Page 105 – CrossExamined

Here’s a post from Christian writer Terrell Clemmons about efforts by gay activists to redefine Christianity so that it is consistent with homosexual behavior. This particular post is focused on Matthew Vines.

She writes:

In March 2012, two years after having set out to confront homophobia in the church, Matthew presented the results of his “thousands of hours of research” in an hour-long talk titled “The Gay Debate.” The upshot of it was this: “The Bible does not condemn loving gay relationships. It never addresses the issues of same-sex orientation or loving same-sex relationships, and the few verses that some cite to support homophobia have nothing to do with LGBT people.” The video went viral (more than three quarter million views to date) and Matthew has been disseminating the content of it ever since.

In 2013, he launched “The Reformation Project,” “a Bible-based, non-profit organization … to train, connect, and empower gay Christians and their allies to reform church teaching on homosexuality from the ground up.” At the inaugural conference, paid for by a $104,000 crowd-funding campaign, fifty LGBT advocates, all professing Christians, gathered for four days in suburban Kansas City for teaching and training, At twenty-three years of age, Matthew Vines was already becoming a formidable cause célèbre.

Terrell summarizes the case he makes, and here is the part I am interested in:

Reason #1: Non-affirming views inflict pain on LGBT people. This argument is undoubtedly the most persuasive emotionally, but Matthew has produced a Scriptural case for it. Jesus, in his well-known Sermon on the Mount, warned his listeners against false prophets, likening them to wolves in sheep’s clothing. Then switching metaphors, he asked, “Do people pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?” The obvious answer is no, and Jesus’s point was, you can recognize a good or bad tree – and a true or false prophet – by its good or bad fruit. From this, Matthew concludes that, since non-affirming beliefs on the part of some Christians cause the bad fruit of emotional pain for other Christians, the non-affirming stance must not be good.

Terrell’s response to this is spot on, and I recommend you read her post to get the full response.

She writes:

Matthew Vines in particular, and LGBTs in general, appear to be drivingly fixated on changing other people’s moral outlook. But why? Why are they distressed over the shrinking subset of Christianity that holds to the traditional ethic of sex? Note that Matthew found an affirming church in his hometown, as can most any LGBT-identifying Christian. Affirming churches abound. Gaychurch.org lists forty-four affirming denominations – denominations, not just individual churches – in North America and will help you find a congregation in your area. Why, then, given all these choices for church accommodation, are Matthew and the Reformers specifically targeting churches whose teachings differ from their own?

One gets the sense that LGBTs really, really need other people to affirm their sexual behavior. Certainly it’s human to want the approval of others, but this goes beyond an emotionally healthy desire for relational comity. Recall Matthew’s plea that non-affirming views on the part of some Christians cause emotional pain for others. He, and all like-minded LGBTs, are holding other people responsible for their emotional pain. This is the very essence of codependency.

The term came out of Alcoholics Anonymous. It originally referred to spouses of alcoholics who enabled the alcoholism to continue unchallenged, but it has since been broadened to encompass several forms of dysfunctional relationships involving pathological behaviors, low self-esteem, and poor emotional boundaries. Codependents “believe their happiness depends upon another person,” says Darlene Lancer, an attorney, family therapist, and author of Codependency for Dummies. “In a codependent relationship, both individuals are codependent,” says clinical psychologist Seth Meyers. “They try to control their partner and they aren’t comfortable on their own.”

Which leads to an even more troubling aspect of this Vinesian “Reformation.” Not only are LGBT Reformers not content to find an affirming church for themselves and peacefully coexist with everyone else, everyone else must change in order to be correct in their Christian expression.

This is the classic progression of codependency, and efforts to change everyone else become increasingly coercive. We must affirm same-sex orientation, Matthew says. If we don’t, we are “tarnishing the image of God [in gay Christians]. Instead of making gay Christians more like God … embracing a non-affirming position makes them less like God.” “[W]hen we reject the desires of gay Christians to express their sexuality within a lifelong covenant, we separate them from our covenantal God.”

Do you hear what he’s saying? LGBTs’ relationships with God are dependent on Christians approving their sexual proclivities. But he’s still not finished. “In the final analysis, then, it is not gay Christians who are sinning against God by entering into monogamous, loving relationships. It is we who are sinning against them by rejecting their intimate relationships.” In other words, non-affirming beliefs stand between LGBTs and God. Thus sayeth Matthew Vines.

The rest of her article deals with Vines’ attempt to twist Scripture to validate sexual behavior that is not permissible in Christianity.

Vines seems to want a lot of people to agree that the Bible somehow doesn’t forbid this sexual behavior so that the people who are doing it won’t feel bad about doing it. If he can just silence those who disagree and get a majority of people to agree, then the people who are doing these things will feel better.

Matthew Vines is annoyed that Bible-believing Christians expect homosexuals to work through their same-sex attractions, abstain from premarital sex, and then either remain chaste like me or marry one person of the opposite sex and then confine his/her sexual behavior to his/her marriage. But how is that different than what is asked of me? I am single and have opposite sex-attractions, but I am also expected to abstain from sex outside of marriage. I have two choices: either remain chaste or marry one woman for life and confine my sexual behavior to that marriage. I’m not married, so I’ve chosen to remain chaste. If I have to exercise a little self-control to show God that what he wants from me is important to me, then I am willing to do that. I’m really at a loss to understand why so many people take sexual gratification as a given, rather than as an opportunity for self-denial and self-control. I am especially puzzled by sinful people demanding that others celebrate their sin – and using the power of the government now to compel others to celebrate their sin. Christianity is a religion where the founder prioritized self-sacrificial obedience above pleasure and fulfillment. You really have to wonder about people who miss that core element of Christianity.

My service to God is not conditional on me getting my needs met. And my needs and desires are no less strong than the needs of people who engage in sex outside the boundaries of Christian teaching. We just make different decisions about what/who comes first. For me, Jesus is first because I have sympathy with Jesus for loving me enough to die in my place for my sins. I am obligated to Jesus, and that means that my responsibility to meet expectations in our relationship comes above my desire to be happy and fulfilled. For Matthew, the sexual desires come first, and Scripture has to be reinterpreted in light of a desire to be happy. I just don’t see anything in the New Testament that leads me to believe that we should expect God to fulfill our desires. The message of Jesus is about self-denial, self-control, and putting God the Father first – even when it results in suffering. I take that seriously. That willingness to be second and let Jesus lead me is what makes me an authentic Christian.

There is a good debate featuring Robert Gagnon and a gay activist in this post, so you can hear both sides.

The Word Of Truth

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

By Jason Jimenez

The Bible has been bashed, terrorized, and burned more than any other book of antiquity! It has faced enormous challenges of its literal expression as well as the debates over its validity and accuracy from God. And yet, despite the growing hostility of the Bible, it still remains the most translated, bought, and read book in all of history!

The word bible literally means book, which comes from the ancient Greek Papyrus plant, biblos. Of course, the Bible is not just any book…it is the Word of Truth! R.A. Torrey explains the Bible as “a revelation of the mind and will and character and being of an infinitely great, perfectly wise and absolutely holy God. God, Himself, is the Author of this revelation. But to whom is the revelation made? To men, to finite beings who are imperfect in intellectual development and consequently in knowledge, and who are also imperfect in character and consequently in spiritual discernment.[1]

God is able to speak truth to fallen humans because He is TRUTH (Psalm 25:5; John 3:3; 4:24; 1 John 4:6), and has given His infallible Word in written form (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20, 21). King David reflected, “The sum of your word is truth, and every sum of your righteous rules endures forever (Psalm 119:160).” Jesus prayed to His Heavenly Father, “Sanctify them in the truth, your word is truth (John 17:17).” And finally, Paul gives a charge to Timothy, “Do you best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).”

Thus, no other book in the history of mankind contains words, concepts, and stories that contain the truth of God like the Word of God! The Bible Reader’s Companion breaks it down like this: “The Bible is the world’s best–selling book. It has been translated into more languages than any other book in history. And it has been honored over the ages as a unique book—a book given by God Himself, containing a timeless message for all human beings, everywhere. Other religions have sacred books. But none compares with the Bible. It is a unique book. This collection of 66 works by many different authors, written and compiled over a span of some 1,600 years, is the only book that can support a claim to have been inspired by God Himself. It is the only book that accurately conveys the message God intends to communicate to humanity—and to you and me.”[2]

Reference

[1] R.A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible: Alleged Errors and Contradictions (Willow Grove: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing, 1998).

[2] Lawrence O. Richards, The Bible Readers Companion, electronic ed. (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991), 9.

What does sex mean?

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

What does sex mean according to the Supreme Court? Frank identifies and expounds upon 5 Casualties in the Court’s LGBTQ Sex Ruling:

We the People
Women
LGBTQ People
96% of the Population
Religious Freedom

Frank reveals the sixth casualty as well, one for which the original civil rights law was made.

He then offers some solutions and traces the absurd ruling—which rationally nullifies the basis for any human rights—back to a rejection of Aristotle. Listen to find out how.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

June 19, 2020/by Frank Turek

5 Casualties of the Court’s LGBTQ Sex Ruling

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

“Sex” in civil rights law now legally means sexual orientation or whatever gender you think you are. That’s the result of a surprising Supreme Court decision (Bostock vs. Clayton County) from Justice Neil Gorsuch. Problem? Yes, here are five casualties of this ruling:

We the People: If you think you have the ability to govern yourselves through your elected representatives, the United States Supreme Court again made a mockery of that Constitutional principle. You can work to elect the right people and pass all the laws you want, only to see a handful of unelected lawyers on the Supreme Court nullify or replace your laws with their own.

That’s what six justices did this week. They changed the 1964 civil rights law into a law that they desired, despite the fact that the very changes they made have been rejected by Congress in recent years. Now, just like that, “sex” no longer means biological sex but sexual orientation and whatever a person thinks their sex is at the time.

As Justices Alito and Thomas wrote in dissent, there’s only one word for what the Court did: “legislation.” “A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.”

Now, many actually agree with the result (it has some big negatives I’ll get to in a minute). But the means by which this result was achieved should disturb everyone because it strikes at the very heart of our Constitution and our rights as people to govern ourselves. It’s an injustice for judges to impose their legislative will on the people. If judges want to change the law, then they should do what any citizen has to do—convince fellow citizens to go through the legislative process to get the law changed. To merely impose their will on the people is tyranny.

Women: Justice Gorsuch’s opinion furthers the Leftist claim that sex is defined not by biology, but by one’s state of mind. Therefore, if a man thinks he’s a woman, then the law must treat him as a woman. Although Gorsuch tries to deny this result, what he’s done is given legal grounds for biological men to gain a legal advantage over actual women in the workplace, in the bathroom, and elsewhere.

Ladies, you want that promotion? All other things being equal, who do you think your employer is now going to promote—you or the man transitioning to a woman who now has heightened legal grounds as an even smaller minority to sue for “discrimination”?

Do you want privacy and safety in the bathroom and showering facilities? What policy is your employer or gym going to adopt—the common sense one where biological men and women are kept separate, or the one that prevents a costly discrimination suit by inviting men into women’s facilities?

LGBTQ People: Gorsuch has not just made it harder for women; his reasoning contradicts the very rationale for the existence of women and the LGBTQ people he’s supposedly trying to help. For when someone identifies as a woman, man, lesbian or gay, they are presupposing there is such a thing as objective biological sex. How else can one have sex with someone of the same sex unless one can differentiate that person from the opposite sex? And how can a man transition into becoming a woman unless men and women actually exist?

The practical outcome of the Court’s opinion is that either one’s biology or psychology can determine one’s sex. But if a person’s subjective psychology usurps their objective biology, then there is no objective way of identifying anyone as a man, woman, or LGBTQ. Sex and sexual identity are just figments of the imagination (much like Gorsuch’s justification for his opinion).

That’s why some lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and feminists have been against the subjective transgender psychology standard that Gorsuch just affirmed—it defines them out of existence!

96% of the Population: Ask anyone in corporate America this question: Are you more likely to experience problems at work for supporting LGBTQ political goals or opposing them? It’s not even close, as I found out personally.

HR departments in corporate America are proponents of everything LGBTQ, and those who identify as such are actually better off than their straight counterparts. LGBTQ households, on average, earn more than traditional households, and gay men earn 10% more than straight men. While there are individual exceptions (hence the lawsuit that brought this case to the Supreme Court), there appears to be NO systemic problem of anti-LGBTQ bias in the workplace.

Yet, this Court’s decision will employ the strong arm of government to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. The decision will force companies to give employment preference to a long list of sexual orientations that, at best, 4% of people claim (a 4% that already has a financial advantage). Anyone who claims an LGBTQ identity will now have more job security than John or Jane Doe. How so? Because if a company has to downsize, who are they going choose—one of the helpless Doe’s, or the person of a new legally-preferenced minority who can bring a costly lawsuit alleging “discrimination”?

While reverse discrimination may not be the intent of this decision, it is an inevitable consequence. As soon as you give preferential treatment to one group of people, you are automatically disadvantaging anyone not part of that group.

Moreover, there isn’t any medical consensus as to what sexual orientation or transgenderism is. But the effect of this decision is that businesses are now forced to give preference to those who identify as “ambigender; bigender; blurgender; collgender; conflictgender; cosmicgender; crystagender; deliciagender; duragender; demiflux; domgender; fissgender; gemelgender; gendercluster; genderfluid; gendersea; genderfuzz; genderfractal; genderspiral; genderswirl; gendervex; gyaragender; libragender; ogligender; pangender; polygender; trigender (whatever that all means). How is it possible to even know you’re in compliance if you can’t define what compliance is? How many young workers will claim one of these nebulous labels just to get an advantage? (Their claims for special treatment can’t be objectively disproven like Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be a Native American.)

In short, this decision doesn’t fix an existing workplace problem (thankfully, LGBTQ folks are doing quite well). Instead, it creates legal and administrative chaos, and it legally justifies reverse discrimination against an already underperforming 96% of the population. That’s anything but “equality.”

Religious Freedom: If any group is being discriminated against in corporate America, it is Christians and other conservatives who are hiding under their desks for fear of being outed, excluded, and shamed by the “inclusion and diversity” police. Are their First Amendment rights now nullified? How about Christian, Muslim, and Jewish schools: are they now forced to hire teachers and administrators who contradict their natural law and scriptural views of proper sexual behavior? Will religious people now need special permission from the Supreme Court to live as if there are two genders created for one another?

Judge Gorsuch says those questions are for another case. Given his faulty reasoning skills and legislative impulses, in this case, I’m not optimistic he’ll respect reason or the Constitution the next time either.

Were Women Treated Like Chattel In The Old Testament?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

If you’ve ever spent time talking with skeptics about the Bible, they’ve more than likely brought up Old Testament laws that appear out of step with our “modern ideals.” For example, many suggest that the Bible treats women like chattel (property) and promotes misogyny. Then they’ll quote verses that appear, on the surface, to make women out to be second-class citizens.

But does the Bible really promote the idea that women are no better than chattel? Does Scripture declare women as the inferior gender? The truth is, it doesn’t, and I can explain why.

God’s Ideals Vs. Case Laws

Typically, those who reject Christianity rush to various case laws to make their point that Scripture is fundamentally against women. Looking to case laws, instead of God’s ideals, is a huge mistake, though. To be fair, the skeptic usually doesn’t know the difference, and you might not either. So allow me to distinguish between the two.

God’s Ideals

God’s ideals refer to his straight forward commands or principles he prescribes in Scripture. That is, these ideals reflect God’s heart on the matter and are universal in scope. Let me give you a few examples with respect to women:

God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. — Genesis 1:27

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. — Genesis 2:24

Every one of you shall reverence his mother and his father. — Leviticus 19:3

He who finds a good wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD. — Proverbs 18:22

What do we learn about God’s attitude toward women? They are made in his image, should not share their husbands with any other women, deserve respect from their children, and are a sign of God’s favor to their husbands. In other words, God loves women and values them just as much as he values men.

Case Laws

Case laws are different from God’s ideals in that they only refer to specific situations and are not universal in scope. And in many instances, these case laws never assume that God’s ideals have been met. Instead, they assume that moral concessions have been made and then try to make the best out of that less than ideal situation. Let me give you an example of a case law:

If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have born him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn. — Deuteronomy 21:15-17

Notice that this case law refers to a polygamous situation (If the man has two wives). In other words, this man has disregarded God’s ideal for monogamous marriage (Gen. 2:24). Now that the deed is done, how should Israel make the best of this messy situation?

You might say he should divorce one of his wives to get back to monogamous marriage. But which one? And once she’s divorced, will anyone want to marry her since she’s no longer a virgin? Furthermore, how will she provide for herself? As you can see, it’s not so simple.

Instead, for the sake of the women’s protection, God says for everyone to stay put. And in this particular case law, God says that the firstborn child, regardless of whether he comes from the favorite wife or not, should receive the firstborn’s inheritance.

This is not ideal. Polygamy is always wrong (more on that in a minute). But now that the man already violated God’s ideals, the law attempts to make the best out of an already messy situation.

Prescription Vs. Description

Another reason people assume the Bible is misogynistic is because they don’t distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive texts. As with case laws, people will misunderstand God’s heart on the matter if they don’t understand what kind of text they’re reading.

Prescriptive

Prescriptive texts are ones where God gives a clear command — or prescribes — how people are to live in relation to him. With respect to polygamy, here are some examples of prescriptive texts:

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. — Genesis 2:24

[The king] must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. — Deuteronomy 17:17

And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive. — Leviticus 18:18

Again, God’s ideal that he clearly prescribes is that a man marry only one wife. This is not only true for the kings of Israel (Deut. 17:17); it is true for all men everywhere (Gen. 2:24).

Descriptive

Because the Bible contains so much historical content, many texts describe certain immoral actions. With respect to polygamy, we find several instances in the Old Testament, where men have multiple wives. This would seem to support the notion that Scripture promotes treating women like chattel, but that would be a mistake.

This would be a mistake because the Bible never prescribes polygamous relationships. It describes them. It describes Lamech (the first polygamist), who had no intention of obeying the Lord’s commands. Scripture describes Jacob, David, Solomon, and others, who disregarded God’s prescribed law (Gen. 2:24, Deut. 17:17, Lev. 18:18). All the while, in each case where men ignore God’s prescribed ideal, we witness disharmony, strife, and pain.

In short, just because we read about men treating women like chattel doesn’t mean that’s how God feels about them. God made women in his image and loves them as he loves men.

What About The Bride-Price?

When skeptics talk about the Old Testament bride-price, they make it sound equivalent to buying a mule (chattel) at a public auction. In reality, it reflected no such thing.

The bride-price was a payment that the groom’s father made to the wife’s father and signified that the groom had serious intentions to marry his bride. That is, he wasn’t entering this relationship lightly.

This payment not only strengthened the relations between the two families, but it also provided compensation for the work the woman would have otherwise contributed to her family. Additionally, the payment served as a safety net for the family if the husband ever died or lost his ability to provide financially.

Here is an example of a case law that speaks of the bride-price:

If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins. — Exodus 22:16-17

Again, here is an example of a less than ideal situation (case law). But notice that this law blames the man, not the woman. The man seduced a virgin, and because of that, the law says he needs to pay up with the bride-price.

Skeptics argue that this act makes women out as chattel, but the intent of this law is actually for their protection. You see, women who weren’t virgins had a much harder time getting married in that culture, and therefore, their economic future would have been in jeopardy. Requiring the man to pay the bride-price and marry the woman actually protected her in the long run.

The father, however, had the right to refuse his daughter while at the same time collecting the bride-price since the man was guilty in the matter. Ultimately if the father and the daughter agreed to it (Gen. 24), she could marry the man and have financial security for the rest of her life.

Women As Chattel?

An elementary reading of the text might lead some to conclude that the Bible is misogynistic. When one understands a few basic hermeneutical principles, however, one discovers the Bible is actually for, not against women.

The Importance Of A Balanced Faith

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

It is very easy to get engrossed in all the arguments for God. People like me love to demonstrate the scientific and philosophical evidence for God. And there are good reasons for us to expose the ethical vacuum we create when we remove God from the culture. These are the kinds of things on which I focus a lot of time, energy, reading, and teaching. It’s good to know things about God. But people like me must also realize that knowing about God can become a distracting detour from the primary purpose of our lives — the pursuit of God. We have heads and hearts. And a balanced faith requires that we engage both.

One Wing, Won’t Fly

When I was in the Marine Corps, one of my best friends was involved in a mid-air collision. He was flying a Harrier that collided with an F-18 Hornet at a closure speed of nearly 900 miles per hour. His recollection of the impact was astounding. He vividly remembered seeing the left-wing of his Harrier twist and disintegrate after it contacted the left horizontal stabilizer of the Hornet. Time seemed to stop. And for a brief moment, he remembered thinking, “I may be able to fly this thing.”

AV-8B Harrier and F-18 Hornet — AV-8B Harrier & F-18 Hornet

His optimism was short-lived. As the thought was still echoing in his head, his airplane snap-rolled to the left. The sky became a swirling blur. He immediately reached for the ejection handle and pulled.

The team that investigated the accident estimated that in the short time it took him to recognize his plight, my friend’s Harrier had dropped several thousand feet. His jet was traveling more than 500 miles per hour when he ejected. A few minutes later, he was sitting in a life raft in the Atlantic Ocean eating Chiclets. Not a scratch on him.

I don’t know if my buddy’s story constitutes a “miracle,” but I do know this. Airplanes with one wing can’t fly.

Desiring God

The futility of trying to fly a one-winged airplane popped into my head recently when I began reading a book that has been sitting in my bookcase, untouched, for several years. John Piper’s Desiring God is a Christian classic and an eye-opening treat.

I have to admit my first reaction to Piper’s call to “Christian Hedonism” was negative. The word “hedonism” just sounds bad to me. But I would encourage you to listen to his entire argument. He makes a clear, biblical case for grounding our lives in the idea that:

The chief end of man is to glorify God

enjoying him forever.

Some of it is still sinking in. I have to consider it more deeply. And I have no intention of analyzing that concept point-by-point. I simply want to focus on the message that came through loud and clear to me. That there is an affective element to the Christian faith that people like me minimize to our own detriment.

The Touchy-Feely Church

To be honest, I have become jaded, even antagonistic, toward this notion. I have a natural aversion to the feelings-based thoughtlessness of the American church in general. History shows that many of the denominations that exist in America today were born during the Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th centuries. The emotional appeals of those “Awakenings” were relevant and proper. But they also helped to produce an anti-intellectualism in the American church. Today we live in its aftermath.

I believe and defend the claim that this trend is not only dangerous but unbiblical. Christianity has never been based on the mindless acceptance of a blind leap of faith. It has always been anchored in intellectual assent to the objective truth that Christ embodied. Faith is a thoughtful, willful decision. I have been convinced of that for a long time.

But then Piper hit me with this (p. 247):

“It is astonishing to me that so many people try to define true Christianity in terms of decisions and not affections. Not that decisions are unessential. The problem is that they require so little transformation to achieve. They are evidence of no true work of grace in the heart. People can make “decisions” about the truth of God while their hearts are far from him.”

Ouch.

You Need Both

This is something we know, but that is easy for someone like me to forget. A wooden, intellectually-centered faith is just as dangerous as an emotion-centered faith. Neither works by itself.

We were told to “love our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength.” We don’t get to pick our favorite way to love our God. It takes our heads and our hearts working together in holistic unity. Piper again (p. 76):

“Truth without emotion produces dead orthodoxy and a church full (or half-full) of artificial admirers … On the other hand, emotion without truth produces empty frenzy and cultivates shallow people who refuse the discipline of rigorous thought. But true worship comes from people who are deeply emotional and who love deep and sound doctrine. Strong affections for God rooted in truth are the bone marrow of biblical worship.”

Put another way, a life of faith needs two wings to fly.

A Spectrum Of Faith

All of us are different. Some are driven more by feelings and emotions. Others by reason. But these shouldn’t be polarizing. As I have heard Greg Koukl put it, “emotion makes life delicious; reason keeps life safe.” We ignore either of them at our own peril.

Instead, they form the two ends of a spectrum of spirituality. A real and vibrant faith lies somewhere in the middle. When Christ told us that he came so that we “may have life, and have it to the full,” this is what I believe he meant.

So where are you on the spectrum? And what do you have to do to work your way toward the balanced life of faith that should be yours?

What, Me Worry?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Alfred E. Neumann, the famous face of Mad Magazine for many decades, popularized this slogan. While he wasn’t referring to the question of salvation, this saying does seem to describe the way many people view that question today. Yes, there may be a God; they will concede. But “I’m not worried,” they say. “I’m a good person, after all, and God will judge me accordingly.”

In my last post, I considered one of the ways to address this modern mindset, by making the point that expecting God to grade on a curve may not be a smart bet. This time, I’d like to explore a different approach, by examining what people mean when they say they are “good” and why a God they never bothered to get to know should care.

We can be “good” at things that do not involve others. For instance, we can be good at building sandcastles or doing crossword puzzles. But usually, when we say we are good at something, we mean that our performance is meeting or surpassing expectations. While we might not be aware of it, we are sneaking in a standard against which we judge what we have done. For instance, if we’re talking about sports, we mean we possess the skillset, discipline, and experience necessary to play effectively and to win. If we’re dealing with academics, we mean that we are sufficiently bright, hardworking, and knowledgeable to demonstrate our mastery of the subject on the test or in the class we have taken. If we’re thinking about the work environment, we mean that we know what is expected in our role, and we have the skills, experience, and dedication to accomplish our goals.

In each of these scenarios, we are buying into a game that we know we did not ourselves create. Someone who came before us outlined the parameters of what was expected and set the rules. While new games, new challenges, develop over time, we seem to be built to intuitively look for the rules of the “game” and seek to compete. And while often there is a specific reward we have a mind, a moment’s reflection should demonstrate that we seem to be, by nature, hardwired to try to surpass a standard we know is there.

Pursuing this line of thought to the next step, what else do these ways of “doing good,” of surpassing expectations, have in common? In addition to measuring up to a standard deriving from some preceding standard-setter, they all involve some form of relationship with the one, or the group, that sets the standard. We measure the good based on what performance is expected of us by someone who is in charge and who, in the end, will measure the performance. Whether the ref, the teacher or the boss, if we really want to stand out as good – no, as truly excellent and worthy of praise and a reward – we’d be well advised to find out what the particular judge thinks qualifies as good. An Olympic skater waiting for the judges’ score has in mind a clear understanding of exactly what performance is being measured, and what gaffs or missteps would qualify as a failure. And, the more powerful the judge and the more important the competition or event, the more crucial it is to understand the standard and to get it right. After all, it’s more important for the employee or the prison inmate to understand what good means than the person who is trying to finish a crossword puzzle.

Now, of course, for any particular event or competition we have in mind, the only sure way we can know with certainty what qualifies as good is to get to know the one who will be judging the performance. However, successful in other areas of their lives, the modern secularist simply does not see the point in doing this with the ultimate question – why am I here and who or what put me here? They are not troubled by the apparent disconnect – why does it matter in every other pursuit in life but not to the central pursuit, the most basic and ultimate one regarding origins…and the ultimate destination. The modern secularist doesn’t know anything about the One who, in the end, will judge his performance, the One who is going to say whether all these so-called good works amounted to anything of value. More importantly, they don’t even care. How odd this seems, to be so concerned about being “good” at lesser things and not put any effort into asking the right question about the “whole thing.” No doubt if pressed, they would say that God hasn’t bothered to communicate the standard to them, hasn’t made Himself known in the right way. Perhaps they think that justifies not trying harder to see if this is true.

I suspect most nonbelievers expect that God if he is actually there, will appreciate all the “good deeds” they did over the years and be happy with them. Perhaps they are picturing a sort of cosmic subway station; their many good deeds over the years will act like coins in the gate, allowing it to swing open for them if they’ve guessed wrongly and there really is a judge awaiting their arrival.

Christians, by contrast, know that our good works don’t earn us admission into heaven. But the secularist isn’t thinking that way. When he tells you he is good, he means he expects God to see this as well. You should remind him that by his own standard, he may be in a bit more trouble than he thinks. The coins he is depositing are from a different realm, and they don’t work with the guardian of the gate. It’s actually the wrong currency.

Think of it this way: can I ask the teacher of a different class to give me an A based on the good work I am doing in my class? Can I ask your employer to pay me for the good work I am doing for my employer? Should I expect my friend to give my son an allowance for the chores he performs at my home? If you weren’t doing the work for someone you knew, the way you knew he wanted it, why would you expect to be compensated, let alone rewarded?

Why then should the secularist who knows nothing about God, and cares even less, expect God to recognize any of his works as good?

Defund the Police?

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Defund the police is one of the demands of the Black Lives Matter movement. Is that the right solution to racism in the police force? Should we defund all doctors if some commit malpractice? What does BLM believe? How do they compare with the teaching of Christ? Can you believe that black lives matter yet oppose some of BLM’s political goals? Frank looks at human nature, crime stats, and the scriptures to get some answers. He also addresses some of the contradictory assertions we hear from Left. This is an important show for these tense times!

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

June 13, 2020/by Frank Turek

How to Disagree Better about COVID-19, Conspiracy Theories, and Pretty Much Everything Else in Life

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

Aside from feeling the fatigue of quarantine in general, I am feeling the fatigue of people arguing about the quarantine. This includes Christians fighting with other Christians, Christians fighting with non-believers, and non-believers fighting with non-believers.

If you spend any time on social media, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

Our culture has largely lost the ability to disagree well. I’ve experienced this for years when discussing worldview issues with both Christians and skeptics. But because these worldview conversations tend to take place in online pockets, the nature of those disagreements isn’t always front and center in public life. The universal experience of COVID-19 right now, however, has shone a light on just how poorly many people conduct disagreements—for all to see. And what I see happening in COVID-19 disagreements is the same thing I’ve so often seen happen in worldview disagreements:

People don’t know how to have disagreements at the right level.

Let me explain.

Facts, Interpretations of Facts, and Applications of Interpretations (the FIA Pyramid)

A simple example will demonstrate the problem with many disagreements, as well as the power of using what I’m going to call the FIA thought pyramid: Facts, Interpretations of Facts, and Applications (both personal and policy).

Let’s say I came downstairs this morning and found stuffing from my puppy’s bed all over the floor. There are holes in her bed, and a little stuffing hanging from the corner of her mouth. Those are facts (and a true story!).

I then interpret this to mean that my puppy made a hole in the bed and pulled stuffing out. I didn’t actually see it happen, but I’ve inferred from the facts that this was the case.

Based on this interpretation, I’m upset with her and decide something must change (a personal application).

I then make a new rule (a policy application) that she is not allowed to have a bed of this kind until she has outgrown her puppy months.

Now, imagine that I’ve cleaned all this up before my kids have even opened their eyes for the day. When they eventually make it downstairs, they see I’ve taken the puppy’s bed away. Here’s how they process the situation:

Fact: Mommy took the puppy’s bed away.
Interpretation: Mommy is mean.
Personal application: I’m mad at mommy.
Policy application: The new rule is unfair.

This situation could lead to a giant tug of war between my kids and me if we chose to argue over the policy application (the fairness of the new bed rule):

Them: “It’s so unfair! She needs her bed!”

Me: “It’s perfectly fair. She isn’t old enough to have one like this.”

But the central disagreement here isn’t over the rule. It’s over the facts. In this case, the kids have a missing fact. They didn’t know that the puppy destroyed her bed this morning. Yes, we could all agree that mommy took the bed away (one fact), but the additional fact that she destroyed her bed and was harmfully eating stuffing was missing. If I shared with the kids what happened, so they now had that additional information, their new thought pyramid could quickly change to this:

Fact: Mommy took the puppy’s bed away because she was eating from it and could hurt herself.
Interpretation: Mommy is trying to protect the puppy.
Personal application: Mommy can be trusted to make good decisions for the puppy.
Policy application: The new rule is fair.

In this example, there was initially disagreement at the top of the pyramid (policy application) because the kids were working from an incomplete set of facts. (This isn’t the only kind of fact problem in the real world, of course; people can have different sets of facts, different types of facts, different numbers of facts, and inaccurate “facts” spread throughout their working knowledge of something.) Because of this, it would be pointless to debate the new rule in and of itself. We needed to work backward in the pyramid to see where the real disagreement was and have a conversation at that level.

Now that we’ve seen a simple example let’s look at disagreement at various places on the pyramid with COVID-19.

Disagreement Over Facts

When it comes to COVID-19, it’s fair to say that NO ONE knows all the facts because it’s a new virus. Most of us, as non-specialists in epidemiology, glean what we know from a variety of sources online, and those sources vary in credibility. Oftentimes what we believe is a fact is really an interpretation of other facts. With the massive amount of new data available, and different people trusting different sources, we are bound to have significant disagreements with one another at the fact level. Yet, most arguments I see happen are at the policy level: continued lockdown or no continued lockdown.

This is a hopeless argument if you haven’t taken the time to consider the FIA thought pyramid.

Imagine, for example, that person one is working from this pyramid:

Fact: The number of deaths to date this year is no different than the number of deaths to date in prior years.
Interpretation: COVID-19 is no different from the flu.
Personal application: Not worried about catching COVID-19.
Policy application: Lockdowns aren’t warranted and are destroying the economy.

Now imagine that person two is working from this pyramid:

Fact: The number of deaths to date this year significantly exceeds the number of deaths to date in prior years.
Interpretation: COVID-19 is responsible for most of those additional deaths.
Personal application: COVID-19 is something we should all be very concerned about.
Policy application: Lockdowns are necessary to save lives.

These two people could angrily argue over whether lockdowns are necessary, but it would be a waste of breath (or typing). They are working from different assumed facts, and likely won’t agree on policy applications because of it. It’s entirely possible that if they agreed on the facts, they would agree on the policy as well and wouldn’t even be having the discussion. That said, there’s not a direct path from facts to policy, either. In the middle, we have to consider interpretations of facts.

Disagreement Over Interpretation of Facts

Let’s say now that these two people are working from the same set of assumed facts, but they’re still arguing over lockdown vs. no lockdown. It’s possible they disagree at the level of interpretation.

Perhaps the person one is working from this thought pyramid:

Fact: The number of deaths to date this year significantly exceeds the number of deaths to this date in prior years.
Interpretation: The additional deaths still aren’t extreme.
Personal application: Not very worried about catching COVID-19.
Policy application: Lockdowns aren’t warranted and are destroying the economy.

And perhaps person two is working from this thought pyramid:

Fact: Ditto person 1.
Interpretation: COVID-19 is responsible for a tragic increase in death worldwide.
Personal application: COVID-19 is something that we should all be very concerned about.
Policy application: Lockdowns are necessary to save lives.

In this case, our two people could agree that there are more deaths this year (and even that they’re due to COVID-19), but interpret the severity of that increase very differently. One person might see a 20% increase in deaths as minimal, whereas another might see it as devastating. That interpretation can make all the difference in how one views policy decisions.

Disagreement Over Applications of the Interpretations

Let’s say now that these two people are working from the same set of assumed facts and interpretations, but they’re still arguing over lockdown vs. no lockdown. It’s possible they disagree at the level of applications (personal and/or policy).

Now person one is working from this thought pyramid:

Fact: The number of deaths to date this year significantly exceeds the number of deaths to this date in prior years.
Interpretation: The additional deaths still aren’t extreme.
Personal application: Has major underlying risk factors and is very concerned about any COVID-19 exposure.
Policy application: Doesn’t believe lockdowns are warranted for everyone (will take personal measures to protect him/herself but thinks lockdowns overall are destroying the economy).

Meanwhile, person two is working from this thought pyramid:

Fact: Ditto person 1.
Interpretation:Ditto person 1.
Personal application: Ditto person 1.
Policy application: Believes lockdowns are warranted for everyone to save lives.

In this example, the two people could both personally be at risk and feel very concerned about their own well-being, but have very different opinions on how that relates to policy for everyone else. You could also have a person two who doesn’t have risk factors and isn’t personally concerned (personal application level), but believes lockdowns are the most compassionate policy for people like person 1—even though person one him/herself disagrees! Personal and policy applications don’t always go hand-in-hand.

How to Disagree Better in 3 Easy Steps

So, where does this leave us? We can disagree better in three “easy” steps.

Ask good questions to determine where the disagreement lies.

When you disagree with someone, remember this FIA pyramid (Facts, Interpretations, and Applications). There’s a really good chance that if you’re arguing about policies or politics in general, you have a disagreement at a more fundamental level. Ask the other person to clarify exactly what they’re advocating for, why they’re advocating for it, and what led them to the conclusion that they should advocate for it. Then compare that to your own FIA pyramid (do some soul searching to figure out what that looks like!) and identify where the departure in the agreement is.

Engage in the appropriate conversation for the level where the disagreement lies.

If you realize the disagreement is over facts, responding with how you interpret the facts you’re using is typically not going to move the conversation forward. You should instead be discussing data sources, whom to trust, why to trust them, and so on.

Or, if you find that you agree on facts and interpretations but have a difference of opinion on policy application, then you should be discussing things like desired policy outcomes and why there’s good reason to believe a given policy leads to those outcomes. In other words, it’s not enough to identify where the disagreement lies; the ensuing conversation should reflect that level as well.

Don’t be a jerk.

Wherever you and another person are disagreeing on the FIA pyramid, there’s just never a reason to treat someone else poorly. This should be obvious. Question facts, interpretations, and applications—don’t attack people or groups of people who have a thought pyramid different than your own. Seek understanding and respond with love and humility.

Does Paul’s Silence About Jesus Prove That He Didn’t Exist?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Over 99% of historical scholarship acknowledges that Jesus was a real person. It doesn’t matter if that scholar is liberal or conservative, or Christian, atheist, agnostic or Jewish. The <1% of historians that believe Jesus is a myth are mostly atheists or agnostics. And it’s only the ‘internet infidel’ crowd that takes their arguments seriously.

One of the arguments that Jesus mythicists will often push is that Paul was mostly silent about the historical Jesus. Here’s GA Wells, one of the minority voices, who writes:

“Paul’s letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth…. They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter’s denial of his master…. These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels he worked so many.” (The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 22)

And why didn’t Paul quote Jesus’ praise of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7? Or why not quote the Sermon on the Mount when Paul was teaching the Romans to bless their persecutors to give his message more authority? (Romans 12:14) Or why did Paul say, “we don’t know how to pray as we ought” (Romans 8:26-27) when Jesus taught his followers how to pray in Matthew 6:8-13?

One of those famous internet atheists, Dan Barker, sides with the Wells, writing: “The earliest Christian writings, the letters of Paul, are silent about the man Jesus: Paul, who never met Jesus, fails to mention a single deed or saying of Jesus…and sometimes contradicts what Jesus supposedly said. To Paul, Jesus was a heavenly disembodied Christ figure, not a man of flesh and blood.”

At first glance, the mythicists seem like they have a point. But there are a few problems here.

Arguing From Silence Is Usually A Poor Way To Prove Your Point

For starters, arguing from silence is usually a terrible way to argue. For example, Union General Ulysses S Grant says nothing about the Emancipation Proclamation. The famous explorer Marco Polo traveled to China but never mentions the Great Wall. The archives of Portugal do not allude to the travels of Amerigo Vespucci.

An estimated 16,000-60,000 people died in 79 AD due to the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. But we only hear about this event in a personal letter of Pliny’s. The relative silence of historians we’d expect to mention these events doesn’t cause scholars to doubt their occurrence.

Regarding arguments from silence, philosopher Tim McGrew writes: “Such arguments from silence are pervasive in New Testament scholarship, but they are tenuous at best….it is a risky business to speculate upon the motives of authors for including or omitting various facts. To create an appearance of inconsistency by this device…is methodologically unsound.” (Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology)

Paul’s Letters Were Occasional

There’s also the fact that most of Paul’s letters were occasional. Paul often wrote to combat error, or to provide specific guidance to churches. So, for example, Paul writes his entire letter to the Galatians to fight the doctrine of the Judaizers. Or there are the specific answers Paul gives about marriage, meat sacrificed to idols, spiritual gifts, and public worship in 1 Corinthians.

And think about it for a minute. If there weren’t some false teachers in Corinth saying there’s no resurrection, the great resurrection teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 would be missing from our Bibles! Jesus’ miracles, parables, virgin birth, arguments with the Pharisees, and so forth weren’t relevant to Paul’s purposes in writing those particular letters.

The Silence Of Paul…About Paul

In his book Did Jesus Exist?, agnostic Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman points out that Paul wasn’t just silent about some historical facts about Jesus, he also didn’t tell us a lot about himself. Like for instance: Who taught Paul? Where did he grow up? What did he do for a living? What did he do during his three years in Arabia or Damascus before meeting with Peter and James in Jerusalem? Or in the following fourteen years? Where did he go? Paul doesn’t tell us in his letters. We only learn about a few of these things from reading Acts.

Wells mentions that we don’t learn about Jesus’ miracles from Paul. But Paul said he had miracles in his ministry, and that was proof he was an apostle. (Romans 15:19, 2 Corinthians 12:12) Does Wells expect us to believe that Paul believed he and the other apostles had miracles, but Jesus didn’t?

The Silence Of Other Early Christians

But we can take it a step further. We have three letters from John, or at least attributed to him. Scholars believe he was writing to combat the proto-gnostics who were saying that sin wasn’t really a thing, and Jesus wasn’t a physical being. (1 John 1:1-3, 8) But the writer of these epistles, who wrote just like the writer of John’s Gospel, (I think they are both written by John, but scholars debate that) doesn’t mention Jesus turning water into wine, healing a man born blind, feeding the 5,000, walking on water or raising Lazarus from the dead. He doesn’t even quote the words of Jesus from that gospel. Why was the writer of 1-3 John silent about these things? Because they didn’t suit his purposes, not because he didn’t think that they happened.

Furthermore, most scholars believe that the author of Luke’s Gospel is the same author of Acts. Acts is Luke’s sequel. But in Acts, Lukes makes little use of the Jesus tradition he’s obviously familiar with. Clearly the lack of references to Jesus’ teachings in Acts doesn’t show that Luke was ignorant about what Jesus taught!

And what about the writings of some of the early church fathers? 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Polycarp’s letters to the Philippians. These letters fail to mention:

Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness.
His parables.
That he healed the sick and cast out demons.
That he was transfigured on the mountain.
That he got into arguments with the Pharisees.
That he cleansed the temple.
That Judas betrayed him.
That Pilate had him crucified.

Do we conclude that these writers didn’t think Jesus existed? No, we don’t. In the case of Polycarp, he quotes Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but these other traditions were not relevant to why he was writing, so he fails to mention them.

Paul’s “Silence” Doesn’t Prove What The Mythicists Claim

Finally, Paul wasn’t silent about the historical Jesus. As I’ve written elsewhere, Paul knows a lot about Jesus. He knows that Jesus was a descendant of David, that he had a mother, a brother named James and other siblings, a disciple named Peter, 12 disciples, that he shared the last supper with his followers, was betrayed, abused, crucified, and he alludes to several of Jesus’ teachings. (Rom 1:3-4, Gal 1:18-19, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, 1 Cor 11:22-24, Rom 15:3, 1 Cor 1:23, 1 Cor 7:10-12, 1 Cor 9:14, 11:22-24, 1 Thess 4:15)

But Paul’s main focus was Christ and him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2) It is what the cross and resurrection accomplish for the believer is what Paul is obsessed with. He’s interested in unpacking that teaching to the young churches. But his alleged silence isn’t a good argument to think that Jesus didn’t really exist. Bart Ehrman, no friend of traditional Christianity concludes that the so-called silence of Paul is a really bad way to argue, writing:

“What do these silences show? They do not show that these authors did not know about the historical Jesus because they clearly did. If anything, the silences simply show that these traditions about Jesus were not relevant to their purposes…What we can know is that Paul certainly thought that Jesus existed. He had a clear knowledge of important aspects of Jesus’s life—a completely human life, in which he was born as a Jew to a Jewish woman and became a minister to the Jews before they rejected him, leading to his death. He knew some of Jesus’s teachings. And he knew how Jesus died by crucifixion. For whatever reason, that was the most important aspect of Jesus’s life: his death. And Paul could scarcely have thought that Jesus died if he hadn’t lived”. (Did Jesus Exist? p. 145)

While I’ve disagreed with Dr. Ehrman many, many times, I have to offer a hearty amen here.

Is Homosexual Behavior Consistent With The Bible’s Teachings?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Word Of Truth

Reference

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What does sex mean?

5 Casualties of the Court’s LGBTQ Sex Ruling

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Were Women Treated Like Chattel In The Old Testament?

God’s Ideals Vs. Case Laws

Prescription Vs. Description

Women As Chattel?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Importance Of A Balanced Faith

One Wing, Won’t Fly

Desiring God

The Touchy-Feely Church

You Need Both

A Spectrum Of Faith

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What, Me Worry?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Defund the Police?

How to Disagree Better about COVID-19, Conspiracy Theories, and Pretty Much Everything Else in Life

Facts, Interpretations of Facts, and Applications of Interpretations (the FIA Pyramid)

How to Disagree Better in 3 Easy Steps

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Does Paul’s Silence About Jesus Prove That He Didn’t Exist?

Arguing From Silence Is Usually A Poor Way To Prove Your Point

Paul’s Letters Were Occasional

The Silence Of Paul…About Paul

The Silence Of Other Early Christians

Paul’s “Silence” Doesn’t Prove What The Mythicists Claim

Recommended resources related to the topic:

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED