Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Richard Dawkins' Warnings Of A Godless Society

Introduction

It was brought to my attention a few weeks ago that the notorious atheist Richard Dawkins may be changing his tune regarding the necessity of belief in God in human society (click or tap text to see the article). I do recall hearing winds of this change a couple of years ago when he seemed to make a distinction between the religions of Islam (threatening) and Christianity (benign). It seems that Dawkins recognizes that without the belief that people will be held responsible to a higher power, those people who are in power (the State) will push society further and further into harmful and devastating behaviors, but he recognizes the dangers of certain theistic religions. Dawkins seems concerned that without the (false on his view) belief that the Christian God exists, then society will crumble, yet with the (also false on his view) belief that the Islamic god exists, then society will be destroyed. Dawkins seems to be now telling people to not be concerned with what is true, but be concerned with what is pragmatic. Unfortunately, this is nothing new and seems to have been the strategy of many States for quite some time. Allow me to explain.

Theism vs. The State

If God is the source of all moral duties and obligations, then the State can not be. Thus if a State wishes to legislate moral obligations (such as that people who offer a service are morally obligated to act against their moral conscience) or freedoms (such as pedophilia), then State must eradicate God from the conscience of those it governs. With God still in the cultural picture, there is an Authority to which the government is subject and is obligated to align laws with. However, if no God exists (or a State’s citizens do not recognize that God exists), then the State has no one and nothing to challenge its authority or the laws it legislates. Without any external source (God) for the citizens to hold the State accountable to, the State’s authority and legal commands will be understood as absolute.

Such a view is encouraged by the State through the promises of the legalization of many people’s sinful desires. Everything from autonomous sexual freedom to drug use is dangled in front of the populace to entice them to rid their worldview of a God that is a “party pooper.” For the State knows that with the eviction of God from the cultural mindset to allow people to explore their wildest and most debauched fantasies also goes the God that would place limitations on the State to control the masses.

No God, No Legitimate Reformations

While many atheists would have no problem with (even a belief in) God having no part in government (“separation of Church and State” and all), there are some serious consequences that some atheists (including Dawkins) have detected and are warning against. For instance, the reformer has nothing to appeal to in order to demand change in the government. Great reformers, such as those who challenged the government’s permitting the owning of slaves, would ironically be standing in the wrong and would have no objective grounding on which to stand against the government. In such a world, the State is a god; no one has any grounds to challenge it; it maintains absolute authority. If there is no external source for morality to hold the government accountable to, then no reformation should ever take place. If such a world truly existed (one without God), then Africans could still be enslaved in America today.

No God, No Legitimate Changes at All

If the State already legislates, executes, and adjudicates according to an individual atheist’s ideas of “right” and “wrong,” then things are okay with that particular atheist. However, if the State does not align with the atheist’s ideas of “right” and “wrong” 100%, it would be wrong (on the view that there is not God- that government is the absolute moral authority) for the atheist to attempt to change the State’s position on anything, for submitting to the absolute authority of the State is legally (not “morally” since morality is not objective on this view) obligatory. If the State is the absolute authority for how its citizens should act, then if the State is Christianized (or becomes a theocracy), then the atheist is legally obligated to act according to the laws and not attempt reform government. Again, to attempt to reform would be a violation of the legal obligation to submit to the absolute moral authority of the State.

Ironically, when a naturalist stands against the State today, they are in violation of this legal obligation. If the State were to criminalize abortion, the atheist would be legally obligated to comply. In a socialist country, the capitalist would be the criminal for standing against socialism, and in a capitalist country, the socialist would be the criminal for standing against capitalism.

Yet Changes and Reformations Abound And More Are Attempted

This type of world is quite scary for both atheist and theist alike. Neither truly believes that the State is the ultimate authority of morality. This is evidenced by both sides’ reservation of the right to attempt to reform the State should a law be legislated that does not align with their idea of right or wrong. Ironically for the atheist (but consistent with the theist), God (as the objective standard of morality) must exist for the reservation of that right to be legitimately justified. I’m not saying that the atheist cannot exercise this right, but they have no foundation for it in their own worldview; they must borrow from the theistic worldview to justify any governmental change or reformation.

Politicians Are Already Steps Ahead of Us

We see almost daily how politicians throughout our government are working diligently to remove God from the culture. When they accomplish this, their citizens will have no choice but to submit and never attempt to change or reform the government.

This is nothing new. Politicians have been working at the grassroots level with our education system for decades. By trying to eradicate God, they not only take away any moral authority over the State, they also eliminate any ability to ground reasoning or to have knowledge. So, even if someone decided to challenge the State, they could never use reasoning or claim to have knowledge that the State’s position was objectively wrong. I go into more details of this in my post, “Is Education Overrated?“

An Even More Dangerous Game

With the destruction of reasoning and knowledge, we will see another devastating and logical implication of eliminating God- the destruction of the academy. Without knowledge even being possible, all knowledge disciplines are ultimately useless. If a would-be reformer were to use the knowledge disciplines to evidentially challenge the State, it would be pointless, for the reformer could not lay claim to having knowledge from any discipline. Further, without a grounding for logic, they could not even reason from the evidence to the guilt of the State and the need for change or reformation.

When I see politicians trying to remove God from America, I see them setting up their dictatorship in my back yard. This should not just concern theists, but it should (and does) concern atheists alike. We have to remember that there is no single “atheistic” ethic or belief, so the chances that the views of the one who is in charge aligning with that of any other atheist in this country are slim. Most atheists will desire reform, but they not only have a legal obligation not to challenge the State, they would not have any moral, evidential or logical grounds on which to do so.

Conclusion

With atheists such as Richard Dawkins now telling us that while theism is false, we cannot remove it from society, there is a great deal of irony and even absurdity. They recognize that atheism is not a livable worldview for society, and they recognize that in order to survive, we must believe something that is false (theism, on their view). If, in order to survive, we must believe what is false about the world we live in, then how can they claim that what they have come to believe, in order to survive, is true? If atheism is true, then knowledge is an absurd concept, and no one can claim to know anything true about our world, and worse off, we have reason to doubt everything that someone else tells us is true!
Ironically, Richard Dawkins, by his own recognition that God is not just a “useful fiction” but a “necessary fiction” for the very survival of society, has given us every reason to toss his entire life’s work (everything from his scientific research to his philosophy of atheism) into the garbage can! At this point, if Richard Dawkins wants to salvage any portion of his life’s work, he needs to recognize the existence of God (and not just any god but the Christian God) and do what he can to reconcile God’s existence with his work in biology and biochemistry (maybe recognize that nature appears and measures to be designed because it is designed); but his atheism is a failed hypothesis no matter which way he goes. Interestingly enough, Richard Dawkins is making the case against his own atheism using the immorality of modern culture. To understand this argument better, check out this video from Reasonable Faith and the links to books below:

The Death of Judas: A Hopeless Bible Contradiction?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Skeptics accuse Christians of not paying attention while they’re reading their Bible. If they didn’t rush through their daily devotional, they’d catch some obvious contradictions. One of the more famous of these contradictions is the two accounts of the death of Judas. Here’s Biblical scholar and critic Bart Ehrman:

“The two reports give different accounts of how Judas died. However mysterious it may be to say he fell headlong and burst open, at least that is not “hanging” oneself. And they are flat out contradictory on two other points: who purchased the field (the priests, as per Matthew, or Judas, as per Acts?) and why the field was called the field of blood (because it was purchased with blood money, as Matthew says, or because Judas bled all over it, as Acts says?”

Jesus, Interrupted p. 53

Ouch. Both of these accounts can’t be reconciled. Or can they?

Reading the Texts

Let’s read the passages for ourselves. Here’s Matthew’s account:

“Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.

But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury since it is blood money.” So, they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore, that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.” –Matthew 27:3-8

And here’s Luke’s version:

“Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness and falling headlong he burst open in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.” — Acts 1:18-19

One Proposed Solution from A Scholar

Noted New Testament Scholar I. Howard Marshall suggests the following solution:

Judas hanged himself (Matthew.), but the rope broke, and his body was ruptured by the fall (possibly after he was already dead and beginning to decompose).
What the priests bought with Judas’ money (Matt.) could be regarded as his purchase by their agency. (Acts)
The field bought by the priests (Matt.) was the one where Judas died. (Acts)

Now you might say that this scenario smacks of harmonization, but is it really all that implausible? Let’s think about it for a sec.

Dealing with Judas’ Death

Judging by the text, Matthew seems to focus on Judas’ suicide. Luke’s focus is on the final state of Judas’ body. According to Jewish laws and customs, the Jews would not have wanted to go near a dead body. (Numbers 19.11) This would be especially true when that dead body belonged to a traitor.

But how would someone who hanged himself have their guts burst out? This gruesome story doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Or does it? The Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology says:

“Between 3 and 7 days, ever-increasing pressure of the putrefying gases associated with colliquative changes in the soft tissues may lead to softening of the abnormal parietes resulting in bursting open the abdomen and thorax.”

P. 91

So, we actually do have some medical data that fits with what we read in Matthew and Luke. Someone eventually cutting Judas’ corpse down, or the rope giving out, would explain how his body would have burst on the ground. Therefore, Matthew and Luke aren’t contradictory; they’re better viewed as complimentary. Each account ties up a loose end of the other.

There are also cliffs that overlook the valley of Hinnom. Those cliffs could very well be the place where Judas hanged himself, and his dead body fell. Falling against the rocks, this could explain why he fell facedown.

But What About the Field Bought by The Priests?

Jewish law says that it was wrong for the priests to keep Judas’ blood money. (Numbers 35:31) Why then was it OK for them to buy a field with it? Luke’s story gives us a possible answer: it wasn’t. That’s why the priest bought the field in Judas’s name.

The priests were acting as intermediaries. Them purchasing the field in Judas’ name was as if Judas bought it himself. You might say this is special pleading, but we see this elsewhere throughout the Gospels. See for yourself:

Matthew 27:59-60 “And Joseph (of Arimathea) took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.”

Did Joseph, a rich man and a member of the Sanhedrin, bury Jesus himself? No, he had his servants do it.

Mark 15:15“So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.”

Did Pilate, a Roman prefect, grab a whip and get himself bloody scourging Jesus by himself? Again, the answer is obviously no. He sent his soldiers to do it.

John 4:1-2“Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)”

Here John says that Jesus was baptizing more disciples than John but then stops to clarify that Jesus didn’t himself baptize; it was the disciples. This type of “representation” speech is also found in the alleged contradiction of the healing of the Roman Centurion’s servant, which I wrote about here.

Plus, the priests had the motivation to do this. It avoids the paper trail that ties them to buying a field with blood money. This would have been a ritual impurity for all the public to have seen.

The Death of Judas: Not A Hopeless Bible Contradiction.

You might say this is all conjecture. But it’s impossible to avoid conjecture if you want to suggest what may have happened. But a classical historian wouldn’t see these discrepancies and be troubled by them. We have a strong historical tradition of the death of Jesus’ betrayer. And we have an event associated with a specific field named. These differences don’t undermine their historical value.

Notice also that each Gospel writer’s account is consistent with their profession. As a tax collector, Matthew is interested in legal and financial details that are involved with Judas’ death. He’s the only gospel writer that talks about the thirty pieces of silver. Luke’s a physician. He gives us more of an autopsy report.

These accounts aren’t hopelessly contradictory. In fact, they complement each other quite nicely.

Seeking Shalom: A Case for The Way Things Ought to Be

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Sometimes defending God’s existence is easy. You don’t have to try to articulate some fancy philosophical or theological idea. And you don’t have to understand the intricacies of science. All you have to do is be a human being who observes the world in which we live. When you do that, there is no denying that something is drastically wrong. What we see around us is not the way things ought to be. Everybody from the most devoted religious believer to the most ardent atheist knows this. Our common human longing is for a world full of truth, justice, goodness, compassion, and charity. And while there are notable pockets of these things around us, they float in a sea of negativity and corruption.

The fact that everyone realizes this is proof of a powerful idea — that there must be some ideal kind of world we all wish we could experience. A place where things are the way they are supposed to be. And there is an old word the ancients used to describe a place like that. They called it Shalom.

Corrupted Culture

You don’t have to look hard to see a world gone mad. Just watch the news. Years ago, we had a plot by eight-year-olds to kill their teacher. A Google search of that topic today produces several pages of results.

We have researchers who have combined genetic materials to produce human-monkey hybrids — because they can. We have others who seek to push that envelope even further.

And speaking of messing with what it means to be human, how about the growing trend of men “giving birth”? Yes, you read that correctly. Freddy McConnell had a baby in England! Freddy is not really a man, of course. This is not debatable. But we live in a society that condones and patronizes those who demand that we all pretend otherwise, while actual women suffer the consequences.

