California Christian Apologetics Conference (VI)

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason was the speaker for Plenary Session 4. I really respect him as a clear thinking person who is fair minded and wary of bad arguments all around, not just those bad arguments promoting things he doesn't believe in. If you present to him a bad argument for the truth, he will not gently pat you on the back and say "Good job, buddy. Way to reach the right conclusions." No, instead he will say something more along the lines of "Well, here's why I don't think that argument is very convincing, but here's a different argument for the same conclusion that I find far more persuasive." I had the chance to tell him personally that I appreciated this aspect of his ministry, and he replied, "I agree. If we have the truth, we don't need bad arguments to support it." I am certainly on board with that! I encourage you to check out his website. He's got a ton of articles there addressing most of the present moral crises of the day from abortion to same-sex marriage to the existence of the soul.

Greg opened up Plenary Session 4 by addressing a problem he perceived many people would have at this conference. The problem at this point in a conference is "I don't know how to use all this information I've been given!" The goal of his talk was to give us tactics for defending our faith, and the ability to get into conversations with people with absolutely no risk to us!

First he advised us to get in the habit of listening carefully to what people to say, because in doing so you can make the other person doing all the work. Often you'll find that people say things they don't really believe. If you call them on it and don't let them be sloppy with their words, they won't be as sloppy in their thought. We need good tactics in our conversations (make people think about what they're saying), because we will not win by frontal assaults (simply telling people they're wrong). The fact is, people are not really open to listening to you, a fundamentalist Christian. There are more books written about the danger of you, than of the danger of radical Islam. It's sad, and I wish it were otherwise, but that's the way it is. We will not win by shouting louder; there are too many voices opposing us.

In his talk he outlined three tactics for conversation. First, ask questions! Second, use the "suicide tactic," that is, show how the view is inconsistent. And finally, "take the roof off," that is, draw the logical conclusions of the argument (often times the conclusion is absurd!). These tactics explained are so that you will be able to manage the conversation in a non-offensive way. You need to take an active role in directing the conversation, but you don't want to drive them away from Christ.

Of course, the main, overarching "queen mother of all tactics" that is the subject of this talk is called the "Columbo Tactic." This is named for Lieutenant Columbo, a very smart, small, annoying detective who just keeps asking questions! These questions inevitably lead him to the solution of the crime. We actually just ordered some episodes of Columbo on Netflix and he is absolutely hilarious. Of course, the series is a bit old, so the acting quality is a bit below average… However it's interesting to listen to some of the references characters in the series make. Something about the impossibility of finding errors in the Old Testament. Anyways… I digress… The point is to get into the habit of asking questions as a follower of Jesus Christ. Go on the offensive in an inoffensive way with carefully crafted questions. If you don't know what to do next, ask questions! If people perceive you are interested, they will generally conclude you are interesting. Plus, when you ask questions, you are in control of where the conversation goes.

There are three purposes/uses of the Columbo Tactic, each initiated by a different question.

1. Gather Information.

The first use of the Columbo Tactic is to Gather Information. It's the first thing Columbo does when he gets to the scene of the crime! This puts no pressure on you at all, because you are basically pleading ignorance and asking for help. It's also virtually effortless. The main question here is "What do you mean by that?" which is a genuine request for more information, not a juvenile antagonistic response meant to push someone to the limit of their patience. You know how little kids sometimes go on a spree of asking "why?" all the time? Yea… Don't be like that. Ask in a genuinely inquisitive way. I suspect that part of developing a genuineness to this question is pondering how little you actually know and how unspecific language can sometimes be. For example, if someone says "There is no God," simply ask, "What do you mean by God?" That is to say, "Describe to me the God you don't believe in! Maybe they believe in an impersonal God, but not a personal God. See how the word "God" can be ambiguous there?

Another example: Perhaps someone will say, "All religions are the same." Simply ask, "Can you describe to me the way in which they are all the same?" This is simply another form of "What do you mean by that?" Chances are they haven't even thought about such a thing as how the religions are they same. If they have, it's undoubtedly a shallow answer such as "they all teach love." They will discover this because of your question, and you didn't have to lecture them. It's patently obvious that religions are not all the same. But instead of just saying that to someone's face, you make them think about it. Once someone really thinks it through, they will not be able to stay intellectually honest and continue proclaiming such nonsense.

If someone says, "You should not force your views on me!" simply ask, "How am I forcing my views on you?" The fact is, you aren't at all! No one is holding a gun to their head physically forcing them to succumb to your beliefs. Instead of saying "No I'm not" (which only convinces them that you are in denial about what's going on), make them think about what they're saying. Generally they'll realize their error and retract their statement, or they will give you another shallow answer.

One response you might get is a repeat of what they've just said, or something very close. For example, if someone says "You're intolerant," and you ask the first Columbo question, "What do you mean by that?" They might respond, "Well, you're just not tolerating my beliefs!" In doing so they haven't explained their meaning to you, have they? The ambiguity of the meaning of "tolerate" is still there. Don't let them off the hook. Keep pressing: "What do you mean by 'tolerate'?" This will help you get to the bottom of their complaint. And eventually they will most probably figure out (in this particular case) that their complaint is moot. "You're intolerant" is not really a thoughtful claim, just a battle cry to distract from the actual conversation.

A caveat: this question needs to show genuine interest in the other persons view. These are not ruses or tricks to turn opponents into pretzels. Ask the question and pay attention to how they respond. Think carefully. Also, ask these types of questions often. It's probably not the best idea to figure out the person is a Buddhist and then go read a bunch of books on Buddhism. Perhaps none of those books truly represent the beliefs of the one you're talking to. Just go ask them what they belief! They are the most reliable source for that sort of information. As Greg said, "It's better to get views straight from the horse's mouth."

2. Reverse the Burden of Proof.

The second use of the Columbo Tactic is to reverse the burden of proof. The burden of proof is the responsibility to give reasons for the claim you're making. If you make no claims, you face no burden! That is why we always ask questions and make fewer statements. The problem is that non-Christians make claims all the time and expect you to do the heavy lifting and disprove them. Don't fall into that trap! For example, in an attempt to show that the Universe was not made by God, perhaps a non-believer would say, "You could say that… [Spins fairytale]." They can insert whatever story they want in there, but your response is always going to be the same: "Yea, you could say anything, but you haven't given any reasons for anyone else to believe that this is actually the case!" An alternate explanation is NOT a refutation! The point is to make them tell you why their explanation is a good one. The Question: "How did you come to that conclusion?"

Most people haven't come to conclusions about the deeply held beliefs that they have. People don't think they emote! They will feel like something is right, and conclude that it must be. Make them think. They might change their minds. Asking questions is the best way to do this, because if you just tell them, you might just be emoting yourself!

I will warn you. There is a liability to this question. It is always a mistake to make a frontal assault on a superior force in an entrenched position. Here I'm referring to some sort of classroom discussion with a professor who can dance circles around your arguments just because his knowledge is vast an experience greater. This is not to say that he therefore has the right answer, only that your argument will certainly not be convincing to your audience. Instead, use the tactics! If a professor says, "the Bible is a book of fairytales," ask, "How did you come to that conclusion?" Is this rude? Or a power struggle? Not at all. However, if you get up and say, "You're wrong, sinner! Repent!" Then it becomes a power struggle. And you will lose that struggle.

Greg warned us to watch out for "the professor's ploy!" If you make no claims, you have nothing to prove! But sometimes someone might make claims for you, put words in your mouth, and ask you to prove the case they've made on your behalf. "Oh I see; you're one of those fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is the 'inspired Word of God'. Perhaps you would like to come up here and prove that to the class? Tell me. Why should I believe that a snake talked to Eve?" Do not take the bait! This is the "professor's" attempt to put the burden of proof on you. But if you respond and say, "With all due respect, sir, I have not said anything about what I believe. I was simply asking why you think the Bible is a book of fantasy. I'm just a dumb college student… here to learn… [Pen poised above note paper]." This prevents whoever you're talking to from laying a huge burden on your shoulders of convincing everyone that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Most likely you will persuade no one and just look like a fool. There is a time and place to present positive reasons for believing the Bible to be inspired. The secularly university classroom with Ph.D. professor in Religious Studies is not one of them.

At this point Greg anticipated a little uneasiness from people who are hyped up about soul saving! "Greg, what do you mean, 'don't defend the Bible.'? Don't tell people to repent? How can you say that? That's exactly what we're here for!!" He explained that he doesn't believe you have to get to the foot of the cross in every conversation. In fact, he said, "My goal is never to convert someone." This might shock some people. It certainly shocked me. But as I thought about it, I supposed that to convert someone is never really my goal either, because such a thing is not in my control. This applies even when I go out specifically to witness. My goal is to effectively spread an accurate and clear presentation of the gospel message in such a way that people might consider it as a reasonable option. I present the law, meant to convict people, and then the gospel to cure their disease. However, once I've done that, all I have is a hope that God will work in them repentance and faith. I do not cause that. I hope with all my heart that God will use His Word to tug at the hearts of sinners, but I never consider a day a failure if no one falls on their knees just from talking to me. In fact, such a thing has never happened to me, and yet the days I witness I am often greatly encouraged and invigorated just by obediently answering the call of God. If I have presented the gospel clearly and caused people to just think a little bit about it, I'm content that I have done my part. I have warned people of the wrath to come, without causing them to flee. Greg Koukl simply does this on a much more elementary level. Many of the people who do get the privilege of seeing people come to Christ just by walking up to them and sharing the gospel do not realize that the repentant one's heart has been seeded, tilled, and watered for some time by people like Greg who have challenged them to think deeply and clearly about important subjects.

There is a subcategory for this question, which is called Staying out of the Hot Seat. You use it when you find yourself in a circumstance where you're "out of your depth." Like if you start witnessing to the guy next to you on the airplane and he turns out to be Richard Dawkins or somebody like him. How do you deal with a situation in which someone starts giving you truly thought out reasons to why they believe contrary to how you do? Well, this tactic's got another snappy name: Conversational Aikido. It's using their energy against them; let them come. What you might say is, "Could you slow down for a moment? You obviously know more than I do [humility]. Tell me what you believe, why you believe it, and then (and this is key) and then let me think about it!" This allows you to get out without your tail between your legs! Aikido translation: "You want to beat me up? Ok! Just do it slowly and thoroughly."

3. Exploit a Weakness or Flaw.

The last use of the Columbo Tactic is to use questions to exploit a weakness or flaw. There's no model question here, because it depends on the flaw. You do this once they have committed an error in thinking. What you do not want to do is jump on them and say "I got you man!" The point is not to 'get them'; the point is to get them thinking! What you do is exploit the problem with a question rather than a statement. Let's go back to our "intolerant" example.

"You're intolerant!" says your opponent.
"What do you mean by that?" you reply genuinely.
"Well, you think you're right!" he explains.
"Alright… but the things you believe… are those true?" you probe.

Of course he believes they're true. That's what it means to believe them! If he didn't believe them true he would stop believing them and believe something else, which he would believe to be true! So the exploiting question is: "Why is it when I think I'm right, I'm intolerant, and when you think you're right, you're just right?" Now that is a probing question that will make people think. Some might get angry at you, but it's not because you're being mean, it's because you've pointed them to the logical conclusions of their thought process and they realize those conclusions are inconsistent.

To close, Greg gave us a parting thought heard from a Marine: "The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle." He let us know that he was teaching us this because he does not want us to bleed, but he wants us to sweat really hard. Do the clear thinking and preparation before you go into the harvest field, and you will come out with fewer wounds than you would have otherwise! Perhaps you may even return with some victories: souls won for Christ!

California Christian Apologetics Conference (V)

For elective number two, I opted to attend the seminar titled “A Compassionate Response to Homosexuality” led by Neil Mammen, a local apologist, and Kevin Patao, a former homosexual and friend of Neil. Because of the nature of the seminar, they actually asked us not to give the information we received to homosexuals, so I won’t be publishing it in this public context, for fear of unnecessarily offending homosexuals with that which is not the gospel (1 Cor 9:12). However, if you would like the information, which is basically a rebuttal of 8 myths about homosexuality, you can email me or just comment here and I’ll get it to you.

To be clear, they clarified that they were not at all homophobic (afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality), nor were they disgusted with homosexuals. They simply believe that homosexuality is clearly contrary to God’s intended and clear plan for human sexuality (Rom 1:18-32). Those in this lifestyle don’t simply need to get out of the lifestyle; they need the forgiveness of God that comes with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ that comes by repentance from sin (of which only one of them is homosexuality) and faith in Jesus Christ. In fact, if I were to witness to a homosexual, I probably wouldn’t address that sin directly, but would talk about sins that are common to us all, like lying and pride and blasphemy. In that context, when they realize the nature of sin, they might then understand what I mean when I say homosexuality is a sin. It doesn’t simply mean that I don’t like it; it means that it is contrary to God’s design for ideal human affairs, and ultimately runs contrary to His moral law.

Romans 1 is so clear about this issue. And let me make it clear that it lumps the punishment for homosexuality together with that for disobeying one’s parents, so it’s not as if I’m raising this issue above any other. God hates sin! All of it! It requires him to destroy people who bear His image. Yet the grace of God is greater than ANY of your sin. So never think you’ve out sinned God’s grace. Such a thought is only your own pride. He will forgive you, but He does so only on His terms: repentance and faith. Don’t wait to do that.

California Christian Apologetics Conference (IV)

For my first elective session I had the privilege of hearing from Pastor Harold C Felder. There were five different options to choose from at each session, but I opted for the Jehovah’s Witness (JW) seminar because I’d been meeting with one Witness in particular rather regularly. Harold is co-pastor of the Journey Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. Not a very famous guy (at least I’ve never heard of him before!), but certainly passionate about the Lord. His energy and enthusiasm were exhilarating, and he even “caught himself preaching” a couple times. His session was on a subject I’ve written about before here and here, Jehovah’s Witnesses: Origins, Beliefs, and Dangers. The full PowerPoint presentation can be found online here at his website. I especially appreciated this session for the documentation it provided of Jehovah’s Witness beliefs.

Quite a bit of hearsay was brought up throughout the 1 hour seminar, and I thought Harold dealt with it well: he didn’t comment on something he was not familiar with, as far as I remember. He did not pretend that every charge brought against the Watchtower was legitimate just because a Christian said it or just because the Watchtower obviously teaches false doctrines. Just because they lead a false religion does not mean that everything they teach is false; let me just get that on the table!

That said, he spared no expense in making abundantly clear that the Watchtower organization is not one in which any “seeker” will find the light of the Gospel or the gracious forgiveness of God. And for this reason he added a disclaimer to the beginning of his talk, to biblically justify the stance and the method he was approaching the subject with. Lest some might object to his “pickin’ on folk,” he quoted three verses from Titus and Timothy exhorting their respective recipients to pay close attention to doctrine and refute false teaching (Titus 1:9,2:1; 1 Tim 4:16). These are great verses that we should all have memorized. Why not do it this week?

He then moved on to make his point that the Watchtower is indeed a force to be reckoned with. He quoted some statistics concerning their membership. As of last year the Watchtower’s official membership is at 6,741,444 in 236 countries; they have a total of 99,770 kingdom halls; they conducted an average of 6,286,618 Bible studies last year (averaging to over 17000 bible studies per day); and they baptized 248,327 new members! This is not an insubstantial number of people! Clearly the Watchtower has significant influence on people’s minds. By comparison, the Southern Baptist denomination (the largest protestant denomination in this country) only baptized approximately 100,000 more people than the JW’s did last year, and even that number has been decreasing slowly over the last few years.

Then, before getting into any actual refutation, Harold spent time going over some of the particularly identifying marks of Jehovah’s Witnesses, practices and beliefs. Harold disappointed me with respect to his documentation in this section, unfortunately, but there is grace for him. I understand as one who writes (and makes bold claims!) myself that documentation can be possibly the most boring part of preparing some sort of refutation, but it is so comforting and refreshing the those reading that the stuff you’re feeding them is not just hearsay, but accurately represents the views of the ones being refuted. Anyways, without further ado.

The practices that set JW’s apart from the rest of Christianity are as follows (there may be more, but these are the most common, well known ones):

- door to door witnessing is necessary for salvation;

- they are governed by the “governing body” in Brooklyn, New York;

- members meet in Kingdom Halls (church) five times per week;

- they reject the celebration of cultural, national, and religious holidays as pagan and idolatrous;

o they also reject the celebration of birthdays along the same logic;

- members who disobey these rules can be disfellowshiped;

- they are not allowed to read any material other than the Watchtower’s;

- reading the Bible without the aid of Watchtower literature is forbidden.

I had known most of these before I came to this meeting, but the first one struck me as being incredibly works-righteous. Also, a lot of people think they are rather stupid (to put it bluntly) for rejecting holidays, but to think so is a bit hasty. The Watchtower mandates it because (they claim) they want to exalt only God and not share his glory with another. This is commendable and I even know about some Christians who have decided not to celebrate Christmas (not the gifts part anyways) so that they would train themselves to not be so focused on earthly treasure and such. This is commendable for those whose consciences are pricked in that area of their lives. However, in my chat with Jim and his wife (the JW’s that had been visiting me), I confronted them with the fact that the Bible says “freedom” while the Watchtower says “forbidden.” I pray this made them consider the Watchtower’s stance on other things as well. Perhaps it could simply be the pebble in their shoe, as Greg Koukl likes to say, that gets them running from the Watchtower. Please pray for them.

Harold then moved on from practices to beliefs. The sections we got through were God, the Holy Spirit, Christ, Salvation, and the Afterlife. Of course, they believe that Jehovah is the name of God and seem a bit overzealous about pronounced that name in order to be saved. After all, their translation of Romans 10:13 says that “all who call on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” Unfortunately, the word “Jehovah” is neither in there nor anywhere in any New Testament manuscript. In fact, no one even knows exactly how to pronounce the tetra gram YHWH. Jehovah is simply gotten by adding the vowels from Adonai in between the consonants. He reviewed this along with the standard refutation of the claims against the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, and then moved on to the section that I personally found most helpful and extremely encouraging in my personal walk with God: the Holy Spirit.

Not much attention is paid to the Holy Spirit in Bible teaching these days, and unfortunately so, since he shares in the same glory as the Father and the Son. However, I learned and was reinforced as to the personality of the Holy Spirit as Harold gave his defense. Harold showed that the Holy Spirit has all the attributes of personhood: a mind (Rom 8:27), emotions (Eph 4:20), and a will (1 Cor 12:11), but the most striking to me was the verse brought up wherein the Holy Spirit talks about himself. This, I perceive to be glorious beyond comprehension. In Acts 13, “while they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” This absolutely blew my mind. Here is the Holy Spirit speaking and commanding on his own authority, his own divine authority. You don’t see it very often because the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son; but here He is, gloriously sanctifying Saul and Barnabas for the work He has called them to. Praise the Holy Spirit (don’t hear that every day, do you?).

After demonstrating the personhood and divinity of the Holy Spirit, Harold went after the person of Jesus, clarifying that He is not in fact, Michael the archangel, as the JW’s believe. He also persuasively demonstrated Jesus is Divine, God in flesh, 100% man 100% God, and was raised physically, even by simply using in a consistent manner several verses that JW’s use inconsistently. For example, in Colossians 1, the word “other” is added four times total in verses 16 and 17. But actually, the word “other” is not there and since it totally distorts the meaning, it certainly is not warranted to ‘clear up’ confusion in the verse. It makes perfect sense all by itself – unless you are a Jehovah’s Witness. Also, four aspects of Jesus resurrection prove that it was indeed physical and not spiritual (i.e. he wasn’t raised as a spirit or phantom or ghost of some sort): 1) The tomb was empty, so the body was definitely gone (Matt 28); 2) Jesus bore crucifixion scars (John 20:27); 3) He predicted He would raise HIS body in 3 days (John 2:19); 4) 1 Cor 15:44 was referring to a Spirit-controlled body, not a phantom. For added support of his interpretation of 1 Cor 15:44, he quoted Galatians 6:1 – “if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” This is not talking about those who are ghost-like in appearance!

The last aspect of Jehovah’s Witness doctrine that we really dug into was their doctrine of Salvation. This is so key, because after the Watchtower is done with the doctrine of justification, grace is no more grace (Rom 11:6). Salvation in the Witness religion is based on works, pure and simple. Now, they’ll say it’s by grace, but their grace is God graciously giving humans the ability to earn their way to heaven! “To get one's name written in the book of life will depend on one's works” (Watchtower, Mar 15, 1962). Furthermore, one must acknowledge the Watchtower as from God in order to receive eternal life (Watchtower, Feb 15, 1983). Of course we know, and Pastor Harold proved to us, that salvation is solely by the grace of God and not by works (Eph 2:8-9), and that salvation comes by faith in Christ, not an earthly organization, or even in His church (Jn 5:24).

And at this point I am going to cut! We went over the afterlife for a bit, but you’ll have to check out the website for yourself if you want to read about it!

On a personal note, I was extremely convicted during this session of my intense arrogance. At one point when we were going over the admittedly strange doctrines of the Watchtower organization, one of the attendees gagged “This is so stupid…” in quite a haughty manner. After noticing how repulsive this sort of response was, realizing that it drips with pride and is dry of compassion, I remembered all the times my mother confronted me ever so graciously on my own attitude in this area. Praise God for opening my eyes to this sinful attitude, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). That was a stinger, but I am confident that realizing this face will benefit anyone’s evangelism efforts greatly.

Where does it end?

I appreciate the motivation (kill disease), but not only are they aborting babies, they are transplanting them into COW EGGS?? This is no joke.

Check out this disturbing report. Even more troublesome are the comments at the end...

The fact is that animals are fundamentally different from human beings in that
we are made in the image of Almighty God (Gen 1:26). Mixing them up is not an option!!

I mean... am I out of my mind here? This is ridiculous.

California Christian Apologetics Conference (III)

We had to wait for Saturday to roll around (and cough up 40 big ones!) to enjoy the third session of the Apologetics Conference. There were significantly less people there on Saturday unfortunately, but hopefully many were ministered to and challenged by the first two sessions on Friday.

For the third session, we had the privilege of hearing once more as a group from Sean McDowell, who titled his talk “Equipping Youth With a Biblical Worldview.” To start off, he started with some statistics about how many believers reportedly leave the faith due to “intellectual skepticism” (32%!!!). Now, I have my suspicions as to whether or not that’s truly the reason they left; however, the point remains at least that we should be able to take that excuse away as a legitimate one. He then made the observation that most couples, after experiencing the loss of a child, struggle to even stay together. Most relationships cannot make it. Yet some do. He said that his research led him to the conclusion that those couples who have a worldview that can make sense of pain and tragedy beforehand make it. That, of course, would be the Biblical worldview, which only 9% of evangelical adults and 2% of evangelical youth have. It is worth noting that “evangelical” is defined in this poll far more narrowly than simply self-identification. There are 9 questions asked of which all have to be answered correctly in order to consider someone evangelical. What exactly they are evades me, but it was quite surprising when I heard them.

We then got quizzed about what we felt were the beliefs of Protestant Youth on the following topics. My guesses are in white and the correct answers are in red.

Deistic God - 10% 10%
Impersonal (Energy Force) - 10% 8%
Reincarnation - 15% 33%
Psychics or fortune-tellers - 25% 21%
Miracles - 35% 23%
No Evil Spirits - 30% 42%
Many Religions true - 35% 48%
Buffet Religion - 40% 36%
Jesus Sinned - 5% 46%
No Resurrection - 25% 51%

Can you believe that? I mean, on every turn, I was either spot on (that is, within 4%) or over estimated the number of people with orthodox beliefs. The majority of protestant youth today do not believe in the resurrection! This historic event is absolutely central to the Christian faith. Without it, we are damned (1 Cor 15). It’s no wonder we’ve got a crisis in our country. The next statistic was absolutely shocking.

Young people without a Biblical worldview are 600% more likely to commit suicide. Amazing!! There were tons of other statistics like that showing that having a Biblical worldview does affect the way you act. Of course, with indwelling sin everyone will fall at some point or another. The point is not that with the “perfect” worldview, we will be perfect. That will only happen at death. But it sure does help to have the right perspective, because then your desires won’t be able to justify themselves as easily with lies about reality. I’m also going to assume that the percentage of people who are actually Christians is greater among those with a biblical worldview than among those deemed “evangelicals” by this poll.

Karl Marx believed he could change the world with only 26 soldiers. But why 26? That’s the number of letters in the alphabet. He knew all about the power that ideas and words could have on people. This is why the Bible says in 2 Cor 10:3-5, “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war like the world does…we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." Our job is to teach people that they can know the truth. And furthermore, that we can know that we know the truth. 81% of youth (not necessarily religious youth) believe that religious truth is relative. It belongs in the upper, private sphere of opinion and faith, whereas scientific knowledge belongs in the lower, public sphere of common knowledge.

Faith is very or extremely important in the lives of 67% percent of conservative protestant youth. Most youth pastors might rejoice over this and conclude that we’re making progress; however, on open-ended lists of important things, Christian Smith says that religion rarely ever shows up! So what this statistic tells us is that in the religious sector of their lives, religion and faith are very important to them. However, when it comes to having an effect on everyday life, religion and faith have little or no effect. This is what’s commonly known as the Christmas-Easter Christianity, or the Sunday Christian. You’re religious in the religion part of your life. Everywhere else, though, you leave religion out of it. For example, a 14-year-old boy said, “Church makes me learn about God and Jesus but has no effect on my life.” Or take this quote from a 17-year-old: “Religion influences me in the things I choose not to do, um, like bad things, like murder or something…” (!!!). Well… great! I’m so glad that you’ve found the motivation to not kill anybody! There is clearly some sort of disconnect in people’s minds about what role Christ is supposed to play in the life of the Christian. In all the interviews conducted, never did teens express that religion summons people to embrace an obedience to truth regardless of the personal consequences or rewards. When hundreds of Christian teens were asked what Christianity was all about, the following number of people mentioned the following subjects:

13 obeying God or the church
12 repentance
7 resurrection of Jesus
2 Kingdom of God (These both Mormons)

Versus…

112 Being made happy
99 Feeling Good about oneself
92 Feeling better about oneself and life

There is only one way to begin tackling this problem. Nancy Pearcy said, “We must begin by being utterly convinced that there is a biblical perspective on everything – not just on ‘spiritual’ matters.” And to support that, Sean gave us Col 2:3 – All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are in Christ. All truth is God’s truth. If something is Biblical, it is true; and if something is true, it is Biblical, whether implicitly or explicitly. After this short ::cough:: overview, Sean gave us 3 main practical ways that will help us think like a Christian.

First, realize that there is a Biblical worldview for everything. Whether it be health, science, or government, there is a Biblical worldview on everything! For example, communism failed because it misdiagnosed the nature of man, which a Biblical worldview could not have missed. Man is wicked above all, his heart is deceitfully wicked (Jer 17:9).

Second, realize that all of creation comes from God’s hand, and most of what we might consider bad or dangerous is only that way because it is a good thing that has been twisted. Rather than sleeping with our spouses we sleep with anyone, or rather than working for the Lord we work for ourselves, or rather than playing music for the Lord, we fill our head will wholly unedifying lyrics and ambiance.

Third, ask great questions. This not only helps you increase your knowledge base, but also ensures that you understand people better. Rather than asserting wrong facts, you can make progress in a discussion and only be discovering truths about the person you’re speaking with.

To finish off, Sean ended with a final exhortation. “We have to insist on presenting Christianity as a comprehensive unified worldview that addresses all of life and reality.”

Otherwise, you’re just emoting.

California Christian Apologetics Conference (II)

Lee Strobel (author of The Case for series, the newest of which is The Case for the Real Jesus) kicked off the second session of Friday night by telling us how much he loves evangelism. (And you know what that means – I love him!) He loves evangelism because he finds it simply amazing that God can use us to draw His own to Himself, and he gets to use apologetics too! Lee let us know about a time he was invited to come to a young lady’s house to talk to her entire family over dinner about Jesus. He was ecstatic about an opportunity to share his (new found) faith with some people. However, as soon as he walked in, he noticed sizable stacks of books piled up all around the house which all aimed to refute the claims of Jesus and Christianity. He began to worry, and as he sat down to dinner his fears were confirmed. As he took his place and began the conversation about Jesus, the father of the young girl who had invited him began firing as many of the toughest questions as he could muster. And they were difficult. So difficult that Lee had no answer for them… So he had to tell the man: “You’re questions are tough, and I don’t have an answer for them. But I suspect that in 2000 years, you won’t be the one to bring Christianity to its knees. Give me some time, and I’ll get you some answers.”

At this point, he introduced the concept of “Spiritual Vertigo” that we apologists are especially prone to. Spiritual Vertigo is when someone asks you questions that you can't answer and your head begins to spin and you begin to doubt your faith. He warned: “If you don't feel this, you will soon. If you never feel this, your kids will.” Why? Because there are 3x as many atheist/agnostics professors in the universities as there are in the general public. He told us about an email he got once from a young man where it was especially evident that he was experiencing spiritual vertigo: "Please help me… I was raised in the church and I'm now 26 years old. This book has devastated my faith. I don’t want to be kept in the dark: I want to know what really is going on in the Bible and what I should believe, even if it goes against what I've believed since I was a little boy."

It’s no wonder, then, that 1 Peter 3:15 commands us to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…" – 1 Pet 3:15 (NIV). Lee also encouraged us with this verse: "The first to speak in court sounds right - until the cross-examination begins." - Pr 18:17. This is why we should "Test everything. Hold on to the good." - 1 Thess 5:21. Because someone may sound right when they get up and give testimony, but once the cross-examination begins, they don’t look so good. That is why the title of Lee’s talk was “Cross Examination.” And I’m sure there was some sort of pun intended, given that it’s about Jesus!

For this one, Lee stepped through 3 rising theories about who Jesus was and then cross-examined them. I’m pretty sure I got some flavor of all of these at Stanford this past year, so I know how closely Lee is hitting it on the head, and he does it quite well.

First, Lee addressed the mythological theory of Jesus. The story goes that the disciples borrowed beliefs about Jesus from earlier “mystery” religions, especially that of Mithraism (the worship of Mithras). The battle cry here is that “Nothing in Christianity is original” (The DaVinci Code). The story goes that Mithras was born of a virgin in a cave on December 25, that he was a travelling teacher with 12 disciples, and that he was sacrificed for world peace, buried in a tomb, and raised 3 days later. Does this sound like anyone you know? Of course it does! That’s Jesus! But no… it’s actually the god Mithras. All this information is from a god who came before Jesus, so obviously the Christians plagiarized other religions to make theirs more palatable!

Enter the cross examination. When one goes back to the sources of information that you can gather about Mithras, we find that he was born fully grown out of a rock wearing a hat. There is no virgin involved, and the only cave to be spoken of would be the hole he left in the side of the rock from being born out of it. Not that it would matter anyways; Jesus wasn’t born in a cave after all! The claim that Mithras was born Dec 25 is irrelevant, because no one who knows any better would claim that this is the actual date of birth for Jesus of Nazareth. We don’t know when He was born, so touting Dec 25 as a similarity is simply… irrelevant. The idea that he was a teacher with 12 disciples is completely false as well. He was thought of as a god, but in the Roman story he has only one follower and in the Iranian version, he has two in total. He was neither sacrificed for world peace; all he’s known for is killing a bull. By the way, Jesus wasn’t sacrificed for “world peace” either, so that “similarity” is also irrelevant. Lastly, his touted burial and resurrection is simply false. There is in fact no record of Mithras ever having died, let alone buried in a tomb and risen on the third day.

Furthermore, when we research Mithraism, we find that it didn’t even exist in the west until after Christianity. The “resurrection” myths entered the scene after Christianity started gaining ground, so if anyone is plagiarizing anyone else, it is Mithraism doing that to Christianity. There is simply no “mystery religion” that serves as a parallel to Christianity whatsoever! So when push comes to shove, the Mithras theory simply doesn’t hold up.

At this point, Lee moved on to tackle the Gnostic theory of Jesus. He started by comparing classical orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism. In the historic Christian faith, believers have claimed that Jesus is a Redeemer. In Gnosticism, Jesus is treated as a Revealer. The world and physical things are inherently evil, created by an evil (!) creator. All of these ideas come from one of the Gnostic gospels called the Gospel of Thomas, which the Jesus Seminar scholars accepted as just as accurate as the 4 standard works! It teaches that we each have a little divine spark in us. Furthermore, as opposed to salvation being forgiveness of sin for all who would believe, it teaches that salvation is for an elite few who are smart and cunning enough to figure out the secret information necessary to gain salvation and escape the evil world.

However, upon cross examination, we find that assuming this gospel to be totally on par with the 4 standard works is an unwarranted assumption. One rule of thumb when deciding which text to trust to give you facts about history is to figure out how close to the actual events the text was written. Now, even liberal scholars will admit that all 4 gospels were written in the first century. On the other hand, the gospel of Thomas was written late second century (AD 175) at the earliest. We know this based on various internal evidences such as word patterns, familiarity with the other gospels, and similarities between it and the Diatessaron – an AD 175 “harmony” of the 4 gospels written by Tatian. Furthermore, there are some outright ridiculous statements attributed to Jesus found within its pages, a few of which I’ll give you right here:

"Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

Does this make any sense to you? Me neither.

"If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will (hurt yourselves)."

Sounds like a good Jewish Rabbi to me! Oh wait…

"Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of heaven.’"

This does not sound like the Jesus we know, or ANY of his followers! Considering all these evidences, there’s no reason to worry that Jesus actually subscribed to the Gnostic view of Christianity.

Lastly, Lee addressed the misquoted theory of Jesus. This view has been popularized by the likes of Bart Ehrman, whose book I reviewed a while ago. You might be interested to know that this book is the one that caused the young man to doubt so harshly. The idea here is that no one has any idea what Jesus was really like, because the records we have are so damaged by unavoidable changes, whether accidental or intentional, changes introduced in the process of copying and passing down the texts. Furthermore, we do not have access to the originals, so it’s impossible to check how accurate the copies are. To make matters worse, there are an estimated 200,000 – 400,000 discrepancies between the available New Testament manuscripts, surely a number that absolutely destroys the perceived reliability of the New Testament. The New Testament texts are simply unreliable, certainly too unlike the originals to bank your eternity on their message.

Or are they? There is a side of the story that hasn’t been mentioned, so let’s begin the cross-examination. One pertinent fact to keep in mind is that the New Testament has far more partial or whole manuscripts than any other ancient document. And even if we had lost all copies of the New Testament, we have millions of quotations from early church fathers. Furthermore, many of the copies we do have are centuries closer to the original writings than other comparable ancient manuscripts. For example, we have 9 copies of the writings of Josephus, and the earliest copy is dated approximately 1000 years after the original writing! The next most reliable text next to the New Testament is the Iliad, which we have 2000 copies of (part or whole). I’m blanking on how close to the original they were. By comparison, of the New Testament we have 30,000 manuscripts in part or in whole, with the earliest copies dating to within, if I remember correctly, 1-2 centuries from the original. Furthermore, 99% of the “discrepancies” between New Testament manuscripts are completely irrelevant. Many of them don’t even come out in translation. Also, the reason 200 – 400,000 is a reasonable estimate is because we have so many fragments. Where one is different, the discrepancy is multiplied by however many manuscripts contain that passage or section, hardly much to worry about.

Lee then told us about an experiment that was done (I have yet to verify this) where groups of lay “scribes” and lay “textual critics” were gathered and there was an attempt to replicate the process of documents changing due to copying errors and then the process of textual criticism by which you attempt to reproduce the original (without having the originals on hand of course!). This experiment was performed a substantial number of times (50 is the number that comes to my mind) to check for consistency. These copies had far higher error to word count ratio in them than the copies of the New Testament. The results were that the “critics” always had outstanding success. The reconstruction was never off by more than three words, and that only happened once! Keep in mind that these people are completely untrained in the art of textual criticism. If amateurs untrained in textual criticism can reconstruct so quickly a text so terribly corrupt, can trained textual critics slaving over these issues for life not figure out with sufficient accuracy the original text of the New Testament which is far less riddled with errors?

I think so. And this is the same conclusion that Bruce Metzger, the leading expert of New Testament textual criticism came to during his lifetime. When Lee asked him whether it had damaged his faith, he responded: "On the contrary, it has built [my faith]. I've asked questions all my life, I have dug into the text, I've studied this thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed… Very well placed."

In conclusion, the Mythological Jesus is just that, mythological. The Gnostic Jesus fails the test of history. And the Misquoted Jesus is much ado about nothing.

To finish the story of the man who asked all the tough questions of Lee - questions that made him doubt, questions that apparently had no conceivable answer – after doing some research, Lee found that there were answers for every single one of the man’s questions. “You’re just going to have to deal it!” Lee told him. Soon after, that man became a Christian.

The moral of the story? When you get Spiritual Vertigo, don’t freak out; check it out! The research you do will deepen your faith and prepare you to answer objections later on. I hope this post has been encouraging to you, to know that we serve and know Christ in truth. Go and proclaim him all the more boldly!

California Christian Apologetics Conference (I)

For the first group session on Friday night we heard from Sean McDowell. Sean is the head of the Bible department at Capastrano Valley Christian high and has two master’s degrees from Talbot. I remember him as the really smart guy who won’t talk over your head like the other really smart guys! Josh McDowell is his father, for those who are wondering.

The title of his talk was Truth or Tragedy, in which he sought to show us why truth is important, because truth itself is under attack in our culture. Not just true statements, but the idea that we can have knowledge. His opening verse was 2 Thess 2:8-10: “and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.” Clearly truth is important; salvation depends on it! From another angle, he pointed out that when people even ask the question “Why does truth matter? What’s the big deal?” They are looking for an answer. That is why Sean responds “Do you want the true answer or the false one?” Even asking about the truth assumes the value of truth!

For his main arguments, he pointed out three reasons that truth is important.

First, Truth has consequences. For example (and this hit home with me), if you show up late for a midterm, there are consequences. It doesn’t matter how sincere you were in thinking that it was today rather than yesterday, because you missed it! Sean also pointed out that “know” or “knowledge” is mentioned far more in the Bible than “faith.” He again underscored the importance of this by directing us to Hosea 4:6: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

Second, Truth is a compass for life. To illustrate the “compass” aspect of these, we were instructed to close our eyes and point North. Naturally, we had people pointing every which direction, and once again, sincerity makes no difference, because we could have 2 equally sincere people pointing completely opposite directions. I had no idea which way to point, so I just pointed straight up. He saw this and announced to the whole sanctuary that North is NOT straight up!

He then told us a few hilarious computer stories that I just have to tell you. He had an installation guy at his house to help him set up and he asked him what the 3 strangest questions were that he’d ever gotten calls about. “I got my computer all set up, but the foot pedal doesn’t work!” Apparently the woman had been stomping the mouse to death… “My cup holder is not big enough to fit my mug! Can I get a bigger computer?” That’s right; the dude was trying to store his coffee in the CD-ROM Drive!!

And last but not least… “The computer told me to close all the windows so I did, but it won’t let me continue; can you fix it?” She closed all the windows in her house!

The problem here was that the people were using the computer parts totally wrong! They didn’t know the truth about the purpose for each piece. Every part of life has a true purpose to it. This is why, Sean says, “the truth will set you free;” because once we know how everything is supposed to work, we are able to live rightly and fully! Sort of like when you use your CD-ROM drive for CD’s rather than coffee. You could get along with using your CD drive for a coffee holder, but why not use your computer to its full potential and use the drive for what it was meant for?

The third reason Sean gave truth being important is because simply believing in something is not enough. He told a story that I’ve heard from his dad before about a time that he asked a few students why they think the Bible is true. The answer he ended up getting was “It’s true because I believe it.” Upon asking this student whether the Koran is true for the Muslim who believes it, the student answered “yes!” Naturally the whole room was in shock. How can the top Christian students be saying that the Koran is true??? That, he noted, is the state of evangelicalism today. “The difference between you and me,” Josh remarked, “is that you think the Bible is true because you believe it. I believe the Bible because it is true!” That is where the power lies. It is not controlled by us in some mystical fashion, as if we formed our own reality in our minds based on what we believed and what we deny, as if Christ is risen when we believe Him risen and not risen when we deny His resurrection. No, as Sean said, “reality is disgustingly indifferent to what we believe about it.”

In order to move on, Sean decided to define what truth actually means. What are we saying when we claim that something is true? The definition he gave was the Corrsepondence theory of truth, which basically says that a statement or proposition is true if it matches up with reality. Truth is simply telling it like it is. Truth is a relationship between ideal or statement and reality itself. This is nothing new of course. We think of truth this way all the time in our daily lives. The rub comes when we enter the realms of morality and religion. Then people starting pulling fast ones with the definition of truth!

Ultimately, there are two types of truth. There is subjective truth which is personal, private, and changeable. For example, what is the best flavor of ice cream? This is a personal question to which there is no right answer, only your answer. The question as it is happens to be unanswerable. Its intended meaning is, which flavor of ice cream do you like most? So there is “subjective truth.” Then there is “objective truth.” Objective truths are facts of the external world that we discover, such as the fact that insulin controls diabetes.

Next he threw up some slides of statements, both controversial and otherwise. He warned us that he was asking whether or not the statements were true or false, but just that he wanted to know which kind of truth they were addressing. What kind of claim or statement were they? The statements ranged from “Lee Strobel can bench press 250 lbs.” to “Abortion is wrong.” It was a good exercise to make sure that people understood this dichotomy between subjective and objective truth, which Sean codenamed ice cream and insulin respectively.

Sean then challenged us with a question: “What if all morality was like ice cream?” If this were the case, you would have to right to judge anyone else. Or rather, if you did choose to judge someone, it would be totally meaningless, and have no authority over the person you're judging. However, we know morality isn’t like ice cream, and we know each and every person has a moral code within them. We know this not by their statements or actions, but by their reactions, by how they want to be treated. People might say they don't believe in objective morality, but don’t believe them!

At this point Sean moved to what I believe is the heart of the issue. Nobody dies and spends an eternity separated from God in hell simply for not believing in Jesus. People die and spend eternity in hell because they have a sickness called sin. To say that Buddha Krishna or Mohammed can forgive my sins, is like saying chocolate peanut butter ice cream controls diabetes. Christianity makes claims about reality that are objective. The question is: “Will we accept it or will we reject it?” Paul said in 1 Cor 15:17: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."

Now, as is typical with philosophy papers, he had to address certain objections to his thesis that truth is knowable and important. Some will tout, "There is no truth!" But this is a self-refuting statement. Is the statement true or false? Well… the only option is false, because it can’t be true. If it were true, it would be false… the statement is about paper thin. It’s like saying "I cannot say a single word in English" or "Meet my brother, an only child" or when Winnie the Pooh says "Nobody's home!"

The next one was my personal favorite. A student walked up to her philosophy teacher and asked him "How do I know I exist?" To this the philosophy teacher responded "Whom may I say is inquiring?" Brilliant! Of course, you can’t question your own existence if you don’t exist. Things that don’t exist can’t perform any actions.

Another objection is: "But doesn't truth change? After all, it used to be true to people that the earth was flat!” At this point you would be completely dumbfounded should you be on the receiving end of this statement. It used to be true that the earth was flat? Really? Of course not! The world has always been round! Beliefs change, but objective truths don't.

There were many more such examples that he gave us, which I won’t cover here, but one point he did make before moving on was that having the truth can make us arrogant. Rather than puffing us up, it should humble us.

One of his last points I thought was very accurate, and I’ll make it my last point as well. If Jesus were walking around here physically today, it would not take 3 years to crucify Him. He loved people, but He unequivocally stood up for the truth. “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me” – John 14:6

Truth Matters!

On Hate

This was a question presented to me by my friend based on concerns about some of the verses we had been memorizing. The latter part is my response. I hope this helps anyone struggling with these verses. If you have anything to add (or correct!) please do.

So, I have some questions.

How do these verses make sense together?

“I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.” Psalm 139:22

“You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Matthew 5:43-44

Are we supposed to love and hate them at the same time? They seem to contradict, but how is that possible? I don’t get it. I know we kind of already talked about this, but it just doesn’t make sense.

I’ve got a quote from John Piper that may or may not help. This quote is from an article that is rather philosophical in its language, but let’s see if it makes sense to you:

“God's emotional life is infinitely complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend. For example, who can comprehend that the Lord hears in one moment of time the prayers of ten million Christians around the world, and sympathizes with each one personally and individually like a caring Father (as Hebrews 4:15 says he will), even though among those ten million prayers some are broken-hearted and some are bursting with joy? How can God weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice when they are both coming to him at the same time—in fact are always coming to him with no break at all?

Or who can comprehend that God is angry at the sin of the world every day (Psalm 7:11), and yet every day, every moment, he is rejoicing with tremendous joy because somewhere in the world a sinner is repenting (Luke 15:7,10,23)? Who can comprehend that God continually burns with hot anger at the rebellion of the wicked, grieves over the unholy speech of his people (Ephesians 4:29-30), yet takes pleasure in them daily (Psalm 149:4), and ceaselessly makes merry over penitent prodigals who come home?”

How does this relate to our discussion? Well… the point is that God is far more complex than we can imagine. We think of being in certain moods at certain times, but it seems that just from the way things go on earth put together with what has been revealed in Scripture, it is the case that God is in every mood all the time! That’s mind boggling! As Piper points out, God “grieves over the unholy speech of His people” yet “takes pleasure in them daily.” This is even more confusing than loving something you hate. Take pleasure in someone who grieves you? Our God is an awesome God!

We should not think that God has a schizophrenic nature. He has a perfect nature. He has the ability to consistently and totally feel the right way all the time!

And what are we supposed to do with this? The best I can come up with is that we are indeed to feel two seemingly opposing ways toward the wicked. We hate them. What does that mean? It means we count them our enemies (Psalm 139:22). What do we do with our enemies? We love them (Matthew 5:43-44). What does that mean? We seek their best. We pray for them, etc. We do NOT take revenge into our own hands! Remember David says “O that You would slay the wicked, O God” (v. 19). And the Lord says, “Vengeance is mine” (Rom 12:19). Furthermore, David wants the wicked to leave him, not be around him, not affect him in a spiritually negative way. So we are not going to be spending time with the lost in such a way that we approve of what they do (Psalm 50:16-18), because doing so will affect our character toward something God hates (1 Cor 15:33).