Repentance and Love

Humans want a God who has limitless love but when God's love expresses itself in "I forgive you," we shriek and run for the shadows. God's love is redemptive not permissive. God's love is that of a disciplinarian, not an enabler.

Social Justice Warrior Terminology

Social Justice Warriors have a unique vocabulary. Perusing through the list will give you a better idea of what a Social Justice Warrior is and if you qualify as one.

Androgyny: Gender expression that contains both male and female elements

Androsexual/Androphile: Being attracted to males.

Advocate: Someone who supports a social justice cause. Social Justice Warriors avoid the term "Warrior." They prefer "advocate for social change."

Abelism: Discrimination against someone who is disabled.

Ageism: Discriminating against someone who is young or old.

Agender: Not identifying with a gender.

AFAB: Assigned female at birth.

Ally: Someone from a privileged group (men, white, etc) who fights against oppression and works to understand or check their privilege.

AMAB: Assigned male at birth.

Aromanticism: Someone who does not have any romantic attractions.

Basic: A word used to describe people who do not appreciate diversity.

Binary: The oppressive idea that genders should be divided into two: male and female.

Biphobia: Discriminating against bisexuals.

Bisexual: Attraction to people of your own gender and to people of different genders.

Bitch: A derogatory term now used by younger females who embrace their sexuality.

Boi: A young gay male or a young female who is expressing herself as a male.

"Check Your Privilege": Phrase used to remind people that they are biased because of their privilege. "Check your white privilege," "Check your cis privilege," "Check your male privilege." Words that are used to support white, male or Western identities are inherently racist, sexist and xenophobic because they come from a place of dominance and privilege. "Check your privilege" is often used as an ad hominem.

Jerusalem and Lachish: A tale of two cities

Jerusalem and Lachish were the largest and most important cities of Judah in the 8th century B.C. Jerusalem still exists, Lachish does not. The earthen ramp the Assyrians used to breech the walls of Lachish is still visible. The Assyrians recorded the destruction of Lachish with word and picture. Sennacherib sits on his throne, surrounded by doting eunuchs while captives and loot are paraded before him. Sennacherib's destruction of Jerusalem was especially cruel. Officials were flayed and impaled. Mass graves filled with women and children have been found. Sennacherib's warning to the remnants of Judah in Jerusalem was clear. "Submit or else."



Shortly before the destruction of Lachish, Hezekiah sought to reform the land of Judah and he was somewhat successful in his efforts. Lachish was likely reluctant to accept Hezekiah's reforms. The prophet Micah traces the sins of Jerusalem from the northern tribes to Lachish (Micah 1:13). A fascinating archaeological discovery confirms what the Bible says about Hezekiah's reforms. It seems that Hezekiah destroyed one of Lachish's shrines and desecrated it by turning it into a toilet. The practice is alluded to during the reign of Jehu (2 Kings 10:27).



A study of the times of Hezekiah and the Assyrian crisis reveals a dramatic, complicated history filled with political intrigue. The kings of Israel and Judah shift alliances in response to Assyrian aggression. Hezekiah's father sought to placate the Assyrians which turned into a disaster. Hezekiah rebelled. This results in one of the most tense and dramatic moments in all of Scripture. Jerusalem is the last great city of the region of Palestine. The Assyrians, 180,000 of them, are waiting outside. The Assyrians are known to fillet officials, impale, enslave, castrate, and add the wives of kings to their harems. Hezekiah had two choices: submit and put your hope in Assyria or rebel and put your hope in God.

Isaiah prophesied hope. Hezekiah's father, Ahaz, had rejected Isaiah's message. Isaiah responded to Ahaz with the words, "The virgin will be with child..." Hezekiah sprawls himself out before the temple of God with the letter of the king of Assyria spread out before him. Isaiah approaches. "They will not shoot an arrow in Jerusalem," he says. That night an angel wiped out the Assyrian army. King Sennarcherib retreats.

Sennacherib would soon commission artists to carve scenes of victory into the walls of his throneroom. The gore and brutality of Lachsih's destruction is hard to miss. Strangely absent is Sennacherib's dealings with Jerusalem. In the Assyrian annals Sennacherib brags about how he destroyed the towns of Judah and left Hezekiah sitting in his city like a bird in a cage.

Jerusalem or Lachish? Which city do you belong to? I can't help but think of what they'd look like today. Lachish was cosmopolitan, wealthy and accepting of various religious ideas. Lachish fit in well with the surrounding Philistine communities which embraced various religious beliefs. Jerusalem had undergone a recent reform. Hezekiah must have been viewed as odd, out of touch, and old school. His desecration of the shrine in Lachish was probably seen as intolerant, insensitive and xenophobic. Jerusalem or Lachish, which city do you belong to?

 

Favorite Christmas Music

My top Christmas songs. Sorry, no Mariah Carey.

20. Wizards in Winter - Trans-Siberian Orchestra

Samaritans and Refugees

Is there a Biblical mandate to take in refugees? The pope recently declared that Christians who are against refugees and other religions are hypocrites.

Be good Samaritans. Support the refugees. Amen.

The pope shames others from behind his high Vatican walls dressed in fine linens and surrounded by luxury like the rich man in the story of poor Lazarus (Luke 16:19-21). The pope mentions that Jesus condemned hypocrisy more than other sin. The main hypocrites of Jesus' day were the Pharisees. They boasted about fasting, giving to the poor and following other religious rites to a tee. They dressed differently than everyone else. They were looked up to as an example pious living. They presumed to be an authority on the Word of God and lectured others on how they should live godly live. Sound familiar?

Okay, so the pope is a hypocrite. What about his claim about those defenders of the West who are against "refugees and other religions?" Consider the pope's words: "It's hypocrisy to call yourself a Christian and chase away a refugee or someone seeking help, someone who is hungry or thirsty, toss out someone who is in need of my help."

Has the pope considered that a Christian could be all about helping refugees while being against reckless refugee programs? A cautious approach to refugees is not the same as "chasing" someone away or "tossing" someone out. We also have a duty to our nations and to our neighbors in the West. The Good Samaritan found the wounded man on the road. He cared for his wounds and paid for his stay in the inn. He did not take the man back to his house and place him in a room across from his children. Christianity teaches us to love our neighbor, but it also teaches us to use discretion. You can care for the homeless but it does not mean that you have to let them sleep in your bedroom or have a say in the affairs of your household.

The pope also implies that the we should be accepting of all religions. Has the pope failed to notice that the heroes of the Bible smashed idols, expelled pagan worshipers, and cleansed the city of shrines dedicated to foreign gods? Has the pope failed to notice that some of the Bible's villains were leaders who allowed false gods in Israel? Leaders like Ahab and Ahaz tolerated the likes of Jezebel who in turn refused to tolerate the people of God. The religion of Islam carries such baggage as its participants are bound by the duty to support Sharia law, not only is Sharia law anti-Western but it is anti-Christian. The pope seems more interested in being the high priest of Babel rather than the high priest of the church of Christ.

I know of Christians who have reached out to refugee communities. New ministries spring up across the American landscape to serve both the physical and spiritual needs of refugees. They do this because they have been taught to love their neighbor as themselves. When we encounter them we love them as Christ loved us. We are also a citizen of a land, we have a duty to good stewards of our nations, we are to seek our nation's welfare and to pray for the authorities so that we may live in peace.

Victimizing Is Evil

Tell a child that her teachers hate her for no reason. Tell her that the school is out to get her. That it's unfair. When she doubts give a couple examples of abusive teachers. When she fails, blame it on the school. What will this accomplish? Nothing. She will rage against her teachers. She will take no responsibility for her actions. She will be ruined. In the end she will destroy herself. Rescuing a victim is an act of love. Telling people they are victims is evil. Victimizing is demeaning, divisive and it gives power to the peddler of the lie.

Adam played the victim card when he said, "The woman you put here with me..." Notice how God did not even argue with him. God questioned the woman and then cursed them both. Christians must reject victimizing because Jesus instructs his followers to remove the plank of wood from their own eye. Victimizing is about blame, not repentance.

Throughout the history of Israel the ruthless and cruel people of Assyria, Babylon, Greece and Rome exiled, oppressed, and abused the Jews. Yet the prophets did not blame the oppressors, rather they placed the blame on Israel's sinfulness. Jesus and his apostles refused to be brought into the petty position of "let's blame the Romans for all of our issues." Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

If anyone should've played the victim card it should've been Jesus. There was no blaming or shaming from the cross, rather, a selfless cry for forgiveness on the part of his oppressors.

Why Millennials Hate Church

Why do Millennials avoid church? Here are some observations:

13. The Church of the "Try Hards."
Trying too hard is unbecoming. When churches employ gimmicks to make themselves look more relevant and attractive to Millennials it may have the opposite effect. Millennials can see through the marketing. Worse than that, too many churches are trying to change to fit Millennial standards. The church's message to the Millennial should be, "Repent!" Not, "What can we do to make you like us." Which would Jesus have said?

12. Shallow Christianity
Spiritual liberalism has created a superficial and vacuous Christianity. Millennials seem to enjoy the finer, more sophisticated things in life. For example, while the baby-boomers eat cheap garbage the Millennial would spend a few extra bucks of money that they don't have to eat sushi. Liberal denominations have cheapened Christianity and have emptied it of its depth. Christians ought to pursue doctrinal depth, biblical literacy, and a historical appreciation for the church. In the desire to be relevant Christianity has lost its richness.

11. Evangelical Subculture
Evangelicals are not just a denomination, they are an American subculture. Christians who take a more conservative approach to Scripture are lumped into Evangelicalism. Millennials are intimidated by Evangelicals and view them as a politically regressive force.

10. The Church of the Worker Bee
Baby-Boomers understood and appreciated hard work. While work-ethic is a good trait it can be very self-serving. A Baby-Boomer mentality may perceive church attendance as "putting in the hours." Go to church and God will give you a weekly credit. Go to church and your neighbors will think highly of you. Go to church and your neglectful parents will notice you and like you more. This mentality no longer exists among Millennials. They're not necessarily lazy, they just don't have the same stick and carrot.

9. The Church of the Family
Churches revolve around families. Churches dump countless resources into their children. The emphasis on family can alienate Millennials who are having fewer kids. Children have a way of getting young adults back into church. If Millennials don't have kids, don't expect to see them coming to churches that are dedicated to the family.

8. Seeds of the Enlightenment
This reason is more philosophical. Basically, the Enlightenment caused the church to take a back seat in society. The church was pushed out of the sphere of public and objective truth. As a result religion, faith and even morality became personal expressions. Europe has embraced this mentality longer than the United States has. The middle-class was somewhat protected from it until the age of the Millennial. The church must take a stand against relativism.

7. The Church of Straw
"New Atheists" have used the internet to volley a number of attacks on Christianity. Most of these attacks paint a false picture of Christianity. Rather than the church that fosters peace and stability it is the church of the crusades. Rather than the church that abolished slavery it was the church that practiced it. Rather than a faith that is anchored in the historical record of Christ and his resurrection as laid out in the prophetic record it's a faith no different than faith in a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Oh, and Hitler was a dedicated follower of the Jewish Messiah. Millennials are not necessarily more atheistic than other generations but they do have an aversion to the term religion. Religion is now a naughty word. "Call me spiritual."

6. Trophies for All!
Millennials have always been told how awesome they are. They've earned congratulations and trophies for accomplishing very little. Everyone wants them. Everyone tries to figure them out. Why should eternity be any different? If God exists and if there's a heaven I'm sure I'll get the trophy because I am awesome.

5. Church and State
Millennials haaaaaate the mixing of church and state. Progressives have done a good job of demonizing the religious right. However, progressives, social justice warriors and politically correct fanatics embrace the trappings of religion and look to legislate their own morality. Most Christians understand the value of separating church and state but it doesn't mean we ought to embrace a Marxist-like extreme or cater to the secular zealots. Marxists, whether they are economic or cultural, hate the church and it should concern most Americans that many of the college and university systems give off Marxist vibes.

4. Chronological Snobbery
When I lived in Asia I noticed how that the general population honored the elderly and held them in high esteem. While there is evidence that IQ scores are diminishing, many millennials seem to assume that they are the beneficiaries of some sort of evolutionary spurt that has given them an extra dose of enlightenment compared to all the morons of history. For a generation that is so sensitive to bigotry it is astounding at how bigoted they are toward the ancients. "Why should I care what the Bible says? It was written by a bunch of goat-herding bronze-age woman-bashing Neanderthals!"

3. Sex
There are a number of studies indicating that Millennials are not very sexual. Why? Well, in a world of instant gratification sex with another human being takes too much work. Nevertheless, for the Millennial it's very important that sexual freedom abounds. Self-control and self-denial have taken a back seat to sexual liberation. Biblically, the decay of religion is often combined with a sexual demand for freedom (see Romans 1) as the focus turns from the Creator to the created and procreation.

2. Privilege
Augustine once prayed, "You have put salt in our mouths so that we may thirst for you." Millennials have lived their lives with mouths full of honey. Millennials hate privilege and preach against it but fail to see that they are one of the most privileged generations in history. Jesus said that it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. The same is true with a wealthy and privileged culture. Godlessness increases as wealth increases. Those who are humble and in need tend to look for help from their Creator.

1. Human Nature
Millennials have a warped view of human nature. While the Bible, all of human history, and a toddler stealing a toy from another toddler demonstrate with out a doubt that there is something fundamentally wrong with humans, Millennials believe that humans are by nature good.  Millennials naively believe that human misbehavior is a result of a corrupt system. This is why Millennials are socialistic, sensitive and take offense to a comical degree. "How dare you insult Holy I!"

I'm sure other reasons could be added to the list. They are not in any particular order of importance. Many of these reasons overlap and depend upon one another. Are there any that you would add? Oh, and if you feel offended or triggered by any of these observations - I don't care; I'm a grumpy Generation X-er.

3:The Number of Deity

The following is a list of Biblical references where God is associated with the number three:

1. Abraham is visited by three angels.
2. The Aaronic blessing is divided into three. Interestingly the priest would also give the Vulcan "live long and prosper" hand sign when delivering the blessing.
3. The Great Shema. While Judaism embraces this passage as they rightly preach the oneness of God, the threefold use of God's name is noteworthy. "Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is one.
4. The tabernacle and the temple were divided into three.
5. The angelic choir sings: "Holy Holy Holy. Lord, God, Almighty." (Rev. 4:8, Is. 6:3)
6. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
7. God appeared to Israel on Mount Sinai during the third month after to days of preparation.
8. Jesus' ministry lasted three years and he rose on the third day.
9. The Christ was prophesied as prophet, priest and king.
10. Old Testament was divided into the Law, prophets, and writings.

The divinity of the ascended and exalted Christ leaps off the page in the book of Revelation. Divine attributes are consistently applied to Christ including various threefold descriptions. Consider a brief section in the first chapter of Revelation,

Revelation 1:4-5
Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. 

       who is, and who was and who is to come

       from him who is..., and from the seven spirits, and from Jesus Christ (Note the Trinity).

       faithful witness, firstborn from the dead, ruler of the kings of the earth

Revelation 1:5b-6
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priest to serve his God and Father - to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. 

     loves us....freed us...and made us

Revelation 1:8
I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.

     who is, and who was and who is to come,

     Alpha and...., who is..., the Almighty

This is but a sampling of threefold descriptions of the person of Christ in Revelation and throughout the rest of Scriptures.

Chiasm: God's Literary Highlighter

One of the most amazing literary devices in the Bible is the chiasmus or chiasm. Simply put, a chiasm is a way of structuring a verse, paragraph, or entire book in an a, b, b, a format. These devices are employed extensively throughout the Scriptures and seven part chiasms seem to be the most common (a, b, c, d, c, b, a). One of the more incredible chiasms in the Bible is the flood narrative. Old Testament scholar Gordon Wenham analyzed it and came up with the following:

A: Noah and his sons (Gen 6:10)

  B: All life on earth (6:13:a)

   C: Curse on earth (6:13:b)

    D: Flood announced (6:7)

     E: Ark (6:14-16)

      F: All living creatures (6:17–20 )

       G: Food (6:21)

       H: Animals in man’s hands (7:2–3)

        I: Entering the Ark (7:13–16)

         J: Waters increase (7:17–20)

          X: God remembers Noah (8:1)

        J: Waters decrease (8:13–14)

       I': Exiting the Ark (8:15–19)

      H': Animals (9:2,3)

     G': Food (9:3,4)

    F': All living creatures (9:10a)

   E': Ark (9:10b)

   D’:No flood in future (9:11)

  C': Blessing on earth (9:12–17)

 B': All life on earth (9:16)

A: Noah and his sons (9:18,19a)

Why are chiasms awesome? Here are a couple reasons:

1. Helps you find the main theme. Usually the most important part of a chiasm is the center. In the above verses the phrase "God remembered Noah" is the position of importance. Often when the Bible is taught or preached the context is neglected. Searching for chiasms will help teachers grasp and teach the Bible more effectively. 

2. Demonstrates the integrity of Scripture. Many people assume that the Bible has been corrupted or changed throughout centuries. If there is a detailed literary structure in the text then when cannot assume that it has been changed or corrupted over time.

3. Good riddance JEDP. The documentary hypothesis that prevailed during the 1800s can and ought to be placed within a coffin. These so-called "biblical scholars" assumed that the repetition with in certain Biblical narratives was due to multiple authorship. Nope, the repetition is due to a literary structure. 

4. Facilitates Memorization. Perhaps not sot so much for modern Western man but you can see how this structure helped the ancients memorize large sections of Scripture. If you can track these seven part outlines it would be easier to file scripture away into your mind. 

Here's another chiastic structure from the book of Daniel. Notice the theme that is highlighted in the center of the structure:

A. Daniel is exiled (Chapter 1)

     B. Vision of a statue representing four kingdoms (Chapter 2)

          C. Fiery Furnace (Chapter 3)

                  D. Nebuchadnezzar is removed (Chapter 4)

                  D. Belshazzar is removed (Chapter 5)

          C. Lion's Den (Chapter 6)

      B.  Vision of beasts representing four kingdoms (Chapter 7-9)

A. Vision of Exile (Chapter 10-12)

Jesus Myth #3: Santa and Pasta

Some atheists can't help but get into the holiday mocking spirit. An atheist group set up a large billboard In Time Square comparing Santa and Jesus Christ. The caption says, "Keep the MERRY! Dump the MYTH!" This sort of objection to God's existence is a favorite for atheists that manifests itself in various ways. God is often compared to the many pagan gods of the past, an invisible pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster that benevolently extends its noodily appendages to bless the inhabitants of earth (yes, atheist geeks apparently laugh at the words noodle and appendage).

This “God is like any other myth” objection fails because it is a faulty analogy. While all analogies limp in some way, this one fails for a couple of reasons. God is in a different category than Santa or spaghetti. One is physical and the other is not. One is contingent on something else while the other is not. If we are to compare God and pasta we would have to lower God to the physical realm in order to make the comparison – thus debunking him. The common question of "Who created God?" is another example of this category mistake. Asking who created God actually redefines God into a being that needs creation. This is sort of like denying the existence of Shakespeare for the same reason that someone may deny the existence of Hamlet or Othello.

The other main failure of this argument is that it gives an excuse to not examine the evidence for God. A person can indeed compare the God of the Bible to the mythical gods of history. There is a reason why one has lived on while the others have not. The reason is evidence and the convincing power of that evidence. There are various arguments for the existence of God but more specifically, for the Christian God there is the prophetic Scripture. The Bible is a collection of testimonies that give a great amount of historical and prophetic evidence of God. The prophet Isaiah often challenged skeptics to consider their mute gods to the God of Judah who alone is able to predict the future. Consider also the resurrection of Jesus Christ – without which Christianity would never have started. The evidence for the event is compelling: multiple trustworthy witnesses, an empty tomb, transformation of the disciples, etc. Alternative evidence for the non-resurrection of Jesus is lacking. 

An atheist may think they are being rational by dismissing Jesus as a myth but they are actually being very irrational by ignoring the evidence. What is the evidence for a pink unicorn, Santa, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster? What is the evidence against such things?  An atheist must admit that there is evidence for the Christian God and for the person of Jesus Christ. At best they can say that there is no convincing evidence for God, which says more about their bias than it does about God.

Religion is a matter of faith. I have faith in Jesus Christ for the same reason that I have faith in my spouse and the chair that I’m sitting on. I trust those things because they all convince me of their trustworthy nature and there’s a pile of evidence that supports my trust.

Jesus Myth #2: Zeitgeist

On occasion I receive questions from students concerning a film called Zeitgeist. I decided to show it to my high school seniors. Part one of the film attacks religion and specifically targets Christianity connecting it with all of the worlds problems today. The film was released in 2007, created and narrated by Peter Joseph. Joseph contends that Christianity is derived from astrological myths and pagan religions. Most of the information he received was from D.M. Murdock author of The Christ Conspiracy.

For a Christian unfamiliar in this territory (pretty much every high school aged Christian that heads off to his secular institution of humanistic learning) the immediate response to this video might be "Oh crap, am I believing a lie?" - but upon further inspection they'll quickly realize the movie is nothing but a house built upon sand. A quick perusal of the atheists on the website Reddit demonstrates their disappointment with the movie as it sent their hopes sky high only to be dashed to pieces by historical reality. I like showing this to my kids in high school because it demonstrates some important truths. 1. There's a lot young Christian adults need to learn. 2. The attacks on Christianity are fierce. 3. It's easier to defend your faith than you might think.

Rather than picking apart any minute detail I like to point out the systemic errors that flow throughout this film.

1. "The Bible is an astrotheological hybrid." This is like saying that the Satanic Bible is really a Christian book. The Bible is firm throughout that the heavenly bodies such as the sun, moon, and stars should not be worshiped. One of the supporting facts that Zeitgeist cites is that Jesus was born on Dec. 25th. The problem is that Jesus wasn't born on De.c. 25th. The Bible says nothing of when he was born - in fact it probably was not winter since their were sheep in the fields.

2. "Jesus is plagiarized from other mythical Saviors." The film relies on apparent similarities between astrological myths and pagan saviors. The problem is that once one explores these general claims it becomes apparent that these claims are stretched. The dozens of gods that were born of a virgin are mere supernatural births resulting from the dirty old gods like Zeus. The virgin birth of Horus hardly resembles the birth of Christ as his mother hovered in falcon form over her dead husband's erection in the underworld.

3. Who copied who? Interestingly some of these traditions from other religions probably post-date Christianity. For instance, the stories of Krishna's life that resemble the stories of Christ's life seem to postdate Christianity. There are Hindus today that still like to link Krishna and Christ as being different avatars of the same being - how does that Beetle's song go? Anyway, the resurrection of Jesus is of special importance in this point. A physical resurrection like Jesus' does not occur until well-after the resurrection of Jesus. The other resurrection myths were stories of the god or hero in the afterlife.

4. Similarities? So what? Why must similarities between religions be a result of them copying one another. One can find similarities in every belief system. The film claimed that the 10 commandments were copied from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. One could probably look at all sorts of law codes and find similarities. I'm pretty sure most will have statements against things like stealing and murder.

5. Should we expect seeds of the truth in false theologies? Why not? The Christian worldview believes that the ancestors of all humans at one time had the truth. Why wouldn't some of those ancient messages and prophecies have been handed down over time? Every ancient culture for instance has a flood story - the account in Genesis being the best put-together. The prophecy of a virgin birth and dying Messiah came from Isaiah's hand 700 years before Christ. Why wouldn't we expect more parallels especially since the Israelite's history of being exiled in places like Egypt, Greece and Babylon?

For more details on some of the more specific claims check out the following link: http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?id=124&option=com_content&task=view

Also, here's a fun little video that deals with the same issue:

Atheist Psychology

I interacted with a young lady who attended a Christian college and shortly afterward decided to become an atheist. We had an interesting interchange in which we discussed the psychology of atheism. She used a study of the famous Myers-Briggs personality type index which indicated those with an ISTP (Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, Perceiving) tend to be more represented by atheists. It was a bit amusing to tell her that I am an INTP (Intorverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving). INTP is also well represented in the atheistic community.

We also discussed Asperger and autism disorder since there seems to be a correlation between the disorder and atheism. Studies indicate that atheists tend to be higher on the autism spectrum than the religious. The reasoning behind this deals with the ability of humans to empathize and to see purpose. A lady with Asperger once described herself as being "thunderstruck" when she, as a child, realized that houses were planned, built, and didn't grow randomly like plants. Interestingly, INTPs and ISTPs may also be generally higher on the autism spectrum. According to Robert Chester  INTPs and ISTPs youths can be misdiagnosed as children with Asperger syndrome.

So is atheism to be chalked up to psychology or personality? No. There are plenty of INTPs, ISTPs, and those with various social disorders that are strong Christians. Atheism is rebellion, and even those who may not be as empathetic or have a harder time seeing purpose in things still have ample evidence for God's existence rendering them without excuse.

Godlessness will manifest itself in various ways. There are plenty of people who are godless but may not identify as atheist. To announce yourself as an "atheist" takes a thought process that many are simply unmotivated to do. I read somewhere that the godless can be divided into two categories "high atheist" and the "low atheists." The "high atheists" tend to be your higher thinking outspoken atheists. The "low-atheists" are simply the non-religious. High and low atheists may have different personalities and levels of intelligence. Theologically, rebellion is their common denominator and the ultimate source of their godlessness; their psychology is the vehicle through which the godlessness manifests itself.

There is no excuse (Romans 1:20).

Jesus Myth #1: History

Somehow, 2000 years after the fact, skeptics can declare with a straight face that Jesus Christ never existed. Imagine if we treated a historical figure like George Washington in a similar way. While admitting that there is some legend and mystery surrounding the life of George Washington it would be idiotic to declare him as a myth by placing him on a billboard next to Santa Claus. Relegating the existence of Jesus Christ to myth is just as idiotic, because...

History Needs an Explanation!

You're walking along the shore of a lake and you hear a loud splash. You turn and and you see the disturbed water along with ripples racing to the shoreline. 

"What was that!" You exclaim.

12 men, a handful of women and a group of 500 other onlookers tell you that it was a large stone that a youth had hurled in the water. 

"Give me evidence!" You demand, so that I may believe you. 

The witnesses look around at each other puzzled and give you a strange look. "We all saw it." 

"I don't believe you." 

"Why not?" They reply.

"Because I don't believe it was a stone that hit the water."

"Then what caused the splash? You yourself saw the disturbance in the water, you heard the ripples, you heard the sound, there are many witnesses that saw the stone. If it wasn't a stone then what was it and why would we lie about such a thing?"

"I don't know why you would be lying. I don't know what else it would be. But I know it wasn't a stone. Anyone who believes that it was a stone needs to have their head checked!"

The parable is silly. But so is the objection to the existence of Jesus Christ. Every man, woman and child in the United States has been given a four digit number by which they mark their birthday. Everyone's birthday, whether or not they are Christian, is marked by the birth of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is as historically verifiable as any other person who has ever existed.

The world's largest religion along with its impact on the last 2,000 years of civilization needs an explanation. The gospel of Christ has created the world's greatest cultural shift and we are still experiencing the ripple effect. What caused such a stir? What caused such a splash? For the Christian the answer is simple, the resurrection of Jesus. The ripples match the splash of the resurrection of Son of God. If Christ did not exist then what's the explanation? Such an explanation would need to account for an empty tomb and the early witnesses. The explanation would also need evidence. For those who relegate the resurrection of Jesus to myth, the evidence is lacking. Even more problematic is that they can't even come up with a consistent explanation for the big splash of Christianity and its subsequent ripples.

Apocalyptic Zodiac

Touring Israel, I was surprised to see ancient mosaic zodiacs on the floors of synagogues. Most of these mosaics were said to be dated a few centuries after Christ. One that caught my eye was a zodiac with Abraham replacing Helios in the center. With the exception of Maimonides, it seems that astrology was accepted by Talmudic and medieval Judaism.



Biblically, the stars are servants, not gods. The stars are secondary in the creation account as they are created on the fourth day to serve as signs. Astrology, or stargazing, is viewed by prophets such as Jeremiah (10:2-3) and Isaiah (47:13) as an unreliable way of gaining information. Sometimes Scripture records God using the sun, moon and stars in a miraculous way, such as the star of Bethlehem and the miracle of Hezekiah's cure and Joshua praying for the sun to stand still. For the Old Testament Jews and the New Testament Christian, whether or not there was anything to astrology was beside the point, it didn't matter, God ruled the universe. Our lives are written in God's book of life and not in the stars.

A fascinating vision in the book of Revelation may contain allusions to the zodiac an allusion that cements the Biblical view of the heavenly bodies. In Revelation chapter four the apostle John is taken in to heaven where he sees the throne room of God. Sitting upon a sea of crystal are four living creatures. The creatures are angelic being with wings. The have eyes everywhere. One creature looks like an ox, the other a lion, the other a man and the other an eagle. The angels worship God day and night.

The zodiac contains four creatures that may resemble these angels. These are the four "fixed" signs of the zodiac. Leo the lion sits opposite of Aquarius the man. Taurus the bull (or ox) sits opposite of Scorpio. Historically, it can be argued that Scorpio is also represented by the eagle or the phoenix. It then follows that the eyes are the stars of the constellation and the sea of glass is the firmament. The theological lesson is this: the heavens declare the glory of God. The stars are God's servants, they surround his throne and give him glory. This is a powerful message for those surrounded by paganism. God is above whatever forces a person think is at work above them and the stars along with the planets are not gods but servants of the one true God.

In Ezekiel's prophecy the cherubim are surround the throne of God  but have a slightly different appearance. Each creature has four faces, the faces include that of a man, bull, lion and eagle. The other two visions of God's throne room are in Daniel chapter seven and Isaiah chapter six. The angels are present in Isaiah chapter six minus the description. In Daniel chapter seven the throne of God is pictured with wheels, as it is in Ezekiel, but a river of fire flows from the throne of God. Some have interpreted the river of fire to be the milky way. Interestingly, the end of Revelation pictures the river of the water of life flowing from the throne of the lamb.

God compared Abraham's descendants to the stars. Later, Joseph receives a vision where the heavenly bodies represent his family. His brothers represent the stars and his father and mother represent the sun and the moon. In Revelation chapter twelve we see a vision of a woman clothed with the sun with the moon at her feet and a crown of twelve stars. This woman represents Israel as she gives birth to the Messiah. Many have tried to match Jacob's sons with the signs of the Zodiac. Below is an example.

Rueben                   "Turbulent as the waters."        Aquarius
Simeon                   "Brothers...violence."               Gemini
Levi                                                                          Libra
Judah                       "You are a lion..."                    Leo
Zebulon                   "Dwell at the shore..."             Pisces
Issachar                   "Donkey..."                              Bull
Dan                          "Viper..."                                 Scorpio
Gad                          "Raiders..."                             Sagittarius
Asher                       "Food..."                                 Virgo (stalk of grain)
Naphtali                                                                  Aries
Joseph                                                                     Cancer
Benjamin                  "Wolf"                                   Capricorn

While I see some theological richness in considering the constellation-like appearance in the angels of Revelation and Ezekiel, attaching the zodiac to the 12 tribes of Israel is a bit of a stretch. The number 12 is certainly used throughout Scripture to refer to people of God but the heavenly bodies are secondary. God chose to make his dwelling place with man and because of his love we will someday shine like stars (Daniel 12:3),

Apologetic Groundwork #5: Luther and Apologetics

Did Martin Luther use apologetics? Luther did not shun apologetic arguments but he did used them sparingly. Luther’s historical context must be considered. Most people who lived in Luther’s day identified themselves as Christian. The creation of the world and the resurrection of Jesus Christ were a given. Luther’s primary battle was against representatives of the church who were busy perverting the gospel. Luther’s tact was hermeneutic not apologetic. Luther’s adversaries were heretics who used reason and not Scripture to support their claims. When Luther famously described reason as a whore the context of such wording was in his debate with Karlstadt concerning the Lord’s Supper. Luther understood that Karlstadt was basing his teaching of the Lord’s Supper on human reason, not Scripture.

Professor Siegbert Becker recognizes this distinction when he writes,

“As we have said, Luther was certainly not averse to the use of reason in debate with unbelievers. He warns against the use of reason in the doctrine of justification, in matters of conscience, and in regard to satisfaction, remission of sins, reconciliation and eternal salvation. But “at other times, whenever you must, outside of this doctrine of justification, debate with Jews, Turks, and sectarians about the wisdom, or the power , or the attributes of God, then use all your skill, and be as subtle and sharp a debater as you can be, for then you are in a different kind of argument.”

…Thus while it is possible to find in Luther a most vehement rejection of reason, yet he did not deny all common ground between the believer and the unbeliever.”1  

We have already mentioned that Luther distinguished between a natural knowledge of God and an evangelical knowledge of God. The evangelical knowledge saves the natural knowledge does not. Luther also makes a distinction between reason used in a ministerial sense and reason used in a magisterial sense. Another way to distinguish between the ministerial use of reason and the magisterial use of reason is by noting its starting point. The ministerial use begins with the Word of God, namely the Word made Flesh. Christianity is based upon the incarnation of the Son of God. Reason is the magisterial sense is based upon the word of man and a deity that is formed in the image of his likeness. Montgomery correctly writes, “Luther’s theology calls for a proclamation of this truth (the miracle of the incarnation), not for an impossible defense of it which invariably appeals to the “natural man” desiring to justify himself.” 2  

Does the fideist, anti-apologetic stance of most Lutherans stem from a desire to be good Lutherans or are there deeper philosophical forces at work that have worked to shape the modern mind? Francis Schaeffer proposed that the enlightenment caused a split in the thinking of modern man. Schaeffer likens the mind of modern man to a two story house. In the lower story is the public world of nature, science, and facts. In the upper story resides the private sphere of the religion, values, and opinions. The lower story is objective while the upper story is subjective.    

                  

Liberal theologians, following the lead of enlightenment philosophers, placed the life and work of Christ outside the realm of history. Immanuel Kant developed important categories that allowed for this division to take place. Kant placed the religious into the noumenal realm. The noumenal realm consists of that which goes beyond our senses and reason, the realm of faith. The phenomenal realm became home to what human senses and reason could experience. The Word of God was thus divorced from history and reason once again becomes magistrate by placing the Christian faith in its noumenal, subjective and fideistic cage.

Kierkegaard, with perhaps a pietistic aversion to the “deadness” of Lutheran orthodoxy, advocated for a subjective “leap of faith.”  Schaeffer writes,

 “But the important thing about [Kierkegaard] is that when he put forth the concept of a leap of faith, he became in a real way the father of all modern existential thought, both secular and theological. As a result of this, from that time on, if rationalistic man wants to deal with the really important things of human life (such as purpose, significance, the validity of love), he must discard rational thought about them and make a gigantic, non-rational leap of faith.” 3

If confessional Lutherans wish to be anti-apologetic then they ought to pause and consider who else resides in the anti-apologetic camp: liberal and neo-orthodox theologians. Fideistic and rationalistic presuppositions are two sides of the same coin operating on enlightenment assumptions.  Fideism begins with the upper story while rationalism begins in the lower. In fact, liberal and neo-orthodox theologians are quick to use Luther as an anti-rationalist subjectivist. Montgomery quotes liberal theologian Ernst Kaesermann:

“Neither miracles nor the canon nor the Jesus of history is able to give security to our faith. For our faith there can be no objectivity in this sense. That is the finding which New Testament scholarship has made plain in its own fashion. But this finding is only the obverse of that acknowledgment which Luther’s exposition of the third article of the Creed expresses.” 4  

Unbelievably, David Hume, advocated for fideism as a way to defend Christianity. It should again cause pause when one of the most vicious anti-Christian philosophers of modern history advocates for an anti-apologetic approach to the faith:

“The manner in which both Hume and Kant attempted to mute the implications of their conclusions is revealing. Each explicitly frames what might otherwise be a clear denial of long-held tenants of Christianity as, to the contrary, a defense of Christianity. Hume, for example, notes that he is especially “pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian religion who have undertaken to defend it by the principle of human reason.” His rational for thus thinking, he explains, is that “our most holy religion is founded on faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is by no means fitted to endure.” Though there is little doubt about Hume’s pious claim to be defending the priority of faith over reason is disingenuous and self-serving, it is precisely the same claim forwarded also by Kant, who claimed that he “had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” 5

Notice how Kaesermann appealed to Luther’s condemnation of reason in the matter of attaining salvation to strip Christianity of its factual moorings. Montgomery notes:  “The strongest opponents of a Lutheran apologetic are those who base their anti-apologetic stance on the conviction that Christianity is, after all, nonobjective.” 6

Craig Parton says something similar when he writes:

“Liberalism’s despising of apologetics is thus seen for what it is – the rejection of the Christian faith. The religious liberal is left with a subjective religious feeling that is created in his or her own vain image and is utterly divorced from the New Testament record.” 7

Swiss theologian Karl Barth checked liberalism by advocating for the truth of Christianity, but Barth held onto the dualism of Kant’s categories and once again placed the lion of God’s Word into a cage to protect it from modern liberalism. The term geschsichte was employed by Barth to describe the realm of Christian truths which are detached from the realm of history (historische). Bultman and others took Barth’s neo-orthodoxy to its logical conclusion by demythologizing the Scriptures in order to find the true essence of the gospel. 

The liberal and the neo-orthodox may see their theology as an heir and extension of what Luther began but Montgomery writes,

“Luther very definitely distinguished two kingdoms, earthly and the spiritual… But does this distinction dichotomize the world into a secular realm where reason and proof operate, and a spiritual realm where evidence has no place?... Is Luther to be assimilated to the Platonic-Kantian perspective? The answer will depend squarely on what kind of connection Luther saw between the two kingdoms. If he in fact kept them in water-tight compartments, then a positive apologetic originating in the secular realm could not in principle justify truths lying in the spiritual sphere.” 8

Montgomery answers by noting how God breaks the divided concept of truth through his incarnation:

“Luther’s two kingdoms are connected as to origin, for “those two separate realms are ultimately both God’s realms” and, even more important, they are linked in practice by the individual Christian believer…. As the individual Christian unites the two kingdoms in his person, thereby bridging the sociological gap between them, so the Incarnate Christ Himself links the two realms epistemologically. The incarnational center of Luther’s theology eliminates entirely the possibility of making him an advocate of “two-fold truth”….

Luther insists that the search for God begin at the connecting link between earth and heaven which exists at the point of the Incarnation. There we find a genuine human being…but also very God of very God…. “Philosophy,” which starts elsewhere, must be forgotten; absolute truth is available only here. Why does Luther concentrate relatively little on traditional proofs for God’s existence (even though he considered such argumentation valid)? Because for him it did not constitute the proper point of departure.” 9

Should our Lutheran apologetic employ the dual nature of truth or a unified nature? Is there a division between the heart and the brain? Between knowledge and meaning? The Scripture does not allow it. Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection are knowledge and meaning. They engage the heart and the brain. Mary Magdalene and Thomas saw the empirical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection and by faith they apprehended the spiritual meaning and the unempirical – that they too will rise. Christianity draws a circle around all knowledge and the key to that circle is the Incarnation of Christ.

Youth are thus educated in a dualistic frame of reference. We live in a culture in which a person might become offended if you place religion into the objective sphere of truth. These same people are also offended when that which is in the lower story: science and by extension evolution, are questioned. Placing Christ’s words in the realm of facts and Darwin’s ideas in the realm of fantasy is anathema in the modern mind:  Pearcey writes:

“In English classes, teachers have tossed out their red pencils, and act as though things like correct spelling or grammar were forms of oppression imposed by those in power. But paradoxically, if you go down the hallway to the science classroom, you’ll find that there the ideal of objective truth still reigns supreme. Theories like Darwinian evolution are not open to question and students are not invited to judge for themselves whether or not it is true. It is treated as public knowledge that everyone is expected to accept, regardless of their private beliefs….  Describing the students who troop into his classroom year after year, philosopher Peter Kreeft says, “They are perfectly willing to believe in objective truth in science, or even in history sometimes, but certainly not in ethics or morality.”  10

Nancy Pearcey notes that a result of this divided concept of truth is a gradual assault from the lower story to the upper story. We may have our faith but it must be private. Our faith must not be called truth and it must not be applied to politics, science, education, occupation or anything else in the lower story.

“Since the Enlightenment, the fact realm has steadily expanded its territory into the value realm until there is little or no content left there. It has been reduced to empty words that merely express our irrational wishes and fantasies, with no basis in reality as defined by scientific naturalism. Using graphic terms, Schaeffer warns that the lower story “eats up” the upper story, dissolving away all traditional concepts of morality and meaning.”  11

Christians have not only been duped into buying into this public/private split of the secular and sacred but they have also not clearly the seen that the “lower story” consists not of flesh and blood but of “powers and authorities.” The secular world is not neutral but is controlled by Prince of this World. Parents and youth should understand that the secular university is not spiritually neutral but carries an anti-Christian spirit. Lutheran youth schooled in America’s public school system is no different than the prophet Daniel learning at the feet of Babylonian scholars, the only difference is that Daniel understood where his teachers were coming from. Our youth are in great spiritual danger.

___________________________


1 Becker, “The Foolishness of God.” p. 176.

2 Montgomery, “Faith Founded on Fact.” P. 140.

3 Schaeffer, Francis A. “The God Who Is There.” Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1998, p. 36.

4 Montgomery, “Faith Founded on Fact.” p. 135.

5 “The Natural Knowledge of God and the Christian Witness.” A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. April, 2013, p. 24.

6 Montgomery, “Faith Founded on Fact.” p. 136

7 Parton, “The Defense Never Rests.” p. 69

8 Montgomery, “Faith Founded on Fact,” p. 140-141.

9 Ibid., p. 142-143.

10 Pearcey, Nancy. “Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity.” Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2005. p. 107 

11 Ibid., 111.

Apologetic Groundwork #4: Fideism

The primary apologetic position for most Lutherans is fideism. Fideists argue that it is improper to use human reason to demonstrate the truthfulness of the Christian faith.  The Holy Spirit operates through the bare Word of God and to use human reason is to infringe upon the work of the Holy Spirit. While fideists correctly understand that reason can be detrimental to faith they forget that reason is also a “gift of God” and a “useful servant in theology.” Simply put, the faith of a fideist is subjective and blind. The fideist approach is evident in Christian youth. What would our synod’s youth more likely say, that they believe Jesus rose or that they know that Jesus rose? A student from Martin Luther College noted that many of his classmates say that Christianity is true because of their faith. Is the truth of Jesus’ resurrection subjective or objective? Does Jesus’ resurrection rest on faith or fact? Youth ought to be taught that Christ really died and rose whether they believe in it or not. His resurrection is objectively true with or without my faith.

While fideists readily expose the dangers of rationalism, fideism has become easy prey in the new age of pluralism and relativism. Faith, in our age, is purely subjective and divorced from fact. It is a fideist version of Christianity that receives criticism from atheists like Richard Dawkins, who says: “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” Anti-Christian rhetoric embraces the fideist concept of religion when it likens the Christian faith to faith in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, cosmic teapot, an invisible pink unicorn or a pantheon of pagan gods.1   John Warwick Montgomery writes,

“Under no circumstances should we retreat into a presuppositionalism of a fideism which would rob our fellow men of the opportunity to consider the Christian faith seriously with head as well as heart. Our apologetic task is not fulfilled until we remove the intellectual offenses that allow so many non-Christians to reject the gospel with scarcely a hearing. We must bring them to the only legitimate offense: the offense of the Cross.”2  

Have you not noticed how contradictory the subjective faith of the millennial is? A millennial may claim to be a Christian and strict Darwinist. A millennial may claim to be both Christian and pro-gay marriage. A millennial may claim to be Christian but they may also adhere to New Age or Universalist beliefs. Our relativist Christian youth often live in a contradictory way as their subjective reality trumps the objective. This is a dangerous position and I am concerned about the future of our synod when it falls into the hands of fidiest millennials. When Christianity is subjective then the subject dictates doctrine or becomes selective with doctrine.  While reason is rightly subjected, feelings and cultural consensus becomes Scripture’s magistrate. If you work with youth you may notice that when they discuss they will preface everything with the words, “I feel.” Augustine exposes the true nature of a subjective faith when he says, “You can believe what you like in the gospels and believe what you don’t like, but it’s not the gospel you believe it’s yourself.” Timothy Keller counters the fideist subjective stance by adhering to the historical and objective truth of Jesus’ resurrection: “If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all that he said; if he didn't rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what he said? The issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like his teaching but whether or not he rose from the dead.”3  

Does fideism protect Christians from rationalism? For the youth who think more objectively their fideism will likely crash on the shoals of atheism as they recognize that their faith is void of fact. Consider the following quote from a young man who attended church and Christian schools only to become an atheist at the University of Madison, Wisconsin: “Simply put, there is no verifiable truth in Christianity. I realized I was basing my life on something I was taking at face value. If I had grown up in a different religion I would be that religion for the same reason. My dilemma was that I had no defensible reason to be a Christian.” This young man was a fideist, and rather than protecting his faith from rationalism it destroyed it. 

Does fideism protect Christians from legalism? For those who take fideism to a subjective extreme the basis of assurance rests on not what is objective but rather on what is subjective. A subjective approach to Christianity offers a backdoor for legalism as it shifts the focus of one’s faith from the objective to the subjective. My faith becomes the basis for salvation. The subject of faith (the self) takes precedence over the object of faith (Jesus). This is a terrible irony when one considers how the fideist approach is advocated to shield the Christian from the legalism inherent in rationalism!

In the end, fideism preaches what it cannot put into practice. If we must avoid apologetics because of the possibility of entangling human reason and God’s Word then the next time you preach refrain from all human props. Refrain from any sort of logic, humor, emotion, passion and any use of your human reason which would include application, interpretation, and doctrinal systematization. Refrain from condemning rationalism because such a condemnation is expressed through reason. The fidest, like the relativist, will find that their position is self-refuting.

 We are not against human reason and neither is the Scripture. We are against the misuse of human reason. We are against an unbiblical view of human reason.  Our synod does not think twice when using our reason to discuss theology. What a beautiful servant reason is in this manner. And yet, we must be cautious that we do not err doctrinally. The same tact is required in our apologetic efforts. Lyle Lang advises against the position of avoiding apologetics due to its use of human reason:

“Does apologetics make use of reason? Certainly! Does this mean we cannot use apologetics because we are trying to “reason” people into the Christian faith? Certainly not! The Lord wants us to a give a defense for the hope that we have. Reason is involved in the process. However, the message conveyed by reason, the gospel, alone can convert. Studying how to do apologetics is as valid as study as homiletics and catechetics. We don’t send ministers of the gospel out into the field and tell them to write or say whatever comes to their minds. We train them before we send them out. Why should we do any less when it comes to equipping our students for defending the hope they have?”4  

As we discuss the role of reason in apologetics and the dangers of both rationalism and fideism we need to reacquaint ourselves with the definition of faith: a faith that includes knowledge, trust and the will. Fideism is a faith that scorns notitia while rationalism scorns fiducia. Alvin Schmidt advocates for a return to the confessional view of faith contra fideism:

”The Augsburg Confession (1530) states faith consists of believing “the history [and] also the effect of history, namely, this article of the forgiveness of sins – that is, that we have grace, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins through Christ” (Article XX). Briefly state, a Christian’s faith is not a subjective experience divorced from factual evidence in history, for instance, the bodily resurrection of Christ. Informed confessional Lutherans have always insisted that faith consists of notitia (knowledge), assensus (assent), and fiducia (trust) in the promise of God in Christ

The threefold understanding of faith needs to be recovered and taught by Lutheran pastors in Sunday school classes for our youth, confirmation classes, adult Bible classes, and preached in sermons. Only then will the tendencies of many Lutherans to lapse into fideism come to an end when they, for example, are asked about the veracity of the Bible’s miracles and Christ’s resurrection. Instead of saying, “I believe them to be true,” they will respond, “I know them to be true, for the New Testament documents, which report them, have been shown to be true and reliable.”5

______________

1 The church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody religion produced to mock Christianity. The cosmic teapot is a reference to philosopher Bertrand Russell who likened the existence of God to the existence of a teapot in earth’s orbit. The invisible pink unicorn is a modern version of Bertrand’s teapot. Atheists will also compare Jesus Christ to other pagan deities and say something like, “I just choose to believe in one less god that you.” Documentaries such as Zeitgeist and Bill Maher’s Religulous try to convince their audiences that Jesus is plagiarized from pagan myths. 
 2 Montgomery, John Warwick. “Faith Founded on Fact.” Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2015, p. 41-42
 3 Keller, Timothy. “The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.” New York: Dutton, 2008, p.202
 4 Lange, Lyle W. “Lutheran Apologetics: From Our Classrooms and into the World.” Lutheran Synod Quarterly 51, no. 4, December 2011, p. 13.

5 Schmidt, “Christianity Needs More Lutheran Apologetes.” P. 511.

Apologetic Groundwork #3: Presuppositional and Negative Apologetics

Presenting evidence for theism in general (classical) or for Christianity specifically (evidential) is only one side of the apologetic coin. A person might view the portrayal of evidence as a “positive” apologetic. On the other side of the coin is a “negative” apologetic that exposes anti-Christian worldviews as lacking and irrational. The prophets take this “negative” approach towards pagan idol worship:

“Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, “Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.” From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, “Save me! You are my god!” They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand” (Isaiah 44:16-18).

Jesus employed this tact against the Pharisees as he exposed the hypocrisy of the wolves who feed on his sheep. The apostle Paul advocates such an approach when he writes: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

The duty of a shepherd is not just to lead the sheep to green pasture but to protect them from the wolves.  In Paul’s farewell to the Ephesians he says,

“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.” (Acts 20:28-31).

Confessional Lutheranism has always taken this task seriously. The Lutheran confessions are set up in an antithetical manner because our doctrinal positions are made clearer when contrasted with false teachings. Our forefather’s took this task seriously, do we? Pieper quotes Walther:

“A man may proclaim the pure doctrine, but if he does not condemn and refute the opposing false doctrine, does not warn against the wolves in sheep’s clothing, the false prophets, and unmask them, he is not a faithful steward of God’s mysteries, not a faithful shepherd of the sheep entrusted to him, not a faithful watchman on the walls of Zion., but, as the Word of God says, an unfaithful servant, a dumb dog, a traitor.”1

“Negative” apologetics has received new life in recent years as apologists have pushed back against the so-called “new atheists” exposing atheism as a parasitic worldview which must borrow concepts such as rights, equality and morality from a theistic perspective. Atheism has to borrow the morality of the religious to condemn the religious. Atheism is to religion what anarchy is to politics. The anarchist points out the shortcomings of various systems of governments but offers nothing in return. Atheism is a self-aggrandized nude emperor, blind to his own nakedness, while criticizing the clothing of everyone else.  Christians can and ought to expose the atheism’s inconsistency, irrationality and unviability.

Nancy Pearcey and her mentor, Francis Schaeffer, take an apologetic approach that finds the weakness or the “tension” within the non-Christian worldviews and exposes these weaknesses. This approach comes from what some call the transcendental argument for God’s existence. In other words, the Christian God is not the conclusion to the argument but the one who makes the argument possible. 2  The alternative to the Christian framework should be Solomon's Ecclesiastic approach of meaninglessness. Nihilism, not enlightenment, is the endgame of atheism.

Pearcey applies this tact to philosophical materialism:

“You might picture a worldview as trying to stuff the entire universe into a box. Invariably, something will stick out of the box. Its categories are too “small” to explain the world. As a result, it will lead to an inhumane view of the person. To use biblical language, those who exchange the glory of God for something in creation will also exchange the image of God for something in creation—and because it is something less than God, it always leads to a lower view of humanity. Let’s use materialism as an example, since it’s the underlying assumption in virtually every subject area in the academic world today. The most consistent versions of materialism deny the reality of anything beyond matter—no soul, no spirit, no will, no mind. This is called reductionism: Humans are reduced to biochemical machines. For example, Richard Dawkins says humans are nothing but “survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed” by their genes.”3  

Negative apologetics and worldview analysis are valuable contributions from what we would call presuppositional apologists. Presuppostional apologetics considers the worldview lens through which humans view the universe. David Nobel has produced an apologetic course that analyzes the main non-Christian worldviews that are vying for modern man’s allegiance.4  These worldviews include Secular-humanism, Cosmic-humanism, Postmodernism, Marxism and Islam. Part of our apologetic must be an analysis of worldviews that are competing for the minds of our young people. To do so is to follow in the footsteps of the reformers who were eager to point out and destroy the errors of those that set themselves against the Word of God.

For the strict presuppositionalist evidence is secondary and perhaps useless until a person puts on the appropriate lens. Presuppositional apologists are often Calvinists. Reformed theology may ignore evidential apologetics because in their view sinful man has lost his reason. The Calvinist emphasis on presuppositionalism places its starting point on the sovereignty of God rather than the incarnation creating a philosophically-based approach rather than an evidence-based approach.

Lutherans hold that reason, while corrupted by the fall into sin, was not destroyed. “Lutheranism knows that man is a rational creature before his conversion, and knows that he remains a rational creature after his conversion.”5  Humans can still interpret facts correctly. Parton warns, “The moment the Christian sequesters the life, death, and resurrection of Christ into a hermetically sealed world that the unbeliever may not enter, he divorces Christianity from its incarnational moorings.”6  It should also be noted that the correct interpretation of facts does not equate to a saving faith. The Bible is filled with humans who saw miracles and rejected them. A man can know the truth but that correct knowledge may be nothing more than a demonic shuddering (James 2:19).

The Calvinist and Arminian often battle each other in the field of apologetics. The former taking the presuppositional approach while the latter gravitates toward the classical or evidential approach with some overlay in between the two. The Lutheran approach to apologetics ought to begin with Christ. Our beginning is not in the realm of philosophy in which our corrupted reason will break its neck and our end is not to encourage man to make a decision for Christ through his reason. Our beginning and end is Christ. God, in Christ, intrudes into the world of flesh and facts. One of the reasons why our theologians need to take the apologetic task seriously is so that they can rightly excise the Calvinist and Arminian theology that lurks within the world of apologetics. We must stop sitting at the feet of the wayward children of the reformation and teach apologetics from a Confessional Lutheran point of view.

__________________

1 Pieper, Francis. “Christian Dogmatics.” Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 49-50.
 2 Gundry and Cowan, “Five Views on Apologetic” p. 220.

3 “Finding Truth: An Interview with Nancy Pearcey.” Dec 10 2015   

  https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2015/12/finding-truth-an-interview-with-nancy-pearcey/

4 Nobel, David A. “Understanding the Times.” Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 2006.
 5 Becker, “The Foolishness of God.” p.188

6 Parton, Craig A. “The Defense Never Rests.” Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2015, P. 73

Apologetic Groundwork #2: Evidential Apologetics

The main apologetic thrust of the Scriptures is evidential. Luke prefaces his gospel with an appeal to eye-witness testimony and careful investigation so that Theophilus may know with certainty:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).

The book of Acts begins with the words many convincing proofs demonstrating that Jesus’ resurrection is evidence based:  “After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).

When John’s disciples questioned Jesus’ messiahship he responds with evidence as foretold by Isaiah: “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (Luke 7:22). Jesus does not tell John to look in his heart or to believe harder but to simply look at the evidence.  One of the main themes throughout the gospels is the signs that point to Jesus’ divinity. Jesus points to his many signs and also to the witness of the prophets, his Father, the Spirit, John the Baptist, and his resurrection from the dead as proof of his divinity.

When Thomas doubted, Jesus presented him with empirical evidence of his resurrection. Upon seeing the evidence Thomas confessed, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). When members of the church in Corinth doubted the resurrection of the dead the apostle Paul appeals to the eye-witness testimony of Jesus’ resurrection:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

Throughout the book of Acts the apostles treat the resurrection of Jesus Christ as an eye-witnessed historical event. Peter describes the resurrection as an event envisioned by the prophets and witnessed by the apostles:

“Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it” (Acts 2:29-32).

Paul declares that the resurrection of Jesus is “proof” (Acts 17:31).  Paul also proclaims the verifiable facts of Jesus’ death and resurrection to his audience in Pisidian-Antioch: “When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem” (Acts 13:29-31).

When Festus challenges Paul’s testimony Paul appeals to what had been witnessed publically as well prophetically. Notice how Paul told Festus that the events of Jesus’ death and resurrection were not done in a corner.

At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.”

“I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”

Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”

The Old Testament prophets also appeals to historical and prophetic evidence. Isaiah exposes the foolishness of idolatry through the inability of other gods to predict the future.

“This is what the Lord says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come— yes, let them foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one” (Isaiah 44:6-8).

Today, evidential apologetics follow the Biblical example of proclaiming the factual nature of Christianity. Evidential apologists establish the trustworthy nature of Scripture and the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. While evidentialists are not opposed to utilizing the classical methods they may view such methods as superfluous. The evidential apologist may see the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a single stone that can kill two birds. Why begin with the cosmological argument when the resurrection of Jesus demonstrates both the existence of God and the truthfulness of Christianity? Gary Habermas and Josh McDowell are two of today’s most popular evidential apologists. Classical apologists such as William Lane Craig also make contributions. Also noteworthy is the fact that a few Lutherans have made contributions to this apologetic field including John Warwick Montgomery and Craig Parton.

The appeal of evidential apologetics is that it begins with Christ and the Scriptural record. Evidential apologetics acknowledges that the Christian faith is founded on fact, facts that do not arise out of man’s science or man’s reason but on the observed events that took place when God entered human history.