Tim Keller on Authentic Christian Fundamentalism

 "The Greco-Roman world said, "We don't know who has the truth. Everybody's got their own." So why did Christians live the most peace-loving, the most generous, the most sacrificial, the most inclusive possible lifestyle out of the most exclusive possible truth claim? Here's the answer. Actually, my wife Kathy gave this to me some years ago, right after 9/11. All the papers were saying this is the problem with religious fundamentalism. If you're a fundamentalist, if you really believe you have the truth, this is what happens. Kathy said, as I tried to show you here, everybody's a fundamentalist, in a way. Everybody believes fundamentals; everybody's got exclusive truth. I remember Kathy said, "Fundamentalism doesn't necessarily lead you to terrorism. It depends on what your fundamental is. Have you ever seen an Amish terrorist?" And if the Amish are not fundamentalists, there ain't no such thing. So why will there never be Amish terrorists? I'll tell you why. If your "fundamental" is a Man dying on the cross for his enemies, if the very heart of your self-image and your religion is a Man sacrificing and praying for his enemies as he died for them, loving them-if that sinks into your heart of hearts-it's going to produce the kind of life that the early Christians produced. The most inclusive possible life out of the most exclusive possible claim. This is the truth. But what is the truth? The truth is a God who became weak, who loved and died for the people who opposed him, forgiving them. Take that into the center of your heart and you will be at the heart of the solution that we need in this world. And that is the "divisiveness" of exclusive truth claims by the Christian."

Dallas Willard. A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life's Hardest Questions (Kindle Locations 757-766). Kindle Edition.

A Brief Word on Apologists, Temptation, and Defending the Truth of the Scripture

The goal of every apologist is that those who do not believe in Christ would repent and acknowledge their need for a Savior. We ourselves are sinners saved by grace, once dead but now made alive by the sacrifice of Christ. One of the main tasks of the apologists is defending the Scriptures from attacks that would demonstrate its falsehood. The Bible is God's special revelation it man - if the Bible is false, then what we believe is false. Part of our defense is intellectual, to be sure, but another part of our defense is practical living. Some truths of the Scripture can be demonstrated historically, philosophically, or intellectually, while some truths can be demonstrated by living it out.

Paul writes in 1st Corinthians 10

12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

If what Paul is saying is true - namely, that God will provide a way of escape against temptation - then it makes sense that his claim must be tested in real life. I believe this is where personal testimony becomes a very powerful tool. If I have experienced God providing a way of escape against the temptations I face, then


The defense of the Christian faith is often an intellectual endeavor, and while that is certainly a good thing, we should also show how Christ helps us overcome our struggles in a personal way. I'm a guy - sexual temptation is a common temptation for normal males. When I try to deal with it on my own, I usually succumb to it. When I seek God for strength to deal with it, I am able to "stand up under it" as the passage says. But maybe for you the temptations are different. Whatever it may be, if we want to convince unbelievers of the truth of this particular Scripture, we should be willing to acknowledge our temptations and provide testimony for how God helps us deal with it.

Apologists interact with everyday people, and sometimes we need to engage people on the heart in addition to the head. In doing so we are showing another element to what we are defending; we are not defending mere ideas or propositions, we are defending ideas and propositions that, if true, changes lives,and our lives should be the first and foremost defense of that transformation, so much so that we can openly speak of our struggles and proclaim the strength of The Lord.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

A Response to Phil Snider: Spotlighting a Secular Response

When something goes "viral", it's a good idea to pay attention. Here's the newest viral sensation: a Missouri pastor, speaking at a city council meeting, opens up his speech by taking a stance against gay marriage - or so everyone thought. In a stunning turn of events, he closes the speech by saying that his speech up until that point consisted of quotes from preachers gone bye who attempted to justify racism, and since contemporary pastors are using the same lines of reasoning to justify an anti-SSM stance, we should allow same sex marriage.

Don't take my word for it - watch his speech below:

 

My friend and colleague Tom Gilson has posted an excellent text and video response in direct response to the video. I highly encourage you to read that post and watch that video - Tom does a thorough (but polite and respectful) job of debunking the speech. Rather than give another Christian response (which Tom and others have already done), I want to take a secular perspective against same sex marriage. Are all arguments against SSM strictly from religious grounds?

I'm a fan of savvy media, so I thought I would share this little video that makes a case against same-sex-marriage from a secular standpoint as my contribution to this viral sensation.




If this secular argument against same sex marriage is a good argument, then the issue cannot be pigeonholed to a matter of supposed Christian bigotry. A good argument is a good argument, no matter where it comes from, and unlike Phil's "argument", good secular arguments against same sex marriage exist and should be taken seriously.


Other responses from the Christian Apologetics Alliance:

Carson Weitnauer (Reasons for God): A Response to Phil Snider

A Brief Word on Atheists, Pineapples, and Shunned Messages

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science tweeted a story this morning that caught my attention. I follow them for informational purposes, and occasionally something interesting comes to my feed from them. This particular story was about an atheist society getting kicked out of a freshman club fair for displaying a pineapple and naming it "Mohammed".

Yes. A pineapple.

The society said they "wanted to celebrate free speech and promote their upcoming debate 'Should we respect religion?' The pineapple named Mohammed was upsetting Muslim students there, and so they were given a choice to take the pineapple down or get kicked out (you can read the full story here)

The point of my post is not about muslims being offended. The muslim student's response has no real bearing on my post. Instead, I would like to ask one question that may or may not be somewhat obvious: what in the world does a pineapple have to do with debates on religion? Or better yet, what does this atheist society hope to communicate by starting off a "discussion about blasphemy, religion, and liberty" with a personified pineapple? I don't understand how anyone in that society thought that grabbing a pineapple and naming it Mohammed (knowing that there would be Muslim students there) communicates "Hey, let's have a serious discussion about this." The ideas and subject wasn't inappropriate - indeed, a discussion about blasphemy, religion, and liberty would be a good discussion to have, and I give credit to that society for wanting to have that discussion. They weren't thrown out for the discussion that they wanted to have; they were thrown out because their actions undermined what they were supposedly trying to do. If they truly wanted to encourage this discussion, they would not have allowed a pineapple to get them kicked out of this club fair.

Christians preach the gospel of Christ, which is arguably the most provocative idea to have ever existed. Christian apologists deal with objections that would prove the Gospel to be false. But if you are a Christian apologist, don't let something silly or unimportant be the reason why your message is not welcome. It is one thing to be shunned for a message - it is another thing to be shunned for something that has absolutely nothing to do with your message, like a pineapple. Give care to how you conduct yourself as an apologist, and don't allow yourself to be shut down for any other reason than the message you defend.

¹⁴ If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. ¹⁵ But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. ¹⁶ Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. - 1 Peter 4:14-16

What To Pray (When You Don't Know What To Pray)

Prayer is one of the greatest blessings and privileges of the Christian. It is only possible because of the shed blood of Christ that we would have direct, uninhibited access to the throne of the Father whenever we wish. But what if there are times when you go to the throne and you do not know what to pray? Maybe you want to pray for a friend or coworker but aren't sure of anything specific. Maybe you are praying for a complete stranger that you don't even know the name of. Does the Scripture give us a prayer we can pray when we don't know specifically how we should pray? Over the next few posts, I will break down one of the most beautiful prayers of the apostle Paul in Colossians.

The passage this series will be looking at is Colossians 1: 9-14

9 And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with all spiritual wisdom and understanding,
10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.
11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy,
12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.
13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. ~ Colossians 1:9-14 (ESV)

Paul is writing to a church that he did not start. A few verses back, he mentions a guy named Epaphras, who was "a faithful minister of Christ on your behalf" who told Paul their "love in the Spirit" (verse 13). This is the backing context that is being mentioned in verse 14; Paul is referencing what Epaphras made known to him about the Colossian church.

Paul's next remark is the remark that describes how he prayed for the church - "we have not ceased to pray for you" (verse 14). This point is a point worthy of a whole post itself (and hence why the first post of this series is about it). Paul is openly exhibiting the fruit of steadfastness in his life when he claims (and we believe is true) that "we have not ceased to pray for you". He was ongoing in his prayers for the Colossians. The point of this post is to ask, "Are we being steadfast in prayer?"

This is a point of examination for every Christian. Could we say that we are "pray[ing] without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17) in our lives? Maybe we have given up on praying for people we want to see saved, or our circumstances that test and try us. Even as I write this I can remember a few things that I have given up on. Steadfastness must be shown in prayer, as prayer is a part of our daily walk with Christ. It is a smaller part of the big picture - the race we are running.

The next post will begin breaking apart Paul's prayer. Before this prayer gets dissected, our foundation must be set. Pray for steadfastness in your prayer life, and ask God to help you demonstrate that fruit in your life.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

9/11 - Two Worldviews, Two Responses

[Note: Due to networking situations, this post appeared first on the Christian Apologetics Alliance blog before it was published here. This is the same post from there]

On this day, eleven years ago, this nation was struck with a terrible act of evil. I don’t have to recount the events – if you don’t know the story of 9/11, you must be living in a cave. Last year I published a post on 9/11 and religious pluralism, but this year I want to focus on two worldviews, the atheistic worldview the Christian worldview, and their responses to 9/11.



On the atheistic worldview, 9/11 was a horrible atrocity, but at the end of the day, death is the destination of all humanity, with extinction the final stopping point. Nothing exists beyond this world or beyond this life, so 9/11 was the arrival of the final destination for those who died that day. For those who still live, they will arrive there soon enough. Worse, there is no accountability to good or evil, punishment or reward, on the atheistic worldview since everyone is headed to the same state. The terrorists can only be condemned with the full force of humanity, which will eventually die out. It is a temporal, subjective, and weak condemnation. The same thing is for the heroic first responders of the day. The praise they deserve is temporary, subjective, and weak. They will receive the same ultimate end as the terrorists.

On the Christian worldview, 9/11 was a horrible atrocity, but there exists an accountability to good and evil that allows for the terrorist’s actions to be justly condemned. There exists an unchanging standard of right and wrong, good an evil, which lasts eternally – God Himself. We can desire that the terrorists be punished, and there exists a standard by which they are punished with the full wrath of God. By that same standard, we can praise the first responders for their bravery and know that their accomplishments are not forgotten. Death is not the final destination for us, and God will not forget their brave actions and will always find them praiseworthy.

However, with the Christian worldview, comes the condition of all mankind. If God Himself is this standard by which we condemn the 9/11 terrorists, how do we measure up to this standard? This standard is perfect, and we have failed to keep it. We are also subject to God’s wrath because, in our own failures, we have failed to keep His standards. The punishment with which God dealt the terrorists is aimed just as much at us, because we have violated it in some way. How have we violated it? When Jesus was asked what the most important commandment of the Law was, he said:

37 “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
38 This is the great and first commandment.
39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37-39)

We have failed to love God with everything in us, and we have failed to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we have failed here (and we all have), we have broken God’s law. But the hope of the Christian worldview, the hope of 9/11, is Christ. He took the wrath of God that we were each supposed to receive, and He promises that “there is now no condemnation” (Romans 8:1) for those who realize their need for Christ to save them and put their trust in Him for salvation. Those who do not do this still receive the wrath of God as a punishment for breaking His law. The terrorists did not put their trust in Christ, and received the full wrath of God for 9/11. But we will receive the same wrath if we do not put our trust in Him to be spared from this wrath. Also, evil is defeated once and for all on the Christian worldview: when Christ returns, this existence where actions like 9/11 is possible will never happen again.

3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.
4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.
7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.
8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:3-8)

On atheism, there is no such hope or promise to look forward to.

Consider your response to 9/11. If the Christian worldview’s response to 9/11 makes the most sense of the world, examine yourself. Have you acknowledged you need to be spared from God’s wrath? If not, do not wait. None of us are guaranteed tomorrow. If the Christian worldview is the worldview that makes the most sense of 9/11, you must accept the entirety of it, or none at all. Do what Romans 10:9-11 says:

9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Art is Subjective, You Say?

I have been wanting to write a post on this subject for a while,  but I have not been able to bring myself to do it for various reasons. But, thanks to a recent story from CNN, I have the perfect example to use to make a post about this subject.

CNN reported a few days ago that a famous painting of Jesus Christ, known as "Ecce Homo" (Latin for "behold the man"), underwent a restoration from it's deteriorated state in a church in Spain. Below is the picture of the original painting, it's deteriorated state, and it's "restoration"

Did you laugh at the restoration? It's okay if you did - I know I laughed at it. It's goofy and bizarre. But, I want to use this to raise a point about art: is art subjective, or are there objective standards to art?

I want to posit that if art is truly a subjective enterprise, then the restoration on the right could be considered just as much a masterpiece (in the eyes of the parishioner who restored it) as the original painting itself. But does that idea not seem ludicrous? Compared to the original painting, the restoration is hideous. The original painting shows skill and expertise, while the restoration does not. But if quality art is determined subjectively, then the only grounds to say that the original is better than the restoration is based on my own personal preferences.

I don't think anyone would be willing to say that the restoration is a better piece of art than the original. But, what is that claim grounded in? It is a futile claim to ground it in my subjective evaluation of art. I think this situation showcases a point that has subtly been lost in our relativistic society - there are objective standards to good art, and art is not a fully subjective enterprise. "Standards" is a dirty word in this society, but we affirm the idea of objective standards in that this restoration is a failed one - we are crying foul because this restoration attempt failed, and the result looks absolutely nothing like the original. There is implicitly a charge that standards were not met in this case, and this brings to the table a notion that there are objective standards to art.

This post isn't going to make the case for what the standards for art actually are. But, I hope this brief post makes you think - if art has an objective component of accountability, then what could be the implications of this for society? If you have thoughts, sound off below!