Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Have you ever wondered why some people are able to think about the world clearer, forming more balanced and nuanced views about controversial topics, than others? Have you ever pondered what thinking patterns are most conducive to good reasoning and well supported conclusions, and how one might avoid the pitfalls of confirmation bias and self-deception? In her book The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t, Julia Galef (host of the podcast “Rationally Speaking” and co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality) attempts to answer these questions. [i]In the first half of this essay, I shall summarize Galef’s insights; in the latter half, I shall discuss what lessons we as Christian scholars and apologists can glean from the book.

A Summary of The Scout Mindset

Galef distinguishes between what she dubs “the soldier mindset” and “the scout mindset.” According to Galef, the soldier mindset, also known as motivated reasoning, leads us to loyally defend the stronghold of our belief commitments against intellectual threats, come what may. This involves actively seeking out data that tends to confirm our beliefs, while rationalizing or ignoring contrary data that tends to disconfirm them. On the other hand, the scout mindset attempts to honestly determine how the world really is – as Galef defines it, the scout mindset is “the motivation to see things as they are, not as you wish they were,” (p. ix).

For the one in soldier mindset, argues Galef, reasoning is like defensive combat – “it’s as if we’re soldiers, defending our beliefs against threatening evidence,” (p. 7). For the soldier, to change one’s mind – to admit that one was wrong – is seen as surrender and failure, a sign of weakness. One’s allegiance is to one’s cherished beliefs rather than to the truth, even if those beliefs conflict with the balance of evidence. For the soldier, determining what to believe is done by asking oneself “Can I believe this?” or “Must I believe this?”, depending on one’s motives. For the one in scout mindset, by contrast, reasoning may be likened to mapmaking, and discovering that you are wrong about one or more of your beliefs simply means revising your map. Thus, scouts are more likely to seek out and carefully consider data that tends to undermine one’s own beliefs (thereby making one’s map a more accurate reflection of reality), deeming it more fruitful to pay close attention to those who disagree with their own opinions than to those whose thinking aligns with them.

The prevalence of soldier mindset in society today is aptly demonstrated by a sobering study, cited by Galef, in which participants were tested in regard to their “scientific intelligence” with a set of questions.[ii] Questions were divided into four categories – basic facts; methods; quantitative reasoning; and cognitive reflection. Remarkably, when conservative republican and liberal democrat participants were also asked whether they affirmed the statement that there is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels,” there was a positive correlation between “scientific intelligence” and divergent opinion. That is to say, the higher one’s scientific intelligence, the more likely a liberal democrat was to affirm the statement and the more likely a conservative republic was to disagree with it. This is not the only study to reveal the tendency for more educated people to diverge in opinion on controversial topics. Another study surveyed people’s views on ideologically charged topics, including stem cell research, the Big Bang, human evolution, and climate change.[iii] Their finding was that “Individuals with greater education, science education, and science literacy display more polarized beliefs on these issues,” though they found “little evidence of political or religious polarization regarding nanotechnology and genetically modified foods.” Galef summarizes the implications of those studies: “This is a crucially important result, because being smart and being knowledgeable on a particular topic are two more things that give us a false sense of security in our own reasoning. A high IQ and an advanced degree might give you an advantage in ideologically neutral domains like solving math problems or figuring out where to invest your money. But they won’t protect you from bias on ideologically charged questions,” (p. 48).

Though there is an element of scout and soldier in all of us, Galef argues, “some people, in some contexts, are better scouts than most,” being “more genuinely desirous of the truth, even if it’s not what they were hoping for, and less willing to accept bad arguments that happen to be convenient. They’re more motivated to go out, test their theories, and discover their mistakes. They’re more conscious of the possibility that their map of reality could be wrong, and more open to changing their mind,” (pp. 14-15). On the flip side of the coin, often “[w]e use motivated reasoning not because we don’t know any better, but because we’re trying to protect things that are vitally important to us – our ability to feel good about our lives and ourselves, our motivation to try hard things and stick with them, our ability to look good and persuade, and our acceptance in our communities,” (p. 26). For example, if we are being honest, how often do we, when considering a claim, “implicitly ask ourselves, ‘What kind of person would believe a claim like this, and is that how I want other people to see me?’” (p. 23). Such thinking fuels soldier mindset. In practice, we cannot eliminate soldier mindset from our reasoning processes entirely. After all, it is our default mentality. By nature, we like having our beliefs confirmed. But we can take intentional steps towards cultivating more of a scout mindset.

What are some of the key characteristics that distinguish scout from soldier mindset? In chapter four, Galef gives five features that define a scout. The first is the ability to tell other people when you realize that they were right. Galef caveats this quality by noting that “Technically, scout mindset only requires you to be able to acknowledge to yourself that you were wrong, not to other people. Still a willingness to say ‘I was wrong’ to someone else is a strong sign of a person who prizes the truth over their own ego.” The second quality is reacting well to criticism. Galef explains, “To gauge your comfort with criticism, it’s not enough just to ask yourself, ‘Am I open to criticism?’ Instead, examine your track record. Are there examples of criticism you’ve acted upon? Have you rewarded a critic (for example, by promoting him)? Do you go out of your way to make it easier for other people to criticize you?” (p. 52). The third quality that marks out a scout is the ability to prove oneself wrong. Galef asks, “Can you think of any examples in which you voluntarily proved yourself wrong? Perhaps you were about to voice an opinion online, but decided to search for counterarguments first, and ended up finding them compelling. Or perhaps at work you were advocating for a new strategy, but changed your mind after you ran the numbers more carefully and realized it wouldn’t be feasible,” (p. 54). The fourth feature of scout mindset is to avoid biasing one’s information. “For example,” writes Galef, “when you ask your friend to weigh in on a fight you had with your partner, do you describe the disagreement without revealing which side you were on, so as to avoid influencing your friend’s answer? When you launch a new project at work, do you decide ahead of time what will count as a success and what will count as a failure, so you’re not tempted to move the goalposts later?” (p. 56). The fifth feature that Galef lists is being able to recognize good critics. Galef comments, “It’s tempting to view your critics as mean-spirited, ill-informed, or unreasonable. And it’s likely that some of them are. But it’s unlikely that all of them are. Can you name people who are critical of your beliefs, profession, or even choices who you consider thoughtful, even if you believe they’re wrong? Or can you at least name reasons why someone might disagree with you that you would consider reasonable (even if you don’t happen to know of specific people who hold those views)?” (p. 57). In summary, Galef notes, “Being able to name reasonable critics, being willing to say ‘The other side has a point this time,’ being willing to acknowledge when you were wrong – it’s things like these that distinguish people who actually care about truth from people who only think they do,” (p. 57).

Chapter 5 of the book offers five tests of bias in our reasoning. The first test is the double standard test, which essentially asks whether we apply the same standards to ourselves that we would apply to others. The second test is the outsider test, which attempts to determine how you would assess the same situation or data if you had no vested interest in the outcome. The third test is the conformity test, which attempts to discern the extent to which one’s opinion is in fact one’s own. Galef explains, “If I find myself agreeing with someone else’s viewpoint, I do a conformity test: Imagine this person told me that they no longer held this view. Would I still hold it? Would I feel comfortable defending it to them?” (p. 66). The fourth test is the selective skeptic test – “Imagine this evidence supported the other side. How credible would you find it then?” (p. 68). The final test is the status quo bias test – “Imagine your current situation was no longer the status quo. Would you then actively choose it? If not, that’s a sign that your preference for your situation is less about its particular merits and more about a preference for the status quo,” (p. 69).

Another thing that marks out a scout, according to Galef, is one’s attitude towards being wrong. Scouts, explains Galef, “revise their opinions incrementally over time, which makes it easier to be open to evidence against their beliefs,” (p. 144). Further, “they view errors as opportunities to hone their skill at getting things right, which makes the experience of realizing ‘I was wrong’ feel valuable, rather than just painful,” (p. 144). Galef even suggests that we should drop the whole “wrong confession” altogether and instead talk about “updating”. Galef explains, “An update is routine. Low-key. It’s the opposite of an overwrought confession of sin. An update makes something better or more current without implying that its previous form was a failure,” (p. 147). Galef points out that we should not think about changing our minds as a binary thing – rather, we should think of the world in “shades of grey”, and think about changing our mind in terms of an “incremental shift” (p. 140). Galef notes that thinking about revising one’s beliefs in this way makes “the experience of encountering evidence against one of your beliefs very different” since “each adjustment is comparatively low stakes” (p. 140). For example, “If you’re 80 percent sure that immigration is good for the economy, and a study comes out showing that immigration lowers wages, you can adjust your confidence in your belief down to 70 percent,” (p. 140).

