Christianity Archives - Page 61 of 106

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Was Jesus Married?

Every Christmas and Easter, I tend to get into conversations about Jesus with people who see Christianity differently. But I’ve also found that even Christians can ask questions raised by skeptics in the public square like, “Was Jesus married?” Often times, Christians find challenges to the Bible’s portrayal of Jesus in a popular book, movie, YouTube video, or somewhere online and wonder how to respond.

Recently, the question of whether or not Jesus had a wife has come up again. So, was Jesus married?

There is no ancient evidence that explicitly tells us that Jesus was married. But raising the question makes a good conspiracy theory. For example, think about popular conversations surrounding Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code, and the alleged “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” fragment. Still, it’s not the kind of thing that historians who study Jesus professionally spent a lot of time debating. In fact, there is a virtual consensus among professional Historical Jesus scholars that Jesus was single.

In this post, I share four challenges to this virtual consensus and show how historical data can help us understand cultural concerns. (1) Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene? (2) Was Jesus Married to the Woman Who Anointed Him? (3) Was Jesus Married Because He was a Rabbi? (4) Was Jesus Married Because He was Jewish?

Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene?

Why might some people think that Jesus was married? Here are four culturally-based questions that tend to come up in conversations about Jesus’ marital status.

First, it wasn’t common for Jewish women to travel or live alongside men in Jesus’ culture. So, some people wonder if this was socially acceptable only because Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife. But Luke says that there were three women who travelled with Jesus: Susanna, Joanna, and Mary Magdalene (8:1-3) And he doesn’t say anything that links Mary to Jesus as a wife at all. Beyond this, Jesus was known to challenge cultural views of how men and women should relate to one another, so operating outside the norm by letting women minister alongside him wasn’t a departure from his modus operandi. Later, as Jesus was dying on the cross, he didn’t show any special attention to Mary Magdalene, but instead gave special attention to his mother and John.

Was Jesus Married to the Woman Who Anointed Him?

Second, some people wonder if the sinful woman who anointed Jesus was actually his wife (Luke 7:36-50). They reason that the whole situation wouldn’t have been as offensive to a Jewish audience if the woman was married to Jesus. But Luke reports that the whole situation was in fact offensive, which is why the Pharisee said “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (Luke 7:39). That objection wouldn’t make a lot of sense if the woman was Jesus’ wife.

Was Jesus Married Because He was a Rabbi?

Third, some people argue that since Jesus was a rabbi, he would have gotten married because that was the tradition of the rabbis. But this starts from a faulty premise. Even though people called Jesus, “teacher” and “rabbi,” he actually wasn’t a rabbi in any official Jewish capacity. This is one reason why the Jewish leaders were often challenging his authority to interpret the law. Beyond this, his teaching about becoming a (metaphorical) eunuch for the sake of the kingdom seems to relate to his own example of singleness and devotion to God (Matthew 19:10-12).

Was Jesus Married Because He was Jewish?

Fourth, some say that Jesus had to be married because he was Jewish—as if all Jewish men in the first century felt compelled to marry by their culture. But this just isn’t true. Again, it’s based on a false premise. We know there were first-century Jews who chose to remain single. And their singleness was nothing to be ashamed of in their culture. Some people even looked up to them for it.

A Hellenistic Jew, Philo of Alexandria, wrote that not all Jews thought they had to be married. In fact, some very pious Jews tried to avoid being married as part of their religious devotion (Hypothetical 11.14-17).

The Essenes were a Jewish sect that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the Qumran caves. They were very concerned about being faithful Jews. These Jews didn’t think they had to be married and chose to be celibate for religious reasons. For them, it helped them keep God as their top priority. Still, archeologists have discovered evidence that there were a minority of women who lived alongside the men at Qumran. This goes to show that Jewish women did live alongside some pious Jewish men who chose to stay single.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, for the Essenes, celibacy was not required, but it was strongly encouraged. He said that they admired abstinence, even to the point where they “neglect wedlock” (Jewish War 2.8.2.121-22).

Josephus also said that many Jews admired the Essenes because of their religious commitment (Antiquities 18.1.5.20). So, not all Jewish men felt compelled to get married, and their singleness was nothing to be ashamed of because it was part of their religious devotion. Paul actually mentions a similar idea in a Christian context (1 Corinthians 7). Which brings me to an extra observation.

Paul on Marriage and Singleness

Here’s a little bonus: It’s interesting to see how Paul does not refer to Jesus in a couple of discussions about marriage and singleness. On the one hand, he didn’t appeal to Jesus while telling the Corinthians about how a pastor had the right to be married (1 Cor 9:4-7). If Jesus was married, this would be the perfect place to say, “Since Jesus was married, all pastors can be married, too.”

On the other hand, when Paul gives his own personal advice about staying single, he doesn’t mention Jesus either. This is because he wasn’t telling Christians that they had to stay single in order to be fully devoted to God. So, he didn’t want to say, “Since Jesus was single, all Christians should be single, too.” Jesus never taught that, and putting an end to families would spell the end of the Christian movement! Still, my point is that Paul’s silence about Jesus’ marital status in these discussions makes good sense if Jesus was single.

Jesus was Single

So, was Jesus married? No. All the data supports the virtual scholarly consensus that Jesus was single. Contrary to what some might say about first-century Jewish culture, a pious Jewish man could remain single and have no problem fitting in with Jewish society. Jewish culture did understand and appreciate singleness, especially when connected to a lifestyle of religious devotion.

A Neglected Proof for the Resurrection – The Sign of Jonah

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

When arguing for the resurrection of Jesus, Christian apologists often make a historical case for the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus that occurred after his death. I’d certainly never say that isn’t a legitimate way to argue, but there’s an additional reason to believe in the resurrection that flies under the radar: Jesus’ resurrection was a fulfillment of Scripture. The New Testament writers are pretty emphatic on this point.

Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead… (Luke 24:45-46)

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…(1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

Here’s where I’ve always been puzzled — the phrase that the Messiah was to be raised from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures. What scriptures exactly are Luke and Paul referring to? Many commentators say that the third-day is referencing Hosea 6:2, which reads, “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.” But from the context, the passage refers to national Israel. It’s a bit of a stretch to turn this into a reference about the Messiah, and none of the NT writers used this verse as a proof text. In fact, it’s not until the early third century do we see this verse applied to Jesus by the church father, Tertullian.

Not your Flannel Graph Version of the Story of Jonah

Some clarity came to me regarding this strange and confusing passage when I read The Case for Jesus by Dr. Brant Pitre. To understand this 3rd-day motif, Pitre says we have to go back to the gospels themselves. What did Jesus say?

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (Matthew 12:38-41)

Pitre says that at first blush, this interpretation feels a bit forced, and I have to admit it, I’ve always felt the same way. OK, three days and three nights…there’s a parallel there, but it doesn’t feel all that impressive. No disrespect to Jesus, but Jonah feels like a fictional kid’s story to us; our minds often flash to Veggie Tales movies or children’s books when we think of it. In these kid’s version stories, Jonah is very much alive in the fish’s belly.

And it’s for that reason that even Muslim apologists like Shabir Ally and Zakir Naik will cherry-pick this very text to show that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross, verifying the Qu’ran’s supposed accuracy. (Qu’ran 4:157-158) But here’s where our modern minds and the Muslim apologists get it wrong. If you read the text, Jonah very clearly dies in the belly of the great fish. I completely overlooked this.

Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the stomach of the fish, and he said,

“I called out of my distress to the Lord, And He answered me. I cried for help from the depth of Sheol; You heard my voice. “You had cast me into the deep, Into the heart of the seas, And the current engulfed me. All Your breakers and billows passed over me. “So I said, ‘I have been expelled from Your sight. Nevertheless, I will look again toward Your holy temple.’ “Water encompassed me to the point of death. The great deep engulfed me, Weeds were wrapped around my head. “I descended to the roots of the mountains. The earth with its bars was around me forever, But You have brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God. “While I was fainting away, I remembered the Lord, And my prayer came to You, Into Your holy temple. “Those who regard vain idols Forsake their faithfulness, But I will sacrifice to You With the voice of thanksgiving. That which I have vowed I will pay. Salvation is from the Lord.”

