Christmas 2009! What do we see? Family? Lights? Decorations? Presents? Food? The hustle and bustle? I wonder if what we see at Christmas reflects something of who we are.
Each Christmas I am drawn to the story of Simeon (Luke 2:25-35). Simeon, we are told, was a righteous and devout man. He was, and had been, waiting for Israel's Messiah. In fact, God had promised Simeon that he would not die until he saw Messiah. At the prompting of the Holy Spirit, Simeon made his way to the temple courts that day. There God fulfilled his promise to Simeon. But what jumps out at me is what Simeon saw. There was much to distract Simeon that day. The temple, we need to understand, was an immensely busy place. It was the economic, political, educational, and religious center of Jewish life. With all the activity, noise, and crowds, I can only liken it to a shopping mall during the holidays. Added to all that, Simeon encounters a joyful, excited couple coming to dedicate their newborn son. Yet, despite the commotion and the joy of a new baby, I can't cease to be amazed at what Simeon saw. Luke records that Simeon took baby Jesus in his arms and said:
Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you may now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel. (2:29-32)
Did you catch that? Simeon, that first Christmas, saw salvation! He didn't simply see a new baby or the joy of the new parents or the hustle and bustle of the temple activity. All the distractions did not cloud his vision. He saw salvation itself. He saw the Messiah who would redeem not only Israel, but all people.
I have to ask myself, "What do I see at Christmas?" It is easy to get caught up in all the good things at Christmas and let them be a distraction. Family, friends, gifts, decorations, the Christmas rush, and even religious activities can keep us from seeing what we should be seeing this time of year. We should be seeing what Simeon saw . . . God's salvation. Perhaps we let the distractions cloud our vision because our characters are not like the character of Simeon. Perhaps righteous, devout people who are eagerly waiting and looking for the ultimate salvation of God's people with the return of Messiah are the ones who are in the best position to see what we should be seeing at Christmas. What do you see this time of year?
Merry Christmas! Enjoy and celebrate this holiday to the fullest. Enjoy your family, the food, the gifts, the decorations, and the joy. But through it all, don't miss seeing salvation.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
I Saw Jesus Today
A few months ago, with Halloween right around the corner, a woman was in a car accident. Her oldest son, 8 years old, was in the car with her. While the mother was relatively uninjured, her son died in the hospital shortly after the accident. I didn't realize it at the time I heard the story on the news, but this woman and her family lived right up the street from my family.
This time of year can be brutally hard for a family like this, especially when a tragedy is still so fresh, so I've been thinking alot about them. I decided to give them some Christmas goodies & hot cocoa mix just to let them know I was thinking about them and praying for them. I really can't imagine the heartache she and her husband and their other children must be feeling with the first Christmas without their son approaching.
I had only met her once before, but when she answered the door and saw me standing there, she smiled like we were old friends. Behind her, I couldn't help but notice a very large wall hanging with Jesus surrounded by children on it. She thanked me for the package; she hugged me; she continued to beam that warm smile at me, and I was struck by how joyful she was. I didn't want to walk away.This woman who has just lost a child couldn't keep the joy off her face or out of her eyes.
I know what that's about. She knows Jesus.
I've said before that our lives are our biggest apologetic for the truth of our faith, and this woman is one of the best examples I've seen. I barely know her, but I can see that even in her grief, she owns the certainty that Jesus gives all of His believers: death is conquered; Jesus is victorious. She knows she will see her precious son again one day and she trusts Jesus. She is most certainly sad and grieving terribly, but the joy and hope that she has in Jesus so overwhelms the sadness that you'd have to search for it to see it in her face.
Can you imagine what unbelievers who know her must be thinking - what they must be asking themselves? What is different about her? How can she maintain her joy in the face of such unspeakable pain? With God's grace, she will be able to share just how she can do that with someone who doesn't know Jesus.
But for me, I'm amazed. I saw Jesus today. Not in a wall hanging hung in an entry way but shining out from the joy-filled face of a grieving mother.
This time of year can be brutally hard for a family like this, especially when a tragedy is still so fresh, so I've been thinking alot about them. I decided to give them some Christmas goodies & hot cocoa mix just to let them know I was thinking about them and praying for them. I really can't imagine the heartache she and her husband and their other children must be feeling with the first Christmas without their son approaching.
I had only met her once before, but when she answered the door and saw me standing there, she smiled like we were old friends. Behind her, I couldn't help but notice a very large wall hanging with Jesus surrounded by children on it. She thanked me for the package; she hugged me; she continued to beam that warm smile at me, and I was struck by how joyful she was. I didn't want to walk away.This woman who has just lost a child couldn't keep the joy off her face or out of her eyes.
I know what that's about. She knows Jesus.
I've said before that our lives are our biggest apologetic for the truth of our faith, and this woman is one of the best examples I've seen. I barely know her, but I can see that even in her grief, she owns the certainty that Jesus gives all of His believers: death is conquered; Jesus is victorious. She knows she will see her precious son again one day and she trusts Jesus. She is most certainly sad and grieving terribly, but the joy and hope that she has in Jesus so overwhelms the sadness that you'd have to search for it to see it in her face.
Can you imagine what unbelievers who know her must be thinking - what they must be asking themselves? What is different about her? How can she maintain her joy in the face of such unspeakable pain? With God's grace, she will be able to share just how she can do that with someone who doesn't know Jesus.
But for me, I'm amazed. I saw Jesus today. Not in a wall hanging hung in an entry way but shining out from the joy-filled face of a grieving mother.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
A Chance for Kingdom Building
We are so fortunate in this country to have so much, especially in comparison to much of the rest of the world; we are even more fortunate that it is so easy to hear about Jesus Christ. As my pastor has been emphasizing over the past few weeks in our study of 2 Corinthians, God was rich but for our sake He became poor, in order that through His poverty we might become rich. His point is that God took on humanity so that we might have abundance of life for eternity through faith in Jesus, something we never could attain if God had not become poor for our sake. In response, that ought to make us incredibly generous toward others. In fact, that is why God blesses us with the resources He gives us, so we can pour it back out on others. (To hear this sermon in full, click on "Great Grace Should Produce Great Generosity" under the Lincoln Berean sermons resource on the left side of the page.)
I know that many people reading this are very generous because many of you are my friends and I've seen how you live and what is important to you. But I want to tell you all about Abdul because some of you may be looking for other opportunities to build God's Kingdom, and some who are reading this may think this is a great way to get started.
Abdul is a "Christmas Child" ~ one of many. These children are kids who are awaiting sponsorship through Compassion. (http://www.compassion.com/) As sponsors of another child, Compassion asked our family, along with other sponsors, to help find sponsors for these children who have been on the waiting list for some time. Abdul is from Tanzania. He is 9 years old and lives with his grandmother. He has two other siblings. This child works~carrying water, washing clothes, and caring for children. Through Compassion's efforts, he participates in church activities, Bible classes, and primary school, but he and his family live in poverty. Sponsorship will mean releasing Abdul from poverty. It will mean he has access to food, medicine, and clean water. It will also mean he has what he needs to fulfill his God-given potential and multiply what you have done for God's kingdom by sponsoring him.
How exciting is that?! What a great God we serve who lets us be a part of doing His work and who will one day say to us, "Well done, good and faithful servant!" Can you imagine the thrill of standing with God while He points out to you all the things that became possible and all the people who came to Jesus because of your obedience?
If you are able, please consider sponsoring Abdul. All you'll need is his Compassion number and you can sign up right on line. The cost is $38 a month. My family is always excited to get letters from Mani, the child we sponsor. It has been such a blessing to see her grow and learn through her letters. When we first began sponsoring her, she couldn't write at all, so one of her teachers wrote her letters for her. In the last letter we got, Mani had written the alphabet in English and Tamil, and had also written her numbers. It's also very heartwarming to read that she is praying for us! How sweet is that? A child in a third world country with just the basics to survive is praying for me and my family! We love that she is praying for us and we love letting her know in our letters that we are praying for her and her family.
Just contact me if you would like to help and I will get you the sponsor number...it's that easy!
Christmas Blessings to you all as we celebrate Jesus' birth...He who was rich but became poor for our sake so we could become rich!
Monday, November 30, 2009
Points of Contact
As apologists, it might be easy to think that our job is only to present reasonable arguments to non-believers and let reason lead the non-believer to Christ. In fact, however, it is usually not reason that is holding a non-believer back. Whatever is stopping them is more than an intellectual difficulty but something closer to home.
Apologetics can be more than just sound arguments. Alister McGrath (an apologist worth reading!) says that as apologists, we should find points of contact with the person, group, or audience that we are talking to. These might include their fear of death, the feeling that nothing ultimately satisfies, or the knowledge of our moral guilt. From that point of contact, we can show how Jesus is the answer to their particular problem and then expound on the Gospel. We can also talk about any intellectual problems this person/group/audience may have since we've now gained a hearing with them.
Here is an illustration of finding a point of contact with someone and using it to launch a discussion about God and Christianity. I have a friend who has a blog about fishing. In this blog, she will often write about the beauty of nature. In a recent post, she talked about how a lake can be a great equalizer. It doesn't care who you are, what you are, or what you have or don't have. Whether male or female, rich or poor, anyone of any race is welcomed with open arms by the lake which doesn't judge but only listens. At times, she says, nature can make you very aware of your insignificance as you realize that there is something much bigger than you out there. (I am using this as an illustration only. I am not implying that my friend does not believe in God - in fact she does. Her remarks are not meant to imply otherwise and in the context of her blog, these remarks about nature are perfectly appropriate, but I wanted to use this post because it is a great example of a point of contact.)
Do you see it? The need to be valued no matter who your are; the realization that there has to be something more; the desire for a friend who always welcomes with open arms, who isn't judgmental and who will listen. If these remarks had been made by someone whom you knew wasn't a Christian, you would have a perfect point of contact for talking about God, Jesus, and Christianity.
You could begin by making the person aware that all of the qualities that are celebrated about the lake are pointers to God. Romans 1:20 says, "From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse." You can talk about how God's creation is meant to show us something about Him and lead us to Him. John Calvin once said that the world reflects the attractiveness of its Creator. So it isn't nature that we should be worshipping as the "one" who offers us unconditional acceptance, it is God, who created it. You can also point out that nature and anything in it are not capable of loving, accepting, listening, or being nonjudgmental since these are impersonal, inantimate things. It is the Creator with all of his wonderful and holy attributes, not the creation, that is capable of these things. This is a good starting point that can lead to how God loves and values us all so much that He sent His Son to die on a cross so we no longer have to be alienated from Him
You can see how you can use something that is already relevant in the life of a non-believer to begin a discussion about God and Christianity. So start by listening to your non-Christian friends and acquaintances. If you're a speaker, do a little homework to find out about your audience and what issues are important to them. Then speak to how Jesus is the answer!
Apologetics can be more than just sound arguments. Alister McGrath (an apologist worth reading!) says that as apologists, we should find points of contact with the person, group, or audience that we are talking to. These might include their fear of death, the feeling that nothing ultimately satisfies, or the knowledge of our moral guilt. From that point of contact, we can show how Jesus is the answer to their particular problem and then expound on the Gospel. We can also talk about any intellectual problems this person/group/audience may have since we've now gained a hearing with them.
Here is an illustration of finding a point of contact with someone and using it to launch a discussion about God and Christianity. I have a friend who has a blog about fishing. In this blog, she will often write about the beauty of nature. In a recent post, she talked about how a lake can be a great equalizer. It doesn't care who you are, what you are, or what you have or don't have. Whether male or female, rich or poor, anyone of any race is welcomed with open arms by the lake which doesn't judge but only listens. At times, she says, nature can make you very aware of your insignificance as you realize that there is something much bigger than you out there. (I am using this as an illustration only. I am not implying that my friend does not believe in God - in fact she does. Her remarks are not meant to imply otherwise and in the context of her blog, these remarks about nature are perfectly appropriate, but I wanted to use this post because it is a great example of a point of contact.)
Do you see it? The need to be valued no matter who your are; the realization that there has to be something more; the desire for a friend who always welcomes with open arms, who isn't judgmental and who will listen. If these remarks had been made by someone whom you knew wasn't a Christian, you would have a perfect point of contact for talking about God, Jesus, and Christianity.
You could begin by making the person aware that all of the qualities that are celebrated about the lake are pointers to God. Romans 1:20 says, "From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse." You can talk about how God's creation is meant to show us something about Him and lead us to Him. John Calvin once said that the world reflects the attractiveness of its Creator. So it isn't nature that we should be worshipping as the "one" who offers us unconditional acceptance, it is God, who created it. You can also point out that nature and anything in it are not capable of loving, accepting, listening, or being nonjudgmental since these are impersonal, inantimate things. It is the Creator with all of his wonderful and holy attributes, not the creation, that is capable of these things. This is a good starting point that can lead to how God loves and values us all so much that He sent His Son to die on a cross so we no longer have to be alienated from Him
You can see how you can use something that is already relevant in the life of a non-believer to begin a discussion about God and Christianity. So start by listening to your non-Christian friends and acquaintances. If you're a speaker, do a little homework to find out about your audience and what issues are important to them. Then speak to how Jesus is the answer!
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Conversation With a Moral Relativist
Moral Absolutist: Man, it's been a busy week! It's so nice to sit and relax. I'm glad we could hang out this afternoon.
Moral Relativist: Me too. And I love this coffee shop. Let's get those chairs over in the corner by the window.
Absolutist: (sits) So what did you do this weekend?
Relativist: Oh, normal stuff - visited the parents, caught a movie...Oh, and I went to this lecture at school with my roommate. He had to go and talked me into tagging along. You wouldn't have believed this guy!
Absolutist: Why? What was the lecture about?
Relativist: Well...look, I know you're a Christian, so no offense, but this guy was way overboard. His whole lecture was about how morals are absolute and objective and since they're absolute people don't get to decide for themselves how they should live...He really had me irritated!
Absolutist: Why?
Relativist: Because he shouldn't be up there spewing his views and telling everyone else they're wrong if they don't agree with his morals! What makes him think he's got it all figured out? Who is he to judge the choices and morals of anyone else?
Absolutist: What do you mean by "judge"?
Relativist: Just what he was doing! Telling someone else they're wrong just because they don't agree with you - because it isn't the choice you would have made.
Absolutist: But aren't you saying he is wrong?
Relativist: He is! He can't tell other people what their morals should be. *
Absolutist: But think about it a minute. He believes in absolute morals. You believe in moral relativism - everyone chooses what's right for them - so why not let him choose the moral system that he thinks is right? Instead, you appear to be judging him.
Relativist: But believing that there are moral absolutes is intolerant of other people's morals that don't agree with those absolutes. *
Absolutist: But under the umbrella of moral relativism, it's still his right to choose what's right for him, and you can't hold to moral relativism on the one hand and "judge" him for being wrong on the other. You get that, don't you? But you also said moral absolutism is intolerant. What do you mean by "intolerant"?
Relativist: I mean he's intolerant because he doesn't accept other people's view points and moral choices. I mean he should be more tolerant of other people.
Absolutist: But tolerance implies that I do not accept the thing I am tolerating. After all, I don't have to tolerate a good cup of coffee if I enjoy coffee; I don't have to tolerate you since you're my friend and I like hanging out with you; I don't have to tolerate views which I accept. I only have to tolerate something that I do not agree with or accept. The historical definition of "tolerance" is putting up with error, not acceptance of all views. But let's say tolerance did mean acceptance of all views...aren't you being intolerant of the lecturer's views?
Relativist: (laughs) I think it may be too early for this conversation!
Absolutist: Just pointing out the inconsistencies, my friend. Think about it this way: That's your $15 laying there isn't it? Change from your coffee?
Relativist: Yeah.
Absolutist: That guy outside has been playing the guitar for spare change ever since we got here - probably all morning. I'm just going to give your $15 to him. He really looks like he could use the help.
Relativst: (grabs at the money) That's nice of you, (laughs) but I'm a poor college student myself!
Absolutist: Yeah, still seems like the right thing to do for me, and since I don't have any more cash on me myself, I'll use yours. (Gets up with the money)
Relativst: You can't just take my money!
Absolutist: But I'm deciding what's right for me. Surely you can appreciate that! Please don't judge my choices.
Relativst: But...! Just hold on!
to be continued...
* Remember ~ when talking with a skeptic/unbeliever, they may make many statements or assertions. Assertions are statements given as if no evidence is needed. They are not arguments and as such, you do not need to refute them. The skeptic/unbeliever has to account for and give evidence for his assertions, so draw him/her out by asking him to explain or clarify his/her position; or ask why s/he believes that or where s/he heard it. Anything to see if they have thought through what they are stating and to give you something to refute is what you're looking for.
Moral Relativist: Me too. And I love this coffee shop. Let's get those chairs over in the corner by the window.
Absolutist: (sits) So what did you do this weekend?
Relativist: Oh, normal stuff - visited the parents, caught a movie...Oh, and I went to this lecture at school with my roommate. He had to go and talked me into tagging along. You wouldn't have believed this guy!
Absolutist: Why? What was the lecture about?
Relativist: Well...look, I know you're a Christian, so no offense, but this guy was way overboard. His whole lecture was about how morals are absolute and objective and since they're absolute people don't get to decide for themselves how they should live...He really had me irritated!
Absolutist: Why?
Relativist: Because he shouldn't be up there spewing his views and telling everyone else they're wrong if they don't agree with his morals! What makes him think he's got it all figured out? Who is he to judge the choices and morals of anyone else?
Absolutist: What do you mean by "judge"?
Relativist: Just what he was doing! Telling someone else they're wrong just because they don't agree with you - because it isn't the choice you would have made.
Absolutist: But aren't you saying he is wrong?
Relativist: He is! He can't tell other people what their morals should be. *
Absolutist: But think about it a minute. He believes in absolute morals. You believe in moral relativism - everyone chooses what's right for them - so why not let him choose the moral system that he thinks is right? Instead, you appear to be judging him.
Relativist: But believing that there are moral absolutes is intolerant of other people's morals that don't agree with those absolutes. *
Absolutist: But under the umbrella of moral relativism, it's still his right to choose what's right for him, and you can't hold to moral relativism on the one hand and "judge" him for being wrong on the other. You get that, don't you? But you also said moral absolutism is intolerant. What do you mean by "intolerant"?
Relativist: I mean he's intolerant because he doesn't accept other people's view points and moral choices. I mean he should be more tolerant of other people.
Absolutist: But tolerance implies that I do not accept the thing I am tolerating. After all, I don't have to tolerate a good cup of coffee if I enjoy coffee; I don't have to tolerate you since you're my friend and I like hanging out with you; I don't have to tolerate views which I accept. I only have to tolerate something that I do not agree with or accept. The historical definition of "tolerance" is putting up with error, not acceptance of all views. But let's say tolerance did mean acceptance of all views...aren't you being intolerant of the lecturer's views?
Relativist: (laughs) I think it may be too early for this conversation!
Absolutist: Just pointing out the inconsistencies, my friend. Think about it this way: That's your $15 laying there isn't it? Change from your coffee?
Relativist: Yeah.
Absolutist: That guy outside has been playing the guitar for spare change ever since we got here - probably all morning. I'm just going to give your $15 to him. He really looks like he could use the help.
Relativst: (grabs at the money) That's nice of you, (laughs) but I'm a poor college student myself!
Absolutist: Yeah, still seems like the right thing to do for me, and since I don't have any more cash on me myself, I'll use yours. (Gets up with the money)
Relativst: You can't just take my money!
Absolutist: But I'm deciding what's right for me. Surely you can appreciate that! Please don't judge my choices.
Relativst: But...! Just hold on!
to be continued...
* Remember ~ when talking with a skeptic/unbeliever, they may make many statements or assertions. Assertions are statements given as if no evidence is needed. They are not arguments and as such, you do not need to refute them. The skeptic/unbeliever has to account for and give evidence for his assertions, so draw him/her out by asking him to explain or clarify his/her position; or ask why s/he believes that or where s/he heard it. Anything to see if they have thought through what they are stating and to give you something to refute is what you're looking for.
Monday, November 16, 2009
"Those Reds are Afraid They Might Have to Pay for Some Healthcare!"
There isn't hardly a day that goes by lately when you don't hear or read something in the news about the healthcare overhaul. And if you're listening at all, you can hear many opinions from the people you encounter daily. So I wasn't surprised when I took my son to get his haircut and heard one of the stylists comment on healthcare. But this particular comment was aimed at Christians, and it got me thinking.
This is what he said:
"Boy, those Reds are getting fired up, they're afraid they might have to pay for some healthcare!" (It took me a second to realize "reds" meant republicans.) He continued. "You know what's ironic is that these same people who are so pro-life, pro-God, pro-Christian, pro-everything are the same people who don't want healthcare reform! They talk a good talk, but when it comes down to it, they don't put the pudding where their mouth is."
Now, nevermind that he made sweeping generalizations about republicans and Christians and how we feel about healthcare. What he said made me wonder how many others feel the same way about Christians? And if people have this opinion, what blame do we Christians have in that? Are we doing our job?
In Deut. 15:11, God commands His people, "For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.'" In the New Testament churces, there are systems put in place by the churches to care for the widows and the poor. In Acts, for instance, there was concern that some of the widows were being overlooked when food was distributed, so seven wise men of integrity were chosen to oversee the distributing of food to make sure everyone in need was fed.
There is no question that as Christians, Jesus calls us to care for the oppressed and the needy in very practical ways. "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,' and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?" (James 2:14-16) While these verses do not directly mention healthcare, I think it is safe to assume that caring about those who can't afford healthcare for themselves or their families is something Jesus would expect from us.
It occurs to me that if we were doing this and doing it well, it wouldn't even cross the minds of unbelievers that Christians were against healthcare reform. They would know we did everything we could to get healthcare to those who needed it! Again, I realize that the man I heard speaking his mind lumped all Republicans and Christians together (whether or not all Republicans are Christian or all Christians are Republican) and also lumped all Christians together - nominal Christians right along with Christians who are concerned about the poor and who are doing things to help. But even so, if we as Christians were doing our job well - all of us, not just some - there may not even be a need for healthcare reform. And if there was a need for it, no one would be able to say that Christians were against it.
All that being said, what the above quoted hairdresser needs to know is that there are many Christians who may be against the current healthcare reform package that is being offered. But being against a particular answer because one is not sure it is the best solution to a very real problem does not mean that the same person is against getting healthcare to those who need it in another way. He was offering a false dichotomy in which the only two choices available were 1)be for Obama's healthcare reform, or 2) be against any healthcare reform at all and show you don't really care about people.
These are not the only two choices. In my community, there are free health clinics being opened and offered to those who don't have access to healthcare. These are being opened by churches and Christian missions and being manned by Christians, many who are volunteering their time. My church is putting together a healthcare team as one part of a missions team that will go where they are needed to offer healthcare. The people who are doing these things may or may not be for the healthcare reform that is on the table, but however they feel about that, they are finding other answers to help deal with the problem as well.
As Christians, we are obligated to be involved in some way with caring for the poor and their needs. That will look different for everyone and there are lots of ways we can get involved, but (as the hairdresser put it) we need to put our pudding where our mouth is. Volunteer in free clinics; support a child financially allowing them to get food, medication, and education where they live (Compassion is a great place to start if you're interested in this. http://www.compassion.com/ ); maybe adoption or foster parenting is something you'd be great at; get involved with the reform process at whatever level you can. There are so many ways to get involved. Your church may have other ideas and even some ways to help already in place. We are called to love everyone and to know that all have equal value and worth in God's eyes. We are called to share that view and to respond to what God has done for us through Jesus by being His light and His love to the rest of the world, and His hands and feet to the needy. We can do better...
This is what he said:
"Boy, those Reds are getting fired up, they're afraid they might have to pay for some healthcare!" (It took me a second to realize "reds" meant republicans.) He continued. "You know what's ironic is that these same people who are so pro-life, pro-God, pro-Christian, pro-everything are the same people who don't want healthcare reform! They talk a good talk, but when it comes down to it, they don't put the pudding where their mouth is."
Now, nevermind that he made sweeping generalizations about republicans and Christians and how we feel about healthcare. What he said made me wonder how many others feel the same way about Christians? And if people have this opinion, what blame do we Christians have in that? Are we doing our job?
In Deut. 15:11, God commands His people, "For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.'" In the New Testament churces, there are systems put in place by the churches to care for the widows and the poor. In Acts, for instance, there was concern that some of the widows were being overlooked when food was distributed, so seven wise men of integrity were chosen to oversee the distributing of food to make sure everyone in need was fed.
There is no question that as Christians, Jesus calls us to care for the oppressed and the needy in very practical ways. "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,' and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?" (James 2:14-16) While these verses do not directly mention healthcare, I think it is safe to assume that caring about those who can't afford healthcare for themselves or their families is something Jesus would expect from us.
It occurs to me that if we were doing this and doing it well, it wouldn't even cross the minds of unbelievers that Christians were against healthcare reform. They would know we did everything we could to get healthcare to those who needed it! Again, I realize that the man I heard speaking his mind lumped all Republicans and Christians together (whether or not all Republicans are Christian or all Christians are Republican) and also lumped all Christians together - nominal Christians right along with Christians who are concerned about the poor and who are doing things to help. But even so, if we as Christians were doing our job well - all of us, not just some - there may not even be a need for healthcare reform. And if there was a need for it, no one would be able to say that Christians were against it.
All that being said, what the above quoted hairdresser needs to know is that there are many Christians who may be against the current healthcare reform package that is being offered. But being against a particular answer because one is not sure it is the best solution to a very real problem does not mean that the same person is against getting healthcare to those who need it in another way. He was offering a false dichotomy in which the only two choices available were 1)be for Obama's healthcare reform, or 2) be against any healthcare reform at all and show you don't really care about people.
These are not the only two choices. In my community, there are free health clinics being opened and offered to those who don't have access to healthcare. These are being opened by churches and Christian missions and being manned by Christians, many who are volunteering their time. My church is putting together a healthcare team as one part of a missions team that will go where they are needed to offer healthcare. The people who are doing these things may or may not be for the healthcare reform that is on the table, but however they feel about that, they are finding other answers to help deal with the problem as well.
As Christians, we are obligated to be involved in some way with caring for the poor and their needs. That will look different for everyone and there are lots of ways we can get involved, but (as the hairdresser put it) we need to put our pudding where our mouth is. Volunteer in free clinics; support a child financially allowing them to get food, medication, and education where they live (Compassion is a great place to start if you're interested in this. http://www.compassion.com/ ); maybe adoption or foster parenting is something you'd be great at; get involved with the reform process at whatever level you can. There are so many ways to get involved. Your church may have other ideas and even some ways to help already in place. We are called to love everyone and to know that all have equal value and worth in God's eyes. We are called to share that view and to respond to what God has done for us through Jesus by being His light and His love to the rest of the world, and His hands and feet to the needy. We can do better...
Friday, October 30, 2009
All Major World Religions Are the Same...Except One
Last Sunday, my pastor said that as Christians, we should never let the comment "all religions are basically the same" go unchallenged. His point was that all major world religions are the same because the are all performance based. All, that is, except Christianity ~ the only world religion to offer forgiveness & salvation based on grace, not our performance. Since I have come across this "all religions are the same" idea in my own experiences (and it won't be surprising if you do, too), and because this is an important apologetic point, I decided it might be helpful to do a post that will familiarize you with a few of the other major world religions - specifically, what makes them performance based and not grace based.
Islam:
For the Muslim, salvation is a mix of faith and works. They believe that they will be saved on two conditions: their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds and Allah wills it. Their good and bad deeds - including intentions and motives - are recorded, then weighed at death. There is no assurance of salvation for the Muslim since they cannot be sure they have done more good than bad and since they cannot know whether or not Allah wills their salvation. Their salvation is based on their works.
Hinduism:
Salvation for Hindus is a release from the cycle of dieing and being born again - or reincarnation - caused by good and bad deeds - or karma. Once one is released from this cycle, they are in a state of completeness. They cease to be an individual self in any way and become absorbed into the ultimate divine reality. They call this "moksha".
There are three main ways to moksha
1. karma yoga: This is probably the most popular way and emphasizes fulfilling one's duty to family and society so as to outweigh the bad karma that one has collected. There are many rules one must follow and the most important of these are rituals that must be performed at various life stages.
2. jnana yoga: This is the way of knowledge and the idea is that one is stuck in the cycle of reincarnation due to ignorance. This ignorance consists of the mistaken belief that we are individuals instead of realizing that we are one with the ultimite divine reality - or Brahman. This ignorance leads to bad actions and bad karma. Through deep meditation through the discipline of yoga, one achieves a state of consciousness in which one's identity with the Brahman is realized thus leading to salvation.
3. bhakti yoga: the way of devotion - this is a surrender to one of the many Hindu gods. Surrender includes acts of worship to this god at the appropriate temple, in the home, in festivals honoring the appropriate god, and through pilgrimages to holy sites in India. In the right performance of these devotional acts, the devotee hopes to gain Hindu salvation.
Buddhism:
Buddhists don't use the term "salvation." Simply put, their goal is enlightenment which leads to nirvana. To gain enlightenment, Buddhists must acknowledge the 4 noble truths: suffering exists, the cause of suffering is the desire for the pleasures of the senses, you end pain & suffering by extinguishing passions & desires, you extinguish pain & suffering by following the 8 fold path.
The 8 fold path is:
1. right views (accept the 4 noble truths)
2. right resolve: renounce pleasures of the senses, harbor no ill will, harm no living creature
3. right speech: do not lie, slander, or engage in idle talk
4. right behavior: no unlawful acts, for example
5. right occupation: earn your living in a way in which no one is harmed
6. right effort: strive heroically against evil qualities and for the perfection and attainment of good ones
7. right contemplation: be observant, alert, free of desires and sorrow
8. right meditation: abandon evil qualities and joy and sorrow; after abandoning evil and all senses, you must enter the 4 degrees of concentration or meditation.
If you can accomplish all this perfectly, you will reach enlightenment or nirvana. (Of course, the purpose of going through all these steps requires that you desire enlightenment, but you must abandon desire in step one of the 8 fold path and so would have no reason to continue down the path since you would no longer desire enlightenment!)
Christianity and God's gift of grace looks pretty good about now! No performance, no jumping through hoops, no uncertainty. Just Jesus.
Islam:
For the Muslim, salvation is a mix of faith and works. They believe that they will be saved on two conditions: their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds and Allah wills it. Their good and bad deeds - including intentions and motives - are recorded, then weighed at death. There is no assurance of salvation for the Muslim since they cannot be sure they have done more good than bad and since they cannot know whether or not Allah wills their salvation. Their salvation is based on their works.
Hinduism:
Salvation for Hindus is a release from the cycle of dieing and being born again - or reincarnation - caused by good and bad deeds - or karma. Once one is released from this cycle, they are in a state of completeness. They cease to be an individual self in any way and become absorbed into the ultimate divine reality. They call this "moksha".
There are three main ways to moksha
1. karma yoga: This is probably the most popular way and emphasizes fulfilling one's duty to family and society so as to outweigh the bad karma that one has collected. There are many rules one must follow and the most important of these are rituals that must be performed at various life stages.
2. jnana yoga: This is the way of knowledge and the idea is that one is stuck in the cycle of reincarnation due to ignorance. This ignorance consists of the mistaken belief that we are individuals instead of realizing that we are one with the ultimite divine reality - or Brahman. This ignorance leads to bad actions and bad karma. Through deep meditation through the discipline of yoga, one achieves a state of consciousness in which one's identity with the Brahman is realized thus leading to salvation.
3. bhakti yoga: the way of devotion - this is a surrender to one of the many Hindu gods. Surrender includes acts of worship to this god at the appropriate temple, in the home, in festivals honoring the appropriate god, and through pilgrimages to holy sites in India. In the right performance of these devotional acts, the devotee hopes to gain Hindu salvation.
Buddhism:
Buddhists don't use the term "salvation." Simply put, their goal is enlightenment which leads to nirvana. To gain enlightenment, Buddhists must acknowledge the 4 noble truths: suffering exists, the cause of suffering is the desire for the pleasures of the senses, you end pain & suffering by extinguishing passions & desires, you extinguish pain & suffering by following the 8 fold path.
The 8 fold path is:
1. right views (accept the 4 noble truths)
2. right resolve: renounce pleasures of the senses, harbor no ill will, harm no living creature
3. right speech: do not lie, slander, or engage in idle talk
4. right behavior: no unlawful acts, for example
5. right occupation: earn your living in a way in which no one is harmed
6. right effort: strive heroically against evil qualities and for the perfection and attainment of good ones
7. right contemplation: be observant, alert, free of desires and sorrow
8. right meditation: abandon evil qualities and joy and sorrow; after abandoning evil and all senses, you must enter the 4 degrees of concentration or meditation.
If you can accomplish all this perfectly, you will reach enlightenment or nirvana. (Of course, the purpose of going through all these steps requires that you desire enlightenment, but you must abandon desire in step one of the 8 fold path and so would have no reason to continue down the path since you would no longer desire enlightenment!)
Christianity and God's gift of grace looks pretty good about now! No performance, no jumping through hoops, no uncertainty. Just Jesus.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Heart & Head In Balance: Living Whole Lives in the Image of God
Hey everyone! Sorry it's been so long since I last posted. I'm really busy with school right now doing research for a paper on the Crusades and getting ready for upcoming midterms. I'm excited about everything I'm learning! I listened to a lecture recently for one of my classes that I thought was really interesting, so I thought I would share the main points with ya'll.
The lecturer was John Mark Reynolds, Ph.D. He holds an M.A. & Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Rochester in New York; he is the founder and director of the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University; he is also a research fellow at the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. He is also an author whose books and articles include Three Views of Creation, When Athens Met Jerusalem, and Afraid of Reason.
Dr. Reynolds titled his lecture "Contending for the Christian Worldview" and what follows is from his material.
In this lecture, he traced the current mindset of Christians and our culture from the 19th Cent. through today and contends that when rationality - Darwinism and scientific naturalism for example - seemed to point away from Christianity, people began to turn to the heart. This split Christianity into two forms: Christian rationalism transformed into atheism while Christian humanitarianism transformed into nineteenth century romanticism. After this split, Christianity no longer appealed to rationalism. Scientists became the beacons of rationality while the cultural emphasis focused on the heart and experiences and emotions.
The constant and overwhelming message of our culture became "stop thinking & just feel." The head was only engaged to accomplish the goals of the heart. Today's Christianity is dominantly heart over head, but religious experience cannot compete with a culture that is also largely experiential. One may have a wonderful "feel-good" experience in church on Sunday morning, but he/she will be able to get that same "feel-good" moment in any number of ways outside of church or Christianity.
However, the answer is not to become overly rationalistic either. Reynolds stresses that a balance between head, heart, and hands is a must! We need reason (rationality), but we also need heart (experience), and hands (service to others.) The heart needs to check the head; the head needs to check the heart - not in opposition of one another but as a whole person living our Christian lives well; living in a way that is winsome to others.
Jesus embodied rationality and experience. He is full of truth and grace. He didn't elevate one over the other and neither should we.
Dr. Reynolds gave some practical suggestions to help us build God's Kingdom on earth, creating culture, customs, laws, and art, and building a Christian culture that is artistic and intellectual and which has a visible reality in personal lives and in churches. We need to celebrate and support the Christian artists, scientists, writers, lawmakers, athletes...whoever they may be.
Here are a few of his suggestions:
1. We live in an anti-intellectual culture. We need to engage in stimulating dialogue and learn to think.
2. We are people of the Book and Christianity is a literate religion which has invented literacy wherever it has gone in this world. We need to become readers.
3. TV does not promote thoughtful reflection. Turn it off! (This is a hard one, I know!!) Instead, write, direct, produce, act in a quality Christian production that people will want to watch! (e.g. The Chronicles of Narnia, Shakespeare, The Lord of the Rings).
4. Create culture - don't just consume it! take music lessons; listen to great music; write songs the next generation will sing.
5. Stop imitating secular education. Stop doing education "factory" style with the stress on providing information and start emphasizing mentoring.
6. Become people of "nomos" (the Greek word for "law" or "custom" which includes the way that people live) who hold reason and feeling together as a whole people of culture.
7. If we each become transformed by Christ, we will change the culture.
To sum up, we should live rationally, emotionally, and intellectually. We should not rely on reason alone, or on heart alone, but should allow Jesus Christ to transform us - head, heart, and hands - to live as whole souls in the image of God in this life and in the life to come.
Imagine what our culture would look like if we actively pursued these things!
The lecturer was John Mark Reynolds, Ph.D. He holds an M.A. & Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Rochester in New York; he is the founder and director of the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University; he is also a research fellow at the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. He is also an author whose books and articles include Three Views of Creation, When Athens Met Jerusalem, and Afraid of Reason.
Dr. Reynolds titled his lecture "Contending for the Christian Worldview" and what follows is from his material.
In this lecture, he traced the current mindset of Christians and our culture from the 19th Cent. through today and contends that when rationality - Darwinism and scientific naturalism for example - seemed to point away from Christianity, people began to turn to the heart. This split Christianity into two forms: Christian rationalism transformed into atheism while Christian humanitarianism transformed into nineteenth century romanticism. After this split, Christianity no longer appealed to rationalism. Scientists became the beacons of rationality while the cultural emphasis focused on the heart and experiences and emotions.
The constant and overwhelming message of our culture became "stop thinking & just feel." The head was only engaged to accomplish the goals of the heart. Today's Christianity is dominantly heart over head, but religious experience cannot compete with a culture that is also largely experiential. One may have a wonderful "feel-good" experience in church on Sunday morning, but he/she will be able to get that same "feel-good" moment in any number of ways outside of church or Christianity.
However, the answer is not to become overly rationalistic either. Reynolds stresses that a balance between head, heart, and hands is a must! We need reason (rationality), but we also need heart (experience), and hands (service to others.) The heart needs to check the head; the head needs to check the heart - not in opposition of one another but as a whole person living our Christian lives well; living in a way that is winsome to others.
Jesus embodied rationality and experience. He is full of truth and grace. He didn't elevate one over the other and neither should we.
Dr. Reynolds gave some practical suggestions to help us build God's Kingdom on earth, creating culture, customs, laws, and art, and building a Christian culture that is artistic and intellectual and which has a visible reality in personal lives and in churches. We need to celebrate and support the Christian artists, scientists, writers, lawmakers, athletes...whoever they may be.
Here are a few of his suggestions:
1. We live in an anti-intellectual culture. We need to engage in stimulating dialogue and learn to think.
2. We are people of the Book and Christianity is a literate religion which has invented literacy wherever it has gone in this world. We need to become readers.
3. TV does not promote thoughtful reflection. Turn it off! (This is a hard one, I know!!) Instead, write, direct, produce, act in a quality Christian production that people will want to watch! (e.g. The Chronicles of Narnia, Shakespeare, The Lord of the Rings).
4. Create culture - don't just consume it! take music lessons; listen to great music; write songs the next generation will sing.
5. Stop imitating secular education. Stop doing education "factory" style with the stress on providing information and start emphasizing mentoring.
6. Become people of "nomos" (the Greek word for "law" or "custom" which includes the way that people live) who hold reason and feeling together as a whole people of culture.
7. If we each become transformed by Christ, we will change the culture.
To sum up, we should live rationally, emotionally, and intellectually. We should not rely on reason alone, or on heart alone, but should allow Jesus Christ to transform us - head, heart, and hands - to live as whole souls in the image of God in this life and in the life to come.
Imagine what our culture would look like if we actively pursued these things!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
In Response - part 2
What follows are the next set of comments from Bino and my replies to them. The dialogue between Bino and me begins in the comment section of the post titled "Miracles", and continues in the post titled "In Response." It might be helpful to read those first if you haven't already to get the flow of the dialogues.
Greta: I was not attempting to explain, or deny, the similarity between Jesus’ divine birth and the other ancient divine births. My point was that similarities with other stories which are false does not necessarily make all such stories false.
Again, Jesus’ story (and every other one for that matter) deserves to be judged by its own merits, not judged based on the falsehood of others.
Bino: Yes, but the question wasn't "Which of these impossible stories do you think are true," the question was "Which do you think are myths."
The question recognized that ancient cultures shared ideas about how the world worked, and told its histories in accordance to those shared ideas. Ancients believed great men were qualitatively different from other people, and the stories about great men having divine births were a reflection of that. A way to show where the great man's greatness came from. The repeated pattern reflects a purpose.
Do you not recognize that?
Do you really think the story of Alexander's divine birth was invented all on it's own, without reference to or consciousness of all the other stories of all the other divine births?
And Romulus' divine birth?
And Augustus' divine birth?
And Scipio' divine birth?
Do you really think everybody came up with the same lie, each of them all on their own? Or are all the stories connected be the underlying ancient idea?
And if so, on what ground is Jesus' story not also connected?
Greta: What would have made Jesus a great man? What was it about him that would have made his contemporaries ascribe divine birth to him? He wasn’t a ruler; he didn’t lead a revolution as his Jewish contemporaries had hoped he would; at most, (if not divine) he was a great teacher and speaker and an exemplary man on how we should aim to live our lives – loving our neighbor and all that. Is that enough to have made others ascribe a divine birth to Him? Was this enough to make him qualitatively different from all the other Jewish rabbis of his time? There must have been something else – His own claims of deity and His resurrection to back up his claims? That would do it. The divine births attributed to Augustus, Romulus, and Scipio were political expressions of emperor worship…no similarity to Jesus there. I have not said anywhere that these ideas were invented in a vacuum. I have only insisted that the similarity does not make Jesus’ story false. It does not follow that because a lot of people claimed to be divine, no one could be divine. In addition to this, Jewish people were definitely not in the habit of ascribing divinity to any human, no matter how great they were!
(And yes, I believe the other stories are myths and I’ve explained why in previous posts, so I’ll ask you again to speak to the important differences between Jesus and these other stories.)
You place a great deal of emphasis on the similarities with other ancient pagan stories. However, this idea that Jesus and the Gospels can be judged through the framework of ancient pagan myths is hundreds of years out of date. It shows how out of touch “popular” ideas are with today’s scholarship. According to William Lane Craig, there are precious few scholars “who think of myth as an important interpretive category for the Gospels…Scholars came to realize that pagan mythology is simply the wrong interpretive context for understanding Jesus of Nazareth.” And this from Craig, “Contemporary scholars may be no more prepared to believe in the supernatural character of Jesus' miracles and exorcisms than were scholars of previous generations. But they are no longer willing to ascribe such stories to the influence of Hellenistic divine man (theios aner) myths. Rather Jesus' miracles and exorcisms are to be interpreted in the context of first century Jewish beliefs and practices.” So it seems that your insistence that Jesus is connected to other pagan myths is out of line with today’s scholarship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greta: How do I know that people who knew the stories going around about Jesus weren’t true didn’t call the apostles liars and show that their stories weren’t true? Because Christianity – or “The Way” as it was called in its earliest stages – started and spread in the very city that was filled with people who knew Jesus and were aware of his ministry. If you’re going to spread a lie, do you start where everyone knows it isn’t true? And would it catch on like the Christian message did in a city filled with people who could prove it false?
Bino: So,
a) The truth is, you have no direct evidence that people didn't disagree with and attack proto-orthodoxy. You base your claim on speculation about motives.
b) The truth is, you have no direct evidence that success and survival of a religion indicated it began without opposition. You merely speculate that this is so. This speculation is contradicted by the history of Islam and Mormonism.
Greta: a) No, I didn’t say it wasn’t attacked. There were people who were very interested in stopping the spread of the belief that Jesus was divine, had been crucified, and had been resurrected. I said those attacks weren’t successful. I find it very unlikely that those attacks wouldn’t have been successful if the things that were being preached about Jesus were lies given that those supposed lies would have been preached in the very city where they could have been most easily refuted. A claim of physical resurrection is not a difficult thing to disprove if it is indeed false. Given that Christian beliefs did spread rapidly in Jerusalem where it would have been easiest to disprove, you need to explain how Christianity could have gotten off the ground under those conditions because your position is much more unlikely.
b) Again, I never indicated it wasn’t without opposition. I said the opposition wasn’t successful, and for good reason. Islam and Mormonism do not contradict this because neither of these religions provide a way of being proven false. Mohammed received his revelations, which his religion is based on, alone in a cave. No one could say whether it was true or not (whether or not he believed his own claims); nor did he offer a way to verify that God had given him this authority as Jesus did through His resurrection. Mormonism is much the same. An angel delivers golden tablets to Joseph Smith. The tablets are written in an unrecognizable script that God then translates to him; only he is allowed to see these tablets. Again, no way to tell whether his story is true or not; and no verification of Joseph’s authority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greta: Yes, these were historical men. I was comparing the historicalness of Jesus to the mythological figures you mentioned in your post.
Bino: Since non-historical seems to be important to you, let me I ask you about some further examples.
Would you agree then that the non-historical stories about Noah are myths?
And the non-historical stories about Adam and Eve and the talking snake – that's a myth too, according to your methods?
And the giants?
And Leviathan?
And Solomon?
And David?
And Samson?
All non-historical, and therefore myths.
Greta: You simply assert that these are all non-historical. I don’t agree, so please provide evidence for your assertion that isn’t just supernatural or biblical bias.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bino: I have. I can't. Please help me see the differences:
Greta: Again, I am referring to the mythological tales. Here is part of the myth of Osiris…[snip for length]
I’m sure I don’t have to help you see the difference in this story and Jesus’ story.
Bino: Osiris was an ancient middle eastern son of god on Earth, who died, came back to life, and lives in heaven where he judges the dead and gives his believers a better deal in the afterlife.
"I approached the frontiers of death and, having walked on the threshold of Proserpine [the home of the dead], I returned."
[Apuleius, Metamorphosis, Book 11, 23],
"The keys of hell and the guarantee of salvation were in the hands of the goddess, and the initiation ceremony itself to the form of a kind of voluntary death and salvation through divine grace."
[Apuleius, Metamorphosis, Book 11, 21]
"Be of good cheer, O initiates, for the god is saved, and we shall have salvation for our woes."
[Firmicus Maternus, The Error of Pagan Religions, 22.1]
Osiris is completely different from Jesus, who was another ancient middle eastern son of god on Earth, who died, came back to life, and lives in heaven where he judges the dead and gives his believers a better deal in the afterlife.
Right. Osiris and Jesus are completely different.
Greta: Once again, their similarities don’t prove anything. And the differences are important. Osiris’ story, which I quoted part of in the last post, is not the same sort of story you read in the Gospels. Jesus’ is set in a specific time and place, and even though his resurrection is definitely a spectacular miracle, it is not told in a way that is filled with fantasy and legendary qualities. There is also no evidence that the ancients believed Osiris physically and bodily rose from the dead as Jesus did. Orisis’ death and “resurrection” were tied to agricultural seasons and his resurrection was only spiritual. He became a god of the netherworlds. Jesus’ resurrection was physical and had a completely different purpose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greta: Jesus’ miracles were most often set in historical contexts making it at least possible that they could be verified.
Bino: I don't know how miracles are verified. How do you imagine it can be done?
Greta: Jesus’ miracles are verified in the sense that they were performed publicly with many eyewitnesses to verify what they saw, many of whom willingly suffered and even went to their deaths because of what they believed about Jesus. How many reliable eyewitnesses to a miracle would it take for you to believe it, or do you have a bias against miracles that makes you dismiss them out of hand?
As I have answered all your questions, whether you agree with my answers or not, I would appreciate your answering the questions I have posed to you throughout these posts.
1) What is your basis for believing miracles are impossible? Is it a bias against the supernatural or do you have evidence?
2) Can you see and account for the significant differences between Jesus’ story and the pagan ones you find similar?
a) the death and resurrection as atonement for sins
b) the bodily – not just spiritual – resurrection of Jesus
c) the fact that Jews did not deify their leaders
d) what would have made Jesus worthy of deification, given that you believe the fact that the ancients deified those who were qualitatively greater than other men explains Jesus’ deification?
3) How would you explain the rapid acceptance and spread of Christian beliefs after Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem where it would have been most unlikely to successfully spread lies?
4) Can you allow that the falsity of many stories does not necessarily make all such stories false?
I will be happy to continue this conversation when you’ve answered the questions I’ve put out there and given a basis for your beliefs that Jesus’ claims were not true. As I said before, skepticism is not without responsibility. You need to give an account for why you believe as you do and provide supporting evidence.
Greta: I was not attempting to explain, or deny, the similarity between Jesus’ divine birth and the other ancient divine births. My point was that similarities with other stories which are false does not necessarily make all such stories false.
Again, Jesus’ story (and every other one for that matter) deserves to be judged by its own merits, not judged based on the falsehood of others.
Bino: Yes, but the question wasn't "Which of these impossible stories do you think are true," the question was "Which do you think are myths."
The question recognized that ancient cultures shared ideas about how the world worked, and told its histories in accordance to those shared ideas. Ancients believed great men were qualitatively different from other people, and the stories about great men having divine births were a reflection of that. A way to show where the great man's greatness came from. The repeated pattern reflects a purpose.
Do you not recognize that?
Do you really think the story of Alexander's divine birth was invented all on it's own, without reference to or consciousness of all the other stories of all the other divine births?
And Romulus' divine birth?
And Augustus' divine birth?
And Scipio' divine birth?
Do you really think everybody came up with the same lie, each of them all on their own? Or are all the stories connected be the underlying ancient idea?
And if so, on what ground is Jesus' story not also connected?
Greta: What would have made Jesus a great man? What was it about him that would have made his contemporaries ascribe divine birth to him? He wasn’t a ruler; he didn’t lead a revolution as his Jewish contemporaries had hoped he would; at most, (if not divine) he was a great teacher and speaker and an exemplary man on how we should aim to live our lives – loving our neighbor and all that. Is that enough to have made others ascribe a divine birth to Him? Was this enough to make him qualitatively different from all the other Jewish rabbis of his time? There must have been something else – His own claims of deity and His resurrection to back up his claims? That would do it. The divine births attributed to Augustus, Romulus, and Scipio were political expressions of emperor worship…no similarity to Jesus there. I have not said anywhere that these ideas were invented in a vacuum. I have only insisted that the similarity does not make Jesus’ story false. It does not follow that because a lot of people claimed to be divine, no one could be divine. In addition to this, Jewish people were definitely not in the habit of ascribing divinity to any human, no matter how great they were!
(And yes, I believe the other stories are myths and I’ve explained why in previous posts, so I’ll ask you again to speak to the important differences between Jesus and these other stories.)
You place a great deal of emphasis on the similarities with other ancient pagan stories. However, this idea that Jesus and the Gospels can be judged through the framework of ancient pagan myths is hundreds of years out of date. It shows how out of touch “popular” ideas are with today’s scholarship. According to William Lane Craig, there are precious few scholars “who think of myth as an important interpretive category for the Gospels…Scholars came to realize that pagan mythology is simply the wrong interpretive context for understanding Jesus of Nazareth.” And this from Craig, “Contemporary scholars may be no more prepared to believe in the supernatural character of Jesus' miracles and exorcisms than were scholars of previous generations. But they are no longer willing to ascribe such stories to the influence of Hellenistic divine man (theios aner) myths. Rather Jesus' miracles and exorcisms are to be interpreted in the context of first century Jewish beliefs and practices.” So it seems that your insistence that Jesus is connected to other pagan myths is out of line with today’s scholarship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greta: How do I know that people who knew the stories going around about Jesus weren’t true didn’t call the apostles liars and show that their stories weren’t true? Because Christianity – or “The Way” as it was called in its earliest stages – started and spread in the very city that was filled with people who knew Jesus and were aware of his ministry. If you’re going to spread a lie, do you start where everyone knows it isn’t true? And would it catch on like the Christian message did in a city filled with people who could prove it false?
Bino: So,
a) The truth is, you have no direct evidence that people didn't disagree with and attack proto-orthodoxy. You base your claim on speculation about motives.
b) The truth is, you have no direct evidence that success and survival of a religion indicated it began without opposition. You merely speculate that this is so. This speculation is contradicted by the history of Islam and Mormonism.
Greta: a) No, I didn’t say it wasn’t attacked. There were people who were very interested in stopping the spread of the belief that Jesus was divine, had been crucified, and had been resurrected. I said those attacks weren’t successful. I find it very unlikely that those attacks wouldn’t have been successful if the things that were being preached about Jesus were lies given that those supposed lies would have been preached in the very city where they could have been most easily refuted. A claim of physical resurrection is not a difficult thing to disprove if it is indeed false. Given that Christian beliefs did spread rapidly in Jerusalem where it would have been easiest to disprove, you need to explain how Christianity could have gotten off the ground under those conditions because your position is much more unlikely.
b) Again, I never indicated it wasn’t without opposition. I said the opposition wasn’t successful, and for good reason. Islam and Mormonism do not contradict this because neither of these religions provide a way of being proven false. Mohammed received his revelations, which his religion is based on, alone in a cave. No one could say whether it was true or not (whether or not he believed his own claims); nor did he offer a way to verify that God had given him this authority as Jesus did through His resurrection. Mormonism is much the same. An angel delivers golden tablets to Joseph Smith. The tablets are written in an unrecognizable script that God then translates to him; only he is allowed to see these tablets. Again, no way to tell whether his story is true or not; and no verification of Joseph’s authority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greta: Yes, these were historical men. I was comparing the historicalness of Jesus to the mythological figures you mentioned in your post.
Bino: Since non-historical seems to be important to you, let me I ask you about some further examples.
Would you agree then that the non-historical stories about Noah are myths?
And the non-historical stories about Adam and Eve and the talking snake – that's a myth too, according to your methods?
And the giants?
And Leviathan?
And Solomon?
And David?
And Samson?
All non-historical, and therefore myths.
Greta: You simply assert that these are all non-historical. I don’t agree, so please provide evidence for your assertion that isn’t just supernatural or biblical bias.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bino: I have. I can't. Please help me see the differences:
Greta: Again, I am referring to the mythological tales. Here is part of the myth of Osiris…[snip for length]
I’m sure I don’t have to help you see the difference in this story and Jesus’ story.
Bino: Osiris was an ancient middle eastern son of god on Earth, who died, came back to life, and lives in heaven where he judges the dead and gives his believers a better deal in the afterlife.
"I approached the frontiers of death and, having walked on the threshold of Proserpine [the home of the dead], I returned."
[Apuleius, Metamorphosis, Book 11, 23],
"The keys of hell and the guarantee of salvation were in the hands of the goddess, and the initiation ceremony itself to the form of a kind of voluntary death and salvation through divine grace."
[Apuleius, Metamorphosis, Book 11, 21]
"Be of good cheer, O initiates, for the god is saved, and we shall have salvation for our woes."
[Firmicus Maternus, The Error of Pagan Religions, 22.1]
Osiris is completely different from Jesus, who was another ancient middle eastern son of god on Earth, who died, came back to life, and lives in heaven where he judges the dead and gives his believers a better deal in the afterlife.
Right. Osiris and Jesus are completely different.
Greta: Once again, their similarities don’t prove anything. And the differences are important. Osiris’ story, which I quoted part of in the last post, is not the same sort of story you read in the Gospels. Jesus’ is set in a specific time and place, and even though his resurrection is definitely a spectacular miracle, it is not told in a way that is filled with fantasy and legendary qualities. There is also no evidence that the ancients believed Osiris physically and bodily rose from the dead as Jesus did. Orisis’ death and “resurrection” were tied to agricultural seasons and his resurrection was only spiritual. He became a god of the netherworlds. Jesus’ resurrection was physical and had a completely different purpose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greta: Jesus’ miracles were most often set in historical contexts making it at least possible that they could be verified.
Bino: I don't know how miracles are verified. How do you imagine it can be done?
Greta: Jesus’ miracles are verified in the sense that they were performed publicly with many eyewitnesses to verify what they saw, many of whom willingly suffered and even went to their deaths because of what they believed about Jesus. How many reliable eyewitnesses to a miracle would it take for you to believe it, or do you have a bias against miracles that makes you dismiss them out of hand?
As I have answered all your questions, whether you agree with my answers or not, I would appreciate your answering the questions I have posed to you throughout these posts.
1) What is your basis for believing miracles are impossible? Is it a bias against the supernatural or do you have evidence?
2) Can you see and account for the significant differences between Jesus’ story and the pagan ones you find similar?
a) the death and resurrection as atonement for sins
b) the bodily – not just spiritual – resurrection of Jesus
c) the fact that Jews did not deify their leaders
d) what would have made Jesus worthy of deification, given that you believe the fact that the ancients deified those who were qualitatively greater than other men explains Jesus’ deification?
3) How would you explain the rapid acceptance and spread of Christian beliefs after Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem where it would have been most unlikely to successfully spread lies?
4) Can you allow that the falsity of many stories does not necessarily make all such stories false?
I will be happy to continue this conversation when you’ve answered the questions I’ve put out there and given a basis for your beliefs that Jesus’ claims were not true. As I said before, skepticism is not without responsibility. You need to give an account for why you believe as you do and provide supporting evidence.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
In Response
This post is in response to comments left on the "Miracles" post. Because of its length, it would not fit in the comments section, which is where I would have liked to reply to these comments. There is a first comment and response left by "Bino" for those of you who would like to start from the beginning; this response from me is a reply to his second and third comments. His comments are in italics; my replies are in normal Times font.
Well, if the very first thing you do is assert that there is no connection, then you're pretty much guaranteed to end up concluding the same thing.
Alexander the Great's father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.
Romulus' father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.
Scipio Africanus' father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.
The Emperor Augustus' father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.
Jesus' father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.
Shall we accept that you have no answer to explain the similarity between Jesus' divine birth and all these other ancient divine births?
I was not attempting to explain, or deny, the similarity between Jesus’ divine birth and the other ancient divine births. My point was that similarities with other stories which are false does not necessarily make all such stories false. Again, Jesus’ story (and every other one for that matter) deserves to be judged by its own merits, not judged based on the falsehood of others.
If 10 people come up to a total stranger one at a time and claim to be “Bino Bolumai” and the stranger, becoming more skeptical each time, finds the claims not to be true, does it follow that if you, the real “Bino Bolumai” come up to the stranger and claim to be you that it can’t be true because similar claims were found to be false?
Obviously it does not. Your claim deserves to be judged on a case by case basis and the other 10 false claims do nothing on their own to disqualify your claim.
Alexander was a historical person.
Romulus was a historical person.
Augustus was a historical person.
Scipio was a historical person.
Yes, these were historical men. I was comparing the historicalness of Jesus to the mythological figures you mentioned in your post. But let’s deal with the historical men you also mentioned.
Alexander was aware he was promoting a myth when he claimed to be born of deity. Atheist Christopher Hitchens writes, “Alexander himself was not above using myth for propaganda purposes. He claimed descent from Achilles, the hero of Troy, and from Zeus himself. He took the work of Homer with him wherever he went. He wanted to be acknowledged as Pharaoh in Egypt—the loftiest of all aspirations in those days—and also to be recognized as a god by those who worshipped the Olympian pantheon.” (http://slate.msn.com/id/2110188/) Conversely, Jesus believed (whether we believe or not) that His claims to deity were true.
It is only a minority of scholars who believe Romulus was a historical figure. The majority believe he is only a mythological figure.
Augustus was eager to expand his power into the religious realm, and in Rome, where emperors were routinely worshipped among their pantheon of gods, it was easy for him to claim, and be accepted as deity. As in Alexander’s case, Augustus used a claim of deity for his own purposes to gain more power. Also, as we are seeing from these few examples, it was very common for emperors to be worshipped as gods and to be referred to as the sons of gods.
Scipio was said to be the son of Jupiter who had appeared in his mother’s bed in the form of a snake. The historian Polybius believes, however, that Scipio was as manipulative as Alexander and Augustus in letting claims of his deity spread.
While there are similarities between Jesus and these other historical men, there are also important differences. 1) Jesus was not trying to gain anything from his claims. He even discouraged others who wanted to say he was king of any earthly kingdom. He wasn’t after power. 2) While Alexander and Augustus (and maybe Scipio as well) used a claim to deity to manipulate, Jesus actually believed that he was the Son of God. 3) Most importantly, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was authenticated by God when He raised Jesus from the dead. (I know you’re unlikely to grant the resurrection is true, but the evidence for it is so strong that it will be incumbent upon you to find a better explanation and provide evidence for that as an explanation to the events after Jesus’ death.) Alexander, Augustus, Scipio, and Romulus – if he was indeed a historical figure – had nothing to verify their claims of deity.
How do you know they didn't?
How do I know that people who knew the stories going around about Jesus weren’t true didn’t call the apostles liars and show that their stories weren’t true? Because Christianity – or “The Way” as it was called in its earliest stages – started and spread in the very city that was filled with people who knew Jesus and were aware of his ministry. If you’re going to spread a lie, do you start where everyone knows it isn’t true? And would it catch on like the Christian message did in a city filled with people who could prove it false?
I have. I can't. Please help me see the differences:
Again, I am referring to the mythological tales. Here is part of the myth of Osiris, one of the myths mentioned in your first comment:
Set was very jealous of Osiris because he was more important than him. He decided to make an evil plan to kill him. He threw a party. At the party, there was a beautiful chest there. Set promised that whoever fit into the chest perfectly would get to keep it. Nobody knew that he had secretly made it the perfect size for Osiris. Everyone tried it but would not fit. When Osiris tried it, Set slammed it closed and nailed it shut. He threw it into the Nile to be swept away. Isis was heart broken and immediately set off to find him.
Meanwhile, the casket had been swept onto shore. A tree had grown op around it, enclosing it in its trunk. Then the tree had been cut down and was used as a pillar for the palace of King Byblos. Isis found this out and came there in disguise. Byblos saw her and begged her to take care of his child. Isis grew quite fond of the child and decided to make him immortal. So every night she would throw him onto magical fires to burn away all that was mortal about him. Then Isis would turn herself into a swallow and fly around the pillar weeping for her spouse. Unexpectedly one day Byblos came home and saw his child in the fires and blew them out. Isis became angry and told him that now his son could never become immortal. He apologized and asked what he could do to make it up to her. Isis asked for the pillar and he let her have it. She removed the casket and wept upon it. Then she brought it home and when no one was looking, she opened it up. She turned into a bird called a kite and flapped her mighty wings. The wind her beating wings created gave him the Breath of Life for one day. During this time, she conceived her son Horus from him. Then she concealed the casket among long reeds. She went away to secretly give birth to her son. (http://www.guardians.net/egypt/kids/myth_of_osiris_and_isis.htm)
I’m sure I don’t have to help you see the difference in this story and Jesus’ story. But to deal with the ones you’ve listed in your second comment, I would again point out that the falsity of the stories told by Tacitus and Josephus cannot lead to the conclusion that the stories told in the New Testament documents are false. They should be investigated independently, as should Tacitus and Josephus, despite their similarities, which I am not denying. Also, these stories came after Jesus’ miracles, so if anything, the stories you quoted regarding Vespasian are mimicking the stories of Jesus. (Perhaps because Christianity was flourishing?)
Josephus is reporting historical events that involved actual, flesh-and-blood people. Tacitus is reporting historical events that involved actual, flesh-and-blood people.
Once again, I had in mind mythology in the popular sense of the word – the fanciful stories of murder, intrigue, and disloyalty…but see above for my comment on the reports of Josephus and Tacitus.
You've devolved into mere assertion.
“Assertion” is a statement made emphatically as if no evidence were needed. I indicated in my response that there is very strong evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. I didn’t go through it all for the sake of space, but we could definitely get in to that topic if you’d like.
I ask because
Jesus healed the sick. Pagan Gods healed the sick.
Jesus walked on water. Pagan Gods walked on water.
Jesus turned water into wine. Pagan Gods turned water into wine.
Jesus calmed the storm. Pagan Gods calmed storms.
Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Pagan Gods fulfilled prophecy.
Jesus prophesied correctly. Pagan Gods prophesied correctly.
Jesus raised the dead. Pagan Gods raised the dead.
Jesus rose from the dead. Pagan Gods rose from the dead.
Jesus apostles performed miracles. Pagan Gods' apostles performed miracles.
Jesus’ miracles were most often set in historical contexts making it at least possible that they could be verified. I’m not sure which pagan stories you’re referring to here, but many are not set in any historical context that would allow them to be verified.
You said nothing in response to my other questions regarding your presuppositions. What proof do you have that Jesus didn’t in fact perform these miracles? Skepticism is not without responsibilities. We are asked to back up what we believe as Christians, we would ask the same of you. Back up your belief that these things didn’t happen.
Either you see the similarities or you don't. If you don't, please just say so.
If you do see the similarities, please tell me how you explain them.
I do see similarities and haven’t indicated otherwise. I just don’t believe similarity between several accounts is enough to prove all of them false out of hand simply because most are false. I also see significant differences which I listed above.
Well, if the very first thing you do is assert that there is no connection, then you're pretty much guaranteed to end up concluding the same thing.
Alexander the Great's father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.
Romulus' father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.
Scipio Africanus' father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.
The Emperor Augustus' father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.
Jesus' father was a great god in the sky, his mother was a mortal woman. The divinity of his father was seen as a sign of his greatness.
Shall we accept that you have no answer to explain the similarity between Jesus' divine birth and all these other ancient divine births?
I was not attempting to explain, or deny, the similarity between Jesus’ divine birth and the other ancient divine births. My point was that similarities with other stories which are false does not necessarily make all such stories false. Again, Jesus’ story (and every other one for that matter) deserves to be judged by its own merits, not judged based on the falsehood of others.
If 10 people come up to a total stranger one at a time and claim to be “Bino Bolumai” and the stranger, becoming more skeptical each time, finds the claims not to be true, does it follow that if you, the real “Bino Bolumai” come up to the stranger and claim to be you that it can’t be true because similar claims were found to be false?
Obviously it does not. Your claim deserves to be judged on a case by case basis and the other 10 false claims do nothing on their own to disqualify your claim.
Alexander was a historical person.
Romulus was a historical person.
Augustus was a historical person.
Scipio was a historical person.
Yes, these were historical men. I was comparing the historicalness of Jesus to the mythological figures you mentioned in your post. But let’s deal with the historical men you also mentioned.
Alexander was aware he was promoting a myth when he claimed to be born of deity. Atheist Christopher Hitchens writes, “Alexander himself was not above using myth for propaganda purposes. He claimed descent from Achilles, the hero of Troy, and from Zeus himself. He took the work of Homer with him wherever he went. He wanted to be acknowledged as Pharaoh in Egypt—the loftiest of all aspirations in those days—and also to be recognized as a god by those who worshipped the Olympian pantheon.” (http://slate.msn.com/id/2110188/) Conversely, Jesus believed (whether we believe or not) that His claims to deity were true.
It is only a minority of scholars who believe Romulus was a historical figure. The majority believe he is only a mythological figure.
Augustus was eager to expand his power into the religious realm, and in Rome, where emperors were routinely worshipped among their pantheon of gods, it was easy for him to claim, and be accepted as deity. As in Alexander’s case, Augustus used a claim of deity for his own purposes to gain more power. Also, as we are seeing from these few examples, it was very common for emperors to be worshipped as gods and to be referred to as the sons of gods.
Scipio was said to be the son of Jupiter who had appeared in his mother’s bed in the form of a snake. The historian Polybius believes, however, that Scipio was as manipulative as Alexander and Augustus in letting claims of his deity spread.
While there are similarities between Jesus and these other historical men, there are also important differences. 1) Jesus was not trying to gain anything from his claims. He even discouraged others who wanted to say he was king of any earthly kingdom. He wasn’t after power. 2) While Alexander and Augustus (and maybe Scipio as well) used a claim to deity to manipulate, Jesus actually believed that he was the Son of God. 3) Most importantly, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was authenticated by God when He raised Jesus from the dead. (I know you’re unlikely to grant the resurrection is true, but the evidence for it is so strong that it will be incumbent upon you to find a better explanation and provide evidence for that as an explanation to the events after Jesus’ death.) Alexander, Augustus, Scipio, and Romulus – if he was indeed a historical figure – had nothing to verify their claims of deity.
How do you know they didn't?
How do I know that people who knew the stories going around about Jesus weren’t true didn’t call the apostles liars and show that their stories weren’t true? Because Christianity – or “The Way” as it was called in its earliest stages – started and spread in the very city that was filled with people who knew Jesus and were aware of his ministry. If you’re going to spread a lie, do you start where everyone knows it isn’t true? And would it catch on like the Christian message did in a city filled with people who could prove it false?
I have. I can't. Please help me see the differences:
Again, I am referring to the mythological tales. Here is part of the myth of Osiris, one of the myths mentioned in your first comment:
Set was very jealous of Osiris because he was more important than him. He decided to make an evil plan to kill him. He threw a party. At the party, there was a beautiful chest there. Set promised that whoever fit into the chest perfectly would get to keep it. Nobody knew that he had secretly made it the perfect size for Osiris. Everyone tried it but would not fit. When Osiris tried it, Set slammed it closed and nailed it shut. He threw it into the Nile to be swept away. Isis was heart broken and immediately set off to find him.
Meanwhile, the casket had been swept onto shore. A tree had grown op around it, enclosing it in its trunk. Then the tree had been cut down and was used as a pillar for the palace of King Byblos. Isis found this out and came there in disguise. Byblos saw her and begged her to take care of his child. Isis grew quite fond of the child and decided to make him immortal. So every night she would throw him onto magical fires to burn away all that was mortal about him. Then Isis would turn herself into a swallow and fly around the pillar weeping for her spouse. Unexpectedly one day Byblos came home and saw his child in the fires and blew them out. Isis became angry and told him that now his son could never become immortal. He apologized and asked what he could do to make it up to her. Isis asked for the pillar and he let her have it. She removed the casket and wept upon it. Then she brought it home and when no one was looking, she opened it up. She turned into a bird called a kite and flapped her mighty wings. The wind her beating wings created gave him the Breath of Life for one day. During this time, she conceived her son Horus from him. Then she concealed the casket among long reeds. She went away to secretly give birth to her son. (http://www.guardians.net/egypt/kids/myth_of_osiris_and_isis.htm)
I’m sure I don’t have to help you see the difference in this story and Jesus’ story. But to deal with the ones you’ve listed in your second comment, I would again point out that the falsity of the stories told by Tacitus and Josephus cannot lead to the conclusion that the stories told in the New Testament documents are false. They should be investigated independently, as should Tacitus and Josephus, despite their similarities, which I am not denying. Also, these stories came after Jesus’ miracles, so if anything, the stories you quoted regarding Vespasian are mimicking the stories of Jesus. (Perhaps because Christianity was flourishing?)
Josephus is reporting historical events that involved actual, flesh-and-blood people. Tacitus is reporting historical events that involved actual, flesh-and-blood people.
Once again, I had in mind mythology in the popular sense of the word – the fanciful stories of murder, intrigue, and disloyalty…but see above for my comment on the reports of Josephus and Tacitus.
You've devolved into mere assertion.
“Assertion” is a statement made emphatically as if no evidence were needed. I indicated in my response that there is very strong evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. I didn’t go through it all for the sake of space, but we could definitely get in to that topic if you’d like.
I ask because
Jesus healed the sick. Pagan Gods healed the sick.
Jesus walked on water. Pagan Gods walked on water.
Jesus turned water into wine. Pagan Gods turned water into wine.
Jesus calmed the storm. Pagan Gods calmed storms.
Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Pagan Gods fulfilled prophecy.
Jesus prophesied correctly. Pagan Gods prophesied correctly.
Jesus raised the dead. Pagan Gods raised the dead.
Jesus rose from the dead. Pagan Gods rose from the dead.
Jesus apostles performed miracles. Pagan Gods' apostles performed miracles.
Jesus’ miracles were most often set in historical contexts making it at least possible that they could be verified. I’m not sure which pagan stories you’re referring to here, but many are not set in any historical context that would allow them to be verified.
You said nothing in response to my other questions regarding your presuppositions. What proof do you have that Jesus didn’t in fact perform these miracles? Skepticism is not without responsibilities. We are asked to back up what we believe as Christians, we would ask the same of you. Back up your belief that these things didn’t happen.
Either you see the similarities or you don't. If you don't, please just say so.
If you do see the similarities, please tell me how you explain them.
I do see similarities and haven’t indicated otherwise. I just don’t believe similarity between several accounts is enough to prove all of them false out of hand simply because most are false. I also see significant differences which I listed above.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Jesus, Humanness, and Sin
This week I received an email asking me for help in responding to a minister's claim that Jesus sinned and was "messed-up" like the rest of us. The minister contended that Jesus could not have been fully human unless he too sinned. I run into this idea every so often and am surprised what a low, and mistaken, view of humans (not to mention Jesus!) it purports. But, how often are we susceptible to thinking that sin is normal? Is sin an essential part of what it means to be human? Was Jesus not quite fully human if he did not sin?
Sinfullness is neither an essential quality of humanness nor is it a normal human condition. Let's start with my first claim. Think about what it would mean for sin to be an essential part of what it means to be human. The first 'humans' who existed before the Fall, were not in fact humans! They would only become human once they rebelled against God. That seems more than a bit odd. Also, redeemed people will no longer be human in the eternal state when sin is finally eliminated from their lives (unless we want to say that we will go on sinning in the life to come!). Simply because all humans (save one important example) do sin, does not mean that is part of what it means to be human. Consider this. All humans have been born on Earth. But, does this mean being born on earth is essential to being a human? Certainly not. Imagine a person being born on a space craft, or space station built on the moon. Would that person be a non-human? No. Furthermore, I would argue that sin actually dehumanizes us. Sin inflicts tremendous damage to the full humanity in people. So, while sin is prevelant among humans, it does not define who or what humans are.
As for my second claim, sinfulness, while pervasively common, is not normal. Sin is abnormal. We must not confuse abnormality with commonality. The presence of sin in humanity is evidence that things have gone wrong, not right. Heart disease and cancer are quite common in people, but we don't take this commonality as normality. We recognize those physical conditions as maladies that are not normal. Though sin is not exactly a disease (though there are similarities), we should understand it in much the same way. It is a malady that is not normal. So, while common, sin is not the normal condition of the human.
Back to the issue raised in the email I received. This minister was wrong to attribute sinfullness and a 'messed-up' status to Jesus because he or she failed to understand that sin is neither an essential nor a normal condition of being human. Jesus was fully human (he had all the essential qualities of humanness) without having the dehumanizing, abnormal quality of sinfullness that all other humans have. In this way, Jesus was quintessentially human! As such, he could take on himself the sin of the world in order to redeem it.
Sinfullness is neither an essential quality of humanness nor is it a normal human condition. Let's start with my first claim. Think about what it would mean for sin to be an essential part of what it means to be human. The first 'humans' who existed before the Fall, were not in fact humans! They would only become human once they rebelled against God. That seems more than a bit odd. Also, redeemed people will no longer be human in the eternal state when sin is finally eliminated from their lives (unless we want to say that we will go on sinning in the life to come!). Simply because all humans (save one important example) do sin, does not mean that is part of what it means to be human. Consider this. All humans have been born on Earth. But, does this mean being born on earth is essential to being a human? Certainly not. Imagine a person being born on a space craft, or space station built on the moon. Would that person be a non-human? No. Furthermore, I would argue that sin actually dehumanizes us. Sin inflicts tremendous damage to the full humanity in people. So, while sin is prevelant among humans, it does not define who or what humans are.
As for my second claim, sinfulness, while pervasively common, is not normal. Sin is abnormal. We must not confuse abnormality with commonality. The presence of sin in humanity is evidence that things have gone wrong, not right. Heart disease and cancer are quite common in people, but we don't take this commonality as normality. We recognize those physical conditions as maladies that are not normal. Though sin is not exactly a disease (though there are similarities), we should understand it in much the same way. It is a malady that is not normal. So, while common, sin is not the normal condition of the human.
Back to the issue raised in the email I received. This minister was wrong to attribute sinfullness and a 'messed-up' status to Jesus because he or she failed to understand that sin is neither an essential nor a normal condition of being human. Jesus was fully human (he had all the essential qualities of humanness) without having the dehumanizing, abnormal quality of sinfullness that all other humans have. In this way, Jesus was quintessentially human! As such, he could take on himself the sin of the world in order to redeem it.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Miracles - There's Much at Stake
The problem with his theology is that without miracles in the Bible we must do away with the most significant mirace of all - the resurrection. And without the resurrection, death has not been conquered and we have no hope of immortality; moreover, our sins have not been forgiven because God's resurrection of Jesus showed his acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice for us.
The widely known Jesus Seminar followed along the same lines of Bultmann. In their attempt to reform the view of Jesus for the church, they dismissed any accounts having to do with miracles out of hand. They insisted that any of these accounts were unhistorical. How did they come to this conclusion? They say that the historical Jesus cannot be a supernatural figures. They give no reasons why this must be so...it simply is because that's the way they define it - if it's supernatural, it can't be historical. This is a presupposition. They are saying, "we don't believe in miracles, so any miracle story cannot be true and historical." This will of course lead to a non-supernatural Jesus.
Many people with whom we share Christ may have these same presuppositions. They simply have a problem believing the miraculous events in the Bible. Gently reveal their presuppositions to them and show them that there is no good reason for holding them. Many of the people who have a problem with the supernatural Jesus of the NT will nevertheless believe in God. With these people, you can make them see that miracles are not a problem for Him. This may require correcting their image of God first by making sure their view of God is the Christian God of the Bible. With a non-Christian who is held up by the supernatural Jesus, you can start by showing him or her who God is, then moving on to his ability to perform miracles.
Once you have shown that there is no reason to believe miracles are simply myth, you can back up your argument with the strong historical evidence for the resurrection - which couldn't have been anything but a miracle. You can then show how Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection were God's solution to the human predicament of sin, death, and hopelessness and that the miracles Jesus performed in His ministry were done to show that He was indeed God's anointed One, God's appointed Messiah, and ultimately the very Son of God.
While we may give Bultmann the benefit of the doubt by believing that his intentions were good, there is no need to compromise. We can keep the historical, supernatural Jesus and still show people that a saving faith in Him is reasonable and rational. In fact, without the supernatural, historical events of Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection, we have no Christianity at all. We have no hope.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Reflections on Loving God with Our Minds: Part 5
In the last post of this series I want to say a few things about academics and the command to love God and others with our minds. Too often in Christian circles (predominantly, but not exclusively, evangelical ones), there is great suspicion, if not downright fear and contempt, for serious academics. For many Christians, serious academic study and intellectual development are seen as dangerous and somehow opposed to vibrant faith in Jesus. In my experience, nothing could be further from the truth. I think many people’s faith is stagnant because they do not engage their minds with their faith. The problem with Christianity today is not that there is too much thinking and intellectual work going on, but that there is nowhere near enough. And when this happens, we fail to obey God’s desire that we love him and our neighbor with our minds. Don’t let some Christians’ sour attitudes about academics and intellectual development keep you from heeding the “Great Commandment.”
In times past, Christians were frequently the ones who were recognized as the leading thinkers in various disciplines across the academic spectrum. Today this is rare (one positive example is in the area of philosophy where Christians such as Alvin Plantinga, Dallas Willard, Keith Yandell, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland are well respected in the philosophical community). The Church is looking for a generation of women and men who will take up the challenge to love God and neighbor with their minds by engaging in serious academic study. Can you imagine a society in which Christian thinkers were shaping economics, astrophysics, history, medicine, cinematography, law, ecology, literature, politics, etc.? God would certainly be honored and his image-bearers would be greatly benefited. Or, to be more specific, take our current issue of health care reform. What would it be like if Christian thinkers worked out a health care system that provided quality health care which was financially sustainable, affordable for as many people as possible, and included at least minimum care for those who could not afford any care at all?
Though all Christians are under the command to love God and neighbor with their minds, some have a special calling in this area. Perhaps you are one of them. If you are a student (at any level), I encourage you to apply yourself to your academic work. Your diligence in your class work is not only an expression of your love for God and neighbor, but might be something that God uses to propel you to a life using you intellectual capacities in service to him. Don’t look at your education as merely a means to a job, or meeting the expectations of parents, etc. Consider it intellectual development that will prepare you to make a significant impact for God’s kingdom. If God has called you to the life of the mind, being a top notch mechanical engineer, philosopher, journalist, CEO, teacher, or poet is every bit as important as being a pastor or a missionary.
I would like to end with a prayer penned by Church of England Bishop, H. G. C. Moule. This prayer sustained me through times of intense intellectual work while in graduate school. For high school, college, and graduate school students, may it be your prayer as well as you seek to love the only wise God with your minds.
Lord and Savior, true and kind,
be the master of my mind;
Bless and guide and strengthen still,
all my powers of thought and will.
While I ply the scholar’s task,
Jesus Christ be near, I ask;
Help the memory, clear the brain,
knowledge still to seek and gain.
In times past, Christians were frequently the ones who were recognized as the leading thinkers in various disciplines across the academic spectrum. Today this is rare (one positive example is in the area of philosophy where Christians such as Alvin Plantinga, Dallas Willard, Keith Yandell, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland are well respected in the philosophical community). The Church is looking for a generation of women and men who will take up the challenge to love God and neighbor with their minds by engaging in serious academic study. Can you imagine a society in which Christian thinkers were shaping economics, astrophysics, history, medicine, cinematography, law, ecology, literature, politics, etc.? God would certainly be honored and his image-bearers would be greatly benefited. Or, to be more specific, take our current issue of health care reform. What would it be like if Christian thinkers worked out a health care system that provided quality health care which was financially sustainable, affordable for as many people as possible, and included at least minimum care for those who could not afford any care at all?
Though all Christians are under the command to love God and neighbor with their minds, some have a special calling in this area. Perhaps you are one of them. If you are a student (at any level), I encourage you to apply yourself to your academic work. Your diligence in your class work is not only an expression of your love for God and neighbor, but might be something that God uses to propel you to a life using you intellectual capacities in service to him. Don’t look at your education as merely a means to a job, or meeting the expectations of parents, etc. Consider it intellectual development that will prepare you to make a significant impact for God’s kingdom. If God has called you to the life of the mind, being a top notch mechanical engineer, philosopher, journalist, CEO, teacher, or poet is every bit as important as being a pastor or a missionary.
I would like to end with a prayer penned by Church of England Bishop, H. G. C. Moule. This prayer sustained me through times of intense intellectual work while in graduate school. For high school, college, and graduate school students, may it be your prayer as well as you seek to love the only wise God with your minds.
Lord and Savior, true and kind,
be the master of my mind;
Bless and guide and strengthen still,
all my powers of thought and will.
While I ply the scholar’s task,
Jesus Christ be near, I ask;
Help the memory, clear the brain,
knowledge still to seek and gain.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Historical Relativism and Christianity
Most of us have heard of moral relativism - the idea that what is right and wrong is determined by the individual with nothing being absolutely right or wrong - but historical relativism might not be as familiar. Yes, even history is not immune to the attempts of relativism in the twentieth century. Historical relativists believe that the writing of history is hopelessly subjective and that the historian who discovers facts about history ascribes his own meaning to them because these facts carry no meaning of their own. The most devoted postmodernist will insist we can't know the past, and each reconstruction is as valid as any other.
How does this affect Christianity? Because Christianity is a religion rooted in history, - with God acting in history and its key figure being the historical person of Jesus whose claims were validated by the historical event of the resurrection - the claim that we can learn nothing from the past would be crushing if it was true.
But as William Lane Craig points out in Reasonable Faith, "relativists recognize that our knowledge of history is not awash in subjectivism. For although they deny historical objectivity, they do not really treat history in so roughshod a manner." (235) Examples that show this is true include the fact that even historical relativists admit that there are some facts that are so indisputable that only a madman would dispute them; that historians know the difference between history and propaganda which would be one and the same if history was truly relative; and that we recognize and can criticize poor history which would be impossible if one reconstruction of history was just as good as another. (Lane discusses the claims of historical relativists and the objections against them at length in his book.)
This attempt to make history subjective and relative matters to us as Christians because we believe that the events of Jesus' birth, ministry, death, and resurrections were part of objective history and as Craig puts it, part of "an objective revelation mediated through historical events." (241) This means that it is extremely important to defend history as something we can research, learn more about, and know objectively.
Something to keep in mind when engaging with someone on any topic: You may occasionally encounter people who are determined not to believe God's truth no matter what the evidence or how good your arguments are. People like this will often try to keep you on the defensive by peppering you with questions and making you explain this or explain away that - one thing after another with no intention of truly hearing what you are saying. One way of dealing with people like this is to ask them why they believe what they do. Greg Koukl, an apologist for Stand to Reason, advises asking questions like "How did you come to that conclusion?" and "What do you mean by that?" Remember that unbelievers have just as much responsibility to explain why they don't believe (and what they do believe) as we do to explain what we believe. Skepticism is not a free pass to say and believe whatever one wants without explanation. Of course, always be loving and gentle. The ultimate goal is to win them to Christ as God makes their hearts ready, not to just win an argument.
How does this affect Christianity? Because Christianity is a religion rooted in history, - with God acting in history and its key figure being the historical person of Jesus whose claims were validated by the historical event of the resurrection - the claim that we can learn nothing from the past would be crushing if it was true.
But as William Lane Craig points out in Reasonable Faith, "relativists recognize that our knowledge of history is not awash in subjectivism. For although they deny historical objectivity, they do not really treat history in so roughshod a manner." (235) Examples that show this is true include the fact that even historical relativists admit that there are some facts that are so indisputable that only a madman would dispute them; that historians know the difference between history and propaganda which would be one and the same if history was truly relative; and that we recognize and can criticize poor history which would be impossible if one reconstruction of history was just as good as another. (Lane discusses the claims of historical relativists and the objections against them at length in his book.)
This attempt to make history subjective and relative matters to us as Christians because we believe that the events of Jesus' birth, ministry, death, and resurrections were part of objective history and as Craig puts it, part of "an objective revelation mediated through historical events." (241) This means that it is extremely important to defend history as something we can research, learn more about, and know objectively.
Something to keep in mind when engaging with someone on any topic: You may occasionally encounter people who are determined not to believe God's truth no matter what the evidence or how good your arguments are. People like this will often try to keep you on the defensive by peppering you with questions and making you explain this or explain away that - one thing after another with no intention of truly hearing what you are saying. One way of dealing with people like this is to ask them why they believe what they do. Greg Koukl, an apologist for Stand to Reason, advises asking questions like "How did you come to that conclusion?" and "What do you mean by that?" Remember that unbelievers have just as much responsibility to explain why they don't believe (and what they do believe) as we do to explain what we believe. Skepticism is not a free pass to say and believe whatever one wants without explanation. Of course, always be loving and gentle. The ultimate goal is to win them to Christ as God makes their hearts ready, not to just win an argument.
Friday, September 4, 2009
An Argument for the Existence of God
As you might know, my grad classes have started up again. One of the books we're reading this semester is Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig. The first part of the book deals with philosophical arguments for the existence of God and I've decided that you must suffer through this with me! Just kidding...these arguments are actually fascinating even if some of them are a little hard to wrap your mind around. (I'm counting on Mark Mathewson to correct me where my representations of these arguments aren't quite right!)
These arguments are good to know, even in their simplest form, because you may have cause to use them in your own conversations with unbelievers to defend God's existence. Most people will have never heard these arguments before, but if you run across someone who has and who wants to go deeper than a simple representation of a particular argument, don't forget it's always fine to postpone the conversation until you can get help, assuring whoever you're talking to that you want to continue talking once you're prepared enough to do the argument justice.
One such argument for the existence of God is the kalam cosmological argument (written by Craig). It goes like this:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.) The universe began to exist.
3.)Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Seems simple enough, but there are philosophers who refute even point one saying there is no reason to believe that whatever begins to exist necessarily has a cause. For them, it is more reasonable to believe that things like the universe can pop into being out of nothing than to believe in a First Cause of the universe. But we know that this isn't the case...things don't just pop into existence!
We also know that an infinite regress of causes is impossible for the universe or anything else. In other words, at some point the cause of something that began to exist has to be uncaused because causes cannot go back infinitely with no first cause to start the process.
Another common objection to this argument is that if everything that begins to exist must have a cause, what caused God? But this objection does not work because as an eternal being, God did not begin to exist. He exists outside of time and has no beginning or end, so He does not require a cause. The universe however, did begin to exist and so does require a cause (and there are philosophical arguments for this as well). There are many models of the universe put forth and some still try to claim an eternal universe, but most scientists now acknowledge that the universe is not eternal but had a definite starting point. The models that claim otherwise have serious problems that cannot be overcome.
This is a simple representation of the kalam argument and some objection that you might hear. Arguments like this one show that it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God, especially when you add other such arguments to it. If you want to learn more about this argument, Craig's book is a great source as is his website http://www.reasonablefaith.org/
These arguments are good to know, even in their simplest form, because you may have cause to use them in your own conversations with unbelievers to defend God's existence. Most people will have never heard these arguments before, but if you run across someone who has and who wants to go deeper than a simple representation of a particular argument, don't forget it's always fine to postpone the conversation until you can get help, assuring whoever you're talking to that you want to continue talking once you're prepared enough to do the argument justice.
One such argument for the existence of God is the kalam cosmological argument (written by Craig). It goes like this:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.) The universe began to exist.
3.)Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Seems simple enough, but there are philosophers who refute even point one saying there is no reason to believe that whatever begins to exist necessarily has a cause. For them, it is more reasonable to believe that things like the universe can pop into being out of nothing than to believe in a First Cause of the universe. But we know that this isn't the case...things don't just pop into existence!
We also know that an infinite regress of causes is impossible for the universe or anything else. In other words, at some point the cause of something that began to exist has to be uncaused because causes cannot go back infinitely with no first cause to start the process.
Another common objection to this argument is that if everything that begins to exist must have a cause, what caused God? But this objection does not work because as an eternal being, God did not begin to exist. He exists outside of time and has no beginning or end, so He does not require a cause. The universe however, did begin to exist and so does require a cause (and there are philosophical arguments for this as well). There are many models of the universe put forth and some still try to claim an eternal universe, but most scientists now acknowledge that the universe is not eternal but had a definite starting point. The models that claim otherwise have serious problems that cannot be overcome.
This is a simple representation of the kalam argument and some objection that you might hear. Arguments like this one show that it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God, especially when you add other such arguments to it. If you want to learn more about this argument, Craig's book is a great source as is his website http://www.reasonablefaith.org/
Reflections on Loving God with Our Minds: Part 4
In Part 3, I claimed that one of God’s interests was a restoration of the broken relationship between himself and human beings. In fact, one of God’s prime interests is human beings in and of themselves for they are his image-bearers. Of all creation, humans, and only humans, are given the privilege and responsibility to bear God’s image. God’s love for them is intense. I believe this is the reason that the command Jesus singled out as the greatest is two-fold. We are to love God and humans. But that is not all. To love humans, God’s image-bearers, is equated with loving God. The two directives to love God and humans are not to be taken as separate. I also think that the expectation Jesus has in pointing out our requirement to love our “neighbors” is that, like our love for God, it is also to be done with all one’s heart, soul, and mind. Therefore, loving my neighbor means, among other things, to seek out his or her best interests with the rigorous employment of all my mental powers.
To love God with my mind requires me to love my neighbor (by the way, my “neighbor” includes my enemies as well; Luke 10: 25-37) with my mind. What are some specific ways I can love my “neighbor” with my mind?
To love God with my mind requires me to love my neighbor (by the way, my “neighbor” includes my enemies as well; Luke 10: 25-37) with my mind. What are some specific ways I can love my “neighbor” with my mind?
Friday, August 28, 2009
Reflections on Loving God with Our Minds: Part 3
As we discovered in Part 2, the biblical idea of loving is not principally a feeling. Rather it is a decision to look out for another’s best interest. Think about what this means in terms of loving God. Loving God is not to have warm, fuzzy feelings toward God. Loving God means looking out for his best interest. Does God have interests? Yes, of course (though this does not imply God has needs).
What are God’s interests? Here are a few. God desires that his fallen world be set right. He desires a restoration of the broken relationship between himself and rebellious human beings. He desires that he be glorified in and by his creation (including humans).
To love God, then, means to align our thoughts, desires, affections, plans, words, and actions toward those things God desires. And this can only come about successfully when we fully apply our intellectual faculties to figuring out what God’s interests are and how we are going to orient our lives around those interests.
What are some other interests God has? What are some specific ways we can use our minds in seeing those interests, or the ones I mentioned above, get accomplished?
What are God’s interests? Here are a few. God desires that his fallen world be set right. He desires a restoration of the broken relationship between himself and rebellious human beings. He desires that he be glorified in and by his creation (including humans).
To love God, then, means to align our thoughts, desires, affections, plans, words, and actions toward those things God desires. And this can only come about successfully when we fully apply our intellectual faculties to figuring out what God’s interests are and how we are going to orient our lives around those interests.
What are some other interests God has? What are some specific ways we can use our minds in seeing those interests, or the ones I mentioned above, get accomplished?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
ALERT!!
This post is to give all you young people a heads up. If you didn't already know it, our society has very low expectations of you!
I don't know how many times I've heard over the years (and very recently) things like "that's just what boys do," "that's just how guys are," "they're going to do it, it's part of growing up," "if you think your kids aren't talking like that, you're crazy/naive/head is buried in the sand."
The people saying these things are talking about all kinds of behavior that goes against the way a Christian young person should be living their lives - things like drinking before legal age, getting drunk, doing drugs, having premarital sex, using crude or foul language, behaving immorally...
How does that make you feel? Most people really believe that you Christian young people cannot be serious about your walk with God; you can't be expected to honor & obey God and be Christ-like in your behavior. They have resigned you to running down the wrong path for the better part of your teen and twenty-something years and have already handed you over to the heartbreaking and often life-changing consequences that path leads you to. Can you believe they think no better of you than that?
But not all of us feel that way. Somewhere around you, you have Christian parents, or friends, or teachers, or mentors that believe much better of you.
We know you love God with all your hearts, and minds, and souls. We know that honoring God with all of your choices, even through your teen and twenty-something years, is your top priority because we believe you want to glorify God with your whole life!
And what do you know? You know that God has not forbidden the things He has just to keep you from having fun. You know that He has done so to protect you and to give you the most abundant life you can have. He has done so to keep sin's consequences far away from your life. Think about what some of those consequences might be: teen pregnancy; more bad choices made under the influence of some alcohol or drug - choices that can hurt or kill; turning someone away from Christ instead of towards Him; whole lives altered - and not for the better. And now think of the time wasted that could have been used in building up God's Kingdom; think of the regrets...
What else do you know? You know that obeying God is an act of gratefulness for what he has done for us and for our world through Jesus' death and resurrection. You know that and you don't take it lightly. You know that it may not always be easy to make the choices God wants you to make; you know you will face temptation. But you also know God has given you the power through the Spirit to do what is right. Will you make mistakes? Yes. Will you mess up? Sure. Will God forgive you? You know He will. This isn't about being perfect. It is about being set apart because you are God's child, and though you may fail at times, you will live your life to please Him. You are a disciple of Jesus. Your life and your choices will look different.
I challenge all of you not to lower yourselves to the expectations many in our society have for you. Instead, reach for the expectations those of us who love God, who love you, and who know you love God, have for you. We know you can do it...God knows you can do it!!
I don't know how many times I've heard over the years (and very recently) things like "that's just what boys do," "that's just how guys are," "they're going to do it, it's part of growing up," "if you think your kids aren't talking like that, you're crazy/naive/head is buried in the sand."
The people saying these things are talking about all kinds of behavior that goes against the way a Christian young person should be living their lives - things like drinking before legal age, getting drunk, doing drugs, having premarital sex, using crude or foul language, behaving immorally...
How does that make you feel? Most people really believe that you Christian young people cannot be serious about your walk with God; you can't be expected to honor & obey God and be Christ-like in your behavior. They have resigned you to running down the wrong path for the better part of your teen and twenty-something years and have already handed you over to the heartbreaking and often life-changing consequences that path leads you to. Can you believe they think no better of you than that?
But not all of us feel that way. Somewhere around you, you have Christian parents, or friends, or teachers, or mentors that believe much better of you.
We know you love God with all your hearts, and minds, and souls. We know that honoring God with all of your choices, even through your teen and twenty-something years, is your top priority because we believe you want to glorify God with your whole life!
And what do you know? You know that God has not forbidden the things He has just to keep you from having fun. You know that He has done so to protect you and to give you the most abundant life you can have. He has done so to keep sin's consequences far away from your life. Think about what some of those consequences might be: teen pregnancy; more bad choices made under the influence of some alcohol or drug - choices that can hurt or kill; turning someone away from Christ instead of towards Him; whole lives altered - and not for the better. And now think of the time wasted that could have been used in building up God's Kingdom; think of the regrets...
What else do you know? You know that obeying God is an act of gratefulness for what he has done for us and for our world through Jesus' death and resurrection. You know that and you don't take it lightly. You know that it may not always be easy to make the choices God wants you to make; you know you will face temptation. But you also know God has given you the power through the Spirit to do what is right. Will you make mistakes? Yes. Will you mess up? Sure. Will God forgive you? You know He will. This isn't about being perfect. It is about being set apart because you are God's child, and though you may fail at times, you will live your life to please Him. You are a disciple of Jesus. Your life and your choices will look different.
I challenge all of you not to lower yourselves to the expectations many in our society have for you. Instead, reach for the expectations those of us who love God, who love you, and who know you love God, have for you. We know you can do it...God knows you can do it!!
Friday, August 21, 2009
Reflections on Loving God with Our Minds: Part 2
In Part 1 we asked how seriously we take the requirement to love God with our minds. In Part 2, we now want to ask whether loving with the mind is even possible. On one hand we typically associate ‘love’ with feelings. We know we love someone when we have good, warm, tingly, affectionate feelings toward that person. On the other hand we associate the mind with thinking, reasoning, gaining facts and knowledge. ‘Love’ and ‘mind’ appear to be about very different things. Some people even contend that love is not something that can be commanded because feelings happen to us; we do not choose them (try to get angry or sad or happy on cue and you’ll see the point!).
However, a proper understanding of the biblical view of love will help us see that ‘love’ and ‘mind’ do go hand in hand and it makes perfect sense for God to command love. The biblical view of (non-erotic) love is not feeling-based. The proper way to understand the kind of love that Jesus call’s his followers to is to look out for the best interest of another. Loving another person, then, means that I seek what is best for that other person. And this is to be the case whether I feel anything for that other person or not. Ideally, though, compassionate or affectionate feelings will accompany a mature love, but the feelings are not the primary feature of biblical love.
Now, if love is the looking out for the best interest of another, then it makes perfect sense that the mind is deployed in this activity. A person who seriously looks out for another’s best interest will have to be very good with the use of the mind to figure out what will produce that which is in the best interest of the other. And, of course, looking out for another’s best interest can be commanded as well because that activity is not a feeling.
God is right in issuing a command to love with the mind. Not only is it possible to obey this command, but how else could one actually look after the interest of another apart from using one’s intellect? Would you want someone looking after your best interest who could not use his or her mind well? I wouldn’t. God apparently doesn’t either.
However, a proper understanding of the biblical view of love will help us see that ‘love’ and ‘mind’ do go hand in hand and it makes perfect sense for God to command love. The biblical view of (non-erotic) love is not feeling-based. The proper way to understand the kind of love that Jesus call’s his followers to is to look out for the best interest of another. Loving another person, then, means that I seek what is best for that other person. And this is to be the case whether I feel anything for that other person or not. Ideally, though, compassionate or affectionate feelings will accompany a mature love, but the feelings are not the primary feature of biblical love.
Now, if love is the looking out for the best interest of another, then it makes perfect sense that the mind is deployed in this activity. A person who seriously looks out for another’s best interest will have to be very good with the use of the mind to figure out what will produce that which is in the best interest of the other. And, of course, looking out for another’s best interest can be commanded as well because that activity is not a feeling.
God is right in issuing a command to love with the mind. Not only is it possible to obey this command, but how else could one actually look after the interest of another apart from using one’s intellect? Would you want someone looking after your best interest who could not use his or her mind well? I wouldn’t. God apparently doesn’t either.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Can You Defend That? Common Challenges to Christianity
"When Christian college freshmen arrive on a typical secular campus, their faith will be ridiculed on all sides by their very own friends and teachers. They will hear that the Bible is unreliable, that Christ was no different than any other religious teacher, and that any Christian who thinks otherwise has been seriously misguided. Professor J Budziszewski notes, "Modern institutions of higher learning have changed dramatically in the last half century, and from the moment students set foot on the contemporary campus, their Christian convictions and discipline are assaulted." (Ravi Zacharias, Beyond Opinion, 40)
"They will see me as just another liberal professor trying to cajole them out of some of their convictions, and they are dead right about that-that's what I am, and that's exactly what I am trying to do." (42)
The above quotes drive home the need to be prepared to defend Christianity and the Christian worldview at least by the time you go away to college. This is what you will be facing. Will you know what to say or will you be left speechless? According to Alison Thomas, a contributing author in Beyond Opinion, studies show that over half of college freshman who enter secular universities will abandon their faith in the few short years before they graduate. I've heard that statistic again and again from many different sources. That should alarm us all! Don't be caught off guard when someone challenges your faith. Even if you don't have all the answers - and most of us don't! - at least realize you have resources to find them.
Since Jesus commanded us to love God with our minds as well as our hearts and our souls, as Dr. Mathewson pointed out in his last post (Reflections on Loving God), and since we can expect to hear objections to our faith, if not attempts to sabotage it all together, I thought it might be helpful to name a few of those objections and how to refute them.
1. The Bible is Unreliable
This is probably one of the most common objections. Some will claim the Bible has been corrupted as it has been handed down over the centuries. In fact, the Bible is the most well attested book in history.
While there are only a few manuscripts of the Old Testament, their accuracy is supported by other sources. Manuscripts prepared by different people and found in a variety of places (Palestine, Egypt, & Syria) all agree to a great extent. They also agree with the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) which dates to the second-third century. The Dead Sea Scrolls give us a comparison from about 1,000 years before our manuscripts were written. The comparison shows that the transmission over the centuries has been remarkably accurate. "One scholar observed that the two copies of Isaiah found in the Qumran caves, 'proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling." (Geisler, When Skeptics Ask, 158-9)
This remarkable consistency is due to the great care the Jewish scribes took in copying the sacred text. There were laws and traditions in regards to copying the text, and just one mistake found meant the whole copy had to be destroyed.
The New Testament has even more evidence of its reliable transmission. There are 5,366 manuscripts for comparison and some date very early - to the second or third century, within 70 years of their writing. Now consider: there are only 643 copies of Homer's Iliad, 10 copies of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars (and it's earliest copy was made 1,000 years after it was written), but no one questions their reliability. So why is the Bible's reliability questioned when there is so much evidence showing its reliable transmission?
Most people who throw this objection at you have no idea that there is so much evidence. Simply making them aware of these facts will let them know their objection has no basis and may even motivate them to do some investigating for themselves.
2. You can't take the Bible literally.
If someone uses this objection, ask them to clarify what they mean by "literally." If they are saying that the Bible is filled with metaphors & similes, imagery, and parables and these things aren't to be read literally, they are right and Christians would agree. Of course, the Bible is also filled with historic events and narratives, law, epistles (letters), and biographies (although they look a bit different than the biographies we are familiar with). These are to be taken literally.
What they may mean, however, is that none of the Bible should be taken literally. "Some of it's true, some of it isn't - just don't take it too literally." (That means don't take it too seriously-take what you like and leave the rest!) If you are talking to someone who has this in mind, ask them how they decide what is true and what isn't; and why they trust or accept anything in a book that they believe is even partially untrue. What they accept and reject from the Bible is usually based on what their agenda is; they will accept what they can without having to change their lifestyles or behaviors and reject what would mean making the changes they don't want to make.
What objections to Christianity have you heard? Maybe you have some objections yourself? We'll pick up next time with some more common objections to Christianity, so if you have any you want to discuss, or have any thoughts about this post, leave your comments! I want to hear from you!!!
"They will see me as just another liberal professor trying to cajole them out of some of their convictions, and they are dead right about that-that's what I am, and that's exactly what I am trying to do." (42)
The above quotes drive home the need to be prepared to defend Christianity and the Christian worldview at least by the time you go away to college. This is what you will be facing. Will you know what to say or will you be left speechless? According to Alison Thomas, a contributing author in Beyond Opinion, studies show that over half of college freshman who enter secular universities will abandon their faith in the few short years before they graduate. I've heard that statistic again and again from many different sources. That should alarm us all! Don't be caught off guard when someone challenges your faith. Even if you don't have all the answers - and most of us don't! - at least realize you have resources to find them.
Since Jesus commanded us to love God with our minds as well as our hearts and our souls, as Dr. Mathewson pointed out in his last post (Reflections on Loving God), and since we can expect to hear objections to our faith, if not attempts to sabotage it all together, I thought it might be helpful to name a few of those objections and how to refute them.
1. The Bible is Unreliable
This is probably one of the most common objections. Some will claim the Bible has been corrupted as it has been handed down over the centuries. In fact, the Bible is the most well attested book in history.
While there are only a few manuscripts of the Old Testament, their accuracy is supported by other sources. Manuscripts prepared by different people and found in a variety of places (Palestine, Egypt, & Syria) all agree to a great extent. They also agree with the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) which dates to the second-third century. The Dead Sea Scrolls give us a comparison from about 1,000 years before our manuscripts were written. The comparison shows that the transmission over the centuries has been remarkably accurate. "One scholar observed that the two copies of Isaiah found in the Qumran caves, 'proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling." (Geisler, When Skeptics Ask, 158-9)
This remarkable consistency is due to the great care the Jewish scribes took in copying the sacred text. There were laws and traditions in regards to copying the text, and just one mistake found meant the whole copy had to be destroyed.
The New Testament has even more evidence of its reliable transmission. There are 5,366 manuscripts for comparison and some date very early - to the second or third century, within 70 years of their writing. Now consider: there are only 643 copies of Homer's Iliad, 10 copies of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars (and it's earliest copy was made 1,000 years after it was written), but no one questions their reliability. So why is the Bible's reliability questioned when there is so much evidence showing its reliable transmission?
Most people who throw this objection at you have no idea that there is so much evidence. Simply making them aware of these facts will let them know their objection has no basis and may even motivate them to do some investigating for themselves.
2. You can't take the Bible literally.
If someone uses this objection, ask them to clarify what they mean by "literally." If they are saying that the Bible is filled with metaphors & similes, imagery, and parables and these things aren't to be read literally, they are right and Christians would agree. Of course, the Bible is also filled with historic events and narratives, law, epistles (letters), and biographies (although they look a bit different than the biographies we are familiar with). These are to be taken literally.
What they may mean, however, is that none of the Bible should be taken literally. "Some of it's true, some of it isn't - just don't take it too literally." (That means don't take it too seriously-take what you like and leave the rest!) If you are talking to someone who has this in mind, ask them how they decide what is true and what isn't; and why they trust or accept anything in a book that they believe is even partially untrue. What they accept and reject from the Bible is usually based on what their agenda is; they will accept what they can without having to change their lifestyles or behaviors and reject what would mean making the changes they don't want to make.
What objections to Christianity have you heard? Maybe you have some objections yourself? We'll pick up next time with some more common objections to Christianity, so if you have any you want to discuss, or have any thoughts about this post, leave your comments! I want to hear from you!!!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Reflections on Loving God with Our Minds: Part 1
Upon being interrogated by a Torah expert as to the greatest commandment in the Jewish Law, Jesus replied:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. (Matthew 22:37-40)
Dubbed “the Jesus Creed” by Scot McKnight, Jesus’ pronouncement requires a person to engage every aspect of his or her being in loving God. No part of the human person is exempt. Yet, how seriously do we take loving God with our minds? Do we work as hard at this as we do loving God with other aspects of our person whether emotions, feelings, will, religious activities, and so on? As loving God is not an option (note, Jesus is issuing his understanding of the greatest command, not greatest recommendation or suggestion!), so also loving God with the mind is not an option. It is disobedience and, hence, sin to fail to do so. Loving God with the mind does not apply only to Christian philosophers, apologists, and scholars. It applies to all of us!
“The Jesus Creed” is in fact so fundamental that every other command from God flows out of the requirement to love God with our whole being (“All the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments.”), including the mind. Our minds are to be engaged constantly in living out God’s instructions for living.
How are we as the Church (the community of Jesus-followers) and as individuals succeeding at obeying this great commandment’s requirement to love God with our minds? Where and in what ways specifically do you see loving God with the mind happening?
Also, how are we as the Church and as individuals failing at obeying this great commandment’s requirement to love God with our minds? Where and in what ways specifically do you see loving God with the mind absent?
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. (Matthew 22:37-40)
Dubbed “the Jesus Creed” by Scot McKnight, Jesus’ pronouncement requires a person to engage every aspect of his or her being in loving God. No part of the human person is exempt. Yet, how seriously do we take loving God with our minds? Do we work as hard at this as we do loving God with other aspects of our person whether emotions, feelings, will, religious activities, and so on? As loving God is not an option (note, Jesus is issuing his understanding of the greatest command, not greatest recommendation or suggestion!), so also loving God with the mind is not an option. It is disobedience and, hence, sin to fail to do so. Loving God with the mind does not apply only to Christian philosophers, apologists, and scholars. It applies to all of us!
“The Jesus Creed” is in fact so fundamental that every other command from God flows out of the requirement to love God with our whole being (“All the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments.”), including the mind. Our minds are to be engaged constantly in living out God’s instructions for living.
How are we as the Church (the community of Jesus-followers) and as individuals succeeding at obeying this great commandment’s requirement to love God with our minds? Where and in what ways specifically do you see loving God with the mind happening?
Also, how are we as the Church and as individuals failing at obeying this great commandment’s requirement to love God with our minds? Where and in what ways specifically do you see loving God with the mind absent?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
In Name Only?
Today I received books in the mail...a sure way to make my day! These particular books were from Biola Univ. for the upcoming semester which starts in a couple of weeks. School is starting everywhere. My own son has one more week of summer freedom (if you don't count football practice!) before he heads back to halls lined with lockers and filled with friends. With so many of our kids about to be spending the better part of their day in an environment away from home, I started thinking about how we who claim to be Christians look out in the real world - away from our Christian safe zones like church and home.It will be no surprise to anyone reading this that there are far too many nominal Christians - people who claim Christianity as their "religion" but who do little or nothing to actually understand what it means to live like a Christian...or if they do understand, they just flat can't be bothered with it. If you pay attention to polls at all, you will know that one of the biggest reasons unbelievers aren't drawn to Jesus and Christianity is because of the way Christians live. ("Christians are a bunch of hypocrites. Their lives don't look any different than mine!") Please don't read this as me saying true Christians are perfect - far from it - but becoming a Christian should carry with it a desire to do things, in every aspect of life, God's way, plain & simple, even if we don't always get it right.
Paul says this in Romans: "Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires...You, however, are not controlled by the sinful nature but are in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ." (Romans 8:5&9) If you are truly a Christian, you want to please God, and the Spirit of Christ is what makes that possible.
I think there are two reasons why nominal Christianity is so prevalent in our country. (And I know nominal Christianity from experience...I'm sorry to say I was one.)
One, I think it has become a default religion where if you don't happen to identify with any other particular religion, say Judaism or Hinduism for example, you just default to Christianity because you guess you believe in God (in some way) and you live in America...so, sure, I'm a Christian. (I do think this reason is on the decline as more and more people become comfortable with rejecting God altogether or believing that they are somehow "spiritual" in and of themselves with no need for a god of any kind.)
Two, those who have come to faith in Jesus, whether as a young child or as an adult, have made the proclamation of faith but have never taken it to the next step. They have never found ways to grow and mature in their faith. For many with an "inherited faith" it is also because they have just followed the family's status quo without having put much thought at all into what they are claiming to believe. This can have the effect of rendering one's faith irrelevant when making decisions and choices in life outside the church walls. If you're not even sure why you believe what you believe, you're going to have a hard time understanding why it should matter in your day to day life.
So investigate what you say you believe.
Explore it.
Question it.
Study it.
Can you reasonably believe the claims of Christianity? Is there enough evidence to make it credible? (I believe the answer will be yes if you keep an open mind and be willing to go wherever the journey takes you.)
When you've examined your faith and decided it is something you can take to the bank, you will take it more seriously. You will find that when you've really thought about what God has done through Jesus, for us and for the world, and decided on your own that you believe in Jesus' death and resurrection, you will respond in gratefulness and a desire to please God with your life by honoring, obeying, and glorifying Him. We won't want to let Him down (though, sadly, we still will at times). Now the decisions and choices you make will come from a desire to please God instead of coming from trying to obey a list of do's and don'ts when you really have no idea why many of them should matter to you to begin with. You won't be open to any worldview that you happen to come into contact with because you haven't thought your faith through enough to even begin to know how a Christian worldview should differ from the others. Now your life will look different.
So back to school...Do you look any different than your unbelieving friends walking the halls with you? Do they see a difference in you? Christianity is practical; it requires something from us. So here's my challenge- to me and to you - make a conscious decision every day to show Jesus to someone simply by the way you live your life. Be different!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
