Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

How should the church engage those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria? In response, I want to highlight seven basic principles that the church must embrace.

Affirm The Divine Image

Genesis 1 is clear that everyone, without qualification, is made in God’s’s image. That is to say; whether someone is attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex, they are equally image-bearers of God. The same goes for individuals who experience gender dysphoria. One’s’s feelings or attractions in no way mitigates against this universal status.

As Christians, we should enthusiastically embrace this truth. Nobody — not the government, the church, or anyone else — can bestow a higher status on each person than God already has. Moreover, not only did God create all people in his image, he thought so much of his people that he paid a steep price for their redemption by shedding his own blood for their sins.

Acknowledge Our Collective Sinfulness

While God created everything good, we all possess a sin nature because of the fall. David acknowledges that he inherited this sin nature from the time of his birth (Ps. 51:5). Romans 3:23, likewise, affirms that we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. And lest we think we’re just a little sinful, Scripture paints a much gloomier picture than this. Sin pervades our entire being (Rom. 8:7-8).

One of the ramifications of our fallenness is that we have a tendency to minimize our own sins while maximizing the sins of others. Yet, Jesus clearly condemns this hypocrisy (Mt. 7:1-5). Instead, we must take a realistic assessment of our own hearts. And when we do, we realize that if it weren’t for the grace of God, we would all die in our sins.

All that to say, just because we may not experience homosexual or transgender temptations doesn’t mean that our sin isn’t just as wicked. Lusting after other women, harboring bitterness, lashing out in anger, and spreading gossip are all acts of rebellion against God. It’s’s unbiblical to treat others as if they have a log in their eye and pretend we only have a speck. When we do this, we’re being judgmental hypocrites.

Know Jesus’s Universal Expectation

Jesus preached “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:15). To claim Christ as Lord, one must abide by these words. Unfortunately, many have watered down this message by excluding repentance.

Yet, Jesus never suggested that we could follow him without turning from our sins. Elsewhere, he states, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Mk. 8:34). In other words, whether you self-identify as gay, transgender, or as straight, Jesus demands that you deny yourself daily. And the reason we are called to deny ourselves is because we don’t actually own ourselves. We belong to Jesus. Not only did he make us, he bought us with his blood.

The very message of repentance and denying oneself daily implies that ongoing temptations and struggles will persist throughout the Christian life. But the true sign of a Christian is that they recognize their temptations as contrary to the will of God, repent if they succumb to those temptations, and seek to obey Jesus moving forward.

Recognize That Holiness Is The Goal

First, Peter 1:16 states, “You shall be holy, for I (God) am holy.” Holiness is the calling for all believers. But this raises the question: “What does holiness look life for those with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria?” Does holiness mean they will stop being attracted to members of the same sex or that their gender dysphoria will disappear?

I believe holiness can manifest itself in different ways for people with these struggles. One way is living a celibate lifestyle. British pastor Sam Allbery, and author of Is God Anti-Gay? Has chosen this path. Even though Allberry continues to experience same-sex attraction, he knows that pursuing those attractions would be sinful and so chooses to remain celibate. It’s noteworthy that Jesus indicated that celibacy was the only alternative to marriage (Mt. 19:10-12).

Others have chosen to marry persons of the opposite sex and start families despite ongoing same-sex attractions. Rebecca McLaughlin, author of Confronting Christianity, has chosen this path. In her book, Rebecca acknowledges she still experiences same-sex attractions but knows that pursuing those attractions would be disobedience. She even admits to still dealing with temptations towards members of the same sex. But she has chosen to deny herself to follow Jesus.

And sometimes, people stop being attracted to members of the same-sex altogether. We must acknowledge that this doesn’t happen in most cases, but for people like Rosaria Butterfield, it has. Rosaria details this transformation in her book Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul lists several lifestyles that will not inherit the kingdom of God — one of which was “men who practice homosexuality.” But in verse 11, he asserts, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ by the Spirit of our God.” I take this to mean that there were people in the Corinthian church who used to practice homosexuality but turned from that lifestyle upon conversion.

I don’t believe this means that the struggles and temptations completely go away. Anyone with a half-decent understanding of biblical theology knows that Christians continue to struggle as we await future glory (Rom. 8:20-23). This is certainly true of me. So we should have realistic expectations that those who experience same-sex attractions and gender dysphoria will often continue to struggle as they face temptations the rest of their lives.

Therefore, the goal for the same-sex attracted person isn’t that they become “straight.” The goal is that they be holy as God is holy. And we should have enough room in our understanding of sanctification to know that this will look different for different people.

Be People Of Love

One of the surest signs of a Christian is their love for others (Jn. 13:35). It is never appropriate for us to be condescending or harsh (Prov. 15:1). Unfortunately, many of us have really missed the mark on this one. While not all the criticism is fair, we haven’t always been known as people who demonstrate the love of Christ towards the LGBTQ community.

As we think about Christ, he was the most loving person to ever live. And we’re told that he was full of both grace and truth (Jn. 1:14). Biblical love perfectly balances these two.

We read in 1 Corinthians 13:6 that love “does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.” Therefore, it is not loving to affirm homosexuality or transgenderism in the same way that it’s not loving to affirm a woman’s anorexia and encourage her to get liposuction because she feels overweight. The loving thing to do is to gently speak the truth to her and remind her that her feelings are deceiving her. In the same way, Christians must speak the truth in love to those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria (Eph. 4:15). It is not loving to encourage a lifestyle that does not promote spiritual flourishing.

But while we speak the truth, we must do so with a spirit of gentleness. Paul reminds us in Galatians 6:1-2, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. . . . Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” No one should beat anyone over the head with a Bible. No one should “come down hard” on another. Doing so contradicts the clear commands of Scripture.

Bearing one another’s burdens requires a great deal of empathy. It requires putting oneself in someone else’s shoes in an attempt to understand the challenges they face. It requires having conversations with those who experience different temptations than us and seeing that person as a fellow human being who bears God’s image.

And if we approach people with a spirit of gentleness, we will make it easier for them to share their struggles with us. Imagine how hard it must be for people to open up about their same-sex attraction when people in the church speak about their struggle so harshly. Empathizing doesn’t mean accepting sin. But it does mean being gentle. After all, Jesus was “gentle and lowly in heart” (Mt. 11:29).

Be Like Their Family

For many who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, celibacy may seem like the only real option for them. While God has changed people’s orientation, and while many have gotten married despite ongoing same-sex attraction, celibacy is the most realistic option for many. But with singleness, comes the fear of loneliness. And we must understand that loneliness is one of the greatest struggles single people deal with — same-sex attracted or not.

But this shouldn’t be. If the church lived out its mission, nobody would ever be lonely. Unfortunately, we have idolized the family with the minivan at the expense of our single brothers and sisters. This is wrong. The church should champion singleness. After all, Jesus himself was single. Paul champions singleness in 1 Corinthians 7. He goes so far as to say that singles are an incredible gift to the church.

Jesus declared in Mark 10:29-30, “Truly I tell you, no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much as this present age.”

Sam Allberry writes, “The gospel can be relationally costly. But it is also relationally generous. What we leave behind does not compare to what we receive back from Jesus.” ¹

As churches, we must do a better job of inviting singles into our families. No single should be alone on holidays. No single should eat Sunday lunches by themselves. If we say we want to help same-sex attracted people, we need to do everything we can to make sure they feel like they’re part of our family.

Find Our Identity In Christ

You’ll notice I haven’t labeled anyone as “gay” or “lesbian” in this blog series. Instead, I use the phrase “same-sex attracted.” It’s a bit tedious, but I want to make it clear that nobody is defined by their sexuality. This message, though, runs counter to our sexed-up culture. The culture says you are your sexuality. And that not expressing yourself sexually is unhealthy.

Of course, when we buy the narrative that our identity is wrapped up in our sexuality, then not embracing one’s sexual desires seems untenable. Celibacy seems so “old-fashioned.” But when we understand that our identity is rooted much deeper than our physical attractions, we realize that we don’t have to embrace those attractions to live a fulfilling life.

Our relationship with Christ supersedes everything. And because I am in Christ, and Christ is in me, then no matter what earthly relationships I experience, my identity remains unshakeable. Jesus is clear that our familial relationships will pass away in eternity (Mt. 22:30). But our relationship with Christ remains forever.

Concluding Thoughts

My hope is that God has used these articles in your life for good. If you’re someone who experiences same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, I hope you will see that Jesus offers you so much more than this world has to offer. He is so much more fulfilling and satisfying than any earthly relationship. People will disappoint. Jesus will never let you down. I also hope you will see that your attractions or feelings don’t disqualify you from faithful Christianity. More important is how you respond to those feelings. And my prayer is that you will find a healthy local church that will be your family and encourage you in your daily walk with Jesus.

If you’re someone who agrees with me that God has designed marriage and sexuality to exist within a heterosexual marriage, I hope you will see there are good reasons for believing what you believe. I also hope that you’ll see yourself as a fellow sinner who daily relies on the grace of God.

Can We Know Anything for Sure?

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Doug Potter

The following is an excerpt for our Why Trust the God of the Bible? Ebook.

Many today fail to see the importance of grounding their reasoning process in reality in spite of the fact that whatever is not based on reality is un-reality, in other words, unreal. The slippery slope of subjectivism and relativism is the result of such “reasoning” manufactured in the imaginations of the mind rather than in reality, on Truth. This distinction is especially important for Christians who desire to share their reasonable faith. Sadly, subjectivism has crept its way into the church with the assumption that we do not need to defend our faith with reason; we only need the Bible.

Despite the claims of subjectivism and “blind” faith, one of the most fundamental observations anyone can make of physical reality is that it changes, and yet something about it remains the same. This observation is the first step in a complete apologetic for Christianity. What remains the same in this physical piece of reality is its essence. What changes are called accidental properties. We can observe anything in reality, natural or man-made, for example a real tree, and see that it changes over time—grows larger, develops branches, colorful leaves, etc.—and yet it remains the same tree such that it is distinguishable from all the other trees. Its change is accounted for by the principles of actuality (act) and potentiality (potency) that are present in all created things. Actuality is the existence of some thing. Potentiality accounts for the capacity of some thing to change or become other than what it is. Change could be substantial, in that I could destroy the tree, and it could no longer exist. Or it could be accidental, such as cutting off a limb. The change could be internal, such as its growing a new limb, or the change could be external if I cut the tree down.

Everything in the world that we experience is a composition of form (actuality)—or what something is—and matter (potentiality to change) that individuates the form to be this thing and not that thing. For example, a cat is a cat because of its form or catness (what it is), and its matter individuates it to be this cat as opposed to that cat. Matter, as used here, should not be equated with physical matter, and form should not be equated with the shape of something. Instead, these are principles found in things or substances. As already explained, there are things essential and accidental to a particular substance. Something essential cannot be removed without changing what it is. Something accidental could be otherwise and would not change what something is. For example, it is essential to the nature of a cat that it be an animal nature. If that is changed or removed somehow, it ceases to be a cat. But it is accidental if the size and color of the cat change. Despite the change, it stays a cat. Such a description is possible for every created thing, from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest galaxies.

We come to know reality in an act of existence, in other words, by its actual existence. This knowing relates to its form (essence) and its matter (potential to change). The form of something is related to its actuality. Again, form is what something is (i.e., an essence). For example, a cat has the form of catness, and a dog has the form of dogness. Matter is related to the individual potentiality (to change). It is that which individuates an essence to be this cat or that cat. The form of a substance is immaterial. The matter of a substance is what individuates the essence to be a particular thing that gives it extension in space, which is limited to its form. We can say a dog is not a cat because of their different form or essence. We can say this cat is not that cat because of their different matter or individuation of matter.

The Process of Knowing

The soul is the substantial form of the human body. The way in which we know something is by its form, which is united to matter. We know things via our five senses. Since the form of a substance is immaterial, it is able to enter our mind, and we are able to know the thing, know the form extracted (in our mind) from its matter, as it is in itself. Contrary to what some philosophers have proposed throughout history, the form that enters the mind is not a different substance or copy of the substance that comes to exist in the mind of the knower. Rather, the same form that is united with matter unites with the mind of the knower; in a sense, the knower and the thing known become one.

Once the form enters our minds, in an act of existence, our internal senses combine all the available external sensitive input. Our intellect is able to extract the universal catness, for example, from the particular cat. We are able to form mental images (phantasms) of particulars by using the internal senses combined with other intellective powers such as remembrance and the abstracted universal. We are able to make judgments and form concepts and ideas about the known thing. All of this and much more happens effortlessly, almost without awareness.

This process of knowing can be applied to sensible reality and to the interpretation of any text or spoken word. We come to know a written or spoken word the same way we come to know any other thing in sensible reality. First, the author or speaker has an idea. Meaning exists as form (immaterially) in the mind of the author/speaker. The author/speaker causes a text to exist by imposing form (meaning) upon language (combining it with matter) to create a text or spoken word in sensible reality. The speaker expresses his thought, then the mind of the reader or hearer extracts the form (meaning) from the text or spoken word in reality through the senses, and then the meaning is processed by the intellect. In this way, a reader or hearer is able to know the meaning that is in the text or spoken words.[1]

Why Is This Important?

All humans have the same nature/essence; therefore, all human intellects have the same basic capacities. Since the forms, in reality, are the same as what comes to exist in the human mind, what something is is determined by reality and not the knower. This is what we mean by truth. Truth is that which corresponds to its object, or, more specifically, truth is the conforming of the intellect to reality. Knowledge, meaning, and the intended purpose of all things are grounded in reality and are objectively verifiable. This explanation supports all human endeavors in the sciences and humanities and particularly makes Christian apologetics, theology, and ethics worthy endeavors.

This unity of existence between intellect and reality is the basis for the two extremely important great apologetic goals: to demonstrate the existence of God and to demonstrate the historical truth that God raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

Reference

[1] For a fuller treatment of epistemology, consider Frederick Wilhelmsen’s Man’s Knowledge of Reality: An Introduction to Thomistic Epistemology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1956).

How to Build a More Discerning, Less Naïve, and Better Culturally Engaged Church

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

In my last article, Christian Naivety is Harming the Church’s Engagement with Today’s Culture; I identified four ways that I’ve seen many Christians respond with naivety to calls for discernment in today’s world. At the end, I asked, “How do we fix this?” and said my answer would be the subject of my next article. This is that article. Since this is a follow-up, please be sure to read my last post before this one for context.

Let me start by saying that the title of this article is a rather sweeping proposition. Obviously, this is a single article, the issues are complex, and I’m not claiming that what I write here is a complete answer to all the problems we have. But I want to offer what I see as some key levers needed to drive change in how Christians engage with today’s culture.

In my years as a marketing executive, I came to deeply appreciate one particular model that people in the marketing field have used for over one hundred years (in various shapes and forms). It’s a simple funnel that describes the psychological stages people go through before committing to an action:

Though this originates in marketing, I’ve noticed many times in the last few years how this model applies to so much in the area of ministry as well. As such, I’m going to use it as a framework for my current subject. If we want to move more Christians to the bottom of the funnel—the action point of being more discerning, less naïve, and better culturally engaged—here are the key levers I see at the awareness, interest, and desire points leading there.

Grow awareness of worldview differences by addressing biblical illiteracy.

Every time there’s a heated discussion on social media about some issue of discernment (calling out sin, the intersection of morality and politics, etc.), you can count about 5 seconds before a Christian drops a comment reminding everyone involved that Jesus says not to judge.

Or that Christians just need to “love” people (however, the person defines that).

Nothing to me represents a bigger lack of biblical literacy than when people make those two culturally popular comments, completely lacking in context and understanding of what the Bible says on these subjects.

Now, if research showed that Christians read their Bibles consistently and deeply and we were still seeing pervasive comments that suggest a lack of understanding, I would be writing here about the need for more guidance in Bible study. Guidance is surely important too, but the research shows many Christians aren’t even reading the Bible in the first place.

A study by LifeWay Research, for example, found that only 45 percent of those who regularly attend church read the Bible more than once a week. Almost 1 in 5 churchgoers say they never read the Bible, and that’s about the same number who read it every day.

If a person doesn’t realize that their understanding of the Bible lacks appropriate context and depth, they end up navigating the stormy cultural waters in whatever way happens to make sense to them based on what they think the Bible says. Ironically, without an accurate biblical anchor, their Christian views get completely watered down by the cultural waves…and discernment no longer functions effectively. They’re less able to engage effectively with culture because they aren’t even fully aware of how a biblical and secular worldview really differ.

A less naïve, more discerning church must start with deeper biblical literacy. This should be a top priority for churches everywhere.

Grow interest in cultural engagement by addressing (lack of) conviction.

Even if a person gains a better understanding of what the Bible says on relevant cultural topics (the awareness I just addressed), it doesn’t mean they’ll be interested enough to become culturally engaged. There could be many reasons for that, but there’s one that’s especially problematic: a lack of conviction that Christianity is objectively (and exclusively) true.

Pew Research shows that 65 percent of Christians believe many religions can lead to eternal life. This, of course, is another example of pervasive biblical illiteracy; the Bible clearly claims that only through Jesus is there eternal life (see Chapter 7, “Did Jesus Teach That He’s the Only Way to God?” in Talking with Your Kids about Jesus for more on this). If a person believes that Christianity is one of many worldviews that ultimately leads to the same truth, they aren’t going to be all that interested in standing up for what they perceive to be just one of those so-called “truths.”

A church filled with Christians who lack conviction that Christianity is the one true worldview is a church filled with Christians who will never care enough to challenge a non-Christian culture.

This is why there’s a desperate need for apologetics in the church today (apologetics is the study of why there’s good reason to believe Christianity is true and how to defend the faith against various challenges). Christians need to understand: 1) the evidence for God’s existence (see chapters 1-6 in Talking with Your Kids about God); 2) why multiple religions cannot be true (see chapter 10 in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side); 3) the evidence for the resurrection (i.e., the truth test for Christianity as the one true religion—see part 4 of Talking with Your Kids about Jesus); and 4) the evidence for the reliability of the Bible (see part 4 in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side).

Knowing why there’s good reason to believe Christianity is objectively true—and why that truth makes an eternal difference—is a critically important step toward building a church that cares enough to stand for truth.

Grow desired or engagement by destigmatizing the relationship between politics and religion.

Let’s now say that we have a person who is aware of what the Bible says on today’s hot topics, and they’re interested in engaging culture because they’re convicted that the Bible offers the one true picture of reality.

That doesn’t mean they’ll actually do something.

Marketers are well aware that awareness and interest do not always lead to a strong desire to do something because there’s often some kind of barrier. There are a lot of barriers I could list here with respect to cultural engagement, but a major one I’ve seen is the prevailing stigma about mixing politics and religion.

Just saying the words “politics” and “religion” in the same sentence immediately puts people on the defensive. Unfortunately, many pastors and Christian leaders have emphasized a generic dichotomy between the two areas, and over time the stigma of mixing them has grown. Consequently, when important cultural concerns arise—such as the ideology of the Black Lives Matter organization (which I discussed in the last couple of posts)—many Christians automatically bucket those questions into the “don’t touch this” category of “politics and religion,” as if it’s their Christian duty to stay out of it. Meanwhile, people start burning Bibles as part of BLM protests, and Christians are surprised! If you paid attention to their underlying ideology in weeks leading up to this, it’s not surprising at all.

We need to be able to think in more nuanced ways about the interaction of politics and religion if we’re ever going to have a more culturally engaged church that isn’t taken by naive surprise as hostility to Christianity increases.

Here are a few quick things I think we should be able to all agree on:

While some “political” issues are worldview neutral (e.g., local zoning laws), many are not (e.g., abortion or religious freedom laws).
When we’re talking about issues where biblical morality conflicts with secular morality, someone’s morality will be legislated; legislation based on a secular worldview isn’t the “neutral” option.
Acknowledging that there are political issues that involve the moral direction of our country and that Christians should care enough to be engaged in such areas, is not the same as saying one political party or the other represents Christianity. It’s also not the same as saying that we’re looking to a political leader to be our savior, or that we think we’ll eventually build an earthly utopia. These are often the strawmen people try to knock down when claiming Christians shouldn’t mix their faith with politics.
There are also many political areas where Christians can legitimately disagree. For example, we should all agree that God cares for would-be immigrants, but we may have very different policy opinions on how best to process immigration in this country. Identifying where grey exists is important for maintaining charitable conversation among Christians while uniting on issues that should be more black-and-white for anyone with a Christian worldview.

In short, we need to quit ending culturally relevant conversations before they begin by perpetuating the idea that politics and religion shouldn’t mix. Of course, they should, in some cases.

In all three of these areas, there is much that any pastor could do in a church through sermons, groups, studies, initiatives, and more. But that doesn’t mean others can’t make a significant impact as well. For example, you can:

Use social media to share biblically-sound articles that educate others about cultural issues from a Christian worldview. (I do my best to share a variety of such articles from my author Facebook page—you can follow me there if you don’t already.)
Take the time to engage in a thoughtful dialog when you see Christians make comments online that lack biblical understanding. It’s worth the time even if the person you initially respond to doesn’t seem to appreciate it—remember that others are reading too. If a comment is best addressed privately, do it that way. But resist the urge to just be silent because that’s the easy thing to do.
Lead a Bible study (online or in person, through your church or on your own).
Lead a book study that addresses current cultural questions from a biblical worldview.
Start a group to learn apologetics. (If you’re interested in starting a group specifically for parents and grandparents, we give you all you need to get going with Grassroots Apologetics for Parents. You can start an in-person or online chapter!)
Encourage your pastor to address more of these questions in sermons.
Work with your church to invite subject matter experts to provide training. Many of these experts are currently offering training online. For example, the Life Training Institute a 4-day Zoom event next week that anyone can sign up for: How to Survive Being Pro-Life on Campus in a Cancel Culture. Many apologetics speakers are also offering remote sessions right now. The Center for Biblical Unity is offering trainings on a biblical approach to current racial questions. So much is available!
Commit to the serious discipleship of your kids. They are literally the future. Training them in the same ways I’ve mentioned here for adults is just as important.

With more discernment from biblical literacy, more interest from conviction, and more willingness to engage by removing the “politics vs. religion” barrier, we can shape a better culturally engaged church. Perhaps one of the positives that will come from the chaos of this year will be a wider recognition that these things are so desperately needed in the body of Christ.

The Woke-ing Dead and the Futility of Reason

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

The COVID-19 “quarantine” wasn’t all bad. Sure, no one likes being sentenced to “house arrest,” but I enjoyed spending some extra time with my wife and 17-year-old son (I did not take those moments for granted). The dreaded coronavirus, however, shut down Hollywood, movie theaters, restaurants, and sporting events. Being sequestered at home, my family and I considered other entertainment options.

A friend told me about The Walking Dead — a series featuring survivors of a zombie apocalypse fighting to survive amidst a constant threat of attacks from mobs of the undead, colloquially referred to as “walkers.” I went to Netflix and saw nine seasons awaiting our binge-watching pleasure. My wife and I decided to give the first episode a shot, and the next thing you know, we had watched all nine seasons in just a few weeks.

I think there is much one can learn from this series. During “insane times,” for example, it is good to have several others to partner with to ensure mutual survival and flourishing. It is also vital to realize the importance of sharing the same set of core values and agreeing upon the same set of “rules” or morality for any group to flourish. If a group does not possess an agreed-upon “constitution,” the group will fall.

“I know this sounds insane, but this is an insane world!”

— Rick Grimes (The Walking Dead, Season 6: First Time Again)

Oh, and one of the most important take-aways is this: guns and ammunition are vital; never surrender your weapons!

Learning from Zombies

Aside from these practical lessons, The Walking Dead also provides a good opportunity to philosophize about the nature of zombies. These “walkers,” as the title implies, are technically dead. It seems the soul (the person) who previously inhabited the body has “left the building.” Thus, the zombies do not possess the ability to reason or think logically (the FreeThinking Argument Against Naturalism describes how the human soul makes rationality possible). The walkers (also referred to as “biters”) simply respond to stimuli, namely, to consume flesh and blood.

A single walking corpse is not a serious threat to a seasoned survivor. Even a handful of zombies can easily be dispatched by Rick Grimes and company. However, when the zombies accumulate to the size of a mob, all bets are off. These mobs are extremely dangerous and will overwhelm and destroy rational humanity with sheer brute force.

After binge-watching the entire Walking Dead series, I went to sleep that night, finding solace reminding myself that mobs of non-rational “walkers” seeking to destroy humanity do not exist. To my horror, I woke up the next day to the realization that zombies do exist! That is to say, mobs of seemingly non-rational “woke-ing dead” have taken to the streets seeking to destroy rational civilization as we know it.

If one attempts to reason with the woke zombies, the mob will simply raise their voices, scream louder, destroy property, break more windows, and physically assault those who disagree. Reason is not an option. Rational conversation is futile. In fact, appealing to logic, reason, and rationality is rejected as merely “western” or “racist” by the mob.

“You ever heard about the broken window theory? Boils down to this– you keep the windows intact, you keep society intact.”

— Rick Grimes (The Walking Dead, Season 5: Spend)

James Lindsay notes why it seems to be impossible to have a logical or reasonable conversation with a “woke zombie.” Lindsay explains that: “Debate and conversation, especially when they rely upon reason, rationality, science, [and] evidence . . . are not their methods and they reject them.” This irrationality is exemplified by Margaret L. Anderson’s assertion in Race, Class, and Gender: “The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking.” In other words: rational thought is “racist” because it’s merely the product of old white males.

Not only is this lack of critical thinking sad, it is extremely dangerous. It is sad because if one rejects reason, they become unreasonable. If one rejects rationality, they become irrational. If one rejects science and evidence, what remains? Indeed, one can see that the comparison to modern mobs in the streets and zombies is not an extreme comparison at all. This rejection of rational thought is dangerous because, as I have noted elsewhere: “If one rejects logic, all one is left with is gibberish, temper tantrums, and perhaps physical violence.” Given the growing woke mobs of non-rational zombies flooding the streets, I fear mass-violence is on the horizon. Prepare for battle!

An Un-Perfect Analogy with the Un-Dead

Unlike the zombies in The Walking Dead, the mob of The Woke-ing Dead in the streets of America today — although they behave remarkably similar to the zombies in the show — are each human being created in God’s image. Believers are called to love them and to attempt to reason together with them (Isaiah 1:18). With that said, be careful — zombies are bad, but sometimes humans are worse.

Be that as it may, Christ-followers are called to love those who consider you an enemy (even when it’s not your greatest desire). You are called to share the Gospel and fulfill the Great Commission. But even if these “zombies” are not willing to listen, all hope is not lost. Rational Christians must be a loud voice of reason in the public square and on social media (while it is still possible) and reason with those who have not yet been infected with poisonous Marxist philosophy. Inoculate humanity with an epistemic foundation and reasons for reality before they are exposed to this pandemic of irrationality. Start here:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

The Moral Argument

The Teleological Argument

The Ontological Argument

The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

The Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism

The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Facts)

The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Explanation)

When one has a proper grasp of ultimate reality — God — then certain political and cultural views usually fall into their proper place. When this occurs, the woke-ing dead often becomes born again and typically begin thinking clearly. Sharing the Gospel intertwined with apologetics is more important today than ever before. So be proud, loud, logical, and loving while telling the masses about the Good News! Be strong and courageous, for the Lord is with you (Joshua 1:9).

“We’ve been praying together. Praying that God will save our town. Well, our prayers have been answered. God will save Alexandria because God has given us the courage to save it ourselves.”

— Father Gabriel Stokes (The Walking Dead, Season 6: No Way Out)

If you succumb to fear, however, the zombies will eventually eat your face!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Why It Is Foolish To Insist There Is No God

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” If this passage from Psalms is correct, then many people today – including numerous scientists and other well-educated folks – are fools, for they insist that God does not exist. While name-calling is never productive, is there a way in which one might conclude that a person who denies God’s existence is indeed a “fool,” and not merely someone with whom we disagree?

Well, let’s begin with a look at the definition of “fool,” which includes “a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid.” Now, sometimes we trick ourselves and thereby make fools of ourselves. We might insist that a steady diet of fast food isn’t the reason that our clothes no longer fit the way they used to. On other occasions, it may be that we are misled. That tanning solution that promised to save you hours in the sun as left you looking a bit too orange to venture out in public. But whatever the source of our being misled, I think most would agree that a person who holds views that are inconsistent and contradictory has allowed himself to be deceived. Imagine a person proudly proclaiming that the prime rib he is about to eat is an important part of his vegetarian diet or the person who says that the only medicine that can save him is the one with no active ingredients. A person who proudly expresses views that are so in conflict has fooled himself, whereas a thoughtful observer would see things as they truly are.

Now, of course, some contradictions are not as obvious as the examples I just provided. Why, then, is it a contradiction to insist there is no God? It doesn’t appear to be contradictory – at first glance, anyway. For the answer to that question, we are indebted to St. Anselm of Canterbury, who lived and pondered these questions some ten centuries ago. I can’t do justice to Anselm’s argument in this brief piece, but perhaps some concepts borrowed from Anselm may help make the point.

The first avenue of inquiry requires consideration of just what it is that the human mind is capable of doing. We need to think about what “thinking” actually entails. Anyone who has seen a baby develop realizes that the human mind comes pre-programmed with an “operating system” of sorts. This system allows us to acquire language, to use reason, to recognize concepts such as fairness and truth and beauty, and other intangible things. It allows us to organize creation into categories, and perhaps most amazingly, to make use of the imagination. This ability for abstract thought lends itself to what we experience in an “I get that now” moment when a problem that has been puzzling us all of a sudden makes sense. We all use these systems of thought naturally and intuitively; they are part and parcel of the normally operating human mind. Of course, there is no other way since we could never use reason, for instance, to prove the validity or usefulness of reason.

One aspect of this ability for abstract thought is the ability to conceptualize or to place things into understandable categories. Food, for instance, can encompass a million different things, but to qualify as food, the object in question must be edible and serve to nourish, and not poison, us. We can call an ash tray food, but the underlying thing is not a matter of what we call it, but of what it consists. A tree trunk in the woods can function as a “chair,” but the surface of a swimming pool cannot.

So, with this observation in view, let’s turn to the question of God. Let’s consider for a moment, not what a definition of God might be, but what the conception of God is. What is it that we are struggling to grasp when we use that term? Anselm’s definition was simply this – God is that being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Whatever attributes God would have – omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, etcetera – if you can conceive of a being with all those attributes plus an additional one, then the latter being, the being with the greater attributes, would be God. So, imagine two beings then – each with exhaustive, infinite powers. Both beings have every possible attribute of perfection that can be conjured up in the human mind until one reaches the attribute of necessary existence. As I make use of my imagination and my ability to reason to flesh out what I am thinking about when I consider God, I realize that one of these two superlative beings has the attribute of necessary existence – it is not possible for this being to not exist. The other being, on the other hand, lacks this attribute. This latter being may or may not exist, or he may come into existence at some point and go out of existence and some other point. Now, as I compare these two conceptions, I immediately and clearly can see that the former – the one with necessary existence – would be the greater of the two. Consequently, to fully conceive of God, we must be conceiving of a Being who can’t not exist, whose existence must always have been and will always continue to be. Anything else –anything less – simply cannot fit the conception of God.

So, what does that prove? Maybe this conception of God is imaginary and, consequently of no value. Not so, Anselm would contend. And here’s why: the mind is not capable of conceptualizing something that does not in fact exist, that does not relate to something real. Now, this premise is a bit harder to get one’s mind around. The normal response to this part of the argument is that we create imaginary things all the time, from unicorns to tooth fairies to Jedi Knights. These things aren’t “real,” even though we can conjure them up in our fantasies. But each of these things, while imaginary, is the combining of things that are real: a horse and a horn; a person with wings and unusual powers; a warrior with special abilities and unusual weapons. And, and most importantly, neither a unicorn nor a tooth fairy nor a Jedi Knight would possess the attribute of necessary existence. If a unicorn did exist, it would have to consist of a horse with a single horn in its head; but its existence could have occurred briefly in the distant past, or could arise in the distant future or could not occur at all. We can fully conceptualize such a creature – we can place it in its proper category mentally – even if the creature does not presently exist. This is so because the conceptualization of these things does not require that them to actually exist in the here and now. For God, by contrast, the only way to properly conceptualize Him is as a necessarily existent being. If you are not seeing Him that way, says Anselm, you are not yet thinking about God, but about something lesser.

This foray into philosophy can be difficult. Fortunately, there are many other proofs for God’s existence, ones much easier with which to grapple, but this one stands out for its elegance. For if it has merit, then God has embedded within us the means to find Him in the one place we have exclusive and special access to: in the recesses or our very minds, there for us to uncover with a bit of critical thinking.

Getting back then to the initial question, if Anselm is right, the fool who denies God is saying something like, “I believe that the Being who must necessarily exist does not exist.” A rather foolish thing to say, when you see it clearly.

The Bible says that God has written His law on our hearts. Perhaps if we probe a bit deeper still, we can also begin to see in its depths the first faint scratching of His signature.

Was Jesus a Jerk? A Response to the Friendly Atheist

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

A few weeks ago, CNN Tonight host Don Lemon said: “But here’s the thing, Jesus Christ, if that’s who you believe in Jesus Christ, admittedly was not perfect when he was here on the Earth. So why are we deifying the Founders?”

As you can imagine, this caused quite a stir over social media and on the blogs, since the Bible clearly teaches Christ’s sinless perfection. While a few right-wing Christian leaders went a little overboard in their denouncements of Lemon, “The Friendly Atheist” took it as an opportunity to take some jabs at Jesus.

Hemant Mehta, the author of the blog, writes:

“Let’s talk about what Jesus did.

* Jesus once got so angry he flipped over tables and benches.

* Jesus cursed a fig tree because it didn’t have anything to eat — because figs weren’t in season — and then the tree died. Jesus killed a tree because He was hangry.

* Jesus admitted to speaking in parables that were difficult for people to understand… and then got mad when people didn’t understand them.

* Jesus got snippy when people asked Him why He didn’t wash His hands.

* Jesus’ actions led to the deaths of a whole bunch of pigs, angering an entire town.

So… either we have to acknowledge Jesus could be a jerk at times despite whatever other redeeming qualities we want to assign Him. Or, like the conservative Christians are doing, we can pretend Jesus was perfect because our faith requires it… even when the Bible itself has plenty of evidence to the contrary.”

So according to Mehta, Jesus was a jerk. But is he really being fair to the texts?

Jesus the table flipper?

Was Jesus just throwing an unjustified temper tantrum when he cleansed the Temple? To answer that, we need to give a little background. The temple market was established after the Babylonian captivity. JB Lightfoot says “There was always a constant market in the temple in that place, which was called ‘the shops;’ where, every day, was sold wine, salt, oil, and other requisites to sacrifices; as also oxen and sheep in the spacious Court of the Gentiles”

Josephus estimated there would be up to 3 million Jews traveling to Jerusalem for the Passover. Seeing their devotion, the money-changers saw an opportunity to get rich. They made a business of accommodating those who didn’t have the half-shekel temple tax. (See Mt 17:24)

Everyone was expected to pay it, rich or poor, in the month of Adar. So it became necessary to change a shekel into two halves, or exchange foreign money for the Jewish half-shekel. (Money that bore the image of “Divine Caesar”, in some cases) These men made a nice profit by charging a percentage for the exchange. The animals were in the courts to be sold as a sacrifice since people traveling from afar weren’t usually able to bring them.

Jesus was upset that in the Court of the Gentiles, the place where non-Jews were designated to worship, people were being deprived of the opportunity to pray because of greedy, irreverent people and this happened under the watch Jerusalem’s religious leaders. Jesus quotes Isaiah 56:7 that the temple was to be a place of prayer for all nations.

This would be like trying to have worship in the middle of Walmart on a normal Black Friday. The Gentiles were pushed out of participation with the Passover. Matthew previously writes “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 8:11)

This event is called “The Cleansing of the Temple” for good reason. Jesus was purifying the temple from defilement. Nearly 200 years before, Judas Maccabeus cleansed the Temple after it was defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes. By cleaning out the Temple, Jesus is saying that the present Jewish leadership had defiled the Temple in the same way the Greeks did when the sacrificed a pig inside of it. Talk about an act of defiant protest! Shortly afterward, Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple and the coming judgment upon the nation for their lack of response to Jesus’ Gospel. (Mark 13, Matthew 24)

So to sum up, you have noisy people who care nothing for God there to make an easy buck in the place where Gentiles were to worship, exploiting the poor in the process. Jesus taught that we can’t serve both God and money, and to him, this was both oppression, greed, and idolatry blatantly in his Father’s own house. Jesus said that this was to be a place of prayer, not a den of robbers. (Jeremiah 7:11) He was rightfully ticked off.

Not only that, but there’s not a hint that Jesus harmed any human or any animal. He flipped some tables. He fashioned a whip and gave it a good crack or two, but this would sort of like firing a gun in the air in a crowd. It would clear the people and the animals out in a hurry.

Was Jesus angry when he cursed the fig tree?

So what’s going on with the cursing of the fig tree? Jesus and his audience knew the writings of the prophets. They would’ve picked up on what Jesus was laying down. The Old Testament prophets used fig trees and vineyards to typify spiritual fruitfulness (or a lack thereof). Just see Isaiah 28:4, Jeremiah 24:1-10, Hosea 9:16-17, Micah 7:1. Let’s read Micah 7:1 to illustrate.

Woe is me! For I have become as when the summer fruit has been gathered, as when the grapes have been gleaned: there is no cluster to eat, no first-ripe fig that my soul desires.

Jesus cursing the fig tree was allegorical of judgment on fruitless Israel. How do we know that? Just look at the story. First, Jesus curses the fig tree. Then he cleanses the Temple, itself a symbolic judgment of the religious leaders. Then the disciples come back and notice the tree is withered. Shortly after that in Mark 12:1-12 and Matthew 21:33-46, Jesus tells the parable of the vineyard.

This parable tells of Israel’s unfaithfulness, their rejection of God’s prophets and ultimately God’s Son, and their impending judgment. Sandwiched between this is the cursing of the fig tree.

Now you might think this is me stretching things, but I’m not. Here are just a few examples of God’s prophets acting strangely to drive home a serious point:

The prophet Ahijah ripped his clothes in twelve pieces, symbolizing that God was going to tear the kingdom from Solomon and give Jeroboam 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel. (1 Kings 11:29-31)
Isaiah walked around basically naked for three years to warn the Egyptians and Cushites of impending doom against Assyria. (Isaiah 20:1-6)
Ezekiel publicly cooked his food over cow poop (!), warning Jerusalem of impending judgment and famine. (Ezekiel 4:1-15)
And who could forget God commanding Hosea to marry a prostitute as a symbol of Israel’s unfaithfulness? (Hosea 1:2)

Jesus cursing a fig tree is pretty tame in comparison. You might not like that God commanded his prophets to do weird stuff, but extraordinary incoming judgments call for unusual warnings to get people’s attention. God isn’t willing that any should perish and apparently is willing to go to great lengths to shake up the complacent so they would repent and be saved. Last I checked, a nation is more important than a single tree that lacks a nervous system.

So what about the pigs?

Was Jesus a pig-killer? If this incident with the demoniac and the pigs happened today, I can just imagine the headlines: NAZARETH PASTOR CAUSES DEATH OF 2000 PIGS, PETA LAUNCHES PROTEST. Does this put Jesus in the same category as Michael Vick?

For starters, the demons asked if Jesus was going to torment them now, meaning that their time hadn’t yet come to be judged, so he couldn’t make them just go away. (Mark 5:7) While Jesus is omnipotent, he chose not to fully operate that way as a man. For instance in Mark 6:1-6, we read that Jesus could do no mighty work in Nazareth due to their unbelief. So asking why Jesus didn’t just get rid of the demons is like saying, “why didn’t Jesus get rid of all evil people, evil spirits and every disease and affliction while he was here?”

Not only was Jesus not functioning in full-omnipotence, but he also wasn’t operating in omniscience, either. In the same chapter, he asks, “who touched me?” when the woman with the issue of blood is healed. (Mark 5:31) How can we be sure that Jesus knew what was going to happen to the pigs? That seems unclear.

There’s also nothing in these passages that show that Jesus drove the pigs into the sea and caused them to drown. Satan is the killer, not Jesus. (Jn 8:44) And it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say the demons caused the pigs to commit suicide since they just pleaded with Jesus to use them as their new hosts. One answer that Greg Boyd offers is that the demons just drove the pigs crazy, just the same way that parasites can drive animals crazy and cause them to hurt themselves.

I mean, these demons already drove two men into living naked in tombs, screaming and cutting themselves, and they couldn’t be restrained by chains. This is pretty freaky stuff. If Jesus felt like he had a better option, we can see from his character elsewhere in the Gospels that he would’ve taken it.

What stands out is that after seeing the destructive power of Satan and the delivering power of Jesus, the townspeople ask Jesus to leave. They could see the man now clothed and in his right mind, but they seem to care more about the pigs than the people!

In Matthew 10:31, Jesus says that human lives are worth more than many sparrows, and the same can be said for the pigs. While the man delivered begged to follow Jesus, the townspeople urged him to leave. They valued their unclean livestock more than Jesus and the man.

This shouldn’t need to be said but people are more important than pigs. You see this animals-first attitude in our day with groups like PETA, who’ve said tons of outrageously weird things.

This isn’t a case of Jesus acting carelessly. The man went from cutting himself to testifying throughout the region about what Jesus had done for him. This is an epic battle scene in the spiritual war that was being fought for the souls of people in the city. Don’t miss the deliverance for the pigs.

Was Jesus getting snippy over hand-washing?

There’s a lot more going on here than sanitary issues here, but Mehta conveniently leaves that out. Let’s look at the hand-washing passage in question:

“Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!” (Matthew 15-1-7)

The concern has little to do with the spread of disease, it’s regarding Jewish laws about uncleanness. If you ate something wrong, you were ritually defiled. These hand-washing traditions of the Pharisees went beyond what the Law actually prescribed — as if accidentally eating something microscopically unclean is sinful.

The Pharisees were constantly criticizing Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Jesus called them out for their hypocrisy of adding traditions on top of the word of God, which ended up negating the point of the law, which was loving their neighbor ⁠— including their mother and father. He saw people as more important than religious traditions.

I saved this example for last because I find some irony here. Mehta’s blog is chock full of posts dedicated to calling out religious hypocrisy. He should find that Jesus hated phony religious hypocrisy as an admirable trait, not as a character flaw.

Calling Jesus a jerk isn’t a real friendly thing to do, especially when you take a more “friendly” way to look at these texts. I’d argue that it’s probably more of a jerk move to dump a list of gripes against Jesus’ character with no explanation of the context. Contrary to Mehta, we don’t have “plenty of evidence” contrary to the traditional understanding of Jesus’ sinless perfection.

Don’t Lose the Person When Winning an Argument

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

1 Peter 3:15 is a classic prooftext for the defender of the faith, otherwise known as the Christian apologist. Peter writes, “But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15). While this verse is imperative to the modern Christian, we must also remember the next verse where Peter states, “Yet do this with gentleness and reverence, keeping a clear conscience, so that when you are accused, those who disparage your good conduct in Christ will be put to shame” (1 Pet. 3:16). Peter emphasizes how a Christian does apologetics as much as he stresses the need for apologetics.

Many times, a person may win an argument but lose the person. When presenting a case for the faith, we should never become haughty, seeking to appear intelligent or to demonstrate our superiority. Such attempts will eventually lose the person with whom you are speaking. Rather, we should seek to build friendships and bonds with others, especially those who differ from our point of view. This coincides with Paul’s teaching to the 1 Corinthians where he says, “If I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 15:2). You can be the smartest person in the world and still remain useless to the kingdom if you don’t have a loving spirit.

In your dealings this week, ask yourself if you are engaging people with a heart of love. If not, you might better go back to the drawing board and remember that it was love that created you, love that saved you, and love that grants you eternal life. Going back to Paul, he noted that there exist three things “faith, hope, and love—but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13). When engaging people in evangelism, ask yourself if your purpose is to win the person over to Christ or simply to win the argument at hand.

In my observations of online debates and forums, we as Christians have the habit of becoming nasty in our dialogues with others. Would we have come to faith if someone spoke to us the way we speak to others? Diplomacy and tact go a long way in building bridges and establishing friendships. In our conversations, it is important that we don’t lose the person in our attempts to win an argument. 1 Peter 3:16 balances 1 Peter 3:15 and is just as necessary in our approach. If we don’t have love, we don’t have anything.

Battling a Disease More Infectious & Deadly Than COVID-19

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Adam Tucker

As hundreds of thousands of people battle COVID-19 following thousands of deaths, lockdowns, and much fear, the world eagerly awaits a proven treatment plan to cure this dreaded virus. I’m sure many of you, like me, often pray for wisdom and protection for those on the frontlines battling this invisible foe. But there is another invisible enemy, one more formidable than COVID-19, that has wreaked havoc on millions of lives for centuries. This unseen tyrant takes many forms and can often be hard to detect. We are all susceptible to this disease, and without the proper precautions, anyone can fall victim. Sadly, the aftermath of this nemesis is often very visible, making it seem as though it is much more foreboding than it actually is. No, it’s not another novel virus. It is the always-lurking disease of bad ideas.

This disease’s most recent high-profile victim is Jon Steingard, lead vocalist for Hawk Nelson, the once very popular Christian rock group. Jon joins Rhett and Link (popular YouTube comedians and former Cru staffers), Marty Sampson (Hillsong worship artist), Michael Gungor (lead singer for Christian duo Gungor), and Joshua Harris (extremely popular Christian author and pastor) who have either renounced Christianity outright or expressed serious misgivings about the faith in recent years. This does not even mention the number of popular Christian leaders, authors, singers, etc. who are drifting, or have drifted, from biblical Christianity to a more liberal/progressive version of “Christianity.”

What can we do to combat this deadly contagion? The following guidelines may, or may not, be endorsed by the CDC. For the past 28 years, however, they are what Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College has trained men and women from all walks of life to do effectively.

Recognize the Symptoms

In our brief case study, we will examine Jon’s story since he is the most recent casualty, and the reasons for his “deconstruction” are similar across related cases. In fact, Jon says he shared his doubts with some of his close friends and was “shocked” to discover that his doubts were “shared by nearly every close friend [his] age” who has a similar background to his own.

Jon grew up constantly at church, surrounded by Christians. His dad is a pastor, and Jon says the church wasn’t just part of his family’s life; it was their life. He points out, “When you grow up in a community that holds a shared belief, and that shared belief is so incredibly central to everything, you simply adopt it.” It was in high school that, like many young people, Jon first began to encounter questions and doubts. He says, “I figured I was overthinking all these things. This was the beginning of my doubt, and I began to develop the reflex to simply push it down and soldier on. … I felt it must be true.”

This is symptom number one, putting feelings overthinking. So many Christians and formerly-professing-Christians experience this common symptom. Of course, it’s no wonder that this symptom is so widespread given the fact that our culture has by and large elevated man’s will over his intellect. This usually presents itself in one of two ways, or sometimes as a combination of the two. The first way is that many Christians, like Jon, simply “feel” better if they act as though Christianity is true and never seek answers to their questions or reasons for their beliefs. They ignore their doubts and simply attempt to muster up more “faith.” The second way, and perhaps more problematic, is that feelings cause others to question historic Christianity because they feel as though something like homosexual behavior, for example, must be OK. Or they feel that truly loving someone would never mean telling someone their thoughts or behaviors are wrong. Moreover, they seem certain that their feelings could never be wrong about such things. More and more people are presenting with this system, and it is something about which each practitioner should be aware of.

Like any normal human being, Jon finally began to wrestle with the difficult questions of the faith and attempt to think through things about which he was having trouble making sense. He specifically mentions the perennial problem of evil (specifically noting both natural and moral evil), the problem of a loving God sending people to hell, the “pissed off” God of the Old Testament who commands the killing of certain people, and the fact that Jesus would have to die for our sins in order for God to forgive us. Jon also shares that he wrestled with many things he considered to be contradictions in the Bible. He honestly laments, “Suffice it to say that when I began to believe that the Bible was simply a book written by people as flawed and imperfect as I am – that was when my belief in God truly began to unravel. … Once I found that I didn’t believe the Bible was the perfect Word of God – it didn’t take long to realize that I was no longer sure He was there at all.”

This is symptom number two, neglect or absence of prolegomena and natural theology. For those unaware, “prolegomena” is the study of the foundational truths that must be the case in order for Christianity to be true (ex. the nature of truth, the nature of reality, the existence of God, the nature of communication, the reliability of the Bible, etc.). “Natural theology” is the study of what can be known about the existence and nature of God apart from the Bible (i.e., using general revelation to reason from effect [creation] to cause [God]). The neglect/absence of these two areas is one of the most critical symptoms for which to monitor. It typically arises when believers, like Jon, have little or no exposure to philosophy and apologetics that provide the intellectual foundation for the truthfulness of Christianity. They typically make blind appeals to the Bible with no foundational truths upon which to build a confident trust in and proper understanding of the Word of God. Retired academic Dr. Bruce Charlton notes,

“Modern Christianity as experienced by converts tends to be incomplete – precisely because modern Christianity has nothing to build on [i.e., a basic understanding of the nature of reality, natural law, the existence of immaterial realities, etc.]. This means that incomplete modern Christianity lacks explanatory power, seems to have little or nothing to say about what seems to be the main problem of living. For example, modern Christianity seems to have nothing to do with politics, law, art, philosophy, or science; to inhabit a tiny, shrinking realm cut-off from daily concerns.”[1]

Because a solid foundation is often missing, even when believers do have some exposure to these disciplines, the “God” they are learning about is essentially the equivalent to a really big invisible Superman who’s just smarter, more powerful, and supposedly morally better than us; whose sole purpose often seems is to make our lives easy and provide us with endless warm fuzzies. This, however, is not the God of classical Christian thinking (more on this later). One should carefully note the connection between the first two symptoms. When the role of the intellect is neglected in the Christian life, it is easy for this second symptom to manifest.

Thankfully, Jon says that he is “open to the idea that God is there.” Openness is key. However, he goes on to say, “I know my parents pray that God reveals Himself to me. If He’s there, I hope He does.” He then laments the fact that he and his wife “always had this sense that [they] weren’t doing enough of the things [they] were supposed to do as Christians. … It all felt like an obligation, and [their] lack of enthusiasm about those things always made [them] feel like something was wrong with [them].” Jon admits that now they don’t think anything was wrong with them, they “simply didn’t believe” and “were too afraid to admit that to [themselves].”

Once again, Dr. Charlton observes,

“Modern Christianity often feels shallow – it seems to rely on diktat of scripture and the Church – this is because [as noted above] moderns lack a basis in the spontaneous perceptions of Natural Law, animism [i.e. the belief in a supernatural power], the sense of active supernatural power in everyday life. Modern Christianity (after the first flush of the conversion experience) thus feels dry, abstract, legalistic, prohibitive, uninvolving, lacking in purpose.”[2]

This is symptom number three, wrong motives based on false expectations. The disease of bad ideas has so infected vast swathes of Christianity that far too many professing believers simply end up living out a cultural Christianity that has little basis in reality due in large part to the first two symptoms above. When this happens, symptom three typically follows. I know this from my own personal experience. Whether driven by the drive to please loved ones, cultural expectations, fear, or simply a guilty conscience, many believers go through the motions of Christianity in a legalistic fashion with no real substance to their Christian convictions. Likewise, because God is viewed as an invisible Superman, many people struggling with doubts and questions expect God to supernaturally manifest Himself to them personally in such a way that all their questions are answered. They may even wish for God to be real and desire to worship Him, but they only want to do so on their own terms rather than His. Again, a failure to have a proper natural theology of God leads to these confused motives and false expectations.

The above symptoms, among others, are good indicators that someone may be in the midst of, or in danger of beginning, a deconstruction of their Christian convictions. Recognizing these symptoms is just the first step. Preventative measures and even post-infection treatment are both necessary and possible.

Prescribe the Proper Treatment

Imagine if you went to your doctor to get treatment for COVID-19, and you noticed he never washed his hands between patients, he didn’t wear a facemask, never cleaned his exam rooms, used the same tongue depressor for every patient, and used dirty needles to administer shots. Needless to say, he wouldn’t be in business very long. Rather than treating any patient’s condition, he would actually be making matters worse by sharing the same germs from patient to patient. The treatment would be as bad, or worse, than the original issue for which you visited the doctor in the first place. This is the sad state of affairs in which we too often find ourselves in modern apologetics.

So much of what passes for apologetics today is built upon modern philosophical assumptions which suffer from the same disease of bad ideas the apologist is trying to combat. As prolegomena and the classical view of God (derived from natural theology via classical philosophy) were abandoned, an “infected” and impotent version of Christianity began to be defended. Popular apologetics far too often simply shares germs back and forth with the skepticism it seeks to answer. I would refer the reader to HERE and HERE for more on that.

By contrast, a proper treatment for this disease will only occur when the patient is brought back to the basic truths of reality that provide the foundation upon which a full-orbed Christian faith can be built. This is why the classical apologetics approach we teach at SES is so critical (see more HERE and HERE). Starting with the undeniable fact that man knows some truths about reality, we can reason step by step to the truthfulness of Christianity. When done properly, we can see that God is not an invisible Superman. He is wholly other, and the divine attributes stand or fall together. We can also appreciate the thousands of pages that have been written through the centuries by classical Christian thinkers addressing every question and issue that Jon or any other patient has raised.

Remember that some diseases take longer to treat than others. Bad ideas can become ingrained and influence many areas of our thinking. Nevertheless, treatment is possible. As philosopher Edward Feser notes, “Even modern secularists know [the language of natural theology and natural law], for they are no less human than their pagan ancestors. The problem is that they speak it at only a grade school or even kindergarten level, whereas the greatest of the ancients at least had high school level proficiency. But through ‘remedial education,’ they, like the ancient pagans, can be prepared for the graduate-level work afforded by divine revelation.”[3]

We must begin to make progress in this area so that every parent, grandparent, Sunday School teacher, pastor, and missionary have themselves moved beyond grade school in the war against bad ideas and are able to inoculate and treat those entrusted to their care.

Don’t Neglect Underlying Conditions

That brings us to our last point. As we know, COVID-19 is much more serious for people with underlying conditions. Even though we could cure COVID-19, all of us will still die at some point. Likewise, every one of us suffers from the underlying condition of our own sin that makes the disease of bad ideas even worse and ultimately leads to death. We will all succumb to the disease of sin without the ultimate cure, which is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as payment for our sins.

Everything above regarding treating the disease of bad ideas is what Thomas Aquinas called the preambles to the articles of faith. They alone do not constitute the fullness of the faith. Rather, biblical faith is an active trust in the authority of what God has revealed because we have reason to believe He is trustworthy. Reason provides the foundation upon which faith can take root. Salvation through Jesus (i.e., the Gospel) is itself a revealed truth to which we cannot reason. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable, and we have excellent reasons to believe it is true. Being a revealed truth is what makes the Gospel an article of faith to which we willfully ascent and act upon through the power of the Holy Spirit. Only then will we find ultimate healing.

In the meantime, wear your facemask, practice social distancing, and protect yourself from COVID-19. Be on guard, however, for the ever-present invisible contagion of bad ideas. Monitor yourself and others for symptoms, and remember the proper treatment. As Clement of Alexandria said regarding the foundational role of philosophy in the life of the believer,

“Perspicuity accordingly aids in the communication of truth and logic in preventing us from falling under the heresies by which we are assailed. But the teaching, which is according to the Saviour (sic), is complete in itself and without defect, being ‘the power and wisdom of God;’ and the Hellenic philosophy does not, by its approach, make the truth more powerful; but rendering powerless the assault of sophistry against it, and frustrating the treacherous plots laid against the truth, is said to be the proper ‘fence and wall [or facemask in this case!] of the vineyard.’[4]

Endnotes

[1] Please note that this reference does not imply agreement with all of Dr. Charlton’s views: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/12/six-problems-for-modern-christian.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/01/point-of-contact.html

[4] Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 323.

Busting One Of Bart Ehrman’s Favorite Bible Contradictions

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Skeptics say that the gospels are riddled with contradictions and therefore are not reliable historical sources. And these same skeptics say that some of these contradictions are downright absurd. For example, agnostic NT scholar Bart Ehrman points out one of his favorite Bible contradictions in his book best-selling book, Jesus, Interrupted.

One of my favorite apparent discrepancies—I read John for years without realizing how strange this one is—comes in Jesus’ “Farewell Discourse,” the last address that Jesus delivers to his disciples, at his last meal with them, which takes up all of chapters 13 to 17 in the Gospel according to John. In John 13:36, Peter says to Jesus, “Lord, where are you going?” A few verses later Thomas says, “Lord, we do not know where you are going” (John 14:5). And then, a few minutes later, at the same meal, Jesus upbraids his disciples, saying, “Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’” (John 16:5). Either Jesus had a very short attention span or there is something strange going on with the sources for these chapters, creating an odd kind of disconnect.

Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 9

So there you have it. Either Jesus or John were having a ‘brain fart’. Take your pick.

Did Jesus Or John Have A Painfully Short Attention Span?

If you look at the Bible in a wooden fashion, this contradiction does seem to be absurd on the face of it. So how should we understand this so-called discrepancy?

It seems to me that the writer of John is dealing with the disciples’ immediate reaction to Jesus’ words. The thought of him leaving fills them with sorrow, but if they had asked where he was going and grasped that it was to the Father, they would have recognized it was for Jesus’ advantage and theirs. Just look at the next verse: “But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you.” (Jn 16:6-7)

Looking back at the previous times Jesus was questioned that Ehrman points out, Peter had a bit of a bodyguard complex and didn’t want to hear about Jesus taking off by himself. So when he asks the question in John 13:36 about where Jesus is going, he doesn’t get it.

And in John 14:1-5, Jesus talks about going to his Father to prepare places for them. Thomas asks a question, but it’s because he’s not picking up what Jesus is laying down. He doesn’t ask what Jesus means by any of these things. And we know Thomas is a bit slow on the uptake, as we find out later in John’s Gospel. Thomas and Peter were both thinking naturally.

The Disciples’ Silence Became Deafening

We see that Jesus is disrupted with another question in John 14 but isn’t asked another question in John 15. Jesus so far has mentioned his departure, but then in John 15:22-16:4, he talks about persecution headed their way. You know, some heavy stuff. Now their hearts are sorrowful. They fall silent with sadness after being so inquisitive earlier.

It’s at 16:5 that Jesus is saying, “guys…you still don’t get it. You went quiet on me with all these hard sayings of persecution and me leaving. But I’m not leaving you alone. I’m sending the Spirit in my place. Now is the time to be asking questions again, but this time let’s be a little sharper and ditch the gloomy pessimism.”

After this, they interrupt Jesus again twice more in John 16, showing they still don’t understand what he’s talking about. Read John 16:17-19:

So some of his disciples said to one another, “What is this that he says to us, ‘A little while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’; and, ‘because I am going to the Father’?” So they were saying, “What does he mean by ‘a little while’? We do not know what he is talking about.” Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, “Is this what you are asking yourselves, what I meant by saying, ‘A little while and you will not see me, and again a little while and you will see me’?

The Disciples Finally Get It, But Does Ehrman?

Jesus then answers their questions, and finishes by saying “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

The light bulb finally seems to turn on. They quit looking at earthly things and start to see the spiritual realities Jesus is talking about. In John 16:28-30 the disciples exclaim, his disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?“

The metaphors are over in their minds. Jesus is now speaking clearly. They fell silent after some heavy sayings from Jesus, but now it’s dawning on them after Jesus prompts them to probe further. This interpretation doesn’t just come from me but is also supported by commentators and exegetes like CK Barrett, RCH Lenski, Craig Blomberg, John Gill, Christian Kuinoel, and Hermann Olshausen.

Only when we leave no room for conversational nuance would we have to conclude Jesus had a mental lapse or that something strange is going on with the writer of John. It seems like Bart’s reading is pretty wooden, and dare I say, fundamentalist. Many of his examples of alleged discrepancies in Jesus, Interrupted that are much more worth investigating and wrestling with. But this isn’t a golden moment for Ehrman here. And unfortunately, there are more bad ones like this. There’s nothing all that strange here.

What Does Paul Say About Homosexuality?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

In this post, we’re asking the question: What does Paul say about homosexuality? To find out, we need to investigate Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Let’s consider each text in turn.

Romans 1:26-27

This passage is probably the most significant biblical text addressing homosexuality. In the broader context, we read that God reveals his wrath from heaven against all ungodliness. Even though people know God exists through natural revelation, they have suppressed the truth and worshipped idols instead. Therefore, God hands them over to their depraved minds. Verses 26-27 give us an example of this depravity:

For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature (para physin); and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what exactly does Paul condemn here? Matthew Vines, author of God and the Gay Christian notes, “Paul wasn’t condemning the expression of same-sex orientation as opposed to the expression of an opposite-sex orientation. He was condemning excess as opposed to moderation.“¹ Elsewhere he states that Paul “explicitly described the behavior he condemned as lustful. He made no mention of love, fidelity, monogamy, or commitment.”²

That is to say, and Paul doesn’t condemn homosexuality in general. He merely condemns the excesses or abuses that were common in the ancient world. These excesses included pederasty, master/slave rape, or prostitution. If Paul, according to Vines, would have seen examples of committed, monogamous same-sex partners, he would have celebrated them.

In response to Vines, I simply note that nowhere does Paul limit his condemnation to specific types of homosexuality like master/slave relations, pederasty, or prostitution. Rather, he condemns homosexuality in general terms.

If he wanted to condemn pederasty, for example, he could have simply used the Greek word paiderastes. If he meant to condemn a master appeasing his sexual desire with his male slave, then why state that they were “consumed with passion for one another?” Doesn’t that sound like two consenting adults? Furthermore, why mention the women engaging with one another when we have no record of female master/slave or pedophilia relations from the ancient world?

Contrary to Vines, Paul condemns homosexuality in general (not limited to specific abuses) and roots his condemnation in creation itself. This explains why he writes that homosexual activity is an “exchange of natural relations that are “contrary to nature” (para physin in the Greek). Other revisionists (not Vines) take this to mean that some men’s sexual appetites were so insatiable, that they went against their heterosexual nature to have sexual relations with other men. In other words, “going against nature” simply means going against one’s heterosexual orientation. Thus, the text doesn’t condemn those with a homosexual orientation engaging in sexual activity.

But this explanation fails on multiple fronts. Not only do ancient authors repeatedly use the phrase “para physin” to refer to homosexual activity (not going against one’s orientation), Paul goes to great lengths to state that his position is rooted in the creation narrative of Genesis 1-3. In the surrounding context, he uses phrases such as “creation of the world” (1:20), “creator” (1:25), “birds and animals and creeping things” (1:23), “women” and “men” (1:26-27), “image” (1:23), “lie” (1:25), “shame” (1:27), and “death” (1:32). These allusions to the creation narrative indicate that Paul sees homosexuality as an affront to God’s design for marriage as outlined in Genesis 1-2.

Self-professed lesbian Bernadette Brooten writes in her scholarly book Love between Women:

I believe that Paul used the word “exchanged” to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God.”³

Romans 1:26-27 doesn’t merely condemn excesses. It condemns homosexual activity in general as an affront to God’s design for sexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 And 1 Timothy 1:9-10

I lump these two together because they are similar in nature.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (malakoi and arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality (arsenokoitai), enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. — 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Paul’s use of arsenokoitai is the first known use of this word in the ancient world. It’s a compound word of man (arsen) and bed (koite). The word literally means “bedders of men.” It’s a term that conveys action, which is why the NIV translation of the word “men who have sex with men” is preferable to one like the NASB’s which simply reads “homosexuals.” Scholars are in agreement that Paul coined this term using the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a male (arsenos koiten) as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

This text clearly condemns both partners for participating in homosexual activity. It says that “both of them have committed an abomination.” In the same way, 1 Corinthians 1:9-10 appears to condemn both partners as well. Not only does Paul condemn arsenokoitai (bedders of men), right before that he condemns malakoi (soft ones).

The Greek word malakoi has a broad range of meaning. It can refer to men who have long hair, wear makeup, have a fondness for expensive clothing, gluttons, the lazy who avoid manual labor, or the acceptance of being penetrated by other men. So which of these does Paul condemn here?

It’s noteworthy that the Jewish philosopher Philo twice uses the word malakoi to refer to passive homosexual partners. It’s also noteworthy where Paul places this word in his list of vices. He places it right between moikoi (adulterers) and arsenokoitai. When a word has a broad range of definitions, context usually is the strongest determiner of the author’s meaning. Considering malakoi’s placement in the sentence, it’s likely that Paul’s referring to a passive male partner in homosexual sex. After all, it’s hard to imagine that Paul would say that men who like designer clothing or a good chick flick will not inherit the kingdom of God. He must be referring to something more blatant.

Was There Really No Concept Of Homosexual Orientation In The Ancient World?

As I’ve alluded to numerous times in this blog series, revisionists argue that when the Bible condemns homosexuality, it condemns abuses — not lifelong, monogamous relationships. Revisionists argue that homosexual orientation and committed homosexual relationships were completely foreign in the ancient world. Therefore, the biblical authors didn’t condemn them. But is this an accurate assessment?

Louis Crompton, a gay man and scholar of queer studies states in his book Homosexuality and Civilization:

Some interpreters, seeking to mitigate Paul’s harshness, have read the passage [in Romans 1] as condemning not homosexuals generally but only heterosexual men and women who experimented with homosexuality. According to this interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any Jew or early Christian.”⁴

In other words, while Crompton supports homosexuality, he says the revisionists’ arguments don’t work. It’s a massive leap in logic to think that Paul would have embraced homosexual relationships if he had only seen good examples of them.

Furthermore, the idea of homosexual orientation wasn’t completely foreign to the ancient world. Thomas K. Hubbard, a non-Christian classical scholar notes in Homosexuality in Greece and Rome:

“Homosexuality in this era may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of an antithetical to heterosexual orientation.“⁵

Notice what Hubbard says here. He argues that people in the ancient world experienced homosexual orientation and self-identified as homosexuals.

In Plato’s Symposium, a philosophical text depicting a contest of extemporaneous speeches by notable men, speaks to the reality of homosexual orientation. Consider these excerpts from two of the speeches:⁶

“For they fall in love with boys only at the point when they begin to have in their possession a mind; and this moment approximates the time when they begin to get a beard. For, I think, those who begin from that moment to fall in love with them are prepared to love in the expectation that they will be with them all their life and will share their lives in common.” — Pausanias

In other words, he speaks of a loving, life-long commitment between homosexual partners. Or consider this other speech:

“So of course when he also happens upon that very person who is his half, whether the lover of boys or any other, then they are wonderfully struck with affectionate regard and a sense of kinship and love, almost not wanting to be divided even for a short time. And these are they who continue with one another throughout life. . . . Each desiring to join together and to be fused into a single entity with his beloved and to become one person from two.” — Aristophanes

Here, again, is another example of life-long homosexual commitments. Commenting further on this subject, N. T. Wright argues:⁷

“As a classicist, I have to say that when I read Plato’s Symposium, or when I read the accounts from the early Roman Empire of the practice of homosexuality, then it seems to me they knew just as much about it as we do. In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention; it’s already there in Plato. The idea that in Paul’s day it was always a matter of exploitation of younger men by older men or whatever . . . of course there was plenty of that then, as there is today, but it was by no means the only thing. They knew about the whole range of options there.”

In the end, the revisionist arguments fall short. Nowhere does Paul limit his condemnation to homosexual abuses. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that Paul was ignorant of homosexual orientation.

Concluding Thoughts

Based on the above evidence, Paul condemns homosexual behavior in general — not just abuses. He condemns both men and women in Romans 1, and both the active and passive partners in 1 Corinthians 6. The revisionist arguments that Paul had no concept of homosexual orientation, and therefore, couldn’t have condemned it lacks historical backing.

Affirm The Divine Image

Acknowledge Our Collective Sinfulness

Know Jesus’s Universal Expectation

Recognize That Holiness Is The Goal

Be People Of Love

Be Like Their Family

Find Our Identity In Christ

Concluding Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Process of Knowing

Why Is This Important?

Reference

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Grow awareness of worldview differences by addressing biblical illiteracy.

Grow interest in cultural engagement by addressing (lack of) conviction.

Grow desired or engagement by destigmatizing the relationship between politics and religion.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Learning from Zombies

An Un-Perfect Analogy with the Un-Dead

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Was Jesus angry when he cursed the fig tree?

So what about the pigs?

Was Jesus getting snippy over hand-washing?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recognize the Symptoms

Prescribe the Proper Treatment

Don’t Neglect Underlying Conditions

Endnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Did Jesus Or John Have A Painfully Short Attention Span?

The Disciples’ Silence Became Deafening

The Disciples Finally Get It, But Does Ehrman?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Romans 1:26-27

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 And 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Was There Really No Concept Of Homosexual Orientation In The Ancient World?

Concluding Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

**Grow awareness of worldview differences by addressing biblical illiteracy.**

**Grow interest in cultural engagement by addressing (lack of) conviction.**

**Grow desired or engagement by destigmatizing the relationship between politics and religion.**