Then the Lord commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah up onto the dry land. Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh…” (Jonah 2:1-3:2)

The Sign of Jonah – Jonah Was Raised from the Dead

Pitre gives three arguments to support the miraculous death and resurrection of Jonah.

First, the phrases belly of Sheol and the Pit are Old Testament terms that refer to the realm of the dead. (See Job 7:9, 33:18, Psalm 40:2, 49:14-15, 89:48)

Secondly, the Hebrew says that his soul or nephesh fainted, meaning he took his last breath like a dying man.

Lastly, when God says to, Jonah “arise” this is the Hebrew word קוּם. This is the same word Jesus used when he raised Jairus’ daughter from the dead. Mark 5:41 reads Taking the child by the hand, He *said to her, “Talitha kum!” (which translated means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”)

Woah. So now the Jonah parallel makes a lot more sense! But wait, there’s a whole lot more going on here! In the Jewish reader’s mind, hearing about someone being raised from the dead would be interesting but not mind-blowingly significant. After all, the widow of Zarephath’s son, Shunammite woman’s son, and an Israelite man who came in contact with Elisha’s bones were all raised from the dead. There’s no major religious significance tied with these events, other than they show Elijah and Elisha were powerful prophets.

Pitre argues that there was an even greater miracle that happened with Jonah — Nineveh actually repented! Now, if you know anything about Old Testament history, Nineveh was no friend of Israel. The historical Nineveh was the capital of the Assyrian empire in the late seventh century BC. There was no love lost between the ancient Israelites and Nineveh. The city’s king, Sennacherib, laid siege to Jerusalem in 701 BC (2 Kings 18:13-19:37). Nahum, the prophet, practically rejoices over Nineveh’s destruction by the Babylonians in 612. He says Nineveh is a “city of bloodshed.” (Nah 3:1)

It’s for these reasons Jonah ran the other direction. Jonah, like many Jews of the time, hated Nineveh.

The Sign of Jonah – The Gentiles Repent and Worship the God of Israel

So when Jesus says to the Pharisees that they only sign they would see is the sign of Jonah, he’s not only saying that he’d rise from the dead, but also that the resurrection would turn the pagan Gentiles to the God of Israel. But instead of just one pagan nation turning, much of the Gentile world would turn to God.

If you know about the history of Christian apologetics, the success of the church was what Christian thinkers from Augustine to Aquinas would point to as proof of the truth of the gospel. Says Pitre:

“Over and over again, whenever the early church fathers wanted to make the case for the messiahship, divinity, and resurrection of Jesus, they did not (as a rule) point to the evidence for the empty tomb, or the reliability of the eyewitnesses. They did not get into arguments about the historical probability and evidence and such. Instead, they simply pointed to the pagan world around them that was crumbling to the ground as Gentile nations that had worshiped idols and gods and goddesses for millennia somehow inexplicably repented, turned, and began worshiping the God of the Jews.”

This tiny band of vagabond fishermen turned the world upside down, and their effect was seen generations later until now. Christianity has spread all over Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia in the first-century and is more recently rapidly spreading all over Africa, South America, and even in Communist China. And of course, Christianity is prevalent in North America and in parts of Europe today. Billions of non-Jews from all nations have repented and worshiped the God of Israel over the past two millennia. The fourth-century church historian Eusebius’ words are still apt today:

“Behold how today, yes in our own times, our eyes see not only Egyptians, but every race of men who used to be idolaters, whom the prophet meant when he said “Egyptians,” released from the errors of polytheism and the daemons, and calling on the God of the prophets!…

Yes, in our own time, the knowledge of the Omnipotent God shines forth and sets a seal of certainty on the forecasts of the prophets. You see this actually going on, you no longer only expect to hear of it, and if you ask the moment when the change began, for all your inquiry, you will receive no other answer but the moment of the appearance of the Saviour.

For He it was, of Whom the prophet spoke, when he said that the Supreme God and Lord would send a man to the Egyptians, to save them, as also the Mosaic oracles taught in these words: “A man shall come forth from his seed, and shall rule over many nations”; among which nations the Egyptians would certainly be numbered. But a great deal could be said on these points, and with sufficient leisure, one could deal with them more exhaustively. Suffice it to say now, that we must hold to the truth, that the prophecies have only been fulfilled after the coming of Jesus our Saviour.

… And who would not be struck by the extraordinary change—that men who for ages have paid divine honour to wood and stone and demons, wild beasts that feed on human flesh, poisonous reptiles, animals of every kind, repulsive monsters, fire and earth, and the lifeless elements of the universe should after our Saviour’s coming pray to the Most High God, Creator of Heaven and earth, the actual Lord of the prophets, and the God of Abraham and his forefathers?” (Proof of the Gospel, 1.6.20-21)

The Old Testament prophets said that one day, the pagan nations would worship the God of Abraham. This was a fulfillment of many passages of Scripture foretold centuries before. Just check out Genesis 12:3, Isaiah 2:1-3, Isaiah 25:6-8, Isaiah 66:18-21, Jeremiah 3:15-18, Micah 4:1-2, Zechariah 8:20-23 and Amos 9:11-12. Only now in hindsight can we see this obvious fulfillment. That this prophesied change perfectly coincides with the life, death, and resurrection appearances of Jesus piles on a powerful additional proof on top of our modern-day historical resurrection argument. We’d do well to not neglect it.

One Woman’s Quest for Straight Answers from Public Health Organizations

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Terrell Clemmons

After three years’ research on traumatic brain injuries he’d seen in prematurely deceased football players, Dr. Bennet Omalu wrote a paper in 2005 detailing his findings on the syndrome he named Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). He was hopeful that NFL doctors would build on his discovery for the well-being of NFL athletes. But instead of welcoming his data, an NFL medical committee called for it to be retracted. A thoroughgoing medical scientist, Omalu would do no such thing, and it took a full four more years of increasing pressure before the NFL publicly acknowledged the link between concussions sustained on the field and CTE.

A similar kind of David versus Goliath challenge may be developing between investigative journalist Punam Kumar Gill and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). A Canadian citizen of Indian descent and a lifelong pro-choice feminist, Gill became troubled after hearing questions raised about potential long-term risks of induced abortion. An honest investigator, she was quick to notice two things: (1) Although the questions did not concern the legality of abortion, because they were associated with abortion, few people seemed willing to listen, let alone talk about them. And (2) she herself might be guilty of allowing bias to blind her to a valid women’s issue where one might lie.

The dual discovery set her mind to thinking: What if there really were critical health risks to abortion? What were women actually being told before having one? And how were they doing afterwards? These were serious health care concerns, in some cases, matters of life and death. Shouldn’t they be discussed openly, rather than being dismissed as pro-life propaganda?

An Unlikely Team & A Balanced Report

She thought they should be, as did pro-life filmmaker Joses Martin of Mighty Motion Pictures. And so, although they came down on opposite sides of the pro-choice/pro-life divide, Gill and Martin teamed up to search out the truth about these questions for the sake of women everywhere. Their investigation is chronicled in the excellently produced documentary Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women’s Health. Here’s an overview.

Abortion & Breast Cancer

Gill interviewed several medical doctors. Is there evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer? She asked. Yes, said Dr. Ian Gentles, coauthor of Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women (2013); there have been “many dozens of studies [that] show a real, statistically significant link.” Yes, said Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon who has seen it in a textbook and in her practice. No, said Dr. David Grimes, an ob-gyn and abortionist for more than four decades, “there are no long-term consequences from abortion.” This issue is settled, he said. Doing continued studies would not only be inappropriate but unethical.

Thus, right off the bat, Gill and Martin encountered the deep divide between medical professionals. But Grimes had underscored his point by adding that his opinion was the same as that of all the major medical organizations. This did seem to add credibility to the “no consequences” side, so that’s where they went next.

One after another, Gill contacted them: The American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society. The National Cancer Institute. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London. The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. And finally, the World Health Organization. But to her surprise, not only would none of them consent to an interview, they would not even speak to her. Not one. The case was closed, they all said. Anything she needed to know could be found on their website. It was as if they were all working off the same script.

With no other option, and now starting to feel suspicious of those denying any link, Gill went to their websites. Each one referred to a 2003 conference held by the NIH cancer division, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where it had been concluded once and for all that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. Upon this discovery, she tried again to speak with someone at the NCI, going so far as to visit in person. But when she arrived, she was swiftly escorted off the grounds by security. What was going on here?

A thoroughgoing journalist, Gill was not one to be intimidated into silence. She continued to dig and question until, eventually, she located a recording of the 2003 conference online and got to the bottom of the “no abortion-breast cancer link” conclusion. She explains her findings in some detail in the film but suffice it here to say that a careful look raises serious questions about who or what dictated the outcome of this seminal conference. Was it honest medical science? Or was it abortion politics?

Abortion & Pre-term Birth

Pre-term birth rates have doubled in the U.S. since Roe. Every year, more than 11,000 newborns die on the day of their birth in America due to prematurity, and those that survive exact untold emotional and financial costs on health care resources and families before ever leaving the hospital. After discharge, they face heightened risks of such lifelong disabilities as cerebral palsy, autism, chronic lung disease, and other vital organ maladies.

“It seems there’s a real clear unwillingness to deal with the science on this,” said Dr. Martin McCaffrey, a neonatologist who has frontline experience in caring for preemies and their families. He was invited in 2008 to serve as an expert panel member at the Surgeon General’s Conference on Preventing Preterm Birth, held by the NIH. He brought up the abortion-prematurity link and presented 122 articles as supportive evidence, but the co-chairs would not allow discussion, even though the link has been demonstrated in more than 80 studies. McCaffrey estimates that abortion accounts for 18 percent of very preterm births (earlier than 32 weeks’ gestation), yet in all the material published to raise awareness of prematurity, there is no mention of prior abortion as a possible risk factor. None. The question is, why not?

Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects

This has been covered in Salvo before. Gill cites the alarmingly high rates of such maladies as PTSD, eating disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicide in post-abortive women, but the most moving evidence of post-abortion trauma comes from the post-abortive women she interviews, many of whom suffer heart-wrenching grief and regret decades later.

Shouldn’t women considering abortion be provided with this information? Gill asks. No, insists Dr. Grimes, the abortionist. That would be “a very overt attempt to dissuade or discourage women from exercising their right to have an abortion.” Apparently this is what passes in his world for medical ethics.

The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent

For people of conscience, though, informed consent matters, and women considering abortion deserve factual information. Since neither the abortion industry nor the bureaus of medical apparatchiks will so much as countenance the data, Gill and Martin have brought it to the public themselves. Meanwhile, they continue to press the NIH and NCI to address the questions Hush raises, but so far, they have received no response beyond the same scripted suggestions to visit the NCI website, which in turn still cites the 2003 conference.

Hush is top-notch work. In many ways, you, the viewer, feel like you’re along on their quest. And where appropriate, well-crafted graphics depict the medical explanations, making the breast cancer and pre-term birth connections understandable.

“Over time,” said Dr. Patrick Fagan, who coauthored a 2014 paper on the abortion-breast cancer link, “the 2003 NCI conference is going to become an embarrassment in the history of the NCI itself.” Indeed, it may. It took Dr. Omalu four years to awaken the conscience of the NFL. The consciences of the NIH and NCI have already been slumbering for over thirteen years. One can hope that Hush will, paradoxically, finally wake them up.

45 Quotes About Relativism vs. Truth

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

“When it comes to truth, the outcome affects not only individuals but nations and even civilizations. What starts looking like a small abstract issue ends with titanic, public consequences for all who love freedom and justice.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Although someone’s beliefs and assumptions may not be true and do not describe reality, they will still drive their behavior. So if someone doesn’t believe in truth, count on him to lie. If someone says there are no objective facts, expect her to be careless with facts to further her own interests. If someone explains everything by referring to evolution and the ‘selfish gene,’ be sure that at some point, he will be extremely selfish on behalf of the fitness of his own survival.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Our challenge today is not to lament, protest, or simply talk about the crisis of truth in one of a hundred ways. Rather, it is to do something about it by becoming people of truth and learning to live free.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Far from being a naive and reactionary notion, truth is one of the simplest, most precious gifts without which we would not be able to handle reality or negotiate life.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“When nothing can be judged except judgment itself– ‘judgmentalism’–the barriers between the unthinkable, acceptable, and doable collapse entirely. And then, since life goes on and the sky doesn’t fall, people draw the conclusion that the original concern was unfounded. Lighten up, the newly amoral say as they skip forward blithely, complicit in their own corruption.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“If truth is truth, then differences make a difference — not just between truth and lies but between intimacy and alienation in relationships, between harmony and conflict in neighborhoods, between efficiency and incompetence in business, between reliability and fraud in science and journalism, between trust and suspicion in leadership, between freedom and tyranny in government, and even between life and death.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
“Right up to the end of the nineteenth century, the most important course in an American student’s college career was moral philosophy, or what we today call ethics.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Much of today’s focus is on ‘prevention ethics’ rather than on principled ethics. It is more concerned with ‘not being caught’ (or sued or exposed in the press) than with doing right.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“What is seen as important are issues related to corporations, schools, courts, governments, and the treatment of the environment– not the individual’s virtue and responsibility that underlie these secondary issues.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“The current ethics is often taught with a shallow view of human nature and an even more superficial view of evil in human society.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“The emphasis now is on surface, not depth; on possibilities, not equalities; on glamour, not convictions; on what can be altered endlessly; not achieved for good; and on what can be bought and won, not gained by education and formation.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“The present preoccupation with ethics in elite intellectual centers has an element of absurdity because they have no moral content left to teach. The fruit of the Western universities in the last two hundred years has been to destroy the possibility of any moral knowledge on which to pursue moral formation.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“If truth is contingent upon the society in which we live…there is nothing intuitive or universally or absolutely true about freedom from torture or freedom from slavery; our society just happens to have come up with these values over time.” Stephen McAndrew, Why It Doesn’t Matter What YOU Believe If It’s Not True

“If moral truths do not exist as a foundation for law, then the law itself becomes merely a system of raw political power accountable to no one.” Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life

“Just as iron filings are drawn to the strongest magnet, so minds weakened by a loss of truth are drawn to the most powerful positions.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“What happens when we succeed in cutting away truth-claims to expose the web of power games only to find we have less power than the players we face? If truth is dead, right and wrong are neither, and all that remains is the will to power, then the conclusion is simple: Might makes right. Logic is only a power conspiracy. Victory goes to the strong, and the weak go to the wall.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Just as the Greeks entered Troy concealed in the hollow wooden statue of a horse, so post-modernism is providing the cover for all sorts of ideas and practices to enter American life–ideas that on their own would have difficulty gaining entrance.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Short of total isolation, the American society you live in today is going to influence how your children make moral choices in one way or another. Stop and think about it. What are the voices of society telling your children about the choices they are about to make? What is the central theme that today’s culture emphasizes over and over again? If you were to reduce it to a single sentence, it might look like this: You have the right to choose for yourself what is right for you and what is wrong for you–and no one should judge that choice.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“When nothing can be judged except judgment itself— ‘judgmentalism’—the barriers between the unthinkable, acceptable, and doable collapse entirely.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“If everything is endlessly open to question and change, then everything is permitted, nothing is forbidden, and literally nothing is unthinkable.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Applying to the skeptics the skepticism they apply to others [pushes] them out toward the negative consequences of their own beliefs.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“While all beliefs appear consistent to those who believe them, they always have one of two problems. They are either constricting or contradictory. In the first case, the beliefs are more consistent but are incomplete in the sense that they are too small for the fullness of life…And in the second case, the beliefs are more comprehensive but are inconsistent—which in the worst cases makes them self-refuting- a problem Chesterton calls ‘the suicide of thought.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Inevitably, moral choices based on our own moral compass will often be wrong choices. And wrong moral choices can result in consequences ranging from minor disappointments to major disasters emotionally, relationally, physically, and spiritually.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“It is that truth, like meaning as a whole, is not for to us to create but for us to discover. Each of us may be small, our lives short, and our influence puny. But if truth is there—objective, absolute, independent of minds that know it— then we may count on it.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“In order to discover truth it is necessary to coldly dissect and examine all of our prejudices and inherent biases to ensure we receive unbiased answers. This takes effort. It is always easier to simply accept the ideas presented to us than to question the status quo.” Stephen McAndrew, Why It Doesn’t Matter What YOU Believe If It’s Not True

“While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
“We are all entitled to our own beliefs, but this doesn’t mean each of us has our own truths. Our beliefs describe the way we think the world is. Truth describes the objective state of the world, regardless of how we take it to be. Beliefs can be relative, but truth cannot. So when we consider the nature of truth—that it is an objective description of reality—it makes no sense to say that something is true for you and not for me.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Without truth, a belief may be only speculation plus sincerity.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“It is often said that to have a fulfilling life, three essentials are required: a clear sense of personal identity, a deep sense of faith and meaning, and a strong sense of purpose and mission.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“For those who find themselves without faith in God and who conclude that the world they desire does not fit with the world they discover, life is fundamentally deaf to their aspirations.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“For all the fragile precariousness of our human existence on our tiny earth in the vastness of space, we may throw the whole weight of our existence on God, including our truth-seeking desires, because he is wholly true.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Those who put their faith in God do so for all sorts of good reasons, but the very best reason is that they are finally, utterly, and incontrovertibly convinced that the faith which they put their confidence in is true.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“All truth is God’s truth and is true everywhere, for everyone, under all conditions. Truth is true in the sense that it is objective and independent of the mind of any human knower. Being true, it cannot contradict itself.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“The beauty of intolerance is its opposition to wrong and evil in the world—in alignment with God’s righteous and perfect standard of justice, equality, human rights, and caring for others. Intolerance of evil is not mean-spirited and condemnatory; it is actually the only way to be loving and caring.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“What is more beautiful than God’s intolerance expressed in his moral outrage toward the tragedies of poverty, racism, sexual abuse, slavery, AIDS, bigotry, and other such evils?” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Human beings are truth-seekers by nature, and truth persuades by the forces of its own reality.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“It is impossible to experience love without being truthful, and it is impossible to discover truth without loving it.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Truth is our best friend, and it is an inseparable part of what real love is. While cultural tolerance may disguise itself as caring, understanding, and loving, it lacks the moral authority of an authentic love that looks out for the best interest of others. That is another quality of authentic, real love—it is always other-focused.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“As human beings, we are by nature truth-seekers; as fallen human beings, we are also by nature truth-twisters. And a proper account of truth in the human project must do justice to both.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Conforming our desires to the truth is harder in the short term but easier in the long. We give up our need for control and submit to truth outside us, which, if we were wrong about truth before, requires repentance rather than rationalization. We have to face up to reality rather than trying to fit reality into our schemes. But the long-term outcome is freedom because…truth is freedom and we are engaging with reality at it truly is.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“What distinguishes God’s unconditional acceptance from that of our culture is authentic love. His love is intended to make the security, happiness, and welfare of another as important as his own. It is other-focused, not performance-focused. God knows the real truth about us—that we were created in his image—and that truth allows him to separate the person from performance. God unconditionally values us for who we are without always approving of what we do because he separates the value of the person from the acts of the person.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“The Christian faith is not true because it works; it works because it is true. It is not true because we experience it; we experience it—deeply and gloriously—because it is true. It is not simply ‘true for us’; it is true for any who seek in order to find.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

What a Non-Christian Taught Me about the Gospel

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Dr. Dave Oldham

A number of years ago, a young woman came to our church for counseling and talked to me. She poured out her story of disappointment with her husband’s unfaithfulness, his unwillingness to change, and the mess her life had become, not only because of him but also because of her own unwise choices. She felt she was in a hole and wanted to know how to get out and begin afresh. While she was sharing and I looked into her searching eyes, I was asking myself and God how he and the healing he alone could bring might fit into her life. I knew she needed Jesus and the forgiveness and hope he would give, but I struggled with how to tell her she needed him. How did “accepting Jesus as her Savior” fit into the prospects that her past life would not continue to make her its slave? In short, how did the Gospel offer a new light to her path?

As I continued to think about what to say to her—though this was only a brief few minutes in the counseling session—it seemed that immediately inviting her to ask God for his forgiveness wasn’t the solution to her problems. Indeed, as I thought and prayed about what counsel to give her, it didn’t seem like the typical “altar call” invitation to accept Christ would be understood by her because of her lack of background in the Christian faith. She had not come for “religion” but for a solution to her life that she considered a mess.

Yet, I was a pastor and a Christian counselor. The struggle in my mind as I listened to her difficult story forced me to ask some of the hardest questions about my understanding of the gospel and Christianity. I think in those moments, God was doing something in me, something that would radically change my thinking from that time on. It is easy to say, “Jesus is the answer!” but the question that was pulsating in my mind was “How does God—especially, the message of salvation—fit into this young lady’s mess (damage, brokenness) and offer a future and a hope?”

I had been reading a book by Scott McKnight (The Gospel of the Kingdom)[1] in which he was debating where a person ought to begin in explaining the Gospel, the good news about God’s transformation in the lives of his people. He noted that far too often, Christians begin with the account of Jesus’ death as our substitute and the forgiveness that he made possible. But as I sat there with this young lady in my office, my mind said that was not the place to begin to guide her and help her find a new direction, new hope, a new chapter in her life. Then, I remembered McKnight’s words: The Gospel must begin with Adam and Eve’s fall in the garden. The perfect—sinless couple, undamaged, “innocent” as they came from the creative hand of God—became, like all of us, rebels. They freely chose to spurn God’s recipe for living in the paradise in which God had placed them. But from eternity past, God had a plan. He knew that his creatures (then and ever since then) would need a way of restoration, a restoration that was a path of healing for disobedience and the consequent damages. His plan begins with their (and our) acknowledgement that they had gone their own way, that they had chosen a way to live “better” than God’s. This rejection of the Creator’s design was and is a personal affront to God. This the Bible calls “sin.” And such choices have consequences; sometimes as the shipwreck, it makes in our lives, but—beyond that—our rebellion has put us in serious jeopardy with God. Though he loves us, his creatures as no one else does or ever will—he is a God of justice and must punish our sins. Punishment doesn’t sound like love, but here is where the good news begins.[2] He will be our judge, but he also wants to be our benefactor, offering us forgiveness because his beloved Son took on himself our punishment, the consequences of our sin. His forgiveness is a gift he offers for all.

Thus, the beginning of our restoration is seeking, asking for the forgiveness Jesus died to make possible, resting in God’s punishment of his Son for a restored standing with him. But God does something beyond forgiveness. He makes us his children; he adopts into his family, and though we (sadly) will and do disobey again, he has committed himself by his Spirit to take our brokenness and lead us to restoration and healing, a healing that follows the path Jesus taught. Jesus said his teachings were not “new,” but were in the Old Testament Scriptures. What in particular? A scribe asked that very question:

“What is the Greatest Commandment?” His response: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22).

Our mission statement as new children of God is to do these two: to love God with our whole being (to love what he loves; to think how he thinks—which is discovered by reading and reflecting on the Scriptures; to be what he is: “holy,” set apart for God’s use; and to do what Jesus did.), and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Restoration for this young lady—and for us—(1) begins with a brokenness because she/we have rejected God’s way (even if we did not do it knowingly); (2) progresses with asking God for his forgiveness; and (3) continues by depending on God’s power (the Holy Spirit) to restore her/our life to God’s ideal. The following illustration pictorially summarizes McKnight’s concept:

This is the new way, and it can be best lived in a “new community” with other children of God who are committed to the same mission: God’s mission. Dieter Zander put it well when describing his mission, he said:

This…work…[is] to form communities of people that produce apprentices of Jesus who live in the gospel and communicate and draw others in a matter of course to the way they live…. [Far too often, echoing Dallas Willard] the gospel is informing how we die. Instead, the gospel ought to be about how we live! A lot of church people don’t know the relationship between the gospel of Jesus and how we are to live…. Their belief is that they try to believe in Jesus so that when they die, they get to go to heaven. Populating heaven is the main part of the gospel. Instead, the gospel is about being increasingly alive to God in the world. It is concerned with bringing heaven to earth.

God’s plan, then, is not only for people to find forgiveness (the beginning) but for wholeness and restoration to God’s image. This gives broken people hope. Because of Jesus, they can be forgiven. Because of the Spirit, there can be transformation. And because of the relationship with other children of God, she/they can be inspired to live out their commitment to God before a watching world.

Notes

[1] Two other seminal resources are Dallas Willard’s, The Divine Conspiracy and N. T. Wright’s, Jesus and the Victory of God and The Challenge of Jesus: Discovering Who Jesus Was and Is.

[2] Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, 44: “Clearly, the gospel is not restricted to a message giving an individual assurance about eternal destiny. It is minimally that, but it is much more, being concerned as much with life before death as with life after death. When people are reconciled to God through Christ, they become a ‘new creation’ (2 Cor. 5:17). They first experience God’s reconciliation, often in community, which results in a life of radical transformation. The primary reference point is no longer their former alienation but their present and future identification as part of God’s new order, which was inaugurated with the first coming of Christ.”

Did Paul really change his tactics after Athens and begin to take a dim view of apologetics?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Some Christians have argued that apologetics is a waste of time. We aren’t supposed to be arguing with unbelievers; we’re just called to preach the simple gospel. If we’re faithful to do that, the Holy Spirit will supernaturally come to our aid — either in supernatural conviction, or performing signs and wonders through us that no one can gainsay.

To support this view, these well-meaning believers will point to Paul’s so-called ‘failure’ in Athens. Paul debated with the thinkers of Mars Hill, using natural theology and quoting their own philosophers in order to persuade them of the truth of the gospel. Paul’s results were modest. Acts 17:32-34 reads: “Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.”

After Athens, Paul moved on to Corinth and switched up his approach, or so the story goes. In 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5, Paul says that the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing. He quotes Isaiah, who wrote that “God will destroy the wisdom of the wise,” which included the ballyhooed wisdom of the Greeks. God isn’t calling very many of those who are wise by worldly standards.

Paul says that when he came to the Corinthians, he didn’t come to them with lofty speech or wisdom. He decided to know nothing but Jesus and him crucified and came in demonstration of the Holy Spirit and power. In 1 Cor. 4:20, Paul continues this line of thought, saying the kingdom of God doesn’t consist in talk but in power.

So these critics argue that for Paul, using fancy arguments and evidence wasn’t necessary anymore. He learned this the hard way at the Areopagus.

Here’s the thing about this view: While there is some seemingly some biblical evidence that Paul switched things up with the Corinthians, it just isn’t true that Paul didn’t continue to use evidence and arguments in order to persuade people to become Christians. We just have to keep reading.

Did Paul give up on using reason and evidence after Athens?

For starters, let’s see how Luke records Paul’s visit to Corinth. Acts 18:3 says: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.” The Jews later tried to get Paul arrested, saying to the proconsul, “This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law.” (v. 13).

Paul clearly was still in the business of trying to persuade people. This pattern continues in the very next chapter when Paul goes to Ephesus. Check out Acts 19:8-10:

“And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. This continued for two years so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews, and Greeks.”

Paul was reasoning in the synagogues. When the Jews weren’t having it, he moved on and rented out the lecture hall of Tyrannus and was “reasoning daily,” there for two whole years. He did this until everyone in the area heard the gospel. This almost sounds like a daily public Q+A session. As Peter May writes:

“for Paul, a lively exchange of views, in which he presented the gospel. By engaging with [the culture in the cities in Acts], he challenged their assumptions, clarified the issues, stormed their defences, provoked their questions, addressed their doubts, and presented the gospel in a compelling manner. This sort of “inter-faith” dialogue was not merely about finding common ground or seeking mutual understanding. It was far more than that. Paul engaged in dialogue in order to win his hearers to Christ.”

Peter May, What is Apologetics?

Paul still continues this pattern at the end of Acts. Even after having a healing revival of sorts (Acts 28:8-9), he still used arguments and reason to persuade others to become Christians. Acts 28:23, we read: “When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening, he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.”

Paul’s still using his eyewitness testimony of the resurrection. He’s still using the argument from prophecy.

Paul used apologetics in his letters

We also have what Paul wrote that undercuts this argument of “preach and perform miracles only.” In the very same letter, Paul points to eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus in order to prove the resurrection of the physical body to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. 15:3-8, he cites a creed that lists multiple individuals and groups who had seen the risen Jesus.

He even uses modus tollens in the form of an argument. Quoting the Expositor’s Greek NT Commentary on 1 Cor 15:17-18, “Paul leaves the inference, which observes the strict method of the modus tollens, to the consciousness of his readers (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20): “We are true witnesses, you are redeemed believers; on both accounts it is certain that Christ has risen,—and therefore that there is a resurrection of the dead”.

Paul deftly uses logic to show them that they’re begging the question when they say there is no resurrection from the dead. For if Christ isn’t raised, then their faith is useless. But Christ has been raised, therefore their faith isn’t futile — they too will one day be raised.

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul says, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Cor 10:5) And writing from prison a decade letter, Paul writes to the Philippians that he is set for the defense of the gospel. (Phil 1:7) The Greek word defense there is apologia, where we get our word apologetics. He is set out to remove false ideas and defend the gospel.

Paul did not give up on apologetics

So the bottom line is that it’s just not true that Paul didn’t value using reason and evidence in proclaiming and defending the gospel. It’s ironic that these pious-sounding critics against apologetics use reason and evidence to defend their own view that apologetics is worthless. They’re making an apologetic against apologetics, which is just sawing off the branch that they’re sitting on. Why not think that God’s Spirit can use preaching, miracles, and arguments? Why limit what God can use?

By pointing to Paul’s alleged paltry results in Athens, they basically are saying reaching Damaris and Dionysus the Areopagite was a waste of time. Jesus doesn’t think that way, the parable of the lost sheep tells us that Jesus will leave the 99 to find the one. Paul said became all things to all men in order that he might save some. (1 Cor. 9:21-23)

Reactions to John Crist’s Moral Failings Demonstrate Our Culture’s Confusion about Christianity

Apologetics for Parents, CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

News broke yesterday that popular Christian comedian and YouTuber John Crist has come forth with an admission of ongoing “sexual sin and addiction struggles” after multiple women exposed years of his sexually immoral behavior.

Honestly, my heart sank when I saw this. I love Crist’s videos. We watch them with our kids. In fact, our family had just watched one of his most popular ones, “Church Hunters,” this week! If you’re not familiar with Crist, he pokes fun at evangelical culture through his videos, and in a way that you can typically nod along with because they (unfortunately and humorously) hit close to home. Church Hunters, for example, is a parody that features a couple searching for a new church, but they’re considering all the wrong criteria…something all too common today. The video actually made for a great discussion with our kids about how people DO look at the wrong things, and what is most important when considering a church home.

You can read a detailed article with the accusations and Crist’s own statement here. In that article and some common responses, I’ve seen to it on social media, I’ve noticed three areas of serious confusion that both Christians and nonbelievers sometimes have about this kind of news:

Confusion 1: Thinking popular Christians are more immune to sin than others.

Honestly, I feel this point is so obvious that it’s embarrassingly uninsightful to point out. But consider this statement in the article from one of the women who says she was emotionally devastated by her encounters with Crist:

“I was truly blinded by his celebrity status…There were a few moments I thought, ‘Hey, this is kind of weird,’ but the same phrase kept playing through my head that stopped me from leaving: ‘It’s OK. He’s a Christian. He won’t do anything inappropriate.’”

The naivety of that last statement is mind-blowing. A Christian wouldn’t do anything inappropriate? May we all be mindful of the following biblical truth:

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

All.

While we may feel disappointed when we learn of the moral failings of Christians we appreciate, admire, or learn from, we should never be shocked. Christians are able to sin just as nonbelievers are. The Bible never claims that we become perfected in this life—only that when we put our trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins, we will someday stand before the Lord clothed in his righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). Of course, saving faith doesn’t see that as a license to sin—we should never sin so that “grace may abound” (Romans 6:1).

Confusion 2: Assuming that popular Christians should be seen as church leaders.

Social media is buzzing with commentary on Crist, and a good number of people are referring to him as a fallen Christian “leader.”

There’s an important distinction to be made here: John Crist is a popular Christian, but that doesn’t mean anyone should consider him to be a Christian leader.

Equating the two things has become a real problem in our culture. Given the nature of social media, anyone can build a platform and influence others. But just because a person identifies as a “Christian” doesn’t mean they teach biblically sound doctrine or faithfully attempt to represent Jesus in their everyday lives. Leaders in the local church, however, are held to specific biblical standards in order to qualify as worthy of shepherding the flock (see Titus 1:5-9, for example).

One example of the confusion in this area is the following comment made by a woman on Facebook: “Crist’s exploitation of women was well-known for the past 7 years…The question is, WHY were there no consequences, and his career was allowed to flourish?”

Unless you’re confused about the difference between popular Christians and Christian church leaders, the answer to this is clear. Who would have the authority and ability to issue “consequences” and stop his career from “flourishing” if his work is outside the context of a church or church organization? People are free to enjoy social media content, however, they want. Crist was in no church position to step down from.

Do I wish that every Christian would be above reproach, whether in a position of formal church leadership or not? Yes, of course. But to think every popular Christian naturally has the same kind of accountability structures as actual leaders in the church is misguided and problematic. It results in people placing a critical light on an ambiguous notion of “the church” rather than on individual choices.

Confusion 3: Believing the failures of Christians are indicative of whether or not Christianity is true.

The article reports that “Crist’s use of his Christian reputation to gain trust contributed to at least two women—Nora and Lindsey—losing trust in Christianity altogether. Neither affiliates as a Christian today.”

Lindsey says, “I haven’t been to church in years…It’s hard. It’s hard to go into a place where you know that people know things that are going on, and they never do anything about it because they just list it as ‘bad behavior’ or something that someone can just be forgiven of and then it’s fine. It’s not fine. Even when you forgive someone, it’s important to go back and make restitution and to change your ways and change your behavior. It’s really hard to even consider participating in a community, in a body of believers, that would allow such behavior to unfold unchecked, and give it a platform. No, I don’t consider myself a Christian anymore. … I have no ill will toward the church. I don’t have bitterness there. I think a lot of people are really earnest in what they believe, and I respect that. But I want to be able to respect it more.”

Based on this statement, it seems that Lindsey doesn’t consider herself a Christian due to her disappointment in a particular Christian and the perceived lack of moral concern from the Christian masses, resulting in her inability to “respect” Christianity.

Unfortunately, this demonstrates the lack of critical thinking about worldview that is prevalent in the church today. It’s yet another example of why teaching kids apologetics (how to make a case for and defend the truth of Christianity) is absolutely critical.

Christianity does not become more or less “respectable,” depending on whether your favorite Christian comedian lives consistently within his stated beliefs—even when it affects you personally.

It also doesn’t become more or less respectable, depending on how many people have heard about his moral failings and have rallied to collectively bring them to light.

There is just one question that should determine if you should be a Christian:

Is Christianity true?

That’s it.

End of story.

If Christ hasn’t been raised, your faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14). That’s the truth test, and nothing else.

You may be hurt by other Christians; you may be hurt by someone in your local church, you may be disenchanted with leaders who presume to represent Christianity but do so poorly, you may not like what the Bible says on some matters, you may wish the world were different…but none of this should logically substitute for an objective investigation of the evidence for the truth of Christianity (see these books for help having these conversations with your kids).

If Christianity is true, we should be Christians in spite of bad experiences. The question isn’t whether John Crist is trustworthy; it’s whether Jesus is. That’s not to minimize the hurt done in the name of Christ (a subject outside of my scope here), but rather to refocus our kids on the objective questions that matter most.

I hope that John Crist’s statement of repentance is sincere and that he emerges from this experience as a more committed follower of Christ. In the meantime, let’s recognize this as nothing more than what it is: a popular Christian has admitted a long pattern of immoral behavior and needs to address it personally, with those he hurt, and with the Lord.

Let’s pray that good will come from this, so Crist can better use his influence in the future for the glory of God.

Was Apollonius of Tyana a Jesus Parallel?

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

By Ryan Leasure

Bart Ehrman is the most popular skeptic in America today. Writing at super-sonic rates, his books seem to find their way on the New York Times Bestseller list about every other year. Because of his rapid output and wide popularity, his views are spreading like gangrene across the American landscape (and beyond).

Additionally, Ehrman is a professor of religion at UNC-Chapel Hill where he works to cripple the faith of every young Christian who enters his classroom. He shares one of his faith-crippling tactics in his book How Jesus Became God.

Ehrman tells the story of beginning his class by sharing this description of a famous man from the ancient world.

“Before he was born, his mother had a visitor from heaven who told her that her son would not be a mere mortal but in fact would be divine. His birth was accompanied by unusual divine signs in heaven. As an adult, he left his home to engage on an itinerant preaching ministry. He gathered a number of followers around him who became convinced that he was no ordinary human, but that he was the Son of God.

And he did miracles to confirm them in their beliefs: he could heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead. At the end of his life, he aroused opposition among the ruling authorities of Rome and was put on trial. But they could not kill his soul. He ascended to heaven and continues to live there till this day.

To prove that he lived on after leaving his earthly orb, he appeared again to at least one of his doubting followers, who became convinced that in fact, he remains with us even now. Later, some of his followers wrote books about him, and we can still read about him today.1

Ehrman, of course, wants everyone in his class to thinks he’s talking about Jesus. But alas, he reveals the shocking news that he wasn’t talking about Jesus at all. Instead, he’s referring to Apollonius of Tyana.

This revelation is intended to rattle whatever remaining faith his Christian students might have. For if he can demonstrate that Jesus’ story isn’t any different from Apollonius of Tyana, well then Jesus must not be the unique Son of God after all.

Apollonius of Tyana — The Skeptics’ Best Parallel

As demonstrated in the story above, skeptics think that if they can show parallels of Jesus from the ancient world, they can prove that Jesus was just one more in a long line of myth stories.

And Ehrman isn’t the only skeptic using this tactic. In fact, if you listen to debates on the historical Jesus, Apollonius of Tyana is mentioned far more than any other ancient “parallel.” In other words, Apollonius is the best parallel the skeptic has to offer.

So, should Christians be worried? Does Christianity crumble in light of Apollonius of Tyana? Was Apollonius even remotely similar to Jesus? No, no, and no. Allow me to elaborate.

The Problem of Dating

Apollonius supposedly lived between AD 15-96. That is, his life comes shortly after the life of Jesus. Yet the only source we have for his life comes from Philostratus in the third century (AD 225). In other words, there is virtual silence about this man for about 150 years prior to Philostratus’ work.

If Apolonnius had been a Jesus-like figure, how come nothing is said about him for such a long period of time?

Sources for Jesus, on the other hand, all date within the first century when eye-witnesses to his ministry would have still been around. The Gospels come about 30-50 years after his life, and Paul writes his letters even earlier (20-30 years after Jesus). Moreover, Paul quotes or references traditional material that predates his work by decades. All that to say, Jesus’ fame understandably spread shortly after his death and resurrection.

Yet we have crickets with respect to Apollonius. This is hard to believe if he truly was the Son of God who performed miracles and rose again from the dead.

The Problem of Motive

What did Jesus’ followers have to gain for spreading the message of Christianity? Ostracism at best, and death at worst. In other words, they had no motive (money, sex, or power) to make up these stories in a hostile environment. In the end, most of them faced severe persecution for their faith.

What about Philostratus? Well, it just so happens that he was paid by the empress Julia Domna to write a laudatory account of Apollonius’ life in order to improve Apollonius’ reputation amongst the Romans and diminish Jesus’ importance.

Living during a time when Christianity was spreading rapidly across the Roman Empire, the pagan empress needed to do something to restore cultic worship amongst the citizens. Funding this project seems to be her attempt to minimize Jesus’ fame.

Philostratus Was Skeptical of Apollonius’ Miracles

Philostratus, though, couched miracle claims with phrases such as “it is reported that” or “some believe.” Case in point. Reporting on Apollonius of Tyana’s most famous miracle (raising a dead girl to life), Philostratus reports that the girl probably wasn’t dead at all, and even states that only some believed she was. He indicates that this girl had some kind of mist coming out of her mouth prior to Apollonius “healing” her.

The Gospels are nothing like this. They make no qualms about Jesus’ miraculous activity. Furthermore, non-Christian sources also indicate that Jesus was a miracle-worker.

The Problem of Historical Errors

The Gospels provide all kinds of evidence for their historical reliability. Non-Christian corroborating sources, eye-witness testimony, an understanding of local customs, and embarrassing material all suggest that these sources are trustworthy.

Since not many people will take the time to read through Philostratus’ five hundred page work on Apollonius, they will miss out on the fact that Philostratus made all sorts of historical errors — mostly anachronisms.

The blunders are so bad that historian H. C. Kee reports, “what Philostratus reports tells us a great deal about the author and his time — that is, at the turn of the third century — but provides no unassailable evidence about Apollonius and his epoch.”2

While Philostratus attempts to give us a biography, many scholars acknowledge that his work reads more like a romance novel. As Boyd and Eddy remark, “while few have gone so far as to reject a historical Apollonius altogether, most scholars are rather skeptical about the historicity of major aspects of the image offered by this one source written well over a century after the figure it depicts.”3

The Alleged Resurrection

Jesus’ resurrection is the single-most-important fact about Christianity. If he didn’t rise, Paul says, we’re still in our sins. Fortunately, Jesus did die and rise again as the Gospels report, and there’s ample evidence to back this up this claim.

But what about Apollonius of Tyana? Did he rise again as Ehrman suggests? Simply put, no he did not. The only hint in Philostratus’ work that gets remotely close to a resurrection is when one doubting disciple has a dream about the spirit of Apollonius after his death.

A Parallel? Really?

Scholars have systematically debunked every line from the Erhman quote above. At best, he’s misleading. At worst, he’s downright deceitful.

No heavenly messenger announced Apollonius’ birth and said he would be divine. That messenger actually came from Egypt and never said Apollonius would be divine. He wasn’t so much an itinerant preacher as he was a visitor of foreign sages. Furthermore, he took a vow of silence for several years as he began his journey. His miracles were dubious, and he wasn’t killed by Roman authorities. Nor did he rise from the dead and appear to his followers. And none of his followers wrote books about him either.

Be that as it may, what if Philostratus had reported exact parallels? What would that prove? For starters, Jesus predates Apollonius. So any parallel would be evidence against Apollonius of Tyana and not Jesus.

Additionally, even if these so-called parallels did exist, it wouldn’t do anything to diminish the historical Jesus.

Taking this line of thought, you could prove I’m a myth because of the parallels between my life and Bart Ehrman’s. Both of us went to Bible college and later seminary. We both write about the historical Jesus and teach others about the Bible. Both of us live in the Carolinas. We’re both white males. And on and on.

The point is you can find parallels anywhere. Many have shown parallels between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. Does that mean Kennedy was a legend? Absolutely not.

In the end, it’s not the parallels that matter, but the differences. So while the story of Apollonius of Tyana is interesting, it does nothing to disprove the historicity of Jesus Christ.

LGBT activist calls for “hardball” “fight” to empty the church pews of Christians

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

Transgender woman calls for “hardball” “fight” to “empty the pews”

Previously, I blogged about how transgender activists shut down a discussion of transgender issues on a university campus in Canada. You might think that suppressing debate and disagreement is something that only happens north of the border. But an LGBT activist with 50,000 Twitter followers is being re-tweeted by prominent people on the left after demanding a “fight” to “empty the pews”.

Look at this Twitter thread from “Chrissy Str00p“, a transgender woman:

The Christian Right has won its culture war under the noses of “liberal elites.” Long before Trump, abstinence-only #FakeSexEd came to dominate public schools. Abortion became effectively inaccessible in most areas.

We’re fighting to take ground back and even to realize rights that have never been fully realized, and it’s time we understood that. We’re the goddamn Rebel Alliance; the Empire is in power.

If we win big in 2020—far and away not a given—we need to play hardball.

#EmptyTheP3ws

I’m talking adding justices to the Supreme Court hardball (Roe is lost in the meantime, and likely Obergefell and even Griswold into the bargain). Maybe even finding a way to remove Kavanaugh and Gorsuch from the bench hardball. They hold their seats illegitimately.

The Christian Right will impose minority authoritarian rule for as long as it can, and it’s about g*dd*m time we started acting like we’re fighting an anti-democratic force, a real threat to democracy and human rights because we f*cking are, and not by choice.

Get in the fight.

Now, you have to ask yourself, given the previous post about transgender activists using threats of violence to suppress basic human rights like free speech, what does Str00p mean by emptying the pews? How does Str00p intend to get the Christians in those pews to vacate the pews? Does Str00p sound like a tolerant, law-abiding person who respects a diversity of views? Does Str00p sound like someone who engages in a rational debate?

I don’t mind that Str00p has those views, or speaks them. I hope Str00p’s words don’t incite violence against Christians, as they could easily be interpreted to be a call for violence by someone mentally unstable. It’s happened before. Remember the gay activist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for domestic terrorism, after attacking the Family Research Council building armed with a gun? We just don’t know what Str00p meant.

I hope that Christians take note of Str00p’s views and that they don’t just vote in 2020. I’d like Christians to get informed, and be persuasive to their undecided neighbors using facts and evidence. All it takes for Str00p to win is for us to be so intimidated by Str00p’s rhetoric that we decide that it’s not worth it to share facts and evidence with our neighbors. If you have to use an alias to share facts and evidence with your neighbors, then get an alias.

A Review of Nancy Pearcey’s Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Terrell Clemmons

Nancy Pearcey knows the captivating power of secular ideas because she used to hold them herself. As a teenager, she rejected the religion of her childhood and embraced a host of “isms,” from moral relativism to scientific determinism to New Age spiritualism.

But she persisted in her quest for truth, only to find that the biblical worldview offers far better and more complete answers to the real-world questions those philosophies attempted to address. For those of us who lack such intellectual stamina, her books serve as a tour of the long and winding journey by which she arrived at that conclusion.

The Soul of Science, which she co-authored with Charles Thaxton in 1994, defied the deeply embedded cultural myth which said that faith and science occupy mutually exclusive intellectual camps, and showed how, quite to the contrary, scientific progress grew specifically out of Christian culture.

How Now Shall We Live? a joint effort with Charles Colson in 2004, fully developed the concept of worldview as an explanatory system that must fit all of reality. A worldview must therefore satisfactorily answer three foundational life questions: (1) Who am I and where did I come from?, i.e., the question of origins; (2) What’s wrong with the world?; and (3) How can it be fixed? Pearcey and Colson argued persuasively that the biblical metanarrative of Creation/Fall/Redemption provides the most excellent answers to all three.

Total Truth, Pearcey’s first solo work, built upon the core insight of Francis Schaeffer, under whom she studied as a young adult. Schaeffer had observed that modernity has erected a “two-story” view of reality, wherein objective “facts” occupy the lower story and subjective “values” occupy the upper. Total Truth showed how secularists use this fact/value split to banish biblical principles from public discourse, not by disproving them but by dismissing them out of hand.

In Saving Leonardo, Pearcey has turned her attention to the arts, and she analyzes how the fact/value split has fragmented modern thought and therefore compromised modern art. Most people view art as simply personal expression, but Pearcey says that it is much more than that: “Artists always select, arrange, and order their materials to offer an interpretation or perspective.” Art conveys ideas.

Saving Leonardo sets out to train us as consumers to thoughtfully “read” the art we take in, to analyze and interpret it. Not to make us art critics, but to make us wise and effective “change agents,” equipped “to engage in discussion with real people seeking livable answers in a world that is falling apart.”

Secular Devolution

Part One of the book examines the emerging global secularism and the toll it is exacting in human lives and dignity. Secularism is generally defined as the view that religious considerations and any beliefs based on the supernatural should be excluded from civil and public affairs. Today, secular ideologies control what our schools teach, how states govern, how economies are managed, and how (and what) news is reported. Secularism is sold on the premise that it provides a more enlightened ordering principle for social arrangements, but in reality, it works to degrade, rather than advance, a society. It leads to:

Dehumanization. The idea that human rights are universal and inherent to individuals is a uniquely Judeo-Christian concept. It rests on the understanding that human beings were created by God and bear his image. Without this foundation, grounded in a transcendent reality, human rights and human dignity are demoted to just another competing interest.

To illustrate how far out on this precipice, we already stand, Pearcey paraphrases pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty: “Because of Darwin, we no longer accept creation. And therefore, we no longer need to maintain that everyone who is biologically human has equal value. We are free to revert to the pre-Christian attitude that only certain groups qualify for human rights.” What this translates into is a social order in which the strong can oppress, enslave, or exterminate the weak at will. This is how we got such twentieth-century horrors as the Nazi Holocaust and the Soviet gulag.

Tyranny. Secularism preaches tolerance but practices tyranny. The biblical worldview unabashedly states that there is such a thing as an objective standard of right and wrong. The secular tenet of moral relativism is the direct converse of that principle. Simple logic says that both principles cannot be true, but secularizers try to have it both ways anyway. “If moral knowledge is impossible,” Pearcey points out, “then we are left with only political and legal measures to coerce people into compliance.” This explains why homosexual activists call their opponents bigots and homophobes (usually in highly moralistic tones), rather than sitting down with them for a good-faith discussion over the risks of ditching policies like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

In fact, secularism makes its advances, not through good-faith reasoning and persuasion, but by brute hubris. Its relativistic approach to religion derives from a certain set of beliefs that are just as exclusive as the claims of any religion; the secularizers just aren’t “honest” about it. This setup enables them to dismiss opposing views, not by marshaling sound arguments against them, but by baldly excluding them or by categorizing them as private values, which are then declared irrelevant.

Double-mindedness. Secularism not only imposes a certain ideology; it also effectively changes the definition of truth by dictating what kinds of information even qualify as truth. The fact/value split, Pearcey says, is “the key to unlocking the history of the Western mind.” It has fostered a kind of double-mindedness, both for individuals and among societies. It’s reflected in the 2008 comments of a Newsweek editor: “Reason defines one kind of reality (what we know); faith defines another (what we don’t know)”; and in the words of Albert Einstein: “Science yields facts but not ‘value judgments’; religion expresses values but cannot ‘speak facts.'”

It’s alive and well in the churches, too. Tim Sweetman, a teen blogger, noted that many of his peers seem like “double agents.” They “are Christians in church…but have a completely secular mind view. It’s as if they have a split personality.”

Logos: Truth in Toto

In the face of this pervasive yet fragmented view of truth, Pearcey puts forward a game-changing alternative view: The nature of truth is holistic, comprehensive, and coherent. “Because all things were created by a single divine mind, all truth forms a single, coherent, mutually consistent system. Truth is unified and universal.”

This is not new. It was the predominant view in Western culture for over two millennia. The ancient Greeks had a term for the underlying principle that unifies the world into an orderly cosmos, as opposed to randomness and chaos. They called it the Logos. And well into the 1900s, American universities were committed to the unity of truth. Even the word university suggests the pursuit of the whole, integrating truth. But the crack-up has so fractured modern thought that the idea of the “unity of truth” presents a radically reoriented perspective.

This “whole truth” perspective is what Pearcey is urging us to bring to the arts.

Secularism: Truth Fragmented

Part Two of Saving Leonardo begins with a crash course on how to discern worldview themes in a work of art. Using over one hundred reproductions and other images to illustrate, Pearcey traces the intellectual currents that guided modern thought and shows how the two-story recasting of truth has manifested itself in the arts, from visual arts to music to literature to architecture.

In the wake of the scientific revolution, philosophy—and therefore art—split into two opposing streams of thought. Occupying one camp was philosophical naturalism, or the materialist stream, which accepted scientism’s exclusive claim to the realm of knowledge. In the other camp coalesced Romanticism, which rebelled against science and sought to protect everything else—theology, literature, ethics, philosophy, and the arts and humanities.

The materialistic view is reflected in such styles as Picasso’s intersecting lines, arcs, and geometric shapes and Jack London’s “tooth and claw” narratives of Darwinian survival of the fittest. Meanwhile, the Romantics produced such styles as Expressionism, the goal of which was the pure expression of the artist’s “inner self,” indifferent to any outer reality. Consider Van Gogh’s dreamlike paintings, or composer John Cage’s piano piece titled 4’33”, which is “performed” by playing absolutely nothing for four minutes and thirty-three seconds. Both streams deny the existence of any transcendent reality or truth beyond the artist or the work itself. If art is whatever you deem it to be, “nothing” qualifies.

But the definition of art as personal expression was a historical novelty. The traditional purpose of art, Pearcey stresses, was to convey “some deeper vision of the human condition.” Modern art has become disconnected from this purpose, and we must fill in the missing elements that can restore the vision of transcendent reality.

Can These Bones Live?

Doing that can take many forms. Here’s an example taken from Fox TV’s crime drama, Bones. Dr. Temperance Brennan, a forensic anthropologist, is the quintessential scientific rationalist. She’s called “Bones” because she solves murders by examining human remains. Her colleague, FBI Special Agent Seeley Booth, possesses all the social finesse she lacks, believes in God, and mistrusts science. As a father, he values relationships, and as a former army sniper, he’s haunted by guilt—two emotions utterly foreign to a materialist.

The relationship between Bones and Booth dances along a perpetual impasse because the two characters operate from completely different—in fact, mutually exclusive—philosophical and intellectual universes. They are an excellent example of the dichotomized understanding of human existence. Their ongoing worldview clashes make for good TV drama, but real humans do not fall into one category or the other. More important, we don’t have to choose one or the other. We are both. “The biblical worldview fulfills both the requirements of human reason and the yearnings of the human spirit,” Pearcey writes, supplying the truth that’s missing from the Bones-style depiction of humanity.

In the modern era, ideological idols have led to dictatorships and death camps. Beliefs shape history, Pearcey says, and worldview questions are a matter of life and death. Saving Leonardo calls us to be prepared with worldview answers that preserve life and human dignity for all and that restore art as a means of conveying truth. Integrated truth that can even make dry bones live.

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene?

Was Jesus Married to the Woman Who Anointed Him?

Was Jesus Married Because He was a Rabbi?

Was Jesus Married Because He was Jewish?

Paul on Marriage and Singleness

Jesus was Single

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Not your Flannel Graph Version of the Story of Jonah

The Sign of Jonah – Jonah Was Raised from the Dead

The Sign of Jonah – The Gentiles Repent and Worship the God of Israel

Recommended resources related to the topic:

An Unlikely Team & A Balanced Report

Abortion & Breast Cancer

Abortion & Pre-term Birth

Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects

The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Did Paul give up on using reason and evidence after Athens?

Paul did not give up on apologetics

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Confusion 1: Thinking popular Christians are more immune to sin than others.

Confusion 2: Assuming that popular Christians should be seen as church leaders.

Confusion 3: Believing the failures of Christians are indicative of whether or not Christianity is true.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Apollonius of Tyana — The Skeptics’ Best Parallel

The Problem of Dating

The Problem of Motive

Philostratus Was Skeptical of Apollonius’ Miracles

The Problem of Historical Errors

The Alleged Resurrection

A Parallel? Really?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Secular Devolution

Logos: Truth in Toto

Secularism: Truth Fragmented

Can These Bones Live?

Recommended resources related to the topic: