or not the gospels are pure fiction, or whether or not they are accurate. But the idea that the gospels can be read as eyewitness accounts is rather unremarkable to me. The gospels record events from the perspective of writers who either saw the events themselves or had access to those who did. The author of John’s gospel describes a meeting between Jesus and his disciples. This meeting appears to include the author and he makes the following claim:

“This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:24)

It certainly appears that the author considers himself to be both a participant in the narrative and a reporter (eyewitness) of the event. That seems rather unremarkable to me. Even if the author is someone other than John, the claim (at the very least) that the author is an eyewitness seems plain. In addition, the author of Luke’s gospel describes himself as a historian who had access to the eyewitnesses:

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word…”

Even if the author of Luke was not himself an eyewitness, it does appear that he believed he was recording true history as delivered to him from eyewitnesses. Once again, this seems unremarkable.

The Gospel Accounts Are Written By Known Authors

But what if we don’t know precisely who wrote the gospels? Does this invalidate them as eyewitness testimony? I don’t see why it should. Let me offer a simple observation. Most people who claim that the gospels have been attributed to people who are not the true authors argue that the early Church attempted to validate the texts by attributing them falsely. If so, why use Mark and Luke as attributions? Why not use someone with more status? Have you noticed that the late fictional gospels (like the gospels of Judas, Mary, Phillip or Thomas) are far more likely to have been attributed to authors who were close to Jesus and close to the action? Meanwhile, two of the four accounts that appear earliest in history (the four canonical gospels) are attributed people who don’t even claim to have been present during Jesus’ ministry! If I were trying to pull one over on gullible potential converts, I would have pick better false attributions for these two gospels. And concerning the gospels of Matthew and John, I’m not sure why it matters if they have been properly attributed (although I believe they have). The real question is simply whether or not these accounts can be trusted. Are they reliable?

The Gospel Accounts Were Written Early

The most important issue, it seems to me, is whether or not the gospels were written early enough to be verified or falsified by those who actually lived at the time the events transpired. I’ve already written quite a bit about the early dating of the gospels and the chain of custody that guarantees their reliability, so I won’t write about that again in this post. Instead let me make a simple analogy.

Imagine that I told you about an amazing event in the past. Did you know that there was once an inventor in the late 1700’s who, using crude supplies, was able to construct a computer and invent the Internet? That’s right, the computer and Internet were actually invented in the 1790’s. But while this inventor became famous for his invention, he eventually died and no one was able to replicate his work. It was nearly 170 years before the technology was replicated.

If I told you this story and claimed that it was true, I bet you would doubt my claim. If for no other reason, you would ask yourself why you had never heard of such a thing prior to my assertion. After all, the invention of the computer and Internet would certainly have left an impression on people at the time. Wouldn’t somebody have written about it? Shouldn’t you have hears something about it prior to my claim? Something? It seems to me that it would be even more difficult to make a claim about a miracle-working man who rose from the dead and once lived in your part of the world. Wouldn’t the second or third century Galileans wonder why it was that they hadn’t heard something about this man? Something? It seems unreasonable to me that a late historical claim about a man like Jesus would be palatable to people who were at least familiar with their own history.

The Gospel Accounts Have Been Consistent Over Time

If the gospels are early, the only question left to ask is if their content has been modified. And that’s where the writing of Church Fathers is extremely helpful. The writings of Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement paint a picture of what was being taught by the Apostles in the first century. No one doubts that the Apostles lived in the first century; skeptics simply doubt that the Apostles wrote anything or that their writings have survived uncorrupted. But the teaching of Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement closely mirror those of their teachers (John and Paul). Skeptics can quibble about specific gospel details if they want, but the overarching picture of Jesus as a miracle-working man who claimed to be God and rose from the dead is just as clear in the writing of these first students as it was in the writing of their mentors, the very people who claimed to be eyewitnesses of the risen Christ.

So why do skeptics deny the early dating of the New Testament documents? Is this based on some manuscript discovery that demonstrates the late arrival of the text? No. The more we discover related to ancient manuscript evidence, the earlier we are able to date scraps and partial texts of the gospels.

It turns out that skeptics deny the early dating of the gospels primarily on the basis of their naturalistic presuppositions. Jesus, after all, predicted the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 24); skeptics can’t accept the supernatural attributes of prophecy, so this passage must have been written after 70AD (the date of the destruction). In addition, other miracles described in the gospels must have been written long after any living eyewitnesses could have lived to deny them, right?

I think there is more than enough evidence to place the gospels early in history and determine their reliability from the writings of those who sat at the feet of the Apostles. Skeptical resistance may have less to do with the evidence here than with the presuppositions held by those who are examining the evidence.

I discuss this in greater detail in this week’s podcast, and you can learn more about the podcast here.

Can the Gospels Be Defended As Eyewitness Accounts?

Problems with the "Evil God" Hypothesis

Some skeptics bring an interesting twist to the question of believing in the God of the Bible. Acknowledging that there may have been a resurrection, they ask on what basis we can conclude that Yahweh was the cause. “Why,” one challenger asked, “should I reach that conclusion when I could introduce a myriad of other supernatural explanations that explain the data equally well? For instance, why should I not conclude that an “evil god” is fooling us for its own sinister reasons?”

This same type of challenge finds its way into criminal courtrooms every day in America. The challenge has some intuitive appeal: whenever we are assessing the evidence for an event that we did not ourselves perceive, the possibility that something bizarre and out of the ordinary was at play is not far from our minds.  Afraid to be seen as gullible, we will quickly form a doubt if we begin to sense that perhaps someone is trying to mislead us.  The safe bet, in that setting, is to remain ambivalent, consider both sides, and appear to be open, putting off a decision. No one likes to be wrong. Defense attorneys will, consequently, use this ploy to exploit to their client's advantage.

But this line of thinking goes too far.  If I accept it, then I will be unable to make any decisions. I will approach every inquiry doubting that any aspect of what I perceive is accurate, and in the end I will begin to doubt whether my senses are providing me with any reliable data. If it is true that “anything could explain how the drugs got into my client’s car,” then I must acquit before I begin to assess the remainder of the evidence.  That’s not the way it works, because generalized statements like that are simply not accurate. They either fail to account for actual pieces of evidence that are reliably known, or they introduce the hidden assumption that nothing can ever be reliably known.

Applying this to the resurrection, could I not posit an evil troll living under a bridge that has the power to cause resurrections, but who can remain invisible? No one has ever disproven this proposition, so it could be argued that the troll’s power is quite impressive. The troll became aware of Jesus’ works and decided to mislead his followers by faking the resurrection, even though Jesus actually died. Since such a being “fully explains” the resurrection, we have no way, then, of distinguishing between the two explanations.

The short answer is that this is simply false; the only explanation that fully and adequately explains the evidence for the resurrection is the Christian God. I have no good reason to believe that trolls exist, or that there are beings with such magical powers. So, “positing” one is a mental exercise that does not advance our knowledge.  Similarly, I have a reliable basis for rejecting the “evil god” hypothesis, for two reasons: it is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of God; and in it fails to account for the cumulative case for Christianity.  Let’s start with what we mean by God.  St. Anselm expressed it effectively in his ontological argument – God is that being who possesses maximal greatness, a being a greater than which cannot be conceived.  What attributes exist, God possesses them in an infinitely maximal way. The basic operation of our minds allows us to discern and intuit certain characteristics that such a being must possess, including such things as infinite power, perfect knowledge and perfect goodness. Goodness is the key to our inquiry here - why goodness? St. Augustine’s reflections on evil (in Confessions) may help make this point clear; evil is the perversion of the good, not a thing in and of itself.  Evil and good are not independent forces at war against each other. Evil is the reflection of how what was good has been perverted or sullied. God, therefore, possesses and reflects this maximal goodness; he is the source of all the good we can perceive is an infinitely good God. So “positing” an evil God runs afoul of this conceptual sense. There may be "evil" beings - even powerful ones like the Devil - but they are "evil" precisely because they deploy their will against God. It is their thoughts and acts contrary to God's perfect goodness that allow us to recognize them as evil in the first place, not some inherent quality of "evilness" which they possess.

The second source of knowledge is from revelation. Knowing what limited (conceptual) things reason can tell us about God, we see in the pages of Scripture the account of God’s actual interaction with this world, which culminated with Jesus’ sacrifice. Several authors have made this case in easily readable formats, such as Gary Habermas, Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig and Mike Licona. Though beyond the scope of this limited post, the case includes: Jesus fulfills prophecies written centuries before his birth, claims to be God while impressing people with both his sanity and his goodness, performs miracles to prove his claim, and then pulls off the greatest miracle of all by rising from the dead. Jesus’ ministry is marked by goodness and love, and includes repeated references to the importance of forgiveness and love of enemy. He tells the disciples exactly what is going to happen, and then goes about making it happen. In short, Jesus has both the power and the motivation to not let the disciples be fooled by "evil gods."

Taken together, these two sources provide the one explanation that makes the most sense of the data. Could an “evil god” have snuck in there somehow and fooled the disciples through the use of some unexplained power? The answer in the abstract would have to be yes. It’s possible also that no one wrote this post and you are only imagining that you are reading it. But the reasonable conclusion, based not on abstractions but on all the evidence, is that this unique event in history was the product of the God of goodness and love who sent his Son into the world to save us from ourselves. And that is "good" news indeed.

Problems with the "Evil God" Hypothesis

Question: Who Created the Creator?

The kalam cosmological argument is a simple yet profound argument for the existence of God. It goes as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

After establishing that the universe has a cause, Christian theists would go on to argue that God is the cause of the universe coming into being. But some skeptics are unsatisfied with this answer, claiming that if the universe itself was caused by God then one is justified in raising the question "What caused God?" or "Who created the Creator?" This is similar to Richard Dawkins question "Who designed the designer?"1

There are several problems with this line of inquiry:

First, who exactly is asking the question “Who created the Creator?”2 Not atheists like Richard Dawkins. Dawkins does not believe in God, let alone a created god. However, Christians are not asking this question either, for Christians hold that God is an eternal, self-existent Being, i.e., the uncaused first cause. To whose belief does this question apply then? Neither. This leads us to the second problem.

Second, the question is fallacious, committing what is known as a “category mistake.” A category mistake is committed when two ideas or categories are mixed together that do not belong.3 For example, asking “What does the color blue smell like?” or “How much does the number 3 weigh?” commits a category mistake. Smell is not something that can be applied to color and weight is not something that can be asked of numbers. In the same manner, asking “Who created the Creator?” applies the concept of “created being” to a Being who is not created, namely, the Christian God. In other words, if an atheist wants to ask the question “Who Created the Creator?” he needs to ask someone who believes in a finite, created god. But to ask Christians “Who created the Creator?” is essentially the same as asking “Who created the Uncreated Creator?” which is nonsensical. To raise this question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian view of God.

Finally, the question “Who created the Creator?” commits a second fallacy known as a “complex question.” A complex question is a form of question begging, combing two questions into one while presuming the existence of a certain condition.4 In this case, the condition that is presumed is that God was created. The question “Who created the Creator?” can really be broken down into two questions: (1) “Was the Creator created?” and (2) “Who created Him?” The fallacy lies in the fact that the questioner assumes the answer is “yes” to the first question and masks this assumption in the form of a complex question. Since Christians answer “no” to the first question, the second question "Who created the Creator?" should not even be raised.

In short, not everything has a cause; only those things which begin to exist have a cause, as the kalam cosmological argument states in premise one. God had no beginning and therefore needs no cause.

________________________________________________

1 See Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 188.

2 Thanks to Greg Koukl for this insight.

3 Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 108.

4 Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 10^th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2008), 152.

Question: Who Created the Creator?

Is Same Sex Marriage A Matter of Social Justice?

Advocates of same-sex marriage argue that legalizing this form of matrimony is a matter of social justice. They claim that human rights are being denied to a select minority within our country. Both of these claims are true, but advocates of same-sex marriage have the wrong minority group in view.

Same Sex Marriage IS a matter of social justice and the protection of human rights, but the rights that must be protected are the rights of children, not the rights of those who want their same sex marriages to be legally recognized (and promoted) by the government.

From a Christian perspective, traditional marriage is a reflection of God’s design for the family. We recognize this design through simple observation. Families grow through sexual reproduction and this process is made possible because men and women are designed for one another. But even those who reject a Christian worldview on this topic are coming to realize that there is something special about the nature of male / female unions related to families and child rearing.

Children Flourish Best When Raised By Their Biological Parents

Study after study confirms this fact. While other forms of family (loving single parent families, adoptive families, blended families or homosexual families) are also capable of raising children well, statistics continue to demonstrate what we already know intuitively: kids do best (by every relevant form of measurement) when they are raised by the mother and father who conceived them. Most recently, the Child Trends 2002 Research Brief, the 2012 study of Mark Regnerus and the 2012 study of Loren Marks have confirmed what seems to be an intuitive reality. Kids will always do best (in every important area of development) when raised by their own two biological parents in a low conflict setting.

Children Are Less Likely to Go to Jail When Raised By Their Biological Parents

Studies have been conducted for years demonstrating that the rate of incarceration in young men is directly related to “lack of dad”. When boys are raised without the guidance of their biological fathers, they are far more likely to get into trouble and end up in jail. I saw this firsthand as a gang detail officer. The only common denominator for all of the gangsters I arrested over the course of two years was the fact that they all suffered from “lack of dad”. This presents an important reality for same sex lesbian families. Women simply cannot teach boys how to be men. While I realize this may sound harsh or judgmental, I have seen it repeatedly in my own work.

Children are Less Likely to Get Pregnant When Raised By Their Biological Parents

Girls also suffer when their biological fathers are not involved in their upbringing. Studies repeatedly find that girls are far more likely to get pregnant as teenagers when their biological fathers are not involved after the age of six. It appears that father’s play an important role in teaching young girls how they ought to be treated by the men in their lives. Once again, family units that don’t include a biological father will struggle to offer what only fathers can.

While we’ve focused on studies that feature the importance of fathers, the unique contributions of mother are, of course, no less important. Each parent offers something that the other cannot, and much of this is related to distinctive characteristics that are a part of each parent’s sexuality. Two men cannot offer the distinct love of a mother any more than two women can offer the distinct guidance of a father. Is that really so controversial?

Children Are Less Likely to Be Poor When Raised By Their Biological Parents

Recent studies have also demonstrated that long-term marriages provide children with the best opportunity to avoid a life of poverty. For the past two generations, the primary factor that has determined one’s level of poverty was whether or he or she was raised in a two parent, stable, unbroken marriage. When this truth is coupled with statistics related to the flourishing of children in two biological parent, low conflict families, the conclusions are obvious.

Traditional Marriage Is A Matter of Social Justice

It’s time for all of us to recognize that the case for traditional marriage is really the case for protecting the rights of an important minority group: children. It’s a matter of social justice. Even the United Nations recognizes that every child has the right (as much as is humanly possible) to be raised by his or her own biological parents. When we promote forms of marriage that are contrary to this human right, we deprive children of the best opportunity to thrive, avoid incarceration, teenage pregnancy and poverty.

Promoting for the Larger Group, While Permitting for the Smaller Group

Government prohibits, permits or promotes certain behaviors. The number of children being raised in our country vastly outnumbers the number of homosexuals who want their unions to be recognized as legal marriages. While government can certainly permit same sex relationships and respect everyone’s right to love whomever they want, government has a duty to promote those family relationships that protect the rights of children. We simply must choose between two worthy goals while honoring children who seldom have a voice in this matter.

To hear more about this issue, check out the latest PleaseConvinceMe Podcast.

Is Same Sex Marriage A Matter of Social Justice?

A Christian Response to the Murders at Aurora

from TimesCall.com

Much is being written now about James Holmes and the murders he committed in Aurora, Colorado. As a Christian and a cold-case homicide detective, there are several observations I would like to humbly offer as we think about how we, as brothers and sisters in the Lord, might respond to those who are left with many unanswered questions.

1. Acknowledge the Nature of Humanity

Many articles are now being written about the seemingly contradictory, “really smart” and “pleasant” nature of the murderer. I’ve experienced this a number of times in my own cases. We arrest someone who committed a horrific murder thirty years prior, only to find that news reporters are interviewing neighbors, family members, friends and coworkers who describe the killer as a model of loving-kindness. Like those who knew Holmes, people emerge from the life of the killer only to describe him (or her) as someone they trusted or someone who could never do such a thing.

As Christians, you and I should understand this true “enigma of man”. Designed in God’s image and capable of incredible beauty and virtue, we are also inherently fallen and in need of a Savior. The world around us is going to struggle to comprehend this contradiction as they search in vain to understand how a young man who seemed to have such great potential could do such a terrible thing. I know from experience that cold-case killers typically live many years after the murder as though they were completely uninvolved. They serve as church deacons, live as devoted fathers, and work as loving servants. The non-believing world seems ill equipped to understand how humans could be so bi-polar, but the Christian worldview recognizes our condition perfectly and describes our depravity precisely. The murders at Aurora may provide us with an opportunity to share the truth of Christianity by first sharing the truth about humanity. We are all in need of a Savior. That Savior is Jesus.

2. Answer the Questions of Skeptics

I am already receiving emails from skeptics who frequent the PleaseConvinceMe.com blog or listen to our podcast. They simply express the same types of questions all of us, as Christians, are going to get from many of our friends (believers and non-believers alike). Where was god during all of this?  How can an all powerful and all loving God allow such a thing to occur? Why would a powerful and loving Creator create a world in which this was possible in the first place? The problem of evil is the most common objection I receive from skeptics who write to me and it is probably the one area I think about the most as a homicide detective.

As an investigator of murders and someone who spends time talking to people who have committed these kinds of crimes, I am struck by the power of choices. All of us make decisions every day, but few of us understand the power of our choices or the freedom we possess while making them. If there is a loving God, isn’t it reasonable that this God would want to create a world in which love is possible? Of course it is. But that kind of world is a dangerous place. Genuine love requires freedom; the freedom to choose love and kindness. But this kind of freedom is inherently dangerous because it allows for choices in the opposite direction as well. A world in which love is possible is also a world in which hate, vengeance and homicide are a reality. The murders at Aurora may provide us with an opportunity to share the truth of Christianity by first sharing the truth about freedom, love and choices. While few of us are murderers, all of us commit lesser crimes as we sometimes choose the path of imperfection. All of us are in need of a Savior. That Savior is Jesus.

3. Affirm the Love of God

During the thirty-five years I lived as an atheist, this response related to the necessity of freedom was simply insufficient. As an atheist, any act of evil that might shorten or ruin my expectation of ninety years of peaceful bliss here on planet earth was simply unacceptable. I was convinced that this mortal life was all there was. How could a loving God allow pain and suffering to interrupt and ruin my mortal experience? You can see why evil is a problem for the atheist; if life is truly this short, any infliction of pain or discomfort can be seen as an evidence of God’s “non-existence”.

But as Christians, we know better, don’t we? We are not merely temporal, mortal beings who have less than a century to experience everything we are ever going to experience. We are eternal beings, destined for eternity with God. The loving nature of God is reflected in this reality. If atheism is true, life is brutal and brief. If Christianity is true, life is eternal and our mortal experiences are even briefer! An unloving God would leave us without an eternity to hope for; without a forever to live in. This is simply not the case, and this is not what you and I believe as Christians. God’s love is evident in his design for our lives. The suffering we may experience in this life is fleeting compared to the joy and love we will experience in the next (1 Peter 1:3-9). The murders at Aurora may provide us with an opportunity to share the truth of Christianity by first sharing the truth about eternity and the love of God. Heaven is waiting for all of us if we can simply admit our need for a Savior. That Savior is Jesus.

4. Advance the Power of the Gospel

In the wake of these murders, many church leaders will offer responses and solutions. Listen carefully to what these leaders say. Bart Gingerich has rightly observed that Christendom is divided in its response between theological liberals who will advance government as the Savior, and theological conservatives who will remind us of our true Savior. When our church leaders seek to grow a government that limits access that humans have to one kind of weapon, you can be assured that those who are committed to doing evil will find a way around this safeguard. I’ve seen it over and over again. Murderers find a way; they always do.

But more importantly, when church leaders offer government as the Savior, they ignore the true problem and the Christian solution. It’s as if they don’t understand the Biblical perspective on humanity and the Gospel. There’s a simple principle at work here: whomever you trust to save you, that’s your Savior. We can put thousands of governmental restrictions in place in an effort to make this world less dangerous, we can pursue a political agenda in an effort to save ourselves, or we can turn to the cross. In the end, our mortal efforts will fail. They always do. This doesn’t mean that we stop trying to restrain evil! I am a police officer; I understand my God given role in our community. But I never forget that it is God alone who can save us from ourselves. If we, as Christians, fail to point people to the cross in times like these, who will point them? The murders at Aurora may provide us with an opportunity to share the truth of Christianity by first sharing the truth about Who and What it is that saves us. All of us are in need of a Savior. That Savior is Jesus.

A Christian Response to the Murders at Aurora