Page 121 – CrossExamined

La participación del creyente en el proceso político, parte I

By David L. Rogers

A book, an Illustration of the Governments

Books, which enrich our lives so much, are an invention of the 16th century. Before that, all writing was on scrolls or parchments or in letters. There were no books as we know them today. Books are held together by something that most readers are unaware of: a binding. It was in 1473 that Mr. William Claxton in Great Britain learned to use a printing press to mass produce books, and he was the first to print the captions of “The Trojan War” by binding the sheets together using a binding to hold them together. Previously, Mr. Johann Gutenberg, in 1455, was the first to experiment with movable type using a printing press to print books. Once the pages are printed, they have to be put together, assembled and collated in a curiously “backwards” manner. That is, the first pages are connected to the last pages, and the front pages of the book are connected to the back pages. What binds the whole book together is the part called the book back, a cover that most consider unimportant. The binding makes a book a book, otherwise it would be nothing more than a stack of separate, loose sheets of paper. Interestingly, even before the events mentioned above, the Chinese knew and used removable characters to create books in Chinese as early as 1050 AD. For almost 1,000 years, man’s civilizations have benefited from what we know as the book!

The binding of a book is a legitimate analogy to the government of a people: it must bind the citizens together, almost imperceptibly, but with firmness and durability. The government of a given country must function so that what is unequal or unknown sticks together, is held together, and is considered as an integral part of society. The problem is when the government is too weak, allowing the pages of the book to be easily separated by the pressures of society. That is, a government that has no elasticity soon cracks and allows its citizens to separate or distance themselves. On the other hand, the reality of a demanding, heavy and abusive government is like a binding that does not allow the book to be opened, nor to be manipulated because it is too stuck and hard. It is like a binding to which too much glue has been applied, ending with the pages of the book stuck together, unified, but restricted. The book cannot be used and read.

When man comes together or wishes to form a group, community or organization, it is natural and necessary that there should be some degree of administration. The set of laws and rules and ordinances that allow him to govern exemplifies and establishes government. In practice, families unite around a matriarch or patriarch, tribes function with a chief or leader, clans follow an elder or a guide, and towns also follow someone… whether by choice, by inheritance, by feat or by popularity. All united groups throughout the world require some kind of leader, whether social, religious or national. Government gives character and unity to society.

Governments are formed under this precept. Whether informal or formal, whether highly constituted or rather relaxed, governments exist to dictate laws and practices to benefit the members of society. Their only reason for existing is to look after the good of the people they govern. In other words, the government exists for the people, NOT the other way around. This means that the government must function within parameters agreed upon and approved by the people themselves. A government without the support of the people themselves is an imposition or a manipulation of the people. Or worse, it is a dictatorship.

Regarding the role of the politician and the political class, it is essential to understand that the mass of people (i.e., the common people) have allowed politicians to govern them, being different from themselves in their worldview, to maintain a practical distance from the people. Very few ordinary citizens understand politics, and even fewer want to get involved in it. This is because many believe that politics is “dirty” or “dishonest” or even more, corrupt.

Large nations, made up of masses and their subordinate citizens, are people who do not care about the work or responsibilities of their own rulers. Citizens blindly trust politicians to be capable of exercising political power and to possess the qualities or courage to protect their national and personal interests. But the sad reality is that “the 20th century was the bloodiest ever” in the history of man (Nancy Pearcey, p. 141) which may indicate that citizens have lost control of their governments, and because governments have taken advantage of the blind trust that was placed in them.

In some places and contexts, modern governments, perhaps more than at any time in human history, are trampling on the citizens they are meant to care for. The abuse of political power today has left millions of people without the proper protection of an effective government founded on right principles and concepts and by the design of the Creator.

Our objective in this study is to present some of the concepts that the Bible establishes as solid and necessary for government, and in turn, to examine reasons that support and propose the participation of the believer in the processes of government.

By way of introduction, let us look at some texts that demarcate the limits of human government:

Genesis 9:5-6. The man who kills another man shall suffer the death penalty. The government has power over the life of the one who commits the crime of murder against his brother. But God, for those who commit involuntary manslaughter, provided a refuge or a protected place for the guilty one. This shows that God makes a difference between malicious death and accidental death.
Exodus 20:13 Taking another’s life with the intent to harm another is forbidden. But if a man kills another because he hates him or because he wants to harm him, the former must suffer the death penalty. This penalty will be issued by the authority of the government. Compare Ex. 21:12-15. Administering capital punishment is the sole responsibility of judges and authorities. It is not up to the individual to decide how and when to apply capital punishment.
The reason the government uses the sword as an instrument of punishment, according to Romans 13:1-7, is to protect the citizen, to pass judgment, and to honor man who was created in the image of God. God entrusted the government with the duty of protecting people. This is because when a man or woman attacks other people, they are attacking the Creator God Himself. Therefore, God Himself demands that other men apply the sword to them or stop them from doing more harm to other people. It is a way of protecting the inherent image of God in the human being.
This foundation—the right over the life of man—indicates that human government has limited power, temporal authority, and the function of instituting laws, ordinances, and punishments for the citizens under its supervision and care. But it does not indicate what is the best model of this government, nor what role the citizen plays in the exercise of these powers. To do so, we will have to examine certain biblical models or examples.

[The next part of this writing will develop on: The Christian and the world].

Literature

Eidsmore, John, God and Caesar: Christian Faith and Political Action (Crossway Books, Westchester, 1984 ).

Feinberg, JS, & Feinberg, PD, Ethics for a Brave New World ( Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1993).

MacArthur, John, Think Bible-Wise, (Portavoz Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2004.)

Pearcy, Nancy R., Whole Truth: Freeing Christianity from its Captivity to Culture (YWAM Press, Tyler, Texas, 2014).

Sproul, R. C. Following Christ . (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996.)

Whitehead, John W., An American Dream (Crossway Books, Westchester, 1987, Un Sueño Americano ).

David L. Rogers, a missionary and teacher in Chile for 35 years, is a graduate of Clarks Summit University, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania (1980, BRE) and Moody Theological Seminary, Chicago (1997, M.A.). David and his wife of 39 years, Ruth Ann, and their four children have served in Santiago planting three churches, and founded a Chilean publishing house that for 14 years has published books, resources, and original studies in Spanish. His passion is training local leaders capable of guiding God’s work with love, humility, and spiritual skill. Apologetics is also a priority for David, and he is currently in his second year of a Masters of Arts in Apologetics program at Houston Baptist University. David and Ruth Ann have four precious grandchildren who live in the United States with their parents.

October 14, 2019/by Guest

Forgery in the Bible: Were 1 and 2 Timothy really forged? Part II

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

By Erik Manning

In his letter to the Romans, we learn that Paul was accused of lying in order to bring more glory to God. Some slanderously claimed that Paul would say, “let us do evil that good may result.” Paul, not known to mince words, responded tersely: “their condemnation is just!” (Romans 3:4-8)

For Paul, lying in the name of God was definitely not OK, even if it was for a good cause. But that is precisely what the Pastoral epistles do, according to critical scholars like Bart Ehrman. Allegedly someone wanted to borrow Paul’s gravitas and so used his name to address some in-house church issues, particularly in 1 and 2 Timothy.

In my first post, I went into detail the positive case for the Pauline authorship of the letters to Timothy. Today we’ll listen to the critics and see just how strong their arguments are.

UnPauline Vocabulary?

One of the more popular objections to Pauline authorship is the difference in vocabulary between the undisputed letters of Paul and the Pastorals. Here’s noted biblical scholar Bart Ehrman:

“There are 848 different words used in the pastoral letters. Of that number 306-over, one-third of them! –do not occur in any of the other Pauline letters of the New Testament. That’s an inordinately high number; especially given the fact that about two-thirds of these 306 words are used by Christian authors living in the second century. This suggests the author is using a vocabulary that was becoming more common after the days of Paul, and that he too, therefore, lived after Paul.” (Forged: Writing in The Name of God – Why The Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. Pg 112)

If you don’t find this too persuasive of an argument, I can’t say that I blame you. We all know that we use a different range of vocabulary based upon our audience. Paul’s letter to Timothy was a personal letter written to one of his spiritual sons and a fellow minister of the gospel, unlike his letter to the Romans, a large church body whom he hadn’t met yet. It’s not hard to see why his vocabulary is different.

Allow me to give an example from everyday life. I’ve been a supervisor before. I’m going to write an email differently writing to an individual under me who I’ve built some rapport with vs. an email that I’d address the whole company with. Moreover, even in my own blogs, I’ve written about sports and apologetics. My vocabulary changes quite a bit, depending on my audience. I don’t tend to write about baseball the way I write about apologetics. And I certainly don’t text my wife the way I blog for an audience! (I can’t see myself using the word “moreover” in a text to my wife.)

Even Ehrman himself suggests that this isn’t all that strong of an objection to Pauline authorship. Quoting Ehrman: “Probably not too much stock should be placed in mere numbers. Everyone, after all, uses different words on different occasions, and most of us have a much richer stock of vocabulary than shows up in any given set of letters we write.”

Does Faith Mean Something Different in The Pastorals Than It Does in Paul’s Other Writings?

So Ehrman moves his focus from the word-statistics to how the way the words are used in the Pastorals. Here’s Bart again:

“In books such as Romans and Galatians faith refers to the trust a person has in Christ to bring about salvation through his death. In other words, the term describes a relationship with another; faith is a trust “in” Christ. The author of the Pastorals also uses the term “faith.” But here it is not about a relationship with Christ; faith now means the body of teaching that makes up the Christian religion. That is “the faith” (see Titus 1:13) Same word, different meaning.” (Forged, p 113)

But hang on a second! That just isn’t true. Paul mostly does use the word ‘faith’ in the manner that Bart says, but he also does use it to refer to a body of doctrine at times in his undisputed letters. Here are some examples:

1 Corinthians 16:13 (ESV) “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”

2 Cor 13:5 “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith…”

Gal 1:23 “They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

Phil 1:27 “Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel.”

I’d argue that Ehrman’s just wrong here to suggest that Paul doesn’t use different shades of meaning when he’s using the word ‘faith.’ He doesn’t use it in a wooden manner that has only one definition.

Do The Pastorals Disagree with Paul’s Teaching On Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7?

Another objection that Bart raises is Paul’s idea of marriage elsewhere doesn’t match in the Pastoral letters. Here again, is Dr. Ehrman:

“In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is insistent that people who are single should try and remain single, just as he is. His reason is that the end of all things is near, and people should devote themselves to spreading the word, not establishing their social lives. But how does that square with the view in the Pastorals? Here the author insists that the leaders of the church be married. In Paul’s letter, it’s better to not be married; in the Pastorals, it is required that people (at least church leaders) be married.” (Forged p 114)

But this ignores the context of 1 Corinthians 7. Paul says that he wishes that all were as he was (celibate), but he says that not everyone has the same gift, and his wish was not the same as a command. He starts off the chapter by saying, “because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” (v2)

It’s not hard to imagine Paul, thinking prudentially and wanting to avoid sexual scandal, saying that pastors should be the husband of one wife. While Paul thought that celibacy might be the best for some, it wasn’t practical for all. With pastors leading the flock, the less temptation they have to deal with, the better.

Is The Idea of Bishops and Deacons Foreign to Paul?

Bart’s final objection has to do with the church hierarchy. He says that this “probably the biggest problem with accepting the Pastorals as coming from Paul.”

“The one thing Paul does not do is write to the leaders at the church of Corinth and tell them to get their parishioners in order. Why is that? Because there were no leaders at the church of Corinth. There were no bishops and deacons. There were no pastors. There was a group of individuals, each of whom had a gift of the Spirit, in this brief time before the end came. Contrast that with what you have in the Pastorals. Here you do not have individuals endowed by the Spirit working together to form the community. Here you have the pastors Timothy and Titus. You have the church leaders: bishops and deacons. You have hierarchy, structure, organization. That is to say; you have a different historical situation than you had in the days of Paul.” (Forged p 116)

This strikes me as patently false. In Paul’s undisputed letters, there are offices of overseers and deacons.

Paul opens his letter to the Philippians with “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons.” (Phil 1:1) Here the word overseer and bishop are interchangeable. While not as explicit, Paul also does mention that the Thessalonians had church leaders: “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you” (1 Thess 5:12). He also states in Romans that some are gifted to lead (Rom 12:7) and mentions specific church leaders in other places. (Romans 16:1, 1 Cor 16:15-17) If this is the strongest objection against the genuineness of the Pastoral epistles, then color me unimpressed.

The critics’ case for forgery in the name of Paul just doesn’t seem to be all that remarkable. When we weigh the positive case vs. the negative, it seems to be far more probable that the early church got it right. If the critical scholars think that Pastorals are obviously not Pauline based on such flimsy arguments, then why should we not trust them when they tell us that Ephesians or Colossians isn’t Pauline as well? This just goes to show that we shouldn’t uncritically trust the consensus of scholars without carefully examining their arguments.

Do atheists just lack a belief in God?

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

In recent presentations at Fresno State and the University of Arizona, atheists insisted that they just “lack a belief in God”, while at the same time rejecting God because they think He is immoral. How should we respond to this?

Is “lacking a belief in God” the proper and helpful definition of atheism?
What questions can you ask atheists who say this?
By what moral standard are atheists judging God to be immoral?
Why atheists have a burden of proof just like Christians
Why Christianity is the best explanation of why reality is the way it is.

Frank also answers questions about “love” being a religion, and why do some OT laws apply to us today, but others don’t.

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

October 12, 2019/by Guest

Materialism Cannot Explain the Origin of Life on Earth

2. Does God Exist?, Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

As I’ve discussed elsewhere, Darwinian Evolution tells a great story. But that story is wholly disconnected from the actual evidence of life on Earth. That’s especially true when it comes to the origin of life. To be fair, Darwinian Evolution insists it has nothing to do with the question of the origin of life. But that doesn’t let materialism off the hook. If there is no God, there must be a materialist explanation for the origin and diversity of the life we see around us. But there isn’t one. Darwinian Evolution fails to explain the diversity of life on Earth. And Materialism cannot explain the origin of life.

Nothing to Select

Natural selection is the core mechanism in the Darwinian model for explaining life. This is the source of the “survival of the fittest” idea with which we are all familiar. Mutations in some organisms provide them with a competitive advantage over others. These more adaptive traits are “selected” and further enhance the propagation of those species. This seems to make sense. But it cannot apply to the origin of life. A lifeless Earth would have contained no organisms. There was nothing to mutate, so there could not have been any “helpful” mutations. Natural selection had nothing to work with. It may help us understand the diversity of life. But what it cannot do is explain life’s origin. So, evolutionary biologists have been trying for decades to find a way to explain how life got started using only stuff available in the material world.

And they’ve failed.

The Miller-Urey Experiment

In 1953, biochemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey of the University of Chicago conducted an experiment to demonstrate how life began. Their goal was to show that life could have arisen through purely chemical processes. For that reason, they could only use the elements that were available on the early Earth. Their experiment passed electrical impulses through a mixture of methane, hydrogen, and ammonia. These were the elements they thought made up the atmosphere of the early Earth. Their goal was to confirm Charles Darwin’s speculations about the origin of life. Darwin believed that life arose from a “primordial soup” of pure chemicals in a “warm little pond.”

A Myth Repeated

On their first attempt, Miller and Urey were able to form some simple amino acids. They believed they had proved that the origin of life on Earth was no longer a mystery. To this day, you will still see the staggering success of this experiment touted in science textbooks.

But it’s not true. Reports of the success of their experiment have been greatly exaggerated.

For starters, it turns out Miller-Urey assumed the wrong initial conditions that existed on the early Earth. Most importantly, they neglected to include oxygen as being part of the early atmosphere.

The Oxygen Conundrum

As it turns out, oxygen was not only present; it is also required to support life. The problem is that if there is oxygen in the atmosphere, or dissolved in water; it shuts down pre-biotic chemical pathways. But that’s not all. If oxygen is not present, pre-biotic chemistry doesn’t work either. So, whether oxygen is present or absent, it ruins Darwin’s infamous “primordial soup.” Pre-biotic molecules cannot form.

Explaining the origin of life requires that oxygen be present. But the presence of oxygen also wrecks the process. The oxygen conundrum is that both of these have to be true at the same time.

But that’s not all.

Chicken and Egg Scenarios

There are regular conferences that meet to discuss the Origin of Life. If you attend one, you will find that oxygen is not the only problem with explaining how life got started. And they keep piling up. The more biochemists learn, the worse the problem gets.

Metabolism and Replication

Cellular life must be able to use the energy it gets from its surroundings. To survive, it has to transform that energy so that it can develop, grow, and sustain itself. This is known as metabolism. No matter how simple the life form is, it must also have the ability to copy and reproduce itself. This is what we call replication. This means that the very first life form must also have had these processes in place. And both of these processes had to have arisen simultaneously.

Proteins and DNA

Along with the replication issue, there is an even more intractable problem. Replication requires proteins which act to copy DNA and use that copy to form a new cell. But without DNA, the cell cannot produce proteins. DNA is the ‘blueprint” used to build an organism. Proteins are the “workers” that follow the blueprint to assemble the cell. And therein lies the problem.

You can’t create the blueprint (DNA) without the workers.

But you can’t assemble the workers without the blueprint.

You need both the blueprint and the workers to be in place right from the beginning.

An Inevitable Conclusion

You can read more about the origin of life issue in Fazale “Fuz” Rana‘s book linked below. But here’s the bottom line. There is no materialistic explanation for the emergence of life from non-life. Wishful thinking and Darwinian “just-so” stories are easy to concoct. But the evidence against them continues to pile up. The more we learn, the more the existence of life seems to depend on the intervention of an intelligent agent. But one thing is certain — materialism cannot explain the origin of life.

Life and a Creator God

But there is another line of evidence that is sitting right in front of our faces. It may be the most astounding evidence of all. The evidence I’m referring to is the evidence about the origin and nature of life itself. This is just one more aspect of the world we live in that is best explained by an intelligent, powerful being. Someone you might refer to as God.

Here is a great summary of why the evidence for the origin of life points straight to God.

¿Están realmente dejando el cristianismo los jóvenes?

Español

Much has been written about the biblical illiteracy of teenage believers and the flight of young people from the Church. Many have observed this trend, and I too have seen it anecdotally as a youth pastor (and shamefully, I contributed to the trend for some time before changing course). Some Christian writers and observers deny the flight of young people outright, but the mounting statistics should alarm us enough as Church leaders to do something about it. My hope in this post is simply to consolidate some of the research so that you can decide for yourself. I will organize recent findings in a way that illuminates the problem:

Research related to the spiritual life of adolescents:

Soul Searching : The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers*

Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton, Oxford University Press, 2005

What we find in the books: Most teenagers are incredibly inarticulate about their faith, religious beliefs and practices, and its place in their lives. The de facto dominant religion among contemporary American teenagers* is what they call “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism”: There is a God who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth; God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to one another, as taught in the Bible and most world religions; the central goal of life is to be happy and feel good about oneself; God need not be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to solve a problem; and good people go to heaven when they die.

*Given the technological and cultural state, this is today a global reality that encapsulates Latin American adolescents alike (Jorge Gil)

Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teens Is Telling the American Church

Kenda Creasy Dean, Oxford University Press, 2010

What we find in the books: Dean states what Soul Search calls ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’ “If teenagers lack articulate faith, it may be because the faith we show them is too weak to merit much attention in conversations.”

The Teen Guide to Global Action: How to Connect with Others (Near and Far) to Create Social Change

Barbara A. Lewis, Free Spirit Publishing, 2007

What we find in the books: More teens are embracing a nebulous belief about God. However, there has been an “explosion” in youth service since 1995, which Lewis attributes to more schools emphasizing community service.

The State of Theology

Ligonier Ministries and Lifeway Research (2015)

Study Findings: In this survey of theological beliefs, researchers asked self-professed Christians to respond to a series of statements related to classical and historic Christian doctrine. In every response offered regarding these theological beliefs, young people between the ages of 18 and 34 consistently held heretical views at a higher rate than older respondents. Young people who identify as Christian are much more likely to hold non-Christian views.

Research related to the attitude of university professors:

Politics and career advancement among university professors

Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter, Neil Nevitte (2005)

Study findings: “Nearly three-quarters” (72%) of faculty members describe themselves as politically liberal, according to 1999 data from the North American Academic Studies Survey (NAASS), up from 39% in a 1984 survey by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

How religious are American college professors?

Neil Gross, Solon Simmons (2006)

Study findings: About 25% of college professors are atheists or agnostics (5-7% of the general population is atheist or agnostic). Only 6% of college professors said the Bible is “the true word of God.” 51% described it as “an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts.” 75% believe religion does not belong in public schools.

Religious beliefs and behaviors of university professors

The Institute for Jewish & Community Research Review – Personal (2007)

Study Findings: The study revealed several findings related to teachers’ political and religious views, including the following key findings:

“Most teachers believe in God, but atheism is significantly more prevalent among teachers than among the general public.

The proportion of professors who self-identify as atheists is more than five times greater than the proportion of people who self-identify as atheists in the general public.

Teachers are much less religious than the general public

The American public** is much more likely than teachers to say that religion is very important in their daily lives and to attend religious services more frequently.

Teachers perceive themselves as warm toward most religious groups, but cold toward evangelicals and Mormons

Teachers have positive feelings towards Jews, Buddhists and atheists.

Teachers feel very unfavorable towards evangelical Christians

This is the only religious group about which the majority of non-evangelical faculty have negative feelings.

Professors are almost unanimous in their belief that evangelical (fundamentalist) Christians should keep their religious beliefs out of politics.

Professors who are secular/liberal are more likely to favor separation of religion and government, and those who are religious and conservative are more likely to advocate a closer connection between religion and government.

Although professors generally oppose religion in the public sphere, many support the idea that Muslims should express their religious beliefs in politics.

“Teachers are much less likely to support evangelical Christians who express their beliefs in American politics.”

* *Given the technological and cultural state, this is today a global reality that encapsulates the Latin American public equally (Jorge Gil)

Compromising scholarships: religious and political bias in American higher education

George Yancey (2011)

What we found in the books: “Conservative religious scholarship is at a distinct disadvantage in our institutions of learning, threatening the free exchange of ideas to which our institutions aspire and leaving much scientific inquiry unexplored.”

Research related to the decline of the Christian population in general

American Religious Identification Survey

Barry A. Kosmin, Egon Mayer, and Ariela Keysar (2001)

Study Findings: The number of people who identify as Christian has dropped from 85% in 1990 to 76% in 2008. About 52% of American adults identify as Protestant or other non-Catholic Christian denominations, according to their self-reported data. That’s down from 60% in 1990.

The Changing Religious Landscape of the United States**

Pew Research Center (2015)

Study findings: “The percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christian has declined by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in a similarly massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated — describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” — has risen more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%.”

Gallup Religious Identification Survey

Gallup Daily Tracker

Study Findings: While the number of Americans** who identify as Christian remains high (75%), it has dropped 5% since 2008.

Five key findings about religion in the United States**

Gallup National Poll (2016)

Study Findings: This national survey of Americans’ religious affiliation revealed the following (among other findings):

The United States remains a majority Christian nation, though less so than in the past. 74% of Americans identify as Christian, only 5% identify as affiliated with a non-Christian religion. When the last survey was conducted in 2008, 80% of Americans identified themselves as Christian.

The trend away from formal religion continues. About 21% of Americans say they are atheist, agnostic or have no religious affiliation. This represents an increase of 6% since 2008.

Americans continue to say that religion is losing its influence in American society. 72% of Americans say that religion is losing its influence in American life.

The persistent and exceptional intensity of religion: A response to recent research

Study of Sociological Science (2017)

Study Findings: This study, which examined the General Social Surveys from 1989 to 2016, found the following:

The number of people who say they are strongly affiliated with a religion is a minority, but it does not seem to have changed much between 1990 and 2015.

Less than 40% of Americans say they have strong religious affiliations. Those who say they are not strongly affiliated are leaving the church, dropping from about 55% in 1990 to about 42% in 2015. Those who say they are not affiliated with any religion have gone from 8% of the population to about 22% over the same period.

Only about 8% of the population attends church several times a week. The number of people who said they attended “sometimes” has dropped from about 79% to 69% between 1990 and 2015. Those who never attend church have increased from 14% to nearly 25% in the same time period.

About 33% of the population described the Bible as the “Literal Word of God.” The number of people who describe the Bible as “inspired, but not literal” has decreased from about 53% to 47% between 1990 and 2015. The number of people who describe the Bible as a “Book of Fables” has increased from about 15% to 21% during that time.

The number of people who identify as “evangelical” has remained somewhat stable over this period, at around 29%. The number of people who identify with a “non-evangelical” affiliation has dropped from about 66% to 51%. The number of people who say they have no religious affiliation has increased from about 8% to 23% over this same time period.

Investigation into the escape of young people from the Church

Why Christian Boys Abandon the Faith

Tom Bisset, Discovery House Publications (1997)

Book Findings: In this very early study, Tom Bisset interviewed people and asked them when, why, and how they left their faith. He identified four major reasons:

They left because they had troubling and unanswered questions about faith.

They left because their faith was not “working” for them.

They left because they allowed other things to take priority.

They left because they never owned their faith.

Southern Baptist Convention Facts

Pinkney, T.C., Remarks to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, Nashville, Tennessee (2001)

Study Findings: Data from the Southern Baptist Convention indicates that they are currently losing 70-88% of their youth after their first year of college. 70% of teens who participate in church youth groups stop attending church within the first two years of their high school graduation.

“The cycle of religiosity”

Gallup Poll Study (2002)

Study Findings: Results indicate that teens are most religious during their early teen years, and that religiosity begins to decline as they approach adulthood. Sixty-three percent of 13- to 15-year-olds responded “very important,” compared with 52 percent of 16- to 17-year-olds. Church attendance also declines during adolescence and young adulthood and begins to increase as adults age. Fifty-four percent of 13- to 15-year-olds reported attending church in the past seven days, as did 51 percent of 16- to 17-year-olds. The figure drops to 32 percent among 18- to 29-year-olds, but rises again to 44 percent among 50- to 64-year-olds and 60 percent among 75-year-olds and older. Sixty-nine percent of 13- to 15-year-olds say they are members of a church or synagogue, compared with 59% of 16- to 17-year-olds, 60% of 18- to 29-year-olds, 72% of 50- to 64-year-olds, and 80% of those 75 and older.

The Family Life Council of the Southern Baptist Convention

Report of the Southern Baptist Council on Family Life to the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (2002)

Study Findings: 88% of Children in Evangelical Homes Leave the Church by Age 18

Revolution

George Barna, Tyndale House Publications, Carol Stream, IL (2005)

What we find in the books: If current trends in the belief systems and practices of the younger generation continue, in ten years church attendance will be half of what it is today.

Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers

Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton, Oxford University Press (2005)

What we found in the books: Students leave faith behind primarily because of intellectual doubt and skepticism (page 89). “Why did you turn away from the faith you were raised in?” This was an open-ended question—there were no multiple-choice answers. 32% said they left faith behind because of intellectual skepticism or doubt. (“It didn’t make sense anymore.” “Some things are too crazy for me to believe.” “I think scientifically and there’s no real proof.” “Too many questions that can’t be answered.”)

“Most twenty-somethings put Christianity on the shelf…”

Barna Studio (2006)

Study Findings: Most twentysomethings—61% of today’s young adults—had attended church at some point in their teens but are now spiritually disinterested.

The last Christian generation

Josh McDowell, David H. Bellis, Green Key Books (2006)

What we found in the books: 63% of Christian teens do not believe Jesus is the Son of the one true God. 51% do not believe Jesus rose from the dead. 68% do not believe the Holy Spirit is a real entity. Only 33% of church-going teens have said the church will play a role in their lives when they leave home.

Assemblies of God Study

Dayton A. Kingsriter (2007)

Study Findings: At least half and possibly more than two-thirds of Christian youth will fall away from the Christian faith while attending a non-Christian college or university. Between 50% and 66.7% of Assemblies of God youth who attend a non-Christian public or private college will have left the faith four years after entering college.

LifeWay Research Study

LifeWay Ministry Research and Development (2007)

Study Findings: 70% will leave the faith in college. Only 35% eventually return. 7 in 10 Protestants ages 18 to 30 — both evangelical and mainline — who went to church regularly in high school said they stopped attending school by age 23. 34% of respondents said they had not returned, even sporadically, by age 30. This means that about one in four young Protestants has left the church. “The most frequent reason for leaving the church is, in fact, a self-imposed change, ‘I simply wanted a break from the church’ (27%). “The path to college and the workforce are also strong reasons for young people to leave the church: ‘I moved away from college and stopped attending church’ (25%) and ‘work responsibilities prevented me from attending’ (23%).”

Antichristian

David Kinnaman, director of the Barna Research Group, Baker Books; (2007)

What we found in the books: Christians in their twenties are “significantly less likely to believe that a person’s faith in God is meant to be developed by involvement in a local church. This life stage of spiritual disinterest is not going away.”

Rethink: Is Student Ministry Working?

Steve Wright, InQuest Ministries, Inc. (2007)

What we found in the books: 63% do not believe that Jesus is the Son of the one true God. 58% believe that all religions teach equally valid truths. 51% do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. 65% do not believe that Satan is a real entity. 68% do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a real entity.

Religious and political self-identification, 1990-2008

Barry A. Kosmin and Juhem Navarro-Rivera (2008)

Study Findings: This research, based on the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, addresses the religious beliefs and behaviors of people born from the early 1960s through the late 1970s and early 1980s:

Generation X has weakened its ties to Christianity (85% in 1990 vs. 75% in 2008)

Generation X has become more secularized over time. In 1990, 11% were “nones” compared with 16% in 2008; 13% of Gen Xers did not identify with a religion (including Don’t Know and refusals) in 1990, compared with 21% in 2008.

Christian Gen X groups became more female-dominated over time (with the exception of Protestant sects), while “nones” and other religions became more male-dominated.

Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults

Christian Smith, Patricia Snell (2009)

What we found in the books: Among American adults, emerging adults are significantly less religious. Generally speaking, the importance and practice of religion declines among young adults. No more than 15% of the total emerging adult population embraces a strong religious faith. Thirty percent tend to customize their faith to fit the rest of their lives. They often have a strong religious upbringing, but tend to be more discerning about what they will embrace. A smaller group, about 15%, believes in some higher power, but they are not sure what that means. About 25% of the emerging adult population may say they are religious or even appreciate religion, but it just doesn’t matter. 5% of all emerging adults have had little or no exposure to religious people, ideas, or organizations. 10% of emerging adults are skeptical of religion and reject the idea of personal faith. They tend to have critical, dismissive, and antagonistic attitudes toward religion.

The present and the future: Six difficult questions for the Church

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2009)

What we find in the books: 90% of young people active in high school church programs leave the church by the time they are sophomores in college.

Those Who Have Already Left: Why Your Kids Will Leave the Church and What You Can Do to Stop It

Ken Ham, Britt Beemer, with Todd Hillard, New Leaf Books Group/Master Publications (2009)

What We Find in the Books: Young people in the church are already “lost” in their hearts and minds in elementary, middle, and high school – not in college as many assume.

After the Baby Boomers: How Twenty- and Thirty-Somethings Are Shaping the Future of American Religion

Robert Wuthnow, Princeton University Press (2010)

What we found in the books: “Unless religious leaders take young adults more seriously, the future of American religion is in doubt.” The share of young adults who identify with mainline churches is “about half the size it was a generation ago. Evangelical Protestants have barely held on.”

“Spirituality in Higher Education”: The UCLA Higher Education Research Institute

Alexander W. Astin, Helen S. Astin, and Jennifer A. Lindholm (2010)

Study Findings: 52% of college students reported frequent church attendance in the year before entering college, but only 29% continued to attend church frequently in their junior year of high school.

University Transition Project

The Fuller Institute for Youth (2010)

Study Findings: Current data seems to “suggest that about 40-50% of students in youth groups struggle in their faith after graduation.”

Ex-Christian Generation: Why Young Adults Are Leaving the Faith…and How to Bring Them Back

Drew Dyck, Moody Publishers (2010)

What we find in the books: The departure of young people from the Church is recognized and several categories of “leavers” are identified, including “postmodern leavers,” “retrogrades,” “modern leavers,” “neo-pagans,” “rebels,” and “drifters.”

You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving the Church…and Rethinking Faith

David Kinnaman, Baker Books (2011)

What we find in the books: Nearly three out of five young Christians disconnect from their churches after age 15.

Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood

Christian Smith with Kari Christoffersen, Hilary Davidson and Patricia Snell Herzog, Oxford University Press (2011)

What we find in the books: Young adults are unable to think coherently about beliefs and moral issues. Young adults have an excessive focus on consumption and materialism as the good life. The predominant lifestyle of young adults includes frequent intoxication and drug use. Young adults’ sexual encounters are not practiced in an environment of physical, mental, or emotional health. Young adults seem to have an inability to care about, invest in, and have hope for the world at large through civic and political participation.

Listening to young atheists: Lessons for a stronger Christianity

Larry Taunton, Punto Fijo Foundation (2013)

Study Findings: Taunton interviewed members of atheist campus groups (the Secular Student Alliance and the Freethought Societies). “These campus groups are the atheist equivalents of Campus Crusade: They meet regularly for fellowship, encourage one another in their (dis)belief, and even proselytize. These are people who are not merely irreligious; they are actively and decidedly irreligious.” Taunton eventually recognized an emerging pattern in those he interviewed, and identified several characteristics of “decidedly irreligious” young college students:

They had attended church at some point

The mission and message of their churches were vague

They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life’s difficult questions.

They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously.

The ages of 14 to 17 were decisive

The decision to embrace disbelief was often an emotional decision.

The Internet greatly influenced his conversion to atheism

Unchurched: Understanding the Unchurched Today and How to Connect with Them

George Barna and David Kinnaman, Tyndale Momentum (2014)

What We Found in the Books: The Barna Group conducted tens of thousands of interviews with unchurched people and discovered the following:

The number of unchurched Americans has increased by nearly a third in just 20 years

If unchurched Americans were their own nation, they would be the eighth largest on Earth.

The younger you are, the more likely you have never been to church.

The younger the generation, the more post-Christian it is

America’s Changing Religious Landscape

Pew Research Center (2015)

Study Findings: “While many American religious groups are aging, the unaffiliated are comparatively young – and getting younger, on average, over time… One of the most important factors in the decline in Christian participation and the growth of the “nones” is generational replacement. As the “millennial” generation enters adulthood, its members show much lower levels of religious affiliation, including less connection to Christian churches, than older generations. 36% of younger millennials (ages 18-24) are religiously unaffiliated, as are 34% of older millennials (ages 25-33).… As a growing cohort of highly unaffiliated millennials enters adulthood, the median age of unaffiliated adults has dropped from 38 to 36, down from 38 in 2007 and well below the median age of 46 years of the general (adult) population.4 In contrast, the median age of mainline Protestant adults in the new survey is 52 years (compared with 50 in 2007), and the median age of Catholic adults is 49 years (compared with 45 seven years earlier).

Choosing a New Church or House of Worship

Pew Research Center (2015)

Study Findings: In this seemingly unrelated study, researchers surveyed religious “nones” (78%) who said they had been raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood, and asked them to explain, in their own words, why they no longer identified with a religious group. They uncovered the following themes:

About 50% said that “lack of belief led them to leave religion.” This includes many respondents who cite “science” as the reason they don’t believe in religious teachings, including one who said, “I’m a scientist now and I don’t believe in miracles.” Others cite common sense, logic, or lack of evidence, or simply say they don’t believe in God.

About 20% said they were “opposed to organized religion in general.” This share includes some who dislike the hierarchical nature of religious groups, several people who think religion is too much like a business, and others who cite clergy sexual abuse scandals as reasons for their stance.

About 18% said they were “religiously unsure.” This includes people who said they were religious in some way despite being unaffiliated (e.g., “I believe in God, but in my own way”), others who describe themselves as “seeking enlightenment” or “open-minded,” and several who said they are “spiritual,” or religious.

About 10% said they “may have certain religious beliefs, but they do not currently participate in religious practices.” And most of them simply (said) they (did not) go to church or participate in other religious rituals, while others (said) they (were) too busy for religion.

Exodus: Why Americans are abandoning religion and why they are unlikely to return

Betsy Cooper, Ph.D., Daniel Cox, Ph.D., Rachel Lienesch, Robert P. Jones, Ph.D., Public Religious Research Institute (2016)

Study findings: “Today, nearly four-in-ten (39%) young adults (ages 18-29) are religiously unaffiliated, three times the unaffiliated rate (13%) among older adults (ages 65 and older). While previous generations were also more likely to be religiously unaffiliated in their twenties, young adults today are nearly four times as likely as young adults a generation ago to identify as religiously unaffiliated. In 1986, for example, only 10% of young adults claimed no religious affiliation. Among young adults, the religiously unaffiliated dwarfs the percentages for other religious identifications: Catholic (15%), white evangelical Protestant (9%), white mainline Protestant (8%), black Protestant (7%), other non-white Protestant (11%), and affiliation with a non-Christian religion (7%).”

“In the 1970s, only about one-third (34%) of Americans who were raised in religiously unaffiliated homes remained unaffiliated as adults. By the 1990s, just over half (53%) of Americans who were unaffiliated as children retained their religious identity into adulthood. Today, nearly two-thirds (66%) of Americans who report being raised outside a formal religious tradition remain unaffiliated as adults.”

More importantly, the study found that most Americans who abandon their childhood religion do so before reaching adulthood. Seventy-nine percent of young adults ages 18 to 29 who become religiously unaffiliated report having made this decision during their teenage years. In earlier years, those who abandoned religious beliefs reported doing so much later. Only 38 percent of people over age 65, for example, reported having abandoned their religion during their childhood years.

National CARA Study

Mark M. Gray, Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (2016)

Study Findings: (Although CARA only surveys young Catholic believers, its results parallel the results of the Christian surveys reported in this article.) “The first CARA study, commissioned by Saint Mary’s Press, included a survey of a national random sample of young people, ages 15 to 25, who had been raised Catholic but no longer identified as such. The second CARA study, made possible by funding from the John Templeton Foundation, included a survey of a random sample of self-identified Catholics, ages 18 and older, and focused on issues of religion and science.” Most young people said they left the Church by age 13: 63 percent said they left between ages 10 and 17. Twenty-three percent said they left before age 10. Those who left cited the following reasons:

“Because I realized it was a story like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.”

“As I learn more about the world around me and understand things I didn’t understand before, I find the thought of an all-powerful being less and less credible.”

“Catholic beliefs are not based on facts. They are all hearsay from before anything could be documented, so nothing can be refuted, but they certainly should not be taken seriously.”

“I realized that religion is in complete contradiction to the rational and scientific world, and to continue subscribing to a religion would be hypocritical.”

“I need proof of something.”

“It no longer fits into my understanding of the universe.”

NextGen Research

Larry Barnett, Next Generation Project (2016)

Study Findings: NextGen research revealed the following key points:

The decline of Christianity in America spans all segments of the population: young and old, men and women, within all races, at all income and education levels, and in all geographic regions.

The presence or absence of doubt was found to be the best predictor of Christian affiliation and spiritual health, compared to several hundred other factors.

Adults (and teens) who are younger, highly educated, knowledgeable, high-achieving, technologically engaged individuals who may have religiously diverse friends are the most likely to leave the faith.

CIRP Freshman Survey

Cooperative Institutional Research Program (2017)

Study Findings: The CIRP Freshman Survey of 184 U.S. colleges and universities collects data on incoming college students’ background characteristics, high school experiences, attitudes, behaviors, and expectations for college. This survey revealed the following key findings:

Thirty-one percent of incoming freshmen are not affiliated with any religion, a threefold increase since 1986, when only 10 percent identified themselves this way. Because the survey is administered to students before they arrive on campus, the decline in religious identity seen in these cross-sectional studies cannot be attributed to the college experience. Religious attendance is also declining precipitously among incoming students.

Generation Z: The culture, beliefs and motivations that shape the next generation

Barna Research Group (2018)

Study Findings: Barna’s most comprehensive research study investigating the perceptions, experiences and motivations of 13- to 18-year-olds from Generation Z reports the following:

59% of students in this age group identify as Christian or Catholic (compared to 75% of the Elders). 21% say they are atheist or agnostic (compared to 11% of the Elders). 14% say they have no religious affiliation (compared to 9% of the Elders).

Students in this age group offer the following “barriers to faith”:

“I find it hard to believe that a good God would allow so much evil or suffering in the world” (29%).

“Christians are hypocrites” (23%)

“I think science refutes too much of the Bible” (20%)

“I don’t believe in fairy tales (19%)

“There are too many injustices in the history of Christianity” (15%)

“I used to go to church, but it’s not important to me anymore” (12%)

“I had a bad experience at church with a Christian” (6%)

Students in this age group struggle to reconcile science with the Bible. 24% side with science (vs. 16% of boomers). 31% believe science and the Bible refer to different aspects of reality (vs. 25% of boomers). 28% believe science and the Bible can be used to support each other (vs. 45% of boomers). 17% consider themselves to be on the side of the Bible (13% more than boomers, but 19% less than millennials).

Students in this age group have positive perceptions of the church in the following areas:

The church is a place to find answers to living a meaningful life (82%)

The church is relevant to my life (82%)

I feel like I can “be myself” at church (77%)

People in the church are tolerant of those with different beliefs (63%)

Students in this age group have negative perceptions of the church in the following areas:

The church seems to reject much of what science tells us about the world (495)

The Church overprotects teenagers (38%)

People in the church are hypocrites (36%)

The church is not a safe place to express doubts (27%)

The faith and teaching I find in the church seem quite superficial (24%)

The church is too much like an exclusive club (17%)

When students in this age group were asked why they did not believe the church was important, they gave the following reasons:

“The church is not relevant to me” (59%)

“I find God elsewhere” (48%)

“I can teach myself what I need to know” (28%)

“I think the church is outdated” (20%)

“I don’t like the people who are in the church” (15%)

“Church rituals are empty” (12%)

ABC News / Washington Post Religious Affiliation Survey

Langer Research Associates (2018)

Study Findings: Based on 174,485 interviews from ABC News and ABC News/Washington Post polls conducted by telephone from 2003 to 2017, the study found that 18- to 29-year-olds are becoming less religious, at a rate that far outpaces that of their older counterparts. Between 2003 and 2017, the number of 18- to 29-year-olds who identify as nonreligious has increased by 16% (from 19% to 35% of the U.S. population), while the percentage of Americans age 50 and older who identify as nonreligious has increased by only 5% (from 8% to 13%).

When Americans say they believe in God, what do they mean?

Pew Research Center (2018)

Study Findings: This survey of more than 4,700 American adults found that there is a wide discrepancy related to beliefs about God between 18-29 year olds and older generations:

Those who believe in God as described in the Bible: 43% of 18-29 year olds / 65% of boomers

The survey also found that among people who believe in God or a higher power, young people are less likely to believe God is active and engaged:

Those who believe that God loves all people, despite their faults: 67% of 18-29 year olds / 83% of boomers

Those who believe God has protected them: 68% of 18-29 year olds / 83% of boomers

Those who believe that God knows everything: 63% of 18-29 year olds / 76% of boomers

Those who believe God has rewarded them: 61% of 18-29 year olds / 68% of boomers

Those who believe God has the power to direct/change everything: 52% of 18-29 year olds / 67% of boomers

Those who believe that God determines what happens in their lives: 41% of 18-29 year olds / 51% of boomers

Those who believe that God has punished them: 44% of 18-29 year olds / 33% of boomers

Those who believe God has spoken to them: 21% of 18-29 year olds / 31% of boomers

Interestingly, this survey also found that young people, when thinking about God, are more likely to think of Him as a punishing Deity than their older counterparts.

He’s gone, he’s gone, he’s gone: The dynamics of disaffiliation in young Catholics

Saint Mary’s Press Research Group and The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University (2018)

Study Findings: Although this is a Catholic study, there are many parallels with evangelical studies conducted over the past 10 years. This two-year national study on why young people are leaving the Catholic Church found that young former Catholics (the vast majority of whom now self-identify as “nones”) are leaving Catholicism for the following reasons:

“They perceive that organized religion has corrupted the fundamental teachings of Jesus.”

“They see the dogmas and doctrines of the church as nonsense.”

“They believe they can live a more moral life without the burden of religion.”

“Many feel that religion was imposed on them.”

“They report feeling freer and happier without what they experience as the burden of religion.”

“When asked at what age they no longer identified as Catholic, 74 percent of the sample said between 10 and 20 years old, with a median age of 13.”

Millennials and their retention since confirmation: A survey of LCMS congregations

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (2018)

Study Findings: This comprehensive survey of 184 LCMA congregations found the following:

Congregations reported that only 1 in 3 young people who were confirmed between 2004 and 2006 are still worshipping in an LCMS church today:

30% of these young people left before graduating from high school.

34% left after graduating from high school.

The study also found that LCMS churches retained young believers at a much higher rate if they:

They retain their youth pastor or youth leaders for a long period of time (“The data is clear: local retention when the pastor changes is substantially lower.”).

Their church leadership was generally younger (“Congregations with young adult leaders performed better on all retention measures. They were more likely to retain young people to graduation, produced greater numbers of confirmands who remain in the LCMS, retained more in their own church body, and even attract more young adults today.”).

Their youth group is larger (“Based on average weekly attendance, large congregations confirm a greater number of youth and retain more of their confirmands in the LCMS, regardless of whether they remain in their home congregation.”).

Although this survey of books and studies is not complete, it does provide us with powerful cumulative and circumstantial evidence supporting the claim that young people are leaving the Church in large numbers. More importantly, it appears that most of these young people leave before their college experience. But, although colleges may not be the primary cause of the youth exodus, they certainly play a role in affirming and reinforcing a secular worldview in the minds of young people who have already left the faith. Some studies have attempted to isolate potential responses that can be employed by parents and Church leaders:

Research into possible responses to youth flight from the Church

Youth Theological Initiative at Emory University in Georgia.

Elizabeth Corrie

What we find in books: There seems to be no shortage of teens who want to be inspired and make the world better. But the version of Christianity taught to some doesn’t inspire them “to change something that’s broken in the world.” Teens want to be challenged; they want their tough questions to be taken up. “We think they want cake, but they really want meat and potatoes, and we keep giving them cake,” churches, not just parents, share some of the blame for teen religious apathy. “…The gospel of niceness can’t teach teens to deal with tragedy. It can’t bear the weight of deeper questions: Why are my parents getting divorced? Why did my best friend commit suicide? Why, in this economy, can’t I get the good job I was promised if I was a good kid?”

Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults

Christian Smith, Patricia Snell, Oxford University Press (2009)

What we find in the books: Parents are the most important and powerful socializers in the lives of their teens. The teen years are not the time to stop parenting. Teens’ growing independence often requires negotiation. If teens experience parents who are religiously withdrawn and functionally absent, then an emerging adult’s faith will likely also be hollow, directionless, and empty. The more adults involved in teens’ lives, the better off they will be. This will mean that youth and family ministries must find ways to incorporate loving, agenda-free adults into ministry lives. Youth ministries matter now more than ever. With the disintegration of the family and the systemic erosion of adult support, congregational youth ministers are needed more than ever.

Christians are hateful hypocrites…and other lies you’ve been told: A sociologist busts myths about secular and Christian media (2010)

Bradley R. E. Wright, Bethany House (2010)

What we found in the books: Parents of students who did not leave the church emphasized religion twice as much as students who left the church. Students who stayed in the church during college said the first thing they do when they have doubts or questions is talk to their parents and then read their Bibles.

You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving the Church…and Rethinking Faith

David Kinnaman, Baker Books (2011)

What we found in the books: Nearly 25% of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed said “Christians demonize everything outside of the church” most of the time. 22% also said the church ignores real-world problems, and 18% said their church was too concerned with the negative impact of movies, music, and video games. 33% of survey participants think “church is boring.” 20% of those who attended as teens said God seemed absent from their church experience. Many young adults dislike the way churches seem to be against science. More than 33% of young adults said “Christians are too confident they know all the answers,” and 25% of them said “Christianity is anti-science.” 17% of young Christians say they have “made mistakes and feel judged in church because of them.” Two in five young adult Catholics said the church’s teachings on birth control and sex are “outdated.” Twenty-nine percent of young Christians said “churches are afraid of the beliefs of other religions” and feel they have to choose between their friends and their faith. More than 33% of young adults said they feel they cannot ask life’s most pressing questions in the church and 23% said they have “significant intellectual doubts” about their faith.

Families and Faith: How Religion Is Transmitted Through Generations

Vern L. Bengtson. Norella M. Putney, Susan Harris, Oxford University Press (2013)

What We Found in the Books: Several key findings were uncovered in this 35-year study of families, focusing on the question of how religion is transmitted across generations:

Parents continue to be the greatest influence on their children’s faith.

When a child sees and hears that faith really makes a difference in the lives of mom and dad, they are much more likely to follow their example.

Young adults are more likely to share their parents’ religious beliefs and involvement if they feel they have a close relationship with them.

Young Christians who leave the faith are much more likely to return when parents have been patient and supportive, and perhaps more tolerant and open than before the prodigal son left.

5 Reasons Millennials Stay Connected to Church

Barna Studio (2013)

Study Findings: This research included a series of national public opinion surveys conducted by the Barna Group to find the most effective ways to keep millennials connected to church. Listed below are the following strategies:

Developing meaningful relationships with millennials

Teaching millennials to study and discern what is happening in the culture.

Helping millennials discover their own mission in the world, rather than asking them to wait their turn.

Teaching millennials a more powerful theology of vocation, or calling.

Helping millennials develop lasting faith by facilitating a deeper sense of intimacy with God.

Nothing less than that: Engaging young people in a life of faith

Jana Magruder and Ben Trueblood (2018)

What We Found in the Books: / Studies: Shelby Systems conducted a study in preparation for the publication of this book. The study surveyed 2,000 Protestant and nondenominational churchgoers who attended services at least once a month and have adult children ages 18 to 30 who are still believers. They found the following “Predictors of Spiritual Health for Young Adults”:

The child reads the Bible regularly as he grows up.

The boy regularly spent time in prayer while growing up.

The boy served regularly in the church while growing up.

The child listened mainly to Christian music.

The child participated in church mission trips/projects.

Additionally, they found that parents who had successfully transmitted their faith to their children were typically involved in the following activities:

Read the Bible several times a week.

Participate in a service project or church mission trip as a family.

Sharing their faith with non-believers.

Encourage teens to serve in the church.

Asking for forgiveness when they made mistakes as parents.

Encourage your children’s unique talents and interests.

Taking annual family vacations.

Attend churches with teachings that emphasize what the Bible says.

Teaching your children to tithe.

There you have it; a brief summary of some of the research being done on the exodus of young people from the Church and some of the reasons given for their departure. Can it be argued that young Christians are leaving the Church in record numbers? Yes. Can it be argued that many of these young people are leaving because the culture around them has deeply impacted them and caused them to question the truth claims of Christianity? Yes, again. So what are we going to do about it? What can be done? Think about it, that’s what we’re here for.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Adjunct Professor of Christian Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, author of Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, and creator of the Case Makers Academy for children.

October 9, 2019/by J. Warner Wallace

There are two kinds of skeptics. Jesus demonstrated how to deal with both types

The two kinds of skeptics and how to deal with both

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

We can gain knowledge about the subject of Christian apologetics until our eyes bug out of our heads. But knowing how to apply that information in our everyday lives is another animal. And a big part of learning effective communication is knowing our audience.

I’m old enough to remember those cheezy WWJD bracelets from the ’90s. I’m sure they decorated the wrist of many a Newsboys concert-goer. They do raise a good question that we’ll apply here. What did Jesus do when faced with doubters? Let’s look at a couple of examples:

The open-minded doubter – John the Baptist

Yes, even a spiritual stalwart like John the Baptist went through a period of doubt in his life. Despite being a prophet who emphatically preached that Jesus was the coming Messiah, John went through a crisis of faith near the end of his life.

We read in Matthew 3 that John confidently believed he was God’s messenger in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. (Isaiah 40:3) He said that he wasn’t worthy to even carry Jesus’ sandals and that Jesus would be Israel’s divine judge. He saw the Spirit of God descend on Jesus and heard the voice that Jesus was God’s divine Son. (Matthew 3:12-16)

But then things went south after he confronted Herod for marrying his brother’s wife. Herod imprisoned John, and John sent a few of his disciples out to Jesus with the question, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”

Apparently, being locked up in a dungeon for speaking truth to power shook him up. Maybe he was expecting Jesus to set up the Kingdom of God a little more quickly and spring him from the pokey. John started to question his calling, and if what he was giving his life for was real.

Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.” (Matthew 11:2-6)

Jesus pointed to the miracles as evidence of him being the Messiah. He was also referring to Isaiah 35:4-6 and Isaiah 61:1, showing that he was fulfilling the Messianic prophecy to tighten the case. Jesus started preaching after John was imprisoned (Mark 1:14) so he might not have been fully aware of Jesus’ miracles.

Furthermore, as John’s disciples were leaving but still within an earshot, Jesus went on to say that John was a great prophet and the messenger of the covenant that Malachi prophesied about. (Matthew 11:7-12, Malachi 3:1) This was just the kind of shot in the arm that John needed. Notice that Jesus didn’t slam John for having a question or tell him to have blind faith; instead, he gave evidence. Jesus then talked about how great John was to the crowd, many of whom were probably baptized by John.

Jesus exemplified the command of Jude “have mercy on those who doubt” (Jude 23). As Christians, it’s vital we recognize who around us is going through doubt but are still open and humble enough to receive from us. John wanted to believe but was struggling. We need to see the ‘why’ behind some doubter’s questions and give them the ammo they need to persevere.

The Hostile Crowd – Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Says he wants evidence, but…

The religious experts were entrenched in their belief that Jesus was a false teacher. In the very next chapter in Matthew, they demanded that he would demonstrate a miraculous sign as evidence. Jesus didn’t mince words with them. Let’s take a look at Matthew 12:38-42:

“He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.”

It’s interesting to note that Jonah didn’t perform any miracles. The Ninevites didn’t have the evidence that Jesus was providing. The Pharisees and Sadducees were well aware already that Jesus was healing the sick. They could interview eyewitnesses. They even saw him cast out demons and said he did it by the power of Beelzebub! (Matthew 12:24)

But in the case of Ninevah, they did respond to evidence. They instinctively knew that they were breaking God’s moral law and needed to repent, that’s why they listened to Jonah. So the men of Ninevah would rise up and condemn them because they responded to the ‘lesser’ evidence – the moral facts written on their heart and their own conscience convicting them.
(Romans 2:14-15)

Jesus next gives the example of the Queen of the South as someone who would rise up and judge them for their disbelief. Think about it for a second. You have this queen, deep in Africa, hearing about a wise king in Israel who knew God. For days she traveled thousands of miles (no cars or planes back then) just to seek out his wisdom. She said, “The report I heard in my own country about your achievements and your wisdom is true. But I did not believe these things until I came and saw with my own eyes. Indeed, not even half was told me.” (1 Kings 10:6)

So she didn’t believe it at first, but because she valued truth and wisdom enough, she went to great lengths to at least check it out. By contrast, these Pharisees who stood in the presence of the miracle-working Jesus and said, like the famous skeptic Bertrand Russell, “not enough evidence, God!”. Jesus refused to give them more evidence and pointed to the fact that there are those who had less evidence responded correctly because of their hearts.

What do we learn from Jesus about responding to doubters?

We need to not only be ready to give a reason for why we believe what we believe, but we need to be able to read our audience. For those who saw the importance and were open to believing, Jesus took a merciful approach and gave them more info.

For the crowd that demanded that eyewitness testimony wasn’t enough, Jesus wasn’t having it. He told them that others have responded with lesser-but-sufficient evidence and that they didn’t have any excuse. The Ninevites just had Jonah’s preaching and their own consciences. The Queen of Sheba just had someone’s word for it and decided it was well worth looking into, even at great expense.

Jesus saw through their fake inquisitiveness and looked at the heart behind the question. The takeaway here is this, and don’t miss this: Don’t waste your time with the rude and bombastic skeptic! Don’t feed the trolls! It doesn’t mean you can’t respond to them for the sake of those who might be listening, but it’s also OK to call them out on the attitude of their heart.

I like to ask these types of skeptics what kind of evidence would convince them. Often the response I’ve received is that “Jesus would have to personally appear to me” or “God would have to write my name in the sky.” Well, OK, then. That’s not a person I’m going to be able to help much. That’s a double standard that they don’t apply to anything else. They get onto airplanes, buy computers, cars, and homes with far less evidence.

In a podcast, Christian apologist William Lane Craig addresses this sort of hypocrisy:

“I’ve noticed this with people in the free thought community. They have a sort of skeptical dial that they can ratchet way up when it comes to Christian beliefs so that almost nothing could provide sufficient evidence for these, but when it comes to their own worldview and commitments they dial it way down so that they don’t need to provide virtually any justification for their own beliefs in order for these to be rational. That, of course, is just hypocrisy. That is self-serving. If they are going to extol the virtues of doubt with respect to religious beliefs, they need to also extol those same virtues with regard to their own atheistic beliefs.”

So again: Have mercy on the Christian having doubts. Help the skeptic who is beginning to doubt their doubts. But for the convinced and rudely aggressive skeptic, don’t cast your pearls before swine. (Matthew 7:6) They’re hypocrites, and we know that Jesus called out hypocrites. Love them, pray for them, but if they’re going to be unreasonable, be kind but firm. And then move on to people who aren’t so prejudiced.

Las citas de San Pablo: evidencia de la datación temprana de los evangelios

Español

Por Lidia Mcgrew

La sabiduría popular del mundo de la erudición del Nuevo Testamento sabe que, si uno es muy conservador, se fechan todos los evangelios entre 60 DC y 100 DC. No antes. El único registro de las enseñanzas de Jesús que tenemos antes de eso es una tradición oral, y cuando nosotros los occidentales escuchamos “tradición oral”, asumimos que esto significa “algo muy incompleto y minimalista de lo que tenemos en los textos de los Evangelios”.

El consenso casi universal de los expertos -no sólo entre los eruditos “muy conservadores”- es que el Apóstol Pablo murió a más tardar en el año 68 durante la persecución de Nerón a los cristianos.

¿Qué nos dice entonces, la sabiduría popular, si encontramos que el apóstol Pablo hace alusiones casuales a pasajes de los Evangelios como si esperara que sus lectores los reconocieran y aceptaran como autoridad?

Se dice que la sabiduría popular bien podría estar equivocada. Esto aumenta significativamente la probabilidad de que al menos un evangelio sinóptico (o evangelios), que contiene los pasajes que Pablo menciona, fueron escritos mucho antes de lo que la sabiduría popular sostiene. O por lo menos que necesitamos reforzar radicalmente nuestra noción de la “tradición oral”. Recuerda que todo lo que Pablo citaba tuvo que haber tenido suficiente tiempo para ser difundido a sus lectores, muchos de ellos lejos de Jerusalén. Esto es importante. Si él se refería a documentos, se refería a documentos escritos lo suficientemente atrás de la fecha de su propia escritura que, copias de estos documentos o informes precisos, hubiesen llegado a sus lectores y estos los hubieran aceptado como copias o informes verdaderos de los acontecimientos de la vida y enseñanzas de Jesús.

Dicho esto, algunos ejemplos de estas alusiones paulinas:

1 Corintios 9:14 “Así también ordenó el Señor que los que proclaman el evangelio, vivan del evangelio” ¿El Señor ordenó? ¿Dónde? Aquí, en Mateo 10:9-19: “No se provean de oro, ni de plata, ni de cobre para llevar en sus cintos, ni de alforja para el camino, ni de dos túnicas, ni de sandalias, ni de bordón; porque el obrero es digno de su sostén”. O aquí, en Lucas 10:4.6 “No lleven bolsa, ni alforja, ni sandalias… Permanezcan entonces en esa casa, comiendo y bebiendo lo que les den; porque el obrero es digno de su salario.”

1 Corintios 6:2 “¿O no saben que los santos han de juzgar al mundo? Y si el mundo es juzgado por ustedes, ¿no son competentes para juzgar los casos más sencillos?” ¿Por qué se esperaría que los corintios sepan estos? Posiblemente, por Mateo 19:28 “Jesús les dijo: “…cuando el Hijo del Hombre se siente en el trono de Su gloria, ustedes se sentarán también sobre doce tronos para juzgar a las doce tribus de Israel.” (O su pasaje paralelo en Lucas 22:39).

1 Corintios 13:2 “… y si tuviera toda la fe como para trasladar montañas, pero no tengo amor, nada soy.” ¿Por qué alguien pensaría que la fe mueve montañas? Quizás por qué Jesús lo dijo. Mateo 17:20 “Y Él les dijo: “Por la poca fe de ustedes; porque en verdad les digo que, si tienen fe como un grano de mostaza, dirán a este monte: ‘Pásate de aquí allá,’ y se pasará; y nada les será imposible.”

Permítanme señalar en este punto que este tipo de alusión, sin citar exactamente igual es perfectamente normal en los escritos de este tipo (también es común en la predicación y en la literatura de hoy en día). Justino Mártir, por ejemplo, hace alusiones similares no sólo a los Evangelios, sino también a la Septuaginta.

1 Corintios 11:23-26, uno de los pasajes más famosos de la Escritura:

“Porque yo recibí del Señor lo mismo que les he enseñado: que el Señor Jesús, la noche en que fue entregado, tomó pan, y después de dar gracias, lo partió y dijo: “Esto es Mi cuerpo que es para ustedes; hagan esto en memoria de Mí.” De la misma manera tomó también la copa después de haber cenado, diciendo: “Esta copa es el nuevo pacto en Mi sangre; hagan esto cuantas veces la beban en memoria de Mí.” Porque todas las veces que coman este pan y beban esta copa, proclaman la muerte del Señor hasta que El venga.”

La redacción paralela es Lucas 22,19-21, es sorprendente:

“Y tomando el pan, después de haber dado gracias, lo partió, y les dio, diciendo: “Esto es Mi cuerpo que por ustedes es dado; hagan esto en memoria de Mí.” De la misma manera tomó la copa después de haber cenado, diciendo: “Esta copa es el nuevo pacto en Mi sangre, que es derramada por ustedes. Pero, vean, la mano del que Me entrega está junto a Mí en la mesa…”

Además de la redacción casi exactamente igual al relato de Lucas de la Institución de la Eucaristía, tenemos la alusión a la traición de Cristo (Todas las narraciones de la Pasión en los Evangelios dicen que esto ocurrió en la noche de la traición de Jesús). Y tan sólo unos pocos versículos antes en Lucas y Mateo, Jesús menciona su regreso: “Porque les digo que no volveré a comerla (la Pascua) hasta que se cumpla en el reino de Dios.”

Es justo señalar que muchos comentaristas toman que Pablo recibió su información acerca de la última cena como una revelación directa de Dios -esto como una interpretación de la frase de Pablo “Yo recibí del Señor.” Sin embargo, los paralelos verbales al evangelio de Lucas, en concreto, son muy llamativos en este pasaje. Parece poco probable que Jesús hubiera hecho una revelación a Pablo que hace parecer que Pablo específicamente se estuviera refiriendo al evangelio de Lucas y no a los demás. Aun cuando Pablo recibió una revelación directa de Dios acerca de la Última Cena, él pudo haber comentado esa la revelación en forma verbal en la carta a los corintios, citando el testimonio que Lucas había investigado y proporcionado. También es posible que algunos comentaristas estén influenciados por la suposición de que los evangelios escritos no estaban disponibles a Pablo en esta fecha temprana, y que por lo tanto él debe haber recibido esta información por completo como una revelación especial. Pero, en realidad, la redacción del pasaje sugiere que Lucas o algo muy parecido a Lucas era conocido por Pablo.

Estas alusiones son pruebas importantes para demostrar la familiaridad de Pablo, ya sea con el texto de algunos de los Evangelios, especialmente Mateo y Lucas, o de lo contrario a las “tradiciones” muy detalladas que llegaron por lo menos a textos parciales de los Evangelios en sustancialmente la misma forma verbal como los escritos que tenemos.

Dado que Lucas fue compañero de Pablo (véase, por ejemplo, Hechos 16:10-17 y 20:5-15, entre otros “nosotros” de los pasajes de Hechos), tiene todo el sentido imaginar que Pablo realmente estaba presente mientras que Lucas redactaba su Evangelio y pudo haber leído partes del mismo “en proyecto”, por así decirlo, y la referencia en 2 Corintios 8:18 “Junto con él hemos enviado al hermano cuya fama en las cosas del evangelio se ha divulgado por todas las iglesias.” puede ser una referencia a Lucas y a su trabajo en ese momento de anotar las “Buenas Nuevas “. Y una vez más, las referencias de Pablo implican una expectativa de familiaridad por parte de su público, que sería bien explicada por la disponibilidad del Evangelio de Lucas a los Corintios previo a la escritura de I Corintios.

Puede parecer como “pescar en un barril” citar a Richard Dawkins sobre dicho tema, pero la siguiente cita ilustra una actitud bastante común hacia la relación entre las epístolas paulinas y los Evangelios:

“Los evangelios no son relatos confiables de lo que sucedió en la historia del mundo real. Todos fueron escritos mucho después de la muerte de Jesús, y también después de las epístolas de Pablo, que no mencionan casi ninguno de los supuestos hechos de la vida de Jesús.” El espejismo de Dios (edición de 2008, p. 118).

San Pablo es una vergüenza para el escéptico sobre la historicidad de los Evangelios, y mientras más radical es un escéptico, más vergonzoso se vuelve Pablo. La historicidad de Pablo es indudable. Incluso la denuncia falsa de que no tenemos cartas escritas por Jesús (como si eso fuera un requisito para la aceptación de la historicidad de nadie) no se aplica a Pablo. Y el breve credo al principio de I Corintios 15 se ha utilizado ampliamente y con vigor por los apologistas cristianos para argumentar a favor de la fecha temprana de las afirmaciones básicas del cristianismo. Es útil, si no realmente necesario, para alguien en la posición de Dawkins, rebajar el grado en que las epístolas paulinas confirman los Evangelios.

De la declaración de Dawkins se podría obtener la impresión de que las epístolas paulinas son poco teológicas de manera que esto impide que tengan alguna relación significativa con siquiera los acontecimientos fundamentales de la vida de Jesús como se informa en los Evangelios, y mucho menos los textos de los Evangelios mismos. Aunque las epístolas son realmente teológicas y, por lo tanto, diferentes en el género de los evangelios, se basan claramente en una religión con firmeza histórica. La implicación de que los escritos de Pablo son ajenos a los hechos reales de la vida de Jesús es absurda, especialmente en lo que se refiere a la crucifixión y la resurrección. Alusiones de Pablo a la cruz son numerosas (por ejemplo, 1 Corintios 1:17-18, 2:23, Gálatas 3:01).

Hay otros aspectos de la vida de Cristo, también, de los que Pablo demuestra conocimiento: 2 Corintios 8:09, “…a pesar de que, siendo rico, por vosotros se hizo pobre” es una clara alusión a la forma de vida de Jesús -por ejemplo, Lucas 9:58, “El Hijo del hombre no tiene dónde recostar la cabeza.” 1 Timoteo 6:13 menciona el juicio de Jesús ante Poncio Pilato. Y, por supuesto, el pasaje de Corintios 11 muestra el conocimiento de los acontecimientos del Jueves Santo -la institución de la Eucaristía y de la traición.

El argumento del principio, sin embargo, muestra más de la familiaridad de Pablo con varios eventos en la vida de Jesús. Un examen detallado nos da evidencia no despreciable para la familiaridad de Pablo y la familiaridad de sus lectores con al menos uno de los evangelios sinópticos -muy probablemente Lucas y Mateo probablemente también. Esta conclusión sería muy inconveniente de hecho, para la “sabiduría” popular incluso entre los estudiosos del Nuevo Testamento, y aún más para los apologistas del ateísmo, como Dawkins.

Notas

Los ejemplos de este artículo provienen de Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Las Epístolas de San Pablo a los Corintios, 5ª ed. (London: John Murray, 1882)

Traducido por José Giménez Chilavert

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2mJaycn

October 7, 2019/by Guest

Conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

“There are some Jehovah’s Witnesses in the neighborhood if you want to talk them,” my wife said. I was excited. I have had numerous and long-standing discussions with Mormons, but never anything meaningful with Jehovah’s Witnesses. After a while, they finally came to my door. While I couldn’t talk to them at the time, we scheduled a meeting for them to come back. I have been meeting with them for about a month now. It has been great! I have studied their teachings for a while, but I have never had the chance to get it from the horse’s mouth and really ask questions to help me better understand their belief system. It really has been a lot of fun, and I would like to share my experiences with you, including their beliefs and the questions I have asked them.

The Name of Jehovah

The first teaching they shared with me was the importance of the name “Jehovah.” In Hebrew (the original language of the Old Testament) God’s personal name is Yahweh. The original Hebrew did not contain vowels, and so this name was spelled YHWH. It was thought to be sacred, and so the Hebrew scribes did not want to pronounce the divine name. Instead, they added the letters of Adonai, which means “Master” or “Lord.” Thus, we get the English spelling “Yahoveh.” Rumor has it that “Jehovah” came about because the Germans had a hard time pronouncing the “Y” and instead made a “J” sound, hence, Jehovah.

However, this name Jehovah came about; Jehovah’s’ Witnesses are adamant that we should call him by his divine name. They teach that English translations have lost this teaching, and it is important to get it right. This is one reason they have their own version of the Bible, which is called the “New World Translation.” Translating words like YHWH as Jehovah is just one difference, and relatively minor in comparison to other teachings that drastically change the text.

Jesus Is “a” God, Not God Almighty

I was surprised that they threw this one at me right out of the gate, but on the second meeting, they brought an elder who admitted that in their view, Jesus is not God. I had known this teaching for years but was not sure exactly how open they would be about it. Happily, for me, they were very open about it. After some general teaching through a pamphlet that they gave me, the elder and I agreed to focus on the topic of Jesus’ deity on our next meeting. I did some preparation, so I could try to prove to them that Jesus did, in fact claim to be God.

He ended up coming by himself on this particular visit, and we went over two passages of Scripture from which he wanted to demonstrate that Jesus was a created being and thus not God. One passage was Proverbs 8:22-23, which says: “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. 23 Ages ago, I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth” (ESV). His point was that “Wisdom” refers to Jesus. I do not remember getting a very clear answer as to why he thought this, but I pointed out that as wisdom literature, “Wisdom” is personified often, and even as a woman. In fact, verse twelve says, “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion.” I asked, “If Wisdom is Jesus, then who is Prudence?” There was no real answer.

His second, and more well-known passage cited by them on this topic, was Colossians 1:15, which says, “He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” Since Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation,” Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that he is the first created being. However, the Greek word for ‘firstborn’ actually means “preeminent”, not the first in a series of things. In fact, the Greek translation of Psalm 89:27 uses the exact word for David: “And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” However, David was not only not the firstborn, he was the last born. So I argued these two passages are not teaching that Jesus was created. The first was simply a personification of wisdom, which happens all the time in Hebrew wisdom literature. And the second simply doesn’t mean what they say it means. The elder was not convinced, and even said that we can’t go by what the dictionary says. I could not knock him off his script on this point. He simply refused to concede what the word means.

I offered several lines of argument that Jesus claimed to be God. For example, Isaiah 44:6 says, “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.” However, in Revelation 1:17-18 Jesus claimed, “I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” This is Jesus talking and not Jehovah (Jehovah never died according to Jehovah’s Witnesses). That Jesus was the one speaking was agreed upon by the elder. My point was that if Jehovah was claiming to be the first and the last and so was Jesus, then Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah. The reply was that Jesus merely was thinking like Jehovah, not claiming to be Jehovah. However, as I pointed out, this is not what the text says. (See this post for more material on Jesus’ claims to deity.)

After making several connections like the one above, I asked the elder what would make him believe Jesus was God if such clear identity claims did not serve as evidence. His answer was that God would not allow himself to be put to death by men. (To be clear, Christians don’t believe God was put to death; rather, the human nature of Jesus was put to death. His deity can not be touched by death.) We never agreed on the deity of Jesus.

Jesus Was Raised from the Dead Spiritually, Not Physically

The elder brought another Jehovah’s Witnesses for this meeting where we further discussed Jesus’ deity and the resurrection. They believe that Jesus pre-existed his human life as the archangel Michael. His life was transferred to the virgin Mary, and he became a human. The elder said that after Jesus’ death he was raised, but spiritually, not physically. He argued that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God, and since Jesus is in Heaven, he must be spiritual. He also pointed to Scriptures where those who talked to him on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Jesus after his resurrection. Thus, he was not in his former body. For example, Luke 24:13-16 reads, “That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.” As I pointed out, the text does not say he looked different, but “their eyes were kept from recognizing him.” Further, Scripture teaches that Jesus was raised in his same physical body he had.

Luke 24:39-43 states: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate before them.” Clearly, Jesus was claiming to be a physical being. This was not contested by the elder. However, his response was simply that Jesus materialized in the way angels could in the Old Testament.

I pointed out that John 2:19-21 says, “Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ 20 The Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’ 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.” So, the same body that was killed would be raised up after death. It is also important to note that in Acts 2:24 Peter says that God raised up Jesus: “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death because it was not possible for him to be held by it.” This is another claim to Jesus’ deity since he said, “I will raise” my body, and here Peter says, “God raised up Jesus.”

In the end, I asked them what evidence would count for the physical resurrection, even in principle, since Jesus saying that the same body that was killed was the same one raised, and he demonstrated his body to be physical in many ways and on many occasions. But if showing his physical body after his resurrection doesn’t count as evidence (in conjunction with the claim that the same body would be raised), then it seems like nothing in principle could ever be used as evidence for a physical resurrection. The younger Jehovah’s Witness tried to change the subject, but I politely asked for an answer. There really wasn’t one.

The New World Translation, The Trinity, and Jesus

We will be discussing the Trinity next time, although it came up in our last meeting. Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the Trinity. They teach it is a pagan lie and that Christianity stole the idea from other religions that also had trinities; however, such is false. Other religions had a triad of beings but nothing like the Christian view of the Trinity. But Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot hold to the Trinity since they deny Jesus is God. They further teach that the Holy Spirit is not a person but rather God’s active force. In their own translation of the Bible, the New World Translation, “Holy Spirit” is actually translated “active force.” In the NWT, Genesis 1:2 actually says, “…and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.” This is a gross mistranslation that betrays the NWT‘s bias. The Hebrew is accurately translated in the ESV: “And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” There is simply no justification for translating “spirit” as “active force.”

Another, perhaps the most famous, example of bias in the NWT is John 1:1. The ESV reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The NWT adds the word “a” to make the text read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” The reason they give is that in Greek the word “God” does not have the word “the” (the definite article) in front of it, which would make it definite. (Greek sometimes has the definite article before nouns even though English doesn’t always translate it. Greek can read “the God” which is merely translated “God.”) They claim that without the definite article, “God” should be translated indefinitely as “a god.” However, as one scholar has pointed out, the NWT only follows this principle 6% of the time. In fact, in John 1:6 the word “God” appears in Greek without the article and the NWT still translates it “God” as referring to Jehovah. This is clear bias. Without going into Greek grammar suffice it to say that a word can be definite even without the article in front of it. In Greek the article has a very rich and broad way of functioning. In Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, over 100 pages are dedicated to how the article functions (and by the way he argues against the NWT‘s translation here—which incidentally is where my earlier 6% came from). In short, Greek scholars are not impressed with the NWT, to put it nicely.

Conclusion

I hope that this brief article has helped make you more aware of the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. For direct info regarding their beliefs see their website. An excellent resource to explain and counter their views is Ron Rhodes’ Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Robert Bowman, Jr also has excellent material, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

What is “Social Justice”? with J. Warner Wallace

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

J. Warner Wallace guest hosts the show this week and answers a listener email about the nature of “social justice”. What is the definition of this term and how do people typically interpret it? Is social justice commanded in the Jewish and Christian scriptures? Is there a difference between “social justice” and “biblical justice”? If so, how do these two terms differ and how are we, as Christians supposed to respond in this area? J. Warner delineates the differences using an investigative template.

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

October 4, 2019/by Guest

Tacitus — Ancient Roman Historian — Reports on Jesus

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Most of what happened in the ancient world went unrecorded. Think about it. People from bygone eras didn’t have technology like YouTube, TV, or the internet — much less the printing press. It’s sad, really. We’ll never know about 99.99% of what happened back then. The less than 1% we do know is because a few literate historians covered the highlights.

We know about famous military commanders and epic battles. Emperors and politicians of powerful kingdoms also make the cut. But most events and people have vanished off the historical landscape.

With Jesus of Nazareth, though, we have four biographies on his life all dating within the lifetime of eye-witnesses. We also have a slew of letters by some of his other followers, making him one of the best-attested individuals in the history of the ancient world. It’s quite remarkable considering he came from a backwoods section of Galilee far removed from prominent Roman locations.

Historians normally gush over this amount of material. The amount and quality of sources towers just about everyone else. Yet some skeptics cry foul. They don’t accept the Gospels or New Testament letters for the reason that they’re Christian documents.

Well, as it turns out, we have other, non-Christian sources also testifying to Jesus. One such source comes from the pen of an early Roman historian named Tacitus. As you’ll see, Tacitus corroborates significant events from the New Testament.

Tacitus, the Greatest Roman Historian

Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120) is often called the “greatest historian” of ancient Rome. He authored two large works — the Annals and the Histories.

Much of what he wrote is now lost to us. Fortunately, there’s one remaining portion which is of interest to this discussion. The portion describes Nero blaming the Christians for the great fire of Rome (AD 64). It reports:

Therefore, to stop the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.1

What do we learn from Tacitus’ work?

Christians are named after their founder, Christus.
Christus died by the death penalty during Emperor Tiberius’ reign (AD 14-37).
Pontius Pilatus, procurator (AD 26-36), sentenced Christus to death.
Christus’ death ended the “pernicious superstition” for only a short time.
The “pernicious superstition” broke out once more in Judea, the “home of the disease.”
The “disease” spread all the way to Rome and had a large enough following to receive blame for the great fire.

Doubting Tacitus?

As is abundantly obvious, Tacitus’ quote provides a significant amount of corroboration for the New Testament. Jesus died by crucifixion during the reign of Tiberius while Pilatus was procurator of Judea. Moreover, the movement was only “checked for a moment, only to break out once more.”

The implications for this last quote are massive, to say the least. As J.N.D. Anderson remarks:

It is scarcely fanciful to suggest that when he adds that “a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out” he is bearing indirect and unconscious testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.2

On the face of it, Tacitus makes massive claims in support of the New Testament, which is why skeptics try to dismiss it. And they usually give four reasons for doing so.

“It’s a Christian Interpolation”

Skeptics argue that Christians inserted this portion of the text at a later date, but there is no compelling reason for believing this. First and foremost, it’s difficult to imagine a Christian describing his movement as a “pernicious superstition” and a “disease.” As a general rule, people don’t usually label themselves this way.

Furthermore, if Christians really inserted this text into Tacitus’ work, they certainly could have been more clear about Jesus’ resurrection. While the claim that the “superstition broke out again in Judea” implies a resurrection, it’s not entirely clear.

It seems that if Christians had the opportunity to insert a paragraph here, they would have said something more explicit.

“It’s Anachronistic”

A second argument skeptics make against this quote is that it refers to Pilatus as “procurator” — the title during Tacitus’ day — instead of “prefect” — the title during Jesus’ day. That is, it’s anachronistic, and therefore, unreliable.

Again, as a reminder, Tacitus’ reputation as an accurate historian is without question.3 Be that as it may, what should we make of the skeptics’ claim?

First, we should note that Tacitus may have intentionally used the term his readers would have been familiar with for clarity sake. For example, I might write about a “bishop” from the second century, but call him a “pastor” for a contemporary audience because that’s a term readers are familiar with. There’s no reason why Tacitus couldn’t have employed this tactic.

Second, we should also note that other Jewish historians of the first century — Philo and Josephus — both refer to Pilate as a “procurator.” While the term “prefect” was legitimate, it appears that both “procurator” and “prefect” are used interchangeably.

“It’s Hearsay”

Third, skeptics reject this as an original source and claim that Tacitus was simply repeating hearsay from Christians. One line of evidence they suggest is that Tacitus uses Jesus’ title “Christus” rather than his legal name “Jesus.”

This argument doesn’t hold water either. In response, we need to remember that Tacitus was writing about Christians and the origin of their name, so his use of “Christus” instead of “Jesus” seems logical.

Second, it’s difficult to imagine that a great historian like Tacitus, who elsewhere carefully investigated sources, would simply jot down hearsay from a group of Christians. Moreover, I wonder why Tacitus would blindly trust this group he refers to as a “pernicious superstition” and a “disease” and include their fables about Jesus in his history if he didn’t have any other source to substantiate his claim.

While making a substantial claim about a Roman official condemning someone to death, Tacitus would have been especially motivated to get his facts straight.

“It’s Unofficial”

Finally, skeptics argue that Tacitus wouldn’t have had access to any official records that would record Jesus’ death. But I find this terribly unpersuasive.

For starters, Tacitus himself held high government positions (proconsul of Asia). Additionally, he had close connections with others in power, such as Pliny the Younger and his wife, who happened to be the daughter of Julius Agricola, the governor of Britain. It seems silly to suggest he wouldn’t have had access to government records.

Furthermore, we know he had access to the Acta Senatus (archives of the Roman Senate’s activities) as he cites it multiple times in his works. Jesus’ crucifixion may very well have appeared in these archives or in others similar to it.

Knowing the kind of historian Tacitus was, if he didn’t have iron-clad proof that Pontius Pilate sanctioned Jesus’ crucifixion, he would have couched his statement with “Christians report that…” rather than making an unequivocal claim.

Good Corroborating Evidence

In the end, the Tacitus text stands up to scrutiny and provides solid corroborating evidence for the New Testament. While he views Christians in a negative light, he proves to be a reliable non-Christian source for major events in Jesus’ life.

A book, an Illustration of the Governments

Literature

UnPauline Vocabulary?

Does Faith Mean Something Different in The Pastorals Than It Does in Paul’s Other Writings?

Do The Pastorals Disagree with Paul’s Teaching On Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7?

Is The Idea of Bishops and Deacons Foreign to Paul?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Nothing to Select

The Miller-Urey Experiment

A Myth Repeated

The Oxygen Conundrum

Chicken and Egg Scenarios

Metabolism and Replication

Proteins and DNA

An Inevitable Conclusion

Life and a Creator God

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The open-minded doubter – John the Baptist

The Hostile Crowd – Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees.

What do we learn from Jesus about responding to doubters?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notas

The Name of Jehovah

Jesus Is “a” God, Not God Almighty

Jesus Was Raised from the Dead Spiritually, Not Physically

The New World Translation, The Trinity, and Jesus

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Tacitus, the Greatest Roman Historian

Doubting Tacitus?

“It’s a Christian Interpolation”

“It’s Anachronistic”

“It’s Hearsay”

“It’s Unofficial”

Good Corroborating Evidence

Recommended resources related to the topic: