Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 60
March 14, 2015
Ready Yourself with Joy for Whatever Opposition Comes
As a follow-up to yesterday’s post, David Mathis has some good words about “readying ourselves for whatever opposition comes”:
The days of gospel persecution in the United States no longer just hang on the distant horizon; they are already here, at least for some. It’s beginning with the bakers, florists, and photographers. Before long, the consensus may be that faithful biblical exposition is “hate speech.”
For 350 years, the church on American soil has enjoyed relatively little affliction for her fidelity to the Scriptures. This nation, though, is an anomaly in church history….
Jesus said as much. “A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). Paul picks up the refrain. “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12). The Scriptures seem to suggest we should be more concerned if we’re not being persecuted, than if we are….
To say we will suffer opposition is not to say that the spread of the gospel will be stymied. In fact, what we learn from Peter and John in Acts 4:3–4, and from the life of the apostle Paul, and from Jesus himself, is that arrest and advance go together in God’s invincible story….
Christians are not a dour people, even in the darkness of a dungeon. We don’t whine and bellyache as our society lines up against us and our convictions. We plead. We grieve. But beneath it all we have untouchable strongholds of joy. Even in the worst, most inconvenient, most lonely days, we rejoice. The suffering days are good days for gospel advance. We have great cause to be optimistic about our good news, to “joyfully accept” prison and the plundering of our possessions and even our freedoms.
After all, they can take our civil liberties, garnish our wages, and smear our names, but they cannot take our Treasure, who is “a better possession and abiding one.”
So we are not surprised. We do not retreat. Instead, grounded in God’s eternal promises, armed with joy in him, and assured of victory in the end, we ready ourselves for whatever opposition comes.
Read the rest.
March 13, 2015
Pastor Calls Trinity “The First Throuple”
Rev. Dr. Jeff Hood is committed to following “love is love” to its logical conclusion:
Three men married each other in a traditional Buddhist ceremony on Valentine’s Day in Uthai Thani Province, Thailand. Joke, Bell and Art have become famous sharing their beautiful story of love and commitment. While critics have said their relationship makes a mockery of marriage, I can only say that the Thai throuple has strengthened my belief in the magical and mysterious ways of love. With the dawn of legal same-sex marriage, we can expect more and more proponents and defenders of a new normative couple-based way of viewing relationships and marriage. I would argue that these folks are just as wrong as those fighting same-sex marriage. If love is love for same-sex couples, then surely love is love for the throuples. Person after person who has shared the story of Joke, Bell and Art have called them, “The First Throuple.” This is the only part of this story I couldn’t disagree with more. We all know that the first throuple was God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
I posted about the argument “love is love” last week, explaining that there’s no principled way to stop the argument at same-sex marriage. It will move on to approve other arrangements, with the same punishment of “Bigot!” for anyone who disapproves.
Here now is a pastor who is warning against “defenders of a new normative couple-based way of viewing relationships and marriage,” calling the Trinity “the first throuple.”
And lest you think this kind of reasoning couldn’t possibly reach your church, consider this conversation Hood had with another pastor, in which Hood refers to God as “the Holy Polyamorous Trinity.” The pastor he’s interacting with is Danny Cortez, who recently announced his approval of homosexuality and same-sex marriage (the church voted to keep him as pastor). Cortez’s church wasn’t “out there” theologically. In fact, it’s located near Biola, and I have a friend who attended there as a Talbot student. No doubt there were other students there, as well.
The number of things you’ll be called a “bigot” for not endorsing will only increase, and possibly even in your own church. Are you ready?
One of the most difficult lessons I’ve had to learn in my life is that sometimes the best thing you can do for someone you love is not the “nice” thing. Sometimes love is truly painful because it requires truth.* Sometimes truth, even spoken in love, causes that person you love so much to be angry with you. Maybe even hate you. Can you bear up under this? Your love needs to be strong enough for you to be willing to sacrifice your friendships and your reputation—to carry that pain of rejection and loss for the sake of those very friends who will hate you. How much easier it is to be “nice” and endorse things in loved ones that will destroy them! But that’s not love, that’s self-protection.
Friends, be ready to sacrifice yourself out of love for others. The kind of love you need only comes from God. Ask Him for it.
We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. (1 John 3:16)
_______________________
*This doesn’t mean you must constantly confront everyone with their sin, only that there’s a time and place for affirming and arguing for the truth God revealed to us. Greg discusses this here, starting at the 2:31:00 mark.
March 12, 2015
March 11, 2015
We Still Need the Old Answers
In a conversation on Edge.org, historian Yuval Noah Harari discussed how society may change in the future due to advances in technology. He foresees a time of social change and unrest when the elite can afford advanced medicine (possibly even achieving eternal life on earth, he says) and the poor are left farther and farther behind. He compares his predicted social problems to the upheaval caused by the Industrial Revolution:
What is certain is that the old answers were irrelevant [in dealing with the results of the Industrial Revolution]. Today, everybody is talking about ISIS, and the Islamic fundamentalism, and the Christian revival, and things like that. There are new problems, and people go back to the ancient texts, and think that there is an answer in the Sharia, in the Qur'an, in the Bible. We also had the same thing in the 19th century. You had the Industrial Revolution. You had huge sociopolitical problems all over the world, as a result of industrialization, of modernization. You got lots of people thinking that the answer is in the Bible or in the Qur'an. You had religious movements all over the world….
Eventually, people came up with new ideas, not from the Sharia, and not from the Bible, and not from some vision. People studied industry, they studied coal mines, they studied electricity, they studied steam engines, railroads, they looked at how these developments transformed the economy and society, and they came up with some new ideas.
Ross Douthat responded to Harari by making “The Case for Old Ideas”:
New ideas, rooted in scientific understanding, did help bring societies through the turbulence of industrialization. But the reformers who made the biggest differences — the ones who worked in the slums and with the displaced, attacked cruelties and pushed for social reforms, rebuilt community after it melted into air — often blended innovations with very old moral and religious commitments.
When technological progress helped entrench slavery, the religious radicalism of abolitionists helped destroy it. When industrial development rent the fabric of everyday life, religious awakenings helped reknit it. When history’s arc bent toward eugenics, religious humanists helped keep the idea of equality alive….
[T]he assumption, deeply ingrained in our intelligentsia, that everything depends on finding the most modern and “scientific” alternative to older verities has been tested repeatedly — with mostly dire results. The 19th-century theories that cast themselves as entirely new and modern were the ones that devastated the 20th century, loosing fascism and Marxism on the world.
Which makes Harari’s concluding provocation feel like an unintended warning: “In terms of ideas, in terms of religions,” he argues, “the most interesting place today in the world is Silicon Valley, not the Middle East.” It’s in Silicon Valley that people are “creating new religions” — techno-utopian, trans-humanist — and it’s those religions “that will take over the world.”
He could be right. But if those new ideas are anything like the ones that troubled the 20th century, we may find ourselves looking to older ones for rescue soon enough.
Read all of what Harari had to say and Douthat’s response. (For a novelized version of a treatise against transhumanism, read C.S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength.)
I posted a quote last week from an atheist who warned that science can be used to promote a wide variety of values: “There is no more reason to think science can determine human values today than there was at the time of Haeckel or Huxley [who argued for eugenics based on science].” Anyone looking to technology to lead our society as a “new religion” will eventually find it can’t be counted on to create and uphold beliefs in intrinsic human value, universal human rights, or even compassion. By its very nature, it’s not capable of that.
Humanity is what it is. Read Shakespeare and you’ll find you can relate, even though he lacked your technology. Even if I didn’t think Christianity is true, it would still seem to me that wisdom about ethics and human flourishing is more likely to reside in the time-tested ideas that built thousands of years of civilization than in something brand new.
March 10, 2015
Links Mentioned on the 3/10/15 Show
The following is a rundown of this week's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:
HOUR ONE
Commentary: New Prophets and Words from God (0:00)
Greg's interview with Doug Geivett on 2/24/15 on the New Apostolic Reformation (listen at 0:00)
God's Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement by Doug Geivett
The call Greg took where someone took issue with the Geivett interview (listen at 1:09)
Questions:
1. New idea defending the deity of Christ (0:19)
The Christ of "The Passion": What the Movie Couldn't Show by Greg Koukl (contains Greg's story of the king taking the punishment for his mother)
Why Our Moral Debt Could Be Transferred to Jesus by Amy Hall (quoting Derek Rishmawy)
2. Should you tithe when you're in debt? (0:28)
Should Christians Tithe? by Greg Koukl
3. Why is inerrancy of the Bible a big deal? (0:36)
The Inerrancy of Scripture Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 by Tim Challies
Shepherds' Conference 2015 Inerrancy Summit videos
4. How does patriotism fit with Christianity? (0:47)
God Bless America by Amy Hall (on loving your country)
Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem by Jay W. Richards
The Poverty of Nations: A Sustainable Solution by Wayne Grudem
Dennis Prager's "American Trinity" – The three foundational American values on every coin
HOUR TWO
Commentary: Questioning Salvation (1:00)
Questions:
5. How do you know if you have eternal security? (1:20)
6. How can we have free will in Heaven if we don't have the choice to sin? (1:31)
When Skeptics Ask by Norman Geisler
If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil by Randy Alcorn
Obtaining a Better Resurrection by Greg Koukl
Evil and the Cross by Amy Hall
Pain Now, the Land of Happy Later by Amy Hall
If God Is Good, Why Is There Evil and Suffering? (Video) by Amy Hall
Why Does God Let Us Suffer? by Amy Hall
7. What does John 10:35 mean? (1:46)
HOUR THREE
Commentary: Truth and Compassion in Action (2:00)
Truth and Compassion in Action by Alan Shlemon
A Queer Thing Happened to America by Michael Brown
FIRE Church Welcomes Charlotte's LGBT Community by Michael Brown
Questions:
8. Can science disprove science? (2:17)
9. How can you be faithful to the Bible and gracious to a homosexual coworker? (2:30)
10. How do you decide the greater good in a moral dilemma? (2:52)
Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)
To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.
Challenge: Animals Also Feel Pain and Suffer
Today’s objection (from a veganism site) challenges us not to discriminate against non-human animals, and it gets right to the heart of human rights: What makes human beings valuable?
The most common manifestation of speciesist discrimination is moral anthropocentrism, which is the devaluation of the interests of those who don’t belong to the human species….
The lives and experiences of nonhuman animals are usually considered less important than those of human beings simply because they are not like humans. Yet nonhuman animals have emotional lives and feel pain, pleasure, fear and joy. Devaluing their lives simply because they don’t have some characteristics that most humans have is discrimination.
Every characteristic and circumstance that is used to discriminate against nonhuman animals — such as lack of rationality, language ability, social connections — also applies to some humans. Yet we don’t use those things to measure the worth of humans. Adult humans who can reason, infants, the cognitively disabled and orphans are all considered equally valuable. The reason we try not to harm other humans is because they can feel and suffer.
What do you think? Why should even the most helpless human be considered more valuable than a high-functioning primate? Answer this challenge in the comments below, and then Alan will post his answer on Thursday.
March 9, 2015
Why Should We Want to Convert Someone to Christianity When They Are Sincere in Their Own Religion?
Brett explains how religious beliefs have deeper implications than mere opinions or preferences.
March 7, 2015
Advice on Becoming an Apologetics Speaker
I often get asked for advice on becoming an apologetics speaker. Here’s how I respond (my answer assumes the person is already knowledgeable about apologetics—to begin learning, start here and consider enrolling in an online apologetics program like Biola’s master’s degree or certificate program):
Start seeking out opportunities at your church (in small groups, Sunday school classes, youth groups, etc.) to teach. This is a good way to begin getting some experience speaking. You can work on your skills and see if this is something you should pursue.
Consider attending CrossExamined Instructor Academy in North Carolina for a few days one summer (this year it’s happening on August 13-15). You’ll prepare presentations and then get evaluated by instructors like Brett, Greg, and J. Warner Wallace.
For more help honing your speaking abilities, Greg has recommended The Exceptional Presenter and Made to Stick .
J. Warner Wallace has a whole category on his website for “Christian Case Making.” Go through what he has there (here’s one example), and you’ll find practical instructional material like “Three Simple Rules for Apologetics Multimedia Presentations.”
Jim has thought carefully through a lot of this, so if you’re in Southern California, you should consider attending a class at Biola that’s happening next weekend:
March 13-14, 2015
A PROGRAM FOR DAILY APOLOGETICS IMPACT
Featuring J. Warner Wallace, MA
What exactly are you planning on doing with your all of your study in apologetics? This practical apologetics class will help you answer that question as you develop a strategy to establish and grow your cultural influence, find the place where you can contribute to the apologetics community on a regular basis, master your use of social media, and achieve realistic goals as a persuasive Christian communicator. J. Warner Wallace is a master of daily impactful apologetics activity and he will guide us through some key steps to help us all “ramp it up.”
The cost for the class is $95. You can register here. (I believe they’ve offered this class before, so if you miss it this time, watch for it in the future.)
March 6, 2015
“Love Is Love” Isn’t Enough
[Warning: The content linked below from established news sources promotes different kinds of love, and you will find it disturbing.]
Be careful about the arguments you make for same-sex marriage. You may be arguing for more than you bargained for. “Love is love” has no principled way to exclude from public endorsement the types of relationships you think ought to be excluded. “Love is love” isn’t enough.
March 5, 2015
You Can’t Get Western Morality from Science
Atheist John Gray argues in the Guardian that atheists who think science alone can support their preferred system of morality are fooling themselves:
It’s probably just as well that the current generation of atheists seems to know so little of the longer history of atheist movements. When they assert that science can bridge fact and value, they overlook the many incompatible value-systems that have been defended in this way. There is no more reason to think science can determine human values today than there was at the time of Haeckel or Huxley [who argued for eugenics based on science]. None of the divergent values that atheists have from time to time promoted has any essential connection with atheism, or with science. How could any increase in scientific knowledge validate values such as human equality and personal autonomy? The source of these values is not science. In fact, as the most widely-read atheist thinker of all time argued, these quintessential liberal values have their origins in monotheism….
It’s impossible to read much contemporary polemic against religion without the impression that for the “new atheists” the world would be a better place if Jewish and Christian monotheism had never existed. If only the world wasn’t plagued by these troublesome God-botherers, they are always lamenting, liberal values would be so much more secure. Awkwardly for these atheists, Nietzsche understood that modern liberalism was a secular incarnation of these religious traditions….
To be sure, evangelical unbelievers adamantly deny that liberalism needs any support from theism…. Canonical liberal thinkers such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant may have been steeped in theism; but ideas are not falsified because they originate in errors. The far-reaching claims these thinkers have made for liberal values can be detached from their theistic beginnings; a liberal morality that applies to all human beings can be formulated without any mention of religion. Or so we are continually being told. The trouble is that it’s hard to make any sense of the idea of a universal morality without invoking an understanding of what it is to be human that has been borrowed from theism. The belief that the human species is a moral agent struggling to realise its inherent possibilities – the narrative of redemption that sustains secular humanists everywhere – is a hollowed-out version of a theistic myth. The idea that the human species is striving to achieve any purpose or goal – a universal state of freedom or justice, say – presupposes a pre-Darwinian, teleological way of thinking that has no place in science. Empirically speaking, there is no such collective human agent, only different human beings with conflicting goals and values. If you think of morality in scientific terms, as part of the behaviour of the human animal, you find that humans don’t live according to iterations of a single universal code. Instead, they have fashioned many ways of life. A plurality of moralities is as natural for the human animal as the variety of languages.
As Gray says, “It’s not that atheists can’t be moral – the subject of so many mawkish debates. The question is which morality an atheist should serve.” And that is the problem. Too many atheists still don’t understand the extent to which their moral views are influenced by theism, and therefore they still don’t understand the consequences of banishing that theism.
