Tag Archive for: Gospel

The Early Martyrs Were Cross Examined to Death

Skeptics often challenge believers by claiming that the “evidence” for Christianity would never hold up in a courtroom. It’s hearsay, they contend, and since these witnesses can’t be cross-examined, the case would never even see the inside of a courtroom. For many unfamiliar with the legal system, this challenge seems solid. After all, why should we trust our eternity to a message that wouldn’t pass muster in a court dealing with comparatively less important issues?

Christianity On Trial

A bit of reflection shows the problem with this line of reasoning. First, it doesn’t take into consideration that we know many things that could never be “proven” according to the rules of evidence in a courtroom. Just about any historical event that is beyond the lifetime of living persons would suffer from similar problems, as well as problems of authenticating documents and physical evidence relating to the case. Yet, we have little doubt that these events occurred.

More importantly, the legal system provides the right to see and confront one’s accusers, and the related right to cross-examine them about their testimony, for a reason – “confrontation” is a reliable way to test evidence, to ensure that it is credible. But there are other ways to assure oneself that a person’s testimony is credible. In the case of the early martyrs, the way they demonstrated credibility – steadfastness in the face of persecution – is even more reliable.

On the Witness Stand

Consider: if a witness testifies that he saw the defendant point a gun at the victim and fire the fatal shot, the defense will want the right to test the reliability of the testimony. But what will they test? Generally speaking, the prosecution will take one of two possibles tacks. They will either, show that the witness is mistaken the witness is lying. Either way, their testimony isn’t very damaging to the defendant.

In preparing to cross examine, a skilled attorney need more oratory. He also needs to plot out an approach. If he wants to show that the witness isn’t mistaken, he will inquire into the types of things that could cause a mistake: how well does the witness know the defendant? How long did he see him? Were there impediments to clear viewing? How did the stress of the event affect the witness’ ability to perceive the event? Were drugs or alcohol a factor and if so, to what extent did they effect the witness’ ability to observe and record what occurred? Each of these avenues may prove productive in undercutting the conclusion the witness reached.

But if the witness says the defendant is his brother and he saw him a few feet away with nothing blocking his view, then alleging that the witness is “mistaken” will not be very productive. That leaves the other possibility, that the witness is lying. What is the relationship of the witness to the defendant? Does the witness stand to gain financially or otherwise by seeing the defendant convicted? What is the witness’s reputation in the community for honesty and integrity? Perhaps the witness is a “jailhouse snitch” who is trying to get out from another charge by telling the police what they want to hear. Or, by contrast, maybe the witness is the defendant’s brother who just happened to be present when the defendant committed the crime and is unwilling to lie for him.

Could the Martyrs Have been Telling the truth?

So, when skeptic’s refuse to even consider the testimony of the early martyrs, saying it’s hearsay, they are misunderstanding the point of cross-examination. The strength of a person’s testimony can be shown even more reliably by their behavior as it relates to that testimony. To put it bluntly: is he willing to die for it?

The skeptic will immediately object: but many people are willing to die for false beliefs? Yes, that’s true, but that is not the situation when we consider what those first martyrs faced. This group of men and women knew Jesus and witnessed the fact and circumstances of his death. This was their testimony: he died a gruesome death, he was later placed in a sealed and guarded tomb, and after three days he began to interact with them in a resurrected body.

If we had them on the witness stand, which of the challenges would we pursue. Mistake would not take us very far. No attorney with any sense would claim that Jesus survived the crucifixion or that the man the apostles saw after the resurrection was not Jesus. Jesus was well known to these individuals, and they witnessed the “effectiveness” of Rome’s favored way of ensuring a tortured and humiliating death. The tomb was empty and even if an imposter had tried to play Jesus’ role, he would not have been able to fool the apostles. That would be like telling the defendant’s brother that he actually saw someone else commit the murder – not a likely way to persuade anyone.

Perhaps then the apostles were lying. They knew Jesus had died on the cross but they wanted the world to believe that he had escaped death. They knew this was false but persisted anyway. How would a skilled attorney cross examine these witnesses? He would begin with the basics: is there a motive to lie? Do the apostles stand to benefit in some way, either financially, emotionally, or through the acquisition of power? Do the apostles have some animus against the “other side?” Are there prior inconsistent statements or actions that would undercut their present testimony? How committed are they to the position they are taking?

Having cross-examined countless witnesses, I for one would not want to take on these witnesses. Committed? They went to their deaths rather than retract their claim – “okay, you’re right, we just really wished that he was the Messiah, so we fabricated this whole thing.”

Prior inconsistencies? Quite the contrary. The change in their behavior shortly after Jesus’ death – from meek and broken to brave and bold – corroborates their testimony.

Animus against the other side? They preached a message of love, forgiveness and reconciliation. They gave unto Caesar the things of Caesar.

Motive for gain? Hardly. Insisting that Jesus was the Messiah brought them nothing; in many cases it took from them what little they had. They gained no position, nor power, nor wealth, nor anything else of earthly value.

Where does the cross-examiner go? Indeed, nothing they did on a witness stand could possibly add to the force of their “testimony” by remaining faithful . . . unto death.

They Wouldn’t Have Died for Lie

The missionary Jim Elliott once said, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.” Having witnessed the risen Lord, the early martyrs had a level of confidence in their message that few today can manage. They were neither fools nor liars. Indeed, it is rather the fool who refuses to acknowledge the power of their witness.

Recommended Resources:

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

 

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

 

/by

What If I Don’t Like Either Candidate?

If you’re like me, this upcoming election feels like a choice between which electric outlet to jab a fork into. I’m not a big fan of either candidate. It may be tempting to just sit-out this election. But we shouldn’t give up that easily. This November, you won’t be voting for a pastor, or a personality. You’re not just voting for a president either. You’re voting for a package deal. We’re going to get the president and everything that comes with them. So, we owe it to ourselves to look past their personality and consider the rest of the caravan that’s coming along with them. Here are eight reasons why you and I should still vote in this election even if we don’t like either candidate.

If You Won’t Vote for Either Candidate Then . . .

1. Vote Down Ballot

Besides the presidency, there are thousands of other elected officers to be determined this November. History shows that whichever party wins the presidency gets a boost in the elections down ballot. You can help your preferred party win those other elections by endorsing their party for president.

2. Vote For a Cabinet

The president doesn’t work alone. He or she has a cabinet of about 15 different department heads, 10 other cabinet officials, and the Vice President.[1] This cabinet of 26 people advise the president on a regular basis. The president has the authority to appoint all of those officers. If you don’t like either candidate but you would trust a conservative cabinet over a progressive cabinet, then you know who to vote for.

3. Vote For 4,000 Presidential Appointees.

Besides appointing all the cabinet members, the president also appoints 4,000 or so government positions. When people say, “The Trump Administration” or the “Biden Administration” that’s what they are talking about; it’s the president plus the cabinet plus 4,000 or so appointees. The president isn’t just a personality but also a gateway for overhauling Washington DC.

4. Vote For a Vice President

Besides serving as the next in line for president, the VP is the Chief officer in the president’s cabinet. Even if you don’t care for Trump or Harris, you can get a sense of the administration direction through their running mate. Plus, you might see something in a VP candidate to inspire your vote.

5. Vote For a Party Platform

I would say ‘vote for the party’ but there’s no telling what the party stands for without their platform (what they say they’ll do) and their policies (what they do). In the last 5-8 years, the “left” has pulled farther left. “Old-school” democrats are considered moderate or even Republican now. Today’s Republicans are tough to distinguish from libertarians. The point is, you can still read the party platform of the Democrats and the Republicans and vote for the one that best fits our beliefs and values.

6. Vote For the Policies

Beside the party platform, both candidates represents a set of policies. Now, you can expect politicians to make all sorts of campaign promises leading up to the election. But I’m not talking about those empty promises. I’m talking about the party policies that are likely to happen, once that party is in power. The president, of course, can’t just make a new law. Congress does that. But the president, VP, and his cabinet can throw a lot of influence behind their party policies.

7. Vote For the Power of Executive Office

The president has the power to make executive orders including creating or disbanding whole departments if they so choose. Now, you may not trust either candidate with that power. But someone will have that power regardless. I bet you distrust one candidate more than the others.

8. Vote Against the Other Candidate

There is no option to vote for two U.S. presidents in this election cycle. So, when you vote, you’re always voting against the other candidate. Maybe you don’t like either candidate. But you can still vote against whichever candidate you dislike the most.

A Final Warning

If you aren’t convinced yet, and you don’t follow my advice, then you have that right. It’s a free country, for now. It’s not like Christians will lose their salvation for voting third-party or sitting this one out. But I would urge you not to waste your vote. You can still exercise wisdom, love, and courage by voting not for the president but for the policies, platforms, and personnel that they represent. Yes, that means voting in the presidential election, but it’s not just about the president. It never was. It’s about competing visions of what American will become over the next 4 years. You can vote for the future of America by voting on the direction of this country right now.

Otherwise, if you sit this one out, then you’re muffling your God-given influence. You’re wasting a precious gift. And you’re telling all the rot and darkness out there rioting in the streets as we speak that you’d rather keep your “salt and light” to yourself (Matt. 5:13:16). Perish the thought. Let’s go vote!

References:

[1] This number can change with any given administration, whenever a new office or department is formed, or another one is shut down.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

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

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

 

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

/by

The Scandal of Elite Evangelical Compromise

A blogger I read regularly alerted me to Megan Basham’s new book Shepherds for Sale, subtitled How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda. It was released [at the] end of July. I was intrigued by the book because it claimed to be exposing compromise infecting many evangelical elites, especially among Southern Baptists. As it is, she is a Southern Baptist, and for over a decade I had moved in that world both at the more liberal Baylor University (the “largest Baptist university in the world”) and then at two of the main Southern Baptist seminaries (in Louisville and in Ft. Worth).

Baylor president Robert Sloan had hired me in 1999 to found and run an intelligent design think tank (the Michael Polanyi Center). The backlash from Baylor faculty was intense, and I was left for the five years on my contract to write and do research, but essentially as persona non grata, without even the option to teach (I was too controversial for any department to risk having me teach their courses). The biology department even had on its homepage a statement repudiating intelligent design and commending Darwinian evolutionary theory. If Basham’s book had been written about evangelicalism at Baylor, it would not be the “instant” New York Times bestseller it is now. Moderate Baptists, such as at Baylor, have a long history of accommodation with the prevailing spirit of the age.

In 2005 my contract with Baylor came to an end. My struggles at Baylor had gotten me some sympathy from conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention, which had gained control of the seminaries. And so, in the fall of 2005, I started teaching at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, and then subsequently at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. Though for a time I was a “golden boy,” featured in the Baptist Press and with my likeness in seminary ads, I lasted only seven years at these seminaries. In the end, it wasn’t a good fit.

The final straw for me was a meeting in which the president, provost, and dean called me into the president’s office because I questioned historical aspects of Noah’s flood, questions I had raised in a book on theodicy (The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World). I had never hidden that I was not a young-earth creationist. In fact, I had made my old-earth position on creation clear in the job application process. But when I was called in for that meeting, the president informed me that my job was on the line (the historicity of Noah’s flood being a point of orthodoxy at the seminary even if the age of the earth was not). I was able to finesse things enough to keep my job (you can find the details in an interview I gave), but it left a bad taste in my mouth, and I knew it was time to move on.

I give this background not to stir up bad sentiments, whether in myself or the reader, but to indicate that the world that Megan Basham is writing about is one I knew intimately. As a non-Baptist outsider, I was especially alert to the power politics, the scolding and shaming, and the thirst for respectability about which she writes. That is her world as well. It is the one she mainly focuses on. In a sense, her book makes an a fortiori argument: if she can demonstrate woke compromise in the Southern Baptist Convention, the only major Protestant denomination that ever took itself out of the liberal death spiral that had compromised all the other mainline Protestant denominations, then her case is made for evangelicalism generally.

A word about terminology. Basham ostensibly focuses her attention on American evangelicalism as a whole rather than the specifically Southern Baptist form of it. American evangelicalism is a broad movement within Protestant Christianity characterized by a focus on the authority of Scripture, the importance of evangelism (i.e., sharing the Gospel), personal conversion, and a belief in the necessity of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In that sense, I am and remain an evangelical. Yet the term applies especially to any believing Southern Baptist, as can be confirmed by examining the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, to which Southern Baptists are expected to subscribe.

As a writer for the Daily Wire, Basham is not in the habit of mincing words. I found her tone a bit strident (though not overly). And yet, most of what she wrote rang true. I knew many of the personalities she described, whether directly or through mutual colleagues. Of the people I knew that she singled out for rebuke, I was not surprised about the charges she made. And of those whom she singled out as holding firm against woke encroachments, again they were people I would have expected to hold firm. There were a handful exceptions where Basham assigned someone to the class of compromiser where I thought she was likely being too harsh.

Basham is a journalist, and it’s clear that she did extensive research to write her book, reviewing many articles, posts, and videos as well as conducting numerous interviews. Her focus was on the hot-button cultural issues that animate our society’s more extreme progressives. With regard to climate change, illegal immigration, abortion, Covid-19 response, critical race theory, #MeToo, and LGBTQ, she details evangelical elites veering into a secular liberal agenda as they try to shift the thinking of the evangelical masses toward such an agenda or else keep them in the dark about the compromises they themselves are making.

You can read the book for yourself to determine whether she makes a compelling case for complicity and compromise among elite evangelicals. Interestingly, as I was looking on the web for reaction to her book, I punched into Google “Megan Basham Shepherds for Sale,” and the first item that came up was a 10,000-word response by former SBC president JD Greear (published three days ago, August 12).

Greear came in for extensive criticism in the book. Even though he took exception to Basham’s charges and replied to them in detail, he was respectful throughout and he did graciously underscore that there was validity to her efforts to hold church leaders like himself to account:

One of the things I appreciated about Basham’s book is that she pointed out the cultural pressure to appeal to elite progressives. That pressure exists in an educated, cosmopolitan place like RDU [where Greear’s Summit Church is located]. Nearly 70 percent of our community votes Democratic, and these are the people God has called us to reach. Since I am known as a political conservative, I do sometimes go to lengths to criticize my own political tribe because I don’t want there to be any encumbrances to the gospel. I need to heed the warning she offers and stand squarely on Scripture, saying exactly what it says, regardless of who it offends. That said, it is simply untrue that I don’t publicly criticize the Democratic party or critique the sins of the left. I’ve preached repeatedly on the sin of abortion, the sinfulness of homosexuality, and the destructiveness of gender confusion. Even just this year, I read from the Democratic platform in church and called it evil. The people of The Summit Church, who hear me week by week, know where I stand.

[Basham has posted a detailed reply to Greear at Clear Truth Media]

And that brings me to the point of this Substack post. As already noted, nothing that Basham described about evangelical elites succumbing to the temptations of power, prestige, money, and sex surprised me. And there’s a straightforward reason for my lack of surprise. Evangelicals, precisely because of their evangelical beliefs, occupy a second tier in our society, the first tier being occupied by the secular liberal elites that control the universities, the media, the levers of political power, and prime intellectual real estate such as the New York Times. It is a natural as well as potent temptation for the second tier to want recognition from the first tier.

The one surprise in my reading of Basham’s book was the pains to which the first tier has gone to seduce the second tier to serve its political ends. Evangelicals, for all their incongruence with elite secular high culture, constitute a political bloc that politicians must enlist to win elections and that progressive influencers consequently must subvert if their secular liberal agenda is to succeed. To have evangelicals publicly seen as a constant disrupter of their best laid plans would not wash. As with all ideologies that seek complete domination, woke progressivism finds it unacceptable to have a group, even a fringe group, serve as a witness against their goals and aspirations. And so, the biggest surprise for me in reading Shepherds for Sale was the extent to which explicitly non-Christian secular groups, especially philanthropies, target evangelicals, especially their elite leadership, with funds, training, and attention to get them to veer from the straight and narrow.

The Bible talks about bribes and how they subvert truth and justice. Yet the Hebrew word שַׁחַד (shachad) translated bribe also means gift, reward, or donation. That’s what philanthropic organizations are all about—giving gifts, rewards, and donations to advance their agendas. And as Basham rightly notes, the biggest philanthropic organization of all is the US government.

Not all philanthropic agendas need to be for bad ends. But all of them come with strings attached. They come with obligations to look here and not there, to wish for and achieve certain preferred outcomes, to serve a given cause rather than to let evidence and truth go where they will. Basham details how various secular liberal organizations have exploited the cultural inferiority of evangelicalism to move it away from its traditional positions on the hot-button issues of our age.

My point in this post is not to name evangelical elites who have compromised themselves or the secular philanthropies who have tempted them into compromise. You can get the details in Basham’s book. But here’s an example that Basham gives that’s emblematic of the temptations faced by elite evangelicals. It’s the case of an elite evangelical being invited to dinner at the Obama White House. I knew this individual 20 years ago early in his career. He has since had a meteoric rise in elite evangelical circles. In the introduction to a recent book that he wrote, he inserts a paragraph that seems out of place about his dinner at the Obama White House (confirming Basham’s account). No doubt, it must be personally gratifying to be invited to the White House. But ego aside, is that really something for an evangelical to be proud of given that the Obama presidency was so opposed to core evangelical beliefs and practices?

Let me put this point more starkly. The Scriptures teach repeatedly that we should guard against recognition, accolades, and advancement from those hostile to the faith and that in fact we are on much safer ground when those hostile to the faith persecute rather than praise us. This is not to say that we should purposely make ourselves so annoying or distasteful that we receive the reproach of unbelievers (as when Christians act as hypocrites). But it is to say that by quietly and consistently living out our faith, we will naturally attract opposition (consider the ongoing saga of the Denver baker Jack Phillips).

The New Testament makes this point so consistently, as illustrated in the following verses, that it is hard to dismiss it simply as proof texting:

  • Matthew 5:10–12
    “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
  • Matthew 10:22
    “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.”
  • Luke 6:22–23
    “Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.”
  • John 15:18–20
    “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.”
  • Acts 5:40–41
    “They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.”
  • 2 Timothy 3:12
    “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”
  • 1 Peter 2:20b–21
    “If you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”

At the risk of overburdening the reader with still more Scripture verses, yet to leave no doubt about what the New Testament is teaching here, not only is opposition from unbelievers seen as something normal and to be expected (showing that Christians are doing something right) but support from unbelievers at the very least requires scrutiny and at worst can become a trap or pitfall:

  • Luke 6:26
    “Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.”
  • John 5:44
    “How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?”
  • John 12:42b–43
    “Because of the Pharisees, [many] would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved human praise more than praise from God.”
  • Galatians 1:10
    “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
  • James 4:4
    “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.”

So the prime lesson I take from Basham’s book, and one I would like readers of this post to take with them also, is that we do well not to sell our Christian birthright for a mess of liberal or progressive pottage. We should be better than that and our Christian faith demands better than that.

Northwestern University professor Gary Morson wrote a recent piece for Commentary on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the great Soviet dissident and Christian believer whose Gulag Archipelago more than any other book (it was actually three volumes) tore the veil off of Soviet oppression and totalitarianism in the 1970s. As Morson writes in “Solzhenitsyn Warned Us”:

For his part, Solzhenitsyn could hardly believe that Westerners would not want to hear all he had learned journeying through the depths of totalitarian hell. “Even in soporific Canada, which always lagged behind, a leading television commentator lectured me that I presumed to judge the experience of the world from the viewpoint of my limited Soviet and prison camp experience,” Solzhenitsyn recalled. “Indeed, how true! Life and death, imprisonment and hunger, the cultivation of the soul despite the captivity of the body: how very limited this is compared to the bright world of political parties, yesterday’s numbers on the stock exchange, amusements without end, and exotic foreign travel!”

The West “turned out to be not what we [dissidents] had hoped and expected; it was not living by the ‘right’ values nor was it headed in the ‘right’ direction.” America was no longer the land of the free but of the licentious. The totalitarianism from which Solzhenitsyn had escaped loomed as the West’s likely future. Having written a series of novels about how Russia succumbed to Communism, Solzhenitsyn smelled the same social and intellectual rot among us. He thought it his duty to warn us, but nobody listened. Today, his warnings seem prescient. We have continued to follow the path to disaster he mapped.

“Life and death, imprisonment and hunger, the cultivation of the soul despite the captivity of the body: how very limited this is compared to the bright world of political parties, yesterday’s numbers on the stock exchange, amusements without end, and exotic foreign travel!”
—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

If Basham is right, elite evangelical compromise is helping to pave the way to “the same social and intellectual rot” against which Solzhenitsyn warned us. The woke, the progressives, the left have made no secret of their agenda. I hope Shepherds for Sale is widely read if only for pointing out the complicity of elite evangelicalism in their agenda. Is Basham overstating the problem of elite evangelical compromise? Perhaps. But perhaps it needs to be overstated so that elite evangelicals wake up to the fact that the spotlight is on them and they can no longer dance to the tune of those who are implacably opposed to them ideologically, whose purpose is to use and discard them and in the end to completely undermine the Christian faith.

Solzhenitsyn was a serious thinker who could never be accused of compromise. He suffered too much. He paid too big a price. He could not be bought. He is a fitting role model for elite evangelicalism. He provides a proper coda for Basham’s book.

Recommended Resources:

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

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

 

Bill Dembski holds octorates in math and philosophy as well as an advance theological degree. He’s published in the peer-reviewed math, engineering, biology, philosophy, and theology literature. His focus is on freedom, technology, and education. Formerly almost exclusively an ID (intelligent design) guy, with most of his writing focused on that topic, he found that even though ID had the better argument, it faced roadblocks designed to stop its success. So his focus shifted to the wider social and political forces that block free human inquiry. Bill still writes a lot on intelligent design but his focus these days is broader.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Xm9k49

/by

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Skepticism

,

Some skepticism is warranted. None of us want to live within a paradigm of naivety. No one wants to blindly accept every foolish notion that comes down the pipeline. A quick glance at social media along with the acknowledgment of the tweaks and twists that artificial intelligence can bring to videos and audio files only intensifies our need for discernment.

Even still, as believers, we must differentiate between discernment and all-out skepticism. Discernment evaluates data to see whether the information is valid and trustworthy. In contrast, skepticism doubts or denies claims that seem to be grandiose or beyond the status quo. Even more to the point, skepticism can deny propositional claims. When left unrestrained, skepticism could lead to doubt, which in turn can lead to the denial of propositions (i.e., truth claims). At worst, unrestrained skepticism can lead to cynicism.

The Infiltration of Skepticism in Conservative Apologetics

I have been troubled by the extreme form of skepticism that has entered the apologetic and theological world, especially within what has been considered conservative evangelical Christianity. When I first entered the apologetic world in 2007 and formally in 2012, apologists and conservative theologians alike were fairly settled on certain issues regarding miracles, biblical fidelity, and creationism. The pillars of the apologetic world, however, seem to be crumbling, instead adopting extreme forms of skepticism that deny veritable biblical truth claims.

At the same time, modern Christianity has adopted a celebrity culture. So, these icons of the time often go unquestioned by their fanbase. We would be well advised, however, to remember that truth is truth and error is error regardless of who speaks it. With that in mind, let us consider three avenues where we should be skeptical of modern skepticism.

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Human Skepticism (Miraculous Skepticism) [i]

David Hume was an English skeptic of the 16th century. Hume maintained that miracles could not be proven as historical events. While a full explanation of his view is beyond the scope of this article, Hume defined a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.”[ii] Part of the problem in Hume’s analysis is that a Deity and/or invisible agent may work through the laws of nature to bring about certain ends. Gary Habermas offers a better definition, claiming that miraculous interventions should be understood as “the manifestation or presence of divine actions that temporarily or momentarily overrule or supersede nature’s normally observed, lawful pattern of events, or that appear to do so.”[iii]

Hume’s Circular Reasoning

A bigger problem with Hume’s assessment is that his argument is largely circular. Hume does not believe miracles can be proven because he does not believe miracles occur. And, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you do not believe that miracles occur, then you will deny any claim that purports to be miraculous.

Modern Hume in the Apologetic World?

While nearly all Bible-believing Christians will accept that God does perform miracles, the level of scrutiny that some biblical events have received by Bible-believing scholars is somewhat suspect. With modern scholars, the idea of a talking serpent seems absurd, even though the Bible is riddled with numerous miraculous events. Furthermore, for some, the idea that God could raise numerous saints from the dead around the time of Christ’s crucifixion appears beyond rational belief, all the while the same scholars defend Jesus’s own resurrection and His resurrection of others from the dead. So then, why is it that some stories appear absurd, and others don’t?

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves whether we actually believe that God can do anything within God’s moral limitations. Sure, even the Bible says that God cannot sin because of His moral holiness, and God cannot do something that goes against God’s character (e.g., Titus 1:2). But do we believe that God can part the Red Sea? Do we really believe that God can raise the dead? If so, why do we place limitations on what God can do?

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Bultmannian Skepticism (Biblical Skepticism) [iv]

Rudolf Bultmann was a German theologian of the 19th century who was highly skeptical of the biblical texts. Bultmann promoted the demythologization of the Bible. That is, Bultmann believed that the Bible must be stripped of all its mythological elements to make it more palatable for modern scientific minds. As such, Bultmann held an informal uncontrolled mindset when it came to the oral traditions undergirding the life of Jesus. The informal uncontrolled model means that, according to Bultmann, no one was concerned about preserving accurate information about Jesus, and no one was selected to authenticate the material. Thus, the Gospels tell us next to nothing about the historical Jesus and more about the church’s belief about Jesus. Therefore, no one can know anything about the life of Jesus.

Oral Traditions

In my dissertation work, not only did I discover that Bultmann’s theory on oral traditions was wrong, but the Gospels texts also indicate that something more controlled was at hand when it came to the preservation of Jesus traditions.[v] As such, the data suggests that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. We have good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, as well as other events in Scripture.[vi] If the data suggests that we have reasons for believing in the fidelity of Scripture and the stories it contains, then why do we find it necessary to cast doubt on the authenticity of the traditions of Jesus?

Is Harmonization a Sin?

Why is it such a sin to harmonize the Gospels as Michael Licona suggests if the Gospels indeed contain eyewitness testimonies? It seems to me that attempts to diffuse the mystical and miraculous elements of Scripture are falling back into the unjustified skepticism of Bultmann and his desire to demythologize the pages of the Bible. But the greater question is, what are we left with if we remove the divine power of God from the testimonies of Scripture? We’ll discuss that in the conclusion.

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Darwinian Skepticism (Creationary Skepticism)

Lastly, it seems as if theistic evolution has become the fad of the day. Since William Lane Craig published his book In Quest of the Historical Adam, I have observed many young apologists and would-be scholars falling in line with endorsing theistic evolution, even though evolutionary theory still suffers from the same methodological flaws that it ever has.

What happened to the apologists’s endorsement of the work of Stephen Meyer and the Discovery Institute? Through the years, Meyer has given ample reason to question Darwinianism. His book Darwin’s Doubt is one such example. Do we now cast aside Darwin’s Doubt just because it is popular to now follow the idea that much of Genesis 1–11 is mythological? Do we now openly reject classic creationist concepts by scientists like Hugh Ross, the staff at Reasons to Believe, and Answers in Genesis just because a well-known philosopher says to do otherwise?

Conclusion

Most assuredly, I am not trying to lambast Craig, Licona, or any of their followers. I have been blessed by many of their works in time’s past and have many friends who follow along with the concepts presented by the two men. And it should be noted that many other scholars could be included in the three aforementioned categories. But I am troubled by the following question: At what point should we become skeptical of our own skepticism?

As I had the pleasure of editing the book Why Creationism Still Matters with my good friends and colleagues Dr. T. J. Gentry and Dr. Michelle Johnson, it struck me how strong the case can be made for creationism. And it further troubled me why others feel the need to reject such a defense when in fact numerous scientists are questioning evolutionary theory as well.[vii]

Additionally, consider that we have spent thousands of years trying to understand what it only took seconds for God to create. God spoke, and the universe came into existence with all its laws, physics, and numerical values. Thus, if God is God, and the Bible is God’s Word, wouldn’t it behoove us to believe what God said?

Final Analysis

As an apologist, I most assuredly believe that the resurrection and events of the Bible stand on their own merit. Thus, I am not a fideist. Have we, however, encountered God and known the power He holds? If so, at what point should we begin asking if our latent skepticism reflects our own doubt more than it does the evidence within the text?

So, to summarize, why should we become skeptical of our skepticism? When our skepticism begins to offer more reasons not to believe in God’s power and His revelation, that’s when our skepticism exposes latent doubt more than our faith. We must then ask ourselves if we really believe in what we are leading others to believe. If we don’t, then why encourage others to believe at all? But if we do believe, then what good is it when we continuously downgrade what God has given us in His Word? And if we do believe, then at some point, we must become skeptical of why we are so skeptical.

Furthermore, we must also question if our skepticism has caused an even greater naivety, wherein we blindly follow whatever our favored philosophers or scholars say without considering the validity of their claims. In a sense, our unrestrained skepticism could lead to greater gullibility. Just some things to consider from a fellow disciple as we journey this life together.

References: 

[i] Humean refers to the teachings of David Hume.

[ii] David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in the Essential Works of David Hume, Ralph Cohen, ed (New York: Bantham, 1965), 1:129n3.

[iii] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences, vol. 1 (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 242.

[iv] Bultmannian refers to the teachings of Rudolph Bultmann.

[v] Brian G. Chilton, “Semitic Residue: Semitic Traits that Indicate Early Source Material Behind the Gospel of Matthew” (2022), Doctoral Dissertations and Projects, 3874, https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/3874.

[vi] See my contribution for an extensive defense of the resurrection in the upcoming book Thomas J. Gentry, ed., Strong Faith (West Frankfort, IL: IHP Practica, 2024).

[vii] For example, read “Scientists Dissent from Darwinian Theory,” Discovery.org (Feb. 12, 2019), https://www.discovery.org/v/darwin-dissenters-speak/. Also consider the mathematical problems related to Darwinianism, David Berlinski, Stephen C. Meyer, David H. Gelernter, “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, With David Berlinksi, Stephen C. Meyer, and David Gelernter,” Interview, Hoover Institution, Hoover.org (July 22, 2019), https://www.hoover.org/research/mathematical-challenges-darwins-theory-evolution-david-berlinski-stephen-meyer-and-david.

Recommended Resources:

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

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

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

 

Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4e4KBrE

/by

Voting as a Kingdom Ambassador

During the presidential elections there are many voices “crying out in the wilderness,” as it were, proclaiming all sorts of weird ideas. One of those ideas is the thought that within this seemingly hostile and divided political and cultural climate even within the church, Christians who hold to a particular view are looking to crown a new political messiah and usher in some sort of a new kingdom.

Voting for President, not a Messiah

I cannot speak for all who claim to follow Jesus Christ. Perhaps there is some odd and rare breed of believers who sees the presidency as salvation. I do not! So I will speak for myself as to how I view the privilege and honor of voting not only as an American citizen, but more importantly as a citizen and ambassador of Heaven. As Christ followers, we are ambassadors who have dual-citizenship and should exercise this right, privilege, and power with wisdom.

“As Christ followers, we are ambassadors who have dual-citizenship and should exercise this right, privilege, and power with wisdom.”

As a citizen of God’s Kingdom and an ambassador of Heaven here on earth, when I vote I am NOT electing a “messiah” as some have flippantly asserted. That’s a gross misrepresentation and or misunderstanding of voting for a presidential candidate. It seems to me this is more of a distorted lens and skewed filter weaponized to silence or dissuade those who hold dissenting views. As ambassadors of Heaven who represent King Jesus, we should have the presence of mind to know that any form of deceptive manipulation, intimidation, gaslighting, or shaming to get someone to bow their knee to our way of seeing things is not a biblical practice.

There’s No Replacing Our Savior

I am NOT voting for a replacement of King Jesus here on this world as the Israelites did when they reject God and demanded an earthly king. I am merely exercising my ambassadorial rights as a representative of Heaven to vote secularly for policies and principles  (NOT a person or people) that approximate as near as possible to Heaven’s Constitution which is God’s Word. That’s what ambassadors do! An ambassador is to represent the King’s mind, His will, intent, and motives according to His Word. It’s that simple. For instance, God is the Author of life, therefore I will not in any way vote for a platform that peddles death through abortion. But what if both parties are for abortion? Then I choose the one that is at the very least attempting to mitigate this evil in some way as opposed to a wholesale free for all abortion policy.

The Litmus Test

Moreover, as Tim Stratton has recently noted:

“Abortion is *still* a litmus test issue. Not only has [one candidate] done the most for the Pro-Life movement than any other President in American history, [the other candidate] will overrule states and [re]codify Roe into federal law. [The former] will leave it as it is which allows We The People to be active in local government to continue the fight against the murder of baby humans.”

Again, as a citizen of Heaven, I am not voting to elect a savior, king, or messiah to somehow usurp Jesus Christ as King. I am seeking to rightly fulfill my duty and obligation as an ambassador of Heaven tasked to represent God’s will on this broken earth as it is in Heaven compelled by His Love, Word and Holy Spirit to the best of my ability. How do I best “love my neighbor?” What policies will point people toward the culture of heaven, by promoting life, goodness, purity, love, praiseworthiness, justice, mercy, righteousness, and joy for the flourishing and well-being of my neighbors?

Remember, there is no perfect party. There will never be one on this side of eternity. There is no perfect candidate running for the presidency. As ambassadors that is never to be the focus anyway. To represent Jesus faithfully and to promote policies that love our neighbors (the second greatest command) is the goal. We are to go into the voting booth as ambassadors representing God’s Kingdom and His never-ending government. When I choose to vote, I am not voting for a politician to replace The King of kings, Lord of lords, Creator, Owner, and Sustainer of all things. Ultimately it would be impossible, to replace Jesus, not to mention patently ridiculously.

Recommended Resources:

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

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

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

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek

 

Tito Santiago is husband to his beloved wife Christina, and father to his awesome son Josiah David. He serves at Paul and Silas Ministries as a leader via Mentoring Winners and is also the host of Noize Radio Live, a developing online podcast of Kingdom urban music and talk.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3XlDuW9

 

/by

The Ethics of AI in Writing

When it comes to Artificial Intelligence, I’m a luddite. I’m analog over digital. Forget Pandora® and Spotify® or even CD’s. Vinyl LP’s rule them all. I grew up playing outside, climbing trees, chasing things, reveling over sticks – not joysticks, just sticks. If they look like a sword or a gun, even better. I’m a Labrador retriever, but literate. I have the tech-savvy of your average canine too. That’s because I’m Gen X. I was raised before the interweb, before social media and Netflix. I remember Atari, Nintendo, and Sega, and Alladin’s Palace. I slogged through the dial-up era. I even met my wife on Myspace. Rock on! When Sunday comes, I actually leave my house to go to church! I turn my phone off to listen to the sermon. And the sermon isn’t at 1.5x speed either. It’s at regular speed, and it takes forever. But that’s how I roll. There are some disadvantages to being an old-school luddite like me. But there’s one big advantage. We first learned about AI from The Terminator. We see artificial intelligence through the lens of Skynet killbots. We learned to fear it before we were ever tempted to love it.

We’re not surprised to find that ChatGPT, for example, poses some major threats to modern writing. It’s not all bad, of course. AI image-builders are great at stirring your creative juices. Writing engines can be a great research tool for summarizing big data into small bites. Long before ChatGPT hit the market spell-checkers and grammar assistants were helping to spot-clean our writing, on the fly. And I’m sure there is AI-tech is tracking down terrorists, blocking telemarketers, rejecting spam, and exterminating viruses. AI can be wonderful. But, technology can be used for good or evil, depending on how people wield it. So, when it comes to publishing, we should be aware of some of the ethical problems AI poses.

First, if you didn’t write it, you’re not the author.

The most glaring problem with AI writing is plagiarism. If you are writing a paper, and use AI to generate a sentence, a paragraph, or more, then that’s content you didn’t write. If you present that writing as your own, you are lying. That’s plagiarism. Ethically, you would need to report that AI program as a co-author. If you’re using AI to write your blog or online article, you should the least say: “Written with the assistance of AI/ChatGPT/etc.” And while that’s better than nothing, if that’s all you say about AI, it’s still misleading since you didn’t just use AI merely to fact-check or assist with research. The writing itself was produced by a writing-engine. So, you aren’t the sole author AI wrote a significant portion of the article, blog, or book while you are claiming sole authorship. In that case, AI didn’t just “assist” you. You two are co-authors. It’s misleading at best, and dishonest at worst, to claim authorship for written material that you didn’t author. Don’t be surprised then if publishers or professors reject your papers and accuse you of plagiarism if you ever claim AI writing as your own.

Second, if you didn’t learn it, you don’t know it.

AI is a Godsend when it comes to research. With AI you can get quick summaries, condense tons of information, and hunt down obscure quotes, authors, and books. I’m a big fan of AI as a research tool. But there’s a looming delusion with AI-infused research. People can radically overestimate their expertise to whatever extent they rely on AI to do the “thinking” for them.

Consider it this way. If you had a forklift and used it to lift thousand-pound loads, does that mean you’re strong? Of course not. A forklift is a tool for heavy lifting, and that’s fine. That’s what tools are for, to make work easier. But the machine did the hard work, not you. So you aren’t strong. The machine is. Now imagine you have a forklift, and not only do you use it to lift thousand-pound loads on the job site, but you also use it at your home gym to do your weightlifting. All your strength-training features you sitting in the driver’s seat, steering this forklift to move weights, pull loads, flip tires, push sleds, and carry you through the miles of jogging trail. You were using the forklift for exercise, so does that forklift now mean you’re strong? Still no. You’re no stronger, but likely weaker because that machine is taking over the hands-on work that you should have been doing to grow fit and strong. That’s how we often treat AI. Instead of wielding it as a tool in the hands of a skilled craftsman, it’s an artificial limb rendering us handicapped and codependent. AI, therefore, must be subordinated beneath the task of learning. It should function in service of our learning. As writers, publishers, and content creators, we should be learning about the subjects we’re writing about, we should be gaining experience and expertise. We do well, then, to take full responsibility for the learning task before us, so we’re not using AI to replace learning and knowledge with the appearance of learning substitute for learning and knowledge. Rather we should be using AI to help us learn and gain knowledge. At the end of the day, if you’re reposting AI content that you didn’t learn for yourself then you don’t know whether that content is correct, fair, or reasonable. If you didn’t learn it, you don’t know it.

Third, if you don’t lead it, you’re led by it.

A third problem facing AI-usage is that it “has a mind of it’s own.” I’m not talking about actual autonomous life. We’re probably not at the point of iRobot or even Skynet. I’m talking about how AI isn’t neutral or objective, and it’s often laughably mistaken. If you followed Google’s “Gemini” launch fiasco then you know what I’m talking about. In February 2024, Google launched an AI-engine called “Gemini.” It could generate images, but never of white people. Apparently, it had been programmed to avoid portraying white people and, instead, to favor images of black people and other minorities. Allegedly, this is from a DEI initiative written into its code. So, if you asked for images of the Pope you might get one of these instead:

Now I’m not too worried about Gemini 1.0. I’m more concerned about the AI engines that are so subtle that you’ll never realize when they skew information in favor of a political narrative. For all writers, editors, authors, and content-creators, we need to do more than take credit for our content. We need to take responsibility for it too. That means we take leadership over the tools used in research, fact-finding, and learning. Instead of letting those tools lead us whichever direction they’re programmed to go, we decide for ourselves whether those directions are worth going, change course as needed, and refuse to let a Google algorithm determine what we are going to think or believe. Another way to say this is that we should expect that AI introduces some degree of slant and bias to the equation. So instead of trusting AI to tell the truth, and report events accurately, we need to keep a healthy dose of skepticism on hand and be ready to correct against our own biases and the bias we find in AI programming.

At an innocent level, an AI writing program might be biased in favor of formal writing – replacing all contractions like “aren’t,” “we’re” and “y’all” with “are not,” “we are,” and “youz guys.” At a more insidious level, AI can insert a decidedly partisan slant – especially when it comes to progressive political agenda items. It would be naïve to think that Google, Bing, Microsoft, etc. aren’t willing and able to let political and religious bias slip into the programming.

There’s No Going Back to the Stone Age

Now I may be a luddite, but I’m no fool. I understand that unless there’s a nuclear fallout, or something comparable, there’s no way we’re going back to the days of dot matrix printers and analog typewriters. We aren’t going back to the stone age as long as these time-saving tools are still functional. I write these warnings to you, not as a prophet but as a minister. I don’t foresee technological disasters crashing down on us. Rather I’m a hopeful Christian encouraging all of you aspiring writers out there to model academic integrity, write well, own your material, and grow through the writing process.

Oh, and Analog > Digital. Long live Vinyl!

Recommended Resources:

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

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

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

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

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

/by

In the Gospels, Jesus is Pro-Life

When you encounter Jesus in the gospels, it’s not hard to see why the world would be a better place if everyone was more like him. And in the gospels, Jesus is pro-life. In fact, life is the issue for Jesus. ‘Life’ is why Jesus came into the world.

The Bible is About Life

The Bible’s most famous verse even says:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16 NIV)

Humans weren’t originally created to face death (Romans 5:12), and Jesus hates death – that’s why he conquered it (Romans 6:9; 2 Timothy 1:10). Jesus’ mission is to bring dead people to life (Mark 10:45; John 5:24; 1 Timothy 1:15) – that’s why he came.

So when our world, and our leaders, say that it’s actually better for some innocent people to be killed and moved from life-to-death rather than from death-to-life, we can know that they are not in agreement with the most loving person in history.

Most people want Jesus on their side. But, as Greg Koukl writes:

“What we cannot do, though, is reject the Gospel accounts out of hand and then advance our own personal opinion of the Jesus of the Gospels, since there will be no Jesus left to have a personal opinion about” (para. 17).

So, here is what the gospels say about Jesus, and the beginning and end of life.

Jesus, the Gospels, and the Beginning of Life

In the gospels, we are chronologically introduced to Jesus when the angel Gabriel appears to Mary to tell her that she will miraculously conceive (Luke 1:26-38).

Then we see an example of an unborn baby (John the Baptist – about 22-24 weeks gestation) alive and leaping in the womb (Luke 1:41-44), because of the news that Jesus is going to be born.

Mary is also called “mother” by Elizabeth (Luke 1:43) before Jesus is even born, which presumes the existence of a human being for Mary to be the mother of.

The infancy narrative of Luke’s gospel affirms life in the womb.

In addition, we have a couple of verses in the gospels where Jesus himself (now all grown-up) specifically mentions scenarios of pregnant women.

Speaking about future difficulty, Jesus says: “How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!” (Mark 13:17 NIV)

Jesus sympathizes with the hardship that comes with pregnancy and motherhood, particularly during difficult times, and we know how accommodating Jesus is of the women who follow him and listen to his teaching.[i]

Jesus champions women in the gospels. But Jesus is also a champion of the birth of human beings. He says, “When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.” (John 16:21 ESV)

Jesus recognizes the pain that comes with pregnancy, but he also says that the joy of a human being born into the world is greater than this agonizing pain – to the point that the anguish of pregnancy is not even remembered when measured against the birth of a new human being into the world.

Jesus’ statement in John 16:21 is non-particular and absolute. He is saying that there is joy when any human being, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), is born into the world. Jesus views human life too highly for us to say that he is anything other than pro-life.

And Jesus is also clear that testing circumstances and the inevitability of suffering is no reason not to live (John 16:33). In fact, the meek life Jesus himself chose to live demonstrates this (just read Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and Philippians 2:6-8). Life in-and-of-itself is precious to Jesus and not to be discarded.

The only time Jesus says someone would be “better off” not to be born is when he speaks about Judas (Mark 14:21) – someone who is not innocent, and someone of whom Jesus is foreknowingly aware of the consequences for his betrayal.

Jesus, the Gospels, and the End of Life

Jesus’ mission is to bring dead people to life, and this is patterned in the gospels when Jesus raises a little girl (Mark 5:41-42), a young man (Luke 7:14-15), and a weak-and-ill grown man (John 11:43-44) from the dead.

In our culture, we hear the argument that some (weaker) people are better off dead because the suffering that they will continue to face in their lives is ‘intolerable’. The argument presents death as the best, and even the only, ‘solution’.

Those whom Jesus healed all eventually died again. But he never treated death as the ‘solution’ for their situations.

Jesus admits that life will be hard: “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33 NIV). But “take heart” connotes perseverance, endurance, and trust in God – the opposite of opting for death.

Opting for death as the solution to life’s sufferings is not on Jesus’ radar. In fact, Jesus is the only (truly) innocent person who needed to face physical death to fix the problem of suffering. And even in his story, life triumphs over death.

The gospel message in its most basic form is that Jesus came to save us from death and give us life. But those who champion death as a solution want the reverse: they want death to ‘save’ someone from life.

Such an attitude is an affront to the love of Jesus, because it runs completely counter to the power of the gospel message. Jesus came that people may have life (John 10:10), which you can’t have if you opt for death as a solution.

Societies that Pursue Jesus Flourish the Most

‘Life’ is not a peripheral issue for Jesus. If ‘life’ matters to history’s greatest person, it should matter to us. Peoples and nations who have followed the principles that matter to Jesus have succeeded in history. Pray that Jesus would be placed at the heart of our society. Apart from him, we are told by the God-man himself that we can do nothing (John 15:5). Pray that our nation would value life. Life matters.

“In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.” (John 1:4 NIV)

References:

[i] For more on this see, Rebecca Mclaughlin, Jesus Through the Eyes of Women (Austin, TX: Gospel Coalition, 2022).

Recommended Resources:

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

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

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

 

Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/4dzGX9y

/by

Dealing with Hurt and Trusting God: Biblical Tips for Overcoming Pain

Life presents numerous trials and challenges, many of which result not from our own actions but from the behavior and transgressions of others. Betrayal, injustice, or rejection can inflict profound emotional pain and distress. The overwhelming nature of the suffering, particularly when caused by another individual, prompts natural questioning of how an omnibenevolent God could permit such affliction during the darkest moments.

I can tell you from my own personal pain that it’s tough to be at peace in life after being wounded and betrayed by someone you trusted. The emotional pain can leave you feeling as though you cannot trust God and forgive others. However, it’s essential to recognize that this pain does not reflect the absence of God’s love or presence in our lives. Instead, it offers a profound opportunity for spiritual growth and deepening our faith.

The Scriptures remind believers that God intimately understands human grief. The writer of Hebrews reminds us that “we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses” (Hebrews 4:15). The prophet Isaiah’s description of Jesus as “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3) serves as a powerful testament to the compassion of the Lord, who willingly bore the depths of human pain. This understanding of human suffering underlines Jesus’s invitation for individuals to seek comfort in Him.

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Matthew 11:28-30

When facing emotional pain, it’s understandable to grapple with anger and thoughts of retaliation. However, it’s important to address our circumstances with a spiritual perspective. As Ephesians 6:12 reminds us, our challenges encompass not only the physical and emotional but also the spiritual.

Furthermore, it may seem easier to suppress our hurt and tell ourselves to “move on,” but this approach often leads to deeper emotional and spiritual issues. It’s crucial to acknowledge and confront the pain inflicted by others. One effective way to do this is by seeking solace in the presence of God. As David expressed in a poignant song, being in God’s presence brings a sense of completeness and joy, offering a path toward healing and restoration (see Psalm 16).

So, I say to you, dear friend, share your pain with God. Don’t ignore it or feel embarrassed. You need to accept that feeling angry about being hurt and betrayed is perfectly normal.

The next step may seem even more impossible and the most challenging: the need to forgive. A big part of finding healing and peace is to rely on God’s forgiveness. Just as God forgave us through the sacrifice of Jesus, we are called to forgive others (Ephesians 4:32, Matthew 6:14-15). Forgiveness requires the conscious choice to release the offender to God and liberate ourselves from anger and resentment rather than condoning the wrongdoing or overlooking the pain.

Trusting in God’s forgiveness can be challenging when we are hurting and struggling to understand, but it is vital for our healing process. Have faith that He can turn our pain into purpose, bring beauty from ashes, and use our suffering to shape us into the likeness of Jesus Christ himself.

In her book, You Can Trust God When Life Hurts, Amber Albee Swenson shares this promising truth,

“God is not oblivious to our situations, and he’s not unconcerned. Sometimes, he gives us a chance to remedy the situation, like the disciples in the storm. Sometimes he’s watching to monitor our reaction, like he did with Job in the Old Testament. And sometimes, like the apostle Paul on that ship, he’s sustaining us until the exact minute he chooses to end our storm.”

Acknowledging our pain, relying on God’s strength, and choosing forgiveness are all necessary for finding healing amid the hurt and can help mend a broken relationship in many cases. Those who don’t learn to deal with hurt are more likely to be consumed by it, causing them to hurt others in return. However, the more you learn to lean on God for healing, the greater strength and comfort you will gain the next time you experience hurt. It’s important to remember that healing takes time; it’s not just a process, it’s a journey. No matter how long it takes to deal with the hurt, Jesus is always beside you, ready to hold and carry you through the darkness of pain.

Recommended Resources:

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek 

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas

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

 

Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org.

Originally published here: https://bit.ly/4du4NCX

/by

The New Cultural Christianity

A few months ago I wrote an article on the West’s move towards a post-Christian culture (Post-Christianity: What’s That?). Since the article’s publication at least two prominent atheists decried the fall of Christianity in the West. One claims to have converted to Christianity (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and the other maintains atheism but embraces “cultural Christianity” (Richard Dawkins).[1] They, along with fellow atheists Bret Weinstein and Tom Holland recognize that the fall of the West will be accomplished with the dismantling of the Church. The New Atheists of twenty years ago assumed that logic, reason, and science would provide the basis for a moral society as it abandoned God and moved into the post-Christian era.

Much to their chagrin, however, this has not been the case. Dawkins began to recognize the threat radical Islam is to the West years ago. He knew that the vacuum of religiosity could clear the way for something much worse. Nature abhors a vacuum and Dawkins rightfully understood that while his desire to see religion dissipate seemed noble, the results could be catastrophic. I always found it interesting that he pursued the eradication of faith anyway.

But this is not a new realization. Many atheists are simply starting to recognize what Frederick Nietzsche proclaimed over a century ago. Nietzsche, an atheist himself, understood full well the terrible implications of a godless West even if, initially, those like Sam Harris, who once said “I’m still the kind of person who writes articles with rather sweeping titles like ‘Science must destroy religion’” and others might sneer at the idea. But Nietzsche’s words are worth a second, third, and maybe hundredth look as we barrel down the road of post-Christianity because his words seem more prophetic now than when they were first penned.

From Nietszche’s Madman to the Übermensch

Nietzsche recounts the story of the madman that declares the terrible consequences of God’s death:

“Where is God?” he cried, ‘I’ll tell you! We have killed him – you and I! We are all his murderers. But how did we do this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained the earth from its son? Where is it moving now… God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him. How can we console ourselves, the murderers of all murderers! The holiest and the mightiest thing the world has ever possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us?… Finally he threw his lantern on the ground so that it broke into pieces and went out. ‘I come too early, he then said; ‘my time is not yet… The deed is still more remote to them than the remotest stars – and yet they have done it themselves!”[2]

Nietzsche surmised that those in the enlightenment had not understood the consequences of God’s philosophical and scientific “death.” He understood that the absence of God would plunge society into nihilism and futility. While God may not exist, perhaps, his perceived existence was necessary to hold society together.

Nietzsche then proposes a possible solution to the problem. A pursuit of the god within ourselves. He named this pursuit of the ultimate human the Übermensch. The Übermensch (which literally means the “over-man”) has been an oft-misunderstood concept. At times it has been seen as the ideal moral human or even as a superior form of the human “race” as the Nazis seemed to use it, but this would be a misunderstanding of Nietzsche’s goal in developing the concept.

In his mind, if we had successfully killed God, we could either drift to nihilism or pursue an “ultimate man” or “beyond man” as the archetype of what it means to be truly human.

Nietzsche understood something about human nature that many new atheists simply did not. That, at our core, human beings are religious creatures. We desire to pursue something greater than ourselves; we desire to order society by a set of ideals, we desire order and not anarchy to hold our culture together. We will all, in the end, worship something or someone.

This is the missing link between a Christian and a post-Christian culture. Human beings cannot order themselves purely along scientific or materialistic lines. Societies and cultures for millennia have proven this pursuit futile. Even supposed secular states tend to develop a religious culture around their leaders. The Czar, the Dictator, and the Communist leader demand religious-like loyalty. They develop their own sets of dogmas, doctrines, and worship standards whether they would admit it or not and they do so to maintain and establish a common culture. Sure, they claim there is no god above them but that does not stop them from declaring themselves a god unto themselves.

In the end the idea of the ultimate man, the Übermensch, has been adopted a variety of ways throughout history from racial lines to philosophical humanism. Society would look to construct a new ideal through which to order itself, one unshackled from the restraints of archaic Christian morality.

The word culture is derived from the Latin word cultus which means both to till and to worship. And while etymology does not equate to definition it is fascinating to think that we could move into a post-Christian cultus or an atheistic cultus. It would seem to be a contradiction in terms and thus would lead one to wonder if a godless culture is even possible.

Perhaps one is technically possible but I contend that the human tendency towards a common culture based on certain metaphysical beliefs about reality renders the proposition dubious at best.

Every culture eventually orders itself around its highest ideal and whatever the highest ideal is, for all intents and purposes, is God. For any culture to survive it must have guiding principles through which it orders itself and often, these principles will take on a religious undertone. There is inherently a religious structure to how human beings organize themselves.  This is not an argument for God’s existence, rather, it is an observation concerning human history.

All cultures eventually sustain a religious type of structure, or, as Nietzsche observed, they are on the precipice of anarchy, destruction, and nihilism. So, if a culture is going to move beyond its religious foundation, to endure, it must replace said religious foundation with another religious type foundation. In Nietzsche’s mind that was the idea of the Übermensch. The Übermensch was the ultimate good (as opposed to the Maximally Great Being revealed in scripture), but one that catered to, instead of restraining, humanity’s base passions and desires.

“The church combats the passions by cutting them off in every sense: its technique, its ‘cure’ is castration. It never asks: ‘how can a desire be spiritualized, beautified, deified?” – Jack Maden, “Ubermensch Explained.”

In other words, it is through the release of “repression” and the embracing of our passions and the self-mastery thereof that we find our purpose, meaning, and hope without a god. In our current moment I believe we are experiencing a shift from Orthodox Cultural Christianity to Post-Christian Cultural Christianity. A type of Christianity that seeks to spiritualize, beautify, and deify our subjective passions, desires and proclivities. We are not progressing towards atheism as much as we are remaking Christianity through the idea of the Übermensch ideal.

This could seem like a contradiction but let me explain:

The New Cultural Christianity

I believe that our current cultural context seeks to remake cultural Christianity from what it was, particularly an orthodox understanding of God’s character and sin, to an Übermensch Cultural Christianity. One that looks inside the man to find the ideal and encourages the living out of our passions and desires.

This shift has made Progressive Christianity the new cultural Christianity of the West.

What do I mean by that?

First, I want to build my case on two different statistics that seem to contradict each other, and these statistics, I believe, have been interpreted wrongly on the individual level, but they help us to understand our new cultural Christianity in the west and in America in particular.

A recent study by Barna Research Group it was found that 71% of people have a high view of Jesus but only 40% have a high view of Church. When narrowed to “no faith” individuals we find 40% having a high view of Jesus with only 21% having a high view of the Church. However, the starkest contrast is between self-described “Christians” wherein 84% have a high view of Jesus but only 58% have a high view of the local Church.

A lot has been made of these statistics. Most have cast aspersions on the local church for misrepresenting Jesus and engaging in rampant hypocrisy. In many ways I do not disagree completely with some of these statements but there is more going on in this statistic than meets the eye and certainly more than an easy explanation of “church hypocrisy” can offer.

For instance, what does one really mean when he or she says the Church is hypocritical? Depending on the reason this could be either a serious charge or a subjective opinion with no basis in reality. Perhaps the next statistic will shed some light on this.

In a separate study led by Probe Ministries it was found that 60% of self-professing born again Christians between the ages of 18 and 40 believe Jesus isn’t the only way to Heaven. In a similar study orchestrated by Pew Research nearly 40% of Americans believe that atheists can get into heaven and a little over one third believe unbelievers can gain access to heaven. This would place all of these people well outside the realm of historic Christian orthodoxy but many within the realm of progressive Christianity.

Obviously, statistics through surveys only tell us how people answer specific questions and not why they answer the question this way. However, if these two or three statistics are accurate in describing our current religiosity in the United States, I believe that we can reasonably conclude that the reason for the low view of Church is not primarily because it represents Christ poorly but because we understand the person and charge of Jesus differently.

I am fully willing to admit that churches have not represented Christ well in a myriad of ways, but I do not believe this explains the wide discrepancy in the statistics. Given the two statistics together I believe it is much more likely that we have redefined Jesus than that the Church has failed to represent Him well enough.

Are there cases of Christian hypocrisy? Absolutely. However, what is called hypocrisy and what is actual hypocrisy can be two different things. For instance, a Christian that holds to a traditional view of heaven and hell and a traditional view of marriage and sexuality might be (and often is) called a hypocrite because this same Christian believes that God is an omnibenevolent God and full of grace and mercy.

But these are only hypocritical beliefs if we redefine the baseline of what it truly means to be Christian. If we replace the cultural definitions of truth, love, mercy, and Jesus with a new Übermensch type redefinition. I believe this is what we are truly experiencing in our current cultural moment. The new cultural religion is not entirely post-Christian, as in materialistic and atheistic, but it is narcissistic spiritualism coopting cultural Christian values and remaking them into progressive cultural Christianity.

Progressive Christianity has redefined Jesus into the Übermensch and repackaged Christianity in its likeness. I am aware that this is a reductive analysis, clearly more philosophical threads could be pulled to analyze how exactly we got here. For a broader case see Carl Trueman’s work The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (2020).  The point here is to draw a line of thought from the principle elucidated by Nietzsche to our modern moment. This is not to say that the progressive culture is actively adopting the idea of the Übermensch, but rather that the principle introduced by Nietzsche’s recognition of the necessity of God (or something like him) to the success of society is playing itself out through the restructuring of our cultural Christianity.

It is not so much that our culture has moved beyond Christianity but that it has completely redefined it. Jesus, as understood in our current cultural milieu, is a different character altogether. An Übermensch type of character meant to affirm our desires, passions, political systems and aberrant sexuality (for example, here). This cultural Christianity sheds the shackles of historical Christian morality and embraces the subjective nature of the Übermensch. In other words, the vacuum left by the retreat of the orthodox values of the Church has not been replaced by science, reason, or logic but by a new, more palatable form of Christianity (if one can call it Christianity at all). A Christianity that operates smoothly within the fluidity of post-modernism and can adapt with the concepts that can synthesize together seemingly opposing truth claims.

If your desires tell you that to avoid nihilism you must augment your body to conform with your subjective gender identity, then the Übermensch Cultural Christian (we will call them Progressive Christians) will affirm such drastic action. Why? Because this Jesus is a different Jesus and because we have not so much moved beyond a cultural Christianity but have reinvented what it means to be a cultural Christian. This Jesus operates under new definitions of love, truth, morality, holiness and justice.

It is no wonder that progressive Christianity happens to often affirm nearly all the dogmatic moral stances of the current secular cultural values system. This is because progressive Christianity has supplanted orthodox Christianity as the dominant Cultural Christianity. In Progressive Christianity Jesus would not want you to be transformed by the renewing of your mind and away from certain sins but to set yourself free of the sins of certainty, doctrines of hell and the shackles of prudish thought.

Thus, if you express a culturally heterodox position based in classic orthodox Christian theology you will be maligned as hateful, bigoted, or hypocritical. The new cultural Christianity declares you not really a Christian, or at least, a hypocritical one.

The Challenge Before Us

Many have wondered how someone like Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi could declare their fealty to the Catholic Church while affirming positions on abortion, marriage, and contraception that would have, in the past, excommunicated them from the Church. The answer lies within this new cultural Christianity. Biden and Pelosi are not Catholics in any meaningful or historical sense of the term, but they are cultural Catholics or current cultural Christians. They have adopted progressively loaded theology for political expedience. They have adopted the new cultural Christianity.

30 Years Ago . . .

It seems to me that progressive Christianity is becoming (if it is not already) the cultural Christianity of the West and of the United States in particular. Thirty years ago, cultural Christians would espouse a similar moral framework to born again Christians. This is why the church could open its doors and receive unbelievers from their communities and preach the gospel from the pulpit and it made sense even to the unbeliever. Not everyone believed or responded with faith, but they understood the argument. They understood it because the culture was built upon it. Obviously, this form of cultural Christianity was not without its warts but now we see a completely different effect.

When unbelievers or unchurched people come and sit in our congregations, they may consider themselves “cultural Christians” but their approach to morality has been shaped and molded by progressive cultural Christianity. The gospel from the pulpit in this moment makes no sense to them. Sin is now oppression and repression not immoral behavior that misses the mark of the holy God. Love is affirmation of the inner-man and a necessity to aid in bending reality around those desires to find true happiness.

Sounds a bit like Neitzsche’s Übermensch.

When these cultural Christians come to our churches, they hear the same words but through a completely different cultural lens. They are cultural Christians, but their sense of Christianity is shaped by progressive theology and humanistic philosophy. It becomes a cross-cultural conversation (See: 3 conversations and how to have them) even among people who would call themselves Christians.

Thirty years ago the mainline denominations followed suit with the cultural Christianity of the day. Mainline denominations have often blown with winds of doctrine shaped by cultural Christianity and given the United Methodist Church’s recent removal of the prohibition on gay clergy it is safe to say that their drifting into the progressive cultural Christianity is nearly complete.

Interestingly, many formerly recognized “new atheists” are seeing this before our Christian leaders. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, James Lindsey and even Richard Dawkins are seeing it, but they haven’t the faintest clue what to do about it. Dawkins decries the rise of Islam in England but struggles to recognize that the rise of Islam is, at least in part, due to this new form of cultural Christianity. A cultural Christianity that affirms multiple paths to the ultimate good will open itself up to the belief systems of Islam and others. A cultural Christianity that views scripture and sin primarily through the lens of intersectionality and oppressed-oppressor narratives will likely embrace any belief system deemed as being “othered” by the West.

Ironically, it is Dawkins’ belief that real Christianity ought to be abandoned while cultural Christianity ought to remain that leads us into this new cultural Christianity that resembles Nietzsche’s remedy for nihilism in the Übermensch.

So yes, I believe we have moved into a post-Christian era, but more than that I believe that post-Christianity has merely become an embrace of a new kind of cultural Christianity, and it is closely aligned with progressive theology. Once we recognize this, the cultural picture suddenly becomes much clearer and perhaps our strategies for engagement and evangelism will follow suit.

References:

[1] Richard Dawkins, Interview with LBC (May 2024), at: https://youtu.be/COHgEFUFWyg

[2] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Bernard Williams, ed., Josephine Naukhoff, trans. (Cambridge & NY: Cambridge, 2001), 119-120.

Recommended Resources:

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

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

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

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4d2BgjR

/by

Character Matters

Character and morality often intersect in their definitions. Even for the non-Christians, all people are given a moral compass from the time of our birth. As image bearers of God, a person is able to recognize right from wrong. Though these matters have been declared more subjective over time, murder is still deemed hateful by the large majority. Stealing is considered a crime by most law-abiding citizens. There are obvious signs that either positively or negatively allude to one’s character.

Character Defined

Character, defined by the world, is commonly based on what is done rather than what is believed. A person is considered morally good by the things that they do for themselves or someone else. For instance, donating to multiple charities and volunteering at a homeless shelter may lead someone to believe that they are a wonderful person. Though these things are certainly beneficial, they do not, by themselves, earn God’s favor.

Biblical character is achieved through having a relationship with Christ. His law being written on our hearts is the way in which we determine that which is truly good, right, and pure. We walk in authentic morality because we walk with the Lord. Our ultimate example of moral perfection is Christ alone. Having lived blamelessly and without any sin, He is our perfect example. In our belief in Jesus, we experience true freedom and relief knowing that salvation is not works-based. Salvation is a gift. It is placed on us in the grace and forgiveness of Jesus.

Character is earned and kept through worshipful obedience. Obedience is a posture of the heart. If one’s motive does not align with the Lord’s purposes, obedience is inauthentic. A small example may be reading the Bible. If doing so is simply a checklist item among others during our morning routine, we are operating in a harmful works-based mentality that limits our view of God’s love for us. In the book Gentle and Lowly (2020), the author Gavin Ortlund states, “We sin- not just in the past but in the present, and not only by our disobedience but by our ‘of-works’ obedience. We are perversely resistant to letting Christ love us” (pg. 186).

I once heard someone say that they felt confident in their eternal security because of his record of attendance at church and history of financial generosity. At the time, I was not spiritually mature enough to gently redirect this harmful way of thinking. I now understand that if character is not about the heart of God himself, it is meaningless.

Character Witnessed

As previously mentioned, we beautifully witness character through the many attributes of our Lord. He is inherently everything that we are not. He is perfect in love, justice, power, sovereignty, grace, authority, forgiveness, mercy, goodness, patience, and much more. The character of God is our comfort. In our delight and embrace of who he is, our lives begin to look completely different. This is not anything we accomplish in our strength but in our submission. As we humbly submit to God, we are transformed. Nothing good inside of us can or will exist outside of the person of Christ. Though we might do apparently good things, true goodness is obtained only as the Holy Spirit works in and through us on a daily basis.

As we approach the Word of God, our intent should be to uncover more about who he is. Oftentimes, we look to Scripture for answers about our life and identity. The Bible is about who God is. Yet, in knowing him, we do begin to better understand who we are and the purpose we have been given. As A.W Tozer famously says in Knowledge of the Holy, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us” (pg. 1).

The gospels serve as eye-witness accounts to Christ’s ministry on earth. We learn from his parables, his miracles, and ultimately, his example. I often reflect on the longest recorded message that Jesus preached, The Sermon on the Mount. Matthew chapters five, six, and seven encompass many of life’s most important matters. Though each lesson holds tremendous weight and value, the Beatitudes in chapter five speak directly to one’s character. The word “blessed” that comes before each one is the Greek word makarios which can be translated to “happy” in our English language. All throughout Scripture, it is evident that our humble obedience to the Lord precedes his faithful blessing unto us. It is the character of God that allows us to be richly blessed in our depravity before him. He supplies our needs according to the riches of glory in Christ Jesus. His blessing is his heart towards us.

Character Activated

Perhaps humility is the most important characteristic of a believer. It is from our humility that we can love, serve, submit, and honor both God and others with authenticity. Without the acknowledgement of our nothingness outside of Christ, we walk in deceptive pride that hinders our obedience. Yet, in emptying ourselves daily, we are best positioned to glorify the Lord with the help of his Holy Spirit.

Character that is marked by the fruit of the Spirit comes as we walk closely with him. Christian calling and character are mutually dependent on one another. Romans chapter twelve says that we must resist conforming to the world and be transformed by the renewal of our mind. In order to serve Jesus from a place of spiritual maturity, integrity, and authenticity we must look different from the world around us.

Secular culture says that a calling is fulfilled in the measure of wealth and knowledge. On the contrary, John 13:35 says that the world will know a disciple by how they love. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 13 reminds us that we can obtain many spiritual gifts and talents, but without love, it is all worthless. It is not what we do that matters to God. It is who we are.

The mutual calling of every person on planet earth is to glorify the Lord. We exist to worship his name. Though many will not do this, it is why we are here. The specific calling on a person’s life is best revealed in seeking Jesus. Whether it be business, performance, creativity, pastoring, or parenting, our calling glorifies God as we operate in Christlike character.

When people look at your life, what do they see? Our character is positively or negatively viewed by others on a daily basis. For the Christian, a lot is at stake. If a well-known pastor preaches a remarkable sermon on generosity only to leave church and tip his waitress a few coins, there may be a character flaw. How we treat people matters. The love we operate in has every potential to point someone to Jesus. May our lives be a reflection of the only One who can save and deliver. May we never blend in but stand out. Character champions calling when Christ is at the center of all that we do.

Recommended Resources:

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

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4) 

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

 

Annie Brown has joined us as Content Coordinator working with the Truth That Matters team. In this role, Annie will be creating written content meant to edify and equip lay learners and scheduling content channels as needed. In addition to being a student at SES, Annie has a B.S. in Family & Child Development from Liberty University. “I am grateful for the opportunity to serve on the Truth That Matters Team at SES. Using my passion of writing to prayerfully bless others excites me, and I look forward to what the Lord has in store.”

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3SoTLa7

/by