We see video of people whose organizations generate profits by selling the body parts of aborted babies. But the culture and the courts find more fault with the journalists who expose this practice than with those who engage in it.

A World Gone Bad

Our world is filled with sex trafficking, wars, serial killers, terrorists executing Christians, pornography, oppression, and abuse. Our politicians and news media outlets lie to us. And, maybe most discouragingly, many of our most prominent churches and pastors seem more intent on accommodating the cultural madness than critiquing it.

All of these things make us cringe. Some are uncomfortably bizarre at best, malevolently evil at worst.

But there is a common theme here. Each of these is an example of a way human beings have corrupted the world. We are moral creatures. And we cannot help but recognize, and suffer from, the ramifications of our bad moral choices. The world we see is a reflection of our human nature seeking its own ends.

Crooked Creatures

In the second book of his “Space Trilogy,” Perelandra, C. S. Lewis’s main character, describes his encounter with an eldil — a term Lewis invented to describe something like what we might call an angel. When he first sees the eldil it appears to him as:

” … a very faint rod or pillar of light … [that was] not at right angles to the floor. But as soon as I have said this, I hasten to add that this way of putting it is a later reconstruction. What one actually felt at the moment was that the column of light was vertical, but the floor was not horizontal – the whole room seemed to have heeled over as if it were on board ship. The impression, however, produced, was that this creature had reference to some horizontal, to some whole system of directions, based outside the Earth, and that its mere presence imposed that alien system on me and abolished the terrestrial horizontal.”

Even though he couldn’t explain how, he could tell that the eldil was operating from some otherworldly frame of reference. And when compared to that, the Earth looked strangely crooked.

The Problem of Evil

In his own unique way, C. S. Lewis paints a picture of what we know innately. We recognize that our world is askew, even if we don’t know why. It’s the reason that the “problem of evil” is the most obvious — and most difficult — challenge to the existence of God. Those who doubt God’s existence point to the crooked, corrupted world and ask, “If there is a good God, and He created this world, how can it be such a mess?”

It’s a question that everyone — atheists included — asks. But the answer to that question doesn’t undermine the case for God’s existence at all. It actually does the opposite. We wouldn’t even be asking that question unless we had some intuition about its answer — some notion of a world gone right. But if God does not exist, there is no solution to this “problem” because there is no problem. The world is just the way it is and we suffer in a vacuum of meaningless indifference.

What Do You Mean By “Ought”?

The key is that everyone knows the world is “crooked” — that things are not the way they ought to be. When we say “ought,” we are acknowledging that there is an ideal kind of world in which everyone longs to live. Ought implies a standard of goodness — “a whole system of directions, based outside the Earth.” And that standard is moral perfection. It has to be.

God’s nature is that standard. And a world that reflects that standard is exactly the kind of world we long to inhabit.

If only we could find a place like that!

Shalom

In his book, Not The Way It’s Supposed To Be, Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. offers an insight that I have never forgotten about all this. He defines the Hebrew word shalom. If you’re like me, you may have seen that word translated, “peace.” But Plantinga goes into detail about why that simple definition of the word doesn’t cut it. Shalom is more than just “peace.”

“The webbing together of God, humans, and all creation in justice, fulfillment, and delight is what the Hebrew prophets call shalom. We call it peace, but it means far more than mere peace of mind or a cease-fire between enemies. In the Bible, shalom means universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight — a rich state of affairs in which the natural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed, a state of affairs that inspires joyful wonder as its Creator and Savior opens doors and welcomes the creatures in whom he delights. Shalom, in other words, is the way things ought to be.”

There was a time when we could have described the state of the world as shalom. But it didn’t last long. And when you’re living in a time like ours, shalom appears to be a phantom.

It’s not. It’s an ideal — a description of a place where every human being has always longed to live. And it’s a place that we will all be able to access again.

God Comes Down

God is a down-to-Earth kind of guy. He came down to Earth and took on human form once before. He experienced the pain and suffering of a world that is not the way it ought to be. But in doing so, He offered us a tangible foretaste of shalom.

And he’ll be back.

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away … I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself with be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’” Revelation 21:1-4

Shalom.

Don’t be discouraged by the world. There are good ideas that long to be brought to fruition. And there are good people who strive to uphold and defend those ideas both now and in the future. But, more than either of those, there is a good God who is the Author of shalom. Though it sometimes seems elusive, there is a hope-filled time that’s coming for all who choose to seek it. And with that future comes a promise of shalom, unlike anything we can even comprehend.

I Lost Motivation for my God-given Passion… Now What?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jeremy Linn

You were driven. Each day you were excited to take another step forward. God seemed to be doing amazing things.

Now, months later, your passion has disappeared. Each day you feel worn out and progressively waste more of your time. You wonder if God will ever use you to the same extent as you once experienced.

What happened? Have you lost motivation to pursue the primary passion God has given you?

I certainly have felt this way before. Upon the start of a new ministry, I was constantly motivated to keep taking steps and saw God do incredible things in the process.

Then over time, the amazing moments started to fade. Team communication halted. And my motivation plummeted to the point I didn’t know what to do next.

This path led me to wonder – what problems could have led me to lose motivation for something I had such a strong passion for?

To begin working through this question, I wrote down nine problems that could cause you to lose motivation for your God-given passion and listed action steps that could help to address each one. And now, I share the results with you. As you skim through the list, feel free to skip over the problems that don’t affect you, and focus more on the ones that may be causing you to lose motivation.

PROBLEM #1 – A lack of communication causes delays and stagnation.

You want to take action but can’t seem to because you need input from others first. With communication shut down, your motivation stalls out.

Action Steps:

Consider and pray about the role of patience in your circumstance. It’s possible that your expectations of the other people involved are unrealistic.
Seek out a solid mediator who will help set up and direct any needed conversations. Doing so enforces the need to communicate and work through any issues, and adds a potentially helpful and unbiased voice to the discussion.
Determine what steps you can take now before communication happens. Taking action on something, even if it’s small, can help bring back some sense of motivation.
Consider coming to a decision on your own if it is clearly waiting for input is more detrimental than it is potentially helpful. If you are thinking about taking this step, it may be a good idea to run the idea by at least one wise person you trust.

PROBLEM #2 – You are comparing yourself with people going down a similar path who appear to be more “successful.”

You think you will never be as successful as the person or group you have in mind, so wonder what the point is of continuing. The doubts in your mind cause a loss of motivation.

Action Steps:

Recognize you are comparing. If you have feelings of jealousy and self-doubt when you observe the impact others are making, this problem likely affects you. The recognition is a crucial first step in alleviating the weight of comparison.
Reach out to people you are comparing yourself with. If it is possible to connect, a conversation makes a person you are idealizing through comparison seem more “human.” It also gives you an opportunity to learn from people, diminishing the desire to compete with them in your mind.
Pray for humility and study scripture surrounding the topic. Humility is essential to handle success in a way consistent with the character of Christ. Humility also lessens the pressure to see instant success and turns your focus instead of faithfulness.
Work on developing your “lane.” If you are doing something specific that no one else is doing in your area of passion, you have no reason to compare what you’re doing with others. You can instead focus on what’s ahead in your wide-open “lane.”

PROBLEM #3: A fear of failure is holding you back.

You fear your actions won’t lead to results that match or exceed your expectations, causing you to wonder if it’s worth stating to take those actions.

Action Steps:

Evaluate your expectations. Instead of keeping your expectations stuck in your head, write them down and ask yourself if they appear unrealistically high.
Establish a short-term goal to strive after. This step can put your focus on what is currently in front of you, rather than your worries of meeting your long-term expectations.
Put your trust in God. No matter the expectations we have for our passion, we can find contentment in Christ – echoing the Apostle Paul’s “secret of being content” spelled out in Philippians 4:11-13.
Dig into “success” stories. There is often a slow start and a load of work involved to get to the point of perceived success. Hearing these stories can help us to realize that “success” doesn’t happen right away – it typically comes through a series of small steps taken over a long period of time.

PROBLEM #4: Your time is taken up by average things that don’t provoke inspiration and excitement.

You’re not spending your time on “great” things that spark your passion. Over time, your motivation dulls as you lack moments of excitement for what lies ahead.

Action Steps:

Acknowledge that feelings are not the primary driver of your life. You often need to do things that feel “average” in order to reach a “great” goal. But having that “great” goal in mind can spark motivation, which leads to the next step.
Evaluate your passion and goals. Take time to journal and pray about where God has led you, how he has built you, and what he might be leading you to focus on. Then start taking actions to foster that focus area.
Keep a record of activities you are doing right now. This recording will help you to determine which activities you could drop, and how much open time you have to further your area of passion – to pursue something “great.”
Drop one “average” thing and pick up one “great” thing in line with your passion. These changes will help you to see if this factor is affecting your motivation levels, and they create at least one new and potentially exciting opportunity.

PROBLEM #5: A sin issue provokes shame and doubts that you are “worthy” to act on your God-given passion.

You don’t push forward with your passion because you already don’t feel “good enough” or “spiritual enough” for it.

Action Steps:

Acknowledge God’s grace through prayer – thank God for the forgiveness He has provided through Jesus Christ. This is the essential step needed to restore the connection with God and deal with feelings of shame.
Seek out accountability with one person or a group, where the body of Christ can work together to overcome sin through God’s power. If you don’t know where to start, try an online search for your city/state, a specific sin area, and “Christian recovery.”
Work through the origins of your pattern of sin. This step could involve journaling about your past, talking to a counselor, or sharing your struggles with close friends.

PROBLEM #6: You feel disconnected from God compared to how you used to feel.

This sense of disconnection could be caused by a variety of factors beyond sin issues – an overwhelming sense of busyness and isolation from other Christians are examples.

Action Steps:

Schedule daily time to spend with God. Use that time to engage in spiritual disciplines – reading scripture, prayer, and even meditation on God’s word and character can build up a connection with God when done consistently.
Seek a strong Christian community where others can encourage you in building your relationship with God and the pursuit of your passion. Look especially for a group where the spiritual maturity of people in the group fosters an environment where you can grow.
Journal factors that lead to the distance. Journaling can help us be more aware of the specific factors tearing apart our relationship with God. If anything, the journaling will give you a clear sense of what to bring to God in prayer.

PROBLEM #7: You lack a connection with people you can share your passion with.

You feel alone in the pursuit of your passion and don’t receive encouragement to continue forward, which drives you into self-doubt and a gradual loss of motivation. Action Steps:

Share what you’re doing with current friends on a consistent basis, even if they don’t share the same passion. You can approach this conversation by saying, “it may be helpful to talk with you about my passion from time to time. Would you be okay with doing that?”
Do research to locate people near you who may have a similar passion, and make a list of the people you find. A simple way to begin is to do an online search for your location plus area of passion.
Make a goal to reach out to one person you listed every month. This is a modest goal that will help you start getting connected with people in your area of passion.
Join social media groups related to your area of passion. In-person connections are preferable to online ones, but these social media groups can provide a burst of encouragement as you interact with people about your difficulties and successes.

PROBLEM #8: You don’t have a clear vision or goals related to your passion.

While you have an idea of what your passion is, you have little sense of direction for what to do with it, and thus don’t have a foundation built which will drive motivation.

Action Steps:

Identify any vision and goals you have in mind right now. If you are drawing a big blank, that’s a sure indication this area is one to work on.
Take time to work out a vision and set a few achievable, time-specific goals. Prayer and talking to people who know you well are helpful ways to get this process going.
Practice patience while praying for a vision. Passion can drive you to want to take action constantly, but the action won’t be maximally effective if a strong foundation of vision and goals is not established first. It may take time to develop this foundation, but that’s okay – the time provides an excellent opportunity to seek God in the process and to develop skills you’ll need when it’s time to run full speed ahead with your passion.

PROBLEM #9: You feel overloaded by the commitment required for things you’re involved with.

The resulting stress causes your physical and mental health to suffer, along with your relationship with God. You lose motivation to take action on just about anything, including your passion area.

Action Steps:

Write down everything you are involved in on a weekly basis, and how much time those things take up. This is a great first step to help you understand why you feel overloaded.
Share how you feel to people you trust. Those people can help you talk through your thoughts and feelings of being overwhelmed, and can point out any obvious solutions you may not have considered.
Drop one thing that is lower in priority, and observe the difference dropping that thing makes. It’s possible that a larger overhaul is needed before the feeling of being overwhelmed changes, but dropping one small thing is a good starting step.

This list is not exhaustive, nor is it meant to give you the perfect solution to get you on the motivation track again. But the action points can at least get you out of inactivity, and back into a gradual buildup of motivation.

The main idea is this: when you feel like you’ve lost motivation, ask yourself what problems could lead to that loss. Once you identify potential problems, plan to take one or two small action steps that could help alleviate the problem.