Galef also points out that, when it comes to intentionally exposing ourselves to content representing the ‘other side’ of a debate in which we are interested, people tend to make the mistake of always ending up “listening to people who initiate disagreements with us, as well as the public figures and media outlets who are the most popular representatives of the other side,” (p. 170). However, as Galef explains, “Those are not very promising selection criteria. First of all, what kind of person is most likely to initiate a disagreement? A disagreeable person. (‘This article you shared on Facebook is complete bullshit – let me educate you…’) Second, what kind of people or media are likely to become popular representatives of an ideology? The ones who do things like cheering for their side and mocking or caricaturing the other side – i.e., you,” (pp. 170-171). Instead, Galef suggests, “To give yourself the best chance of learning from disagreement, you should be listening to people who make it easier to be open to their arguments, not harder. People you like or respect, even if you don’t agree with them. People with whom you have some common ground – intellectual premises, or a core value that you share – even though you disagree with them on other issues. People whom you consider reasonable, who acknowledge nuance and areas of uncertainty, and who argue in good faith,” (p. 171).

Lessons We Can Draw from The Scout Mindset

To what extent are we, as Christian scholars and apologists, cultivating a scout mindset? Too often debates between theists and atheists devolve into tribalism, an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, and a smug condescension towards those who disagree with us. But what if we saw those with whom we disagree not as enemies but as colleagues in our quest to attain a better map of reality? Our critics are those who are best placed to discover flaws in our own reasoning, which may be invisible to us. We ignore them at our peril. By listening carefully to our critics, we can construct a more nuanced, more robust worldview. And which critics of our faith are we seeking out to represent the dissenting view? Are we primarily engaging with popular but less-than-nuanced critics of Christianity, or are we actively seeking out the very best, most erudite and well-informed critics of our faith, even if less well known? Can we name some of our critics as honest and thoughtful? How are we positioning ourselves to be in the best place possible to find out we are wrong, if we are in fact wrong? If we are wrong about one or more of our beliefs, can we honestly say that we value truth enough to want to know? How do our answers to the foregoing questions bear on that latter question?

Perhaps at this juncture it should be clarified what exactly apologetics is, since there is regrettably much confusion surrounding this word, both inside and outside of the Christian community. It is commonly thought that the exercise of apologetics is contrary to open-ended inquiry where the conclusion is not stipulated a priori. However, this view is quite mistaken. While apologetics is not identical to open-ended inquiry, it is co-extensive with it in the sense that apologetics is what happens after the results of open-ended inquiry are in, and the time has come to publicize our interpretation of the data. Thus, though the term is seldom used in this context, every publication of a scientific paper is an exercise in apologetics. Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was an exercise in apologetics since he sought to sell his interpretation of the observations that he had made on the Galapagos islands. It is common to think of apologists as playing the role of a criminal defence attorney who is committed to defending his client, come what may. In reality, however, a more apt parallel is to an investigative journalist, reporting for popular consumption the results of a fair and balanced inquiry.

Being an apologist of the gospel is no light responsibility. We are asking people to pledge their allegiance to Jesus Christ and dedicate every aspect of their life to His service. This may cost them greatly – even their life. The weight of this responsibility is emphasized by the apostle Paul himself, who stated that, if Jesus was not in fact raised, “We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised,” (1 Cor 15:15). We therefore owe it to those to whom we preach to study diligently the facts and arguments on both sides of the debate to ensure that the gospel is in fact true. We also owe it to those with whom we share the gospel to fully and completely inform them, as far as is possible, concerning the facts of the case. Too often I have seen apologists present popular arguments for Christianity but omit relevant facts that undermine the force of their argument. For some examples of this, see my recent conversation with Wesley Huff on arguments Christians should NOT use.[iv] Whenever you encounter an argument that is supportive of a position that you like, you should always, before publicly repeating the argument, conduct a thorough search for any relevant data that might reduce the evidential force of the argument. At the very least you should determine whether any academic publications, especially those critical of your beliefs, have already addressed the argument. This is but one of several ways in which you can reduce the negative effects of confirmation bias on your reasoning.

What other steps can we take to mitigate against confirmation bias? I try to make it my habit to expose myself to more material – whether that be books, articles, podcasts, videos or other media – that argues against my beliefs than those which argue for them. This reduces the likelihood of me fooling myself, and forces me to think deeper and more carefully about my beliefs, and to develop a more nuanced expression of them. It also puts me in a strong position to find out that I am wrong if I am in fact wrong about any of my beliefs. A first step towards stepping outside of your intellectual echo chamber can be recognizing that smart people can argue in good faith and yet disagree with you.

I am sometimes asked how a newcomer to religious debates may discern which apologists to listen to and whom to disregard. Of course, the difficulty here is that, in order to discern which apologists can be trusted to give reliable content, one must have already attained a certain level of knowledge about the subject. But in order to arrive at that threshold of knowledge concerning the subject, one must first determine who to receive information from. How might we escape this dilemma? One criterion of several that I often give is to be wary of anyone who asserts that all of the evidence supports their own personal view and that there is none which tends to disconfirm it. Whenever anyone tells me, concerning any complex topic (whether that be theism, Christianity, evolution or anything else), that all of the evidence is on the side of their own personal view, it leads me to reduce my confidence in their objectivity with the data, and I begin to think that confirmation bias is particularly prominent in this individual’s reasoning process. It is an intellectual virtue to be able to admit that one or more pieces of evidence tends to disconfirm your own view. Of course, presumably you also maintain that the evidence that tends to confirm your view is stronger, on balance, than that which tends to disconfirm it. Nonetheless, recognizing the existence of difficult or anomalous data is a mark of scout mindset. And how might we go about determining whether a given datum confirms or disconfirms our Christian beliefs? For each piece of data we encounter, we should ask ourselves whether that datum, considered in isolation, is more probable given Christianity or given its falsehood. If the former, then it is evidence that is confirmatory of Christianity; if the latter, then it is evidence against. Too often I see people reason that, if a set of data can be made compatible with their beliefs, then they have neutralized the objection to their beliefs. However, this approach is quite simplistic. It is nearly always possible to make discordant data compatible with your beliefs. But that does not mean that the data is not better predicted given that your beliefs are false than that they are true, or that you should not lower your confidence in those beliefs. The appropriate question, when confronted with discordant data, is not to ask “Can I believe I am still right?” Galef rightly points out that “Most of the time, the answer is ‘Yes, easily,’” (p. 141). Rather, we should ask to what extent our confidence in our beliefs needs to be updated in response to this new data.

Another criterion of a credible apologist is that he or she is willing to offer critiques of arguments presented by others on his or her own side of the debate. Are they even-handed in subjecting arguments for their own view to the same scrutiny as those put forward by those on the other side of the debate? This reveals that they are discerning and have a genuine concern for factual accuracy. How one responds to criticism, both friendly critique as well as that from dissenting voices, is also a measure of one’s concern for correct representation of information. An ability to publicly retract false or misleading statements and issue corrections goes a long way to establish one’s credibility. When we encounter a new contributor to the debate, with whose work we have not hitherto interacted, we should also fact-check their statements, going, if possible, back to the primary sources – especially when they stray into territory outside of our own domain of expertise. If they are able to sustain a track record of being reliable in their reportage of information and fully informing the audience about the relevant facts, one ought to be more inclined to trust them as a credible authority. If on the other hand they have a habit of getting things factually incorrect, one should be very hesitant to take anything they say on their word.

One should also be wary of apologists who exaggerate the strength of their argument, over-pushing the data beyond that which it is able to support. It is always better to understate the merits of one’s arguments and pleasantly surprise by overproviding, than to overstate the merits of the argument and disappoint by underproviding. This is why in my writing and public speaking I prefer to use more cautious-sounding statements like “this tends to confirm” or “this suggests” rather than bolder statements like “this proves” or “this demonstrates.” Similarly, I will speak of being “confident” rather than “certain” of my conclusions.

My enthusiastic advocacy for integrity and nuance in apologetics, together with my insistence on subjecting arguments advanced in support of Christianity to the same scrutiny that we would subject contrary arguments to, has on occasion been misconstrued – by atheists as well as by Christians – as an indication of my losing confidence in the truth of Christianity. However, this does not at all follow and, frankly, it saddens me that Christian apologetics has come to be associated, in the minds of many, with a soldier rather than scout mindset. Clearly, it is possible to be convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true and yet still be committed to the honest presentation of information. It is also possible to believe that Christianity is well supported while also maintaining that many of the arguments advanced in support of Christianity are fundamentally flawed or dramatically overstated. I believe it is a virtue rather than a vice to recognize one’s own confirmation bias and thus take steps in the direction of reducing its negative effects on one’s reasoning. The principles that I have advocated in this essay are germane to apologists of any position, regardless of how convinced of that position they are. Otherwise, it is too easy to deceive ourselves, apply double standards, cherry pick data, and inoculate ourselves against finding out that we are mistaken in regards to one or more of our beliefs.

One may of course object to the principles advocated in this essay that, if unsound data or overstated arguments leads people to embrace the gospel, then the end justifies the means. I recall complaining, on more than one occasion, about the presentation of factually erroneous information in defence of Christianity at a University-affiliated Christian society in the United Kingdom. The response with which I was met, lamentably, was that it is very unlikely that any other of the attendees would know enough about the subject to pick up on the errors in the presentation, and we should rejoice that they heard the gospel. This thinking, however, is flawed for at least two reasons. First, we claim to represent the one who identified Himself as truth itself (Jn 14:6). Plenty of Biblical texts condemn the employment of deceptive methods (e.g. Exod 20:16; Ps 24:3-5; 101:7; Prov 10:9; 11:3; 12:22; 24:28; Col 3:9; Eph 4:25). It is therefore not honouring of God when we perpetuate misinformation, even in defence of the gospel. Second, if one with whom we have shared the gospel later does his or her own research to determine whether the things we have said are in fact true, much like the Bereans are commended for doing in regards to Paul’s preaching (Acts 17:11), we are responsible for having placed another obstacle between them and the gospel. This is a grave thing to be responsible for.

In summary, cultivating a scout mindset, and minimizing soldier mindset, can help us to think more clearly and with greater intellectual honesty about our beliefs and our reasons for holding them. I cannot recommend any more highly Julia Galef’s book The Scout Mindset. I would also recommend her presentation for TEDx Talks, “Why ‘scout mindset’ is crucial to good judgment.”[v]

Footnotes

[i] Julia Galef, The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t (New York: Porfolio, 2021).

[ii] Dan M. Kahan, “Ordinary science intelligence’: a science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change,” Journal of Risk Research 20, no. 8 (2017), 995-1016.

[iii] Caitlin Drummond and Baruch Fischoff, “Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 36 (Sep, 2017), 9587-9592.

[iv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVad8BE5A6c

[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8

An Atheist’s Call To Make Our Case

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

St. Francis of Assisi may have died 800 years ago, but his influence still looms. He was a man who venerated nature and lived a life of great sacrifice in service to God and his church. But within the Christian ecosystem, he has become most famous for an adage that strikes a chord with anyone who is serious about sharing their faith:

Preach the Gospel always. If necessary, use words.

The modern interpretation of Assisi’s exhortation is clear. Our charge is to love people into the kingdom, not argue them there. If you’ve bought into that mindset it may surprise you to learn that it’s not accurate. And it may surprise you even more to learn that it flies in the face of an atheist’s call to make our case.

Here’s why.

A Gospel Without Words?

On one level there is no denying that, “who you are speaks so loudly that no one can hear what you say.” We certainly don’t want the life we live to deny everything about the faith we claim to represent. But is the Franciscan inversion of this exhortation also true? Can we proclaim the message through our actions alone?

The problem here is that the Gospel makes propositional truth claims about the nature of the world, the nature of man, and the remedy for man’s rebellion against God. It’s a story about reality. And it’s only “good news” if it’s actually true. So, how can we share the propositional truth claims of such a message and explain their implications without using words or giving answers?

I contend that we can’t. Furthermore, the attitude that says we can is not only harmful, but it also does violence to the Gospel it claims to love. This contention is not my own. A rabid atheist will back me up.

The Gift of a Bible

Penn Jillette and his partner, Raymond Teller, have been entertaining Las Vegas audiences for years. Their mixture of magic, music, and commentary – the Penn & Teller show – is the longest-running show at the same hotel in Las Vegas history. Jillette is a magician, actor, and inventor. He is also a hard-core atheist – so adamant about his denial of God’s existence that at one point in his life he is said to have owned three cars with vanity license plates that read: “atheist,” “nogod,” and “godless.”[i] “Strangely enough,” says Jillette, “they wouldn’t give me ‘infidel.’ He was also a happy participant in YouTube’s viral “blasphemy challenge,” in which participants publicly mock and denounce the Holy Spirit.

Penn Jillette is no friend of Christianity. But he has a message that every Christian should take to heart.

In July 2010, Jillette posted a video online[ii] in which he shared the story of a man who approached him after one of his performances. The man was extremely complimentary of the Penn & Teller show. He said he enjoyed Jillette’s honesty, his use of language, and his talent. The man was polite and humble. And he came bearing a gift.

“I was here last night,” said the man, “I brought this for you.” The man handed Jillette a pocket Bible containing the New Testament and the book of Psalms. Penn Jillette was genuinely humbled and impressed by the actions and attitude of this kind Christian man. And he is quite direct about how he received the gesture.

I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. If you believe there’s a heaven and hell … and if you believe that people could be going to hell, or not getting eternal life … and you think that it’s not worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward … How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? If I believed beyond the shadow of a doubt that a truck was bearing down on you and you didn’t believe it, there’s a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that (emphasis mine).

Misquoting Assisi

Most of us don’t have a lot in common with a rabid atheist Las Vegas showman who mocks the Holy Spirit. But every Christian would do well to take seriously Penn Jillette’s reflection. Not only does it fly in the face of the just-love-them-into-the-kingdom mindset, but it also comports with what Assisi actually said … and with what he did.

It turns out the legendary quote attributed to St. Francis is nothing but a modern corruption of the words he actually wrote in 1221 AD:

Let none of the brothers preach contrary to the form and institution of the church … Nevertheless, let all the brothers preach by their works.

Notice that Francis did not render preaching the gospel a contingent option. Instead, he linked words and actions directly together.

Francis of Assisi devoted himself to the kind of life for which he is now known after being convicted by a sermon he heard in 1209. He took a vow of poverty, felt connected to nature and the beauty of the creation, and demonstrated empathy for others. But he was also known for the powerful sermons he delivered. He lived out the Gospel, and he was happy to tell others about it.

Words Are Always Necessary

Arguments and evidence are far from arrogant intellectual add-ons to the Gospel.[iii] They are integral to it. God saturated our world with truths that could never be adequately expressed through our actions alone. There are plenty of examples of militant atheists who have turned to God after hearing about them. C. S. Lewis, Antony Flew, Lee Strobel, and J. Warner Wallace[iv] come to mind. Penn Jillette isn’t on that list – yet. That’s his choice, not ours. Don’t hate him for it. Be winsome and kind. But by all means, don’t be silent.

Footnotes

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Jillette

[ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8

[iii] https://truehorizon.org/the-gospel-requires-us-to-give-answers/

[iv] https://salvomag.com/article/salvo24/the-evidentialist

A Dragon at Christmas

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

“Away in a manger no crib for a bed, the little Lord Jesus laid down his sweet head. The stars in the sky looked down where he lay, the little Lord Jesus asleep on the hay. The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes. But little Lord Jesus no crying he makes. . .”

What a peaceful scene. It’s as every Christmas card portrays it. Sweet baby Jesus cooing softly in his manger with smiles all around. The only problem is that it doesn’t portray reality. Aside from the point that Jesus most certainly would have been crying as any normal baby would, Revelation 12 describes the Christmas story as a dangerous event, loaded with spiritual warfare.

The Dragon Fights

Chapter 12 is a prime example that Revelation does not record history chronologically. As I’ve argued previously,[i] Revelation provides several complementary, parallel visions. In this way, several of the visions recapitulate, or retell, the same story from slightly different angles. I made this point specifically with the seven seals, trumpets, and bowls.[ii]

Chapter 12 stands as a unique chapter in that it speaks of the incarnation. In verse 1, John describes a vision of a woman dressed in the sun, standing on the moon, and wearing a crown of twelve stars on her head. Scholars debate the identity of the woman. I think one can make a good case that she represents the people of God, though some argue for Mary. The cosmic images demonstrate the exalted status of this figure, especially the crown of twelve stars on her head. We read elsewhere in Revelation that God made his people rulers (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). And the number twelve symbolically represents the people of God (twelve tribes and twelve apostles).[iii]

Verse 2 notes that the woman was pregnant and in labor. Repeatedly throughout the OT, we read that Israel suffers labor pains before their Messianic salvation comes (Isa 26:17-18; 66:7-10; Mic 4:10). At the same time, a great red Dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven diadems on its heads swept down a third of the stars of heaven to the earth. The dragon is a clear reference to Satan (Rev 12:9; 20:2).

The dragon attempts to mimic Jesus who also has horns and diadems (Rev 5:6; 19:12). We read later in Revelation 17:12 that the ten horns represent ten earthly kings. In other words, the Dragon accomplishes his evil schemes through earthly kingdoms and rulers.[iv] And though many think the stars represent angels, most likely the stars represent people as they did in Daniel 8:10 when Antiochus Epiphanes also threw down “stars.” In other words, John appears to making the same point Daniel was making: the enemy will persecute God’s people.

Meanwhile, the woman gives birth to a son. And not just any son, but a son who will rule the nations with an iron staff. This language most certainly refers to Psalm 2:9: “You shall break them with a rod of iron.” This Psalm, which speaks of the Lord’s “anointed” (the Messiah), also says of the anointed, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” (Ps 2:7). This son is none other Jesus of Nazareth who would bring blessing to the nations (Gen 12:3).

And how would he bring blessing? Verse 5 says that the child was “caught up to God and to his throne.” That is to say, even though the dragon sought to devour this male child, he would triumph over the dragon by means of his resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father.

And though Christ defeated Satan, the dragon continues to fight against God’s people while he still can. We read in verse 6 that the woman flees into the wilderness for 1,260 days (3.5 years). There in the wilderness, God nourishes his people, just as he did ancient Israel.

While scholars differ on their interpretation of the 1,260 days, I believe they represent the time span between Christ’s resurrection and eventual return. The time of 1,260 days most likely comes from Daniel 9:27 which prophesies that sacrifices will end for “half of a week.” A week in that context referred to seven years. So half of a week refers to forty-two months or 1,260 days.

Daniel, it seems, was prophesying that Christ’s future death would bring sacrifices to an end for the final 1,260 days which symbolically represents the time between Christ’s two comings. In chapter 11, we read that enemies will trample the people of God for forty-two months (1,260 days). And it’s during this 1,260 days that the two witnesses (the church) will prophesy to the world. Each of these texts supports the idea that 1,260 days refers to the present church age.

The Dragon Falls

While some want to locate the fall of Satan and his angels from heaven before the dawn of the human race, the context goes against this position. True to apocalyptic form, this vision pulls back the curtain to give us a glimpse of a cosmic battle between the dragon and Michael. Michael represents the people of God and overpowers the dragon, casting him down to the earth.

Verse 9 notes that “the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.” Certainly, these images allude back to the serpent in the garden (Gen 3), the Leviathan (Job 41:1; Isa 27:1), Rahab (Job 26:12), and the sea monster (Ps 74:13; Ezek 29:3). Each of these serpent creatures (snakes and sea monsters) represent Satan’s opposition to God’s people.

We read that the dragon and his angels are expelled from heaven because of “the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony.” It seems, then, that Satan used to stand before God and accuse people of their sin (Job 1:9; Zech 3:1). But Christ’s substitutionary death silenced the accuser![v] Satan, therefore, is cast out of heaven, and is further defeated by the proclamation of the gospel. God’s people continue to proclaim the message, even though they suffer for it.

Though the dragon has been defeated, he doesn’t just lay down. He takes down as many as he can with him.

The Dragon Flails

Though Satan fell to earth, he continues to wage war on the woman and her “offspring.” While some may want to distinguish between these two, I think its best to read them as referring to the same entity—the people of God. If one wants to parse them out, one could possibly think of the woman as the church and the offspring as individuals of the church.

As the dragon seeks to attack the church, we read that God delivers them on the wings of eagles into the wilderness, just as he did at the exodus (Exod 19:4). Again, we read that God nourishes his people in the wilderness for “a time, times, and half a time.” This phrase is just another way of saying 3.5 years or 1,260 days. As I already stated earlier, this time frame represents the span of time from Jesus’ resurrection[vi] till his return. That is to say, it’s during this current church age that God is protecting his people from Satan’s attacks.

At the same time, Satan continues to attack the church. He continues to accuse, though he cannot accuse legitimately now that Christ has died. His only recourse is to lie. It’s imperative, therefore, that believers constantly remind themselves of the gospel as to fight off Satan’s accusations. Though Satan continues to wage war, God will ultimately protect his people and bring them safely home.

The Dragon-Slayer

The story of the Bible, then, proclaims that Jesus came as the seed of the woman to crush the head of the serpent.[vii] All throughout Scripture, we see hints of the dragon’s opposition through individuals like Pharaoh, Goliath, King Herod, and the Jewish leaders. But as we see here in Revelation 12, it was really the great serpent pulling the strings. And while this dragon may be a fierce enemy, he is no match for the great dragon-slayer Jesus.

We read of the dragon’s ultimate demise in Revelation 20:2-10, “And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. . . . And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

Footnotes

[i] https://ryanleasure.com/reading-revelation/

[ii] https://ryanleasure.com/seals-trumpets-and-bowls-oh-my/

[iii] https://ryanleasure.com/who-are-the-144000-in-revelation/

[iv] https://ryanleasure.com/the-seven-churches-in-revelation/

[v] https://ryanleasure.com/what-did-the-cross-accomplish/

[vi] https://ryanleasure.com/jesus-brother-james-and-the-resurrection/

[vii] https://ryanleasure.com/serpents-dragons-and-the-bible/

Is Every Bible “New Age”… Except the King James?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Melissa Dougherty

Some people see the King James Bible as far superior to other translations. They believe other translations are heretical, full of redactions with verses purposely and vindictively taken out. Any attempt to “modernize” the language is seen as compromising the very Word of God. Some people in this group see the 1611 English King James Version as even far superior to the Greek copies themselves! Some also believe that the Bible that might be on your shelf is actually… New Age.

I know this because I used to be a King James Onlyist. A KJO.

I want to clarify two things. First, I think the King James is a fine version, and I don’t believe that everyone who prefers the King James is a KJO. Second, I understand that there’s a spectrum of beliefs within the KJO community. I’m going to share what I would consider the most common claims people make on why they believe the King James is superior. I still read this version sometimes. If you like it, that’s great. But some elevate it to an idolatrous level. I want people to know this information, especially the ex-new agers. Many are afraid to read a modern version because they’ve been told the KJV is the only true version and have scared them by saying these other versions are New Age when they’re simply not.

In my time as a KJO, I noticed there are spectrums to this position from the extreme where even putting the King James on the floor is a horrendous sin to the more passive. But, in general, this group basically believes that the true word of God is the King James Version of the Bible, and all others are corrupt and are infiltrated by the New Age. Some are so extreme that they believe the English King James corrects the Greek!

In other words, the King James Bible is the Word of God, not the Greek and Hebrew that it was copied from. This is one reason you see extra verses in the King James and don’t see it in your Bibles, but more about that later.

I personally took more of a middle road in the spectrum and used to believe that the King James Bible was the most reliable and complete, and the rest of these other versions were either missing verses or were compromised somehow. I looked down on people who used different versions, which only furthered my misconceptions about how we got the Bible and how it was translated. When I came out of the New Age, one of the first things I did was research how we got the Bible, and I was amazed by what I learned. The fancy word for this is called “Textual Criticism.”

**Here are three main aspects to consider and why other reputable versions are not New Age:**

1.) Conspiracy to Deceive.

One of the arguments from the KJO camp is that there’s a New Age conspiracy to deceive people into preparing the way for the antichrist. This is done by creating other Bible translations that they claim take essential doctrines out of the Bible to deceive millions. They say the deity of Christ is taken out and the Gospel itself. This is demonstrably false. First of all, a conspiracy is a pretty terrible one if virtually everyone knows about it. Second, it’s ironically a conspiratorial mindset someone has to be in even to claim there’s a New Age conspiracy. In other words, many KJOs believe this out of a fear-based mindset rather than a factual one. The misinformation that is out there on this is staggering and only hurts the people that promote this as they seem to take a more “cultish” position on this than an academic one. One of the biggest issues they bring up is that the King James is “complete” because it has verses other Bibles don’t. This brings me to my second point.

2.) Supposed missing verses.

This is one of the most significant claims from this camp. They pride themselves in owning a “complete ” version, while we have these second-class versions that are demonic and belong in the garbage. This was probably the #1 reason I ascribed to the King James as superior. For those that might not know, if you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g., the New International Version, English Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation, etc.), you will see that several verses seem to be missing from the newer translations. We usually see these passages or texts in the footnotes in other versions. Along with these supposed missing verses are many words and phrases that are “missing” from newer translations. Why are these omitted? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible, in a grand New Age conspiracy, as some claim? No. Not at all. When I researched this a long time ago, this part of my research was startling, but in a good way.

I learned that there are no Bible verses. What I mean by that is that the King James translators added the chapters and verses to help the reader navigate the text, and this is not a bad thing. This is helpful. But it’s important to know that the original authors never wrote like this. It was intended to be read as a letter or book. And second, the real game changer is that these newer translations are striving to present what the biblical writers originally wrote correctly, which means leaving out anything that was not part of the original text. In other words, any content that’s supposedly “missing” in newer translations? Is believed by most scholars not to have been in the Bible to begin with.

It’s important to mention that the King James translators in 1611 used the manuscripts they had available to them at the time, and that’s when the King James Version was written. Since then, older manuscripts have been found that don’t have these verses. Over 1,500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible, intentionally or accidentally. So “missing verses” are simply not found in some of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. Also, there’s a fancy word called “expansion of piety.” This is a desire to fiercely protect the sacredness of Jesus, which led people to expand the titles of Jesus, possibly even without meaning. It’s ironic because the accusation is that the modern translations removed them when the actual situation was that they were added. This does NOT downgrade the King James Version. Again, I think it’s a fine translation to use.

3.) This brings me to my last point. Why are there so many translations, then? This is easier to answer than you think! Again to someone who holds a King James only position, it’s because there’s a New Age conspiracy, and all the older manuscripts have been infiltrated and compromised. For them, this only holds more reason why the King James is the most authentic version. The Bible is written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So all these partial and complete manuscripts we find scattered everywhere are copies, but the good news is that they match. This can be a bit divisive when we talk about it being translated into English because there are so many different ways to translate a word sometimes. For this reason, it’s beneficial to compare translations. I think some versions are to be avoided, such as versions with only one translator or loose paraphrases. An example of this is the Passion Translation or the Message. Because Greek and Hebrew aren’t English, you will have different words translated differently in different versions. The King James Version is a testament to how language can change over time. Following this logic, if the King James truly is the very Word of God, then in another few hundred years, people would practically have to learn another language to read it. Language evolves and changes over time, and this includes English. Nobody speaks Old English today.

For these reasons, there are trustworthy modern translations that are not New Age. They are excellent to read and study and compare to one another.

How To Explain the Trinity to Muslims

Islam, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Sherene Khouri

Islam and Christianity claim to be monotheistic religions. They both believe in one supreme God; however, their concept of the nature of the divine being is different. The Islamic understanding affirms in a strong sense the absolute oneness of God through the doctrine of tawhid (Surah 4:171). Allah is one, and he has no partner, rival, or equal. The Christian understanding, on the other hand, upholds the trinitarian nature of God. “God is one (Deut 6:4), while including in that unity of the Father, who sent his Son; the Son, who is sent: and the Spirit, who is sent by them both.”[i] God is an eternal co-inhering community of equals. While the Qur’an portrays the Trinity in terms of a holy family—Holy God, Holy Mother, and Holy Son (Surah 6:101; 5:116), there is no historical evidence that orthodox Christianity ever described the Trinity in this way. This article discusses the biblical, historical, theological, and philosophical understandings of the Trinity to help Christians explain and discuss the doctrine of the Trinity with their Muslim friends.

The Biblical Explanation

The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible because this doctrine was formulated in the fourth century during the ecumenical council of Nicene. The later formulation, however, does not mean that this doctrine is fabricated or unbiblical. On the contrary, God being trinitarian in nature is a biblical concept that is deeply rooted in Scripture. For example, the concept of God being a father is not a foreign concept to Jews. It was used in the Old Testament (Exodus 15:2 NIV), and Jesus’s teachings emphasized the personal aspect of the fatherhood of God by using the term “abba” to portray his intimate relationship with God. “[W]hen [Jewish] men addressed God as Father,” as Arthur Wainwright explains, “they would use the more formal ‘abuna’ (our father), but one’s own father would be addressed by using the absolute state of the noun, which is ‘abba’.[ii] Jesus used this term to introduce the Father to the Jews and to explain the Father’s relationship to himself.

God, the Father is distinguished from Jesus (God the Son) in the New Testament. This distinction is clear in Jesus’ prayers before the crucifixion. Jesus prayed to the Father and asked him to “glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you … this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Jesus was not praying to himself, but to another person (the Father), distinguishing himself from the Father. In the same way, the Apostle Paul makes a similar distinction between the Father and the Son, explaining that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (Eph 4:6). God the Father is not the mediator, but Jesus is the mediator between God and men.

In addition to Jesus being distinguished from the Father, the Holy Spirit is introduced to the divine Godhead in a way that distinguishes him from the Father and the Son. The Spirit is often described in a personal way, which suggests that he is a person, and can speak to men (1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7). Jesus tells his disciples about the παράκλητος (paráklētos), who is the third person of the Trinity, whom God will send to dwell with believers after the ascension of Christ. He states, “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me” (John 15:26). Jesus, in this verse, distinguishes between the Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit.

In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is not portrayed as a mere state or power because He acts in his distinct personhood. He grieves (Ephesian 4:30), speaks (Mark 13:11-12), teaches (John 14:26), leads (Rom 8:14), and cries (Gal 4:6). Additionally, the Johannine writings call the Spirit παράκλητος (paraklētos), which means the “one who helps, advocates, or comforts someone on behalf of another.”[iii] A “something/someone” who speaks, leads, teaches, and advocates cannot be a mere state or power. On the contrary, he is the One who gives power; therefore, he is a person.

God is revealed in the Bible as one divine being, yet there are distinctions (persons). He was not revealed as a single divine being, as traditionally had been conceived. God is one being in one sense and three persons in a different sense. He is one God who created the universe in one sense and three persons who share the same essence in a different sense.[iv] There are three persons denominated: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who deserve to be called God, and yet there is but one God. The scene of the baptism depicts a clear picture of God as Trinity. When Jesus was in the water, “the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased’” (Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). This scene shows that the Christian God is one divine being in three persons.

The prologue of the Gospel of John has the strongest argument for the Trinity. John says in the first verse of the book: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Here is an indication of the divinity of the Word. There is a clue that the Son is distinct from the Father, yet there is fellowship between them. As Wayne Grudem suggests, “the preposition pros (“with”) does not connote merely physical proximity to the Father but an intimacy of fellowship as well.”[v]

Jesus is described as the word and the spirit of God in the Qur’an (Surah 4:171) as well. Most Muslims believe that the word of God is eternal; however, they do not believe that Jesus is eternal with God.

A Historical Explanation

Believing in the trinitarian God does not mean believing in three separate gods but believing in one divine being who is revealed in three persons. Since the doctrine of tawḥid implements numerical meaning, it is hard for Muslims to understand the word Trinity in a non-numerical sense—a metaphysical sense. This is the reason that pushed the Christian Arab apologists to use the word اقنوم (pl. اقانيم) (Uqnoum, pl. Aqanim) to convey the idea of the Greek word ὑπόστασις (hypostasis). The word Aqanim is never used in the Arabic language, except in the doctrine of the Trinity to covey the idea of the divine persons and illuminate the similarities with the concept of the human person. According to Imad Shehadeh, who is a leading contemporary scholar on the subject of the Trinity in Jordan, “the only benefit from using this word [Uqnoum] in Arabic language is to distance the word ‘person’ from God and substitute it with a foreign and an unknown word that conveys its meaning.”[vi] In other words, dedicating a special terminology to the divine Person indicates a special meaning and illuminates the confusion with the human/physical meaning of the word person. In my opinion, this term should be used in conversation with Muslims to avoid the tritheism confusion that might arise from the human concept of a human being as individual consciousness. The divine Aqanim (persons) are three in a way that does not apply to human persons and cannot be read off from human experience apart from revelation.

A Philosophical Explanation

Muslims believe that Allah is an eternal divine being and the creator of the world. In other words, there was no time before Allah, there was nothing that existed before him, and there was no time in history when Allah did not exist. However, this explanation does not make Allah the greatest conceived being because it does not show the relational nature of Allah before creating the universe. Allah has to be relational in nature because he listens, communicates, and receives worship. This is to say that Allah has a relationship with his creation, he did not create the world and left it to face its own destiny. However, if Allah is truly unipersonal and relational with his creation, what about his relationality before the creation? Who was Allah hearing, seeing, and watching before the creation of the cosmos? To whom was he showing kindness and love? All these divine attributes/names require either otherness in the inner being of Allah or another person/creation external to him. Before creation, there could not have been co-communion, mutual recognition, or altruism in Allah because there is no external differentiation to him or internal diversity in him. This limitation makes Allah dependent on his creation. He needs it in order to be the Hearer (as-Sami’), the Seer (al-Baṣir), the Kind (al-Laṭif), the Watcher (ar-Raqib), and the Loving (al-Wadud.) These attributes were disabled before creation. They were not actualized until Allah created the cosmos.

In Christianity, this problem does not exist because of the doctrine of the Trinity. God lives eternally in an intra-relationship (not alone) within himself, and in an inter-relationship with humanity after creation. The three Aqanim are united by their common divinity or whole generic essence. “The persons are also unified by their joint redemptive purpose and work,” says Cornelius Plantinga, “Their knowledge and love are directed, not only to their creatures but also primordially and archetypally to each other. The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. . . The Trinity is thus a zestful community or divine light, love, joy, mutuality, and verve.”[vii] The divine richness is understood in terms of relationality, with a communion of unity among the three Aqanim. The terms Father and Son are relational terms. One cannot be a parent without having a child and vice versa. Hence, by referring to God as Father, Christians conceive God as being eternally in relation to Himself; this relationship of fatherhood is, in the eternal sense, with the Son.[viii] God is not three separate persons/beings, such as in human person/individual. Instead, He is a unity in diversity.

The belief that God is one divine being and three Aqanim is not self-contradictory because the supposition that “God is either one or three” is logically fallacious. This belief represents the false dichotomy or, what is called, a false dilemma or the black/white fallacy. This fallacy occurs when only two choices are presented yet more exist.[ix] Suggesting that God is either one or three, ignores the option that Christianity presents. The Trinity is a divine, transcendent community of three divine Aqanim: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Theologians tend to be very careful about how to use analogies to explain the Trinity because many of the analogies that were historically used conveyed a form of modalism or tritheism. The following analogy is not meant to be literal, but it is intended to answer the question: “how can God be one and three without any contradiction?” Every man/woman is made as one human being and one person. Beethoven, for instance, is a human being because he belongs to the human race, and he is a unique person because of his musical skills, talents, DNA, personality… etc. His personhood is what makes him unique from Mozart or other musicians. He is a human being in one sense and a unique musician/person in another sense. In other words, he is both without a contradiction. In like manner, Christians believe that the Trinity is not a self-contradictory argument because while God is a divine being, He is also three Aqanim. He is a divine being in one sense because He belongs to the divine realm (not to the human race), and he is three Aqanim—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—in a different sense because He belongs to his own realm Sui generis, where nothing is like him. It would be considered a contradiction if God is one divine being and three persons in the same sense.

Bibliography

Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6. Accessed April 30, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2818.htm.

Erickson, Millard. Introducing Christian Doctrine. 3^rd ed. MI: Baker Academic, 2015.

Holland, Richard, jr. and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking. Baker Academic, 2017.

McCall, Thomas H. “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective.” In Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity. Edited by Sexton, Jason S. MI: Zondervan, 2014.

Plantinga, Cornelius, jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism.” In Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays. Edited by Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989.

Shehadeh, Imad. Al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness]. Al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009.

Wainwright, Arthur. W. The Trinity in the New Testament. London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975

Footnotes

[i] “Trinity,” s.v. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Baker Academics, 2017).

[ii] Arthur W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament (London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975), 45.

[iii] “παράκλητος (paraklētos),” s.v. Lexham Theological Wordbook, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press), 2014.

[iv] Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6, accessed April 30, 020,

[v] Millard Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, 3^rd ed., (MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 112.

[vi] Imad Shehadeh, al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness], (al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009), 31. The original Arabic renders as: “الفائدة الوحيدة في استخدام هذه الكلمة في اللغة العربية هي ابعاد كلمة ’الشخص’ عن الله واستبدالها بكلمة اجنبية غير معروفة في معناها.”

[vii] Cornelius Plantinga jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays, ed. Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 31.

[viii] Thomas H. McCall, “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective,” in Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity, Sexton, Jason S. ed., (MI: Zondervan, 2014), 133.

[ix] Richard Holland Jr, and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking (Baker Academic, 2017), 39.

The Disrespecting Marriage Act

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By John D. Ferrer

Marriage is under fire… again.

The red wave in November might have helped put out the fire, but not when the wave is just a trickle. Unless something wild happens in Arizona and Georgia, the Democrats will retain the Senate majority. Republicans will gain a slight majority in the House of Representatives, but that doesn’t start till January. That leaves a one-month window for a democrat-majority House and Senate to cram everything they can into law before New Year’s. One of those cram jobs is the “Respect for Marriage Act.”[i]

Following Senate majority leader Chuck Shumer, Democrats are expected to pass the “Respect for Marriage Act.” The bill briefly mentions interracial marriages, which no one is disputing. that’s been legal in every state for decades now. That’s not the contentious part. This bill is written in direct opposition to the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act[ii] (1996), and intended to build on the momentum of the Obergfell decision (2015) which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Broadly speaking, the Respect for Marriage act would guarantee that any type of marriage recognized in one state must be recognized in every state. If you stop and think about that, it can get pretty absurd pretty quickly. Here’s the official summary of the bill.

Respect for Marriage Act
This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.) The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

117th Congress, H.R. 8404, 7/19/2022, Summary[iii]

Democrats seem to have a winning issue here though. The “marriage equality” rhetoric plays well to progressives, the LGBT lobby, and many libertarians. That means more publicity, votes, and money. As legislation, the bill already passed the House, and it has the votes to pass in the senate. It should have stalled out in the senate, for missing the 60 votes needed for cloture (ending debate/filibuster). But the 50 democrat votes are now joined by 12 Republicans supporting the bill.

Roy Blunt of Missouri
Richard Burr of North Carolina
Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
Susan Collins of Maine
Joni Ernst of Iowa
Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Rob Portman of Ohio
Mitt Romney of Utah
Dan Sullivan of Alaska
Thom Tillis of North Carolina
Todd Young of Indiana

This means, the Respect for Marriage Act can be put to a final vote, passing with a simple majority (51 votes). It will become the law of the land unless something drastic happens like senate democrats changing their vote, or a state election being overturned.

WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

Those 12 republican votes are a little surprising, because republicans have mostly opposed redefining marriage. Plus, an earlier version of the bill raised concerns about religious freedom. The bill looked like it would force people to violate their conscience or their religion. Even the most liberal republicans and RINOs would have to reject that. Remember the cake-baker case[iv]? What about the flower-shop case[v]? Or the wedding-planner case[vi]? Without a doubt, there are left-wing legal teams determined to force Christians to violate their conscience and their religion (not to mention sacrifice free enterprise and freedom of speech). So, no matter what lobbyists may say, religious freedom is a live issue facing active threats.

That, however, was the old version of the bill. A new version[vii] was amended to protect religious freedom, at least for individuals and communities. With that revision in place, those 12 republicans were free to dissent from Republican ranks.

But does it protect religious freedom? A little, but not nearly as much as it may seem. It protects religious freedom at an individual and community level (like churches), but only generally, and only when it doesn’t include the state. It says:

“In General – Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the [US] Constitution.”

117th Congress H.R. 8404, 7/19/2022, Sec., 6, line 22[viii].

“GENERALLY TRUE” MEANS “OFTEN FALSE.”

One big problem with this amendment is the squishy phrase: “In General.” It refers to a general principle, and since the principle applies only generally, that means many times it doesn’t apply. Simply put, “generally true” means “often false.” In legal terms, squishy words like that tend to become escape clauses. They’re loopholes, so litigious activists can get around basic rights.

Plus, you can’t build much on squishy words. They aren’t absolute, universal, or even easy to clarify. So, it’s not a strong foundation for legal protections. Anyone who’s life and livelihood is on the line (cake-bakers and wedding planners included), they have only a cold reassurance that “maybe federal law will respect your religious freedom.”

Another liability with squishy legal terms is they can squishify and dissolve whatever they touch. Whatever follows from “In General” is only generally true, so there can be exceptions. Would your case be an exception? Who knows? Instead of clear, firm, and absolute statements protecting people’s religious freedoms, this amendment offers only a generality, a great big “Maybe?!” That’s little reassurance for the next small-business owner facing a class-action lawsuit with the full-force of the LGBT-lobby against them. A squishy fortress is no fortress at all.

IT VIOLATES LARGE-SCALE FREEDOMS

Another big problem with the amendment is that there’s not a single word protecting people’s freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in the form of state laws and elections. Voting is free speech. You can’t be legally forced to vote against your conscience. If the people across the state were to vote in favor of a state constitutional amendment or a particular law, that’s an expression of free speech. The Respect for Marriage Act threatens to strike down any competing state-level constitutions or laws, never minding the voice and conscience of the people who voted that legislation into existence.

Suppose for example, Iowans were to pass a law, across the state of Iowa, reflecting their deeply held beliefs about adoption practices and gay couples. If that law ran head-on into the Respect for Marriage Act, then the federal law would have right of way in the collision. The federal law would be violating people’s freedom of speech (in voting) and freedom of religion (in voting their conscience).

IT DISRESPECTS MARRIAGE

Setting aside the shaky amendment, there’s a deeper problem with the Respect for Marriage Act. It’s a glaring misnomer. It’s not respecting marriage at all, not unless we abandon the standing institution of marriage from the start of human history till about five minutes ago. Al Mohler calls it “Orwellian” because it hides a profound disrespect for marriage behind a sneaky politispeak title: “Respect for Marriage Act” (see, Al Mohler, The Briefing[ix], Nov. 17, 2022 – 23:42)

This Act treats marriage as merely a social construct that people can define and redefine at will. It’s as if states can create a new category of marriage, at will. But that framing runs contrary to human history, natural law, not to mention Scripture. Marriage isn’t a social construct, it’s more like a natural law, or even a force-of-nature. It’s built-in. It’s something we discover as a facet of God’s creation. We didn’t create marriage. God did (Genesis 2:19-25; Matthew 19:4-6). It’s also a gracious gift from God. We’re in no place to take God’s gift of marriage and say, “God, you didn’t design it right; here let me fix it up for you.”

Ethically speaking, we’re playing God if we think we have the authority to redefine marriage according to trending fashions. It’s pretty disrespectful towards God and towards marriage, to invent other partnerships that history, nature, and God never called “marriage” and think we have somehow expanded the institution of marriage to include them. We can play around with words all we want, but the institution of marriage precedes us. It’s bigger than us. And it comes from God. So, it isn’t subject to our language games. We can’t redefine marriage any more than we can replace the wings of a plane mid-flight.

IT’S OPEN-ENDED

It’s been said that people should be careful they’re not so open minded that their brains fall out. The same applies to an open definition of marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act fortifies an open view of marriage to where any state can change their definition and all other states would have to accept it, no matter how ridiculous that redefinition may be. Imagine if Utah reinstated polygamy. Or, if Texas lowered the age of marital consent to 12 (no offense Texas). Or, if California approved bigamy (2+ marriages at once). Or New York granted marriage status to any two roommates seeking tax benefits. Or if Florida granted dolphins “person” status so people can marry them. Or if Oregon allowed twelve different people to “identify” as just two people in marriage – every other state would be forced to accept any or all of these arrangements.

Bear in mind, marriage is what it is, regardless of terminology. Every state would have to affirm a lie, accepting as “marriage” what, in reality, is not a marriage. Every state in the union would have to adjust their health codes, family laws, child-protective services, domestic abuse laws, employment ethics, tax codes, health insurance, medical standards, adoption laws, housing and real-estate categories, and everything else impacted by these alternative “marriages”. All that because a federal law is demanding that everyone in every state: “Obey, or else.” Even if we set aside the religious, and ethical problems with this legislation, it’s so monstrously impractical it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

WE ALREADY HAD MARRIAGE EQUALITY

To be clear here, I don’t think society should prevent two mentally-fit unmarried adults from marrying each other. Even if they’re gay, bi-, or trans, they have the same natural right to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. No one is stopping gay people from participating in their equal right to marry; and marriage is with someone of the opposite sex. That’s what marriage has meant for thousands of years, across all cultures, and all established world religions, to where it’s been a cultural universal and a common-sense admission by everyone everywhere till about 5 minutes ago. It’s redundant to even call it “traditional marriage.” It’s just called marriage. We’ve had to clarify in recent years that we (Christian conservatives) mean the same thing by “marriage” that almost everyone across history has meant by “marriage.” We mean it in the traditional sense. We don’t mean it in the recently revised socially-constructed sense. We’re talking about the long-tested and well-proven institutional bedrock for societies across every remotely successful civilization in history. We’re talking about the sacred social institution whereby women are protected, men are disciplined, and children are raised more effectively than any other family model. Even polygamous cultures treated marriage as one-man plus one woman; they just allowed the wealthier citizens to have more than one marriage at a time.

We already had marriage equality before worldly forces began playing language games with the term “marriage,” and before subversives began launching an open assault on the nuclear family. Not only did we have marriage equality, we had civil protections and privileges for marriage, we had respect for marriage, we even had healthier marriages and stronger families before all this.

If we Christian conservatives were willing to do the hard-work to protect and preserve the better parts of family-friendly faith-based culture, we might not be in this predicament. But there’s no sense in bemoaning past mistakes. we can’t change them. We can however learn from our mistakes, so we don’t have to repeat them.

At this point, the Respect for Marriage act is Exhibit Z in a long line of evidence proving how worldly forces are dead-set on subverting institution marriage and with it the nuclear family. Fellow believers and social conservatives have an upward hill to climb here. But God is still sovereign. And there’s still time for your state representative to take courage and do the right thing. Pray hard folks. Get the word out. And maybe write your local representative and tell them to vote against this Disrespecting Marriage Act.

What follows is the text of the Respect for Marriage Act (HR 8404). Accessed 20 Nov 2022 at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text?r=947&s=6

H. R. 8404

TO REPEAL THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT AND ENSURE RESPECT FOR STATE REGULATION OF MARRIAGE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATE

July 20, 2022

Received; read the first time

July 21, 2022

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Respect for Marriage Act”.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.

SEC. 3. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

Chapter 115[x] of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B the following:

“§ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

“(a) In General.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—

“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

“(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.

“(c) Private Right Of Action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.

“(d) State Defined.—In this section, the term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.”.

SEC. 4. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.

Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

“§ 7. Marriage

“(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

“(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

“(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.”.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment made thereby, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2022.Attest:

Footnotes

[i] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text

[ii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3396/text

[iii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404?r=947&s=6

[iv] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111

[v] https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2019/91615-2-0.html

[vi] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2021-10/303-Creative-cert-stage.pdf

[vii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf

[viii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf

[ix] https://open.spotify.com/episode/08Prpo2UN4zXtOTROWJBZY

[x] http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-chapter115-front&num=0&edition=prelim

Whether Christians Should Study Philosophy

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By JD Kline

Question: I am curious whether Christians should study philosophy.

Answer: At some point, you may have heard it said, “Christians should not study philosophy because the Bible warns believers to beware of philosophy.” Colossians 2:8 describes it as “empty deceit” and of the “traditions of men,” or “worldly” and not of Christ. Some believe the very nature of its discourse will talk its followers right out of belief in God. Therefore, it is believed, that not only is the study of philosophy unbiblical. It leads one to skepticism. I was once told, “All you need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit.” Or “just have faith.”

However, this is not biblically accurate nor is it necessarily true. In the wrong hands, philosophy can be dangerous. But, in my experience, philosophy has brought me into a closer relationship with God. As the giver of wisdom (Proverbs 2:6, James 1:5), I can know Him more deeply and shed whatever intellectual barriers of reluctance obscuring a head-to-heart connection.

God is not anti-philosophy. God says, “Come, now, and let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). Furthermore, the Scriptures teach us to love the lord, God, with our minds (Luke 10:27); and to destroy lofty arguments raised against the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). The Scriptures, in other words, command us to develop our God-given rational faculties and use it to live our lives wisely in pursuit of Christ. We learn from 1 Peter 3:15 that we are to persuasively answer for the hope that is in us. Believe it or not, this is the task of philosophy. Listen, now, to the voices of our past.

Great Christian Thinkers on the Study of Philosophy

The late Norman Geisler states that “We cannot properly beware of philosophy unless we be aware of philosophy”[i] Furthermore, “God never bypasses the mind on the way to the heart.”[ii]

C.S. Lewis states, “If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were educated. But a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”[iii]

Puritan, Cotton Mather once said, “Ignorance is the Mother not of Devotion but of Heresy.”[iv] This may not be about philosophy, specifically, but it is a charge against the anti-intellectual movement within the Church for all time. Therefore, the Church cannot afford to be ignorant regarding philosophy because philosophy leads to knowledge of God while the snake of heresy lies waiting to prey on the ignorant and twist the spirit of our devotion (truth)– for confusion and lies. Beware of those who try to reason you out of philosophy because their philosophy on Philosophy is philosophically ignorant. In their piety, they lead one not into devotion but heresy. Philosophy is a handmaiden for the truth about God.

The Philosophical Question about the Study of Philosophy

Notice, the very question itself demands the use of what it intends to refute. At its core, “why should Christians study philosophy?” is a philosophical question in nature. To answer a philosophical question, then, would require the use of philosophical reasoning. Therefore, to deny the use of reason would require the use of reason to successfully deny it. That is self-refuting. It is like saying, “never say never,” but only, “The reason we ought not to use reason is that there is no biblical reason for it.” False. In fact, we should study philosophy because philosophy informs readers of the Bible on how to interpret and understand the Bible. Have you ever considered the rules for interpreting literature? Philosophy guides the principles and methods we use of interpreting the Biblical text – a discipline called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a philosophical enterprise. We couldn’t do theology, or any of the sciences for that matter, without philosophy. It is foundational to knowledge. Indeed, philosophy permeates every aspect of our lives and how we live it. Even if we don’t realize it, each of us has a philosophy about philosophy and whether Christians ought to study it. So, what is philosophy?

Defining Philosophy

Quite simply, philosophy is the love of wisdom. In other terms, philosophy is learning how to think rightly and logically about what is, such as: what is real, what is true, what is beautiful, and so on. It is the pursuit of truth. Jesus, who is God, is the truth (John 14:7). Therefore, in my view, when one studies philosophy, they are in pursuit of God. What we decide about Him then becomes a matter of faith – to believe or not to believe.

Conclusion

I can go on, but the truth is that much has been written about whether Christians should study philosophy and why. I would be remiss not to direct you to some prominent voices of our own time and allow their work to guide you.

For Further Study

J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with All Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012).

Norm Geisler. Why Christians Should Study Philosophy.

Bibliography

Geisler, Norman. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.

Lewis, C.S. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originally published in 1965.

Moreland, J.P. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012).

Potter, Doug. Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originally posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/

Footnotes

[i] Norman Geisler. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.

[ii] Doug Potter, Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originally posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/

[iii] C.S. Lewis. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originally published in 1965.

[iv] J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012). 16

A Reflection on Giving Thanks

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Several years ago, I had the privilege of meeting a World War II fighter pilot. Then in his late 80’s, in 1944 he took part in a key battle of the war in the Pacific, a last-ditch effort by the Japanese to repel the American reoccupation of the Philippine Islands. Known as the Battle of Leyte Gulf, it pitted the last remnants of Japanese naval power against a vastly inferior American force, left behind to oversee the American landings while the bulk of American striking power had gone off in search of the enemy. The men who fought that day, on ships and in the air, exhibited much gallantry in facing a determined enemy. Though time had ravaged this man’s body, his mind remained sharp, and before long he was recalling details of that October day those many years ago. As our conversation came to a close, I took a moment to express my thanks for what he did during the war. I thanked him for his service and his courage, and for the opportunity it provided me to live in a more stable and peaceful world.

As I reflected on this later, I realized that his actions in upholding freedom in a war-torn world did not actually involve me. He had done nothing directly for me; I was not yet even born. But I knew that if men and women like him had not risked their lives, and been willing to sacrifice all, I might not ever have been. They had earned my thanks. They, in turn, had people who had come before them, who had done things for them, and to whom heartfelt gratitude would be appropriate. Tracing backward in time, I saw for a moment an endless stream of thanksgiving moving back through the recesses of time to a beginning trapped forever in the mists of forgotten memory.

In that moment, I also saw that my gratitude was personal. It was directed at living, breathing human beings. I did not give thanks to machinery, to the steel that cocooned the pilot in the cockpit of his plane, or to the chemistry that allowed the fuel mixture to propel it forward. Nor did I thank the instruments that provided feedback to him or the gunpowder that charged his weapons. My thanks, appropriately, were directed at people – the ones who forged the steel, who had teased out the secrets of chemistry, who had built the machines and weapons that he used. My gratitude related not to the thing, but to the intelligent source that lay behind it. To a person.

What, I wondered, lies at the beginning of this seemingly endless chain? If gratitude is owed to a person, to whom did the first man and woman, or the first group of humans, give thanks? Evolution? An undirected process that did not have them in mind? And if much of what we are thankful for exists in nature – as part and parcel of the good Earth and all that is on it – to whom does this thanks belong? Giving thanks to inanimate objects is nonsensical, yet the desire to express thanks is universal. We all do it, regardless of to what time or place or culture we belong. I saw in that moment that the whole idea of gratitude, the innate desire to give thanks, presupposes an ultimate source to whom this gratitude is owed.

While the atheist too can give thanks to people who preceded him, how can he make sense of the beginning of this chain of personal thanks? With no one there who created the Earth with all its bounty and splendor, what point is there for gratitude? The Christian worldview, by contrast, does make sense of this. It is right and fitting that we express thanks to those who came before us, for their effort and toil paved the way for the good we now experience. But that chain of causation, the progression of events for which we are thankful, does not begin a month, a year or a even century ago; it continues to a beginning point, and to a source who was both all powerful and yet quite personal.

In the last analysis, it is God – a person – whom we thank for all that is good. Whether he acts directly, or through the things and people he created, it makes sense to express our gratitude to him. And what better time to begin than on this weekend set aside to remember… and to give thanks.

Escaping to Pandora

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The Oscar-winning blockbuster Avatar is back in theaters in anticipation of the release of a sequel, once again wowing audiences with its 3D special effects. The plot, an allegory about the evils of corporate greed, thrusts a paraplegic space marine – Jake Sully – into a role pivotal to the future of the native population of a lush moon circling a distant star. Inhabiting his hybrid Avatar body on this distant world, Jake is forced to choose between doing his “duty” and protecting aliens to whom he is growing increasingly attached.

What does the film have to do with Christian apologetics? Very little, on the surface. But stories are often the best way to get a point across. With apathy and hostility two common responses to the Christian message, using a popular film to make an apologetics point can be an effective evangelical tool. Perhaps a film like Avatar can make a point about a very controversial topic: how it is a “loving” God can allow people to spend eternity in Hell.

Making this point involves recognizing that Hell is not a place of torture but is instead a place of torment brought on by separation[i] from an infinitely perfect – and therefore infinitely desirable – Being. Life in our current bodies is, in a sense, like living on Jake’s ship. Our bodies, like Jake’s, are quite limited, and not at all suited for life on the “world” – heaven- that is our destination. The ship we inhabit is capable of supporting us, and for providing the means of transition to a fuller life. In the movie, that transition involves a rather arduous conversion. Anyone on board can conceivably master the means of escape, the “pod” that serves as the interface between the ship and the lush garden world, but using the pod requires self-discipline and training. Not everyone will be willing to undergo the rigors of this process.

We are all free to reject the pod training, but if we do that, we have no choice but to stay within the confines of a room in the ship. With nothing much else to do, and no other way to make it to the garden paradise, we remain trapped on the inside, spending eternity thinking about…ourselves. To get out into the new physical world, by contrast, we need to look outside ourselves. We need to be willing to think of others, and to sacrifice. The struggle is worth the effort: on this other world, there is unlimited opportunity to live forever in a perfected body with others that we know and love. The choice is ours: from inside the ship, we are separated and inward looking; we can never unite with those on the new world.

Contrary to what many modern critics of Christianity believe, God is not in the business of punishing people to satisfy some sadistic desire. But this current life on this beautiful planet we call home is not the destination – it is instead merely the ship we inhabit for a time. The journey may at times be arduous, but it was never meant to be the final destination. In the end, God does all the work in transforming us into our Avatars. But we must willingly enter the pod, and begin the process of shedding our old, selfish selves and looking outward. We must take the step. He will not force it upon us. If we do, He offers unlimited rewards. If we don’t, well… we end up with what we are asking for – agonizing separation from the source of all life and goodness, and ultimately complete loneliness.

But for many, despite the rewards, the cost seems too high. They reject the option of loving God, and loving their neighbor, because they prefer to always be “in control.” “No one is going to tell me what to do,” they say, as they adopt the words of Frank Sinatra’s famous song “My Way” as their theme. Instead of submitting to the One who brought them into being, they instead concentrate on loving themselves, a futile and unrewarding task if ever there was one, never realizing that the best way to achieve happiness is to stop seeking it and concentrate on doing good for others instead. Choosing their own pleasure at every turn, they seldom stop to realize what they are giving up along the way. In the end, those who choose to stay on the ship – to stay walled in and to think only of themselves – cannot complain that God did not force them into the pod, and into heaven. They will have only themselves to blame.

A bit strained, admittedly. And probably not too useful to teach doctrine or present the Good News. But a first step, perhaps, in engaging a nonbeliever by talking about something to which they can relate.

Footnotes

[i] https://crossexamined.org/is-hell-torment-or-torture-and-is-there-a-difference/

Jesus is Our Lord, Not Our Mascot.

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Melissa Dougherty

Some churches and people make Jesus a mascot.

I’m sure a few people reading this might be scratching their heads, wondering what I mean by this. Others know exactly what I mean. Here in America, sometimes I think we take for granted that we don’t have to “hurt” to follow Jesus. What I mean by that is that we avoid any sort of struggle to obtain most of our Christian virtues.

In other words, we’re too comfortable.

We own a Bible and go to church and don’t get tortured for it. We praise God in our cars, listening to worship music with the windows down without fear of being imprisoned. Yes, I think we take this for granted. We make Jesus a symbol of our good decisions and a “good luck” charm. I remember a long time ago having lunch with a friend. She said that she had to make sure she went to church that week because she knew she was going to need to do good on an upcoming test. She reasoned that if she wore her cross, went to church and read a few Bible passages, then God would grant her grace. Like a give-and-take.

From time to time, we need perspective on this.

The definition of a mascot is “a person or thing that is supposed to bring good luck or that is used to symbolize a particular event or organization.” I submit that many people make Jesus out to be their mascot, not their God.

Once a week, it’s almost as if Jesus is brought out as a cheerleader to give advice on life’s struggles. Perhaps there’s a sermon about how to manage stress or how to deal with a particular sin. Some will depict Jesus as telling everyone how great they are, that He wants them prosperous and victorious. His main goal? Is to rebuild their confidence. He’ll fix all their problems. Just follow Me, and life will be great! People will then allow Mascot Jesus to reinforce in them what they think God should have us feel like: good and comfortable. He’s a motivational speaker. He tells people everything is just fine, and people are proud to be Christians and followers of this always happy, all-loving, all-tolerant, ‘Cheerleader’ Jesus.

Mascot Jesus is all about cheering us up as if life were like a football game.

But really, He’s put on the sidelines. It’s really about us. He’s just there in case we need Him. Then we get to call the shots and say it’s “God’s will” because this is the form of God that we’ve been taught. Even if there are some who claim to carry His Name, and call themselves Christian, they actually have very little reliance on him as Lord and God. Even then, I wonder if they know what it means to pick up their cross and follow Jesus as He says in the Gospels:

Matthew 16: 24-26: Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

He’s saying to “count the cost” of following Him, which means it will cost you something to follow Him. This doesn’t mean we live lives that are not happy and comfortable like some extremists. This means we know what we’re signing up for when we become a disciple of Jesus and understand the assignment.

For some, there’s not much evidence that they would have that kind of faith in the way they live. Then there are the Christians who say they do love Jesus, and do live for Him…

As long as He’s doing what they want.

As long as “Mascot Jesus” tells them about the “Goliaths” in their life and how to be the “David” overcoming them, they’re on board. Mascot Jesus makes the Bible about you. Mascot Jesus just wants you to be happy. Submission to this Jesus isn’t even hard. It just means following your feelings and making sure you only read the bits and pieces of Scripture that fit your mosaic of who you want Jesus to be. It seems like a contradiction, but many have redefined Jesus as someone they can both admire and ignore at the same time.

He’s Mascot Jesus. He’s convenient. He’s your cheerleader. He’ll make you feel good.

Praiseworthy? Sure! As long as He is in line with what we’re comfortable with and can be used when it’s convenient. As long as He’s a “Jesus” that’s culturally acceptable. Is He the God of your life, or are you? Do you follow the Jesus of the Holy Bible? Or do you follow Jesus that you’ve made in your own image?

Is Jesus your mascot? Or is He your Sovereign Savior?

Count the cost.

A Summary of The Scout Mindset

Lessons We Can Draw from The Scout Mindset

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Gospel Without Words?

The Gift of a Bible

Misquoting Assisi

Words Are Always Necessary

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Dragon Fights

The Dragon Falls

The Dragon Flails

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Here are three main aspects to consider and why other reputable versions are not New Age:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Biblical Explanation

A Historical Explanation

A Philosophical Explanation

Bibliography

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

“GENERALLY TRUE” MEANS “OFTEN FALSE.”

IT VIOLATES LARGE-SCALE FREEDOMS

IT DISRESPECTS MARRIAGE

IT’S OPEN-ENDED

WE ALREADY HAD MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Great Christian Thinkers on the Study of Philosophy

The Philosophical Question about the Study of Philosophy

Defining Philosophy

Conclusion

For Further Study

Bibliography

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

**Here are three main aspects to consider and why other reputable versions are not New Age:**