Book Plunge: Jesus, The Miracle Worker

What do the miracles of Jesus mean? Le’ts talk about it on Deeper Waters.

My Master’s research is on miracles. One book recommended to me (And if anyone has any other recommendations feel free to give them!) was Graham Twelftree’s “Jesus: The Miracle Worker.” This one was published in 1999 long before Craig Keener’s excellent work on the topic of miracles, yet they handle quite different themes, meaning the two work together very well.

Keener’s book dealt largely with modern accounts of miracles and asking if they are still going on today. Twelftree’s deals with the accounts of the biblical material and is not really interested in if miracles are happening today, although he does indicate that the biblical writers think that miracles should be going on today.

Early on, Twelftree does have a section dealing with Hume, which is an essential for most any work on miracles today. The arguments are simple, but I think in many ways effective. Twelftree does realize that this is not his area and does have sources in the back to help the reader with further study.

Then, he takes us through the gospels where we look at each in turn and look at each miracle that Jesus does. It has been said before that Twelftree argues the strongest case for the deity of Jesus can come from the gospel of Mark. Some readers might be surprised at that, but throughout Twelftree’s book, he does argue that Mark saw Jesus acting as God doing miracles. Whether this is the book the person who told me that had in mind or not, I cannot say, but it is a strong case. It is difficult to think about looking at miracles the same way again after this.

Then, we get into historiography and this is some of the most fascinating material. My father-in-law had warned me that when you get into historiography, that it is a very appealing area and one you can lose yourself in. He’s right. It’s quite fascinating when you see discussion back and forth on whether this passage is historical or not.

I like in this that Twelftree does present a real approach. He is not simplistic enough to say “It’s in the ‘Word of God’ so we know it happened.” In fact, when he speaks about the “Word of God” he uses quotation marks in describing the people who hold to a theory like that so much that they do not allow the Bible to be investigated. I do not doubt Twelftree sees Scripture as God’s Word, but the point he wants to make is that it is not an idol.

So there are places in there where he lists reasons and says “This is why we can say this traces back to an event in the life of Christ.” Then there are places where he says “We can’t be too certain here.” This is a wise move. Let’s suppose you’re like me and do believe that both the wedding of Cana miracle happened and that the resurrection of Jesus happened.

Which one could a stronger case be made for?

Without a doubt, it’s the resurrection. Most of us accept the wedding account because we accept the resurrection account. Of course, if we are wrong about the wedding, then we are wrong, but it does not mean that we will throw out the resurrection. Each account of a miracle should be handled on its own terms. (Do we need to be reminded on this blog that not all miracle accounts are equal?)

Twelftree also lists the miracles by type such as blindness, raising the dead, paralysis healing, nature miracles, exorcisms, and then anything that doesn’t fit into those categories to see what we can gleam about them that way and discuss their historicity. He then gives us a look at what this means about how Jesus saw himself and what we can say about the historical Jesus.

For those interested in miracles, this is a fine work to read alongside of Keener’s book on the topic. In fact, just this morning I started reading Mark again and could not help but see the miracle accounts differently after just reading this book, and of course, that means more abundantly.

I highly recommend this book.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The book can be purchased here

Remember, You Are The Slave

Do we have our roles reversed? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, I’ve seen some discussions going on where there seems to be a preponderance of an attitude that I see often going on in the church. It is the attitude that since God is in charge of the universe then we don’t really need to be active with how we handle matters. This is the case in politics or in personal Bible study. No need to do much. Let God do His part.

After all, His Word will not return to us void. (Isaiah 55:11) If that is the case, then speak forth the Scripture and let it do its work. The Scripture is plain after all and needs no interpretation. Just say it and watch what happens. This is a highly fundamentalist approach, and one that is used by Christians and mocked by atheists that sadly read the Bible in the exact same way. They just disagree on the truth value of Scripture.

If you want to have repair done on your car, don’t take it to me. I know nothing about cars except basic operation and putting gas in them. I go to a mechanic to change my oil and check my tires. No. Go to someone who knows about cars. How does someone learn about cars? They can study on their own, but there are also mechanic schools they can go to to learn how to do repair.

If you want to learn philosophy, what you need to do is to read the great masters, but also it can help to go to a school and take classes on philosophy. If you want to learn science, read the great masters of science and then go to a school and learn about science. My own sister has gone to beauty school to learn how to be a beautician. This is something women do most every day to themselves to prepare to go out and yet, if you want to be a specialist in the area, you need to get an education.

Yet somehow, when it comes to what we call the Word of God, we think that you don’t need to really study to know what it means. You just sit back and God will tell you what it means and you say the Word of God and sit back and let God do the rest.

To many, this sounds good and holy and righteous. It is trusting in God to fulfill His promises isn’t it?

To some of the rest of us, it reeks of laziness that the Lord condemns and it is a reversal of the role. Instead of you being a slave of God, it is you making a slave of God.

Consider “My word will not return to me void.” Okay. That’s in Scripture. If we believe in the authority of Scripture, we have to accept it. Now comes the question. “What does that mean?” Does it mean that every time you utter a passage of Scripture, that God will take those words and use them in a way that will return to be effective?

Friends. That view is more treating Scripture like a book of magic than it is the Word of God, as many prefer to say. (Personally, I prefer to call it Scripture instead. It’s the term I find used most often in the Bible.)

What it is saying is that you don’t need to study the Bible either. You just need to go out and say it. One might as well go out and read the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles, which is largely genealogy, and expect the rest of the world to convert immediately! If all it takes is the reading of Scripture, establish Scripture on loudspeakers everywhere you can and then just sit back and wait until the world is won for Jesus.

Or maybe you should actually study the text and find out what it means. You know, it could be your interpretation of it is wrong. If it is, don’t you want to know that? Do you really want to believe the wrong thing about Scripture? Even Paul who had been preaching the gospel for years, when he got a chance to meet with Peter, John, and James, would check with them and make sure that he had gotten it right, and this is someone who was called of God specifically and saw Christ appear to Him!

You know, if this guy thinks he needs to check up on what he’s doing, am I going to be so arrogant to think that I don’t need to do that?

For my fellow Protestant readers, we can say we have a problem when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, which is basically giving an infallible pronouncement. Fair enough. Yet the problem with so many of us is we just think the Bible must mean what we think it means on a base reading. We make ourselves to be little Popes. (Of course, it gets worse when we add in that the Holy Spirit is revealing it to us.)

By the way, having added that parenthetical comment, always be wary of people who say that the Holy Spirit has led them to such an understanding of a passage. For instance, I heard a prophecy expert speaking on a program recently who said the Holy Spirit led him to the understanding he has. As an orthodox Preterist, I say the Holy Spirit did no such thing, and if this person is wrong as I think they are, then they are attributing error to the Holy Spirit. Note. I am not saying that the Holy Spirit led me to orthodox Preterism either. Do I think that’s what the Bible teaches? Yes. Would I defend it? Yes. Does that mean I could be wrong? Yes. If I am wrong on my view, I would want to be shown. If we say the Holy Spirit has led us into a belief, we are not likely to think that we could be mistaken and thus be really capable of analyzing our views.

Often as an apologist, I have met people who have told me that I do not need to defend my faith. I should just let God do that. I have always asked the same question in response. “Do you take the same approach to evangelism?” After all, if God can do the defense without our help, which of course He can, then the same follows for evangelism.

This is not an option because as Christians, we have been told what to do. We are to go forward and make disciples of all nations. There is not a “Plan B” anywhere. There is nowhere where God says “Of course, if you don’t do this, then don’t worry. I’ll take care of it.” No. We are told our task and if we are to be good slaves of Christ, then it is our duty to do the task. Not doing what we have been told is laziness, and we know that books like Proverbs have much to say about the sloth.

This means that, yes, you need to get some basics at least in defending your faith. Of course, we all differ in the time and intellectual investments that we can make. Still, we are told to do what we can. Your neighbor might have more time and intellect than you do. Do not worry about him. You are not responsible for him. You are responsible for you. You do what you can. If you have one talent, you are required to use that one talent just as much as the man who has five talents is.

Our approach today in the church of being lazy is instead making God to be our slave. It is saying that if we say the Scripture, God is obligated to do His work and that is to get the person to come to Christ. No. God has given us the responsibility of being the messengers of grace and we are to fulfill that. We dare not expect Him to reward laziness on our part.

In fact, the less we take the commands of God seriously to study and do evangelism properly, it means that we are not taking God seriously either as we do not think He means what He says in His commands. Of course, we can all improve on this. I know there are ways I can do better. None of us are serving perfectly the way we ought, but all of us can do better and this will be done by realizing that God means what He says when He speaks. It is hypocritical for us to say we believe in the power and authority of Scripture and yet not live in obedience to the commands of Christ with regards to our presentation of His gospel to the world.

If anyone truly deserves 110%, then it is God, and if we do not think He does, then we need to reexamine our theology. Let us be clear in who we are. We are slaves. We are to live like slaves. When our master gives us a command, we are to follow it. We do realize our master will help us, but He will not reward sloth in any way.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Your Duty As An Apologist

What does the Lord require of you (and me)? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’ve done a lot of writing lately on why apologetics matters so much, but what does it mean to the individual apologist? How are we to live our lives in ministry? Are our callings different from those of others? To be an apologist is a serious responsibility and it is not one to be taken lightly. It is also one that we all fail at from time to time, like any other task, and need to remember the importance of.

To begin with, we need to remember that we are slaves of Christ. We are not our own. We are bought with a price. This means a dependence on Christ, and this is an area I will admit I am not the best at, though marriage has helped greatly. Prayer is something I do have a hard time with, but it is something I have been working on. When the wife and I pray together at night, I try to recall all the prayer requests from throughout the day and the recent past that I think need addressing. I also try to give thanks for what has happened. Prayers also become a review of the day where I try to see where God has been at work in our lives.

Why am I the one praying? This is the point where I bring forward a related duty. I do know there are female apologists out there, and thank God for them, but I am one who does believe a man leads the household, and that means spiritually as well. Of course, women pray on their own, but it’s my belief that a husband is in some ways to be a priest for his wife and come before God on her behalf.

Now to something then that will apply to men and women equally, love your family. What? What does that have to do with apologetics? It has everything to do with it. You are constantly defending the reality that Jesus is Lord of the universe, yet how can He be seen as Lord of the universe if He is not seen as Lord within your own household? If you are not living the life of a Christian spouse and a Christian parent, depending on your marital and parent status, you are not living a Christian life, period. This does not mean that you are non-Christian, but it does mean in your life, you have sin and you need to deal with it. Of course, I realize no one can be a perfect spouse or parent. There is always room for improvement. The only point is to make sure this is a priority.

In our world of apologetics, there are several of us. I belong to the Christian Apologetics Alliance online. With a quick check, I see that we have 1,816 member. This is a lot of people just on Facebook. None of us is standing alone. We have several people. The work you do is important. However, several other people are doing it as well so be willing to cut yourself some slack. Yet when it comes to your spouse, no one else can be a spouse to your spouse but you. When it comes to your children, only one other person can really be a parent to that child, but you don’t want that child to grow up with an absentee father or mother. They will regret it and they will not look happily at the work that you do. Do not expect God to bless your apologetics career if you are not being a blessing to your own family.

Thus, you must study of course, but always set aside time. When your wife wants to go out and do some shopping, don’t do it with complaining. Take that time for her. Trust that God can make your private time fruitful. In our home, I try to do activities regularly for Allie, but we also have some quiet time where she can do her own thing and I can read my book. She can be playing on the Wii, for instance, and I have my book out and I’m getting in my reading. I recently got a Kindle from a friend so after we go to bed, I can be lying next to her for awhile, but I have my Kindle out with the book light getting in some reading. She knows that I need to do a blog like this regularly, but when the work is done, I try to make sure it stays done. Remember, you are not married to your work. You are married to your spouse.

When that time of study comes, make it fruitful. Read good books that will encourage your mind. From time to time, read something lighthearted and fun as well. Of writing books there is no end and too much study will make you tired. When you read a book, try to make sure it is one you want to make an investment in. Remember that you cannot master every field out there so choose your battles wisely.

For instance, on this blog now, I try to avoid science debates. My position on this has changed over the years. In the past, I would have stood staunchly against the evolutionary position. Today, I don’t care. Why? Because I see it making no difference to if Jesus rose from the dead firstly. The second reason is that I am not a scientist. I realize I am speaking out of my field. I do not want Richard Dawkins speaking on theology or philosophy without proper study (And I see what an embarrassment it is when he does). Why should I then be speaking on his field without doing the proper study?

Now an objector out there is saying “But Nick, don’t you know about all the scientific problems with evolution?” I know about the scientific claims, but I cannot explain the problems. Now if you can and you think you can plant a rock in someone’s shoe that can get them to the gospel, more power to you. I’m not going to stop you, but I’m not going to argue with someone on it when I am not trained or read-up in that area. This is also why I do not use the first two arguments of William Lane Craig (I also think they’re inductive without a metaphysical backing) as I could not begin to explain the science behind them. When someone critiques them scientifically to me I’m of the opinion of “Go ahead and say what you will. It’s over my head and not my argument anyway.” Why would I want to rest my position on an argument I don’t understand. If you understand it, have at it. Realize there are areas you don’t understand as well and respect others in those areas.

Recognize the awesome responsibility you have. I see us often as the heroes in the front lines fighting the battles. Many of our brothers and sisters are not as intellectually equipped. This is no fault of theirs. This is not saying they’re stupid either. This is just saying some people are geared towards the academic side and some are not. Those that are not often have strengths in other areas where we fall short. They could excel at empathy for instance. We all have our gifts in the body and we need to respect that not everyone is an apologist. (Though everyone should know where to get the answers to the questions and everyone should respect our ministry as well)

That means that these people are depending on you to fight. You must realize that. What I often think with some of these people is what if they went after someone who was not as equipped as I am, such as my wife or my mother. How would I handle that? That is often why I can be tough as nails on some aggressive and antagonistic people, because I know they would be more than happy to do the same to the people that I love.

Be studied then. Be ready to take that challenge. Realize how often you might be the one that someone turns to for help and when they do, you want to be ready. Not everyone will know people in the Christian Apologetics Alliance, for instance, but they could know you. You could be the only local person they know and if you don’t know the answer, such as a question outside of your field, then make sure that you know a place that they can go to.

Take time for pleasures as well. All work and no play does have an affect. There is a point to play in your life. It is important to rest to recharge your intellectual batteries. What I tell people is what ever you do, do it seriously. When it comes time for work or study, you do it hard. When it comes time to play, you play hard. My friends who play me in games know that when it comes to ones like Scrabble or Super Smash Brothers, I take no prisoners.

When those times of play come, do make it a point to not beat yourself up for enjoying yourself. There are several apologists out there who are taking time to watch the big game. (Although not this one. I could care less) They might be reading during a commercial, but they do have their other interests and they’ve got to where they are as well. You do not want to be a workaholic.

Make sure you are living a holy life as well, and this gets us to the last great temptation, pride. Those of us intellectually gifted can have a great temptation to pride. You can marvel at God using you, but do so in humility. Realize that it is an honor to be used by God and you are but a servant doing your duty. Do not think that you are so special and that is why God is using you, but realize that you are being used by God and it could be because you in fact are not special, as 1 Cor. 1 indicates. God often likes to use the weak and lowly and shameful. Realize that for whatever reason, God has invited you to participate in the spreading of His Kingdom. He doesn’t need you. He could do it without you. You are not necessary to the plan. Still, you are used and that is a work of grace just as much as salvation is.

When someone comes along like your spouse and is concerned that you are getting puffed up, take it seriously. I have regularly told Allie that I am on guard as much as I can be against pride. I want to be humble and I have told her that this is a battle that I have to fight regularly. I must realize when temptation comes that my God is not honored when I am being prideful. Furthermore, Allie does not want a man who is prideful. That is not attractive to her at all (And keep that in mind fellow men. We want our wives to be attracted to us). Your God already thinks you’re worth sending His Son for. Your spouse already thought you were special enough to spend the rest of their life with.

Be willing to help your fellow apologist and to help the layman always. Recently, J. Warner Wallace of PleaseConvinceMe.com linked to a post I’d written on the importance of teaching, and I thank him for his correction. It is not teaching that is needed, but training. If you can, help build other people up so they can shine in the community. They are not your competition. The mission is not about you. When you meet a layman wanting to learn, train him up. When you meet a fellow apologist who could use some help, such as they might be just starting out, be willing to take a disciple if they are someone who is studying in your area. For those who are already established, your blessing on those climbing up the ladder can be highly instrumental.

We train because we’re not just building up people with facts, but we’re building up people who know how to use them. It is not enough to put a sword in a soldier’s hand. You must teach him how exactly he is to use that sword. It is not enough to just give a copy of “Case For Christ” to the interested layman. You must train him up on how he is to use that information and teach the art of debate.

We all have a serious task as slaves of Christ. Give it your all and remember as the Scripture says, that when you are finished, you are just servants doing what you have been told.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Atheism’s New Clothes By David Glass

What do I think about David Glass’s new book “Atheism’s New Clothes” by David Glass? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

When Brian Auten said he was giving away a book from David Glass about Atheism’s New Clothes at the price of a review, I was eager to do so, especially since the book came with a high recommendation from Tim McGrew, someone who I take extremely seriously in the apologetics world. My copy of Glass’s book came in recently and within a week of starting it, I had had it read and on the first day was messaging a friend of mine saying “You must get this.”

The title of the book comes from what is known as the Courtier’s reply from that great beacon of philosophical learning that goes by the name of P.Z. Myers at his blog “Pharyngula.” The reply goes as follows:

” I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.”

The basis behind this is that it’s ridiculous to say you have not read on it. Glass correctly says it is a wonderful piece of rhetoric (p. 27), but does not count as a response. The whole idea behind it is as that it is obvious that there is no God just as much as it was obvious to the little boy that the emperor was naked. It’s a wonder that something that is so obvious has been passed over by the majority world. It doesn’t matter if the new atheists think this is the case. The question they need to ask is why I should think this is the case.

Glass points to the emphasis on science that the new atheists make on page 20. He correctly shows that it has taken the place of religion. This is a criticism I have often raised where it has become the new priesthood. Glass also says on page 21 that the problem with the new atheists basing their atheism on science is that the question of if science leads to atheism is a question of philosophy and not of science.

On the same page, Glass points out that in the past, atheists have looked at the arguments for God’s existence in great detail. The new atheists do not. To make matters even worse for them, they don’t even really look at the arguments from philosophical atheists for atheism. Glass points out that Dawkins does attempt to deal with theistic arguments in chapter 3, and as critics have pointed out, this is the weakest part of the book. (Yes. Anyone who quotes Dawkins as an authority on say, the Thomistic arguments, does not know what they’re talking about.)

All of this is in the first chapter describing the new atheists, and I personally think this is the best chapter in the book.

Glass goes on to deal with the definition of faith that the new atheists put forward. He argues persuasively that the new atheists have redefined faith as belief without evidence, and then shown how silly this is, which is in fact something any Christian philosopher or scholar would agree with, and yet in thinking that they have shown how silly this concept is, the new atheists think they have destroyed the notion of faith.

On page 39, Glass shows how Sam Harris briefly points out that Paul Tillich has a different definition of faith, but says that anyone is free to redefine faith as they want and bring it into conformity with some ideal. As Glass points out, this is in fact what Harris himself has done, as well as the rest of the new atheists! Nowhere do you see any NT lexicons cited that will say that this is what the biblical writers meant by faith. It is something they believe without evidence. Perhaps we should remember what Hitchens could say. “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

An amusing example on page 40 is Glass citing Harris who says:

“Of Hebrews 11:1, Harris claims that ‘read in the right way, this passage seems to render faith entirely self-justifying: perhaps the very fact that one believes in something which has not yet come to pass (‘things hoped for’) or for which one has no evidence (‘things not seen’) constitutes evidence for its actuality (‘assurance’)’ ” He then goes on to set up a scenario where he thinks Nicole Kidman has a love for him and that this must be the case. How else does one explain the feeling?

As Glass points out, this is probably the clearest example of someone making the text say what they want it to say. Absent is any real exegesis of the text, yet this does not stop the new atheists! If one approached a science experiment the way they approach the Bible, the new atheists would be outraged, and rightfully so. It is because of their presupposition in advance that religion is ipso facto nonsense that they think the text does not deserve any real study.

After this chapter, Glass goes on to talk about science and faith. Is there really a conflict?

Glass does a fine job of showing there is no ultimate conflict. Of course, there are times the fields overlap and can seem to be contradict, but this has not been established. This situation also exists with science and history or science and philosophy. The idea that there is a major conflict came from people like Draper and Andrew Dickson White in the 19th century. A better look could be found in a work edited by the agnostic Ronald Numbers called “Galileo Goes To Jail.”

Glass on page 84 shows that this is readily apparent in their problem with miracles, something scientists like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, etc. never had a problem with. The new atheists claim that belief in miracles means one rejects science presupposes that all events are brought about by natural laws. Of course, this would follow if there was no God, but that is the question being raised. It is saying “It is irrational to believe in miracles if there is no God.” Is anyone seriously disagreeing with that?

In fact, Dawkins says the last word was written on this by Hume. (It’s strange that for the new atheists who claim to want to use the latest research, that they look at the 18th century and don’t look to see if any interaction has taken place since then.) I refer the reader to my review of “Miracles” by Craig Keener that can be found here.

The next two chapters deal with the origin of the universe and fine-tuning respectively. This is not my area of expertise as the arguments are scientific rather than metaphysical. I leave that to the reader who has an interest in that area. The next chapter we will look at deals with the Boeing 747 argument of Dawkins.

Glass points out that Dawkins has said that science has set us free from religion, but instead his Boeing 747 argument is a philosophical argument, one that comes from Hume in fact. If it is science that deals the death knell, why is it that Dawkins wanders into philosophy? If Dawkins is allowed to give a philosophical argument against God’s existence, shouldn’t he consider more seriously the philosophical arguments for God’s existence? Before someone says that he has done that in chapter 3 of The God Delusion, I suggest you realize that his understanding of the arguments is incredibly shallow, even of the ones I don’t agree with, such as the ontological argument.

It would have been good for Glass to give more arguments on how a doctrine like the simplicity of God can deal with much of this. The argument is metaphysical and it is my contention that much of our problem in the debates we have today in many areas is that we have neglected the area of metaphysics. Interestingly, most people who I debate with don’t even know what it is, but they know that it is nonsense!

The next chapter is on evolution and the origins of religion. Glass is correct in showing that the origin of an idea does not go against the truth of the idea. Suppose that God exists. Could it not be the case that He would wire our brains through an evolutionary process in such a way that we would come to realize that He exists? (This could be expanded later on with Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism that Glass gets into later on.)

Glass points out on page 188 that Dawkins brings up cargo cults and says that it seems that Christianity almost certainly began the same way and spread with the same speed. Any evidence of this? Nope. It is amazing how far one can get without evidence! All you need is a theory that you think is plausible. Dawkins, of course, does not bother reading something like Rodney Stark’s “The Rise of Christianity.”

Chapter 8 deals with morality and the problem of evil, an area the new atheists lack in, especially since we have something like “The Moral Landscape” by Harris. In fact, Glass points out that if goodness is well-being, then if religion promotes goodness for people and their well-being, then it would seem that Harris should be in favor of religion. Dennett has even shown some beneficial aspects of religious belief.

Glass shows that the new atheists have this idea that for the Christian, the only place they get moral guidance is from the Bible. I have argued against this position for some time. It is my contention that something is not moral because the Bible says so, but the Bible says something is or is not moral because it is. Glass also points out that the new atheists when looking at tyrannical societies like Stalin’s, say that Stalin’s behavior was the kind of behavior religious people have (Even though Stalin was staunchly anti-religious) and so their reigns of terror are the fault of religion anyway!

Glass also shows that the new atheists do not spend much time with the problem of evil which is usually the best argument used against theism. The new atheists have not on their own established any metaphysical basis for morality. When it comes to looking at the claims, the new atheists once again ignore evidence. For the new atheists, evidence is only something a Christian has to provide. The new atheist doesn’t have to.

The ninth chapter is about the Bible. The reason many chapter reviews are getting sparse now for me is that many of these arguments are dealt with by other authors. This is not to say Glass does a bad job of that. He does a great job. Taking care of the new atheists today is like shooting fish in a barrel. As I have said before, we should thank God for the new atheists. They are injuring their own side and helping to wake up ours.

One amusing point in here is that the new atheists argue that the Bible was written by ignorant men. Glass responds that this is in fact the case. The writers were ignorant and we’ve never said otherwise. As can be expected, the new atheists do not deal with evidence. When the new atheists make a claim about the Bible, it is obvious who they go to. It will be a writer like Bart Ehrman, John Loftus, Robert Price, or Dan Barker. Interacting with any Christian scholarship that opposes is out of the question. After all, such people are ipso facto deluded and why waste time with people who are deluded?

Much of this continues with the tenth chapter on Jesus and the resurrection. Glass amusingly tells of how Dawkins says the Da Vinci Code is fiction, and rightfully so, but when Dawkins talks about the formation of the canon, one would be hard-pressed to really show the difference between the two views. Again, it is another case where the new atheists ignore evidence. In fact, Dawkins and Hitchens even say it can be questioned if Jesus existed at all. To say that is a serious question in NT studies would be like questioning descent with modification to biologists.

Fortunately, Glass does give the positive case for the resurrection of Jesus and how NT historians do take the claim seriously. It is the central question of Christianity and it is one that is historical and it is a wonder that the new atheists do not spend more time on it. Well, it would be if it wasn’t for the fact that the new atheists have reached a verdict beforehand so why bother with evidence?

The final chapter is on the question of if life has meaning. This is not an argument I use so I will not be critiquing on it.

The person who is highly familiar with Christian apologetics will get some out of this book and is thus worth reading, but there will also be much that has been seen before. This is not the fault of Glass of course. It’s just that there is so little in the new atheists that there is not much that needs to be said. Still, the book comes with great recommendations from people like Paul Copan and John Lennox and for good reason. The first chapter I still think is the best and I’m pleased to see chapter two is there as I do think Glass is pioneering some in this field.

In conclusion, I do recommend this book and I look forward to seeing what else Glass comes out with.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

David Glass’s web site can be found here.

Entertaining Our Youth To Apostasy

Are we failing our youth? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A recent comment on my post on Do Youth Need Apologetics was about how our youth are being entertained to keep them in the church more instead of being given substance. This is an increasing problem in our church as more and more are falling away and it is not because we lack the resources to help them. We have all we need to win the battles. We’re just not distributing our weapons properly.

Of course, there is something to be said about how we package our material. There is no need to be boring. As much as I love Aristotlean-Thomistic thought, I have said that if someone wants to get a good night’s sleep, then all they need to do is pick up some Aristotle and read it for a little while. His substance is great, but his presentation is incredibly boring. Some have even speculated that Aristotle’s books could be the class notes of those that studied under him.

So making the presentation one that people can pay attention to is important. This does not change the most important part that is being neglected. There is much in the delivery, but the problem is that we are not delivering anything. We are getting youth often caught up in an emotional high and that will only last as long as the emotions do, and we all know that emotions do not last forever.

Of course, this does not mean that emotions are bad. Emotions should be in accordance with our reason. Too often, we have the tail wagging the dog instead of the other way around. If a person no longer feels Christianity is true, then they start thinking it is no longer true, when this is something your emotions cannot tell you. Your emotions can tell you about your response to something, but they cannot tell you about the external something in itself.

Our solution to the apostasy problem is to go with the emotional route. Let’s give our youth even more entertainment! If this works so well, it is a question why we don’t do it in regular services.

Instead of having a sermon, let’s have a comedy show done regularly instead. Adults like to watch Sitcoms after all. Let’s give them a new episode every week. We can make videos of them and let new members to the church see what they missed in past seasons.

Or, we can just find the music the older people in the church will enjoy and put on concerts regularly. We can bring in the greatest names in Contemporary Christian Music. The great entertainment will make sure the adults still keep coming to church.

If that doesn’t work, we can always make sure that every church service has a grand meal to go with it and have everyone bring whatever they like to it.

Surely if we keep entertaining the people in the church, then they will grow into strong and battle-hardy Christians who are ready to go and win the world for Christ.

Or maybe not.

They might be laughing and enjoying themselves, but when they’re out in the battlefield, what are they going to be able to do. They cannot just laugh and expect the threat to go away. That is a great way to shield oneself, but it will not defeat the opposition. Unfortunately, this seems to be our modus operandi in the church. If we just ignore the atheist movement and focus on preaching the gospel, then the atheist movement will just die on its own.

The only problem with this great scenario is that it’s not true.

Non-Christian forces are fighting for our youth and they are having an impact. If we think that we’re going to win the battle on entertainment, let’s just consider a simple question. Which one will the average teenager who is not a Christian want more to go to? Will they want to go to that youth group meeting where they will have pizza and play board games and talk about the Bible, or, will they want to go to that party with loud music, beer, drugs, and wanton sex?

Heck. There are some Christians who could quite likely choose #2, and not for witnessing opportunities.

If we think we’re going to win the entertainment contest, we’re not. This is especially the case if our youth are told they will face great guilt if they drink, do drugs, or have pre-marital sex. The reality is a lot of them when they do this just don’t. They can have pre-marital sex and feel just fine and then wonder “Well this was no big deal despite what the church says. I wonder what else I can do? I also wonder what else the church is wrong about.” Of course, some will feel this guilt, but not all.

This does not mean of course the youth group should never do anything entertaining. I have no problem with pizza parties and CCM concerts per se. The problem is that all of our eggs are being placed in this basket and none of our eggs are being placed in the teaching basket. When our youth go off to college, they are not going to be able to handle the opposition that they face because entertainment will not do it.

The sad truth is that this warning has been raised before and it has been disregarded. We can only hope that the church will wake up and start doing what it needs to do. We have the resources. We have the means. We just aren’t following through.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Is Sincere Action Enough?

What role do good works play? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

My thanks yesterday to commenter David C. for this comment on my blog why every church should have apologetics.

“Thank you for bursting the overly large bubble of the sincerity myth.

“We need to be really loving to them and do as many good works as possible.” “If we do these, they will see the sincerity of our beliefs and repent.”

As stupid as that sounds, it is pretty much the common response of most pastors and other church leaders I have heard in my decade as a Christian. This is unnerving to me as a Christian, and I can only imagine how much it irritates professional apologists, like yourself. If this myth is not delt with, I fear how it may affect the children and adolescence. Especially the one in public education institutions, like public high schools and universities, where secularism runs rampant”

David is right about this. We have bought wholesale into the sincerity belief. Many of us can admire someone to holds sincerely to their beliefs, but not always. The reason the twin towers were hit in 2001 on 9/11 was because the terrorists flying the planes sincerely believed in Islam. Many of us could say Christians should have that level of devotion to their faith where they’d be willing to die for it, but we would not say that we greatly admire the sincerity of those people.

As has often been said with sincerity, someone can sincerely believe in their beliefs, but that sincerity is not enough. David’s comment speaks of the attitude that Christians just need to go out and do good works and that will be enough to get people to repent. Now note in saying this that no one is condemning good works. There is no outcry that says Christians should cease to be out there doing good. Everyone should agree that Christians should be doing good.

The problem is that good works are not going to lead someone to repentance alone. These people need the gospel, and our wanting to go straight to the gospel conclusion without meeting the person where they are in their doubt, is far more likely because of our hesitance to think that we are capable of defending the gospel, or that it is even defensible at all. It would be interesting to have a study done to see how many students in church youth groups would respond just at the possibility that there could be historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

“But Nick!” someone is saying. “What about Saint Francis of Assisi? He was the one who said to preach the gospel and use words if necessary!”

Did he?

I contend that he did not.

The reality is just doing a good deed for someone might get them to second guess their perception of Christians, but not necessarily of Christianity. You are not going to get past a historical objection by one good deed. You are going to have to work and that will mean your study. You will need to learn something about the gospel in order to share it with someone. You can’t just go and do a good deed like you’re supposed to and think that by doing that, someone automatically entails that Jesus Christ is Lord of all. You are leaving the work to them that belongs to you. You are the one who is a slave of Christ. You are the one who is to study to show yourself approved.

The church has the resources it needs to counter the onslaught from all sides that is facing us today. The only reason it’s not winning the battles is because it’s not properly equipping itself. That is sloth on our part, it is sin, and we need to repent and seek the favor of God so we can go out and win the battles like we’re supposed to be doing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Do Youth Need Apologetics?

Do those young people in your church need apologetics? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I wrote on apologetics and the layman. I was specifically focusing on adults, but what about the younger crowd in the church? I’m mainly thinking college age and teenage youth. Do they need equipped? Well let’s look at some scenarios.

Sean has graduated from high school and is getting ready to go to college. He has had excellent grades all his life and decides that he will go to Harvard. He applies and is happy to hear that he has been accepted. Sean has grown up in the church all his life, but he has received no training in apologetics. He would not even know what the word means. He is unaware at this point of how many of his professors are atheists, have been for years, and are ready to let his Sunday School faith be knocked down. Is he ready?

Bill is nineteen and out with his friends on a Saturday night. They decide to get some chips to get together for a night of video games at one of their houses. While at the store, Bill is told to step back as they prepare to go to the check-out line. When he asks why, Bill is told that the oldest member of their group, the only one who is 21, is going to be buying beer. They will be having a party tonight. Bill is a Christian and knows his friends underage should not be drinking, but he doesn’t know what to say. He doesn’t want to be embarrassed.

Rick is seventeen and is in his high school biology class. His teacher is teaching him about evolution and is saying “It is because of this that we know that evolution is true.” Bill has no real problem until Sunday when he’s in school and learns that God created the world in 6 24-hour days just 10,000 years ago. Bill doesn’t know what to do. He’s heard one thing in school and another in Sunday School. Science is such a powerful authority. What will he do?

Anne is sixteen and out with her friends shopping one day. They are going through the cosmetics section when Anne notices one of her friends is slipping some items into her purse. Anne tells her that that’s stealing and she shouldn’t do it. Her friend tells her that she’s being a prude and that all the other girls are doing it and unless she wants to get made fun of, she’d better keep quiet. Anne wants to keep her friendships, but she doesn’t know how to confront them.

Kyle is eighteen and he and Jennifer have been dating for two years. One day, they’re over at her house together when her parents say an emergency has taken place and they have to go out for awhile. They are on the couch together and kissing each other heavily when Jennifer starts to reach for Kyle’s pants. Kyle hesitates for a bit. She asks him what’s wrong. He says he’s a Christian and believes in waiting for marriage. Jennifer says she understands but that they’re in love and they’re surely going to get married someday. She knows that her parents have to have some “protection” around the house so it will be safe and no one will ever know. Kyle looks at her. He loves her deeply and his hormones are raging. He has often wondered what Jennifer looks like under all those clothes and what this great experience of sex would be like. He knows all his friends have mocked him for being a virgin after dating for so long. He hears somewhere in the back of his mind that marriage is to be honored by all and the marriage bed kept pure, but those hormones are overpowering him. Jennifer pulls him in for a long and passionate kiss and he wonders what he’s going to do.

Craig is a fourteen year old who has just returned from a church trip where he heard his favorite Christian band in concert. Unfortunately, he did not have enough money to buy a CD, so he decided to settle for the poor man’s version and get on YouTube and look up the song. While he is rocking his head to his favorite tune, he notices a video on the side called “Why the Bible is not the Word of God.” He wonders about that. He’s never heard that before. Maybe he should click it.

Eric is thirteen and is on the school bus heading back when he hears his friends talking amongst themselves, though somewhat quietly. He asks the guys what’s going on and finds that they’re passing around a magazine. He looks and sees a woman totally naked. His hormones start racing. He knows something from the Bible about not having lust, but these are his friends and he doesn’t want to look like a prude. What’s the harm in taking a little look?

Frank is eighteen and in high school and preparing for finals. He is incredibly stressed out and one of his friends notices and asks what the problem is. Frank says he’s just been studying hard and wants to get into a good college, but is just nervous about finals. His friend says he understands and suggests that he try some drugs that he has that have a really powerful way of clearing someone’s head. Frank is a Christian and doesn’t want to get involved in drugs, but he does realize he needs the edge. What’s the big deal if he did this?

Gary is nineteen and is in college and has been approached by someone asking him if he will join the group that is trying to give homosexuals the right to marry. Gary says he won’t. When asked why, Gary says that he’s a Christian and God’s Word is clear on the matter. The person looks at him and says “Dude. This is the 21st century. That’s an old and antiquated book. You need to get with the modern times. Why don’t you come to this seminar this weekend? We’ll be having a talk on atheism and why we know God doesn’t exist.” Gary doesn’t want to be afraid, but he is.

Eva is sixteen and has spent all her life in Sunday School. She’s been taught all the things she should do right. She doesn’t want to drink alcohol. She doesn’t spend time alone with boys in her house or their house. She wants to wait until she’s married for sex. She doesn’t do drugs. She doesn’t cheat on her classes at school. She is an all-around good girl. Unfortunately, she’s never been taught the rational side of her faith and why she believes what she believes. For her, Christianity is all about being a good person. She is unaware that the next good person she meets will be an atheist. This atheist will tell her it’s fine to keep all that good behavior if she wants to. She just needs to get rid of God. He’s not necessary for that after all.

These examples, again, could be multiplied. There are numerous problems facing our youth today and while they are in their formative years, we are wasting their time. There is more emphasis on going to concerts and having pizza parties than there is on learning the Scriptures and how to defend them. There is nothing wrong with concerts and pizza parties from time to time, and indeed our youth should know they can have fun as Christians. The problem is that we are making the basis for Christians be entertainment.

When our youth come to youth group, they are getting entertainment, and God is an add-on. The lesson that they are getting most often is simply ethical. I am not opposed to ethics of course, but ethics need a foundation. I think back to a time in Sunday School when I was in college and we were going through the book of Joshua and were told that the book was written so the Israelites would know to “obey God.”

Of course, the listing of kings who were killed and the division of the land and other such matters are necessary for that. Having all that history in there of what happened, the renewal of the covenant, the miraculous conquering of Jericho, and other such matters was all written just to make that one point. Of course, Joshua teaches us to obey God, but it certainly teaches us much more than that.

All we give people is years of entertainment. With this, we are also not preparing them to be slaves of Christ. We are giving them the idea that they should be always entertained and God will always be enjoyable. It would be worth noting that Paul was not probably thinking “I am having the time of my life” when he spent a night and a day on the open sea or when he was being given the 39 lashes with a whip.

This further feeds the self-serving tendency, the one we all naturally happen. What does that do when one gets the pressure to do something wrong so that one will appeal to friends instead of seeking the honor of God? What does that do when the person you love is really wanting to have sex, or heck, if you’re really wanting to have sex with the person you love, and you’re thinking “What’s the harm? It’s just sex.” For our youth, a few verses in Paul is not going to be enough to deter them when hormones are raging.

Our youth need to be prepared. Eighteen years of Sunday School will not prepare them to meet a professor who has twenty-five years of studied atheism under his belt. They will be more prone to see Christianity as just a set of ethics, and even then they will soon be shown to be outdated ethics, without any real connection to the external world. The youth are not taught what difference the doctrine of the Trinity makes or how they can know Jesus rose from the dead or what the purpose of saving sex for marriage is.

On that last one, I have a huge problem with too many even Christian leaders today using just the Bible. I have a stance on the Bible that says that something is not moral or immoral because the Bible says so. The Bible says so instead because it is describing an accurate state of affairs that exists independently of itself. You don’t need the Bible to know that sex is reserved for marriage. You don’t need it to know that homosexual behavior is wrong.

Yet so many Christians I know, and this includes the leadership, have as their only defense “The Bible says so.” If that is the case, what happens when the person decides to jettison the Bible? What happens when that person is in the public square and has to defend their views? They have to defend all of Christianity in total instead of just one point. Now of course, all of Christianity is defensible, but let’s not make more of a burden than we ought. When we argue for sexual ethics, we are not arguing Jesus rose from the dead, although that influences our ethics, we are focusing on that one battle right there. Let’s not think we have to win the war to win the battle. Let’s win the battles and let those lead up to the war.

Statistics show that around 80% of our young people lose their faith in college. This does not have to be. Why is it so? It is because the church is not doing its job. Our youth are the casualty and the next generation after them will have even more of a problem as a result. The answer to this problem is to start raising up our young people right now so that they can be equipped for the challenges that will face them.

We have several who could be leading the charge. Don’t let them fall in the name of entertainment.

Apologetics and the Layman

What does the person in the pew have to do with apologetics? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I wrote on why churches need apologetics. Unfortunately, I realize some readers are in areas where they cannot find churches that meet this need and will have to go it on their own. Why is it that the layman in the pew needs some training in apologetics? Let’s give some examples.

Tim is at work and is at the water cooler on his break when Bob comes up to him. Tim decides he’s going to share his faith in Jesus with Bob. His church has been doing a big series on evangelism and getting out there and sharing the Bible. Tim tells Bob about how Jesus came from Heaven, died, and rose again. Bob listens and says “I don’t follow copycats.” “What are you talking about?”, Tim asks. “Well,” Bob says. “If you’ll do some checking, you’ll find that Dionysus, Osiris, Attis, Mithra, and several others in antiquity did the exact same thing. You can also find books like Graves’s “The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors.”

Tim doesn’t know what to think. He goes home and gets on the internet that night and finds several web sites that say exactly what Bob said. He goes on Amazon and sees the book that Bob talked about. Well someone wrote a book and surely this is an educated author. Has Tim been misled all along?

Jake is on a business trip away from his wife and kids for a time and is having to stay at a hotel. Some of his co-workers tell him to come down to the local club with him for an evening. Jake tells them that he’s not really thirsty. They inform him that at this club, there are also going to be several strippers and he could have a really good time. Why not come? Jake tells them that he is married. They reply that he’s away from his home and his family will never know. Jake then tells them he just thinks sex is for a husband and wife. They tell him he can think that, strange as it is to them, but he’s not having sex. He’s just watching. What’s the harm? Jake says he doesn’t feel right about it. At this, he is laughed at by his friends, some ask if he is secretly gay, and they tell him what a prude he is.

Jake is confused as he closes the door and lies on his bed channel surfing and thinking about it. He knows the biblical mandate on sexuality, but why is he observing it when it is costing him so much? He doesn’t really know. He’s been told what not to do but not why. Besides, is this the kind of impression he wants to give to his co-workers? How willing are they going to be to listen to his Christianity when they think that it is all a joke?

Susan is a happy housewife with three beautiful children. Steven is 17. Mary is 12. Nathan is 5. She has been out enjoying her day and she comes back in from shopping with her friends to find out that there is a message on her answering machine. She listens and her face turns white. Steven had been out driving and there was an accident. A drunk driver hit him head-on. He is at the hospital. She drops everything and rushes over.

Susan is quite late however even though she came as soon as she could. She gets to hold her son, but the doctor tells her to say her good-byes. She prays, but nothing seems to happen. Steven dies as she hugs him. In tears, she goes to see her pastor. Her pastor tells her that everything that happens is God’s will and that it is just a mystery.

Susan leaves in tears. What kind of God has she been serving if he is willing to kill her son?

John is at work and is going through inventory. His manager comes to him and tells him to not record the goods that are damaged. They’ll lose money on it. Instead, treat them as if they’re just fine. John says that would be lying. He cannot do that. He is a Christian. His manager says “I understand, but I hope you also understand that I have to hire and keep around here people who are loyal to the company.”

Sherry is out with her friends talking about their husbands and one lady remarks about the same-sex couple that just moved in next door to her. Sherry remarks that she thinks marriage is only between a man and a woman. Her friend looks at her stunned and says “Are you some kind of bigot or something?” Sherry answers “I just think homosexuality is wrong.” “Why?” “Because the Bible says so.” “The Bible also says it’s wrong to eat shellfish and to wear mixed fabrics. Yet here we are having seafood and I bet your clothing is made of mixed material and you have no objections to that. Do you just pick and choose every time what you want to believe?”

Sherry doesn’t know what to say. Has she just been arbitrary? Most homosexuals she’s meet have been really good people. Is it really that big of a deal?

Edward and his wife Karen have just had a really big argument. Edward knows that many of the guys he works with have had the same kind of situation. Many of them are single now as well. He is told by them that he shouldn’t have to put up with the way Karen treats him. Just leave her and move on. Divorce is no big deal. Edwards knows that the Bible condemns divorce, but he’s just told that that was then. Times are different now. He needs to get with the modern age.

The cases could be multiplied. Many of us know of such examples. Especially when it comes to the problem of evil we can see more and more cases where that happens. Yes. I have heard of numerous pastors who have said that a tragedy that strikes is “God’s will.” We all know about the pastors who have gone on TV and said the same about national disasters being a judgment. No doubt, some are saying that about Hurricane Sandy right now.

If you are not getting a proper diet from your pastor of apologetics, and do not have a church in the area that will give it, then it is up to you to make sure you take care of yourself.

What are you supposed to do after all? You are a person with a full-time job. You have a family! You have kids! You also want to have time alone with your spouse, you want to enjoy your hobbies in life, you want to be with your friends. You can’t go off to school or spend all your time in study. You do not have it in you to be a full-time apologist.

That’s fine.

Really. It is.

Not everyone is meant for full-time apologetics, but you need some of it. Consider it with diet and exercise. You may not have time to learn how to be a fitness guru or a personal trainer, but you can do little things throughout the day to make sure that you have sufficient diet and exercise. You can avoid that extra candy bar at work. You can go and walk a mile around your neighborhood when you get home. You can make sure that you sleep well and go to bed at the proper time.

Here are some of my suggestions.

Get some good books that will familiarize you with the scholarly material. I recommend “Case for Christ” as the starting point. A number of apologists are now writing books for the layman. These include books like William Lane Craig’s “On Guard.” Some books are compilations with articles by several people in the field to give you a good and broad look at various issues under discussion.

In the age of the internet, make sure you are using good resources. Do not use sources like Wikipedia. If you go on YouTube, make sure you know who it is you are checking out. If you are viewing something like J.P. Moreland giving a talk on objective morality, that is something more reliable. If you are viewing a teenager in their parents’ house giving a talk on why Jesus never existed, that is more questionable. Of course, a teenager can be right, and I know many educated ones, but you want to sift through the arguments carefully.

In our digital age, we can get information pretty much anywhere. What about that commute to work? Consider instead of listening to music on the radio, listening to a podcast. If you go on ITunes, you can find several podcasts on apologetics. Furthermore, if you go to ITunes University, you can listen to podcasts from Seminaries where you can hear scholars give you information on theology, the Old Testament, the New Testament, church history, etc.

Maybe you don’t have an IPod, IPhone, or a similar device. That’s fine. Go to your local library and try to find a series on CD like Portable Professor or Modern Scholar and listen to them on your drive to and from work.

Try to take some time out for that book reading. If the Mrs. wants to go to bed early, I will often get out the booklight and just enjoy my reading. That can be some of my best time as it is quiet and there is no interruption from anything. After all, nothing else can be on or else it might wake her up. You might have to sacrifice some time, such as time watching TV, but no one is telling you to move into an ivory tower.

If you can, do some internet discussion. Don’t be afraid to put ideas out there and see what other people are saying. You can get your tail kicked from time to time. That’s fine. It could just show you where you need to study.

Also, try to find other people who want to do similar study with you. If the church will not establish a small group for you, then you do it on your own. If numerous people study different topics, you can share your findings with one another and reach conclusions that way so you can all benefit from one another’s study.

As you can see, there are numerous things you can do. However, the examples show that it is important. Without an informed Christianity, you are set to be caught flat-footed at any moment and you do not want that. None of us want to be embarrassed, especially for our Christianity. Remember if people see your Christianity as shameful, they will see Christ the same way. Be your best to be a witness for Him.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Why Every Church Should Have Apologetics

Is apologetics a requirement for every church? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

This morning, I went out to the mailbox and found inside a note that was hand-written, but also looks like it was copied for everyone on my street. I first thought it was one of the neighbors but then opened it up and found something different. I am going to exclude names for personal safety of people involved, but I would like you all to know what it said. I will start by saying at the top in a larger print was the word “Revival.”

It starts on the upper left with saying “Please come and bring your lost loved ones so they may be saved at”, and then on the upper right next to “Revival” says “Time may be shorter than you think to get them saved before its too late.” (Yeah. I know the grammar is bad there. Don’t shoot the messenger my Grammar Nazi reading friends.) Going back to what was on the left, it reads as follows:

“at XYZ church starting on day A at time B nightly. Rev. C and D will be doing the preaching. The church is located at E, pastor F. Everyone is cordially invited and welcomed to an old-fashioned, country revival. We are just a small church, common people, saved by grace, trying to get the lost in and around the community saved.”

I thought about this while thinking about a post I wrote earlier on Why Apologetics Should Be A Requirement For Every Pastor I had planned to write today about apologetics for laymen, but this message I got in the mail is the perfect opening to why every church should have some apologetics in it.

I won’t deny that I highly admire the zeal of this church. I have no doubt these are good people who really are doing what they think is best. The fact that this was being hand-delivered rather than using the mail made me think a coordinated effort had been planned to reach the community, to which the community I live in is indeed a very small one. It would not be too hard to do, but it was still work.

Yet as I looked, the first big problem I had with what I saw was that it was assuming I was a Christian at the start. Fortunately, I am, but what if I had not been? I am quite skeptical in a community with a deep respect for religion like the one I live in, that there are people here who have honestly never heard the gospel. Now I realize that it is possible, but color me skeptical of it. The ones who have not heard it are those who disbelieve in it and I thought “If I was one of those people, what would I think of this message?”

Rightly or wrongly, I was sure I would think “Just a bunch of religious fundamentalists.” It would have been dismissed with a thought on how religion is the opiate of the masses and hopefully these people will pick up a book on science one day.

My second problem was with the emphasis on getting people saved. Now some of you are saying “But didn’t Paul have the same emphasis?” Yes he did. He was also a teacher who was writing regularly to churches making sure they were staying in line and setting up people who could teach the church after he was gone as well as having those who worked with him regularly go to churches and see how they were doing. Paul realized that he could not be everywhere and wanted to make sure a church had effective leadership when he left.

In our culture, we don’t do that. We place a big emphasis on conversion. I have shocked a number of Christians by telling them I have no interest in making converts. I don’t. The Bible never once tells me to go out and make converts. In the Great Commission, I am told to go forward and to make disciples. With what we do, it would be akin to Adam and Eve being told that since they were to go forth and multiply, that that means to have a kid, leave it there, and then go on their way to making the next one.

We do all that we can to get someone to the altar and then once the altar is passed, the work is done. We have won the battle! Let’s go on our way! At this point, I don’t care if you’re a Calvinist or an Arminian. Let’s consider that this person gets no training and then later on encounters those who are opposed to Christianity and then abandons their faith. If you’re a Calvinist, you would say it was not a real faith that they had to begin with. If you’re an Arminian, you’re going to say that they lost their salvation.

Either camp excludes you from the faith.

Getting them to the point of recognizing Jesus as Lord is important, but then we need to emphasize what it means to recognize Jesus as Lord. It is not just a simple proposition, but one that colors all of life. Imagine, for instance, how your life would be different if you believed that washing in water spread disease rather than removing germs. Your life would be drastically altered, and frankly so would the lives of everyone who had to be around you. Imagine still how much greater it would be if you thought all water was poisonous. At least those around you would not have to put up with the smell for too long!

Now take the proposition that Jesus is the Lord of all the universe. Surely it should affect your worldview even more than those beliefs! Here in America, we are about to have an election. Imagine how different this election might be if we realized that in some bizarre way, after the election, God would take our elected president and install him on His right hand to rule the cosmos. Frankly, as conservative as I am, I still would not like that prospect. The right hand of God already has Jesus sitting there. Let’s keep it that way.

If the scenario was the case, we would think even more about who we’re electing. This person is the ruler of the universe then. Do we want to make sure we know who that is? Do we want to make sure of what it means to have this person ruling over us? Many of us today will pay more attention to researching the candidates we are going to vote for to lead us for the next four years instead of studying who the person is who we claim is our Lord to lead us for the rest of our lives, even lives after death.

Once a person recognizes Jesus as Lord, we need to have them involved in learning what all that means for their daily life. What does it mean to say Jesus is Lord when the bills start pouring in and you don’t know how you’ll pay for them? What does it mean to say Jesus is Lord when you make your wedding vows to the person you love? What does it mean when you have a new child being born? What does it mean when you lose your job? What does it mean with how you budget the family income? Everything is touched by this first proposition.

It’s bad enough that most Christians don’t really know what they believe and why it matters, but they have even less knowledge usually of why they believe. This includes pastors. There are too many pastors out there who have no business being pastors because they have no clue why they believe.

I recently met one at a local concert going on here at a small baseball park, an outdoor one I used to play T-ball at. It was a simple event with a Christian group singing and food being given out. I was asking to find the pastor. Eventually, I found him and asked what the church was doing with apologetics and heard “Nothing now.”

“Why not?”

“Well we’re just preaching the Word of God.”

“And how do you defend that Word of God when it comes under attack?”

“It’s the Word of God. It can’t be refuted!”

“Muslims tell me the same thing about the Koran.”

“Well the difference is we serve a living God and they serve a dead one.”

“They say the same about you.”

“Well we’re right and they’re wrong.”

“They say the same about you.”

“Well I guess we’ll just see in the end who’s right and who’s wrong.”

At this point, I said something about the blind leading the blind and walked off.

This is a pastor who doesn’t know why he believes what he believes, but he wants everyone else to believe it. We would not tell someone to vote for a political candidate without having a reason. We would not tell them a TV show they should watch without having a reason. We would not tell them about a place that they should invest their money in without having a reason. We would not tell them about how to raise their children without having a reason. We would not tell them to marry or not marry someone without having a reason.

Yet we expect to do that with what we claim is the most important decision of all?

Now some of you will say that what you feel and experience is the reason. To which, I ask why aren’t you Mormon? They all claim to have an experience and a feeling, yet there are several who will say they know Jesus is real because they feel Him in their hearts, but will think the Mormon claims are obviously false and don’t buy into the burning in the bosom. With this, it is just special pleading. Why should your case automatically be the right one?

I wonder how many like this will talk about how foolish they think Muslims are for so blindly being willing to fly a plane into a tower and thinking how people will believe such bizarre things without stopping to realize that in many ways, we believe even more bizarre things. We are the faith that says the second person of the triune God took on the nature of humanity, died on a cross for the sins of the world, and then rose again.

What the church needs is to know what they believe and why they believe it and the presentation of “Just give them the gospel” doesn’t work the way it used to. People are no longer in a position where they already believe many things Christians believe and just need a little information about the claims. If anything, most people are in a position where they are opposed to the Christian faith even if they don’t realize it.

How about if the flier I got in the mail instead said something like this?

Come to church X tonight led by pastor Y to hear speaker Z who is going to be giving a talk on the historical case to demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead. He will then be taking questions from the audience. Bring your skeptical friends to hear a presentation that is sure to give them something to think about.

I suspect that this would have much more interest as people generally do like to see something that is controversial and could think “I’ve never heard such a claim before. This is really intriguing. I need to go check it out.”

Consider another one.

“Come to church X tonight led by pastor Y to hear speaker Z on why marriage should be between a man and a woman. After making the case, Z will be taking questions from the audience. Bring those who are for and those who are opposed and come to hear an interesting presentation.”

In our day and age, this could be something that would attract even more people as this is really water cooler talk. The church needs to be talking about the issues that people are talking about.

Now some of you might think you won’t get as many numbers if you go that way. Possibly, but so what? Numbers are not everything. We have often turned churches into number games where you will have thousands of people in a church, but none of them know what they’re doing there. Instead, they are simply being sheep led to the slaughter. If you’re a shepherd and you have no means of defending your flock, it is actually worse for you to have a larger one. That is a flock where the wolves have even more targets they can go to.

When churches that have no defense face trouble, two things usually happen to the members. The first is that members can apostasize. Often, these apostate Christians are the hardest to talk to as they have a large chip on their shoulders that tells them that the Christian faith lied to them and they will not be duped again. The second that can happen is that the Christians will respond to intimidation by isolating themselves from the world. They’ll be very good at giving emotional assurance to themselves, but they will split themselves off intellectually from the world and will cease to be salt and light.

Only on the rarest of occasions will they actually seek to study their faith and learn how to defend it.

Here’s my suggestion.

First, every church needs apologetics. This does not mean that it has to be specifically mentioned, though I would have no problem with it, but it does mean that it needs to be brought up. The pastor in the midst of this sermon can give a historical background to a text and explain how we know some of what is said and even mention a book on the topic that someone can read if they want more information.

Second, the pastor should never ever discourage the life of the mind. The pastor needs to be clear that there is to be no separation between the Christian life and the intellectual life. What we feel and what we experience should work in tandem with what we think. The pastor should never reach a point where he says we have investigated a biblical claim enough or that we should not read such and such an author or that we should just ignore intellectual problems.

Third, the pastor should set up groups as well for those who are more interested. Not everyone in the church will have total interest in apologetics, but some will, some even more than the pastor. That’s fine. What he needs then is to set up a small group of some sort where these people can come together and learn and he should let everyone in the church know about this group. We have groups on learning how to budget your money, how to have a good marriage, how to raise your children, how to make a quilt, etc. We don’t usually have groups on understanding what you believe, why you believe it, and how to defend it, and this from an institution that claims to make an emphasis on belief.

Fourth, the pastor should have a well-stocked library for the church to use including books on apologetics and the church needs to know about this library. I can go to many church libraries that unfortunately I have to search high and low to find even one book on the topic of apologetics. I can find several good country novels or find the Left Behind series or books on dealing with your feelings and such, but to find a book that actually tells Christians about what they claim is the most important truth of all? Forget it.

Fifth, the pastor needs to be able to show the kind of lifestyle the church should have. The pastor should be a reading pastor seeking to study. The pastor should show in his sermons that he has done his homework and refer to experts and such that agree with him. The pastor should show involvement with the world around him and talk about the issues that are being talked about by his congregation and by the world at large.

Not everyone will be thrilled. That’s okay. We’re not out to please people but to please God by spreading His kingdom. Not everyone is ready for advanced material. That’s fine, but we need to get them started somewhere at least and the aware pastor will know all levels in his congregation and will include something for everyone. The pastor might not have as large a congregation, but he will have an effective one, and it will be better to have a dozen who know what they’re talking about and why than 1,000 who don’t.

A dozen is better? What can be done with such a small amount?

Perhaps we should ask Jesus. He spent three years training such a group and changed the world through them. Why can’t we train our Christians and change the world today?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Wife of Jesus

Did Jesus have a wife? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Okay. We’ve all heard the story by now. Jesus supposedly had a wife according to a 4th century document. Keep in mind we really don’t have much and it has been pointed out that the fragment is rectangular that we have indicating some editing has been done. Either way, the main story about it can be found here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49075679/ns/technology_and_science-the_new_york_times/t/historian-says-piece-papyrus-refers-jesus-wife/

So what are we to make of this?

My take? Absolutely nothing.

Why is that? Because this document is incredibly late. It would be just as false to take seriously a 4th century document that had Jesus walking around proclaiming explicitly the doctrine of the Trinity. It’d have made things easier for us today if He’d done that (Although I think much more difficult overall for people back then), but He did not. There is no doubt that other groups and even some Christians in the second and third centuries and onward would want to put words in Jesus’s mouth so He could advocate their views.

What do we do? We critically examine any text. We look at the dating of the manuscript, any claim of authorship, any information on the dating, authorship, and accuracy of the manuscript be it external or internal, and then make an informed decision. We have several works that describe how this is done for books of the New Testament and describing how it is done for books that are not in the canon, such as many Gnostic works like the Gospel of Thomas.

What is amazing about this is that the gospels which can all easily be dated to within 100 years of the events that they talk about are immediately rejected as biased and unreliable. Meanwhile, we have one fragment that says something centuries later and all of a sudden this is seen as something highly reliable. The double standard is incredible.

However, let’s also suppose that worse comes to worse and that as it turns out Jesus had a wife while He was on Earth. I don’t think that He did, but let us suppose for the sake of argument that He did. What do we lose by that?

Nothing.

Why would we? It’s no sin to be married. It’s no sin to have sex within marriage. If Jesus had been a married guy, well we’d realize the gospels did not consider this important to mention, but that’s okay. That again would not mean that they are inaccurate in everything they say. It would just mean that they are incomplete, and that’s okay because any biography of anyone will have to be incomplete. If you wrote an exhaustive biography of anyone it would be massively huge.

What we have here is simply a non-story. This kind of claim has been made before and it will be made again. The best thing to do is to have the church improve their skills at thinking so that not everyone has to panic at the thought that a new finding has come up. We have gone through this before and we will go through it again. As far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing worth talking about. I simply write this for those who might be concerned and want an opinion on the matter.

In Christ,
Nick Peters