Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 62

Why Are Natural Disasters an Evil with No Connection to Free Will?

Why does God allow bad things to happen, like natural disasters, that we have seemingly no control over?

White Horse Inn Series on Hebrews

I’m really enjoying this White Horse Inn podcast series on Hebrews, and I recommend it to you. Here’s what they have so far:

An Introduction to the Book of Hebrews 
Greater Than Angels
Greater Than Moses
Christ Our Eternal High Priest
Were the Jews Expecting a Divine Messiah?
A Superior Covenant
The Eternal Sacrifice

Who is Jesus? What has He done for us? What is He doing now, and why? How does His work relate to the Mosaic Covenant, and how should we now view that covenant? Hebrews explores these questions and unifies the Old and New Testaments in Christ.

Subscribe to their podcast to hear future episodes in this series.

Why the West Misunderstands the Islamic State

In an article in The Atlantic analyzing the Islamic State, Graeme Wood explains how the secular Western mindset is getting in the way of understanding “What ISIS Really Wants”:

There is a temptation to rehearse this observation—that jihadists are modern secular people, with modern political concerns, wearing medieval religious disguise—and make it fit the Islamic State. In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse. 

The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic State’s officials and supporters themselves. They refer derisively to “moderns.” In conversation, they insist that they will not—cannot—waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often speak in codes and allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims, but refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam…. 

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it….

Centuries have passed since the wars of religion ceased in Europe, and since men stopped dying in large numbers because of arcane theological disputes. Hence, perhaps, the incredulity and denial with which Westerners have greeted news of the theology and practices of the Islamic State. Many refuse to believe that this group is as devout as it claims to be, or as backward-looking or apocalyptic as its actions and statements suggest….

Without acknowledgment of [other] factors [besides ideology], no explanation of the rise of the Islamic State could be complete. But focusing on them to the exclusion of ideology reflects another kind of Western bias: that if religious ideology doesn’t matter much in Washington or Berlin, surely it must be equally irrelevant in Raqqa or Mosul.

Read the rest of the article to learn about the religious ideology behind the Islamic State.

The Biased Constraint of Scientism

With his unique background as a detective, J. Warner Wallace has been filling a hole in the field of apologetics by teaching people how to assess evidence. In your conversations with friends about Christianity, you’ll likely encounter misunderstandings as to what counts as evidence and how much/what kind of evidence is needed in order to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Here’s what he has to say about the charge that Christians are too biased to fairly evaluate evidence:

If you’re like me, you have non-believing friends who claim that Christians are biased. They know that we, as Christians, believe in the existence of God, so they assume that we are unable to evaluate the evidence properly. Non-believers are convinced that Christians start out with a presupposition that clouds our judgment. In truth, however, many of our “rational”, “science based” friends are far more constrained by their presuppositions.

Remember that ALL of us have a point of view, but this does not necessarily mean we are unfairly biased. Bias has nothing to do with holding a viewpoint. Bias occurs when this viewpoint eliminates certain forms of evidence and evidential conclusions before we even begin the investigation. And while atheists may argue that Christians have this kind of bias, a quick examination of the culture’s reliance on science reveals that just the opposite is true. I bet you’ve heard a friend say something similar to: “I am a science and evidence person. Truth can only be determined empirically, and science is the only way to really know truth.” When people make statements like this, they may be revealing something more than a point of view; they may be exposing a rigid bias that is grounded in an over-reliance on science known as “scientism.” …

[T]he Christian worldview has the ability to embrace natural explanations without rejecting the supernatural ones out of hand. An over-reliance on science (often described as “scientism”) causes us to reject anything supernatural before we even begin to investigate an explanation. Which of these two approaches is most prejudicial?

Read the rest of his post. (See also “What Qualifies As Evidence? Everything!”)

Can a Socio-Cultural Revolution Be Reversed?

In an article in The Week, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry addresses the popular understanding “that social change driven by appeals to science and reason is (a) good and (b) irreversible.”  

Gobry’s article was written in response to a question asked by his colleague: “Can you point to any socio-cultural revolution — in race, gender, and now sexual orientation — that’s ever been halted or reversed?” The rhetorical question was meant to be a statement about the inevitability of a permanent change in the definition of marriage, but Gobry can point to something:

Like other socio-cultural revolutions, it started out as a fringe idea and became mainstream seemingly overnight….

Like other socio-cultural revolutions, it draped itself under scientific accoutrements….

Like other socio-cultural revolutions, it advanced under the banner of moral progress….

Like other socio-cultural revolutions, some Christians jumped on the bandwagon, and those who stuck to traditional teachings were branded as backward fundamentalists….

What cultural phenomenon is he talking about? Racism. As it turns out, the advancing of racism has more in common with the current marriage revolution than does the ending of racism (see more on that topic here). And that revolutionary advance was neither good nor irreversible, as time has proved. Read the whole article “Gay marriage, racism, and what everyone misses about the inevitability of social change” for more details on each of the above points. Here’s his conclusion:

The conventional wisdom sees our civilization’s still-incomplete turn away from racism over the past 50 years as the cornerstone case for the inevitability, goodness, and irreversibility of socio-cultural revolution. In fact, it was not a “socio-cultural revolution”; it was the halting and reversing of a socio-cultural revolution.

Can we draw any lessons from this? Well, that's risky business. But one potential lesson is that while socio-cultural revolutions are reversible, they take a long time to play out — 150 years in this case.

In any case, it turns out, not all social change is irreversible, and some social changes are good, but others are bad. And maybe, just maybe, history is on the side of orthodox Christians after all.

It may take a long time, but because marriage existed before politics, politics won’t be able to force it into a new, artificial shape forever. The truth of what it is, why it exists, and why it’s necessary for a functioning society will eventually prevail. Not before damage is done, but eventually.

Links Mentioned on the 2/17/15 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: Choosing Your Gender (0:00)

How to Help Transgender Children by Amy Hall
Transgender Surgery Isn't the Solution by Paul McHugh
Trouble in Transtopia: Murmers of Sex Change Regret by Stella Morabito

Questions:

1. What does the Bible teach about women leaders in the church? (0:23)

2. Should a Christian be concerned about working for a company with "Talisman" in the company name? (0:39)

3. How did you manage the adoption process? (0:41)

Greg's previous response to a question about the adoption process (Start listening at 0:41)

HOUR TWO

Commentary: Gay Reformation in the Church (1:00)

Alan Shlemon on Matthew Vines's Reformation Project Conference (Start listening at 0:00)
Bad Reasons to Adopt Pro-Gay Theology by Alan Shlemon
The Reformation the Church Doesn't Need by Alan Shlemon
A 20-Minute Chat with a Gay Person Made People Much More Supportive of Gay Marriage by Jesse Singal
Understand the Same-Sex Marriage Issue by Amy Hall
Upcoming events for Stand to Reason speakers

Questions:

4. What were the effects of the Fall in an old earth scenario? (1:24)

5. Can God choose not to know something? – Question about Dallas Willard's book (1:43)

Become a strategic partner of Stand to Reason
The Allure of Gentleness: Defending the Faith in the Manner of Jesus by Dallas Willard

6. What was the tree of life? (1:52)

HOUR THREE

Questions:

7. Was C.S. Lewis an inclusivist? (2:00)

The Emeth scene in The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
Salvation: Truth, Not Just Sincerity by Greg Koukl (on inclusivism)
, by Greg Koukl

8. What should you ask to know if a child is ready to accept Jesus? (2:19)

The questions Greg asked his daughter at her baptism:



Do you know that you are a sinner, that you have broken God’s law and are guilty before Him?
Do you know that you deserve to be punished by God for the wrong things you have done?
Do you know that God became a man in Jesus to die in your place so you could be forgiven?
Do you believe in Jesus and trust Him to forgive your sins?
Do you want to follow Jesus, to obey Him and serve Him the rest of your life?

9. Should a Christian participate in Pink Shirt Day (in Canada)? (2:39)

About Pink Shirt Day

10. How can I talk to my pastor about conflict in the church? (2:47)

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.

Why Do We Need God for Morality?

Brett explains why our obligation to follow a moral code can only exist with God.

Thinking Carefully about Mormonism (and Mormon Epistemology)

Nothing is more central to the defense of Mormon scripture, Mormon doctrine, and the existence of the Mormon Church than a personal testimony. Also referred to as a “burning in the bosom” or “spiritual witness,” the Mormon testimony amounts to positive spiritual feelings about the LDS religion. At the end of the day, this personal, private, subjective experience is crucial to Mormon confidence, so you must be prepared to deal with it. In this talk, I lay down some important groundwork for understanding knowledge and then apply these insights to Mormonism. I think it provides some helpful ways to engage your Mormon friends.

Last Weekend to Register for AMP Conference

If you’re planning to go to the AMP Conference in Anaheim, CA next weekend (hosted by Biola, RZIM, and Reasons to Believe), registration ends Monday night (the price goes up at the door). Use the promo code “STR” to get $10 off! Go to their website to learn more, see a list of speakers and topics, and register for the conference.

How to Help Transgender Children

I received a question today from someone who didn’t know how to address a friend’s Facebook post celebrating transgenderism. The truth is, most people who promote these things are interested in doing the loving thing. They’re just wrong about what the loving thing to do is.

Consider this excerpt from the article “Here’s What Parents of Transgender Kids Need To Know” by Walt Heyer:

Studies indicate that two-thirds of transgenders suffer from multiple disorders at the same time, or comorbidity. The top three disorders evidenced in transgenders are depression (33 percent), specific phobia (20 percent) and adjustment disorder (15 percent). A child who states a desire to identify as the opposite sex has a two-thirds chance of having a co-existing disorder….

Your child needs psychiatric or psychological help, not a change of wardrobe or hairstyle. Anyone working with a transgender needs to look for, and treat, comorbid disorders. Biologically, it is impossible for a doctor to change a boy into a girl, no matter how much surgery is performed or how many hormones are administered. I know; they tried it on me.

I came into this world a boy. Starting in early childhood, I frequently cross-dressed as a girl. I thought I was born in the wrong body. A nationally-prominent PhD diagnosed me as a transgender with gender dysphoria. Eventually, I underwent the full recommended hormone therapy and the gender reassignment surgery and became the female Laura Jensen. I lived and worked successfully as a female transgender in San Francisco for several years until I was diagnosed with my own comorbid disorder.

With proper diagnosis and treatment with psychotherapy, I found the sanity and healing gender change could not provide. Trangenderism was my outward expression of an undiagnosed comorbid disorder, and gender-change surgery was never necessary. I detransitioned and returned to my male gender, like so many others do who regret changing genders….

As a child transgender myself, I can tell you I needed help. I did not need to dress as a girl at home and at school, with all the stress that would have brought. There is no doubt in my mind that if I would have been encouraged to go off to school dressed up as a female it would have escalated my anxiety and deepened my depression and my desire to commit suicide.

I suggested to the person asking me the question that he respond to his Facebook friend with something like this: "I really appreciate your desire to be gracious and help people. That’s a great motivation, and I share that with you. Since we both want to help transgender people, here’s my question for you: Hypothetically, if it were the case that people are actually harmed by denying their biological gender, would you still encourage them to do so?"

I think that’s a good way to move the conversation away from the fruitless “you hate them, but I love them” debate and onto the only question that matters: What will actually help them?

Here are a few more relevant links:

Transgender Surgery Isn't the Solution – “When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings.”
Don't Assume We Should Change the Body to Match the Mind
Trouble in Transtopia: Murmers of Sex Change Regret