Are you an Ambassador for Christ

Yesterday, I was reminded about the importance of presenting a well-informed, biblical worldview to those we encounter on a day to day basis. Each of us, as believers, have multiple opportunities every day to represent Christ.  Paul calls us ambassadors for Christ in 2 Corinthians 5:20.  We carry the message of our King.

One of the tools that has most deeply informed my understanding and approach has been the Ambassador Model described by Stand to Reason.  Greg Koukl, founder of STR, reminds us that we are to be people of knowledge, wisdom, and character.



If you've never given this much thought, let me encourage you to do so. Print out the Ambassador's Creed and read through it regularly.

You can read more HERE.

Book Review: Unparalleled

I ordered this book on Jared Wilson's reputation. I first read his book Your Jesus is Too Safe many years ago and was a fast fan. Since then, I have followed his blog and read nearly all of his books. Admittedly, I did not know what to expect apart from Wilson's record for quality.

But how to describe Unparalleled: How Christianity's Uniqueness Makes it Compelling (Baker, 2016)? As of now, it is the #1 new release in "comparative religion" on Amazon. Wilson also described it as an apologetics book. Yet, Unparalleled defies easy categorization. As I read it, my first thought was that it belongs in a class with books such as CS Lewis's Mere Christianity, Chuck Colson's The Faith, and NT Wright's Simply Christian in that it is an "apologetic" for the Christian faith. Wilson lays out why Christianity is unique and, therefore, compelling.

Weaving together his gospel-saturated prose, careful thinking, and honest narrative examples, Wilson draws us into Christianity's unique story. Specifically, he addresses God's relationality, the beautiful necessity of the Trinity, the sanctity of all human life, as well as the exclusiveness of Christ's life, death, and resurrection to name just a few topics.

This book is part theology, part apologetics, and part storytelling, but it is all Wilson and that is a very good thing. Though I would compare Unparalleled to other well-vetted Christian classics, this book is unique enough on its own to merit my emphatic recommendation to believers and non-believers alike. In a word, Unparalleled is...well..."unparalleled."

I was provided a review copy of this book from Baker Books in exchange for this review. I was not required to write a positive review of this book. The viewpoints presented here are my own.

Beautiful and True

This morning, for well over an hour, I ruminated upon an idea blossoming in my mind. Trying to construct the "perfect tweet" is often a more difficult task than one might imagine. One cannot express nuance in a mere 140 characters. At least I cannot. How does one meaningfully fit a morning's contemplation into a sentence or two?

Perhaps sharing a few of my abandoned lines will provide some background.

• Christianity is true, but it is also beautiful. 
• Christians have a responsibility to show the world that Christianity is true, but also that it is beautiful. 
• We need ministries like @STRtweets to show us that Christianity is true, but we also need those like @TheRabbitRoom to show us that its beautiful. 

 Each fully true, but incomplete. Let me explain.

I believe Christianity is true. Objectively so. I believe that Christ really walked the earth, really died on the cross, and really rose again from the dead. It is not simply wish fulfillment, It is not merely my subjective impression. It is not one truth in a sea of competing truths. It is what Francis Schaeffer called "true Truth". Furthermore, I believe that reason leads us to God. Christian philosophers and apologists (those who purpose themselves to defend the faith) have described numerous and robust arguments in support of the truth of Christianity.

Though there may be disagreement about what exactly Christianity teaches, I doubt most Christians would take issue with the Truth of Christianity. When we tell others about Jesus, we operate from the assumption that he is not merely true for us, but that he is true for them as well. Church and parachurch ministries often seek to teach Christians about how to present these truths.

Yet, as much as we talk about truth, too often we expend little effort on beauty. Yes, Christianity is true, but it is also beautiful. Too often, I fear, Christians minimize beauty as distracting, or worse, harmful. They renounce beauty as a sinful preoccupation that takes away from the "real purpose of Christianity--making disciples converts."

It hasn't always been so. One look at the towering cathedrals of medieval Europe, Michaelangelo's Pieta, or the icons of the Orthodox church reminds us that beauty matters. Basking in the cantatas of Bach, who routinely signed off his compositions with "SDG"--Soli Deo Gloria/Glory to God Alone--brings to mind that God inspires beauty. God Himself stresses beauty in His word. From the instructions for the temple to the Psalms to the descriptions of the New Heavens and New Earth, we see that beauty is important to God. Indeed, God is beautiful.

I suspect that the tendency to downplay beauty in modern Christianity finds its roots, at least in some measure, in 20th century evangelicalism. I am fairly confident that supposition is not new to me. Evangelicalism, for all of its benefits, promoted a detrimental imbalance. As evangelicals, we encourage evangelism, [right] giving, service, and biblical morality. These are all good things. Yet, we are suspicious of things deemed too "impractical," like art. We encourage our congregants to read their Bibles and come to church and talk to people about Jesus, but we are less likely to encourage them to paint. We encourage our children to pursue "practical" majors. We become uncomfortable when their university programs require them to take courses in the arts. The words "liberal" and "arts" both make us suspicious. When the two words are combined, our suspicion grows exponentially.

Unfortunately, this imbalance has been detrimental. We try to intellectually muscle people into the Faith, but put no effort into demonstrating the breath-taking beauty of God. In a recent discussion with Eugene Peterson, Bono said that Christians need more honest art. He's right. Yet Andrew Peterson also correctly responded (Twitter, April 29), "I get where Bono is coming from, but the fact is, there's TONS of honest art by Christians. Lot's of it. It just isn't mainstream." We need to promote a culture where beauty is not only acceptable, but encouraged.

Church, let us be people who show the true beauty and the beautiful truth of Christ.

You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord.-Isaiah 62:3

Post-Script
As Andrew Peterson pointed out, there is a lot of honest (and I would add beautiful) Christian art. His body of work testifies to this truth. Start with his most recent album "The Burning Edge of Dawn" and move out from there. Let me also offer a few other recommendations and know that I would love to hear yours as well!

• Truth and beauty intersect in Eugene Peterson's writings. I especially love The Pastor
• An online community of Christians committed to art and beauty exists at the Rabbit Room. There is so much good there. Go and poke around. 
• A difficult, but important step for me was to read more fiction--CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, Marilynne Robinson, and Walt Wangerin. Add Andrew Peterson's Wingfeather Saga to the list as well. 

But don't simply consume. Go forth and create! 

Becoming a Both/And Christian

Over the years, one of the topics that I have given the most thought to has been the balance of truth and love. In my experience, most Christians don't do it well. On the one hand, there are those who are crusaders for truth. They know their Bibles well--at least parts of it.  They are prophetic voices, speaking with conviction and clarity about issues facing the church and the world--abortion, sanctity of marriage, and religious freedom, to name a few. The church, the world, needs these prophets.

But too often, they fail to recognize that the Bible tells us that we should let everything we do be done in love (1 Corinthians 16:14). They use their words as weapons. Their primary goal is to win the argument, not love the person. And in so doing, they become clanging cymbals.

On the other hand, there are those who fail to take a stand for seemingly hard biblical truths. They know their Bibles well--at least parts of it. They assume that to be loving, they should not speak difficult truths to people and so they say nothing. Their desire is to bring comfort and hope to a hurting world. They promote a feet on the ground ministry of mercy, binding up wounds and feeding the hungry. 

But too often, in their desire to be loving, they promote a soft, convictionless tolerance. They are content when the church conforms to culture, so long as they don't take hard stands.

But, the church needs more both/and Christians. We need the truth crusaders to continue to speak prophetically, but who recognize that words can harm. They need to act with gentleness and respect. They need to understand that a failure to control the tongue can ultimately harm the cause of Christ.

We need the other group to understand that failure to speak is ultimately a failure to love. They need to know that truth matters in real, tangible ways in the lives of every person they seek to love. They need to learn that a failure to use the tongue can ultimately harm the cause of Christ.

We need both/and Christians. Truth and love. Prophets and priests. We need Christians to do what is right (stand for truth), to do so with mercy, all with a spirit of godly humility.

No, O people, the Lord has told you what is good,
    and this is what he requires of you:
to do what is right, to love mercy,
    and to walk humbly with your God.
-Micah 6:8 (NLT)

Why Can't All Religions Achieve Peace?

I recently saw this picture appear on my Facebook feed. It reads, "if all religions teach peace then why can't all religions achieve peace?" I have a few thoughts to share.

First, all religions do not teach peace. It is a mischaracterization to state that they do and unfortunately, perpetuates the tendency to view all religions as basically the same. For example, Islam is derived from the Arabic word meaning submission. Not only are Muslims to submit to Allah, they are to subdue (sometimes violently) others until all are under the rule of Islam. 

Second, a sufficient worldview will provide an explanation for why things are the way they are. For example, Christians believe that the world was created good, peaceful. However, due to free will, humans chose to act against the created order, thus disturbing created peace. Christians call this interruption in the created order "sin" and believe that it affects everything. 

The nontheist or materialist (i.e., someone who believes the world and all that is within it came about by natural processes) is not excused from explaining what went wrong. Too often, those representing that camp offer up questions without providing sufficient answers from their own worldview. For example, one question I would ask the materialist is how peace is defined in a materialistic worldview. Is it even a meaningful construct and if so, how does one arrive at a moral construct such as peace? If I am to accept materialism or Darwinian evolution as a valid worldview, then it is the strong that survive. Through whatever means necessary, the stronger will override the weaker and that often will entail the exact opposite of what is commonly thought of as "peace."

Third, we need to consider what is the solution to these problems from the perspective of the various worldviews. As I indicated above, under Islam, the solution to the world's problems is through submission--often coerced--to Allah. For the Muslim, once Shariah law is properly in place, society will function better. For some materialists, their solutions are offered through better science and understanding, but to what end? Research physicians seeking a cure for cancer and a dictator seeking to destroy a race he deems to be inferior are both operating from materialist assumptions. If you believe one of them is wrong, how do you make that determination from an objective point of view? One's personal distaste is insufficient ground for moral oughtness.

Christians believe that the world was created good and that because of sin, shalom--which not only means peace, but also includes human prospering and completeness--was fractured deeply. The only way individual, societal, and universal shalom may be restored is through a Restorer. Christians believe that restorer is ultimately found in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ came to redeem the lost and ultimately will restore heaven and earth to its original goodness. Peace will be restored.

Fourth, we must not ignore what has happened in history. A common assertion made by those who would tear down religion is that religious systems are at the root of most major world conflicts. For example, last month, President Obama equated Islamic extremism with the Christian response during the Crusades, which demonstrated a poor understanding of history. The Crusades were an attempt to push back Islamic expansion and jihad--it was first defensive, not offensive. However, it would be unfair to minimize any atrocities conducted by Christians during that time. Christians are called by Jesus to love their neighbors and when they do not act that way, it acts against their worldview rather than consistently with their worldview as might be the case with Islam or, frankly, with nontheistic materialism.

If one explores the history of thought, Christians have been at the forefront of developments in technology, science, education, human rights, and many other things. Christians are called to steward the created order in a way that promotes love for God and love for neighbor. Admittedly, there have been things done in the name of Christ that were inconsistent with the Christian worldview, but it is unfair to minimize the many positive contributions by Christians.

When considering historical facts regarding peace, we cannot ignore the 20th century. The number of people killed by those operating from an atheistic worldview far exceed the atrocities done in the name of Christ. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Margaret Sanger are just the tip of the iceberg.

In sum, when considering the statement about why religions don't achieve peace, ask yourself: 1) Does my worldview explain why there is a lack of peace and how we can achieve it?, 2) In my worldview, is peace even a meaningful construct?, 3) what does a balanced view of history tell me about promotion of peace?, and 4) what am I personally doing today to promote shalom?

For further reference, consider reading:
Why You Think the Way You Do by Glenn Sunshine
The Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark

Book Review: The Skeletons in God's Closet

A friend of mine has been having some serious doubts about Christianity and one of the reasons he gives for his doubt is hell. How could a loving God send people to hell for eternity? If most of us are honest, its hard for us to reconcile too.  When another friend of mine was raving about Joshua Ryan Butler’s book The Skeletons in God’sCloset (2014), I couldn’t wait to read it. 

In Skeletons, Butler takes on three of the hardest questions that Christians are often faced with and frankly we don’t really know how to answer with grace and truth. First, how can a loving God send people to hell? Second, Isn’t it arrogant to believe Jesus is the only way to God? And third, why is there so much violence in the Old Testament?  

What if Hell, judgment, and holy war are extensions of God’s love? I believe, with all of my heart that when it says in First John that God IS love, that John meant it, but I also believe that the Bible does teach about the reality of hell and that Christ really is the only way to salvation.  Butler goes a long way to help his readers to reconcile these truths. 

Regarding hell, what if God’s purpose is not so much the torture of the unrepentant, but the protection of his holy city from the destructive powers of sin? I think that Butler rightly says “sin takes things that are whole and tries to break them up”—marriages, community, humanity.  In restoring the whole, he will not allow the intrusion of that which destroys. 

Butler says that judgment is meant to heal, not destroy the nations. It is meant to restore relationships, not break them down. Finally, he describes God as outrageously patient with humanity, but that ultimately he is for his people and he will do whatever it takes to defend them.

I didn’t like everything about this book, but I liked it. Butler grounded some of his arguments politically and in ways that I probably wouldn’t have, but this is a thoughtful, important, scripturally defended book that deals with some of the most important questions we may face as believers.

Book Review: The Allure of Gentleness

A few months ago, I saw this book show up as a pre-buy on Amazon and immediately purchased it. To say that I could not wait for it to come was a bit of an understatement. Yesterday, I saw that it was out for delivery and I couldn't wait to get home and get started.

The Allure of Gentleness: Defending the Faith in the Manner of Jesus (2015) by the late Dallas Willard is an exceptionally good book. It is unusual for me to be sad when I have finished a book, though I wish this one had kept going.

Willard, a former philosophy professor from the University of Southern California, offered this book as a gentle pushback on the apologetics engine that occupies much of Christianity. Apologetics, or the defense of the faith, has unfortunately become an adversarial enterprise where the goal is to win the argument rather than love the person. Willard calls us to something more; he calls us to love others with the compassion and wisdom of Jesus.  He also rightly makes the argument that our lives and the outworking of our faith is essential to our defense of the faith.

Hints of his previous books--Spirit of the Disciplines, Hearing God, and the Divine Conspiracy, to name a few--find their way into the pages of this book, yet this book stands alone as a unique, important, and much welcome offering from Willard.

May our lives of love reflect our message of truth.

Book Review: The Case for the Real Jesus--Student Edition

When one thinks of mainstream Christian apologists, Lee Strobel's name is assuredly at the top of the list. A former atheist and journalist, he initially came to recognition by applying his journalistic skill to the excellent book, The Case for Christ. He has since applied the same engaging, journalistic method to several other books such as the The Case for a Creator and the Case for Faith. His typical approach is to tackle questions Christians may discuss with nonbelievers or that they may struggle with themselves.  The Case for the Real Jesus (2008, Zondervan) was no different.

In this book, Strobel sets out to address six different challenges:
1) Scholars are uncovering a radically different Jesus through ancient documents just as credible as the four gospels.
2) The Bible's portrait of Jesus can't be trusted because the church tampered with the text.
3) New explanations have disproved Jesus' resurrection.
4) Christianity's beliefs about Jesus were copied from pagan religions.
5) Jesus was an imposter who failed to fulfill the prophecies about the Messiah.
6) People should be free to pick and choose what to believe about Jesus.

In each case, he would find expert theists and apologists to address the questions at hand. Although many people may be unfamiliar with these authors, writers such as Craig Evans, Dan Wallace, and Paul Copan are highly educated, knowledgeable about the topics, and capable of defending. In each case, Strobel essentially lays out his conversations with these individuals to the benefit of the reader.

I would say the only place where I was puzzled was in trying to understand what classified this as a "student edition."  I was unable to locate anything specific, other than the cover, that specifically mentioned that it was for students. The writing style employed inside is classic Strobel and doesn't appear different from how he typically writes. Admittedly, I did not have a copy of the non-student edition for comparison, though I suspect they would be vastly similar.  Perhaps what made it a student edition was the inclusion of various text boxes, tables, and figures to highlight parts of the text, though to be fair, these "call outs" would be beneficial whether a person was a student or not.

In sum, this was a fine book. It could have been more comprehensive, but that was not the focus and there are other fine volumes to fit that niche. The purpose of answering these basic questions is handled clearly and effectively.

I received this book free from the publisher through the BookLook Bloggers book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Book Review: The Atheist's Fatal Flaw

The Atheist's Fatal Flaw: Exposing Conflicting Beliefs (2014, Baker Books) by the patriarchal Norman Geisler and newcomer Daniel McCoy is an important contribution to the existing apologetic literature. In classic Geisler style, this book moves forth in a relentlessly logical fashion. In essence, they spend the book examining two inconsistencies: "in the first case, though initially indicting God for not fixing the problem of moral evil, the atheist then indicts God for his attempts to fix it" (p. 131) and second, "although denouncing as evil the interventions that God proposes in order to fix moral evil, the atheist then reverses himself by absolving those same types of interventions at a societal level" (p. 132). In essence, certain actions are okay, so long as we do not attribute them to God.

What I found to be the primary strength of this book was the painstaking effort Geisler and McCoy went to accurately represent the atheist's viewpoints and inconsistencies. The first half of the book is full of numerous examples from atheists such as Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, Barker, and others.  In fact, I suspect the naive reader may read the first half of the book and wonder if it is Christian.  Keep reading.

The Atheist's Fatal Flaw is a useful, unique book, but it is not for the faint of heart. Gaining some basic grounding in apologetics, philosophy, and logic prior to tackling this book may be of benefit. Regardless, I think this book will benefit many in the years to come.

I received this book free from the publisher through the Bethany Baker House book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Book Review: I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (2004) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek may be the best introductory apologetics textbook I have read. Because they are typically written by smart people, apologetics books are too often burdened by writing that is inaccessible to many readers. Dr Geisler, however, has a gift for explaining logical reasoning in an efficient manner. Turek adds a warmness to the narrative, making this amongst the most readable, yet well thought out and comprehensive, apologetics textbooks on the market.

Weighing in at 450 pages, the authors are able to address many of the most important arguments in the battle for truth. For example, the authors address the following broad categories: 1) truth about reality is knowable, 2) the opposite of true is false, 3) it is true that the theistic God exists, 4) If God exists, then miracles are possible, 5) Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God, 6) The New Testament is historically reliable, 7) The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God, 8) Jesus' claim to be God was miraculously confirmed, 9) therefore, Jesus is God, 10) whatever Jesus teaches is true, 11) Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God, and 12) THEREFORE, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God.

To address these major premises, the authors walk through common apologetics arguments such as those relating to origin of the universe (cosmological argument), the design of life (teleological argument), and the truth of the moral law (moral argument). In each case, they generally explain the current status of the arguments, but seek to clearly show the logical endpoints of each perspective. In other words, they effectively employ what Francis Schaeffer referred to as "taking the roof off", thus showing the logical flaws.

Some people have commented that this book can be too adversarial at times, but we are engaged in a battle. Geisler and Turek effectively dismantle arguments raised against the Christian position. I would strongly recommend this book to both Christian and non-Christian alike. If you give it a fair review, I have no doubt you will find their work compelling.

I received this book free from the publisher through the Beyond the Page book review bloggers program through Crossway Publishing. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Free book on apologetics

Today, Amazon has featured, for free, J Warner Wallace's Cold Case Christianity. Wallace is a former cold case detective and now Christian apologist who works for one of my favorite ministries, Stand to Reason. 

Book Review--Dear Friend: Letters to Christian Ambassadors

I received this short book from Stand To Reason for supporting their ministry, which you should do too.  Dear Friend: Letters to Christian Ambassadors, is a series of short letters penned by Greg Koukl, who is the president of Stand To Reason.  In the introduction, he wrote, "So as a kind of spiritual father, I am always looking for new ways to help you shine for those who only know about Christ through you. I know yours is a weighty responsibility, but in the enclosed letters I offer some ideas that might help."  This book includes 32 short letters covering a wide variety of topics relevant to the issue of being an ambassador for Christ.  Koukl ranges from very practical, technique focused suggestions to issues of character.  He, and Stand to Reason, are committed to the development of complete Christians and this book serves as one evidence of that commitment. 

For me personally, as someone who has come to know and love the ministry of Stand to Reason in general and Greg Koukl in particular, I am very fond of this short volume. There were some familiar stories to me and some I had not heard before. In every case though, I could seemingly hear Greg's voice as I read.  He is a fantastic teacher and that comes through in this book

If you are unfamiliar with Stand To Reason, let me strongly encourage you to check out their website, but also recommend to you this book.  If you are engaging others on a regular basis, this book may be one tool to help you "bloom where you are planted." 

Reflections on the Creation Debate

Last night, at debatelive.org, Ken Ham of the Creation Museum and Bill Nye the science guy debated one another loosely regarding the question, "Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?" I wasn't going to watch it.  I have spent a lot of time over the last several years exploring questions regarding the intersection of faith and science and whether Christians who hold to a creation model can in fact be scientists. Though I am assuredly interested in these questions, I anticipated that I would be more irritated than enlightened by this debate. My wife said she was going to watch and several people from our church also were planning to gather to watch the debate.  Rather than watch re-runs of 7th Heaven, which is what I did during the Superbowl, I thought I would take in the debate.  Turns out, I was one of over a half-million people who tuned in.  Since last night, I have had a number of thoughts triggered by the debate that I want to share.  This will probably turn out to be a long post, so bear with me.

First, I was pleasantly surprised with their willingness to treat one another rather cordially.  Part of the reason I was reluctant to watch is that Ken Ham has developed an unfortunate reputation of being aggressively dogmatic, though last night I saw less of that than I typically have when I have seen or read his materials in the past.  He clearly holds to a specific point of view, but he was generally engaging last night.  Bill Nye too is dogmatic in his belief and yet he also engaged reasonably well.  Closer to the end of the debate, they began to become a little more aggressive, but overall, it was reasonably peaceful.

Second, they were unfortunately talking past one another much of the time. Ham was attempting to make his point that historical science differs from observational science. Nye tried to assert that in order for the United States to stay competitive, they need people trained in science and engineering, but stayed away from the notion of whether Christians may fit there.  The longer the debate proceeded, the less they were listening to each other, but were doubling down on their positions. When people only talk and don't listen, no real dialog can take place.

This relates to another point.  Most people who watched the debate last night already hold a certain viewpoint on the issues that were discussed. I doubt that many people changed their minds, but I did pray for that last night.  Before Jesus was crucified, he was mocked by a whole battalion of soldiers, which was about 500 men (Mark 15:16); however, when he was crucified, a centurion standing by (presumably a part of the battalion), said "Truly this man was the son of God" (Mark 15:39).  One of the 500 turned. May it have been so last night.

Third, Christians hold to different viewpoints on the creation of the world. Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, and his Creation Museum represent the young earth creationism viewpoint.  However, there are other believers who believe the earth is quite old, but otherwise are biblical creationists.  One example is Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, who founded Reasons to Believe. A third subset include those who hold to theistic evolution, such as Francis Collins, head of the NIH and others in the Biologos community. There are other viewpoints as well that are often less discussed (e.g., framework hypothesis, gap theory).  Science is complex.  Hermeneutics, or biblical interpretation, is also complex.  Simple answers will never suffice.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that many in the science community treat all Christians the same and vice versa. This can lead to the problem of talking past one another as I indicated above.  The only way to know what viewpoint a person holds is to ask them and deal with their perspective, avoiding ad hominem attacks. 

Fourth, there should have been a clearer acknowledgement of presuppositions. Christians operate from the perspective that God is true and therefore the supernatural is true. Because we believe in the supernatural, and an intervening God, miraculous events can occur.  Materialists, by their worldview, reject the supernatural a priori and so do not allow for an intervening God, even when it explains their data better than their worldview can.  They are more inclined to produce fanciful theories (e.g., the multiverse theory, directed panspermia) that also require faith, rather acknowledge God. Romans 1:18-32 actually predicts this suppression of the obvious. 

Fifth, I have some specific criticisms of Bill Nye.  Bill Nye clearly operates from a worldview of scientific naturalism. For him, science is king. Unfortunately, this leads to a gross denial of history and of reality.  Nye failed to acknowledge that historically, science emerges from a Christian worldview.  The God of the Bible is not an impetuous, ever changing deity, but a God of reason.  Because early scientists believed that God ordered the universe, they were able to develop a system of experimentation and replication.  Indeed, most scientists through history have been theists including some of the most influential in history.  A strict reliance upon science also fails to account for the metaphysical realities of inquiry.  Ham attempted to get Nye to address issues like meaning, morality and origins, but Nye could not respond well because these are not really under the purview of observational science.  Not everything is scientifically provable and without a foundation in the philosophy of science, which is sorely lacking, it is impossible to consider some of these metaphysical realities.  Just once, I would like to see a scientist acknowledge that though they understand science well, they are not philosophers.  As just one example, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow wrote a book a few years ago saying that philosophy is essentially dead, then they made philosophical assertions to try to make their point.  I discussed that here. 

Bill Nye also began to make assertions about biblical interpretation.  In doing so, he was out of his element.  One example is that he claimed the Bible is thousands of years old and has been interpreted over and over.  English translations are made from the earliest texts available, not from existing English translations. It is not a game of telephone. There are existing texts dated within one generation of Jesus. Further, the number of early biblical manuscripts eclipses the number of any other writing of antiquity.  We have very good manuscript evidence that is surprisingly consistent.  The tenacity with which scientists approach their fields of inquiry is similarly held by biblical scholars and textual critics to make sure they get it right. 

Another thing about Bill Nye that I disliked was his increasingly pejorative approach as the debate proceeded. He kept referring to things like "Ken Ham's model", though this was the model held by the majority of people through history. He also made off-handed references to the "people of Kentucky", which I think was an indirect jab at them.  Alternatively, he kept referring to himself as a "man of reason".  This is a common ploy among atheists.  They characterize themselves as reasonable, with the unstated assertion that those who do not think like they do are by necessity, unreasonable.  There are many theists who are able to reason quite well.  Indeed, I would pit JP Moreland or William Lane Craig against Bill Nye any day when it comes to "reasoning" ability.

Bill Nye misstepped. when he talked about the Big Bang. Yes, the big bang is an accepted scientific fact; however, the Big Bang supports the notion of a creator.  There was an absolute starting point to the universe.  The typical response of scientists has often been that at some point in the finite past an infinitely small, infinitely hot point in the nothingness exploded expanding outward rapidly.  Where did this come from? Theists confidently state this came from God, who is ever existent.  William Lane Craig makes this argument compellingly in the Kalam Cosmological arugment.  Or, as Greg Koukl would say, "the big bang needs a big banger." 

I also had some criticisms of Ken Ham.  One of the first things is his appeal to authority. He shared videos of several scientists who are young earth creationists.  This may be one useful technique, but appeal to authority on its own merits is a shaky foundation. He is lucky that Bill Nye did not trot out the scientists who disagree with young earth creationism because then it would be an issue of my expert versus your expert. And they have a lot more. Unfortunately, appeal to authority does not indicate whether something is true or reasonable. 

Ham also had a tendency to dodge questions, which I don't like. For example, he was asked a question that was something to the effect of "what would it take to change your mind?" He responded by saying something akin to "well, I'm a Christian and this is what I believe, so my mind won't be changed."  I wish he would have taken a different tack. If I was asked that question, I hope I would have responded by saying, "if Christ had not been raised from the dead, I would consider changing my viewpoint." To my believing friends, 1 Corinthians 15 is so important here.  As Paul is addressing them, he tells them that he delivered to them of first importance, that Jesus was crucified and resurrected in accordance with the scriptures.  And then, he comes to this section:

For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.-1 Corinthians 15:16-20

Do you see what is of first importance?  It is not the age of the earth or by what means it was accomplished. It is that Christ died for our sins and was raised again from the dead, bearing the burden for our iniquities so that all who call upon him will be saved. Christ is the center.  As Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, "Besides Jesus, nothing has any significance. He alone matters."

So perhaps the earth is young; perhaps the earth is old, but I believe the evidence for a Creator God is compelling.
Philosophically, it is hard to explain the beginning without Him.
Scientifically, there will be a struggle to explain life from non-life.
Morally, good and evil are meaningless without a moral law giver.
Anthropologically, your worth comes because you were created in the image of the One who made you.  You are so much more than a self-aware blob of cells.  You are an image bearer of the King and, regardless of your view of science, He wants you to come to Him. 

For those who are further interested in this topic, may I also suggest the following videos: 

Stephen Meyer and Eric Metaxas on Darwin's Doubt

Truth without winsomeness

I came across this video yesterday, which has apparently gone viral.  Someone had posted it on their Facebook page and so I watched it. Something about it didn't sit quite right with me. Briefly, this boy was stopped at a traffic checkpoint screening for drunk drivers. He filmed the interaction, without the consent or knowledge of the police.  If you haven't seen the video, watch it and then consider my comments below.



First, to my knowledge, this young man was defending his constitutional rights. I do not know for sure, but it appears that he went into this situation with the explicit intent to have a conversation, or altercation, with these police officers about his constitutional rights and to film it. Further, I have no reason to suspect that he is wrong, though I did not look up the specific laws.

What didn't sit right with me was how this young man approached the situation. Although he was apparently speaking and defending truth, he approached the officers in a confrontational manner. I grant that he did not raise his voice, but it was clear that his intent was to be right, which clearly agitated the police officers. His failure to comply with them, while perhaps legal by the letter of the law, was not winsome. Had he complied, he would have been gone in two minutes.

There is an important lesson here for Christians. Like the young man in the car, we stand on the side of truth and we have a responsibility to defend and proclaim that truth. However, we must do so with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). As evangelists, if we get angry, we lose. If the person we are talking to gets angry, we lose.

If you need to grow in this area, I would strongly encourage you to read Greg Koukl's Tactics.

Also, review, and practice, the Ambassador's Creed on a regular basis. According to Koukl, a Christian ambassador is: ready, tactical, honest, dependent, reasonable, clear, humble, patient, fair, and attractive and presents truth with knowledge, wisdom, and character.

Why do we come to different conclusions?

Unbelievers can come to some knowledge of "earthly things" from observation of God's creation. When it comes to knowledge of heavenly things, however, unbelievers are blind.-Keith Mathieson

This weekend, one of my pastor's finished up a two week apologetics series. The first week, he sought to answer the question whether faith in God is reasonable and the second week he addressed evolution. It was a great series. I am often thinking through similar issues, but they have been particularly in the front of my thinking over the past couple of weeks because I taught a series on Why I Believe for our college ministry last Thursday.

These events have led me to wonder, how is it that theists (e.g., Christians) and non-theists (e.g., atheists) can look at the same information and arrive at vastly different conclusions. I look at the evidence, including statements made by non-believers themselves, and I simply cannot fathom how they cannot see truth.  To me, a divine Creator, Intelligent Design--God--seems as plain as the nose on my face.  So I wonder, why can they not see it?

Although there is evidence for God everywhere we look, non-believers must actively suppress that knowledge. Nobel Laureate Francis Crick for example, has written, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." It says in Romans 1:18-24, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator." Considering Romans 1, philosopher James Spiegel in his book The Making of an Atheist argues that unrighteousness may serve as a catalyst for suppression of the truth. (See also Ephesians 4:17-19).

Sometimes, though, I wonder if it is even more significant.  In warning about the coming antichrist, Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2, "The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12). So, there will be a time when not only will people suppress truth, God will actively give them over by sending them a strong delusion.  A delusion is a false belief that is deeply held as true.  It seems to me that some delusional thinking already exists.  

So what are we to do?  We faithfully preach the word.  We lavishly throw out seed and trust that God will cause the growth of those whom He will. 

Book Review: The Making of an Atheist

The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief (2010) is an interesting apologetic text by philosopher James Spiegel. Typically, apologetics books deal with arguments themselves whereas Spiegel's book examines atheism from the perspective of morality. Working from biblical evidence such as Romans 1, he contends that the reason individuals reject God is because of their immorality, which causes them to reject the clear evidence for God.

He begins by referencing the atheists themselves, such as Thomas Nagel who has said that he doesn't want God to exist. They are willing to accept wild theories rather than accepting the evidence for God. For example, both Francis Crick and and Richard Dawkins are open to the notion of directed panspermia, which is that life appeared because aliens planted it here.

He also argued that certain factors, specifically fatherlessness and immorality, predispose people to reject God.  I suspect that these factors led to significant resistance to Spiegel's hypotheses, though probably for emotional, rather than logical reasons.

At the end of the book, he concludes with a short chapter on The Blessings of Theism. A common ploy from many of the new atheists is to talk about how theism is bad for society.  Reality proves otherwise. 

If you have an interest in why people think the way they do, this may be a good read for. 

"Simple" explanation of the Kalam argument

Coexist: Religious Tolerance or Religious Pluralism?

More and more often, I see these coexist bumper stickers. Surely, you have seen them as well. They feature religious symbols ordered in such a way that they spell out "coexist". In case you are wondering, the letters represent Islam, Peace, Male/Female, Judaism, Wicca, Taoism/Confucianism, and Christianity.

On the one hand, the concept of co-existence is admirable. We live in a society where religious tolerance is increasingly under attack. Recent decisions--especially in the judicial and executive branches of the federal government--negatively affect religious freedom. A few days ago, I shared some thoughts from Francis Schaeffer about the purposes of First Amendment. One of these stated purposes is government is not to impede upon the free practice of religion. We should be in the habit of openly advocating for the free practice of religion in the United States. Of all places, the United States should be a safe haven for individuals to practice their religion, even if we happen to believe they are wrong (and vice versa).

On the other hand, I am not sure that is the intent of these bumper stickers, at least not the full intent. I suspect that the intent is to suggest that there is no such thing as an exclusive truth claim when it comes to God. In a relativistic, pluralistic society, whatever you hold to be true is true. What you believe is true for you and what I believe is true for me. We are expected not only to tolerate and respect the other person, but the other person's ideas as well, because for them, whatever they believe is truth.

But here's the rub--truth is not relative. Truth, objective truth, is what best explains reality as we know it. There are many different systems of thought, most don't fit with what we know about the universe. One does. In this regard, truth is exclusive and the idea promoted by these bumper stickers is patently false. We may both have ideas about what offers the best explanation, but either we are both wrong or only one of us is right. We cannot both be correct and hold opposing viewpoints.

Furthermore, individuals who put these bumper stickers on their cars are often champions of "tolerance" and peace, but what they fail to realize is how offensive these bumper stickers are to individuals of faith within certain traditions. For example, orthodox Christians hold strongly to the notion that Jesus is the Messiah and is the only way of salvation. Orthodox Jews hold strongly that Jesus was not the Messiah and therefore cannot be the way of salvation.

Rather than encouraging a culture of cheap and ineffective acceptance of all ideas as equally valid, why not encourage a respectful culture where every person can advocate for their ideas and face counterarguments? In this type of culture, people would be respected even if their ideas were not. We must return to a culture where we fight to know objective truth because in a society where everything is allowed as truth, it ends up that there is nothing is worth fighting for.

For more reading:
The Intolerance of Tolerance by DA Carson
Is Jesus the Only Way Stand to Reason

Tolle Lege

Tolle Lege means "take up and read!"  Augustine of Hippo heard these words at the time of his conversion and was compelled to open the Bible and read.  Too many people, however, fail to "take up and read", critics and Christians alike. 

I just finished listening to the four part White Horse Inn podcast on "Questions of Faith." The producer, Shane Rosenthal, went to college campuses to do man on the street interviews with students. I want to mention two of the themes I observed. First, most of the students were openly critical of the Bible. They criticized its accuracy, testimony, and general truthfulness. Second, most of them, when asked, had never read the Bible. Some admitted to reading isolated bits and pieces whereas others had no exposure to it at all. Some were exposed to men like Bart Ehrmann, but not to the Bible. So, they were making fairly bold criticisms of a a book, a religion, a Person that has utterly changed the world without ever having read the Bible.

If Jesus is who he claims, if the Bible records truth, if there are eternal consequences (even just potential consequences) for accepting the message, then wouldn't it seem that people would want to read the actual source before openly criticizing it or rejecting it out of hand? 

Also, for my Christian brothers and sisters, this book contains God's revelation about who He is and who you are.  We believe that the Bible is the clearest revelation of His nature and of His plan for humanity. If you are basing your life on this book, make sure you have read it. 

So whether you are a believer or a Bible basher, Tolle Lege! Tolle Lege! Tolle Lege! 

Stand to Reason + White Horse Inn = Excellent Podcasts

Two of the radio programs that have been the most influential in terms of my thinking and development as a Christian have been Stand To Reason, hosted by Greg Koukl, and The White Horse Inn, hosted by Mike Horton, Rod Rosenblatt, Kim Riddlebarger, and Ken Jones. Over the last three weeks, Greg Koukl has sat in with the guys from the White Horse for a discussion on "questions of faith".  I promise you will learn a lot listening to these men talking with one another. I would strongly commend them
to you. 

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3