R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 271

The Briefing 09-27-16

Who won the debate? What fact-checkers and political analysts reveal about worldview and truthWall Street Journal (Janet Hook, Peter Nicholas, and Reid J. Epstein) — Candidates Spar in Debate, Offer Vastly Different Visions for Leading the U.S.

But will they even vote? Poor civic involvement reflects lack of conviction amongst growing "nones" Religion News Service (Lauren Markoe) — More ‘nones’ than you think, but many won’t show up on Election Day

China joins the quest for alien life with new, massive telescopeNew York Times (Chris Buckley and Adam Wu) — China Hunts for Scientific Glory, and Aliens, With New Telescope

Missionaries to Mars: If found, would Christians need to take the gospel to aliens?Wall Street Journal (Ian Lovett) — Could Aliens Have Souls That Need Saving?

The post The Briefing 09-27-16 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

For the Bible Tells Me So: Biblical Authority Denied … Again

“Jesus loves me — this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” This is a childish error?

Evangelical Christianity has a big problem, says Andy Stanley, and that problem is a reliance on the Bible that is both unwarranted and unhelpful. In a recent message delivered at North Point Community Church and posted online, Stanley identifies the evangelical impulse to turn to the Bible in our defense and presentation of Christianity as a huge blunder that must be corrected.

Some years ago, in light of another message Stanley preached at North Point, I argued that his apologetic ambition was, as we saw with Protestant liberalism a century ago, a road that will lead to disaster. No doubt, many Christians might be surprised to see an apologetic ambition identified as an entry point for theological liberalism, but this has held constant since Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of modern theological liberalism, issued his book, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers in 1799.

In the wake of the Enlightenment, Schleiermacher understood that the intellectual elites in Germany were already turning a skeptical eye to Christianity, if not dismissing it altogether. The Enlightenment worldview was hostile to supernatural claims, suspicious of any claims to absolute truth beyond empirical science, and dismissive of any verbal form of divine revelation.

No problem, Schleiermacher responded — we can still salvage spiritual and moral value out of Christianity while jettisoning its troublesome doctrinal claims, supernatural structure, and dependence upon the Bible. He was certain that his strategy would “save” Christianity from irrelevance.

His ambition, in other words, was apologetic at its core — to defend Christianity against claims of its eclipse. The formula offered by theological liberals is the same now. Save what you can of Christianity by surrendering truth claims. Acknowledge the inevitable hostility that these doctrines face in the modern age and adjust the faith accordingly. No theological liberal declares himself the enemy of Christianity. To the contrary, he offers liberalism as the only means of avoiding Christianity’s demise in a secular age.

Of course, the “Christianity” that remains after this doctrinal surgery bears little resemblance to biblical Christianity and, as Scripture makes abundantly clear, it cannot save.

Let’s be clear — Andy Stanley does not mean to deny the central truth claims of Christianity. In his message, “Who Needs God? The Bible Told Me So,” he affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. But he does so while undercutting our only means of knowing of Christ and his resurrection from the dead — the Bible.

And he does so directly and without risk of misunderstanding. In his message he stated: “So I need you to listen really carefully and the reason is this — perhaps you were taught, as I was taught, ‘Jesus love me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.’ That is where our trouble began.”

That is where our trouble began? What trouble?

Stanley’s apologetic concern is clear from the beginning of this message. He identifies the crisis of “de-conversion” as adults leave the church because they have outgrown their child-like faith and no longer believe. He traces their de-conversion to the fact that their adult, “fact-based” questions were met with only childish, “faith-based” answers.

He goes on to say that the “the Bible told me so” is “one of the threads we hear in de-conversion stories all the time, and I have a feeling for many, many, many of you who are losing faith or have lost faith, especially in the Christian faith, this is a bit of the part of your story.”

Later, he follows by dismissing a “the Bible says it, that settles it” approach to Christianity. “The problem with that is this: if the Bible goes, so goes our faith.”

At this point, Stanley goes on to amplify his concern with a Bible-based Christianity. “If the Bible is the foundation of your faith, here’s the problem: it is all or nothing. Christianity becomes a fragile, house of cards religion.”

And, as he states boldly, “it is next to impossible to defend the entire Bible.”

In short order, Stanley argues that claiming infallibility for the entire Bible is a losing project. Furthermore, he argues that Christianity “made its greatest strides during the 282 years before the Bible even existed.”

There is more in that statement than can be unpacked in his message or in this essay, but the central problem with his argument is that he seems to believe that the church did not have the Bible until the early fourth century. This claim can only refer to the official listing of the canon of the New Testament, but it is clear that the early church recognized the Old Testament as Scripture and that the early church quickly had both the gospels and, even earlier, the letters of the Apostle Paul (see 1 Tim 5:18; 2 Pet 3:15-16).

Indeed, the early church provides abundant evidence of the “for the Bible tells me so” dependence upon Scripture, even if the earliest Christians did not yet have the collected New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul grounds both the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ as “according to the Scriptures.”

Perhaps the oddest part of Andy Stanley’s approach to defending the resurrection is his insistence that we have some access to historically verifiable accounts of the resurrection outside of the New Testament. He rests his confidence in recent historiographical work by apologists who defend the historicity of the resurrection by affirming historical sources that are prior to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

But where do these historians claim to find those sources? In the four gospels.

Stanley seems to base the defense of the resurrection in historical traditions he claims are prior to the gospels, but the Holy Spirit gave the church the four gospels, and the entire New Testament, as verbally inspired, authoritative, and infallible revelation. All of Scripture — the Old Testament and the New Testament — was given to the church so that we would know the rule of faith and everything revealed therein. This is the evangelical Scripture principle, and it is precisely what the Reformers defended as sola Scriptura.

And what is our alternative? Are we to believe that those who are “de-converting” from Christianity can be weaned off of the Bible and on to some other sufficient authority?

In the strangest turn, noted in Stanley’s presentations before this message, he argues that if we can somehow believe in the fact of Christ’s resurrection on the authority of prior historical sources, and then we find that Jesus (presumably as revealed in the four gospels) respects the inspiration of the Old Testament, we should conclude that if one who rose from the dead affirmed the inspiration of the Old Testament, then we should as well.

But Jesus actually pointed to the Old Testament and demonstrated the very approach to the truthfulness and authority of the Bible that Stanley identifies as the problem. When Jesus pointed to the Old Testament and said “these are they that testify of me” (John 5:39), he was effectively saying, “for the Bible tells me so.”

Add to this the problem that Stanley effectively refutes his own argument, undercutting the authority and inerrancy of the very Scripture that he would have us to understand that Jesus would want us to trust.

This is an apologetic disaster and would leave Christians with no authoritative Scripture. Instead, we would be dependent upon historians (among others) to tell us what parts of both testaments we can still believe.

Those parts will inevitably grow fewer and fewer. This is what must happen when the total trustworthiness, sufficiency, and authority of the Bible is subverted.

We are back with Friedrich Schleiermacher, trying to convince the “de-converted” of his day that Christianity can be retained as an intellectually defensible morality and spirituality without its central truth claims and doctrines.

Andy Stanley is no Friedrich Schleiermacher, but the path he charts for the church is a road to abject disaster.

In the end, we simply have no place to go other than the Bible as God’s authoritative revelation. Christ, not the Bible, is the foundation of our faith — but our only authoritative and infallible source of knowledge about Christ is the Bible.

A true defense of the Christian faith has never been more needed than now, but an attempt to rescue Christianity from its dependence upon Scripture is doomed to disaster.

We are left in the same predicament as Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms. If Scripture cannot be trusted, then we are doomed.

“Jesus loves me — this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” A mature Christian faith will say more than that, not less than that. “For the Bible tells me so” does not mean that we do not have reasoned answers to difficult questions, but it does mean that we admit our dependence upon Scripture — and that we confess that God intended for us to be dependent on Scripture.

“For the Bible tells me so” is not “where our trouble began.” To the contrary, it is right where God wants us.

The post For the Bible Tells Me So: Biblical Authority Denied … Again appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Briefing 09-26-16

Expected record draw for 1st presidential debate tonight driven by personality and political spectacleNew York Times (Michael M. Grynbaum) — Clinton-Trump Debate Expected to Be Rare Draw in a Polarized AgeScripps Washington Bureau (Dick Meyer) — Clinton is from Mars, Trump from Venus

Globalism and realpolitik: Obama less optimistic in final address to UN than firstNew York Times (Mark Landler) — Obama, in Farewell to U.N., Paints Stark Choices for Unsettled WorldWall Street Journal (Editorial Board) — Obama’s Last Lecture

Do "significant oversimplifications" govern our lives? The 5-second rule isn't trueWashington Post (Ben Guarino) — The ‘five-second rule’ for eating food? Scientists just demonstrated how gross it is.

The post The Briefing 09-26-16 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Briefing 09-23-16

"Taboo" or objective moral evil? Swedish scientist seeks to edit the DNA of human embryosNPR (Rob Stein) — Breaking Taboo, Swedish Scientist Seeks To Edit DNA Of Healthy Human Embryos

2,000-year-old Leviticus manuscript matches identically the Old Testament text we have todayUSA Today (Traci Watson) — Charred manuscript is one of oldest known copies of Torah ever foundNew York Times (Nicholas Wade) — Modern Technology Unlocks Secrets of a Damaged Biblical Scroll

Do you believe? Noah's Ark exhibit confronts secular reporter with questions of faithChicago Tribune (Josh Noel) — Beliefs aside, Noah's Ark in Kentucky is something to see

The post The Briefing 09-23-16 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Briefing 09-22-16

The end of mom and dad? Scientists say making babies without eggs may be possibleBBC (James Gallagher) — Making babies without eggs may be possible, say scientists

The danger of absolute power: Labour Party's collapse has destabilized British politicsThe Economist — Britain’s one-party state

History warns against a strongman: Praise for Putin reveals false hope of an autocratic leaderFinancial Times (Courtney Weaver) — Putin finds a fan base in Trump country

Detailed map of gay marriage in America gives new insight into our new moral landscapeNew York Times (Quoctrung Bui) — The Most Detailed Map of Gay Marriage in America

The post The Briefing 09-22-16 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Briefing 09-21-16

The irrationality of terrorists: One was a "normal American kid," the other had a history with the FBINew York Times (N. R. Kleinfield) — Ahmad Rahami: Fixture in Family’s Business and, Lately, a ‘Completely Different Person’New York Times (Mitch Smith and Richard Perez-Peña) — Friends Say Minnesota Attacker Was ‘Normal American Kid’Wall Street Journal (Devlin Barrett and Pervaiz Shallwani) — U.S. Charges N.Y. Bombing Suspect, Cites Views in His Notebook

The heart is desperately wicked: Experts unable to find predictor for “Lone Wolf” terrorWall Street Journal (Alan Cullison) — Experts See No Single Explanation for ‘Lone Wolf’ Terror Attacks

What is the proper moral reflex in response to the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man in Tulsa?Washington Post (Peter Holley, Wesley Lowery, and Derek Hawkins) — Debate swirls around unarmed black man’s actions prior to fatal police shooting in Tulsa

Real ethics for artificial intelligence? Human beings and the gift of moral consciousnessNew York Times (John Markoff) — How Tech Giants Are Devising Real Ethics for Artificial Intelligence

The post The Briefing 09-21-16 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Briefing 09-20-16

Terrorist attacks in 3 states over the weekend underscore ongoing threat of radical IslamReuters (Dustin Volz and Alex Dobuzinskis) — Islamic State claims responsibility for Minnesota mall attackNew York Times (Marc Santora, William K. Rashbaum, Al Baker, and Adam Goldman) — Manhattan Bombs Provide Trove of Clues; F.B.I. Questions 5 PeopleUSA Today (Thomas Frank) — Experts say NYC attack was terrorism

Nashville, the "buckle of the Bible belt," to consider decriminalizing marijuanaNew York Times (Richard Fausset) — Following Its Country Music, Nashville May Loosen Up on Marijuana

Does marijuana produce slackers? New research shows lack of regulatory standards harmfulWall Street Journal (Susan Pinker) — Marijuana Makes for Slackers? Now There’s Evidence

7,800,947—the number of opioid prescriptions in TN, surpassing that state's populationThe Tennessean (Holly Fletcher) — There are more opioid prescriptions than people in Tennessee

The post The Briefing 09-20-16 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

From Father to Son — J.R.R. Tolkien on Sex

This article originally appeared on March 11, 2014.

The astounding popularity of J.R.R. Tolkien and his writings–magnified many times over by the success of the “Lord of the Rings” films–has ensured that Tolkien’s fantasy world of moral meaning stands as one of the great literary achievements of our times.

In some sense, Tolkien was a man born out of time. A philologist at heart, Tolkien was most at home in the world of ancient ages, even as he witnessed the barbarism and horrors of the 20th century. Celebrated as a popular author, he was an eloquent witness to permanent truths. His popularity on university campuses, extending from his own day right up to the present, is a powerful indication of the fact that Tolkien’s writings reach the hearts of the young, and those looking for answers.

Even as Tolkien is celebrated as an author and literary figure, some of his most important messages were communicated by means of letters, and some of the most important letters were written to his sons.

Tolkien married his wife Edith in 1916, and the marriage was blessed with four children. Of the four, three were boys. John was born in 1917, Michael in 1920, and Christopher in 1924. Priscilla, the Tolkiens’ only daughter, was born in 1929.

Tolkien dearly loved his children, and he left a literary legacy in the form of letters. Many of these letters were written to his sons, and these letters represent, not only a hallmark of literary quality, but a treasure of Christian teaching on matters of manhood, marriage, and sex. Taken together, these letters constitute a priceless legacy, not only to the Tolkien boys, but to all those with whom the letters have been shared.

In 1941, Tolkien wrote a masterful letter to his son Michael, dealing with marriage and the realities of human sexuality. The letter reflects Tolkien’s Christian worldview and his deep love for his sons, and at the same time, also acknowledges the powerful dangers inherent in unbridled sexuality.

“This is a fallen world,” Tolkien chided. “The dislocation of sex-instinct is one of the chief symptoms of the Fall. The world has been ‘going to the bad’ all down the ages. The various social forms shift, and each new mode has its special dangers: but the ‘hard spirit of concupiscence’ has walked down every street, and sat leering in every house, since Adam fell.” This acknowledgement of human sin and the inevitable results of the Fall stands in stark contrast to the humanistic optimism that was shared by so many throughout the 20th century. Even when the horrors of two world wars, the Holocaust, and various other evils chastened the century’s dawning optimism of human progress, the 20th century gave evidence of an unshakable faith in sex and its liberating power. Tolkien would have none of this.

“The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favorite subject,” Tolkien insisted. “He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones.” Thus, Tolkien advised his young son, then 21, that the sexual fantasies of the 20th century were demonic lies, intended to ensnare human beings. Sex was a trap, Tolkien warned, because human beings are capable of almost infinite rationalization in terms of sexual motives. Romantic love is not sufficient as a justification for sex, Tolkien understood.

Taking the point further, Tolkien warned his son that “friendship” between a young man and a young woman, supposedly free from sexual desire, would not remain untroubled by sexual attraction for long. At least one of the partners is almost certain to be inflamed with sexual passion, Tolkien advised. This is especially true among the young, for Tolkien believed that such friendships might be possible later in life, “when sex cools down.”

As any reader of Tolkien’s works understands, Tolkien was a romantic at heart. He celebrated the fact that “in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition [is] still strong,” though he recognized that “the times are inimical to it.” Even so, as a concerned father, Tolkien warned Michael to avoid allowing his romantic instinct to lead him astray, fooled by “the flattery of sympathy nicely seasoned with a titillation of sex.”

Beyond this, Tolkien demonstrated a profound understanding of male sexuality and the need for boundaries and restraint. Even as he was often criticized for having an overly negative understanding of male sexuality, Tolkien presented an honest assessment of the sex drive in a fallen world. He argued that men are not naturally monogamous. “Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of ‘revealed’ ethic, according to faith and not to the flesh.” In his own times, Tolkien had seen the binding power of cultural custom and moral tradition recede into the historical memory. With the “sexual revolution” already visible on the horizon, Tolkien believed that Christianity’s revealed sex ethic would be the only force adequate to restrain the unbridled sexuality of fallen man. “Each of us could healthfully beget, in our 30 odd years of full manhood, a few hundred children, and enjoy the process,” Tolkien admonished his son. Nevertheless, the joys and satisfactions of monogamous marriage provide the only true context for sexuality without shame. Furthermore, Tolkien was confident that Christianity’s understanding of sex and marriage pointed to eternal, as well as temporal pleasures.

Even as he celebrated the integrity of Christian marriage, Tolkien advised Michael that true faithfulness in marriage would require a continual exercise of the will. Even in marriage, there remains a demand for denial, he insisted. “Faithfulness in Christian marriage entails that: great mortification. For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify and direct to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle remains. It will not satisfy him–as hunger may be kept off by regular meals. It will offer as many difficulties to the purity proper to that state, as it provides easements. No man, however truly he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man, has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial.”

Tolkien traced unhappiness in marriage, especially on the part of the husband, to the Church’s failure to teach these truths and to speak of marriage honestly. Those who see marriage as nothing more than the arena of ecstatic and romantic love will be disappointed, Tolkien understood. “When the glamour wears off, or merely works a bit thin, they think they have made a mistake, and that the real soul-mate is still to find. The real soul-mate too often proves to be the next sexually attractive person that comes along.”

With these words, Tolkien advised his middle son that marriage is an objective reality that is honorable in the eyes of God. Thus, marriage defines its own satisfactions. The integrity of Christian marriage requires a man to exercise his will even in the arena of love and to commit all of his sexual energy and passion to the honorable estate of marriage, refusing himself even the imagination of violating his marital vows.

In a letter to his friend C.S. Lewis, Tolkien advised: “Christian marriage is not a prohibition of sexual intercourse, but the correct way of sexual temperance–in fact probably the best way of getting the most satisfying sexual pleasure . . . .” In the face of a world increasingly committed to sexual anarchy, Tolkien understood that sex must be respected as a volatile and complex gift, bearing potential for great pleasure and even greater pain.

With deep moral insight, Tolkien understood that those who give themselves most unreservedly to sexual pleasure will derive the least pleasure and fulfillment in the end. As author Joseph Pearce, one of Tolkien’s most insightful interpreters explains, sexual temperance is necessary “because man does not live on sex alone.” Temperance and restraint represent “the moderate path between prudishness and prurience, the two extremes of sexual obsession,” Pearce expands.

Explicit references to sexuality are virtually missing from Tolkien’s published works, allegories, fables, and stories. Nevertheless, sex is always in the background as part of the moral landscape. Joseph Pearce understands this clearly, arguing that Tolkien’s literary characters “are certainly not sexless in the sense of being asexual but, on the contrary, are archetypically and stereotypically sexual.” Pearce makes this claim, notwithstanding the fact that there is no sexual activity or overt sexual enticement found in Tolkien’s tales.

How is this possible? In a profound employment of the moral spirit, Tolkien presented his characters in terms of honor and virtue, with heroic men demonstrating classical masculine virtues and the heroines appearing as women of honor, valor, and purity.

Nevertheless, we would be hard pressed to understand Tolkien’s understanding of sex, marriage, and family if we did not have considerable access into the realities of Tolkien’s family and his role as both husband and father. Tolkien’s letters, especially those written to his three sons, show the loving concern of a devoted father, as well as the rare literary gift Tolkien both possessed and employed with such power.

The letter Tolkien wrote Michael in the year 1941–with the world exploding in war and civilization coming apart at its seams–is a model of fatherly concern, counsel, and instruction. We should be grateful that this letter is now accessible to the larger world, and to the rest of us.

From the vantage point of the 21st century, Tolkien will appear to many to be both out of step and out of tune with the sexual mores of our times. Tolkien would no doubt take this as a sincere, if unintended, compliment. He knew he was out of step, and he steadfastly refused to update his morality in order to pass the muster of the moderns.

Writing to Christopher, his youngest son, Tolkien explained this well. “We were born in a dark age out of due time (for us). But there is this comfort: otherwise we should not know, or so much love, what we do love. I imagine the fish out of water is the only fish to have an inkling of water.” Thanks to these letters, we have more than an inkling of what Tolkien meant.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Just write me at mail@albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler

This essay appeared in my book Desire and Deceit: The Real Cost of the New Sexual Tolerance. Reprinted here by request.

The post From Father to Son — J.R.R. Tolkien on Sex appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Briefing 09-19-16

The culture of death advances: A child euthanized in BelgiumCNN (Chandrika Narayan) — First child dies by euthanasia in BelgiumBBC — Belgium's parliament votes through child euthanasiaBBC — Belgium minor first to be granted euthanasiaBBC (Jonathan Blake) — Man seeks euthanasia to end his sexuality struggle

From he to she in first grade? Redefining gender at age sixNew York Times (Laurie Frankel) — From He to She in First Grade

The (further) disappearance of childhood. Innocence denied and lives at risk

The post The Briefing 09-19-16 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Briefing 09-16-16

ACC pulls championships from NC, citing "principles" of inclusion and nondiscriminationRaleigh News and Observer (Luke DeCock) — NCAA had enough of NC inaction on HB2New York Times (Alan Blinder and Marc Tracy) — N.C.A.A. Leaves North Carolina in a New Spot: Sapped of Sports PrideNew York Times (Alan Blinder and Marc Tracy) — A.C.C. Pulls League Championships Out of North Carolina

"The times, they are a-changin'": Orlando sports columnist mocks NC in bid to ACCOrlando Sentinel (Mike Bianchi) — ACC should bring its championship football game to Orlando -- the City Equitable

Democrats refuse to pass Zika bill because it doesn't include money for Planned ParenthoodNational Review (Alexandra Desanctis) — Zika Funding Bill Blocked Again by Senate Democrats over Planned ParenthoodLife Site News (Ben Johnson) — New video demolishes Planned Parenthood’s lie that abortions are only 3 Percent of its work

Could religion's decline precipitate economic decline? Question has secularists worriedWashington Post (Julie Zauzmer) — Religion contributes more to the U.S. economy than Facebook, Google and Apple combinedUS News (Andrew Soergel) — Could Religion's Decline Spell Damnation for the U.S. Economy?

The post The Briefing 09-16-16 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.