Christians Archives - Page 5 of 12

Tag Archive for: Christians

Finding Common Ground In A Time of Stark Division

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

“While We All Want to Believe That We Are Committed to Truth Rather Than A Narrative, Our Actions In Conversation—How We Mistreat Evidence, Mischaracterize Opposing Views And Arguments, And Attack The Challenger Rather Than The Challenge—Often Tell A Different Story.” Luke Nix

The Importance of Recognizing Common Ground

In these times of stark division, it is important that we not allow our disagreements to ultimately result in the destruction of our unity as a society, culture, and Church. There is nothing wrong with a society having a diversity of ideas, as long as those ideas are discussed and debated respectfully. When the wrong ideas are identified, such a respectful dialog can result in the dismissal of false ideas and the acceptance of true ideas. This is progress. Progress towards the objective goal of a society that has and lives according to the view of reality as it actually is and not some delusion.

However, many times discussion is stifled because we do not recognize common ground with those in which we disagree. When we possess and recognize common ground, we have a connection to maintain a healthy relationship when we have stark disagreements and rigorously debate which view (if either) accurately reflect reality. Today I want to point out six different things that we all hold in common that, if recognized by even one side, can help keep relationships healthy despite disagreements.

The Image of God

We are all created in the Image of God, thus we are all intrinsically, equally valuable. No matter how strongly we disagree with the other person, they ultimately have just as much value as we do and are worthy of our love and respect. No matter how disrespectful or unloving they are in their discussion or behavior towards us or others, this value remains in tact and stands as a reminder to us that a disrespectful or unloving posture towards them is never justified. We must remember that behind every challenge is a challenger. The challenge must be dealt with logically and evidentially, but the challenger must be addressed lovingly and respectfully.

Our Sinfulness

We are all sinners that have fallen short of God’s objective, moral standard, thus there will be evil committed by people against people. While we are all created in God’s Image and possess intrinsic and equal value, this does not mean that any of us is perfect. People will offend us. We will offend others. People will deeply hurt us, and we will deeply hurt others. People will sin against us, and, yes, we will sin against others. It is important to recognize that we will all fail and must treat each other, even those with whom we disagree, with the grace and forgiveness that we would like to be treated when we sin. And if we expect others to humbly accept correction, then we must also humbly accept correction when we make mistakes.

Christ’s Forgiveness

We are all sinful, but we are all loved by our morally perfect Creator. Jesus died and rose from the dead so that all people could receive the forgiveness necessary so that we can spend eternity with our Creator and each other. We are all in this same boat. No person needs Christ’s forgiveness any more or less than another; no person deserves Christ’s forgiveness any more or less than another, but every person must accept Christ’s forgiveness. We are all equally in need of forgiveness, and as long as we are still alive, Christ’s forgiveness is available. Thus we should never condemn another to hell because of their current worldview or moral position. Rather we should prayerfully pursue persuasion with evidence, logic, love, gentleness, and respect.

Our Fear

Our fear of being wrong and how changing a view may impact our other views and relationships. Many times when we are presenting evidence for a conclusion that someone opposes, it is not necessarily the evidence that the other person finds lacking but rather the possible implications of changing their mind. Some undesirable implications are perceived to be logical, and we must show either how the perceived implications do not logically follow (thus are not logically required to be consistent) or are not what they seem. Other undesired implications can be relational, and we must compassionately encourage those who may suffer severed or damaged relationships for accepting what is demonstrated to be true. We must remember our own experiences with these fears and patiently guide others while, of course, keeping the above common ground in mind because they may actually be doing the same for us while we may be the ones with these fears.

Our Questions and Doubts

We do not know everything, nor can we know everything. The same goes for everyone else. We will all have doubts and questions that we think must be answered before we can change our view. But not every little question and challenge can be answered about every view that we discuss. That is okay because not every question or challenge, if not answered the way we want or expect, presents a defeater for the view we’re questioning. Just as we expect others to consider the evidence that we present for our view and honestly consider if their questions or challenges truly undermine our evidence, we must be willing to engage in those considerations of their evidence and our questions as well. If we expect others to consider if they are just offering excuses to avoid changing their mind, we must be willing to demand the same of ourselves.

Our Choice

Finally, we all have the choice to either defend our narrative, or we can defend what is true about this world. We must choose to be committed to what is true, no matter the cost to ourselves; or we must be committed to what we want, no matter the cost to others. No doubt, it is objectively true that a commitment to truth, sacrificing self, is noble; and a commitment to self, sacrificing others, is despicable. Making this choice takes honesty, humility, and self-reflection, and frankly it can be a struggle. While we all want to believe that we are committed to truth rather than a narrative, our actions in conversation—how we mistreat evidence, mischaracterize opposing views and arguments, and attack the challenger rather than the challenge—often tell a different story. It is definitely true that “actions speak louder than words,” and it is time that we recognize that we must not merely apply that to others but to ourselves as well. As we struggle through this decision and recall the struggle, we can be more patient with and offer encouragement to those who are currently in the middle of the struggle.

Remembering that we hold much common ground with those we disagree with, often struggling in the past or in the present, and knowing that we desire gentleness and respect in those struggles, it is a most reasonable and loving expectation that we treat them as we wish for them to treat us. We should never be cold in our conversations; emotional warmth is necessary. Wisely conducting our conversations in the context of our common ground allows us to turn up the heat on the issues without burning the person behind the questions.

Is the Bible Our Highest Authority?

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

By David Pallmann

Many Christians believe that it is wrong to offer unbelievers evidence for the truth of Christianity.[1] They argue that the traditional method of apologetics dishonors Scripture by not giving it the respect it is due. The concern is that offering evidence for the truth of Scripture gives evidence more weight than Scripture. The argument might be framed this way:

If some activity requires us to treat something as a higher authority than Scripture, as Christians, we should not do it.
Giving evidence for the truth of Scripture requires us to treat evidence as a higher authority than Scripture.
Therefore, as Christians, we should not give evidence for the truth of Scripture.

Michael Krueger expresses the basic sentiment when he says,

“If the method of argumentation communicates to the unbeliever that he should believe the Bible only because it has received the stamp of approval from science, archaeology, and historical criticism, those disciplines, not the Bible, will be his ultimate authority.”[2]

In this article, I hope to show that the traditional apologist can answer this type of argument in a two-fold fashion. Once we clearly understand what it means to say that Scripture is one’s highest authority, it will become clear that this belief is not in conflict with presenting evidence for the truth of Scripture. In short, traditional, evidence-based, apologetics is harmonious with the affirmation that Scripture is the Christian’s highest authority.

Two Types of Authority

It will be helpful to begin by distinguishing between two types of authority. The Polish philosopher Józef Maria Bocheński made an important distinction between deontic authority and epistemic authority.[3] A deontic authority is roughly an authority which is able to tell you how you should act. Examples would include your boss or a police officer. These are individuals who can, to some extent, tell you what to do.

An epistemic authority is quite different. Epistemic authorities can tell you what you should believe. Examples would include a scholar, a doctor, or some other sort of expert. These are knowledgeable individuals who can be appropriately called “authorities” in their respective fields.

The key distinction between a deontic authority and an epistemic authority lies in the domains over which they exert their authority. Deontic authorities tell you how to behave. Epistemic authorities tell you what to believe.

Applying the Distinction

Armed with an understanding of these two types of authority, let’s explicate what it means to say that Scripture is our highest authority. It seems quite evident that this typically refers to Scripture as a deontic authority. To say that Scripture is one’s highest authority is, in essence, to say that one ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Scripture will dictate a Christian’s behavior even when Scripture conflicts with another authority (e.g the government).

Thus construed, it becomes evident that the original argument is guilty of equivocation. Premise 1 refers to deontic authority while premise 2 refers to epistemic authority. As such, under a deontic understanding of Scripture as one’s highest authority, the conclusion of the argument simply doesn’t follow.

Scripture as an Epistemic Authority

Although on a deontic conception of Scriptural authority, the argument is flawed, there is one complication. Scripture does not merely tell us how to act, but it also tells us what to believe. Thus, while it is true that Scripture is a deontic authority, it also appears to function as an epistemic authority. Should we regard Scripture as our highest epistemic authority as well?

To answer this question, we need a clearer understanding of the role that epistemic authorities play in the formation of justified beliefs. In the first place, we need to observe that beliefs which are held on the basis of epistemic authorities inherently have weaker justification than beliefs held on the basis of evidence. This is because, when information is gained via authority, there is a further link in the chain between the believer and the truth of the belief. When one believes a proposition on the basis of evidence, then his connection to the truth of the belief is much stronger. When one relies on an epistemic authority, they are trusting the authority to accurately relay his own beliefs which (hopefully!) are based on a body of evidence to which the believer does not have direct access. The indirectness of the belief allows more opportunities for mistakes to be made. So whenever a belief is held on the basis of an authority, it necessarily has a lower probability of being true than a belief based directly on evidence. The upshot here is that epistemic authorities are not valuable because of anything intrinsic to that authority. They are valuable because they are a means of connecting us with truth. Epistemic authorities are only useful insofar as they achieve that goal. As Richard Feldmen observes,

“Inferential rules aren’t good ones simply because experts use them. Rather, experts are good guides to good rules simply because they have the best insight into the matter.”[4]

Now, none of that is meant to disparage the importance and value of epistemic authorities. Clearly, we cannot become acquainted with all the relevant evidence for every possible belief. Epistemic authorities, therefore, provide us with a convenient way of gaining knowledge about something without examining it in detail. The cost of that convenience, however, is that one incurs a greater risk that their acquired belief is not true.

To minimize this risk, it is crucial that we have good reasons for regarding an authority as reliable. If there were no way for recognizing an authority as reliable then we would either have to blindly follow anything that claimed to be an authority, make an arbitrary selection about which authorities to believe, or else reject epistemic authorities altogether. As John DePoe notes,

“Authorities play a valuable epistemic role because they are avenues for justified beliefs and knowledge that are inaccessible to us without them, or they make the procurement of such epistemic good more convenient. … Importantly, however, for me to embrace [an] authority justifiably, I must have good reasons to trust the source as an authority in the domains where I regard it as an authority.”[5]

So it is not possible, in principle, to have a highest epistemic authority if this is meant to be understood as an authority being one’s primary source of knowledge. A subject must always choose to believe what an authority says. And to make an informed decision about which authorities to believe, one needs access to independent evidence.

Highest Epistemic Authority

As the above discussion makes clear, evidence has primacy when it comes to justification. There is no highest epistemic authority comparable to a highest deontic authority. It is by means of evidence that we adjudicate between various epistemic authorities and determine which one’s are to be trusted. This is not to deny that there can be a highest epistemic authority from among a range of authorities. For example, suppose I have a medical condition which two doctors wish to diagnose. One doctor has only examined my condition superficially while the other has examined me thoroughly. Both doctors are authorities, but the one who has examined me thoroughly is the higher authority, and, as such his diagnosis will be taken more seriously. In this situation, I could be said to have a highest epistemic authority. However, notice that the word “highest” is being used in a comparative and contextual sense. I regard one authority as highest from among other authorities with respect to a specific topic. In the same way, the Christian can make Scripture his highest authority from among other authorities (pastors, theologians, etc.) with respect to the nature, will, character, and revelation of God. Thus, there is a sense in which Scripture can be considered a highest epistemic authority when this is meant to be understood as an authority among others which is given the most epistemic weight.

But since evidence is required to adjudicate between competing authority claims, it retains an epistemic priority over any authority. Notice, however, that this entails that evidence is not itself an authority. Thus, under this conception of evidence and authority, the second premise of the original argument is false. It confuses justification with authority. While authorities can play a justificatory role, not all justification comes in the form of authorities. If it did, we would be without justification for trusting any purported authority as such.

A Final Consideration

It seems to me that Christians who use this sort of argument mean something rather different by “highest authority” than I specified above. They don’t mean that Scripture is merely their highest epistemic authority from among a range of authorities about some particular subject. They appear to mean that Scripture should actually be our primary source of knowledge. To make belief in Scripture conditional upon sufficient evidence does indeed admit that Scripture is not one’s primary source of knowledge.

But I don’t see why this should be a concern for the traditional apologist. Having faith in an authority on the basis of evidence does not compromise that authority’s status nor does it somehow make evidence a “higher authority” in any meaningful sense. It is simply to acknowledge that one needs justification for believing that an authority is authoritative. Perhaps some will find this objectionable. But what is the alternative? To believe on the basis of nothing? This is epistemic irresponsibility. Moreover, it seems impossible. For surely before one can believe the teachings of Scripture, one must become acquainted with them through either hearing or reading Scripture. This shows that Scripture cannot be one’s primary source of knowledge.

If the critic still wishes to maintain that the traditional apologist is making evidence a higher authority than Scripture, then we may simply respond that he has equated “highest authority” with “primary source of knowledge.” This is a definition of “authority” that the traditional apologist is entitled to reject. If the critic still wishes to retain this definition of the word, then it is evident, I think, that he is deliberately defining words in such a way that he can accuse those who dispute his conclusions of lowering the status of Scripture. In this case, he is deliberately muddying the waters. Under the critic’s definition, the traditional apologist need feel no discomfort for not making Scripture his “highest authority.” The critic is now using this term to get the traditional apologist to say something which the traditional apologist never believed.

Summary and Conclusion

In this article, I have briefly outlined an objection to traditional apologetics which states that the traditional method turns evidence into a higher authority than Scripture. We have seen that the traditional apologist may give a two-fold response. First, he may respond by stating that he takes Scripture to be his highest deontic authority, but not necessarily his highest epistemic authority. If the critic replies by pointing out that Scripture is also an epistemic authority, the traditional apologist may reply by saying that epistemic authorities are limited in scope to specific topics. Thus, while he may well regard Scripture as his highest epistemic authority with respect to truths about God, he need not regard it as his highest epistemic authority with respect to the belief that Scripture yields accurate information about God. Moreover, he may argue that evidence does not function as an epistemic authority but rather functions as a means of recognizing an authority as such. Obviously, if evidence is not a type of authority, then it cannot be a higher authority than Scripture.

I conclude, therefore, that once we have clarified what is meant by “the authority of Scripture,” arguments such as that offered in the introduction either equivocate, are insensitive to the nature of epistemic authorities, or else mistake all justification for being a type of authority. In each case, the argument fails to establish its conclusion. Hence, the traditional apologist may confidently present evidence for the truth of Scripture without thereby sacrificing the authority of Scripture.

Notes:

[1] In particular I have presuppositionalists in mind. However, similar arguments can be found among critics of apologetics more generally. Such arguments are, by no means, limited to presuppositionalists.

[2] Michael J. Krueger, “The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics,” TMSJ 12/1 (Spring 2001) Pg. 69-87

[3] J. M. Bocheński, The Logic of Religion, New York: New York University Press, 1965, Pg. 164-167

[4] Richard Feldman, “Authoritarian Epistemology,” in Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, Evidentialism, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004, Pg. 127

[5] John M. DePoe, “A Classical Evidentialist Response to Covenantal Epistemology,” in Debating Christian Religious Epistemology, New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2020, Pg. 167-168

The 5 Most Illogical People You Will Meet on the Internet

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

It has happened to many of us. We post an encouraging Bible verse like Psalm 145:9 on Facebook: “The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.” By noon an atheist from somewhere in social media land has found the post and leaves a lovely comment:

Really? Your god is good? He’s so good and compassionate that he decided to literally drown the whole world in a flood? So good he’s okay with slavery? That god? Yeah—he sounds awesome.

The person who leaves comments like these probably isn’t looking for a real conversation, but they are a great example of the abundance of bad logic waiting to be discovered in the dark corners of cyberspace. Here are the 5 most illogical people you will meet on the internet, and how to spot their fallacies:

1. The Straw Man

How easy do you think it would be to knock down a pretend man made entirely of straw? It would be a lot easier than knocking down a real man—that’s for sure. This happens in the world of social media disagreement All. The. Time. The “Straw Man” is a fallacy in which someone oversimplifies or misrepresents the view of their opponent (builds a straw man), and then argues against that false view (knocks the straw man down). Straw men can often be found in discussions about abortion:

You: “I think there is good scientific evidence that life begins at conception.”
Straw man: “So what you’re saying is that women should lose their rights and this country should be sent back to the ‘50s? That’s ridiculous.”

You made a claim about scientific evidence—not women’s rights. The straw man has misrepresented your argument and created one that is much easier to refute.

2. The Red Herring

The “Red Herring” fallacy is committed when someone brings up an irrelevant point that diverts attention from the original point being made. Changing the subject doesn’t actually win an argument, but it can make people forget what they were disagreeing about in the first place.

You: “I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus claimed to be God.”
Red Herring: “The Bible is just a human book—no different from any other book.”

The red herring has diverted attention away from what the Bible teaches to the credibility of the Bible as a book. It’s a worthy discussion, but it’s a different discussion—don’t take the bait.

3. The Character Assassinator

This fallacy is called “Ad-Hominem,” and attacks the character of the person making the claim, rather than addressing the person’s actual argument.

You: “I believe it’s in the best interest of children for marriage to be between one man and one woman.”
Character Assassinator: “You only believe this because you’re a bigot.”

The character assassinator has shifted the focus from your claim to their perception of the motive behind it—thus avoiding the actual argument. The straw man, red herring, and character assassinator can all be handled in a similar way—by gently bringing them back to your original point.

4. The Self-Defeater

The self-defeater is a person who makes a statement that refutes itself. You can spot a self-defeating statement by taking the claim that is being made and applying that claim to the statement itself.

You: “I believe Christianity is true.”
Self-defeater: “There is no such thing as truth”

If you can spot this self-defeating statement, one simple question will bring the fallacy to the surface: “Is that true?”

5. The Gish Galloper

The “Gish Gallop” is a fallacy in which someone introduces so many (often individually weak) arguments in one space, that you could never possibly answer them all. This tends to happen more often in live-debate settings, but there are internet gish gallopers as well!

You: “I believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead.”
Gish galloper: “We can’t trust anything the Bible says because the Gospels were written hundreds of years after the apostles were alive, and they all tell different stories. In fact, the Old Testament flood and creation stories were simply copies of myths from the surrounding culture, and frankly, resurrection can’t happen because science has proven that miracles are not possible. The story of Jesus is just a re-telling of other myths about dying and rising gods in agrarian Mediterranean societies. Paul wasn’t really an apostle so we can’t trust what he said, and Jesus probably never even existed anyway.”

Notice that the gish galloper has introduced several possibly related but unsupported statements which no person with a life or a real job would be able to sit down and answer in one sitting—it would take all day! There are a few different ways to handle a gish galloper but the simplest would be to stay within the scope of your original claim. You didn’t make any claims about the Bible, flood or creation narratives, or Paul’s status as an apostle. You DID make a claim about a miracle, so that’s a good place to start.

Conclusion:

It’s easy for any of us to fall into some of these traps, so be looking for these 5 illogical people as you interact on social media—and be careful to not be one yourself!

Giving Atheists a Hand

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

My seventh-grade nephew needed some help the other night on social studies. He was working on the Paleolithic Age – the Old Stone Age – a time when man first started working with stone and bone tools. That got me thinking about the greatest “tool” of all – the human hand. It’s something that most people take for granted, but I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that modern civilization would never have arisen without it.

How can the atheist explain something as complex as the hand? Like the human reproductive system that I discussed in my last post, in his worldview, the hand is the product of a slow, random set of mutations occurring over a long period of time. We just happened to be lucky enough for everything to fall into place so that we – modern humans – are the beneficiaries of this entirely happenstance outcome. But think for a moment about the staggering complexity of the hand. Consider first the intricacy of the nerves that allow not just for feeling but for the fine sensitivity of feeling that exists in the fingertips. Consider the placement of the hand at the end of a flexible wrist on an arm that is also flexible. Five fingers provide the ability to grip and to manipulate objects, and the five can be used in unison or individually. Two matching hands are vastly superior to one, and the hands just happen to match in size, shape, and function. The opposable thumb may be its greatest feature, as it allows for tools to be gripped. There is a versatile muscular system that allows for objects to be firmly, or lightly, gripped, and a feedback mechanism in the nervous system that allows us to know whether we are gripping something so hard as to crush it or softly enough to caress it. All the while, it provides information on warmth and cold. On and on the list goes. It is truly a marvelous tool, and despite the best efforts of modern-day scientists, there is no way at present to even begin to replicate its complexities.

Yet we are to believe, according to the atheist, that this amazing feature of human beings is not the product of an intelligent designer, who foresaw and anticipated our use of tools to build and shape the world around us, but was instead the result of random processes occurring over time. By why should this be so? Well, the atheist will say, the hand is simply the descendent of more primitive appendages. Small, random changes conferred an advantage on some descendents, which allowed them to succeed and pass on this modification. Really? If this is so, then why haven’t monkeys, and these other more primitive forms, gone extinct, if their appendages were so unhelpful to their survival? Clearly, the development of a hand that could use tools, as opposed to one suited for climbing trees, was not needed by them in order to thrive and reproduce. Or conversely, why haven’t modern monkeys, which apparently predate humans, not yet evolved human hands, hands finely suited for using and manipulating tools?

More importantly, what happened before monkeys with primitive hands evolved? What was that earlier mammalian life form from which the arm and hand emerged? A squirrel? A rodent? What were these life forms doing, earlier still, when they had mere stumps on the ends of their limbs? Or no limbs at all? How did they survive? And why aren’t there other examples in nature of animals who randomly produced hands? Or animals that have partial hands that are somewhere on the road to evolving a complete hand?

To be fair, atheists probably think they are doing the believer a favor by arguing that science is the source of all knowledge, and that with enough time and study, answers to the questions I pose will someday be found. I suspect that most have not considered deeply the difficulty with this position. After all, the human hand is just one of dozens of fine-tuned systems in the body, each of which was constructed according to instructions embedded in the millions of lines of coded DNA information that directs the body to grow from a single cell to an adult person.

To conclude that the evolution of life forms happened randomly might have made sense in Darwin’s day, when those considering the question had no idea that information-rich DNA was directing the process of building and sustaining life. But today? Science can tell us many things about DNA and how it works. But the original source of the code, and the identity of the coder who wrote the language of DNA to provide for the life that is teeming on Planet Earth, is not something that science will find, certainly not if scientists insist on assuming that DNA assembled itself.

Christians Must Care Less about Our Cultural Reputation

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

Never have I written an article title that sounds less intuitive. Don’t we need to be concerned about our witness to the world? Isn’t that implied in the Great Commission? Shouldn’t people see us and want to follow Jesus because of our reputation?

Stick with me here, because this requires some nuance and it’s really important.

The idea that Christians need to fix a growing reputation problem in our society is becoming increasingly common in conversations on social media and even in articles by well-known Christian leaders. Comments like “The world is watching…” or “We’re damaging our witness by…” often warn believers to modify what we say or do so culture will think differently about us. The assumption is that we’ve collectively gone wrong in recent months (or years), and now we’ve got to quickly do something about it…before the world thinks even worse of us.

I would agree that Christians (and Christianity in general) are increasingly being seen in a negative light by nonbelievers. But I think we need to be extremely careful in how we assess and respond to that fact.

Our cultural reputation is not necessarily a measure of how faithfully we’re living out our calling as Christians.

If we treat it as such, we’re going to end up fixing the wrong problems.

What Makes a Reputation?

By definition, a reputation is “the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.” This implies that a reputation involves the words and actions of two parties:

What party one says or does
What party two thinks party one says or does, and how they evaluate that

This is where things get tricky. If your reputation is negative in some way with another party, it could:

be deserved (based on what you’ve said or done);
be a mistranslation between what you’ve said or done and what the other party thinks you’ve said or done; or
be a negative evaluation of what you’ve said or done, even when accurately understood.

When we consider the layers involved here, we can better understand why our reputation—what people think of us—is less important than we might assume.

When a Negative Reputation is Deserved

I follow a number of atheist authors and organizations on Facebook to see what’s important to them and how they talk about various issues. One thing I’ve noticed over years of doing this is that they focus more on highlighting the worst examples of Christianity than on anything else. One example that quickly comes to mind is Westboro Baptist Church, known for protests featuring signs proclaiming that “God hates fags.”

This is horrendous.

God loves everyone, even if he hates sin. And to use such derogatory language reveals a misplaced motivation for why they do what they do. Such tactics are rooted in contempt, not in love for bringing people into a saving relationship with Jesus.

If someone pointed out this example as something that gives Christians a bad reputation, I would say, “Yes, it absolutely does.” This isn’t consistent with the Bible at all. It would be extremely unfortunate for anyone to judge the truth and/or goodness of Christianity as a whole based on individual examples like this, but the reality is that they do. While we may think this kind of extrapolation is unfair (“Westboro doesn’t represent Christianity!”), we have to recognize that our culture has a very poor understanding of biblical Christianity and will come to faulty conclusions because of it.

It’s not just extreme examples like Westboro that give Christians a bad reputation, of course. There are plenty of Christians engaging in conversations that could hardly be described as bringing glory to God. The tone we use, the approach we take, and the words we share can do even more damage to the Christian “reputation” than the Westboros of the world because firsthand interactions often leave a more lasting impact.

This aspect of reputation is what we should care deeply about because it’s what we have control over—the integrity of our witness. As Paul says in Philippians 1:27, “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.”

In all we do, we should stay obsessively focused on that question: Is my conduct worthy of the name of the Lord?

When There’s a Mistranslation

In a lengthy Instagram post this week, singer Demi Lovato detailed why gender reveal parties are “transphobic.” Lovato says:

“It’s both insincere and incorrect to pretend that gender reveal parties are not transphobic… Transphobia is not just about prejudice against individual trans people, it’s also a way of thinking that understands non-trans people as more natural/organic and erases everyone else.”

Yes, having a party to announce your baby’s gender now means you’re afraid of people who struggle with gender dysphoria and want to “erase” them.

For Christians, it’s nothing new to be called homophobic or transphobic because of a belief that biblical marriage is between a man and woman or that God created two genders. But to characterize these beliefs as “phobic” (a fear) is a mistranslation; saying that God has a sexual and marital design for humans isn’t to be afraid of anything. It’s to believe that God has revealed his will and purposes for humanity in the Bible and that popular moral consensus on these issues conflicts with that revelation. It simply doesn’t follow that these beliefs imply hatred or fear, yet society continually labels them as such. The result? Christians often have a reputation for being homophobic or transphobic.

No one wants to be known as hateful or fearful, so what do we do with that?

Here’s where the problematic responses come into the picture.

Christians are increasingly on a crusade to save us from this reputation—not by working to correct the misunderstanding that moral disagreement equals hate, but by refusing to speak up or by changing their view to match that of society. I experience this all the time when I post articles about hot cultural topics on my Facebook author page. There are always Christians who comment that it gives others a negative impression of us when we speak out on certain subjects (even when we do so graciously), or who comment that the traditional view is wrong in the first place.

Silence or agreement may improve our cultural reputation with non-believers, but it’s fixing the wrong problem.

In our silence, we fail to be the salt and light we’re called to be.

In our agreement, we fail to be faithful to God’s Word.

In fixing our “reputation,” we break our integrity.

When There’s Accurate Understanding with Negative Evaluation

Russell Moore, President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, has written often in recent months about his concern for the church’s witness, particularly in the area of politics.

In his widely shared article, “The Gospel in a Democracy Under Assault,” Moore wrote that Christians need to be “people of truth.” What does that entail? He explains:

“It will take decades to rebuild from the wreckage in this country. But, as Christians, we can start now—just by not being afraid to say what is objectively the truth. Joe Biden has been elected president. Millions of babies are being aborted. The pandemic is real. So is racial injustice—both personal and systemic. So is the sexual abuse of women and children. If Christians are people of truth, we ought to be the first to acknowledge reality.”

In a backhanded way, Moore is suggesting that Christians are guilty of damaging our witness because we’ve collectively been denying the “realities” on his truth list. The implication is that we need to be known for agreeing with these statements if we have any hope of salvaging our credibility.

But some of these so-called truths we’re all supposed to acknowledge are grossly oversimplified.

For example, I’ve never seen a single person suggest that the pandemic doesn’t exist. Everyone knows it’s real, but Christians have varied views on its relative risk, issues surrounding freedom to worship, and the tradeoff between health risk and economics. If culture accurately understands that many Christians are concerned about the freedom to worship even in a pandemic but evaluates that negatively (an example of the third type of reputation issue), that’s not necessarily something we can or should fix. The world doesn’t like it, but sometimes we have to be just fine with that.

Similarly, Moore says that we all must acknowledge the reality of systemic racism. But systemic racism is a loaded term that has a very specific meaning today—it’s the idea that racism is baked into the very structure of our society, and any disparity in outcomes between people is due to oppressive social structures. There are many Christians who would not agree with Moore that this is a “truth” we should be lining up behind in order to salvage our cultural credibility. Again, if culture evaluates Christians negatively for not buying into the idea that disparate outcomes are necessarily the product of racist social structures, we can’t necessarily fix that reputation “problem.” The world will simply not always think well of us for what we believe or what we don’t.

Ironically, Moore himself is adding to the very reputation issue he is concerned about by suggesting to the watching world that Christians have thought or done wrong to get the reputation we have. Yet at least a couple of those things have more to do with the negative evaluation people have of legitimate Christian concerns than about actual failure to live faithfully.

It is right to be concerned with our witness to the world. We do want people to be attracted to Jesus through us. But that doesn’t mean we should try to manage our reputation, because there’s much involved we can’t control. Remember, Jesus said the world will hate us (John 15:18). We just want to be sure we’re disliked for the right reasons. If the world hates us because of the truth we share, that’s to be expected. If the world hates us because we’re acting like a bunch of ungodly jerks, may we feel the deepest conviction to repent of the ugliness we’ve brought to the name of the Lord.

Wanda, Westview, and Free Will

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Timothy Fox

A lot can be said about Marvel’s first Disney+ series, WandaVision (Spoilers ahead!), from its weird, off-putting sitcom beginning to the broader impact the series’ events will have on the MCU. But, being that we’re named FreeThinking Ministries, obviously, we have to talk about what WandaVision confirms to us about free will.

This show isn’t the first MCU story to address free will, determinism, and human responsibility (see my article “Captain America, Bucky, and Moral Responsibility”). Superhero movies all contain moral themes such as the struggle of good vs. evil, the dangers of power, and our obligations to one another. But no discussion of morality seems to make any sense without first assuming that we have some ability to choose between right and wrong. In the case of Bucky Barnes, he has his freedom overridden at times and is compelled to do terrible things. But when he is “himself” and in control of his choices, Bucky chooses to be a hero, which is really what matters most.

WandaVision begins with Wanda and Vision in a weird sitcom reality, and it’s obvious to the viewer that something just isn’t right. The people of Westview start doing and saying odd things and it seems that they are somehow being controlled by someone or something. Eventually, we discover that someone is Wanda. Due to her immense grief, Wanda creates her own bubble around the town of Westview, the Hex, and transforms the town into her perfect world. She creates her own Vision and controls the minds and actions of (almost) every human inhabitant in town. Vision, one of the few “free thinkers” inside the Hex, eventually realizes that something is wrong and temporarily breaks the spell of some of his neighbors. He discovers that they are not only being controlled but that this control causes them great suffering since their “real” selves are locked away inside of them.

It should be obvious to the viewers of WandaVision that what Wanda has done to these people is terrible, that they are just being used to create Wanda’s own perfect world. Even if the residents of Westview were not internally suffering and were completely oblivious that they were being mind-controlled, that would still be truly evil. Freedom is a great good, and controlling or manipulating people is evil.

But let’s move from Wanda’s actions to those of the residents of Westview. She has made them all to be her perfect neighbors. However, are the people actually being good neighbors? Are they doing anything that’s actually praiseworthy? No, they are simply doing whatever Wanda wants them to do. If Wanda had made the people terrible neighbors who hurt each other instead, should they be blamed for their bad behavior? Again, they should not, since Wanda is the one in control of their actions, not the townspeople. When the residents of Westview were under Wanda’s control, they would not be responsible for any of their actions, Wanda would.

There are many philosophers and theologians who deny human freedom, thinking that we are in some way similar to the citizens of Westview. Maybe we are not being directly controlled by a Scarlet Witch, but we simply “dance to our DNA,” follow our animal instincts, or pursue our heart’s greatest desire. Regardless, if we are not free in some meaningful sense, how can we deserve praise or blame for any of our actions? We can’t. Furthermore, we would not even be persons, but merely an extension of whatever controls or programs our thoughts and behaviors. If I’m a nice guy, don’t praise me; thank God or the laws of physics. If I’m a jerk, that’s not my fault—I was born this way.

Sometimes smart people think dumb things regarding human freedom and moral responsibility. But it doesn’t take an advanced degree to realize that the residents of Westview could not possibly be responsible for any of their actions while they were under Wanda’s control. And neither can we if all of our thoughts, beliefs, and actions are caused and determined by someone or something else. Once again, we see the importance of good stories and how they can illustrate basic truths about reality. In the case of WandaVision, we plainly see the value of freedom and, with further thought, its connection to moral responsibility.

How To Be Friendly To People Who Oppose You Politically

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jiménez

Christians can get so worked up over politics that they can sometimes blow their witness.

Sadly, this is something we see more frequently on social media. It seems like no matter what your political views are, someone will be offended or will publicly attack you over your support of a candidate they feel is dangerous to the American way of life.

A big reason for Americans’ aggressive behavior is because their views run deep into what is referred to as “identity politics.” Politics is no longer about aligning with a specific political party. Nowadays, people’s political views are intertwined with their religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and social or economic status.

If left to its own devices, identity politics can bring out the worst in people. That’s why Christians shouldn’t rush to placate political labels at church. It can send the wrong message and cause a rift with other church members.

Without question, the American church is at a crossroads between faith and politics, which is very disturbing.

So then, what can you do to overcome this contention and bring some clarity and unity back into the Christian community?

Well, for one thing, when you’re knee-deep in a discussion about politics, don’t let secondary issues impede your progress in finding common ground. It’s possible for Christians to have thoughtful debates over politics without biting each other’s heads off.

To avoid letting a conversation surrounding politics from getting too heated, follow these three steps:

Step number one, be cordial. Peter wisely states, “Show proper respect to everyone” (1 Pet. 2:17). It’s okay to critique the other person’s political views as long as you don’t turn into a disrespectful critic of their political party. Avoid getting defensive and cutting the other person off. Your ultimate objective is not to prove the other person wrong but to improve the relationship. No progress can occur if you’re not willing to show respect and listen to the other person.

Step number two, be biblical. Much of the time, political conversations consist of citing a political pundit to back up an opinion. You might be right positionally, but make sure your argument is based primarily on biblical truths rather than from sources that feed your ideological position. As a follower of Jesus Christ, make sure politics do not overshadow the gospel and doctrinal truths. In so doing, you will keep the main thing the main thing and find more important areas of agreement.

Step number three, be reasonable. If you love people and good ideas, you will spend adequate time sharpening your arguments and learning from others. As you debate with someone who holds to a dramatically different political opinion, you will want to be clear and logical when presenting your positions; while, at the same time, remaining teachable (see Phil. 4:5; Js. 3:7).

No matter how intense a political debate may get within the four walls of the church, make it your goal never to let politics ruin your relationships with your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

By applying these three steps, you are sure to have friendly interactions with those who don’t share your political views.

Pope Biden and the New Theocracy of the Christian Left

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek & Lucas Miles

After four years of accusing conservatives of violating the First Amendment by attempting to establish an American theocracy, the conclave of the Christian Left sent the ceremonial white smoke of affirmation through the metaphorical chimneys of our nation’s capital as The Times announced a more “religiously observant” neo-papacy, headed by none other than President Joe Biden, himself.

The Christian Left’s Theocracy and Hypocrisy

No longer identifying as simply Catholic or Christian, Biden’s deeply praised spirituality has adopted qualifiers, such as Liberal Christianity and Progressive Christianity, proving that the left takes no issue with an American theocracy, as long as democrats are able to exchange the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, for the holy Marxist trinity of diversity, acceptance and social justice. In this America, President Biden’s pro-abortion beliefs are lauded as “steeped in Christian rituals and practices,” while simultaneously Leftists derogatorily refer to Amy Coney Barrett’s pro-life agreement with the Church as “dogmatic.” Contrary to what The Times says, Biden is not only, not “religiously observant” of the Church’s most important moral teachings, he denies them through his policies. In the new theocracy of the Christian Left, such Biblical defiance is not only desired, it is the very definition of devotion.

Biblical Defiance Required

Forget forgiveness of sins, repentance, and the cross. The new religion of the left initiates its members through forced acceptance of global warming, racism, and pro-abortive child sacrifice. Fueled by a nearly state-run liberal media, the Christian Left holds their new pope’s doctrines, ratified by cowardly executive orders, as infallible and the ultimate expression of not only faith but science, as they “solve” every problem from poverty to pollution. To deny their logic — that allows grown men in girl’s restrooms and invents more than 100 genders — is heretical and will land one in certain “ex-communication” from the church of the state through total political and financial cancellation. Severe offenders even risk being refused access to the left’s most divine sacraments, Twitter and Facebook. This new progressive theocracy considers it perfectly legitimate to be a card-carrying member of the Christian Left and still supports anti-biblical ideals, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, despite mountains of biblical evidence to the contrary. For the church of Biden, there are no contradictions here — after all, the archaic mumblings of biblical orthodoxy are no match in their minds for the religiously enlightened dogma of its past saints, like Darwin, Marx, and Obama, as well as the theocracy’s holy mother herself, Margaret Sanger.

Straining a Gnat, Swallowing a Camel

They assert that liberal Christians can not only overlook abortion, but they can celebrate it, because of the plethora of other pro-life issues that the Democrat party addresses, like universal healthcare, the dangers of global warming, and open borders. So it’s perfectly legitimate, they say, to be a progressive Christian and support politicians who are pro-abortion — after all, for the left, Biden’s Christianity is “less focused on sexual politics and more on combating poverty, climate change and racial inequality.”

Forget forgiveness of sins, repentance, and the cross. The new religion of the left initiates its members through forced acceptance of global warming, racism, and pro-abortive child sacrifice.

Except, of course, this isn’t true. Politics under Biden and the Christian Left have never been more sexualized, with an outright obsession with genders, a women’s right to choose, transgenderism, and introducing America’s children to drag queens. Apropos of Jesus’ rebuke of the religious and political leaders of his day, the Christian Left is nothing more than “blind guides,” who “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” Much like the Pharisees of scripture, today’s progressive Christians are majoring in the minors. For instance, we have “religiously observant” politicians telling us what light bulbs we can and can’t use, all while neglecting to shed light on the worst injustice imaginable — the senseless slaughter of the unborn — and even worse, all in the name of women’s reproductive rights! Christ-centric Christians know that this logic runs afoul of Jesus and common sense.

One Issue Disqualifiers

Now, none of this means that Christians should be one-issue voters. Being pro-life on the abortion issue doesn’t necessarily qualify someone as a good candidate. Christians and conservatives should also want their candidates to be strong on other issues as well (i.e. religious freedom, national defense, the economy, etc.). Understanding Jesus’s teaching means that we are not one-issue voters but we are one issue disqualifiers, that is when that issue shows complete disregard for human life. In other words, while being pro-life doesn’t necessarily qualify someone as a good candidate, being pro-abortion necessarily disqualifies someone as a good candidate.

In light of an “ascendant liberal Christianity,” true followers of Christ must learn to discern the difference between men who declare themselves gods, and a God who made himself man.

For this reason, a candidate’s position on abortion may very well be the best metric to determine if someone remains true to Christianity, as defined by scripture and natural law, or if they’ve joined the new theocracy of the Christian Left.

Support for Pro-Abortion Politicians and the True Christian

For those who still think it’s appropriate to support pro-abortion politicians, I have a few questions: Would you take the same position if the issue was not abortion but slavery? Would you reason, “There are other freedom issues that are important too, so it’s perfectly fine to support pro-slavery candidates”? Would you deny the moral importance of voting for Abraham Lincoln over Stephen Douglas? Would you gloss over the fact that Douglas not only wants to keep slavery legal, but he wants you, the taxpayer, to subsidize it? I doubt you would. Like Jesus, you would charge anyone making such a terrible case with “neglecting the more important matters of the law,” and as such, true Christians, whether Republican or Democrat, should do the same in Biden’s America. In light of an “ascendant liberal Christianity,” true followers of Christ must learn to discern the difference between men who declare themselves gods, and a God who made himself man.

How critical is this moment for Americans?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Richard Land

I cannot help but think that a large majority of American citizens are very, very concerned about the current state of our union.

The increasing hostility and political protests that have roiled our society for the past few years seem to be reaching a crescendo in the events that have unfolded in the aftermath of an extremely acrimonious election cycle in which there seemed to be little common ground. Many people have blamed President Trump for this increasing level of incivility, but he was more a symptom and a product of the dissatisfaction and unrest of many citizens rather than its progenitor.

Throughout the summer and fall of 2020, numerous people were quoting the late, great Martin Luther King Jr., who had sought in 1967 to explain the phenomenon of “riots” without condoning them, observing that “A riot is the language of the unheard.” The left was quick to seize upon this explanation as a reason for the violent protests that wracked many of our cities in the summer and early fall of 2020. Mr. Trump, the first president to be elected without any prior political service, or alternatively just having won a war (generals Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower), was obviously a political phenomenon produced by a significant segment of the American population between the two coasts who felt “unheard” in their frustrations in being victimized by globalization and the consequent disappearance of their livelihoods.

How else do you explain a Donald Trump? Like most political observers, I would have said what Trump did in going straight to the White House in his first political campaign could not have been done – until he did it.

Unprecedented reaction to his victory in 2016, with significant segments of our media and political culture, never accepting the legitimacy of his victory, stating “He will never be my president,” and calling for his impeachment within hours of his taking the oath of office. It helped raise the temperature and rancor of political discussions at an alarming rate.

Now we find ourselves in the position where many Americans feel disenfranchised by President-elect Biden’s victory and the censoring of political speech by the High Tech Cartel (Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, Apple, etc.). Once again, I would not have believed such a denial of the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech until it occurred. Evidently, these vastly powerful entities have been so consumed by their hostility to President Trump they do not see what they are doing. How else do you explain Twitter condemning precisely the same behavior in a foreign country (Uganda), stating,

“We strongly condemn internet shutdowns – they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights and the principles of #openinternet.” They further observed that “access to information and freedom of expression, including the public conversation on Twitter is never more important than during domestic processes, particularly elections.” I could not agree more. It’s true in Uganda, and it’s true in the USA, too.

And now, we’ve been treated to the spectacle of the U.S. House “impeaching” the president less than a week before he leaves office, with the earliest the Senate could take up the case being 1:00 pm on January 20, 2021, when Mr. Trump will have already been replaced by then-President Biden. This makes a mockery of the intended constitutional purpose of impeachment, which is to remove a sitting president, and reminds me of nothing quite so much as the British royalists who returned to power in 1660 disinterring Oliver Cromwell’s corpse from Westminster Abbey, where he had been buried in 1658, so they could hang his corpse in chains and then decapitate him. Cromwell’s head was displayed on a poll outside Westminster Hall until 1685.

It is well past time for all Americans of the goodwill of all political persuasions to listen to our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, who in his first inaugural address in 1861 closed with this eloquent plea for Americans to turn aside from secession and looming civil war:

“I am loathe to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The multiple chords of memory stretching from battle-field and patriot grave, every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, and by the better angels of our nature.”

Tragically, too many of our ancestors chose not to heed Lincoln’s urgent plea, and the entire nation reaped the whirlwind of a bloody civil war that ripped the country asunder and cost approximately 750,000 war dead (J. David Hacker) North and South and multitudes of widows and orphans in their wake. Let us all hope and pray that we heed the warnings and listen to the “better angels of our nature” this time.

In closing, I want to reference a powerful novel, Word of Honor, written by Nelson DeMille and published in 1980. Word of Honor is the semiautobiographical novel of a man who served as an infantry platoon lieutenant in the Battle of Hue in 1968 in a similar time of national division and recrimination in our country. Anyone who lived through that year remembers it well. Although the preacher parts of me are offended by some of the passages, it is a riveting read. The lieutenant is on trial in 1980 for his platoon, having purportedly committed war crimes in Vietnam. When he recounts to his attorney what actually happened, his attorney replies, “What else? Steal chickens, too?” The lieutenant replied,

“As a matter of fact, they were not bad. Not in the beginning. But you can only log so many miles on a man and imprint so many obscenities on his brain before he begins to malfunction.”

I am fearful that too many of us are heedlessly imprinting the equivalent of obscenities on our fellow citizens and on our society – which is a living, breathing thing – and it is beginning to malfunction.

It is the duty of every American to do everything we can to stop it before it imperils our country.

Here’s Why Christians Should Avoid the Teachings of Richard Rohr

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

Tracy grew up in the church, but when her identification as queer contradicted her Evangelical upbringing, she decided she no longer fit within that tradition. Through the teachings of Richard Rohr, she found a spiritual home with the practice of contemplative spirituality. Tracy’s experience mirrors that of many millennial ex-Evangelicals who have discovered a spiritual mentor and teacher in the Franciscan priest, author, and founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation (CAC), Richard Rohr.

The CAC website describes Rohr as “a globally recognized ecumenical teacher bearing witness to the universal awakening within Christian mysticism and the Perennial Tradition.” Rohr’s teachings are gaining influence, especially among millennials who grew up in the Evangelical church. He is particularly influential in the progressive Christian movement and is referred to as a spiritual father, hero, and mentor by well-known progressive voices. He is endorsed by progressive leaders like Rob Bell, Jen Hatmaker, William Paul Young, Michael Gungor, and Brian McLaren, to name just a few. As Rohr gains popularity, it becomes increasingly more important for church leaders to be aware of his teachings and their widespread influence. In this article, I’ll take a look at Rohr’s view of the Bible, the cross, and the gospel.

Richard Rohr’s view of the Bible

Historically, Christians have believed that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. Following Jesus’ own example, Christians have affirmed over the centuries that the Scriptures are internally coherent, without error, and infallible. However, Rohr holds a much different view of the Bible:

The Jewish Scriptures, which are full of anecdotes of destiny, failure, sin and grace, offer almost no self-evident philosophical or theological conclusions that are always true. . . . We even have four, often conflicting versions of the life of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There is no one clear theology of God, Jesus, or history presented, despite our attempt to pretend there is.

Rohr interprets the Scriptures using what he calls the “Jesus Hermeneutic.” He writes:

…The text moves inexorably toward inclusivity, mercy, unconditional love, and forgiveness. I call it the “Jesus Hermeneutic.” Just interpret Scripture the way Jesus did! He ignores, denies, or openly opposes his own Scriptures whenever they are imperialistic, punitive, exclusionary, or tribal.

Contrary to what Rohr teaches, Jesus never ignored, denied, or openly opposed the Old Testament Scriptures. In fact, as I argue in this paper, Richard Rohr’s “Jesus Hermeneutic” not only fails to offer any legitimate Scriptural support, but taken as a whole, the biblical data gives us an entirely opposite view of how Jesus handled the Scriptures. The truth is Jesus never once declared or implied that the Scriptures were anything but fully truthful and to be obeyed. Jesus affirmed the Old Testament to be the inspired, authoritative, historically reliable, inerrant, infallible, imperishable Word of God—and that it was all about himself.

Richard Rohr’s view of the cross

Historically, Christians have believed Jesus died on the cross for our sins, taking our deserved punishment upon himself. This is not only affirmed in Scripture, and taught by Jesus himself, but it goes back to the earliest creed in Christianity, which pre-dates the New Testament by about twenty years. However, according to Rohr, the idea of a God who would require the blood sacrifice of his son is “problem-oriented.” Of the atonement, Rohr writes:

I believe that Jesus’ death on the cross is a revelation of the infinite and participatory love of God, not some bloody payment required by God’s offended justice to rectify the problem of sin. Such a story line is way too small and problem-oriented.

According to Rohr, Jesus didn’t need to die on the cross. It’s your “false self” that needs to die, not someone else. He refers to substitutionary atonement as a “strange idea” that leads to a “transactional” theology. Contrary to Rohr, Scripture teaches substitutionary atonement, Jesus affirmed it, along with early Christians.

Richard Rohr’s view of the gospel

Historically, the Christian gospel is the proclamation of the good news of salvation. This has been understood through the lens of God’s redemptive acts throughout history. It began with the creation of the universe and mankind. After sin was introduced into the world by the rebellion of Adam and Eve, God provided a means of redemption and reconciliation through the atoning work of Jesus on the cross. Those who accept this provision of salvation will be given eternal life with God. But for those who reject this gift of grace, the Bible describes their eternal punishment separated from God’s love and goodness.

However, according to Rohr, the idea of a God who “doles out punishment” is unhealthy, cheap, and toxic. He does believe Jesus died, was buried, and was resurrected. However, he separates Jesus and Christ into two separate entities, with Jesus being nothing more than a “model and exemplar” of the human and divine united in one human body. And in Rohr’s view, Christ is a cosmic reality that is found “whenever the material and the divine co-exist—which is always and everywhere.” He implicitly denies the deity of Jesus. He writes: “We spent a great deal of time worshiping the messenger and trying to get other people to do the same… [Jesus] did ask us several times to follow him, and never once to worship him.” This “Cosmic Christ” is a New Age idea that Rohr is promoting as “Christian.”

Rohr also believes all religions share the same core truth and are all paths to truth (perennialism). He openly affirms panentheism, a view of the nature of God that teaches God is in all, all is in God, but God also transcends the world. This carries troubling implications for his view of the Trinity and the nature of Christ. He said: “The Universe is the body of God…yes, it’s the second person of the Trinity in material form.”

He denies original sin, the atonement, the exclusivity of Christianity, and he has an unorthodox understanding of heaven and hell, and the literal second coming of Christ. Rohr’s views stand in stark contrast to the historic Christian view of the gospel.

Through his books and his highly popular teachings on the Enneagram, Richard Rohr is rapidly gaining influence in the Christian church. But church leaders would do well to be aware of what Rohr actually teaches about the Bible, the cross, and the gospel. Faithful Christians should avoid his teachings at all costs.

Tag Archive for: Christians

The Importance of Recognizing Common Ground

The Image of God

Our Sinfulness

Christ’s Forgiveness

Our Fear

Our Questions and Doubts

Our Choice

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Two Types of Authority

Applying the Distinction

Scripture as an Epistemic Authority

Highest Epistemic Authority

A Final Consideration

Summary and Conclusion

Notes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

2. The Red Herring

​3. The Character Assassinator

​4. The Self-Defeater

Conclusion:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What Makes a Reputation?

When a Negative Reputation is Deserved

When There’s a Mistranslation

When There’s Accurate Understanding with Negative Evaluation

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Christian Left’s Theocracy and Hypocrisy

Biblical Defiance Required

Straining a Gnat, Swallowing a Camel

One Issue Disqualifiers

Support for Pro-Abortion Politicians and the True Christian

Recommended resources related to the topic:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Recommended resources related to the topic:

​Richard Rohr’s view of the gospel

Recommended resources related to the topic:

3. The Character Assassinator

4. The Self-Defeater

Richard Rohr’s view of the gospel