Category: Political

Allergic to Religion?

Does a tolerant culture really practice it? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, I wrote an article for the local paper on how a Christian is to live in a society where voting is a reality and still practice their faith. How do you integrate the two? What does it mean to say “Render unto Caesar”? For those who are interested, that article can be found here.

What has been much of the response? Immediately people assume that I want the Bible to be the law of the land much like a Muslim wants it for the Koran. It’s highly incorrect.

First off, when we speak about a theocracy, we often mean a generic idea since God is left undefined. If you want to know the kind of society a Christian would like to see most, well look at a society where Jesus is in charge. What would that look like? Look at what it was when He walked this Earth. What did He believe about how man should live? What did He believe about morality? If someone thinks that is what Jesus believes and this is the best leader we can have, why not vote that way?

Second, I am entirely for freedom of religion or non-religion for that matter. If someone wants to be an atheist, fine. He has no obligation to practice any religious belief. On the other hand, if someone wants to be a Muslim, by all means let them be provided they follow the laws of the land. If someone wants to build a mosque here, that is their right! If Muslims wants to raise up their children to be Muslims, let them do so.

How do we evangelize to such people? In the marketplace of ideas. That’s part of having a diverse society. We come together and we each present our claims at the table and why we believe those claims and we seek to examine them to see which claim if any is true.

Instead, the charges raised are well-poisonings designed to incite fear. “You want to force Christianity on everyone!” No. I seek no marriage between the state and the church. The authority of the church is to come from Christ Himself. It is not to come from government.

At the same time, they also don’t need to be on opposite poles where never the twain shall meet. The two are to work together. If we make them enemies as was the case with the Roman empire beforehand, it becomes just as problematic. Of course, it does fortunately get people to take Christianity more seriously.

Yet those in our society who are raising cries of Jihad, which is quite common, act as if any introduction of religion whatsoever into the public sphere will destroy society. The implicit understanding is that our culture must be entirely secular, yet if it is entirely secular, why should I think a marriage of secularism and the state will do any better than Christianity and the state? At least with Christianity there is an underlying moral framework with an objective basis. None for secularism so it will simply be a case of the moral preferences of the person or persons in charge.

The fear-mongering is a way simply to remove religion from the public square. You may practice religion and we are all for freedom of religion, but just don’t bring it out here for we want freedom from religion. You will no more get it without using force any more than I will get freedom from secularism. As long as there are those who want to not believe in God for instance, then I must let them have the freedom to have that belief in a society like America. Do they want to vote according to that belief? Let them! Does a Muslim want to vote in accordance with Islam? Let him! I have no problem with that. Naturally, I hope both sides lose when they disagree with Christianity, but I want them to have the freedom to vote what they think is right.

Instead, we get people who react to any mention of religion whatsoever in the public square the way Dracula reacts to a cross. It is as if having a drop of religion in the water supply of public thought will contaminate everyone. The best way to do that is to just eliminate it from public. Of course, those who do such are going against the tolerance that they often love to proclaim.

What is tolerance? Tolerance is simply the notion that while you may disagree with someone, which is essential for tolerance, they do have the right to hold and practice a belief that you disagree with. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. Modern tolerance has been that you must agree with what I say, you must accept what I say, and the same extends to behavior. In fact, we often move beyond tolerance to acceptance and celebration. Not only must you accept what I say and do, you must celebrate it and desire that I do so.

I fully accept that the atheist wishes to live without God in his life and wants to practice an atheistic lifestyle. I can accept it in the sense that that is reality and I must go with it, but I certainly will not celebrate it. For the Christian, that is a tragic position and the best thing I can do is to try with reasonable arguments to show him the error of his ways. From his perspective, I’m throwing my life away on an illusion and he must try to show me the error of my ways. That’s fine! Then let us meet with open exchange and determine who’s right and who’s wrong.

We must debate the question. It is better to debate a question and never settle it than to settle a question without debating it. Whatever the question is, let us debate it. If anyone disagrees with a position, let the evidence be presented. Let it be examined. Let it be challenged.

Could it be the real reason for the allergy to religion is because those who want to have the main say in society are scared of any threats to their rule? From the evidence I see thus far, that’s what I must go with. In the past, we had a church priesthood that many deemed totalitarian. Now, we have a secular priesthood with its own method of inquisition. They have their own creeds and their own statements of faith. The secularism is just as religious as the religions that it seeks to diminish.

What can Christians do? Christians need to keep presenting their case and be as informed as they can be. I personally support meeting the secularists on their own grounds and showing that their arguments do not hold up. It is quite amusing to go to those who claim to be the champions of reason and demonstrating how unreasonable they really are. Like the church in earlier days was accused of not practicing what they preach, so it can be shown that today’s authority teaching supposed reason and tolerance, do not practice what they preach, as reason simply becomes “thinking apart from any theistic idea” and tolerance becomes “Not disagreeing with us.”

In Christ,
Nick Peters

God’s Authority Outranks Government’s

How does one interact with government if Jesus is King? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

The following is an article that I wrote for the local newspaper in my monthly column.

In my last column I wrote about the gospels as campaigns with Jesus as king. What does that mean for the American political scene if Jesus is king? We are often told to render unto Caesar, but does that mean what we think it means, or have we imbibed some modern ideas into our thinking that are foreign to the 1st-century text?

In our enlightened time, it is common to think of the “world of faith” and the “world of reality” as separate. You can have your Christianity, but just make sure you compartmentalize it. Don’t bring it with you into the political sphere. Just keep it at home and go to church on Sunday and don’t interfere with education.

The Christian can have none of this. If Christ is Lord, He is Lord of everything. Jesus came on the scene essentially challenging Caesar. It was what British scholar and historian N.T. Wright called “fighting words.” Herod knew what Jesus was claiming. The priests in power knew it. Caesar would have known it as well. Jesus was claiming kingship.

Enlightenment thinking has said that faith belongs to a world above while man will rule the world down here. Now in essence, man has long ruled the world down here. Until the day when God is recognized universally as king, he has allowed men, even sometimes wicked men, to rule so there will be some order and justice.

Secularism, meanwhile, has decided that the old systems of the past must be rebuilt, and so we see an attack on everything the church has held to be sacred — be it Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox — throughout the ages. Any hint of religion is being removed to form a secular state, even now to the point where life in the womb has been killed and the world seeks to redefine marriage itself. The secular machine is on the march and is destroying all in its path under the label of “tolerance.”

What is a Christian to do? In a voting society, a Christian is certainly allowed to vote with what he believes to be true. A Muslim, an atheist and a Jew should all have the same right. If you think something is true, why should you compartmentalize it away from reality? Of course, I also hope more Christians would educate themselves on reality to get more than just “the Bible says” as to why they hold a certain moral stance. Our own Bibles tell us that moral truths are known apart from scripture and we need to be able to establish those moral truths, and if we can use the weapons of the enemy against them (weapons, by the way, that come from the Christian church and have been hijacked), then all the better.

Secularism has been tearing down the fences that have been built without asking G.K. Chesterton’s question: “Why were they put up in the first place?” Yet too many of us know that when man seeks to expel God from the world, he will have to put something in God’s place, and usually that something will be a mirror. If man thinks he has no authority that is greater than him that he is subservient to, then we can expect that his true colors will be revealed. If any doctrine of Christianity will be established then, as it can be today easily enough by watching the evening news, it will be that of original sin.

How do we follow Jesus’s advice, then? We give Caesar what is his due, but make sure we do the exact same with God, and keep in mind that God is a higher authority than Caesar. We are by no means to take up arms and seek to destroy Caesar that way, but we are also not to lie down and do absolutely nothing when Caesar comes after us. We must make our stand today and state that we are people of the true king of this Earth and seek to further the time when his rule will be completely realized on the Earth.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Levitical Layout

Does the case for the layout of Leviticus affect the condemnations of homosexuality? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A friend of the ministry recently sent me this item: http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/component/docman/doc_view/418-jsq-two-screens?Itemid=267

It’s a fascinating read on the work of Mary Douglas in interpreting the book of Leviticus. Douglas thinks that the book describes a layout of the tabernacle as it were. Chapters 1-17 deal with the common area. 18-24 deal with the priestly area. 25-27 deal with the Holy of Holies. Does that mean that chapters 18-20 would only apply to the priests?

Well first off, let’s look at some commands in these chapters that would not apply to the common folk then.

18:21 “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.”

So priests could not sacrifice to Molech, but everyone else could.

19:4 “Do not turn to idols or make metal gods for yourselves. I am the Lord your God.”

Idolatry was only a no-no for priests. Not for everyone else.

19:11-18 “11 “‘Do not steal.

“‘Do not lie.

“‘Do not deceive one another.

12 “‘Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

13 “‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor.

“‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.

14 “‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord.

15 “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

16 “‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people.

“‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord.

17 “‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.

18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”

All of these applied only to priests? That includes lying and stealing and loving your neighbor as yourself?

19:29 ““‘Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.”

Only priests could not make their daughters prostitutes?

I hope the point is clear.

In fact, it is when we get to chapter 21 that we have a start with “Speak to the priests.” Before that, there is no reason to think the verses do not apply to the common man. In fact, since the end of chapters 18 and 20 tell of how the people in the land practiced these activities and thus were being cast out, it would follow that those people should have known that these behaviors were wrong.

Now could it be God is being more forward in holiness standards from 18 on? Sure. Let me also be clear Douglas makes no argument herself that the moral rules no longer apply that I saw, nor did the person who emailed me the information make any such statement.

If someone still disagrees, they’ll have to give reasons why only homosexuality should be excepted from the list. So far, the cases have just been special pleading.

Also, keep in mind that the argument is not “The Bible says so, therefore it’s true.” It’s just getting clear what the Bible says. (Although I do agree with it.) For the sake of argument, the Bible could be wrong on what it says, but let us be clear we are not wrong on what it is saying.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Escapist Mentality

Do you want to die and be with Jesus? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

In Philippians, Paul tells us that he desires to die and be with Christ. Does that fit anyone else? How many people really want to die and be with Christ? I have met several Christians that it seems their #1 desire at this point is they just want Christ to return so they can get out of this world. They want to die and be with Him.

Astute readers could be thinking, “Nick. That’s not the whole verse! Don’t you know how it ends?!”

Of course I do. I wanted to just emphasize the one part for now. What Paul said is that yes, he does desire that, but to go on living is more necessary.

Keep in mind, he said that in jail as well.

I consider Paul to be quite realistic in his approach. There is nothing wrong with looking forward to being with Christ. Yet Paul says this when it could be that death is right around the corner and he’s not sure which way things will go. Today, many Christians take a different approach. They want to die just because they want out of this world.

Note that last part is just as problematic to me. We have this idea that this world is an awful place and that we need to abandon ship and go back to the homeland. What if this world is the homeland? What if my overall position is right and the goal of God is to bring Heaven to Earth? Now this isn’t something that comes by political advancement or government actions, though we should seek the best in those areas, but by a divine act of God through the preaching of the gospel.

We should all be ready if need be to die for Jesus, but we should seek all the more to live for Him. Dying is scary, but quite simple. Once it’s done, it’s done. Living is a lifetime action that requires constantly dying to yourself. Dying for Jesus could be a way to bypass the harder task of living for Him.

We as Christians are called to engage the culture. We are not called to escape it, and too often we are escaping it and hiding in our little Christian caves and only interacting with people who agree with us. You might be building yourself up, but you’re not doing much for the culture that way.

This also includes pastors. Too many pastors just want to speak to like-minded people and don’t know what to do when the skeptic shows up with hard questions. It takes little courage to stand up to people who already agree with you and tell them what they already agree with. It’s like standing up in Hollywood and saying you support redefining marriage. If I want to hear about the courage of someone in Hollywood speaking out, I’ll wait until one of them has the guts to accept an award at the Academy Awards or some similar event and say they think marriage should only be between one man and one woman for life.

I prefer to engage the culture instead since I also think my eternity depends on what I did with this life. Did I live it in service of Jesus Christ? Did I leave this world a better place than I did when I came into it? I want it to be that when I stand before the throne, I will hear “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” I want to know that any future descendants I have will be better off and if we don’t have children ourselves, I want to know that the world will be better for everyone else’s children.

This also fits in with the therapeutic nature of Christianity today. We want to feel safe and secure. It’s why ministries that do that get so much support, but apologetics ministries, like this one, don’t get much. Many people are interested in what helps them feel good. They’re not as interested in material that makes them think or engages the culture.

Of course, there are other ministries worth supporting. There’s nothing wrong with giving to your local church, which you should do, or supporting charities that help out with physical and mental conditions and such for people, or help families in crisis, or many other good things, but too many people can just give to a ministry and think that means they’ve done their part in Christian service. Well that is a part of it, but it’s not the whole deal. It would be like saying you hired a maid and therefore you cleaned your house. If you can afford a maid, great, but don’t speak about it like you’re the one really working.

The irony is that many of these Christians want to escape the world because it’s so evil and not realizing that their failure to engage the culture is making it worse for them and everyone else. You don’t like the way the world is? Neither do I. In fact, neither does God. That’s why Christ came! If you don’t like it, then instead of running away, do something about it.

In this battle, myself and other apologists I think are the ones on the front lines directly debating those seeking to do away with the only hope we have. Not everyone is meant to do that. I get it. I think everyone should have a basic apologetic argument for themselves, but not everyone is meant to be a professional apologist. Then do your own part.

We’ve already mentioned financial support. That’s good and should be done, but also be an encourager for those on the front lines. Go help out those in need. Volunteer at your church. Be willing to go on a mission trip. Seek to study the Bible and learn more about what it means to be like Christ and show that to the world. There are countless ways you can serve Christ.

When your work is done, you will be called into the presence of Jesus. You can look forward to that, but make sure your sole goal in life is not to escape what you see around you. You are where you live and you are when you live as well for a reason. Acts 17 tells us that. Your existence is not a mistake, but what you do with it could be. Seek to live the life for Christ.

If we will actually engage the culture, we will be amazed at what could happen. I think we could really end the marriage debate easily. We could do so much to stop the silent holocaust of abortion in our land. The spreading and living of the gospel will also do more to stop mass shootings than any law the government can pass.

Save the world. Engage the culture. Be Christian.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Danger of Tolerance

Is it ever wrong to be tolerant? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A lot of Christians yesterday, including some in leadership, had the equals sign as an avatar of Facebook saying they wanted equality in marriage. I would like to have seen how they would have been responded to being told the standards of who one can marry is already the same for everyone, but I fear there is more heat than light on this issue and more are thinking with emotions than reasoning. This is especially so since politicians like Portman and McCaskill have given reasons that are largely emotional for a change of mind.

One aspect of this is the idea of tolerance. Christians want to be good people. I get that. We think it is good to be tolerant. Therefore, we decide we should be tolerant. We get the command that Jesus told us that we are not to judge and therefore it comes to “Who am I to judge someone else? Let God do that. I will be tolerant. That’s what Jesus would have me do.”

Keep in mind, Jesus made several judgments and he was hardly tolerant of the false teachings of those around Him. When we look at the epistles, it’s the same way. They hardly would have been written if the apostles had been practicing tolerance.

Of course, this is with the modern view of tolerance. The modern view is more along the lines of having to accept everything. One cannot say that another person is wrong in their position. All views are to be seen as equal and no view is any better than another.

Such a position will lead to numerous contradictions. For instance, if no view is better than another and all views are equal, what about the view that all views are not equal and some views are better than others? Is that to be treated the same way? If an exception is not made, then the principle is violating itself.

So am I saying Christians should be intolerant? No. I’m saying we should practice classical tolerance. In classical tolerance, you allow some wrong views to be held on matters of serious discussion. You still say the view is wrong, but you allow the person the freedom to hold that view.

This shows up in the NT. What about meat offered to idols? What about whether one should have wine? What about if any days are sacred? 1 Cor. 8-10 and Romans 14 are classic texts about this. If someone wants to do something like this, then let them, but the only problem Paul had was when one person started assuming they were more spiritual or better than another.

Note also that Paul also said some behaviors were clearly wrong. You do not tolerate lying or adultery or stealing. Interestingly, in 1 Cor. 6, homosexual behavior is included in this. Note especially that this is talking about the household of God. What about those outside? They are not held to Christian standards, though their behavior is still wrong.

In our country, we are allowed basic freedoms. For instance, the freedom of religion. The government is not to favor one religion over another. Hence, I will oppose Islam, but I defend their right to build mosques here and worship as they see fit, provided they obey the laws of the land in doing so.

Why oppose the change in marriage? Because this does affect everyone, particularly the least of these, the children. If you think that children have a right to have a relationship with their natural mother and father, then you have all the reason you need to keep marriage as it is.

Note also the other great danger of tolerance. It’s a one-way street. You can be sure that when the other side is in power and you want to practice your Christianity that says homosexual behavior is a sin, they won’t be so tolerant. You will be called to task. How do I know this? Because it’s happening already. Tolerance is not being practiced for those who disagree. Those who seek to celebrate diversity don’t seek to celebrate those who disagree with them.

Christians. Practice true tolerance, but don’t practice the modern notion. The church never prospers when it backs down on its Christian principles.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

How Would Jesus Vote?

Is Jesus A Republican or a Democrat? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I recently had a column printed in the local newspaper. It was one based on an idea I’ve blogged about earlier in saying the gospels should be read as political campaigns, an idea you can read about here. The person responded saying Jesus is neither a Republican or a Democrat.

That lest me convinced the column had not been read.

Yet having said that, I wonder about this term. “Jesus is neither a Republican or a Democrat.” What am I to conclude from this? Am I to conclude that Jesus would not walk lock, stock, and barrel, with every position that a party holds on an issue? (Which would be difficult since both parties have internal disagreements among themselves.) If that is all I am to conclude, I have no problem.

Next question then. If we say He would not agree with everything, does that mean He would disagree with everything? For instance, Republicans by and large tend to oppose abortion. Democrats tend to support it. Yes. I know there are exceptions, but this is one example. Am I to conclude from this that if Jesus does not side with either party, that He has no view on abortion? Am I to conclude that He does not see it as good or evil?

This is a position that sounds dangerously relativistic. Let’s grant that one party is in support of abortion. One party is not. If Jesus holds a position, and I would hold that He does, then it would follow that His support would be behind the one who has His position on that issue at least. That support could be disqualified on other grounds, but if it was one issue, that one would have His support.

We could go down the line. What about the marriage debate? In that one, we would need to study to see what we think the right viewpoint is and realize whichever one is right, that is the one Christ would support. What about economic issues? These are multi-faceted and we would have to study. We’d want to take into consideration many points. Which plan is the most feasible? Which one produces the best results? Should we consider long-term effects as well as short-term ones? Are there moral considerations with regards to certain taxes? What is the biblical position on wealth? What is the best way to take care of the poor? This could mean more than just simple prooftexting. It could mean doing some studies in economic theories and looking at them and seeing which one helps a nation best.

The answer ultimately then is not to encourage people to vote Republican or Democrat, but to vote Christian, which is just fine. Everyone else gets to vote according to their worldview. Why shouldn’t a Christian? If we as a nation get people to become serious Christians, then in turn those people will respond politically as Christians. If we want to see a nation that runs in a Christian manner, it won’t be by government work alone. It will be by doing what we’ve already been told to do, the Great Commission. If we who are Christians in America think America is falling and want to save America, which is a noble desire I agree, then it is not done by looking at government to be our savior. It can’t be. Government is not useless, but it is not the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God can use the government, but for that to happen, the servants will have to do the work that they have been assigned to do by the Master.

I will not be answering if Jesus is a Republican or Democrat. Those who know me know the way I vote, but I will say Jesus supports what is true and right and righteousness upholds a nation. If we want to change the country, the best way is by fulfilling the Great Commission in all we do, including our politics and economics. Let us not let another cliche saying stop us from interacting in politics at all.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

On Political Correctness

Is there a problem with being nice? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A follower of the blog commented recently wanting to get my thoughts in a blog on political correctness. I mainly want to look at the ways it affects us as Christians. Is there a danger in playing along with the whole song and dance of our culture and what does it say about our culture?

I have been of the opinion for a long time that we are making ourselves into a nation of victims. This is not to say that victimization never happens. It does. The problem with this victim culture is that we hold everyone else responsible for our own personal decisions. We also hold them responsible for our feelings.

Thus, if someone writes something criticizing Muhammad and Muslims get upset, it is not the fault of the Muslims. It is the fault of the person who did the criticism. Now does this mean that some forms of criticism are not crossing a line? No. It does mean that all criticism is not ipso facto wrong. To say they are is to get us closer to the thought police.

From a Christian perspective, I see insulting remarks to Jesus on a regular basis. There are actions we can all take when things like this happen. One can boycott an industry if they want to. That’s fine. One can give support to opposing industries or ones that support one’s own belief. That’s fine. The method we have now more often is to accuse the people who insult instead of the worst crime someone can be guilty of. “Intolerance!”

Tolerance has become a code word to identify the greatest virtue of all supposedly. It no longer just means something along the traditional meaning, such as that everyone has a right to their own opinion. It means that you are not allowed to disagree with anyone else’s opinion. If you dare say the Muslim is wrong, you are intolerant. If you say a woman should not get an abortion, you are intolerant. If you question the homosexual lifestyle, you are intolerant. If you dare say Jesus is the only way to Heaven, you are intolerant.

When this happens, something is lost sight of. That would be the argument. Suppose someone thinks that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. I don’t think he’s intolerant for saying that. He could be in how he presents it and how he deals with opposition, but that is his view. He has all right to hold it. It is also up to him to give the reasons why he holds that view and I am then allowed to look at that view and critique those reasons.

When the tolerance card is played, we get away from objective discussions, such as the facts of the matter, and move towards subjective ideas, such as how someone feels. I am not responsible for how someone else feels. I am a happily married man, but I cannot control how my wife feels. After all, wouldn’t a lot of my fellow men live differently if we could control how our wives feel? Wouldn’t a lot of women live differently if they could do the same with their husbands?

There is only one person responsible for how you feel.

If you want to know who that is, go look in the mirror.

Now other people can be catalysts in getting you to think a certain way producing a feeling, but the feeling is dependent on you. You can get control of your mind. You can get control of your emotions. Is this an easy skill? No. I wouldn’t even claim to have it mastered in my own life. It’s better than being a victim.

After all, how many of us want to live our lives in surrender to what other people think? How many of us would want our feelings to be dependent on the surrounding culture? Alas, this is exactly what we have. We are not allowed to do or say anything that might offend someone since that could “hurt their feelings.”

Note also, the only exception to this is evangelical Christians. You can do whatever you want to them.

Believe it or not, there are worse things than being offended. Believe it or not, you can actually bounce back from offenses done to you by others. The more you live your life as a victim, the more you are giving them power. That’s something that concerns me about bullying groups. We should stop bullying, but the way to do this is to focus on having the actions of bullies be of no effect since people know who they are.

As it stands, there can be no dialogue in the public square as long as we are constantly worried about offending someone. It’s even nowadays seen as a refutation of an argument to say “That offends me.” How many times have I read someone say that the idea of people going to Hell is offensive. Okay. So what? That doesn’t make it false. Truth does not have to and rarely will line up with your personal tastes. The first question to ask about a claim is not “Does it offend me?” but “Is it true?” If it’s not true, so what if it offends you? If it’s true, then so what again? You have to deal with it.

I don’t know how many times in the debate on marriage I’ve been just told “You’re a bigot!” over and over. It seems unthinkable to people that there could be reasons that are actually worth discussing. Fortunately, I know some people on the other side who can have discussions. Instead, I’m too often told I’m a homophobic bigot and see the arguments that are given don’t even touch my reasoning.

For Christians, my advice is to stop being doormats. First off, don’t be living in fear of offending someone. If Christ had lived a nice and friendly life, chances are he wouldn’t have been crucified. Jesus was an offense. Paul was an offense. Christianity itself is an offense. Expect to offend people. That doesn’t mean everything is fair game, but it does mean that you will offend people. Deal with it.

Next, if you want people to cease being victims, cease being them yourselves. Too often, we have played the persecution card all too easily. If we want to see real persecution, we need to go to China and Sudan and see what happens to Christians over there. We’ve got it good here. We consider it persecution when someone makes fun of us. That’s bothersome, yes, but nowhere near the level of real persecution.

To do this, we must not look at ourselves and how we are, but look to Christ and who He is. We must place our whole identity in Him, something we will spend the rest of our lives learning. It is also an example of why knowledge is so essential. We MUST know who Jesus is and this goes beyond saying “He’s Lord and God and Messiah.” We must know Him as He has revealed Himself. We must know His personality and learn to walk in like manner.

We cannot force the world to be anyway, but we can influence. They cannot force us either. Just because they play the tune, we are not obligated to dance to it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Ideological bullies

Is all bullying physical? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I blogged on bullying. I had in mind more physical and social bullying than anything else. I appreciate the insights of a commenter on TheologyWeb as well who pointed out most of the advice we give is terrible. For instance, a kid is to go tell an adult? Yeah. That’ll really help the next time the adult isn’t around. No. That will mean the kid gets teased even more.

The best advice I know of to deal with a physical bully is simply that when he throws a punch, you punch right back.

“But aren’t we to turn the other cheek?”

Turning the other cheek refers to receiving a private insult at worst. A slap on the cheek was not really a physical assault, although it involved a physical action. We have no record of Jesus saying “If you get punched in the face, you stand there and just bleed.”

“But Jesus went to the cross and did not resist.”

Jesus was also not dealing with bullies per se but was dealing with the government of the time and He was not seeking to be a revolutionary. Furthermore, Jesus’s own purpose in coming to the Earth was to go to the cross. Why would He go and resist it then? Not only that, there is a difference between standing up and foolhardiness. Peter would be taking on a crowd of about 200 who came to arrest Jesus. The disciples reportedly had two swords.

There is courage, and then there is rash stupidity.

Therefore, I strongly believe in self-defense. If someone goes after my family, I can assure you there will be no cheek turning going on. This is the well-being of my family at stake and I will do what I can to defend it.

What about social bullies? These are bullies who simply give insults and don’t give physical confrontation. They’re the ones who stand on the side and say “You’re ugly! You’re stupid!” and things like that.

Ignore them.

These people often want any reaction that they can get and if you react to them, it is just giving them what they want. Pay them no attention because frankly, they’re not worth it.

Now let’s move on to ideological bullies.

Case in point: Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins is the man who at the Reason Rally said to the audience of atheists that when you meet people who are religious, mock them. Ridicule them in public.

With people like this, I say return the favor.

“Whoa. That sounds like a different line than what I’d expect.”

These people are not just insulting you. They are wanting you to apostasize. They want you to be embarrassed because you’re a Christian. Maybe you know enough to see through their shallow reasoning, or lack thereof, but what about others. Do you want this to be the mindset of people who your loved ones will interact with who don’t know apologetics like you do?

In the OT, if you were encouraging someone to apostasize, the penalty was death. Now I’m not saying we do that today since we are no longer a theocracy in that way, but I am saying we ought to take it seriously. Note also that anyone who has read the God Delusion and is somewhat informed knows that Richard Dawkins does not have a clue about what he speaks. I could easily teach high schoolers to deal with Dawkins.

This is the mindset that makes someone like Dawkins even worse. They think they know so much about religion and they don’t. They will say they don’t need to study it because it is not worth studying. Don’t believe that? Just look at the Courtier’s reply, which is an exercise in laziness. It is even mocking the idea that one should study theology and philosophy and history.

And it is an idea I encounter most every day.

“I don’t need to read scholarship! I don’t need to study! I just go by the plain literal sense and the literal sense is nonsense!” (Unfortunately, too many Christians also think they don’t need scholarship and study.)

“Who cares if all NT scholars think Jesus was crucified?” (Would we get the same if we said “Who cares if all biologists think macroevolution is true?”)

“All you have is faith!” (I have yet to see a new atheist show me a definition of “pistis” which is the Greek word for faith, that means to believe without evidence.)

The list goes on. Everyone believe the Earth was flat! We oppose science! There’s no evidence for what you believe! You just have an emotional need! I find it quite amusing when people say it’s because of how I feel or that I think God is talking to me, particularly since being an Aspie, the feeling side of faith is not that strong and I don’t buy into the “God told me” mentality. If anything gets me excited, it’s really reading a good book on history or theology or something of that sort. Learning is exciting.

These people are usually not interested in truth. They don’t care about why you believe what you believe. They care about tearing you down. They want to not only tear you down. They want to tear down any Christians they meet. On the internet, they’re rampant. Always keep this in mind. The person who will go after you will also go after those who are less capable of defending themselves and will delight in getting someone to abandon Christianity.

They are what the Bible calls wolves.

They are the reason a good shepherd carries a rod.

They are the reason a good shepherd uses a rod.

Now to be fair, being confrontational is not something everyone does. I realize that, and I think that’s also good. We need all types in evangelism. Some people are quite good at friendship evangelism. God bless them. We need them. Some people will not respond until you stand up to them, and that is where those of us who confront step in, following right in line with what Jesus does in Matthew 23.

Does that make a confronter a bully?

Let me ask you this. You are the parent of a boy who is about 8 years old, and he comes home one day crying because a 10 year-old bully knocked him to the ground and laughed about it. You are the parent. You tell your son to not stand there and take it. Next time, he is to fight this bully back and not take it.

Your son is standing up for himself.

Is he then a bully?

Change the situation a bit. Your son is ten and is on the playground and sees a little girl of about seven being pushed over by an eight year old boy. Your son goes after and knocks the boy to the ground and gets the girl up.

Is your son being a bully?

In both cases, no. He is defending himself in the first case and defending another in the second.

You are here in defense of the gospel and of your fellow believers. I can already hear the objection of some people.

“Don’t defend your faith. Let God do that.”

My question is always the same. “Do you take the same approach to evangelism?”

Someone else might quote that Spurgeon when asked about defending the Bible said he’d rather defend a lion.

This sounds so good and holy, but it is oh so not. Josephus wrote, for instance, that Jews of his day were to die for the Torah if need be. Are we to treat our Scriptures any less sacredly? The Bible if not accurately studied will not defend itself. It is not its own thinking book. If you throw a Bible into a fire, it will burn like any other book. Now of course the Bible has cut to the heart of many people who read it, but for those who despised it, they can often get nothing but more mockery. These people are treating our Scriptures, which we say come from God, with contempt. That means they are mocking our God. God is the one we claim to be the greatest good and yet we think we can say “Go ahead. That’s fine.” Would you settle if someone made mockery about your mother for instance?

For those of us who can defend our faith, let’s remember that on this playground, we have brothers and sisters who can’t. We are their line of defense. We are the ones that they are counting on and if we do not stand up to the opposition, then they will not stop. This happens not just in religion, but also in politics.

Why do so many people get their way who shouldn’t? Because they know they can run ramshackle over anyone else. They know that their opponents are more concerned about how they will be seen in the eyes of the public instead of caring about what’s right and wrong. They know that their opponents don’t want to be seen as “intolerant” or “closed-minded.”

Well yes. I am intolerant and closed-minded in many ways. I do not tolerate good ideas and I am closed-minded to what I think is evil. If you wish to push something on me, my loved ones, or my society that I think is evil overall, it would be wrong of me to not do something just because I’m afraid of how I’ll look to the public.

When bullies are stood up to, after awhile, they back down. They want to look out for #1 because most all bullies are incredibly insecure. They are concerned about their own social status. To give them what they fear is something that they cannot handle. For opponents of Christianity they will either stop or they will just keep embarrassing themselves by showing that they have no good arguments.

“Well don’t you want to win these people over to Jesus?”

No.

“No?”

It’d be nice to win them over some day of course. These people right now don’t care about truth. They care about attacking the flock. I am more concerned about the well-being of the flock than I am about the well-being of wolves.

There are times you stand up to an ideological bully like this and they do back down. They do admit they were in the wrong about something. You know what you learn about that person then?

They really aren’t a bully. Or at least they were and they are willing to change. What happens then? This person gets the red carpet of friendship. After all, there are people out there who honestly have real questions keeping them from Christianity. There are people who really want to know if Jesus rose from the dead and don’t dismiss it. They’re skeptical, and that’s excellent, but they’re not dismissive. These are people who are actually willing to read a scholarly book that disagrees with them. These are people who come to the debate having done their homework. I have people I know who are like this. When I stand up to someone and they back down after that, we often have an excellent dialogue and I am pleased to call them friend.

How do you know which is which? If you don’t know, by all means, be cautious. Again, if this isn’t you, don’t be someone you’re not. For me, I have always enjoyed sarcasm and satire and a finely crafted barb. Often times, my replies to my opponents can be more subtle but still meant to embarrass, because they are being embarrassing and attacking the cause of Christ.

Do you want what you think is moral to be shown in the world around you? Stand up for it and fight the ones opposed to it on ideological grounds. (To go into physical confrontation during an ideological debate is to lose the debate) If you will not stand up for what you believe in, why should anyone else think it’s worth believing in? If you will not stand up for Christ, why should it be that He would stand up for you on the last day?

Friends. We have truth on our side. We can deal with ideological bullies. The question is, will we?

In Christ,

Nick Peters

 

What Don’t You Like?

Is morality just a set of personal preferences? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

There’s an image going around Facebook again with a message like this:

Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t have one. Don’t like porn? Don’t watch it. You can see from here how it is going. I also see there are some variations of it online. However, the last part of each one is “Don’t like having your rights taken away. Don’t take away someone else’s.”

It is sad that our society today considers this sound reasoning.

At the start, let’s consider that it is saying that if you don’t like something, don’t do it. Okay. Let’s suppose it was the opposite. Let’s suppose I do like those things. Does that mean that if I did like taking away someone else’s rights, then I should be free to do that? Does this come down to what we like?

Second, images like this ignore the main question. Why aren’t these things liked? (And furthermore, why are we even using the term “like.” It makes me think I’m not discussing what moral practice I want to uphold or condemn but what movie I want to watch at the theater.) Could it be there are actual objections that say that “I don’t support X because X is wrong.”

Take abortion as an example. Could it be that some people oppose abortion because they believe the following statements are true?

Human life is in the image of God.
Human life begins at conception.
When conception take place, a new human life has entered the world.
Innocent human life should be protected.
All innocent humans have a right to live.

If we believe those things, then it follows that we should conclude abortion is immoral. For the sake of argument, our position could be wrong. It could be one of those statements or more is false. The aspect we cannot be wrong on is that we know that we believe those statements to be true. Again, you can say we’re wrong, but we condemn abortion because we believe it to be immoral.

Porn is an example of this. I know men who are addicted to porn. You know what? Some of them would say they like porn! They want more of it! They want to see it! They just know that it’s wrong. You can like something and know it’s wrong. In fact, the reason we all return to our sinful habits some is because we like them. If sin was not something we liked, sin would not be such a problem.

When we get to the end, what we note immediately is that this switched from personal preferences to moral absolutes. The others were things you did that generally involved your own private life. (though not entirely) This last one involves your interaction with others directly.

However, if the other statements are not based on moral truths, why should I think this one is? If all others are just personal preferences, could we not say that this is a personal preference as well? In fact, why should I care about someone else’s personal preference, which is a moral claim. Suppose it’s just that I don’t like abortion. Okay. I condemn it. Someone else does like it. Why should I care? By what moral standard will I be told that I should not go against what someone likes if there is no moral truth?

Someone could say I’m being a hypocrite. This is interesting since for all the stances people have on morality, most of us condemn being a hypocrite. Last month, I debated an atheist on the Razor Swift podcast who had said that God was not consistent with his moral principles. I found this interesting since he had espoused a moral relativism and so I just started asking that if morality is relative, what is wrong with being a hypocrite? It’s saying “There are no moral standards, but it’s immoral to not follow your own personal standard.” That becomes a moral standard that is put on everyone else.

Cliches like the ones used in the image lead to the lack of thinking among the masses and shut down good discussion. It is those who do not think who will be persuaded of this.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

How To Save A Country

What can we do at this point in time? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’ve been mulling things over a lot after the election. Actually, my wife would tell you it was extremely depressing for me. The way I see things, our country is heading into financial ruin and immorality is on the rise. To make matters worse, we have enemies in the Middle East who are closer to getting a nuclear weapon and who knows what havoc they can wreck on us or another country if they happen to develop one? Personally, we’re not in good financial straits as jobs cannot be found and I currently still lack health insurance. It’s not a good position to be in.

But sometimes, the darkest moment is just before the dawn. It is when things are their darkest that the light can shine the most.

I am conservative in my politics, morality, and economics. I do believe that good capitalist principles are the way to economically grow our society and provide the best way that we can all care for the poor. I do believe Romney would have installed such principles, but I also do not believe that would have been enough. It would have been a good buffer, but the change needed would not come through just that.

When we review the election, we realize that one state legalized marijuana. Also, there were states that for the first time decided to redefine marriage. There was celebration elsewhere that the country had elected an openly gay senator. We have spent much time in our country looking at the financial situation that we are in, and there is no fault in that, but what connection could all of these have?

The connection is all of them are about people seeking to make the government give them what they want.

The root problem is hedonism.

Hedonism is the belief that pleasure is the highest good. Of course, there is no doubt that pleasure is a good. To say something brings pleasure is not to say that that something is bad. On the other hand, if something is good, we can expect it to have a connection to pleasure. It does not work the other way around. There are many things that we consider pleasurable that we do not consider good, hence our term of guilty pleasures.

In fact, this is what Harold O.J. Brown wrote of when he talked about sensate cultures. These are cultures that no longer pursue the great ideas. There is no concern of truth or goodness or beauty itself. There is only the satisfaction of our own desires because we have nothing higher to look for. There are no ideals. We want what pleases us. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Gone from this is any notion of work. It is wanting to reap the fruit of success without having paid the price for it. The reason I am where I am in apologetics is for the price of buying books, going to conferences, seeking an education, etc. It cannt be done secondhand. The reason many people in this country are wealthy is not because of inheritance or lottery winnings, though those do apply, but because of hard work. Many resent that, and they seek to bring the rich down to their level.

Consider this passage in Amos 2:12

“But you made the Nazirites drink wine
and commanded the prophets not to prophesy.”

Nazirites were forbidden to drink wine in showing a holy lifestyle for a vow. Prophets were supposed to, well, prophesy. The people wanted to silence these beacons of holiness and bring them down to their level rather than raise them up. For a contemporary example, consider the debate on redefining marriage. Are we getting a rational debate in the public square when we present our view? No. We are told that we are bigoted discriminating homophobic haters, and that’s just including terms that I can use in this blog!

No debate. It’s just an attempt to shut you down, and the sad reality is that it usually works. An insult is not an argument. It should not be taken as one.

What is the answer to this hedonism?

The last time I wrote on this, I said that Jesus did not show up. The church did not do its part. For those worried about the future of our country, we have only one answer. We must be Christians. Only Christianity can save our country. Only Christianity can save us from our hedonistic lifestyle. Only Christianity can stop us from seeking entitlements more and more and going into financial ruin. Only Christianity can build up our defense enough that we are more than ready to handle any threat from a nuclear Iran, or even better, make sure that that never happens.

Great preaching has changed societies. John Wesley’s work was instrumental in changing England. Many places in the world have seen change when they have heard the gospel for the first time. Most of all, there is the Roman Empire. It was there that Christianity first showed up, and in the end, Christ defeated Caesar. Now when I say this, I do not mean a theocracy. This should still be a country where everyone is free to worship how they see fit, but it should be one permeated with Christian values.

Some might think God has judged us and there is no stopping it. Sometimes that happens. We cannot know that. We must go on and do the work of an evangelist. Last night in fact, my wife and I were doing nightly Bible-reading with the verse-a-day app and the first verse we had in a short passage was this one:

“But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.”

Paul’s advice to Timothy still applies to us today. This is a dark hour, but it is also the finest hour for apologists. Too long have we let the world bully us into submission and silence us. Now it must be the time where we rise up and say “No more!” We all seek to make a difference in the kingdom and that starts with our own backyards. Those of us living in America can see the way we’re going. If we love our neighbor and see them making a foolish decision, we will warn them. How much more should we do so if we love our country?

I challenge you, let the Christian revolution in this country start today! Let it be that the church of Christ will refuse to be beat down any more but will stand up for the precious truths that Christians have died for since the time of Christ. If we die in the battle, then we die, but let us have what happens with Tertullian happen to us. Our blood will be the seed of the church.

We can do this. It will take work, but we can fight this, and we can win.

In Christ,
Nick Peters