Christianity Archives - Page 60 of 106

Tag Archive for: Christianity

How I Got into Apologetics (And How You Can Too!)

I am often asked, “how did you get into apologetics?” For some believers, they’ll get interested in apologetics because of a crisis of faith. They’ll have intellectual hurdles that come up that they have to overcome. For me, I never was plagued with doubts. While I spent several years of my life as an atheist, I had a powerful encounter with the Holy Spirit. As I walked with God, the inner witness of the Holy Spirit was a real and regular experience.

After coming to faith, I felt burdened to share my faith. I would share my testimony with anyone who would give me the time of day and led several of my friends to Christ. (And even a handful of strangers.) I felt, for the most part, confident when it came to evangelism.

Failing Forward

That all changed several years later when I met Ian and Chris.

Ian and Chris were co-worker friends of mine. They were both were more educated than I was, and both were very bright. One day, during our break time the conversation shifted to spiritual things. So I took the opportunity to try and share.

They shot me to shreds.

Ian was very scientifically-minded and thought modern science, and the Bible were incompatible. Chris was an ex-Christian and the son of missionaries. He grew up in church and lived on the mission field overseas. He later renounced his faith in favor of Buddhism.

They raised a host of issues that I couldn’t answer. I felt helpless and felt that I had failed not only them but my own Savior. So, I set out on a quest. I didn’t know much about Christian apologetics. I had read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis years ago, and that was about the extent of my knowledge.

So, I started Googling away. My search led me to a host of great materials. I found dozens of debates. A legion of lectures. A plethora of podcasts. A bonanza of books. Free college courses through seminaries and colleges.

The Problem: Info Overload

There was only one problem: There was too much information. It felt daunting and overwhelming. I sensed a call to do more with apologetics but didn’t understand where to begin or how to begin.

So, I prayed and asked for help. And God answered by way of a philosophy professor. I had joined a group on Facebook called the Christian Apologetics Alliance. In the group, I shared my frustration with sensing a call in this area. I had neither the time or money to go back to college.

A guy by the name of Tim McGrew replied. If you don’t know, Dr. McGrew is a philosophy professor at Western Michigan University. He’s a walking encyclopedia when it comes to the argument from miracles and historical apologetics. He’s debated some atheistic heavyweights like Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus, Jesus, Interrupted) and Peter Boghossian. (A Manual for Creating Atheists)

Tim graciously provided me with a bibliography to get started. This list of books helped me get the knowledge that I needed to get seriously get going.

Starting Where I Was At

These sources provided me the ability to have something to say in the main areas of apologetics. Defensive apologetics as well as offensive apologetics. In other words, I could have something to say about the main objections to God’s existence or the Bible.

Doesn’t science disprove Christianity?
Aren’t miracles the worst explanation for anything?
Why does an all-powerful and all-loving God allow horrible evils in the world?
How could God send people to hell for a lack of information?
Is Yahweh evil? After all, didn’t He command Israel to kill the Canaanites?
Why are there contradictions and historical errors in the Bible?

Answering these questions is defensive apologetics.

I also learned how to make a positive case for God’s existence and the resurrection of Jesus. (Positive apologetics) Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection is the lynchpin of Christianity. Without it, nothing else matters. So making that case is indispensable.

Setting the Right Goals

The goal wasn’t to master everything. But I did have something to say to the main objections against the faith. Tim also encouraged me to master one argument for God’s existence to start out. Now, this did involve work and commitment. And it required that I stretch my mind and make my brain work.

But if eternal destinies are at stake, this was something I had to take seriously. Plus, as a father, I didn’t want to pass onto my children a brittle “don’t think, only believe” type of faith.

It still meant I still had to invest time and money. However, it didn’t lead thousands of dollars of college debt. Furthermore, it didn’t call for me spending hours burning the midnight oil studying. I only needed to spend an hour or so per day reading.

As a result, the increase of knowledge led to an increase in confidence. Instead of being intimidated by tough objections, I felt like I could handle them. My conversations in these areas became more “in control” rather than me getting flustered and defensive.

“Bringing Out of His Treasure What Is New and What Is Old”

So, without further ado, I want to pass on the list of books that Tim gave me. The good news is that some of them are older works that you can read free online because they are public domain.

Don’t assume old means “out of date.” It’s tempting to fall into the chronological snobbery fallacy. But these older works have arguments that hold up today. When it came to reading older books, C.S. Lewis once advised:

“It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.”

CS Lewis, Intro to On the Incaration by Athanasius

Lewis went on to say:

“Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet.

Here’s my experience: Lewis is right. I learned more about defending the argument from miracles from reading old books. I’d say the same for defending the Gospels. He also gave me some other supplemental books and references that I’ve linked here.

I’ve added a few more books to supplement the list that I found helpful.

B = Beginner

I = Intermediate

DR. TIM MCGREW’S READING LIST

CONVERSATIONAL APOLOGETICS:

Greg Koukl, Tactics(B)
Norman and David Geisler, Conversational Evangelism(B)

BASIC REASONING SKILLS:

JP Moreland, Love God With All Your Mind(B)
Peter Kreeft, Between Heaven and Hell(B)

DEFENSIVE GENERAL APOLOGETICS:

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Section X (Free! Hume is presenting the skeptical view) (B)
William Lane Craig, Hard Questions, Real Answers, chapters. 4 and 5 (I)
S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain(B)
Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil? (My recommendation) (B)

THE CHALLENGE OF SCIENCE

S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, ch. 3 (B)
John Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?(B)
Arthur James Balfour, The Foundations of Belief(Free!) (I)
Mitch Stokes, How to Be an Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren’t Skeptical Enough (My recommendation) (I)

THE INCREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES

David Hume, “Of Miracles”(Free! Hume is presenting the skeptical view) (B)
William Adams, An Essay in Answer to Mr. Hume’s Essay on Miracles(Free!) (B)
George Campbell, A Dissertation on Miracles(Free!) (B)
Habermas and Geivett, eds., In Defense of Miracles(B)
John Douglas, The Criterion(Free!) (B)
S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study(B)
Craig Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts(My recommendation) (I)

POSITIVE GENERAL APOLOGETICS:

(Note: I focused on the Moral Argument. Other arguments are featured in these recommendations. Again, for a complete recommendation list, go here.)

S. Lewis, Mere Christianity(B)
Craig and Copan, eds., Contending with Christianity’s Critics(B)
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith(I)
David Baggett and Marybeth Baggett, The Morals of the Story: Good News About a Good God(My recommendation) (I)

POSITIVE BIBLICAL APOLOGETICS:

S. Lewis, “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”(Free!) (B)
Edmund Bennett, The Four Gospels from a Lawyer’s Standpoint(Free!) (B)
F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?(B)
William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity(Free!) (B)
John James Blunt, Undesigned Coincidences(Free!) (B)
Samuel Tregelles, Historic Evidence of the New Testament(Free!) (B)
Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend(I)
Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus(B)
Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament(My recommendation) (I)
Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus(My recommendation) (B)
Lydia McGrew,Hidden in Plain View (B)
Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels?(My recommendation) (B)

DEFENSIVE BIBLICAL APOLOGETICS:

Richard Watson, An Apology for the Bible(Free!) (B)
Paul Copan,Is God a Moral Monster? (B)
Joseph Butler, The Analogy of Religion(Free!) (I)
F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament(Free!) (I)
Köstenberger and Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy(I)
Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties(B)
Geisler and Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties(B)
Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, 5 Volumes (B)

WHAT IF I’M ON A SERIOUS BUDGET?

