What's Wrong with our Culture in a Picture

The Bible is no longer authoritative.  It now sits on the library shelf between Fairy Tales, Ghost Stories, and Mythology.

Christians can no longer assume a listener has a common understanding on God, Jesus, faith, sin, salvation or other Biblical themes.  We now have to do the hard work of backing up and laying foundations to understanding through Apologetics and appeals to common ground through general revelation.

God, By Definition

After studying apologetics for 20+ years, it's occurred to me the answer to almost every "problem" skeptics raise is "God, by definition, is never wrong, is never immoral, is never less than perfect in all His attributes. God has no peer to judge Him - least of all you (me). It is only when conceived by small and imperfect minds with imperfect and arrogant character that we wish Him to be less than what He is by definition." In almost every situation, you can tell the skeptic you don't believe in the God he doesn't believe in either.

The flaw is not with God ... it's with me.  65+ years of living has proven that.

Resources for Opposing Legalization of Same-sex Marriage

This is a page of various resources for use in the traditional marriage/same-sex marriage debate.

What is Marriage   - Ryan Anderson, Robert George,  and Sherif Girgis

The key question is what basis does government have to be involved in marriage? This is an excellent resource, probably the best single document. It not only sets forth the case for traditional marriage, it also answers many of the common arguments.

Free downloadable PDF

Book

Book summary by Amy Hall

Marriage/Divorce study

People who seriously practice a traditional religious faith—whether Christian or other—have a divorce rate markedly lower than the general population.

The factor making the most difference is religious commitment and practice.

What appears intuitive is true. Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes—attend church nearly every week, read their bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples—enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public, and unbelievers….

W. Bradford Wilcox, a leading sociologist at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, finds from his own analysis that "active conservative Protestants" who regularly attend church are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to those who have no affiliation. Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans.

Setting the Record Straight: The Truth About HomosexualMarriage video (part 1)

Intro and case against Homosexuality from the Bible

Setting the Record Straight: The Truth About HomosexualMarriage video (part 2) 

Policy – the public case.

Answering Specific Same-sex Marriage Questions

How Can We Show Love to Homosexuals? (Video)

Is Denying Same-sex Marriage Like Denying InterracialMarriage? 

 

Race/Sex/Marriage

Should Homosexuals Be Allowed to Marry Whom They Love? 

Should Homosexual Couples Be Allowed to Adopt? 

Can Homosexuals Change Their Orientation? 

Is Homosexuality Just as Normal as Heterosexuality? 

Are Homosexuals Going to Hell? 

Does Homosexual Behavior in Animals Mean it's Natural forHumans? 

Is 10% of the Population Homosexual? 

Are Homosexuals Born that Way? 

Should Christians Impose Their Moral Standards on Society? 

Can You Have Gay Friends If You Think Homosexual Behavior Isa Sin? 

Does God Punish Gay People for Being Who They Are? 

Is Homosexuality the Worst Sin of All? 

Did Jesus Never Say Anything about Homosexuality? 

Answering a Case for Same-sex Marriage (Video) 

No Holding Back other forms of Marriage

If marriage is anything we want it to be, then it can be ANYTHING!

 

Other Resources 

Discussing Same-Sex Marriage (Audio) – "How do you make a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage rights? Greg answered that on a recent radio show."

Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses – "Western civilization is shuddering under a tidal wave of activism in favor of same-sex marriage. Here is a careful response to their most compelling arguments."

Denying Same-sex Marriage Isn't Unequal Protection – "An Iowa court recently ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who claimed that denying them the right to marry violates the equal protection clause. This argument seems reasonable at first. Straight people can marry. Gays cannot. This is not equal protection. A little reflection, however, reveals how this view is mistaken.''
 

Judge Strikes Down Prop 8 – "Prop 8 makes a very rational classification on the basis of a relevant characteristic—that is, the gender of the participants. Men and women are different, and there's no getting around this. This fact has biological, emotional, psychological, and more ramifications when it comes to families and the creation and rearing of children. The fact is that both male and female are essential to marriage."
 

We're Arguing Definitions, Not Rights – "One common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. Since this is an extremely emotionally charged accusation, it's difficult to get past it into a real discussion of the issue. Here's the approach I usually take…"
 

Liberal Support for Traditional Marriage – "This self-described liberal Democrat supports California's Proposition 8, which would constitutionally define marriage between one man and one woman because, as the piece so well explains, marriage, as a societal institution recognized by government, is about children."
 

Answering a Case for Same-Sex Marriage (Video) – Alan responds to Zach Wahls's video promoting same-sex marriage.

 

Stopping by the Woods on a Screaming Evening

I was recently asked the question, “How do you get someone involved in the pro-life cause when they do not see any reason to get involved?” Don’t think I did too great a job answering at the time, but, on reflection and with much thought, here is the answer I now have for that question.

First of all, this was asked in the context of pro-life training based on the outstanding DVD training material, Making Abortion Unthinkable: The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion, authored by Greg Koukl (Stand to Reason) and Scott Klusendorf (Life Training Institute). Mastering this material gives you both the scientific and the philosophical legs to stand against the pro-abortion position. One of the things it teaches is to simplify and focus the issue to the question, “What is the unborn?” If the unborn is just a blob of tissue then no reason at all is needed to kill it, BUT if it is a human being, then no reason for killing it is justifiable (with the exception where it is a clear medical choice between mother and baby dying or only aborting the baby will save the mother’s life).

One of my favorite tactics is to paint a word picture. Get the other person involved intellectually and emotionally. Get them to see the issue in their mind’s eye. You know the ending of the story – it must lead to the central issue, “What is the unborn?” and it must arrive there with both emotional and intellectual impact. So, this is an exercise of working backwards from the conclusion.

Here is my story. It is not the only one. You can construct your own.


You’re walking on a path through the woods when you are startled to hear what sounds like human screams. Instinctively, you turn to the direction of the screams, but you cannot see anything through the dense foliage. The screams continue.

What should you do? Investigate or just continue your casual walk admiring the beauty all around while ignoring the continuing screams?  Wait for an answer here.

So, you softly make your way to the sound, until parting some leaves you see an adult brutally abusing a small toddler.

What do you do now? Try to intervene, call for help on your cell phone, run for help, or refuse to get involved?  Again, wait for an answer.

What would you think of a person who simply said, “I don’t want to get involved,” turned back to the path, and continued their pleasant stroll through the beautiful woods – all the while ignoring the screams?

Is not some form of action to help the human response to this situation? Don’t we have a natural revulsion for the moral integrity of the person who does nothing?

That is the picture of the abortion holocaust happening in this country and around the world.

I’m not sure there’s much more to do for the person whose response remains, “I don’t want to get involved.” But, if the story seems to hit home, and they try to make a point of the difference between the toddler being abused and a fetus being killed in abortion, then, you’ve got your opening to say, “but that’s the real issue isn’t it? What is the unborn?”

That’s where the training kicks in. You now have the open door for the scientific and the moral case ready. And, you’re ready for the other common objections.

Can Atheists be Good?

This is a perennial question - can an atheist be good? 

 My answer: they can only appear to do good things if we lower the standard for what we call "good." 

 Atheist, Christopher Hitchens, taunts Christians with the question, "Name one good thing a Christian can do that an atheist cannot." Atheists can commit their lives to helping the poor, needy, and downtrodden, even "surrender their body to be burned" for their fellow man (i.e. "be good"), but they cannot fulfill the highest moral imperative - worship God. Apart from the Agape love of the cross, the highest love of man is but a better hate - and not really "good" at all.

Faith as Small as a Grain of Mustard Seed

OK. I get it! Another embarrassing, "Duh," moment. 

 Jesus tells his disciples, "And He said to them, 'Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move." (Mt 17:20) 

I knew and have been told that faith is not about how much you have but who/what it is in. 

Now, I finally understand how this verse and others - Mt 13:31, Mk 4:31, Lu 13:19, and Lu 17:6 - actually teach that point. 

 Jesus is actually chiding his disciples in Mt 17:20 - something He did several times in the Gospel accounts - for the immaturity ("littleness") of their faith and especially as applying it to external things, in this case failing to cast out a demon. 

On one hand their immaturity was somewhat understandable because they had not yet seen the post-resurrection, risen Christ. Compare this "littleness" and powerlessness of faith as compared with what these same disciples did in Acts. 

Yet, even for not having yet experienced the resurrection, they have still been with Jesus and have seen His power. Perhaps again, their lack of maturity is because their faith was still an external thing that they had not yet experienced internally. 

 The woman with the issue of blood who was healed by merely touching Jesus' garment (Mt 9:22) was told by Jesus, "Daughter, take courage; your faith has made you well." She had a personal (internal) experience in the exercise of faith, "Everyone else has failed me. He is my only hope." She reached out for Him in her desperation, and the mountain moved. 

 The thing that finally struck me is that if Jesus wanted to say the quantity of faith was important, He would not have picked the smallest seed, but rather the largest! Another thing significant about the smallest seed is found in Mt 13:31 where the smallest seed becomes a great tree. You can't see the great tree in the small seed; that is the result of working faith. 

I have just finished reading a great book by Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, Belief in an Age of Skepticism. He gives this excellent illustration of the importance of what your faith is placed in: "The faith that changes the life and connects to God is best conveyed by the word "trust.' Imagine you are on a high cliff and you lose your footing and begin to fall. Just beside you as you fall is a branch sticking out of the very edge of the cliff. It is your only hope and it is more than strong enough to support your weight. How can it save you? If your mind is filled with the intellectual certainty that the branch can support you, but you don't actually reach out and grab it, you are lost. If your mind is instead filled with doubts and uncertainties that the branch can hold you, but you reach out and grab it anyway, you will be saved. Why? It is not the strength of your faith but the object of your faith that actually saves you. Strong faith in a weak branch is fatally inferior to weak faith in a strong branch. (emphasis added)"

What is Truth?

Pilate's response to Christ at His trial, "What is truth?", has been used by many unbelievers as a conversation stopper when talk has turned to eternal things. 

Pilate did not have a problem with understanding what truth was. He knew exactly what he expected when he demanded truthfulness from one of his Legion commanders. 

Pilate's quip really meant "What has truth got to do with this situation, this rabble inciting to riot, and the power I have over you?" 

Pilate knew what the truth of the matter was but he was not going to decide Christ's fate based on the truth. 

Everyone knows what truth is. Just ask them if it would be OK for their banker or accountant to lie to them. They know what truth means when it comes to money. 

What they may be uncomfortable about is how to determine truth when it comes to religious claims, but the answer is the same as when dealing with money - count the evidence. 

Christians should be equipped and prepared to show the truthfulness and reasonableness of our faith.

g or G

Anytime you are talking with someone else or reading articles talking about God, you need to keep your sonar alert for the g or G flip-flop phenomenon. You have to keep asking yourself, "Are they talking about god or God?" 

 How many times have you read articles penned by an atheist talking about God where you realize he/she is describing the god of the mirror, not God, the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Creator of the Universe? 

Below is a rough approximation of an experience of one apologist during a question and answer time 

Atheist: "Who created God?" 

Apologist: "I don't understand your question." 

Atheist  (louder): "I said, who created God?" 

Apologist: "I heard you the first time, but I don't understand the question you are asking. It doesn't make any sense." 

Atheist: "I want to know what caused God to come into existence." Apologist: "Your question still does not make sense. You are asking me who caused the "uncaused cause", God. You are trying to deny the meaning of the concept of God by citing it's definition. Your question does not make sense." 

Atheist, finally realizing his god view of God: "Oh."

Emotionally Satisfying Answers

When I was very young, I absolutely hated getting shots - they hurt.

Every shot was a contest - me and Davy Crockett vs the evil nurse and Santa Anna - and, like the Alamo, the hero always lost. Though I don't remember it as being intentional, there was the time a nurse managed to get her chin in the way of my flailing little boots ...

It didn't matter how much my mother tried to explain to her 6 year old son that the medicine in the shot would make him well. I was looking for an emotionally satisfying answer. In fact the only answer that would be emotionally satisfying was -- no shot. I never got that answer.

More than once, I wondered how my otherwise loving mother could allow such harm to come to her favorite son!

Of course, now that I am older and have been in my mother's shoes with my own children, I see it differently. I see and understand now what I did not see nor understand as a child. The child wanted an emotionally satisfying answer; the parent wanted what was best for the child. Mama knew there was a greater good, even if the child cried and suffered pain.

We all want emotionally satisfying answers for tragedy, death, and evil -- but, like the child, the only emotionally satisfying answer we'll accept is for it to stop. For the Christian, we have the promise that one day all things will be made right.  Death and evil will be banished, but today, they are here and we are challenged to show forth God's Glory by perseverance and overcoming as our Savior did.

Also, the Christian has the assurance that our God is the wise loving parent that understands what we cannot and sees the purpose in what we go through though we may not. Our response should be "Not my will be done but Thine."

That is our comfort, and that is the best emotionally satisfying answer of all.

Secular Dreams

Is worship confined to a time and place or is all of life to be a living worship? 

 Is there a place, a time, an action, or an idea over which God does not claim absolute sovereignty and the right of judgment? 

 Is there a place where the light of Truth should not shine? 

Is there a place where the expression of God’s mercy and grace should be banned? 

Is there a place one can flee where God does not hold one accountable for their decisions? 

Is there a place where Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?”, is not the most important question of life? 

Is there a place where reality does not softly cry out its “madeness”? 

Is there a time or place where there is no one to thank for a beautiful sunset or sunrise? 

Where does just saying something is so make it True? 

Where is room found for “secular”? Only in the vain dreams of the Godless.

All Those Hypocrites in Church

Below was submitted for publication to local newspapers. These articles are limited to 250 words. 

Saying “the church is full of hypocrites” is like saying “hospitals are full of sick people.” 

Yes, the church is full of people who are sick - sick of living lives hypocritical to the God who is real. Tired of letting the world suck life out with false pleasures never fulfilled.  They want the quality life – abundant and overflowing with meaning, peace, and joy here and now.  

Like the hospital, not everyone who goes to church gets “cured”.

After all, humility is hard, especially for us hypocrites, and acknowledging our own hypocrisy is where the road to healing starts. 

The fact that everyone who goes into a hospital doesn’t come out healed doesn’t stop people from going there – especially when the disease is serious and the hospital is the only option to save your life.

Then there’s that hypocrisy that some “honest” folks practice – looking only at the bad and ignoring the radically transformed lives they see coming out of the church. Everyone knows someone changed far beyond the power of any psychiatrist or Oprah. 

In fact, the “cure” is no more “inside” the walls of the church than it is the hospital. The power is in a personal encounter with the Truth of the God and Christ the church should represent. 

If you can only see hypocrites when you look at the church, then I guess we’re just your kind of place. We’ll save a place on the pew for you.

Created Perfect for His Purposes

At the conclusion of the sixth day of creation, God looked at everything He had made and pronounced it was "very good." Genesis 1:31. 

This is intended as a brief thought on the issue of sin in God's creation. I'm not sure how firmly I will stand on all the following, but this is where I currently am in trying to pull together scripture and what I have heard and read recently from people like Greg Koukl, STR, and John Piper, Desiring God. 

It seems most people have a very difficult time reconciling a loving and all-powerful God with sin. In fact, atheists throw it back at us all the time as a disproof of God -- which is no disproof at all but, rather, a very strong case for God's existence. 

I know, I said brief, right? OK. Here's the big thought: God created a perfect world - one perfect for His purpose. And His purpose is to manifest His Glory to the utmost. 

Creation is not for my comfort; it is for God's Glory! God is the point and period of creation. You can waffle around all you want as to whether God created sin/evil, but you have to allow at the very least that God allowed it in His creation. 

God is in control. "And we know God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose ..." Romans 8:28 

We are created moral beings - we make choices between good/evil. It is in the struggle of good/evil and the overcoming of evil that God's Glory is manifested in us. 

Evil/sin plays a role in God's plan. It hurts, and it destroys -- but it cannot destroy those whose faith is in God - those whom He has called to be conformed to the image of His son, Jesus Christ (Romans 8:29). 

Where sin abounds, there God's Grace (and His Glory - our right response to His Grace) even more abounds (Romans 5:20). 

Yes, even sin plays the leading villain role in God's perfect creation. 

We, the natural man, seek after emotionally satisfying answers. I think the emotionally satisfying answer is there but it is very hard to come to a point of comfort with. In fact, it takes a lot of faith and a willingness to rest our emotional satisfaction in God's sovereignty.

The god of the Mirror

Very interesting 10 segment video of a debate between Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Good) and Dinesh D'Souza (What's so Great About Christianity) at King's College NYC on You Tube. 

The first segment is here. 

 There has been a recent glut of "God/religion is bad" books by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Hitchens. As I have read commentaries and books on these, watched videos as the above, and based on my own experience with local atheists (including my semi-atheist younger self), two thoughts have been firming up in my mind.  

One thought is that even when these people are willing to assume God's existence, they form their ideas, writings, and speech around the god of the mirror - not the God of the Bible, but a god fashioned in their own image. 

So, when Christopher Hitchens rails about how immoral god is, he is absolutely right. He's seeing his own image in the mirror. It's like those who choose to marvel at man's engineering and scientific greatness in building a magnificent telescope rather than be awestruck at the wonders revealed. 

Then, notice the cool calculated vehemence and loathing coming through in Hitchens. Add to that the fact that these writers have all but given up on trying to support their positions with credible arguments and evidence - reason is thrown out the window. 

I recommend Alister and Joanna Collicutt McGrath's book, The Dawkins Delusion, where he and his wife expose the non-existent arguments of Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion. On the cover of The Dawkins Delusion, atheist Michael Ruse is quoted: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why." 

 It's right out in the open. It seems we have turned a corner; the wraps are coming off; gasoline is being thrown on the fire. 

Opportunity knocks.

Personalize the Debate

This posts answers what I hinted at in green at this post. 

A good friend, Rev. Clarence Powell, relayed this true story to me: 

One day, while serving at the Baptist Children's Home in Monroe, LA, Brother Clarence received a call from a young college student thinking she had dialed a number to arrange for an abortion. (Some might think this was a case of dialing a wrong number, but I think she got the right connection - another one of those co (God and you) incidents.) 

As he listened to the girl talk about wanting to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, Brother Clarence had a moment of divine inspiration. He asked her, "What's the baby's name?" 

The girl, somewhat taken aback by the question, floundered around, and Brother Clarence explained that all little girls dream one day of being a mother. They even think of names for their children. So, he asked her again, "What's your baby's name?" 

She replied, "Mary." Brother Clarence said, "Well, let's talk about Mary." He prayed for Mary, and, to his surprise, the girl on the other end prayed for Mary, too! 

Brother Clarence referred the girl to a local pastor who got in touch with her and offered love and encouragement. See the difference personalizing the discussion made. 

The next time you are debating with someone about abortion, use this tactic. Instead of talking about impersonal fetuses, the unborn, etc, give the baby a name. 

In fact, I would go so far as to deliberately use the name of one of their children, if I knew it. They may not go along with this, but there's no reason you cannot do it, even if you have to do it one-sided. 

You cannot have a debate that is all emotion, and you cannot have a meaningful debate that is all cold hard facts (unless you are debating a computer -- and if you are losing the debate with the computer, you can just turn it off). 

For a debate to be fruitful, it must appeal to both the mind and emotion. Do not neglect the God-given power of the rightness of cradling a newborn in your arms! 

Giving the baby a name helps paint this picture. Now, go back to my earlier post, referenced above, and use "Mary" where you see green words. 

See the difference it makes.

Taking the Roof Off

Here's a pro-abortion ploy. How would you answer this Pro-abortionist question, "Where does an aborted fetus go - heaven or hell?" 

Christian - "It's true that the child* even in the womb carries the mark of original sin and is therefore sinful before God, but the aborted baby* has certainly not reached the age of accountability where God holds us accountable for realizing our sinfulness (estrangement from Him) and recognizing our need for Jesus as the only way He has provided to cover our sinfulness and restore the relationship. So, I guess the answer to your question is the aborted baby* goes straight to heaven." 

Pro-abortionist - "Well, if there's a chance the baby*, when it grows up and passes this so-called age of accountability, may not find your way to god and end up going to hell, then aren't we doing the child* a favor by aborting it and sending it straight to heaven? You should be in favor of abortion!" 

You may be already thinking, "What do I say?" 

There are several different approaches you could take here, but let's look at just one.  Francis Schaeffer (famous and influential Christian apologist of the 20th Century that you really should know) advocated a tactic called Taking the Roof Off. 

Basically, he said people will find all kinds of excuses to hide under to support what they want to believe -- even when what they believe is irrational. This idea of hiding under, he likened to the snow/avalanche shelters built in the mountains of his native Switzerland to protect hikers. Schaeffer's tactic to help the person see the irrationality of their position is to take the roof off their position and allow the rocks and boulders of truth to pelt upon them. 

You do this by carrying their position/belief to its logical conclusion and outworking. Taking the Roof Off in this particular case might go like this: 

"If, in your opinion, abortion gets babies* to heaven and getting to heaven is a good thing, then getting more babies* to heaven is a better thing, right? 

"So, why not abort every child? Everyone goes to heaven! What do you think? (always end with a question - throw them the ball)" 

It will probably dawn on the pro-abortionist that this is really not such a good idea. After all, if the government legalized killing every child in the womb, who would be around to pay into Social Security for the pro-abortionist to be able to draw out of the system? And it may even dawn on them eventually that the end result of their idea is the extinction of the human race. 

The above is somewhat tongue in cheek, but you can definitely expect the pro-abortionist to protest your misunderstanding of what they said. This gives you the opportunity to allow them to more fully explain their position ... which gives you the opportunity to use the Take the Roof Off tactic again or use another tactic. 

The point is that you can stay engaged and make the other person think. 

I must confess I have never heard the above argument used by a pro-abortionist, but it would not surprise me! Also, I am not using it as a strawman (easily defeatable distortion of a person's viewpoint) but as an example for using the Taking the Roof Off tactic. This is not the only tactic that could be used here, but it does lead to an interesting conclusion. 

I also used this argument for its shock value. Since you've probably never heard it either.  It made you think - like finding a shuttered window you had never seen in your home and throwing it open to reveal a new vista. 

You may also have picked up on another fatal flaw in the argument. It reasons there are three winners in an abortion - 1) the woman having the abortion (implicit), 2) the child who goes to heaven, and 3) the Christian who should be happy another soul has gone to heaven. 

After using the Taking the Roof Off tactic as above, the pro-abortionist would probably back pedal furiously to make the point that she/he is not proposing that sending children to heaven is the reason justifying abortion but that it is a collateral benefit that should make Christians happy. 

But should this make Christians happy? Isn't the pro-abortionist confusing reward (heaven) with the purpose of life? And the purpose of life is? You do know, don't you? 

The most succinct statement I have found is from the Westminster Shorter Catechism: "What is the chief end (purpose) of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever." It's like the man who buys a new car off the showroom floor and takes it straight to the junk yard. After all, that is the car's eventual reward -- but is that what a car is for? Has the car fulfilled its purpose? 

I'm not going to develop the argument further here, but you can see where this is leading -- a witnessing opportunity about the meaning and purpose of life. And, it's leading back to the central question of the abortion issue - What is it? (that abortion kills). 

* there is another tactic related to the words in green I will explain in another post - here