And through the process, pray for wisdom and set your focus on God.

William Lane Craig Lectures on The Evidence for The Resurrection of Jesus

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

Here is Dr. William Lane Craig giving a long-form argument for the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus and taking questions from the audience.

The speaker’s introduction goes for 6 minutes, then Dr. Craig speaks for 35 minutes, then it’s a period of questions and answers with the audience. The total length is 93 minutes, so quite a long period of Q&A. The questions in the Q&A period are quite good.

Introduction:

Many people who are willing to accept God’s existence are not willing to accept the God of Christianity
Christians need to be ready to show that Jesus rose from the dead as a historical event
Private faith is fine for individuals, but when dealing with the public, you have to have evidence
When making the case, you cannot assume that your audience accepts the Bible as inerrant
You must use the New Testament like any other ancient historical document
Most historians, Christian and not, accept the minimal basic facts supporting the resurrection of Jesus

Fact #1: the burial of Jesus following his crucifixion

Fact #1 is supported by the early creed found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15)
Fact #1 is supported by the early Passion narrative which was a source for Mark’s gospel
Fact #1 passes the criterion of enemy attestation since it praises one of the Sanhedrin
Fact #1 is not opposed by any competing burial narratives

Fact #2: on the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by some women

Fact #2 is supported by the early Passion narrative which was a source for Mark’s gospel
Fact #2 is implied by the early creed found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15)
Fact #2 is simple and lacks legendary embellishment, which argues for an early dating
Fact #2 passes the criterion of embarrassment because it has female, not male, witnesses
Fact #2 passes the criterion of enemy attestation since it is reported by the Jewish leaders

Fact #3: Jesus appeared to various people in various circumstances after his death

Fact #3 is supported by the early creed found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15)
Fact #3 is supported by multiple, independent reports of the events from all four gospels
Fact #3 explains other historical facts, like the conversion of Jesus’ skeptical brother James

Fact #4: the earliest Christians proclaimed their belief in the resurrection of Jesus

Fact #4 explains why the earliest Christians continued to identify Jesus as the Messiah
Fact #4 explains why the earliest Christians were suddenly so unconcerned about being killed

Dr. Craig then asks which hypothesis explains all four of these facts. He surveys a number of naturalistic hypotheses, such as the hallucination theory or various conspiracy theories. All of these theories deny one or more of the minimal facts that have been established and accepted by the broad spectrum of historians. In order to reject the resurrection hypothesis, a skeptic would have to deny one of the four facts or propose an explanation that explains those facts better than the resurrection hypothesis.

I listened to the Q&A period while doing housekeeping, and I heard lots of good questions. Dr. Craig gives very long answers to the questions. One person asked why we should trust the claim that the Jewish leaders really did say that the disciples stole the body. Another one asked why we should take the resurrection as proof that Jesus was divine. Another asks about the earthquake in Matthew and whether it is intended to be historical or apocalyptic imagery. Dr. Craig is also asked about the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes, and how many of the minimal facts he accepts. Another questioner asked about the ascension.

If you are looking for a good book to read on this topic, the best introductory book on the resurrection is “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,” and the best comprehensive book is “The Resurrection of Jesus.”

How Understanding Divine Omniscience Helps Anxiety

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

While apologetics is a major focus in my life, it is only eclipsed by a love for theology. I am a big picture kind of guy. That’s why systematic theology has always intrigued me. Systematic theology examines the major themes of Scripture and organizes those themes into patterns and structures. One could say that I went a little crazy with my theological studies. While I have over 18 graduate hours in apologetics, biblical studies, and church history; I will have over 30 hours in graduate-level studies of theology by the time I finish my Ph.D. So, yeah. You could say that I like theology a little bit.

Another aspect of my life that is important to note for the sake of this article is that I also suffer from bouts of anxiety. My anxiety is not major. However, it is something that I have combated for years. Agoraphobia is one such area. I love people. I love being in the ministry. However, long bouts of extended social gatherings wear me down especially if those gatherings are loud and boisterous.

You may be left asking, “Why is this guy talking about theology and anxiety?” Theology has a major calming effect when a person understands certain aspects of God’s nature. One such calming attribute is God’s omniscience. Omniscience is a compound word consisting of two Latin words; Omnis meaning “all” or “of all things,” and Scientia meaning “knowledge.” Thus, omniscience indicates one’s ability to know all things. God is the only Being who could possess this level of knowledge. Millard Erickson links God’s omniscience with God’s infinite nature. By infinite, this means that “not only is God unlimited but that he is illimitable. In this respect, God is unlike anything we experience” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 243). When God’s knowledge is linked with his infinite nature, one will note that God’s “understanding is immeasurable” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 243).

God’s omniscience means that God knows all there is to know and everything that can be known. So, how does understanding God’s divine omniscient nature help with anxiety? I contend that it helps in three areas.

Anxiety lessens with God’s knowledge of events in time. First, God is not bound by time. Therefore, God’s knowledge is not bound to the present time. David writes, “Before a word is on my tongue, you know all about it, Lord” (Ps. 139:4). God knows what David would say before he said it. People who suffer from anxiety often fear what may come. However, when a person couples God’s knowledge of what will happen along with God’s goodness and love, then anxiety should fade into the divine arms of God. Why worry about what could happen when God already knows what will happen?
Anxiety lessens with God’s knowledge of injustices. Second, a person’s anxiety lessens when one acknowledges God’s omniscient knowledge of all people. God knows what all people always do. People often place security cameras to catch criminals in their mischievous acts red-handed. While I am in favor of security measures as noted by the community watch group I support, it is a redemptive thought to consider that God knows everything that all people do. Solomon notes that “The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, observing the wicked and the good” (Prov. 15:3, CSB). Many anxiety sufferers worry about what someone might do to them. Perhaps such attitudes come from a hyperactive imagination or viewing too often the crazed psychopaths on Lifetime Movie Network. Nevertheless, the believer can rest easy knowing that God sees the actions of all. No wrong deed escapes his sight. As the ultimate Judge of humankind, God will hold each person accountable at some point (Rom. 14:12). This is not to say that a person should not use good reason, establish security measures, and remain proactive in dangerous environs. Rather, a person can rest easy in knowing that every person will stand before God one day.
Anxiety lessens with God’s knowledge of purpose. Third, people often worry about whether their lives have any purpose or value. Social media has escalated this concern. People often compare themselves with others by a self-imposed competition. Trouble is, no one ever wins such comparative competitions. The person must eventually ask oneself, “How good is good enough? How much success do I need? How much money makes me the winner?” There is no answer. In stark contrast, when one understands the value that God places on all people, then such concerns should fade, and self-imposed competitions should cease. God told Jeremiah that he knew him before he was ever born (Jer. 1:5).

Jesus emphasized the peace that comes from understanding God’s omniscience, noting that if God could clothe the flowers of the field and feed the birds of the air, then God would most certainly care for his own in greater fashion (Matt. 6:25–34). If God knows all there is to know, if God knows all that everyone does, if he knows our future, and cares for us; then, what do we have to fear? For, if God is for us, then who can be against us (Rom. 8:31)? Human anxiety melts before the brilliant assurance of God’s omniscient nature.

Resources

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Third Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Sacrifice and Redemption in the Skywalker Saga

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Timothy Fox

With the release of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, the “Skywalker Saga” is officially complete (for better or worse), and we can now examine all nine episodes as a completed whole. (Spoilers ahead!) While all of the Star Wars movies carry similar themes, such as hope, the importance of family, and the ultimate triumph of good over evil, I think there is one concept that rises above the rest: redemption.

Quickly defined, redemption is the act of making up for one’s past wrongs. The greater the wrongs committed, the greater the necessary actions to atone for one’s past. Redemption usually (always?) involves some sort of sacrifice, and so sacrifice and redemption are closely linked. The two greatest examples of this in the Skywalker Saga involve Darth Vader and Kylo Ren:

Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker – Darth Vader is the shining example of redemption in the original Star Wars trilogy. In spite of the great evils that Vader has committed, his son, Luke Skywalker, believes that there is still good within his father and that Vader could be turned back to the Light. At the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke rejects the Emperor’s temptation and refuses to kill Vader, so the Emperor decides to kill Luke instead. Witnessing the suffering of his son, Vader rescues Luke, throwing the Emperor to his death (or so we think!). The injuries sustained by Vader are fatal, but he still has the opportunity to thank his son for not giving up on him. As a sign of Vader’s ultimate redemption, he appears as a Force Ghost at the end of the film as his unfallen self, Anakin Skywalker, alongside his – and his son’s – former teachers, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda.

Kylo Ren/Ben Solo – Kylo Ren’s redemption story was a major arc of the sequel trilogy. Like his grandfather, Darth Vader, Ren was guilty of many wrongdoings, his worst (especially to us fans!) being killing his father, Han Solo, in The Force Awakens. Ren believes this action would fully push him over to the Dark Side; instead, it brings him massive guilt and inner turmoil. He wants to embrace the darkness fully, but the light within him does not allow that. In The Rise of Skywalker, Rey mortally wounds him, but in an act of grace and mercy, she heals him. This – along with a vision of his dead father – brings Ben Solo back from the darkness to the light. Ben then travels to Exegol to help Rey defeat Palpatine (once and for all!). But his true act of redemption is when he gives his life to bring Rey back from the dead.

Our Redemption

In these cases of redemption within the Star Wars universe, we see how characters sacrifice themselves to atone for their past evil actions. But while Vader’s and Ren’s sacrifices complete their turns from darkness to the light, does that truly make up for all of the evils they committed? Probably not. And it is the same for us. There is no amount of good deeds that will erase our sins and make us right in God’s eyes. But that doesn’t mean there is no hope for us. As noted earlier, sacrifice and redemption are connected. But it is not our own sacrifices that redeem us:

“In [Jesus] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Eph. 1:7).

Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is what grants us redemption and forgiveness for all our sins – no matter how many or how terrible. Vader and Ren believed they were too far gone into the Dark Side of the Force, and yet they found their way back to the Light. Likewise, there is absolutely nothing that can separate us from God’s love (Rom. 8:38-39). But while none of our own actions can save us, we can be redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice.

Turn and Live

As satisfying as it was to see Emperor Palpatine meet his demise at the end of Return of the Jedi, and then ultimately in The Rise of Skywalker, I was far more pleased to watch Vader and Ren turn from the darkness back to the light. God feels the same way about us:

“Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? Declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ezek. 18:23)

Many people may view God as an angry old man in the sky, waiting for us to mess up so he can smite us and condemn us to hell. But as we see from the verse above, this cannot be farther from the truth. God desires us to repent of our wrongdoing and to choose life. Like the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11-32), God is waiting for us to return to him and will welcome us with open arms. He is desperate to save us from the darkness and bring us to the light:

“[The Father] has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:12-14, emphasis mine).

Apologetics and a Different Kind of Persuasion

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

A Different Kind of Persuasion

Have you ever found yourself “in debate mode” while talking to a skeptical friend about Christianity? Perhaps this is because many of us have been equipped with apologetic content (arguments for God’s existence, the reliability of the Gospels, etc.) with less of a focus on an apologetic method for use in everyday conversations.

Sometimes, we can get so concerned about winning or making a certain point, that we lose the credibility that an ambassador of Christ should have. Others you don’t notice may be watching and listening to your conversation. If the exchange gets heated, some may be thinking, “I don’t care if Christianity is true if it’s not good.” So, is there a different kind of persuasion to employ?

At the Hendricks Center, Darrell Bock and I invited John Dickson, the Founding Director of the Centre for Public Christianity, to join us in discussing what persuasion and apologetics can look like when Christians function as cultural minorities in a society.

In this post, I share three quick tips I learned from his visit on how to use a different kind of persuasion in our apologetic encounters:

Give ’em pause
Have conversations, not debates
Show truth and goodness.

Give ’em Pause

Instead of walking into a conversation in “debate mode,” Christians should seek to persuade others by provoking two things: Reflection and a longing for the truth of the gospel. On an episode of the Table Podcast called “Keys to Effective Cultural Engagement,” Bock talked about what he calls “a different kind of persuasion.” He says:

My initial goal…is to get the person to pause and reflect. “Might there be another way to think about what we’re talking about?” with the hope that what I’m putting out on the table is something they can recognize the potential merit of, and then consider what is being said, because it’s different than what they’re used to hearing.

Instead of relying on a more forceful kind of attempt at persuasion, he suggests an approach that communicates something like, “What I’m putting out on the table for you is a helpful way to think about how humans should interact and live with one another…” He says, “There’s certain effectiveness of living that’s being represented. I want to give them pause so they’ll start to think.”

Dickson agrees. He explains how this applies not just in conversations, but even in televised public debate situations:

If I lose well in a debate or discussion with a journalist, but I’ve done it so well that I know that the audience is thinking, “That Christian guy was reasonable and level headed and pretty nice.” That commends the gospel. I don’t go around trying to lose, but I’m not so concerned about losing… losing well is sometimes a beautiful representation of the gospel for those looking on…

Richard Dawkins is doing us a favor in the long term because he is so extreme…If the average, thoughtful doubter thinks, “That’s not an approach I like. I thought the Christian did a little bit better there.” That is winning.

Have Conversations, not Debates

You probably won’t yourself defending the faith on TV or in a literal academic debate. But even in everyday conversations, other people may be watching you interact with someone who sees Christianity differently. How do you compose yourself? Rather than being consumed with winning the debate, let’s engage in a real conversation. Remind yourself, “I’m in a conversation, not a debate.” Bock elaborates:

The first rule is, “I’m engaged in a conversation versus a debate. I’m not trying to win anything. All that I’m trying to do is demonstrate what I hope is the reasonableness of what I believe in a way that will draw people in to consider what it is that’s being said…” I’m probably not going to convince the guy on the other side of the microphone but I’m interested in the person who’s trying to decide, “Which microphone am I going to believe?” and hopefully draw them in my direction as opposed to the direction of the person who I may be pitted against.

Show Truth and Goodness

Today, many people are wondering not if Christianity is true, but if Christianity is even good. They reason, “If it’s not good, then should I, why to care if it’s true?” Don’t forget that persuasion is always person-relative. While you may not be able to help someone consider the truth of a certain Christian truth claim, you may be able to show them by the tone of your conversation and the way you treat them that Christianity is good.

Dickson notes that this was the approach of C.S. Lewis:

Lewis came to believe that if he could convey the beauty of Christianity to people, it opens them up to the truth…He wanted to convey the beauty of ideas to allow people to open up to the possibility that they’re also true. To want it to be true is a step along the path to knowing it’s true…

He goes on to say:

The Greek word epikeia, which you find in Paul’s letters is translated as “gentleness,” but it really means “humanitarian regard,” that moderate, fair, just character. We trust…the good-hearted person more than anyone else on all topics.

The key to persuasion is if you are someone who is trustworthy, …that moves belief. Aristotle said this ethos is the primary part of persuasion because we believe those who we perceive to be credible and fair-minded far more easily than we do anyone else.

I agree. Our skeptical friends and neighbors are more likely to give Christianity a fresh hearing if we can, through our actions, show them that Christianity is good. I like how Dickson describes goodness as “morally credible, loving, generous, compassionate, humble—things that flow out of the gospel.” Sometimes, just getting someone to want that goodness, to long for that goodness, is a step in the right direction—even if they are not fully persuaded of its truth just yet. As Christian ambassadors, we need to help people see the beauty and goodness of Christianity, in addition to the truthfulness of its claims.

Reflection and Persuasion

I enjoyed putting this episode of the Table Podcast together and getting Bock and Dickson together to discuss a different kind of persuasion. These insights are applicable to both personal discussions and square public conversations. Rather than being primarily concerned about winning a debate, let’s focus on getting people to pause and reflect on the effectiveness of living God’s way. Yes, we should defend the faith with confidence. But let’s also be mindful of our demeanor and the way it affects those who may be watching and listening.

The next time you find yourself operating in “debate mode,” take a step back. Consider these tips and try using a different kind of persuasion.

Natural-ly There Is A Problem With Evil

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alex McElroy

One of the most difficult issues to reconcile in life is the presence of evil. This is the case whether one has a theistic, agnostic or atheistic worldview. The existence of evil is undeniable both in our witness and experience but is evil objective in nature or merely an apparition. Even atheist J.L. Mackie recognized a dilemma. In one book, he writes, “There are no objective values.”[1] Elsewhere, he writes, “We might well argue…that objective, intrinsically prescriptive features, supervenient upon natural ones, constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without an all-powerful god to create them.”[2]

This poses a problem for the naturalist or the atheist because whatever evil does exist in people cannot be attributed to anything other than misfiring neurons. Well, known atheist Richard Dawkins has stated, “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”[3] However, if we are just dancing to our DNA, then no one can ultimately be held responsible for any actions, and evil becomes a term without an ontic point of reference. Ravi Zacharias wrote, “Atheists often blunder into the right by borrowing from assumptions that are not logically deduced from their own worldview. But their opinion is so strong that they straddle the two worlds and make up a bridge because they have reached an unbridgeable chasm, given their starting point.”[4] That starting point of random, unguided natural processes is hardly the building blocks for a moral framework.

Sam Harris, an atheist who is both a philosopher and neuroscientist, has much to say on how humans can arrive at life-sustaining moral standards simply through biological evolution. He writes, “Many people imagine that the theory of evolution entails selfishness as a biological imperative. This popular misconception has been harmful to the reputation of science. In truth, human cooperation and its attendant moral emotions are fully compatible with biological evolution.”[5] First, it should be noted that many scientists, most notably Biochemist Michael Behe, have shown a flaw in the premise being proposed by Mr. Harris in regard to the selfishness of biological evolution. With regard to the underlying theory contained within Harris’ assertion, Behe writes, in Darwin Devolves, about two groups of extended evolutionary synthesis scientists who propose a similar theory:

The first speculates that once master genes and their regulatory networks of connections were in place, perhaps novel complex features could be developed mostly by random changes that accidentally form new signature sequences near various genes….The second group…emphasizes the ease of deploying an array of machinery to different locations, which, like ectopic fly eyes, would generate a lot of variation much more easily than Darwin might have imagined. Maybe that would give selection more to choose from. If all that sounds distressingly vague, I’m afraid that is the gist of the argument…The unanticipated discovery of layers of control – master switches and the stunningly sophisticated genetic regulatory networks they activate – does not make the putative undirected development of life any easier to explain, evo-devo (Evolutionary developmental biology) enthusiasts seem to imagine. It makes it harder. The need for a foreman and subcontractors to coordinate construction does not make it easier to explain how unintelligent processes could make a building out of bricks and wood and pipes and wiring. It shows it to be impossible.[6]

Behe is indicating that an external infusion of sorts, in fact, a number of external infusions would be required in order to advance biological evolution. Who or what could that provide that infusion? If not God, it seems unlikely that unintelligent and unguided natural forces could be responsible for natural evolution, not to mention moral evolution. Additionally, Sam Harris simply assumes that “human cooperation and its attendant moral emotions” would be natural outgrowths of a macroevolutionary process. But that’s a large assumption considering that one component of Darwinian evolutionary theory is survival of the fittest, not survival of the most cooperative.

