Christians Archives - Page 7 of 12

Tag Archive for: Christians

The Make-Believe VeggieTales Video about Abortion

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

VeggieTales creator, Phil Vischer, has done some wonderful videos over the years. See what you think about this new 14-minute video he just put out on abortion.

Now, before we analyze the content, what do you think is the main goal of this video? Is it to urge Christians to not merely focus on overturning Roe to reduce abortions? Or, do you think the main goal of the video is to give Christians supposed intellectual and moral justification to vote against Trump and for Biden in 2020?

Since “vote” is in its title, it appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to accomplish the latter. Now, the motive behind the video doesn’t make its contents is necessarily false. Some of it is certainly true. In fact, the video rightly highlights that overturning Roe is difficult, and it’s not the only thing that Christians and other pro-lifers should be doing to end abortion.

But Informed Christians already know that. They are already engaged in ministries to prevent abortion and minister to those hurt by it. They also know that overturning Roe will not end abortion completely in America, but it will save thousands of lives (as the video admits).

If this video is intended to shift evangelical voting priorities, it should fail because the video’s case is built on fallacies and false data. It also leaves out several relevant facts.

It offers the false dilemma that we can only reduce abortions by the methods they suggest OR by overturning Roe. Why can’t we do both? We can and should as most pro-lifers attempt to do.
It tries to make a case that changing the law wouldn’t matter much. It does so by making contrary to fact assertions and citing obviously false stats:
- An “estimated” 800,000 abortions in 1930. Really? Who’s doing the “estimating”? There were only 123 million people in the US in 1930. Today there are 331 million which are known to produce 800,000 abortions each year. Obviously, the 1930 “estimate” is wildly inflated: there were far less than 800,000 abortions in 1930 because we had only 37% of the population that we have now, and there was not the same access to abortion then as now.
- More abortions before Roe and the rate is also lower now? Again, false. According to Dr. Thomas Hilgers, who did the definitive study on this back in 1981, the true annual number of pre-Roe abortions is somewhere between 39,000 and 210,000 with a median of 98,000—nowhere close to the 800,000 cited in the video (which obviously makes their rate claim wrong). How could the video’s authors think their numbers were anything other than make-believe? It defies all experience and common sense to think you’ll get less of something if you make it legal. Does anyone really think we’ll get fewer murders if we just make murders legal? Fewer rapes if we legalize it? Incredibly, that’s what the authors of this video say has happened with abortion, and it nullifies the core of their argument.
It ignores the fact that the law is a great teacher, and that changing it yields great benefits. Many people take their moral cues from the law. They think whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral. Slavery is a good example. We have a better moral view on slavery now than 160 years ago even though, overall, we are less moral now in most other areas. Why? Because the law has helped teach people since then that slavery is immoral. Similarly, most people thought abortion was immoral in 1973 as evidenced by the fact that most states outlawed it. Now we’re about evenly split. Why? Because making abortion legal made more people mistakenly think it is moral. It is not as this one-minute video unequivocally shows.
It assumes that since Roe hasn’t been overturned yet, it won’t be overturned so we shouldn’t keep it a priority (suspiciously two weeks before the most pro-life president in terms of policy and appointments is up for re-election). They ignore the fact overturning Roe requires a long game that can take many years. It requires a case to come before the court that challenges Roe through state law. This happens infrequently because states are not apt to pass such a law unless they think the court might take it and then vote favorably on it. A conservative court is more likely to welcome such a challenge. With Trump’s three judges, we may finally have such a court. That will be lost if Democrats win and pack the court—a threat Biden refuses to deny.
It ignores the fact that Roe would have been overturned in 1992 had Bork not been “Borked” by Democrats in the Senate (The Planned Parenthood vs. Casey case was at 5-4 decision with Kennedy, Bork’s replacement, writing the atrocious relativistic decision in favor of keeping Roe).

So, what’s really behind this thinly veiled and fallacious attempt? It’s not because the authors have suddenly discovered the non-importance of Roe. After all, do you think this video would exist if Biden was running against Bush rather than Trump?

No, this video exists because Christians are looking for any excuse to avoid voting for Trump. When I ask never-Trump Christians, “If it was Bush vs. Biden, who would you vote for?” They all say, “that’s easy—Bush!” Yet Trump supports more conservative and pro-life policies than Bush. This reveals that they are voting personality rather than policy. (Look, I wish we had a good personality and platform in one candidate. Unfortunately, we don’t. I give Trump and A- on policy and a D on demeanor; Biden gets an F and policy and a C on demeanor.)

But Trump’s caustic and rude personality is no justification for suggesting that life isn’t the most important issue anymore. The first duty of government is to prevent the taking of innocent life, and certainly not to pay for the taking of innocent life (as the Democrat platform advocates with its taxpayer funding of abortion.) While being pro-life doesn’t necessarily make someone a good candidate, being pro-abortion necessarily disqualifies a candidate.

Pro-life author Scott Klusendorf asks you to “imagine a school house that is on fire with children trapped inside. A crude talking man with arrogant tweets is willing to join you risking his life to save kids. Meanwhile, a “nice” man thought to be less haughty and with fewer sarcastic tweets not only refuses to help you, he promises to throw gasoline on the fire. Is there no morally significant difference between the two men? Worse still, should we endorse the arsonist? If you think Biden and the Democrats do not have wicked plans on abortion and will rush to implement them, you have not been paying attention to their campaign promises or the actions Senate democrats–who can’t even bring themselves to outlaw letting unwanted humans die after birth.” In short, policy trumps personality.

If the goal of Mr. Vischer and his narrator (pastor Skye Jethani) is to get Christians to give up on Roe and vote Democrat, I have a question for them: Would you would have made this video if the issue was not abortion and Roe but slavery and Dred Scott? (Dred Scott affirmed slavery by opining that blacks were only three-fifths of a person.)

“Overturning the Dred Scott decision isn’t our top priority anymore. We’ve put justice after justice on the Supreme Court and still haven’t been able to overturn it after all these years. And even if we do overturn Dred, some states will still have slavery. Besides, there are other ways of reducing slavery. And since slavery has decreased under pro-slavery presidents, it’s perfectly fine to vote for Stephen Douglas over Abraham Lincoln.”

Would these men be making that dreadful case? Would they be casting doubt on the moral importance of voting for Lincoln over Douglas? Would they gloss over the fact that Douglas not only wants to keep slavery legal, but he wants you, the taxpayer, to subsidize it?

No one would accept that case. And we shouldn’t accept theirs now. It’s a make-believe case. (For more, see my new video Does Jesus Trump Your Politics?)

How to Explain to Your Kids Why Social Justice Warriors Hate Christians So Much

Apologetics for Parents

By Natasha Crain

Black Lives Matter activists cornered a woman at a restaurant in Washington D.C. this week because she wouldn’t raise her fist in solidarity with their chants that “white silence is violence.” If you watch the clip of this happening, at about the 28 second mark you can hear the protester in front accusingly ask, “Are you a Christian?”

If you haven’t studied much of what’s going on ideologically behind recent protests, this question might seem strangely out of place. What does being a Christian have to do with whether this woman agreed to raise her fist or not? Why would these protesters single out Christianity as a potential cause of someone refusing to give in to what they see as a fight for social justice? After all, they didn’t ask, “Are you a Muslim?” or “Are you a Hindu?” They also didn’t ask any questions that weren’t religious in nature, such as, “Are you a racist?” (a question that would have seemingly been more relevant given the nature of the situation—not that they should have been harassing her in the first place).

Earlier this summer, protesters in Portland were burning Bibles. Again, one might ask, “Why so much anger toward the Bible? What does this have to do with protests? What does this have to do with racial injustice?”

Events like these that suddenly and explicitly pit Christianity against the cause of many Social Justice Warriors (“SJWs”) are the tip of an ideological iceberg that many Christians are (to a large degree) unaware of. Black Lives Matter is just one of many social justice movements, and these movements often share a hostility to Christianity. If you don’t understand the underlying iceberg, these hostile tips that peak out can seem out of place. But when you understand the worldview that SJWs often have in common, it’s not surprising at all.

Middle school and high school age kids—particularly those in public schools—are increasingly surrounded by this ideology that ultimately results in hostility toward Christians, even if they don’t yet see that that’s where it leads. Many Christian kids are getting caught up in it as well, and I’m increasingly receiving emails from parents who tell me that even their church’s youth group is promoting SJW thinking.

In this post, I want to shed light on why SJWs often not only disagree with Christians…but also hate us. We and our kids need to understand why.

The Worldview of the Social Justice Warrior

The term Social Justice Warrior gets thrown around a lot, and people can mean different things by it, so let me start by clarifying how I’m using it here (and how it’s typically used in culture).

An SJW is NOT just a term for anyone who cares about marginalized people, or for anyone who sees the importance of righting injustices in the world, or for anyone who believes that government should in some way be involved in achieving better outcomes for people.

The term SJW is typically used to describe someone fighting to right the perceived injustices experienced by specific identity groups, and they are fighting to right those injustices in a specific way. SJWs focus on issues like gender, race, immigration, and LGBT rights.

SJWs often root their ideas in what’s called Critical Theory (“CT”). According to CT, the world is divided into two groups: those who are oppressed (the powerless), and those who are oppressors (the powerful). Those who are in the identity groups considered to be oppressed—for example, women, people of color, and the LGBT community—are victims of the social structure that has empowered the oppressors. The ultimate oppressor is someone whose identity doesn’t fall into any of the oppressed groups: the straight, white male.

In this worldview, all relationships between people are understood to be functions of power dynamics. Those in power want to keep their power, so they will want to maintain societal structures that have always been in place because that is supposedly what gave them their power to begin with (and sustains their power still today). Because the historical structure of society is presumed to be the ultimate reason why anyone is currently marginalized, nothing less than a societal revolution is needed to fix the problems we see—a complete overturning of everything considered to be “normal” in America.

Read that last sentence again, as it’s very important.

SJWs who root their ideas in CT despise everything that has been “normal” for America because it’s all part of the “system” that resulted in the inequalities experienced today. The system is too broken to be fixed (goes the narrative), therefore the system must be done away with. Furthermore, those in power not only don’t want to see this, they can’t see this, because they can never see truth the way a member of an oppressed group can, given their “lived experience” of oppression.

Much more could be said, but this brief worldview summary actually gives us enough background to work with in order to understand how it logically works out to a hatred of Christians. (There’s a great video here that explains CT in more depth, which could be very helpful to watch with your kids. Note that this video shows why CT is NOT biblical, despite the title.)

I believe it boils down to three key reasons, as follows. Note that my purpose here is not to do a full compare and contrast between CT and Christianity (that would be a much longer post), but rather to highlight the elements of CT that specifically have led to outright hostility toward Christians.

First, Christianity is part of the perceived “norm.”

When we’re talking about emotionally charged terms like “oppressed” and “oppressor,” no one should be surprised that those identifying themselves with the “oppressed” group have more than a passing feeling of disagreement with those considered to be oppressors. When a person feels they’ve been victimized, they’ll of course have resentment and anger toward those believed to be responsible. As I explained above, many SJWs blame everything related to the (perceived) “norms” of society for the injustices we see.

Christianity is considered to be part of these norms.

Let’s see an example of how this works out. The Smithsonian’s National Museum of History and Culture made headlines in July because of a graphic they placed on their website under the “Whiteness” section of their “Talking about Race” portal (it has since been removed). At the top, the graphic stated:

“White dominant culture, or whiteness, refers to the ways white people and their traditions, attitudes and ways of life have been normalized over time and are now considered standard practice in the United States. And since white people still hold most of the institutional power in America, we have all internalized aspects of white culture—including people of color.”

The graphic included a broad selection of allegedly “white” value examples, such as rational thinking, a family with a father and mother, hard work, planning for the future, and even the bland taste for “steak and potatoes” (who knew?). So much could be said about this, but for our current purpose, I want to specifically point you to the Religion section on “whiteness.” It says:

Christianity is the norm.
Anything other than Judeo-Christian tradition is foreign.
No tolerance for deviation from single god concept.

That first line says a lot. It would be easy to pass by if you didn’t realize just how much SJWs hate anything associated with the deadly “norm” today. There’s no point in even discussing the validity of the claim that Christianity is a norm, or that all norms are bad. Because SJWs believe norms of society are the evil source of all inequalities today, and have labeled Christianity as part of those norms, Christianity too is evil.

Not just wrong. Evil.

Second, Christians believe that objective truth exists, which bluntly challenges the SJW’s claim that authority can and should be based on “lived experience.”

Christians believe that truth exists outside of any one person’s opinion, because truth has been revealed to us by God himself. That means no human has special access to knowing truth just because of their status in a given society. This is a direct challenge to the claim that it is only those who have the lived experience of being in a specific identity group who can speak to what’s true about the world (along with what’s wrong with the world and what the solutions should be).

From an SJW perspective, asserting that there is truth that’s independent of power structures is just one more way of using power (through so-called “truth”) to oppress people. Remember how I mentioned that the “whiteness” chart from the Smithsonian listed rational thinking? That seems absurd until you realize this is why it made the list. People use rational thinking to show that truth and authority can’t be a simple function of a person’s lived experience. SJWs know that’s a threat to their whole paradigm.

Again, Christianity is not just wrong. It’s evil because it allegedly uses objective truth as a weapon to deny the authority of people’s lived experiences so Christians can allegedly remain in societal power.

Third, Christians believe the Bible is God’s Word, which repulses SJWs who see the Bible as a tool of oppression against marginalized groups.

SJWs believe that the Bible supports slavery, the oppression of women, and discrimination against the LGBT community. It’s far outside the scope of this post to defend the Bible against these claims. Again, for my current purpose, I just want to show that the belief that the Bible is guilty of these things drives hostility. If the Bible was simply a guidebook on what to eat or wear, it wouldn’t even be part of the hate equation. But because the Bible does speak about slavery, women, and homosexuality—and in a way that SJWs take to be in opposition to these groups—they are repulsed by the idea that any morally upstanding person would look to such a book as an authoritative guide.

Here once more we see that SJWs believe Christianity is not just wrong. It’s evil.

With these points in mind, it’s not surprising at all that a BLM protester would scream accusingly in a woman’s face, “ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?” It actually makes complete sense. You just have to understand why.

The more we can help our kids understand that today’s secular social justice movements are in no way just about helping marginalized people, the more we can help them think critically about the chaos that will undoubtedly continue to unfold around them in the coming years. Rather than fear such conversations, we should embrace the chance to show them just how much a person’s worldview impacts everything they believe, think, and do in this life.

Who Cares About Philosophy?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Huffling

What do these questions have in common: Does God exist? Can God change? Does God know our future? How can a good God allow evil? How do humans know? What does it mean to know? What does it mean to be good? Can we objectively interpret the Bible? The answer: all of these questions are inherently philosophical.

With the recent decision by a very prominent evangelical institution to remove their philosophy department, why should anyone at all care about philosophy? Some would argue that Christians shouldn’t care about philosophy because, as Luther so colorfully put it, philosophy “is the devil’s whore.” In other words, man’s (autonomous) reason cannot be trusted. We only need to preach the gospel and not worry about worldly philosophy. Many in our culture argue that philosophy is mere opinion, worthless, impractical, and a waste of time. The study of philosophy is often seen as useless and a waste of a good education that could have otherwise been helpful in finding a good-paying job. Ironically, the reasons given for such positions are necessarily philosophical. Why? Because philosophy is unavoidable.

I personally found this out when I enrolled at Southern Evangelical Seminary in the fall of 2004. I initially enrolled at SES to study apologetics. I had no idea the impact philosophy would have on me. My first three courses were Intro to Apologetics, Old Testament Survey, and Hamartiology, and Soteriology (Sin and Salvation). None of these courses were inherently philosophical, at least so I thought. Dr. Tom Howe taught Old Testament Survey, and Dr. Norman Geisler taught the other two courses. As it turned out, all these courses were loaded with philosophy.

For example, Dr. Howe demonstrated the role philosophical presuppositions play in arguments marshalled against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament). Such presuppositions were the product of rationalist thinkers like Descartes, Spinoza, and Hume. Dr. Geisler demonstrated the role philosophy plays in talking about the nature of truth, God’s existence, and miracles. He even showed how our philosophy of man determines our view of the soul and its relationship to the body (which is important for sin and salvation). Later, Dr. Howe demonstrated how integral philosophy is to hermeneutics (interpreting and understanding a text).

I found out that a philosophy course called Metaphysics (the study of being as such) was being offered in January of 2005. I asked Dr. Doug Potter, the SES Registrar if I should take that class. “Yes,” he said, “it’s the foundation of all that we do.” I really didn’t know what that meant, but I took it. As it turns out, from a philosophical standpoint, it really is the foundation for all that we do, whether in biblical studies, language studies, hermeneutics, etc. Philosophy really is unavoidable.

Do Your Spiritual Conversations Become Frustrating Arguments?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

We need to bring truth and love together in our apologetics

I once had lunch with actor and filmmaker named Alex Kendrick. He’s best-known for his movies like Fireproof, War Room, and Overcomer. Few people realize what undergirds his ethos of engagement. Afterwards, we recorded an episode of the Table Podcast called “Faith, Work, and Filmmaking,” where he explained how 1 Peter 3:15 became his life verse. He told me this story:

During college, I was talking to someone of the Baha’i faith. They believe there’s a number of ways to get to heaven…I found myself growing in frustration that he couldn’t see what I saw in the gospel. We began arguing and…we both left frustrated.

But the Lord convicted me…when I saw 1 Peter 3:15. “But in your heart, sanctify Christ as Lord.” In other words, set Him apart as more important than anything else. “Always be ready to give an answer to anyone that asks you of the hope that you have, but do this with a gentleness and respect.”

His experience isn’t rare. A lot of Christians aren’t sure how to show both truth and love when talking about faith. I’m a big advocate of seeing apologetics not as a debate but as a conversation. In fact, I wrote a variety of journal articles on dialogical apologetics with my mentor, Darrell Bock. This just means “what apologetics looks like in everyday conversations.”

In this post, let me just mention four guidelines for bringing truth and love together in your spiritual conversations: Engaging in conversational apologetics includes asking good questions, listening to understand, considering our character, and reflecting God’s heart in every encounter. These points came out of discussions we had with apologists like Stand to Reason President Greg Koukl and Staff Apologist Amy Hall.

1. Ask good questions

How can we lovingly begin spiritual conversations? Rather than rushing to explain the evidence for Christian truth claims, it is best to initially let the other person share their views. This allows you to better understand their spiritual concerns. What are their pains and longings? This helps you know how to better connect with them and build trust. On an episode of the Table called “Approaching Spiritual Conversations,” I sat down with Greg Koukl and Amy Hall to discuss how using questions can help you engage in a more personal way. Greg explained:

When I meet somebody… I’m not [immediately] thinking about getting to the gospel. My first step is to gather information…if I hear something that seems like an opportunity, I’m going to use my key question: “What do you mean by that?”

I saw a woman wearing a pentagram…I asked her, “Does that jewelry have religious significance?” Turns out, she was a witch. But she was happy to talk about her jewelry and her Wiccan convictions. How did I find out about that? I just asked a pleasant question about the thing: “What do you mean by that jewelry?” basically. Showing interest in people.

As they’re talking, I’m starting to get a spiritual topography…if there is an opportunity, now I have an idea of where I might go with my next question.

The challenging thing for many people is turning down their truth meter, because a lot of Christians will feel like, “Okay, they just said something I disagree with. Now I have to defend the entire contents of the Christian worldview because they have an opinion different than mine.” And this brings me to my next point: The importance of understanding the person.

2. Listen to Understand

After asking good questions, the next step is to actively listen to the answer with the desire to minister to the person. How did they come to hold their beliefs? Sometimes, we can miss out on the answers to our questions due to internal communication noise. This can include distracting thoughts or merely listening with the intent to refute challenges. My mentor, Darrell Bock, talks about what he calls “triphonics”:

Difficult conversations have three layers to them: There’s what you’re talking about. Then, there’s the filter through which you’re looking at what you’re talking about. And then, there’s the way your identity or your perception of yourself—what’s at stake in what I’m talking about—your perception of that. Oftentimes, people think they’re only talking about the top layer, and they don’t think about the other two layers. But the other two layers are driving what’s happening in the conversations. So, how do you move past the top layer and think about what’s underneath?

There’s a test that I run…[to] tell whether I’m in the right mode or not to advance the conversation: When the person is talking to me, am I paying attention to what they’re saying? Or am I thinking through my response? Usually, if I’m in a combative mode…then [I’ve defaulted to] rebuttal mode in terms of engaging with the person.

One helpful exercise is to repeat the person’s view back to them in order to insure that you are engaging fairly with their view. We need to develop an awareness of factors beyond the subject matter—including worldview filters and identity issues—which may be influencing the discussion. A patient, listening ear can do much to demonstrate courageous, yet compassionate engagement.

3. Consider Your Character

How should we respond when a difficult conversation gets tense? Peter writes, “For it is better to suffer for doing good, if God wills it than for doing evil” (1 Peter 3:17). We shouldn’t react with hostility. The character we display during spiritual conversations needs to match up with the fruit of the Spirit and the way Jesus himself suffered. Think about how your character plays a role in defending the faith. I really like what Amy and Greg told me on the show:

Amy Hall

Character is an apologetic because we are representing Christ. 1 Peter [2:9] says, “We were called so that we can proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us.” That’s sandwiched among behavioral commands and saying, “Prove yourself to be someone with good behavior so that they’ll glorify God” (1 Peter 2:12).

Our character represents Christ…we can show the gospel to them by responding in ways that they don’t deserve. Because that’s how God responded to us.

Every time they’re rude to us, and we respond with grace, we’re giving an apologetic for Jesus’ character that people need to see…[1 Peter 3:15, which says] to give a defense with gentleness and respect, begins with saying sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. And that’s your obedience to Christ; that’s your character that begins this whole process.

When we respond to them, character is a huge part [of that]. We want to represent Christ; we want to be truthful; we want to be humble. We want to show all the things that make Christ great so they can see who He is…

The key thing you have to remember is the dignity of the human being you’re talking to…we’re speaking to someone who is made in the image of God, no matter how rude they’re being.

Greg Koukl

Proverbs [15:1] says, “A harsh word stirs up anger, but a gentle answer turns away wrath.” … You don’t want to be poking people in the eye in the way you’re communicating…

Here’s the deal: If I get mad, I’m gonna lose. What if I don’t get mad and they get mad. Well, then I’m still going to lose. If anybody gets mad, then we’re going to lose. That is, we are not going to be able to have the positive impact as ambassadors for Christ we want to have.

Sometimes, it’s not our fault; they get mad. It’s the message’s fault. And we have – we live with that. But we want to try to avoid anything that makes them unnecessarily angry. We want to maneuver in a way – with the kind of grace that’s appropriate to the message of grace that we’re communicating.

So true. Spiritual conversations aren’t very productive when either person gets angry. Rather than respond in anger, let’s reflect God’s heart and model a different way of relating to people who reject our message. When we demonstrate a Christ-like character, it could very well be the most effective way to overcome negative Christian stereotypes.

Think about the stereotype some people have that “Christian” equals “intolerant, homophobic bigot.” One way we can work to deflate this stereotype for the sake of the Christian message getting a hearing is to engage in such a way that if a person hears this charge against Christians, they might pause and say, “I don’t know about that. The Christians I know don’t seem like that to me at all.”

I always like to say that our apologetic arguments or explanations of the faith are not heard in a vacuum. They come in this wrapper called “your life.” A quiet confidence in the truth of Christianity and a character that matches Jesus’ example carries a persuasive force that just refuting arguments won’t match.

4. Reflect God’s Heart

We should reflect God’s heart for all people. This means presenting the Christian message as a positive one. One the one hand, there’s a tension between how the gospel challenges our beliefs and actions. On the other hand, it also includes an invitation to know and experience God in a personal way. Unfortunately, some people just emphasize what is wrong with society and end up minimizing our hope in Christ. Others want to talk about this hope as only a future thing, instead of something you can have in your life right now.

Christian hope should result in humble engagement and genuine love for the people we challenge with the gospel message. Reflecting God’s heart means engaging difficult spiritual conversations with gentleness and respect rather than with fear, anger, or resentment. Before entering a difficult spiritual conversation, ask God to help you reflect his heart as your minister to your conversation partner.

This was the example of Jesus. Peter wrote, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (1 Peter 3:18). Indeed, God took the initiative to reach out to us before we embraced him or his message. Let’s navigate difficult spiritual conversations while remembering the gracious way God treated us.

The “How” of Apologetics Matters

Remember that conversation Alex Kendrick had with a Baha’i student during his college days? He told me: “I could articulate the faith, and I was ready to defend it, but there wasn’t the meekness or the gentleness the Scripture talks about.” He ended up communicating an attitude like, “You’re crazy because you don’t see my way.” This is a bad way to engage that seems easy to fall into. But today, Alex tells everyone that “truth and love should go together,” and he says, “now, I try to incorporate a very loving but truthful approach.”

We must help Christians understand what influences popular ideas about God, Jesus, and the Bible and equip them to engage the culture and defend the truth. At the same time, we must also help believers understand the importance of reflecting God’s loving character at all times. Our character in spiritual conversations should match the way God took the initiative to pursue us before we ever embraced him or his message. Engaging in conversational apologetics includes asking good questions, listening to understand, considering our character, and reflecting God’s heart in every encounter.

Is it Unbiblical to Argue for God?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Doug Potter

In my earliest days of attempting to do apologetics, I was confronted in the church with the objection that relying on philosophy, particularly arguments for the existence of God, was not only unwise, it was unbiblical. Upon inquiring why, they attempted to persuade by pointing me to the Apostle Paul, who seems to discourage the use of philosophy. In I Corinthians, Paul wrote:

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified…and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men but on the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

Hence, well-meaning believers expected me to toss out my human arguments for God’s existence and focus on the truths of Scripture, even if we must just presuppose them to be true. At least then, they reasoned, you will have the confidence that the Holy Spirit’s power is in your teaching and gospel presentation. Furthermore, they thought it wise, like Paul, to avoid the weak human reason relied on by the so-called wise men of his day which are like the philosophers of our day. After all, he wrote in Colossians:

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

Rhetorically these well-meaning believers asked, does that not close the case on using philosophy in ministry?

I have since learned, to the contrary, this often-spoken objection fails in three ways.

First, it not only misses the mark of correct biblical interpretation but approaches the kind of sophistry the apostle Paul was trying to avoid in Corinth. Second, it reveals an inadequate understanding of the Apostles’ overall apologetic method found in Scripture, which allows and anticipates the use of good philosophy. Third, it fails to see that while no one in the Bible gives a deductive argument for the existence of God, it does anticipate their use by providing reasons for the existence of God.

Biblical Interpretation

To properly understand any text, one must understand the context. For any ancient text that means learning about the history, culture, language, words, and grammar of the text. When it comes to the above passage in First Corinthians, just knowing the historical context fixes the above misinterpretation.

The apostle Paul arrived in Corinth in 49 BC, just after the Isthmian games had concluded. He would have observed a Roman colony steeped in the second sophistry movement (1^st Cent. AD). The first sophistry movement (5^th Cent. BC) grew out of classic Greek philosophy, relied on rhetoric, arguments of persuasion, effective communication, and regardless of success, at least considered the pursuit of truth a worthy endeavor. This first movement declined over the next three centuries. The second movement never revived what the first movement held dear and instead degenerated to persuasion to win admiration and disciples for their schools in hopes of taking down their competition.[1] The truth, for them, was irrelevant. Dio Chrysostom (c. 40 – c. 115 AD) arrived in Corinth about 40 years after Paul and observed:

So, when the time of the Isthmian games arrived, and everybody was at the Isthmus…That was the time when one could hear crowds of wretched sophists around Poseidon’s temple shouting and reviling one another, and their disciples, as they were called, fighting with one another, many writers reading aloud their stupid works, many poets reciting their poems while others applauded them, many jugglers showing their tricks, many fortunetellers interpreting fortunes, lawyers innumerable perverting judgment, and peddlers not a few peddling whatever they happened to have. (Discourses 8.5-10)

Paul was observant of the culture in which he reasoned and preached the gospel (Acts 17:22). He likely decided to lay aside his rhetorical skills and persuasiveness of speech (all of which he used in his letters) so as not to confuse the messenger and message with the “debaters of this age” (1 Corinthians 1:20). This way, he might be heard, the power of the gospel clear, and the signs of a true apostle (2 Corinthians 12:12) evident. In doing so, Paul in no way discounted or denied the existence of a good philosophy that allows arguments and persuasion to precede the truth of the gospel.

To suggest that Paul would permanently jettison good reason and argument is to approach the stupidity of the sophists of his day.

The passage from Colossians, likewise, has a context of dealing with some “one.” This is a term Paul uses for specific false teachers (Galatians 1:7) even though the false teacher is unnamed. Paul also is using the two parallel substantives “[the] philosophy and empty deception” which most likely suggests some close association between the words. Hence, Paul is not discounting all philosophy, but “philosophy” that is deceitful or runs counter to Christ. Indeed, Paul affirms earlier in this letter that in Christ is “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). Paul’s use of the term “philosophy” like others in his day, is broader (then it is used today) and can be applied to any system of thought including religion and division within.[2] Hence, Paul cannot be refereeing to all philosophy, but a philosophy from a false teacher that is according to the tradition of men which is against Christ. In other words, bad philosophy.

As C.S. Lewis persuasively preached in a 1939 sermon on the brink of a second world war: “To be ignorant and simple now — not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground — would be to throw down our weapons, and the betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”

The Apostle Paul’s Apologetic Method

Paul was a first-century apostle fixed on the proclamation of the gospel (1 Corinthians 2:2; 15:3-7). But such, many times was preceded or followed up by intense argumentation, reason, and evidence. Most who Paul met to preach the gospel either believed that there was one and only one God (the Jews) or believed there were many gods (the Greco-Roman Pagans). To the Jews he could appeal to the Hebrew Scripture to argue and reason from fulfilled prophecy that Jesus was the Christ and His appearances that proved the one true God raised him from the dead. Indeed, Acts is replete with descriptions of Paul’s defense (apologetic) of the gospel that involved “reasoning” (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9; 26:23) and “persuasion” (Acts 17:4; 19:26; 18:24). To the Pagans he could appeal to creation as to why there was only one God and the claim of Christ to be the Son of God, his death, burial, and appearances as evidence and proof for the miracle of the resurrection (Acts 14:15-17; 17:22-34). Paul lays out in Romans his understanding of Pagans: why they know the true God from creation (not Scripture) but because of their sin have exchanged this truth for a lie:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened…Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. (Romans 1:18-25)

Even though Paul held that Pagans had exchanged knowledge of the true God for a lie, he still appealed to the reason for the true God from creation (Acts 14:15-17; 17:22-34) before giving the gospel to them.

Biblical Reasons for the Existence of God

I read a book that said nowhere does the Bible give reasons for God’s existence. His existence is just assumed everywhere. While I agreed that there are no deductive arguments for God’s existence to be found in Scripture, I do not agree that the Bible merely assumes His existence everywhere. Indeed, the fact that the Bible and Jesus say creation had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Mark 10:6), implicitly entails a cosmological reason for there to be a Beginner of Creation. The Psalmist poetically declares a teleological reason for God to be, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands” (Psalm 19:1f). And the apostle Paul implies a moral law Writer if every human has a “law written in their hearts” (Romans 2:14-15). Rhetorically I ask, does this not open the case to use reasons for God’s existence?

As shown above, the Apostle Paul does not negate the application of reason in philosophy. Therefore, such can be done in at least two ways. First, to use philosophy for proving the existence and nature of God. Second, to illustrate the consistency of revealed doctrines in Scripture and argue against false doctrine. Hence, human reason and evidence can support faith and the preaching of the gospel. No passage illustrates this better than First Peter 3:15:

Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense [apologetic] to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

Luke explains to the faithful his method and reason for writing his Gospel,

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:2-4)

Indeed, we must acknowledge that faith is more certain than human reason when the authority is God himself since there is no higher authority. Hence, faith can be supported by reason and evidence, but it is never based on reason and evidence. As the professor, Norman Geisler, often taught, “apologetics can show that Christianity is true, but it can never be the basis for anyone to believe in Jesus Christ.” This must be left to the internal work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life.

Hence, I agree that anywhere the Bible prohibits the use of philosophy, I will be the first to stop and obey. However, I am certain that the Bible nowhere prohibits Christians from using any valid and sound demonstration for God’s existence and any other truth that is evident to us or established apart from Scripture. As God not only inspired the Bible as His word, he also created the world, including rational human beings, who know, judge, and reason, and therefore can be persuaded by the truth. For anyone to limit you or me in ministry to the truth that is only found in the Bible, is to be cut off from all the truth God has revealed in and through and by creation.

Reference

[1] Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth (Eerdmans, 2001), chapter 2.

[2] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Colossians and to Philemon (Eerdmans, 2008), 185f.

How Should The Church Engage Those With Same-Sex Attraction Or Gender Dysphoria?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

How should the church engage those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria? In response, I want to highlight seven basic principles that the church must embrace.

Affirm The Divine Image

Genesis 1 is clear that everyone, without qualification, is made in God’s’s image. That is to say; whether someone is attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex, they are equally image-bearers of God. The same goes for individuals who experience gender dysphoria. One’s’s feelings or attractions in no way mitigates against this universal status.

As Christians, we should enthusiastically embrace this truth. Nobody — not the government, the church, or anyone else — can bestow a higher status on each person than God already has. Moreover, not only did God create all people in his image, he thought so much of his people that he paid a steep price for their redemption by shedding his own blood for their sins.

Acknowledge Our Collective Sinfulness

While God created everything good, we all possess a sin nature because of the fall. David acknowledges that he inherited this sin nature from the time of his birth (Ps. 51:5). Romans 3:23, likewise, affirms that we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. And lest we think we’re just a little sinful, Scripture paints a much gloomier picture than this. Sin pervades our entire being (Rom. 8:7-8).

One of the ramifications of our fallenness is that we have a tendency to minimize our own sins while maximizing the sins of others. Yet, Jesus clearly condemns this hypocrisy (Mt. 7:1-5). Instead, we must take a realistic assessment of our own hearts. And when we do, we realize that if it weren’t for the grace of God, we would all die in our sins.

All that to say, just because we may not experience homosexual or transgender temptations doesn’t mean that our sin isn’t just as wicked. Lusting after other women, harboring bitterness, lashing out in anger, and spreading gossip are all acts of rebellion against God. It’s’s unbiblical to treat others as if they have a log in their eye and pretend we only have a speck. When we do this, we’re being judgmental hypocrites.

Know Jesus’s Universal Expectation

Jesus preached “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:15). To claim Christ as Lord, one must abide by these words. Unfortunately, many have watered down this message by excluding repentance.

Yet, Jesus never suggested that we could follow him without turning from our sins. Elsewhere, he states, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Mk. 8:34). In other words, whether you self-identify as gay, transgender, or as straight, Jesus demands that you deny yourself daily. And the reason we are called to deny ourselves is because we don’t actually own ourselves. We belong to Jesus. Not only did he make us, he bought us with his blood.

The very message of repentance and denying oneself daily implies that ongoing temptations and struggles will persist throughout the Christian life. But the true sign of a Christian is that they recognize their temptations as contrary to the will of God, repent if they succumb to those temptations, and seek to obey Jesus moving forward.

Recognize That Holiness Is The Goal

First, Peter 1:16 states, “You shall be holy, for I (God) am holy.” Holiness is the calling for all believers. But this raises the question: “What does holiness look life for those with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria?” Does holiness mean they will stop being attracted to members of the same sex or that their gender dysphoria will disappear?

I believe holiness can manifest itself in different ways for people with these struggles. One way is living a celibate lifestyle. British pastor Sam Allbery, and author of Is God Anti-Gay? Has chosen this path. Even though Allberry continues to experience same-sex attraction, he knows that pursuing those attractions would be sinful and so chooses to remain celibate. It’s noteworthy that Jesus indicated that celibacy was the only alternative to marriage (Mt. 19:10-12).

Others have chosen to marry persons of the opposite sex and start families despite ongoing same-sex attractions. Rebecca McLaughlin, author of Confronting Christianity, has chosen this path. In her book, Rebecca acknowledges she still experiences same-sex attractions but knows that pursuing those attractions would be disobedience. She even admits to still dealing with temptations towards members of the same sex. But she has chosen to deny herself to follow Jesus.

And sometimes, people stop being attracted to members of the same-sex altogether. We must acknowledge that this doesn’t happen in most cases, but for people like Rosaria Butterfield, it has. Rosaria details this transformation in her book Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul lists several lifestyles that will not inherit the kingdom of God — one of which was “men who practice homosexuality.” But in verse 11, he asserts, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ by the Spirit of our God.” I take this to mean that there were people in the Corinthian church who used to practice homosexuality but turned from that lifestyle upon conversion.

I don’t believe this means that the struggles and temptations completely go away. Anyone with a half-decent understanding of biblical theology knows that Christians continue to struggle as we await future glory (Rom. 8:20-23). This is certainly true of me. So we should have realistic expectations that those who experience same-sex attractions and gender dysphoria will often continue to struggle as they face temptations the rest of their lives.

Therefore, the goal for the same-sex attracted person isn’t that they become “straight.” The goal is that they be holy as God is holy. And we should have enough room in our understanding of sanctification to know that this will look different for different people.

Be People Of Love

One of the surest signs of a Christian is their love for others (Jn. 13:35). It is never appropriate for us to be condescending or harsh (Prov. 15:1). Unfortunately, many of us have really missed the mark on this one. While not all the criticism is fair, we haven’t always been known as people who demonstrate the love of Christ towards the LGBTQ community.

As we think about Christ, he was the most loving person to ever live. And we’re told that he was full of both grace and truth (Jn. 1:14). Biblical love perfectly balances these two.

We read in 1 Corinthians 13:6 that love “does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.” Therefore, it is not loving to affirm homosexuality or transgenderism in the same way that it’s not loving to affirm a woman’s anorexia and encourage her to get liposuction because she feels overweight. The loving thing to do is to gently speak the truth to her and remind her that her feelings are deceiving her. In the same way, Christians must speak the truth in love to those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria (Eph. 4:15). It is not loving to encourage a lifestyle that does not promote spiritual flourishing.

But while we speak the truth, we must do so with a spirit of gentleness. Paul reminds us in Galatians 6:1-2, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. . . . Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” No one should beat anyone over the head with a Bible. No one should “come down hard” on another. Doing so contradicts the clear commands of Scripture.

Bearing one another’s burdens requires a great deal of empathy. It requires putting oneself in someone else’s shoes in an attempt to understand the challenges they face. It requires having conversations with those who experience different temptations than us and seeing that person as a fellow human being who bears God’s image.

And if we approach people with a spirit of gentleness, we will make it easier for them to share their struggles with us. Imagine how hard it must be for people to open up about their same-sex attraction when people in the church speak about their struggle so harshly. Empathizing doesn’t mean accepting sin. But it does mean being gentle. After all, Jesus was “gentle and lowly in heart” (Mt. 11:29).

Be Like Their Family

For many who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, celibacy may seem like the only real option for them. While God has changed people’s orientation, and while many have gotten married despite ongoing same-sex attraction, celibacy is the most realistic option for many. But with singleness, comes the fear of loneliness. And we must understand that loneliness is one of the greatest struggles single people deal with — same-sex attracted or not.

But this shouldn’t be. If the church lived out its mission, nobody would ever be lonely. Unfortunately, we have idolized the family with the minivan at the expense of our single brothers and sisters. This is wrong. The church should champion singleness. After all, Jesus himself was single. Paul champions singleness in 1 Corinthians 7. He goes so far as to say that singles are an incredible gift to the church.

Jesus declared in Mark 10:29-30, “Truly I tell you, no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much as this present age.”

Sam Allberry writes, “The gospel can be relationally costly. But it is also relationally generous. What we leave behind does not compare to what we receive back from Jesus.” ¹

As churches, we must do a better job of inviting singles into our families. No single should be alone on holidays. No single should eat Sunday lunches by themselves. If we say we want to help same-sex attracted people, we need to do everything we can to make sure they feel like they’re part of our family.

Find Our Identity In Christ

You’ll notice I haven’t labeled anyone as “gay” or “lesbian” in this blog series. Instead, I use the phrase “same-sex attracted.” It’s a bit tedious, but I want to make it clear that nobody is defined by their sexuality. This message, though, runs counter to our sexed-up culture. The culture says you are your sexuality. And that not expressing yourself sexually is unhealthy.

Of course, when we buy the narrative that our identity is wrapped up in our sexuality, then not embracing one’s sexual desires seems untenable. Celibacy seems so “old-fashioned.” But when we understand that our identity is rooted much deeper than our physical attractions, we realize that we don’t have to embrace those attractions to live a fulfilling life.

Our relationship with Christ supersedes everything. And because I am in Christ, and Christ is in me, then no matter what earthly relationships I experience, my identity remains unshakeable. Jesus is clear that our familial relationships will pass away in eternity (Mt. 22:30). But our relationship with Christ remains forever.

Concluding Thoughts

My hope is that God has used these articles in your life for good. If you’re someone who experiences same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, I hope you will see that Jesus offers you so much more than this world has to offer. He is so much more fulfilling and satisfying than any earthly relationship. People will disappoint. Jesus will never let you down. I also hope you will see that your attractions or feelings don’t disqualify you from faithful Christianity. More important is how you respond to those feelings. And my prayer is that you will find a healthy local church that will be your family and encourage you in your daily walk with Jesus.

If you’re someone who agrees with me that God has designed marriage and sexuality to exist within a heterosexual marriage, I hope you will see there are good reasons for believing what you believe. I also hope that you’ll see yourself as a fellow sinner who daily relies on the grace of God.

How to Build a More Discerning, Less Naïve, and Better Culturally Engaged Church

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

In my last article, Christian Naivety is Harming the Church’s Engagement with Today’s Culture; I identified four ways that I’ve seen many Christians respond with naivety to calls for discernment in today’s world. At the end, I asked, “How do we fix this?” and said my answer would be the subject of my next article. This is that article. Since this is a follow-up, please be sure to read my last post before this one for context.

Let me start by saying that the title of this article is a rather sweeping proposition. Obviously, this is a single article, the issues are complex, and I’m not claiming that what I write here is a complete answer to all the problems we have. But I want to offer what I see as some key levers needed to drive change in how Christians engage with today’s culture.

In my years as a marketing executive, I came to deeply appreciate one particular model that people in the marketing field have used for over one hundred years (in various shapes and forms). It’s a simple funnel that describes the psychological stages people go through before committing to an action:

Though this originates in marketing, I’ve noticed many times in the last few years how this model applies to so much in the area of ministry as well. As such, I’m going to use it as a framework for my current subject. If we want to move more Christians to the bottom of the funnel—the action point of being more discerning, less naïve, and better culturally engaged—here are the key levers I see at the awareness, interest, and desire points leading there.

Grow awareness of worldview differences by addressing biblical illiteracy.

Every time there’s a heated discussion on social media about some issue of discernment (calling out sin, the intersection of morality and politics, etc.), you can count about 5 seconds before a Christian drops a comment reminding everyone involved that Jesus says not to judge.

Or that Christians just need to “love” people (however, the person defines that).

Nothing to me represents a bigger lack of biblical literacy than when people make those two culturally popular comments, completely lacking in context and understanding of what the Bible says on these subjects.

Now, if research showed that Christians read their Bibles consistently and deeply and we were still seeing pervasive comments that suggest a lack of understanding, I would be writing here about the need for more guidance in Bible study. Guidance is surely important too, but the research shows many Christians aren’t even reading the Bible in the first place.

A study by LifeWay Research, for example, found that only 45 percent of those who regularly attend church read the Bible more than once a week. Almost 1 in 5 churchgoers say they never read the Bible, and that’s about the same number who read it every day.

If a person doesn’t realize that their understanding of the Bible lacks appropriate context and depth, they end up navigating the stormy cultural waters in whatever way happens to make sense to them based on what they think the Bible says. Ironically, without an accurate biblical anchor, their Christian views get completely watered down by the cultural waves…and discernment no longer functions effectively. They’re less able to engage effectively with culture because they aren’t even fully aware of how a biblical and secular worldview really differ.

A less naïve, more discerning church must start with deeper biblical literacy. This should be a top priority for churches everywhere.

Grow interest in cultural engagement by addressing (lack of) conviction.

Even if a person gains a better understanding of what the Bible says on relevant cultural topics (the awareness I just addressed), it doesn’t mean they’ll be interested enough to become culturally engaged. There could be many reasons for that, but there’s one that’s especially problematic: a lack of conviction that Christianity is objectively (and exclusively) true.

Pew Research shows that 65 percent of Christians believe many religions can lead to eternal life. This, of course, is another example of pervasive biblical illiteracy; the Bible clearly claims that only through Jesus is there eternal life (see Chapter 7, “Did Jesus Teach That He’s the Only Way to God?” in Talking with Your Kids about Jesus for more on this). If a person believes that Christianity is one of many worldviews that ultimately leads to the same truth, they aren’t going to be all that interested in standing up for what they perceive to be just one of those so-called “truths.”

A church filled with Christians who lack conviction that Christianity is the one true worldview is a church filled with Christians who will never care enough to challenge a non-Christian culture.

This is why there’s a desperate need for apologetics in the church today (apologetics is the study of why there’s good reason to believe Christianity is true and how to defend the faith against various challenges). Christians need to understand: 1) the evidence for God’s existence (see chapters 1-6 in Talking with Your Kids about God); 2) why multiple religions cannot be true (see chapter 10 in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side); 3) the evidence for the resurrection (i.e., the truth test for Christianity as the one true religion—see part 4 of Talking with Your Kids about Jesus); and 4) the evidence for the reliability of the Bible (see part 4 in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side).

Knowing why there’s good reason to believe Christianity is objectively true—and why that truth makes an eternal difference—is a critically important step toward building a church that cares enough to stand for truth.

Grow desired or engagement by destigmatizing the relationship between politics and religion.

Let’s now say that we have a person who is aware of what the Bible says on today’s hot topics, and they’re interested in engaging culture because they’re convicted that the Bible offers the one true picture of reality.

That doesn’t mean they’ll actually do something.

Marketers are well aware that awareness and interest do not always lead to a strong desire to do something because there’s often some kind of barrier. There are a lot of barriers I could list here with respect to cultural engagement, but a major one I’ve seen is the prevailing stigma about mixing politics and religion.

Just saying the words “politics” and “religion” in the same sentence immediately puts people on the defensive. Unfortunately, many pastors and Christian leaders have emphasized a generic dichotomy between the two areas, and over time the stigma of mixing them has grown. Consequently, when important cultural concerns arise—such as the ideology of the Black Lives Matter organization (which I discussed in the last couple of posts)—many Christians automatically bucket those questions into the “don’t touch this” category of “politics and religion,” as if it’s their Christian duty to stay out of it. Meanwhile, people start burning Bibles as part of BLM protests, and Christians are surprised! If you paid attention to their underlying ideology in weeks leading up to this, it’s not surprising at all.

We need to be able to think in more nuanced ways about the interaction of politics and religion if we’re ever going to have a more culturally engaged church that isn’t taken by naive surprise as hostility to Christianity increases.

Here are a few quick things I think we should be able to all agree on:

While some “political” issues are worldview neutral (e.g., local zoning laws), many are not (e.g., abortion or religious freedom laws).
When we’re talking about issues where biblical morality conflicts with secular morality, someone’s morality will be legislated; legislation based on a secular worldview isn’t the “neutral” option.
Acknowledging that there are political issues that involve the moral direction of our country and that Christians should care enough to be engaged in such areas, is not the same as saying one political party or the other represents Christianity. It’s also not the same as saying that we’re looking to a political leader to be our savior, or that we think we’ll eventually build an earthly utopia. These are often the strawmen people try to knock down when claiming Christians shouldn’t mix their faith with politics.
There are also many political areas where Christians can legitimately disagree. For example, we should all agree that God cares for would-be immigrants, but we may have very different policy opinions on how best to process immigration in this country. Identifying where grey exists is important for maintaining charitable conversation among Christians while uniting on issues that should be more black-and-white for anyone with a Christian worldview.

In short, we need to quit ending culturally relevant conversations before they begin by perpetuating the idea that politics and religion shouldn’t mix. Of course, they should, in some cases.

In all three of these areas, there is much that any pastor could do in a church through sermons, groups, studies, initiatives, and more. But that doesn’t mean others can’t make a significant impact as well. For example, you can:

Use social media to share biblically-sound articles that educate others about cultural issues from a Christian worldview. (I do my best to share a variety of such articles from my author Facebook page—you can follow me there if you don’t already.)
Take the time to engage in a thoughtful dialog when you see Christians make comments online that lack biblical understanding. It’s worth the time even if the person you initially respond to doesn’t seem to appreciate it—remember that others are reading too. If a comment is best addressed privately, do it that way. But resist the urge to just be silent because that’s the easy thing to do.
Lead a Bible study (online or in person, through your church or on your own).
Lead a book study that addresses current cultural questions from a biblical worldview.
Start a group to learn apologetics. (If you’re interested in starting a group specifically for parents and grandparents, we give you all you need to get going with Grassroots Apologetics for Parents. You can start an in-person or online chapter!)
Encourage your pastor to address more of these questions in sermons.
Work with your church to invite subject matter experts to provide training. Many of these experts are currently offering training online. For example, the Life Training Institute a 4-day Zoom event next week that anyone can sign up for: How to Survive Being Pro-Life on Campus in a Cancel Culture. Many apologetics speakers are also offering remote sessions right now. The Center for Biblical Unity is offering trainings on a biblical approach to current racial questions. So much is available!
Commit to the serious discipleship of your kids. They are literally the future. Training them in the same ways I’ve mentioned here for adults is just as important.

With more discernment from biblical literacy, more interest from conviction, and more willingness to engage by removing the “politics vs. religion” barrier, we can shape a better culturally engaged church. Perhaps one of the positives that will come from the chaos of this year will be a wider recognition that these things are so desperately needed in the body of Christ.

Why It Is Foolish To Insist There Is No God

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” If this passage from Psalms is correct, then many people today – including numerous scientists and other well-educated folks – are fools, for they insist that God does not exist. While name-calling is never productive, is there a way in which one might conclude that a person who denies God’s existence is indeed a “fool,” and not merely someone with whom we disagree?

Well, let’s begin with a look at the definition of “fool,” which includes “a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid.” Now, sometimes we trick ourselves and thereby make fools of ourselves. We might insist that a steady diet of fast food isn’t the reason that our clothes no longer fit the way they used to. On other occasions, it may be that we are misled. That tanning solution that promised to save you hours in the sun as left you looking a bit too orange to venture out in public. But whatever the source of our being misled, I think most would agree that a person who holds views that are inconsistent and contradictory has allowed himself to be deceived. Imagine a person proudly proclaiming that the prime rib he is about to eat is an important part of his vegetarian diet or the person who says that the only medicine that can save him is the one with no active ingredients. A person who proudly expresses views that are so in conflict has fooled himself, whereas a thoughtful observer would see things as they truly are.

Now, of course, some contradictions are not as obvious as the examples I just provided. Why, then, is it a contradiction to insist there is no God? It doesn’t appear to be contradictory – at first glance, anyway. For the answer to that question, we are indebted to St. Anselm of Canterbury, who lived and pondered these questions some ten centuries ago. I can’t do justice to Anselm’s argument in this brief piece, but perhaps some concepts borrowed from Anselm may help make the point.

The first avenue of inquiry requires consideration of just what it is that the human mind is capable of doing. We need to think about what “thinking” actually entails. Anyone who has seen a baby develop realizes that the human mind comes pre-programmed with an “operating system” of sorts. This system allows us to acquire language, to use reason, to recognize concepts such as fairness and truth and beauty, and other intangible things. It allows us to organize creation into categories, and perhaps most amazingly, to make use of the imagination. This ability for abstract thought lends itself to what we experience in an “I get that now” moment when a problem that has been puzzling us all of a sudden makes sense. We all use these systems of thought naturally and intuitively; they are part and parcel of the normally operating human mind. Of course, there is no other way since we could never use reason, for instance, to prove the validity or usefulness of reason.

One aspect of this ability for abstract thought is the ability to conceptualize or to place things into understandable categories. Food, for instance, can encompass a million different things, but to qualify as food, the object in question must be edible and serve to nourish, and not poison, us. We can call an ash tray food, but the underlying thing is not a matter of what we call it, but of what it consists. A tree trunk in the woods can function as a “chair,” but the surface of a swimming pool cannot.

So, with this observation in view, let’s turn to the question of God. Let’s consider for a moment, not what a definition of God might be, but what the conception of God is. What is it that we are struggling to grasp when we use that term? Anselm’s definition was simply this – God is that being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Whatever attributes God would have – omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, etcetera – if you can conceive of a being with all those attributes plus an additional one, then the latter being, the being with the greater attributes, would be God. So, imagine two beings then – each with exhaustive, infinite powers. Both beings have every possible attribute of perfection that can be conjured up in the human mind until one reaches the attribute of necessary existence. As I make use of my imagination and my ability to reason to flesh out what I am thinking about when I consider God, I realize that one of these two superlative beings has the attribute of necessary existence – it is not possible for this being to not exist. The other being, on the other hand, lacks this attribute. This latter being may or may not exist, or he may come into existence at some point and go out of existence and some other point. Now, as I compare these two conceptions, I immediately and clearly can see that the former – the one with necessary existence – would be the greater of the two. Consequently, to fully conceive of God, we must be conceiving of a Being who can’t not exist, whose existence must always have been and will always continue to be. Anything else –anything less – simply cannot fit the conception of God.

So, what does that prove? Maybe this conception of God is imaginary and, consequently of no value. Not so, Anselm would contend. And here’s why: the mind is not capable of conceptualizing something that does not in fact exist, that does not relate to something real. Now, this premise is a bit harder to get one’s mind around. The normal response to this part of the argument is that we create imaginary things all the time, from unicorns to tooth fairies to Jedi Knights. These things aren’t “real,” even though we can conjure them up in our fantasies. But each of these things, while imaginary, is the combining of things that are real: a horse and a horn; a person with wings and unusual powers; a warrior with special abilities and unusual weapons. And, and most importantly, neither a unicorn nor a tooth fairy nor a Jedi Knight would possess the attribute of necessary existence. If a unicorn did exist, it would have to consist of a horse with a single horn in its head; but its existence could have occurred briefly in the distant past, or could arise in the distant future or could not occur at all. We can fully conceptualize such a creature – we can place it in its proper category mentally – even if the creature does not presently exist. This is so because the conceptualization of these things does not require that them to actually exist in the here and now. For God, by contrast, the only way to properly conceptualize Him is as a necessarily existent being. If you are not seeing Him that way, says Anselm, you are not yet thinking about God, but about something lesser.

This foray into philosophy can be difficult. Fortunately, there are many other proofs for God’s existence, ones much easier with which to grapple, but this one stands out for its elegance. For if it has merit, then God has embedded within us the means to find Him in the one place we have exclusive and special access to: in the recesses or our very minds, there for us to uncover with a bit of critical thinking.

Getting back then to the initial question, if Anselm is right, the fool who denies God is saying something like, “I believe that the Being who must necessarily exist does not exist.” A rather foolish thing to say, when you see it clearly.

The Bible says that God has written His law on our hearts. Perhaps if we probe a bit deeper still, we can also begin to see in its depths the first faint scratching of His signature.

Christian Naivety is Harming the Church’s Engagement with Today’s Culture

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Natasha Crain

I had no idea my last article, “5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Culture Moment,” would resonate with so many—it’s been liked and shared over 250,000 times to date (!). Although I no longer leave comments open on my site (I just don’t have the time to moderate and respond), I had the opportunity to observe a flurry of conversation threads on social media related to what I had written. Those conversations threads generated all kinds of ideas for future articles, but the one that pressed on me most over the last few weeks was this one.

As I considered the types of pushback I received from some fellow believers (not skeptics!), I started to realize that their comments had little to do with the facts, logic, or manner in which I wrote that particular article. Rather, they were the same kinds of reactions I’ve see to any post other Christians, or I write involving a call to better discernment in the church. Articles of this nature are often met with the same types of broad pushback about 1) the need for love, 2) the need for action, 3) the need to not be fearful, and 4) the need for unity (the implication being that these things are all somehow in tension with discernment).

I want to show today why there’s a certain biblical naivety in such comments—one that actually harms the church’s ability and opportunity to effectively engage with culture.

1. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and love.

This, perhaps, is one of the greatest naiveties in the church today. If you have anything to say that is perceived to be negative, there will be plenty of Christians ready to tell you you’re not being loving. Others won’t directly make that accusation but will instead point out that they’re “just going to keep on loving people,” as if it’s impossible to offer truth while loving people.

Now, there are certainly times when Christians deliver truth in unloving ways. That’s a whole other conversation. But what I’m addressing here is the aversion some Christians have to any sort of statement that suggests a person, group, or action is wrong from a biblical perspective. In a lot of cases, those Christians even agree that the person/group/action is wrong, but they think there’s a negative tradeoff between drawing attention to our disagreement and being loving.

Please hear me out: It is not more loving, biblically speaking, for Christians to be a group of Pollyannas in a hostile culture. It’s naïve.

Jesus didn’t create the church to be an endless source of warm fuzzies to the world around us. That approach may draw some people to some version of Christianity, but it won’t be a Christianity based on the teachings of Jesus himself. As Christians, we’re called to be salt and light in the world. But how can we “preserve” God’s message when we refuse to share what He’s said in the name of our own definition of love—one rooted in either comfortable silence or superficial niceties? Surely, this is not a biblical love for others, as I explained in my last post. A biblical love is one that loves others in the context of what it first means to love God.

Furthermore, it’s extremely naïve to think that the more we look like the world—cheerfully glossing over the worldview differences that should drive our thinking and living—the more people will seek Jesus. Why seek Jesus when who He is and what He taught apparently makes no tangible difference in the lives of Christians, other than that they (sometimes) go to church on Sundays and pray in the quiet of their homes? How does this challenge people to consider the radical claims that Jesus was God himself, has authority over our lives, made reconciliation with our Creator possible through his sacrifice on the cross, was supernaturally raised from the dead, and is our only hope for eternal life?

It doesn’t.

We can keep on smiling and nodding along with culture, but let’s not be deluded that we’re doing Jesus any favors with complacency in the name of “love.”

2. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and action.

I received several well-meaning comments and messages in response to my article suggesting that what Christians need to be focusing on right now is how to help those who are suffering due to inequality and discrimination…not on being critical of how people are doing that. In other words, don’t worry about the underlying (neo-Marxist) worldview of an organization like Black Lives Matter, just jump in and serve alongside of them—why can’t we all just work together, even if we have some disagreements?

To be clear, I didn’t say or imply that Christians should never work side-by-side with nonbelievers. That would be ridiculous. Once again, however, nuance is called for. There are many non-Christian organizations in the world working toward causes that Christians should care about as much as non-Christians, and in ways that don’t conflict with a Christian worldview. If we want to help save an endangered species side-by-side with an organization that assumes a naturalistic worldview (in which that species developed through blind, purposeless chance), there’s probably not an issue. Our approaches and end goals, in that case, can align despite divergent underlying worldviews.

But what if a non-Christian organization seeks to achieve a common goal using approaches in conflict with a Christian worldview?

And what if it turns out that what we think is a common goal is only superficially in common? That when we dig deeper, we find out that we may be using similar words but have a wildly different ending vision in mind?

This is exactly the issue in the case of Christians and the BLM organization. BLM’s specific vision and desired policy approaches for getting there are decidedly hostile to a Christian worldview. Al Mohler does a good job of explaining why in this article, so I’ll encourage you to click here for further explanation if you’re unfamiliar with the issues.

As Mohler says, “Black Lives Matter did not emerge merely as a sentence. Those three words function as a message and a platform making a significant political statement—one guided by a Marxist ideology that seeks to revolutionize our culture and society.”

And to be sure, the label of “Marxist ideology” is not something being unfairly thrust upon BLM. You can see a video here of BLM founder Patrisse Cullors assuring her interviewer that the group has an underlying ideology: “We’re trained Marxists.”

I have no doubt that Christians are well-meaning when they say they just want to get involved and do something to show their concern and support for the black community. But the choice isn’t BLM or nothing, and pointing out major issues with BLM doesn’t imply an encouragement to do nothing! (As just one alternative, you can bring training to your church on how to better support biblical justice through the latest efforts of the Center for Biblical Unity.)

Discernment must go hand-in-hand with action. If we’re unaware of how our actions are working toward a society opposed to our fundamental beliefs, we’re just naïve lambs being led to the slaughter. Well-meaning Christians may not realize it along the way, but make no mistake…those leading the lambs most certainly do.

3. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and fear.

Another common response I see to articles written about the distinction between biblical and non-biblical thinking is that the activity of discernment is inherently fear-based.

“Do we really have to fear anything that isn’t explicitly Christian?”

“Why are you scared of people who believe differently?”

It’s unfortunate and sad when Christians think that the motivation behind discernment is somehow rooted in fear, as common statements like these assume. When someone attempts to clarify the line between biblical and non-biblical thinking, they’re not “scared” of what others believe or suggesting that there can be no common ground at all; they’re illuminating important differences because Christians should be able to see clearly enough to guard God’s truth from error (1 Tim. 4:16).

As Christians, we should be concerned when the lines between biblical and secular thinking are becoming so muddled in the minds of many believers that we’re losing our ability to impact culture. But concern isn’t some kind of unhinged emotional response that’s anxiously scrambling to get people to see your way because you’re afraid you’re losing a battle (the idea I think people have in mind when they make statements like the examples here). We know how the battle ends, but we’re called to preserve and fight for truth in the meantime. To not do so because we assume discernment is rooted in fear is a naivety about the need to think and live differently than the secular world. It’s a failure to understand just how different a biblical worldview and all of its implications for our lives really are.

4. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and unity.

Finally, another common refrain from Christians when discernment-related questions are raised is that those questions cause “division” in the body of Christ. The basic idea is that we need to prioritize unity over differences.

But take that thinking to the extreme: Should we align ourselves with Christians who think blowing up buildings is “biblical”? Of course not. I can’t imagine that the same people who comment about our need for unity would say we should. We all recognize that a line must be drawn at some point. The problem is that many Christians are subjectively drawing that line based on cultural comfort rather than biblical direction.

In Ephesians 4:11–15, Paul tells Christians to speak the truth in love rather than being like infants “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching.” The result, he says, is that we will “grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.”

Discernment is part of spiritual maturity.

Paul speaks to the importance of sound doctrine in his instructions to Timothy as well: “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Tim. 4:2–4)

The Bible in no way suggests that we are to accept all ideas put forth in the name of Christ as equally valid or to remain silent. Championing a superficial unity to avoid working through disagreement naively allows many harmful ideas to infiltrate the church. [For help talking about this with your kids, see Part 2 in Talking with Your Kids about Jesus.]

In sending out his twelve disciples, Jesus said, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). Just as today, the world the disciples would be preaching to was hostile to their message. Jesus’s command to them was to navigate what they would encounter by being shrewd—having “sharp powers of judgment,” as the dictionary defines it. We, too, should be both shrewd and innocent, but we’ve lost a lot of that balance to the naïve confusions I described here.

How do we fix it? That will be the subject of my next article.

How to Disagree Better about COVID-19, Conspiracy Theories, and Pretty Much Everything Else in Life

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

Aside from feeling the fatigue of quarantine in general, I am feeling the fatigue of people arguing about the quarantine. This includes Christians fighting with other Christians, Christians fighting with non-believers, and non-believers fighting with non-believers.

If you spend any time on social media, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

Our culture has largely lost the ability to disagree well. I’ve experienced this for years when discussing worldview issues with both Christians and skeptics. But because these worldview conversations tend to take place in online pockets, the nature of those disagreements isn’t always front and center in public life. The universal experience of COVID-19 right now, however, has shone a light on just how poorly many people conduct disagreements—for all to see. And what I see happening in COVID-19 disagreements is the same thing I’ve so often seen happen in worldview disagreements:

People don’t know how to have disagreements at the right level.

Let me explain.

Facts, Interpretations of Facts, and Applications of Interpretations (the FIA Pyramid)

A simple example will demonstrate the problem with many disagreements, as well as the power of using what I’m going to call the FIA thought pyramid: Facts, Interpretations of Facts, and Applications (both personal and policy).

Let’s say I came downstairs this morning and found stuffing from my puppy’s bed all over the floor. There are holes in her bed, and a little stuffing hanging from the corner of her mouth. Those are facts (and a true story!).

I then interpret this to mean that my puppy made a hole in the bed and pulled stuffing out. I didn’t actually see it happen, but I’ve inferred from the facts that this was the case.

Based on this interpretation, I’m upset with her and decide something must change (a personal application).

I then make a new rule (a policy application) that she is not allowed to have a bed of this kind until she has outgrown her puppy months.

Now, imagine that I’ve cleaned all this up before my kids have even opened their eyes for the day. When they eventually make it downstairs, they see I’ve taken the puppy’s bed away. Here’s how they process the situation:

Fact: Mommy took the puppy’s bed away.
Interpretation: Mommy is mean.
Personal application: I’m mad at mommy.
Policy application: The new rule is unfair.

This situation could lead to a giant tug of war between my kids and me if we chose to argue over the policy application (the fairness of the new bed rule):

Them: “It’s so unfair! She needs her bed!”

Me: “It’s perfectly fair. She isn’t old enough to have one like this.”

But the central disagreement here isn’t over the rule. It’s over the facts. In this case, the kids have a missing fact. They didn’t know that the puppy destroyed her bed this morning. Yes, we could all agree that mommy took the bed away (one fact), but the additional fact that she destroyed her bed and was harmfully eating stuffing was missing. If I shared with the kids what happened, so they now had that additional information, their new thought pyramid could quickly change to this:

Fact: Mommy took the puppy’s bed away because she was eating from it and could hurt herself.
Interpretation: Mommy is trying to protect the puppy.
Personal application: Mommy can be trusted to make good decisions for the puppy.
Policy application: The new rule is fair.

In this example, there was initially disagreement at the top of the pyramid (policy application) because the kids were working from an incomplete set of facts. (This isn’t the only kind of fact problem in the real world, of course; people can have different sets of facts, different types of facts, different numbers of facts, and inaccurate “facts” spread throughout their working knowledge of something.) Because of this, it would be pointless to debate the new rule in and of itself. We needed to work backward in the pyramid to see where the real disagreement was and have a conversation at that level.

Now that we’ve seen a simple example let’s look at disagreement at various places on the pyramid with COVID-19.

Disagreement Over Facts

When it comes to COVID-19, it’s fair to say that NO ONE knows all the facts because it’s a new virus. Most of us, as non-specialists in epidemiology, glean what we know from a variety of sources online, and those sources vary in credibility. Oftentimes what we believe is a fact is really an interpretation of other facts. With the massive amount of new data available, and different people trusting different sources, we are bound to have significant disagreements with one another at the fact level. Yet, most arguments I see happen are at the policy level: continued lockdown or no continued lockdown.

This is a hopeless argument if you haven’t taken the time to consider the FIA thought pyramid.

Imagine, for example, that person one is working from this pyramid:

Fact: The number of deaths to date this year is no different than the number of deaths to date in prior years.
Interpretation: COVID-19 is no different from the flu.
Personal application: Not worried about catching COVID-19.
Policy application: Lockdowns aren’t warranted and are destroying the economy.

Now imagine that person two is working from this pyramid:

Fact: The number of deaths to date this year significantly exceeds the number of deaths to date in prior years.
Interpretation: COVID-19 is responsible for most of those additional deaths.
Personal application: COVID-19 is something we should all be very concerned about.
Policy application: Lockdowns are necessary to save lives.

These two people could angrily argue over whether lockdowns are necessary, but it would be a waste of breath (or typing). They are working from different assumed facts, and likely won’t agree on policy applications because of it. It’s entirely possible that if they agreed on the facts, they would agree on the policy as well and wouldn’t even be having the discussion. That said, there’s not a direct path from facts to policy, either. In the middle, we have to consider interpretations of facts.

Disagreement Over Interpretation of Facts

Let’s say now that these two people are working from the same set of assumed facts, but they’re still arguing over lockdown vs. no lockdown. It’s possible they disagree at the level of interpretation.

Perhaps the person one is working from this thought pyramid:

Fact: The number of deaths to date this year significantly exceeds the number of deaths to this date in prior years.
Interpretation: The additional deaths still aren’t extreme.
Personal application: Not very worried about catching COVID-19.
Policy application: Lockdowns aren’t warranted and are destroying the economy.

And perhaps person two is working from this thought pyramid:

Fact: Ditto person 1.
Interpretation: COVID-19 is responsible for a tragic increase in death worldwide.
Personal application: COVID-19 is something that we should all be very concerned about.
Policy application: Lockdowns are necessary to save lives.

In this case, our two people could agree that there are more deaths this year (and even that they’re due to COVID-19), but interpret the severity of that increase very differently. One person might see a 20% increase in deaths as minimal, whereas another might see it as devastating. That interpretation can make all the difference in how one views policy decisions.

Disagreement Over Applications of the Interpretations

Let’s say now that these two people are working from the same set of assumed facts and interpretations, but they’re still arguing over lockdown vs. no lockdown. It’s possible they disagree at the level of applications (personal and/or policy).

Now person one is working from this thought pyramid:

Fact: The number of deaths to date this year significantly exceeds the number of deaths to this date in prior years.
Interpretation: The additional deaths still aren’t extreme.
Personal application: Has major underlying risk factors and is very concerned about any COVID-19 exposure.
Policy application: Doesn’t believe lockdowns are warranted for everyone (will take personal measures to protect him/herself but thinks lockdowns overall are destroying the economy).

Meanwhile, person two is working from this thought pyramid:

Fact: Ditto person 1.
Interpretation:Ditto person 1.
Personal application: Ditto person 1.
Policy application: Believes lockdowns are warranted for everyone to save lives.

In this example, the two people could both personally be at risk and feel very concerned about their own well-being, but have very different opinions on how that relates to policy for everyone else. You could also have a person two who doesn’t have risk factors and isn’t personally concerned (personal application level), but believes lockdowns are the most compassionate policy for people like person 1—even though person one him/herself disagrees! Personal and policy applications don’t always go hand-in-hand.

How to Disagree Better in 3 Easy Steps

So, where does this leave us? We can disagree better in three “easy” steps.

Ask good questions to determine where the disagreement lies.

When you disagree with someone, remember this FIA pyramid (Facts, Interpretations, and Applications). There’s a really good chance that if you’re arguing about policies or politics in general, you have a disagreement at a more fundamental level. Ask the other person to clarify exactly what they’re advocating for, why they’re advocating for it, and what led them to the conclusion that they should advocate for it. Then compare that to your own FIA pyramid (do some soul searching to figure out what that looks like!) and identify where the departure in the agreement is.

Engage in the appropriate conversation for the level where the disagreement lies.

If you realize the disagreement is over facts, responding with how you interpret the facts you’re using is typically not going to move the conversation forward. You should instead be discussing data sources, whom to trust, why to trust them, and so on.

Or, if you find that you agree on facts and interpretations but have a difference of opinion on policy application, then you should be discussing things like desired policy outcomes and why there’s good reason to believe a given policy leads to those outcomes. In other words, it’s not enough to identify where the disagreement lies; the ensuing conversation should reflect that level as well.

Don’t be a jerk.

Wherever you and another person are disagreeing on the FIA pyramid, there’s just never a reason to treat someone else poorly. This should be obvious. Question facts, interpretations, and applications—don’t attack people or groups of people who have a thought pyramid different than your own. Seek understanding and respond with love and humility.

Tag Archive for: Christians

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Worldview of the Social Justice Warrior

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1. Ask good questions

2. Listen to Understand

3. Consider Your Character

4. Reflect God’s Heart

The “How” of Apologetics Matters

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Biblical Interpretation

The Apostle Paul’s Apologetic Method

Biblical Reasons for the Existence of God

Reference

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Affirm The Divine Image

Acknowledge Our Collective Sinfulness

Know Jesus’s Universal Expectation

Recognize That Holiness Is The Goal

Be People Of Love

Be Like Their Family

Find Our Identity In Christ

Concluding Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Grow awareness of worldview differences by addressing biblical illiteracy.

Grow interest in cultural engagement by addressing (lack of) conviction.

Grow desired or engagement by destigmatizing the relationship between politics and religion.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and love.

2. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and action.

3. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and fear.

4. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and unity.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Facts, Interpretations of Facts, and Applications of Interpretations (the FIA Pyramid)

How to Disagree Better in 3 Easy Steps

Recommended resources related to the topic:

**Grow awareness of worldview differences by addressing biblical illiteracy.**

**Grow interest in cultural engagement by addressing (lack of) conviction.**

**Grow desired or engagement by destigmatizing the relationship between politics and religion.**