Kenneth Richard Samples's Blog, page 2

Revelation Versus Religion: Can Religious Pluralism Be True?

Why can’t all the world’s religions be true? 

The challenge of accepting the idea that all religions are true (religious pluralism) stems from the fact that the individual religions teach essential things that logically contradict one another. For example, their disagreement about the existence of God or gods is just one of many examples demonstrating how profoundly the world’s religions differ:

Islam affirms one God.Popular Hinduism affirms 330 million gods.Philosophical Hinduism affirms all as god.Original Buddhism affirms no god.

So the world’s religions collectively can’t agree on whether there is a god or how many there are. Moreover, even those religions that arguably share the most in common—the Middle Eastern monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—also have great differences. 

For example: Is God one being, one person (unitarianism) as traditional Judaism and Islam insist? Or is God one being, three persons (trinitarianism) as historic Christianity declares? 

Also: Was Jesus a false or mistaken Messiah (traditional Judaism)? Or was he a mere human prophet (Islam)? Or was he the divine-human Messiah and Savior (Christianity)?

Again, the fact that the world’s religions make essential claims that logically contradict one another makes religious pluralism an unacceptable option.

Revelation versus Religion
However, maybe there is a major disconnect between divine revelation on one hand and the human practice of religion on the other. That’s the challenge a reader of my blog recently presented to me.

Here’s the challenge (paraphrased) followed by my response.

Respondent: Divine revelation consists of the truths that God has revealed to humankind. But religion is the practice of how human beings have understood, or more accurately, mostly misunderstood that revelation.

Holding firmly to any human interpretation of divine revelation is an almost foolproof way to remain lost. If you doubt this, just look to the Pharisees of Jesus Christ’s day.

For I would propose that those who truly understand and accept the inner essence of the Qur’an and the Bible recognize them as cohering and coming from the same divine root. It’s similar to how Christians recognize that both the New Testament and Old Testament come from the same divine fount.

My Response: Greetings, friend. You have raised an interesting challenge concerning the truth of the world’s religions. Here’s my five-point response for your consideration:

Though I generally accept your basic distinction between revelation (divinely given) and religion (humanly received), there’s no reason to conclude that human beings can’t have a truthful understanding of the revelation even if it is limited in understanding. Orthodox Judaism, historic Christianity, and traditional Islam all believe they have been given doctrinal truth about God. However, if we give the religions the benefit of the doubt and accept the claims made by the faith’s founders or leaders, some of those doctrinal positions logically contradict one another, so they can’t all be correct.In the New Testament gospels, Jesus Christ never condemned the Jewish religious leaders for affirming the doctrinal truth of the Shema (Deut. 6:4) nor of the imago Dei (Gen. 1:26–28). In fact, Jesus insisted that people needed to hold firmly to those great revealed truths (Mark 12:29–31).The individual religions of Orthodox Judaism, historic Christianity, and traditional Islam reject the idea that the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), the New Testament, and the Qur’an all cohere and teach the same thing. Traditional Judaism and theologically conservative Christianity share much, if not most, in common and yet even they differ over the identity and mission of Jesus Christ, which is at the center of the Christian faith. Thus, to claim that the three Middle Eastern monotheist religions teach the exact same message is to say that Orthodox Judaism, historic Christianity, and traditional Islam are all wrong. And yet each religion would say they alone understand the revelation (kind of sounds like the Pharisees you referenced). Where’s the divine revelation that says Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all misinterpreted the revelation given to their respective communities and that the Tanakh, the New Testament, and Qur’an all agree? And if we accept that there is a difference between revelation and religion how do religious adherents know that the new pluralist view is correct and the exclusive beliefs of the traditional religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are wrong?Orthodox Jews don’t think the New Testament is on par with the Torah. Traditional Muslims don’t think the Old and New Testaments are on par with the Qur’an. Historic Christians don’t think the Qur’an is on par with the Bible.

But saying that the revelations of the three Middle Eastern monotheistic religions (as are reasonably interpreted by their religious communities) are not in conflict on some important truths is simply incorrect.

I appreciate the issue of revelation versus religion that you raised. It is an important topic to think through carefully.

Takeaway
Consider that for religious pluralism to be true then the actual claims and beliefs of the world’s religions themselves must be largely false. Another way of saying it is that to get all the religions to agree we must first conclude that all the religions have—on some fundamentally important things—gotten it wrong.

Reflections: Your Turn
As a Christian, have you ever spoken with a Jew or a Muslim about where your faiths agree and disagree?

Resources

For my evaluation of religious pluralism, see my book  Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions , chapter 13.For a further comparison of Islam and Christianity, see my two books  God among Sages , chapter 8; and  A World of Difference , chapter 15.On theological differences between Muslims and Christians, see my article How Does Islam Differ from Christianity?Concerning worship among the three major monotheistic religions, see the book  Do Christians, Muslims, and Jews Worship the Same God?: Four Views .For an introduction to Islam by a Muslim scholar, see  Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization  by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. For an introduction to Judaism by Jewish scholars, see  Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism  by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin.

A Fourth Branch of Christendom?

Historic Christendom is generally thought of as consisting of three main branches: Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism.1 Yet as a serious student of Christianity I would like to propose that a reasonable case can be made that there is now a fourth branch of Christendom to go along with the three traditional ecclesiastical bodies.2 Not everyone will agree with my assessment but let me offer a description of this new branch and explain why I think it is distinct from the other three.

The New Branch
The new branch was birthed from historic Protestantism and shares a lot of common ground with it, but maybe especially with the nonmagisterial or Radical Reformation Protestants (or Anabaptists). I view the emergence of this fourth branch of Christendom as being closely associated with the continued splintering of Evangelicalism (keeping in mind the term “evangelical” is increasingly difficult to define). I call the new branch “Jesus Followers.”

Here are twelve general characteristics of the newest version of Christianity as I see it. Again, many of these characteristics are reflected in the modern-day representatives of the Anabaptist movement of the sixteenth century. Think of this list as a paradigm or model rather than an exact description or classification.

Followers of Jesus: Many people in this new branch want to avoid being called “Protestant” or even “Christian.” Rather, they prefer to be called “followers of Jesus” or similar terms. Since Christianity is a way of life centered on Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, all Christians could be considered Jesus followers. But believers within fourth branch churches don’t want to be associated with the divisions and schisms that are so prevalent in church history. So, they want their identity to be found not in historic churches but in Jesus himself.Nondenominational: Building on the point above, fourth branch Christianity tends to be nondenominational. Or if these churches have denominational connections (and most do) they tend to downplay those connections. Again, there is little direct historical connection to church history. Charismatic or Pentecostal: Many individuals and churches who are part of this new formation of the faith have adopted a charismatic or Pentecostal spirituality. The historical roots of these churches may even be connected to traditional Pentecostal denominations. This form of piety isn’t a universal characteristic of the new branch, but it is common. There are also what we may call Bible churches in this fold that are cessationists concerning the spiritual gifts. The Bible only: Fourth branch churches and individuals interpret the Bible in its own right apart from Christian history. This position is in the spirit of what traditional Protestants call sola Scriptura, but I think it is a little different. The fourth branch believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God and the sole authority for doctrine and Christian living; they also affirm the creedal expressions of the Trinity, the incarnation, etc. Yet these churches view biblical authority as functioning seemingly independent of collective church councils, church tradition, or church history. Affirm mere Christianity: The doctrinal perspective of the new branch encompasses generally basic Christian doctrine. This term “mere Christianity” refers to a group of essential and “agreed, or common, or central”3 Christian doctrines (such as creation, the Trinity, the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, the ascension, and Jesus Christ’s Second Coming) that all branches of historic Christendom affirm. Noncreedal: This fourth branch typically has a statement of faith but no formal creeds (e.g., Apostles’ Creed or Nicene Creed) or confessions (e.g., Westminster Confession or Thirty-Nine Articles). However, while these churches may not formally recite a creed, they may and sometimes do sing it in their regular times of worship.Nonliturgical: Services at fourth branch churches are typically much more informal compared to the structured liturgy and religious rites found in traditional church services.Nonhymnal: Instead of formal hymns and liturgical songs, worship services at fourth branch churches feature popular praise music, bands, and contemporary Christian songs.Nonsacramental: These ecclesiastical bodies emphasize ordinances instead of sacraments. So while a sacrament is understood as a means of divine grace, an ordinance is a practice that involves the participants’ obedience to faith. For example, instead of affirming baptismal regeneration which is often associated with infant baptism, a Jesus Follower would be baptized to publicly announce his or her intention to live for Jesus. Congregational polity: For these houses of worship their church government reflects independent congregational church authority instead of an episcopal (led by bishops) or presbyterian (led by elders) form of order.Revivalism: Fourth branch churches conduct revival meetings in order to gain new converts and to inspire members to greater discipline and devotion. Church services are marked by evangelism, which commonly takes place by means of altar calls.Megachurches: Some of the congregations within this emerging branch are megachurches. A megachurch has an extremely large membership and also offers a variety of educational and social opportunities for its congregants. 

Takeaway
Again, some traditional Protestant churches share a number of these characteristics with fourth branch churches or Jesus Followers. And this description should be seen as a general pattern rather than an exact definition. Nevertheless, I think there is enough difference to warrant acknowledging a new and distinct branch of Christendom.

Churches in this new branch have strengths and weaknesses just like the churches they differ from. Some find this form of Christianity very appealing while others detect deficiencies.

Reflections: Your Turn 
Have you attended a megachurch? What did you think?

Resources

The Appeal of Common Christianity

Finding One’s Place in Christ’s Universal Church

Debating Denominational Difference While Non-Christians Watch

Promoting Truth, Unity, and Charity within Christendom

Endnotes

For a discussion of these three branches of Christendom in terms of their areas of agreement and disagreement as well as the historic divisions, see Kenneth Richard Samples,  Christianity Cross-Examined  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), chapter 10.Because Orthodoxy consists of two historic church traditions—Eastern Orthodoxy (Chalcedonian) and Oriental Orthodoxy (non-Chalcedonian)—sometimes people speak of four branches of Christendom. As well, sometimes Anglicanism is viewed as independent of Protestantism and thus labeled the fourth branch of Christendom. However, I think for the most part the two versions of Orthodoxy are seen as one branch and more often than not Anglicanism is viewed as being one of the churches of Reformation and thus Protestant.See C. S. Lewis’s idea of “mere Christianity” in his book by the same title, Mere Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 8.

What Is the Relationship between Judaism and Christianity?

Since I teach courses in comparative religions at Biola University and through Reasons Institute, people sometimes ask me what I think about the relationship between the biblical religions of Judaism and Christianity. And in that specific context, I’m also asked about Messianic Judaism.

In fact, some time back I was contacted on social media by a Messianic Jew who is very supportive of the science apologetics ministry of Reasons to Believe but is critical of historic Christianity overall. In fact, the person expressed a sentiment that surprised me, so I reflected on the comment for some time before responding. I thought readers of my Reflections blog might appreciate hearing my reply.

Respondent (paraphrased): Historic Christianity without Judaism is astray and volatile and internally harmful.

My response:
Greetings, friend.

Historic Christianity has deep connections with traditional Judaism. For example, Christians view the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) as the inspired Word of God and share many of the values of ancient Judaism, such as human beings having inherent dignity and moral worth as bearers of the image of God. Further, historic Christianity views the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who Christians worship and serve as being the Jewish Messiah. Moreover, many historic Christian theologians I have read also affirm that Jews and Christians worship the same God. Finally, many Christians today— particularly in America—are very much pro-Israel.

In my opinion as someone who has studied all the major world religions, I think Messianic Jews can be described as being culturally Jewish but theologically Christian. For example, Jews for Jesus affirms the doctrine of the Trinity (one God in three persons), which traditional Judaism rejects (Yahweh is viewed in unitarian terms as one God, one person). Worldwide, many contemporary Jews are secular and most religious Jews don’t accept Jesus (or Yeshua) as the Messiah. Since you are a Messianic Jew you have more in common doctrinally with orthodox Christians than you may recognize. 

Christendom’s long history has a dark side, unfortunately, which includes periodic antisemitism. But I think theologically conservative Christendom today is deeply respectful of its Jewish heritage and remorseful of the way it has at times persecuted Jews and Judaism.

But I would also say that Christendom’s influence overall has been deeply positive for the world and for all people. The Christian worldview, which is strongly influenced by the Hebrew Scriptures, has been the catalyst behind many, if not most, of the great advancements in Western civilization. Christianity motivated advancements in education, science, political liberty, economics, the sanctity of human life, and justice.1

All individual Christians are broken sinners and Christendom is far from perfect, but I don’t agree with your assessment that historic Christianity without Judaism is astray and volatile and internally harmful. In fact, I don’t think Christendom—when it is true to its theological roots—can ever stray far from the Hebrew Scriptures, which are foundational to the Christian faith.

I hope that by showing my genuine respect for you that you may come to better understand and even to possibly respect historic Christianity the way I respect traditional Judaism and your Messianic Jewish convictions.

Shalom.

Reflections: Your Turn
How can Christians today go about showing their respect for Jewish people and the historic religion of Judaism?

Resources

God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader . In this book I address issues relating to Jesus and Christianity in comparison with the world’s religions and their leaders.  Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions . In this book I answer twenty common questions and objections about God, Christ, and Christianity including the Christian faith’s relationship to the world’s religions.

Endnotes

Kenneth Richard Samples,  Christianity Cross-Examined  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021). In this book I answer twelve questions about historic Christianity’s truth, relevance, and goodness.

How Did the Son’s Incarnation Impact the Trinity?

The doctrines of the incarnation (Jesus Christ as God in human flesh) and the Trinity (one God in three persons) are two of historic Christianity’s most distinctive teachings. In fact, these two doctrinal truths separate the historic Christian faith from the two other major Middle Eastern monotheistic religions of Judaism and Islam.1

Yet these biblically revealed doctrines contain great mystery, for God is infinite and eternal while human beings—in stark contrast—are finite, temporal creatures. Nevertheless, the Christian church in its historic councils and creeds through the centuries has taken great care to define and offer models of explanation concerning these doctrinal truths.2

Recently, a Facebook friend asked me a series of questions about how Jesus’s state as the incarnate Son of God related to the broader Christian conception of God as Trinity. I’ve included our exchange here (paraphrased) and hope you’ll find it helpful in your theological reflection.

Questions on the Trinity
I want to better understand the relationship between Jesus Christ’s incarnation and the other persons of the Trinity. For example, what happened to the “nature of the Triune Godhead” while the Son (Jesus Christ) was finite here on Earth, but the Father and Holy Spirit were not confined to a finite body? How can one member be finite but the others are not? Can one member have a separate and seemingly distinct, temporal existence, while the other two do not share in that, or so it seems? 

My other questions are related. What happened to the “nature of the Trinity” while Christ was temporal but God the Father and the Holy Spirit were, at least before creation, timeless? The same goes with omniscience. How is Christ limited in his understanding but the other two members of the Godhead are simultaneously all-knowing? 

It seems, from a layman’s perspective, that there is a fundamental change occurring between the three of them. I hope you can help me to understand this better.

My Response
The general Christian orthodox view is that while Jesus Christ was a single person with two distinct-yet-united natures (deity and humanity), during his incarnation the divine nature continued to act in all ways consistent with the Godhead (infinite, eternal [or timeless], omniscient, etc.). So there was no change to the Son’s divine nature (or attributes) that he shares fully and equally with the Father and the Spirit and thus no change in the ontological nature of the Trinity. In the incarnation, the Son simply took to himself a human nature and thus became the God-man.

Jesus’s limitations in his earthly ministry reflected only his human nature. The person of Christ was the eternal Son but it appears Christ usually operated in his human nature and sometimes through his divine nature. A possible analogy is that Christ’s two levels of awareness (human and divine) operated similarly to the human conscious and subconscious states. His human nature would reflect Christ’s conscious awareness while the divine would reflect his subconscious awareness (deeper and yet always available). 

The two natures in Christ’s incarnation are united in the one person but do not mix or mingle and therefore do not negate or deny one another. So the human nature is not divinized and the divine nature is not dragged down. Thus, having two natures is not a logical contradiction because there is no negation or denial (no A and non-A). Yet there is still great mystery in the incarnation.3 

Thanks for these great theological questions. Keep studying historic Christian doctrine.

Reflections: Your Turn 
Why are the doctrines of the incarnation and the Trinity so important to Christianity?

Resources

For a discussion of the nature of the Christian God within the context of worldview thinking, see  A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test , chapter 8.For more about some of the great Christian thinkers who helped shape Christian orthodoxy, see  Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction .For a discussion of how Jesus Christ is different from the other leaders of the world’s religions, see  God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader .

Endnotes

Traditional Jews and Muslims deny both the incarnation and the Trinity and instead affirm a unitarian view of God (a single God who is one in being and one in person and thus has no begotten coequal son to be incarnated).For a detailed biblical, theological, and apologetics discussion of the incarnation and the Trinity, see Kenneth Richard Samples,  Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions  (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), chapters 5 (Trinity) and 9 (incarnation).For a detailed discussion of how the incarnation relates to the Trinity in terms of mystery and logic, see  Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good?  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), chapter 5.

A Memorial to My Professor Martin Schramm

One of the very best and most supportive professors I had in college, Rev. Dr. Martin Schramm, died recently of cancer. Dr. Schramm was one of the founding five faculty members1 at Christ College Irvine (now Concordia University Irvine) a private liberal arts university of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Professor Schramm earned his doctoral degree in communications at the University of Southern California and selflessly served Concordia University (CUI) in many significant roles for more than forty years. Among his achievements, he established the university’s popular and successful communications program.2

I was fortunate to have been an undergraduate student of Professor Schramm’s in the mid-1980s. He was my advanced public speaking professor and his instruction helped me improve significantly as a speaker. He always had high expectations and he knew how to get the best out of his students. He challenged me intellectually and encouraged me in my growth first as a student, but then later in my vocation as an educator and scholar. He was a mentor to me and later graciously worked to have me serve briefly as an adjunct instructor in philosophy at Concordia University. My own lengthy Christian apologetics career as a public speaker and debater was decisively shaped in Professor Schramm’s class almost four decades ago.

Professor Schramm was a diligent, inspirational teacher and an ardent advocate of skillful communication. He was deeply committed to the historic Christian faith with confidence in the gospel of grace and a lifelong connection to the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Dr. Schramm was a no-nonsense educator but also a humble and encouraging Christian person. He was a wise man who loved his family and was devoted to them.

The motto of CUI is “Developing Wise, Honorable, and Cultivated Citizens.” Professor Schramm was exactly that and he helped instill those important values into generations of students including me and my daughter Jacqueline, who graduated from CUI thirty years after me. She can attest that she also benefitted from the institution Professor Schramm helped to establish and build.

I will miss my teacher and mentor. He was another “faithful Martin” who faced death with faith and courage. His wife, Conni, told me that Crean Lutheran High School, where she teaches, uses my book Without a Doubt for their senior course in Christian apologetics. I was honored to hear that one of my books was being used at such a fine Lutheran school.

Professor Schramm has now gone to be with the Lord he loved and served. I am grateful for my friend and early educational advisor. May he now rest in peace with Christ and then rise in glory!

Reflections: Your Turn Do you have a beloved mentor or teacher or spiritual advisor who has significantly influenced you?

Endnotes:

Concordia University Irvine, “Marty Schramm: The Last of the ‘Founding Five,'” Faculty News and Notes, accessed March 18, 2022, https://www.cui.edu/academicprograms/provost/faculty/index/id/25717.Concordia University Irvine, “Called to Glory: Rev. Dr. Martin Schramm, Founding Faculty Member,” press release, February 20, 2022, https://www.cui.edu/aboutcui/news/view-article/ArticleId/273/called-to-glory-rev-dr-martin-schramm-founding-faculty-member. 

12 Life Parallels between St. Augustine and C. S. Lewis

When I was a Roman Catholic in my younger days I heard a priest say: “Find a saint in church history that you greatly relate to and follow him or her through your life as a friend and as a spiritual role model.” Of course, some Christians would insist that they are exclusively “Jesus followers” and have no need to follow, let alone have devotion to, Catholic saints. But even though I later became a Protestant, I think to some extent I have appreciated and followed that priest’s advice.

My two favorite Christian thinkers outside of biblical figures and authors are Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and C. S. Lewis (1898-1963).1 St. Augustine, a Catholic, lived in the ancient world (late antiquity) and deeply influenced Western Christendom, including Catholics and Protestants. C. S. Lewis, a Protestant, lived in the modern world (twentieth century) and though Anglican by denominational affiliation, his idea of mere Christianity has appealed to Christians from various theological traditions.

Interestingly, these two great Christian thinkers and writers have a significant number of striking parallels in terms of their lives and Christian ideas (theological-apologetic). This similarity came to light in 2013 when members of InterVarsity’s Emerging Scholars Network (ESN)—in a bracket similar to the NCAA Division 1 Men’s Basketball Tournament—selected 64 classic books written by Christian authors in four categories: (1) Theology & Apologetics, (2) Christian Life & Discipleship, (3) Fiction & Poetry, and (4) Memoirs, Devotionals, & Spirituality. At the end of the intense voting, St. Augustine’s Confessions emerged as “The Best Christian Book of All Time”2 and C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity was runner-up.

The top eight voted books also included The City of God by Augustine and The Chronicles of Narnia by Lewis. So both Augustine and Lewis had two books in the final eight selections—a remarkable accomplishment for two of Christendom’s finest thinkers and writers.

A Dozen Parallels between St. Augustine & C. S. Lewis
Micheal Hickerson, the former Associate Director for the Emerging Scholars Network, identified nine parallels.3 I then arranged them somewhat differently by adding some elements to those similarities and identified several more.

1. Born in Declining Empires: Both were born in provinces of great empires and were writing during the decline of those specific kingdoms. Augustine was born in the city of Thagaste (now Souk Ahras, Algeria) in the Roman Empire’s province of Numidia. In fact, Augustine’s book The City of God was, in part, an apologetic response to the charge that the emergence of Christianity had caused the decline of the Roman Empire. Lewis was born in Belfast, Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. Lewis was educated in England and taught there over his career but was proud of his country of birth. Hickerson notes: “I’m not sure if we, as modern Americans, appreciate how much of an outsider each of them were in their day.”4

2. Influential Mothers-Distant Fathers: Both had devout Christian mothers who introduced their sons to the faith and had an enduring influence on their boys as they became men. Monica prayed for Augustine’s return to the faith for many years. Flora, the daughter of an Anglican clergyman, died when Lewis was nine years old but she had a deep influence on her son. Her premature death devastated Lewis’s world. Augustine’s father Patricius was a pagan but was baptized on his deathbed. Lewis’s father Albert was a Christian. But both Augustine and Lewis were estranged from their fathers. To use the modern description, both came from caring yet dysfunctional families.

3. Renounced the Faith in Their Youth: Both questioned and ultimately rejected their Christian roots as young men and pursued non-Christian philosophies of life. For nine years Augustine embraced Manichaeism (a dualistic religious cult with Christian, Gnostic, and pagan elements). Upon leaving the Manichees he adopted a form of philosophical skepticism. In Lewis’s case, the death of his mother combined with the estrangement of his father and being tutored by an ardent atheist led Lewis to embrace atheism.

4. Lived with Women Outside of Marriage: Both lived for years with women they were not married to. In his late teens Augustine moved to the city of Carthage and began a sexual relationship with a young woman. Though Augustine’s mother Monica warned him to avoid fornication, the woman remained his lover for years and she gave birth to his son Adeodatus. Lewis took care of the mother of his friend Paddy Moore, who was killed in World War I, for more than 20 years. Some Lewis scholars believe Lewis’s relationship to Jane Moore was initially sexual in nature. Yet, upon their conversions to Christ, both Augustine and Lewis lived exemplary lives. 

5. Academics and Orators of the Highest Reputation: Both had prestigious academic careers in their respective empires and became great speakers. Augustine, a specialist in rhetoric, taught at schools in Carthage, Rome, and Milan. Before his conversion to Christianity, Augustine was on the fast track to being a spokesperson for the emperor. Lewis was a tutor and college lecturer in medieval and Renaissance literature in England’s two great medieval universities: Oxford and then Cambridge. During World War II, Lewis presented highly publicized talks on the BBC.

6. Dramatic Conversions: Both experienced two of the great conversions in Christian history. They became Christians or returned to their given faith in their early 30s after reflective wrestling with great books and with the significant help of famous mentors. The books that helped Augustine move toward Christianity included the Greek philosopher Plotinus’s work Enneads, Athanasius’s biography entitled Life of St. Antony, and his study of Scripture. Augustine’s great mentor was Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, who was later honored—along with Augustine—as a Doctor of the Church. Ambrose had the ability to answer Augustine’s theological and biblical objections to the faith. Two books that Lewis mentions as helping him toward the faith include Phantastes by George MacDonald and The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton. Members of the Inklings, which included the great writer J. R. R. Tolkien, helped answer Lewis’s questions.

7. Spokespersons for the Faith: Both became highly visible spokesmen for Christianity. Augustine became a Catholic priest and bishop and was, during the latter part of his life, one of the most prominent Christians in the entire Roman world. Lewis was an Anglican layman but became one of the most recognized Christian thinkers in the English-speaking world—even being featured on the cover of Time magazine.

8. Prolific, Prominent, and Diverse Authors: Both thinkers were immensely productive, distinguished, and varied in their scholarly and popular works. Augustine was an intensely bookish person with a preoccupation for reading and writing books. Hence, over his lengthy lifetime, Augustine’s writings exceeded five million words, making him the most productive author of antiquity.5 Lewis was an equally bookish person and wrote some thirty books along with thousands of letters and articles.

9. Authors of Literary and Christian Classics: Both authors wrote books that are literary and Christian classics. The Great Books of the Western World series, edited by Mortimer Adler, contains books by Augustine (On Christian Doctrine) and Lewis (The Abolition of Man). And as noted above, the ESN voted Augustine’s Confessions and Lewis’s Mere Christianity the two best Christian books of all time.

10. Longing and Desire for God: Both emphasized that universal human yearning and desire for something deeper in life can only be satisfied by a relationship with God. The general theme of Augustine’s Confessions is that rest and peace for the human soul can only be found in God. In Lewis, the theme of human longing satisfied only in God is seen in his argument from desire.

11. Developed Theodicies: Both critiqued the strong skepticism of their times and offered theodicies to account for the problem of evil, pain, and suffering. Augustine argued that while evil is real, it is not a substance and neither is it “stuff.” Rather, evil is a privation (an absence of goodness in the human will). Therefore, God did not create evil. In Lewis’s book The Problem of Pain, he develops free-will defense and soul-making theodicies. Further, upon the death of his wife, Joy, Lewis wrote A Grief Observed, which reflects his personal encounter with sorrow. 

12. Universal Christian Voices: In a sense, both have become universal Christian voices within Christendom. While Augustine is less influential in Eastern Christendom, he is clearly the uniting bridge between Catholics and Protestants in the West. Lewis is read and largely appreciated by Christians throughout Christ’s universal church.

On Following a Mentor
Coming back to my priest’s exhortation to “find a saint,” Augustine and Lewis are the two Christian thinkers and pilgrims I most relate to. I follow them as friends and spiritual role models. Of course, both of these mentors point me back continually to Scripture and thus to Jesus Christ and the triune God of historic Christianity.

Reflections: Your Turn 
Do you have a favorite Christian writer (outside the biblical authors) who serves as an encouraging pilgrim in the Christian life?

Resources

If you would like to learn more about St. Augustine and C. S. Lewis, I invite you to read my book  Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction , chapters 3 and 9.Here is my introduction to Augustine’s  Confessions .For Augustine’s literary accomplishments, see my article “3 Things You May Not Know about St. Augustine the Writer.”Here is my introduction to Lewis’s Mere Christianity Take Up and Read: Mere Christianity.

Endnotes

Yet I would be remiss if I didn’t mention other thinkers in church history that I admire and have learned a great deal from, such as Irenaeus, Athanasius, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Pascal to name a few. For a primer on nine of my favorites from church history, see Kenneth Richard Samples,  Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2019).Micheal Hickerson, “The Best Christian Book of All Time: The Winner,”  Emerging Scholars Blog, April 5, 2013.Hickerson, “The Best Christian Book.”Hickerson, “The Best Christian Book.”Guy G. Stroumsa,  The Scriptural Universe of Ancient Christianity  (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016), 66.

How Close Are the Middle Eastern Monotheistic Religions’ Views of God?

Among the world’s major religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are known as the great monotheistic traditions. But exactly how close are these religions in their specific conception of God? And is it possible that adherents of these religions worship the same God?

The traditional conceptions of these three religions have significant common ground, which includes the following: 

theistic in philosophical orientationmonotheistic in doctrinal beliefMiddle Eastern in originbiblically oriented Abrahamic faiths (Christianity and Islam claim connections to the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament)

But there are also important differences in how these three religions view God. The differences came up in conjunction with Islam when a person read my article, Is Allah a Loving God?, and engaged me in further conversation. In that article, I compare historic Christianity’s triune God with the Islamic God Allah concerning whether either conception of God has the ability to ground love in itself.

The Trinity (Tri-unity: one God in three distinct persons) is critical for Christians to appreciate because it allows God to “be love” within himself and, therefore, not in need of finding love outside (in his creation). Therefore, the triune God is unsurpassably loving. This distinguishing quality, combined with his other infinite attributes, makes God, as St. Anselm put it, the greatest conceivable being.1

Here’s the specific concern raised about the Christian and Muslim views of God followed by my response.

Objection (paraphrased):
I think it is incorrect to say, and hurtful to religious dialogue, that Muslims and Christians worship two different Gods when both religions worship the greatest conceivable divine being—and by definition, there can only be one such perfect being. Muslims and Christians can worship the same God even though they differ over some of the attributes of that God, not unlike how in Christianity the Reformed and Wesleyans differ over conceptions of God.

My Response:
I appreciate your taking the time to read my article and for offering a thoughtful response. Here are a few points in response to your comments:

1. Traditional Islamic theology strongly insists that Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. In fact, Muslims view the Trinity as polytheism (even though the Qur’an incorrectly describes the Trinity as Father, Son, and Virgin Mary2).

2. Many Christian scholars think Allah—for various reasons—does not qualify as a maximally perfect being. In my article I raise the challenge that Allah cannot ground love within his being and instead has only a latent attribute of love and must create in order to fulfill himself. Thus, there is a logical conflict between two of Allah’s attributes (namely Sovereign and Loving as two of his Quranic-given 99 names).

3. Islam denies the very essence of Christianity (Trinity, incarnation, crucifixion, imago Dei, original sin, salvation by grace) and thus stands at a point of logical antithesis (both religions cannot be true).3 The specific Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation stand in opposition to Islam’s view of Allah who is a single solitary being and has no incarnate human nature.

4. There are real differences between the Reformed and Wesleyans on theological issues but they are not nearly as stark as those between historic Christianity and traditional Islam.

5. Theologically conservative Christian scholars take different positions on whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God.4 For example, some say the two religions worship the same God, but only in terms of sharing the same basic view or reference of God. Other scholars say the two religions do not worship the same God for there are essential differences in the two conceptions of God.

6. I think it is logically confused to say Muslims and Christians worship the same God when the two views of God are in genuine logical conflict. Thus, I personally don’t think Muslims and Christians worship the same God.

7. As to theological differences hurting religious dialogue among the two religions, as important and valuable as dialogue and interaction can be, truth claims must take precedence over pragmatic cooperation.

Takeaway
So do Christians and Muslims hold the same view of God and therefore worship the same God? As we have seen, there are real and significant differences among these monotheistic religious traditions (one God in one person as opposed to one God in three persons). While I have briefly explained why I don’t think Christians and Muslims worship the same God, the question of whether Jews and Christians worship the same God is a topic I hope to address in a future Reflectionsarticle.

Reflections: Your Turn
As a Christian, have you ever spoken with a Jew or a Muslim about your faith in Jesus Christ? If so, how did it go?

Resources

For a respectful and fruitful dialogue I had with a Muslim imam concerning the question of God being love, see Is Allah a Loving God?For a further comparison of Islam and Christianity, see my two books  God among Sages  (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2017), 159–88; and  A World of Difference  (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), chapter 15.For an introduction to Islam by a Muslim scholar, see  Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization  by Seyyed Hossein Nasr (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003). 

Endnotes

See my discussion of St. Anselm’s ontological argument (greatest conceivable being) in Kenneth Richard Samples,  Classic Christian Thinkers  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2019), 82–83.See Qur’an, surah 5:116.See my article How Does Islam Differ from Christianity?See the book Do Christians, Muslims, and Jews Worship the Same God?: Four Views

Responding to Islam’s Objection to the Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity (one God in three persons) is one of historic Christianity’s most distinctive teachings. This view of God’s nature separates the Christian faith from the two other popular Middle Eastern monotheistic religions of Judaism and Islam. Traditional Jews and Muslims deny the Trinity and affirm a unitarian view of God (a single God who is one in being and one in person).

A significant part of my theological and devotional interest in and attraction to the triune nature of historic Christianity’s God involves the idea that God’s distinctive unity of nature and diversity of personhood means that “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) within himself (or themselves). This means that the triune God is analogous to a loving human family. Thus, God is a maximally perfect being who grounds love within himself and therefore does not need to find love in his creation, like alternative unitarian views of God appear to affirm. For further discussion of this provocative topic of God and love, see my article Who Did Allah Love in Eternity?

My ongoing theological reflection and research on trinitarianism led me to write an article some time back entitled My Three Favorite Books on the Trinity. A Muslim read my article and raised an objection to the Trinity doctrine. I’ve included our exchange here (paraphrased) and hope you’ll find it helpful.

The Objection
Respondent: Jesus was a Jew. Not a Christian. Therefore, he never believed in nor affirmed the Trinity. The Trinity doctrine was invented by the apostle Paul. So the emergence of the Trinity had nothing to do with Jesus himself.

Trinitarian theology is the collaboration of Paul and the Christian church. Paul laid the foundation stones on which the Christian church erected the house of modern Christianity. So the Trinity has nothing to do with Jesus and his original teachings.

My Response
Greetings, friend. You are a Muslim and therefore deny the triune nature of God. But please read and consider the biblical basis for the Trinity provided here. You’ll see that I list the key theological claims of the Trinity and scriptural support (both Old and New Testament) without references to the apostle Paul’s writings.

Six simple statements show how the Trinity doctrine is indeed derived from Scripture:

1. There is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; John 17:3).

2. The Father is called or referred to as God (Psalm 89:26; 2 Peter 1:17).

3. The Son (Jesus Christ) is called or referred to as God (John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8).

4. The Holy Spirit is called or referred to (or granted status) as God (Genesis 1:2; Acts 13:2, 4).

5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons and can be distinguished from one another (the Father is not the Son; the Father is not the Holy Spirit; and the Son is not the Holy Spirit—Matthew 28:19; Luke 3:22).

6. The three persons (Father or God; and Son or Christ or Lord; and Holy Spirit or Spirit) are frequently listed together in a triadic pattern of unity and equality (John 14:26; 15:26).

So the Trinity can be derived from the Bible even without referencing the apostle Paul’s writings. Your claim that the Trinity doctrine has nothing to do with Jesus but was erected by the apostle Paul and assisted by the church is contradicted by the very words of Jesus in the Gospels.

For example, Jesus himself speaks of the members of the Trinity in the Gospel of Matthew: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). In other words, disciples are baptized in the name of the triune God.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus also speaks about the persons of the Trinity by expressing an apparent unity of nature and an equality of personhood within the Godhead: “When the Advocate [3rd person] comes, whom I [2nd person] will send to you from the Father [1st person]—the Spirit [3rd person] of truth who goes out from the Father [1st person]—he [3rd person] will testify about me [2nd person] (John 15:26, emphasis added).

Furthermore, your claim that Christianity is the sole product of those who followed after Jesus comes from the claims of the Islamic religion that historically appears almost 600 years after the time of Christ. Islam claims to build upon the truth of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures but at the same time insists that the Bible is corrupted. This seems logically contradictory. 

As a Christian, I trust the claims made by Jesus himself and the testimony of his apostles who were witnesses of his life, death, and resurrection.

Thanks for reading and considering my response to your objection. May peace be upon you.

Reflections: Your Turn
How significant is it for Christians and Muslims to discuss their religious agreements and disagreements in a civil and respectful manner?

Resources

For further study, my friend and colleague Robert M. Bowman Jr. provides over 1,000 biblical references for the doctrine of the Trinity in his article The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity.For a respectful and fruitful dialogue I had with a Muslim imam concerning the question of God being love, see Is Allah a Loving God?For a further comparison of Islam and Christianity, see my two books  God among Sages , 159–188, and  A World of Difference , chapter 15.For an introduction to Islam by a Muslim scholar, see  Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization  by Seyyed Hossein Nasr.For more about the agreements and disagreements between the religions of Christianity and Islam, see my article How Does Islam Differ from Christianity?

Answering 10 Questions about the Christian Faith

As a college instructor and a Christian apologist, I have been asked thousands of questions in my 35 years of teaching and doing apologetics professionally. In fact, back in the early 1990s I worked at the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and was one of the cohosts of the Bible Answer Man radio program, which has a question and answer format. 

Today I answer questions online and on social media. I appreciate receiving a variety of questions from people of all backgrounds and stages of life. What follows are ten selected questions I was asked online over the last couple of years. My answers are intentionally concise, which reflects how I respond online. Much more could be said on each of these topics, so please see the resource section for further information. I hope these brief answers will help you in your engagements with people who ask similar questions.

Question #1 If God exists, why doesn’t the universe unambiguously point to any kind of Creator God? 

I think it is fair to say that a large majority of people throughout history have believed in God and that many of them thought God’s existence was just a matter of common sense (in other words, they thought life unambiguously pointed to God).

Concerning the origin of the cosmos, of fine-tuning, and of consciousness, I think atheistic naturalism’s explanatory power is quite limited. But Christian theism seems to provide the best explanation for these profound mysteries.

Question #2 How does Jesus’s incarnation relate to his atonement on the cross?

Jesus Christ could only do what he did soteriologically (in terms of salvation) because he was who he was ontologically (in terms of being). Representing both God and man in his two natures as the God-man, Jesus could reconcile God and man. Thus, the incarnation grounds the atonement.

Question #3 Is RTB’s statement of faith based on a Reformed theology similar to what John Calvin advocated?

RTB’s statement of faith, which I helped write, reflects a Protestant evangelical viewpoint. Theologically conservative Christians who are Baptist, Lutheran, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Anglican, or nondenominational could affirm and have affirmed the statement. Many denominations within Christendom are represented among RTB’s staff scholars and scholar community. 

Question #4 Isn’t Protestantism’s major flaw that it leads to constant splintering and dividing? What do we do about it?

Protestantism as a branch of Christendom has its challenges like all other ecclesiastical bodies do. But the common ground on doctrine, values, and worldview shared by the three branches of Christendom (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) is robust. I encourage all Christians to contend for truth, promote unity, and always strive to practice charity among their fellow believers.

Question #5 Aren’t all religions the same, just calling the same god by different names?

All religions are not the same. Consider their disagreement about the existence of God or gods as just one of many examples demonstrating that fact:

Islam affirms one God.Popular Hinduism affirms 330 million gods.Philosophical Hinduism affirms all as god.Original Buddhism affirms no god.

So the world’s religions collectively can’t agree on whether there is a god or how many there are.

Question #6 How can Jesus be God when the Gospels say he was born, was tempted, and died? None of these limitations are true of God.

The historic Christian doctrine of the incarnation teaches that Jesus was both God and man (a single person with both a divine and human nature). Thus, Jesus encountered limitations and challenges through his human nature, not his divine nature. 

Question #7 Which branch of Christendom is the right one?

I don’t think any specific branch or tradition within Christendom has a lock on all Christian truth. They all share the truths revealed in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. Therefore, I try to learn and discern from Christendom’s wealth of theological resources. Personally, I attend a Reformed Anglican church.

Question #8 What forms of logical reasoning do scientists employ in their work?

Scientists use deductive, inductive, and abductive forms of reasoning. Abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) is often used in hypothesis formation. But the enterprise of science (that is, the scientific method) is an inductive process involving observation and testing (empiricism) and generally weighing probabilities.

There is a difference between the method of science (induction) and the forms of reasoning or arguments used in applying the data (deductive, inductive, abductive).

Question #9 Could beauty be explained as an evolutionary survival advantage?

Beauty seems a major compulsion for humankind. Any possible survival advantages seem inconsistent with the amount of beauty in the world and humankind’s profound obsession with it.

Even if beauty has some survival advantages, beauty as a whole is still best explained in a world with God rather than in a world without him.

Question #10 Shouldn’t Christians worship on the Sabbath (Saturday) instead of Sunday?

Virtually all of Christendom (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) observes the Lord’s Day on Sunday—the day commemorating Jesus Christ’s bodily resurrection that took place on the first day of the week. The majority of New Testament scholars see Sunday as a day of worship—again, honoring Christ’s resurrection. Thus, the Sunday Lord’s Day distinguishes historic Christian observance from traditional Judaism. Some people keep the Sabbath out of conscience, but Sabbatarianism is an outlier position in historic Christian theology.

I hope these questions and my brief answers will motivate you to think carefully about the historic Christian faith.

Reflections: Your Turn 
Which question are you most interested in? 

Resources

Here are five books I’ve written to address various questions about the Christian faith:

Christianity Cross-Examined  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021). In this book I answer twelve questions about historic Christianity’s truth, relevance, and goodness. Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions  (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004). In this book I answer twenty common questions and objections about God, Christ, and Christianity. A World of Difference  (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007). In this book I address issues pertaining to the Christian worldview and its relationship to other competing worldviews. Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2019). In this book I address topics relating to church history and historical theology. God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2017). In this book I address issues relating to Jesus and Christianity in comparison with the world’s religions and their leaders. 

JFK: The Man Who Seemingly Had It All

Can anything or anyone in human experience replace the yearning for a right relationship with our Creator?

The worldview narrative of historic Christianity involves the fourfold sequence of humanity’s creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. In examining the first two events, one could say that being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27) makes people worshippers and the spiritual void of the fall makes them idolaters (Romans 1:18–23). Moreover,as idolaters, fallen people remain worshippers. Upon being separated from the triune God, fallen humans naturally gravitate toward the pursuit of three worship replacements: sex (sensualism) money (materialism), and achievement(egotism).1

Intriguingly, sex, money, and achievement are good things, not bad things. But these good things can never satisfy a human being’s profound existential needs. Yet, by fallen creatures who are broken and disordered by sin, the path toward these pursuits has been well-traveled in life.

Enter the Man Who Had Everything
But what about a man who seemingly had all the worship replacements in abundance and, thus, didn’t need to pursue them? Would that man be able to find fulfillment and satisfaction apart from God?

The person I’m talking about is former American President John F. Kennedy (1917–1963)—often referred to as JFK. I offer this brief sketch of the man’s life as an example of how the Christian worldview applies to someone who seemingly had everything that the world considers to be important. I also intend to illustrate that the human condition is universal and always involves some form of pain and suffering—whether it is physical, mental, or existential—even for the rich and famous.

I became interested in Kennedy because of my parents. My mom and dad were Kennedy Democrats and converts to Catholicism in the early 1960s. My dad and Kennedy were from the same generation and both had served in the Second World War. My parents liked Kennedy’s policies and his charismatic political style and charming wit. My father even wrote a letter to President Kennedy and received in return a signed photograph of the president. That framed photo hung on the wall in the home I grew up in.

I was five years old when President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. Yet I still remember pictures in my mind of his state funeral with the flag-covered coffin, the military drum beats, and first lady Jacqueline Kennedy dressed in black walking behind the caisson that carried her slain husband’s body. My whole family watched the funeral on our black-and-white television. Such was the impact that I would go on to read about Kennedy over my whole life. I have some fifty books in my personal library about John F. Kennedy, including his life, family, presidency, and especially his shocking assassination.

Kennedy Biographies: A Man of Virtue and Vice
The books about Kennedy that appeared for the first couple of decades after his death were hagiographic in nature, treating him virtually as a martyred saint.2 Thus, Kennedy has often been identified by the American public as one of the country’s best presidents even though he served in the office for just over one thousand days (less than three full years). 

Over time, books began to appear that described aspects of Kennedy’s rather reckless personal life.3 Friends and political associates described him as a compulsive womanizer whose promiscuity continued during his marriage, in the White House, and apparently up until his death. 

These later books also mention that he was seriously ill nearly his entire life. He had multiple health problems, including Addison’s Disease (also called adrenal insufficiency, an uncommon, potentially life-threatening disorder that occurs when the body doesn’t produce enough of certain hormones).4 Younger brother Robert Kennedy, who served as Attorney General and United States Senator, said that his brother had spent much of his life in pain and had even received the Catholic Church’s last rites three times. The elder Kennedy’s long experience with serious illness had forced him to consider the brevity of life and his inevitable mortality. His hedonistic pursuits may have been at least partly motivated by his view that he was destined to live a short life.

A Privileged Upbringing
“Jack” Kennedy, as he was called by family and friends, came from a large, wealthy Catholic family. He had five sisters and three brothers and was second in the birth order. His famous father, Joseph P. Kennedy, was one of the wealthiest Americans and the Ambassador to the United Kingdom during Franklin Roosevelt’s administration. The tremendous wealth gained by his father meant that Jack had his clothes washed, room cleaned, and meals prepared by servants. His elite social class meant that he hadn’t heard of the Great Depression (the worldwide economic downturn of the 1930s) until he was a student at Harvard University, where he graduated in 1940.

With the outbreak of World War II, Jack pressured his father to pull strings to get him into the Navy and into combat. It is said that Jack Kennedy was one of the few servicemen who faked good health to get into the United States Armed Forces during the Second World War.

Kennedy’s military career involved combat action in the Navy. While some fault him for allowing a Japanese destroyer to ram and cut his PT (patrol torpedo) boat in half, Lt. John F. Kennedy’s courageous actions afterward helped save his crew, and he was decorated with the Navy and Marine Corps Medal. 

But Kennedy’s health problems remained. When he returned home from the war, Kennedy, at six feet tall, weighed a mere 120 pounds. His family and friends thought his health challenges would preempt any possible career that would otherwise await him. Yet, cortisone shots would help.

A Storied Political Legacy
Though skinny and often ill, Kennedy amazingly willed himself to campaign first for the US House of Representatives, then the Senate, and in 1960 for the presidency. He would defeat Richard Nixon in a razor-close election. JFK’s inaugural address is considered one of the best political speeches in American history. The most-remembered line from the address is: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” 

Some people thought he was too young and inexperienced for such a critical leadership position, especially at the time of the Cold War. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, President Kennedy’s calm and decisive actions played a key role in avoiding a nuclear confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union.

The likable JFK was one of the most charismatic presidents of the twentieth century. Nellie Connally, Texas governor John Connally’s wife who was in the car with her husband and Kennedy when the two men were shot, said she thought she knew what charisma was until she met President Kennedy. Though Kennedy knew he was vulnerable to assassination, nevertheless he ordered the secret service agents off of his convertible during motorcade tours, saying that an American president cannot show fear. 

Some say Kennedy was a nominal, if not humanistic, Catholic with no genuine faith convictions.5 Others, however, suggest that in the last year of his life, particularly with the death of his son Patrick, he was searching for something deeper.

President John F. Kennedy was young, handsome, and charming. He had sex, money, and achievement in abundance. Yet he also suffered from debilitating illness that forced him to consider his fragile and temporal state. With help from his inner circle, he also carefully compartmentalized aspects of his life. Thus, JFK seemed to have what writer Gabriel García Márquez called “three lives”: a public life, a private life, and a secret life.6 But with it all, arguably one of the most famous people of the twentieth century was still restless, discontented, and longing for deeper answers to life.

All Humans Yearn for God
Blaise Pascal described the human condition as an enigma of “greatness and wretchedness”7 (greatness because of the divine image and wretchedness because of the fall). Kennedy, the man who seemed to have it all, nevertheless was still searching for fulfillment. He seemingly exemplified both greatness and wretchedness in his short but extraordinary life.

The Christian worldview message is that all people are made by God for God. Thus, no other temporal reality or entity can ultimately satisfy humankind’s existential longing, even if the person seems to have everything.8 As St. Augustine said to God in a prayer: “Man is one of your creatures, Lord, and his instinct is to praise you. . . . The thought of you stirs him so deeply that he cannot be content unless he praises you, because you made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you.”9

The historic Christian message is that pleasure, fortune, and fame are fleeting and true rest and peace for the soul can only come from the God who made us.

Reflections: Your Turn 
What have you been tempted to worship in place of God?

Resources
• For a discussion of whether the Christian faith can make sense of human longing and suffering, see Kenneth Richard Samples, Christianity Cross-Examined (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), chapter 12.
• For an article about my studies concerning John F. Kennedy and C. S. Lewis, who both died on the same day, see “How JFK and C. S. Lewis Influenced My Life.”
• Various commentators have said that Kennedy conveniently compartmentalized his life. For the challenge of compartmentalization to moral integrity, see my article “Does Everyone Have Three Lives?“
• For an introduction to St. Augustine and his pursuit of a disordered life, see chapter three of my book Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction.

Endnotes
1. See David K. Naugle, Philosophy: A Student’s Guide (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 50.
2. See Kenneth P. O’Donnell and David F. Powers with Joe McCarthy, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye: Memories of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1972); William Manchester, One Brief Shining Moment: Remembering Kennedy (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1983).
3. See Thomas C. Reeves, A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy (New York: Free Press, 1991), 241; Robert Dallek, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917–1963 (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 2004), 706.
4. Mayo Clinic, “Addison’s Disease,” November 24, 2020.
5. See Peter Kreeft, Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis & Aldous Huxley (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1982).
6. Gerald Martin, Gabriel García Márquez: A Life (New York: Vintage, 2010), 198.
7. Blaise Pascal, Pensées (New York: Penguin, 1966), 117/409.
8. For more about the Christian anthropology of humans as fallen image-bearers, see my article “Worshippers by Nature.”
9. Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin, 1961), bk. 1, 21.