Mr. Harris goes on to write, “The work of evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers on reciprocal altruism has gone a long way toward explaining cooperation among unrelated friends and strangers…Because moral virtue is attractive to both sexes, it might function as a kind of peacock’s tail: costly to produce and maintain, but beneficial to one’s genes in the end.”[7] Even if we accept Harris’ premise that moral virtue is attractive or beneficial, it still does not allow us to assign an objective value to what morality is in its essence. How are we to know if what we are attracted to in another is being accurately perceived as high moral character? What standard are we comparing their moral virtue to in order to determine where they measure up? How do we define what is most beneficial to us or to humanity at large? These are metaphysical questions that cannot simply be reduced to physical or naturalistic foundations.

In reviewing the works of C.S. Lewis, David Bagget noted, “Moral language today is so peculiar, in fact, that Lewis suggests that this is why many people try to explain it away. Some attempt to reduce moral impropriety to an instrumental matter – as we do with a tree, for our purposes, does not shade us well and is, for this reason, and in this sense, a ‘bad tree.’”[8] Terms such as good, bad, or evil simply lose all substantive value in a purely naturalistic worldview. This does not mean that an atheist cannot be a good person. Of course they can and most of them are morally upright. The issue is not that you cannot be good or do good things if you do not believe in God or the God of the Bible. The issue is that such a thing as good cannot objectively exist if God does not exist. If evil exists, good exists, and if good exists, God exists.

Notes

[1] J.L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1977), 15.

[2] Ravi Zacharias & Vince Vitale, Why Suffering: Finding Meaning and Comfort When Life Doesn’t Make Sense. (New York, NY: Hatchette Book Group, 2014)142.

[3] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1995)133.

[4] Turek, Stealing From God, ix.

[5] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. (New York, NY: Free Press, 2010), 56.

[6] Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution. (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2019)118.

[7] Harris, The Moral Landscape, 56.

[8] Gregory Bassham, C.S. Lewis’s Christian Apologetics: Pro and Con. (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2015), 127-28.

Putting God on Trial

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“I can’t believe in a God who would allow so much evil and suffering in the world.”

Have you encountered this challenge? Most anyone who has tried to defend the Christian worldview surely has. The person bringing this challenge will often claim to be atheist, but when you dig in a bit this challenger is more often someone who knows there is a creator but who is deeply offended by the world, and angry at the God who set all this – the carnage, the anguish, the pain – in motion.

In my last post, I restated the traditional Christian response to this problem of evil. God did not create the evil that surrounds us because evil is not a thing. Evil is a departure- a deviation- from the good which God did create, and which God defines. This answer serves a particular purpose: it shows that the Christian belief system is internally coherent. For if God did create evil, he could not be the God described in the Bible because an all-powerful, all-good, and all-loving God could not be the creator of evil.

But, the atheist insists, even if I grant that God did not create evil, He created this universe and everything in it. Isn’t He, therefore, still responsible for all the evil that we see around us? In other words, if God isn’t guilty of the crime of actually creating evil, is He not still liable as an aider and abettor?

C.S. Lewis wrote about those who put God “in the dock.” It seems a natural human tendency to find fault with the way others have acted or decisions they have made. As a criminal prosecutor, I found that I would often slip into this kind of thinking too, silently building a case against God, accusing Him in my inner thoughts of not doing things the way He should have, the way I would have. The created order is filled with so much beauty, so much elegance, so much to admire and to be awed by….yet, we know that something is also very much amiss. Every beautiful thing God has created has been marred in some way. Out of every good in the world, there springs forth, weed-like, much that is bad, much that is evil. Why has God allowed this?

By satisfying the demands of logic, the traditional explanation of the nature of evil helps to make sense of our faith. But notice what it does not attempt to do: it does not seek to defend God, which is, in essence, what this challenge is asking us to take on. Nor does it provide an emotionally satisfying explanation to the one who is suffering, no easy answer to make it all quickly better.

What, then, can the Christian to say in response to this challenge?

Perhaps the answer should begin with the recognition that we need not – that indeed we cannot – defend God. Yes, God is responsible, ultimately. It is His creation, His universe, His set of rules to which both conform. For reasons that make sense to Him, He endowed us with free will, knowing that we would use it in inappropriate ways, in ways that displeased Him and would cause harm to others. True, this answer is not satisfying emotionally. It is instead a logical answer, and while logic has its place, we are not strictly logical beings. We feel, and when we experience evil, we suffer. As beings who love, we grieve when we see those whom we love suffer.

The challenger may argue that a God who allows suffering cannot be loving but is it not the case that suffering may serve a purpose. We grasp this intuitively: we know that hard work can often lead to much gain; we see that the cure of the physician or surgeon may at first be quite painful; we note the agony of labor that precedes the birth of a child. Everywhere in nature, we see the source of the expression “no pain, no gain.” We also know, at a more profound level, that none of this, neither the pain nor the glory, lasts forever. We are on the road to …somewhere…and there are indeed many obstacles, many pitfalls, along the way.

And yet, are we really in a place to put God on trial? With what arrogance would the pot stand in the well to accuse the potter of poor workmanship? How would the robot, constructed to complete a particular job, rightly complain that the tasks to which it is put are not just? That it should instead rule the world into which it was placed.

At present, we see through darkened and distorted lenses. Free will and suffering. These concepts will never make complete sense to us. But as the created and not the creator, perhaps all we can do is remember that they make sense to Him.

Introduction

Theism vs. The State

No God, No Legitimate Reformations

No God, No Legitimate Changes at All

Yet Changes and Reformations Abound And More Are Attempted

Politicians Are Already Steps Ahead of Us

An Even More Dangerous Game

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Reading the Texts

One Proposed Solution from A Scholar

Dealing with Judas’ Death

But What About the Field Bought by The Priests?

The Death of Judas: Not A Hopeless Bible Contradiction.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Corrupted Culture

A World Gone Bad

Crooked Creatures

The Problem of Evil

What Do You Mean By “Ought”?

Shalom

God Comes Down

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Resources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Our Redemption

Turn and Live

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Different Kind of Persuasion

Give ’em Pause

Have Conversations, not Debates

Show Truth and Goodness

Reflection and Persuasion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic: