Christianity Archives - Page 26 of 106

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Timothy’s Tale: Unveiling Undesigned Coincidences In Paul’s Journeys

Because Paul crisscrossed paths with many folks, some repeatedly, it’s quite enlightening to compare how these people are portrayed in the book of Acts with what Paul hints at in his own letters. Among these characters, Timothy stands out as a particularly intriguing figure.

In 1 Corinthians 4:17, Paul mentions sending Timothy, his “beloved and faithful child in the Lord,” to jog the Corinthians’ memory about Paul’s ways in Christ. Now, from this passage alone, it’s a bit tricky to figure out if Timothy was sent before the letter or with it. In 1 Corinthians 16:10-11, though, Paul makes it clear that Timothy was dispatched before the letter was penned. He talks about Timothy’s impending arrival as something distinct from when the Corinthians would receive the letter itself – “When Timothy comes, …”

Contradictory Accounts?

Now, when you stack these two passages side by side, a puzzling question pops up. If Timothy was sent first, why didn’t he show up first? And if he did arrive first, why bother sending instructions afterward on how to welcome him?

The most sensible answer is that Timothy, even though sent ahead, must have taken a more roundabout route to Corinth. The quickest way from Ephesus, where Paul was writing, to Corinth would be by ship, covering the distance in a jiffy with a favorable wind. But, as we dig into Luke’s account in Acts 19:21-22, we discover that Timothy, when leaving Ephesus, opted for the overland route, traveling up through Macedonia.

We stumble upon these coincidences that weren’t orchestrated but fit together seamlessly. Paul’s letter doesn’t mention a word about Timothy’s trek through Macedonia, and Acts doesn’t bring up Paul’s letter. Yet, Acts offers the only sensible explanation for these offhand remarks Paul makes in his letter, creating this neat puzzle where the pieces just click into place.

How Did The Philippian Church Know Timothy?

But there’s more about Timothy. When Paul writes the church at Philippi, he says:

“I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be cheered by news of you. For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ. But you know Timothy’s proven worth, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Philippians 2:19-21).

In this passage, it’s pretty clear that the Philippians knew Timothy and had seen him working alongside Paul. The nifty part is how there’s this subtle and smooth connection between what’s written in Philippians and the story in the book of Acts. So, in Acts 16, Paul starts traveling with Timothy, a convert from around Lystra and Iconium. After that, the Acts story gets into Paul’s travels across Asia Minor to Troas and then Macedonia.

When they hit Philippi, the story dives into Paul’s missionary adventures, detailing his struggles and hardships. Acts 17 continues the journey, covering Paul’s move from Philippi to Thessalonica, where things get pretty heated, and he has to leave. Then comes this sneaky part: the brothers secretly send Paul and Silas to Berea at night, and when they get there, they hit up the Jewish synagogue. That’s when Timothy pops back into the picture:

“Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there” (Acts 17:14).

So, even though Timothy wasn’t explicitly mentioned during the journey, Acts 17:10-15 shows that he was indeed rolling with Paul at Berea. Silas gets more spotlight in the story, but Acts hints that Paul had more buddies along, including the author himself. This revelation about Timothy being there in Berea fills in the gaps and explains how the Philippians knew about Timothy’s skills and saw him working hard with Paul, like a son with his father.

What’s interesting is that Acts doesn’t just say Timothy was in Philippi. You have to connect the dots by piecing together Timothy’s role from different mentions in Acts. It’s not like the author of Acts was trying to be all sneaky and create a link with Philippians. Instead, this connection adds weight to the idea that the author of Acts really knew Paul’s life inside out, including his friends and moves during that time.

Paul Alone In Athens

But wait, there’s another nice example of an undesigned coincidence in this same passage. So, in Thessalonica, Paul’s ministry gets interrupted by a rowdy bunch of Gentiles riled up by the local Jews, prompting a quick escape with Silas for Berea (Acts 17:10). When the troublemakers catch wind that Paul’s still preaching in Berea, they show up, causing a ruckus. Paul has to skedaddle to Athens in a hurry, leaving Silas and Timothy behind (Acts 17:14). Now, Acts doesn’t spill the tea on why Paul left Silas and Timothy hanging. But then, 1 Thessalonians 3:1-5 gives us the missing piece:

“Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith…”

Turns out, under the circumstances, Paul sent Timothy back to Thessalonica to check on the folks there and report back while Paul was busy in Athens. This neatly clears up the unexplained bit in Acts, making sense of the separation from Silas and Timothy.

Timothy’s Mixed Upbringing

Here’s another neat example of undesigned coincidences, from Paul’s second letter to Timothy, where describes Timothy rather than mentioning his travels:

“…and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15)

Clearly, Paul’s talking about the Jewish scriptures here, but he doesn’t give any hint as to how Timothy, who wasn’t circumcised until after his conversion as a young man (as mentioned in Acts 16:3), got to know them. The missing piece of information falls into place when we check out Acts 16:1:

“Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek.”

Seems like Timothy’s Greek dad wasn’t on board with the whole circumcision thing. But his Jewish mother made sure he got schooled in the scriptures of her people. Paul even names his mother and grandmother in 2 Timothy 1:5.

Timothy’s Knowledge Of Paul’s Persecutions

But there’s more! In 2 Timothy 3:10-11, Paul talks about how Timothy followed his teachings, behavior, and experiences, especially the tough times in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. Now, the Antioch here isn’t the famous one in Syria, but a different one in Pisidia. Acts 13 in the Bible says that Paul and Barnabas got into trouble there, stirred up by the locals. They had to skip town and faced more problems in Iconium, so they moved on to Lystra and Derbe.

In Acts 14, it mentions Paul getting stoned and dragged out of the city by angry folks from Antioch and Iconium. This lines up perfectly with what Paul mentions in 2 Timothy 3:10-11 about the persecutions he faced in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. It matches not only in the cities but also in the order Paul talks about them.

Here’s another cool tidbit: In Acts, Lystra and Derbe are often mentioned together, just like in 2 Timothy. But, interestingly, Paul doesn’t face any troubles in Derbe, and sure enough, it’s not mentioned in the list of persecutions in 2 Timothy. So, there’s a perfect match between what Paul says and what happened in Acts.

Now, Paul also implies that Timothy saw or at least knows about these persecutions. Acts backs this up. In Acts 15:36, it says Paul went on a second journey to check on the folks he converted during the first trip. In Acts 16:1-2, we find out that Timothy, a disciple from Lystra, was well-regarded in the community. This suggests that Timothy might have been converted during Paul’s earlier visit when all the tough times were going down. So, it looks like Timothy was there, or at least very aware of what Paul went through in those cities.

What This All Means

Does the fact that these passages don’t match up exactly, and they’re scattered throughout without sounding alike, make you think someone’s trying to trick us? Or does each one just fit naturally where it is? If it’s the latter, it’s pretty unlikely that someone cooked up these connections on purpose. These accounts sound like what we would expect if different people, at different times and places, are sharing different parts of the same story.

Think about it this way: Imagine someone trying to copy an important document, but they change a few words here and there to make it seem original. We can see this happening with some writings from the second century, like the “Gospel of Peter,” where they use phrases almost identical to ones found in well-known Gospels to make their writing seem legit:

“And one of them brought a crown of thorns and put it on the head of the Lord.” (similar to Mark 15:17)
“And they brought two malefactors, and they crucified the Lord between them.” (similar to Luke 23:32-33)
“And in that hour the veil of the temple in Jerusalem was rent in twain.” (similar to Mark 15:38)
“But who shall roll away for us the stone …?” (similar to Mark 16:3)
“Whom seek ye? Him that was crucified? He is risen and gone.” (similar to Mark 16:6)

Here, the similarities are on purpose to make it seem real. But when we look at Acts and the Pauline letters, they’re not like that. They don’t match word for word, and they’re connected in more subtle ways. This makes it pretty impressive evidence that they’re telling us the truth about what really happened, without needing to fake anything.

Our Children: The Greatest Mission Field

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

Be assured that when the knock comes at your door, it will be unannounced, it will be warrantless, and it will come at the most inconvenient time.

The social service worker will be polite, but cool and business-like. Despite your confusion, fear, and even anger, you dare not lose your poise because that will ultimately be used against you. You will learn in short order that your refusal to cooperate will be futile; the social worker will just return with whatever government force is needed to remove your children from your home.

They’re Coming for Your Children…

After initial pleasantries, your children will be sent to a separate area where they will be questioned individually outside of your presence. You will not be told who made the accusation, only that an anonymous report has been made and the worker is compelled to do a “welfare check” on your children.

Make no mistake, the social worker will have the power to place your children in a government-approved foster care facility to “protect” them from the harmful effects that they are exposed to in your home. Then the investigation will begin in earnest with court hearings and public exposure to the “problems” created by your care of the children.

For the Crime of Christianity…

You may wonder what crime could trigger such a harsh result. Potential sexual or physical abuse? Neglect of the children’s health, medical, or nutritional needs? No. The time soon may come in America where this scenario occurs simply because you are teaching your children Christian values instead of what the secular culture and government want them to learn.

This whole picture may seem repugnant to you, and it should. It also may seem somewhat far-fetched to you, but it shouldn’t. The groundwork for this scenario is already in place. Until recently, it has been used mostly for good to address the issues of child abuse and neglect. But just as once-trusted institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department have abused their power for political purposes, it appears that the Department of Child Services in the state of Indiana has now been weaponized against conscientious Christian parents.

According to a report from the Indiana Family Institute (IFI), the Indiana DCS removed their gender-confused child out of the home of Mary and Jeremy Cox in June 2021 because of their biblically-based beliefs about sex and gender. Apparently, they were also not referring to their son with his preferred cross-gender name and pronouns, nor were they endorsing his self-identification as a girl because of their Christian faith. The overzealous case workers rationalized their demonic behavior by saying:

“We just feel that at this point in time, this child needs to be in a home that’s not going to teach her that trans, like everything about transgender … tell her how she should think and how she should feel. However, she should be in a home where she is [accepted] for who she is.” (Emphasis added)

In a moronic ruling, the family trial court in Indiana agreed with the DCS position and removed their son from the home and even went so far as to bar the parents from speaking to their son about the topic of sex and gender. This Christian mother and father then asked the Indiana Supreme Court to consider the case, but it declined.

How Will the Supreme Court Rule?

Now, they have petitioned for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to review the wrongful removal of their son from their home and SCOTUS is set to hear arguments about the matter probably in their April term. Their filed petition concludes with this language:

“No other fit parent should lose custody of their child or face a government muzzle on their deeply held religious beliefs and best judgment. M.C. and J.C. have exhausted every other remedy and are gravely concerned that the state of Indiana will come for their other children. This Court’s intervention is needed.”

Indeed, unless God intervenes, SCOTUS intervention is ultimately necessary if the basic framework of the nuclear family in America is to survive. This, then, becomes one of the most crucial cases to come before our highest court in recent times including those involving abortion and same-sex “marriage.” All God-fearing eyes should be turned intently to see the ruling from SCOTUS when it is ultimately entered.

As for the Cox family, unfortunately, their confused son aged out in the “wonderful” world of Indiana foster childcare and is now an adult. Yet they continue to pursue this case to protect the rest of their children as well as your children and grandchildren and all Bible-believing families all across this nation.

KGB/Gestapo Tactics

The stark reality is that these Gestapo/KGB tactics are not confined solely to attacks on the teaching of the truths of the Christian faith. Nevertheless, it should be painfully obvious to all true Christians that our American culture is not friendly to the Bible’s message of sin, redemption, and transcendent morality. Our ruling elites do not want biblical truths passed on to the next generation because it interferes with their godless culture’s embrace of hedonistic excess.

What better way to accomplish this goal than through penetrating the minds of our innocent children with false history and false concepts of self-fulfillment while suppressing true critical thinking and logic. Their ultimate goal is an unthinking population that depends on the government for everything by creating generations who simply do what they are told and who lack the ability to evaluate real truth much less biblical truth.

This is why our vulnerable children come under attack beginning as early as preschool. Our would-be masters want to completely eradicate any thought of Christian concepts from our children’s minds before they can crystallize into true belief. Thus, they have engineered a swiftly eroding quality of our public education system along with a headlong attack against the entire family structure, beginning in the home.

We Didn’t Get Here Overnight

To be certain we did not get to this precipice overnight. Nevertheless, it is not too late for Christians to awaken from their slumber and realize that we are in a pitched battle with forces beyond our comprehension; and at stake are the precious, eternal lives of our own children and grandchildren.

As believers, we are well aware of the admonition of Paul in Ephesians 6:12, where he says:

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

By the same token, we also know that these times in which we are living in our nation are too challenging; they are too grave for us to sit idly on the sidelines any longer. We are not advocating a fanatical response, but if the very lives of our precious children are at stake, then the fainthearted need not apply. How long will we allow our cherished offspring to be sacrificed on the altars of demonic absurdity?

Our Greatest Mission Field

Simply put, true Christians need to be committed to singularly focused, prayer-filled efforts to raise our children in a godly and biblically based manner, regardless of the personal cost. Our children are the greatest mission field. The spiritual upbringing of these next generations of our children and grandchildren in the only truth that matters is essential both to the survival of America and to the eternal destiny of these treasured little ones as well. The gospel of Jesus Christ is so crucial that it is a hill upon which we will stand and die if necessary. Our children – are they not worth a new revolution if that is what it takes? If we say that we really love them, isn’t it time we started acting like it?

The Sense of Hearing is a Masterpiece of Engineering

2. Does God Exist?, 3. Are Miracles Possible?

By Jonathan McLatchie

The ear is responsible for two of our most fundamental senses — hearing and equilibrium — the receptors for which are all found inside the inner ear. For an incredible animation of how hearing works, I recommend this YouTube video.

Here, I will describe the anatomy of the ear and the biological basis of the sense of hearing. The information below can be found in any good anatomy and physiology textbook. You can also find a good discussion of this subject in Chapter 11 of Your Designed Body, by Steve Laufmann and Howard Glicksman. It might be helpful to refer to the illustration of the ear below as you read the description that follows. [1]

The Outer Ear

The outer ear is comprised of the auricle and ear canal. The auricle is composed of skin-covered cartilage. In dogs (who have movable ears), the auricle can serve as a funnel for sound waves. In humans, on the other hand, its absence would not negatively affect our hearing.

Skin containing ceruminous glands lines the ear canal (also called the external auditory meatus). The ear canal is a tube-like structure that extends from the outer ear to the middle ear. It is responsible for directing sound waves into the ear, which then travel through the ear canal and arrive at the eardrum (tympanic membrane) in the middle ear. The eardrum vibrates in response to these sound waves, and these vibrations are transmitted to the middle ear bones.

The Middle Ear

The middle ear is a cavity in the temporal bone that is filled with air. The tympanic membrane (popularly called the eardrum) is a thin, flexible membrane that separates the outer ear from the middle ear, and is stretched across the end of the ear canal. When sound waves enter the ear canal, they strike the eardrum, causing it to vibrate. Behind the eardrum, there are three small bones known as the ossicles — namely, the malleus (hammer), incus (anvil), and stapes (stirrup). The ossicles form a chain and are connected to each other. When the eardrum vibrates in response to waves, it causes the malleus to move, which, in turn, moves the incus and stapes. This mechanical linkage helps amplify the vibrations and transmits them from the eardrum to the inner ear.

The middle ear is also connected to the nasopharynx (back of the throat) through a tube called the eustachian tube. This tube helps to equalize air pressure on both sides of the eardrum. This is essential to maintain equilibrium of air pressure between the middle ear and external atmospheric pressure, to allow the eardrum to properly vibrate.

The Inner Ear

The inner ear is also a cavity within the temporal bone, and is also called the bony labyrinth. It is lined with a membrane called the membranous labyrinth. Between the bone and membrane is a fluid called perilymph, and within the membranous structures of the inner ear is a fluid called endolymph. Three of these structures (the utricle, saccule, and semicircular canals) are concerned with equilibrium. The other (the cochlea) relates to hearing.

The cochlea’s appearance is like the shell of a snail. The inside of the cochlea is partitioned into three canals, filled with fluid. The uppermost canal is called the scala vestibuli, and it is filled with perilymph (a fluid similar to cerebrospinal fluid). Sound vibrations travel through the cochlea and arrive at the scala tympani. The middle canal is called the scala media (otherwise known as the cochlear duct), and it is separated from the scala vestibuli by Reissner’s membrane, and from the scala tympani by the basilar membrane. The scala media contains endolymph and is where the sensory cells of the cochlea (known as hair cells) are located. These hair cells are of course not in fact hair, but, rather, are specialized microvilli that are responsible for converting sound vibrations into electrical signals that can be interpreted by the brain. Situated above the hair cells is the tectorial membrane which, as we shall see, is crucial for hearing.

The Sense of Hearing

The process of hearing begins with the production of sound waves, which are pressure fluctuations that are propagated through air. These waves are funneled into the ear canal by the pinna (the external part of the ear). The ear canal carries the sound waves to the eardrum (tympanic membrane), which causes it to vibrate. These vibrations are then transmitted to the malleus, incus, and stapes, which amplify the vibrations. The stapes is connected to the oval window, a membrane-covered opening to the inner ear. Vibration of the stapes bone against the oval window creates pressure waves in the fluid-filled cochlea. As the pressure waves pass through the fluid in the cochlea, they cause vibration of the basilar membrane. This results in the bending of hair cells against the tectorial membrane, which in turn triggers the release of neurotransmitters that convert mechanical vibrations into electrical signals. These electrical signals are transmitted to the brain by the auditory nerve, where they are interpreted as sound by the auditory areas in the temporal lobes of the cerebral cortex.

The auditory nerve fibers carrying information from one ear partially cross to the opposite side at a structure in the brainstem, known as the trapezoid body. This means that signals from both ears are sent to both sides of the brain. This plays an important role in sound localization and spatial processing, allowing the brain to compare the timing and intensity of signals from both ears, helping us to determine the direction of a source of sound. Impulses arriving from each inner ear are counted and compared by the auditory areas, to determine the direction of a sound. If there are more impulses coming from the right cochlea than from the left one, the brain projects the sound to the right, and vice versa.

The neurons of the auditory cortex are organized in a manner similar to a piano keyboard — being arranged from low to high pitch. The brain is also able to detect volume, rhythm, and tempo, as well as timbre, which is a quality of tone (a guitar playing a middle C and a piano playing the same note at the same volume will sound different due to the unique timbre of each instrument).

A Masterpiece of Engineering

The anatomy of hearing described above is of course the system found in humans and other terrestrial mammals. Many other organisms have less advanced hearing systems. For example, fish lack external ears and have structures called otoliths that detect vibrations and changes in water pressure. Reptiles, birds, and amphibians also often lack an external ear and have a single middle ear bone instead of the three found in mammals. And most invertebrates (such as crustaceans and mollusks) lack ears and a sense of hearing altogether. Typically, claims that the sense of hearing evolved by natural selection focus on these as intermediate stages. The incus, malleus, and stapes are thought to have arisen from three reptilian bones associated with the jaw — the quadrate bone, articular bone, and columella respectively.

However, the vertebrate sense of hearing involves several fundamental anatomical features that are common to all vertebrate hearing systems and cannot be removed without severely compromising (or completely eliminating) the ability to hear. For example, the cochlea (which contains the hair cells) is a critical component for transducing sound vibrations into electrical signals that the brain can interpret. Indeed, the leading cause of hearing loss is damage to the hair cells. Furthermore, the auditory nerve, which carries electrical signals from the hair cells in the cochlea to the brain, is crucial for transmitting auditory information to the central nervous system. In injuries or infections (such as meningitis) where the auditory nerve is damaged, the result can be a complete and permanent loss of hearing in that ear. The eardrum (tympanic membrane), which vibrates in response to sound waves, transmitting these vibrations to the middle ear ossicles, is also an essential aspect of the sense of hearing. If the eardrum is damaged or perforated, the consequence can be deafness. A minimum of one middle ear ossicle appears to be essential for hearing as well. Another crucial feature of the auditory system is the oval window, the membrane-covered opening between the middle and inner ear, located at the base of the stapes bone. Vibrations transmitted by the ossicles are transferred to the fluid within the cochlea through the oval window.

Thus, several different structural components are necessary for the vertebrate sense of hearing. It strains credulity to suppose that an unguided process of random variation sifted by natural selection could assemble such a delicately arranged system. It instead points to a cause with foresight.

Footnotes:

[1] Image credit: Blausen.com staff (2014). “Medical gallery of Blausen Medical 2014”. WikiJournal of Medicine 1 (2). DOI:10.15347/wjm/2014.010. ISSN 2002-4436., CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

In the Image of God: The Battle for Human Identity

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Introduction

Human origins is a fascinating area of research today. With all the different models for the origins of humanity being proposed, I see an increase in the discussions, both scientific and theological. For everyone reading this post, this area of research should be of utmost interest for you as well. Two critical ideas about humanity are at stake depending on which model (or family of models) is true: intrinsic and equal human dignity and value, and the sinfulness of humanity.

The age-old debate about God’s existence has great implications on this area of the debate about human origins. The Judeo-Christian claim that all humans are created in God’s Image and that humans possess a sin nature that will cause them to tend toward the immoral. These paradoxical doctrines together explain both the greatness and wretchedness of humanity that we see everyday, throughout history, and expect in the future.

The Image of God

If we are created in the image of God that means that all humans possess intrinsic and equal human dignity and value. If this is false, then humans are not valuable in virtue of their being human but in virtue of a myriad of other characteristics and stati that change in fashionability with the culture. One moment a human can be valuable and the next moment they are not. If humans do not have value at any point, that gives justification for their expendability (murder) at the hands of those who have power over them at that point. If humans are not created in the image of God, then there is nothing wrong with humans abusing their power against other humans. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Image of God in humans places the very lives of every human at risk.

Human Sinfulness

Genesis also records that Adam and Eve sinned against God and with that action brought the sin nature into all future humans. Humans are not born good or even neutral. This means that the abuse of power described above is not just possible but inevitable. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Fall or for the transfer of the sin nature (whether through the biological, spiritual, or some combination) denies this element of human psychology, sociology, and history.

Denying Both?

Any model that does not allow for one or the other already makes human lives less worthy of protection because either it is not worth protecting or there is nothing to necessarily protect against. But if a model denies both, then that is a recipe for disaster. This means that the debate about human origins is not just a scientific question but also a philosophical one, even for the atheist or naturalist. An interesting analysis of the implications of these two characteristics is provided in Os Guinness’ book “The Magna Carta of Humanity” which I highly recommend, particularly for those involved in human origins discussions and debates. It provides a renewed urgency for the importance of the debate about human origins.

Should Theology Judge Science?

I often hear the claim that many Christians allow their theology to determine their interpretation (and maybe even rejection) of the scientific data. The implication is that we should not allow any knowledge discipline (or at least, theology) other than science in developing our model or that we should at least give precedence to science.

It is important to recognize at this point the distinction between “science” and “data of nature.” The data that is discovered is the raw information that must be accommodated in any model, whereas “science” is the interpretation (which is fallible, but not necessarily false) of that data. Because multiple sources of truth (philosophical and historical as described above, and not just the natural data) exist about humans, the data of each must be recognized and accommodated in any model of human origins that claims to accurately reflect the natural history of human origins (what really happened). Just as the data of nature can judge our interpretation of the data of history and Scripture, the data of history and the data of Scripture can judge our interpretation of the data of nature in virtue of their being true.

We cannot allow an epistemic (knowledge) posture of strong or even weak scientism to prevent our discovery of the correct model of human origins. To do so, would be dangerous.

Conclusion

With the work in the field of human origins being done at numerous Christian organizations, the number of possible models and level of detail may seem confusing to many yet exciting to others. But they are important for all of us. I encourage these organizations to continue (or begin) working together to gather all the data that each emphasize in their respective models and adjust those models to reflect the data provided by others. We need to be careful and respectful of any accusations of heresy- ensure that our accusations are demonstrably reflective of the model not the Christian, and that we address such accusations with or adjust our models based on the biblical data and logic. It is important that even though we may disagree on details that we present a united front that is based on the data and sound reasoning from that data, not only for the future of humanity, but as a demonstration of the unity and love that Christ prayed for and told us that unbelievers will see. We need to not only demonstrate the truth of these important Christian doctrines (ones that are often under attack and used as excuses to reject Christ) but we need to emphasize our love, respect, cooperation, and dedication to truth that unbelievers often overlook.

The Most Important Question

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

It wasn’t too long ago we finally finished putting the Christmas decorations away at our house. The process caused me to reminisce about the time we had enjoyed with family and celebrations with our church family both this year and in years past. As each year passes, I am increasingly burdened by the chasm between the secular “Christmas” celebrated by society and the true meaning of Christmas–the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

I ponder the great effort put forth by retail companies (think gifts and décor) and the entertainment industry (movies, concerts, and special events in the name of the “special season”) and can’t help but marvel at the effort to capitalize on the season all while wholly rejecting the reason behind it.

This season, I was reminded of a very important question, arguably the most important question each one of us must answer. All three of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) record Jesus asking his disciples “Who do you say that I am?” Considering the confusion at Christmas and what event it truly marks, I would challenge you to consider your own answer to this question. Who do you say Jesus is?

Jesus’s Two Questions

Jesus and his disciples made their way to an area known as Caesarea Philippi, located north of the Sea of Galilee and near the base of Mount Hermon. It is a beautiful, lush, park-like area that has some of the beginning waters of the Jordan River running through it. Like many places during the time, the name was chosen to honor the current Caesarean and local ruler, Philip the son of Herod the Great.[i]

In addition to the beautiful nature there are ruins of pagan Roman worship. Today one can walk along the side of a hill into which is carved numerous niches that might have held statues of Roman gods and goddesses. There are areas that were once foundations for temples to both one of the Caesars and other gods. There is a particularly looming grotto dedicated to the god Pan (see attached picture). According to a local guide this grotto once involved the sacrifice of infants to the god Pan. This was the physical environment that served as a backdrop to Jesus’ two questions.

This is Matthew’s account of the conversation:

“When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But you,” He asked them, “who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answers, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!” And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven…”
– Matthew 16:13-17 (HCSB; see also Mark 8:27-29 and Luke 9:18-20)

The Question of the Populace’s Belief in Jesus’s Identity

Jesus begins by asking them what the general population said about his identity. In general, the response was, somebody good, important, and/or wise. John the Baptist or a prophet, like those through whom God spoke in the Old Testament. Obviously, someone who knew the things of God and seemed to live in his favor. How would you answer Jesus’ first question today? I would suggest the answers would be somewhat similar. While not citing specifically Old Testament prophets, many call him a prophet. Others consider him a good, moral teacher.

The Question of the Disciples’ Belief in Jesus’s Identity

Jesus makes his second question personal. He specifically asks the disciples who they say he is. We are wise to feel the same question pointed directly at us. Who do I (insert your own name) say Jesus is? The disciples couldn’t hide behind the prevailing popular answer. While it is impossible to detect whether there were any pauses in the conversation through the written version, Peter seems to answer without hesitation– “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!” How would you answer that question? Would you hesitate and need to think about your answer?

How the Bible Answers the Questions

Jesus tells Peter he is correct and knows the answer because God revealed it to him. The disciples had heard Jesus’ teaching and witnessed the miracles he performed while following him in his ministry.

The Bible is replete with passages that tell us about the identity of Jesus, God’s Son, sent as our Savior to redeem us from our sin, sin that entered the world through Adam and Eve in the early pages of Genesis. The length of this article allows space to note just a few of the places we are told about Jesus’ identity.

The Testimony of Jesus

Jesus himself tells us He is the Son of God. In the verses discussed above, Jesus tells Peter he is correct when he identifies Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. In his High Priestly prayer (John 17), Jesus identifies himself as God’s son (John 17:1) and repeatedly calls God his father (17:1; 17:5; 17:11 etc.). Jesus makes claim to his divinity in the account of the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12). Friends had lowered the lame man through the roof of a house to gain access to Jesus, believing he could heal him. Jesus begins by telling the man his sins are forgiven (2:5) and then ultimately provides physical healing (2:11b). It is the claim to have the authority to forgive sins that infuriates the religious leaders who acknowledge only God can forgive sins.

The Testimony of John the Baptist

John the Baptist, at the baptism of Jesus, testified, “…He is the Son of God.” (John 1:34). Before John the Baptist was even born, he responded to Jesus’s identity from within his mother’s womb. Luke records Jesus’s mother Mary’s visit to her cousin Elizabeth, who was John’s mother. Both women were pregnant at the time and upon Mary’s arrival, John, within his mother’s womb, “leaped” within Elizabeth when she heard Mary’s voice. (Luke 2:41) Elizabeth told Mary of John’s reaction, asked how it was possible the “mother of my Lord” would visit her (Luke 2:43), and told her all that the Lord had told Mary would be fulfilled. Earlier in chapter 2, Luke recorded the angel’s announcement to Mary that she would become pregnant and have a son. This son “will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 2:35b)

The Testimony of God the Father

God himself specifically identified Jesus as his Son at both his baptism and transfiguration. At his baptism, Mark records that when Jesus came up out of the water, a voice from heaven said, “You are my beloved Son; I take delight in You!” (Mark 1:10-11)

Matthew documents the transfiguration of Jesus in chapter 17. While gathered high on a mountain with Peter, James and John, Jesus was transformed in front of them. Moses and Elijah also appeared. “While he was still speaking suddenly a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said: This is My beloved Son. I take delight in Him. Listen to Him!” (Matt 17: 1-5)

Conclusion

While Christmas, and all its trappings that deviate so far from the whole event at the root of the holiday, is in the review mirror of life for another year, Jesus’ question is still in front of us. Who do you say he is? Peter and so much of scripture provide the right answer–Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. I will argue there is then a follow-up question of equal importance–what are you going to do with that answer?

Are you going to respond to his invitation to repent and follow him? Will you accept the fact that he has stood in your place, taking the just wrath of God as penalty for your sin on your behalf? Will you submit to him and enjoy forever a right relationship with the one and only true God? It is my prayer that you will. If you have questions about becoming a follower of Jesus, please go to Bellator Christi’s main menu and click on the “How to Become a Christian” tab.

References:

[i] Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, eds., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN.: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 248.

A Christian Response to a Viral Deconversion Post

1. Does Truth Exist?, 2. Does God Exist?, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Natasha Crain

Social media has been a popular place to share deconversion stories over the last few years, and sometimes so many people resonate with those posts that they go viral to some extent (being liked and shared by thousands of people).

There’s one that’s being shared all over Facebook right now, written this week by a lady named Myndee Mack. At the time of this writing, it has 8,000+ likes/loves, 7,000+ comments, and over 3,000+ shares. Clearly, Myndee’s post is compelling to many.

I’d like to offer a response.

While it’s possible Myndee will come across this article, I’m not writing it primarily for her, but rather for the thousands of people who find her post to be a compelling assessment of Christianity and for Christians whose friends are sharing it and want to have a thoughtful response to share. The reason I say I’m not writing it primarily for her is that a one-on-one response would be more relational and personal in nature and tone—like a letter. My purpose here is to help those challenged by her words with a more direct response to the reasoning and theological clarity/accuracy of what she wrote.

“I used to be Christian. I prayed without ceasing. I spent time in the word. I asked. I sought. I knocked until my knuckles bled. My heart was pure. My faith was at least as strong as a mustard seed. I went to Christian elementary school. I prayed the sinners prayer at 6 years old. I would beg my mom to take me to church. I had pages and pages of notes from sermons and from my own studies. I hosted women’s groups. I went to Bible college. I attended church retreats from childhood all the way through young adulthood. I taught at children’s church. I believed I was a sinner in need of a savior, and I accepted Jesus as that savior.”

Myndee sets up her post by making it clear she wasn’t a new Christian rejecting her faith. She wants us to know that she has spent many years involved with the church and presumably seeking God. We have no information on what kind of churches she was part of (certainly something I’d be curious to know about if I met her in person), but the main point here seems to be that she doesn’t want the reader to be dismissive of her.

And I think it’s important to not be.

Don’t be Dismissive

Christians often are dismissive of deconversion stories, saying, “If they walked away, they weren’t truly saved anyway.” Regardless of your view of the assurance of salvation, this is not a helpful response. When people have genuine questions and struggles that they share, we should be ready and willing to offer answers both for them and for those looking on across social media.

That said, I can’t help but note a brief sentence in here that relates to much of what she goes on to write regarding the nature of sin: “My heart was pure.” From a biblical perspective, no one’s heart is “pure.” More on that shortly.

“I was also trapped in a vicious cycle of self hatred, shame, guilt, and repentance. Bible verses such as ‘your heart is deceitful and desperately wicked’ combined with ‘you are fearfully and wonderfully made’ gave me spiritual whiplash.”

Conflicting Scripture?

It’s quite easy to pull any two verses out of the Bible and think they are in conflict if you aren’t looking at them in the context of the whole. The same could be said for virtually any book in the world. In this case, there’s a very important distinction that is missing between being fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) and having a deceitful and wicked heart (Jeremiah 17:9). The fact that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” is a statement about our design and value: We are not the process of blind, purposeless chance, but rather a purposeful creation who has been given value by our creator—even made in His very image (Genesis 1:27). The fact that we have a “wicked heart” is a statement about the moral choices we are inclined to make. Anyone who is a parent can look at a child and agree that they are extraordinarily valuable and they make bad choices. It’s the same with every human. This isn’t a matter for “spiritual whiplash” once you understand the crucial that distinction between value and morality.

The Vicious Cycle

Furthermore, it’s likely that this conflation of value and morality led to the “vicious cycle” she felt of self-hatred, shame, guilt, and repentance. Knowing that you are inclined toward sin should not cause you to hate yourself. The Bible is clear on our value as image bearers. God so loved His creation that He gave His one and only Son to die for us. We should value ourselves as highly as God values us.

But God is also holy and just. When we sin—transgress a moral law—we rightly feel guilty because we are guilty. If someone intentionally kills an innocent human being, most people would say that person should feel guilty because they did something that is objectively wrong; guilt is not a bad thing, it’s a healthy thing that signifies a functioning conscience. It draws us to repentance, both to the person(s) wronged and toward God.

Therefore, sin, guilt, and repentance are not a vicious cycle. Sin is an ongoing reality in a fallen world, guilt is an appropriate response when we’ve done something wrong (against God’s standards), and repentance leads us back to God. As Christians, we should then accept that Jesus has forgiven us. Self-hatred is not a biblical part of that equation.

“I was taught Romans 8:38-39 and warned of the perils of backsliding all in the same sermon. The thought of somehow committing the unforgivable sin (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) haunted my mind.”

Beware of Backsliding

Romans 8:38-39 is talking about how nothing can separate us from the love of God in Jesus. In context, Paul is saying that no one can bring a charge against God’s chosen people because it is God who justifies; no matter what happens on Earth, we are “more than conquerors” because nothing can separate us from the Lord. This is a statement about what’s true for those who are saved. While Christians have different views on the assurance of salvation, even for those who believe you can lose your salvation, this is not a contradiction with Romans 8:38-39. If you could “backslide” to a point where you have lost salvation, those verses would simply no longer apply to the unsaved person. It’s a different audience.

“Though I believed [in Christ] with every fiber of my being, I suffered from anxiety, self-loathing and a crippling fear of death. I longed to forge genuine connections with my church family but when I tried to open up about my fears and confusion, I was told I just needed to have more faith. When I had theological questions that made other leaders uncomfortable, I was dismissed if not outright ostracized.”

Just have more Faith!?

If it’s true that Myndee raised her fears and confusions with her church family and was met by dismissal, it’s incredibly sad. Certainly, I’ve seen Christians tell people who have questions to just have more faith, and that’s a terrible response. Biblical faith is confident trust based on who God is. If someone doesn’t understand why there’s good reason to be confident in the existence or identity of God, telling them to just trust more without giving them reason for a confident foundation from which to trust is not the solution.

I only say “if it’s true” because I do think it’s become a bit of a script for many who deconvert to say that no one would or could answer their questions. Did they ask one person? Five? Anyone outside their own church? Read books? There’s no way to know for any individual, but if you’re genuinely seeking truth, you should be seeking answers in many places. There are numerous resources available.

“My hunger and thirst for righteousness went unquenched. Those who claimed to be the hands and feet of Jesus showed me how they weaponized the Bible for their own gain.”

Weaponized Bible

It’s impossible to know what she has in mind about weaponizing the Bible, but today people often claim the Bible is being weaponized any time a Christian shares truth people don’t like. For example, if you say that God made two genders (and you can’t change those genders), you will be accused of “weaponizing the Bible.” If the Bible is truly God’s Word, that’s not using it as a weapon. It’s sharing truth. (Of course, truth should be shared in a gracious way.)

However, it’s possible Myndee grew up in a church that truly did weaponize the Bible in an abusive sense. If that’s the case, again, it’s awful. However, we have to recognize that we can’t blame God when people misuse His Word. We must seek to know if the Bible is true regardless of those abuses.

“My traumas and mental health issues were blamed on the devil, and I was made to feel as though I wasn’t Christian enough because of my struggles that, ironically, stemmed mostly from Christian teachings.”

Mishandling Mental Health

From a biblical perspective, mental health challenges can be part of both a spiritual and physical battle. There’s no way to diagnose this particular situation without knowing the specifics (and even if you knew some specifics, no one could definitively claim that x part is spiritual and y part is physical). But if her struggles were truly stemming from her response to “Christian teachings,” there are a couple of points that should be made.

First, how we feel in response to reality doesn’t determine what is reality. If we feel traumatized by the idea of hell, for example, that has no bearing on whether hell is real. So claiming trauma from biblical teachings is not inherently a statement about whether those teachings are true. Christians shouldn’t feel traumatized by a theologically accurate understanding of God’s judgment (there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus—Romans 8:1), but however a person does feel does not determine what’s true.

Second, sometimes people may feel the kind of trauma she’s talking about in response to a misunderstanding of biblical truth. If she felt self-hatred (as she mentioned previously) because she didn’t have a theologically accurate understanding of the value-morality distinction, that’s not the fault of what the Bible teaches. It’s a tragic misunderstanding on her own part that was never clarified by further study or other Christians.

“I was doing my best to maintain a good, close, loving relationship with the god of the Christian Bible. I wanted nothing more than that. To abandon myself. To die so he might live in me. What I was actually doing was denying my own compassion, my own intuition, which was objectively more righteous than a God who murders entire civilizations (the children too) and sends his own creation to hell for what can only be described as a design flaw. One the designer, the creator, is ultimately responsible for.”

More Righteous than God!?

This is quite the statement. She claims that her own compassion and intuition (moral intuition, presumably) are more righteous than that of the biblical God. She even states that this is objectively so! Yet where does she get the objective basis for her morality if God doesn’t exist? If there is no God, the universe is the product of blind, purposeless chance, and there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong. Without a higher-than-human moral authority and lawgiver, there is no objective moral law. The compassion she praises herself for is meaningless in such a world—it would simply be a function of evolutionary survival mechanisms, not of an actual moral nature (and therefore would not be praiseworthy!).

The same goes for the moral intuition she claims. If God doesn’t exist, that intuition is an evolutionary delusion brought upon the human species by time and chance. There is no objective morality to have moral intuitions about if there is no God. She claims her morality is objectively superior, but she has no objective standard if God doesn’t exist. And if a god does exist but hasn’t revealed himself, she still can’t claim to have knowledge of what objective standards this hypothetical god put in place—he didn’t reveal anything!

She then says that God “murders” entire civilizations. First, this isn’t morally wrong (as she clearly assumes) if there is no moral law giver. Second, she misses the distinction between murder (the unjustified taking of innocent human life) and killing (any taking of life). Most people recognize that killing in self-defense is not considered murder. Some would say that killing in the context of a just war isn’t either. And some would say neither is the death penalty.

Not all killing is murder. For God to murder people would mean He was unjustified in taking their lives. When God commands the killing of people in the Bible, however, it’s clearly because of judgment that He, as the all-knowing and perfectly just God of the universe, had the knowledge, nature, and right to make.

Free Will, a Design Flaw?

She then goes on to again confuse creation with our ability to make moral choices. Free will is a feature, not a bug, in God’s design of the human being. If we didn’t have the ability to make morally significant choices, we would be robots incapable of being in relationship with Him, which was His purpose in our creation. If we use our free will to reject God and His offer of forgiveness for sin, we will be subject to judgment because He is a holy and just God. Just as it’s not loving to let criminals go free in earthly justice systems, it’s not loving to let moral law breakers (every human) to go free in the “cosmic” justice system. But in God’s love, He paid the penalty for us. We simply have to accept His gift of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross.

“Then one day, I could deny and ignore it no longer. The Christian god delights in violence. The Christian church caused me more harm than good.”

If you read the Old Testament, God does not delight in violence. He is a patient God who seeks the heart and repentance of His people.

Also, harm and good are two terms that require an objective basis for meaningful definition. A person’s subjective feelings of what is harmful or helpful, good or bad, and right or wrong do not define what is objectively true.

“In getting away from it, I found the peace that passes all understanding. I am now immersed with love, with grace, with joy. I have found freedom in what others call “witchcraft”. I don’t worship the moon or my crystals. My Tarot cards are not a god to me. I respectfully utilize these things to help me connect to myself and to this beautiful world I get to be a part of and share with my fellow humans. I don’t care if Tarot or Reiki or Buddhism or Christianity is real. I care if it is helpful.”

Utility over Truth

This says everything. As I have pointed out multiple times here, nothing she has said so far has had anything to do with what is true or real. A skeptical reader might say that “of course” she had already decided that Christianity is false, and she’s just telling us more about her journey—that it goes without saying that truth mattered. But that’s simply not the case for many people today, and she says it explicitly here: “I don’t care…if Christianity is real.” The motto of so many people who have deconstructed or deconverted is what they subjectively find helpful. The nature of truth is rarely considered.

If you’re reading this and don’t know what you believe, please consider that what you find helpful may or may not be true, and believing what is false but subjectively helpful in your own estimation can have serious consequences for your life now and for eternity. I might find it helpful to my peace of mind if someone came and told me that I will never have a car accident, so I can drive however I want. But if that’s not true, it doesn’t matter how much peace and joy the falsity provided. I’ll die in a car accident if I’m not driving with care.

What’s real matters.

About that Witchcraft . . .

Additionally, if the “witchcraft” she does has an actual consequence in the world because she is tapping into the demonic, she should recognize that this, indeed, is real. And if witchcraft is real, that means the supernatural is real. And if the supernatural is real, that should point her to the existence of God and ultimately back to the Bible, which explains exactly who is behind the witchcraft (Satan) and the role he plays in reality.

On the other hand, if the “witchcraft” does nothing, there’s no reason to do it at all. But I’m guessing she finds it appealing because witchcraft gives a person methods for attempting to exhibit control over the universe. If she struggled with feeling a lack of control under the sovereignty of a God she believed to be murderous and horrible, it would make sense she would try to regain control in her next belief system. But again, if it actually does something, that should point her back to a supernatural worldview in which God exists.

“I don’t care what your doctrine is, I care what kind of impact you make on the world around you. I care more about your mental and emotional health than whether or not you believe the ‘right’ thing.”

Truth-Neutral Living

Well, you might not care about what people believe, but again, this has no bearing on what’s true about the world. If there’s a God who created this incredible universe and every human being, then He is the only one with the rightful authority to say what matters and what doesn’t. The Bible is very clear from beginning to end that what people believe about God matters. There are right and wrong beliefs, and they have significant consequences. And when people do live according to right beliefs about who God is, who we are, what our relationship is, what’s required of us, and more, that flows into a true peace that surpasses all understanding.

This doesn’t mean a Christian won’t have any mental and emotional struggles, however. Counseling and sometimes medication are important for dealing with the kinds of challenges we encounter in this world. That’s a different question than whether or not doctrine matters.

“If being on the inside of Christianity helps you be a better, more whole human, I want that for you. I want whatever brings peace to your soul. Despite life’s turmoil, my soul is more at peace and I am a better human, both internally and externally, outside of Christianity.”

You do You

Again, it doesn’t matter what you want for someone. See answer above—the same logic applies. It’s what God wants for us. It’s how God defines what is better or worse. It’s who God thinks we are when we are most wholly human.

You might use your own definition of “better” to conclude you are a better human outside of Christianity, but if God disagrees, you’re in an infinitely worse place.

“Outside of Christianity, there is no more “us vs. them” or “wheat vs. chaff” for I see that we are all one under this universe. We are all made of stardust, here for a short time and instead of wasting my life dying to myself to try to please an angry, jealous god whose wrath could not be appeased outside the brutal murder of his own son, I spend my time building genuine connections and embodying love.”

If there is no God, she’s right that we’re made of material stuff alone, with no inherent value, and with no objective meaning of life. But if that’s truly the picture of the world we live in, she has no objective basis for claiming God is morally wrong, her “genuine connections” are with other groups of stardust with no actual value, and the love she is “embodying” is just a bunch of chemical reactions. Those are consistent truths with the worldview that we’re all just stardust and nothing more.

But it’s important to note that she simultaneously misconstrues the claims of Christianity here. Again, murder is the unjustified taking of an innocent human life. If you understand Christian doctrine, you know that the Trinity is God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—three persons, one nature. Jesus is God. He laid down His own life (John 10:17-18). Out of His love for us, He took the punishment for sin and offered us eternal life. Her description here is a complete mischaracterization and misunderstanding of this beautiful truth from our all-loving and perfectly just God.

“If you are worried about my eternal state, don’t be. If the god of the Bible is the loving god Christians claim he is, then [He] will meet me where I am. He will allow me to walk the path that helps me be a better human and live a life without anxiety and self-loathing. That god will understand my plight and accept my inability to accept a doctrine that has caused me irreparable harm. And if you think the god you believe in will say to me ‘depart from me, I never knew you’ when my time on earth is through, that’s not a god I’d want to spend eternity with anyway.”

It’s quite presumptuous to assume that the God of the universe will “meet you where you are,” when by that you mean He’ll accept whatever decisions you make as right for you. If He has already given us a Bible to tell us what we need to know so that we can meet Him where He requires, that’s the standard to which we’ll be held. The Bible explicitly and repeatedly tells us not to be anxious (e.g., Matthew 6:27). And as I already explained, we aren’t to be self-loathing.

It’s truly sad that the theological misunderstandings she has about God have led her to hate Him so much that even if He were real and the Bible were true, she claims she wouldn’t want to be with Him anyway. Theology matters. It’s the difference between someone longing to be with the God who loves them and someone longing to reject the God whom they hate based on an errant understanding of His Word.

All of this begs the question of what is actually true. Unfortunately, the most viral social media posts are rarely about seeking truth. They’re about people’s experiences and emotional responses to those experiences. Experiences and responses aren’t unimportant; they’re part of life. But they don’t determine what’s true. That’s why it’s so important for Christians to have an understanding of apologetics (the case for and the defense of the truth of Christianity). In a world that no longer even asks what’s true, we have to be able to show that’s still the pertinent question…and then demonstrate the Bible is truly God’s Word.

Where Did Guilt Come From?

2. Does God Exist?, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

As a prosecutor for many decades, I often found myself reflecting on the impact that feelings of guilt have, even upon criminals with lengthy records. Why was it that the guilty wanted to talk about their crime, even after being advised of their rights? Why would those who had “gotten away” nonetheless seek to escape their feelings through alcohol or drugs? Apart from true sociopaths, it seemed to me that people cannot simply cast-off feelings of guilt by force of will. The feelings persist and they demand a reckoning. That voice of conscience – that voice that so many of us try so hard to quiet– simply refuses to cooperate.

Where Guilt Comes From

Put simply, feelings of guilt arise when a person senses the disconnect between what they have done, or are planning to do, and what they realize they “ought” to do. But why should this be so? Why should we feel conflicted about the behavior we are consciously choosing? For example, when I am hungry, my instinct is to eat to satisfy the hunger. But when I eat too much, and do so repeatedly, I begin to realize I am becoming a glutton. Despite satisfying my urge, I realize that I should not act that way. Similarly, I may elect to act in a way that hurts someone else to advance my own interests. But later, I begin to feel qualms and regret my behavior.

Why is it Universal?

What worldview, I wondered, best explains this near-universal human experience?

To the secularist, such feelings are the product of long-term social evolution. Initially, this explanation made sense to me. After all, why wouldn’t the person with a “pro-social” approach add to their group’s potential for survival? And wouldn’t feelings of guilt for wrongdoing tend to produce pro-social behavior? But the more I thought about this, the more I realized that it lacked true explanatory value.

If we did in fact evolve from primitive protohumans, how did these first thinking humans begin to feel guilt? After all, no one ever enjoys feeling guilty, and such feelings definitely tend to constrain – not expand – behavior choices. They would cause a person to think twice before doing something that might be in their individual interest. Stealing from one’s neighbor, for example, or killing one’s rival to obtain his belongings, would benefit an individual assuming they felt they could accomplish it. Giving a stranger food or shelter, by contrast, would put someone at a disadvantage if resources are scarce. It makes much more sense that any potential benefit in group thinking would be outweighed by the limitations on guilt-inducing behaviors. Imagine the lion chasing its prey but then feeling “guilty” and stopping short of his goal. How long would he survive? Probably not long enough to pass his genes on to the next generation.

It’s hard to imagine how pro-social thinking would have arisen in the harsh and competitive environment of the first humans. If we are just evolved but now intelligent primates, why would we ever depart from pursuing our own, individual short-term best interest? Raiding and stealing from others makes a lot more sense than trying to make peace with someone who is bent on taking what you have. Why would we limit our possible choices by deciding that we “ought” to do something that helps others but only provides us a possible, longer-term benefit? And if we chose to do so, would this not be the result of an intelligent selection? Feelings of guilt would play no useful role here. Indeed, being burdened by guilt would detract from survivability and therefore be rooted out over time. Moreover, if pro-social thinking is an intellectual exercise, why would feelings come into play at all? Why not simply decide sometimes to act one way depending on the circumstances, without ever experiencing feelings about our choices? What possible advantage would such an approach confer?

What does Altruism Prove?

No, pro-social or altruistic thinking only makes sense in a person who already has in mind the view that building a stronger community, or helping others, is itself a good to pursue. An individual possessing this capacity would decide to forego killing his rival in search of something greater in the more remote future. He would realize this is something he “ought” to do even if his hunger or greed were impelling him to a different decision.

Why would we have such a capacity built into us? The secularist has no answer, but the Christian does. The capacity for guilt did not evolve. It was built into our minds in the same way acquisition of language and understanding the concept of “fair play” were, put there by an intelligent Creator who has a moral law that he desires us to obey. And so, when we stray from that law, there are feelings of dissonance and regret that emerge from that mental “subroutine” leading us back to the “good.” Morality, and the resulting feelings of guilt, are a message to us from outside, not an evolved internal trait.

Now it is true that we do not all experience guilt in the same way. Different cultures, and different groups within a single culture, may feel guilty about different things. But many common features are evident. No one feels guilt after doing good, or angst after following their conscience. No one feels pleased when they betray a friend. And of course, consciences can be seared by poor upbringing which distorts what “good” and “evil” are in the first place. Our minds naturally follow a selection process as to what we “ought” to do, even if what informs that process has been distorted.

Written On our Hearts

Secularists see guilt as something in need of fixing. They look to modern science – psychology or pharmacology or both – to help people finally rid themselves of this vestige of what they view as our primitive and superstitious past. But it is to no avail. Feelings of guilt flow from the moral law “written on our hearts,” guardrails meant to guide us on to the right path, and no matter how hard we try, we cannot escape them.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated; downloadable pdf, PowerPoint) by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

February 19, 2024/by Ty Unknown

The Satanic Temple Abortion Clinic: A Critical Assessment

Theology and Christian Apologetics

The Satanic Temple (TST) is at it again. The atheistic left-wing activist group is already known for starting afterschool Satan clubs,[1] erecting unholy statues at government buildings,[2] and trying to carve out religious exemptions to pro-life laws.[3] Now they have opened an online abortion clinic.[4] Abortion clinics are not uncommon. And TST has a history of abortion activism. But this abortion clinic stands out for two reasons.

TROLL LORDS

First, the clinic is named “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic,” an obvious troll move.[5] TST is so well-known for trolling it is not just a side quest, but a lifestyle.[6] Their inception, according to the New York Times, was designed as “a mischievous thorn in the side of conservative Christianity.”[7] Stated positively, they could teach a masterclass on trolling. They take adolescent snark, infuse agitational protesting, incorporate theatrics, and beef it up with a cadre of lawyers till it becomes a whole socio-political methodology. And make no mistake, they are dead serious about it.

For TST, trolling is a mode of political activism advancing their ideology, which they expound as Seven Fundamental Tenets.[8] These guiding statements are roughly what could be expected at the crossroads of progressive politics and New Atheism. So far, their primary focus has been religious freedom in the public square. Their trolling is a way of stretching “religious freedom” till it breaks. Instead of supporting robust religious freedom where Christianity, the majority religion, holds a measure of cultural privilege and influence in the public square, TST aims at a more austere separation of church and state. This Troll Lord approach has not yet blown up in their faces. But this abortion clinic might be the spark that does it.

RITUAL ABORTION

The second reason distinguishing this clinic is that it treats abortion as a religious ritual. In their own words: “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic™ is an online clinic that provides religious medication abortion care. The clinic provides abortion medication via mail to those in New Mexico who wish to perform The Satanic Temple’s Religious Abortion Ritual.”[9]

Yes, TST abortion services are touted as “religious rituals,” but these are not surgical abortions with blood-smearing child sacrifices. This is an online mail-order clinic. The New England-based Satanic Temple offers only medication (pill) abortion[10] through an unnamed pharmacy in New Mexico. The “rituals” are something between semi-religious motivational self-talk on one end and a legal formality on the other.[11]

First, TST is protesting the oft-scorned U.S. Supreme Court case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022).[12] The clinic’s namesake, Justice Samuel Alito, penned the majority decision in Dobbs, the monumental ruling that overturned both the Roe v. Wade (1973)[13] and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)[14] decisions.

Second, TST maintains they are helping to fill a healthcare void for women as states roll back abortion-choice laws in the post-Roe era. Even in pro-choice states like New Mexico (as of 2023), where TST’s clinic is based, these medication abortion services, supposedly, could offer more privacy and access than is currently available at traditional abortion clinics.

Third, they are potentially circumventing future anti-abortion laws through a religious exemption. If a woman identifies as a TST member, then, theoretically, she could bypass abortion bans and get an abortion under the protection of First Amendment “religious freedom.” Her federal-level right could bypass state-level anti-abortion laws.[15]

Fourth, they stand to grow their membership if this religious exemption route works. If they can carve out a federally protected religious exemption against state-level abortion laws, then they will have effectively overturned the Dobbs decision, but only for members of The Satanic Temple. That is a strong incentive for people to join TST.

Fifth, TST stands to make a fortune from tax-exempt “religious” donations, as abortion-choice activism is a left-wing goldmine right now.[16]

Sixth, beyond just exploiting religious tax exemptions, they might explode them. Religious tax exemptions have their basis in a pluralistic “religious freedom” interpretation of the First Amendment. But opposing that view is the secular sense of “separation of church and state.” In this view, the First Amendment is thought to mandate strictly secular governance.[17] Judicial history favors the pluralistic view.[18] TST seems to favor the secular view. TST could make religious tax exemptions so offensive that all such exemptions are revoked.

Strategically speaking, by calling their abortion services a “religious ritual,” they stand to benefit materially and advance their cause, at least in the short term. But they may have overplayed their hand. There are brands of Satanism that practice “black” magic and or believe in a literal Satan.[19] TST, however, is not one of them. There are different denominations, so to speak, of Satanism; and while some arguably have a place for , The Satanic Temple is not like that.[20] TST does not see their rituals as child sacrifices to Satan since they do not believe God or Satan exist. Yet in claiming abortion as a satanic ritual, they can .

HEALTH RISKS WITH PILL ABORTIONS

Medically speaking, TST risks undercutting their pro-choice aims by aligning with an especially dangerous abortion method. At a surface level, they are proudly pro-choice. And opening an abortion clinic is very pro-choice. That seems consistent enough. But, at a deeper level, they are also trying to promote women’s health. In their words, “TST is taking many steps…to establish exemptions from laws that do not promote the health and safety of patients.” [21] They also try to conform their beliefs to the “best scientific understanding of the world” and “strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.”[22] But medication abortion significantly increases health risks for mothers.[23] That is not very compassionate, empathetic, or healthy. These increased risks can be difficult to see through a partisan political lens, but with an eye for humanitarianism and good solid science, the risks become evident. What are those health risks?

First, if a woman has a tubal (ectopic) pregnancy, the pill regimen will very likely not work on her.[24] She will remain pregnant with a looming fatal complication. But because she had the abortion pill, she believes she is no longer pregnant, and she may well not know she is in harm’s way.

Second, if women use abortion pills to secure an abortion without clinical visits, they can unwittingly terminate future pregnancies, rendering themselves infertile if they are Rh-negative.[25] The blood type Rh-negative (i.e., A-negative, B-negative, AB-negative, and O-negative blood) is a common blood type affecting 15 percent of the population. It often lingers undetected without affecting one’s health. A pregnant woman seeking chemical abortion may never know she is Rh-negative. But with that condition she will need Rh D immune globulin (RhoGAM) at the time of her pill regimen.[26] Otherwise, her body will form “antibodies against the fetal blood cells, which can result in catastrophic immune rejection of the fetus in a subsequent pregnancy.”[27] Medication abortion would not just complicate this pregnancy but imperil future pregnancies, causing stillbirths, neonatal deaths, and brain injuries, and can make her infertile.[28]

Third, medication abortions are self-administered. The first pill, mifepristone, may or may not be given in the clinic. But the second pill is self-administered, at home two days later. That pill, misoprostol, is the primary active agent expelling the pre-term child. A host of side-effects routinely happen at this stage.[29] But being at home, she has no direct clinical supervision. The pregnant mother has to guess whether her bleeding, cramping, nausea, and so forth are bad enough for a visit to the emergency room. She is not a licensed physician, and likely not experienced with this sort of thing. She cannot be expected to know when her severe cramping is too severe or when a lot of bleeding becomes too much bleeding. Nor can she be expected to know if the abortion was complete. Yet any remains left in-utero can cause further complications, such as infection, sepsis, or death. If she is using chemical abortion to keep her pregnancy a secret or to stay anonymous, then even if she goes to the emergency room for complications, as she should, she will likely have to drive herself. Severe cramping and hemorrhaging become doubly dangerous when you are stuck in traffic. Moreover, she will lose minutes, perhaps hours, at a time when seconds count. Additionally, chemical abortion risks are likely much higher than reported due to hospitals misreporting chemical abortion complications as miscarriage complications.[30]

Furthermore, chemical abortion is designed for early-stage abortions, up to 49 days (seven weeks). Even Planned Parenthood says that after eleven weeks, pill abortion is not recommended.[31] Its effectiveness declines between eight and eleven weeks, from about six percent to thirteen percent chance of failure.[32] Beyond that threshold, effectiveness drops, and complication rates worsen. All these facts together explain why medication abortions generate roughly four times more medical complications and injuries compared to surgical abortions.[33] These risks also help explain why the FDA currently faces challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court for rolling back medical regulations surrounding pill abortion (see FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine).

Fourth, coerced abortion is not “pro-choice.” Yet self-administered abortions are notoriously difficult to screen for coercion. Pregnant women are often pressured into an abortion by an abuser, a partner, parents, or friends. Abusers can use abortion to destroy evidence that might otherwise incriminate them for rape or molestation. For parents it may be a way to protect the reputation of the family, or to punish the daughter. Or it could just be an overbearing or negative influence pressuring her into an abortion. A 2023 peer-reviewed study showed that only 33% of women who had abortions wanted their abortion, and 24% of women surveyed described their abortion was coerced[34] Abortion-choice advocacy, TST included, hinges on abortion being a choice. But compared to pro-choice rhetoric, the ugly reality of coerced abortion tells a different story. Women are exploited for sexual gratification, then tossed aside to fend for themselves, or threatened with abandonment, or abused till they kill their children-in-utero. That is a far cry from women’s liberation.

The convenience and privacy of pill abortions can make them sound like a panacea for sexually liberated society. But the reality is not so pretty. Pill abortion means less medical supervision, more coercion and social isolation, and around 400 percent more complications and injuries for women. In this way, The Satanic Temple is drifting into a basic pro-abortion posture at the expense of being “pro-science,” “pro-choice,” and “pro-woman.” If the TST really wants to promote women’s health and freedom while staying pro-choice, they should at least wait till chemical abortion and health regulations improve so TST isn’t left contradicting their own aims.

BAD PRESS FOR PRO-CHOICE

Besides the heightened health and social risks with pill abortions, there is a glaring publicity problem with satanic ritual abortions. When people hear about the “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” they are liable to interpret it as child sacrifice. That is not what TST is trying to do here, but that is still how their marketing sounds. Yet any affiliation between abortion and child sacrifice is bad press for the pro-choice cause.

Most pro-lifers already believe abortion is child sacrifice — metaphorical or not, intentional or not. From a pro-life Christian perspective, abortion-choice culture looks like modernized Molech worship (Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5; Deut. 12:31; 18:10; Jer. 7:31; Ezek. 16:20–21). Instead of sacrificing born babies on the temple altar to Satan’s hoards, The Satanic Temple is sacrificing preborn babies on the altar of convenience. They are not just helping women with their abortions; they are enlisting women to perform satanic ritual abortions.

In this way, The Satanic Temple is stepping on a rake of their own making. They are declaring abortion to be a satanic ritual, just like pro-life Christians have warned all along. Sure, TST might think this ritual is little more than a self-help therapy session; but people don’t have to believe in Satan to do his bidding.

SUMMONING TASH

In C. S. Lewis’s Narnia-series classic, The Last Battle (1956), Lewis portrays an epic showdown where a few opportunistic tricksters perform a summoning ritual for a false god named Tash. They don’t even believe in Tash. They go through the motions, pretending to summon Tash, to trick the audience. But lo and behold, Tash arrives. And he is terrifying. Some Tash followers were insincere, playing games on the spiritual battlefield, taking none of this religious stuff seriously. Yet they still served Tash. In the same way, one does not have to believe in Satan to serve him. One does not have to believe in spiritual warfare to be victimized by it either. Worse yet, people can blindly victimize others thinking they are helping. The abortion-choice campaign in the U.S. alone has devoured over 65,000,000 innocent casualties, largely under the banner of empowering women.[35] Slick marketing or a slippery slope, it’s the same difference. Murderous evil can march under right-wing or left-wing banners, religious or secular, human or divine. Yet the test for discerning evil is not in winsome rhetoric, party allegiance, or good intentions, but whether that act is in fact evil.

It matters little whether TST advocates believe in a literal Satan, or in ritual child sacrifice. They can perform child sacrifice to Satan all the same. In this way, TST is inadvertently embracing some of the most pointed critiques against abortion-choice.

People can be casualties, and unwittingly create casualties, without even knowing a war is raging. People can do all sorts of consequential things, without recognizing the weight of their actions till it is too late. They can even sacrifice living human beings to a false god and a real demon, without believing in gods or demons.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The Satanic Temple is predictably doing what they have done before, exploiting their cartoonishly dark and villainous branding to agitate the public and pester the Christian Right into a judicial showdown. Only this time, they have gone so far to bait the Christian Right; they have come full circle. They stepped into the crosshairs of one of the fiercest critiques abortion-choice has ever faced. All those abortions they helped facilitate, killing new human beings every time, and all the harms to women emotionally, socially, and physically because of those abortions — all of that behavior will ultimately weigh on every Satanic Temple member (or anyone else) who helps make it happen. I don’t mean to sound like a fear-baiter. I just say that as a warning against the hubris of scientifically ill-informed activism. No amount of good intentions can redeem bad policy. And for all the value found in bodily autonomy, which TST affirms, it does not excuse deliberately killing tiny, innocent, defenseless human beings. If we, as a society, are going to live up to the huge responsibility of humanitarianism, we need to prioritize protecting the most defenseless members of society from discrimination, oppression, and especially targeted killing. That includes sex-selective killing, race-based killing, ability-based killing, exploitation of women, and child abuse. Abortion-choice policy fails on all those accounts.[36] If TST were more consistent with their own stated values, they would walk back this pill-abortion clinic. And if we as a society were more serious about humanitarianism, we could admit that women deserve better than the septic social band-aid of abortion-choice policy.

REFERENCES:

[1] Joe Bukuras, “Judge Orders PA District to Allow After School Satan Club to Meet on School Grounds,” Catholic News Agency, May 4, 2023, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254246/judge-orders-pa-district-to-allow-after-school-satan-club-to-meet-on-school-grounds.

[2] James Farrell, “Why a Satanic Holiday Display at the Iowa Capitol Building Has Been Allowed to Stay Up Despite Backlash,” Forbes, December 13, 2023, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesfarrell/2023/12/13/why-a-satanic-holiday-display-at-the-iowa-capitol-building-has-been-allowed-to-stay-up-despite-backlash/.

[3] Daniel Payne, “Satanic Temple Loses Lawsuit against Indiana Pro-life Law,” Catholic News Agency, October 27, 2023, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255839/satanic-temple-loses-lawsuit-against-indiana-pro-life-law.

[4] “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic,” The Satanic Temple (2023), accessed January 10, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/samuel-alitos-moms-satanic-abortion-clinic.

[5] Co-founder of TST Malcom Jarry said, “in 1950, [Supreme Court Justice] Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options and look what happened.” John Lavenburg, “New Mexico’s Bishop’s Shudder at Prospect of ‘Satanic’ Abortion Clinic,” Crux, February 10, 2023, https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2023/02/new-mexicos-bishops-shudder-at-prospect-of-satanic-abortion-clinic.

[6] This reputation for “trolling” appears in their “Frequently Asked Questions” page. They don’t evade accusations of “trolling” and deny it’s merely for attention. TST, “Frequently Asked Questions: Is TST a Media Stunt/Hoax/Trolling, Etc.?,” The Satanic Temple, c. 2019, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq. For an unofficial list of TST activist trolling, see “Timeline of The Satanic Temple,” SFGate, January 9, 2019, https://www.sfgate.com/nation/slideshow/Timeline-of-the-Satanic-Temple-188753.php.

[7] Mark Oppenheimer, “A Mischievous Thorn in the Side of Conservative Christianity,” New York Times, July 11, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/a-mischievious-thorn-in-the-side-of-conservative-christianity.html.

[8] “There Are Seven Fundamental Tenets,” The Satanic Temple, accessed January 8, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets.

[9] “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic,” The Satanic Temple.

[10] Or medication-induced abortion, also known as chemical abortion, medical abortion, and pill abortion (by the “abortion pill”). For TST’s explanation of medication abortion, see “Medication Abortion,” TST Health (2023), accessed January 10, 2024, https://www.tsthealth.org/resources#medicationabortion.

[11] See “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” TST Health, accessed January 10, 2024, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/63b68c961da991700b94e8b7/t/63eac53263f3c063df3e1675/1676330291874/TST+Health+-+Satanic+Abortion+Ritual+Flyer-2.pdf.

[12] Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), Majority Opinion Justice Samuel Alito, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf.

[13] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113.

[14] Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html.

[15] See “How Is the Satanic Abortion Ritual Legally Protected?” and other (linked) statements in “The Satanic Temple: Religious Reproductive Rights,” The Satanic Temple (c.2023), accessed January 11, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/rrr-campaigns.

[16] If they utilize religious tax exemptions, they can make even more money. They wouldn’t have to accept payment for abortion services, per se, but merely accept (tax-exempt) donations to run the clinic. As of January 2024, TST is hosting a fundraiser for the clinic. See “Supreme Courtship: A Fundraiser in Support of Samual Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic,” The Satanic Temple, accessed January 8, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/supreme-courtship.

[17] The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a clear example of this “secular state” interpretation of religious freedom, nicknamed here as “separation of church and state.”

[18] The “Lemon Test” (Lemon v Kurtzman, 1973) notwithstanding; Supreme Court history has favored a broad sense of “freedom of religion” where people are not forced by the state to participate in religious activity but, if they choose, can freely and publicly exercise their religion as an individual and communal expression of their 1^st Amendment rights. For example, see Cantwell v Connecticut (1940); WV Board of Education v Barnett (1943); Emerson v Board of Education (1947); Torcaso v Watkins (1961); Sherbert v Verner (1963); Lynch v Donnelly (1984); Oregon v Smith (1990); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014); and Kennedy v Bremerton (2022).

[19] Satanic groups that affirm magic include LaVeyan Satanism (Church of Satan), Temple of Set, Luciferians, the Order of Nine Angels, and others. Unofficially, even the Satanic Temple allows magical practice among its members. If a TST member practiced magic, that’s not heresy or heterodoxy for them, it’s just not formally affirmed by TST. See, e.g., “Can I Join TST If I Have Supernatural Beliefs?,” FAQ, The Satanic Temple, accessed January 8, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq.

[20] See “Can I Join TST If I Have Supernatural Beliefs?” Archaeological remains confirm that human sacrifice occurred in Mesoamerica, mostly victimizing military-age males but with about five percent of them being children. Lizzy Wade, ““Feeding the Gods: Hundreds of skulls Reveal Massive Scale of Human Sacrifice in Aztec Capital,” Science, June 21, 2018, https://www.science.org/content/article/feeding-gods-hundreds-skulls-reveal-massive-scale-human-sacrifice-aztec-capital.

Similar archaeological findings confirm that child sacrifice occurred and was well known in the ancient world. Robin Ngo, “Did the Carthaginians Really Practice Infant Sacrifice,” Biblical Archaeological Society, July 27, 2020, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/did-the-carthaginians-really-practice-infant-sacrifice/.

These findings reinforce biblical reports that disdainfully describe this practice as an abomination (see, e.g., Lev. 20:2–5; Isa. 30:33; Jer. 19:12). It even becomes an indictment against Israel when the people and their kings adopt neighboring pagan religions, including ritual child sacrifice (2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 28:1–4; Jer. 32:35). In some parts of the world child sacrifice is still practiced in recent times. Tonny Onyulo, “In This Nation, Children’s Body Parts Are Sacrificed for Witchcraft,” USA Today, May 1, 2017, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/05/01/uganda-human-children-sacrifice/100741148/.

While child sacrifice is reasonably well proven, it is more difficult to establish verified ties between Satanism and child sacrifice. The “Satanic Panic” of the late 1970’s and 1980’s muddied the waters here, undoubtedly sensationalizing and likely exaggerating the threat of “Satanic Ritual Abuse.” One Justice Department report on Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) explains the conundrum, “Although evidence increasingly shows SRA exists, clinicians working with individual patients cannot be sure if they are dealing with fact or fantasy.“ C. A. Ross, “Satanic Ritual Abuse: Principles of Treatment,” U.S. Department of Justice (1995), https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/satanic-ritual-abuse-principles-treatment.

Nevertheless, from a Christian perspective, all the false gods who feed on child sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (Molech, Chemosh, Dagon, Baal, etc.) are derivations more or less of Satan — whether being different “infernal names” for Satan and his hoards, or being false gods embodying the adversarial, false, and ungodly aims of Satan’s minions (see, Anton Levay, Satanic Bible [San Francisco: William Morrow paperbacks], 43–45). Even when some self-identified Satanists like the Order of Nine Angels allegedly endorse “human sacrifice,” since they are a dark society, cloaked in mystery, it’s difficult to tell what is mere talk, gossip, and legend, versus what is real. Moreover, the TST could even formally disavow all child sacrifice, using “ritual” language entirely as a judicial ruse, yet if they’re facilitating child-killing under the banner of Satanism, they’re still doing Satan’s bidding — serving a literal Satan whom they don’t believe in.

[21] “The Satanic Temple: Religious Reproductive Rights,” at: https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/rrr-campaigns?gclid=Cj0KCQiAn-2tBhDVARIsAGmStVl2_YhcBMVfAzcuEXhrZ2vtuY5_RmtL5XsliAjklaSeXx-pCJ2TG_MaAr5vEALw_wcB

[22] Tenets V and I, respectively, in “There Are Seven Fundamental Tenets,” The Satanic Temple, accessed January 8, 2024, https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets.

[23] Margaret M. Gary and Donna J. Harrison, “Analysis of Severe Adverse Events Related to the Use of Mifepristone as an Abortifacient,” Annals of Pharmacotherapy 40, 2 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1G481, full paper is accessible via American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, https://www.aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/MifeSAEharrison-pdf-copy.pdf; see also American College of Pediatricians, “Chemical Abortions: With and Without Medical Supervision,” Issues in Law & Medicine 38, 1 (2023): 77–106, https://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/articles/chemical-abortions-with-and-without-medical-supervision/.

[24] Gary and Harrison explain, “Ectopic pregnancy is an absolute contraindication to the use of mifepristone.” Gary and Harrison, “Analysis of Severe Adverse Events Related to the Use of Mifepristone as an Abortifacient”; see also “Questions and Answers on Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy through 10 Weeks Gestation,” U.S.A. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), March 3, 2023, https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/questions-and-answers-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation; cf. Julia Oltman et al., “Have We Overlooked the Role of Mifepristone for the Medical Management of Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy?, Human Reproduction 38, Issue 8, (2023): 1445–1448, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead116.

[25] Ingrid Skop, “The Evolution of ‘Self-Managed’ Abortion: Does the Safety of Women Seeking Abortion Even Matter Anymore?,” Charlotte Lozier Institute, March 1, 2022, https://lozierinstitute.org/the-evolution-of-self-managed-abortion/.

[26] “Practice Bulletin 181: Prevention of Rh D Alloimmunization,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 130, no. 2 (2017), 481–483, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002232.

[27] Skop, “The Evolution of Self-Managed Abortion.”

[28] Skop, “The Evolution of Self-Managed Abortion.”

[29] American College of Pediatricians, “Chemical Abortions: With and Without Medical Supervision.”

[30] Christina A. Cirucci, Kathi A. Aultman, Donna J. Harrison, “Mifepristone Adverse Events Identified by Planned Parenthood in 2009 and 2010 Compared to Those in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and Those Obtained Through the Freedom of Information Act,” Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology 8 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1177/23333928211068919.

[31] “The Abortion Pill,” Planned Parenthood, accessed January 8, 2024, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill.

[32] “The Abortion Pill,” Planned Parenthood.

[33] Maarit Niinimäki et al., “Immediate Complications after Medical Compared with Surgical Termination of Pregnancy,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 114, no. 4 (2009): 795–804, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b5ccf9; Ushma D. Upadhyay et al., “Incidence of Emergency Department Visits and Complications after Abortion,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 125, no. 1 (2015): 175–183, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000603. For a summary of the increased risks involved in medication abortion over surgical abortion, see “Fact Sheet: Risks and Complications of Medical Abortion,” Charlotte Lozier Institute, July 19, 2022 (updated August 23, 2023), https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-risks-and-complications-of-chemical-abortion/.

[34] Coercion, like consent, can be difficult to prove, especially if the victim is still protecting their abuser, or still under threat from them. Nevertheless, Reardon, et al., summarize their findings saying: “33% identified [the abortion] as wanted, 43% as accepted but inconsistent with their values and preferences, and 24% as unwanted or coerced.” See, David C. Reardon, Katherine A. Rafferty, Tessa Longbons, “The Effects of Abortion Decision Rightness and Decision Type on Women’s Satisfaction and Mental Health,” Cureus 15, no. 5 (2023), abstract, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.38882. David C. Reardon, et al., “Hidden Epidemic: Nearly 70% of Abortions are Coerced, Unwanted, Or Inconsistent with Women’s Preferences,” Lozier Institute (15 May 2023), https://lozierinstitute.org/hidden-epidemic-nearly-70-of-abortions-are-coerced-unwanted-or-inconsistent-with-womens-preferences/

[35] Based on trends in “Abortion Statistics: United States and Trends,” National Right to Life, January 2023, https://www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/23StatsFS.pdf.

[36] Abortion is literally fatal child abuse. Sex-selective, race-based, and ability-based abortion are all legal in the U.S.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set)

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

Sex and Your Commanding Officer (DVD) (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella, Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/48mii4y

February 14, 2024/by Ty Unknown

Why Did God Allow Stoning?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

When it comes to Bible reading, some passages are more challenging than others. Such is the case with the stoning passages (see Leviticus 20:27; 24:16; Numbers 15:32-36; Deuteronomy 13:6-11; 21:18-21). These aren’t our go-to passages for morning devotionals. Personally, I can understand capital punishment, but stoning as a means to achieving it just seems so barbaric, cruel, and harsh, especially when the commandment is issued to parents to indict rebellious sons, as seen in Scripture:

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So, you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

This is a hard passage to stomach, don’t you think? I prefer death by lethal injection, or death by a laced bong hit, but stoning? What a mess. As believers, how are we to understand these verses? Below are five thoughts to consider as you seek to come to terms with this passage.

1. It’s an Ancient Context.

First, we need to understand this text, like all texts, in context. We can’t overlay our twenty-first century cultural understanding on this ancient milieu. Nothing will lead to more head-scratching confusion and frustration than that. Ours is a culture where a minor swat on our child’s gluteus maximus causes an uproar. No wonder stoning is extra hard for us to digest.

2. It’s a Last Resort.

Second, stoning was the last resort. The son described in these verses exhibits an unbending and rebellious spirit. He’s steeped in sin, freely giving himself to drunkenness and gluttony, and refuses to respond to any parental discipline, altogether shunning the fifth commandment. These verses describe a seemingly hopeless case, one set in his own ways as he strong-arms God, his parents, and the principles of his surrounding theocratic nation. He’s a morally sick son whose sin will spread and undo the moral fabric of the whole community nation, if left unchecked. Once the parents realize their son’s recalcitrance, they seek outside intervention as a final resort.[i]

3. Morality Matters At a Community-Level.

Third, the ultimate purpose of stoning was to purge evil from the community and to create a healthy fear of living an unchecked moral life. The health of the nation depended on the entire community walking in alignment with God. That’s not to say people didn’t sin. They did. A lot. And there was an entire sacrificial system in place so people could once again obtain a clear conscience before the Lord. The son described in these verses wasn’t looking for a clear conscience—his conscience was seared.

4. It’s Rare.

This wasn’t a common custom. Interestingly enough, we have very few instances of stoning that take place in the biblical records and I’m not aware of any extra biblical evidence that this punishment was commonly carried out. Perhaps the threat was enough to deter people from such rebellious behavior.

5. Jesus Answers This Law With Grace.

Finally, Jesus models the heart of God regarding stoning.[ii] In John 8:7 Jesus said to those who accused the adulterous women, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” The law teaches us that we are all lawbreakers. Everyone under God’s law deserves capital punishment, but Jesus experienced capital punishment on our behalf even though He was the only one to ever fulfill the law. Essentially, He was stoned for us in an act of unconditional love as He experienced death on our behalf.

REFERENCES

[i] Editor’s Note: It should also be noted that there’s a cultural corrective built into this scenario to prevent abusing capital punishment. Children were seen as a blessing, a legacy and a source of pride and joy for parents. Plus, even today, it’s only natural for parents to be biased in favor of their own children. So, if anyone was going to advocate to protect and defend one’s children from capital punishment, it’s the parents. In that way, there was a cultural corrective built-into that relation, to keep parents bearing false witness against their child and from doling out a capital punishment lightly. Second, parents would also be the experts on their own children, knowing them better than anyone else. So, if this child is a menace to society, the parents are in a position to recognize that threat before anyone else does. Third, parents already have relational authority over their own children. That means they can make judgments over their children; that’s part of their job as parents. Now they don’t have the natural right to directly kill their kids, but they do have a judicial role over their children, so that court rulings over their children are treated here as an extension or continuation of parental authority over the child. Fourth, even still, this passage isn’t saying that parents have a right to kill their children. Rather, the parents are coming forward as the chief witnesses against their rebellious child. While they created that child, and they have a normal responsibility to raise and care for them, they cannot kill that child as a general right of parenthood. That’s why they have to present their child before a larger judging body, a court of the elders, Sanhedrin, priests, etc., to make that higher-court decision. The parents, in that case, are not the “Judges” issuing a death sentence, they are more like the arresting officers and lead witnesses against their prodigal child. Sixth, that era also had no standing police force and no prison system, and the judicial/court system was usually a small counsel of community leaders (elders, priests, etc.). All that means the punishments had to fit the crime, without requiring an elaborate police force, prison system, or a complicated court system. Stoning was a low-cost, effective, means of containing serious threats and reducing crime. Plus, it’s administered by the whole community, so the whole community takes responsibility for the court rulings. This means no single person can be both judge and executioner. One or two people could be bribed or tricked into a guilty-verdict, but it’s a lot harder to do that to the whole community.

[ii] I realize our earliest manuscripts do not include John 7:53–8:11. Regardless, these verses depict a consistent vision of the life and actions of Jesus Christ.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)

A Father’s Embrace (DVD), (Mp3), (Mp4 Download), and (PowerPoint download) by Dr. Frank Turek

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England), where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books, including The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One Other Questions About God and the Bible, and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense, to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather, and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

February 12, 2024/by Ty Unknown

A Student is Not Greater Than His Teacher

Apologetics for Parents, Israel, Theology and Christian Apologetics

I still have nightmares about being in college. It usually has something to do with a math final and being unable to graduate without passing it. Why does it always have to be math? I wake up vowing I will never go back to college. One thing that was sure to make or break my semester in university was something some students might not consider before enrolling. It wasn’t the subject. It wasn’t even the course requirements listed on the syllabus. It was something much more important: the teacher.

The teacher is a major contributor to whether you succeed or fail a class. Several of my teachers started the first day’s introductions by giving the most un-motivational speech that was sure to make more students drop the class before the ink on the syllabus was dry. It went something like this: “No one will ever get an A in this class so don’t expect one.” Who wants a teacher like that? Shouldn’t teachers want their students to excel in their class? Shouldn’t teachers encourage students to become as knowledgeable in the subject matter as them? If this is the attitude of your teacher, you won’t get a good education.

A Good Education Begins With a Good Teacher

As an educator, I am burdened with the responsibility to teach my students well. I often reminded my 5th graders that my job was to teach them. Their job was to let me know when they didn’t understand. As a teacher, I knew something my students never questioned or considered. My knowledge of the material had to be at mastery level so I could take them to the next level. And if I didn’t? They would never succeed.

When we think of education, we often don’t think of Christian education. Education is the transfer of knowledge systematically. Sure, that happens in the public education system all the time. It happens on college campuses every semester. But it should happen in the church. The problem is, it doesn’t. Why? Because the teachers don’t know the material as they should.

Let me explain.

George Barna’s American Worldview Inventory from 2022-2023 shows that only 36% of senior pastors in the United States have a biblical worldview. If that shocks you, it only gets worse when you look into the stats of children and youth pastors. A staggering 17% of them have a biblical worldview. It’s no wonder that the worldview of those in the church is only 6%, while 64% of Americans claim to be Christian. Why the disparity in the stats? It all comes down to the teacher.

A Student Is Not Greater Than His Teacher

Jesus told His disciples that a student is not greater than his teacher. In Luke 6:40, Jesus said, “The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.”[1] Every teacher should strive to teach their students all they know; to take them to a depth of learning that makes the student like his teacher, with the result of the student becoming a teacher himself. Because, according to Jesus, that is as far as a teacher can take his student – to the depths of learning they’ve experienced and nothing more.

This means one of two things can happen:

A student can eventually graduate their teacher’s program and become equipped to teach.

2. A teacher can stunt the student’s growth because they’re not an equipped teacher.

Which one should be the goal of the teacher? For the student to outgrow you, meaning the student no longer needs the teacher but becomes the teacher himself. How does that happen? Once again, we need to focus on the qualifications of a teacher in Christian education.

Choose Your Teachers Wiseley

In the first century, disciples chose their teachers (rabbis). But in Jesus’ case, He often reminded His disciples that He chose them. Nevertheless, Jesus made an example of teachers and warned His followers that they ought to be careful whom they chose as their teachers.

Let’s look at some examples where Jesus encountered or commented on teachers.

Nicodemus Skipped the Basics

Nicodemus was a teacher of the Law. He was a Pharisee and part of the Sanhedrin. With all of these titles, it appeared he was qualified. In John 3, Nicodemus came to Jesus at night to ask Him some questions. But the conversation took a turn that made Nicodemus scratch his head in confusion. Jesus shifted the conversation to a phrase not well known in the first century. He mentioned that all who would see the kingdom of God would be born again. This concept was lost on Nicodemus. He thought Jesus was talking about physical matters when Jesus was clearly speaking of spiritual matters. What Jesus said next exposed the kind of teacher Nicodemus was. Jesus asked a rhetorical question, “You are Israel’s teacher and you don’t understand these things? (10) … I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” (12)

Nicodemus, a teacher of the Law, did not understand the basics. And Jesus called him out. Teachers in Christian Education must have mastered the basics. If they haven’t, they will never effectively teach the truths of Christianity.

Going back to Barna’s American Worldview Inventory, the questions that determine whether or not an educator has a biblical worldview comes down to the fundamentals of the faith. Education, whether it’s Christian or secular, must lay the foundation in the fundamentals. The problem is that Christians are skipping the basics and that’s usually because the teachers themselves don’t even know them.

Hypocritical Pharisees

If there is one group of teachers in the Bible Jesus consistently conflicted with, it’s the Pharisees. But there is one passage that stands out above all passages when Jesus explained what the students of the Pharisees should take note of and emulate. Remember, the hope a student has is not that he will become greater than his teacher but that he will become like him. Jesus often called them hypocrites, whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones, and blind guides. Jesus then turned to their followers and said, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’s seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matthew 23:2-3).

A Christian educator’s life should be consistent with what he preaches. “Do as I say, not as I do” is not a teaching strategy. In fact, more kids these days are turning to other influences rather than their parents because they are witnessing inconsistencies in what is communicated versus what is lived. Jesus did not allow the Pharisees to get away with hypocrisy. The church shouldn’t either.

A Teacher Worth Following

Students don’t often think about what to look for in a good teacher. But as a teacher, I can give you some tips on what to look for when it comes to choosing who you follow and who you put in front of your kids when it comes to Christian education. Here are three things to look for in a teacher worth following:

Knowledge.
Character.
Service.

As George Barna says, you can’t give what you don’t have. I say it this way, you can’t teach what you don’t know. A teacher must know more than the student and be capable of taking the student on a journey to deeper knowledge that leads to spiritual growth. That happens systematically and it begins with the basics. So, a Christian teacher has to know at least two things: first, he must know the Bible. Second, he must know how to transfer that knowledge systematically.

A teacher must have good character and live what he preaches. That means a Christian educator must have a biblical worldview where what he believes, what he speaks, and what he lives are all aligned to the Bible. Without this, forget number one because he doesn’t have real knowledge and therefore he cannot live it.

Finally, a good teacher serves his students. In the first century, it was the lowly servant who washed the feet of his master. The disciple not only learned from his teacher, but he served him too. Not with Jesus. Jesus showed His disciples that He was there to serve because the servant is the greatest. It was a model of discipleship not witnessed during this time in history and is still countercultural today. Nevertheless, it is the model of a teacher and the model a disciple is to emulate as he becomes like his teacher.

In conclusion, a good education begins and ends with a solid teacher. A teacher can only take their students to the depths of knowledge in which they have chosen to venture. James warns those in the church that “not many should become teachers because they will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1). The warning is to those in Christian education, whether it be Sunday school, Bible study, or the classroom. An effective teacher will both teach with their words and their actions. Since a student is to become like his teacher, we ought to proceed with caution when choosing who we sit in front of or who we put in front of our kids. The spiritual growth of our families and the church depends on it.

References:

[1] Editor’s Note: Jesus was probably talking about Rabbis here. Rabbis were known for teaching students to read, write, study the Bible, know the law, theology, etc. But Rabbis were also personal mentors to their students, imparting not just religious knowledge but a whole lifestyle including etiquette, customs, eating habits, traditions, relationships, worldview, and more.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students by Frank Turek (mp4 Download) (mp3) (DVD)

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download

Woman to Woman: Preparing Yourself to Mentor (Book) by Edna Ellison & Tricia Scribner

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Shanda Fulbright is a credentialed teacher and has a certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, a certificate from the CrossExamined Instructor’s Academy as well as several certificates from Online Christian Courses. She hosts Her Faith Inspires podcast where she takes cultural issues and aligns them to biblical truth. You can read her blogs and find out more about her at shandafulbright.com.

February 7, 2024/by Ty Unknown