Easter

This day is the reason we are Christians.

Jesus was a prophet, yet many men were prophets.

He was a radical social reformer, but those have existed ever since society came into existence.

He was a wise teacher and progressive moral leader, but in His day there were many wise teachers and many moral leaders.

He was a healer and a miracle worker, who cast out demons and cleansed lepers; he even raised people from the dead. However, all these wonders had been done before Him, and men after him would continue to perform all the same miracles.

If Jesus was only any of the above, He would have come and gone. History may have remembered Him, but He would not have the following He has had throughout history. People would not have died for Him, or be willing to die for Him, or continue to die for Him.

No, Jesus was much more than all those earthly roles, and He is something no other man is. He is the Messiah, the perfect Lamb of God, who three days ago was slaughtered as a Passover sacrifice, to atone for the sins of the world. He went willingly to that unjust fate, because of His love for us.

However, that alone is still not the entire reason we follow Him.

He died, but many died.

However, He rose.

Jesus could have stayed dead in the tomb. His followers, scared of a similar fate, had scattered, and the impact of this brief “Messiah” would have lasted only three painful years. However, three days after He was killed, His tomb was found empty, despite being guarded by elite Roman guards. He then appeared, resurrected in the flesh, yet with a Heavenly glory. He stayed on this earth for forty more days, instructing his disciples, before ascending into Heaven.

That is why we are Christians. Not because of His teachings. Not because of His miracles. Not even because of His death. We are Christians because of His Resurrection.

Luke 24:13-21:

Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.

He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

“What things?” he asked.

“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel.”

Birkat Hahammah

Today is the Jewish holiday of Birkat Hahammah. According to this site, the Jewish community believes that, on this day, the sun completes circuit and returns to the spot where it was originally created, at the time it was created in the beginning. This only happens once every twenty-eight years, and this is only the 206th time the sun has completed it’s trip.

The Overview page gives a brief description of how they calculated these numbers, and they admit that there is a margin of error. However, the site says the celebration and meaning are more important than the actual date.

At dawn, the celebrants rise and go outside. They face east and recite “Blessed are You, Adonai, our God and God of all the universe, who makes all things in creation.”.

As with many Jewish holidays, I see no problem in acknowledging Birkat Hahammah and learning more about it. Both Jews and Christians believe in the same God, and we share the same creation story (in fact, I’d say the only real thing that separates us is that Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, and Jews do not). I don’t think it’s wrong to entertain the belief that today the sun is in its original place. It’s certainly a good a time as any to reflect on the sun.

Genesis 1 describes the creation of the sun on the fourth day:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Whatever view you hold on literal six-day creation, God gave us a great gift when He gave us the sun. Without the sun’s light and warmth, most of the life on earth could not exist. The sheer amount of energy produced by nuclear fusion within it, far greater than anything humans have devised, is a testimony to the power of the One who made the sun, compared to the weakness of man who needs it.

So  take a minute today to honor the sun, and even more to honor the God who made it and who sustains us with His power.

Also, sundown today marks the start of the Jewish festival of Passover, which I’ve written about before, and which all Christians should learn about, both to understand their heritage, and to comprehend the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper and Jesus as the Lamb of God.

Who is God?

A thought occurred to me recently as I was asked the question “Who is God?”

Who is God?

As we stand among the beauty and majesty of nature, among the wide sky and the rolling terrain, among the calm breeze and the mighty storm, among the deep sea and the glimmering stars, we stand in the presence of the very One who spoke and created all things- from the highest peak to the lowliest pebble. This world in which we live is a monument to the wondrous and awesome power of the mighty One who shaped it from nothing.

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.

There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.

Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

Who is God?

When we consider the miracles and marvels this One has performed among us, we are faced with the fact that this Creator did not simply create, but is active in His creation, and His actions show His power and might. Might so strong, it rained fire down from the sky. Power so terrible, it drowned the world that it had created. The Master Architect of the world reveals Himself to us- creatures so weak, so helpless; creatures that, when confronted with the mighty power of the One we may only stand in awe. The sun has stood still, the sun has gone out, and the Son has come.

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another:
“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.”

At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”

Who is God?

Finally, when we contemplate the Son, and that lonely silhouette hanging on a cross, we know the full power of our Creator and Lord. In that single scene, we see the strongest power of them all. He can create and He can destroy, but our God can also love, and that His love is so strong, and so perfect, that He sent His only Son to become His perfect sacrificial lamb.

He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Who is God?

In the story of the crucifixion, the three facets of the power of God come together. Love sent the Son, Destruction killed Him, and Creation raised Him. This is the most wondrous sign of all- that God would send His son for sinners, and that God would have so much love that he would forgive His killers and raise them to Him, not just to be His subjects, but His children, and His heirs. Such love is incomprehensible- that One so mighty should love us, creatures impossibly meek. A more reasonable question to ask might be: who are we?

Who are we? We are a horrible, despicable people. We have abandoned our Creator in favor of worshiping ourselves, and, valuing ourselves more than Him, we have killed His very son. And who is God? He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lord, the mighty Creator and Master Architect behind this world, and, in the end, the sole Sustainer of it. He has power so mighty, strength so terrible, that we mortals could not hope to comprehend a fraction of it. Yet we spat in His face, destroyed His holy Lamb, and abandoned Him. We deserve to be dead and destroyed.

And yet He loves us, and we are not dead, and not destroyed, because He loves us. The very one we renounced and turned away from continues to be our future and present hope. We cannot understand it, but we do not need to. Something so vast, so unimaginable as God’s love cannot be comprehended, but only immersed in.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Who is God?

God loves you.

Wayfaring Stranger: Part I

One of my favorite hymns is “I Am A Poor Wayfaring Stranger.” In case you are unfamiliar with it, you can read the lyrics and hear a MIDI of it at Cyberhymnal here (beware of the auto-playing music).

The tune is a traditional melody, that I’ve heard possibly came from either early Irish settlers or slave spirituals. I’ve come across many variations of the lyrics, but the ones I were raised on are the Richard W. Adams lyrics, which are the ones on Cyberhymnal:

I am a poor wayfaring stranger,
While traveling through this world of woe.

A key idea in Christianity (and other religions) is that this present material world is not the final thing- we are only travelers, and our destination is far better than this imperfect world. That leads us to another common idea: this world is flawed and fallen.

Living in the United States (or any other developed country) often makes it hard to grasp this concept that this is a broken and marred world. Our lives are so comfortable and secure, it’s hard to appreciate the thought that we go to  a place far better than here.

Yet, this place is a “world of woe.” The poor and suffering far outnumber the privileged few who have safe and easy lives. Drought, disease, disaster, poverty, and famine plague the world, and these poor people are the ones hit by it, not us. To these people, this different, better world that is our destination speaks volumes to them. They understand that this world is not perfect; they understand how much suffering is in the world. And the hope of someplace better when this world has past means more to them than it can possibly mean to us.

Yet there’s no sickness, toil nor danger
In that bright world to which I go.

The world to where we are traveling will not be fallen and full of suffering. It is a perfect world. Sin, which causes all the evil and suffering in the world, will not exist there- it has been washed by the blood of the Lamb. The world will be back in line with God’s plan and ideal, before pride and rebellion broke the world. It is in that holy land that we have our citizenship, not this suffering, sinful rock.

I’m going there to see my Father;
I’m going there no more to roam.

God himself dwells in that land, and when we get there we will see Him face to face. And when that happens, all our sufferings, all our trials, all our insurmountable problems that we had here on earth will vanish in an instant, and we will realize that our Father has been with us all along, strengthening and protecting us all the way. We will realize how much He loves us and how much He helped us. And we will dwell in His house, forever.

When we reach that land, there will be no more need for tireless, unhappy roaming far away from home. There will be no sad goodbyes, and no long, painful separations. We will be eternally home, with the ones we love and the One whom loves us.

I’m only going over Jordan,
I’m only going over home.

Where is this land to where we are going? It isn’t far. It is merely just across the Jordan, just pass that symbolic river that symbolizes death and finally going out of this world of suffering. For the righteous, death isn’t a bad thing, it’s merely finally passing into the next world, into the better country.

It’s only going home.

After a Little While

I recently was reading through 1 Peter, and chapters four and five caught my eye.

Starting with 1 Peter 4:12 (from the English Standard Version):

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.

Much of Peter’s first letter deals with suffering, especially for Christ. I find it interesting that Peter tells the recipients that they should not be surprised when trials come their way. According to him, trials are nothing out of the ordinary and should be expected.

The book of Acts chronicles the years after Jesus’s ascension into Heaven and the growth of the early church. Everything goes more-or-less well for the church suffering-wise until chapter six. In this chapter, Stephen, a man who was “full of grace and power,” “doing great wonders and signs among the people” was seized by a mob that included the “synagogue of the Freedmen” as well as Jewish elders and scribes. The mob brought him before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court, and charged him with speaking against the holy place and the law. In a speech consisting of most of chapter seven, Stephen refuted their accusations and claimed that his accusers were guilty of committing the very crimes they charged him with.

Naturally, this didn’t go over well, and the mob cast him out of Jerusalem and stoned him. The beginning of Acts 8 says that “there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.”

Some scholars think that the early church had stayed for too long in Jerusalem, thus disobeying what Jesus had told them at the beginning of the book, that when the Holy Spirit comes upon them they are to be witnesses not only in Jerusalem but “in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” God didn’t necessarily send the persecution on the church, but He used it to get them going. If this interpretation is true, it should serve as a strong warning for the church in America.

Now Peter, being an apostle, stayed in Jerusalem. This probably was a very dangerous thing to do. The Jewish Pharisee Saul (the very man who the killers of Stephen laid their garments at the feet of) was, according to Acts 8:3, “ravaging the church, and entering house after house,” and dragging off men and women and sending them to prison. Soon, in chapter 12, the apostle James would be executed by Herod, and in that same chapter Peter himself would be put in prison, most likely to await a similar fate after the Passover celebration ended.

Even though he was ultimately rescued by an angel of the Lord in this episode, these events and others should give Peter ample authority to speak on the issues of persevering through trials and suffering for Christ. And Peter says we should not be surprised when “fiery trials” come our way.

Moreover, it is important to note that Peter didn’t always persevere and succeed in the face of trials. Much earlier, back during the trial of Jesus, Peter was questioned three times if he knew Jesus. Peter, probably very afraid because of the recent events, denies his association and friendship with Jesus three times, each time getting more defensive and violent. Jesus had predicted he would do this, and after he denied Jesus, according to Mark 14:72, Peter “broke down and wept.”

Peter definitely knew what he was talking about when it came to suffering. He was both one who fails under trials and one who withstands them. So what advice does Peter give about suffering? The next verse, 1 Peter 4:13 says:

But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

He reminds us that Jesus also suffered. He was hated and reviled by the world He came to save. At least two of his closest friends betrayed Him. He ultimately was killed. But He rose from the dead, and He is with us again. He will not let our suffering, especially our suffering for His name, go unrewarded. When He comes back to earth, He will reward us for the trials we underwent. As 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 says:

So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.

Peter ends chapter four by saying:

Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.

Remember that suffering is not in vain, and, according to this verse, it is “according to God’s will.” Maybe suffering tests us. Maybe it drives us to action to do God’s will. Maybe it shapes us into something closer to who God wants us to be. Whatever the reason, we need to “entrust out souls to a faithful Creator.”

“Entrust” implies assigning responsibility to something or someone and depending on that entity completely for protection. God promises to protect our souls if we trust Him to guide us. He is a “faithful Creator,” someone who never backs down on promises, and who knows us better than anyone; He created us. Finally, while trusting God, we need to continue doing good, and not let our trials keep us from helping others with theirs.

1 Peter 5:6-11:

Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Come Home

Recently I’ve been thinking about the attitude regarding evangelism or invitation I’ve had on the site, in the comments and in posts. Right now the current thoughts I’ve wrote about can be summed up in this quote from a post I wrote a month ago titled “The Perfect Judge and Amazing Grace”:

Christians are called to preach the good news, not fire and brimstone. Although warnings may be necessary at times, we need to keep ourselves from passing judgments on others by ordering them to get saved or face hellfire. However, I know that I personally am not even close to perfect, and that I need forgiveness from my sins; I need a savior. We shouldn’t require this feeling of others, but simply spread the good news that, if they also need forgiveness from their sins, they shall find a savior in Jesus Christ the Messiah.

I’m not entirely sure if this is the right stance to take. It may be too lackadaisical or apathetic; what I’m essentially saying is “If you need Jesus, He’s here. Just come to Him whenever you want to, if you feel like it.” This is not how it should be at all.

The message of the Gospel is an immensely important message, and an urgent mesage. If we Christians are correct, we are dealing with the fate of immortal souls. Souls that are in danger, and will be hard pressed to save themselves. Even if one ultimately ends up rejecting Christianity, the extreme and dire claims that it makes, coupled with Chrisitan apologetics, should at least persuade someone to think very long and very hard about the issue.

We should look to the Bible for examples of how we should evangelize. When Jesus began His ministry in Mark 1, He “came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’” Jesus wasn’t simply calling those who felt they needed a savior, He was convicting and then calling everyone.

Three years later, soon after Jesus had been crucified, and after His resurrection and ascension, the apostle Peter finished preaching to a gathering of Jews at the Jewish feast of Pentecost:

“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Peter wasn’t saying “Come to Jesus if you need to, and if not, that’ll be fine too.” No, Peter was saying, warning, pleading that his audience come to Christ. He knew the dire consequences of rejecting Christ, so out of love he begged people to turn to Christ.

That is a very important point to remember. The Gospel is a message of urgency, but it is a message of love. “Love your neighbor” is the second greatest commandment (only behind “Love God”), and the Parable of the Good Samaritan certainly shows that it applies to those we evangelize to. We must make sure to preach the Gospel with love, not with threats.

How then should we preach the Gospel? This urgent message can’t be preached by simply saying “Jesus is here if you need Him,” but we also have to be sure to spread the good news in love. What is the solution?

I believe the old, well-known, and well-loved hymn “Softly and Tenderly” states the answer better than I have the ability to do. Here are the lyrics, and the melody available at The Cyber Hymnal here (beware of auto-playing music):

Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling,
Calling for you and for me;
See, on the portals He’s waiting and watching,
Watching for you and for me.

Why should we tarry when Jesus is pleading,
Pleading for you and for me?
Why should we linger and heed not His mercies,
Mercies for you and for me?

Time is now fleeting, the moments are passing,
Passing from you and from me;
Shadows are gathering, deathbeds are coming,
Coming for you and for me.

O for the wonderful love He has promised,
Promised for you and for me!
Though we have sinned, He has mercy and pardon,
Pardon for you and for me.

Come home, come home,
You who are weary, come home;
Earnestly, tenderly, Jesus is calling,
Calling, O sinner, come home!

Jesus is calling, waiting, watching, pleading for you to come to Him. You don’t have forever; we know that life is but a vapor that vanishes in an instant – either tomorrow, or today, or eighty years from now. Nothing can save you from the wrath of God against your sins except the blood of Jesus, which he freely offered out of love for you. Don’t tarry. Accept the gift. It is an issue of urgent and vital importance.

Purpose and Morals without God

During the past week I read the second chapter of Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig’s book, Reasonable Faith, which is titled “The Absurdity of Life without God”. In it, Dr. Craig discusses what is called in philosophy “the human predicament,” which deals with the value of human life without God.

While reading this chapter, I couldn’t help but think of the post I wrote almost four months (four months?!) ago titled “Sense in a Senseless World.” In it I questioned how an atheist or an agnostic could handle the ideas of suffering and death without God to make sense of it.

By the way, after writing that post, in the comments I acknowledge that I probably focused too much on fear (specifically, fear of death). Ubiquitous Che countered my assumption of fear of death by essentially stating (more eloquently) “When I’m dead, I won’t know it,” or something thereabout, and while I don’t completely believe that philosophy will hold as death draws closer, I can understand how it can at least intellectually justify a lack of fear of death.

Dr. Craig talks about several different facets of the human predicament, but one thing he asserts is that man can find no purpose, value, or meaning in life, and he cannot make any claims to objective moral truth, without God. If he tries, he will end up making irrational and arbitrary claims of moral truth.

For example, while preparing to write this, I stumbled across a post on Che’s blog, rhetoric sans pareil. In it, Che reprints a comment he wrote on an article on Secular Philosophy. As I understand it, part of the post argues that objective morals truths can be claimed while holding a naturalistic worldview:

I’m convinced that there IS a moral truth about the world, and we CAN discover it through evidence-based reasoning. Morality and ethics are more like trigonometry than legislation.

Consider this: Practicing genuine compassion will lead to an increase in personal happiness. That increase will be proportional to the intensity of the practice. Hence, our personal quest for happiness provides a solid rationale for self-transcendence. It’s not a question of opinion. It’s an empirically testable statement about how morality and ethics function, and as such evidence-based reasoning DOES have something to say on the subject.

[...]

If a man should kill his daughter in cold blood because he perceives that she has committed some slight against his honor, there IS a moral and ethical truth to be discerned that is not relative to culture or perspective. That daughter had a long life ahead of her. Life itself is the very basis of compassion and happiness. Considering that life is also fragile, and we have a strong basis for regarding life as something precious. Far more precious than any perceived slight of honor could ever be. As such, the act of sacrificing a precious human life for the restoration of mere honor is in direct violation of basic moral and ethical principles.

If I read this correctly, Che argues that, for example, a man killing his daughter because she dishonored him is objectively morally wrong, because if the daughter had been permitted to live, she would have experienced happiness that she now will now not experience. This claims that the denial of potential happiness is something morally wrong, which ( at least in this passage) is arbitrary. What warrant does Che have for saying that happiness is something that should not be denied, or that the daughter’s happiness is more valuable than the man’s happiness cause by his “regained honor”?

Now, very importantly, I acknowledge that Che was not entirely trying to make a complete, airtight, philosophical argument out of this. Also, please refer to the comments on his post for a discussion he and some others had of this argument. I’m using his argument in this case as an example.

This brings me to the point of this post. As I was reading this chapter and the assertions Dr. Craig made, I became curious as to how atheists and agnostics would respond to this. I learned from my experiences with the “fear of death” discussion in my old post not to underestimate the innovation of philosophical arguments for either side, so I’d like to get some atheist and agnostic opinions while I’m still forming my thoughts on the issue. I know I have a few who have commented on this site, such as Ubiquitous Che and Mardé. I’d to pose this question to them, and to anyone else who cares to reply:

How can one hold an atheistic or agnostic view and still make rational claims of meaning and value in life, and objective moral truths?

In this particular case, I’m only concerned with naturalistic philosophies that believe in objective moral truth and meaning in life. I acknowledge that there are plenty that don’t, but for this particular discussion I only want to deal with those that do.

I look foward to your responses.

Revisiting the Place of Apologetics

A while ago (a few months short of a year), I wrote a post titled “The Place of Apologetics”. In it, I discussed the what I believed was the proper use of apologetics (rational defenses of Christianity). I stated that apologetics is needed to make Christianity intellectually justifiable, but had no role beyond that.

I recently started reading Reasonable Faith, written by Dr. William Lane Craig. I’ve been meaning to read this book for a long time, and finally got around to it. Dr. Craig is a well-known and highly-regarded Christian apologist, and Reasonable Faith is probably his best-known book, with a third edition just published this year. He also is the founder of a website that shares his book’s name, Reasonable Faith, which offers a variety of apologetics resources, including two podcasts, which of both I’ve been a regular listener at some time, and I highly recommend.

In the introduction to his book (readable online here), Dr. Craig discusses the same question I wrote about in my post: What good is apologetics?

Some people depreciate the importance of apologetics as a theoretical discipline. “Nobody comes to Christ through arguments,” they’ll tell you. “People aren’t interested in what’s true, but in what works for them. They don’t want intellectual answers; they want to see Christianity lived out.” I believe that the attitude expressed in these statements is both shortsighted and mistaken. Let me explain three vital roles which the discipline of apologetics plays today.

The first of the three roles of apologetics, Dr. Craig states, is “shaping culture.” He examines how modern western culture is becoming increasingly more secular and post-modern. Society is turning indifferent toward Christianity, and objective claims for religion in general. This is at least partially due to a fall in apologetics in the past. While some may say “no one comes to Christ through arguments,” if society comes to completely view Christianity as intellectually irrational and unjustified, evangelism will be severely hampered. Christianity might simply fall into the ranks of post-modernism, “no better” than any other belief. Apologetics serves the important role of raising Christianity out of the crowds of post-modernism by providing it with objective claims to truth.

The second role of apologetics, according to Dr. Craig, is to strengthen believers. As post-modernism rises and culture continues to turn hostile towards objective claims in the spiritual realm, many Christians (especially new or young believers) begin to question their faith. Although everyone has doubts sometimes, without apologetics these doubts may grow and eventually cause a believer to turn away from Christianity. Apologetics helps these people combat their doubts and ultimately become better Christians in the end.

The last of the three roles of apologetics presented by Dr. Craig is to evangelize unbelievers. Introducing this point, he writes:

Few people would disagree with me that apologetics strengthens the faith of Christian believers. But many will say that apologetics is not very useful in evangelism. As noted earlier, they claim that nobody comes to Christ through arguments. (I don’t know how many times I’ve heard this said.)

Now this dismissive attitude toward apologetics’ role in evangelism is certainly not the biblical view. As one reads the Acts of the Apostles, it’s evident that it was the apostles’ standard procedure to argue for the truth of the Christian worldview, both with Jews and pagans (e.g., Acts 17:2–3, 17; 19:8; 28:23–24). In dealing with Jewish audiences, the apostles appealed to fulfilled prophecy, Jesus’ miracles, and especially Jesus’ resurrection as evidence that he was the Messiah (Acts 2:22–32). When they confronted Gentile audiences who did not accept Jewish Scripture, the apostles appealed to God’s handiwork in nature as evidence of the existence of the Creator (Acts 14:17). Then appeal was made to the eyewitness testimony to the resurrection of Jesus to show specifically that God had revealed himself in Jesus Christ (Acts 17:30–31; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

While not everyone will be convinced by apologetic arguments, they certainly can benefit evangelism. I won’t claim that rational reasons are required to be a good Christian (I don’t think they are), but I do believe that they are an important part of a believer’s training and offer tremendous benefit to Christianity as a whole.

As I read Reasonable Faith, expect to see quotes or topics from it popping up from time to time, much like when I was reading a lot of C. S. Lewis. And with apologetics, the most important thing to remember is what I concluded my old post with:

Apologetics can tell someone why we believe what we we believe, but it can’t tell someone the nature and strength of that belief. We can tell people time and time again why we believe what we do, that two thousand years ago one man who claimed to be the Son of God was killed and rose from the dead. We won’t get anywhere, however, until we start telling them what it means.

The Perfect Judge and Amazing Grace

In his recent post, Ubiquitous Che (surprise!) of rheroic sans pareil asked two questions. Although these questions were not the main point of his post (they were being used as a counterattack against an essay criticizing atheism), they are very common objections raised against Christian theology, and I wanted to address them in more than just a comment on his blog.

Che asks if a monk living in India, who has heard of Christianity and rejected it, yet still lives a life of compassion and charity towards his community would be condemned because he did not accept Jesus. Would a criminal on death row who confesses right before his execution go to Heaven?

In his first letter to the Christians in Corinth, the apostle Paul wrote the following words:

Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

It is not for the Christian to pass judgment on the monk and the criminal, for we cannot know the heart of each man. Moreover, we do not possess the wisdom to be able to render justice in this situation, as both sides have strong points. What do we do, then?

We leave the issue up to God, who is the perfect judge. We do not know the hearts of men, but He does, and He, the one who gave Solomon his wisdom, certainly is capable of administering justice in the situation. We do not know the answer to the question; we must leave it up to God.

Christians are called to preach the good news, not fire and brimstone. Although warnings may be necessary at times, we need to keep ourselves from passing judgments on others by ordering them to get saved or face hellfire. However, I know that I personally am not even close to perfect, and that I need forgiveness from my sins; I need a savior. We shouldn’t require this feeling of others, but simply spread the good news that, if they also need forgiveness from their sins, they shall find a savior in Jesus Christ the Messiah.

Che’s other question was whether it was “good” or “moral” for Jesus to be killed in the way He was. After all, even if Jesus was not divine, He was at least good, and such a cruel punishment should not be put upon anyone but the worst offenders.

The answer to this question is simple: no, it was not just for Jesus to be killed. Both Roman officials He was brought before during His trial, Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas, found Him innocent of any charge that would warrant death. Despite this, the crowd insisted that Jesus be crucified, and Pilate gave in. I agree with Che; this was a perversion of justice.

However, looking deeper into the situation, we realize there are things happening here that aren’t immediately visible to the people involved. Jesus wasn’t being cornered into His execution- He was willingly going.

When the crowd came to arrest Him, Peter, one of the closest companions of Jesus, drew His sword and attacked the servant of the high priest. Jesus healed this man’s ear, and said to Peter:

Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

Jesus had followers who would fight and would die for Him. Jesus could have called twelve legions of angels to save Him from His captors. However, He stilled His followers, and did not call the angels. He went, instead, to death; He went to this unjust cross. He went there, freely, to die. As the hymn goes:

He could have called ten-thousand angels
To destroy the world and set Him free
He could have called ten-thousand angels
But He died alone for you and me

That last line is important. Jesus certainly didn’t deserve the horrific execution He was given, but some do. I know I do. You might too. What I will say is that Jesus died for you, and for me, to take the punishment we deserve. It was not “just” for Him to die in our place, but He did so anyway, so that we could live.

That’s not the entire gospel though; that’s not the entire good news. There’s one more part. Jesus didn’t stay dead. After three days, He broken body rose from the tomb, and He walked in life again. He has since ascended into Heaven, and His resurrection gives us hope, that though our sins may warrant death, Jesus has washed us clean of them, and through His blood we may rise anew to be free from sin. Jesus’s willingness to go to the cross, to die this terrible death, and God’s forgiveness for us from our sins, is why Christians sing another old hymn:

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now I’m found
Was blind, but now I see

Pale Blue Dot

I use the title with apology to Mr. Sagan.

It’s been a little while since I last posted, and I apologize for that. I’ve been out of town a lot recently. I still have more traveling that I have to do, so my posting may be irregular until I get settled down again. (I encourage those of you who manually check blogs to learn how to use an RSS Reader- it makes things much easier and saves an incredible amount of time.)

I came across an interesting thought while reading a post on rhetoric sans pareil, Ubiquitous Che’s blog. (Sorry Che, I don’t plan to respond to every one of your posts, but they do get me thinking).

For those of you who don’t remember or are new readers, Ubiquitous Che is a “bright,” or an atheist who, instead of attacking theism, aims to promote the positives and beauty a naturalistic worldview.

In the post, Che makes a culinary analogy: he compares religion to a primitive dish, and natural science to a gourmet meal. People who cling to religion are only eating fast food, and cannot grasp the taste of a fine meal without trying it.

He makes it his goal to prepare an elegant meal to showcase the Bright worldview, and then posts a video of Carl Sagan. For those of you who aren’t familiar with PBS stars from the eighties, Carl Sagan was a very famous astronomer and skeptic of religion. He wrote the book Contact, which was later made into a movie. Here is the video Che posted:

First of all, I just want to make sure people understand, religion and science are not enemies. Theists should not treat science as a threat to be destroyed, and it is very, very important for theists to remember that, whatever part of science is currently in the scope of religion, be it evolution or abiogenesis or whatever, if science is correct on the issue it is part of God’s marvelous creation and deserves to be treated as such. I don’t claim to know all the ways of the Almighty, and certainly won’t tell Him how I think He should have done something.

What’s funny is, I see no incompatibility with this video and theism. On the contrary, this video actually superbly illustrates an oft-overlooked facet of theism: God is immense and powerful. His being is larger than we can ever know in this earthly shell. He is bigger than us. To Him, we are insignificant, we are nothing.

Except that, to Him, we are something. Although we are nothing more than a speck of dust, He loves us, and sent His son to die for us. The Creator and Lord of the Universe, sent His only Son to die, so that a pale blue dot would not have to suffer for its own crimes.

Frederick William Faber, a British hymn writer in the 1800s, wrote these words:

Great God! our lowliness take heart to play
Beneath the shadow of Thy state;
The only comfort of our littleness
Is that Thou art so great.

As Carl said in the video, astronomy is a humbling experience. “Humbling” is the perfect word to describe this. We need to remember that we are not as great as we sometimes think we are, and all of our doings, all of our accomplishments, all of our failures, all of our daily rituals, all of our trials, all of our problems, all of our worries, take place on a pale blue dot, a mere speck suspended in the presence of the Lord of the Universe.

But this Lord of the Universe, this God, will take care of the dot.