Apologetics in Youth Groups

As I write this from the youth ministry's media computer, I sit in (what I would somewhat arrogantly label as) my youth group's main youth room. Two lamps and a projector give a striking atmosphere of elegance. A table complete with mommy's homemade cookies, a 2lb bag of Sour Patch Kids, Skittles, chips, crackers and room for sodas sit by the entryway. A small table opposite the snack table contains approximately 20 folded over pieces of paper with pens attached, for those interested in taking notes. Demon Hunter's newest album is blasting over the awesome speakers, and both parts of William Lane Craig's recent debate with Richard Carrier are being downloaded on the slower-than-average Internet connection.

Before I stepped down from the volunteer position that I hold, I was going to make a push for apologetics in the youth group. It needs to be done. We are losing students at unreasonable rates (some surveys show that upwards to 70%) when they arrive at college, precisely because we do challenge them intellectually. We expect them to succeed and do well in college and in high school, but when it comes to learning about the faith they hold, we balk. And it is precisely the reason why most Christians have a hard time in secular universities; they are never intellectually challenged or educated in church, and as a result, the best that they can offer in response to detailed critiques of their faith is a Bible verse or, worse, religious pluralism.

I am an exception to that rule, because I consider myself to be intellectually-driven as a Christian. I go to a secular university, and yet whenever someone (be it a teacher or a student) challenges my faith, it does not threaten me. I know how to assess and respond to challenges to my faith, and it was the most invaluable lesson that I learned in my senior year of high school, when I supplemented my other classes with self-training in basic apologetics. And it has paid off - I am thriving at school because I know that I can confidently answer objections brought against my faith.

Church, we must start including apologetic training in the part of youth group functions. They need to know things like:

• The Christian worldivew.
• How to address the problem of evil.
• The various natural theology arguments for God's existence (the Cosmological argument family, the Teleological argument family, the Axiological argument, and the Ontological argument)
• The accurate historicity of the Bible.
• The historicity of the New Testament
• Dealing with popular objections to God.
• An education into other worldviews.
• Conversational tactics for effectively and compassionately presenting the truth for Christianity.
• Logic and basic philosophy.
• The fundamentals of Christian theology.

It is time to start moving beyond emotion driven worship services, 5 minute devotionals, and celebrity-studded events, and start equipping our kids for war. We must stop sending them out with VBS-level educations in Christianity and begin showing them, in the safety and security of the church, how to handle doubts, address challenges, and think and reason with logic, and the things mentioned above. These kids are smart. They can handle it. And even if they don't use it right away, they will be challenged someday. And it is up to us to prepare them for that. If we don't, those of opposing worldviews will gladly continue to do so for us - and the results are always unfortunate.



This debate that I am showcasing is a push for apologetics in youth groups. It is a test to fine-tune my personal approach of integrating apologetics into youth groups. While I am stepping down for the summer, it is possible that I will return afterwards and resume a role of authority. If this happens, my focus will be nearly exclusively apologetics driven. I will push for it with all my might. The benefits are well worth the price of refusing to equip our kids intellectually for the intellectual war that is already going on.

William Lane Craig on the Urgent Need for Apologetics

If I can credit any one person to inspiring me to take up apologetics, it would be William Lane Craig. This guy has inspired me and motivated me to study apologetics and to share what I learn with others. While I have learned from several apologists, I have learned considerably from Craig. I am showcasing his recent debate with atheist historian Richard Carrier on "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?" to my students and college friends this Saturday. In anticipation of this, I post this quote today (I wish I could post the whole introduction - every pastor, youth minister, and church leader needs to read the intro of Craig's book "Hard Questions, Real Answers) to show that it is incredible vital and urgent that churches embrace apologetics across all spectrum (especially youth ministry and college ministry) as soon as possible - i.e. today!

"Indeed, the single most important institution shaping Western society is the university. It is at the university that our future political leaders, our journalists, our lawyers, our teachers, our scientists, our business executives, our artists, will be trained. It is at the university that they will formulate or, more likely, simply absorb the worldview that will shape their lives. And since these are the opinion-makers and leaders who shape our culture, the worldview that they imbibe at the university will be the one that shapes our culture.

Why is this important? Simply because the gospel is never heard in isolation. It is always heard against the background of the cultural milieu in which one lives. A person raised in a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still seen as an intellectually viable option will display an openness to the gospel which a person who is secularized will not display. For the secular person you may as well tell him to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ! . . . .

It is part of the broader task of Christian scholarship to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women. Therefore, the Church has a vital stake in raising up Christian scholars who will help us to create a place at the university for Christian ideas. The average Christian does not realize that there is an intellectual war going on in the universities and in professional journals and societies. Christianity is being attacked as irrational or obsolete, and millions of students, our future generation of leaders, have absorbed this viewpoint. This is a war we cannot afford to lose."

 William Lane Craig, "Hard Questions, Real Answers", pg 14-15

Constitutional Clauses and the Persecuted Church

Last night, another good atheist friend of mine named Stetson (not the same atheist that I spoke of a few days ago) asked about the Bible's stance on the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Since it was such a long reply, with his permission, I copied/pasted it below (with a few edits). I have slightly deviated the focus in this blog post to what I was originally replying to - in particular, I want to note the relation of the two clauses to the current situation of the Persecuted Church in other countries.

Alright, about the Bible's take on the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. First I will give a few Scriptures that would apply to this, and then I will give my thoughts on it.

First, one of the most important texts for dealing with the government comes from Romans 13:1-8. It is a very important passage for dealing with how Christianity should relate to the government:

Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval. For government is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience. And for this reason you pay taxes, since the ⌊authorities⌋ are God’s public servants, continually attending to these tasks. Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor. Romans 13:1-7 (HCSB)

This passage, while it commands Christians to submit to the authority of the government, when taken in together with what Jesus said about the government, it establishes a very important directive that we should follow.

Tell us, therefore, what You think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” But perceiving their malice, Jesus said, “Why are you testing Me, hypocrites? Show Me the coin used for the tax.” So they brought Him a denarius. “Whose image and inscription is this?” He asked them. “Caesar’s,” they said to Him. Then He said to them, “Therefore give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left Him and went away. Matthew 22:17-22 (HCSB)

Christ is saying here that when it comes to matters of the government, then we are to obey the government. However, if the government is seeking to do something that is to be done against God or if the government is asking for it's citizens to do something immoral or something wrong, then it is the duty of Christians to stand against the government. Taking a stance against the government is not the default stance. That is a much larger subject to dive into, however.

Now, to the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Time for a little church history. Prior to the founding of America, we have the Protestant Revolution, beginning when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg. At the time, the Catholic Church was the religion of the state - and because it was the religion of the state (for the majority of the European nations at the time) it was able to use the power of the state - it's resources, governing bodies, enforcement forces, ect - to suppress what it openly deemed to be a heretical movement within the church at the time, and it openly persecuted, sometimes through violent means, to try and silence the Reformation. This was only possible because the Catholic Church was established as the official religion of the government, and therefore was able to use the government's powers to accomplish it's will. Had the Catholic Church not been established as the official religion, they would not have been able to do anything.

America was colonized for several reasons, but one of the most important one was for those that were seeking religious freedom - the pilgrims. Among other things, they were seeking to escape the religious persecution that was taking place through the government. The founders knew what they were doing when they included the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause - it was to prevent history from repeating itself and from Religion A from being able to beat up Religion B because Religion A was the official religion.

I believe those two clauses are what makes this country incredible - I believe that no religion, even Christianity, should be adopted to be a government established religion, and here is why: I am very involved with watchdog groups that inform about the persecuted church in other countries, and the persecution I speak of it only possible because of a lack of (either in the countries' constitution, or in enforcement) of these two Clauses. If there is one fact that the media continually wishes to suppress, it is the well document, very frequent, very common, (sometimes) very violent and very disturbing amount of persecution that takes place against Christians in the Middle East, China, N. Korea, and elsewhere. This is only possible because in those places, things like the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause do _not_ exist - in fact, in these countries where persecution of Christians take place, it is precisely because a specific religion is established (most of which is Islam) and because you are not free to practice anything else! America is a great nation because of those two clauses, because it allows people to believe whatever they want knowing that they will not face persecution from the government.

Questions? Comments? Leave your thoughts below!

C.S. Lewis on Ultimate Satisfaction

If there is any current trend in my life that I would be so eager to share, it would be that recently, I am starting to discover ultimate satisfaction in God, and that He fulfills my desires in ways that nothing else can. Events like Secret Church have only revealed this further and accelerated this change. And here is something C.S. Lewis wrote a long time ago that I can't help but think God showed to me when He did (during the Secret Church event) to further hit the hammer home. Reflect on what Lewis says and how it applies to your own life:

"If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that out Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far to easily pleased.

                                                                                                             - C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory "

The Importance of the Resurrection for Apologetics

I remember a few months ago, a good Facebook friend of mine, who is an atheist that I greatly respect, asked me: "What would it take to falsify your belief in Christianity"?

Another Christian, one who had been locked in passionate (but respectful) debate with said atheist friend listed, amongst other things, that if it could be shown that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, then that would convince him that Christianity was false.

I posted another comment in agreement.

Today is Easter Sunday. The rest of the house is asleep while I am headbanging and playing air guitar to metal legends Living Sacrifice. Such is the typical Sunday afternoon at my house. Yet for all it is worth, today is no ordinary day. Today is the day we celebrate the one event that, if true, is the single most monumental event that will ever take place in the entire history of existence: the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 that the resurrection is what will make or break Christianity:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say, “There is no resurrection of the dead”? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is without foundation, and so is your faith. In addition, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified about God that He raised up Christ—whom He did not raise up if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Therefore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. If we have put our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone. 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (HCSB)

As an apologist, if there is one area I believe that every Christian should be an expert in, it would be the resurrection. I would argue that all other areas of apologetics (philosophical, scientific, historical, ect) are useless endeavors apart from the resurrection of Christ. If it did not happen, then apologetics would be the most delusional waste of time, as time and effort would be trying to spent justifying something that is not possible because the main ingredient - the resurrection - never happened. While the question of God's existence would still be open even if it could be shown that Jesus did not rise from the dead, it would demonstrate one thing: Jesus Christ is not God, and Christianity is a joke.

Am I suggesting that apologists all become specialists in defending the resurrection? Absolutely not. I am saying that every apologist (and for that matter, every Christian) should be well learned in the following:

• The failed attempts to try and disprove the resurrection: the swoon theory, the hallucination theory, ect.
• The Christian scholars who have written on the resurrection - and their atheist/unbelieving counterparts.
• An accurate understanding of the crucifixion timeline (and how to reconcile the divergent accounts into one seamless narrative)

As a novice apologist, I am learning more all the time. While my preferred specialty is philosophical apologetics, I am constantly learning and willing to learn. If anything, apologetics is a process - nobody turns into an expert into anything overnight. I think it would be well summed up to say that the more knowledgeable we are about the resurrection, the better.

This Saturday, I am showcasing the recent William Lane Craig/Richard Carrier debate "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?" to my students. I am stepping down in about a month, and it would pain me if I did not do something apologetic related in my time here (if, after the summer, God's will is that I continue to work with the youth, then that will be a far more dominating focus), and given that it is Easter season, showcasing a recent debate on the resurrection seems like a pretty good idea. [rant] I think the church is shooting itself in the foot for not making apologetic training a priority - no, a requirement - for youth ministers to teach. The church wonders why so many Christians abandon their faith when they arrive to college, and I would openly (and fiercely!)  contend that it is because we do not focus on things like apologetics! [/rant] I have even received permission from my BSM leader to promote the event amongst our BSM college group, so my college friends can benefit from this as well. Needless to say, I greatly desire that apologetics become an active focus amongst the church today, and it has to start somewhere - why not during Easter, during the time which we celebrate that which is the most essential foundation to our faith?

As I type this post, I have been listening to Living Sacrifice's masterpiece-of-a-comeback album "The Infinite Order". It is now the closing track, and as the beautiful acoustic guitar intro fades into an epic and emotion lead riff, I close this post with the following lyrics. If Christians can understand and comprehend the importance of the resurrection and defend it, then there will be no need for lines like this:

You have a new way
Is it a better way?
Once I saw you proclaim
Now there's slight disdain
Why keep that title, what has changed? Is God so different?
Why keep that title, what has changed? Is He not the same?

Love is present, grace abounds
What happened here? Was the world so enticing?
Denial is treachery hard to reconcile
Call it for what it really is
Don't make excuses
Call it for what it really is
Go ahead apostasy

To kill, or to murder...that is the question

I remember from the Pray for an Atheist event and various other encounters a very specific charge against God. Specifically, the charge was that "God said 'Thou shalt not kill' and yet he order the slaughter of the Canaanites and other people. The Bible contradicts itself and God is a moral monster!"[1] I heard that several times throughout the event. Even recently, I found another example of the usage of "Thou Shall Not Kill", only this was in my speech book. It was used in an example persuasive speech outline arguing that the death penalty be abolished. One of the main points of the hypothetical speech was that the death penalty violated the Biblical commandment of "Thou shall not kill".

Below is a list of most English translations of the Bible. The ones that use "kill" are italicized. Notice how few in number that they are, and notice that they come from Old English translations of the Bible.

2011 NIV: "“You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13)

NASB: "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13)

The Message: "No murder" (Exodus 20:13)

Amplified Bible: "You shall not commit murder: (Exodus 20:13)

NLT: "You must not murder" (Exodus 20:13)

KJV: "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13)

ESV: "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13)

CEV: "Do not murder" (Exodus 20:13)

NKJV: "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13)

NCV: "You must not murder anyone" (Exodus 20:13)

GNT: "Do not commit murder" (Exodus 20:13)

21stKJV: "Thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13) 

ASV: "Thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13)

Young's Literal Translation: "Thou dost not murder" (Exodus 20:13)

Darby: "Thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13)

HCSB: "Do not murder" (Exodus 20:13)

NIRV: "Do not commit murder" (Exodus 20:13)

Douay Rheims 1899: "Thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13) 

NIVUK: "You shall not murder: (Exodus 20:13)

TNIV: "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13)

Notice the majority of the translations use the word murder. That is a far different meaning than kill, as we will look at below.

Why is this important? For one thing, there is a huge difference between a command not to kill and a command not to murder. For one thing, "Thou Shall Not Kill [what]?" If you are going to kill something, you have to have the thing you a going to kill. But that is not immediately specified in "Thou Shall Not Kill". Kill what? Humans? Trees? Animals? Insects? Germs? Going back to the speech example, the only way the speaker could have used "Thou Shall Not Kill" as evidence in his/her speech would have been to use the command's lack of a directly identified recipient and plug in "People" into the equation "Thou Shall Not Kill [what]".  However, to do so is to make an argument from ambiguity, not to mention the fact that as the English language evolves, words change meaning over time (which is one of the reasons why I am not a fan of the KJV being used today.) "Kill" could have very well meant "murder" in the time when the KJV was used. [2] And given the overwhelming ratio above, it is clear that "kill" is synonymous with "murder" in this case. Let's define murder:

"Murder: The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethough" (Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary)

When someone brings the charge that God violated His own command of "Thou Shall Not Kill", and then cites a specific instance (e.g. the flood, the judgment of the Canaanites, ect), I would point out that the passage means to not murder (from the majority comparison above) and that to murder someone and to kill someone are two totally different things. It invalidates the argument on the basis of the definitions being used.

For internet apologists, this also highlights another point. Since we are at a computer, most of our conversations are not in real-time. Even if we are in real time conversations (i.e. Facebook chat), we have access to a whole slew of information that would otherwise be unreachable if this discussion were taking place, say, on a high school campus. Whenever someone quotes a passage, you have the luxury of making sure it is correctly quoted. If it is a paraphrase, you have the luxury of checking the validity of the paraphrase. This allows the security of making sure the passage(s) being discussed are done so without misquote, a bonus feature not always available in real time conversations. In short, use that to your advantage.

1: For those who hold this view, I recommend reading Paul Copan's "Is God A Moral Monster?", which is an excellent primer to OT Ethics.
2: I have no evidence to back this particular claim up. This conclusion is inferred based on the fact that some English words have changed meaning over time or carried different meanings long ago, but otherwise it is speculation.

Youth Ministry and the Kalam Cosmological Argument

This past Thursday, during our discipleship program for our youth, I was presented with a golden opportunity to take a survey on how well the guys of the group (the girls were separate) could handle some apologetic discussion.

The focus on the discipleship groups (dubbed Revolutionary Guys/Revolutionary Girls) has been on basic Christian practice: Bible study, prayer, worship, ect. Right now we are really focusing in on Bible study, and how to read it and make sense of what it says. Each week, we give them a packet that contains 3 sets of verses, and each verse has three questions to it: "What is the passage saying", "Why is this important", and "How do I apply the meaning of this passage to my life"? This particular packet had an oddball in it: Genesis 1:1. How does one apply Genesis 1:1 to his or her life in a relevant way? 

Enter the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

You might be thinking, "How in the world is the Kalam Argument a working answer to applying a passage to your life"? Genesis 1:1 is a very important verse within Christan theology. It is the verse that describes the beginning of the universe, and the beginning of all life, which is an important function of the Christian worldview: how did we get here? Aside from the fact it answers the very foundational philosophical question "Why is there something rather than nothing* at all?", Genesis 1:1 provides very key information for any Christian; therefore, to apply it to one's life, take the time to understand why it is so important**! The pursuit of knowledge and higher education, if you will.

As I expected, the majority of the guys could not figure out a way to apply the passage and make it relevant to their lives. I then grabbed a whiteboard and an easel, set it up in front of them, and wrote out the Kalam argument. The particular form that I wrote out goes like this: 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist [Genesis 1:1]
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Then, I launched into a very broad explanation of the argument, from the relation of cause/effect, the Big Bang, and a few other areas. And this is the part that shocked me: they actually understood it! In fact, one of my guys asked the very typical question in response to it: "If everything needs a cause, then who made God?" Underlining the words "begins to exist", we then moved into a discussion about God's transcendent nature. Of course, these are high school and junior high school kids, so I had to make sure I wasn't burying them in the specifics of the argument. But at the very least, an encouraging sign came: they were interested in it. For an apologist and a youth minister, it was a wonderful moment.

If there is one area that I greatly desire reform in, it would easily be the emphasis of apologetics amongst youth groups. Granted, my time with this youth group is almost done, but if I ever do become the youth minister of another church, apologetics will be a primary pillar. Not just apologetics in the sense of "If someone says X, you say Y", but critical thinking, logic, and fostering a healthy understanding of philosophy and science. While this particular event was hardly anything progressive in terms of making apologetics a foundation of this current group (I confess, it is not as much of a focus as I would like), it was an encouraging sign to say the least. Kids these days are pretty smart. Now, I wonder what other apologetic angles I can sneak in before my time here is done....

*Nothing: Non-existance. Not a vacuum, but literal non-existance of anything at all.

**: I am not saying that this is the only way to apply Genesis 1:1 to one's life. I mainly saw an open door to discuss the origin of the universe and took advantage of it. In fact, my youngest brother gave a very good answer to the question when he said "Because God created us, we can be confident that He will take care of us". I could have run with that, but I decided not to because of the fact that we discuss that statement pretty regularly anyway, and I was looking for a way to be creative.