You could load up on all the freebies still, and that would keep you reading for months. But if you had about $100 and just want to get started as easily as possible while covering all the main topics, I’d recommend:

William Lane Craig, On Guard (A beginner’s version of Reasonable Faith)
CS Lewis, Mere Christianity
Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus
Lydia McGrew,Hidden in Plain View
Greg Koukl, Tactics
John Lennox, Has Science Buried God?
Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?
Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil?

Jesus: The Greater Moses

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

An untrained eye might miss it, but the Old Testament, properly read, points to Jesus. From Genesis forward, we see reference after reference to a coming Messiah who would one day crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15).

Certainly the covenants with both Abraham (Gen. 12, 15, 17) and David (2 Sam. 7) point to a coming Messiah, but it’s another covenant mediator I want to draw our attention to — Moses. Outside of Abraham, Moses is probably the most significant figure in the Old Testament, because it was through Moses that God gave his Law to the nation of Israel.

As special as Moses was, though, God promised Israel that he would send another prophet who was going to be just as, if not more, significant than Moses himself.

The Promise of A Future Prophet Like Moses

As Israel approached the end of its forty years in the wilderness, God made a promise to them about a future prophet to come. We read Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 18:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him… The LORD said to me: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him” (v. 15-18).

I can only imagine that at this moment, Israel was fearful of what they were going to do after Moses departed. After all, the people relied on Moses to hear from God as they didn’t dare approach Him themselves. But what would a prophet like Moses look like? Numbers 12:6-8 gives us a clue. The text reads:

Listen to my words: “When there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him, I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD.”

Notice the LORD’s words here in response to Miram and Aaron’s complaints about Moses. The LORD says that Moses is not only a prophet; he’s an exulted prophet. Other prophets only get dreams or visions from God. But Moses can see God and speak with him face to face.

Did the Future Prophet Come?

Before we can answer this question, I need to address Mosaic authorship briefly. I realize several folks reject that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but I am not one of them. After all, it seems as if Jesus was persuaded of Mosaic authorship (Jn. 5:46-47; Mk. 10:3-5; 7:10; 12:26; Mt. 8:4; Lk. 16:29).

Nobody, however, disputes that someone else wrote the end of the Pentateuch which describes Moses’ death. While the dating of the end of the Pentateuch isn’t clear cut, most commentators lean toward the post-exilic era (between 500-400 BC). Meaning, whoever wrote the ending did so about 1,000 years after Moses. We know it wasn’t soon after Moses because the author tells us that no one even knows where Moses’ body is buried (Deuteronomy. 34:6).

I raise this authorship and dating issue because the person who penned Deuteronomy 34 wasn’t convinced that the prophet like Moses had come yet. Verses 10-12 state:

Since then (the time of Moses), no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, who did all those signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt — to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of Israel.

As far as the author of Deuteronomy 34 goes, the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18 had yet to come. Even great prophets like Elijah, Elisha, or Isaiah didn’t make the cut. No, Israel still waited patiently for the prophet who would communicate with God face to face, speak the very words of God, and perform public miracles. Certain prophets had met some of the criteria, but none had met all of them.

Jesus: The Prophet Like Moses

It’s no wonder that so many first-century Jews expected the Messiah to be the great Prophet. After Jesus fed the 5,000, we read in John 6:14, “After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” In other words, these people recognized that the author of Deuteronomy 34 was correct. A prophet like Moses had yet to come at that point. But he’s here now!

Peter makes the connection abundantly clear in Acts 3. While preaching to a crowd in Jerusalem, Peter proclaimed:

Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord…and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. For Moses said, The Lord, your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.

Of course, this Jewish audience would have been familiar with Deuteronomy 18. Peter emphatically tells the crowd that the great Prophet like Moses has finally come. It’s Jesus of Nazareth.

After all, Jesus meets all the criteria. As the Son of God, he’s the only one who had communicated with God face-to-face. As John 1:18 tells us, “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship to the Father.” Furthermore, he not only communicated the very words of God; he was the Word of God incarnate (Jn. 1). And, of course, his public miracles are well documented.

Similarities Between Jesus And Moses

The prophecy of Deuteronomy 18 states that the coming prophet would be like Moses. But in what sense? Consider some of the similarities now:

Both were born under death decree (Ex. 1-2; Mt. 2:16-18).

Both escape into the heart of Egypt (Ex. 2; Mt. 2:13-15).

Both are described in detail in four books, beginning with their births and ending with their deaths (Exodus—Deuteronomy; Matthew—John).

Both were covenant mediators (Moses of the Old, Jesus of the New).

Both gave or received instruction on a mountain (Ex. 20; Mt. 5-7)

Both are transfigured on a mountain (Ex. 34:29-35; Mk. 9:2-13)

Both are isolated for 40 days without food or water (Ex. 34:28; Mt. 4:2)

Both are rebelled against by Israelites (Num. 16; Lk. 22-23).

Truly, Jesus was the prophet like Moses.

Differences Between Jesus And Moses

Despite their similarities, it’s their differences that matter the most. Consider these two:

First, like any prophet, Moses repeatedly said, “thus saith the LORD.” The LORD had communicated to him in some form or fashion, and he then communicated those same words to the people.

Jesus, on the other hand, never used the phrase “thus saith the LORD.” Instead, he said something radical — “truly, truly, I say unto you.” In other words, Jesus didn’t need to receive a word from the LORD because he was the LORD himself! Jesus spoke with authority, unlike any other prophet — including Moses.

Second, God accepted Jesus’ atoning sacrifice but not Moses’. In Exodus 32, after Israel sinned by worshipping the golden calf, God was going to consume them. Moses, however, sought to spare the people by offering up himself as an atoning sacrifice. We read in verses 30-33:

The next day Moses said to the people, You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin. So Moses returned to the LORD and said, Alas, this people has sinned a great sin. They have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will forgive their sin — but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written. But the LORD said to Moses, Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book.

Even at this early stage, Moses recognized atonement must be made for Israel’s sins, and thus he offers up himself! But God rejected his offer. After all, Moses himself was just a man — a sinful one at that. He couldn’t possibly atone for the people’s sins.

But Jesus could. Being divine and sinless, Jesus could bear the sins of the world. And unlike Moses, God accepted Jesus’ sacrifice and demonstrated his acceptance by raising him from the dead.

So, while Jesus was a prophet like Moses, he was certainly greater.

Jesus Is Greater Than Moses

The author of Hebrews saw this comparison and didn’t hesitate to elevate Jesus above Moses. His words seem an appropriate ending to this article:

Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest. He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house. Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. “Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house,” bearing witness to what would be spoken by God in the future. But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house (Heb. 3:1-5).

How Jeremiah 29:11 is Far Better When You Properly Interpret It

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Certain verses in the Bible have become so popularized that they are often removed from their context. In so doing, the biblical passage loses the impact that it holds. Worse yet, the text may be given a message that it never intended to carry. Jeremiah 29:11 is one such example.

The verse is a promise of God which states, “For I know the plans I have for you’—this is the Lord’s declaration—‘plans for your well-being, not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope’” (Jer. 29:11, CSB). The verse has been often misapplied as it has become a staple for graduation Hallmark cards, plaques, and knick-knacks. For some, the verse holds a promise that God will never allow the person to suffer bad experiences or trouble. The graduate who receives such things may think that God will only bring good things to his or her life. But is that really what the passage says? Proper biblical interpretation unveils three theological truths that exceed the kitschy cliché that the verse has become.

Jeremiah 29:11 Indicates that God Can Be Found in Difficult Days. It is critically important to note that Jeremiah 29:11 is part of Jeremiah’s letter to the Israelites who would become Babylonian exiles. This is key to understanding the context of the verse. If the interpreter misses this point, he or she will not comprehend the nature of the verse. Quite frankly, I do not know that anyone would want this to be their graduation theme because God is telling the nation that they are about to experience difficult days ahead.

Living in an era of self-entitlement and luxury, it is easy to think that God will only bring good things to our lives. We almost view God as if he is a self-improvement coach rather than a Heavenly Father. Perhaps some would even like God better if God were the former rather than the latter. Nevertheless, God never promises that a believer’s walk will be easy. Rather, God promises us that God’s presence will never leave us in good times or bad. If you continue reading the text, God tells those who are about to suffer the exile, “You will call me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you search for me with all your heart” (Jer. 29:12–13, CSB). God’s presence is always with his children (Matt. 28:20).

Jeremiah 29:11 Indicates that God is Sovereign Over the Good Times and Bad. Jeremiah 29:11 is comparable to Romans 8:28 in the fact that the prophet holds that God is sovereign over all times and occasions. Why does God allow evil to occur? This issue, otherwise called theodicy, is beyond the scope of this present article. However, it must be understood that God may allow bad things to occur to bring about a greater end.

I spoke with a church member today about the book of Job and the primary theological theme of the book. God tells Job that he must trust him because he set everything in motion since the beginning of creation. Life and the operation of the universe are far more complex than anyone could imagine. In a similar fashion, God is telling the soon-to-be Babylonian exiles the same, saying, “Trust me.” The author of Hebrews notes that one should not “take the Lord’s discipline lightly or lose heart when you are reproved by him, the Lord disciplines the one he loves and punishes every son he receives. Endure suffering as discipline: God is dealing with you as sons” (Heb. 12:5–7, CSB). When divine discipline comes, it is never to harm us. But rather, God’s discipline is always to make us better. Psalm 94 notes that a person is blessed when they receive the Lord’s discipline because they are being taught how to keep the law (Ps. 94:12, ESV). God even tells Jacob, “Fear not … for I am with you. I will make a full end of all the nations to which I have driven you, but of you, I will not make a full end. I will discipline you in just measure, and I will by no means leave you unpunished” (Ps. 118:18, ESV). The people of Jeremiah’s day had not been faithful which led to God’s disciplinary actions. However, God notes that God is still sovereign in the bad times as he is in the good times. He is telling the people, “Trust me.”

Jeremiah 29:11 Indicates that God Will Bless His Faithful Children in the End. Here again, Jeremiah 29:11 can be likened to Romans 8:28 which states, “We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28, CSB). In like manner, God tells those who would be exiled, “I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and places where I banished you … I will restore you to the place from which I deported you” (Jer. 29:14, CSB). While the people would face severe difficulty in their days ahead, they could live with the assurance that God would restore the fortunes of their people and their land. Similarly, we are part of the community of God’s people. We do not always get things right. Quite honestly, we probably mess up more than do right. Nonetheless, God has a better day coming for his children—a day where there will be no more tears, no more pain, no more heartache, no more divisions, and no more death (Rev. 21:3–4). Most importantly, that day will be a time where there will be no more separation from God (Rev. 22:4–5). Our faith will be sight (2 Cor. 5:7).

Jeremiah 29:11 is a wonderful verse. But the depth of its theological mines cannot be dug unless one takes the time to understand the verse in its proper context. While it may not be that this verse will be as desirable to place on graduation cards as it once was, the verse becomes more intense and stronger especially when troubles come. God’s ultimate plan for our lives is to bring great blessings. But those blessings may often become shrouded in the heartaches of life. By placing us in the pressures of life, God makes us into diamonds.

Living In A Post-Truth Culture

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

I’ve made the case that truth, goodness, and beauty are objective features of the world we live in. Hopefully, you’ve found that to be interesting. But please don’t think this is just an esoteric triviality. It’s not. We are living in a post-truth culture. But it’s a place where the objective nature of truth, goodness, and beauty are deeply relevant. Our view of objective truth affects everything about how we live our lives. It’s the antidote to moral relativism. Truth matters. And understanding the profundity of that simple fact will revolutionize the way you interact with our world.

Here’s why.

The Assumptions of the Culture

Consider the three topics I’ve been talking about. And think about how you’re used to hearing about them:

Truth — “That may be true for you, but it’s not for me.”

Goodness — “Don’t impose your morality on me!”

Beauty — “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

Despite thousands of years of human knowledge and experience, our contemporary culture has made every one of these subjective. Suddenly, they’ve each become things we decide for ourselves.

In fact, if you were to express the notion that anyone of these is not subjective, you would be considered arrogant. Oppressive. A Neanderthal who wants to impose your personal values on the rest of the world.

Who are you to do that?!

The World Turned Upside Down

This is cultural relativism. A place where we are supposed to accept the idea that everyone’s opinion about every topic is equally valid.

And remember that pesky definition of truth as: “correspondence to reality”? That’s out the window. The new normal tells us that our highest calling is to “be true to ourselves.”

But what does that mean, exactly?

Follow Your Heart

When your standard for truth and virtue is the person you see in the bathroom mirror, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see what’s coming. Feelings rule. You are encouraged to “follow your heart.” And following your heart means you evaluate reality based on emotion instead of reason and logic.

If it feels good, you do it.

“If it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad …”

Sheryl Crow

Conforming to reality becomes passé. An archaic inconvenience.

But there is a problem with that. And the problem is that the “persistent belief in something that does not conform to reality” is called a delusion.

Our culture has elevated delusion to an art form.

Philosophy Is About The Real World

It turns out that the whole discussion of truth, goodness, and beauty is more than the hobby of navel-gazing philosophers. These things have real-world consequences. Ideas always do. Good or bad, we live in a world where those ideas will play themselves out.

And so, we see the consequences of bad thinking in our politics and in the family and community relationships on which our politics depend. We read about them in the news — and in the “fake news” generated at both ends of the political spectrum. We suffer the repercussions of denying reality in our economics. And our children and grandchildren will — quite literally — pay the price for those willful delusions.

Most of all, we see it in the glorification of sexual autonomy that has infiltrated every corner of our culture. Denying reality is at the core of issues like abortion, sexual libertinism, transgenderism, and same-sex behavior. Defending each of them is nothing but a persistent delusion.

Faith Communities Are Not Immune

The Church is most certainly not immune to the corrosive acid of bad thinking. The vacuous nonsense you can find in the Word-Faith Movement, Universalism, and so-called “Progressive” Christianity is proof enough of that. And every societal ill listed above has also found its way into the church.

But when you boil it all down, the problems we see in our culture are nothing new. In fact, they’re as old as mankind. The denial of truth, goodness, and beauty started soon after we came on the scene. The Fall of Man was simply the first instance where human beings made the free-will decision to exchange the truth of God for a lie. Since then, we’ve only pushed the limits of that futile exercise even further.

The good news is that the antidote to bad thinking has always been the same. Seek truth in all its forms. Then align your life with it.

The Church should never be a safe space for bad ideas. It must be a place where people are treated with gentleness and respect, but also a place where corrupted thinking goes to die.

Does The “Legacy of Slavery” Explain Black Women’s 72% Out-Of-Wedlock Birth Rate?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

James White asks: does the Bible apply to black women?

I don’t like Calvinist theologian James White at all, but at least he’s willing to defend the moral teachings of the Bible against the woke identity politics that is taking over Christian churches. A few months ago, he tweeted something very controversial (see above), and got into a lot of hot water with fake Christians. In this post, I’ll explain why he is right.

So, as you can see above, James is concerned that black women are having so many abortions, and he thinks that the solution to this is to encourage black women to take the Bible’s advice on sexual morality. Shocking, I know.

If you read the replies to his tweet on Twitter, you’ll see millions and millions of comments calling him a racist, and telling him that slavery is to blame for EVERYTHING that black women do wrong. Basically, James haters say that black women can do anything they want and should never be told that it’s wrong according to the Bible because their bad choices are all the fault of slavery. So, the Bible doesn’t even apply to them, or something.

Here is an example from a radical feminist progressive named Karen Swallow Prior:

Karen Swallow Prior says that unlike whites, blacks have no moral agency

According to the fake Christians, it’s not that black women make poor choices with sex, it’s that the ghosts of white slavers who raped their great-great-great grandmothers reach through time with magic and force them to have sex with hunky bad boys who won’t commit to them before sex. It’s not rap music calling black women hoes! It’s the ghosts of slavery past. And even if this ghost theory isn’t true, we shouldn’t tell black women not to sin, because…it would hurt their feelings. After all, the Bible isn’t a book that’s designed to set boundaries to prevent self-destructive behaviors. It encourages us to listen to our hearts, be reckless, and sin as much as we can.

So, when did black community problems with sex and abortion start? Did it start with slavery times? Actually, blacks were doing GREAT at marriage and sexual matters just 50 years ago.

This reply to James White explained:

Blacks married at rates comparable to whites before the welfare

That’s true. Black children weren’t fatherless, so they weren’t having early sex outside of marriage, and so they weren’t getting abortions.

Children born to blacks were just as likely to be born in a married home as children born to whites, up until the 1960s:

Black women were more likely to be married before single mother welfare programs

(Source)

The reason that the graph is going upward is because daughters raised in fatherless homes tend to engage in sexual activity at younger ages because they are seeking approval from a man which their (single) mother cannot give them. It’s a tragic downwards spiral, and it affects all races. The only way to stop it is to tell women to choose marriage-minded men (not hot bad boys) and marry before having sex like the Bible says. But woke fake Christians think the Bible is too mean, and better to allow sin by saying that sin is inevitable because slavery ghosts or something.

What’s neat is that black men who take Christianity seriously are totally on board with the facts:

Black man here. Can confirm that the Bible applies to black women.

On this blog, I don’t talk about my ethnicity myself, for confidentiality reasons, but I have said that my skin is darker than Barack Obama. I’m not white or Asian. And the reason that I don’t fall into this trap of causing babies to be born out of wedlock is because I think that when the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is a sin, that this is true. I don’t make excuses or shift blame. It’s incumbent on me to obey since I claim to be a follower of Jesus. I’m not interested in identity politics. I’m not interested in racial divisions. I’m not interested in blame-shifting. The rules are the rules. And my following of the rules caused me to not cause abortions, according to Christian specifications. Period.

When it comes to sex outside of marriage, the answer of every Bible-believing Christian is simple: I’m against it. That is the correct answer, and anything more or less than this answer is demonic. If you are a Christian, sex outside of marriage is always morally wrong. And if you try to justify it, or blame someone else, in order to excuse it, then you’re not a Christian at all. If you try to make excuses for why someone did it, you’re not a Christian. Whether you have had it and been forgiven, or never had it, the answer is always the same: it’s morally wrong. Don’t do it. Never do it.

What I am seeing from people who are critical of James White’s tweet is that they are basically trying to attack those who make moral judgments based on what the Bible says. They want to make room for sinners to sin. The root of abortion sin is sexual sin. Real Christians discourage sexual sin and therefore protect unborn children. Fake Christians want to be liked by appearing compassionate, so they make excuses for sexual sin. If you take the Bible seriously on morality, you won’t be liked. Those who try to excuse sin do so because their need to be liked is more important than their need to promote what the Bible teaches.

Some fake Christians will say, “oh, but I do think the Bible is right about sex and marriage, but we have to care about slavery reparations and global warming and refugees and illegal immigrants and transgender rights, too.” Baloney. An authentic Christian is concerned about the things that the Bible teaches are “major” things. Drunkenness is a major thing. Sexual immorality is a major thing. Divorce is a major thing. Homosexuality is a major thing. If you meet a Christian who treats those issues as minor issues, and instead majors in what the secular left tells them are major issues, then you’re talking to a fake Christian.

Christianity isn’t a brain-dead faith. You get your priorities from the Bible, and you argue those priorities using facts. The facts about marriage rates are clear, and they show that the problems in the black community aren’t caused by slavery. They’re caused by single mother welfare programs. Those welfare programs taught women of all races that they didn’t have to listen to their fathers when choosing men. Those welfare programs taught women that feelings were a better guide in relationships than the Bible. Those welfare programs taught women that their eyes were a better judge of character than the performance of traditional marriage roles. Those welfare programs taught women that recreational sex was a way to get a man to commit and stop being a bad boy. We need to go back to the root cause of the problem. The root cause of the problem was making excuses for disobedience to the Bible and transferring money from married homes to out-of-control women. Of all races.

The Christmas Story – Beyond Apologetics

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

Experiencing the Christmas Story

Every December, I see a couple of approaches to Jesus’ birth on Christian blogs: Articles that approach the Christmas story from the perspective of “How Jesus came to Earth,” looking at it in light of what the Gospels tell about who Jesus turns out to be. Or, you get an apologetics approach that engages naturalistic objections to miracles like the virgin birth.

If you’re like me, you’ve often talked about the possibility of miracles or the historicity of the Bible around Christmas time. But what we don’t often realize, is that we can get so distracted by historical or philosophical questions in our 21st-century context, that we can miss out on what the Gospel authors are saying through the infancy narratives.

Beyond Apologetics

This year, I want to do something different and go beyond apologetics. What’s the message of the infancy materials? In this post, I’ll share one key thing everyone should know about Christmas—something that’s often overlooked: The Christmas story communicates that God keeps his promises. [1]

First, I’ll highlight Elizabeth’s story in the Gospel, according to Luke. Then, I’ll focus in on Mary’s story in the same Gospel. Finally, I want to give you two video resources that will help you dive deeper and better experience the Christmas story afresh this year.

But try something with me before we move on: Set any skepticism about miracles (or even ideas about Jesus’ deity) to the side for a moment and imagine what it would be like for two unsuspecting people to see the Christmas story unfolding around them. What would they be thinking?

God Keeps His Promises

An old woman gets pregnant–even though she never had kids before (Luke 1:5-25)

Most first-century Jews believed God created everything and interacted with people. So, to them, an old woman getting pregnant or a virgin conceiving a child apart from modern medical techniques were just minor miracles compared to the creation of the universe out of nothing. In other words: If God’s real, miracles are possible.

And that’s how the Christmas story begins; with miracles. An angel tells a priest named Zachariah that his wife, Elizabeth, would have a kid–even though she was way too old to have kids naturally. I recently had a conversation with my mentor, Darrell Bock, who explained what you’re supposed to get from the story of Zachariah’s skepticism. He put it like this:

Basically the angel says, “Well, you’re going to be quiet until you see God pull off his word. It’s designed to be a lesson to say, “If God promised this if God says this is gonna happen, this is gonna happen…You’re gonna watch it happen. You’re not gonna be able to speak or hear. You can have a little time to reflect on the fact that when God says it’s gonna happen, it’s gonna happen.

Don’t miss Elizabeth’s faith in contrast to her husband. She was marginalized in society because she couldn’t have kids, but then she says with confidence: “This is what the Lord has done for me at the time when he has been gracious to me, to take away my disgrace among people” (Luke 1:25).

After the baby’s born, they name him “John” (that was culturally weird since no one else in the family was named John), and Zachariah can finally talk again. He sings a song about John the Baptist’s role, pointing people to Jesus—the central figure of God’s plan to redeem and restore his people (Luke 1:67–79). But a bigger miracle’s about to happen.

A young teen gets pregnant–even though she never had sex before (Luke 1:26-36)

Mary was probably way younger than most nativity scenes make her seem. First-century Jewish girls were usually betrothed between the ages of 12 and 14! Guys were betrothed between the ages of 18 and 25 but the girls got married pretty young.

And Jesus’ conception was pretty unusual, too. The angel tells Mary her baby will reign forever; he’ll be called the Son of God. Most Christians immediately go, “I get it. Jesus is divine.” But what about people who don’t know the end of the story? What did Mary think when she heard what her baby was gonna be called?

She probably thought, “My baby’s the promised Messiah who’ll deliver God’s people.” In the Jewish Scriptures, “Son of God” often referred to kings (2 Samuel 7:14). Mary’s going, “Somehow, my son’s gonna be a king.” Her big takeaway was, “God’s keeping his promise to Israel through me!” But she still had a lot to learn about who Jesus would turn out to be.

Luke 1 is kind of like a musical in some ways because then, Mary sings her own song—a song that’s got Old Testament language all over it (Luke 1:46–56). And the lyrics are all about how God’s gonna restore Israel and defeat the people who are oppressing them. Don’t miss Mary’s example of faith. She probably didn’t think her baby was “Little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes” (Not sure what Mary would think about that Christmas song)! Yet, she willingly took up the challenge of bearing a very unique child in very unusual circumstances.

So an angel predicted Elizabeth, an old woman who wasn’t able to have kids her whole life, would get pregnant–and she does. Then the angel told Mary, a young girl who’s never had sex, that she’ll conceive a child supernaturally–and she does. Strange stuff is afoot. Strange stuff pointing to a pretty unique baby–a pretty unique way for God to fulfill his promises to Israel and bless the world.

A key message of the Christmas story that’s often overlooked is God keeps his promises. This is one reason Christianity isn’t about blind faith. It’s reasonable to put your trust in someone who is trustworthy.

Here’s the Point

The Christmas story is meant to show God keeps his promises–even if he ends up doing it in unexpected and unusual ways. Weird stuff happening told ancient readers God was up to something special. Experiencing this unfolding drama in the Gospels is part of the wonder of the season. You look at Mary and Elizabeth, and you see their faith. They trust God and recognize his grace to them. May we do the same. Merry Christmas!

[1] THESE INSIGHTS CAME FROM A SERIES OF CONVERSATIONS WITH MY MENTOR, DARRELL BOCK, AND A COUPLE OF OTHER NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARS AT DALLAS THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. SEE THE VIDEOS BELOW.

[hr]

Videos on Experiencing the Christmas Story

Here are two video resources that can help you go deeper and experience the Christmas story afresh. The first is a chapel discussion I facilitated, and the second is a podcast I hosted. A transcript is available for the podcast here. Both videos are brought to you by Dallas Theological Seminary.

Experiencing the Christmas Story – Chapel

Why Do Christians Tend to Align With “Conservative” Economics?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

A while back, I saw an intriguing question on social media from a person who is in the middle of a worldview transition. This person is concerned about why so many Christians follow conservative economic theories and not more liberal ones. As I have thought about the question more and more, I have noticed not just a viable answer but also an apologetic opportunity in addressing this concern. Here is the question in the questioner’s own words and how I would respond:

The Question:

“I am going through a transition… From an atheist to someone who may not be Christian but does believe in a higher power.

My background is economics, and I am struggling with the fact that Christianity has aligned its self so heavily with the conservative party. I totally understand your aversion to abortion, but not the economic theory behind their chosen party.

Are there people here that don’t agree with the conservative economic theory, or is the abortion issue the main reason why you align with them?”

My Response:

Limited Government

I believe that the reason that most Christians align with conservative parties is because conservative parties tend to believe in a government that has limited power to legislate. All laws (including regulations that guide economics of a country) legislate morality. The more a government legislates morality, the further from a pluralistic society it promotes and starts to infringe upon differing moral views. Conservatives generally (*generally*) believe that the government should only legislate the basic morality that is “written on the hearts of all men” and should stay out of other matters. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek go into the details of this position in their book “Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible.”

Intrinsic Human Value and Economics

When a government is limited in this manner, it has less control (some is definitely necessary) over

economics and leaves that control with the people.

Today’s popular view of economics for liberals is based on the intrinsic value of humans (see my post “Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?“) and pushes for all to have a comfortable and healthy life. Neither of those desires are wrong or evil. In fact, both are very good. The goodness of the foundation and intentions of the liberals’ view should not be overlooked, nor should they be ignored. They need to be honored for the objective value that they ascribe to humanity and the objective good that they wish to achieve.

However, no one should forcibly take something from one person to give to another. Forcibly removing funds (such as for economic redistribution or universal anything) would violate not taking what is not yours (stealing). So, that method to achieve the goals cannot be used.

No view of economics should achieve its moral goal through immoral means; this includes both liberal and conservative economic views.

Free Will and Economics

The conservatives hold that people should freely give to those in need (which many do either directly or through charities). I know a lot of liberals see that many also do not, and they believe that this is not right (especially when we see the suffering in the world), but one person (or group of people) simply cannot do something evil to force another person or group of people to do what is right. It is neither logical nor moral to attempt to achieve a good end by intentionally doing evil acts.

Both sides have the free choice of their behavior and actions, and they also have to live with the consequences of their chosen behavior and actions. Those who do evil, both conservative and liberal, will be judged by the ultimate Judge. There will be justice ultimately- whether one side or both; both are held responsible. Most conservatives and Christians believe it is best that only those who refuse to be generous (and refuse to care for widows and orphans- James 1:27) be the ones suffering consequences, not those people and the ones who forcibly take (steals) what is not theirs (the funds of the selfish people) to “right the wrong.” We cannot repay evil with evil. We can encourage them to choose good behavior and actions instead of evil ones, but we cannot force their actions. It is their free choice and their consequences to be reaped.

Sin In Conservative Economics

Having said that, I must also point out that the failures of conservative economic policies (such as capitalism) are primarily due to the fact that people have chosen to practice those policies outside the correct moral framework. The Christian worldview provides a powerful explanation for this common behavior and skewed moral framework: sin. Such an exercise has resulted in much evil, but the answer is not another economic system (such as socialism) that will be practiced outside the correct moral framework too. The economic system (capitalism) is not necessarily the problem; the problem is the moral framework. That is what needs to be different.

And that leads me to my main point: we cannot merely set idly by in judgment of another’s evil decisions in the capitalist society, rather our recognition of the suffering of others due to evil choices not of their own is a call to self-assessment, self-judgment, and change. The Christian does not just watch the poor suffer at the hands of evil people because logic and morality forbid them to interfere in the affairs of the evil people. Instead, we must assess our own situation to make changes so that we can be the solution, so that “what (one) meant for evil, God meant for good” (Genesis 50:20).

“Give Like No One Else”

This does not require a change from capitalism and does not require us to use evil means to “right the wrong.” The foundational philosophy that drives the business of financial guru Dave Ramsey is this: “Live like no one else, so you can live and give like no one else.” The poor do not have to suffer because “in a moral capitalist society logic and morality do not permit us to force the rich to share their money”, rather the poor do not have to suffer because we have the free will to make the decision to make financial changes and sacrifices in our own lives so that we have excess to give to others.

Ramsey, though, explains in his book “Total Money Makeover” an important aspect of this kind of a change:

“To properly view behavior and to understand how to change behavior intelligently, we must consider several things. Behavior intelligently viewed takes into account the emotional, the relational, the family history, the socioeconomic impacts, and the spiritual. To ignore any of these while discussing behavior change about money is incomplete and a very naive.” (emphasis added)

I emphasized “spiritual” and the naivety of ignoring it because Ramsey goes on to say that the person must have a “heart-level makeover”. Without a change in our heart and worldview to accepting Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for our sins, we cannot have a heart-level makeover, and we are likely to fall into the same sin trap of the evil people who refuse to give to the poor. It is only through Christ that we can overcome this sin that we despise so much in others (Matt 7:1-5).

How This Discussion Leads to Christ

Earlier in the post, I pointed out that the intrinsic human value that grounds our moral outrage can only be found in the Christian worldview (via the doctrine of the Image of God). I also explained that only Christianity (through the recognition of man’s natural sinful state) can explain the evil behavior and actions (and will cause them to continue regardless of the economic system). Those who find the alignment of Christians with the conservative economic system of capitalism concerning must borrow from the Christian worldview in at least two areas to justify their concern (a third borrowing is also necessary for objective morality, which I didn’t expand on). Now, we see that the only logical and moral solution is through the affirmation of the truth of the Christian worldview (acceptance of Christ so that we can be the solution- the Body of Christ- again James 1:27). In the discussion of economics and the evil that has been seen, the skeptic of Christianity (who brings up these concerns) has four reasons on his or her economic concerns alone to accept the truth of the Christian worldview.

Conclusion

If our concern for the poor is authentic, and we truly want to see this issue solved, Christianity is the only option. Without Christ, there are only two equally despicable alternatives:

We either must resort to illogical and immoral means and “repay evil with evil.”

Or we must abandon our concern for the poor and just let them suffer at the hands of evil.

For the questioner who is in transition in their worldview, if this discussion is not enough to at least get them considering the truth of Christianity (perhaps they are tempted to accept one of the alternatives above), then I implore them to consider the evidence for the single historical claim that if it happened, Christianity is true and they have your answer to their economic concern, but if it did not happen, Christianity is false, and they are free to pick from the two options above. For the objective, historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I recommend these posts and books:

Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?

Book Review: Has Christianity Failed You?

Book Review: The Historical Jesus

Book Review: The Risen Jesus and Future Hope

Book Review: Cold-Case Christianity

NOTE: Along with the books I recommended above, I would also recommend another by Norman Geisler called “Christian Ethics: Issues and Options.” It goes into more detail about Christian morality and how it applies consistently across many different moral debates.

The Genuine Saint Nicholas

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

It may surprise you to discover that there really is a Santa Claus! The Santa Claus figure was taken from a genuine person of history. His name was Saint Nicholas of Myra. Earlier on BellatorChristi.com, I posted an article on this issue. However, I thought it necessary to update the article, especially now that my studies are focused on the Patristic Fathers which would include Nicholas of Myra.

Nicholas is one of the more popular saints in the Greek and Roman churches. However, not much is known about him historically. All evidence of him is scant at best. Nicholas is believed to have been born in the ancient Lycian seaport of Patara in Asia Minor around 280. As a young man, Nicholas journeyed to Israel and Egypt to study alongside the Desert Fathers, who may have included Saint Anthony the Great (c. 251–356) and Saint Abba Pachomius the Great (c. 292–348). Upon his return some years later, Nicholas was ordained as the Bishop of Myra, which is now known as Demre, a coastal town in modern-day Turkey. It is said that Emperor Diocletian imprisoned Nicholas before Constantine rose to power, legalizing Christianity in the Roman Empire, and releasing Nicholas and other Christians who had been imprisoned for their faith. During Nicholas’s time in prison, he was beaten numerous times but maintained his strong Christian convictions despite the torture he suffered.

Two acts of Nicholas made him legendary. First, Nicholas is noted for his great generosity. Nicholas came from a wealthy family and maintained a position of financial influence throughout his life. However, it is said that Nicholas walked by the home of a father who fell on hard times. The father and his family were so impoverished that his three daughters would be forced into slavery or prostitution to earn money to keep the family alive. While everyone was asleep, Nicholas reached through their window and tossed a bag of gold into the man’s shoes which were drying by the fireplace. The money would pay the dowry for the first daughter. No one in the household knew how the money was placed into the shoe. On the second night, Nicholas did the same to pay the dowry for the second daughter. On the third night, as Nicholas tossed the third bag of gold to pay for the third daughter’s dowry, a member of the household noticed that Nicholas was the benefactor and thanked him for his great generosity. Saint Nicholas was known to have secretly given gifts to the children of his community. It is said that Nicholas wore red robes and donned a long white beard (CatholicNewsAgency.com) and that children of the area would place shoes or stockings beside the fireplace in hopes that Nicholas would provide a gift to them.

Second, Nicholas is known for this theological faithfulness. While his name does not appear on the earliest lists, later lists include Nicholas of Myra as being one of the attendants of the Nicaean Council of 325. Like many of the aspects of Nicholas’s life, the following story is difficult to prove with any degree of certainty. The main area of focus for the Council of Nicaea was to decide whether Christ was eternally God, as argued by Athanasius of Alexandria, or if he was the first created being, as contended by Arius of Alexandria. During the heat of the discussion, Nicholas is said to have knocked out Arius of Alexandria. Nicholas did not approve of the heretical claims of Arius, so he took Arius into his own hands. Remember, it was Christ who helped Nicholas through the tortures he endured in prison. Someone saying something objectional about his Jesus transformed the otherwise generous, mild-mannered saint into a heavy-handed pugilist.

Nicholas died on December 6, 343 in Myra. The anniversary of his death became a day of remembrance and celebration for a man who held great orthodoxy (right beliefs) and orthopraxy (right actions). His feast day was later integrated into Christmas celebrations. Rather than claiming that Santa Claus is some pagan entity, the real Saint Nicholas is a reminder of what the Christian life should be as Nicholas lived out his faith (with the exception of knocking out heretics). While it is easy for us to live self-absorbed lives and to become bitter over things that may not have gone our way, it is much better to show the love of Christ by giving generously to others in need. The real Santa Claus, derived from Saint Nicholas, was a man of great faith and generosity. This Christmas season, let us also become people who focus on the meaning of the season while showing the love of Christ to others wherever we can.

Sources

Cross, F. L., and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 1155.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11063b.htm

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint/st-nicholas-of-myra-75

https://www.history.com/topics/christmas/santa-claus

https://www.stnicholascenter.org/who-is-st-nicholas

7 Legit Reasons Why So Many Kids are Bored by Church

Apologetics for Parents

By Natasha Crain

Last Sunday, our church did its annual multilingual service, with three congregations—Mandarin-speaking, Spanish-speaking, and English-speaking—all coming together for worship. We had readings in multiple languages, and a sermon was given in Spanish with an English translator. There was no Sunday school this week, so kids joined their parents in adult church.

When we informed our kids Sunday morning of what would be happening, there was a collective and passionate, “NOOOOOOOOOOOO!” (Honestly, I should have typed more o’s to reflect the true level of protest.)

“PLEASE, let us stay home! We can do home church! Please, not THAT service! It’s SO BORING!”

Apparently, they remembered it well from the prior year. We dragged them into the car in spite of the whining and endured their pleas all the way there.

I’d be lying if I said this was a rare occurrence of my kids not wanting to go to church. The nature of this service perhaps made them complain more loudly than normal, but there are plenty of typical Sundays when our kids ask, “Do we have to go?” I’d bet a lot of money that you’ve been asked the same.

The question of what to do when kids don’t want to go to church has been one of the most frequent ones I’ve received over the years from readers, and it’s one of the most commonly discussed questions in various Christian parenting forums (you can join my own Christian parenting group on Facebook by clicking here).

The running theme of kids’ complaints is usually that church is boring, and they don’t want to go because of it. Parents tend to assume it’s their job to convince their kids that church isn’t boring and are looking for ways to do so.

But that’s a really bad assumption.

I think there are actually quite a few legitimate reasons why so many kids are bored by the church and/or Sunday school. In other words, kids aren’t always just making up random excuses to not go; a lot of times, their avoidance reflects a genuine problem.

Here are several “legit” reasons for boredom at church that parents should consider.

There’s too much emphasis on fun at Sunday school.

This probably sounds counterintuitive. After all, if Sunday school is a lot of fun, then kids should want to go, right? No, no, and no. Now, if Sunday school truly was some kind of incredible amusement park-like experience, that could be the case (and kids would choose to go for the wrong reasons). But Sunday school “fun” usually consists of relatively mild amusement like crafts, foosbal, or maybe an indoor relay race using spoons and M&Ms.

This kind of “fun” can never compete with your child’s idea of fun at home, where they can do anything they want.

Of course, they will want to stay home; church fun is boring compared to home fun. When a Sunday school program focuses on entertainment, this is the natural apples-to-apples comparison a kid’s going to make. Who can blame them?

If most of what your kid takes away from church is that there’s a little lesson with a lot of social time, you’re going to have a hard time convincing them that “church” isn’t boring (when “church” is Sunday school entertainment in their mind).

“Adult” church is beyond their current grasp.

Parents sometimes try to get around the lack of substance found in many Sunday school programs by keeping their kids with them in “adult” church each week. This can work really well for some kids. My 11-year-old daughter has recently been opting out of Sunday school to come with us to adult church because she’s able to follow along and says she learns much more than in class. When my 9-year-old daughter saw that her sister was doing this, she wanted to come too. But when she did, she spent most of the service with her head on my shoulder trying to sleep—she just doesn’t have the interest or attention span yet that my older daughter does. When she told me after church that day that it was boring, I told her, “Of course it was! You chose to sleep!”

For kids like my older daughter, who want to attend adult church in lieu of Sunday school, this can be a great choice. But for those like my younger one who aren’t ready to track with what’s being taught and instead spend the time doodling in a bulletin or daydreaming, boredom will be the inevitable outcome. That doesn’t necessarily mean that kids’ Sunday school will be seen as less boring, but rather that adult church isn’t always the answer.

Their family attends church sporadically.

Every pastor I know laments the fact that families are attending church with less regularity than they used to, for all kinds of reasons (Sunday morning sports being a big one). A “regular” attender is now someone attending once per month.

I know this is going to rub some people the wrong way, but it’s important to say: A church could have the best Sunday school program in the world, but if a family only attends sporadically, it’s natural that a child will find it boring—they’re not really connected to what’s going on or what’s being taught. You can’t blame a kid for mentally checking out at that point.

Faith in their family is mostly about going to church on Sundays.

Even if your family attends church every week, if you’re not regularly praying together, studying the Bible together, and having conversations about faith at home, your kids will rightly wonder why they should bother going to church. Church will come to be seen as just one more thing they have to do each week, without any meaningful connection to their daily lives. In other words, it will become an unnecessary time burden in their minds because it’s irrelevant for the rest of the week.

They regularly engage in deep faith conversations at home.

Here’s another counterintuitive point, but I’ve seen it happen in a lot of families that are very committed to their faith. If your family consistently has deep faith conversations (the kinds I write about in my books, Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side and Talking with Your Kids about God), in all likelihood your kids are gaining a far more intellectually robust faith than they’ll get from the average Sunday school—and Sunday school will seem extremely boring in comparison. A telltale sign that this is the problem is when your kids complain they aren’t “learning anything” or say that it’s the “same stories over and over.”

Though parents often assume there’s some kind of problem with their kids’ spiritual development when they don’t want to attend Sunday school, it can mean the opposite in this case; kids may simply have much higher expectations for what should be discussed in a Sunday school environment and be bored by the 600^th telling of Noah’s ark followed by popcorn.

They have doubts about God or the truth of Christianity.

It should be obvious, but I’m surprised how many parents never consider this possibility: If kids have stopped believing in God or in the truth of Christianity, they’re going to find church boring.

Imagine for a moment that you had to attend a church (or other group) you didn’t agree with every single week, and someone expected you to take interest. They study a book you think is fiction but apply it as truth in their lives and think you should too. Chances are, you’d find that boring because you don’t believe what they do. Why study a fictional book so deeply each week?

In the same way, kids who no longer hold a faith in Jesus are going to get tired of hearing about Him every Sunday. It’s outside the scope of this post to weigh the pros and cons of making such kids attend church, but there are two points for our current purpose to take away here:

If your kids find church boring and/or fight you on going, have a conversation with them about what they currently believe regarding God, Jesus, and the Bible. You may be surprised by what you learn.
If you discover that their boredom with the church is rooted in unbelief, your greater concern (by far) should be to discuss their doubts and to have conversations about the evidence for the truth of Christianity.

They’re human.

On the drive to the church service I described at the beginning of this post, I turned to the kids in the back of the car and said, “Hey guys. I have something surprising to tell you.” They got quiet, and I continued.

“I don’t feel like going to church today either. I don’t really enjoy this particular service. I would rather be at home this morning.”

They looked at me with wide eyes, anticipating we might go home.

“But I’m going anyway. You see, as humans, it’s often easiest and very tempting to stay home from church on Sunday mornings. That’s a totally normal feeling, and adults have it too sometimes. But we make it a priority to go in spite of those occasional feelings for several reasons: 1) It’s one way of putting God first in our lives (by committing to church each Sunday morning); 2) Church isn’t only about learning—it’s also about worship, and worship transforms our relationship with God; and 3) It’s important to develop relationships with other believers and be in community (Hebrews 10:25). I’m not going to church this morning because I can’t think of anything else I’d like to be doing, but rather because I love the Lord, and this is one way I put him first.”

In other words, I explained to them why their boredom shouldn’t be the deciding factor in attending church.

I didn’t try to convince them that they shouldn’t ever think the church is boring.

This is a critical distinction for kids to understand because as I’ve hopefully shown in this post, there are many legitimate reasons why kids may find church boring at times. When they understand why church matters even when they find it boring, it can lead to far more productive conversations than just ramming heads every Sunday morning.

Stay tuned for next week’s blog post, when I’ll do a cover reveal with the table of contents for my new book coming in March! I’m so excited to share it with you! Also, I’m running a giveaway of four of my books on my blog’s Facebook page through December 5. If you don’t follow me there already or haven’t seen it, click over!

Was the Deity of Christ A Legendary Development?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Skeptics of all stripes vehemently deny the deity of Christ. Besides their a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism, a major argument they put forth is that the earliest Christians didn’t believe Jesus was divine. Rather, this belief in his deity was a legendary development, as evidenced by the four Gospels.

It’s the skeptics’ contention that the earliest Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) don’t teach a divine Jesus at all. Instead, they portray a very human Jesus. It’s not until the Gospel of John, written some sixty years after Jesus’ death, that we find a clear reference to Jesus’ divinity.

The argument goes; these Gospels reflect what the earliest communities believed about Jesus. Thus, the earlier Gospels, which don’t portray the deity of Christ, suggest that the earliest communities didn’t believe in the deity of Christ. Once we get to John, however, legends of Jesus’ divine nature have had time to spread throughout the Christian community, hence the high Christology in John.

Bart Erhman, Of Course, Agrees

Bart Ehrman sums up this view in this article:

The problem is that the only Gospel of the New Testament, where Jesus makes divine claims about himself is the Gospel of John. In the three earlier Gospels, you do not find Jesus saying things like “I and the Father are One,” or “Before Abraham was, I am,” or “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” These sayings are found only in the Fourth Gospel, as are all the other “I am” sayings, in which Jesus identifies himself as the one who has come from heaven to earth for the salvation of all who believe in him.

He goes on to say:

The most common way that scholars have explained this almost inexplicable omission in the Synoptic Gospels is simply that their authors did not think of Jesus as a divine being who was equal with God and pre-existed his birth, who became incarnate as the God-Man…

And the ultimate payoff is that this view of the Fourth Gospel is not the view of the historical Jesus himself. It is a later view put on his lips by the author of John or his sources.

Is Ehrman right? Was the deity of Christ a legendary development as he suggests? I don’t think so for at least two reasons.

Paul Writes Earlier Than the Gospels

First, hardly anyone disputes the fact that Paul wrote his letters before the Synoptic Gospels. And interestingly enough, Paul has an incredibly high Christology. Consider these two texts:

Romans 9:5

To them (the Jews) belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Writing sometime in the mid-fifties, here’s a clear reference to the deity of Christ. The legendary hypothesis doesn’t seem to work here. Nor does it with the next text.

Philippians 2:5-11

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

There’s little doubt this text proclaims Jesus as the pre-existent God of the universe. Paul gives us at least two reasons for reaching this conclusion.

First, he states that Jesus was “in the form of God.” The word for “form” in the Greek is morphe, which denotes the exact substance or nature of something.

Second, Paul suggests that Jesus was equal with God when he wrote that Jesus “did not count equality with God something to be grasped.”

What is especially interesting is that even though Paul penned these words, scholars agree that this portion of Philippians was an early Christian hymn dating much earlier than Paul’s letter itself.

In other words, the pre-Pauline Christian community sang these words in their corporate gatherings and collectively worshipped Jesus as God.

Larry Hurtado highlights this truth:

The singing/chanting of such odes is one of several phenomena that demonstrate the remarkable and innovative nature of early Christian worship, in which Jesus was programmatically included in the “devotional pattern” of early Christian circles along with God, and in ways otherwise reserved for God.1

While Ehrman and other skeptics try to persuade the masses that nobody believed in the deity of Christ until the end of the first century, Paul’s writings seem to indicate otherwise.

The Synoptic Gospels Highlight the Deity Of Christ Too

The second reason we should reject the legendary hypothesis is that the Synoptics, though not as explicit as John, still portray a divine Jesus. Let me give you a few examples:

Matthew 1:23

Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. And they shall call his name Immanuel, which means God with us.

From the very beginning, Matthew seems to indicate that this baby Jesus would be pretty special. Divine actually. His very name would mean “God with us” — a clear expression of the incarnation.

Mark 2:5-7

After the men had lowered the paralytic man down through the roof, Mark reports:

And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

The scribes ask a crucial question. Who can forgive sins but God alone? Of course, the answer is no one. Yet, we have Jesus pronouncing forgiveness upon this paralytic man, and backing up his pronouncement with a healing miracle.

Luke 1:16-17

As the forerunner of Jesus, Luke speaks of John the Baptist:

And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.

John’s prophetic role was to prepare the people of Israel for the coming Lord. And we know, based on the rest of the text, that coming Lord was Jesus himself.

Matthew 28:18-19

Jesus proclaims in the famous Great Commission:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Here at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus lumps himself in with the Trinity — God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Notice he uses the singular for “name” not plural “names.” In other words, Jesus understood himself as one with the Father and Spirit.

Mark 14:62

As Jesus stood on trial, the Jewish leaders asked if he was the Son of God. He unashamedly affirmed:

“I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One coming on the clouds of heaven”

It’s a common misconception to think that Jesus’ favorite title for himself — Son of Man — refers to his humanness. The exact opposite, however, is the case.

Jesus’ self-claim is actually a reference to a prophesy about a divine figure found in Daniel 7:13-14. That text reads:

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

It’s not hard to see the parallels between Jesus’ statement in Mark 14 and the prophesy in Daniel 7. Jesus claimed to be this apocalyptic figure who would come down from the clouds of heaven to judge the earth. He had all authority, glory, and power. All the nations would worship him, and his dominion would last forever. How could anyone think these qualities belonged to anyone other than God?

I could give several other examples, but this should suffice for now.

A Final Verdict

Skeptics have gotten a lot of mileage out of the claim that the deity of Christ was a legendary development. Yet, the data seems to suggest otherwise.

Despite not being as explicit as John, the synoptic Gospels still present a divine Jesus. They present him as the second person of the Trinity, the apocalyptic Son of Man from Daniel 7, and the one who has the authority to forgive sins.

Additionally, Paul — who wrote before any of the Gospels — presents an even higher Christology. Not only does he say things like Christ is God (Rom. 9:5), he quotes from pre-Pauline hymns that exalt the divinity of Jesus, demonstrating that the early Church believed in the deity of Christ from the very beginning.

It’s time we dispel the myth that the early Christians didn’t believe in the deity of Christ. As Richard Bauckham succinctly puts it, “The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology.”2 And who could argue based on the evidence?

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Failing Forward

The Problem: Info Overload

Starting Where I Was At

Setting the Right Goals

“Bringing Out of His Treasure What Is New and What Is Old”

DR. TIM MCGREW’S READING LIST

CONVERSATIONAL APOLOGETICS:

THE CHALLENGE OF SCIENCE

THE INCREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES

POSITIVE GENERAL APOLOGETICS:

POSITIVE BIBLICAL APOLOGETICS:

DEFENSIVE BIBLICAL APOLOGETICS:

WHAT IF I’M ON A SERIOUS BUDGET?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Promise of A Future Prophet Like Moses

Did the Future Prophet Come?

Jesus: The Prophet Like Moses

Similarities Between Jesus And Moses

Differences Between Jesus And Moses

Jesus Is Greater Than Moses

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Assumptions of the Culture

The World Turned Upside Down

Follow Your Heart

Philosophy Is About The Real World

Faith Communities Are Not Immune

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Experiencing the Christmas Story

Beyond Apologetics

God Keeps His Promises

Here’s the Point

Videos on Experiencing the Christmas Story

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

The Question:

My Response:

Limited Government

Intrinsic Human Value and Economics

Free Will and Economics

Sin In Conservative Economics

“Give Like No One Else”

How This Discussion Leads to Christ

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Bart Erhman, Of Course, Agrees

Paul Writes Earlier Than the Gospels

Romans 9:5

Philippians 2:5-11

The Synoptic Gospels Highlight the Deity Of Christ Too

Matthew 1:23

Mark 2:5-7

Luke 1:16-17

Matthew 28:18-19

Mark 14:62

A Final Verdict

Recommended resources related to the topic: