Meet the New Apologists (Part 2_ Advice)

Meet the New Apologists (Part 2: Advice)

By Jordan Apodaca

In the last post we met seven “new apologists.” Now, we ask them crucial questions about how to start and run a young apologetics ministry.

What advice would you give to newer apologists about finding their niche/focus? How important is it? How does one find a niche?

Here is Scott Olson’s case for why it is so important to find a niche:

  • Scott Olson (Free Thinking Ministries): I think it’s incredibly important to find a niche. I hesitate to say that the apologetics community is oversaturated because I would hate to discourage anyone from doing apologetics, but if you just start up another generic apologetics ministry, your voice is going to be drowned out. In all good marketing strategies (which is what you’ll need in order to grow your ministry), you need to be known for solving a problem. When people think of your ministry, they should immediately associate it with the specific apologetics problem you’re trying to solve. For example, when people think of Freethinking Ministries, they immediately think of free will and Molinism. We talk about other things on the website, but we’re known for those two issues. If you’re resistant to niching down, I’ll say this: build your “brand” by focusing on a specific niche, and once you’re happy with the size of your audience, then you can begin to branch out and focus on other things. It’s extremely difficult to build a brand by trying to be all things to all people. People have psychological tendency to need to categorize every person they meet. If they can’t put you in a box, you’ll just confuse them and never attract them as an audience member. As far as choosing a niche, I would browse through Facebook groups and other ministries and try and find something that you feel hasn’t been properly addressed. Chances are, there are a lot of people who feel the same way, and you can grow your ministry with them.

This isn’t about becoming someone you’re not. It’s about being who God made you to be:

  • Cameron Bertuzzi (Capturing Christianity): Be yourself. Seriously. Don’t try to be anyone else. Don’t try to be the next William Lane Craig. Don’t try to be the next Greg Koukl. Be the first you. When I was just starting my blog I had no idea that photography and apologetics could go so well together. In fact, I initially thought it would mean people wouldn’t take me seriously (who wants to listen to what some random photographer has to say?!). But once I embraced that identity, and didn’t shy away from it, beautiful things started to happen (pun intended). Yourself.

Another easy way to find a niche is to focus on a specific geographical location, like Jeremy Linn and Matt Slama have done with Twin Cities Apologetics. Matt Slama also adds another insight on finding a niche: “I would suggest just looking at where there is a need. Wherever there are people, you will have bad thinking. Atheism is at its root, bad thinking. It is evident from what God has told us that people know that God exists. (See Romans 1:19.) So, just start helping people think correctly. God will help you and be with you.”

What are some potential apologetics ministry ideas that you’d love to see some young, bright apologists run with?

Several answered that we should focus on evangelism:

  • Scott Olson: I would love to see a ministry that primarily focused on the integration of apologetics and evangelism. It can be quite difficult to figure out where to sprinkle in your apologetic arguments when evangelizing to someone, so I think that might be a good idea to run with.
  • Matt Schmidt (Engage 360): For me and the Engage 360 team, it almost always comes back to, “How do we better equip people in the church to know their faith, share their faith, and grow in their faith?”  There are numerous ways we can do that. I would love to see a lot more resources designed to help the untrained Christian to be able to have more spiritual conversations in their lives.  This could be quick reference guides, guided learning, interactive training, etc.

Other ideas:

  • Cameron Bertuzzi: We need way more Christian YouTubers. And don’t just start a YouTube channel without a plan. Research best practices. Learn marketing strategies. Reach out to other successful Christian YouTubers like Mike Winger and ask for advice. Don’t reinvent the wheel!
  • Jeremy Linn: Well I’d like to see Apologetics incorporated with music more but that’s something that is just an out-there idea I’ve been thinking of for a while.

Evangelism, YouTube, and music! Go after it!

What are the top three mistakes that new apologists often make?

Tim Stratton:

  1. I think many new and young apologists try to “be” someone else. That is, they try to BE Dr. Craig or J.P. Moreland instead of simply being themselves. Be comfortable in your own skin. Don’t try to be someone else.
  2. Know your audience and communicate to them. I struggle with this since I often communicate to high school students and I am also currently working on a PhD dissertation. As far as FTM goes, I have formed a team to try and offer a range of content so that together we can reach beginners, intermediates, and advanced folks. I am finding that there are pros and cons to this approach. I’m learning on the fly!
  3. Related to (2), if you are talking to a beginner (for example) make sure to use language they understand and speak in a manner they can follow. If you must use technical jargon, make sure to define your terms in ways they can grasp. Timothy Fox blogs for FreeThinking Ministries and has this down to an art form.

Scott Olson:

  1. They try to appeal to everybody.
  2. They worry too much about the little things, like picking a name and designing the perfect logo.
  3. They don’t worry about marketing and messaging.

Matt Schmidt:

  1. Think way too much of themselves.
  2. Think that because they know Apologetics they also know Theology and Philosophy (usually mostly just repeating the positions of their favorite apologist).
  3. Learn how to bring apologetics to a practical level for everyday people in the Church.

Cameron Bertuzzi:

  1. Aesthetics,
  2. Marketing,
  3. Treating people like humans.

Travis Pelletier:

  1. Fail to network. Don’t be a nerd in your basement. Get involved in your church and in your community. If you’ve never been involved in church before, then you shouldn’t be surprised if your leadership doesn’t just jump for joy when you ask to teach on a relatively difficult and potentially controversial topic like apologetics. Also, network with other apologists. There are apologetics nerds in almost every church. Find them. Get together with them. See if you can encourage them to become involved.
  2. Application: Every apologetics lesson should be connected to real life. Don’t just teach a lesson on the problem of evil as an abstract idea. Bring it home to people. For example, you could talk about someone who walked away from the faith because they didn’t get a good answer to this question. Or you could talk about how you struggled with this issue. At the end of the lesson, ALWAYS give some practical tips on how to actually engage with people in everyday life. Don’t let apologetics be some ethereal abstract philosophy – it’s about loving the people we meet, loving them enough to engage with them and give them good answers.
  3. Always have grace – This has been a struggle for me. Whether it’s the atheist who is being idiotically pigheaded in order to avoid the divine, or whether it’s the Christian who uses the word “Faith” as an excuse for intellectual laziness, apologists need to realize that everyone is at a different place, and that we must love the people who frustrate us, and we must love them enough to not always have to force the argument to end with us on top. Apologists often feel that we must “win the argument”. But we don’t. All we should try to do is to get them thinking, and if we behave graciously then the door will be open to more conversations in the future.

Jeremy Linn:

  1. SOCIAL MEDIA – this is huge if you are focusing on content and want your apologetics platform to grow. You need to know how to best utilize each platform. I was quite bad with SM right away but developed skills and got better over time (and still am)
  2. I’m guessing most don’t make the personal connections with people that they should, and form partnerships that will help with their ministry. That is something I have a hard time with, and could put more time emphasis on.
  3. Tailor posts to their audience, whatever that may be. That especially means the title of a blog post or video should appeal to whoever you want your content to appeal to. Same with the caption on social media. Those two things are some of the main things that will drive people to content, along with having a picture that looks good and is not cut off (need to use the right sized picture for Facebook, in example).

Matt Slama:

  1. Addressing questions that people are not asking. Often times we know our material and know what problems a majority of people have with Christianity. However, we need to address the individual and the question/argument posed.
  2. Letting other people get away with putting the burden of proof on you. There is a clear method of determining burden of proof. Some people don’t understand the reason for burden of proof. When one is making a claim, they need to uphold the burden of proof not the other way around. It is interesting how this so easily gets swapped around. Be level headed and just think through the conversation. Take your time even if it might feel a little awkward. Bad thinking = bad conversations.

(Matt Slama doesn’t follow the rules.)

What are the top three things new apologists should focus on in order to thrive?

Tim Stratton:

  1. I would encourage new apologists not just to repeat the work that others have already done, but strive to occasionally develop new and unique arguments.
  2. Build off of the work of the “giants” who have preceded you, stand on their shoulders, and take it to new heights. Dr. Craig recently told me that I was helping to fulfill one of his dreams because he said “You are taking my work, reflecting on it, making it your own, and running with it.” I encourage others to do the same. For example, take the work of guys like Mike Licona or JP Moreland and continue building on what they have already accomplished.
  3. Don’t feel like you have to be doing apologetics as a profession to be a good and effective apologist! Be faithful with the little platform you might have and do the best with what you’ve got, trying to reach as many people in your circle of influence as possible. Let God handle the rest!

Scott Olson:

  1. Find that area within apologetics in which you can become the expert.
  2. Build your online presence by having a website and being on social media.
  3. Be able to clearly articulate the goal of your ministry, and make this goal a solution to a problem that your audience has. For example, if you wanted to create a ministry focusing on Christianity and neuroscience, maybe articulate your goal as “ensuring that Christians remain capable and effective when talking about neuroscience” or something along those lines. This clearly defines your target audience (Christians interested in neuroscience) and what the problem is you’re going to solve (ineffective apologetics related to neuroscience).

Matt Schmidt:

  1. Keeping things practical.
  2. Learning how to talk apologetics to non-apologetics people.
  3. Rounding out with solid Theology, Bible, and Philosophy training.

Cameron Bertuzzi:

  1. Finding your niche and sticking to it,
  2. Marketing,

What advice would you give to an aspiring apologetics ministry trying to equip local churches? How do you build trust with pastors? How do you even begin the conversation?

  • Tim Stratton: Just this morning I met with two local pastors from churches that I do not attend. I offered them my services. I told them that whenever an apologetic or theological issue might arise to give me a call and that I will do the research for them that they do not have the time to do. I told them that I am sure they will occasionally disagree with me, but that I will strive to tell them what I think on a specific topic, and then give them other options to consider if they did not find my approach satisfying. I think it builds trust when you offer to serve churches in this manner. It also builds trust when you give them permission to disagree with you but tell them that you will point them to other possible solutions as well.
  • Scott Olson: The absolute best thing you can do is volunteer at your local church. Get involved helping set up or tear down, serving coffee, serving on the worship team, anything to show that you’re a team player and you genuinely care about serving your local church. Believe me, you’ll inevitably meet some of the “power players” within the church and you can ask them out to lunch or coffee in order to talk to them about your interest in equipping the church with apologetics. Frame your conversations in such a way as to illustrate the problem you see in your local church, and how your apologetics ministry will help solve it.
  • Matt Schmidt: Don’t use the word apologetics!  Focus on how you can serve and aid the church in bringing the life changing the truth of Christianity to their local community.  Don’t make it about you and how much you know. Keep whatever you do as interactive as possible. Very few people can sit and listen to a lecture, and even fewer can do so then put something into practice from it.  We could argue that people in the Church need to mature and be able to handle that, and you might even be right. However, we have to live in reality and figure out how to bring people up more than complain that they can’t handle things we thing they should be able to.
  • Travis Pelletier: Let them know that what the goal of your ministry is, and ask the pastor how you can be of service to him. Don’t just tell him what you want to do; ask him how you can help him.
  • Jeremy Linn: Personal connection beats email every time. Even phone calls are better than emails. The majority of head pastors won’t respond to emails regarding ministry connections, from what I understand. Youth pastors tend to respond more often.

What advice would you give to an aspiring apologist trying to teach apologetics in a small group/class setting? What are some teaching tips, some things to definitely do and some things to definitely not do?

Here is some advice on how to teach well:

  • Tim Stratton: (1) Make sure you know your material! For example, don’t teach the Ontological Argument unless you have a strong understanding of it yourself. (2) Do not speak over their heads! Know your audience! (3) Do your best to avoid “Christianeeze” and “Apologeticeeze.” (4) Take the subject matter seriously, but don’t take yourself too seriously (have fun)!
  • Scott Olson: Use stories to get your point across. People don’t retain bullet points of information very well, but they do understand stories. Illustrate how you would use an argument in a hypothetical (or experiential) story. Trust me, that’s what they’ll remember.
  • Matt Schmidt: Keep things interactive and hands-on to the highest degree possible.  I have made this mistake myself many times so I am not throwing stones here.  Over time it has become clear that you can engage more people and have them take more away if you keep things interactive.  For instance, rather than merely lecture and power point my way through some basic evangelism training I am currently using videos from a Boghossian disciple using “street epistemology” to try and deconvert Christians.  I, or the class members, can stop the video at any time and we use what is happening in the video and the context for guided discussion. I have a class of sixty members (in a church of 250) that are almost all engaged and giving input each week.  In fact, they are so engage we go over 90 minutes every week. Think about the last time you gave a 90 minute lecture to a church and most of them stuck with it!

Cameron and Jeremy give advice about how to not brand your group:

  • Cameron Bertuzzi: Definitely do not paint yourself or your class as overly intellectual. I started an apologetics class at my church, but once the word was out that it was “intellectual,” our numbers slowly decreased until we were down to just 2 members (not including myself). Don’t use apologetics in the name; don’t make it sound like you have to be smart to attend.
  • Jeremy Linn: There is a strong tendency for people who like apologetics to go to apologetics classes… When you are “teaching” people who already know the content, it can become more of a social club. This is not a bad thing as we know “Iron sharpens iron.” However, to be most effective, we need to draw people in who don’t normally have this bend.

How can a new apologetics ministry be evangelistic? What do you do to share the Gospel yourself, and what do you do to get others to share the Gospel? 

  • Tim Stratton: Always try to show how an argument for the existence of God is best explained by biblical data. For example, I like to appeal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument to eventually reach the conclusion that it is possible for the person listening to my presentation to have a personal relationship with the “Cause of the universe” without appealing to a single Bible verse. Then I follow that by noting that although I have not touched a Bible to reach my conclusion, that the Bible says the exact same thing – it is possible to have a personal relationship with the Cause and Creator of the universe. Then I say, “Perhaps we should take the Bible seriously.” I follow that with: “But wait, there’s more! The Bible doesn’t just tell us that it is possible to have a personal relationship with the Cause and Creator of the universe… it also tells us exactly how to do such a thing through Jesus Christ!” (Watch my sermon: “Doesn’t Science Disprove God?“) With that I am off and running with the Gospel. We can seamlessly transition from apologetic syllogisms to sharing the biblical message of salvation!
  • Scott Olson: Hopefully, being evangelistic is the goal of all ministries. In particular, get good at transitioning conversations from superficial topics into deeper ones. Trust me; everyone wants to tell you what they think about the important issues (like religion). Don’t try and force apologetics into a conversation, rather ask them about their beliefs and try and get them to see why their beliefs might be wrong. When you ask someone his or her thoughts on something meaningful, 95% of people will absolutely love it. Think about it, would you rather have someone ask you what you do for a living, or would you rather have them ask you your thoughts on religion?
  • Matt Schmidt: As much as possible bring everything back to the core elements of the faith.  The authority of Jesus, the reliability of Scripture, the integrity of the eye-witness testimony of the apostles, the biblical definition of key terms, the way we can reach people of different backgrounds, etc.  I am very comfortable with evangelism when opportunity arises in life (i.e. sitting next to someone on a plane, having a door opened in conversation with a co-worker, etc.). What I struggle with is intentional outreach as I am more of a shy extrovert.  To overcome this, I will go to a bookstore and hang-out it a relevant sections that will be a good context for a spiritual conversation. When someone pulls Deepok Chopra off the shelf I ask them about the book and off we go!
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: Good question. I think we need to spark up way more conversations with people in real life. I notice that online I’m ready to talk about anything but when I meet people at the grocery store, for example, I never think twice about stopping and asking them a couple questions. Why not? These people (a) need apologetics just like everybody else, and (b) are probably a lot more open to what we have to say. I would cite the fact that I’m naturally introverted, but actually that’s a lie. I’m more of a selective introvert. People in my inner circle I have no issue reaching out to, even if I barely know them. I need to do better at enlarging that circle.
  • Jeremy Linn: Connect up with local organizations doing evangelism, or create an evangelism event yourself. Those are the two main options I know of. I go out and have some way to start asking people questions, like to approach people and say you’re doing a survey of people’s thoughts about spiritual things, and asking permission to ask questions. One Apologetics group takes a whiteboard and writes a question on it and talks to people walking by in their city.

What advice to you have for ministries that are primarily focused on building an Internet presence? (Should every apologist try to have an online ministry?) How do you go about building a website and making an impact? What are some major mistakes apologists make in this area, and what are some of the opportunities? Do you have any recommendations on what platform to use (Wix, WordPress, etc.)?

  • Tim Stratton: In today’s world if an apologist does not have an online presence then they are probably either wasting their time or simply hoping to reach a very small number of folks. Now, this does not mean that everyone needs to have an expensive website. I got my start simply by treating my Facebook account as a website. I would also seek to debate or argue (respectfully) whenever I had the opportunity. I use WordPress and I like it a lot!
  • Scott Olson: The biggest mistake I see on websites today is that they have wayyyy too much stuff on their website. From the minute someone gets to your website, it should be clear what you do, how it will make their life better, and how they can interact with your content. Anything else on the front page of your website is really just unnecessary clutter that can be moved elsewhere.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: Huge questions here! We use WordPress. That’s what I’m familiar with and it gets the job done. Apologists usually do poor in the website area because they don’t have a background in design. Here’s what I recommend: PUT DOWN THE PLANTINGA AND PICK UP A BOOK ON DESIGN! It’s not impossible to do design well, even if you aren’t naturally inclined to it. It’s a skill that can be learned, as with anything. There are rules and formulas; it’s a lot more analytic than it might seem. And while you’re at it, pick up a book on growing a website, another on marketing, and another still on social media. Read and study them. Do that and you’ll already be way ahead of the curve! Here are some book recommendations:

Where should I focus my attention on Social Media? Facebook? Instagram? YouTube? How do I use those productively? What social media tips and tricks would you give to a beginner?

  • Scott Olson: Facebook is really a fantastic tool for creating an online community. Obviously, it’s a great idea to have a “business” page for your ministry that you can use to post. However, Facebook has unfortunately began limiting the reach of business pages, so only about 1-5% of those who like and follow your page actually see what you post. For this reason, I highly recommend creating a Facebook group associated with your ministry. You’ll create a sense of exclusivity and community while having a great place to start conversations about your niche and ministry. YouTube is an area I’d like to begin focusing on a little bit more, as most people are transitioning to video as their primary form of content consumption. My advice for YouTube would be to not be afraid of creating long videos. Don’t feel like you have to stop a video because it’s more than 10 minutes long. Make the video as long as it needs to be. Finally, don’t be afraid to test stuff on social media. Create a bunch of posts throughout the day and see which ones get the most amount of likes and engagement. Keep posting similar content to the ones that do well, and stop posting content similar to the ones that don’t do well. Also, use surveys to figure out what your audience wants from you.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: YouTube and Facebook are the best places for apologetics. A friend of mine always says that with Facebook, you pay them, but with YouTube, they pay you. And that’s true. On Facebook, be prepared to spend money advertising. It’s not impossible to grow without paying for ads, but unless your content is extremely shareable (think Babylon Bee), it’ll be difficult. If you can’t afford to pay for ads, find somebody that sees your vision and wants to partner. Facebook has been incredible for our ministry. I’m still getting the hang of YouTube, so I can’t comment on best practices there.
  • Jeremy Linn: It really depends what you want to go for. Some Apologetics ministries have focused solely on Youtube, and have had great success on there. Perhaps you want to reach out to the next generation with interactive media. Then Youtube is your go to. With enough focus on there and a built up subscriber base, over time you can earn money off of it (although likely not enough to do it full time). For general Apologetics ministries, a Facebook page is the #1 spot right now. A Facebook group may be appropriate for a ministry like me own where people meet locally. But you can share content more easily on a page, and it tends to grow faster for Apologetics content. Instagram is a valuable place to be especially since younger people are on it and it is really the “cool” place to be right now. However, it takes the most time and commitment out of any of the platforms – from making solid captions to doing Instagram stories consistently (both of which are necessary for growth). If you were going to pick one platform, I would make it the Facebook page. Instagram can do a lot if you are willing to learn what is effective on there. Quick one- or two-words tips:
    • Facebook page: SHORT CONTENT, LINKS TO LONG CONTENT, HUMOR
    • Instagram: 30 HASHTAGS, BE REAL

How can I contribute intellectually and maybe even academically to apologetics? Should I write?

  • Tim Stratton: I encourage apologists to know the content and share it in live settings and in writing whenever possible. However, apologists can raise the standard if we all strive to advance the conversations through research and unique arguments of our own. This is best accomplished through writing. If you don’t have a website send your writings to guys like me who might be interested in publishing your piece on their website. If one is in a position to do so, get a degree in apologetics, philosophy, or theology. This option, however, is not always available. If it is not feasible to get a degree in a related field, then “study to show yourself approved” (2 Timothy 2:15) and educate yourself to be the best apologist possible. Guys like Eric Hernandez, Jonathan Thompson, Evan Minton, Ricardo Martinez, and Chan Arnett (and many more) exemplify this beautifully. None of them have any official letters behind their name, but they are all brilliant minds who can go toe-to-toe with any Ph.D. They push themselves as if they were PhD candidates. I learn much from each of them.
  • Matt Schmidt: My personal answer is most likely not, but maybe.  Though it seems to be the attraction for many people who get into apologetics and philosophy, the greater need (by far) is for average people in the church and outside of it.  We would be better served with more apologists focusing their attention in that direction. That said, there are some who absolutely should pursue higher level academics and higher-level writing.  That percentage is fairly small though. The bottom line is that most academic fields are highly competitive to even get into PhD programs and often a small number of PhD grads are getting solid jobs because of their PhD.  It is not a demotion to serve the church more hands-on (academics can serve the church as well), but it is a different path that requires a different mentality.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: What I recommend is to pick an argument or subject and stick with it for years at a time. Do you like the moral argument? Great! Learn everything you can about the different versions, various objections, etc. Read everything you can get your hands on. Follow Dr. Craig’s example. He spends years and years studying one topic at a time. Why does he do that? Trying to be maximally informed on everything all at once is too ambitious. Contribute intellectually by taking philosophy seriously.

What kind of person should pursue a solo ministry, and what kind of person should pursue a team-based ministry?

  • Tim Stratton: I can only speak for myself, but although I am the founder and executive director of FreeThinking Ministries, I sure enjoy being a part of a team! Scott Olson is the “voice of FTM” as he cohosts the FreeThinking Podcast. Timothy Fox, Jonathan Thompson, Adam Coleman, Shannon Byrd, and Jacobus Erasmus are a joy to work with as we all do ministry together (two more scholars are slated to officially join the FreeThinking team this summer)! There are also many guest contributors from around the world who have become an extension of the FreeThinking family like Kyle Barrington (world traveler), Johnny Sakr from Australia, John Limanto from Indonesia, Robert Oram from the UK, and Steve Williams from Hawaii (Does Hawaii count?) along with many others. We regularly communicate with each other, bring forth challenges, and work toward sharpening the team as a whole. Think about it: Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor all make great stand alone movies, but combine them as a team and you have The Avengers which is much more exciting! Having a team allows the ministry to cover many more topics than one guy can do alone (unless your name is William Lane Craig)! The key, however, is finding guys that you “click” with.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: I might step on people’s toes here, but I would say that if you’re not a professional or haven’t gone to school for philosophy/apologetics, you probably need to do team-based. (That won’t apply in every case, but as a general rule.)
  • Jeremy Linn:
    • Solo – you need to be committed to put time in. Are you wanting to do social media? If so, are you task-focused? If not it may be hard to go solo on that. Solo however does allow you to focus on your “x” – that thing that will separate you from other ministries and will draw people in to what you have going on.
    • Team – If you have a group that meets personally this makes perfect sense. Your strengths can build off each other. You can designate areas to leaders, i.e., I am mainly social media, and the other leader is mainly meetings. We couldn’t do all that we’re doing without the team aspect being there.

What is it like having/being support staff?

  • Tim Stratton: I am currently doing FTM full-time and have one part-time guy (Dr. David Oldham) who does research for me and helps to raise finances. We meet one or two times per week to study together. I also have a fantastic board that handles many of the BIG things which frees me up to do more research, writing, teaching, preaching, and ministry in general. As mentioned above, the FTM contributors also act as support staff. As of now, they act as volunteers. It is such a blessing to have this team of guys surrounding me.
  • Scott Olson: Because apologetics is not my main focus, it’s awesome just being able to donate a little bit of my time and expertise to a ministry that I fully believe in.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: It’s amazing. The guys that help run our ministry on a daily basis are invaluable. Learn to delegate responsibility early on or else you might burn yourself out.

How can a new apologist stay in love with Jesus and not grow cold toward God?

  • Tim Stratton: Always keep Jesus in mind. Talk to Him over a cup of coffee before you begin your studies for the day. Ask Him to teach you. Depend upon Him! This approach has been so beneficial for me. In fact, the more I have increased in my knowledge of apologetics; the more my love has grown with God. For example, I remember the first time I grasped the Kalam – I began to cry tears of joy and I began to praise Him! I saw a bigger and more beautiful picture of God and it brought me to worship. Moreover, make sure to continue to attend, be a member, and serve a local church! Make sure to take part in worship services and do not take for granted the assembly of believers (Hebrews 10:25). Study God’s Word and keep talking to God!
  • Scott Olson: It’s important to always keep in mind why we do apologetics. If the point of us doing apologetics is to make ourselves look smarter or better, then we’ll quickly grow away from God. But, if we genuinely want to equip other believers and ourselves to bring more people into the kingdom of God, then I believe apologetics can only help us in our walk of faith.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: Plain and simple. Study your Bible, study apologetics, but make sure to spend time in prayer. There is no substitute for a healthy prayer life.
  • Travis Pelletier: Continue the spiritual disciplines of Church, prayer, and devotional time. STUDYING APOLOGETICS IS NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR ANY OF THESE THINGS! Sorry for all caps, but this point is so important that it deserves a yell. Also, it is so helpful to have friends who love Jesus that you spend time with regularly. I mean people who love Jesus, not just people who love theology. Finally, as someone who loves secular music, I’ve found that Christian music can absolutely refocus my mind on Christ in a way that secular music doesn’t.
  • Jeremy Linn: Spending time with God is key, although that can be hard for me as I have late nights some times. Acknowledging and receiving God’s grace when I “screw up” has been helpful too — and also journaling about what God is doing through the ministry and in my life in general. This is most certainly a topic I’m still wrestling through.

Beginning a new ministry often takes a lot longer than most of us want, and we often don’t get to see much fruit right away. What words of encouragement do you have for new ministries?

  • Tim Stratton: It is literally a one-day at a time journey. My son, Ethan, is sophomore and a wrestler on one of the best High School teams in the nation. Although he has been wrestling since he was four-years-old, just last year I encouraged him to have one simple goal: improve by one percent every practice. That does not seem like much, but if one takes this approach in just a few weeks, he will be an utterly transformed wrestler. Ethan took my advice and the improvement we have seen over the last year – since he adopted the “one percent philosophy” – is comparable to the improvement he made over the past decade of wrestling. In fact, Ethan won the KHS Most Improved Wrestler of the year award! All these little “one percents” add up quickly. That is my approach to apologetics too. I have been utterly transformed by the renewing of my mind (Romas 12:2). I look forward to the continual transformation ahead. I have a long way to go but I have already traversed more ground than I ever thought possible. I encourage you to adopt my “one percent philosophy” and see what happens!
  • Scott Olson: Keep any goals you set to 18 months or sooner. Personally, I like 90 day goals. If you try and set 5 year goals, you’re always going to be discouraged by how far away that seems. Besides, no one knows what’s going to be happening 5 years from now. Set 90 day goals for where you want your ministry to be, and every day take some actionable step toward achieving that goal. If, at the end of the day, you’ve moved one step closer to your 90 day goal, you’ve won the day. And if you win every day, you’ll win the week. And if you win every week you’ll win the month. And if you win every month, you’ll win the year. And that’s what winners do: they win.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: If your ministry has stayed stagnant in terms of viewership, engagement, etc., most likely you’ve neglected the importance of marketing. The good news is that it can be fixed. Pick up some books on marketing. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is, as we all know, the definition of insanity. Playing it safe is not what God wants from you. He wants you to use your talents creatively (see the Parable of the Talents, Matt 25:14-30). Ask yourself: are you like the man that doubled what he was given, or are you more like the man that took his talent and buried it? The second route is definitely safer, and requires less effort, but as the Parable of the Talents demonstrates, quite colorfully I might add, that’s simply not an option. Don’t waste your talents but neglecting marketing.
  • Travis Pelletier: Apologetics has often been called “pre-evangelism.” In other words, apologetics prepares people to hear the gospel. This means that apologists often don’t see the results of their work, simply because the result of their work might simply be a change in attitude toward faith which only blossoms much later. So, don’t let a lack of clear fruit discourage you.
  • Jeremy Linn: The fact that you are doing this puts you ahead of like 99.9% of Christians in apologetics engagement. That’s quite significant in itself. Comparing your status with other ministries can be discouraging. Instead, stay in continuous prayer with God and note the things he is doing in your own situation, whether big or small. With social media, consistency is the main thing, and over time people will recognize your dedication and passion to the ministry and will take action as a result.

Final thoughts: do you have anything else you want to say to new apologists?

  • Scott Olson: You have something to contribute. Even if you don’t feel like an expert in anything, trust me, you are an expert to someone. All it takes to be considered an expert is to know more than your audience does about what you’re talking about. If you’ve only studied apologetics for 6 months, then your target audience should be brand-new apologists. You know more than them, and so you can provide them with valuable content. And over time, the number of people you can be an expert for will grow, and thus your ministry will grow.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: Make sure that your motivations for starting an apologetics ministry are pure. This isn’t about starting a platform that you can use to belittle people. It’s not about intellectual domination. As Paul said to the Corinthians, “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” Make sure that you are doing this for the right reasons. And on top of that, have a great time doing it! Oh, and btw, Christianity is true.
  • Travis Pelletier: One warning: Avoid theological hobbyhorses. You may think that eschatology, or reformed theology, or the age of the earth are important. I know that I do. But these issues are NOT the gospel, nor are they required for a defense of the gospel. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t talk about them, just that they shouldn’t be a primary topic in apologetics. Keep the central things the central things.
  • Jeremy Linn: Don’t lose your mission for sake of popularity. Personal connections are important even in online ministry. Know that this is going to be a big commitment but if God has truly given you this passion, the commitment and time is worth it.

 

Jordan is a Christian, the husband of Tarah, an evangelist-apologist with Ratio Christi, a volunteer with Engage 360 and Reasonable Faith, and an aspiring philosopher studying at Southern Evangelical Seminary. His intellectual passions include the study of free will and the doctrine of heaven. His ministry passions are to share the love of the Gospel and to equip ordinary Christians to do the same. Other interests include sports (especially Ultimate Frisbee), time management, veganism, peanut butter, and personality theories.”

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2FXchBv

/by
Meet the New Apologists (Part 1)

Meet the New Apologists (Part 1)

By Jordan Apodaca

God is doing an awesome work around the world. He is calling His church back to the defense and proclamation of the Gospel and you get to be a part! If you’ve been Apologetics sites like this one for a while, my guess is that you have an itch. There is a deep yearning within your soul to take the apologetics knowledge you’ve accumulated and use it to minister to others.

“Yes, you’re quite right. But do I know enough?”

If you could give me a basic five-minute explanation of God’s existence, Jesus’ resurrection, and the problem of evil, and if you’re humble and willing to trust God for this journey, then you are ready. The world is dying because of “lack of knowledge” (see Hosea 4:6). You have that knowledge! You know the Gospel, and you know that it is true! The world and the church need that knowledge!

“But how in the world do I start?”

Well, let’s ask seven thinkers who are relatively new to the apologetic scene! These are all apologists who have begun young and thriving apologetics ministries. In this first post, we will meet the apologists and hear the stories of how God led them to begin their ministries, what that looked like, and what makes their ministries unique. In the next post, we’ll hear them share advice on a broad range of topics, from how to reach local churches to picking names to finding a niche. But first, let’s meet the “new apologists!”

Tim Stratton (Free Thinking Ministries)

Q: Who are you? How did you get into apologetics? And how did you decide to begin an apologetics ministry?

My name is Tim Stratton. I never really thought that much about apologetics until after being in full-time youth ministry for several years. This was because teenagers and college students were asking hard questions and raising tough objections against Christianity. I had no idea how to answer the good questions of many students. I tried ignoring them, then telling them to simply have more faith or “just believe harder.” This ultimately backfired and many of them left the church. Some lost their faith and became atheists.

God used this to spark something in me. I started listening to Dr. Craig’s Reasonable Faith podcasts every day. Sometimes I would listen to several episodes in one day. If I did not comprehend the topic I would listen to that episode over, and over, and over, and over – and over, and over again until it “clicked.” After completing all the podcasts I realized I needed more so I enrolled at Biola University and majored in Christian Apologetics in the MACA program.

I did not really decide to start an apologetics-based ministry. It just sort of happened. Or perhaps I should say, “God did it!” I was content to continue pastoring at my church in Nebraska and trying to influence students and others in the congregation by sprinkling my sermons with “apologetics goodness” (like a Tim Keller). But then, one day in early April (2015) I went to go meet with my tax guy. He was aware of the online presence I had via social media. He asked me if I had ever thought about starting an apologetics-based ministry. I thought something like that could never happen, but he asked me to do him a favor and dream about it and to also write up a proposed job description along with a mission and vision for what “Tim Stratton Ministries” might look like. I really thought this was a waste of time but I typed something out and brought it back to him a couple days later. To my surprise, two weeks later I was having breakfast with my tax guy (he is a CPA), a couple successful businessmen, a lawyer, two pastors from the area, and a couple profs from the local university. I sat back and listened to them discuss finances, 501c3 stuff, a website, and more. Then they turned to me and asked, “So, Tim, do you want the job?”

This still seems surreal to this day and I can only give credit to our sovereign God!

However, if I had to give any advice (and in a nutshell) I would point out that FreeThinking Ministries began to exist because God led me to be a forceful presence on Facebook and social media. I would constantly defend the faith of Christians — especially young Christians — whenever I saw the opportunity. Eventually parents started tagging me in threads in which atheists were attacking their kids. This online battle for the mind was noticed by many and eventually a few of these guys asked me to start a website as a resource. This eventually turned into FTM.

Q: What Else Should We Know About You?

My wife Tia, and I have one son Ethan who is currently a sophomore in High School (and a great wrestler). Besides theology and apologetics, I love to spend time with my family. I enjoy working out with my wife and doing mixed martial arts with his son. I used to compete professionally in martial arts and had a successful coaching career in MMA. I also was an accomplished bass player in several Christian rock bands and I continue to occasionally record as a studio musician. I have recently taken up competitive pistol shooting. I love watching football, basketball, superhero movies and Star Wars!

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

Probably the one thing that sets FreeThinking Ministries apart from all the other apologetics-based organizations is our heavy emphasis on libertarian freedom (commonly referred to as free will) and how Molinism (a view explaining God’s sovereignty and human freedom/responsibility) answers so many apologetics-related questions. FTM definitely discusses a plethora of other issues, but a majority of our content defends the truth of Christianity through the lens of Molinism.

Q: Did you know from the beginning what would make your ministry unique? Or did you figure it out on the go? Explain how you came to focus on what you focus on.

Answer: It was definitely “on the go” for me! I did know that I wanted to push what I refer to as the “Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism,” but I had no intentions of writing so much about Molinism. This was a byproduct, however, of advancing the Freethinking Argument because so many Christians who opposed the idea of libertarian free will attacked the Freethinking Argument which was aimed at atheists. I thought this was odd since the argument is against naturalism and eventually seeks to show that the biblical view of God is the best explanation of the free will possessed by humanity. I never thought that my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ would attack my argument more than atheists. To counter this unexpected problem I appealed to Molinism. In fact, I changed the focus of my PhD work from philosophy and metaphysics to systematic theology so that I could study Molinism in depth.

Q: How do I pick a name for my ministry? How important is having a good name?

See my above answer.

Yes, I think it is good to have a unique name. Some of the men who helped start my ministry really thought I should name it “Tim Stratton Ministries.” I felt that this was a bad idea for several reasons. The primary reason is that I hope FreeThinking Ministries becomes bigger than just one guy (this is also why I developed a team and love to post guest blogs).

Scott Olson (Free Thinking Ministries)

Q: Who are you? How did you get into apologetics? And how did you decide to begin an apologetics ministry?

My name is Scott Olson, and I’m the director of media content for Freethinking Ministries. I’m also one of the hosts of the Freethinking Podcast which I cohost with Tim Stratton. I was first introduced to apologetics when I was in junior high. We watched a series of videos called TrueU (at least I think that’s what it was called) by Dr. Stephen Meyer for Sunday School, and I was riveted by the arguments being made for theism. That curiosity continued into high school when I first read half of Dr. William Lane Craig’s book On Guard. I don’t entirely remember why I ended up not finishing that book at that point, but I do remember finally finishing it my sophomore year of college. From that moment on, I couldn’t stop talking and reading about apologetics and theology. I managed to get several of my friends into it, and we began meeting and studying the arguments and evidence together. I suppose I haven’t ever started an apologetics ministry, but Tim and I had become acquaintances through my brother and so when Tim reached out and asked if I’d like to help out, I jumped at the opportunity. I managed to convince Tim to do a podcast with me, and we’ve been going at that for awhile now.

Q: What Else Should We Know About You?

I’m fascinated by marketing, persuasion, and influence, and I think that’s an area where Christians could use a stronger focus. For that reason, I’ve been taking a bit of a break from any hardcore studying of apologetics and I’ve been focusing on how we as Christian apologists can better articulate the importance of doing strong apologetics within the church.

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

Answer: I would say our ministry is the most prolific in terms of its defense of libertarian free will. Tim is constantly writing on the subject, applying it to numerous apologetics and theological issues, as well as talking about it with me on the podcast.

Q: How do I pick a name? How did you pick your name for your ministry? Are you happy with the name? How important is having a good name?

Answer: This might come as a surprise, but I don’t think the name of your ministry is nearly as important as you might think. The number of people who will come to be familiar with your ministry as a result of your name is really not that many. What’s much more important is that you create valuable content, and that those who read your content truly believe in what you’re doing. Your audience sharing your content is what will contribute the most to your growth, so I wouldn’t fret too much about the name. I suppose some good advice might be to pick a name that accurately reflects the niche you’ve chosen. Spell out the solution to the problem you solve in your name if at all possible.

Matt Schmidt (Engage 360)

Q: Who are you? How did you get into apologetics? And how did you decide to begin an apologetics ministry?

My name is Matt Schmidt.  I have an incredible wife and four young children.  My wife and I moved to Charlotte, NC for me to attend Southern Evangelical Seminary and have ended up settling here for the foreseeable future.

I had a great family growing up, and my parents instilled a lot of really great values in us.  We grew up in Nebraska and attended a conservative, mainline Lutheran Church until I was 12 or so.  I always had a lot of questions and remember challenging the pastor even when I was younger. By the end of high school, I would have considered myself an atheist, though a fairly moral atheist, believing that science had enough answers that you did not need God.  That combined with a comfortable middle-class life with loving parents, success in academics, success in sports, and a wide social circle created a situation with no existential need for God. For me it was just a matter of if it was true or not. That was it.

I had a lot of questions about how we got the Bible, whether science could prove that we don’t need God, and others.  I did not find Christians that were able to answer any of these questions. To keep the story short, over a period of about three years early on in college, I went from atheism, to deism (though I did not know that word at the time), to theism (though I did not know the distinction from Deism), to Christianity, to actually understanding the Gospel.  This was largely on my own. I heard the Gospel through the radio ministry of Alistair Begg and began listening to his show more regularly. One time I left it on after and hear R.C. Sproul’s Renewing your Mind.  I was amazed and excited that there were other people (even Christians) asking and answering the kind of questions I had wrestled with for years on my own.  I immediately became an apologetics junkie. I ended up also hearing Ravi Zacharias on the same channel and started purchasing books on a regular basis.

How I ended up starting an apologetics ministry is a bit of a complex story, so I will give a brief version.  I entered seminary to study philosophy, theology, and apologetics. I did not have any clear intention of getting a “job” because of my degree.  I just wanted to learn and be more prepared in my life, to serve whatever church we were a part of, and be more effective at sharing with others.  A few years into my studies, I was asked to take over a local chapter of a new apologetics-based campus ministry that had started out of Southern Evangelical Seminary called Ratio Christi.  I was then asked to join the National Team of Ratio Christi overseeing hiring and new chapter formation. After four years and overseeing close to 200 people coming into the organization, circumstances required that I had to take a new direction.

One conviction I had throughout much of my time in Ratio Christi was a frustration over the disconnect with the church and its integration of both apologetics and evangelism.  Most of our chapters were doing great work with their students but churches were not interested for the most part, even in situations where the local directors were working to establish relationships.  I had been thinking about how we could better serve the local church and how crucial they were to the long-term success of what we were doing in Campus Ministry with students who cycled out every few years.  Once it was clear I was needing to change directions, more directly addressing the need of apologetics-evangelism in the local church was a very clear direction. I was immensely blessed with a large number of people whom I had been laboring alongside for several years who had this same conviction and Engage 360 went from an idea to an official para-church ministry quite quickly.

Q: What Else Should We Know About You?

I am an untrained entrepreneur at heart, and I love doing things as a team.  True teamwork is immensely valuable, and it takes much more than having a group of people trying to do the same thing to have a team.  A healthy team can emphasize everyone’s strengths and largely cover up each person’s weaknesses. I love taking on new challenges and figuring out how to solve them.  I am very passionate about helping all Christians understand that they can be more effective at understanding and sharing their faith no matter what their individual gifts and abilities are.

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

As far as apologetics ministries go we are unique in our focus on hands-on, guided evangelism training by focusing on how to have spiritual conversations in everyday life.  Our training is highly interactive and focused on modeling how to put the apologetics evangelism content into practice in everyday life. Relative to most Evangelism ministries, we are unique in our emphasis on not taking a one-size-fits-all approach but asking questions to learn who a person is and presenting Christianity and the Gospel in light of who that person is (which means a variety of other “methods” can be effective if used in the right way with the right person).  Working with the same basic training concepts, we are offering three ways of accomplishing our vision of helping people have spiritual conversations in everyday life. First through hands-on church training, second through geographically based online communities, and third through University outreach events (which will combine church training and an online community with a multi-day outreach event on a University campus).

Q: Did you know from the beginning what would make your ministry unique? Or did you figure it out on the go? Explain how you came to focus on what you focus on.

I knew before we started that it was fairly unique in that most apologetics ministries to the church were focused on events, lectures, and conferences.  These are really valuable, but we saw a gap in people actually applying what they learned in everyday life, so we zeroed in on that as our focus. Charlotte has no lack in apologetics-based training, but even with the churches that emphasized apologetics there was a disconnect between getting people to use their apologetics knowledge in everyday conversations.  We wanted to try to focus on a very entry level approach that was something anyone could benefit from and use in their lives. We trust that those who begin the process with us will continue to grow and will most often get deeper into apologetics as time goes on. We are trying to offer a very practical, “entry level” onramp into apologetics evangelism.

Q: How do I pick a name? How did you pick your name for your ministry? Are you happy with the name? How important is having a good name?

That is a really hard one.  I was stuck on a very descriptive name for our ministry that was way too long but it said what we were doing so well.  My incredible wife rescued us and came up with the name Engage 360 as a way of summarizing: Engage the whole person, take them through a whole training process, that they can be effective in their whole life.  It is helpful to have a simple descriptive word that can be used in many ways. Engage is becoming more of a buzz word and does a good job of saying what we are about in one word. It also can be used in different formats.  For instance, our podcast will be called Engage Your World.

Cameron Bertuzzi (Capturing Christianity)

Q: Who are you? How did you get into apologetics? And how did you decide to begin an apologetics ministry?

Hi, I’m Cameron Bertuzzi. I’m a professional photographer and Christian apologist. I stumbled into apologetics back in 2012 when I learned that my brother had become an atheist. I worked through a period of doubt myself while attending Bible school a few years earlier, and figured, quite wrongly, that my brother’s doubts could easily be resolved. Boy was I wrong! His questions far outstripped what I was prepared to answer. After our initial conversation, I decided that I would get to the bottom of this. I wanted to know for myself whether Christianity could be rational. In my research, which has now spanned over the course of several years, I’ve discovered that Christian belief is entirely rational and that there are very good answers to the questions and objections he raised.

I started Capturing Christianity (CC) primarily as a place to blog and start practicing my writing. At the time, back in 2016, I didn’t think CC would grow beyond that. But 2 years later, the ministry has quite literally exploded–not just in our viewership, but in the kind of content we produce. We’ve moved beyond blog posts and now have a podcast, host live discussions between Christians and non-Christians, and film high quality interviews with professional philosophers and apologists. We have big plans for the future, too! God is good.

Q: What Else Should We Know About You?

You should probably know that I have a beautiful wife and two adorable children. Another fun fact: Cameron is my middle name. My full name is Richard Cameron Bertuzzi.

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

There are at least 5 things that make us unique. First, CC is unique aesthetically. All you’ve got to do is look at our website or watch any of our interviews to know what I’m talking about. My background in photography has set pretty high standards for the way we present our content. Second, CC is not all about Cameron Bertuzzi. There’s a term one of our board members came up with that I like: Platform Model. CC is really a platform to showcase the work of other thinking Christians. Third, our social media presence, at least on Facebook, is unparalleled. Our posts get commented on, shared, and liked more than ministries that have twice as many followers (as I’m writing this, we’re just now passing 7,000 likes). Check out our Facebook page to see what I mean. Fourth, our content is philosophically informed. Part of what’s great about having a platform model is that a lot of the content we produce comes from actual professionals. Even the stuff I write, I try to make it as informed as I can. Lastly, what makes Capturing Christianity unique is Cameron Bertuzzi. I don’t mean for that to sound haughty or arrogant, but that’s something that other ministries don’t have. In the same way, part of what makes Reasonable Faith unique is having William Lane Craig. God has gifted us each with unique abilities. It’s our job to take the talents and gifts that God has given us and creatively further the Kingdom (see the Parable of the Talents).

Our target market is Christians who are interested in apologetics. That sounds straightforward, but it’s actually pretty specific. On our website and in our podcast we typically mark the difficulty level for our content. The difficulty we produce most regularly is ‘intermediate.’ There’s a reason for that. Part of what it means to expose the intellectual side of Christian belief is to bring the very best ideas to light. It’s just a fact that many of those ideas are highly nuanced and complex. We do what we can to summarize, but what often happens is that the content ends up requiring some existing background knowledge in apologetics. And we’re okay with that. The ultimate goal is to expose the intellectual side of Christian belief.

Q: Did you know from the beginning what would make your ministry unique? Or did you figure it out on the go? Explain how you came to focus on what you focus on.

Answer: I knew from the beginning that our website would be pretty, but I did not know that social media would be our thing. If you can believe it, I wrestled with the idea of starting a Facebook page. I’ve started other pages in the past, I even have one for my personal photography page (Bertuzzi Photography), but none of them were very successful. CC is an enigma. It started out as a place where I would just share blog posts and do my best to get likes and shares. I used it solely as a marketing tool. But nowadays it’s a place to share ideas, start conversations, and even meme.

The platform model (mentioned in the previous question) is also something that came later. Not much later, but definitely later. As I said, CC started out as a blog for my own thoughts. Everything else we do developed organically.

Q: How do I pick a name? How did you pick your name for your ministry? Are you happy with the name? How important is having a good name?

Once I became comfortable with embracing my identity as a photographer, the name ‘Capturing Christianity’ soon followed. I knew that I didn’t want “Apologetics” in the name because most people have no idea what that means. That’s also the reason it’s not in our tagline (ie: Exposing the intellectual side of Christian belief.)

Selecting a name is important, but don’t spend too much time thinking about it. My wife and I have started several businesses over the course of our marriage that never panned out. Don’t get me wrong–we learned a lot from those experiences, but countless hours were spent thinking about what to name our business when what we should have been thinking about was how we were going to make it successful. Success in business has way more to do with discipline and execution than it does having a clever name (e.g., “Google”).

Travis Pelletier (Ratio Christi)

Q: Who are you? How did you get into apologetics? And how did you decide to begin an apologetics ministry?

My name is Travis Pelletier, I got into apologetics when I first read C.S. Lewis at 12 years old. I ended up rejecting my faith in College and regained it through a deeper study of apologetics. I decided to begin an apologetics ministry when I saw that my experience of doubt was very common, and that there was a huge need for apologetics Training.

Q: What Else Should We Know About You?

I’m married to a beautiful wife, and I have a 1 year-old son!

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

Our ministry is focused on reversing the trend in which Christian youth walk away from their faith in College. We do this by 1) Starting apologetics clubs on campus to discuss the evidence for and against the Christian faith, 2) Getting into high schools to prepare students before they get to college, and 3) Getting into churches to teach parents how to strengthen the faith of their children.

Jeremy Linn (Twin Cities Apologetics)

Q: Who are you? How did you get into apologetics? And how did you decide to begin an apologetics ministry?

I got into apologetics after a winter conference I went to with the organization Cru. At the conference they had a seminar based on the book Reason for God by Timothy Keller. I got interested in the arguments for God’s existence, as I grew up in an area where Christianity was always assumed to be true and those things weren’t discussed. Then I went into a “crisis of faith” mode a few months later after getting into online debates with Atheists, and started an investigation into the truth of Christianity.

I decided to start an Apologetics ministry after a friend who is passionate about Apologetics and I talked about the idea of starting an Apologetics group. That was it. But over time as conversations about it with others started to happen, the vision of the group expanded beyond anywhere we expected at the time.

Q: What Else Should We Know About You?

I went to UW-Green Bay for an undergrad and accounting. I work full time as an accountant right now along with co-leading the ministry, focused on the social media side of things. I also go to Bethel Seminary for their Christian Thought masters degree program.

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

We are the only ministry of its kind in the Twin Cities… and there are MANY Christian ministries here. What I mean is, we are the only ministry (outside the university) that provides training specifically for Apologetics to Christians in the area.

Q: Did you know from the beginning what would make your ministry unique? Or did you figure it out on the go? Explain how you came to focus on what you focus on.

In a sense we didn’t know what would make it unique, and thought it wouldn’t attract much interest. But then when we started talking to people about it, we realized it was something that wasn’t provided in our area, and people were seeking opportunities to be built up in Apologetics.

Q: How do I pick a name? How did you pick your name for your ministry? Are you happy with the name? How important is having a good name?

I gave some ideas for a name earlier. I picked the name after starting to brainstorm, writing down Twin Cities Apologetics, and pretty quickly realizing that nothing is going to top it. It came from the idea that there is a gap in the cities for Apologetics, so we are going to fill the gap with this ministry. I’m not extremely happy with the name because it doesn’t create too much appeal for our content for people outside the area. I start to question if we should have gone with a more general name, but then that brings me back to the idea that we would just be like any other apologetics ministry then. I can kind of go in circles that way. Having a name is one of the most important aspects of starting and growing the name. I mentioned Capturing Christianity earlier – one of the most successful Facebook pages out there. Much of that is because the name – It has alliteration. It is a play on words in light of the fact that the creator is a photographer. And it may appeal to people who don’t know what the word Apologetics means.

Matt Slama (Twin Cities Apologetics)

[He didn’t answer the first two questions; suffice it to say he is the other mastermind behind Twin Cities Apologetics.]

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

Perhaps we are not unique in format or structure. However, we are unique in the sense that we have decided to be a strong point of apologetics here in our own community, the Twin Cities. There is a huge need in today’s church to teach the defense of the Gospel. Talking with pastors here in the Twin Cities, it became very apparent that this is where we need to focus. Reaching outside of the Twin Cities would be an abandonment of our own community.

So, with that, we have 3 areas were we focus: building Christians up who need help with their faith, dialoguing with non-believers, and defending the faith against attacks here in our community.

Q: Did you know from the beginning what would make your ministry unique? Or did you figure it out on the go? Explain how you came to focus on what you focus on.

We never wanted to be unique. We saw the need that we needed to fill and decided on what was going to be the most effective. There is a vast amount of apologetic material online from trained philosophers. Jeremy and I are not trained philosophers. Fortunately, because those resources have been put together by great men and women of God, we don’t need to be. Taking those materials, we decided to train people up in sound doctrine and teaching. Looking at current science and also the philosophy of antiquity, we help people defend their faith and use that as a stepping stone for evangelism.

 

Jordan is a Christian, the husband of Tarah, an evangelist-apologist with Ratio Christi, a volunteer with Engage 360 and Reasonable Faith, and an aspiring philosopher studying at Southern Evangelical Seminary. His intellectual passions include the study of free will and the doctrine of heaven. His ministry passions are to share the love of the Gospel and to equip ordinary Christians to do the same. Other interests include sports (especially Ultimate Frisbee), time management, veganism, peanut butter, and personality theories.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2TBnQC3

/by
The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament

The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament

,

By Ryan Leasure

Most readers of the Bible affirm that the New Testament unequivocally proclaims the deity of Christ. It’s hard to read texts such as John 1:1-4, John 8:58, Romans 9:5, or Hebrews 1:8, and come to any different conclusion. This clarity is why the Council of Nicea (AD 325) affirmed that the Son shares the exact same nature with the Father. That is to say, from the earliest times, the church affirmed the full deity of Christ, and rightly so.

Yet the Jewish expectation was for a human Messiah. After all, the Christ, according to the Old Testament, would come from the human line of David. Wouldn’t it make sense that the Messiah would be human as well?

Be that as it may, while the Old Testament predicts a future human Messiah, I believe it tells us to expect a divine Messiah as well. And to demonstrate this claim, I want to highlight four different texts — two from the Psalms and two from the prophets.

Psalm 45:6-7

Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore, God, your God, has set you above your companions.

Notice a few key points. First, this Psalm is a wedding song and is addressed to a Davidic son who is about to take his bride.

Second, the psalmist addresses this song specifically to “the king” (v. 1) and at the same time calls him “God” (v. 6). That is, this Davidic son is both “king” and “God.”

Third, his description of this king is so superfluous — most excellent of men (v. 2), mighty one (v. 3), majestically rides forth in victory (v. 4), the nations fall at your feet (v.5), reigning eternally (v. 6), and nations will praise you forever and ever (v. 17) — that this cannot be a predictor of any mere human king.

Fourth, while the psalmist declares that this king is God in verse 6, in verse 7, he refers to his God. In other words, another person exists, beyond this king, who is also God. It seems the psalmist is planting Trinitarian seeds in this text.

And finally, the author of Hebrews applies this text specifically to Jesus. In Hebrews 1, the author declares the superiority of Jesus to the angels and then drives his point home in verse 8, “But of the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.” Hebrews emphatically states that it’s the Son who is the eternally reigning God described in Psalm 45.

Psalm 110:1

The LORD says to my Lord: sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

This psalm of David is the most quoted Old Testament text in the New Testament. Jesus, striving to make a point to his contemporaries, references it in Mark 12:35-37 by asking:

Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet. David himself calls him Lord. How then can he be his son?

Jesus wanted his audience to understand the implications of David’s words. How could David refer to the Messiah as his Lord? Wasn’t the Messiah David’s future son? This claim — suggesting the son is greater and more authoritative than David — would no doubt have shocked the Jewish audience who always showed deference to the Father over the son.

Furthermore, notice, under the direction of the Holy Spirit (Mk. 12:36), David distinguishes between LORD (YHWH) and Lord (Adonai). That is, even though the Messiah would be Lord, there is another who is also LORD.

And finally, it was unthinkable, from a Jewish perspective, that a mere human could sit at YHWH’s right hand and rule from a position of authority. Make no bones about it. David said his Son would be divine.

Isaiah 9:6-7

For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace, there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.

Here are a few key points to consider: First, Isaiah exuberantly declares that this son — the one who will reign on David’s throne (an obvious reference to the Messiah) will be called “Mighty God.”

Second, Isaiah tells us that this son will reign eternally when he calls him “Everlasting Father” and tells us that he will uphold his kingdom of “justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.”

Third, the phrase “Everlasting Father” need not throw you off. No such Trinitarian terms existed at this point in redemption history. Rather, the term Father should be understood as one who provides (Job 29:16), guards (Isa. 22:11), and guides (2 Kgs. 2:21). By giving the Messiah the label of “Everlasting Father,” it was just one more way to declare his deity.

Daniel 7:13-14

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Who is this son of man — this human-like figure who also has divine-like qualities? Daniel says he’ll come on the clouds of heaven which is always an expression to deity (Ps. 97:2; Isa. 19:1). This son of man will have all authority, glory, and sovereign power. All the nations will worship him, and his kingdom will last forever! Nobody can read this text and conclude that this Son of Man was not a divine figure.

Interestingly, during Jesus’ arrest, the Jewish leaders interrogated him by asking who he claimed to be. Here is Mark’s description of the conversation:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy.” — Mark 14:61-64

Truth be told, “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite title for himself. And here in Mark 12, Jesus most certainly claims to be the divine son of man figure in Daniel 7. We know this is the case because the high priest tore his clothes and accused Jesus of blasphemy.

The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament

Yes, the Messiah would come from the line of David. And yes, he would be human. But based on these four texts, we can confidently assert that the Old Testament also predicts a divine Messiah. And, of course, this is what we find in the New Testament. Jesus, while human, was fully divine as well.

 

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2CGqRLJ

/by
Seven Aspects of Jesus’s Life that are Historically Certain

Seven Aspects of Jesus’s Life that are Historically Certain

,

By Brian Chilton

When I had struggled with my faith, it was not in the area of science. I believed that science and faith can coexist, and I still do. The God who gave the special revelation of the Bible is also the same God who created the heavens and the earth from no materially existent thing. My struggles were in the area of history. In 1997, I came across a work by a group called the Jesus Seminar (composed of individuals such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, and Marcus Borg) which claimed that the majority of the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels could not be historically verified. I later came to find that the Jesus Seminar had no evidence to support their claims, just their own presuppositions.

However, as I began studying the areas of history, philosophy, and theology, I came to realize that the core details of Jesus of Nazareth’s life can be known with great certainty. One of my professors at Liberty, Gary Habermas, developed what he calls the minimal facts approach. This approach lists out six areas of Jesus’s life that are universally accepted by all historians. He also adds a seventh which holds strong support, albeit less than the other six. So, what are these seven historical aspects of Jesus’s life that can be held with great certainty? They are as follows.

  1. Jesus died on a Roman cross. It is universally accepted that Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion. Even agnostic leaning atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that “The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life.”[1] The Romans were efficient killers. They would ensure that the individuals whom they were instructed to kill died. Otherwise, their lives would have been taken in the victim’s place.
  2. The disciples had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. It may surprise you to discover that nearly all historians accept that the disciples had experiences that led them to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Nearly all scholars agree that something happened on the first Easter Sunday. But what happened is where they differ.
  3. The disciples were transformed by their experiences to the point that they were willing to die for what they knew to be true. People die for what is false all the time. Many individuals have fallen in a war for nations that did not have noble causes. However, it is far different when the person dies for something they know to be true or false. The early disciples were willing to lay their lives on the line, and the lives of those they loved, for what they knew to be true or false. They literally believed that Jesus had risen from the dead.
  4. The resurrection message was promoted early in the church’s history. This is one of the points that excites me. I hope to write my dissertation on this very topic. Throughout the New Testament are early creeds that predate the New Testament documents. One of the earliest is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 which tells of Jesus’s resurrection appearances to the disciples, James, and 500 witnesses at one time. The creedal formulation is extremely early. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, holds that the material goes back “to the early 30s of the Common Era.”[2] James D. G. Dunn holds that the material dates to “within a year or two of the events themselves.”[3] More likely, the creed dates to the very year of Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. This along with Galatians 1:18-19 and the early creeds are among the earliest material in all of the New Testament record.
  5. Paul of Tarsus, the former opponent of Christianity, became a Christian after encountering the risen Jesus. No one denies that Paul of Tarsus had some experience on the road to Damascus which radically transformed his life. What could have transformed this Pharisee of Pharisee who was either a member of the Sanhedrin or one who was on his way to becoming a member (a position that paid extremely well)? Having an encounter with the risen Jesus would have brought such a transformation.
  6. James the brother of Jesus, a former skeptic, became a Christian after encountering the risen Jesus. The same holds true for James the brother of Jesus who was not a follower of Jesus until after the resurrection. James disproved of Jesus’s ministry (see Jn. 7:5) perhaps in part because it was expected that the oldest sibling would take over the family business. Jesus didn’t. Instead, he went on a preaching campaign. James probably felt great resentment towards Jesus during Jesus’s earthly ministry. However, his experience with the risen Jesus changed all that.
  7. The tomb was found empty. While this fact is not held as strongly as the other six, 75% of historical scholars accept that the tomb of Jesus was found empty on the first Easter Sunday. It is also interesting to note that the preaching of the resurrection happened early in Jerusalem. This is compelling because the skeptic would have known where the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea was located. The tomb could easily be checked. Jesus was not there.

More likely than not, as we approach the Easter season, you will encounter shows, books, and booklets that will try to dissuade you from believing that Jesus rose from the dead. The reality is, the best evidence supports not only that Jesus lived and that he died, but that he also rose again from the dead. As James and Paul were transformed by the resurrection of Jesus, so can you! Let us shout in triumph with the angels standing by the empty tomb of Jesus, “He is not here, but has risen” (Lk. 24:6).

Notes

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Why Was Jesus Killed?, Kindle ed.

[2] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? This Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 141.

[3] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2003), 864.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2HI5Bte

/by
Knowledge and Certainty Can You Know that God Exists

Knowledge and Certainty: Can You Know that God Exists?

, ,

Mikel Del Rosario

Do you have to be absolutely certain about something like “God exists” before you can say that you actually know it? Christians who talk about the evidence for God sometimes get frustrated when skeptics challenge a basic premise like “everything that begins to exist has a cause,” by saying that we haven’t explored the entire universe to know if that’s true. Maybe you’ve heard a friend say you can’t actually know anything about God unless you’re absolutely sure about it.

But saying this is an either-or kind of thing is a false dilemma. In this post, I’ll explain why you don’t have to have 100% certainty before you can know that God is real.

No good reason for either-or-thinking

In Philosophy, saying you have certainty about something means it’s impossible for you to be wrong. So, maybe saying “I exist” is one of the few things that fall into that category. But some skeptics say you can’t really know much about anything at all. Others say your beliefs aren’t justified even if they turn out to be true. For them, we can know almost nothing about God and our world since nobody can be absolutely certain about most things. But the idea that knowing something is the same as being absolutely sure about it turns out to be self-defeating. In fact, even though they say we can’t know much about anything, many seem to think they know enough to correct you if you say you know God is real. [1]

Think about it. The hyper-skeptical view is that you can’t say you know that God exists unless it’s impossible for you to be wrong about it. But is there any good reason to say that knowledge is the same as certainty? No. For example, I know that I’m writing this post on my computer. But it’s possible that I’m just dreaming about it. Still, does the mere fact that it’s possible that I’m dreaming means that I can’t know that I’m using my computer? Of course not.

Skeptics think they know something you don’t when they say you’re wrong

The thing is, skeptics, do claim to know certain things. For example, “Since we can’t go back in time to watch the big bang, we can’t know that the universe had a beginning” or “since we haven’t yet discovered every possible naturalistic option, we can’t know that God caused the universe.” These are actually claims to know something. But how do they know that?

Some skeptics have told me that in order for you to know something, you have to be 100% sure that you know it. But can’t you know something even if you aren’t entirely sure that you know it? Sure you can. For example, imagine that you memorized all the correct answers to the review questions in your textbook for class. Even if you’re not sure what questions will be on the quiz, you have a pretty good guess that some of them will be. Unbeknownst to you, every single one of those questions you studied actually make up the entirety of next week’s quiz.

In this scenario, you would actually know all the answers to the questions on next week’s quiz. You’d know the answers to a quiz you haven’t taken yet—even if you don’t realize that you actually know the answers! Turns out, you don’t have to be 100% sure (or even aware) that you know something in order for you to actually know it.

If the evidence for God’s existence seems compelling to you, there’s no need to be shy or tentative about your beliefs. You don’t have to have 100% certainty before you can know that God is real. [2]

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2TOqFVg

/by
Book Review The Beauty of Intolerance

Book Review: The Beauty of Intolerance

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

A few years ago, Sean McDowell gave a talk at the AMP Conference called “The Beauty of Intolerance.” In the talk, he spoke of two different views on tolerance that seem to be clashing in today’s society. He explained how the differences explain much of the political rhetoric of “hate” and “phobias” and “intolerance.” He focused specifically on the Church’s speaking truth in love and how this view is actually the most tolerant. This talk has been one of my favorites for a while. I discovered shortly after I first saw the talk that Sean and his father, Josh McDowell, coauthored a book, “The Beauty of Intolerance,” that went into the topic much deeper and focused on how Christian parents can effectively communicate moral truth to a morally relativistic generation. As a parent and one who defends the objectivity of morality (and, thus, the existence of God), this book was one I dare not pass on reading, which turns out was an excellent decision. Now, before I get to my usual chapter-by-chapter summary review and the remainder of my thoughts, here is the talk by Dr. Sean McDowell that originally caught my attention.

Chapter 1: True for You but Not for Me

The book begins with a fictional conversation between a college student coming home for the holidays and her parents. She and her boyfriend are expecting to be able to stay together in the same bedroom but her parents will not permit it. Both sides get into a heated discussion about morality and tolerance. The daughter wishes her parents to respect her moral decision and allow it even though they disagree, and her parents expect her to maintain the morality she grew up with. The conversation is designed to highlight the differences between the generations regarding the view of morality and tolerance. Josh and Sean McDowell use this as a springboard to begin their investigation into how the generations can respect one another yet still be guided by an objective moral compass.

They begin by pointing out that the different generations tend to recognize different sources for moral truth. One source of truth is God’s nature. It is objective and applies to every person whether they recognize it or not. The second source of moral truth is the individual. It is subjective and applies only to the person who maintains that particular view. The source that a person appeals to will not only affect the moral decisions they make, it will also affect their definitions of many words and phrases. Terms such as “tolerance” and “acceptance” are defined according to the source of moral truth. Drs. McDowell show the differences between the definitions of these words and several others. The two sources of moral truth often clash, and that is what causes much of the tension between the generations.

Chapter 2: When Tolerance Doesn’t Mean Tolerance

The second chapter starts with another fictional conversation; this one is meant to illustrate the difference between two radically different views of tolerance. The authors label the two views as “Traditional Tolerance” and “Cultural Tolerance.” They explain that Traditional Tolerance is grounded in the idea that morality is objective. This means that something is right or wrong whether someone believes it to be that way or not. It applies to all people in all cultures at all times. It has a hierarchy of morality that places some behaviors over others in objective goodness and truth value. Tolerance in this view means that even though people may not agree with another’s views, they are still to respect the other’s views and their decision to live by those views. Essentially, Traditional Tolerance is to love and respect the person despite what they believe and do.

Cultural Tolerance, on the other hand, is grounded in the idea that morality is relative and subjective. Morality is to be determined by the culture or the individual and does not apply equally to all people in all cultures at all times. Nor does this view hold a hierarchy of morality that places the goodness or truth value of one over another. In this view of tolerance, all behaviors and beliefs are equally good, equally true, and should be equally accepted by all people in all cultures at all times. Essentially, Cultural Tolerance is to celebrate the person’s behaviors and beliefs regardless of what they believe and do.

Chapter 3: The Irony: Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance

Ironically, many of those who hold to the cultural view of tolerance end up violating their own view in that they not only refuse to celebrate but instead condemn those who behave and believe differently from them. Yet, these same people do not believe themselves to be in such violation. So, who is truly being intolerant of whom, here? Josh and Sean explain that to answer this question, a standard of morality (thus tolerance) must be recognized by both sides. Just as claims of truth about reality must be tested against the standard of reality, truths about morality must be tested against the standard of morality. The source of morality that all humans are subject to (and can answer this question) is the biblical God. They explain that morality that is grounded in God is not decided by God moment-by-moment but is grounded in His nature. God does not decide what is good and true; He is what is good and true.

There was a point in history when God, as the standard of morality, was accepted in general by western culture, but it has slowly changed over the centuries. The authors take the reader through different periods of time that gradually brought in the change- the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, Darwin’s publication of his book on evolution, and modern rapid technological advancement. They explain how in these periods of time the source for answers in the culture gradually shifted from God to man, encouraged by many legitimate recognitions and much progress in the arts and sciences. However, despite the advancements in these areas, philosophy was regressing from recognizing the existence of objective moral truth to settling for subjective moral truth. This “modernist” philosophy is what many in the culture have adopted today and is the source for the cultural view of tolerance.

Chapter 4: When Anything Goes

Because God is no longer seen as the source of objective moral truth, the Bible cannot possibly contain objective moral truth. In the rejection of objective moral truth by this new culture, the Bible has become more of a “self-help” book. One that is not taken to have any objective truth, but one that is to be subjectively interpreted and applied where the reader is comfortable. Because there is no source by which to judge one action as “good” and another as “evil,” anything goes. Anything and everything a person wishes to do can be considered “good.” Everything from the beheadings carried out by ISIS to the dismemberment of babies moments before they are delivered into this world–all of these behaviors cannot be judged as objective evil because it is the culture, not a source above the culture that determines what is good and what is evil.

Further, because there is no objective “good” or “evil,” what is to be made of injustice? Without an objective standard by which to judge actions, what is “just” and “unjust” cannot be identified either. What we observe and positively identify as “unjust” cannot truly be considered unjust when differing cultures believe that opposite behaviors are “good.” This is one of the many ways that the idea of cultural tolerance goes against our better judgment as human beings. We know that certain actions are objectively evil, and we want to fight to right the wrong and see that injustice is stopped. The authors take the reader back to the early Church and point out that their intolerance of the injustices of the Roman Empire (leaving unwanted children in the streets to die) was objectively evil. No one, who holds to the cultural view of tolerance, can consistently believe that any act is evil or unjust. When they make such a claim of true evil and injustice, they are borrowing capital from the traditional view of tolerance.

Chapter 5: Love Makes It Right

One of the major tenants of the cultural view of tolerance is that love makes everything right. The way that this is expected to be applied is that if you love someone you will affirm whatever behavioral choices they make, no matter how strongly you disagree with them. While Drs. McDowell do agree that love does make right, they highlight the fact that cultural tolerance forces a truncated definition of love, one that focuses merely on the current feelings of the loved one and not their future wellbeing. The one who loves should not affirm a destructive behavior in the name of “love;” for to do so would be to send the “loved” one to their own destruction. This is the exact opposite of the goal of the person who loves them. By not including the future wellbeing of the loved person, cultural tolerance turns love upside down.

The authors explain that the biblical love that one must show involves the ideas of cherishing and nourishing the other person. And in the context of romantic love, one must cherish and nourish the other as they do themselves. These involve not just the present moment but also guarding against things that can hurt in the future and promoting things that will grow the person in the future. The marriage commitment is a commitment to cherish and nourish the spouse. The authors began the chapter with a fiction conversation between two parents and their daughter who wished to be affirmed in her sexual relationship with her boyfriend because they are in love (a fairly common situation in today’s world where the parents’ ideas of traditional tolerance and the children’s ideas of cultural tolerance are at odds). The problem is that the love protects security and commitment, which neither are in place because no commitment has been made between the boyfriend and girlfriend. To claim “love” at that point in their relationship is truly inaccurate, thus to have sexual relations would actually contradict what love is, and for the parents to affirm the relationship would also contradict their love for their daughter.

Chapter 6: True Love

But how do parents deal with such a situation? If they press too hard, they risk alienating their daughter. Can the truth be spoken and love demonstrated in such a way that the daughter can accept it and appreciate it? Josh and Sean emphasize the difference between “doing” and “being.” They explain that every person is created in God’s Image and that gives them intrinsic worth. They also explain that every person is sinful by nature, so that means that they will make wrong choices. Further, the environment and even some genes may make certain choices more difficult for some people than others, but we are still responsible for our choices. This makes for a legitimate distinction between who a person is and what they do. This is the view of traditional tolerance- Personal worth and personal choices are judged independently of the other. Cultural tolerance does not allow such a distinction, so it holds that judgment of one necessarily judges the other the same. To illustrate the beauty and importance of this distinction, the authors take the reader through Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well in John 4. Jesus showed this culturally outcast woman love, respect, dignity, and value, yet he called out her sin- a message that she understood (as evidenced by her reaction) to be loving.

Chapter 7: Know the Truth and Speak It in Love

Every loving parent desires to protect their children from harm. The traditional view of tolerance allows a parent to love their child AND protect (or attempt to protect) them from harmful behaviors, where as the cultural view does not. A truly loving parent wants what is best for their child, and if they do not recognize that the child is making a wrong decision yet they do not address it and allow them to continue on the path, the “love” comes into question. Again, the traditional view of tolerance is quite intolerant of wrong choices yet alerts the person out of love and concern- that is beautiful. Ironically, the cultural view requires that even if a harmful decision is identified that we must permit and even encourage continuing on the harmful path. This is NOT loving and is NOT beautiful. Even though a parent may disagree with a child’s beliefs or behaviors, the traditional view of tolerance allows them to lovingly guide them away from harm.

To conclude the chapter, the fictional conversations that began the previous chapters were revisited. This time the conversations were guided by the parents’ intentional purpose of communicating their disagreement in the context of their desire for what is best (true love- the traditional view of tolerance) and keeping the lines of communication open about the wrong decisions. The new versions of these conversations were successful in keeping minds open and love being communicated. The authors caution that even though these fictional conversations seemed almost effortless, that in reality they require much patience and a long-suffering heart. Sometimes such a parent will be required to walk through the “hometown” of those who they disagree with in order to demonstrate their love and willingness to properly understand where that person is coming from to appropriately communicate the truth that their decision is, in fact, wrong.

Chapter 8: Cultural Tolerance and Education

The cultural view of tolerance is not just an idea that some people in society possess; it has permeated everything from education to government to the Church. The effect on the education system is quite evident when the cirricula are examined. Every subject, from math to history is taught through the lens of cultural tolerance. In many cases, the education system goes so far as to teach that if something cannot be tested then nothing about it can be known factually. Because many different cultures believe certain things that cannot be tested, it is taught, not only that these beliefs have not factual value but, that they are merely opinion, and students must simply accept that.

This is projected onto the students as well. They are taught that their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs have no claim on truth over another student’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. According to modern education, these are all just the product of opinions, and everyone needs to accept and even celebrate everyone else’s opinions. The authors are careful to emphasize that not every teacher is attempting to indoctrinate our kids; however, they do recognize that there are many in the system who are and who do so quite aggressively. This caution is provided not to cause alarm and to pull our kids from the public education system but to encourage us as parents to recognize that we are responsible for our kids’ education and that means that we need to prepare our kids at home to understand that and how such views are incorrect.

Chapter 9: Cultural Tolerance and the Government

Cultural tolerance has also greatly impacted governments in the West. But this is not to be a surprise for the Christian, for there are two kingdoms: the earthly kingdom and the Heavenly Kingdom, each having its own standards. Most of the time, both kingdoms’ standards are similar enough that Christians can live both objectively right and legally right at the same time, but if it ever comes to the time in which they are in conflict, the Christian must follow the Heavenly Kingdom because it is the one that holds to the objective standards that even earthly governments are supposed to follow. Our allegiance should lie with God, the foundation of objective moral truth; not the government, which is subject to the foundation of objective moral truth.

But how are we to respond when the time comes that the relative laws of the land come into conflict with the objective laws of God (such as when same-sex marriage was legalized a few years ago)? Drs. McDowell emphasize that our response must not just be a factual one but one given in love- a love that tells the truth with the person’s best interest in mind and in the context of a loving relationship, with traditional tolerance, not cultural tolerance, at the heart of our communication.

Chapter 10: Cultural Tolerance and Society

Because of the impact that cultural tolerance and moral relativism have had on our society, it is quite common for parents to feel helpless. This feeling of helplessness is often the cause of heated exchanges between parents and their children that leave both sides feeling unloved and disrespected. However, parents can increase their moral impact in their children’s lives by continually reminding them that God ultimately has their best interests and purposes in mind (true love), and His moral commandments are given so that those interests and purposes can be realized in their lives.

How can parents guide their children in their moral choices and focus on God’s loving interests and purposes for their lives? Josh McDowell takes parents through his process of the 4-Cs that he expounds on even more in his book “10 Commitments for Dads,” which has now been added to this reviewers reading list. The 4-Cs are:

1. Consider the choice

2. Compare it to God

3. Commit to God’s way

4. Count on God’s protection and provision

By equipping our children with this process and how to use it, our children can successfully identify when cultural tolerance is guiding them in the wrong direction and can adjust accordingly to God’s perfectly loving interests and purposes for their lives. It is not only important that parents teach this process but model it in their lives, so that their children not only hear it but see it and its results in real-life situations with real people.

Chapter 11: Cultural Tolerance and the Church

One of the things that makes teaching the correct view of tolerance (the traditional view) so difficult is that some of the concepts of the cultural view of tolerance have infiltrated the Chuch. This is not something that was (or even is) intended nor is it something that was (or is) blatant. Church leaders, while holding strong to the inerrancy of Scripture, have unwittingly adopted some of the language of cultural tolerance which communicates the concepts contradictory to what the leaders intend to communicate. Josh and Sean McDowell look at five common phrases that we hear in today’s church that are problematic:

1. The Old and New Testaments are the Bible of the Jewish and Christian faiths.

2. The Bible contains truth designed just for me.

3. There are 101 ways to interpret the Bible.

4. What’s true for you isn’t necessarily true for me.

The Bible is God’s Word, but experience determines interpretation.

Each of those contains is partially true, but they also contain error. Each one, in its own way, implies that either Christianity is not true for all people across all generations and/or that truth is relative. It is important that parents recognize when the language is used and reinforce with their children and in their own minds where the truth is and how it can lead to error if not properly understood.

Chapter 12: You Can Make a Difference

In the concluding chapter, Josh and Sean offer three ways that Christians can be effective in our culture in changing the view of tolerance back to the correct view. They recount instances in their own lives where each one has been successful. They also recommend resources, beyond their own work, that the Christian can use in their efforts. They emphasize that there is no “silver bullet” that will convert a culture or even a single person. This is an effort that can take days, month, or even years. We are called not to convert people overnight but to patiently build truly loving relationships with them and show them the love of Christ not only in our words but also in our lives.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

“The Beauty of Intolerance” certainly did not disappoint. The conversational style (and conversations) that the McDowells used made this book’s deep philosophical ideas easy to comprehend and see how to apply in everyday life. The book keeps the reader engaged from beginning to end. As a parent, at nearly every turn of a page I discovered new ways to effectively communicate truth to my children and teach them how to discern moral truth from error in our relativistic culture. And as someone who discusses moral and political issues frequently with friends, family, and coworkers, I found the content to be extremely valuable. I, no doubt, will be referring readers of this blog back to this book in future posts.

As you can tell, I highly recommend this book for every Christian and especially Christian parents. Whether your kids are still at home or your children are now adults, this book will be invaluable for you and for them as you and they navigate through today’s culture. Once I got through the third or fourth chapter, I placed one of my Top 5 Books posts on hold simply to trade out one of the recommendations for this one. I also have the audiobook on MP3 CD and multiple copies to borrow out and give to fellow parents. Parents, DO NOT pass up this book; you will find it engaging and encouraging, and the philosophical and biblical insights throughout its pages will enhance your relationship with your kids and help you keep their eyes on Christ and remind them that God truly loves them by always having their best interests at heart.

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2TlgYZa

/by
Cashed Out Feminism

Cashed Out: Feminism

,

By Terrell Clemmons

The War Against Sexual Order Has Young Men in Full Retreat

Beware of the sperm-jacker, warns Dean Cardell on the men’s website AskMen.com. She’s “all about getting pregnant and not about being into you.” He identifies five types: (1) the Lesbian, who may at least do you the courtesy of asking for your contribution directly (the others go after it by stealth); (2) the Girl Running Out of Time and (3) the Trapster, both of whom are looking for a “just-add-water” family; (4) Miss Lonely, who needs someone to cling to; and (5) the angry Miss Independent, who nevertheless wants a little one to fill a void. All sperm-jackers have one thing in common: they need something they can only get from a man. Most any man will do.

Cardell’s post has all the class of a Bill Maher rerun, but it does expose a very serious threat to men, as psychologist and men’s advocate Helen Smith, Ph.D., documents in Men on Strike. Take the following cases of nonconsensual insemination: Nathaniel from California, age 15, had sex with 34-year-old Ricci, which, due to his age, was legally considered non-consensual. Emile from Louisiana was visiting his parents in the hospital when a nurse offered him oral sex if he wore a condom, which she conveniently offered to dispose of for him afterward. S. F. from Alabama passed out drunk at the home of a female friend and awoke undressed the following morning. In all three cases, including the one involving the minor, a woman got sperm and, nine months later, a child, and the man got ordered by a court of law to pay support for eighteen years.

Less devious, but similarly amiss, are those cases in which a man, having been betrayed by his wife or girlfriend, was nevertheless held financially responsible for a child genetically proven to be another man’s offspring. While not as sensational as sperm-jacking, it is another form of paternity extortion.

The Assault on Men

Paternity fraud is only one aspect of the larger, decades-long, feminist-incited assault on men to which Smith is attempting to draw public attention. While the feminist movement may originally have been about equal respect for both sexes, what it has morphed into, she argues, is a female privilege. From rape laws that empower women but not the men they may falsely accuse, to divorce laws tilted in favor of the wife, to the feminization of the U.S. education system, men have become the sex under the gun, while women enjoy the status of a protected class.

But unlike their mothers or grandmothers, men today are not taking to the streets burning their undergarments and shrieking demands (thank God). They’re doing just the opposite, which is far worse. They’re going on strike. The strike zones are manifold:

Higher Education. In addition to the enrollment imbalance, which is approaching a 60/40 ratio of women to men, college has become, in the words of one professor, “a hostile working environment [in which] males increasingly feel emasculated.” Smith quotes a student named John, who had this to say about his college experience: “I had already been cautious around women, having grown up with Tawana Brawley in my backyard and daily stories of sexual harassment; I played it safe and passive every time. But it doesn’t matter. The only way not to lose is to not play. So I’m out.”

Work, including community involvement. With higher female graduation rates and salaries, men today are falling behind their fathers economically and professionally. Consequently, their efforts to prove themselves worthy mates through hard work and higher earnings don’t win female attention the way they used to. Discouraged, too many retreat to a man cave, and inertia sets in from there.

Marriage. Marriage rates are down, and honest men opting out will tell you why. Smith cites a Rutgers University study of single heterosexual men which turned up the top reasons they hadn’t married. They can get sex and the companionship of cohabitation without marriage more easily than in times past, and they don’t want to open themselves up to the risk of divorce and financial loss. It really isn’t that complicated a decision. In fact, it’s often not an actual decision at all. It just happens.

Reasonable Reactions

But Smith cautions against any superficial conclusions that attribute all this to male immaturity, laziness, or plain sexual economics. While those things may figure in, the man-child label simply doesn’t stick to the men she actually hears from. On the contrary, she says men are “acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives today’s society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands, and providers.” It isn’t an organized, or even a declared strike. It’s more of a reluctant retreat. Why should they do otherwise? Chris, a thirty-something single man, captured it: “There is nothing in it for me, no incentive and no reason.”

Ironically, feminist demands have had the effect of shrinking the pool of appealing marriage prospects. And scheming women have descended to the grossly abusive and socially malignant shenanigans of sperm-jacking and paternity seizure. Clearly, something has gone terribly wrong.

The Real Conflict

Smith offers men and their supporters two strategies for fighting back (her words). One is to “go, Galt,” a metaphor—taken from the 1957 Ayn Rand classic Atlas Shrugged—for withdrawing one’s labor from the marketplace to keep from being exploited. This is what some men are doing, as the trends indicate. The other strategy amounts to a counteroffensive deploying the same power plays the feminists have used: forming alliances and support groups, lobbying for legislative change, and, short of that, mocking or intimidating opponents.

Smith has written a very important book, and certainly, there’s a place for some of her suggestions. But there’s a shortcoming in both of her strategies in that they are founded on the premise that the main “war” is the one between the sexes. Going Galt is effectively capitulating, which is neither noble nor masculine while deploying counterstrikes is fighting women directly, which is worse. But the combatants in this “war” aren’t so much primary warriors as they are casualties. They—and the children caught in the fray—are collateral damage in a larger conflict: the war on basic sexual order.

Consulting the Past

There is a better way to win. In his article about sperm-jackers, Cardell advises, “Be prepared to draw the line regarding your involvement and your connection to her crazy a$$.” He’s warning men of the potential consequences of (pardon me) wanton ejaculation and advising them to set boundaries and take control of themselves for their own benefit. He doesn’t even mention the potential effects for her or for their potential offspring, which are incalculably profound. Before you get involved, he says, draw the lines. Aside from the crass wording, it’s decent advice.

Sometimes, as former police officer and author J. Warner Wallace has noted, the road to the future we want passes through the past we’ve forgotten. Wallace was writing about the importance of fathers with respect to crime prevention, but the same idea applies to the context in which a man becomes a father.

Once upon a time, there was a custom for drawing the lines in this area of life. Often marked by a special ceremony, it involved promises—promises so solemn they were made before God and witnesses. When kept, they assured the woman of a father for her children and gave the man a companion and progeny to work for and invest in. The result created the best guard against exploitation, both for them and for their offspring. They could cooperate rather than compete, exalt rather than exploit. For battle-weary men and women, there’s no better time than the present to consult the wisdom of the past.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2OgDnpY

/by
Reconciling a God of Love with the Problem of Evil

Reconciling a God of Love with the Problem of Evil

,

By Daniel Merritt

Theologians and philosophers when engaged in explaining the mysteries of life, wrestle with two mysteries that challenge the mind and the soul. Those mysteries have to do with the problem of evil, which has two components: moral evil and natural evil. Of the two, moral evil poses the easiest solution, as we grasp that bad things happen as a result of man’s capacity to choose between good and evil. The choices one makes brings about consequences; bad choices bringing about consequence that can adversely affect the individual who made the choice and have a ripple effect that affects the lives of others.

It is a lot more difficult, though, to provide satisfactory answers in the face of natural evil. Natural evil would include “evil” or “acts” that is the result from natural events that would include floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, disease and other “events” that occur which bring in our lives tragedy, pain, suffering, and even death. Devastating natural disasters in life often leave one pondering: “Where is God in the midst of all this suffering, loss of life, and destruction? It is not fair or just that these often disastrous acts occur (insurance companies call them ‘acts of God’)!”

The age-old dilemma was posed by Epicurus (341-270 BC): “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil, is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” While simplistic answers are not forthcoming, approaching the subject from a Christian perspective does yield some thought-provoking insight. Six will be considered.

First insight, the Bible teaches that the sometimes “bipolar behavior” of nature is the result of The Fall. Natural evil is a result of man’s sin, the consequences of having a ripple affect which reverberates throughout creation. The Bible teaches that natural evil is a consequence of deliberate rebellion against his Creator, the result being that in addition to man being affected by sin, creation suffered negative consequences, as well. The present world is not the way it was created to be. As a result of man’s disobedience to God, pain, suffering and death entered the world. Paul tells us that all creation was affected by The Fall and that all creation groans and is in travail from the consequences of man’s sin and awaits the time when it is freed from the bondage of sin and death (Romans 8:20-22). The sometimes-unpredictable acts of nature were not present prior to sin entering the world. The world is broken as the result of man’s rebellion against his Creator. Creation has been subjected to the curse of man’s sin and as a result, the present world is functioning abnormally from God’s original design, bringing forth “acts” that are a distortion from the way God originally created the world and man.

Regarding the consequences of the curse of sin that affects man and creation, Francis Schaefer succinctly writes, “I do not think Christians take the Fall and the present abnormality of the world with practical comprehension and seriousness. I mean by this that although Bible-believing Christmas certainly do hold to a historical Fall and the present abnormality of the world as a theological truth, when it comes down to living, this is often forgotten. In other words, we forget that everything is abnormal today and that much of the sickness in the world and sorrows in other areas are a result of this abnormality. or to say it another way, there is so much in history that God did not mean to be there, in the way that He created the world and created

man” (Schaeffer, Letters, IL: Crossway Books, 1985, 157). Schaefer’s words are most insightful in regard to the “why?” of natural evil.

Second insight, God respects the freedom of man to choose, whose decisions can lead to dangerous acts of nature being destructive. It is understood there is natural evil/acts in nature that arise through no fault of man, but man’s choices, actions, and neglect can sometimes put people in harm’s way when nature turns dangerous. When man builds houses, and cities on fault lines in earthquake-prone areas the inevitable will happen. When homes are built on the side of mountains that are prone to mudslides the house will eventually disappear from the mountainside. When one builds businesses and homes near flood-prone areas or on the ocean front there is the risk that hurricanes will sooner or later bring devastation. Human freedom allows one to construct homes, businesses and cities being in places susceptible to earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes; however, when one does, acts of nature can result in grave damage and loss of life. Also, if corners are cut on building materials or construction in order to build quickly or cut expenses, the devastation can be even worse. The Lord respects our freedom to plan and create where we choose, even though eventual disaster may lurk in the future. We want the Lord to intervene in such cases, but for Him to do so, He would have to suspend our freedom to choose (John Hick, Evil and the God of Love, London: Saffron House, 1966, 12).

Third insight, God created the world to operate according to certain laws, and even though sin may have skewed some of nature’s laws as originally designed, there is a cause and effect in nature in regard to how the world works. These are more than impersonal forces; behind it all there lays the Creator God. Scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne advocates that God has created a universe with particular natural laws that make life on earth possible for the existence of humanity. Polkinghorne states that while our “knowledge of the physical world is patchy and incomplete,” the same weather systems that create F-5 tornadoes also creates rainstorms that bring water to the needed soil and plants. The same wind patterns that refresh us on a hot day can turn into destructive gale force winds. The same earthquakes that destroy buildings are part of the very dynamic in the regulation of soils and surface temperatures needed for human life. The same kinds of bacteria that can make one sick and even bring death also yields substances that are used to bring healing. As Creator, God has created the world to work in a certain way and even though creation has been affected by sin, what we assume to be inherently bad or unjust contains within its processes that which also brings about good and sustains life (Polkinghorne, Science and Providence: God’s Interaction with the World, Boston: New Science Library, 1989, 3-7). That our Creator God doesn’t change the laws of nature to coincide with our idea of what is good and just brings us to our fourth thought-provoking insight

Fourth insight, in addressing the problem of “natural evil” one must approach it from the perspective that the problem is not with God, but the problem begins with our assumptions about who we think God ought to be, what God ought to do, and how we determine what is just or unjust. We expect God to act in a certain way according to the way we perceive Him. We presuppose that if God is good and omnipotent then “bad” shouldn’t happen, that God should be and act in the way our mind conceives Him to be. However, we define just and unjust from a near-sighted, sin-tainted perspective. Basing whether something is good or bad, just or unjust on the premise of whether it fits into one’s own understanding what those terms mean is not the basis on which such a judgment should be made. One is not to affirm the goodness of God’s

character according to one’s own experience and presupposing. Surely God, who sees all thing from the beginning to the end, sees the bigger picture. His thoughts and ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8).

What appears to be unjust or bad from our rationale, experience and perspective could actually be something that is very good from a longer-range perspective, but we are only seeing from our short-sighted perspective. In our view of God, we tend to project our narrow-sighted view and experiential definitions of good and bad onto God and assume that if He is good, He must be good by our own limited standards of what constitutes good and just. When one says God needs to be “just,” most often one makes such a statement in terms of what one thinks justice ought to be or in relation to what one perceives to be just from one’s restricted viewpoint. In the process, one doesn’t grasp how justice for one might be an injustice to someone else in a different setting or vice-versa. After all, do we only want a God that fits into our box of understanding or One whose basis for what is just and unjust goes beyond one’s limited intellectual capacity?

We also impose within our narrow scope of God’s omnipotence, that He should use His power to conform to our understanding of how His power ought to work in the world and in individual lives. When we superimpose our concept of how God’s omnipotence should operate in the world, we have reduced Him to our level. God’s power is not subservient to our thinking or our whims of how we perceive He ought to operate in the world and in our lives. Our conception of God too often projects our preconceived assumptions onto God whose omnipotence we contend should be within the scope of our control. What we actually want is to manipulate God to fit into our parameters of how we think He ought to flex His powerful muscle over the forces of nature. How much better it is to come to terms with the understanding that God desires to work in us and with us in the world, and help us to better reflect the image of God He has stamped on each soul even when we encounter “acts” that from our perspective are deemed unfair, unjust, or bad (Dennis Bratcher, The Problem of Natural Evil, The Voice, www.crivoice.org, 2018).

Fifth insight, “Natural evil fulfills a higher divine purpose” (Augustine) (Robert Francis Allen, “St. Augustine’s Free Will Theodicy and Natural Evil,” Ars Disputandi, 3:1, 2003, 84-90). Pain, suffering, and disorder associated with natural evil providentially bring about a higher divine purpose in the larger plan of the Lord. Natural disasters often bring out in humanity the very best of human character, as neighbors and strangers aid one another in recovery. While natural disasters are often tragic, glimpses of the marred image of God within us is seen sparkling in the wreckage. As well, it is only after such natural disasters that some people actually have their hearts made tender enough to call on the Lord for help and strength in daily life. Many times only when one’s present situation is drastically changed does one find themselves thinking about the brevity of life, eternity and one’s accountability before the Lord. Further, it is in the aftermath of “acts of God” that one develops positive and strong character traits that would not have been formed if the disaster had not occurred. If difficult times one is prompted to grow stronger and become better human beings. So, even in the midst of disaster, the Lord can direct what appears to be bad or unjust to fulfill a higher divine purpose (Romans 8:28) (Barry L. Whitney, What are they Saying about Evil? Paulist Printing, 1989, 6, 25)

Sixth insight, one whose reasoned reaction to the calamitous effects of natural disasters, instead of disproving the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God is in reality strong evidence for

His existence. In his book Mere Christianity, former atheist C.S. Lewis acknowledged he thought the injustice he perceived in the world was an ironclad argument against the truth of Christianity. But as he reflected on what he considered injustice in the world, he asked himself, “How had I gotten the idea that just and unjust existed?” How can one appeal to an objective standard of just and unjust, if there is not a standard outside of one’s self? For if there is no God and we are only the sum total of a collection of random atoms, one’s appeal to events or acts being declared just and unjust is no better or worse than that of anyone else. Such deducing resulted in C.S. Lewis becoming a Christian and one of the great Christian thinkers and writers of the twentieth century.

While we have sought to look at six insights in regard to the problem of natural evil, ultimately we must acknowledge our inability to answer every question posed. Our finite minds can only take us so far, and we will never be able to penetrate the infinite mind of our benevolent and omnipotent God. It is not a weakness to admit that we do not have all the answers, but this know…in the midst of disastrous acts of nature, God is able, willing and desirous to bring comfort, hope, and encouragement to the hurting heart. He is a God who walked among us in Jesus Christ and He is not oblivious to our pain. Having wept through human eyes (John 11:35), He comes to embrace us in our pain that in His divine providence will bring treasure out of a tragedy.

 

Daniel Merritt received his Ph.D. in Ministry from Luder-Wycliffe Seminary and a Th.D. from Northwestern Seminary. He also received his M.Div. from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and studied philosophy and religion at Campbell University. Dr. Merritt has pastored six churches in North Carolina and is currently the Director of Missions for the Surry Baptist Association in Mount Airy, North Carolina. Dr. Merritt has written several books including A Sure Foundation: Eight Truths Affirming the Bible’s Divine Inspiration; Writings on the Ground: Eight Arguments for the Authenticity of John 7:53-8:11; and Bitter Tongues, Buried Treasures. 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2F5ftcx

/by
If Christianity is True, Why Do So Many Kids Have Doubts Today

If Christianity is True, Why Do So Many Kids Have Doubts Today?

,

By Natasha Crain

Christianity Today recently featured an article titled, “The Biggest Hindrance to Your Kids’ Faith Isn’t Doubt. It’s Silence.”

The article summarized the findings of researchers Kara Powell and Steven Argue on the faith of youth group graduates. They found that:

  • 70 percent of churchgoing high schoolers report having serious doubts about faith.
  • Less than half of those with doubt shared their struggle with an adult or friend.
  • Opportunities to express and explore doubts were correlated with greater faith maturity.

Powell and Argue concluded that, “It’s not doubt that’s toxic to faith; it’s silence.” They go on to explain how important it is for parents to regularly have conversations about faith with their kids, and I couldn’t agree more.

I saw this article shared a lot on social media, with people rightly encouraging one another to have more faith conversations with their kids. But each time I saw it, an underlying question glared at me:

If Christianity is true, why is there so much doubt to be addressed in the first place?

Quite frankly, if I were a skeptic, that’s the question I would be asking after reading this research.

Skeptics often claim that Christians believe what we do in the face of serious cognitive dissonance; that is, they say we have to hold contradictory beliefs in tension because the evidence is against us. This article at least seemed to support the idea that if there is so much doubt, it should make us think twice about the validity of our views.

I’m always happy to think twice, so let’s do it. This is such an important subject for parents to understand today, but I rarely see it addressed.

Why So Much Doubt?

People throughout history have had questions and doubts about their beliefs, and that includes Christians. Christians have long grappled with big theological issues like the problem of pain and suffering, the morality of hell, and why God is seemingly so hidden. These things have led many thoughtful people—adults and kids alike—to have doubts.

But I believe much of the doubt we see today among youth and young adults is very different in nature. It’s doubt that is specifically a product ofcultural factors—not doubt that has arisen after a deep grappling with theology.

Here are five key factors I see.

  1. Kids today have the expectation that knowledge requires absolute certainty.

A dad emailed me recently because he had started to work through my book, Talking with Your Kids about God, with his skeptical 9-year-old daughter. After reading the chapters on the evidence for God’s existence, he said his daughter concluded there’s no certainty in her belief in God, and the discouraged dad promptly put the book away. He felt that I wasn’t forceful enough in my presentation and that, as a parent, he needs to be a more authoritative instructor to share what he knows “with absolute certainty.”

This dad’s revised approach is a tragic conclusion that falls prey to the same common error his daughter made: believing “absolute certainty” is both possible and necessary when it comes to a person’s worldview. This is often the assumption of kids who are analytically-minded, and it’s reinforced by some popular misunderstandings of the role of science today.

As a matter of definition, “absolute certainty” is something reserved for mathematics and logic. Even science—often heralded today as the way of knowing what’s true—does not provide “certain” conclusions. As (atheist) philosopher Walter Kaufmann put it, “What distinguishes knowledge is not certainty but evidence.” There is almost nothing we are “absolutely certain” about in life. If that’s what our kids believe the standard is for evaluating the evidence for the truth of Christianity (or any worldview), they have a dangerous misunderstanding. They’ll have a standard of proof that we don’t use for anything else in our daily lives and our bound to conclude they have too many doubts to believe in God just because uncertainties exist.

This dad’s “authoritative” doubling down on teaching with absolute certainty will likely only serve to push his daughter further away from God because he is setting her up to accept his conviction of certainty rather than help her evaluate the evidence herself. Had I concluded in my chapters that the evidence in nature points to God with absolute certainty, as I think the dad wanted, I would have mischaracterized the nature of evidence. That helps no one, but rather sets kids up to have unreasonable expectations.

Remember: Biblical faith is trusting in what you have good reason—evidence—to believe is true. Hebrews 11:1 says, “Faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” The reason we can have confidence and assurance in our beliefs is because of the strong evidence God has given us for their truth.

  1. Today’s culture validates feelings as objective truth.

At the other end of the spectrum, many kids today completely throw out the idea of evidence and buy into the secular narrative that our feelingsdetermine truth.

If you feel you’ve been wronged, you’ve been wronged.

If you feel something isn’t true, it isn’t true.

If you feel you should have the right to do something, you should.

So what happens if I don’t feel anything during prayer? Or I don’t feel like God was loving enough for my personal standards in the Old Testament? Or I don’t feel like God’s moral commands are fair? Or I don’t feel hell is reasonable?

I then feel the Bible must not be true—without ever looking at the evidence.

Kids who haven’t been shown the weakness of feelings as the arbiter of truth may apply the “feelings test” to their faith and end up struggling with doubt because they haven’t learned to think more deeply about these questions.

  1. When you’re in an ideological minority, it’s human nature to question your views.

Last year, new research showed that committed Christians are now a minority. (I wrote a post about the implications of that for parents here.) When you believe something that is vastly different than what the majority believes, it’s simply natural to question it. Questioning, to some degree, is a function of which side of the numbers you’re on. Though the number of people who hold a worldview doesn’t have any bearing on what’s actually true, it’s human nature to give weight to what more people believe.

Those who hold majority views sometimes don’t question enough, while those who hold minority views sometimes question more than what may be warranted.

  1. The secular viewpoint is quickly becoming the only viewpoint taught in public schools.

This is related to the previous point because the primary place many kids experience the feeling of being in an ideological minority is in the public school system.

Every day, millions of kids head to school, only to be taught a worldview that is directly in conflict with that of Christianity. The breadth of that conflict is rapidly growing as states like California make sweeping revisions to curricula that affirms unbiblical views as the only acceptable views in multiple subject areas. Many people are championing the changes as being inclusive and diverse, but do not be fooled: There is only one view being taught, and it’s not the one held by millions of Christians. Sean McDowell recently wrote an excellent piece on this here. I encourage every parent to read it (not just Californians).

When we send kids to school for an education, they assume they should trust their teachers as authorities. We shouldn’t be surprised when their “authoritative” secular curriculum causes them to doubt what they learn at home.

[Please note that this is not to suggest that all Christians should pull their kids out of public school. There are many factors that go into educational decisions and I don’t believe one solution fits everyone.]

  1. Our culture raises questions about the religious worldview while ignoring the questions raised by a secular worldview.

Having read the many studies done on kids abandoning a belief in God, I’m fully convinced that they’re only thinking through the reasons they’re walking away from Christianity but not the reasons they’re walking toward atheism.

You see, it’s not just a Christian worldview that leaves questions unanswered. There is room for doubt in every worldview because no worldview answers every question. This is why I spent the last six chapters in Talking with Your Kids about God explaining the logical implications of an atheistic worldview, and how that compares with a Christian worldview. I show, for example, that in an atheistic world:

  • There can be no objective meaning of life;
  • There is little reason to believe free will (in any meaningful sense) is possible;
  • There can be no moral obligation to live in or treat others in any particular way; and
  • There can be no “right” or “wrong” in any objective sense (everything can only be a matter of personal opinion because there’s no higher-than-human moral authority).

All of these things are granted by many atheist philosophers—this isn’t my personal “criticism” of an atheistic worldview; it’s the logical outworking of the implications of a godless world.

An honest person should rightly have doubts about a worldview that implies these conclusions.

They go against our most basic intuitions.

But the secular world only questions the religious worldview. Popular culture rarely raises the questions inherent in atheism. This leads kids to a false sense that doubt is specific to religion, or that doubt in itself is a cognitive warning of falsehood. It’s not. When we’re honest, doubt is part of being human. It’s part of how we process the world.

It shouldn’t surprise us at all that so many kids doubt Christianity today, given these and other cultural factors.

It just means we, as parents, undoubtedly have work to do.

If you’re interested in the subject of doubt, I highly recommend Bobby Conway’s book “Doubting Toward Faith” and Travis Dickinson’s blog, where he writes often on these subjects.

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2O2W7cp

/by
Is There a Difference Between Apologetics and Evangelism

Is There a Difference Between Apologetics and Evangelism?

By Robby Hall

Many have an idea that the discipline of Apologetics is limited to showing some esoteric point to be true or getting into long debates with atheists. The truth is, apologetics is about one thing – bringing people to Christ. Some see evangelism and apologetics as differing from each other in their end goal. But is this the case?

The late Dr. Francis Schaeffer referred to apologetics as “pre-evangelism”. He believed that most were not ready to hear the Gospel as they had many questions or objections that were in their way. Apologetics was the way to prepare the person to hear the Gospel so that they could respond without the obstacles of those questions. One could say that apologetics correctly done would be the “handmaiden” of evangelism. Apologetics is there to help our evangelistic efforts, not to get into fights over doctrine or ideas about evolution.

In, The God Who Is There[1], Dr. Schaeffer wrote:

​They (non-Christians) are valuable, so we should meet them in love and compassion. Thus, we meet the person where he or she is. Consequently, if I were with Paul and Silas in the Philippian jail, and the Philippian jailer said to me, “sir, what must I do to be saved?” for me to start talking about epistemology would be horrible. I would say what Paul said, “Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved” because the jailer was, on the basis of previous knowledge and events, ready for that answer.  ​Now on the other hand, if we are dealing with someone who has honest problems and who really believes that truth is truth – things are true and things are false, it would then be a different need.  In that situation, if he or she had questions on the historicity of Christ’s resurrection and so on, we would deal with those questions – because he or she already accepts that truth is truth.

Evangelism and Apologetics go hand in hand and we should, as Christians, be prepared beforehand to engage in both disciplines so that we can follow the command of Christ to make disciples of all nations.

Notes

[1] Scheaffer, Francis A. , The God Who Is There, InterVarsity Press, 1968.

 

Robby Hall is in the Secure Access industry for Information Technology. He has been married for 3 years and has just welcomed his first child, Bridget. He is graduate of the Cross Examined Instructor’s Academy and leads apologetics small groups at his local church.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2TL2SEW

/by